Language, borders and culture: A meditation

Question: What’s the difference between a migrant and a settler?

No, it’s not a trick question, but the answer reveals the deep divide in America between our historical origins and our possible demise.

When I was a student in the 1960s, we revered and honored the European settlers who had colonized the “New World” in the 17th and 18th centuries — not because they had taken the land away from the Indians, but because of what they had accomplished with that land.

It was certainly understood by us then that white men had committed grievous wrongs against native tribes when they had conquered North America, but with a classic liberal arts education it was possible to fit that conquest into context.

The entire history of the human race, after all, has been a story of movement, migration, war, conquest and tribalism. From the first waves of early man departing Africa in order to populate Europe and Asia through the biblical era when the Jewish people were sent into slavery in Babylon and Egypt and into the pre-colonial era when American Indian tribes warred against each other, there has been nothing at all extraordinary about either migration or colonization.

It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the notion of national sovereignty really jelled with a concept of inviolate borders and international order, leading to the dissolution of European colonies around the world and a general disapproval of expansionism and conquest. When those goals were still pursued in earnest, it generally resulted in extensive wars of resistance, including the two World Wars. A few holdouts like South Africa and Hong Kong gave way by the end of the 20th century as mankind largely acknowledged the rights of cultural and political self-determination.

Colonization, or resettlement, was in essence the application of power in a vacuum. Whether it was Genghis Khan or King George, the outcome was usually the same. When an army met an unarmed people, they conquered them. The results have shaped the modern world, whether from the sweep of the Roman Empire across Europe and Asia Minor; the push of Europeans into the New World; or the conquest of North Africa, the Middle East and much of Europe and Asia by the Ottoman Empire. Typically, the conquering army brought with it a broader world view, increased education, and law and order, but at the cost of submission, sacrifice and years of second-class citizenship.

So yes, if we are being honest, colonization has winners and losers, and as long as mankind has sufficient wherewithal to prevent the forced relocation and other impacts that accompany colonization, it should certainly do so.

But it should do so on an equal basis, which brings us back to the question with which this column began.

Isn’t it funny that 16th century Europeans arriving in North America are called settlers, but 21st century Mexicans arriving in the United States are migrants? And how many times do you suppose that new waves of “Indians” (i.e., Asian migrants) “settled” in North American or even South American lands previously occupied by earlier “migrants”? Not to mention, all of the times when tribes of Indians conquered each other and took over not just their resources, but also their women and children.

Migrants are nothing more than settlers who are looked upon favorably. In the language of the left, settlers or colonialists are evil white people, whereas migrants are oppressed minorities.

Yet today, I know of no one who is advocating colonization of foreign lands by Europeans, Russians, Chinese, or the United States, so the rhetorical weapons aimed at “white Euro-centric colonial powers” by the left are firing blanks.

Rather, it is the poor nations of the world which are colonizing the European Union and the United States. Millions of refugees from Africa and the Mideast are flooding into Italy, France, the Netherlands and other European countries. And millions of Latin Americans are crossing the border into the United States.

Indeed, if we are being honest, it is the United States that is being colonized today — not by an invading army with tanks and infantry soldiers, but by those very same “innocent” migrants who we are told should have the power to go wherever they want.

What makes it a colonization rather than an immigration is that these newcomers, who are arriving in the millions, have no intention of adopting the customs and practices of American society, but rather are importing their own language and customs to superimpose on our own.

What makes it colonization is that the American government and people (like the American Indian tribes before them) have declared that they are overwhelmed by the invasion and would rather welcome the newcomers peacefully than continue to fight. (Which, by the way, is the same tactic that the Roman Empire tried to use when confronted by the “barbarian” hordes “migrating” into Italy from the north. We all know how that turned out.)

Historically, of course, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas all started as part of Mexico. America colonized those territories through a variety of maneuvers. Whether California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are better off today than they would have been had they remained in Mexico, I leave it to each of you to decide for yourself, but make no mistake: They are today changing slowly but steadily into something more like Mexico than the United States.

Within the framework of a world that is always in motion, such changes can be considered inevitable. They may even ultimately be good, but don’t pretend the changes are not happening. And don’t act like it is hateful of American citizens to wish to stop the influx of non-assimilating settlers in their midst.

If you thought the Mohawks, the Shawnee, the Paiutes and Apaches were justified in fighting back against a cultural incursion that threatened their way of life, then don’t so easily accept the inevitability of millions of Mexicans and Central Americans crossing the border to “settle” in the United States.

Protecting our culture and our way of life is just as important today as it was to the Wampanoags when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.

Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Montana.