Reconquista THIS! Stake through the heart of the Latino-centric "Aztlan Myth "

Started by Late-For-Lunch, April 30, 2016, 07:51:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Late-For-Lunch

Aztlan Myth
   There is a large movement known as the Aztlan movement which maintains the strident (yea, in some sectors, militantly defiantly unshakable) belief that much of the territory of what is now the United States of America was "stolen" from Mexico, which has some sort of moral, legal or ancestral right to ownership and dominion over it.
    The central premises of the Aztlan Myth include:
1)   The belief that indigenous peoples connected by direct lineage to tribes which inhabited what is now Mexico also dwelled in large numbers in what is now the Southwestern United States.
2)   The belief that Spain's claim to dominion over California and other territories is both legally valid according to International Law and also transferrable from the Spanish Empire to the Mexican government which took over administration of Mexican territories after the Spanish left Mexico.
3)   The belief that there was a significant habitation by Mexican nationals in Southwestern U.S. states prior to the Mexican-American War, which proffers legally enforceable claims of dominion and ownership to the Mexican government and furthermore demonstrates that the United States engaged in an illegal act in annexing the southwestern territories in that war.
      Let's take them one at a time. First, all archaeological evidence is that the indigenous people's which occupied California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico from ancient times (paleolithic though bronze age) derived not from southern regions such as South or Central America but from northern cultures which came across the Bering Strait in stone age times when there was a land bridge between Asia and North America from Siberia to Alaska.
    All of the artifacts of and languages spoken by  the ancient inhabitants of the Southwestern U.S. are far more similar to those of nomadic tribes whose path led from Alaska into Canada and downward into the southwest U.S. states over thousands of years.
    The ancient tools, weapons, pottery, decorations, architecture, artifacts, customs and languages of the Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayans and other civilizations which moved up from south and central America are completely different in structure and character from those found in the Southwestern US.
     So the ancient tribes of the southwestern U.S. are largely the same ancient tribes which settled in the eastern parts of the United States, and did not migrate upward from the south.
     The reason for this is obvious – the southwestern US is largely desert and any culture trying to establish large communities, cities, with direct links to those in Mexico would have somehow had to establish supply lines and modes of travel in large numbers across vast distances through areas where there was neither water, means to grow food nor practical means to carry large provisions for survival through those journeys nor for establishing self-sustaining cities once they arrived.
       Ancient people's had to travel on foot or by cart or pack animal and had no way to practically do this if journeys between resupply points were more than a week or two at most.  Traveling in large numbers from Mexican territories to Southwestern U.S. territories would have taken months or years (as documented by the journeys of explorers who went from the Eastern to the Western U.S. in the pioneer days and that was done bypassing the deserts and moving through more northern routes where water and food sources were more available along the way).
So no, the people of Mexico did not live in nor have large populations in the southwestern United States in ancient times. There is no legitimate claim to ancestral homeland for Mexico in these territories.
Spanish Empire's Claim to Rightful Dominion
      The Spanish Conquistadors traditionally laid claim to any new lands they landed in force, where primitive (authochthonous, non-technological) peoples dwelt, with a statement like, "I claim for the King of Spain all these lands north, south, east and west as far as a Conquistador can lead a horse," and would plant the Spanish flag into the soil.
     That was a common practice in the olde days. Laying claim of ownership rightful dominion on this basis has never been acknowledged as legitimate by international law. The bottom line in administrating territory is whether the ruling power can successfully defend the borders and maintain internal security. In other words, those who are able to defend the territory have the right to own it and the right to own it belongs only to those who can defend it. That has been the rule of dominion in the civilized world up until the era of nations (circa 20th century which replaced the Era of Empires).
     So the only claim that the Mexican government could conceivable make to dominion over the southwestern United States was the same that Cortez made, and would furthermore have to prove in an international court that the claim was not only enforceable under international law but also transferrable upon Mexico gaining independence from Spain.
Mexico Had Entitlements to Dominion Because of "Settling and Developing" the Territory
    At the time of the Mexican American War (1820s) any settling of California took place as a result of the Spanish missions and horse ranches, not "immigration" from Mexico to California. The population of California was equally foreigners from Russia, England, the United States, Germany and elsewhere – mostly fur trappers, traders and small settlements. At most there were about 2,000 Mexican nationals living in California at the time of the war – mostly ranch workers and their families.
      Fort Sumpter was taken after about 60 Mexican soldiers gave up without a fight when confronted by less than 200 US cavalry. The entire Mexican – American war consisted of about three major battles in California and about 1000 combined casualties from both sides.
     The other nations with settlements in California were all considering making larger incursions and setting up forts in the state with an eye to conquest, which is on major reason that the U.S. government offered to buy the southwestern territories from Mexico. Because the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to establish large forts and settlements in California, they had to bring in soldiers by marching them in from Mexico when the U.S. cavalry challenged them after marching and riding horse back across the entire country from the eastern states.
When the Mexican government refused to sell the territory, the U.S. government realized that if they did not move to establish dominion with large forts and settlements, other nations inevitably would, including possibly the British or the Russians, who were a significant threat to the US militarily and would pose a standing menace is allowed to establish footholds in North America.
The facile way in which the Mexican military was defeated demonstrated exactly the point that politicians made about their unfitness to administrate and protect the territory themselves. If a small contingent of lightly armed, exhausted cavalry could defeat the entire Mexican military it was clear that other nations would have the same ability with a relatively small invasion force from the sea.
It is also significant to note that many of the Mexican nationals who lived in California during the war, fought on the side of the U.S. against Mexico (known as the Californios) because they did not consider their own nation to have their own best interests at heart. The only time the ranchers ever saw or heard from Mexico was when soldiers arrived to take back the horses that they had raised, broken and trained without giving them much of anything more than a pittance in return. The ranchers also were left to mostly their own devices to defend themselves against raids from native American tribes or criminals operating the vicinity – the Mexican military provided little or no standing security or law enforcement.
The U.S. cavalry offered them both protection and fair prices for their horses, so the Californios enthusiastically supported independence for California from Mexico. As they saw it, they were obtaining a release from virtual servitude to a corrupt Mexican government that largely ignored them unless they wanted to take something from them.
Similar conditions existed in Texas, as many Mexican nationals living in Texas refused to fight for or support their nation's efforts to hold on to the state. So in many ways, the Mexican-American War was also a war for independence on the parts of Mexican nationals unhappy with their servitude to the Mexican government hundreds of miles removed from them geographically and even further removed materially or in a sense of lending them any significant support or aid in their very difficult lives.
In an act of almost unprecedented graciousness, the U.S. government still gave Mexico significant cash payments for the territory gained in the war – even though very little of it had ever been inhabited by Mexican citizens or developed by investment of Mexican resources. 
     Subsequently, the U.S. fought two world wars and invested massive spending in infrastructure and border security defending not only the southwestern U.S. but also the entire nation of Mexico in both WWI and WWII, and subsequently through the ensuing century.
Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone (Nods to General Teebone)

Solar

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Late-For-Lunch

Quote from: Solar on April 30, 2016, 09:10:43 PM
Moved before it was off the main page.

Ahh, so! This is one of those topics that cross over into politics but is a feature of history.

The leftist misinformation network consistently teaches the "fact" that the U.S. "stole" several states from Mexico when the truth is more simple and more complex than that.

If Mexico could have territory "stolen" from them with such relative ease, this proves Q.E.D. that in a practical sense, they were unworthy of dominion over it.
Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone (Nods to General Teebone)

Solar

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 01, 2016, 07:02:11 AM
Ahh, so! This is one of those topics that cross over into politics but is a feature of history.

The leftist misinformation network consistently teaches the "fact" that the U.S. "stole" several states from Mexico when the truth is more simple and more complex than that.

If Mexico could have territory "stolen" from them with such relative ease, this proves Q.E.D. that in a practical sense, they were unworthy of dominion over it.
Yeah, people tend to avoid lengthy posts in Poli and considering the nature of your post, I saved it from certain obscurity by moving it here as you'll discover when others post in it.

But to the point of Mexico holding any claim to any part of the US?
Mexico didn't exist till September 27, 1821, they should be thanking us for their very existence, the ingrates.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

valley

Well, now Not sure where you're located. Many in California and elsewhere know that The United States take over of California was engine of General Vallejo, his design. The Spanish in California and trough out Mexico did not like, were not comfortable "In the government of Bandits". Vallejo sent the Mexican and Indian army south so the Unions army could come over the hill and walk in with out a shot fired. The American military knocked of Mariaino Vallejos door and told him: Sir you are under arrest!"  his answer: "Fine come in for a glass of wine.? He served in Californias legisature and was very important in the new government of california.

[The historic park is located at 115 West G Street in Benicia,were the first legislature was held, a city in the northern San Francisco Bay Area between San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay.]

The city of Vallejo is named after Mariaino Vallejo, The city of Benicia is named after his wife.

I'll not get carried away here. I'll post some information following this post.


valley

Benicia served as the state capital for nearly 13 months from 1853 to 1854 (Monterey, San Jose and Vallejo also took turns until the seat of California government finally settled in Sacramento).

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Vallejo.html



Californians and the Military
The Vallejo Family:
A Military History of Early California
by Lieutenant Colonel Ira Lee Plummer

The Vallejos were one of the most important and respected families in early Mexican California history, and they also played an important part in the development of California as a state in the Union. General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo held the highest military post as Commanding General in Alta California where be served as watchdog of the northern California province, charged with keeping an eye upon the activities of the Russians at Fort Ross. But also, he was a delegate to the first state constitutional convention that met in 1849 at Colton Hall in Monterey. He was the partner of Robert Semple in laying out the town site of Benicia. General Vallejo welcomed the Americans in California because he believed their support would bring growth and stability to the region and that California would benefit thereby. Other Vallejo family members successfully made the transition from Mexican California to the California of the United States. The General's younger brother, Captain Salvador Vallejo who had led field operations under the Mexican flag against dissident Indian tribes, later became a Major in the Union army and saw service during the Civil War. The Vallejos realized that the ties with Mexico were too loose, that California was an isolated outpost of the Mexican government, and that the future of California lay in close association and union with the United States. Certainly, the growth and progress made in California since that time attest to the great foresight of General Mariano Vallejo.

The Vallejos were a proud family of Spanish heritage. Their ancestors included a Captain Vallejo who fought in the conquest of Mexico with Cortes and who was named Governor of the province of Paeoniaceae where he controlled silver mines and the people of a vast area. Also, an Admiral Alonzo Vallejo served Spain during the time of Christopher Columbus.

Mariano Vallejo's father was Ignacio Vallejo who was born in Jalisco, Mexico in 1748. At the age of 25, Ignacio enlisted in the colonial army and volunteered for service in Alta California in 1774. During Ignacio Vallejo's 50 Years of military service he achieved the rank of Distinguished Sergeant. He served at San Diego, Monterey, Soledad, San Jose Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo.

Read more:  http://www.militarymuseum.org/Vallejo.html

valley

This might be of interest:

Almost "Francisca":

Benicia was named in honor of the wife of General Mariano Vallejo, Francisca Maria Felipa Benicia Carillo de Vallejo. General Vallejo was Mexico's last Comandante General of the Free State of Alta California. He had intended that the city be named "Francisca," but this name was dropped when the former city of "Yerba Buena" changed its name to "San Francisco."

kalash

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on April 30, 2016, 07:51:22 PM
"... The ranchers also were left to mostly their own devices to defend themselves against raids from native American tribes or criminals operating the vicinity – the Mexican military provided little or no standing security or law enforcement.
The U.S. cavalry offered them both protection and fair prices for their horses, so the Californios enthusiastically supported independence for California from Mexico. As they saw it, they were obtaining a release from virtual servitude to a corrupt Mexican government that largely ignored them unless they wanted to take something from them.

     Subsequently, the U.S. fought two world wars and invested massive spending in infrastructure and border security defending not only the southwestern U.S. but also the entire nation of Mexico in both WWI and WWII, and subsequently through the ensuing century.
For some reason I am thinking about Russia and  Crimean Peninsula...

valley

Russia and Crimea might better be under its own thread
-------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano_Guadalupe_Vallejo

The above thread give a good bit of background of California, including the Russian encroachment into California.

Taken from: Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo account~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano_Guadalupe_Vallejo

Also in 1841, the Russians at Fort Ross offered to sell the post to Vallejo. After several months of negotiations and delays by the Mexican authorities and Governor Alvarado (who feared his uncle was plotting to overthrow him), John Sutter purchased the fort. This economic and military setback confirmed Vallejo's belief that it would be better if California was no longer ruled from Mexico City[citation needed]. Although both France and the United Kingdom expressed interest in acquiring Alta California, Vallejo believed the best hope for economic and cultural development lay with the United States.



Solar

Quote from: valley on May 01, 2016, 07:16:09 PM
Well, now Not sure where you're located. Many in California and elsewhere know that The United States take over of California was engine of General Vallejo, his design. The Spanish in California and trough out Mexico did not like, were not comfortable "In the government of Bandits". Vallejo sent the Mexican and Indian army south so the Unions army could come over the hill and walk in with out a shot fired. The American military knocked of Mariaino Vallejos door and told him: Sir you are under arrest!"  his answer: "Fine come in for a glass of wine.? He served in Californias legisature and was very important in the new government of california.

[The historic park is located at 115 West G Street in Benicia,were the first legislature was held, a city in the northern San Francisco Bay Area between San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay.]

The city of Vallejo is named after Mariaino Vallejo, The city of Benicia is named after his wife.

I'll not get carried away here. I'll post some information following this post.
First off, it's beyond time to learn how to use "QUOTE".
Second, what has your post to do with mine?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

valley


walkstall

Quote from: Solar on May 02, 2016, 11:14:21 AM
First off, it's beyond time to learn how to use "QUOTE".
Second, what has your post to do with mine?

I am working with him on this.   I hope after today he understands SOP on this board of the quote function. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Late-For-Lunch

This was too long to post on the politics board, but the Aztlan Myth is the foundation of the Latino-centric racist movement, which as everyone with an I.Q. larger than their age knows is also a virulent, murderously violent anti-white racist movement as well.
The Aztlan Myth is the excuse millions of anti-white bigots use to justify their hatred for Caucasians or for anyone who is proud of their U.S. citizenship or heritage.

Psychologists call the ideas that insanely violent people use to justify their violence as "ideas of reference". A psychopath will have a list of such notions that drive their destructive behavior, such as "there are no innocent people" or "everyone is amoral and out for themselves above all" and "morality is a joke and nothing more than a way for the strong to exploit the weak" and "human compassion is nonexistent and loving or caring about other human beings is a waste of time", etc.

The Manson Family used their ideas of reference to convince themselves that innocent people they had never even met were deserving of being tortured to death. In a larger sense fanatical political movements or ideologies use the same thing.

For Hispano-centric racists, their ideas of reference are largely contained in the details of the Aztlan Myth. Without the Aztlan Myth, Hispanics must admit that the reason for the abysmally low achievement level of so many millions of Latinos has more to do with things within' their own behavior and control than any sort of oppressive forces in the white culture.

So there is an enormous, yea, desperate need in many Latinos and leftists to believe in the Aztlan Myth. The one little problem with it is that it is absolute, utter and complete BS. Period.

Mexicans never inhabited the southwestern U.S. either in ancient times nor in the centuries prior to the Mexican-American War.  Never.  Nor were their vast numbers of Mexican "settlers" in California, Texas or other territories along the southwestern borders of Mexico. There were always about as many or more people of non-Mexican origin living in those territories from the first days of non-native settlements. Nor was there ever any "ancestral claim" by Mexico to the South Western states based on some "right to dominion" because they had a few dozens horse ranches or tiny forts built in those vast millions of square miles of territory.

Throughout history, the right to dominion was always decided by the ability and willingness of those who claimed ownership to successfully defend their borders and internal security, which Mexico never did in the territories they lost to the USA, QED.

IOW, if the USA had not taken over the territories we got in the war, Mexico would still have lost them to some other nation which brought an army to the shores of California or Texas. Either Britain, Germany, Russia or some other nation with a navy would have moved to supplant the Mexicans and they would have ended up without the territory in any case. And the invaders sensing their weakness, might well have moved to attack and take over Mexico, just as the Spanish had.

BTW another myth is that the Mexicans "defeated" the Spanish and "gained their independence". Although it is technically true, the greater truth is that Spain was either unable or unwilling (probably both) to invest significant financing or resources to holding on to Mexico, largely because they probably figured that they had looted everything they could from them and that the investment was not worth the return. So the Spanish defense of that territory was half-hearted at best and the greater truth is that they eventually just decided to pull out because it wasn't worth it. The notion that the revolutionary forces were somehow a potent military force which drove the Spanish out of their land cowering and screaming for mercy in the face of massive overpowering military superiority is a joke. Once the Spanish realized it wasn't going to be as easy as they hoped, they simply left without much investment of effort.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/history/reconquista-this!-stake-through-the-heart-of-the-latino-centric-'aztlan-myth-'/msg303509/#new
Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone (Nods to General Teebone)

Late-For-Lunch

Quote from: valley on May 01, 2016, 07:16:09 PM
The United States take over of California was engine of General Vallejo, his design.

Well Valley, you may believe that but it's not true in the larger sense of the term "his design". Vallejo may have worked on his part to bring it to reality but it was more accurately a long-time aspiration of the U.S. government and virtually inevitable. There was a sustained, deliberate effort of the U.S. government to take over all of the southwestern territories of what is now the USA from Mexican administration due to ongoing and mounting threats from other nations (remember the war of 1812 was an effort by the British Empire to reestablish itself in North America). The U.S. had zero confidence in the ability of the newly-established government of Mexico to protect and defend the territory from foreign invasion.

Your post makes it sound like without the lobbying efforts of Vallejo the U.S. would never have considered taking over California and instead spent it's time and resources elsewhere. That's not even in the same universe of reality.

Although Vallejo was a good example of why the U.S. forces has such a relatively easy time defeating the Mexican military, I think you are grossly exaggerating his importance in the overall genesis and progress of efforts to bring those territories into the United States.

That the U.S. would have swiftly and effectively moved to take those states over by force of arms with or without Vallejo's existence or efforts is very clear and obvious to those who have read up on the history of the U.S.- Mexican War. Vallejo's only contribution might have been that he was smart enough to understand how the winds of change were sweeping Mexico out of those territories as surely as tumble-weeds are swept across the desert sands. It didn't take a genius to see that.

Vallejo could well have been merely an opportunist who saw where things were going and wanted to be on the winning side. Hardly a heroic role in history.
Get Out of the Way and Leave Me Alone (Nods to General Teebone)

tac