BF2S Forums Mexician UCLA Professor calls for revolt

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I don't get what he's talking about?

For a professor he really didn't get a point across, is he calling for an Armed revolt? If so he is not calling for a revolt but for a war.

UCLA professor.

Apparently, there's a difference.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

They didn't steal Texas. Texas was a republic after the revolution there, they asked to be annexed into the U.S.

I'm not sure if you are trolling or just have a bad understanding of some of U.S. history.

So Americans settled in Texas, declared themselves a republic, the Mexicans declared war on them so they took California too.
Maybe you should read US history, not the redacted version you're spoonfed.

Mexicans asked Austin + others to bring Americans provided they follow the rules in order to settle the territory and strengthen Mexico's hold on the territory from other foreign powers.

But isn't the point that the immigrants didn't follow the rules? The whole property tax debacle was very poor form on the part of the Mexican government, but as far as I recall, the settlers ignored the Mexican federal legislation that they did not agree with, such as the ban on slavery. Mexico did a lot to deserve a revolt in Texas, but the military intervention seems just as justified as the armed revolt.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-05-10 13:16:55)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lets not get into a discussion about who was more corrupt.
A war was fought, the US took California, the Mexicans are still pissed.

The Mexicans aren't really "still pissed" about that.  They just use it as a scapegoat to justify crossing the border illegally.

Ilocano wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Give them back the land you stole -> Problem solved.

I would have no problem giving Texas back to Mexico.

So, you going back to Europe or Africa (Philly, so not sure of ethnicity.) as well?

So, why aren't the Mexicans giving back Mexico to the Aztec descendants?  Funny how they want Texas back, but have no problem suppressing their own indigenous population.

Well, not to mention the fact that the Mexican government treats illegal Guatemalans like shit.

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

But isn't the point that the immigrants didn't follow the rules? The whole property tax debacle was very poor form on the part of the Mexican government, but as far as I recall, the settlers ignored the Mexican federal legislation that they did not agree with, such as the ban on slavery. Mexico did a lot to deserve a revolt in Texas, but the military intervention seems just as justified as the armed revolt.

Of course the military intervention was justified. In the end though, we won. Santa Anna signed the documents. We were a sovereign state.

Isn't the point of contention that Santa Anna didn't have any legal authority to sign away Tejas, nor to extend the border of Tejas from the Nueces to the Rio Grande? The Mexican government never recognised the treaty, and Polk was aware of this. I'm sure he was also aware that crossing the Nueces would be tantamount to invasion.

Well, here's the tricky part...  The Mexican government at the time was very unstable.  In a situation where the legitimacy of rule is questionable, contracts aren't exactly going to go in your favor.

Besides, America could have easily conquered Mexico outright even back then.  We took a fairly diplomatic approach after the war -- certainly less aggressive than many other contemporary powers would have been in a similar situation.

I Love how racist these people are. You hearing him spouting out "White Devil" all over the place and talking about down with Capitalism, but once a law like Arizona's passes he'll probably be the first to cry that it's racist.

There is no Such thing as Racism, it's a stupid term that allows people to push their agendas.

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Isn't the point of contention that Santa Anna didn't have any legal authority to sign away Tejas, nor to extend the border of Tejas from the Nueces to the Rio Grande? The Mexican government never recognised the treaty, and Polk was aware of this. I'm sure he was also aware that crossing the Nueces would be tantamount to invasion.

Well, here's the tricky part...  The Mexican government at the time was very unstable.  In a situation where the legitimacy of rule is questionable, contracts aren't exactly going to go in your favor.

Besides, America could have easily conquered Mexico outright even back then.  We took a fairly diplomatic approach after the war -- certainly less aggressive than many other contemporary powers would have been in a similar situation.

I agree that it could have been done in a much messier manner, but with the admittedly limited knowledge that I have of this whole situation, it leaves me with an image of Polk as being a dishonest aggressive expansionist, and that doesn't really sit well with me. As far as taking a diplomatic approach - I don't really know if I agree with that. Polk stopped only when he had all of the territory that he was interested in, and as far as I know, the terms of surrender that guaranteed recognition of the land rights of Mexicans in the ceded territories were largely ignored.

Oh, there's no doubt we had ulterior motives.  I'm not denying that.  We worked the situation to our advantage for sure, but we weren't completely ruthless about it.  I'm sure if Santa Anna had won, he wouldn't have been as...  restrained.

I guess my whole thing is...  It would have been hard for us to be more oppressive than the people we were fighting.  Mexico has a shitty government now, but it was even shittier back then.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lets not get into a discussion about who was more corrupt.
A war was fought, the US took California, the a small handful of Mexicans activists with nothing better to do are still pissed.

fixed.

Your average Mexican couldn't give a squirt of piss about it.

Ilocano wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lets not get into a discussion about who was more corrupt.
A war was fought, the US took California, the a small handful of Mexicans activists with nothing better to do are still pissed.

fixed.

Your average Mexican couldn't give a squirt of piss about it.

Most Mexicans living in Texas, legal and illegal, probably prefer if it stays Texas as it is.

I've noticed that it's 9 times out of 10 people who haven't actually experienced their 'home country' because they were born here but have an intense pride about their 'roots' because it makes them special to a certain degree. Pack them off to that other country and I guarantee they wouldn't fit in and would want to come home ASAP. Listening to stories and eating the food is one thing (because of course your parents or grandparents will get homesick every once in a while), but they did leave their country of origin for a reason, usually a damned good one.

This goes for Indian girls who decide to all of a sudden wear bindi's and cholis, to Arab descended women wearing head scarves to Japanese women wearing a kimono. Whatever the fuck it is, they get a bug up their ass and decide that celebrating their heritage is what makes them unique. Fuck off, you're American.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-12 12:12:23)

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

What the hell is American fashion John?

What are you wearing right now? I'm wearing khaki pants and a t-shirt.

I really don't care what people wear but the people who go out of their way to embrace a culture they've never lived in as a means of making themselves special are annoying to say the least. The people I really don't understand are the ones that come here to escape their old country and instead of embracing the change, try to force everyone here to conform to what was the norm in their own homeland. Europe is experiencing this garbage too with Muslims requesting single sex pool sessions and other things. As the old saying goes... When in Rome...

JohnG@lt wrote:

Marlo Stanfield wrote:

What the hell is American fashion John?

What are you wearing right now? I'm wearing khaki pants and a t-shirt.

I really don't care what people wear but the people who go out of their way to embrace a culture they've never lived in as a means of making themselves special are annoying to say the least. The people I really don't understand are the ones that come here to escape their old country and instead of embracing the change, try to force everyone here to conform to what was the norm in their own homeland. Europe is experiencing this garbage too with Muslims requesting single sex pool sessions and other things. As the old saying goes... When in Rome...

No kidding.  I don't think I'll ever understand those fuckers.

Ilocano wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lets not get into a discussion about who was more corrupt.
A war was fought, the US took California, the a small handful of Mexicans activists with nothing better to do are still pissed.

fixed.

Your average Mexican couldn't give a squirt of piss about it.

Most Mexicans living in Texas, legal and illegal, probably prefer if it stays Texas as it is.

I was talking about Mexicans. As in people living in Mexico.

Of course those living in Texas prefer it to stay the way it is. They left Mexico for a reason.