Historical Legitimacy of Spanish in the SW United States (generations, Mexicans, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have heard it said by some that the growing presence of Spanish in the southwestern United States is simply a logical return to normalcy for this region, and that Spanish speakers are simply taking back what was rightfully theirs. A lot of people point to the many Spanish place names to back up this claim.
I know about the issues related to the wars and U.S. conquest of the region, and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and all that, but what I am really interested in is the human side.
Was there really an organized Spanish-language society (or societies) in this part of the world when the Americans took over? With cities, towns, schools, colleges, courts, large or medium scale economic activity in Spanish, etc.?
Another thing I was wondering about is it seems most native Spanish speakers living in the region today are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants who moved to the US in the last 50 years or so.
Would there really be that many people there whose ancestors were around at Guadalupe-Hidalgo and who have always spoken Spanish intergenerationally over the centuries? Or would most of these families have gradually adopted English (though sometimes retaining some rudimentary Spanish and some of the culture also) as their main language during the centuries of anglo (political, demographic, economic, societal) dominance in the region that lasted from G-H up until fairly recently?
I am also interested in regional variations in these phenomena.
The SW United States was not overly populated when it was ceded to the US, because the area is mostly desert. In fact, THe US govt. decided not to kick off the inhabitants of the SW because the area was so sparsely populated. When the SW was under the visage of Mexico, the place was so poorly managed that Texas was consistently a thorn in the proverbial side of Mexico. Also, California, widely seen as one of the most powerful states for its agricultural abilities and raw materials, was very under utilized. Still, the Mexican-American War essentially decided which of the nations would hold supreme power over this part of the New World.
Just because the SW used to be part of a Spanish-speaking nation doesn't give it someone the legitimate right to not assimilate. The American way for the SW IS normalcy, and has been so for more than 100 years. I have hear a lot of this "taking back" of the area, and it sickens me. Panama used to be a part of Colombia, and now they are two separate nations. The same can be said of Brazil and Uruguay, or Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. The fact is THIS is the way things are now, and until Mexico fights to regain the AMerican SW (and I don't hear any official mumblings of this), the place should be English speaking and subscribed to the same American Culture that the rest of the union enjoys.
Many Americans don't know that the California State Constitution of 1849 was written in Spanish by Spanish speaking "Californios" ... 163 years later we have a very good chance of seeing another new state write their state constitution in Spanish - Puerto Rico. Though it's likely they will just take the existing constitution and replace "Estado Libre Associado de Puerto Rico" with "Estado de Puerto Rico".
Arizona and New Mexico also had their transition from territory to state delayed because of silly fears about the large Spanish speaking populations of those areas.
I have heard it said by some that the growing presence of Spanish in the southwestern United States is simply a logical return to normalcy for this region, and that Spanish speakers are simply taking back what was rightfully theirs. A lot of people point to the many Spanish place names to back up this claim.
I know about the issues related to the wars and U.S. conquest of the region, and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and all that, but what I am really interested in is the human side.
Was there really an organized Spanish-language society (or societies) in this part of the world when the Americans took over? With cities, towns, schools, colleges, courts, large or medium scale economic activity in Spanish, etc.?
Another thing I was wondering about is it seems most native Spanish speakers living in the region today are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants who moved to the US in the last 50 years or so.
Would there really be that many people there whose ancestors were around at Guadalupe-Hidalgo and who have always spoken Spanish intergenerationally over the centuries? Or would most of these families have gradually adopted English (though sometimes retaining some rudimentary Spanish and some of the culture also) as their main language during the centuries of anglo (political, demographic, economic, societal) dominance in the region that lasted from G-H up until fairly recently?
I am also interested in regional variations in these phenomena.
The fact that there are many Spanish place-names has nothing to do with the validity of the theory that Mexicans have a right to reclaim the land.
Santa Fe was a lone outpost, the capital of Mexico's northern territories NM, Arizona, Utah, Colorado). Arizona and NM were (and still are) populated by Indian tribes, some of which spoke Spanish along with their own language. (Some elders still do speak Spanish.) NM is still populated by the descendants of settlers who arrived directly from Spain, as well as those who were Mexican-born. Many of these families are living on their ancestral land, and still hold Mexican land-grants. Many of these are bilingual in Spanish and English, though the younger generation generally learns Spanish in school, as a second language. These people still consider NM to be a Hispanic state, one that has been over-run with Anglos. Northern NM only saw a major Anglo influx beginning in the 1960's. Before then, the vast majority was Hispanic and Native American, and many people lived by barter. After Northern New Mexico became trendy for Anglos, the cash economy became dominant. Still, a significant number of people continue to live off the land the old way, growing their own food, and hunting.
The SW United States was not overly populated when it was ceded to the US, because the area is mostly desert. In fact, THe US govt. decided not to kick off the inhabitants of the SW because the area was so sparsely populated. When the SW was under the visage of Mexico, the place was so poorly managed that Texas was consistently a thorn in the proverbial side of Mexico. Also, California, widely seen as one of the most powerful states for its agricultural abilities and raw materials, was very under utilized. Still, the Mexican-American War essentially decided which of the nations would hold supreme power over this part of the New World.
Just because the SW used to be part of a Spanish-speaking nation doesn't give it someone the legitimate right to not assimilate. The American way for the SW IS normalcy, and has been so for more than 100 years. I have hear a lot of this "taking back" of the area, and it sickens me. Panama used to be a part of Colombia, and now they are two separate nations. The same can be said of Brazil and Uruguay, or Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. The fact is THIS is the way things are now, and until Mexico fights to regain the AMerican SW (and I don't hear any official mumblings of this), the place should be English speaking and subscribed to the same American Culture that the rest of the union enjoys.
If someone wants to live in a Spanish speaking area of the US and not assimilate, that is their own business, this is a free country. There are many places that have been majority Spanish speaking as long as they've been part of the US, like El Paso, San Antonio, Laredo and El Centro. You're only going to get so far never learning English so it would be a good idea to do so, but it's really no one elses' business.
However, one can not deny the strong Spanish influence that exists in the region since the late 1500s. The Spain invaded in the 1590s and did not leave until 1821, when they were replaced by the Mexican administration. Anglo control over this area began only in 1846. So, yes, I do see the point that Spanish influence was around for much longer than the Anglo administration. The length of their stay has allowed for many Spanish names, of people and places. Many of those individuals in northern New Mexico with Latin names have been there for generations, since the days of Spanish colonial rule...the newer arrivals are more in the southwest part of the state.
However...let's look at the Native American perspective. Spain ws there for a few hundred years...the natives were there for thousands of years. So how can you say that Spanish influence and culture is the norm when for most of human history, it was only occupied by Native Americans?
As for the Anglo influence...one also can not deny that they have left many permenant changes and adjustments to the "Land of Enchantment."
So what's my point? I think all three major cultures of New mexico and the Southwest have left their mark on the region...there is no "normal" New Mexico. New Mexico is what it is.
However, one can not deny the strong Spanish influence that exists in the region since the late 1500s. The Spain invaded in the 1590s and did not leave until 1821, when they were replaced by the Mexican administration. Anglo control over this area began only in 1846. So, yes, I do see the point that Spanish influence was around for much longer than the Anglo administration. The length of their stay has allowed for many Spanish names, of people and places. Many of those individuals in northern New Mexico with Latin names have been there for generations, since the days of Spanish colonial rule...the newer arrivals are more in the southwest part of the state.
However...let's look at the Native American perspective. Spain ws there for a few hundred years...the natives were there for thousands of years. So how can you say that Spanish influence and culture is the norm when for most of human history, it was only occupied by Native Americans?
As for the Anglo influence...one also can not deny that they have left many permenant changes and adjustments to the "Land of Enchantment."
So what's my point? I think all three major cultures of New mexico and the Southwest have left their mark on the region...there is no "normal" New Mexico. New Mexico is what it is.
Break it down more: the American Indians there were also different "nations" before the Hispanics came here.
I'm pretty sure another group will take what is now Arizona and so on but probably not for another couple hundred years. It's more likely what's left of Mexico will fall apart 1st and the US will get part of it.
Many Americans don't know that the California State Constitution of 1849 was written in Spanish by Spanish speaking "Californios" ... 163 years later we have a very good chance of seeing another new state write their state constitution in Spanish - Puerto Rico. Though it's likely they will just take the existing constitution and replace "Estado Libre Associado de Puerto Rico" with "Estado de Puerto Rico".
Arizona and New Mexico also had their transition from territory to state delayed because of silly fears about the large Spanish speaking populations of those areas.
I was born and raised in California. The Californios are considered the first, true, Californians even though there were already Natives, Mexicans, American military outposts, explorers, and a few Spanish missionaries living in the state for years prior to the Californios. And, the Californios were/are a mixed race of converted Natives (to Catholicism)/Mexican/Spanish/other Latin Americans. The Spanish missionaries controlled most of the area and both Mexico and Spain encouraged settlement of the area by Mexicans and residents of other Latin American countries. Mexico went as far as allowing the settlers to choose to become Mexican citizens, Spanish citizens, or neither.
Even though the area was a part of Mexico, Spain began to set up colonies as early as the mid-1700s. So if anything, Spain took control of the area from Mexico, and the U.S. took control from Spain even though Mexico ceded California to the U.S. To go even deeper, Mexico never really had control over California with California (and largely Mexico, too) being "owned" and controlled by the Catholic Church even though the Governors of California up until 1848, when California was annexed to the U.S., were all Mexican.
The California Constitution was written in both English and Spanish, not just Spanish alone, and declared both English and Spanish the the official languages of the State.
Those of a Californio blood line consider themselves to be the true, first, Californians whose heritage consists largely of Native and Hispanic blood, not exclusively "Mexican".
This topic has been discussed for years on CD on several diffrent forums with hundreds of posts for those wishing to do a deep search. The theory that the American Southwest and California somehow today belongs to Mexico and/or Spanish speakers has no real historical validity. During all of the era of Spanish exploration and settlement the entire area was only lightly colonized and developed. Mexico did not exist as a sovereign nation until 1821, thus only exercised authority for a brief 27 years, until 1848, and only until 1836 in Texas. Like the Spanish, Mexico only controled a relatively small portion of a very vast area. It was not until the coming of the Americans that the area was settled and developed. Before the Americans came, the real rulers of the Southwest, the ones that had the most control, were the powerful warrior tribes that for two and a half centuries kept the Spanish and then Mexicans in check and kept them pretty much confined and restricted to easily defended places.
I agree. There is too many other cultural influences, often more influential than the Spanish background, for the region to be of one "correct" culture. The history of the Southwest is too varied, diverse and complicated to say that one culture is the "natural" culture. If the proponents of Spanish culture being the "correct" culture can argue that they are right because they were there before the Anglos...the Native American population can certainly argue that Spanish culture is definitely not "natural" for the region. The argument that Spanish is somehow "more natural" than any other culture just does not hold much water...I think most people here in CD do indeed realize that. As for as I am concerned, such an argument is not even worth any more of my time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
