Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Closed

Glenn Beck Schools Eva Longoria on Her Mexican History

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share

We Never Occupied Mexico: Beck Schools Eva Longoria on Her Mexican History

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/we-never-occupied-mexic...

"You might have caught actress Eva Longoria‘s recent appearance on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” in which she claimed that Hispanics would not be moved to vote for Mitt Romney simply because he might tap Marco Rubio to be his vice president. The mere thought of it would be, as she put it, “insulting.” After all, she claims that Mexico was “occupied” by the United States.

“And the idiots in the Bill Maher audience ate it up,” Beck said on his Tuesday evening broadcast before launching into one of the most concise rundowns of Mexican history to date. In fact, as a Mexican-American, it seems inconceivable Longoria didn’t know her own history as well as Beck does.

As it turns out, the Spaniards occupied Mexico for some 300 years and even the word Hispanic was one employed by the Romans when they occupied what now is Spain. So, the Spanish language that is spoken across Latin America is a result of Spanish occupation. Likewise, it was Spain that occupied Mexico for hundreds of years.

in 1846 the Mexican-American war began in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas. Mexico considered Texas part of its territory despite the Texas Revolution nearly a decade prior. Mexico never acknowledged Texas’ independence.

Ultimately, the Americans won the war with Mexico but on February 2 ,1848, the two countries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe which stated that U.S. troops would withdraw from Mexico, including Mexico City and take ownership of the Southwestern United States. What’s more, Beck pointed out that the U.S. agreed to buy the land from Mexico for $15 million, even though it was won squarely in victory and there was no obligation to do so. Not at any time did the United States occupy nor rule Mexico. The United States did not subject Mexicans to our form of government nor did it leave troops stationed in the country.

Beck continues with the real history of Latinos in America, below."

The video is pretty good.

More about : glenn beck schools eva longoria mexican history

Register or log in to remove

I like how Chris Matthews got owned on Jeopardy after insulting others on their inability to do well on that show. Self proclaimed brainiac is more like self obessed arrogant a-hole.

riser said:
I like how Chris Matthews got owned on Jeopardy after insulting others on their inability to do well on that show. Self proclaimed brainiac is more like self obessed arrogant a-hole.


I saw that! So funny. He got owned just like Wolf Blitzer.

Oldman the Blaze is rotting your brain. Who gives a F*ck about an actress's views on Mexico?

Did you want to have a debate about historical Mexican land usage? Or did you want to show what Mr. Beck knows about Mexican history? Or are you trying to troll?
Related ressources
Ask the community

wanamingo said:
Oldman the Blaze is rotting your brain. Who gives a F*ck about an actress's views on Mexico?

Did you want to have a debate about historical Mexican land usage? Or did you want to show what Mr. Beck knows about Mexican history? Or are you trying to troll?



Because she is special advisor to President Obama on Latino affairs. That's why.

So you just wanted to show how a person who is a co-chair (I had to look that up) for the Obama campaign didnt go into detail about the US occupation of Mexico. This seems so unsubstantial its not even worthy of mentioning.

Also just from my memory of High School wasn't Veracruz the first city that was occupied by the US army in what is now modern Mexico?

wanamingo said:
So you just wanted to show how a person who is a co-chair (I had to look that up) for the Obama campaign didnt go into detail about the US occupation of Mexico. This seems so unsubstantial its not even worthy of mentioning.

Also just from my memory of High School wasn't Veracruz the first city that was occupied by the US army in what is now modern Mexico?


You mean during the Mexican-American WAR?

Oh so you did want to have a debate on the historical Mexican border and the nuance of what occupation means.

Well according to the military occupation is "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised" (as defined in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).

But honestly though this is the definition of trolling.
Quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response


You could care less about having a discussion you just want to poo poo on everything you consider liberal. And the mods are allowing this to happen and participating in it. You didnt want to have a healthy discussion about both views, which are both very debatable, you wanted to show a conceived slip up in an administration you don't like, and with an actress who holds no power or responsibility to the administration. And then argue about the definition of occupying a country! It makes no sense, the only conclusion I can come to is you are trolling, simply posting to get a response either positive from the conservative mods, or negative from the more liberal minded users here.

Umm, occupying under loser definition would mean if the other side occupied your land, youd be losing the war. period.

Look up the definition of war
This wasnt the Mexican American occupation

wanamingo said:
Oh so you did want to have a debate on the historical Mexican border and the nuance of what occupation means.

Well according to the military occupation is "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised" (as defined in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10).

But honestly though this is the definition of trolling.
Quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response


You could care less about having a discussion you just want to poo poo on everything you consider liberal. And the mods are allowing this to happen and participating in it. You didnt want to have a healthy discussion about both views, which are both very debatable, you wanted to show a conceived slip up in an administration you don't like, and with an actress who holds no power or responsibility to the administration. And then argue about the definition of occupying a country! It makes no sense, the only conclusion I can come to is you are trolling, simply posting to get a response either positive from the conservative mods, or negative from the more liberal minded users here.



It was declared war mingo. It lasted a year and a half. During that time I supposed you could say we "occupied" huge parts of Mexico with our military. However, after the treaty was signed, all the troops came home and we even paid Mexico $15 million for the land gained during the war.

What Eva means, and what is taught in both southwestern American and Mexican schools, is that the United States is "currently occupying" Mexican lands. That's what she is talking about and what many uneducated, and uninformed people also believe. If we're going to talk occupying let's talk about Spain. A European country by the way in case you forgot, who occupied Mexico for over three centuries until the United States helped defeat Spain giving Mexico its independence and self rule.

This dolt is advising the President on Latino affairs? What sort of "advice" do you suppose he's getting from good ol' Eva? Perhaps that we should hand over Texas, NM, AZ, CA, and UT to Mexico like the UN wants us to return land to the Sioux?

johnsonma said:
We have occupied Mexican cities before, why is this in question? Ol GB is just attacking anything he can, must of got bored with the commies.


Glenn gives over 15 minutes of historic fact in the video segment. I'll take his word over your one liner with no historical references to back it up.

I wouldn't really call it reaching if you look at early maps during the 1830's you will see that the Mexican government had claim to a large chunk of the southwest before the war. Technically you can say that we occupied these lands because we did after we kicked the crap out of them. Really arguing this is just pointless though, OMG is just trying to start another troll off with GB at the center. She makes one comment that can be argued right or wrong and GB extrapolates this into insanity like always and then of course you have to drag the Obama administration into it.

While someone in the spotlight shows another that what they are saying is either wrong or very debatable, one is but a commentator, the other, an advisor.
Its a good point by Beck, and shows the close ties Obama has with Hollywood, as she speaks of raising money for him, as well as other fundraisers.
I think its good to counter well known people by well known people.
Otherwise, we wouldnt be hearing these things, unless you actually watched Maher.

If the people of a particular country doesnt want to be led by someone who says they have rights to it, who are we to say no?
Maybe we also should drop the Palestinian,Syrian, never had the gulf war, and allowed Hussein to take over etc etc.
This is a fools argument, and shows Ms. Longorias ill attempt at polticizing something that goes counter to her own sides beliefs

Under President Antonio López de Santa Anna, the Mexican government began to shift away from a federalist model. The increasingly dictatorial policies, including the revocation of the Constitution of 1824 in early 1835, incited many federalists to revolt.[3] The Mexican border region of Texas was largely populated by immigrants from the United States. These were accustomed to a federalist government and to extensive individual rights, and they were quite vocal in their displeasure at Mexico's shift towards centralism.[4] Already leery of previous American attempts to purchase Texas,[5] Mexican authorities blamed much of the Texian unrest on American immigrants, most of whom had made little effort to adapt to the Mexican culture.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo

johnsonma said:
Wasn't talking about just Texas in my previous post JDJ, I was talking about California, New Mexico(go figure) and Arizona.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histus.html

Check out the territorial growth maps. Beck doesn't even make a real point here other than he has his own view of Mexican History. Just because he disagrees with someone does not mean they are wrong.



Soooooo, what you're saying is California, New Mexico, and Arizona still belong to Mexico? Because that what Eva means when she refers to Mexico being "occupied".

In a way yes, imagine if it was the other way around and we had a war with Mexico, then California, New Mexico and Arizona were Mexican territory. That is what happens when you lose a war though, you lose land. At least they got some hush money out of the deal.

johnsonma said:
In a way yes, imagine if it was the other way around and we had a war with Mexico, then California, New Mexico and Arizona were Mexican territory. That is what happens when you lose a war though, you lose land. At least they got some hush money out of the deal.


Oooook. Just wanted to make sure I understood where you stand.

Does that mean we get our $15 million in inflation adjusted dollars back?

And just to be clear, I both disagree with and think Eva is just plane wrong. That goes for you too john.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states/us_terr_18... by this map here, as I has previously refered to Canada, take a look at BC.
So, should this then be contested as well now?
Should the people of the US therefore be upset?

As far as New Mexico and Arizona, this too should be dropped, as it was a claimed territory by the US
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/us_e...
As for Cali and Texas, the Texicans fought for their rights of self control, thus the lone star state.

The Mexican–American War began in May 1846, and the few marines and bluejacket sailors of the Pacific Squadron and the California Battalion of volunteer militia had California under U. S. control by January 1847, as all the pueblos in California surrendered without firing a shot. In February 1848 the war was over, the 25 years of Mexican rule with over 40 different Mexican Presidents was over, and the boundary disputes with Texas and the territorial acquisition of what would become several new states were laid to rest with a $15,000,000 settlement in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_California

So, in essence, the reality is, those who fought for what they wanted won, those who laid down their weapons lost.
Fair pay was given to boot, and the rest is history.
If you listened to Ms. Longorias reasonings about the political climate, first, she lied, as to the attitudes of Cubans and Mexicans, and as towards the attitudes of many Americans towards Mexicans here illegally.
She doesnt, nor does the dems own the facts, the feelings nor thoughts of the majority of Americans, and tends to distort it in a negative way.
Saying it was fought for, people died, yes, it was that important, unlike what we saw in Cali, where weapons were laid down.
To top it off, compensation was made for the lands, which went into the hands of the Mexicn peoples.
To omit the positives is truly wrong here, and to only concentrate on the negatives, which is one sided is so wrong in so many ways.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states/us_terr_18... by this map here, as I has previously refered to Canada, take a look at BC.
So, should this then be contested as well now?
Should the people of the US therefore be upset?

As far as New Mexico and Arizona, this too should be dropped, as it was a claimed territory by the US
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/us_e...
As for Cali and Texas, the Texicans fought for their rights of self control, thus the lone star state.

The Mexican–American War began in May 1846, and the few marines and bluejacket sailors of the Pacific Squadron and the California Battalion of volunteer militia had California under U. S. control by January 1847, as all the pueblos in California surrendered without firing a shot. In February 1848 the war was over, the 25 years of Mexican rule with over 40 different Mexican Presidents was over, and the boundary disputes with Texas and the territorial acquisition of what would become several new states were laid to rest with a $15,000,000 settlement in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_California

So, in essence, the reality is, those who fought for what they wanted won, those who laid down their weapons lost.
Fair pay was given to boot, and the rest is history.
If you listened to Ms. Longorias reasonings about the political climate, first, she lied, as to the attitudes of Cubans and Mexicans, and as towards the attitudes of many Americans towards Mexicans here illegally.
She doesnt, nor does the dems own the facts, the feelings nor thoughts of the majority of Americans, and tends to distort it in a negative way.
Saying it was fought for, people died, yes, it was that important, unlike what we saw in Cali, where weapons were laid down.
To top it off, compensation was made for the lands, which went into the hands of the Mexicn peoples.
To omit the positives is truly wrong here, and to only concentrate on the negatives, which is one sided is so wrong in so many ways.


You have turned the simple subject of territorial disputes into a bashing tool for dems and Longoria. You also completely overlooked the fact that I said they lost the war and were paid money as well. Guess this thread is over.

The Blaze ... Glenn Beck ... History ... the three are incompatible.

I am closing this thread in case a black hole is created as a result ... its a national security thing ...


Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!