Mexico-USA history and relationship

...

>We were in our own civil war for most of that time, and when the civil war was over we helped Mexico.

He's talking about the Pastry War, where the US thought France was in the right. You're talking about the Franco-Mexican War/Maximilian Affair, where the US did indeed help Mexico.

don't care about mexican history, it was a collection of syria tier warlords and rebellions

Some Americans in the 19th century wanted the US to completely assimilate Mexico, until it was pointed out what that would do to the nation's racial stock.

Sounds about right

It's happening anyways.

we've sent millions of them back before

It's not larping. It's reclaiming their heritage. Why are only white people allowed to have some nationalism.

Yeah, only a little longer until your shitty country gets annexed as well.

Keep dreaming kek.

>reclaiming their heritage

Their heritage? The indigenous peoples of Mexico are oppressed as shit by those mustached "Mexicans" Hispanophiles.

Remember when Mexico had outlawed slavery but the US citizens who declared Texas independent tried to force Mexico to return all runaway slaves to their owners? lol

Remember when Polk blockaded the Rio Grande river, technically an act of war, to try and conjure up a pretext to invade the country so he could wrest California away from them? lol

Remember when Texas rangers would ride into Mexico and indiscriminately kill Mexicans, including women and children, just because they could? lol

b-b-but manifest destiny n shieet, we're not imperialist and fuck you beaners your not white!!!!!. We wus good people spreading democracy n shieet

>It's not larping. It's reclaiming their heritage.

"Many Polish immigrants arrived in Mexico, bringing their musical heritage to the region. Norteño music developed from a blending of Mexican and Spanish oral and musical traditions, military brass band instrumentation, and Germanic musical styles such as polka and waltz."
youtube.com/watch?v=xPjk1vcPrYc

we'll see

laugh on, but you will weep hereafter

Oppressed by their government. Not so much by mestizos. Mexico doesn't have the autistic racism issues as the US, the divisions are more based on class.

yeah but you got Jews and women hanging the "remember the 6 trillion" and "love trumps hate" popular rhetoric. You won't do shit.

Pretty much

United Statians have the audacity to call themselves "Americans" while deporting actual natives, when they themselves are immigrants living on stolen land after raping/killing the native peoples

"America" is a name from a romance language coming from its namesake Amerigo Vespucci.

malarkey

and? it's some italian, who cares

...

Conveniently ignoring the massive failure that is Mexican society that forced its citizens to go north for work in the first place.

couldn't be put better, Mexico was, is , and forever shall be a joke too proud to laugh at itself

Isn't Angry Joe Puerto Rican?

He looks like a Spaniard desu

>>export their shit food culture and sugar infested garbage here
we definitely made them fatties, that one is on us

A lot of Latinos do

the only hispanics with any claim to being countrymen to americans

>invaded us three times
twice as far as i know and the mexican revolution doesn't really count
>stole our corn, cowboys, poinsettias, etc and called them their own
corns been here since the pilgrims, american cowboy=/=mexican vaquero and i've never seen poinsettias outside of texas
>made their illegal immigrants declare independence from us
they were legal and the us didn't make them, santa anna did. just look at every other region breaking off from mexico at the time

OP just the first three claims are lazy revisionist nonsense. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest its probably just bait

>stole half of our country

Ha, the Comanches and the Apaches would disagree with that statement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache–Mexico_Wars

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache–Mexico_Wars

Mexicans are morons, they think Texas/Arizona/New Mexico/California = Mexican since at one time Mexico controlled that TERRITORY (key word there), when the truth is actual Mexicans barely lived in those areas. They've always been Comanche/Apache/Navajo/Pima/Yaqui lands, the Mexicans were merely the first colonial power.

This is objectively true.

>people trying to use native americans as a proof against fucking mexico

Spaniards were the first colonial power you mongoloid.

Then the second.
Native Central Americans =/= Native Northern Americans. That's like saying the descendants of the Olmecs have claim to The Great Plains since they're "Native Americans"

1.-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USRC_Woodbury_(1837)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_War_(1910–19)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Veracruz

2.- See pic

3.-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Mexico
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Mexico

That's funny, you post "people's of Mexico" but ignore that people who lived in Northern Mexican territory-Comanches, Kiowa, Apaches, etc. hated Mexicans and didn't consider themselves Mexican.

And how does that justify the US invasion? And it doesn't matter how much you meme the Apache wars (that also happened against the US), because in the end it was the US the ones who pretty much exterminated them and forced the few remaining ones into reservations, especially when Mexico today is the country with the MOST indigenous peoples in The Americas. And when the Mexico-Apache wars were caused by those tribes raiding INTO Mexico, a land that was owned by New Spain, who happened to have the exact same demographics as Mexico, for 300 years

pic here

I'm not saying there wasn't any influence, but it isn't some like for like comparison were anglos outright appropriated it. I mean really, it's like latin americans believe that nobody else in world had cattle culture

>how does it justify invasion
>waaaaah you took our colonial territory we inherited from Spain

Imagine if the US hadn't- Texas, New Mexico, California, Arizona- none of them would have been built into functional states and world centers of trade and commerce.
>raiding INTO Mexico
Whoa whoa whoa Jaime, what happened to them being Mexicans living in Mexican land? Given up that argument already?

Still not a justification nor are you disproving OP.

Some of them look actually kinda hot, save mexico!!!

>didn't disprove the OP
>stole half of our country

Already proved it wasn't "their country"
Also
>waaaah drugs are all your fault even though we're the ones takin in the profits
>waaaah you propped up a dictator, never mind when we had actual democracy we voted for the same party for over 100 years
>waaaah French invasion happened over 150 years ago but for some reason retains relevance
>waaaah all these manufacturing jobs came to Mexico via NAFTA but it's not enough
>waaaah subsidized corn from America killed our economy
Massive red flag if some subsidized crops kill your economy, your economy was shit to begin with then.

>Already proved it wasn't "their country"
How? Is Basque country not part of Spain because of ETA? Is Scotland not part of the UK?

>French invasion happened over 150 years ago but for some reason retains relevance

I thought this was the history board.

>condemn the US for being a colonizer
>use instances of forced integration, unification, and colonization to justify your argument

Stay in school kid.

It is, you can discuss it all you want, but it doesn't give it any modern-day relevance.

So is the basque country part of Spain or not? And how did the Apache-Wars, who also happened against the US, justify the invation?

N O T M E X I C O
O
T

M
E
X
I
C
O

So you can't disprove it. Good to know.

The Basque don't consider themselves Spanish.
The Scottish don't consider themselves English.
The Natives didn't consider themselves Mexican.

And did they consider themselves American? Ans you STILL have not answered the question: Is Basque Country a part of Spain or not?

And you want to know what is even more funny about this whole "native american" argument (aside from the fact that the US exterminated them, and Mexico has 25 million of them). The Apache migrated south and west, under pressure from the Comanche who were also expanding southward. Being pushed off the buffalo-rich Great Plains into the more austere desert and mountains of the Southwest, probably caused the Apache to become more dependent upon raiding for a livelihood. By 1692, they were present in the present-day state of Chihuahua, Mexico. They soon were also visiting Sonora and Coahuila and seem to have absorbed several other Indian peoples native to the future U.S./Mexico border area, the Suma, Manso, Jano, and Jocome. Chihuahua, Sonora, and Coahuila were more populated and richer than the Spanish colonies in New Mexico and Apache raiding soon became a serious problem.

The Apaches and Comanches also migrated to that land, after New Spain was created.

>our corn
Spanish larpers pretending they're Injuns yet again.

>did they consider themselves American?

I love how after losing the argument that the American Southwest was Mexican you must now attack America, clearly you're the OP.
>is Basque Country part of Spain
It exists within Spanish borders, but itself is ethnically and culturally apart. So only in name.

You guys are mega racist to anyone south of your border.

So they were part of Spain. And the American Southwest was Mexican.

>The Apache tribes most involved in the war, the Chiricahua (called "Gileños" by Mexicans) and the Mescalero numbered only 2,500 to 3,000 people.

That is even less people than the ones who did consider themselves Mexican. So really, what even is your argument?

Once again Central "Native" Americans (many of your 25 million are mestizos) =/= North "Native" Americans
>it was the American white man who turned the Apache against us!
The victim complex's ability to reach never ceases to amaze

>The Spanish first encountered the Apache, whom they called Querechos, in 1541 in the Texas panhandle. At the time the Apache were buffalo hunting nomads who had trading relationships with the Pueblos of the Rio Grande valley. The early contacts were friendly, but in the 17th century, the relationship between Spaniard and Apache deteriorated because of slave raids by the Spaniards and Apache attacks on the Spanish and Pueblo settlements in New Mexico.

>By 1692, they were present in the present-day state of Chihuahua, Mexico. They soon were also visiting Sonora and Coahuila and seem to have absorbed several other Indian peoples native to the future U.S./Mexico border area, the Suma, Manso, Jano, and Jocome. Chihuahua, Sonora, and Coahuila were more populated and richer than the Spanish colonies in New Mexico and Apache raiding soon became a serious problem. In 1737, a Spanish military officer said, "many mines have been destroyed, 15 large estancias [ranches] along the frontier have been totally destroyed, having lost two hundred head of cattle, mules, and horses; several missions have been burned and two hundred Christians have lost their lives to the Apache enemy, who sustains himself only with the bow and arrow, killing and stealing livestock."[3]

>1737

America hadn't even been founded yet.

>it was the American white man who turned the Apache against us!
>America hadn't even been founded yet.
Good thing I never claimed that.

So lets recapitulate, shall we?
>Apaches and Comanches moved to New Spain after New Spain was founded
>the relationship was complicated, but some of them made deals with Spaniards, some didn't, some were allies, some got mixed and became mestizos, some raided the country, some were at war
>at the time of the Mexico-Apache wars, the most numerous fractions had less people than the ones who considered themselves Mexican
>they also went to war with America
>America killed them all
>this somehow proves the Southwest wasn't mexican

No

>not their original land
>not the majority
>some of them actually did considered themselves mexican

It is all 100% true

People with power are abused by those that have it. Not saying that as a dwi type thing, it is just a fact of life. If Mexico as a nation wanted to get out from under the thumb of the USA it should have changed its society, become a major power and elected better leaders.

But they're content and think "hapiness polls" fix things and absolve themselves of responsibility by saying the USA is a bully, which is 100% true. But Mexico is still the bully's nerd bitch that refuses to go to the gym.

>The Mexicans started that one.
Its 100% debateable and entirely dependent on opinionated pov.

>invaded us three times
And do you know who mexico trusts with ensuring theur sovereignty and security?

USA!

Great call guys! I'm sure you wont regret it! Afterall. It's not like history repeats itself or anything! Haha! ;-)

>Apaches and Comanches lived in the Americas, claimed by a colonizer who had genocided most of the indigenous of Central America
>the relationship was simple- the Mestizo ranchers had invaded Comanche/Apache lands setting up vast ranches on land they claimed was theirs. The Apache and Comanche, both already warrior cultures who had a culture of raiding each other raided the invaders
>blah blah blah arguments not related to the OP butt hurt etc
>Apaches and Comanches aren't Mexicans
You're retarded.
>MY colonial power is justified since we wuz there first and yours was more brutal: the post

Apaches and comanches were nomadic tribes from the Great Planes. And they not only they didn't outnumbered Mexicans, but some of them became Mexicans, in a land that had been occupied by New Spain for hundreds of years. So again, what even is your argument? At the end of the day, you wiped them out, so why even bring them to the discussion?

>a colonizer who had genocided most of the indigenous of Central America
Not that user but that's not accurate. Even when speaking about diseases it doesn't really count for two reasons, first its a general statistic for all of the Americas and you're now specifying a region and second disease was largely unintentional so doesn't count as a genocide.

Now the point I was going to make was that many indigenous tribes are still present in L.America, Maya for example is still a living language with many regions ethnically mayan.

Oh yeah, because fucking Santa Anna was a saint and not a wannabe Napoleon. The only reason Mexico didn't have the success of Napoleon was because Santa Anna was incompetent.

>apaches, comanches, etc. (nomadic tribes from the great planes, emphasis in nomadic) moved to northern mexico while hunting (they were nomadic)
>war broke out
>after decades of war (against spain, against rebels, liberals vs conservatives, etc) turns out it wasn't easy to have money and also wage war against the apaches in a spared populated lands
>mexico decides it needs to populate northern mexico to stop the raids from the apaches
>invite americans to do that, granting them land, etc, with several conditions
>americans had to became mexicans, they needed to convert to catholicism, stop slavery, move to the parts that were being raided, etc.
>americans didn't do any of that
>animosity escalated and the mexican government decided that immigration was banned
>americans kept immigrating illegally
>illegal americans in texas decide to rebel (along with other parts of mexico)
>mexico had to fight several fronts with an ill prepared army and a lunatic as general/president or both (depending on the year)
>with difficulties, mexico starts to win against texas
>in a stupid move, the general/president lets himself get captured
>the army, the congress and the capital are left unscratched and still standing
>the general/president says the texas declaration of independence (done mostly by americans living illegally in mexico) as valid
>the mexican congress (the ones who had a say) declares the document invalid and prepares to invade texas

>america decides to annex the unrecognized texas without defeating the mexican army and the congress
>mexico declares this an act of war
>the unrecognized texas claimed land that never belonged to texas, not even under mexican rule
>that land became “disputed” (only because texans -again, illegal immigrants who didn’t defeat the army- wanted the land, not because it ever belonged to them)
>the imperialistic american president who believed america had a god-given right to all land (manifest destiny) saw this as an opportunity
>he instigated war with mexico by sending their army in the outskirts of the “disputed” territory
>it actually didn’t work so he had to send some troops inside the “disputed” territory in order to get a reaction
>the american troops inside the “disputed” territory got attacked
>americans literally used this as an excuse (as noted by several american heroes; Lincoln, Ulysses Grant)

>Mexicans started the war

So are the Mexicans. They treat their natives probably worse than the Americans have.

>They treat their natives probably worse than the Americans have
Such as? Americans have them in reservations.
Pic, first native president in the world.
This is not to say that natives get a great treatment in Mexico (they don't), but >"worse than Americans have" No.

>Its 100% debateable
It's not debatable. Both sides acknowledge that Mexico fired first. The debate arises as to whether or not the (disputed) territory the shots were fired in was Texan/American or Mexican. The fact that they invaded the side where there was an American fort (which gives credence to the fact the territory was American, or at the very least that party of it) and proceeded to lay siege to that fort proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mexico started the conflict. Again, the only thing that's debatable is who the territory belonged to before the conflict started which immediately became irrelevant once Mexico threw peaceable terms out the window and started dropping bodies. Start shit, get hit. Mexico started shit, and they got hit so fucking hard they never fully recovered.

Nigger fuck off with your green text wall.

All that matters is if you think the land between the nueces an rio grande rivers was mexican or american and that's an opinionated pov issue with no definitive answer.

Neither one of you cunts get to make another tally mark on your wall because both arguments boil down to "because i said so".

Fucking dwi you annoying aspie.

>forget about how america fucking started the war
>all that matters is how we said it was fair
>we even paid for the land!

Beautiful, good post.

So youre saying that going into someone elses land and building a fort on it without their permission cannot be construed as an act of war by a reasonable person?

Map of New Spain. Where are the Nueces and Bravo rivers again?

Map is wrong. Coahuila and texas were one state

>Coahuila and texas were one state
Coincidentally called Coahuila and Texas

Not always. And only the only part of the state that declared independence was Texas, not the Coahuila part. So, where is the Texas part of the state, and where are the nueces and bravo rivers again?

Again, show me where are the Nueces and Bravo rivers?

Wrong again. Both claimed independence but texas was the only one that won.

Secondly in this nomenclature texas is a region with ill defined borders that even if they were established would ultimately be done "because i said so" with no less authority than any other party also saying they said so.

A i cant im on a phone oh master debater with a point you cant get to on your own

B it does not matter

So Texans claimed land that never belong to Texas, not even as Coahuila y Tejas, and it doesn't matter. Ok.

Present day Mexico map. Nuevo León looks the exact same, so it should serve as reference.

>lets ignore texan claims of land far to the west too

And one last map for reference.

I am not ignoring it, but the centerpoint of the argument back in the day were the Nueces and Bravo rivers. Which again, were never part of Texas, not even as Coahuila y Tejas.

Texas claims dont matter because they were contested by the same authority that ceded their original claims. A second authority the US then pressed on those claims citing the authority of texas and then their own claims. So it was all a game of "I say so" with both cunts claiming land and only victory making the difference. It really isn't so much that texas or the US or Mexico don't matter, it's that alk three were trying to claim tgeir opinion was more important based on absolutely nothing.

I don't really see why this triggers you, it happens, dwi.

Texas claims don’t matter because they never defeated the army and the undefeated congress in the capital never approved the deal. It was only a matter of time before the army took Texas back had America never intervened. It was basically what just happened with Crimea, but worse, since it was done by illegals who claimed land that was never from them.

>Texas claims don’t matter
They disagree

Nah that's mostly the police, cartels and people around the borders. Most mexicans have treated me pretty well considering I am from central america.