Reparations To Developing Nations?

[thick_neck]

Relax, Tony...

But not so fast, Dortic?s.

Here's the deal:

The 1's and 0's members of this board will say, "Tony's got a point."

However, the most liberal members, the groovy thinkers here, have read your admission of accepting reparations in the forms of tax deduction. Nice going for someone who has, for three years now, written about self-reliance and capitalism!

Now, on to the jealousy part:

Talk about "old and tired and....LAME," these are different times, Dortic?s. How can we, as a group, be envious of you? Well, as I told that leprechaunian zany dude with the ranch, "Whatever you gotta tell yourself."

But no, we are not jealous of the "Miami Cubans success story." Especially one that has to be celebrated by your commander-in-thief, George Dubya Bush. You can keep your "success" and your congressional representation, we'll keep the D.R. Yeah, the same D.R. you keep visiting. Ain't it cool?

And just in case you bring up your own personal success story, as you and the majority of the members usually do, let me warn you that it won't work, either. You ain't golo, and you'll never be. Besides, who would want to be you?

And since we've seen your picture in the gallery...

Here, let me brag just a bit: long hair; low body fat; eight-pack stomach; quick as a cat and fast as Secretariat; vertical leap of 36 inches; long jump over 20 feet; baseball prodigy: right-hand hitter with a left-handed mentality and viceversa; basketball god; tennis monster; track star; Astaire-like:from mambo to tango and all points in between; cunning linguist; expert at third-rate romance and low-rent rendevouz; big hands; no 'stache; and lastly: the love of baby jesus in my eyes. And I'm shy, too. Really.

Now, before the crowd goes wild reporting me to the DR1 owners, let's go back to the question of reparations.

Individual reparations are not feasible: how much $$ do you give Oprah?

But reparations in other forms are taking place as we speak, Tony and his followers just don't know about it; mainstream media hasn't told them yet.

 

[NALs]

Well, Tony C is always welcomed in the DR!

Just for being Cuban! Cubans and Dominicans in many ways are practically the same! We have a tendency of thinking in the same manner, our lifestyles mirrored each other for many years and Cubans and Dominicans have always tried to help each other out. Dominicans helped Cubans get their independence and Cubans did a fabulous job at showing their anti-occupation of Santo Domingo support in the 1920s, at a time when they themselves were occupied!

As if that wasn't enough, the general ambiance in the DR is very similar to that of Cuba (plus or minus a few things). In my mind, Cuba and the DR (and we could even add Puerto Rico) are practically the same with the exception that one believes in Socialism, the other believes in Colonialism or Neo-Colonialism and the other believes in Democracy and Capitalism.

All three countries (DR, PR, and CB) enjoy dancing to salsa and merengue, all three listen to Son, all three have Arroz con Pollo as their main meals, all three speak Spanish with Taino phrases imbedded and old Spanish words that have been lost in other Spanish speaking countries, all three countries are practically the same. All three countries treat their racial issues much in the same manner, their economic issues much in the same manner, their cultural issues much in the same manner, etc. Can't wait until Cuba turns to Capitalism, maybe we could create our own Spanish Caribbean Union, who knows?

But like I have repeated here on this post multiple times, Cubans and Dominicans are practically the same in just about everything, Cubans have tried to help their Dominican friends much how the Dominicans have tried to help our Cubans friends and for that Tony C can even call the DR his home if he wants to.

Oh yeah, and Tony C appears to be an intelligent well mannered person that makes very good points to support whatever he believes in!

I hope Tony C have visited the house of Maximo Gomez in Monte Cristi. That is where Cuba's declaration of Independence was signed, I believe. I'm not too sure, but something that was the deciding factor for Cuba's independence took part in that Dominican town with Maximo Gomez (a Dominican) being an important figure in that deal which eventually made Cuban independence a reality!

 

[thick_neck]

Nice try, but...

Tony was referring to Miami Cubans, not the Cubans in Cuba. But if that was the case, then, yes, we should be jealous of Cuba. And the reasons are endless. But let's not go there, for I've been banned six times and warned a dozen more in the last three years.

 

[Texas Bill]

Humn, what "economic plight" was that, exactly? The answer can be found in these dirty little (and one big) secrets of Texas indepependence:

1. The anglo settlers were invited in and gifted land by the Mexican government. They signed written contracts with the Mexican government requiring their loyalty and their conversion to Catholocism.

2. Stephen F. Austin was a huckster commissioned by the Mexican government to recruit anglo settlers. He ran river boat shows that highly exaggerated the offerings of Texas to prospective settlers. He received a commission for each one.

3. Davey Crocket was a failed Tennessee politician who went to Texas after his reputation was lost at home.

4. The fledgling Texas government refused to send reinforcements to the Alamo.

5. The precipitating event leading to the Texas rebellion was the outlawing of SLAVERY by the Mexican government. Most Texas settlers came from the southern US and brought their plantation style economy with them. In addition to their economic interest in slavery, they supported slavery in principle. Lynchings of black Americans occurred in Texas through the early part of the 20th century.

6. By treaty, Mexico agreed to end the war and allow Texas independence. A condition of the treaty was that the Texans would agree to stay independent and not join the USA.

7. The US-Mexican war followed ten years later in large part because, again, the Texans didn't keep their part of the bargain and joined the US.

8. Now George W. Bush.

Bill, tell me where I'm wrong.

1. Yes, those settlers signed the same contract signed by previous settlers under Moses Austin (Stephen F's father).
They remained loyal, became Catholic(at least in name) and fulfilled their contract irrespective of the fact that the Mexican government provided absolutely NO protection from marauding bands of Comanche, Kiowa and Mexican bandits which continuously harrassed the settlers, stole their foodstuffs, their cattle and slaughtered the frontier inhabitants. It is instructive that it took almost 30 years of such before the settlers became so totally tired of being treated in such a way as to finally rebel.

2. Yes he ran riverboat shows. A huckster, no. He was an agent of the Mexican government, repeating the promises given by that government as inducements to potential settlers in a frontier area. Promises that were broken, one by one during insuing years by that same government. My daughter still has one of the flyers issued at the time in the neighborhood of Wetumpka, AL where the second wave of my ancestors originated at Stephen F.'s inducement. It is also instructive to note that Stephen F. spent almost a year in a Mexican jail in Mexico City when he headed a delegation there to protest the treatment the settlers were receiving at the hands of Mexican Authorities. Huckster, NO. Statesman, YES. He acted in the benefit of the people he represented.

3. Crocketts's loss of reputation, I don't know about that. He was a former State Representative from Tennessee who admitted he was no politician and had no love for the politicians of his era. His stated purpose in going to Texas was in support of the rebellion. Nothing more, nothing less. And he lost his life at the Alamo with many others.

4. Sam Houston did retreat from the Mexican Army in the face of overwhelming odds. he recognized the futility of commiting to battle on the unfavorable terrain surrounding the Alamo. He suffered much castigation from his officers and men during that long and ardous retreat to the banks of the San Jacinto. The terrain there favored his outnumbered army, but when he attacked, his tactics of taking advantage of the "siesta" habit of the Mexican Army proved to be effective and the numerically superior Mexican Army was routed, Santa Ana was captured and forced to sue for peace, whereupon the Nation of Texas was subsequently formed.

5. The precipitating event of the rebellion was NOT the question of Slavery, but rather, the slaughter of the 300 man protest group, at the village of Goliad, defending their right to a cannon used in defence of the community against marauding bands of Mexican bandits. These men negotiated surrender on the premise of not being punished after surrendering the cannon. Instead of honoring the provisions of surrender, the Mexican commander slaughtered those men in cold blood as an example against any future attempts at self defense by the citizens. That incident precipitated the rebellion by the population and eventually led to the defeat of Santa Ana's Army at San Jacinto.

6. The repeated incurrsions of Mexican Army, of bands of bandits, of raids by Comanche and Kiowa tribes along the extended frontier of Western Texas (encouraged by those called Comancheros) led to the decision by Texans that they could not effectively police their borders and that by joining the Union, they would enjoy more and better border security and protections for their citizens. It was a political decision and neither encouraged nor discouraged by the Union. And, Yes, Texas entered the Union as a slave state. And slaves were NOT hanged as a matter of course, which you would have us believe. And since you don't know the reasons for such actions, and only "suppose" what the reasons were, your comment is really only slander. I will say that there probably were "lynchings" of both whites, Mexicans and Blacks that were not justified. I will offer no excuse for such actions except that they reflected the conditions and attitudes of the time and were "probably" done by those in a minority and hot-headed at that.
Bear in mind that Texas was a soverign nation and could and did take action to protect the best interest of it's citizens. Any nation has that right. So you're way off base in that instance.

7. The War between the US and Mexico was a direct result of the many unlawful incurrsions of the border bandits and the Mexican Army. They were warned time and agaig to cease and desist. When they didn't take heed to the warnings, they were severly beaten and taught the lesson intended.

8. Yes, George W. Bush. A very strong minded President who, in the face of adversity, continues to pursue his goals of rendering an independent and democratic Iraq and Afganistan in the face of opposition from France, Germany and Russia, all of which had an interest in those areas but would not participate in the elimination of the despotic leaderships thereof. A President who has strengthened US military after it was virtually destroyed by Clinton, who by the way, is considered to be a master politician(spell that "jicky-jack used car salesman) with a perchant for fellatio and for lieing to grand juries and who escaped impeachment only because of the effect it would have had on the US image worldwide.

Porfi--- YES, you are WRONG!!

Texas Bill

 

[sancochojoe]

1. Yes, those settlers signed the same contract signed by previous settlers under Moses Austin (Stephen F's father).
They remained loyal, became Catholic(at least in name) and fulfilled their contract irrespective of the fact that the Mexican government provided absolutely NO protection from marauding bands of Comanche, Kiowa and Mexican bandits which continuously harrassed the settlers, stole their foodstuffs, their cattle and slaughtered the frontier inhabitants. It is instructive that it took almost 30 years of such before the settlers became so totally tired of being treated in such a way as to finally rebel.

Everyone, this is my point about Mr. Texas Historian. This is why you cannot debate with guys like this because their historical facts lack any sort of objectivity or merit. None what so ever. Anyone please tell me why do you think colonist, no excuse me, s e t t l e r s, were being attacked by Native Americans. Hmmmm. That must be a hard question to ask. ummm maybe we were trying to take something that didn't belong to us. orrrrrr maybe every agreement we signed with Native Americans we broke. Geeee little billy, can you tell why Native Americans were so angry that they resorted to harrassing settlers.


Oh, and again, I'm not for reparations. So that stick that crap on me.

 

[thick_neck]

Texas history books...

Most Texas history books read like John Wayne movie scripts: Pale face good, native people bad. And the audience eats it up like sweet mesquite BBQ.

Then there's Sam Houston, whom JFK wrote so graciously about - one of the many reasons JFK has not been canonized.

 

[Texas Bill]

Everyone, this is my point about Mr. Texas Historian. This is why you cannot debate with guys like this because their historical facts lack any sort of objectivity or merit. None what so ever. Anyone please tell me why do you think colonist, no excuse me, s e t t l e r s, were being attached by Native Americans. Hmmmm. That must be a hard question to ask. ummm maybe we were trying to take something that didn't belong to us. orrrrrr maybe every agreement we signed with Native Americans we broke. Geeee little billy, can you tell why Native Americans were so angry that they resorted to harrassing settlers.


Oh, and again, I'm not for reparations. So that stick that crap on me.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of the west, you would know that the Comanche and Kiowa Nations were guilty of raiding the Souix, the Cree, the Pawnees and ALL other Native American nations IN ADDITION to the settlers.
So, your inference as to such peoples merely acting in retribution to incursions into "their" lands is without substance.
That the settlers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in the Western territories were taking land that the Native Americans viewed as theirs goes without argument. I will readily admit that was an era that wasn't pleasant for either the settlers or the Native Americans. The mindset of "manifest destiny" was a very powerful ingrediant in the scheme of things at the time. But, since I can't go back and change history, I must accept such events and get on with the matter of making my own life and the lives of my family as easy as I can.
You can blame those people and that government all you want to, but in the final analysis is the fact that modern US Citizens ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for those actions in ANY SHAPE, FORM, OR FASHION.
So get off that tack. You're yodelling up the wrong canyon and uttering plain slander to every man, woman and child in the US, including yourself, if you have the honor of living there and are a citizen.
And do you think that by bringing up events that took place over 200 years ago and trying to make hay withem in light of modern society, that you are making a viable point? That's a stupid exercise in fallacious reasoning. You're only showing your total lack of reality. It's obvious that you make such remarks in an attempt at elevating yourself and feeding your egotistical desires through unwarranted slander emitted from a hate filled political platform.
Or, maybe it's a personal platform and you haven't the intestinal fortitude to openly admit it and debate it on that basis since you would be revealing yourself for what you are.
You say you are against reparations? OK, I'll apologize for mistakenly placing you in that category inadvertently.
As to the rest, you're still a whining, condescending nincompoop in my book because of the posts you make and the language you use in making them.

Texas Bill

 

[thick_neck]

Because of the post I make?...

And I've been nice to you, too.

The fact is that being a native "anything" does not an expert make. The number one authority on all things 'Texas' is not even a Texan. So there.

Also, your little ad hominen attacks are nothing new. In fact, they are expected, since repugs cannot debate without resorting to them. Case in point is your reference to Clinton and his sex life.

Typical argument:

Concerned and informed citizen: "I'm of the opinion that while Cheney and Scalia hunted together, the supremo is smart enough to know that any future decision affecting the VP and his kkklan will be dissected by scholars and students of SCOTUS for years to come."

Typical repug answer:

"And what about Clinton? He had sex in the oval office and lied to the 'Merican public."

They completely ignore the fact that sex leads to relaxation, thus rendering one incapable of rushing to other countries in pursuit of oil while killing thousands of innocent people in the process.

Besides, no one died when Clinton lied.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Thick Neck,

Thank you for catching Tony C. in yet another trap. Facsinating that the Cubans have, in essense, already accepted reparations. And, to make matters worse, they took it from a third country in exchange for political favors.

Bill,

Reading your version of Texas history is a little like reading AZB's rantings about middle east history. Yea, SOME of it is true. But ALL of it is biased and there is oh so much denial. Your credibility is severely weakened by the fact that you will not accept that slavery was even ONE of the reasons why the Texans revolted.

"The [Texas war of independence was] a Mexican civil war and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished." No, it wasn't Thick Neck, SancochoJoe or any other of the purported anti-Americans who said this. It was John Quincy Adams.

Other radical anti-American anarcho-communist sources of info in this topic include US News and World Report, which wrote:

"One issue notably absent from the Texas declaration--and from all previous Alamo movies--was slavery ... 'The colonists were overwhelmingly southerners,' says William C. Davis, author of Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic, 'and they felt they needed slaves to capitalize on that vast arable land in the eastern part of the state.' To take away slavery, they felt, was to take away Texas.

The slavery question has muddied the pristine image of the Texas revolution. ...Popular history never mentions it, says Davis, but in the Texas revolution "you have the same contradiction [that you do in] the Civil War, when you've got several million Confederate citizens and soldiers preaching all the rhetoric of liberty while owning 3 million slaves."

http://www.keepmedia.com:/Register.do?oliID=225

Another radical athiest publication writing on this topic is the University of Texas' Texas Handbook: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/SS/yps1.html

As for the US-Mexican war, it was precipitated by the desire for US territorial expansion. This from the far left, terrorist-supporting, Columbia Encyclopedia:

"When Mexico declined to negotiate, the United States prepared to take by force what it could not achieve by diplomacy. The war was heartily supported by the outright imperialists and by those who wished slave-holding territory extended."

Really, this is not a highly debated subject. Again, the Texas Handbook.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/MM/qdm2.html

Tony and Bill would both have us believe that slavery was practically irrelevant in US history - that 19th century politics wasn't dominated by the issue - that it has no living legacy. You stick your heads in the sand because you believe that anyone who raises anything, either as historical fact or present day critique, critical of the US must be anti-American - with the requisite knee-jerk response.

All of that said, I would urge Thick Neck to keep this discussion on the up and up. Neither Bill nor Tony can be compared to the condo-community ranchero who thinks he's Agamemnon.

 

[sancochojoe]

And do you think that by bringing up events that took place over 200 years ago and trying to make hay withem in light of modern society, that you are making a viable point? That's a stupid exercise in fallacious reasoning. You're only showing your total lack of reality. It's obvious that you make such remarks in an attempt at elevating yourself and feeding your egotistical desires through unwarranted slander emitted from a hate filled political platform.
Texas Bill

Your the one claiming your a history buff and and how your lineage ties to the "Great Americans" of the west. Do you ever read what you right before hitting Submit? I think you are bickering just to bicker.

Oh, and Porfio, I could give you a hug. I love references.

 

[thick_neck]

Texas Tall Tales...

Me likes references, too, Porfio.

Gracias,

The myth buster

 

[Texas Bill]

Thick Neck,

Thank you for catching Tony C. in yet another trap. Facsinating that the Cubans have, in essense, already accepted reparations. And, to make matters worse, they took it from a third country in exchange for political favors.

Bill,

Reading your version of Texas history is a little like reading AZB's rantings about middle east history. Yea, SOME of it is true. But ALL of it is biased and there is oh so much denial. Your credibility is severely weakened by the fact that you will not accept that slavery was even ONE of the reasons why the Texans revolted.

"The [Texas war of independence was] a Mexican civil war and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished." No, it wasn't Thick Neck, SancochoJoe or any other of the purported anti-Americans who said this. It was John Quincy Adams.

Other radical anti-American anarcho-communist sources of info in this topic include US News and World Report, which wrote:

"One issue notably absent from the Texas declaration--and from all previous Alamo movies--was slavery ... 'The colonists were overwhelmingly southerners,' says William C. Davis, author of Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic, 'and they felt they needed slaves to capitalize on that vast arable land in the eastern part of the state.' To take away slavery, they felt, was to take away Texas.

The slavery question has muddied the pristine image of the Texas revolution. ...Popular history never mentions it, says Davis, but in the Texas revolution "you have the same contradiction [that you do in] the Civil War, when you've got several million Confederate citizens and soldiers preaching all the rhetoric of liberty while owning 3 million slaves."

http://www.keepmedia.com:/Register.do?oliID=225

Another radical athiest publication writing on this topic is the University of Texas' Texas Handbook: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/SS/yps1.html

As for the US-Mexican war, it was precipitated by the desire for US territorial expansion. This from the far left, terrorist-supporting, Columbia Encyclopedia:

"When Mexico declined to negotiate, the United States prepared to take by force what it could not achieve by diplomacy. The war was heartily supported by the outright imperialists and by those who wished slave-holding territory extended."

Really, this is not a highly debated subject. Again, the Texas Handbook.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/MM/qdm2.html

Tony and Bill would both have us believe that slavery was practically irrelevant in US history - that 19th century politics wasn't dominated by the issue - that it has no living legacy. You stick your heads in the sand because you believe that anyone who raises anything, either as historical fact or present day critique, critical of the US must be anti-American - with the requisite knee-jerk response.

All of that said, I would urge Thick Neck to keep this discussion on the up and up. Neither Bill nor Tony can be compared to the condo-community ranchero who thinks he's Agamemnon.

Porfi;

Mea Culpa for not mentioning the role that slavery played amoung the other elements surrounding the reasons endemic in the history of the movements behind the Texas movement for Independence.
I admit that by the that time, slavery was practiced in most of Eastern Texas since the principal crop was cotton. But, and again I reitterate, the PRINCIPAL reasons was the treatment of the citizens by the arrogant government of Santa Ana(you have a very definitive example of that in Hippo's government). And I will stand by that. I have always thought (and this is purely subjective on my part after reading many personal papers) that the then settlers had collectively arrived at the conclusion that they would be vastly more independent in their actions and able to act more freely in their own benefit were they independent from Mexican authority.
I know many of you will not agree with me, but that is not the point. Over the centuries, history and it's making loses it's emotional impact of the time in the later, cold, hard factual interpretatons of those same events.
Texans are, always have been, and always will be an extremely independent group of peoples. That is a native characteristic deeply embedded in their psychological profile.
Now-a-days, many people tend to place slavery as the one outstanding reason for the Civil War, when, in fact, it was only one element (although a major one) in the causitive factors involved. Other factors, such as transportation rates, taxation, states rights and many others entered into the equation of reasons. No excuses offered by that statement. Look them up. They're there, plain as the nose on your face.
In answer to "thick-neck", and I must assume that he was referring to me when he posted that I was not a native Texan. FYI, thick-neck, I was born at a Magnolia pipeline pumping station, 6 miles north of Katy, Texas on Jan 3, 1927. I have lived in ALL sections of that vast State and probably experienced more of the ingredients which make up a Texan than even you can imagine. So, since you don't know me, or anything about my background, and have the audacity to comment about me, I can do nothing but brand you as a compound lier who would be advised to be silent about that which you are not conversant. You, and people like you, love to spout off, but seldom do so in direct confrontation.

And I think we'd ALL, myself included, be wise to cease and desist the exchanges of slanderous remerks before we find ourselves barred from further posting on this board.

If you agree, then cease.
If you don't, then be my guest.
Be advised, however, I won't be bested!


Texas Bill

 

[sancochojoe]

Now-a-days, many people tend to place slavery as the one outstanding reason for the Civil War, when, in fact, it was only one element (although a major one) in the causitive factors involved. Other factors, such as transportation rates, taxation, states rights and many others entered into the equation of reasons. No excuses offered by that statement. Look them up. They're there, plain as the nose on your face.

Its always the same old story about the reasons of the civil war. They may be valid arguments but still the same, we always have this issue of states rights.

yea, the right to have a slave.

And don't give the other tired argument of Texans wanting to claim they were fighting for Indepenence but at the expense of others not having Independence.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

A generally accepted historical premise is that, while there were many economic and political disputes between North and South, slavery was the ONLY one not capable of resolution through negotiation, as so many other issues dividing the country had been over time. Thus, it WAS the precipitating factor leading to the Civil War. Is this true for Texas independence as well? I don't know.

And, while I will accept that modern Americans are not "responsible" for slavery, it would be insane blindness and a public policy mistake to not see that its legacy survives to this day.

To balance out the arguments, I would also add that Mexico would also have to face the fact that it so poorly populated and administered its northern territories that their loss was inevitable. For example, if the US did not seize California, Britain probably would have.

You know, Bill, I actually like parts of Texas - El Paso, Brownsville, Austin and the areas around Navasota. But Texans often fail to understand how people who consider themselves to be "thinkers" outside of Texas will be compelled to respond to all that Texas bluster.

 

[thick_neck]

Texas BILL...

When I wrote that the ultimate authority on all things 'Texas' was not a Texan, I was referring to a scholar we all know here in the Lone Star, and who hails from a northern state. He's got several books out. So you jumped the gun once again, as you normally do. Easy, cowboy.

But, yes, you are a Texan. Moi, I come from the little, old, eastern sleepy town of Higuey, where as Dominicans, we don't know any better than what the mighty Americans can teach us. If we behave, that is.

 

[Texas Bill]

Thick Neck,

Thank you for catching Tony C. in yet another trap. Facsinating that the Cubans have, in essense, already accepted reparations. And, to make matters worse, they took it from a third country in exchange for political favors.

Bill,

Reading your version of Texas history is a little like reading AZB's rantings about middle east history. Yea, SOME of it is true. But ALL of it is biased and there is oh so much denial. Your credibility is severely weakened by the fact that you will not accept that slavery was even ONE of the reasons why the Texans revolted.

"The [Texas war of independence was] a Mexican civil war and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished." No, it wasn't Thick Neck, SancochoJoe or any other of the purported anti-Americans who said this. It was John Quincy Adams.

Other radical anti-American anarcho-communist sources of info in this topic include US News and World Report, which wrote:

"One issue notably absent from the Texas declaration--and from all previous Alamo movies--was slavery ... 'The colonists were overwhelmingly southerners,' says William C. Davis, author of Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic, 'and they felt they needed slaves to capitalize on that vast arable land in the eastern part of the state.' To take away slavery, they felt, was to take away Texas.

The slavery question has muddied the pristine image of the Texas revolution. ...Popular history never mentions it, says Davis, but in the Texas revolution "you have the same contradiction [that you do in] the Civil War, when you've got several million Confederate citizens and soldiers preaching all the rhetoric of liberty while owning 3 million slaves."

http://www.keepmedia.com:/Register.do?oliID=225

Another radical athiest publication writing on this topic is the University of Texas' Texas Handbook: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/SS/yps1.html

As for the US-Mexican war, it was precipitated by the desire for US territorial expansion. This from the far left, terrorist-supporting, Columbia Encyclopedia:

"When Mexico declined to negotiate, the United States prepared to take by force what it could not achieve by diplomacy. The war was heartily supported by the outright imperialists and by those who wished slave-holding territory extended."

Really, this is not a highly debated subject. Again, the Texas Handbook.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/MM/qdm2.html

Tony and Bill would both have us believe that slavery was practically irrelevant in US history - that 19th century politics wasn't dominated by the issue - that it has no living legacy. You stick your heads in the sand because you believe that anyone who raises anything, either as historical fact or present day critique, critical of the US must be anti-American - with the requisite knee-jerk response.

All of that said, I would urge Thick Neck to keep this discussion on the up and up. Neither Bill nor Tony can be compared to the condo-community ranchero who thinks he's Agamemnon.

Porfi;
Thank you for two VERY informative references!

The reference on "Slavery" was particularly informative and enlightening. Admittedly, I have not read such an extensive, in depth discourse on slavery in Texas before this reference was brought to my attention.
While it did not reveal anything new relative to my previous studies(limited tho they were), it was an accurate description of the lives and effects of slavery on the economic and social impact of the time.

However, I vigorously deny that the issue of slavery was a minor event in the development of the US, because it was. It was also tied very closely to ADDITIONAL causative factors of the Civil War. You must admit that it's history was not written by any Southerner and thus is emotionally skewed. That's not intended as an excuse or denial but as a partial explanation. To the victor goes the spoils and the edification of events.

The reference on the "Mexican War" contained much in addition to what I have been exposed to in the past regarding the maneuvering of forces and their impact on Mexico. Very informative and typical of the thinking of the US at that time.

Thank you again.

I guess, what gauls me is the complete ignoring of these same argument sans reference to Alexander, the Persians, Roman, French , British and Spanish violations of human rights in their respective colonies of the past and the concentration of efforts toward the US as the MAJOR contributor to such elements.
My question is very simple. WHY? Is it jealousy? Is it just plain hatred, and if so, again, WHY? Is it that we, as a people just plain piss you off and you must fire back with slanderous accusations and intense venom?
I'm not hurt by such, I'm just infuriated that you take such pains to focus on a single nation.

That YOU is in the plural and is directed to all who have resorted to such an attack, warranted or unwarranted. Such attacks are completely without merit and unworthy of an intelligent debate. All that is accomplished is the continuing of ill feelings and I personally don't think that is fair and/or equitable.

That said, I'll reitterate my unfailing support of my country and will continue my attempts to clarify misconceptions--both your's and mine. After all, that's what the search for knowledge is all about.

Texas Bill

 

[thick_neck]

What?

I re-read all these posts, and have yet to find where you were attacked. It was you who resorted to name-calling. The rest of us just challenged your Texas-is-bigger-than-life-so-slavery-did-not-exist-there claims.

I'll leave you alone from now on. But it would hurt you to know that while the Legislature controls the big schools like A&M and UT, there are folks at those institutions hell-bent on debunking the myth that is Texas history as we know it. I urge you to get active and fight those pinko-liberal, good-for-nothing, terrorist commies. After all, they are just jealous of our freedom and our undying love for god.

By the way, isn't "ya'll" the plural form of 'YOU'? Well, it IS in Texas.

-Joseito

 

[NALs]

Let me get this straight!

Texans are unhappy with Mexico City or Santa Ana's way of administering them, so they revolt (for whatever the reason).

Then, Mexico is imbedded in a Civil War between its Capital (Mexico City) and its northern territories or states.

The US gets into that Civil War by Texas joining into the US? Or The US gets into Mexican matters because Texas asked the US for help? I'm not clear on this!

But anyways, my point is this. If the Mexican-American war was started because of Texas, why did the Americans took California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Montana from Mexico?

It would have made more sense to take TEXAS only, but they didn't, they took the entire northern chunk of Mexico!

Just wondering, but could there be something else that has been lost in time about this important war? I just don't understand why a country fighting for a specific area (ie. Texas) ends up by taking a gigantic area (pretty much what today is the Western US from Mexico)!

This is very interesting info. that I had not extensively researched before, but now I will. If anyone know the answers to my questions here, please answer them, I'm eager to learn more about this.

Very Interesting!!

 

[NALs]

I guess, what gauls me is the complete ignoring of these same argument sans reference to Alexander, the Persians, Roman, French , British and Spanish violations of human rights in their respective colonies of the past and the concentration of efforts toward the US as the MAJOR contributor to such elements.
My question is very simple. WHY? Is it jealousy? Is it just plain hatred, and if so, again, WHY? Is it that we, as a people just plain piss you off and you must fire back with slanderous accusations and intense venom?
I'm not hurt by such, I'm just infuriated that you take such pains to focus on a single nation.

That's a question that I have asked myself many times and based on what I have found out through research and asking a few history professors at the University of Connecticut, this is what I found.

It turns out that the Spanish Colonies differed in their clasification of slaves from the Americans. Apparently, Spanish Colonies recognize slaves as human beings whose freedom was automatically granted once their master died or if their master wished upon it. Also, the off-springs (this was only in effect in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo) of the slaves would automatically be free.

In the USA, the constitution never recognized slaves as humans, instead slaves were property in the full extent. Meaning, a slave had no rights what so ever, also off-springs of the slaves were not free. Slaves could have also bought their freedom or get their freedom at their masters will, but seldom did that happened.

That was the biggest difference which caused difference in how slaves were seen in the different areas controlled by the Americans and/or Spaniards.

In my opinion, the fact that for about 100 years after slavery was abolished in the United States, the US still practiced a form of Aparteid where blacks and whites were segregated in all areas. For many years after most (if not all countries) of the world where slavery had been practiced, after they gave the freedom to their slaves, the slaves were free to do what they wanted and people were not segregated, at least by law they weren't. Stories and news about the segregation in the US and the many lynchings, abuses, and human rights violations towards afro-Americans, in my opinion, probably helped in imbedding in the world's minds that the Americans were in more ways than one much more responsible for slavery and negative connotations towards blacks or something. I know that's not true, but that could have been a reason why the US is always singled out in this slavery issue.

I think that its important to note that Santo Domingo was the first place in the new world where the enslavement of Africans first began. When the Spaniards moved their empire Capital from Santo Domingo (after they ceded the western third of Hispaniola to France) to Havana, then Havana became the main slave trading port in the hemisphere. Most of the slaves in Santo Domingo were either sold to the French in St. Domingue (Haiti) or given their freedom, with few actually being enslaved.

I think its also important to note that eventhough the US was an important trading partner of Havana in the slave trade, St. Domingue (ie. Haiti) was their biggest customers due to the EXTREMELY harsh treatment the French imposed on the Africans. In fact, thats where Africans had the lowest life expectancy after being enslaved, in St. Domingue the average slave only lived for 6 months after arriving at the port of Cap-Francais (today Cap-Haitien) or Port-au-Prince.

I like to point that out because the USA WAS NOT the worst player in the slave trade, there were others (French) that were much more brutal to the slaves. In addition, the Dutch were the ones involved in the actual transportation of the slaves from the different ports along Western Africa to Havana.

It's also important to note that Brazil (under the Portuguese) had way more African slaves than the US had! But, I guess that the fact that the US segregated afterwards (something that didn't existed in other countries in the New World after slavery ended) may have contributed for the world to look at the US as the evil doer when it comes to slavery, eventhough there were worst players in that game. I'm not saying that what the US did was nice or good, it was still wrong, it's just that in my opinion (and I'm not an American by the way) in my opinion America is being blamed far more than its fair share in this slavery deal.

 

[Texas Bill]

I re-read all these posts, and have yet to find where you were attacked. It was you who resorted to name-calling. The rest of us just challenged your Texas-is-bigger-than-life-so-slavery-did-not-exist-there claims.

I'll leave you alone from now on. But it would hurt you to know that while the Legislature controls the big schools like A&M and UT, there are folks at those institutions hell-bent on debunking the myth that is Texas history as we know it. I urge you to get active and fight those pinko-liberal, good-for-nothing, terrorist commies. After all, they are just jealous of our freedom and our undying love for god.

By the way, isn't "ya'll" the plural form of 'YOU'? Well, it IS in Texas.

-Joseito

Joseito (A/K/A- Thickneck);
Quote me the place where I stated that "Texas-is-bigger-than-life-so-slavery-did-not-exist-there".
I don't believe you can. That's your own quote and I categorically refute it.
I don't deny that that institution existed in Texas, nor that such was not one of the causitive factors in the Independance movement. As I posted previously, the article cited above was very enlightening as to that aspect of Texas History and I find that I must reevaluate my previous stand.
However it may be, your inference as to my propensities about "those pinko-liberal, good-for-nothing, terrorist commies" is entirely without value and I truly resent such. I might add that it is remarks such as that which I call attacks, because that is exactly what they are. Wouldn't you agree??
And don't be so condescending as to infer that I don't know what the coloquial expressions of Texas consist of. After all, I was born and raised there. You only reveal your own arrogance by such remarks. Wouldn't you agree?? Now, if you don't agree, I'd really like to hear about it. it should really be interesting. That is, if you can refrain from your characteristic subtle innuendoes and be nice. I will be if you will be. If not, you can expect the same back of that which you emit.
I'll leave it up to you.


Texas Bill