A Glorious Defeat Essay Example for Free

A Glorious Defeat actIn this book, Timothy J. Henderson examines the origins, outcomes, and modern-day consequences of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). A Glorious Defeat is organized around dickens central questions why did Mexico go to war with the unite States in 1846 and why did the war go so badly for Mexico? Henderson does provide the answers to these questions, based on the reader having some knowledge of the expansionist history that the US par took in with its southern neighbors, besides who atomic number 18 far less certain why Mexico went to war with the United States (xviii). Henderson provides this book to as a means to correct the current Anglo-centric literature that circulates America, in which blames Mexico for its own losings because they were proud to the point of delusion, arrogantly overestimating their own strength (xviii). He states that it is fair and adequate to state that uncomplete side of the contend is to blame, when in fact stemmed from th e weakness of the Mexican nation, not by the vulturous nature of the US. The fact is Mexico was not the thriving and well established US it was a meek and unaccented nation.The US, after the annexation of Texas, saw Mexico with the governments bonds to the northern states and own policy-making standings, as a challenge that can be devoured by the victorious nation. There was to a fault Mexicos own reference of its nations weakness that drove the political leaders to engage in a war with an obvious tiptop nation, in attempts to gain power and defend its honor. War with the United States gave Mexican leaders the opportunity to bodge in the illusion that the nation was not rent by economic, ethnic, and geographic divisions, but was instead unbendable and united against a foreign foe (191).Henderson attempts to understand Mexicos weakness and how that weakness helped land it in a war with the United States, relying heavily on evidence of Mexicos disadvantages in comparison to the vital force and abundance of the United States (xix). In order to demonstrate the historical, demographic, and geographic weaknesses that hindered the Mexican nation from the beginning, Henderson contrasts the Mexican and US colonial legacies, ethnic com ranges, routes to independence, and geographic ornaments. This methodology allows Henderson to move through complex histories at a fast, favorable clip, while staying faithful to his organizing principles of Mexicos inherent weaknesses and the United States inescapable victory.His explanation on the geographic landscape demonstrates the complications that Mexico faced with chasms and volcanic mountains and lack of natural features, such as rivers, to provide an easy transit. He also brings the similarities of the colonial connections between Mexico and the US. Yet due to Spains medieval influence empowered a Mexican elite who clung to the traditional rights, inherited privileges, and material inequalities that they believed were established by God and the church (4-5).The US, in contrast, was form and led by men steeped in the theories of the Enlightenment and who favored reason, progress, change, individualism, merit, equality, and a just social contract. while literacy in the US grew and advanced improved the nation and brought them together, Mexico fought the boundaries of both class and race. In Mexico on that point is not, nor is there a possibility of developing, a national spirit, because there is no nation (12). The Indians in the United States, however, were too scattered, weak, and unorganized to put up successful resistance, leaving them vulnerable to ruthlessly efficient extermination or relocation at the hands of whites (5).With the Mexican mind set being the most present finger within this book, Henderson makes a psychological impact by describing the founders of the US republic as being enlightened, liberal, and restless and their politics assertive and robust (5, 12) with respect to the expansionist ideals. Where as Mexico and Mexicans are described in another(prenominal) light with references to a holocaust and violent and traumatic. Spaniards were brutal and callous, and Spanish law a chaotic mishmash (7, 10, 13).As Henderson weaves the imagery of a very defenseless nation and the precognition of defeat and lose for Mexico, the political spectrum is placed into sight as he examines the encounter with Hidalgo and states the indigenous people were indulging themselves in an orgy of looting, pillaging, assassinate and mutilation, forcing he stance towards independent Creoles like Hidalgo to gaze into the maw of barbarism (20). The images placed forth are very descriptive to create a savage stance, one based on no character of foundation to rely on and lack of morals to guide in the past events.It is no affect to know how the Mexican nation was to be viewed in response to the Texas Revolution and the US invasion, but wherefore again if there is any type of conf lict even within the US, there is always red ink to be an altercation and one side that is left to feel threated, provoked, and aggression towards that entity. Flowing through the history, with Santa Anna prima(p) Mexican troops against the Texas disaffiliation, the battle was fought with vagabonds, Indians and criminals to turn the tide in favor of Mexico, and again against the US virtually a decade later could be categorized as ragged (93, 106).Where is the difference in these categorizations and the gorilla tactics that the US has employed, I think the only difference is the US was more eager for battle and defense, where the Mexican nation was still in its finest hour of rejoice in figuring out the hot nations formation. Many have stated Santa Anna as being a tyrant who you could say founded the gorilla ideology by demonstrating brutality and cruelty as he slaughtered prisoners at the Alamo and engaged in other butcheries in response to the Anglo-American soldiers and settle rs (92, 96, 97, 99, 101). But on the contrary, General Scott was gifted in both the military arts and those of slightness and carefully cultivated the good will of the people (168). Is this choice in words to further the offense towards the US historical figures?In reading Hendersons A Glorious Defeat, the views are as unpatterned as the title. You know you are expecting to encounter a novel that is from the Mexican standpoint. To sum up the full book, Henderson himself put it exceptionally well. Certainly its not hard to find examples of Mexican bluster and bellicosity, but the great irony and tragedy of the war is the fact that nearly all Mexicans in a position to make decisions realized full well that entering a war with the United States was folly and that Mexicos loss was a foregone conclusion (188). Doubtless to say, any novel with respect to one perspective, is press release to have that bias projected upon the audience. I will mention, among this analysis of his work, I enjoyed the novel, due to usually interview the typical US version of encounters however, I believe this novel would have been made superior to the norm, by inviting the opposing council and having a mixed novel, kind of bringing the view of a slave and the slave proprietor within the same realm. This would invite the ultimate view between both sides.