California vuelve a ser mexicana, gracias al vodka

Guest   Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:37 pm GMT
Absolut said that the campaing in the US will show a map where all the world belongs to US, so those who protested will calm down.
Skippy   Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:01 pm GMT
But that's ridiculous as well. I think it may be time to say forget it and ask the marketing department to come up with something else...
Guest   Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:21 pm GMT
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH LANGUAGES ANYWAYS?
Guest   Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:28 pm GMT
Everything.
Enojado   Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:36 pm GMT
Even Ulises Grant admited that the U.S.-Mexican War was an unfair fight of one country trying to use the war as an excuse to expand its territory.
Domine   Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:41 pm GMT
">Thanks mac, you nailed it. Because of the (in my opinion) exaggerated illegal immigrant "problem" in the United States, there has been a lot of backlash by groups such as MEChA and la Raza claiming Mexico has a right to the SW US. Absolut must not have considered how controversial this add would be in the United States.<"

The immigration problem is a double-edged sword cause & effect problem . . . the U.S. doesn't like pinning the tail on itself equally. MEChA and La Raza are chicanos (mexicans born in the U.S.) organizations - therefore Absolut acted out appropiately. They (absolut) should not feel any sentiments against Americans; if some of you feel defended by it you're no better then the European Muslims in Northern Europe whom feel threaten by silly Ads.
Domine   Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:47 pm GMT
">I'm sure skippy did notice this. What he meant was that they attempted to exploit existing anti-US sentiments. In this case those related the borders of Mexico. I believe the ad is controversial at a minimum. The company should have known that it would raise complaints. Maybe they knew that and wanted publicity.<"

Exploitation? I highly doubt it. If anything, they wanted to idealized a country who has been manipulated ad nauseam by the U.S via Manifest Destiny and Big Stick diplomacy. The company marketed a Mexican audience not an American one - it just goes to show how Americans are controlling about anything.

p.ss. Next time let Skippy reply.
Mexican   Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:01 pm GMT
U.S. "Theft" of Mexican Territory

Did you know that until 1848 California, New Mexico and other portions of the Southwest were internationally recognized provinces of free Mexico, until the U.S. decided it wanted those provinces, declared war on Mexico, and stole them? Read on for the chronology of these events, and then ask yourself : "Who are the real illegal in California?"

Prior to 1822 What is today Mexico, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California are all Spanish colonies.

1822 Mexican colonists, following the American revolution, rebel against Spain and win their own revolutionary war, making Mexico a free nation just like America.

1844 James Polk campaigns for the U.S. presidency, supporting expansion of U.S. territories into Mexico.

February, 1845 James Polk, on his inagauguration night, confides to his Secretary of the Navy that a principal objective of his presidency is the acquisition of California, which Mexico had been refusing to sell to the U.S. at any price.

Early 1845 The Washington Union, expressing the position of James Polk, writes: "...who can arrest the torrent that will pour onward to the West? The road to California will be open to us. Who will stay the march...?" "A corps of properly organized volunteers...would invade, overrun, and occupy Mexico. They would enable us not only to take California, but to keep it."

Early 1845 John O'Sullivan, editor of the Democratic review writes it is "Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent ...for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."

Early 1845 James Polk promises Texas he will support moving the historical Texas/Mexico border at the Nueces river 150 miles south to the Rio Grande provided Texas agrees to join the union. "The traditional border between Texas and Mexico had been the Nueces River...and both the United States and Mexico had recognized that as the border." (Zinn, p. 148)

June 30, 1845 James Polk orders troops to march south of the traditional Texas/Mexico border into Mexican inhabited territory, causing Mexicans to flee their villages and abandon their crops in terror.

"Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans, was clearly a provocation." (Zinn, p. 148)

"President Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans." (John Schroeder , "Mr. Polk's War")

Early 1846 Colonel Hitchcock, commander of the 3rd Infantry regiment, writes in his diary: "...the United States are the aggressors....We have not one particle of right to be here....It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses....My heart is not in this business."

May 9, 1846 President Polk tells his cabinet: "...up to this time...we have heard of no open aggression by the Mexican Army."

May 10, 1846 Violence erupts between Mexican and American troops south of the Nueces River. Of course Polk claims Mexicans had fired the first shot, but in his famous "spot resolutions" congressman Abraham Lincoln repeatedly challenges president Polk to name the exact "spot" where Mexicans first attacked American troops. Polk never met the challenge.

May 11, 1846 President Polk urges congress to declare war on Mexico.

May 12, 1846 : Horace Greeley writes in the New York Tribune: "We can easily defeat the armies of Mexico, slaughter them by thousands, and pursue them perhaps to their capital; we can conquer and "annex" their territory; but what then? Who believes that a score of victories over Mexico, the "annexation" of half of her provinces, will give us more Liberty, a purer Morality, a more prosperous Industry...?

1846 Congressman Abraham Lincoln, speaking in a session of congress "...the president unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced a war with Mexico....The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, un- provoking procedure; but it does not appear so to us."
after war is underway, the American press comments:

February 11, 1847. The "Congressional Globe" reports: "...We must march from ocean to ocean....We must march from Texas straight to the Pacific ocean....It is the destiny of the white race, it is the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon Race."

The New York Herald: "The universal Yankee Nation can regenerate and disenthrall the people of Mexico in a few years; and we believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."

American Review writes of Mexicans "yielding to a superior population, insensibly oozing into her territories, changing her customs, and out-living, exterminating her weaker blood."

1846-1848 U.S. Army battles Mexico, not just enforcing the new Texas border at the Rio Grande but capturing Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and California (as well as marching as far south as Mexico City).

1848 Mexico surrenders on U.S. terms (U.S. takes over ownership of New Mexico, California, an expanded Texas, and more, for a token payment of $15 million, which leads the Whig Intelligencer to report: "We take nothing by conquest....Thank God").

(date unknown) General Ulysses S. Grant calls the Mexican War "the most unjust war ever undertaken by a stronger nation against a weaker one."

Primary Source: "We take nothing by conquest, Thank God", in A People's History Of the United States, 1492-Present, Howard Zinn, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. (This book is available on the shelf at virtually every bookstore in America. The New York Times Book Review says it "...should be required reading for a new generation of students...." )
Mexican   Sat Apr 12, 2008 11:13 pm GMT
Skippy   Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:25 am GMT
You left out the entirety of the Texas War for Independence, fighting against Santa Anna who had taken control fighting FOR the Mexican Constitution, but in reality solidifying his own power as a dictator (that's what was going on in the 20 year jump you make in your timeline).
Guest   Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:16 am GMT
Again, this has nothing to do with languages, and quite frankly is boring me already, this thread is not going anywhere so CLOSE IT.
Mexican   Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:06 am GMT
We allowed dozens of Anglo immigrants into the province of Coahuila and Texas (the full name at the time) and how did you paid us?
By making the Texas part of the province independent, you declared independent land that you didn't owned how charm. And if that wasn't enough you invaded and annexed the rest of the norther provinces at the time (Alta California, Nuevo México, Arizona, etc etc) one third of land the current US territory was stolen at gunpoint. And of course in order to make sure that your massive theft (more or less the amount of land of the actual Argentina) were masked and well hidden, you forced us to sign a treaty that will be actually absolutly illegal under current international laws. You are such a bunch of backstabbers.

And after the war was over, you decided that you needed and extra chunck of Mexican land for you railroads so you sent your fellow man Gadsden with instructions to adquire the states and the provinces of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, the part that was left of Coahuila, at any cost. Just to make sure that the Mexican governemnt will accept the deal, Gadsden and the US army were given instructions by the US government to renew the war and force the Mexicans to sell at any cost.
Luckly that idiot of Santa Anna negociated to "sell" only a chunck of land of the northern parts of Chihuahua and Sonora otherwise it would have been suicidal to refuse. Remember that you started this whole mess of immigration between the two nations first, and don't try to pretend that this was a "legal" purchase of lands, it was a theft for God's sake.

By the way, that Gringo that said that the Northern States are more poor than the Southern States in Mexico is an absolutly idiot and ignorant, the Southern States are poorer, the majority of illegals immigrants that go to the US came from tne Southern States, in fact the idea of the typical latino that you have: brown skinned, short, without a trace of education, etc, is the description of an Amerindian person, usually the ethnic majority in the South. The Northern States are more progressive than the Southern ones, for example the Monterrey area has highest per capita income and the most secure conurbation area of Latin America in 2005.
Mexican   Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:12 am GMT
The whole metropolitan area (of Monterrey) has been ranked as having the highest GDP per capita and is the most secure conurbation in Latin America in 2005*

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

Dsl j'ai fait une faute de frappé.
Skippy   Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:46 am GMT
Once again, the original settlers in Texas considered themselves Mexican citizens until the republic was overthrown by Santa Anna. And don't say "you," I had nothing to do with it.
Guest   Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:42 pm GMT
Skippy, this does have to do with languages:
Toda ley, decreto, reglamento y disposicion que por su naturaleza deban publicarse, se publicaran en ingles y en Castellano. Art. XI, Section 21, California State Constitution of 1849, in its Spanish-language version;
I'm gonna leave you the thinking of this poet: Jesús María Alarid from New Mexico in 1889

Hermoso idioma español
¿Que te quieren proscribir?
Yo creo que no hay razón
Que tú dejes de existir
. . .
Repito, que no hay razón
El dejar que quede aislado
¡Brille en la Constitución
Del Estado Separado! . . .
Pues es de gran interés
Que el inglés y el castellano
Ambos reinen a la vez
En el suelo americano

Translation
Beautiful Spanish language
What? They want to banish you?
I believe there is no reason
For you to stop existing.
. . .
I insist, there is no reason
to leave [Spanish] isolated
Let it shine
on the Constitution of the State
. . .
Since it is of great interest
that both English and Spanish
exist and rule side by side
in the American soil.

So,as you can see, this poet was defending spanish in New Mexico but also wanted to promote english among mexicans in 1889.
And as i see the problem nowadays, nothing has changed with the 'english only movement' but at the same time i can see some kind of intolerance for both parts everywhere and i'm not mexican but spaniard.