NationStates Jolt Archive

As taught on both sides of the US/Mexican border is based on the twisting of facts.

Mexico never owned the US southwest. This assumption is based on claims by Spanish missionaries. The fact is that neither Spain nor Mexico had control over the area and when they tried to seize control they got their rears handed to them by the local Native Americans.

California, for example, had Native Americans who resisted Spanish and Mexican attempts to conquer their lands. This war between Californians and Mexico lasted until the end of the Mexican American war in 1848.

Any website of California's Native Americans will tell you that the Native Americans of California not once acceded to the soverignty of either Spain or Mexico.

From Wikipedia:

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

"The Spanish did explore a good part of North America looking for more treasure-laden societies. These explorers claimed the land as was their practice, but finding no treasures or sedentary Indian tribes, they returned to the areas in Mexico, which had already been conquered. It was not until the eighteenth century that a concerted effort was made to settle the northern frontier in what is now the United States. The end result is that a lot of historic and contemporary maps often misrepresent the areas Spain claimed as areas they actually controlled. The Indians who lived in these areas were out of reach of Hispanic society and were able to maintain their culture well into the nineteenth century."
Not just their culture, but for many, their independence as well.

The brave Commanche fiercely opposed Mexican attempts to conquer their territory.

"New Mexico in particular had been gravitating more toward Comancheria. In the 1820s, when the United States began to exert influence over the region, New Mexico had already begun to question its loyalty to Mexico City."

Even the Yucatan were fighting Mexican imperialism as did the Central Americans when Mexico tried to claim Central America.

In the end Mexico did not get to keep either California, the Southwest, or Central America.

They just werent as good at it as we were, lol...

Did I forget the twisting of Southwest history by Americans?

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html

That's more or less the history of North America.

As taught on both sides of the US/Mexican border is based on the twisting of facts.

Mexico never owned the US southwest. This assumption is based on claims by Spanish missionaries. The fact is that neither Spain nor Mexico had control over the area and when they tried to seize control they got their rears handed to them by the local Native Americans.

California, for example, had Native Americans who resisted Spanish and Mexican attempts to conquer their lands. This war between Californians and Mexico lasted until the end of the Mexican American war in 1848.

Any website of California's Native Americans will tell you that the Native Americans of California not once acceded to the soverignty of either Spain or Mexico.

From Wikipedia:

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

"The Spanish did explore a good part of North America looking for more treasure-laden societies. These explorers claimed the land as was their practice, but finding no treasures or sedentary Indian tribes, they returned to the areas in Mexico, which had already been conquered. It was not until the eighteenth century that a concerted effort was made to settle the northern frontier in what is now the United States. The end result is that a lot of historic and contemporary maps often misrepresent the areas Spain claimed as areas they actually controlled. The Indians who lived in these areas were out of reach of Hispanic society and were able to maintain their culture well into the nineteenth century."
Not just their culture, but for many, their independence as well.

The brave Commanche fiercely opposed Mexican attempts to conquer their territory.

"New Mexico in particular had been gravitating more toward Comancheria. In the 1820s, when the United States began to exert influence over the region, New Mexico had already begun to question its loyalty to Mexico City."

Even the Yucatan were fighting Mexican imperialism as did the Central Americans when Mexico tried to claim Central America.

In the end Mexico did not get to keep either California, the Southwest, or Central America.

And your point would be what?

Hispanic does not = Mexican.
Hispanic= any person descended from people who immigrated from any country in Latin America.

And your point would be what?

The current thing about immigration was created by idiots on both sides of the border intent on getting free publicity for themselves.
Even if it means spreading historical falsehoods as being true.

The current thing about immigration was created by idiots on both sides of the border intent on getting free publicity for themselves.
Even if it means spreading historical falsehoods as being true.

Hang on, and I need to know you're being deadly serious here because this is just revelationary, you're saying that people, actual people, would misrepresent the facts to suit their agendas?

Fuck me.

Hang on, and I need to know you're being deadly serious here because this is just revelationary, you're saying that people, actual people, would misrepresent the facts to suit their agendas?

Fuck me.

Ten minutes later...

Harder! Harder! Harder!

We need to bring in the Soviets and build a wall stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico.

Ten minutes later...

Works for me...

We need to bring in the Soviets and build a wall stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico.

That would be quite the project..

Well, the Americans seem to be trying it already, so the Red Army Corps of Engineers isn't entirely necessary.

As taught on both sides of the US/Mexican border is based on the twisting of facts.

Mexico never owned the US southwest. This assumption is based on claims by Spanish missionaries. The fact is that neither Spain nor Mexico had control over the area and when they tried to seize control they got their rears handed to them by the local Native Americans.

California, for example, had Native Americans who resisted Spanish and Mexican attempts to conquer their lands. This war between Californians and Mexico lasted until the end of the Mexican American war in 1848.

Any website of California's Native Americans will tell you that the Native Americans of California not once acceded to the soverignty of either Spain or Mexico.

From Wikipedia:

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

"The Spanish did explore a good part of North America looking for more treasure-laden societies. These explorers claimed the land as was their practice, but finding no treasures or sedentary Indian tribes, they returned to the areas in Mexico, which had already been conquered. It was not until the eighteenth century that a concerted effort was made to settle the northern frontier in what is now the United States. The end result is that a lot of historic and contemporary maps often misrepresent the areas Spain claimed as areas they actually controlled. The Indians who lived in these areas were out of reach of Hispanic society and were able to maintain their culture well into the nineteenth century."
Not just their culture, but for many, their independence as well.

The brave Commanche fiercely opposed Mexican attempts to conquer their territory.

"New Mexico in particular had been gravitating more toward Comancheria. In the 1820s, when the United States began to exert influence over the region, New Mexico had already begun to question its loyalty to Mexico City."

Even the Yucatan were fighting Mexican imperialism as did the Central Americans when Mexico tried to claim Central America.

In the end Mexico did not get to keep either California, the Southwest, or Central America.
since when did we ever think of native tribes as owning any land that might be claimed by a "civilized' nation?

the spanish owned it because they had a european claim. when the mexicans drove them out, it became mexican. when we won the mexican american war, it became ours. no one gave much of a damn about native claims to ownership.

that mexico never controlled much of the southwest means nothing. they had a FLAG, dammit.

since when did we ever think of native tribes as owning any land that might be claimed by a "civilized' nation?

the spanish owned it because they had a european claim. when the mexicans drove them out, it became mexican. when we won the mexican american war, it became ours. no one gave much of a damn about native claims to ownership.

that mexico never controlled much of the southwest means nothing. they had a FLAG, dammit.

And someone pointed out in the - I think - Native American Genocide thread that the NAs actually had no concept of possession of the land. If they couldn't understand how land could be owned, well, the more sucks to them when someone came along who could.

And someone pointed out in the - I think - Native American Genocide thread that the NAs actually had no concept of possession of the land. If they couldn't understand how land could be owned, well, the more sucks to them when someone came along who could.

http://d1.ac-videos.myspacecdn.com/videos02/96/thumb1_9d9d28e8dcf44721b31fe045bdab8668.jpg

Guess we could give them a very large diamond, lol...

And someone pointed out in the - I think - Native American Genocide thread that the NAs actually had no concept of possession of the land. If they couldn't understand how land could be owned, well, the more sucks to them when someone came along who could.
well

i dont think that they had the same notion that europeans had but they did have some concept of "this is our area you guys need to keep the hell out of it"

As taught on both sides of the US/Mexican border is based on the twisting of facts.



I think I was two semesters into my history degree when I realized any public history is a nationalistic myth at best, a boldfaced lie at worst. Nothing they teach in schools or museums has more than a passing relationship with the truth.

/thread.

I think I was two semesters into my history degree when I realized any public history is a nationalistic myth at best, a boldfaced lie at worst. Nothing they teach in schools or museums has more than a passing relationship with the truth.

/thread.

That's a pretty general statement. Nothing at all? Really? Wow.

Ten minutes later...

I literally lol'd.

since when did we ever think of native tribes as owning any land that might be claimed by a "civilized' nation?

the spanish owned it because they had a european claim. when the mexicans drove them out, it became mexican. when we won the mexican american war, it became ours. no one gave much of a damn about native claims to ownership.

that mexico never controlled much of the southwest means nothing. they had a FLAG, dammit.

Civilization? By whose standards? According to the Native Americans I talked to, they had a civilization. Then the racist Mexicans illegally invaded, followed by racist Americans. Both groups decided that the Native Americans had no right to keep their own territory.

The quickest way to piss off a California Native American is to tell them that Mexico owned California for hundreds of years before there was an America. I learned this the hardway, with a lecture from the Yokuts, Chumash, and other tribal councils. They will tell you about all the battles they fought to kick the Mexicans out.

They had a flag? Nope. They had several flags because they had to keep replacing them on account of the fact the Natives kept burning them and telling the missionaries to get lost.

And someone pointed out in the - I think - Native American Genocide thread that the NAs actually had no concept of possession of the land. If they couldn't understand how land could be owned, well, the more sucks to them when someone came along who could.

They didn't have private property ownership of land. Neither did the Soviet Union. Neither does Cuba. I guess that means the Cubans and the Soviets lost their rights to their territories. Gee. I guess America and Britain and Mexico just missed a chance to expand their territories.


True they did not have private ownership of land. But they still exercised soverignty over it.

The only soverignty the Mexican government had control over were the small plots of missions many of which, the NA's kept burning to the ground.

The Native American insurgency against Mexican invaders was equivalent to the Iraqi insurgency against the American invasion of Iraq.

They didn't have private property ownership of land. Neither did the Soviet Union. Neither does Cuba. I guess that means the Cubans and the Soviets lost their rights to their territories. Gee. I guess America and Britain and Mexico just missed a chance to expand their territories.


True they did not have private ownership of land. But they still exercised soverignty over it.

The only soverignty the Mexican government had control over were the small plots of missions many of which, the NA's kept burning to the ground.

The Native American insurgency against Mexican invaders was equivalent to the Iraqi insurgency against the American invasion of Iraq.

Uh huh. Okay, so ... what's your point? I believe it's been admitted that the European colonizers of North and South America were racist assholes. Trust me, this is not news. Would you like an apology? Okay, I, as a citizen of the United States of America, hereby apologize for everything bad done to the indigenous people of the New World since 1492. Happy now? :rolleyes:

It was not just the colonists. It was their descendents.

The mexicans who invaded California, were not europeans. They were a mixture of Aztecs and Spaniards. The Mexicans conveniently used the claims of the original colonists to justify their own invasion of California because they wanted the biggest empire on the continent and to force NA's to convert to Catholicism, even if it meant torturing and killing them.

The Americans just wanted the resources. (gold, oil, silver, etc)

Not just the colonizers. It was their mixed race descendants who engaged in the illegal invasions as well.

It was not just the colonists. It was their descendents.

The mexicans who invaded California, were not europeans. They were a mixture of Aztecs and Spaniards. The Mexicans conveniently used the claims of the original colonists to justify their own invasion of California because they wanted the biggest empire on the continent and to force NA's to convert to Catholicism, even if it meant torturing and killing them.

The Americans just wanted the resources. (gold, oil, silver, etc)

Not just the colonizers. It was their mixed race descendants who engaged in the illegal invasions as well.

Okay and again, what do you want us to say? What's to discuss?

Corrected:


Louisiana History

As taught on both sides of the Mississippi is based on the twisting of facts.

France never owned Louisiana. This assumption is based on claims by French missionaries and traders. The fact is that neither France nor (briefly) Spain ever had control over the area and when they tried to seize control they often got their rears handed to them by the local Native Americans - except in the dismal swampy riverside site that became New Orleans.

Everywhere west of the Mississippi had Native Americans who resisted French and Spanish attempts to conquer their lands.

Any website of prairie Native Americans will tell you that the Native Americans of the plains not once acceded to the sovereignty of either France or Spain in the Louisiana territory.

In the end France sold to the nascent United States a territory that they had no control or sovereignty over outside of perhaps New Orleans itself; the Louisiana Purchase is therefore illegal and void since France sold the United States territory that wasn't French in the first place.

See how easy this is to do?

Would you perhaps advocate the British approach in Australia - declare the entire continent terra nullius open to immediate control by Europeans regardless of effective control by early settlers because the locals are 'clearly' savages with no conception of European property law?

In short, I don't think you have a very clear idea of how colonial European territorial claims worked in the 16th through 19th centuries; and regardless of your somewhat bizarre implicit claim that European territorial claims don't apply to the 'non-European' Mexicans, Mexico's claims to the territory in question were in direct - and internationally-recognised - descent from the prior Spanish claims.

Corrected:



See how easy this is to do?

Would you perhaps advocate the British approach in Australia - declare the entire continent terra nullius open to immediate control by Europeans regardless of effective control by early settlers because the locals are 'clearly' savages with no conception of European property law?

In short, I don't think you have a very clear idea of how colonial European territorial claims worked in the 16th through 19th centuries; and regardless of your somewhat bizarre implicit claim that European territorial claims don't apply to the 'non-European' Mexicans, Mexico's claims to the territory in question were in direct - and internationally-recognised - descent from the prior Spanish claims.
The world also recognized Hitler's claims to Austria and Czechoslovakia.
They also recognize China's claims to Taiwan and Tibet.

Tibet will be independent again. The Native Americans will one day have their own country as well. America won't last forever. Even the Roman republic only lasted about 500 years. (the other 500 it was imperial dictatorship).

Think about this: the Republic of Commancheria rising from the ashes. Or something similar.
The NA population is rising.

Not to mention your post is based on eurocentric theories of soveriegnty.

that mexico never controlled much of the southwest means nothing. they had a FLAG, dammit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Yay! I get to post this again! :D

True they did not have private ownership of land.Sauce? I've heard this claim multiple times, but staring at the east-of-the-mississippi tribes/ civilisations, I tend to have trouble believing it (And quite honestly, suspect it to be a myth perpetrated first by the Government/ Settlers as justification for the landgrabbing, and then by the deranged left when they tried to portray the Indians as some sort of perfect collectivist hippie commune they never were).

I mean, I can see it with the post-horse-introduction nomads, when they gave up agriculture. Not much point in private ownership of land for them. But everything in the agricultural, post-mound builders territories, I've a difficult time believing it.

It'd miss the point, anyway, since, as you said, communally owned land is still owned land, but even the idea of wholly, communally owned land strikes me as somewhat out there. A missinterpretion of family* owned land that wasn't split up between the sons as was the fashion on the other side of the atlantic, maybe?

* And those families tended to be big, I believe.

Sauce? I've heard this claim multiple times, but staring at the east-of-the-mississippi tribes/ civilisations, I tend to have trouble believing it (And quite honestly, suspect it to be a myth perpetrated first by the Government/ Settlers as justification for the landgrabbing, and then by the deranged left when they tried to portray the Indians as some sort of perfect collectivist hippie commune they never were).

I mean, I can see it with the post-horse-introduction nomads, when they gave up agriculture. Not much point in private ownership of land for them. But everything in the agricultural, post-mound builders territories, I've a difficult time believing it.

It'd miss the point, anyway, since, as you said, communally owned land is still owned land, but even the idea of wholly, communally owned land strikes me as somewhat out there. A missinterpretion of family* owned land that wasn't split up between the sons as was the fashion on the other side of the atlantic, maybe?

* And those families tended to be big, I believe.

Me, referring to something someone said over in the "Native American Genocide" thread. So maybe it's not true, I don't know. I was trying to draw USOfA- into an actual discussion and away from his "all Europeans are racists" rant.

Snip.


Snip

It is a myth.
http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php

The Cherokee even believed in importing slaves from Africa, finding this cheaper then the old system of kidnap some guy from another tribe.

It is a myth.
http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php

The Cherokee even believed in importing slaves from Africa, finding this cheaper then the old system of kidnap some guy from another tribe.

Right, well, like I said, it was something from one of the other threads. And it doesn't really make a difference whether it's true or not, in USOfA-'s worldview.

Me, referring to something someone said over in the "Native American Genocide" thread. So maybe it's not true, I don't know. I was trying to draw USOfA- into an actual discussion and away from his "all Europeans are racists" rant.

Where did I say or where did I imply that all Europeans were racist?

I said that historical facts had been twisted to meet political ends. The Mexicans who illegally invaded California, raped and enslaved the Native Americans in California were not Europeans.

They were of the Mestizo variety of people.

Where did I say or where did I imply that all Europeans were racist?

I said that historical facts had been twisted to meet political ends. The Mexicans who illegally invaded California, raped and enslaved the Native Americans in California were not Europeans.

They were of the Mestizo variety of people.

You're pointing out the faults of the Mexicans who invaded California, like you put it, but fail to state that the Americans did the same to the Native Americans. So, what's your point?

It is a myth.
http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php

The Cherokee even believed in importing slaves from Africa, finding this cheaper then the old system of kidnap some guy from another tribe.

Actually they bought them from the white Americans.

You're pointing out the faults of the Mexicans who invaded California, like you put it, but fail to state that the Americans did the same to the Native Americans. So, what's your point?

We did that from Coast to coast.

Actually they bought them from the white Americans.

I didn't mean to suggest they were sailing there. Though slaves existed prior to Europeans, they just were of other native American tribes.

It is a myth.
http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php

The Cherokee even believed in importing slaves from Africa, finding this cheaper then the old system of kidnap some guy from another tribe.Cool, it says pretty much what I thougth was the case, except more eloquently :-D

Granted, it doesn't exactly count as an academic paper, but then, neither does anything concerning the opposite claims.Actually they bought them from the white Americans.Either way, clearly, private property extends to black people, no matter the culture :-D

We did that from Coast to coast.

I know that. We did too to the Aztecs and to the Inca.

Where did I say or where did I imply that all Europeans were racist?

I said that historical facts had been twisted to meet political ends. The Mexicans who illegally invaded California, raped and enslaved the Native Americans in California were not Europeans.

They were of the Mestizo variety of people.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. So your point is that everyone who is not a Native American is racist, perhaps with some exceptions. That's the sense I get.

By the way, "illegal" has no meaning in the context of 16th European colonization of North America.

You're pointing out the faults of the Mexicans who invaded California, like you put it, but fail to state that the Americans did the same to the Native Americans. So, what's your point?

Everyone knows what the Americans did to the Native Americans. It's drummed into us from the day we are born: "Americans are very very evil. They killed every single Native American." When the fact is that the Americans are not responsible for the majority of the deaths of NA's.


Here's a comparison:

Mass Murder: Mexicans, Americans
Broken Treaties: Mexicans, Americans
Illegal invasion of territory: Mexicans *
Rape: Mexicans
Theft of Resources and sacrilege of Sacred Grounds: Americans
Enslave of Native Americans: Mexicans

* As far as I know, the Native Americans in the Louisiana territory were tolerant of the French in their lands because the French, unlike the Spanish and Mexicans were not raping, pillaging, or enslaving them. Because of this, the US inherited the initial good will when it bought the Louisiana territory from France, only to harm it's relations with the natives of the newly acquired territory. The Osage, for example never waged war against America and they had control over their area.

"By 1806, the Americans were warning the Osage of impending raids." They were warning of raids from other tribes.

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

http://www.anpa.ualr.edu/digital_library/Osage_Sketch/osage_sketch_2.htm

"all territory lying between the Arkansas and Kaw rivers, and west from the Mississippi to the great plains was firmly held by the Osages against all others at the time of discovery by white men"

"Coronado does not mention the Osages, but we have conclusive evidence that he was in their territory. Coronado says that he went eastward of the Rio Grande river three hundred leagues through sandy plains and vast treeless tracts inhabited with a species of terrible wild cattle of which they killed four score the first day they met with them. They continued their travels east by north, crossing shallow rivers with broad sand bars until they reached one where the trees grew luxuriantly and the soil was as rich as the best portions of Spain. This river is conceded by all writers to have been either the Kaw or Missouri. Some evidence that it was the latter was the finding of certain articles in the vicinity of Kansas City that undoubtedly belonged to Spanish people. One was a halberd"

"These two were the first white men the Osage ever saw and the story of their capture has been handed down"

"They immediately decided to capture these strange beings and examine them farther, which they accomplished by crawling through the thickets and springing out upon them before they were discovered. Great was the consternation of the poor Spaniards when they found themselves suddenly in the hands of these wild men, and no doubt they expected death

Then Wah-Kon-tah, the great chief told them to go back the way they came and never to come into his country again. And the Spaniards were glad to be allowed to depart"

"The Indians answered that they would hold council among themselves and let the Spaniards know in a short time what they would do. It was a large party of Missouris they had met, and the sagacious chief of that tribe only retired to plan and make the destruction of the Spaniard more certain. Upon their return they told the Spaniards that a large village of Missouris were camped on the south bank of the river under the bluffs not many miles farther on, and that they would have a guide to go with them to show them the trail while the Indian were to go below and strike the village from the far side. It was to be a night attack and seemed so well planned that the unsuspecting Spaniards fell into a death trap from which no one except the priest escaped alive"

"After this terrible disaster the Spaniards did not often visit the banks of the Missouri and the Osages did not see much of white men for many years."

Why was that? Because they got their a*** handed to them twice.

"Marquette founded the mission and trading post at Kaskaskia, Illinois, and thus began that intimacy between the French and the Osages which was never broken.

The policy of the French colonial authorities was to win the confidence and good will of all Indians they came in contact with so that commerce between the two might not be interrupted by quarrels. In this, they differed from the English and Spanish, who had a bad habit of taking by force that, which could not be got otherwise. The success of the French policy is a matter of history, for they never lacked for Indian allies in their wars against the English."

Lost in my last post was my point which is that while the whole world knows about the atrocities committed by Americans, English, and Spaniards, the atrocities committed by Mexicans of mixed descent are covered up and swept under the rug.

Mexicans in California are taught that "the Native Americans died hundreds of years ago. they were killed by the whites many centuries before the Mexicans arrived and so when Mexicans first came to California, the land was empty and uninhabited."

It's equivalent to saying Oklahoma City was done by the Arabs, even though Timothy was a white boy.

*snip*

Once again, what's your point? Seriously, in 25 words or less - pretend I'm an old fart who's deaf to boot - what is your point? I think the thread has wandered.

Mexican destruction of Native American culture is being covered up and everyone being led to falsely believe that all the destruction was done by the US.

Lost in my last post was my point which is that while the whole world knows about the atrocities committed by Americans, English, and Spaniards, the atrocities committed by Mexicans of mixed descent are covered up and swept under the rug.

Mexicans in California are taught that "the Native Americans died hundreds of years ago. they were killed by the whites many centuries before the Mexicans arrived and so when Mexicans first came to California, the land was empty and uninhabited."

It's equivalent to saying Oklahoma City was done by the Arabs, even though Timothy was a white boy.

And once again, what the f*** is your point? Mexicans committed atrocities, according to you, too. So what? The Germans did, the Spaniards did, the Egyptians did, the Israeli and the Arabs do and did. The whole fucking world has done so at some point. Are you just targeting Mexicans for the fuck of it, it is? Please.

Mexican destruction of Native American culture is being covered up and everyone being led to falsely believe that all the destruction was done by the US.

I see. Thank you.

And once again, what the f*** is your point? Mexicans committed atrocities, according to you, too. So what? The Germans did, the Spaniards did, the Egyptians did, the Israeli and the Arabs do and did. The whole fucking world has done so at some point. Are you just targeting Mexicans for the fuck of it, it is? Please.

So if the Germans do it or the Israelis do it, it's bad. But if the Mexicans do it, it's ok because "everyone is doing it."
See, that is my point.

So if the Germans do it or the Israelis do it, it's bad. But if the Mexicans do it, it's ok because "everyone is doing it."

Did I say that? Kindly point out to where I say it's ok, by any nationality. It's not ok, but you're stating something that WE ARE ALL guilty of. So please.

Yes. Well... the Germans apologized for the holocaust. The Americans apologized for their deeds.

The Mexicans on the other hand, rather than apologize, have been making excuses, like the one you brought up, "everyone's doing it".

Even Canada has been apologizing.

The last government we are waiting for an apology from is Mexico, the lone holdout.

Heck, even the Australian government apologized to its aboriginies.

Just recently, in the 90's the Mexican government undertook atrocities against the Chiapese Native Americans of Chiapas state. No apology for that crime.

Yes. Well... the Germans apologized for the holocaust. The Americans apologized for their deeds.

The Mexicans on the other hand, rather than apologize, have been making excuses, like the one you brought up, "everyone's doing it".

Even Canada has been apologizing.

The last government we are waiting for an apology from is Mexico, the lone holdout.

Heck, even the Australian government apologized to its aboriginies.

Just recently, in the 90's the Mexican government undertook atrocities against the Chiapese Native Americans of Chiapas state. No apology for that crime.

You prove my point. You are prejudiced against Mexicans. I am done with you and your bigotry. Kthnxbai.

The US, under Pres Bush, even went so far as to apologize to the Native Hawaiians for us illegally annexing their islands and deposing their rulers.

The Europeans have been apologizing for their legacy of colonialism for a while. I'm willing to bet the Turks are getting ready to apologize to the Armenians.

You prove my point. You are prejudiced against Mexicans. I am done with you and your bigotry. Kthnxbai.

it's not prejudice when it's the truth. To call the facts "prejudice" is the same as sweeping them under the rug in favor of false history.

Civilization? By whose standards? According to the Native Americans I talked to, they had a civilization. Then the racist Mexicans illegally invaded, followed by racist Americans. Both groups decided that the Native Americans had no right to keep their own territory.

The quickest way to piss off a California Native American is to tell them that Mexico owned California for hundreds of years before there was an America. I learned this the hardway, with a lecture from the Yokuts, Chumash, and other tribal councils. They will tell you about all the battles they fought to kick the Mexicans out.

They had a flag? Nope. They had several flags because they had to keep replacing them on account of the fact the Natives kept burning them and telling the missionaries to get lost.
did you see the ""?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Yay! I get to post this again! :D
bless your heart! thats exactly what i was thinking of when i wrote it.

I love the "go back to Europe" comment from the Mexican defence secretary. Does he not see the irony in what he says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

Yay! I get to post this again! :D

That was fabulous. :)

I love the "go back to Europe" comment from the Mexican defence secretary. Does he not see the irony in what he says?

you speak truth.

did you see the ""?

Sorry. I meant to respond to the attitude you were qouting. The one were the Europeans claimed that no one else was civilized. It was not meant against you.

Sorry. I meant to respond to the attitude you were qouting. The one were the Europeans claimed that no one else was civilized. It was not meant against you.
ahhh yes. i agree with that assessment. but, as your attitude attests, its less common than it used to be.

Mexican destruction of Native American culture is being covered up and everyone being led to falsely believe that all the destruction was done by the US.
heres the thing....

are you SURE that its never discussed in mexico? that its not general knowledge?

what we learn in the US or canada focuses on our own countries and our own faults. that we dont learn about mexican atrocities isnt particularly surprising.

That's true. But it doesn't address the fantasy view of history held by some Mexican Americans.

It's like the fantasy view held by some Americans that it was Mexico that started the Mexican American war.

That's true. But it doesn't address the fantasy view of history held by some Mexican Americans.

It's like the fantasy view held by some Americans that it was Mexico that started the Mexican American war.
ohhhhhhh im beginning to see where you are coming from.

you have to stop talking to mexicans about this issue. there is pride involved. they are as unlikely to admit any fault of mexico to you as a poster here is to admit that he is wrong.

It's like the fantasy view held by some Americans that it was Mexico that started the Mexican American war.

As I recall, it started via a border dispute. We said the border was in one place, they said it was in another. We then sent troops to defend what we felt was our border, and they viewed it as an invasion, and attacked.

So... that's how it went down, if I remember my history correctly.

I was going to say we were the ones who violated the border that Congress said it recognized but I need to reread up on where those rivers were located. I'm under the assumption the US soldiers who ignited the war were south of the Rio Grande.

I was going to say we were the ones who violated the border that Congress said it recognized but I need to reread up on where those rivers were located. I'm under the assumption the US soldiers who ignited the war were south of the Rio Grande.

Not according the version of history that I read.

Nor according to Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_american_war)

I am quite wrong. It turns out it was a military coup overthrowing Mexico's democratically elected government that caused the Mexican American war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

"When de Herrera considered receiving Slidell in order to peacefully negotiate the problem of Texas annexation, he was accused of treason and deposed. After a more nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga came to power, it publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to Texas"


If their military had not overthrown the government they had elected, there is good chance the Mexican American war would not have occurred as it did.

I am quite wrong. It turns out it was a military coup overthrowing Mexico's democratically elected government that caused the Mexican American war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

"When de Herrera considered receiving Slidell in order to peacefully negotiate the problem of Texas annexation, he was accused of treason and deposed. After a more nationalistic government under General Mariano Paredes y Arrillaga came to power, it publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to Texas"


If their military had not overthrown the government they had elected, there is good chance the Mexican American war would not have occurred as it did.

The US is always innocent. :p

Not according the version of history that I read.

Nor according to Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_american_war)

looks we're looking at the same page.

The mexican american war was a more direct cause of the US civil war than slavery was. It also led to civil war on the southern side of the border as well.

The war itself was caused by the dispute over slavery and in that manner led to the US civil war.