naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31623 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.
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 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 -
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