Exploring the Past of the 'Other':
the Practice of U.S. History in Mexico

Georg Leidenberger¹
Urban Studies Research Group
Universidad Aut—noma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco
Mexico City

"I voted against. . .the war with Mexico. . .Because a war between the two largest republics of the world is not calculated to spread the principles of civil liberty and elective government" (Speech of Mr. L. Severance, Congressman of Maine, in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 February 1847)²

In the courses on U.S. history I teach in Mexico, this speech by Maine congressman Severance serves well to illustrate arguments of the opposition movement to the U.S.-Mexican War. Severance offers a variety of reasons for his anti-war stand, but to my students I like to emphasize this particular one, for it follows a logic contrary to their nationally-framed perceptions. What Severance suggests here, is that these two countries share a common identity, namely that of being "the two largest republics of the world" based on "the principles of civil liberty and elective government," and that therefore they ought not to be at war. My insistence on a perspective that views the commonalities of the two countries' historic experiences has been futile, however, when teaching about a war that resulted in the "transfer" ø to put it in neutral terms ø of over half of Mexico's national territory to the U.S. Students are little impressed by this congressman's (and my own) argumentation and stress instead what divides Mexico and the U.S., not only with regard to this historical event, but also with regard to the countries' pasts as a whole. For instance, in a conference at a university in Toluca, my efforts to make my audience understand the internal dynamics of U.S. foreign policy during the 19th century not only appeared to fall on deaf ears but also provoked nearly hostile reactions.3	1
My students' resistance toward considering the shared history of the two nations is typical of the way U.S. history is being treated in Mexico. Like my students, most scholars set out to highlight and account for the differences of the two national experiences. At a time when some professional historians wish to craft historical narratives that move beyond national borders, the Rio Grande continues to hold sway as a dividing line. As I shall argue, the field of U.S. history in Mexico desperately needs to transcend national lenses yet invariably is bound to operate through them, for the practice of U.S. history in Mexico cannot be separated from the complex, unequal bilateral relations of the two countries.	2
. . .