  My ancestor came to Jamestown in 1609. the first blacks came ten years later. But you are correct about hte Mayflower, the Pilgrims who are suposed to have fouonded English America. They came in 1620.   Re your ancestor - well done, but most 'white' Amercians arrived much later, in the immigrant waves of the mid-late 19th-century and again in the 20th century.       The INdians took America from an earlier popuation long before. I keep asking people who whine about the Indians why they don't leave. If you feel you have stolen property you give it up. Liker you, no answers.   Er, Bob it's a bit harsh to accuse me of 'no answers' the first time you present an issue. Here's my answer: I know very little about the issues, politics or history of US indigeous peoples, but I'll assume that they are similar to those of Australian Aborigines, OK?    It would, of course have been much better if Australia hadn't been founded on the theft of land and the de facto genocide of a people (or peoples, depending on your stand on ethnicity vs race). It was probably lucky for the Aborigines that they weren't invaded a few hundred years earlier by the Spanish, but worse for them that they weren't invaded by the French in the 18th century or practically any colonial power in the 19th.    It isn't possible to change the past. It is possible to make as much restitution as possible. (Tragically, hundreds of languages and cultures have gone. Many survive only in fragments, which are being pieced together. The only relatively intact cultures are in deserts and the tropical far north.) A great many Australians of all backgrounds are working for this. In a sense, non-Aboriginal peoples  have  left - many of the peoples with intact cultures have reclaimed their lands. Some quite large (I don't remember what, but it's in the order of 20%) proportion of Australia is now Aboriginal land.        By the way, since you oppose the Boere coming there, what gives you, the descendant of immigrants, the right to oppose them coming there, too? You just said you don't have that right. But I don't expect logic.   I don't oppose white South African immigration per se (Die Boere aren't he only white racists in South Africa, and on the whole it isn't the poorer Afrikaans-speakers who are trying to immigrate, it's the richer English-speakers), I oppose immigration of people whose mind set is based on racism. I'd oppose you immigrating, ole Bob, and I'd probably be successful in doing so.    Umm, where did I say that I, as the child of immigrants, don't have the right? Was it when I pointed out that white Americans who claim to have founded the country and therefore claim the right to call it 'their' country, should therefore accept the longer-established black Americans as having the same claim? I'm pointing out the consequences of your argument (first arrivals get to dictate the rules), not advocating it as an argument.       You want to restrict immigration based on your ideology, not your race. That's called Wordism. It's killed a lot more people than racism ever did: Communism, the Inquisition, all those ideolgies that were supposed everything just fine regardless of race. You have one of a million True Faiths. That's as provincial as you can get.   Of course I want to restrict immigration based on ideology. However, you should note that racism is an ideoogy as well. You can choose to be racist; you can choose to be not racist. That's the point I am making in this thread.    Wordism is a made-up concept of yours, Bob. I doubt that its meaning differs much from that of 'ideology'. If so, please let us know. If not, we're all in the same boat here. If you think that WN, WS, NS, capitalism, democracy, communism, libertarianism, good-ole-boyism, racism, whatever don't have ideologies, you're silly.