Why arent Mexicans considered native americans?

While the majority of Mexicans have some native blood (mestizos), they have mixed with incoming Spanish and Italian groups, and have had a long time to assimilate into the Hispanic culture/society.

There do exist some native groups in Mexico.

The Spanish did not really control all that huge area of land. They claimed the land, and sent out expeditionary parties to explore.
Actual settlement was very minimal; a few gold hunters, the establishment of some missions, a little bit of ranching, mostly along the coast or major rivers.

 

It's called "National Jurisdiction" or responsible for. All those in States or territories, prior to Statehood, became US Citizen's upon Statehood. Being Hispanic or any other race/ethnic has nothing to do with the person Nationality. That is people establish their home Country, generally by birth, and that Country is responsible.

 

How does being assimilated into the mainstream culture make them not native? I know someone whos american indian, and he doesnt feel that being assimilated and not living on a reservation changes his ethnic identity

 

It's a somewhat complex question to answer. Most of the population in Mexico has some mixed native ancestry. In fact, probably about half of them have more native blood than European. But the Spanish so much dominated the society that these people lost touch with their native culture. There is a sort of dichotomy in Mexican society. The majority of the population basically is native, but they have mixed so much and lost their original culture. So the distinction between "native" and ordinary Mexican is not the same as that in the U.S. Instead, there is sort of a caste system.

 

why aren't Navajo and Mohegan considered Canadian Aboriginal?

 

How many centuries must one's ancestors live in a land before they are considered "natives"?

Archaeological evidence has uncovered Egyptian, Hebrew, Chinese, African, Nordic artifacts in North America. Who then are the natives?

 

I dont quite understand what youre trying to say. Native Americans are no less assimilated than Mexicans are. Both the majority of Mexicans and Native Americans speak the language of the colonizers-Spanish and English, and only a minority of natives from either country speak their native tongue.

 

Whats your point? That Native Americans arent really native? Or that white people should also be considered native americans because theyve lived here for a while too?

 

What are you implying?

 

well stated. and accurate.

 

As I was born in la Puebla de Nuestra Señora de los Angeles, I consider myself a Native American.

So, just WHAT is the purpose of the OP?

 

It is a question. If one's ancestors have lived in a land for 400 years, are they then considered "natives" to the land?

 

Not in the case of white people. Theyve lived in the US for centuries, but other people already live here who have ancestors way before them. Native Americans were the first americans.

 

There are artifacts from the Egyptian Empire, Roman Empire, Hebrews and Chinese Dynasties found all over North America. Plus the mtDNA and yDNA confirm Asian, Middle Eastern and European descent in the tribes of North America.

Do you simply ignore that because it does not fit you narrative?

 

Native Americans are native to the USA

thread closed.

 

Because you say so? My family and I are native to the United States of America, in fact were involved in winning our independence, and maintaining the union.

 

(My bold)

My almanac for 2009 shows 9% white for Mexico. But as pointed out in this thread, it's tough to credit these percentages much for Hispanic America. Early on, only men folk came over from Spain, Portugal. & so they took partners, concubines, common-law, & occasionally married.

There are surprising survival stories - Jewish refugees from the Spanish expulsion, who travelled to the New World to hide - some have surfaced in NM, for instance, & in other parts of Hispanic America.

& race in Mexico, @ least, was a kind of attainable status. If you had sufficient money, married well, cleaned up your language, behavior, etc., you could rise in the World, & become white. The actual Spanish purebloods in Mexico likely stayed put in Mexico City - the first wave of conquerors/explorers were the soldiers encouraged by the Spanish crown to leave & search for glory, once the Reconquista of Spain was over.

V. interesting history, all around.

 

(My bold)

The New World was allocated between Spain & Portugal by the Treaty of Tordesillas (& sanctioned by Papal decree, for what that was worth) - see http://beyondthemap.ca/english/historical_divide_world.html & so Spain had a preexisting claim - now, whether the land could be so claimed, sight unseen, nor the Pope dispose of half the World - are separate questions.

For the Mexico/Aztecs - You can look them up in Wikipedia, or your reference of choice.

In N. America, besides Mexico, Spain claimed up the West Coast of present-day US (to Oregon?), the SW of present US (to CO, NV, inland a considerable way - to OK?), along the Gulf of Mexico to FL, North to VA, I believe. You can look this up in Wikipedia, too. The French, Dutch, etc. were late-comers (especially compared to the Vikings), & the British were dead last. History loves ironies, apparently.

On the racial categorizations in Mexico - yah, a holdover from Spain (where they had just fought off Islam, after near 800 years. There was lots of intermarriage, conversions from R. Catholicism to Islam, forced conversion or expulsion of the Jews (1492CE), expulsion of Islam, & then a lot of reprisals, vendettas, etc. against collaborators. V. messy times there. & the export of all those soldiers, officers, militia, bandits, etc. to the New World, so that the Spanish Crown could extend its authority again, & also get rid of armed, violent, organized bands. The Church also tagged along to the New World, to get its % & more-or-less oversee the well being of the new converts. (The Church had had a lot of practice of mass conversions @ sword point - which came in handy. One of those mysterious ways, no doubt.)

I tend to look to Wikipedia or other known sources for info - no offense. I figure they have staffs who keep up on these issues. Looking forward to more conversation.

 

Because aryans dont consider Spaniards and Portuguese too be white

 

Originally Posted by The Amazing Sam's Ego View Post

Native American means native to the US. Many of the tribes in northern mexico are the same tribes as the tribes of the western US. So while they are of course mesoamericans, why arent they considered "Native Americans"?

(My bold)

Native American means native to the Americas, for thousands of years. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/native american - or any good dictionary or reference

"Native American noun

": a member of any of the first groups of people living in North America or South America; especially : a member of one of these groups from the U.S."

Seeing how much the Native Peoples have suffered from attempts to Christianize them, or Caucasian them, or civilize them, etc. - I think it's remarkably poor taste to even joke about applying scientific nomenclature to them as if they were an animal species.

Yah, Indigenous People should be OK; but to be on the safe side, you could just ask the next person how they would like to be referred to.

As for the Wrath of Khan - if you mean the character from Star Trek, Khan was human. Or maybe post-human, as he was supposed to have been the product of genetic engineering. There was some mention there (in the series, & both movies) of Clone Wars, but I don't recall any detail after that.

 

(My bold)

The Native Peoples didn't move, the borders moved around them. The US SW was once part of New Spain, & Mexico was part of that. (See the entries by martin76.)

The Navajo have elements of Spanish culture - silver smithing, horses, sheep, goats. In the time of New Spain & Mexico, the various tribes & Spanish colonists raided upon each other, took prisoners, took children from each other & raised them as their own (or under Spanish colonists, more likely as servants/slaves/laborers). There were some marriages between the peoples, & Spanish language & culture did penetrate to some extent.

However, the Spanish colonies in modern NM, AZ, CO, UT, even CA & W. TX - were few & far between. They were subject to poor rain/crops, depredations by Native Peoples who didn't want to submit, they were thinly populated (most Spanish/Mexican colonists preferred the lights of the big cities - Mexico City, for instance). The New Spanish & Mexican governments never solved the problems of funding colonial efforts in current SW US. That's one reason that it's now the US - colonial policy in Mexico City fluctuated over time, & Spanish government was always more concerned with propping up the capital & concentrating trade, than with expanding the physical borders, nor securing them against Native Peoples & other countries.

 

(My bold)

My almanac (NYT, 2009) shows Mexico 60% mestizo, 30% Amerindian or predominantly Amerindian; 9% white. Languages are Spanish, various Mayan, Nahuatl & other regional indigenous languages. The Spanish destroyed all the physical aspects of the native cultures they could find, & installed themselves (& their Native American tribal allies in conquest) as administrative & religious overlords, sure enough.

However, the major tribal languages are still spoken, the visual arts & national mythos of Mexico are Native in content & often in execution. There is a long tradition of pre-Columbian religious sites becoming the location of R. Catholic churches, cathedrals, etc. - often built from the ruins of the previous temple; & of pre-Columbian religious relics, statuary & so on being buried @ those same sites. So it's kinda up in the air whether the old culture has been overwritten by the Spaniards. Certainly the Spanish gave it a try - but I wouldn't write off cultures of thousands of years quite so quickly.

 

(My bold)

Compared to people who have lived on that land for 12,000 years? Not so much.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#Pre-Columbian

"Three major migrations occurred, as traced by linguistic and genetic data; the early Paleoamericans soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.[19][20] By 8000 BCE the North American climate was very similar to today's.[21]

"The Clovis culture, a megafauna-hunting culture of about 11,000 B.P. that ranged over much of North America and also appeared in South America, has been identified by the distinctive Clovis point. Dating of Clovis materials has been by association with animal bones and by the use of carbon dating methods."

(My emphasis)

11,000 B.P. means before the present - which was set as 1950CE. Apparently, it's a scientific term of art.

 

(My bold)

If people can connect their families to either the artifacts or to the mtDNA and yDNA mentioned above, then I suppose they can petition to become enrolled members of the respective tribes. It might be a hard sell, though. The tribes tend to be protective of the enrolled status, TMK.

But it would make for interesting case law.

 

I have read other genealogists and archeologists work that dispute this person's opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would they want to be considered a member of ANY American tribe. They were who they were, they may have remained here or as seems to be the case for the ancient Hebrews, simply merchants trading with the tribes in America.