He had some guests on his show from both sides of the illegal immigration issue, who were discussing the debates in Washington over the proposal of giving citizenship to the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country.

Anyways, someone made the argument that this country is under "invasion" by illegal immigrants, so Larry King asked him if his parents were not also immigrants, and the guy replied back by saying that most peoples' parents were legal immigrants, and that there was a difference. So the famous Latino actor, Edward James Olmos, responded to him by stating that the guys' forefathers were not legal immigrants, because they drove off and killed the Indians and Aztecs, who were the rightful owners of this land.

You know, I kind of have a problem with that argument when it comes from a Hispanic. Whether he wants to admit it or not, Edward James Olmos' forefathers also were guilty of the same thing that same accusation that he made. Clearly, if you a Hispanic, and are not full-blooded Aztec, then you are a mixture of Spaniard and Central or South American Indian blood. And if you have Spaniard blood inside of you, then that means your forefathers also came and conquered the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas too. As a matter of fact, it's probably safe to assume that neither me, nor Olmos would even be in existence if the Spaniards had never conquered Central and South America.

BTW, it's also well known that the Aztecs and Mayans conquered, enslaved, sacrificed, and drove surrounding tribes from their lands too. It's not like these were peace loving people. So the way I see it, the brutal conquerers were eventually conquered by a more advanced empire. That's all.

You could probably make a different case for the American Indians though (despite the fact that we, as Americans, have benefited from it).

Anyways, as a byproduct of the Spanish conquest of South America, it just kind of irks me when Hispanics make that kind of argument, especially when it's clearly evident that they are not full-blooded Azteca.

Yeah, they seem to forget that they are speaking Spanish when they accuse us of "stealing" land.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

The Aztecs and the Spanish were not equal in their crimes. I don't know the details of what the Azetcs did, but for them to be equal to the Spaniards, they would have had to have effectively annhialated all the people they conquered, which is what the Spaniards did to the Native Americans. We are talking about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, if not more.


WEB

WEB, it's a well known fact that the Aztecs slaughtered thousands upon thousands of conquered peoples themselves, even going as far as to sacrifice thousands of surrounding captives on their pagan alters. First, they would hold them down against their will, then they would cut out their still beating heart. Afterwards, they would decapitate their victims and throw their lifeless bodies down the temple stairs, which were piled on top of other carcasses, where the Aztecs would cut off the skin and wear them on their bodies. The temple priests would then take the blood and not only smear it on themselves, but also smear it on the walls of the temples. It's been said that at one ceremony alone, there were over a thousand captured victims who were sacrificed at a large temple dedication. Keep in mind that many of these people were POW's who were forced to die against their will.

On top of that, the Aztecs most definitely enslaved surrounding tribes, brutally conquered them, and made them pay tribute. They were brutal people, who like the Mayans, wanted to expand their empires and were inclined towards violence, savagery, and war. Why do you think the Spaniards got so much help from the surrounding tribes when they went to war with the Aztecs??

Come on, man. Look at history way before America. Many ancient empires that we know of had brutally conquered and mistreated surrounding civilizations. It's the way of man, and it didn't just begin after the founding of America. It's the way it's always been since the beginning of civilization.

Be that as it may, it is no comparison to genocide. The emperors of China may have killed altogether 1 million Chinese working on the Great Wall of China, but they did not kill the CHINESE RACE. The Spanish effectively wiped out the Native Americans as a race. We are talking about 95-99% of their society wiped out. This is a huge difference in magnitude, pantent.


WEB

It's no secret that the Spanish conquistadors mistreated the Indians, but how many of those deaths can also be blamed on the disease that the Spaniards also brought with them? I'm not defending for them, but some people make it sound like the Spaniards went and physically killed each and every one of those people by the sword.

Regardless, just like the Spaniards who came after them, the Aztecs and Mayans were in no way innocent. That's my whole point. Some people paint the Aztecs and Mayans as if they were innocent peace-loving victims, who weren't a threat to surrounding areas, when in reality, they were savage and bloodthirsty war mongers. They were brutal conquerers who were eventually conquered themselves. Therefore, as someone who has both Aztec and Spanish blood running through my veins, I will not make the argument that the poor Aztecs "had their land taken away from them" in an effort to justify illegal immigration. I will not allow my ethnicity to paint a biased argument like that.

I have more sympathy for the North American Indians and the way they were unfairly treated, especially given that many of them were peaceful. We will certainly find agreement there.

BTW, from what I understand, one of reasons the Mexican government allowed white settlers to live in Texas was so that they would serve as a buffer from Indian attacks on the Mexican government. So it seems that not only the gringo government was at odds with some of the Indians over their land.

The Spanish were directly responsible for all those deaths, including the diseases they brought over. They knew that their diseases were killing the Native Americans, yet insisted upon enslaving them anyway. By the way, the enslavement only made the Native Americans even more vulnerable to the diseases, thereby making the infections even worse.

I view the comparison between the Aztecs and the Spanish as a comparsion between FDR and Hitler. It's true that FDR turned back boatloads of Jews to be killed by the Nazis (as he did not want to offend Hitler at the time). So it could be argued that he's "just as bad as the Nazi's". Like you say, the Aztecs were no sweet-hearts and resorted to bloodthirsty sacrifices by the thousand or hundred. Still no comparison to genocide though.

Well maybe in the deepest recesses of my mind I might think about how it's only fair that my darker skinned brothers got a little bit more land where other darker skinned people used to be, with whom they are somewhat related.

However, the whole issue is very complicated to me. It's really complicated. I couldn't say the illegal issue is about any one thing.

The things that I think about are:

* Is the anti-illegal movement racist?
* Is it humanitarian to let them in?
* Does it undercut fair working wages?
* Does it cause unemployment in the US?
* Will Latinos be racist towards blacks?



WEB

W.E.B., The Aztecs were some pretty brutal people, and panteths recollection of history is very accurate. Both sides are equally as guilty of their crimes in conquering. Killing mass amounts of people did not start with Spaniards. I do think Panteth makes a good point, but the Spaniards wiping out almost all of the Native Americans in that portion of the land must not be ignored.

Is it humanitarian to let them in? Probably. Is it the best solution to the cause of why this problem exists? In my opinion, absolutely not.

Is the movement racist? From my experience talking with many people (I consider it my core issue with politics) - NO. My Grandma is a ful blooded Latino and even she has huge issues with this. Most anti-illegals have no problem upping the numbers of legals. But of course this is conveniently left out in many discussions, or conveniently edited out I suppose.

Your question WRT racism towards blacks is one to be explored, though I'm curious if you think there is a reason they would be? It is an interesting thought.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

I really don't remember how many people the Spanish killed. I believe there were some 20 million people in the Aztec empire. They were all killed by the Spanish. What you are saying is that the murder of those 20 million people is equal to the murder of let's say several thousand Native Americans, by the Aztecs. That's just not right.

What do you think should be done?

Well I wonder why you don't favor the current proposal with regards to legality. The only thing the illegals get under this is a Z visa. They have to pay $5,000. Then they have to go home within 8 years and then re-apply for permanent residency. Their entry was illegal, but they are going through as many hoops as a normal legal immigrant would go through after that.

I heard of two incidents in LA:


* A black girl was killed for going into Latino neighborhood because she was black.

* An NPR report that implied that Latino racism on blacks was commonplace, with one Latino saying how a black person is served low quality salsa when he orders it and Latinos get the good stuff in one restaurant, as an example.