it's unsettling

  Migrants or invaders? That is the burning question today. In yesterdays' posting I touched upon that subject in a rather oblique way. I was talking about my ancestors, Europeans, migrating to a new land. I described an incident from history from the perspective of a legacy. It is a portion of my legacy, as near as I can tell. As closely related to that incident as to those claiming to be affected by slavery today. A moment in time. A time involving migrants and the native peoples. The only real difference is today the Europeans are the natives and the migrants are those mostly from the southern regions of the Americas. The cause of the friction however is basically the same. Control of the territory. It is just another example of history repeating itself. It appears that this time the Europeans will be outnumbered.

  In yesterday's posting I mentioned how the natives attacked the migrants/settlers. The reason for doing so was being unwilling to make any further compromises. The natives had exchanged land, meaning they would allow the settlers to live there without fear of being attacked, in exchange for trade goods. These migrant people did have things the natives desired. Things like alcohol, tools, and ammunition. After a while however the natives felt the settlers were getting too greedy. In short, they no longer wanted to give up the land in exchange for those goods. They decided to forcibly remove the settlers. As one could expect, war broke out. Yes, that's the way it happened. Initially the natives met with some success even though the settlers had superior weapons. But, sheer numbers would prevail in the long haul. 

  Now the same thing is happening today. The migrants are invading the land, acquiring "property" and becoming increasingly unwilling to make any compromise for that property. Indeed, there is an expectation that they will be adopted into the "tribe" and taken care of without any compromise whatsoever. That is what we are seeing with the imposition of culture as the justification for their habitation. They are of a different tribe(s) but wish to be included as members of the tribe currently in residence. 

  So what compromise is being resisted? Assimilation to the culture is the answer to that. If one wishes to be an American, one has to become American. Theodore Rosevelt expressed that sentiment in 1907. I'm certain you have read that in meme's and various other postings on social media. We have an influx of refugees/immigrants/migrants or settlers depending upon your view crowding the natives. Yes, we Americans are the natives this time. It is a source of debate among scholars just who was here first. If you are in the camp that says humans arrived in north America by crossing a land bridge those people came from Europe. So Europeans were here first. But other scholars say all humans came up out of Africa, so then Africans were first. Each generation displacing the one previous until we have arrived at North America being inhabited primarily by Europeans. The United States being primarily English, or more broadly white people. And that too is a source of friction. The natives before us weren't too happy with the white guys either, they were just as prejudiced as any other ethnic group. There was a cultural divide even then. It's interesting to note that many of the Native tribes believed that no one could own the land, so trading land for goods seemed like a great deal to them. What they really were trading was, we won't kill you in exchange for your goods. Then having gotten enough of the goods, they decided to just take the land back by warfare, the way they had always acquired control of land. You could say it was a tradition with them. 

  That was the very reason there was no unified Indian Nation, rather different tribes scattered across the continent. In the early part of the 1800's Tecumseh, an Indian chief, attempted to unite the tribes west of the Appalachian Mountains into one tribe/nation. He failed in that attempt. Later, other leaders attempted to have tribes at least work together to fight the white guys but that didn't work out either. In the end, outnumbered, all the tribes had to surrender. Had the Indians been successful in establishing "E pluribus Unum" the results would most certainly have been different. Of course, that is just speculation as the white guys just kept coming! We have the same thing today; they just keep coming. 

  Will the white guys be eliminated over time? Will they be absorbed into a bigger whole? The divide we are seeing is one of culture, same as always. The real question is will man one day be a single culture? That is what is hinted at in Star Trek and other Sci-Fi stories. All humans, no matter their physical appearance, basically motivated by the same wants and desires. Co-existing peacefully but still opposed by those that don't agree. So that is the enigma, isn't it? There will always be invaders, Klingons or whatever to upset that balance. of power. 

  If we carry that logic out to its' conclusion what ethnic group will dominant? By sheer numbers that would be the Han Chinese. That ethnic group far outnumbers all others. The Chinese people would be the dominate force with their cultural traditions. Now it is a matter of history that China and its' peoples remained isolated and distant for a significant period in history. Contact was made in the 1600's although as with most historical events the date is debated and changed frequently. There is concern today that the Chinese will "take over" the world! With weapons equal to our own, they have the advantage of numbers. The reason we used the Atomic bomb to defeat Japan concerned sheer numbers. A superior weapon did the trick. We may have won without that but the loss of life would have been far greater. The war itself would have continued on for a very long time. Remember those natives? They eventually had the same weaponry as the white guys but what they lacked was numbers. They lost the battle. Was it prejudicial on their part to defend their land? If not, why is it prejudicial for Americans to want to protect their land? Americans are a cultural group, not an ethnic group. Is one culture prejudiced against another? Yup, sometimes they are, we call it differences though. We call it that because we have to allow all cultures to exist but we don't have to like them. We don't have to embrace them. Just as it has been said we must allow all religions because each man must find the path to God in bis own way. One culture displacing another. It's quite unsettling. The opposite of settling. Can settlers do that? Be unsettling I mean? Yup, sure can.