Comments by "Kat 1515" (@Kat-fq4ei) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
2
-
Right you are. You won't tell a Navajo, Apache, Comanche, Pueblo, Ute, Shasta, Mohave and a host of northern tribes that they are Mexican. They inherently know their indigenous lands. Take the Pueblo in 1680 Pueblo Revolt who chased the Spanish 300 miles to the south, satisfied the Spanish were exiled from their lands. And the angered Comanche, Yaqui and Apache who battled with Mexicans never to acknowledge Mexico after Spain abdicated in 1824. The Apache never could understand why the United States paid Mexico for lands they inherently knew were not Mexican. Mexicans officials after Mexican Independence were the new kid in town, strangers, and were not welcome, either by the Indians or Spanish colonist's in California, New Mexico, Texas. Arizona which was part of NM was not colonized by Spain. Mexican immigrants began migration to border areas after the Mexican War and established Mexican towns simultaneously with Anglo Americans pretty much after the wilderness areas were safer and unconquered US Indians were at peace and placed in reservations.
As is said in the north, el agua es la vida. The Rio Grand tributaries never flowed into Aztec territories and barely touched Chihuahua. Ancient man knew their water source as water is the life force. The northern Rio waters did not sustain the Aztec, or the bulk of Mexico, a great point which is overlooked.
Land in the 1500s was not purchased or stolen. Indians did not have land ownership concept. They learned this from the European. By mid 1700s, the NM Pueblo Indians were legally selling their lands to Spanish colonists and later US courts legally sorted out the issue. The Aztec territories were conquered by Spain in a bloody battle, in the same manner that the United States conquered what became Mexico in 1824. Why conflate Spain and Mexico; different era, different goverenment, different politics, different flag. In fact, Mexico does not recognize Indian lands, Spain did.
2
-
Your history is full if holes, unsubstantiated starting with Santa Ana signing over the SW. The Treaty of Hidalgo was NOT signed by Santa Ana, which is the treaty signed by Mexican and US government officials towards agreed negotiations between Mexico and the US 1848. The US/Mexican War was an all out war started by the young Republic of Mexico on disputed Texas land. Not only did the USA conquer Mexico, flying the US flag over Mexico City , USA army officials occupied Mexicos government buildings and the USA was in position to take All of Mexico. That's what CONQUEST is, control. Winner takes the spoils, its written into mans DNA since time began... Mexico's government and people knew they lost the war plus quasi northern lands recently claimed Mexico 1821, losing those unincorporated northern lands, 25 years later 1848 upon US defeat. Mexico was unable to control the SW....Stolen is imaginary wishful thinking full of excuses. Be it for the H G Treaty half the land, it's heart and core was returned to Mexico, plus 15 million dollars. Later Mexico under the Gadsden Purchase sold more land for another 10 million in dollars, total of 25 million dollars. So Mexico made out royally on real estate for lands that had belonged to Spain for 300 years and Johnnie come late Mexico quasi claimed for barely 25 years, 15 for Texas. There were no Mexican armies to battle the USA army in today's SW and CA during the War, simply because Mexicans 1821 had no need for the very distant isolated wilderness north or its thousands of dangerous unconquered Indians such as Apache, Navajo, etc who never acknowledged Mexico or identified to date as Mexican, scratching there heads over the USA paying millions for lands indigenous to northern indians who inherently knew were not Mexico...Mexicans migrated north to border areas after the Mexican War after the United States army quelled and placed Indians in reservations no longer threatening the lives of anyone not of their tribe. Also you are conflating Mexicans from Chihuahua and to its south, who were not inclusive of descendants of SW Spanish settlers , not necessarily patriotic to Mexican independence, seeking independence from Mexico, many SW and CA were loyalists to Spain. They were forced Mexican citizenship to later become become US Americans. These were not immigrant Mexicans and had been in today's SW for centuries before there was a ever a Mexico. Villa and Zappata were never part of the SW Spanish Colonial settlers, total foreigners up north.
Why would Mexicos government want to war with the USAs hand that has fed Mexicos mouth since Pancho Villas Mexican Revolution 1910, Mexicans fleeing north for their livelihood to the US and been sending money to Mexico for a hundred years. Villa is Mexicos hero, lol and your mixed up story, a hodge-podge combining events of independent Texas Republic won after defeating Santa Ana in battle of San Jacinto 1836 and 10 years later the Mexican War1846, two totally different events, shows you haven't a clue on the real history ... besides CA, NM/AZ and TX were not historically Mexico which Mexico claimed in 1821. The SW and California had been undisturbed for centuries and centuries, uninhabitable lands, until Spain claimed and sparsely populated with Spanish settlements to ward off French intrusion into New Spain territories the farthest north of Spains military posts. It was not until the United States came west and won the War, those desert wilderness territories then became attractive to Mexicans, who look only north, because of the US economy and non dictorial government. Mexicans never look south, parts of Central America also who didn't want Mexican citizenship, gaining independence from Mexico. Your version of SW history is upside down and inside out... And many Mexicans don't agree with you. Furthermore, Spain recognizes the SW as United States American. Learn your history before you open your mouth...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Caseylawton New Spain was comprised of different lands after several decades by separate explorations by Spain, which it claimed as it's territories over about 40 years, conquering many non Aztec tribes along the way. During the 16th C, Tenochitlan was mexica aztec district, renamed Mexico City by Spain after the mexica. The Spanish also referred to it as valley of Mexico as there were tribes other than the Aztec throughout the territories, valley of Mexico was a separate aztec mexica region. So Mexico City was in the Kingdom of Mexico territory. By the late 18th century this territory was commonly referred to as Mexico, it was the seat of the Spanish viceroy and capital of New Spain, while other territories were referred to by localities as Nueva Viscaya, Kingdom of Nuevo Leon, Nueva Navarra, Nueva Estramadera, Kingdom of New Mexico, California, Texas etc. So upon commercial trade between territories, folks made reference to the territory they were trading with. If it was official New Spain central goverenment business it was many times referred to as Mexico (Kingdom of Mexico territory). You need to go back in time to grasp the situation of that time. If historians and writers referred to New Spain instead of Mexico folks would have more clarity and better understand the history. As some are led to believe, today's Mexico was never one united nation called (Aztec) Mexico just as the continent was not called America. After certain New Spain territories gained independence from Spain, they became Estados Unidos Mexicanos after 300 years. The Republic of Mexico became a nation comprised of descendants of many of New Spain's territories many tribes to become Mexican citizens. Thought there were problems with the distant isolated outer edge wilderness SW/CA territories and Central America who were disconnected from the young republics politics, history and culture and were able to break away from Mexico after a brief time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clairematthews5797 Manuel Martinez daughter Cleofas Jaramillo, wrote her memorares, Romance of a Village Girl. Growing up in Arroya Hondo, she makes mention of her father and is critical of T Catron on the loss of the land grant. It's been years since I've read the book. But later came to read an excerpt by her brother, can't recall the source. He stated he did not know why Cleofas was so critical of Catron, stating that her father, Manuel was in kahoots on the sale of the grant. This is the extent of my knowledge on Martinez. I never could relate to Lopez Tejerina, a Texan and northern NM estranjero, intrusion on NM land grants. Was aware it was a historically later huge Mexican grant as well as the Maxwell grant. I believe the Mexican Period, corrupt Gov. Armijo, a Mexican Patriot was involved in the land grant distribution. I appreciate your pointing out Tijerinas involvement in Mexican Chicano Studies and revision history teachings on stolen lands, interesting. It all fits in. Northern NMs need to learn our history so they are not taken in by immigrant Chicano mentality.
2
-
@clairematthews5797 As much as the Mexican influx in northern NM, starting at the end of the 20th C and influence of the Chicano movement, older folks and even some younger still maintain the Spanish history, culture and influence of yesteryear. In a sense the unique culture is withering with the younger generations only concept of identity is "Hispanic" but an older generation still hanging on not knowing the history and some falling victim to Chicano Studies influence and falling into the Chicano mentality not realizing it's Mexican roots--if they only knew... There was a Texan Chicano that joined our large email group and dropped out because he could not relate to the northern NM culture, northern NMs do not have an Indian or mestizo mentality. I don't recall the source, reading quite a while back that when LULAC (Mexican California immigrant organization) came to NM decades ago, the organization could not relate to NM and left. The Spanish American had political power, which was carried on from the centuries ago in the northern homeland, toiled by our ancestors for survival in an isolated harsh land. The Spanish American were not outsiders, many had businesses, lands and goverenment jobs. the Spanish American were the community, the Anglo American was the outsider. Today LULAC has issues with northern NM culture and sides with Chicano Studies propoganda. The problem is that largely, northern NMs do not have an understanding of it's history and now Chicanoism has acquired a hold on the northern culture because people don't understand that Chicanoism is based on Mexican immigrant politics and they have fallen into the trap. Educators need to step up and educate our traditional American Spanish youth as the Native Indians are doing. In fact, the people identified as Spanish until the about 2000 when Richardson, a Mexican Amrrican Hispanic became governor of NM and the Hispanic term was popularized. As you and I are aware, just because one is Hispanic (a United States Censes Bureau 1960s classification) doesn't mean we have the same history, homeland, culture or traditions or that all are immigrants. I have been learning NM history for about 20 years and sort of put pieces together. One book that was an eye opener because SW historians do not write about, I believe the title is Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Mexican culture arrival and influence in the border areas about 1880, 200 miles away from Spanish Colonial NM, 250 years earlier. I had a coworker interested in history and related the diverse cultures to her and she snapped. As a state employee she could now relate to how Socorro NM was the point where there was a split in culturel differences. History talks. In fact, the NM Indians, especially the Pueblo still call us the Spanish, we are a part of their history and deeply ingrained in their psyche. New Mexico was never a mestizo culture or people. Because the Pueblo Indian and Spanish lived apart, each preserved their language, religion and culture yet were united as allies against the raiding Indians. . Never merging to a mestizo culture as in Latin America.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
California was explored and claimed by Spain. The name "California" had its origin in Spain and early California settlements were named under Spain by explorers or Spanish colonizers decades before Mexican independence and Mexican migration to California after the War. Same with towns in Florida, Texas, New Mexico. Towns were European influenced by Spain. The Mexican War had nothing to do with Spain. The War was between Mexico and the United States. Those Spanish named towns in California , in Polks day, had been named decades before the Mexican War under Spain. Character has nothing to do with war and conquest, which had been the way of the world since the beginning of time. Mexico lost the War, the United States had plenty of character in returning half of Mexico, a new nation that was barely surviving; plus 15 million dollars and another 10 million under the Gadsden Purchase under treaties, . Mexico never had the character, power, influence or finances as Spain of which parts of New Spain went into battles (central Mexico today) and political upheavals to gain independence and become Mexico. Mexico's ineffective government is what brought your family and millions of Mexicans to the United States. California has as many English named cities and towns as there are Spanish and both have left their mark as well as the Mexican and Chinese.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@robertleon4323 Centuries, Nonesense. There was no "Mexico" until 200 years ago. 200 years is not even close to one century... There wasn't even a Mexico City until 1529, Mexico City named by Spain, controlled by Spain for 300 years, not even close to one century. Spain was a world empire ruled by a monarch. Spain also ruled New Spain which was many Territories far and wide from north west Pacific Coast , California to Florida, Cuba, today's Mexico, Central America, Cuba, Caribbeans, Phillipines plus. Mexico was a Johnnie come late 1824 , from Central America to today's SW, by Mexico's imperialist claim. Short lived as Mexicos land was reduced to half after the USA whipped them...
2
-
@destinypereira587 They have no ancestral roots in the SW or CA. They are immigrants and make a mountain of a molehill over a few, literally a few, blink of the eye, years. SW, a very remote uninhabitable desert was always difficult to colonize during the Spanish Colonial Period. Spain even brought colonists from the Canary Islands. Same problem during the brief SW Mexican Period , the Mexican government offered Mexican soldiers Mexican land grants to encourage Mexican settlers. Mexicans were met with resistance and bitterly were attacked by northern unconquered tribes. Mexicans, not to be conflated with the Spanish colonists, wanted nothing north until US westward movement and Indians were subjugated by US Americans 1880s, since then look only north.
Mexicans wanted America as an escape, and today that progressive USA dollars made SW what it is. Plus a US government for the people. Had there been no USA, the SW would still be a wilderness out in the middle of nowhere desert as it had been for centuries before European intrusion and not a place for Mexicans. Or worse yet, SW would be a corrupt, cartel run, impoverished who knows what dump, with its citizens escaping to who knows where. Hypocrites, they covet the neighbors northern lands. Use 15 -24 years as an excuse and never claim Central America which parts of had been briefly claimed by Mexico. "Our lands" is nothing but revision history propaganda by those who have no clue on SW History. And don't have a leg to stand on when their excuses and flimsy stories are challenged.
2
-
@destinypereira587 Not so. New Spain was many Territories, from California coast all the way to Florida coast. Northwest Pacific Coast to Canada, Cuba, today's Mexico, Central America, Caribbeans, Philippines. All claimed by Spains Spaniards upon explorations by land and sea, takings decades. Goggle a New Spain Territories 1700s map. No way most of these Territories were Mexico. In real history, part of New Spain became Mexico 1824. There's a difference between Mexico and Mexico City. Spains king ruled New Spain from Mexico City by Spains viceroy for typically 300 years, as some Territories had broken from Spain by Treaty before Mexican independence. Some New Spain Territories broke away from Spain later, as Cuba. The Republic of Mexico was created from Spains European influence, a different era, different government structure as a republic, breaking away a monarch ruled Spain. Similar to the 13 New England Colonies became USA. Both battled the motherland and neither were controlled by Europe after independence. Same with Texas Republic, not under Mexico after independence. The indigenous territories to become Mexico were not stolen, they were conquered , financed, and controlled by Spain until 1821. The way the world works for centuries is typically invasion, war, conquest, winner takes spoils. Same way the tribes got lands before European invasion. With Europe, it was just different tribes with ships, horses, guns...
2
-
No, Spain subjugated the Indians in lands today Mexico which was part of Spains Empire, New Spain for 300 years. There was no Mexico until independence 1821, same as there was no USA until 1776. Both new nations
founded from the motherlands, Great Britain and Spain after gaining independence. Both had been New England Colonies and New Spain Territories before independence. The Republic of Mexico was conquered by the USA after 25 years as a nation. What is today Mexico is lands returned to Mexico by the USA after victory. The USA flew its flag over Mexico 1848 and occupied it, gaining control over Mexico. Negotiations between both nations under the GH Treaty returned half of Mexicos land, plus 15 million dollars. A following Treaty. Gadson Purchase, another 10 million dollars. Mexicans as well as Americans are fully aware of the conquest but some are anti American, or white hate white, history revionists twisted to stolen lands total indoctrination by woke left wing liberals wanting to destroy the USA because of its flawed history. All nations are flawed, UsA is no exception, Mexico lost the War.
Mexican is not a race, it's a citizenship from today's Mexico comprised of many ethnicities just as USA citizens....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2