-my choice is Mexico, my main points to focus on: Immigration that basically, the main group are the Mexicans who came to the U.S. to work, how it started, why it started, when it started, on a source that i found on jstor.org says that migration started during the Chinese exclusion, when the Americans were looking for new employees that could work as a replacement. It's been said that it began at th beginning ot the 20th century.



[map that shows the territory that
one day belonged to Mexico]



-the Mexican-American war, that occurred from 1846 to 1848, which caused the annexation of Texas and other territories, on that war was involved Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna (dictator) .

 

     -NAFTA: is an agreement signed by the governments of Mexico, the united states and Canada, [but as my research paper is based on the relationship between Mexico and the U.S., I'm gonna exclude Canada]
The agreement became validated in january, 1, 1994.
It was signed by the leaders of ech of these three countries during that time, from the U.S president George W. bush, mexican president Carlos Salinas, and canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney.

oct. 14th

Today i started looking for sources that may help me on my research paper. Ex: Jstor.org , laguardia's library, and i also used wikipedia to look for more (direct) sources.



http://www.jstor.org/stable/40184809?  "social capital, social policy, migration from traditional communities an new communities with origin in Mexico"

This link (^) is very useful because the main point of it is immigration form Mexico to the U.S., what really happened, and why and when Mexicans started immigrating to the united states.I found it interesting because i did not really know the history behind immigration between these two countries.
     It says that migration between Mexico and the U.S. started at the beginning of the 20th century, when americans went to mexico looking for employees to replace asians, during the chinese exclusion, in the U.S.
The mexican migration rate increased rapidly as job/work demand went "up" in the U.S. during the World War I, it reached high (record) levels during the decade of 1920.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=13&sid=741d4498-237d-466a-baa3-290a108b0e7d%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=9509271120
"NAFTA takes a beating"

this article is about NAFTA, how does it affect Mexico's economy; the relationship between Mexico and the united states (economically talking).

In the film "Hearts & Minds" we got different voices that not only agreed with the war in Vietnam, we got voices that opposed  the war... people from both sides, U.S. and Vietnam. I found very interesting that Peter Davis included both sides of the war, because we can see what Vietnamese really had to say, we could see it and hear it directly from their mouths, and not from "Americans' mouths", that change or skip parts of the reality to "cover" things they do not want to make public. The voices from the people that live in Vietnam really make an impact on me, because I never knew the main reason of the war in Vietnam (..and still i do not get it..), and i think it is because the U.S. did not have a good reason to fight and kill innocent people, including children.
Something that I didn't expected to hear was that the pilots from the (U.S.) Air force did not know where exactly they were throwing the bombs, or chemicals at, they did not know if there was people, animals, houses, etc. on the ground, they were doing it "blindly" according to one of the pilots, (but I do not know ifi should believe him or not, because i think that everyone knows the purpose of war...).
Also, Peter Davis included many strong images (videos, and pictures) including the one where the little kid (on white) was hugging probably his father's picture, and crying, while he was buried.
The Vietnam War exemplifies the escalation of a civil war to an international war, as an effect of Cold War politics, marked by insecurity and distrust. As Vietnam turned into a quagmire, intellectuals and bureaucrats were forced to revaluate their ideology and policy. The Vietnamese conflict comprised the final assault on international stability. It is ironical then, that the warring sides claimed to be fighting to preserve stability and security