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.
I am unimpressed with the Mexican claim to the lands which were lost to the US in the Mexican War. It was a claim inherited from their former Spanish rulers, and while Spain did not do very much at all to develop and populate these territories, Mexico did even less.
Mexico was a sitting duck and largely ungovernable going into the 1840s. The Texas revolution peeled off a large chunk and there were four or five other independence movements. Yucatan separated from Mexico for a couple years and the territory just south of Texas tried to secede and establish it's independence. Colonial powers in Europe were watching closely. Russia was still hanging around northern California as late as 1840. In the 1850s there were a number of American and French Filibustera attempts to carve off chunks of Mexico. France ultimately tried to take over the whole country a few years later. Mexico's government seemed hell-bent to administer the country directly from Mexico City which wasn't working. Mexico became more manageable as a nation after the Mexican-American War and didn't fragment into several smaller countries the way Gran Colombia did.
Mexico will end up recovering their country, a similar process occurred in Middle East, Africa and India.
After that, will Spain recover Mexico..."their land" as you put it? And following that will the Comanches and other native tribes recover it from Spain?
Why is it Mexico's land rather than any other group which has possessed it?
Because after 300 years of colonization, a three-culture republic was formed with a very strong identitity than owns those territories. The same happened in Algeria, Morroco, etc. Countries were invaded when they had not a strong identity, and invaders only served to create a stronger identity.
Because after 300 years of colonization, a three-culture republic was formed with a very strong identitity than owns those territories. The same happened in Algeria, Morroco, etc. Countries were invaded when they had not a strong identity, and invaders only served to create a stronger identity.
You are living in some sort of fantasy illusion. 300 years of colonization brought a caste system to "New Spain". It didn't bring a strong identity, it brought just the opposite - a divided identity and a suppressed culture as the peoples started to intermix - with "Criollos" (white Spanish European's) on the top of the food chain, and Mistizos and Mullatos on the bottom. And then freed slaves almost as the "untouchable" class. The ingenous people, the Indians, we assimilated or killed off.
What you are talking about is from only the last 100 years or so.
All that talk about the Aztecs would make Cortez laugh - he didn't have much trouble enlisting the help of oppressed indigenous tribes to conquer Tenochtitlan.
I seem to recall 300 years later Zacatecas didn't have much love for the dictator Santa Anna either.
Not to mention the Tejanos who joined their gringo neighbors in throwing off the yoke of the so-called "Napoleon of the West".
So what, the US was even worse as was sustained by slavery - which was illegal in Mexico.
All of the America's - South, Central, and North America - were sustained by slavery in the 15th to the 19th century. Mexico outlawed slavery only a few decades before the Southern United States did and actually AFTER the northern US states did.
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.