Evaluate the impact of the Mexican-American War, particularly on Mexico. Choose a quote from one of the historians in the reading and explain the ways in which you agree or disagree with that historian's perspective. After reading the article on the Vodka ad from Time, in what ways is the Mexican-American War still relevant for Mexicans? How does it still impact the relationship between Mexico and the United States? Please write a complete response on your own and respond to at least one other post.
32 Comments
Sara
10/6/2015 08:32:14 pm
“Also, many people had failed to see that at the time of the war, more than fighting the Americans, most Mexicans were fighting each other. The impossibility of integrating a unified effort against the foreign enemy only made it easier for the United States to grasp the northern territories.”-Miguel Soto. I agree with this historian’s point of view. As we could observe in the timeline we saw in class, Mexico had several different presidents throughout the conflict. There was almost no political stability. And, whoever was in charge had to take care both of the threat posed by the US, and the ways in which Mexicans expressed their discontent with the poor government. Santa Anna even had to return to Mexico City when the US army had made its way to Saltillo to stop some revolts. Mexico was a new nation, it was having a lot of trouble functioning correctly, and it was very vulnerable. Thus, the United States had to overcome very few obstacles to obtain the land they wanted.
Reply
nayelli
10/6/2015 09:22:48 pm
This quote is really important as it shows the importance of a country being united and stable in order to be successful. I agree with you also in the vulnerability you highlighted in Mexico and how this made it easy for the US to gain Mexico's territory.
Reply
Sammy Sklarin
10/7/2015 08:35:52 am
I agree that the Mexican government at the time was too unstable to successfully win a war. They were doomed from the start of the war because they did not have presidents in place for more then a short amount of time. I also agree that it was an even bigger blow to Mexico when the gold rush occurred in California and it was no longer Mexican territory, which brought out how unstable their government was even more than before. However, I question whether the war was actually "abuse" or not. Is war "abuse" or is it a fair way of acquiring land? I think that this is something to be questioned when going through this issue.
Reply
Bella
10/7/2015 03:10:50 pm
Sara I agree with you that Mexico was too unstable to win a war against the U.S., and that politics had a lot do it with it. I also liked how you noted the gold rush as an example that illustrated the nations inability to unite and improve its economy. Taking note of the fact the Unites States knew of their instability and exploited it for its own gain is good to note too, because it informs us of the kind of relationship they share today and the conflicts that arise between them.
Matt Kingsley
10/7/2015 07:54:54 pm
I do agree with you that mexico was not stable as Nayelli, Sammy, and Bella have pointed, however, I also think it is interesting to see how Mexico became more stabilized and unified after the war. This fragmentation that came with the massive empire, became more condensed.
Reply
nayelli
10/6/2015 08:36:50 pm
The Mexican American war impacted both sides and their relationship. It showed how powerful and stable the US was compared to Mexico and created tension because of the anger the Mexicans developed towards Americans. For the US, the war would eventually lead to the civil war and for Mexico 1/3 of their territory was lost. It forced Mexico to rethink the construct of their country and showed them that something in the government needed to change in order for the country to be stable and successful. The relationship between the US and Mexico was impacted by this war in that it became clear the relationship was “lopsided.” The power the US asserted forced Mexico to become defensive and made them bitter towards the US.
Reply
Grace
10/7/2015 12:41:07 pm
Hi Nayelli, I totally agree with your point in your last paragraph about how each action, whether subjectively good or bad, impacts many people and allows them to gain insight or motivation. This idea can be applyed in so many historical contexts- especially looking at events and seeing connections between them that may not have been evident at the time.
Reply
Spencer Zeff
10/7/2015 05:48:57 pm
Hey Nayelli, you had amazing insight on the Mexican-American war. I do not actually agree with your last paragraph about that nothing is completely bad or good. I think that there are examples in history where there is nothing to positive insight that can be learned from certain tragedies. I understand that this applies to the Mexican-American War, but I do not see it true in all cases. I do not seen any insight that can be learned from something like the Massacre of Nanking.
Reply
Sammy Sklarin
10/7/2015 08:21:03 am
While the Mexican American war had an immediate negative effect on the country of Mexico, in the long term it had a more positive effect: people had more pride in their nation. Miguel Angel Gonzalez Quiroga states: "[Mexico] gained some valuable lessons, not least of which was a growing sense of nationalism." Before the war, Mexicans did not have much of a reason to have pride in their country. They had unstable leadership, including Santa Anna, they had a struggling economy, etc. But after the war they had more reason to love their country than ever. Despite the failure in the war of losing about a third of their land to the US, they now had common enemies to gang up against to show their nationalism towards Mexico. These included the US who they believed to have taken their land, and Santa Anna who they believed to have helped in losing their land. In this combined hatred, they gained common enemies that allowed the people to come together more than ever before. Because Mexicans are "still waiting [Mexico's] rise," according to Quiroga, they must keep finding common enemies today to keep their nationalism stable and continuous. They still find an easy and agreeable enemy in the US: "Writer Guadalupe Loeza says the advert went down well in Mexico because many people here still begrudge the loss of half of their territory to their northern neighbor. Although this may cause a negative relationship with the US, it is worth it to help Mexico get the "rise" that they are waiting for.
Reply
Max Gallivan
10/7/2015 03:33:38 pm
Hi Sammy, I agree with you that the war gave the Mexican people something to unite with, when they were so disconnected. Mexico lost Texas due to the government's lack of organization, which reflects the sentiments of the Mexican people. The loss of land seems very devastating to current day Mexicans, but when the land was part of Mexico it was underutilized and lacked worth.
Reply
Grace
10/7/2015 12:36:41 pm
Reply
juliarose
10/7/2015 07:42:26 pm
Very interesting point as to whether or not the war was actually an important part of Mexico's history, I never thought of it that way. I think your thoughts are in line with Quiroga when he says that Mexico has not yet risen from the ashes like a Phoenix, and so what did these "lessons" Mexico learned from the war actually mean?
Reply
Bella
10/7/2015 03:10:21 pm
“And many among our people still lament the land that was lost. I think we should stop worrying about it. A nation is not finally measured in the quantity of its land but in the quality of its people and in the strength of its institutions. Have not island nations become world empires?”- Miguel Angel Gonzalez Quiroga. After the Mexican-American war, many people dwelled on the land that was lost. Even today, as the Absolut Vodka ad illustrates, people continue to feel hurt and outrage about the loss of such extensive territory. But what some failed to note was the instability of the country at the time that lead to their ultimate failure in the war. As we saw in the timeline in class, Mexico was going through a lot of political and social change, and the frequent re-electing of presidents showed just how unhappy people were with the government. Leaders of Mexico took note of that, but it was difficult to unite a nation against war if it was so divided within itself.
Reply
Max Gallivan
10/7/2015 03:28:34 pm
The annexation of Texas to the US was actually a positive outcome for Mexico. Mexico was far too large and had such a weak government that it was impossible to properly own and run all of their territories. Today, many Mexicans hold the opinion that: “ the experience of being invaded gave us, as Mexicans, the necessary elements to think about how to recreate our country… to consolidate our nation”(Velasco-Marquez). The want for a powerful nation was clear, but Mexico as a nation needed to devise a plan to thrive as an independant country. Additionally, it is unrealistic to say that if Mexico still owned Texas it would have been far more successful because the government would have been unable to properly utilize the territories resources, like the US did. Mexico was able to become a more united nation because the government had less territory to manage and the people now had a common experience to relate to one another. The Mexican-American War is still relevant for Mexicans because of the mass immigration of Mexicans to California, which used to be part of Mexico. Millions of Mexicans have immigrated to the US in hopes of finding better lives and jobs. The fact that the US is so sought after makes some Mexicans very angry, since the most popular immigration locations used to be part of Mexico. It is very unlikely that Mexico would have been able to sustain and support California and Texas due to the fact that these territories became so great because of the superior leadership that the US had. This struggle between the US and Mexico has materialized into a fight for Mexican immigration into the US, but many US cities are greatly immersed in Mexican culture, which connects the two countries. Due to the proximity between the US and Mexico their relationship can be difficult to properly maintain, but the war sentiments between the countries do not hold any present day value.
Reply
Spencer Zeff
10/7/2015 05:35:04 pm
I thought the historians ideas about the good that came from the Mexican-American war to Mexico was interesting. I never though about thinking about the positives that can come from losing a war, I didn't really think about the possibility. The war seemed to serve as a large and painful sign to Mexicans to "recreate" their country. The loss of a large portion of their land caused Mexicans to reevaluate the path that their country was on and the need for change. They needed to stop fighting against each other and work together protect their newly independent nation and allow it to thrive. In the end, the war lead to a more unified country and a growing sense of nationalism. Some of the historians mention that Mexicans need to stop "worrying about it" and move on from the anger towards the United States or at the leaders of Mexico that led to this loss. I disagree and think that anger and the ability not to forget destructive things is key to improvement in the future. One quote that stood out to me was when Jesùs Velasco-Màrquez said, "I think that in history nothing ever happens that is totally bad or totally good". I agree that nothing can be completely good and their are often both losers and winners in every situation. In this situation, it is not totally good for the US to acquire the land from Mexico because it lead to higher tensions about the future of the land which led to the Civil War. The idea that nothing can be completely bad is very inaccurate and disrespectful. I can come up with countless examples where I do not see any good, or where the potential good is so out shadowed by the bad that I can not even consider it as a positive. For example, I do not see any good that came out of the Holocaust, and the murdering of a third of the Jewish population that still has not repopulated the pre-WWII numbers. This horrible tragedy should not be seen to have any positives in my opinion.
Reply
Spencer Zeff
10/7/2015 05:49:29 pm
sorry max, this was not meant to be a response but a comment
Jesse R
10/7/2015 08:29:54 pm
Hey Max,
Reply
Hugo Anaya
10/7/2015 04:01:52 pm
One of the quotes in the reading addressed Mexico's biggest challenge in keeping Mexico unified, "Also, many people had failed to see that at the time of the war, more than fighting the Americans, most Mexicans were fighting each other. The impossibility of integrating a unified effort against the foreign enemy only made it easier for the United States to grasp the northern territories." I agree with this quote because the main reason that the US was able to gain such a huge amount of land from the Mexicans was because the government was very unstable. In the timeline video that we saw the presidents of Mexico were constantly changing roughly every six months. With the constant switch in powers there was very little stability within the government and the high officials. This allowed the US to take advantage of their week power. Although their government was weak because of the switches in power there was also the corruption within the government. The president or, el caudillo, were often in high positions due to bribery and and self gain. With constant switches there was never one structure put in order.
Reply
Seiichiro Nakai
10/7/2015 07:27:21 pm
Hugo, I think you address a very important point that the Mexican government was unstable. The point about the constant changing of the presidents was really good. In your response to "In an Absolute World", your point about some Mexicans not adjusting to the foreign culture was a very strong point that I agreed with. I also believe that the war is still relevant to Mexicans because it reminds them of their old land.
Reply
juliaroz
10/7/2015 07:38:43 pm
The Mexican-American War had a profound impact on both Mexico and America. Both countries made sacrifices and endured immense change after the war. While the US gained territory, the war laid "the foundation for a conflict that would come later, [...] The Civil War," (Apuntes.) The war set a precedent for the US. The "sudden acquisition of land" also became a burden for America, who had trouble filling it's newly acquired territory (Quiroga.) The war gave Mexico what it needed to unify and to become a country. As Jesus Velasco-Marquez said, the war provided Mexicans with "the necessary elements to think about how to recreate [their] country... to consolidate [their] nation." This statement rings true because after Mexico gained independence from Spain, it had trouble unifying due to all of the different cultures present and the vast land Mexico occupied. With a common enemy, Mexicans from all over came together.
Reply
Matt Kingsley
10/7/2015 08:16:48 pm
Many classmates have talked about how unstable the Mexican government was, however perhaps this war was necessary for the progress of Mexico as a country and for nationalist feelings to rise: “For Mexico, we lost our territory, but the experience of being invaded gave us, as Mexicans, the necessary elements to think about how to recreate our country … to consolidate our nation.” Between the many different leaders coming and going from the Mexican government and the corrupted Santa Anna with his patronage politicking, Mexico was not stable. It was also spread out they had lands up to Oregon and farther east, so there were many different kinds of people. It was a fragmented and disassociated society without a strong central leader. The closest thing to a revered leader was Santa Anna and he essentially bought his way into power.
Reply
Jesse R
10/7/2015 09:33:51 pm
Reply
Jesse Grove
10/7/2015 09:40:12 pm
Jesse, I really like how you analyzed the quote by Quiroga. I was very interested in that quote, and the way you talked about it gave me some new insight. It is uncommon for historians to tell people not to dwell on the past, but in this case, I think it is a very wise sentiment. I agree with you that strengthening the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. should be a huge priority today, especially because we are such close neighbors and have the power to be very valuable to each other. It is an interesting debate; how do we preserve and honor the past while still moving forward and progressing?
Reply
Jesse Grove
10/7/2015 09:36:17 pm
As Professor Miguel Soto put it, "The war between the two countries [Mexico and the U.S.) represents the extreme of such a lopsided relationship." I completely agree with this author's statement. The Mexican American War greatly impacted both countries, but the ways in which the countries were impacted is the biggest evidence of the unbalanced power in their relationship. In the United States, acquiring Mexican territory did help accelerate the beginning of the Civil War, but in my opinion the civil war was likely to occur even without Mexican territory. America gained a huge amount of power and influence and eventually economic growth from this fight, while Mexico suffered harsher consequences: loss of territory, drop of morale, and a continued sense of discontinuity and lack of a central power. However, some of the professors argued that the war served as a "wake up call" for Mexico, allowing them to grow stronger and increase their sense of unity, which would help to balance the power between Mexico and the United States in the future.
Reply
Cassis Schafer
10/7/2015 09:52:48 pm
Jesse, I loved how you brought up the role that guilt plays in Mexico-U.S. relations. It was a point that I never personally considered myself, but think is very telling to the nature of the relationship between the two countries today. Going in a broader sense, I feel as if the topic of guilt from past events/actions guiding present decisions plays a large role in the nature of the United States' relationship with many countries in general... In addition, I thought your point about the inevitability of the Civil War was interesting and furthered strengthened your argument about the U.S.'s massive gains--rather than burdens--in the Mexican-American War.
Reply
Cassis Schafer
10/7/2015 09:43:02 pm
In my opinion, Miguel Quiroga’s thoughts on the takeaways of Mexican-American War sum the confrontation up in a succinct, but factually correct manner in stating that “the United States got land and Mexico got lessons.” Although the United States was the “winner” territory wise, the land acquisition proved to be more of a burden rather than a positive gain in its first few years of ownership. Many historians say that the land gained from Mexico catalyzed the Civil War between the North and South in 1861. As for Mexico, the loss of more than half of their territory had seemingly more positive effects than negative—these positive results can be described in the “lessons” that Quiroga talks about in A Legacy of the War Between the United States and Mexico. War wise, Mexico may have been perceived as the “loser,” yet they gained a sense of unity and identity; this was something that the country had struggled to find in the years after their independence from Spain. This unity and identity created the strong nationalism that is a pillar of Mexican culture today. This sense of nationalism is one of the factors that inspired the company, Absolut Vodka, to create an ad that showed the original territory of Mexico before the Mexican-American War. Although I am a strong proponent in Quiroga’s perspective on the historical event, many in Mexico feel as if seeing the advert was “like remembering that big house they once lived in instead of the small apartment they now have.” I can see why this opinion would arise, yet I have trouble personally connecting to the idea as I am not of Mexican background. Picking sides aside, the ad sparked the discussion of whether or not there should still be bad blood as a result of the war between the two countries. It has been called to question whether the relationship that exists between Mexico and the United States today reflects the power dynamics of the countries in 1846. I believe that the United States does have the upper hand in the relationship due to their international military and economic power as well as the resources they provide for Mexico. On the other hand, it is known that Mexico is an important economic resource for the United States as well; they are a part of an agreement (NAFTA) that generates trillions of dollars for those involved (United States, Canada, and Mexico).
Reply
Seiichiro Nakai
10/7/2015 09:47:48 pm
Reply
Kyndelle
10/7/2015 11:44:41 pm
Seiichiro,
Reply
Julia Nazario
10/8/2015 06:06:26 am
I think that the quote you chose was really interesting because it really helps to put the issue in perspective and explains how Mexicans are still faced with the effects of the war. You also made a really strong point about how when Mexicans come to certain parts of the U.S, they are coming to the old land of their country. I think that the way you phrased this point was really powerful.
Reply
Kyndelle
10/7/2015 11:33:50 pm
Quote: The war between the two countries represents the extreme of such a lopsided relationship.
Reply
Julia Nazario
10/8/2015 06:02:48 am
A few other people have pointed this out, but I never thought that there were positive effects of losing the war, for Mexico. While in the short term, Mexico was hurt by a huge loss of land, in the long run the war helped Mexicans to consolidate their nation and recreate their country. The first historian claimed that "...the war should leave us with a lesson for both countries, which is that geographically and historically we are intimately intertwined, and that we can affect each other greatly." I agree with this statement and I believe that the truth behind it is particularly evident when you think about the war on drugs and immigration policy. The war is still very relevant for Mexicans because immigration is currently a common topic in politics.The issue of immigration is complicated because people who move from Mexico to the United States without proper documentation are considered illegal immigrants. However, the immigrants that move to Texas and California are moving to the land that the United States stole from Mexico. The absolut vodka ad article points out that the ad sat well in Mexico because many people "still begrudge the loss of half of their territory to their northern neighbor." The ad upset a lot of people by pointing out a large source of tension between the two countries.
Reply
Reid Snyder
10/8/2015 10:17:57 pm
(Post attempt #2)
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis blog is a place for all of you to share, discuss and debate issues that emerge in this course Archives
October 2015
Categories |