Lowbacca_1977 posted:Princess_Tina posted:I don't think so. I don't think things are going to change just because the majority of the U.S. population becomes Mexican-American. I find the very notion to be quite risible, in fact. Things will definitely change as the U.S. becomes a more diverse country (even more diverse than it currently is) and because there will be a lot more individuals of mixed race/ethnic origin. But these changes are likely to be positive, as it will likely result over the long run in greater awareness of the great diversity that exists in our planet. Why should it? The idea that diversity is primarily represented by race, which is too prevalent a view now, implies that people are not defined by their views and ideas, but by their skin, and results in ignoring ideological diversity, and in some contexts, cultural diversity as well, when it doesn't overlap clearly with what is considered to be the majority of an ethnic group. I'd also argue that saying that its wrong to use the term "Mexican-American" as again, this implies something unique with race, and ignores that there are many people that, while they have a Mexican ancestory, consider themselves simply American. I don't talk about being a Swedish-American, for example, and we don't talk about Kennedy as our Irish-American president. Someone born in the U.S. and a part of the U.S. is simply American.
Princess_Tina posted:I don't think so. I don't think things are going to change just because the majority of the U.S. population becomes Mexican-American. I find the very notion to be quite risible, in fact. Things will definitely change as the U.S. becomes a more diverse country (even more diverse than it currently is) and because there will be a lot more individuals of mixed race/ethnic origin. But these changes are likely to be positive, as it will likely result over the long run in greater awareness of the great diversity that exists in our planet.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:Princess_Tina posted:You speak of a movement, but I have absolutely no idea whether or not this movement in fact exists or whether you are simply creating it as a rhetorical device. Personally, I'm speaking out of my own personal beliefs, which are quite independent of any movement, whether the movement is real or imaginary. There seems to be a large amount of ignorance present in that statement, given the number of protests and demonstrations that have happened over this matter, primarily in the southwest. One of the large criticisms of the 2006 May 1st protests in Los Angeles was that the number of Mexican flags in the protest was far larger than the number of American flags, even though the people involved were pushing to be accepted as a larger part of America. I'll clarify that I'm not advocating removing all ancestoral ties in raising the point, but simply saying that there is a movement that has been vocal in parts of the U.S. that have views centred on living in the U.S. while not wanting to be American.
Princess_Tina posted:You speak of a movement, but I have absolutely no idea whether or not this movement in fact exists or whether you are simply creating it as a rhetorical device. Personally, I'm speaking out of my own personal beliefs, which are quite independent of any movement, whether the movement is real or imaginary.
farraday posted: I wouldn't argue for annexing it, but I also wouldn't accept foolish arguments that the northwest of Canada is culturally or intrinsically Canadian. The years of territorial imperialism are behind us now, but it is purely idiotic to claim one side or another had a greater claim to territories unsettled and unpopulated by non natives. You seem to be under the impression Mexico has a superior claim to Wyoming by right of being mixed race Central Americas/Spain who speak Spanish and obey the Pope. By 1800s the European descended whites in North America had exactly the same right to be here as the Mestizos of New Spain. Frankly I find your credentials to be lacking if you can't overcome basic things like presuming the darker skinned people have a greater claim to the land.
Darth-Ghost posted:Princess_Tina posted:Darth-Ghost, I respect your opinions, however, immigration is only part of the equation. The real reason that Latinos are on their way to becoming the majority of the U.S. population probably has more to do with the different birth rates that Latinos and African-Americans have, compared to white non-Latinos. In fact, similar situations exist in Canada and Western Europe, because generally Caucasians' birth rates are much smaller than those of non-Caucasians. In fact, Latinos would still continue increasing as a percentage of the population even if there was some way to magically seal all the U.S. borders starting today. Yeah, I've heard that. I know by mid-century (because of birth rates), the U.S. will be mostly Latino, and Europe & Russia are going to be mostly Muslim. I don't really think it's a racial or a cultural difference. It's probably just that people who are born, and live in, societies with a very high standard of living (such as America and Europe) have lower birth rates. Because in western society now, having more children is a cost, at least to the higher and middle classes. In the countries with lower standard of living, where the immigrants are coming from, having more children usually brings you more wealth, not costs. If you closed the borders, and gave it a generation or two, the birth-rate will even itself back out again, and the children and grandchildren of the Latino immigrants would have jsut the same low birth-rate as anyone else in the country. It's not a racial/cultural difference, just reflecting the standard of living of the society they grow up in.
Princess_Tina posted:Darth-Ghost, I respect your opinions, however, immigration is only part of the equation. The real reason that Latinos are on their way to becoming the majority of the U.S. population probably has more to do with the different birth rates that Latinos and African-Americans have, compared to white non-Latinos. In fact, similar situations exist in Canada and Western Europe, because generally Caucasians' birth rates are much smaller than those of non-Caucasians. In fact, Latinos would still continue increasing as a percentage of the population even if there was some way to magically seal all the U.S. borders starting today.
Princess_Tina posted: You keep speaking of a "claim". I don't really know about "claims". The demographic trends that are changing the U.S. population and will continue to change it for the next 2-3 generations have really nothing whatsoever to do with any "claims" as far as I can see.
farraday posted:Princess_Tina posted: You keep speaking of a "claim". I don't really know about "claims". The demographic trends that are changing the U.S. population and will continue to change it for the next 2-3 generations have really nothing whatsoever to do with any "claims" as far as I can see. Goal posts! Come back! Oh excuse me I thought we were talking about Mexican-American war, apparently you've decided that you'd rather talk abotu demographic trends int he next 30 years. If you want to get back to those history credentials you have feel free to respond to my point.
farraday posted:Yeah okay great, feel free to respond to my point any time.
Princess_Tina posted:farraday posted:Yeah okay great, feel free to respond to my point any time. Likewise
farraday posted:Princess_Tina posted:farraday posted:Yeah okay great, feel free to respond to my point any time. Likewise What point? I've been talking about the Mexican American war, if you want to talk about demographic trends feel free but respond to my gods be damned point first or give up the pretense of knowing jack all about history.
Princess_Tina posted:And I would disagree with that. The demographic trends include birth rates for all Latinos and African-Americans, and this would include quite a few families who have been in the U.S. for generations. I won't deny that there may be some degree of correlation between socio-economic status and number of children, but I don't believe it is the sole relevant factor.
Darth-Ghost posted:Princess_Tina posted:And I would disagree with that. The demographic trends include birth rates for all Latinos and African-Americans, and this would include quite a few families who have been in the U.S. for generations. I won't deny that there may be some degree of correlation between socio-economic status and number of children, but I don't believe it is the sole relevant factor. The cause for that could be the rich-poor divide, growing up in different standards-of-living. Sadly, people of different races (such as African-Americans and Latinos) are still behind the white population in wealth, but it should be corrected eventually. Remember, I said it should take a generation or two for things to level off? Well, just remember, we're still not even ONE generation away from the time of Martin Luther King Jr. He really was only forty years ago. Only when most people born before 1970 have passed away can we really say Martin Luther King Jr was even one generation ago. Unfortunately, we're still living with the effects of the pre-Civil Rights age. These things don't disappear overnight. I mean, there was still a guy (and on the CNN YouTube Debate!) asking for Slavery Reparations!
Princess_Tina posted: Well, I think we all know why the U.S. started that war. Ultimately it is a very small point in a larger discussion. If the U.S. hadn't grabbed the land from Mexico, I'm sure it would have grabbed it away from someone else.
Princess_Tina posted: Sorry, but I don't see any relation between the start of the Civil Rights age and the demographic trends. Latinos, for example, have had similar birth rates for generations in areas near the U.S. border, where they have always been a majority.
farraday posted:Princess_Tina posted: Well, I think we all know why the U.S. started that war. Ultimately it is a very small point in a larger discussion. If the U.S. hadn't grabbed the land from Mexico, I'm sure it would have grabbed it away from someone else. And again you betray you're presumptions. Mexico was an absolute mess, frankly it still is but Mexico in the early 1800s was a laughable excuse for a country. A revolving door of coup, counter-coup, and revolts. They were quite frankly eager for a short victorious war. The moderates were overthrown the US diplomatic mission thrown out of the country and Mexico claiming they'd occupy the gulf coast and reclaim Texas. Wars of territorial expansion. The US wasn't better or worse then Mexico, merely victorious.
Darth-Ghost posted:Princess_Tina posted: Sorry, but I don't see any relation between the start of the Civil Rights age and the demographic trends. Latinos, for example, have had similar birth rates for generations in areas near the U.S. border, where they have always been a majority. Those areas have also been poor for generations. Just a couple generations ago, it was normal for the American family to have 7 kids. It's only started to change in the last 60 years, with all of our advances. Advances that raised our standard of living, and that are still mostly limited to the USA & Western Europe. That is why we are both receiving so many immigrants in the first place, because of our higher standard of living, which is actually quite recent.
Fire_Ice_Death posted:Who brought up the Spanish-American war originally?
Princess_Tina posted: The U.S. was well known for its expansionist drive, there can be no doubt of that. Everything else that you mention is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, because the thread topic is not the Mexican-American war.
