Archive for the ‘History’ Category

An open letter to Naui Huitzilopochtli (and all those who may read it)

First off, I apologize for often presenting myself as an antagonizing force. This is something I try to avoid, but my principles often dictate to me be so,, I am apologizing only for the borderline inappropriate manner I sometimes present my arguments, not for having those arguments to begin with.

Secondly, this not a critique or an attack, or at least, I did not mean for it to be. This is an apology (from the Greek word, meaning explanation) of my beliefs and my opinions.

Thirdly, I apologize for writing this in English, as my Nahuatl is, sadly, very basic.

I am not a nationalist of any kind, furthermore, I am not a racist of any kind. This is to mean that I do not hold the Accident of someone’s Birth against them in any way, unless of course, they wish for me do so. In addition, I wish to convey, with that statement, that I do hold  any collectivist ideals, although often it is necessary for me to appear to have them. This is evident in my Vexillology, as seen in my flying several flags in my home, and sometimes as my profile picture on facebook.

In discussions I have had on your facebook wall, I have been caricatured as an imperialist, a murderer and a racist. This is to be expected. I do hold you accountable for this. This is one of the things I feel I must address, and obviously extend my sincerest apologies if I have done the same. This was not intentional.

The purpose of my antagonism is simple: I first and foremost, wish to understand what your views are, and what the view of the people who, for lack of a better term, side with you. In addition, I wish to understand the Nature and cause of these opinions. Despite being scorned, I proceed to ‘poke’ at your statements in order to deduce the underlying principles that yield your statements and convictions. I believe that like my own statements and convictions, they are based on something. I believe that in order to learn yours, I must first share mine, and they are as follows:

First, as I mentioned before, I do not believe in the inherent power of the accident of one’s birth. This obviously needs further explanation: I believe that we are all human. The phrase: “All men are created equal” is something that I hold very dearly. I believe this statement to be true. I likewise believe that all humans are worthy of the same dignities and the same respect. And I believe that nothing can strip these away, least of all someone’s race, economic status, heritage, religion or lack of, or anything that humans may use to group themselves, or group others under. It is because of this that I often appear to defend causes that are at the moment, or any other given moment, unpopular. My recent defense of the Confederacy is not, as it has been assumed to be, a defense of slavery or bigotry, it is merely a remembrance of the men who died in a brutal and senseless war.  While this war may have had the effect of freeing the slaves, this act alone cannot condone its bloodshed.  Likewise, any acts of violence made by white men, or any men, cannot condone hatred towards such men, or any men.

My refusal to hate them does not mean that I condone their actions. The slaveholder violated the natural rights of the slave, but it does not make him any less worthy of his own rights. It is a crime, yes, an unforgivable one, yes, but not one that should be used to hate them. But more importantly, the act of the slaveholder should not, cannot and must not be used to condone hatred or crimes towards his brothers and friends. His brothers and his friends are not him, and his crimes are not theirs.

To take that one step further: The acts of white men in the past should not, cannot and must not be paid upon their descendents. My ancestors may have committed a crime, but that crime is not mine.

To quote fiction, if I may: In the Lord of the Rings, Arwen tells Aragorn that “You are Isildur’s Heir, not Isildur himself” His reply is simple and true “The same blood that ran through his veins, runs through mine” Yet her own reply conveys a message that I myself happen to hold “You will face the same evil, and defeat it”

So, whereas the same blood that ran through the veins of the Conquistadors, the same blood that raped and burned, runs through my veins, I am not them. I too, can give in to a primal urge that all humans carry, and rape and burn, but I have not. The ability to commit a crime is not the same as having committed it. And I am not accountable for the crimes of m ancestors. Likewise, not all white men are guilty of the crimes of some of their ancestors.

This is not to say that crimes were not committed, and this is not to say that those crimes should be easily forgotten or forgiven.  They were unforgivable crimes, yes, but the men who committed them are long since dead. One cannot wage war against a dead enemy, and the descendents of such enemies are not the enemy themselves.

Secondly, a point I hope I have made clear: I am an Individualist. And because of this, I am a Capitalist. The principles of individualism are simple: All men are born equal,, and should be allowed to go as far as their own abilities permit them, or as far as other men help them to go. These are also the principles of capitalism, thus the only system thus far that has allowed men to be free to choose and free to fail at their volition is Capitalism.

I have asked, mostly indirectly, for you to show me a system of beliefs that better encapsulates men’s rights. (and I am using the term men in a gender neutral manner) Thus far, you have not, and I eagerly await your reply.

In the past, I have been told that Capitalism is a force that denies men’s basic rights, and the examples given forth are mostly non-sequiturs, or examples made through equivocation, namely the argument that because white men committed crimes against Native Americans (whom you call Nican Tlaca, more on that later) and other white men developed modern Capitalism (Namely Adam Smith and, to a certain extent John Locke and the British Rationalists and German Idealists) therefore all white men have committed these crimes and likewise Capitalism is responsible for these crimes. This simply does not follow. I fear that at this point, I made have made a reductionist assumption about your arguments, and I look forward to being corrected.

About the term Nican Tlaca. I do feel certain. . .apprehension at you use of the term, as I understand it, the term is simply the Nahua term for people who live on this continent prior to European Conquest. And I must say I find it terribly ironic that you would bestow the title of your people upon the rest of the Native American population, and yet outcry the term “Native American” because it is used by one people to refer to another.

This naturally leads me to a question: What exactly is the goal of your movement? I am going to assume that it is expatriation of all non Native American’s from this continent. I am likely wrong, but it appears to be thus far. Again, I look forward to learning more about the end goal of your endeavours. If however, the goal is education, then I applaud you. Education is one of my greatest concerns, and I support all men and movements who seek to educate. Likewise, I support all men who seek to discuss, trade, and promulgate ideas rationally. If this is the end goal, then I believe you have gained a convert. Although I admit I find your methodology to be ineffective.

For the time being, and under the circumstances, this is all I have to say on the matter and I await your reply eagerly.

Sincerely, Antonio I. Villalpando.

The Problem With the (early) LDS

“The truth is Roy, there are many people who do not like our church. Somehow simply believing differently than others seems to be the only instigation, yet these people will say and do anything possible to discredit and denounce us. Unfortunately, lies and murder ARE in our past but they deal with lies about us and murder of our innocent members. Church members were beaten, imprisoned, murdered, and driven from their homes in the early days of the church and the US government, that we have always been in support of, didn’t support us when we needed them most. I would recommend reading an impartial history of the church in America and not one film maker’s twisted view of supposed history.”

The quote is from the wall of the Facebook group: LDS Life. Where a Mormon reader responds to another member’s question about the “real” history of the Mormon church, as the issue is addressed in the movie September Dawn.

The movie addresses one of the many massacres at the hands of the Mormons in their early history, and even though i haven’t seen the movie myself, it seems to be incredibly accurate. Of course, like the above comment points out, Mormons have always painted themselves the victims, when in reality, and historically, they are far from it.

I can say, without the shadow of any reasonable doubt, that the actions taken by the US Government against the newly emerged Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was not an act of genocide, but an act of National Security. The leaders of the early Mormon Church, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young standing out, were, in plain terms, not only separatists, but terrorists, who could each of them be charged with several Crimes Against Humanity, not to mention multiple counts of rape, murder, bribery, and treason.

This is not to say that the members of the Mormon church at the time were all criminals, but many of them were, a simple walk though the historic collections at ASU, proves that. Although most modern Mormons are in fact, peace oriented, and overall incredibly kind people, their history, and their leaders, are covered in the blood of innocents who dared to believe something that they (the Mormons) did not.

Perhaps the best example of the arrogance and the threat that Joseph Smith posed was in the governmental system of Nauvoo. (and the current system of government in Utah) Where one man, allegedly chosen by God rules over a city council, whose members all believe him to be the incapable of err, and in turn these rule over Nauvoo. The entire system, aside from theocratic, is more akin to a monarchy. As Joseph Smith himself pointed out, the Lord would deliver the country to him and make him “King”. These ideas, combined with the doctrine of “Blood Atonement” (the belief that a person could, and should, be saved by spilling their blood in sacrifice to the Lord, a glamorized system of Human Sacrifice) and the forced marriages of women and girls to those “chosen” by the Lord surmount to America’s very first, homegrown terrorist and organized crime syndication.

After his death (which of course, i disagree with) Brigham Young emerged as the victor after a set of fights that gave birth to other Mormon factions (much like the death of Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, and other, less pleasent character’s deaths left several factions vying for power) Of course, this change in government, did not improve the Mormon situation, and eventually led to The Mormon Wars, where armed militias of Mormons led attacks on unarmed non-Mormon civilians in order to take the resources needed to survive their self-imposed exile, and through these actions forced the US Army to openly declare and unofficial war with the Mormons, leaving countless dead on both sides fo the conflict. Thankfully these conflics lasted only months and eventually, after the death of Young, the Mormon Church was able to settle down, into a moslty respectably group of people.