What Do You Mean “We” White Man?

Today’s title comes from a story going round during the days of the Lone Ranger and his sidekick, Tonto. They were surrounded by wild yelling Indians on the attack and the Ranger said, “Looks like we are in lots of trouble, Tonto,” to which the reply appears above. In these days of all the flurry over immigration, it is useful to remember that the only true Americans are the original indigenous inhabitants, whom Columbus mistakenly called Indians. All those who came from other continents are invaders, excepting the Africans, most of who were brought here involuntarily and therefore fall into a different category.

What the white man did to these natives both north and south following the “discovery” of the New World is unprecedented in human history for savagery, brutality, raping, robbery and mass murder. The Holocaust and Darfur fade by comparison. And now the descendants of these perpetrators of crimes against humanity are setting up barriers against people, most of whom are descended from the original inhabitants, at least partially so, the mestizos. If anyone has a right to say, “Go back where you came from,” it is they!

There are a number of issues here. It cannot be denied that in the modern world, nation states have a right to set their borders, determine whom they will allow entrance, and to whom citizenship may be granted. It is not unreasonable to expect, particularly in a democracy where all citizens old and new vote in elections, to expect that the new will learn the language in which politics is conducted, able to speak, read and write it. It is not required that the nation should become bilingual, though it is not impossible, either.

Earlier generations of immigrants encouraged their children to learn and to speak English, discouraging the continued use of the mother tongue, but that was voluntary. It cannot be required practically. Bilingual education in the public schools makes sense, especially where the English-speaking also learn a new tongue, which can be useful and perhaps even profitable to them. To establish a reliable system of identification beyond forgery would be useful to all, but individual liberties must be guarded at the same time.

Obviously the economy needs at least some of these workers; without that demand they would not be here. Obviously their earnings should be taxed to help pay for the social services they receive. And they should have some humane protection against child labor, sweat shops and exploitation. But there seems little reason to deny willing workers jobs that are there and to deny entrepreneurs who need the workers the opportunity to hire them.

The “guest worker” program seems sensible, as a program to round up and deport 12 million people does not. Walls, from China to Berlin, do not have a very effective record. Those who vigorously oppose any form of amnesty, pointing to the ‘80s when that effort failed, ignore the fact that the problem was then traceable to the fact that many of the eligible declined to come forward because did not trust the authorities. They feared if they “outed” themselves that they would be promptly deported, and certainly nothing on the scene today suggests any reason to increase trust among those affected.

Any broad consensus over what should be done means nothing is done, and the problem grows larger by the day. Surely one or more of the options available is preferable to that!

Homophilous has an earned PhD and several honorary doctorates. He has been a college professor, a college dean and a college president. He has worked in the international relations field, has been a professional fund-raiser and has authored several books. To throw bouquets or bricks at the author of the above, send e-mail to Homophilous@aol.com.