https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not...ls-n961006

Columbus is the latest figure to be attacked by the left. Notre Dame is covering up murals painted in the 1880s at a time when Catholics were marginalized.

LOL, guess Knights of Columbus will be in the crosshairs next...

Notre Dame is NOT a Catholic university based on a number of their actions. One example is the hiring of Brian Kelly who is on record for supporting abortion for starters.

Notre Dame = CINO

(01-21-2019 07:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  LOL, guess Knights of Columbus will be in the crosshairs next...

Notre Dame is NOT a Catholic university based on a number of their actions. One example is the hiring of Brian Kelly who is on record for supporting abortion for starters.

Catholics do not employ litmus tests for employees, unless the employees are tasked with teaching children. Even then, the litmus tests are about public things they do, not their private lives.

I've been a BK fan for over a decade, and I've never heard his opinion about abortion. So he's not exactly a crusader on the topic.

Notre Dame is the most Catholic university we've got, other than maybe Creighton. There's a couple of colleges that are are more Catholic (like Christendom and Stuebenville). But those are tiny colleges, not research universities that can make real changes in the world.

Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

(01-22-2019 02:33 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 07:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  LOL, guess Knights of Columbus will be in the crosshairs next...

Notre Dame is NOT a Catholic university based on a number of their actions. One example is the hiring of Brian Kelly who is on record for supporting abortion for starters.

Catholics do not employ litmus tests for employees, unless the employees are tasked with teaching children. Even then, the litmus tests are about public things they do, not their private lives.

I've been a BK fan for over a decade, and I've never heard his opinion about abortion. So he's not exactly a crusader on the topic.

Notre Dame is the most Catholic university we've got, other than maybe Creighton. There's a couple of colleges that are are more Catholic (like Christendom and Stuebenville). But those are tiny colleges, not research universities that can make real changes in the world.

BK has always been politically active. His father was an alderman in Massachusetts. He was in student govt in college and majored in political science. He worked as a community organizer before the world really knew what that meant. He worked on the Gary Hart campaign.

That being said I don’t think he goes out of his way to push politics on recruits or players. He is a very focused guy so it’s all about football when he wears the whistle.

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

(01-22-2019 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

The French were not allied with the Papacy like Spain was. Our alliance with France was with their intellectuals and Free Masons - the very group that started the French Revolution, seized all Church property in the country, and exiled 30,000 priests.

We freed the Cubans FROM Spain. Specifically to hurt Spain.

The Mexican War was not about religion, but the bigotry against Mexicans was 100% religious. Mexico even tried to recruit Irish Catholic settlers into Texas to counter the Protestant American waves (ultimately they failed because the Mexican government was too unstable to carry out the plan in large numbers - they changed their President 31 times from 1824-1845).

(01-22-2019 12:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

The French were not allied with the Papacy like Spain was. Our alliance with France was with their intellectuals and Free Masons - the very group that started the French Revolution, seized all Church property in the country, and exiled 30,000 priests.

We freed the Cubans FROM Spain. Specifically to hurt Spain.

The Mexican War was not about religion, but the bigotry against Mexicans was 100% religious. Mexico even tried to recruit Irish Catholic settlers into Texas to counter the Protestant American waves (ultimately they failed because the Mexican government was too unstable to carry out the plan in large numbers - they changed their President 31 times from 1824-1845).

Yes, and even in 1960 one of the fears of Kennedy was that he’d be a mouthpiece of the Vatican. Catholics were discriminated against even in the 1960s. Though to be “fair”, the popes didn’t fully give up their temporal powers until the 1890s I think when Italy seized the Papal States.

(01-22-2019 12:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

The French were not allied with the Papacy like Spain was. Our alliance with France was with their intellectuals and Free Masons - the very group that started the French Revolution, seized all Church property in the country, and exiled 30,000 priests.

We freed the Cubans FROM Spain. Specifically to hurt Spain.

The Mexican War was not about religion, but the bigotry against Mexicans was 100% religious. Mexico even tried to recruit Irish Catholic settlers into Texas to counter the Protestant American waves (ultimately they failed because the Mexican government was too unstable to carry out the plan in large numbers - they changed their President 31 times from 1824-1845).

There were many Mexicans that fought for for Texas independence. They were Catholic too. The long and short of it was that we rid ourselves of English influence and rule on this continent (Canada excluded) and then found it wise to try to push Spain out of our lives as well. It's called building a nation. We bought the French and Russians out. Other than parts of Canada once our independence was won France wasn't much of a factor.

The moves that were made were largely geo-political and claiming that it was anti Catholic seems to me to be seeking an opportunity to indeed rewrite history. Henry the VIII made sure England went Protestant. That was a rub to the Vatican and Spain remained the super power of the day that was wholly Catholic.

Furthermore to pretend that the Vatican didn't have a political bent is simply naive. The Jesuits were active everywhere and were an organizing arm of the Church politically (albeit before the term was coined). What many translate as anti-Catholic sentiments have little to do with faith and everything to do with actions of the Jesuits which were political in nature, actions of the Spanish Inquisition which were atrocious in nature, and plenty of other things less attached to the faith and more attached to the political acquisition of property and wealth.

The massive influx of Irish prior to and inclusive of the Civil War, and afterwards, probably had much more to do with anti-Catholic sentiments.

There were questions around JFK's faith association but it wasn't that big of a deal, and certainly hasn't been since. The biggest anti Catholic sentiment that I was aware of in my younger years was the Klan, but hey they weren't discriminating in their hatred since Jews, blacks, Catholics, and various others didn't fit their world view either.

But to label anti-Catholic sentiment without specifying what aspects the various entities and eras objected to is disingenuous. Some of it was bias against Catholic political and geographical efforts and acquisitions. Some of it was against atrocities. Some of it was associated with immigration. Some of it was resentment for the poor Irish that were conscripted in record numbers to fight the South. And very little of it was against Catholicism as a faith.

But I bet you would find that information in the microfiche section of the library as well since "victimization" has been the academic rage since that typical Marxist tactic of cultural division took over the shelves at the local Universities beginning around the early 70's.

My child's history text goes on and on about discrimination against Mexican Americans. But its based on what happened in California where they segregated them. They essentially did the same thing to Okies. California has always been nasty to people who weren't of their tribe. It just changes at different times-Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Okies, conservatives....

I just don't get any sense of significant discrimination against Mexican Americans from my family in Texas. Sure, there was some, but mostly the "Latins" were too ingrained in the culture.

(01-23-2019 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  My child's history text goes on and on about discrimination against Mexican Americans. But its based on what happened in California where they segregated them. They essentially did the same thing to Okies. California has always been nasty to people who weren't of their tribe. It just changes at different times-Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Okies, conservatives....

I just don't get any sense of significant discrimination against Mexican Americans from my family in Texas. Sure, there was some, but mostly the "Latins" were too ingrained in the culture.

Bingo, that's the way it was in the early 60's in San Antonio. I just love it when people try to tell me that what I saw, experienced, and generally lived, actually happened some other way. Chinese were discriminated against in Washington state when I lived out there. African Americans were a novelty. They hardly ever saw one back then. Native Americans were those discriminated against the most in Northern Michigan when I was there, but then the curfews on African Americans forbid them inside the city limits after dark in some of those towns. I never witnessed anything like that in the South, although the violence in the South towards African Americans was quite memorable. My point being I can't remember a Southern town where their presence was forbidden after hours.

(01-23-2019 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

The French were not allied with the Papacy like Spain was. Our alliance with France was with their intellectuals and Free Masons - the very group that started the French Revolution, seized all Church property in the country, and exiled 30,000 priests.

We freed the Cubans FROM Spain. Specifically to hurt Spain.

The Mexican War was not about religion, but the bigotry against Mexicans was 100% religious. Mexico even tried to recruit Irish Catholic settlers into Texas to counter the Protestant American waves (ultimately they failed because the Mexican government was too unstable to carry out the plan in large numbers - they changed their President 31 times from 1824-1845).

There were many Mexicans that fought for for Texas independence. They were Catholic too. The long and short of it was that we rid ourselves of English influence and rule on this continent (Canada excluded) and then found it wise to try to push Spain out of our lives as well. It's called building a nation. We bought the French and Russians out. Other than parts of Canada once our independence was won France wasn't much of a factor.

The moves that were made were largely geo-political and claiming that it was anti Catholic seems to me to be seeking an opportunity to indeed rewrite history. Henry the VIII made sure England went Protestant. That was a rub to the Vatican and Spain remained the super power of the day that was wholly Catholic.

Furthermore to pretend that the Vatican didn't have a political bent is simply naive. The Jesuits were active everywhere and were an organizing arm of the Church politically (albeit before the term was coined). What many translate as anti-Catholic sentiments have little to do with faith and everything to do with actions of the Jesuits which were political in nature, actions of the Spanish Inquisition which were atrocious in nature, and plenty of other things less attached to the faith and more attached to the political acquisition of property and wealth.

The massive influx of Irish prior to and inclusive of the Civil War, and afterwards, probably had much more to do with anti-Catholic sentiments.

There were questions around JFK's faith association but it wasn't that big of a deal, and certainly hasn't been since. The biggest anti Catholic sentiment that I was aware of in my younger years was the Klan, but hey they weren't discriminating in their hatred since Jews, blacks, Catholics, and various others didn't fit their world view either.

But to label anti-Catholic sentiment without specifying what aspects the various entities and eras objected to is disingenuous. Some of it was bias against Catholic political and geographical efforts and acquisitions. Some of it was against atrocities. Some of it was associated with immigration. Some of it was resentment for the poor Irish that were conscripted in record numbers to fight the South. And very little of it was against Catholicism as a faith.

But I bet you would find that information in the microfiche section of the library as well since "victimization" has been the academic rage since that typical Marxist tactic of cultural division took over the shelves at the local Universities beginning around the early 70's.

You're correct on many points.

And yes, Anti-Catholic bigotry doesn't exist in today's America. Other than general anti-Christian bigotry from the Left and a few ignorant Baptist preachers (not that all Baptists are ignorant, just that the ones who are ignorant are just as anti-Papist as ever). I should have clarified that I'm not claiming any current discrimination.

But it's a historical fact that most Protestants (especially the American Puritans, who evolved into Yankees in the 1700s) were strongly anti-Catholic until after World War 1.

From 1700 - 1830, the USA had the highest birthrate of any society in history. We overwhelmed (in turn) the Indians, French, and English with sheer demographics.

But why did Americans then turn to Texas instead of Ontario or the Maritimes? The answer is: we DID overrun Ontario and the Maritimes! In 1812, over 75% of both Ontario's & the Maritime's population of 250,000 was Born in the USA. Why did ex-pat Americans support the government of Canada, but not the government of Mexico? it can't be Quality of Government, because until the 1900s Canada was governed by corrupt Crown officials that treated Canada like a mining colony whose wealth was to be extracted.

Why did we go to war against Spain in 1898? They were no longer a tool of the Popes, the Cubans themselves were fairly content with Spain, and it wasn't a clear land grab (although we did seize Puerto Rico and the Philippines).

These are open questions, and history provides us with good answers in the form of anti-Catholic bigotry. I don't deny that surely some of the hatred was political (I agree with your sentiment that the Popes were too political until the mid 1800s). But much of it was dogmatic.

(01-23-2019 06:23 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

The French were not allied with the Papacy like Spain was. Our alliance with France was with their intellectuals and Free Masons - the very group that started the French Revolution, seized all Church property in the country, and exiled 30,000 priests.

We freed the Cubans FROM Spain. Specifically to hurt Spain.

The Mexican War was not about religion, but the bigotry against Mexicans was 100% religious. Mexico even tried to recruit Irish Catholic settlers into Texas to counter the Protestant American waves (ultimately they failed because the Mexican government was too unstable to carry out the plan in large numbers - they changed their President 31 times from 1824-1845).

There were many Mexicans that fought for for Texas independence. They were Catholic too. The long and short of it was that we rid ourselves of English influence and rule on this continent (Canada excluded) and then found it wise to try to push Spain out of our lives as well. It's called building a nation. We bought the French and Russians out. Other than parts of Canada once our independence was won France wasn't much of a factor.

The moves that were made were largely geo-political and claiming that it was anti Catholic seems to me to be seeking an opportunity to indeed rewrite history. Henry the VIII made sure England went Protestant. That was a rub to the Vatican and Spain remained the super power of the day that was wholly Catholic.

Furthermore to pretend that the Vatican didn't have a political bent is simply naive. The Jesuits were active everywhere and were an organizing arm of the Church politically (albeit before the term was coined). What many translate as anti-Catholic sentiments have little to do with faith and everything to do with actions of the Jesuits which were political in nature, actions of the Spanish Inquisition which were atrocious in nature, and plenty of other things less attached to the faith and more attached to the political acquisition of property and wealth.

The massive influx of Irish prior to and inclusive of the Civil War, and afterwards, probably had much more to do with anti-Catholic sentiments.

There were questions around JFK's faith association but it wasn't that big of a deal, and certainly hasn't been since. The biggest anti Catholic sentiment that I was aware of in my younger years was the Klan, but hey they weren't discriminating in their hatred since Jews, blacks, Catholics, and various others didn't fit their world view either.

But to label anti-Catholic sentiment without specifying what aspects the various entities and eras objected to is disingenuous. Some of it was bias against Catholic political and geographical efforts and acquisitions. Some of it was against atrocities. Some of it was associated with immigration. Some of it was resentment for the poor Irish that were conscripted in record numbers to fight the South. And very little of it was against Catholicism as a faith.

But I bet you would find that information in the microfiche section of the library as well since "victimization" has been the academic rage since that typical Marxist tactic of cultural division took over the shelves at the local Universities beginning around the early 70's.

You're correct on many points.

Yes, the Papacy was political until Italian Unification in the mid-1800s.

And yes, Anti-Catholic bigotry doesn't exist in today's America. Other than general anti-Christian bigotry from the Left and a few ignorant Baptist preachers (not that all Baptists are ignorant, just that the ones who are ignorant are just as anti-Papist as ever). I should have clarified that I'm not claiming any current discrimination.

But it's a historical fact that most Protestants (especially the American Puritans, who evolved into Yankees in the 1700s) were strongly anti-Catholic until after World War 1.

From 1700 - 1830, the USA had the highest birthrate of any society in history.
We overwhelmed (in turn) the Indians, French, and English with sheer demographics.

But why did Americans then turn to Texas instead of Ontario or the Maritimes? The answer is: we DID overrun Ontario and the Maritimes! In 1812, over 75% of both Ontario's & the Maritime's population of 250,000 was Born in the USA. Why did Americans support the government of Canada, but not the government of Mexico? it can't be Quality of Government, because until the 1900s Canada was governed by corrupt Crown officials that treated Canada like a mining colony whose wealth was to be extracted.

Why did we go to war against Spain in 1898? They were no longer a tool of the Popes, the Cubans themselves were fairly content with Spain, and it wasn't a clear land grab (although we did seize Puerto Rico and the Philippines).

These are open questions, and history provides us with good answers in the form of anti-Catholic bigotry. I don't deny that surely some of the hatred was political, but much of it was dogmatic.

The Philippines was to expand our trade routes and establish coaling stations for our Navy as it projected strength. We had an interest in expanding into and protecting the trade that the growing West coast was conducting and it was essential to protecting the West Coast.

Cuba and Puerto Rico were prudent as well as they are access points to the Gulf Stream and the Gulf of Mexico. I'd say most of those were motivated by logistical and strategic purposes. Losing Cuba has given enemy subs a resupply location so they can stay parked off of our coast.

I keep hoping that if we add another territory it will be Cuba and that maybe trade and investment is a better route to that goal than a continued Cold War philosophy.

The attitude in the late 40's through the 50's was wide open toward Latin American countries. I think the rise of Fidel and our involvement in Viet Nam cooled our interest significantly. South America & Cuba were vacation destinations until Che' and Fidel.

So I just didn't see all of this anti Catholic sentiment anywhere but with the Klan.

I agree that Old Yankee mentality had that bias. And it is fair to point out that in New York New England that it seemed like every wave of immigrants were Catholic. The Irish, the Italians, and the Puerto Ricans, gave that region three major influxes of Catholic minorities.

(01-23-2019 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  My child's history text goes on and on about discrimination against Mexican Americans. But its based on what happened in California where they segregated them. They essentially did the same thing to Okies. California has always been nasty to people who weren't of their tribe. It just changes at different times-Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Okies, conservatives....

I just don't get any sense of significant discrimination against Mexican Americans from my family in Texas. Sure, there was some, but mostly the "Latins" were too ingrained in the culture.

Bingo, that's the way it was in the early 60's in San Antonio. I just love it when people try to tell me that what I saw, experienced, and generally lived, actually happened some other way. Chinese were discriminated against in Washington state when I lived out there. African Americans were a novelty. They hardly ever saw one back then. Native Americans were those discriminated against the most in Northern Michigan when I was there, but then the curfews on African Americans forbid them inside the city limits after dark in some of those towns. I never witnessed anything like that in the South, although the violence in the South towards African Americans was quite memorable. My point being I can't remember a Southern town where their presence was forbidden after hours.

I can't begin to tell you how that rings 'home'....

that would be a conversation only worthy of sharing a few single malts...

(01-23-2019 06:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  My child's history text goes on and on about discrimination against Mexican Americans. But its based on what happened in California where they segregated them. They essentially did the same thing to Okies. California has always been nasty to people who weren't of their tribe. It just changes at different times-Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Okies, conservatives....

I just don't get any sense of significant discrimination against Mexican Americans from my family in Texas. Sure, there was some, but mostly the "Latins" were too ingrained in the culture.

Bingo, that's the way it was in the early 60's in San Antonio. I just love it when people try to tell me that what I saw, experienced, and generally lived, actually happened some other way. Chinese were discriminated against in Washington state when I lived out there. African Americans were a novelty. They hardly ever saw one back then. Native Americans were those discriminated against the most in Northern Michigan when I was there, but then the curfews on African Americans forbid them inside the city limits after dark in some of those towns. I never witnessed anything like that in the South, although the violence in the South towards African Americans was quite memorable. My point being I can't remember a Southern town where their presence was forbidden after hours.

I can't begin to tell you how that rings 'home'....

that would be a conversation only worthy of sharing a few single malts...

Rocky or neat!

(01-23-2019 06:23 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 04:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 12:00 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 02:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until very recently, the USA hated Spanish speaking countries primarily because they were Catholic. That's as universal of a fact as can be established in American history. We fought two wars (1845 and 1898) and defrauded a lot of New Mexicans and Tejanos of their land because of this prejudice.

Those murals were part of a wrongheaded Catholic tradition of claiming Columbus as one of our own, simply because Columbus was one of the only Catholics that was politically correct to admire in 19th century WASP culture.

If that sounds odd to your 21st century ears, just imagine how odd our current PC culture will sound in a hundred years.

Talk about rewriting history. We freed the Cubans. We were friends with the French. The Mexican War didn't have anything to do with religion. It was about land disputes. There was prejudice against Catholics here, but we didn't have religious wars.

The French were not allied with the Papacy like Spain was. Our alliance with France was with their intellectuals and Free Masons - the very group that started the French Revolution, seized all Church property in the country, and exiled 30,000 priests.

We freed the Cubans FROM Spain. Specifically to hurt Spain.

The Mexican War was not about religion, but the bigotry against Mexicans was 100% religious. Mexico even tried to recruit Irish Catholic settlers into Texas to counter the Protestant American waves (ultimately they failed because the Mexican government was too unstable to carry out the plan in large numbers - they changed their President 31 times from 1824-1845).

There were many Mexicans that fought for for Texas independence. They were Catholic too. The long and short of it was that we rid ourselves of English influence and rule on this continent (Canada excluded) and then found it wise to try to push Spain out of our lives as well. It's called building a nation. We bought the French and Russians out. Other than parts of Canada once our independence was won France wasn't much of a factor.

The moves that were made were largely geo-political and claiming that it was anti Catholic seems to me to be seeking an opportunity to indeed rewrite history. Henry the VIII made sure England went Protestant. That was a rub to the Vatican and Spain remained the super power of the day that was wholly Catholic.

Furthermore to pretend that the Vatican didn't have a political bent is simply naive. The Jesuits were active everywhere and were an organizing arm of the Church politically (albeit before the term was coined). What many translate as anti-Catholic sentiments have little to do with faith and everything to do with actions of the Jesuits which were political in nature, actions of the Spanish Inquisition which were atrocious in nature, and plenty of other things less attached to the faith and more attached to the political acquisition of property and wealth.

The massive influx of Irish prior to and inclusive of the Civil War, and afterwards, probably had much more to do with anti-Catholic sentiments.

There were questions around JFK's faith association but it wasn't that big of a deal, and certainly hasn't been since. The biggest anti Catholic sentiment that I was aware of in my younger years was the Klan, but hey they weren't discriminating in their hatred since Jews, blacks, Catholics, and various others didn't fit their world view either.

But to label anti-Catholic sentiment without specifying what aspects the various entities and eras objected to is disingenuous. Some of it was bias against Catholic political and geographical efforts and acquisitions. Some of it was against atrocities. Some of it was associated with immigration. Some of it was resentment for the poor Irish that were conscripted in record numbers to fight the South. And very little of it was against Catholicism as a faith.

But I bet you would find that information in the microfiche section of the library as well since "victimization" has been the academic rage since that typical Marxist tactic of cultural division took over the shelves at the local Universities beginning around the early 70's.

You're correct on many points.

And yes, Anti-Catholic bigotry doesn't exist in today's America. Other than general anti-Christian bigotry from the Left and a few ignorant Baptist preachers (not that all Baptists are ignorant, just that the ones who are ignorant are just as anti-Papist as ever). I should have clarified that I'm not claiming any current discrimination.

But it's a historical fact that most Protestants (especially the American Puritans, who evolved into Yankees in the 1700s) were strongly anti-Catholic until after World War 1.

From 1700 - 1830, the USA had the highest birthrate of any society in history. We overwhelmed (in turn) the Indians, French, and English with sheer demographics.

But why did Americans then turn to Texas instead of Ontario or the Maritimes? The answer is: we DID overrun Ontario and the Maritimes! In 1812, over 75% of both Ontario's & the Maritime's population of 250,000 was Born in the USA. Why did ex-pat Americans support the government of Canada, but not the government of Mexico? it can't be Quality of Government, because until the 1900s Canada was governed by corrupt Crown officials that treated Canada like a mining colony whose wealth was to be extracted.

Why did we go to war against Spain in 1898? They were no longer a tool of the Popes, the Cubans themselves were fairly content with Spain, and it wasn't a clear land grab (although we did seize Puerto Rico and the Philippines).

These are open questions, and history provides us with good answers in the form of anti-Catholic bigotry. I don't deny that surely some of the hatred was political (I agree with your sentiment that the Popes were too political until the mid 1800s). But much of it was dogmatic.

Many of those Americans in Canada were the loyalists who fled the revolution. They accepted the same government the patriots overthrew.

The Spanish American War was New York newspapers yellow journalism (kind of like NY Times today) talking about how terrible the Europeans were treating the Cubans (there was a revolution going on at the time), the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana harbour, and yes, some imperialism, seeking bases in the Pacific for foreign trade.

No. Anti-Catholic bigotry explains none of that.

The Texas Revolution was basically about tyranny. A murderous dictator overthrew the Mexican Republic. Its believed the Alamo flew an "1824" flag, symbolizing the 1824 Mexican Constitution. Mexicans were revolting against that government too. (http://mexicanhistory.org/santaanna.htm).

(01-23-2019 06:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  My child's history text goes on and on about discrimination against Mexican Americans. But its based on what happened in California where they segregated them. They essentially did the same thing to Okies. California has always been nasty to people who weren't of their tribe. It just changes at different times-Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Okies, conservatives....

I just don't get any sense of significant discrimination against Mexican Americans from my family in Texas. Sure, there was some, but mostly the "Latins" were too ingrained in the culture.

Bingo, that's the way it was in the early 60's in San Antonio. I just love it when people try to tell me that what I saw, experienced, and generally lived, actually happened some other way. Chinese were discriminated against in Washington state when I lived out there. African Americans were a novelty. They hardly ever saw one back then. Native Americans were those discriminated against the most in Northern Michigan when I was there, but then the curfews on African Americans forbid them inside the city limits after dark in some of those towns. I never witnessed anything like that in the South, although the violence in the South towards African Americans was quite memorable. My point being I can't remember a Southern town where their presence was forbidden after hours.

I can't begin to tell you how that rings 'home'....

that would be a conversation only worthy of sharing a few single malts...

Agreed.

I just moved away from San Diego after being there for 3 years. Bullet's phrase "California has always been nasty to people who weren't of their tribe" fits like a glove.

Most Californians actually recognize this fact about their state, but then they make an error and project the situation onto the rest of the country. And since LA is a media hub, all we hear about is how "America" is tribal and racist. When in fact, it's "California" that is tribal and racist.