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.
I always wondered if there was some sort of affinity between Mexicans and Native Americans in the U.S.
There is some, definitely. There are some Native scholars who see the settling of California and the Southwest by Mexican immigrants, essentially as the resurgence of Native peoples. Also, many Native American/Indian and Chicano/Mexican studies departments within academia tend to built strong bonds - especially in California and the Southwest. I remember when at Cal State Long Beach (CSULB) they were considering cutting down some departments due to the budget cuts, they were considering just merging the Chicano and Native American departments.
Then there are organizations like SACNAS (Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science - Home | SACNAS ) that promote networking and professional growth within both groups and treat it as one community/family.
I have seen some charter schools that emphasize, along with the regular curriculum, the teaching of Native American history and culture, and these schools are generally mostly Mexican.
A good part of the links between these communities (which I don't see with Salvadoreans or Guatemalans, no matter how indigenous they look) is the way that the Chicano movement emerged - as both an antithesis to mainstream Anglo-America and a continuation (re-emergence) of a Native culture/people with ancestral links to the southwest (Aztlan.)
Spend sometime in East LA or Boyle Heights, and you will see this recurrent Native theme, both in the street art (murals) and just how the people see themselves (though not all see themselves in this fashion).
Mexico had a black president, Vicente Guerrero. The very popular soup called menudo was introduced by African slaves. African influences may go back much further, the Olmecs "baby heads" would indicate that.
From the books I have read, the genetic connection between Olmecs and Africans has been discounted. When the heads were discovered in the 19th century anthropologists assumed from their features that they were African and immediately began speculating about some ancient voyages across the Atlantic. But now it is assumed that they were just an ethnicity that came across the land bridge.
Since someone will inevitably post that we all came from Africa, I will say that is the dominant theory, but the time scale is very different. The spread out of Africa into Europe and into Asia was tens of thousands of years before the migration across Berengia into the Americas.
It is believed that 90% of the time modern humans were on the Earth their worldwide population was below 1 million. The Toba Catastrophe theory says that at one point their population was reduced to a few thousand, but at the same time it wiped out competing species except for the Neanderthal and possibly one or two others.
dude, Mexican-Americans haven't been in huge numbers like the blacks have in the US until the late 1970s and 1980s. Not as much has happened compared to Blacks and Anglos.
besides, they don't teach the history of Italian-Americans, German-Americans, etc. it would be a pain in the ass to do so and satisfy everybody.
correction; it's the Anglos, not european-americans since that would also mean recent european immigrants and don't have much say in that. it's the anglos who do.
Not as much? According to whom? The history of Nueva España is an extension of Mexican history, and by that account, California and the Southwest have a history that goes back to the 1600's. Then there is the Native history of the land. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are strongly linked to the history of this corner of the country, but our history books largely focus on an East Coast centric Anglo history.
We also must recognize that the history of Mexicans, Native Americans and Blacks within the U.S. are unique compared to that of European immigrants that came. Blacks because they were brought here unwillingly and Mexicans and Native Americans because our histories and blood are tied to the land itself. The same goes for Asian Americans, which mostly arrived through the West and not the East. Our history books make it seem like anything east of the original 13 colonies were these wild lands waiting to be settled where history didn't start until America (whites) decided to extend itself west.
There is no Italian American war, like there is a Mexican American one. No treaty (Guadalupe) that promised to recognize Italians as citizens, the way Mexicans were promised after but ended up, instead, treated like foreigners in their home, lynched and robbed of their land. Those that weren't killed in the process were many times forcefully deported 'back' to Mexico, when it was California that was home. As a Californian, this history is important to me.
From the books I have read, the genetic connection between Olmecs and Africans has been discounted. When the heads were discovered in the 19th century anthropologists assumed from their features that they were African and immediately began speculating about some ancient voyages across the Atlantic. But now it is assumed that they were just an ethnicity that came across the land bridge.
Since someone will inevitably post that we all came from Africa, I will say that is the dominant theory, but the time scale is very different. The spread out of Africa into Europe and into Asia was tens of thousands of years before the migration across Berengia into the Americas.
It is believed that 90% of the time modern humans were on the Earth their worldwide population was below 1 million. The Toba Catastrophe theory says that at one point their population was reduced to a few thousand, but at the same time it wiped out competing species except for the Neanderthal and possibly one or two others.
Yeah, it is widely believe that the genetic diversity of humans today is nothing compared to what it used to be, as most of us alive today come from those few thousands that survive. Bottleneck affect.
The Spanish language came from them and it is an European country where the majority are white with Spanish names!
I swear, why can you just admit that you do not consider Hispanics can be white (Spain and some Latin American countries have majority people of white descent) to make non-Hispanic American white ego bigger due to the population shrinkage?
That is the impression I am getting.
Never have I said Mexico is a mostly white nation, but the few that are for some reason not considered white even though they look white (my brother) because of racial stereotyping and ignorance!
In the US Hispanics would not be considered White because most of them are heavily mixed (even the white looking ones). Most of Latin America has tried to downplay the downplay the heavy mixing that occurred during slavery and only point to mixing with the Spanish and indigenous people, but the Spanish mixed quite a bit with the Africans too and not just in the Caribbean or areas near the coast. Now I'm not going to say that Mexicans have the degree of African admixture that say Dominicans do because that isn't true, but while many Mexicans may look "mestizo" there are plenty that have black in them and either may not know it or may not think that they do because the African, Spanish and Indigenous mixture doesn't scream that they have black in them but certain features make it quite obvious even with the amount of Indigenous and Spanish features that they have. Nose, lips, cheekbones, skin color etc. Not all of that came from the Indigenous people...
Heck even the Spanish mixed with the Moors, and were already a heavily mixed group before they arrived to the Americas, so to think Mexicans are so "pure" is a joke.
Location: SF Bay Area, aka, Liberal Mecca/wherever DoD sends me to
713 posts, read 1,083,624 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by RudyOD
Not as much? According to whom? The history of Nueva España is an extension of Mexican history, and by that account, California and the Southwest have a history that goes back to the 1600's. Then there is the Native history of the land. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are strongly linked to the history of this corner of the country, but our history books largely focus on an East Coast centric Anglo history.
what the hell do you expect dude? this country is an Anglo country. of course the text books would be Anglo-centric. anybody in power will write the history books that centers around their own ethnic group. this is how humans are.
that colonial history is mainly Spanish and Mexican history, not so much in American history, as American history has Anglo roots.
Quote:
We also must recognize that the history of Mexicans, Native Americans and Blacks within the U.S. are unique compared to that of European immigrants that came.
we are all unique in our histories. negros mainly came in as slaves europeans came in from boats, mexicans as either illegal migrants or legal migrants in airplanes. want to cater to everybody?
Quote:
Blacks because they were brought here unwillingly and Mexicans and Native Americans because our histories and blood are tied to the land itself.
we aren't talking about negros. we are talking about Mexicans. and yes, the land is tied to us but this mainly applies to Mexican history as before, there wasn't the term or people, Mexican-American.
Quote:
The same goes for Asian Americans, which mostly arrived through the West and not the East.
off-topic
Quote:
Our history books make it seem like anything east of the original 13 colonies were these wild lands waiting to be settled where history didn't start until America (whites) decided to extend itself west.
again, the Anglos rule this country. of course they will center American history around themselves.
Quote:
There is no Italian American war, like there is a Mexican American one. No treaty (Guadalupe) that promised to recognize Italians as citizens, the way Mexicans were promised after but ended up, instead, treated like foreigners in their home, lynched and robbed of their land. Those that weren't killed in the process were many times forcefully deported 'back' to Mexico, when it was California that was home. As a Californian, this history is important to me.
and do you really think this ties to most Mexican-Americans now who descend from Mexicans from random villages in Central Mexico? not even. we lost half of our lands but from there, it wasn't on us. that's history in the US.
what the hell do you expect dude? this country is an Anglo country. of course the text books would be Anglo-centric. anybody in power will write the history books that centers around their own ethnic group. this is how humans are.
that colonial history is mainly Spanish and Mexican history, not so much in American history, as American history has Anglo roots.
we are all unique in our histories. negros mainly came in as slaves europeans came in from boats, mexicans as either illegal migrants or legal migrants in airplanes. want to cater to everybody?
we aren't talking about negros. we are talking about Mexicans. and yes, the land is tied to us but this mainly applies to Mexican history as before, there wasn't the term or people, Mexican-American.
off-topic
again, the Anglos rule this country. of course they will center American history around themselves.
and do you really think this ties to most Mexican-Americans now who descend from Mexicans from random villages in Central Mexico? not even. we lost half of our lands but from there, it wasn't on us. that's history in the US.
Which is why those that are not in power must push to have their histories told, even it means just to their own people.
It doesn't matter that it became the U.S., there were/are still Mexicans living in the region, and they were therefore part of the history of it. They didn't suddenly disappear when Nueva España became Mexico or when Mexico became the U.S. Also, I'm not sure why it matters if they were called 'Mexican-Americans' or 'Chicanos' or 'Pachucos' or 'Californios' - it is all a continuum.
Also, as a Californian, I'm interested in the history of this land, and that history doesn't start when California became a state in 1850. YOU might not personally be interested in the history of this land that goes back to the natives, like the Tongva/Gabrielinos, but I am. I definitely think that other Californians should be knowledgeable of the history of this area as it gives context to our unique place in the world, and it isn't really taught in our East Coast centric history books.
The whole 'it doesn't tie to us' because you are a new/recent immigrant is lazy. If you are moving to a place, whatever that place might be, you should be aware of its history, the complete version, and not the limited one popularized by the powers that be. Plus, in the U.S. even more so, as it is a land that has been hugely settled by immigrants (and, no, not just Anglos) and I have those people to thank for for the current privileges I have as a citizen of this country. People like Gonzalo Mendez, Lorenzo Ramirez (etc.,) Mexican Americans that challenged the segregation of schools in Orange County back in 1946, and therefore thanks to them, I didn't grow up in a 'separate but equal' environment. To say that I, or others, shouldn't be aware of this history or that it shouldn't be taught because it isn't relevant to immigrants like myself that arrived recently is rather narrow-minded.
Why would pre-1965 Mexican-American history be relevant to the vast majority of Mexican-Americans who are descended from post-1965 Mexican immigrants? They are different groups of people. Those who are descended from the families that stayed on this side of the border are a small group and are irrelevant. All issue relating to Mexican-Americans in 2014 stem from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
It may be due to American education. As Mexican Americans we're not taught our history, we're taught the history of Europeans and European Americans. It's a shame that the Texas board of education recently struck down a proposal to allow Mexican American history to be an elective class in highschool. I think the European Americans are just stalling an inevitability though.
What is a European American? Mexicans are as European or more than an American, at least they have their culture and speak their language and are not brainwashed.
Nearly every mexican is part native american, maybe except 1% of them who are sons/daughters of recent foreigners, Even those with spanish "colonial" blood are very mixed, no matter if they mostly look white or not.
Not at all, white mexicans are very white and they don't mix because they would loose power. They hang among themselves, in their clubs and colonias, and control the country, plus, I don't think they travel to work in the US, maybe for shopping. I know because I have family in that group and I know them.
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.
