U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2014, 01:26 PM
 
39 posts, read 119,697 times
Reputation: 22

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Almeida93 View Post
What part of asia did indigenous Americans migrated from?

I have heard Siberia
Yes siberia, i have gotten that in my DNA results. And so far it's not recent asian ancestry, just the connection from my amerindian ancestry.

Last edited by xolotl; 03-30-2014 at 01:40 PM..

 
Old 03-30-2014, 01:33 PM
 
39 posts, read 119,697 times
Reputation: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capellania97 View Post
That flawed 20 year old study is not correct, what about that do you not understand. Not only are the percentages wrong but the locations are all incorrect for example Monterrey is not right on the U.S. border it is further south and Guadalajara is not on the pacific coast and all the other locations are tilted more towards the north in the map than their actual locations, also 8 of the locations are in southern Mexico and 3 are in the Mexico city region, meaning that 11 of the 15 are located from Mexico city on south. How does that represent the entire country, also the african influence is exaggerated everywhere so the study is terribly flawed. I know realize that you like to argue and you have a lot of time on your hands, quite frankly I am not interested in feeding your lame uninformed attempts at trolling.
There's a lot of afro influence in veracruz, it was always historically been a afro influenced region. Even mulattos can be found in that area with no amerindian ancestry but at a lesser rate than tri-racials. The coastal parts of guerrero also has blacks, zambos and tri-racials. There's also amerindian influenced mestizos in the central and northern regions in mexico, euro mestizos dominate that area though. Southern mexico has a good number of euro-mestizos, although they are not as common as indio-mestizos. You can find these phenotypes everywhere throught the country. You make it seem like if they are very rare throught the country when it's really not.
 
Old 03-30-2014, 01:37 PM
 
39 posts, read 119,697 times
Reputation: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capellania97 View Post
Mexico city is on the southern end of central Mexico, the rest of central Mexico north and west is significantly more balanced and euro-mestizo and those areas are heavily populated on the map. The areas south of Mexico city which are the most indigenous areas in Mexico are not as heavily populated as the central area so even by that map your claims that Mexico is on average 70 percent indigenous is completely ridiculous. I am Mexican and I have travelled in every corner of the country for over 20 years by car, bus etc. and know Mexico like the back of my hand. I have also been to Peru and Ecuador and those places are heavily indigenous even in their cities and especially in their rural areas, the same cannot be said for Mexico.
Holy crap dude, we should call you the next dora the explorer then , Mexico is a huge country, i fully doubt you have traveled every single acre throught the country.
 
Old 03-30-2014, 03:39 PM
 
138 posts, read 281,514 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capellania97 View Post
Mexico city is on the southern end of central Mexico, the rest of central Mexico north and west is significantly more balanced and euro-mestizo and those areas are heavily populated on the map. The areas south of Mexico city which are the most indigenous areas in Mexico are not as heavily populated as the central area so even by that map your claims that Mexico is on average 70 percent indigenous is completely ridiculous. I am Mexican and I have travelled in every corner of the country for over 20 years by car, bus etc. and know Mexico like the back of my hand. I have also been to Peru and Ecuador and those places are heavily indigenous even in their cities and especially in their rural areas, the same cannot be said for Mexico.
Oh I see, you're a guerita that wants to white wash Mexicans and ignore statistical fact. Well, geurita, life does not work that way. Facts are facts!
 
Old 04-01-2014, 12:47 AM
 
154 posts, read 357,133 times
Reputation: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan_Azteca View Post
Oh I see, you're a guerita that wants to white wash Mexicans and ignore statistical fact. Well, geurita, life does not work that way. Facts are facts!
What’s wrong with being a guerita, she is just as Mexican as any indigenous person. Anyways I don’t think she is denying that there are many indigenous people in Mexico, she is just trying to highlight the fact that the majority of Mexicans are mixed race some tend to be darker than other and some whiter. When she says white or European Mexicans she is just talking about their ancestry, not about their culture. You on the other hand think she means white as in the USA. If you are dark and proud of your indigenous roots that’s fine. But not all Mexicans think like that. Anyways most Mexicans are proud of both their roots. Actually, the reason Mexico exists as we know it right now doesn´t have much to do with its indigenous population. It was the criollos and mestizos who started the independence of New Spain. Mexico as a country did not existed when the war for independence started and it was the criollos and mestizos who decided to change the name of New Spain for Mexico. They could have kept it, but they dint. Just like Argentina was name Argentina before their independence, and for one reason or another they decided to keep the name. Most people believe that the Mexican independence was about Mexicans (Mexican Indians) fighting Spain to gain their independence. But it was all the way around it was the daughter and sons of Spain, either mestizos or criollos the ones that made it all happen. The same thing with the Mexican revolution. Zapata, maybe, was one of the only indigenous leader in the Mexican revolution, he practically didn’t accomplish nothing if wasn’t for pancho villa who was a mestizo. But, Mexico has a thing about making heroes out of looser. On the other hand we have Álvaro Obregon a white Mexican of Irish heritage, from one of the least populated states in Mexico. Who with an army of about 8000 Yaquis and mayos plus mestizos and Mexicans of European heritage from Sonora went down to Mexico City and defeated everyone without losing a battle. There is more to Mexican history than just their indigenous side. Mexican history started with the arrival of Cortez. Like it or not, anything before that is pre-mexico.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6dJ2un5PNI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzvEZIGj58

Last edited by unitedstatian; 04-01-2014 at 01:03 AM..
 
Old 04-01-2014, 02:50 AM
 
Location: El Sereno, Los Angeles, CA
733 posts, read 748,872 times
Reputation: 421
Well about 15% of them are.

Most of them have very significant amounts of Native American blood but adopted mestizo culture and don't really identify with Native Americans, plenty see them as inferior. It takes more than just blood to be an Indian, culture is more important.
 
Old 04-01-2014, 06:53 AM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
9,845 posts, read 22,210,447 times
Reputation: 3543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capellania97 View Post
That flawed 20 year old study is not correct, what about that do you not understand. Not only are the percentages wrong but the locations are all incorrect for example Monterrey is not right on the U.S. border it is further south and Guadalajara is not on the pacific coast and all the other locations are tilted more towards the north in the map than their actual locations, also 8 of the locations are in southern Mexico and 3 are in the Mexico city region, meaning that 11 of the 15 are located from Mexico city on south. How does that represent the entire country, also the african influence is exaggerated everywhere so the study is terribly flawed. I know realize that you like to argue and you have a lot of time on your hands, quite frankly I am not interested in feeding your lame uninformed attempts at trolling.
Actually if anything the African is under-counted in Mexico. It's been practically wiped from history...
 
Old 04-02-2014, 12:17 AM
 
138 posts, read 281,514 times
Reputation: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitedstatian View Post
What’s wrong with being a guerita, she is just as Mexican as any indigenous person. Anyways I don’t think she is denying that there are many indigenous people in Mexico, she is just trying to highlight the fact that the majority of Mexicans are mixed race some tend to be darker than other and some whiter. When she says white or European Mexicans she is just talking about their ancestry, not about their culture. You on the other hand think she means white as in the USA. If you are dark and proud of your indigenous roots that’s fine. But not all Mexicans think like that. Anyways most Mexicans are proud of both their roots. Actually, the reason Mexico exists as we know it right now doesn´t have much to do with its indigenous population. It was the criollos and mestizos who started the independence of New Spain. Mexico as a country did not existed when the war for independence started and it was the criollos and mestizos who decided to change the name of New Spain for Mexico. They could have kept it, but they dint. Just like Argentina was name Argentina before their independence, and for one reason or another they decided to keep the name. Most people believe that the Mexican independence was about Mexicans (Mexican Indians) fighting Spain to gain their independence. But it was all the way around it was the daughter and sons of Spain, either mestizos or criollos the ones that made it all happen. The same thing with the Mexican revolution. Zapata, maybe, was one of the only indigenous leader in the Mexican revolution, he practically didn’t accomplish nothing if wasn’t for pancho villa who was a mestizo. But, Mexico has a thing about making heroes out of looser. On the other hand we have Álvaro Obregon a white Mexican of Irish heritage, from one of the least populated states in Mexico. Who with an army of about 8000 Yaquis and mayos plus mestizos and Mexicans of European heritage from Sonora went down to Mexico City and defeated everyone without losing a battle. There is more to Mexican history than just their indigenous side. Mexican history started with the arrival of Cortez. Like it or not, anything before that is pre-mexico.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6dJ2un5PNI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIzvEZIGj58
Mexican history starts with the first settlement of the Mexican territory by our indigenous ancestors, bud.
 
Old 04-02-2014, 11:31 PM
 
1,267 posts, read 2,483,649 times
Reputation: 1235
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Those Mexicans who still speak native languages and have not assimilated into western culture are quite small in number, and would be the approximate equivalent of Native Americans who live on or near reservations. But nearly all Mexicans have assimilated into modern Mexican culture and speak only or mainly Spanish. Most of them have recognizable indigenous ancestry, and have abandoned their links with indigenout culture.

So, while most Mexicans have significant indigenous ancestry, very few still maintain the kind of indigenous cultural associations comparable to Native Americans in the USA.. So, while they are genetically Native (North) Americans, they are not culturally Native (North) Americans.
lol i am pretty sure there are more indigenous people inMexico by total numbers and as a percentage that maintain their culturural association than to U.S indigenous who many of them have been pushed into reservations and have European ancestry.
 
Old 04-19-2014, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
25 posts, read 25,928 times
Reputation: 16
From Alaska down to the Malvinas, if you were born in the "Americas" then you are a native. Now as for being indigenous that's another story...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top