Pride in America

none were white.
This term is ahistorical

The point that America was created by immigrants does not only refer
to 1st generation immigrants.

The following seems to me to be a bit racist and lacking in historical
knowledge:
"The original colonists, the men who were brave enough to fight, to sacrifice their entire lives to this concept of freedom, these are the real builders of this nation. They earned their right to call themselves American. Yes, we can recognize and appreciate that non-whites contributed to the growth and prosperity of this nation. There is no shame in that. But there is shame when we Americans neglect our own true history and forget who and what we are."

Non-whites, as you call them, did fight in the American Revolution.
A famous history of blacks in America states when Africans first
showed up on our shores _Before the Mayflower_.
"Non-whites" are not a separate history in American history there is
only one whole story to America's past but there are thousands of
histories smaller than the nation that can separate themselves by
race, gender, and geography as one chooses. In your post you do so
and thus tell a truth but not the whole truth.

Later you mention freedom:
"Freedom. Freedom of what? Freedom to act however we please without consequences? No, not exactly. Even our forefathers understood that anarchy is not a good idea. So, what freedom did they fight for? The freedom to choose for ourselves, to succeed...or fail...on our own terms, to live without fear of our government, and to appreciate the sacrifices many have made in order for us to live free. That is what being American means! It is honor. It is integrity. It is character. It is loyalty to this nation and those who have defended it."

Perhaps it was the "non-white" enslaved who chose to fight for Britain
and thus were emancipated who understood freedom best based on
how you define it.

You deny historical accuracy. How many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were black or any other ethnicity other than what I stated???? If historical accuracy is racist, you really need to educate yourself. I take it you have never read the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, you cannot fathom how that document was the first stone in the foundation of this country. Without it, we wouldn't have become a country at all. Yes, non-whites fought for our freedom as well. I did not deny that. However, only whites signed that document knowing full well they would be putting their lives in serious danger in doing so. Better learn your country's true history. It's people like you who have forgotten who and what we really are. And THAT is dangerous to our nation as a whole.

White is not a term they would have used.
The term is ahistorical.
Here is my challenge to you find proof that any of the signers referred
to themselves as "white".
You are bringing presentism in where it does not belong.

"The freedom to choose for ourselves, to succeed...or fail...on our own terms, to live without fear of our government, and to appreciate the sacrifices many have made in order for us to live free. That is what being American means!"

Maybe now, but this would have been a government that did not support
individual's rights to choose to not be slaves. Not on their own terms.
Again, you are skipping forward to a time when individuals could
choose how they wanted to live and live without fear of their government

I'm not sure that has ever happened, but if it did it would be some time
after 1965 imho.

this is from: http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulGreenberg/2007/02/27/on_fighting_the_problem?page=full&comments=true
where I replied to Loribme's similar assertions earlier this year.

Loribme writes: Tuesday, February, 27, 2007 11:20 PM
“Everyonesfacts You keep bringing up the Declaration of Independence
but you neglect a vital part of that document: the men who wrote and
signed it EARNED their right to be called American because they
sacrificed EVERYTHING to escape tyranny and oppression to form a new
nation.”

And I would argue that many immigrants sacrifice everything to escape
tyranny and oppression and to pursue a better life as immigrants to America always have.

Loribme writes:
“They also wrote it (and the Constitution) for AMERICANS, not the rest of the world!”

The Constitution is written as the governing document of the USA.
The Declaration of Independence is written for at least three audiences
1. Colonists/Americans, 2. King George III / British, 3. “a candid WORLD”
And furthermore to quote from the document
“we believe that ALL MEN”
That’s pretty much everyone, I would humbly include women too

Loribme writes:
“Oh, and another thing: ALL of the signers of both those documents were
1) white men, 2) British citizens, 3) on British soil, 4) native to well established British colonies. THOSE were the original Americans!“

Yes, we are agreed except for “Those were the original Americans.”
Just to put a finer point on it. Africans, especially free blacks, were also
"original Americans." As were Indians, especially the “praying Indians,”
in the colonies. So yes those were original Americans but not "the"
original Americans.

Loribme writes:
“And before you start ranting on how native American indian tribes were the original Americans, nope, you'd be wrong. There was NO established Native American Indian Nation when the colonies settled. Even the indians didn't think anyone could own land. They had no unified form of government, written laws, borders, currency or anything else that makes up a country.”

WRONG! The were hundreds of Indian nations.
Were there Indian states or countries is a
fair question.
To find out the difference between nation and
state see here:
http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm

Loribme writes:
“The British staked their claim in the form of thirteen colonies.
That is where this nation was born.”

Yes they did. Yes it was. We can call it a
nation but that was not popularly done until
after the Gettysburg Address. I would
prefer to call it a state, they even write
that the US can do what all "independent
states . . . do," born on July 4, 1776.

Now to the bigger question what did these
original Americans’feel about immigration.
The best episode to view this is the
debate around what are called the Alien Acts.

From this episode it can be concluded that
before the Alien Acts immigration was not an issue, except for the enslaved “The migration
or importation of such persons [slaves] as
any of the states now existing shall think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
the Congress prior to the year 1808 . . .,”
and was not prohibited.

And after the passage of the bills and repeal
and expiration of two of the bills we learn
that a majority of these original Americans
were not against immigration except for people from countries at war against the United
States since the other acts were repealed.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts:
“There were actually four separate laws making up what is commonly referred to as the "Alien and Sedition Acts":
1. The Naturalization Act (official title: An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization) extended the duration of residence required for aliens to become citizens, from five years to fourteen. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
2. The Alien Friends Act (official title: An Act Concerning Aliens) authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." Enacted June 25, 1798, with a two year expiration date.
3. The Alien Enemies Act (official title: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies) authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. Enacted July 6, 1798, with no expiration date, it remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21-24.”

Note the repeal and expiration. The Alien
Enemies Act is still in effect and I support
it. I actually support the Alien Friends Act
too. But it should be noted it expired.
So, I am less libertarian than these orginal
Americans!

So, from J.W. Randolph’s _The Virginia Report_
1850, http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr.htm,
we learn:
“The Doctrine of '98 [the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, when taken together], properly understood and grounded, is a valuable guide to interpretation of the Constitution in accordance with the original understanding of the Founders and the assurances concerning construction that were the basis for ratification and which therefore are an unwritten part of the Constitution. The documents which comprise it stand as a manifesto of constitutionalism, strict constructionism, or originalism, and are comparable in importance to Madison's Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the ratification Debates in the Several State Conventions, collected and published by Jonathan Elliott. It has several key components:
1. Rights arising out of the state of nature and civil society are recognized by the Constitution, not created by it. They would exist even if not recognized, and repeal of such recognitions would not authorize violations of them.
2. Privileges or immunities, which includes rights, recognized or created by the Constitution, are those of persons, not just citizens, unless otherwise stated.
8. Rights may not be disabled by legislation, either in whole or in part, for any class of persons. Legislation may only prescribe the rights to be disabled as the result of judicial due process ending in an order of the court, with each individual having the right to have his case tried and proven separately.
9. Having a right implies having the right to acquire, possess, and use the means to exercise the right, and neither the exercise or the means may be taxed.”

I'm not even going to bother reading your posts as you seem to have everything backwards. Nothing I stated in my blog is inaccurate. You are the one that cannot face reality or true history. I know my country's history. You keep trying to rewrite our history but you fail miserably. So, go bother someone else. I am a TRUE American and YOU cannot take that from me.