5 ms·

To give a bit of context to all the sibling comments: We are talking about a history where: a) A decision to not occupy a defeated country was made because the

To give a bit of context to all the sibling comments: We are talking about a history where: a) A decision to not occupy a defeated country was made because they were impure/non-white (Mexico)... [I don't think I have encountered a similar historical example. I will spend some time looking/reviewing just in case I am forgetting some similar situation.] b) Called Germans and Finnish immigrants "non-white": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th.... Italians and Greeks faced the same treatment. Everything and everyone had to be assigned at some class/color. The wikipedia article goes even more in depth about the issue that also posed for Asians in the U.S. which is a whole lot different rabbit hole, and which I am still confused about. c) Gun control and argumentation started because of racism. NRA actually did support gun control at one point: when the Black Panthers tried to exercise their right to bear arms. And when Reagan introduced the Mulford Act in response, evidence shows it was enforced based on race. https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-mulford-act-and-americas-racist-history-of-gun-control/242420/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-mulford-act-and-americas-r... And going way back: Black Codes were a big part of Jim Crow measure: everyone could have a gun; unless you were "black." (Or other undesirable.) And to place the final nail: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers... There is the claim that the 2nd amendment was enacted to ensure slaves wouldn't revolt. Not sure yet how much weight one should place to that claim; but the world history supports such considerations. [Review cf. Spartans for instance or the Japanese class system.]

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Do you have a source regarding the theory that the race was the primary factor in deciding the territory following the Mexican American war? I haven't encountered this example before. I'm obviously skeptical but willing to read more. As a counterpoint, the last several centuries are full of examples of countries establishing territories or colonies in foreign lands with different ethnicities. In those cases, the local population was generally not given much power for self governance, if at all. The US has a pretty long history of returning militarily conquered territory back to locals for self governance. These countries usually remain within the US sphere of influence of course, and often retain a US military presence, but we dont call it occupation or the territories colonies. Instead we call them allies (e.g. Germany, Japan, the Philippines, S Korea, ect).
- eftychis 3y ago
  Certainly, good point: 2003 UCLA LAW Review: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15_51UCLALRev2832003-2004.pdf https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15_... See first paragraph section C, page 11 (293) -- also citation, but didn't have time to link it here.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. While Calhoun comments seem crass, they have significant parallel in contemporary politics.
    - eftychis 3y ago
      Yes which makes other contemporary politics topics (cf. Puerto Rico statehood as a lighter one) more enlightening.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Do you have a source regarding the theory that the race was the primary factor in deciding the territory following the Mexican American war? I haven't encountered this example before. I'm obviously skeptical but willing to read more. As a counterpoint, the last several centuries are full of examples of countries establishing territories or colonies in foreign lands with different ethnicities. In those cases, the local population was generally not given much power for self governance, if at all. The US has a pretty long history of returning militarily conquered territory back to locals for self governance. These countries usually remain within the US sphere of influence of course, and often retain a US military presence, but we dont call it occupation or the territories colonies. Instead we call them allies (e.g. Germany, Japan, the Philippines, S Korea, ect).

eftychis 3y ago
Certainly, good point: 2003 UCLA LAW Review: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15_51UCLALRev2832003-2004.pdf https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15_... See first paragraph section C, page 11 (293) -- also citation, but didn't have time to link it here.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. While Calhoun comments seem crass, they have significant parallel in contemporary politics.
  - eftychis 3y ago
    Yes which makes other contemporary politics topics (cf. Puerto Rico statehood as a lighter one) more enlightening.