Talk:History of Mexico
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Race and Culture in 17th Century Mexico
- 2 Eurocentric history of Mexico
- 3 Spanish Human Sacrifice
- 4 The Restored Republic and the Constitution of 1857
- 5 28,000 BC?
- 6 Military History
- 7 Accusations.
- 8 Restructuring of articles about Hernan Cortes, Siege of Tenochtitlan and Conquest of Mexico
- 9 Restructuring to accomodate text from the Mexico article
- 10 Edits of 184.108.40.206
- 11 Incompatible Information in the Article
- 12 Took out "Origin and history of the name"
- 13 Consensus viewpoint on humans in Mexico
- 14 duplicative history
- 15 2006 Mexico
- 16 This article is really bad
- 17 Population Urban?
- 18 Pre-Columbian ethnic groups
- 19 Mexica vs Aztec
- 20 Hardly NPOV
- 21 Wikipedia is a liar
- 22 Request for relevant information
- 23 Requested edit
- 24 Request edition
- 25 Cristero War?
- 26 Section of FCH presidency
- 27 History conceals the ancient Buddhism in Mexico.
Race and Culture in 17th Century Mexico
With the conquest a new ethnic group was born: the mestizo, a result of the conquerors taking native women and beginning the mixing of both cultures.
This section of the article should be fleshed out and should be linked to the Casta page (though it is just a stub). I recommend reading R. Douglas Cope's book for information on the casta system.
R. Douglas Cope, The Limits of Racial Domination Plebeian Society in Colonial Mexico City, 1660–1720, 220 pages, University of Wisconsin Press (May 1, 1994), ISBN 029914044X
Eurocentric history of Mexico
It seems quite clear that the contributors to this page would almost like to forget that indigenous cvilizations thrived here. And that this should provide a sizable bulk of this Mexico page, just as the pre-Hitlerian times of the Jews should form the bulk of their history page. Not so here. We have the old guard thinking they can hide this info from people. When I post material documenting these civilizations, some of you racists are deleting it. It isn' the rabid, cross-burning racists, but the calm and deiberate racists. I'm sure you guys don't patrol the Greek page and make deletions of their accomplishments. And if I were to make posts about how the Greek smolested little biys, you'd be the first ones to try and erase it. Sorry guys, the "white dream" of your ancestors is on borrowed time. Smell the coffee, face the music, and realize that you can't sabotage this history for very much longer.
As a regular contributor to the WIKIPEDIA and as a mexican myself, I m very sad to see this comments. I can only recommend to stop exposing your ignorance and contibute with well written and properly documented text. THATS WHY WE ERASE YOUR TEXT! Secondly, you are comparing mexicans with greeks, that is _your_ problem. While america has a fascinating pre hispanic history, you must remember not to compare, specially when one culture didnt leave the stone age or got to discover the wheel. There is nothing wrong or shameful about that, until YOU make the comparison.
Spanish Human Sacrifice
To the individual who dwells in the illusion that "at least the Spanish didn't practice daily human sacrifice," you should know that Oxford University Press has published a book entitled "American Holocaust" detailing all the DAILY mass sacrifices committed by the Spanish in Mexico and beyond.
We're talking about burnings at the stake (in the name of Jesus), beheadings, tortures with branding irons, and all sorts of "civilized" behaviors that was the calling card of Spanish society, nevertheless a milder version of the contemporary usages in Northern Europe with its witch-hunting practice and religious persecutions or the proven practices or disease-spreading used by Anglo-Saxon colonists in today's US and Canada.
The author, Professor David Stannard, estimates that your wonderful Spaniards committed what amounted to "the greatest act of genocide in the history of humanity." He puts a lowball number at 23 million Mexicans killed by the Spanish. In fact, these casualties were mostly due to the diseases brought by Europeans to non-immunized American populations, who lacked the defenses to resist these diseases.
Those are numbers only Hitler could dream of. And ones I'll bet you'd rather go into denial over. Don't worry, your denial can't stop the news.
THIS PAGE IS NOTHING BUT ANTISPANISH PROPAGANDA. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION OF HISTORICAL FACTS BUT OPINIONS, BELIEVES AND INTERPRETENTIONS OF WHAT THE REASONS OR INTENTIONS OF THE SPANIARDS COULD HAVE BEEN. THE CONQUISTADORES ARE DESCRIBED AS A UNIFORM GROUP OF GREEDY AND BLOODTHIRSTY PEOPLE, AS IF NO SPANIARD CAME TO THE NEW WORLD TO LOOK FOR A NEW LIFE FLEEING FROM THE DECADENT OLD WORLD, AS IF NO SPANIARD LOVED HIS INDIAN WIFE, AS IF NO INDIAN TOOK ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THE EUROPEANS BROUGHT, AS IF NO MONK HAD HELPED THE NATIVES TO PROTECT PART OF THEIR CULTURE (FOR EXAMPLE, WRITING THE FIRST GRAMMAR BOOKS FOR SEVERAL INDIAN LANGUAGES, WHICH HAD THEREFORE A WRITTEN GRAMMAR BEFORE MANY EUROPEAN LANGUAGES DID), ETC. MOST OF THE HISTORICAL ISSUES HAVE ALWAYS A POSITIVE SIDE AND A NEGATIVE SIDE. TELLING ONLY THE POSITIVE SIDE IS AN EXERCISE OF PROPAGANDA (OFTEN USED NOWADAYS BY THE NORTHAMERICAS REGARDING THEIR OWN HISTORY) AND TELLING ONLY THE NEGATIVE SIDE GIVES RISE TO A BLACK LEGEND (LIKE IN THIS CASE). IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE A MORE BIASED ARTICLE, SO FAR AWAY FROM AN OBJECTIVE HISTORICAL ARTICLE. - peter (LYON)
The Restored Republic and the Constitution of 1857
The text below, which appears in the main page, seems inaccurate. "In 1867, the republic was restored, and a new constitution was written that, amongst other things, confiscated the vast landholdings of the Catholic church (which had been acting as landlord over half the country), established civil marriages and forbade the participation of priests in politics (separation of Church and State).
The Constitution was written in 1857, but it wasn't fully enforced until the French were expelled from Mexico, which was in 1867. --Hugo Estrada 13:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
What are the references for the 28,000 BC habitation date? The article makes it sound as if this is universally-acknowledged; but AFAIK most authorities still regard ca. 12500-13500 years BP as being the outside earliest date for which there is convincing evidence. Indeed, several well-publicised finds such as at Topper have made claims for habitation in the Americas pre-Clovis culture, but these are yet to be substantiated and generally accepted.--cjllw | TALK 05:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I revised the date to 15KBP, but with the proviso that there is some controversial evidence going back to the mid 20s. You are correct, 28,000 BP without a reason is incorrect. The oldest I could find (apart from a single set of footprints at 40KBP mentioned briefly in an issue of Nature) is about 25,000 KBP (from a kill site)and that's pretty controversial as it is uncertain whether a) the bones found at the kill site are contemperaneous with the tools and b) whether the tools are tools at all.
The downside is that my text (Prehistoric Mesoamerica) is about 9 years old - but I keep an "ear to the ground" for these things (I live pretty near Meadowcroft Pa) and I'm certain I would have heard something in the last twelve months. (twelve months ago i took an archaeology course where the professor specialized in mesoamerican archaeology. I'm fairly certian he would have said something if the date were doubled!!!
- Thanks John. That 40kya footprints claim was publicised only as recently as July 2005, and all reports of it mentioned words to the effect that "if validated, would overturn the prevailing ethos on human habitation in the Americas" - which I think is another demonstration that any claim for evidence before ca 13ka is still regarded by the mainstream as speculative, or at least yet to be conclusively demonstrated. The earliest-claimed date from within Mexico itself that I know of is ca. 37.5ka, at El Cedral. I'll see if I can track down the earliest date from a Mexican site which is universally-accepted, and work mentions of these into the text. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 22:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about the initial enstablishment of humans in the New World in general? Perhaps a detailed discussion should take place in a seperate entry and we just have the highlights here. The trouble with going too deeply into pre clovis is 1) it's all so controversial ATM and 2) it gets into the greater debate of land bridge vs. sea craft. I do think, though, that a summary of the important archaeological sites cica 10KYA would be of benefit to the article. I suppose I could also bug my old anthro professor for some guidance as well. John
- The various articles under which this context comes up, such as history of the Americas, Bering land bridge, Paleo Indians, Clovis culture, pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, models of migration to the New World, Archaeology of the Americas, etc etc are presently somewhat inconsistent, at least WRT their treatment of how widely the various competing timelines and routes are accepted. The Bering land bridge article is probably one of the more scientifically-rigourous of these. I agree that it would be highly useful to have some sort of listing of notable evidence-based sites from this period, annotated to reflect how "secure" or otherwise the date results retrieved from these sites are. Perhaps it could be appended to one or more of these articles, or as an article on its own. It would be great also to ensure that these related articles are consistent with one another, and that they each reflect the attitudes of contemporary scholarship, with cites and notes pertaining to the more speculative/yet-to-be-confirmed items. I've an eye to doing this at some stage, but you or anyone else would of course be most welcome to take a crack at it.
- For the purposes of the present history of Mexico article, perhaps just an overall sentence or two to mention the standard timeline and route of overall human migration to the Americas, a mention that even earlier chronologies have been put forward but there has as yet been no 'paradigm shift' towards the acceptance of these, and then go into some detail on any actual archaic sites and finds within the borders of Mexico itself, should suffice (with pointers to one or two of the other generic articles for those interested).--cjllw | TALK 03:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Slightly OT, I added tags to the Pre-columbian timeline which I think does the job of sorting wheat from chaff. Personally, I don't feel like wading into that particular wikipage right now. I do agree that some sort of uniformity here would be useful; however, that may be impossible without a high level of vigiallance. If we refocus more locally, i think that your idea about a sentence or two strengthening the main points is an excellent idea. My only concern is the impatience of the 'paradigm shifters'; mainly that they would want to be vinicated in the media before the peer reviewed journals. That is always a recipie for disaster IMHO. Lastly, the Topper site always astounds me. *shakes head* So much of it is marginal, and it gets way too much press IMHO for an unfinished project. John
- re Topper, I suppose Wilde's dictum applies no less to archaeologists- the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about. But omission would not give the full picture either; as long as accompanied by "reliability guides" such as above, we're moving in the right direction.--cjllw | TALK 23:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have removed the 28,000 BP sentence from the lead paragraph. "" has been on that sentence for months now, without any citation being added. Although it is attributed to Coe's 5th edition, I know it's not in his 4th edition work (which I own), so I have to doubt the veracity of that attribution. In any case, this is definitely a minority view and so does not belong in the lead paragrah, even if it were true. Madman 16:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- No probs, Madman, and thanks. As you can see it was discussed over a year ago now but somehow never got around to fixing things. Too many half-finished things around here...can only try! Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither does the 20,000 ya statement in the opening paragraph, that has obviously been revised to remove your earlier edit, have any general substantiation or support from mainstream academia. 220.127.116.11 11:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Stevenmitchell 11:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC) the sevar de miazx was a famous football player in the NFL he killed his mom dad sister brother aunt uncle friends and cusions that was very said for micas de minna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Many other countries have special sections for military history. Could I add an article of the military history of Mexico? Cameron Nedland 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I see, most of the comments in this page are made by Americans accusing Spaniards of genocide, rape and the same old arguments. In fact, a simple look at a country colonized by Anglo-Saxons and another colonized by Spaniards reveals a very different picture: the US and Canada are white, European societies, while Mexico is still Mestizo and Indigenous. Of course the Spanish impact was the strongest, since it was the first and thus the one that brought all the diseases and cultural shocks. Nevertheless, the Spanish colonization never brought along the systematic killing of Indians and theft of their lands that was to be the main trait of colonization in the English colonies. Indians were still hunted like animals in the US when here in Mexico we had an Indigenous president, Benito Juárez. How many Indian presidents have the US had?????? Sorry, but Americans and their accusations simply can't hide the fact that in reality Mexican Indians are still alive in the body and mind of current Mexicans, while North American Indians are only to be found in cemeteries and reservations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- UH, are you Mexican?, I am, and live here currently, and let me tell you one thing, the indigenous peoples here are despiced and discriminated by most and they are a minority which Mestizos and Whites here mostly hate and try to hide behind all that veneration crapp. So dont talk like you are an expert, because obviusly you do not know anything about that issue. In my opinion, indigenous peoples rights are more respected in the USA and Canada than here, because here they do not even have reservations of their own and any politician or evil person can exploid them when ever they want and get away with it, something that over in the USA and Canada would be strongly sanctioned. Plus 99% of indigenous peoples here are very ignorant, in you country they are actually very educated and can defend themselves and not be brainwashed by the government, something that here is stil common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Restructuring of articles about Hernan Cortes, Siege of Tenochtitlan and Conquest of Mexico
I found that the title Spanish Conquest of Mexico was being redirected to History of Mexico. This is a bad idea since the Spanish Conquest of Mexico is only a small part of the history of Mexico. I moved the whole Conquest of Mexico section out of the Hernan Cortes article into a new article entitled Spanish Conquest of Mexico and left a note in the Talk Page requesting that it NOT be redirected to History of Mexico again.
I have put a link in History of Mexico to the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article. This section is a bit anemic so it might help to have a bit more text but the main text is in and should remain in the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article
As a result of pulling the Conquest of Mexico stuff out of the Hernan Cortes article, the section in the Hernan Cortes article on the Conquest of Mexico is also really anemic now. I threw in a placeholder but we need someone to write a paragraph or two that gets the point across that the Conquest of Mexico is the most important thing about Cortes and then references the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article.
Richard 23:08, 26 March 2006 (PST)
OK, I'm back again. I've just spent two hours moving stuff around. Hopefully, this is a more logical organization of stuff across multiple articles.
The Hernan Cortes article now provides background information about Cortes' life leading up to and after the Mexico campaign but not much about the campaign itself. For that, the reader is referred to the Spanish Conquest of Mexico article.
That's enough for one weekend. See you all later and Happy Wiki-ing.
Over and out.
Richard 01:58, 28 March 2006 (PST)
Restructuring to accomodate text from the Mexico article
It seems silly to have a History section in the Mexico article AND a History of Mexico article. The Mexico article is too long so I am moving a lot of the History section here and restructuring this article to accomodate the text.
Some of the text that I am moving was controversial in the Mexico article so I expect that it will be controversial here. Please don't blame me for the text. I wrote very little of it. I'm just the "mover" not the "writer".
For example, the following text was the subject of some debate in the Mexico Talk page:
"With the conquest a new ethnic group was created by the Spaniards: the mestizo, a result of the conquerors taking native women as a measure against revolt by the natives and beginning the mixing of both cultures. Quite often, rape was a factor in the reproduction of mixed-race children."
I don't care if you wish to change or delete the last sentence. I'm just keeping it because I want other people to be involved in any such decision rather than me making the decision based on my own opinion.
Edits of 188.8.131.52
Can anyone check the edits of this anonymous user?  I didn't check them thoroughly but I saw some POV and biased writing, and he is talking about... A second Mexican Revolution???.. As for me, I'm going to remove a very notorious POV that isn't necessary at all, because this anonymous user implies that *every* Mexican state is much less developed than the average American state, when this isn't necessarily true in every case (see: Nuevo León for example). And he or she also is saying that most of Mexicans are *still* resented because the lost of half of the territory when this isn't true at all (at least for the vast majority of Mexicans) Silversink 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well I did my job with a History book in hand and reverted information or added some info. If anyone has a doubt please use the Talk Page. Silversink 15:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of bias, I removed this for obvious racism:
Unlike the British, the Spanish had not left a people that knew how to run a country peacefully and prosperously.
Incompatible Information in the Article
Upon reading this article, the Mexican Revolution section has what seems to be conflicting information on the year of President Francisco I. Madero's death. In one section, it states, "Presidents Francisco I. Madero (1911)," et al, "were assassinated during this time, amongst many others." Directly after this the article states that President Madero was ousted and killed in 1913. Would someone be able to clarify this information?
Shirakawasuna 10:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Took out "Origin and history of the name"
Fellow editors: I removed the ==Origin and history of the name== section since it was an exact duplicate of a section in Mexico#Origin and history of the name. Moreover this article is too large anyway, and that section was out of place in a history. It took up more space than the Olmec and Maya combined! FYI, Madman 02:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus viewpoint on humans in Mexico
Although there is "tantalizing" evidence that humans arrived in Mexico prior to perhaps 12,000 to 15,000 years BP, there is no solid uncontested evidence. To quote Coe: "In summary, no one knows when the ancestors of the American Indians entered the Americas. Our present knowledge suggests it may have been over 20,000 years ago". (Atlas of Ancient America, p. 30) My emphasis.
Wikipedia must state the present scientific consensus, and in this case it is that we cannot state with surety that there were humans in Mexico prior to ~12,000 to ~15,000 BP. Moreover, this article, presenting only an overview, is not the place to discuss and dissect evidence for earlier occupation.
I think it would be appropriate to write an article on Human occupation of Mexico or somesuch and reference it in the History of Mexico article, but we only have the space to state the standard/consensus viewpoint and refer to opposing points of view.
Thoughts, anyone?? Madman 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
ca. 28,000 years per Michael Coe
- Wikipedia members should present the view of the academic community, not just what one person doesn't want to hear (that Mexico has a very old record of human habitation). Let us look to top Mexico expert Michael Coe who asserts a date of ca. 28,000 years in his recent edition of Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropmeoff (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The section named 'French intervention and an emperor' contains duplicative material: the same history written twice with different words. This needs to be fixed. Thanks Hmains 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What about 2006 Mexico electoral problem? There is nothing about riots on Mexico City, in 20th November Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador declared himself "president" of the nation and in 1st December Calderon was officially declared president. There were confrontation and I think that all that and the battles on Oaxaca between police and teachers are important too.
- "with resourses from the taxes from all mexicans" that's so heavy-handed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about the History of Mexico, not current events. Let us all take the long view on this article. Madman 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Most history of countries have a recent history section. That would be a far better match to the purpose of this article than current challenges, which is largely opinion. Different people of different political and social groups could say Mexico has so and so challenges and so it would be hard to create some definitive list to put in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is really bad
This article is really terribly bad. It is extremely fragmented, most paragraphs are not larger than a few sentences, the prose is rambling, some time periods are almost ignored (colonial, porfiriato, the height of the PRI dominance), the only sources exept two are about precolumbian Mexico, some sections aren't really neutral, the 'history of Mexico series' template shows a strange and very limited selections of topics, 'current challenges' doesn't really belong here, etc. etc. etc. It may even be better rewrite the entire article than to edit this one, it is simply too big a mess. Mixcoatl 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I wanted to start rewriting some stuff myself but hadn't had the time. --the Dúnadan 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The pre-Colombian area says the majority of the population was urban. That almost certainly is wrong. Certainly the majority of the population was integrated into civilizations based around urban-centered, but a majority urban civilization means most of the population lives in cities, a circumstance that didn't happen in any countries only the industrial revolution (with the possible exception of city states, and even then big city states often were majority rural). Settled populations on farms are not urban, but rural. That does not mean they are tribal or nomadic which Meso-American and Mayan populations were not, but I find it rather hard to believe the majority was urban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- YES...the population was mostly URBAN and SETTLED. Sorry, but the majority of Mexico's population was definitely urbanized by 1519: cities, towns, and villages. Those are NOT hamlets or "rural" homesteads, which seems to be your own personal projection onto the population. The book "1491" by Charles Mann deals with this issue well. Check it out. Don't let your emotional hang-ups or Eurocentrism get in the way of the facts. The problem you seem to be having is that you want to constrict "urban" to only being a city. The major cities at that time were NOT "rural", contrary to how good that may make you feel to say that. The major cities at 1519 were: Tenochtitlan (350,000), Cholula (100,000), Tlaxcala (100,000), Tzintzuntzan, Huexotzingo, and hundreds of other towns.
- I have to wonder if you so eagerly declare the small city-statelets of Ancient Greece to be nothing more than "rural" settlements because they were not metropolis-like in their size. No, I'm sure you quickly declare them all to be "cities"! Am I Right?Dropmeoff 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Pre-Columbian ethnic groups
In the State of Mexico article, another editor wrote: "There were different ethnic groups including otomies, matlazincas, mazahuas and chichimecas." All of these groups are redlinks except for the Chichimecas. Anybody know who the other groups are and whether they merit an article of their own? Or is there an article of broader scope that mentions (or should mention) these groups?
--Richard 17:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Those are all specific groups that deserve an article of their own, for sure, just as the Mennonite sect deserves its own article within the scope of Christianity. But since they are so similar in culture, geographical proximity, and in their relations to Central Mexico's civilizations (and later the Spaniards), they could for now be lumped together under the dubious category of Chichimeca. Dropmeoff 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Mexica vs Aztec
This new section under "Legacy of the Mexica" does a good job in explaining how the Aztecs were never called Aztecs. It ties in why Mexico is named Mexico (not "Azteco"). I think it is important to shed light on the facts, and not to simply keep repeating what 19th century Europeans wanted to call them.Dropmeoff 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aztec is a more generic term to refer to the group of Nahua tribes of central Mexico, of which the Mexica were politically dominant. I find the new section on "Legacy" too long and unnecessary for a History article. Moreover, the Mexica were only one of many tribes living in Mexico, and the Aztec, just one of the many civilizations that flourished in the territory. The Mexica build a multi-ethnic empire by subjugating the diverse civilizations and peoples around them. It so happened that the capital of the New Spain was chosen to be Mexico City, and hence the extension of the name to the country. But to claim that the legacy of the Mexica was predominant over the Purépecha and Maya, just to mention a few, is incorrect. --the Dúnadan 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Mexica legacy on modern Mexico is far more pronounced than any other group. The fact that the country is named Mexico is itself the greatest proof of the "predominance" of the Mexica legacy. The fact that there are far more towns named in Nahuatl (and not in Purepecha) is another huge fact. And finally, the fact that the Mexican flag contains the Mexica eagle and serpent symbolism is yet another major stamp placed on Mexican national identity. Those are just facts.
- That you refer to the Mexica as a "tribe" reveals the bias you operate under (perhaps subliminally). The Mexica capital of Tenochtitlan had a population of around 350,000 people (the History Channel low balls this down to 200,000). As such, the Mexica "tribe" (as you put it) constituted one of the largest cities on the planet, and larger than any city in Europe. Just curious, do you also refer to the Ancient Greeks as "tribes"? No, I didn't think so. This is the bias I referred to. Would you also oppose a "Legacy of the Ancient Greeks" secton in the Ancient Greece article? Or would you consider that to be "necessary" and "integral to our understanding of the modern world"? Why should there be an intellectual double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropmeoff (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- What is this? All Western nations started off as mere tribes, like the Franks, Vandals, Visigoths, the various Celtic tribes like the Belgae of present day Belgium. And the Greeks all started out as tribes as well, Dorians, Ionians, Macedonians, and many others. The Persians began as tribes as well. There is no bias whatsoever calling the Mexica a tribe. And just like now with Western Civilization, where all the credit is given to only Romans and Greeks, and ignoring the vast influx of contributions from the Phoenicians, Celts, Goths, Egyptians, Sumerians and Persians, the Mexica are given too much credit while ignoring other worthy people who contributed to their success. It's a very ethnocentric viewpoint to promote one culture above all others. Jcchat66 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not detect any intentional or unintential bias with the use of the word "tribes." As noted above, most European writers would be comfortable characterizing the early founders of their various ethnocentric groups as "tribes" or "clans," even. We all got started small somewhere and either flourished or became an historical footnote.16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket49 (talk • contribs)
- And how would you rather it be worded?
Nearly half of Mexico's territory was creatively acquired by the United States in a fair and nonviolent free-market environment, in which Mexico was a terrorist aggressor working with Al-Queda to overthrow the freedom-loving Americans in Washington D.C. ???
- What is the correct euphemism to make you feel good about about a theft? Shall we now stop referring to the German "invasion" of Poland in 1939? Dropmeoff (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certain individuals with political power in the US may have stole Mexican lands from the Mexican government. But the entire population of the US did not steal anything, and many, of not most, denounced the invasion from the start. The most obvious reason that we have NPOV policies is to not offend those many people that had nothing to do with events of history. There are plenty of unsavory individuals on both sides of the border to point fingers at with hard facts. The US president lied, or was unable to prove that Mexicans invaded Texas. The Mexican government threatened war and insulted the American diplomat. Mexican politicians fought amongst themselves even during the US invasion, instead of uniting. Santa Anna's behavior has become legend, who stole land from his own people, and let his army rape and pillage is own countryment. The US, having no standing army, employed thugs for the invasion that committed enough atrocities for an entire Irish brigade to switch sides and fight for Mexico! There is no comparison to the German invasion of Poland at all. And even then, do you blame every single individual German for that, or the individuals responsible? Jcchat66 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a liar
Wikipedia is liar because they gave me fake detail about Mexico.So don't even go to en.wikipedia.com because it is a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of corse wikipedia is a liar, but wikipedia is made by average people, and average people lie in the real world too. You just have to figure out who to trust.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for relevant information
Folks: this is my first project as a wikiP editor & I must say this is a monster editorial job. I am a professional editor & started work on the article bec/ its English needed a lot of help. But I am finding myself struggling with a dearth of information--even though I have visited Mexico more than once and have a decent layman's knowledge of its events. So I am requesting (as always, nonbiased) information on some of the bigger gaps in the article. Right now, Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz come to mind. I am especially interested in Juarez, since he is considered to be the greatest Mexican president. A quick search on Amazon, however, suggested that the only full-length biography of Juarez in English was published in 1894.....come on, is this really true? Can someone point me to a good biography in English, or at least provide some details concerning his political career, and especially his resistance during Maximilian's rule? As I understand it, the Mexican government continued to operate during the occupation: details would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Fylfot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FylFot9 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, could someone please disambiguate the link to U-106 in the section "The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) (1929-2000)."? The correct link is German submarine U-106 (1940). Thanks, 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"formal independence from Spain was recognized in 1810",Flawed date, the Mexican war of Independence started in 1810 and wasn't recognized until 1821. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxorville (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone made a movie about this and it is mentioned in the NYT today as running from 1926 to 1929. We have an article Cristero War. Should it be mentioned here? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Section of FCH presidency
The section "President Felipe Calderón Hinojosa (incumbent president)" needs expansion. I don't know who wrote that section, but it appears to be PRD-inclined. I might tackle it later. The 2006 election controversies should not dominate the section. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
History conceals the ancient Buddhism in Mexico.
I can prove, that history conceals ancient mexican Buddhism. History and archeology invented und made "people-sacrifice" and "ancient artefacts". They never existed. History is fake like religious sect.I hate it. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)