 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Master Zen, why would the average Mexican not want to become part of the United States, given that so many Mexicans want to move here. If you conducted a survey of Mexican Americans on this point, I would think that they would love for the two countries to be united. |
Mexico has 90 million people give or take. Believe it or not, a majority don't want to live in the US, or anywhere else. Even the migrantes are, by a very substantial majority, short to mid term or seasonal workers. They can go up there, work for a while, send money south, and then move back and build a house or do something else with the money.
Relatively few want to live in the US permanently, and even for those, it is mostly an economic choice.
As far as what Mexican Americans think, who cares? They're not Mexicans. Do you think that it's the place of "German Americans" or "Irish Americans" or what not to speak for the former home country of their ancestors?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
MtG, from the Mexican's point of view, I agree that the largest problem would be the fear that they would lose their culture. I point to Peuto Rico as an example of Spanish culture that seems comfortable being part of the United States.
As to the average Mexican, sure they would like to continue to live in Mexico. But they could move anywhere in the US they wanted. Many would move for economic reasons.
You would also find a lot of English-speaking, Protestant gringoes moving South. In 100 years, the whole of the US and Mexico would have a common culture which would be a mixture of the two. IMO, this would be good for both countries. |
There would never be such a thing as a "merger" with the US, because the US never treats other peoples or countries as sovereign equals. It's far more than "culture" and far different from "fear" - the only way the US would ever take Mexico would be by conquest, and you could be you'd have various levels and forms of active resistance now, and a hundred years from now.
We already have a lot of those gringos moving south for a variety of reasons, mostly economic, and most of them try to grab up all the beach land and scenic land - building US style yuppie tract developments on the Baja beaches is all the rage, and Baja has tens of thousands of gringos living here - some in the military who can't afford to live in San Diego on the housing allowances they get paid, many retirees living off of social security and medicare who can't afford the costs of housing and medical care in the US. Guess what? A majority of them, in fact the vast majority, are "illegal aliens."  
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Listen, MtG and Zen, if Germany and France, old enemies, can virtually unite in an EU, so can we. NAFTA was a first step. We need to continue to discuss these issues to essentially erase the border and eventually move to a "common" citizenship. Circumstances are forcing us together. |
Sorry, bad example.
Europe only "merged" because they got too ****ed up after WW2 to continue kicking each other's ass. Here he have one giant hegemonic power, one much smaller but prosperous one, and one which is just plain poor. Think those circumstances are the same?
Finally, the EU has mechanism to ensure a "catch up" among the poorer countries. Spain was a shithole just 30 years ago and now is one of the fastest growing and prosperious. No such mechanism exists in NAFTA, and the US's refusal to end agricultural subsidies or allow free trade in labor is just one of the examples of how they are not interested in the least bit about Mexico ever catching up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Sorry, bad example.
Europe only "merged" because they got too ****ed up after WW2 to continue kicking each other's ass. Here he have one giant hegemonic power, one much smaller but prosperous one, and one which is just plain poor. Think those circumstances are the same?
Finally, the EU has mechanism to ensure a "catch up" among the poorer countries. Spain was a shithole just 30 years ago and now is one of the fastest growing and prosperious. No such mechanism exists in NAFTA, and the US's refusal to end agricultural subsidies or allow free trade in labor is just one of the examples of how they are not interested in the least bit about Mexico ever catching up. |
Yeah, Master Zen, I agree. But do you appreciate that the greatest opponents of NAFTA and fair trade and the advocates of protectionism now find their home in the Democrat party whose leadership is promising to protect farmers, protect labor, etc., etc., from Mexico.
I am sure you are a great fan of the Democrat party, right?
Bush has been distracted by foreign policy since 9/11. However, before that, it was my understanding that Bush was seeking to improve relations between Mexico and the United States. Hopefully, Bush will return to this theme soon.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
However,
" Texans reacted quickly to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Connally introduced the joint resolution for a declaration of war with Japan on December 8. Several days later he introduced similar resolutions for war with Germany and Italy, Japan's allies who had declared war on the United States. Texas governor Coke R. Stevensonqv urged support for the war effort, denouncing the "cowardly Japanese attack." He predicted accurately that Texans would respond enthusiastically to defend their country. Long lines of men gathered at recruiting stations to volunteer for military service. Texans enlisted or were drafted in excess of the percentage of the nation's population. Although the state had 5 percent of the United States population, it provided 7 percent of those who served in the armed forces. Texas A&M University alone provided more officers for the armed forces than both of the military academies combined. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox later declared that Texas had contributed a larger percentage of men to the armed forces than any other state. By the end of the war 750,000 Texans, including 12,000 women, served in the armed forces. The majority were in the Army and the Army Air Force, but nearly one-fourth served in the navy, marines, or the coast guard. During the war 22,022 Texans were killed or died of wounds. One-third of these fatalities were in the navy, marines, or coast guard."
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook...ew/WW/qdw2.html
Don't talk trash at Texas.
Your ass would be grass without us. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-09-2003 23:59
|