Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (5971)	5/22/2000 5:07:00 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

That was just something that reminded me of earlier subjects of discussion. In one of those earlier discussions, the one about the vigilante ranchers, I got the impression that you don't consider the U.S. southern border to be undisputed. If so, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on what the implications are at this point in time. I can't stay, but I read this, so I will give my $0.02 I do not believe there are any present disputes. However from the "practical life" (I guess, " a la Montessori" g). There seems to be an "invassion" from the Mexican side, since increasing Mexican (and hispanic), populations makes it so. For example most of the adjacent states the Spanish language is very prevalent, in areas, indeed it is dominant (even in areas of Chicago). In addition, the convenience of having Mexican workers perform certain jobs, agricultural, landscaping, and domestic is practically 100 % Mexican. (even as north as the Yakima valley in Washington state --great wines by the way). This together with... 1. Higher birth rates amongst Mexicanos. 2. In time, larger representation in the socio-politico-ecnomical spectrums, are a given. Then... Who cares about "formal" border disputes, practical life will make it a form of "clash of cultures" since the influence from the increasingly Mexican nationals will "shape" [somehow] the future of these states. Is it the beginning of the end for borders as we know them ? Later

To: Lane3 who wrote (5971)	5/22/2000 9:50:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

Well, whew ... good thing i didn't use 'that' and 'which' .. i might not have used which one that fit good eh -g- In using 'undisputed borders' there, i was thinking partly about the contrast between Switzerland and a hundred other places whose borders are disputed - Yugoslavia, Ireland, Indonesia, most of Africa, various parts of the old russian empire, etc ... most all of them as a result of imperial powers lumping together disparate tribes into administrative units which then gained the status of 'countries' ... Sierra Leone being a current example, it was established by the brits in the 1780s as a haven for ex-slaves they had freed in the rest of Africa, and the hinterland was lumped in with the Freetown peninsula on 'independence' ... much of the roots of the current troubles are tribal in origin, not political [although of course the diamonds overwhelm everything, bad example maybe, i'm typing in a hurry, but you know what i mean eh] Also i meant it in the larger context - for Amerika The Machine there are no borders on the planet, no place where the vital interests of the empire are beyond consideration, should a situation lucrative enough or threatening enough or useful enough present itself. But you mean the physical borders of the continental states, and you're likely referring to my reference to Aztlan, eh ... to answer your question specifically - No, i don't think the border is in dispute, however; It is a fact that half of M‚xico is under the occupation of the US, and has been since it was invaded and conquered in the 1840s. Since Article VIII of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was abrogated in the violation of murder and robbery against mexicanos in the occupied territory, it can be argued, and in fact is by some, that the treaty is invalid ... breach of contract, and all that ... this is added on top of the fact that this specific piece of paper was signed under duress by Santa Anna [not the most respected presidente] at a time when the anglos were taking maximum advantage of the weakness of M‚xico in her struggle for independence, which [lo cual, hope i'm using that 'which' right-g-] had been inspired by the recent revolucion of those same anglos in parting with the british Crown. As notable a personage as Fidel Castro Ruz says that the US should return Aztlan back to M‚xico - aztlan.net ;-) Seriously, the myths americans are fed about how they acquired their territory are amusing to those from the other side ... and not a little sickening at times ... the whole Davy Crockett, Alamo thing presented in John Wayne style ... it was conquest, plain and simple, just like that of Genghis Khan or the Panzers rolling through Paris ... accompanied with propaganda of fine words of Liberty and Justice, but still conquest ... Mao had a point - 'From the barrel of a gun'. Some Aztlan links - aztlan.net aztlan.org northcoast.com .. put 'aztlan' into altavista, you get lots The mexicas themselves [the name 'azteca' is of anglo, and recent, origin] were recent conquerors in Mesoam‚rica, someone will inevitably bring this up -g- ... still, mexicanos are largely indians, and this bunch making a sport of shooting them on the 'border' is just playing an anachronistic game of Cowboys 'n Injuns with real blood.