It’s an odd thing. The history of the United States from the earliest colonies forward is perhaps the best
documented of any country ever to exist, and yet almost none of the actual accounts ever make it into the textbooks. Why not? I’m fairly certain it’s because the truth doesn’t match the narrative our ‘enlightened’ educators wish to preach.

I guarantee any person who really wanted to study the events as recorded by the actual participants, and by that I mean from the British, French, American, and/or the Indian point of view, would have no trouble finding enough documents to keep reading for the rest of his or her life. This is because the folks living through these events were aware they were witnessing something historically exceptional, and a good many of them made special efforts to get everything recorded right away.

On top of that, shortly after the Revolution was over several dedicated parties realized the importance of these eye-witness accounts, so they took it upon themselves to find and preserve everything anybody living through the events of early America had either written down or were still able to tell directly to the historians. (Not everybody knew how to write, so oral histories were the only way to get many of the accounts, especially from amongst the various tribes).

The museums, both public and private, created from these collections are rather extensive, but the truly wonderful thing is the details provided by survivors from all sides tend to match each
other remarkably well. Consequently, there is no good reason to pay any
attention to the Hollywood history of our country. The correct story is readily
available, and much of it is far more interesting than the wild imaginings ignorant
leftists have been spreading.

If I may, I’d like to set the record
straight on a few things, and one of them is this weird idea liberalism is the
key to ending inner-city poverty forever. As the title suggests, I’m going to
build the case New York, with or without all its progressive values, is the
true source of slums in America, and anybody who bothers to examine the issue
honestly will discover no progressive solution has never done a thing to make them
substantially better.

For at least the last fifty years
the only significant change leftists have achieved is they’ve vastly increased
the size of "ghetto" areas in every city, but, even worse, they’ve turned these
areas into virtual prisons. If you ever have occasion to drive through New York
on the I-95 you will see what I mean. For miles and miles you can’t tell if you
are looking at hundreds of government built slums all pushed up against each
other, or if the whole thing is just one giant slum. (Yeah, I know, what’s the
difference? It’s horrible either way, especially if you have to live there).

The basic problem is slums came about,
not by the natural order of things just falling into place this way when the
economy is "rigged" against the poor, but by an unwillingness of people to
follow traditional American values. People born in the slums these days may not have had any choice in the matter, but there was a time when most people did. Yes, New York was the first to take a path
leading to a completely different set of values from the ones the earliest
settlers established, but, unfortunately, the path New York blazed didn’t stop
there.

Look at any large city in the country today. You want to complain about urban
blight? Go ahead. Just don’t forget to blame it on all the migrating New
Yorkers who created it, and this is not a recent phenomenon. You can go all the way back to the early 1800’s and you’ll see the bulk of the people moving into any American city have been from New
York or one of its surrounding states. Even an enormous percentage of
immigrants from other countries spent time in New York City before moving on.

There’s just something corrosive
done to people’s minds after they’ve been in contact with New York for any
length of time, and that includes accepting life in tenements as an appropriate
way to house the poor. As you will see, slums in America had to be created,
from scratch, because the New York value system has never been able to find a
better solution. Even now, the same progressive politicians who decry inner
city poverty consider it a public service to allow homeless camps to be set up all
over the place, and these camps are far shoddier than any slum. Geez Louise, if
the leftists keep applying their solutions, half of every city is going to end
up being covered in homeless camps. I fail to see how this improves living
conditions for the poor.

The worst part is, before the city folks from back-east started taking over, the United States used to be the only developed country in the world where slums did not exist.

Hang on, I’m going to back that statement up in a few moments.

The socialistic ideas the left is
pushing these days are said to have started in Germany, sometime after 1871,
but the reality is they’d been around, albeit mostly ignored by the ruling
classes, for at least a century prior, and that includes within the
Northeastern region of our country. Taking the commonly held notion progressivism
was a significant part of all political thought in Europe from the 1880’s
onward, the important thing to note is its proponents were convinced Utopia
would be reached in no more than three generations. Well, using the widest
range possible for what constitutes a generation (that is, let’s say a new one
is formed every thirty years, as opposed to the eighteen years ascribed to the
Baby-Boomer generation), it’s been at least four generations since then, and,
despite the almost complete take-over of Europe by socialism, they still have no
Utopia in sight.

As the modern day advocates thrash
around looking for ways to make their ideas work, they seem bound and
determined to ignore the fact there has never been but one actual Utopia ever
produced in the whole history of mankind, and that Utopia was the US Colonies.

Think I’m kidding? Nope. You can
definitely say life in those days was harder than today, not to mention more
deadly, but nobody other than royalty had it as good, and at least half the
world now still doesn’t. In fact, things today would be very much different if
the Colonial way of functioning, aside from slavery, had remained intact.

Not to digress too much, but before
I can make a case for the colonies being a Utopia, the issue of slavery must be
touched upon. Your average non-thinking leftist will automatically bring up the
subject as an excuse to avoid learning anything else, and this foolhardy
reaction has led to other aspects of colonial life no longer being taught.

As far as the issue of slavery goes,
it needs to be remembered it had always been a thorn in the side of the
Founding Fathers, and the debate over it then was remarkably similar to today’s
debate over abortion. Truth is, many of the arguments, pro and con, sound
exactly the same, and it’s the pro-abortionists now who are using the
disgraceful pro-slavery argument of "they aren’t even really human" to justify
what they want to do.

Those who hate America today over the slavery in its past suffer from tunnel vision. They only focus on the fact it existed. They completely ignore the more significant fact it didn’t exist without opposition. The struggle to end slavery started well before the Revolution began, and the phrase "All men are
created equal" was deliberately put in The Declaration of Independence as a way
to show the world America was setting a goal it intended someday to reach. (The document itself was more a propaganda tool to garner support from other countries than it was a formal declaration of war, and the founders knew the Western world held a dim view of slavery. They had to send a signal to potential allies they were working on the problem). Another interesting thing once taught, of which you may not be aware, is John Locke developed the ideal of Life, Liberty, Property, but when the Founding Fathers adopted that philosophy they intentionally changed ‘property’ to ‘pursuit of happiness’ because they were afraid an argument could later be made slaves were property.

The folks who refuse to acknowledge those facts are being deliberately blind. They seem to be saying the struggle against enslavement isn’t even worth mentioning because it took too long to win. Apparently,
the fact it was won doesn’t count for anything. My question is this: why should how long it took be the only standard by which we now must judge the virtue of the entire country?

If you are even remotely
fair-minded, you must realize this only proves some hated ideologies can divide
a country for a very long time, and the country itself should not be blamed for
the actions of a few of its residents. Until enough people are ready to give
their lives fighting over an issue, you have no business expecting a quick
resolution. Peaceful solutions always take much longer, and that’s only on the
rare occasions when they actually work.

Ironically, this is exactly the
approach leftists usually want us to take when we are forced to confront evil
coming from other countries. I recall Hippy activists several decades ago
following this very principle when large groups of them would chant, "How long
will we wait? As long as it takes!" (Ooh, that chant is still so awe-inspiring my
inner wimp just yearns to break free).

Here we can see the distinction
between traditional American values and New York values. The folks holding
American (conservative) values are willing to protect freedom by risking their
lives in the never-ending fight against evil, and the folks holding New York
(leftist) values are willing to give up freedoms to either obtain a sense of
security or to placate anybody who could really hurt them. The conservative
model is Britain standing alone against Hitler’s war machine in 1940, and the
leftist model is the rendering of aid to evil regimes by having misguided
youths throw temper tantrums in places no more dangerous than a college campus.

Now, those of you on the left can
hate America as much as you want over how long it tolerated slavery, but,
before you sell your soul completely to that opinion, please ask yourself this:
how many of your issues are you so eager to advance you’d be willing to die
tomorrow if you thought it would help your cause? Remember, screaming at people
you know in advance won’t hurt you is nowhere near as honorable as risking your
life actually fighting against injustice.

Oh, and one last thing, before you
decide you are immediately ready and willing to die fighting for your cause,
why don’t you first take the time to make sure you are on the right side of the
issue? After all, dying in support of a moral wrong would be a complete waste
of your life.

For those who do not have a
religious moral compass to use for guidance on what is right or wrong, the
easiest way to determine the righteousness of your side is to ask if the
prescribed solutions cause harm to anybody else. No matter how virtuous you
believe your goal is, and despite whatever good you think it may bring about in
the future, if obtaining what you want requires any harm at all be done to
another person or group (including "the rich"), then it is evil.

It’s as simple as that. If you pay less
attention to attaining your selfish goals at all costs, and only search for
solutions causing no harm to anybody else, you’ll discover there is no need for
conflicts. Conflicts only occur when at least one side is willing to use evil
methods to get the outcomes it wants. Therefore, if you stand up against evil,
without resorting to any yourself, you may not always be able to avoid
conflicts, but you will always be on the right side.

Some may be inclined to say this moral guide simply proves what was done to the Indians was evil, and to that I only have a few things to say. First, I agree. I cannot justify any crimes committed in the past. Second, crimes and atrocities were committed on both sides, but the Indians usually got the ball rolling because their customary solution to problems tended to be killing first, and negotiating later. (They normally were only interested in peace talks when they found themselves upon the brink of defeat). This was especially true in the days before we had a formal government. The wars the Puritans had were started by local Indians who were trying to force the colonists to help them eradicate other tribes, and the Puritans refused. It almost seems funny they had to fight for the right not to fight. Third, the biggest crimes against the Indians were committed by politicians – not by the settlers who had managed to enter into good faith agreements with the Indians – and that only backs up my point the government folks from the big cities have always been the source of our biggest problems.

Now, with that out the way, and excluding the issue of slavery, the gist of the
matter is the Colonists had a very high standard of living and they enjoyed
freedoms beyond anything the world then had ever experienced. Heck, they had
both those things beyond what even most people in this country today are
currently able to experience. One thing’s for sure, the poverty and urban
squalor the libs are constantly claiming they are fighting against didn’t even
exist back then.

Despite the false impression
Hollywood creates of early Salem or Philadelphia being as sordid as London’s
East End in the mid 1800’s, the fact is these places were remarkably clean and
well-maintained. You were far more likely to be waylaid by scoundrels on the
roads between cities than you were inside the cities themselves. This is
because poverty and poor living conditions are not the root source of crime;
laziness is. As a general rule, crooks prefer stealing over working, and at
that time robbing people was much easier to do outside the cities.

This isn’t to say there was no crime
inside the colonial settlements, but for the purposes of this discussion all
you need know is life in the cities was safer and more pleasant than it later
would end up being. While not everybody was rich, the ability to become rich
was always there, and even the poor took care of what they had.

In short, the Utopia the dreamers are so desperate to find would still be here today if all the do-gooders and politicians with their big-city mindsets hadn’t interfered.

Funny, but even if we did have that
Utopia now I strongly suspect those folks would still be complaining about
something. If I learned anything at all in the psychology classes I had to take
in college, it’s that a certain percentage of people are naturally contrarians,
and these type people will always be unhappy with the way things are. The trick
humanity has continuously struggled to learn is how to ignore those noisy
whiners. Sadly, the cry-babies have always been given more power than their
small numbers could ever take for themselves, so we constantly end up letting
them have their way.

If you went to college within the
last fifty years or so, you may be tempted to confuse the thirteen colonies
with the much condemned term "Colonialism". The two things have practically
nothing in common. Colonialism, as it is taught, is a system whereby a powerful
country moves into a weaker country to exploit its people and resources. The
American Colonies, on the other hand, may have been formed with the approval of
Mother England, but Britain did nothing to either support or exploit anybody
there.

England was so hands-off with North American
settlements the Puritans firmly believed, from 1629 onward, their colony was
responsible for itself and all its politics. This idea was largely held by
later American colonies as well. The fact England never stationed troops there
until the French and Indian War came along, more than a hundred years later,
did nothing but reinforce this belief.

Why is this important? Well, as it
turned out, the hands-off approach by England was the key to success. The first
true Utopia was only formed, inadvertently, because the early Americans didn’t
have to put up with any interference from outside bureaucracies. (It should be
mentioned the early colonists had enough freedom to make some devastating
attempts at socialism themselves, through a theoretical ideal called "Common Stock",
but they quickly changed their ideology when they decided they didn’t want to
keep dying so frequently and needlessly). It was the lack of governmental
meddling which led the colonists to eventually experience the first true taste
of freedom ever allowed for commoners in the civilized world, and, once
experienced, the colonists never wanted to give it up.

If England had bothered to bring in
a royal government from the very beginning, backed up by a strong military
presence, the early settlers may not have starved to death in such great
numbers, but, then again, things in this country would have turned out
much differently. How differently? Well, it’s entirely possible the Revolution
would not have occurred.

However, back in the 1600’s Britain
didn’t see any real value in this part of North America, and, other than
several small and highly unsuccessful early attempts by France, neither did
most other European countries. In their eyes this region was hardly worth the
effort and expense it would take to bring in a royal government.

To understand why Europe had no use
for this region at that time, you first need to understand what this area was
like. It was very different from what you see today.

Think about being dumped in the
Amazon jungle and having to build a settlement without any outside support.
That’s pretty close to what the people who settled into Virginia and the other
southern areas had to go through. Contrary to the wonderfully scenic landscape
and fertile farmland you see today, back then it was mostly festering
swampland. The bulk of this region was racked with disease, plagued with tormenting
insects, and the water was completely undrinkable. Much of it was so uninhabitable the
Indians themselves wouldn’t live there, and that was why they initially didn’t
mind trading those areas away.

Unlike South America, where precious
metals and gems were well-worth whatever effort was required to obtain them, the
region the American colonists settled in was considered worthless in
comparison.

Oh sure, the European governments
knew there were resources of value in this rugged land, but they also knew most
people would die trying to develop those resources. The resources garnered
there just weren’t likely to equal the fabulous shiploads of treasure they were already
raking in elsewhere. From their perspective the North American settlements were
only good for people who were willing to take enormous risks to achieve a
possibly better life, and that made it the perfect place to send all those
annoying religious fanatics who were trying to disrupt the way the firmly
established European churches were doing things.

That last paragraph tells you
everything you need to know about how traditional American values were
produced. The colonies, and later the states, were developed around the two
main ideas of having religious freedom and working hard to make a better life
for yourself. Those early pioneers knew they had a chance to build something
good, and as they set about building it they developed an aversion to
governmental assistance. They figured out rather quickly any government
offering a hand to help you, would also use the other hand to take your
freedoms away (That, by the way, is not an original thought. It was said by James
Cagney, but I think his words came from a long-standing American ideal). From
our earliest days the idea of letting any government control our lives was
firmly rejected.

Now that the colonists had the
freedom to create their society along whatever ideals they wanted – and we must
not forget they had the added incentive of being allowed to profit from their
own labors – what they did was drain the swamps, dig wells for fresh water, and
start making use of the fertile land they recovered from nature. It took many,
many years, and they died by the hundreds during almost every one of those
years, but they eventually managed to make good and profitable use of the land.
Lavish farms sprouted wherever the land had been cleared, and every settlement
that managed to avoid being destroyed by Indian attacks quickly grew into a tidy
little town. Even the big cities succeeded in growing ever larger without
becoming seedy.

This is backed up by historical
accounts of British officers, during the years before the Revolution, guiding soldiers
on tours of the American countryside and cities. Their purpose was to encourage
the men into taking up residence in the colonies when their tours of duty were over,
rather than going back to England. The officers pointed out there was no
squalor anywhere in the colonies, and they showed the soldiers the lives they
could have if they chose to settle in North America.

What you need to understand is the
cities in Europe were massively overpopulated, and there was absolutely no land
an average person could acquire. All open land belonged to monarchs, and even the
farms were controlled by the nobility. This meant the bulk of returning
soldiers really had no good place to go, and most were destined to end up living
in slums so ghastly only the rats were happy. In fact, many of these soldiers
had joined the army just to escape this bleak existence, so quite a number of
them happily heeded the advice of their officers. Not only were the colonies
full of opportunity, but there simply were no slums to end up in. From the
British soldier’s perspective, things in even the poorest parts of the colonies
were still at least ten times better than what they could find back home.

Ah, there it is. This is the key for
understanding how slums in America ever came into being. We can skip forward
through time a hundred or so years and see what that little aspect of human
nature did to New York and Chicago.

Just as English soldiers took up
residency in this country, strictly to have better living conditions, so too did
the majority of immigrants who later chose to arrive. History teaches us the
expansion of the country was done mostly by farmers, trappers, and others who
wanted to seek new land for themselves, but what it rarely mentions is the vast
majority of immigrants didn’t do that. They moved into the cities and stayed
there. Looking at it from their perspective, it almost makes sense. Why risk
your life heading into difficult territories when the worst areas of any
American city were already so much better than what you just left?

Unfortunately, the government didn’t
realize most newcomers would have that attitude when it opened up the country
to immigration. The natural assumption was everybody would be willing to take
the same risks as previous generations had done. After all, how often does such
a golden opportunity come along? The problem for Americans who had been born
here and had always been blessed with tremendous freedom was they didn’t understand
two things about human nature. People who’ve never owned much can be easily
satisfied with small improvements in their living standards, and taking risks just
isn’t normal behavior.

Therefore, the slums came about simply because people preferred them over venturing further into the unknown.

The government never even tried to prevent
this. City politicians were perfectly willing to let people live this way – more people equals more power for elected officials – so they saw no reason to encourage folks to move on. Instead,
the easiest thing to do was find room for all those people. The New York method
was to take the older houses wealthy people once lived in and convert them into
apartment style buildings with very small living spaces. As time went on, these
buildings were expanded, including more floors added on top, and eventually
brand new buildings were built especially to hold as many poor people as could
possibly be squeezed in.

Here’s where Chicago upped the ante.
The buildings they designed strictly for the poor had a shared bath area in the
middle of each floor, and all the shabby living spaces were built around it. This
did have one interesting result, though. Prior to these structures being
created the word tenement meant any building with paying tenants in it, but after
Chicago built their version of tenements the word came solely to mean
substandard housing for the poor.

It may seem incredible now, but the
immigrants considered this a step up. To this day America has never produced a
slum anywhere near as bad as a European ghetto, so it could be argued this was
our big mistake. Perhaps we should have made our slums so disgusting nobody
would have accepted them. Then most people might have ended up living on land
they owned instead of merely accepting the miserable conditions the cities were
creating.

There’s no way to get around it; this was a stunning waste of an opportunity. We actually could have, and should have, become a nation primarily made up of landowners, instead
of one where most people are concentrated around overcrowded urban areas. You want to know how overcrowded? Eighty percent of our population is crammed into only three percent of the country. Just imagine how much poverty could be reduced if half those people were taking care of themselves on their own land.

That, in a nutshell, is what New
York values have ultimately given us – a large population of people who would
prefer to have politicians and bureaucrats decide how they shall live, even
under slum conditions, instead of making their own way in the world.

As the New York mindset takes over
the country, the more dependency it builds into people, and this is the path to destruction. The painful
reality is no country can survive very long after a majority of its citizens
start expecting the government to give them better things than Santa Claus.
There just aren’t enough rich people on Earth, let alone in the United States,
to keep paying for all the ‘needs’ our people now think they deserve.

The sad part is when the system
collapses, as it eventually must, these people will not be able to take care of
themselves at all. Leftists don’t like to admit it, but self-reliance is still
the only guaranteed method of survival when economic hardship strikes. To make
my point I ask you to think about this question. How many city folks do you honestly
believe could survive if a huge electrical black-out occurred for 4 to 6 months? Personally, I expect it wouldn’t be any more than the most violent ten
percent of the population in any city who’d still be alive when the power came
back.

Thanks to our Leftist education system, the lessons learned from the debacle of "Common Stock" are being ignored, and the eventual failure of that ideal this time will be far worse than anything experienced in the 1600’s.

You know, New Hampshire’s state
slogan "Live free or die" says it best. It’s supposed to represent an attitude many folks have for remaining free at all costs, but it should also be seen as a warning for what will happen when you give that freedom away. Unfortunately, New York style leftism is going to teach us exactly what that other meaning really is.
The people happily living under New York values now are actually cheering along as they are being led to their demise.

Ah, hell, I’ve grown so sick of seeing how much damage people cause when they behave stupidly I’d gladly even say good riddance, if wasn’t for the fact they’re taking the rest of us with them.

Wouldn’t it be better just to slap some sense into them before it’s too late? It wouldn’t even be that hard. Dependency also breeds cowardice, and cowards always run away when the other side firmly resists.

Vive la resistance!

PS: In the everlasting hope our country wises up in time, I still say Life to America and all its traditional
values!

0 0 votes
Article Rating