Completely unrelated to anything but an, IMO, interesting aside:
I had a first-gen Latina/Chicana/whatever friend years ago. Her mother was a little brown mexican woman, her father was a little brown mexican man. She was a little brown woman. Her brother was this white dude. Somehow all the spanish genes lined up once and they ended up with a european. Looked just like his dad, just really fair skin.
Funny. Among the folks I knew in college, Hispanic was considered derogatory and Latino preferred.
The folks I knew in NYC just said “Spanish”.
I just posted this in another thread, but it’s relevant here, too. My husband, who is Cuban on his father’s side, prefers “Hispanic.” Don’t think he considers either to be derogatory (guess it really depends in the speaker, right? 
), but he thinks Hispanic is more descriptive of what it is actually referring to, which I guess is Spanish heriatge.
I don’t know that it would be considered derogatory (in the sense that it expresses a low opinion about the person in question), though it may be considered offensive (because of being simplistic or not chosen by the people it is applied to).
In my experience most Latin Americans prefer latino (which technically also includes Brazilians). A smaller number may prefer *Hispanic * for various reasons. Latino is probably safest to use in general if you are not aware of someone’s personal preference.
This Wikipedia article gives some historical and political background on the use of the term and the nuances of its meanings.
Doesn’t New Mexico have the oldest church/chapel in North America?
My first assumption was that “bull blooded” was a sarcastic way of referring to someone who tenuously brags to be “full-blooded” Indian or whatever but probably isn’t.
So by “ordinary,” she is saying simply that three of her grandparents were of some kind of “uncertain” mixture of European/Native mixture. Actually, this might not be accurate, because there is a lot of African and Middle-Eastern blood in Mexico.
By saying that her grandfather was a “full-blooded aztec,” what she might really meant is that his first language, (and the accompanying cultural effects), was not Spanish. Perhaps her grandfather rarely dealt with Spanish speakers or the cultural “norm.” It’s hard to tell, but it’s something worth talking about. I’d like to find out how she knows this, and what she has learnt from her grandfather.
But becuase the term “Aztec” doesn’t have much to do with “blood,” (other than that it is definitely not European), and because the Aztecs have been gone for a long time, I can’t imagine the veracity of a person, who is the grandfather of a person alive today, being “aztec.” Probably she just wants you to know that her granfather was pure native, and that he probably spoke some kind of native language. This would have meant that he was probably treated pretty badly by the rest of Mexican society, and so it’s important for that reaon. I would see that as an item for future conversations. (Please report back.)
Green, suizas, or poblanas? I’ll drive the distance.
Con mole? Please??? With sugar on top???
It is probably not so involved. Aztec to her may mean indigenous. Language, btw, and not “blood” is what is used today to determine ethnicicity in México.
And I don’t know anyone in Mexican society who personally treats indigenous badly.
Which Latino people arrived in Nuevo Mexico before Mexico or the US?
New Mexico had Spanish surnamed residents while everything was under Spain’s control and before the English colonization began.
New Mexico had Spanish colonizers and missionaries before the independence of Mexico and it’s territories. I just do not understand the statement made by Bridget Burke.
Which people of Latino heritage??
When I was in junior high in norcal, people there faught to be called “Chicano.” Anything else was “insulting.” It was the time of the brown buffalo.
No true Chicana would have sugar on top of her enchiladas con mole.