Democrats, slavery, Irish, and Indians

[ilbegone]

THIS IS WHAT'S BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOL WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS

Out of curiosity I obtained a very cheap used paperback copy ($6.00 including shipping) of UCLA professor Juan Gomez Quinones' book Roots of Chicano Politics 1600 - 1940. It is a race obsessed, historically twisted and somewhat outrageous (particularly if you have an understanding of the history) tome.

Gomez Quinones is obsessed with the word mestizo: mestizo here or there, mestizo doing this or that, mestizo hero of the paragraph, it's almost as if he were to describe the Spanish conquest of central Mexico that he would conflate and confuse Motecuzoma, Cuauhtemoc, Cortes, Malintzin, and Pedro de Alvarado as all being mestizo.

Except that Gomez Quinones would need some evil whites in his racially propagandistic story so he would have to decide which among the lot is to be white and who is to be mestizo, with the proviso that white and Indian children were raised together with whites becoming oppressors of mestizos upon reaching the age of majority (He touches on this notion concerning Californios and California Indians on page 57 - "Mexican (national) children were raised with Indian children and mestizo adults socialized with Indian adults". As I read Californio eyewitness Antonio Maria Osio, Indians were essentially slaves on the missions with adolescent Indian girls sent out to be servants for Californio households. Besides, the Hispanic cultural notion of a gentleman was that he owned land and did no work - to do work is what Indians anywhere in the new world were for).

He contradicts himself by saying that most who went to California were mestizo (mixed Indian and white) but that most of the pobladores (town people) in California were mixed black and Indian. The primarily white Californios may have had ranches away from town, but most would have resided in town.

On page 60 Gomez Quinones talks about Mestizo soldiers recruited in 1818 in Mazatlan and San Blas to serve in California, but this is a doubtful statement due to the upheaval in central Mexico due to the ongoing war of liberation. I do know that there was a three hundred man "security battalion" unit which came much later with Mexican governor Mitcheltorena - these were convicts taken out of prison and given to a professional commander to make into soldiers, but they constantly raped, robbed, and murdered in California and were forcibly put on the boat by Californios and sent back to Mexico along with governor Mitcheltorena. I haven't got to it yet, but I don't think he would mention the true nature of the Mexican "soldiers".

Another thing that Gomez Quinones would sidestep is the fact that there were convicts and societal outcasts exiled from Mexico to California. He may have already done so in the first 70 pages with the statement that most came to California for economic opportunity.

Gomez Quinones likes tossing in Spanish words, such as frontera for frontier and Nuevo Mexico for New Mexico.

What I see as his "high point" so far as I have read is the allegation on page 66 that US Army officer Zebulon Pike, who was ordered in 1806 to explore the southern part of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, was a racist. Without a shred of supporting evidence, he describes Pike (and by extension, all whites) as "a confirmed mestizo hater". I have read the part of Pike's book Account of an Expedition to the Sources of the Mississippi and through the Western Parts of Louisiana... and a Tour through the Interior Parts of New Spain which describes his capture by Spanish soldiers and being held prisoner in New Spain under the suspicion of being a spy. I didn't find any sentiment of Pike being "a confirmed mestizo hater" in his writing.

Maybe race baiting UCLA professor Juan Gomez Quinones doesn't think anyone who reads his book will research for themselves what the facts are.

In any case the book has 540 pages. I haven't got to page 75 and my thought is what a load of pure, unadulterated bovine efluvia. The book is racist, inventive of "fact", and I'm already sick of the professor's racist drum beating. If I finish reading this steaming twisted pile of university crap it's because I will have forced myself.

Take note:

THIS IS WHAT'S BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOL WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS

[ilbegone]

I have to add to a concept in the previous post concerning the racist UCLA university professor's book for students:

Another thing that Gomez Quinones would sidestep is the fact that there were convicts and societal outcasts exiled from Mexico to California. He may have already done so in the first 70 pages with the statement that most came to California for economic opportunity.

In a province with little to no money, wealth was determined by land ownership and cattle, and commerce was conducted largely by bartering cow hides and tallow to Yankee traders for goods.

The very few post Mexican liberation Californio soldiers (the original Spanish colonizing soldiery and their descendants) were unpaid by the Mexican government, wore threadbare clothing, and existed on the charity of the missions. Criminals impressed as "soldiers" from Mexico proper and sent to California as "security" for Mexican governors were unpaid as well but lived by robbing the local population - until the "natives" forced them to return to Mexico.

Out of a population of perhaps 4000 (quite a few related) just prior to the 1846 Mexican American war, maybe 300 were literate and a very few were extremely educated - such as the aforementioned Antonio Maria Osio.

Mexico didn't treat the somewhat comparable but much more hostile and violent ("Indian trouble") Texas frontier much better than bastard stepchild California, nor Rio Grande Valley New Mexico ("Indian trouble" too) either.

New Spain and Mexico didn't have the steam to sufficiently populate and economically stimulate the northern frontier and California. Generally, few came north unless forced or mislead as to the conditions (such as starving Canary Islander immigrants to Texas during the Spanish period). California was originally colonized by soldiers and priests, with land grants primarily given to retired soldiers and their descendants as well as to the missions. Life would be rough for convicts and societal outcasts exiled to California due to very little economic opportunity.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

I have to add to a concept in the previous post concerning the racist UCLA university professor's book for students:



In a province with little to no money, wealth was determined by land ownership and cattle, and commerce was conducted largely by bartering cow hides and tallow to Yankee traders for goods.

The very few post Mexican liberation Californio soldiers (the original Spanish colonizing soldiery and their descendants) were unpaid by the Mexican government, wore threadbare clothing, and existed on the charity of the missions. Criminals impressed as "soldiers" from Mexico proper and sent to California as "security" for Mexican governors were unpaid as well but lived by robbing the local population - until the "natives" forced them to return to Mexico.

Out of a population of perhaps 4000 (quite a few related) just prior to the 1846 Mexican American war, maybe 300 were literate and a very few were extremely educated - such as the aforementioned Antonio Maria Osio.

Mexico didn't treat the somewhat comparable but much more hostile and violent ("Indian trouble") Texas frontier much better than bastard stepchild California, nor Rio Grande Valley New Mexico ("Indian trouble" too) either.

New Spain and Mexico didn't have the steam to sufficiently populate and economically stimulate the northern frontier and California. Generally, few came north unless forced or mislead as to the conditions (such as starving Canary Islander immigrants to Texas during the Spanish period). California was originally colonized by soldiers and priests, with land grants primarily given to retired soldiers and their descendants as well as to the missions. Life would be rough for convicts and societal outcasts exiled to California due to very little economic opportunity.

This is exactly what California was back then. Mexicans didn't want to live here, so far from Mexico City and the land grants Mexico handed out like candy went to anyone who would come this far south, which was very, very few. Mexico couldn't protect the land because Mexicans didn't want to be here. But I'll add that even after the USA bought the land from the Mexican Government, those that produced those land grants kept their land. The USA only claimed the Mexican Government land that was paid for, all privately owned land was retained by those that could produce a Mexican land grant, which wasn't all that many because they wouldn't come here.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by Jeanfromfillmore

This is exactly what California was back then. Mexicans didn't want to live here, so far from Mexico City and the land grants Mexico handed out like candy went to anyone who would come this far south, which was very, very few. Mexico couldn't protect the land because Mexicans didn't want to be here. But I'll add that even after the USA bought the land from the Mexican Government, those that produced those land grants kept their land. The USA only claimed the Mexican Government land that was paid for, all privately owned land was retained by those that could produce a Mexican land grant, which wasn't all that many because they wouldn't come here.

It is true that few wanted to come to the northern frontier (roughly equivalent to the modern border, with the exception of mostly coastal California, eastern Texas, and along the Rio Grande from Southern Texas through the Rio Grande valley of New Mexico into Southern Colorado), which was further separated from central Mexico by large deserts full of hostile Indians - many raiding from the northern frontier. Prior to the 20th century to possess in the Americas was was to populate by migration from a mother cultural center or assimilation of the local natives, and neither Spain nor Mexico could sufficiently populate or assimilate the north in order to possess. It was one thing dealing with Indians who were formerly sedentary subjects of meso American Indian empire and entirely another thing dealing with nomadic north American Indians. As well, the northern frontier was more economically tied to American traders than it was to central Mexico.

However, I'm not so sure that Mexico handed out land grants like candy.

And, the majority of land grant holders did eventually lose their properties in several ways, and off the top of my head (It's been quite a while since I looked into it):

The majority of Californios were unaccustomed to handling money, particularly in dealings with Yankee money lenders who could be quite ruthless in collecting debt.

Quite a number of land grant properties, while well understood by the Californios under the Spanish system and local tradition, were ill defined by American legal standard and didn't stand up in court under the US legal system when the ownership of those properties were challenged by squatters from eastern America.

Others were victims of biased court decisions rendered on baseless suits or were litigated until they ran out of whatever money they had for legal defense.

I'm not aware that Mexican land grants in California to those of American extraction prior to the Mexican American war were lost in a similar manner. I'm not very familiar with the land grant situation of New Mexico and Texas (I'm somewhat familiar with land grants to immigrants from America in Texas), but I believe a similar result happened in those areas.

As far as "Mexicans" not wanting to come here: every country has local, regional and national identities. Criollo Californio Osio declared himself to be a proud Mexican, but I perceive that he more identified as a Californio. He stated that a desired independence from Mexico would be impossible due to the lack of population and dearth of literacy in California. He also said that the old retired soldiers from the Spanish era would rally if called on by the King of Spain, but the tone doesn't seem to be so for the cause of Mexico. Contrary to the sneering, biased, untroubled by fact tale spun by the History Channel a few years ago (Conquerors series, Fremont?), there was no functioning Mexican army in California during the Mexican American war. Resistance was put up by a relative few rancheros with lances who might have been amenable to unification with America except that the Bear Flag clowns, Commodore Stanton, and knucklehead Fremont pissed them off with arrogance and stupidity.

On the other hand the UCLA professor who wrote the book Becoming Mexican - American (George Sanchez?) let out a rare tidbit on about page 70 of the paperback edition - that during the late 19th century when Mexicans began moving into Los Angeles, the Californios moved out. These two peoples once shared nationality and had cultural ties which together weren't enough to establish a common identity.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

It is true that few wanted to come to the northern frontier (roughly equivalent to the modern border, with the exception of mostly coastal California, eastern Texas, and along the Rio Grande from Southern Texas through the Rio Grande valley of New Mexico into Southern Colorado), which was further separated from central Mexico by large deserts full of hostile Indians - many raiding from the northern frontier. Prior to the 20th century to possess in the Americas was was to populate by migration from a mother cultural center or assimilation of the local natives, and neither Spain nor Mexico could sufficiently populate or assimilate the north in order to possess. It was one thing dealing with Indians who were formerly sedentary subjects of meso American Indian empire and entirely another thing dealing with nomadic north American Indians. As well, the northern frontier was more economically tied to American traders than it was to central Mexico.

However, I'm not so sure that Mexico handed out land grants like candy.

And, the majority of land grant holders did eventually lose their properties in several ways, and off the top of my head (It's been quite a while since I looked into it):

The majority of Californios were unaccustomed to handling money, particularly in dealings with Yankee money lenders who could be quite ruthless in collecting debt.

Quite a number of land grant properties, while well understood by the Californios under the Spanish system and local tradition, were ill defined by American legal standard and didn't stand up in court under the US legal system when the ownership of those properties were challenged by squatters from eastern America.

Others were victims of biased court decisions rendered on baseless suits or were litigated until they ran out of whatever money they had for legal defense.

I'm not aware that Mexican land grants in California to those of American extraction prior to the Mexican American war were lost in a similar manner. I'm not very familiar with the land grant situation of New Mexico and Texas (I'm somewhat familiar with land grants to immigrants from America in Texas), but I believe a similar result happened in those areas.

As far as "Mexicans" not wanting to come here: every country has local, regional and national identities. Criollo Californio Osio declared himself to be a proud Mexican, but I perceive that he more identified as a Californio. He stated that a desired independence from Mexico would be impossible due to the lack of population and dearth of literacy in California. He also said that the old retired soldiers from the Spanish era would rally if called on by the King of Spain, but the tone doesn't seem to be so for the cause of Mexico. Contrary to the sneering, biased, untroubled by fact tale spun by the History Channel a few years ago (Conquerors series, Fremont?), there was no functioning Mexican army in California during the Mexican American war. Resistance was put up by a relative few rancheros with lances who might have been amenable to unification with America except that the Bear Flag clowns, Commodore Stanton, and knucklehead Fremont pissed them off with arrogance and stupidity.

On the other hand the UCLA professor who wrote the book Becoming Mexican - American (George Sanchez?) let out a rare tidbit on about page 70 of the paperback edition - that during the late 19th century when Mexicans began moving into Los Angeles, the Californios moved out. These two peoples once shared nationality and had cultural ties which together weren't enough to establish a common identity.

California to this day, still follows Spanish Law when it comes to realestate. One of the many differences is that back at the time when the USA bought the government land from Mexico, British Law prevented women from owning land, but Spanish Land Laws allowed women to own land.

While in college, I studied Mexican history and History of the Americas. I don't remember much of what was said in those classes, but I do remember some of it. One thing I remember was the professor saying the grants were given out freely to anyone in Mexico who would settle here in California, especially when they started to realize they were losing the war. I also studied to take my realestate brokers license, which is why I know about which laws California follows in regards to realestate.

Your information is fresh to you and more than likely more accurate; its been years since I cracked those books.