Thursday, June 15, 2017

Mexicans didn’t cross the US border. The border crossed them


Carlos Goes pointed me to this short piece in The Economist:
"... communities have proved more durable than borders. The counties with the highest concentration of Mexicans (as defined by ethnicity, rather than citizenship) overlap closely with the area that belonged to Mexico before the great gringo land-grab of 1848."
For the most part, Mexicans didn’t cross the US border. The border crossed them.


27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Es un bonito mapa, pero que más? O en referencia a que?

Anonymous said...

The great gringo land grab? You mean the one after the great Mexican/Spanish land grab from the indigenous peoples? That one? When the Spanish gave away all those land grants of land they didn't own?

A.J. Cestero said...

well, the us has always used the notion that indigenous people didn't have a concept of land ownership, to justify the taking of indigenous lands. what is your point? that the us was simply entitled to take whatever land they wanted, because mexico's claims to the land were invalid to begin with? in 1848 the us used military force to seize land held by another sovereign nation. that is simply a fact. here are some more. https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexican-American-War

Anonymous said...

Mexicans didn't take the land. Tge "Mexican" is a decendant of the Spanish and Native American and as such has a direct stake and ownership to Nortg America. Eat that "Pilgrim!"

Tonio said...

In response to Anonymous 1. I think it is important to note that Mexico is effectively an Indigenous nation . In the census leading up to independence 50%+ of the people identified as "Indian". The other significant portion as Mestizo. So at the time of war with America the majority of Mexicos people were "indian". Even now we find thst with DNA testing Mexicans typically score high percentages of "Indian" conversely those who claim Cherokee etc consistently come back with very low percentages. The really sad part of the map is it also represents where imdiam people still exist in large percentages. The eastern sea board and midwest reflect the entire extirpation of all Native DNA.

Anonymous said...

The illegal immigrants are direct descendants of the "braceros" program with Mexico that ended in 1964. America canceled the program because they still wanted the Braceros but without the cost of the benefits that they enjoyed as legal workers like free housing, health and proper wages.They are still wanted and keep coming but without legal support and the mentioned social protections they find very difficult conditions in the US. In addition they are now blamed of many pathologies in this country like crime, violence and drugs.

A.J. Cestero said...

Interesting and valid point, but keep in mind this article was not about the undocumented population in these areas. It's about US citizens who identify, or are identified, as Mexican descendants, so people of Mexican ethnicity, though not nationality. These are not people who immigrated to the US, these are people who have been living in the same areas for generations. Without moving, the land around them has changed hands. The issue here, is the last nation to acquire this land, and by rights, the indigenous population (in this instance, I simply mean the people that were living there prior to acquisition, leaving out the notion of heritage), has historically treated this population as though they were foreigners. There is a prevailing sentiment in this country, that the massive Mexican population in those areas is due to immigration, and that is simply not accurate.

Native New Mexican said...

I find it interesting that "Anonymous" which is in of itself interesting , somehow redirected the discussion to illegal immigrants. Sometimes "unmasking is a Del inflicted wound.

Anonymous said...

Why tf is it 2017 and this site isn't mobile friendly? Admin, get yo shit together

Rafael H M Pereira said...

Thank you for the feed back, such kind words. The blog is now mobile friendly

Juan Jose Cervantes said...

SB4

yogi said...

Everyone seems to forget that those Mexicans were indigenous...the Spanish is a different story. They grabbed.

Thomas Olson said...

Sovereign nation? You mean Texas? Santa Anna dissolved the Mexican government in 1835 and set himself up as dictator. Revolts sprang up all over Mexico including in Texas and it was supported by the majority of the Hispanic population in Texas. In 1836 Santa Anna was defeated and a new government was formed. Long before they could get reestablished France invaded and they had "The Pastry War". Then the national government of Mexico fell apart again. By 1844 most of the states of Mexico (Texas, Laredo, and Yucatan) where operating as independent governments. In 1845 the US offered to buy Texas since it had been operating independently for 10 years. Mexico said no, Mexican troops attacked US troops and the fight was on. SO explain to me how something is "YOURS" if you never really had it to begin with? When exactly was Texas an active part of Mexico, as in paying taxes, represented in the government, and receiving support from the Mexican Federal government?

Anonymous said...

Thank you...meaning the border crossed THEM

Anonymous said...

As always.....only believe what the whites write.....it was stolen. .plain and simple John Smith. ...your ancestors are thieves of the.highest order....you stole from the Indians. ..you stole from the French. ..you stole from the black

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John Matel said...

In 1836, Anglos outnumbers Spanish speaking Mexicans about ten to one in Texas. That was what upset Santa Anna. The Comanche had pretty much cleaned out the native population and kept the Mexican population small and isolated. In fact, that is one reason Americans could move into what became Mexico and Texas. An interesting but largely forgotten part of history is the rise and fall of the Comanche. Had it not been for them, and their effective fight against virtually all others, the borders would be very different. The Mexicans could not cope with the Comanche and neither could the Texas until they got six shooters.

Very good book re is Empire of the Summer Moon.

A.J. Cestero said...

Thomas, I mentioned 1848, so I was referring to the US/Mexican war and not the Texas Revolution. At that point there was a dispute between Mexico and Texas over the border location. When Polk's advances towards the purchase of the land were rebuffed, he sent federal troops to camp just North on the Rio Grande, in what Texas considered their land and Mexico considered theirs. That was where the Mexican attack happened, so based on perspective that was either on US or Mexican soil. I would argue that dispatching and camping combat troops there, was at the very least a sign of provocation from the US. If you look at that original map area, those heavily dark places fall inside that disputed territory. That area was an active part of Mexico. My family has lived in that area since the late 1700s, founding the town of La Grulla on the North side of the Rio Grande in 1836. At the time, their homes were on the South, closer to Camargo, but there were issues with the Tennessee transplants going and claiming land, if they didn't find someone actively living on it.

We've taken the conversation in a slightly different direction than the original post; but I'm assuming you wouldn't argue the original contention, that those lands that are heavily Hispanic (Mexican particularly) are that way, not because of immigration to the US, but rather by virtue of having already been Hispanic, at the time of acquisition.

Total sidebar, but you mentioned Hispanic support for the Texas revolution; it's a bit of a forgotten fact, but the only native born 'Texans' to die at the Alamo, were all Hispanic. The non-Hispanics were basically all Tennessee settlers.

Unknown said...

Thanks for posting this as it is VERY relevant to my personal story ATM.

Just this month I've made contact with my paternal relations- I was adopted as an infant in the mid 60's in San Francisco, CA. I did find my birth mother in 1997, but she had little info on my father's relations.

I spoke with one of his last living sisters yesterday for the first time.

Thanks to this post and comment thread, I found the name of the immigrant program my Grandmother used to relocate from Zacatecas, Mx to Visalia, CA in the early '30's.

I'm currently reading about the long history of Mexico (Fire & Blood by T. R. Fehrenbach) and the history of the waves of Amerindian migrations into Mexico; the Amerindian cultures and conflicts with indegenes; the effect of the Spanish Crown and Church. I didn't know until this book the privilege the "Peninsulares" (those born in Spain) held over everyone else, including Iberians born in Mexico.

One of the few tidbits my father shared with my mother (Jewish immigrant from the UK post WW2) was his insistence that he was Spanish, not Mexican. Which, I know now due to my DNA wasn't really true. The continuation of the myth of inferior races!

Glad I can break that cycle.

Anonymous said...

There were Hispanic people living in Southern Colorado for 60 years before the White man showed-up. The town of San Luis, CO predates the founding of Denver by almost 60 years, and it was a Spanish town when it was founded.

Anonymous said...

The Spanish are the foreign invaders, as are the English and French. All Europeans.

Anonymous said...

They never reply once you make that point lol

Anonymous said...

I'll reply. Because if any two places can compete for corruption wormhole of the universe it's US and Mexico. Like coca and a nose.

Unknown said...

There are no indigenous humanoid specie in this hemispheres. One group got here before the other.

Sadaya said...

Es diciendo que los Mexicanos no cruzavam la frontera pero la frontera se cruzavam a los Mexicanos. Las arias en que es considerada los estados unidos em que tienan tantos Mexicanos son las mismas arias que era del Mexico antes que los gringos tomaran em 1848. Entonces, esta diciendo que las communidades de personal actualmente permanescan ma's permanente que fronteras. Perdoa mi Espanol muy imperfecto...

Will Cronan said...

Spanish grabbed land that wasn't theirs, Mexico benefitted. The US grabbed that wasn't the Spanish or Mexico's, the Spanish & Mexico lost the benefit. Retitution owed (if any) is to the Native Americans who lived on lands declared theirs by quasi territorial pre-Columbian occupations. That restitution is paid back somewhat in the windfall gained by tribal exclusion to US laws (ergo lucrative gambling dollars gained & paid to tribal members).

Anonymous said...

Agree