Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore
What countries are the most successful? Are they the countries where these minorities have come from? Those countries that are failures seem to be the ones where these 'new demographics' are coming from and it isn't like it's some sort of secret. If they were so great at deciding who should be in charge back were they came from, then why are the countries such failures? Sure you can point at one thing or another, but the overall problem was that they were making the decisions and their culture. But to point that out here in the US is being racist to the illiterate and indoctrinated that now control the ballot box.
|
We assume too much that other people think like us and that they have access to democratic government such as ours. Most of the world is not like us. History and natural environment are often against other peoples.
Mexico of today was forged from a long historical background which extends far beyond when the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) was Muslim and meso American civilizations which were long gone by the time Columbus sailed from Spain. Mexico's ancestry has not been kind to Mexicans. To many there is no hope for change which positively addresses corruption and exploitation from the smallest village to Mexico City.
Central America has nothing but poor soil and dictators.
Bolivia might have mining and natural gas industries but Bolivia is to Argentina what Mexico is to the United States and China can dump goods in Bolivia even cheaper than Bolivians can domestically produce goods - even with all the poverty and extremely cheap labor.
Our nation, national creed, and industrious ethics were founded on dissenting (and often humorless) protestantism originating in England. Until the relatively recent effort to convert us to a socialist "multicultural" nation on the European model, we were a unique people and nation different from all others for all time.
Some of this I believe came from the larger northern European work ethic which dictated that one had best prepare for the coming winter now and party later, perhaps southern Europe could afford to put off until tomorrow what could be done today. There may have also been a difference which could be attributed to differences between protestantism and Catholic and orthodox faith, Catholics in 16th century England were far more inclined to be party minded and more socially looser than protestants.
We go out and push our ideals on other peoples and cultures where they might not work in practice. In theory, Mexicans have always had a vote. After independence in 1821, the nation was in constant political turmoil (practically a president or two every year and new coups plotted every week) and was essentially a disparate collection of villages rather than a nation until Benito Juarez' survival of the French in the 1860's. Porfirio Diaz consolidated power and essentially sold his country to foreigners by reelecting himself for 40 years or so (the power of the one vote that counts) until Madero let the tiger out of the cage in the form of the 1910 Mexican revolution. What transformed into the PRI held mock elections in which there was a public show of democracy, but the incoming president was chosen long before the election. Fox's election in the late 90's may have been the first genuinely democratic Mexican election ever held, but did it actually do anything positive for Mexico?
(For Don's benefit: The Mexican governments from Irtubide immediately after the revolution until President Benito Juarez' survival of the French intervention were all composed of whites - including Austrian Archduke Maximillian - and race is not indicative of either successful colonial rule or effective self government. Note that the memory of avid cock fighter Santa Anna, the ultimate "comeback kid" of a white man who, between forced exiles, lost Texas in 1836, the majority of the northern Mexican territorial claim in 1848, and presided over the 1853 Gadsen Purchase is hated in both Mexico and the US. Benito Juarez was a Zapotec Indian, Porfirio Diaz' father was white and his mother Indian, Madero was an idealistic white man not rooted in full reality)
Most people from third world countries have no idea of what our country and democracy are about, much less do they have the ability to exercise our not completely perfect direct access to government. And, after coming here and becoming citizens, they are going to vote on what affects their immediate interest without any idea of what that is doing to the nation. But on the other hand, we can lay all that to those in our government who are bent on changing our nation from what it has been as well as employers seeking cheap labor. The problems which are brought with these people from everywhere else are imported by Americans who do not have America's ultimate interest in heart - and that statement includes white Americans who damage our nation with immigration too vast to ensure assimilation to our national creed.
Our nation is being killed from within.