Acording to the article lots of people lost their land, not just the mexicans. But, I suppose that is what happens when you live in a Country that lost a war. I suppose Germany should be the number one producer of illegals, since they lost two wars within 25 years. Yet, somehow Germany was able to over come that.

The only thing that I could get from the article was the land tax hurt everyone. That does not explain the other BS.

However, the rapid establishment of a heavy statewide Anglo majority quickly rendered Mexican Americans politically powerless at the state level. As a result, they could not prevent enactment of inequitable and sometimes discriminatory laws. For example, the legislature placed the heaviest tax burden on land, an abrupt and decimating shift from the Mexican system of taxing production rather than land. Although this tax also hurt Anglo landowners, it seriously undermined the Cal-ifornio economic position, based primarily on ranching. The Foreign Miners’ Tax of 1850, a $20 monthly fee for the right to mine, was applied not only to foreign immigrants but also to California-born Mexicans, who had automatically become U.S. citizens under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The state anti-vagrancy act of 1855 was so obviously anti-Mexican that it became known popularly as the Greaser Law. Possibly the most blatantly anti-Mexican law was the 1855 act negating the constitutional requirement that laws be translated into Spanish. Finally, there were growing vigilantism and squatter violence against Californio landowners.

Land had been the basis of the California socio-economic system. The loss of land after the U.S. conquest undermined that system, in spite of the theoretical protections provided by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Holders of Spanish and Mexican land grants, most of whom were Mexican Americans, had to seek legal confirmation of their titles. In effect, the federal government placed the burden of proof on the landowners instead of automatically accepting all titles and then handling challenges on an individual basis.
Already suffering from heavy taxes and lacking capital, Chicano landowners had to go through the slow, expensive process of legally confirming their claims, and often were forced to borrow money at high interest rates to cover the costs of the legal struggle. Moreover, they had to argue their cases before U.S. judges and land commissioners unfamiliar with Hispanic legal principles and the land tenure system on which land grants were based. Even when they did win confirmation of their grants, Mexican Americans often found themselves personally destitute, or had to sacrifice their land to pay their legal expenses.

Loss of land contributed heavily to relegation of Mexican Americans to the lower echelons of the California socio-economic system. The loss eroded their economic base, undermined their political power, and displaced ranchworkers. Some Chicanos managed to find work in traditional occupations, such as vaquero or sheepshearer, but often only on a part-time basis. Most displaced Chicanos became laborers, poorly paid and often migratory, in expanding large-scale commercial agriculture. Others moved to cities, where their pastoral and agricultural skills were of little use. Many found employment in railroads, construction, and food processing.”

That is your example on how things changed in California.
Here is the source:
http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/sd/blsd092200a.htm

It left out a little old thing called a war. Where is the documentation that shows how the mexicans were treated after that? What types of jobs did they do before that?

What is innacurate about this description? I don’t see any Marxism there or reconquista concepts. I mean the US paid for that but it was pretty much forced(The United States also paid $15,000,000 ($298,310,309 in 2005) for the land, which was half it had offered for the land prior to the war. Wikipedia).
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession

Riley, last time I looked, those you mentioned were part of the main curriculum in social studies. As an Anglo, I sincerely hope we are not listed ever as a ’sub-culture’ in any American school system.

Dolph

Unfortunately they’re both.

Ah, in that case I agree completely!!

There were, how shall I put it, “differences of opinion” between my son and his IB English teachers that I will enjoy telling my grandchildren about!!!

“Let me tell you about the time your father………..”

Heh.

The IB program can only indoctrinate those who can’t think for themselves. My son completed the IB program at Stonewall and saw from the get go that much of it was “we are the world, let’s hold hands, and sing Kumbaya” BS, but it was also a rigourous academic program. He went walking into VT with 22 credits, didn’t have to take Freshman English or Math, will finish his undergraduate degree in 3 years, and will hang around for a 4th year to get his Masters Degree. He said the work in his first year at Tech was easier than his senior year of the IB program.

I feel like I woke up this morning on another planet just reading this thread.

The IB program indoctrinates students? College crap? Translators not needed in schools?

Help me out here folks. Please explain what you mean to this earthling here. Yesterday a dog stuck under the porch, today waking up somewhere else. Are you all seriously discussing Prince William County Schools?

Lafayette, I can address the translators. Schools must, by law, take in all students. Done deal. Not open to debate at this time. It is imperative that the school and the home communicate. That is pretty much the function of the translators. Mrs. so and so….I am going to kick Johnny’s a** from here to Kansas if he doesn’t stop disrupting my class. Prime example.

These translators are not a part of the multicultural office and are a critical component in all schools with a heavy immigrant population. They are needed to conduct business. Schools without translators either spend a lot of time pointing and drawing pictures or bringing in the custodian to translate a principal’s hearing that is going to expulsion.

For the rest, please explain the problems with the IB program, selected honors reading, etc etc……

Thanks,

Dolph

Obviously not. Many people are impassioned by various issues and they are professional enough never to bring up those issues in a classroom. Do you go to work and bore everyone with your political beliefs? I sure don’t or I would find my desk out in the parking lot after lunch one day.

Furthermore, not everyone working for Prince William County Schools is in the classroom.

We are on really dangerous grounds when we start deciding who and who cannot work for the county based on their political beliefs. I may not like the individual in question’s politics but by God, I will defend her right to work for the county if that is her desired employment. To do otherwise, to me, is un-American and a type of control I cannot abide.

Not to be trite, but….

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

Dolph