What claim? I'm confused by your post.

Do you, or do you not, believe that, as a rule, Americans dealt in bad faith with Indians and their representatives, over the course of history, and that is was seldom, if ever justified? IOWs, "Americans stole their land"?

Your response is full of the manifest destiny crap passed off to sooth the Christian guilt. When you used the words "developing American culture" - its a dead give away.

We took it. They had land that we wanted to farm, to keep, to sell, to develop and we did what we did to take it. Sometimes, we lied, other times we used force.

I don't see what is troubling about this fact.

Another thing we took that wasn't ours... those that cannons!

PabloSerna said:

---

Your response is full of the manifest destiny crap passed off to sooth the Christian guilt. When you used the words "developing American culture" - its a dead give away.

We took it. They had land that we wanted to farm, to keep, to sell, to develop and we did what we did to take it. Sometimes, we lied, other times we used force.

I don't see what is troubling about this fact.

---

I prefer to think in terms of "they helped themselves to what was available to them. And for what they were willing to struggle and even die for", eventually. It was the way of life.

And yes, I'd almost forgotten, (no doubt it's long since been relegated to the dust bins) but yes, Manifest Destiny is a phrase with historical relevance indeed! To the extent we've abandoned it as a founding principle, we risk losing it.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Indians, as a people, were unwilling to share in the abundance they enjoyed, and resisted efforts to co-exist when push came to shove.

---

You may want to revisit who was willing to coexist in much of North America and who continued to seize land and break treaties.

---

The basic problem was most Indians did not want any farming done on their tribal lands...it was pretty easy for hunters to gain access with a small bribe like tobacco, but a farmer that settled and cleared land was seen by the Indians as a horrible invader. On the other hand, Europeans saw Indian attacks on farmers (and their families) as obvious savagery that needed to be replaced by Cristian society including owning written title to land.

---

Sapper notes that Indians had farms which is correct if talking about Aztec type Indians.
Most North American tribes had only gardens and very much resented it if a European (or anyone else) encroached on "their" land by clear burning and farming...the Indians wanted hunting lands.

So when do we finally end the reservation system and give Indians the same rights as other American citizens?

Be killed or put into peonage, the legacy of the US and New Spain treatment of the Indios/Indians is sad. I'd say the difference is the US settlers came from Europe as families. While the Spanish came to Mexico as bachelor conquistadors (unmarried or wife left behind) so they had to accept the Indio women in order to have companionship and families. Meanwhile the Indio men were being worked to death and those that survived became the lowest rung of New Spain society. The offspring of the Conquistadors and Indio women became the creoles, who were accepted into society but seldom into Castilian society, the top rung of New Spain.

BoerneGator said:

---

What claim? I'm confused by your post.

Do you, or do you not, believe that, as a rule, Americans dealt in bad faith with Indians and their representatives, over the course of history, and that is was seldom, if ever justified? IOWs, "Americans stole their land"?

---

How can you look at the history and think we acted in good faith? How many of the treaties agreed to were actually upheld by the US government?

BQ78 said:

---

Well each case against the "good guys" and the "bad guys" is different but in general I believe the "good guys" were most often the instigators of trouble. Hollywood loves to show us the wagon trains of the settlers being attacked but that is mostly a myth. The settlers that moved through the plains seldom had troubles with the Indians and in fact they were often helpers as the settlers moved through. The Mormons even when they stayed for example, lived in peace with the Indians and carved out their place in the wilderness and had no issues with anybody but the "good guys." It wasn't until the "Good guys" tried to run the "Bad guys" off their land and exploit the riches of the plains that the troubles ensued. So the idea of genocide originated for the most part with the "good guys," not the "bad guys." I won't disagree that after the "good guys" made it war to the knife, that the "bad guys" adopted the same black flag attitude.

---

Agreed. This was not our land. It was not our culture. I can absolutely promise that if my property and land is threatened, I'll defend it and punish anyone to the extent I can stomach it even if only to serve as an example to others. Weve been on the same land that our ancestors stole from the native Americans generations ago, but I'll still happily cut the limbs off of another human being while alive if I were to any way suspect the atrocities would keep others from attempting the same.

BQ78 said:

---

Be killed or put into peonage, the legacy of the US and New Spain treatment of the Indios/Indians is sad. I'd say the difference is the US settlers came from Europe as families. While the Spanish came to Mexico as bachelor conquistadors (unmarried or wife left behind) so they had to accept the Indio women in order to have companionship and families. Meanwhile the Indio men were being worked to death and those that survived became the lowest rung of New Spain society. The offspring of the Conquistadors and Indio women became the creoles, who were accepted into society but seldom into Castilian society, the top rung of New Spain.

---

Absolutely correct. Very accurate points and processes that defined a large portion of the continent. To that I will add that the Spanish absorbed the slaves as well, truly creating the "Criollo" culture in many places. And my goodness are there some beautiful women due to that.

The Creoles did ascend to the top rungs after a time and that has helped LatAm greatly. With Mexico being the exception, save for an instance or two. Sadly the legacy of the system of government can't be overcome in Latin America without a complete and radical do over.

I blame the Spanish.

Out of New Spain, or the "Nuevo Mundo", Mexico was the one country that had the hospitable environment, food, promise, wealth, culture, etc. that enabled transplanted Spanish society to be somewhat on an island and maintain itself apart from the "meztizaje" that was taking place. And the result of that can still be seen today in Mexico, whereas the other countries are much more mixed.

The remoteness of Central American and the Caribbean colonies caused much more mixing and distancing from Spain than did Mexico. This can even be seen in the language and vernacular. It is an interesting dichotomy from what is seen with the English and French colonies.

And because of that lost promise and cultural differences (e.g. different outlook of a rancher in the US vs. Mexico) some would advocate (perhaps they are on this thread) that at the time of the Mexican War the US should have taken over and delivered the promise, not unlike taking the land from the "savages."

It's easy to denounce some societies as inferior but then where do you draw the line, how inferior do they have to be to forfeit their rights? I guess as the US presently devolves into an inferior culture, we need to watch out.

Tell me RGV.. what does Mexico teach about the US-Mexican war? Maybe a topic for another thread, but somewhat relevant here since I just listened to a pod cast about the "Barron of Arizona." As you know, it was not uncommon for Californios to go from living in the Hacienda to working the field.

On a separate note, I have recently found at an antique store, translated diaries from the Friars who were at the Spanish missions in San Antonio. You may be surprised to read that they very much wanted the best for the native people who were being oppressed by the ruthless conquistadors and others only interested in taking what they had (plus enslaving them). While they sought to help the people by teaching them skills, they found no help from the Spanish government, and requested people who were more capable so that they could focus on their spiritual needs. I was a bit surprised, because like you, I had always assumed they were working with the Spanish government to break their spirit and enslave the masses.

PabloSerna said:

---

Tell me RGV.. what does Mexico teach about the US-Mexican war? Maybe a topic for another thread, but somewhat relevant here since I just listened to a pod cast about the "Barron of Arizona." As you know, it was not uncommon for Californios to go from living in the Hacienda to working the field.

On a separate note, I have recently found at an antique store, translated diaries from the Friars who were at the Spanish missions in San Antonio. You may be surprised to read that they very much wanted the best for the native people who were being oppressed by the ruthless conquistadors and others only interested in taking what they had (plus enslaving them). While they sought to help the people by teaching them skills, they found no help from the Spanish government, and requested people who were more capable so that they could focus on their spiritual needs. I was a bit surprised, because like you, I had always assumed they were working with the Spanish government to break their spirit and enslave the masses.

---

It is funny, but the US-Mexican war is basically taught as a "tragedy", that due to ill governance, back biting, and poor leadership Mexico lost 1/3rd of its country. The "American" is not painted so much as a villain as he is painted as an advantage taking bully, which is really kinda true. Obviously there is lots more details and such that is being left out, but you have to remember that public education in Mex is federally controlled and the interpretations and positions have changed due to convenience and the whims of Mexico's political position dujour. The typical summation is to always be extremely careful and wary of the Gringo.

Oh yes, the Spanish Friars, Monks, Priests were for the most part, or at least a large portion, very oriented towards helping the natives. Columbus had lots of issues with meddlesome religious folks as did most of the Viceroys of New Spain. The Spanish government, in true Spanish governing fashion, was very hands off to the "Ecomendados" of New Spain and mostly these men truly treated the natives terribly, and the Spanish washed their hands of it as they, they natives, had been given to the men for supervision and care.

Latin America's ills all have their origin in the "Economienda" system and it's lasting effects coupled with the concessions and tribulations that went with trying to eliminate it after the Spanish crown recognized it was a very bad situation.

Your opinion is very apt and has a lot of merit. There was a small segment of Mexicans at the time of the US/Mexican war that advocated for the US taking over. Several of the still remaining large fortunes of Mexico have their origins in Mexican businesses/businessmen trading with the US during that war, i.e. supplying the Americans for profit. As the Americans paid their bills.

From what I have read and understood the US sentiment at the time was that Mexico was too big of a tar baby to take over in masse.

Consider that the Dominican Republic formally asked to be taken over by the U.S. and was denied. A referendum was even held and the vote, however fair or not it was, was overwhelmingly supportive of joining the U.S..

I am understanding this through their diaries.

Something else you mentioned that I think is a stark difference is in the Spanish method of integrating mestizos in the process of establishing a class system.

I have a connection to the Coahuitecan people, from the Doctor Arroyo MX/Sierra Madre area. From my reading by the historian (Segovia) the area was on the eastern edge of the Guachichil people who fought against the Spanish in the Chichimeca War. They were effective in delaying the Spanish from fully taking over the area to mine the silver rich mountains. Instead of full out war, the Spanish brought up Mayan people from the south of Mexico to integrate. This took time, but eventually worked and the Royal Silver Road was eventually established.

It is tragic that much of their culture was lost, but as you know, and I found out, there is still a strong indigenous presence in northern Mexico. In contrast, the American Indians were nearly wiped out and today live in 3rd world conditions.

As someone who has both ancestral connections (European-Anglo and Mexican-Indigenous) I would rather deal with the truth of why things happened the way they did than to swallow a romanticized explanation that only serves to deny the truth.

If you have ties to Indians of that area you come from tough stock. That is an interesting part of Mexico, and in the swath that the Spanish never truly subjugated. Long before the Comanches, the Chichimeca culture/tribes/association was the scrounge of the Spanish empire in the new world. How long did they fight them? Like 50 years before they withdrew and proclaimed victory?

The resources that the Spanish had to expend to deal with the Chichimeca confederation were extensive and that hurt the Northern area of the colony in a big way. Some of the massacres against the Chichimeca and Huasteca Indians are brutal and well documented. I tell you what, the Chichimeca were so rough that even the priests and such didn't feel all that sorry for them.

To circle back around to the OP, there was some serious savagery on the part of some of the Meso American tribes. Disease really hurt those tribes in the north of what is now Mexico. The hostile terrain and lack of water in many areas made it hard for the Spanish to either want to or justify going after those that went into the wilderness.

As a kid in the 70's in Mex, you could drive about 45 min outside of CDMX and go into villages where Spanish was not commonly spoken. Same thing around some of those towns in the Sierra Madres, both west and east, many of those folks were straight up Indians in terms of how they had evolved over the last 200-300 years, and it was sad to see as they were no longer hunters and such, well all the game had been killed off.

" Whereas in Latin America they mixed with them and basically accepted them into society. The first time I heard this was in a history class in 6th grade in Mexico City. At that age it kinda made sense to me. "

RGV AG, you might want to read T R Fehrenbach's history of Mexico. He makes precisely the opposite point in the racially stratified caste system of Spanish-colonized countries and the arbitrary enslavement of Indios. The pattern is repeated in other Latin American countries. Integrating indigenous peoples into the mainstream of Mexican society was as difficult as our own history.

UTExan said:

---

" Whereas in Latin America they mixed with them and basically accepted them into society. The first time I heard this was in a history class in 6th grade in Mexico City. At that age it kinda made sense to me. "

RGV AG, you might want to read T R Fehrenbach's history of Mexico. He makes precisely the opposite point in the racially stratified caste system of Spanish-colonized countries and the arbitrary enslavement of Indios. The pattern is repeated in other Latin American countries. Integrating indigenous peoples into the mainstream of Mexican society was as difficult as our own history.

---

One note about the above, by "them" I mean the mestizos, not so much the still out in the wild Indians. All the LatAm countries mixed with the Indians once they had killed a bunch of them off, the creole and mestizo caste grew to have wide spread acceptance by the mid-18th century.

One of the things that is omnipresent in Mexico more so than other Latin countries, at least to me (and you see this in South Texas as well) is that economic wealth bridged racial barriers totally and very early on. There was discrimination and segregation in South Texas of Anglos vs. Mexicans during the Jim Crow years. But it was always interesting to see that wealthy Hispanics were accepted and a part of society, and also participated in the discrimination, because they were known as or considered "Spanish". To the credit of many of those they shunned incorporation into the racially divided society. Mexico was very much the same.

Good book to bring up, I have read the book, but didn't get through the recent addition to the Salinas time, as I thought that Fehrenbach was way off.
That book gives a lot of information, a lot. But it has a lot of generalizations and paints quite a few subjects with a broad brush. Having grown up there, and spent my formative years there, and back again for another round of working here (there), there is just some stuff I don't agree with and or have a different take on.

His relation of history is pretty darn good, but he does slant some things certain directions, as with many books written years ago (I believe this was written late 60's or so, early 70's) I believe the perception he conveys was jaded by personal feelings and sentiment.

His take on the modern times has proven wrong and thus I wonder how much other info might be a little off.

Sapper Redux said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

What claim? I'm confused by your post.

Do you, or do you not, believe that, as a rule, Americans dealt in bad faith with Indians and their representatives, over the course of history, and that is was seldom, if ever justified? IOWs, "Americans stole their land"?

---

How can you look at the history and think we acted in good faith? How many of the treaties agreed to were actually upheld by the US government?

---

So, you fail to answer my questions, including one that would put your position regarding American's record of dealing with Indians in some context. By dodging it, one can assume your answer is clearly YES, you believe Americans, as a rule (over time) acted in bad faith in their dealings with Indians, and it was never justified by, let's say, bad faith on the part of Indians.

You ignore my questions, yet in your typically arrogant manner ask me two of your own. It doesn't deserve an answer, but the answer to the first one is obvious to anyone who truly loves this country and the principles upon which it has operated from its very beginning. Americans are exceptionally good people who collectively have created the greatest country in the history of the world. Americans have done more to advance the cause of good and freedom around the world than any other nation, by far. That is not to say that America/Americans are perfect, but, we have no peer. You are welcome to make the case otherwise, but I know you won't/can't. Your lack of perspective is legendary.

BoerneGator said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BoerneGator said:

---

What claim? I'm confused by your post.

Do you, or do you not, believe that, as a rule, Americans dealt in bad faith with Indians and their representatives, over the course of history, and that is was seldom, if ever justified? IOWs, "Americans stole their land"?

---

How can you look at the history and think we acted in good faith? How many of the treaties agreed to were actually upheld by the US government?

---

So, you fail to answer my questions, including one that would put your position regarding American's record of dealing with Indians in some context. By dodging it, one can assume your answer is clearly YES, you believe Americans, as a rule (over time) acted in bad faith in their dealings with Indians, and it was never justified by, let's say, bad faith on the part of Indians.

You ignore my questions, yet in your typically arrogant manner ask me two of your own. It doesn't deserve an answer, but the answer to the first one is obvious to anyone who truly loves this country and the principles upon which it has operated from its very beginning. Americans are exceptionally good people who collectively have created the greatest country in the history of the world. Americans have done more to advance the cause of good and freedom around the world than any other nation, by far. That is not to say that America/Americans are perfect, but, we have no peer. You are welcome to make the case otherwise, but I know you won't/can't. Your lack of perspective is legendary.

---

Primary source material?

Being critical of our country is as American as it gets in my book.

PabloSerna said:

---

Being critical of our country is as American as it gets in my book.

---

Wanna put that comment in some context? Without it, I don't see your point.

I tell my kids to stop complaining about whatever it is they have and do something. Want more sidewalks around town? Get on a P&Z commission. Want to improve your school? Get involved with the school district.

Maybe it was your accusation that anyone being critical of our country does not "truly love" our country. I don't agree with that sentiment. That's all..

Quote:

---

Maybe it was your accusation that anyone being critical of our country does not "truly love" our country.

---

Except I made no such accusation, nor would I. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with that poster's posting history. That is the context from which my post came.

RGV AG said:

---

UTExan said:

---

" Whereas in Latin America they mixed with them and basically accepted them into society. The first time I heard this was in a history class in 6th grade in Mexico City. At that age it kinda made sense to me. "

RGV AG, you might want to read T R Fehrenbach's history of Mexico. He makes precisely the opposite point in the racially stratified caste system of Spanish-colonized countries and the arbitrary enslavement of Indios. The pattern is repeated in other Latin American countries. Integrating indigenous peoples into the mainstream of Mexican society was as difficult as our own history.

---

One note about the above, by "them" I mean the mestizos, not so much the still out in the wild Indians. All the LatAm countries mixed with the Indians once they had killed a bunch of them off, the creole and mestizo caste grew to have wide spread acceptance by the mid-18th century.

One of the things that is omnipresent in Mexico more so than other Latin countries, at least to me (and you see this in South Texas as well) is that economic wealth bridged racial barriers totally and very early on. There was discrimination and segregation in South Texas of Anglos vs. Mexicans during the Jim Crow years. But it was always interesting to see that wealthy Hispanics were accepted and a part of society, and also participated in the discrimination, because they were known as or considered "Spanish". To the credit of many of those they shunned incorporation into the racially divided society. Mexico was very much the same.

Good book to bring up, I have read the book, but didn't get through the recent addition to the Salinas time, as I thought that Fehrenbach was way off.
That book gives a lot of information, a lot. But it has a lot of generalizations and paints quite a few subjects with a broad brush. Having grown up there, and spent my formative years there, and back again for another round of working here (there), there is just some stuff I don't agree with and or have a different take on.

His relation of history is pretty darn good, but he does slant some things certain directions, as with many books written years ago (I believe this was written late 60's or so, early 70's) I believe the perception he conveys was jaded by personal feelings and sentiment.

His take on the modern times has proven wrong and thus I wonder how much other info might be a little off.

---

Thanks for your response. I thought that he did have particular opinions that tainted his conclusions. I think the historian William Manchester (whose writing I admire) was likewise influenced by his own anti-German and anti-Texas prejudices.
Fehrenbach's conclusions are those of an American looking outside in (although he studied in Mexico) as were Manchester's. He does recognize American imperialism and the legitimate grievances Mexico has, but then wishes to prescribe for Mexico the solutions he thinks THEY ought to adopt. But you are correct about the nearly encyclopedic amount of information he presents.