Democrats, slavery, Irish, and Indians

[ilbegone]

Voter fraud in 19th century New York City politics was shameless and unparalleled, if New York state was not the first state to require voter registration it was among the first.

The original method, utilized by both democrats and republicans, concerning the vote in the heavily immigrant 6th ward of New York city had to do with voter intimidation, both sides had their thugs out to drive off the other vote. This evolved into the democrat political machine using Irish immigrants who were not naturalized to cast ballots. The republicans pressed for a New York voter registration law, which was passed.

The democrat machine merely changed its tactics.

In 1863 an Irish immigrant sailor and cabinet maker from northern Ireland named John McCunn ( http://localhistory.morrisville.edu/...mccunn-37.html ) was nominated by Tammany Hall for a state superior court bench. He was outvoted in the returns (20,000 votes down in the democrat primary and just a few short in the election itself between democrat and republican cadidates), but it seems that republican ballot inspectors were bribed to let the numbers on both sides be changed without changing the total numbers of votes and McCunn ascended the bench. This tactic continued for many years. (Note Jose Angel Gutierrez becoming a county judge in Zavala County in the 1970's)

Another was to allow the ineligible, especially immigrants who had not been naturalized, to vote. (Nativo Lopez' Hermandad Mexicana Nacional during the Bob Dornan - Loretta Sanchez middle 1990's congressional race).

The most utilized method was to have groups who would vote multiple times under different names.

Some of this was accomplished by Irish immigrant judge McCunn and judge Barnard ( http://www.harpweek.com/09cartoon/Br...th=May&Date=25 ) banning journalists from proceedings (witnesses who would surely question the proceedings, a good case for open government) which naturalized 37,967 immigrants in 1868 (McCunn naturalized 27897, Barnard 10,070), of which a single city denizen, Patrick Goff, "verified" the date of arrival and attested to the "good character" of 2,161 of those immigrants in the fall. In October, Goff was a witness for more than 1000 applicants in three days. Thousands of naturalization certificates were awarded in the name of fictional immigrants, others were given to ineligible immigrants.

In each ward groups of paid voters were given multiple false identities, addresses, and voting districts to register and vote under ("vote often, and vote for me"). One election a group operating in the 6th, 8th and 14th wards were given hundreds of identities to vote under. There may have been over a thousand fraudulent registrations for the 1868 elections in the 6th ward alone. One man voted the democrat ticket 16 times for $30.00, another 9 times for $8.00 in the 10th and 7th wards.

On at least one occasion, the democrat voting inspectors waited for the early voting crowd to thin out, then copied names from the registration book. They left momentarily, and soon after returning the the polling station was inundated with voters casting ballots on those names. Republicans who came later in the day to cast their vote found that their name had been already voted on.

It seems that republican election inspectors were physically threatened, bribed, drugged, or had their registration books stolen.

It was revealed from the 1870 census that there were more votes cast in one five Points District than there were men, woman, and children living there, and only adult male citizens were eligible to vote then. In other districts, there were more votes cast than eligible male citizens. Between 1867 and 1869 6th ward ballots cast increased 80%, even though available lodging decreased by several tenements.

After federal laws were passed concerning voter fraud (again, Democrat political machine Tammany Hall was the inspiration for the statutes), the tactics changed again. The democrat party machine simply miscounted the votes which were cast.

****

I found some video by Alfonzo Rachel which brings out a succinct version of part of what I'm trying to say about racists who harp on the distant past to "prove" their points. The man unmercifully shreds revisionist democrats: http://alfonzorachel.com/382/i-almos...ments-of-toure You have to scroll down to get to two related videos.

Here is another location which you can get the same two videos: http://callmestormy.com/2012/08/21/d...ory-of-racism/

[ilbegone]

Something I have to clarify from what I have posted above

Some of the stuff brown supremacists come up with is exaggerated or invented, but there really was such a thing prior to certainly 1965 as pools placarded "NO MEXICANS" (didn't even have to mention blacks - that was implicitly understood) and whole blocks in towns they just couldn't go to, and the stuff about being back across the tracks before dark was a reality to many. It was clear that the brown man worked for the white man and not the other way around. Those who were on track to become successful had to adopt names which didn't sound so "Mexican". Freddy Fender and Ritchie Valens are two examples among many.

For example: there are people whom I'm close to who grew up in the same time frame, segregated conditions and communities near the aforementioned ethnic studies professor Armando Navarro - some in the families might have known some of the Navarro family. Quite a few don't relate to illegals, whether or not they can communicate with Mexicans. Not a lot of them seem to have common cause with Navarro, he seems to be to a lot of them what recently deceased Neo Nazi Jeff Hall might be to an average white guy just trying to make a living - if they even hear of either one or both of them those two will usually be regarded by most as racist nuts. There is a saying that if you are fighting monsters you need to take care not to become a monster yourself.

I spoke yesterday with someone who grew up in the local Barrio in the 1940's and 50's and asked a few questions about the above. Here is a synopsis from the conversation with that person:

Prior to 1960 people from the barrio who had trouble with whites in town were primarily ones who had a chip on the shoulder, a sort of a "you don't like me, do you"? (the inference is "because I'm not white"). I asked about restaurants that wouldn't serve brown people, to that person's memory there was only one: a hamburger joint opened by someone from out of town on the main drag (lots of traffic, this was before the freeway was built), it lasted from 1958 to 1961. There was one restaurant which was definitely out of financial reach of barrio inhabitants, a high priced steak house which catered to monied travelers on the way to Palm Springs. It's now a fraternal organization consisting almost entirely of members with one foot in the grave with some having both hands clenched around each other's throats.

The white local jeweler gave that person's mother possession of a watch on credit, which was paid in installments without a contract, the same was true for a brown neighbor whose much needed car was fixed by a white local mechanic and the bill was much more than the neighbor had on hand. Once again, it was resolved with a "pay me when you can", and payback was made.

The person"s family ate beef once a month (they were poor, beans and potatoes with every meal for filler with tortillas and maybe some chicken or something else they raised - pancakes on Sunday), the white butcher always gave them more than they asked for, the extra free of charge.

There is a lot more along that line, but that's the drift. The white people in town generally treated that person's family from the barrio well.

Asked directly, the source of racial problems in town before 1960 was 50/50 between white and brown. After 1960 a lot of the white merchants and police had retired or died and were replaced with people from out of town who didn't know the locals, it seems there were more problems then. The post 1960 police were generally assholes and bad about a night time curfew on people from the barrio (I'm not sure if this curfew was general, or just for minors), this went on until about 1968.

Things I have understood for quite a while:

There were no houses sold or rented north of the tracks to people from the local barrio because of the percentage of people from the barrio who were assholes and ruined it for everyone else (I'll get to more of this further down), brown people from out of town could rent or buy north of the tracks, but these were few. It hasn't mattered now for maybe 40 years or more.

Fontana was a KKK haven (it's now a sprawling barrio slum), as was Cabazon (now largely a white trash, meth lab community dominated by a large sheriff's station). Yucaipa didn't allow browns, blacks, or white trash within the city limits for any reason or at any time. Highland Boulevard north of San Bernardino was off limits to brown people. They would be told by white people in the street that they needed to leave, and if they didn't leave the police would show up to facilitate removal.

Something interesting related to me some time ago - when illegals began moving into the long term San Bernardino barrio, people who had lived there for generations moved out to where the white people lived (San Bernardino is now largely a town of welfare recipients, gang bangers, and corrupt politicians).

The local traditional barrio doesn't seem to have many if any illegals at all, mostly descendants of families that have largely been there for over a hundred years, not a lot of mixing between the two groups from what I see. There is, however, some nostalgia of the past concerning music and the way things were. On the other hand, the same people who might still listen to Little Joe y la Familia on occasion might just as soon crank some Led Zepplin or Rolling Stones.

A lot of families from the local barrio haven't spoken Spanish for two generations and the generation before that are still alive thinks in English, I know a fifth generation child with those ancestral conditions with deep roots in the local barrio who is now being taught Spanish in kindergarten.

Banning had a pool placarded "No Mexicans", I think it was filled in about 1958. There was a segregated school in the Zapo Barrio, but Brown versus the board of education changed that. I believe it was converted into a dwelling by one of the Calderons.

For generations Indians from the Morongo reservation were thrown out of town because they would get drunk and tear the town up, they would get drunk and tear the town up because they would get thrown out - a never ending cycle. And now with all that casino money is flowing and two big box size welfare offices in east Banning, guess which way the red carpet is rolled out and which "home owners association" community is guard shack gated off from outsiders? And who's still drinking themselves to death with top shelf liquor instead of cheap rot gut?

I believe about 1980, two Banning police officers threw an elderly Indian woman over the reservation fence on the east side of Hathaway, the tribe retaliated by fencing off their half of the street, I saw it and believe it's still that way. About the same time a KKK adherent from Cabazon came on campus and threatened the black principle at the Banning high school.

Blacks in the area lived in northeast Banning, somewhat in the barrio Ligartijo area.

As far as the "notables" in the local barrio:

There was a big time heroin dealer in the 1940's and fifties who supplied drugs and pimped out his wife and her sister to celebrities visiting Palm Springs. He became active in politics in the early 70's, and encouraged local youth sports while taking credit for money supplied by a foundation set up by a local white rancher for that purpose - and that's not all of the scandals which he was a part of by any means. When he died in the 21st century, the man was lauded by pandering and ignorant of fact "news sources" as being a Latino civic hero who stressed education and was a role model for Latino youth. For some reason I'm reminded of the sleaziness of the current Mike Rios of Moreno Valley sensation, a man on the school board who is accused of pimping women (I believe including minors) and attempted murder. Maybe 40 years from now he'll be declared to be a hero to the "Latino community".

One local barrio family dealt pot in bulk in the 60's, at least one member of another dealt in just about anything illegal to turn a buck from the 70's on except maybe contract killings and prostitution - you name it. There was a spate where a number of people died from his bad drugs.

Another family vandalized a church in the 50's over a property dispute.

There were frictions in the Barrio, the most notable being two families who have lived next door to one another for 90 or 100 years and have hated each other for every long second of it. Maybe no one in those families know why they still hate each other, might just be family traditions from the long deceased.

There were a number of families who thought they were better than the other families (some nose in the air stuff), and to relate all the scandalous and eyebrow raising funny stuff that happened in that barrio would require writing a book. In spite of all the spats, nearly all these people are related to each other in one way or another, some in the most confusing of complex ways. The barrio was the home of a Latino movie star's grandmother (some funny stories about her), some of his relatives still live there.

Turning back to Banning a few years ago and debunking the notion that everyone brown is the same person:

Some Mexicans (from Mexico) moved in next door to Maurice Calderon's elderly aunt Maxine (Maurice Calderon is or was head of Arrowhead credit union, big supporter of a Mexican music and dance organization, I forget the name of it). They killed her dog, installed fraudulent property hubs, knocked her fence down, and tried to appropriate 5 or 10 feet of her property by building a block wall that far inside her lot. I saw it with my own eyes. They derided her for not being "Mexican" enough, not speaking Spanish "right", and hurled other abuse at her. Incredibly, Banning police originally took the side of the newcomers, but probably a Calderon working in City Hall managed to turn it around and eventually the interlopers left, I believe justifiably ran off. The woman is now deceased, She may have been almost 100 years old, at least 80.

[ilbegone]

Once again, late 20th and 21st century American brown supremacists like to compare themselves not only to to the early and mid 19th century Irish migration in attempting to "prove" white racism against themselves (which we have seen there are quite a few situational differences, in some cases the brown supremacists are way off the mark), they also like to point to late 19th century Italian migration.

The first Italians to come to America were the exploitative Patroni. First plying their trade in France, from where they were eventually expelled, they would charm away or even buy children from poverty stricken parents of depressed regions of Italy - the idea peddled was that the child had a chance to have a better life.

The Patroni would ship the kids to New York, where they would be dressed in pitiful rags, taught to play a musical instrument, and sent into the streets to beg for money - the worse the weather the better the haul since people felt sorry for them. The organ grinder with the monkey was an outgrowth of exploitation of Italian children by Italians, eventually both practices were outlawed in New York.

About this time, Irish immigration had slowed and the descendants of Irish generally moved up and out, if not all to middle class status the occupations were generally different than their immigrant ancestors, creating a vaccum in New York. The Patroni took advantage of this by adapting and maybe taking some lessons from the Irish.

They developed networks within America and Italy and themselves established businesses in New York such as saloons and grocers, which expanded to becoming banks (which held money but paid no interest, which the bankers would invest or sometimes even abscond with), and means to securely send remittances home. As well, they functioned as middlemen in the procurement and implementation of Italian labor. There were scams perpetrated where Italian job seekers would pay an up front fee to get a job, work for a short while, and be laid off by the patrone - who would collect another up front fee from another group of Italians, work them for a little while, and lay them off to collect from another group. There was skimming and kick backs too. The Italians were exploited by their fellow countrymen, largely because they didn't speak English, maybe didn't want to learn English, and left themselves vulnerable. As well, there were a lot of exploitative "company store" issues concerning patroni and Italian labor.

I am reminded of something I heard of 20th century Mexican agricultural labor contractors and Mexican construction foremen, that some would skim the payroll or demand kickbacks because they were in the payroll chain and non English speaking Mexicans relied on them for work.

The Italians, like some of the earlier Mexicans, generally came without their women and would return to Italy for the winter. For those who decided to stay, the Patroni could act as middlemen brokers for arranging women to come to America to wed Italian men.

The occupations included not only bottom level jobs, but construction, railroad and and agricultural labor. There are reports of complaints that the Americans missed their Irish labor, that Italians didn't work as hard or good as the Irish. On the other hand, Irish and other northern European immigrants were surprised by by the amount of production required in America, they worked a lot harder in America than the old country.

It seems that the largest expression of discrimination concerning Italians came from Irish and their descendants, not the least concerning the varieties of Catholicism. The Irish clergy complained that the Italians were so ignorant concerning the religion that they were incapable of even receiving the sacraments. I believe there was also a complaint about the lack of desire to learn English. A compromise was for the Vatican to send priests of northern Italian origin to America, which the Irish clergy didn't like because of factional differences and local control issues. The Immigrants themselves didn't like the arrangement because largely being southern Italians, they didn't like or trust northern priests. They hid a saint they used in one of their festivals in a saloon because they believed that the priests would appropriate it and charge them for its use.

To Americans, all Italians pretty much sound alike, so they must all be Italians. However, there is a lot of identification with region and locality. Confirming my book understanding, a modern Italian informed me a couple of months ago that northern Italians look down on Sicilians as being ghetto. No matter how much an American with Italian ancestors might claim to be "Italian", that person will be an American to Italians in Italy, the same of any American who claims to be "Irish" within Ireland, as it is with those Americans who claim to be "Mexican".

This reminds me of a difference between northern and southern Mexicans, that northern Mexicans tend to look down on southern Mexicans as bumpkins and southern Mexicans tend not to trust northern Mexicans. One person who grew up in the culture (one parent was northern Mexican, the other southern) and had employed Mexicans over the years informed me some years ago that northerners were more "crafty" or "calculating", the general preference of that person was to hire southern Mexicans.

The Italians became American, just like the Irish and the Germans. However, their migrations ended and it was formerly the role of the schools to bring about assimilation and the concept of participation in the exceptional-ism of America. The schools are now part of the plan to deconstruct America and the flood continues.

Here is an interesting article concerning the abuses of the Patroni, It appears to be transcribed from a government document (the style of language is pre modern) and is described as sourced from "BIBLIOGRAPHY: Bulletin of the Department of Labor by United States Dept. of Labor No. 9 March, 1897 Government Printing Office-Washington D.C. (1897)" http://www.thehistorybox.com/ny_city...rticle1528.htm

As well, what appears to be a clip from a contemporary article from the New York Times concerning the same: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DD405B8785F0D3

[ilbegone]

After this post, I'll get to the Chinese, another 19th century migration which brown supremacists like to trot out to "prove" 21st century white racism towards themselves.

This post concerns a "back in the day" conversation I had with another whose childhood was prior to the Civil Rights act and started out with a question inspired from a previous post here comparing the differences between northern and southern Italians and likewise Mexicans:

This reminds me of a difference between northern and southern Mexicans, that northern Mexicans tend to look down on southern Mexicans as bumpkins and southern Mexicans tend not to trust northern Mexicans. One person who grew up in the culture (one parent was northern Mexican, the other southern) and had employed Mexicans over the years informed me some years ago that northerners were more "crafty" or "calculating", the general preference of that person was to hire southern Mexicans.

I wish I had more of an ability to relate this conversation, I feel quite inadequate to relate the full depth and meaning of it. Here is a very brief synopsis.

The woman, herself a child of Mexicans (who were born in Mexico), said that she doesn't know or care in the slightest what Mexican nationals think now (essentially, screw them), this was a while ago - the late 1950's.

In her time Northern Mexicans hopped back and forth across the border, might work a couple weeks here or a month there before going back. They were all "rah rah rah Mexico", were more about having a party than working. My perception is that she considered Northern Mexicans to be "border trash".

Southern Mexicans came to stay. They took a job and stayed with it, were much more reliable than northern Mexicans. Their children learned English in school when there was no such thing as bilingual programs or curriculum which peddled the notion that they needed to "keep their heritage".

There were correspondence courses for the adults to learn English, which they enrolled in - as a teenager she had helped a number of them to learn English in that manner.

The conversation rolled into the descendants of Mexicans, that the third and fourth generations just go to hell, many discovered welfare, food stamps and Medi-Cal. (This corresponds with a study I saw that shows that the first American generation generally does better economically than the Mexican immigrant generation, but the second American generation economically regresses below the first, there were no reasons in the study stated as to why)

There was more concerning reasons of why this may be so, but her reasoning boiled down to (my interpretation of her words fully follows) that many of the grand kids became spoiled with a sense of entitlement and took the easy way out. I know this woman grew up dirt poor, and there was no such thing as welfare for "Mexicans" (and not many others, if at all) in her day - you worked and scrounged and made do with what you had or you went hungry and ragged. Maybe I'm off the mark, but I believe that too much today poverty is defined by a lack of a certain amount of possessions rather than degree of destitution.

I do not have the long term experience one way or another, but I was told once upon a time that if someone gets used to living on unemployment or disability, they will never want to go back. What amazes me are the amount of people (I've personally met) who have Medi-Cal but can afford to drink in bars and smell like weed.

[ilbegone]

I don't really know a lot about 19th century Chinese in America. I haven't found books concerning the subject (I do the best I can to filter out books biased either way on any subject), and, as concerns many other subjects, I don't entirely trust the internet. However, there are some things I have found while looking into other subjects.

Starting with 19th and early 20 century Chinese in Mexico...

I have heard over the years snippets here and there concerning racism in Mexico concerning Chinese. There is a family I personally know that the Mexican patriarch left central Mexico prior to the 1910 revolution in a large part because he had Chinese ancestry and was subject to prejudice in a land full of racial preoccupation (there were formerly nearly forty words to describe various degrees of all kinds of racial mixtures). It's as if he couldn't be "Mexican" until he came to the United States. He said he didn't leave anything behind in Mexico.

I had also heard from various places that Pancho Villa's bunch killed every Chinese they found, which was confirmed by an exhaustive biography of Villa (no axes to grind) I have recently read. It seems that since they were primarily merchants in Chihuahua they were considered exploiters of the Mexican people. However, Villa admired Japanese, of whom two were used in a plot to poison the extraordinarily paranoid Villa using a slow acting poison in a cup of coffee (it had worked using dogs in an experiment). The two Japanese discretely fled and Villa didn't even get sick. Perhaps a low dose with Villa splitting the cup with someone else (unconscious paranoid habit, his eating habits showed lots of paranoia about being poisoned, such as showing up unexpected to share meals among various groups of his men and switching plates with other diners). Anyhow, it seems that a Chinese shop keeper was considered worse than any of the elitist land owner, monopolistic, politically autocratic, abusive, kleptomaniac, wealthy Terraza clan that Villa hated with a turbo charged passion.

In the 19th century America Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) decried prejudice against Chinese in California, it seems that many fled California for New York city (a New York city Chinese laundry owner formerly of California said "Here no boys throw rocks at you"). An Irish immigrant named Denis Kearney founded the Marxist inspired Workingman's Party of California who proposed "dealing" with the Chinese first and the capitalists second. He also claimed to be the inspiration of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion act.

http://www1.assumption.edu/users/mcc...n/default.html

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...4p02M-CbMUTC9w

It has been mentioned that there was a severe recession when the Union Pacific railroad completed the bulk of its track construction with perhaps thousands of Chinese laborers laid off and seeking work. There were riots in San Francisco which remind me of the Irish riots in New York concerning freeing black slaves - cheap competition for scarce work.

Most Chinese expected to return to China after making a certain amount of money, few Chinese women came with them. There was trafficking of Chinese women to serve as prostitutes for the Chinese men, there were quite a few Chinese men / Irish women marriages in New York due to the amount of Irish casualties during the Civil War.

The Chinese were addicted to gambling among themselves, there were opium dens. I believe they mostly kept to themselves and had trouble assimilating (most didn't want to stay and had no interest in either mixing or becoming American) which wouldn't endear them to the mainstream culture. There were Tongs which were nominally for social purposes but in fact were fronts for criminal Chinese gangs.

The bitter background discussion leading up to the 1868 14th amendment (just after the civil war) was about the black right to vote and bear arms while denying firearms to Indian tribes with which the United States were engaged in hostilities and denying Chinese workers American citizenship. The compromise reached resulted in the wording of the amendment, which had the eventual unintended consequence of granting birthright citizenship to 20th and 21st century children of illegal aliens.

Wong Kim Ark was born in America to Chinese parents and went with his parents when they returned to China. Upon his return to America it was alleged that he was a foreigner who shouldn't enter the United States. In the 1898 United States vs Wong Kim Ark the supreme court took the literal interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I haven't carefully studied either one:

The supreme court decision concerning Wong Kim Ark http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../649/case.html

An essay concerning whether or not the Supreme court may have gotten Wong Kim Ark wrong http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12...be_considered/

I need to know more, but while it is clear that there was discrimination against 19th century Chinese in America, they generally didn't as a group make an effort to become a part of "us". On the other hand, there was discrimination against Chinese in 19th and 20th century Mexico as well. Doesn't make a big difference if one is lynched in San Francisco by a white American mob or shot in the head in Chihuahua or Guanajuato by brown mestizo revolutionaries, it's all the same thing.

[Greg in LA]

Here is an interesting article written about two years ago about Alipac's William Gheen, and his war against Peter Brimelow and Vdare.com. It's interesting to note how many wars William Gheen wages.
This article prompted me to email my letter to Gheen, to let Peter Brimelow know that he wages wars against a lot of people and that he is not alone.
I think it is a good article to read.
William Gheen is a ninnie, and he has alienated just about everybody.
I am sorry to say it saddens me how many activist groups fighting this issue are headed by some fairly loathsome individuals.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/on-tur...acs-bill-gheen

[Greg in LA]

Oops, I meant to put this post in the wrong thread.