NationStates Jolt Archive

I like mexico, i like it's people, and i have NO problem with them being here. But yesterday i read that they are demanding a version of the national athem- in spanish. NO! The national anthem is AMERICAN, and if they want to sing it, learn the langauge.aany other opinions, or supporters, maybe?

I like mexico, i like it's people, and i have NO problem with them being here. But yesterday i read that they are demanding a version of the national athem- in spanish. NO! The national anthem is AMERICAN, and if they want to sing it, learn the langauge.aany other opinions, or supporters, maybe?
Well, considering that there ALREADY is and has been a Spanish version, your complaints are meaningless...
It's not as though Spanish was here first (har har).

How many threads does there has to be.
Oh well, it's the same with all issues on here these days.

Well, considering that there ALREADY is and has been a Spanish version, your complaints are meaningless...
It's not as though Spanish was here first (har har).

You are in no position to dictate your understanding of "meaningful". Even if there is a spanish version, he might not want it to become popular or alternative to english one, but rather a marginal one. It is still valid for him to ask people to sing in in English eventhough a spanish version exists. Because you are an atheist and belive your existance will end in a black void and dont care what the future will be like, it doesnt mean everyone have to embrace your understanding of change and not care about future generations...

You are in no position to dictate your understanding of "meaningful". Even if there is a spanish version, he might not want it to become popular or alternative to english one, but rather a marginal one. It is still valid for him to ask people to sing in in English eventhough a spanish version exists. Because you are an atheist and belive your existance will end in a black void and dont care what the future will be like, it doesnt mean everyone have to embrace your understanding of change and not care about future generations...

Why? Its not like the official language is English (yet). They can demand a Swahili version if they feel like it.

Well, considering that there ALREADY is and has been a Spanish version, your complaints are meaningless...
It's not as though Spanish was here first (har har).

Your right. Indian languages where here first.

You are in no position to dictate your understanding of "meaningful". Even if there is a spanish version, he might not want it to become popular or alternative to english one, but rather a marginal one. It is still valid for him to ask people to sing in in English eventhough a spanish version exists. Because you are an atheist and belive your existance will end in a black void and dont care what the future will be like, it doesnt mean everyone have to embrace your understanding of change and not care about future generations...

Well said Ny Nordland.

I like mexico, i like it's people, and i have NO problem with them being here. But yesterday i read that they are demanding a version of the national athem- in spanish. NO! The national anthem is AMERICAN, and if they want to sing it, learn the langauge.aany other opinions, or supporters, maybe?
The Canadian national anthem has both an english and a french version. Because, you know, there are english-speaking and french-speaking Canadians.

What's so wrong about spanish?

The Canadian national anthem has both an english and a french version. Because, you know, there are english-speaking and french-speaking Canadians.

What's so wrong about spanish?

French and English are also official languages of Canada.

The Canadian national anthem has both an english and a french version. Because, you know, there are english-speaking and french-speaking Canadians.

What's so wrong about spanish?
...Don't forget the bilingual version, Ska. My personal fave.

USians are just too motherfuckin' uptight to be taken seriously. Get a grip, people. It's just different consonants and syllables set to a tune.

You are in no position to dictate your understanding of "meaningful".Yeah, well you don't need to remind me that common sense isn't. If he's complaining about creating a Spanish version, and this was done decades ago, then indeed, the complaint is meaningless. Even if there is a spanish version, he might not want it to become popular or alternative to english one, but rather a marginal one.That would be a perfectly different cup of tea.It is still valid for him to ask people to sing in in English eventhough a spanish version exists. Et alors? I have a US passport too and I couldn't care less. Because you are an atheist and belive your existance will end in a black void and dont care what the future will be like, it doesnt mean everyone have to embrace your understanding of change and not care about future generations...When you assume...

French and English are also official languages of Canada.
Yeah, so why isn't Spanish an official Yankee language, eh?

French and English are also official languages of Canada.
Then make spanish a second official language in the USA.

Yeah, so why isn't Spanish an official Yankee language, eh?

Because this nation was founded by English speaking people.

Then make spanish a second official language in the USA.
To quote a drunken Obelix, 'Zigzackly!'

Because this nation was founded by English speaking people.
Big deal. That was 200+ years ago, dude.

...Don't forget the bilingual version, Ska. My personal fave.

O_O I didn't even know there was a bilingual version. Then again, I've never been a patriotic freak, so I seldom hear the national anthem more than a couple of times a year.

USians are just too motherfuckin' uptight to be taken seriously. Get a grip, people. It's just different consonants and syllables set to a tune.
Yeah, heavens forbid the english language's imperialism and supremacism could be put into question.

Then make spanish a second official language in the USA.

We don't even have an official language and we should have an offficial language.

I wouldn't mind Spanish to be the 2nd official language. My best female friend is studying Spanish as a minor so no skin off my nose if it became the 2nd official language after English.

Because this nation was founded by English speaking people.So was Canada...

The Canadian national anthem has both an english and a french version. Because, you know, there are english-speaking and french-speaking Canadians.

What's so wrong about spanish?
And, of course, because the difference in culture is so absolutely deliniated in Canada there has never been...

Oh, wait...

The French have been asking for independance for a long time and have nearly passed national referendums demanding it...

So much for multi-culturalism.

Because this nation was founded by English speaking people.

Not *just* English speaking people. They had to take a vote to decide which language would the official one. You came quite close to speaking Dutch ;)

So was Canada...

Not Quebec though. Quebec was founded by the French. It wasn't till after the French and Indian War did Quebec go to England if I remember my history correctly.

Not *just* English speaking people. They had to take a vote to decide which language would the official one. You came quite close to speaking Dutch ;)

hehe. Well if the Dutch hadn't lost to the Brits...

And, of course, because the difference in culture is so absolutely deliniated in Canada there has never been...

Oh, wait...

The French have been asking for independance for a long time and have nearly passed national referendums demanding it...

So much for multi-culturalism.

The operative words there being 'nearly passed'. Not 'have passed', therefore your point is moot.

I like mexico, i like it's people, and i have NO problem with them being here. But yesterday i read that they are demanding a version of the national athem- in spanish. NO! The national anthem is AMERICAN, and if they want to sing it, learn the langauge.aany other opinions, or supporters, maybe?

Official US language was English. It beat German by one vote if I remember correctly.

As far as the U.S. national anthem goes, it's only the national anthem with the words Francis Scott Key used. It was an old British drinking song before that. It is something else with Spanish words. Sorta like the song Greensleeves and the Christmas carol What Child is This.

Not Quebec though. Quebec was founded by the French. It wasn't till after the French and Indian War did Quebec go to England if I remember my history correctly.Now of course, taking Texas, California, Florida and all the other Mexican territories would be something completely different then for what reason exactly? ;)

Yeah, well you don't need to remind me that common sense isn't. If he's complaining about creating a Spanish version, and this was done decades ago, then indeed, the complaint is meaningless. That would be a perfectly different cup of tea.Et alors? I have a US passport too and I couldn't care less. When you assume...

The point is he cares and you cant dictate him what to care or not.
About the atheism thing, I think it was Neu Leonstein (sp?) who was atheist. I confused you 2. Opps...

Now of course, taking Texas, California, Florida and all the other Mexican territories would be something completely different then for what reason exactly? ;)

Taken AFTER the founding of the United States. And Florida was bought not taken over. :D

Official US language was English. It beat German by one vote if I remember correctly.To my knowledge, that was for the continental congress, and not the nation itself, though I've heard it debunked quite often that such a vote ever really took place.

The operative words there being 'nearly passed'. Not 'have passed', therefore your point is moot.
No it isn't "moot." The fact that it is in question at all is the point. There is an actual movemen for secesation and that the movement has broad support is the point.

No it isn't "moot." The fact that it is in question at all is the point. There is an actual movemen for secesation and that the movement has broad support is the point.
There's a movement for Cornish seperation. Big fucking deal.

It wasn't passed, and therefore multiculturalism has not failed.

To my knowledge, that was for the continental congress, and not the nation itself, though I've heard it debunked quite often that such a vote ever really took place.

You could be right. I dont have undeniable sources on this.

The point is he cares and you cant dictate him what to care or not.
About the atheism thing, I think it was Neu Leonstein (sp?) who was atheist. I confused you 2. Opps...Oh, I can dictate to him as much as I want. My posts aren't exactly legally binding, so he can choose not to follow my "orders".

Taken AFTER the founding of the United States. And Florida was bought not taken over. :DIn which case you'd still have to contend with Dutch as a complementary language ;)

Oh, I can dictate to him as much as I want. My posts aren't exactly legally binding, so he can choose not to follow my "orders".

A german dictator? :D

Taken AFTER the founding of the United States. And Florida was bought not taken over. :D
So was the American Southwest.
For $15 million.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

I know it doesn't fit well with the "they stole our land" song from Mexico, but what happened is that Texas, an independent Republic not part of the US, declared it's independence from Mexico and fought for it. The US decided to help so that they could annex it. Mexico decided that an area that is now Southwest US which contained less than 1/10th of one percent of their populations was not worth fighting for so they sold it - for $15 million dollars - in 1848. That's equivalent to many billions, obviously, today.

A german dictator? :D


Incoceivable.

A german dictator? :DThinking of Honnecker, eh?

So was the American Southwest.
For $15 million.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

I know it doesn't fit well with the "they stole our land" song from Mexico, but what happened is that Texas, an independent Republic not part of the US, declared it's independence from Mexico and fought for it. The US decided to help so that they could annex it. Mexico decided that an area that is now Southwest US which contained less than 1/10th of one percent of their populations was not worth fighting for so they sold it - for $15 million dollars - in 1848. That's equivalent to many billions, obviously, today.


California was a republic as well. Capital was Monterey. Flag still says California Republic on it.

There's a movement for Cornish seperation. Big fucking deal.

It wasn't passed, and therefore multiculturalism has not failed.
You blow by the whole point. The point is that when you have cultures that don't actually assimilate, they eventually want independence. The US has always been a melting pot whene people come in and eventally assimilate to the US culture while adding their own cultures to the pot. It changes both the dominant culture - alla Taco Bell - and the immigrant - alla Mexican teenagers driving VW rabbits on their way to get Chinese food for lunch. When you segregate people into communities that keep their culture and do not assimilate you get what you have in Quebec, a real, meaningful seperatist movement.

If I recall correctly several US states are officially bilingual; like Louisiana and Hawaii. I assume they already have translated the song ?

If I recall correctly several US states are officially bilingual; like Louisiana and Hawaii. I assume they already have translated the song ?

If they have officially done so I havent heard it.

Thinking of Honnecker, eh?

Austrian are german too. But fine, I'll say germanic, if you dont agree with me that Austria today is unneccessay division, like Belgium or Luxembourg, etc...What I dont get is why its called Österreich but not Südreich?

So was the American Southwest.
For $15 million.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

I know it doesn't fit well with the "they stole our land" song from Mexico, but what happened is that Texas, an independent Republic not part of the US, declared it's independence from Mexico and fought for it. The US decided to help so that they could annex it. Mexico decided that an area that is now Southwest US which contained less than 1/10th of one percent of their populations was not worth fighting for so they sold it - for $15 million dollars - in 1848. That's equivalent to many billions, obviously, today.

We also fought the Mexicans as well and took over the territory.

We also fought the Mexicans as well and took over the territory.

Israel fought the Arabs and took over territory and look at the repurcussions there.

Israel fought the Arabs and took over territory and look at the repurcussions there.

And it was the Arabs that started that mess. If they had just accepted the UN Resolution that made Jeruselem an International City.....who knows where we would be today in the Middle east.

So was the American Southwest.
For $15 million.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/

I know it doesn't fit well with the "they stole our land" song from Mexico, but what happened is that Texas, an independent Republic not part of the US, declared it's independence from Mexico and fought for it. The US decided to help so that they could annex it. Mexico decided that an area that is now Southwest US which contained less than 1/10th of one percent of their populations was not worth fighting for so they sold it - for $15 million dollars - in 1848. That's equivalent to many billions, obviously, today.
To put 15 million USD in perspective, we paid 10 million for the gadsden purchase, a land area that mostly consists of scrublands and desert and less then 1/10th the size of the mexican cession.

Roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in modern terms.

We also fought the Mexicans as well and took over the territory.
Sure, but people seem o think that all teh happy, peacfull Mexicans were living in Xanadu until teh Evil Americans decided they wanted all that land. What actually happened is that Texas declared itself independent from Mexico and then fought a war for the territory up to the Rio Grande. The US had NOTHING to do with that. Then the Texans, probably jsut looking for backup, said they wanted to be a territory of the US so Congress annexed it and sent troops to guard the territory. The Mexicans, who viewed Texas much teh same way China views Taiwan now, decided to fight for it. A war ensued and the US kicked their asses, mainly because there were almost no Mexicans living in most of the Southwest so the US troops didn't even really need to fight. They just walked in. Once the US captured Mexico City they left Mexico with the land where their people actually lived on and bought the rest for $15 million.

To put 15 million USD in perspective, we paid 10 million for the gadsden purchase, a land area that mostly consists of scrublands and desert and less then 1/10th the size of the mexican cession.

Roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in modern terms.

Not a bad investment considering California alone has a current GDP of $1.55 trillion, about a half trillion more than all of Mexico itself.

To put 15 million USD in perspective, we paid 10 million for the gadsden purchase, a land area that mostly consists of scrublands and desert and less then 1/10th the size of the mexican cession.

Roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in modern terms.
And which was originally supposed to include most of Baja California much of Northern Mexico. After the treaty was signed the US Congress decided to pair it down to only the territory which was in dispute from the Treaty of Guadalupe. Essentially, what happend was that we bought the same territory twice and thus upped the amount paid for the US Southwest from $15 million to $25 million.

Not a bad investment considering California alone has a current GDP of $1.55 trillion, about a half trillion more than all of Mexico itself.
More rather we took the land by force, and paid a token 25 million to salve the feelings of the Mexicans.


Spot resolutions anyone?

I know it doesn't fit well with the "they stole our land" song from Mexico, but what happened is that Texas, an independent Republic not part of the US, declared it's independence from Mexico and fought for it. The US decided to help so that they could annex it. Mexico decided that an area that is now Southwest US which contained less than 1/10th of one percent of their populations was not worth fighting for so they sold it - for $15 million dollars - in 1848. That's equivalent to many billions, obviously, today.
You have them all mixed up. Texas declared its independence, fought and won. Then the French invaded, then the US invaded and took the northern part (Over which there was a fight. There was a $15 million pesos exchange as compensation after the war). Later Mexico sold a small part of what today is southern Arizona. And then the French invaded again. Then there was a dictatorship and later a revolution. Then another dictatorship that lasted 70 years. Then Vicente Fox.

Mexico was also going to sell the Baja California peninsula and a strip on the Isthmus, but the US Congress never ratified that.

More rather we took the land by force, and paid a token 25 million to salve the feelings of the Mexicans.


Well, yeah.

You have them all mixed up. Texas declared its independence, fought and won. Then the French invaded, then the US invaded and took the northern part (Over which there was a fight. There was a $15 million pesos exchange as compensation after the war). Later Mexico sold a small part of what today is southern Arizona. And then the French invaded again. Then there was a dictatorship and later a revolution. Then another dictatorship that lasted 70 years. Then Vicente Fox.

Mexico was also going to sell the Baja California peninsula and a strip on the Isthmus, but the US Congress never ratified that.
Well, the French thing didn't happen in what is now the US so it's immaterial. Also, it was $15 million US, not 15 million pesos. Also, there was almost no fight at all in what is now the US, the real fight happened at the border of what is now Texas and in the US's taking of what is now northen Mexico and Mexico City. There were actually Mexicans living there. There was almost no fight at all, for example, in what is now CA because almost no Mexicans lived there.

Well, the French thing didn't happen in what is now the US so it's immaterial. Also, it was $15 million US, not 15 million pesos. Also, there was almost no fight at all in what is now the US, the real fight happened at the border of what is now Texas and in the US's taking of what is now northen Mexico and Mexico City. There were actually Mexicans living there. There was almost no fight at all, for example, in what is now CA because almost no Mexicans lived there.
13,000 isn't "almost no mexicans", given the harshness of the climate of the area...


Besides, that's not the point. Can you take land from someone just because they aren't using it?

More rather we took the land by force, and paid a token 25 million to salve the feelings of the Mexicans.


Spot resolutions anyone?
Actually, the Texans took their land by force and the rest of the land that actually ended up being part of the US was taken with much force at all because less than 1/10th of 1% of Mexico's population lived there. All of the area we actually fought over, except for Texas which is much like what Taiwan is to China, is actually still part of Mexico. The stuff we ended up buying had almost no Mexicans living on it and US soldiers just walked in with no resistance because there were no Mexicans that offered any and, frankly, most of them probably didn't mind.

13,000 isn't "almost no mexicans", given the harshness of the climate of the area...


Besides, that's not the point. Can you take land from someone just because they aren't using it?
Didn't takre it. bought it and all those Mexicans who were living there immediately became US citizens which meant that they now were a part of a democracy and got the full benefits of being US citizens so, though there were no surveys done, one wonders how many of them minded. Obviously the Texans didn't mind.

13,000 isn't "almost no mexicans", given the harshness of the climate of the area...


Besides, that's not the point. Can you take land from someone just because they aren't using it?
You might also want to ask the Aztecs and Mayans that - BTW.

13,000 isn't "almost no mexicans", given the harshness of the climate of the area...


Besides, that's not the point. Can you take land from someone just because they aren't using it?
BTW - Harshness of the climate? CA has some of the best climate in the world. Trust me. I live here. Moderate winters and summers, beautiful spring and fall. Great for agriculture, great fishing... It's just not where the Spaniards decided to settle so they didn't live here.

Well, the French thing didn't happen in what is now the US so it's immaterial.
I was straightening out the Mexican history bit.

Also, it was $15 million US, not 15 million pesos.
Actually, I think it's both. The English version says dollars, the Spanish says pesos:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=985
Perhaps they had the same exchange rate or the payment would be made in gold. Peso and dollar is how the Spanish and English referred to the same Spanish gold coin.

Also, there was almost no fight at all in what is now the US, the real fight happened at the border of what is now Texas and in the US's taking of what is now northen Mexico and Mexico City.
Ah, ok, gotcha. I thought you meant there had been no fight at all. There were some scrimmages, but nothing really important.
On the other hand, there wasn't really much of a fight in central Mexico either. The Mexican army surrendered after only 10-15% losses, soldiers weren't very motivated and there were uprises against the government in various places while the US was invadig.
After the war Mexicans were of two minds: whether to join the US or try to save some independence. The US were also trying to decide whether to annex the entirety of Mexico, two thirds of it or just half. I guess they didn't like the prospect of absorbing 15 million brown Catholics.

BTW - Harshness of the climate? CA has some of the best climate in the world. Trust me. I live here. Moderate winters and summers, beautiful spring and fall. Great for agriculture, great fishing... It's just not where the Spaniards decided to settle so they didn't live here.
The Spaniards started to settle it late in the 18th Century, mainly because it was very far. The Mexicans tried to continue the colonization but not very successfully because most Mexicans don't like to move that far unless they have to.

It was the discovery of gold that prompted all those people to move in.

Actually, I think it's both. The English version says dollars, the Spanish says pesos:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=985
Perhaps they had the same exchange rate or the payment would be made in gold. Peso and dollar is how the Spanish and English referred to the same Spanish gold coin.okay.


Ah, ok, gotcha. I thought you meant there had been no fight at all. There were some scrimmages, but nothing really important.
On the other hand, there wasn't really much of a fight in central Mexico either. The Mexican army surrendered after only 10-15% losses, soldiers weren't very motivated and there were uprises against the government in various places while the US was invadig.
After the war Mexicans were of two minds: whether to join the US or try to save some independence. The US were also trying to decide whether to annex the entirety of Mexico, two thirds of it or just half. I guess they didn't like the prospect of absorbing 15 million brown Catholics.
I think actually the US congress in a fit of well intentioned doo gooding actually decide that Mexico got a bad deal so they didn't want to just take the rest of the country. It was largely the anti-slavery people in Congress that didn't want to annex it because it would become part of the South and, thus, open to slavery. Your point is taken, though. If it was put to vote in Mexico at the time the southern border of the US today would probably be a LOT farther south. Don' know if it really had to do with skin color, though catholicism maybe. Remember, most of the Aztecs and Mayans were dead and the Mexicans were really just second or third generation Europeans - Spaniards to be exact.

The Spaniards started to settle it late in the 18th Century, mainly because it was very far. The Mexicans tried to continue the colonization but not very successfully because most Mexicans don't like to move that far unless they have to.

It was the discovery of gold that prompted all those people to move in.
Yes.

BTW - Harshness of the climate? CA has some of the best climate in the world. Trust me. I live here. Moderate winters and summers, beautiful spring and fall. Great for agriculture, great fishing... It's just not where the Spaniards decided to settle so they didn't live here.
Northern, yes. Southern, no. Southern California only exists (besides the coast) because they irrigated it. Ditto for arizona, parts of texas and new mexico.

I like mexico, i like it's people, and i have NO problem with them being here. But yesterday i read that they are demanding a version of the national athem- in spanish. NO! The national anthem is AMERICAN, and if they want to sing it, learn the langauge.aany other opinions, or supporters, maybe?

I like mexico, some of the people, and I have a problem with the ones that are here Illegally. Other than that we get along great.

I've got this one picture I'm looking for but can't find. I will post it here in a minute.

Northern, yes. Southern, no. Southern California only exists (besides the coast) because they irrigated it. Ditto for arizona, parts of texas and new mexico.
Not true. Los Angeles, San Diego and the California Central Valley were all bustling LONG before the agricultural revolution in the 40s and 50s. The movie industry grew up here in LA precisely because all those rich movie people wanted to move to the nicest place on Earth. There was gold in them thar hills and there was oil in the ground and there was sunshine all year round, but not too much, just enough for those 80 - 90 degree beautiful July perfect days to take a swim in that 60-70 degree beautiful Pacific Ocean. Almost no humidity, but not too dry either. It's like Goldilocks. This state, Arizona, is too hot. This state, Washington, is too cold. This state, California, is just right.

Don' know if it really had to do with skin color, though catholicism maybe.
I really don't know if it had to do with skin color either. The South would not have liked to take those territories either because slavery had already been abolished in all of Mexico by then, and while it would have been easy to reinstate it in the unpopulated north, the south would have been dead-set against it. And this would have played against them in Congress too, were those parts to become states.

It is very interesting to try to imagin what would have happened. Could the Civil War happened earlier, later, or not at all?

Remember, most of the Aztecs and Mayans were dead and the Mexicans were really just second or third generation Europeans - Spaniards to be exact.
They weren't dead. Their civilization was destroyed, but they didn't disappear. They mixed with the Spaniards and other Europeans almost since the start. Besides, there were other peoples besides Mayas and Aztecs, like Purepechas, Tlaxcaltecs, Mexicas, etc. Some of them were conquered, some were allies of the Spaniards and some weren't conquered at all.

Then, just like now, the population was highly mixed between European, American and African; although descendants of the Spanish elite ruled the country. They still do, but not so much.

They weren't dead. Their civilization was destroyed, but they didn't disappear. They mixed with the Spaniards and other Europeans almost since the start. Besides, there were other peoples besides Mayas and Aztecs, like Purepechas, Tlaxcaltecs, Mexicas, etc. Some of them were conquered, some were allies of the Spaniards and some weren't conquered at all.

Then, just like now, the population was highly mixed between European, American and African; although descendants of the Spanish elite ruled the country. They still do, but not so much.
I'd always read that they had the same disease problems there that they had in the early US - that being that the Europeans brought smallpox and other diseases and that they decimated the indigenous population.

I'd always read that they had the same disease problems there that they had in the early US - that being that the Europeans brought smallpox and other diseases and that they decimated the indigenous population.

What you say is correct PsychoticDan. They did suffer and died from the same diseases as the Indians.

I'd always read that they had the same disease problems there that they had in the early US - that being that the Europeans brought smallpox and other diseases and that they decimated the indigenous population.
Decimated, not erradicated. The native population in that area was far larger there than in other parts of the continent, which means that a larger number survived them.

Decimated, not erradicated. The native population in that area was far larger there than in other parts of the continent, which means that a larger number survived them.
Sure. I overstated my point when I said they were all dead. I simply meant that the country had been taken over by European powers like pretty much the rest of the Western hemisphere had and that Europeans were the dominant culture and governed Mexico at the time. Often the "struggle" - such as there was one - is protrayed as another aspect of the demise of the American Indian and I like to point out in these debates that it is nothing like that. The government of Mexico was in many ways like the government of the US - an ex-European colony that had recently obtained independence. It was not the last bastion of indigenous North American natives fighting for the only refuge they had left.

The government of Mexico was in many ways like the government of the US - an ex-European colony that had recently obtained independence. It was not the last bastion of indigenous North American natives fighting for the only refuge they had left.
Oh, yes, that's is absolutely true. The Mexican government, even after the independence, also conducted war against "hostiles" as late as the early 20th Century, just like the US did. Natives have been treated as bad, if not worse, than in the US; and are currently getting a worse deal.

Extremist movements like Aztlan and such are as wrong and racist as any neonazi or Aryan supremacy group.

Oh, yes, that's is absolutely true. The Mexican government, even after the independence, also conducted war against "hostiles" as late as the early 20th Century, just like the US did. Natives have been treated as bad, if not worse, than in the US; and are currently getting a worse deal.

Extremist movements like Aztlan and such are as wrong and racist as any neonazi or Aryan supremacy group.
Thank you. ;)