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.
If you're saying that a Mestizo is simply anyone with both genes, Amerindian and European, no matter how minuscule, then it is a two way lane. By your definition alone, you would have effectively wiped out almost the entire "white" population in Latin America, as-well as a portion of the Native population, as both groups would be considered "Mestizos" under your proposed definition.
Well that is what I think; You certainly have the right of think different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan_Azteca
Race isn't viewed that way these days, it's more a matter of appearance. One need only look the part to play the part. Though there are some genetic differences between races, the most striking thing about "races" is phenotype. After-all, one need only look white to be white, look black to be black, and even look "Mexican" to be "Mexican".
The issue of race is complicated, as is subject to interpretation. There are even some who say the term is outdated.
If you think about it in countries like Mexico, an Indian or a white cannot claim to be 100% of one race or another. Miscegenation was so strong in our country and race consciousness removed by the government, there is no way to know unless someone make a DNA test.
But most of the Mexican population is not interested in this topic. That's the difference with the Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan_Azteca
Now, I propose to you this question: What does a Mexican look like? A Mexican looks Amerindian, mexguy.
Mexico is a big country and you can not put all the Mexicans in a single definition or race. In the north, where I live, the indigenous people represent a marginal minority, most are mestizos and do not look like amerindian. Do not look as spaniards either, they just look as what they are: mestizos, part indian, part european.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan_Azteca
This is why so many people will see an Amerindian looking person from Central and South America and think they're Mexican, or why a European looking Mexican wouldn't be considered to look Mexican. Generally speaking Mexicans do have a phenotype, and it's that of an Amerindian. I would argue Mexicans are indeed overwhelmingly indigenous, not only because they look it, but because they are. Whether or not you are "pure-Amerindian" is irrelevant to the fact that both pure-bloods and Mestizos are of the same race, and are indigenous peoples. They are not two different peoples, they are the same people. I am firmly against this reverse-one-drop-rule nonsense.
Here we will disagree. Many people believe that extol the indigenous past is right, even if all our formation is overwhelmingly European, from the language to education and the shape of our cities and how we relate to the world.
The 1921 Census is the worst reference that you could put as evident. The Census was taken right after the Mexican Revolution, a time were Mexican nationalism, the embracement of Mestizo and Indigenous cultures, and the rejection of a dominant Spanish-only culture was at its highests. The people self identified in the Census, there was no study. It is obvious most of the people identified themselves as Mestizo and Indigenous.
The Mestizo population in Mexico is the most diverse of all Latin America. The Mestizos range from being heavily white to being heavily Ameindian. There is a large porpotion of Castizos(3/4 White 1/4 Amerindian) and Cholos (1/4 White 3/4 Amerindian) then you have the largest portion of them all being the Mestizo which on average is somewhere around 40%-60% either majority Amerindian or majority White, so you could say around 50%/50% range.
Most of the studies show the demographics of Mexico are
Mestizos- 60%-65%(Alot of Castizos and Cholos could have also been included)
Amerindian- 14%-20%( Alot of Cholos could have also been included)
White- 15%-17%( Alot of Castizos could have also been included)
Others- 1% (Arabs, Afro Mexicans, East Asian Mexicans)
What i am trying to say is that race in Mexico is very complex. Mexicans just simply don't look into it as much. Mexicans consider themselves Mexicans. Nationalism in Latin America is very strong.
Texan Azteca, if you consider yourself Indigenous then go for it. There is no problem.
Last edited by Almeida93; 12-21-2013 at 10:40 AM..
That response is just laughable. I am an indigenous Mexican, lol.
Take note of my comment on how European Americans give foolish and false answers, it continues to apply.
whats more laughable is why so many white Americans with miniscule amounts of native american blood claim to be native americans, much less native blood than a typical Mexican
and they still claim to be Cherokee, Lakota, etc
we have lots of blond haired blue eyed native americans in the US
1/64th native american LOL! I think some people are making this stuff up to get benefits or something?
While your comments was generally well thought out and useful, I have to disagree with this:
Quote:
What i am trying to say is that race in Mexico is very complex. Mexicans just simply don't look into it as much. Mexicans consider themselves Mexicans. Nationalism in Latin America is very strong
There is a BIG difference between Criollos and Mestizos in Mexico.
And yes, check out my profile picture and you will see my better half, a Mestizo born in Nayarit.
I watch Spanish TV quite a lot and can honestly say that the vast majority of those who act and appear regularly on shows ARE NOT Mestizos but pure blood Spanish. [With the exception of some no ve las and humor shows where Indians are purposely shown in clownish situations].
You are however correct about this - Mexicans are extremely sensitive about their nationality and will defend every Mexican against prejudiced and bigoted comments by foreigners - gringo actually means alien NOT white guy or American.
Yes of course, racial divisions are evident in Mexico, and all parts of the world. But it is not as bad as say, the United States, because of the strong sense of nationalism. Mexico had a black president hundeds of years before the U.S. Mexico abolished slavery way before the United States. Afro Mexicans were able to mix with indigenous Mexicans and was not look down upon like it is in many parts of the United States. I am not saying Mexico is better than the U.S, i am only pointing out the racial dynamics of each country. Here in the United States, you have the liberal youth reject and dislike the United States, even though they don't realize how good we have it. Blacks have been oppressed so much that there is even racism between blacks (light skin vs dark skin). This oppression has spur radical afrocentrist groups that believe the Olmecs, Aztecs, Egyptians, Greeks were black. There are even some that say blacks should not integrate with hispanics and whites because they are not one of the 12 tribes of Israel. I am not going to say anything about this, but you could see some blacks have been oppressed to the point that their psychology has been affected.
Well that is what I think; You certainly have the right of think different.
The issue of race is complicated, as is subject to interpretation. There are even some who say the term is outdated.
If you think about it in countries like Mexico, an Indian or a white cannot claim to be 100% of one race or another. Miscegenation was so strong in our country and race consciousness removed by the government, there is no way to know unless someone make a DNA test.
But most of the Mexican population is not interested in this topic. That's the difference with the Americans.
Mexico is a big country and you can not put all the Mexicans in a single definition or race. In the north, where I live, the indigenous people represent a marginal minority, most are mestizos and do not look like amerindian. Do not look as spaniards either, they just look as what they are: mestizos, part indian, part european.
Here we will disagree. Many people believe that extol the indigenous past is right, even if all our formation is overwhelmingly European, from the language to education and the shape of our cities and how we relate to the world.
Imo, this is the best response to the OP's original question. I agree completely.
Well that is what I think; You certainly have the right of think different.
The issue of race is complicated, as is subject to interpretation. There are even some who say the term is outdated.
If you think about it in countries like Mexico, an Indian or a white cannot claim to be 100% of one race or another. Miscegenation was so strong in our country and race consciousness removed by the government, there is no way to know unless someone make a DNA test.
But most of the Mexican population is not interested in this topic. That's the difference with the Americans.
Mexico is a big country and you can not put all the Mexicans in a single definition or race. In the north, where I live, the indigenous people represent a marginal minority, most are mestizos and do not look like amerindian. Do not look as spaniards either, they just look as what they are: mestizos, part indian, part european.
Here we will disagree. Many people believe that extol the indigenous past is right, even if all our formation is overwhelmingly European, from the language to education and the shape of our cities and how we relate to the world.
Though I agree completely with what you say. I feel I must add my thoughts to the matter.
I would argue that extolling the indigenous past is absolutely necessary, as Mexicans live on the land of their fore-bearer's, and are essentially an extension to those people. Indigenous history is Mexican history. From what I understand, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia also have this sentiment towards "indigenismo". To differentiate between "Mestizos" and "Indigenous" people other than culturally (one culture mixed, the other pure) would, in my opinion, be un-Mexican in thought process. We stand under one flag, either ethnically/racially, or nationally/culturally. The core of Mexican nationalism is its indigenous past.
I imagine that this indigenismo sentiment will only be stronger in the future. Indigenous people are becoming more mainstream in Mexico, indigenous language speakers are increasing in real numbers, and the government has put in place policies that aim to promote and maintain indigenous langauges as-well as culture. Indigenous people are also becoming very political.
Though I agree completely with what you say. I feel I must add my thoughts to the matter.
I would argue that extolling the indigenous past is absolutely necessary, as Mexicans live on the land of their fore-bearer's, and are essentially an extension to those people. Indigenous history is Mexican history. From what I understand, Guatemala, Peru, and Bolivia also have this sentiment towards "indigenismo". To differentiate between "Mestizos" and "Indigenous" people other than culturally (one culture mixed, the other pure) would, in my opinion, be un-Mexican in thought process. We stand under one flag, either ethnically/racially, or nationally/culturally.The core of Mexican nationalism is its indigenous past.
Well, not exactly. Indigenous history is an important and large part of Mexican history - but it certainly isn't all of it. Mexico would be a radically different country if it weren't for the conquest. Many indigenous people in Mexico have vastly different cultures than the majority of Mexicans. Of course, there is much indio influence in Mexico, but culturally there is at least as much Spanish influence. People in Mexico may all technically live under one flag, but many indios do not even self-identify as "Mexican", but rather they self-identify themselves by the Amerindian nation or tribe that they are from (i.e. Mayan, Tarahumara, Yaqui). They go on living their lives in a manner very similar to the way they did before the conquest. (That the word "Mexico" itself is Nahuatl is irrelevant. Most indios in Mexico are not Aztec and do not speak Nahuatl.)
Quote:
I imagine that this indigenismo sentiment will only be stronger in the future. Indigenous people are becoming more mainstream in Mexico, indigenous language speakers are increasing in real numbers, and the government has put in place policies that aim to promote and maintain indigenous langauges as-well as culture. Indigenous people are also becoming very political.
I think it is great for Mexico's indio population to gain more respect and power in their country, as they have had to suffer a lot.
From all of your statements, I gather that you are probably drinking the radical Kool-Aid of MEChA or something.
The argument is that by definition a mestizo has indigenous and european genes. so it can be considered part amerindian, part European.
Over 90% of Mexicans are mestizos, even if their appearance is indigenous, that does not mean its European heritage is not there.
As you must know in times of conquest diseases brought by the Europeans made a dent in the Amerindian population. Thanks to miscegenation is that we are here.
There are some Amerindian 100% pure, but they are a minority.
Yes, exactly!
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.
