2002-05-23|9:13 a.m.
Before my online class of early United States history ends, I wanted to share a post that came up. Although the majority of them do not express this sort of sentiment, there seems to be a small theme I found happening. Here is a post on the question, "Was the Mexican American War an excercise of American Imperialism?":
"After having read both sides about the Mexican American War, I feel that Mr. Acuna is somewhat biased in his oppinion of the Mexican being ill and untrained. What about the fact that the Alamo was outnumber by a huge ratio? We might have been more trained or have had better guns,but we were virtually outnumbered. I do agree that most "Texans" migyt have just arrived in Texas, but they still foound it to be their home. What is wrong with that? Mr Graebner did have it right when he said President Polk was persistant, and this is what led us to War. Foolish? Yes. He did not like Mexico or its inhabitants in the U.S. Imperialistic though it may seem if he had not declared war on the Mexicans we would have been out a lot of money we truly did not have, and California would be a Mexican Territory."
We get extra points for responding back to posts, so I did:
"Maybe the best way to look at this point of history is not to weigh out who had bigger guns and who had more people on their team. Perhaps it is better to look at what the United States was willing to do in order to gain a country marked �from sea to shining sea.� After doing the required reading it becomes quite obvious that in the sake of religious ideologies, financial gain, and overall greed, political leaders of the United States, specifically Polk, were willing to sacrifice not only American lives, but also �[kill] hundreds of innocent civilians (265).� So, it seems irrelevant to me that the Anglo-American Texans felt comfortable in Texas. Their brutal imperialistic methods are in no way justifiable. I cannot, personally, understand a justification for this, even if it means living in California as we know it today. I keep getting this micro-image of this argument in my head, where a man enters a home shoots a family of six people (yeah, even here they outnumber him), takes over their home, starts a family of his own, and then says, �Hey, I feel at home, what�s wrong with that?� Similar things are happening on a macro-scale such as this in other places in the world. If you don�t believe me take a closer look at the Israeli/Palestinian issue or at all the conflicts in Africa happening as you read this. If we don�t recognize that bullying (and killing) people into doing something for the gain of another is wrong, then how do we really learn from history? Or, even more important, how do we survive in a world where the "la bombas" are much bigger?"
Sometimes I wonder if I am just wrong about everything. And then, I just feel alone.
Here is what I posted for my own thought on the question:
"It seems the two sides presented from the scholars, Rodolfo Acu�a and Norman Graebner, agree on one very obvious element of the Mexican War--- the United States wanted the large area of Mexican land today known as New Mexico and California at even the cost of war. So, when presented with the question of whether or not the war was an exercise in American imperialism, it seems quite obvious that it was. �Imperialism� is the �the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas,� as stated in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The opposing argument, as presented by Graebner, offers that the Mexican War was not imperialistic because President James Polk attempted to use aggressive strategies to force Mexico to agree to sell the territories, �for as much as $25 million,� as opposed to actual war (273). However, the fact still remains, as Acu�a points out, that when Mexico did not agree to the sale, �the United States conducted a violent and brutal war� including �killing hundreds of innocent civilians with la bomba (the bomb) (265).� So, according to the above definition of �imperialism,� even if Polk only wanted to bully Mexico into selling the land (which was obviously in the United States� best interest because it is far less costly than mobilizing troops and losing American lives), Polk was willing to use an imperialistic policy that �[extended] the power and dominion of a nation� to gain nearly half of Mexico�s original soil. In this it is quite obvious that no matter what the prior intentions were of United States policy regarding the Mexican War, an imperialistic exercise was the price it was willing to pay to be �from sea to shining sea�."
Word of the Day: adjuvant- serving to aid or contribute : auxiliary/ assisting in the prevention, amelioration, or cure of disease