Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ummm... not just Mexicans, but Gringo Americans felt that way too (including 2 former US Presidents)...
But I guess you are not a fan of history...and prefer to propogate misinformation.
*************
US President Ulysses S. Grant, who as a young army lieutenant had served in Mexico under General Taylor, recalled in his Memoirs, published in 1885, that:
Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.(1)
Joshua Giddings led a group of dissenters in Washington D.C. He called the war with Mexico "an aggressive, unholy, and unjust war," and voted against supplying soldiers and weapons. He said:
In the murder of Mexicans upon their own soil, or in robbing them of their country, I can take no part either now or here-after. The guilt of these crimes must rest on others. I will not participate in them.(2)
Fellow Whig Abraham Lincoln contested the causes for the war and demanded to know exactly where Thornton had been attacked and American blood shed. "Show me the spot," he demanded.
This war is nondescript .... We charge the President with usurping the war-making power ... with seizing a country ... which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans .... Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew.(3)
Dead people are no threat to this nation today regardless of what their views were back then. I am only concerned about the attitudes towards the U.S. today by those resenting the U.S. based on a long gone past. Wars were fought and lands exchanged hands throughout the history of the world. At least in this case monies were paid for those lands and Mexico signed the dotted line.
Last edited by chicagonut; 09-03-2011 at 07:28 AM..
Reason: spelling
Sounds as if you really miss Fidel. With your anti American attitude you are not wanted or needed here. You would do much better in Cuba. When you arrive back in Havana be sure to be wearing your best Che T-shirt.
True. Fidel was of the hispanic culture, a true hispanic leader. Even speaks their language.
But this shows how much "fight" is in the immigrants pouring into the USA (wetfoot or dryfoot), even those who don't like Fidel won't stand up to him -- and Fidel can barely stand if he can stand at all. They aren't going to fight oppression. Not as long as it's easy to run to the USA (and the US dollars).
We do not want to assimilate.
Cubans in Miami have a choice.
The US culture has plenty of negative aspects that should not be assimilated.
What are you going to do about it chicagonut?
This is a free country.
I do not have to assimilate if I do not want to.
But you could try and *make* me assimilate.
I'd love to see you come down here and try that
You dont get it do you? Our rep is bad now cause of the illegal aliens and La Raza. If you dont wanna play by OUR rules, there are bout 20 Spanish speakin countrys who would love you. I guessing your Hispanic?
Quite so. I brought this up in an earlier thread, but if just 1% of the Latino illegals actually took to the streets in an insurrection, that would amount to a force of at least 100,000. Add to that thousands more US citizen Hispanic sympathizers, plus several thousand more gang bangers that would join in to loot, and that would be a force to be reckoned with, perhaps as many as a quarter of a million. Unlikely to happen, but not impossible either. If such a thing ever did happen, they would be crushed, first by armed citizens, and then by troops, but they would inflict a great loss of life and property before being defeated. What the hotheads rattling the sabers have failed to plan for are the logistics of a successful insurrection. A sustained campaign requires a constant reliable source of food, water, ammunition, transport, medical care, etc. Looting a few stores and warehouses along the way is not going to do it, but these jerks have not thought of that.
Im real worried bout Hispanics who hate the reconquista being caught in the middle IF what you say happens. La Raza on 1 side and crazy KKK types on the other who are blind to reason.
Im real worried bout Hispanics who hate the reconquista being caught in the middle IF what you say happens. La Raza on 1 side and crazy KKK types on the other who are blind to reason.
They will be like the tejanos of the Texas Revolution.
Or no different than the Americans of German ancestry who fought the Nazis in WWII.
It certainly changes your continual racist arguments for unlimited illegal immigration. And also the fact that "hispanic" isn't a race at all.
lol
my racist arguments for immigration?
lol
"it's not a race." People who say this are like 99% to be racists. Hint: even if it's NOT A RACE the behavior we're talking about is still incredibly bigoted. But hey, hispanic isn't a race so we can do whatever we want to them, right?
"it's not a race." People who say this are like 99% to be racists. Hint: even if it's NOT A RACE the behavior we're talking about is still incredibly bigoted. But hey, hispanic isn't a race so we can do whatever we want to them, right?
You are a racist if you're insisting on having unlimited immigration from only certain countries with certain races and cultures but not all.
If you aren't demanding to have unlimited immigration from Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and the rest of Africa, Haiti, Jamaica but want unlimited immigration from non-black nations, then I think you need to take a good look at yourself.
And even more important -- when will Mexico and countries like it invite millions of poor inner city black Americans in and give them the good life and when is La Raza going to try to get a little "diversity" back home?
True. Fidel was of the hispanic culture, a true hispanic leader. Even speaks their language.
But this shows how much "fight" is in the immigrants pouring into the USA (wetfoot or dryfoot), even those who don't like Fidel won't stand up to him -- and Fidel can barely stand if he can stand at all. They aren't going to fight oppression. Not as long as it's easy to run to the USA (and the US dollars).
Compared to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Fidel Castro is also white. Pancho Villa was probably classified as white back in those times, there wasn't a "hispanic" race until recently. Back then there were 3 races, Negro, Caucasian, Mongoloid so if Pancho Villa would have had to check a box, he would have checked Caucasian.
Hispanic as a separate race didn't happen until the 70's, so now he would have to check that box.
Why are these discussions always falling back to race?...
Why are these discussions always falling back to race?...
That post was from sometime back -- are you stalking me or something?
I think a lot has to do with La Raza being involved in illegal immigration arguments, La Raza means The Race.
I wasn't wrong though - Fidel Castro is white as far as I can tell. Race is just an arbitrary classification for the most part -- but don't tell La Raza that.
But also, those who are for open borders don't seem to want them open two -ways. Why aren't our inner city types and rural poor being invited to go to these other countries, why is the door only a one-way deal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.