Christianity ruins families.

[David Floyd]

Neuvo Mexico had very ill-defined borders. I'm currently researching how the Compromise of 1850 defined the California eastern border. It doesn't line up with Alta California as defined in the Mexican constitution of 1826.

All of which has very little to do with the origins of the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848.

[giblets]

They were also descendents of the French, and the native americans.

They bought the lands fair and square from the colonial powers of the day. The conquests cannot be laid at the feet of Americans, but rather, the French, Spanish, Dutch, and the British.

No, they did not. The atrocities which decimated the Native American population came long before the United States of America had been formed.

There were some, yes. Some preferred to be British subjects than subject to the Americans. This is what happened to the Sioux who tried to flee to Canada and to asylum. The Europeans didn't 'pretend' to own, they exercised their claims.

Texas was not taken by force. Texas rebelled against Mexico and Mexico attempted to take Texas by force. This triggered the entire war with Mexico, when the US stepped in to defend Texas.

It was only after the war was over that Texas agreed to become part of the US, selling their lands outside of what we now understand to be Texas (parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma to the federal government in exchange for the assumption of Texas debts.

Mexico ceded what were then, thinly populated territories that didn't have full status as provinces in Mexico, their territories of Alta California and Neuvo Mexico. Texas became independent.

They weren't established by force and conquest. America was established by the fair purchase of territories from Britain, Spain, and France.

Native Americans still had de facto control of most of the lands that the Europeans claimed to own. It's not like the French were in control of the great plains. And what was controlled by Europeans had been taken by force, so how, exactly, did the British, Spanish, and French have the right to sell it? Can I kill you and take your stuff because I paid someone else for it? If Asher claimed to own your possessions, giving him $100 for them would make them mine? That's retarded.

And rebelling is taking something by force. If Mexico was trying to take Texas by force, then the US took the entire confederacy by force... you're not exactly helping your case there.

Sheesh, by your logic the Seljuk Turks didn't take the holy land from Christians, so Christians had no right to take it from them. Self-defeating arguments ftw!

[Ben Kenobi]

1) While we made purchases of land from European powers, Native Ameriacans living in those lands believed they were rightful occupiers of their ancestral lands. To say that we simply purchased land from European powers distorts history by implicating that the lands were vacant of native inhabitants.

What this means is that the French/British/Spanish/Russians were the conquerers, not the Americans, who purchased the land.

2) Hawaii "accepted" annexation after U.S. Marines bullied the Hawaiian native monarchy to capitulate under pressure.

Hawaiians themselves when they had the vote overwhelmingly voted to become a US state. They were given the option to leave, and unlike Puerto Rico, chose not only to stay, but to adopt closer relations.

3) Mexico had gained independence from Spain and then later, the United States declared war on Mexico to take away half or more of its territory, vilating Mexico's sovreignty.

The questions you raise about the US also apply to Mexico. Mexico was a colony of Spain, just as the US was a colony of Britain. They won their independence in the same way. Alta California and Neuvo Mexico had territorial status under the Mexican constitution, meaning that they were too thinly populated to be considered a true province. This is different from Coahila y Texas, which broke away, with Coahila losing, but Texas succeeding.

4) Filipinos fought with American forces in the Phillipines with belief that the United States would allow them complete independence. Then during the war, the American forces betrayed this trust and made it known that Americans were there to stay. When that happened, not suprisingly, Filipino guerrillas turned on the American forces.

And they are now fully independent. Same as with Cuba. Puerto Rico has been offered a choice of leaving or staying, and have voted to stay.

In terms of conquest, the Americans have never conquered any territory from the native inhabitants, only from colonial intermediaries.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're misdirecting again. You claimed that the US liberated the Native Americans. I pointed out that most Native Americans would likely disagree. You responded with the above. Huh?

Most native americans want the best of both worlds. They want to have all the protections of american laws, but none of the responsibilities. Some are happy to be Americans, and consider themselves to be American more than anything else.

Native americans are just like the rest of us, David. They are not a monolith.

[David Floyd]

That is disingenuously true, but it's also true that the Americans did a pretty good job of putting down the Native Americans in lands they purchased or annexed. See, e.g., the Seminoles in Florida.

Note that I also think that the world as a whole and the Native Americans themselves are far better off today because of the United States than they would be without the United States. You are just making a ridiculous argument.

[David Floyd]

Most native americans want the best of both worlds. They want to have all the protections of american laws, but none of the responsibilities. Some are happy to be Americans, and consider themselves to be American more than anything else.

Native americans are just like the rest of us, David. They are not a monolith.

More misdirection. Now you are talking about Native Americans in 2010. Before, you were talking about Native Americans you claim to have been liberated by the United States. I agree that we shouldn't federally subsidize Indian reservations, but to say that AT THE TIME, the Native Americans viewed the US as a liberating nation is preposterous.

[rah]

What this means is that the French/British/Spanish/Russians were the conquerers, not the Americans, who purchased the land.

Since we were the one that cleared out/killed all the annoying squatters, I think we qualify as the conquerers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Native Americans still had de facto control of most of the lands that the Europeans claimed to own.

Pretty broad statement. Not by the time when the Americans purchased it. This wasn't the case in Oregon. Nor was it the case in the North West, where the British had owned and controlled the Ohio valley for a considerable period. Louisiana is a bit of a special case. It was owned by Spain prior to sale to France.

And what was controlled by Europeans had been taken by force, so how, exactly, did the British, Spanish, and French have the right to sell it? Can I kill you and take your stuff because I paid someone else for it? If Asher claimed to own your possessions, giving him $100 for them would make them mine? That's retarded.

Would you be arrested for theft because you purchased these goods? No. Asher is the one responsible. This is all I am arguing.

And rebelling is taking something by force. If Mexico was trying to take Texas by force, then the US took the entire confederacy by force... you're not exactly helping your case there.

Rebelling is not the same as taking a land by force. Rebelling implies that the inhabitants of the area rebel against their colonial powers. Britain owned the 13 colonies.

Sheesh, by your logic the Seljuk Turks didn't take the holy land from Christians, so Christians had no right to take it from them. Self-defeating arguments ftw!

Except that they took Constantinople. The argument would have more merit if the Seljuks were Allied with the Christians, but that's not the case. Same with the Ottomans.

[Ben Kenobi]

Since we were the one that cleared out/killed all the annoying squatters, I think we qualify as the conquerers.

I think the Spanish beat you to that.

[David Floyd]

If the Spanish beat us to it, why did the US Army have to pacify the region?

[rah]

I think the Spanish beat you to that.

What, you think we didn't kill any squatters? Of round them up and put them on reservations? (all the ****ty land)

[Ben Kenobi]

AT THE TIME, the Native Americans viewed the US as a liberating nation is preposterous.

They didn't. Neither did they view the Spanish, the French, the Russians, or the British as liberators.

And definitely not each other.

All I am arguing is that many preferred the US to each other, or to the Spanish, French and Russians. Enough so that they were willing to fight for America.

[Ben Kenobi]

What, you think we didn't kill any squatters? Of round them up and put them on reservations? (all the ****ty land)

No, but smallpox from the Spanish killed 90 percent of them. So if your argument is that you cleared out most of the Natives, I'd have to disagree.

[giblets]

Ben should shut up about subjects he doesn't know anything about.
This would be a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

Spoiler:

[MrFun]

What this means is that the French/British/Spanish/Russians were the conquerers, not the Americans, who purchased the land.



Hawaiians themselves when they had the vote overwhelmingly voted to become a US state. They were given the option to leave, and unlike Puerto Rico, chose not only to stay, but to adopt closer relations.



The questions you raise about the US also apply to Mexico. Mexico was a colony of Spain, just as the US was a colony of Britain. They won their independence in the same way. Alta California and Neuvo Mexico had territorial status under the Mexican constitution, meaning that they were too thinly populated to be considered a true province. This is different from Coahila y Texas, which broke away, with Coahila losing, but Texas succeeding.



And they are now fully independent. Same as with Cuba. Puerto Rico has been offered a choice of leaving or staying, and have voted to stay.

In terms of conquest, the Americans have never conquered any territory from the native inhabitants, only from colonial intermediaries.

I'm talking about Hawaii as a new territory in 1890s, you idiot; not when they voted to become the fiftieth state in mid-twentieth century. What happened in 1890s was U.S. Marines forced the Hawaiian monarchy to "accept" U.S. annexation as a territory. The fact that they gained independence only decades later is beside the point.

The Europeans were the first conquerors of Native Americans, and then later, Americans (of European descent) became the second conquerors of Native Americans. What were the nineteenth century wars and conflicts between Native Americans and U.S. settlers and military forces about?

**** it - you're hopeless.