"Reconquista"

[Agnapostate]

The idea that numerous Mexican illegal immigrants possess ambitions of “re-conquering” Mexico from the U.S. to remedy the cessation that occurred in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war doesn’t even make sense, and here’s why.

Consider the case of the U.S. as being somewhat analogous to that of Mexico. The U.S. originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Great Britain. The modern Mexican republic originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Spain, though it developed slower and was preceded by a Mexican empire independent of Spain. The secessionists were of European descent in both cases, of primarily English (and other types of British) descent in the case of the U.S., and of primarily Spanish descent (the term is "criollo”) in the case of Mexico. In both cases, there was an indigenous underclass that underwent wide-scale destruction and continued to undergo racial discrimination after the establishment of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Native Americans far beneath them. So we had three groups in each country relevant to this discussion: the European royalists, the seceding American settlers, and the Native Americans. We end up having figures like General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, eleven-time president of Mexico, being equivalent to the Founding Fathers in that they’re of European descent but of newly created American nationalities. The Native Americans, however, are obviously quite distinct in both cases.

That brings me to the point that the majority of the Mexican illegal immigrant population is Native American, and that racism and classism in Mexico has continued to this day to an even more blatant extent than in the U.S., with the Mexican political class dominated by a white male majority, contrary to the popular U.S. misconception that immigrants are representative of a homogenous racial population in that country. There is substantial discontent among the Native American immigrants to the U.S. with the Mexican political class for their pursuit of trade liberalization, which caused the original conditions of displacement that forced them to migrate in the first place. The most intense example of this is the Zapatista uprising in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, which was orchestrated by Tzotzil Mayans.

Now, would we not see the absurdity of conflating the Native American population of the U.S. with the European settlers, with whom they were often in conflict? Why do we do this in the case of the modern Native American illegal immigrants, assuming that “they” are the descendants of those Mexican settlers? While many of them will be culturally Hispanic at this point because of detachment from indigenous culture, they’re obviously still part of some underclass if they migrate away from Mexico, and they’re certainly distinct from the white upper class. Is it not therefore absurd to believe that they have any desire to extend those conditions into the U.S. and empower the political class that often does not hide its contempt for them in the U.S.?

[chloe]

The idea that numerous Mexican illegal immigrants possess ambitions of “re-conquering” Mexico from the U.S. to remedy the cessation that occurred in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war doesn’t even make sense, and here’s why.

Consider the case of the U.S. as being somewhat analogous to that of Mexico. The U.S. originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Great Britain. The modern Mexican republic originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Spain, though it developed slower and was preceded by a Mexican empire independent of Spain. The secessionists were of European descent in both cases, of primarily English (and other types of British) descent in the case of the U.S., and of primarily Spanish descent (the term is "criollo”) in the case of Mexico. In both cases, there was an indigenous underclass that underwent wide-scale destruction and continued to undergo racial discrimination after the establishment of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Native Americans far beneath them. So we had three groups in each country relevant to this discussion: the European royalists, the seceding American settlers, and the Native Americans. We end up having figures like General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, eleven-time president of Mexico, being equivalent to the Founding Fathers in that they’re of European descent but of newly created American nationalities. The Native Americans, however, are obviously quite distinct in both cases.

That brings me to the point that the majority of the Mexican illegal immigrant population is Native American, and that racism and classism in Mexico has continued to this day to an even more blatant extent than in the U.S., with the Mexican political class dominated by a white male majority, contrary to the popular U.S. misconception that immigrants are representative of a homogenous racial population in that country. There is substantial discontent among the Native American immigrants to the U.S. with the Mexican political class for their pursuit of trade liberalization, which caused the original conditions of displacement that forced them to migrate in the first place. The most intense example of this is the Zapatista uprising in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, which was orchestrated by Tzotzil Mayans.

Now, would we not see the absurdity of conflating the Native American population of the U.S. with the European settlers, with whom they were often in conflict? Why do we do this in the case of the modern Native American illegal immigrants, assuming that “they” are the descendants of those Mexican settlers? While many of them will be culturally Hispanic at this point because of detachment from indigenous culture, they’re obviously still part of some underclass if they migrate away from Mexico, and they’re certainly distinct from the white upper class. Is it not therefore absurd to believe that they have any desire to extend those conditions into the U.S. and empower the political class that often does not hide its contempt for them in the U.S.?

nice topic just in time for thanksgivng

[Gaffer]

By "we" I presume you have a mouse in your pocket. Illegals are illegals, no matter what color or nationality. Indians from Mexico that come here illegally are just as illegal as an Indian from Canada that comes here illegally. Since the Indians in Mexico are in the majority, maybe they should see about voting the whitish dudes out.

You seem to be out to bash the forefathers of this country and Mexico for being white. Are you on a guilt trip for something they did 100 years ago? The countries and borders are what they are. The past is past and wrongs of the past cannot be righted today as the wrong doers are long gone.

[cat slave]

By "we" I presume you have a mouse in your pocket. Illegals are illegals, no matter what color or nationality. Indians from Mexico that come here illegally are just as illegal as an Indian from Canada that comes here illegally. Since the Indians in Mexico are in the majority, maybe they should see about voting the whitish dudes out.

You seem to be out to bash the forefathers of this country and Mexico for being white. Are you on a guilt trip for something they did 100 years ago? The countries and borders are what they are. The past is past and wrongs of the past cannot be righted today as the wrong doers are long gone.

Good response.

[Agnapostate]

By "we" I presume you have a mouse in your pocket. Illegals are illegals, no matter what color or nationality. Indians from Mexico that come here illegally are just as illegal as an Indian from Canada that comes here illegally. Since the Indians in Mexico are in the majority, maybe they should see about voting the whitish dudes out.

You seem to be out to bash the forefathers of this country and Mexico for being white. Are you on a guilt trip for something they did 100 years ago? The countries and borders are what they are. The past is past and wrongs of the past cannot be righted today as the wrong doers are long gone.

I'm not interested in claims of national sovereignty unsupported by sounder arguments against illegal immigration, so perhaps you could be the one to engage me in the one-on-one immigration debate that I was looking for last month. At any rate, I don't find any claim of national sovereignty very convincing when it was established by the destruction of the very indigenous population now falsely condemned as a "trespassing" one. I'm aware that there are various other arguments regarding immigration policy that exist. I've just never found the "It's our country!" one very convincing, since it seems clearly weak.

P.S. The term "we" is used in formal ethical arguments.

[Trigg]

I'm not interested in claims of national sovereignty unsupported by sounder arguments against illegal immigration, so perhaps you could be the one to engage me in the one-on-one immigration debate that I was looking for last month. At any rate, I don't find any claim of national sovereignty very convincing when it was established by the destruction of the very indigenous population now falsely condemned as a "trespassing" one. I'm aware that there are various other arguments regarding immigration policy that exist. I've just never found the "It's our country!" one very convincing, since it seems clearly weak.

P.S. The term "we" is used in formal ethical arguments.

The MEXICAN indians aren't indiginous to this country. The American indians fought with them and they all kept very distinct hunting and territorial boundaries.

Therefore they aren't falsely condemned as trespassing, they actually are trespassing. The boundaries between these two countries have been in place for a long time. NO matter where people originate from they need to respect the laws of this country. Sneaking in is ILLEGAL.

[Agnapostate]

The MEXICAN indians aren't indiginous to this country. The American indians fought with them and they all kept very distinct hunting and territorial boundaries.

Therefore they aren't falsely condemned as trespassing, they actually are trespassing. The boundaries between these two countries have been in place for a long time. NO matter where people originate from they need to respect the laws of this country. Sneaking in is ILLEGAL.

Uh...there wasn't fighting between American Indian groups based on their residence in either the U.S. or Mexico; the residence of the Apache in both, for example, should illustrate that. There was active state discrimination against Native Americans no matter what country they resided in, and one could be a Sioux or one could be a Huichol...such a person would encounter the same discrimination. So, since there was a homogenous treatment of Native Americans in the Southwest, I don't see the basis for distinction among them...particularly when many Indians in Mexico were adversely affected by U.S. policy against Indians in general orchestrated by border movements.

[SassyLady]

The idea that numerous Mexican illegal immigrants possess ambitions of “re-conquering” Mexico from the U.S. to remedy the cessation that occurred in the aftermath of the Mexican-American war doesn’t even make sense, and here’s why.

Consider the case of the U.S. as being somewhat analogous to that of Mexico. The U.S. originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Great Britain. The modern Mexican republic originated as a seceding region of a colonialist European empire, Spain, though it developed slower and was preceded by a Mexican empire independent of Spain. The secessionists were of European descent in both cases, of primarily English (and other types of British) descent in the case of the U.S., and of primarily Spanish descent (the term is "criollo”) in the case of Mexico. In both cases, there was an indigenous underclass that underwent wide-scale destruction and continued to undergo racial discrimination after the establishment of the U.S. and Mexico, both of which placed Europeans at the top of the racial hierarchy and Native Americans far beneath them. So we had three groups in each country relevant to this discussion: the European royalists, the seceding American settlers, and the Native Americans. We end up having figures like General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, eleven-time president of Mexico, being equivalent to the Founding Fathers in that they’re of European descent but of newly created American nationalities. The Native Americans, however, are obviously quite distinct in both cases.

That brings me to the point that the majority of the Mexican illegal immigrant population is Native American, and that racism and classism in Mexico has continued to this day to an even more blatant extent than in the U.S., with the Mexican political class dominated by a white male majority, contrary to the popular U.S. misconception that immigrants are representative of a homogenous racial population in that country. There is substantial discontent among the Native American immigrants to the U.S. with the Mexican political class for their pursuit of trade liberalization, which caused the original conditions of displacement that forced them to migrate in the first place. The most intense example of this is the Zapatista uprising in the southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas, which was orchestrated by Tzotzil Mayans.

Now, would we not see the absurdity of conflating the Native American population of the U.S. with the European settlers, with whom they were often in conflict? Why do we do this in the case of the modern Native American illegal immigrants, assuming that “they” are the descendants of those Mexican settlers? While many of them will be culturally Hispanic at this point because of detachment from indigenous culture, they’re obviously still part of some underclass if they migrate away from Mexico, and they’re certainly distinct from the white upper class. Is it not therefore absurd to believe that they have any desire to extend those conditions into the U.S. and empower the political class that often does not hide its contempt for them in the U.S.?

It might not make sense, but it is true.

[Agnapostate]

It might not make sense, but it is true.

Not really. It's more of an attempt to inflate jingoistic sentiments with disingenuous propaganda.

[SassyLady]

Not really. It's more of an attempt to inflate jingoistic sentiments with disingenuous propaganda.

Yes really.

Do you live anywhere in the west/southwest part of the US? I do. I work with people who are members and organizers of La Raza and MEChA and they are definitely working to re-conquer. And, after taking back their land, they want to "cleanse" the populace. It's not about re-conquering - it's about "liberating" Aztlan.

It is my belief that until you have actually watched and listened to some of the ideas being pursued by this group you should not shrug it off as "jingoistic sentiments".

I do have to ask, though, upon what are you basing your belief............have you actually spoken to anyone involved in this movement?

[Agnapostate]

Yes really.

Do you live anywhere in the west/southwest part of the US? I do. I work with people who are members and organizers of La Raza and MEChA and they are definitely working to re-conquer. And, after taking back their land, they want to "cleanse" the populace. It's not about re-conquering - it's about "liberating" Aztlan.

It is my belief that until you have actually watched and listened to some of the ideas being pursued by this group you should not shrug it off as "jingoistic sentiments".

I do have to ask, though, upon what are you basing your belief............have you actually spoken to anyone involved in this movement?

I live in the eastern section of Maine in a city called Los Angeles; thanks for asking.

There is no logical reason for illegal immigrants to support the likes of MEChA because Indians continue to be a racial underclass in Mexico. There is consequently no sound reason for them to support the expansion of the power of a political class that often does not even bother to hide its contempt for them. There is a lack of understanding of that in the U.S.; it's unknown that the political class of Mexico is white, as it's inaccurately perceived that there's a homogenous dark-skinned bloc throughout Latin America.

And your anecdotal sentiments do little for you...if you wanted to raise fright levels, you'd be better off to refer to the Mexica Movement rather than MEChA or anything about any "reconquista," for the reasons that I explained in the OP that go unrebutted.

[Agnapostate]

At any event, I'm certain that there will be plenty of U.S. citizens completely unwilling to realize the fact that the dark-skinned immigrants that they see are Indians rather than "Spaniards" or whatever they think they are.

"No, teepee. Not sombrero, that's Spanish. Teepee."

[SassyLady]

I live in the eastern section of Maine in a city called Los Angeles; thanks for asking.

Never heard of Los Angeles, Maine. Does living there give you extensive experience with members of the racial underclass of people from Mexico?

There is no logical reason for illegal immigrants to support the likes of MEChA because Indians continue to be a racial underclass in Mexico.
There is consequently no sound reason for them to support the expansion of the power of a political class that often does not even bother to hide its contempt for them.

Herein lies the flaw in your argument. When someone is fighting for a cause, logic is not a motivator.

And do you really think the racial underclass of Mexico are so beaten down and disheartened to not rally to the call of liberating Aztlan? Come on, give them more credit than that.

There is a lack of understanding of that in the U.S.; it's unknown that the political class of Mexico is white, as it's inaccurately perceived that there's a homogenous dark-skinned bloc throughout Latin America.

OK - so the political class of Mexico is white. And you are saying that because the political elite of Mexico are not native americans that those who have immigrated to America from Mexico have no desire to liberate their homeland. Actually it would seem that they would want it back even more........if, as you say, they are descendents of the original natives.

And your anecdotal sentiments do little for you...if you wanted to raise fright levels, you'd be better off to refer to the Mexica Movement rather than MEChA or anything about any "reconquista," for the reasons that I explained in the OP that go unrebutted.

Anecdotal sentiments? As I've stated previously, I've talked to, and work with, people who are members. When I ask why they don't become American citizens they say, why bother, it will be Mexico again someday.


PS - Did you know that the latest supreme court judge (Sotomayor) was/is a NCLR member? Please don't dismiss the validity and power of this organization. To do so would be naive.

PSS - Unrebutted OP? So what............do you really think that if something has not been rebutted that it is in fact -- true? Very, very naive.

[SassyLady]

At any event, I'm certain that there will be plenty of U.S. citizens completely unwilling to realize the fact that the dark-skinned immigrants that they see are Indians rather than "Spaniards" or whatever they think they are.

"No, teepee. Not sombrero, that's Spanish. Teepee."

Who care what they are - Indian or Spanish.........they think of themselves as citizens of Mexico. You seem to be the one hung up on whether they are Indian or not.

BTW - My dad was more than 50% Native American (lived on a reservation until he was 14) and my mom was just under 25% and I hold no grudges against the government and neither did they. We chose to live in the present rather than complaining about the past.

[Agnapostate]

Never heard of Los Angeles, Maine. Does living there give you extensive experience with members of the racial underclass of people from Mexico?

Residence in Los Angeles does give one some perspective, inasmuch as one's quite near the border. Of course, if you'd just looked at my location in the first place, you could have saved yourself the trouble of inquiry. But then again, you could have saved yourself the trouble of inquiry anyway since whatever personal experiences either you or I could relate are merely anecdotal and in no way constitute controlled empirical evidence or anything near it. Since the spectrum of human experiences is so widely varying and heterogenous, selection of individual experiences will not provide us with any information on which to base policy formation or even with which to analyze general trends and attitudes.

Herein lies the flaw in your argument. When someone is fighting for a cause, logic is not a motivator.

And do you really think the racial underclass of Mexico are so beaten down and disheartened to not rally to the call of liberating Aztlan? Come on, give them more credit than that.

"Liberating Aztlan"? I just explained the fallacy of this entire premise. The Mexicans that were beaten back from what now constitutes the U.S. Southwest were Spanish whites that oppressed the Indian racial underclass significantly themselves. There is still a white political class in Mexico; there has been a violent insurrection launched against this political class in Chiapas by the Tzotzil-dominated Zapatista Army of National Liberation. There is no reason for Indians that have undergone difficulties to such an extent in Mexico that they were forced to migrate to support the expansion of the authority of the political regime that does not represent them. If you didn't regard Mexico as a homogenous racial and political body, you might realize this.

OK - so the political class of Mexico is white. And you are saying that because the political elite of Mexico are not native americans that those who have immigrated to America from Mexico have no desire to liberate their homeland. Actually it would seem that they would want it back even more........if, as you say, they are descendents of the original natives.

Yeah, but that applies to all of America, not just the U.S. Southwest. It applies to every single country in America, not just the U.S. or Mexico. That's the basis, for example, of the aforementioned Mexica Movement, which you might have greater cause for fearing than the nonexistent "reconquista" movement. However, unlike many of their U.S. counterparts, Latin American Indians are culturally detached from their racial heritage, and have been Hispanicized. This accounts for their lack of interest in Native American dominance over both continents.

Anecdotal sentiments? As I've stated previously, I've talked to, and work with, people who are members. When I ask why they don't become American citizens they say, why bother, it will be Mexico again someday.

That's precisely what anecdotal sentiments are.

PS - Did you know that the latest supreme court judge (Sotomayor) was/is a NCLR member? Please don't dismiss the validity and power of this organization. To do so would be naive.

Oh? A Puerto Rican? That's interesting, since it undermines your inordinate focus on Mexicans.

PSS - Unrebutted OP? So what............do you really think that if something has not been rebutted that it is in fact -- true? Very, very naive.

No, my premise is merely that your entire conception is inaccurate, which seems to be a sound claim. After all, you associate Indians with the white Mexicans who were responsible for their systematic oppression and destruction, which is decidedly fallacious.

Who care what they are - Indian or Spanish.........they think of themselves as citizens of Mexico. You seem to be the one hung up on whether they are Indian or not.

BTW - My dad was more than 50% Native American (lived on a reservation until he was 14) and my mom was just under 25% and I hold no grudges against the government and neither did they. We chose to live in the present rather than complaining about the past.

There's an obvious detachment between citizenry in Mexico and support for the expansion of the power of the ruling political regime in Mexico to the U.S. There is substantial discontent with the political regime among Indian immigrants because of their racially "inferior" status in Mexico.

Accept that the expansion of both U.S. and Mexican national authority entailed unjust acquisitions of land and resources through force, coercion, and deception. The relevance of that to modern affairs is that there's still influence of that pattern on modern affairs.