[Variable]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

However either way I feel I can consider myself indeginous because Mexicans have been living in several Western territories before they became a part of the United States.

I know a few people who'd take issue with that... there are places in Mexico where people from Guadalajara will get called 'gringo'.

[Dubai3000]

syrian girls are just

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

Well technically Mestizo would be the appropriate term, having a mix of Spanish and AmerIndian blood. However either way I feel I can consider myself indeginous because Mexicans have been living in several Western territories before they became a part of the United States. Examples are the Chicanos is Cali and the Tejanos in Texas, both were ruled by Spain and then for a short time Mexico before becoming US states.

I agree with everything else you said; I personally have never lived in Mexico so when it comes to identity I would have to identify first as Muslim, second as American, and third as Mex/Pak (father is Caucasian/Paki). In other words I feel religion ought to come first, nationality second, and race/ethnicity absolutely last. Unfortunately a large percentage of the world chooses to put race/ethnicity first which never leads to anything good.

you may consider yourself that, but commandante marcos and his band of native american rebels down in chiapas state, mexico's poorest state btw, definantly wont.

[Good_ol_JR]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

you may consider yourself that, but commandante marcos and his band of native american rebels down in chiapas state, mexico's poorest state btw, definantly wont.

I doubt that seeing as how Marcos himself has Spanish blood in him, some even allege both of his parents were from Spain; so he's practically a Carello (pure, unmixed European/Spanish). The Zaptista army is more about improving economic conditions and there actually a pretty diverse and tolerant group. People of pure Amerindian descent are a small minority in Mexico, about the same size as the Carellos

Vast majoriy of Mexicans (like 75%) are mixed mestizos. So we have our own culture though its closer to Spanish culture because indigenous groups are too tribalistic to have one distinct culture and its hard for many mestizos to know exactly what tribe they originally descended from.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

I doubt that seeing as how Marcos himself has Spanish blood in him, some even allege both of his parents were from Spain; so he's practically a Carello (pure, unmixed European/Spanish). The Zaptista army is more about improving economic conditions and there actually a pretty diverse and tolerant group. People of pure Amerindian descent are a small minority in Mexico, about the same size as the Carellos

Vast majoriy of Mexicans (like 75%) are mixed mestizos. So we have our own culture though its closer to Spanish culture because indigenous groups are too tribalistic to have one distinct culture and its hard for many mestizos to know exactly what tribe they originally descended from.

but it certainly doesnt make you indegenous. how much of the aztec culture is left in mexico? practically none. and while it is true what you said about commandate marcos, but the people he leads are native americans nonetheless.

[Good_ol_JR]

Well the Aztecs are only one of the several indigenous tribes in Mexico. Technically the majority of their descendents are mixed blood mestizos, but they would never know it since most mestizos can trace the Amerindian side of their roots to several tribes as opposed to just one. As such it would be impossible to our roots to one specific tribe. This is why we have our own distinct culture which is more similar to Spanish culture. There really is no such thing as a distinct Amerindian culture, rather there are several because the unmixed Indians only intermingle amongst their own tribes. That being the case, we are indigenous as far as blood is concerned, but not so much as far as culture.

Regardless; I'm talking about how Mexicans ought to be considered indigenous to the United States, as compared to WASPS. Reason I state this is because even the Chicanos/Tejanos who are the Whitest Carellos of pure, unmixed Spanish ancestry can trace their roots to the inhabitants of New Spain. So even if you don't have a drop of AmerIndian blood in your veins, your ancestors were still in the territory before it was claimed as part of the United States, making you just as indigenous as the WASPS, which is all you really need to be seeing how technically they're the ones who founded what we call the United States.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

Well the Aztecs are only one of the several indigenous tribes in Mexico. Technically the majority of their descendents are mixed blood mestizos, but they would never know it since most mestizos can trace the Amerindian side of their roots to several tribes as opposed to just one. As such it would be impossible to our roots to one specific tribe. This is why we have our own distinct culture which is more similar to Spanish culture. There really is no such thing as a distinct Amerindian culture, rather there are several because the unmixed Indians only intermingle amongst their own tribes. That being the case, we are indigenous as far as blood is concerned, but not so much as far as culture.

Regardless; I'm talking about how Mexicans ought to be considered indigenous to the United States, as compared to WASPS. Reason I state this is because even the Chicanos/Tejanos who are the Whitest Carellos of pure, unmixed Spanish ancestry can trace their roots to the inhabitants of New Spain. So even if you don't have a drop of AmerIndian blood in your veins, your ancestors were still in the territory before it was claimed as part of the United States, making you just as indigenous as the WASPS, which is all you really need to be seeing how technically they're the ones who founded what we call the United States.

haha, at the time of the founding of the united states, my ancestors were living as merchants in india.

but going on what you said, ever seen the movie 'hildago'? there are plenty of americans, white and black, who have mixed native american blood in them as well. then it means that they are indegenous too.

[Variable]

Hey don't forget the Metís. Anyway I tend to agree with Got5 on this one. No one is denying that Latinos from the Americas are mixed, but it's too big and diverse a group to say "they are indigenous", most are far down the European side of the spectrum, and live completely different lives from the fully (or almost fully) indigenous people living mostly to the south.

And when it comes to borders changing, meh... I'm trying to picture Mexico by some miracle taking over Arizona, and the whites there starting to refer to themselves as 'indigenous' - it probably wouldn't be looked on as too favourably by the Native American population.

How did we get on this topic anyway?

[Good_ol_JR]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

but going on what you said, ever seen the movie 'hildago'? there are plenty of americans, white and black, who have mixed native american blood in them as well. then it means that they are indegenous too.

Yes but seeing as how the precentage of Amerindians in the States is significantly lower than in Mexico, the amount of AmerIndian blood in the majority of WASPS and Afro-Americans is a lot less, to the extent that the features are not at all visible and most of those dudes probably don't even know they have AmerIndian blood in their veins. Regardless, I still don';t see how that relates to my previous point, I am just stating that Mexican are just as indigenous to Western states as their White and Black counterparts via those states previously being part of first New Span, then Mexico itself.

So as I states before it doesn't mater how much Indian blood you have, because even if you are of 100% Spanish descent, your ancestors still claimed that land before the WASPS of mainly British and German descent did. It doesn't matter whether or not you're indigenous; what matters is that you were there when the territory was annexed into the United States, which is what the Mexicans were regardless of whether they were 100% AmerIndian, 100% European, or mixed Mestizos.

So Chicanos and Tejanos have the right to retain their culture, because they were already inhabitants of what would become the United States. Its exactly the same with Hawaiians of both indigenous and European ancestry. They were already citizens of the Republic of Hawaii, just as Tejanos were of the Republic of Texas, and Chicanos were of the Republic of California, prior to the territories being annexed into the US. So they have the right to retain their culture regardless of whether or not they have a drop of indigenous blood; simply because they were already there when their Republics became incorporated into what is today the United States.

If this isn't getting the point across I really don't know will?

[GOTFIVEONIT]

Originally Posted by Good_ol_JR

Yes but seeing as how the precentage of Amerindians in the States is significantly lower than in Mexico, the amount of AmerIndian blood in the majority of WASPS and Afro-Americans is a lot less, to the extent that the features are not at all visible and most of those dudes probably don't even know they have AmerIndian blood in their veins. Regardless, I still don';t see how that relates to my previous point, I am just stating that Mexican are just as indigenous to Western states as their White and Black counterparts via those states previously being part of first New Span, then Mexico itself.

So as I states before it doesn't mater how much Indian blood you have, because even if you are of 100% Spanish descent, your ancestors still claimed that land before the WASPS of mainly British and German descent did. It doesn't matter whether or not you're indigenous; what matters is that you were there when the territory was annexed into the United States, which is what the Mexicans were regardless of whether they were 100% AmerIndian, 100% European, or mixed Mestizos.

So Chicanos and Tejanos have the right to retain their culture, because they were already inhabitants of what would become the United States. Its exactly the same with Hawaiians of both indigenous and European ancestry. They were already citizens of the Republic of Hawaii, just as Tejanos were of the Republic of Texas, and Chicanos were of the Republic of California, prior to the territories being annexed into the US. So they have the right to retain their culture regardless of whether or not they have a drop of indigenous blood; simply because they were already there when their Republics became incorporated into what is today the United States.

If this isn't getting the point across I really don't know will?

well not all whites are wasps, in fact i dont think the majority of whites in america are even wasps. but wolfn here is part native american, and it definantly shows in his eyes. so according to what you are saying, that latino's in the south-west, should retain thier culture, because they were already there at the time of annexation. look, people eventually lose thier culture, how many 5th generation italians do you know that still speak italian?

[Good_ol_JR]

Originally Posted by GOTFIVEONIT

well not all whites are wasps, in fact i dont think the majority of whites in america are even wasps. but wolfn here is part native american, and it definantly shows in his eyes. so according to what you are saying, that latino's in the south-west, should retain thier culture, because they were already there at the time of annexation. look, people eventually lose thier culture, how many 5th generation italians do you know that still speak italian?

Everything you just said is correct but where exactly are you're going with it I seem to have no clue. Yes a large percentage of White Americans arent WASPS (whether or not they're a majority or not is up for grabs) but I didnt feel the need to talk about them, because they mostly immigrated after the nation was founded. All I am trying to prove is that Mexicans are just as native to California and Texas as the first generation of Americans were to the United States Note when I say first generation I am referring to all inhabitants who were present when the nation they call the United States was first founded. Now at this time the vast majority of this "first generation of Americans" were either WASPS or Africans This is the reason why I only bring up these two groups when comparing them to the Mexicans of the Western territories belonging to what then New Spain and what would later become part of Mexico prior to US annexation.

And yes many Italian-Americans have not retained their culture, but thats because they were immigrants who immigrated to what was already the United States. As I have said before this unlike Tejanos and Chicanos who were already present in Texas and California before they became the United States. So these people never immigrated, they were already there; which is why they can retain their Mexican culture, because they were literally citizens of Mexico who became citizens of the US as soon as the land was annexed. This is absolutely no diff. than White settlers who inhabited all territories not currently a part of the original 13 colonies. At first these people were not American, because they were outside US territory. But once the US annexed their territories they became Americans

And no I highly doubt Mexican-Americans will ever lose their culture, first off our population is way too huge and second we have our homeland just south of the border, not an entire ocean away. Latino culture has inherently become part of American culture, which is exactly why it is recommended for all Americans to know at least a little Spanish.