Maybe I’ve been completely misinformed, but I’ve learned that the modern day Mexican is a combination of native Mexican (Indian/Aztec, etc.) and white European (Spanish and whatnot). This is from Europeans interbreeding with the natives until everyone was “Mexican” and had medium (not white, not dark) skin tone. I wouldn’t be suprised that if this is true, that the same happened to most other Central and possibly some South American countries.
So, why didn’t this happen in North America? Logically all Americans (U.S.) and Canadians with a long lineage should be Hispanic looking (or a cross between native North American indian and white European, whatever that would be). But they’re not- they’re white.
Either that, or Hispanics should really be white.
In a nutshell- why did the races (White and Am. Indian) blend in Central America and not North America?
The only places in North America where Indian cultures developed horticultural cultivation techniques (irrigating, terracing, fertilizing) that were sufficient to build up surpluses that would allow the development of towns and cites on a large scale was in Mexico and Central America. This led to a higher population and concentration of Indian cultures to become intermixed with white Europeans. Indian cultures in the modern day U.S. tended to farm much more “hand to mouth”, or to be hunter gatherers, than did their “richer” cousins to the south.
I suspect it was largely because the white Americans did not enslave the Indians so much as they evacuated them, starved them, or just shot them.
The white Americans were much fonder of enslaving the black Africans… who, you may notice, today come in a wide range of blends and tones, ranging from creamy tan to “so black he’s almost purple”.
The Spaniards, on the other hand, who were white Europeans, made a point of either enslaving or enserfing the natives they didn’t just shoot outright. Since the two states are durn near identical, this left lots of opportunity for the white guys to, um, amuse themselves with the local women, which led to the modern mix of races and colors one sees in modern Mexico, ranging from blondes with blue eyes to people who, aside from dress, might be mistaken for illustrations of Aztecs or Toltecs or whatever.
As I recall, it was far less taboo for the Spanish settlers to fraternize with a native Indian who had converted to Christianity. Although no doubt the larger proportion of racial mixing was not so innocent.
I’m not sure if most Mexicans are a blend of Indian and Spanish. Isn’t pure Indian the largest group in Mexico, followed by those “blended” Mexicans? Or am I mistaken?
You’re probably mistaken, Hermann, but it’s hard to say. The Mexican Government hasn’t collected recorded racial data since 1921. Estimates tend to state about 55% are Mestizos, the racial category created fromthe intermarriage of Europeans and Native Americans. About 29% are Native Americans, 15% Caucasian, and 1% other. Still, 29% is a lot when you’re talking about Native American population in comparison to the U.S. and prior to aforesaid intermarriages it was of course a lot higher. The Native American population is just plain larger there.
I couldn’t say, but I do know there are areas of Mexico that are easily accessible to a white Turista like me where EVERYONE looks like a freakin’ Aztec, and the locals don’t speak Spanish. Or English. Or any language I ever heard of. Aztec, maybe…
Nice folks, actually, even if we couldn’t understand each other…
Partly the answers given above but also the Latin American colonies were mostly ‘exploitation colonies’, rather than ‘settlement colonies’. While North America ( a few exceptions like Jamestown aside ) was colonized more by families, the Latin Americas were mostly occupied by young men who were looking to make a fortune and return home ( many didn’t, of course ). Consequently there was quite a bit more miscengenation, to use an old and ugly word.
Could you please specify where you went and if you actually speak Spanish well enough to understand different accents within the language? Where did you go on vacation?
By the way, there is no such thing as Aztec language. The language is called Nahuatl, and it is still spoken in some areas in Mexico, but mostly in the central part of the country, whereas most “touristy” areas are along the coasts.
Also, I would appreciate some links to the pictures of the Aztecs that you used for comparison, since I haven’t come across many on the web, at least not enough to be able to say if someone “looks like a freakin’ Aztec”.
I think this is one of the most relevant factors that contributed to “mestizaje”. I came across an article that mentions that the Holy Office Tribunals (The Inquisition, as its more commonly known) judged on many cases of bigamy during the Colonial era, since “indianos” would have a wife in Spain and Common Law or formal second wife in Mexico or Latin America (could or could not be a native girl). I gather that if it happened that if conquistadores went as far as to have to wives, having many indian lovers, and children with them, would not be too farfetched.
The site is only in Spanish, so tell me if you want me to post it.:dubious:
There is a strong distinction between “Mexican” and “native.” And it also flunctuates depending on the region. Yucatan Mexico is much different from centran Mexico, which is much different from northern Mexico.
My family is descended from Spaniards who settled in what is now northern Mexico and the southwestern United States - incidentally, without a lot of breeding with natives. To spare explanations, I generally just tell people I’m half Mexican, but I’m not. Today, the term means a “native inhabitant of Mexico,” which means about as much as “American.” Racial lines in the “new world” are generally so f*ing blurred no one has a friggin’ clue what they are.
That out of the way, I have to agree with some of the previous posters.
The social conditions in colonies north of Mexico were entirely different from conditions south of the US. South of the US, people were largely left to their own. Natives frequently settled into being citizens and farming, for example. They weren’t as nomadic as the stereotypical USA native, anyway. The natives where teh English, Dutch, and French settled were up against a whole different world… the Spanish were basically pillaging the land and shipping it back. The other Europeans set up permanent settlements operating on the presumption that they would be just like cities in the old world, and this included keeping their cities more white-only, so to speak. It was a true colonization effort, as opposed to the Spanish exploitation with a flag left in the ground and a few trading forts (incidentally, look at Portugal as another example of this). The Brits just booted the natives the hell out. The Spanish let them stay and do their thang after swearing allegiance.
In the end, my skin is a healthy computer user white, but I am hispanic and I get all my federal mailings and about half my spam in Spanish. That’s America for you. I give us 100 years before race means diddly squat and everyone here is trilingual.
We recently went to Michoacan which is in northwest-central Mexico, and while I have no proof the people in some of the villages along the highway don’t speak Spanish, I do know that their Indian language is alive and well. We even had the opportunity to listen to a couple of AM radio stations broadcast completely in this language (I don’t remember what it was called). This area is very touristy for other Mexicans (and a beautiful sub-tropical-like place), so I imagine that some of them speak Spanish. Unfortunately, until we got to the national park, we didn’t make any stops along the highway to talk to anyone (and I really, really liked some of the wooden items I’d seen).
There are several pockets of Menonites that according to my Spanish-speaking mestizo Mexican wife don’t typically speak Spanish. I imagine that of necessity some of them do, though.
Then, particularly in the south (Chiapas) there are huge Indian clusters that don’t speak Spanish typically. Of course like the Quebecians they want to separate from the mother country – is this a language thing too?
Mexico is more multiracial than many Americans realize. I’ve known many Mexicans (native to Mexico) who would strike most Americans as “all white” in background - especially in bigger cities in the upper to middle classes. Some can be a rather exclusive lot. Since these folks usually don’t emigrate to the United States, a lot of Americans will probably never see a “white Mexican” - even in Mexico they are often a “closed society” - but they are definitely there. Certainly any look at the composition of the Mexican government or even television betrays the preference for European features among the dominant class.
Likewise there ate many unmixed Native peoples, and even Afro-Mexicans in some states like Veracruz and Oaxaca. Mexican-Americans are overwhelmingly from the mestizo classes.
This is what I believe to be the right answer. There were simply more folks living in Mexico (Aztecs), Central America (Mayans), and South America (Incas) at that time, thus offering more opportunity for “mixing”. If you go to Argentina or Chile (been there myself), you see a lot more white faces than “Indian” faces for the same reason I suspect (though more “Indian” faces than in the USA). If you had to live without modern conveniences, I think Mexico, Central America, or northern South America would provide you a more consistent climate and easier existence than North America or southern South America, hence a higher population 500 years ago when the Spanish arrived.
It is the native peoples of the United States who changed dramatically. In my experience with the aboriginal peoples of the United States it is virtually impossible to categorize them phenotypically.
Take, for example, Kenny Reels, former chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.
Then compare him with Skip Hayward, also a former chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (photo at bottom of page).
Those two guys have some of the most carefully scrutinized genealogies of any modern Americans, and only poor scholars with suspicious agendas–and the completely uninformed–claim that these people fail to meet the federal government’s definition of “Indian.”
The same is true for many members of other tribes and native villages across the county. That unfortunately doesn’t mean that phenotypical classification isn’t used extensively–and often erroneously–by non-Indians and Indians alike.
I didn’t doubt your numbers pravnik, I just found the part about not “not collecting racial data” since 1921 a bit curious so I wondered where your info came from. To my knowledge the Mexican government still tries to keep track of the indigenous numbers. To do this their census form asks people if they speak native tongue and/or consider themselves indigenous.
Yes, that’s right. I should have been more clear and said they do not directly collect racial data (and to be honest, I don’t know exactly what methods they used to collect it prior to 1921, just that they supposedly did). Instead, they ask what languages one speaks and make estimates as to what the various populations are. My error.