Comments (8) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Albany59 said, 5 months ago

   And, 70 percent of Israelis would agree.

2. 

   believecommonsense said, 5 months ago

   Luckovich: sound of applause, well done and original editorial commentary !

3. 

   cjkinsey said, 5 months ago

   concerned, I am concerned. Are you saying that because the U.S population is growing, we can just take Mexico or Canada?

4. 

   satipera2 said, 5 months ago

   Cjkinsey

   I agree with the cartoon. I do not want to be picky but you did take large parts of Mexico.

5. 

   TrickyPickle said, 5 months ago

   I think Concerned is referring to malthusian principles. Populations grow geometrically and the more space and food that are available, the faster we will fill it. He’s saying that if you stopped creating more settlements, then you’d have less people that would need space. Is that right Concerned?

6. 

   fritzoid said, 5 months ago

   Was Mexico Mexico when we took it, or was it still New Spain? And most of what we got from them, I think, we paid them for (the possible exception being Texas, but they can have that back any time, as far as I’m concerned). If nobody knew there was gold in California until after the U.S. bought it, that’s not OUR fault…

7. 

   cdward said, 5 months ago

   fritzoid, Problem is, we paid people for the land who didn’t really own the land in the first place. And some of that we didn’t pay for. Is it a valid sale if you buy something from someone who stole it? Think of the Louisiana Purchase. Who got the money, the people who lived there or some kingdom across the ocean?

8. 

   fritzoid said, 5 months ago

   Who owned the land? There were the pure-blooded Indians (so-called) of one sort or another, but they didn’t recognized the concept of “private ownership of land” until we ever-so-kindly explained it to them. But that’s an entirely different issue from the one I think we’re talking about.

   Mestizos (products of European/Native American interbreeding) may have held and/or worked land which was claimed as Spanish Crown Property, and U.S. payment of monies to the Spanish Crown in exchange for sovereignty/ownership of those lands, while of questionable morality, would I think have to be considered legally valid.

   I live in California now but I grew up in Illinois, so I never really studied this specific area in our Local History units. Did the U.S. Government forcibly evict those of Spanish descent from these territories? (Again, my understanding is that this IS what happened in Texas.)

   When Jefferson bought Louisiana from France, what he bought was really sovereignty to those lands. I don’t think he dispossessed French settlers in those areas, but French settlement in Louisiana wasn’t as extensive as Spanish settlement in New Spain. (Again, the indigenous inhabitants were another issue…)

   The argument of some La Raza-type separatists that “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed US” has some validity, but in truth the Great Spanish-speaking Nation of Aztlan never existed, and so it’s specious to say their goal is “reunification.”