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.
Why do Spanish people think that all of North and South America belongs to them anyway? They took most of the continent at one point. Is the rest of Latin America not enough? Is Mexico not big enough as it is?
Why are people defending Spain and Mexico? Just about every other country in this hemisphere is Spanish-Speaking/Latin American. Is that not enough? Why do they deserve the American south west as well - which was land that they weren't doing anything with.
Why are people defending Spain and Mexico? Just about every other country in this hemisphere is Spanish-Speaking/Latin American. Is that not enough? Why do they deserve the American south west as well - which was land that they weren't doing anything with.
The Spanish pattern of settling new lands & peoples was centralized. The emphasis was always on utility to the crown & church back in Spain. Therefore, trade had to benefit Spain, & had to be routed on imperial routes to Spain first.
The current US Southwest was the outlands to the capital in Mexico City - & the elites & hangers on tended to cluster in the big cities. No one wanted to go & serve years in the outback - with hardly any return or reward. & so the Spanish & then Mexican northlands tended to be orphans - receiving few colonists; military nor religious attention.
The silver & gold in the New World was in Mexico & Peru, as I recall. As precious metals were money in & of themselves, they got much more Imperial attention than colonies & farms & crops as such. It was a short-sighted policy, but it had worked up to that point.
I agree but the U.S. is not the only imperialist country.
It's extremely likely that ancient history worldwide in regions of Asia, Russia, and Europe, there's been forced territory changes. Territories are simply taken over by a more sophisticated & powerful society.
Right now, that is China and Hong Kong and now Taiwan.
There is no solution for the US to right a wrong committed 400+ years ago. A generation ago, yes, but several generations back has come and gone. with reparations would mean factoring in the rate of inflation and the US treasury could never pay that amount out. Native indians, blacks, and mexicans would deserve reparations.
Let's see if I can count the misstatements:
Peoples Republic of China is not "taking over" Hong Kong. It's already part of China (more like China is flexing greater internal control).
Peoples Republic of China is not "taking over" Taiwan. Taiwan operates as an independently nation of PRC, although the international status is ambiguous.
Although subject to debate, the U.S. was a minor player in the act of "imperialism" compared to the European players in the 19th century - i.e. England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. The U.S. actually came very late to the game. A better description might be "neocolonialism", or the act of creating a global hegemony.
The US was not a country 400 years ago. If my history serves me, I think you are about 150 years too early.
This topic has gone on and on and I think I said my peace in a number of earlier posts in this thread. But the entire premise is silly as it suggest mexican's owned the land....that they stole from other independent countries that sprung up after the colonial revolutions, that the revolutions stole from Spain, that Spain stole from the Indians, that Indians stole from other Indians through history, who were not native to the land in any event, coming over the land bridge from Asia. I guess we can give reparations to the dinosaurs.
By the way Mexico - we have Santa Anna's wooden leg still. You won't get that back either.
Peoples Republic of China is not "taking over" Hong Kong. It's already part of China (more like China is flexing greater internal control).
Peoples Republic of China is not "taking over" Taiwan. Taiwan operates as an independently nation of PRC, although the international status is ambiguous.
Although subject to debate, the U.S. was a minor player in the act of "imperialism" compared to the European players in the 19th century - i.e. England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. The U.S. actually came very late to the game. A better description might be "neocolonialism", or the act of creating a global hegemony.
The US was not a country 400 years ago. If my history serves me, I think you are about 150 years too early.
This topic has gone on and on and I think I said my peace in a number of earlier posts in this thread. But the entire premise is silly as it suggest mexican's owned the land....that they stole from other independent countries that sprung up after the colonial revolutions, that the revolutions stole from Spain, that Spain stole from the Indians, that Indians stole from other Indians through history, who were not native to the land in any event, coming over the land bridge from Asia. I guess we can give reparations to the dinosaurs.
By the way Mexico - we have Santa Anna's wooden leg still. You won't get that back either.
The dinosaurs also stole land that was once occupied by creatures that lived during the Carboniferous and Permian period
Mexicans wouldn't deserve anything. The U.S has no debt to pay to Mexico.
The Mexican War is problematic for a lot of reasons. The fact remains that the area was almost uninhabited under Spanish rule and after 1824 Mexican rule. They didn't do anything with the land and as unused territory it defaulted to the inhabitants, to wit, Americans.
The Mexican War is problematic for a lot of reasons. The fact remains that the area was almost uninhabited under Spanish rule and after 1824 Mexican rule. They didn't do anything with the land and as unused territory it defaulted to the inhabitants, to wit, Americans.
That's an old argument meant to justify US expansion and the way the US got a foothold there. Anyone with a very balanced view can see a density map of the USA and notice that most of the land that was part of Mexico (and before that part of Spain) continue to be virgin. In fact, its one of the least inhabited and has a much lower population density than any other region of the USA minus perhaps Alaska. With the exception of California, and there its mainly along the coast, wide stretches that are heavily populated or have a medium to high population density is virtually non-existent. Compare that to the eastern half of the USA where population density skyrockets compared to the west. A simple drive from urban areas relatively quickly reverts to wilderness without a sight of civilization seen for miles on one side of the road and on the other. Try doing that in southern New England where being in the middle of nowhere for as long as is normal in the west is virtually impossible because very soon the house of somebody pops up or you are never too faraway (they could be very near but blocked by the trees between the road and the house, but many places in the west has scrubs and bushes for long distances on all sides and that type of "hiding" is basically impossible).
There's nothing problematic about "The Mexican War" (other than it was a war, but this issue pertains to all wars), IMO. Most of the major cities on the west and surrounding suburbs/area, not to mention states as well, still have their names in Spanish (the amount of places in California named after saints is mindboggling). Coincidence? I mean, that shouldn't be the case if Americans kept the names that were given to these places by the Spanish since, according to some, "the area was almost uninhabited under Spanish rule and after 1824 Mexican rule".
Mexico wasn't interested? What? When countries are not interested on any part of their territory, the encroaching country is able to take it without a fight. For example, the USA paid Spain for Florida and Spain agreed. Not a drop of blood was shed because there was never a war regarding USA taking Florida. When the Americans wanted Alaska, they managed to buy it from Russia and no blood was spilled by either party. France was too eager to get rid of Louisiana, which used to go as north as the Midwest. With money in tow, the USA doubled its territory overnight and no blood was spilled again.
The USA was forced to fight the Mexicans for their land, hence the Mexican-American War. The Americans were forced to invade as far south as Mexico City and forced the Mexican government to give up. Had it not been for that, chances are high they would had never given up until the USA ended hostilities and northern Mexico would continue to be northern Mexico. Had the Mexicans been the victors, would the USA be able to create the west from Mexican land? We're talking of a third of a country here, not some small part by anyone's imagination. I think we know the answer to that.
The Mexicans had deaths of about 25,000 people in defending the integrity of its territory. That doesn't sound like a few people if in fact Mexico had no interest in protecting its land. The first Mexican that died in the Mexican-American War was one too many, if we are to assume Mexico had no interest. Plus, and I'll repeat it, the Americans were forced to invade Mexico City in order to make Mexico give up. It doesn't sound like a lack of interest.
Mexico wasn't interested? What? When countries are not interested on any part of their territory, the encroaching country is able to take it without a fight. For example, the USA paid Spain for Florida and Spain agreed. Not a drop of blood was shed because there was never a war regarding USA taking Florida. When the Americans wanted Alaska, they managed to buy it from Russia and no blood was spilled by either party. France was too eager to get rid of Louisiana, which used to go as north as the Midwest. With money in tow, the USA doubled its territory overnight and no blood was spilled again.
The USA was forced to fight the Mexicans for their land, hence the Mexican-American War. The Americans were forced to invade as far south as Mexico City and forced the Mexican government to give up. Had it not been for that, chances are high they would had never given up until the USA ended hostilities and northern Mexico would continue to be northern Mexico. Had the Mexicans been the victors, would the USA be able to create the west from Mexican land? We're talking of a third of a country here, not some small part by anyone's imagination. I think we know the answer to that.
The Mexicans had deaths of about 25,000 people in defending the integrity of its territory. That doesn't sound like a few people if in fact Mexico had no interest in protecting its land. The first Mexican that died in the Mexican-American War was one too many, if we are to assume Mexico had no interest. Plus, and I'll repeat it, the Americans were forced to invade Mexico City in order to make Mexico give up. It doesn't sound like a lack of interest.
I think the point he was trying to make is they could not, and were not, successfully governing such far flung places from Mexico City. They couldn't manage the Indians that were constantly raiding, they couldn't manage the locals who were assuming their own identities and culture, they couldn't manage the Yankees who were moving in. Texas had already achieved independence and California was on the verge of. In fact, after the Spanish Revolution and an unstable government pretty much the entire area of what is now Mexico broke up into separate republics. That it held together as a country at all is thanks (if you call it that) to the brutality of Santa Anna who would march his forces all over putting down rebellions by massacring entire renegade towns.
That Mexico still controls the Yucatan within it's borders for instance is nothing short of a miracle.
The war was unfortunate primarily because it was so unnecessary - it was a matter of time before these provinces would be lost to Mexico regardless.
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.
History
