Engracia Loyo Popular Education

The Mexican War was a battle between the Americans and the Mexicans when there was a disagreement between borders between the two countries. America went to war against Mexico and fought for almost two years. However, it all started when Mexico declared their independence from Spain. They became close to America. They allowed Americans to settle in Texas, but Americans began overwhelming Texas. Soon, Americans in Texas wanted to declare independence from Spain because of the prohibition of slavery. After a war, they annexed Texas to America, and Mexico was angry at America. America went further and declared war against Mexico. But was America justified to wage war against Mexico? America was justified to declare war against Mexico because Mexico

Unlike the viewpoint of Americans, Mexicans did not view the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War justifiable. Americans did not have the right to invade in Mexico. Many politicians in the United States proclaimed that they should expand their territory by the annexation of Texas and Mexico. Americans justified the annexation with the idea of “Manifest Destiny”, an expression of idealized justification on the part of Americans that they have the God-given right to civilize all the nations.

Historians often divide the Mexican Revolution into three main periods of fighting due to its length and complexity. Of the three periods, the one that had the most impact on Mexican society at the time was the first phase in which Francisco Madero overthrew Porfirio Diaz as new revolutionary leaders such as Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa arose. This period allowed people that were not usually involved in politics to become more involved. The phase of the revolution that had the most potential to create change in Mexican society later was the third one that saw Conventionalists take on Constitutionalists for control of the country. This stage created the Constitution and led to a single political party gaining control of México.

The people of Mexico wanted to get their land back, however there was so much to do in order to obtain the land back and the poor people could not do. There was peasant leader named “Emiliano Zapata, who hoped a revolution would lead to land reform”(EDSITEment). Along with Emiliano Zapata who was a leader from the southern state of Morelos, two other leaders from the north named Pascual Orozco, and Pancho Villa were ready to fight for their land. All three had armies ready for war, and all of this revolting was for a new and better Mexico that will peaceful. There is a corrido named, “Corrido de Zapata Nino”, which praise Emiliano Zapata. This corrido is just an example of how corridos praise important people like revolutionist.

For this week I decided to write a summary of chapter 11: Anglo-Saxons and Mexicans. The new political ideologies were created between 1830 to the 1840s. These new ideas were influenced by pride and obvious racism. These beliefs inspired the idea that American Anglo-Saxons were the dominant force and that they should be the ones to shape the destiny of others. The idea of the American Anglo-Saxon race was influenced by the American Mexican war. That the Anglo-Saxons were superior to the Mexicans and that God had saved America for people of Saxon blood.

Americans were outraged over the border dispute at the Nueces and the Rio Grande rivers, and Mexicans were irate with America’s annexation of Texas. President James K. Polk availed in the atmosphere of animosity, hurrying to place troops on conflicted land. On May 9, 1846, he found his cause for war. Mexican and American troops had engaged in combat on April 24, which led American blood spilt on contended soil. However, through all their fighting spirit, the Americans faithfully ignored their own mistreatment of the Mexicans. They ignored the original reason of the enmity, which was the annexation of Texas, and the actual uncertainty of border uproar. This brings into question; were the Americans as justified as they believed in their cry against

Who started the Mexican-American War? Firstly, The United States went to Mexico in 1846. Texas declared its independence from Mexico in 1836. Certainly, Americans were being extremely greedy and wanted more and more land. Was the United States justified in going to war with Mexico? The United States was not justified in going to war with Mexico because they did not respect their laws, culture, and their beliefs.

Justified is defined as having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. Texas won its independence in 1836. America’s wars are often very controversial. The United States was justified in going to war with Mexico because of three main reasons: Americans were killed, Texas was already annexed, and Manifest Destiny allows it.

The Mexican American War started in 1846 because of Mexican resentment caused by the 1836 loss of Texas and the American’s desire for Mexico’s more northern territory. “On September 9, 1847 after two years of fighting, the Mexican American war essentially ended when the American Army captured Mexico City after the Battle of Chapultepec”( 6). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war. United States leaders then acted morally superior in their negotiations of the treaty 1. During negotiations, United States officials viewed the “forcible incorporations” (1) of almost one half of Mexico’s land as an “event foreordained by providence and Manifest Destiny” (1). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is written evidence of the biggest land acquisition in American history.

Francisco Villa also known as “ pancho” and Emiliano Zapata where two revolutionaries who experienced the oppression of politicians in Mexico and because of that they devoted their lives to change this. Even though their aims were different they also shared some similarities which leads us to ask the question: What were the aims of Pancho villa and Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican Revolution between 1910-1923 and what were the similarities and differences they had ?

The annexation of Texas occurred in the early 1800’s. American colonists were expanding into the Northern sector of the Rio Grande, which developed the need for Texas to become a part of the United States. In the South, the people supported the drive toward the annexation of Texas, but the Northerners opposed this idea. Texas was another slave state and the nature of their society did not appear appealing to the North. Therefore, William Ellery Channing wrote a letter to the Senator of Texas, Henry Clay in 1837. In this letter he addresses the issues he felt would arise if Texas were to be added to the United States. One concern Channing had was that the Texas freedom from Mexico would result in a war, entangling America with England and other European countries. William Ellery Channing also felt the annexation would cause complications in America from the preservation of slavery, not only in Texas, but in other territories that the United States chose to takeover, which would force into a

When Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, a string of ruthless dictators and weak presidents made Mexico an easy target for its powerful neighbor, the United States. The US swooped in to expand its territory and its popular institution of slavery. By doing so, the US started a war with Mexico that was justified for illegitimate reasons. The Mexican-American War was not justified because the US took Mexico’s land for the expansion of slavery, and justified their taking advantage of Mexico when it was politically weak by hiding behind Manifest Destiny.

The short novel, Aura, by Carlos Fuentes creates a mythical reality to reference Mexican history. He uses Aura, Felipe Montero, and Consuelo as a reflection of the past and the present, where for example, Consuelo represents the past and Felipe the present. In this paper I will explain how the love story of Felipe, Aura, and Consuelo represent Mexican history. In addition this paper will explain how myth breaks down into different elements, such as religion, legends, traditions, and beliefs, all of which are manifested in the different characters and their actions within this novel. Carlos Fuentes applies a cyclical view to Mexican history using Felipe and Llorente, and Consuelo and Consuelo.

Before the 1960s many social science disciplines utilized cultural determinist paradigms as their framework for knowledge production. For example, in “The Anthropology and Sociology of the Mexican-Americans,” Octavio Ignacio Romano describes how anthropologists and sociologists used the concept of Traditional Culture to explain the history of Mexican Americans. According to Romano, this concept “deal[s] with human beings only as passive containers and retainers of culture,” which posits Mexican Americans are ahistorical people (“The Anthropology” 26). Therefore, in using this theoretical lens Romano argues social science scholars not only erase the history of Mexican Americans but also perpetuate the idea that Mexican American culture is deficient and prohibits their progress. For example, he criticizes Ruth Tuck along with other sociologists and anthropologists for describing Mexican Americans as fatalistic people who adjust to their problems, instead of making an effort to overcome them (“The Anthroplogy” 29). To counter the ahistorical views of these scholars Romano cites historical evidence of Mexican immigrant workers striking and making an effort to change their working conditions. For example, he mentions the strikes of the sugar beet workers in California, the railway workers in Los Angeles, and the sheepherders in Texas. All of these instances disprove the idea that Mexicans are

The Devil’s Highway, by Luis Alberto Urrea is the true story of 26 men who attempted to cross the Mexican border through the bleak Sonora Desert in May of 2001. Urrea describes the lives of the men who attempted to cross, what happened to them, and the response of the people working on the border and who encountered them. He explores the issue by describing both the personal experiences of people trying to emigrate from Mexico to the U.S., and of people working on the border. The story was made both realistic and compelling through the information gathered and research conducted for a full year prior to writing the story.