One of the hottest topics in this year’s presidential election race, is immigration.
But, really, what’s new about that?
Since its inception, Americans have, at times, viewed immigrants with suspicion, fear and prejudice.
At various stages, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Italians were considered by some as dangerous influences in American society. In a country built on religious freedom, there was debate about whether Catholics and Jews deserved those freedoms.
Today, much of the fear and suspicion is focused on Hispanics from Mexico and South America and Muslims from the Middle East, particularly Syrian refugees.
In every case, in every era, the narrative was that these immigrants were a threat to the health, wealth, values and the culture of our country.
But there is at least one instance where those fears were justified.
We were reminded of that Thursday, when Ben Rosenkranz spoke to the Exchange Club. Rosenkranz has spent a lifetime studying the Native Americans of the Southeast, an interest he inherited from trips to visit his grandfather in South Carolina, who had put together a collection of Indian artifacts that Rosenkranz would inherit and build upon.
Rosenkranz, who now lives in West Point after retiring from Mississippi State, didn’t use Thursday’s talk to draw a direct link between the treatment of the American Indian and today’s immigration debate, but the parallels were obvious.
It is important to remember that the first immigrants to what is today the Americas were European. If the natives did not view the Europeans with fear and suspicion, history suggests they should have.
“By the time (Hernando DeSoto) arrived in this area in the mid-16th Century, as much as 90 percent of the Indian population had died off, mostly from disease brought here from Europeans that the Indians had no immunity to,” Rosenkranz said.
Disease may have been the first, most deadly consequence of European settlement of the Americas, but subsequent assaults on the native were deliberate. From the start, Indians were removed as the European settlements expanded. For the American Indian, the 19th Century was pretty much a steady procession of slaughter, forced relocation and broken promises.
“Our country broke every promise it ever made to the Indians,” Rosenkranz. “In the 1800s, during the Indian Wars of the United States, you didn’t see anything like that in Canada. It’s not that there were no native peoples in Canada at the time because there were. What was different? It’s simple. Canada kept its promises.”
The deplorable treatment of the Indian, and the wholesale destruction of a great and ancient culture is something we should find disturbing. After all, we are appalled at the destruction of historic sites in the Middle East by ISIS and the Taliban.
Our broader understanding of history should inform our attitudes about immigration today.
The debate is as it has always been: We must balance the truth of our history that shows that immigrants have enriched and enhanced our nation and culture with the more sobering realization that immigrants can present dangers and threats as well.
The debate about immigration should not be built on prejudices, as has often been the case in our history, but by thoughtful consideration of the costs and benefits.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 36 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.