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.
There were Native tribes in Oklahoma before the trail of tears and There was no connection in New Mexico to Aztec societies. Natives have been in the Americas for tens thousands of years. The date of human life in the Americas keeps getting pushed back, they are not immigrants.
Some believe that human life as we know it started in the middle east.. and moved across an ice bridge to NA long, long, long ago. We are all immigrants if that is true... even the native Americans
Some believe that human life as we know it started in the middle east.. and moved across an ice bridge to NA long, long, long ago. We are all immigrants if that is true... even the native Americans
100,000 of years ago. No sorry it doesnt work like that.
All nations in the Americas are nations of immigrants. With very few exceptions where Indigenous groups make up a large amount of the population....maybe Bolivia, Guatemala and Peru? Everywhere else it's very diverse. But even countries like Peru are very diverse as they have large Chinese and Japanese communities and Guatemala has an important German community. So I still say all of the Americas are nations of immigrants (And slaves in some cases like Cuba and most of the Caribbean).
All nations in the Americas are nations of immigrants. With very few exceptions where Indigenous groups make up a large amount of the population....maybe Bolivia, Guatemala and Peru? Everywhere else it's very diverse. But even countries like Peru are very diverse as they have large Chinese and Japanese communities and Guatemala has an important German community. So I still say all of the Americas are nations of immigrants (And slaves in some cases like Cuba and most of the Caribbean).
That's a gross generalization. For one thing, and has been stated before, if someone moves from one area to another in their country, they are not immigrants. It doesn't happen with Americans that move from Chicago to Atlanta, Brazilians that move from Fortaleza to São Paulo, Panamanians that move from Colón to Panama City, etc. It also doesn't happen at the time Spaniards moved from Málaga to Havana or Colombians from Bogotá to Santiago de Chile when it was all Spain. When it comes to most Latin American countries, the Spanish component is very old, as in when it was all Spain.
Secondly, no place is full of "slaves" today. There are places where the majority are either blacks or mulatto, but slaves? No. In most places in the Americas, slavery existed when it was all Spain. By the time they each separated from Spain slavery was either outlawed or had been outlawed for a long time already. Even the notion that any slave was an immigrant at a place where slavery ended before or during independence is simply wrong. Slaves had no choice and on top of that, they were property and not "people." Can a cow become an immigrant? A dog? A chair? A shirt? An apple? A pen?
Lastly, when DNA studies are done throughout Spanish America one thing becomes obvious, non-Spanish, non-African, and non-Native DNA is very small or non-existent at a national level. That points that those other migrations had to be rather small in the greater scheme of things. Take Perú as an example. Oh yes, everyone knows it was the preferred Spanish American country for the Chinese, almost all of immigrant stock because they arrived from some other country. Yet, Chinese DNA hardly appears in the average DNA of Peruvians. It's so negligible that East Asian DNA is not even taken into account.
In this study, not only does East Asia not appear for Perú, but for Chile the African DNA was enoughto be included but not the Middle Eastern. Chile has the largest Palestinian population in the world, but in the greater scheme of Chilean things they are negligible on a nationwide genetic basis.
Brazil has the largest Japanese community outside of Japan. Oh, look at that, East Asian DNA is so irrelevant for Brazilians in general that it doesn't appears as one of the typical origins of the typical Brazilian.
A similar thing is noted with other groups such as the Lebanese/Syrians/Palestinians. Not a single country has Middle Easterners DNA big enough to be general in the population. Not in Chile, not in Colombia, not in Mexico... So, how can anyone call these countries "nations of immigrants?" With the exception of countries like Argentina and Uruguay where the average person has at least a grandfather or grandmother that was lets say Italian, "nations of immigrants" is a misnomer.
100,000 of years ago. No sorry it doesnt work like that.
So when exactly did immigration you consider, works that way start? Dont be vague facts matter? Ask an open ended question without definition does not eliminate this movement of people to Americas in my view
i think Places like the US, Canada, Cuba, DR, T&T, Suriname, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, and Argentina can be considered nations of immigrants. Then you have non independent places such as Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Virgin Islands, PR, Saint Martin, and French Guiana that also could be considered nations of immigrants. What these places all ahve in common is they generally face the Caribbean Sea or Atlantic Ocean, which makes sense as most immigrants to the Americas came from Europe.
I get your point, but saying that the Spanish moving from the Iberian Peninsula to the Spanish America during colonial times (or any Europeans moving to their country’s ‘posession’) weren’t immigrants can be considered a mere technicality.
If anything, it gives us a hint about the blurry nature of the concept of immigration when pre-contemporary territorial entities are involved. Amerindians themselves were (are) a very heterogeneous group of different peoples who have moved and clashed continually throughout the Americas, extending and changing their domains. What makes them native to a specific territory, so that they aren’t also immigrants who took a land from a totally different people who were there before?
I get your point, but saying that the Spanish moving from the Iberian Peninsula to the Spanish America during colonial times (or any Europeans moving to their country’s ‘posession’) weren’t immigrants can be considered a mere technicality.
If anything, it gives us a hint about the blurry nature of the concept of immigration when pre-contemporary territorial entities are involved. Amerindians themselves were (are) a very heterogeneous group of different peoples who have moved and clashed continually throughout the Americas, extending and changing their domains. What makes them native to a specific territory, so that they aren’t also immigrants who took a land from a totally different people who were there before?
It's no technicality, they weren't.
For example, if they were immigrants than the following articles wouldn't be worded as they were in this (and other) constitutions of Spain. The following is a copy of the typed version in the XIX century, hence some words have a different spelling in the written Spanish of today.
The title page simply to show, well, the title. It translates to "Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy."
Article 10 of the 1st chapter describes the territory of Spain, very important at that time because each Spanish province has at least one deputy (or Congressman) representing its interest in the equivalent of Congress in mainland Spain (whether it was Catalunya or Puerto Rico, Canarias or Perú, etc; very different with the English since places like Georgia or Massachussetts didn't have a representation in the British government because they weren't an integral part of Britain, but were owned by Britain). Although it is in Spaniah, overall I think its straight forward for English speakers. In some cases these are no longer part of Spain or Latin America, such as "la isla de Cuba y las dos Floridas" refering to Cuba and the Florida peninsula and part of the Mexico Gulf coast, these last two now integral parts of the United States. In other cases it corresponds to current countries such as "la parte española de la isla de Santo Domingo" (Spanish part of Santo Domingo Island) is the Dominican Republic. Guatemala in those days was a much bigger province that encompassed muchof the Central America isthmus unlike the Guatemala of today. There are a few more.
In Article 5 of Chapter 2 it states who are the Spaniards. Notice on the first part, it mentions that all freemen born and living in Spain (territory described above) were Spaniards (no mention of color or race). On the fourth part it mentions tht those that gained their freedom from the moment they were free (aka, emancipated slaves). On the second one it mentions that only foreigners that have naturalized themselves by the Spanish Congress (called Córtes at that time referring to the Córtes de Cádiz) were to be considered Spanish. Again, it doesn't say that only white foreigners became Spaniards upon naturalization, all foreigners.
Basically, all Spaniards and most Latinos (and all the Filipinos) of today would had been Spaniards at that time and regardless if they were white, indians, blacks, mestizos, mulattoes, etc. It could be the reason why some Americans still refer to Latinos as "the Spanish people" when they are referring to a Mexican or Colombian or Peruvian, etc. Isn't Spanish Harlem a traditionally Puerto Rican area of New York City?
That begs the question, if no one is an immigrant in their country, how could Spaniards be immigrants in the Spain of that time?
Every country in the Americas is a "Nation of Immigrants"
USA loves the Melting Pot name for their Nation, they always leave the Aborigenes out of The Equation, Therefore it NEVER has been a Melting Pot, rather a Nation of Foreigners without the Indigenous people that were here when the Foreigners arrived
The rest of the Americas where the indiginous people became part of the new arrivals, do FALL UNDER THE MELTING POT Theory !!!
Not every one was a ~Nation of Foreigners period~...The Originals did become part of their booming Nation except the EEUU.
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.
