Your thoughts on the Mexican-American War?

[Joe McCarthy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

http://justoneopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/chapultepec-marines-story.jpg

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/mexican-war/pictures/battle-chapultepec.jpg

Battle of Chapultepec

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/00/5c/af12b9674783f21e7a1159edbabc_grande.jpg


Battle of Churubusco by J. Cameron, published by Nathaniel Currier. Hand tinted lithograph, 1847. Digitally restored.

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/83/Storming_of_Palace_Hill_at_the_Battle_of_Monterey. jpg

Battle of Monterrey

http://cf.juggle-images.com/fit/white/600x600/wg-mexicanamerican-war-4.jpg

American occupation of Mexico City

http://0.tqn.com/d/history1800s/1/0/B/1/-/-/scott-mexicocity01.jpg

Gen. Winfield Scott enters Mexico City

[Great Dane]

It was a glorius American Triumph. Too bad our leaders are surrendering what we gained without a fight.

[Piparskeggr]

"Essayons!" - Truman Bishop Ransom, soldier, born in Woodstock, Vermont, in 1802; died near the city of Mexico, 13 September, 1847. He was early left an orphan, entered Captain Alden Partridge's military academy soon after its opening, taught in several of the schools that Captain Partridge established subsequently, and on the incorporation of Norwich university in 1835 became vice-president and professor of natural philosophy and engineering. He was also instructor in mathematics in the United States navy, did much to reorganize the Vermont militia, in which he was major-general in 1837-'44, and in 1844 succeeded Captain Partridge as president of the university. He was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for congress in 1840, and for lieutenant-governor in 1846. General Ransom volunteered for the Mexican war, was appointed major of the 9th United States infantry on 16 February, 1847, and colonel on 16 March. He fell at the head of his regiment while storming the works at Chapultepec.

(Both my wife and I are Norwich Alumni.)

[Joe McCarthy]

It was a glorius American Triumph. Too bad our leaders are surrendering what we gained without a fight.

What's fairly ironic is that we ultimately took Texas due to demographic changes resulting in part from illegal immigration. American immigrants outnumbered Mexicans in Texas, Santa Anna cracked down after installing his dictatorship, Texans declared independence, and the rest is history.

Too bad we can't seem to learn from it.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)


Neo-liberal political writer Mickey Kaus has remarked,

If you talk to people in Mexico... if you get them drunk in a bar, they’ll say we’re taking it back, sorry. That’s not an uncommon sentiment in Mexico, so why can’t we take it seriously here? This is like a Quebec problem if France was next door to Canada.

[Joe McCarthy]

Battles of the Mexican-American War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

This makes for highly interesting reading.

[Don]

It was a glorius American Triumph.

I think that, if we speak properly, the word "American" fits much more with the Mexicans, mainly because the ethnic-racial fact.

Then, mexicanos won or what?

[Joe McCarthy]

I think that, if we speak properly, the word "American" fits much more with the Mexicans, mainly because the ethnic-racial fact.

Then, mexicanos won or what?

The word America is likely derived from a Florentine navigator, Amerigo Vespucci. The word was unknown to the Amerinds before European contact. Given that Mexicans are mostly a hybrid of Amerinds and Spanish, and America was institutionally and culturally an Anglo-Saxon state (and still is really), and thus more European racially and culturally, I'd say the US has a better claim to the word 'American' besides the obvious reasons.

[Óttar]

American occupation of Mexico City
http://0.tqn.com/d/history1800s/1/0/B/1/-/-/scott-mexicocity01.jpg

Gen. Winfield Scott enters Mexico City
Look how noble the American soldiers look. Very dapper. How did we turn into a bunch of hee-haws?

The U.S. was going to annex the whole country, but we were afraid that we would be overrun by Catholic natives. A most interesting subject for an alternative history novel.

[Bloodeagle]

Look how noble the American soldiers look. Very dapper. How did we turn into a bunch of hee-haws?
Every nation has its hee-haws! :coffee:
I'm sorry, but your attitude is pretentious towards your own countrymen!

Fact is our emerging nation saw something it wanted and took it from a much weaker and less progressive nation.
For fuck sake, we had beaten the British back from our shore and our heads were full. Were we to play nice with the weaklings and the sissies on the block.
Texas, California and the rest of the Southwest was to important to let go to waste on some Spanish speaking backwater that could hardly govern itself let alone share in the bounty that would become this great nation of ours.

[Don]

The word was unknown to the Amerinds before European contact. Given that Mexicans are mostly a hybrid of Amerinds and Spanish.

Well, that is wrong.

The hybrids are a minority, the Criollos (as pure spaniard caste) are almost a myth. The spaniard blood in there (carried by conquistadores and very very few spaniard women) is a relic in there, a treasure.

So, most of the mexicans hardly have a drop of Spaniard blood, but the surnames given to "dignify them" mostly by misioneros... and in consequence, when you speak about mexicans, you speak about AMERINDIANS.

That is America and they are the natives, the Americans.
They have no my sympathy, since most of them hate the Spaniards and our Conquistadores and Misioneros who taught them to behave (or try it) like Caballeros and the concepts of Castilian Honor and Respect... (instead those coward rituals and savage practices they are doing again)...

...but European descendants living in the USA are not Americans if we compare them to Mexicans 99-100% pure Amerindians.

Discuss this is senseless.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Óttar
Look how noble the American soldiers look. Very dapper. How did we turn into a bunch of hee-haws?


The US military is infinitely stronger relative to other states than in 1848. We were merely a regional power in those days, not a great power, much less a superpower.

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/50467563.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A143917923364F7ADC6C7EDACF71FAD577A 27D2B14988D2CB94B01E70F2B3269972


The U.S. was going to annex the whole country, but we were afraid that we would be overrun by Catholic natives. A most interesting subject for an alternative history novel.

We wanted Mexican land, not Mexicans. Senator Calhoun said it best:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=478


Conquest of Mexico

John C. Calhoun
1848

"RESOLVED, That to conquer Mexico and to hold it, either as a province or to incorporate it into the Union, would be inconsistent with the avowed object for which the war has been prosecuted; a departure from the settled policy of the Government; in conflict with its character and genius; and in the end subversive of our free and popular institutions."

"RESOLVED, That no line of policy in the further prosecution of the war should be adopted which may lead to consequences so disastrous."

In offering, Senators, these resolutions for your consideration, I have been governed by the reasons which induced me to oppose the war, and by the same considerations I have been ever since guided. In alluding to my opposition to the war, I do not intend to notice the reasons which governed me on that occasion, further than is necessary to explain my motives upon the present. I opposed the war then, not only because I considered it unnecessary, and that it might have been easily avoided; not only because I thought the President had no authority to order a portion of the territory in dispute and in possession of the Mexicans, to be occupied by our troops; not only because I believed the allegations upon which it was sanctioned by Congress, were unfounded in truth; but from high considerations of reason and policy, because I believed it would lead to great and serious evils to the country, and greatly endanger its free institutions.

But after the war was declared, and had received the sanction of the Government, I acquiesced in what I could not prevent, and which it was impossible for me to arrest; and I then felt it to be my duty to limit my course so as to give that direction to the conduct of the war as would, as far as possible, prevent the evil and danger with which, in my opinion, it threatened the country and its institutions. For this purpose, at the last session, I suggested to the Senate a defensive line, and for that purpose, I now offer these resolutions. This, and this only, is the motive which governs me. I am moved by no personal nor party considerations. My object is neither to sustain the Executive, nor to strengthen the Opposition, but simply to discharge an important duty to the country. But I shall express my opinion upon all points with boldness and independence, such as become a Senator who has nothing to ask, either from the Government or from the people, and whose only aim is to diminish, to the smallest possible amount, the evils incident to this war. But when I come to notice those points in which I differ from the President, I shall do it with all the decorum which is due to the Chief Magistrate of the Union.

When I suggested a defensive line, at the last session, this country had in its possession, through the means of its arms, ample territory, and stood in a condition to force indemnity. Before then, the successes of our arms had gained all the contiguous portions of Mexico, and our army has ever since held all that it is desirable to hold—that portion whose population is sparse, and on that account the more desirable to be held. For I hold it in reference to this war a fundamental principle, that when we receive territorial indemnity, it shall be unoccupied territory.

In offering a defensive line, I did it because I believed that, in the first place, it was the only certain mode of terminating the war successfully; I did it, also, because I believed that it would be a vast saving of the sacrifice of human life; but above all, I did so because I saw that any other line of policy would expose us to tremendous evil, which these resolutions were intended to guard against. The President took a different view. He recommended a vigorous prosecution of the war—not for conquest: that was disavowed—but for the purpose of conquering peace; that is, to compel Mexico to sign a treaty making a sufficient cession of territory to indemnify this Government both for the claims of its citizens and for the expenses of the war. Sir, I opposed this policy. I opposed it, among other reasons, because I believed that if the war should be ever so successful, there was great hazard to us, at least, that the object intended to be effected by it would not be accomplished. Congress thought differently. Ample provisions, in men and money, were granted for carrying on the war. The campaign has terminated. It has been as successful as the Executive of the country could possibly have calculated. Victory after victory has followed in succession, without a single reverse. Santa Anna was repelled and defeated, with all his forces. Vera Cruz was carried, and the Castle with it. Jalapa, Perote, and Puebla fell; and, after two great triumphs of our army, the gates of Mexico opened to us. Well, sir, what has been accomplished? What has been done? Has the avowed object of the war been attained? Have we conquered peace? Have we obtained a treaty? Have we obtained any indemnity? No, sir: not a single object contemplated has been effected; and, what is worse, our difficulties are greater now than they were then, and the objects, forsooth, more difficult to reach than they were before the campaign commenced.

So much for the past; we now come to the commencement of another campaign; and the question is, What shall be done? The same measures are proposed. It is still "a vigorous prosecution of the war." The measures are identically the same. It is not for conquest—that is now as emphatically disowned as it was in the first instance. The object is not to blot Mexico out of the list of nations, for the President is emphatic in the expression of his desire to maintain the nationality of Mexico. He desires to see her an independent and flourishing community, and assigns strong and cogent reasons for all that. Well, sir, the question is now, What ought to be done? We are now coming to the practical question, Shall we aim at carrying on another vigorous campaign under present circumstances?

Mr. President, I have examined this question with care, and I repeat, that I cannot support the recommendations of the President. There are many and powerful reasons, stronger than those which existed at the commencement of the last campaign, to justify my opposition now. The cost in money will be vastly greater. There is a bill for ten additional regiments now before the Senate, and another bill providing for twenty regiments of volunteers has been reported, making in all, not less, I suppose, than twenty-five thousand troops; raising the number of troops in the service—as, I presume, the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs can inform you—to not much less than seventy thousand in the whole. Well, sir, the expense will be much more than that of the last campaign. It will cost not much short of sixty millions of dollars.

Sir, we have heard how much glory our country has acquired in this war. I acknowledge it to the full amount, Mr. President, chivalrously; they have conferred honor on the country, for which I sincerely thank them.

Mr. President, I believe all our thanks will be confined to our army. So far as I know, in the civilized world there is no approbation of the conduct of the civil portion of our power. On the contrary, everywhere the declaration is made that we are an ambitious, unjust, hard people, more given to war than any people of modern times. Whether this be true or not, it is not for me to inquire. I am speaking now merely of the reputation which we heard abroad—everywhere, I believe; for as much as we have gained in military reputation abroad, I regret to perceive, we have lost in our political and civil reputation. Now, sir, much as I regard military glory; much as I rejoice to behold our people in possession of the indomitable energy and courage which surmount all difficulties, and which class them amongst the first military people of the age, I would be very sorry indeed that our Government should lose any reputation for wisdom, moderation, discretion, justice, and those other high qualities which have distinguished us in the early stages of our history.

The next reason which my resolutions assign, is, that it is without example or precedent, wither to hold Mexico as a province, or to incorporate her into our Union. No example of such a line of policy can be found. We have conquered many of the neighboring tribes of Indians, but we have never thought of holding them in subjection—never of incorporating them into our Union. They have either been left as an independent people amongst us, or been driven into the forests.

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

Sir, it is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages—for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions.

The next two reasons which I assigned, were, that it would be in conflict with the genius and character of our institutions, and subversive of our free government. I take these two together, as intimately connected; and now of the first—to hold Mexico in subjection.

Mr. President, there are some propositions too clear for argument; and before such a body as the Senate, I should consider it a loss of time to undertake to prove that to hold Mexico as a subjected province would be hostile, and in conflict with our free popular institutions, and in the end subversive of them. Sir, he who knows the American Constitution well—he who has duly studied its character—he who has looked at history, and knows what has been the effect of conquests of free States invariably, will require no proof at my hands to show that it would be entirely hostile to the institutions of the country to hold Mexico as a province. There is not an example on record of any free State even having attempted the conquest of any territory approaching the extent of Mexico without disastrous consequences. The nations conquered have in time conquered the conquerers by destroying their liberty. That will be our case, sir. The conquest of Mexico would add so vast an amount to the patronage of this Government, that it would absorb the whole power of the States in the Union. This Union would become imperial, and the States mere subordinate corporations. But the evil will not end there. The process will go on. The same process by which the power would be transferred from the States to the Union, will transfer the whole from this department of the Government (I speak of the Legislature) to the Executive. All the added power and added patronage which conquest will create, will pass to the Executive. In the end, you put in the hands of the Executive the power of conquering you. You give to it, sir, such splendor, such ample means, that, with the principle of proscription which unfortunately prevails in our country, the struggle will be greater at every Presidential election than our institutions can possibly endure. The end of it will be, that that branch of Government will become all-powerful, and the result is inevitable—anarchy and despotism. It is as certain as that I am this day addressing the Senate.

But, Mr. President, suppose all these difficulties removed; suppose these people attached to our Union, and desirous of incorporating with us, ought we to bring them in? Are they fit to be connected with us? Are they fit for self-government and for governing you? Are you, any of you, willing that your States should be governed by these twenty-odd Mexican States, with a population of about only one million of your blood, and two or three millions of mixed blood, better informed, all the rest pure Indians, a mixed blood equally ignorant and unfit for liberty, impure races, not as good as Cherokees or Choctaws?

We make a great mistake, sir, when we suppose that all people are capable of self-government. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged in a very respectable quarter, that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake. None but people advanced to a very high state of moral and intellectual improvement are capable, in a civilized state, of maintaining free government; and amongst those who are so purified, very few, indeed, have had the good fortune of forming a constitution capable of endurance. It is a remarkable fact in the history of man, that scarcely ever have free popular institutions been formed by wisdom alone that have endured.

It has been the work of fortunate circumstances, or a combination of circumstances—a succession of fortunate incidents of some kind—which give to any people a free government. It is a very difficult task to make a constitution to last, though it may be supposed by some that they can be made to order, and furnished at the shortest notice. Sir, this admirable Constitution of our own was the result of a fortunate combination of circumstances. It was superior to the wisdom of the men who made it. It was the force of circumstances which induced them to adopt most of its wise provisions. Well, sir, of the few nations who have the good fortune to adopt self-government, few have had the good fortune long to preserve that government; for it is harder to preserve than to form it. Few people, after years of prosperity, remember the tenure by which their liberty is held; and I fear, Senators, that is our own condition. I fear that we shall continue to involve ourselves until our own system becomes a ruin. Sir, there is no solicitude now for liberty. Who talks of liberty when any great question comes up? Here is a question of the first magnitude as to the conduct of this war; do you hear anybody talk about its effect upon our liberties and our free institutions? No, sir. That was not the case formerly. In the early stages of our Government, the great anxiety was how to preserve liberty; the great anxiety now is for the attainment of mere military glory. In the one, we are forgetting the other. The maxim of former times was, that power is always stealing from the many to the few; the price of liberty was perpetual vigiliance. They were constantly looking out and watching for danger. Then, when any great question came up, the first inquiry was, how it could affect our free institutions—how it could affect our liberty. Not so now. Is it because there has been any decay of the spirit of liberty among the people? Not at all. I believe the love of liberty was never more ardent, but they have forgotten the tenure of liberty by which alone it is preserved.

We think we may now indulge in everything with impunity, as if we held our charter of liberty by "right divine"—from Heavan itself. Under these impressions, we plunge into war, we contract heavy debts, we increase the patronage of the Executive, and we even talk of a crusade to force our institutions, our liberty, upon all people. There is no species of extravagance which our people imagine will endanger their liberty in any degree. But it is a great and fatal mistake. The day of retribution will come. It will come as certainly as I am now addressing the Senate; and when it does come, awful will be the reckoning—heavy the responsibility somewhere!

[Joe McCarthy]

Texas, California and the rest of the Southwest was to important to let go to waste on some Spanish speaking backwater that could hardly govern itself let alone share in the bounty that would become this great nation of ours.

Had we not taken California the British would have. The diplomatic fucks ups engaged in by Britain in attempting to prop up Mexico, especially over the Texas annexation, reads like a highly amusing comedy of errors. Mexico just wasn't up to the task, and one British diplomat finally fumed in exasperation: "You always do everything too late!"

[Óttar]

but European descendants living in the USA are not Americans if we compare them to Mexicans 99-100% pure Amerindians.
The population of Mexico is not 99% pure Amerindian. I'm too pressed with my studies right now to go look up the exact figures.

[Joe McCarthy]

Well, that is wrong.

The hybrids are a minority, the Criollos (as pure spaniard caste) are almost a myth. The spaniard blood in there (carried by conquistadores and very very few spaniard women) is a relic in there, a treasure.

So, most of the mexicans hardly have a drop of Spaniard blood, but the surnames given to "dignify them" mostly by misioneros... and in consequence, when you speak about mexicans, you speak about AMERINDIANS.

That is America and they are the natives, the Americans.
They have no my sympathy, since most of them hate the Spaniards and our Conquistadores and Misioneros who taught them to behave (or try it) like Caballeros and the concepts of Castilian Honor and Respect... (instead those coward rituals and savage practices they are doing again)...

...but European descendants living in the USA are not Americans if we compare them to Mexicans 99-100% pure Amerindians.

Discuss this is senseless.

Well over half of Mexico's population are mestizos, which means those of mixed Spanish-Amerind ancestry. Only about 30% of the Mexican population are Amerinds. Mexico's national mythos is actually based on miscegenation - that is the union between Hernan Cortes and the Indian Dona Marina.

We can bicker over whether the indigenous peoples should be regarded as 'Americans' to the exclusion of others here, but underlying this view is something of an assumption that the Amerinds were ever a composite or unified whole. Many Amerinds prefer simply to be described by their tribal names, such as Sioux or Mohawk.

The term 'native American' is also used nowadays as a political weapon against whites, particularly white Americans. It is rather improper to use a word originating in Europe as a descriptive for a non-European people that would never have heard the word without European contact. But that's just my opinion.

[Loki]

My initial observation from the Wikipedia page is that the American forces were almost twice the amount of the Mexican forces, but the casualties roughly similar.

[Don]

My initial observation from the Wikipedia page is that the American forces were almost twice the amount of the Mexican forces, but the casualties roughly similar.

The Mexicans had the best masters and teachers(and very few of them, their blood in their veins) in matters of War and Conquista, they learnt the lessons in their own flesh...

If they had as much spaniard blood as they, and some people, wrongly believe, the result of the war didn't result in the victory of northamericans.


Because northamericans fought vs this:
http://www.packageproject.com/wp-content/uploads/seleccion-mexicana.jpg

Not vs this:
http://www.ppval.org/images/noticias/13072010191347seleccion-espanola-campeona-europa-2008-si-ganamos-mundial-2010-sudafrica-ya-habre-rf_30784.jpg

Note: Hey!, If I were from USA, I would be worried about them, despite having a 99% of amerindian blood, these sudacas have the Cojones in their place... they learnt... they learnt.

[Joe McCarthy]

Mexico lost for several reasons - outdated, Napoleonic era British weapons - disunity which led them to fight among themselves in armed conflict even as we invaded - massive desertions - Mexican hatred of the dictator Santa Anna which led to major cities simply surrendering to us because we were seen as preferable to Santa Anna.

That being said, at times it was a difficult fight. At one point Santa Anna marched north to lay siege to a US garrison, and we were lucky not to get routed.

[Great Dane]

I think that, if we speak properly, the word "American" fits much more with the Mexicans, mainly because the ethnic-racial fact.

Then, mexicanos won or what?:rolleyes2:

People from Mexico are Mexicans, people from the United States are Americans. Not that the point is worth arguing with an Hispanic troll.

[Svipdag]

The Mexican war was a brazen arrogant land-grab. All of the arguments used to justify it ultimately reduce to Might = Right. Finally, we did have the decency to feel a bit embarassed about it and sought to salve our much-battered conscience with the Gadsden Purchase.

In the view of Mexico and Central America, this invasion of a sovereign nation to seize its land cast the US in the role of a bad neighbor, the big bully to the north. I don't think that we have lived that down or are ever likely to.
It provides the illegal immigrants with a moral justification for invading the United States. We have brought it on ourselves.

However, if this nation is to survive, we dare not surrender to this invasion, however much some may see it as just retribution.

[Wyn]

:rolleyes2:

People from Mexico are Mexicans, people from the United States are Americans. Not that the point is worth arguing with an Hispanic troll.

Given that the word predates the formation of the United States by hundreds of years, citizens of the US can hardly claim a monopoly on it.

Besides this, the word American first referred to (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=America&searchmode=none) the people now generally called Native Americans (which makes perfect sense, considering that the land of 'America' was obviously not populated originally by European peoples).

So no, he is quite justified when he says that American is better applied to Mexicans because of their racial backgrounds.

[Óttar]

¿Cual es la diferencia? :P


http://www.packageproject.com/wp-content/uploads/seleccion-mexicana.jpg
http://www.ppval.org/images/noticias/13072010191347seleccion-espanola-campeona-europa-2008-si-ganamos-mundial-2010-sudafrica-ya-habre-rf_30784.jpg

[Don]

People from Mexico are Mexicans, people from the United States are Americans. Not that the point is worth arguing with an Hispanic troll.

Call me Spaniard, not Hispanic. I supose that due to your limited culture you can't understand the difference.

You should show more respect to my kind, since your migrant family could go there due to the exploration, conquest and discoveries by my blood, Spaniards, to the profit of all europeans.

Your attitude is propper of a sudaca or a muslim. Bad for you.


America:
http://www.vmapas.com/maps/106-2/Mapa_Politico_Mudo_America.gif

I think USA, your land, is mainly our old Nueva España, and it is located in a part of that continent, inhabited by ancient americans, that look like this:
http://www.precolombinos.com.ar/00.fotos-sitios/planetarios.com-cholos-peruanos.jpg

Call me troll for saying this is like calling you an "equal" to my caste, and hoping I will expend more of my time, me, a noble cristiano viejo, interacting with a lower class like yours, huerfano ignorante.

I hope quepilles the message.


...

By the way, most northamericans have my sympathy over most amerindians, that show no respect, but envy and rancor to my kind. Sadly, among northamericans there are specimens that are very similar to these loser natives. I guess is some kind of jewish influence (they hate us spaniards... but that is another complex history) among the most iliterad ones.
That does not change my opinion and respect to the rest of members here or my concept of european americans

[Curtis24]

Not much to think about it, it was a sheer land grab. Historically typical, but not moral by our modern ideals.

[Albion]

Every nation has its hee-haws! :coffee:
I'm sorry, but your attitude is pretentious towards your own countrymen!

Fact is our emerging nation saw something it wanted and took it from a much weaker and less progressive nation.
For fuck sake, we had beaten the British back from our shore and our heads were full. Were we to play nice with the weaklings and the sissies on the block.
Texas, California and the rest of the Southwest was to important to let go to waste on some Spanish speaking backwater that could hardly govern itself let alone share in the bounty that would become this great nation of ours.

http://0.tqn.com/d/history1800s/1/0/B/1/-/-/scott-mexicocity01.jpg

and you comment about us... :p

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3667741040_869e61e58e.jpg


Had we not taken California the British would have. The diplomatic fucks ups engaged in by Britain in attempting to prop up Mexico, especially over the Texas annexation, reads like a highly amusing comedy of errors. Mexico just wasn't up to the task, and one British diplomat finally fumed in exasperation: "You always do everything too late!"

We wanted Rio de la plata and Venezuela, you can keep California. :D


The Mexican war was a brazen arrogant land-grab.

No, it was living space, a place for America to expand its growing population into.


US in the role of a bad neighbor, the big bully to the north.

That's true, like us and our 7 interferences with Persia.


We have brought it on ourselves.

No you haven't. Most Mexican immigrants to America are Mestizos from Southern Mexico with ancestry in southern Mexico or Central America, hardly any of them have ancestry from the former Mexican lands in America since it was thinly populated. The native Americans which are in the former Mexican states within the USA are the one's which were there when it was Mexican.

-------

As for my own views, I don't think America should have taken it, but then I wouldn't have liked modern Mexico to have it either.
I would have much preferred Mexico to have split in two between Mestizo-south and European North, with the North, European country keeping a hold of these areas.

[Joe McCarthy]

Essentially what we had was a land grabbing ex-colony taking land from another land grabbing ex-colony. The Mexican claim to the US Southwest was based on a rather dubious papal bull given to Spain which Britain never recognized (as Britain was our colonial master this is key). Moreover, my hunch is that the Apache, Navajo, Hopi, etc., would have a thing or two to say about the region being Mexican land...

In the end it's hard for Mexicans to make a 'moral' case as mestizos and Indians from Chiapas are no more native to the Southwest than Anglo-Saxons were. If the point is to give land back to its 'rightful owners', a ludicrous idea in itself, then far from giving the land to Mexico, it should be given to the Indians indigenous to the region.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Mexican war was a brazen arrogant land-grab. All of the arguments used to justify it ultimately reduce to Might = Right. Finally, we did have the decency to feel a bit embarassed about it and sought to salve our much-battered conscience with the Gadsden Purchase.


Actually, the Gadsden Purchase just further undermines the Mexican claim. Here they were, supposedly so angry over land 'theft', and yet they offered to sell us more land! Heck, they wanted to sell us Baja too but Congress rejected the offer.

[Joe McCarthy]

Given that the word predates the formation of the United States by hundreds of years, citizens of the US can hardly claim a monopoly on it.

Besides this, the word American first referred to (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=America&searchmode=none) the people now generally called Native Americans (which makes perfect sense, considering that the land of 'America' was obviously not populated originally by European peoples).

So no, he is quite justified when he says that American is better applied to Mexicans because of their racial backgrounds.

There is obviously a distinction to be made in the sense 'American' was used by Great Dane and the sense you and Don are using it. 'Americans' as in peoples of the Americas, and Americans as in Americans of the United States. The former call themselves Guatemalans, Mexicans, etc. We call ourselves Americans. Moreover, if you want to cite Amerind ancestry, many white Americans have Amerind ancestry, thus giving us a similar claim as Spanish bred mestizo half-castes by your logic.

[Joe McCarthy]

Here's a bit from Wiki indicating the racist nature of Spanish colonial policy in Mexico. Indeed, to this day Mexico is essentially a white supremacist state whose ruling class is largely white or near white:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo

[QUOTE][Mestizo is a term traditionally used in Latin America for people of mixed European and Indigenous heritage or descent. The term originated as a racial category in the Casta system that was in use during the Spanish empire's control of their American colonies, it was used to describe those who had one European-born parent and one who was member of an indigenous American population. In the Casta system mestizos had fewer rights than European born persons called "Peninsular", and "Criollos" who were persons born in the new world of two European born parents, but more rights than "Indios" and "Negros". During the colonial period, mestizos quickly became the majority group in most of Latin America and when the colonies started achieving independence from Spain, the mestizo group often became dominant. In some Latin American countries, such as Mexico, the concept of the "mestizo" became central to the formation of a new independent identity that was neither wholly Spanish nor wholly indigenous and the word mestizo acquired its current meaning of mixed cultural heritage rather than racial descent.
/QUOTE]

[Gamera]

The population of Mexico is not 99% pure Amerindian. I'm too pressed with my studies right now to go look up the exact figures.

Mexico is roughly the same as Peru I'd say: 10% (or less) of whites, 35% of Mestizos (most of them, more Amerindian looking than European) and 55% of Amerindians. This is a rough estimate of course but I think it's close to reality.

[Joe McCarthy]

Mexico is roughly the same as Peru I'd say: 10% (or less) of whites, 35% of Mestizos (most of them, more Amerindian looking than European) and 55% of Amerindians. This is a rough estimate of course but I think it's close to reality.

More like 60% mestizo, 30% Amerind, 10% white. That figure comes from the World Almanac but I can post an online source if necessary.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by celtabria
As for my own views, I don't think America should have taken it, but then I wouldn't have liked modern Mexico to have it either.
I would have much preferred Mexico to have split in two between Mestizo-south and European North, with the North, European country keeping a hold of these areas.


The problem is, such an eventuality wasn't even in the cards. The struggle for Manifest Destiny was a struggle between the British hegemon and an America expanding west. Mexico was just a pawn on the chessboard when it was all said and done. In those days our two countries generally hated each other, and it was Britain's aim to block our march westward. I'm happy to say you guys generally failed miserably.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny


Manifest Destiny was the 19th century American belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico; the concept was denounced by Whigs, and fell into disuse after the mid 1850s.

Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only wise but that it was readily apparent (manifest) and inexorable (destiny).

The concept of American expansion is much older, but John O’Sullivan coined the exact term "Manifest Destiny" in the July/August 1845 issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review in an article titled “Annexation”.[1] It was primarily used by Democrats to support the expansion plans of the Polk Administration, but the idea of expansion was opposed by Whigs like Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Abraham Lincoln who wanted to deepen the economy rather than broaden its expanse. It fell out of favor by 1860.[2]

The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, as expounded by Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.[



O'Sullivan's second use of the phrase became extremely influential. On December 27, 1845 in his newspaper the New York Morning News, O'Sullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with the United Kingdom in the Oregon Country. O'Sullivan argued that the United States had the right to claim "the whole of Oregon":

"And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us."

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter.sargent/public.www/web%20103/manifest%20destiny.jpg


This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, intended as a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she travels; she holds a school book. The different economic activities of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation. The Native Americans and wild animals flee.

[Great Dane]

Given that the word predates the formation of the United States by hundreds of years, citizens of the US can hardly claim a monopoly on it.

Besides this, the word American first referred to (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=America&searchmode=none) the people now generally called Native Americans (which makes perfect sense, considering that the land of 'America' was obviously not populated originally by European peoples).

So no, he is quite justified when he says that American is better applied to Mexicans because of their racial backgrounds. The Aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere were, and still are, called Indians. Because Columbus thought he had landed in the East Indies. The first place I've ever seen them referred to as Amerindians is here. Amerindin is not part of most peoples everyday speach, including Indians. The Indians refer to themselves as Chippewa or Sioux or what ever tribe they belong to.

Call me Spaniard, not Hispanic. I supose that due to your limited culture you can't understand the difference.I know the differnce and I intentionally picked that word.

http://api.ning.com/files/mIfxYWv9jTBlnckxVpPxDXxRN4rDPg4lXMylUMqEsbI_/hispania.jpg


You should show more respect to my kind, since your migrant family could go there due to the exploration, conquest and discoveries by my blood, Spaniards, to the profit of all europeans. Yeah right.:rolleyes: The English explored the New World in spite of the Hispanics trying to exclude them from the New World.


Your attitude is propper of a sudaca or a muslim. Bad for you.
You Hispanic attitude is fitting of a Muslim. Probably due to those hundreds of years of Muslim rule & Moorish blood.
:wink

[Loddfafner]

At the moment I am on a Thoreau kick. He was arrested for civil disobedience for objecting to the invasion of Mexico. Last summer I visited New Mexico and saw how deeply Mexican that region really is. I would be inclined to condemn the war and even egg on the enthusiasts of Aztlan....


... but my strongest, most visceral sense of heritage is as a Californian. California was ours and we did a better job than the Spanish and Mexicans who exterminated the Indians - those quaint missions operated like Auschwitz. My father's and mother's ancestors were among the first to settle in California in the late 1840s. They ran their respective corners of the state much longer than the Spanish or the Mexicans. My father's forebears effectively assimilated into a Spanish tradition: cowboys are vaqueros. They worked on both sides of the border. My grandfather was born in Chihuahua but the Mexican revolution forced them to go back to California. Pancho Villa, as an old family friend, made sure they got back safely.

I would not be me without the American victory in that war.

[Wyn]

The Aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere were, and still are, called Indians. Because Columbus thought he had landed in the East Indies. The first place I've ever seen them referred to as Amerindians is here. Amerindin is not part of most peoples everyday speach, including Indians. The Indians refer to themselves as Chippewa or Sioux or what ever tribe they belong to.

I am aware of all of this. I was explaining why it is true that the word 'American' is more applicable in that context (i.e. the word itself was first used to describe the natives), as was clear:


So no, he is quite justified when he says that American is better applied to Mexicans because of their racial backgrounds.

[Albion]

Actually, the Gadsden Purchase just further undermines the Mexican claim. Here they were, supposedly so angry over land 'theft', and yet they offered to sell us more land! Heck, they wanted to sell us Baja too but Congress rejected the offer.

Yes, Mexico poorly utilized it as well, under America the region and bordering areas of Mexico have been settled and prospered.
Personally I would have taken Baja California too.


The problem is, such an eventuality wasn't even in the cards. The struggle for Manifest Destiny was a struggle between the British hegemon and an America expanding west. Mexico was just a pawn on the chessboard when it was all said and done. In those days our two countries generally hated each other, and it was Britain's aim to block our march westward. I'm happy to say you guys generally failed miserably.

Yeah, Yeah don't rub it in ;) Our attempts on Rio de la plata, Venezuela and other areas of Latin America pretty much failed, but for a time Argentina, Uruguay and Chile did have British influence. After the 2 WW's America took over.


Yeah right. The English explored the New World in spite of the Hispanics trying to exclude them from the New World.

That is true. Spain was making weak attempts to extend up to British Colombia it seems.

[Don]

My father's and mother's ancestors were among the first to settle in California in the late 1840s. California was ours and we did a better job than the Spanish and Mexicans who exterminated the Indians - those quaint missions operated like Auschwitz. My father's and mother's ancestors were among the first to settle in California in the late 1840s. They ran their respective corners of the state much longer than the Spanish or the Mexicans.


Where you learnt those fables? In a synagogue? :rolleyes:


You should inform better yourself before you speak about these complexes matters.

I'm informed about the matter and your indiscriminated mix between spanish and mexicans and their behaviour with the natives or success in their duties in their Ranchos -ruled usually by criollos or ""pure"" spaniards-; a shown of great ignorance.

Ask maybe a well informed native american of California, descendants to those protected by SPANISH missions ruled by Spaniards and see what they tell you about the differences in treatment they received from the Spaniards and from the mexicans, once these earned the independence and the ruled over those regions and the inhabitants (native americans,and a few other european migrants that were just arriving).



My father's and mother's ancestors were among the first to settle in California in the late 1840s.
Spaniard families stablished there from 1600 until the moment. A few, we were not migrants, but conquistadores and misioneros... but they exist.

1840... mhhhh...
Your ancestors couldn't know anything about the Spaniards in California-so better ask and inform the oldest dwellers- because they, arrived in 1840s, the spaniards (as An Empire, a State) were gone already then. so when the mexicans were the ones that acted there.
So they didn't found but in legends and by fables, about spaniards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_War_of_Independence


So, much before and longer than your family, as you say, there were Californianos and Tejanos and other White Families there, usually with amerindian and mestizo servants.Confuse the servant with the master is a prove of deep ignorance or simply a prove of that you haven't seen them.
These Spanaird families were, contrary to your words, enough successfull to be found today among rich white people in America.
Seek them, you'll find them. But don't seek "mexican" phenotype.

Yes, those that are the main characters in the Telenovelas.

...


California was ours and we did a better job than the Spanish and Mexicans who exterminated the Indians

Wow... Anglo-Synagogue indeed. :wink I thought the Black Legend was already extincted... at least among the "europhiles".


A spaniard that killed an Indio, could be executed from the 1500 to recently. Our laws were very protective with them, MORE THAN ANY EUROPEAN STATE AT THE MOMENT, as a prove of our noble caste.

A mexican that killed an Indio (despite they are mostly indians) was granted with pesos.
Just as 1 example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_the_Indies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomé_de_las_Casas
Intro.

Well, the mexicans (these amerindians that speak spanish) treated the natives, in various wars in fact, like scum, their ancestors already did it in the Guerras Floridas before the spaniard arrived. They, aztecs for example, thought their brothers from the north -navajos, apaches, pueblo...- were worst than animals)


Please, be more discriminative when you talk about the amerindian state of Mexico and the European Kingdom of Spain.

Maybe the concept of "Independencia Mexicana" would help in the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_Mexico

Because we, as anyone, don't like that people tell lies about us.
..
------------------------------------------------------------



To help you in the understanding of my message and empathize with us, I will put a paralel example with another imperial europeans whose history you know better than ours (that is easy, seen the level of knowledge proven)



Its like me saying that:


British people
http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/08/03a-BritishFamilyinIndia.jpg


are dirty because of this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3392929103_6f9eb1b892.jpg
(yes, ganges, india, wasn't that ruled by Brittain?)


...

Note: I am the one that I would have liked that my ancestors and old spaniards didn't treat so carefully and respectufully the native americans. They have not my sympathy at all because obvious reasons...
But -sadly- those myths about spaniards killing and massacring indians, like only did themselves (mexicans-northern indians etc) and Other European migrants, are NOT TRUE. Reading an europhile American in 2010 supporting that message is disturbing for us.

[Ibericus]

Yeah right.:rolleyes: The English explored the New World in spite of the Hispanics trying to exclude them from the New World.

how about no...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Viceroyalty_of_New_Spain_Location_1819_%28without_ Philippines%29.png/800px-Viceroyalty_of_New_Spain_Location_1819_%28without_ Philippines%29.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/New_Spain.svg/800px-New_Spain.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Spanish_Empire.png/800px-Spanish_Empire.png

[poiuytrewq0987]

Mexicans are Americans too. We all live on this continent called America. If anything, the USA should be renamed to the United States of Columbia unless the USA intends to create a North American Union then that is fine with me. ;)

The war on Mexico's side was led by Santa Anna, a brilliant general who initially supported the Spaniards during the Mexican War of Independence but later switched sides to fight for Mexico instead of Spain. The result of that, Mexico won the independence war against Spain.

Mexico was just not ready for a war against the USA at that time but things were changing fast and Mexico had to take action to protect her territorial sovereignty against crazed expansionists. Mexico had only been independent for twenty years before the expansionists declared war on Mexico to take Texas, a rightfully Mexican territory. The land had been controlled by Spain for a very long time and only changed hands to its successors, the Mexicans after the independence war. Whereas the Americans had no right to the land and just came in and took it from the Mexicans.

Lastly, I'm fairly certain that if Spain still had control of the Viceroyalty of New Spain/Mexico then the Columbians would've thought twice before declaring war on Mexico which would've consequently pulled the USA into a war with Spain, a world power of that era.

[Loddfafner]

I had better clarify as my post was wildly misunderstood. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=304011&postcount=38)

California was ours and we did a better job than the Spanish and Mexicans who exterminated the Indians - those quaint missions operated like Auschwitz. My father's and mother's ancestors were among the first to settle in California in the late 1840s. They ran their respective corners of the state much longer than the Spanish or the Mexicans.

The Spanish only settled upper California in the late 1700s around the string of missions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California) that Junipero Serra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junipero_Serra) established. He established his mission at San Diego in 1769; the last was established in Sonoma, north of San Francisco, in 1823.

The effort to Christianize the natives and transform them into a population compatible with Spanish rule resulted in the collapse or extermination of the Indian peoples. Their concentration into camps around the missions accelerated the course of fatal diseases; the heavy-handed rule of the friars more concerned about their souls than their living, thinking bodies did more harm than good. The deterioration of administration under the Mexicans worsened the catastrophe.

The Spanish presence in Alta California only lasted only 50 years; Mexico ruled it for another two decades. California has been American (in the USA sense) for over a century and a half, a much longer period. There are a few Spanish (as opposed to Mexican) families still around, as the historical societies occasionally remind the public, but Americans bought them out while retaining many of their customs.

Other regions America absorbed had different experiences of Spanish rule. Nevada had practically no Spanish presence; in the Rio Grande valley especially around Santa Fe, it was extensive and lasted 2-3 centuries.

[Bridie]

I'm surprised that anyone actually cares about this Mexican-American war.

[Albion]

I'm surprised that anyone actually cares about this Mexican-American war.

Its important in the formation of America and Mexico.

[Bridie]

I'm surprised that anyone actually cares about the US or Mexico.

[Albion]

I'm surprised that anyone actually cares about the US or Mexico.

True this forum is rather dominated by Europeans and Eurocentrists, but we still key an eye on our new world cousins :thumb001:

[Bridie]

True this forum is rather dominated by Europeans and Eurocentrists, but we still key an eye on our new world cousins :thumb001:

In the real world, Americans and Mexicans don't see Europeans as cousins. Same goes for other New Worlders, I'm afraid.

[Albion]

In the real world, Americans and Mexicans don't see Europeans as cousins. Same goes for other New Worlders, I'm afraid.

Fair enough, we know when we're not wanted ... ;)

[Bridie]

Bloody poms, you're all the same. :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

Mexicans are Americans too. We all live on this continent called America. If anything, the USA should be renamed to the United States of Columbia unless the USA intends to create a North American Union then that is fine with me. ;)

The war on Mexico's side was led by Santa Anna, a brilliant general who initially supported the Spaniards during the Mexican War of Independence but later switched sides to fight for Mexico instead of Spain. The result of that, Mexico won the independence war against Spain.

Mexico was just not ready for a war against the USA at that time but things were changing fast and Mexico had to take action to protect her territorial sovereignty against crazed expansionists. Mexico had only been independent for twenty years before the expansionists declared war on Mexico to take Texas, a rightfully Mexican territory. The land had been controlled by Spain for a very long time and only changed hands to its successors, the Mexicans after the independence war. Whereas the Americans had no right to the land and just came in and took it from the Mexicans.

Lastly, I'm fairly certain that if Spain still had control of the Viceroyalty of New Spain/Mexico then the Columbians would've thought twice before declaring war on Mexico which would've consequently pulled the USA into a war with Spain, a world power of that era.

I see you are playing your new character to the hilt.

4000 experience points awarded, level up!

[blan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War


http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/83/Storming_of_Palace_Hill_at_the_Battle_of_Monterey. jpg

Battle of Monterrey

[I

please forgive my ignorance on the subject but who was the USA fighting at the time was it mexico as a independent nation or was it still under spanish rule?

[Curtis24]

Well over half of Mexico's population are mestizos, which means those of mixed Spanish-Amerind ancestry. Only about 30% of the Mexican population are Amerinds. Mexico's national mythos is actually based on miscegenation - that is the union between Hernan Cortes and the Indian Dona Marina.

We can bicker over whether the indigenous peoples should be regarded as 'Americans' to the exclusion of others here, but underlying this view is something of an assumption that the Amerinds were ever a composite or unified whole. Many Amerinds prefer simply to be described by their tribal names, such as Sioux or Mohawk.

The term 'native American' is also used nowadays as a political weapon against whites, particularly white Americans. It is rather improper to use a word originating in Europe as a descriptive for a non-European people that would never have heard the word without European contact. But that's just my opinion.

It may be believed that most Mexicans have European blood, but genetics shows that most don't. As well as actually encountering Mexicans.

[Electronic God-Man]

please forgive my ignorance on the subject but who was the USA fighting at the time was it mexico as a independent nation or was it still under spanish rule?

An independent Mexico.

[Great Dane]

I am aware of all of this. I was explaining why it is true that the word 'American' is more applicable in that context (i.e. the word itself was first used to describe the natives), as was clear:

Afrikaner: from Dutch, from Afrikaan, an African, from Latin Africnus, from Africa

Using your logic which of the following is an Afrikaner?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Andries_Pretorius.jpg

or

http://nelsonmandelafacts.com/images/nelson_mandela_2.jpg

[Curtis24]

An independent Mexico.

Yes, Mexico won independence sometime around 1820.

Mexican history is actually very interesting. For instance, did you know that Mexico had actually been invaded and occupied by France during the U.S. Civil War? Or that, during the Great Depression, Mexico nationalized the U.S. oil business within its boundaries? Neither did I, prior to taking a class on the History of Mexico.

[Electronic God-Man]

Yes, Mexico won independence sometime around 1820.

Mexican history is actually very interesting. For instance, did you know that Mexico had actually been invaded and occupied by France during the U.S. Civil War? Or that, during the Great Depression, Mexico nationalized the U.S. oil business within its boundaries? Neither did I, prior to taking a class on the History of Mexico.

I actually think it's a shame that we don't spend more time on Central and South American history in our schools. It would go along way in framing our own colonial heritage. It is, indeed, very interesting.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loddfaffner
Last summer I visited New Mexico and saw how deeply Mexican that region really is. I would be inclined to condemn the war and even egg on the enthusiasts of Aztlan....


New Mexico was the site of the most successful anti-Spanish revolt by Pueblo Indians in the modern US in 1680. If we should return it to anyone it should be Indians, not Mexicans. And if anything, Mexican settlers put up a stiffer fight in defending California from the American invaders than they did in New Mexico.

[The Lawspeaker]

Using your logic which of the following is an Afrikaner?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Andries_Pretorius.jpg

or

http://nelsonmandelafacts.com/images/nelson_mandela_2.jpg
Number 1. There were (apart from some Bushmen and Khoikhoi ) no Africans in South Africa when the Dutch came ashore. It would be fair to say that the Afrikaners and the Bushmen are the only real owners of the land and power should be shared between those two. Mandela's Xhosa were themselves recent invaders.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by celtabria
That is true. Spain was making weak attempts to extend up to British Colombia it seems.


Spain had a colony on Vancouver Island. They made efforts to keep both the British and Russians out, and even went so far as to claim the entire Pacific coast of North America. They even viewed Russian activities into Alaska as an incursion into Spanish territory.

[Don]

Spain had a colony on Vancouver Island. They made efforts to keep both the British and Russians out, and even went so far as to claim the entire Pacific coast of North America. They even viewed Russian activities into Alaska as an incursion into Spanish territory.

We had colonies in the every corner of this planet.

The Pacific was called the "spanish lake".


Understand us.
We are an Alpha breed.
Territory, domain.

We managed to rule over half of the earth despite being only very few and having no bombs or satellites, just swords and cojones.

Its natural for the Alpha Humans to Conquest and Defend their territories.

Sadly we are asleep, this is over...
http://www.miniaturasjm.com/userdata/image/pincelhistoria_002.jpg

...we don't defend now even our own homeland, Iberia, Hispania, España.

We suck.

[Great Dane]

Number 1. There were (apart from some Bushmen and Khoikhoi ) no Africans in South Africa when the Dutch came ashore. It would be fair to say that the Afrikaners and the Bushmen are the only real owners of the land and power should be shared between those two. Mandela's Xhosa were themselves recent invaders.



The point I was trying to make is that saying Americans are not entitled to call themselves American & that the term 'American" belongs rightfully to Mexicans is as absurd as saying Mandela is the actually Afrikaner.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Libre
The war on Mexico's side was led by Santa Anna, a brilliant general

Yellow fever did more to repulse the Spanish reconquest attempts than Santa Anna. And his military screwups in the Mexican-American War aided us immensely after Scott landed at Veracruz.


The land had been controlled by Spain for a very long time and only changed hands to its successors, the Mexicans after the independence war.

The Mexican claim was based on the Spanish claim which was itself based on the conquest of Indian tribes. If you're really interested in rectifying past wrongs, give Texas to the Comanche.


Lastly, I'm fairly certain that if Spain still had control of the Viceroyalty of New Spain/Mexico then the Columbians would've thought twice before declaring war on Mexico which would've consequently pulled the USA into a war with Spain, a world power of that era.

Spain's power had been in abeyance since the Thirty Years War and the Napoleonic Wars reduced them further. They weren't even recognized as one of the Great Powers at the Congress of Vienna. If you want an idea of how much trouble we would have had with Spain, look to the Spanish-American War which occurred fifty years later. Though the Spanish infantry fought well, we smashed Spain in less than four months. It was a much shorter war than that with Mexico.

[Joe McCarthy]

We had colonies in the every corner of this planet.

The Pacific was called the "spanish lake".


Understand us.
We are an Alpha breed.
Territory, domain.

We managed to rule over half of the earth despite being only very few and having no bombs or satellites, just swords and cojones.

Its natural for the Alpha Humans to Conquest and Defend their territories.

Sadly we are asleep, this is over...
http://www.miniaturasjm.com/userdata/image/pincelhistoria_002.jpg

...we don't defend now even our own homeland, Iberia, Hispania, España.

We suck.

Just so you know, I have enormous respect for Spain and its history. In my estimation its exploits are the most glorious ever.

[Don]

the Spanish American War which occurred fifty years later. Though the Spanish infantry fought well, we smashed Spain in less than four months. It was a much shoter war than that with Mexico.

Was an unfair and coward war.
Spain was more dedicated to arts and subnationalisms than to keep the old colonies, and the US had it easy because the New generation of Metal Ships VS wood and old Ships.

That was the end of the Noble War, where were the men who fought and not the machines.

The treacherous cause of the war itself was the dark episode of the Maine. The spaniards didn't have time to expect a coward attack.

If I were northamerican, I would feel shame remembering that episode and coward and dishonored war that was better like a terrorist attack by the growing and raising US.

[Joe McCarthy]

Regarding this question of Spain and the Indians under their domain...

While there were excesses, the missionaries were actually the ones protecting Indians from Spanish landowners. European diseases decimated the Indian population of Mexico, so I suppose in that sense it was 'Auschwitz', but most balanced historians won't confer any more blame on the Spanish than on other Europeans dealing with Indians.

The 'Black Legend' has been largely cast aside by modern historians, though in its time it seemed credible because even Spanish missionaries complained about excesses against the Indians.

[Joe McCarthy]

It may be believed that most Mexicans have European blood, but genetics shows that most don't. As well as actually encountering Mexicans.

Which genetics study shows most Mexicans not having European blood? The DNA study I've seen shows Mexicans in the US with over 50% European ancestry, which is considerably higher than that found in Mexico. There it's between 30-40%.

[Joe McCarthy]

Was an unfair and coward war.
Spain was more dedicated to arts and subnationalisms than to keep the old colonies, and the US had it easy because the New generation of Metal Ships VS wood and old Ships.

That was the end of the Noble War, where were the men who fought and not the machines.

The treacherous cause of the war itself was the dark episode of the Maine. The spaniards didn't have time to expect a coward attack.

If I were northamerican, I would feel shame remembering that episode and coward and dishonored war that was better like a terrorist attack by the growing and raising US.

My main issue with the Spanish-American War is that we got bogged down in the Philippines, which was really stupid in my opinion.

As for the Maine... though it's true the sensationalistic stories of Hearst and Pulitzer pushed us into war fever, it's really an open question what caused its sinking. I will concede this much: it's never been proven definitively that Spain was responsible.

[Joe McCarthy]

Yes, Mexico won independence sometime around 1820.

Mexican history is actually very interesting. For instance, did you know that Mexico had actually been invaded and occupied by France during the U.S. Civil War? Or that, during the Great Depression, Mexico nationalized the U.S. oil business within its boundaries? Neither did I, prior to taking a class on the History of Mexico.

I agree that Mexican history is interesting. For nationalists, the period of the Porfiriato should be studied. Diaz is the one right-wing authoritarian leader that is completely ignored.

[Don]

it's really an open question what caused its sinking. I will concede this much: it's never been proven definitively that Spain was responsible.

Everybody knows who were.

Who sacrified their own people to have an infamous and false excuse to declare the war -as a backstab- to Spaniards.

When I saw 11-S while I was lunching, one of the words that sounded in my home was "Maine".

[Alvarado]

The 'Black Legend' has been largely cast aside by modern historians, though in its time it seemed credible because even Spanish missionaries complained about excesses against the Indians.

The father of the "Black Legend":

http://www.mundoucard.com/admin/principal/imagenes/las-casas.jpg


Observers who take a less categorical view of the Spanish presence in the New World see Las Casas as an originator of the "Black Legend", a discourse conceived as having created stereotypical images of the Spaniards as rapacious colonists and Indians as innocents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas

[Joe McCarthy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Philippine-American_War.png


1899 political cartoon by Winsor McCay. Uncle Sam (representing the United States), gets entangled with rope around a tree labelled "Imperialism" while trying to subdue a bucking colt or mule labeled "Philippines" while a figure representing Spain walks off over the horizon carrying a bag labeled "$20,000,000".

[Loddfafner]

New Mexico was the site of the most successful anti-Spanish revolt by Pueblo Indians in the modern US in 1680. If we should return it to anyone it should be Indians, not Mexicans. And if anything, Mexican settlers put up a stiffer fight in defending California from the American invaders than they did in New Mexico.

I get the impression that the Mexicans did not put up much of a fight anywhere.


Spain had a colony on Vancouver Island. They made efforts to keep both the British and Russians out, and even went so far as to claim the entire Pacific coast of North America. They even viewed Russian activities into Alaska as an incursion into Spanish territory.

Russian activities provoked their hasty occupation of California. The reconstruction of Russia's Fort Ross, its furthest outpost, is only a few hours' very scenic drive north of San Francisco, near Russian River and Sevastopol.



As for the Maine... though it's true the sensationalistic stories of Hearst and Pulitzer pushed us into war fever, it's really an open question what caused its sinking. I will concede this much: it's never been proven definitively that Spain was responsible.

I thought that the Spanish were excluded as a suspect for the sinking, but that the Hearsts (regulars at my great great grandfather's general store), as the Fox News of its day, bear major responsibility. A great uncle of mine died at San Juan Hill, taking a bullet for Teddy.

[Murphy]

Batallón de San Patricio!

[Don]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estevanico

Don't expect this adventures in your hollywood movies.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/images/cabeza1.jpg
http://daysandstewart.com/pictures/1st9weeks/Explorers/Estevanico1.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~bsu/images/Estevanico2.jpg

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/cabeza-cooking/images/CdeV-sm.jpg
Cabeza de Vaca and his companions (Estebanico el Moro in the left) passing through the Big Bend country of Texas. During their long journey in Texas, the Spaniards had become successful healers and traders and effective hunters and gatherers.

The mythic figure of Cabeza de Vaca (protoanthropologist for many) and his adventures are one of the most amazing episodes of human history.

[Eldritch]

I see you are playing your new character to the hilt.

4000 experience points awarded, level up!

And the only reason Americans are called Americans is that there is no term such as "Unites Statian" or "United Statish" to refer to a citizen of the US of A. Unlike Spanish, which has the adjective "estadounidense".

To point out that Mexicans are Americans too, in the geopraghical sense, is so redundant by now that 9 out of 10 people reading this probably have fallen asleep halfway through this sentence.

[Electronic God-Man]

And the only reason Americans are called Americans is that there is no term such as "Unites Statian" or "United Statish" to refer to a citizen of the US of A. Unlike Spanish, which has the adjective "estadounidense".

I want to say that I think that Americans were called Americans before there was even a United States of America.

[Joe McCarthy]

I want to say that I think that Americans were called Americans before there was even a United States of America.

You're correct. The first reference was in 1765.

[Joe McCarthy]

Batallón de San Patricio!

I'm unsure which is worse: the fact that a gaggle of ingrates that we took in fought for our enemies, or that Ireland issued a postage stamp celebrating them. In the end, they were righteously executed.

The Saint Patrick's Battalion reinforces all of the old anti-Irish stereotypes. Even Irish-Americans were long careful to distance themselves from that bunch.

[Murphy]

May heaven keep the men who sleep from Saint Patrick's Battalion ;).

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
I get the impression that the Mexicans did not put up much of a fight anywhere.


They really didn't, but the Californios did manage to win a battle (actually more of a skirmish) in California, though historians bicker over the outcome.


I thought that the Spanish were excluded as a suspect for the sinking, but that the Hearsts (regulars at my great great grandfather's general store), as the Fox News of its day, bear major responsibility.

The question is whether the explosion was internal or external. If it was the latter, Spain is a suspect. Here's an article on the matter:

http://loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/Maine.1898.pdf

[Albion]

We had colonies in the every corner of this planet.

The Pacific was called the "spanish lake".


Understand us.
We are an Alpha breed.
Territory, domain.

We managed to rule over half of the earth despite being only very few and having no bombs or satellites, just swords and cojones.

Its natural for the Alpha Humans to Conquest and Defend their territories.

Sadly we are asleep, this is over...
http://www.miniaturasjm.com/userdata/image/pincelhistoria_002.jpg

...we don't defend now even our own homeland, Iberia, Hispania, España.

We suck.

Show off :D:tongue Ours was better anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire):p:thumb001:
Alas, now our nations have both seen their peak.

[Great Dane]

And the only reason Americans are called Americans is that there is no term such as "Unites Statian" or "United Statish" to refer to a citizen of the US of A. Unlike Spanish, which has the adjective "estadounidense".

To point out that Mexicans are Americans too, in the geopraghical sense, is so redundant by now that 9 out of 10 people reading this probably have fallen asleep halfway through this sentence.

But they are not called Americans in the English speaking world. When an Englishman, Canadian or Australian uses says American or America do they use it to refer to all of the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere?

http://www.geographyiq.com/images/us/United_States_map.gif

^ America = the United States of America, Americans the citizens of the U.S.

http://www.airhighways.com/images/americas_map.gif

^ The Americas = the Western Hemisphere

http://www.tiwy.com/pais/map_la.gif

^Latin America = Brazil and the Spanish speaking countries of the Americas. Latin Americans.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/central-america/map_of_central-america.jpg

^ Central America = Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize. Sometimes Mexico is sometimes included or more often is referrred to as Mexico & Central America. Central Americans.

http://www.greece-map.net/south-america/south-america-map.gif

^ The continent of South America. South Americans

http://www.greece-map.net/north-america/north-america-map.gif

^ The continent of North America. North Americans

http://www.ndstudies.org/images/US-Canada.gif

^ Sometimes North America refers to just the United States and Canada in a cultural sense, both being former colonial possessions of England as opposed to Latin America.

[Don]

In Spanish, the language of the discoverers of America and the most spoken in America:


People from US: Estadounidenses. (Estados Unidos) Also Norteamericanos.

People from America: Americanos. (Like Indios Americanos, as we called them once we discovered that was not the India but a new continent)

People from Southamerica: Sudamericanos. Sudacas

[Raskolnikov]

And the only reason Americans are called Americans is that there is no term such as "Unites Statian" or "United Statish" to refer to a citizen of the US of A. Unlike Spanish, which has the adjective "estadounidense".

To point out that Mexicans are Americans too, in the geopraghical sense, is so redundant by now that 9 out of 10 people reading this probably have fallen asleep halfway through this sentence.
Mexico is also the United States: Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

[Joe McCarthy]

http://mexicanhistory.org/MexicanAmericanWarTimeline.htm

[BeerBaron]

My personal thoughts are that it was a triumph, but the end game was ill concieved. Had the United States been thinking long term, it is likely they would have drove the army to the panama canal, which would have been preferable. Not only would the US be economically more viable for the future, the issues of defending a long US-mexican border would not be a problem. It is unlikely the US would be able to get away with territorial aggression in modern times within its own hemisphere. But I would support a war against central america.

[Barreldriver]

Mexico is also the United States: Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Wouldn't have had this predicament if we stayed a Confederacy (Under Articles of Confederation later resurrected in the South via CSA). :thumb001: Can't confuse a sovereign Tennessee with the "United States" of Mexico.

[Curtis24]

It was an act of American aggression, but the rules were different back then, and the Southwest territory was crucial to the development of our nation.

Furthermore, there weren't many Mexicans living in the area - it was still "up-for-grabs" even if Mexico technically had military control of the region.

[Han Cholo]

Well, that is wrong.

The hybrids are a minority, the Criollos (as pure spaniard caste) are almost a myth. The spaniard blood in there (carried by conquistadores and very very few spaniard women) is a relic in there, a treasure.

We hybrids, castizos, cholos, mestizos, etc. are the fulminant majority in Mexico. It's not a relic here. Everyone here has some Spanish blood, just like Indigenous blood is not a relic here either because every bastard has it. Being called Rahid Seineldin would be a "relic" because very few people are Arabs. Being called Aldo Füscher would also be a relic because there are few germans. José Ignacio Martinez Gonzalez is not a relic. Mexico is not Peru. This is proved by Genetic studies. It's not just me saying it.



So, most of the mexicans hardly have a drop of Spaniard blood, but the surnames given to "dignify them" mostly by misioneros... and in consequence, when you speak about mexicans, you speak about AMERINDIANS.

Most Mexicans are not Amerindian in a predominant way and these surnames are not given by misioneros. Most Mexican Natives (of actual Amerindian ethnicities) have Indigenous surnames such as Tehualhemal, Yamami, Yoreme, Canak etc..)




That isAmerica and they are the natives, the Americans.
They have no my sympathy, since most of them hate the Spaniards and our Conquistadores and Misioneros who taught them to behave (or try it) like Caballeros and the concepts of Castilian Honor and Respect... (instead those coward rituals and savage practices they are doing again)...

I don't share this hate for Spaniards but it becomes quite hard to not at least dislike you a bit when you spew such ignorant non-sense about us.



...but European descendants living in the USA are not Americans if we compare them to Mexicans 99-100% pure Amerindians.

Is this Gallego humor or some shit like that? Amerindian ethnicities in Mexico are only 14% to 20%. Are you really saying that 99% of Mexicans are pure Amerindians? A few people here have already seen me. Are you seriously saying people like me in Mexico are only 1% of the population?



Discuss this is senseless.

Your post is senseless.

As for the Southwest, I'm not interested in taking it, it's already full of Chicanos and Americans and other assorted minorities. Even if we were capable of annexing them military we would have a lots of troubles with mal-adapted ethnic minorities causing trouble. The Americans would lose their soverignity and it would make them really angry and the Chicanos would lose their welfare which I think would also make them really angry. I'd rather impulse development on the empty spots we have on our territory (which we still have a lot here in the North.)

All countries lose and gain territory at some point of history. One can't predict the future.

[Joe McCarthy]

My personal thoughts are that it was a triumph, but the end game was ill concieved. Had the United States been thinking long term, it is likely they would have drove the army to the panama canal, which would have been preferable. Not only would the US be economically more viable for the future, the issues of defending a long US-mexican border would not be a problem. It is unlikely the US would be able to get away with territorial aggression in modern times within its own hemisphere. But I would support a war against central america.

But what to do with all of those Mexicans? Annexation of Mexico was debated before Congress, and like similar purely imperialist projects in American history it was rejected for a reason: race.

I do agree though that the nature of the US-Mexico border is the crux of the problem, and it's given far too little attention in discussions of the immigration question.

[Raskolnikov]

Wouldn't have had this predicament if we stayed a Confederacy (Under Articles of Confederation later resurrected in the South via CSA). :thumb001: Can't confuse a sovereign Tennessee with the "United States" of Mexico.
I agree. I believe in the future there will be a name change, or rather an (d)evolution into one "state" or another.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I want an United States of the Americas.

[BeerBaron]

So I'll answer your question in the thread instead of the chatbox joe. Concievably the US could take central america though war. Significant actions would have to be taken to make the case for war, false flags of low casualty rates would likely be the best set up. Mexico itself could easily turn into iraq, this may sound a little sick, but you could limit that immensely though either the mexican population wanting to join the US, though they would not be granted the rights of states, or through a total war scenerio where the population itself is targeted. Populations are always the largest stumbling block and a population that wanted to be part of the US would be preferable to a total war scenerio. Obviously, mexicos natural resources, and the resources of central america would be plundered to repay the US gov, in itself that is a tough thing to do since private industry would likely get the benefits, a repayment agreement from the mexican and central american population would be ideal taking away the burden on the US taxpayer.

[Joe McCarthy]

Thanks for the reply, Beer, and your honesty in making it.

I think the issue is that in the post-WW2 world we've adopted the posture of liberal-free trader anti-imperalists like Cobden. Wars are carried out for liberal ends, and blatant plunder or annihilation therapy is seen to be the retrograde practices of Huns, Turks, and most of all, fascists.

There are a tangle of issues involved here, but the bottom line, as I think we both know, is that it isn't possible. It wasn't even really possible in the 1840s.

[BeerBaron]

Thanks for the reply, Beer, and your honesty in making it.

I think the issue is that in the post-WW2 world we've adopted the posture of liberal-free trader anti-imperalists like Cobden. Wars are carried out for liberal ends, and blatant plunder or annihilation therapy is seen to be the retrograde practices of Huns, Turks, and most of all, fascists.

There are a tangle of issues involved here, but the bottom line, as I think we both know, is that it isn't possible. It wasn't even really possible in the 1840s.

Given the modern rules of war and the current geopolitical climate that is correct, I was sort of using a hypothetical scenario where I thought it may be possible, but you are correct it isn't.

[mvbeleg]

6nE3srC_3c4


The History Channel: The Mexican-American War

At a time when immigration reform continues to be one of the most heated topics in political and business circles, this 2-hour special reexamines the controversial war that resulted in the United States taking control of what was nearly half of Mexico's territory. Featuring lavish reenactments, and interviews with both Mexican and American historians to ensure accuracy from both nations' points of view, we convey the story of President James K. Polk's desire to expand US territory to the Pacific Ocean. Hosted by boxing legend Oscar de la Hoya, we also travel to Mexico City to visit the historic Castillo de Chapultepec, where the climactic battle of the war took place, and the Palacio Nacional, the home of Mexico's government.

[Beethoven]

Mexico got very hight crime level but compare to other countrys with high crime level - Mexico still have many friendly and kind people.

[Ghost Knight]

Mexicans still think the war is going on, every Mexican in southwest America believes the nation will belongs to them. Not only that but the Aztlan movement wants all of North America. So they can make it a shit hole like Mexico.

[The Lawspeaker]

6nE3srC_3c4

I am watching it now but it's a disgusting piece of propaganda as they only show the Mexican point of view and don't even mention what happened in Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution) in 1836. It's full of cheap Mexican nationalism and "we suffered so badly".

[curupira]

What's fairly ironic is that we ultimately took Texas due to demographic changes resulting in part from illegal immigration. American immigrants outnumbered Mexicans in Texas, Santa Anna cracked down after installing his dictatorship, Texans declared independence, and the rest is history.

Too bad we can't seem to learn from it.

I'm just reading about it (Robert Scheina's Latin American Wars). It began ironically with American settlers in Texas. Then they proclaimed their independence and a conflict went on, Texas winning its independence. Then Texas joined the US and the conflict continued, this time the American forces occupied California, Monterrey, and from Veracuz, Mexico City. Long distances were covered by both armies, often in inhospitable desert like conditions. The US had 21 million as opposed to 8 million Mexicans. It was politically more stable and it had an industrial/manufacturing edge. Even then, at that time, these advantages were not clear, and it seems many thought Mexico would have won. The US also had a powerful Navy, which blockaded Mexico, and operated both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific.

Ironically again, what began with Americans settling in then Mexican lands has reversed back. Texas, California and New Mexico are becoming ethnically Mexican again:

http://i60.tinypic.com/2rx9y6a.png