(09-28-2014 08:58 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 10:13 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 09:47 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Mexico, as far as I am concerned is our enemy.

and how exactly do you feel about canada???

I don't. It's our jealous little brother that is 100% reliant on us. They are addicted to liberalism, soccer and hockey.

Canada sucks at soccer, and I don't think they're into it that much.

And hockey is liberal now?

I'd rather live in Mexico City than Oklahoma.

(09-28-2014 09:05 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:42 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 09:47 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Mexico, as far as I am concerned is our enemy.

To you Okie, everyone is your enemy. You need help my friend. If you're this way at this young age I can just imagine how bad you'll be at old age. You're a lost soul and as the Lefties here say, you indeed are a hateful person.




Get help. Soon.

To you, oillie, it's always a racial issue for you. I'm sure in your mind you read my words as an assault on Aztecs and Chicanos. Never mind this conversation is about trashy country that undermines us at every turn, and a invasive culture that is invading our land. You are truly obsessed with racism. If you are like this as a young person, I can only imagine what you will be like as you get older. You indeed are a racist person.

Get help. Soon.

LOL, you are to be pitied.

As for Mexico and every Spanish speaking country, I blame the Pope and the Catholic church. As late as the middle 19th century the church did not want educated people because they were afraid of them reading the Bible. It was against the church for someone other than priests to read the Bible. Why? This (literacy) happens in other countries too, Mao's cultural revolution, Lenin's revolution, etc. Keep them subjugated and ignorant.

(09-28-2014 05:45 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  I'd rather live in Mexico City than Oklahoma.

Sure.

(09-28-2014 06:16 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 09:05 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:42 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 09:47 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Mexico, as far as I am concerned is our enemy.

To you Okie, everyone is your enemy. You need help my friend. If you're this way at this young age I can just imagine how bad you'll be at old age. You're a lost soul and as the Lefties here say, you indeed are a hateful person.




Get help. Soon.

To you, oillie, it's always a racial issue for you. I'm sure in your mind you read my words as an assault on Aztecs and Chicanos. Never mind this conversation is about trashy country that undermines us at every turn, and a invasive culture that is invading our land. You are truly obsessed with racism. If you are like this as a young person, I can only imagine what you will be like as you get older. You indeed are a racist person.

Get help. Soon.

LOL, you are to be pitied.

As for Mexico and every Spanish speaking country, I blame the Pope and the Catholic church. As late as the middle 19th century the church did not want educated people because they were afraid of them reading the Bible. It was against the church for someone other than priests to read the Bible. Why? This (literacy) happens in other countries too, Mao's cultural revolution, Lenin's revolution, etc. Keep them subjugated and ignorant.

That's great but it has nothing to do with Mexico being a trash pile today.

You know Okie how to fix your problem, yes, your problem. Don't go to Mexico and viola, nothing to worry about. You're the extreme opposite of Feet, I would love to see you get together. What a spectacle you both would make.

Wow thanks for the compliment.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-27-2014 06:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 05:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 05:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 05:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 05:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  it doesn't matter how far they would of developed them, the seed was already planted when they had mixed "marriages" with the native population. What ultimately put New Zealand, Australia, Canada, & the US ahead of other non european countries was the fact that they were mostly white. in a pre 1960s era, that's ultimately helps a country succeed.

I think that's one way of looking at it but all of these places had a native population.

I think the difference is in how the English treated native populations compared to people like the Belgians, Spanish, etc. The English didn't put one group of natives in charge over others. In Mexico the elites were entirely Spanish but used natives to work and mixed race people to administer. The English just moved native populations.

The English could do that because they had the strength to protect and effectively administer their holdings. The Spanish didn't. The Spanish had to play games to maintain control. The result was a deeply divided populace of mixed races and no infrastructure.

um what??? The english did that in plenty of other places. the only reason they didn't do it in north america was because the natives there had no established rulers, classes, or large ethnic groups like the way things were in other parts of the world.

at the end of the day the english colonies in north america were basically extensions of the british isles and had only a handful of differences.

Name a single place where the English elevated one ethnic group of natives over another. The English controlled administration of their colonies from soup to nuts and did not share colonial power with native populations, as the Spanish did with mixed race, the Fang, or the Belgians with Tutsis over Hutus.

If you are talking about importing Indians to places like South Africa, Rhodesia, or Uganda that is unique and very different than what I am talking about. Those populations have preven to be rather temporary and haven't had much in the way of a lasting impact.

I agree with your second part. They ran their colonies as extensions of themselves, unlike Spain in Mexico which was a gold mine run by maintaining a tough balance of ethnic and cultural tensions to barely hold onto power.

I am talking about using a minority of the subjects one wishes to rule and using them to help one hold on to power by giving them a stake in the administrative process. The british did this in india, and we saw this in very small form even in the US with how slaveowners kept order on large plantations.

I think there is a subtle distinction here that is missed. The British exploited political powers in India but not racial ones in any manner even remotely similar to other colonial powers. For instance, the British used Indian Kings etc in a sort of vassal system whereas the Spanish elevated entire racial or ethnic groups over others. They issued racial ID cards and split society and administration up along those lines. The British didn't do anything like that in any of their colonial possessions, not even in Africa. Nigeria is a perfect example of how different British colonialism in Africa was so markedly different than others.

You really can take a solid guess as to how developed or undeveloped a country is if you know its old colonial master. Dutch-English-French-Italian-German-Spanish-Portugese-Belgian.

It's interesting too because as you look at each colonial empire in turn you can see reasons why each has left a varying legacy. The more direct control the better off the ex colonies are, on average. The less direct control and more reliance on natives then the worse off generally.