I just saw an inane letter to the editor in the AJC. Someone wrote in to say that the Pilgrims were immigrants who stubbornly refused to learn the local language or adopt local customs. For one thing, that's not quite true. Plenty of Pilgrims leanred to speak Indian languages, and they also adopted some Indian customs. The main point, however, is that the Pilgrims were 400 years ago, way before the United States was formed. If a boatload of immigrants comes to the US now and decides to start a new country and slaughter Americans, should we let them, just because the Pilgrims did it centuries ago? I don't think so.

There's nothing wrong with using history to make a point about contemporary times, just make sure the comparison makes sense. It's one thing to say that the people who wrote the Constitution said they meant such and such in a specific line, but it's quite another to say that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, thus we should all chop down cherry trees.