naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
28857 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
I'm trying to imagine how we'd behave if every Mexican was actually really angry about white settlement of the Americas. Lets say hostilities between Mexicans and the rest of the US never subsided, and Texas and California were disputed states with constant violent flare-ups. Life in Texas and California dragged behind quality of life in the rest of the US and Mexicans living in those territories were pretty miserable and Mexican terrorism and US heavy-handed response was a fact of life.
Peace proposals for Texas and Californian independence and full recognition are floated, but they keep getting derailed because of one core Mexican demand: they demand right of return for all Mexicans to anywhere in the US, because this was their ancestral homeland if you go far back enough. To put the numbers in Israel proportions, this would be up to 160 million Mexicans in the global diaspora potentially settling the entire US.
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of how Texas and California were litigated, I don't see the US capitulating to terms like that. If Mexicans were engaging in cross-border terrorism against civilian targets I can see the chances going from vanishingly improbable to fucking never.
I feel like it's kind of incoherent to ask how America would react in circumstance that America wouldn't be in.
Like, in order to have Mexicans feel about the US the way Palestinians feel about Israel, the US would have to have a very different national character that made us do very different things.
What would we do if we were very different from what we are now? Who knows!
Which is an important point about analogies and popular imagination on this topic; we all talk about how various western democracies would respond if they were in Israel's place, with the implication that the answer to that question is what it would be reasonable for Israel to do, and we should side with them if they do that.
But there's a reason none of those western democracies are in Israel's place, that reason has a lot to do with Israel's actions as a nation, and those actions do change what is reasonable for them to do, and who we should side with.
But there's a reason none of those western democracies are in Israel's place, that reason has a lot to do with Israel's actions as a nation, and those actions do change what is reasonable for them to do, and who we should side with.
I can appreciate that the US is not Israel, but why aren't the actions of the Palestinians in the territories also a factor? If they had followed Gandhi (as mentioned elsewhere) they would have probably been a lot more successful and not suffered so much. And the physical and cultural destruction we carried out on Japan in WW2 which was surely far more outrageous was apparently very productive.
You're certainly right, I was just narrowly addressing the question by examining the US/Israel analogy it used. It definitely takes two to tango in situations like this, and either side probably could be in a better place today by being more civil in the past.
I do personally have an ethos that says the burden of being civilized and absorbing affronts while continuing to reach for peace should always be on the stronger and more comfortable party in any conflict, partially because they can afford it, partially because that burden is the only way to end up at anything like an equitable resolution to a conflict between a stronger and weaker party.
But I acknowledge that there's something there in the intuition of 'the stronger party should overwhelm the weaker party brutally and efficiently so that the bad equilibrium ends quickly and hopefully the new equilibrium is better for everyone'.
I think that approach is too vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and works worse overall, but maybe this is one of those cases where different contexts call for different solutions and I am overgeneralizing my heuristics to a situation where they don't work.
Good points, though, I suspect if Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and Vietnam bordered us the American people would experience far more collateral damage and the US military would behave quite monstrously. Perhaps some degree of civility depends on circumstance and context, as you say.
Don't you find this particular example somewhat bizarre, given the US-Mexico border is de facto open right now for basically anyone to wander through and settle in the US?
Peace proposals for Texas and Californian independence and full recognition are floated, but they keep getting derailed because of one core Mexican demand: they demand right of return for all Mexicans to anywhere in the US, because this was their ancestral homeland if you go far back enough.
In fairness Mexico only had those territories formally for around 15 years and only had a few thousand settlers across them (many of them likely descended at least partially from European settlers themselves). The Palestinians have much longer ties to their homeland and were more recently displaced, within living memory of many people. Like you say though, Israel will assuredly not agree to their maximalist demands and is unlikely to care much about their history one way or the other in the face of terrorism.
In fairness Mexico only had those territories formally for around 15 years
But the viceroyalty of new Spain, to which Mexico is the successor state, had them for hundreds. And BTW it’s a myth that Mexico settled Texas at lightly as California; the currently populated parts of Texas(except San Antonio) were pre-Anglo settlement very lightly peopled, but border disputes between the republic of Texas and the Mexican empire led to the incorporation of lots of Mexican settlement into the territory which would later become the state of Texas.
But the viceroyalty of new Spain, to which Mexico is the successor state, had them for hundreds.
This would also grant them claim to much of the rest of the US, the Carribean, and Central America. Most people in the West at least don't grant that modern Russia has a valid claims the territories that its predecessor the USSR once held. Most people back in 56 also found in galling when the USSR revoked Hungary's privledges of self-governance and reinstated dictatorship, which seems somewhat anologous to Santa Anna's suspension of the constitution and installation of himself as a dictator prior to the war. But maybe Mexico's claim was more valid than it seems, I'm sure you know more about Texas history than I do.
And BTW it’s a myth that Mexico settled Texas at lightly as California; the currently populated parts of Texas(except San Antonio) were pre-Anglo settlement very lightly peopled, but border disputes between the republic of Texas and the Mexican empire led to the incorporation of lots of Mexican settlement into the territory which would later become the state of Texas.
Oh really? That's interesting. You have anything you recommend to read on how much population / settled areas got incorporated?
But maybe Mexico's claim was more valid than it seems, I'm sure you know more about Texas history than I do.
It’s not, but the point is that Texas was only part of Mexico for 15 years, and California for 25, because Mexico qua Mexico had only existed for that amount of time when those states broke off, not because of shifting borders and lack of historical justification.
Oh really? That's interesting. You have anything you recommend to read on how much population / settled areas got incorporated?
It’s a 7th and 10th grade history curriculum in Texas- the tdlr is that the republic of Texas claimed territories north of the Rio grande, while Mexico claimed territories north to the nueces river. The region was rural but not by the standards of rural northern Mexico in the 1830’s particularly sparsely populated and there was significant back and forth in terms of actual territorial control. The descendants of these settlers still live there and constitute the majority in some regions, call themselves the tejanos, and the situation was eventually resolved by the Mexican-American war followed by the state of Texas being paid a large sum of money to accept its current borders.
3/4 of Texas’s current population and almost all of its Anglo population lives in San Antonio and northeast, with the border population in particular mostly descending from people who have lived there since it was part of Spain(and the panhandle and interior west simply very sparsely populated). Hispanic settlement mostly focused on the border with a projection up to San Antonio(literally founded as a district admin capital by the Spanish) and Anglo settlement was focused on the eastern third, particularly towards the south of it(which has good soil for cotton plantations). Like most such cases, the Anglo settled region became far more prosperous than the Hispanic settled zone, and thus the population shifted over time towards that same eastern third.
It’s not, but the point is that Texas was only part of Mexico for 15 years, and California for 25, because Mexico qua Mexico had only existed for that amount of time when those states broke off, not because of shifting borders and lack of historical justification.
Sure but we normally don't assume that post-colonial nations have clear rights to all of their former sovereign's land; nobody thinks Colombia maintains a strong claim on Ecuador and Venezuela just because Gran Colombia was a successor state to the Viceroyalty of New Grenada.
the tdlr is that the republic of Texas claimed territories north of the Rio grande, while Mexico claimed territories north to the nueces river. The region was rural but not by the standards of rural northern Mexico in the 1830’s particularly sparsely populated and there was significant back and forth in terms of actual territorial control.
Do you have any estimates on population size? I feel like everything I'm looking at says the Nueces strip was fairly sparsley populated because of the consistent problem of Indian raids. Or is the point just that they weren't as unsettled as California or the rest of rural Mexico?
This would also grant them claim to much of the rest of the US, the Carribean, and Central America. Most people in the West at least don't grant that modern Russia has a valid claims the territories that its predecessor the USSR once held.
That is because Russia is not the only successor state to the USSR. Ukraine, the Baltics, Georgia, etc, all are also successor states of the USSR (or rather, the various "Soviet Republics"). Nobody argues Russia's claim on Moscow goes back only to 1991.
Alta California, Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico, and Texas were also their own administrative divisions with their own Governors under New Spain, and Texas at least was genuinely federated under Mexico (Cali had a legislature that the Mexican gov never recognized). The central Mexican government's tearing up of the constitution and revoking of their federated privledges is part of how the Texan revolution started.
It didn't break down super neatly in the USSR either. Plenty of the Republics of course had only nominal independence, likely less than Texas, and had their borders adjusted at will from above; the Karelia-Finnish Republic was turned into part of Russia, and of course none of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics got independence.
On the other hand, Native American peoples (including, say, Mexicans?) have an ancestral claim to North America that goes back many thousands of years. Perhaps hundreds of thousands while USians barely have any by contrast.
Mexicans effectively have 'right-of-return' to anywhere in the US.
Not just Mexicans either, but basically anyone that can set foot in Mexico.
If Mexicans were engaging in cross-border terrorism against civilian targets I can see the chances going from vanishingly improbable to fucking never
Only fentanyl-mediated genocide of the American youth.
What would they do if Americans were routinely cutting their power, water, access to essential goods, bombing their residential neighborhoods before sending Americans or people with 1/8th 'American' blood on the mom's side to 'settle' them...?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm trying to imagine how we'd behave if every Mexican was actually really angry about white settlement of the Americas. Lets say hostilities between Mexicans and the rest of the US never subsided, and Texas and California were disputed states with constant violent flare-ups. Life in Texas and California dragged behind quality of life in the rest of the US and Mexicans living in those territories were pretty miserable and Mexican terrorism and US heavy-handed response was a fact of life.
Peace proposals for Texas and Californian independence and full recognition are floated, but they keep getting derailed because of one core Mexican demand: they demand right of return for all Mexicans to anywhere in the US, because this was their ancestral homeland if you go far back enough. To put the numbers in Israel proportions, this would be up to 160 million Mexicans in the global diaspora potentially settling the entire US.
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of how Texas and California were litigated, I don't see the US capitulating to terms like that. If Mexicans were engaging in cross-border terrorism against civilian targets I can see the chances going from vanishingly improbable to fucking never.
This seems to be the position Israel is in.
Your "derailing" proposition, is effectively the position of the currently in power political party of the country.
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like it's kind of incoherent to ask how America would react in circumstance that America wouldn't be in.
Like, in order to have Mexicans feel about the US the way Palestinians feel about Israel, the US would have to have a very different national character that made us do very different things.
What would we do if we were very different from what we are now? Who knows!
Which is an important point about analogies and popular imagination on this topic; we all talk about how various western democracies would respond if they were in Israel's place, with the implication that the answer to that question is what it would be reasonable for Israel to do, and we should side with them if they do that.
But there's a reason none of those western democracies are in Israel's place, that reason has a lot to do with Israel's actions as a nation, and those actions do change what is reasonable for them to do, and who we should side with.
I can appreciate that the US is not Israel, but why aren't the actions of the Palestinians in the territories also a factor? If they had followed Gandhi (as mentioned elsewhere) they would have probably been a lot more successful and not suffered so much. And the physical and cultural destruction we carried out on Japan in WW2 which was surely far more outrageous was apparently very productive.
You're certainly right, I was just narrowly addressing the question by examining the US/Israel analogy it used. It definitely takes two to tango in situations like this, and either side probably could be in a better place today by being more civil in the past.
I do personally have an ethos that says the burden of being civilized and absorbing affronts while continuing to reach for peace should always be on the stronger and more comfortable party in any conflict, partially because they can afford it, partially because that burden is the only way to end up at anything like an equitable resolution to a conflict between a stronger and weaker party.
But I acknowledge that there's something there in the intuition of 'the stronger party should overwhelm the weaker party brutally and efficiently so that the bad equilibrium ends quickly and hopefully the new equilibrium is better for everyone'.
I think that approach is too vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and works worse overall, but maybe this is one of those cases where different contexts call for different solutions and I am overgeneralizing my heuristics to a situation where they don't work.
/shrug, glad it's not my call.
Good points, though, I suspect if Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and Vietnam bordered us the American people would experience far more collateral damage and the US military would behave quite monstrously. Perhaps some degree of civility depends on circumstance and context, as you say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't you find this particular example somewhat bizarre, given the US-Mexico border is de facto open right now for basically anyone to wander through and settle in the US?
The current border contention made it feel like an appropriate analogy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In fairness Mexico only had those territories formally for around 15 years and only had a few thousand settlers across them (many of them likely descended at least partially from European settlers themselves). The Palestinians have much longer ties to their homeland and were more recently displaced, within living memory of many people. Like you say though, Israel will assuredly not agree to their maximalist demands and is unlikely to care much about their history one way or the other in the face of terrorism.
But the viceroyalty of new Spain, to which Mexico is the successor state, had them for hundreds. And BTW it’s a myth that Mexico settled Texas at lightly as California; the currently populated parts of Texas(except San Antonio) were pre-Anglo settlement very lightly peopled, but border disputes between the republic of Texas and the Mexican empire led to the incorporation of lots of Mexican settlement into the territory which would later become the state of Texas.
This would also grant them claim to much of the rest of the US, the Carribean, and Central America. Most people in the West at least don't grant that modern Russia has a valid claims the territories that its predecessor the USSR once held. Most people back in 56 also found in galling when the USSR revoked Hungary's privledges of self-governance and reinstated dictatorship, which seems somewhat anologous to Santa Anna's suspension of the constitution and installation of himself as a dictator prior to the war. But maybe Mexico's claim was more valid than it seems, I'm sure you know more about Texas history than I do.
Oh really? That's interesting. You have anything you recommend to read on how much population / settled areas got incorporated?
It’s not, but the point is that Texas was only part of Mexico for 15 years, and California for 25, because Mexico qua Mexico had only existed for that amount of time when those states broke off, not because of shifting borders and lack of historical justification.
It’s a 7th and 10th grade history curriculum in Texas- the tdlr is that the republic of Texas claimed territories north of the Rio grande, while Mexico claimed territories north to the nueces river. The region was rural but not by the standards of rural northern Mexico in the 1830’s particularly sparsely populated and there was significant back and forth in terms of actual territorial control. The descendants of these settlers still live there and constitute the majority in some regions, call themselves the tejanos, and the situation was eventually resolved by the Mexican-American war followed by the state of Texas being paid a large sum of money to accept its current borders.
3/4 of Texas’s current population and almost all of its Anglo population lives in San Antonio and northeast, with the border population in particular mostly descending from people who have lived there since it was part of Spain(and the panhandle and interior west simply very sparsely populated). Hispanic settlement mostly focused on the border with a projection up to San Antonio(literally founded as a district admin capital by the Spanish) and Anglo settlement was focused on the eastern third, particularly towards the south of it(which has good soil for cotton plantations). Like most such cases, the Anglo settled region became far more prosperous than the Hispanic settled zone, and thus the population shifted over time towards that same eastern third.
Sure but we normally don't assume that post-colonial nations have clear rights to all of their former sovereign's land; nobody thinks Colombia maintains a strong claim on Ecuador and Venezuela just because Gran Colombia was a successor state to the Viceroyalty of New Grenada.
Do you have any estimates on population size? I feel like everything I'm looking at says the Nueces strip was fairly sparsley populated because of the consistent problem of Indian raids. Or is the point just that they weren't as unsettled as California or the rest of rural Mexico?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is because Russia is not the only successor state to the USSR. Ukraine, the Baltics, Georgia, etc, all are also successor states of the USSR (or rather, the various "Soviet Republics"). Nobody argues Russia's claim on Moscow goes back only to 1991.
Alta California, Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico, and Texas were also their own administrative divisions with their own Governors under New Spain, and Texas at least was genuinely federated under Mexico (Cali had a legislature that the Mexican gov never recognized). The central Mexican government's tearing up of the constitution and revoking of their federated privledges is part of how the Texan revolution started.
It didn't break down super neatly in the USSR either. Plenty of the Republics of course had only nominal independence, likely less than Texas, and had their borders adjusted at will from above; the Karelia-Finnish Republic was turned into part of Russia, and of course none of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics got independence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On the other hand, Native American peoples (including, say, Mexicans?) have an ancestral claim to North America that goes back many thousands of years. Perhaps hundreds of thousands while USians barely have any by contrast.
We're to be referred to as Americans, thank you.
I prefer Estadounidenses. Because I love bilingual puns.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah that's probably a good analogy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mexicans effectively have 'right-of-return' to anywhere in the US. Not just Mexicans either, but basically anyone that can set foot in Mexico.
Only fentanyl-mediated genocide of the American youth. What would they do if Americans were routinely cutting their power, water, access to essential goods, bombing their residential neighborhoods before sending Americans or people with 1/8th 'American' blood on the mom's side to 'settle' them...?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link