|
Post by gambler32 on Jun 17, 2005 14:19:52 GMT -5
As sociologists point out, when Kennedy took office in 1960 the country was 90% white, 9% black and 1% all others. Today--due to radical immigration policies--whites are something like 55%, Mexicans are 12%, blacks are 12% and Asians are climbing fast. So the radical revision of Hispanic-ness happened when America stopped getting South America's whites and became inundated with the poorest of these countries--and poor usually = Indian. GAMBLER>Droop,Mexicans have always been the largest"hispanic" groups in the USA.Their has never been many white South Americans in the USA. During WWR2,Their was like 500,000 people of Mexican origin who fought in WWR2.Like my grandparents his brothers,cousins etc. Their was a pop of 2,700,000 Up until recently no one would have been encouraged to lump in Fernando Lamas [father of actor Lorenzo Lamas] with an Aztec. But the Indians started to gain political power--under such men as union leader Cesar Chavez and others--and, as a result, Americans have been inundated with psychological cues and political prompting not to hurt the feelings of the mestizos who were gaining in numbers and clout. And not insulting them meant humoring their own racial hang-ups. And that meant NOT calling them Indians--or "squaws," or mestizos. We were encouraged to use polite euphemisms--and that meant circuitously referring to them as "Spanish-speakers" . . . which lazily got truncated into "Spanish". So the term "Spanish" lost all its real connotations and took on--in the US--a wholly different meaning and set of associations. But this is incredibly recent. As I said--as recently as 1960--the US did NOT have the massive Mexican Indian population that increases daily and is slowly amassing power. Americans from 1960 earlier knew quite certainly that there was a difference between a white Mexican and an Indian Mexican. And both groups were treated accordingly in the past. All this Orwellian crap is quite newer than most of you realize. P.S.--Yes, yes, I know. It's not fair to call "mestizos" Indians. The thinking is that, if one has a drop of white blood, it'll make you non-Indian. Except for one problem--US "native Americans" have Caucasoid admixture, too. But Americans still refer to them as "Indian"--and so they do themselves. They speak English, have English surnames and have moderate levels of Anglo-Saxon admixture . . . but would anyone walk onto an Indian reservation and confuse the residents with Englishmen? [How much sillier is it to see an illegal alien who is 4'11'', with Aztec-coloring, a fu-manchu mustache, a squat, neckless Amerindian body . . . and to be expected to refer to him as Spanish?]
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 14:30:59 GMT -5
Gambler32, What a monster I am! --I implied that Amerindic types are generally shorter than Caucasoid or negroid counterparts? [Gasp.] I implied that they have squat builds and shorter necks like Mongolians (as an evolutionary development to retain heat from the time when they were in Siberia, before they crossed over the landbridge into North America)? [Gasp.] I even implied that Amerindics generally have straight black hair and sparse body hair??? What a monster!
You might want to turn away for this one. But I secretly believe that sub-Saharans have darker skins than Norwegians. What a silly stereotype, right? --I'm sure it's not true. And get this: I harbor this insane notion that Caucasians have the world's highest rates of blue eyes. I know, I know. I'm a monster. Can you believe these insane ideas I have?
What next? --Imply that the eyes of Koreans have the epicanthic fold? Or that African Pygmies are short??? --What a lunatic! No educated or intelligent man could live according to these stereotypes.
P.S.--I'm sure you're right: The massive new influx of Mexico's and Central America's poorest into the US isn't predominantly their Indian population. I'm sure lots of upper-class blue-eyed Mexicans are leaving their nice homes and well-paying jobs back in Mexico to sneak into America to pick our tomatoes. . . . What a fool I've been! --And sure my local supermarket has mysteriously gotten all new Central American and Southern-Mexican bagboys . . . and they're all grown men and none of them reach over 5' tall. But I'm sure that's a delusion and a form of bigotry on my part. I'm sure my eyes are deceiving me. --They MUST be. Otherwise how can I make what my eyes are telling me accord with what you're saying? Forgive me. You're right. It's not happening at all. Shhh. I'll be quiet now. [Thought-crime, thought-crime.]
|
|
|
Post by gambler32 on Jun 17, 2005 14:32:39 GMT -5
As sociologists point out, when Kennedy took office in 1960 the country was 90% white, 9% black and 1% all others. Today--due to radical immigration policies--whites are something like 55%, Mexicans are 12%, blacks are 12% and Asians are climbing fast. So the radical revision of Hispanic-ness happened when America stopped getting South America's whites and became inundated with the poorest of these countries--and poor usually = Indian. GAMBLER>Droop,Mexicans have always been the largest"hispanic" groups in the USA.Their has never been many white South Americans in the USA. During WWR2,Their was like 500,000 people of Mexican origin who fought in WWR2.Like my grandparents his brothers,cousins etc. Their was a Mexican pop of 2,700,000 during WWR2.Very few Puero Ricans and hardly other Latinos.So Mexicans at the time were over 90% of the so called "hispanic "pop.So were do you get your bs that the "hispanic"label was used because of the growing Mexican pop? Mexicans have always been the majority "hispanic "pop in the USA. DROPERADO> Up until recently no one would have been encouraged to lump in Fernando Lamas [father of actor Lorenzo Lamas] with an Aztec. But the Indians started to gain political power--under such men as union leader Cesar Chavez and others--and, as a result, GAMBLER> Cesar Chavez is first a Mexican-American then a dark mestizo. Mexicans have always had more power than the other "hispanic" groups.Dropo, i can assure you than us Mexican-Americans really don't want to associate with white Cubans,other latinos.We don't need them for political or cultural influence.We are our own group.I prefer to be called Mexican-American not 'hispanic". dropo>Americans have been inundated with psychological cues and political prompting not to hurt the feelings of the mestizos who were gaining in numbers and clout. And not insulting them meant humoring their own racial hang-ups. gambler> Mexican-Americans are proud of our Aztec OR MAYAN ETC ancestry.We are not like other "hispanic" groups who are ashamed of their Amerindian heritage. DROPO> But this is incredibly recent. As I said--as recently as 1960--the US did NOT have the massive Mexican Indian population that increases daily and is slowly amassing power. GAMBLER> Mexicans mestizos have always been the majority "hispanic" group in America for centuries.The Mexican indian pop did not start arriving to the USA till the early 1980's.Mexican indians have very little political power in the USA,few speak English well. It's the Mexican-American s who are mestizos who are gaining alot of political power in the SoUTHWEST. Like Antonio Villaraigosa becaming LOS ANGELES Mayor,etc.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 14:40:58 GMT -5
Gambler32, So it's your position that the new influx of illegals are not predominantly Mexico's poorest [hence most Indian] population? You're telling us all here that the millions stealing illegally over the border in the year 2005 are of the same ethnic make-up of Spanish-Mexicans who have lived in the Southwest for centuries???
I'm curious. Please enlighten us. (Maybe we're all wrong: The borders are being breached by blue-eyed upper-class Mexicans? --I'll leave this as my last post to you . . . awaiting the photos you have of blue-eyed Mexicans picking tomatoes in fields.)
|
|
|
Post by gambler32 on Jun 17, 2005 14:44:37 GMT -5
Educate Me, You say "the Spanish took wives among the Indians. If by ;took wives, mean raped and murdered ,then I'll agree. gambler> of course many Spaniards took Indian wives.The catholic church encouraged it. Malinche was introduced to the Spanish in April 1519, when she was among twenty slave women given by the Chontal Maya of Potonchan (in the present-day state of Tabasco) to the triumphant Spaniards. Within several weeks, according to surviving indigenous and Spanish sources, the young woman had begun acting as interpreter, translating between the Nahuatl language (the lingua franca of central Mexico) and the Yucatec Maya language, a language understood by Spanish priest Gerónimo de Aguilar, who had spent several years in captivity among the Maya people following a shipwreck. By the end of the year, when the Spaniards had installed themselves in the Mexican capital Tenochtitlan, it is apparent that the woman, now called "Malintzin" by the Indians, had learned enough Spanish to be translating directly between Cortés and the Mexica (Aztecs). The Indians, significantly, also call Cortés "Malintzin," an indication, perhaps, of how closely connected they had become. Following the fall of Tenochtitlan in late 1521 and the birth of her son Don Martín Cortés, Malinche disappears from the record until Cortés' nearly disastrous Honduran expedition of 1524–26 when she is seen serving again as interpreter (suggestive of a knowledge of Maya dialects beyond Chontal and Yucatecan.) It is here, in the forests of central Yucatán, that she married Juan Jaramillo, a wealthy conquistador. Little or nothing more is known about her after this, even the year of her death, 1529, being somewhat in dispute.
|
|
|
Post by gambler32 on Jun 17, 2005 14:51:35 GMT -5
Gambler32, So it's your position that the new influx of illegals are not predominantly Mexico's poorest [hence most Indian] population? gambler>a good % are mostly indian. But if they are coming from Jalisco,Northern Mexico or sinaloa ,they are mestizos. drooperado> You're telling us all here that the millions stealing illegally over the border in the year 2005 are of the same ethnic make-up of Spanish-Mexicans who have lived in the Southwest for centuries??? gambler> their was few spanish-mexicans in the southwest to begin with ,most were mestizos . droperado> I'm curious. Please enlighten us. (Maybe we're all wrong: The borders are being breached by blue-eyed upper-class Mexicans? --I'll leave this as my last post to you . . . awaiting the photos you have of blue-eyed Mexicans picking tomatoes in fields.) i never said blue eyed upper class"mexicans" immigrate to the USA.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 17, 2005 14:58:54 GMT -5
Yes, they did get married, marriage between spanish and indian women was very frecuent, do you think every mestizo alive is the result of some ancestral rape?
And I want to believe you know close contact is not needed for the transmission of contagious diseases, when the spaniards entered tenochtitlan for the first time they were completely kicked out, but the little time they spent inside the city was enough for the population to get infected.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 14:59:05 GMT -5
Gambler, No, you didn't say that "blue-eyed Mexicans" are storming America now. But you clearly stated that because the Southwest's old population was more mestizo than Amerindic that the NEW wave of Mexico and Central America's poorest MUST be of the same ethnic make-up. I said that the new wave was poorer, tended to be from the south and was NOT like America's old Southwest population. You said they were. So please: Produce some photos of Mexicans who look like, say, Cheech Marin picking tomatoes. I'm sure they're not Amerindic. I'm sure you're right--they must all look like the predominantly-Spanish Cheech Marin, right? So get us some pictures of the people in the fields picking tomatoes--and let's let the people on the thread judge if the new wave is predominantly Amerindic.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 15:03:39 GMT -5
Educate Me, I'll consent to drop the conversation with you. I'm sure you're right: Spaniards didn't take slaves, no one died, everyone lived in peace and harmony--and that's why South America later rebelled and sought independence from Spain . . . er . . . uh . . . because they were all great buddies. Rape never happened, Africans never died, and Spain didn't eject their Jews in 1492 and carry out the Inquisition to torture those that stayed behind. I stand corrected. You convinced me. They were an enlightened, kind-hearted . . . empire.
|
|
|
Post by gambler32 on Jun 17, 2005 15:06:20 GMT -5
Gambler, No, you didn't say that "blue-eyed Mexicans" are storming America now. But you clearly stated that because the Southwest's old population was more mestizo than Amerindic that the NEW wave of Mexico and Central America's poorest MUST be of the same ethnic make-up. gambler> i have always said that the new wave of mexican illegals are more amerindian than the mexican-american pop whose ancestors came to the usa 50-250 years ago.go back to toasty's pic thread. dropo> I said that the new wave was poorer, tended to be from the south and was NOT like the old Southwest population. You said they were. gamblEr> i never said that.I know very well what regions of Mexico have been sending Mexican immigrants for centuries. The more Amerindian south up untill the early 1980's has started sending mexican imigrants.before that,the mexicans amerindians from southern mexico migrated to Mexico city and the surrounding larger cities.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 15:18:55 GMT -5
Gambler32, I'm not going to bicker with you. Dispensing with all rhetoric now, I think you're incredibly intelligent, knowledgable and--what's more important--gentlemanly. You took me to task not so much for the substance of what I said, but the hamfisted and moronic way in which I illustrated some of my points. And you were right to do that. But, really, I can't go on trading silly comments with you when I was in the wrong and you were in the right. I'll try not to be such an idiot in future posts and I'll try to measure my words better--before launching off into harebrained remarks that are needlessly abrasive.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 17, 2005 15:48:23 GMT -5
Educate Me, I'll consent to drop the conversation with you. I'm sure you're right: Spaniards didn't take slaves, no one died, everyone lived in peace and harmony--and that's why South America later rebelled and sought independence from Spain . . . er . . . uh . . . because they were all great buddies. Rape never happened, Africans never died, and Spain didn't eject their Jews in 1492 and carry out the Inquisition to torture those that stayed behind. I stand corrected. You convinced me. They were an enlightened, kind-hearted . . . empire. I never said the spanish didnt take slaves, or that no one died, or that Spain did not eject the jews in 1492. But saying that the spanish didnt marry native women, or that they just raped and kill is a lie, by reading your posts one may think that spaniards used to cough at the faces of the amerindians because they just liked to make them ill. You seem to feel comfortable comparing XX century germans with XV century spaniards, I think it is ridiculous, if I were like you I could dismiss all you said about the Spaniards because the Aztects were worse, I guess you havent read the descriptions written by the spanish of the piles of skulls and humans sacrifices, why do you think the tribes allied with the spaniards against the aztecs? They were not vikings, they didnt just rape and kill, they founded cities and universities, and intermixed with the population creating a new people and a new civilization. I am latin american remember, and btw we rebelled because Spain was conquered by Napoleon, the rebellion in fact started as an act of loyalty to Spain.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 17, 2005 15:50:40 GMT -5
And yes, they were nicer to the local populations than the english.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jun 17, 2005 16:01:23 GMT -5
Educate Me, Wow! It's refreshing to see such a candy-cane, pie-in-the-sky version of history. Yes, yes, the Spaniards and Indians they enslaved were all great friends. The universities were filled with . . . Indians. There wasn't a racial caste-system and everyone loved each other. Okay. You win. You said it wasn't fair to compare modern people with 15th Century Spaniards. And you're right. But wait! --What's this? --A Spaniard in the 1500s named Bartolomeo Las Casas, bewailing Spanish brutality to Indians? How can that be? Here's a quote about his experience: "According to eyewitness accounts, the Cuban Indian chiefs greeted him and his men with a banquet which the Spanish accepted. After the banquet, the Spaniards got up and slaughtered the Indians, astutely eliminating the aristocracy of Indian society and therefore the Indian resistance in one swoop. Reputedly, Bartolomé de Las Casas was so horrified by the wholesale slaughter of the innocent Cuban Indians that he would renounce his encomienda and spend the remainder of his long life as a Dominican friar championing their interests, thus earning him the title Protector of the Indians."
What??? But you said that slaughter, rape and murder didn't happen? But wait! There's more: "Las Casas described first-hand how the Spaniards terrorized the natives. Las Casas gives numerous eye-witness accounts of repeated mass murder and routine sadistic torture.
As Barry Lopez has accurately summarized it,
“One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people.
‘Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight,’ he says, ‘as no age can parallel....’
“The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them. They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They loosed dogs that ‘devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.’ They used nursing infants for dog food.”
Oh, what do stupid ol' eyewitness accounts matter? --You've already told me that everyone loved each other and peace and harmony reigned. That's enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jun 17, 2005 16:13:35 GMT -5
Whats your point? I said that happened , This is what I said, read : "I never said the spanish didnt take slaves, or that no one died, or that Spain did not eject the jews in 1492"
|
|