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.
The tribal ancestors of the Mexicans were not indigenous to this country so why should we hand over any U.S. states to their descendants? Those tribes that were indigenous to our country already have their soveirgn lands within our country.
Since you've repeatedly mentioned this same off-topic claim, the Indians of the Southwestern cultural area were all technically Mexicans, though only a minority were actually members of predominantly Hispanic communities.
The ancestors of many far northern Mexicans (i.e. border region areas), were indigenous to both the U.S. and Mexico, but the majority of immigrants are from the Mesoamerican cultural area, far removed from there.
Since you've repeatedly mentioned this same off-topic claim, the Indians of the Southwestern cultural area were all technically Mexicans, though only a minority were actually members of predominantly Hispanic communities.
The ancestors of many far northern Mexicans (i.e. border region areas), were indigenous to both the U.S. and Mexico, but the majority of immigrants are from the Mesoamerican cultural area, far removed from there.
The Indians of the SW USA were once technically Mexicans because the conquistadors forced them to be and cut off their feet if they resisted. Mexico only ruled over the land for about 25 years, they were under the government of Spain for many years before that.
After these territories become part of the USA, the people of Mexico demanded the US government do something about the Comanches because the Comanches were making raids into Mexico. The Indians of the SW weren't ever a real part of Mexico.
And people often don't realize - there was no nation of Mexico, no map of Mexico, no borders showing where Mexico began and left off UNTIL the Europeans came and claimed the portions of land for it.
At best there were some "city-states" like the area controlled by the Aztec rulers, nothing more than a 35 mile radius near current day Mexico City. Other areas had other people, people that just lived in tribal groups, similar to the Tarahumaras today who don't rule over any one but themselves, certainly never ruled over the Indians of current day USA.
Never did the Aztecs rule over the Cherokee, the Navaho, the Iroquois, etc. They didn't know of any existance much outside Central Mexico.
You're diverting the thread far off-topic, but I guess I'll appease you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
The Indians of the SW USA were once technically Mexicans because the conquistadors forced them to be and cut off their feet if they resisted.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Mexico only ruled over the land for about 25 years, they were under the government of Spain for many years before that.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
After these territories become part of the USA, the people of Mexico demanded the US government do something about the Comanches because the Comanches were making raids into Mexico. The Indians of the SW weren't ever a real part of Mexico.
Many Indians of the southern part of the Southwestern cultural region have been assimilated into "mainstream" Mexican society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
And people often don't realize - there was no nation of Mexico, no map of Mexico, no borders showing where Mexico began and left off UNTIL the Europeans came and claimed the portions of land for it.
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
At best there were some "city-states" like the area controlled by the Aztec rulers, nothing more than a 35 mile radius near current day Mexico City.
The Aztec Triple Alliance controlled a large tributary empire that included most of central Mexico at its peak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Other areas had other people, people that just lived in tribal groups, similar to the Tarahumaras today who don't rule over any one but themselves, certainly never ruled over the Indians of current day USA.
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Never did the Aztecs rule over the Cherokee, the Navaho, the Iroquois, etc.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
They didn't know of any existance much outside Central Mexico.
The Aztec Triple Alliance participated in an extensive trade network that at the very least included their immediate neighbors.
This is the United States now. I do not care if the land belonged to XYZ. The whole world pretty much was colonized by XYZ. We have laws in this country and I am sick of the whole Reconquista BS, the whole "you stole the lands from Mexico". Spain stole the lands from the Indians (Mexico, Central and South America) too, so did Portugal in Brazil..blah blah blah.
This is 2011.
Last edited by KickAssArmyChick; 11-05-2011 at 03:13 PM..
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.
Much as a result of Santa Ana's turn to an inefficient Centralist government which made ruling over the farflung regions very difficult, just as we see with Mexico City's inability to control what's going on at the border in cities like Juarez and the border states.
Quote:
Many Indians of the southern part of the Southwestern cultural region have been assimilated into "mainstream" Mexican society.
Most of the Indians of the SW USA speak perfectly good English, rarely do you hear them speaking Spanish. I'm not sure many ever did speak Spanish, as many resisted the Mexican Spaniards who resorted to cutting off their feet to try to force them into submission.
One reason the Spanish government invited the English speakers into Texas was that the Mexicans resisted moving up into the northern regions because they feared the Indians. Spain saw European types as important in settling Texas and so provided land grants and citizenship as a way encourage settlers to move in.
Quote:
The Aztec Triple Alliance controlled a large tributary empire that included most of central Mexico at its peak.
The Aztec Triple Alliance participated in an extensive trade network that at the very least included their immediate neighbors.
The Aztecs had a big tendency to sacrifice and eat their neighbors which caused many of them to side with the Spaniards and help defeat them. The conquest of Mexico by Cortez went very smoothly because of this. The Indians led Cortez and his men straight to Tenochitlan, the Aztec capital and even helped them fight the Aztecs.
The Spanish weren't even looking for an empire to conquer in Mexico, they were merely looking for gold. They asked the Indians where was the gold, the Indians told them the Aztecs had all the gold and then took them to where the Aztecs were. The Aztecs didn't even have gold.
The other thing -- East was going to meet West at some point in time. There was no way the Western hemisphere and the Eastern hemisphere would remain unaware of the other forever.
And as far as the indigenous reclaiming the whole of the USA, that's not going to happen, and not even by pure indigenous Mexicans and Central Americans because there really aren't any.
Another group that was brought into Mexico and Central America were the African slaves. What became of them you asked? Where are their descendents? Many Mexicans and Central Americans will look puzzled and say they don't know where their descendents are.
In the early days of colonized Mexico, millions of Indians died from smallpox and other diseases and at one point there were only about 1 million Indians, 800,000 African slaves, and fewer Europeans. The Indians mixed with the newcomers and their descendents had the natural immunity and ability to survive.
Even by Mexico's census data there are only 10% of Mexicans who are Indian but pure indigenous would be very rare. It's just been too long the people of 3 continents have been together, too many centuries of mixing and changing.
Like it or not, it's not going back to pure Indian rule. It cannot go back to just Mayans, Aztecs, Tlaxcalans, and so on.
The Indians of the SW USA were once technically Mexicans because the conquistadors forced them to be and cut off their feet if they resisted. Mexico only ruled over the land for about 25 years, they were under the government of Spain for many years before that.
After these territories become part of the USA, the people of Mexico demanded the US government do something about the Comanches because the Comanches were making raids into Mexico. The Indians of the SW weren't ever a real part of Mexico.
I'd like these pro-illegals to show me the territories that the Aztecs and Mayans occupied here in the southwest. Mestizo Mexicans (a mix of native indian that were indigenous to the south of us and "white" Spanish European) as you said only occupied parts of the southwest of our country for about 25 years. Those territories were sold to the U.S.
It is the Comanche, Navajo, Apache and other tribes that were indigenous to this country and they have their soveriegn lands within our country and are full fledged U.S. citizens. Mexicans have no modern day claims to this country base on the sale of those territitories they occupied for a short time nor do they have any claims based on their tribal ancestors.
Most of the Indians of the SW USA speak perfectly good English, rarely do you hear them speaking Spanish. I'm not sure many ever did speak Spanish, as many resisted the Mexican Spaniards who resorted to cutting off their feet to try to force them into submission.
Castilian was necessarily the lingua franca of the European colonized Southwest for several centuries, and continued to be in some regions even after widespread Anglo settlement. (It's recorded that negotiations with Geronimo's band of Chiricahua renegades required translation from English into Castilian into Chiricahua, and then back again, for example). It also left a lasting impact on their own languages, which did not remain entirely distinct. To consider the most legendary tribe in the Southwest, the Chiricahua Apaches, the influence of Castilian on their language is analyzed in Hoijer's Chiricahua Loan-Words from Spanish. A broader overview is Kiddle's Spanish Loan Words in American Indian Languages.
"Mexican Spaniards" is an oxymoron, unless referring to ethnic Spaniards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
One reason the Spanish government invited the English speakers into Texas was that the Mexicans resisted moving up into the northern regions because they feared the Indians. Spain saw European types as important in settling Texas and so provided land grants and citizenship as a way encourage settlers to move in.
Mass Anglo settlement of Texas was initiated by the Mexican government, not the Spanish government. Although Spanish governor Antonio Maria Martinez was the first to approve the colonization plan created by aspiring settlement founder Moses Austin, it was his son Stephen Austin who engineered the migration of the so-called "Old 300" Anglo families and additional Anglo settlers under the auspices of Mexican governmental authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
The Aztecs had a big tendency to sacrifice and eat their neighbors which caused many of them to side with the Spaniards and help defeat them.
Cannibalism was not particularly common in the Aztec Triple Alliance, and was recorded to have also been practiced by their neighbors allied with the Castilian expeditionaries, such as the people of Cholula. As for human sacrifice, it was a frequent staple of Mesoamerican religion that was not unique to the Aztecs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
The conquest of Mexico by Cortez went very smoothly because of this. The Indians led Cortez and his men straight to Tenochitlan, the Aztec capital and even helped them fight the Aztecs.
The conquest of Mexico, or rather, southern Mexico, was accomplished by Indians rather than Cortes, as you stated. More importantly, however, it was accomplished by the transmission of numerous communicable diseases to Native Americans, who had no previous exposure to them and therefore no immunity. Yet, it cannot be said to have gone "smoothly." Cortes's expeditionaries were almost completely destroyed during La Noche Triste, and were forced to retreat to Tlaxcala.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
The Spanish weren't even looking for an empire to conquer in Mexico, they were merely looking for gold. They asked the Indians where was the gold, the Indians told them the Aztecs had all the gold and then took them to where the Aztecs were. The Aztecs didn't even have gold.
The Aztecs and other Mesoamerican peoples certainly had gold, but the Castilian "hunger for gold" has been greatly exaggerated. They regarded gold as a means to an end, since it functioned as currency. But silver mining ended up providing far more precious metals and wealth to Spain than gold ever did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
The other thing -- East was going to meet West at some point in time. There was no way the Western hemisphere and the Eastern hemisphere would remain unaware of the other forever.
Spain is in the Western Hemisphere, but if you mean to say that America was going to come into contact with Europe, that had already occurred several centuries earlier with Leif Ericsson's expedition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
And as far as the indigenous reclaiming the whole of the USA, that's not going to happen, and not even by pure indigenous Mexicans and Central Americans because there really aren't any.
There are certainly non-admixed Mexicans and Central Americans with "pure" Indian lineage; however, they constitute a small minority of the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Another group that was brought into Mexico and Central America were the African slaves. What became of them you asked? Where are their descendents? Many Mexicans and Central Americans will look puzzled and say they don't know where their descendents are.
Some of their descendants constitute extant and distinct ethnic groups, particularly in Belize and Panama, while others were assimilated into the so-called "mestizo" population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
In the early days of colonized Mexico, millions of Indians died from smallpox and other diseases and at one point there were only about 1 million Indians, 800,000 African slaves, and fewer Europeans. The Indians mixed with the newcomers and their descendents had the natural immunity and ability to survive.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Even by Mexico's census data there are only 10% of Mexicans who are Indian but pure indigenous would be very rare. It's just been too long the people of 3 continents have been together, too many centuries of mixing and changing.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Like it or not, it's not going back to pure Indian rule. It cannot go back to just Mayans, Aztecs, Tlaxcalans, and so on.
I'd suggest that this is a strawman fallacy, as I've not seen that anyone in this thread has demanded "pure Indian rule."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
I'd like these pro-illegals to show me the territories that the Aztecs and Mayans occupied here in the southwest.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Mestizo Mexicans (a mix of native indian that were indigenous to the south of us and "white" Spanish European) as you said only occupied parts of the southwest of our country for about 25 years. Those territories were sold to the U.S.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
It is the Comanche, Navajo, Apache and other tribes that were indigenous to this country
Apaches are not a tribe, but a group of related tribes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
and they have their soveriegn lands within our country and are full fledged U.S. citizens. Mexicans have no modern day claims to this country base on the sale of those territitories they occupied for a short time nor do they have any claims based on their tribal ancestors.
Neo-Nazis were outnumbered by counter-protestors at a rally in Southern California where both sides ended up yelling at each other under the watchful eyes of police.
About 75 members of the National Socialist Movement gathered Saturday near Pomona City Hall. The group is opposed to illegal immigration and California's version of the Dream Act, which allows undocumented students to access financial aid.
Mark Gluba, a city spokesman, tells the Los Angeles Times that the Detroit-based neo-Nazi group was confronted by several hundred protesters.
Gluba says except for demonstrators and counter-protestors screaming back and forth, the event was generally peaceful and no one was arrested.
POMONA, Calif. (KABC) -- Neo-Nazis were outnumbered by counter-protesters at a rally in Pomona where both sides ended up yelling at each other under the watchful eyes of police in riot gear.
About 30 members of the Detroit-based National Socialist Movement gathered at Pomona City Hall to express their opposition to illegal immigration and California's Dream Act, which allows undocumented students to access financial aid.
There were tense moments as several dozen counter-protesters shouted and jeered at the neo-Nazis from the opposite side of a police and Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy line that was dividing the groups.
Some of the counter-protesters threw cones and other items at the neo-Nazis.
The neo-Nazis said they chose Pomona because the city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.
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.
