Analysis for En Aquel Entonces Readings in Mexican American History - Essay Example

Literary analysis for En Aquel Entonces Readings in Mexican American History The book - En AquelEntonces/in Years Gone by: Readings in Mexican-American History - provides a very clear understanding of Mexican American history. It has been 150 years since the United States and Mexico entered into the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (hereinafter Treaty). In 1848, the Treaty ended the war between the United States and Mexico. The Treaty purported to protect certain rights of Mexican citizens in the areas ceded to the United States. Over the years, Mexican Americans have sought to litigate their rights that were supposedly protected by the Treaty. Subsequently, in 1993, the United States and Mexico entered into another important treaty--the North American Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter NAFTA). NAFTA created considerable controversy in the United States. It governs trade between the NAFTA parties: Canada, Mexico and the United States. The NAFTA parties trade hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods a year. Thus, one can expect that many trade disputes will arise under NAFTA. As a result, NAFTA has provided procedures for dispute resolution. In the 1800s, many in the United States believed it was America's destiny to expand westward so as to govern the entire continent. Writing in 1845, journalist John O'Sullivan explained: The American claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federative self-government entrusted to us. In accordance with this notion of "manifest destiny," in 1846, the United States went to war against Mexico in an effort to incorporate the western territories of California and New Mexico and certain Texas borderlands. At the war's end in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required Mexico to cede about half of its then existing territory. Much of the American West and Southwest was acquired by the United States in the 529,000 square mile cession by the Republic of Mexico. Thus, the United States conquered Mexico in 1848. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo completed that conquest and, therefore, completed the conquest of the Southwest. In agreeing to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico--a conquered nation--obviously had much less bargaining power than the United States. The Mexican government was under tremendous political and financial pressure to sign the Treaty. Mexican officials viewed the Treaty as a final opportunity to preserve Mexico. With the American Army just outside of Mexico City, they believed that if the war continued, all of Mexico would have been acquired by the United States. In addition, British money brokers, who had made large loans to Mexico, were pushing Mexican officials to end the war and pay off Mexico's debts. Under these circumstances, the United States virtually dictated the terms of the [Treaty]. So one-sided was the Treaty in favor of the United States that the American political party, the Whigs, who were opponents of the war, concluded that the Treaty was morally bankrupt. In particular, the Whigs argued that it was unethical to require a defeated country to "sell" its territory. Despite this, Mexico sought to provide certain rights for Mexican citizens in the territories ceded under the Treaty to the United States. Experience proves it is possible for one nationality to merge and be absorbed into another: and when it was originally an inferior and more backward portion of the human race absorption is greatly to its advantage. Nobody can suppose that it is not more beneficial to a Breton, or a Basque of French Navarre, to be brought into the current of the ideas and feelings of a highly civilized and cultivated people--to be a member of the French Nationality, admitted on equal terms to all the privileges of French citizenship--than to sulk on his own rocks, the half-savage relic of past times, revolving in his own little mental orbit, without participation or interest in the general movement of the world. In this view, smaller countries were underdeveloped and could only become modern by giving up their native culture and assimilating into the larger nation. Significantly, this view provided not only a justification for assimilating minorities into the larger state, but also for colonizing other people elsewhere. This conception of historical development is based on a key assumption--that progress and civilization require[d] assimilating backward' minorities to energetic' majorities. This nineteenth-century assumption, however, has gradually been rejected. For example, the contention that the Czechs could not take part in modernity except by being absorbed into Germany has been shown to be mistaken. Similarly, other groups--the Flemish, Quebecois, and Basques--also have been able to resist assimilation and nevertheless exist as thriving modern cultures. Despite this, this outmoded conception of history seems to have been at work in the NAFTA negotiation process and probably led to the NAFTA dispute resolution procedures incorporating Anglo-Saxon procedural notions. The presumption of the superiority of an Anglo-American world view over the Mexican world view operated in the NAFTA negotiations. Several Mexican negotiators have stated that during the NAFTA negotiations process the North American negotiators devalued Mexican perspectives as being rooted in a backward legal system. The American negotiators made it clear that they presumed the inadequacy of Mexican law and legal institutions. Indeed, the NAFTA negotiation process was seen as an opportunity for the United States to "Americanize" Mexico, i.e., to promote a legal, political, and economic system in Mexico that more closely resembles that of the United States. Thus, the NAFTA negotiations process may be viewed as an attempt to force Mexico to assimilate Anglo-Saxon ideals--e.g., Anglo-Saxon procedural notions--based on the outmoded assumption that such assimilation is necessary in order to allow "progress," i.e., Mexican participation in the modern world. In this regard, there is a striking parallel between the NAFTA negotiation process and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo negotiation process. Just as in the NAFTA negotiation process, American officials assumed an attitude of moral superiority in negotiating the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. They viewed the forcible incorporation or assimilation of almost one-half of Mexico's territory as fulfilling the Manifest Destiny of the United States to spread the benefits of democracy to the lesser peoples of the continent. In this connection, the differences between the American and Mexican legal systems could generate other problems. In the earlier Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, difficulties in understanding Mexican law caused Mexican claimants to lose out. Similar difficulties in understanding Mexican law may generate problems for Mexico in NAFTA dispute resolution. The potential for such problems is illustrated in litigating a Chapter 19 dispute, where Mexican lawyers may cite principles of Mexican law. This generates the difficulty of presenting an argument that can be understood by North American panelists. For example, consider the fundamental Mexican legal principle of motivacion and fundamentacion. This principle is one of the key aspects of Mexican constitutional law, and its meaning is well taught to Mexican law students. Since North American panelists do not possess a Mexican legal education, it would be very hard for them to comprehend and correctly apply this key Mexican legal principle. Thus, Mexico could face difficulties in the NAFTA dispute resolution process arising out of such misunderstandings. That it is plausible that such confusion regarding Mexican law could occur is confirmed by recent experience regarding the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement dispute settlement mechanism, which served as the model for NAFTA dispute resolution. In the recent So, wood Lumber III case, serious concerns were expressed regarding the ability of Canadian panelists to understand American law, despite the fact that Canada belongs to the common law tradition. Writing in dissent, the American panelist, Judge Malcolm Wilkey, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, found that the Canadian panelists had misunderstood American law and that this represented a threat to the dispute settlement system. He observed that the lack of training of Canadian panelists in United States administrative law presents a problem for the dispute resolution system. In addition, he stated that Canadians do not understand the place of legislative history in the American legal system or the principles on which American case law should be interpreted. Obviously, if Canadian panelists are unable to understand American law despite their common law training, then it seems unlikely that North American panelists will be able to understand Mexican law in light of the fact that Mexican law stems from a different and distinct civil law tradition. Reference Gonzales, Manuel G.; Gonzales, Cynthia M. (2000). En Aquel Entonces/in Years Gone by: Readings in Mexican-American History, Indiana Univ Pr Read More