So given to historical events, Mexican governments have remained silent like mummies of one of the most disastrous dates in national history: on February 2, 1848, when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, which legalized the dispossession as war booty of more than half of the Mexican territory after the invasion of the United States.
In March 2017, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano and the lawyer william hamdan presented a proposal for a legal claim to seek the annulment of the 1848 Treaty, but the government of the president Enrique Pena Nieto did not give channel to the request to file it before the international Court of Justice against the US government.
In the context of that proposed cardenasthe historian Enrique Krauze published on April 6, 2017 an article in the The New York Times to point out that the president donald trump had opened “a painful wound” and said that it would be necessary to begin the recovery of the stripped part of Mexico on the memory side.
On February 2, the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The more serious memory problem he was referring to Krauze was located in the strategy of the president Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado in 1986-1988, as part of the succession positioning of Carlos Salinas de Gortari and his proposal for free trade agreement with the United States when he endorsed the results of the report The challenge of interdependence: Mexico and the United Statesdrafted by the Commission on the Future of Relations Mexico-USA on an official basis. This commission and its report published by the Fondo de Cultura Económica sought to find the way to dilute the weight of the historical conflict of 1848 in the political memory of Mexico and with this to be able to start the approaches to subordinate the Mexican economy to the needs of the United States.
On the Mexican side, the Commission was made up of Hector Aguilar Camin (magazine director links), businessman Gilberto Borgia, the PRI deputy John Joseph Bremerbusinessman Fernando Canales Clariond, the senator Socorro Diaz, the public banker Ernesto Fernandez Hurtadothe writer Carlos Fuentesthe senator Hugo B. Margain, the academic Mario Ojeda and Rosario Green as Director of the Institute matias romero of the Chancellery and Secretary of Foreign Relations of the Government of Ernesto Zedillo 1994-2000.
On the Mexican side, the Commission had an objective: to find a way to erase from historical memory the war of 1848 and the dispossession of half the territory, under the criteria that it was necessary to modify “the cultural stereotypes that cloud the understanding between both societies“. The Commission diluted the historical conflict in sellout rhetoric: “although USA receives balanced treatment in the free elementary school textbook that produces distributes the SEPthe texts used in secondary school are commercial and frequently contain objective errors and one-dimensional images of USA”.
As a criticism, the Commission recognized errors in program design “to take special care of USAalthough the war of 1846-1848 and other episodes in which there has been interaction with that country are covered briefly and objectively in the free textbook”. To correct these irregularities, the Commission recommended the incorporation of a special unit on residents of Mexico for the Social Sciences book for the sixth year of primary school, but also proposed “revising secondary school history textbooks to incorporate more accurate material on USA” and also suggested influencing the content of books from private publishers.
In justifying the nature of the bilateral relationship, the Commission referred to the conflict of the 19th century and noted that the war of Texas He was one of the firstincidents” when in reality it was a strategy to dispossess Mexico from that area. Of course, he recognized in a lukewarm way that USA HE “seized” of territories that would be extraordinarily prosperous.
The Bilateral Commission of the Madrid-Salinas de Gortari He sought to modify the historical perception of the Mexican conscience about the US dispossession of 1848 in such a way that the conflicts could be turned around to start a new stage that would be signified by commercial integration. Hence the proposal that the conceptualization of dispossession be modified by that of the new understanding.
The report of the Commission and the Free Trade Agreement they eluded the Mexican review of the 1848 dispossession. And 175 years of Mexican forgetfulness have already passed.
Policy for dummies: Politics alive and burning memory.
The content of this column is the sole responsibility of the columnist and not of the newspaper that publishes it.
#Mexican #silence #years #Treaty #dispossessed #Mexico