[34f3f3f]

Eye-pop, thanks for putting that into perspective. However, as I said earlier, putting aside indigenous arguments, I still don’t quite see where the “Mexican” claim to California, or indeed other parts of south west US, are completely justified. At the time of the European “discovery” (1500s) there are estimates of some 100,000-270,000 indigenous peoples living in California. In fact, prior to the Spanish arrival the area we now call Mexico was called Aridoamerica in the north and Mesoamerica in the south, but they were not part of what we now call California. These areas were invaded in 1519 by the Spanish, or the “occupying forces” as you put it, and the areas was called New Spain. It seems the term Mexico referring to a sovereign state and not the name Aztec whence the name is derived, didn’t even appear until the 1800’s. Whether the native peoples in California were related to those living in Aridoamerica, I don’t know, but is seems likely in view of their geographical proximity.

My remark about Arnie, was meant to be flippant, but while the Habsburgs were pan-European, they are more often associated with Spain and Austria. Emperor Maximilian ruled during the French Habsburg era, but he was in fact Austrian.

[34f3f3f]

Eye-pop, thanks for putting that into perspective. However, as I said earlier, putting aside indigenous arguments, I still don’t quite see where the “Mexican” claim to California, or indeed other parts of south west US, are completely justified. At the time of the European “discovery” (1500s) there are estimates of some 100,000-270,000 indigenous peoples living in California. In fact, prior to the Spanish arrival the area we now call Mexico was called Aridoamerica in the north and Mesoamerica in the south, but they were not part of what we now call California. These areas were invaded in 1519 by the Spanish, or the “occupying forces” as you put it, and the areas was called New Spain. It seems the term Mexico referring to a sovereign state and not the name Aztec whence the name is derived, didn’t even appear until the 1800’s. Whether the native peoples in California were related to those living in Aridoamerica, I don’t know, but is seems likely in view of their geographical proximity.

My remark about Arnie, was meant to be flippant, but while the Habsburgs were pan-European, they are more often associated with Spain and Austria. Emperor Maximilian ruled during the French Habsburg era, but he was in fact Austrian.

[34f3f3f]

Eye-pop, thanks for putting that into perspective. However, as I said earlier, putting aside indigenous arguments, I still don’t quite see where the “Mexican” claim to California, or indeed other parts of south west US, are completely justified. At the time of the European “discovery” (1500s) there are estimates of some 100,000-270,000 indigenous peoples living in California. In fact, prior to the Spanish arrival the area we now call Mexico was called Aridoamerica in the north and Mesoamerica in the south, but they were not part of what we now call California. These areas were invaded in 1519 by the Spanish, or the “occupying forces” as you put it, and the areas was called New Spain. It seems the term Mexico referring to a sovereign state and not the name Aztec whence the name is derived, didn’t even appear until the 1800’s. Whether the native peoples in California were related to those living in Aridoamerica, I don’t know, but is seems likely in view of their geographical proximity.

My remark about Arnie, was meant to be flippant, but while the Habsburgs were pan-European, they are more often associated with Spain and Austria. Emperor Maximilian ruled during the French Habsburg era, but he was in fact Austrian.

[34f3f3f]

Eye-pop, thanks for putting that into perspective. However, as I said earlier, putting aside indigenous arguments, I still don’t quite see where the “Mexican” claim to California, or indeed other parts of south west US, are completely justified. At the time of the European “discovery” (1500s) there are estimates of some 100,000-270,000 indigenous peoples living in California. In fact, prior to the Spanish arrival the area we now call Mexico was called Aridoamerica in the north and Mesoamerica in the south, but they were not part of what we now call California. These areas were invaded in 1519 by the Spanish, or the “occupying forces” as you put it, and the areas was called New Spain. It seems the term Mexico referring to a sovereign state and not the name Aztec whence the name is derived, didn’t even appear until the 1800’s. Whether the native peoples in California were related to those living in Aridoamerica, I don’t know, but is seems likely in view of their geographical proximity.

My remark about Arnie, was meant to be flippant, but while the Habsburgs were pan-European, they are more often associated with Spain and Austria. Emperor Maximilian ruled during the French Habsburg era, but he was in fact Austrian.

[34f3f3f]

Eye-pop, thanks for putting that into perspective. However, as I said earlier, putting aside indigenous arguments, I still don’t quite see where the “Mexican” claim to California, or indeed other parts of south west US, are completely justified. At the time of the European “discovery” (1500s) there are estimates of some 100,000-270,000 indigenous peoples living in California. In fact, prior to the Spanish arrival the area we now call Mexico was called Aridoamerica in the north and Mesoamerica in the south, but they were not part of what we now call California. These areas were invaded in 1519 by the Spanish, or the “occupying forces” as you put it, and the areas was called New Spain. It seems the term Mexico referring to a sovereign state and not the name Aztec whence the name is derived, didn’t even appear until the 1800’s. Whether the native peoples in California were related to those living in Aridoamerica, I don’t know, but is seems likely in view of their geographical proximity.

My remark about Arnie, was meant to be flippant, but while the Habsburgs were pan-European, they are more often associated with Spain and Austria. Emperor Maximilian ruled during the French Habsburg era, but he was in fact Austrian.

[34f3f3f]

Joking aside, can anyone set the historical record straight here. Wasn’t Mexico’s claim on the South West when it was part of Spain. And after Mexico’s independence from Spain, these areas were only held for about forty years, before becoming a part of the US. I also seem to remember that the Emperor of Mexico was a Hapsburg, which makes Arnie’s claim stronger than Felipe’s. So that’s how he became governor. Putting aside all indigenous arguments, for Mexico to claim that California is their land, is a bit like saying the East Coast is rightfully still British. Seems a little cock-eyed to me.

[34f3f3f]

Joking aside, can anyone set the historical record straight here. Wasn’t Mexico’s claim on the South West when it was part of Spain. And after Mexico’s independence from Spain, these areas were only held for about forty years, before becoming a part of the US. I also seem to remember that the Emperor of Mexico was a Hapsburg, which makes Arnie’s claim stronger than Felipe’s. So that’s how he became governor. Putting aside all indigenous arguments, for Mexico to claim that California is their land, is a bit like saying the East Coast is rightfully still British. Seems a little cock-eyed to me.

[34f3f3f]

Joking aside, can anyone set the historical record straight here. Wasn’t Mexico’s claim on the South West when it was part of Spain. And after Mexico’s independence from Spain, these areas were only held for about forty years, before becoming a part of the US. I also seem to remember that the Emperor of Mexico was a Hapsburg, which makes Arnie’s claim stronger than Felipe’s. So that’s how he became governor. Putting aside all indigenous arguments, for Mexico to claim that California is their land, is a bit like saying the East Coast is rightfully still British. Seems a little cock-eyed to me.

[34f3f3f]

Joking aside, can anyone set the historical record straight here. Wasn’t Mexico’s claim on the South West when it was part of Spain. And after Mexico’s independence from Spain, these areas were only held for about forty years, before becoming a part of the US. I also seem to remember that the Emperor of Mexico was a Hapsburg, which makes Arnie’s claim stronger than Felipe’s. So that’s how he became governor. Putting aside all indigenous arguments, for Mexico to claim that California is their land, is a bit like saying the East Coast is rightfully still British. Seems a little cock-eyed to me.

[34f3f3f]

Joking aside, can anyone set the historical record straight here. Wasn’t Mexico’s claim on the South West when it was part of Spain. And after Mexico’s independence from Spain, these areas were only held for about forty years, before becoming a part of the US. I also seem to remember that the Emperor of Mexico was a Hapsburg, which makes Arnie’s claim stronger than Felipe’s. So that’s how he became governor. Putting aside all indigenous arguments, for Mexico to claim that California is their land, is a bit like saying the East Coast is rightfully still British. Seems a little cock-eyed to me.

[34f3f3f]

Give him his dues …it’s just theater. Basically, he is complaining that builders were withholding political contributions, because they had been left out of the bail-out or stimulus deal. So Congress awarded them $6 billion. Cramer sees this is as an incentive for builders to plow back more money into building when the market is already over-saturated. Over-supply means depressed prices. He thinks the money should go to home-owners. Couldn’t watch all of it, but that’s the gist of it. Oh yeah, he believes builders are the problem.

[34f3f3f]

Give him his dues …it’s just theater. Basically, he is complaining that builders were withholding political contributions, because they had been left out of the bail-out or stimulus deal. So Congress awarded them $6 billion. Cramer sees this is as an incentive for builders to plow back more money into building when the market is already over-saturated. Over-supply means depressed prices. He thinks the money should go to home-owners. Couldn’t watch all of it, but that’s the gist of it. Oh yeah, he believes builders are the problem.

[34f3f3f]

Give him his dues …it’s just theater. Basically, he is complaining that builders were withholding political contributions, because they had been left out of the bail-out or stimulus deal. So Congress awarded them $6 billion. Cramer sees this is as an incentive for builders to plow back more money into building when the market is already over-saturated. Over-supply means depressed prices. He thinks the money should go to home-owners. Couldn’t watch all of it, but that’s the gist of it. Oh yeah, he believes builders are the problem.

[34f3f3f]

Give him his dues …it’s just theater. Basically, he is complaining that builders were withholding political contributions, because they had been left out of the bail-out or stimulus deal. So Congress awarded them $6 billion. Cramer sees this is as an incentive for builders to plow back more money into building when the market is already over-saturated. Over-supply means depressed prices. He thinks the money should go to home-owners. Couldn’t watch all of it, but that’s the gist of it. Oh yeah, he believes builders are the problem.

[34f3f3f]

Give him his dues …it’s just theater. Basically, he is complaining that builders were withholding political contributions, because they had been left out of the bail-out or stimulus deal. So Congress awarded them $6 billion. Cramer sees this is as an incentive for builders to plow back more money into building when the market is already over-saturated. Over-supply means depressed prices. He thinks the money should go to home-owners. Couldn’t watch all of it, but that’s the gist of it. Oh yeah, he believes builders are the problem.

[Author]

Posts