Mexico: Open-border agitprop at the NYT

agitprop

propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art

Brace yourselves for the latest anti-American agitprop: The U.S. has three original sins: Slavery, racism, and “the aggression against Mexico and the plundering of its territory.” Because of that, all Mexicans should be free to live in the U.S., without restrictions.

Mexico’s most lionized historian, Enrique Krauze, says so.

The New York Times – partly-owned by Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim – publishes him.

A lawsuit is being filed asking to nullify the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, since it was the result of America’s “first imperial war.”

Activists on both sides of the border are going to quote Krauze’s article as Gospel.

Krauze dictates,

Hollywood and Broadway, which have always played an important role in shaping the American historical consciousness, should take up the issue.

The article in question is Will Mexico Get Half of Its Territory Back? 

Like other upper-class, rich, Caucasian Mexican activists in the United States, Krauze wants an open border for Mexicans entering the U.S., the very same racist, aggressive, plundering country he derides:

For us Mexicans, this is the chance for a kind of reconquest. Surely not the physical reconquest of the territories that once were ours. Nor an indemnification that should have been much greater than the feeble amount of $15 million that the American government paid, in installments, for the stolen land. We need a reconquest of the memory of that war so prodigal in atrocities inspired by racial prejudices and greed for territorial gain.

But the best and most just reparation would be American immigration reform that could open the road to citizenship for the descendants of those Mexicans who suffered the unjust loss of half their territory.

Never mind that an original sin is a hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin and the United States declared its independence in 1776, over seventy years prior to the period Krauze refers to in his article.

Here are a few facts:

1. Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836. Mexico ignored it.
2. Mexico lost a war against Texas in 1836.
3. From a friend’s Facebook page (emphasis added): “The Mexican state chose the worst possible paths for itself in the decade from 1836 to 1846: it repudiated the recognition of Texas independence and entered into a state of endemic warfare against that republic, but failed to exert itself sufficiently to conclude the matter; it failed to act diplomatically to preclude the American annexation of Texas, which it could likely have achieved with appropriate and timely guarantees and recognition; following that annexation, it deliberately chose a confrontation that it knew would lead to an unwinnable war with the United States; and having made that choice, it elected to confront the American army in the Nueces Strip with insufficient forces under General Arista that were rapidly dispersed, leaving northern Mexico proper open to invasion. The Mexican state across that decade consistently and consciously chose war, every single time, and eventually paid the price attendant to that. (And not just vis a vis Texas and the United States: the Mexican state’s brutal suppression of the Yucatán, the short-lived Republic of the Rio Grande, and many other secessionist or autonomist movements all testify to an institutionalized reflex toward maximal violence.) You can see the de-escalation off-ramps available to Mexico at nearly every point above: it could have chosen to honor the initial recognition of Texas independence; it could have devoted sufficient forces to the reconquest of Texas in the late 1830s, before American intervention was probable; it could have exercised prudence and made peace with Texas in exchange for no American annexation; or it could have refrained from a confrontation in the Nueces Strip that it knew would result in a suicidal war against American power. Mexico wasn’t a victim of the United States in 1846-1848: Mexico was a victim of the admixture of Mexican belligerence and incompetence.”
4. The vast majority of Mexicans elected to remain in the annexed territories.

Timothy Henderson makes the case that the Mexican ruling class knew they would most likely lose the 1846-1848 war in his book, A Glorious Defeat: Mexico and Its War with the United States

The war that was fought between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 was a major event in the history of both countries: it cost Mexico half of its national territory, opened western North America to U.S. expansion, and brought to the surface a host of tensions that led to devastating civil wars in both countries. Among generations of Latin Americans, it helped to cement the image of the United States as an arrogant, aggressive, and imperialist nation, poisoning relations between a young America and its southern neighbors.

In contrast to many current books, which treat the war as a fundamentally American experience, Timothy J. Henderson’s A Glorious Defeat offers a fresh perspective by looking closely at the Mexican side of the equation. He examines the tremendous inequalities of Mexican society and provides a greater understanding of the intense factionalism and political paralysis leading up to and through the war. Also touching on a range of topics from culture and ethnicity to religion and geography, this comprehensive yet concise narrative humanizes the conflict and serves as the perfect introduction for new readers of Mexican history.

Why now?

“Facing Trump, can we reclaim the territories stolen in the 1847 invasion?”

Frente a Trump, podemos reclamar los territorios robados en la invasión de 1847? https://t.co/NjK5EcX1yq

— Enrique Krauze (@EnriqueKrauze) April 6, 2017

And don’t forget, While Mexico’s oil industry generated US$18.7 billion and tourism $17 billion in 2016, remittances reached $27 billion. 95% of those remittances come from the U.S.

The U.S. owes Mexico absolutely nothing.

A question: If Mexico wants to bring up restitution for “atrocities inspired by racial prejudices,” are they willing to give restitution to the Catholic Church and the descendants of the cristeros mercilessly slaughtered ninety years ago by Mexican government anti-Christian prejudices?