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.
México is known in Brazil only through Televisa soap operas telecasted by third most important Brazilian tv network, SBT (which, by the way, few people watch). Mala man concept of ''popular'' is too relative, when you know that Brazil is dominated by Globo TV network (what, in any case, is not a good thing by the way)
México is known in Brazil only through Televisa soap operas telecasted by third most important Brazilian tv network, SBT (which, by the way, few people watch). Mala man concept of ''popular'' is too relative, when you know that Brazil is dominated by Globo TV network (what, in any case, is not a good thing by the way)
Well, my concept of "popular" is NOT "relative".
Just ask the PEOPLE and you will know how popular the Mexican TV shows are. From "El Chavo del Ocho" to "Rebelde".
Just because YOU didn't watch those shows, it doesn't mean they aren't VERY popular.
Well, it's a pity that most Mexicans don't feel like part of Latin America, because we consider them as being part of the same Latin America as us.
If the Spanish language isn't enough to make Mexicans feel integrated into Latin America, I can't imagine what else could be enough...
The cultural and economic integration of Latin America is the great task of the 21st century. We hope Mexico be part of it. The language is the same in Tijuana and in Punta Arenas
Mexico is huge and can be pretty regional. I think that adds to them sort of being "on their own thing."
I think Mexicans interact with Latin Americans less because Latin Americans move to the east of the U.S like NYC, New Jersey and Miami while most Mexican Americans live in the southwest. I don't generalize other Latin Americana since they are vr few of them. But the ones i met seem nice and we share alot of similarities. A Mexican and a Latin American who have never left their country and suddenly meet will have alot of common things to share a friendship like the same likeness in food, media, tv, music, movies, sports, and especiallythe language. It's like we arelong lost brothers.
Mexico alone is a huge country. It population of almost 120 million over shadows the next Hispanic country of only 45 million. Add to that the 34 million Mexican Americans plus the 7+ million undocumented immigrants and you have more than 150 million Mexicans worldwide. Mexicans easily outnumber Argentines, Spaniards, and Colombians together
I think Mexicans interact with Latin Americans less because Latin Americans move to the east of the U.S like NYC, New Jersey and Miami while most Mexican Americans live in the southwest. I don't generalize other Latin Americana since they are vr few of them. But the ones i met seem nice and we share alot of similarities. A Mexican and a Latin American who have never left their country and suddenly meet will have alot of common things to share a friendship like the same likeness in food, media, tv, music, movies, sports, and especiallythe language. It's like we arelong lost brothers.
There are a lot of Mexicans in ny-metro now, and growing at a rapid pace.
Unless you mean 'Baja California', as that 'is' a part of Mexico.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miserere
I'm referring to California. From Spain passed to Mexico, and later was invaded by American scallywags and gold diggers supported by the US Navy, they set up a bonus republic and displaced legal owners of the land, or "Californios".
California was the name of a 16th Century "novel of chivalry" that Cortez was reading at that moment.
Is anyone aware that Mexico did not have California long enough to leave any lasting mark on it? Virtually all of CA's Spanish heritage comes from Spain. Mexico had California for about 34 years. Spain had it officially for about 70. The US has had it for over 160.
Is anyone aware that Mexico did not have California long enough to leave any lasting mark on it? Virtually all of CA's Spanish heritage comes from Spain. Mexico had California for about 34 years. Spain had it officially for about 70. The US has had it for over 160.
Yes but the Mexicans abd the Spaniards were the same people. Just like the U.S taje the pre-independence era of its own Mexico does toe. Because thee were the same people, there own ancestors. Also the Mexicans are heavily indigenous. You can't just look at it by the date a country was founded. Their people were here thousands of years before. The Aztecs themselves were from the southwest originaly. You can't say they only owned the southwest for 30 years as a country because their ancestors have been here for thousands of years roaming aroubd all the southwest. Remember how the first initial nomads crossed the Russian Alaskan bridge. Then they started heading south. All these indigenous groups are closely related. The indigenous groups ae one of the least diverse groups because only a few people crossed the bridge, whereas Africans ae the most diverse because that is where the first humans appear. What i am trying to say is that a Mexican of heavily indigenous descent is probably genetically closer thana white American that claims they are .23% Cherokee and waves a certificate to prove it.
It does not matter when Mexico was founded. Their ancestors, their culture, their language has been in the Americas for thousands of years....and yes way before the vikings
Is anyone aware that Mexico did not have California long enough to leave any lasting mark on it? Virtually all of CA's Spanish heritage comes from Spain. Mexico had California for about 34 years. Spain had it officially for about 70. The US has had it for over 160.
I don't really care about what used to be or not used to be Mexico, but it wasn't 'Spanish' culture, it was New Spanish culture (as Mexico was Nueva Espana for almost 300 years before it became Mexico), and the same culture carried on, that is mestizaje culture. There is a reason that terms like 'criollo' existed, and that is because the Spanish saw the Nuevo Espanoles as different people, even those of 100% European stock (a criollo is a person of pure European ancestry born in the Americas). When Mexico gained independence, not much changed, only the people that rule...which went from Spaniards born in Iberia to the still elite criollos and light skin mestizos. My point, the history of modern Mexico starts in the 1500's, when it was the vice-royalty of Nueva Espana. Only because it didn't gain independence until 1821, does not mean it wasn't its own entity. Don't get confused by the name change, it was status quo as usual for a while.
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.
