Ask a Mexican (Reconquista BS)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ask a Mexican (Reconquista BS) (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:26:48 AM EDT

So, there's one of those free weekly rags (super lib, of course) in Dallas. Good to read for music and food and the stripper ads at the back, but the rest is typical bleeding heart stuff from poor libtards who have to live in Texas. In there they have a column called Ask a Mexican and its full of the usual pro-illegal stuff you'd expect, but here's one that got my blood boiling:

Dear Mexican: Just suppose that all of the southwestern United States had remained in Mexican hands. Would the Mexicans have done any better with it than they have with the present confines of Mexico?

—Reversible Reconquista?

Dear Gabacho: The gran parlor game! If we turn back the clock and changed a couple of things—if Austin, Houston and their fellow invading gabachos actually became Mexican citizens respecting the rule of the land instead of merely pretending to become so, if Mexico hadn't suffered the theft of its lands or nearly gone bankrupt spending so much money in battling its ravenous neighbor to the north—would Mexico have been better off? The easy answer is sí—more land in a country generally means more possibilities for development, and California's 1849 Gold Rush (which truly made the American Southwest the mecca it became for Americans) would've happened on Mexican soil, meaning Mexico would've been the beneficiary of all those prospecting migrants and subsequent worldwide attention. Not having Texas secede from Mexico would've also hastened the demise of Antonio López de Santa Anna: Sure, his embarrassing defeat at the manos of the Texians forced him out of office, but he returned again and again. Santa Anna's megalomania, left unchecked, would've inspired a true coup instead of many temporary ones. And with no neocolonial ties left—with no debts to any European powers due to fighting so many wars, with no appropriating of natural resources and lands by American industrialists taking advantage of a weak country and with the United States itself weaker due to the lack of a Southwest and all of its subsequent treasures—Mexico would've been in a much stronger position to enter the Industrial Revolution and emerge a better, reformed land. Of course, it's just a parlor game, just like Arizona Senator John McCain blaming illegal Mexicans for starting devastating forest fires with no hard proof—except ours is responsible and fun, while his is just pendejo.

My take: If Mexico owned Texas to California, DFW would be some dusty shithole village where OU students would go on the weekend to get drunk and buy whores (not that they don't already

), Austin would be the same, except Barton Springs would be a cesspool with cattle drinking and the local villagers washing their clothes in it. Houston would be a swamp and if the Mexicans did find oil here all the money would go to the oligarchs and politicians.

AZ - a dusty backwater, with Phoenix as a poor cattle ranch village with some caudillo to rule it.
CA - A teaming shithole like Tijuana, only 10 times as big. All the big cities would be either villages or like Mexico DF (small wealthy enclaves surrounded by slums - yeah, yeah, LA is almost there).
Las Vegas - forget it, just another dump like Juarez and probably lucky to have some drug lords to provide jobs for the peasants

Mexico now has plenty of good land for farming, plenty of oil, silver and other minerals. It's just got a fucked up culture that keeps 95% of the people dirt poor and a bunch of drug lords and oligarchs richer than shit. We'd still have all the illegals we have now, we'd just be debating Obama and the rest of the amnesty crowd about building the wall from Oregon to Arkansas instead of from Texas to CA. Fuck Mexico and the turncoat citizens we have living here.

Here's the link if you want to read more crap like this (left cold so as not to give them traffic):

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-06-30/news/would-mexico-have-been-better-off-if-the-american-southwest-remained-mexico/

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:33:33 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
So, there's one of those free weekly rags (super lib, of course) in Dallas. Good to read for music and food and the stripper ads at the back, but the rest is typical bleeding heart stuff from poor libtards who have to live in Texas. In there they have a column called Ask a Mexican and its full of the usual pro-illegal stuff you'd expect, but here's one that got my blood boiling:

Dear Mexican: Just suppose that all of the southwestern United States had remained in Mexican hands. Would the Mexicans have done any better with it than they have with the present confines of Mexico?

—Reversible Reconquista?

Dear Gabacho: The gran parlor game! If we turn back the clock and changed a couple of things—if Austin, Houston and their fellow invading gabachos actually became Mexican citizens respecting the rule of the land instead of merely pretending to become so, if Mexico hadn't suffered the theft of its lands or nearly gone bankrupt spending so much money in battling its ravenous neighbor to the north—would Mexico have been better off? The easy answer is sí—more land in a country generally means more possibilities for development, and California's 1849 Gold Rush (which truly made the American Southwest the mecca it became for Americans) would've happened on Mexican soil, meaning Mexico would've been the beneficiary of all those prospecting migrants and subsequent worldwide attention. Not having Texas secede from Mexico would've also hastened the demise of Antonio López de Santa Anna: Sure, his embarrassing defeat at the manos of the Texians forced him out of office, but he returned again and again. Santa Anna's megalomania, left unchecked, would've inspired a true coup instead of many temporary ones. And with no neocolonial ties left—with no debts to any European powers due to fighting so many wars, with no appropriating of natural resources and lands by American industrialists taking advantage of a weak country and with the United States itself weaker due to the lack of a Southwest and all of its subsequent treasures—Mexico would've been in a much stronger position to enter the Industrial Revolution and emerge a better, reformed land. Of course, it's just a parlor game, just like Arizona Senator John McCain blaming illegal Mexicans for starting devastating forest fires with no hard proof—except ours is responsible and fun, while his is just pendejo.

My take: If Mexico owned Texas to California, DFW would be some dusty shithole village where OU students would go on the weekend to get drunk and buy whores (not that they don't already

), Austin would be the same, except Barton Springs would be a cesspool with cattle drinking and the local villagers washing their clothes in it. Houston would be a swamp and if the Mexicans did find oil here all the money would go to the oligarchs and politicians.

AZ - a dusty backwater, with Phoenix as a poor cattle ranch village with some caudillo to rule it.
CA - A teaming shithole like Tijuana, only 10 times as big. All the big cities would be either villages or like Mexico DF (small wealthy enclaves surrounded by slums - yeah, yeah, LA is almost there).
Las Vegas - forget it, just another dump like Juarez and probably lucky to have some drug lords to provide jobs for the peasants

Mexico now has plenty of good land for farming, plenty of oil, silver and other minerals. It's just got a fucked up culture that keeps 95% of the people dirt poor and a bunch of drug lords and oligarchs richer than shit. We'd still have all the illegals we have now, we'd just be debating Obama and the rest of the amnesty crowd about building the wall from Oregon to Arkansas instead of from Texas to CA. Fuck Mexico and the turncoat citizens we have living here.

Here's the link if you want to read more crap like this (left cold so as not to give them traffic):

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-06-30/news/would-mexico-have-been-better-off-if-the-american-southwest-remained-mexico/

That guy is a fucking idiot. Gold and silver mining defined much of Mexican history. The idea that the extra gold in California would have made squat of a difference in terms of political development is beyond laughable, as is the idea that revolutions would have been somehow different leading to a somehow different land "reform." The political culture there is absolutely unable to support the property law that allowed America to develop like it did - and, ironically, it is the same development made possible by the "appropriating of natural resources and lands by American industrialists" he criticizes in his commie column.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:35:05 AM EDT

[#2]

Mexicans would have farther to travel to not live in a third world shithole. The costs for smuggling would sky-rocket. Drug prices and lawn-care fees would be astronomical. Think of the children.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:37:05 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

So, there's one of those free weekly rags (super lib, of course) in Dallas. Good to read for music and food and the stripper ads at the back, but the rest is typical bleeding heart stuff from poor libtards who have to live in Texas. In there they have a column called Ask a Mexican and its full of the usual pro-illegal stuff you'd expect, but here's one that got my blood boiling:

Dear Mexican: Just suppose that all of the southwestern United States had remained in Mexican hands. Would the Mexicans have done any better with it than they have with the present confines of Mexico?

—Reversible Reconquista?

Dear Gabacho: The gran parlor game! If we turn back the clock and changed a couple of things—if Austin, Houston and their fellow invading gabachos actually became Mexican citizens respecting the rule of the land instead of merely pretending to become so, if Mexico hadn't suffered the theft of its lands or nearly gone bankrupt spending so much money in battling its ravenous neighbor to the north—would Mexico have been better off? The easy answer is sí—more land in a country generally means more possibilities for development, and California's 1849 Gold Rush (which truly made the American Southwest the mecca it became for Americans) would've happened on Mexican soil, meaning Mexico would've been the beneficiary of all those prospecting migrants and subsequent worldwide attention. Not having Texas secede from Mexico would've also hastened the demise of Antonio López de Santa Anna: Sure, his embarrassing defeat at the manos of the Texians forced him out of office, but he returned again and again. Santa Anna's megalomania, left unchecked, would've inspired a true coup instead of many temporary ones. And with no neocolonial ties left—with no debts to any European powers due to fighting so many wars, with no appropriating of natural resources and lands by American industrialists taking advantage of a weak country and with the United States itself weaker due to the lack of a Southwest and all of its subsequent treasures—Mexico would've been in a much stronger position to enter the Industrial Revolution and emerge a better, reformed land. Of course, it's just a parlor game, just like Arizona Senator John McCain blaming illegal Mexicans for starting devastating forest fires with no hard proof—except ours is responsible and fun, while his is just pendejo.

My take: If Mexico owned Texas to California, DFW would be some dusty shithole village where OU students would go on the weekend to get drunk and buy whores (not that they don't already

), Austin would be the same, except Barton Springs would be a cesspool with cattle drinking and the local villagers washing their clothes in it. Houston would be a swamp and if the Mexicans did find oil here all the money would go to the oligarchs and politicians.

AZ - a dusty backwater, with Phoenix as a poor cattle ranch village with some caudillo to rule it.

CA - A teaming shithole like Tijuana, only 10 times as big. All the big cities would be either villages or like Mexico DF (small wealthy enclaves surrounded by slums - yeah, yeah, LA is almost there).

Las Vegas - forget it, just another dump like Juarez and probably lucky to have some drug lords to provide jobs for the peasants

Mexico now has plenty of good land for farming, plenty of oil, silver and other minerals. It's just got a fucked up culture that keeps 95% of the people dirt poor and a bunch of drug lords and oligarchs richer than shit. We'd still have all the illegals we have now, we'd just be debating Obama and the rest of the amnesty crowd about building the wall from Oregon to Arkansas instead of from Texas to CA. Fuck Mexico and the turncoat citizens we have living here.

Here's the link if you want to read more crap like this (left cold so as not to give them traffic):

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-06-30/news/would-mexico-have-been-better-off-if-the-american-southwest-remained-mexico/

Most of Nevada would have remained empty.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:38:21 AM EDT

[#4]

Yeah Gustavo is a shit stirrer.

http://www.askamexican.net/

Links not hot but thats his web site.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:39:24 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
So, there's one of those free weekly rags (super lib, of course) in Dallas. Good to read for music and food and the stripper ads at the back, but the rest is typical bleeding heart stuff from poor libtards who have to live in Texas. In there they have a column called Ask a Mexican and its full of the usual pro-illegal stuff you'd expect, but here's one that got my blood boiling:

Dear Mexican: Just suppose that all of the southwestern United States had remained in Mexican hands. Would the Mexicans have done any better with it than they have with the present confines of Mexico?

—Reversible Reconquista?

Dear Gabacho: The gran parlor game! If we turn back the clock and changed a couple of things—if Austin, Houston and their fellow invading gabachos actually became Mexican citizens respecting the rule of the land instead of merely pretending to become so, if Mexico hadn't suffered the theft of its lands or nearly gone bankrupt spending so much money in battling its ravenous neighbor to the north—would Mexico have been better off? The easy answer is sí—more land in a country generally means more possibilities for development, and California's 1849 Gold Rush (which truly made the American Southwest the mecca it became for Americans) would've happened on Mexican soil, meaning Mexico would've been the beneficiary of all those prospecting migrants and subsequent worldwide attention. Not having Texas secede from Mexico would've also hastened the demise of Antonio López de Santa Anna: Sure, his embarrassing defeat at the manos of the Texians forced him out of office, but he returned again and again. Santa Anna's megalomania, left unchecked, would've inspired a true coup instead of many temporary ones. And with no neocolonial ties left—with no debts to any European powers due to fighting so many wars, with no appropriating of natural resources and lands by American industrialists taking advantage of a weak country and with the United States itself weaker due to the lack of a Southwest and all of its subsequent treasures—Mexico would've been in a much stronger position to enter the Industrial Revolution and emerge a better, reformed land. Of course, it's just a parlor game, just like Arizona Senator John McCain blaming illegal Mexicans for starting devastating forest fires with no hard proof—except ours is responsible and fun, while his is just pendejo.

My take: If Mexico owned Texas to California, DFW would be some dusty shithole village where OU students would go on the weekend to get drunk and buy whores (not that they don't already

), Austin would be the same, except Barton Springs would be a cesspool with cattle drinking and the local villagers washing their clothes in it. Houston would be a swamp and if the Mexicans did find oil here all the money would go to the oligarchs and politicians.

AZ - a dusty backwater, with Phoenix as a poor cattle ranch village with some caudillo to rule it.
CA - A teaming shithole like Tijuana, only 10 times as big. All the big cities would be either villages or like Mexico DF (small wealthy enclaves surrounded by slums - yeah, yeah, LA is almost there).
Las Vegas - forget it, just another dump like Juarez and probably lucky to have some drug lords to provide jobs for the peasants

Mexico now has plenty of good land for farming, plenty of oil, silver and other minerals. It's just got a fucked up culture that keeps 95% of the people dirt poor and a bunch of drug lords and oligarchs richer than shit. We'd still have all the illegals we have now, we'd just be debating Obama and the rest of the amnesty crowd about building the wall from Oregon to Arkansas instead of from Texas to CA. Fuck Mexico and the turncoat citizens we have living here.

Here's the link if you want to read more crap like this (left cold so as not to give them traffic):

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-06-30/news/would-mexico-have-been-better-off-if-the-american-southwest-remained-mexico/

Southwest remained Mexico? The US govt should have conquered thier entire country durring the war. Leaving the bottom half intact turned out to be a bad idea in hindsight.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:42:31 AM EDT

[#6]

More land and more resources do not fix their abhorrent corruption problems. That is the start and finish of the argument. There would be no DFW, LA, Vegas and so on without American democracy, capitalism and ingenuity. It is why our Hispanics prosper far more greatly than those a few feet away south of the border.

Likewise, had we of driven south to Mexico City and taken the rest, they would have been far better off. Its not about resources, land, or even population. Its about the kinds of freedoms you give people, and what they do with those freedoms to prosper.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:42:46 AM EDT

[#7]

I've read the "ask a mexican" Q&A's a few times in the local weekely rag.

Its funny in its own way. The author frequently comes acrossed as racist against blacks and guatamalans though.

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:52:54 AM EDT

[#8]

Since Gus wants to play history what if's okay lets play. Had Mexico not lost the southwest.

Present day DownTown Dallas:

Downtown LA at rush hour:

Literature Club of Austin

Downtown Las Vegas Nv:

Posted: 7/1/2011 8:58:51 AM EDT

[#9]

I would guess this particular Mexican would be a NO-GO at the "Regional differences in Mexico, History and Impact of same, 1619-1848."

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:10:17 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

I would guess this particular Mexican would be a NO-GO at the "Regional differences in Mexico, History and Impact of same, 1619-1848."

His attitudes and views are pretty common from the whole La Raza and their retarded hermano La Causa platform. What I've gleaned from being preached to by retarded relatives of my wife.

If the Gabacho's didn't come and steal the land of the poor Mexicans all that we have in the South West would belong to them and they would be wealthy and powerful and burros would shit dulces and it would be a brown paradise.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:11:38 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Downtown Las Vegas Nv:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSP3L7odf4t8kFvkvwlHP0lgxYEESFDlD0kkyWo9T6FBWhNIWA2

Yeah like the road would be paved. Dream on!

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:15:10 AM EDT

[#12]

Mexico is still resource rich.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:19:57 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:20:57 AM EDT

[#14]

maybe we should give mexico back to Spain.

They have a prior claim to it - if the Mexicans want to "Take Back", then go all the way.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:30:58 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

maybe we should give mexico back to Spain.

They have a prior claim to it - if the Mexicans want to "Take Back", then go all the way.

And Spain is still as fucked up as a football bat.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:32:56 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
maybe we should give mexico back to Spain.

They have a prior claim to it - if the Mexicans want to "Take Back", then go all the way.

And Spain is still as fucked up as a football bat.

Depends on the "Spain" you're talking about.

Spain exported southern Spain, which was a desperately poor war-torn state to the New World.

That political/military/social/economic model was then overlaid on an existing war zone.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:33:04 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

maybe we should give mexico back to Spain.

They have a prior claim to it - if the Mexicans want to "Take Back", then go all the way.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, they should all be speaking Aztec.

Spanish is not any more indigenous than English.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:33:39 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

If by Mexicans you mean "Mexican political and economic elite" I'll completely agree.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:39:54 AM EDT

[#19]

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:40:24 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I would guess this particular Mexican would be a NO-GO at the "Regional differences in Mexico, History and Impact of same, 1619-1848."

His attitudes and views are pretty common from the whole La Raza and their retarded hermano La Causa platform. What I've gleaned from being preached to by retarded relatives of my wife.

If the Gabacho's didn't come and steal the land of the poor Mexicans all that we have in the South West would belong to them and they would be wealthy and powerful and burros would shit dulces and it would be a brown paradise.

Its an exercise in myth-making, and a powerful one. Like most myths, the more politically motivated it becomes, the more reflective it is of current reality than any historic one. It shows that Americans are not the only people people completely and almost willfully ignorant of their history.

There have always been cleavages within "Mexican" society, going back to Pre-Colombian Mexican society (as in, the collection of indigenous tribes/cultures/nations that were geographically in present day Mexico.) There has always been a tussle between dark and light, low land and high, North and South, in Mexican society. I'm coming to the conclusion that the pre Colombian Indians and Conquistadors and Castillians had more in common than many figure, and essentially the injection of the Europeans was just an overlay to social and political tension many centuries old.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:42:06 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

If by Mexicans you mean "Mexican political and economic elite" I'll completely agree.

No, I'd say it's a combination of all segments of society - but I won't make any claim as to causation. You can blame the "elites" all you want, but the "masses" don't exactly have a culture respectful of the rule of law and civil society either. It's not as bad as the situation in Turkey or Egypt, but it isn't like the removal of the top would lead to a thriving new social order.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:42:18 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:42:20 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
maybe we should give mexico back to Spain.

They have a prior claim to it - if the Mexicans want to "Take Back", then go all the way.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, they should all be speaking Aztec.

Spanish is not any more indigenous than English.

Their is a rise in the official and unofficial use of Nahuatl which I personally believe has significant racialist overtones in Mexican politics and society.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:43:52 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

If by Mexicans you mean "Mexican political and economic elite" I'll completely agree.

No, I'd say it's a combination of all segments of society - but I won't make any claim as to causation. You can blame the "elites" all you want, but the "masses" don't exactly have a culture respectful of the rule of law and civil society either. It's not as bad as the situation in Turkey or Egypt, but it isn't like the removal of the top would lead to a thriving new social order.

OK, that's true to a degree, but as an American, my natural ally in Mexico is their middle class. The middle class is driving the demand for political reform, such as it is, and routinely the most victimized by the mordida.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:45:59 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

What are you, the Consul General of Mexico?

The Mexicans I know don't even believe this, at least privately.

They believe that corruption is the biggest threat, and corruption existed when narcotrafficking in Mexico was ditch-weed.

The narcos are injecting a ton of money into the corruption economy, but corruption in Mexico isn't a function of the US.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:46:01 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I would guess this particular Mexican would be a NO-GO at the "Regional differences in Mexico, History and Impact of same, 1619-1848."

His attitudes and views are pretty common from the whole La Raza and their retarded hermano La Causa platform. What I've gleaned from being preached to by retarded relatives of my wife.

If the Gabacho's didn't come and steal the land of the poor Mexicans all that we have in the South West would belong to them and they would be wealthy and powerful and burros would shit dulces and it would be a brown paradise.

Its an exercise in myth-making, and a powerful one. Like most myths, the more politically motivated it becomes, the more reflective it is of current reality than any historic one. It shows that Americans are not the only people people completely and almost willfully ignorant of their history.

There have always been cleavages within "Mexican" society, going back to Pre-Colombian Mexican society (as in, the collection of indigenous tribes/cultures/nations that were geographically in present day Mexico.) There has always been a tussle between dark and light, low land and high, North and South, in Mexican society. I'm coming to the conclusion that the pre Colombian Indians and Conquistadors and Castillians had more in common than many figure, and essentially the injection of the Europeans was just an overlay to social and political tension many centuries old.

Funny you say that, because the more I read about Teotichuan, and Mayan society in general, the more it reminds me of medieval Europe. I am off to Tekal next month, in fact. It will be the furthest south I have been in this hemisphere. I am on a Mayan kick lately.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:48:27 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

If by Mexicans you mean "Mexican political and economic elite" I'll completely agree.

No, I'd say it's a combination of all segments of society - but I won't make any claim as to causation. You can blame the "elites" all you want, but the "masses" don't exactly have a culture respectful of the rule of law and civil society either. It's not as bad as the situation in Turkey or Egypt, but it isn't like the removal of the top would lead to a thriving new social order.

OK, that's true to a degree, but as an American, my natural ally in Mexico is their middle class. The middle class is driving the demand for political reform, such as it is, and routinely the most victimized by the mordida.

No argument there - but the middle class is relatively small, and has developed quite tribal defense mechanisms, however. No different that Southern Italy, I suppose - but not conducive to advanced civil society.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:50:48 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

What are you, the Consul General of Mexico?

The Mexicans I know don't even believe this, at least privately.

They believe that corruption is the biggest threat, and corruption existed when narcotrafficking in Mexico was ditch-weed.

The narcos are injecting a ton of money into the corruption economy, but corruption in Mexico isn't a function of the US.

Indeed. There are many paths for drugs to get into the US. Mexico has become the path of choice for a reason. Only a small percentage of that is due to geography. And Mexico's political problems go way further back than America's current appetite for cocaine and such.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:51:12 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Mexico was a dysfunctional society long before narcotics importation became an issue .

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:51:28 AM EDT

[#30]

Like they've done so well with the land and resources that are currently within the borders of Mexico.

Another attempt to use white guilt and social justice to extort wealth to those who did not earn it and have no idea how it was created.

Mexico is Mexico because of its culture. To impose that culture on the southwestern U. S. (I know, it's happening anyway) will only turn that part of our country into Mexico North, not turn Mexico into the U. S. South. Not unlike what the ruins of the Roman Empire in Europe and England looked like during the Middle Ages. Lots of savages wandering around the artifacts of a great society.

What really kills me is the argument that the southwest was originally part of Mexico, and was stolen from them. And what was the territory now known as Mexico before Mexico? Everything once belonged to someone else, so if we really accept their argument, then the land should not be "returned" to them, but to some other group.

Screw them. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are part of the United States. We conquered it once, and we will take it again by force if necessary.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:56:29 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Waah, waah, waah. Always blame it on someone else.

Let's blame slavery in this nation on the Africans who sold their own people. If they hadn't been dealing in human beings, we would never have had slavery here, and hundreds of thousands wouldn't have died in the Civil War. It's all their fault. Let's sue the entire continent of Africa.

Bullshit. Mexico would be a corrupt, backwards nation with or without the drug trade. It's not like they were a first-world economic, cultural, and military power until the drug trade sprang up, and now they're screwed.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:57:04 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I would guess this particular Mexican would be a NO-GO at the "Regional differences in Mexico, History and Impact of same, 1619-1848."

His attitudes and views are pretty common from the whole La Raza and their retarded hermano La Causa platform. What I've gleaned from being preached to by retarded relatives of my wife.

If the Gabacho's didn't come and steal the land of the poor Mexicans all that we have in the South West would belong to them and they would be wealthy and powerful and burros would shit dulces and it would be a brown paradise.

Its an exercise in myth-making, and a powerful one. Like most myths, the more politically motivated it becomes, the more reflective it is of current reality than any historic one. It shows that Americans are not the only people people completely and almost willfully ignorant of their history.

There have always been cleavages within "Mexican" society, going back to Pre-Colombian Mexican society (as in, the collection of indigenous tribes/cultures/nations that were geographically in present day Mexico.) There has always been a tussle between dark and light, low land and high, North and South, in Mexican society. I'm coming to the conclusion that the pre Colombian Indians and Conquistadors and Castillians had more in common than many figure, and essentially the injection of the Europeans was just an overlay to social and political tension many centuries old.

Funny you say that, because the more I read about Teotichuan, and Mayan society in general, the more it reminds me of medieval Europe. I am off to Tekal next month, in fact. It will be the furthest south I have been in this hemisphere. I am on a Mayan kick lately.

I think the political push of reconquista is like the Communism/Anti-Communism dynamic with Rhodesia, that while real, was directly and materially related to a Shona vs. Ndebele conflict pre-dating any white involvement in the continent.

The Mexican context is illustrated by the veneration of different Revolutionary heroes, esp. Zapata vs. Villa.

I think that much of the "revolutionary" dynamic of Mexican politics both in the US and in Mexico is reflective of a darker and more Southern population of Mexicans than anytime in our history. I say this as someone who worked with Southern Mexicans and sympathizes with them, to a degree.

Posted: 7/1/2011 9:57:30 AM EDT

[#33]

Not only do these "reconquistia" idiots want to take the southwest back for Mexico, they also want to turn Mexico into a larger version of Venezuela or Cuba, complete with the communism and re-education camps.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:01:28 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Screw them. Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are part of the United States. We conquered it once, and we will take it again by force if necessary.

I wouldn't use the term "conquer" as much as I'd use the term "succession."

The populations of Northern Mexico were more integrated with Westport, Missouri than with Mexico City. Mexico City provided little material to defend northern Mexico against Indian attacks (a real threat in Texas) and the populations in Texas, New Mexico and to a lesser degree, California, were socially integrated with white Anglo American culture and comfortable with it.

We didn't really take the Southwest from Mexico so much as they lost it through neglect and self-focused regionalism.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:03:55 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

No argument there - but the middle class is relatively small, and has developed quite tribal defense mechanisms, however. No different that Southern Italy, I suppose - but not conducive to advanced civil society.

Yep, and its too bad.

Because, to paraphrase Orwell in 1984, if there is hope in Mexico, it lies with the Bourgeoisie. They've traveled enough to America to aspire something better for Mexico.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:04:22 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mexico is still resource rich.

Excellent point. Between the beaches, the oil, the gold, etc... anyone trying to claim lack of resources hindered Mexican political development is just being nonsensical. The only thing that has hindered Mexican development is Mexicans.

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

What are you, the Consul General of Mexico?

The Mexicans I know don't even believe this, at least privately.

They believe that corruption is the biggest threat, and corruption existed when narcotrafficking in Mexico was ditch-weed.

The narcos are injecting a ton of money into the corruption economy, but corruption in Mexico isn't a function of the US.

I didn't say, or mean to imply that corruption was a complete function of the US. I said the US is addicted to drugs, and that is funding the narcos. As I'm sure you know, they have power at nearly every layer of the Mexican gov. If Mexico would've had tougher policies in the past before the narcos had a strangle-hold on the government, maybe the problem wouldn't be nearly as pronounced today, but you have to recognize that if everyone in the US suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would no longer have control of the gov and this would give them at least a chance to clean themselves up.

I've spent a lot of time in Mexico, primarily Mexico City and the surrounding areas. The people themselves are not the problem. They are willing to work extremely hard for their money and don’t have the attitude that they are entitled to government handouts like much of our “urban” population. Look at the jobs they hold in the US…roofers, landscapers, etc.

One point I’ll also make is that if they want to get ahead, Mexico desperately needs to promote further education in the science, engineering, and technology fields. Their culture puts too much emphasis on the arts and cultural studies.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:04:43 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Not only do these "reconquistia" idiots want to take the southwest back for Mexico, they also want to turn Mexico into a larger version of Venezuela or Cuba, complete with the communism and re-education camps.

Yes...this movement is very heavily Leftist, for all sorts of reasons.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:05:50 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

...
What really kills me is the argument that the southwest was originally part of Mexico, and was stolen from them. And what was the territory now known as Mexico before Mexico? Everything once belonged to someone else, so if we really accept their argument, then the land should not be "returned" to them, but to some other group...

Here in GD a lot of people intentionally try to confuse various different movement and political ideas for whatever reason. Reality is that reconquista ideology is only loosely related to La Raza or MEChA/Aztlan ideology, and many are in direct conflict regarding core concepts of cultural identity. Plenty of the radical left "this land should be ours" people in the US don't want it to be Mexico, they want an independent country north of Mexico, or for the norther part of Mexico to be part of that (interestingly, the lines they draw remarkably parallel the extent of Mayan / Aztec power at its height).

How things were, for comparison:

We are dealing with cultural and identity divides that predate colonialism.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:11:27 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Here in GD a lot of people intentionally try to confuse various different movement and political ideas for whatever reason. Reality is that reconquista ideology is only loosely related to La Raza or MEChA/Aztlan ideology, and many are in direct conflict regarding core concepts of cultural identity. Plenty of the radical left "this land should be ours" people in the US don't want it to be Mexico, they want an independent country north of Mexico, or for the norther part of Mexico to be part of it (interestingly, the lines they draw remarkably parallel the extent of Mayan / Aztec power at its height.

I can forgive GD for not having a great handle on it, because I don't think that movement has a great handle on it.

Your maps to me are indicative of the continuing Norteno/Suereno dynamic and its power within Mexican society.

For my own part, a Mexico split in four, with northern Mexico and Baja as independent or quasi-independent states, wouldn't be the worst of all worlds for us or the Nortenos.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:12:52 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Not only do these "reconquistia" idiots want to take the southwest back for Mexico, they also want to turn Mexico into a larger version of Venezuela or Cuba, complete with the communism and re-education camps.

Yes...this movement is very heavily Leftist, for all sorts of reasons.

On that note, look what I just found when trying to find maps to show people.

http://www.freewebs.com/raiin1/bulletin10.htm

For those who couldn't click the link:

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:13:07 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

We are dealing with cultural and identity divides that predate colonialism.

Yahtzee.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:15:49 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Look, I love Mexico. My best man is Mexican. I have great friends there and visit multiple times each year.

Your argument is horseshit. I really hope it's sarcasm, but it really does sound like the retarded La Raza idiocy.

Mexico was corrupt before the US. Mexico was corrupt before Mexico. Spain was corrupt in Mexico. Some of the richest, most corrupt and powerful Mexicans have nothing to do with the drug trade. Blaming the US for all their problems is what keeps them down. Like the ghetto goblins talking about how 'whitey' is holding them back. As if whitey just up and disappeared, they'd slip into a suit and become bankers.

Mexico has a shit-ton of problems, of which drugs are definitely a major part... but to say that their entire failing state is our fault is stupid in the extreme.

Like someone mentioned, not even REAL Mexicans really think that. They also think the idiotic chicano La Raza tards are morons.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:29:45 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Look, I love Mexico. My best man is Mexican. I have great friends there and visit multiple times each year.

Your argument is horseshit. I really hope it's sarcasm, but it really does sound like the retarded La Raza idiocy.

Mexico was corrupt before the US. Mexico was corrupt before Mexico. Spain was corrupt in Mexico. Some of the richest, most corrupt and powerful Mexicans have nothing to do with the drug trade. Blaming the US for all their problems is what keeps them down. Like the ghetto goblins talking about how 'whitey' is holding them back. As if whitey just up and disappeared, they'd slip into a suit and become bankers.

Mexico has a shit-ton of problems, of which drugs are definitely a major part... but to say that their entire failing state is our fault is stupid in the extreme.

Like someone mentioned, not even REAL Mexicans really think that. They also think the idiotic chicano La Raza tards are morons.

Your reading skills are horseshit.

I’m married to a “REAL” Mexican as you call them. Her family is all doctors, professors, psychologists, lawyers, bank managers and business owners in Mexico City. I have the utmost respect for them and they are among the most intelligent and well-to-do people I’ve ever met. GD needs to get out of their parent’s basement stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Mexico is far from perfect, but so is the US.

As I said further down, which you obviously failed to read, is that Mexico did have problems before the narcos took control, and they have other, more culture related problems today unrelated to the drug trade. All I said is that the drug cartels are the primary reason for the hindrance of Mexico’s development today, and those cartels are being funded by us.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:31:49 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Looks like Algonquins, Iroquois, and Hurons got fucked, again.

Looks like the Baja Race will still be on, so that's good news.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:35:01 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30463

Looks like Algonquins, Iroquois, and Hurons got fucked, again.

Looks like the Baja Race will still be on, so that's good news.

I guess they figure the imperialists have too much of a foothold. Thank Allah for smallpox-laced blankets.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:40:35 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Look, I love Mexico. My best man is Mexican. I have great friends there and visit multiple times each year.

Your argument is horseshit. I really hope it's sarcasm, but it really does sound like the retarded La Raza idiocy.

Mexico was corrupt before the US. Mexico was corrupt before Mexico. Spain was corrupt in Mexico. Some of the richest, most corrupt and powerful Mexicans have nothing to do with the drug trade. Blaming the US for all their problems is what keeps them down. Like the ghetto goblins talking about how 'whitey' is holding them back. As if whitey just up and disappeared, they'd slip into a suit and become bankers.

Mexico has a shit-ton of problems, of which drugs are definitely a major part... but to say that their entire failing state is our fault is stupid in the extreme.

Like someone mentioned, not even REAL Mexicans really think that. They also think the idiotic chicano La Raza tards are morons.

Your reading skills are horseshit.

I’m married to a "REAL” Mexican as you call them. Her family is all doctors, professors, psychologists, lawyers, bank managers and business owners in Mexico City. I have the utmost respect for them and they are among the most intelligent and well-to-do people I’ve ever met. GD needs to get out of their parent’s basement stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Mexico is far from perfect, but so is the US.

As I said further down, which you obviously failed to read, is that Mexico did have problems before the narcos took control, and they have other, more culture related problems today unrelated to the drug trade. All I said is that the drug cartels are the primary reason for the hindrance of Mexico’s development today, and those cartels are being funded by us.

No. Are the cartels a big part of the problem in certain areas? Yes. But the corruption that has always flourished in Mexican politics and refusal to deal with cartels as long as they get their cut.Corruption has always been the bane of Mexico.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:42:12 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=30463

Looks like Algonquins, Iroquois, and Hurons got fucked, again.

Looks like the Baja Race will still be on, so that's good news.

I guess they figure the imperialists have too much of a foothold. Thank Allah for smallpox-laced blankets.

I think anyone who thinks that Canada is too white and racist must have a vision of Canada derived only from multiple viewings of Strange Brew. One of Max Von Sydow's seminal roles, IMO.

ETA: I also imagine the strip clubs of Quebec survive in that apocalyptic vision, as well, praise be to Allah.

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:53:08 AM EDT

[#48]

Yes, because they've done so well with all the oil & gold they have. Land or lack of thereof doesn't change a people's idiosyncrasy.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 7/1/2011 10:56:22 AM EDT

[#49]

I'm Gustavo Arellano. I was born in Anaheim, California, to a tomato canner and an illegal immigrant.

I figured he is actually an illegal (yes I understand the law that he is considered a US Citizen because he was born here)
This would be one law I would change immediately if I had a chance

I hate all illegal immigrants - FUCK him

Posted: 7/1/2011 11:01:52 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The US is the biggest hinderance to Mexico's development.

I find it ironic that people in the US, and particularly people on this board call Mexico a currupt, cartel-controlled shithole...and this, to some extent, is true. But, you have to realize that if our own country wasn't a cesspool of drug addicts, Mexico wouldn't have the problems it has. We are primarily responsible for creating the mess. If everyone here suddenly stopped doing drugs, the cartels would loose all thier funding and power and the republic would at least stand a fighting chance of straightening itself out.

Look, I love Mexico. My best man is Mexican. I have great friends there and visit multiple times each year.

Your argument is horseshit. I really hope it's sarcasm, but it really does sound like the retarded La Raza idiocy.

Mexico was corrupt before the US. Mexico was corrupt before Mexico. Spain was corrupt in Mexico. Some of the richest, most corrupt and powerful Mexicans have nothing to do with the drug trade. Blaming the US for all their problems is what keeps them down. Like the ghetto goblins talking about how 'whitey' is holding them back. As if whitey just up and disappeared, they'd slip into a suit and become bankers.

Mexico has a shit-ton of problems, of which drugs are definitely a major part... but to say that their entire failing state is our fault is stupid in the extreme.

Like someone mentioned, not even REAL Mexicans really think that. They also think the idiotic chicano La Raza tards are morons.

Your reading skills are horseshit.

I’m married to a “REAL” Mexican as you call them. Her family is all doctors, professors, psychologists, lawyers, bank managers and business owners in Mexico City. I have the utmost respect for them and they are among the most intelligent and well-to-do people I’ve ever met. GD needs to get out of their parent’s basement stop pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. Mexico is far from perfect, but so is the US.

As I said further down, which you obviously failed to read, is that Mexico did have problems before the narcos took control, and they have other, more culture related problems today unrelated to the drug trade. All I said is that the drug cartels are the primary reason for the hindrance of Mexico’s development today, and those cartels are being funded by us.

Just like the mobs here after there was no longer a need to bootleg booze went straight and narrow, right?

Mexico is fucked up because of Mexicans, not a lack of resources or the US. We've been trying to help them for years, think of what would happen if we quit giving them money, various aid, and jobs.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ask a Mexican (Reconquista BS) (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us