Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Third World Country

Tom Wolff, celebrated author of The Bonfire of the Vanities, had this to say about the third world in the U.S. . "It's the third world down there! Puerto Ricans, West Indians, Haitians, Dominicans, Cubans, [Mexicans], Columbians, Hondurans, Koreans, Chinese, Thais, Vietnamese, Equadorians, Panamanians, Filipinos, Albanians, Senegalese, and Afro-Americans." p. 7.

Was he referring to the magnificent multicultural society Dee likes to tout? Does what he has written confirm Tom Tancredo's characterization of Little Havana as the third world?

3 comments:

Lupita said...

I think Wolff was inadvertently referring to imperialism since his list of nationalities offers a very high correlation to nations that have suffered from American colonialism, enslavement, wars, invasions, occupations, and coups. Perhaps by "third world" he meant "victim of imperialism".

Puerto Ricans - 1898-present, invaded and declared a possession of the US.

West Indians - Will deal with them on a country by county basis.

Haitians - 1915-1934, US occupation.

Dominicans - 1916-1924 US occupation. 1965, marines landed and imposed president.

Cubans - 1898, placed under 20-year U.S. "supervision" treaty.

[Mexicans]- 1914, US bombs Veracruz.

Columbians - It is Colombians. 1903, warships sent to Panama to back "rebellion" and acquire land for Panama Canal.

Hondurans - 1905, 1907, 1911, 1980 (contra bases).

Koreans - 1945 divided them.

Chinese - 1844, Traty of Wanghia.

Thais - pass.

Vietnamese - 1954-1974, war.

Equadorians - Ecuadorians, Wolff's spelling is atrocious - 1961, CIA coup.

Panamanians - 1989, invasion.

Filipinos - 1899, republic dissolved by US. 1901- 1946, colony.

Albanians - pass.

Senegalese - pass.

Afro-Americans - I will not offend you by recounting centuries of oppression.

ultima said...

"Puerto Ricans - 1898-present, invaded and declared a possession of the US."

Formerly invaded by Spain. Frequently offered independent status but turned down by the people.

"West Indians - Will deal with them on a country by county basis."

Arawak Indians decimated by the Spaniards through disease and enslavement.

"Haitians - 1915-1934, US occupation."

Tell me they had a booming economy before or after that period and that would have been better off without that occupation and are now as many perish trying to escape their island paradise.

"Dominicans - 1916-1924 US occupation. 1965, marines landed and imposed president."

Again, would they have been better off without this intervention? How about the Dominican baseball players access to the big leagues?

"Cubans - 1898, placed under 20-year U.S. "supervision" treaty."

Freed from years of Spanish colonialism.

"[Mexicans]- 1914, US bombs Veracruz."

You left out whatever prompted the bombing.

"Columbians - It is Colombians. 1903, warships sent to Panama to back 'rebellion' and acquire land for Panama Canal."

I thought there was something wrong with that word but did not pursue it. Thank you for the correction.
A mistake was made in 1903. The area below the Canal Zone should have remained a part of Colombia and the part north of the Zone made a part of Costa Rica. The canal was vital to the strategic interests of the United States and the rest of the world. France tried to build and failed. We succeeded. It has now been returned to the people and they have a source of revenue they would not otherwise have. All in all it was a good thing,except for the mistake I mentioned.

I won't repeat the remainder of your comments but I'm curious what you would have done about Korea in 1945 if you were in a position of authority -- turn it over to the likes of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il? How would that help the people?

Thais -- hmmm. No comment. Does that mean you approve of the present military regime?

Equador -- thanks for the correction. That spelling does look a little strange.

During the period 1941-1945, the Filipinos would have welcomed a U.S. presence and perhaps even in some earlier periods and have requested help in combating the Muslim menace in the vicinity of
Zamboanga.

Incidentally why are the residents called Filipinos but their nation, the Philippines?

I think re: Afro-Americans and others the question is not oppression but "Does this conglomerate represent a cohesive nation or factional, balkanized country that will ultimately suffer from all the ills found in the third world?" Is this a desirable state of affairs?

Lupita said...

Formerly invaded by Spain

Arawak Indians decimated by the Spaniards through disease and enslavement.

What is your point? That the barbaric Spanish empire justifies American imperialism?

would have been better off without that occupation

Lame.

How about the Dominican baseball players access to the big leagues?

Funny.

Freed from years of Spanish colonialism.

Passing from one empire to another is freedom?

The canal was vital to the strategic interests of the United States

Nice definition of imperialism.

Does that mean you approve of the present military regime?

It means that the US has not occupied Thailand.

Incidentally why are the residents called Filipinos but their nation, the Philippines?

Perhaps it is an echo of their Spanish colonial past.