Reconquista of Aztlan

[Againsheila]

Yet more people who've fallen for the lie of the democrats and republicans. As long as they keep fighting amongst themselves, the dems and reps are assured that they won't be replaced by a party that actually cares about America instead of just the money they get from the wealthy and the Corporations.

It's past time ALL Americans accepted the fact that both the dems and the reps have failed us and they will NEVER do anything to help us, they are owned by the elite.

 

[editec]

Areguing either legality or morality when it comes to what nations (or national wannbes) do is sort of missing the point.

I do it as much as the rest of you, of course, so I'm reminding myself about this obvious fact as much as any of you.

Nations, speaking generally, AREN'T moral. Mexico isn't moral in it's treatment of Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadoran immigrants, and the U.S. didn't honor the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

cry me a fucking river. That was 150+ years ago, and it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that those national boundaries will be redrawn anytime soon.

Pretending, however, that this "myth" of reconquista isn't in the minds of many latinos is patently disingenuous, though.

If you're under the impression that I think that there aren't some Hispanics who would like to see the American SW back under the control of Mexico, you're mistaken.

If you're making the claim that I am being disengenuious about anything, then it might help if you quoted the specific words I wrote which lead you to make such a charge.

I don't think I've been remotely "disengenuinous" about a single thing I wrote in this thread.

 

[Againsheila]

One more time, for the hard of reading...I think that Mexico's "reconquista" plan is rather obvious when an official representative of the Mexican government tells the San Diego Minutemen that this has been and will be Mexico again. Mar 13, 2008, Alberto Lozano, works for the Mexican conselate in San Diego and is quoted in the newspapers down there many times when it comes to Mexican policy. This is on video tape and there is proof, yet our leaders have ignored it.

San Diego Minutemen - Press Release March 14 2008

 

[Godboy]

They did nothing that solved the problem. putting a bandaid on a fucking severed arm isn't really all that impressive.

How can you say that when MILLIONS of illegals were sent back last year. Far more than any other year prior to it.

Heres some of the things we did to protect our border....

1.) Security appropriations bill, which the Senate passed in July, contained over $14 billion for border security and immigration enforcement—including 1,000 new border agents. Additional legislation added 1,700 detention beds on our way to bringing the total number to 27,500 in 2007. In another funding bill, we provided almost $2 billion to repair fences in high traffic areas, replace broken border patrol aircraft for lower traffic areas, and support training for additional Customs and Border Protection agents.

2.) We deployed more than 6,000 National Guard troops to our southwest border—and subsequently saw a 45% drop in border apprehensions.

3.) Secure Fence Act: The bill authorizes over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along critical, highly trafficked areas of the border. The remainder of the border would be secured by a “virtual fence” that deploys cameras, ground sensors, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and integrated surveillance technology. We’ve seen the effectiveness of this approach in San Diego, where apprehensions of border violators dropped from 200,000 a year to just 9,000 per year after installation of a 14-mile fence.


Saying these things did nothing just isnt true. It may not have completely stopped the flow of illegals, but it certainly reduced it dramatically.

 

[Againsheila]

They did nothing that solved the problem. putting a bandaid on a fucking severed arm isn't really all that impressive.

How can you say that when MILLIONS of illegals were sent back last year. Far more than any other year prior to it.

Heres some of the things we did to protect our border....

1.) Security appropriations bill, which the Senate passed in July, contained over $14 billion for border security and immigration enforcement—including 1,000 new border agents. Additional legislation added 1,700 detention beds on our way to bringing the total number to 27,500 in 2007. In another funding bill, we provided almost $2 billion to repair fences in high traffic areas, replace broken border patrol aircraft for lower traffic areas, and support training for additional Customs and Border Protection agents.

2.) We deployed more than 6,000 National Guard troops to our southwest border—and subsequently saw a 45% drop in border apprehensions.

3.) Secure Fence Act: The bill authorizes over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along critical, highly trafficked areas of the border. The remainder of the border would be secured by a “virtual fence” that deploys cameras, ground sensors, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and integrated surveillance technology. We’ve seen the effectiveness of this approach in San Diego, where apprehensions of border violators dropped from 200,000 a year to just 9,000 per year after installation of a 14-mile fence.


Saying these things did nothing just isnt true. It may not have completely stopped the flow of illegals, but it certainly reduced it dramatically.

What you missed the part about the national guard running from the Mexicans with guns because our president sent them there without weapons AND assigned the border patrol to guard them, thus taking them away from guarding the border?

As for the fence, it still isn't completed, or funded.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

So, I wanna hear some solutions. We've talked enough about the problem and the problem is clear:

We are developing an AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEM. We can call it "The Mexican Question". America is a country for the real, ethnic, Americans. Having a growing population of ethnic Mexicans threatens the stability of our ethnic American Homeland. We cannot give this up lightly. What will we do when the majority of the population is Ethnically Mexican and not Ethnically American? It is proven that effective policing of the border doesn't work- and on the other side is a whole factory of ethnic Mexicans waiting to cross over. The problem could become immense in the future if this continues. Therefore, I propose we deal with this in a dual manner: We need an internal and an external solution:

1) Impose much harsher law-and-order in the United States. Find the ethnic Mexicans where they may be, arrest them, confiscate their land and deport them to Mexico.
2) In order to trully, and finally, solve this problem, we should consider making massive buffer zones inside Mexico, and populate them with ethnic Americans to ensure our security. We will occupy the country, establish American-only highways, American-only settlements, and divide the Mexican population in special zones, criss crossed by the American-only settlements/highways, and build these along all major rivers, water resources, and best farmland. Eventually they will all find it completely unbearable and they will all leave.

Afterall, hispanics have dozens of countries! Americans only have one! Hopefully there won't be any "Pancho Villa Rockets" coming down on Texas though.... Then again, not like we can't handle that.

 

[Agnapostate]

That was humor, you uptight sphincter.

Hmmm...now I know there's a phrase they use in situations like this...What...could...it...be? Hmmm. Oh! That's right!

Don't blame me for your lack of translatable humor skills.

Ya think? It took you two paragraphs to get to this point?

Yes, I do think. Which is apparently more than can be said for others here.

The simple fact of the matter is that your recurrent references to U.S. violations of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo reveal the truth of the reconquista issue: that many Mexicans believe that those lands are really Mexican, and they are free to settle there anytime they wish.

THAT IS WHAT THE TERM RECONQUISTA MEANS.

The fact that "58 percent of the Mexican people believed the U.S. Southwest belongs to Mexico, and 57 percent believed that Mexicans have the right to enter the United States without U.S. permission" (in a poll commissioned by a clearly biased party, no less!) reveals that whatever bitter sympathies some Mexican citizens may harbor regarding the Southwest is not able to translate into action taken to bring about an actual "reconquista" or even a belief that Mexicans should be permitted to enter the U.S. at their leisure. It's almost like you saying that illegal Mexicans should be shot, yet not having the capacity to do anything about it, or even the courage to repeat that in SoCal, for instance. So it just turns out to be amusing and kind of cute. Like Betty Boop stamping her foot.

Furthermore, the term was coined by Mexicans WHO FEEL ENTITLED TO RESETTLE THE SOUTHWESTERN U.S. however and whenever they wish.

Every time you bring up the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, you are reaffirming that the reconquista does in fact exist, and that it influences Chicano thought on the matter.

Try again, fool. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its unhonored land concessions are referenced because many of the rightists on this board assert the inviolable private property rights of white landowners with border property. Therefore, I merely point out that according to the criteria set out by no less a capitalist authority than Robert Nozick, that private property was not gained through just acquisition. I point it out only when the inviolable private property rights of those landowners are asserted. The Treaty and its land concessions are irrelevant to me personally.

Aside from protesting on behalf of open borders, rights for illegal immigrants, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, free education for illegal immigrations, and amnesty.

Ah, of course. Political dissent isn't accurately labeled until it's identified as seditious, right?

AGAIN, the epitomy of reconquista...that the Southwestern U.S. spiritually belongs to Mexico and Mexico's indigenous peoples, that it was stolen from the U.S. who violated the terms of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and that Mexicans can do as they wish there. Further, that they are entitled to financial compensation and help from the U.S. in resettling there.

I don't know what an "epitomy" is. (Perhaps a sign that some of our native English speakers suffer from a few deficiencies. )

This isn't an organized military conspiracy, it is LITERAL PRACTICE every time a Mexican crosses the border and resettles in the Southwest.

Absurd to the point of idiocy. The majority of immigrants, whether from Mexico or anywhere else, initially intend to return to their homes, even if that never becomes a reality. Amusing that this "reconquista" was never brought up before the latest immigration boom, of course. Reveals the obvious fact that the central cause of this migration pattern is trade liberalization.

Okay...so, because you haven't heard of these prominent authors, it's all a conspiracy theory.

Sounds like YOU are the one who isn't very intelligent on this issue.

No, sounds like loads of fat and sugar aren't the only things coming out of your ass these days. Better luck next time, kid.

Again, keep bringing up the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo here and elsewhere. Every time you do, you are reconfirming that the "myth" of reconquista is in fact a reality.

This matter has been explained to you in detail. Knowing you, it will likely be brought up many more times regardless.

 

[catzmeow]

If you're under the impression that I think that there aren't some Hispanics who would like to see the American SW back under the control of Mexico, you're mistaken.

If you're making the claim that I am being disengenuious about anything, then it might help if you quoted the specific words I wrote which lead you to make such a charge.

I don't think I've been remotely "disengenuinous" about a single thing I wrote in this thread.

Those comments were directed at Jose and were basically in agreement with what you said.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yes, yes, Jose. Who does Jose represent other than Jose?

 

[José]

Originally posted by catzmeow
Jose's arguments here basically reveal that the "myth" of reconquista is no myth, at all, but a common pattern of thinking among many Mexicans and Chicanos.

Since when Aztlan supporters say things like

“But don't get me wrong. I fully support the right of the US to control its borders. My only problem is with those individuals who etc, etc...”

“American possession of those territories was eventually legitimized etc, etc…”

Originally posted by catzmeow
Jose's arguments here basically reveal that the "myth" of reconquista is no myth, at all, but a common pattern of thinking among many Mexicans and Chicanos.

Well, your post reveals that people on the Internet don’t read what you write but what they would like you to have written so they could prove their points.

 

[José]

I don’t care who calls the Texan Revolution a landgrab:

Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, Eskimos, Chechens, Australian Aborigines etc, etc…

If secessionist latino movements call it a landgrab, more power to them, because this is the historical truth.

 

[José]

I'm gonna comment on editec's posts tomorrow if I have the time.

 

[José]

Originally posted by editec
I'm always ready to rethink my understanding of history if there's good reason for me to do so.

This is what I could find on the Internet regarding Californios' armed resistance against anglo settlers/US Army.

Battle of Dominguez Rancho, October 9. Jose Antonio Carrillo leads Californio forces in victory against 350 US Marines and sailors near Los Angeles.

Battle of San Pasqual, December 6. US Cavalry General Stephen Kearny's dragoons are defeated by the Californio forces, led by Andrés Pico north of San Diego.

Battle of Rio San Gabriel, January 8. Kearny and Stockton's 700 man army defeat the 160 man Californio Lancer force near Los Angeles.

Battle of La Mesa, January 9. Kearny, Robert F. Stockton and John Fremont's combined US forces, defeat the Californios in the climactic battle for California, at present day Montebello east of Los Angeles.

Mexico's Governor in California, Pío Pico, was forced to abandon the Californios at the outset of the American invasion. The Californios then organized a militia to defend themselves against the United States. The Californios defeated an American force in Los Angeles on September 30, 1846, at the Siege of Los Angeles. Several battles were fought in defense of California, but the Californio Lancers were defeated in January 1847 after the Americans reinforced their army and marines in Southern California.


Californio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[José]

Originally posted by editec
You seem to be making your argument from some sort of "those are the rules" line of reasoning.

When have you EVER heard of any nation playing by those sort of rules, Jose?

I totally agree with you that brute force often has the final say regarding secessionist movements.

But you're missing the point of my previous posts. Their purpose was to help differentiate between legitimate independence movements and land grabs.

Let's analyse the main differences between legitimate independence movements vs. land grabs in light of what I said in my previous posts.

 

[José]

Legitimate independence movements:

You have a group of explorers/colonists who arrive in the new land as representatives of their country. They identify themselves as Spaniards, Portuguese, English etc... and don't have the slightest emotional attachment to the new land, seeing it as nothing more than a source of profit.

But their national self identification with their countries becomes weaker and weaker with each new generation. To their children England, Spain, France etc... represents a vivid image transmited by their parent's life stories and they aspire to visit their real country someday. To their grandchildren the image of the old country is a little less significant and so on.

As the emotional attachment to the old country grows weaker the development of a nativist feeling begins to manifest itself. The new land is no longer seen, by the younger generations, as spoils of war inherited from their ancestors but as their real home. New traditions and artistic expressions linked to the new environment they live in start to flourish.

At the end of this process of transformation the inhabitants of the colony identify themselves fully with the new land often seeing the old country as not only a foreign power but as a burden, an opressor.

So the main characteristic of a legitimate independence movement, as opposed to a land grab, is the arising of a new national identity over the course of several generations.

LEGITIMATE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS ARE THE RESULT OF A LENGTHY HISTORICAL PROCESS THROUGH WHICH A NEW PEOPLE EMERGE AS AN OUTGROWTH OF COLONIAL ENTERPRISES/GEOGRAFIC ISOLATION ETC...

Land grabs:

The land grab ALWAYS precedes the creation of a new national identity.

The colonists/invaders arrive in the territory with a pre-conveived plan/ideology to annex the new land to their countries.

When Cortes started plundering the Aztecs' wealth and stealing their land he did so as a representative of Spain. No mexican national identity had been created yet. They were Spaniards taking over "Mexico" on behalf of Spain, not Mexicans fighting to break free from Spain.

So what happened in "Mexico" during the 1500's was a clear cut case of land grab.

SIMILARLY, when american colonists arrived in Mexico's northern provinces they already had a pre-conceived ideology based on American territorial expansionism (Manifest Destiny).

Manifest Destiny's course of action in a nutshell:

Emigrate to new regions, set up American led governments, defeat any armed opposition (be they native americans or Mexico's armed forces) and then seek admission to the United States.

No new "Anglo-Texan" national identity could have arisen in 13 years. The settlers led by Austin were as americans in 1836 as they were in 1823 when they arrived in Tejas. And they proved my statement themselves when the majority of anglo settlers favored immediate annexation by the US following the end of hostilities.

They were not fighting to liberate their HISTORICAL HOMELAND but to incorporate a foreign territory into their REAL COUNTRY.

If a bunch of naturalised foreigners settled in South Carolina and 13 years later started an "independence movement" claiming the american state as their national homeland would any american consider their claim to statehood as anything else but a joke?

 

[José]

Examples of legitimate independence movements:

American Revolution

Mexican Revolution

Examples of land grabs:

British/American, Spanish/Mexican wars against native americans

Texas Revolution

 

[José]

A modern example of a legitimate independence movement supressed by brute force would be the kurdish independence movement in Turkey and Iraq during the 80's.

And the most glaring example of a land grab that succeded despite its illegitimacy would be the Texas Revolution itself.

So editec is quite correct when he says there is no correlation between the legitimacy of a given secessionist cause and its respective sucess/failure.

But this doesn't change the fact that there are real, objetive differences between legitimate independence movements and landgrabs.

 

[DiveCon]

how bout this Jose, i dont give a fuck
its not yours

 

[catzmeow]

But this doesn't change the fact that there are real, objetive differences between legitimate independence movements and landgrabs.

And your point is that latinos are entitled to settle wherever they wish in the southwest U.S. because of that landgrab, right?

 

[Agnapostate]

Settlement issues have no meaningful relation to ethnic or racial identity, since utility maximization has no meaningful relation to ethnic or racial identity, and I simply advocate utility maximization.