Skip to main content

Santa Anna

It is apt that the most glorious moment of Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón's life was when a gun on a French ship blew his leg off. Well done that ship! He was an old fashioned, white, middle class Mexican, who openly despised Indians and seduced the maids. Not a nice boy. He was clever and half educated. He was a bully!

He was born in Xalapa, which is a pretty town. Though Xalapa doesn't boast about him much. He started out as as a shopkeeper in Vera Cruz and then became Captain Arredondo, the Indian killer's cadet, which was a Bad move. And bad move followed bad move. He stole money to gamble, womanised.
In the early years, he follwed Arredondo about hunting down Mexican fighters for Independence and killing the so called Chichimecas and then, when the Spanish were already on the run, really, he chose to fight for the Mexican "Emperor" Iturbide, who made him a general. By way of thanks, Antonio helped overthrow Iturbide.

Then he helped remove from office Presidents Gomez Pedraza and Vicente Guerrero. And the treacherous guy carried on the way he started. As governor of Yucatan he was like an old time "Negro Durazo". Worse. He thought it would be a good idea to invade Cuba, but no one was all that that enthusiastic. But he did beat back a small Spanish expeditionary force and allowed himself the luxury of a title: He called himself the "Glorious Saviour of the Fatherland."

But he always remembered to speak up for the threatened and endangered interests of the privileged and the oppressors and then, after the murder Vicente Guerrero, was made President. And subsequently banned Congress and suspended the constitution, saying:
"My people will not be ready for democracy, not in a hundred years, so I'll give them a benevolent dictatorship instead." Except, that wasn't very benevolent of him, was it?
And then comes the best bit. He lost the war against the United States. The Texans, just like the Israeli settlers are doing now in Palestine, were colonising Mexican land and pushing the Mexicans out. They had became a force in the North. After the Alamo, Antonio lost the war and was caught and threatened by the US generals with death if he didn't comply to US demands. In return for his life he signed away 50% of Mexican territory. Everything below the Colorado river. Imagine the size of that land claim. 50% of Mexican territory.

Antonio de Santa Anna finally reached flourishment in betrayal. Now who can take as binding the word of a snivelling coward under duress? Well the US government did. That was their modus operandi after all. Geronimo. Think of all the Indian treaties made around 1836.

The French invaded and Santa Anna lost his leg, which the bombastic fool buried it with great ceremony. He redeemed himself somewhat. Defeating the French at the Battle of Puebla.
But just think of it. Thousands at a funeral for a dictator's foot. Why do the US Mexicans make a big deal of the Battle of Puebla? Don't they know what a traitor Santa Anna was?

The Zapotecas of Xico caught him but he escaped to the US and then when the US invaded in 1846 They insisted that this Mexican "patriot" be made President again. A bit decrepit by now he took a 15 year old girl and made her his wife. You'd get jailed for that nowadays. But he had kids with her.
Well of course, he promised the US everything in return for their support. He was made president for life by the Conservatives. And then made a laughing stock of them by channelling all government money into his pockets, including money from the sale of all the "contested" land to the US, which he authorised, and then he kept the money for himself. The Mexicans finally found him out and sent to New York.

Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón's Last small act of treachery was to help make Mexican chewing gum a US icon. He commercialised it in the States. Antonio died poor and blind and without a leg to stand on in Mexico City. Remember, it was the Mexicans who invented chewing gum.
That's "chicle" to you "Buddy"!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Guardian: Kate Harding's reactionary censorious blog on CiF

It should go without saying... ....that we condemn the scummy prat who called Liskula Cohen : "a psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank" But I disagree with Kate Harding , (in my view a pseudo blogger), posting her blog in the Guardian attacking bloggers. It's a case of set a thief to catch a thief. The mainstream media is irritated by bloggers because they steal its thunder and so they comission people like Kate Harding , people with nothing to say for themselves, apparently, other than that they are feminists, to attack bloggers. I'm black. So I can legitimately attack "angry white old men". I'm a feminist, so I have carte blanche to call all anonymous bloggers "prats." Because yes, that is her erudite response to bloggers. No I don't say that the blogging medium can't be used to attack progressives in whatever context. Of course it can. But to applaud the censorship of a blogger by a billion dollar corporate like Google, and moreov...

The Guardian books bloggers' poetry anthology

There more to composing poetry online than this. ..isn't there? I don't really like conventional poetry of knowing. I love the poetry of words coming into being. The Guardian is going to publish a printable book online with our poems in it and the Irish poet, Billy Mills is getting it together with Sarah Crown, the literary editor. Good for them. Let's also remember that Carol Rumens got the ball rolling. Does Des feature in this anthology? Taboo-busting Steve Augustine decided not to join in. So what are we left with? In the anthology we will be left with a colourful swatch of well-meant, undeniably conventional, occasionally clever, verses - some of them. But there could be, there should be and there is a lot more to on-line poetry than this. Than agile monkeys, koalas and sad sloths climbing up word trees. Perhaps we should focus in on translation, because in translation there is a looseness of form and a dynamism such as, it seems, we can't easily encounter in our...

Guardian books blog fringe: Norman Mailer

FLASHING THE GUARDIAN -- A BOOKS BLOGGERS' REBELLION :  The unheroic censor with a death wish Part 1: In which Norman Mailer stars in an experiment in search engine optimisation By ACCIACCATURE 3 February 2009 When Norman Mailer died in 2007, informed opinion – in the blogosphere, people who had read at least two of his books – was split. The army of readers who saw him as one of the most despicable misogynists writing fiction in the 20th century was perfectly matched by warriors on the other side, who raged that the label wasn’t just unwarranted but tantamount to heinous calumny. Before commenters returned to bitching-as-usual, tempers were lost on literary sites all over the net in debating temperatures high enough to bring to mind tiles burning off space shuttles re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. After I'd agreed to a spontaneous suggestion by our good friend Sean Murray -- a pioneer and stalwart of the comments section of The Guardian’s books blog – that we re-...