By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The White House posted a message from Donald Trump celebrating the US-Mexico War as a “legendary victory” and a reassertion of American sovereignty, which has deeply offended Mexico, a nation that lost over half its territory in the conflict. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum emphasized the need to defend sovereignty, while former officials and analysts interpreted Trump’s remarks as a veiled threat and a continuation of his imperialistic views towards Mexico. This statement, coinciding with increasing hawkishness in US policy towards Latin America, has been seen by some as a profound insult to a cooperating ally and a reflection of Trump’s desire to be remembered as a president who expanded the American empire.
Read the original article here
The recent praise from Donald Trump for the United States’ 19th-century invasion of Mexico has ignited significant outrage in Mexico. This sentiment stems from Trump’s characterization of the conflict as “legendary,” a term that deeply offended many, particularly given the historical context of the United States seizing over half of Mexico’s territory. The very notion of celebrating such a conquest, especially by a sitting president, strikes a raw nerve in Mexico, conjuring images of historical injustice and perceived American exceptionalism.
From a Mexican perspective, this praise is not just insensitive; it’s a painful reminder of a profound national trauma. The Mexican-American War, ending in 1848, resulted in the Mexican Cession, where Mexico ceded vast swathes of land that now form much of the American West. To have this historical event, which led to the loss of so much territory, described as “legendary” by a prominent global leader is, for many, a profound insult. It’s seen as a blatant disregard for Mexico’s sovereignty and a glorification of aggressive territorial expansion.
The comments have been widely interpreted as a continuation of a pattern of behavior where Trump has seemed to treat traditional allies and strategic partners with less respect than countries traditionally considered adversaries. This has led to broader concerns about American foreign policy and its underlying motivations, with some viewing these remarks as a modern manifestation of “manifest destiny,” the 19th-century belief that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent.
There’s a strong undercurrent of disbelief that Trump himself is fully aware of the intricacies and historical significance of the Mexican War. Some have even speculated that such a tweet might not originate from his own knowledge but rather from advisors or a particular political playbook. However, regardless of the authorship, the impact of the words spoken from the platform of the presidency carries immense weight and has understandably elicited strong reactions.
Moreover, the irony has not been lost on observers that in the United States, there is often a strong rhetoric against what is termed “invasion” in the context of immigration. This same rhetoric, however, is curiously absent when the topic turns to historical instances of outright military conquest and territorial acquisition by the U.S. This perceived hypocrisy fuels further resentment and misunderstanding.
The historical context of the Mexican-American War itself is often simplified. While the U.S. may view it as a success due to territorial gains and subsequent development, Mexico remembers it as a devastating loss. The complexities of Mexico’s political landscape following its independence, and the challenges of governing distant frontiers, are often overlooked in these discussions. These internal struggles did not negate the territorial loss or the impact of the war.
The debate often devolves into arguments about whether the U.S. is “better off” today because of the land acquired. While material benefits can be acknowledged, this perspective entirely sidesteps the ethical implications of how that land was obtained. The notion of benefiting from an act of conquest does not inherently justify the act itself, a point that seems to be lost in some of the justifications offered for celebrating the invasion.
The comments have also highlighted a broader concern about the direction of American foreign policy under Trump, suggesting a tendency to prioritize monetary advantage and to use historical conquests as veiled threats for future actions towards neighboring countries. This approach, critics argue, alienates allies and fosters an atmosphere of global distrust towards the United States.
The political climate within the U.S. is also a factor in this discussion. The fact that a significant portion of the American electorate supports leaders who express such views is a source of deep concern for many both domestically and internationally. The emphasis on “American exceptionalism” and a perceived sense of entitlement to dominate and expand can be seen as a recurring theme that resurfaces with alarming regularity.
Ultimately, the outrage in Mexico over Trump’s praise for the 19th-century invasion is deeply rooted in historical grievances and a perception of disrespect from a powerful neighbor. It underscores the long-lasting impact of past conflicts and the sensitivity surrounding narratives of conquest and territorial expansion. For Mexico, the war was not a legendary feat but a painful historical wound, and to have it celebrated is to reopen that wound.