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: nealm who wrote (5984)	5/23/2000 2:51:00 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

"I thought only Texas was formally part of Mexico (California and Sante Fe were under the Spanish missionary system?)" At the time of the first anglos settling in Texas it was all Nueva Espa¤a, the entity M‚xico began with Iturbide in 1821 ... there were administrative differences in the regions, yes, but a case for the anglo invasion cannot be built on this ... those were turbulent times, and the word 'formally' hardly applies imho. "These same anglos were the same people who were earlier invited to settle in Texas by the Mexicans" Some of them had been invited by the peninsulares, the spanish, and then some few by early mexicano governments, yes. But they did not live up to the terms of the land grants they had signed, or to other terms of citizenship, like obeying the laws and paying taxes. Many others came who were most definitely not invited. In any case, the 'Texas' of the time to which those land grants applied extended southerly only to the r¡o Nueces, not to the r¡o Bravo, and not near as far west as the current US state of Texas. No case can be made from either the 'invitation' or the breached contracts of the grants. "Additionaly the United States of Mexico hasn't exactly been a model of freedom and brotherhood. The Mexican federales didn't get control until well into the 20th century." True on both counts. M‚xico was sparsely populated in those days, only four millions i believe in 1821 [only fourteen millions a hundred years later], and had continuous heavy debt which was both a cause and effect of the various wars within it and upon it ... the country was weak, no question, weaker than the anglo pressure from the north, certainly. To make a case for the theft of territory based on this is to express the right of conquest. "Borders are political artifacts." - that was my point in the post to Karen. "I suspect that many hispanics in the southwest are more tired of being trampled on in their own country (the USA) than following the will of the Mexican government." Definitely. The devil they know. The abuses against hispanos in the US are well-known. "As far that criminal Castro, he should consider returning the Republic of Cuba back to it's people instead of speculating on the fate of a fictious "Aztlan"." What do you mean, 'back' to its people - Cuba has never known democracy, power over it went straight from the spanish to a succession of US puppet dictators to Castro. As for how 'fictious' is Aztlan, let's wait a hundred years and see.