In our never ending quest to make sense of the border environment we came across this article by esteemed journalist Logan Hawkes. I’ve heard it said from more than one source that the Mexican system can be good for up to 100 years, then it’s time for massive upheaval. I tend to agree. Perhaps the American System can retain functionality for 150 years or so. This is how it seems to be. Oops… it’s been almost a hundred years since the start of the Mexican Revolution and about a hundred years since the American Civil War. Or maybe it’s all just a coincidence. Be that as it may be, The history of Mexico of a hundred years ago has significance for us all. Read the story here>>
I read the article “South Texas and Pancho Villa, Border Wars, Was the border ever secure?” in Wintertexans on line. I think it´s a new approach to Mexican Revolution, seen from the neighbor side and think it´s as valid as anyone.
Anyhow, I think it´s a little superflouos. I say: the immage that acompanies text is from Emiliano Zapata, not from Villa. There are some errors in the dates and cites from the mexican history.
I think, on the other hand, that, in view that mexican history is full with intrigue, spies, betrayal and lies, it´s perfectly acceptable we to make mistakes when trying to quote data about those convulse years.
I hope you can visit http://www.lecturaexperimental.blogspot.com and take a look in “The Punitive Mexican Expedition: a brief review of a two-sided story” and make some comments. Thank you for sharing your article and comments.
Thank you Ricardo for your constructive comments. Indeed I will visit the Web site where me might engage in constructive dialogue.
I am certain you are right about dates and such. As you said, dates and supporting facts have been reported, mis-reported, over reported and unreported since the beginning, to a point where it remains unclear what is correct and what is not. Concerning the tale of two sides, again, I agree completely, keeping in mind the audience we, as writers, are addressing. There are ALWAYS two sides (at least) to every story, and generally speaking, both are riddled with misconceptions and self-serving near-facts and impulses of persuasion that lead us down varying paths, often in hopes that the end result justifies the means. In reality, in my limited opinion, history is but the opinion of a particular collective and not necessarily an indication of the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Certainly this is the case in the conflict between the early Texicans and the imperial government of the “Hero of Tampico”, General Antonio López de Santa Ana. While Santa Ana was a self serving dictator with designs on power and greatness, it is also true (forgive me fellow Texans) that the upstart Texans had self-serving designs of their own. I feel I can be somewhat objective in this argument for my own ancestors, the Cherokee of Texas, were severely persecuted by the early Texans shortly after they declared and won their independence from Santa Ana, all in the name of “good government”. But that’s a story for another time.
I appreciate your comments and look forward to “sitting down” with you that we might share our insights and opinions. Best wishes compadre. – LH
I´m very excited to read your answer because not every day one can talk with a real writer and is very interesting to be able to share points of view and listen opinions that, far from dividing, enriches. I hope we can share (well, you’ll teach and I´ll listen or sort of) information.
It´s great to know about you. Best regards, carnal.
RM