Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (97543)	5/6/2003 4:24:10 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

The whole subject is historically ambiguous, good and bad on both sides, with lots of pots and kettles to call black on either side. It is undisputed, however, that when Mexico finally gained its Independence in 1821, it freed all slaves despite the fact that the primary object of the War of Independence was not to liberate slaves, as was ostensibly the Civil War, but to get out from under the Spanish yoke. Following Independence, and especially during the Porfiriate--mid 1870s, more or less, to 1910--Mexico was a hell-hole for anyone aspiring to civil liberties and a liberal form of government. Many of its peones were for all practical purposes indentured to landowners. During this time, the US was haltingly making progress on the civil liberty front. After the Revolution of 1910, Mexico progressed to some extent, not the same as the US, as the Revolution was corrupted by the PRI. It implemented a one-party authoritarian, highly criminal system of government while the US was making startling progress in the civil liberty arena. Only recently did a visionary President, Zedillo, allow free elections, resulting in a violence-free change of regime, the first in Mexico during the 20th century--I count the year 2000 as being in the 20th century and PRI rule as a single regime, or its continuation to be more precise. Still whether Mexico is a democracy is debatable as 25% to 33% of its GDP is due to the drug trade, a huge subterranean flow of money that corrupts everything it touches. I call it a narcodemocracy, one in which all the outside symbols of democracy exist but where the real levers of power reside outside the ballot box, the Presidential office, and Congress. Don't try to stop the flow of cash as it goes into the highest places and there won't be problems. Screw with it and it will hit the fan. The Colombians know all about that. Zakaria in his book the The Future of Freedom thinks of Mexico as the poster child for his thesis that higher relative income coupled with a somewhat authoritarian previous regime is a good recipe for a liberal consititutional democracy such as the USA's. He doesn't even mention drugs, something that I think makes his thesis re: Mexico highly suspect. The whole thing hangs on a foundation of a deep division between the wealthy and the poor as well as on the whims of the drug runners, who can upset the applecart any time they wish. Guess who wants that apple cart steady? You guessed it, our Uncle Sam, who would rather see drugs flowing into the US with cosmetic interdiction and occassional netting of a big fish than the social chaos a real drug war would create in Mexico. We know that instability of the Mexican government, corrupt as it may be due to the huge amounts of cash entrepreneurial politicos can make, is not a good thing for the US's national security so the war on drugs is more like a pillow fight. Hey, pretty good day, huh? From Texan slaves to drugs. o:

To: aladin who wrote (97543)	5/6/2003 4:28:18 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 281500

The attitudes were pre-existing ... reflect that a large proportion of population here at the time had been refugees from the 1770s looting and murder in the thirteen colonies to the south ... their descendants felt the same, peace order and good government, though they often lacked the latter, being human beings ..... reflect also, that the quebecois were among the strongest supporters of our independence from Washington, as they greatly preferred the british system of basically letting the priests rule, as they had pre-1759 ... also the indians, who greatly preferred not to be slaughtered .... without the voltigeurs of de Salaberry and the warriors of Tecumseh, we would now almost certainly have no country And it's pretty clear who won - whose flag do you see flying today over this g.w.n. Schoolbooks from the US have been taken to México, displayed alongside translations of appropriate passages in re the taking of Tejas, the later invasion and occupation of half the nation, etc .... no mention of the central issue, slavery, is found in them ... no mention either of the persecution of catholics, or the policy of wiping out the indigenous ..... take from that what you will, but i think you can imagine what mejicanos take from it Until the 1950s the chicanos who survived in the occupied provinces could not buy a house, could not get into university, could not even enter a restaurant ..... there is somewhere a well-written story of one hispano ex-GI in around 1950, who decided he should be able to buy a cup of coffee in the local diner, he went in, sat down, and they called the cops on him .... this was a holder of several military medals, one quite significant, maybe the Medal of Honour .... slowly the GI bill started changing things, hispanos could get a degree of financing for land or houses, they could enter university, politics even later on .... but it was the late 60s at least before there was any semblance of those vaunted jeffersonian democratic principles for the chicano For years i've gone south and said to mejicanos, loosen up, this degree of isolationism makes no sense, don't be so defensive, they're not all sleazeballs among the gringos, there is not that much to fear, you need to understand them, you can start by teaching the children english, it is stupid not to, you are limiting them otherwise .... the part on language i hold as article of faith, the rest of it i do genuinely believe most days .... then come other days, often on message boards, when kapow, there comes ole John L O'Sullivan typing at me, and he's not with me, he's agin me, and i know it to the core of my soul ... this morning he showed up as unclewest, hence my typing here today ... later, cháu