#their european or european-american cultures for a homogenous christian one where everything is the same and we all wear gray lol | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dog-day-morning · 3 years ago

Text

THE TRUTH AND SHAKA ZULU WILL KILL YOU

In a once-popular commercial for Calgon detergent in the 1970s, a curious housewife probes the Chinese owner of the local laundry for the answer to one of the world’s eternal mysteries: “How do you get shirts so clean, Mr. Lee?” After peering over his shoulder (so as to be sure that his not-so-discreet wife isn’t standing near) the man turns back around, raises a finger to his lips and says through a smile, “Ancient Chinese secret!”

While the answer to the question posed to the laundry owner by the woman was a closely guarded secret — one that his sweet, no-nonsense wife happily ruined — it was neither ancient nor even Chinese in origin. But the TV spot famously tapped into one of the most enduring legends about the country whose Ming Dynasty rulers had a 16-to-26 foot wall built around it: the age-old traditions of secrecy.

And, like Vegas, what happened in China very often stayed in China, just get the hell out of Alkebulan!!! But if you insist on staying, you and your barbarian invader horde of Ghengis Khan, wannabe warlords can take that beatdown like Hirihito of Japan. You can indulge in Alkebulan's rich resources for a season or get on a junk boat and go back to China and rebuild your own country. If you stay in the Motherland you'll perish🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿. As the saying goes, s**t happens. Wash ya ass. Please, continue reading… my screwed up mind !!!

Take the Black Chinese [Moabites] who once made up the entire population of China prior to Esau's attempt at reclaiming the birthright God decreed would be Jacob's while in the womb through forced miscegenation "Raping of indigenous women." Do not be confused or mislead by this post. My research was sketchy to say the least. The portion of the population before China’s modern era does not register any indigenous Moabites, for example. The fact that you’ve never heard of them proves the point. Here comes the BS. But don’t worry. You’re not alone. China has some 1.3 billion people and nearly all are just as in the dark about them. Well, either that or a billion people all swore to never-ever-never air any [ahem] ‘clean laundry’ about black folks formerly having a place in China’s allegedly homogeneous society. That's a bunch of made up monkey s**t. Frankly, even an ancient culture with the bragging rights to the longest continually recorded history, another myth, is bound to miss a few things like a heart, and some effing genomes. The former presence — up until sometime in the 20th century — of Black people in pre-modern China is one of them. Fortunately, though, old photos taken throughout China around the advent of photography can help us to fill in today some of what the historians missed on purpose. I can't believe I'm posting this. 👎🏿👎🏿👎🏿👎🏿 China’s Qing Dynasty, established by the Manchu people who ruled from 1644–1912, is described as having been a vast multicultural empire. But it appears multicultural could also be a more pleasant euphemism for multiracial. You people are like dogs, stop eating them?! Nothing illustrates this better than the Black and white photos taken by visitors from Europe in the mid-to-late 1800s. Really?!! John Thomson, an Irish photographer was one of the first to capture images that reveal a surprisingly more diverse makeup of then-contemporary China. In one of the most stunning photos taken by Thomson displayed above, six women dine together in a courtyard. Captioned “Manchu ladies at a meal,” the picture was taken in 1869 in the city of Peking (now Beijing). Seated at the center of the photo are two women: on the right sits a typical high class Manchu and on the left sits a smiling Black woman — who could easily pass as the mother of the RZA, the GZA, Ol’ Dirty Bastard, or any other member of the Wu-Tang Clan.

Apart from the physical differences in the women (including the two who were likely seated, but stood for the picture), what’s also remarkable is that when Thomson writes about them, he makes no distinctions — though there were both racial and class differences; some of them were most assuredly attendants or maids. But in the view of Thomson, they were all simply Manchu ladies sharing a meal on a day when he sought interesting subjects to photograph. I saw the photographs. The darker ones were inherently claimed to be lower case workers or servants, while the ones who looked like Lucy Liu were considered affluent, and well off. These racial disparities that evolved from hell are a sad reminder to a wound that won't stop bleeding because of man's inability to stop giving in to his base emotions. I plead cray cray, and insanity. Jacob, they would rather burn in hell for an eternity than let us live in peace for a day. God is coming back for Israel not the Christian Church that has been corrupted by the Evangelical, right wing, nut jobs.

1 Maccabees 3:48

And laid open the book of the law, wherein the heathen had sought to paint the likeness of their images.

If you study history, and read the Bible, you'll see how religion has been used to divide God's people which they're not. Some gentiles will walk into New Jerusalem, the vast majority of them won't. The Bible has been tampered with by people who are shepherds for the Devil. The Catholic Church is Satanic no matter how you cut it. The cathedral of Notre Dame had gargoyles mounted atop the edifice looking over the city of Paris, France. Do you find this to be a bit of a double minded mentality or a slap of defiance in God's face. What god do you worship? We want to know the truth from God. This world can't be trusted with an anorexic T-Rex. You'd call it a crackhead and dump him in the Labrea tar pits unless it was a female, at that point you would attempt to crossbreed it with a Chihuahua, and hope to domesticate this new animal which has disaster written all over his I'm shaking cause I need a fix quick, petrified ass. When Vatican City is destroyed let that be a warning from God to those who still have a sliver of faith in God, get a relationship with Him. Jacob, this writing piece reveals their unwillingness, and froward hearted, lack of sensibility by not telling the whole truth. Instead they give us a revised version of history that wasn't. They have been our teachers for the last 500yrs when we were there's previous. Either you learn from your mistakes or continue to repeat them.

Zechariah 8:23

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

If you hate being rebuked by a Black professor with a tenure ship, you'll hate being corrected by a Black child who has 5 degrees including a specialist in biochemical, ecological science, and psychology. You're ashamed because you're proud. There were great African kingdoms that educated the anglo European that's been shrouded in history. The book of Maccabees says the people who have mislead, and lied to us are as knowledgeable as a 13yr old using crib notes. I'm nuttier than a can of Planters, the truth is in you Jacob. Utilize the authority given to you. You will have to teach them as it was in the past. Everything from Bible scriptures, to aerospace, science engineering. The educational system is designed to hold back Black children, but the 3 people with the highest IQs in the world at the time was a 10yr old Black male, an 2 Black females under the age of 8. They were the youngest members of Mensa ever. This was about 4yrs ago. You can't stop God's anointing from glowing and glorifying Him and His people. Read the rest of this article and lose your mind. Its a nauseating and frustrating read. The truth will set you free. It ain't in these hood boogers

Written accounts by early Chinese historians tell us that the Tonkin region and its adjacent areas were once a hotbed of various non-Han Chinese peoples, including those from whom the Lao Cai girl descends. But with the southward advance of the Han Chinese, such groups were pushed even further south, or gradually assimilated into the dominant population. Historian Thant Myint-U writes in ��Where China Meets India” that during the 9th century, the Chinese ethnographer Fan Cho compiled the Man Shu, or “Book of the Southern Barbarians.” Fan Cho describes there the varied peoples living in and around Yunnan. Included among them were the Wu-man or ‘Black southern barbarians,’ so-called for their dark complexions. And ironically, the French author of the Lao Cai photo had the image annotated with the Chinese word “Man,” and — sadly — with the Vietnamese “Xa” (or Kha), signifying servant or slave.

With this photo of a mother and her two children by John Thomson, taken on the streets of Peking (now Beijing), something finally clicked. For reasons that won’t be detailed here (as it would take far too long to explain) more than a decade of research into the peopling of Asia seemed to suggest that any black Chinese still living in the age of photography would likely all be found in southernmost China. Black Moabites still coexist in China to this day. This is a class study in you must be dumber than an incubator.

In his 1902 book The Boxer Uprising, American photographer James Ricalton includes this photo of several dozen men, many of them likely to be executed the next day for their part in the Boxer Rebellion. The latter was a bloody, anti-foreign and anti-Christian uprising that took place between 1899 and 1901; the 2006 Jet Li film Fearless was inspired by events that took place in the aftermath of the rebellion. The same is also true of the 1971 Bruce Lee film Fist of Fury. No actors in the aforementioned films — nor any other martial arts films set in pre-modern China — ever had actors resembling the non-Han Chinese mixed in above. About them, the racist Ricalton writes:

“This is truly a dusky and unattractive brood. One would scarcely expect to find natives of Borneo or the Fiji Islands more barbarous in appearance; and it is well known that a great proportion of the Boxer organization is of this sort; indeed, how dark-skinned, how ill-clad, how lacking in intelligence, how dull, morose, miserable and vicious they appear!” I'm willing to bet you 5 million in Bitcoin that I don't have, a lifetime supply of opium, and 2 happy ending massages daily that this bougie French bastard is rotting in hell praying to white Jesus that Rumiel won't screw him up the wahoo tonight. Tickle his sack!!! Like Thomas Cromwell the powers that be went to great lengths to cover this history in ChinaTown. You can't hide the truth from a people that's tired of being dictated to, oppressed, lied on, abused and persecuted by everybody, and discredited for the contributions they've made to this damnable planet. As previously stated we don't want crumbs [reparations] we want the whole planet Black before you, and the I hate n**gers brigade showed up, that includes Moo Goo Gai Pan. As soon as his Chicken fried, Bat Man eating, pancaked backside came along, and gained some freedoms, he started emulating his zaddy, he became drunk with xenophobia like the rest. If you hate my commentary tell ya boy Biden or his Amerikkka is not a racist country VP, Kamala Harris. She's next in line to preside as Pontius Pilate over this damnation unless Biden loses his dementia. Its a joke, think or buy a vowel. If that doesn't work, swap some Budha, and kiss Mr. Nasty bye bye.

6 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 7 years ago

Text

Will There Always Be an England?

By Andrew Sullivan, New York Mag, April 27, 2018

Home is where one starts from. And like many English families, mine is still there, my brother and father still living in the very town I grew up in, my sister and mother a short drive away. So much remains exactly the same, and at this time of year this is especially true. On the cusp of spring, when the new leaves begin to unfold as specks of newborn green in the woodlands, a small miracle occurs.

The bluebells arrive, like an iridescent blue carpet below, spreading along hedgerows, suddenly swamping forests and copses, emerging out of the rotten, sodden leaves of last autumn. By the time I leave at the end of next week, the bluebells will have wilted and disappeared, but for now, they are like a million little madeleines of my other life in another country.

And yet England, as I have found it, suddenly feels deeply familiar to my American self. In London, it is as if I never left Washington. It’s the atmosphere that feels so similar. The minute you start chatting with anyone about the state of the country, you can almost feel the toxicity and tension, and the tenacious tribalism rending the country apart. Westminster feels like Washington, the way it did when Reagan and Thatcher were ascendant in the 1980s, or when Clinton and Blair entrenched the legacy of their conservative predecessors in the 1990s. This time, they are defined not by a new common direction but by a shared unraveling.

And if you hang around, you can begin to realize why. If my hometown feels remarkably similar, London is close to unrecognizable from the city I knew as a teen. Its skyline has a touch of Dubai to it, the wealth is tangible, even obscene, the prices absurd, the energy young and incredibly diverse. “It’s not our capital any more, is it?” my brother asks, as if seeking confirmation from me. I can see what he means, by virtue of not being there continuously as change accumulated and transformed. In a little less than a week in London, I have yet to buy anything from someone English. Everywhere I hear foreign accents or one of the more than 300 languages London now incorporates. Thirty-seven percent of the capital’s population is foreign-born--the same as New York City--and that share is predicted to be 50 percent by 2031. But New York has always been a thriving immigrant city; newcomers have always defined the place, and it’s just one of several vast metropoles in America. But London is the overwhelmingly dominant city in the U.K., and has never previously been a city of immigrants in the English psyche. London, in fact, is synonymous with the essence of England, and has been a national center since the Roman era. The counties surrounding it are called the Home Counties, because London has always been home.

I love the new London, but then I would, wouldn’t I? I’m an American now, and became one in part because I fell in love with its racial and cultural diversity. But most people, not gifted with a great education and lucky breaks, are not able to hop and skip between capital cities, finding each metropolis increasingly and pleasantly like the other. They’re in suburbs and small towns, or in the rust-belt north. And they’re anxious--in a way that the young are not anxious. For the under-40s, economic insecurity, college debt, and inability to own a home drive the angst. For the over-40s, it’s a sense that the England they identified with, that gave their lives meaning and pride--the England that was nearly destroyed in the “finest hour” of 1940--this “sceptered isle,” is disappearing.

That’s the reason for Brexit. Period. In my view, it is an insane decision and it’s becoming ever-clearer what the nature of that madness is. The current debate is whether the U.K. will remain in a single market, a customs union, or a customs partnership. If you ask anyone the difference between the three, the brows furrow as the eyes glaze over. The Tories argue for Brexit, bizarrely, as a tool for freer trade, in true English fashion. But it is withdrawal from the biggest free-trade area in the world! Many of the regulations and standards imposed Europe-wide will have to be retained, but under British law, not European--because the economies are so intertwined. The more you investigate what Brexit actually, practically means, it turns out to be an attempt to keep everything the same but somehow change it completely. It’s a policy that makes no sense, is being negotiated by a prime minister who voted to remain in the E.U., is being debated by a Parliament overwhelmingly pro-staying, in deference to a referendum that was a blizzard of disinformation and ignorance. I truly don’t believe if you asked the average Brit what the E.U. is, they’d be able to give you a coherent answer.

But they voted against it because they are scared. Last week’s PRRI/Atlantic study of the key voters who brought us Trump brings this out with stunning and, for me, decisive clarity:

Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, ‘things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.’ … Only a small portion--just 27 percent--of white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. [But] among the people who did share this belief, Trump was wildly popular: 87 percent of them supported the president in the 2016 election … Nearly two-thirds of the white working class say American culture has gotten worse since the 1950s. Sixty-eight percent say the U.S. is in danger of losing its identity, and 62 percent say America’s growing number of immigrants threaten the country’s culture.

Ta-Nehisi Coates has called these people witting enablers of white supremacy because they voted for Trump, conjuring up images of men in white hoods lynching and murdering African-Americans. But many of them voted for Obama twice. Clinton called half of Trump voters a “basket of deplorables.” But a majority of white women voted for Trump. The left intelligentsia regards them as bigots, racists, xenophobes, and even “privileged”--attitudes and statements that are re-broadcast every hour of every day to the white and culturally anxious viewers of Fox News. What few on the left seem to see is that cultural anxiety, given the ethnic and cultural transformation of the last few decades, is an entirely predictable and entirely understandable response. If people felt that someone in charge actually saw their point of view, sympathized with it, and attempted even minor changes to accommodate it, we would have a different politics. But all they had was Trump. And all they still have is Trump.

If that is true in immigrant-created, multiracial, multicultural America, a vast and churning continent, always restless, always changing, it is triply true in the little, overcrowded, once remarkably homogeneous island that is Britain. This country’s core identity is thousands of years old. Yes, it has long accepted immigrants, but until the 1950s, net immigration was a rounding error. Since then, it has exploded. In the last 20 years, it has reached American levels. For those whose self-understanding is wrapped up in bluebells and tea, in English accents divided solely by class and region, in a nearly all-white and all-English country for centuries, these times are culturally terrifying.

It wasn’t their economic insecurity that gave us Brexit. It was that no one in charge even sensed their unease. Elites--and I count myself among the guilty--gave them nothing by way of reassurance or even a sense that they were understood instead of reviled. So all they had was Brexit. It wasn’t a rational decision; it was their only way to have their voices heard. Their pride and self-identity are bound up in it now, just as a critical slice of America’s is bound up in Trump. Which is why, despite the mounting evidence that the Brexit gambit is a disaster, they will never let it go.

We have been fools on mass immigration, we have been fools for preventing an honest debate about the benefits and drawbacks of diversity, and we have been contemptible in our contempt for so many of our fellow citizens. Both countries are now paying a terrible, terrible price.

Whatever else you say about Britain these days, it no longer feels like a free country. I don’t just mean the hideous suffocation of free speech--although that’s shocking enough. That someone was actually fined over $1,000 for making a stupid joke video of their pug doing a Nazi salute would be hilarious if it weren’t also so preposterous. And if you want to see what the world would look like if the social-justice movement could truly get their way, and if the First Amendment did not exist, come to England.

Here, a politically incorrect statement could have you hauled into court. A young woman was recently sentenced to an eight-week community service order and legal costs of nearly $7,000 for putting a quote from Snap Dogg on her Instagram account, the Spectator’s Brendan O’Neill reported. (The quote included the N-word and offended a cop from the local police hate crime unit.) A Christian preacher was put in jail for 19 hours because he told some gay teens that gay sex is a sin. Sick jokes--the kind that I heard every day as a teen--are now criminal offenses. The Times of London reported that more than 3,000 people were detained and questioned last year for trolling on the internet in ways that offended the designated victim groups. And this is under a Conservative government. No one but a few straggling right-wingers seem concerned.

And then there’s the Alfie Evans case. The idea that the parents of a severely handicapped 2-year-old are not the ultimate deciders of what happens to their own child is, for me, a deeply chilling one. In the case of Alfie, afflicted with a degenerative neurological disorder, the doctors essentially decided it was time to pull the plug. It’s a horrible decision to have to make, and I’m not going to diagnose what was medically possible, although medical bias does exist. I understand that, at some point, extraordinary measures to sustain a human life are no longer valid. When resources are limited, and a person really has no chance of survival, the use of simple ordinary measures to protect life--food, water, shelter, care--is what is morally required.

But what if the parents of the child disagree? What if they still hold out hope that some treatment might still be possible--and another hospital is able and willing to try? That’s what happened in the case of Alfie. The doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital had every right to tell Alfie’s parents that it was “unkind, unfair and inhumane” to continue treatment. But to deny the parents the option of another hospital in Italy, prepared to take over the case, and to legally prevent Alfie from being transported there, is hard to comprehend. If parents do not have the right to take their child to another hospital, what rights do they have at all?

The BBC has a useful account of the law in question:

The concept of parental responsibility is set out in law--in the Children Act 1989--conferring on parents this right broadly to decide what happens to their child, including the right to consent to medical treatment. But this right is not absolute … If a public body considers that a parent’s choices risk significant harm to their child, it can challenge these choices--but it must go to court in order to override the legal state of parental responsibility.

And that’s what happened. The parents and the hospital are regarded as equals by the justice system and the court decided in favor of the hospital. It’s not the first time this has happened, as the tortuous case of little Charlie Gard in 2017 proves. In that instance, Charlie was prevented from traveling for experimental treatment in the U.S.

These are horrible cases, and their complexity and agony need to be understood. But the ultimate right of a parent to do all they can for their child is not child abuse--if there is a legitimate alternative offered by other doctors. I believe that no one should overrule parents in a case like this.

#England #Brexit #British politics

0 notes

hardtostudy · 7 years ago

Text

American

THE PLANTATION - South in 1815: growing prosperity, and power.  - Cotton  - Slavery affected also values, customs, laws, class structure and the region’s relationship to the nation and the world  - Shape defined by plantation, cotton, and slaves   MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONSHIP  - Labor and profit was essential  - The labor relation was connected with violence - Slaves bodies, labor, and lives began to be defined as chattel  - Slaves struggled to survive but also to resist and limit the level of exploration  - Essential struggle - turning the system of absolute power and personal domination of the master to a design based on reciprocity — - Slaves had the means and human agency to resist (made their masters observe some limits to the exploitation of their labor  - Master-slave relationship was very asymmetrical   SLAVES  - Legally — chattel property — enslave people — mere extension of the master’s will  - J. H. Hammond:  The cardinal principle of slavery — that the motive is to be regarded as a thing — as an article of prosperity - a chattel personal - obtains as undoubted law in all these southern states.   The slave lives for his master service. His life, his labour, his comforts are all at his masters disposal. Slave is the most valuable property.   - Masters exercised exclusive power of slaves  - Slaves could be sold to pay off their ots, transferred, sold by executors to set states, seized by sheriffs, etc.  - Only 10% of wills did show some human concessions and made a human connection (arrangement to protect their family after their master’s death)  - As a property they were legally devoid of will  - Lives of slaves were full of violence (constant surveillance, sold or transferred, sexual abuse)  - Insistence on the recognition of their humanity, natural rights to family and or their owner’s recognition of these families and communities  - The debate about race was much more heated in the North (Northern institutions and universities looking for scientific proofs).  - Polygenesis — the idea that races were distinct and unequal in origin, Phrenology, etc.   - In South — slavery took the ideological work  - The defense of pro-slavery argument was largely biblical —fixed orders (hierarchy) were the basis of a proper Christian republic.   - J. D. Hammond:  What God ordains and Christ sanctifies should surely command a respect and toleration of Man   PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENT  - The necessity of Democratic-Republican government (only on the foundations of slavery could true republican society flourish)  - Rejection of liberalism and principles of human equality - W. Harpor 1837:  …is it not palpably near the truth to say that no man was ever born free and no two men were born equal?   PRO-SLAVERY  — Slavery is like a marriage. A benevolent institution to protect the weak  ANTI-SLAVERY  — Slavery is like a marriage. A form of illegitimate authority formed to oppress.   - Analogy of slavery and marriage was an attempt to extent the public sense of immorality of slavery to other equally illegitimate forms of social domination  - Pro-slavery ideologues turned to gender analogies too — to justify as equally natural relation of masters and slaves.   SLAVE RESISTANCE  - The ability to convey the experience of slavery was highly constrained - Narratives with first-hand experience broke through to the public life outside the South  - Anti-slavery narratives (Solomon Northup, David Walker, Frederick Douglas, etc.) — their confessions were crucial in shaping American politics in the run up for the Civil War  - Nat Turner Rebellion - in 1831 in Virginia (70 whites were killed) - fear on both sides - whites constantly lived in the fear from these rebellions - Slave rebellions were not uncommon - with the Civil War messages in the South they were less covert   SLAVE FAMILY  - Family - a body to protect individuals  - Slave marriage had no legal standing in the South - chattel property had no rights  - Forcing owner’s recognition of Family was the greatest political achievement under slavery - to make AA define themselves as people   Marriage = A husband also owns his wife (possession of her body, her property and her children)  Slave marriage = Everything belonged to the master, not the man a slave woman married.   SLAVERY AND WOMEN  ‘’…slavery is terrible for men but it is far more terrible for women’’ H. Jacobs  - Intimate relationships were recognized in slave communities - Unwed mothers were not ashamed (virtue and virginity was necessarily different for slave women — they could not control the circumstances of their sexual life)   KINSHIP  - Kinship (fictive kin) - extended biological ties - practice that tied people to children and expand the group and people invested in the child’s wellbeing - The selling of slaves involved repeated cycles of social death and re-birth - the narrative of Ch. Ball.   THE END OF SLAVERY  - The Civil War meant the end of slavery as an institution and the beginning of life - family, religion, freedom  - When slaves were finally articulated, slaveholders had to acknowledge them as people   THE END OF PLANTATION  - 1865 the Confederacy was in ruins, slave regime was defeated - AA southerners had a long journey to gain their dignity  - It was also the fall of the planter’s class. The plantation ended.  THE HOME - ‘’America is God’s crucible, the great melting pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming!’’  - 1607 - The arrival of three ships in the Chesapeake Bay  - It was the newcomers who had the larger impact on the natives, rather than the other way around  - Up through the early 1800s, European immigrants streamed into the colonies and the US, primarily from the British Isles   FIRST WAVE OF IMMIGRATION  - Late 1700s, it was the Scotch-Irish (Scots who had briefly settled in Ireland).  - From about 1820 to 1880, it was the Irish and Germans.  - The Irish arrived poor, but the Germans often had a little money and a skill.  - The Irish took menial jobs, while the Germans went into printing, banking, painting, etc.  - Many Germans pushed on to the Midwest, set up farming communities, and maintained old-country traditions.   SECOND WAVE OF IMMIGRATION  - From 1880-1924 some 26mil immigrants arrived — the largest migration in world history.  - The earlier wave was primarily from western and northern Europe, the second wave was largely from eastern and southern Europe (large numbers of Italians, Jews fleeing persecution in Russia, Poland, and Hungary)  - Between 1900 and 1909, when the 2nd wave peaked, two-thirds of immigrants came from Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.  - By 1910 arrivals from Mexico outnumbered arrivals from Ireland, and numerous Japanese had moved to the West Coast and Hawaii. Foreign-born blacks, mainly from the West Indies, also came.  - Many immigrants never intended to stay.  - For every hundred foreigners who entered the country, around thirty ultimately left.  - Most of the 26mil immigrants who arrived with this wave remained, and the great majority settled in cities.   MELTING POT  - A salad bowl with discrete units may be slightly better  - Suggests the nature of America at the time — a changing blend of cultures.  - Each group affects and is affected by the pre-existing culture, yet the result is more or less homogeneous society that speaks the same language and abides by the same laws.  - Immigration to the US was part of a world-wide movement  - Population pressures, land redistribution, and industrialization induced millions of peasants, small land-owners, and craftsmen to leave Europe and Asia for Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and the US.  - Technological advances in communications and transportation spread news of opportunities and made travel cheaper, quicker, and safer.  - Religious persecution — pogroms and military conscription that Jews suffered in eastern Europe, forced people to escape across the Atlantic.  - New arrivals received aid from relatives who had already immigrated   NON-WHITE CITIZENS  - African Americans, American Indians, Mexican Americans, and Asian Americans — their opportunities were scarce.  - Asians particularly encountered discrimination and isolated residential experience — they were blamed for unemployment in California in the late 1870s.  - ,,The Chinese must go’'  - To limit this latest influx, the government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.   THE AMERICAN DREAM  - Non-manual jobs and the higher social status and income were attainable (white-collar jobs).  - From poverty to moderate success.  - Rates of upward occupational mobility were slow but steady between 1870 and 1920 (One in five manual workers rose to white-collar or owner’s positions within ten years)  - America was not a utopian dream, but it was generally better than what they had left behind. - In the 1920s intolerance pervaded American society  - Congress reversed previous policy and, In the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, set yearly immigration allocations for each nationality  - Preference for Anglo-Saxon Protestant immigrants reflected in annual immigration quotas for eastern European nationalities (could not exceed 3% of the number of immigrants from that nation residing in the United States in 1910).  - In 1924 Congress replaced it with the National Origins Act - law that limited annual immigration to 150 000 ppl and set quotas at 2% of each nationality residing in the US in 1890, except for Asians, who were banned completely.  - In 1950, 88% of Americans were of European ancestry; 10% of the population was African American; 2% was Hispanic; and Native Americans and Asian Americans each accounted for about one fifth of 1%.  - By 1960s only 5,7% of Americans were foreign-born (compared with approx 15% in 1910 and 12,4 in 2005)   - The immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 ended the quota system that favored some nationalities over others.  - Between 1970 and 1990s the US absorbed more than 13 mil new arrivals, most from Latin America and Asia. Immigrants flooded in from South Korea, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Singapore, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.  - In 1970 Latinos comprises 4,5% of the nation’s population; it jumped to 9% by 1990s, when one out of three Los Angelenos and Miamians were Hispanic.  - Hispanics created a new hybrid culture — ‘'We want to be here, but without losing our language and our culture. They are richness, a treasure that we don’t care to lose.'' - Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 — ( discourage illegal immigration by imposing sanctions on employers who hired undocumented workers).  - In 2002 the foreign-born were 11,5% of the US population, a rising trend in recent decades, though still below the 14,5% of 1910…  WOMEN "a woman's place is in the home" Not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, they were absent in the Constitution, they were invisible in the new political democracy. They were the women of early America – half the population that remained invisible – the very invisibility of women is a sign of their submerged status. Throughout most of history women generally have had fewer legal rights and career opportunities than men. Wifehood and motherhood were regarded as women's most significant professions. In the 20th century, however, women in most nations won the right to vote and increased their educational and job opportunities. Perhaps most important, they fought for and to a large degree accomplished a reevaluation of traditional views of their role in society. Maternity, the natural biological role of women, has traditionally been regarded as their major social role as well. The resulting stereotype that "a woman's place is in the home" has largely determined the ways in which women have expressed themselves. Biological predispositions positioned women as childbearers – whom men could use, exploit, who was at the same time servant, sex mate, companion, and bearer-teacher-warden of his children. Societies based on private property and competition in which monogamous families became practical units for work and socialiyation found it especially useful to establish this special status of women – something of a house slave in the mater of intimacy and oppression. The conditions under which white settlers came to America created various situations for women. Where the first settlements consisted almost entirely of men, women were imported as sex slaves, childbearers, companions. In 1619, the year that the first black slaves came to Virginia, ninety women arrived at Jamestown on one ship: „Agreeable persons, young and incorrupt... sold with their own consent to settlers as wives, the price to be the cost of their own transportation.“ Most women came as indentured servants – and did not live lives much different from slaves – they were to be obedient to masters and mistresses... The situation was much worse for black women – as slaves they were the property of their masters Even free white women not brought as servants or slaves, but as wives of the early settlers, faced special hardships.. Those who lived shared the life in the wildernss with their men and were often gien respect because they were so bady needed. And when men died, women often took up the men’s work as well. Women on the American frontier seemed close to equality with their men. But many were burdened with ideas from England influenced by Christian teachings. English law was summarized in a document of 1632 – „The lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights“ „In this consolidation which we call wedlock is a locking together. I tis true, that man and wife are one person, but understand in what manner. When a small brooke or little river incorporateth with Rhodanus, Humber, or the Thames, the poor rivulet looseth her name..... A woman as soon as she is married, is called covert... that is, ��veiled“; as it were, clouded and overshadowed; she hath lost her streame. I may more truly, farre away, say to a married woman, her new self is her superior; her companion, her master…” Julia Spruill describes the woman’s legal situation in the colonial period: “The husband’s control over the wife’s person extended to the right of giving her chastisement…. But he was not entitled to inflict permanent injury or death on his wife…” As for property: “Besides absolute possession of his wife’s personal property and a life estate in her lands, the husband took any other income that might be hers. He collected wages earned by her labor…. Naturally it followed that the proceeds of the joint labor of husband wife belonged to the husband.” Puritan New England carried over the subjection of women – one woman dared to complain about the work a carpenter had done for her, the Reverend John Cotton said – “… that the husband should obey his wife, and not the wife the husband, that is a false principle. For God hath put another law upon women: wives, be subject to your husbands in all things.” In the 1700s – a best-selling “pocket-book” Advice to a Daughter: “You must first lay it down for a Foundation in general, that there is inequality in sexes, and that for the better Economy of the world; the men, who were to be the law-givers, had the larger share of reason bestowed upon them; by which means your sex is the better prepared for the xompliance that is necessary for the performance of those duties which seemed to be most properly assigned to it… your sex wanted our reason for your conduct, and our strength for your protection: ours wanted your gentleness to soften, and to entertain us… “ Yet women rebelled. Ann Hutchinson – a religious woman, mother of thirteen children – insisted that she, and other ordinary people, could interpret the Bible for themselves. She was a good speaker, held meetings and people gathered at her home in Boston to listen to her criticism of local ministers. John Winthrop described her as “a woman of a haughty and fierce carriage, of a nimble wit and active spirit, and a very voluble tongue, more bold than a man, though in understanding and judgement, inferior to many women.” She was put on trial for heresy and for challenging the authority of the government. She was made to leave Boston. 20years later, one person who had spoken up for her during Hutchinson’s trial was hanged for rebellion, sedition, and presumptuous obtruding themselves.” During the Revolution, the necessities of war brought women out into public affairs. Women formed patriotic groups, carried out anti-British actions, wrote articles for independence. They were active in the campaign against the British tea tax. They organized Daughters of Liberty groups, boycotting British goods, urging women to make their own clothes and buy only American-made things. Abigail Adams – even before the Declaration of Independence wrote to her husband: … in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention are not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound to obey the laws in which we have no voice of representation.” But Jefferson underscored his phrase “all men are created equal” by his statement that American women would be “too wise to wrinkle their foreheads with politics”.. And after the Revolution none of the new state constitutions granted women the right to vote. Between the American Revolution and the Civil War so many elements of American society were changing – the growth of population, the movement westward, the development of the factory system, expansion of political rights for white men, educational growth to match the new economic needs – that changes were bound to take place in the situation of women. In pre-industrial America, the practical need for women in a frontier society had produced some measure of equality – women worked at important jobs – publishing newspapers, managing tanneries, keeping taverns, engaging in skilled work. Women were being pulled out of the house and into industrial life, while at the same time there was pressure for women to stay home where they were more easily controlled. As the economy developed, men dominated as mechanics and tradesmen, and aggressiveness became more and more defined as a male trait. The outside world created fears and tensions in the dominant male world and brought forth ideological controls to replace the loosening family controls: the idea of “the woman’s place” promulgated by men, was accepted by many women. Cult of true womanhood – pious, religious, sexually pure, feminine, chaste, submissive.. The Young Lady’s Book of 1830 – “… in whatever situation of life a woman is placed from her cradle to her grave, a spirit of obedience and submission, pliability of temper, and humility of mind, are required from her.” “True feminine genius is ever timid, doubtful, and clingingly dependent; a perpetual childhood.” One book – rules for domestic happiness – “Do not expect too much” “How interesting and important are the duties devolved on females as wives… the counsellor and friend of the husband; who makes it her daily study to lighten his cares, to soothe his sorrows, and to augment his joys; who, like a guardian angel, watches over his interests, warns him against dangers, comforts him under trials; and by her pious, assiduous, and attractive deportment, constantly endeavors to render him more virtuous, more useful, more honorable, and more happy.” Republican mothers – patriotic women – women were urged to be patriotic since they had the job of educating children. The cult of domesticity – to pacify women with a doctrine – separate but equal – giving her work equally as important as the man’s, but separate and different. Inside that “equality” there was the fact that the woman did not choose her mate, and once her marriage took place, her life was determined. The new ideology worked – it helped to produce the stability needed by a growing economy. But the cult of true womanhood could not erase what was visible as evidence of woman’s subordinate status – she could not vote, could not own property; when she did work, her wages were one-fourth to one-half what men earned in the same job. Women were excluded from professions of law and medicine, from colleges from the ministry. In 1789 in new England was introduced the first industrial spinning machinery and now there was a demand for young girls to work the spinning machinery in factories. All the operations needed to turn cotton fiber into cloth were under one roof. The new textile factories swiftly multiplied – most of the women working there were between 15-30. Some of the earliest industrial strikes took place in these textile mills in the 1830s – demanded shorter workday “I was awakened at five, by the bells calling to labor. The time allowed for dressing and breakfast was so short, as many told me, that both were performed hurriedly, and then the work at the mill was begun by lamplight, and prosecuted without remission will twelve, and chiefly in a standing position. Then half an hour only allowed for dinner, from which the time for going and returning was deducted. Then back to the mills to work till seven o’clock…. It must be remembered that all the hours of labor are spent in rooms where oil lapms, together with from 40 to 80 persons, are exhausting the healthful principle of the air… and where the air is loaded with particles of cotton thrown from thousands of cards, spindles, and looms.” Middle-class women barred from higher education, began to monopolize the profession of primary-school teaching. Literacy among women doubled between 1780 and 1840. Women became health reformers. They formed movements against double standards in sexual behavior. They joined in religious organizations. Some of the most powerful of them joined the antislavery movement. So, by the time a clear feminist movement emerged in the 1840s, women had become practiced organizers, agigatators, speakers. “Reason and religion teach us, that we too are primary existences… not the satellites of men.” Women, after becoming involved in other movements or reform – antislavery, temperance, dress style, prison conditions – turned, emboldened and experienced, to their own situation. Angelina Grimke, a southern white woman who became a fierce speaker and organizer against slavery, saw that movement leading further: “Let us all first wake up the nation to lift millions of slaves of both sexes from the dust, and turn them into men and then… it will be an easy matter to take millions of females from their knees and set them on their feet, or in other words transform them from babies into women.” Opposition – “Some have tried to become semi-men by putting on the Bloomer dress. Let me tell you in a word why it can never be done. Is is this: woman, robed and folded in her long dress, is beautiful. She walks gracefully…. If she attempts to run, the charm is gone…. Take off the robes, and put on pants, and show the limbs, and grace and mystery are all gone.” Sarah Grimke , Angelina’s sister, wrote: “During the early part of my life, my lot was cast among the butterflies of the fashionable world; and of this class of women, I am constrained to say, both from experience and observation, that their education is miserably deficient; that they are taught to regard marriage as the one thing needful, the only avenue to distinction…” Angelina was the first woman to address a committee of the Massachusetts state legislature on antislavery petitions.. Many other women began speaking on other issues and thus on the situation of women. Women put in enormous work in antislavery societies all over the country. In the course of this work, events were set in motion that carried the movement of women for their own equality racing alongside the movement against slavery. First Women’s Rights Convention in history – Seneca Falls, New York held by Elizabeth Cady Stanton = three hundred women and some men came. A Declaration of Principles was signed and signed by 68 womena dn 32 men. It made use of the language and rhythm of the Declaration of Independence. A series of women’s conventions in various parts of the country followed the one at Seneca Falls. Sojourner Truth – “Ain’t I a woman?” – That man over there says that woman needs to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches…. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mudpuddles or give me any best place. And an’t I a woman? ..” Women began to resist, in the 1830s and 40s and 50s, the attempt to keep them in their “woman’s sphere”. They were taking part in all sorts of movements, for prisoners, for the insane, for black slaves, and also for all women. In the 19th century, women began working outside their homes in large numbers, notably in textile mills and garment shops. In poorly ventilated, crowded rooms women (and children) worked for as long as 12 hours a day. Great Britain passed a ten-hour-day law for women and children in 1847, but in the United States it was not until the 1910s that the states began to pass legislation limiting working hours and improving working conditions of women and children. Eventually, however, some of these labor laws were seen as restricting the rights of working women. For instance, laws prohibiting women from working more than an eight-hour day or from working at night effectively prevented women from holding many jobs, particularly supervisory positions, that might require overtime work. Laws in some states prohibited women from lifting weights above a certain amount varying from as little as 15 pounds (7 kilograms) again barring women from many jobs. During the 1960s several federal laws improving the economic status of women were passed. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 required equal wages for men and women doing equal work. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against women by any company with 25 or more employees. A Presidential Executive Order in 1967 prohibited bias against women in hiring by federal government contractors. But discrimination in other fields persisted. Many retail stores would not issue independent credit cards to married women. Divorced or single women often found it difficult to obtain credit to purchase a house or a car. Laws concerned with welfare, crime, prostitution, and abortion also displayed a bias against women. In possible violation of a woman's right to privacy, for example, a mother receiving government welfare payments was subject to frequent investigations in order to verify her welfare claim. Sex discrimination in the definition of crimes existed in some areas of the United States. A woman who shot and killed her husband would be accused of homicide, but the shooting of a wife by her husband could be termed a "passion shooting." Only in 1968, for another example, did the Pennsylvania courts void a state law which required that any woman convicted of a felony be sentenced to the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Often women prostitutes were prosecuted although their male customers were allowed to go free. In most states abortion was legal only if the mother's life was judged to be physically endangered. In 1973, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that states could not restrict a woman's right to an abortion in her first three months of pregnancy. Until well into the 20th century, women in Western European countries lived under many of the same legal disabilities as women in the United States. For example, until 1935, married women in England did not have the full right to own property and to enter into contracts on a par with unmarried women. Only after 1920 was legislation passed to provide working women with employment opportunities and pay equal to men. Not until the early 1960s was a law passed that equalized pay scales for men and women in the British civil service. WOMEN AT WORK The medical profession is an example of changed attitudes in the 19th and 20th centuries about what was regarded as suitable work for women. Prior to the 1800s there were almost no medical schools, and virtually any enterprising person could practice medicine. Indeed, obstetrics was the domain of women. Beginning in the 19th century, the required educational preparation, particularly for the practice of medicine, increased. This tended to prevent many young women, who married early and bore many children, from entering professional careers. Although home nursing was considered a proper female occupation, nursing in hospitals was done almost exclusively by men. Specific discrimination against women also began to appear. For example, the American Medical Association, founded in 1846, barred women from membership. Barred also from attending "men's" medical colleges, women enrolled in their own for instance, the Female Medical College of Pennsylvania, which was established in 1850. By the 1910s, however, women were attending many leading medical schools, and in 1915 the American Medical Association began to admit women members. In 1890, women constituted about 5 percent of the total doctors in the United States. During the 1980s the proportion was about 17 percent. At the same time the percentage of women doctors was about 19 percent in West Germany and 20 percent in France. In Israel, however, about 32 percent of the total number of doctors and dentists were women. Women also had not greatly improved their status in other professions. In 1930 about 2 percent of all American lawyers and judges were women in 1989, about 22 percent. In 1930 there were almost no women engineers in the United States. In 1989 the proportion of women engineers was only 7.5 percent. In contrast, the teaching profession was a large field of employment for women. In the late 1980s more than twice as many women as men taught in elementary and high schools. In higher education, however, women held only about one third of the teaching positions, concentrated in such fields as education, social service, home economics, nursing, and library science. A small proportion of women college and university teachers were in the physical sciences, engineering, agriculture, and law. The great majority of women who work are still employed in clerical positions, factory work, retail sales, and service jobs. Secretaries, bookkeepers, and typists account for a large portion of women clerical workers. Women in factories often work as machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors. Many women in service jobs work as waitresses, cooks, hospital attendants, cleaning women, and hairdressers. During wartime women have served in the armed forces. In the United States during World War II almost 300,000 women served in the Army and Navy, performing such noncombatant jobs as secretaries, typists, and nurses. Many European women fought in the underground resistance movements during World War II. In Israel women are drafted into the armed forces along with men and receive combat training. Women constituted more than 45 percent of employed persons in the United States in 1989, but they had only a small share of the decision-making jobs. Although the number of women working as managers, officials, and other administrators has been increasing, in 1989 they were outnumbered about 1.5 to 1 by men. Despite the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women in 1970 were paid about 45 percent less than men for the same jobs; in 1988, about 32 percent less. Professional women did not get the important assignments and promotions given to their male colleagues. Many cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1970 were registered by women charging sex discrimination in jobs. Working women often faced discrimination on the mistaken belief that, because they were married or would most likely get married, they would not be permanent workers. But married women generally continued on their jobs for many years and were not a transient, temporary, or undependable work force. From 1960 to the early 1970s the influx of married women workers accounted for almost half of the increase in the total labor force, and working wives were staying on their jobs longer before starting families. The number of elderly working also increased markedly. Since 1960 more and more women with children have been in the work force. This change is especially dramatic for married women with children under age 6: 12 percent worked in 1950, 45 percent in 1980, and 57 percent in 1987. Just over half the mothers with children under age 3 were in the labor force in 1987. Black women with children are more likely to work than are white or Hispanic women who have children. Over half of all black families with children are maintained by the mother only, compared with 18 percent of white families with children. Despite their increased presence in the work force, most women still have primary responsibility for housework and family care. In the late 1970s men with an employed wife spent only about 1.4 hours a week more on household tasks than those whose wife was a full-time homemaker. A crucial issue for many women is maternity leave, or time off from their jobs after giving birth. By federal law a full-time worker is entitled to time off and a job when she returns, but few states by the early 1990s required that the leave be paid. Many countries, including Mexico, India, Germany, Brazil, and Australia require companies to grant 12-week maternity leaves at full pay. Traditionally a middle-class girl in Western culture tended to learn from her mother's example that cooking, cleaning, and caring for children was the behavior expected of her when she grew up. Tests made in the 1960s showed that the scholastic achievement of girls was higher in the early grades than in high school. The major reason given was that the girls' own expectations declined because neither their families nor their teachers expected them to prepare for a future other than that of marriage and motherhood. This trend has been changing in recent decades. Formal education for girls historically has been secondary to that for boys. In colonial America girls learned to read and write at dame schools. They could attend the master's schools for boys when there was room, usually during the summer when most of the boys were working. By the end of the 19th century, however, the number of women students had increased greatly. Higher education particularly was broadened by the rise of women's colleges and the admission of women to regular colleges and universities. In 1870 an estimated one fifth of resident college and university students were women. By 1900 the proportion had increased to more than one third. Women obtained 19 percent of all undergraduate college degrees around the beginning of the 20th century. By 1984 the figure had sharply increased to 49 percent. Women also increased their numbers in graduate study. By the mid-1980s women were earning 49 percent of all master's degrees and about 33 percent of all doctoral degrees. In 1985 about 53 percent of all college students were women, more than one quarter of whom were above age 29. WOMEN IN REFORM MOVEMENTS Women in the United States during the 19th century organized and participated in a great variety of reform movements to improve education, to initiate prison reform, to ban alcoholic drinks, and, during the pre-Civil War period, to free the slaves. At a time when it was not considered respectable for women to speak before mixed audiences of men and women, the abolitionist sisters Sarah and Angelina Grimke of South Carolina boldly spoke out against slavery at public meetings (see Grimke Sisters). Some male abolitionists including William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, and Frederick Douglass supported the right of women to speak and participate equally with men in antislavery activities. In one instance, women delegates to the World's Anti-Slavery Convention held in London in 1840 were denied their places. Garrison thereupon refused his own seat and joined the women in the balcony as a spectator. Some women saw parallels between the position of women and that of the slaves. In their view, both were expected to be passive, cooperative, and obedient to their master-husbands. Women such as Stanton, Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Harriet Tubman, and Sojourner Truth were feminists and abolitionists, believing in both the rights of women and the rights of blacks. (See also individual biographies.) Many women supported the temperance movement in the belief that drunken husbands pulled their families into poverty. In 1872 the Prohibition party became the first national political party to recognize the right of suffrage for women in its platform. Frances Willard helped found the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (see Willard, Frances). During the mid-1800s Dorothea Dix was a leader in the movements for prison reform and for providing mental-hospital care for the needy. The settlement-house movement was inspired by Jane Addams, who founded Hull House in Chicago in 1889, and by Lillian Wald, who founded the Henry Street Settlement House in New York City in 1895. Both women helped immigrants adjust to city life. (See also Addams; Dix.) Women were also active in movements for agrarian and labor reforms and for birth control. Mary Elizabeth Lease, a leading Populist spokeswoman in the 1880s and 1890s in Kansas, immortalized the cry, "What the farmers need to do is raise less corn and more hell." Margaret Robins led the National Women's Trade Union League in the early 1900s. In the 1910s Margaret Sanger crusaded to have birth-control information available for all women (see Sanger). FIGHTING FOR THE VOTE The first women's rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in July 1848. The declaration that emerged was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it claimed that "all men and women are created equal" and that "the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman." Following a long list of grievances were resolutions for equitable laws, equal educational and job opportunities, and the right to vote. With the Union victory in the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped their hard work would result in suffrage for women as well as for blacks. But the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women. Disagreement over the next steps to take led to a split in the women's rights movement in 1869. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, a temperance and antislavery advocate, formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) in New York. Lucy Stone organized the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) in Boston. The NWSA agitated for a woman-suffrage amendment to the Federal Constitution, while the AWSA worked for suffrage amendments to each state constitution. Eventually, in 1890, the two groups united as the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Lucy Stone became chairman of the executive committee and Elizabeth Cady Stanton served as the first president. Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Dr. Anna Howard Shaw served as later presidents. The struggle to win the vote was slow and frustrating. Wyoming Territory in 1869, Utah Territory in 1870, and the states of Colorado in 1893 and Idaho in 1896 granted women the vote but the Eastern states resisted. A woman-suffrage amendment to the Federal Constitution, presented to every Congress since 1878, repeatedly failed to pass. Pros of Immigration: • Will work at unwanted jobs. • Immigrants are a key part of Americas economic growth. • Increasing population. • We expand the American culture into other cultures and vice-versa. • Boost the economy. Cons of Immigration: • Immigrants take jobs away from Americans. • Illegal immigrants are decreasing wages for the poor and increasing taxes. • Immigrants are threating the American identity. • Some say that immigration is going to bring the economy down. • Cheap Labor. [it puts more Americans out of their jobs.]

0 notes

samanthasroberts · 7 years ago

Text

‘It was a nice idea, but …’ Europeans on what went wrong with the EU

On its 60th birthday, people from Sweden to Bulgaria with doubts about the EU speak their mind about whether the project is worth pursuing

A triple-A rating is more important than solidarity. Were digging our own grave

Constanze Clever. Photograph: Sddeutsche Zeitung

A few months ago, I was chatting with my husbands work colleague in a beer garden. It was about eastern Europe and the question of why those countries take so few refugees. The colleague came from Poland. He was of the view that in Europe we should first and foremost look after ourselves.

In particular, he didnt want Muslims to be allowed in. According to him, they are a threat to the Christian identity of Europe.

So of course we clashed about this Im a fan of open borders, and I find it unbelievable when people oppose open borders while personally benefiting from them. To be able to move freely is a basic right, and the essence of Europe.

In the conversation, it became clear to me: we are both Europeans, but we come from different worlds. For us in Germany, things have gone well materially in the past 10 years. In Poland, things are different. That is why it is important that we reduce the imbalance.

But were not doing that. Why must Greece pay such high interest rates on the capital market? Rich Germany pays virtually nothing. We Europeans are under the thumb of financial markets. A triple-A rating is more important than solidarity. So were digging our own grave. Unless justice quickly assumes precedence over the economy again, we wont have the EU much longer. That would be a nightmare.

Constanze Clever, 33, hairdresser, Germany

I hate the ever encroaching political union its a vanity project

Gerard Richardson. Photograph: Gerard Richardson

I dont think Europe as a group of countries has ever really been able to unite. Cultures, opinions, approaches to everything, from business to foreign relations, are so diverse.

Trade, on the other hand now thats a really good harmoniser. People can agree on that far, far more easily. So I liked the idea after the war of uniting around trade. It didnt have to be complicated, and at first it wasnt. But then we started down the road to political union.

Thats what I hate: ever encroaching political union. Europe has become a vanity exercise for politicians with too much ambition. The euro was vanity, not based on economic reality. Im not an isolationist, far from it, but I really, honestly do not believe good government can ever come from too large and diverse a group of politicians.

Look at the hopelessly divided approach to problems like Greece, or the migrant crisis. Its a disaster. The EU cant even agree on where to host its own parliament.

There are good parts: free movement, thats obviously a benefit. But its all so badly managed. And I dont believe the EU has prevented war; Nato did that. If they turned the clock back to the EEC being just a free market alone, then I would be more than happy to stay engaged. They should take the politics out of Europe. It worked as a trading bloc, but not as this.

Gerard Richardson, 55, fine wine merchant and coffee roaster, UK

It sows a mentality that theres always money but billions have disappeared

Graca Ramos. Photograph: Sddeutsche Zeitung

First of all, the EU has been a great thing for both my countries, Portugal and Spain. The other European countries brought us back to life (after decades of dictatorship). Thats why the vast majority of Spaniards and Portuguese tend to be pro-European. Europe has pumped a lot of money into our countries.

On the one hand the EU has brought positive economic developments, on the other hand there have been negative consequences. It sows a mentality that there is always money. We have lost sight of what it is to save. People havent been watching closely enough where all these billions have gone. The economies of both countries have slumped because there hasnt been effective control over the way this money has been spent.

As a Portuguese woman Im worried about a two speed Europe . Does that mean the small countries will be put aside and suspended? We feel as a small country both protected and accepted within the EU and I hope that that doesnt change. The Eurosceptic voices in other countries worry me a lot. We must all ask ourselves what we have done wrong.

Graa Ramos, 40, theatre administrator, Spain

Nations have no rights. The EU took over everything

Jozsefne Varadi. Photograph: La Stampa

The nations have no rights. The EU completely took over and everything has to happen here as they wish.

But the EU has a lot of advantages too. We entered to EU so we have to accept a lot of things, I admit, but they should give more independence to nations.

Every time the government wants to decrease utility costs or taxes, or create more workplaces to let us breathe a little bit easier, they have a problem with it. Im with the nation with all my heart. I do everything. I help campaign. Im a member of the Fidesz party since its foundation. I consider this government good and fair. Our prime minister needs a lot of bravery to stand up like this for the nation.

Did you see what happened here during the prime ministers speech? Did you see the people whistling? They think this is not a democracy, but if I had done the same when Ferenc Gyurcsany was prime minister, if I had used my whistle, they would have shot me.

Jozsefne Varadi, 87, pensioner, Hungary

Erasmus, the euro, are just sweets with a bitter aftertaste

Luca Carabetta. Photograph: Luca Carabetta/La Stampa

They draw lines on a map, take decisions from on high, and then, if they dont work, they use every economic excuse possible to justify them as necessary to maintain the unity and progress.

I am an energy engineer, a young entrepreneur from the Erasmus generation. I was born when Italy joined Schengen, in 1990, and you could leave your passport in the drawer to travel with family, or later to see friends in France, Germany, Denmark. Yet my Euroscepticism began when I was young, in my town of ButtiglieraAlta, near Turin. I saw the No-Tav movement (against high speed rail) grow in my valley, the Susa valley, I started studying and concluded that the projects tied to the European corridors were conceived in an office in Brussels, far away from local communities and their needs.

I believe Europe is an extreme concession of sovereignty, which flattens diversity and national identities built throughout history. I do not agree with the economic homogeneity that binds the EU together. Does that seem strange from a young person with foreign friends? Absolutely not. Beppe Grillos Five Star Movement has shown me a clear path for what I always thought, and thats why I vote for it.

In these years, Brussels has not been able to create a common welfare system, no citizens feel like Europe is closer, notwithstanding the sharing of pseudo-values and the currency. Erasmus, the euro, are sweets with a bitter aftertaste. Unitary economics, so far, has penalised us. Unitary politics, for me, does not represent us, the citizens.

Luca Carabetta, 27, tech CEO, Italy

Europe was a nice idea, but globalist politics and the euro have killed us

Luc Defrance. Photograph: Cyril Bitton

Im a wheat farmer from northern France. Thats to say Im one of those people said to be very rich, living off subsidies, smoking a big cigar. In reality, I started work at 16, have worked like a dog for 50 years and am now ruined. I realised we were finished so I sold my operation last June.

Europe was a nice idea, but its the globalist politics that has killed us that and the euro. In the rest of the world, other countries can devalue their currency and become competitive. With the euro, we are trapped. Marine Le Pen is right we should get out of it.

Europe is just all restrictions and rules. You have to keep records on crop treatments and be careful about employment rules. You are bothered on all fronts. And the slightest mistake could cost you 10,000 in CAP aid, and thats a catastrophe.

In any case, theyre reducing the aid. In 2010, I got 100,000 in basic grants; last year it was 52,000, and soon there wont be any more. Doing a job that depend on grants is not healthy. Europe would do better to create a safety net and fix prices rather than grants.

Luc Defrance, 66, farmer, France

Many Dutch people feel powerless and angry. It is time to rediscover our identity

Joost Niemller. Photograph: Katrien Mulder

As well as books I write a blog called De Nieuwe Realist (the new realist). Europe is a land endowed with a rich civilisation. It works because it is based on the nation states, and yet its goal is to dismantle nation states, which would signify the end of European democracy. That is why many Dutch people, possibly even a majority, would like to leave the EU.

People want to take back control and decide their own future. Mass immigration is a serious problem. Many Dutch people feel powerless and angry. It is time for the Netherlands to rediscover its identity.

Joost Niemller, 60, writer, the Netherlands

The Eurosceptics in my family are happy that Russia is stepping up strongly

Rozalina Laskova. Photograph: Zdravko Yonchev/Sddeutsche Zeitung

I cant imagine Europe without the EU and am in favour of more integration. But I sometimes forget that other Bulgarians do not think like that. I have Eurosceptics in my own family, like my mother and aunt, who are bigger supporters of Russian culture, like a lot of Bulgarians. They see and read the same Bulgarian media which speak of the supposed all-encompassing manipulation of our country by Brussels and Washington. My aunt Maria asked me mockingly whether I also get money from the Americans. They are happy that Russia is stepping up so strongly.

Rozalina Laskova, 34, cultural adviser, Bulgaria

I would like to do a Swexit just like in the UK

Andreas berg Photograph: Andreas berg

The EU started as something different. In the beginning it was a good thing, a peacekeeping operation. But it has grown into something else: a massive, undemocratic monster, lots of people doing nothing to benefit the voters in their respective countries.

It seems to me more than half of the laws in Sweden are not decided by the Swedish government but by the EU. We vote for the government but if it doesnt have the majority of the power, how can that be democratic?

We choose representatives for the EU parliament, but I dont believe thats democratic either the ones who really affect what happens are not democratically elected. I havent read all the EU laws, only some of them, and some may benefit Sweden but many dont.

I work in the construction industry and we have seen a shift towards what they have in the UK, where people from the poorer countries come to work for you, and they do it for lower wages.

The main problem with the EU is that it incorporates loads of countries, and they are so vastly different in every way: welfare, economics, everything. To correct this the EU will have to make the richer countries poorer. So I would like to do a Swexit have a referendum like in the UK, and leave.

Andreas berg, 52, construction worker, Sweden

Stories collected by the Guardians Jon Henley and David Crouch in Gothenberg, and correspondents for the Europa group of newspapers: Thomas Urban in Madrid, Sebastian Jannasch in Brussels, Christian Gschwendtner in Munich, Lucie Soullier and Jean-Pierre Stroobants

Source: http://allofbeer.com/2017/10/20/it-was-a-nice-idea-but-europeans-on-what-went-wrong-with-the-eu/

from All of Beer https://allofbeer.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/it-was-a-nice-idea-but-europeans-on-what-went-wrong-with-the-eu/

0 notes

allofbeercom · 7 years ago

Text

‘It was a nice idea, but …’ Europeans on what went wrong with the EU

On its 60th birthday, people from Sweden to Bulgaria with doubts about the EU speak their mind about whether the project is worth pursuing

A triple-A rating is more important than solidarity. Were digging our own grave

Constanze Clever. Photograph: Sddeutsche Zeitung

In particular, he didnt want Muslims to be allowed in. According to him, they are a threat to the Christian identity of Europe.

Constanze Clever, 33, hairdresser, Germany

I hate the ever encroaching political union its a vanity project

Gerard Richardson. Photograph: Gerard Richardson

I dont think Europe as a group of countries has ever really been able to unite. Cultures, opinions, approaches to everything, from business to foreign relations, are so diverse.

Look at the hopelessly divided approach to problems like Greece, or the migrant crisis. Its a disaster. The EU cant even agree on where to host its own parliament.

Gerard Richardson, 55, fine wine merchant and coffee roaster, UK

It sows a mentality that theres always money but billions have disappeared

Graca Ramos. Photograph: Sddeutsche Zeitung

Graa Ramos, 40, theatre administrator, Spain

Nations have no rights. The EU took over everything

Jozsefne Varadi. Photograph: La Stampa

The nations have no rights. The EU completely took over and everything has to happen here as they wish.

But the EU has a lot of advantages too. We entered to EU so we have to accept a lot of things, I admit, but they should give more independence to nations.

Jozsefne Varadi, 87, pensioner, Hungary

Erasmus, the euro, are just sweets with a bitter aftertaste

Luca Carabetta. Photograph: Luca Carabetta/La Stampa

They draw lines on a map, take decisions from on high, and then, if they dont work, they use every economic excuse possible to justify them as necessary to maintain the unity and progress.

Luca Carabetta, 27, tech CEO, Italy

Europe was a nice idea, but globalist politics and the euro have killed us

Luc Defrance. Photograph: Cyril Bitton

Luc Defrance, 66, farmer, France

Many Dutch people feel powerless and angry. It is time to rediscover our identity

Joost Niemller. Photograph: Katrien Mulder

Joost Niemller, 60, writer, the Netherlands

The Eurosceptics in my family are happy that Russia is stepping up strongly

Rozalina Laskova. Photograph: Zdravko Yonchev/Sddeutsche Zeitung

Rozalina Laskova, 34, cultural adviser, Bulgaria

I would like to do a Swexit just like in the UK

Andreas berg Photograph: Andreas berg

I work in the construction industry and we have seen a shift towards what they have in the UK, where people from the poorer countries come to work for you, and they do it for lower wages.

Andreas berg, 52, construction worker, Sweden

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/2017/10/20/it-was-a-nice-idea-but-europeans-on-what-went-wrong-with-the-eu/

0 notes