The "Hispanic" ethnic group in San Antonio (Roma: how much, live)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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 think the reverse is true here in America. Blacks tend to look down on Mexicans here. Believe me just by listening to my Black friends around the country. Mexico is just a racist country. look at Henry Cisneros, no doibt the brothers has predominately Indian blood
That's true it could go both ways. but many blacks know that the'll never be white
You know. As a White American who is of Spanish and French ancestry (my mother actually being born in France), it is extremely ridiculous and asinine to consider Hispanic to be a race! Hispanic and Hispano derives from Hispania, the Roman name for that province of Iberia, the other being Lusitania for Portugal. Hispania is now Espana', the modern name for Spain. Spaniards are by and large, biologically, that is genetically of the same or similar stock as the rest of the White peoples of the World. True, there are Black Spaniards and noticable Mixed (Biracial) Spaniards, however, 99.99 percent of Spaniards are clearly and obviously White, on the level with Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, etc. Now, I stated all that to state this fact as well. White Americans are not merely descendants of British settlers, but Irish, Swedish, German, French, Polish, Italian, Greek, Russian, Lebanese, Portuguese, and yes, Spaniards, et. al. Now, if all of the above people have been lumped into a collective White category save for the Spanish people or Spanish-speaking people, then obvious problems of common sense should arise. For instance, Why don't we today separate the White race into it's constituent ethnicities? By this is meant, why not put those of Irish descent into an Iric category, Swedish descent as Swedics, German descent as Germanics, Frenchic, Polic, Italic, Hellenic, Russic, Lebanic, Lusitanic? Why not? Again I emphatically ask, why not??? When JFK became president, why didn't Americans make a big to do about him being of Irish ancestry. "For the first time in American history, we have an Iric man for president!" I'm not exactly sure if he is the first American president of irish ancestry, but you get my point. More was said about his Roman Catholicism than anything if my memory serves correct, but nothing about his Irish ancestry. Nothing major that is. But what if an American of Hispanic ancestry who is every bit as White as any other White person becomes president. Boy howdy would the Hispanic community and everybody else for that matter run that horse into the ground and then some! "We have finally got a Hispanic president!," etc., etc., etc. Why should a White American with a Spanish last name be givin special or isolated treatment as a separate ethnicity or category? Why don't we do the same for those with Irish last names, Swedish last names, German last names, French, Polish, Italian, Greek, Russian, Lebanese, and Portuguese, etc., although Portuguese last names are so similar to Spanish they are sometimes treated as synonymous with Spanish, but they are not. It is ignorant, erroneous, idiotic, and just plain stupid to take an entire group of White people of multiple national ancestries and then single out one of those ancestries as if it's somehow extra-separate or extra-special or extra-ethnic! How utterly ridiculous! Hispanics, that is, true Hispanics are White. Much of the Latin American Hispanics are also White, being descended from Spaniards or other White peoples. But the Latin Americans who are obviously Mixed (Biracial) to obvious noticable degrees and those that are Black, are Hispanics in name only, not ancestrally! Treating all Hispanic Latin Americans as a uniform and mono-race or ethnic group is extremely narrow-minded and foolish. Imagine if millions of Anglo Americans started moving to Hispanic Latin American nations and they considered White Anglo Americans and Black Anglo Americans and the Mixed ones as well as one identical race and ethnicity. We would be dumbfounded! Not because of racial hatred necessarily, but out of sheer stupidity. We'd be thinking, "Are these people ridiculous? Do they really think White and Black Americans are of the same race and ethnicity? Can't they tell us apart physically?" Well, if Anglo Americans come in White and Black, at least in name and language, doesn't it stand to reason that Hispanic Latin Americans likewise come in White and Black? It's time to quit separating out ethnicities and ancestries unless we're going to take on the task of separating out every nationality, language group, ethnicity, dialect, and tribal unit and considering them all separate and distinct! Good grief what a job application that would make!
Another small, but important point. The last time I checked a globe, Africa is a continent, not a race nor a DNA strand! The same applies to Europe and Asia (Eurasia). But, we'll stick with Africa, because it suffices for all the above. Africa is not a colour, nor a gene sequence, never has been and never will be! I've read many of these posts and people always use Africa as a synonym for Black. Many Africans are also White, and many are Mixed. In the very ancient times, Northern Africa was predominantly settled by Black (Hamitic) people, shortly or simulataneously followed by Whites. The first Whites were the Ionian tribes of the Aeolians and Tartessians, both Nordic (Japhetic/Indo-European) peoples who settled along the North African coast. The second wave of Whites were various Semitic (Mediterranean White) peoples. Later incursions by Greek, Persian, and Roman peoples all more or less Mediterranean-Nordic mixes invaded, or settled there. Then the Moors, a conglomerate of predominantly Black and Mediterranean White, and Mixed peoples sharing Islam swept across North Africa assimilating the already existing populations of North Africa. Later Whites like the French, Italians, Spaniards, Dutch, British, and Portuguese came. Today's North African population is a healthy mix of Black, White, and Mixed people, yet to rob those that ate not Back of their African-ness is so extremely foolish and nonsensical it's difficult to find the words to adequately describe how utterly insane this ideology really is! Southern Africa and many coastal areas of the whole of Africa have substantial populations of Whites that have been there for generations and are technically just as African as those that have been there for aeons! Actor Charlize Theron (Nordic White), is just as African as a Black Zulu! I work with an Egyptian who is White (Mediterranean White), and he is just as African as a Black Sudanese! Both Theron and my coworker are thus more African than any Black born in America ever will be! Again folks, comon sense, logic, and education, but most of all truth! I've done and am doing much study into the human race. So if it's facts you want, I have no problem presenting you with them.
Hi The Spanish I know for sure had sub-cultures for anyone who had children with the locals or intermarried, hence mestizos. The classes got even lower as the mestizos intermarried with blacks and other native people. They were subdivided into about 6 or 8 groups. Of course the racist Spainiards considered them the lowest of classes. So if one kept to only other Spaniards and never inter-married, they were pure Spaniards.. and European looking and socially above all the others who had inter-married. They did the same thing in the Phillipines. It is the same in many other cultures..they never inter-marry with other people. Thanks Charlie
Most Hispanic in SA are from the predominately Indian and North African stock.
Spaniards and Moors did not intermarry enough to differentiate
the spaniard bloodline through absorption , because of limited intermarriage
from differing religions. After 500 years the Moors were expelled from
Spain where they had a deleterious effect on culture , art etc. Then as now
the religion had a suppressing effect.
More to the point, Germans, Romans, Greeks and other cultures
had a more profound effect on the local populace.
Hello again, I have been curious on this for a while and wonder what other people think... This topic revolves around the Hispanic population of San Antonio and their ancestral roots.
Most people can agree that the vast majority of Hispanics of San Antonio are technically Mestizo people. However, what is not very clear is their AmerIndian origins.
Most people today would simply assert that these people descend from people of Mexico and whom most if not all descend from the Uto-Aztecan group known as the Aztecs.
Although there is some truth to that it certainly does not account for all AmerIndian groups visible in San Antonio.
One thing most people seem to forget is that the native population of present day San Antonio were groups of nomadic and semi-nomadic people known as Coahuiltecans. These people were linguistically and ethnically related peoples who spanned most of historic South Texas.
After the Spanish came to this land they claimed it as their territory and built missions which to convert these Indians into citizens of New Spain.
Therefore the majority of these Indians and their descendants after contact with the missions and Spanish people would now speak the Spanish language and have aquired "Hispanic" names through conversion...
What we are taught is that most of these tribes no longer exist.. But still there are "some" decendants in the area... However there are a few hispanics which I have met and claim to have not decended from people from Mexico. One Lady I met who spoke Spanish, had a Spanish name stated that she wasnt even Hispanic but that all she knew is that her family had always been here in this area.
Phenotypically many San Antonio Hispanics appear much like Native Americans' from the USA. This includes lighter skin, more Asianic and gentle features compared with the AmerIndians of Mexico who are much darker in complexion as well as more robust features. Low hairlines like those in Aztecs' and Otomis', while noticeable are not as frequent as some might expect even in the predominate or full blood Amerindian.
Many of the Hispanics of this city appear to be of the Coahuiltecan lineage.
Some of these people may also decend from the Comanches and Apaches who also settled this area.
Note that I am NOT implying that ALL of the Hispanics of this city are of this decent.. There are many Mestizos and Indians from Mexico present here and while they do make up a noticeable amount it doesnt compare with other phenotypes which do not resemble them...
Based on my hypothesis of the city's 58 percent Hispanic population (though the number is probably higher since this is not based on those who are undocumented)... Roughly 30% to 32% of them diverge from the original AmerIndians of this state, including Apaches, Comanches, Kickapoos and Coahuiltecans.
Any other views, thoughts or opinions on this?
This is not a racist thread it is an observation and culturally appreciative thread that maybe will awaken some hispanics who read it to become interested in their background and cultural past. Especially when the notion that one of Hispanic decent originates in present day Mexico or other Latin American countries. When infact this is their ancestral historic homeland.
I must honestly say that this was one of the most interesting things I've ever read... I have never before in my life ever thought about that. In fact, I don't even know the origin of my great-great-grandmother who is what little direct hispanic ancestry I have....
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.