“Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it?”

In context:

“Just a word about “universal fraternal union of peoples” and the drawing of “boundaries established by the sovereign will of the peoples themselves on the basis of their national characteristics”. The United States and Mexico are two republics, in both of which the people is sovereign.

How did it happen that over Texas a war broke out between these two republics, which, according to the moral theory, ought to have been “fraternally united” and “federated”, and that, owing to “geographical, commercial and strategical necessities”, the “sovereign will” of the American people, supported by the bravery of the American volunteers, shifted the boundaries drawn by nature some hundreds of miles further south? And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a “war of conquest”, which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on “justice and humanity”, was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The “independence” of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces “justice” and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?”

Therefore, Engels actually condemned the American conquest of Texas, yet he ridiculed Bakunin’s naivety concerning the so-called “universal fraternal union of the people.” Why, the conquest of Texas is of such historical importance!

The same rhetoric is also used by the leftist-turned-right David Horowitz in his apology for slavery: “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavaery is a Bad Idea – and Racist Too.”

Dave asserted that Blacks should be grateful for Whites because “The claim for reparations is premised on the false assumption that only whites have benefited from slavery. If slave labor has created wealth for Americans, then obviously it has created wealth for black Americans as well, including the descendants of slaves. The GNP of black America makes the African-American community the tenth most prosperous ‘nation’ in the world. American blacks on average enjoy per capita incomes in the range of twenty to fifty times that of blacks living in any of the African nations from which they were kidnapped.”

The historical important of slavery is that the descendants of slaves are now wealthier than those of the free.

Boo hoo! Those “uneducated scums” are pouring into our lands. Conservative crybaby!

Has this person ever examined what has happened in South Africa since they were given independence!
The UN has said it is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. White farmers are murdered on a daily basis. (I have the facts if you want them). Amazon have stopped deliveries to South Africa as so much is lost through pilfering.
At least when Britain ruled these countries the inhabitants had jobs, homes and food.
Just take a look at them now. They are mostly back to tribal warfare, killing each other as fast as they can.

“In January 1849, months before he migrated to London, Karl Marx published an article by Friedrich Engels in Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung announcing that in Central Europe only Germans, Hungarians and Poles counted as bearers of progress. The rest must go. “The chief mission of all other races and peoples, large and small, is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust.” wrote the “historian” George Watson.

A blatant fabrication! The author, who was actually Engels, in fact wrote: “All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary WORLD STORM (German: Weltsturm).” (Der Magyarische Kampf, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 1849). Whence came the anachronistic “Holokaust?”

“Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”

A sweet cherry to pick, but let’s see what is the quote is read contextually:

“Now I share NEITHER in the opinions of Ricardo, who regards ‘Net-Revenue’ as the Moloch to whom entire populations must be sacrificed, without even so much as complaint, nor in the opinion of Sismondi, who, in his hypochondriacal philanthropy, would forcibly retain the superannuated methods of agriculture and proscribe science from industry, as Plato expelled poets from his Republic. Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. But can there be anything more puerile, more short-sighted, than the views of those Economists who believe in all earnest that this woeful transitory state means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists, both landlords and money-lords? In Great Britain the working of that process is most transparent. The application of modern science to production clears the land of its inhabitants, but it concentrates people in manufacturing towns.”

Therefore, Marx was actually indeed criticisng the puerility and short-sightedness of the bourgeois economists Ricardo and Sismondi.