Oh yeah, we didn't help them develop along with us, but the point is they were poor before that.Turquoise wrote:
Good book, but you have to admit that part of what kept them poor in the Industrial Age was European colonization. Europe raped Africa, and then decided to leave only corporations behind to continue raping them with.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, they were poor long before we even thought about drawing borders for themTurquoise wrote:
To be fair, what raped Africa the most were the terrible borders the Europeans drew for them. They made similar mistakes with the Middle East as well.
Again, it comes down to the historical distribution of resources like good farm land.
If anyone really wants to understand the balance of power in the world I highly recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
Now, the First World in general is left with the decision of having to aid these people or to just let them die. Admittedly, I alternate between which option I prefer.
For sure... industrialization makes all the difference.
And with the state Europe left most African nations in, they might as well have stayed and developed them. Many of these countries are incapable of self rule at this point.
South Africa is one of the few that has actually carved out a decent existence, but it took a lot of bloodshed and oppression beforehand.
And with the state Europe left most African nations in, they might as well have stayed and developed them. Many of these countries are incapable of self rule at this point.
South Africa is one of the few that has actually carved out a decent existence, but it took a lot of bloodshed and oppression beforehand.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Gold, silver and copper have only had any real value within the last thousand years or so.ATG wrote:
umm...gold , silver and copper have been traded for thousands of years.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Which part of the diference between "very very recently" and "historically" do you not understand?
Good day.
And, just over 1000 years ago, the Mayans were still running around Mexico.
For a comparison, lets look at some of the history of the British Isles:
2000 years ago we were just coming to the end of the Iron Age.
1000 before that and we were coming to the end of the Neolithic and Bronze ages.
1000 years before that the first industrial scale copper mines were being dug in Britain.
3000 years earlier we were just setting up settlements and begining to farm.
2000 before that and we were still part of mainland Europe.
That's a span of around 9000 thousands years.
And we adopted farming early because we imported it from Europe.
You got to think on much much longer scales than just the last 1000 or so odd years when looking at how the world became what it is today.
Mexicos natural resources wrote:
Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2007 est.): $1.353 trillion; per capita $12,500. Real growth rate: 3%. Inflation: 3.8%. Unemployment: 3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25%. Arable land: 13%. Agriculture: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, dairy products; wood products. Labor force: 45.38 million; agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003). Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism. Natural resources: petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Exports: $267.5 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton. Imports: $279.3 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment, car parts for assembly, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts. Major trading partners: U.S., Canada, Spain, South Korea, Japan (2006).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 125405.htm"Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World," he said. "Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite."
Mexico needs apologists. I understand you feel the need to be one. Just be better prepared with facts.
That book explains why the Europeans took over the Americas, aka, brought the current group of people living there over the natives (Mayans, Aztecs, Caribs, Indians, etc). This has no bearing on the current situation.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, they were poor long before we even thought about drawing borders for them
Again, it comes down to the historical distribution of resources like good farm land.
If anyone really wants to understand the balance of power in the world I highly recommend Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.
And the book has some good points as well as some flaws, which have been documented by other historians. If you liked the book (I did) you ought to google it and check it out.
But the main problem has nothing to do with borders. It's got to do with economics. The issue will not be solved until the economics of the entire central american area is more rosey.
Did you know that something like 25% of illegals coming thru the Mexican border aren't even native Mexicans? Did you know that Mexico itself has an illegal immigration problem with its southern border as well?
Last edited by Pug (2008-05-06 21:32:47)
ARGH! What is wrong with you? Why can you not understand that all these things only matter NOW.ATG wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Gold, silver and copper have only had any real value within the last thousand years or so.ATG wrote:
umm...gold , silver and copper have been traded for thousands of years.
Good day.
And, just over 1000 years ago, the Mayans were still running around Mexico.
For a comparison, lets look at some of the history of the British Isles:
2000 years ago we were just coming to the end of the Iron Age.
1000 before that and we were coming to the end of the Neolithic and Bronze ages.
1000 years before that the first industrial scale copper mines were being dug in Britain.
3000 years earlier we were just setting up settlements and begining to farm.
2000 before that and we were still part of mainland Europe.
That's a span of around 9000 thousands years.
And we adopted farming early because we imported it from Europe.
You got to think on much much longer scales than just the last 1000 or so odd years when looking at how the world became what it is today.Mexicos natural resources wrote:
Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2007 est.): $1.353 trillion; per capita $12,500. Real growth rate: 3%. Inflation: 3.8%. Unemployment: 3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25%. Arable land: 13%. Agriculture: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, dairy products; wood products. Labor force: 45.38 million; agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003). Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism. Natural resources: petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Exports: $267.5 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton. Imports: $279.3 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment, car parts for assembly, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts. Major trading partners: U.S., Canada, Spain, South Korea, Japan (2006).
What shaped the world we see today happend A LONG TIME IN THE PAST.
Does it say anything about trade?http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 125405.htm"Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World," he said. "Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite."
No.
Know why the Spanish raped South America?
Because there was fuck-loads of gold and other valuable goods just lying around waiting to be taken.
Yes, they used metals, including gold, as prestige goods, but those goods WERE NOT TRADED.
They were kept and worn by the elite, as marks of their leetness.
But wait, I thought your point was that these poor, poor people were just down on their luck and without a pot to piss in?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
ARGH! What is wrong with you? Why can you not understand that all these things only matter NOW.ATG wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Gold, silver and copper have only had any real value within the last thousand years or so.
And, just over 1000 years ago, the Mayans were still running around Mexico.
For a comparison, lets look at some of the history of the British Isles:
2000 years ago we were just coming to the end of the Iron Age.
1000 before that and we were coming to the end of the Neolithic and Bronze ages.
1000 years before that the first industrial scale copper mines were being dug in Britain.
3000 years earlier we were just setting up settlements and begining to farm.
2000 before that and we were still part of mainland Europe.
That's a span of around 9000 thousands years.
And we adopted farming early because we imported it from Europe.
You got to think on much much longer scales than just the last 1000 or so odd years when looking at how the world became what it is today.Mexicos natural resources wrote:
Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2007 est.): $1.353 trillion; per capita $12,500. Real growth rate: 3%. Inflation: 3.8%. Unemployment: 3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25%. Arable land: 13%. Agriculture: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, dairy products; wood products. Labor force: 45.38 million; agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003). Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism. Natural resources: petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Exports: $267.5 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton. Imports: $279.3 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment, car parts for assembly, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts. Major trading partners: U.S., Canada, Spain, South Korea, Japan (2006).
What shaped the world we see today happend A LONG TIME IN THE PAST.Does it say anything about trade?http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 125405.htm"Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World," he said. "Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite."
No.
Know why the Spanish raped South America?
Because there was fuck-loads of gold and other valuable goods just lying around waiting to be taken.
Yes, they used metals, including gold, as prestige goods, but those goods WERE NOT TRADED.
They were kept and worn by the elite, as marks of their leetness.
In terms of the resources that mattered when the world pie was being shared out, yes they were.ATG wrote:
But wait, I thought your point was that these poor, poor people were just down on their luck and without a pot to piss in?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
ARGH! What is wrong with you? Why can you not understand that all these things only matter NOW.ATG wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Gold, silver and copper have only had any real value within the last thousand years or so.
And, just over 1000 years ago, the Mayans were still running around Mexico.
For a comparison, lets look at some of the history of the British Isles:
2000 years ago we were just coming to the end of the Iron Age.
1000 before that and we were coming to the end of the Neolithic and Bronze ages.
1000 years before that the first industrial scale copper mines were being dug in Britain.
3000 years earlier we were just setting up settlements and begining to farm.
2000 before that and we were still part of mainland Europe.
That's a span of around 9000 thousands years.
And we adopted farming early because we imported it from Europe.
You got to think on much much longer scales than just the last 1000 or so odd years when looking at how the world became what it is today.Mexicos natural resources wrote:
Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2007 est.): $1.353 trillion; per capita $12,500. Real growth rate: 3%. Inflation: 3.8%. Unemployment: 3.7% plus underemployment of perhaps 25%. Arable land: 13%. Agriculture: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, dairy products; wood products. Labor force: 45.38 million; agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003). Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism. Natural resources: petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Exports: $267.5 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton. Imports: $279.3 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.): metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment, car parts for assembly, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts. Major trading partners: U.S., Canada, Spain, South Korea, Japan (2006).
What shaped the world we see today happend A LONG TIME IN THE PAST.Does it say anything about trade?
No.
Know why the Spanish raped South America?
Because there was fuck-loads of gold and other valuable goods just lying around waiting to be taken.
Yes, they used metals, including gold, as prestige goods, but those goods WERE NOT TRADED.
They were kept and worn by the elite, as marks of their leetness.
They had the right idea about gold - they didn't worship it or try to use it make themselves better off than their neighbours, they saw it as what it is - shiny yellow reflective stuff that looks pretty.
So, why is Mexico our 3rd largest oil supplier?!?
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165
COLOMBIA 220 171 194 73 106
ALGERIA 191 366 281 392 474
ECUADOR 169 247 209 178 226
BRAZIL 169 169 169 103 156
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 97 91 94 41 48
CHAD 89 117 103 87 78
RUSSIA 80 16 47 49 40
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
Saudi Arabia is awash in dollars because of our oil purchases.
Mexico is obsessed with exporting their problems.
Wouldn't it be simply more cost effective to attack Mexico for it's oil?
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165
COLOMBIA 220 171 194 73 106
ALGERIA 191 366 281 392 474
ECUADOR 169 247 209 178 226
BRAZIL 169 169 169 103 156
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 97 91 94 41 48
CHAD 89 117 103 87 78
RUSSIA 80 16 47 49 40
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr … mport.html
Saudi Arabia is awash in dollars because of our oil purchases.
Mexico is obsessed with exporting their problems.
Wouldn't it be simply more cost effective to attack Mexico for it's oil?
Last edited by ATG (2008-05-06 22:36:47)
ARGH!ATG wrote:
So, why is Mexico our 3rd largest oil supplier?!?
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165
COLOMBIA 220 171 194 73 106
ALGERIA 191 366 281 392 474
ECUADOR 169 247 209 178 226
BRAZIL 169 169 169 103 156
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 97 91 94 41 48
CHAD 89 117 103 87 78
RUSSIA 80 16 47 49 40
Past. Now. Future.
Past. Now. Future.
Everything that shaped what we see NOW, happened in the PAST.
A LONG TIME IN THE PAST.
BEFORE OIL WELLS.
I have concluded that you have no point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
ARGH!ATG wrote:
So, why is Mexico our 3rd largest oil supplier?!?
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165
COLOMBIA 220 171 194 73 106
ALGERIA 191 366 281 392 474
ECUADOR 169 247 209 178 226
BRAZIL 169 169 169 103 156
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 97 91 94 41 48
CHAD 89 117 103 87 78
RUSSIA 80 16 47 49 40
Past. Now. Future.
Past. Now. Future.
Everything that shaped what we see NOW, happened in the PAST.
A LONG TIME IN THE PAST.
BEFORE OIL WELLS.
Good day!
Welfare and gun control? Are you kidding? You don't live down here and you have no idea what it is like. Welfare would make the problem significantly worse. That's just saying, "Let's give the illegals our money so that they don't have to steal it from us". How the hell would it help? Gun control is all that is protecting a lot of American border inhabitants from the mobs of illegals who run through their backyard ever day, break their well pump stealing water, then start beating you with a pipe when you try to repair your well(This is a true story). You have no idea what you are talking about.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
RE: thread in general - hmmm... I wonder how many of these problems would be lessened by the introduction of a decent welfare system and tighter gun control laws (sorry gun nuts, but I just don't buy the 'the right to bear arms makes the streets safer' argument).
No, you're just not seeing the point.ATG wrote:
I have concluded that you have no point.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
ARGH!ATG wrote:
So, why is Mexico our 3rd largest oil supplier?!?
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Feb-08 Jan-08 YTD 2008 Feb-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,920 1,944 1,933 1,840 1,848
SAUDI ARABIA 1,614 1,479 1,544 1,185 1,382
MEXICO 1,231 1,198 1,214 1,358 1,398
NIGERIA 982 1,163 1,075 1,061 1,085
VENEZUELA 945 1,135 1,043 1,115 1,031
IRAQ 780 543 658 325 433
ANGOLA 341 566 458 451 504
KUWAIT 261 239 249 158 165
COLOMBIA 220 171 194 73 106
ALGERIA 191 366 281 392 474
ECUADOR 169 247 209 178 226
BRAZIL 169 169 169 103 156
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 97 91 94 41 48
CHAD 89 117 103 87 78
RUSSIA 80 16 47 49 40
Past. Now. Future.
Past. Now. Future.
Everything that shaped what we see NOW, happened in the PAST.
A LONG TIME IN THE PAST.
BEFORE OIL WELLS.
Good day!
Modern mexicans are not primarily modern mexicans (and all that comes with that) due to anything we or they have done in the last 1000 years, they are modern mexicans (and all that comes with that) primarily because ANCIENT MEXICANS were UNLUCKY enough to live in a resource-poor part of the world.
Is it not time that we, who are lucky enough to have had ancenstors that lived in a resource-rich part of the world, gave something back?
THEY'RE HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS FOR FUCK SAKE!
FLESH AND BLOOD.
Just like you and I.
The same.
If a member of your family was down on their luck, would you not help them out?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-05-06 22:54:59)
That is some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. Does that really make any sense at all to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, war is a physical manifestation of a concept.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Concepts can do no harm? Really? What the are you smoking? By your logic, is war not a concept?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Well, that's what I'm trying to get at - how is he "affected negatively by them"?
'Border security', or the lack thereof, are just concepts and concepts can do one no harm.
Physical manifestations can do one harm.
Concepts themselves can not.
Have you ever heard the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
That is some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. Does that really make any sense at all to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, war is a physical manifestation of a concept.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Concepts can do no harm? Really? What the are you smoking? By your logic, is war not a concept?
Physical manifestations can do one harm.
Concepts themselves can not.
It's exactly the same.
Concepts, ideas, words - these things don't physically exist.
They can not, by and of themselves, do any physical damage. To anything.
War, violence and the actions of people - these things do physically exist.
They can, by and of themselves, do physical damage. To anything.
Citing Jared Diamond - Diamond was talking about why didn't the ancient tribes become dominant. Why? Because the Spanish landed and took over. So I'm not sure where you're coming from if their ancestors came from Europe too.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, you're just not seeing the point.
Modern mexicans are not primarily modern mexicans (and all that comes with that) due to anything we or they have done in the last 1000 years, they are modern mexicans (and all that comes with that) primarily because ANCIENT MEXICANS were UNLUCKY enough to live in a resource-poor part of the world.
Is it not time that we, who are lucky enough to have had ancenstors that lived in a resource-rich part of the world, gave something back?
THEY'RE HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS FOR FUCK SAKE!
FLESH AND BLOOD.
Just like you and I.
The same.
If a member of your family was down on their luck, would you not help them out?
1. You never wondered why Mexicans and Spanish, though similar, don't actually look the same? Because the Spanish didn't just take over and just kick all the Mayans out - modern Mexicans are mostly a mix of Spanish blood and old Mayan blood.Pug wrote:
Citing Jared Diamond - Diamond was talking about why didn't the ancient tribes become dominant. Why? Because the Spanish landed and took over. So I'm not sure where you're coming from if their ancestors came from Europe too.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, you're just not seeing the point.
Modern mexicans are not primarily modern mexicans (and all that comes with that) due to anything we or they have done in the last 1000 years, they are modern mexicans (and all that comes with that) primarily because ANCIENT MEXICANS were UNLUCKY enough to live in a resource-poor part of the world.
Is it not time that we, who are lucky enough to have had ancenstors that lived in a resource-rich part of the world, gave something back?
THEY'RE HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS FOR FUCK SAKE!
FLESH AND BLOOD.
Just like you and I.
The same.
If a member of your family was down on their luck, would you not help them out?
2. The Spanish, other than for some crazy beliefs on the part of the Mayans, were able to take over because they were more advanced by that stage - they had armour and guns, where the Mayans (even with all their metal wealth) had no armour, no guns, just grass skirts and spears - the reason the Mayans were so technologically outclassed was down to bad luck in were they lived.
I've hinted at Diamond's flaws. He does a good job on explaining why one culture takes over another, but once the initial conquering phase is over, it doesn't apply to modern times.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
1. You never wondered why Mexicans and Spanish, though similar, don't actually look the same? Because the Spanish didn't just take over and just kick all the Mayans out - modern Mexicans are mostly a mix of Spanish blood and old Mayan blood.
2. The Spanish, other than for some crazy beliefs on the part of the Mayans, were able to take over because they were more advanced by that stage - they had armour and guns, where the Mayans (even with all their metal wealth) had no armour, no guns, just grass skirts and spears - the reason the Mayans were so technologically outclassed was down to bad luck in were they lived.
The Spaniards were in power. Of course, I would argue that it is possible that the Spanish colonizational policies were quite different than the English - one where it was more about raping the resources than to establish a permanent colony (at least for a long while). But I don't feel that its enough to cause such a wide rift between the US and Mexico in terms of technology, etc.
The technology of Europe was introduced in the US and Mexico about the same time, so I don't believe this logic holds.
The economic differences have to do with other factors besides racism location.
Like what?Pug wrote:
I've hinted at Diamond's flaws. He does a good job on explaining why one culture takes over another, but once the initial conquering phase is over, it doesn't apply to modern times.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
1. You never wondered why Mexicans and Spanish, though similar, don't actually look the same? Because the Spanish didn't just take over and just kick all the Mayans out - modern Mexicans are mostly a mix of Spanish blood and old Mayan blood.
2. The Spanish, other than for some crazy beliefs on the part of the Mayans, were able to take over because they were more advanced by that stage - they had armour and guns, where the Mayans (even with all their metal wealth) had no armour, no guns, just grass skirts and spears - the reason the Mayans were so technologically outclassed was down to bad luck in were they lived.
The Spaniards were in power. Of course, I would argue that it is possible that the Spanish colonizational policies were quite different than the English - one where it was more about raping the resources than to establish a permanent colony (at least for a long while). But I don't feel that its enough to cause such a wide rift between the US and Mexico in terms of technology, etc.
The technology of Europe was introduced in the US and Mexico about the same time, so I don't believe this logic holds.
The economic differences have to do with other factors besides racism location.
Here's a couple:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Like what?
http://www.nationalreview.com/books/han … 200837.asp
http://mises.org/story/1774
Scorpion, you don't know jack shit. Do you know how much money the US has given to Mexico to try and help it out. Its government and its wealthy keep the people of that country poor and don't have any plans on changing that. That doesn't mean we have to bare the brunt of their corrupt government.
Wait what? Mexico doesn't have any farm land?
I read all of that stuff and basically read into it that Mexico is the way it is because they didn't have resources that where value-able at the time.. Well they did have the resources but they didn't use it right.. Weren't the Aztecs the most advanced people of that time? I'm confused and I don't believe that what happened 100 of years ago to millions of years ago have any effect on us today..
Mexico is rich in modern day resources and don't care about there people, and we're getting the negative effect of it. That video that ATG put up said that MS-13 has about 60,000 soldiers or people who are in it.. That's a fucking army..
I read all of that stuff and basically read into it that Mexico is the way it is because they didn't have resources that where value-able at the time.. Well they did have the resources but they didn't use it right.. Weren't the Aztecs the most advanced people of that time? I'm confused and I don't believe that what happened 100 of years ago to millions of years ago have any effect on us today..
Mexico is rich in modern day resources and don't care about there people, and we're getting the negative effect of it. That video that ATG put up said that MS-13 has about 60,000 soldiers or people who are in it.. That's a fucking army..
MS 13 members...
If ever there was a good cause for a " shoot on site " order. This is it.
If ever there was a good cause for a " shoot on site " order. This is it.
The lack of a physical border is allowing illegals into the United States and destroying the country.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Have you ever heard the saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?Deadmonkiefart wrote:
That is some of the most twisted logic I have ever heard. Does that really make any sense at all to you?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, war is a physical manifestation of a concept.
Physical manifestations can do one harm.
Concepts themselves can not.
It's exactly the same.
Concepts, ideas, words - these things don't physically exist.
They can not, by and of themselves, do any physical damage. To anything.
War, violence and the actions of people - these things do physically exist.
They can, by and of themselves, do physical damage. To anything.
Interesting reads.Pug wrote:
Here's a couple:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Like what?
http://www.nationalreview.com/books/han … 200837.asp
http://mises.org/story/1774
I still say Diamond is on to something.
He sure is. But he is missing something imo, because its missing some other elements...I have no idea what.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Interesting reads.Pug wrote:
Here's a couple:Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Like what?
http://www.nationalreview.com/books/han … 200837.asp
http://mises.org/story/1774
I still say Diamond is on to something.
For what it's worth his theory is better than most.