HOW TO UPSET THE AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT IN JUST ONE WORD

This young lady was called EMMA LAZARUS.

It was perhaps a fitting surname, for you will recall that a guy called Lazarus died, was buried, and after just four days, Jesus is said to have raised him from his death back to normal life.

I say perhaps, because this lady with the name of Lazarus went some way to thank Jesus, or was it Saint John she thanked for the story is in his Gospel only but not in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark or Luke and that is strange by biblical standards?

She was born in New York in 1849 into a Jewish family and died at the young age of 38 as an accomplished writer/author.

The Statue of Liberty was dedicated in 1886 and on it is the famous claim of:-

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

These words came from the pen of this woman and just thirteen months later she was dead.

It was believed to mean everybody no matter what colour, creed, habits, culture or beliefs. BUT DID ITCLEARLY NOT!

Come nearly 1900, the Americans had had a changed of thought, and that affected their relationships with Establishment Brit's - people like Diplomats, Court Officials, and because we are what we are in that we travel around the world, the Royal Navy, parked-up in several of their ports. You see that we were well used to the way of life of the upper classes of the Hindu religion although being the dominant population in India, the Hindu caste system became a fundamental issue of all of India whether Christian, Islam, Sikhs or Jews. It was we, the British from the mid 19th century onwards who designed and developed the Hindu system, only employing the top caste [of 4 castes] as administrators and senior executives, with the other three castes in order getting the more menial jobs, some with careers and pensions, some with permanent employment but could be sacked without compensation etc etc., until the 4th caste got the crumbs, but were nevertheless considered rank-worthy and employable. What was left of the total population were the untouchables who were no better than dogs,  themselves much much lower in status than the humble but holy cow. Whilst evidently things are very much different today, things in and at the end of the 19th century were very different, and of course from 1900 there was nearly another 50 years to come before we Brit's stopped ruling India and  left, granting them full independence. We Brit's knew the Indian system backwards, and after all, we were largely the architects of their modern business and education system/culture.

Now clearly Emma LAZARUS hadn't done her homework as she should have done, and hadn't heard of the Indian untouchable class {the DALITS} nor of the fourth class {the SHUDRAS}, more acceptable to Indian society but neither were "workers" or could hold down a job because they had not been allowed to, and were thus devoid of necessary skills for advancement/betterment, not to mention their abject poverty. 

The sign - on the Statue of Liberty - said come on over, so they did and in great numbers too, marveling at the industry of European immigrants whose work ethic was already proven back in Europe which they left in droves because of famine, persecution or for the desire of flexing their wings swapping dirt farms for ranches nearly as big as the European town they had just left. Whole townships shot up and commerce was successful as was their religious life which prospered without any form of regulation. At the same time, these Indian immigrants were still scratching in the sand building grossly inappropriate accommodation huts totally unfit for the North American environment, ending up as the riff raff of society. Cattle to most settlers were for rearing for meat, but to these strange people their single cow was a 'walking God' and was treated as it would have been back home, where they were scrapping a living on the outskirts of Indian towns and villages.

They very soon began to stand out like a sore thumb, with many of the get-up-and-go immigrants raising complaints to their elders, and from them to the US authorities overseeing the vast immigration to their country, much of it welcomed.  Predictably, the Irish, many newly settled from the destitute potato-barren land and in their tens of thousands, cashed-in with poisonous venom against anything English. Some indigenous Americans still remembered the deaths of their grandfathers caused in the 1812 Anglo-USA war of 88 years before.

The Indian immigrants started to look for a more friendlier host and wandered north into Canada where they met with the same hostility and anger. Britain had a welcoming footing in Canada particularly the navy using both coasts, in the East at Halifax and in the West at Esquimalt, and whilst the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish were joyously welcomed, the British baggage of one of their largely unknown {by the Americans} Colonies, was not, especially malingerers and the like.

By 1906 the press had gone vocal and day after day, hostile snippets appeared in their [Canada and the USA] newspapers. Hindu's, but remember the worst representatives of that religion/nation, were not acceptable and pressure was brought to bear on adjusting the welcoming sign on the Statue of Liberty, which Federal Sources would not sanction. None of the immigrants, good or bad, had settled in areas willy-nilly but had been directed to unclaimed lands on which to build their 'des res'.  American's in established cities, particularly those in the East, did not see or experience the worse side of immigration. By the early 1900's many aspects of British life in the USA [note, not ex pats] got the cold shoulder, and it was widely believed that it was the fault of the British for this influx of despised people from a British Colony.  Irrational thoughts for we don't blame India for Gypsies [Romani's] for they originate in the far north of that land mass.

Obviously, to right thinking people, the fault lay with the Americans who were desperate to colonise their own vast open spaces, this notwithstanding that that could mean criminals, murderers, rapist and countless numbers of ne'er-do-well's  would populate areas that once provided a home to wild animals and to hundreds of thousands of Red Indians. It was really a desperate act on the part of the US Government and this Indian immigration problem was a consequence.

       This file comes from the Washington Post         18.9.1908 USA wants no hindus.pdf                                               and this file from the British Columbia press   22.9.1906 undesirable hindus.pdf

This file is a pdf of the front page of the Washington Times of  March 8th 1911. Use the zooming tool and the scroll bars to look at the story " Hindu immigrants can remain here"  Hindu's.pdf  The reference in this file which states that they are liable to become public charges, refers to them as being scroungers, a drain on the public purse wanting handouts. We have heard that somewhere before haven't we {?} but after the 2015 General Election in the UK, we are rather hoping that these people are banished from the UK just as the Hindu's were in the period 1900 [approx] up to the USA getting involved in WW1, namely 1917.

This file is from a newspaper serving the City of Salem in the State of Oregon dated 26th June 1913. Use the controls as above and look for the story "seeking to keep out undesirables"     SALEM OREGON.pdf

I could show you dozens of other leaders from US Newspapers, but I am sure that the point is taken. The words on the Statue of Liberty are fine unless you were an Hindu: and there's only a couple of billion of them to worry about! Still, better them than people from the Arab countries and the non-Arab but Islamic countries like Iran for example.

Yet another of little known facts about WW1, for the involvement of the USA in Europe stopped the anti British comments about immigration of undesirables from British Colonies. If they had asked, we could have told them about our own feelings, but the truth of the matter was that millions of men from the Asian Colonies joined their armies and were transported to Europe, to Turkey and to Egypt to fight the Turk and the Hun, and that of course put our xenophobic thoughts and comments on the back burner.  Certainly, the Indian Army mainly of Hindu's was a model fighting sophisticated army, and would have been formed from the first three castes, officered by the Brahmins caste, with warrant officers coming from the Kshatriyas caste and the rest from the Vaishyas caste. After WW1, the Americans righted their wrong, and opened the flood gates of immigration to those having the skills, the understanding of the American way of life and culture, and the money to prosper, debarring all others. And yet, post-WW1, they didn't get around to erasing the wording on the Statue to reflect their true requirements for mass immigration! What they really meant was that they wanted people who could add materially and culturally to the American nation, and if you couldn't do both, don't bother. That is what the Australians are doing now in the first decade of the 21st century, and we Brit's are rather hoping that we can copy their model.

Poor Emma's words were not prophetic as intended, as you have read, but were flawed and at best, were only relevant for thirteen years viz 1887 to 1900 approx. They are certainly not relevant today in fact they are positively misleading! The "Golden Door" mentioned on the Statue, is in reality a brass door and it has tarnished somewhat.