A Liberal HS Teachers Views on MEChA

A Washington State HS Teacher | 7/30/02 | Vets_Husband_and_Wife

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I don't know. But I never admired or understood Dr. King to mean anything like she does. Dr. King believed in equality. I truly doubt he would want any of us to continue to live in the past. Be they Indian, Irish, Black, Hispanic, or whatever their nationality.

I'm colorblind. Even though she would have me HATE anyone who made my ancestors suffer. Go figure. Last time I checked, all my ancestors who were wronged, were dead. Our family has enjoyed all the opportunities afforded any hard working decent law abiding American citizen, including HER.

Strange huh?

[Green Knight]

.Even though she would have me HATE anyone who made my ancestors suffer

Not just hate the people who made your ancestors suffer, but THEIR ancestors as well. People living today who have done no wrong to anyone, yet she wants to blame them and punish them for the crimes of others done against those who are long dead.

Yet another reason why I want to homeschool should I have kids.

[Regulator]

I'm sorry I didn't include you in the reply; I meant to. I could probably do a blow by blow on the claims she made, because I've spent a lot of time trying to find out about them, just not right now because I'm at work!

But a few comments further: Some of the 'grievances" are true: many times "mexicans" (in quotes, because they started out as Spanish subjects) were 'cheated' out of their land. But that was not just due to greed on the part of the Americans (although that was real). It was also due to the fact that the Americans had no respect for land grants from the Spanish Crown, even though the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had said they would be respected. The reason? Because they were a) extremely large (usually 48,000 acres) and b) in many cases had been granted by the Alcaldes and Gobernador just prior to the end of the Mexican-American war, because they knew that they would be offered money for their 'land'.

For instance, Mariano Vallejo, the governor of Northern California, owned much of what is now Sonoma County (about 250,000 acres). At the time of the Bear Flag revolt, American squatters occupied much of his land. After the revolt, he ended up with about 300 acres (still pretty large). The fact is, the land claims were just pieces of paper that the Spaniards could never defend. It was, as I said before, the end game of a failed attempt to lay claim to land the Spanish Crown could not hold (and that, by the way, is the real reason the Americans went to war. They wanted to prevent the British or the French or the Russians from controlling the West Coast, and Mexico was too weak to do it).

The 60,000 number for Spaniards/Mexicans living within the current territorial boundaries of the United States is accurate (well, I've heard 70,000). It should be pointed out that many of those were Spanish immigrants who arrived in Texas from New Orleans between 1800 and 1830, so the claim of "we are the indigenous Aztecs of Aztlan" out of their mouths is utterly ridiculous. Some - like Linda Chavez' ancestors - really were there for centuries: the Santa Fe settlers of 1609. But these were the sons and daughters of the Conquistadors, white Europeans engaging in conquest. I mean, how 'indigenous' does Lovely Linda look? They are ethnically and culturally more similar to Italians than they are to Aztecs.

Which brings up race. Your niece mentioned the "Mexican Race". My comment is - what race would that be? 30% of Mexico are white hispanics, and they run the place (seen any of pictures of Fox, or Hernandez, or Castaneda, Aryn?). I think the rest are 60% Mestizo (white/indigenous) and 10% pure indigenous (I may have these numbers a little out, but i think they are close). My cousins are half-Mexican, but they are blancos ('whites'), or "Gueros", in the street lingo. They are both blond and blue-eyed. Their children look like they are from Oslo. So - where's the race component? The reality is that 'Mexican' is a nationality, not a 'race'.

The Mestizo's claim to be a new race ('La Raza Cosmica'); yeah, whatever. The fact is that they share Mexico with their white overseers (that's what Mexico is: a 14th century feudal hierarchy), and "Mexico" and "Mexicans" are defined by the laws, culture, and history of that land and people, and it is legally, culturally and ethnically distinct from the predominantly northern and western European settlers in the North. There are genetic and cultural links between indigenous groups - undoubtedly the Aztecs are related to other North American tribes, since they descended from the same people who walked south from the Bering land bridge thousands of years ago. But that's all; other than that, they were just another tribe, and the political boundaries imposed since then are now fixed. Unless of course they would like to violently contest them (as they are actually doing right now), in which case we will see if the "Americans" have the will to maintain them.

If your niece would like to direct hate at someone, I suggest the Spaniard upper class of Mexico. It is their construct - the legal code, the race based society, the subjugation of the Mestizo - that has resulted in the evil that is Mexico (and it is evil, if you understand the structure of it). These guys want the U.S. and it's wealth, and they have found the perfect way to get it: send their little "problem" north, and repopulate the place at the expense of the gringos. Later on, show up and take your place as the Alcalde or Gobernador. Label anyone who complains a "racist". Good plan, huh? They aren't stupid. They ran Mexico this way since 1520. They lived well. It's just everyone else who live in utter despair. You might point out to her that that's whose side she's on now: the Hispanic oppressor overlords, whose own personal views are more in line with Franco's Fascists than Lenin and Marx.

A brilliant discussion of Mexican society and government: The Future of Anti-Corruption in Mexico
The sidebars are especially good. When you read them, you will be appalled. Your niece is trying to bring this kind of world to the United States. Funny, but I don't see what's "liberal" about that.

The current wave of "immigration" (they aren't immigrants; they're colonizers. Immigrants assimilate) is due to Mexico's grotesque overpopulation: from 35 million in 1960 to 100 million now. They couldn't feed themselves then and they sure as hell can't now. If we let them, they will simply end up outnumbering us and voting to take what we have built (on the blood of people like you and your husband). That's why the Socialists are all for it; they think the desperate immigrantes will vote for an end to private property, and a dimunition of the society and culture that was America. But when the white hispanics from Mexico - like Fox, Hernandez, Castaneda - start dictating the laws of American society, we will soon see something far worse: a corrupt feudal terrorocracy.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Bless you and I MEAN That. It is just this kind of "historical accuracy" I'm trying to get to do my rebuttal. Any and all information is greatly appreciated. I will go explore the links later tonight. Thanks for taking the time at work :o)

I just feel strongly that we better pay CLOSE attention to the reality of this group. They are planning and have a definite agenda. That they are in so many high schools and college campuses already .. is alarming. But then, people like Aryn are mindlessly backing them. Amazing!

It is a dangerous precedent! Why do so many Americans need to have REALITY hit them in the face before they react?

[SupplySider]

Typical naive sophomore Marxism. If the "oppressors" (who are providing more opportunities than any society in their history) are overthrown, then the "oppressed" will create an ideal society.

One question for MEChAs: what evidence can you provide that you will be the first Marxist revolutionaries in world history to not institute tyranny and slavery? Or do you support Capitalism and a market economy, and just want the official language to be that of your previous conquerers, the Spanish?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

If the "oppressors" (who are providing more opportunities than any society in their history) are overthrown, then the "oppressed" will create an ideal society.

Can you imagine? I would move to Mexico if I wanted to live like that. Go figure!!

[Regulator]

The California history is from a number of sources, most of them on the web (I wanted to understand the history of the Californios, the Franciscans and the aboriginal tribes). I will try and post all of them this evening on this thread, and I'll ping the people who've replied to me so far.

The Arizona history is from my memory. I was born and raised in Tucson, and my knowledge of the interaction of the Tohono O'odham, the Apache and the other tribes with the Americans and the Mexicans is the result of that. There are some really great books on Tucson and Southern Arizona, but you have to be there to really understand it. You can read about the continuing conflict right now, though: it's in the Tucson Daily Citizen on-line.

The aboriginal tribes of Arizona and Northern Sonora ("La Frontera"; that's why you see "Front." on the license plates of cars from Sonora, Baja California, Chihuahua) were caught in the confrontation of two European powers: Spain and Britain, later Mexico and America. The resulting arguments about land, language, culture and legal systems continue to this day...

[SupplySider]

It's so unfortunate that the natural idealism of young folks is being guided into Marxism by hippie professors trying to maintain their feelings of self-importance into old age. Rather, they should be encouraged to get as much education as possible, work hard, save money, and create or invest in a business that will serve those in their community, providing jobs along the way.

By the way, Regulator's post was great! I really learned from it.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I agree. Regulator and a few others here are responding to this with intelligent FACT BASED information. It's great!!

I actually blame the professors who are teaching our teachers. It is the highest form of brainwashing. They take to truth everything the LIBERAL PRINT MEDIA says they should. Sad... we are witnessing the death of independent thought. Of the ability to SEARCH and explore for yourself. Aryn is a tool/pawn of the Liberal Education system.

[Brownie74]

Thanks for the pings. I have read a lot about MEChA and Aztlan. I have a couple of links on my profile page about this subject. I think you will find that both of the URL's end with ucla.edu (what does that tell you?)

Aztlan/La Reconquista is happening right now before your very eyes. You might as well say that we have lost California. Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico will soon follow the way of California. According to American Patrol citizens in parts of California and Arizona are forming their own Border Patrols to protect their homes and property. This link to Isabel Garcia is also informative.

It is a shame that America allows itself to be dictated to by Mexico. It is even more of a shame that Americans have to ban together to protect themselves and their property because we have an administration that refuses to protect us as is required our laws and The Constitution of the United States and that in fact aids in this invasion.

I never, never thought I would see this day come. We have to stop this insanity now or we will lose the greatest nation that the world has ever known.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks. I'll go to the links later tonight.

While we didn't like our Presidents immigration policies or Farm subsidy legislation, we do support the other 99 precent of his policies. I'm hopeful that his policies have changed since 9/11 regarding immigration, and in fact, we see a lot of things we like.

We have never had a President who we agreed with on EVERY issue or policy,.. but this President comes darn close!! He is cleaning up a MESS!! What has happened regarding MEChA from all I can tell, is they were allowed under the "previous administration" to "infiltrate" our schools and system of higher learning. That is extremely dangerous IMHO, or I should say OHO (our humble opinion).

We are extremely grateful that President Bush is our Commander in Chief, and in talking to our active duty friends, they are too.

USAF here too. :o) (Husband is ARMY!! (RET)

I appreciate the links friend. Thanks a bunch!!

FRegards!

[Constantine XIII]

Creepy scenario: In 15-20, MEChA seperatists ask the PRC for aid in their "struggle for liberation." The PLA, which by this time has at least reached parity with our widely dispersed armed forces, lands in southern CA. We will win this war, but at a terrible cost. Use of nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out.

</twilight zone>

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thanks for the "education" bump. I PRAY our educators will look at this and respond.

I'd love to respond to Aryn with opinions from her peers!! Be they people with "Masters degree's" or not :o)

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

You know, if Farrahkan is ALREADY using the Mechistas as a pawn in his disruption of the evil empire.. why not China? I think our enemies KNOW our weaknesses..and will use them against us. Sadly, that now includes our Public Teachers!!

[Regulator]

And I thought your post was great: a succinct statement about the stupidity of this dim-witted, petit-Marxist neo-rebellion (lotsa hyphens) in the making, coming out of the mouths of a foreign populace that is utterly clueless about how to make a society where everyone is relatively wealthy.

I mean, who needs their advice? Why should we take investment advice from someone in bankruptcy? Fifteen minutes after the citizens of Mexico take over the government of the western states, the whole place will look like a post-industrial disaster area, like most of the slums of Mexico City. Think Los Angeles circa 2050...

By the way, here's an interesting comment from a globalist commentator. It's actually pretty much on the mark, and it's from 5 years ago, but it gives you an idea of the genesis of the problems: Without political reform, Mexico cannot fix its economy

Not much has changed since then, even with Fox being elected.

[4America]

"It is a shame that America allows itself to be dictated to by Mexico. It is even more of a shame that Americans have to ban together to protect themselves and their property because we have an administration that refuses to protect us as is required our laws and The Constitution of the United States and that in fact aids in this invasion."


You put it very well my friend. Isabel Garcia is a true pain in the a$$. Whatever the agenda is (which is very obvious) it "STINKS".

[Brownie74]

Tell it like it is. YOU GO!!

[BnBlFlag]

There were very few Mexicans in Texas prior to Texas independence. Every time they would try to come in large numbers, they would be wiped out by the Comanche Indians.
In fact, protection from the Comanches was the reason Americans were invited in in the first place.

[Regulator]

So, here's some more links to the history of the Southwest, prior to 1852 or so (so, including the Mex-American war in 1846).

But first, a short editorial. Aztlan is a fairy tale. It may be an Aztec tribal myth, but as far as applying to the American Southwest, it's crap. As far as I have heard, the real "homeland" of the Aztec tribe was the area of the Mexican state of Nayarit, and is even further alleged to be the Mexican town of San Felipe Aztlan, Nayarit, MX. But don't take my word for it! This is what the University of the Pacific chapter of good ol' MEChA has to say: Just where is Aztlan, anyway? (my title)

That little link may be the only time in their lives that those idiots ever told the truth. The Aztecs were just a dirty little band of killers who tore apart the advanced Toltec civilization, and never got much further after that. Kinda like what their semi-descendants plan to do to us...but I digress.

The history of Southern California pre-Conquest is well developed here: The Indian in the Closet

According to this in-depth study, the statistics are:

• number of pre-Spanish (pre-1769) occupation Indians in California (not just Southern California) : 130,000. I think that is where I got my first number.
• At the end of Spanish/Mexican rule: 72,000.
• Whites (including Spaniards, later called "Mexicans") by 1846: 5,000
• He later estimates the "Anglo" population as "10 to one" over the Indian number of 72,000; this would imply 720,000 Anglos, but that number would not be reached, I think until 20 years later. A more reasonable figure in 1852 was probably 300,000 Anglos, mostly in San Francisco and Sacramento.

We'll see if those numbers hold up with other writers. McWilliams admits in section 1. that the actual number of pre-Columbian Indians could have been as high as 700,000 in all of California. His best paragraph on this subject is this:

Engineered by a small caste or group, the Spanish invasion was limited in character. The entire coastal portion of California had been occupied by less than a hundred Spaniards and as late as 1846 the entire "white" population of the state did not exceed 5,000 by comparison with an Indian population of 72,000. But the Anglo invasion was not so much an invasion as an inundation. Under the period of Spanish-Mexican rule, the ratio of non-Indians to Indians was one to ten; under the American rule it quickly became ten to one. Since the Spanish invasion had been along the coast, the hinterland area had been left as a kind of Indian territory. But the Anglo invasion came from the east so that the first contact Anglos had with Indians in California was with the wild or gentile group. Thus Indians fleeing to the mountains and deserts encountered miners and mountain men coming from the east. Since there were no settled Indian tribes in California, a formal Indian frontier never existed. Invading from the east, the Anglos quickly infiltrated the areas which Indians still occupied in the state. As one early pioneer wrote, "Here we have not only Indians on our frontiers, but all among us, around us, with us. There is hardly a farm house without them. And where is the line to be drawn between those who are domesticated and the frontier savages? Nowhere—it cannot be found. Our white population pervades the entire state, and Indians are with them everywhere."

Another source for numbers is here: Chumash Chronology

From this source, the numbers are:

• number of Pre-Spanish (pre-1769) occupation Indians in California (not just Southern California): 130,000. But this is in 1542, and the number in 1769 is given as 310,000.
• At the end of Spanish/Mexican rule: 50,000 (this is consistent with the previous writer).
• Whites (including Spaniards, later called "Mexicans") by 1846: he doesn't say.
• Anglo population: best represented by this paragraph:

  "In one astounding year the place would be transformed from obscurity to world prominence; from an agricultural frontier that attracted 400 settlers in 1848 to a mining frontier that lured 90,000 impatient men in 1849; from a society of neighbors and families to one of strangers and transients; from an ox-cart economy based on hides and tallow to a complex economy based on gold mining; from Catholic to Protestant; from Latin to Anglo-Saxon." J.S. Holiday, The World Rushed In

  .

  But he also says:

  During the gold rush, the native population of Alta California is decimated. From a population of around 310,000 at the beginning of the Spanish incursion in 1769, there are 150,000 left in 1848. Two thirds of them--100,000 men, women, and children--are killed or otherwise perish during the first ten years of the U.S. takeover; by the end of the decade, only 50,000 natives are left alive. See excerpts from the collection Exterminate Them: written accounts of the murder, rape, and slavery of Native Americans during the California gold rush, 1848-1868.

  History books often only report that the gold rush created one of the great migrations in American history. According to author Daniel Bacon, "There was a time in 1849 when the population of San Francisco was doubling every ten days, and San Francisco almost overnight was changed from a pastoral little village into a bustling metropolis." People came from almost every corner of the world. By 1852, a quarter of a million fortune hunters had arrived in California.

  The new government pursued a deliberate policy of genocide, to the point of providing bounties on dead natives.

Note the PC interpretation, with the Americans being "exterminatiors". He mentions throughout the chronology the effects of the missions and Spanish disease on the California Indians (150,000 dead according to him), but never bothers to call the Spaniards genocidal. Interesting. I also don't buy his numbers; they seem inflated. 100,000 dead at the hands of 250,000 people from the rest of the world? One out of three murdered, or dead of disease? Hard to buy...

There are other narratives of the period 1769 to 1852, which essentially define the origins of California. The bottom line in all of them is that the Spanish / Mexican period was a brief, abortive attempt by a small group of people that accomplished mostly the decimation of the far larger number of native tribes through disease and murder. No Aztlan here. Just low rent imperialism.

So on to Texas and New Mexico (which includes Arizona). Here is a fairly good webpage, from, of all places, good ol' PBS, the Pathetic Broadcasting System (no agenda on my part, right?): The Borderlands on the Eve of War

This guy puts the total number of Hispanics in the West at about 40,000 (in New Mexico) + 3200 (in California) + 2500 (in Texas) = 45,700. A little low by other estimates, since I have heard up to 7000 in California. But he might be right. Other people with agendas might be intentionally inflating things...his article shows the sparsity of the Mexican population north of La Frontera in 1821, and gives a flavor of the fragility of their settlement, and their fear of the tribes. But then he goes PC at the end and babbles about how frontier Anglos submitted and assimilated and everyone was happy...the underlying agenda. "Give up your culture. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". Mexicans as The Borg...how silly. One part is worth talking about: how the Indians used the Mexican settlers as a food production outfit. The Apache did the same thing to the Pimas in Arizona. They had it down to a science.

Which brings up the last link (i'm tired!). This talks about the Apache in Arizona. Let me give you the best statement:

Because of the Apaches long hatred of Mexicans, due to the countless cruel acts and wholesale killing of their people, the Mexicans were immediately tied to the wagon wheels while the wagons where set on fire. While the Mexican men cried out during their slow death a soon to be famous warrior was said to take pleasure from poking his lance into the burning Mexicans. This warrior would be unknown to whites for many years but his (Spanish) name was Geronimo and he was about 38 years old at the time.

Read the website here: The Apache Indians Historical Places

This fellow gives you an idea of the real situation between Mexico and the aboriginals of the Southwest. Not the happy face picture concocted in Hollywood and college campuses, or for that matter, MEChA propaganda.

I have two things to say to wrap up. Here goes.

1. I use the word "aboriginal" to describe the tribes of the Americas rather than Native American because I believe that after 10 generations here, my family can reasonably claim to be native Americans. The word American was applied originally to the predominantly Anglo-Saxon settlers of the east coast, so I think it is a misnomer to apply it to people who descended from the groups who walked across the Bering land bridge. In Canada, Aboriginal is the name applied to all the "First Nations". I know that Vets_Husband_and_Wife used to be Native_American_Vet, and I don't wish to be contentious, but I feel it's more accurate this way. I do use "Indian" occasionally out of ease of use. I know it is inaccurate, and possibly offensive, but you seem reasonable. Besides, I have Cherokee in my family...just not as much as you!

2. I mentioned Spanish immigrants to Texas between 1800 - 1830. Without posting a link, I think I need to clarify that by pointing out that most of them settled in what is now the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Guanajuato, with the city of Monterrey being the epicenter of their descendants. This was the western end of the historical Mexican area called Tejas. The small number of Spaniards in American Texas is accurate (it's always like 2500 to 3000), because of the nature of the aboriginal tribes and their attacks.

Hope this is informative. Aztlan is nonsense. The real history of the Southwest is far more interesting, and one thing is clear: the current influx of the citizens of Mexico is one of a separate people, coming into a land they never held, never settled, and have no claim on.