# Native Mexicans and White Americans **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 16, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899 "2003-01-16T03:09:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Splanky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@Splanky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Splanky)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/21 "2003-01-16T20:31:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Then compare him with Skip Hayward, also a former chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (photo at bottom of page). Well, that guy sure looks like the stereotypical 1/64th Indian white businessman who exploits his great-great grandfather being a quarter Indian so he can open up a casino. But I don’t know anything about him, so I won’t make that assumption. And thanks to everyone for their input. It makes a lot more sense to me now. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/22 "2003-01-16T20:33:49Z")
I wish I had more time to post. I could clear up many of the misconceptions in the above messages regarding the evolution of the mestizo ethnic group in Mexico. Let me say briefly that the mestizo group has evolved from almost the minute Cortez waded ashore. The first “Mexican” to be legitimitized (with papal permission) was his son, Martin, the offspring of Cortez and Princess Malintzin. ---
**Author:** ![lothos2002](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/df788c/32.png) [@lothos2002](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lothos2002)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/23 "2003-01-16T20:46:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Balthisar \* > \*\* 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? \*\* Language is part of the issue raised by some of the separatist groups in Southern Mexico. Nevertheless, the main issue is not that they want to become a separate nation, although there might be some that espouse this idea, but mainly that they want the common law derived from the custom of the community, and not the Constitution of the Federal States of Mexico or local law to be the only applicable law, thereby separating themselves as “autonomous municipalities” from the rest of the state in that regard. This issue has been in controversy for a long time, and more recently because of the Zapatista uprising. **Wang Ka** , you haven’t answered my questions. I hope you can expound on this **CBEscapee** , since it is a very interting topic and I cannot find the book I had about it. I will try to locate it and come back with more. **Balthisar** Did you go to the Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary? I’ve heard it’s amazing. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/24 "2003-01-16T20:52:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by syncrolecyne \* > \*\*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. I got a little history lesson from an ex-g/f of mine. She is very dark skinned hispanic and was telling me that there is a primarily “white” upper class in mexico that is very segregated and tended to be “racist” for lack of a better term against darker skinned hispanics. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/25 "2003-01-16T21:03:47Z")
Lothos, I apologize for my tardiness. My previous remarks were posted last night before I went to bed; I spent today earning a living, and was unable to get back to you. So far as I know, your statements are correct. The place I was speaking of was a village I visited with my uncle in 1984, south of Mexico City by some 50-70 miles. We got there by simply driving down the highways of the interior. In addition, there were several areas along the way that could easily meet the description. The description, by the way, was “Local folks had Indian features (high cheekbones, prominent noses, dark skin, straight black hair, kind of an epicanthic fold, etc.) as opposed to mixed-race features or Caucasian features, and the dominant language seemed to be some sort of dialect we weren’t familiar with, as opposed to Mexican Spanish or Tex-Mex.” The village south of Ciudad de Mexico, in particular, very much lived up to this description. Even the clothing styles were Indian, as opposed to “cosmopolitan Mexican.” I found this to be quite a surprise; I was raised along the border, and thought all Mexicans were like the ones I grew up with (whose skin comes in a variety of tones, and who usually exhibit “caucasianized” facial features, regardless of hair, eye, or skin color). My uncle informed me that quite a few backwoods Indians didn’t get quite as Spanicized as the others, particularly those in the larger cities and on the coasts. Unfortunately, many Mexicans look down on “los Indios” as primitive, backwoodsy… what we’d call “hillbillies” or “bumpkins.” I thought this was kind of a shame. We were having car trouble at the time – and this is BIG trouble for Nortamericanos in Mexico – and these “Indios” were remarkably friendly folks, incredibly polite and helpful, considering we were basically communicating by way of “charades”. ---
**Author:** ![Lorenzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4da419/32.png) [@Lorenzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lorenzo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/26 "2003-01-16T23:29:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by drachillix \* > \*\*I got a little history lesson from an ex-g/f of mine. She is very dark skinned hispanic and was telling me that there is a primarily “white” upper class in mexico that is very segregated and tended to be “racist” for lack of a better term against darker skinned hispanics. \*\* Most of the Spanish language shows on TV perpetuate this stereotype, with the owners of the huge mansions looking very light skinned and the maids and servants looking mixed-race and darker. Whether this is an accurate portrayal of Mexican society, or whether that even matters, I cannot say. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/27 "2003-01-17T00:27:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nuke \* > \*\*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). \*\* There are other reasons for the ethnic make up of the USA, Argentina and Chile. For example, more recent immigration. Remember that the USA continued to have a large influx of European immigrants well after most native peoples had long since been relocated. In Argentina from 1857 through 1930, net immigration was 3.5 million, composed mainly of Italians and Spaniards. The overall population of Argentina shifted from 1.7 million in 1869 to 7.9 million in 1914. I’m not as familiar with Chile, but I found this: > [@](#): > > _from [Evergreen State College](http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gilbertj/CHILE.HTM):_ > At the end of the 19th century only a small number of Chileans were foreign born. Immigrant groups most notably Germans, settled near present day Valdivia, Osorno, and Puerto Montt in southern Chile after European upheavals in 1848. European immigration did not alter the structure of Chilean society despite inroads made by British, Italians, French, Slavs, European Jews, and Palestinians into Magallanes and Tierra del Fuego. The effect of these emigres on Chilean society was to add non-Spanish elements to the middle and upper classes. The aristocracy is made up from the original landed Gentry of mostly Spanish Basque origin. Despite their small number, European, Jewish and Palestinian immigrants became economically powerful, controlling rural estates, commercial, financial and industrial institutions. The CIA Factbook states an ethnic make up of “white and white-Amerindian 95%, Amerindian 3%, other 2%”, which indicates that the earliest settlers may have pushed out or exterminated the original inhabitants. So I searched a bit more and found this: > [@](#): > > from _[World Religions and Cultures](http://wrc.lingnet.org/chilehis.htm)_ > The Spaniards encountered fierce resistance to their occupation efforts from one of the main indigenous groups, the Araucanians, who lived in the south-central part of the country. The settlers managed to take control of the land down to the Río Bío-Bío and to establish strongholds farther south, but throughout the colonial period the area that is now Chile consisted of two distinct nations: one a poor outpost of the Spanish Empire and the other an independent territory, Arauco, occupied by the Araucanians, whose territory consisted of most of south-central Chile between the Río Bío-Bío and the coastal areas around Temuco. By the end of the colonial period, the Araucanian territories had been reduced, but they had not been fully incorporated into Spanish rule. The indigenous wars lasted for more than three centuries, with a final skirmish in 1882. > > Although warfare and the diseases brought by the Spaniards decimated the native population, Spain found it necessary to keep sending soldiers to protect its distant colony. They came from all regions of Spain, including the Basque country, and many of them ended up settling in Chile. The combination of an economy based on temperate-zone agriculture, native American resistance to Spanish occupation, and a continuous influx of Spaniards from the mid-sixteenth century to the end of the colonial period defined the main body of the Chilean population–a mixture of native American and Spanish blood, but one in which the Spanish element is greater than in the other Andean mestizo populations. So some of the natives were eliminated, but the others have blended in to such a degree that they appear more “white” than native. ---
**Author:** ![Nuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ea666f/32.png) [@Nuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nuke)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/28 "2003-01-17T00:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ShibbOleth \* > \*\*There are other reasons for the ethnic make up of the USA, Argentina and Chile. For example, more recent immigration. Remember that the USA continued to have a large influx of European immigrants well after most native peoples had long since been relocated. In Argentina from 1857 through 1930, net immigration was 3.5 million, composed mainly of Italians and Spaniards. The overall population of Argentina shifted from 1.7 million in 1869 to 7.9 million in 1914. > > I’m not as familiar with Chile, but I found this: > > The CIA Factbook states an ethnic make up of “white and white-Amerindian 95%, Amerindian 3%, other 2%”, which indicates that the earliest settlers may have pushed out or exterminated the original inhabitants. So I searched a bit more and found this: > > So some of the natives were eliminated, but the others have blended in to such a degree that they appear more “white” than native. \*\* Yeah, but lots of Europeans (particularly Germans at the start of the 20th century) immigrated to Peru, too, but there and in Ecuador the situation is similar to Mexico. I guess I really don’t see where you’re going with this. I’m not sure MORE Europeans immigrated to Chile and Argentina than to other South American countries. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899/29 "2003-01-17T04:22:53Z")
My point, admittedly lost in all that information, was that there is no singular cause to the mix rate of native and non-native populations in the Americas. Immigration, intermarriage/mating rates, subjugation of the native populations, timing of such, class distinctions, mix of people immigrating, etc, all play into it. One variable that I was pointing out was that if the immigration was recent and significant (as in Argentina, where the people look “white” to you), then the population would be obviously more European in background. There is no single “right answer”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/native-mexicans-and-white-americans/148899.md?page=1)