Does the political correctness on the left over-reach, turning people people off and causing them seek out opinions on the far right?

[Tom Sawyer]

The US and Texas did not go to war with each other. US settlers that moved to the Texas territory of Mexico decided they didn't like Mexican rule, even though they moved to Mexico, and rebelled. They won, with the help of many US volunteers. Then Texas joined the US, then the US and Mexico went to war and the US took California, Arizona, and New Mexico as well.

The only time Texas fought against the US was during the Civil War as members of the Confederate States, and that was some years later.

Ya, that's what we're talking about. Texas declared war on the US, along with the rest of the Confederacy, and the US won. The question of who the rightful owners of Texas was got decided at that point. Any previous claims to the territory were invalidated.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Are you sure Mexico regards the US Civil War as conclusive?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Are you sure Mexico regards the US Civil War as conclusive?

It doesn't matter. Their claims were invalidated. Whether they want to harp on about invalid claims is their business, but nobody else needs to care about it.

 

[iolo]

If Al Capone dominated some courts, did that make law invalid? 'Frozen violence' melts when the criminals lose power, as they will.

 

[untermensche]

KN

Obviously Texas isn't going anywhere, but Mexicans should be allowed to immigrate at larger numbers than other groups due to our judgements today.

They have valid claims based on our current understandings. If I can force somebody out of their mansion, I don't legally own it.

But our current understandings weren't in force at the time which mattered. If you force someone out of their mansion in a totally legal manner and your family lives in it for a few hundred years and then that guy's distant descendants show up, they're now just strangers who want to stay in your mansion. Their claim to it is long gone, even if the legal manner in which your ancestors took it is no longer legal.

There is no legal manner you can force somebody from their home.

There can be lawlessness.

Of course the ownership of Texas is not going to change, but people should be free to live there, who's ancestors lived there, despite the imaginary border.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

KN

But our current understandings weren't in force at the time which mattered. If you force someone out of their mansion in a totally legal manner and your family lives in it for a few hundred years and then that guy's distant descendants show up, they're now just strangers who want to stay in your mansion. Their claim to it is long gone, even if the legal manner in which your ancestors took it is no longer legal.

There is no legal manner you can force somebody from their home.

There can be lawlessness.

Of course the ownership of Texas is not going to change, but people should be free to live there, who's ancestors lived there, despite the imaginary border.

But their ancestors got it through combat. The first Spanish colony in the area was wiped out by natives, so they came back with soliders and killed everyone who had a problem with them being there and then the descendants of those conquerors founded Mexico. The area was won by them in battle and then they lost their claim to it in the same way that they gained it. The Mexican claim to the territory was on the same basis that the US one was and that makes it no different than how if someone buys a place with cash and then sells it to someone else in cash, the first person no longer has any claim to the place.

The Mexican's ancestors won it on the battlefield and lost it on the battlefield. They can't somehow claim that their taking it by force was somehow more valid than somebody else's taking it by force.

 

[untermensche]

There is no legal manner you can force somebody from their home.

There can be lawlessness.

Of course the ownership of Texas is not going to change, but people should be free to live there, who's ancestors lived there, despite the imaginary border.

But their ancestors got it through combat. The first Spanish colony in the area was wiped out by natives, so they came back with soliders and killed everyone who had a problem with them being there and then the descendants of those conquerors founded Mexico. The area was won by them in battle and then they lost their claim to it in the same way that they gained it. The Mexican claim to the territory was on the same basis that the US one was and that makes it no different than how if someone buys a place with cash and then sells it to someone else in cash, the first person no longer has any claim to the place.

The Mexican's ancestors won it on the battlefield and lost it on the battlefield. They can't somehow claim that their taking it by force was somehow more valid than somebody else's taking it by force.

Again, nobody is talking taking or giving.

I am talking freedom of travel.

 

[dismal]

Mexico won Texas as a spoil in a war it started with Spain. But then the noble Texans living in the land threw the imperial Mexican armies out and began a period of self rule.

So you think Spain had more rights to the land than the people living there?

The people living in Texas were the Texans. They fought a war and overthrew the imperial Mexican empire.

 

[dismal]

You know we live in a post United Nations world?

We are not in the Wild West anymore.

The rules of international affairs have been updated since the early 19th Century.

Ya, but we're talking about 19th century events. The US won Texas fair and square and invalidated any earlier claims to ownership.

Again, the Texans won Texas.

 

[untermensche]

So you think Spain had more rights to the land than the people living there?

The people living in Texas were the Texans. They fought a war and overthrew the imperial Mexican empire.

Hey, might makes right seems to be how people still operate so your support of the concept is understood.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But their ancestors got it through combat. The first Spanish colony in the area was wiped out by natives, so they came back with soliders and killed everyone who had a problem with them being there and then the descendants of those conquerors founded Mexico. The area was won by them in battle and then they lost their claim to it in the same way that they gained it. The Mexican claim to the territory was on the same basis that the US one was and that makes it no different than how if someone buys a place with cash and then sells it to someone else in cash, the first person no longer has any claim to the place.

The Mexican's ancestors won it on the battlefield and lost it on the battlefield. They can't somehow claim that their taking it by force was somehow more valid than somebody else's taking it by force.

Again, nobody is talking taking or giving.

I am talking freedom of travel.

Wel, they lost. Losers don't get to set the rules - that's for winners. The winners get to decide what does or does not happen there.

It's the same as how Americans need to show ID if they want to go into Canada. You tried to move the border north but you failed miserably and lost, so you don't get to decide what is required to travel there. We do, because we won. If an Ontarian wants to travel to Quebec, however, he can just go because he got to decide that there aren't any restrictions on that.

 

[dismal]

The people living in Texas were the Texans. They fought a war and overthrew the imperial Mexican empire.

Hey, might makes right seems to be how people still operate so your support of the concept is understood.

Might makes right? WTF does that have to do with this? I thought you had been espousing the idea that the people living in a place had some right to govern themselves.

The people living in Texas were not the Mexicans they were the Texans. The imperial Mexicans ruled over the Texans from without. The Texans won a war of independence and the right to self-rule.

 

[fromderinside]

If an Ontarian wants to travel to Quebec, however, he can just go because he got to decide that there aren't any restrictions on that.

Yeah. I just hate it that California demands to inspect my Oregon bought fruit when I travel there. Who do Californians think they are? A nation or something?

Back to who gets what for what reason. US gets Texas and the South because of the Civil war. US gets Arizona, New Mexico, and California because of a US Mexico war. Texas gets Texas because of a Texas Mexico war. Texas gets to become part of US because Texans voted to be annexed into the US and US congress choose to offer annexation. All of Ma Perkins children get new shoes because daddy Warbucks is rich.

OK King. This case is closed.

 

[untermensche]

Again, nobody is talking taking or giving.

I am talking freedom of travel.

Wel, they lost. Losers don't get to set the rules - that's for winners. The winners get to decide what does or does not happen there.

It's the same as how Americans need to show ID if they want to go into Canada. You tried to move the border north but you failed miserably and lost, so you don't get to decide what is required to travel there. We do, because we won. If an Ontarian wants to travel to Quebec, however, he can just go because he got to decide that there aren't any restrictions on that.

I'm saying the winners should increase freedom of travel.

Because it is right, based on our current conceptions, even if long dead Texans may roll over in the ground.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm saying the winners should increase freedom of travel.

Because it is right, based on our current conceptions, even if long dead Texans may roll over in the ground.

Well, conquer Texas and implement that. It'll be your right to do so. As it is, the US government holds ownership of Texas and so they get to decide the rules for coming in.

 

[ronburgundy]

Losers don't get to set the rules - that's for winners.

That, and sprinkles.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So while one minority gets to complain about a slavery that none of them have experienced, another minority has to just shut up because when 1/3 of their country was taken from them because it was a long time ago.

The darker you are the further back you can go in looking for past grievances. This can now bring this tangential discussion back to the thread's main topic of political correctness being out of control. I'm not dark enough to discuss the past, only the present.

 

[untermensche]

I'm saying the winners should increase freedom of travel.

Because it is right, based on our current conceptions, even if long dead Texans may roll over in the ground.

Well, conquer Texas and implement that. It'll be your right to do so. As it is, the US government holds ownership of Texas and so they get to decide the rules for coming in.

Like talking to a wall.

Of course they have the power.

I am only talking about what is right, not what I am planning to do tomorrow.

 

[ronburgundy]

So while one minority gets to complain about a slavery that none of them have experienced, another minority has to just shut up because when 1/3 of their country was taken from them because it was a long time ago.

I'm not sure there is any inconsistency there. No one is saying that Mexicans can't complain, just that the US is under no obligation to give reparations to them. I don't think Tom supports reparations for slaves either. (though claims of actual "loss" are less tenable since being in the US rather than Africa is inherent to those consequences and factor in any calculation of "loss").

Recognizing the causal impact of generations of slavery and Jim Crow laws on local culture and thus economic, social, and moral behaviors is rational and just good social science, but not the same giving as reparations for past loses. Now, maybe some here do support actual reparations for slavery. If so, you can ask them if they support ceding all lands back to Mexico and/or native Americans, and to justify any inconsistency.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, does anyone here support reparations for slavery?

If so, do you support ceding Texas and California back to Mexico?