And that's fine. Us adults can discuss it, again, as adults. You and the other handful of bbs ridiculoids can play your little culture war games all you want. You're tiresome, and frankly boring, and I'm just not interested anymore.
So who's going to make them hold their end of the agreement? Are there examples of conquering nations making concessions that they don't have to? For whatever reason, the US agreed to terms that benefited Mexicans, and they appear later to have changed their minds. Probably once they saw that no one has the power to hold them to it. Still, it sounds like Americans used the law to lay claim to the lands. Now, gringos are using the law to attempt to get them back. That's fine, but it is a waste of time. I say that because I've wasted time not exactly agreeing with these arguments, they never made sense, but defending a person's right to hold that position. Truth is no one has a right to be angry, period, but especially over something that didn't happen to them and happened 100s of years ago. I understand that that isn't a popular position. It is what it is.
I am identifying as Wilt Chamberlain I suppose back from the nevermore …like an isekai anime I am back just in time for my millions. Give us free !
So it's fine to agree with the reparations demands, but as soon as someone disagrees, they are evil, tiresome and not worthy of debate. Got it. That must be that famous tolerance from the left.
I never said I agreed with anything re: reparations, in fact I pretty much said the exact opposite in an earlier post. I never said disagreement was a problem, in fact I pretty much said the exact opposite in the post you responded to. I never called you "evil" Yall's schtick is indeed tiresome (the post I'm responding to is evidence of that).
No one has a right to be angry? Do you apply that to things like the removal of Confederate Statues or any other such culture war issues they seem to be getting people riled up?
Nobody. And it applies everywhere. Basically, disagreement is fine, but getting angry and judging people over disagreement is not.
Nah, the original treaty gave them the choice of being citizens and there was a provision for land rights, which already had enough significance then that the senate tried to erase that article because they knew the treaty is as binding as any other law they'd normally pass. It was later readded by the Protocol of Querétaro signifying the US had to honor those land grants as property rights afforded to Mexican American citizens. The article I posted goes into this. There's actually a rich law history about the "whiteness" and whether Mexicans were afforded the privileges and legal stature it entails (probaby why the census was worded that way...). Seems like something taught in a CRT class but NOT the "CRT" being taught in high schools, but that's a whole different thread. There was so much resistance against giving rights to Mexican Americans that New Mexico was one of the last territories to be admitted as a state despite that area having ten times the population of Nevada. It might not matter enough for you, but many people on the Right talk a lot about Property Rights (eminent domain, castle doctrine, etc...), the Rule of Law, and Citizenship. Except when everything in principle and reality rules against their favor. Then it's nothing more than Finders Keepers or we won it in a fair fight...
Why do all the people who aren’t from San Fran and will never go there the ones who care the most about this?? 2 million dollars is a drop in the bucket for a city that size. Just look at damn near any Texas high school football stadium and tell me that’s a necessity. If San Fran tax payers are pissed they can move to Texas and pay for 16 year old boys who play on the football team to have locker rooms and facilities better than the Houston Oilers ever had or the Texans deserve.
@AroundTheWorld I want my reparations and a townhouse in Napa I identify as MC Hammer @basso Thomas Keller all day
