FREE PALESTINE! — and free Mexico, too!
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 illegals 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 inauguration 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...." )
If we are going to play that tune lets give the land back to the Indians.
Mexico "governed" the American SW region between 24 to 27 years depending on how you count it.
The largest town in California in the 1840s was the capitol at Monterey which had a population of 810 Mexicans according to the 1845 census, and a good portion of those were Americans by that time.
The Mexican government was doing such a great job governing that the Presidio soldiers went on strike because they hadn't been paid in TWELVE years.
We conquered Mexico and could of taken over the whole country instead we paid them $18,250,000 for the least populated regions and let them have back the rest.
The Mexicans have a Jewish problem that you don't often hear about that dates back to the Inquision when many Jews left Spain for the frontiers of Mexico and they have been exploiting the people down there ever since.
There are some 50 rich families who own 90% of that country. If we gave the SW to Mexico it wouldn't be long until they would be wanting OUT just as badly as they want out of what is Mexico today -
The Jews paid for approximately 6% of Palestine and stole the rest, there is no convincing argument that the Jews can make to justify stealing Palestine and this took place within living memory.
The Palestinian claims are legitimate, Mexican's claims are a stretch at best I don't think we should confuse the two -
BOTH the Indians and the Native Mexicans (aka Maya) are BOTH native aboriginals.
That is mexico is like the north (Canada) native tribes, except they formed a more mixed and cohesive unit --
THAT IS THE MEXICANS (not the Europeans, Spainards) WERE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS ------------ The "nation" of Mexico naturally evolved when the MOSTLY (>99.99%) of the Mexican NATIVE population took back control from Spain.
So you're a complete IDIOT with no solid grasp of history ---- native (Dark skin, different DNA) Mexicans like their Mayan ancestors were the ORIGINAL INHABITANTS!
Stupid American!
:)
It's okay if someone doesn't know what really happened.
The problem is when they know and refuse to acknowledge.
He/she makes some very valid points about the economic situation in Mexico today.
Although, I would not characterize the problem as 'Jewish' as that maligns so many people who are innocent of the ruthless machinations of a group of them whose greed knows no bounds.
is mine.
sorry, I forgot to log in. Also, I assumed the comment above mine was TGR - I'm not sure.
I have to break that habit.
your forget that the states had to vote themselves into the union. that would have stopped it.
I think the Apaches, Navajo and Zuni tribes would argue with you on that point.
The current Mexican population consist of 30% pure Indian, 9% are pure European and 60% are Mestizo currently consisting of approximately Indian 55%, European 29% and African south sea Islander negro mix of 6%. That is the current approximate make-up of the Mestizo population which will vary a little one way or the other from person to person.
No I'm sorry the Mayan Indians didn't make it up this far.
I will say that Mexico has some legitimate claim on the state of New Mexico, however I doubt any Mexican American in their right mind can convince me that they would be better off living under a Mexican government --
The term "Maya" I used is to refer to the native tribes in Mexico. I don't know the "official" names -- and even if I did, those are the present-day names the "white man" gave them.
Which in itself IS A GROSS GENERALIZATION. Apache tribes, etc, were only some of them.
There were many other tribes, many wiped out or assimilated without being able to trace back history.
>>>>>>>
Again, the Mexicans have a much "bigger" claim to SW USA than you assume (as do the "Native" aboriginal tribes).
Also the distinction between Mexicans and Indians WAS NOT AS IS ASSUMED by Americans like yourself, anonymous.
They travelled often and didn't have a permanet residence (except a few cities). Unlike in Europe, the Americas were not as 'fractured' into WARRING STATES.
The "Indians" (Misnomer, the name given b/c they were 'dark skin' like in India) and the "Mexicans" were not so separate as you would assume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
The current Mexican population consist of 30% pure Indian, 9% are pure European and 60% are Mestizo currently consisting of approximately Indian 55%, European 29% and African south sea Islander negro mix of 6%.
Anonymous | Fri, 2006-12-08 23:51
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry to BURST your BUBBLE, but the majority of Mexicans are ABORIGINAL, not 30% pure Indian, 9% are pure European and 60% "Mestizo" of which are 55% Indian, 29% White (LOL, you wish buddy), 6% Africano):
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/mestizaje.html
Mestizaje - The Big Lie
What we have been taught
Most people of Mexican descent have been taught from a young age that Mexico and its people are a product of Spanish and Indigenous heritage. Chicanas point to la Malinche as the Mother of Modern Mexicans, but is that really the truth? Are Mexicans and Chicanos the descendents of a country that is really mixed. This page is to dispel this myth of Mexicans being a Mestizo people.
Mexico's people are not mestizo.
It is an indigenous nation. The great majority of its people are of indigenous descent. possibly in the 80% range. However, Mexico is also a country with people of European, African, and Asian descent. At least 2% percent of Mexico's population is of African descent. Mexico is home to many Chinese and Japanese people. Also Mexico received some immigration from Spain and other European countries. However, Mexico and its people are predominately Indigenous and not Mestizo.
What is a Mestizo in Mexico?
I have spent a lifetime researching the racial breakdown of Mexicans. It has been difficult because Mexico does not determine a mestizo person by his racial makeup. In Mexico, a person is only Indigenous if he lives in an Native Community. The moment an Indigenous person leaves their community they are considered Mestizo. Mestizo in Mexico is not your racial makeup but instead it is your culture. If you do not speak a native language and live in an Indigenous community you are not considered Indigenous. This may seem strange to most people and it also seemed strange to me. Mexico takes great pains in avoiding the truth. I went to many seminars regarding the Mexican Identity and I put the question to the experts. I asked them point blank, "We know many Indigenous people died when the spanish came due to war, maltreatment, and disease. We know there were only so many Indigenous people left after a time and at certain times during Mexico's history, but how many Spanish people came to Mexico?" Never did I ever receive an answer to this question. It does not seem like such a hard question. I was trying to determine the number of non Indigenous people that came to Mexico and any given time to get an idea of the Mestizo mix. The experts never had that number. Seems kind of strange, but I finally figured it out. They did not want to tell me that Mexico never had a great number of immigrants from Europe because the Mestizo Mexico was just a lie. So if Mestizaje was a lie then the next thing I had to figure out was why did they lie? What reason would Mexico have to fabricate its identity?
Mestizaje - A Political Strategy?
In the early part of the 20th century, Mexico's most prominent archaeologist, sociologist & advisor to presidents, Manuel Gamio, put forth his doctrine of the mestizaje as a way to unite the country & create a population that was inclusive following the Revolución.
It was a carefully constructed world view that had been on the periphery of Mexican consciousness for centuries, i.e., White Spanish males and brown Indian females producing a mixed race. Gamio oversaw that this world view was institutionalized through the mass education (however insubstantial) & definition of national character of the Mexico.
His game plan was to see that Spanish language & culture & religion & governmental nuance (as filtered through Mexico) would unite the country &, therefore, dissipate the power of the indigenous people who, in sheer numbers, vastly out numbered the white population of the country. The reward for the Indians was that they could now be White Europeans or at least part White Europeans. In Mexico, everyone knows who the least powerful are no matter how the Aztecs are glorified in the popular culture. Gamio's plan was a way of institutionalizing the Revolución without actual handing over power to the vast majority of the people.
What is really interesting is the genetic studies that have been done on populations in Mexico with the result that, overall, at a conservative guess, 80% or more of the population is Native American. When these studies are done in the American Southwest, Texas & California (albeit smaller samples), the gene pool is, again conservatively, still in the range of 65 - 75% Native American gene pool. Given these numbers, it is obvious that Gamio's political concept of the mestizaje was immensely successful.
quote:
"They did not want to tell me that Mexico never had a great number of immigrants from Europe because the Mestizo Mexico was just a lie."