You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #39: The proximity of Mexico [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
39. The proximity of Mexico
Edited on Tue May-20-08 06:07 PM by kenny blankenship
and all the history of territorial aggression against Mexico and the resultant "problem" of having Spanish speaking persons of Spanish or Mestizo descent within US borders. They were not to be considered white because of their ancestry, but they clearly weren't African. They weren't trusted as "full blooded Americans" (that may sound familiar) because as descendants of a losing side in a war of aggression they could be expected to be plotting treachery against America at any moment! For example Tejano people --Hispanic people living in Texas at the time of its rebellion against Mexico-- tended to lose their franchise and property, even though they had fought alongside the Anglo Texans against Mexico. After their big victory they became a disadvantaged minority in their own homeland. Outnumbered 6 to 1 by whites, they just had the wrong religion, the wrong blood, the wrong language--and sadly the wrong idea about their Anglo neighbors. Plus they had all that land, and that was just WRONG! 99% of the time people of Hispanic descent living within the territories in the vast area acquired by the US during the subsequent Mexican War could be identified for discrimination well enough by skin color, after all most Mexicans are far more descendants of the indigenous people of N.America than descended from Spanish colonists. That put(s) them in the same boat vis a vis the White Man's Manifest Destiny as the Cherokees and Cheyennes. But then there were also the sneaky ones who look nearly or entirely white. The Spanish language could serve as the identifying mark for ALL of them - they may speak perfect "American" or the King's Fookin' English, and might even be unable to speak Spanish at all, but they still have an Hispanic surname they can't get rid of. Problem solved!

Having another war of imperial expansion with Spanish speaking people--this time with Spain itself--only half a century after taking a third of Mexico could only reinforce the need to hold all "Hispanics" as a separate non-white race category. Filipinos, Cubans, Puerto Ricans all got lumped, nonsensically, into the Hispanic hopper created by the US government "administering" their homelands, along with "Mexicans" living inside US borders. It's hopefully clear that the term does not positively describe a category so much as it negatively corrals disparate peoples into a catch-all term to distinguish them from the "full blooded American" White Anglo majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC