The major feature of the Chicanism was to “get the worlds attention on the failed promises of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” (Bixler-Márquez, Ortega, & Solórzano Torres, 23). They started the Chicano Movement to showcase “the struggle for social justice” (Bixler-Márquez, Ortega, & Solórzano Torres,
Slowly, the natives of Texas became outsiders in their own land. Juan Seguin himself face Anglo opposition. After the republic Republic of Texas was formed, Juan Seguín was the only Spanish speaking senator. He was driven out of his own land because of untrue accusations from Anglos that he was still loyal to the Mexican government. Juan fled to Mexico with his family, but later returned to Texans.
Before the revolution, there was a Mexican leader called Benito Juarez he increased educational opportunities and economic equality. Then there was a dictator who was Porfirio Diaz, the choices he made caused the people in Mexico to rebel against him. Therefore, the revolution had started by the tremendous disagreement over the ruling of Porfirio Diaz, which he decided that the rich people should be treated like royalty and the poor should be treated poorly. Who lead the revolution you may ask? The leaders were Emiliano Zapata, Pancho villa, and Francisco L. Madero, the people of Mexico including women joined the fight.
Zumarraga’s and other activists actions, over time, pushed for the removal of such practice except for northern parts of Mexico, after all, the lands were not going to work itself to produce the wealth the Spaniards required. The newly acquired lands needed to produce profits sans high cost of production, resulted in the most logical alternative: free labor, and who better than the native Indians and in the later later years, Africans, who were eventually imported by the masses, to carry out these functions? The Spaniards undoubtedly enjoyed the authority they were granted providing their share of profits be made to the crown. They felt a sense of entitlement and invisibility, as they were men, part of a society of conquerors, and in some ways regarded themselves as “owners of the known world”.
Although the United States war against Mexico resulted in the gaining of America’s most valuable land, the war itself wasn’t legitimate because of the revolution in Texas, motivation for superiority, and the U.S. government’s actions. To begin, the Texans began an unreasonable war because they didn’t follow Mexico’s laws and conditions. When Mexico started selling cheap land, they set conditions for the people moving in. The people had to convert to Catholicism, learn Spanish, become a Mexican citizen, and have no slaves. Many Americans didn’t like being told what to do, and disobeyed the rules and laws.
At the time when Valdez wrote Los Vendidos many white Americans viewed Mexican immigrants as a group of people that existed solely to be used. The absurdity of this notion is illustrated by Honest Sancho’s Used Mexican Lot which satirizes the idea that Mexican people could be bought and sold as a commodity. The stereotypes presented by Sancho represent what many Americans assumed to be realistic Mexicans, while they were really only generalized caricatures. The Farmworker Los Vendidos subtly portrays the racism and colorism experienced by Mexican-Americans in order to bring awareness to it.
She introduces quotes from different people and mexican sayings. She mentions “Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war” making reference to the artist Ray Gwyn Smith. The introduction of this quote makes her essay more thoughtful. Another important allusion she uses is when she says “Neither eagle nor serpent, but both”, Anzaldua mentions this because of the distinguish and discrimination between mexicans from mexico and mexicans from USA. Her allusion describes the decision about being an “eagle” that refers to the American flag or a “serpent” referring to the Mexican flag.
Although, some people believe that Manifest Destiny gave America the right to expand their borders, the concept of Manifest Destiny did not give them this right because they bullied Mexico, they used brutal ways, and they ended up killing a lot of people. First, during the 19th century, many people believed in Manifest Destiny so they bullied Mexico into giving them land. In the article, “ Was the United States justified in going to war with Mexico?” it says “The combination of of American troops at the Rio Grande and the attempt to buy a large part of their country angered the Mexican government.”
Throughout her book, she showed the reader how she was able to overcome these challenges she was faced with. The main conflict she presented in her book was the movement she and her family led against the Spanish speaking ladino population of Guatemala. This movement was needed because the Indian tribes were being taken advantage of, one of the tribes being the one that Rigoberta and her family were a member of, the Quiches. The ladino population believed they could take the Indian land; they were wrong the Indians began to build weapons and traps which they would use against these invaders. The readers were able to see the power and determination Rigoberta and her people.
(Marquez 327) This direct quote shows that Mexico is angry that the U.S. is taking more land. In the daily El Tiempo stated that the American government came as a traveler and then acted like a robber (Marquez 327). This information shows that that the American government came and stole from Mexico. The annexation of Texas was inadmissable and unofficial.
The authors do an excellent job showing that while the Texans were outnumbered and everything was going against them they still fought because they feared they would be ruled with a dictator and would not have freedom like they already had. They felt like this because the Santa Anna led Mexican army fought by force, the soldiers were forced to fight. That is the definition of tyranny and the Texans wanted no part of that, William Travis even expressed their mindset in a letter saying, “VICTORY or DEATH.’’ (127). What the reader sees later is that the battle of the Alamo was not just a loss to the Mexican Army, it was really a wakeup call for everyone to realize that Santa Anna was ruthless and should be accounted for.
Consequently, the U.S. blamed Mexico for attacking them when they were only defending their borders. President James Polk’s statement saying,” Mexico had passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil”(Doc B) and the quote by Jesus Velasco-Marquez,“In the eyes of the Mexican government, the mobilization of the US army was an outright attack on Mexico,” (Doc C) show how the United States and Mexico had different views on where the border was. Overall, it was unjust for the United States to blame Mexico for going on their land when there was no clear
President James Polk was pro manifest destiny. That means he believed that G-d wanted the Americans to spread throughout the whole continent. James Polk of course wanted to annex Texas. Doing this caused more problems for Mexico and America. Mexico’s borders were now screwed up and the issue of slaves came up.
In 1846, Mexico had slaughtered sixteen Americans on American soil. At least that’s what the American story stated. The Mexicans told the story much differently. It was called, “The American Invasion.” Mexico clearly saw it differently, as the Americans named their story, “The Mexican War.”