Oct 29 2008
Reconquista?
The Absolut Vodka people probably thought they were just being funny when they released this advertisement last spring. Bloggers went crazy over this one and the resulting “controversy”—and I am using quotes here because as far as I know the furor was limited to the Internet—brought up some serious issues on both sides. When you first learn about the Mexican-American War it does seem shocking to think that the U.S. would steal more than half of another country’s land and add it to our own. Some even argue that present-day Mexicans have the right to travel across our border illegally since once upon a time this land was theirs.
On the other hand, think back to the conditions in Mexico in the mid-1800s. Think back to the strict, race-based, social class system that prevailed even after independence when the Creoles replaced Peninsulares in status and power, but little else changed. Think of 30 changes in government in the first 25 years of Mexican independence. If you polled the Mexicans living in California, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas in 1848 would they be happy with the new arrangement?
What gives a country the right to own land? Is it military power? History? Inheritance? Or is it the self-determination of the people who live in that land? These are the questions that nations and leaders have been asking for centuries. In the 1800s in Europe the answer to this question was Nationalism…meaning people who shared a common culture and ethinicity had the right to their own country. Calls for independence from Quebec, to Puerto Rico or even years ago when Roxbury wanted to seceed from Boston and become the independent city of Mandela are based on this same prinicipal.
Lastly, what is Reconquista and is it working? Obviously not on a political level, but on a cultural one? We don’t perhaps see it as much here in Massachusetts, but think of the prevelance of Spanish language and culture in the southwestern states that used to be Mexico.
