Re: Mexican Border

["Arturo Ramos" <arturo.ramos2@...>]

Ed:

I agree with you 100 percent.  My only point was that the non-native cultural influence in 
the American Southwest in the 200 years preceding the American annexation was much 
more Mexican than Spanish.  Political realities do not always conform to cultural realities.  
I suposse an analogy would be the Indian troops that the British used to conquer Hong 
Kong.  These people, who are among the oldest settlers of the island, were not British and 
their identity in the colony was not as British, and in fact the British abandoned them when 
they abandoned Hong Kong.  Mexicans played a very similar role in the American 
Southwest, even while it was under Spanish rule... the name for New Mexico was not 
arbitrary... it was in fact a colony of Mexicans on the frontier, under Spanish rule, as were 
all Mexicans at the time.

Likewise, the Mexican identity is not limited to the geographical boundaries of Mexico.  I 
think it is wonderful that people who identify themselves proudly as Mexicans can be 
elected to high political offices in the United States... a sign that other Americans do not 
consider their identity as a preclusion to them being patriotic citizens of the United States.

This is not the case in many other countries... especially in Europe (i.e. France).  Those 
countries tend to have a predefined cultural identity and people must absolve themselves 
of any other identity to be considered French.   

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
>
> Arturo,
> 
> My comments related to the idea of ownership. Spain owned the area what we call the 
> Southwest for centuries. Mexico "owned" the Southwest for no more that 30 years. 
Neither 
> country tried to develop the area in any major way. Spain tried somewhat in 1750 when 
> they came up with the idea of the missions, converting the natives to christianity and 
> further exploring the lands. However, my readings suggest that the independent county 
of 
> Mexico from 1820-1848 was in so much internal strife after Independence that the 
> Southwest was not addressed in any meaningful way.
> 
> I fully understand that the people of Nueva España or Mexico had an influence on the 
> Southwest, as they do today. I simply object to the idea held by some that the 
Southwest, 
> particularly California, belonged to Mexico for as long as anyone can remember. Before 
> the Spaniards, various tribes of Native American Indians lived in the Southwest, perhaps 
as 
> long as 10,000 years. Which tribes I do not know. Same tribes? I do not know but 
probably 
> not. Did they own it? Well, perhaps for a time. Should they get it back? For me, I say no 
but 
> it is a moot point; They are not going to get it back since the great majority of those 
tribes 
> no longer exist and any ancestral line has surely been mixed up by other genetic lines.
> 
> What I do know is what Angie brought up at the very beginning---borders change. They 
> will always change; look at Europe and the Middle East. I accept that. This should be a 
> point of unity rather than a point of divisiveness. We need to move on.  What is clear 
> presently is that the gene pool of the Southwest is becoming more Hispanic, as it was 
> centuries ago. I suspect this will continue until there is another change. What change? I 
do 
> not know. Maybe more Asians---the gene pool of the original Native American Indians.
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Arturo Ramos" <arturo.ramos2@v...> wrote:
> >
> > Ed/Angie:
> > 
> > Whatever the political status of the American Southwest was 
> > throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, it was if not indigenous in 
> > identity, certainly Mexican.  Most of the settlers in the area were 
> > not Spaniards, as a lot of Anglo revisionist historians like to 
> > purport by glorifying the missions, etc., but Mexicans... Tlaxacaltec 
> > colonizers in New Mexico, immigrants from Sonora, Chihuahua, 
> > Aguascalientes, etc... The original founding families of Culver City, 
> > California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from 
> > Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group.
> > 
> > The following book is very well researched and provides a whole new 
> > insight into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of Los Angeles.  A 
> > very good read.
> > 
> > Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its 
> > Mexican Past
> > by William Deverell
> > 
> > Review:
> > 
> > Chronicling the rise of Los Angeles through shifting ideas of race 
> > and ethnicity, William Deverell offers a unique perspective on how 
> > the city grew and changed. Whitewashed Adobe considers six different 
> > developments in the history of the city--including the cementing of 
> > the Los Angeles River, the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1924, and 
> > the evolution of America's largest brickyard in the 1920s. In an 
> > absorbing narrative supported by a number of previously unpublished 
> > period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that was once part of 
> > Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and even 
> > obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican places and people. 
> > Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a city seething 
> > with racial enmity due to the recent war with Mexico. He explains 
> > how, within a generation, the city's business interests, looking for 
> > a commercially viable way to establish urban identity, borrowed 
> > Mexican cultural traditions and put on a carnival called La Fiesta de 
> > Los Angeles. He analyzes the subtle ways in which ethnicity came to 
> > bear on efforts to corral the unpredictable Los Angeles River and 
> > shows how the resident Mexican population was put to work fashioning 
> > the modern metropolis. He discusses how Los Angeles responded to the 
> > nation's last major outbreak of bubonic plague and concludes by 
> > considering the Mission Play, a famed drama tied to regional 
> > assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity. Taking all of 
> > these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe uncovers an 
> > urban identity--and the power structure that fostered it--with far-
> > reaching implications for contemporary Los Angeles.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > 
> > > Sorry...I have a tendecy to simplfy things and generalize...  I 
> > fully 
> > > understand what you mean.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Angie
> > > 
> > > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Angie,
> > > > 
> > > > As a point of clarification, the independent country of Mexico 
> > > owned much of the 
> > > > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to ~1848). 
> > > Spain owned the 
> > > > Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring this up is that 
> > I 
> > > hear the statement that 
> > > > Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people 
> > > remember the dates well or 
> > > > fully understand the entities involved.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>