Apparently there are people to whom the results of the Mexican-American war of 1848 are still a live issue.
I remember in the mid-90s something came up called "Proposition 187" which had to do with denying illegal immigrants jobs and health care. One response was a protest in L.A. in which people walked around carrying the Mexican flag. Another was that California was stolen from Mexico and that Mexicans should be free to move there or stay there ("we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"), or should be given back, etc.
I know. But where would we be if we Italians were still demanding that Corsica, Malta, Istria, Italian Switzerland, and Dalmatia be "returned" to us? Or Corfu and Rhodes? Crete? Cyprus? And yes, I know about the treaty of Trianon and one day soon you will find my opinion why everything about the end of WWI was wrong and why Woodrow Wilson was a villain, but the fact is, there is no mystical ownership in land or territory.
Yes, I know you know how many Hungarians love to complain about the Treaty of Trianon. :) But honestly I've always struggled with the whole issue and I can't tell you if any lost pieces should be returned to a country. I guess what I worry more about is how the new minority is treated in their new country (e.g. Hungarian Transylvanians).
And I'd love to hear your opinion on the end of WWI. (I thought it was quite unfair to Germany and helped lead to WWII ... but that's based on my meager history classes, so who knows what I'll think when I learn more!)
But where would we be if we Italians were still demanding that Corsica, Malta, Istria, Italian Switzerland, and Dalmatia be "returned" to us? Or Corfu and Rhodes? Crete? Cyprus?
Goose-stepping in a review before Benito Mussolini's prettier descendant? Though actually I don't know if her political platform is that ambitious ...
And yes, I know about the treaty of Trianon and one day soon you will find my opinion why everything about the end of WWI was wrong and why Woodrow Wilson was a villain ...
No argument from me on that. I know bad things about Wilson's domestic policy you may not be aware of, including his imposition of segregation in the Federal civil service and his role in the Red Scare of 1918-20. And yes, given that Italy specifically joined the Allies to get territory from Austria-Hungary, denying Italy those territories was both dishonest and stupid -- it helped bring Italy into the Second World War on the other side.
As a matter of fact, I do know about his hideous segregation of federal jobs - including anecdotes I could hardly believe of a human being. I have an essay in preparation that I think you might like. And you are exactly right about what happened between Italy and the other allies at the peace table, and what it brought about.
There is a group of academic/student radicals who call themselves "La Raza" and are sort of Mexican left-wing fascists: they insist that a vaguely-defined territory they call "Aztlan" really belongs to Mexico because it was once Aztec. This territory is, by an amazing coincidence, roughly contiguous with the territory once held by the real (rather than fantasy) Republic of Mexico.
The thing is that La Raza is a minority even among Mexican-Americans. Most Mexican-Americans want to enjoy the benefits of being American -- they went to considerable trouble to come here and would be horrified if the border moved north past them, stranding them once again in Mexico. What's more, America would never agree to such a handover.
In fact, given Mexican instability, I think the more likely long-term trend (over the next century or two) would be an American annexation of Mexico. Even though that's not overwhelmingly likely either.
By "it's still an issue there" I mean it's an issue being debated among my many former classmates, neighbors, and friends in L.A. who are of Latin American origin. I can't say what "most" Mexican-Americans want, there are so many of them I haven't met, but of the ones I have, a good deal of them want things like Spanish-language instruction, naturalizing of illegal immigrants, etc., and they cite California as having been Mexican as one of the reasons. Again, I don't know how widespread these thoughts are, but it's still an issue.
I really don't know. I think the idea was that both English and Spanish should be on equal footing and that people who speak Spanish only shouldn't be discriminated against. I don't quite understand this myself.
The "discrimination" is inherent in the situation. Someone who speaks only English can speak to the vast majority of people in America, while someone who speaks only Spanish can only speak to persons who are either only Spanish-speakers or bilingual in English and Spanish (and hence could have been spoken to in English also). It is rare for immigrants to America from non-Spanish speaking countries to subsequently learn conversational Spanish; but very common for them to learn conversational English.
Employers simply won't hire people who can't speak to their co-workers and clients. This limits the pure Spanish-speakers to the barrios, and to the company of Latinos only. Early-generation Latinos at that, since many third- and later-generation Latinos don't speak conversational Spanish either.
Note that the effect of "naturalizing illegal immigrants" runs counter to getting California restored to Mexico -- Mexican-American citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the United States of America rather than returning to Mexican rule, and this is more true with each subsequent generation.
Spanish-language instruction slows assimilation. However, it also reduces the wealth and influence of Mexican-Americans unfortunate enough to fail to learn English well. This is inevitable, because English is the common language not only of native-born Americans but also of immigrants from non Spanish speaking countries -- if a Mexican-American has a conversation with a Chinese-American, it will almost certainly be in English. Hence, immigrants who speak little or no English are at a huge disadvantage
( ... )
Note that the effect of "naturalizing illegal immigrants" runs counter to getting California restored to Mexico
Well, from what I gathered the idea is that California may be in the U.S. but really belongs to Mexico or should, so people from Mexico who crossed the border illegally shouldn't be treated as illegal immigrants because they're still in their own country really (the border crossed us etc.), so even if the U.S. is still calling CA its own then it should still give rights to Mexicans. I know it sounds weird, it sounds weird to me as I try to explain what I heard.
Mexican-American citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the United States of America rather than returning to Mexican rule
Beats me, again. I have no idea what the stats are.
However, I did hear a new idea very recently, that Southern California should become a bilingual and binational place, since there are so many of both Americans and non-American Latin Americans living there. I still don't know what to make of that!
We're disgustingly honest, so we only hire legal folks-- it costs more, but it's honest.
We had several of the Mexican folks we hired go on LONG rants about how screwed over they'd been by not being taught good English-- some of these guys were third generation. ALL of them were pissed off. (They were also good workers, or we wouldn't have hired them.)
On a side note... in the navy I met several US citizens who hadn't been exposed to English until they joined. Two Filipinos, three Mexicans (meaning their grandfather or whatever came from Mexico) and one guy who had NO IDEA where his family was from, but spoke Tagalog; he'd been married since he was 17, to a 16 year old, they'd already lost one kid and she wouldn't leave the area of LA that they were from because she couldn't understand even basic English.... (Tagalog: the language of the PI)
I remember in the mid-90s something came up called "Proposition 187" which had to do with denying illegal immigrants jobs and health care. One response was a protest in L.A. in which people walked around carrying the Mexican flag. Another was that California was stolen from Mexico and that Mexicans should be free to move there or stay there ("we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"), or should be given back, etc.
As far as I know it's still an issue there.
Reply
Reply
And I'd love to hear your opinion on the end of WWI. (I thought it was quite unfair to Germany and helped lead to WWII ... but that's based on my meager history classes, so who knows what I'll think when I learn more!)
Reply
Goose-stepping in a review before Benito Mussolini's prettier descendant? Though actually I don't know if her political platform is that ambitious ...
And yes, I know about the treaty of Trianon and one day soon you will find my opinion why everything about the end of WWI was wrong and why Woodrow Wilson was a villain ...
No argument from me on that. I know bad things about Wilson's domestic policy you may not be aware of, including his imposition of segregation in the Federal civil service and his role in the Red Scare of 1918-20. And yes, given that Italy specifically joined the Allies to get territory from Austria-Hungary, denying Italy those territories was both dishonest and stupid -- it helped bring Italy into the Second World War on the other side.
Reply
Reply
Not really.
There is a group of academic/student radicals who call themselves "La Raza" and are sort of Mexican left-wing fascists: they insist that a vaguely-defined territory they call "Aztlan" really belongs to Mexico because it was once Aztec. This territory is, by an amazing coincidence, roughly contiguous with the territory once held by the real (rather than fantasy) Republic of Mexico.
The thing is that La Raza is a minority even among Mexican-Americans. Most Mexican-Americans want to enjoy the benefits of being American -- they went to considerable trouble to come here and would be horrified if the border moved north past them, stranding them once again in Mexico. What's more, America would never agree to such a handover.
In fact, given Mexican instability, I think the more likely long-term trend (over the next century or two) would be an American annexation of Mexico. Even though that's not overwhelmingly likely either.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Do they grasp that the consequence would be their own impoverishment? Or, if they mean this for their children, the impoverishment of their children?
Reply
Reply
Employers simply won't hire people who can't speak to their co-workers and clients. This limits the pure Spanish-speakers to the barrios, and to the company of Latinos only. Early-generation Latinos at that, since many third- and later-generation Latinos don't speak conversational Spanish either.
Reply
Reply
Spanish-language instruction slows assimilation. However, it also reduces the wealth and influence of Mexican-Americans unfortunate enough to fail to learn English well. This is inevitable, because English is the common language not only of native-born Americans but also of immigrants from non Spanish speaking countries -- if a Mexican-American has a conversation with a Chinese-American, it will almost certainly be in English. Hence, immigrants who speak little or no English are at a huge disadvantage ( ... )
Reply
Well, from what I gathered the idea is that California may be in the U.S. but really belongs to Mexico or should, so people from Mexico who crossed the border illegally shouldn't be treated as illegal immigrants because they're still in their own country really (the border crossed us etc.), so even if the U.S. is still calling CA its own then it should still give rights to Mexicans. I know it sounds weird, it sounds weird to me as I try to explain what I heard.
Mexican-American citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the United States of America rather than returning to Mexican rule
Beats me, again. I have no idea what the stats are.
However, I did hear a new idea very recently, that Southern California should become a bilingual and binational place, since there are so many of both Americans and non-American Latin Americans living there. I still don't know what to make of that!
Reply
Reply
We're disgustingly honest, so we only hire legal folks-- it costs more, but it's honest.
We had several of the Mexican folks we hired go on LONG rants about how screwed over they'd been by not being taught good English-- some of these guys were third generation. ALL of them were pissed off. (They were also good workers, or we wouldn't have hired them.)
On a side note... in the navy I met several US citizens who hadn't been exposed to English until they joined. Two Filipinos, three Mexicans (meaning their grandfather or whatever came from Mexico) and one guy who had NO IDEA where his family was from, but spoke Tagalog; he'd been married since he was 17, to a 16 year old, they'd already lost one kid and she wouldn't leave the area of LA that they were from because she couldn't understand even basic English.... (Tagalog: the language of the PI)
Reply
Leave a comment