Participation Activity No. 8 Suggested Answers

Who is the author and what is their place in society (explain why you are justified in thinking so)? What could or might it be, based on the text, and why?

Your Answer:

The author of the chapter is believed to be Jose Maria Iglesias. He served as the interim President of Mexico before being ousted by Porfirio Diaz in 1876. Because of this, it can be inferred that the author held a position of high social stature in Mexican society. He wrote the first chapter of the book, analyzing the cause of the war. To write the introduction requires boldness, apart from intellectual sharpness, since the material was considered as subversive at the time of its publication. 

Why did the author prepare the source? What was the occasion for its creation?

Your Answer:

The work was done primarily to provide a counter-history to the hegemonic colonial historiography of the US. The US claimed that the indolence and misery of the Mexican people were the reasons for their subjugation and that the occupation should be interpreted as a blessing because, without it, the conquered people would not have enjoyed the blessing of civilization. Iglesias countered this by saying that it was the imperialist ambition of the US that is the cause of the war, which has affected Mexico in every detrimental way. It had long planned to conquer Mexico because it has envisioned from the start to control the entire continent.

What is at stake for the author in this source? Why do you think they produced it?  What evidence in the source tells you this?

Your Answer:

The stake is high for the author to do this work. For one, leaders who were critical of the US intention were being persecuted at the time of its publication, which compelled the writers to combine their works and do not indicate who the author is. The author clearly felt the imperative to do this because the US had perverted history by portraying itself as the bringer of peace when in fact, t was the one which caused violence in the first place.  

What—in one sentence—is the author’s thesis?

Your Answer:

It is the imperialist ambition of the US, aided by the weaknesses of the Mexican people, that caused the Mexican-American War.

What is the source trying to do? How does it make its case?  What is its strategy for accomplishing its goal?  How does it carry out this strategy?

Your Answer:

The source is clearly trying to debunk the claims and justifications of the United States for conquering Mexico which eventually led to the war. It made its case by providing concrete proofs such as the fact that the territory of Texas can never extend to Rio Bravo no matter how clever US would be in its insistence.

What is the intended audience of the source? How might this influence its rhetorical strategy?  Examples?

Your Answer:

The audience of the source is two– first, the Mexican people especially students so that they will have an alternative view of heir history as opposed to the one propagated by the US and second, the American people who should feel a sense of guilt for its selfishness. Its appeal to the masses is evidenced by the use of emotionally loaded statements at the start of the chapter such as this: “To contemplate the state of degradation and ruin to which the mournful war with the United States has reduced the Republic, is painful.” 

Do you think the author is credible and reliable? Why or why not?

Your Answer:

Yes. This is evidenced by him being an interim President of Mexico who could have a genuine desire for self-government.

How do the ideas and values in the source differ from the ideas and values of our age? Examples?

Your Answer:

The ideas differ significantly from how the Mexican-American War is portrayed in textbooks. In the same way that Native Americans and Filipinos were portrayed as brutish and in need of civilization, the US also portrayed its conquest of Mexican territories as an act of benevolence. 

What presumptions and preconceptions do we bring to bear on this source? For instance, what portions of the source might we find objectionable, but which contemporaries might have found acceptable?

Your Answer:

As a history enthusiast, I found no preconceptions about the work.

How might the difference between our values and the values of the author influence the way we understand the source? Explain how such a difference in values might lead us to misinterpret the source, or understand it in a way a contemporary would not have.  Examples?

Your Answer:

As a person of different race, I don’t see myself as sharing different values with the author. For white Americans, there can really be differences and these would lead some either to feel guilt or to be angered and treat the claims of Iglesias as baseless.

What can I know of the past based on this source, how sure can I be about it, and how do I know these things? Equally important, what can’t I know about the past based on this source?  Are certain historical voices hidden by this document?

Your Answer:

If not for the source, I would have still believed in what American textbooks say about the Mexican-American War. These texts do not provide context for the conquest as well as the issues underlying the legalistic approach of the US in the war of conquest. Because of the source, I learned that there was huge resistance in Mexico in the conquest and that the US also co-opted local leaders to further facilitate its imperialist expansion.