>keep hearing about an "Alamo">actually look it up>American Southerner whites were illegally moving to frontier Mexico territory and bringing in slaves>they wanted to annex it into their evil chattel slavery economy>the Mexicans banned slavery in 1835 and attempted to curb the flow of those American squatters>financed and armed by the USA, the slavers declare independence and hole up on some fort>the Mexicans defeat them in policing action>then the USA invades in a war of expansion and annexes half their country to fill with slaves>this is supposed to be a proud nation building mythUh huh.
>>18538537Happy juneteenth
>>18538537Texas made right decisions. Mexico run by bloodthirsty dictator
>>18538537Well the Texans did win the war by capturing and forcing the dictator they recognized as illegitimate and were rebelling against to sign a peace treaty. But then again, he was illegitimate, which they recognized. So when the subsequent Mexican republican government didn't ratify the treaty they really should have launched a full scale invasion of Texas. But they didn't.And yeah, by and large the Mexican American war and preceding Texan war of independence were shenanigans aplenty. There's not really a way for the USA or Texas to look Heroic without failing to mention a whole lot of background shit going on. But at the end of the day? Mexico can cry foul all it wants, and it might have a point. And those points might convince people, maybe even most people, that it was being bullied. But it is an inescapable fact that the Mexican government/s prosecuted the war poorly and incompetently. It had plenty of money. It had plenty of men. It had plenty of arms or the means with which to get them. But it couldn't get organized enough to bring those resources to defend itself and to this day it's still making the same exact mistake. Mexico as a nation didn't get its shit together soon enough (or ever) and a neighbor maliciously exploited it. It could be worse. Colonial powers could have won and carved Mexico up irrevocably in a far worst fashion. In international relations you don't get mulligans and there are no referees. If Mexico stayed weak and it wasn't the USA then it would have been someone else.
>>18538558And thank god it was the USA, in 1848 the USA had all kinds of political divisions, its navy was tiny, and its resources were limited. If it was the British, Spanish or French? And they *really* committed to it, not like that bs they pulled a few years before and after but ***really*** went all in and decided Mexico was theirs?? Mexico would have been subjugated. But it *was* the USA, and we couldn't afford a bunch of new slave states, or a long occupation, or drawn out guerilla war over two oceans, or a massive change in demographics by incorporating huge cities in far off provinces that probably didn't like us much anyway. So we took the north, left the rest. And it's 2026 now and Mexicans can go on the internet in a country called the United Mexican States and complain about how unfair history was that one time their leaders were fucking useless and blamed their enemy for it. No not that time, the other time.
>>18538558>Mexico as a nation didn't get its shit together soon enough (or ever) and a neighbor maliciously exploited it. It could be worse.Part of the context is that Mexico was not a stable country at all. Santa Anna was a conservative military officer who was famous for defeating a Spanish invasion that attempted to regain control, seized power in a rebellion and abolished the first Mexican federal republic (literally the United Mexican States, what the country is officially called now) and repealed the constitution, replacing it with the Centralist Republic of Mexico. Several states rebelled including Coahuila but the Anglo settlers in Texas won while the others got crushed. Santa Anna then went back to Mexico and James Polk did Trumpy Greenland shit a few years later and grabbed half the country.Fundamentally the problem is that Mexico like other Latin American countries hadn't really made revolutions, that didn't happen in Mexico until later. The U.S. where the Anglos came from had a lot of middle-class merchants who wanted to develop their economy. In Mexico there were violent conflicts between reformers and conservatives and they'd end up with some caudillo and/or crazy attempts to restore monarchs to the throne while the countryside descended into anarchy. The Spanish also treated the region as like a loot box. Mexico was loaded with silver (which contained gold as a byproduct), like how Venezuela is cursed to have a lot of oil but the elites steal from the spigot as the country rots. The Catholic Church was also the biggest landowner (owning perhaps 50% of the productive land) and was comically corrupt. Fascinating history though and a /k/ino setting for Wild West stuff because silver trains are excellent targets for tequila-guzzling bandidos:https://youtu.be/cKZAQzwNmU0
>>18538710You post like we didn't all know this.We know anon.And it's cope. We don't care. You can make the excuses amnd explamnations as long as you like, the fact is:>Mexico as a nation didn't get its shit together The world and history doesn't care why. Neighboring nations don't care how. Armies don't sit and analyze how their enemy could have won if their enemy wasn't their enemy but instead someone else with none of their enemies weaknesses. Mexico didn't have its shit together. Mexico's leadership was weak. Mexico's leaders were incompetent, Mexico paid for it. It wasn't big mean USA doing "trumpy greenland". It was Mexico being too damn weak to stop it. And fast forward to 2024-2026 and when Rubio and Trump make threats, all Mexico can do is scold and pout and concede. Y'all learned nothing.
Nah the Mexicans wanted Southerners because we were the only ones willing to settle Texas in large numbers. Mexicans were too scared, and rightfully so, of the Indians to stick around, but Southerners were happy to throw their lives away over land and would pay the Indians back in time.Basically, think of proto-Texans in the same way you would the Gothic foederati during the late Roman empire.
t. BrownoidNo one cares nigga Texas is cool as shit. Fuck Mexico, America should have annexed ALL of it.
>>18538937>Basically, think of proto-Texans in the same way you would the Gothic foederati during the late Roman empire.Only with an even weaker Roman Empire whose authority over the region was theoretical instead of atrophied.
>>18538537>>the Mexicans defeat them in policing actionNo they didn'tI mean they won at the Alamo but lost at San Jacinto not long after, Texas was independent for nine years before the US got involved
>>18538768>It wasn't big mean USA doing "trumpy greenland". I mean Polk kind of did. The U.S. wanted to buy land from Mexico and t hen blockaded Mexican ports to force Mexico to come to the table, then it escalated. Trumpy stuff is basically trying to apply a 19th-century imperialist method in the 21st century.>It was Mexico being too damn weak to stop it. Also fact.>And fast forward to 2024-2026 and when Rubio and Trump make threats, all Mexico can do is scold and pout and concede. Y'all learned nothing.Eh, Mexico is playing ball with Trump, they don't have a choice, also I'm from Texas.
>>18539117>They don't have a choice. They don't have good choices. Because they have spent 0 time actually trying to counter the country that has invaded them more times than any other (us). So first they scolded us for being improper, then they pouted for being bullied and then they conceded. Because they're weak.And no I don't concede that the USA was pulling a trumpy. It's just cope because they don't want to admit the USA could only do that due to Mexico being weak and governed by incompetent leaders.
>>18539598Nobody is arguing against that, but using that as a founding myth just makes you seem psychopaticAt this point just admit you believe solely in the right of the stronger, just don't cry when it's over (or applies to you personally€
