A Glorious Defeat

During the 19th Century, the United States sought to expand westwards and increase their land. Since Mexico stood in the way they did all they could to provoke it and start a war. “The Mexicans fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted” (Zinn 151). What they wanted was California, soon they wanted Texas and then Arizona and New Mexico came along. For a long period of time, probably still today; Mexican-Americans are seen as “an ahistoric people” (Romano 44). An assumption that is completely wrong. Mexican American have been fighting for their rights and equality since they became part of America. In fact, they had two movements conduct by different generations. The Mexican-American Generation between 1930 and 1960; and the Chicano generation between 1945-1960. Although both generations were had the same ancestry, they had different worldview because of their history and the events that were going on in their time. Both Mexican-American generation and Chicano generation similarities and differences help understand the overall Chicano history in the 20th Century.

The story illustrates the overlapping influences of women’s status and roles in Mexican culture, and the social institutions of family, religion, economics, education, and politics. In addition, issues of physical and mental/emotional health, social deviance and crime, and social and personal identity are

Mexican Americans in Texas have a long and detailed history spanning from the arrival of Cortez all the way to the present day. Through historical events, the culture and identity of Mexican Americans have shifted, diverted, and adapted into what people chose to identify as. The rise of the Chicano identity during the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement was an adaptation as a culture to oppressive and unjust treatment from white, Anglos that had almost all political and social power over all minorities. To stop the oppressive voices from silencing and oppressing the Mexican Americans, they had to stand up to fight for their rights as American citizens that also had Mexican or Spanish heritage to be proud of. In Oscar Zeta Acosta’s novel, The Revolt of the Cockroach People, he dives into the Chicano Movement as a witness and an active participant. His larger than life character is on the front lines of the movement and examines the shift in identity among the group. It was particularly rising of their Chicano identity that gave the people cause to organize politically and socially in order to fight for a worthy cause.

In an effort to gain the Texas territory, Polk’s decision to declare war on Mexico was provoked by the Mexican government itself. His diplomatic course of action proved to have been in vain in an attempt to gain compromise and peace between America and Mexico. Regardless of the attempts made by the American government to peacefully coerce Mexico to relinquish the land, America was denied each and every time. Military presence was necessary in order to facilitate a greater respect from Mexico and to also offer additional protection for the Americans residing in Texas at the time; it was not meant by any means to act as a threat towards the Mexican government. Provided these facts, it can be assumed that the Mexican War was not an exercise in American imperialism, but rather, was instigated by the increasing fear felt by the Mexican government due to the lack of power within their own boundaries; this fear was further perpetrated by the fact that Mexico owed America money but could not pay, Mexico stepped onto American soil and fired the first shots, and that the majority of residents residing in Texas were in fact American citizens.

In 1846 the newly formed Mexico and the United States of America had become engaged in a full blown war. The start of the war is disputed, on the American side they said that their own blood was shed on their own soil. However the Mexicans would claim that in fact the Americans were illegitimately on their land and the Americans were only there to entice a war. The reasons the Americans unjustly started the war was in one part due to land disputes. The Americans claimed that the border of Texas was to the Rio Grande and the Mexicans maintained that the border was the Nueces. To go along with this the Americans were in the middle of their “Manifest Destiny” or God given right to overspread the continent. Also there was still tension from Mexico after Texas declared independence. Lastly the economic stance of Mexico was weak given that they just recently declared

Timothy J. Henderson’s A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States (2007) and Amy S. Greenberg’s A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico (2012) offer two narratives of the United States –Mexican War. Both authors conclude that the United States justification for war with Mexico was without warrant; however, they contradict their central arguments that actions of the United States, and President James K. Polk, were not justified by letting their biases overshadow their arguments. Although, their approaches do significantly contribute to the understanding of the United States-Mexican War. Amy Greenberg’s book examines the perspective of the war from the United States first antiwar movement. Greenberg utilizes quotes throughout her work of critiques of the war from

The way history is portrayed often changes depending on who is writing it and which country it is from, to really grasp an understanding of The Punitive Expedition through the eyes of Mexican history it is essential to analyze Mexican Textbooks and how they portray it. Analyzing Mexican history will not only give insight to what caused Villas attack on American Soil, feelings towards the Punitive expedition, and its causes, but justification for Pancho Villas attack on Columbus in the eyes of the Mexican People. The following report will include a description as well as analyzes of Mexican Textbooks as well as connections to American history when accounts of history contradict.

“ when the spanish arrived in Tenochtitlan , they claimed that the Aztecs were an uncivilised group of people” .

Two years and thirteen thousand American deaths later, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and ratified by Congress. Despite its unethical beginning, the spoils reaped by the Americans from the Mexican War were tremendous. The terms of the treaty had granted the United States the entire Mexican Cession territory, which consisted of modern day Nevada, California, New Mexico, Utah, Most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming. Many were outraged by the war, but many more were too busy celebrating in the face of their defeated Mexican neighbors. This is understandable considering that many earnest Americans believed that Mexico was the aggressor in the confrontation. In the end the appealing lie voiced much louder than the abhorring truth.

Though he never admittedly specifically asserts this view, his depiction and opinion of the American natives make it clear that he appreciated and understood their resemblance of the state of nature. The primary indication he gives of this comes from his description of them as “the simplest people in the world - unassuming, long-suffering, unassertive, and submissive - … they harbor no grudges and do not seek to settle old scores; indeed the notions of revenge, rancour, and hatred are quite foreign to them” (Las Casas 10). Las Casas effectively draws a parallel between the state of nature and the natives. However, Las Casas also claims that the aztec kingdoms are “granted and entrusted by God and His Church to the Spanish Crown so that they might be properly ruled and governed, converted to the Faith, and tenderly nurtured to full material and spiritual prosperity” (Las Casas 6).

Violence is a very common trend in Latin America since the beginning of the Colonial Period. This is explained throughout movies and texts, showing how Latin America interacted with the indigenous people around the prominent time of colonization. Through this violence, the indigenous people were treated lower than second-class citizens—like free slaves that the Spaniards had stumbled upon. This violence spread to the African slaves acquired by Latin America as well. This is explained through fictional yet factual stories from past to present.

In Honor and Ethnicity, Alonso explicates how ethnicity plays differently on the Chihuahuan frontier. Not serving as the basis of labor division as in the Center, the logic of ethnicity on the Chihuahuan frontier is driven by contrasting two antagonistic forces, “civilization-barbarism and reason-animal instinct” highlighting gente de razón (civilized people possessing reason) versus indios bárbaros (barbaric Indian lacking in reason)” (64). She, further, argues that “the discourse of ethnicity was central to an ideology of frontier warfare that legitimated civilization’s use of force and delegitimated barbarism’s use of violence” (69). By juxtaposing the use of violence by the ‘civilized’ Chihuahuan frontier and the ‘barbarism’ Apache, Alonso

The Indigenous people throughout Mexico have had a tumultuous history filled with violence and repression. Their rich cultures have repeatedly been infringed upon by outside cultures, and their place in the world remains uncertain to this day. This battle to retain their culture began centuries ago, and envelopes all different types of Indigenous groups, from the old Aztecs to the Zapotecs. Their society was and remains to be very different from popular culture in Mexico and Spain during the times of the Conquistadores, and they have therefore been subjected to different persecutions and maltreatments throughout history.

During the span of about 25 years beginning in the year of independence, Mexico was in conflict with itself along with other international countries fighting for their land. The internal wars in Mexico had resulted in tens of thousands of lives for the sake of uniting the region under their personal laws while external warfare cost a possible three hundred thousand deaths or more. Not only was the death toll in Mexico high, so was the expenses having to be expedited for military and defenses. Military costs “expended 600,000 pesos a month, while government revenue totaled only 430,000 pesos” which did not include a multitude of other overheads Mexico was having to pay. The fight for regional unity was not all talk, it took a huge amount of death and economic destruction in order for Mexico to begin to find its path in terms of government

When studying history, the further back on the timeline we focus, the less physical evidence is available about the events and people of the time. Therefore, we are often forced to rely solely on primary writings to learn about the past. However, these texts, even though written by those experiencing the event in question, are not always reliable sources of information. They could possibly misconstrue information, from which the reader, if they do not consult multiple sources, will gain a biased understanding. While the original writers might not have always intended to include inaccuracies in their works, other might have purposefully altered the events, through exaggeration or the inclusion of completely fictional aspects. Therefore, it is important to analyze the writer’s audience and motives for the specific document to see if they would have any reason for deviating from the truth. Cortés ' Letter and We People Here both present different accounts of Cortés’ interactions with the indigenous people for this reason. Other fallacies in historical texts could also be based on the writer’s existing bias of the time. A comparison of The Siege of Guanajuato and The Political Evolution of the Mexican People, a secondary source, highlights each of the texts’ own biases that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. These two causes of inaccuracy, intentional alteration and unintentional bias, perpetuate misinformation if not cross-referenced with other sources.