Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo put an end to any Mexican claims. Also Texas was an independent republic that was sovereign and apart from Mexico. But the big picture, and one that affects me personally, is the city I reside in Austin, Texas wouldn’t be the great city it is if it was under Mexican (mis)rule.
Most America boosters are neglecting to take into account that Mexico was invaded by the US army. The capital city was sieged and eventually capitulated. At that point, the Mexican government was essentially forced to sign a treaty (i.e. sell half of it's territory) at gun point.
America's capture of the capital and the routing of Mexican forces had nearly destroyed Mexico. In Mexico, the conflivt is not taught in schools as a war for only it's northern most provinces, it is taught as an invasion of the heart of the country and a humiliating defeat.
As a 4th generation Mexican American, I sometimes get bitter when I recall the greedy/imperialist nature of America's acquisition of the mountain west and California.
But frankly, the mountain west and California have experienced greater prosperity and the regions bounty distributed more equitably under American rule than if it had been a Mexican territory.
Most America boosters are neglecting to take into account that Mexico was invaded by the US army. The capital city was sieged and eventually capitulated. At that point, the Mexican government was essentially forced to sign a treaty (i.e. sell half of it's territory) at gun point.
U.S. armies had made it all the way down to Mexico City?? I didn't know that. I thought all the battles and skirmishes had taken place around the border areas. Did this Mexico City siege occur in the early/mid 1800s?
Quote:
As a 4th generation Mexican American, I sometimes get bitter when I recall the greedy/imperialist nature of America's acquisition of the mountain west and California.
Yes, New Mexican natives were also subjected to a campaign by the Anglos to denigrate their culture and language. The only reason they kept their language up until the late 20th century was because they were living in remote areas and the U.S. government didn't bother too much with NM as it's one of the "least desirable" states.
The Hispanics there pretty much lost their language. But kudos to the pueblo tribes who not only have kept their languages, but are growing stronger with it (the kids are fluent).
Quote:
But frankly, the mountain west and California have experienced greater prosperity and the regions bounty distributed more equitably under American rule than if it had been a Mexican territory.
yeah, probably true. But the cost was that the Hispanic/Mexican/Indian cultures have suffered greatly.
With the current demographics, essentially they are taking it back. Latinos are now the majority in places like Los Angeles, New Mexico, etc. Anglos are now a minority in the state of California.
This will soon be the case in Texas as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.