Mexican view on general Santa Anna
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20262
Printed Date: 16-Apr-2024 at 11:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mexican view on general Santa Anna
Posted By: Sarmat
Subject: Mexican view on general Santa Anna
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 14:03
|
I am very interested how do Mexican people view the role of general Santa Anna? Judging from American movies, he is nothing more but a cruel dictator. Is the attitude of the Mexican people the same? ------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Replies:
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 14:28
|
No, in Mexico he is never depicted as a cruel person.
Instead he is depicted as a corrupt and incompetent general who lost half of Mexico. It is unfair to depict him as an incompetent general since he was one of the most able generals of Mexico at the time. This is why he was called to duty every time that Mexico was threatened by a foreign invader. He was also really good at getting into power. He was president of Mexico something like 11 times. Unfortunately he wasn't into governing; getting there was the thrill. And he had an amazing sense to where the political winds and power was blowing. He was a champion of liberals during some periods and conservatives in others. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 14:52
But he is still not regarded as a talented general, right? Do Mexican people blame him in the defeat in Mexican-American war? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 15:02
|
Yes, they blame him for the lost of Texas and the defeat in the Mexican-American war. I agree that he is mostly responsible for Texas; with the Mexican-American war, he is only partially responsible from my point of view.
In fact, most of his positive traits and successes are overshadowed by the negative view that Mexicans have for him. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 15:11
|
Thank you very much for your comments ! ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 15:32
|
You are welcome! Now for my shameless self promotion: If you are interested in Mexican topics, you can check also my new project about Mexico, so far, it is mainly about culture :) - mexforum ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 15:37
Great ! I'll do that. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 15:53
|
Thanks!
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 20:56
|
Just to add something anecdotical about Santa Anna. I read somewhere that he was the guy that make popular bubble gum.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2007 at 22:07
How did you come upon that bit of trivia? Did he collect the baseball cards too?
 |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 11:08
|
Yes, I read this as well. In was in a historical comic strip when I read about it. During one of many exiles, he took with him chicle gum, which was the sap from a Mexican tree, with to the U.S.. Santa Anna meets a man called Thomas Adams, to whom he suggests that he could make tires out of this gum, which the people in Yucatan chewed. Thomas Adams tried, but failed. He still had tons of chicle left, and one day he saw a girl asking for chewing gum. He decided to sell the chicle left as chewing gum.
The rest, is history. http://cadburyadams.com/Portals/0/Skins/Cadbury/flash/timeline/timeline.html - Adams' history timeline page ------------- |
Posted By: tommy
Date 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 |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: tommy
Date 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 |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2007 at 19:17
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?
 |
Posted By: tommy
Date 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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
|
Posted By: tommy
Date 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 |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date 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.------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:08
Moslems in Europe anyone?
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:10
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.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:42
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.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 17:45
Ah, Hugo, I knew you were a geopolitical realist.
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 18:09
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
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2007 at 18:13
In view of my post, what's your point?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 18:27
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  .------------- |
Posted By: Piedmon_Sama
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 21:36
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.
|
Posted By: Charizard9999
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2017 at 13:34
Where did you get this wrong piece of fictional information.
 |
Posted By: red clay
Date 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. |