Talk:Reconquista (Mexico)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / Mexican-Americans (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mexican-Americans.
 
WikiProject Mexico  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Please[edit]

I wrote the skeleton of the current article two years ago -- most of the original language is intact but there is still a lot of confusion about how to represent this concept in a serious encyclopedia. First, a couple of historical points:

Recently, there has been some consensus among historians that the "Reconquista" of Spain, that is, the reversion of Spain from an Islamic state to its previous Christian one -- was largely a demographic transition. It used to be believed that the reversion to Christianity was the result of a lot of dramatic battles, but, remarkably, it turns out most of the change was the result of gradual population shifts. Awareness of this fact has informed the coiners of the "reconquista" phrase in the Mexican context. No one with any sensitivity to the full and historically contextualized meaning of the word "reconquista" would sustain a "nationalist" reading of its significance, unless they had a humorous end. In fact, the actual use of the word is mostly confined to people who understand what it means, that is, Mexicans who read a lot.

This is the beginning and the end of the story; people who think this has something to do with the "Aztlan" crowd (whether they belong to the aztlan crowd or not), are generally totally ignorant of the actual phrase as it actually exists. It requires a lot of specific knowledge of Spanish and Mexican literary history to understand why this word is used, something that the Chicano nationalists are not only ignorant of but hostile to. If you study the edit history you will notice a lot of phrases like "chicano nationalists do not acutally use this word but..." They never used the word because they don't know what it means, and they don't have any sensitivity to why it is or isn't relevant. Occasionally there have even turned up indigenist interpretations of the term -- that is something to the effect of, "reconquista means the recovery of this land by indigenous people." That is pure US undergraduate infantilism; almost all Mexicans have complex racial identities that incorporate European components, and those few that don't do not regard themselves as Mexican any more than the Amish feel American. In short, please leave this curious and specific article alone unless you have the slightest, most minimal clue what it really acutally means when used by the people who have a clue what it minimally, actually means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.53.40 (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Nationalism[edit]

Might as well say my piece before this two paragraph article becomes the scene of another edit war. The concept of recoquista can be seen mainly as an issue of nationalism, more specifically pan- or greater nationalism, like how the Sudeten Germans wanted to be part of the German nation-state, Serbia wanting control over Serb populated areas of Bosnia, etc. It happens all over the world. While the term is used by white racist against Hispanics, the same is true of Chicano nationalists who use the term with the same meaning, except for them it is a good thing. Both accuse the other of being "racists"

What you have here is a garden variety ethnic conflict with out a "good guy" or "bad guy" but simply two cultures living in the same area, with nationalist agitators in each camp. Surprised there is so much hub-bub about it.--Dudeman5685 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the hub-bub seems to come from the fact that the reconquista is not the name for the concept promoted by hispanic groups. It's a catch all term used to stir up feelings of fear induced hate among small groups of ethnic whites. Pretty soon even hispanic groups not associated with the original meaning of reconquista are accused of it in an attempt to marginalize them. I've added the link to the nativist article because reconquista really is used far more often by those groups than by any others. Mosquito-001 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
While it is certainly true that many anti-hispanic groups blow it out of porportion, is there not also a legitamite concern about a people concentrated on a nations borders, with ethnic links to the a nieghboring counrty and a feeling of victimhood and Romantic nationalism? Nor is it simply a structural question of oppressed/oppressor, just look at what happened, and is still happening in Kosovo. Other historical examples include the Sudetenland and East Prussia durring and immediatly after WW2--Dudeman5685 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't place though to argue imigration and nationalities policy. While reconquista is used by racist whites, racist hispanics, and non-racist immigration reformers, who each have their wn understanding of the term. Close inspection of world ethnic conflicts show that it is when each portays themself as being "oppressed" by the other, and each harps on how it has been victimized by the other (Hutu/Tutsi) (Israel/Palestine perfect example) the cycle of mutual distrust and hared only grows.--Dudeman5685 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Categorizing "reconquista" as simply another example of world ethnic conflicts is doing it a great disservice. It's a term wrapped up in the racial and ethnic history of the united states and, as far as I know, doesn't have any close parallels to the Israel/Palestine or Hutu/Tutsi conflicts. I could explain it further but you're probably better off googling the term and coming to your own conclusions. Mosquito-001 23:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Americas most grave error is thinking that it is exceptional--Dudeman5685 02:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
i used Israel and Rwanda only as generalizations of the dynamic of ethnic conflict around the world; that both sides can claim a greivance, that elements in either camp seek to keep the greivance against the other community alive etc, etc, In our specific case the kosovo and Sudentenland analogies are closest, though they don't involve migration so much as shifting borders--Dudeman5685 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I know this is late, but stating "Americas most grave error is thinking that it is exceptional" is just plain ignorant. Historically is is VERY exceptional, for the world had not known democracy on such a wide scale until the American Revolution. All revolutions in Latin America and Europe followed after America's, whose people died and lost much in proving that freedom and self-government was possible. So, getting back to this article, where do these Mexican movements stand on the issue of freedom and democracy? And if there really is a Mexican Reconquista movement, how is their claim to the American Southwest any stronger than France's claim to Louisiana, or Russia's claim to Alaska? Last I heard, before the Mexican-American War, the Apanche Indians were the most powerful military force in the area, while Mexico was garrisoned in Santa Fe unable to assert their claim. In fact, Mexico's claim to the Southwest is a slap in the face to all the tribes of the area, since none of them ever had any affiliations with the Aztecs. Jcchat66 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
As long as we can admit that Manifest Destiny was nationalism, so is this. However, to settle everything. perhaps we should just state that it is an idea, not a movement connected to so and so. A lot of people have different personal opinions on the term, but most of these people say this out of defense, so I'd rather we not criticize whoever really is tied to this idea by linking them.72.199.100.223 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a start[edit]

It's imperfect, I know, additions? Subtractions?


This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hate group[edit]

I'm surprised that people who considers The Minutemen Project as racists, don't consider this Mexica Movement as worse racist. I don't see the difference between a white supremacist group that promoves the expulsion of illegal immigrants and a indigeneous supremacist group that promoves the expulsion of white people. The argument of "we were here before you" is crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesi1700 (talkcontribs) 18:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mexican, obviosly is racist talk about the expulsion of white people. But I know the "Reconquista" is a "movement" for return to Mexico the lost territories or create a New Nation whit that territories. I'm not sure. thanks. jmko22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.27.141 (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Okay, if it's not VfD material, it certainly needs sourcing and a more neutral tone. It should have gotten a POV tag as soon as it came from VfD. If no one else does it, I'll gladly rewrite it to say "Some damned gringo conspiracy theory about how dark people are taking over. Typical honky bull." That should move the ball into someone else's court. That this kind of tone should persist here is unacceptable. --Diderot 17:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I decided not to wait. The article now treats the whole idea as a load of crap. I expect to see documentary evidence to the contrary if the original claims are to be restored. --Diderot 18:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Really[edit]

I don't know, it seems to me that the article states the facts and does not argue one way or the other. Yes, there is a conspiracy theory, and yes, that is how anglo settlers initially took over much of the land on this side of the United States.


The article needs to state the true facts.

Which are that the land being "claimed" by "chicanos" for "reconquista", which comprises the existing southwest states of the USA, was not Mexican land first, but rather the land of a myriad of native tribes, which were not "Mexican", and were not "Aztec".

There was never any such place as "Aztlan", the Aztec (or Mexica) tribe never lived in the land which is now the United States, and the land which is now the southwest USA was not "Mexico", since no place called Mexico even existed.

When the Spanish came from Europe, the Spanish Conquistadores explored the continent of North America, and claimed part of the land as "New Spain".

The Spanish drew the maps. No maps were drawn by an Aztec tribe. The map being used to illustrate the "reconquista" and/or "Aztlan" has nothing to do with the Aztec tribe, it is a map of the Spanish land in North America, which became "Mexico" in 1822.

The land on this side of the United States was not "Mexico" first, it was native indian tribal lands (not "Aztec" tribe). It was not "Mexico" second", it was Spanish land, as in Spain, a nation still in Europe. It was only "Mexican" land for a few decades, 25 to 27 years, and most of it was sold to the United States following the signing of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheyenneZ (talkcontribs) 02:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This Article is a Political Sermon[edit]

The bias of the article is obvious. It is not a statement of fact but an editorial. Both the article and statements made about it show the desire of people to have their opinions viewed as facts. At university campuses this trend is seen in the classroom where professors who view themselves as wise lecture their students in viewpoints and college-level courses serve as indoctrination sessions. A person who agrees with an author's viewpoint will call an article objective, while those who disagree will see it as propaganda. The article under discussion is clearly intended to convey a viewpoint to the readers. I wonder how much information in textbooks--including that which I was taught and believe--is really mere arguement of authors disguised as revelation.

Additionally[edit]

This ostensible plan of conquest is rife with hints of sexual repression and racism on the part of those who believe in it. '

Oh? How does the writer know what those who have beared witness to the Reconquista movement think or 'feel?" And how is this supposedly factual?

This article is crap. Period. But it serves the following purpose: it allows legal aliens and citizens to see the mindset of socialist "revolutionaries" in action. And the latter are damned fools.

Article seems fine as it is[edit]

This article is about a ridiculous belief held by a few grossly misinformed people. It does a good job of explaining what the belief is and where it might have come from. I would be for the deletion of this article if I wasn't worried it would show up under a different title with a few users trying to justify how ludicrous the whole notion is. Because of that I think the article should stay as it is and be protected. Mosquito-001 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the article on 1/13/06 to be more npov. Many people do not hold this belief, "some" do. It should also be mentioned what the majority of the public thinks of extreme groups that hold this belief. Mosquito-001 20:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Racism is growing dramatically in the latino movement[edit]

I recently graduated from college and not only did I have friends in Mecha but also family members. The reconquista movement is real, though it is not well organized. It is really more at the idea stage of it's development.They are often much more honest in private, and talk about "taking over" America in the future when more hispanics are in the US. Mecha members do believe that europeans are foreign invaders and that they should be driven out, but they lack the political, military and economic skills to do it. If you don't believe it, go to a Mecha website and read their words. In my opinion, they are the latino equivalent of the KKK as they are largely driven by hatred of what they preceive as anyone of European decent. The funny thing about this hatred, to me, is that most hispanics would rather live with gabachos in the US, than with their "own" countrymen at home- which has always made me wonder: if they do take over the US will they do a better job here than the one they did in their own homelands? Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Unsourced material[edit]

  • Some groups, that many would categorize as "hate" groups, believe that Mecha, as well as similar groups, intentionally mislead the general public on this subject because the group realizes that they would lose popular support from the general public for such bizarre position. Opponents point out that any Mecha web site clearly states removing, what Mecha members refer to as, foreign invaders or "gabachos"(people of european decent)from the Americas as a central goal. Mecha also refers to the Americas as the "bronze continent," which is clearly a designation refering to the long history of the Hispanic people in America. This upsets many "nativist" groups in the United States. Curiously, these "nativist" groups are almost exclusively made up of those of "white" protestant descent. The Mexican Government has denied any territorial claims. The conspiracy of the reconquista bears many similarites to the way the American West was "tamed" during the 1800's. Many of those involved in civil rights surmise that the reconquista conspiracy is fueled by an irrational fear, on the part of many white "rights" groups, of the growing number of "minorities" in the United States and that history will be repeated with the "minorities taking over."

This text has no sources to support it, and makes a number of POV claims. I've removed it until we can find references to cite. -Will Beback 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

There is no source for this material. In my research using Mexican-American primary sources, I have found only one document that used the word "reconquista" in the context referred to in the article. The reality is that the word "reconquista" is primarily used by alarmists, who employ it to sensationalize what most people see as simply a gradual demographic shift. If it sourced this right-wing material, much of which is available on the web, I might consider voting against its deletion. But as it stands, I think the article ought to be deleted. It is written from a POV, unsourced, and only marginally important, as the anti-illegal immigration movement is at best third-rail issue in American politics. If no one objects soon, I'll tag it for deletion.--Rockero 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The illegal immigration issue is anything but a third rail of American politics. State legislatures across the country are enacting or debating laws to control the spread of illegals. The US House of Representatives passed a bill last month to curb illegals. A recent CBS poll showed that 80% of Americans, that's republicans and democrats, are tired of the drain on local economies that illegal aliens represent. Proposition 200 in Arizona was sponsored by a supporter of Ralph Nader, it overwelmingly passed. Americans are tired of footing the bill for mexico's failures.

I object to this article being deleted. The only ones who oppose it's presence seem to be Mecha members or supporters (misquito & rockero). If it is deleted it will not be because it is false or misleading.

I agree this debate over the article has gone on for too long. It's basically an article about a conspiracy theory, with very little evidence, that was started to accuse a Mexican American civil rights organization of racism and many other baseless claims. I've deleted all references to MECHA and I've left in controversial groups. If those who keep editing this article keep refusing to cite which "groups" or "some people" keep making these claims, the accusations will be deleted.Mosquito-001 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the talk here's the truth which is available to anybody at any mecha website:


It is laughable that anyone, except mecha members, believe that mecha is anything but a racist organization. I think it just goes to show that no matter how educated you are, racism runs to the bone. Thank you rockero for restoring misquitos posts, but not restoring the ones I wrote which misquito deleted. Your "objectivity" is noted.


I'm having a hard time finding anything in that plan that is expressly racist. It actually lists various grievances that the organization had against those that would oppress them which considering the time period, the 1960s, is very understandable. BTW shouldn't this be on the MECHA page instead of the reconquista page?Mosquito-001 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Suprise, suprise. Classifying all "white" people as foreign invaders isn't racist? Calling them racially motivated names like "gabacho" and "gringo" isn't racist? I bet you would feel differently if someone was calling you a racist name like "beaner" or "wetback." There is a double standard.

"El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán" never uses the word "reconquista". It calls for the creation of a political party, not for the military re-conquest of the SW U.S. by Mexico. Where does "reconquista" appear in print? What are our sources? -Will Beback 19:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do the words "right to privacy" appear in the constitution? They don't, but they can be infered from the text. If you refer to all "europeans" as foreign invaders and you talk about your races duty to "reclaim" the land from the foreign invaders it is no stretch to infer what the point of it is. I first heard the word reconquista at a Mecha meeting at my college, and it was used by Mecha members to remind their members that this was not the "Americans" lands, it belong to the "indigenous" peoples and one day they would take it back. If you are unaware of the extreme racist elements within Mecha, then you are out of the loop (either that or you support their position.) I never said it would be a military conquest, hell, I think our common citizens could defeat the Mexican army. What I believe, and what Mecha teaches, is that people from Mexico do not have to follow our laws because this is not our land- it is theirs. This is why they support illegal immigration so strongly, they want as many of what they see as "their people" to come here so that they can gain electoral majorities and influence our elections (which they already do to a certain extant).

I think it is silly for one reason- it doesn't even begin to address why they really come here: their corrupt democratically elected governments have failed them. But it allows them to do what all racists do: focus on the boogeymen. The boogeyman in this case is "whitey," "cracker," "gabacho," or whatever. Whitey is the foreign invader that must be driven out to purify the land. It's assine, but stupid people follow stupid ideas. I'm part hispanic, but I don't need false pride in my race to feel good about myself. I want an America of laws. Our ancestors all came here for pretty much the same reason: the place where they were living were screwed up, and that hasn't changed. People who come here to break the laws ruin our country, because that unwillingness to follow laws is exactly what screwed up the country where they came from.

I'm not really surprised that you focus in on those words yet skip right over the part where various grievances are discussed. However, I can see how taking those words out of context and ignoring the crimes that are discussed in the "plan" can lead one to believe that it is nothing more than hate speech. BTW using four consecutive tildes, after you are signed in, will automatically sign your post for you. I recommend going back and doing this to all your posts because it is really hard for other users to tell if they are talking to the same person or someone just jumping into the discussion. Thank you.Mosquito-001 19:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NO GREIVANCE. There were no crimes committed against you. MECHA HAS NO GREIVANCE. there were no crimes comitted against mecha members. But I can guarantee YOUR ancestors committed crimes against the indigenous peoples of Mexico, central america and south america if you have any Mexican ancestory. It was your ancestors who came to the Americas from Spain with their Roman Catholicism and their spanish language to murder rape and plunder the new world. Your ancestors destroyed the aztecs. Your greivance is with your own flesh and blood, you just don't like to hear it. If you want to change the world apologize for your ancestors war crimes and begin a new life, but don't lecture me about it from a hypocritical point of view.

I'm sorry. Wait, what did I do again? 24.147.145.25 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now we're just giving our own opinions here. Without sources we don't have anything that can be put in the article. If we can't find sources for MECha using the term, maybe we can find sources for American Patrol using the term. If we can't find any sources at all, then we should just delete the article. -Will Beback 01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Whoever you are, I find your hate for a group of people absolutely disturbing. I really did want to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You could have edited the article in a useful manner and named which groups accuse Mecha of this belief, you could have signed your posts, and you could have engaged in a civil discussion on the talk page but you didn't. Instead we end up with an anonymous user who is on a personal crusade against civil rights groups. Seriously let go of the hate dude. It's not good for you.Mosquito-001 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Just an fyi skeeter, nobody but you thinks that mecha is a civil rights organization. They are racist. You may be able to control what is said on this page, but people across this country are catching on to what mecha, and similar groups, are really all about. There was a trickle of reporting about it in the last election cycle. I saw reports on CNN, FOX, CBS and NBC where people were getting the word out about Mecha, and you won't stop that. Mecha can't hide in the shadows anymore and spew their racial hatred in secret.Like the KKK, mechas racist positions will be it's downfall. Don't get sucked into it skeeter, I'll be praying for you.

Got any sources bob or just the voices coming through your tinfoil hood? So you've "seen reports?" That's cool, you must have links to reports about the reconquista from reputable mainstream news outlets? Right? You also seem very knowledgable about Mecha so I can't help but wonder why you don't move on over to the Mecha wiki.Mosquito-001 03:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources proving existence of reconquista movement[edit]

www.aztlan.net Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland' By The Associated Press Republica del NorteALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Charles Truxillo suggests the “Republica del Norte,” the Republic of the North, is “an inevitability.” Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,”

Here's another source: A breakaway of U.S. states is a distinct possibility, according to prominent Chicano activist and University of California at Riverside professor Armando Navarro. In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Navarro would not answer directly whether he shared separatist aspirations, but said that if demographic and social trends continue, secession is inevitable. "A secessionist movement is not something that you can put away and say it is never going to happen in the United States," he continued. "Time and history change."

El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants...of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth.. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans.

Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner "gabacho" who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation.

Bustamante Won't Renounce Ties to Chicano Student Group Thursday, August 28, 2003

LOS ANGELES — California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (search), the grandson of Mexican immigrants who counts improving race relations among his biggest pursuits, refused Thursday to renounce his past ties to a little-known Hispanic organization considered by critics to be as racist as the Ku Klux Klan. MEChA has used violence in the past to make its case. At a July 4 celebration in 1996, members of the group, who call themselves Mechistas, were videotaped attacking black and white Americans protesting illegal immigration. In 1993, students at UCLA caused $500,000 worth of damage during protests to demand a Chicano studies department. MEChA has also been associated with anti-Semitic groups like Nation of Aztlan. MEChA's motto is "for the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing." Critics say affiliation with that kind of group could spell political ruin for a white candidate and are upset that little attention has been paid to Bustamante's relationship with the group. He belonged to MEChA while attending Fresno State University in the 1970s. According to the organization's constitution, "Chicanas and Chicanos must ... politicize our Raza [race] ... and struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan."

Aztlan (search) is the area that is currently the southwest United States, but Mechistas claim Aztlan is their homeland to be returned to Mexico and the group says white Americans who currently govern these areas must be removed from power.

"What is a moderate member of a racist organization? 'I was a moderate member of the Klan.' Imagine if a Republican made that statement," Elder said.

"I think he should answer for his membership in the group," said syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. "I think he needs to explain why he has not disassociated himself from a group that is violent, which has caused riots on campus and which has preached anti-Semitism and anti-black ideology."


This can be found at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) website under Nation of Aztlan: Introduction

The Nation of Aztlan (NOA), first organized in the early 1990s, is a California-based Hispanic nationalist organization that claims to represent the desires and aspirations of the Hispanic community. The organization calls for the United States to return "Aztlan" territory - Aztlan being the mythic homeland of the Mexican people, or Aztecs, which according to legend is found in the American Southwest or Northern Mexico. The group's nationalist message is blurred by frequent appeals anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, homophobia and other expressions of hatred.Hispanic rights activists revived the story of Aztlan in the 1960s. Beyond a mere physical site, Aztlan has become a metaphor for the geographic, historical and spiritual home of many indigenous people in the Southwest. The NOA seeks to create a separate nation in the area now "occupied" roughly by California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

The Sierra Times had a quote from a member of MEChA:

“Asked about his group’s ideology and intentions, Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge’s MEChA chapter replied: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlán. Communism would be closest [to it].” Once Aztlán is established, continued Perez, ethnic cleansing would commence: “Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

There is ample evidence not only for the continued existence of this article, but an expansion of it's origins and detailed information on it's supporters.

four tildes in a row, it's not that hard Mosquito-001 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Uages of the term "reconquista" still needs a source. The Miguel Perez quote has often been copied onto websites, but no original source is given, so it is dubious. -Will Beback 20:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sierra Times is the source, so the quote is anything but dubious. If you have a legitmate reason for doubting their reporting- let's hear it. The reality is that the four sources cited, from the mainstream press, show that the sentiment known as "reconquista" exists. The term "reconquista" doesn't need any further source. The phrase is acknowledged by supporters and detractors in terms of it's meaning. Saying that the plot doesn't exist isn't the same as saying the word to describe the plot doesn't exist. The plot could be a farce and yet the accepted word to describe the plot would still exist. The "second shooter theory" describes the idea that there were two shooters for the Kennedy assasination, many people don't believe in the theory but still understand what the phrase "second shooter" means. Even if the theory was conclusively eliminated as a possibilty the phrase second shooter would still exist to describe the disproven theory. It is the term used by many in the public and the media to describe the concept that part of the US was stolen from Mexico, and certain radical elements want it back. The evidence above clearly demostrates that that belief exists, if you chose to disregard it that's OK, but millions of people still believe in it's existence and use the phrase to describe it. It is irelevant who coined the term, it has a common usage and meaning which people clearly recognize.

Can you please provide links to these sources? Thanks, -Will Beback 22:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
millions of people? I somehow doubt this. However, I am in favor of the sources for the reconquista theory being mentioned in the article along with verifiable comments from supporters AND detractors. I am in favor of this article not being deleted but only if it is treated like a wikipedia article and not a typical page on a neo-nazi website. Your previous edits which consisted of stuff like "some people say,""some critics," along with other very pov accusations are not going to cut it and will only result in me and other people having the article edited and asking for it to be locked again Mosquito-001 22:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No Will, I won't. I gave you more than enough info to look them up yourself. All the source info is there. And skeeter, the only "neo-nazi" type stuff is found in connection with mecha and it's ilk. My edits were no worse than yours. I've provided you with just a few of my "some people say" and "some critics" sources, where are yours? You have offered no support for your positions other than the standard "I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is racist." As far as I'm concerned anyone who wants to delete this article is serving some personal interest. No objective person who has done even a tiny amount of research could conclude that there are no people espousing what is called "reconquista" agenda, an agenda which is clothed in racist nationalistic hispanic diatribe.I don't mind both sides being in the article, but that means real quotes from chicano studies professors who do espouse the views of reconquista. If you want to point out that they use different names for it that's fine- but be honest about it. We can debate about what the level of support is, but there can be no debate about it's existence.

Without reliable sources we have no basis for this article. If you don't want to provide them, that's too bad. Quotations taken out of context aren't sufficient. Please read Wikipedia:verifiability and Wikipedia:reliable sources. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)-

The quotations weren't taken out of context and you know it. The sources are 100% reliable and you know it.It doesn't matter whether it's been proven to your liking the reality is that idea exists and I have proven it to any reasonable standard. BTW- I read the verifiability standards andYou obviously have an you might want to reread them: "understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher," and "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." I have easily met these standards. Thanks! axe to grind.

Axe, the Sierra Times is probably not a reliable source due to its extreme political POV, and since you haven't given us a link to their article we only have your word for it anyway. That's not verifiable. -Will Beback 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar with the work of Truxillo. It could indeed be considered "separatist", and has been cited in mainstream publications. So in one sense, you are correct, axe, in that there probably should be an article on this phenomenon. But the point is that the title associated with said article must be reliable. I don't care if you do cite a crazy source, really. There is worse stuff on Wikipedia. But failing that, it should maybe be moved to Mexican American separatism, or something like that, maybe with a redirect, because what we have smacks of original research.--Rockero 02:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


There has already been a debate on this issue, as noted at the top of this page, and this article was deemed a keeper. As one of the contributors to that debate noted, a search on google for reconquista brings 100,000 hits. It is the word which most people, who attempt to discuss this issue , use to describe this position.The article can easily discuss the seperatist position, those within the hispanic community who disagree (or don't care), and what the perception of outside groups looking in is.

This article was deemed a "keeper" after it was decided that it could be improved with further research and less POV. By research, I do not mean original research. This might be hard to do because of the very nature of conspiracy theories. If there were a ton of evidence for it, it wouldn't be in the realm of conspiracy theories. If the article were to be kept and expanded, I think it should be offlimits to anonymous users and new accounts. Otherwise I think we'll quickly see the return of the vandalism that this article was previously swept up in. This article can be informative without using alarmist tactics. Mosquito-001 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism- it was truth. You don't like the negative conotations associated with groups like Mecha (are you a member?), but the fact is that the perception is spreading and not just by racist. There is a "reconquista" movement, and we can debate the size and scope but not the existence. To me, you just want to argue about the name and not whether the idea exists, because it's difficult to defend what some of your perceived "comrades" are saying. It's ok to acknowledge that some latinos are racist and nationalistic, because there is ample evidence for it, and you do no diservice to your race by admitting it. Racism/tribal mentatlity, in my opinion, has more to do with every war fought since the beginning of time than religion and maybe even money. Humans are masters of division, we are constantly putting ourselves into groups and subgroups in an effort to set ourselves apart, or distinquish ourselves, from others. Look at any racist organization, they all do the same things: we are different,we need to be unified, we need to push an agenda that supports us, and negative descriptions of those who are perceived as "different": nigger, honky, beaner, gook, whitey, wetback, jungle bunny, cracker, slant eyes, gabacho, spic.

It looks like you're right about the Google test. While most of the hits were about Spain, the second hit is from The Barnes Review, apparently a revisionist historian website (I'm not familiar with it) about secessionism. But Mexico secession yields 450,000 hits, Mexican separatist yields 228,000, Chicano nationalism yields 91,200. To be fair, Reconquista Mexico yields 285,000. So it should be fair to consider renaming or at least discussing.--Rockero 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but reconquista is the word people are using to describe the concept. As time passes, a one word descrption is more likely to become the chosen descrptive term over a two word description mainly because of ease of usage (the word "goodbye" evolved from "god be with you.") But as long as reconquista is mentioned in the article that's fine. I think it also has to be acknowledged in the article that many mecha members do believe that part of the united states was wrongly taken, or stolen, from Mexico. Because it is true. I have listened to mecha speeches and I have family members who are in it. And that is where I first heard about all of this. That isn't to say all want to take it back, but I can't see any objectively honest way to say that the sentiment doesn't exist within certain segments of the movement.

That is cool with me.--Rockero 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting your expertise in the matter but...[edit]

The article badly needs sources. It seems the last editor fell into the same trap that so many other editors before him fell into, before the article was finally locked. I would edit it myself but I'm having trouble finding any con sources that refer to the reconquista by name. There's more than enough pro sources on the matter but I am not doing a piecemeal edit. I'm also kind of lazy and would prefer to clean up someone else's edit rather than do the HUGE overhaul that the article presently requires. Mosquito-001 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to do an edit summary. By no means is my edit a defining one. I tried to put in a link but it came out kinda sloppily and the whole article just needs to be more informative. Hopefully my edit will get the ball rolling though. Mosquito-001 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article[edit]

As it stands right now, the article claims to document a conspiracy theory held by some group of people. Is there a source that tells me that anyone out there believes this theory and has stated so publically? In short, it's not clear to me that this article is notable. --Deville (Talk) 20:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have actually seen it mentioned on America patrol's website. Of course that's hardly a valid source which is the whole problem with finding sources for conspiracy theories. BTW The article has been suggested for deletion but it just keeps coming back so there's clearly a need for it Mosquito-001 03:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, would it be possible to find an explicit link which shows that there is some community which subscribes to this theory? Don't get me wrong, it certainly sounds plausible to me that some crazy xenophobic dudes might be talking about this, but on the other hand, we want to make sure this isn't something made up in school one day... --Deville (Talk) 04:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I first learned about this term (and as a result found this article) a while ago during the hispanic student marches in Los Angeles from some news source - I can't remember if it was Lou Dobbs or who. I wish I could remember, i'll try searching some media outlet sources on my freetime this week and see if that'll be good enough to change the article. I don't like how the article stands - it claiming that only racists believe this term is used by some militant (or otherwise reactionary) hispanics about trying to "reconquer" the soutwest, I believe, isn't true. I do believe this article is notable, though, simply because, as i've said, I got it from a media source (probably either CNN or MSNBC - their what I usually watch). --Jelligraze 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre and inaccurate[edit]

Does anyone here believe that "reconquista" is a word familiar to white racists? The phrase (or analogy to the gradual repopulation and reconquest of Moorish Spain) was coined by Mexican writers Elena Poniatowska and Carlos Fuentes. It was partly a joke and partly a distinctly non-racist demographic observation. That is to say, some Mexican intellectuals (neither anti-American) observed similarities between the slow return of Christians to the Iberian peninsula and the reemergence of Mexican culture in the Southwest. Paranoid groups of all stripes appear to have pounced on the word as proof of some sort of Chicano Nationalist plot, or, conversely, a White Supremacist plot to invent a fake plot. This is completely irrelevant to the real and interesting coinage, ie "Reconquista", which describes a real and interesting phenomenon with objective and quantifiable dimensions. (Number of Spanish speakers, diffusion of cuisine and culture, etc.) None of the wikiwriters seem to have the slightest idea what they are talking about. This kind of nonsense discredits the idea of a publicly edited encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.79.49 (talkcontribs)

I liked your revision so I'll leave the page as it is. The word "reconquista" is very familiar to white racists, though, take a look at the American patrol link in the article and numerous other hate website. Mosquito-001 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage of "Reconquista" by non-racists[edit]

I've done a little bit of research (about five minutes worth) and have stumbled across a blog by Glenn Reynolds, professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, hosted on MSNBC.com. I don't really have much time to do more thorough research at the moment, so this will suffice for now.

Within the blog there is an entry published on April 10, 2006 entitled "Annex Mexico?" in which he fights for the rights of illegal immigrants to be granted jobs in America. While doing so, however, he makes mention of the Reconquista movement and attributes the term to those who think that the Southwestern United States should go back to Mexico. I'll try to search more next week when I have more ample time. Blog entires found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

However, I should also mention that there is far less information on the term's use in CNN and MSNBC then I originally thought. So while it may still be used by non-racists, it may not be a popular term. And there still isn't verifiable documentation of actual groups or names that strive for this movement. I know that I heard this term mentioned in this way on either MSNBC or CNN weeks ago though. I'll keep searching. --Jelligraze 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Use[edit]

The big problem we are having on this article is that both the meaning and the use of the word "Reconquista" are varied: Does it refer to a Mexicanization of the US Southwest peacefully, via repopulation? Or a conspiratorial scheme, possibly including armed insurrection? Fuentes and Poniatowska obviously meant the former. The blog that was recently added as "an opposing view" to the external links section (just beneath the American Patrol EL) credits Glenn Spencer himself as the architect of the conspiratorial definition (although fears of irredentism originally surfaced with the Chicano Movement-btw I left it for the meantime, but I think we'll have to mine that blog for info and sources and remove the link). It is due to the popularization of the term by exclusionists and nationalist groups that conservatives began to use it. So when "mainstream" people like Malkin and Reynolds look at the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests and Samuel P. Huntington look at the numbers and say "reconquista is happening", they are correct inasmuch as they are observing the reconquista the Mexican intellectuals describe. But they don't make the distinction between the "two reconquistas". To this day there is no record of collusion between the Mexican government and MEChA, the NCLR, or anyone else to reclaim the United States. So the conspiratorial definition remains a conspiracy theory. ("Separatist sentiment", i.e. Chicano nationalism, is a different story entirely.) But the "reconquista" of Fuentes is very real, and ought not to be described as a movement at all, as its political aspects are not organized as such. Hopefully we can work together to straighten this out and create a better article.--Rockero 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you understand Chicano separatism/Aztlan is not the same as Reconquista. Viller the Great (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why this Article is a Crock of Liberalism[edit]

The Spanish Reconquista had to do with Christians routing Muslims. Since there is no significant religious rift between Americans and Mexicans, clearly it is about race. If not, then what? You actually think the proponents of the North American Reconquista simply want to reestablish the border based on dated survey claims? Please. Haizum 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is arguably a religous deminsion between the prodestand whites/placks and the Ctholic Mexican/chicanos.
It might be illustrative to look at the Cananda/Quebec problem in contrast to this. The problem qith the Quebed nationalist is that, in want a state for themselves, that either implicitly or explictlymeant excluding and/or discrimenating against the non-French ethic groups living there. That is why the Quebec First Nations (Canadian Indians), Jamaicans, as well as the Anglo-phone Canucks in Q were against seperation.
If the Chicanos were given "soveraignty" over the southwest, do you think that the Black, asian, Native American, not to mention "oppressor" white population would be guranteed their civil rights? I doubt it--Dudeman5685 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Manifest destiny?[edit]

This paragraph in the text is a questionable POV:

It should be noted that the tribes of present-day Mexico never habitated the US Southwest, nor for the most part did Mexicans themselves as it was mostly open land except for northern Native Americans, therefore in a real sense "Reconquista" is simply the Mexican equivalent of manifest destiny.

The reconquista is not about whether Mexican tribes lived in the US, but about "re-conquering" the land lost to the US after the US-Mexican war. Therefore the analogy with manifest destiny is not valid: manifest destiny was about expanding the US to territories that were not theirs, while the reconquista is about recovering territory that used to belong to Mexico. Itub 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Virginia's colonial charter claimed land all the way to the Pacific. So in a sense manifest destiny was really just re-conquering what others were squatting on...and the reconquista is equivalent. Justforasecond 23:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't.--Rockero 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph shortly after it was restored the first time, and it was restored again with the edit summary "rv -- rockero, please seek consensus on talk".
First of all, there are all of three comments on the talk: Two opposed and one in favor. I think that's hardly a consensus. Secondly, as Itub points out, "The reconquista is not about whether Mexican tribes lived in the US", which makes the first part of the paragraph irrelevant. Secondly, I have a problem with your defense of the addition: Do you mean that since the Virginia charter claimed the land all the way to Pacific, all of the land actually became part of the US? And that the aboriginal inhabitants were squatting on "US land"? If this were the case, I could see how the American conquest of the west might be seen as a sort of "Reconquista", but there are several problems with the logic behind thesse assumptions. As should be evident from the amount of discussion on this talkpage, this article really needs to be re-written. Here is the compromise I propose: We remove the assertion that "Reconquista is the Mexican equivalent of Manifest Destiny", but leave a link to Manifest Destiny as a see also. The when I (or whoever does it) gets around to rewriting this thing, The community will be in a better position to judge whether the link is a propos or not. Sound good?--Rockero 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
1) Spain arrived almost a century before than Virginia charter! The northern border of New Spain was apparently not well defined until 1819 in a treaty, but it was agreed in a more peaceful way than the US invasion of Mexico (just to point out a major difference). 2) "Reconquista" is a metaphor for the demographic tendencies in the US southwest. It is not about actually expanding Mexican territory, and therefore unrelated with manifest destiny, which was about territorial expansion in a literal sense. I think this is the major point of disagreement. 3) There are Mexican tribes, such as the Yaquis, which inhabited parts of northern Mexico and parts of the US southwest (just to show that the paragraph in question is non accurate more than one way.) Itub 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, this debate could get increasingly ridiculous. A FEW spaniards were in California when Virginia was chartered, in 1606, but if any Virginians travelled to the Central Valley to grow tobacco I'd cough up a lung in shock. England claimed California in 1579 ... but as far as I can tell just planted a flag and departed. The first Mission, a precursor to actual cities, was not set up until 1769, more than 150 years after the Virginia charter. When Mexico gained independence there were still hardly any spaniards in California. When the U.S. annexed the state what I've read says the numbers were about the same, with a few thousand Spanish-speakers well outnumbered by English-speakers. So yeah, Mexico claimed this land for a while, but it was a pretty tenuous claim, comparable to the English claim. As for the Indians, I don't know enough to say whether there were border tribes that have been disenfranchised. It wouldn't surprise me if a few were, but I haven't read about Natives being carted down from NoCal across the border. Justforasecond 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Material removed 9 Aug 06 for violating WP:RS/WP:NPOV[edit]

Sources given: 1) compares similarities between the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the hunt 100 years prior for Poncho Villa in Mexico. In no way a source for what is presented here.

2) by Carlos Fuentes, from the article: “True to the barracks mentality dangerously infecting great swaths of Israeli society, Sharon makes no distinction between Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden.” This article concerns Israeli/Palestinian politics, no mention is made of Mexico or Reconquista, and the US is mentioned only in passing as a supporter of Israel.

4) Relates to a particularly vulgar article tilted “Jews against Islam: The War of Cartoons” Anti-Semitic, but unrelated to this page or its subject. http://www.aztlan.net/hitler_frank.htm

3) a forum for people who play Star Wars based games, and other related games. Hardly WPRS. Nothing here supports using this as a source, reliable or not. Just a bunch of gamers taking positions on the protests marches. Includes a pro/con discussion of shooting people who illegally cross the border, and whether it’s moral to include women and children, or just men.

5) Alex Jones’s rightwing conspiracy website, where most of this material comes from. Please see the official policy WP:RS This site does not meet the standard set out there.

Brimba 05:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that most of those sources are irrelevant or not notable, except for #4. It is indeed a particularly vulgar article spouting hatred against Jews and published by La Voz de Aztlan. Certainly some mention of this would be appropriate. TheKaplan 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If anywhere, it should be mentioned on the Voz de Aztlan page, but since all they do is spout antisemitic garbage, suffice it to say just that, which the article already does (at least the last time I checked).--Rockero 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Description of Movement, not just term[edit]

What we need is a page that describes the actual movement, not just the term. It could either be a reworking of this article, or be a new article called "(something) Irridentism" or similar. This article could then either redirect to it or be a sub-article on terminology. As the article stands now, it reads like some kind of conspiracy theory rather than the actual movement that it is. While we may disagree on how popular it is in the pro-immigration/pro-illegal immigration camp, there should be no doubt as to it's existence. If there are no objections, I will start working on the new article. Happy editing to all, TheKaplan 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have doubts as to its existence. VoA may have a website, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest that there is a movement behind them or even any more than three people associated with the site. As far as sentiment goes, there has been resistance to US control of the US Southwest ever since it gained that control. Few of the actual movements that resisted or resist is are irredentist. The only episodes I can think of are the brief "occupation" of Catalina Island by the Brown Berets in the name of (but not under the auspices of) Mexico. This article ought to be rewritten as I prescribe above, as a discussion of the two major variations of the way in which the word "Reconquista", when applied to the "Mexicanization of the US Southwest", is used. Discussion, along with any evidence contrary to or in any other way differing from what I have stated, is of course welcome.--Rockero 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It does appear that most of those sources are irrelevant or not notable, except for #4. It is indeed a particularly vulgar article spouting hatred against Jews and published by La Voz de Aztlan. Certainly some mention of this would be appropriate.

It would certainly be appropriate to place something concerning this matter on the La Voz de Aztlan page - Voz de Aztlán - as they published the article. However, their hatred of Jews is immaterial to the subject of this page as it fails to in any way define or enhance the reader’s/user’s understanding of the concept. Beyond that I think Rockero is on the right track. Brimba 06:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with Rockero's "This article ought to be rewritten as I prescribe above, as a discussion of the two major variations of the way in which the word "Reconquista", when applied to the "Mexicanization of the US Southwest", is used." With this article directed toward terminology, we should then create an article on the actual movement that the term has been used to describe, including all forms these related territorial claims to the United States. For just one example of (and really all that's neccesary to prove) the actual existence of the movement, look here. [[1]] Happy editing, TheKaplan 00:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already an article on the Mexica Movement, which, according to their website, is not about the restoration of Mexican sovereignty whatsoever. And just because a group calls itself "Movement" does not mean it constitutes or represents a movement. The reason there's no article on any "real Reconquista movement" is because there is none.--Rockero 06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
We're not neccesarily talking about mexican sovereignty at all. I have been struggling to nail it down just because I cannot find the appropriate terminology. Let me try again. We have articles on the Minuteman Project, American Patrol, FAIR, and yet we also have an article on immigration reduction as a movement/philosophy. We may already have articles on the individual organizations advocating what i will call this time (in another attempt to pin down what I have been trying to say) the establishment of an indigenous state. The movement/philosophy is as real as the immigration reductionist movement philosophy. If you attend the immigration protests or if you take a look at any of the videos of them, the protesters/counter-protesters (depending on which side has the permit that time) are carrying signs that say "this is our land" "go back to europe" "there are no borders" etc, handing out pamphlets which detail the idea of/right to the indigenous state, and yelling things similar to the sign slogans. It exists. TheKaplan 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem you are having, Kaplan, is that you are trying to unite various movements, causes, and organizations with disparate motives and goals under a solitary banner that does not correspond to reality. Your point is well-taken: There has been resistance (military, political, philosophical, etc.) to colonization, American expansionism, and and the assertion of political dominance of other governments in this hemisphere since the beginning of said processes, and while this topic is currently underrepresented on Wikipedia and might deserve its own umbrella article (something along the lines of Indigenous resistance to colonization or some such), the topics it brings up are discussed in various articles: American Indian resistance to US expansionism and domination is found in Indian Wars and its sub-articles and American Indian Movement, for example, Mexican American resistance to the same is (or will eventually be) discussed in the Chicano Movement article, Indigenous resistance to Mexican domination is touched upon in EZLN and elsewhere, while Tupac Amaru might discuss indigenous resistance in Peru. I agree that there are cultural underpinnings of resistance to US/White domination, but I disagree that it constitutes a unified political or social movement. The history and vagaries of the U.S. anti-immigration movement have been documented in sufficient enough detail to account for the various manifestations of said movement throughout history and across a broad geographic range, which allows for greater variety and complexity than I fear would be available for a parallel topic on the resistance "movement", which would lead to an overly-simplistic account of the history and the sentiments that underly it. Such oversimplification leads to reactionary sentiments and actions, where I fear there is a potential for violence. I can only think of a few works that present a synthetic view of indigenous resistance to US hegemony, only two that present such a view of Chicano history, and none that present a view that unites Chicano and indigenous resistance under one umbrella. If our sources don't tell the story that way, our attempts to do so will constitute original research. Thoughts?--Rockero 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I've seen the same signs you have. Especially the one that says "this is our land." I've also seen "go back to europe" a few times too. Granted these signs are controversial but what do they mean? "This is our land" could mean the sign wielder is an extremely patriotic person just like a white guy who says "this is my land." That doesn't seem weird to me. He could also mean "this is my land and NO ONE elses." Maybe he means "this is my land too." "Go back to europe" could mean the guy is angry about illegal white immigration which has been a huge problem for over a hundred years. Maybe he's just racist. Neither of us knows. If you mix in some Lou Dobbs and some good ol' hate mongering though you get a full fledged "movement." That's exactly why I wish this article could have been deleted and stayed deleted. 90% of its edits are based on but I heard it from a friend who read it on the save our state forums type sources.Mosquito-001 02:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Rockero, you are probably right about the lack of unification as a movement, but as a philosophy as well? Surely there is enough coherence there. True, it is discussed on various pages, but nowhere is it cleary summarized and put in a broader context. I am thinking right now of the difficulty that someone unfamiliar with wikipedia would have finding this information on wikipedia if they did not know exactly where to look.
Mosquito: don't pretend you don't know exactly what the signs and chants mean. If you are going to defend or ascribe to that viewpoint, then go ahead, but don't pretend it doesn't mean what it means. And why would you have us delete a valuable and informative page?
Happy editing to all, TheKaplan 18:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Kaplan, I'm sorry I guess I'm not in touch with the hispanic underground that meets in shadowy back allys as other people. Seriously though, the biggest lesson I took away from going to the immigration protests is that you really can't assume anything about someone's views. You truly don't know the philosophy of any of those guys carrying signs without talking to them and getting some clarification on their views. If you want to be a valuable contributor to topics such as these you're going to have to get out there and familiarize yourself with the individual people, the books they read, and why groups like voz de atzlan and the mexica movement don't exactly see eye to eye. You won't get anywhere listening to the latest Rush or Dobbs rant on "our white culture" except to insulate yourself from mainstream society. That's exactly the problem with having a page about a conspiracy theory: Too many misinformed people throwing about "evidence" for their theory until their only sources are other people exactly them like who get their "evidence" from the previously mentioned people. I call it a conspiracy circle. We even have a mayor associated with the reconquista movement when he has not espoused any views supporting the theory. That's bordering on slander.
Now I agree with Rockero about a lack of a united Reconquista movement but I'll go even farther and suggest that there isn't even a united philosophy. At it's broadest scope the Reconquista "movement" could even include the Republic of Texas group and that is a group solely made up of white people.Mosquito-001 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid your patronizing little "today's lesson" entirely misses the point. "If you want to be a valuable contributor to topics such as these" as you say, you have to stop wishing away facts that you don't like, such as the existence of this philosophy. It is important to remember that we are not talking about back alleys, but rather the main streets of major cities, where the signs are quite openly displayed, and the chants chanted. Just fyi, I spent the last major immigration protest walking through the crowd and asking various people why they personally were at the protest, what the sign they were holding (no human is illegal, full rights now, etc.) meant to them, why they chose that sign in particular, and similar. I took a couple breaks to read the various flyers about the illegitimacy of the United States that I got handed. So it looks like today's lesson is actually not to assume blindly, because we all know that to make assumptions makes an ass out of you and mumptions :). Cheers, TheKaplan 20:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kaplan, in response to your question, "but as a philosophy as well?": The resistance to US hegemony is not a philosophy but a popular sentiment. There may be some ideas that form undercurrents of said sentiment, such as the idea that the Southwestern United States are occupied by an invading power, an emphasis on historical and contemporary instances of racism, and the glorification of a semi-mythical past prior to colonization, for example, but they do not form a unified, coherent philosophy. Again, I ask, what are the reliable sources that present such a view? I still think what you're looking for is the article I propose above, Indigenous resistance to colonization, and I urge you to write it and let me know when you do. Thanks, --Rockero 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Should mayor V be included?[edit]

Since this article is about the use of the term, rather than the truth of what it describes, shouldn't it mention when the term is used as a nickname?TheKaplan 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The comment does not name the groups using the term against Mayor V and it does not go into the source of the allegations. ie. Is it nothing more than racism, a political squabble, or a mix of the two involving MeCha as a group. What does Mayor V say about the accusations? After all is said and done, the resulting article would be better suited for Mayor V's wiki entry. BTW take a look at the links on the bottom of the page.Mosquito-001 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
However, it is a notable use of the term. Doesn't that belong in an article about the uses of the term? TheKaplan 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This article isn't about pushing a political agenda.Mosquito-001 12:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

dehumanizing, etc.[edit]

Even with the columnist, it is still pov pushing, and anyhow not really within the scope of this article on terminology. TheKaplan 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very much within the scope of this article. The term has been used this way before and I have a source too. BTW you've just broken the three revert rule.Mosquito-001 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Your source does not make the claim that you put in the article, therefore you don't have a source. And I would reccomend that you look at your own last commment above. TheKaplan 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh and BTW I was never even close to 3RR, much less in violation of it. I suggest you review the policy so that you don't make unjustified threats in the future. TheKaplan 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Sensationalism and Conflation[edit]

Please refrain from making subjective comments in this article. Articles are not forums to say whether a movement is right or wrong, just what it is.

There also seems to be a tendency to try to illegitimize the Reconquista movement by claiming that it is some sort of conspiracy theory or something that was invented by White Supremacists or Neo Nazis to demonize illegal immigrants in the eyes of the public. This is not true and so far, no reliable sources have been given to support such a claim.

It is also unfair to both sides. Such edits not only demonize people who support border security and the enforcement of existing border laws by conflating their views with racism, it writes off supporters of the Reconquista movement as illegitimate.

Objectivity Check 06:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would people who support border security and enforcement seek to confirm a conspiracy theory that has its roots in the white supremacist movement? Also what do they have to fear from an explanation about the truth behind the term? That is unless certain border security and enforcement groups are actually hate groups attempting to attract some of the legitimacy conferred on actual pro-enforcement groups... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.80.193 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I remind all parties that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and all soapboxing in articles will be removed.--Jersey Devil 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeskind Article[edit]

The Zeskind Article on "The New Nativism" is not a reliable source because it is from an obviously biased magazine article, despite being cited as if it were a journal article. I am leaving it without a good source for now because I'd like some time to find a book or at least an article that isn't from such a partisan publication. It may take a few days.

Objectivity Check 06:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You put in a heavily biased link to the minuteman homepage. I'm only leaving it up because much of its propaganda was erased off the page in the last revert, but in the future please try to be more objective when judging other points of view. Thank you. Mosquito-001 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Swedish part in the Reconquista?[edit]

Absolut--Stor stark7 Talk 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Spencer[edit]

Since Glenn Spencer frequently mentions this matter on the American Patrol Report, can www.americanpatrol.com be mentioned here as well? HE claims that this is what is going on in the US. Powerzilla (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

HE also discusses Aztlan there as well. Powerzilla (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS OK.. BUT[edit]

Hi, I'm Mexican, I think the article is OK. but it need like professional words, i don't know how can I say that in english. but is ok, it says the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.27.141 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some english translations in the footnotes of what referenced information from the spanish text. And any updates. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

reconquer what?[edit]

the southwest united states belongs to,if anyone,the peoples who lived in those areas in 1491.the year before the spanish hired columbus to sail west to find a quicker route to india.the native american tribes that inhabited the southwest u.s. were not azteca or any other ancient mexican or central american peoples.the people that lived there were apache and other indigenous tribes that lived within the borders of what is now the u.s.a.and as far as what the map looked like before the mexican american war goes-your saying that it's ok for the spanish ruled mexican gov't,whether they were independant from spain or not,to take the land from the native american clovis people but it's not ok for the engish and dutch americans to take the land from the spanish.since cortez invaded and conquered the land which is now called mexico it has been ruled and controlled by men of spanish descent.if anyone owes an apology to the indigenous people of mexico it's the spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand you. But Mexico is a mestizo nation, of both Indigenous and European roots. I do not believe that Mexico should be a purely Spanish nation. I am furious with the way indigenous people are treated nowadays. We are all equal. Spain should apologize. Viller the Great (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Taking off the neutrality tag[edit]

Nothing is being resolved, there's only bickering, so there's really no reason to keep the tag in the entry because it's misleading about any resolution being realistically arrived at. Lothar76 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Truxillo's Myspace Page Essay[edit]

I've noticed that Mr. Truxillo has posted an essay on his myspace page detailing his views and his outline for a future Hispanic state. Should this be included since Truxillo is regarded as notable in this field? Or is a myspace page not an acceptable source, even for a University professor? Looking for comments. I'll include the link here: The Inevitability of a Mexicano Nation in the American Southwest & Northern Mexico (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

No, because Charles Truxillo does not advocate "Reconquista", he wants Aztlan/Republica del Norte. Reconquista is the movement to reunite Mexico the way it was as and was meant to be: an empire. Aztlan and el Norte are movements that want to SEPARATE from Mexico. They do not advocate "Reconquista". We are not associated with those Aztlan movements. Viller the Great (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Reconquista does not exclusively refer to reunite with Mexico. Rather, it is a characterization of the increased demographic and cultural presence of Mexicans in the Southwestern United States, an area that was part of Mexico before the Texas annexation (1845) and the Mexican Cession (1848), as a trend leading toward territorial losses by the United States. Whether this territory reunites with Mexico or becomes a sovereign Hispanic state is beside the point.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
Hello, I won't try to remove the sections which advocate Aztlan anymore, as you'll clearly keep undoing my work, I'm just trying to clarify. Most people think the people who want "Reconquista" (return to Mexico) are the same as crazy people who want "Aztlan/Republica del Norte/Anahuac". Aztlan, and its supporters, trick the Mexican population into thinking that they support Mexican nationalism, when in fact they want to create a new nation, which is "descended from the Aztecs" or whatever. The Aztec were never here! My friend you need to study, investigate and understand there are two different movements. I assume you don't live under the United Statesian empire to witness what's going on. For example, the Mexica Movement wants the "liberation of our people" and the expulsion of all "whites" back to Europe! What's wrong with them? They are racist like the people they call racist. Mexicans are a mestizo nation, a blend of European and indigenous cultures. These "Aztlan" people are completely racist against Europeans, and yet they make no effort to learn indigenous languages etc. Chicanism wants to destroy the Mexican nations, those lands are rightfully part of Mexico, not "Aztlan" or the US. They were guaranteed and recognized as Mexico's borders at our time of independence. They themselves are contradictory. Charles Truxillo says Norteños are not Mexican. We are a nation. Viller the Great (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinions, but that does not change the fact that the term "Reconquista" (at least as it is defined by the sources cited in this article) is a characterization of the increased demographic and cultural presence of Mexicans in the Southwestern United States as a potential trend that could potentially lead to territorial losses by the United States. Whether the territory that is lost joins with Mexico or becomes an independent state is not relevant.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC))
Viller, thanks for your sincere arguments here to discuss this. FWIW though, I agree w/ Hyperionsteel here that the article should be more inclusive in the scope to include the reference to Truxillo. This makes me recall a seminar by Dr. Carlos Velez-Ibanez (way back) when I was in school in California, who emphasized that a definite migratory patterns existed among the (more or less) Aztec racial group, in what is now the Southwestern U.S. for centuries predating 1848. There is a racial component to the concept which doesn't necessarily conceive actual political cessions to the Mexican nation. Though I thought I'd despise the content the professor presented, his academic arguments won me over helped me understand the notion. Chicano groups (Brown Berets, MECHa) have a distinct culture from that of Mexican nationals, and have differing ideological goals, but they are rooted in the same historical context from past centuries. Roberticus (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I guess we'we'll agree there are several Reconquistas. though distinct. Thank you all for providing your opinions. Viller the Great (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a Mexican movement not Hispanic[edit]

Hispanics do not want to be associated with this movement. Hispanics do not want to see the southwest belong to Mexico. Please do not use the word "Hispanic." Use the accurate word "Mexican." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.13.114 (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually some Hispanics do. What you should say is NOT all Hispanics support it. Viller the Great (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case, can someone please explain why Hispanics in the US would want to reclaim the territory as part of Mexico? Did they or their family not choose to leave Mexico? I am not saying there is no possible reason, but it seems like a logical fallacy that should be addressed. 173.27.254.59 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I never said all the Hispanics want to reclaim land. I don't know what your definition of Hispanics, since you are not clear what you mean. Mexicans are Hispanics, too...so therefore the Mexicans who support Reconquista are also Hispanics who support Reconquista. But not all Hispanics support this, it has to do with Mexico, not Colombia, Peru, Chile etc. Hispanic is not the same like Mexican. We never left Mexico. We are in Mexico. I am from Los Angeles and I'm proud of my Mexican heritage, and I love Spanish. I'm not a traitor like those who think they are and should be United Statesians and dislike Spanish! We are reconquering our lost land. Now if you are not Mexican, but are another Hispanic, then it's different with you guys. There is no logical fallacy. Viller the Great (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced, non-neutral opinions being reverted in multiple times[edit]

Hello, I've found myself in a disagreement with User talk:CheyenneZ over unsourced material they have repeatedly restored, most recently here. IMO this is a strong, non-neutral opinion which is completely unsourced, and therefore fails WP:NPOV, WP:OR & WP:V. We have previously discussed this here on my talk page, I am about to revert this for the 3rd time, and am hoping to gain consensus regarding this here, that without any sourcing this is inappropriate. If sources are found, I would warn that they should be presented neutrally, as the sourced opinions in the article are... Boogerpatrol (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you have violated the three-revert rule on this page, Boogerpatrol, your editing of certain subjects is based on your opinion. The so-called "sources" you are protecting (and not removing) are all opinions, not facts, and have no relevant basis in historical fact. Stick to a subject you have some rudimentary knowledge of, since you so not seem to have any grasp of historical fact concerning the land of the (present) US Southwest, which is the subject of this article. And,... posting a response to me, in talk, that I am not to reply to your reply to my posting is immature, and does not resolve the issue.CheyenneZ (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CheyenneZ, your edits are clear violation of basic principles of Wikipedia. You are not entitled to add strongly biased and most importantly unsourced information that reads like a blog comment. --Երևանցի talk 16:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yerevanci, your knowledge of the history of the land which belonged to our tribes of the (current day) US Southwest is non-existent, therefore your opinion on this issue is irrelevant.CheyenneZ (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
CheyenneZ, my knowledge of history is indeed irrelevant here, because the added information "This land was never the homeland of Gutierrez's ancestors" and "Mexican tribes were never, and are not indigenous to the United States, and Gutierrez's Hispanic ancestors came from Europe" are clearly your personal opinions. --Երևանցի talk 17:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yerevanci, your ignorance on the subject at hand makes your opinion irrelevant, you know nothing at all about the history of the (now) US Southwest. Mexican tribes are NOT indigenous to the USA, that is a FACT, Mexico did not exist, as a sovereign nation until the United Mexican States was established in 1821. Our tribes, which lived on this land for thousands of years, prior to the arrival of Europeans were NOT "Mexican". Mexico did NOT exist. "Mexican" tribes are the tribes which are indigenous to the land that is now the present day Mexico, those tribes are NOT indigenous to the land which is now the USA. OUR (US) tribes are not "Mexican", and we have never been "Mexican", not when the European nation of Spain came here and stole our lands, and called it Nuevo Espania, New Spain (not "Mexico), and not for the brief 25, or so, years that Mexico claimed our tribal lands as "Indian Territory". In fact our tribal lands, which are now the US Southwest were never part of the United Mexican States.

Hispanics came from Europe, the area of the Iberian Peninsula called Hispania. NOT my "opinion", those are the FACTS. Clearly you don't know anything at all about the history of our tribes, or the history of our tribal homelands. Stick to Armenia.CheyenneZ (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


I agree that unsourced POV commentary which appears to reflect the views of a particular Wikipedia editor has no place in an article, and is appropriately removed. JohnInDC (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
JohnInDC, the "sourced" opinions you deem to be "relevant" in the subject discussed here are a joke, which is why Wikipedia is considered to be a joke. The "sourced" opinions left IN the article have no place in the article. Remove them, or I will.CheyenneZ (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If you consider Wikipedia a joke then why are you editing it? --Երևանցի talk 17:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you interjecting your opinion into a subject which you know nothing about, which has nothing to do with Armenia, or Armenians?CheyenneZ (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you stop your racist commentary that is totally unnecessary here. Armenia and Armenians are not the only think I'm interested in. Instead of adding blog-like comments to an encyclopedia, you should probably do more research on the topic and add texts that are supported by reliable sources. Have a nice day! --Երևանցի talk 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you stop your racist commentary reflecting on our Native American Indian tribes, it is unnecessary. I know more about our tribal history than you will ever know. I do not go into your Armenian Wiki pages and edit information, because it is not my area of expertise. Since the history of my tribe, and all of our tribes of the USA, and history of our tribal homeland is not within your realm of knowledge or personal experience, leave our history to those of us who know it, whose families lived it, and who are educated in it. You are none of the above.CheyenneZ (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheyenne, I think you misapprehend what Wikipedia is here for. It's not a place for editors to contribute their own knowledge or experience or beliefs but rather a compendium of information, already written by reliable sources, pulled together in a way that the internet community will find useful. There are several pages that will help you gain a better understanding of the philosophy and principles on which the encyclopedia is based - I suggest, for starters, Wikipedia:Five_pillars. It sort of sets out the lay of the land. There's also WP:Reliable, WP:NPOV and WP:ISNOT - I've found those very helpful in the past too.

I think that until you gain a better understanding of how articles are written, and what's appropriate material for them - not to mention the "whys" of all that - you're going to be frustrated and find yourself talking in circles. Please, go take a look at those links, and follow them to any others you might think are useful. When you're done I think you'll have a better idea of where the other editors on this talk page are coming from. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

John, I have looked at the links to those "sourced" opinions, written and spoken by individuals with an agenda detrimental to our native tribes here in the USA. Those are not, by the wildest stretch of anyone's imagination, "reliable sources". I have read the books those individuals have written (a lot of fiction, not facts), as well as the published articles, and manifestos, and there is nothing in any of their published material which comes anywhere close to being "facts". Their attempt to rewrite history, and in the process, to erase our tribal histories (and very existence), replacing it with a lot of nonsense and lies is reprehensible. The people used as "sources" on that page are expressing their damaging, biased, and uneducated opinion, with no basis in historical fact. I know exactly who those people are, and exactly what their agenda is (and why some of them were terminated from their employment at some universities), .... and using their opinions as a "source" of information on that page (with no disclaimer on their lack of credibility) does nothing more than reinforce the widespread belief that Wikipedia is not a reliable "source" of information. Yet the fiction they have written and promote is still on that page, as if it had some validity (it does not), and why is it that none of you have removed it? Because it is "sourced"? That means nothing, when the source leads to a biased opinion, and an malevolent agenda, and not to historical fact. So just edit the opinion off the page, source and all, or edit the page off of Wikipedia. This is NOT an "encyclopedia" when it includes that sort of non-information with "sources" which are nothing more than some fringe group's (or person's) personal opinion with no basis in FACT. I suggest you take some time to edit the nonsense and fiction off of Wikipedia, along with the nonsense sources, which includes the "sources" on that specific page, because it is clear you don't have a clueCheyenneZ (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If there's an issue about the reliability or POV of the persons who are quoted in the article - if their views are being given undue weight - then the solution is not to counter it with your own take on things but rather to 1) pare down what's here to a level commensurate with the sourcing or 2) find other sources who say different things and add them to the article. I certainly have no agenda here and don't care what is in the article so long as it properly reflects Wikipedia policy and practice. Now - just disagreeing with the sources doesn't make them unreliable, necessarily, or being able to find flaws in their arguments, if they're quoted on the subject and seem to have established themselves. But surely there are others who have other points of view whose views are published? JohnInDC (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)