Comments by "red. river65" (@red.river6575) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
353
-
@Dhksksjjsjjs Why would people from what is today Mexico want to be in what is today the United States want to in the US today. Had colonization not happened there would have been the Apache, Navajo, Yaqui, Comanch, Ute and a host of Indians from California to Florida to contend with. Indians were warriors , hated each other and if the northern tribes fought amongst each other, killing, slaving, and taking away resources they sure as heck would fight off those from the very distant south. The Comanche tore Chihuahua to pieces once upon a time... And Mexico after independence never conquered the SW Indians. In fact the SW Indians never did accept Mexico in their lands... Utopia, it's all in the mind so dream on... Conquest happens and life goes on. And it's past time Mexicans start making a better nation for their people instead of looking north. Show the United States you can do it instead of crying over conquest.. Mexico claimed the SW for only 25 years, big deal. If Spain had not abdicated the SW, Mexico would never have claimed the territories. Give Mexico an inch on SW history and they take a mile. But it's not Mexico, it's some Mexican factions that make all the senseless noise..
75
-
35
-
24
-
9
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@13treces blah, blah, blah. My response was much more intelligent than yours "dump as your brain you mean?" However my comment did not deminish any one. My comment just supported what Anonymous Duck commented on, who is right on; Mexico was conquered, the United States apologizes for nothing, and the area (CA, NM, TX) be a complete dump if still part of Mexico. That's history as it happened. A banana republic is what it would be , just like Mexico, had the United States not conquered the entirety of Mexico, given land back to Mexico, payed Mexico $15,000,000 for annexed land. All negotiated under a Treaty.
3
-
@13treces I'm not getting into the BR political science here, but BR has bee applied to all of Latin America for impoverished countries with exploitive goverenment functioning poorly for it's citizens while benefiting powers that be, even though it's origins were applied to exploitation of bananas and such by other countries. I'm no expert, but I'm neither illiterate or am I ignorant of SW history. Or am I trying to compensate by discrediting others as the subject was not individuals but a country, which as Trump says, sends us it's worst. Believe me, I wish for Mexico to develop it's citizens for a better life, after all were are living beings with needs in this world. And am aware and satisfied that Mexico has come a long way as I hold nothing against Mexicans and have good Mexican immigrant friends. Except for those who corruptly abuse our borders, fraudulently use our US system, parents who abuse their children, putting them in the hands of smugglers with no guarantees for their lives. If I offended you, sorry about that, we after all do live in an angry world because of corrupt goverenments, the USA included.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billdipperly1573 you must be a liberal snow flake. Stolen lands is just to get attention for established norm of conquest to try to justify oppression through loss of land. Nothing more than history revsion indoctrination. Mexico knew what it was getting into, fought the fight, executed Americans as was standard back in the day, the war in their home court and outnumbered the Americans. Mexico is a western nation established itself as such -polically, independence, it's constitution, it's name, Estados Unidos Mexicanos. It accepted western norms - war, conquest, a Treaty, peace, land purchase, change of borders. It's is Mexican factions such as Chicano movements, not Mexico, promoting hate and stolen lands.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's almost impossible to understand Mexico and U.S. SW history without a good understanding that what is today Mexico since 1824 was territories claimed by Spain, to become part of New Spain. New Spain was many territories claimed in the continent early in the 1500s starting with Vera Cruz moving into Tenichitlan, renamed Mexico City by Spain, named after the Mexica Aztec whose territory was limited to the valley of Mexico (or Aztec) in the Mexico City area. Spains exploration and territorial claims took about 50 years by the time Spain opened the way to the very distant north reaching California and tierras nuevas or new lands of New Mexico/ Arizona, Texas by approx. 1550. Simultaneously the same was occurring in Florida and the Mississippi areas, more territories for New Spain. The population in New Spain, both Spanish and Indian identified the areas by location which had either Spanish or Indigeniuos names as there was no Mexico or Mexican until 300 years after Spains arrival on the American continent. Maps of New Spain prior to 1821 do not chart a nation of Mexico. The maps chart separate New Spain territories. During this era "Mexico" can take no credit for any borders because it did not exist. The political climate was Spains goverenment and rule. Mexico City was prominent because of Spains viceroy governing for the European King from this particular territory, ruling all of New Spain -- California to Florida, Cuba, Central America, today's Mexico, Caribbeans, Philippines plus more. Historians and writters confuse history by referring to New Spain as Mexico, leaving the impression that Mexico is an ancient nation, when in fact, the mestizo nation of 1824, adopted the name Mexico from the Spanish who had 300 years earlier named the city for the Mexica. Mexico is many indigeniuos tribes, not only Aztec. The United States created the first nation in America in 1776, followed by Latin America and Canada's creating their own nations after independence from the motherland. Until folks understand this, they will continue to assume instead of understand the making of American continent. America was vast lands to become territories by the European claimant, be it Spain, France, or Great Britain who were wary of the other protecting their claims.
2
-
Gerri577 If you're referring to those Mexican American Chicano Study professors, they are not scholars and are one of the Mexican factions pushing stolen lands. Facts are that all the north American continent was different nomadic Native American enemy tribes and were where they happened to be when the European found them. The lands were defined as territories by Europeans and each European country who were the first to explore the territory claimed it for their European country as historical events went along -- discovery, claims, wars, land disputes, treaties, purchases, border changes, independence, more claims, nationalism, more wars, conquest, negotiations, more border changes; regardless of which side of the border your historical preference is, it's basically the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Similar situations in New Mexico and California, except that Americans were not provided land grants as in Texas by the young Mexican gov of 1824. During the Spanish Colonial Period all of these territories were inclusive of Spanish land grants by colonization and later American Anglo settled in NM and CA before Mexican independence followed by Republic of Mexico officials heading north to claim the territories, removing Spains flag, replaced by the Mexican flag. These territories did not fight for Mexican independence or were involved in the political theater between New Spain and Spain. After independence, all settlers, Spanish and Anglo were mandated Mexican citizenship--Mexicans . The Indian tribes to these lands inherently knew they were not Mexican, knowing their lands were not Mexico. History, clearly recorded the volumns of Spanish Period approx 250 years, documented by the Spanish government; Mexican and American gov and historians recorded the Mexican Period of 25 years and the US Territorial Period during which all citizens became American. Interesting neither the Spanish or Indian are Mexican American as they never came from Mexico, they had been in the SW before Mexico ever existed, as CA and SW predate Mexico. Immigrant Mexican American Chicano Studies and Marxist agendas promote history revision.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erasmorosiles8912 I'm American and not rich, neither was my family or most other U.S. citizens. If my government got rich, it's to your advantage, thats why you're in the United States instead of Mexico. The proof, you never head south of the Mexican border, because Central America is poorer than you, part of that was your land, but you don't need it.. Living conditions may have been better for United States 1776 citizens because of the establishment of new type of government "for the people". There were no Americans until the continent was named America by Europeans, so native Indians were never American until the European came and Indian's were never one people, never united under one goverenment... America is rich because Americans made it rich, so you are shamlessly taking advantage of anothers efforts to make a great nation of the land you abuse and your ancestors had no need for during the brief 25 years they claimed it. Otherwise it would still be stone age territories. What war are you winning... In a war there is effort.. You are in the United States because the US government let you in along with Asians, people from the Middle East, Africans, Latin Americans, Canadians, and everywhere else, most illegally the last twenty year's. And you are subject to deportation and would still be in Mexico if not for U.S. politics. Amerindians are American like anyone from the continent; and Indians are not native, you also came from another continent. You're foreign to the United States as you are not US indigenous as Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Ute, Yaqui, Pueblo, Shasta, Mohave, and on and on; hundreds of northern Indian tribes from the United States. You're an outsider. And I'm not interested in those radical Marxist ideas they put into your heads. Bye...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ranger0209 That was certainly an injustce by the United States and as you recognize, Mexico. I have not read up on much on these folks, but I believe they were from Canary Islands and Nacogdoches TX, Spain brought these settlers to San Antonio to colonize in the 17th C, by 18th C San Antonio had a Spanish Colonial history in TX. And these most likely had Spanish land grants. These were a separate people from the Mexicans who migrated to border areas after the War, closer to 1880. The former became Mexican citizens 1824, by mandate, after Mexico claimed Texas. Mexico as a young nation had nationistic and patriotic issues with the territories very distant or hundreds to a thousand miles from Mexico City who were not supportive or involved in the political dynamics between Spain and New Spain or concerned with Mexican independence. Anglo Americans had a superior attitude towards those of a different culture, language and religion and these were not necessarily of Indian or primarily Indian descent. The Black Legend was promoted in Great Britian to demonize Spain, consequently the B Legend followed those of Spanish descent in America. As these did not speak the U. S. language, Anglo American Protestants abused and took advantage because they did not speak English, were Catholic and many were brown considering inferior. Most Anglo were uneducated, critical as they were no better, and had no clue that Tejanos too were of European descent. But they later did the same to Italians and Irish when these immigrated to the US. Nevertheless there is no nation in the world that compares to the United States, not perfect but, oh well, people from all over the world are flooding our borders.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chuco 2003. Mexicam blood and dirt, no way says history and the US southwest Indian's. Apaches criticized the United States for paying the young Republic of Mexico millions of dollars for lands that were not inherently Mexican, only claimed by Mexico for 25 year's.... as Spain had abdicated the territories. Mexico/Mexicans were a Johnny come very late to California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. In fact Anglo Americans settled these territories 1821 before Mexicans. , Mexicans did not migrate north until decades after the Mexican US War which ended 1848. Mexicans were so far off hundreds to a thousand miles away that Mexico had hardly anyone to battle the United States military in New Mexico and California during the Mexican War except for a few Mexican Goverenment officials who came north after Mexican independence from Spain 1824, considered estranjeros by Spanish colonists and the SW Indian's who protected the northern frontier .All those Mexicans who fought in Texas were not indigenous to Texas, they had to journey to far off Texas to battle the Americans who were already settled in Texas. In fact Mexico gave land grants to Anglo Americans in Texas. Mexico needed a population in Texas to to fight off Comanches, Americans more than willing to take on the land and tackle the Comanche Indians who were the most feared Tribes in the SW attacking from Oklahoma to what is today Mexico. The Spanish colonists in northern New Mexico refused to support the Mexican Army against the Comanches. The young country of Mexico barely had it's foot in the SW for 25 years at the most. Was gone in a flash along with it's flag and any enforced patriotism. Forgotten. No lands were lost, the Indians have their sovereign lands and Spanish land grants were protected under the US MX Treaty.. Mexicans were where they had always been,far away in today's Mexico. In fact there were no populations in the border areas for hundreds miles. Mexicans migrated north 1880 establishing border town's along the border along with Anglo Americans settlers as these were unpopulated areas and townless during the 300 year Spanish Period. . SW History 101.....
1
-
Aboorijal Mexica Indians were Aztec tribes from the valley of Mexico/mexica territory in the Mexico City/Tenochitlan area. Montezuma's Aztec reign was limited to that area. Mexicans are from the nation on Mexico of 1824 according to the Constitution , during this time, then became Mexicanos under the new Republic of Estados Unidos Mexicanos regardless of ethnicity. Under the caste system the population were Peninsulares/Espanoles, Criollos, mestizo, Indian, mulatto. There was no Mexican back then and by pre 1821 maps there was no Mexico in accordance to history. The land were all many territories under New Spain taking Spain decades of discovery from Vera Cruz 1519 to the northern tierras nuevas California to Texas in 1560 which were not colonized by Spain until the first, in 1598 in the north and barely colonized because of an isolated wilderness, distance, harsh environment and thousands of unconquered Indians out in the middle of nowhere. No big loss for Mexico, too much land and too many warrior raiding Indians who made life unbearable for any living out in the wild frontier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, a so called "reconquest" by Mexican population, too cowardly to actually go to war. What are they reconquering. The lands actually belonged to the Apache, Comanche, Navajo, Yaqui, Pueblo, a host of California and Arizona Indians indigenous to their lands. These are not reconquering, they still live in their inherent lands as sovereign nation with in the U.S. . As do other native SW citizens of Spanish descent in compliance with the Treaty of G Hidalgo-- they stayed in their native lands of up to 225 years before the Treaty was signed, were not relocated to today's foreign Mexico at that time, were given U.S. citizenship. Are full pledged US Americans as of 1849, fighting in the Civil, Spanish American , WW I n II and all other U.S. wars. The SW Indians served as code talkers for our great nation. The ancestors both Spanish and Indian knew the territory, the mountains, rivers, tributaries, valleys, they toiled the soil and to the credit of the Spanish, they fought off enemy Indians for survival in an isolated land. They have no need to reconquer. Have always been in the USA. These reconquestas are nothing but fakes to lands their ancestors had nothing to do with. Mexicans are Johnny come late to the USA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cashew Nuttel The Mexican Goverenment is fully aware that the lands were not stolen, rather the United States conquered all of Mexico, negotiated a Treaty returning Mexicos core and heartland back to Mexico, with a purchase price of 15 million dollars for the distant isolated frontier wilderness populated by thousands of unconquered, uncontrolled Indians and later an additional 10 million dollar Gadson Purchase. The young country of Mexico could not even manage what it kept, much less a territory a world away. Never conquered the Indians. The Apache, Navajo, Yaqui, Comanche closest to Mexico did not accept the new Republic of Mexico trespassing their lands, and at battle with Mexico. Actually there were no Mexicans in the northern territory, Mexicans migrated later after the Mexican American War. After the United States defeated the southwest Indians when journey was safe, settling in border areas establishing Mexican communities in the middle of nowhere. The only folks other than Indians in the southwest were a few descendants of Spanish Colonists hundred to a thousand miles away in a handful of Spanish settlements who refused allying with the Mexican army to battle the Comanche. Some Mexican factions make much of lost lands to the north, never lost lands to the south. But there was no lost love back then for a barren wilderness. Mexico quasi claimed the northern provinces for not more than 25 years, gone in a flash. Problem with many Mexicans was the border was just too far north, always looking north which was not ancestrally theirs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How can you recover lands your ancestors never owned. The lands belonged to the Apache. Navajo, Comanche, Pueblo, Kiowa, Ute and a host of CA Indians. They still have their ancient lands. The indigenous Spanish Colonists still have their ranches, farms, homes, and some land grants acquired under Spain. Neither peoples were affected by the War and protected under the Treaty of G Hidalgo, gained independence from Mexico to immediately become US America citizens. No lost lands. There had been many separate territory's under New Spain aside from the islands, , from CA to Florida, Pacific coast, today's Mexico (which was many territory's) to Central America. Check out pre 1821 New Spain maps. There is no Mexico. When parts of New Spain separated from Spain 1821, part of it became Mexico. Mexico claimed the SW and CA for only 26 years, before it was conquered and Mexico sold the far north territory for fifteen million dollars. 26 years really is not ancient history . Mexicans were never in the SW or CA, they migrated to border areas after the MX AMER War. Mexico was not sentimental over twenty six years. Let's get real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eliasarteaga6197 The lands belonged to thousands of unconquered Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Yaqui and a host of other California and Arizona Indians and a few Catholized Pueblo and California who still live in their US sovereign lands as tribal members . Their lands would have been taken from them from the Mex gov had the SW not been annexed by the United States. Descendants of Spanish colonists remained in their inherent homeland to become US citizens. The populations living in the SW (Anglo, Spanish, Indian) during the Treaty negotiations had become Mexican citizens by mandate upon Mexican independence in 1824 and given the right to stay in their inherent lands once the border was designated between both the United States and Mexico 1848. Under the Treaty, neither of the two nations forced them to leave the native northern distant and isolated homeland to relocate in a foreign Mexico. The Spanish became US citizens, the unconquered Indians were finally brought to peace by the US government. Neither were true Mexicans during the 25 year Mexican Period, the Spanish rebelled Mexican authority in the homeland, refused to ally with the Mexican military to battle the Comanche and many sided with the Americans seeking independence from Mexico. Spain after 274 years was well stamped into their identity. And the Indians never acknowledged Mexico, battling with Mexico during Mexican occupation in their lands, questioning why the United States paid 15 million dollars for lands that were not Mexicos in their indigenous psyche. The SW had it's own history, culture, geography, Indians, politics, and was hundreds to a thousand miles away from today's Mexico back in 1848.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting, actually the SW was populated by SW Indians and a few Spanish Colonists prior to Mexican Independence. The SW was distant and an isolated wilderness. After independence, the Constitution of the young Republics subjects became Mexican citizens under Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Mexicans did not populate the SW at that time. They started new towns along border areas after the Mexican War late 1800s along with American settlers. The majority of Mexican are Immigrants to the United States. As far as borders, Mexicans did cross borders, of the Apache, Navajo, Comanche. They were at war with one another, the Indians never to acknowledge Mexico,, questioned the United States purchase of $15,000,000 for lands they inherently know not to be Mexicano.... Not historically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoseGomez-oz5ec True, but it was the 16th century psyche. A world of discovery, exploration, exploitation and survival. All of us are offspring of victims and victors. Life is ever changing, We now live with 21century standards with 500 years behind us in America, right or wrong, things happened and that's history. Americas - squatting, stealing, raping, slaving, raids, wars , genocide, anilation, centuries before the European who did the same under conquest. The conqueror holds the power, an inborn law of nature one might say. Also, America a huge continent had vast lands that were unclaimed or untouced by anyone. Indians had no concept of ownership and still were nomadic upon European arrival.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Spanish (from Spain) conquered the lands and called them California, Nueva Mexico and Tejas. They were separate New Spain territories, including other territories, parts in what is now much of US from coast to coast, Cuba, what is today Mexico, which was several territories, Caribbeans, Philippines. The Spanish colonized the SW, had been Spanish Colonists, starting 1598 and 250 years later in 1848 with their Indian co patriots also came under the protection of the Hidalgo Treaty between Mexico and United States, after 26 years gained independence from Mexico and immediately transferred to the US as Americans with fill citizen rights, keeping their lands whice had been acquired under Spain. Still have lands, ranches, farms. So no one lost lands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Spain conquered territories which became parts of New Spain and did not become Mexico or Mexican until 1824 under the young nations Constitution, Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Prior to Mexican independence the populations were Peninsulares/ Espanoles, Criollos, Mestizo, Indians, mulatto. All to become Mexican citizens after independence. Mexican nationism was problematic especially in distant territories to the north -- California, New Mexico/AZ, TX. The Indians never acknowledged Mexico and were at constant war with the young Republic and many Spanish Colonists rebelled and sought independence. In fact, northern New Mexican (Spanish settlers since 1598) refused to ally with the Mexican army to battle against the Comanche. They became "Mexican" by mandate along with any Indians or American or other living in what became Mexican territory in 1824-1848 the Mexican Period. Mexicans and Americans began settling in the southern border areas establishing new towns from Texas to California in the late 1800s. Mexicans are not indigenous to any parts of the United States. They are Johnny come late to the entire west and southwest. In fact, Americans had settled in CA, AZ, NM and TX before Mexicans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j-money1354 Blahblahblah Apparently you have not heard of or haven't a clue on United States reparations, returned lands, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Civil Rights Act, Indian Citizen Act, Dawnes Act, Native Americans Rights Fund , sovereign rights and lands federally protected, Bursum Bill, Pueblo Lands Act, Indian Reorganization Act, legal Spanish land grants to Pueblo Indians, annual funding per tribe in the millions, and on and on. What about the Indian rights in Mexico for Mexicans, none. That's why you only look north, success of the United States. You just want something to complian about in a land not inherently yours. And for all your intelligence, it's appears you know nothing. When your wishes transpire, tell us about it. In the meantime, the United States and federal tribes are intact. If the day comes when the United States is a banana republic, we will all be knee deep in trouble, you'll be at war with United States tribes who hold sovereign lands, theirs, and sacred as they did 200 years ago when they fought to keep Mexicans out of their lands. Mexicans lost the War, the United States conquered, won fair and square. And even ended up paying 25 million dollars for lands not historically Mexico's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Plus more, the border was changed a few years after the war and signed Treaty between Mx and US. Mx sold more land, the Gadson Purchase now in southern NM for another $10,000,000. Most fail to understand that the annexed territories were under Mexican control for a mere 25 years at the most, they were not historically Mexico. And basically a wilderness frontier close to nowhere for hundreds of miles, controlled by Comanche, Apache, Navajo, Yaqui who were at war with the young Republic for trespassing the northern Indians claimed territories. Mexico never conquered the Indian or colonized TX, NM or CA during the short lived Mexican Period. Indians never acknowledged their territories as Mexico as Mexico was a Johnny come way late to the north. And Apaches could not figure out why the United States paid millions to Mexico for the lands not inherently Mexican.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DO USVALDO How exactly did the United States pay only five million. If so why did Mexico agree on the later Gadson Purchase for another ten million from the United States. Mexicos, at that time, distant and isolated wilderness real estate deals got twenty five million dollars and some Mexicans are still crying and making excuses over barely 25 years of past history over land they had just recently taken from Spain who had the lands for 275 years. . The Apache, Navajo, Ute, Comanche, Yaqui , Mohave, Shasta, Pueblo plus other hundreds of United States tribes aren't complaining, because the lands didn't belong to Mexico to begin with.... Seems to me as if the United States had been faulty on payment, Mexico would have started another war. Instead Mexico agreed to the United States setting up companies in Mexico, at which the United States charged Mexico for the destruction of US companies property brought on by internal battles during the Mexican Revolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The location of the border of US MX was populated by no one in 1848 for hundreds of miles. It was a vast frontier wilderness close to nowhere. To make a long story short, Spain conquered territories which came to known as parts of New Spain (Mexico City) in 1524 and Spain continued exploring, conquering and claiming new lands further north for another quarter of a century (CA, NM, TX) and after 300 years this part of New Spain gained independence from Spain and the territories became parts of the young Republic of Mexico, it's citizens under the Constitution became Mexican. Went to war with the United States after twenty some years, the United States conquered Mexico 1848, both nations negotiated a Treaty and sale of CA to NM (as TX had already become an independent Republic, about 1838 then became part of the United States). The purchase of fifteen million dollars annexed CA and New Mexico to the United States. A few New Mexico and California Indians tribes had been conquered by Spain during the 300 year Spanish Colonial era, but the still unconquered majority, thousands of Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Ute, Pawnee, Kiowa and a host of California and Arizona tribes were later defeated by the United States after the Mexican American War as subjects of the United States. As New Spain had always been divided by territories or provinces, (which can be referenced by any pre 1821 map) these Indians opposed the young Mexican independence or Mexican nationializm and were at war with Mexico until United States annexed their lands. Other parts of New Spain had been the Mississippi area to Florida, Pacific coast to Canada, Cuba, Caribbeans, Philippines, Central America goverened from "Mexico City" by Spains viceroy who was the representative in New Spain for the royal crown in Spain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pedrocastillo9980 Nice try, but unless these people are Comanche, Navajo, Apache, Ute, Kiowa, Pawnee, Pueblo the lands aren't yours. These have their indigenous lands in the SW and CA. And these Indians battled with johnny come late Mexico for trespassing on their lands starting back 25 years before conquest by the United States. Bottom line, Indians had their marked territories back then, and still do today. They cannot take the land back simply because they never left. They still live there, no one took it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mofewilkie5707 Yes, by the young Republic of Mexico claiming California, New Mexico and Texas under it's Estados Unidos Mexicano's Constitution, the SW territories were in Mexico, the population in the SW at that time became Mexican citizens, each by mandate, not patriotically. The SW population had been indigeniuos and Spanish Colonists who were in the very distant isolated north hundreds if not a thousand miles away from other New Spain territories, basically another world.. . The Indians were unconquered except for a few tribes. But the Colonists were far removed from the young Mexico's core; they were not involved in the political upheavals between the Mexico City/Vera Cruz areas of New Spain and Spain, and were not involved in Mexican independence. So inherently, politically, historically, culturally and geographically they were not Mexican and viewed Mexican officials as they arrived after independence in the northern SW territories as foreign strangers who were met with resistance upon replacing Spains 225 years flag with Mexico's flag. And the unconquered Apache Navajo Comanche Yaqui plus other indigeniuos northern tribes were agressively bitter to Mexico knowing their lands were not Mexico's. . Just an example of the friction is New Mexico Spanish colonists refusal to ally with Mexico's army to battle the Comanche, as there had been an existing pact, allies, since the Spanish Period between the Colonists and Comanche, a relationship which Mexico later was unable to influence it's SW. The SW was part of the young Mexico, but largely unpatriotic. SW history is divided into three documented eras, Spanish Colonial Period the longest 1598-1824; Mexican Period the shortest 1824-1848;. and since the United States Territorial Period or Statehood, depending on the State. So yes, the SW was claimed briefly by the young Republic after independence, considered Mexico, but the SW was not historically Mexican as is assumed by many. We always hear that California New Mexico Arizona Texas were part of Mexico, but rarely hear that it was limited to the 25 year SW Mexican Period. In addition the none indigeniuos SW population was limited to the Spanish Colonial Period historical Spanish colonists who were protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to become U.S. citizens in 1848. They were not required to leave their centuries Spanish Colonial homeland and relocate to Mexico. This brings up another assumption, up until 1824 there were no Mexicans, people from today's Mexico in the SW. People from Chihuahua towards the south were not from the SW and are immigrants to the United States. The Mexican military in the SW during the Texas Alamo Revolution 1835 and the Mexican American War 1846 were not from Texas, New Mexico/Arizona or California. They came from Mexico City and surrounding areas including Chihuahua to battle the U.S. as there were no Mexican (from today's Mexico) in the isolated wilderness SW. Mexico needed people, American settlers in distant, isolated unpopulated (except for a few unprotected Spanish colonists) in Texas to fight off the ever raiding much feared Comanche. Mexicans came to the United States SW later in the 1800s after the War, establishing Mexican settlements in the border areas interestingly after the United States quelled the raiding Indians 1879 and conditions in the border wilderness became safer and habitable by United States efforts. The video has some truth as far as the SW part of Mexico, at that time, but there were too many issues for the SW to be Mexico at heart. Guess one can say the SW was a self goverened quasi Mexico.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually Anglo Americans settled California before Mexicans. In fact when the United States attacked California during the MX AMER War, there were no Mexicans to battle . Mexicans were Johnny come late to California. Goverenment authorities headed there during Mexican independence after 1824, there they met resistance from Indians and Spanish settlers. California was very distant, isolated a frontier wilderness. A different geographical location, culture, history, and politics. Mexican nationism and patriotism were not accepted in territories far away from Mexico City, Mexico s core. California was not historically Mexican,. Mexico claimed Spains territories in 1824 after 275 years of Spanish domain. The indigenous are the California tribes who are now sovereign nations within the U.S. And these are not claiming stolen lands. Because of unconquered Indians and a harsh isolated environment, Spain was forced to Spanish Colonize in the late 1700s because of threats from Russia to claim California. The Spanish Colonists were not Mexican. They were from both Spain and New Spain, were Spanish European cultured. There were no Mexicans prior to 1824 in New Spain. Spains caste system were Peninsulares /Espanoles, Criollos, Indian, Mestizo, mulatto, but no Mexican. Mexicans came about with independence and the new Constitution of the new Republic, Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The California or SW Mexican Period was short lived, 25 year's. Mexicans began migration north after the War late 1880s, establishing new towns along border areas along with Anglo American settlements, almost s century after Spanish settlements. Then migrated further north for jobs. The Mexican Revolution brought more Mexicans to American cities. Many were deported during the Eisenhower years. The Immigration Act of the 60s brought more. Then loose immigration and open borders brought millions the last twenty years. The lands were not stolen, Mexico was conquered. The Treaty of G Hidalgo protected the SW Indians and descendants of Spanish Colonists (many in the SW for over two hundred years) allowing them to stay in their inherent homeland on the U.S. side of the border. Neither nation required them to relocate to foreign Mexico. They immediately became US citizens. The unconquered Indians were brought to peace by the U.S. late 1800s. Those Mexicans who were never a part of the SW were not covered in the Treaty, they were not from the SW. No lands were stolen from them. People are uninformed if they think Mexicans were in California first.
1
-
1
-
Los territories de California, Nuevo Mexico/Arizona, y Tejas estaban reclamaras de Mexico por no mas de 25 anos. 25 anos premer de la guerra Mexicana 1846, Mexico ni tenida nada de tierras antes de 1824. North America lands belonged to whoever claimed them first -- England, France, Spain. Later part became the United States, Canada; another part became Mexico, Guatemala. Colonization, disputes, border changes, DNA, independence, treaties, purchases, wars, conquest, etc were all part of the dynamics in the making of north America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tetraglot. The United States already had Texas, becoming a state in 1845 prior to the Mexican War. The United States was not only interested in California, New Mexico bordered the Texas U. S. And The Old Santa Fe Trail had opened up trade to northern New Mexico after independence from Spain, Missourians attained a very profitable commercial base and good relationships with descendants of Spanish Colonists in Santa Fe. As well as American Mountain Men, beaver trappers and traders further north in Spanish Taos and surrounding mountain communities, the fur trade booming between the United States and New Mexico province. Under Spain, foreigners had been prohibited at the Spanish border, trade had been illegal until 1821. This was the beginning of American settlers in the west -- New Mexico, Texas and California. The upper latitude provinces in what became part of Mexico in the far and isolated wilderness north in 1821 were also in US Manifest Destiny path to the western coast. Nevertheless during the 25 years Mexican Period, the young Mexico did not have a strong hold on these desolate territories highly populated with unconquered Indians and very distant, and these frontier provinces had their own political factions going back to the Spanish Period. Also did not take part in Mexico's independence from Spain.
1
-
@jaimerayon5366 Go back to that time in history, conquest was an established fundamental accepted custom and not considered invasion or stealing. War was common, be it Indian against Indian or Indian against European. Mexico (Indian/European mix) defeated Spain by conquest, and took many New Spain territories; the United States likewise defeated Mexico by conquest, taking the upper northern of those territories. The Pueblo Indians of NM were very fortunate in the American conquest. Their lands granted by the Spanish over two centuies earlier were permanently stamped, protected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the end of the War; and as Pueblo Indian Americans those same land grants were protected, because of the Treaty the US was unable to take their lands. They still live today were the Spanish found them during Spanish colonization. They would have lost their lands if NM had remained under Mexico, as Mexico does not recognize sovereign Indian lands. The United States did not defeat the CA and SW Indians during the War. The Indians were later defeated by the United States. Why compare a sixteenth to nineteenth centuries psyche to twenty first century standards. Peoples evolved, the Indians by the seventeenth century had become Europeanized, proficient with the horse and guns. Raised cattle, cows and lambs and grew European plant based foods, etc. Some were Christianized and learned a second language. Today all have equal protection under the law in the United States.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Slavery has been a part of American life before European colonization, the Amerindians commonlly slaved enemy tribes, so Europeans did not bring slavery, it was already here... . Slavery was an accepted international trade and practice back in the 15th 16th 17th centuries, slavery goes back centuries to ancient times. Most likely your ancestors were slaves or masters or both. In fact Black Africans slaved and sold their own. "They" did not bring an attitude of Independence, they were under Great Britain.. The American 13 colonies developed an attitude of independence from Great Britian after 150 years, subsequently the U.S. was born and became the first nation in the world ever to create a government for "we the people" under God, as opposed to a government based on a monarchal world where Kings owned all the land and people, and dictated the people's religion. Execution in most societies was common. And still exists. But not in the USA. After the battles of the American Revolution independence was won, the founding fathers of the USA granted freedom for it's people. Because of this people from not only Europe immigrated legally to the United States and continue to do so, now illegally. So , what exactly is the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually the Rio Grande tributaries never did reach what became the greater Mexico in 1824. Of all those territories of New Spain, the Rio Grande kinda pooped out in the outreaches of Chihuahua... El Agua es la vida--water sustains life. The Rio Grande never sustained life in what is today Mexico, the Aztec and Mexican Indians lived in a different world where other water sources sustained them. The Rio Grande was not a part of their life or culture, they were too far removed, very distant from the Rio Grands headwaters and tributaries. The Rio Grande tributaries belonged to the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and othe tribes as Ute, Apache, all northern USA tribes who shared it's waters. Spain claimed El Rio del Norte as they named it, after the mid 1500s, during their exploration in las tierras nuevas, the new lands to the north which became territories to New Spain. As Onate wrote in his letter to the vice royal 1598, of his leaving that New Spain (Zacatecas) upon reaching New Mexico. as Spain named the new territory. There was no mention of a "Mexico" back in the 16th century.
1
-
@lorded7753 That treaty was cancelled by the Mexican president about 1923. The Treaty encompassed the era of the Mexican Revolution 1910-1923 or so. The U.S. by this time had companies in Mexico and Americans were living in there. The United States claimed damage to its companies in Mexico during the Mexican Revolution internal wars. The language related to Mexican soil and Mexico's second constitution.
By the time the Mexican Revolution took place, 60 years after the Mexican American War, the SW was no longer Mexican soil, it had been United States soil since 1848 under a well established Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and had been US soil twice as long as Mexico's 25 years claim to the SW, which was past history. Furthermore the waters of the Rio Grande had been claimed primarily by the northern territory Pueblo Indians inherent to these lands who were not historically Mexican. And they still have legal rights to these waters under Spain and the US. The Pueblo Indians, after the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 exiled the Spanish from Puebo lands in north central New Mexico Rio Grande valley, to at least 300 miles south, basiclly where the Rio Grande finished it's course, , satisfied the Spanish were far removed from their lands. Ancient borders talk... And between north central New Mexico and the southern edge of the Rio del Norte and beyond, was a vast unpopulated wilderness, Spains territories. South of the Rio Grande was another world. And no Mexico to speak of... These were all different territories of New Spain by Spains explorations. There are Mexican factions pointing to the Bucareli Treaty, which is pointless. Different era, different Mexican Constitution and total disregard for the 1846 Treaty of GH. They don't have a leg to stand on except for their revionist chicano history of twisting history because of US success as a nation. Logically the Mexican Goverenment cannot block the water. By whose authority, they have no jurisdiction in the United States. And the Mexican Goverenment is not associated with these US Mexican Chicano factions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rome had been the world power, followed by Asia, and Middle East. Then Spain, Great Britain and France. Spain never had territories all over the world. But had many territories in the New World, you know, across the ocean. Actually, had Great Britian found Vera Cruz before Spain, and claimed territories from there to California to Florida, Cuba into Central and South America , basically the Western World, you'd have no Spanish influence. The Indians there would have been no better off than the Indians on the what is today the United States east coast. Killed off and displaced, food supply destroyed... To what was left , your language would be English and the English would have obliterated everything you know... Historical events determined what today's world is. What if Spain had claimed and colonized the thirteen colonies, all those Indians would have a differenr ethnicity in America. Go figure..... Sounds like I have oikophobia, duh.... Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertlowther6979 Better yet, talk to the Navajo, Ute, Apache, Comanche, Kiowa, Pawnee, Yaqui, and a host of indigenous California tribes and more. These were their lands, never recognized Mexico, battled Mexico for trespassing on their lands. The Apache criticized the United States for paying fifteen million dollars to Mexico the Apache inherently knew was not ancestrally Mexico.
1
-
1
-
No, actually European Spain explored and claimed the Pacific coast, New Mexico and Texas; claiming the territories for Spain to become parts of New Spain approx. 1550. Mexico was a Johnny come late to these northern areas, foreign to Mexico who made their way north after 1824. Because of thousands of unconquered SW Indians and an isolated and harsh environment, Spains Colonization was limited to a few towns, the oldest in northern NM . Mexico has no history in CA, AZ, NM, TX until after 1824, short lived, the Mexican Goverenment gone inn1849. Look it up...
1
-
1
-
1
-
The United States could have taken all of Mexico. The United States returned Mexico's core, the populated heartland. And a Treaty agreement procured the isolated SW frontier wilderness into United States borders to seal the deal. These lands were not inherently Mexico's, Mexico quasi claimed the lands only since 1824 still controlled by unconquered Apache, Navajo, Ute, Comanche plus many other SW Indian tribes who knew the land, the rivers and tributaries, hunting grounds, mountains, Pacific coast and the north---strange lands to the new southern kid on the block, Mexico. These SW Tribes from California to Texas never considered themselves Mexican, actually they were enemies to Mexico.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Back in 1848 the SW territories were nothing but a wilderness of about 700,000 sq miles, thousands of unconquered Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Pawnee, Yaqui, plus a host of California and Arizona Indians. . A few Spanish Colonists. Neither Spain or Mexico had control of the land except in paper, but Spain was able by govern it's Spanish subjects in the far reaching northern territories. Mexico quasi piggybacked off Spain, but the Indians controlled the lands, until their lande fell into United States annexation. Never to consider themselves Mexican after independence from Spain.
1
-
1
-
@rosesandthorns47 during the SW/California Spanish Colonial Period 1598-1824 these tribes were in New Mexico (Arizona) Territory along with many others California Territory and Texas Territory tribes. The United States became a nation 1776 and Mexico became a nation 1824. During the brief SW/California Mexican Period 1824-1848 these tribes claimed no nation as you point out. They were unconquered and answered to neither Spains goverenment or Mexico's. They were unlike most of Mexicos tribes, who mixed with the Spanish, both in blood and cultures and answered first to Spains goverenment, 300 years later Mexico's goverenment and became Catholic during the 1500s. Under Spain many of these Indians mixed with the Spanish, mestizo in blood and culture. Life was different in the northern territories. California/SW Indians never were mestizo, simply because they rarely had contact or mixed with Spanish colonists, they raided and battled the colonists considered enemies for 250 years. Each peoples preserved their heritage and language. The Pueblo unique, they were conquered and Europeanized to some extent, Spain never removed them from their ancient villages and provided them legal Spanish land grants, additionally and yet Catholized, were allowed by Spain's Crown preservation of their indigenous religion, language, heritage and self tribal governance. These were never a mestizo culture, they lived separate from the Spanish with limited contact and also were allies to the Spanish against warrior tribes. Most Indians/Spanish contact was in trading, raids, if captives-each forced to lived among their captor, considered part Spanish, part Indian, perhaps coyote but not mestizo iwas little mentioned in the far north. Just ask an Apache or Navajo.
1
-
Keep in mind that the lands in question were not historically Mexican lands. Before 1821 all were separate Spanish territories under Spains rule. Upon separation from Spain in 1821 became parts of the new Republic of Mexico forming it's own nationializm, either as states or territories. The citizens became Mexican under the new Constitution. The territory's annexed to the United States were not connected geographically, culturally, historically or politically and were very distant from Mexicos heartland, 1500 miles away in an isolated frontier, controlled by northern Indians as Apache, Navajo, Ute, Kiowa, Comanche who were bitter enemies to the newly formed republic and opposed Mexican nationism. Same with descendants of Spanish Colonists. Thus loss by payment of fifteen million dollars for those territory's was not sentimental as those were not ancient lands to today's Mexico who had been just another New Spain territory for three hundred years, easily noted in pre 1821 maps of New Spain. These territory's had been under quasi Mexican control for only 26 years. People from Mexico did not lose any ancestra land as they had never been in CA or the SW to begin with. As these lands were never colonized by Mexicans nor did Mexico conquer the territories Indians in those 26 years. The indigenous population from CA and SW were not adversely affected by MX AMER war, were protected under the Treaty of G Hidalgo, sfter the War, gained independence from Mexico were granted transfer to US as America citizens. For the Spanish Colonists, they still have their lands, farms, ranches, homes, some land grants which they had acquired under Spain. The Indians were finally quelled by the US and were appropriated reservations falling under protection of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and are members of their tribal sovereign nations. The reconquest is political propaganda by Mexican self identified 1960s "Chicano" factions promoting brown power to take over of the United States SW hoping to recover fake "their stolen lands" with open borders.
1
-
Rob. The lands of the SW were not stolen by the United States. Both young nations, the United States and Mexico went to war, Mexico was conquered and lost all of Mexico, the United States returned Mexico's heartland core, keeping the SW, under a Treaty. All had been lands occupied by natives, but they were never a nation of Mexico or defined territories under one government. Later became America, the lands were claimed by Spain, Great Britain and France, colonized by the European and these territories languages and traditions were influenced by the European. Spain had claimed way too much land, much of it later explored, isolated territories to the north, tierras nuevas or new lands, today's SW.. These distant provinces were not Spains focus in America. Spain barely colonized them due to distance, up to a thousand miles from Mexico City, thousands of unconquered Indians who controlled the lands which were uninhabitable and difficult to colonize, Spain unable to make roadways from New Mexico to New Orleans due to impassable Comanche land Texas. Spain did put sparsely populated outposts in California, New Mexico and Texas starting in 1600, Spanish colonists to guard against French and Russian intrusion 1600 - 1700s. Lands later had been disputed, treatied, purchased, border changes in the United States/Spain borderlands. Spain had given up Florida and Louisiana by 1800 and before Mexican independence, Spain had permitted Americans to settle in Texas. So looks like Spain had negotiated with the United States even permitting land grants to Americans through M Austin in the isolated SW, territories which had previously been closed to the French and British. Mexico gained independence and grabbed Spains lands in the SW which were very distant, barren and hardly populated, had a different culture, Indians, geography, history, people and politics unrelated to Mexicos core or Mexico City. The SW Indians never acknowledged Mexico, Mexicans considered intruders. The young Mexico offered Americans land grants in Texas as buffers against the feared Comanche. And the SW Indian was dumbfounded when the United States paid Mexico fifteen million dollars for lands they inherently knew were not Mexico. These Indians were never Mexican, neither were the Spanish colonists in the SW. In fact the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo allowed the SW population to stay in the centuries homeland and become United States citizens instead of locating them to foreign Mexico. Nothing was stolen from the Mexican except a border that was too far north for Mexicans wishing to be Americans. Mexicans are still in their homeland, their ancestors never knew the SW which was a middle of nowhere wilderness with roaming unconquered warrior SW indians for hundreds of miles. Mexicans edged towards the U.S., migrated north to border areas decades after the Mexican War, approx 1880, in fact, the SW population considered the Mexican estranjeros, foreign, after they trekked to the far northern California, New Mexico/Arizona, Texas after Mexican independence.
1
-
@irwinveloz1404 How short and sweet, nevertheless the SW was claimed by the young Mexico for only 25 years. Hardy historically Mexico's as folks are led to believe... The SW was under Spains flag appox 275 years, Mexico's flag 25 years and is under the US flag 175 years... Most are unaware that there was no country of Mexico or Mexican citizen until 1824 becoming so under it's first constitution for Estados Unidos Mexicano's. If people were taught "New Spain" instead of "Mexico" they would better understand history. If Canada had taken New York in 1880, New York would no longer be part of the United States, that would be a 100 years of by gone history, regardless of the colonies. In reality, there was no United States, Mexico or Canada in the 15, 16, 17, centuries. It was undefined lands by anyone except for territorial claims by Great Britain, Spain, France, Russia. And by whatever Amerindians tribes called them in a particular local geography that was known to them. Spain should not be conflated with Mexico, different and dissimilar era's. New Spain was separate territories all over; Pacific coast, California to Florida, Central America, today's Mexico, Philippines, Cuba, Caribbeans, plus. New Spain was Spains exploration, claims, conquest, influence, a monarch governernance, the King governed from Spain. All of New Spain was administrated by the King of Spain's deputy, his representative appointed to officiate in Mexico City, the Spanish vice royals, who were Peninsular Spaniards. Mexico was a different era; Mexico's claim and western world influence, a supposedly republic goverenment, administered in the Republic of Mexico, by Mexicans. The same history and circumstances as the rest of the nations in America starting in 1776. They were no longer under the yolk of the motherland, freely established their own independent nation -- borders were changed, annexed, purchased, treatied, or fought for.... No guilt, just the way it was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xavier Lekubarri Where I live, surrounded by US tribes, they call themselves Indian. So it's not a problem for them as that's how they self idenify. Everybody refers to Indian. The US government has established Indian entities since the 1800s, as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Rights Act, Indian Health Services, Indian Schools, Indian hospitals, Indian reservations and many others. American history refers to Indian's, Canada, Mexico and Latin American have Indian pride. India obviously is Indian nationistic. Indian in America is cultural. Both are Asian by the way. I am well aware of India, but you appear to be ignorant of America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dswynne This can be confusing, because of historians. There was no Mexico or Mexicans until after independence from Spain in 1821. This part of New Spain is referred to as Mexico by many historians, but back in the day it was referred to as New Spain or by location as Mexico City, Vera Cruz, Cuerna Vaca, Zacatecas, Nuevo Leon, territories growing by Spains later exploration in California and new lands in the far north as Texas, New Mexico. In time, New Spain was comprised of many territories from California to Florida, Pacific coast, Cuba, Caribbeans, today's Mexico, Philippines. Mexico is not charted in pre 1821 maps. The distant isolated northern territories California to Texas were settled by sparsly populated Spanish Colonists who were not Mexican except politically by Mexican citizenship after Mexico became independent, it's own Republic and claimed the upper isolated north provinces. Nationism was a problem for Mexico after independence, especially those provinces which were not Mexican States, in the outer reaches of the far north and also southern Guatemala, from the young Mexico's core, Mexico City. These became Mexican 1821-1848 known as the Mexican Period in southwest American history. But became US American after the War. Interestingly the SW Indians never accepted Mexico trespassing on their inherent lands and fought many battles with Mexico, never to consider themselves Mexican. Mexico never conquered Apaches, Navajo, Comanche or colonized CA, TX, NM during the short lived Mex P. The language in the Treaty negotiations between Mexico and United States after conquest was to give "Mexicans" the choice of residing in Mexico or the US. These had never lived in the very distant young Mexico, they were either SW or CA Indians, descendants of SW Spanish Colonists, or American settlers residing in the CA to NM during the War. TX had already gained independence. The majority stayed in the northern homeland some since 1598 which was now the United States. Mexican goverenment officials residing in the CA to NM provinces after conquest went back to Mexico, any Mexican patriotism left the SW waned after citizens became United States citizens. Mexicans migrated to border areas which were never populated a couple decades after the Mexican war .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GOOIGI Land cannot be stolen, it's still there. But land has been conquered since the beginning of time and borders have always changed. The lands in question were Spains lands for 275 years. Mexico claimed them in 1824 by a stroke of luck. Spain had arranged through M Austin to allow land grants for Americans in Texas prior to 1821. Had Spain sold the northern lands to the United States prior to Mexican independence, Mexico would never have claimed the SW. Spain had relinquished Florida and Louisiana, in fact Texas had been claimed by Louisiana and within it's borders. Don't ignore the Indians; Apache, Navajo, Yaqui, Comanche, Caddo, plus many more SW Indians and a host of California tribes. The lands inherently belonged to them. They never acknowledged Mexico or a Mexican identity. . Nope, those lands were not historically Mexican. Mexico just quasi claimed them for 25 years. Indians perplexed because the United States paid $15,000,000 for lands they knew were not Mexico's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robiking011 I never stated that California Indians were all the same and lived in peace. They were like all other Indians migrating and taking over lands over thousands of years and at war with enemy tribes. Nevertheless when the Spanish found thrse particular tribes they were in the Spanish designated territory of California. There were a host of indigenous Indian tribes in California from the Chumash, Quechan, Mohave in the south to the Yurok, Shasta, Paiute in the north and many in between whose lands were claimed by Spain and included as part of New Spain during the decades of Spanish exploration from Atlantic Vera Cruz 1519 to the distant wilderness northern territories Pacific California; tierras nuevas New Mexico, Texas 1550. All were separate territories part of Spains Empire in New Spain as were Cuba, Caribbeans, Mississippi area to Florida, Philippines, Central America, Pacific coast plus through varying stages of exploration.
1
-
Have it back. It belonged to Spain. Not Mexico. In fact, Spain had transferred Florida and Louisiana prior to 1800. And before independence, Spain was in the process of transferring land grants to Americans in Texas (M Austin). Spain had claimed too much territory unable to finance. So it may have sold the isolated territories of California, New Mexico/Arizona and Texas had not Mexico got in the way. Mexico only got the SW after Spain abdicated and Mexico grabbed the land after independence which was short lived 25 year's. In fact the SW is indigenous to California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas Tribes such as Apache, Navajo, Mohave etc. Who never to date acknowledged the new kid in town, Mexico 1821. Mexicans migrated north to border areas decades after the Mexican War about 1880. Have it back, IT was settled by Americans as early as 1821, decades before Mexican migration. Americans such as mountain fur traders and commercial trade from Missouri on the Santa Fe Trail were in the SW before Mexican migration. Mexicans are immigrants to the SW and began migrating to the United States in large numbers during the Mexican Revolution of 1910. SW History 101
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hey-vb6jf You can't change the world, people of all races discriminate, including you. And where is it written that the world is fair... Add to that people who cross borders illegally by corrupt criminal activity (cartels), send innocent children across a dangerous harsh desert sometimes with total strangers, sneak into a foreign country to give birth, overload the government welfare, public safety, housing, education, judicial , medical systems : do not assimilate, are racist, mass migration : not to mention terrorists, drugs, gangs : and HAVE AN ATTITUDE OF ENTITLEMENT. And you want respect. Is it really racism : or disgust for freeloaders in a foreign country at the expense of others. Traitors to the home country, but traitors to the United States as well. Interesting, it is the American White Anglo Saxon founders who established the great nation of the United States, and the neighbor to the south who covet, and reap advantages of the north and do nothing but complain. If Mexico had responsibility toward it's citizens, it's people would have no need for the north, and they'd struggle to make the land of their ancestors a better nation. One thing , no one will escape judgement day, republican, democrat, socialist, communist, rich or poor or the dead. Borders are written into God's laws, just because you haven't read them, doesn't mean they're not in the Bible.
1
-
1
-
Mopes27. Some Mexicans want territories back, over a century and a half later. In 1846 the lands were a barren uninhabitable wilderness, with thousands of unconquered Indians. , Lands won or conquered by US in a legal war and the United States gave a Treaty purchase price of fifteen million dollars with a later Gadson Purchase of ten million dollars. All this money going Mexico for territories Mexico had claimed for only 25 years. Now that CA, AZ, NM, TX are developed by United States standards, some Mexicans factions claim stolen lands, always looking north. Truth is, the negotiated borders between the United States and Mexico was too far to the north, excluding many Mexicans from United States citizenship. Now claiming lands were stolen gives them justification to rewrite history, forget the lands were actually conquered and claim they have a right to the lands never theirs to begin with... All were tribal lands, and SW lands inherently were claimed by northern tribes as Comanche, Apache, Navajo, CA and AZ and a host of other tribes who still live in their indigenous lands, sovereign nations within the United States.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j-money1354 Republcans or Democrats are all the same to God. Jesus did not subscibe to dirty politics. Way I see it, Trump is the lesser evil to both Biden and Clinton and nevermind Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Schmitt, AOC and the rest of the white collar gang, mafia, whatever, they are not as interested in you as they are themselves. They impeached Trump with lies but were overturned. They do put on a great dog and pony show, though.. Politics is corrupt and self-serving with a few good men in the mix. So Chrstianity is not even an issue here. Don't you know basic history, it was corrupt politicians, the government and their religion that literally murdered Jesus by crucifiction and were a threat to Christianity during the first century AD. Don't tell me about Christianity, you are a bit wet behind the ears.
So in the future, the United States will become another banana republic, huh. Enjoy, that's great for you! You left dung only to bring it with you, lol. When USA is totally a "Brown" ruined liberal borderless and lawless nothing, another Latin America impoverished and dictorship mess, where will you run to then. Thanks to conservative Republcans we still have a 🇺🇸. Now, go fly your kite...
1
-
1
-
@terroralabruja The natives are still in their soverign lands, never stolen and they never left, and no one is taking them out. They are not foreign Mexican. They are Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Ute, Pueblo, Yaqui, Shoshone, Piute, Shasta, Mohave, Cheyenne, Cherokee, Shawnee, and hundred of other United States tribes. In fact the Apache, Comanche, Yaqui hate Mexicans and fought bitterly to keep you out of the SW once upon a time after Mexican independence, the SW Indians knew their inherent borders, and they knew Mexican trespassers. . The Comanche tore Chihuahua to pieces in battle, so they didn't exactly fellowship haha. All of Central America is native, why not go there instead, it's south of your border. Lol... Parts of it were at one time Mexico, so go for it, return to your rightful lands, natives and all. You are pouring into our United States because the U.S. goverenment let's you in to serve their corrupt agenda, its all politics, so there's no need for bullets haha. You would be homeless if it wasn't for U.S. goverenment Welfare Progam paid by our taxes. If there were no handouts you'd stay in MX. And you can be deported back, its been done.. To where the Mexican goverenment stole your native lands and left you homeless. . You're on U.S. soil illegally because the United States is a rich country, not because it "stole" Mexico. If the United States was as poor as Mexico, you'd have no need for it, you wouldn't even care to know where it was.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The point of what, what is today the United States is comprised by European exploration, including what is today Mexico--Spain, France, Great Britian who were the first to claim whichever territory was there for the taking. Russia was also in the picture. Mexico was a Johnny come late in the SW 1824 after both the United States and Mexico gained independence. The territories had been explorations, conquest, treaties, purchases, border changes, land disputes, independence, war, negotiations. Mexico had claimed California, New Mexico/Arizona, Texas but for 25 years at the most.
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can hate Santa Ana, but the United States would have acquired Mexico in time. The northern territories were too isolated in the wilderness frontier close to nowhere and hundreds to a thousand miles from Mexico's core. Spain had already granted citizenship to American settlers in Texas before Mexican independence and had a Treaty turning over Florida to the United States. Mexico was just fortunate CA, AZ, NM, TX fell into the young Republics domain, but was unable to effectively govern. Additionally, the Comanche, Apache, Navajo, Yaqui rejected Mexico, going to battle over trespassing northern lands,. Mexican independence created many problems one being nationism and patriotism in the distant north and distant south from Mexico City. Santa Ana just contributed to the many political problems in the new nation. All the Indian Tribes mentioned, plus more inherently knew they were not Mexico.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karlmuller3690 I don't expect to understand the video, it's half twisted history. Mexico started a war they had no chance to win. After SW conquest, the United States overtook Vera Cruz, occupied and flew the United States flag over Mexico City, now thats what finalized the conquest... The United States gave half the land back to Mexico and kept the untame isolated distant wilderness with a new border under Treaty negotiations between both nations, kept the population that had colonized or were indigenous to the SW before Mexican independence, and the United States paid Mexico $15,000,000 to seal the deal. Additionally, the United States paid Mexico another $10,000,000 for the Gadson Purchase five years later. What theft, one's imagination..... History does not document theft, it documents conquest. What part of history do you not understand...
1
-
@xavi4694 History can be twisted to ones biased views. Nevertheless it was border disputes, war, conquest, treaty, dollars and a border. Mexico makes a mountain out of a molehill over 25 years Mexico claimed the SW,, of which these territories were automous and unpatriotic and where there wasn't a Mexican in sight in New Mexico and most of California, as it was, Texas imported Mexicans to battle Americans. Additionally Anglo Americans settled California and New Mexico/Arizona starting in 1821, almost a century before Mexican migration and settlements. to border areas. America had a great vision for the upper latitude northern SW isolated territories, Mexico had none for the distant lands. Mexico never colonized the SW during the 25 years Mexican Period or bothered to take the unconquered SW Indians who were the power in control.
1