Do you think there is corruption at the border? Comment in the Forum.

Federal authorities explained that the network introduced the money and drugs by truck drivers and even, once, a minor, to move from Mexico to California and from there to Colorado and other states.

According to information released at a press conference, federal prosecutors in Colorado, along with their counterparts in Utah, Iowa and California, in those states arrested 20 suspects, of which 17 of them have Spanish surnames.

Federal prosecutors in Colorado said that two others remain at large after this operation against the “international trafficking of methamphetamine and money laundering.”

Most of those arrested and appeared in federal court in Denver and a total of 135 face drug trafficking charges and 22 additional charges of money laundering. Federal prosecutors said that during the arrest operation, seized six pounds (2.7 kilos) of methamphetamine, over $ 715 thousand in cash, a gun and two vehicles.

They had legitimate bank accounts in financial institutions

Also detected the case of a child on a trip from Colorado to California, took thousands of dollars in cash hidden under his clothes.

The band had legitimate bank accounts at various financial institutions, but deposited smaller amounts to $ 10,000 to avoid detection. Thus avoiding suspicion at banks, since these institutions must report only cash movements in excess of $ 10 000.

“Thanks to the efforts (of various federal agencies), 22 face charges of drug trafficking in methamphetamine, most of which was distributed in Denver,” said Attorney John Walsh.

Meanwhile, Special Agent Barbra Roach of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), stated that investigations are focused on “Mexican drug traffickers” who felt “responsible for transporting large quantities of methamphetamine from California to Colorado.”

Do the research find fault Walmart for alleged acts of corruption? Feedback

“Let me be clear. Acting with integrity is not a negotiable part of our business,” said Walton, son of founder Sam Walton, before some 16,000 people. ”We will do the right thing and the right way. Have my word on that.”

The message, which ends a program of events for a week, referred to a report published by the newspaperThe New York Times in April. According to the report, the largest retailer in the world allegedly did not notify the authorities found evidence that directors authorized the payment of millions of dollars in bribes in Mexico in order to expedite building permits, among other perks.

Mexico and the United States investigating alleged bribery case

Federal authorities in the U.S. and Mexico are investigating, according to press reports, possible violations of Wal-Mart . Some investors have sued top executives.

Also, some shareholders have called for the departure of several members of the board of directors, including Walton, director Mike Duke and former director Lee Scott.

The descendants of the founder have nearly 50% of the shares of Wal-Mart, so disgruntled shareholders are unlikely to allow their vote to make changes to the board.But any lack of support for managers is a setback for the company.

Wal-Mart has said it is restructuring its compliance program rules and that initiated an internal investigation. Last month also revealed plans to expand its internal investigation to other countries.

Mexico City – Archaeologists have identified cave paintings in northern Mexico than 700 years old representations of shaman rituals. The five image scenes in the Cueva de los Osos, 69 kilometers from the city of Chihuahua, come away, according to the Mexican Institute of Anthropology (INAH), a directory named after the Rio Conchos culture, at least to the 14th Goes back centuries and the early 19th Century is gone.

Among the figures represented the shaman’s ritual repeated scenes. The image of a cleaning bath, and a dance of death for deceased hunters would give new clues to understanding this culture, declared the archaeologist Arturo Guevara. Even animals – wild boars, bears, snakes and birds – as well as geometric figures are visible on the yellow cave paintings.

They correspond to an early phase of this culture, as this was considered to have a nomadic. The people of the region were settled only after the arrival of the Spaniards

Among the actors, there is Daniel Elizondo, also known as El Loco is believed to be the head of the gang.

“Daniel Elizondo is the head of the local drug cartel Zetas who left messages with the bodies,” said Mexican authorities as reported by CNN Sunday, May 20, 2012.

Mexican military spokesman said the perpetrators were arrested by the soldiers.

In a statement, the Mexican Defense Ministry said the perpetrators were arrested last Friday in Cadereyta area, adjacent to where the discovery of the corpse. However, recently published news of the arrest on Sunday.

A total of 49 bodies without heads and hands were cut off to avoid the examination of fingerprints found on the highway that connects the city of Monterrey and Reynosa in the state of Nuevo Leon, Sunday morning, May 13, 2012.

Based on the discovery of graffiti on the wall near the bodies, they are the victims of the cartel the Zetas. This murder case is one of the most horrific in the history of drug trafficking in the State Sombrero.

Until now, more than 47,000 people have been killed across Mexico since President Felipe Calderon declared war on drug cartels in December 2006. In addition to members of the cartel, also fall victims among civilians, government officials and journalists.

Bonfil explains that the book has two purposes. The first is to show the presence of the lasting Mesoamerican civilizations among indigenous groups, or the México profundo. The second purpose is to present some facts for a more broad analysis that applies to all Mexicans. He notes that two civilizations are present at the same time, and that this is an “unresolved dilemma” because many believe that in order for the country to grow, either the western or the indigenous ideas will have to be chosen. Those who maintain imaginary Mexico are those who are forcing westernization, and those who maintain México profundo are those who are resisting this. There are ongoing problems because México profundo has never truly been given a place in Mexico, and Mesoamericans have always been ignored.  Bonfil suggests that the only way Mexico can be helped is if beneficial aspects of both Mesoamerican and western ideas are incorporated. Bonfil then goes on to say that his book is divided into three parts: Mesoamerican history before European invasion, Mesoamerican life today, and the current conditions in Mexico plus what the future may hold. Considering this book was published in 1996, I wonder if Bonfil’s ideas for the future have taken hold in Mexico, and how much his personal ideas have affected the growth of Mexico.

Chapter 1:

Mesoamerican culture was largely built from the use of agriculture and corn. The central valleys of Mexico became very important centers for agricultural, economic and political growth. Many groups were able to communicate and converge in the central valleys. Eventually, many different cultural groups created a unified Mesoamerican civilization. The Mesoamericans occupied almost every niche available in Mexico, and, as Mignolo said, the land did not become “unknown territory” until the Europeans came. Mesoamerica became a collection of diverse cultures, but Bonfil explains that a civilization cannot be characterized by determining whether certain traits are present or not, but sometimes by a common language. Over many, many years, the Mesoamericans invented their cultures and ways of life, and Bonfil argues that this accumulation of centuries of experiences is what is allows Mesoamerican ideas to persist today. He also suggests that we may be able to learn about nature through Mesoamerican language. Bonfil also talks about the phenomenon of racial fusion and de-Indianization not occurring uniformly throughout Mexico; social organization has allowed Indian traits to persist in some areas, and has led to maintenance of culture. This chapter was very interesting because of Bonfil’s discussion of the fact that continuation of biologically indigenous traits allows for continuation of Mesoamerican culture and tradition. I am curious whether, during the period of European colonization, indigenous people were consciously more concerned about the maintenance of biological traits or of traditions, because in the end, both were either preserved or lost.

Chapter 2:

Chapter 2 begins with Bonfil arguing that Mexico can only reach its full potential as a country if Indianess is understood. Indians have been simply rejected for so long and little is known about them, but it is necessary to understand the cultural differences; he then attempts to explain a bit of Indian culture. However, a problem arises because there is no clear definition of what an Indian is, and it definitely cannot be measured through censuses about language because people may be ashamed to admit the truth. Colonization has effectively silenced Indian culture for 500 years. Many indigenous people were convinced that they were inferior; colonizers attempted to expel the existing systems of social organization while physically moving communities to other areas that were sometimes uninhabitable. Some Indian cultures have been changed greatly by colonization, while others have not. Some near cultural extinction. Many popular indigenous ideas about the natural world and agriculture have disappeared. Tight family units and endogamy help to ensure culture will be passed on to later generations. Self-sufficiency and specialization has helped with survival. Nevertheless, problems still exist because western civilization does not understand or respect Indianess. I suppose it is obvious from our point of view that everyone in Mexico would benefit from integration of both indigenous and Western ideas, but why hasn’t this happened? And is it our job as anthropologists to help these two cultures mix?

Chapter 3:

Mexico does not have a heterogeneous way of life. Different regions have different cultures, and even further, cultures in regions cannot be generalized; Indians still exist in some but have been driven out of others. Non-Indian societies are not homogenous either.  Rural peasant communities exist that have an Indian culture, but they have lost the identity that goes with it. Agricultural ideas, beliefs about the natural world, and Indian techniques of crafting and eating are still present. But, communal organization in the peasant world is slightly different. The peasants still do things the Indian way, but no longer identify themselves as Indian. Bonfil describes this as de-Indianization because the dominant society broke down the Indian ethnic identity.

During colonization, Indians were forced to become rural. Some Indians migrated to cities later, but they were separated from the colonizers. There has been growth of cities recently because of the arrival of Indians or mestizos from rural areas; these people often disguise their identities in cities and return home occasionally. Bonfil pointed out that, to the growing middle class, traditional culture has less of a place, and this connects to the idea of the superficial, surface Mexico. There has been so much conflict between the indigenous people of Mexico and the colonizers, and it is affecting Mexico’s ability to grow. Have the cultures of the colonizers and of the colonized been able to easily mix anywhere in the world?

Chapter 4:

Bonfil begins by saying that there is no common Mexican culture because there are two main civilizations present that never combined, and that have never lived harmoniously. There is one reason for this: particular social groups (Europeans) have held positions of power since the European invasion. Mesoamericans have never been allowed to take part. A harmonious solution has never been attempted by integrating the two civilizations; the only option to westerners has been to eliminate the Mesoamericans. Even when Mexico became an independent State, the same path to Westernization was still present. The groups with the most power in the country have never recognized that it may benefit the growth of Mexico to acknowledge the cultures that exist in the majority of the population. Instead, these cultures and their ideas are ignored, and an alternative reality is created that does not include the Mesoamericans. This fake reality is imaginary Mexico (the opposite of México profundo). The main idea of imaginary Mexico is that reality is substituted instead of being transformed. All of Mesoamerican history was not truly history, and the people that remain need to be removed in order for Mexico to start over in the right direction. Have Europeans created this same “imaginary” version of a country in each place that they have taken over?

Chapter 5:

In the beginning of this chapter, Bonfil suggests that the problems in Mexico began when the colonial order was put in place in the sixteenth century; this is when the separation of the subordinate indigenous and the superior Western people was created. Bonfil gives a little history about domination pre-colonization. Domination of some groups over others was present, and fighting did occur, but he points out that there were few differences in armament, and that there was no attempt to force a particular language on the weaker group. Ideas of absolute inferiority were not present. However, domination by the Spaniards was very different. The invasion was very violent, religion was imposed, resources and people were exploited, the individual indigenous cultures were completely denied, and the Indian name was given to all non-Spaniards. Eventually, when people of mixed origins were being born, groups of mestizos, castas, mulattoes, and creoles were created, although they did not have defined roles in society. Each person of mixed race was able to create a place by having certain social factors, such as wealth. Bonfil explained that the ideas of total domination were foreign to the indigenous people of Mexico, so where did the Spaniards get these ideas from? The papacy had a lot of influence on the colonization movement, but where did the papacy get the idea that total domination was acceptable?

Chapter 6:

This chapter contains more history of Mexico post-colonization. The Church and merchants eventually controlled the economy. Creoles and wealthy mestizos were in charge of ranches and haciendas in the late seventeenth century. Mexico gained independence, but there was no huge transformation. The Spanish Constitution had lasting effects, but the citizens of Mexico did become the sole beneficiaries of the wealth and patrimony in the territory. Problems arose when it came time to define who Mexican citizens were. Struggle over land rights followed; Indian communal lands were threatened by new ideas about private land ownership. Indians were able to resist for a time, but most were eventually left with no land. The Indians were still the inferior group, and white foreigners were recruited to Mexico. Imaginary Mexico during the nineteenth century was a country that wished to be wealthy and modernized and México profundo became a serious denial of the imaginary Mexico; imaginary wanted individualized land and free trade, while profundo wanted communal land. Basically, everything Indian was the enemy of imaginary Mexico. Civilization was only possible with the abolishment of Indianess, including indigenous languages. Even though imaginary Mexico split from Spain, the western ideas never disappeared. By what mechanism can all western ideas be lost? As in, would all people of European descent have to leave the country in order for the ideas to be lost as well?

Chapter 7:

In this chapter, Bonfil begins the discussion in the 1900s. A revolution put a new legal framework in place. One goal of the revolution was to create a cultural homogeneous place; this focused on the idea that Mexico was a mixture, but Indians and creoles were somewhat left out even though both México profundo and imaginary Mexico took part in the Revolution. New ideas did seem to acknowledge that the past was Indian, and that after the Spanish conquest, the “real Mexican” or mestizo was created. Indians could not be ignored. The Revolution proposed to recognize the fact that Indians had good ideas and values, and hoped to erase the inequality that was forcing Indians into a state of lower historical development in order to make cultural differences fade away. However, little was done to ensure that Indian culture did not disappear. The idea still remained that in order for imaginary Mexico to be produced, the majority culture must disappear. The Revolution seemed to be aimed at created a mestizaje society, but was still more in favor of western ideas than indigenous ones. It is interesting that the Revolution suggested to finally recognize the Indians, not because they are equal to Europeans, but because they are in an inferior state of historical development.

Chapter 8:

For many, many years, colonial domination has broken down Indian cultures, but some groups still remain to fight for México profundo. Throughout post-colonization history, there were many rebellions, and many people were forced to move from their homeland, but at the same time, some aspects of indigenous culture that had previously been left behind were re-incorporated. Bonfil points out three processes have allowed indigenous cultures to remain. These are resistance, innovation and appropriation. Indians became skilled at adapting to new situations in order to keep their people and their cultures alive. Indians were able to resist because they rejected some foreign ideas and innovations, and were able to defend themselves against proposed changes. Indians were forced to innovate because they were constantly being oppressed. There was a constant creation of new cultural elements. They were able to appropriate by taking foreign ideas and making them their own; it was sometimes safe to benefit from innovations of westerners without losing any Indian authenticity. Each group has a “cultural matrix” that allows the group to maintain itself while being constantly bombarded by imposed culture, no matter how small the group. Even now, Indians are being confronted with new forces of domination. What are the differences between the indigenous groups who fell under the pressure of the Spanish and the indigenous groups that still fight for México profundo today?

Chapter 9:

This chapter begins the final section of Bonfil about the Mexico we have today. Mexico recently became something different from the imaginary Mexico. Mexico is poor and much of the land has been overly exploited, so the country must import food that it previously grew to feed its citizens. Systems of agriculture are unstable and the future of industry is cloudy because it is not organized properly to meet the needs of the world or of Mexico itself. Many, many Mexicans earn money doing manual labor because there are no other paying alternatives. Mexico is in poverty, everyone has debt, and those hit the hardest are most likely the Indians who no longer affiliate with México profundo. Pollution, resource over-exploitation, and extinction of natural species are all big problems. Overall, Mexicans feel frustrated with their current situation, and the people of México profundo fall silent. The plan for imaginary Mexico has failed and Mexico does not currently have the capabilities to produce a new plan. Bonfil believes that México profundo must finally be recognized because it is the last possible solution, and that some Western ideas can be safely incorporated into a new solution. I would like to know more about Mexico’s current situation to see if any México profundo ideas have been considered.

Chapter 10:

Obviously, Mexico needs some kind of new plan for the future, or else the country will continue in a downward spiral. Bonfil believes that Mexico still has the potential to turn itself around into an overall successful country, but it will not stay this way forever. A civilizational project would involve accepting Mexico as a “backward and underdeveloped” place, and in turn accepting the ideas of México profundo. A substitution project would involve adopting civilization ideas straight from the West. It may be necessary for Mexico to truly recognize itself as plural and not uniform; liberation of oppressed groups is necessary in order for them to take part equally in the creation of a new society. Mexico must stop paying attention solely to the illusion of imaginary Mexico and look toward the true strengths and potential of México profundo. Have all other countries in Latin America and the Carribean had problems similar to those in Mexico following colonization and could Mexico take some advice from these places on how to recover?

The Los Angeles Times, as quoted by AP news agency on Tuesday (5/8/2012), reporting, Julia Orayen act as a edecan in the debate. Edecan is a role that has long been a tradition in the event of formal politics, business, or entertainment in Mexico.Edecan kind hostess stand during a meeting or a party to assist in guiding or arrange the guests. That’s all Orayen task in the debate.

Orayen once posed nude for Playboy magazine and appeared barely clothed in other media. However, he captured the people of Mexico on Sunday night while carrying a box containing pieces of paper that determines the order of the candidates speak.

People are not amazed at the box, but to Orayen. He was wearing a tight white dress with a wide opening in the upper chest so that her breasts are showing quite open.That’s what makes Orayen “win” in the debate. The photo was then plastered on the front page of newspapers and news websites of Mexico on Monday.

“The best (of the debate it) is her white dress with openings in the chest that appears at the beginning,” the singing of former Mexican foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, who is also a professor at New York University.

Alfredo Figueroa, Director of the Federal Election Institute is responsible for organizing the debate, blaming the incident to the event production partner who hired the agency to set up the debate. The institution then apologize to the people of Mexico and the associated potential Orayen dress.

When interviewed by a TV network Cadena Tres, Orayen said, the production team gave the order to him to wear a long white dress. He then chose a dress from her closet alone. ”That’s my only option for long dresses. I do not think it will cause much of a problem or cause scandal like this,” he said.

At least one candidate look bemused when he saw lekak Orayen-curves from the pulpit.Gabriel Quadri, the New Alliance Party candidate, who only had single-digit support in opinion polls, said the woman’s appearance made him nervous. ”It’s impossible to not focus your attention to a woman who is so spectacular,” said Quadri told MVS radio.

“Scandal Orayen” the only unexpected thing in the debate, which analysts say has no impact on the position of the candidates in the polls. Enrique Pena Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party had for weeks ahead of Josefina Vazquez Mota from the conservative National Action Party, and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Democratic Revolutionary Party of the left.

Mexico is Culture, Geography and Political Frustration
Mexican Culture is Priceless and Timeless
Pre-17th Century Mexico
Mexico is Central American Geography
Mexicans are Americans
Post-17th Century History

Interweaving the Battle Players

Quiet, desperate hope for Ethic-less Aristocrats

CHARACTERS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN BATTLE 5
French
The Marquis de Radepont
President Andrew Johnson
The “Civil War’s North
The “Civil War’s South
The Corwin Treaty #2
Mexican
Benito Juarez
Juarista General Ignacio Zaragoza:
The Mexican Aristocracy:
The Mexican peasantry
Santa Anna

EUGENIE, THE MARQUIS DE RADEPONT AND MAXIMILLIAN 7

Why Attack Mexico 7
a) It had a history of dictator 8
b) Previous Mexican Presidents had borrowed millions of dollars 8
c) The Mexican military forces 8
d) The United States 8

PEACE COMMISSIONERS 9

PRELUDE TO A BATTLE 11
SUCCESSFUL PUEBLA!! 11
“Poor France and the U. S.’s South” 12
A demonstration of Mexican honor! 13
Your author’s resume 15

CINCO DE MAYO

Many books have been written on Mexico, others on Napoleon III, one in Spanish about Cinco de Mayo, and others on battles throughout the world.

This booklet’s author is a business consultant, teacher and researcher. Upon subtle suggestion from Librarian Joseph Cajero, at Harmon Library, Phoenix, Az., “Since you like to research a lot [to write business books], we could use a booklet in English on the Cinco de Mayo.

At that time, (May 3, 1992) I knew only that Cinco de Mayo was celebrated as a Mexican national holiday; I knew nothing else about it. While researching this special day, May 5, 1862. I became acquainted with events and people related to this historic battle at Puebla, Mexico. To guide readers of this booklet, I have chosen to add in this preface, my intent, slant, reason for writing, et al.

I take the stance that many individuals and groups had a direct influence on the battle at Puebla. For historic perspective, a magazine article provided by Mr. Cajero prompted my further study as I examined books about Napoleon in Mexico.

Some readers, especially educators, might feel I stretch reasoning as I “tie together” people and events to this single day in Mexico’s history. Other readers, however, may feel certain people, events or consequences were not represented that should be. All authors must (and I do), hold themselves responsible for the slant, representations, suppositions and hypotheses reached in their books, magazine articles, et al. I therefore am solely responsible for the conclusions reached within this booklet.

It might be that a traveler (to 22 nations, [several visits to Mexico] and 36 states, and a teacher for a fair part of the past 25 years, would reasonably reach the conclusions discussed in this paper. Your author is this traveler and teacher.

As is listed in the POST SCRIPT, the author has other books on business and psychology being edited, that might also interest the reader. Your author is currently working with acquisitions and initiating businesses in Mexico during the writing of this booklet.

This capitalistic activity may color this booklet but it is unlikely. Your book’s author felt it necessary to divulge his slants and current interest in Mexico. Ref: Napoleon in Mexico, p.77, 5th para. (2) pg 16, 24, s5.

Pre-17th Century Mexico

Mexico’s founders, like other nations’ founders, include explorers. Unfortunately, many of these courageous men (few women were either permitted to do things on their own or were given credit for their discoveries) weren’t Mexican or pure Indian. Mexico’s heritage includes explorers and conquerors who were native Indians, Spaniards and others of inconclusive ancestry.

It is known that of the Indians who first populated the United States and then Mexico, some were involved in a natural earth-oriented (agrarian) existence while others were warmongers (pillagers). Nevertheless, these pillagers continued an Indian way of life, alien to the non-hedonistic cultures of the Anglos that arrived with the European boats that brought Spaniards and other Catholic heritage cultures and races.

These explorers included caravans of French, Spanish and Austrian “warlords.” Spain’s role in Mexico includes negative exploitation of Mexican natives. Spaniards so penetrated Mexico’s various regions that Mexico’s “native tongue” became an amalgamation of various Indian languages; Spanish, some English and tailings from other visitors-turned-residents.

Mexico is American Geography

Your author has met many people proudly calling themselves Mexicans who are not Spanish, as commonly thought, but are instead, proud Indians of Mayan or other tribal heritage who originated in Asia, tens of thousands of years ago (similar to the Indians who settled in the United States), came across Alaska and, after walking down through pre-Anglo United States, settled within Mexico before other explorers arrived by boat.

Mexicans are Americans

America is a geographical description; All citizens from Alaska to the southern tip of Peru are Americans! Some are South, some Central (Mexico is part of America) and the rest are North Americas (Canadians and citizens of the United States!)

It’s interesting that most Anglos from the United States fail to realize that Mexicans are more American than anyone who arrived from Europe with Columbus!

Post-17th Century History

Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor and Commander-in-Chief of the French forces, lost the battle of Waterloo in Europe in 1812. As Commanders-in-Chief have many excuses for losing wars and battles (many battles make a war), outsiders, using the benefit of hindsight, often can pinpoint several reasons for the loss of a battle or war.

It is likely that arrogance and narrow attention to the environment (many separate things grouped together) played major roles in Napoleon Bonaparte’s loss at Waterloo. This arrogance and inaccurate narrow focusing seems to have been handed down from father to son to brother, throughout generations.

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte had a brother, King Louis of Holland, who had a son (or so “conservative” historians say, though it is likely our Louis Napoleon III’s real father was [unofficially], Rene de Villeneuve, Eugene’s Chancellor, while Napoleon III’s mother’s was Hortense, Queen of Holland.

Louis’ birth name was Charles Louis Napoleon. His first name Charles, was rarely used, leaving the name most called him; Louis Napoleon III. As he matured, like his famous and powerful French uncle, Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis Napoleon III dreamed of power and, as a boy, of controlling a monarchy.

Nephew Louis Napoleon III, perhaps as powerful a monarch as his uncle, lost his “Waterloo” 50 years later, in 1862. This loss was crucial to the French, yet beneficial to Mexican farm workers!

Interweaving the Battle Players

Your author hopes that each reader can, without much stretching of the imagination, understand how each person and group depicted in this booklet became involved in their respective specified activities and how, by fitting all the players together, it becomes reasonable to believe the Battle of Puebla was inevitable. The Mexican farmer’s battle success at Pueblo, is now celebrated throughout Mexico and Mexican neighborhoods world-wide as Cinco de Mayo.

In the production of a movie, all sorts of people are involved: producer, director, writer, salesperson, advertiser, actor, sound technician, etc.

This book’s author feels there were, like the types of people that make a movie, all sorts of people directly or indirectly involved in causing the battle of Puebla to be fought. Also, individuals and groups gained or lost different things as a consequence of the results of the battle.

What is perplexing (but part of humanity’s heritage and habits), is that too often those who have acquired wealth or stature (Mexican Aristocratic Roman Catholics) would rather lose their Mexican heritage and become French or Austrian citizens, than the “toys” and power their wealth provided.

What really happened, as part of this true historical story, is that Napoleon’s French representatives, in talking with the Mexican Catholic Church and its aristocrats, found the aristocracy feared the United States would spread its democratic style to Mexico with Abraham Lincoln’s Latin American policies of protection. Lincoln’s policies attempted to assured (Black) people everywhere their own independence while also assuring that Mexican peasants who had long been exploited would no longer be victims (especially of invasion).

Rather than desire Lincoln’s democracy and fairness for all (or his successor, President Andrew Johnson), the Mexican aristocrats wanted the protection of the tripartite (France, Spain and England). The Mexican aristocracy felt sure that the United states was about to spread its political ideologies (the national vote and freedom for all races) and allow Mexico’s peasants a say in Mexico’s governance–something that would have intimidated the aristocracy. The wealthy Mexican and French aristocrats tried to keep Mexican peasants and farm workers from having a say in Mexico’s use of its economic power, or in owning any major businesses.

The Mexican peasantry had virtually been prohibited from owning anything but a donkey and the clothes on their respective backs! This control or limitation had existed for over a hundred years and aristocrats weren’t about to allow anyone to change the status quo favorable to themselves–the aristocrats had control over all property (that the Roman Catholic church didn’t itself own) and the aristocrats needed that constancy.

Some of the aristocratic land owners (known as conservative wealthy Mexicans), were willing to give up their voting rights to French leaders who could inject money and provide soldiers to assure the current wealthy supporters of the Mexican Catholic Church kept their way of life.

The Mexican president, Benito Juarez, wanted to make life desirable to the peasants but the wealthy Mexicans couldn’t allow the peasants to enjoy any of this power.

French
Austrian
English
Spanish
American
Mexican

The Marquis de Radepont; a French officer and diplomat for the French Emperor; the originator of the entire Battle of Pueblo fiasco.

The Marquis developed a plan to “take over” Mexico. This “taking over” required an invasion and a step-by-step sequence of victories. The Marquis, therefore, developed the plan for the invasion of Mexico and the battle at Puebla. He also developed plans for the occupation of Mexico after the French soldiersÕ presumed victory at Puebla.

Eugenie, wife of French Emperor Louis Napoleon III, Eugenie, helped push the Marquis de Radepont’s plan for the conquest of Mexico, because she wanted a way to stop America from expanding its democracy ideologies. Eugenie’s half brother, Morny, was influential and a positive aide to Eugenie since he owned thousands of Mexican bonds. If Eugenie’s and Morny’s venture into Mexico was successful, these bonds would increase their value substantially!

Himself, the Nephew of the first emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, the loser at Waterloo. This Louis Napoleon III was no insignificant individual: he ruled much of Europe between 1840-70! This was significant because he was the commander of the sailors who brought the tripartite’s soldiers to Vera Cruz.

Comte de Lorencez, was commander of the regimental brigade that attacked Puebla, was Louis Napoleon III’s succeeding Commanding General of the French, after replacing Major General Lorencez, the loser at Puebla, Aide to Louis Napoleon III who wrote dispatches describing victories and failures of the Emperor’s forces.

Maximallian of Austria (about 24 years old, and younger brother of Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria (small European nation below Germany) was to become the leader of Mexico, on invitation of the conservative Mexican Aristocracy and their Catholic Church. The aristocracy themselves followed Louis Napoleon III’s desires. (The French were powerful, cultured and economically alive–perhaps more so than the United States at this time in the history of the world.)

Princess Charlotte of Belgium, Maximillian’s wife, sought an empire for her husband and an extension of their Monarchy. (Charlotte actually lived in Austria with her husband, Maximillian.)

James Howard Harris (known as Lord Malmsbury) was the British Foreign Minister in Mexico representing Queen Victoria.

Genral Juan Prim was the military dictator of Spain who wanted to expand the idea of monarchies, from Spain (and France) to Mexico which would stop the spread of democracy from the United States.

President Lincoln; wanted to protect any neighbor who felt threatened by “enemies.”

President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor; chose to continue Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation policy designed to free all slaves.

The “Civil War North” was the United States’ national defense and charged by the President of the United States with both forcing the return of the “South” and protecting the United State’s borders while defending the President’s foreign policies.

The Civil War’s South” wanted self-rule. Upon its presumed victory in the U. S. Civil War, Jefferson Davis’ administration had offered to place 5,000,000 negro slaves on Mexico’s hot costal lands as security for mortgages on Mexico’s Northern mines and timber land-cheap mine labor for Mexican Aristocrats!

The Corwin Treaty, April 6, 1962, provided for loan guarantees or direct cash loans to the French victors- to-be in Mexico to enable Mexico to re-build itself and to help pay its multi-million dollar loans procured by earlier Mexican Presidents from various European powers over the previous 10 years.

Mexican:

Benito Juarez : the Mexican President wanted to return the land (which the peasantry cultivated for the aristocracy) to the peasants themselves.

Juarista General Ignacio Zaragoza: was the defender of Puebla, the city where this famous battle took place.

The Mexican Aristocracy: wanted a leader for their country that would assure they would be able to keep their power and land.

The Mexican Peasantry; wanted a leader to represent their needs and values–and Juarez appeared to be that leader–a native Indian that threatened the aristocracy and was prepared to take lands from the power elite (aristocracy) and give it to the peasants working it.

Santa Anna: On and off again leader of the Mexican people; more often then not, a federal general who became, like the aristocracy, greedy, thereby stealing from the Mexican peasantry and becoming an unwanted rebel.

Eugenie’s plan:
1) Spread monarchy during Mexico’s vulnerability
2) Take money owed tripartite

Eugenie Napoleon, wife of Louis Napoleon III, the French Emperor, wanted to both halt the spread of Democracy and expand her potent Monarchy. While Eugenie was determining how to spread her husband’s power and influence throughout the world, she felt the upheaval in Mexico was the ideal place to go to expand this monarchy. Mexico seemed vulnerable to attack as it held great dissention between the Mexican peasantry and the rich Catholic Church and its Aristocracy.

Eugenie felt, in order for her husband to gain and keep control of Mexico, she and her husband would need someone they could trust and still control; ideally, a close family member or friend. Eugenie Napoleon found just the trustworthy friend she and her Emperor husband had sought in Maximillian of Austria.

Maximillian qualified as a suitable candidate for the throne of Mexico since he was already an aristocrat and the Monarch’s (of Austria) younger brother. Eugenie and Louis Napoleon III felt Maximillian could force satisfactory payments of all debts Mexico owed England, Spain and France. Further, Eugenie wanted help keeping the peasant Mexicans (Indians) from overwhelming the French soldiers when the French soldiers invaded Mexico to expand the European Monarchy, all in one swoop!

The Marquis de Radepont, a major diplomat and advisor to Louis Napoleon III, had, on his own ambition, developed a plan to expand France’s power in Mexico, by converting Mexico into a French satellite Monarchy.

Mexico was, at the time, in political turmoil and a modified democracy. President Juarez was trying to appropriate land from the Aristocrats and give it to the peasant farmers. Mexico was also a prime candidate for invasion (and therefore) conversion to a Monarchy) for several reasons:

The Aristocracy thought Mexico was currently led by a democratic Indian (most native Mexicans are Indians) named Juarez. This democratic status/manner was a threat to the Aristocracy because, under a democratic governement led system, the embezzlement, patronage (giving favoritism in government jobs) and outright theft of personal property would be slowed and possibly stopped by previous inept and graft-oriented municipal and federal leaders.

Juarez brought hope and therefore opportunity to the indians because he was trying to gain control of land currently belonging to aristocrats and the church and turn it over to peasant farmers. Juarez’ confiscation of land from the rich and giving it to the poor (like Robin Hood did in Sherwood Forest in England) farm workers made him an ally of the United States and his Indian-peasant farmer constituents, but, at the same time, an enemy of conservative, wealthy Mexicans (who had been exploiting the peasants for hundreds of years) and Monarchs throughout Europe to finance previous Mexican wars.

Another legal problem Mexico faced was that its treasury was behind on loan payments due to European nations who had financed previous Mexican wars and illegal federal purchases.

President Juarez felt the native Mexican-Indians shouldn’t have to pay for wars in which they played no voluntary role and yet where they lost property. Upon receiving a demand for payments by England, Spain and France, Juarez indicated that, for an indefinite period of time, he would postpone payments to these nations.

The Mexican federal soldiers were considered to be insignificant and inadequate in comparison to the battle-hardened French soldiers, who were thought by the tripartite to be the best in the world.

Another reason Mexico was vulnerable to attack was because, its alley, the president of The United States, was in the middle of a Civil War of its own, with the North (the federal government), trying to force (which it did successfully in 4.5 years) re-bonding with the Southern states.

France, England and Spain had many talks about places where their respective monarchies could spread.

They came up with Mexico.

In the world community, France, Spain and England (the tripartite) felt the debt Mexican President Juarez owed them constituted reasonable reason for their invading Mexico. After many talks, Louis Napoleon III got Maximillian, upon its availability, to accept the Throne of Mexico. Now Louis Napoleon III needed only to get his man, Maximillian, to Mexico and have enough loyal tripartite troops available to capture any important cities that may resist while the tripartite troops marched to Mexico City to establish Maximillian’s throne.

While Louis Napoleon and Maximillian were doing their planning, they had to be careful about upsetting the United States’ North. The United States had always been in favor of Democracy (where people vote for their leader). The constitution and foreign policy of the United States specified the U.S. government must help any nation needing its protection if the troubled nation’s democracy was threatened by other nations or internally.

President Juarez figured he could get the U.S. to help defend his country if anyone invaded Mexico. This assurance was good as long as the U.S. was not at war with itself. (The Tripartite) France, England and Spain knew of these security measures and would not bother the U.S. as long as the U.S. had a secure government; no nation on earth could afford to challenge the U.S. in any way, for its might was equal to anyone’s (including the French).

Therefore, during the time the U.S. was stable, no government would be foolish enough to threaten it or its foreign protection policy. Until the war with the “South” began, England, Spain and France (the tripartite) hesitated to attack Mexico to force the re-payment of the loans that Mexico’s new liberal president, Juarez, renounced.

In 1860, the U.S.’s civil war (between its North and South) began, which lasted from 1860 through 1864. Louis Napoleon III and Spain and England’s leaders, now firmed up their plans to invade Mexico to forcibly take the money that Juarez’ government owed them.

General Juan Prim, the military dictator of Spain, and James Howard Harris (known as Lord Malmsbury–the British Foreign Minister in Mexico representing Queen Victoria of England and Louis Napoleon), sent a fleet of ships with 6,300 Spanish, 2,800 French and 800 British soldiers to Vera Cruz to begin the tripartite’s attack of the sea port on their way to Mexico City.

PEACE COMMISSIONERS

The invading nations had 5 commissioners with them to try and negotiate for the payment of the foreign debt. These commissioners were; from France; Admiral Jurien and Count Dubois de Saligny, from England; Sir Charles Lennox Wyke and Commodore Hugh Dunlop. The leader and Chair of these commissioners was Spanish General Prim. (He had two additional titles; Count of Reus and Marquis de los Castillejos).

It was the intent of the tripartites’ governments to negotiate with Mexico’s governmental representative in Vera Cruz and see if the money owed England, Spain and France, could be obtained peacefully. If the commissioners (negotiators) could not obtain these payments, the commissioners were empowered to begin occupying Mexico by attacking governmental structures and then replacing the local, state and federal officials wherever found, between Vera Cruz, Puebla and Mexico City.

The sea port,Vera Cruz, appeared docile when the tripartite army approached the local and federal tax collectors and demanded the revenue collections which would help pay back the $10,000,000 debt the Mexican government owed France, Spain and England.
RELUDE TO A BATTLE

The Mexican government officials and few soldiers stationed in Vera Cruz didn’t resist the tripartite’s troops, and gave what money existed in Vera Cruz’s treasury. With their mission complete, the Spanish and English had no further reason to continue to Puebla or Mexico City and so they returned home.

The French, however, were in Vera Cruz for two reasons; to get their part of the payment due the tripartite and prepare the way for Maximillian to take over the Throne of Mexico; so the French had to overthrow JuarezÕ Mexican government.

By combining the data from messages that the Mexican Aristocrats sent to Louis Napoleon III, along with the non-resistance of the Mexican soldiers in Vera Cruz, Lorencez, the French Commander of soldiers, felt the rest of his trip through Puebla and on to Mexico City would be quick and easy.

After saying goodby to his allies (the returning Spanish and British), Lorencez immediately set out for Puebla, the only defended city on his way to Mexico City, the federal government seat.

SUCCESSFUL PUEBLA

When the Mexican peasants realized their culture was being jeopardized and a restricted way of living was soon to be forced upon them, they were eager to fight alongside their Indian President, Juarez. These Mexicans had animo and wanted to continue living as proud Mexicans!

On the morning of May 5th, instead of a simple walk to the fortified city’s front door, the French Commander Lorencez’s emissary met the fort’s defender, Juarista General Ignacio Zaragoza. General Zaragoza refused entrance to these arrogant French troops.

French General Lorencez was caught of-guard by presuming he and his troops faced a passive Mexican fort. Realizing his obligation lay in capturing the city (Puebla), Lorencez hastily directed his brigade commander, Brigadier General Charles Latrille, to assault the Cerro de Guadalupe, the bridgeway guarding the access to the fortified garrisoned Puebla.

Both President Benito Juarez, the leader of Mexican people at the time, and his commanding general, General Ignacio Zaragoza, felt they had aces up their collective civilian and military sleeves; in addition to the armaments (rifles and cannons) they felt enough proud Mexican farmers (who were helping as militiamen) and loyal federalist troops would stand beside them because these two Mexican factors were defending their homes and way of life, whereas the French were just blindly following orders (which indicated a no-problem march was all that lay ahead for them) as the mighty French Commander Lorencez remained puzzled as to why this inadequately armed and manned Puebla would be so earnestly defended even when the French army challenged them, out numbering the Mexicans 2 to 1! There were 5,000 Mexicans and over 10, 000 French soldiers; the French army (the enemy) could not claim victory!

Many honorable Mexican farm workers died so that Mexico could remain independent!

Like the battle of 1776 for the independence of the United States, the Cinco de Mayo was Mexico’s battle for independence! The Mexican soldiers and citizenry had to fight for all they were worth–if they lost they knew they would became a part of Austria and therefore, a colony or a part of, France. –Something the farmers would not tolerate!

French Major General Lorencez had a problem not faced by the fort’s defenders; he had to hold enough French troops in reserve so that he could continue on to Mexico City. He had to fight conservatively!

The battle hardened French troops under brigade commander, Brigadier General Charles Latrille, met unbelievable resistance as they fought and, not having a formidable plan, lost to citizens of Puebla who stood alongside their leader President Juarez, General Zaragoza, and the nobel and courageous Mexican Federal soldiers. Soon thereafter, via dispatches from France, Major General Lorencez, failing at Puebla (though his brigade commander, Brigadier General Charles Latrille–was actually at fault, Major General Lorencez was held responsible by the French Emperor, and so Major General Lorencez was replaced by Major General Forey.

“Poor France and the U. S.’s South”

England and Spain quickly removed their backing because of the French failure at Puebla. With this backing now absent, Maximillian was rightfully hesitant to even come to take his throne!

The United States’ “South” realized that they now had no dependable ally; the South originally thought they could count on the Tripartite to help them win their war with the North (by having the French troops block any attack by the Union soldiers who were planning to attack the”South” from Arizona or Texas.

What might have happened if the French had beaten the Mexicans at Puebla on the 5th of May?

We know the Spanish and English partners in the tripartite left Vera Cruz when they were paid by the Mexican treasury. European support would have been much greater if the “cake walk” had occurred; if Lorencez had just taken over Puebla.

If the tripartite felt secure in knowing that all of Mexico lay totally vulnerable to foreign invasion, they might have brought over more soldiers, section/state governors and merchants from major European industries would have immediately gained greater “market share” from having these new factories in this new land.

The vacillating yet popular Mexican heritage would have been eradicated within 5 years and all of Mexico would have likely taken on the appearance of a distant Spain, England and Austria.

European Aristocratic influence would have been quickly felt in schools, churches and business as a new currency was minted, throwing all traditional Mexican activity into chaos and perhaps, would have led inevitably to an additional internal war between members of the tripartite over division of the “spoils”

–shall seaports become British, or tri-colored, shall education be in all three languages and shall one tri-colored paper bill become the standard currency?

Would the tripartite have, within the next 12 years, carved up Mexico to create a little Spain, England and France/Austria?

It is likely that the United States would have been ripe for invasion because the land to the north was itself under attack and the tripartite would have made the odds much more favorable for the South (who was doing rather well despite the battle participant’s ratios of 3 northerners to every southerner. If the tripartite came into Texas, California and Arizona at the same time and then had its armies pivot to the east, it is likely that Grant and Mc Clellan would have been overwhelmed and caved in to the firepower the tripartite added to the South’s battle wisdom!

Soon, the United State’s South would have overwhelmed the North and likely forced Grant and then Lincoln to capitulate and the Capital of the United States would have moved to Jefferson Davis’ Southern Headquarters in Dixie.

Canada would have been invaded next (it was partially French already) and soon, the tripartite would have become the strongest nation in the world! Whatever name the tripartite would have called itself, it could have challenged the rest of the world!
Thanks to the moral conviction of the 5,000 plus soldiers and citizenry of Puebla, the Mexican government was made stronger. The United States finally forced the South back into the democracy it previously had, and Canada was never the wiser about its own potent change! Viva Mexico!

Let me take you to another century, to tie the two Napoleons together.

In July, 1991, the entertainment director for the Starlite Cruise Ship Empress (which cruised between La Paz and Acapulco while headquartered in San Diego, California), conducted ocean cruises with an emphasis on the Mexican Riviera), guiding passenger’s questions about tours, city spots, fair prices and other valuable bits of information its passengers, of which I was one, desired!

This director taught us all an important word when visiting Mexico–Animo! Animo; electric, magnificent, powerful and super feelings about a wonderful place to be visiting–cities and their ports in Mexico (in this case, the Mexican Riviera).

This definition of Mexican life and its people is well earned!

Muscle, muscle, epidermis and locks on a distinct obsidian blade from 2,000 decades ago have proven that the rock system was used for individual forfeit. 

The forensic products confirm that intense individual forfeit were being carried out in the area 1,000 decades BEFORE the Aztecs. 

Mexico’s Nationwide Institution of Anthropology and History said the finding clearly corroborates records from later societies about the use of distinct obsidian blades in compromising people.

Researchers in South america called it the first definite evidence from a lot of rock uses directing to their use in individual compromise.

Other physical evidence such as cut represents on the bone of historical individual pumpkin heads or scarecrows had previously offered oblique evidence of the practice.

Researchers in South america had discovered what they considered were fossilized system spots on rock blades provided that 20 decades ago. But the institute said it took a coordinated evaluation using a checking electron microscopic lense to confidently recognize the individual cells on 31 blades from the Cantona website in the central South america condition of Puebla.

The collection of rock blades is from the little-known Cantona lifestyle, which prospered just after the strange city-state of Teotihuacan. 

Cantona beat by more than 1,000 decades the local most famous individual compromise experts, the Aztecs.

The archaeologists who discovered the blades provided them to specialist Luisa Mainou at the anthropology institute’s recovery labs about two decades ago. With help from professionals at Mexico’s Nationwide Independent School, they were analyzed under the checking electronic microscopic lense and discovered to contain red system cells, bovine collagen, muscle and muscular fiber parts.

While traditional records from Aztec times, as well as sketches and artwork from earlier societies, had lengthy recommended that clergymen used blades and other equipment for non-life-threatening bloodletting traditions, the use of the muscular and muscle records indicates the reduces were deep and intended to serious areas the individuals body.

‘These discovers validate that the blades were used for forfeit,’ Mainou said.

Susan Gillespie, affiliate teacher of anthropology at the School of California who was not involved in the study, said it was the first time to her knowledge that such tissue continues to be had been determined on obsidian blades.

‘This is a powerful display that these blades were used to cut individual skin,’ Gillespie said in an email.

She said other studies have discovered find elements of organic continues to be such as food on historical relics, so ‘with the right conditions such continues to be can retain for lengthy stretches.’

Gillespie said individual compromise methods either described by the Speaking language conquerors or portrayed in pre-Conquest artwork include heart removal, decapitation, dismemberment, disemboweling and skinning of sufferers.

Interestingly, the discover declared Thursday has already started to shed some new light on the dirty compromise methods of pre-Hispanic societies, which considered that the system of people was a sort of vital fluid needed to keep the universe in balance.

For example, some blades in the test had more records of red system cells, while others had more epidermis, and others more muscular or bovine collagen, ‘which suggest that each cutting tool was used for a different purpose, according to its form,’ Mainou said.

Gillespie said the discover also recommended the fascinating probability that the sacrificial blades were ritually placed, filthy, in some special website after being used.

The Speaking language conquerors have lengthy been alleged of perhaps fueling records of mass individual compromise in pre-Hispanic societies, to make their Native indian topics appear more intense and less suitable of consideration.

‘The historical verification of individual compromise is important both for assisting or contesting the many post-conquest traditional records and pre-conquest image of compromise,’ Gillespie had written.

The interesting thing is that the whole of the United States celebrates it, but it is not celebrated everywhere in Mexico. In Mexico it is mainly celebrated in the state of Pueblo. In Pueblo the holiday takes on a different name which is El Dia de la Battlia The Day of the Battle of Puebla.WWW.MEXICAN-WHOLESALE.COM

This battle occurred under the leader General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguin.

                                                                                     www.publicdomainclip-art.blogspot.com