Originally Posted by Lightdemon

Alright...



...alright...



...alright...




...alright....

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



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




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



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

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



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

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

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



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