Ed:

I agree with you 100 percent.  My only point was that the non-native cultural influence in 
the American Southwest in the 200 years preceding the American annexation was much 
more Mexican than Spanish.  Political realities do not always conform to cultural realities.  
I suposse an analogy would be the Indian troops that the British used to conquer Hong 
Kong.  These people, who are among the oldest settlers of the island, were not British and 
their identity in the colony was not as British, and in fact the British abandoned them when 
they abandoned Hong Kong.  Mexicans played a very similar role in the American 
Southwest, even while it was under Spanish rule... the name for New Mexico was not 
arbitrary... it was in fact a colony of Mexicans on the frontier, under Spanish rule, as were 
all Mexicans at the time.

Likewise, the Mexican identity is not limited to the geographical boundaries of Mexico.  I 
think it is wonderful that people who identify themselves proudly as Mexicans can be 
elected to high political offices in the United States... a sign that other Americans do not 
consider their identity as a preclusion to them being patriotic citizens of the United States.

This is not the case in many other countries... especially in Europe (i.e. France).  Those 
countries tend to have a predefined cultural identity and people must absolve themselves 
of any other identity to be considered French.   

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
>
> 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, 
> > California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from 
> > Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group.
> > 
> > The following book is very well researched and provides a whole new 
> > insight into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of Los Angeles.  A 
> > very good read.
> > 
> > Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its 
> > Mexican Past
> > by William Deverell
> > 
> > Review:
> > 
> > Chronicling the rise of Los Angeles through shifting ideas of race 
> > and ethnicity, William Deverell offers a unique perspective on how 
> > the city grew and changed. Whitewashed Adobe considers six different 
> > developments in the history of the city--including the cementing of 
> > the Los Angeles River, the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1924, and 
> > the evolution of America's largest brickyard in the 1920s. In an 
> > absorbing narrative supported by a number of previously unpublished 
> > period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that was once part of 
> > Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and even 
> > obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican places and people. 
> > Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a city seething 
> > with racial enmity due to the recent war with Mexico. He explains 
> > how, within a generation, the city's business interests, looking for 
> > a commercially viable way to establish urban identity, borrowed 
> > Mexican cultural traditions and put on a carnival called La Fiesta de 
> > Los Angeles. He analyzes the subtle ways in which ethnicity came to 
> > bear on efforts to corral the unpredictable Los Angeles River and 
> > shows how the resident Mexican population was put to work fashioning 
> > the modern metropolis. He discusses how Los Angeles responded to the 
> > nation's last major outbreak of bubonic plague and concludes by 
> > considering the Mission Play, a famed drama tied to regional 
> > assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity. Taking all of 
> > these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe uncovers an 
> > urban identity--and the power structure that fostered it--with far-
> > reaching implications for contemporary Los Angeles.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > 
> > > Sorry...I have a tendecy to simplfy things and generalize...  I 
> > fully 
> > > understand what you mean.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Angie
> > > 
> > > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Angie,
> > > > 
> > > > As a point of clarification, the independent country of Mexico 
> > > owned much of the 
> > > > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to ~1848). 
> > > Spain owned the 
> > > > Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring this up is that 
> > I 
> > > hear the statement that 
> > > > Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people 
> > > remember the dates well or 
> > > > fully understand the entities involved.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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, 
> California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from 
> Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group.
> 
> The following book is very well researched and provides a whole new 
> insight into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of Los Angeles.  A 
> very good read.
> 
> Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its 
> Mexican Past
> by William Deverell
> 
> Review:
> 
> Chronicling the rise of Los Angeles through shifting ideas of race 
> and ethnicity, William Deverell offers a unique perspective on how 
> the city grew and changed. Whitewashed Adobe considers six different 
> developments in the history of the city--including the cementing of 
> the Los Angeles River, the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1924, and 
> the evolution of America's largest brickyard in the 1920s. In an 
> absorbing narrative supported by a number of previously unpublished 
> period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that was once part of 
> Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and even 
> obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican places and people. 
> Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a city seething 
> with racial enmity due to the recent war with Mexico. He explains 
> how, within a generation, the city's business interests, looking for 
> a commercially viable way to establish urban identity, borrowed 
> Mexican cultural traditions and put on a carnival called La Fiesta de 
> Los Angeles. He analyzes the subtle ways in which ethnicity came to 
> bear on efforts to corral the unpredictable Los Angeles River and 
> shows how the resident Mexican population was put to work fashioning 
> the modern metropolis. He discusses how Los Angeles responded to the 
> nation's last major outbreak of bubonic plague and concludes by 
> considering the Mission Play, a famed drama tied to regional 
> assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity. Taking all of 
> these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe uncovers an 
> urban identity--and the power structure that fostered it--with far-
> reaching implications for contemporary Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Ed,
> > 
> > Sorry...I have a tendecy to simplfy things and generalize...  I 
> fully 
> > understand what you mean.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Angie
> > 
> > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Angie,
> > > 
> > > As a point of clarification, the independent country of Mexico 
> > owned much of the 
> > > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to ~1848). 
> > Spain owned the 
> > > Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring this up is that 
> I 
> > hear the statement that 
> > > Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people 
> > remember the dates well or 
> > > fully understand the entities involved.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ed
> > >
> >
>

An excerpt from the Whitewashed Adobe book in the general tone of 
what I think you are referencing:

The Mexican race now see, in the fate of the aborigines of the north, 
their own inevitable destiny.  They must amalgamante and be lost, in 
the superior vigor of the Anglo-Saxon race, or they must utterly 
perish.  They may postpone the hour for a time, but it will come, 
when their nationallity shall cease.

-- Democratic Review, February 1847


--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, Alberto Duarte <albertodua@y...> 
wrote:
>
> When I was in college back in the early '60s, I read a
> number of old news articles that were written by a
> California judge in the late 1800s about Mexicans and
> they were very cruel.  You could actually feel the
> hatred he had for us even back at that time.  After
> the military take over by the Americans of California,
> life must have been very hard for our people.  
> 
> Freedom does have a price. 
> 
> Alberto Duarte Prieto.
> Santa Maria, California
> 
> --- 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, 
> > California, for example were the Talamantes and
> > Avila from 
> > Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in
> > the group.
> > 
> > The following book is very well researched and
> > provides a whole new 
> > insight into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of
> > Los Angeles.  A 
> > very good read.
> > 
> > Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the
> > Remaking of Its 
> > Mexican Past
> > by William Deverell
> > 
> > Review:
> > 
> > Chronicling the rise of Los Angeles through shifting
> > ideas of race 
> > and ethnicity, William Deverell offers a unique
> > perspective on how 
> > the city grew and changed. Whitewashed Adobe
> > considers six different 
> > developments in the history of the city--including
> > the cementing of 
> > the Los Angeles River, the outbreak of bubonic
> > plague in 1924, and 
> > the evolution of America's largest brickyard in the
> > 1920s. In an 
> > absorbing narrative supported by a number of
> > previously unpublished 
> > period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that
> > was once part of 
> > Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and
> > even 
> > obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican
> > places and people. 
> > Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a
> > city seething 
> > with racial enmity due to the recent war with
> > Mexico. He explains 
> > how, within a generation, the city's business
> > interests, looking for 
> > a commercially viable way to establish urban
> > identity, borrowed 
> > Mexican cultural traditions and put on a carnival
> > called La Fiesta de 
> > Los Angeles. He analyzes the subtle ways in which
> > ethnicity came to 
> > bear on efforts to corral the unpredictable Los
> > Angeles River and 
> > shows how the resident Mexican population was put to
> > work fashioning 
> > the modern metropolis. He discusses how Los Angeles
> > responded to the 
> > nation's last major outbreak of bubonic plague and
> > concludes by 
> > considering the Mission Play, a famed drama tied to
> > regional 
> > assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity.
> > Taking all of 
> > these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe
> > uncovers an 
> > urban identity--and the power structure that
> > fostered it--with far-
> > reaching implications for contemporary Los Angeles.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073"
> > <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed,
> > > 
> > > Sorry...I have a tendecy to simplfy things and
> > generalize...  I 
> > fully 
> > > understand what you mean.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Angie
> > > 
> > > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros"
> > <ed@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Angie,
> > > > 
> > > > As a point of clarification, the independent
> > country of Mexico 
> > > owned much of the 
> > > > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time
> > frame to ~1848). 
> > > Spain owned the 
> > > > Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring
> > this up is that 
> > I 
> > > hear the statement that 
> > > > Mexico owned California all the time and I am
> > not sure people 
> > > remember the dates well or 
> > > > fully understand the entities involved.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ed
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

I have noticed children taking on maternal names when land titles 
were associated with the maternal line... i.e. the child's maternal 
grandfather was a big landowner and so the child took on the name 
that went with the land (and prestige presumably).

Emilie, Tlaltenango is the main city in the valley that constitutes 
the "southern arm" of Zacatecas that is trapped between 
Aguascalientes and Jalisco.  It was the alcaldia for what is now 
Totatiche, Atolinga, Tepechitlan, Mezquital del Oro, etc.

I have both Talamantes and Avilas interspersed in my genealogy, also 
from Tlaltenango.

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Emilie Garcia" <auntyemfaustus@h...> 
wrote:
>
> 
>     "The original founding families of Culver City, 
>     California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from 
>     Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group".
> 
> Yes Arturo,
> 
> There is a Talamantes from Taltenango (where is that? I can't find 
it in a map) in my husband's lines in the Jalisco records, but his 
son did not take on his surname.  He took on his mother's surname, 
Cervantes.  Do you think he did that because his Talamantes father 
was indigenous (his father's mother was surnamed Diegina), and it 
would bode him better if he were known as a Cervantes?  Especially if 
he looked espanol as my husband does?  I notice that trend (to take 
the mother's surname) among the children of many Espanolas who 
married Indian men with or without surnames.  Their races were not 
noted since this was in 1839 in Encarnacion de Diaz.    
> 
> Emilie Garcia
> Port Orchard, WA --
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Arturo Ramos<mailto:arturo.ramos2@v...> 
>   To: ranchos@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ranchos@yahoogroups.com> 
>   Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:24 AM
>   Subject: [ranchos] Re: Mexican Border
> 
> 
>   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, 
>   California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from 
>   Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group.
> 
>   The following book is very well researched and provides a whole 
new 
>   insight into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of Los Angeles.  A 
>   very good read.
> 
>   Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of 
Its 
>   Mexican Past
>   by William Deverell
> 
>   Review:
> 
>   Chronicling the rise of Los Angeles through shifting ideas of 
race 
>   and ethnicity, William Deverell offers a unique perspective on 
how 
>   the city grew and changed. Whitewashed Adobe considers six 
different 
>   developments in the history of the city--including the cementing 
of 
>   the Los Angeles River, the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1924, 
and 
>   the evolution of America's largest brickyard in the 1920s. In an 
>   absorbing narrative supported by a number of previously 
unpublished 
>   period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that was once part 
of 
>   Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and even 
>   obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican places and 
people. 
>   Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a city seething 
>   with racial enmity due to the recent war with Mexico. He explains 
>   how, within a generation, the city's business interests, looking 
for 
>   a commercially viable way to establish urban identity, borrowed 
>   Mexican cultural traditions and put on a carnival called La 
Fiesta de 
>   Los Angeles. He analyzes the subtle ways in which ethnicity came 
to 
>   bear on efforts to corral the unpredictable Los Angeles River and 
>   shows how the resident Mexican population was put to work 
fashioning 
>   the modern metropolis. He discusses how Los Angeles responded to 
the 
>   nation's last major outbreak of bubonic plague and concludes by 
>   considering the Mission Play, a famed drama tied to regional 
>   assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity. Taking all of 
>   these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe uncovers an 
>   urban identity--and the power structure that fostered it--with 
far-
>   reaching implications for contemporary Los Angeles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> 
wrote:
>   >
>   > Ed,
>   > 
>   > Sorry...I have a tendecy to simplfy things and generalize...  I 
>   fully 
>   > understand what you mean.
>   > 
>   > Thanks,
>   > Angie
>   > 
>   > --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Angie,
>   > > 
>   > > As a point of clarification, the independent country of 
Mexico 
>   > owned much of the 
>   > > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to 
~1848). 
>   > Spain owned the 
>   > > Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring this up is 
that 
>   I 
>   > hear the statement that 
>   > > Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people 
>   > remember the dates well or 
>   > > fully understand the entities involved.
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > Ed
>   > >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   SPONSORED LINKS Aguascalientes<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Aguascalientes&w1=Aguascalientes&w2=Criminal+offenses&w3=Zacate
cas&w4=Zacatecas+mexico&w5=Zacatecas+hotel&w6=Fiesta+americana+aguasca
lientes&c=6&s=138&.sig=3dGDyzZK1JYlft_kl5Y0RA>  Criminal 
offenses<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Criminal+offenses&w1=Aguascalientes&w2=Criminal+offenses&w3=Zac
atecas&w4=Zacatecas+mexico&w5=Zacatecas+hotel&w6=Fiesta+americana+agua
scalientes&c=6&s=138&sig=rIqx_vlal4c5USviDDmPCQ>  
Zacatecas<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Zacatecas&w1=Aguascalientes&w2=Criminal+offenses&w3=Zacatecas&w
4=Zacatecas+mexico&w5=Zacatecas+hotel&w6=Fiesta+americana+aguascalient
es&c=6&s=138&.sig=0I9QabaLqZysHNkjQQ8kLA>  
>         Zacatecas mexico<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Zacatecas+mexico&w1=Aguascalientes&w2=Criminal+offenses&w3=Zaca
tecas&w4=Zacatecas+mexico&w5=Zacatecas+hotel&w6=Fiesta+americana+aguas
calientes&c=6&s=138&.sig=cOINbNYO1WJJy2BT4tgmBA>  Zacatecas 
hotel<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Zacatecas+hotel&w1=Aguascalientes&w2=Criminal+offenses&w3=Zacat
ecas&w4=Zacatecas+mexico&w5=Zacatecas+hotel&w6=Fiesta+americana+aguasc
alientes&c=6&s=138&.sig=IlWErASU8JXH8YNhGBk9hQ>  Fiesta americana 
aguascalientes<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Fiesta+americana+aguascalientes&w1=Aguascalientes&w2=Criminal+o
ffenses&w3=Zacatecas&w4=Zacatecas+mexico&w5=Zacatecas+hotel&w6=Fiesta+
americana+aguascalientes&c=6&s=138&.sig=VhhnwMFlUbMHR432RtNUkw>  
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
>     a..  Visit your 
group "ranchos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ranchos>" on the web.
>       
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      ranchos-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mailto:ranchos-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>       
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms 
of Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>

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, 
California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from 
Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group.

The following book is very well researched and provides a whole new 
insight into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of Los Angeles.  A 
very good read.

Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of Its 
Mexican Past
by William Deverell

Review:

Chronicling the rise of Los Angeles through shifting ideas of race 
and ethnicity, William Deverell offers a unique perspective on how 
the city grew and changed. Whitewashed Adobe considers six different 
developments in the history of the city--including the cementing of 
the Los Angeles River, the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1924, and 
the evolution of America's largest brickyard in the 1920s. In an 
absorbing narrative supported by a number of previously unpublished 
period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that was once part of 
Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and even 
obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican places and people. 
Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a city seething 
with racial enmity due to the recent war with Mexico. He explains 
how, within a generation, the city's business interests, looking for 
a commercially viable way to establish urban identity, borrowed 
Mexican cultural traditions and put on a carnival called La Fiesta de 
Los Angeles. He analyzes the subtle ways in which ethnicity came to 
bear on efforts to corral the unpredictable Los Angeles River and 
shows how the resident Mexican population was put to work fashioning 
the modern metropolis. He discusses how Los Angeles responded to the 
nation's last major outbreak of bubonic plague and concludes by 
considering the Mission Play, a famed drama tied to regional 
assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity. Taking all of 
these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe uncovers an 
urban identity--and the power structure that fostered it--with far-
reaching implications for contemporary Los Angeles.




--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
>
> Ed,
> 
> Sorry...I have a tendecy to simplfy things and generalize...  I 
fully 
> understand what you mean.
> 
> Thanks,
> Angie
> 
> --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Angie,
> > 
> > As a point of clarification, the independent country of Mexico 
> owned much of the 
> > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to ~1848). 
> Spain owned the 
> > Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring this up is that 
I 
> hear the statement that 
> > Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people 
> remember the dates well or 
> > fully understand the entities involved.
> > 
> > 
> > Ed
> >
>

Angie,

As a point of clarification, the independent country of Mexico owned much of the 
Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to ~1848). Spain owned the 
Southwest for centuries. The only reason I bring this up is that I hear the statement that 
Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people remember the dates well or 
fully understand the entities involved.


Ed

--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073" <aajay1073@y...> wrote:
>
> Emilie,
> 
> Just wanted to comment on what you wrote below...I once heard someone 
> with a similar experience as your sister...  There response was "I 
> didn't cross the border it crossed me!"
> 
> Here in Southern California...even though almost all the cities and 
> streets are in Español.  People seem to forget that Mexico use to own 
> all of the Southwest States.  And even though the border was moved to 
> its current location, many of the people stayed.
> 
> As for me, I have been able to successfully trace most of my family 
> ancestors to the 1700's in Colotlan and Totatiche, Jalisco.  I have 
> hit some brick walls but I am currently trying different angles.  My 
> fahter did cross the border, he came to the U.S. in the 1950's during 
> the Bracero program.
> 
> Angie Godina
> So. California
> 
> 
> --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Emilie Garcia" <auntyemfaustus@h...> 
> wrote:
> >My sister (born in Colorado as I was) once was told by her boss at 
> work, "Well, Alicia, now that you have adopted this country as your 
> own----".  My sister, aware of our mother's heritage in New Mexico 
> since the 1500's, blew up at him and told him, "My people had been 
> here for hundreds of years when your people were still back in 
> Ireland digging up potatoes!"  I just cannot fathom the arrogance and 
> pride of such ignoramuses.  They think their ancestors were the only 
> explorers and settlers, etc.
> > 
> > Emilie Garcia
> > Port Orchard, WA ----
>