Why Immigration Matters to Hispanic Voters

Ms. Villarreal,

It matters WHERE and WHEN you start your historical timeline when you make a point does it not?

Consider Spain "conquered" California and the Southwest from Native Americans. In California, they were enslaved by the "mission system" that Father Junipero Serra with concurrence of the Spainish Court via Mexico City set up. Boys and girls were segregated and forced to work on mission buildings and on mission crops. The Catholic (state)religeon was also forced upon them. Those that escaped were hunted down and made examples of.

Mexico continued the "mission system" after becoming independent from Spain.

So it is OK for Spain and that "inherited" by Mexico (for only about 20 years) to take over land from Native Americans but it is not OK for Americans to do that to Mexicans? Or are you just applying your 21st century revisionist history to an 18th and 19th century series of events: Things were done a lot different then on all sides for reasons hard to fathom today.

Please also consider Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna as a major contributor to Mexico's fall from grace in the 1800's and subsequently. He reneged on the Mexican Constitution of 1824 which ENCOURAGED Anglo settlers to Texas (recall the Empresario Stephen Austin maybe?) because there was nearly NOBODY THERE.

Santa Anna (SA)needed a wedge to "unify" a Mexico that was spilt into factions (like it still is today) so generated a war with it's own people: those LEGALLY in Texas where SA killed, MURDERED soldiers who SURRENDERED in COLD BLOOD at both the Alamo and GOLIAD, their flag was the Mexican Flag with "1824" on it, the Constitution of Mexico they immigrated LEGALLY under.

When SA was captured at San Jacinto in 1836 wearing a privates uniform trying to get away, the Texans wanted to kill him for his crimes, but got instead a promise from him to honor Texas Independence while the Mexican Army went back across the RIO GRANDE.

The Mexican congress promptly reniged on SA's own promise.

SA was exiled to Cuba BUT came back under an understanding with the US from Cuba (via US supplied transportation) to sell California and the Southwest to the US to fix Mexico's debt problems. Once he again became president, he reneged (again) on this understanding too and prosecuted a stupid war effort against the US where he didn't win a single battle and let his capitol fall to American troops who had to end the war this way vice working it out with SA as the head of government as SA originally promised.

Obviously, there is a lot more to this on both sides. Sure, many in the US coveted the southwest/CA. But Mexico also went through many iterations of governmental failure and chaos (sound familiar) while oweing MANY nations many debts.

Do you have a problem with Mexico SELLING it's land to the US? I'm NOT refering to that purchased via the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, but that land purchase via the Gadsden Purchase in 1853-1854?

If Mexico was so "wronged" by the War in 1848 when the US "took" "Mexican" land, how do you feel about Mexico selling the US MORE LAND and with NO WAR looming between the nations merely 6-7 years later? Obviously, Mexico didn't feel to "wronged" at that time did they?

Also, California itself wasn't much of a Mexican "state" but a Territory officially in Mexico Cities mindset. There was ZERO representation in the Mexican Congress for Californios. Yet Mexico City appointed it's own Governors to California which were NOT Californio's. Plus, to bolster immigration to California, Mexico sent "Cholos", otherwise known as criminals to California (similar to Britain's Botany Bay in Australia concept) where they caused much trouble for Califonios. (Rape, murder, stealing, etc.)

The Californio's Kicked out the Mexican supplied Governor and put in their own (hence why there is a Pico BLVD in LA). California was technically in rebellion with Mexico at the time of the Mexican-American War.

(For every one or two a year Mexican merchant ship calling at a California port in the 1830-1840s, there were 30-50 a MONTH from other nations, mostly the US, trading with California. This was against Mexican Law but encouraged by the Californio's who were geographically and politically isolated from Mexico/Mexico City (seat of government). Obviously, other nations saw this isolation as a sign of Mexico's weakness leading up to possible annexation. The Californio's themselves saw and discussed this fact).

Where the US desired they control the Pacific ports and not the British, French or Russians who were simultaneously coveting the same territory: again, things were different in the 1800's that you must understand in the 21st century...

I've enjoyed our short "chat". I'd like to do more and nearly wrote a book here in reply to you; there is so much more to this history that shaped where we are at today.

But to use said history and twist it to make a sort term political point today is not cool, especially as you toss your version of shallow racism into it and unsubstantiated to boot.

Dear Mr. Gould,

Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote.

As I stated in the article, Hispanics are concerned about issues that affect our families in the present. I personally am worried about the economy, for example, because my son, an electrician, is negatively affected by the housing slump.

The past, as Faulkner said, may not be past, but the reality of yesterday's world indeed is.

My point is to let the past go. A powerful nation cleaning out a neigbor's clock is the oldest story ever told. What is pathetic (in the Aristotelian sense), however, are the attempts of the victorious nation to cast itself as a victim. That is what the Romans understood perfectly, and why they were not apologetic for their actions.

Please define racist for me? Or more accurately, where in my article am I disparaging people of different ethnicities? Is there something in my article that offers a window into my person? Or are you a spirit medium?

Here's some advice I give to my college students: (1)Don't make assumptions. (2) Appeals to Logos is more effective than appeals to Pathos.

Best wishes---Rosa Martha Villarreal

Ms. Villarreal,

Thank you for your response.

I did reread what you wrote above. The majority of what your article is about are both historical real stuff, imagined stuff and/or inflated incidents of the past and all versions in between. My reply was to paint the "other side" to a degree as your article was obviously one sided.

An attempt to make us of TODAY feel guilty or sorry for things that occured over 150 YEARS AGO? Nobody alive today nor probably most of everyones grandparents were even alive when all the things you cited occured.

Why do you want TODAYS citizens to feel hurt, cheated or insulted by something that happened SO LONG AGO?

Especially considering your reply here said, "Hispanics are concerned about issues that affect our families in the present" and "My point is to let the past go." You are inconsistant on that point.

Madam, your article did NOT, "let the past go". It is inflaming TODAY from your version of YESTERDAYS events. Why?

If you are sore about a "misjustice" of the past, fine. Recall my Native American point above? Perhaps Mexico, by your reasoning, needs to apoligise and give compensation to the Chumash, Navaho and other tribes whose land was illegally occupied by Mexico and their people ENSLAVED.

After you said, "My point is to let the past go", you continued with, "A powerful nation cleaning out a neigbor's clock is the oldest story ever told. What is pathetic (in the Aristotelian sense), however, are the attempts of the victorious nation to cast itself as a victim. That is what the Romans understood perfectly, and why they were not apologetic for their actions."

The powerful nation cleaning out a neighbors clock? Again refer to the Native Americans discussed above. Plus as I said, people and governments behaved differently in the 1800's than they do today, over 150 years later. (Spain & Mexico occupied Native American lands, etc., the US took Mexico's... I agree things done THEN do not resonate TODAY very well in TODAYS context. But they didn't know what TODAY (enlightenment in this case) would be like YESTERDAY...

Besides, nobody lives long enough to go through this 150 year catharsis...many attempt to do so including those trying to score political points TODAY by presenting a "version" of yesterdays events...;)

Victorious nation as a victim? The US has a massive ILLEGAL ALIEN probelm today just as Mexico has one on it's southern border does it not?. (Yet you mention the illegal problem the Donner Party was. I thought again you were going to "let the past go"?) Mexico, via the empowered by the Mexican Government Empresarios like Austin, LEGALLY IMMIGRATED TO TEXAS and became Mexican Citizens under the Mexican Constitution of 1824, later torn up by Santa Anna. The resulting problems between the US and Mexico started in how "well" the folks in Texas related to the government in Mexico City...not very well.

In regards to being racist or being a "spirit meduim" (funny!) to your soul, Maam, you are the one who said, "...conservative publications echo the racist rants by Theodore Roosevelt and his ilk. TR was especially vocal about his repugnance of the mixed race populations of Cuba and Puerto Rico. Equally disparaging were the attitudes of American military commanders as they shamelessly marched into Mexico City during the Mexican-American War. Already contemptuous of the Spanish people and culture, a prejudice begun by Queen Elizabeth I, these elite commanders expressed further dismay at the racial mix of the many Mexicans, and angrily dismissed the Mexicans’ courageous yet futile resistance, such as those of the Boy Heroes of Chapultepec Castle."

(Conservative publications? Which ones" Besides, the Mexican-American War was fought by President James K. Polk, a DEMOCRAT, who wanted to annex the southwest...using that 21st century mindset in the 1840's again...)

You suppied no examples of any "racist rants" by TR or others of his ilk (Who those of his "Ilk" were was not defined either) It was YOU who charged them as being racists, nor did you illustrate the alleged "dismay" at the racial mix by "elite commanders" (whatever that means) as they "shamelessly marched" (how do you do that?)into Mexico City.

(Queen Elizabeth I was obviously English. Let's leave the Brits out of this one for simplicities sake).

Obviously, the majority of Americans then were caucasian as you took advantage of here on the "racist" front. It's just the facts Ma'am. Note however that Hispanics fought WITH caucations at the Alamo, around San Antonio and at San Jacinto and filled positions in the government of the Republic of Texas...Their beef was also the reneging on the Constitution of 1824, but I digress...

Your, "...and angrily dismissed the Mexicans’ courageous yet futile resistance, such as those of the Boy Heroes of Chapultepec Castle."

In fact, American Commanders noted in AWE the determined resistance of those defending Chapultepec Castle as they did before at Molino del Rey. How was it "dismissed"? Next question is why were 13-17 year old boys doing the defending there in the first place?

(Actually, the answer is one of those things you MUST take in an 1800's context; they were defending their military school. Today in the 21st Century, teenagers deliberately exposed to combat is considered shameful and desparate...)

To point: As a college professor, I would like your students to read all that is here and comment on this blog so we can both see how they view this dialog. You have to promise it won't affect their grade if they disagree with you!

You are also welcome to ask Frank Russo for my email address...

I would like to continue this dialog with you if you are up for it. Consider it a challenge in fact if that helps your motivation.

Again, I enjoyed it and appreciate your time in response,

Jay

Mrs Villarreal,

Not being an American, nor of Mexican ancestry, I have no right to dictate rules of decorum to Mexican-Americans on the subject of immigration.
But if I were entitled, I would produce these 2:

1. If you know your history, and want to link the immigration subject to the numerous, morally reprehensible armed actions of the USA against Mexico, by all means go ahead and do it. But don't just suggest the subject, and then dance around it, by trying to convert it into a Civil Rights question towards Mexicans in the newly "acquired" US soil somehow extending to the present. That is not only anachronic, (as bigot Mr Jay Gould correctly points out): it is intellectually coward.
   


2. Don't apologize for your cultural heritage (or lack thereof). If you are an American who kept your Spanish, good for you. If you didn't, OK. But don't wear lack of Spanish language defensively, as some sort of assimilation badge. It is sad, and ultimately irrelevant.
   

Mr. Aurelio,

I appreciate your additional comments to this blog string. I agree with what you say.

However, can you do me the favor of going into detail of how I may have demostrated any traits associated with being a "bigot" here?

While awaiting Ms. Villarreal's reply to my last, I would like to go over this aspect with you as an intellectual exercise if nothing else.

You see, I thought I was quite complemetary to Hispanics here where appropriate. I was only uncomplimentary to Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and Mexican Governments in general. To be fair, I am OFTEN critical of my own here in the USA...

I also like, admire and respect Hispanic culture. I hope they feel the same about me, where I come from, my roots, etc.

My goal here was to balance, refresh or contrast actual history with the authors redition of what is closer to being both "Pro-Hispanic & Anti-American" (Caucasion at the time) mindset, or even bigotry from that perspective in my opinion.

You will note she did say she wanted to, "Let the past go" but did nothing of the kind did you not?

Mr Gould,

Thank your for your comments.

The reason why I referred to you as a "bigot", is due to the relentlessly anti-Mexican and anti-immigrant tone of your many posts to this site. As well as for your biased, distorted and often outright wrong selection of historical facts that tend to present Spaniards and Mexicans as morally impaired.

For what is worth, I am calling you "bigot" in the proper, original meaning of the term: a person whose prejudices drive him to show contempt and intolerance. I am not using the word, as it is common in the US, as an euphemism for racist.

Your reading of historical events regarding Spanish America is, unfortunately, all too common amongst restrictionlists turned into amateur historians to leverage their point of view. I would like to discuss them point by point, but this short comments section on somebody else's article is not the place.
Feel free to contact me at mongo[at sign here]itsnofun.com

Mongo Aurelio

Mr. Aurelio,

It is not anti-Mexican to be against the "concept" illegal aliens or those who enable that practise in my country.

I suspect the label "bigot" is more due to not being simpatico with how you see things. Rather than take on issues "point-by-point", you dismiss them and call your political opposite names instead. That sir, is no high ground...

Is it also "bigoted' to promote ONE way of see ing the past while dismissing any look at another? Perhaps...

Tell me your source, that Santa Anna doesn't hold some blame for the state of Mexican-American relations of the 1830-1855 timeframe. Or for relations inside his own country for that matter. Tell me he didn't have folks MURDERED after they surrendered.

Or our only our soldiers in Iraq or GITMO "guilty" of that sort of behavior?

I'll keep our chats here so Ms.Villarreal can participate again, too.

Thanks for your dialog,

Jay

Too bad...

I thought a dialog with the author, a professor, might be illuminating when taking point by point the issues of the above discussion on.

Unfortunately, it appears the POLITICS of ones position overrrides that of the LOGIC and OBJECTIVITY that one should apply in dissecting all issues, including historical ones.

Point: The professor was more political here and less historical. And when engaged in critical dialog with someone like educated on the applicable subject matter, left the field to keep their politics "intact".

Mr. Gould,
You do realize the majority of Mexicans or Americans of Mexican decent are Native American.
Since so very few Spanish ever arrived in North America the only thing the majority of Mexicans have that is European is their name which was also forced upon them when they where baptized into the Catholic church. The largest Native American linguistic group in the South West is the Uto-Azteca also known as the Uto-Nahua.They live as far north as the Canadian Border, as far south as El Salvador, and as far east as Texas. So technically if they where to apologize to the Native American people in California they would have to apologize to themselves as well as the Chumash. I just wanted to correct a common misunderstanding Mexican is a nationality not an ethnicity. Ethnicity is tied to language and geography they are Uto-Nahua/Native American such as I suspect your people are French-English/European, However your nationality is USA. Hope this helps you understand

Post a comment