Why Obama is so bad and why Europe loves him

[Gerald]

Surely it was a bird that flew unusually wobbly, in the ether

[Sailor Steve]

While it's true the United States declared independence before Mexico did, the first permanent settlement on the North American continent was St. Augustine, founded in 1565. The first English settlement was Jamestown, founded 42 years later, in 1607.

Technically speaking, the Mexicans' ancestors had a city going here a generation before the Americans' ancestors did.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While it's true the United States declared independence before Mexico did, the first permanent settlement on the North American continent was St. Augustine, founded in 1565. The first English settlement was Jamestown, founded 42 years later, in 1607.

Technically speaking, the Mexicans' ancestors had a city going here a generation before the Americans' ancestors did.

Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.

Color it any way you like. The fact is that their ancestors were here before our ancestors.

I agree that Obama is just another politician, and not one I have any love for, but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Color it any way you like. The fact is that their ancestors were here before our ancestors.

I agree that Obama is just another politician, and not one I have any love for, but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

To delve into it even deeper and get technical they weren't Mexican but another native population. But you're right someone was here before we were. And I've also noticed this ranting, people need to show less of their D's and R's and show more brain.

To delve into it even deeper and get technical they weren't Mexican but another native population

But surely mexicans were mexicans as soon as mexico came about which was in the 1500s.
So does that mean that those complaining about their Presidents lack of knowledge and his rewriting of history are the ones who are displaying their own lack of knowledge and are rewriting history.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But surely mexicans were mexicans as soon as mexico came about which was in the 1500s.
So does that mean that those complaining about their Presidents lack of knowledge and his rewriting of history are the ones who are displaying their own lack of knowledge and are rewriting history.

This thread's title... talk about seriously rewriting history for our 44th president...

But on, it would behoove anybody who is actually interested in this to readup on his quote. "Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land."

He's actually not incorrect on this, regardless of what people choose to think or openly preach.

By the time Cortes launched his northern military campaigns, several colonial provinces had already been established by the Spanish. Situated between Michoacan, Guerrero, Morelos, Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, and Queretaro was the province of Mexico. Originally, it was called Mexico-Tenochtitlan by the Nahua Aztec tribe the Mexicas who had used this term since the 14th century (they also used the shorter "Mexihco") for their home city (which is what the name translates to be: "city" or "place"; note that by this time, all the natives had all either been killed off or driven away OR had been forced into slavery). The Spanish just used "Mexico" for the region, however, and actually established the capitol Mexico City not but a short time later.

I don't think it's necessary of me or anyone else to tell you how/why they chose "Mexico City" OR for that matter what the inhabitants were called... it's pretty redundant.

Although, it's also pretty redundant that Obama is the president of the country- not some commissar... it's very sad when a person can't figure that out, or figure out how to use Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexica
http://www.aboutmexico.net/mexico/etymology.asp

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

but it seems to me that more and more this forum is filling up with far-right tripe hype, more and more ranting and less and less discussion.

Agreed. It's become a "OMG i'm soooooo outraged! Let me show everyone how outraged I am by posting this in the right wing echo chamber.....err....I mean General Topics!"

[tater]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Very true but those where Spaniards, not Mexicans. I think what is happening here is a different interpretation of the facts. Ask yourself this, if Mexicans weren't Mexican before September 16, 1810, does that mean that we were not Americans before July 4, 1776? Bottom line Obama is a politician speaking at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Politics as usual.

This. He explicitly refers to Americans as coming from elsewhere, can't mix and match. Americans are British (etc) until the Revolution, and Mexicans are Spaniards. Period.

If Bush had said this, the press would have been all over the "gaffe." They'd probably be chalking it up to his lack of "gravitas." Remember "gravitas?"

Mexicans are "Mexicans" when a country called "Mexico" exists, not before. "Americans" includes Native Americans who've been here since the Bering Sea ice bridge, does that mean we're 30,000 years old? (and since human migration went from North to South the US must predate the rest of the Americans (they hit Alaska before Canada)

[AVGWarhawk]

I thought humans migrated from the landbridge between Russia and Alaska. Maybe it was the Vikings?

[tater]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I thought humans migrated from the landbridge between Russia and Alaska. Maybe it was the Vikings?

It was land far enough back, then a mixture with ice/land past that (I wanna say it required some ice crossing as recently as 10,000 years ago. But regardless, Bering (what is now Sea) bridge was the crossing.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by tater

It was land far enough back, then a mixture with ice/land past that (I wanna say it required some ice crossing as recently as 10,000 years ago. But regardless, Bering (what is now Sea) bridge was the crossing.

Yes, ice crossing. I believe it established that humans/animals did migrate from region to region via this ice bridge. So then, I guess the US really belongs to.....the Russians!!!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

Mexicans are "Mexicans" when a country called "Mexico" exists, not before. "Americans" includes Native Americans who've been here since the Bering Sea ice bridge, does that mean we're 30,000 years old? (and since human migration went from North to South the US must predate the rest of the Americans (they hit Alaska before Canada)

But that's only true if you define "Americans" as denizens of the American continents. Commonly and (I think) in this context, "Americans" has to be defined as citizens of the United States, in which my argument on immediate ancestors still stands.

[tater]

Yeah, but in the context of "America" meaning USA (1776+), "Mexico" must also mean the nation. If he meant indigenous peoples, then you have to include those in what is now the US, too.

Bottom line is that had this been the previous President, the Press would be making MY argument, be sure Obama's gaffes are just misstatements—"we know what he meant, but he's very busy, and has to talk to a lot of people, etc." When Bush did the same "he's not that bright."

I think in general most such misstatements (by all Presidents, yes, even Bush) are actually just accidents that happen when you live under a microscope.

If one is going to quote the Declaration it would be best to do it in total. Otherwise you lose both your audiance, who also know the Declaration, and the electorate.