It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizonans have always supported & demanded genocide: new immigration law par for course

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Genocide by definition is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group. The Chiricahua Indian Tribe of the American southwest and northern Mexico suffered almost complete annihilation at the hands of the American policy makers of the late nineteenth century, policy makers that chose to justify their means by ignoring their own tyrannical ways.


www.essays.cc...

Some historians feel that the reduction of Indian hostilities in the region over the previous few years had triggered fears of economic crisis in Tucson, because the Federal government was reducing funds for pacifying and controlling rebellious tribes, mostly Apaches. Merchants, who survived on the "blankets for peace" economy, were afraid that their source of income would soon be lost.

In order to bolster public support for increased hostilities and increased federal funding of "gifts" to the Apaches, it is alleged that several Anglo- and Mexican-Americans, including the prominent Tucson merchant Sam Hughes, [1] perpetrated "Indian style" raids on isolated settlements of whites in early 1871. One of these settlements was in Aravaipa Canyon.

en.wikipedia.org...


U.S. Army records will confirm that (a) The Tucson Ring were wholly responsible for the assassination (Nock-eye-dei-klinne was a peaceful medicine man who, as the whole world knew, received the Medal of Peace in person from President Grant), but in order to incite an uprising to keep the military (and military contracts) in Arizona, the Tucson Ring petitioned Congress and other influential people that Nock-eye-dei-klinne was attracting other Indians not for peace, but doing a "ghost dance" (something an Apache medicine man would not do!). The Army records also show that (although the term was not in use at that time) a contract was put out on Nock-eye-dei-klinne's head, that the Army insisted he was a peaceful medicine man and not worth the trouble of going to Cibecue to fetch him (that he would go to Fort Apache, if asked), but the influence of the Tucson ring and Indian Agent (noted for skimming on the contracts) resulted in the local Commander's authority being usurped, and a troop dispatched to arrest Nock-eye-del-klinne. The U.S. Army account of the incident confirms Nock-eye-del-klinne surrendered peacefully and all went well until they decided to set up camp for the night at which time an Army sergeant under contract with the Tucson Ring attempted to decapitate Nock-eye-del-klinne. When Nock-eye-del-klinne's wife went to his rescue, she was shot and killed, as was his son. Nock-eye-del-klinne and the sergeant were put under bonds for the night, but at some time during the night, Nock-eye-del-klinne - after miraculously surviving several attempts at decapitation, mysteriously died and was decapitated. His silver peace medal suddenly appeared in Tucson, and it is still on display at the Arizona Archaeological & Historical Museum in Tucson.

Although the U.S. Army made it clear that the only Apache involvement was in attempting to stop the assassination by disarming the Sergeant and others trying to assist the sergeant. Despite the evidence and the support of the local military personnel, the Tucson citizenry demanded Apaches be hung as scapegoats for the crimes of the Tucson Ring, and as former Chairman Ronnie Lupe won't hesitate to tell you, that was the second most dishonorable thing the U.S. Government ever did to Apaches (the first was to offer peace with the ulterior motive of "exterminating" Apaches, as you can see from Secretary Colyer's 1871 Annual Report to the President.


www.galenfrysinger.com...


In most of his efforts, Crook was opposed by Arizona citizens who wanted the Apaches exterminated. He was also opposed by the notorious Tucson Ring, a corrupt group of Arizona businessmen who wanted Indians on the warpath so they could continue their profiteering from selling supplies to the military.


www.desertusa.com...

Arizonans have pretty much always been racist and genocidal, as well as corrupt. The pratices of the infamous "Tucson Ring" haven't really gone away. Arizonans have never wanted to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, as you'll see in bit when they pile in here with "that was ancient history; I'm not my grandfather; someone else did it" tripe. All the while enjoying what grandpa did and utterly unwilling to make amends. How much you want to bet that most sweeps will occur just before payday, allowing employers to stiff the workers and pocket the pay they are owed?

My question is why the employers have not been held liable for knowingly hiring illegals? If the cops can tell by looking, as the new law seems to state, are the employers that much more stupid and unobservant? Aren't the employers breaking the law, too? If they are that concerned, what aren't they cracking down on the employer side?

The utter hypocrisy of the pinda-lickoyee is obvious when you look at the situation on the northern border. When I lived in Michigan (and when Michigan still had jobs), illegals streamed over the border day in and day out, 24-7. Only those illegals were white Canadians working in high-paying jobs. But since they were white, it was ok. I'm sure if you put 1/10 the effort put into policing the southern border into policing the northern one, you'd catch twice as many illegals. Of course, when the face of the illegal isn't brown or red, then being illegal isn't that much of a much: plenty of room here for those illegals.

Before "patriots" pump themselves up over handling the problem, they should try studying a little history and looking at who will benefit from this law. Follow the money: it's the only reason for these travesties. Well that, and smugly disguised racism.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by apacheman]




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
So you go about linking an unfortunate incident that happened well over 120 years ago to today's issue of cracking down on illegals? And then saying that Arizonans have always been racists and genocidal?
Son, this does not do well for your thread by making claims like that. As much as the only real thing we get out of this a history lesson and you stating the same thing that's been asked a million times by people as to why the employers haven't been prosecuted up to this point in time.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
So you go about linking an unfortunate incident that happened well over 120 years ago to today's issue of cracking down on illegals?


This is "par for the course". Whenever I argued with Marxists they would regularly bring up events from over 100 years ago to support their case. If present day reality does not support your cause then reach back farther and farther until it does. I've certainly not seen anything to support that present day Arizonans support genocide. Painting with a pretty wide brush if you ask me.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
wow your opinion is the most uneducated one I have seen on this issue.

Now i can understand about possible civil rights violations with the new bill but on the other hand it is better than doing nothing....



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
It's threads like these that make me extremely glad that I don't live in the Southwest anymore. If this is symptomatic of the general thought processes regarding illegal immigration and border incursions by rancher-murdering drug rings, everything from Brownsville to Sand Diego is screwed six ways from Sunday.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
You my friend are not denying ignorance. Your blanket generalization that "all arizonan's always support and demand genocide" is wrong and false. If I were from AZ i would sue you for slander.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Ok, what's your mark point for relevancy?

Did 1870s Arizonans demand the extinction of the Apache?

Yes.

Did 1880s Arizonans demand ethnic cleansing?

Yes.

Did 1890s Arizonans achieve ethnic cleansing?

Yes.

Was 1900s Arizona racist?

Yes.

Was 1930s Arizona racist?

Yes.

Was 1950s Arizona racist?

Yes.

Was 1970s Arizona racist?

Yes.

Did the racists of the 1930s raise racist children?

Yes. Racist people raise racist children. As education gets better, and ignorance fades, people become less racist. But we all know how the education system has been dumbed down and how ignorance is rampant.

Where we are today is a function of our history.

History cannot be dismissed out of hand, and incidents have a life of their own until they are resolved to mutal satisfaction. Just look back over any relationship you've had and I'm sure you'll see my point in the context of your own life.

But pick a point at which history becomes relevant for you and we can argue the point from there. But I warn you, you won't be allowed to drag in any prior history either.

Is 2010 Arizona racist?

Probably.

If not, where are the employer sanctions?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


To be fair, the 1870s Mexicans wanted the extinction of the Apache first...

As far as the rest of your post, it's kinda hard to take you seriously when you're obvious anger precludes any sort of examples or proof and consists chiefly of nothing but unsubstantiated generalizations about the population of an entire state.

Don't get me wrong, I know well the history of the Chiricahua, as well as the Lipan and Mescalero in west Texas and southern NM - they got a raw deal and nothing will ever make up for it... blaming everyone in AZ though? A bit much...



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe -

- He who wishes to exert a useful influence must be careful to insult nothing. Let him not be troubled by what seems absurd, but concentrate his energies to the creation of what is good. He must not demolish, but build. He must raise temples where mankind may come and partake of the purest pleasure.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I admire your honesty and I respect your truthful comments about what is going on in Arizona. Many see the problem with blinders on and when people wear the blinders that the federal government puts on the public, it only deceives and misinforms the public to the truth of the matter. With so much disinformation coming from our so called leaders, it is no wonder the immigration problem is as bad as it is.

Employers hiring illegals is part of why we have an immigration problem. Combine the fact that although an illegal can cross the border and come into the USA many think that just by crossing over illegally that the illegals then posing as fake Americans begin to utilize social services that drain tax dollars from everyone and every state involved with immigrant issues. Everyone always states that the illegals are robbing this nation of tax dollars when the truth does not support that claim.

What many ignore is that although an illegal can be in the USA illegally and get a job from some protected employer willing to hire them, all of the medical and the other social services that are provided because the federal laws legislated by the American corrupt politicians makes it "completely legal" for an illegal to receive benefits even if they are not a legal immigrant. As such, the benefits received by illegal immigrants are received legally and with the approval of the federal government that promotes such services.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for you honesty and it made my day to finally read someones posting that wasn't filled with hate, bigotry, and falsehoods that only divide people instead of bringing people together with the truth common to all Americans and not just those that feel it is their duty to protect American from illegal aliens regardless of the actual cause of the problem.

I just wish those bigoted zealots would apply as much energy to those creating the immigration problem, but as we all know, it is easier to whine and complain than to actually admit that those corrupt lily white politicians that supposedly represent the citizens are to blame for our immigration system being so messed up by design and by intent.

The design and intent is to benefit select business corporations and as long as there is corruption in politics, this is a prime example of elected representatives going against the will of Americans to the utter determent of the nation while costing tax payers billions in tax dollars that primarily go to the corporations providing the social services to the illegal immigrants.

What is going on in Arizona is a sign of the times. While many have issues with illegal immigrants, we should not ignore the root cause of the problem just for the sake of just hate mongering, so as to appear all American and concerned with the lack of border security. The legislated laws that make it legal for illegals to receive social benefits that are not available to tax paying legal Americans is what the zealots should be addressing, but as anyone can see, it's easier to be a bigot than to be an honest American putting blame where blame belongs.

It was great to find someone expressing themselves as you did in your posting. Thanks again for the honesty and candor in your remarks.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
i'm in arizona, i do want the illegals to go home.
i don't want them dead.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Interesting as to how the nearly 30 percent Hispanic population of Arizona factors in here. Most LEGAL immigrants seem to support this move. That is a bit telling in and of itself.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


Sorry you mistake factual presentation for anger.

I'm fairly dispassionate about it, they are just facts of history. I'm trying to give a partial context in which to view the new law. It seems an extension of past history to me, born out Arizona's own development.

It is disingenuous to pretend that there isn't an element of racism in the new law, or that historically, Arizona as an entity hasn't been racist. At what point did it stop being racist? I'm really curious to mark that particular point.

As an Apache, I've no particular love for the Nakai-ye, but neither do I hate them, even though they wanted us extinct long before 1870; you're right about that. So it's not that I'm defending the rights of the illegals, whatever they may be, I'm merely pointing out that Arizona is not addressing the root of the problem: the business community. Ultimately that lack stems from the state's history of racism and genocide.

If you feel it comes from elsewhere, please explain to me why the state doesn't enforce the laws on the books and sanction employers? Why must all citizens be put at risk and inconvenience rather than making it a felony to employ illegals? Why are the same business people allowed to hire and rehire illegals with impunity? Seriously, the same goals could be reached merely by better enforcement of existing law, if the goals were really as stated.

So it seems to me to be more of the same stuff that litters Arizona's history: racism.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by apacheman]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Clark Savage Jr.
 


The Legal immigrants know the problems the ILLEGALS cause. 70% of AZ population in support of this bill, that is unheard of numbers. That also probably includes voters that crosses all party lines and race.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
Did 1870s Arizonans demand the extinction of the Apache?
Did 1880s Arizonans demand ethnic cleansing?
Did 1890s Arizonans achieve ethnic cleansing?
Was 1900s Arizona racist?
Was 1930s Arizona racist?
Was 1950s Arizona racist?
Was 1970s Arizona racist?
Did the racists of the 1930s raise racist children?
Is 2010 Arizona racist?


All either irrelevant or subjective opinion.


If not, where are the employer sanctions?


Employer sanctions were passed in 2008 and this bill strengthens it. Knowingly hiring or employing illegals puts a business on probation among other things for the first offense and basically puts them out of business on the second. It also allow for legal entrapment of employers. Have you read the bill?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxBlack
 

Thanks for understanding my point.

Sometimes it's tedious and difficult to get through the thoughtless knee-jerk responses, puts me in mind of a punny story about a flower king that ends with "I can lead a horiculture, but I can't make her think!"

It's refreshing to find responders who actually understand and are willing to debate/discuss/acknowledge realities rather than iconologies.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 

Why are they irrelevant to a law targeting a particular race?

I should think that a past history is highly relevant. Doesn't past behavior predict future actions? Arizona historically passed many racist laws effecting Native Americans and Mexicans. How is this different?

How many business have been sanctioned for employing illegals since 2008? How many put out of business?

There have supposedly been laws sanctioning businesses that hire illegals for far longer, they just haven't been enforced.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Sorry my friend but the situation in Arizona in this modern times of illegal trafficking of drugs infecting our children and future is something that can not be deny.

Every state and the whole US has its history of corruption, anybody that took history in schools seriously will acknowledge that even with the sugar coating used by government propaganda of progressmany wrong doins can not be avoided.

But Arizona and the whole invasion of drug cartels and lords taking over states streets and neighborhoods has to be fought by the citizens, voters and tax payer in the states, that is why states are Republics, if the job of tax payers and state governments to stand up for their rights as citizens to protect their future.

To avoid the streets fights and massacre of inocents today regarless of the past.

Still thanks for the history lesson, but the facts of present day invasion of our nation can not be compare to the story you try to bring, your story was a tragedy, today drug wars are not.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Sorry I should have finished reading the entire OP before posting I thought the article was about the war been fought with drug cartels coming from the borders with Mexico.

I see is about the hiring of illegals.

Well on that one been myself a Latino women and a legal American citizen born in the US territory of PR. I make not mistakes to tell that I am against illegals in the US and American businesses hiring them for nothing than lowering the standards of living with under minimum pay salaries to avoid losing profits

This just affect everybody in the nation, as standards of living are lowered not only hurting illegals but legal citizens as well.

Occurs a legal citizen will not do the job of an illegal if it to be pay substandard salaries under minimum wages.

This been going on for years in my state of Ga. then when illegals have their children born in the US as citizens is the tax payer the one that has to provide for the welfare of those children from education to health care needs, I use to work with children from illegal families born in the US.

America is been declining steadily and very soon people will finally figure that one out.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


You seem to be missing my point.

I fully appreciate Arizona's current situation. I have few sympathies for illegals of whatever color or nationality, and the problems they cause.

My point is that due to its history, it is failing to address the problem at its source. In passing this new law, it is falling back on its history, almost reflexively. If Arizona were to effectively police its business community and enforce the existing laws, there would be a far smaller illegal problem. The problem is that tptb want no real fundamental change, they just want it back under control and relatively out of sight. The illegals are too polictically useful and too economically profitable to lose entirely.

So rather than demand strict enforcement on the few who cause most of the central problem (the employers), they are more inclined to impose strict enforcement on the majority who cause the peripheral problems (the illegals). I submit that this inclination stems from their history.

If you dig deep enough, I'd bet that most of the employers of illegals factor raids into their balance sheets as profits from unpaid wages. Not openly of course...but then, they can get pretty brazen when they know they are protected.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join