The paper "People's History of US: (1492 - Present) by Howard Zinn" is a good example of a book review on history. There are certain similarities in the nature of the Indian and the Mexican takeover, as discussed by Zinn. First, the US did not have any respect for the rights of either the Indians or the Mexicans (Zinn, 27). Any attempted resistance to the takeover was greeted by force and ruthlessness by the US army, as they sought to repel the resistance and forcefully take over the territories that they were interested in. Another similarity is the fact that the US was the aggressor in both the Indian and the Mexican takeovers (Nichols, 268).
Even though the war with Mexico was pitched on the premise that Mexico had attacked the US in its territory, the US had first perpetrated acts of aggression against the Mexicans with the help of General Taylor (Zinn, 304). Thus, the US was the first aggressor, aiming at searching for a reason to attack both Indians and Mexicans, and take over their territories. In addition, another similarity is observed in the fact that both the Mexicans and the Indians were ill-equipped, often opting for guerilla warfare, since they could not confront the superior US army directly.
Nevertheless, the difference identifiable in the Indian and the Mexican takeover is the fact that the Indians were friendlier than the Mexicans in dealing with the US aggression (Fain, Slater, and Callejo-Pérez, 164). While the Mexicans put a spirited resistance against the US attacks, the Indians applied a peaceful approach to dispute resolution. Another difference is the fact that the Indians were more naï ve, compared to the Mexicans during the takeovers (McClanahan, 41).
While the Indians were unable to read the ill intentions of the US earlier enough, the Mexicans were already aware that the US did not mean good in its approaches.