Mark Andrew Dwyer -- NBC ALL BUT CEDED CALIFORNIA TO MEXICO

The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday.

Originally published in the August 24, 2003 issue of the Alamance Independent

NBC ALL BUT CEDED CALIFORNIA TO MEXICO

August 25, 2003

At the very beginning of a supposedly objective article "California debates immigration costs" (CNBC, August 18, 2003), Jane Wells, a CNBC correspondent, wrote: "BEFORE CALIFORNIA was part of the United States, it was part of Mexico - a bond that has survived the test of time, the change of nationhood". I had to read that sentence twice to make sure that I was not hallucinating as a result of the recent heat wave. To my greatest disappointment I wasn't. Apparently because of 24 years of Mexican government efforts to take over whatever was left of the Spanish Empire that collapsed in 1821, Wells just ceded to Mexicans the right to claim California as their historic land.

At first, I was really surprised with the absurdity of Wells' statement. But later I realized that it fit very well in the "mainstream" media well established pattern of distorting the truth and refuting common sense for purely political reasons. After all, what can you expect from treasonous TV networks that have repeatedly and openly sided with America's enemies during post-9-11 effort to disable anti-American terrorism at its roots? Time and again, they completely blacked-out the news they didn't want you to know (or even to think of), until it became a hot topic that everybody talked about that they couldn't ignore anymore. And then they distorted it with all the cynicism they could summon.

Jane Wells, judging from her picture that was posted next to her name at the top of the article, must have graduated from high school long before the revisionist history and anti-national multiculturalism got implanted into curricula of American schools, so it seems rather odd that she missed some basic facts of America's past. But well, maybe she just looks older than she is. The sneaky argument she used was apparently targeting a half-educated audience that today's Liberal elite is so feverishly conditioning for uncritically accepting of all the "politically correct" b.s. that they (the elite, that is) are able to produce. And portraying California as a historic Mexican land is, perhaps, the most artfully wrapped bull that they have ever tried to sell to American public.

Let's try to stick to the facts. Here are the basic questions that beg to be asked, and some answers that shed some light on this nonsensical, although mindlessly repeated by many, claim. Except for similarity of deliberately confusing names (like "Spanish" and "Hispanic"), occupation by the same Empire (Spain), and certain recklessness of contemporary cartographers that used the same name to denote separate regions, for instance, Baja California (now part of Mexico) and Alta California (now State of California), or different peoples, for instance "Indians" in reference to Great Plains native Americans, native Californians, Aztecs, and other inhabitants of Americas (simply because they thought Christopher Columbus arrived in India and not America in 1492), there is really nothing in that claim that could withstand a historic scrutiny.

QUESTION 1: How did Spain "acquire" California?

ANSWER: Spaniards conquered California and submitted its mostly native (Karok, Maidu, Cahuilleno, Mojave, Yokuts, Pomo, Paiute, and Modoc) and, as opposed to Great Plains American Indians and Mexican Aztecs, peaceful population of about 300,000 to the rule of Spain for about half a century (1769 - 1821). Although the first claim of the Spanish Crown to California was dated in 1542, long before there were any Spanish military or administrative presence there, that was one of many claims that Spain had made to lands that were not theirs, just because no one else got an idea to claim them before.

QUESTION 2: How did Mexico "acquire" California from Spain?

ANSWER: The legal basis for Mexicans' claim to California is flimsy, and largely resembles a tendency of Spaniards to claim anything that wasn't claimed by anybody else. As a matter of fact, the U.S. have a better and more sound legal basis to claim the entire Moon as an American territory than Mexico has in their claims to California. After the collapse of Spanish Empire in 1821, Mexico was one of the occupied territories of which, newly emerged Mexican government declared themselves the Mexican Empire, bestowed on themselves the "right" to Spanish succession, and claimed that what once belonged to (or was claimed by) Spain now belongs to Mexico. Should their claims be justified, they would have acquired that way all other former territories occupied by Spaniards, for instance, the Philippines, as well. The flaw in that "logic" becomes clear after one realizes that, based on rationale similar to the one used by the Mexican government, all other nations once conquered by Spain would have similar rights to California, and to Mexico as well.

QUESTION 3: For how long Mexicans claim that they had "control" of California?

ANSWER: For 24 years, between 1822, when they claimed their "right" to Spanish succession, and 1846 when American flag was raised at Monterey. Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848 in which they ultimately ceded, on behalf of the U.S., their claims to California.

QUESTION 4: To what extent did Mexicans actually control California over that 24-year period?

ANSWER: On the paper only. Out of hundreds of thousands people living in California, less that a 1,000 (between 1,000 and 2,000 according to high estimates) were non-white Mexicans (descendants of Aztecs, that is). So, less than 1% of California population were of non-European Mexican ancestry. Taking into account their relatively weak military potential and administrative skills, it's a ridiculous notion that they could have controlled California even if they had a desire to. It's worth of mentioning, that a "small band" of Americans carried out a successful coup d'etat (a.k.a. "The Bear Flag Revolution") and declared the independence of California Republic from Mexico in 1846. (This was when the "Lone Star and the Bear" flag was officially used for the first time.) The Republic lasted for 26 days, which, taking into account the minuscule number of Americans that defended it, would be completely impossible if Mexico had any actual control of the Golden State.

QUESTION 5: Did California have a population that was ethnically kin to Mexicans before it became part of the U.S.?

ANSWER: There were three to four thousand (some high estimates claim up to 7,000) of Spaniards in California in the second quarter of 19-th century (1821-1848). They were not of Mexican but of European ancestry and had ethnically much more in common with Anglos (also a European nation) than with Mexicans. About 1,000 Mexicans (perhaps slightly less or more) concentrated in three pueblos of Branciforte, of Los Angeles and of San Jose, had obvious ethnic ties with Mexico. Moreover, there were about 300,000 native Californians, Karok, Maidu, Cahuilleno, Mojave, Yokuts, Pomo, Paiute, and Modoc that, because of geographic separation and lack of migration in that area, ethnically (and politically) had about as much in common with blood-thirsty Aztecs (ancestors of non-white Mexicans) as they had with Eskimos: very little, that is. All but a hundred or so of these native Californians died of diseases by the end of the century, so now there is practically no one (except for Mexican successionists) who could make a claim on their behalf. (Other ethnic groups accounted for less than few hundred each.) So, if one accepts that California and Mexico were ethnically kin countries, one would have to accept that China and California are ethnically kin countries as well. After all, there is more than 1% of Chinese descendants in California.

QUESTION 6: How did the U.S. acquire California?

ANSWER: Although California joined the Union as a result of Mexican-American war that Mexico waged and lost, the United States forgave the $3.25 million debt, and paid Mexico $15 million for the ceded territories that included California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and the western parts of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico - in all, 525,000 square miles of land that contained virtually no Mexicans. Mexican-American Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits and Settlement, commonly known as the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, in which Mexico abandoned its claims to the above territories, was signed on February 2nd, 1848.

The above facts speak for themselves, making the absurdity, if not the deceitfulness, of Wells' statement "BEFORE CALIFORNIA was part of the United States, it was part of Mexico - a bond that has survived the test of time, the change of nationhood" clear. There is absolutely no good reason to give Mexicans the benefit of doubt in their ridiculous claims. If they insist that California is or was "theirs" let them prove that. Period.