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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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”.