when Mexicans become the dominant group in the USA will both countries merge or will it be Argentina/Urugay, Russia/Belarus type affair?
El Salvador mentioned!
>>62219158
>Argentina/Urugay
what
>>62219158
No, chicanos will annex northern mexico and genocide real Mexicans
>>62219294
Hungrarian education
>>62219158
>southwest usa was only mexican for about 30 years
>mu-muh stolen lands!
>>62222318
That's like saying Canada has only existed since 1982, New Spain=Mexico
>>62219295
The hell they will, we'll just call the narcos to deal with the wannabe gangstas
>>62219158
Latins who don't become ghettoized into niggers integrate into American nut society, just look at Cruz or Rubio, either way they integrate and become their problem
>>62222318
>>62222872
>New Spain=Mexico
I don't know why they never get this. Southwest USA was part of Mexico/New Spain for 300 years before those 30 years.
At this point it doesn't really matter since those places haven't been Mexican for more than 150 years, but saying "i-it was only Mexican for 30 years" is fucking retarded.
>>62219340
>Peruvian education
>>62219294
Argentina and Uruguay have the same culture and same accent m8
>>62223382
The SW was never "Mexican" and no Mexicans even lived there. In 1848, there were only 7 million Mexicans and over 80% of them lived in the Aztec heartland.
I look at the map of California and Texas and I don't see any Nahuatl place names, do you?
>>62222872
Cruz and Rubio are Cubans though, not Mexicans.
>>62228916
>Nahuatl
Mexicans speak spanish, you fucking idiot. Even the minority that speaks nahuatl speak spanish as a second or primary language.
How many places are in Spanish?
Mexico is a continuation of New Spain, you dense fat fuck, not of the Mexica empire. Get it through your grease skull.
>>62229372
Oh right, you're the "Mexico is white" troll. Never mind. It took me a few moments to realize who I was replying to.
>>62229480
No, Mexico is not white, neither was New Spain. It's literally the same thing except with a different name. Stop replying to me with retarded bullshit, cunt.
You know it's funny because Central America was also part of New Spain but I never hear Aztlan/La Raza idiots wanting Guatemala back.
>>62219158
The US decline from all this low IQ meszito blood is going to be hilarious
There's a reason the Anglo colonies were successful
Didn't the Aztecs get btfo by another Mexican tribe to the west?
>>62229618
Aztlan/La Raza chicanos =//= the average Mexican. Hell they aren't even the average chicano.
If everything you are going to post are memes because you never get out of your house, the save us a lot of time and stop posting.
Anyway, the SW in 1848 was nothing but a wilderness full of Indian tribes and a few Spanish settlers all of whom were attempting to secede from Mexico because it couldn't govern its northern territories or provide any defense from Apache raids.
In fact, shit, half of Mexico's states were trying to secede during the war.
>>62229734
>Aztlan/La Raza chicanos =//= the average Mexican
Never said they were.
>>62229618
>American education
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captaincy_General_of_Guatemala
Spain owned the Southwest for 300 years, the US 160+ years, and Mexico 29 years. I'd say of the three, they have the weakest claim on it.
>>62229744
The south wasn't american then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
To this day there are still separatist movements in fucking Texas.
Shit argument.
>>62229734
Don't mix me with those "la raza" commie faggots
I like big American titties.
>>62229824
New Spain, aka Mexico, owned the Southwest for 300 years*
>>62229794
See here. At independence in 1821, Mexico comprised everything from Panama up to Oregon. Yet you never see La Raza asking for Guatemala and Honduras back.
>>62229883
Nobody in this thread is asking for anything back. And yes, they also used to be Mexico.
>>62229867
No sorry Paco, try as you might, you cannot into whiteness for as many years as you've been on /int/ claiming Mexicans are Aryan.
>>62229883
They joined Mexico after their own separate independence, then left to form their own country, United Provinces of Central America
>>62229977
It's easy to win an argument when the argument you attack is not the one being made by the other person.
>>62219158
I don't see how Mexicans could become the dominant group.
Even if population trends don't change, it would take about a century for 15% to become a plurality
>>62219158
Majority will integrate, the rest will continue to live in their containment zones
At least they're not niggers
>>62229986
Right...all the same, that was once technically part of Mexico as well but Chicano activists don't want that back because [spoiler]it's totally impoverished shitholes[/spoiler]
Also if you didn't know, this taco nigger in here is a longtime troll in here who's been spamming for years that Mexico is white and Aryan as he posts Photoshopped pics of the lightest-skinned Mexican girls he can find.
>>62230188
Actually, you are the idiot who always spams pics like these >>62229977 with those cringy filenames all the time.
"Mexico is white Mexican" is not here.
usa can actually integrate immigrants and make them feel very patriotic unless many europeans nations, i don't think it will be a problem
>>62230343
we can integrate immigrants but not niggers because niggers weren't normal immigrants. african-americans are going to be ultra-violent dumb animals even 500 years into the future. they'll never improve.
>>62230343
you do realise that 3 policemen were shot by a man in a 50% black city today right?
they can't even integrate their niggers
>>62230446
>they can't even integrate their niggers
Because niggers aren't people
Fun fact: Beaners were a principle component in winning both of George W. Bush's elections. he got 30% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and up to 40% in 2004.
>>62230478
We like Bush, here he is with our president back then
>>62228916
Actaully there are quite a few places with original Nahuatl names, many got changed... Like this guys says >>62229372 Mexicans speak Spanish and that was the main language they used naming places, it's the reason there aren't that many English names in the American Southwest...
>>62229480
I'm not that guy either but under the terms of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty all Mexicans in the region were to be considered white, the overwhelming majority of Mexicans do have European ancestry (that's what mestizo means) and it is the majority of the genome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicans#European_Mexicans at least we don't have black blood like American "whites"
>>62230536
>Bush is shorter than a Mexican
JUST
>>62230536
>tfw Dubya will never be able to improve the US's relations with foreign leaders again
>>62230478
>Fun fact: Beaners were a principle component in winning both of George W. Bush's elections. he got 30% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and up to 40% in 2004.
>30-40% of the spic vote is considered a smashing victory by cuckservatives
lmao
>>62230547
>La Raza stooge not even trying to hide it anymore
>>62230446
damn, heared about that...sad, though not surprising at all, it seems it happens all the time now
>New Zealand ANTIFA shows up
:^)
>>62230678
La raza is ghettoized Mexican-Americans living in your country, that's your culture, not mine, I dare you to find any political party or significant figure in Mexico that supports La Raza tripe, man I'd fucking pay not to have Texas back, you can keep your hellholes
>>62230780
we have plenty of degenerates though...but yeah, there are none supporting those pricks, as far as i know of course.
>>62230780
>La raza is ghettoized Mexican-Americans living in your country
Not even that it's mostly a couple of leftist college students in California. All of course actively supported by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros.
>>62230888
>All of course actively supported by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros.
I'm going to need some sources for that friend
>>62230731
>New Zealand ANTIFA
???
You do know that a lot of the "Hispanics are natural conservatives" rhetoric comes from Bush winning less than a third of the Hispanic vote, right?
>>62230986
I've seen you before, troll.
>>62230940
https://capitalresearch.org/2015/02/la-razas-growing-influence-gaining-clout-and-tax-dollars-in-all-branches-of-government/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/06/nclr-funding-skyrockets-after-obama-hires-its-vp/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apWSl2oQAL0
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/13/hillary-to-trump-in-la-raza-speech-basta-enough/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/10/26/soros-has-donated-more-than-100m-to-immigrant-rights-groups/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/the-white-house-and-soros-backed-open-borders-group-strategize-about-bribing-immigrants-to-naturalize-before-2016/
>>62231312
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center
>Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, DC
>>notorious for misrepresenting the arguments of political opponents
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch
>Judicial Watch is an American conservative watchdog organization
>>notorious for misrepresenting the arguments of political opponents
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller
>The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[2][3] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.
>>notorious for misrepresenting the arguments of political opponents
>Breitbart.com
Not even touching this one senpai. Breitbart are almost as bad as the stormweenies
Try again, this time with non meme sources
>>62230583
>>62230597
Here he is with your first black president
>>62231993
And with your most important politician
>>62231737
Ah yes, the old "I can't attack the message so I'll attack the messenger" fallacy. :^)
with his successor
ISIS is a pussyfart compared to what the Americans will do if that happened.
>>62230657
It really is since it's supposed to be a "safe" demographic for Democrats. It'd be like 40% of evangelicals voting Shillary.
>>62232173
shit, that motherfucker sure was short as fuck
>>62232476
It was. Beaners have been a solidly Democrat bloc since 1960, the first election where reliable surveys about it were done.
>>62228707
>same accent
You're wrong
>>62230478
Trump is going to carry them and the black vote too, it seems. Hillary doesn't poll well with anyone but white women over 55.
>>62232626
This. The only parts that share a "similar" accent are Buenos Aires and Montevideo.
>>62232683
Why do you need to lie ?
Black people love Shillary, Chicanos are for her too
>>62232545
>>62232794
>Chicanos are for her too
Yeah...we already established what leftist political groups like La Raza stand for.
>>62232794
holy fucking shit... if things don't get worst we're gonna end up having a dwarf...god make it stop nooo :(, the fuckers shrinks with each passing sexenio
>chicanos thinking
those dipshits have no idea how harmful he would be for everyone. More slavery here and burgerland even more screwed up (though when chatting with soem of them it is clear that some of them don't give a shit turning another country into a hellhole due to the aerage mindset they've got).
>>62233021
*she
>>62233021
Short presidents seem to be our destiny from now on
>>62233021
You're absolutely retard of you think Trump is going to benefit Mexico in any way more than Hillary. He's literally the America first candidate, and this means taking back all those jobs we took to Mexico and after the wall goes up you won't even be able to sell drugs anymore. Mexico will literally be an Africa tier shithole with stupid spics dying from starvation and begging for international hand outs.
>>62233088
ruled by fucking corrupt dwarves (and in our case it's even worse because he seems taller for the fucking kilogram of hair gel he uses daily)...why, lord, why?
>>62233261
>implying it won't end up like that any time soon
>implying becoming small version of china with low as fuck wage jobs and unemployment due to TPP shipping off jobs to vietnam, where they're already slaves, is good
such a thing is inevitable: quick death or slow and painful death...
>>62232794
>Black people love Shillary
If you think Hillary is going to get 50% of the black turnout Obama got, you're way off.
>>62233261
>>62233434
You two might be the most autistic fucks on /int/.
Wetback immigration has been hard on blacks in particular since it steals low wage jobs they've historically depended on.
>>62233764
They've never worked though, those jobs were Italian, Irish and Chinese
Isn't construction in some states still Italian dominated ?
Less so in Texas and California
>>62233928
>Isn't construction in some states still Italian dominated ?
Is this the 1950s?
>>62233764
WE WUZ PRODUCTIVE N SHIIIETTT
>>62234069
I don't know, I just watched the Sopranos and they did some construction stuff
>>62219158
Central America is a meme and has the worst crime, Mexico should just go 3rd Imperio using every major cartel as the banks and local guerilla training and take everything up until Colombia and build a wall there
Literally all their problems are from being between North and South America, if a wall is going to be built on the North, good, now they need to control everything in-between North and South
>>62233261
No, Mexico will not be Africa, we weren't back when we did next to zero international trade other than oil, we might go through a bad period but in all likely hood it isn't likely to get as bad as in Venezuela right now, so we'll do luxury items for the Chinese and cheap parts/assemblies (we do have a EU treaty with the EU) and we'll sell our produce to Japan (also an FTA) for something less than we were getting from the Americans but we will survive alright. Many of us we'll be pushing with military allaince with the Russians and it WILL happen eventually if Trump pulls the half shit he's talked about doing. Meanwhile no jobs will return to America and the world will despise you for having started a global economic crisis on muh entitlements, because the simple economic fact is half the shit Trump wants to do is pipedream impractical and it isn't just my opinion, it's about every economist with a reputation, Wall Street and the boards of every large multi-national. We can endure poverty a lot better than you can even if it might be tough on our millenials, you? The last generation of Americans who endured any hardship is dying off as we speak, your boomers have barely any idea what real poverty even looks like... It would be almost worth it to see Trump get elected just to see dumb fucks like you swallow their own tears... But fortunately it's very unlikely that will happen, Clinton will get elected and you'll be all made to check your privilige by BLM and I'll be here every step of the way laughing at you...
>>62228916
>Texas
Is its own nation, both Mexico and USA treated it as such, and it most definitely had Mexicans
>>62235193
>it isn't just my opinion, it's about every economist with a reputation, Wall Street and the boards of every large multi-national
Don't bother arguing, to them it's always "da joos keeping the white man down".
>>62235237
>and it most definitely had Mexicans
In 1848? Hell no it didn't. Mexico actually invited white settlers there in the first place because it was an empty wilderness with nothing but Indian tribes in it. Like I said, almost all of the Mexican population back then lived in the old Aztec heartland.
>>62235237
Mexico never acknowledged that joke "republic" of Texas, it wasn't any different than if we had jumped in during your civil war and annexed your confederate states.
>>62235193
Maybe if he gets elected we finally rebuild our agricultural industry.
It would hurt them real bad, who'd buy all their product ?
>>62235305
>The colonization period of 1821–35 brought many settlers; the population was estimated at 20,000 in 1831. In 1834 Juan N. Almonte, after a visit to Texas, placed the population at 24,700, including slaves. In 1836 there were probably 5,000 blacks, 30,000 Anglo-Americans, 3,470 Hispanics, and 14,200 Indians in Texas.
>>62235345
>it wasn't any different than if we had jumped in during your civil war and annexed your confederate states
Wait, how were you going to do that when you were engaged in a civil war yourself against French imperialists back then?
>>62235415
Yes there were a few Spanish settlers around Albuquerque and Los Angeles but there were maybe a few thousand of those and they were also in a state of rebellion against Mexico because it could not protect them from Indian raids. Also again, those people were purely of European descent with no cultural or racial connections to Aztec/Mixtec/whatever.
>>62235305
There were Tejanos, they became very tragic figures in our 19th century, loyal Mexicans who had lost their land. Obviously they died out eventually and with them any claim that Mexico could have had to Texas, The territory was sparsely populñated but there were Tejanos, some even became joined the Traitors...
>>62235193
>It would be almost worth it to see Trump get elected just to see dumb fucks like you swallow their own tears
This is the only reason I would like him to win.
"Following the US annexation of Nueva Mexico, locals were granted US citizenship. Most accepted, a handful did not and moved south to Mexico."
>>62235570
Who are you quoting?
>>62235496
Ironic considering most of them wanted nothing to do with Mexico which was essentially a failed state back then.
>>62235345
>joke Republic
Mexico literally went to war over Texas joining USA
Doesn't seem like such a joke, looks like salt to me
>>62219158
>implying the Mexicans won't assimilate into American communities and adopt local values
Just look at the Tejanos.
>>62235790
And Texas went running to the US afraid of Mexico.
>whine about right to have slaves
>revolt and act like apes
>get shit kicked in
>daddy USA steps in
>few years of "Texas Republic"
>join USA because Mexico is coming
It's a joke republic
>>62235415
If there wer slaves they were illegal, slavery was abolished in Mexico in 1821... Ofc going into US politics it was Southern slavers who were the most interested in expansion and part of that was political power in Washington as more slaver states aided their political cause.
>>62235425
I didn't mean that literally, but for argument's sake let's say Maximillian and Juarez reached an greement (they were both liberals in the end) Napoleon III's troops could have been used to reclaim the lost territory... Now this would have violated treaty between Mexico and the US and be considered contrary to international law, exactly the same as the American annexation of Texas and other Mexican territory, why do you think the US went through so much trouble trying to whitewash it as a "purchase" mind you they were very clear in that they were not paying for Texas but in the end it was a whole package deal. Now Americans may consider it honorable to invade a man's home put a gun to his wife and children and force him to "sell" his property but most persons with anything resembling decency consider that theft. What happened is a fact of history and today we acknowledge that land as yours but don't try to sugarcoat it. The US was a country of 20 million while Mexico was barely close to 8, as Steinbeck wrote in the early 20th century the best right the Americans had was that they were many and in need while the Mexicans were few and wealthy. I wonder what he would say today...
>>62235829
Not even remotely comparable but putting that aside, Mexico's birthrate _is_ dropping off considerably so they soon won't have much surplus population to export.
>>62235700
>Ironic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Declaration_of_Independence#Signatories
>Sixty men signed the Texas Declaration of Independence. Three of them were born in Mexico. Fifty-seven of the sixty moved to Texas from the United States. Ten of them had lived in Texas for more than six years, while one-quarter of them had been in the province for less than a year. This is significant, because it indicates that the majority of signatories had moved to Texas after the Law of April 6, 1830, banning immigration, had taken effect, meaning that the majority were legally citizens of the United States, occupying Texas illegally.
You couldn't have chosen a better word. Really, really fucking ironic considering the amount of illegal aliens among the separatists.
>>62235877
>Now this would have violated treaty between Mexico and the US and be considered contrary to international law, exactly the same as the American annexation of Texas and other Mexican territory, why do you think the US went through so much trouble trying to whitewash it as a "purchase" mind you they were very clear in that they were not paying for Texas but in the end it was a whole package deal. Now Americans may consider it honorable to invade a man's home put a gun to his wife and children and force him to "sell" his property but most persons with anything resembling decency consider that theft
Are you going to say that 19th century values were different from 21st century values? Shock.
Besides that, the real deal is that we were in a race with Britain to get California because they wanted it for themselves. So if we hadn't grabbed it, they would have in due time.
>>62235700
It was still considered the wealthiest nation on earth, the only reason you didn't annex the whole thing is because you knew you would never be able to assimilate us, still many Americans kept pushing for that, they considered it their destiny. In all fairness not all Americans were dishonorable, Lincoln as a congressman called it a crime, I'm pretty sure that's one speech republicans aren't too fond of quoting...
>>62235866
>In late 1839 France recognized the Republic of Texas after being convinced it would make a fine trading partner.
>In 1840, after years in which the Republic of Texas was neither annexed by the United States nor reabsorbed into Mexico, Britain signed a treaty to recognize the nation and act as a mediator to help Texas gain recognition from Mexico.
>Two months later, Mexico agreed to recognize the Republic of Texas as long as there was no annexation to the United States.[309] On July 4, 1845, Texans voted for annexation.[310] This prompted the Mexican–American War, in which Mexico lost almost 55 percent of its territory to the United States and formally relinquished its claim on Texas
It was literally 10 years old, and was on everyone's radar.
Literally the opposite of a joke, it was serious business back then, and even now.
>>62236032
>still many Americans kept pushing for that, they considered it their destiny
What? No they didn't. Most Americans back then did not want the entirety of Mexico at all, that was just pushed by a couple of Northeastern newspapers and some Irish communities who had a romantic notion that Mexicans were their co-religionists.
>>62219158
The only thing a dominant Mexican ethnic group would bring is closer relations with Mexico, which I'm not opposed to.
Hopefully in the future all of North America can unite to form a titanic state.
>>62236116
Some Southerners wanted to annex more of Mexico, but they wanted the land, not the people in it.
>>62235994
No, they wouldn't have, gold would have been found regardless and in 1849 there was fucking nothing the Brits could have done. The massive colonzation of that territory wouldn't have been all that different, cowboy culture was esntially Mexican and most American migrants didn't actually cross the continental US but shipped to Veracruz and then made it inland through Puebla, Mexico City and Guadalajara to Mazatlan in the Pacific where they shipped to San Francisco. California was colonized via mexico and the people we would have used would have likely had been very much the same european migrants...
But no, values, were not different, it was considered theft and treason back then it remains so today. What's another crime anmongst the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and white indentured servitude, nevermind balck slavery? Americans were considered uncivilized savages by most Europenas with an education back then for good reason. I know it runs contrary to your propaganda of a country founded on justice and freedom but those are the facts. You behaved even worse than the Australians and they got started as a prison colony...
>>62236116
The ones that wanted more were the Democrats, they wanted more land for slaves.
The US is a very evil country 2bh, poor blacks.
>>62236368
>But no, values, were not different, it was considered theft and treason back then it remains so today. What's another crime anmongst the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and white indentured servitude, nevermind balck slavery? Americans were considered uncivilized savages by most Europenas with an education back then for good reason. I know it runs contrary to your propaganda of a country founded on justice and freedom but those are the facts. You behaved even worse than the Australians and they got started as a prison colony...
You were doing ok until you completely lost it and fell back on your La Raza talking points.
>>62236116
Racists like Walt Whitman, yes the poet, hinted at ethnic cleansing for Mexico. Others, Herman melville comes to mind, thought Mexicans would be assimilated. It wasn't the Irish, who were poor and powerless anyway and some of whom BTW fought for our side on the Mexican American war, you may want to read up on your own history...
>you stole our land
>forgetting the Apache-Mexico wars
>forgetting the Comanche-Mexico wars
>forgetting you lost the Comanche Mexico war
>forgetting the Comanche pushing in Mexico's shit
>forgetting that mexico couldn't even pay their own people to go to Texas
>forgetting mexico gave Criminals a choice, go to jail or go to Texas
>forgetting they overwhelming chose jail
>forgetting the various revolts at the time
>forgetting the Zacatecas rebellions, the Republic of the Rio Grande and the Yucatan Republic
>forgetting that America is still bound by treaty to keep the Comanche out of mexico
>The Legislature of Chihuahua described the situation it faced in 1846. “We travel the roads…at their [i.e. the Comanches and Apaches] whim; we cultivate the land where they wish and in the amount they wish; we use sparingly things they have left to us until the moment that it strikes their appetite to take them for themselves.” The Comanche raids deep into Mexico created fear that the Comanche soon might even be seen "on the streets of Mexico City."Traveler Josiah Gregg said that “the whole country from New Mexico to the borders of Durango is almost entirely depopulated. The haciendas and ranchos have been mostly abandoned, and the people chiefly confined to the towns and cities.”When American troops invaded northern Mexico in 1846 they found a devastated landscape and a demoralized people. There was little resistance to the Americans. Some Mexicans in the north perhaps welcomed the US invasion with the hope that the U.S. would be more successful in fighting the “barbarians” than Mexican forces had been.
lol
>>62236613
Wow, I now believe America is perfect and what they did was justified.
>>62236427
Once again dumb fuck, I'm Mexican not a La Raza pocho... And where did I lie? Ad hominem aside how was any of what I said untrue? Even the Nazis of all people considered your treatment of blacks as brutal and that was quite some time after your civil war...
>>62236668
>Even the Nazis of all people considered your treatment of blacks as brutal
Not at all. Actually Hitler admired the Jim Crow system and the US conquest of Indians.
>>>/pol/
burgers should just be banned from /int/ masters of making ourselves giant asses
>>62236704
>>62236668
Hitler cared about USA history?
>>62236658
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
Article XI of the treaty was important to Mexico. It provided that the United States would prevent and punish raids by Indians into Mexico, prohibited Americans from acquiring property, including livestock, taken by the Indians in those raids, and stated that the U.S. would return captives of the Indians to Mexico. Mexicans believed that the United States had encouraged and assisted the Comanche and Apache raids that had devastated northern Mexico in the years before the war. This article promised relief to them
>Article XI, however, proved unenforceable. Destructive Indian raids continued despite a heavy U.S. presence near the Mexican border. Mexico filed 366 claims with the U.S. government for damages done by Comanche and Apache raids between 1848 and 185
America was asked to protect Mexico from Indians.
lol
Also, FWIW, Mexico, if they'd won the war in 1848, had plans to carve off pieces of the South and the Gulf Coast so let us not pretend they weren't above...
>>62235276
nnnnn shiiiiieeeett
>>62236613
>>62236782
>he actually saved this in his computer
lol
>>62236732
>muh feelings are getting hurt my history
What exactly is wrong dipshit?
>>62236782
The Mexico-US war. was a war of prey that was opposed even by Americans like Lincoln, then a congressman. The conditions of the transfer of half of Mexico's territory to the US (The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) were, first, under Mexico City occupied by US troops and then signed under coercion and with its hint of betrayal.
>>62236834
>He was no retort and he must comment
lel
"I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project."
"Sir, it is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages—for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions."
-- John Calhoun
VIVA LA RAZA!
SANGRE DE MEXICO DE MI PAPA!
SAJONES PUTOS
>>62236923
>"retort"
are you nervous? or just buttmad?
>>62236865
You didn't own that land
Only claimed it because Spain claimed it.
The natives proved too much for you
>>62236993
>he's in full damage control mode now
You seem upset
Why would this be?
>>62237000
New Spain and Mexico are the same thing. New Spain owned the land for 300 years, and regardless of the natives proving anything, it doesn't justify shit.
> M-muh land rights!
then fucking fight for it
you lose your land to a foreign power, you lose it
you think national borders have remained the exact same throughout the history of civilization?
>>62237053
maybe I'm mad because of pic related
>>62237058
>Just because we claimed native lands and got slaughtered by the Native Americans doesn't mean you can take it
You forget the Spanish paid them tribute to not attack
When Mexico took over you stopped the tribute and the Indians took it out of your ass.
Also by your logic
If all Spanish claims mean it's also Mexico.
Why don't you want Central America back?
>New World clay disputes
The only people with "muh land" ownership based on ancestry or history are the aboriginal populations. The rest of us are colonists who conquered it. New World land to us is owned either by conquest or legal treaty. The only people with non-conquest land rights to the US southwest are groups like the Navajo or Apache.
>>62237135
>he's definitely assravaged
lol just like another sack of Mexico city
>>62237062
This is one of the first replies. >>62223382
>At this point it doesn't really matter since those places haven't been Mexican for more than 150 years, but saying "i-it was only Mexican for 30 years" is fucking retarded.
>At this point it doesn't really matter since those places haven't been Mexican for more than 150 years
>At this point it doesn't really matter
No, it's not fair, but it's history. If you try to repair past injustices you will never end and you'll miss the future. We understand that. So yes, it was a historical injustice, but it is a long time event that deserves to be studied as history and should not be an open wound in Mexican consciousness.
Nobody in this thread is claiming we want it back or anything.
The problem is this pattern of chauvinistic Americans. First they claim ethical or moral rigtheousness. If they cannot support that claim, then they bring about the pragmatical consequences or benefits of US illegitimate behavior. They are the worst dindus you can encounter.
>>62237196
Central America was ruled here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captaincy_General_of_Guatemala while still being part of New Spain. They also JOINED Mexico after their own separate independence, then left to form their own country, United Provinces of Central America. It wasn't taken away by a foreign invader. And no, nobody is claiming anything, this whole argument started because you are dindus who think America has never done anything wrong.
>>62237344
>he keeps calling his mantra
yeah, I'm absolutely enraged, here a an updated pic of your streets on cinco de mayo
>>62237506
This goes against your post here>>62237058
They were part of New Spain and the first Mexican empire
By your logic they are Mexican and so is their land
>>62237344
would you like another?
>>62237542
>s-stop proving me w-wrong
>This is your streets during cinco de mayo a day no Mexican celebrates in Mexico and America uses as an excuse to drink and make fun of Mexicans
lol you even admit Mexico is so shit your own people run to America to be maids
Stay salty my friend
>>62237585
By my logic they were Mexican because they joined us after fighting a different own independence war, they were ruled by the Captaincy General of Guatemala even when they were part of New Spain, unlike the northern territories who were all directly ruled through Mexico City, and they weren't taken away by a foreign invader under false and illegitimate pretences. Unlike those said northern territories. Nobody is claiming they are still part of Mexico. What people here are arguing is that no matter what excuses you use to justify that unfair act of war, you were in the wrong, as pointed out by Lincoln.
>>62237634
>Definitely buttmad
>He's so mad he's posting pics of Mexicans that ran away from Mexico
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/texas-border-patrol-buried-immigrants-in-mass-graves-state-says-no-laws-were-broken/
>>62236613
The Comanche were a savage people, many small Native tribes were wiped out by them. This isn't a "side" of history is fact. Those were not their lands, they were a creation of the United States in a way... But if you want to get into details Mexicans were the sole form of protection many natives had and we did not treat them like dogs or worse like the Americans did to the American Indian, but like men. The migrants to texas knew hwat they were getting themswelves into, their rebellion is no less treasonous and what YOU eventually did to the Comanche and Apache no less shameful. As part of the Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty you were under the obligation to pacify the land, you did not, we still had to build forts in the North because the savages, who lived in American territory and were under American jurisdiction, continued raiding. Any Mexicans who had any hop the US would make things better were sorely disapointed. You treated Geronimo as a hero and as a circus attraction ffs, and it wasn't only Mexicans and natives that he killed...
As for Mexico's balkanization it wasn't unlike what happened many times in Europe, some regions we were able to hold on to. The Yucatecs came begging to Mexico City after being nearly wiped out by the Maya and Tamaulipas in the North would have only seen it's lands exterminated for the Texans to move in unopposed had we not acted, Zacatecas and places further North were not even rebellions proper... The FACT of history remains that where Mexicans kept the lands the opriginal peoples remained and still remain the masters of their own territory, fellow Mexicans. Where Americans went only death followed.
>>62237734
>muh pic was better
>M-uhrica uses as an excuse
>N-no, you're the butthurted
>>62237819
Look up your own history jackass
They were apart of the first Mexican empire
So by your logic they are Mexicans because they used to be part of Mexico
>>62236925
Yes, amny racists opposed annexation, which proves none wanted it? Seriously dude... You're missing the point, if this is an exhibit for Americans acting with honor or decency I cannot see it...
>>62237855
>he's attempting to downplay his damage control and hide his buttfluster
>his country is such a shithole the government gives out pamphlets on how to get to America
>>62237857
I know my own history better than you do.
>So by your logic they are Mexicans because they used to be part of Mexico
>I am claiming they still Mexican
Fucking where did I say anyone who seceded is still Mexican?
>A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent
>>62237216
Once again no, read their histories... And what about the Yaqui or the Raramuri? Oh wait, they don't live in reservations they are citizens participating fully in their nation...
>>62237945
>Mexicans
>honor and decency
lol
>>62237506
Wait, didn't Mexico commit horrible atrocities to keep Yucatan from seceding? Why you complain about the US conquest of Indians when the Caste Wars went on for 70 years. Why didn't Mexico allow the Maya any national self-determination?
Southwest USA will be Brazil and the North will be white.
>>62238003
>Claim the because Spain claimed land for over 300 years. It belongs to Mexico too.
>Suddenly its different when Central America is brought up
Ayy lamo
>>62237058
They aren't though, there were several distinct geographical/cultural regions. Mexico proper has always been a separate entity from Guatemala or California or whatever else was part of Nueva Espana.
>>62237967
No, those pamphlets were meant to help people survive in the desrt and came with plenty opf warnings not to do something as idiotic as joining your society. Ofc you retarded gringos never actually read those and rather decided them to use them for your talking points propaganda. Mexico has been on negative migraton since 2008, that's almost a decade now yet you continue to hold on to your stupid myths...
>>62238025
>Wait, didn't Mexico commit horrible atrocities to keep Yucatan from seceding?
Yes
>Why you complain about the US conquest of Indians when the Caste Wars went on for 70 years
I'm not complaining, I'm telling you how things happen and you are still incapable of accepting any kind of responsability inanything.
>Why didn't Mexico allow the Maya any national self-determination?
Because we were douchbags back then, the same as you.
>>62238077
Another straw man.
I didn't claim they belong to Mexico. I said they used belong to Mexico, which they did.
>>62238124
>>62238124
>Mexico proper has always been a separate entity from Guatemala or California or whatever else was part of Nueva Espana.
From Guatemala, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captaincy_General_of_Guatemala
For a time because then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mexican_Empire
>California
No. They were never a separate entity from Mexico City in New Spain, unlike Guatemala. Or from the first Mexican empire until you invaded.
>>62238021
Yes, honor and decency. We are one of less than a handful of nations that have never fought a war of aggression, how many years of peace has your country had in its history?
>>62238077
Not the guy you are discussing Central America with but fucking get it you numb skull, it WAS Mexico, Central Americans asked fior their independence and we gave it to them without a fight. Chiapas decided to remain Mexicans and they remain so to this day. What's so complicated in all of that?
>>62238218
>No, it was different
>y-you got it all wrong
You don't have to lie to kick it
Also if what you're saying is true
It's grounds for war for being an invasion.
Good thing Texas lets ranchers, farmers and border patrol kill them.
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/texas-border-patrol-buried-immigrants-in-mass-graves-state-says-no-laws-were-broken/
>>62238275
>We are one of less than a handful of nations that have never fought a war of aggression
Caste Wars not withstanding?
>>62238274
How is it a strawman when it brings up a very valid point?
>I didn't claim they belong to Mexico. I said they used belong to Mexico, which they did.
You are shooting yourself in the foot lol
>>62238345
Before he complains about this, I could point out what happens to Guatemalans and Hondurans who sneak into Mexico. Except in their case, the police don't just look the other way, they actively help fill the mass graves.
>>62238361
That's not a war of aggression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression
>A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation.
>>62238338
Get it through your thick skull the Natives didn't want to be part of Mexico and wrecked your shit.
>>62238345
Try and declare war motherfucker... you're such a stupid 12 year old, you can't even read
>>62238401
They were, I repeat, w e r e, in past tense, a part of Mexico. I never claimed they still are.
How were they not a part of Mexico? They were before AND after New Spain despite the Captaincy General of Guatemala.
>>62238361
Caste wars were a civil war, it was Mexicans vs Mexicans
>>62238274
>>Wait, didn't Mexico commit horrible atrocities to keep Yucatan from seceding?
>Yes
>>Why you complain about the US conquest of Indians when the Caste Wars went on for 70 years
>I'm not complaining, I'm telling you how things happen and you are still incapable of accepting any kind of responsability inanything.
>>Why didn't Mexico allow the Maya any national self-determination?
>Because we were douchbags back then, the same as you.
Lovely. He admits that 19th century moral standards cannot be applied to the 21st century.
>>62238440
>Natives didn't want to be part of Mexico
So fucking what you numbskull fucktard autist. You fought a war of aggression against Mexico. Period.
>>62238275
>Border wars
>Bandit wars
>Apache Mexico wars
>Comanche Mexico wars
>Other native American wars
Mexico is and will always be a mess
It's like humiliation conga the country
>>62238440
Who Guatemala? There wasn't any fighting you dumb fuck and they remained under their former colonial elites
>>62238451
>try and declare war
And what?
Get BTFO again? lol
>>62238474
And the south west was never Mexican territory.
The natives made sure of that
>>62238440
>t it through your thick skull the Natives didn't want to be part of Mexico and wrecked your shit
To the point where they fought Mexican control for 70 years.
>>62238504
>Lovely. He admits that 19th century moral standards cannot be applied to the 21st century.
Not really your case. What you did was bad by 19th century moral standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_Resolutions
>The spot resolutions were offered in the United States House of Representatives on 22 December 1847 by future President Abraham Lincoln, then a Whig representative from Illinois. The resolutions requested President James K. Polk to provide Congress with the exact location (the "spot") upon which blood was spilt on American soil, as Polk had claimed in 1846 when asking Congress to declare war on Mexico. So persistent was Lincoln in pushing his "spot resolutions" that some began referring to him as "spotty Lincoln." Lincoln's resolutions were a direct challenge to the validity of the president's words, and representative of an ongoing political power struggle between Whigs and Democrats.
>>62238504
Except that's another guy you're talking to, I'm the one who made the case about Texas and your filthy past, let me say it again it was a civil war.Mayans fought on both sides, to this day some tribes are called Mestizo even though they're full blooded Maya because they fought for the Yucatecs.
>all the Amerifats that don't know Mexico is a continuation of New Spain
>>62238530
Seriously you fought a lot more wars with the Native Americans and they ended in genocide and ethnic cleansing, fucking moral authority...
>>62238605
About 80,000 Mexicans lived in the areas of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Nevada, in southern and western Colorado, and in Utah.during the period of 1845 to 1850. They were also there for 300 years prior to that.
How was it fucking not?
>>62238631
>Not really your case. What you did was bad by 19th century moral standards.
No, bad by 19th century moral standards would be what Walt Whitman wanted which was annexing the entire country of Mexico and genociding its population.
>>62238516
Mexico got beat by a bunch of settlers
When they tried to use them as a buffer against Comanche and Apache raids.
You couldn't even pay your own people to live in Texas and other south western states.
You gave criminals a choice between jail or going to these states.
Most picked jail because that was a guaranteed death by natives
You lost to the Natives
You lost to Texas
You lost to America
Get over it
Just accept you are a failure
Your war of aggression against the natives didn't work out lol
>>62238746
>No because I say so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spot_Resolutions
>The spot resolutions were offered in the United States House of Representatives on 22 December 1847 by future President Abraham Lincoln, then a Whig representative from Illinois. The resolutions requested President James K. Polk to provide Congress with the exact location (the "spot") upon which blood was spilt on American soil, as Polk had claimed in 1846 when asking Congress to declare war on Mexico. So persistent was Lincoln in pushing his "spot resolutions" that some began referring to him as "spotty Lincoln." Lincoln's resolutions were a direct challenge to the validity of the president's words, and representative of an ongoing political power struggle between Whigs and Democrats.
>>62238711
Those were all Spanish-descended settlers who had no cultural or racial connection to Aztec or whatever culture or blood. As far as I know, Mexicans really didn't have a sense of nationalism or nationhood until the defeat of the French in the 1860s. That was really the point where a cohesive Mexican identity was born and in fact that's what Cinco de Mayo celebrates.
>>62238757
>Get over it
>>62237380
>This is one of the first replies. >>62223382
>>At this point it doesn't really matter since those places haven't been Mexican for more than 150 years, but saying "i-it was only Mexican for 30 years" is fucking retarded.
>>At this point it doesn't really matter since those places haven't been Mexican for more than 150 years
>>At this point it doesn't really matter
>No, it's not fair, but it's history. If you try to repair past injustices you will never end and you'll miss the future. We understand that. So yes, it was a historical injustice, but it is a long time event that deserves to be studied as history and should not be an open wound in Mexican consciousness.
This is like talking to a rock.
>>62238711
He thinks Los Angeles and San Francisco were native American cities, that's the reason they used Sppanish names... It was Cortez who named California, that's how long Mexico/Spain had that land...
>>62238706
Never tried to defend defeating the Natives
America could and did destroy the Natives.
Something your country could never do and even shamelessly begged for help against them after America beat your country. lol
>>62238824
Mexico still has Spanish-descended settlers who had no cultural or racial connection to Aztec or whatever culture or blood. That doesn't make them any less Mexican. By this point I'm going to assume you are trolling.
>>62238757
Accept what? Texas is not ours, it was lost in a war of conquest, that's American forces marching on Mexico City, not to a bunch of settlers... Anything that Santa Anna did as a POW is not legal
>>62238825
It never was Mexican land
Get it through your thick skull
The Comanche and Apache made sure of that
>>62238896
>Still crying
>After all these years
Delicious lol
>>62238899
>It never was Mexican because I say so, otherwise it would make me look bad and I can't handle america not being perfect
>USA, USA, USA
>>62238896
Considering Texas beat Mexico
Yeah
>>62238827
Well, I sure don't see any place names in CA like Naxiplpetic or Xoxicititipan whatever.
>>62238942
Nobody here cares, really, this thread is just about a bunch of chauvinistic American dindus. You have been proven wrong time and time again. So I'm not even going to bother to continue arguing.
>>62238946
>it was Mexican land because I say so
>j-just because the Natives destroyed us ever time we tried to claim it doesn't matter
>v-v-viva Mexico
Kek
>>62238824
Fuck I don't have connections to any native American tribe, I'm ethnically Spaniard, ALL Mexicans have cultural Aztec heritage and they did so back then as well, unless they had no maize, tomatoes, etc, did not speak Novo-Hispano spanish, wore no sombreros or Mexican style riding boots, etc. The Nahuatl speaking peoples influenced all culture in New Spain, that culture is called Mexican today.
>>62238824
Well, I can't say when did our national identity was born.
But what I can tell you is that most of Mexico doesn't really care about 5 de Mayo. You guys celebrate it way more than we do, for some strange reason.
>>62239029
Your posts suggest otherwise
Why would this be?
>>62239035
>The Nahuatl speaking peoples influenced all culture in New Spain, that culture is called Mexican today.
Right, but absolutely no culture in CA, TX, or anywhere outside of the Mexican heartland was influenced by Aztec or Mixtec or Mayan culture.
>>62238833
Not begged, it was claims arising from a treaty, that's a contract, weren't you Americans all for law? You may rage against what your country agreed to but those were the terms, you broke them. No honor even when you dictate the terms.
>>62239029
Try not to cry yourself to sleep
>>62239097
You begged for help you failed to protect your own people and country.
Something Texas, America and even other Native Tribes could do.
You don't have to lie to kick it
>>62238942
Dude who's crying? We are just calling a spade a spade, your people were shit back then not the freedom fighters your pretend they were, hell you're not even that now... But I forget, you were once "Great"
>>62238899
It was settled by Mexicans, go be a tourist in your Southwest and visit the misiones...
>>62239097
>loser country thinks it has any say after getting BTFO
lol
>>62239185
lol nope
the Natives made sure of that
>>62236613
>>62239076
It was, because A) the people who settled those regions came from the heartland and brought their culture with them and B) Most opf the natives they brought with them (you didn't think it was whites doing the heavy lifting did you?) were Nahuatl speakers as a majority. that's the reason much of Northern Mexico, and even some places in theSouthern US, bear Nahuatl names.
>>62239158
>who's crying
lol look at your own post
Don't deny it.
>calling a spade a spade
Yeah right.
You continue to make excuses for getting rekt by Natives and how America in turn rekt both Mexico and the Natives
>>62239146
It's not a lie it's a fact. How dense can you be, do you not acknowledge those were the wrtten terms of Guadalupe-Hidalgo? Do you think the Mexican government could not make legal claims?
>>62239319
You should ask yourself why Mexico asked for the inclusion of being protected by American forces against natives.
Sounds like begging to me
>>62239186
And you didn't pay us after you left? Yes, contracts are made when both sides have leverage, if you had destroyed the Mexican government then the war doesn't end until a faction comes up that can contriol the others, we still had Southern Mexico, etc. Is dumb fucks like you with o understanding of nuance that have your country so many probelms? did you win in Saigon? How about Afghanistan did you wipe out the Taliban? how about Iraq? apparently you may have to return there because you fucked it up the first time. The Americans of that time decided the time had come to negotiate and they did, that they had to invade our capital to get us on the table should prove to you it wasn't all that easy...
>>62238711
In 1836 there were probably 5,000 blacks, 30,000 Anglo-Americans, 3,470 Hispanics, and 14,200 Indians in Texas. A population of about 50,000
>more blacks than Mexicans in Texas
lol
>>62239185
I'm pretty sure the Spanish built those old missions, not Mxitifppplec from Tenochtitlan.
>>62239254
>and even some places in the Southern US, bear Nahuatl names
>>62238984
>>62239425
No, control of that territory was essential to protect our heartland, Americans took over that responsibility seeing they were getting the land in return, it makes sense from a military point of view, once again, why were you even negotiating if you could just dictate terms?
>>62239494
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1975.tb01046.x/abstract
The 1850 population census schedules and supplementary estimates reveal that more than 80,000 Mexican Americans
>>62239494
Those came with your migrants, apparently you needed your BBC to sleep soundly
>>62239510
You think a single Jesuit or Franciscan built each and every one of those?
>>62239570
>why were you even negotiating if you could just dictate terms?
We really didn't have as much power as it seems. The cost of keeping an occupying army in Mexico was huge and we'd have faced increased hostility/guerrilla resistance from the locals the longer we stayed. President Polk wanted the war done and over with ASAP.
>>62239618
Considering the US had 20 million people back then, that's less than 1% of our total population.
>>62239689
They were there before it became a part of the US.
>>62239642
That was the 19th century, we had a very stable dicatorship in the 20th... I'm not claiming America feared mexico, I'm claiming they could make practical decissions. Yes, many people called for annexation, some Americans did speakagainst out of honor, others out of pragmatism, there were simply too many Mexicans to integrate. And no our ciountry's military career was not a failure, I seem to recall Pancho Villa raiding your country and you chasing him wandering around our deserts with him just trolling you all the way...
>>62239618
>Most of those Mexicans were only in California
>make it look like they were all across the south west
lol
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ulc01
>>62239753
If you consider America invading Mexico and killing Mexicans while your government decided to let it happen
One of pancho villa trolling
The sure that's another why to look at it
>>62239659
Yeah they had nigger slaves just like we did and everyone back then.
>>62239631
At least they could sleep soundly without getting killed by natives lol
>>62239843
If you consider a military expedition that fails its one objective success then I don't quite know what to say... And which government? you seem to forget that was in the midst of the Mexican revolution, Carranza didn't haave any control of the Northern states and I think he died before Pershing returned to then fail at employing any of the tactics he should have learned in Mexico in WWI (Villa himself was very adept at getting around trench warfare) but meh, I imagine than rather than to at least try to bring a little order to a population besieged in a war theater the American way would be to kill simple peasants out of cruelty... Or maybe it was Villa's raiding provided a perfect excuse to place a fighting force in Mexico with the Zimmerman telegram having rustled up some feathers in Washington.
>>62239664
That's all I'm saying.
>>62239892
Missionaries learned early on not to take negros, for some reason they seem to have sent native Americans into a rage. Some of them did go out on their own amongst natives, and even got them to aid in building, but mostly that was Mexicans (aka Spaniarss leading natives friom Central Mexico) after all you tend not to get a lot of preaching done if you have to sow the fields while you're at it...
>>62240009
Yes, because texans never got raided or massacred. Try again.
>>62240807
Just correcting myself as I went retard on the Zimmerman thing, I think Washington wanted to prevent the war spilling so the the expedition largely served that purpose, A WWI power trying to take advantage of forces in Mexicp was probably a legit concern.
