Kevin McCarthy Unlocks New Level of Embarrassment With Claim That America Never Acquired Land Via War
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/kevin-mccarthy-says-america-never-acquired-land-via-warOpen linkView original on lemmy.world522
Comments84https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/kevin-mccarthy-says-america-never-acquired-land-via-warOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
Someone didn't remember the Alamo!
The Alamo was for Texas independence that just so happened to be supported by the US and Texas just so happened to join them afterwards
Or the revolutionary war. Pretty fundamental.
Technically the United States bought Texas and the rest of the Western States, after a war with Mexico.
The technicality they’re using is that the land was purchased after the war as opposed to taken as a result of the war.
Yes, but that land would not have been "sold" if they hadn't lost the war. The war was fought to conquer land, and the payment was for war "reparations".
Wiki
Yes, that is correct. We either purchased the land or found ourselves the owners in mysterious ways after special military operations. /s
Russia/Israel is that you?
There are a whole lot of dead Native Americans who sure as hell thought we were at war with them.
This is the woke mob trying to repaint history. The settlers arrived and invited the native Americans to dinner and the native Americans taught the settlers about "maize" (which means corn) and then the settlers asked they would move to the very cool reservations where they could have the casinos and the native Americans were like "yeah bruh."
It is not new. Many countries do not teach the full extent of their dangerous past(cough Britain cough). A very specific example I remember is when a group of white folks overthrew the local government(a party called Fusionists) in the town of Wilmington, North Carolina. For a very long time, information about it was kept under wraps and to this day, people on the wrong side of history have had places named after them in their honor.
Other than a few small skirmishes, what have the British done? I mean it's one small island, how many countries could it oppress? 10?
Are you joking?
I would assume so. Because Brits, in all seriousness, are possibly responsible for more border conflicts than any(looks at the Flashpoint that is India Pakistan border).
In less seriousness, the tea trade used to be serious business.
No, I'm IDontHavePantsOn.
America teaches it, stupid people just don't pay attention.
No, there are very many places that actually don't. I grew up in GA, native American history wasn't taught past the pilgrims meeting and inventing Thanksgiving, nothing about the Mexican-American war, maybe a cursory mention of Japanese internment.
But it was mostly the revolutionary war, WWI and WWII from the perspective that the US became and is the benevolent world force it claims to be.
They even gave them super warm and soft blankets!
Land's cursed. Almost as if America was built on top of an ancient Native American burial ground or something.
I think we acquired much of the south after a war with the south
We already owned that land and they tried to steal it.
However, war is literally how we founded the country.
Lmao, the Souff
That came a few years after 1776...
American Civil War.
Of all the wars we fought, you picked the one that wasn't about conquering land, and was started by the Confederacy btw
It was a different country. We got their land. By conquering it. And then we destroyed their country. Rightfully so.
Civil wars are, by definition, a nation fighting itself.
It was always the position of the Union that the Confederacy were rebelling citizens, and that fact was the legal basis of the Emancipation Proclamation, later decisions regarding the very concept of a secession without an act of Congress, and quite a few court courses for treason and sedition.
nope, just some traitors in the real USA!
No, though they did try to argue it and they lost
They did it by following the Constitution's rules for change. The Confederacy tried to subvert the Constitution because they were losing. You don't get to cherry pick which parts of the constitution matter and ignore the other parts. The Confederacy saw the writing on the wall that the US was going to follow the procedure outlined by law to become a free country, and they decided that the law, the constitution and the entire united states could go fuck itself. There is no world in which the Confederacy is good, decent or sympathetic. They committed treason so that they could continue to kidnap, rape and murder an entire class of people and no amount of "well if you look at it another way" will change or excuse that.
don't write him off as stupid. this isn't a person trying to be correct and failing. this is a person trying very hard to establish a world in which the truth is irrelevant, and instead from moment to moment the truth is whatever they need it to be in order to justify their positions and actions.
Ah yes, Steven Colbert's "truthiness" still holds true in 2023.
Mexico: "Say whaaaaaaaaaa!?!"
The Mexican-American disagreement.
A special military operation
If only he or his constituents cared about facts or competence.
Lol what a great title. These chumps need more of it.
Puerto Ricans: "Why the fuck do you think we speak Spanish, pendejo?"
I'd love to see Puerto Rico to become a state, just because I think it'd be cool, but I wouldn't blame them one bit for looking at the asshats on the mainland and wanting to get away. Either way, their current status shouldn't continue.
I think a successful completion of a deep national and international history course together hard exams should become a prerequisite for any political office in the US.
I'd be happy if they had to pass the same test they make immigrants pass.
Well you know what they say about Kevin...he's stupid.
No, he's a Nazi.
Embarrassment upon embarrassment upon embarrassment upon...
The United States didn't buy The Philippines or Puerto Rico. It did buy the Western States.
It bought some of the western states. It flat out stole the rest.
It bought them all, but Mexico was really poor so they got it cheaper. The US was willing to pay $50 million.
No. It did not.
The US did offer to buy the territories, Mexico said no, then the US invaded and took them. During the peace process after the war, the US then paid less than half of the initial offer for the territories that it was never going to give back.
Later, the US bought a sliver of land on the border for a slightly inflated price, but that was its own thing.
But you can't really call an armed invasion, and then a pittance paid out in damages, to be "Buying them all".
The United States could have just taken all of Mexico, but it didn't. It paid for the land. The population of the western states was made up of Americans anyhow, less than a thousand Mexican citizens lived in those areas at the time.
Someone: puts a gun to your head and says "I'll give you $4 for your car".
You: "This is a free and fair trade."
That wasn't the case, the Mexican government was run as an oligarchy. The United States threat was to threaten to turn over their lands to the public.
How generous of you to call the natives American after the fact.
That is actually addressed in the purchase agreement.
If a guy takes your car at gunpoint, and then hands you a fiver, he did not just "buy your car".
A peace treaty at the end of a war of conquest is not a "purchase agreement".
The US took most of the land from Mexico that was worth taking. There's little viable agricultural land south of Texas. Also, it put a lot of land in between Mexico and New Orleans, which is an incredibly important international port. With that secured, no foreign army would be able to threaten that port without major logistics challenges, much less fighting through the US Army and every local citizen with a gun.
The US grabbed what it wanted and let Mexico keep the scraps.
That is looking at it from today, not from how it was viewed then. The main reason Mexico was fine with selling was the massive desert that separated the two areas and the extremely violent native population that inhabited the region. That reason didn't become peaceful until the 1920s.
The US bought the Philippines from Spain for $14 million. Then fought a war with the Filipinos.
Well, Spain didn't ask them.
Spain was loosing influence in the Philippines at that time so to cut their loses they offered the Philippines to the US. They even fought a mock battle where Spain "lost".
We didn't get California and Texas by war, we got that by Devine right. Manifest Destiny.
I dunno who Devine is, but they clearly dont grasp the concept of rights
We picked it right off de vine.
Pretty sure they're a drag queen, but I don't know why they're being brought up in this context.
I believe we paid Mexico money for most of the territory...after invading nearly to Mexico City.
"I'll give you $50"
"It's a million square miles!"
"Yeah, but there's dead bodies all over it."
"YOU KILLED THEM!"
"Fine. $55. Take it or leave it."
A brief history of New York becoming New York:
English: that New Amsterdam place is looking mighty fine..
Dutch: Don't even think about it! New Amsterdam is heavily fortified and not for sale at any cost!
English: we have some nutmeg..
Dutch: SOLD!
Nearly? We fought basically At Mexico City, today that is well within the city limits
The Gadsden Purchase was for $10 million in 1854 and established the Southern border.
A shame what happened to his flag, though..
That snake should be licking a boot
This close enough?
Yes thank you
Correct, but the Spanish American War was of conquest. Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa were won through war.
Are they still teaching Kipling in the schools?
https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/11whitemanburden.pdf
Conservatives: ...aaaaand it's banned.