Over 400 Years of Illegal Immigration

[enserio]

From: http://www.nativeamericans.com/Natives.htm

Languages of North America

The Twentieth Century

The most widely accepted classification of Native American languages N of Mexico (although some included are also spoken in Mexico and Central America) is that made by Edward Sapir in 1929. Sapir arranged the numerous linguistic groups in six major unrelated linguistic stocks, or families. There are Eskimo-Aleut, Algonquian-Wakashan, Nadene, Penutian, Hokan-Siouan, and Aztec-Tanoan.

Aztec-Tanoan

The two principal branches of the Aztec-Tanoan linguistic stock are Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan, and their languages are spoken in areas extending from the NW United States to Mexico and Central America. Uto-Aztecan has such subdivisions, or groups, as Nahuatlan, whose languages are spoken in Mexico and parts of Central America, and Shoshonean, to which Comanche, Hopi, Paiute, Shoshone, and Ute belong. Ute and Paiute are found in Utah, Nevada, California, and Arizona; Comanche and Shoshone are spoken in Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, California, and Oklahoma; Hopi is found in Arizona. The languages of the Tanoan branch of Aztec-Tanoan are spoken in the Rio Grande valley, New Mexico, and Arizona. Zui (found in New Mexico) may be connected with Tanoan. The Aztec-Tanoan languages show a degree of polysynthesism.

The native-american map suggests that the mexican "tribes" are accepted as being related to/in congruence with the tribes in North America. To think that tribes who border on what is now the US/Mexico border did not intermingle and coexist (whether it be peaceful or hostile) seems ridiculous.

The mere fact that one of the branches of language is called Aztec-Tanoan and spoken by tribes in the southwest United States is not mere coincidence. These languages are spoken by the Zuni and Hopi tribes, ancestors of the Pueblo Indians who are primarily in Arizona and New Mexico.

Seems difficult to say that Mexicans are not related to Native-American tribes or that they did not inhabit any portion along the southwest.

 

[westbaygiant]

Thats what im talking about SobeSerious!!!!!!!! SO what you got to say now heresy????????????? Now Apolagize for being a dumbass, and your little groupies too, edj or whatever your ho's name is. Fo real talking all types of ignorant stupid shit, and at the same time telling us our own history. U dont know shit, so what if u so called studyed latino history or native american hostory, so what if u took a college course, or read a book, who gives a fuck, we live this shit PUTO so how u gonna tell us shit???????? i aint telling you that Zimbabwe was founded in 1832 or someshit huh. cause it aint my place to speak on that, So lemme put you back in your place bitch, get back on your knees and open up Maricon!

 

[HERESY]

You think like the white man.

You think like an idiot, and judging from your posts you probably are.

First off if you want to get technical no native american is ''Indian'' the term was coined by white colonists who thought the natives resembled people from India.

First off, I have already said I will use the term "indian" to refer to the native americans or native tribes that lived in what is now known as the united states. With that being said, you are babbling on about something that has already been addressed, and let me remind you that your pseudo history lesson does nothing to further educate ME about the topic. However, it does prove a point that I have made COUNTLESS times on this board and that is; people here have selective reading/sight, FAIL to read what has been typed, create red-herring and strawman arguments, formulate wacky ideas based on zero evidence, and type before they read.

Second of all The US is in north america, and one could honestly argue that Brown,indio type mexicans are indeed native americans-thier people are native to the continent of North America.

Second of all, if you were to argue this, I'd ask you several questions (similar to the ones I have already asked), and I would easily provide info to validate my position and destroy yours.

They were just conquered by the spanish whites while thier cousins to the north were conquered by english whites (for the most part).

Please refer to my previous statements within this thread.

Sure, northern native americans somewhat differed in culture from southern ones.But northern tribes had thier different langauges and customs as well.

And this statement actually creates a situation where I can basically say you are contradicting yourself. For one you are admitting that the tribes from the north have a different language and practiced different customs/cultures from the ones in the south. Knowing this to be true you now have to answer which tribe actually inhabited the land FIRST.

You cant argue that Mexicans are not of native american descent just because whites made up some borders.

I am arguing that they are a DIFFERENT tribe than what most historians and anthropologists consider to be "indian" (indian meaning native american.) I am also arguing that because of this difference, mexican immigrants (legal or illegal) are NOT entitled to ANYTHING on the sole ground that they are "indigenous."

There were no borders seperating what we now call the US and Mexico before whites came.

Actually, what seperated the people were languages and customs and no one has implied that borders were or were not in place before whites. However, to assume that tribes/factions did NOT establish borders with neighboring tribes, those they traded with or those who they warred with is complete lunacy.

Sounds like youre using the white mans divide and conquer tactic.

How? By replying to a persons question and stating why I believe the two groups don't get along? Divide and conquer has nothing to do with stating OPINION, and if you weren't such a dummy you would have noticed that I ended the statement with "but that is only my opinion."

Start reading before you reply.

theres plenty of Native american tribes in my state and I have a few homies who are native americans.

So? How is this related to illegal immigration?

None of whom I have ever heard degrade or say they didnt like mexicans.

Again, Mig himself has said that these problems exist, and I have already stated I could provide links to websites and alt. groups where "indians" and "mexicans" denounce each. With that being said, I can establish a link to reality and present info, but how do we know these friends of yours really exist and say nothing negative about mexicans?

If anything, you are more likely to hear them talk shit about the white man,or other tribes that they have a rivalry with (Oniedas vs menomenies,etc) because they either feel like the tribe is sellout for thier dealings with whites, or are jealous that they have more,depending on which tribe you talk to.

And truth be told the reasons you just gave (selling out and jealousy) are some of the things that are cited as the cause of discension between indians and mexicans.

Lets not forget that we had a bunch of brain washed black idiots who fought against the natives for the white man,so are you saying natives dont like blacks either?

Some of them don't, some of them do, but for the most part the rhetoric that comes forth from indians (natives) suggest that they get along with blacks. However, it would be foolish to believe all natives like blacks, because you may have a native that dislikes all blacks based on his or hers personal experience/interaction with blacks.

BTW, I will ask you this again, can you stop addressing the different points in different posts? If you are going to address my points try to make one post addressing them. Their is NO need to make individual posts to address individual statements and it actually makes it harder to reply to you (because the pages grow and the posts get moved.) With that being said, I won't answer anymore of your points or questions if you are going to continue doing so.

 

[HERESY]

Thats what im talking about SobeSerious!!!!!!!! SO what you got to say now heresy????????????? Now Apolagize for being a dumbass, and your little groupies too, edj or whatever your ho's name is. Fo real talking all types of ignorant stupid shit, and at the same time telling us our own history. U dont know shit, so what if u so called studyed latino history or native american hostory, so what if u took a college course, or read a book, who gives a fuck, we live this shit PUTO so how u gonna tell us shit???????? i aint telling you that Zimbabwe was founded in 1832 or someshit huh. cause it aint my place to speak on that, So lemme put you back in your place bitch, get back on your knees and open up Maricon!

So what do I have to say now? You look and sound like a faggot. Stop cheerleading and take the dildo out of your ass. Apologize for what? For the fact that this guy posted a map that does nothing to validate his position or discredit what I am saying? The fact that this guy provides no clue as to where the map came from (assume it came from the link he provided and would appreciate it if he could explain where I can find the original.) Also, the map doesn't explain WHEN the languages were spoken. Are we to assume they are the languages spoken in pre-columbus times? Are we to assume they are the languages that the people spoke after the spaniards conquered the land?

Apologize for the fact that YOU were saying the people were related because of the language they spoke or for the fact that he cut and pasted something from a site that says, and I quote, "Sapir arranged the numerous linguistic groups in six major unrelated linguistic stocks, or families." With that being said, if people are classified as related because of the language they speak (and they often are), YOU have the duty of explaining HOW they ARE related. Good luck.

Also, I want you to know that I actually ENCOURAGE you to continue to insult me, avoid the questions posed to you and cheerlead for your home team when one of your buddies post. You know why? Because at the end of the day it is more proof that you are INCAPABLE of presenting your own views and rely on others as a crutch. It shows you are incapable of presenting a logical argument and refraining from insults when people disagree with you! It basically shows you are undeducated and will most likely never achieve anything in life or make a substanial contribution to society or your people. THIS IS TRUTH. THIS IS YOUR REALITY. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NEVER ESCAPE. :dead:

 

[HERESY]

The native-american map suggests that the mexican "tribes" are accepted as being related to/in congruence with the tribes in North America. To think that tribes who border on what is now the US/Mexico border did not intermingle and coexist (whether it be peaceful or hostile) seems ridiculous.

I cannot find that map on the link you provided can you provide a link to where I can see the map myself? Also, are you implying that the map is saying the people are accepted as blood related because they were placed in the same language group? Also, to think that tribes did not intermingle and coexist IS ridiculous which is why I have stated (more than once) that they DID trade with each other, fight with each other, marry, etc. Also, is your map based on Edward Sapir's classification? If so, that map has come under heavy scrutiny (even Sapir himself called it "suggestive"), and I would like to provide a more accurate map, if you or someone else will host it or show me how to post images to where everyone here can see it.

The mere fact that one of the branches of language is called Aztec-Tanoan and spoken by tribes in the southwest United States is not mere coincidence. These languages are spoken by the Zuni and Hopi tribes, ancestors of the Pueblo Indians who are primarily in Arizona and New Mexico.

Now, here is where the problem lies. Are you implying that the Tribes who speak Aztec-Tanoan migrated FROM the the place where the language ORIGINATED?

Seems difficult to say that Mexicans are not related to Native-American tribes or that they did not inhabit any portion along the southwest.

Again, you are arguing against something that isn't really being made. I have already stated that they could very well be related. What I am arguing is that they are NOT the same people as the "native americans" who inhabited the land. If mexicans come from the aztecs (like several mexicans on this board have promoted), and your map is correct I need you to show me several things:

1. When did the people migrate and inhabit the area north of the current border?

2. Who originally inhabited the land before the tribes speaking the Aztec-Tanoan languages lived in the area?

3. Explain how ALL mexicans (if they come from the aztecs) are entitled to ALL of this country when your map places those who speak the language in one SPECIFIC area.

Thankyou, and I look forward to seeing what you are going to present.

 

[enserio]

If you control click on the image, then you can see what site the map came from. However, I will help.http://www.comanchelodge.com/indian-nations.gif

As to your points:

1) I am not suggesting that people migrated from anywhere. As history has it, there were five waves of migrations from the Asia via the Beiring Strait, but I know that's not what you're asking. I am merely suggesting that evidence points that these peoples (Native American and Mexican Indians) were in these places before the Spanish and the English. Thus, entitling them to CLAIM that they were on these lands first. By no means am I providing proof as to the existence of Aztlan, because that would be ludicrous.

2. Asking me who inhabited these lands before the tribes is saying that these peoples are not indigenous to these lands. I am saying they are, therefore I believe only their ancestors were on these lands. Before them, the OG's who crossed the Strait.

3. How on earth would that map or the language breakdown imply that I believe that ALL mexicans are entitled to ALL of this country. Where did I say that? The map and evidence on those two links suggests that Aztec/Mexican Indian influence is present in Arizona and New Mexico specifically. I am sure if I look hard enough, I can find evidence linking to other areas nearby. In no way am I suggesting that mexicans are entitled to ALL this country, but they(depending on what part of mexico their ancestors are from) can say they are indigenous to those areas already mentioned.

EDIT: My apologies, I didn't mean to overlook/sidestep an important question.

Now, here is where the problem lies. Are you implying that the Tribes who speak Aztec-Tanoan migrated FROM the the place where the language ORIGINATED?

I think this is an important question, because this is what chicano scholars/academics point to as an indication that Aztlan may have existed. If the Aztec-Tanoan languages are spoken by Native Americans in the southwest (more specifically New Mexico and Arizona) and the Aztec capital was Tenochtitlan (today's Mexico City), then they must have migrated. My question is, how else did that happen?

 

[Da Furl]

heresy...give it a rest ..u type like 1 page essays in every post...get some sunlight

 

[HERESY]

If you control click on the image, then you can see what site the map came from. However, I will help.http://www.comanchelodge.com/indian-nations.gif

Thankyou.

1) I am not suggesting that people migrated from anywhere. As history has it, there were five waves of migrations from the Asia via the Beiring Strait, but I know that's not what you're asking. I am merely suggesting that evidence points that these peoples (Native American and Mexican Indians) were in these places before the Spanish and the English.

I agree that these places where inhabited by "natives" before the spanish and english, however the trillion dollar question is which native tribe inhabited the area and when did they inhabit the area. Also, by admitting that these people actually migrated from Asia (a view that is supported and endorsed by many scientists and anthropologists) you are opening the door for a new argument, and that argument is a very simple one. How can you claim to be indigenous or aboriginal when you migrated here? Simply stating or implying that no one else was here will come under various forms of scrutiny; most notably the recent skull finding which actually places a different group of people in the area thousands of years before the "natives."

2. Asking me who inhabited these lands before the tribes is saying that these peoples are not indigenous to these lands.

The view that these tribes are not indigenous to the land is a view that is held by many in science and anthropolgy communities. Also, if it is true that the people did migrate, that would not make them "indigenous" because they originated in ASIA.

I am saying they are, therefore I believe only their ancestors were on these lands. Before them, the OG's who crossed the Strait.

And before those who crossed the strait?

3. How on earth would that map or the language breakdown imply that I believe that ALL mexicans are entitled to ALL of this country. Where did I say that?

I didn't say that you believed the map or the language breakdown would imply it which is why I said, "If mexicans come from the aztecs (like several mexicans on this board have promoted), and your map is correct I need you to show me several things". Basically, I am asking you three questions based on the possibility of mexicans coming from aztecs. My apologies if I did not make this clear. However, OTHERS do believe that ALL mexicans are entitled to ALL of this country, and they make the claim by grouping all "indigenous" people in one big group. When you read or hear anti-gringo rhetoric from mexican nationals they aren't saying "California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico are ours", they are saying, "This country is ours" and they are also saying "we were in this land first."

The map and evidence on those two links suggests that Aztec/Mexican Indian influence is present in Arizona and New Mexico specifically.

It is present now, but the question in when did it FIRST become present.

In no way am I suggesting that mexicans are entitled to ALL this country, but they(depending on what part of mexico their ancestors are from) can say they are indigenous to those areas already mentioned.

Again, if we were to use "indigenous" in its PROPER context this would not be true IFthey did in fact migrate from Asia. But, this is not my argument. My argument is those who have links to SPECIFIC TRIBES that inhabited the area do have a claim in the land, but all of the land should not be given to mexicans on the sole grounds that they are all indigenous.

I think this is an important question, because this is what chicano scholars/academics point to as an indication that Aztlan may have existed. If the Aztec-Tanoan languages are spoken by Native Americans in the southwest (more specifically New Mexico and Arizona) and the Aztec capital was Tenochtitlan (today's Mexico City), then they must have migrated. My question is, how else did that happen?

So, if they migrated FROM mexico we are now back at square one. Who inhabited the land before they migrated to the southwest? If other tribes from other periods of the migration inhabited the area first, did the new migranst war with them? Did they assimilate and form a new culture/tribe? If so what was it called and where are they now?

Also, if Aztlan does exist you have another problem. Aztec lore states the aztecs settled in aztlan AFTER they came from inside of the earth (please refer to the Seven Caves of Chicomoztoc for more info.)

 

[HERESY]

heresy...give it a rest ..u type like 1 page essays in every post...get some sunlight

Give it a rest? Why because I have proven you to be a dunce? I am having a discussion with several members of the board, and supporting my views. You are CHEERLEADING and typing things like "word..." YOU need to get out and get some sunlight. In fact hitting a library may do you some good.

 

[saladbowlking]

HERESY'S STRAIGHT SHITTIN ON FOOLS!!!!

 

[westbaygiant]

HERESY'S STRAIGHT SHITTIN ON FOOLS!!!!

Heresy gots another Fan!!!!!!! But if you think talking out your ass with big words is shitting on fools, then i bet you think our president is a genius too! If u ask me heresy is getting shitted on becuase he gotta type a 2 page paper for my every sentence. Keep it short and simple bro. But naw u talkin out your ass!

 

[HERESY]

Heresy gots another Fan!!!!!!! But if you think talking out your ass with big words is shitting on fools, then i bet you think our president is a genius too! If u ask me heresy is getting shitted on becuase he gotta type a 2 page paper for my every sentence. Keep it short and simple bro. But naw u talkin out your ass!

I want you to know that I actually ENCOURAGE you to continue to insult me, avoid the questions posed to you and cheerlead for your home team when one of your buddies post. You know why? Because at the end of the day it is more proof that you are INCAPABLE of presenting your own views and rely on others as a crutch. It shows you are incapable of presenting a logical argument and refraining from insults when people disagree with you! It basically shows you are undeducated and will most likely never achieve anything in life or make a substanial contribution to society or your people. THIS IS TRUTH. THIS IS YOUR REALITY. THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WILL NEVER ESCAPE. :classic:

 

[enserio]

Let me address the "indigenous" counterclaims together.

Also, by admitting that these people actually migrated from Asia (a view that is supported and endorsed by many scientists and anthropologists) you are opening the door for a new argument, and that argument is a very simple one. How can you claim to be indigenous or aboriginal when you migrated here?

The view that these tribes are not indigenous to the land is a view that is held by many in science and anthropolgy communities. Also, if it is true that the people did migrate, that would not make them "indigenous" because they originated in ASIA.

First, I'm a bit incredulous that "many" in science and anthropology view that these tribes are not indigenous. Possibly some, or a few, but I would be willing to bet that a majority of these folks attempt to argue/prove that point to simply in a political effort to detract from those who attempt to make indigenous claims. I find that a lot of the academic posturing and rhetoric on both sides subtracts from the integrity of real issues. Yet and still, some links (whenever you get the chance) would be nice.

The folks at Wikipedia have come up with a good working definition of "indigenous" which draws from the United Nations, International Labour Organization, and the World Bank.

a contemporary working definition of "indigenous peoples" has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their descendants) who have an historical continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:

before its subsequent colonization or annexation; or

alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation-state; or

independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

and who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social / organizational characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.

To the above, a criterion is usually added to also include:
peoples who are self-identified as indigenous, and those recognised as such by other groups.
Other related terms for indigenous peoples include aborigines, native peoples, first peoples, Fourth World, first nations and autochthonous (this last term having a derivation from Greek, meaning "sprung from the earth").

Using that definition, it is easy to categorize and accept Native American and Mexican Indian tribes as being "indigenous" to the lands which they inhabited.

So, if they migrated FROM mexico we are now back at square one. Who inhabited the land before they migrated to the southwest?

How can you or I be sure that they migrated from Mexico to what is now the southwest US? It could very well have been the other way around. If their ancestors migrated from up north through the Beiring Strait, then they would have had to pass through the southwest first. This would also explain why the tribes in that area speak the Aztec-Tanoan language. this is why a person who speaks Shoshone can be understood by all the tribes from Mexico. Catholic missionaries have reported this fact, as well as early linguists.

Also, if Aztlan does exist you have another problem. Aztec lore states the aztecs settled in aztlan AFTER they came from inside of the earth (please refer to the Seven Caves of Chicomoztoc for more info.)

I have read the legend, but I'm missing how it presents another problem.

Also...

I want you to know that I actually ENCOURAGE you to continue to insult me, avoid the questions posed to you and cheerlead for your home team when one of your buddies post.

...I am neither a buddy nor home team to dude.

 

[Da Furl]

Give it a rest? Why because I have proven you to be a dunce? I am having a discussion with several members of the board, and supporting my views. You are CHEERLEADING and typing things like "word..." YOU need to get out and get some sunlight. In fact hitting a library may do you some good.

we all got google man..i can always hit up taht shit with "mexican roots" and "native americans in the 19th century" or some bullshit like that and come on here and copy and paste all this shit..im saying give it a rest because..like some people are saying u typing FUCKING ESSAYS for 2 sentence replies...i think u proved ur the most intellectual muthafucker on here u happy? do u feel better about yourself? did u win anything...i went to taco bell today and won a free taco...for dropping a quarter in a tank...u typing essays and u get dumbass replies back..nigga check your SHIT..

 

[EDJ]

^YOU CHEK YOUR SHIT. THIS FORUM SOLE PURPOSE IS TO COME WITH FACTS TO BAK WHAT HE STRESSIN' AND TO STRESS IT TIL HE HAS NO TIME, BREATH, STRENgTH, OR PATIENCE. IF NOT, THEN WHAT THE FUK YOU DOIN' IN HERE? IF HE WANTS TO WASTE HIS TIME IN HERE(OR MAKE USE OF IT DEPENDIN' ON HOW YOU PERCEIVE IT), THEN THAT'S HIS BUSINESS. STIK TO THE SUBJECT. DON'T ATTEMPT TO BELITTLE THIS MAN AND TRY TO JUDgE HIM, CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HIM.

SOBERIOUS,

gREAT READ. AND I AgREE WITH YOUR POSITION.

WESTBAY gIANT,
WHAT COULD I SAY? YOU'RE AN IgNORANT RACIST THAT DENIES TRUTH ABOUT YOUR BLOODLINE CAUSE YOUR HUNg ON TO IDEALS OF WHAT YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF WITH AND WHAT YOU BEEN TOLD. YOUR BIAS AND PRIDE WITH WHAT YOU IDENIFY WITH HAS BLINDED TO SEEK THE INTEgRITY AND TRUTH. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BREATHE EACH BREATH YOU TAKE, OR PARTAKE IN THIS PREDOMINANT BLAK SUBCULTURE WE CALL RAP. YOU'RE AN IgNORANT INgRATE THAT RATHER TAKES AND WOULD RATHER TAKE THE BLAK OUT OF SOMETHIN' AND DENY IT'S EXISTENCE AS COMIN' FROM THAT. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE HERE AND IF YOU SO HAPPEN TO KNOW OR HAVE BLAK FRIENDS, THEY SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT YOU AND HOW TWO-FACED YOU ARE. YOU DON'T DESERVE RESPECT.

 

[HERESY]

First, I'm a bit incredulous that "many" in science and anthropology view that these tribes are not indigenous.

You can remain skeptical, but if the term indigenous refers to people who were already in the land and not as a result of migration, yes many would say they are not indigenous. Also the recent skull findings bring another perspective/theory that places another group of people in the land thousands of years before indigenous people:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/03/oldest.skull/index.html

With that being said, it all hangs on your definition of indigenous, but regardless of what definition you choose, the fact is the majority of scientists and anthropologists claim the people in question migrated from Asia. The METHOD of migration is what is mostly debated:

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/kman/ancientpeoples.htm

Possibly some, or a few, but I would be willing to bet that a majority of these folks attempt to argue/prove that point to simply in a political effort to detract from those who attempt to make indigenous claims.

For your claim to be true you would have to provide some proof supporting the allegation. You would have to show something linking the scientists to those who attempt to make indigenous claims and show it to be politically motivated. What would scientist gain by detracting from those who make indigenous claims? With that being said, can you provide me with any info where scientists are targeting those who make indigenous claims, and can you show proof for this cause or show the scientists actually gained something from doing so?

The folks at Wikipedia have come up with a good working definition of "indigenous" which draws from the United Nations, International Labour Organization, and the World Bank.Using that definition, it is easy to categorize and accept Native American and Mexican Indian tribes as being "indigenous" to the lands which they inhabited.

And I'm a bit incredulous that those who have destroyed many indigenous cultures within the last century (The United Nations, World Bank and International Labour Organization), would use the definition you provided. If they do so it is most likely politically motivated and designed to be a "band-aid" for all of their wrong doings. BTW, do scientists use the definition you have presented?

How can you or I be sure that they migrated from Mexico to what is now the southwest US?

What does historical or scientific evidence say? Does it say they migrated from the southwest or does it say they migrated from mexico?

If their ancestors migrated from up north through the Beiring Strait, then they would have had to pass through the southwest first.

First off, one of the links on the page you previously provided has the aztecs migrating from the north and going EAST (not southwest) and then entering mexico. The problem with this is we have no evidence of the Aztec empire spanning that far of a region. Scientific and historical evidence places the kingdoms influence and occupation in areas such as central and southern mexico. If they did migrate from the north, you have to identify who stayed in the area and who left the area. You also have to place a timeline on how long they stayed in the area and give a time of departure.

This would also explain why the tribes in that area speak the Aztec-Tanoan language. this is why a person who speaks Shoshone can be understood by all the tribes from Mexico. Catholic missionaries have reported this fact, as well as early linguists.

First, I'll address the Shoshone issue.

The number of people who speak Shoshone has been steadily dwindling over the last few decades, so there are only a few hundred people who speak the language fluently today, although a few thousand know it to one degree or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshone_language

Also, I believe this link is beneficial to all:

http://nahuatl.info/nahuatl.htm

As far as those who speak the Aztec-Tanoan language can you clarify something for me? Are you referring to "the area" of mexico or the united states? I ask this, so I can read a bit more about the language and how it spread.

I have read the legend, but I'm missing how it presents another problem.

I'll answer this tommorow after school. I'll get back to it.

...I am neither a buddy nor home team to dude.

Fair enough...

 

[HERESY]

we all got google man..i can always hit up taht shit with "mexican roots" and "native americans in the 19th century" or some bullshit like that and come on here and copy and paste all this shit..im saying give it a rest because..like some people are saying u typing FUCKING ESSAYS for 2 sentence replies...i think u proved ur the most intellectual muthafucker on here u happy? do u feel better about yourself? did u win anything...i went to taco bell today and won a free taco...for dropping a quarter in a tank...u typing essays and u get dumbass replies back..nigga check your SHIT..

I'll keep this short (only because EDJ covered the bulk of it, and I have to get some sleep because I have to get up early.) First off, you can't even spell "that" correctly, so I SERIOUSLY doubt you even know how to use google. Second of all, I am formulating thoughts on my own based on what I have read. You don't see me cutting and pasting and passing things off as my own. I cite sources and give links. You do nothing.

Finally, I would like to remind you that I am getting dumb ass responses from people who ARE dumb (you included.) Do you believe I care about the thoughts and actions of dumb people such as yourself? LOL!!!!!!!!

 

[westbaygiant]

^YOU CHEK YOUR SHIT. THIS FORUM SOLE PURPOSE IS TO COME WITH FACTS TO BAK WHAT HE STRESSIN' AND TO STRESS IT TIL HE HAS NO TIME, BREATH, STRENgTH, OR PATIENCE. IF NOT, THEN WHAT THE FUK YOU DOIN' IN HERE? IF HE WANTS TO WASTE HIS TIME IN HERE(OR MAKE USE OF IT DEPENDIN' ON HOW YOU PERCEIVE IT), THEN THAT'S HIS BUSINESS. STIK TO THE SUBJECT. DON'T ATTEMPT TO BELITTLE THIS MAN AND TRY TO JUDgE HIM, CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HIM.

SOBERIOUS,

gREAT READ. AND I AgREE WITH YOUR POSITION.

WESTBAY gIANT,
WHAT COULD I SAY? YOU'RE AN IgNORANT RACIST THAT DENIES TRUTH ABOUT YOUR BLOODLINE CAUSE YOUR HUNg ON TO IDEALS OF WHAT YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF WITH AND WHAT YOU BEEN TOLD. YOUR BIAS AND PRIDE WITH WHAT YOU IDENIFY WITH HAS BLINDED TO SEEK THE INTEgRITY AND TRUTH. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BREATHE EACH BREATH YOU TAKE, OR PARTAKE IN THIS PREDOMINANT BLAK SUBCULTURE WE CALL RAP. YOU'RE AN IgNORANT INgRATE THAT RATHER TAKES AND WOULD RATHER TAKE THE BLAK OUT OF SOMETHIN' AND DENY IT'S EXISTENCE AS COMIN' FROM THAT. YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE HERE AND IF YOU SO HAPPEN TO KNOW OR HAVE BLAK FRIENDS, THEY SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT YOU AND HOW TWO-FACED YOU ARE. YOU DON'T DESERVE RESPECT.

dont worry, I dont have aNY black friends. and your still on that mexicans being black and all..?? hahahahahahah shut the fuck up and bring some facts and links or someshit, i know a small portion of the mexican population might have some blackness in them but its a very small percent. and since when is Rap a black persons thang, u call me a rascist but look at you. theres hella latin rappers in the game u stupid fuck.

 

[EDJ]

^WHAT YOU MEAN STILL? THIS AIN'T A TREND BUT AN UNCOVERED TRUTH. I HAVE PROVIDED LINKS AND DEDICATED A WHOLE THREAD TO IT. SOME OF THE LINKS OR ON THIS THREAD TOO. THOSE ARE FACTS. I HAVE gIVEN NAMES OF ANTHROPOLgISTS, SCHOLARS, HISTORIANS, AND OTHA EDUCATED FOLK THAT KNOW ABOUT THE FACTS AND RESEARCH. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS YOU NOT LOOKIN' INTO SHIT AND RATHER RUN YOUR MOUTH AND SHOW YOUR HATRED. A SMALL PERCENT OF MEXICO IS BLAK BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION DERIVE THEY BLOOD FROM AFRICAN SLAVES. THIS IS FACT. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN.

AND I AIN'T ONLY CALLIN' YOU A RACIST, BUT YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED YOUR IgNORANCE OF SUCH IN THIS VERY THREAD. YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR TRUE COLORS. NOT ONCE HAS THE HOMIE HERESY DISRESPECTED MEXICANS OR MEXICAN CULTURE. OR HAS N-E BROTHA SHOWED N-E DISRESPECT. BUT YOU QUIK TO JUMP THE gUN.
AND LATIN RAPPERS JUST HAPPENED TO MAKE RAP? THE BLAK ELEMENT WAS NEVA THERE TO INFLUENCE THEM? JUST LIKE IN MEXICAN MUSIC AND OTHA gENRE'S, THE BLAK HAS BEEN TOOKEN OUT AND YOU ATTEMPTIN' TO DO THE SAME WITH RAP. ALL I'M SAYIN' IS IF YOU REALLY RACIST, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN PARTAKE IN RAP CULTURE(LATINO RAP INCLUDED) CAUSE THOSE ARE AFRICAN RHYTHMS YOU'RE INDULgIN' IN, BUT YET AND STILL YOU DESPISE BLAK FOLK.

CHECCEATE BUEY. NO CAIgA'S A LA IgNORANCIA Y EL ODIO QUE ES TU PINCHI ORgULLO.

 

[saladbowlking]

CHECCEATE BUEY. NO CAIgA'S A LA IgNORANCIA Y EL ODIO QUE ES TU PINCHI ORgULLO.

LOL!