Comments by "Sea to Shining Sea12 Sea12" (@SeatoShiningSeaSea) on "Johnny Harris" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23.  @edmundoespinosa6974  Wrong....Mexicans migrated to the United States after the Mexican American War about 1880 establishing Mexican settlement towns along the historically unpopulated (except for raiding Indians) border wilderness areas, thousands of acres, after the United States quelled the raiding Indians.... . In fact Americans settled in California and New Mexico in 1821, before Mexicans; and the Mexican Constitution provided land grants to American settlers in Texas relying on Americans to serve as a buffer against the Comanche in unpopulated and barren Texas. In truth all Europeans were intruders, the blood was mixed and indigenous Indians are true heirs. In the SW it would be the Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Yaqui, Mohave, Shasta, Piute, Cherokee, Choctaw, Caddo, Pueblo, Ute plus a host of other United States tribes. Mexicans are citizens of Mexico since 1824 under it's constitution of Estados Unidos Mexicano's creating it's independent nation and flag. Lost the Mexican War to the United States, loosing part of it's territory in the distant, isolated quasi lands SW which Mexico had only claimed after independence for only 25 years, the SW Mexican Period. During which foreign Mexican government officials came north, were considered strangers in the very distant SW and faced opposition by both the Spanish Colonists and SW Indians who bitterly hated Mexico and its new trespassers into tribal northern lands. My comment of a few hours ago was deleted making the point that Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Pueblo were enemies to one another, much moreso to the Indians from far off distant south. 500 years of European colonization has mixed the indigenous blood in America with Spanish, as well as English and French blood. Mestizo for the Spanish, Metis for the English and French. So the flimsy justification that mixed blood Mexicans are true heirs to the SW is rubbish. The gringo mated with the Spanish and Indian decades before the American Territorial Period in the SW and even prior to Mexican SW intrusion after independence from Spain. The SW indigeniuos Indians never acknowledged Mexico, in fact the SW Spanish colonists refused to ally with the outsider Mexican army to fight the Comanche who fiercely attacked Chihuahua leaving it trembling and in shreds. United States Indian tribes claim their lands as sovereign. Mexican indians indigeniuos to what is today Mexico, have every right to claim their lands stolen by the Mexican government as soverign as they are the actual heirs of those lands, go for it... and leave out the SW, whose Indians, geography, history, culture, politics - Spanish colonial era was far remote from Mexico. in fact, the SW took no part in Mexican Independence from Spain. Heirs would be only those of full blooded Indian blood, but heirs is bygone. After 500 years of historical events, the Amerindian is Europeanized, many of mixed blood since European colonization, and would be lost without the contributions the European brought. Let's quit with the hypocracy, the SW tribes get outrageous amounts of federal funding annually, reparations, federal protection under the courts and Pueblo Indians were able to keep their land grants issued to them under Spains laws in the 18th C, recognized by United States Indian laws, oh and the higher- ups are prominent Americans today thanks to the power and money Uncle Sam has provided them...
    1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32.  @Chasstful  Back in the 1500s, an era of European exploration into the new found continent, and territorial claims, legalities, were not considered. The 1600s/1700s SW was basically northern outpost Spanish colonization was to fend off the French and Russians. This was European colonization during the earliest of days in what is today the United States, out in an isolated and very distant New Spain wilderness, difficult to recruit settlers in a harsh environment with raiding Indians constant attacks. Spain put little finances or interest in the SW outposts. And had given up Florida and Louisiana to the United States by 1800. Loosing it's world power and riches, had permitted American settlers in Texas. Likely would have sold the SW as it had claimed too much territory too the north unable to manage with thousands of unconquered Indians. By this time the United States was a young nation, heading west and in close proximity to the SW. Spain had helped the United States during the American Revolution with finances and Spanish troops from Cuba and colonized California to keep out the Russians, preventing Russian claims in the west. Yes, Spain established a political and economic infrastructure out in the isolated wilderness of New Spain. The SW Palace of the Governor in Santa Fe is the oldest capital building in the United States. And created a local economic system as well in a very distant and isolated part of New Spain lasting 250 years. The colonies in San Antonio and California had political systems as well. These populations were another world from those territories in the Mexico City areas, were not involved in the political dynamics between New Spain and Spain and did not participate in Mexican independence. They were far removed, different geography, culture, history, politics, and Indian tribes. And only considered themselves Mexican after independence by mandate. The Treaty of G Hidalgo followed the SW history and did not remove it's centuries Spanish population from the homeland, instead they became United States citizens.
    1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1