The president is teaching an alternate history, in which “Mexicans” were here before the country was founded.
Sorry, prez, but there were no “Mexicans” here at the time. There were Spanish colonies in California and the Southwest, but they were Spanish, not Mexican. There was little to no migration from what is present-day Mexico into what is now US territory, because there was little to draw migrants (the greatest economy on earth not yet being in existence). This is just nonsensical, and feeds into La Raza mythology. He might as well have waved a Mexican flag.
Leland,
[[[Just like it was proper for the majority vote in a primary to win, but alas you don’t defend that.]]]
Sharron Angle may have the right to run as a Republican, but that doesn’t mean Republicans are required to vote for her if they don’t feel she would make a good Senator. And the evidence based on her time as a Nevada legislator is she would make a lousy Senator.
Tell, what about the freedom of voters to select who they want to vote for don’t you understand?
[[[If you want to try your other argument, that Mexicans were called Mexicans long before Independence, then Americans were called Americans even before Mexico (the city state of what is now Mexico City) came into being.]]]
You really need to study your history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City
The city now known as Mexico City was founded by the amerindians Mexica, also called the Aztecs, in 1325.
The Spanish then renamed it Mexico City after the tribe when they conquered it in 1520.
[[[Although the Spanish preserved Tenochtitlán’s basic layout, they built Catholic churches over the old Aztec temples and claimed the imperial palaces for themselves.[21] Tenochtitlán was renamed “Mexico”, its alternative form name, as the Spanish found this easier to say.[15]]]]
And they then used the name for the members of the tribe and then generically from all who had native blood in them in the Viceroyalty of New Spain, to distinguish themselves from the pure blooded Spanish.
That is also why, when the Spanish settled the upper Rio Grande valley with Mexican settlers in 1598 they called it New Mexico, to distinguish it from old Mexico. I should also note I lived in New Mexico for over a decade having gone to New Mexico Tech and New Mexico State University, so this is local history to me and its common there to refer the settlers of 1598 as Mexicans.
Really, you need to take a course in the history of the Southwest, or at least read a book or two on it. But the President was indeed correct in his use and the only folks who think otherwise are those who are completely ignorant of southwestern history.
As for Benjamin Franklin, here is a book on why he is considered the first American although the term was occasionally used as a catch all for anyone from the New World before.
http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Times-Benjamin-Franklin/dp/0385493282
The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin by H.W. Brands
If you are going to wave the Constitution and Declaration, please learn a bit on the background of them.
George Ditter,
[[[I am perfectly happy to agree that the United States and Mexico “shared” the Southwest and California in 1846 and at the end of the “sharing” Mexico ceded the land to the United States.]]]
The Santa Fe Trail dates to 1822 and Americans merchants and fur trappers lived peacefully in the region at the time, trading and working with the Mexicans until the Mexican-American War over Texas statehood transferred control to the United States. Regular trading voyages to California from New England date to as early as 1790.
Thomas Matula
Yes and Robert Rogers picked up the fundaments of the French language in the course of trading with French Canada in the late 1740s and early 1750 (trading also known as smuggling) which information he subsequently put to use in the French and Indain War as the leader of Roger’s Rangers. So some people trade and some people become engaged in war and some do both. By the way, not to get too technical about it, Texas became independent in 1836 and did not become a part of the United States until 1845, the Mexican War did not start over statehood for Texas, but a dispute as to the proper southern border of Texas. A further technicality is that the war didn’t transfer “control” to the United States, the Treaty that Mexico and the United States entered into did. Among other things, the United States assumed certain debts of Mexico and paid Mexico $15 million. So if you were refudiating me I don’t see your point.
“Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land”
Who is a mexican seems a minor sidepoint here. What is it Obama is trying to make us believe? (because that’s what campaigner in chief is all about.)
Rephrasing: Americans are johnny come lately. This was land of plenty before evil Americans stole everything belonged to non Americans. Those peaceful Indians that never killed to extinction other tribes in various places on this continent knew how to live the marxist ideal. We all shared the land singing kumbaya until the evil Americans took over. We apologize for being evil Americans and plan to give it all back. We’ll start by not enforcing our border and dismissing claims of illegal immigration so nobody will even see as we give amnesty which the simpletons of this country keep fighting against.
First, the Tenochtitlán tribe was named the Aztecs. (follow your wikipedia sources, and you’ll find exactly one reference to the Aztecs being called Mexica, and that is from a source in 2003. Search outside wikipedia, and you’ll find that Mexica originally referred to their culture, not the tribe’s name. Revisionists are trying to use the term to suggest they are the rightful heirs to all the land from Mexico to Canada.).
Second, that tribe was annihilated by the Spaniards (It’s in the wikipedia article you linked, perhaps you should read it), so if they are the first Mexicans that existed before Americans, then they were essentially wiped out, and replaced by Spaniards (much like the American Indians), who went out of their way to erase existence of the previous culture. They eventually decided to refer to the city as Mexico because it was easier to say (It’s in the wikipedia article you linked, perhaps you should read it).
Third, non of this is relevant, because the Mexican nation was established after the US, and as I pointed out previously, the borders defining the land of Mexico and the land of the US were defined in treaties by the two nations. With your logic, you might as well claim we are all Cherokee or Mohawk.
But sure, try to suggest Obama was referring to the Aztecs when he made his comments. Yeah, I’m sure that makes sense to you. The same way your hatred of the Tea Party for hurting the GOP chances to regain the Senate means you’ll now vote for Harry Reid. I’m sure you see that as logical.
Leland,
[[[Tenochtitlán tribe]]]
And Tenochtitlán was too hard to for the Spanish pronounce, which is why they shorten the name of the capital of the Viceroyalty of New Spain to Mexico City. And its not unusual for tribal names to last and be used for a region after the Tribe is wiped out. Read the history of Prussia sometime 🙂
Yes. nice try at Tea Party Express revisionist history, but you forgot to explain how New Mexico got its name in 1598 if old Mexico didn’t exist…
[[[The same way your hatred of the Tea Party for hurting the GOP chances to regain the Senate means you’ll now vote for Harry Reid.]]]
If the Tea Party express had endorsed the actual Tea Party candidate for Nevada I may well had voted for him. But instead they decided to select the state nut case instead, one who hides from the Nevada media (who know her well…) by campaigning for the Nevada Senate race at a John Birch Society sponsored event in Utah.
As a side note I am in good company as many of the state’s Republicans are endorsing Senator Reid over Sharron Angle.
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=13207759
Sen. Harry Reid Lines Up Republican Support
[[[ Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, a big-name Nevada Republican, officially signed in his support on a large cardboard pledge sign for Harry Reid Thursday ]]]
[[[What’s unusual is the number of prominent state Republicans endorsing Reid’s re-election: besides Cashell, there’s long time Nevada republican fundraiser Sig Rogich, Republican Sparks Mayor Gino Martini, Dawn Gibbons, Dave Aiazzi and Chris Ault. ]]]
While the actual Tea Party candidate, the one who founded the Tea Party in Nevada, is now running on the Tea Party ticket.
http://www.scottashjianforsenate.com/
Really, the only strong vocal support for Sharron Reid is from folks like you that don’t live in Nevada and don’t care about Nevada. Which is why I guess she is campaigning in Utah instead of Nevada.
Sorry, but Nevada is not going to have its election hijacked by out-of-state groups like the Tea Party Express.
“I would match my academic, and publication, record against yours, but then you choose to hide your identity…”
Wasn’t talking about you, Your Illustriousness, but your hero, “Il Dufe.” Did you go to the Chris Gerrib School of Reading Comprehension? Or are you cursed with that Irony-Devouring Virus that seems to plague most true-believing State-F#ckers these days?
Bilwick,
[[[Wasn’t talking about you, Your Illustriousness, but your hero, “Il Dufe.”]]]
You mean President Obama, who I voted against, and whose policies I oppose, even the space policy that the Space Libertarians love so much?
No wonder you hide your name….
George Ditter,
[[[By the way, not to get too technical about it, Texas became independent in 1836 and did not become a part of the United States until 1845, the Mexican War did not start over statehood for Texas, but a dispute as to the proper southern border of Texas.]]]
The border dispute and annexation were one and the same.
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist6/muzzey.html
[[[The annexation of Texas was a perfectly fair transaction. For nine years, since the victory of San Jacinto in 1836, Texas had been an independent republic, whose reconquest Mexico had not the slightest chance of effecting. In fact, at the very moment of annexation, the Mexican government, at the suggestion of England, had agreed to recognize the independence of Texas, on condition that the republic should not join itself to the United States. We were not taking Mexican territory, then, in annexing Texas. The new state had come into the Union claiming the Rio Grande as her southern and western boundary. By the terms of annexation all boundary disputes with Mexico were referred by Texas to the government of the United States]]]
As for the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. At the time the U.S. occupied all the lands in question, as well as Mexico City, Vera Curz and the major ports. The government signing the treaty was an interim government sanctioned by the U.S. occupation force. So yes, it was by treaty but the treaty only came about as a result of the war. Actually there was serious discussion of making the entire country of Mexico part of the U.S. , but the northern states feared slavery would be expanded from Texas into the region and voted against it.