Hispanic Rule of the U.S. Chapter 2 in ruling of our history?

Anyone who has seen the Pueblos in New Mexico, existing since the 1400's, know that the Indians had a form of society and government here, way before the Europeans "discovered" America. The affect of the Spanish is pronounced in this country. The Hispanics have every right to lay claim to ruling and establishing this country.

I wrote on a right wing board several years ago that one day that the Europeans "founding" this country would become a moot point as the Hispanics claimed their rightful role to rule the country based on the actual history. The Europeans would be Chapter I, the Hispanic rule would be Chapter II in our history. I was ridiculed by the board and kicked off.

It seems that day now exists.

The Mexican-American War is perhaps the earliest notable example of the US taking advantage of a weaker nation outside Native American nations. Perhaps when those who come from Mexico become a majority in the Southwest, they will take back what the US took from them so many years ago.

California, Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico have become predominantly non-white. You err in the fact that existing populations of Hispanics came from Mexico. The Indians were already here in the U.S. and the Spanish moved up from Southern continents. Politely put, they were her first. However, more Mexicans are migrating up.

O'odham, and others were or are properly Mexican.

I don't think the O'odham would go with you on that one. It's rather like saying the Basque are properly governed by Germany. Why? Because some Visigoths once conquered the region.

Spanish imperialism and colonialism was followed by Mexican colonialism, under which the indigenous peoples of the American SW suffered. The Mexicans used the same tools and techniques as the Spanish, for the same ends. The difference in skin color makes no moral difference. Both the Mexican tribes and the Spanish were invaders in the American SW; as were the other Europeans that went in later. The difference was that the indigenous Mexican tribes didn't get up that far until they were Mexicans first.

"Hispanic" typically means that the person has some native American blood in him/her, and speaks Spanish (ok, possibly Portuguese). But while some people want to argue that 'indigenous blood' is 'indigenous blood', there's a certain kind of myopia needed for that argument. The Mexica, the Mixtec, the Huichol, the O'odham, and the Hopi are completely different peoples; any ethnic affinity they feel now is recent, the result of contrast with the American "other" (to use terminology I dislike). There is no 'indigenous blood'; the argument can be reduced to the absurd by asking why the Ojibwe and Cherokee aren't included in it. The answer: they were never under Spanish (lic. Mexican) control.

before the Spanish mixed with them.

the period of white/European dominance would be Chapter 2. :-) And this current development leads into Chapter 3. I've been telling people for years that the American future is the society losing its semi-European center and becoming Modern Native or, maybe more accurately, part of the racial and cultural continuum of Latin America. The pattern became obvious to me by living in L.A....

Latinos will solve the American race problem in a few generations. That America will seem rather strange to us, a complete intermixing of all the traits of the many peoples. Blue eyed Latino-looking people, blonde mulatto folks, nearly-white people with faces we would call Asian or black...will be thought rare but not unusual at all.

Demographics says you are quite right. Between 2050 and 2060 the U.S. population will peak and will become majority non-white at coincidentally roughly the same time, with whites relatively aged and non-whites relatively young. By 2100 or 2120 there won't be that many 'purely' white people remaining.

Will they "rule" like they have in Mexico / Central America / South America? Will Canada soon find its borders over run?

with the help of Utah polygamists and a big smathering of European Catholics.

'The effect of the Spanish is pronounced in this country. The Hispanics have every right to lay claim to ruling and establishing this country.'

What is that supposed to mean? That's total absurdity. The idea that anyone has any 'rightful' claim to anything is kind of laughable; and as far as 'this country' goes...the United States grew out of colonies established by the British, not the Spanish, Spanish presence in Mexico, Florida and the Southwest notwithstanding...and the suggestion that 'Hispanics' have any claim to establishing the United States is ridiculous. Perhaps you mean 'Latino', which refers to persons of Latin American origin, usually of mixed Hispanic (which means 'of or related to Spain', by the way) and native ancestry (but thenm they didn't 'establish' anything here either).

So in that case, the Israelis would have no right to the land they're presently occupying and claim as their birthright?

Interesting concept.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The pueblos go back to the 1400's. My statement that there was a government and a flourishing society is 100% correct. It was Indian. The Spanish moved up from Latin America and mixed with the population. The societies formed in the SW far preceded the European colonies on the East Coast.

You might not like it, but those are the facts.

Small communities in the Southwest have nothing to do with the establishment of colonies on the East coast whose founders didn't even know those communities existed; they have nothing to do with the founding of the United States as a nation; their existence certainly doesn't confer any 'right to rule', especially not over a country of which they only inhabited a small part. That's kind of like saying that the Cornish and Welsh have a right to rule all of Britain because their Celtic ancestors were there before the Anglo-Saxons and Normans invaded and took over. I didn't say your statement that there WAS some form of structured society among indigenous peoples wasn't correct, just that it's totally irrelevant and that the conclusions you draw from it are utterly ridiculous.

are immense when compared to the East Coast. All prior to the Europeans invading North America.

A common error I find is that the East Coast and the South think they were all who existed as civilized societies. Wrong. Big time.

Your stats are the ones who have no bearing with reality.

the Anasazi (ancestors of the more recent Pueblo) were only distantly related to the other groups of natives, such as the Comanche and Apache and Aztec and Maya and so on (as evidenced by the amount of linguistic and cultural variation between them); you can't say 'the geographic territory these people ruled was vast' because you're relying on an overly simplified and extremely ignorant view of what constitutes 'these people', and while there may have been organised local-level government there was no overarching supra-community governmental structure...there's a very large difference between a collection of more or less independent villages and a nation (the Aztecs and Inca had a nation, the Pueblo didn't. Simple contrast there). And by the time the United States, which grew out of the east coast colonies, expanded that far westward, any autonomy of the indigenous communities had long since been lost, first to the Spanish and then to Mexico after Mexican independence in 1821. So again what you're saying is absurd.

And you seem to have some sort of reading comprehension problem: I didn't say your statement that there WAS some form of structured society among indigenous peoples wasn't correct. What part of that did you not understand?

The future of the territory known as the USA is multicultural. The "Hispanics" will not RULE, even though their numbers & influence will grow.

>>>"The Hispanics have every right to lay claim to ruling and establishing this country."


What a bunch of nonsensical and simplistic crap. I've heard this argument before from various groups in various countries. Basically, this translates to a bunch of people whining "Well, we used to own/control that land so we have a 'right' to it."

Face reality. How far back do you want to go? Pick a time period. Okay, Mexico used to own TX and CA. And Spain used to own Mexico. Do you want to give Mexico back to Spain? Oh and before that, the Russians owned a good chunk of CA and the Pacific Northwest. Who takes precedence? Mexico? Russia? Native Americans? Which Native Americans? They had wars and land grabs too. So which Native American tribe takes precedence?

If you give Mexico back to Spain is it really Spain? After all Spain used to be ruled by the Moors for 800 years. Should we give Spain to Morocco? Should Mexico be given to Morocco by proxy of Morocco's control over Spain? Oh, then Napoleon ruled Spain for a while. Maybe Spain should be given to France. But wait, the Romans owned Spain before that, maybe it should be given to Italy?

You can go on ad infinitum with just about every piece of dirt on this planet.

Grow up and and learn to string a couple of thoughts together with some logic. You have a 'right' to land when you control it. Right now the US controls it. Personally, I think we are on the way to losing control as a nation.

But nobody has a 'right' to land just because their ancestors used to own it. How about the USA has a right to the land because we own it? Explain to me why some other nationality takes precedence.

Don't bother replying....I know you can't scrape up a rational argument.