PBS...US/Mexican War
Designated PLC
Thought it was very well produced.
One thing that was missing was that number of settlers in the territories
that we took[by war] from Mexico was very small and that these settlers
considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.Some fled but many stayed and
their families have
prospered in New Mexico,USA...
The USA opened up the land for the kind of developement that the Mexicanos
were/are incapable of and the Mexicanos,stuck in the past as usual.are
jealous.
Des
JB
>
> I only had a chance to see the first half hour .....
> Thought it was very well produced.
>
> One thing that was missing was that number of settlers in the territories
> that we took[by war] from Mexico was very small and that these settlers
> considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.Some fled but many stayed and
> their families have
The series mentioned Albuquerque, Taos, and Sante Fe which they
mentioned were the only sizable communities. They left out Cubero
which I know was sizable at the time. See some of the Cubero
residences at http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/maria.htm
They considered themselves
Spanish since they were under Spanish rule for 300 years up to
that time. The Spanish military recruited 90% of their personnel
from the Americas. The Spanish soldier in the New Mexico
area was recruited from New Mexico. The New Mexicans would have
called themselves Mexican, but there was no time for the new
country called Mexico to settle in.
The 'Spanish' were living among the Indian Tribes.. even the
Hopi until 1850 when the Hopi removed all Spanish and Navajo
people from Hopi land. See some of them at
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/arizona.htm
> prospered in New Mexico,USA...
> The USA opened up the land for the kind of developement that the Mexicanos
> were/are incapable of and the Mexicanos,stuck in the past as usual.are
> jealous.
>
> Des
I think you'r jealous Des....it was Spaniards/Hispanos/
Mexican Americans/Mexicans/Cubans/Puerto Ricans that
made the difference in the U.S. becoming a country when
it did. Collections were taken from the New Mexicans,
Californians, to send to Jorge Washington to help provide
funds to defeat the English, is one example. And it was
only a short 50-years before the Mexican American war.
JB
>
> On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:50:42 GMT, "Designated PLC" <zen...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I only had a chance to see the first half hour .....
> >Thought it was very well produced.
> >
> >One thing that was missing was that number of settlers in the territories
> >that we took[by war] from Mexico was very small and that these settlers
> >considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.Some fled but many stayed and
> >their families have
> >The USA opened up the land for the kind of developement that the Mexicanos
> >were/are incapable of and the Mexicanos,stuck in the past as usual.are
> >jealous.
> >
> >Des
> >
>
> sham. I'm surprised that the Ford Foundation didn't appear in the list
> of contributors. PBS should be ashamed for having aired that Mexican
> propaganda.
It left out numerous towns in the New Mexico area which had
populations larger than Albuquerque, Taos, and Santa Fe, at
that time. Some of Cubero's citizens can be seen at
http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/maria.htm
JB at http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/-=BajaRat=- _/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> http://www.instanet.com/~vct/
Designated PLC
military regimes, five constitutional conventions, three constitutions and
most of the 11 different terms of leadership under the tragic president and
general, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna"
Even back then Mexico was a banana republic.They could barely govern
themselves
let alone the territories that it lost to the USA.All one has to do is cross
our southern border to see what the mexicanos would have done with the
Texas,California,New Mexico,Arizona,Colorado[part of??]
But the cretins del sur are still crying over spilt milk.
The article below answers No Palito.
des
http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/09/
04/EDITORIAL10181.dtl
California, the Golden State, was not "stolen' from Mexico
MICHAEL WARDER Sept. 4, 1998
THIS LABOR Day weekend in Sacramento, California begins to celebrate the
Gold Rush and the drive to statehood. It will be a two-year observance,
leading up to the Sesquicentennial in the year 2000. The weekend events will
also usher in a statewide debate on the history of the Golden State. Some
Chicano activists will allege that the U.S. "stole" the Southwest, including
California, from Mexico. A reasonable look at the history gives lie to these
assertions.
California statehood really began with the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo
signed by the U.S. and Mexico. By this act, America increased its territory
by two-thirds, including California and the land of six other Southwestern
states, while Mexico was cut in half. In the history of our two countries,
this surprisingly little-known treaty is a staggering event.
Despite the huge amount of territory involved in the treaty, only about
80,000 Mexicans lived in the whole Southwest. Furthermore, Mexico exercised
little control over the territory. It was a country in turmoil. From 1821,
the end of Spanish rule, through 1847, Mexico endured 50 military regimes,
five constitutional conventions, three constitutions and most of the 11
different terms of leadership under the tragic president and general,
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna
In addition to the political instability, the racial and ethnic cleavages in
the Mexico of this era are important to understand. When Santa Anna ended
his last term in 1854, it marked the end of the rule of the conquistadors'
descendants, those of Spanish descent born in what was then called New
Spain. Called criollos, this group ruled Mexico after the overthrow of Spain
in 1821. Prior to that, from 1521, Spaniards ruled directly under the
authority of the crown.
The Spanish language and Catholic faith, perpetuated by the Spaniards and
criollos, prevailed by conquest over the various Indian dialects and
religions. The revolution in Mexico that began in 1810 was against Spain. It
was led by the criollos with strong support from the Indians and the growing
numbers of mestizos, those Mexicans of mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry.
Their battle cry was "Death to the Spaniards! Long live the Virgin of
Guadalupe!" It was not "Yankee go home!" nor an Aztec war cry.
The immediate cause for the Mexican-American War was a $3 million debt to
America for damages done by Mexicans to Americans. The government of Mexico
had agreed to pay, but was repeatedly in default. The American annexation of
Texas in 1845, independent of Mexico since 1836, and the related Texas
border disputes, were additional causes. But perhaps the real motivator was
America's desire for California. The Mexican government spurned a cash offer
of $25 million. President James Polk and others believed that if the U.S.
did not acquire California, Great Britain or others might, since Mexico was
unable to govern it.
Mexico drew first blood in an attack on American troops in disputed
territory in Texas and the war was on. Less than two years later, American
troops entered Mexico City and the treaty was signed. Despite winning the
war, America paid $18 million for the territory. The U.S. also lost 13,000
lives, largely due to disease. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Our constitutional democracy, the rule of law, private property rights,
freedom of religion, and the other characteristics of American government
have been enormously appealing to our neighbors to the South. Over the past
150 years, the moral and legal authority of the U.S. to govern the acquired
territory is, by any reasonable measure, unassailable. The treaty was, on
balance, a good one for all concerned. Californians should be proud of their
history and the creation of a place that so many have found so attractive.
Examiner contributor Michael Warder is vice- president of the Claremont
Institute, a think-tank based in Claremont, California.
ON THE GATE
©1998 San Francisco Examiner
nopa...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6tja7k$sra$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <mq7L1.7$Wv6....@news3.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> "Designated PLC" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> One thing that was missing was that number of settlers in the territories
>> that we took[by war] from Mexico was very small
>
>You are so desperate, Dan. This is a dumb lie. Read your history.
>
>> and that these settlers
>> considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.
>
>LIAR! You are an IDIOT!
>
>>Some fled but many stayed and
>> their families have
>> prospered in New Mexico,USA...
>
>Damn, the scary thing is that you probably believe this idiocy!
>
>> The USA opened up the land for the kind of developement that the
Mexicanos
>> were/are incapable of and the Mexicanos,stuck in the past as usual.are
>> jealous.
>
>You poor thing. Take your thyroid medicine, listen to your Rolling Stones,
>and try real hard not to post. You continue to make a complete lame ass of
>yourself.
>
>What a loser.
>
>- Dean
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
red...@my-dejanews.com
"Designated PLC" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Even back then Mexico was a banana republic.They could barely govern
> themselves
> let alone the territories that it lost to the USA.All one has to do is cross
> our southern border to see what the mexicanos would have done with the
> Texas,California,New Mexico,Arizona,Colorado[part of??]
>
> But the cretins del sur are still crying over spilt milk.
> The article below answers No Palito.
>
> des
>
> http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/09/
> 04/EDITORIAL10181.dtl
> California, the Golden State, was not "stolen' from Mexico
Hey idiot! Is your life run by op-eds?
Fantomas
nopa...@yahoo.com escribió:
> In article <mq7L1.7$Wv6....@news3.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> "Designated PLC" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > One thing that was missing was that number of settlers in the territories
> > that we took[by war] from Mexico was very small
>
> You are so desperate, Dan. This is a dumb lie. Read your history.
>
> > and that these settlers
> > considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.
The concept of a Mexican nation did not yet exist. It was a creation ofBenito
Juarez forged in the war against the French, just as the American
civil war made the notion of the nation greater than the state. In the
early 19th century, the word Mexico only applied to the city and the
nearby area, what is today the Distrito Federal, the state of Mexico, and
Taxco and nearby in the state of Guerrero, an area that culturally pertains to
the state of Mexico ( Estado de Mexico, Edomex ) much more so than
Guerrero. ( Does anyone know WHY Taxco wound up in Guerrero ? )
The rest was La Nueva España, New Spain. Thus the people living in
what is today the southwestern USA did not consider themselves
Mexican because they were not living in Mexico City or nearby.
And even after the time of Juarez, the notion of a Mexican identity
was never fully accepted in certain regions, specifically Yucatan, which
was not linked by road to Mexico City until the 1950s. A Miss Mexico
announced herself as being from the Republic of Yucatan in the 1970s
and caused some controversy.
> >Some fled but many stayed and
> > their families have
> > prospered in New Mexico,USA...
>
> Damn, the scary thing is that you probably believe this idiocy!
>
> > The USA opened up the land for the kind of developement that the Mexicanos
> > were/are incapable of and the Mexicanos,stuck in the past as usual.are
> > jealous.
>
> You poor thing. Take your thyroid medicine, listen to your Rolling Stones
Does Danny only listen to the Stones prior to when Jagger married Bianca Perez,a
¨nica ¨...
> ,
> and try real hard not to post. You continue to make a complete lame ass of
> yourself.
I would agree.
> What a loser.
>
> - Dean
BTW my name does come from the French pulp fiction supercriminalof the immediate
preWWI years, who was a fave of the surrealists.
Speaking of which, I went to an exhibit at the Museo de Arte Moderno
in DF in ´96 to commemorate the centenary of the birth of Andre
Breton, and got to hear an interview with him from Mexican radio.
He spoke Spanish like a chilango, in fact if I did not know otherwise
I would have thought he had been born and raised in Mexico City from
his accent and way of speaking...he had far less of an accent than I do....
Jafo
red...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Hey idiot! Is your life run by op-eds?
Hmmm? Never quoted an article yourself, eh Frank?
Well, not completely anyway. :-D
--
~ Jafo http://bounce.to/jafo
nopa...@yahoo.com
Fantomas <voulezvo...@vecmoi.al> wrote:
> The concept of a Mexican nation did not yet exist.
That's correct, but without being as specific as I should have, I merely
wanted to point out the ludicrous manner in which "Des" was misusing this
fact, which is to say, there weren't that many "Mexicans" in what is now US
territory, and that they considered themselves "Spanish," which was also
misrepresented. Does this make "Des" the alternate-universe mirror image of
an overzealous Aztlanist?
> And even after the time of Juarez, the notion of a Mexican identity
> was never fully accepted in certain regions, specifically Yucatan, which
> was not linked by road to Mexico City until the 1950s.
Well, clearly, to this day, "no somos Mexicanos" is frequently heard from,
especially, the indigenous people of Yucatan, Quintana Roo, Chiapas, etc. By
the "logic" of "Des," one might express, as if it were a salient fact, that
Hopi persons, prior to being put on reservations, did not consider themselves
"Americans."
> Does Danny only listen to the Stones prior to when Jagger married Bianca
Perez,a
> ¨nica ¨...
Certainly not. But then, she was beautiful. Look, if we really want to pick
"Des" apart, he's full of self-contradictions, but usually when called on
them, either refuses to respond or says things like "you figure it out." I
was amazed when he invoked the name of Jesus as his lord. Sheesh! The rabbi
Yeshwah would slap "Des" silly for his inhumanity! I know you're really only
teasing him with that bit about Bianca. I did the same recently. He also
likes the great rock band Led Zeppelin. I reminded him that they wrote "The
Immigrant Song." :)
> BTW my name does come from the French pulp fiction supercriminalof the
immediate
> preWWI years, who was a fave of the surrealists.
Ah, thank you! I hadn't encountered the name outside of art history books
since I was a high school lad.
> Speaking of which, I went to an exhibit at the Museo de Arte Moderno
> in DF in ´96 to commemorate the centenary of the birth of Andre
> Breton, and got to hear an interview with him from Mexican radio.
I need to learn more about Breton in Mexico. From what I've seen thus far of
his observations, the man was more than a little distatched from Mexican
reality as Mexicans understand it. I'm paraphrasing, but he once said
something like "In the engravings of Jose Guadalupe Posada, we see the true
source of black humor in Latin America." Pardon me, Monsieur, but Posada only
did an outstanding job of employing that pre-existing sense of humor, which
wasn't always humor, anyway. Breton, such an interesting, yet problematic
figure, like all the Dadas and Surrealists who embraced idealistic socialism
(Tzara also comes to mind.) He was so important and necessary at first, and
then the art world was sort of stuck with him. How ironic that he had Dali
"kicked out" of the central group for reasons that made Dali a better
surrealist than Breton by Breton's own definitions! (He objected to Dali's
use of sexual and scatological imagery, however, that imagery was precisely
the sort of unconscious substrata which surrealism was supposed to be
manifesting!) Back to the subject at hand, I think it's fascinating to
compare writings and photographs of the Mexican people as recorded by
Mexicans and non-Mexicans. In the "non" catagory, I'm very fond of Tina
Modotti and Henri Cartier-Bresson. I should get back to Califonia, though.
Tomorrow I'll try to remember to post a review of the "Mexican Presence" show
at the Yerba Buena Center in San Francisco. Unsusally good for that museum.
- Dean
Willwork4food
Angelmoon wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> Jafo <ja...@cheetah.net> wrote in article
> <36089b06...@news1.cheetah.net>...
> Ummm, Jafo, first he has to be able to read and comprehend an article. :)
> --
> Angelmoon
> Don't be Pentium wise; pen and paper foolish.
comX
When did Jagger marry Bianca?
Maybe a year before?
Fantomas wrote in message <35FD60B9...@vecmoi.al>...
>Does Danny only listen to the Stones prior to when Jagger married Bianca
Perez,a
>¨nica ¨...
>
=====YEAH......Those surrealists are/were real clever..NOT!!!!
Deluded druggies .....Rest of your history lesson is good=========
>BTW my name does come from the French pulp fiction supercriminalof the
immediate
>preWWI years, who was a fave of the surrealists.
>Speaking of which, I went to an exhibit at the Museo de Arte Moderno
>in DF in ´96 to commemorate the centenary of the birth of Andre
>Breton, and got to hear an interview with him from Mexican radio.
>He spoke Spanish like a chilango, in fact if I did not know otherwise
>I would have thought he had been born and raised in Mexico City from
>his accent and way of speaking...he had far less of an accent than I do....
>
Designated PLC
You can't handle the truth.
Des
============
============
red...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6tjvb2$ofc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <kVcL1.63$kN6.1...@news2.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> "Designated PLC" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Even back then Mexico was a banana republic.They could barely govern
>> themselves
>> let alone the territories that it lost to the USA.All one has to do is
cross
>> our southern border to see what the mexicanos would have done with the
>> Texas,California,New Mexico,Arizona,Colorado[part of??]
>>
>> But the cretins del sur are still crying over spilt milk.
>> The article below answers No Palito.
>>
>> des
>>
>>
http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/09/
>> 04/EDITORIAL10181.dtl
>> California, the Golden State, was not "stolen' from Mexico
><shitcanned>
>
>Hey idiot! Is your life run by op-eds?
>
nopa...@yahoo.com
"Designated PLC" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Go ahead and believe Mexicano fairy tales.
> You can't handle the truth.
Gee, Des, all attitude and no substance? Try harder, man! My initial rebuttal
to you was emotional and didn't say much. Yours, above, to a better rebuttal,
says even less than mine did.
Facts are facts. Fantomas did an exceptional job of putting both of us in our
place. What you call "the truth" is your opinion, not fact. You seem to feel
that disagreement with your opinions or misunderstandings/misrepresentations
of facts means that the disagreeing person is under the sway of some
perceived Mexican propaganda. That is not so. Facts are facts. The true truth
isn't always what you or I would prefer it to be, but our attitudes don't do
much more than put a spin on the truth.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your original posting, and what you thought
about Fantomas' very informed comments.
I know I keep asking, and you're probably tired of seeing me ask, but I'm
sincerely curious and you haven't answered: Why are you, a resident of
Georgia, posting in such extreme volume and with such consistent hostility to
alt.california about one topic and one topic only? Isn't there anything
happening in GA that might be of more pressing and personal concern? Isn't
there anything else happening in CA that you can post concerning? Your
disapproval of illegal (and it seems, legal) immigration from Mexico is very
well-established and well-known. So is the excrable manner in which you
express your opinions on the matter. You've earned the disrespect of almost
everyone here, with the possible exception of BajaRat, who is disrespected by
everyone except for you. What good is this? How are YOU not some form of
unwanted immigrant, if you know what I mean? You haven't accomplished
anything that you might have wanted to here, unless all you meant to do was
to degrade the newsgroup, ruin any chance of having a pleasant and/or
respectable online profile, etc. I dunno...I guess on a basic level I just
don't understand what you and BajaRat hope to achieve here, but I can assure
you it ain't workin'!
Every time you feel like posting that Mexicans are coming to this country,
unwanted, and degrading our culture, you should remind yourself that you are
coming to the CA newsgroup, unwanted, and degrading our discussions. If
that's what you're really all about, then you can expect to continue to be
disrespected by all but the most disrespected.
nopa...@yahoo.com
"comX" <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Stones haven't been good since Exile on Main Street.
Agreed, but "Some Girls" was a great recording at least. There have been a few
acceptable moments since then, if very rare...mostly on "Tattoo You."
> When did Jagger marry Bianca?
> Maybe a year before?
That sounds about right, but I thought you'd know better than we. I don't
know, and don't feel like looking this trivial point up. Fantomas was teasing
you...Bianca is Nicaraguan by birth...Fantomas' point was that you wouldn't
like the Stones once one of them became involved with a Latina. It was a
little joke at your expense, but maybe you got it.
What's with "ComX?" Is that sort of like "ChiComs?" Have you turned into
Comerade X of the Red Army or something?
What did "PLC" stand for?
What kind of a street name is "Mitsy?"
These questions and more.
Designated PLC
I know that she's from Nicaragua....
Some Girls is a great album and is the only solid one since
Exile......
When Mick Taylor left that was the end.
Des
===============
=========
nopa...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6tn511$et2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
hc2...@artlink.ne
>
> Yup.....
>
> I know that she's from Nicaragua....
> Some Girls is a great album and is the only solid one since
> Exile......
> When Mick Taylor left that was the end.
>
> Des
>
> ===============
Mick Taylor. Right. The closest the Stones ever came to forecasting
Michael Bolton.
Des, not only do you have BajaRat on your conscience, you've got
a tin ear to prove it. That's a life sentence of tone-deafness and
general
tastelessness. Cyanide pills are in BajaRat's fanny pack, whenever
you're
ready.
Designated PLC
Des
========
=========
==========
hc2...@artlink.ne wrote in message <35FF6D...@artlink.ne>...
Designated PLC
FROM VCT SITE:
The PBS historical narrative was reasonably balanced except for one glaring
exception, and that is that no one bothered to examine the validity of
Spain's claim of ownership for the American Southwest.
We Californians are accustomed to incessant bellyaching about Uncle Sam
stealing the American Southwest from Mexico. This notion of violated
sovereignty usually takes for granted that Spain's brutal subjugation of
Mexico in 1521 was a more legitimate conquest than the way the United States
acquired Texas in 1845, and California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of New
Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming 3 years later.
Mexico's claim for the American Southwest stems from the Treaty of
Tordesillas. This was a demarcation line established by Pope Alexander VI in
1493 to define the spheres of Spanish and Portuguese influence and
possessions in the New World. The line ran due north and south 100 leagues
(300 miles) west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands. All new lands lying
east of this line belonged to Portugal, while all those to the west belonged
to Spain. This is why Brazilians speak Portuguese. This treaty gave Spain
the specious legitimacy to rule Mexico, and most of Latin America, beginning
with Cortes' rape of the Aztec nation in 1521. Tordesillas was a marriage
made in hell because it allowed Spaniards to loot and enslave indigenous
populations, in return for Spanish promises to "save the Indians for God".
Three hundred twenty-seven years later, at the time of Mexico's 1848 defeat
by the U.S., there were less than 1000 Spaniards in the entire American
Southwest, and another 80,000 Mexicans, (1% of the Mexico's population)
scattered throughout a huge and virtually uninhabited 500,000 square miles.
This vast wilderness was virtually ignored by a slumbering and chaotic
Mexican central government. From the time of Spain's defeat in 1821 by
Mexico, through the end of the Mexican-American 1846-1848 war, Mexico
endured 50 military regimes, five constitutional conventions, three
constitutions and most of the 11 different terms of leadership under
megalomaniac president and general, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. To make
matters worse, Mexico City was embroiled in bitter internal distractions
over such things as the power of the central government and the Catholic
church.
Beginning with Texas in 1845, which initially became a separate country in
1836 (the Lone Star State), and California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of New
Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming, 3 years later, American settlers
outnumbered Spaniards/Mexicans between 2-1 & 4-1 in all seven states, except
in Texas, where the margin was 10-1 in favor of Americans. What these
settlers wanted was stabile government, something Mexico, because of its
absentee ownership mentality, was unable to provide. And so began the
inevitable movement for independence among American settlers, a people used
to getting things done through representative governments.
Without question, President Polk engineered the 1846-1848 war with Mexico in
order to bring California and the other western states into the union. By
the same token, there's little question about Mexico's inability to
indefinitely hold-on to her 1846 American territories had the Mexican-U.S.
war not taken place. Sooner or later, all 7 states would have followed
Texas' lead, and brought about the same results since Mexico hadn't the
focus, wherewithal, stability, moxy or muscle to govern American settlers.
I've never understood Mexican attitudes that in defeating and repudiating
Spanish tyranny in 1821, it was OK to keep the tyrant's map. A map designed
by a Catholic Pope some 328 years earlier as a mechanism to trample Mexican
sovereignty. What right did the Pope have to give Mexico to Spain? In 1848,
Native-Americans far out-numbered Spaniards, Mexicans and Anglos in the
American Southwest. Apaches, Navahos, Comanches, Utes, Arapahos, Hopis,
Pueblos, Cherokees, Blackfeet, Crow, and so on had been on these lands for
thousands of years, and were the true owners. And there was little
connection in 1848 between American and Mexican Indians. How much Nahuatl
(Aztec) do you suppose was spoken in San Diego, Oakland, Dallas, El Paso,
Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Salt Lake, Denver or Phoenix? How much Apache was
spoken in Mexico City, Guadalajara, or Monterrey?
To infer that the one-two punch of Pope Alexander and Cortes somehow gave
Mexico title over the American Southwest is just plain nutty. American
Indians owned these lands for thousands of years. Then came Spain, largely
by virtue of an ecclesiastical shell game with the Catholic church for some
300 hundred years. Next Mexico, between her victory over Spain in 1821, and
her defeat by the U.S. in 1848, for 27 years. Finally the United States for
the last 150 years. Neither Spain, nor Mexico, nor the United States
acquired the American Southwest with clean hands, and it makes little sense
to infer that Mexico has/had a more solid case for sovereignty than the
United States. And, - 150 years later, all this bumper sticker about Mexico
being the legitimate owner of the American Southwest is as untrue, as it is
moot, as it is nutty.
Mike Scott
Glendora