"You first claim that the rich 'Mexicans' in Northern Mexico in the first decades after independence weren't white, then claim that "The 'upper crust' of Mexican society was made up of people who could trace 100% of their ancestry back to Spain." Those two ideas do not go hand in hand."

You got me! My day-to-day perspective as a guerro living all my life in a part of the "disputed territory" where all Mexican(-American)s are mestizo momentarily overwhelmed my knowledge that the rich Mexicans who held big land grants 170 years ago were generally all white. You win!

"Your comments also show a clear ignorance of Latin American racial diversity. Argentina is over 90% white."

Got me again! My high-level half-paragraph summary of the social history of Latin America left this out! Clearly, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

"Tolstoy: And yes, I am ignoring your historical justifications for violent annexation because it is not worth my time refuting your claims."

Yes! Mexico for the Olmecs!!!

"I know you know I know you know that Zionist settlers never constituted anything close to a majority of the population of the Mandate, and were never welcomed with open arms by the locals"

I know that the Arab population of the province was low prior to Jewish settlement and only began to rise exponentially after Jewish settlement increased, as Arabs worked as Jewish farmhands. Which seems to indicate that far from opposing Jewish settlement, the Arabs flocked to take advantage of the economic opportunities they presented. This is identical to the argument you are presenting for pre-war northern Mexico.

Ah, Joan Peters again. You know she's a morality tale for history undergrads about the importance of questioning your sources (and why historians look down at journalists who try to write history), right?

Joan Peters shoddy scholarship doesn't negate the census, which show a fantastic increase of population of the Arabs in Palestine from the 1920s to the years just prior to the partition, more than doubling in the span of 25 years.

My four grandparents had nine children between them, a more than doubling of the population in less than 25 years. No immigration involved.

Mandatory Palestine must have experienced a revolutionary decrease in infant mortality and advancement in pre & post natal care.

Or maybe Joan Peters was just full of spoon-fed crap.

Joan Peters didn't conduct the census.

Also speaking of shenanigans with the census, where are you getting this stuff about Mormons being preponderant in Utah and Nevada before they even trekked there? That makes Joan Peters look honest by comparison.

Tolstoy: Putin33 just called you out on more of your nonsense. Seriously, what are you trying to do? Are you just posting whatever comes to your indignant, my-country-right-or-wrong" mind? The Olmecs you mentioned lived 3,000 years ago in a relatively small area of Mexico. Joke or not, your comment does not make any point about anything.

"Are you just posting whatever comes to your indignant, my-country-right-or-wrong" mind?"

LOL! You must not read this forum very often.

"Also speaking of shenanigans with the census, where are you getting this stuff about Mormons being preponderant in Utah and Nevada before they even trekked there?"

I said Mormons were preponderant in Utah in 1847, which is the year that they trekked there. Wikipedia backs me on this, which I'm sure you consulted. Now, where is your evidence of extensive Mexican settlement in Utah, and that their land was stolen by Evil Americans?

Particularly amusing to me in this thread is the fact that a devoted communist is defending the ownership of a hundred million acres (in California alone) of undeveloped land by a few dozen rich white capitalists against the occasional usurpations (of varying degrees of legality) of impoverished landless immigrants who traveled across at least one continent to get here. Can you explain that, Putin? If you want, I'll let you have the last word if you can answer me on this - I'm dying to understand the communist logic here more than anything else (if there is any).

"The Olmecs you mentioned lived 3,000 years ago in a relatively small area of Mexico. Joke or not, your comment does not make any point about anything."

Sure it does. Every scrap of dirt on this planet worth owning was stolen from somebody else many times over. What right did Mexico have to the lands of el Norte? By right of inheritance from Spain? Spain conquered every inch of ground it occupied in the New World from various aboriginal peoples, who were for the most part exterminated or enslaved; the rest it claimed only because they sent some dude there on a surveying expedition (at best) and drew a line on a map. Before the Spanish, the Aztecs conquered Mexico from various other tribes. Are you suggesting that the clock should be rolled back or reparations paid to make things "right"? If so, how far should the clock be rolled back in the name of justice? Should Neanderthals be resurrected - Jurassic Park style - so Europe and Asia can be returned to them with a humble apology from Homo Sapiens Sapiens everywhere for their extermination? And if we make some arbitrary decision that Mexico was the "correct" conqueror of the southwestern Unite States, how exactly do you determine the reparations value for, say, Silicon Valley, the development of which Mexico played no role in whatsoever? Or my own city of Ontario which I now live in, which was founded in 1890 by non-Mexicans on land which had been completely undeveloped before then? And what of completely voluntary legal sales of land, such as (for instance) that between the Lugo family and various settlers here in San Bernardino County?

Exclaiming that the land was stolen and that justice must be done in favor of Mexico, which claimed the lands in question for a whopping 30 years, is all well and good, but how much and what kind of justice exactly are you demanding? Should the Southwest simply be returned to Mexico, a country rife with violence, poverty, and corruption which people are fleeing by the millions - largely to the "stolen" north? Alternatively, should the modest two-bedroom condo I live next to be seized from its Chinese(-American) owner and given to a random deserving family from Oaxaca? Should I be punished as a "beneficiary" of some "American Privilege" (since we have established that both the "victims" and the "perpetrators" were white, we obviously can't call it "White Privilege")? And if so, how much? What is the dollar value to be placed on the "advantage" of my current life situation brought about by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 165 years ago? And who should be the beneficiary of this rebalancing? I think the Chumash or Tongva Indians (if there are any who survived the Nazi Death Camps that the history books euphemistically refer to as "Missions") would have a better claim than any descendants of Don Antonio Lugo that might be around. To be honest, I think the whole question is absurd, but that might just be my privilege talking. Perhaps someone with a more just and righteous mind than mine can fill me in on exactly what the plan is to make everything right.

Yeah that's right, Tolstoy. You should go home to wherever you came from.

And, Putin, it's a bit off topic, but how did Russia become such a big country? I'll admit that I don't know too much about it but as I understand it, it involved a fair amount of warring, raiding, conquering and colonizing over a period of a couple of centuries. Are there any areas that the Russians should in your opinion "rightfully" be returning to the previous inhabitants?

This is a quote from 19th century Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky:
"The history of Russia is the history of a country being colonized....migration and colonization of the country have been fundamental facts of our history."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiogUx5h28c

"I said Mormons were preponderant in Utah in 1847"

Which was fully a year after the war with Mexico which you say was justified supposedly on this Mormon majority which preceded it. Now tell me, how could the Mormon majority be a justification for the American take-over if in fact there was no Mormon majority when the war began?

"Now, where is your evidence of extensive Mexican settlement in Utah, and that their land was stolen by Evil Americans?"

I don't need any such evidence. You admitted to me that Mormons didn't settle in Utah and Nevada until *after* the war began. That's all the evidence I need.

"Particularly amusing to me in this thread is the fact that a devoted communist is defending the ownership of a hundred million acres (in California alone) of undeveloped land by a few dozen rich white capitalists against the occasional usurpations (of varying degrees of legality) of impoverished landless immigrants who traveled across at least one continent to get here."

I suppose we're both amused. Because a libertarian critic of government abuse and military expansion is defending the conquest and government-sanctioned judicial theft of private property. I can't figure out the logic in your POV. At all.

Anyway, as to how this conforms to my own ideology, I don't get why this needs to be explained. Why would communists support a war in favor of Texan slaveholders against an abolitionist nationalist? Why would communists support a version of history which deprives Chicanos their claim to nationality? Your efforts to portray the Mormon settlers as 'landless immigrants' is rather absurd. "Landless immigrants" don't become fabulously wealthy landholders and millionaires a la Brigham Young, and the Texan slavers were not landless either.

Oscar, do you want an answer or are you answering your own question?

The early east Slavic kingdom - Kievan Rus - had no natural defenses. It was constantly attacked by steppe raiders - most famously the Mongols after which it was a tributary for several centuries. Ivan III threw off Mongol rule and unified the Russian principalities under Muscovy's control. Muscovy proceeded to expand into Siberia and elsewhere in retaliation vs steppe raids, for example from the Kazan Khanate and other Mongol leftovers. This process eventually led to Russia becoming as large as it is, because these lands were replete migratory steppe raiders.

"Are there any areas that the Russians should in your opinion "rightfully" be returning to the previous inhabitants?"

I've never been a fan of small mono-ethnic states. The current federal/republic system is quite satisfactory to me.

>Oscar, do you want an answer or are you answering your own question?

I know that within your silly black and white categorization of people as either Russia lovers (aka reasonable people) or Russia haters (aka idiots) I have already been assigned to the latter category for daring to discuss human rights issues in Russia. So I realize that, given your adherence to all kinds of conspiracy theories of the Western people against Russia it makes sense *in your mind* that my question is just a ruse to bevile your beloved Russia.

But yeah, I actually asked the question because I was interested in your answer and figured you would probably know more about it than myself. Thanks for the sneer though. It seems as though I can always count on you in that respect.

>"Are there any areas that the Russians should in your opinion "rightfully"
>be returning to the previous inhabitants?"
>
>"I've never been a fan of small mono-ethnic states. The current
>federal/republic system is quite satisfactory to me."

I wasn't asking what is satisfactory to you personally. I was wondering whether there are regions in Russia that are debated in a context similar to how the South of the US is, i.e. with positions tracing back to conquests or colonizations that in today's light might be judged differently than they were when they happened.

"So I realize that, given your adherence to all kinds of conspiracy theories of the Western people against Russia it makes sense *in your mind* that my question is just a ruse to bevile your beloved Russia."

Incorrect. I asked that because you simultaneously asked the question about how Russia expanded and then provided an answer.

"I wasn't asking what is satisfactory to you personally."

You asked if Russia should return certain land to previous inhabitants. You didn't ask if they acquired land under circumstances that would be judged differently today.

Anyway I can't think of any conquests off the top of my head that wasn't preceded by an attack by steppe or slave raiders or some such thing (Russia was the biggest source of slaves outside of Africa due to the steppe Khanates). Certainly Sibir, Kazan, Astrakhan, etc all fit that description. Or, as in the case of Novgorod, by an alliance with an enemy state. The last case is probably the most dubious of the annexations, IMO.

What about Sakhalin (sp?, you know the island north of Japan which was never really Japanese) No wait, the more recent South Ossetia, that's within my lifetime.

Sakhalin was given up by Japan in 1875.

Ossetia voluntarily became part of Russia in the 18th century. And Russia didn't conquer South Ossetia, but rather intervened after being the latter were attacked by Georgia. Georgia has been engaged in an effort to nullify South Ossetian autonomy since the fall of the USSR. Being someone who generally supports autonomy and self-determination, it is odd that you're against them.

Sakhalin was reinvaded in 1945, that was the point where the japanese left again...

And i'm not against South Ossetia, i'm merely asking.

It was acquired by Russia by invasion, if they decided to open trade negotiations with the EU what would we see... not looking at the Ukraine at all.

Oh wait, self-determination by former Soviet states is not something which Moscow actually allows. Do they still have troops in South Ossetia?

And no there was no self-determination in Sakhalin, under either the Japan Imperialists nor the Russian Czarists nor the Russian Soviets.

The Japanese acquired Sakhalin as a result of the 1904-1905 war. They had given up their claim to it in 1875 by treaty. I have a hard time believing that the Russian acquisition in 1945 thus constitutes a dubious annexation, considering that history.

"It was acquired by Russia by invasion,"

It was not acquired at all. It's recognized as an independent state. Not by the EU, which for whatever reason refuses to recognize it. And the presence of Russian troops is a result of the Georgian decision to assault it in 2008. Does the presence of American troops in Germany mean that it's American territory?

"Oh wait, self-determination by former Soviet states is not something which Moscow actually allows. "

Really, then why did Moscow say that it would continue to provide loans to Ukraine even if the pro-EU coup prevails? It's the EU which isn't allowing self-determination, orchestrating violent riots against a sovereign state, after trying to blackmail Ukraine with all sorts of conditions before allowing Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement. Russia says Ukraine can join its customs union regardless of its relations with the EU. The EU will not reciprocate.

Tell me what self-determination has the EU allowed in Cyprus? In Greece? Russia has long allowed for US troops to be stationed within CIS countries, like Kyrgyzstan. The Baltic states are all NATO countries who abuse Russians with impunity. So I don't know where you're getting this from.

"And no there was no self-determination in Sakhalin, under either the Japan Imperialists nor the Russian Czarists nor the Russian Soviets."

So what? It had an infinitesimal population.

Heck, the EU literally imposed a banker's government on Italy.

Orchestrating violent riots? The EU doesn't have the organisation, the CIA could barely do it, and the US has demonstrated how useless their diplomats think the EU actuallyis (largely because it is politically fragmented) That's the most spurious claim i've ever heard.

The riots are a demonstration of self-determination, peaceful by comparison with Syria... Even if a Ukrainian coup is pro-EU (and it is) that doesn't mean it isn't determined entirely by anti-Russian elements within Ukraine. What better example of self-determination?

The EU uses it's power by offering trade deals, bilateral agreements for governments to agree or not. They have no agency capable of supporting riots, they can't even agree to a title of high ambassador (instead the position was diluted to 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy' - now Catherine Ashton)

'after trying to blackmail Ukraine with all sorts of conditions before allowing Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement.', how is it blackmail? The expression of soft power, live up to our standards of democracy or we will refuse to trade.

It is true that they are trying to spread 'EU' norms in rule of law, democracy, anti-corruption, and Ukraine is in for a tough choice of joining one customs union or another. That's a clear choice, the alternative would be to form a single customs union with Russia and the EU, but that is not going to happen today.

Russians in the Baltics likely do get a shit deal, and they have the opportunity to go to the European court of human rights to fight their case. As for Cyprus, are they still at war? UN buffer zone not withstanding...

Kyrgystan makes money from letting US troops move to other parts of central Asia, that doesn't compromise Kyrg independence. South Ossetia is effectively a puppet state. It doesn't exist without Russian support, and thus it is entirely dependant on Russia - which is why maybe the EU should consider recognising them.

"peaceful by comparison with Syria."

Gee well yes it's not a civil war - yet. But hundreds of officers have been injured by your 'peaceful demonstrators'.

"That's the most spurious claim i've ever heard. "

Members of EU governments have actively participated in the demonstrations (see: Westerwelle). Main opposition parties like UDAR have longstanding funding ties with the CDU and the European People's Party. We just got leaked phone calls about the US-EU plot to topple the Ukrainian government, with the US criticizing the EU for backing UDAR instead of the more radical (and violent) Svoboda Party. Ukraine's opposition refuses to accept any concessions from the government (such as the offer of cabinet posts, among other things) because they know that if they refuse to cooperate the EU will back them anyway. And they're right. Now the EU, despite their supposed "outrage" over the leaked US calls, is considering sanctions on Ukraine government officials. And for what? What did Ukraine's government do that is remotely wrong, except not sign an Association Agreement which the EU wasn't allowing them to sign anyway? Based on your so-called "soft power" - aka strongarming tactics.

"They have no agency capable of supporting riots"

The European People's Party runs the EU through Germany and provides extensive logistical support through its affiliates like the Adenauer Foundation. It's similar to what the USA does via the National Endowment for Democracy and International Republican Institute.

"It is true that they are trying to spread 'EU' norms in rule of law, democracy, anti-corruption, and Ukraine is in for a tough choice of joining one customs union or another"

So you make excuses for all the interventions on Ukraine's domestic politics by the EU but you claim that it's Russia who is violating Ukraine's self-determination, when Russia has expressed willingness to work with any government in Ukraine and isn't imposing any such conditions. What a bunch of nonsense.

"Kyrgystan makes money from letting US troops move to other parts of central Asia, that doesn't compromise Kyrg independence."

You claimed that Russia doesn't allow for any self-determination by former Soviet Republics. Yet Kyrgyzstan is allowed to host military forces from the United States.

"South Ossetia is effectively a puppet state. It doesn't exist without Russian support"

Much like the Ukrainian opposition doesn't persist without EU support.

"which is why maybe the EU should consider recognising them."

They won't because they've been too busy arming Georgia to the teeth.

'So you make excuses for all the interventions on Ukraine's domestic politics by the EU but you claim that it's Russia who is violating Ukraine's self-determination, when Russia has expressed willingness to work with any government in Ukraine and isn't imposing any such conditions. What a bunch of nonsense. '

given that neither you nor i are actually involved, i'd have to claim that neither of us knows what the internal politics of Ukraine are. The EU was negotiating a trade deal, Russia decided to scupper it, that's all i know for sure.

The EU was working with the current Ukrainian government, and is currently worked to help the opposition unify in an attempt to prevent this situation escalating.

But yes, the EU uses soft power, because it doesn't have an army to threaten the use of hard power. (it has 28 different armies, at least - and 2 member states last used hard power in Libya, but the EU as an entity doesn't have that capacity.)

'"South Ossetia is effectively a puppet state. It doesn't exist without Russian support"

Much like the Ukrainian opposition doesn't persist without EU support.'

That's an utter spurious comparison, the Ukrainian opposition existed before, when the government was negotiating with the EU on a new trade agreement, and the EU didn't give any weapons to them to get them to come out onto the streets.

Where is the comparison?

'Arming Georgia to the teeth', ie selling them whatever weapons they want? Are you refering to the 12 T-84 and 10 T-72 tanks which Ukraine sent to georgia? Or the US military aid, or the Israeli UAVs? I can't find any reference to any EU nation sending aid or selling weapons...

'You claimed that Russia doesn't allow for any self-determination by former Soviet Republics. Yet Kyrgyzstan is allowed to host military forces from the United States.'

Because Kyrgystan hasn't entered trade negotiations which would exclude them from being a Russian client state. But they are taking money from the US....

But lets focus on the Ukraine. quoting wikipedia

'The demonstrations began on the night of 21 November 2013, when spontaneous protests erupted in the capital, Kiev, after the Ukrainian government suspended preparations for signing an Association Agreement and a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union, in favor of closer economic dependence on Russia.[65] After a few days of demonstrations an increasing number of university students joined the protests.'

So how long did the EU have to instigate these protests? I mean, they're in the middle of an agreement with the Ukrainian government, everything is going well... and then how did a organisation (you say the Adenauer Foundation, perhaps) have to get hundred of thousands of Ukrainian citizens onto the streets?

Honestly i can't find an exact timeline, but the fact that the EU, US and UN now have diplomatic staff on the ground, doesn't indicate that they did in november, and the opposition's refusal to betray the protest movement doesn't imply anything other than opportunism on their part. They want to bring down the government, that sounds like internal politics to me.

The leaked US diplomats conversation shows that they believe Russia will interfere in any plan they come up with, so at best they're all in the same boat - except as i pointed out, the EU seem to lack credibility and the confidence of their Ally.

But you think they're behind all of this? What news source have you been listening to these past four months??

The Aztecs purposefully left independent states within their empire so that they could regularly harvest victims for mass human sacrifice ceremonies. Even faced with such a horrific polity, the Spanish/Castilian government(s) had a hard time deciding whether there was any legal basis for the newly acquired territory, especially considering that Hernán Cortés was not acting under orders from any official. There were public and open legal debates in mid-16th Century about these issues and how the new subjects should be treated. Your claim that in the mid-19th Century there wasn't a pervasive idea of just war or the legality of wars of conquest ignores reality. The leaders in the United States instead prefered to justify the conquests on explicitly racial and expansionist grounds and, disgracefully, most U. S. citizens championed the invasion, with almost no public voices dissenting. The likes of Grant and Thoreau basically only expressed their regrets in private, while the very existence of the Irish Brigade was covered up.

That was to Tolstoy.