Jump to content
Science Forums

Cuauhtzin

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Cuauhtzin got a reaction from Buffy in Do we really need to fund foreign students?   
    i really dont understand, maybe i cant detect double sense and sarcasm in english, im not really sure.
     
    well if that happens with one or two, maybe y can nderstand.. but if this is all professors, maybe you are not SO "brilliant"... 
    And well, im not sure what kind of funding is that thay you are talking about that they give free education to every foreing they see, because, well "im foreign" and its not easy to get "free funding education"
  2. Like
    Cuauhtzin got a reaction from Boerseun in North American Union   
    Freeztar:
     
    Yes, is more complex than national fercor, but i explain it from my point of view.
    For each of that mexican, i can tell you about 10 mexicans that like to live in México. As i see, if that people want to get to the U.S. they can take his malinchista butt there, thats not a reason to became an indepent nation to a U.S. colonny. 
    they do it to control de monopoly of drugs, they take bands, they do not take down the really big criminals, they fight against the people who is in drugs because they dont have many options. 
    DFinitibly disturbed:
     
     
    Do you know that a lot fo people from sudamerica and centroamerica risk they´re lives to migrate to mexico? (and if you think the iligals that pass from mexico to U.S. have a difficult time, the ones that paas from guatemala and belize, have worst treat, and they have to fight against caimanes too -.-. and that doesent mean that guatemala and belize people want to be part of mexico.
     
    also, maybe you ignore this, but a lot, alot fo people that migrate to the U.S. do not want to live there. they want WORK there. The cultural differences are to many, the most of people that migrate is from the countryside, they work there like 10, 15 years, they buy trucks, tv, and a lot of things and they return with they´re money they have earn all those years and live the rest of they´re lives in a little town in mexico.
    I make my practice camp of the carrer in a town called, "valle de zaragoza" and it was part of the economy migrate to the U.S. some years and return with money and stuff to live here. Im nopt saying, is better or worst life there, its just different...
     
     
    well... if the U.S. dicide to do the things at its a fact it could anex mexico to his posesions. Probably they will send they´re tropps to kill 10 millions (more or less) of indians, under the excuse of narcotraffic, terrorism, or something like that. they will have a big problem eith mexican gangs here, with poilicial corruption, with appliying the federal laws they have there.If they do not anex Mexico from the last war, is because they knew it would be more probelms to them than benefits.
    And of course, you´re mexican friend will be death under a marine assault to chihuahua!,:eek:
     
    P.D. the only thing i would like to see is what the U.S, goverment would do in México D.F.
     
    Well, thats the imperialist way i know.
  3. Like
    Cuauhtzin got a reaction from freeztar in North American Union   
    Well i see this thrad has some time without answer but i cannot stay quiet. I will lie if i say you i dont want to argue debate or polemyc, i love the three of them!
     
    First, We all have seen that amero has not been yet, praise the currency gods do not allowed it.
     
    As some as you say, and what im going to said represent my opinion of what most of latin american people feel, but not necesarily is the reality or the opinion of all. The problem with Amero and a Union of that way is that for experiencie, the U.S. does not give without take (and maybe is a rule for every nation), but as a 100% capital and industrial nation it takes more what it gives.
    The history of the latin american natios is one of constant struggle against imperialist nations. fromthe colonies against Spain and Portugal, to the fight for the right of manage our own goverments without the intervation of the France, England, Great Britain and of course, the United States.
    The problem becomes stronger when one of this potencys, decide to "help" one nation against another, to "help" them by taking down a dictator to put one that "please" more the interests of people (or i mean of the international market).
    The latin american nations, especially those in south america are "brother nations", a lot of them share the same heroes, martyrs and mother cultures.
    Is truth that many would like the ameros, but is really truth that many others would not allowed it, because that would mean to eventaully become a star more in the American flag.
    Maybe a lot of you love your nation and find a lot of ideals there, in your history... and that is okey, but as well, much of us, the latin american nations find other values, that represent us like people in our own countrys we have fight and died for.
     
    ...
     
    About some things you mention about mexican history.
     
    Agustin the Iturbide, he born as a "criollo", this means a spanish (but i think his mother was mestiza) born in the land of Nueva España (or México). He was first fighting against the independence, but then he join the insurgents, and he, without a drop of blood gather all the insurgent bands and proclame the independence.
    In my general opinion he was a great beguining and he could make great things, but eventually he couldnt fight againts the masonry that was very strong in mexican politics. From here beguins the intervation of the united states in the national life of mexico; There were two logias, the Scotish from europe, and the Yorkine from U.S. (you can imagine wich one won).
     
    The texas bussnises beguins with the u.s. trying to buy it to Iturbide, and other figures of power, because the negative form them it was clear that it wa snot going to be sold.
    the problems between Texas and México were for three main causes:
    1- Mexico had a central goverment. And Santa anna was a.. how can i say it a... ¿Jerk?
    2- Mexico give permision to every people, mexican and american to take land from Texas, ant to worke it (obviously, as all we know americans and europe inmigrants were the first to take the land, because in this time... well, mexico was huge!)
    3- probably the most unkown and important. When Mexico became
    independent, the slavery was abolish (there was another "slavery" class), texans want they slaves, mexican goverment say no... and the struggle beguin.
     
    Why texas could have its independence so easily?... Santa anna was a coward and a jerk, the texas could be a lot of things like people that want slaves, but they were not cowards.
     
    When the U.S. put texas in its side, beguin the oportunity from them to take therest of the territorys they need. United states was industrious shinny and he has not war in his country, mexico for the other side had a lot of improductive land, huge territories, corruption legacy from spanish domain and the problem of hundreds of different indian cultures living there.
     
    There was a pact between U.S. and Mexico for the boundories of each nation, the U.S. try to put new bounderys give them more territory, mexican governet did not want it... and the rest is history.
     
    Well, i i make see the United state govermetn as evil... well.., probably it was, mexican goverment was evil too in that years (it still is). But this las paragraph is only mi opinion.
    ...
     
    So, this is my particular opinion, and i would want to hear the one of yours...
    I will like to note that this i write i dont copy from any book, but if some one wants to argue some point, facts or something like that, im open to that and to do it properly as it has to be done we the bibliography and things like that,
     
    Saludos damas y caballeros,
  4. Like
    Cuauhtzin got a reaction from Turtle in North American Union   
    Well i see this thrad has some time without answer but i cannot stay quiet. I will lie if i say you i dont want to argue debate or polemyc, i love the three of them!
     
    First, We all have seen that amero has not been yet, praise the currency gods do not allowed it.
     
    As some as you say, and what im going to said represent my opinion of what most of latin american people feel, but not necesarily is the reality or the opinion of all. The problem with Amero and a Union of that way is that for experiencie, the U.S. does not give without take (and maybe is a rule for every nation), but as a 100% capital and industrial nation it takes more what it gives.
    The history of the latin american natios is one of constant struggle against imperialist nations. fromthe colonies against Spain and Portugal, to the fight for the right of manage our own goverments without the intervation of the France, England, Great Britain and of course, the United States.
    The problem becomes stronger when one of this potencys, decide to "help" one nation against another, to "help" them by taking down a dictator to put one that "please" more the interests of people (or i mean of the international market).
    The latin american nations, especially those in south america are "brother nations", a lot of them share the same heroes, martyrs and mother cultures.
    Is truth that many would like the ameros, but is really truth that many others would not allowed it, because that would mean to eventaully become a star more in the American flag.
    Maybe a lot of you love your nation and find a lot of ideals there, in your history... and that is okey, but as well, much of us, the latin american nations find other values, that represent us like people in our own countrys we have fight and died for.
     
    ...
     
    About some things you mention about mexican history.
     
    Agustin the Iturbide, he born as a "criollo", this means a spanish (but i think his mother was mestiza) born in the land of Nueva España (or México). He was first fighting against the independence, but then he join the insurgents, and he, without a drop of blood gather all the insurgent bands and proclame the independence.
    In my general opinion he was a great beguining and he could make great things, but eventually he couldnt fight againts the masonry that was very strong in mexican politics. From here beguins the intervation of the united states in the national life of mexico; There were two logias, the Scotish from europe, and the Yorkine from U.S. (you can imagine wich one won).
     
    The texas bussnises beguins with the u.s. trying to buy it to Iturbide, and other figures of power, because the negative form them it was clear that it wa snot going to be sold.
    the problems between Texas and México were for three main causes:
    1- Mexico had a central goverment. And Santa anna was a.. how can i say it a... ¿Jerk?
    2- Mexico give permision to every people, mexican and american to take land from Texas, ant to worke it (obviously, as all we know americans and europe inmigrants were the first to take the land, because in this time... well, mexico was huge!)
    3- probably the most unkown and important. When Mexico became
    independent, the slavery was abolish (there was another "slavery" class), texans want they slaves, mexican goverment say no... and the struggle beguin.
     
    Why texas could have its independence so easily?... Santa anna was a coward and a jerk, the texas could be a lot of things like people that want slaves, but they were not cowards.
     
    When the U.S. put texas in its side, beguin the oportunity from them to take therest of the territorys they need. United states was industrious shinny and he has not war in his country, mexico for the other side had a lot of improductive land, huge territories, corruption legacy from spanish domain and the problem of hundreds of different indian cultures living there.
     
    There was a pact between U.S. and Mexico for the boundories of each nation, the U.S. try to put new bounderys give them more territory, mexican governet did not want it... and the rest is history.
     
    Well, i i make see the United state govermetn as evil... well.., probably it was, mexican goverment was evil too in that years (it still is). But this las paragraph is only mi opinion.
    ...
     
    So, this is my particular opinion, and i would want to hear the one of yours...
    I will like to note that this i write i dont copy from any book, but if some one wants to argue some point, facts or something like that, im open to that and to do it properly as it has to be done we the bibliography and things like that,
     
    Saludos damas y caballeros,
  5. Like
    Cuauhtzin got a reaction from JMJones0424 in The 2012 Prophecies   
    im not sure who said that... but.. Its ridiculous, Quetzalcoatl its a nahuatl "deity" not a maya. the equivalent or more similar would be Kukulkan (I think they called him huracan in other maya mythology).
×
×
  • Create New...