About a certain vodka ad

[fpb]

Apparently there are people to whom the results of the Mexican-American war of 1848 are still a live issue. To most Europeans, who have had to settle borders much more recently, this is what may charitably be called crazy talk - the same kind of mentality that insists that the Falkland Islands, settled by thousands of people of British origin for over a century, should be Argentinian because a few Argentinian fishers had landed there before 1833. But since the issue has been raised, let us look at it.

By the time the war of 1848 started, Mexico had already permanently lost Texas; not because of anyone's particular wickedness, but because Texas was far more easily entered from the Missisippi valley than from the Mexican heartlands, and Anglo settlement was an unstoppable reality. Also, another band of Anglos (not everyone remembers this) had made a massive and even more ungovernable settlement around the Salt Lake - the Mormons. And in 1849, the California gold rush began - another matter which, like the Anglo settlements in Texas and Utah, had no necessary connection with American or Mexican politics, being simply the result of conditions. All the nineteenth-century gold rushes were primarily English-speaking phenomena, and there is no reason to imagine that this one would have been different, even if California in 1849 had been still under Mexican administration.

The conclusion is this: that whatever happened, even if President Polk had not unleashed what everyone agrees was an unjust war, by the eighteen-fifties there would have been a solid belt of English-speaking settlement across the whole of what we can regard as northern Mexico and independent Texas. This belt would have grown in importance and weight, and would have been completely unmanageable from Mexico City. The least that can be imagined is that the Mexicans would have found the American Mormons even more unmanageable than the United States did - they, at least, shared a common language and culture with the Salt Lake settlers. It is impossible to imagine that Texas, which had never properly made peace with Mexico, would have stayed out of the fight, or that the gold-rush settlers in California would have been unconcerned. If we suppose that the Americans (who by now would have been deeply concerned by their own impending internal crisis, whose development - apart from the existence of Texas as a federal state - had very little to do with American politics in Mexico), the least that can be imagined is either a Mexican civil war with all the Anglos on one side, or else a repetition of the Texas war of independence with California and Utah, this time, against the central government.

And this would still have been the best that could have happened to Mexico. If, by some miracle (and one such miracle, as we will see, can be imagined), Mexico had kept its territorial integrity, it is anything but certain that it would have kept its national identity. We have to remember which were the growing and dynamic elements in the American continent at the time. When President Polk started his war, twenty million Americans faced eight million Mexicans. By 1860, American population had almost doubled. The growth was fuelled both by internal dynamics - those famous Victorian families with ten or twenty children - and by massive and swiftly growing immigration from Europe. Mass immigration in the modern sense had begun in 1845 with the Irish potato famine, which multiplied the number of immigrants from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, a rhythm which never ceased from then on. It should be abundantly clear that, once an Anglo presence had been established in northern Mexico, it would have grown exponentially. Mexican population growth, by contrast, was sluggish, and not fed by any large stream of immigrants.

There is a way in which we can imagine the Mexican territory remaining intact, or even recovering Texas. As everyone knows, in the eighteen-sixties Napoleon III of France involved his country in an imperialist adventure in Mexico. Supposing the war of 1848 not to have taken place, there would have been no better way for the French to gain local support than to take up the Mexican quarrels in the north; and while American settlers of the quality of Sam Houston and his likes were more than up to the task of dealing with Santa Ana and the Mexican army, they could never have stood against a determined push from the greatest army (at the time) in Europe. But it would have been a Pyrrhic victory. Bringing the Anglo element back under the control of Mexico City, one way or another, would only have brought closer the moment when Anglo influence in a still united Mexico became overwhelming. If a weaker USA had not taken advantage of it, a stronger British Empire would; either way, the Catholic, Hispanic Mexicans would have been on the way to becoming a minority in their own country.

The Mexicans really ought to raise a statue to President Polk. By stealing the deserted and distant half of their country, he insured that the settled half remained Mexican.

Comments

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

Apparently there are people to whom the results of the Mexican-American war of 1848 are still a live issue.

I remember in the mid-90s something came up called "Proposition 187" which had to do with denying illegal immigrants jobs and health care. One response was a protest in L.A. in which people walked around carrying the Mexican flag. Another was that California was stolen from Mexico and that Mexicans should be free to move there or stay there ("we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"), or should be given back, etc.

As far as I know it's still an issue there.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I know. But where would we be if we Italians were still demanding that Corsica, Malta, Istria, Italian Switzerland, and Dalmatia be "returned" to us? Or Corfu and Rhodes? Crete? Cyprus? And yes, I know about the treaty of Trianon and one day soon you will find my opinion why everything about the end of WWI was wrong and why Woodrow Wilson was a villain, but the fact is, there is no mystical ownership in land or territory.

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know you know how many Hungarians love to complain about the Treaty of Trianon. :) But honestly I've always struggled with the whole issue and I can't tell you if any lost pieces should be returned to a country. I guess what I worry more about is how the new minority is treated in their new country (e.g. Hungarian Transylvanians).

And I'd love to hear your opinion on the end of WWI. (I thought it was quite unfair to Germany and helped lead to WWII ... but that's based on my meager history classes, so who knows what I'll think when I learn more!)

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

But where would we be if we Italians were still demanding that Corsica, Malta, Istria, Italian Switzerland, and Dalmatia be "returned" to us? Or Corfu and Rhodes? Crete? Cyprus?

Goose-stepping in a review before Benito Mussolini's prettier descendant? Though actually I don't know if her political platform is that ambitious ...

And yes, I know about the treaty of Trianon and one day soon you will find my opinion why everything about the end of WWI was wrong and why Woodrow Wilson was a villain ...

No argument from me on that. I know bad things about Wilson's domestic policy you may not be aware of, including his imposition of segregation in the Federal civil service and his role in the Red Scare of 1918-20. And yes, given that Italy specifically joined the Allies to get territory from Austria-Hungary, denying Italy those territories was both dishonest and stupid -- it helped bring Italy into the Second World War on the other side.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As a matter of fact, I do know about his hideous segregation of federal jobs - including anecdotes I could hardly believe of a human being. I have an essay in preparation that I think you might like. And you are exactly right about what happened between Italy and the other allies at the peace table, and what it brought about.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

As far as I know it's still an issue there.

Not really.

There is a group of academic/student radicals who call themselves "La Raza" and are sort of Mexican left-wing fascists: they insist that a vaguely-defined territory they call "Aztlan" really belongs to Mexico because it was once Aztec. This territory is, by an amazing coincidence, roughly contiguous with the territory once held by the real (rather than fantasy) Republic of Mexico.

The thing is that La Raza is a minority even among Mexican-Americans. Most Mexican-Americans want to enjoy the benefits of being American -- they went to considerable trouble to come here and would be horrified if the border moved north past them, stranding them once again in Mexico. What's more, America would never agree to such a handover.

In fact, given Mexican instability, I think the more likely long-term trend (over the next century or two) would be an American annexation of Mexico. Even though that's not overwhelmingly likely either.

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

By "it's still an issue there" I mean it's an issue being debated among my many former classmates, neighbors, and friends in L.A. who are of Latin American origin. I can't say what "most" Mexican-Americans want, there are so many of them I haven't met, but of the ones I have, a good deal of them want things like Spanish-language instruction, naturalizing of illegal immigrants, etc., and they cite California as having been Mexican as one of the reasons. Again, I don't know how widespread these thoughts are, but it's still an issue.

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

Well, that was clear. By Spanish-language instruction I meant going to Spanish-only schools.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

By Spanish-language instruction I meant going to Spanish-only schools.

Do they grasp that the consequence would be their own impoverishment? Or, if they mean this for their children, the impoverishment of their children?

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

I really don't know. I think the idea was that both English and Spanish should be on equal footing and that people who speak Spanish only shouldn't be discriminated against. I don't quite understand this myself.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The "discrimination" is inherent in the situation. Someone who speaks only English can speak to the vast majority of people in America, while someone who speaks only Spanish can only speak to persons who are either only Spanish-speakers or bilingual in English and Spanish (and hence could have been spoken to in English also). It is rare for immigrants to America from non-Spanish speaking countries to subsequently learn conversational Spanish; but very common for them to learn conversational English.

Employers simply won't hire people who can't speak to their co-workers and clients. This limits the pure Spanish-speakers to the barrios, and to the company of Latinos only. Early-generation Latinos at that, since many third- and later-generation Latinos don't speak conversational Spanish either.

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

Oh I understand that, I'm just saying what I heard, and the word discrimination was used a lot.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Note that the effect of "naturalizing illegal immigrants" runs counter to getting California restored to Mexico -- Mexican-American citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the United States of America rather than returning to Mexican rule, and this is more true with each subsequent generation.

Spanish-language instruction slows assimilation. However, it also reduces the wealth and influence of Mexican-Americans unfortunate enough to fail to learn English well. This is inevitable, because English is the common language not only of native-born Americans but also of immigrants from non Spanish speaking countries -- if a Mexican-American has a conversation with a Chinese-American, it will almost certainly be in English. Hence, immigrants who speak little or no English are at a huge disadvantage.

The likely linguistic outcome of America's acceptance of lots of Latin American immigrants will be the emergence of an "American" version of English with numerous Spanish loan-words. This can already be seen happening today.

America really won't ever give California and the Purchase back, and hence the goal is unrealistic. They would be better off agitating for an American annexation of Mexico :)

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

Note that the effect of "naturalizing illegal immigrants" runs counter to getting California restored to Mexico

Well, from what I gathered the idea is that California may be in the U.S. but really belongs to Mexico or should, so people from Mexico who crossed the border illegally shouldn't be treated as illegal immigrants because they're still in their own country really (the border crossed us etc.), so even if the U.S. is still calling CA its own then it should still give rights to Mexicans. I know it sounds weird, it sounds weird to me as I try to explain what I heard.

Mexican-American citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the United States of America rather than returning to Mexican rule

Beats me, again. I have no idea what the stats are.

However, I did hear a new idea very recently, that Southern California should become a bilingual and binational place, since there are so many of both Americans and non-American Latin Americans living there. I still don't know what to make of that!

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

Official bi-lingualism is always a road fraught with difficulty - just ask Canada or Belgium.

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

My family manages a ranch.

We're disgustingly honest, so we only hire legal folks-- it costs more, but it's honest.

We had several of the Mexican folks we hired go on LONG rants about how screwed over they'd been by not being taught good English-- some of these guys were third generation. ALL of them were pissed off. (They were also good workers, or we wouldn't have hired them.)

On a side note... in the navy I met several US citizens who hadn't been exposed to English until they joined. Two Filipinos, three Mexicans (meaning their grandfather or whatever came from Mexico) and one guy who had NO IDEA where his family was from, but spoke Tagalog; he'd been married since he was 17, to a 16 year old, they'd already lost one kid and she wouldn't leave the area of LA that they were from because she couldn't understand even basic English.... (Tagalog: the language of the PI)

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

Tagalog is one of the languagues of the P.I. The official languages are Philipino (yes, I know, in many ways a dressed up and standardized form of Tagalog) and English (although Philipino English has as many quirks as any other regional variation). A lot of my Philipino friends speak Ilocano and find Tagalog difficult as a second language. Tagalog is the language from the area around Manila, so it's a safe bet your friends parents were from there.

Then there are the kids, born in Canada, who speak "Taglish". Tagalog-speaking parents shake their heads as much as their English-speaking teachers about it. Interestingly, my Canadian friends use Taglish about the same way their cousins in LA do, as well as some other Philipino friends I have who were raised in Thailand, but went to English school in Malaysia.

[starshipcat.livejournal.com]

Actually Spanish loan-words have been a distinguishing characteristic of American English (iow you don't see them in British English, or Australian English or other world Englishes) ever since the areas we're discussing have been part of the Union. However, those words have been "supplemental" borrowings -- that is, words for things for which there was not already a good word in English. Words for the geographic features and weather of the Southwest. Culinary terms. Words relating to the music and dance of the area.

What will be interesting will be if the Mexican-American influence leads to the wholesale importation of terms where there already exists one or more words, similar to the way English already has words of Germanic and French origin used side by side, although often with a slightly different flavor. (In fact, this parallelism of Germanic and French/Latin terms is one of the things that gives English its vast vocabulary).

[headnoises.livejournal.com]

I think it was Terry Pratchett who said:
English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
Given that the man likes to quote, it's probably from somewhere else...still a great line, though.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

No, actually it was James Nicholl, from Waterloo, Ontario who originally wrote:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary."
—James Nicoll, can.general, March 21, 1992

James has an LJ of his own, btw:
http://james-nicoll.livejournal.com/

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

So, you solve the problem in the short-term by appealing to everyone's comfort levels, then 100 years later you have the decendents of those who made the deal bandying about words like "distinct society", fining shop owner who try to put up English signs and trying to push through Constitutional amendments and suceed from the country ... oh, wait, sorry; I'm talking about Quebec.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

*snort*
Ask the Poles how well such arguments work out.

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

WRT the ad itself, my only regret is that it's vodka, which I don't drink anyway, so my saying "See if I drink Absolut after this!" is an empty threat.

If it had been gin, now...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The pity of it is that, according to people who know such things (I don't drink vodka either) Absolut is either the best or among the best vodkas in the world. And this is typically Swedish: produce a superlative product (the Swedes have, in my experience, better food and better and more tasteful housing than anyone else north of Italy) and then wreck it by naive, provincial, ignorant arrogance and stupid attempts at PC.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

It amuses me that article I read about the ad (I hadn't heard about it, so I had to go look it up) included this line:

"Some Mexicans use the term "Reconquista" (reconquest) to refer to the growing presence in California of Mexican migrants and their descendants."

Given the delicacy of Muslim-American relations right now, I wonder how well that would go over if more Americans knew enough history to remember what the original "Reconquista" was about.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You might add that, in Mexican history, the "conquista" was what Cortez and co. did to the Aztecs. How the Aztlan maniacs, with their rose-tinted notion of the Aztec Empire, reconcile that with a positive idea of "re"-conquista at the expense of America and in the name of Cortez's tongue is a conundrum even in the usual insanities of ultra-nationalism.

Another reconquest suggested (tongue-in-cheek)

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

As the son of a Welshman (who, however, went to Canada as a teen) I have sardonic thoughts of the Welsh and other Celts chasing the descendants of Anglo-Saxon (and later, Norman) invaders out of the British isles. But then, I shouldn't be too hard on the English, because my American-born mother is of mostly English derivation. This all colors my reaction to people who try to turn back the demographic clock in any part of the world, whether it be the American continents, Palestine, or wherever.

About bilinguilism

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

Excuse me for double-posting, but I felt this was better as a separate comment entry because it deals with a separate line of thought. In December 2006, I returned (for the first time since a child) to South Africa, the land of my birth. It was interesting when traveling around to find (African) natives that spoke different European languages in addition to their various tribal languages, depending on where they had grown up. Even if they also knew English, natives in some parts of the country were more comfortable conversing in Afrikaans than in English. I did not, however, detect (at least among the people I met on my rather short stay) a sense of competition between the two languages. On the other hand, among the whites, I suspect I would have found more linguistic chauvinism. On the whole, I feel that SA does as good a job as most countries with multilingualism. With majority rule there are now something like 7 official languages (I don't remember offhand exactly, and don't want to take the time to look it up) but the two colonial languages coexist as languages of trade and intercommunication.

In personal anecdotal mode, I still remember when we moved out of the city of Kimberley, where the medium of instruction in the West End school was English, to the small farming community of Ronaldsvlei, where my brother and I were suddenly studying in Afrikaaans. It was not quite total submergence learning--the teachers did explain to us as necessary, more so in the beginning than later on--but close to it. I heartily recommend the same practice for Spanish-speaking immigrant children in the US.