California vuelve a ser mexicana, gracias al vodka

PARISIEN   Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:28 pm GMT
<<Absolut is not that famous at all in Mexico. >>
-- Now I guess it is, and that it's going to displace tequila!

<< Then the US "robbed" part of Mexico. >>
-- Non.
Les Anglo-Américains à un moment donné ont tiré profit d'une conjoncture démographique favorable (haute fécondité + forte immigration européenne) pour occuper des espaces presque vides.

Aujourd'hui c'est au tour des Hispanos de tirer avantage des mêmes facteurs démographiques.
C'est la loi de la vie.
La différence est que ces espaces ne sont plus vides. A long terme les Latinos aux USA sont voués à l'assimilation.
Guest   Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:45 pm GMT
When US usurped half of the Mexican territory there were already vast US territories which were not populated, like the regions around the Great Lakes. Those European migrants could easily be displaced there, and in fact it took a lot of time for the Anglophones to be the majority in New Mexico. This only took place in the XX century, almost one centure before the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was signed. Anyway that does not justify the invasion. Germany was indeed highly pressed by high population and low territory but that does not mean that the invasion of Poland wasn't a robbery.
Skippy   Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:51 am GMT
Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836. Stephen F. Austin and most of the early Texas settlers, though born in the US and Britain, considered themselves Mexican citizens, many of whom had actually fought on the side of Mexico during their War for Independence. What happened was Santa Ana, originally claiming to be a Republican defending the Mexican Constitution, took over as a dictator.

Texas, as well as other states, were unhappy, and due to Texas' distance from the capital sought her independence, and won it. Because the Mexican government viewed Texas as a rebel province despite Santa Anna's surrender following the Battle of San Jacinto, Texas was under constant threat of Mexican invasion, so they decided to join the US in 1845. MEXICO THEREFORE INVADED THE UNITED STATES SPARKING THE HOSTILITIES. The Treaty of Velasco of 1836 drew the border at the Rio Grande, but the Mexican government claimed the Treaty was not valid, as Santa Anna had signed it "under duress," and the border remained at the Nueces River north of the actual border.

The US invaded Mexico during the hostilities in retaliation, eventually making it as far south as Mexico City. Now, in the 19th century, it would have been acceptable for the United States to annex the entirety of Mexico, but they didn't... They less than half the territory they conquered. The fact is that California, Arizona, Texas, etc. are more culturally a part of the US than Mexico; it is impractical and unnecessary; it would be highly detrimental to the populations of those states; can we not agree that those states are MUCH better off than they would be were they given to Mexico today?

The point is, there was nothing illegal about the United States' annexation of the territory, no more than the annexation by the Spanish 350 years before. It's time to get over it.
Guesto   Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:19 am GMT
Robbed? Spoils of war? To the victor go the spoils? All the same depending on your perspective. I'm not saying what was right or wrong, but recognize that the colonial and post-colonial era was a very dynamic time in which many things happened that some view as unfair.

All lot of that "robbed" territory was frontier land anyway that was passed to Mexico from Spain by default. New Mexico was the most populated area, much more than California. Don't forget that Texas rebelled against Mexico so blame the Texans for that loss.

Honestly, what would the US SW area look like today if were still Mexican territory? Probably a poor shithole like most of current Northern Mexico. At least the gringos brought that area into the developed world. (Not saying that all Mexico is bad though.)

Despite my view, I have no problem with Hispanics and recognize their presence in American history. En realidad estudio y hablo espanol y me encanta. I just think people should quite whining about this topic.
Guesto   Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:24 am GMT
Exactly Skippy. Thank you for making those points. People need look at it from a differnent persepect and not also play the victim card.
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:45 am GMT
"it would have been acceptable for the United States to annex the entirety of Mexico, but they didn't... "

Because they were not interested in doing so at all. US knew well that the demographic center of Mexico was not in Arizona nor in California. There were around 70 000 people in Texas when they joined US and Texas was the most populated Mexican region north to Rio Grande. So figure out how sparsely populated California and New Mexico were. US was interested in Mexican territories with few people to colonize them and those zones matched with US interests. In fact the Texan Anglophone migrants were sent by Washington with the intention to take over Texas from Mexico. Those settlers never were loyal to the Mexican Government that accepted their presence . As far as I know they didn't speak Spanish so one can hardly imagine them resisting the annexation to US and remaining as part of a country with different religion and language instead.

"The point is, there was nothing illegal about the United States' annexation of the territory, no more than the annexation by the Spanish 350 years before. It's time to get over it."

One cannot compare the Precolombine Mexico with Mexico in 1850. In fact Mexico didn't exist prior to the Spanis conquest. We are talking about the invasion of Mexico as a country with advanced laws and Constitution , comparable to that of US, not a bunch of natives which didn't know about national sovereignty . In the XIX century Mexico was a consolidated State, a sovereign Republic whose citizens lived together under certain laws . The annexation of these territories transgressed the Mexican legal frame hence it was illegal. When the Spanish colonized Mexico there was not a single contemporary law , both in the Aztec society or in Spain, according to which that action was illegal. So there is a considerable difference, at least IMO.
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:54 am GMT
Honestly, what would the US SW area look like today if were still Mexican territory? Probably a poor shithole like most of current Northern Mexico.

Are you a fortune-teller? If Mexico is a shit I wonder why you are studying their language. Whether it is like you say or not, it would be a Mexican shit so it would be better than the richest yet boring and insipd US city. By the way don't believe that it's so easy to predict that. California has better natural resources than the North of Mexico (100% desert) like many miles of coast and temperate climate (at least excluding certain parts).I guess that Mexico would be able to take profit of it at least partially. Don't think that everyone is dumb appart from you.
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:01 am GMT
Mexico robbed territory from natives, but then the USA robbed it from us. So we feel angry. A criminal who steals 1 million dollars and then gets it robbed from him is going to feel angry regardless of the fact he robbed it too.
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:02 am GMT
Interesting web page on the possible earliest inhabitants of Mexico (and the rest of the Americas):

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/stross/ant322m_files/1stpersons.htm
Guesto   Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:11 am GMT
<< If Mexico is a shit I wonder why you are studying their language. >>

Pay attention to my post before you post. If you re-read my post you will see that I said not all Mexico is shit. I actually like Mexico. But you can't deny that the north is quite underdeveloped, poor and corrupt; the reason so many feel the need to migrate to the US.

<< Whether it is like you say or not, it would be a Mexican shit so it would be better than the richest yet boring and insipd US city. >>

It would be better as poor Mexican territory than a prosperous US territory? Gimme a break. That is bullshit because if poor Mexico was truly better than a rich US city, why do so many want to or have to immigrate from their "better" homes in Mexico? The reality is that unfortunately the Mexican government can't adequetly provide for many of it's own people, so they turn to the US. So how can you rationalize that that poor Mexico is better than the US? Oh, because it's boring? Ha! Is that the best you can do? Ok, whatever makes you feel better.
joker   Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:17 am GMT
<< << Whether it is like you say or not, it would be a Mexican shit so it would be better than the richest yet boring and insipd US city. >>

If that's the case, then why don't millions of Mexican migrants stay in their own "better" homes? Maybe if Mexico could actually take care of it's own people, so many wouldn't have to seek opportunities in the US.
Guesto   Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:30 am GMT
The fact is that the US is more developed than Mexico, so any "robbed" territory is better off for the people that live there. Plus, the territory was ceded in a legal treaty, so how is that illegal?
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:53 am GMT
<<Plus, the territory was ceded in a legal treaty, so how is that illegal? >>
¡Ay de los vencidos!
Poor MEXICO, tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de Estados Unidos.
HOW USA GOT IT?
SAN PATRICIOS - THE IRISHMEN WHO DIED FOR MEXICO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4BGrNrkbMU&NR=1

In spite of that, I agree with joker: Mexico should do something to prevent corruption and give its people more means so that mexicans can make their living but at the same time i think USA has some kind of responsability of this situation because they want to sell their products in clear advantage, making the mexicans poorer.
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:57 pm GMT
If that's the case, then why don't millions of Mexican migrants stay in their own "better" homes? Maybe if Mexico could actually take care of it's own people, so many wouldn't have to seek opportunities in the US


I guess that they still feel that Texas and California are their homes since they belonged to Mexico not a long time ago. That is the reason why they migrate to there. It's like those US citicens who migrate from one part of US to another.

The fact is that the US is more developed than Mexico, so any "robbed" territory is better off for the people that live there

US is more developed than Irak and that does not mean that the invasion of that country is better for the Iraqui people . On the contrary. In fact US is technically more developed than many countries, I think that then US can invade legally all them to rise the standard of living of their inhabitants, like they did with Irak. Hell, if US invaded my country I would say thank you.
Guest   Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:09 pm GMT
"Pay attention to my post before you post. If you re-read my post you will see that I said not all Mexico is shit. I actually like Mexico. But you can't deny that the north is quite underdeveloped, poor and corrupt; the reason so many feel the need to migrate to the US. "

The south is more underdeveloped than the North of Mexico, so I still don't understand why are you learning Spanish.

"It would be better as poor Mexican territory than a prosperous US territory? Gimme a break. That is bullshit because if poor Mexico was truly better than a rich US city, why do so many want to or have to immigrate from their "better" homes in Mexico?"

You don't seem to understand how Mexico is. Those Mexican migrants are most of them from the South. Mexico DF also receives many of these migrants, but this city and other relatively rich Mexican zones are already very populated so a good amount of Mexicans from Chiapas and other poor parts of Mexico have to migrate to US . Probably if Mexico was two times bigger and had more cities like Alburquerque or San Francisco those southern Mexicans could live in richer parts of their own country and would not need to migrate abroad. As comparison, US has 32 habitants per km2 and Mexico has 55 habitants/ km2 so Mexico is nearly two times more densely populated.