Open Thread (8/8/2008)

When will we ever see a real, authentic copy of Barack H. Obama's birth certificate?  (Not the photoshopped version that has been released so far...)

What's the big secret that they're trying to hide?  If there's nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Seriously, AnF, you need to find a better news outlet.  Or is there a more sinister talking points website you are getting your attempted smears from?  This just shows that if you can't beat 'em on policy, try to paint 'em as non-US citizens.

I demand to see proof of your US citizenship.  I will not rest until you cough it up.  Not the one you get from the County Clerk, I demand to see the one that was signed and stamped the day you popped out of your mother.  Anything less is unacceptab.e

-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm

Wow. The "where's the birth certificate" attack point landed with a big thud the first time around. So -- let's fire it up again!

Somebody's watched "The Manchurian Candidate" one too many times.

By the way, why hasn't anyone posted Ronald Reagan's birth certificate here? I'll bet he was secretly Maori!

John McCain's birth certificate would have been issued by Panama on Panamanian government stamped and certified paper specifically used for recording birth/marriage/death registrations. It would be completely in Spanish and look just like my daughter's, who was also born in the Panama Canal Zone. McCain would not have received an American birth certificate but a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

Oh, and by the way... GO CUBS!!!

No, IP... it isn't sad... it is something that doesn't interest you.  Sure, there's just about everything to be critical about (checked the air in your tires lately?), but there's something here that just doesn't seem right.

And a lot of people thought the story about John Edwards' affair/love child was some sort of a kook fringe deal too.  Oops!  So much for that story, which rumbled around for a couple of months, while the MSlM ignored it.   And while his wife was being treated for cancer no less.

If there's nothing to hide with the birth certificate, then why is this such a big secret?  Just like John Kerry's military records.  Release it and end it.

What's to prove that McCain is not a space alien sent to destroy our civilization? Does he have a non-space alien certificate of some kind?

Well, to be fair, Hawaii really shouldn't be part of the union anyway, but that's hardly Obama's fault.

Well, to be fair, Hawaii really shouldn't be part of the union anyway, but that's hardly Obama's fault.

Have you been there, we should keep it. nice.

No, I love Hawaii. I'm just saying that annexing soveriegn states on the basis of white supremacy to make boatloads of money is not a good policy.

Um, didn't you get an American History class at some point? Maybe I'm just  not communicating well or something?

They attacked the country on the basis of "promoting democracy" and then wouldn't let any of the non-white inhabitants vote.

Is there a single person who thinks that's something other than a textbook case of "white supremacy"?

Revisionism indeed.

This country has always been mostly white. That's a simple historical fact.

I just soda shot out my nose.  Yet another "fact" from Mr. Biker.  What's next, Mt. Rushmore has "always" had the faces on it?

Please leave your crass liberal revisionism out of discussions.

There was actually an anti-annexation petition signed by over 90% of native Hawaiians in 1898, and I believe Cleveland refused to annex the islands during his (second?) term.  So let's go ahead and label the native Hawaiian people "crass liberals", and we'll throw Cleveland on that pile as well.

There.  Now we can get back to your regularly scheduled "America Doesn't Do Anything Wrong EVER" history lesson.

So why did George W. make such a big issue about the Russians not respecting soverign country's borders?  Is it another don't do as I do, do as I say?

Maybe I better clarify before you chuckleheads twist everything out of context.

This country - within its geopolitical borders at whatever time since we became a country after declaring our independence from Great Britain - has always been mostly white.

I'm sorry you libs have such a problem understanding the word "country". We weren't a country before 1776 and anything outside the borders of the states, no matter if it was a territory or not, was not a part of our country.

It should leave a distasteful afterthought--you are not someone who likes racial supremacy, and so looking at history, it would bother you.

"From a historical perspective, I know what Xian and others mean, but it still leaves a distasteful afterthought every time I've read it on this thread.  I don't have any better suggestion or term to offer as a replacement;"

I believe the correct historical term might be "manifest destiny."

Yes, I don't understand the difference of annexing a territory and deciding who deserved the right to vote on the basis of the color of their skin and giving the white ones the right and "white supremacy".

But hey, if you say it's "bunk, pure and simple", it must be true because in your view of the society, it's not based on actual facts or arguments, just that your word is worth more than anyone else's. What's that called again?

We weren't a country before 1776 and anything outside the borders of the states, no matter if it was a territory or not, was not a part of our country.

Well, we've moved the goal posts quite far down the field with this little crack now haven't we?  Thanks for letting us know what a country is and is not.  A definition that will no doubt be subject to change when it suits you in future debates.

xian's claim of "white supremacy" is bunk, pure and simple.

What is interesting about this perspective (that Americans haven't acted from a place of believing white people are superior and enacted laws to reflect such beliefs) is that even the most conservative of historians understand that white supremacy has been an incredibly strong force in the shaping of this nation.  One needs to only read the arguments in favor of secession to understand that white slave owners believed they were only free men if they were allowed to own African-Americans.  One needs to only read the daily papers from the 1870s to understand that the slaughter and removal of the Native American "savages" was considered good for them.  One needs only to read the editorials and congressional speeches that were effusive in their praise of the Chinese Exclusionary Acts.

It is honestly not debatable that the American government has acted out of a place of white racial superiority on many occasions in the past.  And yes, our policies toward Hawaii were one of the low points.  You would honestly be hard pressed to find any historian working today who would argue otherwise.

"Territories have always experienced different and unique status under US law. For the most part they are subject to federal regulation but those born in them do not automatically get citizenship. They are also not always a part of our normal political processes."

While certainly true, I still don't see how that makes them part of some other country, or part of no country.  Your definition of "anything outside the borders of the states" would mean that our nation's capital is not in our country, which is prima facie absurd.

While it may help to define an academic discussion to distinguish between "manifest destiny" and the "white man's burden," from a philosophical and moral context an argument can certainly be made that one was merely a continuation of the other.  Not everyone agrees that these two concepts were indentical or interchangeable, but it seems to me rather obvious that they were at least related.  There is certainly a real sense in which the "obligation" of white Americans to keep moving west, even across the Pacific, and to "help" the indigenous populations along the way, was all part of a single mind set.

A couple of paragraphs from one of the articles you cited:

As the Civil War faded into history, the term Manifest Destiny experienced a brief revival. In the 1892 U.S. presidential election, the Republican Party platform proclaimed: "We reaffirm our approval of the Monroe doctrine and believe in the achievement of the manifest destiny of the Republic in its broadest sense." What was meant by "manifest destiny" in this context was not clearly defined, particularly since the Republicans lost the election. In the 1896 election, however, the Republicans recaptured the White House and held on to it for the next 16 years. During that time, Manifest Destiny was cited to promote overseas expansion. Whether or not this version of Manifest Destiny was consistent with the continental expansionism of the 1840s was debated at the time, and long afterwards.^[27]

For example, when President William McKinley advocated annexation of the Territory of Hawaii in 1898, he said that "We need Hawaii as much and a good deal more than we did California. It is manifest destiny." On the other hand, former President Grover Cleveland, a Democrat who had blocked the annexation of Hawaii during his administration, wrote that McKinley's annexation of the territory was a "perversion of our national destiny." Historians continued that debate; some have interpreted the overseas expansion of the 1890s as an extension of Manifest Destiny across the Pacific Ocean; others have regarded it as the antithesis of Manifest Destiny.^[28]

...

Unlike Cuba, the United States did annex Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after the war with Spain. The acquisition of these islands marked a new chapter in U.S. history. Traditionally, territories were acquired by the United States for the purpose of becoming new states, on equal footing with already existing states. These islands, however, were acquired as colonies rather than prospective states, a process validated by the Insular Cases, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all areas under American control. In this sense, annexation was a violation of traditional Manifest Destiny. According to Frederick Merk, "Manifest Destiny had contained a principle so fundamental that a Calhoun and an O'Sullivan could agree on it—that a people not capable of rising to statehood should never be annexed. That was the principle thrown overboard by the imperialism of 1899."^[29] (The Philippines was eventually given its independence in 1946; Guam and Puerto Rico have special status to this day, but all their people are full citizens of the United States.)

On the other hand, Manifest Destiny had also contained within it the idea that "uncivilized" peoples could be improved by exposure to the Christian, democratic values of the United States. In his decision to annex the Philippines, President McKinley echoed this theme: "There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them...." Rudyard Kipling's poem "The White Man's Burden", which was subtitled "The United States and the Philippine Islands", was a famous expression of these sentiments, which were common at the time. Many Filipinos, however, resisted this effort to "uplift and civilize" them, resulting in the outbreak of the Philippine-American War in 1899. After the war began, William Jennings Bryan, an opponent of overseas expansion, wrote that "‘Destiny’ is not as manifest as it was a few weeks ago."^[30]

Kevin,

You're begging the question. You know what I mean by a country within its own geo-political boundaries. You also know that Territories enjoy a special limbo. But my definition isn't the point of this discussion.

The point is xian's continued bs cry of racism at every turn and in this instance specifically his cockamamie attempt to judge our nation's history by modern standards: something that every historian recognizes as invalid. Perhaps from now on he should just be known as xian Churchill. What a load of bull.

Hawaii was never majority white, including now.  When European and American ships started calling at Hawaii more than 200 years ago, they brought with them diseases that the native Hawaiians had no immunity to, and the population was nearly wiped out.  Even if the sailors had attempted to limit the spread of disease, they had an imcomplete idea of how disease was transmitted, so they would have been unsuccessful.  White settlers moved to the islands, and almost immediately brought in large numbers of Asians to work the cane fields - and who now comprise Hawaii's largest single ethnic group.  But even that is a little misleading, since so many Hawaiians are of mixed race.  And the native Hawaiians never lost the vote - it was denied to Asians in the early years, but the native Hawaiians could always vote, there just weren't that many of them.  The fact that 90% of them were against annexation means that a large majority of a small minority were against it.  Most of the white settlers took Hawaiian citizenship, and we can say that they showed a dual loyalty, but we can hardly be comfortable with a system where their votes would count for less than a native Hawaiian's vote.  In any case, during the one vote where everyone could participate equally - statehood - more than 90% voted "yes."

The white settlers insisting on rules denying Asians the right to vote was one of the sorrier episodes in Hawaiian history, and in my opinion, it's exactly that sort of perverse race consciousness that was one of our most toxic imports to the islands.  Hawaiians society, as it stands now, is far less obsessed about race compared to the lower 48, but it's still there.  In any case, I'm not saying that anything was fair - in fact, it was hugely unfair.  Additionally, it was unfair that people had no immunity to foreign diseases, it was unfair that they had a functioning, sovereign country and lost it in a hundred years or so, and it will probably be unfair when we eventually lose it to someone else, since nothing is forever.  But I don't think that there is anything unusual about what happened in Hawaii - there's not a society on earth that is in the same place as they were when they climbed down from the trees.  Everyone displaced someone else, and our concern for the displaced seems to be the only new development, as depressing as that is.

"This is a man who would watch a lynching and tell the victim to "quit whining"!"

You've got a serious attitude problem saying something like this. You don't know me and you never will, but you can damn well be sure that you are so far off the mark it's just pathetic.

You owe everybody an apology for introducing that kind of trash talk.

I think both Xian and Dboons comments are really offensive and deserve some sort of limited access to this site or removal.

I don't get personal. I have no interest in getting personal. This is the same guy who constantly insults every who disagrees with him and pronouces what is or isn't a fact.

All I said is that the type of person who cannot see how historical laws based directly based on denying rights to people because they were non-white have to do with white supremacy, you probably are not too interested in fighting racism. Then I said that if you call pointing out historical fact as "crying racism", it stands to reason that you might not be interested in dealing with other examples of historical racism.

This is the same guy who in this thread calling me "xian Churchill" with no logical connection or commentary--he merely hates me for no reason and hates Ward Churchill and therefore we are the same guy.

Then someone other else with a vendatta askes for me to be censured.

Gordy, if you are going to moderate your blog, that's cool. If not, that's your call. Please don't tell me to play nice. I have nothing person against anyone and don't bring people's profession or personal life into anything I write.

I merely comment on their comments and put up with a ton of personal attacks without retaliating. I don't want an apology, I merely want people to stop being so boorish.

Or maybe we are trying to start dialogue by conversing with opposing viewpoints in a thoughtful way. It might seem like a strange idea to those not familiar with the experience, but it is actually what the founders of the country had in mind.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think it is you who are unclear on the concept. What attracts me (and others) of all political stripes to this site is that Gordy strives to create a community that embodies those most sacred of American values. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be the keeper of all things American, but I assure that I love the country as much as anyone you will ever encounter. It is my believe that by demonizing other's viewpoints and calling for the execution of those with liberal viewpoints, you are not doing a good job of pushing the core values that make the country great. But I'm not authority--I'll let others decide.

What I do take exception to is you and "Run for cover liberal" attempting to act as some sort of keepers of the website. There are a number of reasons why I am interested in being around the site, and the fact that it has competent administration is not the least of them.

Gordy, if you really want this gentlemen annointing themselves the enforcers of the site, please let me know directly so that I can devote my time to other pursuits. I respect your wishes.

As to my contributions to the site, I don't put a lot of stock in the abrasive comments left at the blog. I relatively frequently receive email from some of the true conservatives who read the site with an open mind, and I enjoy the exchanges that develop. If everyone engages me in thoughtful discussion that improves each of us, then that would be great, but I've been around long enough to know that some are simply not interested in that, and I have the serenity to let them be.

That they then project their own insecurities on to the motives of others is the least of my concerns.

Finally, to address the only concrete argument you make in the long line personal attacks, no, you are completely wrong--you might call them crazy liberals and demand that they too be executed, but there are many historians who believe that human beings have agency, and don't make so many excuses for genocidal behavior. Obviously, there were very normal human beings who grew up in Germany or Spain or American or China or Russia, and grew up to be genocidal murderers. There are plenty of historians who call for the study of such phenomena to prevent it in the future rather than merely calling for it to be buried as a different historical era.

"Or maybe we are trying to start dialogue by conversing with opposing viewpoints in a thoughtful way."

Since when does "a thoughtful way" incorporate the premise everyone here is an irremediable racist?

Oh, those are your magic criteria? Really? And which of those have I done?

That's right. Neither.

Man up. You owe everyone an apology, and me specifically.

Grow up Boonster. Go back and look at the sequence of comments. You jumped in on it first. You have no right to complain.