Christianity ruins families.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Robert]

SUMMARY:

Religion advises you to to good things, not out of desire to do good but out of fear to look bad in front of the reverred diety...

Seems like a social construct to me...

Not in front of the reverred deity, but in front of the Father who I love.
Not to mentin that I was describing the difference with Islam.
I'm glad that you read my post though

[David Floyd]

I live in the only North American jurisdiction that did not make settlement with the natives. The result has been natives squabbling amongst themselves for overlapping claims amounting to 126 percent of the total territory of British Columbia.

We seem to have this image that 'natives' were all unified. Intertribal wars were far more brutal. Yes, Natives had their land stolen and were killed. Now they have their rights upheld in the common law courts.

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?

[Ben Kenobi]

Not quite. Texas won independence with little if any external American military or political aid. Texas was independent from 1836-1846, at which point it requested and received annexation by the United States. The Mexican War was prompted in part by a border dispute between Mexico and the US. Mexico thought the Texas border was the Rio Verde, while the US maintained it was the Rio Grande.

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.

[MrFun]

Well lets see.

13 colonies. Revolted from Great Britain. Awarded to the US in Treaty of Paris.

Florida, purchased from Spain.

North West territory, purchased from Great Britain.

Louisiana Purchase, purchased from France.

Oregon territory, purchased from the United Kingdom.

Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, Awarded Alta California, and Neuvo Mexico from Mexico, a former colony of Spain.

Texas, accepted annexation into the United States.

Gadsden Purchase, from Mexico.

Alaska Purchase, from Russia

Hawaii, accepted annexation into the United States.

Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, annexed from Spain.

I'm not seeing any conquests from Native Americans. Just other Europeans. Seeing as native americans are americans, is this not a liberation?

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. And Native Americans were NOT Americans in that they were not considered citizens of United States.

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

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, violating Mexico's sovreignty.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Somehow I think the Native Americans might disagree a bit with you on that point

I live in the only North American jurisdiction that did not make settlement with the natives. The result has been natives squabbling amongst themselves for overlapping claims amounting to 126 percent of the total territory of British Columbia.

We seem to have this image that 'natives' were all unified. Intertribal wars were far more brutal. Yes, Natives had their land stolen and were killed. Now they have their rights upheld in the common law courts.

[rah]

The BENVERSE is just so entertaining.

[David Floyd]

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.

Not quite. Texas won independence with little if any external American military or political aid. Texas was independent from 1836-1846, at which point it requested and received annexation by the United States. The Mexican War was prompted in part by a border dispute between Mexico and the US. Mexico thought the Texas border was the Rio Verde, while the US maintained it was the Rio Grande. This was mostly an excuse, though - James Polk wanted a land grabbing war, and he got one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you being serious with this?

Did they have voting privileges under Britain, Spain or France?

[Ben Kenobi]

Americans were descendants of the english, german, dutch, etc. settlers who stole the lands of the 13 colonies from the natives.

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

Then they purchased lands from europeans who had taken them by force, in other words they bought stolen goods.

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.

Americans committed atrocious genocidal acts and forcibly removed natives from their ancestral lands

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

because there were still natives living on most of the lands that Europeans pretended to own.

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 and the rest of the American southwest was taken from Mexico by force

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.

If you don't accept that the US was built by conquest you are either being dishonest or ignorant.

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

[MrFun]

I'm not seeing any conquests from Native Americans. Just other Europeans. Seeing as native americans are americans, is this not a liberation?

Are you being serious with this?

[David Floyd]

I'm not seeing any conquests from Native Americans. Just other Europeans. Seeing as native americans are americans, is this not a liberation?

Somehow I think the Native Americans might disagree a bit with you on that point

[rah]

The victors write the history books.
Do you really believe that no NATIVE Americans were killed or had their land stolen from them?