Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [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 11-05-2011, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Tempe, Az
1,421 posts, read 1,484,825 times
Reputation: 411

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
You're diverting the thread far off-topic, but I guess I'll appease you.



The correct term is the Southwestern cultural region; the Southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico are one ethnological region that contains tribes with related lifeways. As for the Indians of that region, they were not a single political unit and did not have a uniform response to either Castilian or Mexican governance.

The Mexican rebels that created the Plan of Iguala, which granted citizenship to all Indians in Mexico, were not "conquistadors." That term refers to the initial Castilian invaders and "conquerors" of Indian territories.



The Mexican government did not rule over much of the land, as the Castilians before them had not. There were insurrectionary movements in that region as late as the 1920s, when the Yaquis were still considered a serious military threat.



Many Indians of the southern part of the Southwestern cultural region have been assimilated into "mainstream" Mexican society.



Mexico was not called Mexico until after the War of Independence, when it was given an Indian name; the Castilian monarchy referred to it as "New Spain."



The Aztec Triple Alliance controlled a large tributary empire that included most of central Mexico at its peak.





There was certainly rule extending over the ancestors of many Indians of the modern-day U.S. via the encomienda and presidio systems in "northern New Spain."



The Aztecs certainly didn't rule over the Cherokee or the Iroquois, but their interaction with the Navajos is uncertain, because they may have had contact (or rather, their respective ancestors may have had contact), as the Southern Athabaskans arrived in the Southwest and the ancestors of the Mexica departed from it.



The Aztec Triple Alliance participated in an extensive trade network that at the very least included their immediate neighbors.
It dont matter today xcept for knowin history. Mexico got its butt beaten an needs to get over it. Maybe were the USA messed up was NOT takin ALL of Mexico in 1848.

 
Old 11-05-2011, 09:33 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 1,051,930 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikCortez View Post
It dont matter today xcept for knowin history. Mexico got its butt beaten an needs to get over it. Maybe were the USA messed up was NOT takin ALL of Mexico in 1848.
The idea of "reconquista" connected with something called "Aztlan" seems to more or less be an invention of anti-immigration ethnic conspiracy theorists. While I don't doubt that there are some nostalgic irredentist sentiments in Mexico, that's not far removed from the veneration of the Confederacy in the U.S. South.
 
Old 11-06-2011, 08:42 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,450,300 times
Reputation: 22471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post

It's incorrect to suggest that immunity is a product of admixture alone; it's a product of exposure to and survival of disease, in line with a process of natural selection.
And the hybrids had a distinct advantage when it came to natural selection and survival. The "pures" did not and mostly died out, replaced by the mixtures.


Quote:
Different census data have different means of categorizing "Indians," which is difficult since some rely on language while others rely on broader ethnic criteria. The CIA World Factbook claims that 30% of Mexicans are "Indian," for example. I'd suggest that the proportion of Mexicans that can be considered "Indian" is far higher if we take "Indian" to mean exhibiting Indian phenotypic features, since the majority of Mexicans are predominantly Indian and minority European in admixture.
Mexico uses more a cultural definition of Indians, you're an Indian if you live like one which means you dress like one, talk an Indian language but that doesn't mean they didn't racially mix especially with the slaves and descendents of slaves, especially in Eastern Mexico - Veracruz, Oaxaca. They did. Mexico's Indian president (there were two) exiled to Spain after the Mexican Revolution broke out. He was often despised, being considered part of the elite -- Porfirio Diaz. No more Indian presidents after the Revolution either which is interesting.

My point is you can forget about anyone being "pure" indigenous, you're not going to find many today, it's been too long, too many opportunities to mix the people of 3 continents but also you can include Asians as many of them became part of the mix.

Quote:
I'd suggest that this is a strawman fallacy, as I've not seen that anyone in this thread has demanded "pure Indian rule."
Not really. That's the whole La Raza argument, that Indians of Mexico have some claim over the USA and only the La Raza types try to merge all of Mexico, Central America with portions of the USA and refer to some "Southwestern Cultural Area", after all Mexico refers to it's border areas as "Norte" not some silly Aztlan studies "Southwestern Cultural Area".

There never was a such a thing, it's something your Aztlan professors made up. The culture in Central Mexico, in Guatemala, Honduras was never the same as in the SW USA. Never. Yes some cultural aspects spread -- such as the growing of corn, but there was never some common language, common religion, common rule. Mesoamerica never extended into areas that are now the USA.
Quote:
Aztecs, or more properly, the Mexica, are from a region in the Southwestern cultural area, but it's unclear whether or not it was in the present day U.S. Southwest. The Mayans did not occupy the U.S. Southwest, at least not at any point when their identity was Mayan. Their ancestors must have entered it at some point to reach the present location of extant Mayan peoples, of course.
Aztec myths, including the symbol on the Mexican flag indicate that the Aztecs traveled from some where north, most likely somewhere a couple hundred miles north of Mexico City because their leader had a vision that showed they belonged near Mexico City. That was their promised land -- not the SW USA, they would have had to go north for that but probably would have been killed by the Indians inhabiting those lands if they had tried.

Probably there was no vision, they probably were some break-away group that was being driven out of where they were by other Indians.

Quote:

All people are "mestizos," as population admixture has occurred since time immemorial. The term "mestizo" as applied in Mexico simply refers to the Hispanicized population. It does not distinguish between the predominantly Indian and the predominantly European.
And don't forget to include the African portion of that mix, nor Asian. Yes, we're all mixed and should be thankful for it but we should stop basing some reconquista notion on being indigenous or not. It's not the pure indigenous if there are any of Mexico actually trying to use these claims anyhow. They're pretty much content to remain in their ancestral lands. Especially when you consider that Mexico's definition of indigenous partly uses the fact that they're remaining in their ancestral lands to define them.

Anyhow even if you believe that the Mesoamerican culture covered the whole North American continent, that culture no longer covers much of even Mexico. Again -- any remainder of that culture is to be found in their ancestral lands which are very deep in the heart of Mexico and Guatemala. Mostly everyone has changed.

People aren't pouring over the border seeking their Mesoamerican culture. If you seek that culture, you head into Chiapas, Oaxaca, and south of there. Those heading north are seeking American money, American materialism, American government safety nets.

And just like Americans cannot bring back the pioneer days where there was a big frontier and the Old West with all that open range, it's even more far-fetched to try to create some non-European or American influenced Southwest Cultural Area that never was in the first place but also isn't going to revert back into something it was 700 years or 1200 years ago.

No one is going to want to give up their cars or even horses, their radios, televisions, internet because they want to revert back to some ancient culture, some long ago way of life.
 
Old 11-06-2011, 09:56 AM
 
14,306 posts, read 13,269,914 times
Reputation: 2136
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And the hybrids had a distinct advantage when it came to natural selection and survival. The "pures" did not and mostly died out, replaced by the mixtures.




Mexico uses more a cultural definition of Indians, you're an Indian if you live like one which means you dress like one, talk an Indian language but that doesn't mean they didn't racially mix especially with the slaves and descendents of slaves, especially in Eastern Mexico - Veracruz, Oaxaca. They did. Mexico's Indian president (there were two) exiled to Spain after the Mexican Revolution broke out. He was often despised, being considered part of the elite -- Porfirio Diaz. No more Indian presidents after the Revolution either which is interesting.

My point is you can forget about anyone being "pure" indigenous, you're not going to find many today, it's been too long, too many opportunities to mix the people of 3 continents but also you can include Asians as many of them became part of the mix.



Not really. That's the whole La Raza argument, that Indians of Mexico have some claim over the USA and only the La Raza types try to merge all of Mexico, Central America with portions of the USA and refer to some "Southwestern Cultural Area", after all Mexico refers to it's border areas as "Norte" not some silly Aztlan studies "Southwestern Cultural Area".

There never was a such a thing, it's something your Aztlan professors made up. The culture in Central Mexico, in Guatemala, Honduras was never the same as in the SW USA. Never. Yes some cultural aspects spread -- such as the growing of corn, but there was never some common language, common religion, common rule. Mesoamerica never extended into areas that are now the USA.


Aztec myths, including the symbol on the Mexican flag indicate that the Aztecs traveled from some where north, most likely somewhere a couple hundred miles north of Mexico City because their leader had a vision that showed they belonged near Mexico City. That was their promised land -- not the SW USA, they would have had to go north for that but probably would have been killed by the Indians inhabiting those lands if they had tried.

Probably there was no vision, they probably were some break-away group that was being driven out of where they were by other Indians.



And don't forget to include the African portion of that mix, nor Asian. Yes, we're all mixed and should be thankful for it but we should stop basing some reconquista notion on being indigenous or not. It's not the pure indigenous if there are any of Mexico actually trying to use these claims anyhow. They're pretty much content to remain in their ancestral lands. Especially when you consider that Mexico's definition of indigenous partly uses the fact that they're remaining in their ancestral lands to define them.

Anyhow even if you believe that the Mesoamerican culture covered the whole North American continent, that culture no longer covers much of even Mexico. Again -- any remainder of that culture is to be found in their ancestral lands which are very deep in the heart of Mexico and Guatemala. Mostly everyone has changed.

People aren't pouring over the border seeking their Mesoamerican culture. If you seek that culture, you head into Chiapas, Oaxaca, and south of there. Those heading north are seeking American money, American materialism, American government safety nets.

And just like Americans cannot bring back the pioneer days where there was a big frontier and the Old West with all that open range, it's even more far-fetched to try to create some non-European or American influenced Southwest Cultural Area that never was in the first place but also isn't going to revert back into something it was 700 years or 1200 years ago.

No one is going to want to give up their cars or even horses, their radios, televisions, internet because they want to revert back to some ancient culture, some long ago way of life.
Excellent post, malamute. These reconquistas that live in a past that never existed here in the U.S. because their tribal ancestors never settled here in our country need to grab a clue and bring themselves up to the year 2011. The different tribes from Canada all the way down through Latin America never were one big happy family where they all considered the entire North or South American continent to be one big shared territory singing Kum ba Ya together.
 
Old 11-06-2011, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,299 posts, read 4,828,454 times
Reputation: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Excellent post, malamute. These reconquistas that live in a past that never existed here in the U.S. because their tribal ancestors never settled here in our country need to grab a clue and bring themselves up to the year 2011. The different tribes from Canada all the way down through Latin America never were one big happy family where they all considered the entire North or South American continent to be one big shared territory singing Kum ba Ya together.
So where do the NSM originate from to try to reclaim the United States southwest from even those Amerindian tribes?...
 
Old 11-06-2011, 06:59 PM
 
14,306 posts, read 13,269,914 times
Reputation: 2136
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
So where do the NSM originate from to try to reclaim the United States southwest from even those Amerindian tribes?...
What?
 
Old 11-06-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,299 posts, read 4,828,454 times
Reputation: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
What?
What claim does the NSM have to rally for influence in the American Southwest?...

It is the original topic of this thread after all...
 
Old 11-06-2011, 07:37 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 1,051,930 times
Reputation: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And the hybrids had a distinct advantage when it came to natural selection and survival. The "pures" did not and mostly died out, replaced by the mixtures.
There were not a sufficient number of Europeans present in the Mesoamerican and Andean cultural regions to demographically dominate the population, which remained largely non-admixed until fairly recent times, particularly in densely populated rural regions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Mexico uses more a cultural definition of Indians, you're an Indian if you live like one which means you dress like one, talk an Indian language but that doesn't mean they didn't racially mix especially with the slaves and descendents of slaves, especially in Eastern Mexico - Veracruz, Oaxaca. They did. Mexico's Indian president (there were two) exiled to Spain after the Mexican Revolution broke out. He was often despised, being considered part of the elite -- Porfirio Diaz. No more Indian presidents after the Revolution either which is interesting.
Porfirio Diaz was not an Indian.



Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
My point is you can forget about anyone being "pure" indigenous,
The phrase "forget about" implies some interest in this "purity" expressed by my posts. Which of my posts suggests such an interest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
you're not going to find many today, it's been too long, too many opportunities to mix the people of 3 continents but also you can include Asians as many of them became part of the mix.
Europeans and Asians live on the same continent of Eurasia, so it is an issue of the people of three continents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Not really. That's the whole La Raza argument,
Which "La Raza argument"? The National Council of La Raza argument? The NCLR is a Hispanic advocacy organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
that Indians of Mexico have some claim over the USA and only the La Raza types try to merge all of Mexico, Central America with portions of the USA
Which "La Raza" types are you referring to? Can you cite specific ideological or organizational literature?

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
and refer to some "Southwestern Cultural Area", after all Mexico refers to it's border areas as "Norte" not some silly Aztlan studies "Southwestern Cultural Area".
The reference that I made to a Southwestern cultural area is based on the Native American ethnological region of the Southwest, which is supported by consensus of Indian studies archaeologists and anthropologists.





Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
There never was a such a thing, it's something your Aztlan professors made up.
What do you mean by "[my] Aztlan professors"? I am unaware of any cultural or academic concentration in Indian ethnic or historical studies known as "Aztlan."

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
The culture in Central Mexico, in Guatemala, Honduras was never the same as in the SW USA. Never. Yes some cultural aspects spread -- such as the growing of corn, but there was never some common language, common religion, common rule. Mesoamerica never extended into areas that are now the USA.
This is a strawman fallacy. I personally clearly distinguished between the Southwestern and Mesoamerican cultural areas. The border between the two is roughly in the middle of Mexico.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Aztec myths, including the symbol on the Mexican flag indicate that the Aztecs traveled from some where north, most likely somewhere a couple hundred miles north of Mexico City because their leader had a vision that showed they belonged near Mexico City. That was their promised land -- not the SW USA, they would have had to go north for that but probably would have been killed by the Indians inhabiting those lands if they had tried.

Probably there was no vision, they probably were some break-away group that was being driven out of where they were by other Indians.
The ancestors of the Mexica are reputed to have traveled to Mesoamerica from the north, but precisely how far north has never been determined with certainty. Whether or not their ancestors had previously been present in the U.S. Southwest specifically or somewhere further south in the Southwestern cultural area is unclear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And don't forget to include the African portion of that mix, nor Asian. Yes, we're all mixed and should be thankful for it but we should stop basing some reconquista notion on being indigenous or not.
The "reconquista" is the Castilian conquest of Iberia from the Moorish occupation. Its application to the U.S. Southwest and relationship to Mexicans or Mexican-Americans seems to be an invention of ethnic conspiracy theorists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Anyhow even if you believe that the Mesoamerican culture covered the whole North American continent, that culture no longer covers much of even Mexico.
I'm not aware of anyone who believes that. Are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
People aren't pouring over the border seeking their Mesoamerican culture. If you seek that culture, you head into Chiapas, Oaxaca, and south of there. Those heading north are seeking American money, American materialism, American government safety nets.
Migration patterns are broadly driven by international wage differentials intensified by the process of neoliberalism that has increased over the past several decades. Globalization is necessary, but fair trade policies should be adopted to ensure labor market equity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
And just like Americans cannot bring back the pioneer days where there was a big frontier and the Old West with all that open range, it's even more far-fetched to try to create some non-European or American influenced Southwest Cultural Area that never was in the first place but also isn't going to revert back into something it was 700 years or 1200 years ago.
"Non-European or American" is redundant in the sense that you use it; your idea of what is American is European, rather than derived from the cultural traditions of the actual native peoples of America. You're certainly not going to get anywhere by claiming that the Southwestern cultural area "never was"; it's simply an accepted territorial division in Indian ethnology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
No one is going to want to give up their cars or even horses, their radios, televisions, internet because they want to revert back to some ancient culture, some long ago way of life.
Not many people are. I'm not certain where you get the idea that anyone in this thread has advocated such a change, since you have still not provided any specific citations of such advocacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Excellent post, malamute. These reconquistas
Which reconquistas? There has been one reconquista, the reconquista of Iberia in 1492.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
that live in a past that never existed here in the U.S. because their tribal ancestors never settled here in our country need to grab a clue and bring themselves up to the year 2011.
This seems to attribute some specific ethnic background to being a "reconquista." Is that the meaning of your post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
The different tribes from Canada all the way down through Latin America never were one big happy family where they all considered the entire North or South American continent to be one big shared territory singing Kum ba Ya together.
This is a strawman fallacy; this claim has not been made by any people in this thread.
 
Old 11-06-2011, 08:59 PM
 
14,306 posts, read 13,269,914 times
Reputation: 2136
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
What claim does the NSM have to rally for influence in the American Southwest?...

It is the original topic of this thread after all...
I think what they must be saying is we need to reclaim the southwest from illegal aliens. I am only guessing as I know very little about their group except that they are a white nationalist group. I am sure the "we" they are referring to are probably white Americans. I have no desire to reclaim any part of this country for white people nor do I adhere to their agenda. I merely want illegal aliens out of here. I wish their advocates could be forced to leave also but it would be unconstitutional. Too bad.
 
Old 11-06-2011, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,299 posts, read 4,828,454 times
Reputation: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
I think what they must be saying is we need to reclaim the southwest from illegal aliens. I am only guessing as I know very little about their group except that they are a white nationalist group. I am sure the "we" they are referring to are probably white Americans. I have no desire to reclaim any part of this country for white people nor do I adhere to their agenda. I merely want illegal aliens out of here. I wish their advocates could be forced to leave also but it would be unconstitutional. Too bad.
The NSM are out for more than illegal aliens being expelled from the United States. I find it interesting that you want "illegal alien advocates" forced out too (strangely identifying that desire as "unconstitutional"). White Nationalists are more "American" than illegal alien advocates?
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top