And had Mexico prevailed, then the same would be true today concerning "founding families" with French or British names. You will note that none of them are "native" names, nor do they speak native tongues or celebrate native culture, religions, language or customs. And you seem to completely dismiss the fact that those Spaniards were no less invaders than the British were. Both of those European anglo powers were playing the same game.When the U.S.“acquired”(sic) the vast Mexican territories in 1848, the land came with people. In my home state of Texas, several large founding families with roots dating to the mid-1500’s were divided by the new border: among them the Longorias, the Inclans, the Floreses, and the Villarreals. The depth of Spanish culture in the Southwest is revealed in the names and architecture of towns—Santa Fe, Los Angeles, San Antonio among many, many others; the omnipresent missions, the streets and suburbs still bearing the names of land grant owners—Boronda, Bernal, Berryessa, Vallejo; and the nicknames of the Hispanic-Mestizo pre-1848 populations: Tejanos, Californios and "Manitos," not to mention the cultural fiber—celebrations, language, customs.
When the people who are responsible for our country ask you a direct question, I expect them to accept a direct answer, not to be blackballed because you are telling the truth. Eartha Kitt http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/When_th...
The French "discovered" Canada...yet today, they have one single province. Should they take back the rest? Or at least the eastern provinces?
If all the peoples of the world were sent back to the places of their native origins, 90% of the worlds population would have to pick up and move.
So, again, what is your point?