AccueilGroupesDiscussionsPlusTendances
Site de recherche
Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.

Résultats trouvés sur Google Books

Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.

Chargement...

The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War

par Peter Guardino

MembresCritiquesPopularitéÉvaluation moyenneDiscussions
813334,621 (4.06)Aucun
The bloody 1846-1848 war between the United States and Mexico filled out the shape of the continental United States, forcing Mexico to recognize its loss of Texas and give up the rest of what became the Southwestern United States. Generally people argue that the United States won this war because unlike Mexico it was already a unified nation that commanded the loyalty of its citizens. Focusing on the vivid experiences of ordinary soldiers and civilians, both Americans and Mexicans, The Dead March reveals something very different. The United States won not because it was more unified but instead because it was much wealthier. Both Americans and Mexicans had complicated relationships with their nations, relationships entangled with their commitments to their religions, their neighbors, and their families. The war's events, both on the grand scale of the conflict between nations and the more intimate scale of campaigns and battles, cannot be understood without probing this social and cultural history. Politicians could not simply conjure up armies, and generals could not manipulate units as if their members were chess pieces without ideas or attitudes. This book also uses the war to compare the two countries as they existed in 1846. The results of this comparison are quite startling. The United States and Mexico were much more alike than they were different, and both nations were still in the tumultuous and often violent process of constituting themselves. What separated them was not some fabled American unity or democracy but the very real economic advantages of the United States.--… (plus d'informations)
Aucun
Chargement...

Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre

Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre.

3 sur 3
4.5 stars

I honestly couldn't recall anything about the Mexican-American War when I started this book. That's relevant because I went into reading this without any preconceptions or half remembered high school history lessons.

Guardino does an excellent job of not just reporting the battles and other events that normally make up history books but covers the roles of patriotism and the perception of its lack in Mexico (which wasn't true; Mexicans were just as invested in Mexico as a distinct nation with its own culture, heritage, people, and ideas of how to govern and be governed), the role poverty and economics of both countries especially in regards to military service, the role of racist and anti-Catholic ideology/beliefs, and the nature of regular army versus volunteer army units in both countries.

This is not a history that buys into the idea that USA is the best and that is why they won. "Winning" a war is more than fighting battles and in the end both sides lose because of the loss of life. Both sides committed atrocities but many of the American volunteer units were the most egregious perpetrators. These are not parts of history that get covered in a high school history class.

Guardino does an excellent job of covering social aspects of the war and the war itself while maintaining a nearly unbiased approach. He doesn't glorify the winners and doesn't excoriate the losers. In war, everyone loses. ( )
  pacbox | Jul 9, 2022 |
While not quite an "everything you know is wrong" sort of book Guardino does make a strong argument that the notion American victory in the war rested on superior national consciousness and patriotism has little basis in fact. Guardino clearly illustrates that there was a wide-spread national consciousness in Mexico, if also deep divides over what sort of country Mexico should be, while dryly noting that the late unpleasantness of the 1860s shows the shallowness of American national consciousness; people fight for many more reasons than some abstract sense of national unity. Frankly, the only real advantage United States had over Mexico was economic; but while that was more than enough to secure conventional victory it was not enough to facilitate a total annexation of the Mexican state. Unfortunately this is a lesson that American politicians continue to be unwilling to learn; Guardino being cheerfully willing to link unpleasant trends of the 19th century to those of the 21st century if they seem based on the same sort of bad attitudes and social dysfunction. ( )
  Shrike58 | May 17, 2018 |
English
  randerse | Mar 28, 2020 |
3 sur 3
aucune critique | ajouter une critique
Vous devez vous identifier pour modifier le Partage des connaissances.
Pour plus d'aide, voir la page Aide sur le Partage des connaissances [en anglais].
Titre canonique
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Titre original
Titres alternatifs
Date de première publication
Personnes ou personnages
Lieux importants
Évènements importants
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Films connexes
Épigraphe
Dédicace
Premiers mots
Citations
Derniers mots
Notice de désambigüisation
Directeur de publication
Courtes éloges de critiques
Langue d'origine
DDC/MDS canonique
LCC canonique

Références à cette œuvre sur des ressources externes.

Wikipédia en anglais

Aucun

The bloody 1846-1848 war between the United States and Mexico filled out the shape of the continental United States, forcing Mexico to recognize its loss of Texas and give up the rest of what became the Southwestern United States. Generally people argue that the United States won this war because unlike Mexico it was already a unified nation that commanded the loyalty of its citizens. Focusing on the vivid experiences of ordinary soldiers and civilians, both Americans and Mexicans, The Dead March reveals something very different. The United States won not because it was more unified but instead because it was much wealthier. Both Americans and Mexicans had complicated relationships with their nations, relationships entangled with their commitments to their religions, their neighbors, and their families. The war's events, both on the grand scale of the conflict between nations and the more intimate scale of campaigns and battles, cannot be understood without probing this social and cultural history. Politicians could not simply conjure up armies, and generals could not manipulate units as if their members were chess pieces without ideas or attitudes. This book also uses the war to compare the two countries as they existed in 1846. The results of this comparison are quite startling. The United States and Mexico were much more alike than they were different, and both nations were still in the tumultuous and often violent process of constituting themselves. What separated them was not some fabled American unity or democracy but the very real economic advantages of the United States.--

Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque

Description du livre
Résumé sous forme de haïku

Discussion en cours

Aucun

Couvertures populaires

Vos raccourcis

Évaluation

Moyenne: (4.06)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 1
3.5 1
4 4
4.5 2
5 1

Est-ce vous ?

Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing.

 

À propos | Contact | LibraryThing.com | Respect de la vie privée et règles d'utilisation | Aide/FAQ | Blog | Boutique | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliothèques historiques | Critiques en avant-première | Partage des connaissances | 206,712,536 livres! | Barre supérieure: Toujours visible