1995 Edition
by Andrew Cayton, Elisabeth Israels Perry and Allan Winkler
Published by Prentice Hall, Needham, Massachusetts, 1995

This U.S. history textbook is full of factual errors and half truths. The political bias is evident throughout. The authors take the worst events in U.S. history and makes it appear to be the norm. This textbook came out in 1995 which shows you how long our students have been getting brainwashed.  Logic alone proves this textbook is mostly propaganda. Since 1790, over 80 MILLION people have immigrated to the United States. Not Canada. Not Mexico. Why would all these people come to a country that was so horrible? Why would millions fight to save our country? America is a good country.   

Quotes from this textbook are in RED
Apr 2022

Page 25, 26 - “Christianity Under Pressure.” 

“Another long term event that Christians interpreted as a bad sign was an invasion by believers in a rival faith, Islam.  Starting around 700, followers of Islam had taken over(1) much of the Mediterranean world, from the holy city of Jerusalem to large parts of Spain.”

“Islam had originally arisen between 622 and 632 in Arabia, inspired by the teachings of the prophet(2) Muhammad.  The prophet’s(2) followers, called Muslims, united by their new shared religion, then expanded(3) their empire from Arabia to new lands in Asia, Europe, and Africa in a prolonged series of invasions.  This was painful to Christians because their religion, too, taught them it was their obligation to spread Christianity throughout the world.”(4)

(1) ”taken over” is vague. This could mean this land was taken over by peaceful conversion, which it was NOT.  The correct word is “conquered”.

(2) “prophet” is not a verifiable fact.  Should read “...teachings of a man named Mohammad, who believed he was a prophet from God.”  (On page 203, in describing the new Mormon religion, says  “The Mormons took root in upstate New York. The Book of Mormon, which founder Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from gold plates he had found. . . .”)

(3) “expanded” is not correct.  Should read “Muslims conquered country after country and forcibly converted the native population to Islam.  People who refused to convert were either executed or forced to pay a special tax.

(4) This sentence makes it appear that Islam and Christianity spread by the same violent methods which is not true.  With some notable exceptions, Christianity spread by voluntary conversions while Islam nearly always forced people to convert under threat of execution.

Page 29 - (discussing the Songhai Government of West Africa) 
“The major curriculum at the university at Tombouctou was the Koran, which was and remains today the holy book of Islam.  Islam had reached Songhai by trade and by invasion from the north; with the new religion came knowledge of Arabic, the original language of the Koran.  Thousands of African Muslims found that practicing the rituals of Islam gave great meaning to their lives.”
The last sentence does not belong in a history book.  But if the authors want to make this statement, the following statement should also be in this book: “No religion has peaceably converted more people than Christianity because of the great meaning it brings to peoples lives.”

Download a pdf of America-Pathways to the Present-1995 edition to share with others.

Page 116 - (Discussing British disadvantages in defeating the Colonies during the Revolutionary War)
“The war was not popular in Great Britain.  Many of the British resented paying taxes to fight the war and sympathized with the Americans.  In addition, the British had to fight against an enemy that was thousands of miles away across an ocean, spread out over a huge territory, difficult to identify, and without any visible organization that could be attacked.(1)  As Americans would discover two centuries later in Vietnam, winning battles and having superiority in training are not enough when your opponent constantly shifts ground - and will not give up.”(2)
(1) NOT true. The Revolutionary Army was a standing army that fought the British Army many times in conventional warfare. There were many visible organizations - cities and factories - that the British would have attacked if they had been able to.

(2) Again, NOT true.  There are no similarities between the Vietnam War and the American Revolution.  The US got involved in Vietnam to defend the South from Communist North Vietnam. The American Revolution was based on a belief in freedom and self rule. North Vietnam wanted to impose a communist dictatorship on the south.  The guerrillas in South Vietnam (Viet Cong) had been largely defeated but the North then sent hundreds of thousands of troops to fight in the south.  The North kept the war going and had we bombed all the important targets in North Vietnam (which we didn’t) we could have won the war.
Page 286 - Manifest Destiny.
A New York journalist named John L. O’Sullivan neatly captured this sense of mission when he coined the phrase manifest destiny. 

     Writing in 1845, Sullivan claimed that it was the nation’s “manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.” Increasingly in the 1840s, Americans believed that no other nation should be allowed to keep the United States from fulfilling its destiny.”


Millions of immigrants had already headed west long before O’Sullivan wrote about his concept of a ‘manifest destiny.’ The westward expansion would have happened regardless of belief in a ‘manifest destiny.’ Millions of immigrants were pouring into America and they needed some place to go. Mexico attracted some immigrants  to Texas and California due to free land. Most settlers bought unoccupied land from the U.S. government for $1.25 per acre.(91) Belief in ‘Manifest Destiny’ was not accepted by all Americans. Some derided the concept. 

America did not invent the concept of ‘Manifest Destiny.’ This belief is as old as civilization itself. Although the “crime” of ‘Manifest Destiny’ has only been applied to America, other countries had and have their own version. Actually, America’s version of manifest destiny is pretty small compared to other countries, rulers and religions.

Moslems believe that it is their manifest destiny to conquer the world for Allah. The Soviet Union believed their manifest destiny was to conquer the world for communism. The American military prevented this from happening.

Spain believed it was their Manifest Destiny to conquer all of the New World - except for Brazil - for Spain and Catholicism. In fact, Spain’s vision of Manifest Destiny was immense - far more aggressive then the U.S. Claiming all of the New World for Spain wasn’t enough. 

In 1513, Vasco Balboa crossed Panama and was the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from the west coast of the New World. With a wave of his arm, Balboa claimed the entire Pacific Ocean and all lands adjoining it for Spain. Although Balboa didn’t know it, he claimed modern day United States, Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Japan, Korea, China, The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia - all for Spain.  Spain claimed all islands in the Caribbean although they did not settle all of them and didn’t even know how many were there. Many of Spain’s land claims were meaningless. It was inevitable that Spain/Mexico’s “Manifest Destiny” would come into conflict with America’s more limited expansion. While Spain/Mexico was claiming land just to claim it - land they had a difficult time putting people on - the US was rapidly expanding based on a growing population.


Page 286 - Annexation of Texas

“After winning independence from Mexico in 1836, many Texans assumed that the United States would quickly absorb their new republic. Americans were far from united on the question of annexing Texas, however. Southerners and supporters of slavery were eager to carve one or more slave states out of the Texas territory. Northerners feared that the addition of even one slave state would shift the balance of power in Congress and the Electoral College to the South. Many people in both the North and South worried that annexation would lead to war with Mexico.”

“When Democrat James K. Polk, running on an expansionist platform, won the presidency later that year, the tide began to shift. In February 1845, before Polk even took the oath of office, Congress approved annexation. After Texas voters added their approval in December of that year, Texas became the twenty-eighth state in the Union.”



The authors ignore important details of the Texas rebellion that are necessary to understand the issues that caused the Mexican American War in 1846. The Mexican government invited Americans to settle in Texas and the first group of 300 arrived in 1825.  By 1834, Texas had a population of 37,800 with 30,000 being Americans.[A] In 1835, Mexican General Santa Anna attempted to establish a dictatorship and three Mexican states rebelled - Coahuila, Texas and Zacatecas. Santa Anna violently crushed the rebellion in Zacatecas and intimidated Coahuila into surrendering. 

Mexico attacked Texas on Oct. 1835. On April 21, 1836, San Houston’s Army of 750 men defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto River. Over 700 Mexicans were killed and 730 captured.  The arrogant Santa Anna, who boasted he was the “Napoleon of the West” fled, disguised as a common soldier, but was captured the next day. On May 14, 1836, Santa Anna signed the Treaties of Velasco which ended the War, made Texas an independent nation and the Rio Grande River became the southern border. 

When Santa Anna got back to Mexico he declared he had signed the treaties under duress as a prisoner of war. While this was certainly true, he could have refused to sign. What Santa Anna’s fate would have been had he not signed a peace deal will never be  known. At any rate, throughout history, the winner in a war dictates the terms to the loser. The Mexico government refused to ratify the treaty and vowed never ending war on Texas.

Mexico claimed that the Texas revolution occurred because of Anglo settlers. This claim conveniently ignores the fact that many states in Mexico rebelled against the central government in Mexico City and these states had few if any Americans.

Only 2 years after Mexico’s independence - five states in Central America declared themselves independent from Mexico - Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Central Americans chafed at Mexican rule, and there were several battles with Mexican forces. On July 1, 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formally established in Guatemala City. Constant infighting resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838. The five states became independent nations without any interference from Mexico or threats of perpetual war.  WHY?? Is it because they were fellow Spanish?

A.  Recovering History, Constructing Race: (2001) Manchaca, Martha pp. 172, 201 ____________________________

Santa Anna(121)

Pages 286-288 - The War with Mexico

“Years before the United States annexed Texas, the steady influx of Americans into Mexico’s northern territories had led to growing friction between the two nations. When Congress approved annexation in early 1845, Mexico immediately broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. Continuing disagreements about the southern border of Texas signaled further trouble ahead.”(1)

“President Polk and other southern Democrats wanted much more from Mexico than Texas. Polk had dreams of acquiring the entire territory stretching from Texas to the Pacific.(2) In a final attempt to avoid war, he sent Ambassador John Slidell to Mexico City in November 1845 with an offer to buy California and New Mexico for $30 million. But the Mexican government refused even to receive Slidell, let alone consider his offer.”(3)


(1) Texas joined the U.S. for it’s own protection from Mexico’s constant threats of invasion. Mexico launched two attacks on Texas in 1842, capturing San Antonio twice and plundering the city. Texas wanted to join the  U.S. since 1836, but Congress was against admission of Texas to the Union because it was a slave state and didn’t want to provoke Mexico. So Texas began negotiations with Britain for protection from Mexico and trade deals. It was now or never for Congress to admit Texas and become the 28th state.

(2) Wanting to buy something is not proof you intend to start a war over it. The U.S. had every reason to believe Mexico would sell this land as they were on the verge of bankruptcy with a staggering national debt, had scarcely any citizens on the land and in fact had very little control over the area. Only one percent of Mexico’s population lived north of the Rio Grande River. Had Mexico not started a war with the US, Mexico wouldn’t have lost the southwest US, or if they did, there could be no denying that the U.S. stole it.

(3)  This is NOT true. The Mexican president, Jose Herrera was a man who wanted peace. He REQUESTED that the US send a representative (John Slidell) to Mexico City in the hopes that all the differences between the two countries could be resolved. Slidell arrived in Mexico City on 6 December but the Herrera government was about to be overthrown, and in a futile attempt to save itself, refused to meet with Slidell.(A)    

On January 4th, 1846, General Mariano Paredes took the oath of office as the new president. Paredes claimed all of Texas to the Sabine River - which separates Texas from Louisiana. (B) 

Slidell summed up his experiences with Mexico: “We shall never be able to treat with her on fair terms until she has been taught to respect us... here all amicable advances are considered as indicative either of weakness or treachery.”(C)

Polk had every reason to seek a diplomatic solution with Mexico. The last time the U.S. Army faced off against a regular Army was the War of 1812, when they were routed by the British. Why would Polk fight a country with an untried army far from home over unfamiliar territory? He risked blundering into a costly stalemate. Yet Mexico’s perpetual threats could no longer be ignored. The situation had to be resolved. 

Pages 286-288 - The War with Mexico - continued:

“Determined to have his way, the aggressive Polk sent two thousand American troops under General Zachary Taylor into southern Texas to support the American claim that the Rio Grande was the official American-Mexican border. Since the Mexican government claimed that the Nueces River, located quite a few milesfurther north, was the border, it considered Taylor’s movements an invasion of Mexican territory.(4) Tensions between the two nations escalated rapidly. Meanwhile, an American expedition under the command of Captain John C. Fremont moved into California, probably under orders from the President to stir up trouble.”(5)

“When Mexican troops engaged in a skirmish with Taylor’s forces in early May 1846, Polk had the excuse for which he had long been waiting. Expressing outrage at the loss of “American blood on American soil,” the President pushed for an immediate declaration of war. Despite some opposition, Congress gave it to him on May 13, 1846.”(6)


(4) Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River. Polk was aware of this Mexican scam.(D) If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the U.S. and negotiate a deal. The obvious truth was that Mexico was NEVER going to resolve the border impasse as that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico. Mexico intended to conquer all of Texas. 

Mexico was confident they would defeat the US. Many Mexicans believed their army was nearly invincible. The Spanish Minister in Washington, Calderon de la Barca, said “There are no better troops in the world, nor better drilled and armed, than the Mexicans.”(E) The Mexican correspondent to the London Times stated in 1845 that Mexican soldiers “are superior to those of the United States.”(E) Juan Almonte, a military man, assured his government that it was “certain” that Mexico would defeat the U.S.(F)

On Jan 12, 1846, Polk received word from Slidell that negotiations had failed. Polk realized that war with Mexico was inevitable.  On Jan. 13, 1846, Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to move his army from Corpus Christi to the north side of the Rio Grande River. Taylor received these orders on Feb. 3.

Before leaving Corpus Christi, General Taylor wrote a proclamation to the Mexican people of Matamoros in which he alerted them to his march and promised that his intentions were peaceful. He also vowed to pay market value for any goods purchased.(G) This turned out to be an embarrassment for Mexico. Mexican officials were enraged when Mexicans eagerly sold food and horses to the American Army which paid in cash.(H)  Locals refused to sell supplies to their own army because they were “paid” in promisory notes - which were worthless.


When Taylor moved south of the Neuces to the Rio Grande, this was the perfect excuse Paredes was looking for to start a war with the US while claiming he was defending Mexico. In his war proclamation of Apr 23, 1846, Paredes stated:  “. . . From this day defensive war begins, and every point of our territory which may be invaded or attacked shall be defended by force.”(I)

Critics claim the US intended to provoke a war with Mexico by stationing troops on the north side of the Rio Grande River. This ignores facts. Who was provoking who? How could the US be responsible for starting a war with a country that had repeatedly called for war with the US, refused to negotiate, put an invasion force on the border and declared repeatedly they would conquer Texas? Taylor was on the Rio Grande to protect Texas and force a decision. That this display of force caused Mexico to start the war does not prove the U.S. provoked the war. It proves Mexico chose war over negotiations. 

(5) Irresponsible writing by the authors. Mexico wanted a war with U.S. over Texas. Polk wanted to nurture the good will of the Californios in case of war and win them over peacefully. Many northern Californios favored union with the U.S. Fremont got to California in Dec. 1845 and caused problems for the Mexicans. In Mar 1846(J) the Mexican government kicked Fremont’s party out of California. 

On Oct 17,1845, Sec. of State James Buchanan sent a letter to the U.S. consul in California, Thomas Larken, ordering him to “conciliate the feelings of the Californians in favor of the United  States” and avoid giving Mexico “just cause of complaint.”(K) The letter did not reach California until April, 1846(L). Larken ordered a copy sent to Fremont and he received his letter on May 9, 1846. John D. Sloat, commander of the US Navy’s Pacific Squadron, received similar instructions from Navy Sec. Bancroft.(M) 

Fremont returned to California in May 1846 and despite these clear orders, Fremont started the Bear Flag Revolt on June 10, 1846. Incredibly, Fremont took General Vallejo and other pro American Californios prisoner, took control of Sonoma and declared the Republic of California.

On May 31, 1846, John D. Sloat, commander of the US Navy’s Pacific Squadron, was informed that war had begun on April 25, 1846. Sloat waited until July 7 to act, landing his men and claiming northern California for the U.S. Later, Fremont met Sloat aboard the Navy ship Savannah and Sloat demanded to see his orders that authorized Fremont to launch the Bear Flag Revolt. Learning Fremont had no such orders, Sloat unleashed a blistering tirade against the startled Fremont.(N) On July 29, Sloat ordered Vallejo and other prisoners released. (O) 

(6) This attack by Mexico was NOT a skirmish. On April 25, 1846, 1,600 Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a force of 80 American troops. Eleven men were killed and the rest taken prisoner. This battle was a legitimate reason to declare war on Mexico. In a letter dated Apr 18, 1846, Paredes wrote to General Arista: “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.”(P)

A. The Story of the Mexican War by Robert Selph Henry, pub 1950, p25,26,30,31
B.  War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.100     
B. Story of the Mexican War - Robert Henry p 31, 399.     
C.  War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.135      
D. The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, by George Lockhart Rives, pg. 325   
E. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.106
F. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.116
G. 75. Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 33
G. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.146
G.  Story of the Mexican War - Robert Henry p 41       
H. 82. Two Armies on the Rio Grande (2014) by Douglas Murphy, p 38
I. The United States and Mexico, 1821-1848, by George Lockhart Rives, pg. 141,142
J. Fremont, Pathmarker of the West by Allan Nevins p 230,231
K. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 73,91,92
L. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 73
M.  Fremont, Pathmarker of the West by Allan Nevins p 240
N. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 86, 161
O. General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus, p 162
P. War with Mexico, vol1. (1919), Justin H. Smith p.155
General Zachary Taylor

Page 347 - “The Lasting Impact of the Siege of Vicksburg.”

“Americans Wage Total War. American troops in the twentieth century would repeatedly find themselves in situations similar to the siege of Vicksburg. In later wars, too, their mission would be to bring the superior numbers and resources of the United States to bear on a well-entrenched enemy. These wars included World War II (1941-1945), the War in Vietnam (1965-1973) and the Persian Gulf War (1991). The United States and other nations would find new technologies for this purpose that would make the horror of Grant’s cannons and gunboats seem puny. And more often than not, this warfare would leave in its wake a massive loss of civilian life and destruction of property.”

“The purpose of this destruction was to persuade the enemy that the struggle was simply not worth the cost. After Vicksburg, civilians were as much a part of war as soldiers, starvation as much of a weapon as the rifle; and victory required not just the surrender of a few troops but the complete demoralization and destruction of vast civilian populations.”



First, the authors claim that Total War is a recent occurrence is NOT true. Laying siege to a city and starving them into surrender was a common tactic in the ancient world. The Old Testament in the Bible has many accounts of armies starving a city into surrendering. The Roman Empire destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War in 146 BC and sold 50,000 civilians into slavery. 

World War Two was total war. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 established rules limiting the barbarity of war. These rules protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, prisoners of war).

Second, this book’s claim that U.S. warfare causes ‘massive loss of civilian life’ is NOT true. The U.S. and other Western nations have gone to great effort to limit civilian casualties since World War Two. As the precision of U.S. weapons has improved, there are fewer civilian casualties. 

On the other hand, Russia, Communist China, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Islamic terrorists, the Hezbollah terrorist organization and others ignore these laws and inflict mass murder on civilians. Russia is by far the greatest violator of the Geneva Convention.

Third, the authors do not distinguish between Just Wars and Unjust Wars. Some examples of countries engaged in unjust, imperialistic wars of aggression would be Japan in World War 2, Germany in World Wars 1 and 2 and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and in the 1930s. Russia’s attack on Ukraine is another unjust war. The United States went to war to defeat countries fighting unjust, immoral wars. 

Fourth, the authors don’t differentiate between civilians being accidently killed in the course of defeating an unjust aggressor nation in order to win a war and bring about peace versus an army which is intent on brutalizing the conquered population just because they can. For instance, once the Civil War ended, civilians returned to their usual life. Once Japan and Germany surrendered, their civilian populations were respected and in fact the US spent billions to rebuild what they had destroyed.    

Brutalizing the civilian population of a defeated country was common throughout ancient times as well as modern times. During World War Two the Japanese were extremely brutal in the countries they conquered. Nazi extermination of millions of Jews and other civilians is another example. The Soviet Union committed genocide in Ukraine in the 1930s and then enslaved the people in the countries of eastern Europe after World War two is another example. Muslim terrorists deliberately target civilians all around the world.

In recent times, evil rulers have put military installations in civilian areas, hoping to get as many civilians as possible killed so they can claim war crimes were committed. In reality, the war crimes were committed by the nation’s leader who put his people in harms way. Saddam Hussein did this. The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations does this.

This picture below, from the textbook (pages 346, 347) is misleading because it places the aggressor nations and the defender nations on the same moral level. The authors ignore the fact that in all these wars depicted below, US forces were the good guys out to defeat the bad guys. 


Total Warfare has been around for thousands of years.


Germany was the aggressor nation in WW2.
Not true. Napalm was primarily used to clear dense jungle communist troops were hiding in. Napalm was developed during WWII to clear Japanese troops from jungle hideouts - saving thousands of American lives.
Hussein killed Kurds because they opposed his dictatorship. 
Germany was the aggressor nation in WW1.
Japan was the aggressor nation which refused to surrender until the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Iraq (1991) was the aggressor nation and bombing bridges was a way to harm Saddam Hussein’s war making abilities. It was also to let the civilian population know there is a price to pay for aggression.



Page 666 - The German Empire Grows.  

“German aggression continued as the decade of the 1930s drew to a close.  Early in 1938 Hitler annexed Austria.  Later that year, he demanded possession of the Sudetenland, a section of Czechoslovakia inhabited by an ethnic German population. The League of Nations, which had been organized after World War I to try to maintain international peace, proved powerless to resist German aggression.  England and France, reluctant to become involved in another conflict after the devastation of World War I, adopted a policy know as appeasement.  To appease means to “keep the peace by giving in to someone’s demands.” Over and over England and France allowed Hitler to seize control of European territories, on the assumption that he finally would be satisfied.”

“Their assumption was wrong.  Hitler’s appetite proved insatiable, and he moved relentlessly to take over all of Czechoslovakia. Then, in September 1939, after signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union so he would not have to fear a Soviet assault, Germany invaded Poland. Two days after this attack, leaders in England and France decided they would appease Hitler no longer.  Angry and frustrated over his steady encroachment on the European continent, they finally declared war on Germany.”



NOT true. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany BOTH were imperialist nations conquering their neighbors. In August 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a ten year non-aggression pact that included the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This Pact was an agreement by Germany and the Soviet Union on conquering and dividing up Eastern Europe.      

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30, 1939 and forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the League on 14 December 1939. The Soviet Union then took control of the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940.    

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland from the west and on September 17, the Soviets invaded Poland from the east. Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland in half.



Page 669 -  (Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941)
Anti-Japanese propaganda kept the Pearl Harbor attack fresh in Americans’ mind.




‘Propaganda’ is giving partial or misleading information or outright lies to people with the intend of brainwashing people into believing a lie. 

This poster is NOT propaganda. This is legitimate information reminding Americans not to forget the terrible attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. 

On page 719, however, the authors show a 1943 Hollywood poster supporting Soviet troops fighting the Germans at Stalingrad, but donʼt call it propaganda.




Do you think Truman would have been more reluctant to use the atomic bomb on Germany or Italy, if they had not yet surrendered in August 1945, then he was to use it on Japan? Why or why not?


Why is this question even being asked? This is a deliberate attempt to make school kids believe the US was more interested in killing Japanese then Nazis and discredit the US war effort. The US decided to make the atomic bomb after learning Hitler was trying to build one. The purpose of building the atomic bomb was to use it on any enemy still fighting after the Bomb was completed. If Hitler got a nuclear bomb first, Nazi Germany would likely have won the war. The US goal, from Pearl Harbor on, was to destroy Germany and Japan as fast as possible and win the war. The allies - in effect - nuked Dresden, Germany in February 1945, by firebombing the city, causing 25,000 casualties. The atomic bomb wasn’t ready until July, 1945, after Germany had surrendered. The Japanese were reluctant to surrender until after the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The answer is Truman would have used the Bomb on whoever hadn’t surrendered by July 1945.


P 709 - Native Americans and the War at Home

“Thousands of Native Americans who left reservations to take military or industrial jobs had to adapt quickly to white culture.  At the end of the war, Native Americans who had served abroad or worked in industrial centers in the United States were less likely to return home. for some Native Americans, the cultural transition brough a sense of alienation and rootlessness that left lasting scars.” 


One of the themes in this biased textbook is the constant bashing of White Americans and white culture. About 80 million people have immigrated to America since 1790, because white culture is so wonderful.


P 709 - The Japanese American Internment.

“Anti-Japanese sentiment grew stronger after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Rumors of sabotage on the West Coast spread quickly. One report that reached President Roosevelt’s desk, while noting that the japanese Americans there were almost all loyal citizens, went on to say that “there are still Japanese in the United States who will tie dynamite around their waist and make a human bomb out of themselves.”


America haters - like the author of this textbook -  love to make America look bad so they exaggerate and leave out important information on this issue. Here is the WHOLE story on the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two.

The attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a bizarre incident on the Hawaiian Island of Niihau. A Japanese fighter plane, damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor, crash landed on Niihau. There were only about 130 people on the island, 3 of Japanese descent. All three eventually sided with the Japanese fighter pilot and tried to take the islanders prisoner. During the confrontation, the Japanese pilot was killed and one of the ethnic Japanese committed suicide.(A) 

After the ordeal, the Hawaiians were troubled by "the rapidity with which the three resident Japanese went over to the pilot's cause. The more pessimistic among them cited the Niihau incident as proof that no one could trust any Japanese, even if an American citizen, not to go over to Japan if it appeared expedient."[B] 

In the official Navy report on the Niihau incident, dated January 26, 1942, its author, Navy Lieutenant C. B. Baldwin, wrote, "The fact that the two Niihau Japanese who had previously shown no anti-American tendencies went to the aid of the pilot when Japanese domination of the island seemed possible, indicate[s] [the] likelihood that Japanese residents previously believed loyal to the United States may aid Japan if further Japanese attacks appear successful."(C)

Thanks to American ingenuity, we broke the Japanese code in late 1940. Intercepts indicated the possible existence of a Japanese spy ring on the west coast of the U.S.(D) 

The Niihau incident, combined with the intercepts (E) had a profound effect on FDR, who issued Executive Order 9066 in February 19, 1942. This Order allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded."

Ironically, just four days later, at sunset on Feb 23, a Japanese sub shelled an oil refinery near Santa Barbara, California causing light damage. Some witnesses claimed seeing “signal lights” from the sub - apparently to spies on shore. 

After the sub attack, the Tokyo newspaper Kokumin said the attack showed that "occupation of the United States mainland no longer is in the realm of dreams." The only real accomplishment of the Japanese attack was to give further justification to FDR’s relocation order and hasten the internment of Japanese.(F) 

Most people blame racism for the internment and for some it was. But there were legitimate reasons to be suspicious. Subsequent events have shown the country over reacted by confining west coast Japanese. But in 1942, the world was falling apart, the Allies were losing everywhere and people overreacted.

Removing the Japanese from the West Coast eliminated the possibility of local Japanese helping Japan in the event of an invasion, or more likely, Japanese subs landing sabotage teams along the West Coast. Nazi subs landed two sabotage teams along the east coast - in Florida and New York in June 1942.  All 8 men were captured with six being executed. (G)

The Japanese were only evacuated from the West Coast. There were about 15,000 Japanese living in others parts of the country who were not put into Internment camps.(H)




“Inevitably, war creates situations which Americans would not countenance in times of peace, such as the internment of men and women who were considered potentially dangerous to America’s national security.”—INS, Department of Justice, 1946 Report (P)


A baseball game at Manzanar, 1943.
A. http://internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00211&search_id=49022&pagenum=47   p 474,475
B. December 7, 1941: The Day the Japanese Attacked Pearl Harbor by Prange, Gordon W. McGraw Hill. p 377
C. The Niihau Incident by Beekman, Allan. Honolulu, HI: Heritage Press of Pacific. ISBN 0-9609132-0-3.  p 112
D. http://internmentarchives.com/showdoc.php?docid=00211&search_id=49022&pagenum=3 (Page 430 to 440)
E. Magic: The Untold Story of U.S. Intelligence and the Evacuation of Japanese Residents by David D. Lowman 
F. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-01/local/me-5256_1_japanese-submarine
G. http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-german-saboteurs-invade-america-in-1942.htm
H. The Columbia Guide to Asian American History By Gary Y. Okihiro. 2005, p 104
I.  http://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/publications/Final-Crystal%20City%20broch.pdf

Page - 733 to 737 The Cold War in the United States. (This Textbook spends 5 pages devoted to McCarthyism in the US and makes many false statements.)

page 733 - “The political left is made up of people who generally want to see the political system changed - sometimes radically - to benefit the common person.(1) The political right is composed of people who generally wish to preserve the current system. . . . The government’s loyalty program removed the left from power while effectively silencing any real political debate in the United States.”(2)

page 734 - “Singer Judy Garland urged Americans to “write your Congressman a letter” denouncing the campaign.(3)

page 736 - “The Hunt for Witches and Communists. Between June and September of 1692, fourteen women and five men were hanged in Salem, Massachusetts, as witches(4). . . . Historians today compare Salem in 1692 to the United States in the 1950s.”(5)

“In 1954, after being condemned by the Senate for his activities, McCarthy’s reign of terror ended.”(6)


1. An incredibly misleading statement. Left wing economic programs have proven to be very corrupting to society not to mention they result in high taxes, economic decline and national bankruptcy. Communism killed millions of innocent people. Democracy has not.
2. Not true. No one was silenced. No newspapers were shut down. No writers were arrested and thrown in jail. No politician with leftwing beliefs was forcibly removed from their office.
3. How is this possible? This book tells me political debate in the United States was silenced on the preceding page.
4. Comparing heated political debate where no one was killed with people being hanged is the ultimate in irresponsible writing. 
5. Who are the supposed historians who compare a political debate with hangings?
6. Not true. There was NO “reign of terror.” A “reign of terror” happened in the Soviet Union under Communism where millions were executed or deliberately starved to death to achieve Stalin’s political aims. No one was executed or starved to death in the US to achieve political ends.



page 730 - “The Early War in Vietnam.” 

“Although Ho was sympathetic to the principles of communism, he was really more of a Vietnamese nationalist than a Soviet sympathizer. In his battle for Vietnamese independence, he used the American Revolutionary War as his model for independence.”(1)     

“Ho Chi Minh sent this urgent telegram to President Truman in October 1945 asking for United States support of Vietnamese independence. Not wanting to jeopardize relations with France, Truman ignored Ho’s plea.”(2)



1. None of this is factual. Ho was NOT a freedom fighter. Ho Chi Minh combined nationalism with communism. Ho was a dedicated communist dictatorship fighter. Communist Ho Chi Minh wanted to overthrow French colonial rule so he could establish his own brutal dictatorship.  Ho gave lip service to believing in the principles of the American revolution. It was all a scam. Ho, like other communist “freedom fighters” used lofty rhetoric to brainwash people (like the authors of this textbook) into believing they wanted to free the people from oppression, when in reality, all communist dictators wanted to do was impose their own dictatorship on the people. 

Ho studied revolutionary tactics in the Soviet Union and attended the Fifth Communist International Congress (Comintern) in June 1924. In November, 1924 Ho Chi Minh went to China to organize a Communist movement in Southeast Asia. Ho Chi Minh’s goals were: 1) Drive the French colonial rulers out of IndoChina. 2) Eliminate all Vietnamese who opposed Communism, even though they were also fighting against the French and 3) Eliminate all Communists who challenged his authority.

With the end of World War Two, on 14 August 1945, Ho launched an offensive against French troops and his political opponents. In the Hanoi area alone about 10,000 political opponents were killed.(A) The number of executions in the rest of Vietnam is unknown. After Ho killed a personal friend, he proclaimed: "Anyone who does not follow the line determined by me will be smashed.”(B) 

On Sep. 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnamese Independence and became undisputed leader of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh held elections on 6 Jan 1946 so he could claim he was the “duly elected” leader of Vietnam. This election was fraudulent. The anti communist nationalists complained they had little time to find candidates, because so many of their people had been killed by Ho Chi Minh’s forces. The candidates they did put up were not allowed on the ballot because Ho Chi Minh charged them with anti government activities. As a result, most of Ho Chi Minh’s candidates ran unopposed. Most importantly, the vote was not secret. Voters had to tell Ho’s henchmen who they were voting for and election officials would mark the ballot accordingly. Saying you were not voting for Ho Chi Minh was a death sentence. Voting totals were also inflated. The population of Hanoi in 1946 was about 119,000 but Ho received 169,222 votes. Not surprisingly, Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh party won a landslide victory.(C)

During the war against France from 1946 to 1954, Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh Army assassinated between 100,000 and 150,000 opponents of communism.(D) During Ho Chi Minh’s “land reform” in the mid 1950s, anyone who was not sufficiently supportive of Communism was classified a “landlord” and executed or imprisoned and their property confiscated. About 50,000 farmers were killed. In addition, about 300,000 wives, children and sometimes parents of those executed were now homeless and perished from starvation or sickness. Communist authorities forbid anyone from helping them.(E)

After Ho Chi Minh defeated French forces in 1954, the parties met in Geneva to work out a final solution for Indochina. Vietnam was divided in half, with the north being communist and the south being free. Contrary to popular belief, it was Ho Chi Minh’s representative to the Geneva Talks that wanted Vietnam divided in half.(F) The Geneva agreement was signed on 20 July 1954 by only two countries: France and Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh violated the agreement immediately. Under this agreement, anyone was permitted to leave North Vietnam and move to South Vietnam and vice versa. One MILLION people fled to South Vietnam and up to two million more would have left had they not been stopped by Ho Chi Minh’s army.(G)

Vietnam was supposed to be reunited by an election in 1956. The US, Britain and free Vietnam wanted the UN to oversee the election but the Soviet Union rejected this idea.(H) Communist Vietnam wanted the elections to be “locally supervised”(I) which meant the elections in communist controlled areas would be rigged like the last elections run by Ho Chi Minh in 1946. So President Eisenhower cancelled the election. 

2. The telegram was received by Truman on Feb. 28, 1946. The telegram makes it appear the US supported French colonialism and had we supported Ho, we could have avoided the Vietnam War two decades later. The US supported Ho during WW2 when Japan occupied Indo China. 

On September 12, 1946, George M. Abbott, from the Department of State met with Ho Chi Minh for an hour in Paris. In the letter Abbott sent to US officials, Abbott declared that Ho Chi Minh denied being connected to communists. “Ho Chi-minh pointed out that there are no Communist ministers in his government and that the Viet-Nam constitution opens with a guarantee of personal liberties and the so-called rights of man and also guarantees the right to personal property. He admits that there are Communists in Annam but claims that the Communist Party as such dissolved itself several months ago.” Ho Chi Minh also demanded the French give in to his demands for freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the release of political prisoners.(J) 

EVERYTHING Ho Chi Minh told George Abbott was a LIE. The communist Constitution of N. Vietnam - like the Constitutions of other communist countries - wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Ho Chi Minh gave lip service to believing in the principles of freedom but it was all a scam. Harry Truman knew Ho was a master liar and a mass murderer. Truman was not about to help a communist like Ho Chi Minh. 

Communist dictators loved massive pictures of themselves.







A. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 44
B. Ngo, Van (November 2, 2010). In The Crossfire: Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary. Oakland, CA: AK Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-1849350136.
C. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 45-48
D. Dommen, Arthur J. (2001), The Indochinese Experience of the French and the Americans, Indiana U Press, p 252
E. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 142 -143
F. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 92
G. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 102-103 
H. http://www.nytimes.com/1955/07/07/archives/saigon-backs-unity-vote-but-only-through-unguided-ballot-foreign.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesmachine.nytimes.com%2Ftimesmachine%2F1955%2F07%2F07%2F80775556.html
I.  Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 97-98,100
J.  http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/hochiminh/ Scroll down to “Memorandum of Discussion with Ho Chi Minh, September 12, 1946”


page 831 - Ethnic Minorities Seek Equallity. 
The Latino Population

“Spanish-speaking Americans, or Latinos, come from many places, although they share the same language and some elements of culture. But whether they come from Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico or other parts of the Americas, Latinos often have been seen as outsiders and denied equal opportunities in many aspects of life, including employment, education, and housing.”


The issue is not prejudice against Spanish speaking people, rather the refusal or inability by some to learn English and insisting that everyone else learn Spanish to communicate with them. Everyone knows before they come here that the U.S. speaks English. Historically, the first generation has had a hard time with English, so the children become fluent and translate.  It is just common sense to recognize that we must all speak English or we will be a country divided by language. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum”in 1782 - "Out of many, one." For over 200 years, everything was done in English and this system worked brilliantly.

The U.S. should stop catering to all immigrants in their native language. If you need an interpreter, you need to get one. The large German immigrant population in America in the past didn’t demand government forms in German or ‘push 2 for German.’ Some of today’s immigrants think they are better then previous immigrants and we should cater to them in their native language. These immigrants don’t belong in America.

Being ‘Americanized’ does NOT and NEVER HAS meant losing your cultural identity! Being ‘Americanized’ is a positive concept and introduces immigrants to the highest form of self rule here in the U.S. Being ‘Americanized’ means teaching immigrants the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law and Judeo-Christian ethics - which many of our laws are based on. Immigrants must profess loyalty to America. Since most immigrants came from dysfunctional countries, they should be anxious to be Americanized.

The claim that Latinos are denied opportunities in employment or education is not true.


page 831 - Mexican American Protests

"Mexican Americans, often known as Chicanos, always have been the most numerous Latinos in the United States. In the 1960s, they began to organize against discrimination in education, jobs, and the legal system, leading to el Movimiento Chicano - the Chicano movement."


La reconquista, a radical movement in the US calling for Mexico to “reconquer” America’s Southwest, had signs reading, ‘Uncle Sam Stole Our Land!” and waved Mexico’s flag.


This textbook justifies radical hate-America Mexican groups and individuals. The people involved in the Chicano movement and other hate groups are thugs - NOT civil rights leaders. The underlying issue is their fraudulent belief that they are the true owners of US land and everyone else should be deported. However some Mexican American organizers were legitimate.

Cesar Chavez efforts to unionize farm workers was  legitimate and overdue. Two Mexican American groups, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC - established in 1929) and the American GI Forum (AGIF - established in 1948) worked on civil rights issues. These groups embraced Americanism but as the decades passed, both groups embraced the politics and violence of the political left.

The Chicano movement is based on ethnic superiority and preaches a fraudulent history of the U.S. The Chicano Movement was based on many fraudulent beliefs:

1. Mexican Americans must be separated from the ‘white’ designation and considered a different ethnicity. Assimilation and Americanism was rejected in favor of extreme nationalism and ethnic superiority based on being mixed blood - Spanish and Indian - called Mestizo.

2. Some Mexicans consider themselves Mexicans living in America rather then Americans of Mexican descent. These anti-American Mexicans show extreme ‘pride’ in all things Mexican and are critical of the U.S. So why are Mexicans here? Mexico has a poor economy, a poor educational system and health care system. Mexico has a history of constant wars and revolutions. Mexicans are here for jobs and to settle in the southwest US, which they believe is stolen Mexican land.  

3. The Chicano Movement claims the southwest US is historically Mexican land. The truth is this land historically belonged to the Indians. The Spanish took this land from the Indians and then lost this land to the US when Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War. They want the southwest US (Aztlan) to become part of Mexico or else essentially a Mexican state within the US. (A) 

4. Chicanos claim the Spanish language is suppressed. What they really mean is everyone should talk to them in Spanish. That’s not how it works. Everyone knows before they come here the U.S. in English speaking. It is just common sense to recognize that we must all speak English or we will be a country divided by language. English is the language that binds America into one nation.  

This doesn’t mean you must forget Spanish. Being bilingual is an asset but everyone should learn English. Historically, the first generation has had a hard time with English, so the children translate. Millions of people from Germany, Poland, Italy, Norway and many other countries have come to America, learned English, and did not feel “oppressed” or “Culturally deprived” learning English. No other ethnic group has made these bogus claims.

5. Chicano’s claim they are culturally oppressed. This is not true. Every ethnicity practices their own culture - most commonly food.

6. Chicanos blame the Mexican American War on American aggression brought on by a belief in ‘Manifest Destiny.’ This is not true. Mexico provoked Texas and two other states to revolt in 1836. Only the Texas revolt was successful. Mexico then attacked the U.S. in 1846 to start the Mexican American War. Mexico lost the southwest U.S. as a result of the Peace Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. 

Most people don’t realize that the Spanish had their own ‘Manifest Destiny’ - and it was extremely imperialistic. Claiming all of the New World for Spain (except for Brazil) wasn’t enough. Spain wanted more. In 1513, Vasco Balboa crossed Panama and was the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from the west coast of the New World. With a wave of his arm, Balboa claimed the entire Pacific Ocean and all lands adjoining it for Spain. 

Although Balboa didn’t know it, he claimed modern day United States, Canada, Alaska, Siberia, Japan, Korea, China, The Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia - all for Spain.  Spain claimed all islands in the Caribbean although they did not settle all of them and didn’t even know how many were there. Most of Spain’s land claims were meaningless. It was inevitable that Spain/Mexico’s “Manifest Destiny” would come into conflict with America’s more limited expansion. While Spain/Mexico was claiming land just to claim it - land they had a difficult time putting people on - the US was rapidly expanding base on a growing population.

As unbelievable as it sounds, some Mexican supremacist want more then just the southwest US - they want ALL of the U.S. based on the Treaty of Tordesillas from 1494!! The Treaty of Tordesillas was signed by Spain and Portugal which gave Brazil to Portugal and Spain got the rest of the New World. No other country signed this treaty and it was ignored by all the other European powers. 

Reies Tijerina, a very influential Mexican American racist from the 1950s til his death in 2015, referenced the Treaty of Tordesillas to justify forcing all Anglos to move back to Europe - not just leave the southwest US. Tijerina wrote a book about “the land that belonged to my people since the signing of the Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494.”(B) 

Another Mexican American racist, Mario Obledo, a co-founder of MALDEF declared “They (white people) ought to go back to Europe."(C)

Augustin Cebada, information Minister of the Brown Berets, a terrorist group similar to Hitler’s ‘Brown Shirts’ of the 1930s declared; “You old white people, it is your duty to die. They’re taking up too much space, too much air. . .” “We are already controlling those elections, whether it’s through violence or non-violence”(D)

Mexicans have demonstrated all over the country under Mexican flags demanding government aid for illegal immigrants and attacked Americans celebrating July 4th festivities. 

7. Chicanos blame Anglos for most all of their problems Mexicans have and absolve Mexicans of all responsibility. It is not the fault of Anglos if Mexicans drop out of school or commit crime.

A. http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexican-american-war/ 
B.They Called Me “King Tiger” by Reies Lopez Tijerina, p 218
C. http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Obledo1.mp3
D. http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Cebada.mp3
La Raza Magazine. August 1970 
Demonstrators against Trump carrying the Mexican flag on May 2016 in San Fernando Valley, California.
On May 2010, a Mexican American traitor knocked the American flag off a pickup in Morgan Hill, California. 
Traitors wave Mexican flags in Chicago on March 2006 supporting ‘rights’ for illegal immigrants.(5)
page 831 - 832 - Cultural Identify

“Activists began encouraging pride in Mexican American culture and its dual heritage from Spain and the ancient cultures of Mexico. In 1967 Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales, a Denver activists, wrote a long poem that raised Mexican Americans self-awareness nation-wide. Yo Soy Joaquin (“I am Joaquin”) expresses the importance of cultural identity in Mexican history and the modern world. It begin:

I am Joaquin
lost in a world of confusion
caught up in the whirl of a gringo [white] society;
confused by the rules,
scorned by attitudes,
suppressed by manipulation
and destroyed by modern society.

Gonzales emphasized that Anglos - English Speaking, non-Latinos - had undermined Mexican Americans’ control over their lives. Gonzales said that Anglos had done this through economic pressure and through institutions such as the schools, the Roman Catholic church, and the media.”


The claim that Mexican Americans are denied their cultural identity is a hoax. Nearly all Latino “civil rights” leaders of the 1960s were racists and opposed to assimilation. The claim by Chicanos that the US is “theirs” is nonsense. Mexican militants just use the Indians to give moral justification to their desire to reconquer the southwest US for Mexico. It’s all a scam because many Mexicans still cannot accept the fact their big army lost wars to Texas in 1836 and then the US in 1846. Gonzales Chicano Manifesto is nothing but blame shifting. El Plan de Aztlan (A) was adopted at the first National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver, CO in March 1969. Here are some excerpts:

“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.”

“. . . Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.”

“. . . With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán.”

"Nationalism as the key to organization transcends all religious, political, class, and economic factions or boundaries. Nationalism is the common denominator that all members of La Raza can agree upon.”

So why is a manifesto written in 1969 relevant today? Some of the ideas promoted by the Chicano movement are accepted as fact by many Americans. Millions in central America believe thay have the right to cross into the U.S. illegally. Another goal is to make America bilingual - violating 200 years of immigrants assimilating. And many believe the lie that the U.S. has stolen Mexican land.

A. El Plan de Aztlan: http://clubs.arizona.edu/~mecha/pages/PDFs/ElPlanDeAtzlan.pdf 


In 1967, Gonzales founded the ‘Crusade for Justice.’ The violence and intolerance preached in his autobiography manifested itself in the organization. Members of competing organizations were violently attacked by Gonzales’s thugs. On March 17, 1973, a  gun battle erupted with Denver police that ended when explosives stored in the building detonated - destroying portions of the building occupied by the Crusade for Justice. One person was killed and 17 people were injured.

Gonzales was one of the leaders in radicalizing Mexican Americans. Rodolfo Gonzales has been treated with respect he doesn’t and NEVER has deserved. Message to Aztlan is a book of propaganda with many factual errors. Gonzales’s autobiography proves he was a racist who promoted ethnic separation, domination and xenophobia. Here are some excerpts showing how radical Gonzales was.


Gonzales book - Page 28 - Another part of the poem.
“Part of the blood that runs deep in me
Could not be vanquished by the Moors.
I defeated them after 500 years
,and I endured.”
“The part of blood that is mine
has labored endlessly five-hundred
years under the heel of lustful Europeans
I am still here!”


The first part of this poem is accurate. It took the Spanish 500 years to drive the Moors (Muslims) out of Spain in what became known as the ‘Reconquista.’ This term is used today by radical Mexicans in their belief that Anglos must be driven out of not only the south west United States, but ALL of the United States.

The second part is laughable. The Spanish are Europeans. The Spanish destroyed the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empires and took what land they wanted from the Indians. The Spanish were not under the heal of the lustful Europeans for 500 years - the Spaniards WERE Europeans. If the poem refers to Americans - those evil Anglos - this statement is very inaccurate. Americans had minimal contact with Mexicans until the 1820s.

Every immigrant group from Europe and Asia started at the bottom and worked their way up because of their work ethic and capitalism. But Gonzales blames everything on the gringo instead of examining their failures to advance.


Rodolfo Gonzales

Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan - Page 32, 33 - Here is a partial list of Gonzales’ demands from the Anglo:

“Education: . . .We demand a completely free education from kindergarten to college, with no fees, no lunch charge, no supplies charges, no tuition, no dues.”(1)

“We demand that all teachers live within walking distance of the schools. We demand that from kindergarten through college, Spanish be the first language and English the second language and the textbooks to be rewritten to emphasize the heritage and the contributions of the Mexican American or Indio-Hispano in the building of the Southwest.”(2)

“Economic Opportunities: We demand that the businesses serving our community be owned by that community. . . Instead of our people working in big factories across the city, we want training in our own communities. These industries would be co-ops with the profits staying in the community.”(3)

“Agricultural Reforms: We demand that not only the land, which is our ancestral right, be given back to these pueblos, but also restitution for mineral, natural resources, grazing, and timber used.”(4)


1. And who is going to pay for all this ‘free’ education?

2. If you live in America, you will be taught in English. Spanish is the second language. Textbooks have already been rewritten to make these racist Mexican American groups look like civil rights groups - which they are not. Now white males are always the bad guys in US history textbooks.

3. If you get the money to buy these businesses, you can locate them and run them how you want.

4. Mexicans claim the southwest US is historically Mexican land. This is a NOT true. This land is historically Indian land. The Spanish took it from the Indians and then lost this land to the US after the Mexican American War of 1846-48. Mexicans should keep in mind the southwest US became prosperous because it became part of the US. Had Mexico kept this land, it would be as dysfunctional and poverty stricken as the rest of Mexico. No restitution is owed.



Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan - Pages 38-39 - 

“Their historical roots are that they predate any gringo from that side of the Mississippi by nearly 500 years on one side of us and 20,000 years on the other side of us, because we are mestizos. We are “La Raza Cosmica.” We are the only integrated people on these two continents. We’re not a minority. We’re a majority, when you stretch us from here to Mexico to Peru.”


More phony history here. Mestizos are mixed Spanish and Indian. Mestizos only came into existence when Spanish intermarried with Indians from the early 1500s on. So mestizos have been around about 500 years - not 20,000.

Some Mexicans claim that being Spanish and Indian makes you ‘La Raza Cosmica’ - The Cosmic People. This idea came from Mexican ‘philosopher’ Jose Vasconcelos - whose sanity was debatable. Vasconcelos argued that the mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. Vasconcelos, who became a fascist and Jew hater in World War Two, engaged in stereotyping various races in developing his own racist theory.



Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan - Pages 39-40: When Gonzalez was in California for a speaking engagement he met with a friend, Antonio Salazar. They went to a store in the Los Angeles neighborhood called Hazard, when a patron asked Gonzales: 

“Hey, where are you going to speak at? Maybe we’ll come down there tonight.’ Then he told the other barrio guys, “Hey, come here, I want you to meet this cat.” 

“We started shaking hands. He asked, “Hey, are you the guy that’s fighting for some land?” 

“I told him, “No, I’m from Denver. We support the land issue and we support the farm workers. We support every problem that involves our people, and we have to start to organize our communities to control them ourselves.”

“Ah, he said, no sweat, look there. There is not one gringo nor one black guy in this barrio. We control it.”

“I asked them, “Who runs the store?”

“Ah, some gringo.”

“And who owns that clothing store across the street?”

“Pues un pinche gringo” (That f__ing gringo)

“And who owns that housing project?”

“So what are we going to do, man?” And then Little John says, “Yeah, They are all gringos in there! We’re in occupied country. . .”

“I told him “You guys are already organized. If someone came here from any other barrio and said, “Hey, I’m taking over here,’ you guys would kill him in a minute. You’d wipe him out because you’re organized.”


Racism is on full display here.



Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan  - page 53 -

“We are strangers in our own church. We do not control who comes into our church. The time will come when we will, and we must. These are ideas are based on El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan,(1) to control our own destiny.”

More xenophobia by Gonzales. Now it is the fault of the church - who they let in. Gonzales wants to politicize the Church - which is not the function of the Church. Putin has politicized the church in Russia.

Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan - page 80 -

“We are all heirs to the land. We, the mestizo, the Indian, and of Spanish birth, owners of the Southwest by precedent and by legal title.”


Gonzales uses the Treaty of Tordesillas to declare legal title to the Southwest US. This treaty was signed in 1494 - over 500 years ago. This is why many Mexicans believe they have the right to ignore the border between the US and Mexico. Only Spain and Brazil signed this treaty. It has no effect on any other nation.

Mexicans believe if you have Indian blood in you - Mestizos - you are some sort of superior human being who doesn’t have to obey the border between the US and Mexico. This is all a scam because nearly all mestizos originated in Mexico, not the Southwest US. Also, being part Indian doesn’t make you superior or above the law. It means you’re part Indian. Millions of Americans are part Indian.


Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan  - Page 88

“We have to destroy capitalism, and we have to help five-sixths of the world to destroy capitalism in order to equal all people’s lives. We have to support our Indian brothers, who are the indigenous people of this country. We have to support the Asians, who are indigenous, and the Africans, who are indigenous, and the South Americans, who are indigenous. People should have the right to liberation and the right to control their own destiny, and the only way to do that is to have a formulated plan to say that some of us will learn.”


More false history. Asians and  Africans are NOT indigenous. Spanish in South, Central and North America are not indigenous. Only Indians are indigenous. Everyone being ‘equal’ has been tried many, many times in dictatorships as well as hippie communes without success over centuries. This can only happen when everyone has equal amounts of initiative and intelligence. In other worlds, this can never work. 


Gonzales book: Message to Aztlan  - page 89:

“People are loyal to corporations for the check. People are loyal to the Mafia for the payment. They kill for money. But our people, I have to say, liberate themselves for love of each other, and that is the most important thing that we can have. Nobody can destroy that; nobody can destroy the spirit of our people. And they can kill individuals, they can shoot us down in the streets, and they have. They can throw us in their jails, but they cannot destroy an idea of a philosophy, and they can never destroy love, because we’re going to win. We’re going to beat them, whether it takes this generation, the next generation, or the next generation. We’re going to win. Viva La Raza! Viva La Raza Libre! Viva Aztlan Libre!”


More false history as well as extreme racism. Mexico, since it’s independence in 1821 has seen one revolution after another that killed tens of thousands of fellow Mexicans. The US has a stable society which is why Mexicans come here. Mexico has always been dysfunctional. Mexico today is essentially run by drug cartels and Mexico’s contribution to winning World War Two and the Cold War was minimal.


Back to the textbook - Page 832 - Brown Berets

“In East Los Angeles, David Sanchez and other young Mexican Americans formed a community action group that took on a semi-military style. Known as the Brown Berets, they later started branches in other cities. The group regarded itself as “defensive,” protecting Mexican Americans against police and other authorities and sometimes acting outside the Law.”



The Brown Berets are a domestic terrorist organization similar to Hitler’s ‘Brown Shirts’ of the 1930s. This is what the ‘Information Minister’ of the Brown Berets, soldiers of Aztlan movement were shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally at the Federal Building in Westwood, California on July 4, 1996:

“. . . We're here in Westwood, this is the fourth time we've been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it's always been ours, and we're still here, and none of this talk about deporting. If anyone's going to be deported it's going to be you!”

A woman with Cebada: “Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to the Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You're old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you, leave like beaten rats.” 

Cebada: “You old white people, it is your duty to die. Even their own ethicists say that they should die, that they have a duty to die. They're taking up too much space, too much air. We are the majority in L.A. There's over seven million Mexicans in L.A. County alone. We are the majority. And you're going to see every day more and more of it, as we manifest as our young people grow up and graduate from high school, go on to college and start taking over this society. The vast majority of our people are under the age of 15 years old. Right now we're already controlling those elections, whether it's through violence or nonviolence. . .’(1)

1. Audio of Cebada: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Cebada.mp3


In 1978, Sanchez wrote ‘Expedition through Aztlan.’  A review of this book proves that he is another ethnic supremacist and a racist. Sanchez book has many factual errors. 

Sanchez blames conflict between the police and Mexican Americans on the United States for taking the southwest US from Mexico after they were defeated in the Mexican American War of 1846-48. He condemns the United States for the deportation of Mexicans during the depression in the early 1930s. He condemns police for not protecting Mexicans during the ‘Zoot Suit’ riots of 1943. He blames the Catholic Church for the high drop out rate of Chicanos students. He claims Chicanos live in a totalitarian-like atmosphere in Los Angeles.  All these claims by Sanchez are false. 


Here are some excerpts from ‘Expedition through Aztlan.’  by Sanchez:

The Forward is by Armando Morales, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, who died in 2008. His knowledge of history was as inaccurate and fraudulent as Sanchez.’


Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets.
‘Prime Minister’ David Sanchez

Sanchez book - ‘Expedition through Aztlan’ - P-VII: Morales:

“In Aztec language, Aztlan literally means the “white land.” Aztlan refers to the northwest provinces of the “Aztec empire which we know today as the southwestern part of the United States.”


NOT true. The Aztec empire was centered around modern day Mexico City in central Mexico. The Aztec empire was nowhere close to the Southwest US - as the map to the rights shows. It was the Spanish who destroyed the capital city of the Aztecs and built Mexico City on the ruins.  


Sanchez book - ‘Expedition through Aztlan’ - p-VII: Morales:

“Under the inspiring, brave, and tenacious leadership of Prime Minister David Sanchez, they encountered numerous hazards during their journey” . . .”They experienced attacks and harassment by law enforcement officials, Anglo citizen cowboy ‘red necks,’ and even ‘establishment’ Mexican Americans.”


About three dozen people lead by a ‘Prime Minister,’ wearing brown beret uniforms marching under a Mexican flag demanding the southwest be turned over to Mexico and renamed Aztlan. I don’t know why any Americans would feel threatened by this.  


Sanchez book - ‘Expedition through Aztlan’ - p-16:

“The deportation of 312,000 persons of Spanish surname - many American citizens - by immigration law enforcement officials during the Great Depression for political economic reasons further strained and intensified the anger of people of Mexican descent towards the law and law enforcement.”


There is nothing immoral, criminal or racist with evicting illegals from your country. Deporting non-citizens was not an unthinkable idea when 15 to 24% of Americans were unemployed. It happens in every country in the world, including Mexico.  Even in the 1930s - it was mostly Mexicans who were here illegally. It is incredibly arrogant to come to America solely to make a living, send a lot of your money out of the country and THEN be offended when you are deported so citizens can take your job.

US authorities were only after deportable aliens. Mexicans were not just rounded up and shipped back to Mexico. In most cases, there WAS due process. For instance, in the El Monte Raid, 300 people were stopped and questioned, with only 13 jailed, 12 being Mexican. In the LA city plaza raid in Feb. 1931, about 400 people were questioned about their immigration status. Only 17 were detained, 11 being Mexican. Nine of the 11 Mexicans were later released. 

Most of the US citizens who were deported were children born in the US - which automatically makes them citizens - to parents who were non-citizens or here illegally. Obviously, if the parents were deported they are going to take their children with them. Mexicans who were being deported were taken care of by US authorities. No one went hungry or lacked medical attention. Claims of Mexicans being abused in the US were lies told by the Mexican media, which has been bashing America since the 1830s. Mexico actually praised the repatriation efforts in Los Angeles.

When the Mexican Revolution of 1910 broke out, over 500,000 Mexicans entered the US to escape the violence. Because the border at this time was seldom patrolled, Mexicans entered the US at will, most illegally. After 1917, a higher head tax and literacy requirement imposed for entry prompted more people to enter illegally. It was this huge increase in illegal immigration into the southwest US that caused Congress to establish the US Border Patrol in 1924.

Many Mexicans never applied for citizenship, because most intended to eventually return to Mexico after making enough money in the US. American officials in the southwest US were well aware of this fact. It is estimated that about one-half of those immigrants who entered the United States from 1900 to 1930 freely returned to Mexico. The Mexican Consulate sponsored campaigns to repatriate Mexicans, promising their expenses would be paid and some would even get a job in Mexico.

Additional info: http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/deportation-of-illegals-during-the-depression/

In the LA plaza raid in 1931, 11 Mexicans, 5 Chinese and one Japanese were detained.(15)
Automobile caravan of repatriate families assembling at Karnes City, Texas, 1931.(17)

Sanchez book - p - 89 - 90:

“It was the old town of Mesilla, a town famous for being the site where the Gadsden Purchase was signed in 1853. . .”         

“As we stood looking at these historical grounds, a viejito walked up to us. He seemed surprised upon seeing the Mexican flag on our uniforms. He was about seventy-five years old, but still walked in a proud manner with his back erect. His eyes gleamed with pleasure as he scanned our uniforms. We later learned that he was Colonel Cruz Alvarez, a former U.S. Ambassador to Spain. He spoke in a course voice.  ‘Do you know the history here? There is a lot here you may know . . . yes, I’m sure you know. But it’s not like the history books. Right here in Mesilla, the United States in 1853 offered money to Mexico for this land. Mexico became angry over this and refused the offer. Then the United States warned the Republic of Mexico that if Mexico did not take the U.S. money, the U.S. was going to take the land by force. So, Mexico reluctantly accepted the money which was later known as the ‘Gadsden Purchase.’ Mexico, you see, was forced to sell the Gadsden territory to prevent war. Mexico had already once before been defeated by the U.S. in the Mexican-American War of 1848.”



More false information from Sanchez. There is a Cruz Richards Alvarez who was born in La Union, New Mexico on September 14, 1896. He was attached to the American Embassy in Madrid, Spain, during World War Two, but was not the Ambassador. It is very doubtful that Alvarez - if that was really him - actually said what Sanchez claims he said.

Most Mexicans today believe that Mexico was bullied by the US into selling the land that became the Gadsden Purchase in June, 1854. This is NOT true.

Gadsden purchase in grey.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican American War of 1846-48. The new boundary line between the US and Mexico could not be determined west of the Rio Grande River because the negotiators used a map - the Disturnell map - which had major errors. The map showed the Rio Grande in the location of the Pecos River and the town of El Paso near the present day location of Carlsbad, New Mexico - about one hundred miles east and thirty five miles north of El Paso’s actual location.(2)

Although the boundary commissions from Mexico and the US attempted to resolve the impasse, it was determined that the issue had to be settled by negotiations between the US and Mexican governments. 

Santa Anna became president of Mexico for the 11th time on 20 April 1853. He promptly declared himself dictator-for-life with the title "Most Serene Highness" and abolished freedom of the press. James Gadsden was appointed to represent the US in negotiations with Mexico and he first met Santa Anna on Aug 17, 1853.(3) 

On Sep. 25, 1853, it was agreed that the land called the Mesilla Valley - about 6,100 square miles along with surrounding areas - would be a neutral zone between Mexico and the US, not belonging to either nation pending outcome of negotiations.(4) 

Gadsden initial instructions was to secure a boundary line in the disputed area that would allow for a practicable route for the southern transcontinental railroad, a release from Article XI which bound the US to protect Mexico from Indian raids and settlement for all claims between the two governments. 

Gadsden quickly realized that Santa Anna was desperate for money and was more then willing to sell the US land as long as the amount of money received was sufficient to alleviate the financial predicament Santa Anna was in. Already two rebellions over the summer of 1853 had been put down. Gadsden believed that Santa Anna would be overthrown at some point and realized it would be difficult to successfully negotiate a treaty if a new Mexican government took power midway through the process. Gadsden wrote to Secretary of State William Marcy: “This is a Government of plunder and necessity; we can rely on no other influence but an appeal to both.”(5)(6) 

Negotiations for a new treaty started on Dec 10, 1853. Three areas needed to be resolved:

1) By now, both Santa Anna and Gadsden agreed that attempting to determine the border based on a faulty map was pointless. The purchase of land by the US would be the easier and more beneficial solution for both sides - Santa Anna was desperate for money and the US wanted a practicable route for the building of the southern transcontinental railroad. The US gave Santa Anna 6 options for the money he wanted. The more land he sold to the US, the more money he would get. Payment options started at $50 million going down to the least amount of land for $15 million.(7)(8) 

2) Settlement of all the claims between the two governments.(9)

3) The US wanted released from it’s obligations of Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article XI bound he US to prevent Indian raids into Mexico and to pay compensation to Mexico for any damages done by Indians. The US had foolishly agreed to Article XI, not understanding the long history between the Apache’s and Mexicans. Mexico successfully turned their two centuries long war against the Apaches over to the Americans. The Apache’s hated Mexicans. Mexican massacres of Indians had not been forgotten by the Apaches. The US rejected Mexican claims for Indian damages because:


A) Mexican claims were grossly inflated. 

B) Mexico - fearing a revolt against the government - had disarmed its citizens in 1848 in two provinces bordering the US so they couldn’t defend themselves against Indian raids. Thus Mexican national policy encouraged Indian raids against their own citizens - which the US refused to be held accountable for.(10) The Indians just rode up and took what they wanted from Mexicans. This policy was reversed in the fall of 1853.(11) 

C) To avoid American troops, the Indians simply crossed the border into Mexico where American troops were not allowed to go. An attempt was made by the American government to obtain permission from Mexico to pursue the Indians into Mexican territory, but this proposal was rejected. Consequently, more Indians began hiding out in Mexico with more attacks on Mexicans.(11)

D) The Mexican government made minimal effort to protect its own citizens(10)(11) - using them as pawns to build up monetary claims against the US.

James Gadsden(1)
Santa Anna

The US was making every effort to prevent Indian raids into Mexico.  By 1852, of the 11,000 soldiers in the US army, nearly 8,000 were along the border of Texas and New Mexico trying to protect US and Mexican citizens against the Indians. Troop expenses went from $130,053.52 in 1845 to $2,994,408.51 in 1851.(12)(13)

After only 20 days, a new treaty was finalized on Dec 30, 1853. Mexico decided to accept $15 million for 38,000 square miles of land and for settlement of all claims against the US for damages to Mexicans by Indian raids. Mexico released the US from Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the US set aside $5 million to pay for American claims against the Mexican government.(14)

The treaty was sent to Washington for ratification. The US Congress reduced the land purchased to 29,670 square miles for $10 million.(15)(16) Santa Anna accepted this change. The treaty - which became known as the Gadsden Treaty - was ratified on Jun 29, 1854.

After obtaining the treaty money, Santa Anna stole $700,000 for his personal use and the rest was quickly squandered or used to pay off adversaries and allies.(17)(18)(19)

In July 1855, Santa Anna attempted to obtain additional funds from the US by selling more Mexican land to the US. Meetings were held from July 8 to August 8, when Santa Anna was overthrown. Gadsden despised Santa Anna and refused to buy more land from Mexico. Gadsden wrote Secretary of State Marcy in August 1855: “I cannot reconcile it to my judgment to negotiate with such a temporary oligarchy of plunderers.”(17)(20) Santa Anna claimed Gadsden made it very clear that the US was going to obtain the territory they needed for a railroad “one way or another”.(21) The fact that Santa Anna wanted to sell still more land to the US proves he was not bullied by the US. Santa Anna was a very gifted liar. It was all about Santa Anna.

After the Gadsden Treaty was ratified, Mexican attacks escalated on American civilians in Mexico. Mexico issued orders against freedom of speech, for the surrender of arms and use of a maze of passports for travel from one location to another within Mexico.(22) Americans were illegally arrested and imprisoned, goods were unlawfully confiscated, and Americans were expelled from their homes and land. In Dec. 1854, President Pierce informed Congress that numerous injuries by Mexico remained unadjusted and new cases were constantly arising.(23) Mexico also encouraged Indian raids into Texas. These raids were lead by a man who had a commission in the Mexican Army.(24)

As the extent of Santa Anna’s corruption became known, he was tried in absentia for treason and found guilty. All his estates were confiscated by the Mexican government. Years later, Santa Anna declared the Gadsden Treaty a great deal: “. . . there remaining the satisfaction of having obtained for a piece of wild country, relatively what they gave for half of the national property.” (25)

1. https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/26225
2. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 49
3. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 85             
4. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 82   
5. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 84
6. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 89
7. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 85
8. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 91-92
9. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 38
10. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 44  
11. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 32,33
12. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 30    
13. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 43  
14. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 103,104
15. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 85      
16. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 124,134            
17. Slavery, Scandal and Steel Rails by David Devine. Pub 2004, p 81
18. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 89,90
19. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 155
20. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 166-167
21. Slavery, Scandal and Steel Rails by David Devine. Pub 2004, p 53
22. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 148
23. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 157
24. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 158
25. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 139-140

Sanchez book: Expedition through Aztlan - p-181:

“Due to the changing of United States boundaries, we are citizens of the United States and descendants of Mexican citizenship; not by natural choice, but rather by the takeover of the southwest in 1848. “We as United States citizens, along with many Mexican citizens, protest the taking of further lands from Mexico.”


The Texas Revolution and Mexican America War of 1846-1848 were caused by Mexico. Mexican Pride couldn’t accept the fact that the Texas Army defeated Mexico and then the US Army crushed the Mexican Army in the Mexican American War.

Many Mexicans consider the southwest U.S. stolen Mexican land. So the real issue today is this: Even if Mexico is 100% to blame for starting both the Texas Revolution and Mexican American War - which they were - did the US have the right to take almost half of Mexico’s territory? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!! Here’s why:

Mexico was determined to conquer Texas and was looking for an excuse to start this war because they were certain they could defeat the US. But Mexico lost every major battle. To have beaten Mexico as badly as we did, conquered most of their country including the capital city, and then told them they must accept Texas as part of the US, which it already was, and then retreated back to the U.S. would not have been fair to us. This would have been an unforgivable disgrace to the men who died and the rest who went through hell to attain victory - and we would be inviting another attack.

Now put yourself in Mexico’s shoes. Your army has been repeatedly defeated, nearly the entire country has been conquered, and the consequences are - nothing!! Just be nice and don’t threaten Texas again! In a machismo society like Mexico, would they sit back and say ‘OK’ or would Mexico think we Americans are unbelievably gullible. Mexico would hold Americans in contempt for conquering their country and not making them pay a price for their warmongering. The reality is that once Mexico attacked the US, losing the land north of the Rio Grande became necessary to repay the US for the cost of the war in blood and money and to repay US citizens for monetary damages Mexico refused to pay.

If the US could change history, what could we change so Mexico would love us today? If we only kept Texas and didn‘t take California and New Mexico, would Mexico still hate us for keeping Texas? Absolutely yes. If we gave Texas to Mexico, would they love us? No, Mexico would still be bashing America and sending in drugs and illegal aliens into all parts of our country. They already are. Giving Texas and the southwest US to Mexico would gain us nothing. 

Mexico owed the US $2 million which they refused to pay for years. After arbitration in 1841-1842, Mexico finally agreed to make 20 quarterly payment starting April 1843. Mexico made 3 payments and then stopped, leaving about $1.7 million unpaid.(1) President Polk refused to go to war over money, but once Mexico attacked the US, Polk decided that Mexico must pay for the cost of the war plus the $1.7 million. Since Mexico was always broke, the only way to settle their debt to the US was with land. New Mexico and California were lightly populated and most citizens had little loyality to the Mexican government. 

Mexico from its independence was dysfunctional with constant revolts. Many Mexicans recognized the superiority of the American form of government. Lorenzo de Zavala, the principal writer of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 traveled through America and wrote a book in 1831 entitled “Journey to the United States of North America.” The book is similar to de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and the two men - from very different backgrounds - hold similar views about the United States. 

Zavala wrote: "What will be the final outcome of its greatness and prosperity? ...it is a new social order, brilliant, positive; a political system that has excluded all privilege... Standing before this political phenomenon statesmen of all countries, philosophers, economists have stopped to contemplate the rapid march of this amazing people, and agreeing with one accord on the never before seen prosperity of its inhabitants side by side with sobriety, love of work, unlimited liberty, domestic virtues, a creative activity, and an almost fanatical religious feeling. . ." (p 189)

1. Claims As a Cause of the Mexican War, by Clayton Kohl, pub 1914, p30-42   ____________________________

Back to the textbook - Page 833 - Political Action

“New political groups formed to support Latino interests. For example, Jose Angel Gutierrez brough together Mexican American groups in Crystal City, Texas, leading to the formation of the political party La Raza Unida in 1970. The new party worked for better housing and jobs and backed Mexican American political candidates.”


La Raza Unida Party (RUP) was a militant, anti-American hate group. La Raza Unida simply means “The Race United.” 

While La Raza Unida has engaged in legitimate civil rights issues, its true agenda was revealed at the 1980 convention.(1) RUP declared a policy of Revolutionary Nationalism and the eventual takeover of what they refer to as Aztlan, which is composed of five southwestern states; California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. RUP wrongly believes that the southwest US was stolen from Mexico.(2)

In 1995, Armando Navarro, member of La Raza Unida and a professor of Ethnic Studies at UC Riverside made this statement opposing California Proposition 187: “It's a game - it's a game of power - who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We're in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control."

La Raza Unida opposed Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction on the ballot: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by La Raza and the morally clueless Clinton administration. Clinton was more interested in getting more voters for the Democratic party then doing what was right. 

Jose Angel Gutierrez, ‘professor’ at the University of Texas at Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida declared in 1995: “The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in this land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years, and we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights! What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male! This is our homeland. We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not im-mi-grants that came from another country to another country; we are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. [laughter] The explosion is in our population.”(3) 

Gutierrez forgets the Spanish were the first Europeans to conquer the New World. Gutierrez believes if you have Indian blood in you - Mestizos - you are some sort of superior human who doesn’t have to obey the border. This is all a LIE for three reasons: First, the only reason ‘Mestizos’ exist is because Spanish intermarried with native indians. So Mestizos have been here less then 500 years. Nearly all of the indians Mexicans intermarried with inhabited present day Mexico, not the southwest U.S. Second, Spanish ignore the fact that there was constant warfare between different tribes and some Indian tribes exterminated other tribes. The indians were not one united Indian tribe from north America to south America. Third, Gutierrez is only attacking the border with the US, not other countries in south or central America.

More questions for the scammers: Why does everyone in this movement have Spanish names? Can you prove you are part Indian? What about Americans who are part Indian? There is no rule on how long someone has to live in a place before they become a ‘native.’ Most Americans have been here over 100 years and many over 200 years. That’s long enough to be a native. We’re staying. YOU can leave.

1. http://www.pnlru.org/About_the_Artist.html
2. http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexican-american-war/
3. Audio of Gutierrez: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Gutierrez.mp3



Page 833 

“Another leader, Reies Lopez Tijerina, argued that the Anglo culture had stolen the Chicanos’ land and heritage. To call attention to broken treaties, in 1966 his Alianza Federal de Mercedes (Federal Alliance of Land Grants) marched on the New Mexico state capital. 


Another example of this textbook allowing a critic to make inflammatory charges against America and reporting it as if it was a fact - which it isn’t. In order to understand the land claims dispute in New Mexico, an overview of the history leading up to these disputes is necessary. From the 1600s on, Spain made land grants to individuals and groups in an attempt to put people on land claimed by Spain. When Mexico gained it’s independence from Spain in 1821, they continued the land grant process.

With Mexico’s defeat in 1847, the U.S. and Mexico began discussing a peace treaty.  But negotiating a peace treaty proved difficult and the U.S. and Mexico ultimately ratified two different versions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The initial treaty was negotiated by Nicholas Trist for the United States and special commissioners representing the collapsed government of Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 2, 1848 near Mexico City and sent to Washington for ratification. 

The U.S. Senate deleted Article X and made other changes to the treaty before it was ratified on 10 March 1848. Mexico was not happy about the changes and negotiated the Protocol of Querétaro. Mexico ratified the amended Treaty along with the Protocol which basically returned the Treaty to it’s original wording.

The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Protocol of Querétaro meaning the US and Mexico are complying with two different treaties. In addition, the treaty provided no standard for validation of land grants. These disputes over the Treaty and land grants continues to this day.The key disagreement with the Treaty was over Article X which was deleted by the U.S. for two very good reasons: 

1) Article X forced Texas to go back to boundaries that existed in March, 1836. Since Mexico’s intentions was to conquer Texas again, they saw no need to negotiate with Texas over land grants or on anything else. So Mexico brought this situation on themselves by their obstinate refusal to negotiate with Texas and later the U.S. Land boundaries were now 10 years old and many boundaries had changed. Never the less, Texas on it’s own instituted a program of recognizing Spanish/Mexican land grants in the state.

2) Article VIII already bound the U.S. to recognize private property rights of Mexicans whose property now was in the U.S., so what was Mexico’s intentions for having Article X in the initial treaty? Article X bound the U.S. to recognize massive communal land grants in New Mexico. Between 1837 and 1848, Manuel Armijo, the last Mexican governor of New Mexico gave away over half of the 31 MILLION acres of land granted to all Mexicans under Spain and Mexico. These huge land grants violated Mexican law and should never have been granted!

The U.S. correctly viewed Article X as a back door method by Mexico of maintaining Mexican hold on vast amounts of land that now belonged to the U.S. Article 12 of the Treaty states the U.S. will pay Mexico $15 million for the land transfered to the U.S. - not the land minus the land grants. The U.S. had the right, as the owner of ALL the land to limit grant sizes as was done when the U.S. purchased Florida. Mexico knowingly violated their own laws with these huge land grants - and then expected the U.S. to recognize these grants. While the U.S. was bound to honor private property of individual Mexicans, the U.S. had no legal or moral obligation to recognize Mexican claims to vast amounts of land which often had no Mexicans there.

U.S. Secretary of State John M. Clayton made it clear the U.S. viewed article X as a cheating tool by Mexico: “Could it however reasonably be expected that this government, in addition to the treasure and blood expended in prosecuting the war, would engage to pay fifteen millions of dollars for lands, the title to the most valuable part of which had been extinguished?” Mexico lost the war. The U.S. could have kicked out all the Mexicans and sent them back to Mexico but was trying to be fair.

Not only were these huge grants illegal under Mexican law, but the grantees never fulfilled their obligations in order to claim possession of many grants in northern New Mexico. All of these massive grants were in Indian controlled territory and had  never been permanently occupied. They were always run off by Indian attacks. If grantees didn’t settle the grant after it was granted due to Indian attacks or abandoned their settlements due to Indians raids, the grant was NOT considered valid under Spanish/Mexican law. Under Spanish/Mexican law, the most important aspect of the validity of a land grant was continuous occupation.

Nearly all of the critics who condemn America over Mexican land claims are intellectually dishonest. The U.S. government approved grants that should not have been approved and approved grants for far more acreage then they should have been - but these critics don’t care about that. They only care when they believe Mexicans were cheated out of land. 

The fact is that Mexicans were not cheated out of land - but the United States was. Congress confirmed land grants based on the validity of the claim, without knowing the amount of land being claimed. After confirmation it was learned that five grants - Maxwell, Sangre de Cristo, Pablo Montoya, Preston Beck, Jr. and Bosque Del Apache - should have been awarded a total of 342,778 acres to be in conformance with Mexican law. They were later surveyed for a total of 3,747,830 acres. The U.S. was defrauded out of 3,406,052 acres. 

In 2004, the GAO (General Accounting Office) did a comprehensive investigation into the land claim debacle and determined “the Treaty was implemented in compliance with all applicable U.S. legal requirements.(p 12)(1)

Sources: 1. GAO-US options on land claims.pdf

Additional information:

Page 833 -

At about the same time, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) was founded. It has provided legal aid to help Mexican Americans gain civil rights and encouraged Mexican American students to become lawyers.


MALDEF was co-founded by two Mexican Americans in 1968: Mario Obledo, who died in 2010 and Pedro Tijerina, who died in 2003. MALDEF originally handled legitimate civil rights cases, but as time went by, became increasingly radicalized. 

Obledo became another racist Mexican supremacist. Obledo made statements about California becoming a "Hispanic state" at least twice, during an appearance on Ray Briem's talk radio show in May or June of 1998, and again on the Tom Leykis' talk radio show:


Obledo: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state."      

Caller: "You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn't like it, they should leave. Did you say that?"      

Obledo: "I did. They ought to go back to Europe."(1)


MALDEF supports “rights” for illegal aliens that they are NOT entitled too because they are here ILLEGALLY. 

MALDEF supports taxpayer funding for social services for illegal immigrants. 

MALDEF opposed - sometimes violently - Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. 

MALDEF opposes enforcement of “E-Verify” to determine if a job applicant is in the US illegally.(2)

MALDEF opposed the bipartisan SAVE Act bill in Congress in 2007 (H.R. 4088 in the House and S. 2368 in the Senate). This bill would have secured America's borders by adding 10,000 border patrol agents, require all US employers to use “E-Verify” to determine if you are in the country legally and expanded the 287(g) program, in which local police are trained to enforce federal immigration laws when the situation arrises in the normal performance of their duties.(3)

MALDEF pushed for California to pass the AB540 law that allows reduced tuition for students who are illegal aliens.(4)

Obledo was also an enemy of free speech. With the waves of illegals entering California, a sign was erected at Blythe, California near the Arizona border which said “Welcome to California, the Illegal Immigrant State.” This obvious truth offended Obledo who “vowed to burn or deface the sign." He then issued a press release that said on Sat, June 27, 1998 the billboard would be set on fire. The local sheriff telephoned Obledo, not to warn him against committing a criminal act, but to warn him of a nearby natural gas plant that might explode. Delighted at this escalation, Obledo spoke to the Sacramento Bee of an explosion that would annihilate Blythe. But 4 days before the scheduled climax, the billboard company took the sign down, under pressure from advertisers.(5)(6) 

Incredibly, Obledo received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998 by the morally clueless Bill Clinton.

Pedro Tijerina grew up in Laredo, Texas and was not a victim of prejudice. In fact, when Tijerina needed his high school diploma to get into college, the principal, J. W. Nixon, told him: “Pete, if you pass the college entrance exam to Texas, I’ll give you your diploma.” Tijerina passed and got his high school diploma.(7)

During World War 2, as the only Mexican American in his company, Tijerina said his ethnicity was never a concern, as he was surrounded by many different ethnicities from all over the country.(7) 

1. Audio of Obledo: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Obledo1.mp3
2. https://www.maldef.org/employment/public_policy/e-verify/index.html
3. https://www.maldef.org/immigration/public_policy/save_act/index.html
4. https://www.maldef.org/education/public_policy/ab540/index.html
5. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/02/news/mn-9476
6. Population Politics By Virginia Abernethy p.xxix
7. https://voces.lib.utexas.edu/collections/stories/pedro-tijerina








Mario Obledo




Obledo receives Medal of Freedom from morally clueless Bill Clinton.

Page 834 - Economic Changes:

"Although Asian Americans as a group were well educated, in 1960 they earned less than white Americans. In California, for example, for each $51 a white male was paid, a Chinese man would earn $38 and a Japanese man, $43."


Studies showing wage gaps are generally fraudulent and used as a political tool. These studies don’t take into consideration hours worked, length of service, experience, etc. In addition, there is no source for these claims in this textbook.


Page 836 - Native Americans Face Unique Problems - quote from Dennis Banks:
“It was a question of this government being responsible to me, and not seeing to it that I had an opportunity to lead a decent life, or to own a piece of land, or to find a good job, like they had promised my ancestors in all these treaties. They broke all of those promises. They stole everything from them and wrecked their way of life . . .”



Native Americans can live anywhere they want in the U.S. They can buy land or they can live their own culture on reservations. 

Native Americans conveniently forget that the white man ended the incessant wars between Indian tribes that killed tens of thousands of Indians over the centuries. In some tribes a young Indian male was only considered a man once he had killed his first human foe.(1) Native American tribes ran other tribes off their land for centuries prior to the arrival of the white man. Conquering someone else’s land was what people did since time began. The issue with the Indians was they lost to the white man and can’t get over it. Indians DID manage to get over it when they were run off their land by another Indian tribe.

For instance, there has been a human presence in the Black Hills of South Dakota since prehistoric times. Around 1500 AD, the Arikara tribe - who loved to scalp their enemies for war trophies -  moved in. The Cheyenne, Kiowa, Crow, and other tribes all arrived later to fight for their own share of the mountain range. Finally, the Lakota — the alleged “original occupants” — came in around 1780 and drove out the Cheyenne.

So the U.S. did not take the Black Hills from its original occupants. The original occupants had long since been conquered by another Native American tribe, who received the same treatment from the next tribe  and so on. The truth is the U.S. took the Black Hills from the most recent conquerer of the land. 

The whites crimes - such as the Trail of Tears is well documented. Indian massacres are not. Between 1647 and 1649, the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy (Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca) esssentially exterminated the Huron Indians.(2) When Indians exterminated other Indians, it is ignored. It only matters if the white man did it. If the Indians had been responsible for the Trail of Tears, it wouldn’t be an issue.

Nearly all tribes tortured their captives to some degree - the common form of execution was being burned at the stake.(3) But some tribes developed grisely torture methods. Torture sessions could last days - and it didn’t matter if prisoners were a woman or a child. Indians didn't torture for information. The torture was pure sadism. 

The Comanche Indians arrived at San Antonio TX on 19 March 1840 for peace negotiations. As a ‘peace gesture’ they returned a 16-year-old girl held captive for 18 months. Her once beautiful face was disfigured beyond recognition. ‘Her head, arms and face were full of bruises and sores,’ wrote one witness, Mary Maverick. ‘And her nose was actually burnt off to the bone. Both nostrils were wide open and denuded of flesh.’ The Indians were oblivious to the effect the girl’s appalling condition would have on the Texans.

Once handed over, Matilda Lockhart broke down as she described the horrors she had endured — the rape, the relentless sexual humiliation and the way Comanche women had tortured her with fire. It wasn’t just her nose, her thin body was hideously scarred all over with burns.

When she mentioned there were 15 other white captives at the Indians’ camp, all of them being subjected to a similar fate, the Texan officials said they were holding the Comanche men as hostages until the white prisoners were returned. The Comanches tried to fight their way out. Texan soldiers opened fire, killing 35 Comanche, injuring many more and taking 29 prisoner. Seven Texans were killed.

The next day a Comanche woman was freed and instructed to tell the Indians they had 12 days to return the white captives or all the hostages would be killed. The Comanches ignored the ultimatum and tortured every one of the captives to death. ‘One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire. They were skinned, sliced, and horribly mutilated, and finally burned alive by vengeful women determined to wring the last shriek and convulsion from their agonized bodies. Matilda Lockhart’s six-year-old sister was among these unfortunates who died screaming. (4)

The U.S. does not have a good record with treaties signed with the Indians but there are factors involved very few recognize. The biggest reason for broken treaties with the Indians was because the U.S. was such a wonderful country that MILLIONS of immigrants came to the United States and they needed somewhere to go. NOTHING was going to stop them from establishing their new life in the New World. The Indians were pushed out of the way. 

Some people want to place everlasting guilt on the Spanish and other Europeans for the diseases they brought to the New World - as if they had a choice. Smallpox, Malaria, the flu and bubonic plague all originated in either Africa or Asia. The Europeans were victims of these diseases in the past just like the Indians. If Asians or Africans had been the first people to explore the New World, they would have brought the same diseases with them. 

1. http://www.native-net.org/na/native-american-warrior.html
2. https://worldhistory.us/canadian-history/the-destruction-of-huronia-1648-1649.php
3. https://smokymountainnews.com/archives/item/6413-different-tribes-treated-captives-differently    https://truewestmagazine.com/indian-tribes-torture/   
https://www.ammoland.com/2013/09/tortured-by-indians-scout-robert-pilson/#axzz7DOVztcMU   https://bloodontheohiotalesoffrontierterror.blogspot.com/2016/12/iroquois-torture-and-decapitation-of.html
4. Empire of the summer moon by S. C. Gwynne, p 84-88

Page 913 - The election of 1976:

This textbook describes Jimmy Carter’s Vice Presidential running mate, Walter Mondale, as a “progressive.”


This is one of the ways this textbook subtly manipulates your political thinking. Who can disagree with someone who is “progressive?” The truth is Mondale was a liberal who believed in high taxes to finance a myriad of social programs. Americans in the mid 1970s were growing increasingly concerned with the increasing number of people receiving financial aid from the federal government - the taxpayers. 

Although Ford was attacked for pardoning Nixon, Carter/Mondale barely won in 1976 - 50.1% to 48%. Ford won more states - 27 - to Carter’s 23 states and the District of Columbia.