Monday, April 07, 2008
The Absolut Mexico kerfuffle through the prism of history
Righty bloggers have worked themselves up in a tizzy about this Absolut Vodka ad, which ran in a Mexican magazine last week only to spread virally after a local blogger posted it on March 31. The objection was that the map reflects the "reconquista," which in this context is the slow motion reconquest of the part of United States that was formerly Mexico, culturally if not actually, by illegal immigration.
Now, in my experience the word reconquista is used exclusively by the American right, which seems to be the only political group on either side of the border that worries that President Polk's great victories might one day be overturned. Nevertheless, the reaction has been such that Absolut has apologized and said that it will not run the ad again. Not that it needs to; the publicity it has received north of the border is almost certainly exceeded its wildest dreams.
I had a somewhat different reaction than my fellow righties. Absolut, being a brand of vodka, was not endorsing a reconquista so much as giving Mexicans something to talk about. I was therefore not offended by Absolut's ad per se, insofar as the company was merely pandering to the national pride of Mexican consumers. To me the interesting point was that a consumer products company calculated that this ad would pander to that pride. Since marketing people are paid to understand these things, what does the ad tell us about the attitude about the attitudes of Mexican consumers toward the "reconquista"? Probably nothing important, but it is a subject that some American official ought to understand in more detail.
Of course, if Americans were more comfortable with their own history, Absolut might well run a corresponding ad north of the border that showed a much larger United States than today exists, with a bunch of American states in what is actually northern Mexico. That map would reflect the extent of our victory over Mexico, and the territory we could have retained but for the sectarian division in the United States Senate (ante-bellum northerners ignorantly worried that conquered Mexican territory would become slave states, which would tip the balance in the Senate in favor of the South). Had we kept that territory won in 1848, the product of a war that Ulysses S. Grant and many other respected northerners regarded as the most unjust war we had ever waged, we would have much more territory in the southwest and a substantially shorter border to police today. Whether that is a happy or a sad consequence of America's "peculiar institution" is an interesting question.
We do not lament the Mexico that we did not annex and Absolut does not make a map reminding us of it because, contrary to the accusations of the left and the presumptions of most foreigners, we Americans do not celebrate our own victories in and of themselves. We regard them as tragedies averted and nothing more, even when they furthered imperial designs we would not admit even to ourselves.
Finally, of course, there is the point that so animates the American right. Having conquered that territory fair and square at a significant cost in blood and treasure, would it matter if it became culturally, if not legally, Mexican? Or, put differently, what is it that is valuable about that territory and the people who live there that we ought to defend?
21 Comments:
By 
Cas, at
Mon Apr 07, 12:36:00 AM:
"...what is it that is valuable about that territory and the people who live there that we ought to defend?"
Are we talking about the minerals (not just precious metals, but ALL the minerals) that have been found in this area?
Or what about the vast amount of farming acreage? Or the land that livestock graze on?
Or perhaps we're just talking about the oil? Why not mention the "tar sands", that may soon be profitable to exploit?
Or the great natural scenery of the Pacific coast?
No, you're right, nothing there we need to protect or defend...
By 
, at
Mon Apr 07, 01:04:00 AM:
What should be done is a nation wide boycott of their product if their going to help these mexican crinimals its time they faced the music
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 03:41:00 AM:
Your attitude is dumb TH.
First off, Reconquista is a policy, supported by the Mexican govt, to annex the Southwest by mass immigration. If 40 million Mexicans moved to California for example and demanded it be returned to Mexico, there is little we could do short of violence. The aim of course is to peel off bit by bit US sovereignty, and replace America with Mexico. So drivers licenses for illegals, Affirmative Action for illegals, in-state Tuition (denied to out of state citizens) for illegals, the whole framework of legal superiority to illegals and second-class status for citizens.
One might ask, who's side are you on? You can only choose one. Absolut found that out. They chose Mexico and lost, in on master stroke, the American market.
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 06:40:00 AM:
What is valuable?
Hows about the best snowboarding terrain and snow conditions in North America?
I'd enlist and march on Mexico City right now just to keep that territory.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 07, 06:48:00 AM:
Well, Cass, all the stuff you named will still be there even if there are a lot of people with Mexican names, at least as long as they have American passports. Mexican or Anglo, they will want to own land and businesses in the American legal system, rather than the Mexican, because that fact alone confers so much wealth. So what is it that people are worried about? Obviously, it is culture and language. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but culture and language change in the world's borderlands all the time without any former government policy. They are devilishly hard to contain, in fact, if you look around the world.
Anon 3:41: Reconquista is a policy, supported by the Mexican govt, to annex the Southwest by mass immigration.
Really? There's no room for a different interpretation of Mexico's policies? You know, like they do not want to throw their own people in jail for trying to leave?
Don't get me wrong. We conquered it fair and square and I think we should keep it.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 07, 06:56:00 AM:
Anyway, you guys jumping on me are missing the interesting question of the post: Do you wish that we had grabbed the vast expanse that is now northern Mexico in addition to California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and so forth? It would have brought many more Mexicans under our jurisdiction much earlier in the history of our country, and a lot more territory that would be equally beautiful and worth defending today. What say you?
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 08:31:00 AM:
"Absolut might well run a corresponding ad north of the border that showed a much larger United States than today exists, with a bunch of American states in what is actually northern Mexico. That map would reflect the extent of our victory over Mexico"
How much more territory are we talking about? Do you know of a map showing larger proposed annexations?
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Apr 07, 08:35:00 AM:
Actually, the fear of new slave states tipping the balance was less ignorant than you contend, TH. All the Missouri Compromise of 1820 settled was that northern territory had to join the Union as states at the same rate as southern. A few short years after Mr. Polk's War, the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 threw that question back to the people and Bleeding Kansas was the immediate result.
The Mexican Cession after the war resulted in about 40% of Mexico becoming US territory (bought and paid for under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for $15 million and the assumption of $3.25 Million in Mexican debts to the US). There were only 8,000 Mexican families living in these territories, and for American expansionists this argued for annexation as relatively empty land without a large foreign population to absorb. Not so to the south, where climate and tropical disease and a large population that was entirely different from the dominant US culture in ethnic and religious origin were strong disincentives to claiming further territory.
Finally, Manifest Destiny was a lateral, rather than longitudinal vision. The scramble for North America was for its unconquered or lightly settled lands. Mexico was vulnerable because it had recently broken away from Spain and so lacked the resources to defend all its territory. Canada was not, as witness "54.40 or Fight."
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 08:50:00 AM:
"in my experience the word reconquista is used exclusively by the American right"
You need to get more experience, TH. At the University in Southern California where I work "reconquista", "la Raza" and "white imperialism" and "Bush=Hitler" are used quite extensively by the political left. One of the reasons Rev. Wrights sermons didn't shock me that much was the language that come out of our cultural center which include a giant mural that features the unified struggle of all others races, against the oppressive "white race".
As far as the "interesting question" goes, I think the border is just fine where it is, and I don't have a problem living among Mexicans, otherwise, I wouldn't live in California. The best part about the border is it shows quite effectively the value of the American system of government. Either that or crossing the border magically transforms Mexicans into hard workers. Perhaps the Magic Kingdom has an influence greater than the Mexican constitution?
Yesterday I was talking to my next door neighbor who came from Mexico about 20 years ago about the current economy and he mentioned the economic downturn after "your war in 1993 against Iraq". He owns a business, millions of dollars of Southern California real estate and had raised his family here but he still considers himself part of a foreign country. Large areas of the US are being colonized by Mexico and the Absolut Vodka was very insensitive to people like me who have dealt with "reconquista" for 30 years. It has not been pleasant having my community replaced by people who look upon me as the outsider. It has hurt, deeply, to have my community changed so extensively by illegal activity, and have so little understanding or concern about what the American people have endured. In my short lifetime we have accepted millions of Vietnamese refugees, Korean immigrants and Mexican illegal immigrants and in spite of that I am still called a "racist" because of my skin color. "Reconqista" stinks, because it is an illegal activity that hurts people and because so few people care what it does to the people who get "reconqistaed". Pray it doesn't happen to you because the US government won't stop it, for some reason that no one has ever explained.
Reconquista stinks, and so does Absolut vodka.
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 08:54:00 AM:
Good Lord, you people sound like a bunch of Muslims calling for a jihad over Allah ice cream.
Get over it. Wasn't that your advice to the Arab community when mean ol meany Burger King ? offended?
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 08:59:00 AM:
Well, Cass, all the stuff you named will still be there even if there are a lot of people with Mexican names....
Touche, TH
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 07, 09:00:00 AM:
GT -
Actually, the fear of new slave states tipping the balance was less ignorant than you contend, TH.
I appreciate the ante-bellum political issues as perceived from Washington, but would it have been possible, in fact, for the economy and culture of Mexico south of the Rio Grande to have supported slavery in the American style? I would have thought not, but maybe I'm wrong.
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 09:04:00 AM:
"what is it that is valuable about that territory and the people who live there that we ought to defend?"
Given Washington's response to what we have been dealing with for over 30 years, nothing.
We are not calling for jihad, like some of those unreasonable people, we just wonder why the law is not being enforced when we are being hurt. There are over 20 Mexican nationals on death row for murder in California alone.
Anonymous can chortle all he wants but it isn't easy to deal with the destruction caused by illegal immigrant drunk drivers, either. Until the day she died my wife cringed whenever she heard screeching tires whenever we were driving. The left has lots of sympathy for the terrorists, and none for the victims of the illegal immigrants. In our case the perp had a forged drivers license, fled the scene and was never apprehended. I pray he never hurts anyone else, but it would be nice to be able to rely on law enforcment, not prayers, for protection.
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 09:08:00 AM:
Culturally, slavery would have been very difficult to introduce into Mexico as they already had a white ruling elite and a dark skin, native working class, who had legal freedom. Most Mexicans would have probably identified with the slaves rather than the masters.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Apr 07, 09:34:00 AM:
Actually there were slaves in part of Mexico. The Mexican govt allowed it only b/c the relationship was cloaked in "lifetime contract" language. That place, of course, was Texas. There were black slaves in other parts of Mexico, in Central America, and in Spanish South America (I say that to differentiate from Brazil). Places with climates or governments identical to Mexico. The practice just wasn't state-sanctioned as it was in the United States...or Brazil, (or in the Caribbean (before say, 1815-1820 timeframe).
But come on now "right bloggers in a tizzy"--how can you justify the tizzy? The infant United States did yank California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas from Spain...and let's not forget Andrew Jackson pretty much bogarting Florida from a Spain weak from years of raping by Napoleon--and Jackson wanted to stomp Seminoles and the runaway slaves they harbored in addition to picking some land. It wasn't a closed conspiracy of the Southern slave power (I guess that being the ancestors of Roger Ailes and Fox News), but it was on their minds when churning over Manifest Destiny. Indeed, more insidious was the FACT that the Mexicans INVITED you dickheads to settle and live peaceably, didn't force any of you to be Catholics. But no. That wasn't enough. Stop trying to recast this crap as the "left" in an uproar. It was history. What do you give...what do you surrender, by admitting something was plain ol' history? I swear you angry white guys have lost your damns mind. Calm down and just live, OK? jeez...
Look, if millions of non-literate illegals (which Tigerhawk a "absolute"-ly hahahahaha loves b/c it depresses wages, supplies cheap compliant labor, wrecks unions, negates the needs for healthcare or pensions) is the price for stealing the Southwest, then so be it. That way you don't have to deal with surly blacks or trade unionists trying to organize your meatpackers, lawn cutters or french fry makers at McDonalds. Just one thing. All these folks have kids. They marry or get pregnant young, the way nature intended, and their kids, all citizens will vote in coming elections. I predict statues of Davy Crockett will be hauled down, and William Polk won't be on any bi-lingual money anytime soon...
By Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Apr 07, 09:40:00 AM:
P.S. I love that "tragedies" line Tigerhawk employs--as if conquest and invasion, destruction, killing was something foisted upon the reluctant, thoughtful US in 1848...Ha!
Interesting how that lines shows up elsehwere in history, including the transcripts of post WWII war crimes trials in Japan and Germany.
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Apr 07, 09:46:00 AM:
You know how I love speculative fiction, TH. You are going a long way toward answering questions I will need to address in my alternate US history series, once I put the Revolution to bed....
Slavery was abolished throughout most of Mexico in 1829. It had previously existed under both Aztec and Spanish rule, though it evolved differently than in the American south.
19 years of abolition and an economy still driven by a white ruling elite, and a land tenure system that bound laborers to land does not seem like an insurmountable bulwark against the expansion of slavery in additional conquered territory.
There may not have been the economic necessity to do so, but certainly there could have been plenty of "Dredd Scott" situations with slaves brought to the new territory by their American masters. Even if economics did not support it, having new states represented in congress where voters were not opposed to the institution of slavery would have strengthened the southern block. Instead of Bleeding Kansas, why not Bleeding Monterrey?
By Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Apr 07, 12:15:00 PM:
P.P.S.
TH, this next comment has nothing to do with right or left. Your father's up in heaven shuddering! Shuddering! You cited Wikipedia?! OK, if someone is twelve years old and/or doesn't know anything about a subject and needs the quick and dirty a la Encyclopedia Britannica, fine. But citing to Wikipedia--even for a blog--your dad's spirit is going to hide your car keys or your wallet...or worse, put a thoughtful, supportive nugget about Barack Obama in your noggin!!!
Don't EVER let me catch you doing that again!!! You've pissed me off plenty with the substantive stuff on this blog and I've forgiven you. But this? This tests me, truly...
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 02:43:00 PM:
Once again, Chambers, you've proven that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
For instance; slavery wasn't abolished in Brazil until 1888. The slave trade continued until 1850. Not state sanctioned my ass.
A *condition* for Anglo immigration into Texas was 'acceptance' of Roman Catholicism, including tithing the Church.
The ruler of Mexico (Santa Anna) had taken power in a military coup, proclaimed himself dictator, suspended state legislatures, abolished the Constitution, and ordered the disarmament of the population, triggering rebellions all over the country. Along with the Texian revolt, *eleven* other Mexican states, including Yucatan, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, (all of whom declared independence as either the Republic of Yucatan or the Republic of the Rio Grande) revolted against the government. Thousands were deliberately massacred by the Mexican government as these revolts were crushed.
The designated Texian peace envoy, Stephen F. Austin, went to Mexico City to negotiate with the government where he was imprisoned without charge.
And I haven't even gotten to the violation of the borders set by the Treaty of Velasco that precipitated the Mexican-American War and the comedy of that series of events. (which the Mexicans wanted to fight *so badly* they actually deposed their sitting head of state when he mentioned trying to negotiate a settlement with the US)
That that war has been characterized as a war of American aggression is one of the great disservices that revisionist liberal academics have perpetrated on the historical record.
Crack open a god damned history book (something written by someone other than Howard Zinn) before you deign to lecture us 'dickheads' about the sins of our ancestors you ignorant, race-baiting twat.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Mon Apr 07, 04:28:00 PM:
Christopher,
You write:
"The infant United States did yank California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas from Spain . . ."
That would be news to the Mexicans, who are rather proud of their revolution that succeeded in throwing off Spanish rule.
It is likewise news to us Texans, who will remind people endlessly of our own revolution in 1836, which was followed by nine years as an independent republic, prior to annexation by the US.
As a sixth generation Texan (the first of my ancestors arrived here during the Republic), I have a stake in the matter. I'd be extremely troubled by a legal reconquista, because Mexico's political culture leaves a lot to be desired, With respect to a cultural one, well, all sorts of adaptations and mutual accomodations are possible.
Immigration is a very complicated issue, and I personally have mixed feelings on the matter. For all its faults, the deal that W wanted was probably not too bad, although I do think securing the border deserved a higher priority.
Bottom line: I save my right-wing tizzies for other issues.
ScurvyOaks '84
By , at
Mon Apr 07, 06:54:00 PM:
Christopher Chambers proves once again that he is arrogance wrapped in ignorance.
