La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for September 19, 2014

I thought the Vikings mostly landed and lived on the eastern coast of what is today’s Canada? I vaguely remember they might have briefly lived on the coast of what is today’s northern New England. For the most part, however, I believe they stayed in far eastern Canada.

I do believe that “illegal immigration” is being used here in a parodic, satirical manner, in part to make fun of the current “illegal immigration” rhetoric in the US. In a way, it’s a fundamental questioning of the morality of current “lawful procedure.”

While the US didn’t exist at the time, of course, and while the Vikings probably stayed in what is now Canada, the point is still valid that Europeans came here unbidden and with pretty much evil on their minds (that is, exploitation of the land without regard to those people already living there). Whether it was the Vikings or Columbus – who by every definition wrought evil upon this land – the point is that we who benefited from such illegal activity are pretty quick to yell when someone else, especially refugees fleeing near certain death, do it.

Technically, Columbus never landed on the continental United States either; he only made it to the Caribbean Islands (that’s probably where I’d stop too).

I think Columbus is celebrated because his voyages led to the economic exploitation and domination of the continent, while the Vikings disappeared from North America and just left a hint of their presence.

Ah, the good olden days when mastery of fire allowed the hunter-gatherers to roam Earth freely encumbered by organized religions and holy (not) scriptures.

1st: The Norse didn’t all leave. Those that stayed, starved/froze & died. The Geeks have found graves & such. 2nd: Can you give us a source for this landing in NE US?

Columbus was essentially lost and didn’t even know where he was when he got there

As Vine Deloria, Jr. has said, “It’s a good thing they weren’t looking for Turkey.”

You missed my original point, which is that a point of this strip is that those laws are in some way immoral. And hey, by drawing strips about such a thing, and bringing the subject to a larger audience, Alcaraz is doing something about it. There ain’t no organization without information. Just because you don’t like that information doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be put out there.

You know who else worked hard to legitimize all sorts of lawbreaking? Martin Luther King, Jr. Mohandas K. Gandhi. The folks who tore down the Berlin Wall. And all of them were seen at the time as troublemakers, rabble-rousers, enemies of the state. They all knew that the law would not be changed simply by going through the “correct” legal channels. Rather than leave (really, what is it with folks who are so happy to tell people they disagree with to go away?), they worked hard through other means to get those laws changed. The rest, as they say, is history.

Furhter south at least one expidition of Norse arrived in what would be the Northern part of East USA.

Again, the only currently confirmed Norse settlement on the North American continent was in what is now Newfoundland.

Wow, indiethink, pretty good logic from a native American. What’s that you say? you’re NOT a native American. That means you’re an immigrant. Like me and over 320 mil other ‘americans’. Come to think of it, go far enough back and even the native americans are immigrants. People have always moved in search of a better life, just like YOUR ancestors did.

Trying to transpose current situations into ancient history may be cute and satirical, but it is still an attempt to legitimize lawbreaking.

It’s interesting (well, maybe not so much interesting as completely unsurprising) that the ones who most often advocate for setting aside the past are those who stand to gain the most from that forgetting.

indie shouts: TRUE, THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE LAWS CHANGED. BUT THEY DIDN’T ADVOCATE THAT 12 MILLION PEOPLE BLATANTLY BREAK THE EXISTING LAWS BEFORE THAT CHANGE.

Actually, they did exactly that. It wasn’t exactly legal to tear down the Berlin Wall. Or to violate segregationist Jim Crow Laws. Or to gather salt in defiance of the British Raj. They got the laws changed specifically by breaking them. Did you think all these folks just sat around and talked?

indie hollers: I IMAGINE ALL LAWS CAN SEEM IMMORAL, UNFAIR, OR OPPRESIVE TO THOSE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE AN INTEREST AGAINST THEM.

Potentially. But this is the same sort of argument made by the architects of Jim Crow, apartheid, British imperialism, etc. Some laws and entire legal frameworks are inherently oppressive. But those who are made comfortable by these laws (white South Africans, etc.) will do what they can to defend them and to indict those negatively affected by the laws as criminals. Verrrry convenient.

indie uses his outdoor voice: THAT’S NOT HOW LIBERALS FEEL ABOUT CONSERVATIVE INFORMATION.

Painting with a rather broad brush there, ain’t ya, sport? If anything, liberals are much more dedicated to principles of free speech, and ensuring that folks have the right to that speech. The ACLU isn’t exactly a bastion of conservatism. Now, countering speech with more speech, that’s totally on the table. But disagreeing ain’t the same thing as silencing. Which I keep trying to tell you, and you keep not hearing.

It’s interesting (well, maybe not so much interesting as completely unsurprising) that the ones who most often advocate for setting aside the past are those who stand to gain the most from that forgetting.AND YOU BASE THIS STATEMENT ON WHAT?

I base it on you and all those white folks who constantly complain that slavery is in the past, Jim Crow is in the past, Michael Brown was three weeks ago, refugee kids are so yesterday, the genocide of Native Americans is in the past, etc., etc. Seriously, do you even listen to anyone here? Do you even listen to yourself? When’s the last time you cleaned out your ears?