On Spreading Stereotypes and Buying into the Reconquista

I live in a little village in England in a house that's 200 years old, just down the hill from a tiny church so old that it was actually built before God said, "Let there be light," thus proving that Stephen Hawking is a blowhard. The only industry around here, apart from digging potatoes and interfering with cows, is the cement factory, and that has been taken over by Mexicans. It used to be Rugby Cement and now it's CEMEX. Not much changes around here, and people don't much like change, but there was an expectation that the new management of the cement works might liven the neighborhood up; that mariachi bands would stroll the streets; that burros would appear, ridden by sleeping guys in sombreros: that the night's quiet would be split by the thrumming of guitars, shouts of "Andalay! Andalay! Arriva! Arriva!" and the crackle of brisk exchanges of gunfire as executives settled their budgets for the new financial year.

None of this has come to pass. In fact, no Mexicans have been seen in the village at all, despite the village pub having legendary chili nights. Is CEMEX an illusion? A mere corporate fiction that is actually run from Lichtenstein with Arab oil-money? Or are the Mexican managers all brujos who can make themselves invisible by drinking concoctions of jalapeños, tequila, and dried armadillo brains from scooped-out human skulls? We need to know the answers to these questions, lest the peace at the heart of England be disturbed, and the beat of Drake's drum be heard faintly on the breeze, calling, calling. Toodle-pip, old chap!
Baron Botolpho Winkletje van der Griezels

Isn't it great that the Reconquista is now global, and that American stereotypes of Mexicans easily crossed the pond? And don't think this Mexican has forgiven Genesis for their pendejada of a video for their song, "Illegal Alien." But, yes: CEMEX (a syllabic abbreviation of the company's original name, Cementos Mexicanos) is one of the world's largest cement companies, born and headquartered in the city of Monterrey (whose natives are as notoriously stingy as your Scots). Other Mexican corporations with worldwide reach include Grupo Bimbo (bread makers), Televisa (creators of telenovelas) and the Mexican Nalga Fund.

Why do white Americans buy into this Reconquista bullshit? I believe that these babosos talk about it more than Mexicans do. I have yet to meet a Mexican that is part of this "movement." Every Mexican that I know has come to America to work, seek a better life, and buy a Chevy Tahoe or Suburban — that's it. I guarantee you that if any white American actually spoke to a Mexican and asked him about the Reconquista, the Mexican would respond, "¿Que que?" I was born and raised in San Antonio, served my lovely country in the U.S. Army (2003-08), and now live as a disabled vet in Denver. My parents were from Zacatecas and Jalisco. I asked them about the Reconquista and got the same response from both of them: "Dejate de pendejadas."

So, gabachos, when you come to ¡Ask a Mexican! to ask stupid questions, consider this: Most immigrants go through shit and high water to come to America. Why would they even want to reclaim the Southwest back for Mexico? You think they would want to travel an additional 800 miles to come to America? As a child, I have been to Mexico on family trips and let me tell you: I would not want to live there. My parents sure didn't. We Mexicans grow attached to the American way really quick. But back to my original question: why do gabachos buy into this anti-Mexican bullshit when they have way bigger things to worry about? We are not the American-way-hating race.
El Sargento

Primeramente, gracias for your service. Secondly, to our Know-Nothing audience: Cut out this letter, staple it to your foreheads without anesthesia, and get it through your thick heads that this is the reality of the Reconquista — especially the Suburban part. Finally: Why do they believe this, Sargento? Por pendejos. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone, and remember to add serranos to your stuffing!

 
My Voice Nation Help
3 comments
El Reconquistador
El Reconquistador

=== AZTLAN ===

- CALIFAS - California- ARIZA - Arizona- NEVAZ - Nevada- UTAZ - Utah- NUEVO MEXICO - New Mexico- COLORAZ - Colorado- TEJAS - Texas- OKLAS - Oklahoma

James Bailey
James Bailey

I've met some Native Americans from the southwest that are interested in retrieving their land rights which were stolen by the Europeans (no formal declaration of war was ever made against the Indians in the Southwest (I include present day Mexico here) but never a "Mexican" or Mexican-American (i.e., a person who's ancestry is from Mexico).

I use the term Native Americans to specifically refer to those people who have an ancestry that came from this part of the world (PRIOR to the invasion by the Europeans (i.e., Spanish) who came to this world and whose culture is the one the majority of Mexicans identify with (e.g., the "Suburban" wannabees).

Mainly this wish for land rights is because the native peoples would, for 10s of 1000s of years prior to the European invasion, travel freely back and forth from Mexico to the Northwest coast without boundaries, engaging in trade and collection of seasonal harvests of naturally growing herbs and foods. The installation of artificial borders by empire building conglomerations of commercial interests (Nation States) inhibits this natural travel and therefore inhibits the cultures of the native peoples.

These native people have valuable knowledge of the area's herbology and food producing areas that are important to the present day humans here and to future generations. Their stories and songs are important and should be fostered, not suppressed. We should honor these first peoples and learn from their activities as we (humans) will need this information in the future and taking 1,000s of years to relearn it would be a pain in the ass frankly.

We all must remember that we are living on a space ship. One whose shield against the vacuum and radiation of space or "force-field," is our atmosphere and the extremely interconnected ecosystem that generates it.

Countries' boundaries should take this basic elemental fact into consideration and allow for the free exchange of goods and people without concern to citizenship.

Those who don't follow the rules on a space ship (ecology) should be educated, quickly and swiftly, about their contribution to the ship's successful operation. Otherwise the ability of our spaceship Earth to continue its mission we have created for it (maintain an ecosystem that will allow a continued human habitation into the next 2,000,000 years - no small task) will be lost and so will we.

Regardless of your religious affiliation, one can easily recognize the importance of allowing as much information about the Earth's ecosystem and our place in it as possible to promulgate freely.

This is the reason why these native peoples see the importance of getting back their land rights (notice I don't say land - they just want the right to traverse it freely in accordance with their beliefs/lifestyle/etc.).

The lie that there is a movement among Mexicans for Reconquista is just that - a racist lie.

The truth is that a movement for free travel rights of all people is needed and that borders separate humans in ways that are antithetical to the continued habitation of this planet by us and should be changed to reflect the reality of our situation together - crew members of a very large space ship.

chris long
chris long

Mexican Claims to Southwestern U.S. Lands Spurious Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 04:50 PM GMT [General]

I enjoy the history the MSM ignores for reason best known to themselves, such as the following:

Having witnessed the effects of all but unchecked illegal immigration of Mexicans into the Southwest United States and listening to what the Mainstream Media refers to as the 'debate' on the topic, there are several persistent themes I have wondered about when listening to pro-immigrant supporters. Of late I have perused and very soberly examined several sources that conclusively prove the claims of the pro-immigration crowd and so-called Reconquista supporters are spurious and not based upon facts.

One assertion the pro-immigrant and pro-illegal crowd often advances is that what is now the southwest United States was ancestral lands of the Indians that later constituted what are now known as Mexicans after extensively intermarrying with the Spanish. In short, the modern Mexican state implies and many Mexicans outright assert the lands of the Southwest United States were theirs and were stolen through conquest by Americans and supporters of the nascent Texas Republic. Not true at all. When the Spanish arrived in the lands that now constitute modern Mexico, the Indian indigenous and aboriginal population was centered in the areas referred to by geographers and historians as Mesa Central and Oaxaca, far from the Rio Grande and the modern U.S.-Mexico border.

No people that consider themselves Mexicans today nor any of the Indian tribes or clans that intermarried with the Spanish heavily in central Mexico were anywhere near what is now the Southwest United States. In fact what became the Southwest United States was inhabited in 1528 -- the onset of Spanish rule in Mexico -- by North American plains and agricultural Indians. The tribes then arrayed along what became the modern border were: Yuma, Maricopa, Chiricahua, San Carlos, Mescalero, Comanche, Apache, Tonkawan and Karankawa. I am not aware that any current members of those tribes claim any affiliation with Mexico or claim to have Mexican citizenship rights.

The tribes that later became the slaves of the Spanish and, technically, Mexican through intermarriage with the Spanish and members of the Spanish colony of Mexico were: Opata, Seri, Tarahumare, Yaqui, Mayo and Teperhuanes. Those tribes were settled mostly in temperate central Mexico and had no holdings anywhere near the Modern U.S.-Mexican border. It was through the establishment of the encomiendero and hacienda economic systems that took the Spanish and many of their subservient aboriginal Mexicans to the less arable lands north and east toward the Rio Grande and the area of the modern Gadsden Purchase. No aboriginal peoples who later came to constitute the ancient or modern Mexican state resided in the lands that became modern California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. The area of modern Mexico referred to by the Spanish as Mesa Del Norte and constitutes the modern Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango and Sonora were, in 1540, sparsely populated due to the desert climate and annual rainfall of less than 10 inches per year.

By 1572 there were some 507 Spanish-ruled encomiendas in Mexico and were concentrated in the regions known as Mesa Central in Yucatan and on the Oaxaca Plateau - far, far from any lands that became the modern American nation. What finally took the Spanish and their ancient Mexican slaves farther north was the introduction of cattle and horses from Spain. This spurred a northward movement, though not to any lands that later became America, to the grasslands north of modern Mexico City that were able to support domesticated livestock. These facts alone undermine the claim of many that the Southwestern United States were somehow always ancestral lands of aboriginal Mexicans. By 1810, though, the encomiendas and haciendas In the areas north of Oaxaca had not done well, speaking to the fact the aboriginal Mexicans never had an incentive to move north and into lands that later became the American Southwest. The land in northern Mexico and south of the modern international border was - and still is - very poor and not suited to the agricultural systems of the aboriginal Mexicans. The Spanish in 1810 recorded 4944 substantial holdings in Mexico of the hacienda and estancia de ganado (cattle stations) types. Of those holdings 79 were in the eastern provincial areas of Nuevo L—źon, Nuevo Santander, Coahuila and southwestern Texas. There were 232 holdings in Durango, Sonora, and what later became New Mexico. In southern Mexico there were 4633 Spanish holdings. In California there were none.

The Spanish holdings in Texas and New Mexico were encroaching upon the ancestral lands of Southwestern Indian tribes and were established through military force and conquest by the Spanish in the name of their king. The later moves by the Spanish and their aboriginal Mexican slaves north and east of the Rio Grande and into Arizona, California and New Mexico were purely a product of Spanish Imperialism, the search for wealth and the urge to add lands to the Spanish Empire. Those moves displaced Indian tribes indigenous to the areas, none of which claim any ancestral or modern affiliations with Mexico or Mexican nationality. The Texans later shed the rule of the despotic Santa Ana. Those Texans were then, legally, citizens of Mexico who revolted; there was no land grab by the American government that displaced Mexicans in Texas. Indeed the Americans later did displace the Spanish north of the modern international boundary, but those lands were ancestral to Indians of the Southwestern tribes.

It is interesting that modern Mexicans assert some sort of claim or indemnity upon land in the United States that was stolen from indigenous North American Indian tribes by the Spanish. That the Americans later dispossessed the American Indian tribes is certainly an injustice but has no bearing upon any claims made by Mexican nationalist groups. In light of the facts cited herein, from whence comes the claims of La Raza and Reconquista groups that Mexicans have a "right" to land that was never theirs and stolen - for a time - from North American Indians by the Spanish Conquistadors ?

Original content by Chris Long (c) 2009. Source material: "The Great Plains" by Walter Prescott Webb

 
Phoenix Concert Tickets
Loading...