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.
I wrote a thesis on it in college. Im going based on what I remember researching. Things may have changed since 2004 so I cant say for sure, but thats the way it was. From what I researched at the time:
Mexicans in Houston came from: Veracruz, Yucatan, Quintana Roo, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Puebla, Chihuahua, Oaxaca, and Jailisco.
Mexicans in Dallas came from: San Luis Potosi, Durango, Augascalientes, Nuevo Leon, Zacatecas, Queretaro, Toluca, and Chihuahua.
Mexicans in Chicago were largely from Guanajuato, Durango, Zacatecas, Queretaro, and Jailisco (some Nuevo Leon too).
Mexicans in Phoenix were fairly homogenous in that they came almost entirely from Sonora, Chihuahua, Michoacan, and Baja.
LA has Mexicans from just about everywhere though the greatest concentrations are from Baja.
Again, that was based off of a paper I wrote in college years ago. Things may be different now, I havent looked it up. However, the point of the paper was that there seemed to be some reigional patern. Coastal Mexicans overwhelmingly prefered Houston and Los Angeles. Interior Mexicans (including Chihuahua) prefered Dallas and Chicago. Finally, desert Mexicans prefered Phoenix and Los Angeles.
This sounds about right... for the Bay Area I'm pretty sure its mainly from Michoacan, Sinaloa, Jalisco, D.F. and Durango. Almost all Mexicans in Redwood City are from Michoacan.
Which like Miami, means that the "native black/white" population in those 2 cities(MIA/SA) were at one point just as much transplants, as the Latinos currently inhabiting these cities. HISTORICALLY speaking, the SA originals were Spaniards and Mexicans. it may have gone through a period of white migration(The Battle Of The Alamo, Post-Civil War era) but when it's all said and done, it was part of Mexico. In other words, what makes the so-called native blacks, and whites, more deserving of the land, than a 3rd, 4th, generation Mexican-American who can trace there roots back to the area? I thought the same of Miami, most of Miami's native black population didn't start inhabiting the city till the 30's 40's. There are Bahamian communities in Miami that go back further than the American Southern Blacks in that city.
nah you have it lopsided. SA as city nearly failed many times. The Spaniards you are talking about didn't set roots in SA. Because of Indian attacks and the wars with mexico, they were a bleep in SA's History. The WHites and the Blacks you are referring to as Transplants had a History in the SA area on the other hand were the dominant groups from the early 1800's to about the mid 20th century. That is almost 200yrs.
The Spanish barely touched Texas. In Fact the First settlement in Texas was a French one made by a lost colonist who thought he was in Louisiana. It was the Mexicans in response to French Encroachment who started offering Land grants so that Texas would not be lost.
I dunno where you are getting your History but the Original SA inhabitants were not Spaniards and Mexicans. That is just flat out wrong, Dunno who taught you that but it is wrong. The Original people in the SA area were native Americans. Then there were a few Spaniard settlements, but these were all nearly wiped out. At the end of the spanish american war the population of San Antonio was only 800.
So anyway I dunno where you are going with your more deserving of the LAnd bit, I never mentioned that. SA and Texas as a whole NEVER belonged to the Mexican people. NEVER. It was grouped together with land occupied by Mexican people (like the European people did all over the world with no respect for different tribal region). Texas belonged to the Caddo, Apache, Alabaman, Comanche, Wichita, Coushatta, etc peoples not to the Olmec, Mayan, Zapotec and what ever other tribes inhabited what is now Mexico. You should have picked up Texas History from Historians when you were here, not from La Raza. How cane we give back land that they were never on.
You never hear about the Black people who fought in the Alamo anymore, but don't fool yourself, THEY WERE THERE.
nah you have it lopsided. SA as city nearly failed many times. The Spaniards you are talking about didn't set roots in SA. Because of Indian attacks and the wars with mexico, they were a bleep in SA's History. The WHites and the Blacks you are referring to as Transplants had a History in the SA area on the other hand were the dominant groups from the early 1800's to about the mid 20th century. That is almost 200yrs.
The Spanish barely touched Texas. In Fact the First settlement in Texas was a French one made by a lost colonist who thought he was in Louisiana. It was the Mexicans in response to French Encroachment who started offering Land grants so that Texas would not be lost.
I dunno where you are getting your History but the Original SA inhabitants were not Spaniards and Mexicans. That is just flat out wrong, Dunno who taught you that but it is wrong. The Original people in the SA area were native Americans. Then there were a few Spaniard settlements, but these were all nearly wiped out. At the end of the spanish american war the population of San Antonio was only 800.
So anyway I dunno where you are going with your more deserving of the LAnd bit, I never mentioned that. SA and Texas as a whole NEVER belonged to the Mexican people. NEVER. It was grouped together with land occupied by Mexican people (like the European people did all over the world with no respect for different tribal region). Texas belonged to the Caddo, Apache, Alabaman, Comanche, Wichita, Coushatta, etc peoples not to the Olmec, Mayan, Zapotec and what ever other tribes inhabited what is now Mexico. You should have picked up Texas History from Historians when you were here, not from La Raza. How cane we give back land that they were never on.
You never hear about the Black people who fought in the Alamo anymore, but don't fool yourself, THEY WERE THERE.
This sounds about right... for the Bay Area I'm pretty sure its mainly from Michoacan, Sinaloa, Jalisco, D.F. and Durango. Almost all Mexicans in Redwood City are from Michoacan.
I did research the Bay Area as much, but I do know Sinaloa and Michoacan are huge contributor up there.
There is definatley regional bias. Mexicans from Sinaloa are almost entirely in California. Mexicans from Veracruz are mostly in Houston and the gulf coast in Texas. Mexicans from San Luis Potosi are almost entirely in Dallas and to a lesser degree West/South West Texas. Mexicans from Sonora favor Arizona with some bias toward desert California and New Mexico. Baja Mexicans are mostly in LA.
Last edited by Cowboys fan in Houston; 11-01-2011 at 06:45 PM..
Texas never belonged to the Mexicans or Spaniards? It was all black and white forever? Alright.....Honestly, Texas belongs to no one.
all those sites just repeats what I said. which was the area was lumped together by the spaniards, and the tribes that make up what is now mexico did not inhabit the land that is now texas. It was not theirs
I actually thought Dallas and Chicago would be much higher than the Bay Area because the Bay Area is supposed to have a much longer history with Hispanics, since Northern California was once a major colony of Mexico-hence we should in theory have less far less foreign born as many of our Hispanics are multi-generational. Guess not.
It's cool that the thread is almost even between all three cities.
Texas was also a colony of Spain, but Dallas-Fort Worth wasn't founded as a Spanish settlement. San Francisco was, for all intents and purposes, the de jure northern limit of Spanish/Mexican control in California. SF was a fort, directed mainly against Russian influence coming from the north (remember Fort Ross? It's only 50 miles away as the crow flies), while DFW's neighbor back in the colonial period was a relatively friendly Catholic France.
However, unlike DFW and Chicago, Latin Americans don't make up the largest segment of the foreign born population and isn't even the fastest growing segment of the population.
I get the impression that mentally, people can't separate SF Bay and "Asian (of which, over 99.9% are Chinese)" in their mind, so the Latinos up there get sort of forgotten about. The same thing with LA and "Hispanic (of which, over 99.9% are Mexican)", so everyone else gets sort of forgotten about. With Chicago, the multicultural has always seem to have been there, and with DFW, well, it's Texas.
all those sites just repeats what I said. which was the area was lumped together by the spaniards, and the tribes that make up what is now mexico did not inhabit the land that is now texas. It was not theirs
Which means, pre-Mexican migration SA, is not the true history of the area either. Former White/Black neighborhoods in SA that are now inhabited by Mexicans never belonged to the Whites/Blacks in the 1st place. Texas was inhabited by so many countries, under so many flags, that it was a free-for all type place. No one has the claim to Texas really, that's why there are so many arguments as "Is Texas in this region, or that region, etc, etc".
Which means, pre-Mexican migration SA, is not the true history of the area either. Former White/Black neighborhoods in SA that are now inhabited by Mexicans never belonged to the Whites/Blacks in the 1st place. Texas was inhabited by so many countries, under so many flags, that it was a free-for all type place. No one has the claim to Texas really, that's why there are so many arguments as "Is Texas in this region, or that region, etc, etc".
right. You are the one who brought up the pre-colonization era and land belonging to who and who.
all I said was a response to the poster who said SA was always a hispanic town.
The Hispanic culture has been present in SA for hundreds of years, but it was not overwhelming as it is now. The majority in SA from colonization till the mid 20th century was white culture. SA in the 1920's was no different from Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, etc. It wasn't till recently that the mexicans in SA overran the city.
so while you will find 6th or 7th generation Mexicans in SA that doesn't mean mexicans have always made up 65% of the City. That is a feature of the last 30 years.
As for the region thing. SA was solidly southern back in the day. That is why I made the thread asking when ATL's Mexican population surpasses the black population would ATL become a western city because that is what happened in SA. People think of SA as this southwestern type city but its make up for 150 years was very similar to that of ATL, Birmingham, and other southern cities. Texas is a southern state. Always have been, it just got flooded by 15Million mexicans in the last 30 years. no confusion as to where Texas is, unless it is in the minds of people whose memory only goes back a few years
Hispanic population 2000
Chicago CSA: 1,498,507
SF Bay Area CSA: 1,383,661
DFW CSA: 1,120,520
Hispanic population 2010 Chicago CSA: 1,973,340
SF Bay Area CSA: 1,797,078
DFW CSA: 1,795,412
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.
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.
I would have never known this.
