Best of My Writtings on Quora, Answers to Questions & Blog Posts
How and why is the USA society very divided socially and politically in 2017?
How and why America is sociopolitically divided in 2017 is really pretty simple, almost sadly so. But the divide for most of us is not on race. I write this, as I’ve stated in other articles, as a person deeply invested in my spouse’s nonwhite, Asian, Pacific Islander, Spanish culture. Race is not an issue in the American divide. The issue is the freedom of a democratic republic versus the collectivism of socialism. Race is constantly stirred up as an issue by the progressive left in order to divide us and weaken the image of ‘traditional’ (my word for conservative) Americans. Thus black and Latino leftist advocates stir that pot to deceive, a primary leftist tactic (deception). The American Revolution was a violent demand for natural freedoms guaranteed by Natural law. The nation’s founders wrote the U.S. Constitution just after that war to reflect the rights the American British Colonists had been denied by their government and other of the world’s peoples had been denied for centuries. It was a statement against the concentration of power in a central government because rights inherently belong to the individual.
Until the American break with the mother country (Britain), societies throughout history had primarily concentrated power in a central government and often in only one person (usually a male). The phrase ‘strongman rule’ probably reflects the obvious fact that primitive societies were ruled by the guy who could beat up everybody else, but intelligence surely was factored in as well. From the beginning of time, societies were, in terms of size and historical time, progressively: clans, tribes, city states, kingdoms, and empires, all centrally controlled political entities. These were not free. The people occasionally had varying degrees of liberty, but these nation states were not free. America was.
A system of republican federalism was chosen to, among other things, guarantee the rights of the people in each region and prevent areas with large populations (many big cities) from controlling everyone else with massive voting blocks. That is the basis for the Electoral College. America is not a pure democracy, which would be bad. It is a democratic republic.
Socialism developed in the 19th. Century, with Marxism from the writings of Karl Marx being perhaps the greatest expression of it. Russia, Europe’s most backward kingdom and still practicing feudal serfdom into the 20th. Century, was a hotbed for the socialistic revolutionaries to attempt an experiment. Socialism concentrates power in the central government with the government controlling all of the social programs to ‘benefit’ (insert laugh) all of the people equally and owning or controlling all businesses. This is very similar to Fascism, although progressive liberals claim they are opposites. The latter, found in Nazis Germany and in Italy before and during World War II, concentrates complete power in a central government which does not own but controls all businesses. ‘Nazi’ Germany was socialistic. The name means ‘National Socialist German Worker’s Party’.
It should be obvious to anyone that these two systems, American style democracy and socialism, are diametrically opposed to each other, complete opposites. One is about individual freedom supported by Natural Law and one is a collective with no real rights except for gifts from a government that becomes so powerful that it can take any of them away when it wants. Such governments become ever more powerful until they become tyrannical dictatorships, which then usually fall into anarchy when the people begin to rebel.
The strength of the religious fervor of world socialists carried the cause to America’s shores decades ago in the late 19th. and early 20th. Centuries, where it has festered as a disease in our political system. The poor are attracted to the welfare that breeds lack of initiative. Youth are attracted to the claims that it cures all social ills and by the lack of morality in a system that also is generally atheistic, thus allowing hedonistic fun, an ongoing party with few moral rules. But this leads to many evils such as abortion, broken families, and struggling single mothers.
The divide is serious, so serious that my youngest when still in high school pointed out to me that it will not get fixed. That is one reason (the clarity of the split to a teenager a decade ago) that I have advocated for two autonomous regions in the United States, a bold position that can bring much criticism on a person.
Progressives have replaced the Christianity that once dominated America (proven by the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville) with a fanatical belief in socialism. But traditional, liberty-loving Americans will not back down, even if pushed to the very doorstep of counter revolution at the barricades and on the battlefield. My hope is that the success of a political outsider, businessman president (who is truly not racist) will show Americans how well freedom can work if practiced properly. Because the other way, socialism, is not free and is in fact a concentration of power in a strong central government that cannot avoid becoming despotic. A socialist America cannot survive because it will defy its founding principles, the principles that define it as the United States of America. The wealth, influence, and business expertise of this political-outsider president are assets not liabilities, if he is unbiased. The left believes he is biased. I think: everyone has flaws and seems biased at times and that race and gender (no matter what he has said ‘off the cuff’) are not his biases.
Though many say the architects of the American system of government were not Christian, the founders stated in the founding documents (which include the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution) that the people’s rights were a gift of God. Whatever you believe about God, they are natural rights based in Natural law. That is why many Americans so strongly defend the right to be armed. It is a right of any person to defend themselves and to be reasonably armed to do that. The founders carried that concept to the point of the right to defend oneself from an oppressive government.
Is it true that some Americans argue slavery was a good system and should be reinstated?
I do not believe any modern American with any intelligence would defend slavery as still viable. Some argue that it was not as bad as its critics claim, but slavery really cannot be defended. It was a widely functioning way of life in ancient times and that might be why even the Old Testament did not condemn it. The coming of Christ in the New Testamant was of course a game changer. In ancient times, it was a way to punish, pay debts, and incarcerate and control prisoners of war; but it was very often still horribly brutal. There were levels of slavery in those very ancient times with levels of freedom for the trusted ones.
I know those who are well educated, good Christian people of intelligence who believe slavery was really not the issue in the Civil War. I share one thing with them, that the main issue of the War Between the States was a power struggle between the Southerners and the Federal Government over who would control individual states. Slavery was clearly the catalytic issue, and to many it was the main issue. Old newspapers and other sources were clear on that. How big an issue it was for President Lincoln is questionable, for he floated the idea of shipping all of the slaves back to Africa and he only issued the Emmancipation Procamation when the war effort needed an emotional boost.
There is no way to defend it. As a Southerner who believes some of the Confederate goals were correct and noble (but not the continuation of slavery), I think that slavery embarrasses many of us. I believe America in general (and the South in particular) inherited a terrible institution (slavery) that had been an accepted part of the life of the world. But, in that era, the world had realized and was realizing more clearly the horrible wrong of it. Probably the average guy and gal (the British shopkeepers, the dirt farmers in Michigan, etc.) knew nothing of the horrors of the Middle Passage; and any ordinary seaman that sailed one or more of those voyageas and then left the sea probably could never speak of it. They, the good ones, probably suffered from a form of post traumatic stress syndrom.
But what I am saying is that_ the American South inherited historical slavery at the twilight of the terrible practice and (1) some thinking that they needed the cheap labor and (2) some greedily just wanting it, they stupidly tried to continue it. Assuming from their writings that they were basically good men, the nation’s founders who held slaves are a paradox to me other than perhaps they did not believe the change could be made at that time and figured their slaves were better off with them than if they gave them up. Releasing them into a harsh world in a society that might not have treated them well might have seemed a bad idea to those enlightened men. Keep in mind these were men who designed a governement that was decades ahead of its time. That they did not end it in the Constitution is more understandable. They simply would have lost the other Southern planters and there would have never been a ‘United’ States of America.
I do not believe any modern American with any intelligence would defend slavery as still viable. Some argue that it was not as bad as its critics claim, but slavery really cannot be defended. It was a widely functioning way of life in ancient times and that might be why even the Old Testament did not condemn it. The coming of Christ in the New Testamant was of course a game changer. In ancient times, it was a way to punish, pay debts, and incarcerate and control prisoners of war; but it was very often still horribly brutal. There were levels of slavery in those very ancient times with levels of freedom for the trusted ones.
I know those who are well educated, good Christian people of intelligence who believe slavery was really not the issue in the Civil War. I share one thing with them, that the main issue of the War Between the States was a power struggle between the Southerners and the Federal Government over who would control individual states. Slavery was clearly the catalytic issue, and to many it was the main issue. Old newspapers and other sources were clear on that. How big an issue it was for President Lincoln is questionable, for he floated the idea of shipping all of the slaves back to Africa and he only issued the Emmancipation Procamation when the war effort needed an emotional boost.
There is no way to defend it. As a Southerner who believes some of the Confederate goals were correct and noble (but not the continuation of slavery), I think that slavery embarrasses many of us. I believe America in general (and the South in particular) inherited a terrible institution (slavery) that had been an accepted part of the life of the world. But, in that era, the world had realized and was realizing more clearly the horrible wrong of it. Probably the average guy and gal (the British shopkeepers, the dirt farmers in Michigan, etc.) knew nothing of the horrors of the Middle Passage; and any ordinary seaman that sailed one or more of those voyageas and then left the sea probably could never speak of it. They, the good ones, probably suffered from a form of post traumatic stress syndrom.
But what I am saying is that_ the American South inherited historical slavery at the twilight of the terrible practice and (1) some thinking that they needed the cheap labor and (2) some greedily just wanting it, they stupidly tried to continue it. Assuming from their writings that they were basically good men, the nation’s founders who held slaves are a paradox to me other than perhaps they did not believe the change could be made at that time and figured their slaves were better off with them than if they gave them up. Releasing them into a harsh world in a society that might not have treated them well might have seemed a bad idea to those enlightened men. Keep in mind these were men who designed a governement that was decades ahead of its time. That they did not end it in the Constitution is more understandable. They simply would have lost the other Southern planters and there would have never been a ‘United’ States of America.
As a foreigner, do you even find famous celebrities in the Philippines attractive although most of them look like foreigners?
My short answer is ‘NO’; and here is the longer analytical answer. It is necessary because this is a topic I’m quite interested in. The attractiveness of Filipino celebrities, who are so often mestizo or even more white looking than the average Filipino mestizo is an opinion oriented topic and one given to an emotional reaction, while still allowing for insertion of certain facts. I feel competent to give an opinion (as opposed to a definitive answer) because it speaks to the husband, writer, artist, geographer, and lover in me. My interest and personal investment of myself in the Philippines is because of all of those.
None can deny the beauty of a Filipino-Caucasian woman, and the guys look okay too. Filipinos joke that Spain put them in a convent for 400 years and America immersed them in Hollywood for the next 50. There is truth to that, and the Americans also convinced them that the epitome of beauty was white (Caucasian) features. Many a Filipino became the type of ethnically dark individual who saw less beauty in their race and greater attractiveness in the white race. I saw this attitude in my generation’s Filipino friends and family members (through marriage). That is the young adults of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. This is why the entertainment industry in Manila began to seek out extreme examples of mestiza entertainers. It may be why that trend continues. Similarly, when teaching Latino students some years ago in a class that dealt with ethnic origins in the American Southwest, many of those students resented the suggestion that they looked as if they had any Indian (Native American) origins. They seemed to have been indoctrinated into the belief that a white appearance is best (or at least a non-Indio look was better).
However the charm of the Philippines, as much as anything else, has to do with its original native inhabitants at the time of the Spanish conquest. After years of marriage to my Filipina and of rubbing elbows with Filipinos of my generation, I have seen a change in attitudes. My wife always recognized native beauty but revered the mestiza look as well. Many Filipino men I knew, with attractive Filipino wives, often ogled some white American celebrities who to me were downright unattractive. The openness of our information age and their years here in the States have since convinced a lot of those Filipinos that they may have been looking at us with praise but we were looking back at them the same way. They realize now how much non-racist Americans respect the exotically attractive Filipino women and men.
Much of that charm that called to the visitor of those islands over the centuries since the 1500s is the placement by God of such petite pretty women in such a stunningly picturesque tropical paradise. As harsh as Spanish colonialism was, the Pearl of the Orient Seas may have thus been blessed that more rascally characters were thus kept at bay in historical times. For British merchant seaman and American whalers (often a bit less refined than some of Spain’s immigrants to the islands) would have almost surely tried to take advantage of every young girl in the archipelago.
In this paragraph below are my reasons to not prefer strongly mestizo Filipino entertainers to be in the majority but to instead prefer more native Filipino actors and entertainers. At least a better balance is in order. This is not to denigrate any other types of beauty. It is just about the Filipino entertainment industry and star system: I much prefer a natural look to a cultivated glamorous look; I believe the prettiest skin tones are the browner ones (why else do white women try to tan so much); Various versions of the semi-flat nose or ‘pug nose’ are incredibly appealing, revealing cuteness and strength at the same time; The rounder face and high cheeks of a Malayan-like woman seem to convey both the babyfaced charm and the native toughness that many find appealing in a woman; The smaller stature and fine bones of Filipino women convey delicate beauty yet wiry strength (esp. in light of what we know of their historic endurance in a tough life and in a nation with a rough history); Deep brown ‘Asian’ or ‘almond’ eyes (tempered from the more extremely exotic look of some other Asian and African ethnicities) seem to exude a depth of feeling, emotion, and intelligence.
So to answer this question from my aforementioned personal point of view as a lover of a Filipina and former resident of the islands and as a professional writer and artist and geographer (who makes the study of people my life’s work), NO, I find the native Filipino and Filipina to be far and away the more appealing of the Filipino people. Mestizas who still seem more predominately Malayan in features and skin tone come in second and can be stunningly beautiful.
Filipinos are somewhat of a mix of the world's people as they are or were after a few years of Spanish and American occupation, when we Americans began to notice them more. I believe it was Jay Leno who once joked that someday we would all look like Filipinos, as if to say they were the result of a more or less equal mix of most of the world’s racial types. I found it interesting that often American Navajo, who also (due to their geographical location) probably mixed with Spanish and Americans historically, can often look and even sound similar to Filipinos. Some Navajo have agreed with me, and I used this in my historical novels. My Navajo heroine, who happens to be a bit petite, ends up with a Filipino daughter-in-law who, except for having a smaller nose, is almost a twin of her mother-in-law in her younger days.
One goes to Mexico to interact with Mexicans; to the UK to get to know English, Northern Irish, Welsh, and Scots; Africa to get to know Africans in the different countries there. And one goes to the Philippines to get to know Filipinos. For the intelligent traveler or geographer wishing to learn about a place such as the Philippines for example, one does not go looking for sorta-Filipino white folks.
My short answer is ‘NO’; and here is the longer analytical answer. It is necessary because this is a topic I’m quite interested in. The attractiveness of Filipino celebrities, who are so often mestizo or even more white looking than the average Filipino mestizo is an opinion oriented topic and one given to an emotional reaction, while still allowing for insertion of certain facts. I feel competent to give an opinion (as opposed to a definitive answer) because it speaks to the husband, writer, artist, geographer, and lover in me. My interest and personal investment of myself in the Philippines is because of all of those.
None can deny the beauty of a Filipino-Caucasian woman, and the guys look okay too. Filipinos joke that Spain put them in a convent for 400 years and America immersed them in Hollywood for the next 50. There is truth to that, and the Americans also convinced them that the epitome of beauty was white (Caucasian) features. Many a Filipino became the type of ethnically dark individual who saw less beauty in their race and greater attractiveness in the white race. I saw this attitude in my generation’s Filipino friends and family members (through marriage). That is the young adults of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. This is why the entertainment industry in Manila began to seek out extreme examples of mestiza entertainers. It may be why that trend continues. Similarly, when teaching Latino students some years ago in a class that dealt with ethnic origins in the American Southwest, many of those students resented the suggestion that they looked as if they had any Indian (Native American) origins. They seemed to have been indoctrinated into the belief that a white appearance is best (or at least a non-Indio look was better).
However the charm of the Philippines, as much as anything else, has to do with its original native inhabitants at the time of the Spanish conquest. After years of marriage to my Filipina and of rubbing elbows with Filipinos of my generation, I have seen a change in attitudes. My wife always recognized native beauty but revered the mestiza look as well. Many Filipino men I knew, with attractive Filipino wives, often ogled some white American celebrities who to me were downright unattractive. The openness of our information age and their years here in the States have since convinced a lot of those Filipinos that they may have been looking at us with praise but we were looking back at them the same way. They realize now how much non-racist Americans respect the exotically attractive Filipino women and men.
Much of that charm that called to the visitor of those islands over the centuries since the 1500s is the placement by God of such petite pretty women in such a stunningly picturesque tropical paradise. As harsh as Spanish colonialism was, the Pearl of the Orient Seas may have thus been blessed that more rascally characters were thus kept at bay in historical times. For British merchant seaman and American whalers (often a bit less refined than some of Spain’s immigrants to the islands) would have almost surely tried to take advantage of every young girl in the archipelago.
In this paragraph below are my reasons to not prefer strongly mestizo Filipino entertainers to be in the majority but to instead prefer more native Filipino actors and entertainers. At least a better balance is in order. This is not to denigrate any other types of beauty. It is just about the Filipino entertainment industry and star system: I much prefer a natural look to a cultivated glamorous look; I believe the prettiest skin tones are the browner ones (why else do white women try to tan so much); Various versions of the semi-flat nose or ‘pug nose’ are incredibly appealing, revealing cuteness and strength at the same time; The rounder face and high cheeks of a Malayan-like woman seem to convey both the babyfaced charm and the native toughness that many find appealing in a woman; The smaller stature and fine bones of Filipino women convey delicate beauty yet wiry strength (esp. in light of what we know of their historic endurance in a tough life and in a nation with a rough history); Deep brown ‘Asian’ or ‘almond’ eyes (tempered from the more extremely exotic look of some other Asian and African ethnicities) seem to exude a depth of feeling, emotion, and intelligence.
So to answer this question from my aforementioned personal point of view as a lover of a Filipina and former resident of the islands and as a professional writer and artist and geographer (who makes the study of people my life’s work), NO, I find the native Filipino and Filipina to be far and away the more appealing of the Filipino people. Mestizas who still seem more predominately Malayan in features and skin tone come in second and can be stunningly beautiful.
Filipinos are somewhat of a mix of the world's people as they are or were after a few years of Spanish and American occupation, when we Americans began to notice them more. I believe it was Jay Leno who once joked that someday we would all look like Filipinos, as if to say they were the result of a more or less equal mix of most of the world’s racial types. I found it interesting that often American Navajo, who also (due to their geographical location) probably mixed with Spanish and Americans historically, can often look and even sound similar to Filipinos. Some Navajo have agreed with me, and I used this in my historical novels. My Navajo heroine, who happens to be a bit petite, ends up with a Filipino daughter-in-law who, except for having a smaller nose, is almost a twin of her mother-in-law in her younger days.
One goes to Mexico to interact with Mexicans; to the UK to get to know English, Northern Irish, Welsh, and Scots; Africa to get to know Africans in the different countries there. And one goes to the Philippines to get to know Filipinos. For the intelligent traveler or geographer wishing to learn about a place such as the Philippines for example, one does not go looking for sorta-Filipino white folks.
How was life like in the American West in the 1800s?
The historical American West varied in its culture and social atmosphere through different eras. The term ‘Old West’ seems to allude mostly to the period from the Civil War until about 1900, seen by many as the modern era’s starting year. For example, some Western fiction websites will not allow discussion or promotion of books set beyond that point. To me, as an historian, historical artist, and writer of historical fiction, I start that Old West period around 1850, about halfway between the Mexican War and the beginning of the Civil War. Much of the character of the Old West lingered into the Twentieth Century and even until today. In the field of history period boundaries are not hard and fast unless precipitated by a singular event or events. Political eras may be more clearly defined than social ones.
In the period prior to the classic Old West, there were ethnic conflicts between American explorers and traders and the Mexicans, who resented American intrusion and the invasion that could result from it (and did). As one might expect, various Native Americans (Indians) were dangerous before and during the ‘Old West’ period I identified by time parameters. The period of Mexican control in the Southwest was of course characterized by Spanish culture, including: clothing, architecture, Catholicism, fiestas, music, and language. Of course these cultural elements lingered beyond the Mexican defeat in the Mexican War of 1846–48. Indian culture varied depending on where one was: buffalo hunting nomads on the plains; hunter gatherers in the mountains; fishermen on the Northwest coast; and hunters, farmers, craftsmen, and shepherds in the drier Southwest.
As to that pre-Mexican War (with the U.S.) time, another novelist writing of it tells me that promiscuity was common, and the result was quite the complicated and interesting racial mixes that resulted in attractive women of varied ethnic backgrounds. I’m sure a modern lady visiting that era (through time travel, were it possible) might like the look of some of the men then too. Slavery was common as well, with tribes and European descendants alike enslaving various competing peoples and each other. In this regard, the Spanish and later the Mexicans were the strongest and thus the worst perpetrators of slavery. Many Spanish churchmen were complicit as well, and it was a dark day in some ways for my Catholic faith’s history. But good was done by the Church as well. I believe something about the Spanish culture (which I otherwise love) caused a certain level of harsh corruption, even in the colonial Catholic Church. Remember the much maligned Spanish Inquisition was in fact Spanish. One hears less criticism of the Inquisition in general.
One of the good things to come out of the U.S. conquest of the Southwest in the Mexican War was an attempt to stamp out slavery there. But there was good and bad in the slavery trade, as tribes would steal children and then make them full members of their own families who would grow up and marry into the tribe as well. With the coming of American control in the Southwest, interracial relations were frowned on more (by the Americans). So our ancestors clearly frowned on slavery in the territories they controlled, though they still allowed it in the States, but also frowned on ethnic mixing . . . curious and confusing.
For the trader and explorer in the Mexican and the American eras, dangers included death in a fight with competitors or Indians, accidents on the trail, and illnesses. For the rancher and farmer anywhere in the West from that time forward to 1900, the same risks existed. Bandits could be a danger too.
From the late 1700s to the mid 1800s, fur traders, trappers, and Indians met each year and traded with the Indians for pelts during a great ‘rendezvous’ that has been described as an event of great debauchery, almost an orgy. But these were rough European men on the wildest of frontiers in an area where there were no rules save those of the native tribes, who had standards but not always in line with Christian morals. Some trappers married Indian women. Kit Carson, famous explorer and soldier, did. He conquered the Navajo, who were then marched over 300 miles (the Long Walk of the Navajo) and locked in a camp for four years. They were later allowed to return to their traditional homeland. Because of some assistance from him, some Navajo liked Carson, but perhaps most did not.
Perhaps the main thing to know about this topic, especially with respect to the image the cinema has ingrained in us over the decades, is that for the average farmer, rancher, store keeper, stockman, craftsman, Indian tribesman or clansman, etc. life varied from a hard scrabble existence to just plain hard work (depending on one’s resources. If you could afford to hire help, it was a bit easier but never easy. The bandits and badmen of the movies were a risk but probably not as big a risk as portrayed in the movies. They were more common in various scarcely settled areas sometimes referred to as ‘badlands’ where they liked to stay away from the law. Travel there for the average citizen might be a bit dangerous. Women could always be a target for kidnapping and trade or sale for prostitution purposes or sexual slavery. Native American women were just as vulnerable as white ones. This issue is one of the primary subjects of my novels set in the West between 1866 and 1902.
Though anyone in any town could be caught in a feud or range war over land, free grazing, water rights, and the like, the violence of the cinema was less common than it is seen in film. One documentary about Wyatt Earp related that during one period in the height of the wild times in the rough Kansas Territory (Dodge City, Wichita, etc.) the yearly average of deaths by gunfighting was 1.5 persons. The real dangers may have been disease and accidents. Farming is still in this modern day one of the most dangerous professions. I believe it and commercial deep sea fishing top the list currently. Surely ranching was dangerous in those times as well. Rabies was a common fear, and friends in Texas have told of it being a problem for their grandparents in the Twentieth Century.
Dangers aside, people were close to nature and understood it better than we do now (except for modern experts). Life was quieter on expansive frontiers and even in towns, with little background noise outside of the bigger cities and towns. No radio, TV, or stereo played in the background in your house. Families and friends relaxed with dances, singalongs, parlor games, and outdoor games. Baseball became popular during the Civil War and surely went West. Laura Ingalls Wilder (author of the Little House on the Prairie series) wrote of the constant blowing wind on the prairie where she spent most of her life before moving to Missouri after marriage. There were no highlands to stop it. Also people of that era, even on the Eastern farms, made many of their own products. Almonzo Wilder’s youth between nine and ten years of age is described by Laura in Farmer Boy. In that biographical novel of Laura’s future husband, his family on a big commercial farm in New York draw their own maple syrup sap from the trees and cut their own ice blocks from a frozen lake, storing a great volume of the latter in a giant shed in which it did not melt even in summer until used in their iceboxes in their home.
Finally, in the West, distances were great, there was no air conditioning in vehicles (or homes). And all travel was by foot; horse; mule; oxen, horse, or mule drawn wagon; horse drawn carriage; or train. Rail travel could be dirty in warm weather when the windows on the passenger cars were open. The suet from the smokestacks of the coal burning engines could blow in.
The historical American West varied in its culture and social atmosphere through different eras. The term ‘Old West’ seems to allude mostly to the period from the Civil War until about 1900, seen by many as the modern era’s starting year. For example, some Western fiction websites will not allow discussion or promotion of books set beyond that point. To me, as an historian, historical artist, and writer of historical fiction, I start that Old West period around 1850, about halfway between the Mexican War and the beginning of the Civil War. Much of the character of the Old West lingered into the Twentieth Century and even until today. In the field of history period boundaries are not hard and fast unless precipitated by a singular event or events. Political eras may be more clearly defined than social ones.
In the period prior to the classic Old West, there were ethnic conflicts between American explorers and traders and the Mexicans, who resented American intrusion and the invasion that could result from it (and did). As one might expect, various Native Americans (Indians) were dangerous before and during the ‘Old West’ period I identified by time parameters. The period of Mexican control in the Southwest was of course characterized by Spanish culture, including: clothing, architecture, Catholicism, fiestas, music, and language. Of course these cultural elements lingered beyond the Mexican defeat in the Mexican War of 1846–48. Indian culture varied depending on where one was: buffalo hunting nomads on the plains; hunter gatherers in the mountains; fishermen on the Northwest coast; and hunters, farmers, craftsmen, and shepherds in the drier Southwest.
As to that pre-Mexican War (with the U.S.) time, another novelist writing of it tells me that promiscuity was common, and the result was quite the complicated and interesting racial mixes that resulted in attractive women of varied ethnic backgrounds. I’m sure a modern lady visiting that era (through time travel, were it possible) might like the look of some of the men then too. Slavery was common as well, with tribes and European descendants alike enslaving various competing peoples and each other. In this regard, the Spanish and later the Mexicans were the strongest and thus the worst perpetrators of slavery. Many Spanish churchmen were complicit as well, and it was a dark day in some ways for my Catholic faith’s history. But good was done by the Church as well. I believe something about the Spanish culture (which I otherwise love) caused a certain level of harsh corruption, even in the colonial Catholic Church. Remember the much maligned Spanish Inquisition was in fact Spanish. One hears less criticism of the Inquisition in general.
One of the good things to come out of the U.S. conquest of the Southwest in the Mexican War was an attempt to stamp out slavery there. But there was good and bad in the slavery trade, as tribes would steal children and then make them full members of their own families who would grow up and marry into the tribe as well. With the coming of American control in the Southwest, interracial relations were frowned on more (by the Americans). So our ancestors clearly frowned on slavery in the territories they controlled, though they still allowed it in the States, but also frowned on ethnic mixing . . . curious and confusing.
For the trader and explorer in the Mexican and the American eras, dangers included death in a fight with competitors or Indians, accidents on the trail, and illnesses. For the rancher and farmer anywhere in the West from that time forward to 1900, the same risks existed. Bandits could be a danger too.
From the late 1700s to the mid 1800s, fur traders, trappers, and Indians met each year and traded with the Indians for pelts during a great ‘rendezvous’ that has been described as an event of great debauchery, almost an orgy. But these were rough European men on the wildest of frontiers in an area where there were no rules save those of the native tribes, who had standards but not always in line with Christian morals. Some trappers married Indian women. Kit Carson, famous explorer and soldier, did. He conquered the Navajo, who were then marched over 300 miles (the Long Walk of the Navajo) and locked in a camp for four years. They were later allowed to return to their traditional homeland. Because of some assistance from him, some Navajo liked Carson, but perhaps most did not.
Perhaps the main thing to know about this topic, especially with respect to the image the cinema has ingrained in us over the decades, is that for the average farmer, rancher, store keeper, stockman, craftsman, Indian tribesman or clansman, etc. life varied from a hard scrabble existence to just plain hard work (depending on one’s resources. If you could afford to hire help, it was a bit easier but never easy. The bandits and badmen of the movies were a risk but probably not as big a risk as portrayed in the movies. They were more common in various scarcely settled areas sometimes referred to as ‘badlands’ where they liked to stay away from the law. Travel there for the average citizen might be a bit dangerous. Women could always be a target for kidnapping and trade or sale for prostitution purposes or sexual slavery. Native American women were just as vulnerable as white ones. This issue is one of the primary subjects of my novels set in the West between 1866 and 1902.
Though anyone in any town could be caught in a feud or range war over land, free grazing, water rights, and the like, the violence of the cinema was less common than it is seen in film. One documentary about Wyatt Earp related that during one period in the height of the wild times in the rough Kansas Territory (Dodge City, Wichita, etc.) the yearly average of deaths by gunfighting was 1.5 persons. The real dangers may have been disease and accidents. Farming is still in this modern day one of the most dangerous professions. I believe it and commercial deep sea fishing top the list currently. Surely ranching was dangerous in those times as well. Rabies was a common fear, and friends in Texas have told of it being a problem for their grandparents in the Twentieth Century.
Dangers aside, people were close to nature and understood it better than we do now (except for modern experts). Life was quieter on expansive frontiers and even in towns, with little background noise outside of the bigger cities and towns. No radio, TV, or stereo played in the background in your house. Families and friends relaxed with dances, singalongs, parlor games, and outdoor games. Baseball became popular during the Civil War and surely went West. Laura Ingalls Wilder (author of the Little House on the Prairie series) wrote of the constant blowing wind on the prairie where she spent most of her life before moving to Missouri after marriage. There were no highlands to stop it. Also people of that era, even on the Eastern farms, made many of their own products. Almonzo Wilder’s youth between nine and ten years of age is described by Laura in Farmer Boy. In that biographical novel of Laura’s future husband, his family on a big commercial farm in New York draw their own maple syrup sap from the trees and cut their own ice blocks from a frozen lake, storing a great volume of the latter in a giant shed in which it did not melt even in summer until used in their iceboxes in their home.
Finally, in the West, distances were great, there was no air conditioning in vehicles (or homes). And all travel was by foot; horse; mule; oxen, horse, or mule drawn wagon; horse drawn carriage; or train. Rail travel could be dirty in warm weather when the windows on the passenger cars were open. The suet from the smokestacks of the coal burning engines could blow in.
On The Subject Of Pop Musicians . . .
. . . I wish they would use 'entertainers', 'stylists', 'vocalists', or 'singers' for singers rather than the misnomer, 'artists', which to me should be reserved (in the entertainment community) only for the ones who write their own songs. Great non-writing singers, such as George Strait, might also be called 'musical stylists'. ‘Vocalist’ is always a strong word and was once commonly used in an era of better quality compositions being performed by singers with great voices and less sexual body movement.
I feel that 'artist' should be reserved for those who create original compositions like paintings, plays, sculptures, and works of music . . . quality music. To me, 'vocalist', 'singer', and 'stylist' have class equal to the term ‘artist’ yet different. But I believe the pop music industry has decided that they need the word 'artist' (stolen from real visual, theatrical, and musical artists) to give more gravitas to a sometimes sleazy industry (in terms of individual lifestyles) and poverty-laden industry in terms of actual 'music'. These days, so much in America is phony, gaudy, and overhyped; and the music and broader entertainment industries lead the way, setting a sad standard.
. . . I wish they would use 'entertainers', 'stylists', 'vocalists', or 'singers' for singers rather than the misnomer, 'artists', which to me should be reserved (in the entertainment community) only for the ones who write their own songs. Great non-writing singers, such as George Strait, might also be called 'musical stylists'. ‘Vocalist’ is always a strong word and was once commonly used in an era of better quality compositions being performed by singers with great voices and less sexual body movement.
I feel that 'artist' should be reserved for those who create original compositions like paintings, plays, sculptures, and works of music . . . quality music. To me, 'vocalist', 'singer', and 'stylist' have class equal to the term ‘artist’ yet different. But I believe the pop music industry has decided that they need the word 'artist' (stolen from real visual, theatrical, and musical artists) to give more gravitas to a sometimes sleazy industry (in terms of individual lifestyles) and poverty-laden industry in terms of actual 'music'. These days, so much in America is phony, gaudy, and overhyped; and the music and broader entertainment industries lead the way, setting a sad standard.
Why are there so many dating scams in the Philippines?
I’m married to a Filipina who I met here in the states. So she was already legally here. The Philippines is active dating territory for Americans (and others) because the girls and guys there are exotically attractive, speak English reasonably well, and often well educated, with engineering, law, medicine, and nursing being common degrees among the educated ones.
The fact that earning is difficult in the Philippines which is borderline third world with a foot in the first world makes the Filipinos want to come to the U.S. As a former American colony with close American ties, people there know about the good life here and may feel a bit entitled. Thus some of them scam to get here, and some bad Americans and others have used the Philippines and Filipinos to do their scams.
These beautiful islands are a good and easy place to visit, so if you want a life partner, go there and meet people so you can find one on your own. But be careful, research first, and take your time. The best way to avoid a marriage scam is to use the assistance of a trusted Filipino friend or organization here. Filipinos are one of the very largest minorities in America.
Let’s face it, dark is somewhat attractive to most people; otherwise, white people would not endanger themselves with tanning. Darker women do not need makeup to look alluring. I’ve heard a few country boys denigrate the look, but it is just a personal thing with them. There is standout beauty and average beauty in the islands. Most white women do not look like models or celebrities either. We are talking about average beauty here.
I’m married to a Filipina who I met here in the states. So she was already legally here. The Philippines is active dating territory for Americans (and others) because the girls and guys there are exotically attractive, speak English reasonably well, and often well educated, with engineering, law, medicine, and nursing being common degrees among the educated ones.
The fact that earning is difficult in the Philippines which is borderline third world with a foot in the first world makes the Filipinos want to come to the U.S. As a former American colony with close American ties, people there know about the good life here and may feel a bit entitled. Thus some of them scam to get here, and some bad Americans and others have used the Philippines and Filipinos to do their scams.
These beautiful islands are a good and easy place to visit, so if you want a life partner, go there and meet people so you can find one on your own. But be careful, research first, and take your time. The best way to avoid a marriage scam is to use the assistance of a trusted Filipino friend or organization here. Filipinos are one of the very largest minorities in America.
Let’s face it, dark is somewhat attractive to most people; otherwise, white people would not endanger themselves with tanning. Darker women do not need makeup to look alluring. I’ve heard a few country boys denigrate the look, but it is just a personal thing with them. There is standout beauty and average beauty in the islands. Most white women do not look like models or celebrities either. We are talking about average beauty here.
Is "The Right to Bear Arms" a total fallacy?
Obviously I'm talking about the U.S.
As I understand it this was written in to the constitution in order to prevent the government having too much control ie the "right to bear arms against a potential dictatorship"....
So why therefore can't a civilian purchase a fleet of fighter jets or a war...
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Second Amendment was intended for individual citizens, although it mentions militias. It is among the ten amendments intended to protect the people’s freedom, thus it cannot just be for government militias. Also those militias, represented today by the state national guards, were probably intended to arm the states against the government as much as for aiding the federal government during international wars.
For individuals to have heavy weapons is impractical, but the people do have somewhat heavy weaponry in their state guard units. However, a populace armed with only personal small arms is a strong deterrent to a bullying national government.
The primary concept seems to me to be that an armed populace, though only armed with small arms, is an incredible force for a dictatorial government to have to deal with. Any gun club, gun store, or just group of gun enthusiasts may contain military and law enforcement personnel who are highly trained. In a national crisis of foreign invasion or dictatorial national government, these men and women would turn into small military units for covert operations. They could lead larger groups, and they could train many more. The result would be a massive guerilla war for a national government to deal with, and that would be a nightmare. The deer hunting population of each state where hunting is common evolves in hunting season into an army that, in terms of numbers, rivals many nations. That is the hunters in each state, not a total in all hunting states. Imagine trying to deal with that as a military commander, under direction of a national dictator, without unleashing great carnage on the country.
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, warned during World War II that Japan should not invade America because there would be a person with a gun behind every blade of grass. That is the power of the right to bear arms_ that beyond personal and family self defense, armed Americans are a deterrent to a dictatorial government, a force not to be reckoned with even though they lack the bigger weapons of the national forces.
Obviously I'm talking about the U.S.
As I understand it this was written in to the constitution in order to prevent the government having too much control ie the "right to bear arms against a potential dictatorship"....
So why therefore can't a civilian purchase a fleet of fighter jets or a war...
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Second Amendment was intended for individual citizens, although it mentions militias. It is among the ten amendments intended to protect the people’s freedom, thus it cannot just be for government militias. Also those militias, represented today by the state national guards, were probably intended to arm the states against the government as much as for aiding the federal government during international wars.
For individuals to have heavy weapons is impractical, but the people do have somewhat heavy weaponry in their state guard units. However, a populace armed with only personal small arms is a strong deterrent to a bullying national government.
The primary concept seems to me to be that an armed populace, though only armed with small arms, is an incredible force for a dictatorial government to have to deal with. Any gun club, gun store, or just group of gun enthusiasts may contain military and law enforcement personnel who are highly trained. In a national crisis of foreign invasion or dictatorial national government, these men and women would turn into small military units for covert operations. They could lead larger groups, and they could train many more. The result would be a massive guerilla war for a national government to deal with, and that would be a nightmare. The deer hunting population of each state where hunting is common evolves in hunting season into an army that, in terms of numbers, rivals many nations. That is the hunters in each state, not a total in all hunting states. Imagine trying to deal with that as a military commander, under direction of a national dictator, without unleashing great carnage on the country.
Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, warned during World War II that Japan should not invade America because there would be a person with a gun behind every blade of grass. That is the power of the right to bear arms_ that beyond personal and family self defense, armed Americans are a deterrent to a dictatorial government, a force not to be reckoned with even though they lack the bigger weapons of the national forces.
I‘m a white American male, 27, and my fiancée is Filipina, 21.
How do I get my racist family to accept her?
We met through her brother. I worked in the Philippines for over a year and we were roommates. We became good friends and he later introduced his sister to me. My family is mad that she is not white American . They keep asking if I'll be ok knowing my kids won't have blonde hair or blue eyes. I am.
________________________________________________________________________
I did not face that situation years ago when we married, as I was not in the ‘deep’ South. However, no one in my family had ever married a nonwhite before. I married, as I assume you did, a quality lady. I’m sure there was discomfort in some of my more distant relatives, but my parents and only sibling embraced the situation, though it was new and different to them.
Be yourselves and do not let things bother you, and they will probably come around. When questioned or criticized by family members about the marriage or the wife, defend the marriage in a dignified, calm, respectful, yet firm manner. If things become tough, I would never break relations with family, but I would never back down from promotion of the quality of my wife. And I would never visit without her to please them. The spouse, the love of one’s life, comes first, unless they give you a good reason not to feel that way. Christ said that a man and woman leave their parents and cling to each other and become one. When family realizes that to see you, they must accept her, that is often a game-changer. But don’t fight with them; maintain dignity even if they don’t.
I married a woman who is my equal in every way, and I’m sure you will too. You may have different strong points, but you’re equals. The only difference besides gender is her darker look, and that makes her beautiful . . . not more beautiful than a white girl, but ‘equal’ . . . stand toe-to-toe ‘beautiful’ with a white woman. Make it clear to your family that her ‘look’ is an asset, something great about her, as is the charming personality of Filipinas. You might point out to your family critics that meztisa Filipino American kids are beautiful and handsome and that Filipinas dominate Asian beauty contests. They have won quite a few Miss Universe contests through he years as well, perhaps more than any other country; and either the previous or the reigning Miss Universe is Filipino. Your critic’s objections are partly about your wife’s looks (skin color and features); play the looks card. In other words, play the race card in a positive way, other than how it is usually used.
Mixed marriages in racially charged times are an important theme in my historical fiction set between 1866 and 1907 in the American Southwest and in the Philippines. My male characters always stand strongly in defense of their marriages to their ethnic minority wives (Navajo and Filipina).
These women will feel lonely for the islands and out of place, and your cultures will clash at times. Both partners, American husband and Filipino wife, best understand and want their own way of living. Both have to bend a little. She can feel surrounded by our culture here in the U.S. (similar to hers but very different than her Spanish/Malayan roots). There are some sad stories. Don’t be one.
How do I get my racist family to accept her?
We met through her brother. I worked in the Philippines for over a year and we were roommates. We became good friends and he later introduced his sister to me. My family is mad that she is not white American . They keep asking if I'll be ok knowing my kids won't have blonde hair or blue eyes. I am.
________________________________________________________________________
I did not face that situation years ago when we married, as I was not in the ‘deep’ South. However, no one in my family had ever married a nonwhite before. I married, as I assume you did, a quality lady. I’m sure there was discomfort in some of my more distant relatives, but my parents and only sibling embraced the situation, though it was new and different to them.
Be yourselves and do not let things bother you, and they will probably come around. When questioned or criticized by family members about the marriage or the wife, defend the marriage in a dignified, calm, respectful, yet firm manner. If things become tough, I would never break relations with family, but I would never back down from promotion of the quality of my wife. And I would never visit without her to please them. The spouse, the love of one’s life, comes first, unless they give you a good reason not to feel that way. Christ said that a man and woman leave their parents and cling to each other and become one. When family realizes that to see you, they must accept her, that is often a game-changer. But don’t fight with them; maintain dignity even if they don’t.
I married a woman who is my equal in every way, and I’m sure you will too. You may have different strong points, but you’re equals. The only difference besides gender is her darker look, and that makes her beautiful . . . not more beautiful than a white girl, but ‘equal’ . . . stand toe-to-toe ‘beautiful’ with a white woman. Make it clear to your family that her ‘look’ is an asset, something great about her, as is the charming personality of Filipinas. You might point out to your family critics that meztisa Filipino American kids are beautiful and handsome and that Filipinas dominate Asian beauty contests. They have won quite a few Miss Universe contests through he years as well, perhaps more than any other country; and either the previous or the reigning Miss Universe is Filipino. Your critic’s objections are partly about your wife’s looks (skin color and features); play the looks card. In other words, play the race card in a positive way, other than how it is usually used.
Mixed marriages in racially charged times are an important theme in my historical fiction set between 1866 and 1907 in the American Southwest and in the Philippines. My male characters always stand strongly in defense of their marriages to their ethnic minority wives (Navajo and Filipina).
These women will feel lonely for the islands and out of place, and your cultures will clash at times. Both partners, American husband and Filipino wife, best understand and want their own way of living. Both have to bend a little. She can feel surrounded by our culture here in the U.S. (similar to hers but very different than her Spanish/Malayan roots). There are some sad stories. Don’t be one.
Is the Korean War a hoax?
If 100,000 Chinese soldiers were really fighting the US troops, it would have started a nuclear war with China.
Also, the footage looks fake, no enemies are seen, and one scene looks like it was filmed in Iraq or Syria, not Korea.
___________________________________________________________________________
This is not a logical question; it’s ridiculous. The facts are clear. The battles were fought, and Chinese prisoners were taken. Many of us know Korean War veterans and have heard their stories. If you are young and this seems like ancient history, read and research these things and you won’t need to ask almost silly questions. Those of us who were so close to the time, due to our ages, that went into the neighboring woods and played ‘Korean War’ when we were tired of playing ‘World War II’, can tell you it was real. It was a horrific war in many ways because of the bitter cold, the Chinese numbers, and the fact that the enemy troops were communists, who are fanatical, just like the socialists here in America. The difference with those in Korea is that they were used to deprivation and hardship and thus they had the toughness and courage to back up their fanaticism.
Tell the guys who froze to death and who tried to fight with frozen rifles and machine guns at the Chosin Reservoir against 120,000 Chinese troops of the Chinese 9th. Army, that their definitive moments in their lives were a hoax. Give me a break.
As to the questioner’s suggestion that the war, if true, would have escalated, Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted to do just that and was fired by President Harry Truman, a Democrat.
The suggestion of fake news footage is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps we’re all too spoiled by our film and video quality today. I’ve watched many documentaries of the various old wars of the last century, and the Korean films hold up well compared to the others. But it doesn’t matter: the events happened, the men on both side fought and died, and those who survived reported about it. There can be no conspiracies when there are tens of thousands of participants. Not that many people will keep a secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba...
If 100,000 Chinese soldiers were really fighting the US troops, it would have started a nuclear war with China.
Also, the footage looks fake, no enemies are seen, and one scene looks like it was filmed in Iraq or Syria, not Korea.
___________________________________________________________________________
This is not a logical question; it’s ridiculous. The facts are clear. The battles were fought, and Chinese prisoners were taken. Many of us know Korean War veterans and have heard their stories. If you are young and this seems like ancient history, read and research these things and you won’t need to ask almost silly questions. Those of us who were so close to the time, due to our ages, that went into the neighboring woods and played ‘Korean War’ when we were tired of playing ‘World War II’, can tell you it was real. It was a horrific war in many ways because of the bitter cold, the Chinese numbers, and the fact that the enemy troops were communists, who are fanatical, just like the socialists here in America. The difference with those in Korea is that they were used to deprivation and hardship and thus they had the toughness and courage to back up their fanaticism.
Tell the guys who froze to death and who tried to fight with frozen rifles and machine guns at the Chosin Reservoir against 120,000 Chinese troops of the Chinese 9th. Army, that their definitive moments in their lives were a hoax. Give me a break.
As to the questioner’s suggestion that the war, if true, would have escalated, Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted to do just that and was fired by President Harry Truman, a Democrat.
The suggestion of fake news footage is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps we’re all too spoiled by our film and video quality today. I’ve watched many documentaries of the various old wars of the last century, and the Korean films hold up well compared to the others. But it doesn’t matter: the events happened, the men on both side fought and died, and those who survived reported about it. There can be no conspiracies when there are tens of thousands of participants. Not that many people will keep a secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba...
Where would you stand if there is a civil war in US?
In an American clash of unbending ideologies, I stand on the side of traditional American founding principles, the Christian faith, and Judeo Christian values . . . the only correct, moral position. Beyond civil war and hopefully without it, I support two autonomous regions or separate countries.
Ever since one of my children said while still in high school years ago that the conservative progressive void could never be crossed or closed and one of their older siblings has long pointed out the lack of educational preparation of American youth in the modern era concerning history and civics, and the lack of transmission of American culture to them, I have known that a physical split in the nation is almost inevitable. But that does not require war.
Traditional American culture, which of course varies in differing people’s minds, is still definable and includes a melding of individual liberty, loyalty to the nation, Judeo Christian values, and the Christian Faith. Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous commentator on American society whose work was once required reading in American history and government classes, spoke clearly on the deeply Christian nature of all aspects of life in the early United States during its formative years following the infancy of the American Revolution. However they are defined, more traditional Americans are not characterized by racism. I have long been joined in marriage to my equal, who as a Filipina is both an Asian and a Pacific Islander, with (like many Filipinos) a touch of Spanish.
The socialism, globalism, and hedonism of the progressive political left cannot be allowed to redefine the nation, and if their strength (through indoctrination by the media and education systems) is too strong, they must be left to their own devices in their own dominate geographical regions.
But traditional conservative and progressive socialist autonomous regions can be formed without civil war. Traditional Americans would be reluctant to split the beloved nation, but willing to be thusly generous. Progressives, who are all about the control of others and enamored of complete control and power, would resist such an amicable split. Thus the resulting civil war would be their fault. However the future plays out, a progressive America, where abortion is legal, is unacceptable to true Americans who believe in Judeo Christian values and the founding principles of the nation.
In an American clash of unbending ideologies, I stand on the side of traditional American founding principles, the Christian faith, and Judeo Christian values . . . the only correct, moral position. Beyond civil war and hopefully without it, I support two autonomous regions or separate countries.
Ever since one of my children said while still in high school years ago that the conservative progressive void could never be crossed or closed and one of their older siblings has long pointed out the lack of educational preparation of American youth in the modern era concerning history and civics, and the lack of transmission of American culture to them, I have known that a physical split in the nation is almost inevitable. But that does not require war.
Traditional American culture, which of course varies in differing people’s minds, is still definable and includes a melding of individual liberty, loyalty to the nation, Judeo Christian values, and the Christian Faith. Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous commentator on American society whose work was once required reading in American history and government classes, spoke clearly on the deeply Christian nature of all aspects of life in the early United States during its formative years following the infancy of the American Revolution. However they are defined, more traditional Americans are not characterized by racism. I have long been joined in marriage to my equal, who as a Filipina is both an Asian and a Pacific Islander, with (like many Filipinos) a touch of Spanish.
The socialism, globalism, and hedonism of the progressive political left cannot be allowed to redefine the nation, and if their strength (through indoctrination by the media and education systems) is too strong, they must be left to their own devices in their own dominate geographical regions.
But traditional conservative and progressive socialist autonomous regions can be formed without civil war. Traditional Americans would be reluctant to split the beloved nation, but willing to be thusly generous. Progressives, who are all about the control of others and enamored of complete control and power, would resist such an amicable split. Thus the resulting civil war would be their fault. However the future plays out, a progressive America, where abortion is legal, is unacceptable to true Americans who believe in Judeo Christian values and the founding principles of the nation.
