I was under the impression that you were speaking about Mexicans residing in Mexico. It’s a little different than Mexican Americans. Mexican history is not a mandatory course here in the states. (why should it be?) So if these cats wanna learn about their roots, they need to seek education on their own. Unfortunately like many ethnicities, most cats just don’t give a shit about their roots. They’re too caught up with trickin out their rides, pimpin hoes, and wondering about how they’re going to score their next weed fix.
No argument here.
Taking a few history courses is all but the starting point in a long journey into their origins. However I mentioned those things to give you an example of why I believe a large majority of Mexican people are very conscious about their indigenous roots.
Mig, I honestly do not believe a large majority of Mexican people are very conscience about their roots. I simply see these movements as fads created by those who will gain something financially or politically. In addition, if large majorities of Mexican people are very conscience about their indigenous roots, why are they not questioning the Mexican government and how they treat indigenous people? Why are they not fighting for Native American rights and for native amercians to be treated as equal citizens in Mexico?
How can one discredit materials they’ve yet to reference?
Deduction. You have done it before, you have done it in this thread, and you will do it again.
I’m going by what was typed by you. Whether you typed something differently than what you intended to is beyond me. More on this below….
No, your inability to think critically and respond to what is posted is hindering you. I type what I mean, and you won't see me back peddling like others.
I don’t know where LA LA Land is, but next time you visit;
send me a post card.
I will.
You’re questioning common knowledge here. You admit that the Americas were inhabited by indigenous tribes prior to European colonialism. You know that the Spanish colonized the Western US and just about all of the Americas below. They enslaved and raped the indigenous people that populated the Americas creating Mestizos. These were tribes from the modern day western US all the way down to the tip of Argentina. They were all of the same race by the time the Euros arrived. And this is the connection that I am talking about. If you wanna sit there and say “but Migg, you guys came from different tribes” then that’s on you. However my point is that we were of the same race. Again, I could care less about tribes here….
No, I am not questioning common knowledge, I am questioning your logic and train of thought, and they are a far stretch from being common or classified as logic. You are claiming these people were
one race before the arrival of Europeans, and you are throwing tribes out the window, but how can they be "one race" when they themselves
MIGRATED from another place and actually have
BLOOD TIES to a
LARGER group of people? How can you say the indigenous people are a
separate race when historical and scientific evidence proves they descend from a larger group of people? If you were to say they were one big tribe that broke into smaller tribes (similar the cut & paste job westbaygiant provided) I would possibly accept that. If you were to say they are a SUB RACE, I would possibly accept that. However, you are saying they are one race, so before I go any further I would like for you to provide me with your definition of
race.
But if you still want to argue over tribes, what about the indigenous tribes that lived in the Western US that were enslaved and raped by the Spanish? You admit that they were indigenous tribes don’t you?
This would actually depend on what definition of indigenous is used. If you are referring to the definition provided by Soberius, yes they are indigenous. If your definition of indigenous is something along the lines of "original people" or "first inhabitants" the answer is no. What about The Caste War of Yucatán? Do you consider the Yucateco a different tribe or race?
Personally, I believe the tribes you speak of are from a larger group that migrated from Asia to america. I simply see them in the same way I see the twelve tribes of Israel. Here is an example so you can understand what I am conveying:
The tribe of Benjamin--> The Twelve Tribes of Israel (Hebrews)-->The Semites.
Benjamin is it's own tribe and helps comprise a larger group/tribe known as the Hebrews. The Hebrews are a SEPERATE tribe from the children of Ishmael, however because of a common ancestor and linguistics they are both SEMETIC. The same example can be similarly applied to indigenous people, but I would really like to see your definition of what race is.
And I’m assuming you’re also aware that the mestizos residing in the Western US all rose up against Spanish rule along with the mestizos in present day Mexico.Most of the Western US became part of the newly formed Mexico there after.These mestizos that came from different indigenous tribes became one nation….
What you are saying is a bunch of mixed people conquered a bunch of mixed people; the group that was conquered hooked up with another group of mixed people, fought the original conquerors, beat them, and created a larger group of mixed people. Just who are the people you speak of? Are you referring to Hispanics when you speak of one nation, or those who are creating some sort of political sovereignty?
First off, have you tried linking the many different tribes that used to live in the US before European colonialism?
Yes, I have, but the real question you should be asking is have the mexican nationals or those who push for illegal immigration.
These tribes consisted of the same type of people “for the most part”.
And these are the same type of people that migrated from Asia? Also, why are you putting for the most part in quotations?
So they were all linked in terms of race.
Again, what is your definition of race? Some say race is limited to only three groups on the planet (white, black, and Asian.) Some say race is the result of tribes growing and changing.
But you want to separate them in terms of tribes to split them apart as if they were different people.
First of all, they separate themselves and split themselves apart as different people. I was not alive when the Aztecs proclaimed themselves as superior and attacked their neighbors. Do you see the Sioux claiming to be Cherokee? Did you see the Navajo claiming to be Toltecs? I am saying they are different tribes because they themselves say it. If they didn't say it I wouldn't say it.
All this to serve your purpose in your argument that MesoAmerican tribes were not connected to North American tribes.
I said they are not the same tribe. As far as a "connection" that is on you to prove not me. You have the burden of proof here, Mig. You and those who support immigration are attempting to change the current status quo. In debate those who are attempting to change the current status quo
ALWAYS have the burden of proof. Therefore, with that being said, I would like you to show me how the Mesoamerican tribes (Mayans, Aztecs, and Toltecs) are connected to the tribes found in north america such as the Sioux. In addition, by NOT lumping them altogether as you do, I am acknowledging each ones specific contribution to this world, and I am paying homage to their cultures, beliefs/religions etc. You are STEREOTYPING them and removing traces of individuality when you try to make it appear as if these people were one group of people with the same ideas, beliefs, culture etc.
You’re right up there with what the Dutch did in order to split African tribes into minorities when the Dutch created the South African state.
Which is a fringe attempt in your part at trying to find a gap between our ancestors and modern day Native Americans;all for the sake of trying to win an argument that holds no ground.
Sure mig, go ahead and make up something if it suits you.
Go ahead and pull more mythical stuff from La La Land or better yet Aztlan.
No. Politicians do, but not the general public.
No, the general public does, which is why people such as yourself are trying to clump a group of people together as if ALL of them occupied a specific area of land.
I mean, that is completely wrong there. And I know from first hand experience.Those who embrace their indigenous roots for political reasons are in the minority, by far.
Mig, you are going to tell me that schoolchildren who left to protest did so because they care about their roots? Are you going to tell me all of the protestors who are pro-illegal immigration protested because they care about their indigenous roots? Mig, if you believe this I would like for you to explain why the current movements were not in motion a century ago and why they are focusing on acquiring land. The plight of the Native American and Mexican is not something that has happened within the past 50 years, so don't make it seem as if the people did not have time to do so. Blacks have been fighting a civil rights movement for equality way before the 60's and 70's, so don't use time as an excuse. You and I both know that current pro illegal rhetoric is politically motivated by those who are in power and that those who are doing all of the footwork will simply eat the crumbs that fall from the table. The difference between you and I is you are too gullible and naive to accept the truth. If it were NOT for the current illegal immigration problem, you would NOT have all of these people discussing the issue. If it were NOT for Mexico’s inability to treat their citizens with respect you would not have all of the movements that have popped up over the last 5 years.
Just to give you an example, Mexicans in general see themselves as descendants of MesoAmerican indigenous empires. I mean Nahuatl was integrated in our Spanish language.
Here lies our problem, Mig. Pay attention to the words in bold (emphasis mine.) You just said Mexicans in general see themselves as descendents of
MesoAmerican indigenous empires. Do you see what is going on here? This is an example of the people splitting themselves apart (something you accuse me of) and it does not link them to the land in question. If they see a relation to Mesoamerican indigenous people, how are they entitled to all of america? In addition, I have already mentioned Nahuatl, the differences in languages, and I even provided links. This is something that does not need to come up again.
And as a predominate Catholic nation, every Mexican is familiar with the story behind their beloved Virgen de Guadalupe. This is important because it goes beyond history, their indigenous roots are tied to their faith.
So, are you claiming illegal immigrants should be granted rights because of this? I don't see the connection.
As you can see, Mexicans have integrated indigenous language and customs into their lifestyles. The truth is much different than you paint it.
Which indigenous languages and lifestyles did they integrate?
But I don’t blame you, you’re just recycling history taught by the same vipers who tried to kill our culture centuries ago.The same brood of vipers continue to spread lies trying to convince us that we’re just a bunch of mutts who previously didn’t have any culture until they domesticated us.
Mig, you have been making inflammatory remarks against me ever since I have openly spoke out against illegal immigration, I just want you to keep this in mind.
Instead of focusing on the so-called vipers who you claim are spreading lies trying to convince people they are mutts, you need to look at the Mexican government and cowardly Mexican people for refusing to address their countries problems stemming from poverty, and if you stop calling yourselves mestizo no one would consider you a mutt.
Indigenous people are treated as harshly as any villager or provinciano, by both the middle and upper classes in Mexico. And if you think Indigenous people are treated worse, go and ask the farmers what they think about that. They will tell you that the upper classes don’t give a shit about anyone below them. Again, I also know this from first hand experience coming from a village family. This shouldn’t be too hard to grasp as this is the case no matter where you go in the world. People will always step on people below them, regardless of class, religion, and ethnicity. No one is immune to it.
Yet, you are claiming that majority of Mexicans are embracing their indigenous roots. You type all of that and you murder it by saying they are treated harshly by both the middle and upper classes in Mexico. Again, if people are so concerned about their indigenous roots, why hasn't the situation changed, and why does the Mexican constitution restrict them?
So what are you saying Heresy? That it’s a racial thing?That Castellanos and fair skinned Mexicans discriminate against darker skin toned Mexicans and Mexicans with cleaner indigenous blood lines?
Yes, the mistreatment is economically, politically, and racially motivated. If the Castellanos were the ruling class, I would say yes they and fair skin Mexicans discriminate against darker toned Mexicans. In fact, look at Edj's topic and questions and how your blood boils because of it. It is common knowledge that people of darker skin tones are discriminated against, and it does not matter what race the person is. The fact that over half of the Mexican population consider themselves white (mark it on applications/forms) and do not accept afro-Mexicans make it even worse.
You WILL find ignorant people who’ll try to distance themselves from each other in Mexico. There is no denying that because that’s the case no matter where you go in the world.Ignorant blacks do the same to each other and I’m sure you already know about this.But putting it on one nationality as if it were exclusive to them is just wrong.In Mexico, these people are in the minority as is the case in any other nation.
What am I putting on one nationality? Racism? Mistreatment based on skin tone? When have I claimed these things were exclusive to Mexicans? I never did, however we are talking about Mexicans and how they are mistreating indigenous people.
Why are the lighter skin toned Mexicans the ruling class? I didn’t even know that they were. Where did you get this info from? Just by sitting there watching television?I mean I’ve never looked at it that way. I don’t know, you might be looking into it differently than you should. I mean could it be that there’s much more lighter skinned Mexicans in comparison to dark skinned ones? That could be the case because I’ve seen darker skin toned Mexicans in high positions as well.
http://www.marketingymedios.com/mar...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002576754
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/08/03/cstillwell.DTL
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/521110/
http://www.blacknews.com/pr/racism101.html
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mfranz/espinofranz_SSQ.pdf (deals with discrimination based on skin tone in the us workplace.)
I suggest you study colorism before you deny what I have presented.
You’re just as misinformed as anyone else.
Probably as misinformed as someone who believes in a mythical place called Aztlan. Better yet, probably just as misinformed as those who deny the blatant racism in Mexico and believe all immigrants from Mexico should be entitled to american land on the sole grounds of being indigenous.
Perhaps you really can’t grasp what I’m saying here so I’ll break it down.
Because you
AREN'T saying anything
WORTH grasping.
I said that we were indigenous people before Euros polluted our blood lines.You then disagreed asking me for a “tribal” link from our indigenous tribes to North American Native tribes. To which I said fuck a tribe, we’re linked by blood lines. Follow?(BTW, the tribal connection you keep nagging about is found in the Navajo, Apache, Yaqui tribes. And these are just major tribal groups who are bunched up because they speak a common language. There were still other smaller tribes)It goes much deeper than tribes is what I’m saying.
Again, you are saying things and not showing any proof to validate what you are saying. Can you please give me some information pertaining to Navajo, Apache and Yaqui tribes, and their connection to Mexicans in Mexico? I am asking because I want to read this for myself and validate it after I have done so. Moreover, this is one of the things you said about tribes:
Fuck a tribe within the context of indigenous blood lines. Tribes are only a cultural thing, a community. They don’t have anything to do with blood lines. I am talking about my people’s gene pool. I am talking about race/ethnicity.
You are contradicting yourself and I will prove this later.
And no, “tribes” do not necessarily involve blood lines.
If that wasn’t the case then show me the connection between the Navajo and ANY African tribe.
WTF, kind of question is this? If I were implying that all tribes are related, I WOULD provide you with something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration#Historical_migrations
OR this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
However, this is not what I am debating, and unfortunately, you don't have the mental capacity to understand this. How are Afrikan and Navajo tribes related? Simply because they are tribes? No one is implying that tribes are related simply because they are tribes, and you're stupid if you believe I am promoting this because I have constantly stated the contrary.
For reference, and for your benefit;
Here goes the definition of the word “tribe” since you seem to only understand it to a certain extent. Whether it’s just selective thinking in your part, or you really just don’t know….
tribe:
1 a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers b : a political division of the Roman people orig. representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome c : PHYLE
2 : a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest
3 : a category of taxonomic classification ranking below a subfamily; also : a natural group irrespective of taxonomic rank <the cat tribe> <rose tribe
Since it is obvious that 1b and 1c are not applicable to the people we are discussing, and 2 and 3 are very vague and have limitations when applied to the people in question, let us focus on 1a. According to the definition you provided, a tribe is "a social group comprising numerous families"
STOP! A social group comprising numerous what?
FAMILIES? Families do what? Intermingle and give birth correct? Making them RELATED correct? New BLOODLINES are formed correct? With that being said, how can you say tribes don't have anything to do with bloodline? Here it is if you missed it:
They don’t have anything to do with blood lines.
Mig, your definition is contradicting you and your position. Next time I suggest you read before you post. They still don't have anything to do with bloodlines, Mig? Let us take a look at the word clan in your definition:
1. A traditional social unit in the Scottish Highlands, consisting of a number of families claiming a common ancestor and following the same hereditary chieftain.
2. A division of a tribe tracing descent from a common ancestor.
3. A large group of relatives, friends, or associates.
Whoa! Definition 1 is not applicable to the people in question, however 2 and 3
ARE. Knowing this to be true, how can you say tribes don't matter?
Let us take a look at the definition of generation. For clarification and space reasons I'll simply list the first one.
1. All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/g/g0080200.html
With that being said, how the
FUCK can you say tribes don't matter when I have clearly shown that those who comprise tribes are not simply a cultural or community thing as you would like for the readers to believe?
And here I thought it was me who wasn’t typing ish clearly enough.
Then I come across this BS.
Slow down when you’re reading stuff, perhaps your brain registered a “read-o” as in “typo”.
It’s more like “read-doh!” Homer style.
Let me repeat what I said,
“I am talking about my people’s gene pool. I am talking about race/ethnicity.”
Get it now?
Insults and statements like the above do nothing to further your argument or position, Mig. You said and I quote, "They don’t have anything to do with blood lines", but my question is how can you talk about race/ethnicity and NOT talk about bloodlines? Scientist will OPENLY laugh at you for promoting such an idea, and to tell you the truth, I am openly laughing at you for promoting it (and I'm not even a scientist.) You CANNOT discuss race/ethnicity/gene pool without discussing bloodlines and tracing how the gene pools and people came about in the first place.
So according to you, they’re from different races just because they’re from different tribes?
Hahahahaha….
This would depend on your definition of race/sub-race. However, my argument is simply that they are of different tribes, and because one tribe inhabited the area, that does not give all the people from the LARGER group/race the right to have the land. ISBN 0-312-41274-4, have fun!
Fringe Heresy, very fringe….As the above definition of tribes just told you, tribes don’t necessarily imply blood lines.
I've just proven that they do imply bloodlines, and the core makeup of a tribe consists of people that ARE related.
Now, let us address the article you posted:
According to current scientific knowledge, no humans evolved in North America or South America but instead arrived by sea or by a land bridge that formerly connected North America with Asia. Most (if not all) of those indigenous peoples descend from peoples from Siberia
The article you cited is saying the indigenous peoples descend from Siberia. With that being said are they a separate race altogether or a sub race of the Siberians? Are they a TRIBE from the Siberians?
who probably entered North America more than 16,000 years ago and spread and diversified into hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes.
Spread and diversified into hundreds of culturally
distinct nations and
tribes? Again, I have already shown that tribes have everything to do with blood relation.
Now here is where it is going to get interesting, and I'll show you how you don't comprehend what you are posting, how you lack the ability to think critically, and why you probably shouldn't partake in this topic any longer. Let us take a look at the last part of your excerpt:
While many of these indigenous peoples retained a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle until modern times, others lived in permanent villages and were primarily farmers, and in some regions they created large sedentary chiefdom polities (if you ain’t following, that means tribes), and even advanced state level societies with monumental architecture and large-scale, organized cities.”
The first part of this excerpt is comparing and contrasting those who were nomads/semi-nomads to those who lived in permanent villages and were farmers. The second part compares those who are more "advanced" and created cities to those who lived in permanent villages and practiced farming. Here is where you drop the ball, Mig. You highlight "chiefdom polities" and in parenthesis, you state it means tribes. Mig, Chiefdom polities is not simply a tribe. A Chiefdom polity is a community or group that is led by a CHIEF (or dominant family.) What you're article is stating is that the advanced groups not only built cities, but they also organized themselves and created a form of
government structure, that their peers did not have. The article is not implying that the people created large and non-moving tribes. Also, the article does NOT provide any information pertaining to the questions/requests I had.
Ever been to Mexico Heresy?I have. Once….But it was enough for me to see descendants of Apache and Yaqui’s down there.And guess what? They didn’t recently move down there, those tribes lived down there, well before the Euros arrived….
Yes, I have been to Mexico more than once (and I'm not just talking about TJ), but what does it prove? You don't have the means to validate me claiming to go there, nor do I have the means to validate your claims.
Saying that all indigenous people in North America are Mexican or Mestizo would be incorrect.
This is what I am arguing against, and I have stated this several times now. Why you have to draw this out into a very long post is BEYOND me. What I am saying is you have MANY people who are actually saying all indigenous people in North America are MEXICAN, and because they ALL are Mexican that Mexican immigrants (legal and non legal) are entitled to this land.
But…. Every Mexican and Mestizo in all of the Americas is a descendant of Indigenous people.
No one is denying this. What I am asking is from WHICH indigenous people do they stem from? If you go off and find a pot of gold, should the guy next door to you be entitled to your gold if he didn't search for it with you? If a group of 100 people split into three distinct/independent groups that are comprised of 27 members, 33 members and 40 members, and the group of 33 go off to become gazillionaires because they found an island full of oil, does that give the group of 27 or 40 the right to claim that oil?
Unless you’re talking about naturalized Mexican citizens who aren’t even Mestizo.The only valid argument you can make is that perhaps “most” Mexicans aren’t descendants of North American indigenous tribes. The bulk of us (maybe 2/3) come from Mesoamerican tribes from present day Mexico.
So, why do I have to continue to explain myself in a long drawn out post
WHEN I ALREADY STATED THAT IS MY ARGUMENT?!?!?!?!?!
Which to me is pointless, since they were all indigenous tribes to begin with.
Let me ask you this. You agree that the indigenous people come from Asia or Siberia correct? Are they entitled to this land also? If so, how and why? Here it is you are grouping all of them together, and once again you are connected a group of people by simply all throwing them in the pot because they are "indigenous."
I don’t make any distinction between Mexico’s Aztec empire, Southern Mex and Guatemala’s Mayan tribes, Brazil’s amazon tribes, all the way down to Peru’s Inca tribes.We are all connected, and that is why we all call ourselves Latino Americanos….
YOU don't make any distinctions, but you KNOW others do. You KNOW that the Aztecs made a distinction between themselves and the tribes they encountered. You know the Inca separated themselves from those they came across.
We all know that we are connected by our indigenous blood lines. Some of us have white and or African blood (all three at times), some of us are purely indigenous (Peru for example), but we’re so mixed that we don’t make any distinction between ourselves.
Don't make any distinctions between yourselves? LMAO! Refer to my previous post. Also, if you don't see a distinction between yourselves, why is it that afro-mexicans are treated differently?
Now if present day US Native Americans want to distance themselves from us Latinos,it’s on them (their indigenous pure blooded fam down in Mex seem to acknowledge their ties). But we’re connected by blood lines….
Yes, their fam down in Mexico might acknowledge their ties, but what about the Mexican government? What about the current status quo?
I’ve already addressed the first part but let me say that my ancestors didn’t come from present day Eastern US native tribes. However some of our ancestors come from present day Western US tribes.
But my ancestors were from the same group of nomadic tribes as the Natives so it’s basically the same ish….
Ok.
With your selective reading, it’ll never get through to you.
The web link I provided you gave you this link you keep talking about.
Here’s one example of this “link”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqui
I am going to address this but not in depth.
Here are two excerpts:
The "Yoeme" or Yaqui are a border Native American people who live in region comprising the northern Mexican state of Sonora and the southwestern U.S. state of Arizona.
Again, where are these people from? Did they originally come from the group that migrated from Siberia or where they the result of mixing and marriage between the people over long periods of time? When did they settle in the area mentioned in the article?
Throughout their history, they remained independent of the Aztec and Toltec empires, perhaps because of their remote northern locale.
So, how are you linking them if the article states they are independent of the groups in question?
These cats established a truce after the Mexican/Spanish war.
Both parties are guilty of not sticking to their truce.If people want peace, there will be peace.Just look at the tribes in current day Mexico, no one’s “fucking” them up.And before you say “Bullshit, they got fucked up too”, let me reiterate what I said earlier;Every poor class in Mexico has gotten fucked over just like every where else in this planet….
Mig, what does the poor Mexican class being fucked up have to do with the Mexicans mistreating the indigenous people in Mexico? No one is fucking the tribes up Mig? Go back and read some of the links you posted because they paint a different picture.
LMAO!
So you guys aren’t African Americans then?
Why are you laughing? Depending on what your definition of African American is some would say yes and some would say no. What I am telling you is that the people who are considered African Americans (blacks) are a MIXED group of people. The core makeup of our blood/lineage
is from Afrika, but the problem lies in the fact that we don't know from which African countries we come from and the fact that we have limited cultural ties to Afrikans. Black Americans are NOT the same people as those who were originally slaves. Again, the core of our blood/lineage is African, but we are a group of MIXED people.
You’re telling me that you’re more like African/Native/Caucasian Americans????
Yes, some more than others.
Wrong, Brazilians have white and native blood
I never said Brazilians did not have white and native blood, but how does their having white and native blood mean African Americans DON'T have white and native blood? The core of Brazilians is comprised of the Mesoamericans. The core of African Americans is first comprised of Afrikans.
Brazilian core make up is different from African core make up, but since you are so quick to say "wrong", can you please tell me what you believe African Americans area, and can you explain why you are comparing and contrasting them to Brazilians?
And they are by far, much more diverse than African Americans.
Diverse in what? Blood or racial background? I disagree entirely, and your position is not supported by history or science. African americans are not comprised of afrikans from one tribe or country in Afrika. We are comprised of MANY tribes and cultures that were never exposed to each other until slavery, and MANY of these tribes no longer exist. The difference between Brazilians and African Americans is Brazilians can pretty much trace their lineage, while African Americans can't. The slaves that were from different tribes spoke different languages, had different cultures, but were FORCED to "breed" in order to create more "stock." This, in conjunction with the slave master blood, and native blood gave birth to the mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon. For more information, you can look up Plessy v. Ferguson.
But what makes you different than any other immigrant ethnicity here in America?
First off, our ancestors were
FORCED to come here. Our ancestors did not come here looking for a mythical place like Aztlan, nor did our ancestors come here looking for a better life. What differences do you want me to discuss? YOU name them, and I'll discuss them.
Mexican Americans, Italian Americans, Asian Americans, are as “mixed” as African Americans.
The difference between us and them is ALL of the groups you just listed can trace to their place of origin. They can trace to their homeland and where their people come from (Mexicans to some extent cannot do this.) African Americans have NO CLUE as to which tribes we come from, what our culture is, what our original religion was, etc. The ONLY thing the majority of us can do is say "we are from Africa." I also, disagree with your idea that the other races are just as mixed as African Americans, but I'll touchdown on that later if I need to.
Their origins? Most believe Asian, a few say African. Hell the latest theory even says India (as in Hindu). Even crazier is Atlantean....The Olmecs are the farthest back I can go in terms of tribes residing in the area my parents were born at. But the closest link in terms of time are the Purhépecha tribe.Now are you going to question this as well Heresy?
Yes, I am going to question it but not at this time. I need to address points that are more important and wrap up this post.
My parents are from Michoacán, hell they’re spoken language has integrated Nahuatl vocabulary. Hell even the name of the state derives from Nahuatl. Language is one thing, but there’s mythology and customs to go along with it.I don’t know about you, but if this isn’t a connection then I might as well question existence itself….
See the above.
Yeah just ignore the fact that the Spanish set up Missions in the Western US (then known as Nueva Espana) and aimed at integrating with the local Indigenous tribes….
Setting up missions and attempting to unite the locals does not entitle an entire group of people (Mexicans) the right to enter illegally and use "indigenous" as an excuse to do so.
Is that what the brood of vipers tell you?
This does NOTHING to answer my statements, and I see no relation.
So much for the United States never being stolen from Mexicans.
The place where you got that map doesn't say the land was stolen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Cession
The Mexican Cession is a historical name for the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the Mexican-American War. The cession of this territory from Mexico was a condition for the end of the war, as United States troops occupied Mexico City, and Mexico risked being completely annexed by the U.S. The United States also paid $15,000,000 ($297,310,309 in 2005) for the land, which was the same it had offered for the land prior to the war.
Bold emphasis is mine, and the link (which is the origin of your map) says the land was given to america as a condition for ending the war. So, can you explain to me how the land was stolen?
You say this and yet you’re typing your nonsense from land stolen from Mexicans.
Taken from the Mexicans because of war
and purchased from them. In addition, this place would not have been what it was without the contribution of African slaves, so I'll enjoy typing whatever the hell I want while I am sipping lemonade in aztlan.
*Cough* slavery reparations *cough cough*
Hahaha…. This is our homeland and we are changing the system.
Hence yours and AmeriKKKa’s fears.
Actually, according to a previous definition African Americans can ALSO be considered as "indigenous", so I get a double portion!!!!!! Mexicans are not changing the system. Mexicans are too cowardly to address the problems in Mexico, so they want an infrastructure that is prolific and already in place. The problem with this is the Mexicans are basically damning themselves and doing
exactly what the CFR/TLC want them to do. In addition, African Americans have yet to receive reparations, but are you suggesting that reparations are equivalent to taking over america and that reparations are a result of not standing up for equality? Black Americans have always fought for themselves and stood up for ALL people of color (civil rights movement.) Unlike the Mexican population in Mexico blacks DID take a stance for injustice. Blacks were able to fight Jim Crow laws. Blacks were able to march down streets in protest to segregation. Blacks were able to do this at the expense of being lynched, burned, castrated, mutilated, murdered, and beaten. So, with that being said, I see one group of people standing up to its oppressors, while I see another group of people to chicken shit to stand up to their OWN people and demand respect.
Yeah the Euros almost did, and their written accounts in the form of history in there eyes is just another one of their methods to bury our past.
Sure.
You just admitted that a certain number of Mexicans did or have lived in present day American land.
The question is WHEN did they live in the present land.
1/3 of our land was stolen from us.
Correction, according to the same page you pulled that map from the land was sold as a part of an agreement.
Many Mexicans stayed in these old Mexican states. And Southern Mexican’s ancestors are indigenous people who have the same origins as present day Native Americans and Canadian Natives.
So yeah, this was never our land
Prove it.
Right and Miguel Hidalgo is a mythological character just like the tooth fairy. Yeah and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a leftist politician who promises to finally cut the strings of foreign economic influence hasn’t jumped at the top of Mexican presidential voters lists.
Again, none of this garbage does anything to answer what I have asked. BTW, the politician looks very "light."
Care to point where in the Mexican constitution does it say that it’s ok to “mistreat” non citizens and Natives?
Sure. Let us discuss everything contained here:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy....ter for security policy mexico's glass house'
Right, and you’re not of African descent….
Have a nice day man…
Of sole afrikan descent? No. Primarily of afrikan descent? Yes.
Take care.
