Conquer Club

This is an advertising campaign in Mexico from Swedish vodka maker Absolut promises to push all the right buttons south of the U.S. border, but it could ruffle a few feathers in El Norte

The U.S.-Mexico border lies where it was before the Mexican-American war of 1848 when California, as we now know it, was Mexican territory and known as Alta California.

Following the war, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo saw the Mexican territories of Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México ceded to the United States to become modern-day California, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Arizona. (Texas actually split from Mexico several years earlier to form a breakaway republic, and was voluntarily annexed by the United States in 1846.)

The campaign taps into the national pride of Mexicans, according to Favio Ucedo, creative director of leading Latino advertising agency Grupo Gallegos in the U.S., which was not involved in the Absolut campaign.

Ucedo, who is from Argentina, said: “Mexicans talk about how the Americans stole their land, so this is their way of reclaiming it. It’s very relevant and the Mexicans will love the idea.”

But he said that were the campaign to run in the United States, it might fall flat.

“Many people aren’t going to understand it here. Americans in the East and the North or in the center of the county -- I don’t know if they know much about the history.

“Probably Americans in Texas and California understand perfectly and I don’t know how they’d take it.”

Meanwhile, the campaign has been circulating on the blogs and generating strong responses from people north of the border.

“I find this ad deeply offensive, and needlessly divisive. I will now make a point of drinking other brands. And 'vodka and tonic' is my drink,” said one visitor, called New Yorker, on MexicoReporter.com.

Reader Paul Green goes into a discussion on the blog Gateway Pundit of whether the U.S. territories ever belonged to Mexico in the first place, and the News12 Long island site invited people to boycott Absolut, with one user, called LivingSmall, writing: “If you drink Absolut vodka, you can voice your approval or disapproval of this advertising campaign with your purchases. I know I will be switching to Grey Goose or Stoli and will never have another bottle of Absolut in my house.

“Hey Absolut ... that's my form of social commentary.”

-- Deborah Bonello and Reed Johnson in Mexico City

BoganGod wrote:Mexico was merely a claw on the paw of imperial spain. Texas belongs to the native american tribes who were displaced by both spanish and english speaking european invaders. Pity fat scooty doesn't recognise pre european habitation of the americas. For shame, shameless one. Oh verbose abuser of the truth, amend your poll or stand once again before the CC community as champion of narrow/non choices. Scotty I'm disappointed in you.

BoganGod wrote:Mexico was merely a claw on the paw of imperial spain. Texas belongs to the native american tribes who were displaced by both spanish and english speaking european invaders. Pity fat scooty doesn't recognise pre european habitation of the americas. For shame, shameless one. Oh verbose abuser of the truth, amend your poll or stand once again before the CC community as champion of narrow/non choices. Scotty I'm disappointed in you.

notyou2 wrote:The 13th Tribe.

tkr4lf wrote:I have to go with the U.S.

It would be the Republic of Texas, since they successfully fought and won a war of independence against Mexico, but then they voluntarily joined the U.S., thereby granting the legitimate claim to them.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

BoganGod wrote:Mexico was merely a claw on the paw of imperial spain. Texas belongs to the native american tribes who were displaced by both spanish and english speaking european invaders. Pity fat scooty doesn't recognise pre european habitation of the americas. For shame, shameless one. Oh verbose abuser of the truth, amend your poll or stand once again before the CC community as champion of narrow/non choices. Scotty I'm disappointed in you.

Which Native American tribes? They were pretty busy killing each other, so land and water rights were changing hands among them. But what of the people before them? Shouldn't we consider their property rights and feelings?

Besides, do any of them have any more of a legitimate claim to the land? Their claim is merely enforced through violence, and it seems pretty likely that all groups involved have exerted violence in order to take some other group's land.

Bogan, our analysis is limited historically--we can never know who the original claimants were and whether or not they voluntarily gave their land to whomever. Please, with your Bogansky powers, help us solve this dilemma.

Phatscotty wrote:who stole it from Clovis man

Phatscotty wrote:Here's the deal on the whole "Texas belongs to Mexico because it was stolen". If we are gonna use 'being stolen' as a claim, let's go through the list.

America would not have to return Texas to Mexico, it would have to return Texas to the Confederacy because it was taken by force (the standard we are applying here) The Confederacy no longer exists, so it would go to the previous rightful owners, the Republic of Texas. But then the Texans would have to give it to Mexico. But, then of course, Mexico would have to give it back to Spain, Spain would have to give it back to France, and the French would have to just hand it right back to Spain. Spain took the land by force from the Comanches. The Comanches took it from the Apaches. The Apaches took it from the Pueblos. The Pueblos took it from the Firstview people, who captured it from the Plainview people, who conquered it from the Fulsom people, who stole it from Clovis man.