undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgoodluckchuck2y ago0 comments

It’s not fair to call that a war of aggression on our part. Mexico claiming to own vast swaths of land including California and Texas in the 1840s was about as legitimate as Spain’s prior claim over the same “New Spain” which Mexico merely inherited… again by violence.

It’d be as if the US claimed to own Antartica, the moon, or mars. Perhaps there may have been a few people there, but it was never a serious enough population that anyone could think their claim of ownership was competitive. I mean, they had a stronger claim than Spain, but that’s not saying much.

0 comments

coliveira2y ago

But this is not the point. The issue is, the US has become what it is now by attacking other people and taking their land. It has never really stopped. They did it later to Hawaii and other islands. And then it was fighting wars to submit entire countries to their will until the present.

midoridensha2y ago

Mexico inherited that land from Spain. Why did Spain have a rightful claim to it? They didn't live there.

The only people who had a legitimate claim to any of the land taken by the US in that war were the natives, but they weren't a party to it.

As for Hawaii, that wasn't attacked; that was basically swindled by business interests.

goodluckchuckOP2y ago

I’d argue Hawaii was attacked by the British via Kamehameha I, who just so coincidentally conquered the various islands immediately after Cook landed.

Then 50 years later they stopped giving the British the influence they wanted and the British openly exerted their rule for a few years…

The domestic population - then a mix of narives and others - overthrew the British and invited the US.

No wrongdoing by the US, with the possible exception of a few random individuals.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse