Posted on 01/01/2003 8:51:58 AM PST by SJackson
As the US began to grow, immigrants started flowing into this new land of opportunity. Immigrants from Europe and Asia made up the majority of the newcomers. Thousands of miles of ocean separated the newcomers from their old homeland. The remoteness from their roots made it a little easier to ‘cut the ties’ from the homeland and assimilate into a new ‘American’ culture. For the last several decades immigration (illegal and legal) from Mexico has increased significantly and is now a major source of immigrants. But the closeness of Mexico made the acceptance of the American culture a lower priority than in the past. In many cases crossing the US–Mexican border is as easy as moving from state to state. In less than a days drive, someone can leave anywhere in the southwest and be in Mexico. The closeness of ones homeland makes acceptance of their new homeland less critical.
Most of those that emigrated from Mexico became naturalized US citizens and have become productive citizens. Unfortunately, some embittered intellectuals (on both sides of the border) have advocated that most of the southwest US belongs to Mexico. As a result they also believe that there should be no border control between Mexico and the US. Their rantings have convinced many that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest US belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control.
One of the promoters of this idea is Professor Charles Truxillo, instructor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and self-described disciple of Chicano-Marxist terrorist Reies Lopez Tijerina. Tijerina and his terrorist group have been advocating retaking the southwest since the mid 60’s. In June 1967, Tijerina led his gang in an assault on the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico. During the attack he proved that his violence was non- discriminatory. They shot fellow Mexican- American jailer Eugolio Salazar in the face, pistol whipped fellow Mexican-American Undersheriff Dan Rivera, and killed fellow Mexican-American Deputy Sheriff Nicainor Saizan. The gang also took 20 local citizens hostage in the courthouse before fleeing town.
Tijerina claims that this new territory is the ‘Nation of Aztlan’ and includes California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, plus the southern part of Colorado. Tijerina declared "exclusive and supreme" powers "within our territorial jurisdiction, over all persons and property situated therein, to the exclusion of all other countries and governments."
It is disturbing that educators like Charles Truxillo look to anarchists like Tijerina for moral leadership and historical vision. As a result of this warped sense of morals and history, educators like Charles Truxillo, advocate that the area from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico belongs to Mexico.
Truxillo and educators of his ilk are performing a disservice to their students by distorting history, preaching hate, and inciting violence. The curriculum sounds frighteningly like the message Muslim Clerics preach at their Madrassas. Truxillo maintains that the new country should be created 'by any means necessary'. And after the 1995 Latino Summit representatives of the "Brown Berets de Aztlan," a Chicano paramilitary group, has threatened to "make the streets run red" with their opponent's blood.
This militant rhetoric isn’t restricted to Tijerina, or the "Brown Berets de Aztlan”. The Aztlan movement is supported by high profile militant separatist groups that are active on high school and university campuses. MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan) and La Raza (the Race) are just two of such groups.
Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled … opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power." It sounds like the advocates of Aztlan preach the same philosophy advocated by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda buddies.
It should be no surprise that the area in dispute was spelled out in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the US – Mexican War. In the treaty, Mexico relinquished control of the area in exchange for $15 million plus the US assumed millions of dollars of Mexico’s debt. But the believers in Aztlan want to rewrite history and void the treaty.
The Aztlan agitators claim the US stole the area have forgot that in 1848 Mexico exercised very little control over the area, that less than 1% of Mexico’s population was in the area, and no valuable minerals had been discovered.
Astute geopolitical observers have suggested that it may have been better for all concerned (US and Mexico) if at the end of the war the US had seized all of Mexico. No one can deny that the territory in question has prospered during the 154 years it has been under U.S. free market philosophy while poverty still exists south of the border.
Without the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the US southwest might still look like Tijuana. Disbelievers need only walk across the border between San Diego and Tijuana to see the stark contrast.
The agitators call themselves the "Bronze People" and claim Aztlan is theirs. They have stated, "Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops, and not to the foreign Europeans". I’m afraid that these misguided agitators have forgotten the strong cultural, religious, and ethnic influence that France and Spain (both European countries) have had on Mexico. Aztlan supporters should also abandon Spanish (a European language) and adopt Aztec or Mayan as the new language of Aztlan.
(I do, however, blame those in America who are doing the "giving".)
And that's exactly the age we'll end up in if this happens.
-------------------
The area originally belonged to nobody. Hernando Cortez claimed an entire area including what is now Mexico and land nearly to Canada for Spain without ever seeing most of it or even knowing where it was. In the early 1800s the people of Mexico refused to accept Cortez's claims and expelled the Spanish. By result of inheritance of Cortez's claims, Mexico assumed ownership of nearly half of What is now the Western United States. Americans didn't accept Cortez's claims either and freed itself from Mexico.
Unlike "Atzlan", that is no fantasy. We (the US) are keeping California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas (they'll NEVER take Texas!) and all other territory aquired from Mexico BUT we are expanding the rich tapestry of the American people by adding a healthy influx from South of the Border of folks more likely than those at La Jolla, CA, or Darien, CT, to be socially conservative. When Roe vs. Wade is gone, check with the rest of us again. Until then, progress in that direction will continue apace. This will also dash the hopes of the more fashionable for gay marriages and whatnot. Tooooooooooo bad!
Most of those who originally conquered their way up into what is now the American SW, certainly their leaders, were of pure Spanish blood.
I used to live in northern NM, and (at least at the time) one of the best ways to get your clock cleaned was to refer to as "Mexican" one of the Hispanic locals who had been living in the area for centuries. They were "Spanish", and don't you forget it!
I have no idea if this distinction still remains in force in the area.
BTW, I have no fantasies about this. I just think it odd that a group would claim title to an area based on a conquest in the 1600s while denying all validity to a conquest in the 1800s.
Are titles based on conquest valid or not? If not, how does the earlier conquest confer title? If conquest does confer title, why would the later conquest not be as valid as the earlier one?
Of course, if you go back far enough, ALL titles are based on conquest.
This is a clear and concise statement of the Nazi Party proram in the late 1930's and early 1940's. In a way it is kind of nice to have a group of these slimeballs actually admitting to their program.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
True. Also, the Aztecs did not control anything close to even all of what is now Mexico. Most of the areas they did control were not a true empire, but were rather in the nature of tributary independent states. Much as most of eastern and southeastern Asia was to China for many centuries.
----------------------------------
Most of the area was uninhabitable. Before Siegel developed Las Vegas, the population there was something like 25. There was a natural desert barrier between Southern Mexico and what is now the U. S. which prohibited movement of people into so-called Aztlan. If you get a map of Mexico today you will see entire areas the size of Rhode Island in the Northern half of the country in which there are still no roads because there are no cities nor anything else there. The areas are something like an old Clint Eastwood movie where he rides his horse into a place where there are 15 people, 45 chickens, and two goats.
Then we do a sort of reverse underground railroad run with our chicken trucks, take 'em back and show 'em that while they were killing themselves masoning and landscaping here, NAFTA has made kingpins of their homeys back in the homeland.
We may have to 'sponsor' two families/yr travel, but I'm telling you this will work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.