Printable View
that we stole. We stole it first, ese.
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...ZZ4A604E16.jpg
Ironically these signs are written in spanish ....
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...ZZ7B220459.jpg
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m.../noborders.jpg]
Cortez ? Coronado ? de Soto ? Balboa ? de Leon ?
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...05/pilgrim.jpg
Not stolen
a) Texas War of Independence (1835 - 1836)
b) Mexican-American War (1846–1848)
The History of the Spanish Conquistadors
Spain had successfully taken the Iberian peninsula from the Muslim Moors after nearly eight hundred years of conflict. This victory was referred to as the 'reconquista'. The conflict with the Muslim Moors had been seen as a continuation of the Medieval Crusades. The crusades were a series of religious Holy Wars which had been given the blessing of the Pope. They were fought by Roman Catholic soldiers. The Spanish explorers / soldiers saw their mission to conquer new lands as a natural extension of the Medieval crusades. Roman Catholic Priests and Friars always accompanied the Spanish explorers who were expected to convert heathen natives to Christianity. The explorer / soldiers who travelled to the New World adopted the name 'Conquistadors'.
So you're worried about the illegal immigration of full-blooded Spaniards.
I love that top picture, "Stolen Continent."
I wonder which one of the two he means...
Also, there are three ways to claim sovereignty over a piece of geography; by right of discovery (you find it and no one legitimately or strenuously objects to you being the rightful discoverer), right of deed (you buy it from someone who has legitimate claim to the land), or by right of conquest (you take it by force).
Since these protesters can no longer claim right of discovery, after all, we've been a globally recognized sovereign nation for a bit over 200 years now; they can either buy it back or take it back by force.
I don't think they have the money or the military resources to do either.
But, regardless, I'm not aware of a legitimate means to acquiring land, which they've adopted and I'll call "right of whining."
Perhaps they should be holding these protests in Mexico City ?
They'll get it "back" soon enough. Give it some time.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by word
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by word
rather than .....Denver which is where these photos are from.
Funny it's not the Apache tribes of Colorado protesting....it is the children of ....the oppressors, who killed them.
The Europeans didn't "discover" the Americas 500 years ago.
The Americas had millions of aboriginal inhabitants who had crossed over from Asia 1000s of years ago.
So the imperliaistic Europeans invaded and "stole" by force and by genocide (and by germ warfare with diseases unknown to aboriginal Americans).
obsessed much?
lol malkin
lol you stole my land
All this, next on "What We're Getting Worked Up About Today."
lol mailing list outrage
lol Mestizo's making a claim to Colorado...
At least they don't have any signs criticizing Obama. That would be racist.
Not to nitpick, but shouldn't this sign read "Stolen Continents"?
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...ZZ4A604E16.jpg
Holy shit. Look at all the solid-white shirts in that photo. I hope it wasn't MLK day.
Sure. In some cases, land was taken incident to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The winner takes land as the price of peace, as legal composition, post-hostilities. To the losers it looks like conquest.
Even if it is not, the result is much the same.
We paid the Mexican government $25 million for the land. That is in comparison to only $15 million to France for the Louisiana Purchase. And in 1850 the dollar was worth more than in 1803. Plus the land we got from Mexico was mostly desert. And it was less land as well. So shut the fuck up.
You are correct, The Americas were diecovered much earlier but as you well know the victors write the history. So the Europeans discovered the Americas becasue God wanted them to come and Cristianize the savage heathens occupying it. Those heathens died due th their sins and God rightfully and graciously gave the new land to his chosen people.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
As for "germ warfare" they did indeeed cough a few times and casue some death but there is another theory about why there was such a massive extinction of the native population. Virus. Years of extreme drought followed by years of extreme wetness caused a virus to attack the food sources of the New World. Of the approx. 20 miilion natives at the time of the Spanish conquest beginning in 1521 approx. 2.5 - 3 million died between 1540 - 1545 and another 15+ million between 1580 - 1580. Both times periods followed the above weather pattern - dry then wet. And this has lead some historians that believe that it wasn't neccessarily "germ warfare" by the Europeans that was the main culprit. I tend to agree since if it was "germ warfare" then why the time lapse? Why did it take that many years to effect the native population and why were the majority effective in those two particular time frames?
Though interesting to know it has absolutely no effect on who we are today. That issue is a dead horse and anyone who has a problem with it needs to get over it. It isn't going back to what it was. No mulligans can be played.
But seriusly what is the point here?
When viewing this issue at what point in history do you stop and draw the line? Say we stop in 1000 AD so all the conquests prior are legitimate?
Empires, countries, cultures...etc have come and go over thousands of years. All continents are essentially melting pots to a certain degree.
This is such a waste of time.
And :rollin at Hispanics complaining to Anglos about stealing their land. Now that's a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galileo
Even back then, Mexico abused us pitilessly.:rollinQuote:
All the land we got thru Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase only goes to show how bad they gypped us again.
Spaniards are not = latinos from central and south america
just want to remind everyone. They speak spanish like Spaniards do, but that's because Spain conquered them and taught them how. They are not the same peoples.
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFGIII
How was all this possible without government programs to support
the people? Did they have free health care in those days?
Butons, can you help me out here.
The conquistas pretty much were government programs themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
"When viewing this issue at what point in history do you stop and draw the line? Say we stop in 1000 AD so all the conquests prior are legitimate?"
Repugs (aka Pravda-style history) say history started 9/12, so there were no terrorist attacks on USA under Repug Reign of Error.
Most MXicans are NOT ethnic Spanish, but mostly (Asian) aboriginals.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
The pure indigenous population of Mexico is quite small.Quote:
The overwhelmingly largest ethnic group in Mexico is the Mestizos who are of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry
failQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Given Mexico's present/historical treatment of indigenous tribes as well as that of every other latin american goverment, I find such charges hollow.
not only fail but the indigenous of Mexico who's land WAS stolen have NO claims north of the Rio Grande otherwise they would be Apache, or Navajo or any other various indigenous peoples of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Their land WAS stolen, BY themselves and FROM themselves and NOT here.
Take it back home, boys.
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by word
Give it another few centuries of intermixing, and it won't matter.
I bet you're wrong about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
How does ten bucks payable in 300 years, sound? :lol
Where the fuck have you been?Quote:
Originally Posted by xrayzebra
You've been MIA for a while now . . . :lol
Just messing around here and there. Mostly there! :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by smeagol
Damn as old as I am how come I didn't get in on the land rush, stealing
some the poor peoples land. And how do poor people own land?
Even my Grandparents had to buy their land in Texas. But they don't
teach that in history books, just that us mean old gringo's stole everything.
That is after we bought our slaves from the English or Southerner's or
maybe even some damn Arab. Who still own slaves. Speaking of slaves,
any of you ever read any of those stories about the Mexican's owning
slaves, even in this day and age. One case not so long ago in of all
damn places, Laredo. Kept the gal chained up in the backyard.
Aaaand the biggest African slave traders ...IN THE WORLD were...Hispanic.
My work here is done.
Thinking back to my Spanish classes, America is viewed as a single continent by most of Latin America. At least if my textbook wasn't full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Thats right, there were some stupid debates in my school with American kids about America being 1 or 2 continents, I personally don't care if either form is used.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
funny how people forget to account the constant warring and "stealing" of their own that was going on in the americas long before the europeans arrived.
give me a break, 99% of the habitable land in the world has been conquered and reconquered by someone else. welcome to civilization.
the U.S. can thank this man for getting the job done regarding the mexican-american war. otherwise, it would have been an all-or-nothing seizure of land with many more casualties on both sides to boot.
http://i42.tinypic.com/ohihbs.jpg
---
from what i understand, "americans" are considered estadounidenses in latin america. using the term american to describe a united states citizen is considered politically incorrect.
It's more than that. It's an insult.Quote:
american to describe a united states citizen is considered politically incorrect.
America describes the continent to hispanophones. For us, it's a brand name, one that arrogantly refers only to the North Americans living to the immediate south of Canada, no obstante los demas. No obstante lo todo de America aparte de los EEUU.
It makes us look like jerks. Maybe we are jerks.
At the very least, in failing to differentiate ourselves successfully from the jerks, our national attitude toward our neighbors is a heinous failure and abortion of true culture. JMO.
On the America thing, right? Nomenclature is a bitch, y'all.
tell it to lee greenwood
Thats not true, regerring to citizens of the United States of America as "Americanos" is just confusing to some Latin Americans, its not an insult to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I couldn't agree with this more. Given the long view, Spain is in the process of winning the colonial wars that were big during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The Northern Europeans won some battles and were ascendant for a couple hundred years in parts of Africa, South America and North America, but slowly, slowly, the Spaniards are taking more and more over.
Just think about the English losing North America (Canada is not even a colony anymore), India, Ireland (except for the northern counties), most of thier holdings in Asia, and in South Africa. Think about the French in America, Africa, IndoChina, etc. The same is true of the Dutch, and the Germans just could hardly ever get a foothold anywhere because they didn't unite until 1871 and then ended up causing two world wars, still not obtaining colonies.
And, of course, ALL Europeans are illegal immigrants to the Native Americans of both North and South America. We just don't like to admit it.
the term latin america is problematic to begin with with its implications on modernity and other things, some people think of it as the subordination of people. anyways the safe thing people do is call that map the americas.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Really? They had a law against immigrating?Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
... or is that government pogroms?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I would disagree. It is hard to be an illegal immigrant in places that had no formal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
Are the things that the Europeans did brutal and oppressive? Certainly.
Was it anything I presently feel any need to feel sorry over? Nope.
That said,
The first humans who learned to work stone pushed out those having no such advanced weaponry.
The first humans who learned to work bronze kicked the snot out of the stone-users.
The first humans who learned iron working conquored the bronze using civilizations.
The first people who learned steel kicked the crap out of the poor sods using cast or wrought iron.
The Mongols, having invented the stirrup, kicked the crap out of the nomads that didn't have them.
Tribal warfare in North America had larger tribes pushing out smaller ones from hunting grounds long before any Europeans showed up.
The first Incas conquored neighboring tribes and took over areas as the just as the Mayans did.
Sorting out all of this to find whose claim to any given piece of dirt is further complicated by the fact that populations of conquorers and conquored tend to intermix.
I find the whole "go back to where you came from" schtick silly, over-simplified and a tad naive.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and the human-sacrificing civilizations in the Americas had built ships to occupy England, would they have been all that kind to the Angles and Saxons they found there?
Put an Incan army in Normandy or Bretagne in the 1200's, and would they have been benevolent rulers of the Normans and Celts?
well if you are going to make this your argument then you would have to refer to the treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo and then in that case you would actually be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
As if the (Aztecs) OR the Inca were benevolent to their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Out with the opressive conquistadors, in with the human-sacrificing priest/god/kings!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebowski Brickowski
???
Man, if that isn't irony, I don't know what is.
Maybe some of these protestors could go back in time and protest one Aztec city's army after it captured another city.
"Down with...(tearing sound followed by wet gurgle and a thud)"
Shortest protest... ever.
Did you mean the Aztec? Besides, I they have God's that are more cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Here is one of their structures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...aAcatitlan.jpg
The sleep-crystal of death in the pyramid. Erik Von Daniken thinks the aliens helped the ancient Egyptians and Aztecs build the pyramids. What do you think, Wild Cobra?
Were they smart enough to do it on their own?
I hold no particular hypothesis above others as more believable. The evidence suggests to me there either are real deities (yes plural) that have guided mankind, a more advanced society that lived on earth through some catastrophe in small numbers, visits by extraterrestrials who played with our DNA, or simply some genius minds through time who played the roll of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I tend to like best the notion that some people extract from Sumerian ancient text. Passing by aliens lived here for a time and acted as God's. They enslaved some of the population of the earth, maybe extracting raw materials for repair or fuel to their space crafts. Needing a better slave, they modified our DNA, hence, the missing link.
As for the Gods as we know dogma...
Doesn't it seem as though someone was playing games, and Earth is the game board?
Trippy, man. Where'd you read all that?
Spanish Mexico has no more right to North America than English United States or French Canada...
Now, if the Aztec/Mayan/Incan/Cherokee/etc nation wants to bitch about Andy Jackson, be my guest. Guy wasn't that far off from Stalin.
Silent Invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Anyone who says "you stole our land" is a complete fuckwit. That's right, I said it, fuckwit.
legally or morally? because these are 2 completely different perspectives.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
I don't recall, but the hypothesis isn't any more trippy than other possibilities of our existence and myths. I do believe in evolution, but I also believe a deity or higher intelligence has guided evolution through time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
finally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
if i knew how to embed i would have done that a long time ago.
haha so true of the view of immigrants...
Awesome ...Quote:
Originally Posted by EmptyMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
:downspin:
This goes back to the saying about mans knowledge over the centuries...that that which is not easily explained is deemed mystical or magic.
Aboriginals of Australia thinking a mirror is 'magic' ....etc...etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
He's been watching Ancients Aliens on the Histroy channel. :wakeup They are doing a series on the possibility that ETs have visited and shaped the course of human history. They are discussing all sorts of things from the crop circles, Egyptian pyramids, Indian drawings and their tales of flying craft, Easter island to the Mayans, Nasca lines and the surrounding areas. Frankly it is quite interesting but also speculative. Nothing concrete in the sense of hard evidence, ie...spacecraft, objects containing metals not existing on Earth or skeleton remains, but the situation would lead people to think that this planet has been visited from time to time in the past. Fasinating and thought provoking IMHO.
Generally when land changes governments, legality goes out the window. The only people with a legit claim to the land is the Native Americans. Everyone else, be it Mexicans, Canadians, or United Statesians, whoever is occupying the land now is the owner of said land.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
US is the owner of California. Period. It wasn't stolen any more than any other part of North America. Certainly not from Mexico.
Reminds me of:Quote:
Originally Posted by NFGIII
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
your first sentence simply begs the question. if a treaty guarantees rightful ownership to land, then anyone who violates the terms of that treaty commits theft. land was stolen and murders were even committed throughout much of the southwest during the 1800's and early 1900's. the treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo guaranteed spanish land grants to be legitmate claims to territory. but certain unethical judges and their henchmen often disguised as the law (see texas rangers) were willing to justify squatting and even murder in spite of the legal rights mexican and tejano landowners had to property.
I mean, if you want to claim some kind of 1800's international law... I don't know the concept was there yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjv
I am not saying conquering is any better than theft. But stealing stolen land doesn't put the original thieves on a moral or legal high ground...
An example of "Give me back what I have rightfully stolen." Arguing after the fact seems silly. IMHO the only people with a claim to the land are the aboriginal people of that land. They got to steal it from the mastodons and sabretoothed tigers...
Even in current law, if you BUY a stolen item legitimately, it still belongs to the original owner, and when discovered stolen, must be returned.
how does the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo entail international law ? the treaty contained provisions promising to protect the civil rights and property of the more than one hundred thousand Mexicans who lived in the conquered territories. this has nothing to do with international boundaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
arguing morally that no one has the right to any land here other than mexicans does not do anything to diminish the legal merit of the land grants.
but if you wish to be so relative about rights to land, or equate a legal right to a moral one, then your next assertion should actually be that there really can not be any laws against illegal immigration since essentially everyone here is an illegal except for the native americans.
Had the land been taken from the natives, with consent on both sides, than there was a legal transfer to the Spanish. Mexicans seemed to steel the land from Spain at that point, unless they gave that land up with consent. Only at that point would there be a legal precedent for a treaty to be made between Mexico and someone else (the US) for that land. The chain falls apart once that 1st link breaks.
Mexico gave up the land via treaty, so by Mexico's laws, California is no longer theirs. By US law it is theirs. If, by their own laws, they want the land back, they can try to A) Conquer it, B) Purchase it, or C) try and repopulate it.
They are doing C). Good for them. If the US guys are incapable of keeping it, too bad. But as of now, it is a state in the United States federation of states.
But to say there is a moral right of Mexico over anyone else? Morally, it is the Native Americans. Period. If they are all dead, than the land is in the hands of whoever currently occupies the nation.
when the spanish cortes failed to recognize the validity of the plan of iguala and the treaty of cordoba they then forfeited all rights to the mexican monarchy. in other words, they surrendered official recognition of their colony.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
they gave up the territory not individual rights to land. land-title law was not varied by the change from mexican to texan sovereignty except that the previous holders of land who had supported the mexican cause had their lands declared forfeited. and the only anomalous result of continued application of the spanish doctrine to land grants made before the act of january 20, 1840, and those made thereafter is that different rules may apply to adjacent tracts depending on the origin of the grant.Quote:
Mexico gave up the land via treaty, so by Mexico's laws, California is no longer theirs. By US law it is theirs. If, by their own laws, they want the land back, they can try to A) Conquer it, B) Purchase it, or C) try and repopulate it.
no, as of right now, by your argument, it is still morally only the native americans land and they are being both immorally and illegally pinioned by the US government. (since treaties obtained by force, according to your premise, are irrelevant)Quote:
They are doing C). Good for them. If the US guys are incapable of keeping it, too bad. But as of now, it is a state in the United States federation of states.
But to say there is a moral right of Mexico over anyone else? Morally, it is the Native Americans. Period. If they are all dead, than the land is in the hands of whoever currently occupies the nation.