Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Topic: Mexican view on general Santa Anna Posted: 27-Feb-2017 at 15:52 |
This thread is 10 years old. None of the folks involved are still active.
Your welcome to open a new thread, but this one will be closed, "Read Only".
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
Charizard9999
Immortal Guard
Joined: 27-Feb-2017
Location: Sulphur Springs
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
|
Posted: 27-Feb-2017 at 13:34 |
Originally posted by
Just to add something anecdotical about Santa Anna. I read somewhere that he was the guy that make popular bubble gum.
|
Where did you get this wrong piece of fictional information.
|
|
Piedmon_Sama
Immortal Guard
Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 21:36 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Yes, "Americans" always make excusses to attack and invade countries in Latin America and the accross the world. 2 million vietnamesses also died because of the fight for "American freedom", you know.
But with the invasion and anexation of half Mexico, the U.S. made a big mistake. Today they have already 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., Most of which are Mexicans, living in the same territories theis country lost long time ago.
|
Just goes to show how much difference that "war" ultimately made.... both the Spanish and English speaking populations have continued to live in the area regardless of who administrated it. The Mexican-American war truly was a needless conflict.
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 18:27 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Originally posted by hugoestr
Yet, the U.S. still controls the American South West It wasn't a mistake in the long term. It was unjust, but not a mistake. |
Ah, Hugo, I knew you were a geopolitical realist.
|
He, he. Normally I feel better debating from the point of view of ethics. I am more at home there. But I can understand the point of view of the bottom line. Besides, my geopolitical realism gets me in trouble sometimes; people believe that I am supporting unethical leaders when I don't .
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 18:18 |
oopps. I though you were anti-Mexican .
Yeah. It doesn't matter much. There are more things in common between Mexicans and Americans that people usually realize.
Pinguin
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 18:13 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Anti-Gringo arguments as usual. How boring.
...
The hispanic population in the US is about 11% (about 30 million), and a lot of them have been here for many generations, some longer than the Anglos.
...
|
Sorry fellow, that percentage was in the 1990. Today is reaching 15% or even more. 25% of the U.S. people will be Hispanic by 2050.
Pinguin
|
In view of my post, what's your point?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 18:09 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
Anti-Gringo arguments as usual. How boring.
...
The hispanic population in the US is about 11% (about 30 million), and a lot of them have been here for many generations, some longer than the Anglos.
...
|
Sorry fellow, that percentage was in the 1990. Today is reaching 15% or even more. 25% of the U.S. people will be Hispanic by 2050.
Pinguin
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:45 |
Originally posted by hugoestr
Yet, the U.S. still controls the American South West It wasn't a mistake in the long term. It was unjust, but not a mistake. |
Ah, Hugo, I knew you were a geopolitical realist.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:42 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Yes, "Americans" always make excusses to attack and invade countries in Latin America and the accross the world. 2 million vietnamesses also died because of the fight for "American freedom", you know.
But with the invasion and anexation of half Mexico, the U.S. made a big mistake. Today they have already 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., Most of which are Mexicans, living in the same territories theis country lost long time ago.
|
Anti-Gringo arguments as usual. How boring.
The "half of Mexico" in question was virtually unpopulated, except for California - a huge area with a few hundred thousand people, remote from Mexico and not particularly in love with Santa Ana and the Mexican military elites. There was virtually no resistance to the US in California, so who did the US "wrong?"
Was it the prairie dogs in New Mexico or the cacti in Arizona?
The hispanic population in the US is about 11% (about 30 million), and a lot of them have been here for many generations, some longer than the Anglos.
This stuff about foreigners being some kind of vague threat to America if they settle here is non sequitur. A hundred years ago, the hordes of immigrants to America helped to make us a major power. We could not have achieved that without them.
My own family was a mix of German Lutheran, Hungarian Catholic and Ulster Presbyterian. The best man at my wedding was Italian; my wife is a Welsh/English Methodist. My freshman and sophomore roomate at university was from (ahem) Mexico. He majored in architecture and stayed here.
We are Western people. And yes, Mexicans are Western - not European, but Western. They work hard, they tend to be more devout Christians, and they have obvious intelligence and initiative.
I am not the least bit concerned about more Americans named Garcia and Martinez.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 26-Jun-2007 at 19:02
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:10 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Originally posted by tommy
American had a traditional value of democratic government, Santa Anna abolished the constitution created an excuse for American to revolt |
How come a country, like the United States of those days, that kept a third of its population in the condition of slavery could be democratic? |
How is it that 5th cent. BC Greece, the cradle of democracy, kept slaves? And probably half the population.
It is not that simple. If it were, it would be easy to discuss, but its not.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:08 |
Originally posted by hugoestr
Well, to be fair, Tommy, the Anglo immigrants were not following the rules by which they got in the land to begin with. And their cultural institutions clashed with Mexican ones. |
Moslems in Europe anyone?
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 13:33 |
Yet, the U.S. still controls the American South West It wasn't a mistake in the long term. It was unjust, but not a mistake.
|
|
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 10:33 |
the big mistake is not only that, with the taking of the large Mexician land, the balance of North and South was destoryed, and led to civil war,this was why Jackson did not support the Lone Star republic, as well as so many opposed the Us-Mexician war, such as John Adams Junior, the sixth president of USA
|
leung
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 12:45 |
Yes, "Americans" always make excusses to attack and invade countries in Latin America and the accross the world. 2 million vietnamesses also died because of the fight for "American freedom", you know.
But with the invasion and anexation of half Mexico, the U.S. made a big mistake. Today they have already 50 million Hispanics in the U.S., Most of which are Mexicans, living in the same territories theis country lost long time ago.
Edited by pinguin - 16-Jun-2007 at 12:46
|
|
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Posted: 16-Jun-2007 at 10:56 |
I forgot explain the term of "deomcratic" of this period, meaning the liberty of all white male under the guidence of constitution, so they had the excuse after the abolished of constitution of 1821, the American even stated they only fought against General himself, in order to safeguard the constitution and their right, but not pointing to Mexician.
|
leung
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 19:17 |
Originally posted by tommy
American had a traditional value of democratic government, Santa Anna abolished the constitution created an excuse for American to revolt |
How come a country, like the United States of those days, that kept a third of its population in the condition of slavery could be democratic?
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 15:43 |
Well, to be fair, Tommy, the Anglo immigrants were not following the rules by which they got in the land to begin with. And their cultural institutions clashed with Mexican ones.
|
|
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 13:35 |
American had a traditional value of democratic government, Santa Anna abolished the constitution created an excuse for American to revolt
|
leung
|
|
hugoestr
Tsar
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
|
Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 13:30 |
A big problem with Santa Anna was a common mistake made by politicians and military people: the belief that you can terrorize people into submission. The theory is that if you show excessive force, they will be afraid of you and stop revolting.
It almost never works. Just ask all of the people who have lived through that; they have generational hatred towards the aggressors.
And at the time, it pushes moderates into strongly opposing the cruel leaders. And this was the case in Texas.
More than any military failure, El Alamo was a public relationship mistake. Without it, it would have been harder for Americans to support the English speaking Texans.
|
|
tommy
Colonel
Joined: 13-Sep-2005
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 545
|
Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 11:19 |
The lost of Texas showed his incompetent.He tactics was not good.The attack of Alamo was a disaster, it weakened the strengh of his army, and enhanced the fighting spirit of America,and when he was captured by houston, he used Texas to exchange of his life.He was not in appor situation at first, or we can say ,his situation was good,USA did not helped the rebellious Lone star republic,this important, If I were him, I would surrounded Alamo in full alert, bot did not attack the fort,this might attract other American to resuce the fort, then i attacked the resuce,if there was no resuce, Alamo finally would fell.And I would not chase Houston with small army, they knew the place well, otherwise I ould set up a chain of forts to reduce their space of activity, and burning their village, ranch and town, arousing the Native American and black slaves to fight against them
tHIS MIGHT MAINTAIN tEXAS
|
leung
|
|