"Reconquista"

[Agnapostate]

The idea that numerous Mexican illegal immigrants possess ambitions of “re-conquering” Mexico from the U.S. to remedy the cessation that occurred in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war doesn’t even make sense, and here’s why.

Consider the case of the U.S. as being somewhat analogous to that of Mexico. The U.S. originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Great Britain. The modern Mexican republic originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Spain, though it developed slower and was preceded by a Mexican empire independent of Spain. The secessionists were of European descent in both cases, of primarily English (and other types of British) descent in the case of the U.S., and of primarily Spanish descent (the term is "criollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo_people)”) in the case of Mexico. In both cases, there was an indigenous underclass that underwent wide-scale destruction and continued to undergo racial discrimination after the establishment of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Native Americans far beneath them. So we had three groups in each country relevant to this discussion: the European royalists, the seceding American settlers, and the Native Americans. We end up having figures like General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, eleven-time president of Mexico, being equivalent to the Founding Fathers in that they’re of European descent but of newly created American nationalities. The Native Americans, however, are obviously quite distinct in both cases.

That brings me to the point that the majority of the Mexican illegal immigrant population is Native American, and that racism and classism in Mexico has continued to this day to an even more blatant extent than in the U.S., with the Mexican political class dominated by a white male majority, contrary to the popular U.S. misconception that immigrants are representative of a homogenous racial population in that country. There is substantial discontent among the Native American immigrants to the U.S. with the Mexican political class for their pursuit of trade liberalization, which caused the original conditions of displacement that forced them to migrate in the first place. The most intense example of this is the Zapatista uprising in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, which was orchestrated by Tzotzil Mayans.

Now, would we not see the absurdity of conflating the Native American population of the U.S. with the European settlers, with whom they were often in conflict? Why do we do this in the case of the modern Native American illegal immigrants, assuming that “they” are the descendants of those Mexican settlers? While many of them will be culturally Hispanic at this point because of detachment from indigenous culture, they’re obviously still part of some underclass if they migrate away from Mexico, and they’re certainly distinct from the white upper class. Is it not therefore absurd to believe that they have any desire to extend those conditions into the U.S. and empower the political class that often does not hide its contempt for them in the U.S.?

[chloe]

The idea that numerous Mexican illegal immigrants possess ambitions of “re-conquering” Mexico from the U.S. to remedy the cessation that occurred in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war doesn’t even make sense, and here’s why.

Consider the case of the U.S. as being somewhat analogous to that of Mexico. The U.S. originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Great Britain. The modern Mexican republic originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Spain, though it developed slower and was preceded by a Mexican empire independent of Spain. The secessionists were of European descent in both cases, of primarily English (and other types of British) descent in the case of the U.S., and of primarily Spanish descent (the term is "criollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo_people)”) in the case of Mexico. In both cases, there was an indigenous underclass that underwent wide-scale destruction and continued to undergo racial discrimination after the establishment of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Native Americans far beneath them. So we had three groups in each country relevant to this discussion: the European royalists, the seceding American settlers, and the Native Americans. We end up having figures like General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, eleven-time president of Mexico, being equivalent to the Founding Fathers in that they’re of European descent but of newly created American nationalities. The Native Americans, however, are obviously quite distinct in both cases.

That brings me to the point that the majority of the Mexican illegal immigrant population is Native American, and that racism and classism in Mexico has continued to this day to an even more blatant extent than in the U.S., with the Mexican political class dominated by a white male majority, contrary to the popular U.S. misconception that immigrants are representative of a homogenous racial population in that country. There is substantial discontent among the Native American immigrants to the U.S. with the Mexican political class for their pursuit of trade liberalization, which caused the original conditions of displacement that forced them to migrate in the first place. The most intense example of this is the Zapatista uprising in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, which was orchestrated by Tzotzil Mayans.

Now, would we not see the absurdity of conflating the Native American population of the U.S. with the European settlers, with whom they were often in conflict? Why do we do this in the case of the modern Native American illegal immigrants, assuming that “they” are the descendants of those Mexican settlers? While many of them will be culturally Hispanic at this point because of detachment from indigenous culture, they’re obviously still part of some underclass if they migrate away from Mexico, and they’re certainly distinct from the white upper class. Is it not therefore absurd to believe that they have any desire to extend those conditions into the U.S. and empower the political class that often does not hide its contempt for them in the U.S.?

nice topic just in time for thanksgivng

[Gaffer]

By "we" I presume you have a mouse in your pocket. Illegals are illegals, no matter what color or nationality. Indians from Mexico that come here illegally are just as illegal as an Indian from Canada that comes here illegally. Since the Indians in Mexico are in the majority, maybe they should see about voting the whitish dudes out.

You seem to be out to bash the forefathers of this country and Mexico for being white. Are you on a guilt trip for something they did 100 years ago? The countries and borders are what they are. The past is past and wrongs of the past cannot be righted today as the wrong doers are long gone.

[cat slave]

By "we" I presume you have a mouse in your pocket. Illegals are illegals, no matter what color or nationality. Indians from Mexico that come here illegally are just as illegal as an Indian from Canada that comes here illegally. Since the Indians in Mexico are in the majority, maybe they should see about voting the whitish dudes out.

You seem to be out to bash the forefathers of this country and Mexico for being white. Are you on a guilt trip for something they did 100 years ago? The countries and borders are what they are. The past is past and wrongs of the past cannot be righted today as the wrong doers are long gone.

Good response.:clap:

[Agnapostate]

By "we" I presume you have a mouse in your pocket. Illegals are illegals, no matter what color or nationality. Indians from Mexico that come here illegally are just as illegal as an Indian from Canada that comes here illegally. Since the Indians in Mexico are in the majority, maybe they should see about voting the whitish dudes out.

You seem to be out to bash the forefathers of this country and Mexico for being white. Are you on a guilt trip for something they did 100 years ago? The countries and borders are what they are. The past is past and wrongs of the past cannot be righted today as the wrong doers are long gone.

I'm not interested in claims of national sovereignty unsupported by sounder arguments against illegal immigration, so perhaps you could be the one to engage me in the one-on-one immigration debate that I was looking for last month. At any rate, I don't find any claim of national sovereignty very convincing when it was established by the destruction of the very indigenous population now falsely condemned as a "trespassing" one. I'm aware that there are various other arguments regarding immigration policy that exist. I've just never found the "It's our country!" one very convincing, since it seems clearly weak.

P.S. The term "we" is used in formal ethical arguments.

[Trigg]

I'm not interested in claims of national sovereignty unsupported by sounder arguments against illegal immigration, so perhaps you could be the one to engage me in the one-on-one immigration debate that I was looking for last month. At any rate, I don't find any claim of national sovereignty very convincing when it was established by the destruction of the very indigenous population now falsely condemned as a "trespassing" one. I'm aware that there are various other arguments regarding immigration policy that exist. I've just never found the "It's our country!" one very convincing, since it seems clearly weak.

P.S. The term "we" is used in formal ethical arguments.

The MEXICAN indians aren't indiginous to this country. The American indians fought with them and they all kept very distinct hunting and territorial boundaries.

Therefore they aren't falsely condemned as trespassing, they actually are trespassing. The boundaries between these two countries have been in place for a long time. NO matter where people originate from they need to respect the laws of this country. Sneaking in is ILLEGAL.

[Agnapostate]

The MEXICAN indians aren't indiginous to this country. The American indians fought with them and they all kept very distinct hunting and territorial boundaries.

Therefore they aren't falsely condemned as trespassing, they actually are trespassing. The boundaries between these two countries have been in place for a long time. NO matter where people originate from they need to respect the laws of this country. Sneaking in is ILLEGAL.

Uh...there wasn't fighting between American Indian groups based on their residence in either the U.S. or Mexico; the residence of the Apache in both, for example, should illustrate that. There was active state discrimination against Native Americans no matter what country they resided in, and one could be a Sioux or one could be a Huichol...such a person would encounter the same discrimination. So, since there was a homogenous treatment of Native Americans in the Southwest, I don't see the basis for distinction among them...particularly when many Indians in Mexico were adversely affected by U.S. policy against Indians in general orchestrated by border movements.

[SassyLady]

The idea that numerous Mexican illegal immigrants possess ambitions of “re-conquering” Mexico from the U.S. to remedy the cessation that occurred in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war doesn’t even make sense, and here’s why.

Consider the case of the U.S. as being somewhat analogous to that of Mexico. The U.S. originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Great Britain. The modern Mexican republic originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Spain, though it developed slower and was preceded by a Mexican empire independent of Spain. The secessionists were of European descent in both cases, of primarily English (and other types of British) descent in the case of the U.S., and of primarily Spanish descent (the term is "criollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo_people)”) in the case of Mexico. In both cases, there was an indigenous underclass that underwent wide-scale destruction and continued to undergo racial discrimination after the establishment of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Native Americans far beneath them. So we had three groups in each country relevant to this discussion: the European royalists, the seceding American settlers, and the Native Americans. We end up having figures like General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, eleven-time president of Mexico, being equivalent to the Founding Fathers in that they’re of European descent but of newly created American nationalities. The Native Americans, however, are obviously quite distinct in both cases.

That brings me to the point that the majority of the Mexican illegal immigrant population is Native American, and that racism and classism in Mexico has continued to this day to an even more blatant extent than in the U.S., with the Mexican political class dominated by a white male majority, contrary to the popular U.S. misconception that immigrants are representative of a homogenous racial population in that country. There is substantial discontent among the Native American immigrants to the U.S. with the Mexican political class for their pursuit of trade liberalization, which caused the original conditions of displacement that forced them to migrate in the first place. The most intense example of this is the Zapatista uprising in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, which was orchestrated by Tzotzil Mayans.

Now, would we not see the absurdity of conflating the Native American population of the U.S. with the European settlers, with whom they were often in conflict? Why do we do this in the case of the modern Native American illegal immigrants, assuming that “they” are the descendants of those Mexican settlers? While many of them will be culturally Hispanic at this point because of detachment from indigenous culture, they’re obviously still part of some underclass if they migrate away from Mexico, and they’re certainly distinct from the white upper class. Is it not therefore absurd to believe that they have any desire to extend those conditions into the U.S. and empower the political class that often does not hide its contempt for them in the U.S.?


It might not make sense, but it is true.

[Agnapostate]

It might not make sense, but it is true.

Not really. It's more of an attempt to inflate jingoistic sentiments with disingenuous propaganda.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Enemy%27s_language.jpg

[SassyLady]

Not really. It's more of an attempt to inflate jingoistic sentiments with disingenuous propaganda.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Enemy%27s_language.jpg

Yes really.

Do you live anywhere in the west/southwest part of the US? I do. I work with people who are members and organizers of La Raza and MEChA and they are definitely working to re-conquer. And, after taking back their land, they want to "cleanse" the populace. It's not about re-conquering - it's about "liberating" Aztlan.

It is my belief that until you have actually watched and listened to some of the ideas being pursued by this group you should not shrug it off as "jingoistic sentiments".

I do have to ask, though, upon what are you basing your belief............have you actually spoken to anyone involved in this movement?

[Agnapostate]

Yes really.

Do you live anywhere in the west/southwest part of the US? I do. I work with people who are members and organizers of La Raza and MEChA and they are definitely working to re-conquer. And, after taking back their land, they want to "cleanse" the populace. It's not about re-conquering - it's about "liberating" Aztlan.

It is my belief that until you have actually watched and listened to some of the ideas being pursued by this group you should not shrug it off as "jingoistic sentiments".

I do have to ask, though, upon what are you basing your belief............have you actually spoken to anyone involved in this movement?

I live in the eastern section of Maine in a city called Los Angeles; thanks for asking.

There is no logical reason for illegal immigrants to support the likes of MEChA because Indians continue to be a racial underclass in Mexico. There is consequently no sound reason for them to support the expansion of the power of a political class that often does not even bother to hide its contempt for them. There is a lack of understanding of that in the U.S.; it's unknown that the political class of Mexico is white, as it's inaccurately perceived that there's a homogenous dark-skinned bloc throughout Latin America.

And your anecdotal sentiments do little for you...if you wanted to raise fright levels, you'd be better off to refer to the Mexica Movement (http://www.mexica-movement.org/) rather than MEChA or anything about any "reconquista," for the reasons that I explained in the OP that go unrebutted.

[Agnapostate]

At any event, I'm certain that there will be plenty of U.S. citizens completely unwilling to realize the fact that the dark-skinned immigrants that they see are Indians rather than "Spaniards" or whatever they think they are.

"No, teepee. Not sombrero, that's Spanish. Teepee."

:laugh:

[SassyLady]

I live in the eastern section of Maine in a city called Los Angeles; thanks for asking.

Never heard of Los Angeles, Maine. Does living there give you extensive experience with members of the racial underclass of people from Mexico?


There is no logical reason for illegal immigrants to support the likes of MEChA because Indians continue to be a racial underclass in Mexico.
There is consequently no sound reason for them to support the expansion of the power of a political class that often does not even bother to hide its contempt for them.

Herein lies the flaw in your argument. When someone is fighting for a cause, logic is not a motivator.

And do you really think the racial underclass of Mexico are so beaten down and disheartened to not rally to the call of liberating Aztlan? Come on, give them more credit than that.


There is a lack of understanding of that in the U.S.; it's unknown that the political class of Mexico is white, as it's inaccurately perceived that there's a homogenous dark-skinned bloc throughout Latin America.

OK - so the political class of Mexico is white. And you are saying that because the political elite of Mexico are not native americans that those who have immigrated to America from Mexico have no desire to liberate their homeland. Actually it would seem that they would want it back even more........if, as you say, they are descendents of the original natives.


And your anecdotal sentiments do little for you...if you wanted to raise fright levels, you'd be better off to refer to the Mexica Movement (http://www.mexica-movement.org/) rather than MEChA or anything about any "reconquista," for the reasons that I explained in the OP that go unrebutted.


Anecdotal sentiments? As I've stated previously, I've talked to, and work with, people who are members. When I ask why they don't become American citizens they say, why bother, it will be Mexico again someday.


PS - Did you know that the latest supreme court judge (Sotomayor) was/is a NCLR member? Please don't dismiss the validity and power of this organization. To do so would be naive.

PSS - Unrebutted OP? So what............do you really think that if something has not been rebutted that it is in fact -- true? Very, very naive.

[SassyLady]

At any event, I'm certain that there will be plenty of U.S. citizens completely unwilling to realize the fact that the dark-skinned immigrants that they see are Indians rather than "Spaniards" or whatever they think they are.

"No, teepee. Not sombrero, that's Spanish. Teepee."

:laugh:

Who care what they are - Indian or Spanish.........they think of themselves as citizens of Mexico. You seem to be the one hung up on whether they are Indian or not.

BTW - My dad was more than 50% Native American (lived on a reservation until he was 14) and my mom was just under 25% and I hold no grudges against the government and neither did they. We chose to live in the present rather than complaining about the past.

[Agnapostate]

Never heard of Los Angeles, Maine. Does living there give you extensive experience with members of the racial underclass of people from Mexico?

Residence in Los Angeles does give one some perspective, inasmuch as one's quite near the border. Of course, if you'd just looked at my location in the first place, you could have saved yourself the trouble of inquiry. But then again, you could have saved yourself the trouble of inquiry anyway since whatever personal experiences either you or I could relate are merely anecdotal and in no way constitute controlled empirical evidence or anything near it. Since the spectrum of human experiences is so widely varying and heterogenous, selection of individual experiences will not provide us with any information on which to base policy formation or even with which to analyze general trends and attitudes.


Herein lies the flaw in your argument. When someone is fighting for a cause, logic is not a motivator.

And do you really think the racial underclass of Mexico are so beaten down and disheartened to not rally to the call of liberating Aztlan? Come on, give them more credit than that.

"Liberating Aztlan"? I just explained the fallacy of this entire premise. The Mexicans that were beaten back from what now constitutes the U.S. Southwest were Spanish whites that oppressed the Indian racial underclass significantly themselves. There is still a white political class in Mexico; there has been a violent insurrection launched against this political class in Chiapas by the Tzotzil-dominated Zapatista Army of National Liberation. There is no reason for Indians that have undergone difficulties to such an extent in Mexico that they were forced to migrate to support the expansion of the authority of the political regime that does not represent them. If you didn't regard Mexico as a homogenous racial and political body, you might realize this.


OK - so the political class of Mexico is white. And you are saying that because the political elite of Mexico are not native americans that those who have immigrated to America from Mexico have no desire to liberate their homeland. Actually it would seem that they would want it back even more........if, as you say, they are descendents of the original natives.

Yeah, but that applies to all of America, not just the U.S. Southwest. It applies to every single country in America, not just the U.S. or Mexico. That's the basis, for example, of the aforementioned Mexica Movement, which you might have greater cause for fearing than the nonexistent "reconquista" movement. However, unlike many of their U.S. counterparts, Latin American Indians are culturally detached from their racial heritage, and have been Hispanicized. This accounts for their lack of interest in Native American dominance over both continents.


Anecdotal sentiments? As I've stated previously, I've talked to, and work with, people who are members. When I ask why they don't become American citizens they say, why bother, it will be Mexico again someday.

That's precisely what anecdotal sentiments are.


PS - Did you know that the latest supreme court judge (Sotomayor) was/is a NCLR member? Please don't dismiss the validity and power of this organization. To do so would be naive.

Oh? A Puerto Rican? That's interesting, since it undermines your inordinate focus on Mexicans.


PSS - Unrebutted OP? So what............do you really think that if something has not been rebutted that it is in fact -- true? Very, very naive.

No, my premise is merely that your entire conception is inaccurate, which seems to be a sound claim. After all, you associate Indians with the white Mexicans who were responsible for their systematic oppression and destruction, which is decidedly fallacious.


Who care what they are - Indian or Spanish.........they think of themselves as citizens of Mexico. You seem to be the one hung up on whether they are Indian or not.

BTW - My dad was more than 50% Native American (lived on a reservation until he was 14) and my mom was just under 25% and I hold no grudges against the government and neither did they. We chose to live in the present rather than complaining about the past.

There's an obvious detachment between citizenry in Mexico and support for the expansion of the power of the ruling political regime in Mexico to the U.S. There is substantial discontent with the political regime among Indian immigrants because of their racially "inferior" status in Mexico.

Accept that the expansion of both U.S. and Mexican national authority entailed unjust acquisitions of land and resources through force, coercion, and deception. The relevance of that to modern affairs is that there's still influence of that pattern on modern affairs.

[Gaffer]

We can make this real simple. agna hates white people.

[Trigg]

Uh...there wasn't fighting between American Indian groups based on their residence in either the U.S. or Mexico; the residence of the Apache in both, for example, should illustrate that. There was active state discrimination against Native Americans no matter what country they resided in, and one could be a Sioux or one could be a Huichol...such a person would encounter the same discrimination. So, since there was a homogenous treatment of Native Americans in the Southwest, I don't see the basis for distinction among them...particularly when many Indians in Mexico were adversely affected by U.S. policy against Indians in general orchestrated by border movements.

There were fights between groups based on territory and hunting grounds which effectively kept them separate.

Your correct that both groups were discriminated against. As far as a distinction between themselves, they were already doing that themselves. There were Sioux, Cherokee, Blackfoot, etc. distinctions and names they had/have for themselves.

Borders were drawn, borders all over the world are continually shifting and being re-written. At that point people who sneak over are illegal. No matter what country they come from, no matter what color they are. IF they sneak in they are illegal.

[chloe]

We can make this real simple. agna hates white people.

:laugh2:.....oh I'm white:eek:

[SassyLady]

We can make this real simple. agna hates white people.

thanks for the tip..........I couldn't decide who or what he hated.

[HogTrash]

I would guess that most of the nations of the modern world are the result of invasion, war, border conflicts and conquest at some point in their past.

In other words, somebody took land that was originally someone elses.

This is the history of mankind on planet earth yet only the white race, especially Americans, are regularly attacked for what all of mankind has been guilty of at one time or other.

The same is true of slavery.

Every race of people in the world have been guilty of human slavery at some point in their past but only the evil white people are still hated and ridiculed for their participation.

I'm aware that political correctness forbids the use of facts, common sense and rational thought when discusing matters concerning minorities.

I apologize to all of you overly sensitive liberals who may read this...I'm sure you must be gasping in horror right now.

[Agnapostate]

There were fights between groups based on territory and hunting grounds which effectively kept them separate.

Your correct that both groups were discriminated against. As far as a distinction between themselves, they were already doing that themselves. There were Sioux, Cherokee, Blackfoot, etc. distinctions and names they had/have for themselves.

Borders were drawn, borders all over the world are continually shifting and being re-written. At that point people who sneak over are illegal. No matter what country they come from, no matter what color they are. IF they sneak in they are illegal.

Reference to "both groups" continues to be inaccurate, as there wasn't national division between Native American societies based on the U.S.-Mexico border...as the example of the Apache should have indicated.

I'm not the least bit interested in you yammering about illegality for two reasons, the first being the divergence between legal and ethical standards (liberation of slaves was illegal but not unethical, for example), and the second being the fact that it has limited relevance to the thread. I can easily rebut your claims in any standard immigration thread, but this particular thread is devoted to the rebuttal of the claim that a "national sovereignty" fetish is a sound argument against illegal immigration, particularly considering the establishment of modern national borders through unjust acquisition that continues to have repercussions today.


I would guess that most of the nations of the modern world are the result of invasion, war, border conflicts and conquest at some point in their past.

In other words, somebody took land that was originally someone elses.

This is the history of mankind on planet earth yet only the white race, especially Americans, are regularly attacked for what all of mankind has been guilty of at one time or other.

The same is true of slavery.

Every race of people in the world have been guilty of human slavery at some point in their past but only the evil white people are still hated and ridiculed for their participation.

I'm aware that political correctness forbids the use of facts, common sense and rational thought when discusing matters concerning minorities.

I apologize to all of you overly sensitive liberals who may read this...I'm sure you must be gasping in horror right now.

I don't see how that has the slightest application to the thread. You seem to be among those who inaccurately assume that "Hispanics" are a separate race...despite the fact that a substantial number of them are white. My post isn't about Hispanic identity one way or the other; it's about Amerindian identity. By the way, I'm not a "liberal"; I'm an anarchist.

[Trigg]

Reference to "both groups" continues to be inaccurate, as there wasn't national division between Native American societies based on the U.S.-Mexico border...as the example of the Apache should have indicated.

, particularly considering the establishment of modern national borders through unjust acquisition that continues to have repercussions today.



I don't see how that has the slightest application to the thread. You seem to be among those who inaccurately assume that "Hispanics" are a separate race...despite the fact that a substantial number of them are white. My post isn't about Hispanic identity one way or the other; it's about Amerindian identity. By the way, I'm not a "liberal"; I'm an anarchist.

So do you simply have a problem with our southern border or does our northern border bother you also??? Since when the northern border came into being the white people there became Canadian and we became American.

No there wasn't a "national division" there were and still are cultural divisions. The Indians consider themselves different tribes. The ones on this side of the border are American Indian and the ones to the south are Mexican or Aztec.

Simply because they are native to this continant doesn't give them the right to travel from country to country. There are laws and borders in every county and they need to be respected and inforced.

I'm sure a Honduran/Peruvian indian isn't going to be welcome as an illegal in Mexico. Even though they're all indian, they are now citizens of different countries.

As far as "unjust aquisition" I"m sure everyone on a loosing side considers loss of territory "unjust".

[SassyLady]

I would guess that most of the nations of the modern world are the result of invasion, war, border conflicts and conquest at some point in their past.

In other words, somebody took land that was originally someone elses.

This is the history of mankind on planet earth yet only the white race, especially Americans, are regularly attacked for what all of mankind has been guilty of at one time or other.

The same is true of slavery.

Every race of people in the world have been guilty of human slavery at some point in their past but only the evil white people are still hated and ridiculed for their participation.

I'm aware that political correctness forbids the use of facts, common sense and rational thought when discusing matters concerning minorities.

I apologize to all of you overly sensitive liberals who may read this...I'm sure you must be gasping in horror right now.

I agree with everything you said so I guess that means I'm neither a liberal or politically correct.:beer:

[SassyLady]

Let me try this one more time. I don't believe those who are of a mind to liberate Aztlan are doing it for the Mexican political machine.......they fully intend to elevate from within their own organization. So, you are correct in one sense..........it would not make sense to reclaim the territory for Mexico ..... it will be for the "new - liberated" nation and La Raza.

[Agnapostate]

So do you simply have a problem with our southern border or does our northern border bother you also??? Since when the northern border came into being the white people there became Canadian and we became American.

If I adhered to the ideas of the American Indian Movement, I would. I don't but I am of the opinion that national divisions adversely affected indigenous society as a whole, particularly since Indians throughout America were generally mistreated by European settlers, not just those in the U.S. This would be irrelevant if it had no impact on modern affairs, but the racial and class inferiority of Indians in Mexico is evidence that that is not true.


No there wasn't a "national division" there were and still are cultural divisions. The Indians consider themselves different tribes. The ones on this side of the border are American Indian and the ones to the south are Mexican or Aztec.

That is incorrect. Native Americans are present on both continents of America, not merely the U.S. Reference to tribes south of the border as being "Mexican or Aztec" is quite ignorant and rather offensive to indigenous societies that were in fact oppressed by the Aztecs (or Mexica).


Simply because they are native to this continant doesn't give them the right to travel from country to country. There are laws and borders in every county and they need to be respected and inforced.

I'm sure a Honduran/Peruvian indian isn't going to be welcome as an illegal in Mexico. Even though they're all indian, they are now citizens of different countries.

I'd expect not also, particularly because the Mexican government generally does not hide its disdain for Indians. However, I just told you that I'm not interested in legal fetishism, and you proceeded to ignore my argument regarding that. If you have some sound ethical argument to draw on, do so, but mere appeal to legal standards is not impressive and doesn't constitute sound argument.


As far as "unjust aquisition" I"m sure everyone on a loosing side considers loss of territory "unjust".

So? That doesn't impede the identification of objectively unjust acquisition.


Let me try this one more time. I don't believe those who are of a mind to liberate Aztlan are doing it for the Mexican political machine.......they fully intend to elevate from within their own organization. So, you are correct in one sense..........it would not make sense to reclaim the territory for Mexico ..... it will be for the "new - liberated" nation and La Raza.

There is no such thing as any "raza" because Mexicans are not a homogenous race, which accounts for the greater popularity of such political sentiments among U.S. Hispanics than Mexican Indian immigrants. Mexico, as with the U.S., is a multi-racial society, with whites, Indians, blacks, and others constituting the racial background. Now, there is a movement that seeks Native American racial dominance over all of America and looks to Mexican illegal immigrants as a main force behind indigenous masses. But that's quite distinct from this "Aztlan" or "reconquista," which are primarily myths used by rightist political figures to inspire populist fears through nationalist propaganda, which is a tried-and-true method.

[HogTrash]

I don't see how that has the slightest application to the thread. You seem to be among those who inaccurately assume that "Hispanics" are a separate race...despite the fact that a substantial number of them are white. My post isn't about Hispanic identity one way or the other; it's about Amerindian identity. By the way, I'm not a "liberal"; I'm an anarchist.If you are indeed not a liberal, I apologize and I will study your posts more carefully and re-evaluate since some liberals have been known to live in denial.

Your threads do appear to display elements of political correctness and you seem to have a propensity to play the white blame game which are liberal traits.

What race the illegal latino immigrants are does not matter in the least bit.

The point is, people who protest illegal immigration and amesty are labeled racist by the liberals.

Your thread may not have anything to do with race but it has everything to do with racism.

Racism towards white people and false claims of racism by white people.

The majority of people who complain about illegal immigrats could not care less what race they are.

They simply want them to respect our laws and borders and expect the government to do their job and enforce them.

Regardless of race, religion or national origin.

[HogTrash]

By the way, I'm not a "liberal"; I'm an anarchist.
If you are indeed an "anarchist" you must really hate Obama and his big government, socialist agenda.

On that we could agree!.....By the way, who did the anarchists support in the last POTUS election???

[Agnapostate]

If you are indeed not a liberal, I apologize and I will study your posts more carefully and re-evaluate since some liberals have been known to live in denial.

Your threads do appear to display elements of political correctness and you seem to have a propensity to play the white blame game which are liberal traits.

What race the illegal latino immigrants are does not matter in the least bit.

The point is, people who protest illegal immigration and amesty are labeled racist by the liberals.

Your thread may not have anything to do with race but it has everything to do with racism.

Racism towards white people and false claims of racism by white people.

The majority of people who complain about illegal immigrats could not care less what race they are.

They simply want them to respect our laws and borders and expect the government to do their job and enforce them.

Regardless of race, religion or national origin.

That's nice.

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, as far as I can tell. I was also under the impression that the rightist conception of "political correctness" extended the protections of that restrictive mechanism over cultural attributes of a specific race. Since Latin American Indians are now "Hispanics" (albeit by forcible and violent Spanish conquest), wouldn't my criticism of Hispanic culture constitute anti-Indian "racism"? :poke:


If you are indeed an "anarchist" you must really hate Obama and his big government, socialist agenda.

On that we could agree!.....By the way, who did the anarchists support in the last POTUS election???

Anarchists recognize the fact that the current administration is upholding the fundamental nature of capitalism. Since all anarchists are anti-capitalists (this is a necessary element of their anti-authoritarianism), they consequently have disdain for Obama. Glad I could help fix that train wreck you sped out. :salute:

[HogTrash]

That's nice.

It's also completely irrelevant to this thread, as far as I can tell. I was also under the impression that the rightist conception of "political correctness" extended the protections of that restrictive mechanism over cultural attributes of a specific race. Since Latin American Indians are now "Hispanics" (albeit by forcible and violent Spanish conquest), wouldn't my criticism of Hispanic culture constitute anti-Indian "racism"? :poke:You're the one not getting the messege.




Anarchists recognize the fact that the current administration is upholding the fundamental nature of capitalism. Since all anarchists are anti-capitalists (this is a necessary element of their anti-authoritarianism), they consequently have disdain for Obama. Glad I could help fix that train wreck you sped out. :salute:Just as I thought...A 100% marxist indoctrinated stooge.

Poke your head out of your marxist cage and peep the real world...It's called common sense einstein.

Wasn't it capitalism that made America the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world?

[Agnapostate]

You're the one not getting the messege.

I doubt that. You, for example, are incapable of even distinguishing between Marxism and anarchism.


[/I]Just as I thought...A 100% marxist indoctrinated stooge.

Poke your head out of your marxist cage and peep the real world...It's called common sense einstein.

Wasn't it capitalism that made America the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world?

Not really. The geographic land size and abundance of productive resources in the U.S. ensured that a greater measure of success than that of say, Belgium, would be present here. But even if we were analyzing the economic structure of the U.S., development occurred through state-protected industries rather than "free markets." So while I consider that capitalism, it seems that it would be the kind of capitalism that you inaccurately describe as "socialism."

[NightTrain]

Wasn't it capitalism that made America the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world?



Not really. The geographic land size and abundance of productive resources in the U.S. ensured that a greater measure of success than that of say, Belgium, would be present here.


That's why the Soviet Union was such an economic powerhouse. :wtf:

[HogTrash]

abclW65eClUs0dQjjzzks.jpg
I doubt that. You, for example, are incapable of even distinguishing between Marxism and anarchism.I distinguish between them well enough to know they are like oil and water.

To make marxism work it takes a big government with lots of guns pointing at people without guns to force them to participate in their 'utopian' slavery.

Animal Farm - The pigs who are in charge announce "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others".




Not really. The geographic land size and abundance of productive resources in the U.S. ensured that a greater measure of success than that of say, Belgium, would be present here. But even if we were analyzing the economic structure of the U.S., development occurred through state-protected industries rather than "free markets." So while I consider that capitalism, it seems that it would be the kind of capitalism that you inaccurately describe as "socialism."How utterly rediculous...Is this what your marxist indoctrinators at the university told you?

Free market capaitalism worked great untill the corporations got access to and control of the crooked politicians in government and manipulated the laws and rules to benefit them instead of the people.

We the people are no longer represented in government...We don't need to turn to socialism, we need to clean house and return to what made America wealthy and powerful in the first place and keep it that way.

Many of your socialist programs contributed to getting us in the mess we are now suffering in...Big government spending and taxing and borrowing and going forever deeper in debt...Your policies are to blame.
attachment;jsessionid=abclW65eClUs0dQjjzzks.jpg

[gabosaurus]

The OP needs to get with CheeseWars for Thanksgiving. They can discuss their various hatreds and prejudices.

[Agnapostate]

That's why the Soviet Union was such an economic powerhouse. :wtf:

I'm a libertarian, but it's still undeniable that the earlier Five Year Plans generated remarkable economic and productive growth, particularly in the industrial sectors. Yet, centralized economic planning could not be solely credited; the Soviet Union's management of substantial productive resources also needs to be credited.


I distinguish between them well enough to know they are like oil and water.

No, you don't. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and are merely parroting the talking points and gibberish of thousands of other similarly misinformed rightists on the Internet. You're not sufficiently informed to realize that anarchism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology (capitalism is an authoritarian economic structure, so advocacy of a libertarian economic structure such as socialism was necessary), and that socialism's entailment of the public ownership and management of the means of production excludes Leninism and its derivatives from that ideology.


To make marxism work it takes a big government with lots of guns pointing at people without guns to force them to participate in their 'utopian' slavery.

I've not referred to Marxism, as I am an anarchist, and anarchism is a pre-Marxist form of socialism. Regardless, there is no element of Marxism that could reasonably be interpreted as endorsement of totalitarian or even especially authoritarian political structure.


Animal Farm - The pigs who are in charge announce "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others".

Animal Farm was written by a socialist and anarchist sympathizer, so I'm glad you mentioned it. The fact that even an anti-authoritarian socialist can be disingenuously described as an anti-socialist by other anti-socialists shows the extent to which rational analytical thought about this subject has degenerated.


How utterly rediculous...Is this what your marxist indoctrinators at the university told you?

This is exactly the same stupid crap that thousands of other rightists on the Internet repeat, and more evidence that you can't form original thoughts.


Free market capaitalism worked great untill the corporations got access to and control of the crooked politicians in government and manipulated the laws and rules to benefit them instead of the people.

"Free market" capitalism has never been existent, as capitalism requires a substantial government presence for sustainment purposes.


We the people are no longer represented in government...We don't need to turn to socialism, we need to clean house and return to what made America wealthy and powerful in the first place and keep it that way.

Many of your socialist programs contributed to getting us in the mess we are now suffering in...Big government spending and taxing and borrowing and going forever deeper in debt...Your policies are to blame.

Socialism entails the public ownership and management of the means of production, which has not been present in the U.S. The state influence that you refer to is an element of capitalism, which unlike socialism, requires the state as an integral agent to sustain its economic structure.

[HogTrash]

No, you don't. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and are merely parroting the talking points and gibberish of thousands of other similarly misinformed rightists on the Internet. You're not sufficiently informed to realize that anarchism originated as an explicitly socialist ideology (capitalism is an authoritarian economic structure, so advocacy of a libertarian economic structure such as socialism was necessary), and that socialism's entailment of the public ownership and management of the means of production excludes Leninism and its derivatives from that ideology.Your indoctrinators were very thorough...If you only knew how often I've heard these programmed marxist responces...I classify myself politically as a libertarian conservative while you seem to be classifying yourself as a communist anarchist which to me is like mating a sheep with a lion.

My beliefs regarding politics and government is the result of the history of the stuggle of humankind to create a civilization that provides an environment of prosperity, dignity, safety and liberty and not what I hear on tv or the internet and certainly not what some long-haired, far left-wing, nutcase, america hating college professor is shoving down the throats of the young, impressionable and naturally rebelious youth that are intrusted to them.

Academia is filled with people like you...I've been there...That's right...Dumb ole HogTrash is edumacated...In fact, probably much more so than you...That combined with my worldly education, street smarts, intelligence quotient and wisdom that can only come with age, I would suspect you are a little behind.

But do you know what my greatest qualities are?...Absence of gullibility and I seek the truth regardless of whether or not it conforms to my beliefs or ideology...You have bought into your beliefs, lock stock and barrel and see only what you want to see because you are not looking for the truth...Like most of the brainwashed youth churned out by academia every year you believe you already have all the answers and look only for confirmation of what you already believe.


I've not referred to Marxism, as I am an anarchist, and anarchism is a pre-Marxist form of socialism. Regardless, there is no element of Marxism that could reasonably be interpreted as endorsement of totalitarian or even especially authoritarian political structure.Of course not...No one promoting marxism would annouce that it will be accompanied by totalitarianism...That would be a bit counter productive, don't you think?

Karl Marx correctly anticipated the poor masses would welcome a system that would strip the rich of their wealth and divert it to a community till, that would provide for all people equally from cradle to grave.

Even Marx did not know the consequencies of his creation and that people would eventually rebel when stripped of their freedom and the promise of the good life deteriorates into rationing and poverty and force would be needed to keep them in line.

Remember Tieneman Square?...There is 7000 dead college students who might disagree with you...The power structure must flex it's muscles every once and a while...Easy to do when the people are forbidden to own guns.


Animal Farm was written by a socialist and anarchist sympathizer, so I'm glad you mentioned it. The fact that even an anti-authoritarian socialist can be disingenuously described as an anti-socialist by other anti-socialists shows the extent to which rational analytical thought about this subject has degenerated.George Orwell was also a socialist yet he was well aware of the dangers of such a system that gave the government enormous power over every aspect of the people's lives and the likelyhood of what that power would lead to..."1984"...Totalitarianism.


This is exactly the same stupid crap that thousands of other rightists on the Internet repeat, and more evidence that you can't form original thoughts.You are being repetitious and "original thought" is Hog's specialty.


"Free market" capitalism has never been existent, as capitalism requires a substantial government presence for sustainment purposes.Not "substantial"...Only some equalizers and restraints are required...You have been lied to.


Socialism entails the public ownership and management of the means of production, which has not been present in the U.S. The state influence that you refer to is an element of capitalism, which unlike socialism, requires the state as an integral agent to sustain its economic structure.Socialism or "public ownership and management" as you put it, means that all industry will actually be under the control of government agencies and the economy will be totally dominated by bureaucracy.

Go tell your marxist professor that government can't even deliver the mail on time.

[NightTrain]

I'm a libertarian, but it's still undeniable that the earlier Five Year Plans generated remarkable economic and productive growth, particularly in the industrial sectors. Yet, centralized economic planning could not be solely credited; the Soviet Union's management of substantial productive resources also needs to be credited.


Not sure this got across, but I was being facetious.

Using your logic, the USSR should have dwarfed any country on the planet with its staggering size and vast resources.

Instead, the political climate stifled economic growth. American style capitalism would have rocketed that country to the top - and it was indeed headed that way just as Stalin seized control. At the same time that America was expanding westward and developing, Russia was as well until Stalin got in the saddle.

Instead of dominating, they stagnated in a cesspool of corruption with a few elite and millions of peasants. There was no incentive for the smart young man to stick his neck out and try to get rich with his idea, or to improve on something. You were a party hack, in the military or a peasant. Not my idea of utopia.

A perfect, shining example of capitalism vs. socialism.

HogTrash was 100% correct when he asked:


Wasn't it capitalism that made America the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world?

Since he won't answer with a straight reply, HT, I'll do it for him.

Yes.