Arturo,
My comments related to the idea of ownership. Spain owned the area what we call the
Southwest for centuries. Mexico "owned" the Southwest for no more that 30 years. Neither
country tried to develop the area in any major way. Spain tried somewhat in 1750 when
they came up with the idea of the missions, converting the natives to christianity and
further exploring the lands. However, my readings suggest that the independent county of
Mexico from 1820-1848 was in so much internal strife after Independence that the
Southwest was not addressed in any meaningful way.
I fully understand that the people of Nueva España or Mexico had an influence on the
Southwest, as they do today. I simply object to the idea held by some that the Southwest,
particularly California, belonged to Mexico for as long as anyone can remember. Before
the Spaniards, various tribes of Native American Indians lived in the Southwest, perhaps as
long as 10,000 years. Which tribes I do not know. Same tribes? I do not know but probably
not. Did they own it? Well, perhaps for a time. Should they get it back? For me, I say no but
it is a moot point; They are not going to get it back since the great majority of those tribes
no longer exist and any ancestral line has surely been mixed up by other genetic lines.
What I do know is what Angie brought up at the very beginning---borders change. They
will always change; look at Europe and the Middle East. I accept that. This should be a
point of unity rather than a point of divisiveness. We need to move on. What is clear
presently is that the gene pool of the Southwest is becoming more Hispanic, as it was
centuries ago. I suspect this will continue until there is another change. What change? I do
not know. Maybe more Asians---the gene pool of the original Native American Indians.
Ed
--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Arturo Ramos" <arturo.ramos2@v...> wrote:
>
> Ed/Angie:
>
> Whatever the political status of the American Southwest was
> throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, it was if not indigenous in
> identity, certainly Mexican. Most of the settlers in the area were
> not Spaniards, as a lot of Anglo revisionist historians like to
> purport by glorifying the missions, etc., but Mexicans... Tlaxacaltec
> colonizers in New Mexico, immigrants from Sonora, Chihuahua,
> Aguascalientes, etc... The original founding families of Culver City,
