As far as inconsistencies, the way this book was wrote, they are expected based on whether the research was done from the Texans, Mexicans, or the observer standpoint. It also seems difficult to separate the myth from the truth at times. The primary sources used are found in the Texas State Library in Austin, Benson Latin American Collection and the Baker Center for American History at the University of Texas in Austin, the DRT Library in San Antonio and many more.
Throughout the Porfirian era Mexico had struggled to develop as a country and move towards any steps of progress up until the year of 1910. In William H. Beezley’s book Judas at the Jockey Club he considers this period on Mexican history to begin around 1876 and he points out many of the social, economic, and political factors that helped shape the foundation for modern Mexico. Beezley also looks at some of the regular aspects of the daily lives of Mexicans. Whether it be the sports and recreations, ceremonies and celebrations, or jobs and work that are part of the Mexicans everyday live, he uses these aspects to illustrate the extent of the two main culture groups of Mexican society. The two main culture groups in Mexico were the Los de Arriba,
This journal article tells us the story of Pancho Villa and his aim to a land reform and how he went about it with an agrarian reform in 1913 but even though he makes an attempt to portray Pancho Villa as an agrarian revolutionary it isn't convincing enough. The value of this, is that since it's a secondary source we are able to get a more analized view of his aim and we also get a very detailed explanation of the social, political, and economic stages and in this journal article Friedrich Katz analyzes some primary sources like memoirs and newspapers of that time period. Since it's not a primary source it has a limitation since we are getting the detail picture through the description of Friedrich Katz and not Pancho Villa and we are confronted by an attempt of Friedrich Katz to portray Francisco Villa as an agrarian revolutionary so we can see that what Katz writes in his journal article is just information to support why Francisco Villa was an agrarian revolutionary which can lead for Katz to analyze documents that would prove otherwise even though it would help us understand the whole
That the Anglo-Saxons were superior to the Mexicans and that God had saved America for people of Saxon blood. Like previous chapter this chapter also delved into the mentality that other races were oppressed because of their own faults rather than the oppression of white people. White American could sleep better at night if the suffering of others was blamed on racial weaknesses rather than on the fact that whites were exploiting these people. In taking Mexican land the whites used the same excuse that they did when taking the land from Indians. The Mexicans had lost because of racial weaknesses and like the Native Americans they couldn’t take care of the land, and that the world would be a better place when a superior race spread further into the southwest.
Thirdly, a second reason the Mexican War was not justified because US soldiers were in a disputed area. According to Jesus Velasco Marquez from “A Mexican Viewpoint on the War With the United States,” he states that “From Mexico’s point of view, the annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” As well as, “The American government acted like a bandit who came upon a
In this paper I will explore how the U.S. government developed such strict laws and attitudes regarding Mexican immigration.
According to President James Polk, “Mexico had passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil.” (Document B) Clearly, this document shows that an affair with the Mexicans inside the border of America caused Americans to become injured and killed. According to Jesus Velasco-Marquez, “Thus occupying the territory in dispute and increasing the possibilities of a confrontation… In the eyes of the [Mexican] government, the mobilization of the US army was an outright attack on Mexico…” (Document C)
When Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, a string of ruthless dictators and weak presidents made Mexico an easy target for its powerful neighbor, the United States. The US swooped in to expand its territory and its popular institution of slavery. By doing so, the US started a war with Mexico that was justified for illegitimate reasons. The Mexican-American War was not justified because the US took Mexico’s land for the expansion of slavery, and justified their taking advantage of Mexico when it was politically weak by hiding behind Manifest Destiny.
Up until the 1960s Anglo social scientists wrote most of the literature about the people of Mexican- descent in the United States. Their analysis of Mexican American culture and history reflected the hegemonic beliefs, values, and perceptions of their society. As outsiders, Anglo scholars were led by their own biases and viewed Mexicans as inferior, savage, unworthy and different. Because Mexican scholars had not yet begun to write about their own experiences, these stereotypes were legitimized and reproduced in the literature. However, during the mid- 1960s scholars such as Octavio Ignacio Romano, Nick Vaca, Francisco Armando Rios, and Ralph Ricatelli began to reevaluate the literature written by their predecessors.
Mexico was being separated from Spain but the government was going to be the same, giving those with Spanish descent more advantages "…independence, the union and equality of creoles (American-born whites) and Spanish, and Roman Catholicism.". Iturbide being a creole mestizo royalist general makes "Plan of Iguala" very controversial, because he favors majority of the ideas established way before Mexico was independent. Iturbide was going to favor those of Spanish descent because he himself is from Spanish descent, if he takes those privileges away then the Spanish would not have power in Mexico, leaving him without power. Iturbide had already felt power when they won independence from Spain, thus in order not to lose this he turned everything into his
In the course the students learned of the economic contributions Diaz brought to Mexico, but also of his unjust actions. The quote students need to explain, claims that property laws are actually a violation of morals and should be abolished. Students need to form opinions on Diaz’s presidency, Magón’s opinions, and how both figures interacted with each other. Diaz wanted to protect his presidency in Mexico, and Magón threatened it. Eventually Diaz had to step down, due to the revolution that started with an idea.
O’Sullivan was an American columnist whom was known for his use of the term, “manifest destiny,” which promoted the annexation of Texas to the United States. He argues that the adverse attitude toward Texas’ independence from Mexico needs to end. In this article, O’Sullivan also expands on the importance of the growth of the country throughout the continent. It further acknowledges the freedom of Texas as not a rebellion, but by abandonment from Mexico. John O’Sullivan sees the future of America expanding into California and Mexico becoming a country without a real government.
By looking at the 1800s context of the recently born-nation-state, America, I will analyze the nationalistic attitudes that occurred during the time that led to the Mexican-American war of 1846. Had it not been for the gripping nationalist attitude after gaining independence from Britain, conflict with Mexico would not have occurred. Using the modernist approach, along with this approach the branches of both instrumentalist and constructivist nationalism, I discuss where nationalism touched; origin and colonial roots, foreign policy, and constant pressure to expand due to rising populations. Starting with an ethnosymbolist approach in discussing the origins and roots of the nation, I will proceed it with a modernist approach because of modernists
As stated before, the US was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three reasons, Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it. The United states had many superb reasons for going to war with Mexico. This essay is significant because it helps explain the United States’ choice to go to war with
In the essay "Children of Mexico," the author, Richard Rodriguez, achieves the effect of relaying his bittersweet feeling regarding how Mexicans stubbornly hold on to their past and heritage by not only relaying many personal experiences and images, but also by using an effective blend of formal and informal tone and a diction that provides a bittersweet tone. Among the variety of ways this is done, one is through repetitive reference to fog. The word is used many times in the essay, especially in segments relating to Mexican-Americans returning to Mexico for the winter. One of the more potent uses reads as follows: "The fog closes in, condenses, and drips day and night from the bare limbs of trees.
