The Aztlan Movement. What the Los Angelino's take on it (Guadalupe: credit, friendly)

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

As for the rest, dunno. Just seemed like a possibility. A huge swath of the population has no idea what lies north of the Grapevine or south of Sacratomato.

I've been all over the CV, starting back in childhood when my parents would get rid of us for a couple of weeks in the Summer by sending us FROM THE BEACH to stay with family in Fresno or Bakersfield. Cruel parents, but they probably wouldn't have done that if we hadn't been such bratty little a'holes.

Then when I was with the CDF I spent a lot of time chasing wildland fires all over the place up there out of the Fresno-Kings Ranger Unit.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

I've been all over the CV, starting back in childhood when my parents would get rid of us for a couple of weeks in the Summer by sending us FROM THE BEACH to stay with family in Fresno or Bakersfield. Cruel parents, but they probably wouldn't have done that if we hadn't been such bratty little a'holes.

Then when I was with the CDF I spent a lot of time chasing wildland fires all over the place up there out of the Fresno-Kings Ranger Unit.

Now that IS cruel! Yuck! Why did they hate you?

CDF must have been quite the experience. I helped fight some brush fires while in the military and that was quite enough for me.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Now that IS cruel! Yuck! Why did they hate you?

I left a 3 word clue, starting with the word "bratty".

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

I left a 3 word clue, starting with the word "bratty".

OK! Gotcha. I was banished to a military prep-school 1,900 miles from home for high school.

I have to admit, tough as it was it was better than living with my parents!

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by expect

Because if the southwest would've remained in the hands of mexico they would've created better cities than L.A, SD, vegas, phx. or built things like the hoover dam.

How different history would have been had this happened. Perhaps the native tribes would still reign. In their 400 years in the Southwest, neither the Spaniards and then the Mexicans were able to exert more than token control and influence over such warlike tribes as the Comanche, Apache, and Navajo, plus at least two dozen smaller tribes.

[SoCal35]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

How different history would have been had this happened. Perhaps the native tribes would still reign. In their 400 years in the Southwest, neither the Spaniards and then the Mexicans were able to exert more than token control and influence over such warlike tribes as the Comanche, Apache, and Navajo, plus at least two dozen smaller tribes.

What is your point?

I ASSUME you are trying to be sarcastic....as the Native American population was nearly DECIMATED by the Spaniards by 1821 when Mexico gained independence.

As Sherburne F. Cook (deceased Professor, Cal Berkeley) estimated the Native American pop. in California declined from about 300,000 to 700,000 in 1769 (first Spanish contact) to about 25,000 in 1821.

Sherburne F. Cook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the Spaniards were just as adept as the Anglo-Americans at destroying the Native American population. That still doesn't justify the U.S.-Mexican War which even President Grant called a very UNJUST and imperialistic war.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

How different history would have been had this happened. Perhaps the native tribes would still reign. In their 400 years in the Southwest, neither the Spaniards and then the Mexicans were able to exert more than token control and influence over such warlike tribes as the Comanche, Apache, and Navajo, plus at least two dozen smaller tribes.

The history of how the Spanish treated native Americans isn't very flatteringly. And the control of the native tribes [ie Paiutes & Shoshone] meant that even their names were changed [ie. Fernandeno\ Gabrielino\ Juaneno\ Luiseno]. Battles with native California tribes occurred initially but the conquistadors\ padres eventually had a tight rein on these Indians. Most of the missions housed huge numbers of native tribes who were forced to become Christian and had to build the missions\ presidios, etc. They were treated like children\ were robbed of their land and had to change their names into Spanish.

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by SoCal35

What is your point? I ASSUME you are trying to be sarcastic.

Not really, just historically factual. Except for a few population centers such as Santa Fe and the California coast, the area was lightly populated, even as late as the Texas revolution. Both Spain, and later Mexico, placed little importance on the Southwest or California, they were regarded as somewhat backwater provinces far from the seat of government in Mexico City. Most historians regard Spanish treatment of the native tribes to be the worst among the European powers that came to North America, and worse than the Americans. As mentioned, Spain and Mexico had little control over the powerful warrior tribes. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Apache and Comanche raids became so severe that large parts of northern Mexico became almost depopulated. My point is, Mexicos supposed claim to a huge part of the US has no validity.

[PugMom17]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

How old?

Believe it or not, Fontucky, I'm quite familiar with the central valley, having spent my last several years in law enforcement working narcotics in Bakersfield. My wife, at the time, had a large, extended family in Tulare which we visited and stayed in often. They were large ranch owners, not just in Tulare but in Tipton, Lindsay, Dinuba, Reedley and probably some other small areas. Their farmworkers came back to them year after year and their foremen, also Latino, were absolutely invaluable.

It's interesting, the argument about doing work Anglos won't do because where we are now, the Anglos do a lot of it, especially yard work and landscaping, building, painting, carpet laying and cleaning, delivery, hauling, et al.

California, and perhaps the SW in general, is quite different than the midwest, east, including New England, and deep south and it has issues that other parts of the country don't.

For whatever it's worth, what a lot of us "transplants" and former Califoreigners really miss is the variety of food, especially good Mexican food and Chinese dim sum or take-out doesn't exist.. My wife and I took a day-trip yesterday to explore some more of the Ozarks. We ended up in Fayetteville, AR where, about 35 years ago, my wife taught birthing classes three days a week at the Univ. of AR. We were getting hungry and while driving around, stumbled upon a Mexican restaurant. The food was delicious. As it turns out, the owner owns a restaurant in Los Angeles near the airport he started years ago and moved here to the boonies nine years ago to start this one. You wouldn't believe the prices, either -- great Margaritas for $2.99!

This thread has been interesting and instructive reading.

I like that term, Califoreigners. You are so right about good Mexican food anywhere but in Calif! I now live in Las Vegas and while there seems to be millions of restaurants here, we still haven't found a great Mexican restaurant to eat at regularly. $2.99 Margaritas?? What a deal!!!

[SoCal35]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Not really, just historically factual. Except for a few population centers such as Santa Fe and the California coast, the area was lightly populated, even as late as the Texas revolution. Both Spain, and later Mexico, placed little importance on the Southwest or California, they were regarded as somewhat backwater provinces far from the seat of government in Mexico City. Most historians regard Spanish treatment of the native tribes to be the worst among the European powers that came to North America, and worse than the Americans. As mentioned, Spain and Mexico had little control over the powerful warrior tribes. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Apache and Comanche raids became so severe that large parts of northern Mexico became almost depopulated. My point is, Mexicos supposed claim to a huge part of the US has no validity.

Well...I think trying to debate who was more brutal (the Spanish or the Anglo Americans) is relatively pointless. A bit like trying to say which was more evil: slavery or the holocaust. I'll call it a tie.

True, the current day southwest was very thinly populated first by the Spaniards and then the Mexicans. By the same token, the state of Montana is quite thinly populated...yet it is part of the United States.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo may well be in full effect....but that does NOT negate the fact that the Southwest/Calif. was MEXICAN LAND. And it was stolen in a very unjust war as President U.S. Grant noted in his memoir (see prior post):

"...the most unjust war waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation...."