Pat Robertson Calls For Assassination

[John Dibble]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wrongo - this just goes to show what you [don't] know. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were home-schooled by Mary Antoinette.

They did not want to install Hitler as chancellor, but because his party was gaining such popularity, won the elections, and his speeches fired many people up (although he toned down some of it before his party won in 1932), they really had to. And they only did so once Hitler agreed that he would NOT put the machinations into place to execute the very things you mentioned, plus violence against Jews. Of course he later broke the entire list and the whole agreement.

Why on earth would the German owning class care if Hitler slaughtered the Jews, as long as he still slaughtered the Socialists and Unionists?

Many Jews were bankers and whatnot if I'm not mistaken(someone correct me if I'm wrong, I somewhat remember the Jews being economically successful as one of the reasons it was easy to rile up hatred for them during Hitler's rise to power) - so some were likely part of the owning class and a number of them may have managed the owning classes assets in some manner.

[opebo]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wrongo - this just goes to show what you [don't] know. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were home-schooled by Mary Antoinette.

They did not want to install Hitler as chancellor, but because his party was gaining such popularity, won the elections, and his speeches fired many people up (although he toned down some of it before his party won in 1932), they really had to. And they only did so once Hitler agreed that he would NOT put the machinations into place to execute the very things you mentioned, plus violence against Jews. Of course he later broke the entire list and the whole agreement.

Why on earth would the German owning class care if Hitler slaughtered the Jews, as long as he still slaughtered the Socialists and Unionists?

Many Jews were bankers and whatnot if I'm not mistaken(someone correct me if I'm wrong, I somewhat remember the Jews being economically successful as one of the reasons it was easy to rile up hatred for them during Hitler's rise to power) - so some were likely part of the owning class and a number of them may have managed the owning classes assets in some manner.

I'm quite sure the great bulk of the owning class despised them, however.  Certainly they were expendable in the great goal of getting rid of Socialism and protecting Capital.

[Platypus]

jesse jackson is an idiot.

[WMS]

Not to mention Robertson's support of Charles Taylor as I pointed out earlier.

Also note the second image in my sig. That's the logo of the freedom fighters who bravely battled the Ris Montt regime. Eat that Robertson.

Diamonds mines and private airstrips:  Jesus must be proud. 

Montt should be lined up and executed.  The R.C. Church decided to speak the truth about Montt so he became an Evangelical preacher and wiped out some villages at the same time.  A friend of mine is from Guatemala, he told me how the Mayans were treated like absolute garbage at that time and I am sure they still are.  Rigoberto Menchu is a pretty good writer on the topic even if she is given to hyperbole.

Disturbing that his party still continued to do fairly well even after democracy came about. At least Montt got his ass kicked in the last election, although it's still rather disturbing that such a butcher could get 19% and that he was even allowed to run in the first place since the constitution bans former coup leaders from holding office (I always thought of how sad it was the constitution would even need such a clause)

Damnit, I've said this before.

This is over-the-top propaganda. Was Montt a dictator? Yeah. Did his regime kill civilians in civil war? Yes.

Was his regime responsible for the Mayan genocide? Actually, no.

Montt's predecessor tyrant, Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia (1 Jul 1978 - 23 Mar 1982), was the one who committed the Mayan genocide. And, yes, he was a Catholic.

I think the 'Montt and his evangelicals are responsible for everything evil in Guatemala!!!!!' crap is, simply, sponsored by Guatemalan Catholics who are upset at the great success evangelical Christianity has had in Guatemala, especially among the Mayans and the poor. Far easier to blame a 'foreign' religion for everything than to face up to the fact that Catholics butchered Catholics in Guatemala, often with the traditionalist Catholics - overwhelmingly white Hispanic, mind you - gleefully overseeing the slaughter of the liberation theology Catholics - a bit more mixed ethnically.

Why did his party (the Guatemalan Republican Front (Frente Republicano Guatemalteco)) still do so well? Because unlike Lucas Garcia, Montt gave the Mayans a way to avoid slaughter - form self-defense units loyal to the regime. Unpleasant, yes. Genocide, no.

As for the group in your signature BRTD, unlike the rebels in El Salvador, the Guatemalan rebels utterly failed to protect their supporters - the rebels ran and left their civilians exposed to the army. If only they had at least fought against Garcia's regime! The FMLN took their civilians with them. The Guatemalans did not. That's why the Mayans don't think too highly of the ex-rebels.

Montt overthrew Garcia, which was a step forward. There were a ton of steps to go, but it was still an improvement. Montt was a long way from a saint, but the image of him in this thread is just inaccurate.

FYI I got a lot of this information from a class in college taught by a Latin American specialist - and a rather leftist one, at that. There's a book called Unfinished Conquest which gives a much more accurate (and still rather depressing) picture of Guatemala about 1995 than what's been mentioned earlier.

Bloody hell...

[Giant Saguaro]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wrongo - this just goes to show what you [don't] know. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were home-schooled by Mary Antoinette.

They did not want to install Hitler as chancellor, but because his party was gaining such popularity, won the elections, and his speeches fired many people up (although he toned down some of it before his party won in 1932), they really had to. And they only did so once Hitler agreed that he would NOT put the machinations into place to execute the very things you mentioned, plus violence against Jews. Of course he later broke the entire list and the whole agreement.

Why on earth would the German owning class care if Hitler slaughtered the Jews, as long as he still slaughtered the Socialists and Unionists?

Many Jews were bankers and whatnot if I'm not mistaken(someone correct me if I'm wrong, I somewhat remember the Jews being economically successful as one of the reasons it was easy to rile up hatred for them during Hitler's rise to power) - so some were likely part of the owning class and a number of them may have managed the owning classes assets in some manner.

I'm quite sure the great bulk of the owning class despised them, however.  Certainly they were expendable in the great goal of getting rid of Socialism and protecting Capital.

No, you're certainly incorrectly assuming that the group of people you are erroneously calling 'the owning class' wanted to rid themselves of Jews and working class people via genocide. Just not true. Aside from Dibble raising an excellent point, why even wait for Hitler if that's what they want to do? They, who you wrongly call the 'owning class,' also put Hitler in jail in the first place! He was a revolutionary and at least a mild threat to them. 'Owning class' is so broad and general a term that anyone you are currently generating conpiracy theories about could be made to fit into the category, which probably makes it a completely fallacious category. I don't know who they are. I know who you *think* they are, but the term doesn't mean anything.

[patrick1]

Not to mention Robertson's support of Charles Taylor as I pointed out earlier.

Also note the second image in my sig. That's the logo of the freedom fighters who bravely battled the Ris Montt regime. Eat that Robertson.

Diamonds mines and private airstrips:  Jesus must be proud. 

Montt should be lined up and executed.  The R.C. Church decided to speak the truth about Montt so he became an Evangelical preacher and wiped out some villages at the same time.  A friend of mine is from Guatemala, he told me how the Mayans were treated like absolute garbage at that time and I am sure they still are.  Rigoberto Menchu is a pretty good writer on the topic even if she is given to hyperbole.

Disturbing that his party still continued to do fairly well even after democracy came about. At least Montt got his ass kicked in the last election, although it's still rather disturbing that such a butcher could get 19% and that he was even allowed to run in the first place since the constitution bans former coup leaders from holding office (I always thought of how sad it was the constitution would even need such a clause)

Damnit, I've said this before.

This is over-the-top propaganda. Was Montt a dictator? Yeah. Did his regime kill civilians in civil war? Yes.

Was his regime responsible for the Mayan genocide? Actually, no.

Montt's predecessor tyrant, Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia (1 Jul 1978 - 23 Mar 1982), was the one who committed the Mayan genocide. And, yes, he was a Catholic.

I think the 'Montt and his evangelicals are responsible for everything evil in Guatemala!!!!!' crap is, simply, sponsored by Guatemalan Catholics who are upset at the great success evangelical Christianity has had in Guatemala, especially among the Mayans and the poor. Far easier to blame a 'foreign' religion for everything than to face up to the fact that Catholics butchered Catholics in Guatemala, often with the traditionalist Catholics - overwhelmingly white Hispanic, mind you - gleefully overseeing the slaughter of the liberation theology Catholics - a bit more mixed ethnically.

Why did his party (the Guatemalan Republican Front (Frente Republicano Guatemalteco)) still do so well? Because unlike Lucas Garcia, Montt gave the Mayans a way to avoid slaughter - form self-defense units loyal to the regime. Unpleasant, yes. Genocide, no.

As for the group in your signature BRTD, unlike the rebels in El Salvador, the Guatemalan rebels utterly failed to protect their supporters - the rebels ran and left their civilians exposed to the army. If only they had at least fought against Garcia's regime! The FMLN took their civilians with them. The Guatemalans did not. That's why the Mayans don't think too highly of the ex-rebels.

Montt overthrew Garcia, which was a step forward. There were a ton of steps to go, but it was still an improvement. Montt was a long way from a saint, but the image of him in this thread is just inaccurate.

FYI I got a lot of this information from a class in college taught by a Latin American specialist - and a rather leftist one, at that. There's a book called Unfinished Conquest which gives a much more accurate (and still rather depressing) picture of Guatemala about 1995 than what's been mentioned earlier.

Bloody hell...

70,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed on Montt's watch.  The choice for the villagers was join or die and hundreds of villages were razed.  Sorry to offend you by deeming this reprehensible.  Montt was bloody regime was supported by Fundamentalist dollars and he used his view of religion to justify his actions.  "A Christian has to walk around with his Bible and his machine gun"   Certainly no religion has a monopoly on terror, but Montt's overt religiousity was an element in this tragedy.   

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

One of the differences between the Catholics and Montt is that the Catholics didn't use religion as an excuse for what they were doing. By doing so, Montt has largely brought most of the blame on himself. Plus it was under him that some of the worse massacres occured, such as Plan de Sanchez

Interesting that I would actually prefer the Catholics almost anywhere in Latin America. I guess it's because lots of Catholics there are actually progressive and the liberation theology and all that, while almost all of the Protestants are fundamentalist evangelical types.

As for the logo in my sig, there was several different groups in Guatemala, I actually just took the one I thought had the coolest logo. I agree FMLN were far better, which is exactly why I   had my username after them not too long ago. The FMLN is in my view the most admirable and noble armed group post-WWII. They were the strongest freedom fighters of the Western Hemisphere.

[opebo]

Saugaro you silly ass, Hitler was installed by Germany's owning class in order to kill off the socialists, communists, and unions.  He was a nationalist, racist, and advocate of traditional values whose real purpose was to protect capital - something he did very well actually.

Wrongo - this just goes to show what you [don't] know. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were home-schooled by Mary Antoinette.

They did not want to install Hitler as chancellor, but because his party was gaining such popularity, won the elections, and his speeches fired many people up (although he toned down some of it before his party won in 1932), they really had to. And they only did so once Hitler agreed that he would NOT put the machinations into place to execute the very things you mentioned, plus violence against Jews. Of course he later broke the entire list and the whole agreement.

Why on earth would the German owning class care if Hitler slaughtered the Jews, as long as he still slaughtered the Socialists and Unionists?

Many Jews were bankers and whatnot if I'm not mistaken(someone correct me if I'm wrong, I somewhat remember the Jews being economically successful as one of the reasons it was easy to rile up hatred for them during Hitler's rise to power) - so some were likely part of the owning class and a number of them may have managed the owning classes assets in some manner.

I'm quite sure the great bulk of the owning class despised them, however.  Certainly they were expendable in the great goal of getting rid of Socialism and protecting Capital.

No, you're certainly incorrectly assuming that the group of people you are erroneously calling 'the owning class' wanted to rid themselves of Jews and working class people via genocide. Just not true. Aside from Dibble raising an excellent point, why even wait for Hitler if that's what they want to do? They, who you wrongly call the 'owning class,' also put Hitler in jail in the first place! He was a revolutionary and at least a mild threat to them. 'Owning class' is so broad and general a term that anyone you are currently generating conpiracy theories about could be made to fit into the category, which probably makes it a completely fallacious category. I don't know who they are. I know who you *think* they are, but the term doesn't mean anything.

Capital always supports rightist candidates, such as Hitler.  It doesn't requir any 'conspiracy', it is simply their natural behavior.  As for 'ridding themselves of working class people', I never said that!  The owning class always wants (and needs) its servants and workers around, it just want the ones who are politically active such a socialists and unionizers killed off - this was Hitler's job, and the Jews were really just incidental.  Hitler was absolutely not a 'revolutionary', he was a reactionary, and a defender of not only Capitalism but 'traditional values', such as nationalism.

[WMS]

Although I'm quoting patrick here, this for you too BRTD.

70,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed on Montt's watch.  The choice for the villagers was join or die and hundreds of villages were razed.  Sorry to offend you by deeming this reprehensible.  Montt was bloody regime was supported by Fundamentalist dollars and he used his view of religion to justify his actions.  "A Christian has to walk around with his Bible and his machine gun"   Certainly no religion has a monopoly on terror, but Montt's overt religiousity was an element in this tragedy.   

You ignored my point entirely.

One, WHERE THE F-U-C-K DID I SAY I MONTT WASN'T A TYRANT! Don't you dare pull that sh!t on me, hoss. I'm trying to tell you that putting the blame for the entire bloodbath of the Guatemalan Civil War on the shoulders of Montt and the evangelicals is bullsh!t. A pity you're too bloody sectarian to see this.

I question your sources on this. Why are they so silent on what Lucas Garcia did, hmm? 'Join or die' is a horrible choice - but it's more of a choice that Lucas Garcia gave the Mayans, which was just 'die'.

And to respond to both you and BRTD, I openly question Wikipedia's accuracy on this. First off, here's Matthew White's WikiWatch, which should dispel any notions that Wikipedia is always right.

Now, here's the biased article on the history of the Guatemalan Civil War, here's the biased article on Montt (although it's fairer than the general history). And here is the stub - yes, STUB! - on Lucas Garcia. Gee, whoever wrote up all that stuff on Montt and Guatemala felt no need to mention him, eh? Don't you find that just a tad suspicious?

Here's a bit of information on Lucas Garcia. Let's examine the dates, shall we? 1 Jul 1978 - 23 Mar 1982  Fernando Romeo Lucas García (b. 1924)

Remember those dates, cause up next...

...is the Guatemala Memory of Silence: Guatemalan Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, you know, the giant human rights report they did over the entire war. Now I'm going to quote a few choice parts:

 Territorial concentration of military operations and their victims

26. Based on information analysed by the CEH, relevant differences in the territorial concentration of military operations and the type of victims can be confirmed, depending on the specific period of the armed confrontation. In the period from 1962 to 1970, operations were concentrated in the eastern part of the country, Guatemala City and the south coast, the victims being mainly peasants, members of rural union organisations, university and secondary school teachers and students and guerrilla sympathisers. In the years from 1971 to 1977, the repressive operations were more selective and geographically dispersed. Victims included community and union leaders, catechists and students.

27. During the most violent and bloody period of the entire armed confrontation, 1978-1985, military operations were concentrated in Quiché, Huehuetenango, Chimaltenango, Alta and Baja Verapaz, the south coast and the capital, the victims being principally Mayan and to a lesser extent Ladino. During the final period, 1986-1996, repressive action was selective, affecting the Mayan and Ladino population to a similar extent. The Communities of Population in Resistance were principal targets of military operations in rural areas.
______________________________________________
Why lookie patrick, there was violence and repression well before Montt showed up! And note the first sentence of paragraph 27 there: the most violent period was from 1978 to 1985. And who was President from 1978 to 1982, hmm? Lucas Garcia. And who was President from 1983 to 1986? 8 Aug 1983 - 14 Jan 1986  Óscar Humberto Mejía Victores (b. 1930), the guy who in turn overthrew Montt. Funny how that didn't automatically stop the killings in Guatemala which were, of course, almost entirely Montt's by your logic.

Let's see some more:
 The Mayan population as the collective enemy of the State

31. In the years when the confrontation deepened (1978-1983), as the guerrilla support base and area of action expanded, Mayans as a group in several different parts of the country were identified by the Army as guerrilla allies. Occasionally this was the result of the effective existence of support for the insurgent groups and of pre-insurrectional conditions in the country’s interior. However, the CEH has ascertained that, in the majority of cases, the identification of Mayan communities with the insurgency was intentionally exaggerated by the State, which, based on traditional racist prejudices, used this identification to eliminate any present or future possibilities of the people providing help for, or joining, an insurgent project.

32. The consequence of this manipulation, extensively documented by the CEH, was massive and indiscriminate aggression directed against communities independent of their actual involvement in the guerrilla movement and with a clear indifference to their status as a non-combatant civilian population. The massacres, scorched earth operations, forced disappearances and executions of Mayan authorities, leaders and spiritual guides, were not only an attempt to destroy the social base of the guerrillas, but above all, to destroy the cultural values that ensured cohesion and collective action in Mayan communities.

Racism as a component of violence

33. Through its investigation, the CEH also concludes that the undeniable existence of racism expressed repeatedly by the State as a doctrine of superiority, is a basic explanatory factor for the indiscriminate nature and particular brutality with which military operations were carried out against hundreds of Mayan communities in the west and north-west of the country, especially between 1981 and 1983 when more than half the massacres and scorched earth operations occurred.

Retreat of the guerrillas

34. The CEH has confirmed that the guerrillas applied a tactic of “armed propaganda” and temporary occupation of towns to gain supporters or demonstrate their strength; once they withdrew however, they left the communities defenceless and vulnerable. In many cases, communities were then attacked by the Army, with a very high civilian death toll, especially among the Mayan population. In some of the cases known to the CEH, whole villages were razed by state military forces just days after the insurgent groups withdrew. In these cases, although acknowledging the Army’s clear and sole responsibility for the massive violations, the CEH is convinced that guerrilla actions had a bearing on the way these events occurred.

35. Faced with scorched earth operations and massacres, which were a part of the Army’s strategy and the result of systematic planning, the guerrillas were unable to protect the people who had sympathised with their objectives or had supported them. This inability created a broad sense of abandonment, deception and rejection in these sectors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick, look at those dates in paragraphs 31 and 33. Yes, some blame gets laid on Montt. But clearly the Catholic rulers before and after him did a whole lot of killing as well.

BRTD, see paragraphs 34 and 35 as to why the guerrillas sucked - here's the proof they failed to protect their supporters.

Paragraph 82:82. Human rights violations and acts of violence attributable to actions by the State represent 93% of those registered by the CEH; they demonstrate that human rights violations caused by state repression were repeated, and that, although varying in intensity, were prolonged and continuous, being especially severe from 1978 to 1984, a period during which 91% of the violations documented by the CEH were committed. Eighty-five percent of all cases of human rights violations and acts of violence registered by the CEH are attributable to the Army, acting either alone or in collaboration with another force, and 18%, to the Civil Patrols, which were organised by the armed forces.
----------------------------------------------
Note those years again.

The thing that is most pissing me off about your attitude, patrick, is that you are basically letting an entire swath of butchers get off without condemnation because of their religion. Yeah, you don't like evangelicals. So f**king what. They aren't the one true source of evil in Guatemala - 1 1/2 years of evangelical rule compared to how many years of Catholic rule, and somehow it's all their fault? I suggest you read the rest of that report - it's very grim but it's more accurate than Wikipedia.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I don't think patrick is placing the blame soley on Montt, that obviously wouldn't happen when the civil war was going on long prior to him. However Montt rose to prominence over everyone else largely because of his religion, and it wasn't just that he was Protestant, but that he saw the war as some Holy War, and felt it was a sign of the Armageddon from the Book of Revelations, and all that. In addition the Catholic guys were mostly on nominal all throughout Latin America (it's not like the Catholic Church approved of their actions), there was some guy in El Salvador (can't remember his name) who was way into the occult and believe in reincarnation and said that it was worse to kill an ant than a man (as the man would be reincarnated), and the Duvaliers actually tried to diminish Catholic influence which they saw as a threat to their regime and "Baby Doc" actually made up a parody of the Lord's Prayer about himself.

Montt's emphasis on the whole holy war deal, his ties to the American Religious Right, and the fact that he's trying to remain a prominent figure in Guatemala today are why he's the most prominent figure of the military regime, and hence why he gets most of the blame.

[WMS]

I don't think patrick is placing the blame soley on Montt, that obviously wouldn't happen when the civil war was going on long prior to him. However Montt rose to prominence over everyone else largely because of his religion, and it wasn't just that he was Protestant, but that he saw the war as some Holy War, and felt it was a sign of the Armageddon from the Book of Revelations, and all that. In addition the Catholic guys were mostly on nominal all throughout Latin America (it's not like the Catholic Church approved of their actions), there was some guy in El Salvador (can't remember his name) who was way into the occult and believe in reincarnation and said that it was worse to kill an ant than a man (as the man would be reincarnated), and the Duvaliers actually tried to diminish Catholic influence which they saw as a threat to their regime and "Baby Doc" actually made up a parody of the Lord's Prayer about himself.

Montt's emphasis on the whole holy war deal, his ties to the American Religious Right, and the fact that he's trying to remain a prominent figure in Guatemala today are why he's the most prominent figure of the military regime, and hence why he gets most of the blame.

For a guy who was only in power a year and a half, Montt sure attracts a lot of attention.

And since he still draws some support from Mayan regions, clearly there's more to his story.

One of those points in that college class I mentioned: on the positive side of the ledger, the evangelicals showed up after the earthquake in the 1970's (sorry memory not more specific) to distribute aid. One of the things that struck the Mayans was that here were white people who weren't prejudiced against them. That explains some of their appeal (there's a reason the evangelicals have been so successful in Guatemala).

There is a very nasty tendency in Latin America for the Catholics to segregate between 'pure-blood' white Hispanics and all others, especially full-bore natives like the Mayans. They may all be technically Catholic, but they do not worship together...see the movie Romero, about the (Archbishop?) who got murdered in El Salvador, there's a scene about this situation in there...

[??????????]

There is a very nasty tendency in Latin America for the Catholics to segregate between 'pure-blood' white Hispanics and all others, especially full-bore natives like the Mayans. They may all be technically Catholic, but they do not worship together...see the movie Romero, about the (Archbishop?) who got murdered in El Salvador, there's a scene about this situation in there...

This is very true WMS. And they carry it to the US as well but I believe it's more a Hispanic culture issue more then a certain region. Puerto Ricans and Cubans HATE to be called Mexican and will start fights over such things. P.R.s and Cubans consider themselves a superior group to "those trashy mexicans".

[WMS]

There is a very nasty tendency in Latin America for the Catholics to segregate between 'pure-blood' white Hispanics and all others, especially full-bore natives like the Mayans. They may all be technically Catholic, but they do not worship together...see the movie Romero, about the (Archbishop?) who got murdered in El Salvador, there's a scene about this situation in there...

This is very true WMS. And they carry it to the US as well but I believe it's more a Hispanic culture issue more then a certain region. Puerto Ricans and Cubans HATE to be called Mexican and will start fights over such things. P.R.s and Cubans consider themselves a superior group to "those trashy mexicans".

Welcome to The One Thread Where I Got Pissed Off, States.
You nailed it - I have seen the exact same thing between the 'Spanish' and 'Mexicans' here in NM. It's funny, really - I don't give a crap about skin color, and yet I'm the 'white' guy who is stereotypically supposed to be more bigoted than the 'minority' group. Ludicrous.

[??????????]

There is a very nasty tendency in Latin America for the Catholics to segregate between 'pure-blood' white Hispanics and all others, especially full-bore natives like the Mayans. They may all be technically Catholic, but they do not worship together...see the movie Romero, about the (Archbishop?) who got murdered in El Salvador, there's a scene about this situation in there...

This is very true WMS. And they carry it to the US as well but I believe it's more a Hispanic culture issue more then a certain region. Puerto Ricans and Cubans HATE to be called Mexican and will start fights over such things. P.R.s and Cubans consider themselves a superior group to "those trashy mexicans".

Welcome to The One Thread Where I Got Pissed Off, States.
You nailed it - I have seen the exact same thing between the 'Spanish' and 'Mexicans' here in NM. It's funny, really - I don't give a crap about skin color, and yet I'm the 'white' guy who is stereotypically supposed to be more bigoted than the 'minority' group. Ludicrous.

Well, while I don't agree that Cubans and P.R.s are superior to Mexicans I do agree though they have a better claim to being actually spanish as opposed to being of indian descent.

[WMS]

There is a very nasty tendency in Latin America for the Catholics to segregate between 'pure-blood' white Hispanics and all others, especially full-bore natives like the Mayans. They may all be technically Catholic, but they do not worship together...see the movie Romero, about the (Archbishop?) who got murdered in El Salvador, there's a scene about this situation in there...

This is very true WMS. And they carry it to the US as well but I believe it's more a Hispanic culture issue more then a certain region. Puerto Ricans and Cubans HATE to be called Mexican and will start fights over such things. P.R.s and Cubans consider themselves a superior group to "those trashy mexicans".

Welcome to The One Thread Where I Got Pissed Off, States.
You nailed it - I have seen the exact same thing between the 'Spanish' and 'Mexicans' here in NM. It's funny, really - I don't give a crap about skin color, and yet I'm the 'white' guy who is stereotypically supposed to be more bigoted than the 'minority' group. Ludicrous.

Well, while I don't agree that Cubans and P.R.s are superior to Mexicans I do agree though they have a better claim to being actually spanish as opposed to being of indian descent.

Varies a lot here. I still remember when an acquaintance of mine from college mentioned she was Hispanic. You would never have guessed at all from her appearance or speech.

Not that I care. We're Americans, the Mongrel Nation.

[??????????]

OK, that picture of Stalin is just disturbing dude, seriously now, why? I know that's like porn for JFern and BRTD..but you? comeon now.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

In the past WMS said the reason he's usually civil is the issue he's rather raving about never comes up. I wonder if this is it.

The Stalin thing is part of a joke that originated in another thread, that I can not find now due to search being down.

[WMS]

OK, that picture of Stalin is just disturbing dude, seriously now, why? I know that's like porn for JFern and BRTD..but you? comeon now.

See what BRTD said - it's part of a joke involving the 'are there any communists in the Atlas Forum' thread. Lewis Trondheim kinda started it and I've just ran with it since then.

I'd rather watch Stalin burning in whatever Hell he was put in, really...

In the past WMS said the reason he's usually civil is the issue he's rather raving about never comes up. I wonder if this is it.

The Stalin thing is part of a joke that originated in another thread, that I can not find now due to search being down.

Nah, this isn't it, although it is one of my major gripes - people generalizing about evangelicals. Al's an evangelical, and do you consider him on the same level as that prick Robertson?
For those willing to quote this, highlight it, or whatever, the raving issue involves animal cruelty - that spectacularly pisses me off on a scale where I back eye for an eye style punishment for animal abusers.

Yeah, BRTD, you got this one quite right - it's all part of a joke involving Communists, the State Department, McCarthyism, and the communitarian quadrant of the Political Compass. One of Lewis Trondheim's more inspired posts, actually.

[patrick1]

To WMS:  "Hoss", surely you jest.

1.  What is the name of this thread?  Pat Robertson..... not 20th Century Guatemalan geopolitics.
2.  Montt's name came up because Robertson gave material and errr spiritual support to his happily brief regime.  It is well diocumentated from PBS and other news agencies of the blind eye and often tacit approval given to the Montt's bloody pacification campaign by the missionaries-In this instance Evangelical missionaries.  Robertson also gave support to many other horrible regimes in the region.   
3. Guatemala like virtually all of Central America has been plagued by a history of political and ethnic violence and no creed has clean hands.  Certainly both nominal and devout Catholic dictators have had a role in the subjugation of the aboriginal people.  However, this thread was not about that.  I pointed out that Robertson is a hypocrite because he supported murderers like Montt while calling for the assassination of a world leader with whom his disagrees.  He does this while putting on the farce of a being a man of God.  If you want to take my abscence of criticism for previous and subsequent regimes as approval then fine.  I simply don't have the time for an all encompassing post to list the litany of abuses throughout Guatemalan history.  Crimes were commited by Montt- an evangelical mininster and supported by Robertson's $, yet, that does not mean I could not make dozens of threads about the abuses of the Catholic Church commited on the Roman dime.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the Wikipedia front and I started a thread several days ago stating as such.  The cutaneous knowledge that I have of Guatemala is from my friend and co-worker and a few books on Central America

[J. J.]

Loony right-wingers claiming the media is liberal again.

No, the sane conservatives claim CBS has a liberal bias.

[A18]

Loony left-wingers claiming the media is not liberal again.

[WMS]

Sorry for the delay in responding; there have been Internet problems...

To WMS:  "Hoss", surely you jest.

1.  What is the name of this thread?  Pat Robertson..... not 20th Century Guatemalan geopolitics.
2.  Montt's name came up because Robertson gave material and errr spiritual support to his happily brief regime.  It is well diocumentated from PBS and other news agencies of the blind eye and often tacit approval given to the Montt's bloody pacification campaign by the missionaries-In this instance Evangelical missionaries.  Robertson also gave support to many other horrible regimes in the region.   
3. Guatemala like virtually all of Central America has been plagued by a history of political and ethnic violence and no creed has clean hands.  Certainly both nominal and devout Catholic dictators have had a role in the subjugation of the aboriginal people.  However, this thread was not about that.  I pointed out that Robertson is a hypocrite because he supported murderers like Montt while calling for the assassination of a world leader with whom his disagrees.  He does this while putting on the farce of a being a man of God.  If you want to take my abscence of criticism for previous and subsequent regimes as approval then fine.  I simply don't have the time for an all encompassing post to list the litany of abuses throughout Guatemalan history.  Crimes were commited by Montt- an evangelical mininster and supported by Robertson's $, yet, that does not mean I could not make dozens of threads about the abuses of the Catholic Church commited on the Roman dime.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the Wikipedia front and I started a thread several days ago stating as such.  The cutaneous knowledge that I have of Guatemala is from my friend and co-worker and a few books on Central America

I can say 'hoss' if I want to since I live in the SW.

1. Well, you brought it up...
2. Robertson's a prick and is in no way representative of evangelicals, either in the U.S. or in Guatemala. Even jmfcst called him a false prophet. Robertson only gets attention because the social lefties in the journalism business would rather use him to feed their own prejudices than learn about the real complexities of the evangelical movement. I'd have to get more information before accepting your statement that the evangelical missionaries approved of the violence - what I've read suggested they were keeping their heads down like most people in Guatemala. Also, if the evangelicals were so bad, why have they been so successful in converting people in Guatemala?
3. Yes, Latin America gets depressing. I was making the point that it is unfair and inaccurate to blame the evangelicals for all of the bloodshed in Guatemela, and that's why I brought in all the other stuff. Say whatever you like about Pat Robertson - I won't mind.

I'll have to check out Wikipedia when I get time to see what results from that. The primary source of knowledge I was working from was a class on Central American Politics taught by Associate Professor William Stanley (Faculty Page here) at the University of New Mexico. In addition to his lectures and the books in the class (including Unfinished Conquest, available here at Amazon.com) there's the usual other mishmash of sources any person interested in Political Science and History comes across over the years. See, I wasn't inventing stuff.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pat Robertson is very representative of highly placed links on the FEMA website.