President Claudia Sheinbaum says Mexico could retaliate with tariffs of its own, after President-elect Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on Mexican goods.
Perhaps also culturally within its identity- and the fact half of the US is essentially just stolen Mexico, and their proximity to and close interactions with the YanKKKee devil. These combined with the direct proximity (border) and sheer size means what problems the US stirs up in Mexico will find their way back home (IMO).
While you are not wrong that mexico is stolen land, it does pant an artificialy narrow picture of the United States to refuse to entertain the idea that the US then stole about 1/3rd to 1/2 of its area from Mexico. By not entertaining this idea we are hiding a large part of the US’s Imperalism,
I think the issue is in referring to Mexico as ever having it to be stolen in the first place. The land swapped hands from one colonizer to another, in revolution this doesn’t change that the entrapped indigenous would be the driving force of progressive change. There’s certainly something to be said about the expansionism and imperialism of the US even towards another settler colonial state, but the framing here implies that returning the land to the Mexican government would be progressive.
the framing here implies that returning the land to the Mexican government would be progressive.
I’d say yes, in our current situation, especially under Morena or other progressive gov’t, since they’ve not intended to make a majority white lebensraum out of the nation…
“Progressive” what do you mean? Mexico has its own racial hierarchy. The reconquista would certainly not be supported by the natives living in the surrounding reservations, as Mexico would to all evidence strip them of the little soverignty they have. Mexico attempting to claim native lands is 100% labensraum.
People need to educate themselves on the unique dynamics of white supremacy in Mexico. Just because a native married a slave owner to survive through a brutal caste system doesn’t mean their decendants are natives. Just because Mexico appropriates and distorts indigenous culture doesn’t mean actual native communities aren’t treated horribly. Replacing a white labensraum with pretendian labensraum isn’t progressive!
I will say I analyze it quite differently – Mexico’s state relies on the same settler colonialist system as the US, and thus would never dare lash out on the system that its entirely predicated on. Mexico would need to cease to be Mexico to be able to be anti-imperialist in a meaningful way.
By this argument Cuba also cannot do anything because it was set up as a settler colonial nation, and has that same system baked in. I understand that settler colonialism needs to be addressed, but to imply that because a nation was once settler colonial it must always be bad leads to arguments where no improvement can happen, and a change from an attitude of trying to fix issues to one of we can do nothing because the start was tainted.
There is room for improvement, and Mexico is not once settler-colonial it is still settler colonial just like the US, with the poorest classes being the decendants of slaves and indigenous people who don’t even have the soverignity the US affords. Last will be first and a revolutionary Mexico would be created by these hyper exploited people so the entrapped nations within so called Mexico can be freed.
I am not arguing that it is settler colonial, my argument is that you are behaving as if that means there is no ability to improve and a revolution is impossible, I am saying Cuba is/was just as settler colonial as any nation on the western himisphere, and they were able to pull off a successful revolution. To preclude any progress because it is a nation that is settler colonial means that we can effectivly write off any effort in the western himisphere from ever having a revolution.
Ah sorry I misread. I understand that Mexico, were it to have a revolution similar to Cuba’s, could maintain its borders while flipping its class system on its head leaving it to be in a good position to challenge US imperialism. I don’t think Sheinbaum’s indicative of this kind of change and I think that’s where my confusion came from, there’d need to be a decolonial socialist military movement as was the case in Cuba for this to happen but it could potentially occur.
I have said this once I will say it agian, after Cuba, Mexico is the best positioned in Latin America to resist the United States
why?
Do you mean geographically or geopolitically/economically
Perhaps also culturally within its identity- and the fact half of the US is essentially just stolen Mexico, and their proximity to and close interactions with the YanKKKee devil. These combined with the direct proximity (border) and sheer size means what problems the US stirs up in Mexico will find their way back home (IMO).
I would be wary of the idea of America stealing Mexico, both states are on stolen land. Kinda like saying Michigan is stolen Canada.
While you are not wrong that mexico is stolen land, it does pant an artificialy narrow picture of the United States to refuse to entertain the idea that the US then stole about 1/3rd to 1/2 of its area from Mexico. By not entertaining this idea we are hiding a large part of the US’s Imperalism,
I think the issue is in referring to Mexico as ever having it to be stolen in the first place. The land swapped hands from one colonizer to another, in revolution this doesn’t change that the entrapped indigenous would be the driving force of progressive change. There’s certainly something to be said about the expansionism and imperialism of the US even towards another settler colonial state, but the framing here implies that returning the land to the Mexican government would be progressive.
I’d say yes, in our current situation, especially under Morena or other progressive gov’t, since they’ve not intended to make a majority white lebensraum out of the nation…
“Progressive” what do you mean? Mexico has its own racial hierarchy. The reconquista would certainly not be supported by the natives living in the surrounding reservations, as Mexico would to all evidence strip them of the little soverignty they have. Mexico attempting to claim native lands is 100% labensraum.
People need to educate themselves on the unique dynamics of white supremacy in Mexico. Just because a native married a slave owner to survive through a brutal caste system doesn’t mean their decendants are natives. Just because Mexico appropriates and distorts indigenous culture doesn’t mean actual native communities aren’t treated horribly. Replacing a white labensraum with pretendian labensraum isn’t progressive!
Like 10 States belong to Mexico and there is a big Mexican population there, also the border.
I will say I analyze it quite differently – Mexico’s state relies on the same settler colonialist system as the US, and thus would never dare lash out on the system that its entirely predicated on. Mexico would need to cease to be Mexico to be able to be anti-imperialist in a meaningful way.
By this argument Cuba also cannot do anything because it was set up as a settler colonial nation, and has that same system baked in. I understand that settler colonialism needs to be addressed, but to imply that because a nation was once settler colonial it must always be bad leads to arguments where no improvement can happen, and a change from an attitude of trying to fix issues to one of we can do nothing because the start was tainted.
There is room for improvement, and Mexico is not once settler-colonial it is still settler colonial just like the US, with the poorest classes being the decendants of slaves and indigenous people who don’t even have the soverignity the US affords. Last will be first and a revolutionary Mexico would be created by these hyper exploited people so the entrapped nations within so called Mexico can be freed.
I am not arguing that it is settler colonial, my argument is that you are behaving as if that means there is no ability to improve and a revolution is impossible, I am saying Cuba is/was just as settler colonial as any nation on the western himisphere, and they were able to pull off a successful revolution. To preclude any progress because it is a nation that is settler colonial means that we can effectivly write off any effort in the western himisphere from ever having a revolution.
Ah sorry I misread. I understand that Mexico, were it to have a revolution similar to Cuba’s, could maintain its borders while flipping its class system on its head leaving it to be in a good position to challenge US imperialism. I don’t think Sheinbaum’s indicative of this kind of change and I think that’s where my confusion came from, there’d need to be a decolonial socialist military movement as was the case in Cuba for this to happen but it could potentially occur.