Arizona Outlaws Mexican History

[Princess Luna]

You know what the state of Arizona needs? More xenophobia. Also, less knowledge of Mexican-American history and more fear and distrust between white people and immigrants. So thank god that a judge has upheld an earlier ruling by Arizona's school superintendent that a Mexican-American studies program in Tucson is a violation of the law, in part because it promotes "resentment toward a race or class of people." White people in Arizona, specifically!

The program's opponents - led by [John] Huppenthal, a veteran state senator elected superintendent of public instruction last year - say that by framing historical events in racial terms, the teachers promote groupthink and victimhood.

Maybe if we don't tell the Mexicans anything, they won't think that we've ever done anything to them! As long as they don't notice that they live in a state where, for example, a sheriff might decide not to investigate hundreds of sex crimes because they were only against Mescans, after all.

Which is not to say it's a racial issue, of course. All students of history know that race has never played a role, in history. (Particularly not in Arizona!) To teach anything to the contrary would be outrageous and divisive. Carry on, Arizona. You continue to earn your title every day.
http://gawker.com/5871556/arizona-outlaws-mexican-history

[Ocean Seal]

It's racist to tell Mexican people about their history? Is it racist to teach the holocaust? And I thought that groupthink was the last thing that these dumbasses were concerned with.

[Franz Fanonipants]

basically if you are annexed you have no rights to remember the annexation, true story

e: but seriously i think you'll probably find some crazies on this forum who think this is a good thing

[tachosomoza]

Mexico should just release their entire population to take back the Southwest, already. :laugh:

[Pilotgrrl]

I grew up in Tucson and lived there until last year. Teaching mexican-american history was considered normal and just part of life. It didn't become a problem until Phoenix decided Tucson was just to different and stepped in to change our school system and what was taught. In the end the real issue here is communial self determination and not just how history is taught.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i'm holding out for the seperation of Arizona right around Casa Grande myself. old white people gonna jump mexican ship.

[ColonelCossack]

http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif
http://www.cherryfairy.com/Images/banghead.gif

Why can't people just put an end to this kind of thing? How can anyone not see how evidently obviously clearly evident that this is just stupid?

[MarxSchmarx]

Well in fairness, this is clearly a case where one version of the ruling class mythology replaces another ruling class mythology, and I don't see why the working class should care.

The Mexican state was founded by oligarchs and discontent Spaniards in Mexico city in an internal power struggle against the viceroy from Madrid, just as the American state was founded by oligarchs and discontent Britons in Philadelphia and Boston in an internal power struggle against the governor from London.

No version of either history is any more legitimate. Both sought to smash and systematically enslave the indigenous population, expand slavery, and neither had any intention of owning up to their lofty rhetoric. True, for a time the Mexican army was directed against the indigenous people of the south and the gringoes rather than the tribes of the North, and hence the tribes of the "American south west" largely escaped persecution under the Mexican army while suffered enormous depradations under the Americans.But this is hardly any more reason to glorify the colonialist empire that was Mexico in lieu of the colonial empire that is America.

Finally, let me put this in perspective. A glorified history of Mexico has been taught to at least 50 million people in Mexico. Has that made Mexicans any more radical? Has it served anything but the same purpose education does everywhere - to indoctrinate and subvert class consciousness? It has inspired a few, to be sure, to pursue the ideals of the Mexican revolution, just as education in France and America and India has inspired a few as well. But on the whole have we any reason to believe that education and belief in the "ideals" of the Mexican state are any more noble than that of any other modern state?

[ColonelCossack]

^fair point

[Agent Ducky]

Stuff
I don't think they meant "Mexican history" like you interpreted it. I think it's meant in a context like "black history" or "women's history" as in, the contributions of Mexican-Americans to history.

[Red Commissar]

There's a certain strand of US education 'reform advocates' that don't look too warmly on histories of minority groups. When the Texas State Board of Education met last time there was plenty of rage from the tea baggers and the like who felt that the social studies books committed too much time to African-American and Mexican-American experience and history in Texas and the United States out of 'political correctness'. Instead they said the education system should encourage pride in the United States (ie white wash and glamorize) and the idea of an American citizen, rather than encouraging 'hyphenated Americans' as it is often described.

While what MarxSchmarx says is correct, it must be kept in mind that in the current political atmosphere in the state of Arizona, this is honestly just more of a way to marginalize Mexican-Americans in that state and score some cheap political points with nativists getting worked up history courses that don't match their 'exceptionalist' view of the United States. Similar hysteria was worked up over budget drains from multilingual (or rather, Spanish) entrance courses for those who still needed to learn English so in the mean time have to be taught basic courses in Spanish instead. So calls were increasing then to have those courses removed and 'force' the kids to learn English.

Keep in mind that "Mexican-American" history isn't Mexico-centered so much as it is the history of Mexicans living in what is now the Southwest and other parts of the United States: what jobs they took, what hurdles they had to overcome as minorities and what challenges remain in the future. They're more of a social history really- though like many of these courses they don't get high attendance like required courses (That's been another way to call for those courses to be cancelled). It's of course not a 'working-class' concern but I think when you have these moves which essentially translate into marginalizing and downplaying the contributions of a group (particularly a 'minority') to the development of the area, it is a matter of concern.

Usually if you want a history of another nation all-together those sort of things are offered in a university level course. When I was going through high school at least there was only a European History/ 'Western Civilization' course, though it was AP and not mandatory. I don't recall there being a Mexican-American or African-American course in my high school or any of those in the city.

[Klaatu]

Why can't people just put an end to this kind of thing? How can anyone not see how evidently obviously clearly evident that this is just stupid?

Because there are a lot of stupid people in the USA (they are called "conservatives") and they vote :scared:

[freakazoid]

Wow, that article doesn't explain shit on what is going on. But I guess that is to be expected.
What the fuck is a "Mexican-American"?

[Comrade Samuel]

I don't think they meant "Mexican history" like you interpreted it. I think it's meant in a context like "black history" or "women's history" as in, the contributions of Mexican-Americans to history.

Well if people cant believe that mexicans have contributed to socity without being taught about it who does that say more about, the so called "representatives" or the American people? Rather than saying "oh my race made this!" we all just agree people have achieved alot. When we don't we end up with stupid things like this.

Why don't we just give the southwest back to Mexico? Let them deal with the dumbasses running the state governments there...

[Princess Luna]

Wow, that article doesn't explain shit on what is going on. But I guess that is to be expected.
What the fuck is a "Mexican-American"?


A judge in Arizona has decided to make a Mexican American history program taught in the Tucson Unified School District just that: history. According to Judge Lewis D Kowal, the program is in violation of state law.
The legislation in question went on the books a year ago and says that Arizona schools can’t offer studies designed for students of any particular ethnic group, a move that US Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) called at its passing a “dangerous precedent.”
"This legislation against diversity might be focused on Tucson," Grijalva told the Huffington Post earlier this year, "but it has significant ramifications across the country."
The ban specifically prohibits classes which are aimed at ethnic groups or promotes "resentment toward a race or class of people." In June of this year, John Huppenthal, the state superintendent of public instruction, deemed the Tucson district to be in violation by offering a Mexican American studies program. Six months later, students and instructors are now being forced by state mandate to end the academic agenda, essentially outlawing the truth from being taught in public schools.
"I made a decision based on the totality of the information and facts gathered during my investigation — a decision that I felt was best for all students in the Tucson Unified School District," Huppenthal says to the Los Angeles Times over his so-called victory with this week’s ruling. "The judge's decision confirms that it was the right decision."
That decision will not only cause classroom teachers to drastically alter their curriculum but could come as a catalyst to keep other school districts coast-to-coast from careening towards the truth. The precedent being put forth in Arizona outlaws a program that preaches the historical facts pertaining to a whole culture, a program which apparently offends some lawmakers. With its passing, however, any item targeted by an influential enough group of opponents could be nixed next.
The Mexican American studies program, according to its faculty and supporters, offers Chicano perspectives on US history and culture. To Huppenthal, that point of view serves as a façade for perpetrating anti-American propaganda in the students.
Assistant Attorney General Kevin Ray spoke in support of the law’s opponents, telling the press that “The state does not believe that the teachers nor the prospective students have the constitutional right to be taught the current Mexican American studies program,” insisting that the classes could cause outrage and an uproar over the realities of US history.
For the program’s advocates, the classes make sense. "We are descendants of those who founded this city and descendants of those who founded public education," activist Salomon Baldenegro, Sr. testified at the Tucson Unified School District board hearing earlier this year. It has been no secret that the establishment in Arizona has gone to great lengths to crush ethnic groups outside the majority from making any strides in the state; but while Arizona’s controversial SB 170 legislation justifies law enforcement agents to profile possible illegal immigrants on basis of looks, this act will end the practice of preaching any truth in the Tucson school district’s academic programs, essentially barring history books from the classroom.
If Arizona lawmakers can make telling the truth illegal, so can other states. First is the outlawing the history of Mexican Americans in that state, but will the slave trade be dismissed from classrooms where plantations previously littered the cities and counties? Residents in Arizona of Mexican origin account for 26.7 percent of the entire state population; by comparison, African American residents in the state of New York account for less than 17 percent of the state’s population. If a similar law was enacted in the Empire State, would America’s history books be stripped of a few hundred years of pages? Or would the internment of Japanese Americans be no longer taught in high school classes in California in fear that it would cause the nearly 5 million Asian Americans in California to engage in groupthink against the establishment?
http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-history-mexican-studies-845/
better?

[citizen of industry]

The whole ethnic studies program, including Latin-American studies, is on the chopping block in Arizona.

[freakazoid]

"Better" yes. But that isn't saying much.
If this is correct, "The ban specifically prohibits classes which are aimed at ethnic groups or promotes "resentment toward a race or class of people."" Then is that really a bad thing? Do we really want classes that promote resentment towards oh say the Jews? Or would that be ok since outlawing those classes would be trying to stifle some sort of "truth" that the article kept on mentioning but never defining. Neither article ever actually mentions what this class would of been about, simply calling it a "Mexican American studies program" which offers "Chicano perspectives on US history and culture." whatever that means.

[ifeelyou]

Well in fairness, this is clearly a case where one version of the ruling class mythology replaces another ruling class mythology, and I don't see why the working class should care.This is a ridiculous statement. The issue has to do with Mexican American history, not just Mexican history. Although related, they aren't the same thing. Mexican Americans have never been the "ruling class" in the US.

What ethnic studies, specifically Mexican American studies, explores is the fact that Mexican Americans have experienced institutional segregated education, have been restricted by antimiscegination, have experienced lynching in numbers second only to African Americans, have occupied a position at the bottom of the US economy for two hundred years, have experienced the deportation of US citizens of Mexican descent to Mexico more than once in the past 100 years, etc. etc. Ethnic studies also deals with the fact that many Mexican Americans have played an active part in resisting white supremacy and have fought long and hard for civil rights.


The Mexican state was founded by oligarchs and discontent Spaniards in Mexico city in an internal power struggle against the viceroy from Madrid, just as the American state was founded by oligarchs and discontent Britons in Philadelphia and Boston in an internal power struggle against the governor from London.This isn't entirely historically accurate. Mexican independence was also initiated by marginalized people of color in Mexico: mestizos, Black slaves, afromestizos, and Indians. Check out Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black, and White Roots of Mexican Americans by Martha Menchaca.


No version of either history is any more legitimate. Both sought to smash and systematically enslave the indigenous population, expand slavery, and neither had any intention of owning up to their lofty rhetoric. True, for a time the Mexican army was directed against the indigenous people of the south and the gringoes rather than the tribes of the North, and hence the tribes of the "American south west" largely escaped persecution under the Mexican army while suffered enormous depradations under the Americans.But this is hardly any more reason to glorify the colonialist empire that was Mexico in lieu of the colonial empire that is America.Again, this isn't entirely accurate. After independence, Mexico underwent several years of liberal racial legislation. Indians, at least in theory and in many cases practice, were granted full citizenship rights- unlike under Spanish rule. Also, Vincente Guerrero, Mexico's first afromestizo president, abolished slavery in 1829. The abolition of slavery helped to piss off white people in the US who wanted to expand slavery into places like Texas, which in part fueled tensions between the US and Mexico.


Finally, let me put this in perspective. A glorified history of Mexico has been taught to at least 50 million people in Mexico. Has that made Mexicans any more radical? Has it served anything but the same purpose education does everywhere - to indoctrinate and subvert class consciousness? It has inspired a few, to be sure, to pursue the ideals of the Mexican revolution, just as education in France and America and India has inspired a few as well. But on the whole have we any reason to believe that education and belief in the "ideals" of the Mexican state are any more noble than that of any other modern state?Again, we aren't talking about Mexican history, but Mexican American history. They aren't the same thing. You're conflating the history of Mexico and the history of Mexican Americans.

[ifeelyou]

"Better" yes. But that isn't saying much.
If this is correct, "The ban specifically prohibits classes which are aimed at ethnic groups or promotes "resentment toward a race or class of people."" Then is that really a bad thing? Do we really want classes that promote resentment towards oh say the Jews? Or would that be ok since outlawing those classes would be trying to stifle some sort of "truth" that the article kept on mentioning but never defining. Neither article ever actually mentions what this class would of been about, simply calling it a "Mexican American studies program" which offers "Chicano perspectives on US history and culture." whatever that means.

Give me a damn break. These classes aim at teaching Mexican Americans Mexican American history. Is learning about things like Mexican American civil rights achievements and how Mexican Americans have been subjected to the effects of white supremacy and racism a bad thing?

Only to racist white people are these classes thought to teach "resentment toward a race or class of people."

[Yuppie Grinder]

I don't like the wording. We(white workers) aren't responsible for the oppression of common Mexicans, the white bourgeoisie are.

[freakazoid]

Only racist white people huh?
And again, what the fuck is a Mexican American?

[Luís Henrique]

Mexico should just release their entire population to take back the Southwest, already. :laugh:

Nah. They should do like Cuba, forbid emigration to the United States and enforce it at gunpoint.

This way the US would welcome Mexican immigrants as freedom fighters against the evil Mexican dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

whatever those fuckin white racist old hogs are gonna die off and we are gonna outbreed those motherfuckers, this is the reconquista.

[Luís Henrique]

whatever those fuckin white racist old hogs are gonna die off and we are gonna outbreed those motherfuckers, this is the reconquista.

If they were fuckin maybe they weren't going to be outbred.

Luís Henrique

[Franz Fanonipants]

off point shit

just like i said i'm sure some crazies here will be for it

p.s. i don't think you know what you're talking about

[Franz Fanonipants]

whatever those fuckin white racist old hogs are gonna die off and we are gonna outbreed those motherfuckers, this is the reconquista.

yeah except you moved to canada no manches

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't like the wording. We(white workers) aren't responsible for the oppression of common Mexicans, the white bourgeoisie are.

laffo you don't know about labor aristocracy huh

bro its ok, you don't have to get mad browns aren't like whites we won't be genociding people we think are "responsible" for shit

[Franz Fanonipants]

"Better" yes. But that isn't saying much.
If this is correct, "The ban specifically prohibits classes which are aimed at ethnic groups or promotes "resentment toward a race or class of people."" Then is that really a bad thing? Do we really want classes that promote resentment towards oh say the Jews? Or would that be ok since outlawing those classes would be trying to stifle some sort of "truth" that the article kept on mentioning but never defining. Neither article ever actually mentions what this class would of been about, simply calling it a "Mexican American studies program" which offers "Chicano perspectives on US history and culture." whatever that means.

restrict this motherfucker

[GPDP]

Only racist white people huh?
And again, what the fuck is a Mexican American?

Holy shit, are you for reals

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't think they meant "Mexican history" like you interpreted it. I think it's meant in a context like "black history" or "women's history" as in, the contributions of Mexican-Americans to history.

I see. Without having taken or taught any of these courses in Tucson, Arizona, I can see how that would be different from teaching the history of Mexico.

Not to get too OT, but as it is customarily presented at the secondary school level in Mexico, I am somewhat surprised by the defenders of this idealized history of what was basically just another colonialist state.


just like i said i'm sure some crazies here will be for it

p.s. i don't think you know what you're talking about

Wow what a brilliant argument. At least ifeelyou had the decency to respond with something of comparative substance whilst Agent Ducky clarified the issue here. You here are basically articulating the position of "poppycock".


This is a ridiculous statement. The issue has to do with Mexican American history, not just Mexican history. Although related, they aren't the same thing. Mexican Americans have never been the "ruling class" in the US.

To use your favorite phrase "that isn't entirely historically accurate". After the Mexican American war, true, many former Mexicans were deprived of their property, but in places like New Mexico and parts of California, the elite still consisted of a large number of formerly upper class Mexicans and their descends, particularly those with sprawling cattle ranching operations.





This isn't entirely historically accurate. Mexican independence was also initiated by marginalized people of color in Mexico: mestizos, Black slaves, afromestizos, and Indians. Check out Recovering History, Constructing Race: The Indian, Black, and White Roots of Mexican Americans by Martha Menchaca.


While I haven't read Menchaca's book, what you say is essentially a big part of the way the war of independence is presented in Mexican secondary schools.

And the same could be said, to a lesser extent, of the American revolution. Several authors have gone to considerable length to document the populist/poorer class character of that "revolution" as well. But it doesn't change the fact that the revolution was ultimately co-opted, and the nation founded, by the local ruling class.

Another problem with this view is that it implicitly understates the role of periodic insurgencies by marginalized segments of the Mexican population. Again, not to get too OT, but such insurgencies happened even on a large scale quite regularly since Cortez. Even Mexico's comparatively small African slave population sustained palenque colonies. But by the mid 18th century that slave population had declined substantially. The decisive break in the early 19th century was with the disgruntled Criollo population and the colonial military establishment finally providing the institutional backing, and the collapse of the Spanish government in the Napoleonic wars.

The idealized picture of a massive uprising of the lower classes, as if this were the Haitian revolution, has a messy pedigree of being systematically used by the Mexican state to justify its dubious legitimacy among the indegenous and economically disadvantaged segments of the Mestizo population.



Again, this isn't entirely accurate. After independence, Mexico underwent several years of liberal racial legislation. Indians, at least in theory and in many cases practice, were granted full citizenship rights- unlike under Spanish rule. Also, Vincente Guerrero, Mexico's first afromestizo president, abolished slavery in 1829. The abolition of slavery helped to piss off white people in the US who wanted to expand slavery into places like Texas, which in part fueled tensions between the US and Mexico.


Mexico's treatment of its indegenous popualtion following independence was commendable to the extent that it was not a "kill them all" approach - rather, it was about assimilation and cultural obliteration, whether they wanted it or not.

Moreover, Mexico's abolition of slavery earlier than America also wasn't exactly a heroic feat for the time - in fact, it was well in keeping with the trend. It was the United States that was rather exceptional, along with Brazil and the SPanish colonies, in retaining slavery in the new world for so long. SImon Bolivar had sought abolition (somewhat disengenously) and the British empire had sought to stopi it globally around the same time. The American and Brazilian economies relied extremely heavily on slavery, and when Mexico's (largely peninsular and criollo) elite realized that they could continue to prosper under an essentially feudal arrangement post-indepdence, what little remnants of slavery existed were readily disposed of.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Wow what a brilliant argument. At least ifeelyou had the decency to respond with something of comparative substance whilst Agent Ducky clarified the issue here. You here are basically articulating the position of "poppycock".

Thus the only sane response to your objection that, somehow, a Chicano studies course offered in a High School in Tucson is casting Guadalupe Victoria or other 19th c. liberal revolutionaries/icons of modern Mexico in a good light. Its way more likely the course focuses on the Mexican experience in the American Southwest. I can't speak to their focus on the class of their historical subjects, but usually with a race critical component in historical discourse there's always a class critical component unless you're teaching full on moonbat Anahuacism or whatever.

e: does anyone have an example of the curriculum of this program?

e of e: Holy shit bro you really don't know what you're talking about. The current policy is championed by racist, white supremacist politicians. It was aimed at a Chicano studies course that had Rudolfo Acuna's Occupied America as its key textbook. The issue is not ensuring fair, revolutionary education, but rather trying to bully one portion of the borderlands proletariat.

[Franz Fanonipants]

...in places like New Mexico and parts of California, the elite still consisted of a large number of formerly upper class Mexicans and their descends, particularly those with sprawling cattle ranching operations.

it would be so rad if people could actually be taught this but oh wait there went the ethnic studies, eat a dick mexicans westward expansion of american capitalism just filled a land void of civilization or form.

[Ostrinski]

Any time you ban the history of anything it's bad. I don't see how this can be defended.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Any time you ban the history of anything it's bad. I don't see how this can be defended.

well i mean i would love to not have to hear about wwii for a while that would be awesome

[hatzel]

Any time you ban the history of anything it's bad. I don't see how this can be defended.

Unless, of course, you ban the history of everything. Then we wouldn't have to worry about the whole problem of the education system picking one (or if you're really lucky two) of the innumerable conflicting narratives to elevate above all others as the 'accurate' account of history. I can't see how any curriculum in any school anywhere can ever get round this. Therefore: screw history. Of all the subjects studied at school, history is the one that is most guilty of relating opinion as if it were fact.

Get rid of that whole sordid system, yeah, but get rid of history first.

(But yeah if schools are still going to teach history and stuff it might be good if they weren't all shitty about it)

[freakazoid]

restrict this motherfucker

Love to hear the reasoning for this. :rolleyes:


Holy shit, are you for reals

For realsies.

[ifeelyou]

To use your favorite phrase "that isn't entirely historically accurate". After the Mexican American war, true, many former Mexicans were deprived of their property, but in places like New Mexico and parts of California, the elite still consisted of a large number of formerly upper class Mexicans and their descends, particularly those with sprawling cattle ranching operations.

Again, you're presenting a partial account of history. As a result of the racial order the US brought with the occupation, the only Mexican people in California, New Mexico, and elsewhere in the Southwest who were able to maintain any type of upper class status were, by and large, white Mexicans. Within a year of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo's ratification, the US violated the citizenship equality statements in the agreement and began a process of racialization that categorized most Mexicans as inferiors in all domains of life. Indians, mestizos, and afromestizos were largely denied basic civil rights. In terms of land and ranching, Mexicans holding property deeds in most cases, unless they were white or to a much lesser extent mestizo, didn't have a very good chance of retaining their ranches and remaining in their homes. Menchaca's book goes into this.


While I haven't read Menchaca's book, what you say is essentially a big part of the way the war of independence is presented in Mexican secondary schools.

And the same could be said, to a lesser extent, of the American revolution. Several authors have gone to considerable length to document the populist/poorer class character of that "revolution" as well. But it doesn't change the fact that the revolution was ultimately co-opted, and the nation founded, by the local ruling class.I'm not saying that the criollo population didn't revolt against peninsulares and the Spanish crown. I pointed out the fact that marginalized people of color also participated in Mexican independence because you made absolutely no reference to such. The dominant and extremely oppressive racial order in colonial Mexico was part of the impetus for independence. This is a pretty well established historical fact.


Another problem with this view is that it implicitly understates the role of periodic insurgencies by marginalized segments of the Mexican population. Again, not to get too OT, but such insurgencies happened even on a large scale quite regularly since Cortez. Even Mexico's comparatively small African slave population sustained palenque colonies. But by the mid 18th century that slave population had declined substantially. I'm not denying the major significance of these insurgences. This goes without saying.


The decisive break in the early 19th century was with the disgruntled Criollo population and the colonial military establishment finally providing the institutional backing, and the collapse of the Spanish government in the Napoleonic wars.Again, I'm not refusing that criollos played a part in independence.


The idealized picture of a massive uprising of the lower classes, as if this were the Haitian revolution, has a messy pedigree of being systematically used by the Mexican state to justify its dubious legitimacy among the indegenous and economically disadvantaged segments of the Mestizo population. I'm not painting an "idealized picture of a massive uprising of the lower classes" nor am I condoning the justification you're describing. My simple point is that the lower classes, which largely consisted of people of color, also played an important role in independence, which is something you didn't mention.


Mexico's treatment of its indegenous popualtion following independence was commendable to the extent that it was not a "kill them all" approach - rather, it was about assimilation and cultural obliteration, whether they wanted it or not.I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this. However, we can't ignore the fact that during and for some years after independence Mexico implemented liberal racial legislation like the 1821 Plan de Iguala, which aimed at equalizing almost everyone. The only people who weren't completely affected by Iguala were black slaves. As you already know, the abolition of slavery happened a few years later. This period of liberal racial legislation was radically different from the racial policies of the Spanish crown and the US.


Moreover, Mexico's abolition of slavery earlier than America also wasn't exactly a heroic feat for the time - in fact, it was well in keeping with the trend. It was the United States that was rather exceptional, along with Brazil and the SPanish colonies, in retaining slavery in the new world for so long. SImon Bolivar had sought abolition (somewhat disengenously) and the British empire had sought to stopi it globally around the same time. The American and Brazilian economies relied extremely heavily on slavery, and when Mexico's (largely peninsular and criollo) elite realized that they could continue to prosper under an essentially feudal arrangement post-indepdence, what little remnants of slavery existed were readily disposed of.Mexico was one of the first in the New World to abolish slavery. Let's keep that in mind. Also, let's keep in mind that Vincente Guerrero, who was neither criollo nor peninsular, was the president who issued the nation's emancipation proclamation and abolished slavery.

At any rate, I only really commented on your post because of: "Well in fairness, this is clearly a case where one version of the ruling class mythology replaces another ruling class mythology, and I don't see why the working class should care." I wanted to elaborate on the difference between the history of Mexico and Mexican American history as the latter is the topic of this thread and not the former.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Love to hear the reasoning for this.

white fucking supremacy

[freakazoid]

Prove it asshole. :cursing:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Prove it asshole. :cursing:

haha you're an anti-federal reserve moonbat racist from kansas (prob. eastern ks as anyone in and around garden city etc. could tell you what a mexican american is). i don't think i can "prove" it better than you already have

[RedZezz]

It is racist against white people to teach Mexican history?

I thought Mexican was a nationality, not a race. Would it make this senator feel better to know there are white Mexicans?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Mexico's treatment of its indegenous popualtion following independence was commendable to the extent that it was not a "kill them all" approach - rather, it was about assimilation and cultural obliteration, whether they wanted it or not.

Moreover, Mexico's abolition of slavery earlier than America also wasn't exactly a heroic feat for the time - in fact, it was well in keeping with the trend. It was the United States that was rather exceptional, along with Brazil and the SPanish colonies, in retaining slavery in the new world for so long. SImon Bolivar had sought abolition (somewhat disengenously) and the British empire had sought to stopi it globally around the same time. The American and Brazilian economies relied extremely heavily on slavery, and when Mexico's (largely peninsular and criollo) elite realized that they could continue to prosper under an essentially feudal arrangement post-indepdence, what little remnants of slavery existed were readily disposed of.

this part is also hilarious because Indian slavery persisted in the far northern frontier of Mexico well into the American period. regardless of its legality.

bro basically you are throwing the most hilarious maoist third worldist fit in the world while pretending to know something.

[Franz Fanonipants]

It is racist against white people to teach Mexican history?

I thought Mexican was a nationality, not a race. Would it make this senator feel better to know there are white Mexicans?

Mexican in the US Southwest is a racial category.

e: or WAS, but now prevailing US official legal race definitions make it an "ethnicity" which is closer to a nationality.

[black magick hustla]

this part is also hilarious because Indian slavery persisted in the far northern frontier of Mexico well into the American period. regardless of its legality.

bro basically you are throwing the most hilarious maoist third worldist fit in the world while pretending to know something.

the yaquis were basically exterminated

[freakazoid]

So I'm a racist because I am anti-federal reserve? Or is it because of where I am from? How would you even know what my skin color is? Are only white people racist? Sounds like your calling the wrong person racist. And once again, what is a Mexican-American?

[ifeelyou]

It is racist against white people to teach Mexican history?

I thought Mexican was a nationality, not a race. Would it make this senator feel better to know there are white Mexicans?

People of Mexican descent in the US are by and large mestizo and have historically been racialized as “other” in relation to white people in the nation. As a result, Mexican Americans have experienced large amounts of discrimination and racism. The whole “Mexican is a nationality and not a race” argument is nothing but an attempt to discount the racism that Mexican Americans have for two centuries faced in the US.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Are only white people racist?

yes

[Franz Fanonipants]

the yaquis were basically exterminated

tambien los lipanes

[freakazoid]

yes

Wow. So YOU really are a racist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Wow. So YOU really are a racist.

yr logical thought process:
if racism = thoughts about race then
uh
um
uh
uh
racism

[freakazoid]

No dipshit, you saying only white people can be racist is racist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

No dipshit, you saying only white people can be racist is racist.

no comrade, if it is aimed at whites it is categorically not racist.