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.
Before you talk about revolution in Mexico, I advise studying the previous revolution in Mexico. The Mexicans have settled for stability after a truly horrendous revolution; 10 years and 1,250,000 dead.
Before you talk about revolution in Mexico, I advise studying the previous revolution in Mexico. The Mexicans have settled for stability after a truly horrendous revolution; 10 years and 1,250,000 dead.
A friend of mine who happens to be a Mexican pasiano made the comment that there may be another revolution SOB.
Basically; the northern half of Mx (in particular Nuevo Leon) is not dirt poor whereas Chiapas, Oaxaca, etc. are definitely Third World and the country could fracture along that geographical line.
Lopez Obrador claims to represent the brunet Mexicans whereas Calderon draws most of his support from the elite who tend to be White.
Felipe won the election but Lopez is still about, lurking.
Before you talk about revolution in Mexico, I advise studying the previous revolution in Mexico. The Mexicans have settled for stability after a truly horrendous revolution; 10 years and 1,250,000 dead.
"Settled for stability"? How is a mass hemorrage of your citizenry into another country at ALL indicative of "stability."
The United States is Mexico's "pressure release valve" for Mexico's poor and disaffected, and God help Mexico if someone gets around to plugging that valve.
"Settled for stability"? How is a mass hemorrage of your citizenry into another country at ALL indicative of "stability."
The United States is Mexico's "pressure release valve" for Mexico's poor and disaffected, and God help Mexico if someone gets around to plugging that valve.
I don't think your analysis is applicable. The revolution ended in 1921. Until recently the llegal immigration into the United States was minimal. The Bracero program brought legal seasonal workers into the US until 1962 when the program ended. For the next twenty years most of the illegal immigration was still seasonal.
That you question my use of the word stability indicates a lack of understanding of the post revolution period of Mexican history, I suggest that you start by reading this book; The Frozen Revolution.
The "mass hemorrage" (sic) is due to the economic disparity between the United States and Mexicom, and that is a result of the consequences of the Revolution..
It is important to remember that Mexico has not been a democracy, but merely held the facade of a democracy. Fox was the first democratically elected President of Mexico in 70 years. The PRI held power insured stability, and the result of that effort resulted in the economic disparity, which has led to the immigration into the US.
Remember also that most Mexicans feel that the occupation of the Southwestern portion of the United States by the United States is as legal as the US occupation of Iraq. The conquest of the Southwest was a pure war of aggression. You may not wish to consider this, but they do.
Remember also that most Mexicans feel that the occupation of the Southwestern portion of the United States by the United States is as legal as the US occupation of Iraq. The conquest of the Southwest was a pure war of aggression. You may not wish to consider this, but they do.
I was following your logic until this point (not necessarily agreeing with it, but able to follow the reasoning). I don't know how you can support the statement above.
the "mass hemorrage" (lololol) is not a "hemorrage" so much as its a consequence of tightening border security. we have done this throughout our history. let the mexicans work when it benefits us, kick them out when we've used them up. the bracero program is one piece of a big puzzle.
I was following your logic until this point (not necessarily agreeing with it, but able to follow the reasoning). I don't know how you can support the statement above.
the guadalupe-hidalgo treaty was only agreed to by mexico because the united states threatened them with total annexation. it was a display of aggressive power.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 27 days ago)
27,647 posts, read 16,133,597 times
Reputation: 19067
Quote:
Originally Posted by GH0ST..
the guadalupe-hidalgo treaty was only agreed to by mexico because the united states threatened them with total annexation. it was a display of aggressive power.
If the USA would have annexed Mexico, we would have been better off no?
Remember also that most Mexicans feel that the occupation of the Southwestern portion of the United States by the United States is as legal as the US occupation of Iraq. The conquest of the Southwest was a pure war of aggression. You may not wish to consider this, but they do.
So because they teach one sided history in Mexicom (sic), we have to suffer?
The Southwestern United States was "owned" (on paper) by the SPANISH through illegal CONQUEST of Native lands. Mexico acquired (through force against the Spanish) these conquested lands, and the United States simply took that which Mexico was incapable of controlling. After all, there were plenty of Native (United States) American raids and armed conflicts against Mexican settlers. Which is why Mexico was unsuccessful of extending their reach into the Southwestern United States. As I wrote time and time before:
At the time of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, there were only about 50,000-85,000 "Mexicans" in ALL of the present day Southwestern United States. When the territories became AMERICAN, all but a small percentage of Mexican settlers became American citizens, and today, 8% of all Mexicans in the US are descended from these ORIGINAL Mexicans, whom the border crossed. The rest are new immigrants.
Just because Mexico briefly "owned" the Southwest (again, on paper), it doesn't mean they have any right to claim to the Southwest anymore, especially when they could barely "occupy" the Southwest themselves.
It's called history, and at some point, Mexicans will have to learn it, accept it, and stop using it to justify streaming across the border. ESPECIALLY when most of them are from the Southern, indigenous part of Mexico. History is wrought with conflict, conquest, and border establishments through force. Deal with it.
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.
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.
