Make America Mexico? Don't tell the Apaches

When I see the protest signs to "Make America Mexico again", I wonder if they asked the Apache about this?

The dirty little secret is that the area was mainly Indian, even after the Spanish takeover, and although the Pueblo tribes, despite several bloody revolts, couldn't throw them out, the Apaches were at a constant state of war against them.

And don't forget it was the Comanches that made the Mexican government of Texas welcome all those Yankees... from Wikipedia:

 The number of colonists was extremely limited, and they were always at risk of Comanche raids. By the early 1800s, as a result of the Comanche wars, the Mexican wars of Independence, and the collapse of colonial power, Mexican resistance to Comanche attacks had almost collapsed.
In contrast to the neglected military capabilities of the Mexicans, authorities considered Americans as extremely aggressive in combat and they were subsequently encouraged to establish settlements on the frontier in present-day Texas as a defensive bulwark to Comanche raids further south. 

When I worked in Mescalero, there was a "reconciliation" ceremony, to forgive the Mexicans who turned in the fugitive Apaches at the end of the long wars.

And every year, they celebrated the last battle between local farmers and the Apache: the Battle of Round Mountain.

more HERE

From Ruidoso News:Photo: Dianne Stallings — Ruidoso News)http://www.ruidosonews.com/story/news/local/2015/04/23/shedding-light-round-mountain/71579710/

when you travel up the highway from Tularosa to Ruidoso (via Mescalero), you will see a huge cross on a small hillock, put there to commemorate the Battle.

one day the Apaches hold a memorial ceremony, and the locals from Tularosa held a ceremony the adjoining day.

and the Mescalero church not only has placques in honor of Gernonimo and Vittorio, but also a placque in honor of those who served in Bataan (which as I have noted in previous posts, included the mission's priest and several local men in the NMNG).

So where do you make the line to decide who owns the land?

the Apaches and Pueblos who lived there first? The Mexicans who moved there 300 years ago? Or the Anglos who developed the area, changing it from a dirt poor area with famines to a middle class area with high tech?

and those who say they want it to become "Mexico again", I ask: Which Mexico? The ancient cultures of the Olmec? Mayans?

The Aztec were sort of late comers and not well liked by those they conquered. From Wikipedia:

The Toltec for a time dominated central Mexico in the 11th–13th century, then collapsed. The northern Maya were for a time united under Mayapan, and Oaxaca was briefly united byMixtec rulers in the 11th–12th centuries.
The Aztec Empire arose in the early 15th century and appeared to be on a path to asserting dominance over the Valley of Mexico region not seen since Teotihuacan. Spain was the first European power to contact Mesoamerica, however, and its conquistadores and a large number of native allies conquered the Aztecs.

or maybe you want the Spanish to run the place? Or the pureblood Spanish rich families who ruled Mexico after independence? like the Philippines, the rich families run the place, no matter who is supposed to be in charge, and the many revolutions since independence hasn't changed that.

the reason for so many Mexicans (and now Central American) immigrants, both legal and illegal, is that, in the USA ordinary people have a chance for prosperity. You don't in Mexico.

that is why those carrying the signs are not just wrong, but could inspire a backlash, because they imply only one group should be in charge, i.e. the autocrats of today's Mexico... and they send a message that non Mexicans are not welcome (not just Anglos and AmerIndians, but  Cubans, Colombianos, Puerto Ricans, and those Central American refugees who are treated terribly when they try to flee into Mexico trying to get away from the drug gangs in both countries)

It's one thing to call for a wall, but another thing to have a porous border that lets the drug gangs in with the refugees from the drug wars of Mexico and central America... read the Council of Foreign relations article from 2016...

In January 2016, amid a new rush of arrivals from the region, U.S. authorities began to round up and deport recently arrived immigrants whose asylum claims had been denied. The Obama administration said that its aim was to deter would-be migrants. Meanwhile, the administration announced it would expand its refugee program to admit as many as nine thousand people each year from the Northern Triangle and enlist the United Nations to help screen refugee claims in Latin America. 

The rule in the USA is that everyone is welcome, and that many who came just wanted to have prosperity and raise their families in peace and not in poverty. And the worries implied in Trump's rhetoric, that "they" (be they Mexican or Muslim) will never become "real" Americans is not true: The same arguments were made about the Irish Catholics, and later, about the Jews, Eastern Europeans and Italians.

but there is another problem no one wants to talk about that Trump has brought up:

The Trumpettes want to stop immigrants from stealing jobs,(and the elites from exporting jobs to other countries, which is usually a union/Democratic demand) but the dirty little secret is that most immigrants came to work, so are harder workers.

So what to do? Screen those coming in, secure the border, and get an amnesty for those who can prove they have jobs.


This doesn't mean you let in Taliban supporters and Saudi terrorists. Screening might not work, but when many people reported the bozos behind the last three attacks (Orlando, Boston, Fort Hood), uh, maybe someone should have taken them seriously.

the problem with the US election is that President Obama has spent 8 years dividing the nation: between "us" and "them"...encouraging racial division, and demonizing people of faith

So what does this have to do with the border wars?

Two things.

One: when they note that the immigrants are taking jobs, no one wants to say they are taking the jobs from inner city blacks and working class whites. Most people who want to work can still find jobs, but often they are low paying or part time. And the rest? They will get used to welfare and living off of their moms or girlfriends. Is it a coincidence that suddenly is legalizing marijuana (and next on the list: Pushing the wonderfulness of the really bad drugs)

Two, with the "Fergueson effect", where police are demonized as the enemy and crime by gangs has skyrocketed in some cities, the locals are less likely to welcome younger illegal immigrants who they could associated with drug gangs.

But of course, a better argument would be to insist that Americans stop using drugs.

How do you do that? Militarize the police,...

or maybe see the churches that demand ethical behavior as an ally.

The stricter churches (and mosques) of course stress hard work and a sober life, but Hillary, alas, will continue with the Obama administration's policies (and the MSM propaganda wars) that those who follow the ethics of the Bible/natural law/the Koran/Confucius are the enemy because they are "judgemental".

So who is the real enemy? Those who follow the rules. And this includes most Hispanics and Muslims (although you might not know it, since the "activists" who "represent" these groups in the press are usually left wing plants in astroturf type organizations).

GetReligion has another summary on the MSM being "clueless" to what Christians believe..

ah, but if they tried to understand these bozos (or people who they think are bozos) they might hesitate before they put the two minute hate on facebook/twitter.

And posting two minute hates is sooo much fun.