quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
Where are you getting your (mis)information?
The American Southwest was *sold* to us after the conclusion of the Mexican-American War under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
We lost the Alamo if you will recall. And on that topic, the Republic of Texas had been independent of Mexico for over a decade *before* the Mexican-American war and had been diplomatically recognized by countries such as the UK.
Also worth mentioning that it was Mexico that started the war by attacking less than 100 troops with a force of 2000. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb
So again, in the unique set of circumstances that pertain to African Americans and Mexicans they either were not allowed to own property or it was taken from them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
Where are you getting your (mis)information?
The American Southwest was *sold* to us after the conclusion of the Mexican-American War under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
We lost the Alamo if you will recall. And on that topic, the Republic of Texas had been independent of Mexico for over a decade *before* the Mexican-American war and had been diplomatically recognized by countries such as the UK.
Also worth mentioning that it was Mexico that started the war by attacking less than 100 troops with a force of 2000. 

 

*Sold*. Indeed, as in sell it or lose it or die. Some offer. Kind of like how Hitler overtook numerous counties to "protect" the people from other nations while France and England sat around with their thumbs up their asses. And I wouldnt lay much credibility on the UK as arent the the lovely little country that tried to make every other nation a colony, by force? Yes I think so. Their recognizing Texas's "rights" to stolen land means about as much as Mussolini recognizing Hitlers right to a dozen other countries. Are you a history major or something that gave you such a warped sense of "real" history?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
Where are you getting your (mis)information?
The American Southwest was *sold* to us after the conclusion of the Mexican-American War under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
We lost the Alamo if you will recall. And on that topic, the Republic of Texas had been independent of Mexico for over a decade *before* the Mexican-American war and had been diplomatically recognized by countries such as the UK.
Also worth mentioning that it was Mexico that started the war by attacking less than 100 troops with a force of 2000. 

 

*Sold*. Indeed, as in sell it or lose it or die. Some offer. Kind of like how Hitler overtook numerous counties to "protect" the people from other nations while France and England sat around with their thumbs up their asses. And I wouldnt lay much credibility on the UK as arent the the lovely little country that tried to make every other nation a colony, by force? Yes I think so. Their recognizing Texas's "rights" to stolen land means about as much as Mussolini recognizing Hitlers right to a dozen other countries. Are you a history major or something that gave you such a warped sense of "real" history?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

How many other countries do you think would tolerate job walk outs, protests and a blatant disregard for the law? Not damn many.

~Lashra

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
I'm not the one at odds with history. Feel free to do a minimal amount of research.
Stuff the Hitler card, because like most comparisons to the Nazis, this use is also not apt.
We did not seize or otherwise illegally occupy Texas. Texas was an independent republic given broad diplomatic recognition that invited the US military on its soil due to Mexican sabre rattling about retaking the "renegade province".
Mexico refused a decorated general under pretenses that amounted to they could not verify his papers. They then committed an assault on American troops and forts. Mexico initiated the war with the United States.
The territory that was sold under the treaty was barely occupied and almost entirely unused. Additionally, a fine sum was paid for the land in addition to the US government accepting over $3 million (mid 19th century) dollars of Mexican debt owed to Americans.
*meow*

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lashra

How many other countries do you think would tolerate job walk outs, protests and a blatant disregard for the law? Not damn many.

~Lashra

All the signatories of the European Treaty on Human Rights which include all 25 EU countries I believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
Please! This is yet another chunk of misinformation. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave garuntees of citzenship and property recognition to the hispanics and mestizos in the purchased terrorities.

The courthouse raid you mentioned came much later after much of those land grants were lost. Some of them were lost through shady transfers or sold under coercision. (This was however not limited to the chicano population, focusing more on the poor than any racial motivations.) Unfortunately, much more of the land was lost through defaulted loans that borrowed against the applicant's share of the property. The two true injustices (to me) done specifically to the hispanic land grant holders were the restrictions on using Forest Service lands (that were part of those land grants at some point) and a failure to give the non-defaulting land grant heirs their fair share of the land sales. (The bank seizures were nothing particularly unscrupulous since co-owned property is subject to seizure if any party is suffiently in debt.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Actually your history shows quite a lot of ignorance here. The British Empire was built on private enterprize largely like the current US empire is. The British government took over many the colonies to stop the corruption of private companies. You'll find a few exceptions but this is largely true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom
I'm not the one at odds with history. Feel free to do a minimal amount of research.
Stuff the Hitler card, because like most comparisons to the Nazis, this use is also not apt.
We did not seize or otherwise illegally occupy Texas. Texas was an independent republic given broad diplomatic recognition that invited the US military on its soil due to Mexican sabre rattling about retaking the "renegade province".
Mexico refused a decorated general under pretenses that amounted to they could not verify his papers. They then committed an assault on American troops and forts. Mexico initiated the war with the United States.
The territory that was sold under the treaty was barely occupied and almost entirely unused. Additionally, a fine sum was paid for the land in addition to the US government accepting over $3 million (mid 19th century) dollars of Mexican debt owed to Americans.
*meow*

 

You can twist facts till youre blue in the face. Denial is a great thing for those that choose it. What part of  Texas, NM, AZ. etc being a part of Mexico dont you understand? You make it sound like Texas popped up out of nowhere and was suddenly a state with a flag, cowboys and ten gallon hats. Before Texas was an independant republic who owned it? You choose to deny the fact that this land was property of Mexico for 100s of years. It didnt just become a "land mass" the moment the US military showed up. Prior to that it was what, empty air?
Let me tell you something else about the homogenized history books you read. Betsy Ross didnt do the original flag, Washington never chopped down the cherry tree (from the story), the US was NOT founded as a Christain nation, Paul Revere was NO patriot. He only did half the route they claim and then tried to bill the commonwealth something like $6 for his trouble.
The checks in the mail, promise not to come in your mouth, the world is flat, Iraq had WMD. Consider the sources you get your information from.
You and so many others that become "educated" by reading the revised and biased history books they pump through our schools and colleges are foolish. These books were written by white men with the desire to portray white men as heros and "good" and Indians and Mexicans as ignorant morons and "bad".
Oh and like it or not, the parallels between Hitler apply far more (as they do to Bush's regime) than not. Just because you choose to discount them dont mean jack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I've never been more serious. Everything that is being debated in the US has parallels in Europe which is why I find this debate interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMacComb

Yea right. Again, why is it that most of the indigenous people of many of those countries didnt quite find this level of benevolence you refer to on the behalf of the British Empire. There is a reason why England used to be the largest land owner in the world, and they didnt pay for it either. It all came at gun point.  I seem to recall a little skirmish in my neck of the woods wherein they decided they suddenly "owned" the better part of North America. But I suppose ArtCatDom will show up here in a minute telling me they purchased it from France, Egypt or the Apaches. 
It seems to me there have been quite a few wars the last several centuries between Europeans, Americans, Brits and on the other side people that couldnt read or write. One side had a navy with cannon and guns, the other sides had spears and bows/arrows and knives. Yet according to most white men everything was negotiated and purchased and on the up and up. Don't believe me, just read the history books those same white guys wrote, lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom


I am sorry, but I strongly disagree.

A number of EU countries have some wretchedly draconian immigration laws. Most EU nations (France and Britain are most notable) have detained illegal immigrants for years on end. Even the EU Commission recommendation to member states which asks they be detained no longer than six months encourages a 5 year no re-entry ban for expelled illegals.

The EU as a whole does not tolerate illegal immigration and most member nations have immigration laws at least as strict as the United States' (and a large number claim a right to detain illegal immigrants indefinately for "safety and security").

Taking this into consideration, I cannot fathom that most EU countries would tolerate demonstrations of illegal aliens comparable to those in the United States.

*meow*

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaverYou are totally and utterly wrong. Britain has an estimated 1 million illegal immigrants. What you are talking about are illegal immigrants that have been detained because they are believed to be terrorists but the authorities have not enough proof to prosecute them in a court of law or not willing to divulge their intelligence sources. However, in Britain these people can leave the country if they so desire and if they can get a third country willing to accept them, if they refuse to leave Britain then they have been told they shall remain in detention. There is a grand total of 11 illegal immigrants that are suspected terrorists in this category. In France similar illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism are under constant review by judges and not politicians.

I don't see the USA being as lenient with suspected terrorists!

At least that is what the EU was talking about, unless you mean the following category.

There are some other illegals in detention who sought political asylum on entry and there is a backlog of these because the validation system is fucked and because it is believed for the most part these people have conveniently lost their documentation so their backgrounds cannot be researched. They took the gamble on trying to become legal on entry.

There has been some friction between Britain and France in the recent past over camps of illegal immigrants near the French channel ports. Each night they would try to get through the channel tunnel into Britain because you don't need ID papers to get into the British social security system, where in France if you don't have a social security card you are de facto out of the social security system. These illegals were allowed to come and go as they pleased in France without fear of arrest. Once in Britain they can just get lost in the system and collect social security money and have free health care.