Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
Sign in to follow this  

'Reconquer' southwest U.S. movement based on junk history

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts


'Reconquer' southwest U.S. movement based on junk history


By Dale L. Wilcox

February 17, 2019





This month marks the 171st anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo; the 1848 agreement that ended the Mexican-American War and secured for the U.S. most of the lands of California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, as well as small parts of Colorado and Kansas.


That it came just before President Trump refused in his State of the Union address to commit to an amnesty-for-wall deal was actually coincidental. Although the land granted under the Treaty was exchanged for money and debt-relief (and ratified by large majorities of both the Mexican and Democrat-led U.S. senates), today the transfer is routinely characterized as an act of theft. Because of this, so the argument goes, both a border wall along those lands and a denial of amnesty are respectively illegitimate and unjust.


The stolen-land or "reconquest" argument for amnesty stands out among the others because, as Samuel Huntington once pointed out, it is fundamentally an aggressive one. It suggests that amnesty is a form of justice and that it is Mexicans' right to freely enter these parts of the U.S. since it was once their land. As the slogan goes: "We didn't cross the borders, the border crossed us." It stands for immigration as vindication.


Examples of this angle abound in op-eds throughout institutional news outlets (here, here, and here, for instance), but I'll focus on this one in the New York Times penned by Enrique Krauze, "arguably [Mexico's] most prominent public intellectual," according to the New Yorker. Quoting him at length, he writes:


Three centuries before the ancestors of Mr. Trump landed on United States soil, there were Mexicans in that northern territory known as New Spain and Mexico. But neither they nor their descendants are even symbolically part of American national pride….

… It is time for it to come fully into the light, to be recognized and vindicated. For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest… We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.


Of course, it's true that the indigenous people of the Southwest inhabited the region before the president's ancestors (who arrived in the late 1800s) as well as the early English settlers. In the mid-1500s, they were colonized by Spanish conquistadores and then, in 1810, forcibly made to merge into newly independent Mexico. That they were subsumed into a Spanish-turned-mestizo population along the way isn't mentioned by Krauze and rarely is elsewhere because it creates a problem.


Although there certainly were earlier arrivals in the Southwest than the English, the Spanish were imperialists who enslaved indigenous males and turned the women into concubines. The entire premise of the reconquest argument is that the U.S. aggressively took the Southwest and is, therefore, holding it illegitimately. In forgetting this, the argument simply becomes one of who stole the land from the indigenous first. As NumbersUSA founder Roy Beck has put it, Mexicans who make this argument "have no more claim on free migration to the U.S. than do citizens of Great Britain who can point out that their country once owned what is now the eastern U.S. but lost it in a violent takeover by the Americans."


Further, the population of the region in 1848 was miniscule, at around 80,000 or just one percent of Mexico's population at the time. And when the U.S. offered citizenship to the mestizo inhabitants, most took it. Because the population was small and most stayed put, Mexicans south of the border today have little to no ancestral claim to them or the land. In other words, there's nothing to "take back."


According to the government-funded Brookings Institute, it's partly President Trump's fault that such a narrative exists. In commenting on the "Demand What's Ours" campaign to nullify the Treaty (on the grounds that it was signed under duress), Brookings' Vanda Felbab-Brown opined that it was an indication just how much the President has "managed to alienate" Mexico.


Full Story

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...