USDA Promoting Racial Division at Taxpayer Expense

USDA Promoting Racial Division at Taxpayer Expense

The question that should be asked, is that is the Federal Government teaching its employees about cultural sensativity? Items like these do not bode well with the public, and is going to cause problems and is currently causing problems in the general publics, not sitting well at all. When I first heard about this, I was taken back, and had to go and search out about this, to view and see what all is going on.

The clips, while they are only clips, do show in a bad light, that the type of training that is given, should not have been paid for,nor should have been presented as it is. It is wrong and bias, should the contempt for the country at large. The person giving the speech, fails to study history, and tends to justify the actions of people who are not citizens, namely the illegale immigrants that are crossing into the country.

While there are old hurts and disagreements about the illegale immigration problem with the USA, there are a few things that people tend to forget, and that is the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, of which the USA not only paid for the newly aquired land, but also made reparations to the country of Mexico and at the same time, assumed the debt that the Mexican government owed to the U.S. citizens.

So if the land is paid for, by the 2 mainly contested groups, then how can it be stolen?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
So if the land is paid for, by the 2 mainly contested groups, then how can it be stolen?

Im sure you have heard the old cliché about how history is written by the victor, that is not true. While history is initially written by the victor it is rewritten by liberals.

I did find it funny how he is talking about Native Americans and calls them Indians- whoops now somebody is going to have to pay them

reply to post by Superhans

History may be written by the victors, of that there can be no doubt. When it comes to who did what and how wars get started, by all means the victors will write what they want and call it what ever they please.

But, treaties are different, it is not just the victors that have to agree with such, but also those who lose on such, and the terms have to be held up to be valid. It also has to be ratified by both sides. It was debated on and changes made, sent back and forth, articles changed and altered, debated on and then finally signed with very specific languaged, to be finally ratified and approved of by both governments. In this case, the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, was very specific,and especially when it comes to money. In short the Mexican government did get and recieve all that was stipulated in the treaty, to include payment for all lands that it had lost and reparations on the part of the US government to its people, and got out of having to pay for reparations to the US people.

So if in the Treaty, it stipulates that it was given money for all territory it lost, does that not make the treaty a bill of sale? The principle here is that if you were to sell something of yours, get money for it, and then turn around and claim it was stolen from you and you want it back.