It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

mexico has no legal claim and never did, to the American SW

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
...nobody has any claim to any land ever...

when will this nationalist madness end so that we can finally live in peace as neighbors instead of foes squabbling over petty land differences?

the american southwest is a fraction of a pixel...

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 12/1/07 by madnessinmysoul]




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...nobody has any claim to any land ever...


Sure they do. It's called "having armies".

Concepts such as "mutual brotherhood" and "peaceful co-existence" are nice, but bayonets are more persuasive.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
well puerto rico really wouldnt mean much if there opposed to illegal immigration imean puerto rico is basically part of the US without the voting rights. ok so mexico doesnt have the right to claim the southwest. and what gives us the right? because we pursued a policy of genocide against the native americans in the west until they submitted? what if the native americans brought there claim of the western states to a international court? there is a propaganda-esque book out right now called state of emergency where the author claims that mexico is trying to take the southwest by illegal immigration. which is BS atleast from my point of view. most of the illegal immigrants i know are just happy to be somewhere where they know the food or water isnt going to make them sick. most of them are doing jobs that noone else really wants to do but they're making bank working at the dairies around here. but honestly and this is one of those things that goes unreported is that ALOT i hear about it atleast once a weeek someoone doing this they go back to mexico with some money from here and use it to apply for citizenship ((there are fees and most people in mexico cant afford them)). of course there is the propably 15% that steal identities and traffic drugs and guns but the news only focuses on them and makes it look like ALL of the people coming here steal identities and are vringing in guns and drugs. this is a little forshadowing for my post if you lost me. the cartels in mexico have ALOT of sway on the government and would rather it stay the status quo if we ((i live in new mexico)) were part of mexico there would be no opportunity for making money in these states. aqnd im sure that would cause a ordeal the mexican governement wouldnt want to deal with. in this book heavy traffic which is a compilation of DEA reports they talk about a cartel that in 1998 purchased ((bought off bribed)) a mexican special forces unit. they have alot of power in mexico espescially with the youths kind of like the appeal the bloods the crips the vice lords the disciples the surenos the nortenos and ms-13 have over youths in america



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
being from the south west (new mexico) does in no way make me an expert on the issue at hand, but it does enable me to make a few general comments, that could all be hog wash, or just as esily an accurate account...

first off a few of you i don't think know too much about the history of the SW.

I live in Santa Fe and here is how it breaks down:

the natives here are predominantly Pueblo Indians. Taos Pueblo is the oldest still erect pueblo in the south west and is a representation of the pueblo 4 period, which i believe began in the 1400-1500s. Pueblo tradition goes way back from there all the way to the original natives uppn the land something like 10,000 + years back (seen around the area of present day white sands).

So the story goes that this crazy white dude Guadalupe shows up in the mid 1550's and really messes things up for the natives in the area.

Although some natives around here will tell you that the village of pecos got its name from the white skinned, red haired, "freckled" natives that lived in that valley (celts?)

So anyway the natives and spanish did have it out for a bt but eventually the natives got beat up pretty bad from the guns and so forth and thus gave in to the spanish. They did revolt in the 1600, or was it 1800's - see pueblo revolt) but some hot shot spanish general showed up and settled the conflict without a"Single shot" and that my friends is how the SW (NM) was won...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


I stand better informed, thx. So the spanish did defeat that tribe. Most tribes did not suffer defeat to the Spanish, they tollerated them but, there were so few spanish they didn't consider them a threat. of course they had no Idea about Cortez or Pizzaro. If they had you can bet they would have did what the appache and commanchi did, fought, and for the most part won. wern't the pueblo tribe settled, in other words that were not so nomadic as most of the Indian tribes of N. America?

[edit on 12/2/2007 by rockets red glare]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
yes the pueblo tribe(s) are primarily settled. It is important to note that there are dozens of Pueblo tribes around here, a list off the top of my head:

Taos, San Ildifonso, Cochiti, Tesuque, Pouque, Santa Domingo, Zuni, Sandia, Isleta...on and on...

edit: the rangeof the pre-spanish pueblo nation(s) is similar in size and shape to present day italy.


The name pueblo is a reference to the people and the style of dwellings


Taos Pueblo.

Pueblo Bonito Ruins

In closing your point that they were not nomadic probably did play into how they dealt with the spanish, something I had not really considered before. I do know that in the beginning they all got along, the natives were into meeting new people and trading, but of course that all changed. Its interesting to note that down here on some of the pueblos the locals have ffrench names and have a fairly high regard for france. it seems that french trappers were active in the region and somehow maintained good relations with the native americans.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Thx for explaining that for me. The fact that the Pueblos were primarily settled had it's good and bad points in the areas of defence. it was a good thing when dealing with agressive tribes such as the comanchees. They I understand were about as bad as it gets!! The point being is that if we take system of international law and try to apply it to events of the past in doesn't solve the the grievences of all concerned in the world we live in now! How could we in fact say that the pueblos should have this territory and the comanches this the apaches' and all the settlers for the last 150 years this. to much has changed The comanches no longer even exist. However most of the indian tribes do still have small soverne nations but, also have the whole of the U.S. as well. Mexico however can not make a legal claim to any of it because they never had a legal claim to begin with. Therefore to try claim it at this point in time would be silly. Does any one believe the settlers today would be ok with that. Not likly, except for resent arrivals from mexico.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
one thing i will say is this:

there is a growing concern here in the SW that the movment known as la raza (the people) is an intentional movement intended to reclaim "republic del norte" or the land of the north. la raza are generally people of native and spanish decent from mexico and other central american countries who believe they have a right to the land of the north, colorado, california, arizona, new mexico, and texas.

some people believe the reason they are illegally immigrating here in such numbers is to take over this land by sheer force of their population..

i dont know, it seems pretty far out there to me, but i thought i would share it anyway....



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Meh. That's propaganda spread by both paranoid Americans and the few La Raza fanatics that DO exist.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
one thing i will say is this:

there is a growing concern here in the SW that the movment known as la raza (the people) is an intentional movement intended to reclaim "republic del norte" or the land of the north. la raza are generally people of native and spanish decent from mexico and other central american countries who believe they have a right to the land of the north, colorado, california, arizona, new mexico, and texas.

some people believe the reason they are illegally immigrating here in such numbers is to take over this land by sheer force of their population..

i dont know, it seems pretty far out there to me, but i thought i would share it anyway....


Don't pay much attention to them. La raza is the hispanic equivalent of the KKK

People immigrate here, legal or otherwise, for the purpose of finding jobs, not to take over parts of the country.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Wait, first of all - I want to get things straight.

There was Spanish empire that controlled half of North America, therefore Mexico was a spanish colony, right? I don't see a map that clearly states Mexico being half North America.

So I don't see why would Mexico want to own half of North America back....


[edit on 2-12-2007 by TheoOne]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
its not mexico that i "herd" was taking over north america...actually i only said the SW, anyway...it is la raza who were doing that. you see they dont see themselves as part of mexico but having roots in the republic del norte...the southwest.....

this is just something i hear about it is not something i believe in...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
QUE?WTF? La raza is a Group that wants to take over the North side of America? I really must have missed that one on Tele Mundo .... this whole tread is dumb.... It really dose not matter if ur opinon is that u are worried about Mi Gente (my people) wanting to take back the land....member guys we are all going to be one soon enough with the North American Union....


[edit on 11/27/2007 by serg3smurf]

[edit on 11/27/2007 by serg3smurf]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
maybe read the thread before replying next time...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheoOne
Wait, first of all - I want to get things straight.

There was Spanish empire that controlled half of North America, therefore Mexico was a spanish colony, right? I don't see a map that clearly states Mexico being half North America.

So I don't see why would Mexico want to own half of North America back....


[edit on 2-12-2007 by TheoOne]

After Mexico won it's independence from Spain part of it's territory included Texas, New Mexico, Arizona California, parts of Colorado and Nevada.
Mexico lost Texas to revolution in the 1830s and lost the rest of the territories in the Mexican-American war of the 1840s.
So today you have a few nuts that think they can take those territories back.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Oh let me explain...En Eglis sin barrias... i was replying to a comment that Animal said, not the thread as a whole.....im out have fun ....



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   
i agree with the OP that the land is in fact originally owned by the American Natives.

The mexicans and the americans had to murder to take it over.

But then agian, it doesnt matter. Its part of the USA now.

The mexicans have as much a claim over the SW states as much as the Mongolians have claim over india. None.

They gained the land thru wars, and Lost that same land thru more wars.
Thats how things work. Welcome to earth. lol



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


A: No, this is my land!

B: No this is mine now. Your civilization sucks, I'm taking it over

A: Bring it on!!!

B: Sure, let's do it.

Few hundred years later...

A: I want it back. Now.

B: No comment.



It's the politics. What can you say?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by serg3smurf
Oh let me explain...En Eglis sin barrias... i was replying to a comment that Animal said, not the thread as a whole.....im out have fun ....


first off i do believe the correct spelling you were looking for is:

in inglés sin barreras...

and again, read the post. you insult me yet you haven't even taken the time to discover what i am talking about and where i am coming from. and sadly it was never difficult to figure out once you have taken the time to READ...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Under Spanish Law, The King of Spain, Ruled, controled Spainish Territorys Here, Check history for sales of territorys, and who controled Mexico that point in history



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join