Of Gringos and Old Grudges: This Land Is Their Land

The New York Times ^ | January 9, 2004 | TIM WEINER

[GrandEagle]

I don't know. I'll have to admit that my historical knowlege about the aquision of Texas is greatly lacking. Thanks for poiting out this treaty for me to study.

[GrandEagle]

That would be POINTING out.....

[Wolfstar]

"It's a symbol of Mexico's weakness throughout history in confronting the United States."

LOL! Depending on whether you count from July 4, 1776 (Declaration of Independence), October 19, 1781 (British surrender at Yorktown), or June 21, 1788 (the Constitution ratified by majority of states), the United States has existed as a country for only about two and a quarter centuries.

Present-day Mexico is even younger. It covers the area where several advanced pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilizations (Maya, Olmec, Toltec and Aztec) developed and flourished for centuries before first contact with Europeans. The native cultures were invaded and conquered by Spain starting in the early 1500's. During the colonial period from 1521 to 1821, Spain laid claim to "Nueva España" (New Spain), whose territories included today's Mexico, Florida, Louisiana, and most of what is today's southwestern United States. Mexico became a nation-state when it achieved independence from Spain in 1821.

The area that eventually became the southwest of the United States was sparsely populated with native North Americans even when claimed by Spain, which did little to actually colonize the area. In the mid-19th century, parts were sold and parts were ceded to the United States. California and Texas achieved their own independence before voluntarily joining the United States.

So what does "throughout history" actually mean? Whose claims take supremacy? True descendants of Maya, Olmec, Toltec and Aztec — or those of the many North American tribes who were native to the southern stretch from Florida to California prior to European migration? Spanish descendants, whose ancestors did little more than claim ownership of the land — or descendants of the early U.S. pioneers in the south and southwest, who developed and settled the land? How about the French, who claimed large chunks of the same territory prior to the Louisiana Purchase?

What a crock this whole "Atzlan" myth is.

[FITZ]

To be logically consistent, if the Mexicans

Of course if they were logical people, they'd have a different kind of country and economy. Spain invited in the American settlers ---- one reason was they couldn't convince Mexicans to move north into those territories. There were very few people living much north of Mexico City and the southern states.

[FITZ]

From what I've seen they still are ---- a lot of New Mexicans will proudly tell you they've never been to Mexico and never will go there ---- they have no connections to that government --- and many are descended from Spaniards and or SW-USA Indians ---- they never came from south of the border but maybe some of their Spanish ancestors came up through Mexico.

[MissAmericanPie]

No, I missed that one, but I clearly remember my rage at his arrogance when he stated, "Americans must give up their notions of sovereignty".

[Paleo Conservative]

Polk is probably the least-appreciated US President, btw. He did more for the US than many others combined.

We should name an aircraft carrier after him.

[BeerSwillr]

Excellent summation. Kudos.

[BeerSwillr]

as is the current class of politicos in present day mexico

[glorgau]

Gadsen Purchase of 1854 - how about we get back the $15 million, plus interest, plus all capital improvement in the area since?

[philetus]

Is that the Times title?

[raybbr]

Now, that civilization is taking another turn. More than half of the 20 million Mexicans north of the border live on the land that once was theirs.

They must really be old. I wish those old bastards would just die so we can claim it for ourselves.

[sarcasm]

Is that the Times title?

Yes.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[Spiff]

come on then... Try and take it back.

What do you think that they're doing right now!? It's called low intensity warfare, but it is an invasion just the same.

[antaresequity]

Although I certainly wouldn't have any object to handing southern California to Mexico, so long as they take San Francisco in the deal!

If we were able to do that...I would bet in less than 10 years it [So Cal] would turn it into the same type of garbage infested, polluted and rundown craphole that is most of Northern Mexico. Further, the same slums and garbage towns that dot the Mexican side of the border would just sprout up further north, complete with millions of illegals trying to sneak across the new Northern boarder border.

[Travis McGee]

I gotta write faster before my novel is overtaken by events!

[Travis McGee]

Exactly. An aggressive Mexican irredentist movement is beginning to gain momentum And it will get far worse.

You're going to want to read my next novel, "Domestic Enemies."

[Travis McGee]

Nice commentary!

[JamesWilson]

As President Bush prepares to fly down to Mexico from Texas, where the war began back in 1846....

I thought it was 1836???