The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Gustavo Arellano ArchiveBlogview
Why Do Latinos Think America Stole California?
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Dear Mexican: A young California high school boy of Latino heritage asked me why did us whities stole California from Mexico? I asked him who told him that, and he said his father. I told him we purchased California from Mexico, via the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the opportunity to discuss the history or the details of the transaction with him. Is common for Hispanics to think California was stolen? If so, then, that makes them appear very uneducated about their so-called homeland…don’t you think?

Retired Teacher

Dear Gabacho: Wow, so many babadas to unpack here! First off, pick: Hispanic? Latino? Those terms ain’t interchangeable. Really, you mean “Mexican”—say our name, pendejo. Most importantly, the U.S. “purchased” California and the rest of Aztlán from Mexico the way the U.S. “purchased” Georgia from the Cherokees. Mexicans see the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for what it is: a purchase done down the barrel of the Mexican-American War. And it wasn’t just us: Abraham Lincoln opposed it while a congressman, Ulysses S. Grant described it years later as “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory”—and all those guys did was save the Republic, you know? And even if we play your Manifest Destiny game, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was still thievery: it didn’t respect the land rights of the conquered Mexicans, therefore allowing a bunch of Pikers to murder and pillage and rob Mexicans of their lands under the threat of marrying their daughters. “Uneducated about their so-called homeland?” That’s you and your fellow gabachos, pendejo.

 

Why is it that mid-30s Mexican heinas let their bush go all out? And they get mad ‘cause you ain’t eatin’ them?

I Won’t Make a Pink Taco Joke, Promise

Dear Pocho: Bruh, you’ve watched too much porn—you really think expecting women to have no pubic hair so they can look like a prepubescent is healthy? That’s pedophile territory right there—I should call To Catch a Predator on you. If the mexicanas you bed are au natural, it’s because they’re in touch with Panochamama and rightfully have no shame with what God granted them. As for the second pregunta—I actually answered it a decade ago, with me reporting then that “a 2002 report by the National Center for Health Statistics showed that 74 percent of Latino men had performed cunnilingus at one point in their life.” Now comes the 2010 results from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which found that 84.6 percent of Latino males reported performing oral sex…but only 72 percent of Mexican-Americans did the deed. And we wonder why so many of our mujeres leave us for gabachos and Salvadorans…

 

THE MEXICAN NEEDS AN EDITOR!: Last week, I tweeted about the horrific assault on Leslie Jones’ website and tried to use the hacker obsession with Harambe as a punchline. People took it as me comparing the actress to an ape, which shows I REALLY need an editor. The tweet pissed off and hurt good folks—I’ve owned up to my pendejada, and will continue to do so. This column has slammed raza for our inherent anti-blackness almost from the start, and we need black and brown solidarity now more than ever in this era of Trump—and definitely don’t need a weak-salsa satirist fucking shit up.

 

Ask the Mexican at themexican@askamexican.net, be his fan on Facebook, follow him on Twitter @gustavoarellano or follow him on Instagram @gustavo_arellano!

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Well, Spaniards originally stole those lands from indigenous Aztecs, and such, and later Anglos stole the stolen lands from Mexicans.

    Isn’t it true that descendants of Spanish invaders today rule Mexico?
    Pres Vincente Fox sure does not look like an Aztec. Neither does current Pres Enrique Peña Nieto. In fact none of the recent presidents look Aztec.

    Interestingly, our former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa looks more of Aztec ancestry than of Spanish ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rocha
    And the Aztecs stole from Oto-Manguean people.
    As for the ancestry of today Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed, and have the blood of BOTH the indigenous peoples and the Spanish. So they have a claim to both Aztecs and Spanish rights and conquests.

    The matter is as long as the US is weak and prone to demographic change it's as rightful to them to try to take it back as it was for the US to take it.
    , @boogerbently
    Exactly.

    So, there was an official sale/treaty between the 2 govt's. Can't cry about it now.
    AND
    Who stole what from who all depends on how far back you want to go.
    If you want to have the right to write more history, win more wars.
    , @Anonymous
    Vicente Fox has immigrant ancestry and Pena Nieto looks mixed like the majority of Mexico's population.
    , @Evocatus
    Vicente Fox looks like Frank Lopez from Scarface (played by Italian-American actor Robert Loggia)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/garellano/why-do-latinos-think-america-stole-california/#comment-1550623
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Why did the “US” settlers commence the vilest and biggest genocide in human history to slaughter fifty million native Americans and steal their lands? Only to, when they ran out of targets, go out on a still ongoing global genocide tour to build more “forts”, kill more peoples and occupy more lands? Who is stealing what here?

    America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 223 Out of 240 Years – Since 1776

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    " fifty million native Americans "

    Nonsense, there is no proof for that. It's just PC made up numbers.
    , @The Plutonium Kid
    Wow, you really hate white people, don't you?
    , @Philip Owen


    The number killed by US military action was 47,000.

    Disease, acculturation (US anglo whites are about 3% Amerindian - all those Praying Indians in the original colonies went somewhere. White women actually married Indian men too, admittedly ones with Harvard educations) and high infant mortality due to poor living conditions and alcohol did a great deal more. And there was one known example of an attempt to use blankets from a US military hospital to spread smallpox. It didn't work.
    , @Anonymous
    Oh, you sound like the Holocaust Supremacists.
    Now, since you are a South American (a descendant of Spanish people, very likely), the "vilest" "genocide" is the one you feel emotionally aroused with.

    All genocides are vile. Everybody with a tad of familiarity with the society and culture of Amerindians know how they enjoyed to ever make tribe-vs.-tribe war, take the defeated prisoners, keep them as prisoners for 2-3 months during which they "told their victims how they were to be tortured/sacrificed", and then put into reality their "promises".

    You can bet that being colonized by Westerners help native South Americans leave this kind of customs behind, a lot.
    They profited from colonialism, quite as much as all colonized peoples did.
  3. Mexicans and other stupidos are wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-white ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-whites who created the USA.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It’s Mexico they all want to leave.

    It’s Euro-whites that they follow around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fred c dobbs
    "......... (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!............."

    =================

    Funny you mention that. Just yesterday I looked up Pena Nieto (who is obviously pretty close to pure Spaniard)......then on to his Cabinet.

    Sec'y of Interior is Osorio-Chong (yes, half Mexican half Chinese)
    Chancellor is Meade-Kuribrena (half Irish half Lebanese)
    AG is Karam (Lebanese)
    Sec'y of Energy is Coldwell (Lebanese and English)

    And even if they are "Mexican", they sure don't look like the guy mowing the lawn outside my window right now. I seem to recall Vicente Fox had a whole mess of German or Polish or both in him.

    (Just looked it up......Original surname was "Fuchs".

    , @Voxvot
    Excellent comment Wally. Possibly worth mentioning that the Aztecs were probably some of the most bloodthirsty, cruel and expansionist imperialists in history.
    , @in the middle
    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It’s Mexico they all want to leave.

    The Mexico created by Merida initiative, and Fast and Furious by the State Department and the Justice department by the way!

    I believe California is already like Mexico, but better though...
    , @RaceRealist88
    No idea how true this really is, first saw it on a show on the Science Channel. There's a theory, with evidence, that there were Aztecs in Utah.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/93352/RESEARCHERS-SAY-AZTEC-HOMELAND-WAS-IN-UTAH.html?pg=all

    I know of more things on it I'll link when I find them. Doubt it's true though.
  4. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Maybe more people would read your column if you stopped insulting them. That shtick doesn’t play well for the audience, and you miss opportunities to provide more cultural understanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Why most of what he says is bullshit anyway. He is as dumb as the rest of his countrymen so there is nothing to learn from him. Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.

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

    Even then Mexicans showed their natural stupidity as many in the Mexican leadership actually thought their larger European trained army would win and they welcomed the war, It was only after they lost that they started crying about how it was "unfair".
  5. Gringos snatched the land from Spanish-speaking whites who ruled Mexico in the 19th century. Then again, lands north of the Rio Grande didn’t properly belong to Mexico anyway. These lands belonged to ‘Native Americans’. And the Native American who lived north of the Rio Grande were not Aztec or Zapotec or Mayan. And they certainly weren’t Spanish.

    They were Apache or Navajo and any number or distinct tribes that did not dwell in ‘Mexico’ or identify with Mexico. They had no connection to that Spanish-speaking European outpost. Did Geronimo or Sitting Bull ever claim Mexican heritage or advocate for the return of their ancestral lands to ‘Mexico’? Ha! How absurd.

    Brown-skinned Mexicans (and white ones) have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all-white tussle between imperial powers.

    When the dust settled, white, English-speaking ‘gringos’ stole the land from Native Americans (not ‘Mexicans’) and then created the extraordinary and enviable civilization called the United States. Along with their cousins in Europe, the ‘gringos’ invented the modern world. No small achievement.

    This is why so many Mexicans are still sneaking into Estados Unidos.

    We white gringos create wealth, stability, technology, science and civilization.

    Brown Mexicans on the other hand, don’t create orderly, affluent and modern civilizations quite so well.

    But we do need Meso-Americans to pick our lettuce, wash our cars and tend our gardens. Unfortunately, we have too many of them now. Back to your barrios!

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Shout your hole! I am perfectly happy with the whitie who takes care of my yard work!
    Also the whitie who assist in the grocery store packing my groceries, what are you talking about, that whites are lazy?
    , @Santoculto

    We white gringos create wealth, stability, technology, science and civilization.
     
    We*

    Well, you, whitey, sustain this SERVILization pretty well than most of other people's, but were very few creative minds (most of them eurocaucasoids) who really created all of it...

    ''wealth''

    what make ''America'' better than Mexico is, also, because the first have more ''three digit-iq'' workers...

    the collective merit is generally a non-individual merit, just one ant don't make a anthill succesfull...

    ''stability''

    ''America'' alone is already destroying environment with its absurdly excessive consumerism..

    ''technology''

    no human invent technology because technology already exist in nature, what some few humans has been is copied from nature and reinvent technology to their ''own'' goals.

    ''science''

    almost human beings has used primary scientific thinking, some few european thinkers have improved this type of method to the understanding of nature.
  6. @Avery
    Well, Spaniards originally stole those lands from indigenous Aztecs, and such, and later Anglos stole the stolen lands from Mexicans.

    Isn't it true that descendants of Spanish invaders today rule Mexico?
    Pres Vincente Fox sure does not look like an Aztec. Neither does current Pres Enrique Peña Nieto. In fact none of the recent presidents look Aztec.

    Interestingly, our former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa looks more of Aztec ancestry than of Spanish ancestry.

    And the Aztecs stole from Oto-Manguean people.
    As for the ancestry of today Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed, and have the blood of BOTH the indigenous peoples and the Spanish. So they have a claim to both Aztecs and Spanish rights and conquests.

    The matter is as long as the US is weak and prone to demographic change it’s as rightful to them to try to take it back as it was for the US to take it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed"

    Not true, but a common myth.

    Most Mexicans are Indian only, although they wish to delude themselves into thinking they are 'mixed'.

    A trip throughout Mexico makes that readily apparent.

  7. It was not a Carthaginian peace, in addition to paying for the territories, the Mexican nationals already in the territories (all 75,000 of them!) were granted US citizenship, hence “Hispanics” were all considered White until Nixon created a separate category.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fred c dobbs
    You are full of shit. No way 75,000 "Mexican Nationals" inhabited the Southwest at the time. A most a couple thousand in California and a couple thousand in New Mexico around Santa Fe. Arizona? Zero. Utah? Zero. Nevada? Zero.

    The only thing Pendejo Gus gets right is the shady business dealings and land theft. That much is true. But shockingly (well, maybe not so shockingly.....this IS Pendejo Gus we are talking about) is that the inter-marriage between Yankee traders and the daughters of prominent Mexican landowners was well in place BEFORE 1848. (Stearns, Workman, Temple, etc.)
  8. Gustapendejo,

    Remind me just to skip to the comments rather than to read your teen-level drivel about how unfair the real world is. I’d accuse you of half-truths, but that would be too generous.

    Read More
  9. Re: Mexicans thinking we stole CA- blame most of it on Marxist agitators of non-Mexican hertiage whispering subversive nonsense into their ears. I don’t see angry mestizos shouting anti-white crappola back in Mexico against their own circa 10% white minority ruling class, for example.
    Plus all those Spanish place names that dot CA probably play some role… San Francisco, Santa Ana, Pico Rivera… But we Americanos decided to keep them because they frankly sound more romantic, more exotic, more appropriate for CAs environment than St. Francis, St. Anne and Rivera Peak.

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Actually we kept those names because the treaty of Guadalupe stipulated it so.

    The reality is that this argument is worthless, since we cannot change anything about who owned what back long ago. Hell, the Anglos lost to the Saxons, and the Scots were beat by the English, the Vikings beat the crap out of the Anglo-Saxons, etc. The Romans beat all.


    More recently, the Vietnamese beat the shit out of the Americans, and the Afghans the British and the Russians! So lets just stop all this bull.
  10. @Anonymous
    Maybe more people would read your column if you stopped insulting them. That shtick doesn't play well for the audience, and you miss opportunities to provide more cultural understanding.

    Why most of what he says is bullshit anyway. He is as dumb as the rest of his countrymen so there is nothing to learn from him. Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.

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

    Even then Mexicans showed their natural stupidity as many in the Mexican leadership actually thought their larger European trained army would win and they welcomed the war, It was only after they lost that they started crying about how it was “unfair”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Historian

    Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.
     
    As Abraham Lincoln kept pointing out in Congress, the "spot" where all this took place did not belong to the United States. It was only disputed because we claimed it.

    By your logic, we could claim land anywhere in the world, send troops there, and it would be the other country's fault for blundering into a war.
  11. @fidelito
    Why did the "US" settlers commence the vilest and biggest genocide in human history to slaughter fifty million native Americans and steal their lands? Only to, when they ran out of targets, go out on a still ongoing global genocide tour to build more "forts", kill more peoples and occupy more lands? Who is stealing what here?

    America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 223 Out of 240 Years – Since 1776
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

    ” fifty million native Americans ”

    Nonsense, there is no proof for that. It’s just PC made up numbers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fred c dobbs
    Exactly. The real number of Natives "at moment of contact", as dweeby anthropologists and the like put it, is less than 5% of that. It's astounding what BS people fall for.

    "Tell a lie often enough............"
    , @RaceRealist88
    There were probably around 2 million 'Native' Americans.

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/06/02/the-non-genocide-of-northern-native-americans/
  12. @Rocha
    And the Aztecs stole from Oto-Manguean people.
    As for the ancestry of today Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed, and have the blood of BOTH the indigenous peoples and the Spanish. So they have a claim to both Aztecs and Spanish rights and conquests.

    The matter is as long as the US is weak and prone to demographic change it's as rightful to them to try to take it back as it was for the US to take it.

    “Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed”

    Not true, but a common myth.

    Most Mexicans are Indian only, although they wish to delude themselves into thinking they are ‘mixed’.

    A trip throughout Mexico makes that readily apparent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    “Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed”
    Not true, but a common myth.
    Most Mexicans are Indian only, although they wish to delude themselves into thinking they are ‘mixed’.
    A trip throughout Mexico makes that readily apparent.
     
    What you mean is most of the mixed are 85% on up Indian. Not some "nice" 50/50 mix.
  13. Well, if Mexican women maintain a hairy and smelly clam, who is it the Mexican men are performing oral sex on? By the way, don’t worry over Leslie Jones. She’s a pig.

    Read More
  14. @Avery
    Well, Spaniards originally stole those lands from indigenous Aztecs, and such, and later Anglos stole the stolen lands from Mexicans.

    Isn't it true that descendants of Spanish invaders today rule Mexico?
    Pres Vincente Fox sure does not look like an Aztec. Neither does current Pres Enrique Peña Nieto. In fact none of the recent presidents look Aztec.

    Interestingly, our former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa looks more of Aztec ancestry than of Spanish ancestry.

    Exactly.

    So, there was an official sale/treaty between the 2 govt’s. Can’t cry about it now.
    AND
    Who stole what from who all depends on how far back you want to go.
    If you want to have the right to write more history, win more wars.

    Read More
  15. @Marcus
    It was not a Carthaginian peace, in addition to paying for the territories, the Mexican nationals already in the territories (all 75,000 of them!) were granted US citizenship, hence "Hispanics" were all considered White until Nixon created a separate category.

    You are full of shit. No way 75,000 “Mexican Nationals” inhabited the Southwest at the time. A most a couple thousand in California and a couple thousand in New Mexico around Santa Fe. Arizona? Zero. Utah? Zero. Nevada? Zero.

    The only thing Pendejo Gus gets right is the shady business dealings and land theft. That much is true. But shockingly (well, maybe not so shockingly…..this IS Pendejo Gus we are talking about) is that the inter-marriage between Yankee traders and the daughters of prominent Mexican landowners was well in place BEFORE 1848. (Stearns, Workman, Temple, etc.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    75,000 is the number I see most often you are right that it seems high, maybe it was a generous estimate

    At that time, only about 75,000 Mexican citizens lived north of the Rio Grande.
     
    http://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war
    , @Discard
    IIRC, there were 7000 people in California, exclusive of wild Indians, at the time of the Mexican War. 3000 of those were American or European. Some guy would get off a ship and say "There needs to be a yard to repair ships here, and a chandler to sell rope and sail canvas and other seafarers' stuff". The Mexicans said 'mañana', so the Yankee set himself up in business.
    As you point out, the local landowners wanted their daughters to marry the ambitious and capable Yankees instead of the homeboys with the dingle balls on their sombreros.
  16. @Wally
    " fifty million native Americans "

    Nonsense, there is no proof for that. It's just PC made up numbers.

    Exactly. The real number of Natives “at moment of contact”, as dweeby anthropologists and the like put it, is less than 5% of that. It’s astounding what BS people fall for.

    “Tell a lie often enough…………”

    Read More
  17. @Wally
    Mexicans and other stupidos are wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-white ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-whites who created the USA.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites that they follow around.

    “……… (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!………….”

    =================

    Funny you mention that. Just yesterday I looked up Pena Nieto (who is obviously pretty close to pure Spaniard)……then on to his Cabinet.

    Sec’y of Interior is Osorio-Chong (yes, half Mexican half Chinese)
    Chancellor is Meade-Kuribrena (half Irish half Lebanese)
    AG is Karam (Lebanese)
    Sec’y of Energy is Coldwell (Lebanese and English)

    And even if they are “Mexican”, they sure don’t look like the guy mowing the lawn outside my window right now. I seem to recall Vicente Fox had a whole mess of German or Polish or both in him.

    (Just looked it up……Original surname was “Fuchs”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Bravo! Smart people know that whities did not migrate to the Unites States only! But are distributed throughput the continent! There had to be a not so dumb person to notice that.

    My goodness, I am so proud of Dobbs, that I am going to drink another Bud Light! Who could imagine that you would notice that Pale faces were living south of the border also? You are my hero!
  18. @fred c dobbs
    You are full of shit. No way 75,000 "Mexican Nationals" inhabited the Southwest at the time. A most a couple thousand in California and a couple thousand in New Mexico around Santa Fe. Arizona? Zero. Utah? Zero. Nevada? Zero.

    The only thing Pendejo Gus gets right is the shady business dealings and land theft. That much is true. But shockingly (well, maybe not so shockingly.....this IS Pendejo Gus we are talking about) is that the inter-marriage between Yankee traders and the daughters of prominent Mexican landowners was well in place BEFORE 1848. (Stearns, Workman, Temple, etc.)

    75,000 is the number I see most often you are right that it seems high, maybe it was a generous estimate

    At that time, only about 75,000 Mexican citizens lived north of the Rio Grande.

    http://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war

    Read More
    • Replies: @fred c dobbs
    75,000 makes sense.....if one understands 90% of those were in Texas (and only tangentially a part of the 1848 Treaty........the "Texas Issue" had already been settled. )

    Look at my name........I know what I'm talking about.......I spent a fair amount of time in the Sierra Madre Occidental......=)...lol lol lol........
  19. As a point of information, the US government paid the Mexican government $15,000,000 for the territory Mexico gave up, roughly $441,000,000 in 2016 dollars. That’s probably pretty close to fair market value for what was mostly uninhabited real estate with no improvements made to it. And back then, I don’t think very many – if any – countries that had defeated another militarily actually paid any form of compensation to the losing side.

    As for the other subject, Gus sure writes some strange letters to himself.

    Read More
  20. @Marcus
    75,000 is the number I see most often you are right that it seems high, maybe it was a generous estimate

    At that time, only about 75,000 Mexican citizens lived north of the Rio Grande.
     
    http://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war

    75,000 makes sense…..if one understands 90% of those were in Texas (and only tangentially a part of the 1848 Treaty……..the “Texas Issue” had already been settled. )

    Look at my name……..I know what I’m talking about…….I spent a fair amount of time in the Sierra Madre Occidental……=)…lol lol lol……..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    75,000 makes sense…..if one understands 90% of those were in Texas (and only tangentially a part of the 1848 Treaty……..the “Texas Issue” had already been settled.
     
    Actually, I don't think that's correct...

    I think the figures I've seen are that there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speakers in California and maybe another 15,000 in Texas. But the bulk of the population was in New Mexico, and might have been around 50,000 or so, which actually makes sense given its name.

    I'm sure the exact numbers wouldn't be too difficult to locate in any standard history book or maybe the first U.S. Census taken after the war or something.
  21. @fred c dobbs
    75,000 makes sense.....if one understands 90% of those were in Texas (and only tangentially a part of the 1848 Treaty........the "Texas Issue" had already been settled. )

    Look at my name........I know what I'm talking about.......I spent a fair amount of time in the Sierra Madre Occidental......=)...lol lol lol........

    75,000 makes sense…..if one understands 90% of those were in Texas (and only tangentially a part of the 1848 Treaty……..the “Texas Issue” had already been settled.

    Actually, I don’t think that’s correct…

    I think the figures I’ve seen are that there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speakers in California and maybe another 15,000 in Texas. But the bulk of the population was in New Mexico, and might have been around 50,000 or so, which actually makes sense given its name.

    I’m sure the exact numbers wouldn’t be too difficult to locate in any standard history book or maybe the first U.S. Census taken after the war or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Per 1850 census entire US population ~23 million.

    {The first United States census was taken in 1850, when the Texas population comprised 154,034 whites, 397 free Negroes, and 58,161 slaves. The second United States census in 1860 gave Texas a population of 604,215.}

    1850 New Mexico resident population ~61,000 (no racial/ethnic breakdown given)

    1850 California population ~92,000.

    (above info from the web).

    Mr. Unz appears to be right about 'around 50,000 or so'.
    The PDF below covers another subject, but has this interesting bit of info on pages 2&3:
    https://www.law.uh.edu/hernandez50/LauraGomez.pdf

    {.....by virtue of the American occupation of Mexico’s northern territories in 1846. In part due to unique demographics, the 60,000 Mexicans then living in New Mexico,......}

  22. @Ron Unz

    75,000 makes sense…..if one understands 90% of those were in Texas (and only tangentially a part of the 1848 Treaty……..the “Texas Issue” had already been settled.
     
    Actually, I don't think that's correct...

    I think the figures I've seen are that there were something like 7,000 Spanish-speakers in California and maybe another 15,000 in Texas. But the bulk of the population was in New Mexico, and might have been around 50,000 or so, which actually makes sense given its name.

    I'm sure the exact numbers wouldn't be too difficult to locate in any standard history book or maybe the first U.S. Census taken after the war or something.

    Per 1850 census entire US population ~23 million.

    {The first United States census was taken in 1850, when the Texas population comprised 154,034 whites, 397 free Negroes, and 58,161 slaves. The second United States census in 1860 gave Texas a population of 604,215.}

    1850 New Mexico resident population ~61,000 (no racial/ethnic breakdown given)

    1850 California population ~92,000.

    (above info from the web).

    Mr. Unz appears to be right about ‘around 50,000 or so’.
    The PDF below covers another subject, but has this interesting bit of info on pages 2&3:

    https://www.law.uh.edu/hernandez50/LauraGomez.pdf

    {…..by virtue of the American occupation of Mexico’s northern territories in 1846. In part due to unique demographics, the 60,000 Mexicans then living in New Mexico,……}

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    I'm guessing they were mostly pure Indian or mestizo, though even the former would have often had Spanish names. The large pueblo population had proven difficult for the Spaniards to subdue.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Revolt
  23. How far to go back? With regards to Indians native to the Americas, various tribes stole land from one another. Which tribe owned what and when, and who has moral authority?

    Read More
  24. Ah. Well, to be more specific, the anglos did not STEAL California from the Mexicans. They CREATED California, from scratch, and therefore own it outright with no guilt.

    You see, not that long ago, California was an arid desert. Almost nobody lived there! Nobody COULD live there! Because there was no water. It was only after the anglos built the pumps and dams etc. that more than a few tens of thousands of people could live in California.

    So yeah, let’s give California back. And we’ll blow up the dams and pumps and canals etc. And we’ll go back to the time when the population of California was 100,000, if that.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Same for the entire continent.
    , @in the middle
    No body is giving nothing back. It is what it is. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT 2016!
  25. @MarkinLA
    Why most of what he says is bullshit anyway. He is as dumb as the rest of his countrymen so there is nothing to learn from him. Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.

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

    Even then Mexicans showed their natural stupidity as many in the Mexican leadership actually thought their larger European trained army would win and they welcomed the war, It was only after they lost that they started crying about how it was "unfair".

    Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.

    As Abraham Lincoln kept pointing out in Congress, the “spot” where all this took place did not belong to the United States. It was only disputed because we claimed it.

    By your logic, we could claim land anywhere in the world, send troops there, and it would be the other country’s fault for blundering into a war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln's logic, if any country claims part of the US we don't have a right to claim it is part of the US.

    If we put troops in a foreign country and they stupidly attacked them instead of taking them into custody and marching them out of the disputed territory then they would be as stupid as Mexico. Mexico wanted that war because they thought they would win and get back Texas and Louisiana. Of course, Mexico being a technological backwater, that was never going to happen.
    , @in the middle
    we could claim land anywhere in the world, send troops there, and it would be the other country’s fault for blundering into a war.

    we already do that, where have you been?
  26. @TG
    Ah. Well, to be more specific, the anglos did not STEAL California from the Mexicans. They CREATED California, from scratch, and therefore own it outright with no guilt.

    You see, not that long ago, California was an arid desert. Almost nobody lived there! Nobody COULD live there! Because there was no water. It was only after the anglos built the pumps and dams etc. that more than a few tens of thousands of people could live in California.

    So yeah, let's give California back. And we'll blow up the dams and pumps and canals etc. And we'll go back to the time when the population of California was 100,000, if that.

    Same for the entire continent.

    Read More
  27. So much BS about “Aztlan.” Outside of Texas, most of the territory had extremely weak historical and cultural ties to Mexico. The Tejano rebellion was an authentic native revolt against their Mexican feudal lords that gained their independence. Of course they became second-class once Texas was annexed and white settlers became dominant, but the Tejanos were still a lot better off than they were under their feudal lords. The Mexican ruling class lost Texas because they treated their lower class subjects like shit. The only other significant Mexican population in the American southwest was in New Mexico. A lot of them colonized New Mexico to get away from Mexican political and religious repression in what was then a very remote part of New Spain. Some of them were Jews getting away from the power of the Catholic Church. Most of the population of California wasn’t Mexican. Other than a few military outposts and missions, which were essentially slave camps, California was an populated by an amalgamation of European nationalities and Anglo-Americans. Mexico sought to strengthen its claim to California by granting land title to military officers, but pretty much the whole economy of California was the work of non-Mexicans. If Mexico has a claim on California, I suppose Russia has a claim on Sonoma County.

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    If Mexico has a claim on California.

    No way Mexico has a claim to California.

    The only claim Mexico has, is to the worst and most corrupt Government in North America! A failed State, which cannot control its crime, violence, and more. That is the only claim Mexico has.
  28. This piece marks an UNZ downturn – lib, unsavoury, inaccurate and more … We don’t come here to read undergrad musings …

    Read More
  29. @Avery
    Per 1850 census entire US population ~23 million.

    {The first United States census was taken in 1850, when the Texas population comprised 154,034 whites, 397 free Negroes, and 58,161 slaves. The second United States census in 1860 gave Texas a population of 604,215.}

    1850 New Mexico resident population ~61,000 (no racial/ethnic breakdown given)

    1850 California population ~92,000.

    (above info from the web).

    Mr. Unz appears to be right about 'around 50,000 or so'.
    The PDF below covers another subject, but has this interesting bit of info on pages 2&3:
    https://www.law.uh.edu/hernandez50/LauraGomez.pdf

    {.....by virtue of the American occupation of Mexico’s northern territories in 1846. In part due to unique demographics, the 60,000 Mexicans then living in New Mexico,......}

    I’m guessing they were mostly pure Indian or mestizo, though even the former would have often had Spanish names. The large pueblo population had proven difficult for the Spaniards to subdue.

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

    Read More
  30. @Historian

    Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.
     
    As Abraham Lincoln kept pointing out in Congress, the "spot" where all this took place did not belong to the United States. It was only disputed because we claimed it.

    By your logic, we could claim land anywhere in the world, send troops there, and it would be the other country's fault for blundering into a war.

    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln’s logic, if any country claims part of the US we don’t have a right to claim it is part of the US.

    If we put troops in a foreign country and they stupidly attacked them instead of taking them into custody and marching them out of the disputed territory then they would be as stupid as Mexico. Mexico wanted that war because they thought they would win and get back Texas and Louisiana. Of course, Mexico being a technological backwater, that was never going to happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Lincoln was good at twisting the truth to present his cause as the moral high ground, obviously he and his fellow Whigs didn't want the war since it was presumed that the new territories would be settled by slaveholding Democrats.
    , @Historian


    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln’s logic, if any country claims part of the US we don’t have a right to claim it is part of the US.

     

    You're just repeating Polk's arguments, so I will respond with Lincoln's arguments.

    As Lincoln pointed out, Mexico never ratified the treaty granting Texas independent, much less the treaty setting the boundary at the Rio Grande. A treaty that has been signed but not ratified does not go into effect. (That's why Teddy Roosevelt got mad at Colombia.)

    Since Texas was still legally part of Mexico, our annexation of Texas would be an act of aggression against Mexico. It would be as if we decided to annex Kosovo to the United States back in 1999.
  31. Maybe somebody should ask the Mexican when Mexico stopped paying bounties for Indian scalps.

    Read More
  32. @MarkinLA
    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln's logic, if any country claims part of the US we don't have a right to claim it is part of the US.

    If we put troops in a foreign country and they stupidly attacked them instead of taking them into custody and marching them out of the disputed territory then they would be as stupid as Mexico. Mexico wanted that war because they thought they would win and get back Texas and Louisiana. Of course, Mexico being a technological backwater, that was never going to happen.

    Lincoln was good at twisting the truth to present his cause as the moral high ground, obviously he and his fellow Whigs didn’t want the war since it was presumed that the new territories would be settled by slaveholding Democrats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    *course he was proven wrong, as California and Oregon became staunchly Republican free-soil states
  33. @Marcus
    Lincoln was good at twisting the truth to present his cause as the moral high ground, obviously he and his fellow Whigs didn't want the war since it was presumed that the new territories would be settled by slaveholding Democrats.

    *course he was proven wrong, as California and Oregon became staunchly Republican free-soil states

    Read More
    • Replies: @Historian


    *course he was proven wrong, as California and Oregon became staunchly Republican free-soil states

     

    We acquired Oregon from Great Britain, not from Mexico.

    California only became a free state because the Gold Rush brought in a bunch of white settlers. The admission of California into the Union almost started the Civil War 10 years early. Southerners felt that they were cheated out of another slave state below the Missouri compromise line.
  34. The United States of America exists as a product of conquest, the same as every other sovereign nation on the planet.

    Conquering is not “stealing”.

    Get over it, or grab your guns and *TRY* to take it back.

    That is how Nations are formed and changed.

    Read More
  35. I can understand why Mexicans think that the U.S. stole Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from them. What I don’t understand is why they can’t admit to themselves that it was for the best for all concerned. The government of Mexico couldn’t entice enough Mexicans to move there, and thereby effectively govern, and the Apaches and others made life hell for the ones who did.

    Does any Mexican seriously believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would be anywhere near as prosperous as they are if Mexico had kept them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    Does any Mexican seriously believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would be anywhere near as prosperous as they are if Mexico had kept them?

    believe it or not, there are democrats who believe so.

    TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!
    , @Santoculto
    Because "they" are seeing a opportunity to take this regions again, "make Mexico literally great again" ... Of course en masse inmigración help a lot.

    Similar with moslens... "they" have a expansionist revival feelings with euro-"'weakness"' "' "' or ((( )))
  36. “The government of Mexico couldn’t entice enough Mexicans to move there, and thereby effectively govern, and the Apaches and others made life hell for the ones who did”

    it’s taken over 30 comments to get to this part. Based on what I’ve read the American government had for years asked the Mexican government to let us buy the area in question BECAUSE it’s was “El Norte” to the Mexican government which they could care less about any settlers there and the US government was tasked with policing the area.

    As you state, the Mexican government didn’t want anything to do with the territory as it was just too far away but refused to sell. After the war the American government (and keep in mind the military made it all the way to Mexico city and we “could” have had the whole country) withdrew to the areas that we now control AND then PAID THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT for the land…..just like what had been requested in the first place.

    the funny thing is Mexico is taking it back, one baby at a time.

    after a soccer game between the USA team and the Mexico team in Pasadena, where the USA team was treated like an invading army, a reporter asked an American of Mexican decent how odd that was and he had this to say.

    “America has given me all that i have, i was born here, but my heart will always be with Mexico”

    Read More
  37. @Stu
    The United States of America exists as a product of conquest, the same as every other sovereign nation on the planet.

    Conquering is not "stealing".

    Get over it, or grab your guns and *TRY* to take it back.

    That is how Nations are formed and changed.

    Pure and simple.

    Read More
  38. @Wally
    Mexicans and other stupidos are wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-white ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-whites who created the USA.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites that they follow around.

    Excellent comment Wally. Possibly worth mentioning that the Aztecs were probably some of the most bloodthirsty, cruel and expansionist imperialists in history.

    Read More
  39. @fred c dobbs
    You are full of shit. No way 75,000 "Mexican Nationals" inhabited the Southwest at the time. A most a couple thousand in California and a couple thousand in New Mexico around Santa Fe. Arizona? Zero. Utah? Zero. Nevada? Zero.

    The only thing Pendejo Gus gets right is the shady business dealings and land theft. That much is true. But shockingly (well, maybe not so shockingly.....this IS Pendejo Gus we are talking about) is that the inter-marriage between Yankee traders and the daughters of prominent Mexican landowners was well in place BEFORE 1848. (Stearns, Workman, Temple, etc.)

    IIRC, there were 7000 people in California, exclusive of wild Indians, at the time of the Mexican War. 3000 of those were American or European. Some guy would get off a ship and say “There needs to be a yard to repair ships here, and a chandler to sell rope and sail canvas and other seafarers’ stuff”. The Mexicans said ‘mañana’, so the Yankee set himself up in business.
    As you point out, the local landowners wanted their daughters to marry the ambitious and capable Yankees instead of the homeboys with the dingle balls on their sombreros.

    Read More
  40. @fidelito
    Why did the "US" settlers commence the vilest and biggest genocide in human history to slaughter fifty million native Americans and steal their lands? Only to, when they ran out of targets, go out on a still ongoing global genocide tour to build more "forts", kill more peoples and occupy more lands? Who is stealing what here?

    America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 223 Out of 240 Years – Since 1776
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

    Wow, you really hate white people, don’t you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What's up with people thinking teaching white history is hatred of white people?
  41. @Marcus
    *course he was proven wrong, as California and Oregon became staunchly Republican free-soil states

    *course he was proven wrong, as California and Oregon became staunchly Republican free-soil states

    We acquired Oregon from Great Britain, not from Mexico.

    California only became a free state because the Gold Rush brought in a bunch of white settlers. The admission of California into the Union almost started the Civil War 10 years early. Southerners felt that they were cheated out of another slave state below the Missouri compromise line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Yes, but the Whigs opposed annexing the Oregon country too, no? And how would enough slaves have been transported to California long before the Panama Canal?
  42. @MarkinLA
    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln's logic, if any country claims part of the US we don't have a right to claim it is part of the US.

    If we put troops in a foreign country and they stupidly attacked them instead of taking them into custody and marching them out of the disputed territory then they would be as stupid as Mexico. Mexico wanted that war because they thought they would win and get back Texas and Louisiana. Of course, Mexico being a technological backwater, that was never going to happen.

    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln’s logic, if any country claims part of the US we don’t have a right to claim it is part of the US.

    You’re just repeating Polk’s arguments, so I will respond with Lincoln’s arguments.

    As Lincoln pointed out, Mexico never ratified the treaty granting Texas independent, much less the treaty setting the boundary at the Rio Grande. A treaty that has been signed but not ratified does not go into effect. (That’s why Teddy Roosevelt got mad at Colombia.)

    Since Texas was still legally part of Mexico, our annexation of Texas would be an act of aggression against Mexico. It would be as if we decided to annex Kosovo to the United States back in 1999.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    What an asinine statement, Kosovo is half the world away with no connection, let alone border, with the US. The Texas-Mexico issue was fuzzy indeed, but that was a product of the revolving door that was the Mexican government, the Texans did as good as they could given the circumstances; meanwhile Mexico was only interested in solving the issue by force of arms, quite foolhardy given the human capital at their disposal compared to the US.
  43. @Historian


    *course he was proven wrong, as California and Oregon became staunchly Republican free-soil states

     

    We acquired Oregon from Great Britain, not from Mexico.

    California only became a free state because the Gold Rush brought in a bunch of white settlers. The admission of California into the Union almost started the Civil War 10 years early. Southerners felt that they were cheated out of another slave state below the Missouri compromise line.

    Yes, but the Whigs opposed annexing the Oregon country too, no? And how would enough slaves have been transported to California long before the Panama Canal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Historian

    Yes, but the Whigs opposed annexing the Oregon country too, no? And how would enough slaves have been transported to California long before the Panama Canal?
     
    Whigs opposed fighting Great Britain over the Oregon border. Without a slave state in California, it would not have been necessary to acquire Oregon to balance it out. After we negotiated a border at the 49th parallel, many Whigs voted for ratification.

    Slaves would have gotten to California the same way that white men got to California: by ship through the Straits of Magellan. (Only a few 49ers attempted to cross Panama overland, and most of them died of yellow fever or malaria.)
  44. @Historian


    Well according to what was posted it was disputed because the treaty Mexico signed with Texas put the border at the Rio Grande and not the Neuces River. We annexed Texas and that should have put the border at the Rio Grande. If the treaty stated the boundary was the Rio Grande then we had more of a right to claim it than Mexico. According to Lincoln’s logic, if any country claims part of the US we don’t have a right to claim it is part of the US.

     

    You're just repeating Polk's arguments, so I will respond with Lincoln's arguments.

    As Lincoln pointed out, Mexico never ratified the treaty granting Texas independent, much less the treaty setting the boundary at the Rio Grande. A treaty that has been signed but not ratified does not go into effect. (That's why Teddy Roosevelt got mad at Colombia.)

    Since Texas was still legally part of Mexico, our annexation of Texas would be an act of aggression against Mexico. It would be as if we decided to annex Kosovo to the United States back in 1999.

    What an asinine statement, Kosovo is half the world away with no connection, let alone border, with the US. The Texas-Mexico issue was fuzzy indeed, but that was a product of the revolving door that was the Mexican government, the Texans did as good as they could given the circumstances; meanwhile Mexico was only interested in solving the issue by force of arms, quite foolhardy given the human capital at their disposal compared to the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Historian


    What an asinine statement, Kosovo is half the world away with no connection, let alone border, with the US. The Texas-Mexico issue was fuzzy indeed, but that was a product of the revolving door that was the Mexican government, the Texans did as good as they could given the circumstances; meanwhile Mexico was only interested in solving the issue by force of arms, quite foolhardy given the human capital at their disposal compared to the US.

     

    Hawaii was also halfway around the world with no connection.

    The point is that the Mexican War started us on our imperial adventure. Every aggressor starts their bad habit by taking land from neighbors. It's much easier to send an army to a neighboring country than to a country halfway around the world.
  45. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Avery
    Well, Spaniards originally stole those lands from indigenous Aztecs, and such, and later Anglos stole the stolen lands from Mexicans.

    Isn't it true that descendants of Spanish invaders today rule Mexico?
    Pres Vincente Fox sure does not look like an Aztec. Neither does current Pres Enrique Peña Nieto. In fact none of the recent presidents look Aztec.

    Interestingly, our former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa looks more of Aztec ancestry than of Spanish ancestry.

    Vicente Fox has immigrant ancestry and Pena Nieto looks mixed like the majority of Mexico’s population.

    Read More
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @The Plutonium Kid
    Wow, you really hate white people, don't you?

    What’s up with people thinking teaching white history is hatred of white people?

    Read More
  47. @Marcus
    Yes, but the Whigs opposed annexing the Oregon country too, no? And how would enough slaves have been transported to California long before the Panama Canal?

    Yes, but the Whigs opposed annexing the Oregon country too, no? And how would enough slaves have been transported to California long before the Panama Canal?

    Whigs opposed fighting Great Britain over the Oregon border. Without a slave state in California, it would not have been necessary to acquire Oregon to balance it out. After we negotiated a border at the 49th parallel, many Whigs voted for ratification.

    Slaves would have gotten to California the same way that white men got to California: by ship through the Straits of Magellan. (Only a few 49ers attempted to cross Panama overland, and most of them died of yellow fever or malaria.)

    Read More
  48. @Marcus
    What an asinine statement, Kosovo is half the world away with no connection, let alone border, with the US. The Texas-Mexico issue was fuzzy indeed, but that was a product of the revolving door that was the Mexican government, the Texans did as good as they could given the circumstances; meanwhile Mexico was only interested in solving the issue by force of arms, quite foolhardy given the human capital at their disposal compared to the US.

    What an asinine statement, Kosovo is half the world away with no connection, let alone border, with the US. The Texas-Mexico issue was fuzzy indeed, but that was a product of the revolving door that was the Mexican government, the Texans did as good as they could given the circumstances; meanwhile Mexico was only interested in solving the issue by force of arms, quite foolhardy given the human capital at their disposal compared to the US.

    Hawaii was also halfway around the world with no connection.

    The point is that the Mexican War started us on our imperial adventure. Every aggressor starts their bad habit by taking land from neighbors. It’s much easier to send an army to a neighboring country than to a country halfway around the world.

    Read More
  49. @Wally
    Mexicans and other stupidos are wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-white ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-whites who created the USA.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites that they follow around.

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It’s Mexico they all want to leave.

    The Mexico created by Merida initiative, and Fast and Furious by the State Department and the Justice department by the way!

    I believe California is already like Mexico, but better though…

    Read More
  50. @Mark Green
    Gringos snatched the land from Spanish-speaking whites who ruled Mexico in the 19th century. Then again, lands north of the Rio Grande didn't properly belong to Mexico anyway. These lands belonged to 'Native Americans'. And the Native American who lived north of the Rio Grande were not Aztec or Zapotec or Mayan. And they certainly weren't Spanish.

    They were Apache or Navajo and any number or distinct tribes that did not dwell in 'Mexico' or identify with Mexico. They had no connection to that Spanish-speaking European outpost. Did Geronimo or Sitting Bull ever claim Mexican heritage or advocate for the return of their ancestral lands to 'Mexico'? Ha! How absurd.

    Brown-skinned Mexicans (and white ones) have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all-white tussle between imperial powers.

    When the dust settled, white, English-speaking 'gringos' stole the land from Native Americans (not 'Mexicans') and then created the extraordinary and enviable civilization called the United States. Along with their cousins in Europe, the 'gringos' invented the modern world. No small achievement.

    This is why so many Mexicans are still sneaking into Estados Unidos.

    We white gringos create wealth, stability, technology, science and civilization.

    Brown Mexicans on the other hand, don't create orderly, affluent and modern civilizations quite so well.

    But we do need Meso-Americans to pick our lettuce, wash our cars and tend our gardens. Unfortunately, we have too many of them now. Back to your barrios!

    Shout your hole! I am perfectly happy with the whitie who takes care of my yard work!
    Also the whitie who assist in the grocery store packing my groceries, what are you talking about, that whites are lazy?

    Read More
  51. @Lucas McCrudy
    Re: Mexicans thinking we stole CA- blame most of it on Marxist agitators of non-Mexican hertiage whispering subversive nonsense into their ears. I don't see angry mestizos shouting anti-white crappola back in Mexico against their own circa 10% white minority ruling class, for example.
    Plus all those Spanish place names that dot CA probably play some role... San Francisco, Santa Ana, Pico Rivera... But we Americanos decided to keep them because they frankly sound more romantic, more exotic, more appropriate for CAs environment than St. Francis, St. Anne and Rivera Peak.

    Actually we kept those names because the treaty of Guadalupe stipulated it so.

    The reality is that this argument is worthless, since we cannot change anything about who owned what back long ago. Hell, the Anglos lost to the Saxons, and the Scots were beat by the English, the Vikings beat the crap out of the Anglo-Saxons, etc. The Romans beat all.

    More recently, the Vietnamese beat the shit out of the Americans, and the Afghans the British and the Russians! So lets just stop all this bull.

    Read More
  52. @fred c dobbs
    "......... (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!............."

    =================

    Funny you mention that. Just yesterday I looked up Pena Nieto (who is obviously pretty close to pure Spaniard)......then on to his Cabinet.

    Sec'y of Interior is Osorio-Chong (yes, half Mexican half Chinese)
    Chancellor is Meade-Kuribrena (half Irish half Lebanese)
    AG is Karam (Lebanese)
    Sec'y of Energy is Coldwell (Lebanese and English)

    And even if they are "Mexican", they sure don't look like the guy mowing the lawn outside my window right now. I seem to recall Vicente Fox had a whole mess of German or Polish or both in him.

    (Just looked it up......Original surname was "Fuchs".

    Bravo! Smart people know that whities did not migrate to the Unites States only! But are distributed throughput the continent! There had to be a not so dumb person to notice that.

    My goodness, I am so proud of Dobbs, that I am going to drink another Bud Light! Who could imagine that you would notice that Pale faces were living south of the border also? You are my hero!

    Read More
  53. @TG
    Ah. Well, to be more specific, the anglos did not STEAL California from the Mexicans. They CREATED California, from scratch, and therefore own it outright with no guilt.

    You see, not that long ago, California was an arid desert. Almost nobody lived there! Nobody COULD live there! Because there was no water. It was only after the anglos built the pumps and dams etc. that more than a few tens of thousands of people could live in California.

    So yeah, let's give California back. And we'll blow up the dams and pumps and canals etc. And we'll go back to the time when the population of California was 100,000, if that.

    No body is giving nothing back. It is what it is. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT 2016!

    Read More
  54. @Avery
    Well, Spaniards originally stole those lands from indigenous Aztecs, and such, and later Anglos stole the stolen lands from Mexicans.

    Isn't it true that descendants of Spanish invaders today rule Mexico?
    Pres Vincente Fox sure does not look like an Aztec. Neither does current Pres Enrique Peña Nieto. In fact none of the recent presidents look Aztec.

    Interestingly, our former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa looks more of Aztec ancestry than of Spanish ancestry.

    Vicente Fox looks like Frank Lopez from Scarface (played by Italian-American actor Robert Loggia)

    Read More
  55. @Thirdeye
    So much BS about "Aztlan." Outside of Texas, most of the territory had extremely weak historical and cultural ties to Mexico. The Tejano rebellion was an authentic native revolt against their Mexican feudal lords that gained their independence. Of course they became second-class once Texas was annexed and white settlers became dominant, but the Tejanos were still a lot better off than they were under their feudal lords. The Mexican ruling class lost Texas because they treated their lower class subjects like shit. The only other significant Mexican population in the American southwest was in New Mexico. A lot of them colonized New Mexico to get away from Mexican political and religious repression in what was then a very remote part of New Spain. Some of them were Jews getting away from the power of the Catholic Church. Most of the population of California wasn't Mexican. Other than a few military outposts and missions, which were essentially slave camps, California was an populated by an amalgamation of European nationalities and Anglo-Americans. Mexico sought to strengthen its claim to California by granting land title to military officers, but pretty much the whole economy of California was the work of non-Mexicans. If Mexico has a claim on California, I suppose Russia has a claim on Sonoma County.

    If Mexico has a claim on California.

    No way Mexico has a claim to California.

    The only claim Mexico has, is to the worst and most corrupt Government in North America! A failed State, which cannot control its crime, violence, and more. That is the only claim Mexico has.

    Read More
  56. @Historian

    Mexico blundered into the War of Mexican Cession by attacking a small US force in a disputed part of Texas, the Nueces Strip.
     
    As Abraham Lincoln kept pointing out in Congress, the "spot" where all this took place did not belong to the United States. It was only disputed because we claimed it.

    By your logic, we could claim land anywhere in the world, send troops there, and it would be the other country's fault for blundering into a war.

    we could claim land anywhere in the world, send troops there, and it would be the other country’s fault for blundering into a war.

    we already do that, where have you been?

    Read More
  57. @Jeff77450
    I can understand why Mexicans think that the U.S. stole Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from them. What I don't understand is why they can't admit to themselves that it was for the best for all concerned. The government of Mexico couldn't entice enough Mexicans to move there, and thereby effectively govern, and the Apaches and others made life hell for the ones who did.

    Does any Mexican seriously believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would be anywhere near as prosperous as they are if Mexico had kept them?

    Does any Mexican seriously believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would be anywhere near as prosperous as they are if Mexico had kept them?

    believe it or not, there are democrats who believe so.

    TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!

    Read More
  58. I have learned a lot here. Thanks to the commentators who know their history. I have thought for years that the extreme cruelty, practicing black magic, praying to Santa Muerte of the drug cartels comes from the Aztec, Mayan blood flowing through their veins. Other Indian tribes too, I don’t know their names. Just think of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua as the huge Indian reservations south of the United States of America and matters become more clear.

    Where else would the drug cartel barbarism come from? Police are useless against them. They need armies trained in counter insurgency to kill their leaders and to obliterate them

    Read More
  59. @in the middle
    Does any Mexican seriously believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would be anywhere near as prosperous as they are if Mexico had kept them?

    believe it or not, there are democrats who believe so.

    TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT!

    2016Trump/Pence/Fence

    Read More
  60. @Wally
    Mexicans and other stupidos are wrong to claim that Mexicans were in the Southwest way before US Euro-whites arrived.

    These ‘Mexicans’ immigrants (Meso-Americans) are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.

    The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-white ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-whites who created the USA.

    Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
    See photo of Mexican Congress. LOL!

    And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico anyway? It's Mexico they all want to leave.

    It's Euro-whites that they follow around.

    No idea how true this really is, first saw it on a show on the Science Channel. There’s a theory, with evidence, that there were Aztecs in Utah.

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/93352/RESEARCHERS-SAY-AZTEC-HOMELAND-WAS-IN-UTAH.html?pg=all

    I know of more things on it I’ll link when I find them. Doubt it’s true though.

    Read More
  61. @Wally
    "Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed"

    Not true, but a common myth.

    Most Mexicans are Indian only, although they wish to delude themselves into thinking they are 'mixed'.

    A trip throughout Mexico makes that readily apparent.

    “Mexicans they are mostly mixed breed”
    Not true, but a common myth.
    Most Mexicans are Indian only, although they wish to delude themselves into thinking they are ‘mixed’.
    A trip throughout Mexico makes that readily apparent.

    What you mean is most of the mixed are 85% on up Indian. Not some “nice” 50/50 mix.

    Read More
  62. Philip Owen [AKA "Soarintothesky"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @fidelito
    Why did the "US" settlers commence the vilest and biggest genocide in human history to slaughter fifty million native Americans and steal their lands? Only to, when they ran out of targets, go out on a still ongoing global genocide tour to build more "forts", kill more peoples and occupy more lands? Who is stealing what here?

    America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 223 Out of 240 Years – Since 1776
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

    The number killed by US military action was 47,000.

    Disease, acculturation (US anglo whites are about 3% Amerindian – all those Praying Indians in the original colonies went somewhere. White women actually married Indian men too, admittedly ones with Harvard educations) and high infant mortality due to poor living conditions and alcohol did a great deal more. And there was one known example of an attempt to use blankets from a US military hospital to spread smallpox. It didn’t work.

    Read More
  63. The kid’s father didn’t tell him the whole joke:
    Not only did the Norte Americanos steal the north of Mexico, they stole the part with the good roads.

    Read More
  64. LOL!!

    Mexico considers bill to revoke US treaties if Trump wins election

    “(It would) make it illegal for Mexico to use official cash to fund the building of a border wall. If Mr. Trump attempted to seize the $24bn in annual remittances from the US to Mexico to pay for it, the bill would empower Mexico to retaliate in kind by impounding the same sum, probably through a tax on flows heading in the other direction.

    Furthermore, if Mr Trump made good on threats to scrap the 1994 Nafta free-trade deal — credited with creating one in three jobs in Mexico — it would call for a review all 75 bilateral treaties between the two countries to establish if they were in the national interests.

    That includes the 1848 Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement that ended the Mexican-American War, which transferred a huge swath of Mexican territory to the US, including what is now California, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada.”

    https://www.ft.com/content/4e1a53ee-7322-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a

    the bill would empower Mexico to retaliate in kind by impounding the same sum, probably through a tax on flows heading in the other direction.

    The only goods flowing south into Mexico are parts and supplies that go into making finished products in Mexican sweatshops (maquiladoras), later shipped to the US. Any money flowing south is called “Foreign Direct Investment.” So, good luck with that, Mexico!!

    Anyway, the latest is that the plan is to fund The Wall with deductions from the more than a half billion in US aid money that flows south yearly. Also, if Mexico won’t pony up the dough, the US State Department could make it a lot tougher for all those corrupt white Mexicans seeking visas to the US to lauder their illegal funds.

    The stuff about the treaties is just nonsense for home consumption.

    Read More
  65. “credited with creating one in three jobs in Mexico”

    and destroying 2 in the USA……mission accomplished.

    Read More
  66. @Mark Green
    Gringos snatched the land from Spanish-speaking whites who ruled Mexico in the 19th century. Then again, lands north of the Rio Grande didn't properly belong to Mexico anyway. These lands belonged to 'Native Americans'. And the Native American who lived north of the Rio Grande were not Aztec or Zapotec or Mayan. And they certainly weren't Spanish.

    They were Apache or Navajo and any number or distinct tribes that did not dwell in 'Mexico' or identify with Mexico. They had no connection to that Spanish-speaking European outpost. Did Geronimo or Sitting Bull ever claim Mexican heritage or advocate for the return of their ancestral lands to 'Mexico'? Ha! How absurd.

    Brown-skinned Mexicans (and white ones) have no legitimate ancestral claim on the southwest US. Their ancestors lived elsewhere.

    The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all-white tussle between imperial powers.

    When the dust settled, white, English-speaking 'gringos' stole the land from Native Americans (not 'Mexicans') and then created the extraordinary and enviable civilization called the United States. Along with their cousins in Europe, the 'gringos' invented the modern world. No small achievement.

    This is why so many Mexicans are still sneaking into Estados Unidos.

    We white gringos create wealth, stability, technology, science and civilization.

    Brown Mexicans on the other hand, don't create orderly, affluent and modern civilizations quite so well.

    But we do need Meso-Americans to pick our lettuce, wash our cars and tend our gardens. Unfortunately, we have too many of them now. Back to your barrios!

    We white gringos create wealth, stability, technology, science and civilization.

    We*

    Well, you, whitey, sustain this SERVILization pretty well than most of other people’s, but were very few creative minds (most of them eurocaucasoids) who really created all of it…

    ”wealth”

    what make ”America” better than Mexico is, also, because the first have more ”three digit-iq” workers…

    the collective merit is generally a non-individual merit, just one ant don’t make a anthill succesfull…

    ”stability”

    ”America” alone is already destroying environment with its absurdly excessive consumerism..

    ”technology”

    no human invent technology because technology already exist in nature, what some few humans has been is copied from nature and reinvent technology to their ”own” goals.

    ”science”

    almost human beings has used primary scientific thinking, some few european thinkers have improved this type of method to the understanding of nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    Please forgive me, SantOculto. My comments were deliberately provocative and a bit over the top (though not entirely inaccurate).

    My only defense is that Gustavo Arrelano is himself quite irritating and smug. It brings out the worst in me. Peace.

    Allow me to say that most Mexicans are very good people. Nevertheless, millions of them should not be flooding into the US illegally. It's unfair to the English-speaking, native born people of America.

    Mexicans should remain in Mexico. After all, it's their country. Why not improve it? And we Americans deserve the right to retain our civilization, too.

  67. @Santoculto

    We white gringos create wealth, stability, technology, science and civilization.
     
    We*

    Well, you, whitey, sustain this SERVILization pretty well than most of other people's, but were very few creative minds (most of them eurocaucasoids) who really created all of it...

    ''wealth''

    what make ''America'' better than Mexico is, also, because the first have more ''three digit-iq'' workers...

    the collective merit is generally a non-individual merit, just one ant don't make a anthill succesfull...

    ''stability''

    ''America'' alone is already destroying environment with its absurdly excessive consumerism..

    ''technology''

    no human invent technology because technology already exist in nature, what some few humans has been is copied from nature and reinvent technology to their ''own'' goals.

    ''science''

    almost human beings has used primary scientific thinking, some few european thinkers have improved this type of method to the understanding of nature.

    Please forgive me, SantOculto. My comments were deliberately provocative and a bit over the top (though not entirely inaccurate).

    My only defense is that Gustavo Arrelano is himself quite irritating and smug. It brings out the worst in me. Peace.

    Allow me to say that most Mexicans are very good people. Nevertheless, millions of them should not be flooding into the US illegally. It’s unfair to the English-speaking, native born people of America.

    Mexicans should remain in Mexico. After all, it’s their country. Why not improve it? And we Americans deserve the right to retain our civilization, too.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @interesting
    "Mexicans should remain in Mexico"

    And right there is the heart of the matter, Mexicans that want to become Americans are welcomed with open arms.

    But if you want to be Mexican and proud of it (as i heard in a video over at vdare) THEN STAY IN MEXICO AND MAKE MEXICO A BETTER PLACE.......we only want Americans coming to, working, and contributing to America.....because only those who truly want to be Americans are going to do what is best for America.

    this is 6 grade civics class stuff folks.
    , @Santoculto
    Don't worry

    I have same issues with señor Arellano.
  68. The Americans stole the northern part of Mexico – the part with Disneyland.

    Read More
  69. @Mark Green
    Please forgive me, SantOculto. My comments were deliberately provocative and a bit over the top (though not entirely inaccurate).

    My only defense is that Gustavo Arrelano is himself quite irritating and smug. It brings out the worst in me. Peace.

    Allow me to say that most Mexicans are very good people. Nevertheless, millions of them should not be flooding into the US illegally. It's unfair to the English-speaking, native born people of America.

    Mexicans should remain in Mexico. After all, it's their country. Why not improve it? And we Americans deserve the right to retain our civilization, too.

    “Mexicans should remain in Mexico”

    And right there is the heart of the matter, Mexicans that want to become Americans are welcomed with open arms.

    But if you want to be Mexican and proud of it (as i heard in a video over at vdare) THEN STAY IN MEXICO AND MAKE MEXICO A BETTER PLACE…….we only want Americans coming to, working, and contributing to America…..because only those who truly want to be Americans are going to do what is best for America.

    this is 6 grade civics class stuff folks.

    Read More
  70. Let’s be concrete:

    South Carolina born President James Knox Polk deliberately provoked Mexico into war by instructing US troops to cross the Nueces River, which was the southern border of Texas, to the Rio Grande. He did that with the full intention of invading Mexico for the purpose of stealing over half it’s land in order to create additional states open to slavery, after Mexico responded in defense of it’s territory.

    The invasion of Mexico was opposed by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau (who preferred to go to jail rather than pay a tax destined to support the invasion and wrote “Civil Disobedience” to support his position), and many more.

    The invasion of Mexico by the USA in order to create additional states open to slavery led directly to the Civil War, according to General and President Ulysses S. Grant, who (along with Robert E. Lee), participated in the invasion but considered it unjust.

    So remember THAT the next time you Remember the Alamo!

    President Polk instigated the Mexico-American War to open up new territory for slavery, which precipitated the Civil War by upsetting the existing balance of power between abolitionists and slave-owners, as well as the North and the South.

    Read More
  71. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @fidelito
    Why did the "US" settlers commence the vilest and biggest genocide in human history to slaughter fifty million native Americans and steal their lands? Only to, when they ran out of targets, go out on a still ongoing global genocide tour to build more "forts", kill more peoples and occupy more lands? Who is stealing what here?

    America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 223 Out of 240 Years – Since 1776
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

    Oh, you sound like the Holocaust Supremacists.
    Now, since you are a South American (a descendant of Spanish people, very likely), the “vilest” “genocide” is the one you feel emotionally aroused with.

    All genocides are vile. Everybody with a tad of familiarity with the society and culture of Amerindians know how they enjoyed to ever make tribe-vs.-tribe war, take the defeated prisoners, keep them as prisoners for 2-3 months during which they “told their victims how they were to be tortured/sacrificed”, and then put into reality their “promises”.

    You can bet that being colonized by Westerners help native South Americans leave this kind of customs behind, a lot.
    They profited from colonialism, quite as much as all colonized peoples did.

    Read More
  72. Let’s be concrete:

    The Mexican government can’t even control the territory it now possesses. In the 21st Century. Even with the US being the Big Daddy in the region and giving Mexico hundreds of millions in aid to try to turn it into a real country.

    Large swaths of Mexico, entire states, are controlled by drug cartels, i.e., War Lords. They decapitate, dissolve bodies in vats of acid and destroy entire towns. Mexico is one huge mass grave. And they do it all with the OK of the government officials they’ve bought.

    No, I think the western US is better where it is. And most honest Mexicans think so, too.

    The invasion of Mexico by the USA in order to create additional states open to slavery led directly to the Civil War

    I guess that’s why it’s called the War of Northern Aggression….

    Read More
  73. @Jeff77450
    I can understand why Mexicans think that the U.S. stole Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from them. What I don't understand is why they can't admit to themselves that it was for the best for all concerned. The government of Mexico couldn't entice enough Mexicans to move there, and thereby effectively govern, and the Apaches and others made life hell for the ones who did.

    Does any Mexican seriously believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would be anywhere near as prosperous as they are if Mexico had kept them?

    Because “they” are seeing a opportunity to take this regions again, “make Mexico literally great again” … Of course en masse inmigración help a lot.

    Similar with moslens… “they” have a expansionist revival feelings with euro-”‘weakness”‘ “‘ “‘ or ((( )))

    Read More
  74. @Mark Green
    Please forgive me, SantOculto. My comments were deliberately provocative and a bit over the top (though not entirely inaccurate).

    My only defense is that Gustavo Arrelano is himself quite irritating and smug. It brings out the worst in me. Peace.

    Allow me to say that most Mexicans are very good people. Nevertheless, millions of them should not be flooding into the US illegally. It's unfair to the English-speaking, native born people of America.

    Mexicans should remain in Mexico. After all, it's their country. Why not improve it? And we Americans deserve the right to retain our civilization, too.

    Don’t worry

    I have same issues with señor Arellano.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Gustavo Arellano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.