The president is teaching an alternate history, in which “Mexicans” were here before the country was founded.
Sorry, prez, but there were no “Mexicans” here at the time. There were Spanish colonies in California and the Southwest, but they were Spanish, not Mexican. There was little to no migration from what is present-day Mexico into what is now US territory, because there was little to draw migrants (the greatest economy on earth not yet being in existence). This is just nonsensical, and feeds into La Raza mythology. He might as well have waved a Mexican flag.
Actually he is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexicans
[[[Mexicano (Mexican) is derived from the word Mexico itself. In the principal model to create demonyms in Spanish, the suffix -ano its added to the name of the place of origin. The term Mexicano as a word to describe the different peoples of the region of Mexico as a single group emerged in the 16th century. In that time the term did not apply to a nationality nor to the geographical limits of the modern Mexican Republic.
The term was used for the first time in the first document printed in Barcelona in 1566 which documented the expedition which launched from the port in Acapulco to find the best route which would favor a return journey from the Spanish East Indies to New Spain. The document stated: “el venturoso descubrimiento que los Mexicanos han hecho” (the venturous discovery that the Mexicans have made).]]]
As a side note, the country of Mexico took its name from the common term used for the folks who inhabited that part of New Spain, the Mexicans…
Yes, they really do need to improve the quality of history education in U.S. schools.
Santa Fe de Nuevo Mexico (now the capital city of New Mexico) was founded in 1598, predating Jamestown (1607) by almost a decade.
Individual “Mexican” families, such as the Longoria family, have been in south Texas since 1767.
I think you and Gateway need to check your history.
And Biden is “second in line to be President”. I think you could wade through his oceans of thought.
Individual “Mexican” families, such as the Longoria family, have been in south Texas since 1767.
They weren’t “Mexican.” They were Spanish. There were no “Mexicans” until Independence.
“He might as well have waved a Mexican flag.”
Don’t give him any ideas.
Rand Simberg,
No they were Mexican, part of Spanish ancestry and part of native American. And as I noted above the term Mexicans was in use in the 1500’s.
Spanish was a term strictly reserved only for those who were actually born in Spain and migrated to the New World, or who could prove they had no native American blood in their ancestry.
This is a semantics game. The label, “mexican” changed substantially in meaning over those centuries (in particular, becoming a label for a particular country’s citizens), but there was someone “mexican” before the establishment of the Republic. So Obama is correct, but he’s also obviously trying to throw a bone to modern Mexico.
So the word Mexican or Mexicano was not a term for a homogeneous ethnic group of people but instead the name of many different peoples and cultures who had been subjugated by the Spanish.
The indigenous people in California were not necessarily the same indigenous people in what is now Mexico even though there is some overlap. They certainly were not Aztecs.
I’ve never liked grouping the tribal peoples into one group. It diminishes their individual cultures and assumes a hegemony that did not exist. If one were to go back in time and were confuse one tribe with another a fight might break out, just like mistaking a Kiwi for an Aussie.
“Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, the Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared the same land”
Every entity is identified as a sovereign nation, even if he groups Native Americans together as verbal shorthand. “Mexicans” would not have been citizens of a sovereign nation called Mexico at that time.
Of course, Obama also campaigned in lots of places in 2008: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”
When it declared independence, the Imperial Province of Mexico, based on the city of that name, grabbed what was left of the Spanish Empire in North America. Places like the Californias, Neuvo Mexico, Sonora, Tejas and the Yucatan. It also assumed the dubious Spanish claims to lands north of the Colorado River and east of the Sierra, based solely on border established in the 1819 treaty with the US. It was naked imperialism, with little claim to the allegiance of the peoples who lived there. Which is why over the next few decades both Tejas and Yucatan both revolted, the Latter Day Saints moved into a vacuum and the Nuevo Mexicans and Californias were content with substituting one distant government with another. Of course no one counted on gold and silver being discovered in that region, which changed the demographics greatly.
Besides, everyone knows the gringoes stole only the parts of Mexico that had the best roads and Disneyland.
So if the people living in the territories now known as Mexico were Mexicans before there was a Mexico, weren’t the people living in the territories now known as the United States of America Americans before there was an America, hence making Matulas point, as well as POTUS, pointless?
Nice one Cecil!
Apparently the TOTUS also doesn’t know how the Declaration of Independence goes. We have unalienable rights, but who provides those rights is unknown. I’m sure Obama thinks it is the government.
So the original inhabitants of North America were all subject to European invasion? Spain is in Europe, isn’t it?
Cecil Trotter,
No, the English, French and Dutch colonists still identified themselves based on the nation that controlled their colony. The settlers in the 13 colonies especially taught of themselves as English, or by the name of their colony, i.e. Virginians. It wasn’t until the revolution that this identity changed as they replaced their English identity with the term of American, starting with Ben Franklin.
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_956.html
This is what I think is confusing folk. The term Americans was not really used until American achieved its independence. By contrast the term Mexicans was in wide spread use before there was an independent Mexico as a term for individuals of mixed birth in the region covered by the Viceroyalty of New Spain.
Also remember the basis of the revolution in New Spain was because the Mexicans were tired of not being treated with respect by the Spanish who controlled the government and major land holdings. That is why when they achieved independence they named their new country the “Mexican Empire” to send the message they, and not those of pure Spanish ancestry, were now in charge.
Henry,
[[[So the original inhabitants of North America were all subject to European invasion? Spain is in Europe, isn’t it?]]]
I think you are referring to this 🙂
http://www.amazon.com/Homeland-Security-Fighting-Terrorism-Poster/dp/B000OQ633S
Homeland Security- Fighting Terrorism Since 1492 Humor Poster
Guess they didn’t secure their borders against those illegal immigrates.
That should be – immigrants
I’m sure Matula and Gerbil were just channeling their inner law professor. I doubt the professor-in-chief will need any help though. He will demonize the rhetoric, “they are talking about me like I’m a dog :_(” Then he will give us a lawyer-ed up, “Well, technically there WERE Mexicans and such, uh uh uh, blah.” I’m sure the cockles of their heart will just melt.
But yes, context is everything. He was clearly referencing sovereign nations and then tacked 2 different different classes of people onto the end. I think it slights Mexicans of today who are their own sovereign and proud people. He would be downgrading them to being considered as nothing more than a lower class of colonist/indigenous people
Raoul: Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Texas and several other states declared independence from Mexico after Santa Anna tore up the Mexican Constitution and named himself dictator for life. Santa Anna rounded up an army, and proceeded to massacre his way up north against little opposition.
Texas just happened to be the Mexican state farthest away from the capitol, and had a little more time to organize, and probably a little more population to support an army of its own. Even so, Texians got beat every time, until one day when Santa Anna decided to take a nap… and a miracle straight out of Washington’s campaigns happened.
I suspect that if you really wanted to place the blame for Mexico’s modern plight, you could trace it back to the attitudes and corruption that allowed a man like Santa Anna to keep finding his way back into power… attitudes that apparently are still all-too-common today.
Not having heard the whole speech, just this portion, it’s a little hard to figure out what the President’s point is. Is he suggesting that we were all sharing this land in peaceful bliss until George Bush’s great-great-great grandfather made everyone go to war? As I recall the Bristish and the French fought a bunch of wars (Parkman entitled one volume on those wars A Half Century of Conflict) until the British conquered Canada. The Puebloes drove the Spanish out of New Mexico in 1680 holding Sante Fe for 12 years before the Spanish reconquered New Mexico. The Apaches and Comanches took a dim view of Mexican activities in northern Mexico, Texas and New Mexico. The Spanish killed all of the French who tried to create a settlement in Florida. You can go on and on as the absence of any “sharing” in the day-care playground sense that he seems to be referring to. So what was the point?
The point was that people who identify(ed) themselves as “Mexican” were living in what is now the United States way before there was such a concept as “the United States.” It’s not a difficult concept, and no legal parsing is required. Also, until the 1900s, Indian tribes were considered sovereign nations – that’s why the US made treaties with them. Really, people, read some history books.
Raoul / Big D: The racial history of the country of Mexico could and does fill multiple books, but essentially there were three racial groups – Indians, Mestizo (mixed blood) and white (Spanish), from lowest to highest. This racial tension let to such things as the overthrow of Benito Juarez, a full-blooded Indian elected President of Mexico.
I thought Obama was clumsily trying to refer to the Native Americans who lived in the Southwest of what became the US and the Indian tribes of what is now Mexico as somehow being part of some great pre-US shared civilization and somewhere he had obviously read that the Mexica were the dominant tribe of the Aztec Empire (what was in what is now Mexico, and did not encompass places such as Texas or Arizona). Of course except for perhaps some trade there wasn’t a great deal of contact between the people of Mexico and the various tribes of the far north, so of course Obama’s speech just sounds nonsensical.
What Obama seems to be telling me is that America is just an accident of history so don’t fret when it’s gone because he’s working hard to make just that happen. The rest is detail…
Well, you can read it for yourself here.
Enjoy such lines as, “…we’re fighting to cut taxes for you, middle-class folks all across the country.”
I doubt this is dispositive, but dictionary.com gives dates for word origins. For the word “Mexican” it says “1595–1605; < Sp mexicano. See Mexico, -an". For the word "American" it gives "1570–80; Americ(a) + -an". So this one disinterested source gives the edge to "American" by somewhere between 15 and 35 years.
Now, I suppose you could argue that labeling someone as "American" in 1570 surely did not denote an inhabitant of the Eastern seaboard of North America. But likewise, by the information supplied in various posts above, neither did the word "Mexican" in 1605 denote an inhabitant of the country now known as Mexico.
FWIW my immediate impression is that Obama's speechwriters are to blame. He's just reading text on TOTUS. So this gaffe is unlike his off-the-cuff failures like the "57 states" gaffe….
George D,
the point, as usual from this President and his Marxist Minions,
Americans = BAD
Everybody else = GOOD
Democrats / Liberals / Dictators with money = Good
Republicans / conservatives / working Americans = Bad
It’s the same reasoning that makes the election of O’Donnell a by a sound majority of voters a “hijacking”, and the the election of O’bama by a slim majority of voters a “mandate”.
When I was younger and acted this way it was called self-centered arrogance, short sightedness and stupidity.
The point was that people who identify(ed) themselves as “Mexican” were living in what is now the United States way before there was such a concept as “the United States.” It’s not a difficult concept, and no legal parsing is required. Also, until the 1900s, Indian tribes were considered sovereign nations – that’s why the US made treaties with them.
The point is that the US made a treaty with the nation that calls itself Mexico, and in part of that treaty created a border to define which land was Mexican and which was American.
Really, people, read some history books.
Really, Gerrib, learn to comprehend and think.
and in part of that treaty created a border to define which land was Mexican and which was American.
Ohhhh Leland, you’re going to send Matula over the edge.
The point was that people who identify(ed) themselves as “Mexican” were living in what is now the United States way before there was such a concept as “the United States.”
Who knows when people started self-identifying themselves as “Mexican” other than it happened between 1600 and1821? The earliest uses of the word were used by Spanish bureaucrats to describe residents of recently named provinces. People in places like New Mexico may never have self-identified themselves as “Mexican”.
My opinion – this is nothing more or less than Obama pandering to his audience.
I smell reparations – where should we send the check?
Following Cecil and bbeard, contra Matula and Gerrib (where’s Jim, the Stooges are missing a member), a moment’s Googling comes up with:
The 16th-century European usage of American denoted the native inhabitants of the New World.[6] The earliest recorded use of this term in English is in Thomas Hacket’s 1568 translation of André Thévet’s book on France Antarctique; Thévet himself had referred to the natives as Ameriques.[6] In the following century the term was extended to European settlers and their descendants in the Americas. The earliest recorded use of this term in English dates to 1648, in Thomas Gage’s The English-American: A New Survey of the West Indies.[6]
Fish+Barrel+Shotgun = easy fun
Karl Hallowell,
[[[People in places like New Mexico may never have self-identified themselves as “Mexican”.]]]
No, They just named it New Mexico for the fun of it…
Larry,
So the pirate Henry Morgan and not Benjamin Franklin would be the first American by your reasoning. You should quit well you are behind.
Chris,
[[[Really, people, read some history books.]]]
But reading history, like studying politics, is hard. That is why the Tea Party prefers to let Fox News and Sarah Palin do their thinking for them…
Ohhhh Leland, you’re going to send Matula over the edge.
Oh I think that ship has sailed.
The modern nation state of Spain is a twentieth century invention. Most modern states are either late eighteenth or early nineteenth century products. Prior to that there were no nation states in the sense that we think of them today.
During the early colonization of the Americas there was no Spain and there were no Spanish people in the way we think of it today. There was a kingdom of Spain which was a tenuous collection of peoples on the Iberian peninsula and elsewhere collectively taxed and occasionally assisted by a single monarch. Nobody from Spain, at the time considered themselves Spanish. They might have considered themselves castillians or catalonian or basques or some other linguo/cultural/ethnic group. The only thing they had in common was their fealty to or fear of a particular monarch. That fealty was attenuated by their loayalty to the church and/or their local bishopric. This is not a semantic issue. We moderners struggle to think of ourselves in the same way a castillian or a scot would have in 1600.
That’s putting it midly. I’m surprised it took so long for Captain Queeg to introduce his favorite bête noire to the conversation this time.
The modern nation state of Spain is a twentieth century invention. Most modern states are either late eighteenth or early nineteenth century products. Prior to that there were no nation states in the sense that we think of them today.
I was taught in high school that Portugal was the first modern nation-state, when in the late 14th century the Portuguese monarchy consolidated its control of its part of the Iberian peninsula. But your point is well taken. It is hard to put ourselves in the place of our ancestors and really understand or apply their worldview.
I think in the same way, our modern notion of “racism” would have been bewildering to pioneers struggling to eke out a life on the prairie….
By the way, Rush played the soundbite on his show today. I amend what I wrote above. I don’t think this was a gaffe — it was deliberately and cynically deployed as an applause line, a winking acknowledgment of the Reconquista movement.
That’s putting it midly. I’m surprised it took so long for Captain Queeg to introduce his favorite bête noire to the conversation this time.
I’m still find it interesting that a guy that tried to claim he was a conservative GOP’er just a few days ago is now defending President Obama. Not surprised, he already showed himself a liar and a hypocrit. But still, it is interesting. I keep wondering what his fascination is with building such weak strawmen. Let’s look at a few:
But reading history, like studying politics, is hard. That is why the Tea Party prefers to let Fox News and Sarah Palin do their thinking for them…
I found history fairly easy. Politics is a bit harder, but that’s mostly because its too much a game played by unethical people. Both subjects were easy A’s. Math was difficult, and apparently Matula and Gerrib never mastered the subject, because they lack any skill in logical thought. For example:
You should quit well you are behind.
Well, maybe not a good example of poor logic. Apparently English is hard for Matula as well. I’ll start with the first part:
So the pirate Henry Morgan and not Benjamin Franklin would be the first American by your reasoning.
Henry Morgan was Welsh. Simply sailing to the Americas doesn’t make one a native of the Americas. Larry’s reference discusses the term Ameriques being applied to natives. Now Benjamin Franklin was indeed born in the Americas, and thus could be considered native. However, the term Americas was well in use before Ben Franklin’s birth. So I’m not sure why anyone would consider Ben Franklin the first American. Then again, Matula did state that History is hard (for him).
And btw Matula, if you are going to act like Ben Franklin is the first American because of his involvement in the formation of the United States of America, then perhaps you should go back and click the link Rand provided. Come back and tell us who the first Mexican would be and tell us how they are older than Ben.
“But reading history, like studying politics, is hard. That is why the Tea Party prefers to let Fox News and Sarah Palin do their thinking for them…”
Let me be succinct, Thomas. Up yours.
Leland,
[[[I’m still find it interesting that a guy that tried to claim he was a conservative GOP’er just a few days ago is now defending President Obama.]]]
And what is wrong in defending him if President Obama used the term Mexicans properly in his statement? Just because I disagree with his policies doesn’t mean I going to let others stand by and claim he made a mistake when he didn’t.
Has the Tea Party right gone so far over the edge in its hatred that if President Obama says the Sun rises in the east you will try to prove it really doesn’t….
[[[So I’m not sure why anyone would consider Ben Franklin the first American.]]]
Then you really don’t understand America history and the conversion that made Ben Franklin realize that he and his fellow country men were no longer English, but Americans, and that independence was the only solution. Folks that wave the Declaration of Independence around the way the Tea Party does should at least try to understand its history and why Ben Franklin is considered the first American in the way the term is used now.
Also the only link Rand provided was to the story and I did follow it. But I guess I wasn’t coached by Fox News on how to listen to it like the Tea Partiers are…
Also the earliest use of the term Americans was before the North American English colonies and referred to the Spanish settlers and to the English born in Jamaica, so if you wish to use that version then you are saying Mexicans were Americans first, as were Jamaicans, an interesting argument 🙂
Thomas, by your own definition of Mexicans having existed before there was a Mexico (very first comment), there were Americans before there was a United States. You don’t get to ignore national identity in the first case and require it in the second. Compare apples to apples, dammit! Sheesh, you can’t even comprehend your own tappings, let alone someone else’s.
Cut “Il Dufe” some slack, wingnuts! I’m sure when he used the term “Mexicans” he was referring to the way the term was used in 16th Century Spain. We all know the man is nothing if not a scholar. As his academic record attests.
Oh, wait a minute . . .
Larry,
[[[Thomas, by your own definition of Mexicans having existed before there was a Mexico (very first comment), there were Americans before there was a United States.]]]
I seem to recall that Ben Franklin’s realization came before the Declaration of Independence 🙂
But really, its not that complicated. Mexican was commonly applied to the residents of the ViceRoyalty of New Spain. On Mexico is only a part.
By contrasts Americans was rarely used before the Constitution made the U.S. one since most folks preferred to be more specific and refer to Virginians, Georgians, or Colonials, etc. Its was Ben Franklin’s promotion of the term that bought it into common use.
And so, returning to the Thread, President Obama’s use of it was perfectly correct, no matter how you try to twist it.
Bilwick,
[[[We all know the man is nothing if not a scholar. As his academic record attests.
Oh, wait a minute . . .]]]
I would match my academic, and publication, record against yours, but then you choose to hide your identity…
Larry,
You made my point. But again, logic must be hard for Matula. He’s trying to have it both ways, which is what hypocrits do.
Matula writes – And what is wrong in defending him if President Obama used the term Mexicans properly in his statement? Just because I disagree with his policies doesn’t mean I going to let others stand by and claim he made a mistake when he didn’t.
Well if it was proper, then sure defend him. Just like it was proper for the majority vote in a primary to win, but alas you don’t defend that. But I digress.
Many people have pointed out Obama’s error. Mexico didn’t declare independence until 1810. Ben Franklin died in 1790. So if Ben Franklin is the first American because of his realization of the need for independence (thus the original idea of America – your logic), then perhaps you’ll provide the name of the first Mexican using your rules. Well start with Ben’s opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765. You got the name of the first Mexican that lived 45 years prior to Mexico’s declared Independence?
If you want to try your other argument, that Mexicans were called Mexicans long before Independence, then Americans were called Americans even before Mexico (the city state of what is now Mexico City) came into being. So that argument fails too. Not to mention, Mexicans in 1764 considered themselves Spanish subjects the same way Americans in 1764 considered themselves British subjects.
Finally, since you think defending Obama is paramount when he is right, then do you know how the US Declaration of Independence is written? Obama doesn’t, but considering your poor understanding of that hard subject History, perhaps you didn’t notice…
Whether there were people referred to as Mexicans before Mexico became a independent nation or not or whether Americans were called Americans before the United States (they were) is kind of beside the point. The President says they (British, French, Dutch, Mexicans, Indians) were “sharing” the land. Is he using “sharing” in its commonly understood sense of “fighting numerous wars and countless battles, massacres and skimishes” or were they “sharing” the land some other way? I am perfectly happy to agree that the United States and Mexico “shared” the Southwest and California in 1846 and at the end of the “sharing” Mexico ceded the land to the United States. Somehow I don’t think that is what the President is saying and even from the weird historical perspective he brings to bear on questions his statement makes no sense.
Hey, Thomas is right. Obama is a god fearing patriot that would never denigrate this country. How can any of you suggest otherwise? /sarc
This is just the thing that makes listening to this fraud in chief so difficult. On the occasions when I do, I have to listen to a Reagan speech just to clear the awful taste away.
Those Voices Don’t Speak for the Rest of Us…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wusgcG4rfo
Larry,
I apologize. I should have made two posts.