Was the Mexican War Justified?

[FluffyNinja]

After listening to some of the controversy surrounding the recent Absolut Vodka ad that ran in Mexico, I began to reflect on the Mexican War of 1846 and its validity. My question is, was the Mexican War justified? And, if not, do we owe anything (land, reparations, apologies, etc.) to the people of Mexico as a result?

I mean, think about it, the most commonly accepted version of this history says that Sam Houston virtually "tricked" the US Senate into annexing Texas by making public claims that Texas would ally itself with Britain. The US could not "stomach" having our most recent "international enemy" sitting on our back doorstep, so they folded. Sam Houston's bluff payed off. We learn later, from some of Houston's own correspondence, that he never originally had any intent to side with the British. In the end, the US ended up with a pretty sweet deal. We took a pretty valuable "chunk" of land from Mexico for $15 million and by the settlement of a "lopsided" treaty.

There are many other implications from the era, that when taken in context, may have made this more legitimate. I'm really quite divided on this question. Just wondering if any of you have an opinion?

 

[Lightdemon]

After listening to some of the controversy surrounding the recent Absolut Vodka ad that ran in Mexico, I began to reflect on the Mexican War of 1846 and its validity. My question is, was the Mexican War justified? And, if not, do we owe anything (land, reparations, apologies, etc.) to the people of Mexico as a result?

I mean, think about it, the most commonly accepted version of this history says that Sam Houston virtually "tricked" the US Senate into annexing Texas by making public claims that Texas would ally itself with Britain. The US could not "stomach" having our most recent "international enemy" sitting on our back doorstep, so they folded. Sam Houston's bluff payed off. We learn later, from some of Houston's own correspondence, that he never originally had any intent to side with the British. In the end, the US ended up with a pretty sweet deal. We took a pretty valuable "chunk" of land from Mexico for $15 million and by the settlement of a "lopsided" treaty.

There are many other implications from the era, that when taken in context, may have made this more legitimate. I'm really quite divided on this question. Just wondering if any of you have an opinion?

While I don't think the US have any "real" legitimate justifications, I do think that Mexico wasn't really serving it's northern territory all that well in the first place.

For one thing, it was in the far north, and the distance made it hard to control. The same thing happened to the British and it's 13 colonies. Distance just made things very difficult for the government to do its job. Until of course the advent of mass transportation.

Secondly, and because of the first, the northern territories had a tendency to become autonomous and independant from the state. Mexico is notorious for it's control on the economy and it's manipulation. The far north hated it, and because of the distance, they were able to effectively battle against the policies made in central Mexico.

Thirdly, the far north were in more close proximity to US markets, than Mexican markets to the south. Plus there were more rivers and ports located just to the east (which is souther US at the time). So trade with the US was better than trade with it's own country. Bypassing some export taxes (because of thier establish autonomy) and having low transportation costs for thier exports.


While there are many more factors, I just think that these territories that eventually became part of the US, wanted to become independant in the first place. Though of course, my other opinion is that the US shouldn't have had a hand in any of this because they shouldn't have stuck thier noses into the business (or gov't actually) of a different country; Monroe Doctrine and all.

 

[FluffyNinja]

While I don't think the US have any "real" legitimate justifications, I do think that Mexico wasn't really serving it's northern territory all that well in the first place.

For one thing, it was in the far north, and the distance made it hard to control. The same thing happened to the British and it's 13 colonies. Distance just made things very difficult for the government to do its job. Until of course the advent of mass transportation.

Secondly, and because of the first, the northern territories had a tendency to become autonomous and independant from the state. Mexico is notorious for it's control on the economy and it's manipulation. The far north hated it, and because of the distance, they were able to effectively battle against the policies made in central Mexico.

Thirdly, the far north were in more close proximity to US markets, than Mexican markets to the south. Plus there were more rivers and ports located just to the east (which is souther US at the time). So trade with the US was better than trade with it's own country. Bypassing some export taxes (because of thier establish autonomy) and having low transportation costs for thier exports.


While there are many more factors, I just think that these territories that eventually became part of the US, wanted to become independant in the first place. Though of course, my other opinion is that the US shouldn't have had a hand in any of this because they shouldn't have stuck thier noses into the business (or gov't actually) of a different country; Monroe Doctrine and all.

I agree with almost all of your points, but would you go as far as to say that this war was "concocted" by Pres. Polk and the US Senate as a form of Imperialism, under the "justification" of Manifest Destiny? Or do you believe the US Senate was, in fact, so easily duped by Sam Houston?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We won, and winning that war benefitted us.

Far as I'm concerned, that's the only justification any war can ever have-- and the only justification it needs.

 

[John1234]

We won, and winning that war benefitted us.

Far as I'm concerned, that's the only justification any war can ever have-- and the only justification it needs.

So your basically saying that murder is fine so long as you can profit from it?

Note that i am not against the Mexican War, i just could not understand your attitude towards war.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So your basically saying that murder is fine so long as you can profit from it?

More or less, as long as the victims aren't part of your tribe-- and your tribe does not suffer for your aggression. I have no problem with aggressive war for resources, as the vast majority of wars have followed that pattern even during the last century.

Note that i am not against the Mexican War, i just could not understand your attitude towards war.

I just don't need as much propaganda to justify my desire for my country to be dominant.

 

[John1234]

More or less, as long as the victims aren't part of your tribe-- and your tribe does not suffer for your aggression. I have no problem with aggressive war for resources, as the vast majority of wars have followed that pattern even during the last century.



I just don't need as much propaganda to justify my desire for my country to be dominant.

Well, at least your honest about it. I respect that.
But i still find it to be terrible.

We all want our country to be dominant to an extent.
How we handle the moral boundaries is the real defining factor on who we are as a people.

I view things quite the opposite.
I believe a man is defined by how he treats others outside of his tribe or sphere of concern.

 

[Lightdemon]

I agree with almost all of your points, but would you go as far as to say that this war was "concocted" by Pres. Polk and the US Senate as a form of Imperialism, under the "justification" of Manifest Destiny? Or do you believe the US Senate was, in fact, so easily duped by Sam Houston?

No, Sam Houston probably played a smaller role as compared to the entire economical benefits of attaining the south west. Santa Fe trail. More territory to asuage men with ambitions in becoming a successful farm/plantation owner.

All in all, in all things considered, I firmly believe that the acquiring the South West was economically motivated, on a social level, meaning that people needed more land, and also at a political level, meaning that our government was looking to expand (like you mentioned Manifest Destiny).

As evidence, in the Mexican-American War, we did not only protect the independant state of Texas, but we also marched all the way to Mexico City, and even occupied for a while as well. Unfortunately, the guerilla tactics thwarted us and we could not establish a strong hold on Mexico's captial. IF we had...we probably would have annexed the entirety of Mexico, if not for their use of guerilla tactics.

Because of this move, it shows us what the motivation of the US was at the time. We weren't "defending" an independant and soveriegn nation; Texas. We were actually invading another country.


In short, I believe economics had more to do with it, than political influence.

 

[Bodi]

Well, at least your honest about it. I respect that.
But i still find it to be terrible.

We all want our country to be dominant to an extent.
How we handle the moral boundaries is the real defining factor on who we are as a people.

I view things quite the opposite.
I believe a man is defined by how he treats others outside of his tribe or sphere of concern.

How can you respect a person that brags about and justifies being immoral?

We don't have to fight wars to be dominant, and any person that thinks otherwise knows little of economics.

The Mexican War can only be justified if the people of Texas felt that they were truly being oppressed and that our involvement liberated them from such.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The Mexican War can only be justified if the people of Texas felt that they were truly being oppressed and that our involvement liberated them from such.

So, if our citizens emigrate into another country, complain about how that country is treating them, and then declare sovereignty, we are morally justified in declaring war on the country they invaded in the first place?

Hmm. What does that say about Mexicans living in the Southwestern United States today?

 

[Lightdemon]

So, if our citizens emigrate into another country, complain about how that country is treating them, and then declare sovereignty, we are morally justified in declaring war on the country they invaded in the first place?

Exactly. It's basically invasion.

Hmm. What does that say about Mexicans living in the Southwestern United States today?

A good point, however I don't see Mexico as thier savior. Nonetheless, a nice parallel.

 

[Bodi]

So, if our citizens emigrate into another country, complain about how that country is treating them, and then declare sovereignty, we are morally justified in declaring war on the country they invaded in the first place?

Hmm. What does that say about Mexicans living in the Southwestern United States today?

That was not my assertion. :roll:
Just another comment that you can't seem to keep in context.

I will let you come to another ridiculous conclusion on your own again and not waste any time clarifying my position since you seem to prefer thinking that your assumptions are correct in the face of the facts and that you appear to think that murder is fine as long as there is gain from it.

I am not sure why any person would support murder, minors having sex, minors fighting, pre-emptive invasion for any reason as long as there is gain for the voctor... but you seem to. It is clear and extremely enlightening. Thanks and have a nice day.

:2wave:

 

[Lightdemon]

That was not my assertion. :roll:
Just another comment that you can't seem to keep in context.

I will let you come to another ridiculous conclusion on your own again and not waste any time clarifying my position since you seem to prefer thinking that your assumptions are correct in the face of the facts and that you appear to think that murder is fine as long as there is gain from it.

I am not sure why any person would support murder, minors having sex, minors fighting, pre-emptive invasion for any reason as long as there is gain for the voctor... but you seem to. It is clear and extremely enlightening. Thanks and have a nice day.

:2wave:

In all fairness Bodhi, Korimyr actually did keep it in context.

The influx of Texan immigrants came from Southern US. If it had not been for these immigrants, Texas wouldn't have had the balls to claim independance. It was the immigrants that crossed borders, some without fulfilling legal requirements in becoming actual Mexican citizens (such as becoming catholic, freeing thier slaves, and learning how to speak spanish, etc), and they demanded that the Mexican govt to stop "oppressing it's citizens."

Those who are crossing our borders today, aren't they doing the same thing? Claiming that they are being "oppressed?" They can't get a driver's license, they're not allowed to work in certain places, etc. They are not considered "citizens?" Yet American's considered themselves "citizens" when they immigrated to Texas, didn't they?


If Texas' independance was justified on these grounds, then should Texas and other border states that feel they are "oppressed" then are they justified in leaving the US? Should the immigrants have a say on the states independance?

 

[Bodi]

In all fairness Bodhi, Korimyr actually did keep it in context.

The influx of Texan immigrants came from Southern US. If it had not been for these immigrants, Texas wouldn't have had the balls to claim independance. It was the immigrants that crossed borders, some without fulfilling legal requirements in becoming actual Mexican citizens (such as becoming catholic, freeing thier slaves, and learning how to speak spanish, etc), and they demanded that the Mexican govt to stop "oppressing it's citizens."

Those who are crossing our borders today, aren't they doing the same thing? Claiming that they are being "oppressed?" They can't get a driver's license, they're not allowed to work in certain places, etc. They are not considered "citizens?" Yet American's considered themselves "citizens" when they immigrated to Texas, didn't they?


If Texas' independance was justified on these grounds, then should Texas and other border states that feel they are "oppressed" then are they justified in leaving the US? Should the immigrants have a say on the states independance?

"Complaining" about being oppressed and actually "Being" oppressed are drasitically different.
IMO the Texans were not being oppressed in the slightest just as the Illegals in CA and such are not either.

Seeking a better life and not finding it is very different from what the Texans and what the Illegal Mexican Immigrants are finding. Practically all, in both cases, found likfe better for various reasons and both complain about not having it even better than they do... much like the American Revloutionaries are their ire over imagined or made up ideas about "No Taxation wtihout Representation"

As to the rest, it is subtle differences such as this that I will not engage in with KTR.
He likes his assumptions and he can have them. :2razz:

 

[Lightdemon]

"Complaining" about being oppressed and actually "Being" oppressed are drasitically different.
IMO the Texans were not being oppressed in the slightest just as the Illegals in CA and such are not either.

For Texans: Forcing them to free thier slaves is one form of oppression, as the popular opinion at the time was thier god-given right to own slaves. Another form of oppression is the amount of taxation that hinders the development of a man's earnings. In other words, economic/trade manipulations that prevent individuals from acting "freely," as in selling thier product how they wish.

For immigrants today: Not being able to drive a car is a drastic hindrance to making a living. One would argue that it should be a right, rather than just a priveledge, simply because of it's a near necessity for life in the modern world. Especially in the a developed nation such as the US. Another form of oppression is that employers can threaten immigrants by deporting them if they complain, which is a manipulation of the system to exploit immigrants.

The above examples are not complaints of being oppressed, these are examples of being oppressed.

Seeking a better life and not finding it is very different from what the Texans and what the Illegal Mexican Immigrants are finding. Practically all, in both cases, found likfe better for various reasons and both complain about not having it even better than they do... much like the American Revloutionaries are their ire over imagined or made up ideas about "No Taxation wtihout Representation"

In the case of the Texans, they took advantage that the Mexican gov't was practically giving away free land. But even when the Mexican gov't closed the offer and even closed thier borders by building outposts to gaurd against any more immigrants, Americans still illegally crossed the borders.

It wasn't that they didn't found what they want because they did, which was the free land. The problem is that Mexico couldn't control the illegal immigration problem, and because of this, Americans squatted on the land until they had a large enough population to claim independance.

In both cases, these illegal immigrants filled a need. Mexico wanted to use up the empty land in the north, when the Americans didn't do what the Mexican gov't expected them to do, they tightened control, which lead to rebellion. Illegal Immigrants in the US today, they're also filling a need. Which is to provide cheap labor to make American products/services competitive in the global market. Will we see rebellion from these illegal immigrants? I don't know. Maybe. Who knows?

But in both cases, the illegal immigrants are being exploited. So should a foreign gov't step in and free these exploited people? Is it justifiable?

What we are experiencing here in the US, with our own problem of illegal immigration is very similar to the Texan situation. The only difference is that Mexico can't beat the US military. A call for independance will fail. But would a call for independance be justifiable? The same justification that Texas had?

As to the rest, it is subtle differences such as this that I will not engage in with KTR.
He likes his assumptions and he can have them. :2razz:

I'm not trying to stick up for Korimyr, I just thought he made a very good parallel.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

That was not my assertion. :roll:
Just another comment that you can't seem to keep in context.

It's not a matter of "keeping things in context". It's a matter of taking the principles you advocate and applying them-- and exposing how ridiculous they are. The fact that your principles, once applied, lead to conclusions that you are unwilling to support speaks volumes to the soundness of those principles and the process by which you come to your positions.

It isn't my fault that your logic is inconsistent, and that fact that you're offended when this is pointed out to you has very little to do with any character flaws on my part.

 

[Bodi]

It's not a matter of "keeping things in context". It's a matter of taking the principles you advocate and applying them-- and exposing how ridiculous they are. The fact that your principles, once applied, lead to conclusions that you are unwilling to support speaks volumes to the soundness of those principles and the process by which you come to your positions.

It isn't my fault that your logic is inconsistent, and that fact that you're offended when this is pointed out to you has very little to do with any character flaws on my part.

..yet another ridiculous assumption. Good job. :lol:

I am not offended, do you think that your opinion merits serious consideration? I am simply not going to engage a point in which the other person is not going to attempt to understand... where a person is either unable or unwilling to discuss a point to its logical conclusion and understanding instead of watching them sit on an initially incorrect assesment and not alter in any way in order to maintain a delusional sense of a self-admitted superiority complex.

That is all. You have shown consistancy in this area and yet again you don't disappoint. :2razz:

I have yet to debate you on a topic... for all we have done is witness your inablity to maintain perspective and context. Of course, as we can expect, you will not desire to understand something that you feel you already do when you in fact do not.

As I outlined in my previous post, you have serious issues to contend with and in which you should address your focus rather than attempting to understand my subtle and valid points.

Do what you do best... don't let us down now!

 

[conquer]

Lets say that the Mexican war wasn't justified. Now what? Returning the lands? Are you crazy? ...Giving compensations? Are you insane?

Centuries after the war the only thing you can say is "oops!"

 

[Joby]

Lets say that the Mexican war wasn't justified. Now what? Returning the lands? Are you crazy? ...Giving compensations? Are you insane?

Centuries after the war the only thing you can say is "oops!"

Seriously.

This was in the era, ableit at the tail end, of the British/French/Spanish Empires trading off huge sections of land. When it comes to America's ambitions to get on the scene, taking on Mexico and that despot was necessary.

Luckily, we were able to do it this early. If we had been divided and tried to accomplish it later, like Germany/Japan, there's a good chance we would have failed.

 

[Bodi]

Lets say that the Mexican war wasn't justified. Now what? Returning the lands? Are you crazy? ...Giving compensations? Are you insane?

Centuries after the war the only thing you can say is "oops!"

Who are you talking to?

Originally Posted by Lightdemon
For Texans: Forcing them to free thier slaves is one form of oppression, as the popular opinion at the time was thier god-given right to own slaves. Another form of oppression is the amount of taxation that hinders the development of a man's earnings. In other words, economic/trade manipulations that prevent individuals from acting "freely," as in selling thier product how they wish.

Being oppressed is to be robbed of life, liberty or property.
An extremely weak case could be made for slavery, but they entered into a foreign country with different laws, so it was their choice in the end.

Result: Not oppressed

For immigrants today: Not being able to drive a car is a drastic hindrance to making a living. One would argue that it should be a right, rather than just a priveledge, simply because of it's a near necessity for life in the modern world.

LEGAL Immigrants can drive cars
ILLEGAL Immigrants can not.

This is their argument then:
I can't drive because I am breaking the law and an ILLEGAL Immigrant, so I am being oppressed?

That is a weak argument.

Result: Not oppressed

Especially in the a developed nation such as the US. Another form of oppression is that employers can threaten immigrants by deporting them if they complain, which is a manipulation of the system to exploit immigrants.

The above examples are not complaints of being oppressed, these are examples of being oppressed.

Employers that employ ILLEGAL Immigrants are guilty of breaking the law and are also morally bankrupt, much like...

They should be punished accordingly and ILLEGALS can complain all they like, but I bet you money, since I have known many and they confirmed this, that their lives are STILL better than they were down south.

Result: Not oppressed

In the case of the Texans, they took advantage that the Mexican gov't was practically giving away free land. But even when the Mexican gov't closed the offer and even closed thier borders by building outposts to gaurd against any more immigrants, Americans still illegally crossed the borders.

It wasn't that they didn't found what they want because they did, which was the free land. The problem is that Mexico couldn't control the illegal immigration problem, and because of this, Americans squatted on the land until they had a large enough population to claim independance.

So the Texans ILLEGALLY crossed the border, took advantage of the Mexican government, found free land as they wanted and waited until their numbers were high enough to fight the Mexican government for sovereignty? :rofl

Result: Not oppressed

In both cases, these illegal immigrants filled a need. Mexico wanted to use up the empty land in the north, when the Americans didn't do what the Mexican gov't expected them to do, they tightened control, which lead to rebellion. Illegal Immigrants in the US today, they're also filling a need. Which is to provide cheap labor to make American products/services competitive in the global market. Will we see rebellion from these illegal immigrants? I don't know. Maybe. Who knows?

But in both cases, the illegal immigrants are being exploited. So should a foreign gov't step in and free these exploited people? Is it justifiable?

Filling a need to not justify their greed to want more than they deserve or should have. We all work. All I know is that if we see a rebellion from ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants, there is gonna be a whole lotta dead ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants lying in the streets. Not a good plan for them to consider.

Exploited is not oppressed.
Oppressed is to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority
Exploited is to employ to the greatest possible advantage

When people are exploited, they can make a choice to leave.

What we are experiencing here in the US, with our own problem of illegal immigration is very similar to the Texan situation. The only difference is that Mexico can't beat the US military. A call for independance will fail. But would a call for independance be justifiable? The same justification that Texas had?

Neither call is or was justified and if the ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants called for one, or to those that have, they are greedy, selfish and corrupt people that are exploiting their own people instead of helping them.

Mexicans and such being here is fine and dandy, but their leaders must learn to work within the system rather that to try to usurp it.

 

[Lightdemon]

Being oppressed is to be robbed of life, liberty or property.
An extremely weak case could be made for slavery, but they entered into a foreign country with different laws, so it was their choice in the end.

Result: Not oppressed

Alright...

LEGAL Immigrants can drive cars
ILLEGAL Immigrants can not.

This is their argument then:
I can't drive because I am breaking the law and an ILLEGAL Immigrant, so I am being oppressed?

That is a weak argument.

Result: Not oppressed

...alright...

Employers that employ ILLEGAL Immigrants are guilty of breaking the law and are also morally bankrupt, much like...

They should be punished accordingly and ILLEGALS can complain all they like, but I bet you money, since I have known many and they confirmed this, that their lives are STILL better than they were down south.

Result: Not oppressed

...alright...

So the Texans ILLEGALLY crossed the border, took advantage of the Mexican government, found free land as they wanted and waited until their numbers were high enough to fight the Mexican government for sovereignty? :rofl

Result: Not oppressed

...alright....

Then what was the justification of defending Texas?? In the beginning you didn't even question whether or not there was oppression. This was a given. Even in you're own words...

The Mexican War can only be justified if the people of Texas felt that they were truly being oppressed and that our involvement liberated them from such.

Did they feel oppressed at that time?? You betcha. I don't really think it matters whether you think it was oppression or not. Truth be told, social movements are activated by the way the people feels toward a specific issue. At that time.

Filling a need to not justify their greed to want more than they deserve or should have. We all work. All I know is that if we see a rebellion from ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants, there is gonna be a whole lotta dead ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants lying in the streets. Not a good plan for them to consider.

In parallel, this could be the Mexican-American War. There are many dead Ameicans who illegally crossed those borders who rioted in Texas. It's still fits pretty well into the context of this discussion.

Exploited is not oppressed.
Oppressed is to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority
Exploited is to employ to the greatest possible advantage

This is where we disagree then. Opression is exploitation in my book.

Exploited is to employ to the greatest possible advantage with disregard to the employee's well being.

When people are exploited, they can make a choice to leave.

I think often employers exploit thier workers because they know that they cannot leave. This trap is how they exploit in the first place.

For instance, giving free land in Texas: You spend time, money, sweat, blood, and tears into the land which was given. Are you going to leave because the Mexican gov't changes it's mind? Change some laws that make your life horrid? Change the way you live? Change the way you survive?? I would think not.

The idea that you can just pick up your things and leave, to escape exploitation doesn't make sense to me. Because if you can do that, to me you're not really being exploited in the first place. Taken advantage of, probably, but not exploited.

Neither call is or was justified and if the ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants called for one, or to those that have, they are greedy, selfish and corrupt people that are exploiting their own people instead of helping them.

Mexicans and such being here is fine and dandy, but their leaders must learn to work within the system rather that to try to usurp it.

The Americans initially worked within the system too. They got shot down. Why? Because they were being exploited. There will be no sense in giving them what they want, if they are the people who we want to exploit. Kind of oxymoronic. It's kind of like saying, "let's exploit them and make them work! But let's pay them for it..."

 

[Bodi]

Alright...



...alright...



...alright...




...alright....

Then what was the justification of defending Texas?? In the beginning you didn't even question whether or not there was oppression. This was a given. Even in you're own words...



Did they feel oppressed at that time?? You betcha. I don't really think it matters whether you think it was oppression or not. Truth be told, social movements are activated by the way the people feels toward a specific issue. At that time.




In parallel, this could be the Mexican-American War. There are many dead Ameicans who illegally crossed those borders who rioted in Texas. It's still fits pretty well into the context of this discussion.



This is where we disagree then. Opression is exploitation in my book.

Exploited is to employ to the greatest possible advantage with disregard to the employee's well being.



I think often employers exploit thier workers because they know that they cannot leave. This trap is how they exploit in the first place.

For instance, giving free land in Texas: You spend time, money, sweat, blood, and tears into the land which was given. Are you going to leave because the Mexican gov't changes it's mind? Change some laws that make your life horrid? Change the way you live? Change the way you survive?? I would think not.

The idea that you can just pick up your things and leave, to escape exploitation doesn't make sense to me. Because if you can do that, to me you're not really being exploited in the first place. Taken advantage of, probably, but not exploited.



The Americans initially worked within the system too. They got shot down. Why? Because they were being exploited. There will be no sense in giving them what they want, if they are the people who we want to exploit. Kind of oxymoronic. It's kind of like saying, "let's exploit them and make them work! But let's pay them for it..."

Exploited is one type of oppression... I agree.
I do not think that it is severe enough to justify rebellion though.

I also should have stressed the word "truly" because they can feel oppressed all they like, but if it not true oppression, that being the type that robs them of life, liberty or property, then they are not being truly oppressed. I further that by saying that being robbed of property in the form of slaves upon entering a nation or territory that does not allow slavery is hardly being oppressed...

So my statement stands and I feel it also remains unchallengable and correct at this point. Correct me if I missed anything of importance, I did skim because my kids need a story really soon.

:2razz:

 

[conquer]

Seriously.

This was in the era, ableit at the tail end, of the British/French/Spanish Empires trading off huge sections of land. When it comes to America's ambitions to get on the scene, taking on Mexico and that despot was necessary.

Luckily, we were able to do it this early. If we had been divided and tried to accomplish it later, like Germany/Japan, there's a good chance we would have failed.

Look, in those years there were no human international rights commissions, if you compare China and Tibet today with US and Hawaii decades ago, there is the same situation of oppressing another country or culture, but in the past nobody was the referi.

Today, organizations as the UN are the referi, this is why no big nation can go a take others' lands anymore without having an international countermeasure.

To dig the past will give you lots of surprises, but it won't change anything.

 

[Lightdemon]

Exploited is one type of oppression... I agree.
I do not think that it is severe enough to justify rebellion though.

I also should have stressed the word "truly" because they can feel oppressed all they like, but if it not true oppression, that being the type that robs them of life, liberty or property, then they are not being truly oppressed. I further that by saying that being robbed of property in the form of slaves upon entering a nation or territory that does not allow slavery is hardly being oppressed...

After traveling miles of desert thru the danger of being attacked and robbed by the Pueblo Indians, are you willing to turn back to the road where you came from? Will you have enough supplies to last for the return trip? Will you be lucky enough to make another successful trip avoiding attack?? And even if you get back home, after wasting a large amount of your forture for that useless journey, how the hell are you and your family going to get back on your feet?

A trap. A traveler who is seeking a way to reap the benefits of his risk-taking is trapped. Taking risks is what business people do after all. The likely story is that this traveler have been saving up money, or using up his family fortune, for this entreprenurial journey. This was quite common during the expansion to the West during this time. But what do you do when a situation arises when you are faced with breaking the law and surviving? Again, I point out that there is a trap. Consistently, a trap precedes exploitation, which is oppression.

Not only this, but a slave at that time, is almost like a car in today's world. Large plantations have many slaves, and thus they produce more and sell cheaper. For a small business owner, having slave is necessary for competition. It is a critical asset to your business. If you do not turn a profit, how are you goint to pay back the debt you took from the bank this year? Most farmers of the time, take out loans, and hope to God that they have a good year. Having a slave raises the likelyhood of you maintaining your farm, whether you needed more hands for crops or to look after your cattle. Slaves are a huge asset to success.

Simarly if you don't have a car, the number of professions that are available to you are closed off. Such professions that require you to be available at weird/random/unconventional time schedules, such professions that require you to commute in unconventional/irregular distances or places, etc. A car is almost necessary for you to be able to compete in today's (labor) economy. Like the farmer without a slave, you are less competitive, and less likely to be able to suceed in life. Furthermore, if you are not allowed to drive a car, assuming illegal immigration issues, that further limits the number of proefessions you have to choose from. Particular limiting in the sense of lower wages. Again, a situation where success is less likely.

To deny a person of either a car or a slave in thier respective era is a form of oppression. Is the oppression justifiable? That because they are illegal immigrants, that justifies them being oppressed? I don't know for you, but you can make that call for yourself.

---------------

But I don't get you Bodhi....I thought you said that defending Texas from Mexico was justified?? Doesn't that mean that Texas was being oppressed? I don't understand you. Was Texas being oppressed or not?

 

[Bodi]

After traveling miles of desert thru the danger of being attacked and robbed by the Pueblo Indians, are you willing to turn back to the road where you came from? Will you have enough supplies to last for the return trip? Will you be lucky enough to make another successful trip avoiding attack?? And even if you get back home, after wasting a large amount of your forture for that useless journey, how the hell are you and your family going to get back on your feet?

Most Native American did NOT attack travelers. This is a misconception. In fact, most were extremely helpful. Also, the Peublo Indians were more peaceful than most. If you had said the Comanche, I would have agreed, they were tough bastards and didn't take lightly to trespassing, but they still rarely attacked random travelers without provocation.

A trap. A traveler who is seeking a way to reap the benefits of his risk-taking is trapped. Taking risks is what business people do after all. The likely story is that this traveler have been saving up money, or using up his family fortune, for this entreprenurial journey. This was quite common during the expansion to the West during this time. But what do you do when a situation arises when you are faced with breaking the law and surviving? Again, I point out that there is a trap. Consistently, a trap precedes exploitation, which is oppression.

What is amazing, is that you seem to be justifying future dissent by saying that since the people tried so hard, they should just be given what they demand. That is not freedom. My friends family had to flee Afghanistan back in the 80's from the Russians... they traveled over mountains in the backs of jeeps, traveled in a camel caravan of all things for a month or something, then across the ocean in a steamer/cargo ship and more and they came here, worked hard. Got jobs. Somehow did all this legally. Managed to buy a car... go figure. And they live here now happily and they did all of this with no money, since in order to get it they would have all been captured and killed by the Russians. Interesting how some people figure it out and others complain and whine.

Not only this, but a slave at that time, is almost like a car in today's world. Large plantations have many slaves, and thus they produce more and sell cheaper. For a small business owner, having slave is necessary for competition. It is a critical asset to your business. If you do not turn a profit, how are you goint to pay back the debt you took from the bank this year? Most farmers of the time, take out loans, and hope to God that they have a good year. Having a slave raises the likelyhood of you maintaining your farm, whether you needed more hands for crops or to look after your cattle. Slaves are a huge asset to success.

Here we are debating the rights regarding rebellion of the poor white people who didn't get what they wanted after the illegally entered another country and what of the even poorer black slaves?

Simarly if you don't have a car, the number of professions that are available to you are closed off. Such professions that require you to be available at weird/random/unconventional time schedules, such professions that require you to commute in unconventional/irregular distances or places, etc. A car is almost necessary for you to be able to compete in today's (labor) economy. Like the farmer without a slave, you are less competitive, and less likely to be able to suceed in life. Furthermore, if you are not allowed to drive a car, assuming illegal immigration issues, that further limits the number of proefessions you have to choose from. Particular limiting in the sense of lower wages. Again, a situation where success is less likely.

There are these things called buses nowadays. Most big cities have them and they zig zag all around the streets. Why! All you need is a route map and a few bucks (or a cheap pass) and you can zoom around all year and save the environment too!

Besides.. the poor Mexican hardly needs a car to compete for a job in the stock room at Target or the kitchen doing dishes at Marie Calanders OR at a construction site. I have worked with many many MANY legal and ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants... a few hundred perhaps, and I have heard all the stories first hand and met families too, and they figure out how to make it work. It is the leaders that advocate more rights than they should be entitled to, the labor leaders that make fat bucks off of their poor oppressed people.

To deny a person of either a car or a slave in thier respective era is a form of oppression. Is the oppression justifiable? That because they are illegal immigrants, that justifies them being oppressed? I don't know for you, but you can make that call for yourself.

Neither are oppression in the slightest. I know lots of legal citizens that can't afford a car... what is more important? A LEGAL or an ILLEGAL being given things?

---------------

But I don't get you Bodhi....I thought you said that defending Texas from Mexico was justified?? Doesn't that mean that Texas was being oppressed? I don't understand you. Was Texas being oppressed or not?

I think that Texas wanting to rebel and the US backing them was NOT JUSTIFIED. I think that they are a bunch of greedy and whiney spoiled brats trying to make a gain off of the situation. The Texans were NOT oppressed, just as most ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants are not, and to demand rights such as they did, and are, is ludicrous.