|
Post by Educate Me on Oct 9, 2005 22:21:31 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, the most important cities from Colinial times, where most of the spaniards moved to, Mexico DF, Acapulco, Veracruz or Zacatecas, are center Mexico and closer to the south than to the north.
Yucatan peninsula is mostly pred amerind.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Oct 9, 2005 23:06:49 GMT -5
Someone should start a thread on American laziness. I mean, in the United States, you can have English-speaking Indians and English-speaking Europeans and nobody lumps them into the same imaginary race. Like the Hopi Man and, say, actor Tyrone Power. Yet there's the same genetic and phenotypical gulf between Robert Rodriguez (a Mexican of European extraction) and US attorney general Alberto Gonzalez (a Mexican of Indian extraction): Yet, in the latter, case Americans are encouraged to lump the two Mexicans into one imaginary "race," while, in the former case, Americans can psychologically recognize that speaking English doesn't change the Hopi Indian into an Anglo-Saxon. I wonder why this strange psychological disparity exists.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 9, 2005 23:25:32 GMT -5
Yeah... while I'm a far, far cry from nordic, as long as I hide the fact that I speak Spanish, I'm rarely seen as nonwhite. Otherwise, I'm of the "mythical brown race that spurted from the ground speaking Spanish" as someone here phrased it, and the notion is almost always impossible to take back.
Ignorance is instantaneous.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 10, 2005 0:42:19 GMT -5
Buddy, The Texas-Mexico border is an imaginary line. The "Indians" on the United States side of the line are the same as the people we call "Mexicans" on the other side of the line. The US Indians speak English and the Mexican Indians speak Spanish, but that doesn't change their dna--or the fact that they're the same people. It's always amused me: Indians in the US have Anglo James [like Graham Green, or Jim Thorpe], but no one imagines that they're Englishmen. And Indians in Mexico had "Christian" names forced on them by Spanish priests, but, once they cross that border, Americans are encouraged to think that they're magically "Iberian". Haven't Americans noticed how Southwest Indians look exactly like Mexicans??? They're the same people: Wake up. The Texas-Mexico border is an imaginary line. Droop, I'm aware that NAs from the Southwest share the same origins as many Mexicans. In fact, I acknowledged this when I proposed that yet another possible source of seemingly higher levels of NA admixture in Texas could be due to the long Mexican presence there. Additionally, yes some of these "mestizos" were undoubtedly Hispanicized Amerindians. Mestizo is increasingly more of a cultural term in Latin America as it often refers to an Amerindian who has adopted the Spanish language and culture.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 10, 2005 0:48:01 GMT -5
Melnorme, You're absolutely correct. Northern Mexico traditionally has actual Spaniards, with moderate amounts of Indian blood. A poster of this board named Toasty is an example of a Mexican who could fit in unnoticed in Spain, Italy or any other European country. Or look at American director Robert Rodriguez. He's of Mexican extraction, too: But recently a trend has developed, where masses of Southern Mexicans and Guantemalans, Hondurans, etc. are going over to Northern Mexico and into the United States. So the flood of New "Latin-Americans" into the United States is a flood of Indians. And these people are related to the Indians in the Southwestern United States, anyway. As I said: The border between the two countries is an imaginary line. On the Texan border you have Anglo-Saxons with moderate Indian admixture and on the Mexican side you have whites with moderate Indian admixture. But when you take these two groups away, you're left with the aboriginal peoples of the North American continent. Aboriginal people who are all, more or less, related. It's just that, in the US, when we see an Indian speaking English, we say "He's an Indian," but if we see an Indian speaking Spanish, we're like, "Er . . . uh . . . he's . . . uh . . . Hispanic, I guess". It's just silly. A different language doesn't change your dna. Here's a Hopi man from Colorado. If he had a baseball cap on and spoke Spanish, most Americans would be programed to refer to him as "Hispanic". He bears a remarkable resemblance to Mexican labor leader Cesar Chavez--and that's no coincidence: They're both Indians. Here's Chavez: My only point here is that the line between Mexico and the U.S. is an imaginary line. Indians on one side were conquered by white Englishmen and Indians on the other side were conquered by white Spaniards. But the Indians themselves are the same race. Talking Spanish doesn't make Cesar Chavez anymore "Hispanic" than talking English makes the Hopi man "Anglo-Saxon". Yet, in the U.S. we routinely see stupidities like "Hispanic Heritage Month," where they'll include people like Cesar Chavez. I wonder if an Anglo-Saxon History month will include Tonto from the 'Lone Ranger'. I mean, he spoke English. Speaking English makes you 'Anglo-Saxon,' right??? --Bwa-ha-ha-ha Yes I've also heard that northern Mexicans have a great deal of European ancestry, hence their often narrower faces, fairer complexions, and taller stature. In fact, wasn't it heavily settled by Basque settlers?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 10, 2005 1:31:21 GMT -5
This is mostly the case. The indian population was sparser up north. Although, nowadays the south is sending a lot of immigration. The streets in a lot of towns have changed drastically. I mean there were always poor indians selling crap, but never this many.
|
|
|
Post by buddy on Oct 10, 2005 2:58:13 GMT -5
From what I've understood, Basques featured prominently among the Spanish settlers in Latin America. Additionally, I've come across research that suggests that many of the settlers were also Jewish and Moorish exiles from the Inquisition. The Hispanos of New Mexico, who would have been Mexican citizens had it not been for the U.S. victory in the Mexican War, are thought to be largely descended from these people (mixed with Amerindians of course).
The Hispanos are an interesting group of people. They decline to associate themselves with Mexicans as they have preserved certain antiquated customs such as the use of the Castillian Spanish of Cervantes (which is dying out in favor of modern Spanish or English as the younger people assimilate), though their ancestry is basically the same, only with perhaps a bit more Spanish ancestry (largely Sephardic Jewish to be more specific) in the case of the Hispanos as they tend to be lighter-skinned on average.
|
|
|
Post by ginoelguapo on Oct 12, 2005 18:50:20 GMT -5
Someone should start a thread on American laziness. I mean, in the United States, you can have English-speaking Indians and English-speaking Europeans and nobody lumps them into the same imaginary race. Like the Hopi Man and, say, actor Tyrone Power. Yet there's the same genetic and phenotypical gulf between Robert Rodriguez (a Mexican of European extraction) and US attorney general Alberto Gonzalez (a Mexican of Indian extraction): Yet, in the latter, case Americans are encouraged to lump the two Mexicans into one imaginary "race," while, in the former case, Americans can psychologically recognize that speaking English doesn't change the Hopi Indian into an Anglo-Saxon. I wonder why this strange psychological disparity exists. drooperdoo, I know what you mean bro and as someone who lives in south Texas I have seen millions of Mexicans or "Hispanics/Latinos" and I agree with you on part of that issue. But you gotta recognize that clearly that issue has to deal with culture rather than biological race. Because the english speaking hopi/navajo Indian is still culturally tied to his NA tribe people consider them and see them as Native American. While the "Hispanic" Native American or as they call them "Chicanos" is as dark and genetically identical to his Hopi cousin, but he speaks Spanish and Culturally Hispanic/Latin in Culture.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 12, 2005 18:57:12 GMT -5
But you gotta recognize that clearly that issue has to deal with culture rather than biological race. Because the english speaking hopi/navajo Indian is still culturally tied to his NA tribe people consider them and see them as Native American. While the "Hispanic" Native American or as they call them "Chicanos" is as dark and genetically identical to his Hopi cousin, but he speaks Spanish and Culturally Hispanic/Latin in Culture. We already got that part. The question is why. A black man who speaks the Queen's English is still a black man. Why is a short brown indian on the other hand a Spaniard? How can someone be so ... inconsistent mentally? The American does not just classify by the culture, in his mind he believes the indian people, the mixed, and the creoles are all the same race, when the difference is as clear as night and day.
|
|
|
Post by ginoelguapo on Oct 12, 2005 19:03:56 GMT -5
Melnorme, You're absolutely correct. Northern Mexico traditionally has actual Spaniards, with moderate amounts of Indian blood. A poster of this board named Toasty is an example of a Mexican who could fit in unnoticed in Spain, Italy or any other European country. Or look at American director Robert Rodriguez. He's of Mexican extraction, too: But recently a trend has developed, where masses of Southern Mexicans and Guantemalans, Hondurans, etc. are going over to Northern Mexico and into the United States. So the flood of New "Latin-Americans" into the United States is a flood of Indians. And these people are related to the Indians in the Southwestern United States, anyway. As I said: The border between the two countries is an imaginary line. On the Texan border you have Anglo-Saxons with moderate Indian admixture and on the Mexican side you have whites with moderate Indian admixture. But when you take these two groups away, you're left with the aboriginal peoples of the North American continent. Aboriginal people who are all, more or less, related. It's just that, in the US, when we see an Indian speaking English, we say "He's an Indian," but if we see an Indian speaking Spanish, we're like, "Er . . . uh . . . he's . . . uh . . . Hispanic, I guess". It's just silly. A different language doesn't change your dna. Here's a Hopi man from Colorado. If he had a baseball cap on and spoke Spanish, most Americans would be programed to refer to him as "Hispanic". He bears a remarkable resemblance to Mexican labor leader Cesar Chavez--and that's no coincidence: They're both Indians. Here's Chavez: My only point here is that the line between Mexico and the U.S. is an imaginary line. Indians on one side were conquered by white Englishmen and Indians on the other side were conquered by white Spaniards. But the Indians themselves are the same race. Talking Spanish doesn't make Cesar Chavez anymore "Hispanic" than talking English makes the Hopi man "Anglo-Saxon". Yet, in the U.S. we routinely see stupidities like "Hispanic Heritage Month," where they'll include people like Cesar Chavez. I wonder if an Anglo-Saxon History month will include Tonto from the 'Lone Ranger'. I mean, he spoke English. Speaking English makes you 'Anglo-Saxon,' right??? --Bwa-ha-ha-ha Yes I've also heard that northern Mexicans have a great deal of European ancestry, hence their often narrower faces, fairer complexions, and taller stature. In fact, wasn't it heavily settled by Basque settlers? It's true that they have a lot of Basque settlers in the North, especially in the state of Tamualipas. A Mexican state that borders Texas. I know girl from one of my Chemistry classes who's from there and is a cousin of Tamualipas Mexican Actor/Model Eduardo Verastegui. According to her family came Spain and is pure Spanish ancestry and settled in that region of Mexico while Spain was going through its civil war. The girl showed me a picture of her famous cousin and I told her he would look outta place here along with her among the majority Mexican/American Hispanics here in Texas. images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=eduardo+verastegui&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-tHere's her Cousin. I think he looks like he belongs in the east coast with all those Italian Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Toasty on Oct 12, 2005 20:31:03 GMT -5
Yeah... while I'm a far, far cry from nordic, as long as I hide the fact that I speak Spanish, I'm rarely seen as nonwhite. Otherwise, I'm of the "mythical brown race that spurted from the ground speaking Spanish" as someone here phrased it, and the notion is almost always impossible to take back. Ignorance is instantaneous. Same here.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 12, 2005 20:47:18 GMT -5
<<From what I've understood, Basques featured prominently among the Spanish settlers in Latin America. Additionally, I've come across research that suggests that many of the settlers were also Jewish and Moorish exiles from the Inquisition. The Hispanos of New Mexico, who would have been Mexican citizens had it not been for the U.S. victory in the Mexican War, are thought to be largely descended from these people (mixed with Amerindians of course).>>
Something else they dont tell you is that alot of "Spanish" Conquistador's where in fact Sicilians aswel..
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 13, 2005 12:25:16 GMT -5
Yep, never heard that one. I believe you, but do you got a link or something on it?
|
|
|
Post by osservatore on Oct 13, 2005 13:29:25 GMT -5
I'd say not only sicilians, but from all the parts of Italy (could we say at least half of the country?) that at that time was ruled by Spain.
(does somebody know Dan Inosanto, filipino friend and pupil of Bruce Lee? Inosanto is an italian surname, as he himself discovered- I remember him speaking about the influence of italian Rennaisance fencing on filipino martial arts!)
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Oct 13, 2005 15:38:00 GMT -5
Seizure, You forget: Sicily was a Spanish possession. The Spanish throne was filled by a Hapsburg. Hapsburgs filled almost all of Europe's royal houses. Check out this article: www.bestofsicily.com/mag/art186.htmAn extract: "Dynastically, the rulers of Aragon and then all Spain occasionally controlled not only Sicily but much of southern Italy (the Kingdom of Naples). Several, including the remarkable Charles V, were Hapsburgs who ruled not only Spain and her possessions but also Austria and various lands of central Europe. This period lasted for over two hundred years, until the War of the Spanish Succession and the brief reign (1713-1720) of Vittorio Amadeo of Savoy." As for Sicilians in the New World, check out this link: www.sicilianculture.com/news/newworld.htmAn extract: "A list of those Sicilians serving in the Spanish Army in the New World: Aruega or Arnega a Sicilian artilleryman; in Cuba 1518, with Herndo Cortes and Bernal Diaz Bacarel, Jeronimo > born in Sicily, went to Peru in 1535 with Pizarro. Castro, Sebastian > Sicilian; Zaragoza de Sicilia, to Peru 1513. Espadafor, P > Sicilian at Terra Firma 1535. Martin de Cecilia > a Sicilian born soldier migrating from Don Benito, Spain to Lima, Peru 1537 with Pizarro. Letin, Francesco > born in Messina, Sicily; in Tierra Firme 1513; he discovered the Mar del Sur or South Sea with Balboa, then went with Pedrarias Davial 1514 to Nicarauga; he died in 1547 in Mexico City. Mesina, Nufrio de > a Sicilian sailor who settled in Puerto Rico 1526. Rojo, Francisco > born in Sicily went to Honduras then Nicaragua 1523; then to Mexico in 1530 and served with Coronado on his expedtions of exploration; died in 1547 in Mexico City. Roxo Loro, Francisco > born in Sicily settled in Compostela and was a conquistador of Central America under the command of Gil Gonzalez de Avial in 1523 Siciliano, Giovanni > born in the Duchy of Nerbin, Sicily the son of Micer Francisco Garbin and Madona con Paula; a sailor in Danto Domingo 1502 under Ovando; married a Spanish woman and had a son and daughter in Santa Domingo; he was a ships pilot in Purto Rico in 1513; traveled to Cuba in 1518; he became a conquistador with Cortes in 1519; was under the command of Narbaez in 1520 in Mexico;died in Mexico city in 1528. Urlanda, D de >born in Trapani, Sicily in 1501; came to Plata in 1534 then returned to Spain and settled there in 1537.
|
|