Queen`s Fancy PC Footwork In Jamestown

On the
400th anniversary of the Jamestown Settlement
, Queen
Elizabeth II arrived to commemorate the great occasion.
And it took some fancy footwork for Her Majesty to run
the Powhatan gauntlet.

For Her Majesty had been to Jamestown before, 50
years ago, in a less progressive era. As The Associated
Press reported, "The last time the queen helped
Virginia mark the anniversary of its colonial founding,
it was an all-white affair in a state whose government
was in open defiance of a
1954 Supreme Court order
to desegregate

public schools."
[Queen
Elizabeth cites change on Virginia visit
,
AP,
May 3 2007]

Now,

"massive resistance"
is

history
. And Her Majesty was quick to embrace the
change: "[S]ince I visited Jamestown in 1957,

my country
has become a much more

diverse society,
just as the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the whole United States of America have
also undergone a major social change."

True. But are we better societies now than 50 years
ago?

The latest reminder of

diversity in Virginia
was the massacre of 32
students and teachers at Virginia Tech by a

berserk Korean
. And now that London is

Londonistan
, Muslim imams openly preach hatred of
the West in mosques. Pakistani subway bombers find
support in their community.

Race riots
are common in the

northern industrial cities.
Crime rates have soared.
In areas of London, people fear to walk. Is this better
than it was in 1957?

Last week, Scottish nationalists, many of whom

wish to secede
, swept past Labor to become the first
party of Scotland. Welsh separatists also made gains.
Following the Irish, the other Celts want out of the
England of Elizabeth II. Is this better, Your Majesty?

The Great Britain of

Tony Blair
may be more diverse than the land of
Victoria and Edward VII, Lloyd George and Winston
Churchill—but is it a better nation?

Only if one worships diversity can one say Britain is
a better, stronger or greater country than she was on
the eve of the Great War, a century ago, when Britannia
ruled a fourth of the world.

But the new orthodoxy demands we say this. And Her
Majesty was careful to conform. "Fifty years on, we
are now in a position to reflect more candidly on the
Jamestown legacy,"
said the queen, as she began to
reflect less candidly.

At Jamestown, "Three great civilizations came
together for the first time—Western European, native
American and African."

Well, that is one way to put it. Except that the
Jamestown settlers were not Western Europeans but
English Christians. And the first thing they did was
build a fort to protect themselves from Powhatan`s
tribe, whom they thought might massacre them—as they

suspected Indians had massacred the Roanoke colony.

Their leader, Capt. John Smith, barely escaped execution
by Powhatan. Or so Smith tells it.

As for the Africans, they arrived in 1620 in slave
ships, and were not freed for 145 years. Then they were

segregated for 100 years.
There was no coming
together of African, Indian and European civilizations.
The African slaves were uprooted from their civilization
and had to become part of ours.

Jamestown was no coming together of civilizations,
but the opening of a

war of imperial conquest
by self-confident
Christians who defeated and destroyed the pagan Indian
tribes, drove them westward, repopulated their lands,
and imposed their own faith and laws.

When we came, the Indians had the land. We took it.

Backing away from her statements of half a century
ago, the queen politely conceded, "With the benefit
of hindsight, we can see in that event [
Jamestown]
the origins of a singular endeavor—the building of a
great nation, founded on the eternal values of democracy
and equality."

That a great nation arose from Jamestown is
undeniable.

But, again, what is this nice lady talking about? The

American Revolution
was not fought for equality or
democracy, but to be rid of

British rule.
Four of America`s first five
presidents—Washington,

Jefferson
,

Madison
and

Monroe
—were Virginia planters and slaveholders.

Before the Civil War, 250 years after Jamestown,
almost no American, and certainly not

Abraham Lincoln,
believed in social or political
equality for Africans. Jefferson had said a

"natural aristocracy"
of talent and virtue
should rule.

And when we see what democracy and equality have
produced in political leadership—Harry
Reid,


Nancy Pelosi,


Bill Clinton
and George W.—did not Jefferson have a
point?

In his

farewell address, Ronald Reagan
warned, "We`ve
got to teach history based not on what`s in fashion but
what`s important. … If we forget what we did, we won`t
know who we are. I`m warning of an eradication … of
the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an
erosion of the American spirit."

The founding of this country does not conform to the
dogmas of the present.

But we had best discover why it was our forefathers,
who created this country, rejected,

totus porcus,
the nonsense we spout today about

egalitarianism
and

globaloney
.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
.



Patrick J. Buchanan
needs


no introduction
to VDARE.COM
readers; his book


State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America
,

can be ordered from
Amazon.com.