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..."

__________________

Bodhisattva

Exploited is one type of oppression... I agree.
I do not think that it is severe enough to justify rebellion though.

I also should have stressed the word "truly" because they can feel oppressed all they like, but if it not true oppression, that being the type that robs them of life, liberty or property, then they are not being truly oppressed. I further that by saying that being robbed of property in the form of slaves upon entering a nation or territory that does not allow slavery is hardly being oppressed...

So my statement stands and I feel it also remains unchallengable and correct at this point. Correct me if I missed anything of importance, I did skim because my kids need a story really soon.

__________________

conquer

Look, in those years there were no human international rights commissions, if you compare China and Tibet today with US and Hawaii decades ago, there is the same situation of oppressing another country or culture, but in the past nobody was the referi.

Today, organizations as the UN are the referi, this is why no big nation can go a take others' lands anymore without having an international countermeasure.

To dig the past will give you lots of surprises, but it won't change anything.

Lightdemon

After traveling miles of desert thru the danger of being attacked and robbed by the Pueblo Indians, are you willing to turn back to the road where you came from? Will you have enough supplies to last for the return trip? Will you be lucky enough to make another successful trip avoiding attack?? And even if you get back home, after wasting a large amount of your forture for that useless journey, how the hell are you and your family going to get back on your feet?

A trap. A traveler who is seeking a way to reap the benefits of his risk-taking is trapped. Taking risks is what business people do after all. The likely story is that this traveler have been saving up money, or using up his family fortune, for this entreprenurial journey. This was quite common during the expansion to the West during this time. But what do you do when a situation arises when you are faced with breaking the law and surviving? Again, I point out that there is a trap. Consistently, a trap precedes exploitation, which is oppression.

Not only this, but a slave at that time, is almost like a car in today's world. Large plantations have many slaves, and thus they produce more and sell cheaper. For a small business owner, having slave is necessary for competition. It is a critical asset to your business. If you do not turn a profit, how are you goint to pay back the debt you took from the bank this year? Most farmers of the time, take out loans, and hope to God that they have a good year. Having a slave raises the likelyhood of you maintaining your farm, whether you needed more hands for crops or to look after your cattle. Slaves are a huge asset to success.

Simarly if you don't have a car, the number of professions that are available to you are closed off. Such professions that require you to be available at weird/random/unconventional time schedules, such professions that require you to commute in unconventional/irregular distances or places, etc. A car is almost necessary for you to be able to compete in today's (labor) economy. Like the farmer without a slave, you are less competitive, and less likely to be able to suceed in life. Furthermore, if you are not allowed to drive a car, assuming illegal immigration issues, that further limits the number of proefessions you have to choose from. Particular limiting in the sense of lower wages. Again, a situation where success is less likely.

To deny a person of either a car or a slave in thier respective era is a form of oppression. Is the oppression justifiable? That because they are illegal immigrants, that justifies them being oppressed? I don't know for you, but you can make that call for yourself.

---------------

But I don't get you Bodhi....I thought you said that defending Texas from Mexico was justified?? Doesn't that mean that Texas was being oppressed? I don't understand you. Was Texas being oppressed or not?

Bodhisattva

Most Native American did NOT attack travelers. This is a misconception. In fact, most were extremely helpful. Also, the Peublo Indians were more peaceful than most. If you had said the Comanche, I would have agreed, they were tough bastards and didn't take lightly to trespassing, but they still rarely attacked random travelers without provocation.


What is amazing, is that you seem to be justifying future dissent by saying that since the people tried so hard, they should just be given what they demand. That is not freedom. My friends family had to flee Afghanistan back in the 80's from the Russians... they traveled over mountains in the backs of jeeps, traveled in a camel caravan of all things for a month or something, then across the ocean in a steamer/cargo ship and more and they came here, worked hard. Got jobs. Somehow did all this legally. Managed to buy a car... go figure. And they live here now happily and they did all of this with no money, since in order to get it they would have all been captured and killed by the Russians. Interesting how some people figure it out and others complain and whine.

Here we are debating the rights regarding rebellion of the poor white people who didn't get what they wanted after the illegally entered another country and what of the even poorer black slaves?

There are these things called buses nowadays. Most big cities have them and they zig zag all around the streets. Why! All you need is a route map and a few bucks (or a cheap pass) and you can zoom around all year and save the environment too!

Besides.. the poor Mexican hardly needs a car to compete for a job in the stock room at Target or the kitchen doing dishes at Marie Calanders OR at a construction site. I have worked with many many MANY legal and ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants... a few hundred perhaps, and I have heard all the stories first hand and met families too, and they figure out how to make it work. It is the leaders that advocate more rights than they should be entitled to, the labor leaders that make fat bucks off of their poor oppressed people.

Neither are oppression in the slightest. I know lots of legal citizens that can't afford a car... what is more important? A LEGAL or an ILLEGAL being given things?

---------------

I think that Texas wanting to rebel and the US backing them was NOT JUSTIFIED. I think that they are a bunch of greedy and whiney spoiled brats trying to make a gain off of the situation. The Texans were NOT oppressed, just as most ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants are not, and to demand rights such as they did, and are, is ludicrous.

Tashah

Legal permission to operate a motor vehicle is a granted privilege, not a constitutional right. Perhaps if the illegal immigrants had considered this reality and its consequences in-depth, they would have elected to not place themselves in such a vulnerable position to be either exploited and/or oppressed. Simply put, they now find themselves in an untenable position because they willingly chose to place themselves in said position.

__________________

Harshaw

There are those who adamantly deny that there's any thought of reconquista, but they're (probably willfully) ignorant, or in some cases (like La Raza), lying about their intentions.

The reality, though, is that it can't happen unless enough people here are willing to let it happen.

Unfortunately, I think there's a large number of people who would be so willing.

__________________
"You can't start with 'I hate Bush' and work backwards from there." -- Bill Maher

Korimyr the Rat

Frankly, I don't think there's any such organized push. I think the problem of illegal immigration is exactly what it appears to be on the surface-- millions of people incapable of making a living in their home country flooding our borders, with the encouragement of their government. Many of them then discover that, for the same reasons that they are incapable of making a living in Mexico, they are similarly incapable of making a living here.

Eh. Of all of the mindbogglingly stupid things our culture is doing to guarantee its eventual disintegration... I really do think this is one of the least offensive. At the very least, the culture that we're allowing to slowly replace ours is generally well-civilized.

__________________

GySgt

You know, this attitude that we owe something to everyone for anything we may or may not have done in accordance to what is and is not considered justified form one time period to the next has gotten obscene. When do people start suing the Vikings? Americans tend to self-flaggelate more and more on an unhealthy level than any people on earth. And the people of earth are loving it.

But, let's see here...

If we owe Mexico something...then certainly we owe the native Indian something. And since it was really the European powers who colonized the new world, they owe something. And since France and Britian feuded for centuries, certainly both governments owe each other. But why stop punishing ourselves for history here? Certainly those pesky Italians are to pay reparations for their assault into Germanic territories. And don't the Egyptians owe Jews something for those damned pyramids?

Give it a rest.

__________________

GySgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Volker

There were actually Egyptians in Switzerland this year or the last one, I do not remember exactly, they tried to start a lawsuit by saying, these Hebrews were slaves, slaves do not have much, but when they left Egypt, they had a lot of gold with them, you know, for the Golden Calf and stuff. They have to give it back to Egypt with interests.

n-tv wrote, that a man in Israel smiled and said, ok, lets talk about the payment for the Hebrews who worked at the pyramides in a first step and about this gold in a second step