Spain settled much of the Southwest and Pacific coast, but Russia had little to do with it; when Lewis & Clark set out to map the “Louisiana Purchase”, Spain sent troops to try to intercept them - Spain had already claimed much of that land, but was unable to settle it in any numbers - their competition (which later became ours) was British claims.
Spain held much of the “American Southwest” until Mexico gained their independence; Mexico then owned the territory, but couldn’t defend it against American designs (Santa Anna of Alamo fame/infamy was in the Spanish army until independence; he then led the new Mexican army). The US doesn’t even dispute this; we paid Mexico for the land we took.
Descendants of conquistadores, or any other other Spaniards, are a very small percentage of Mexico’s population; it is an Indian nation. Some Latin American countries had few or no natives; they are “white” countries today (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay). Others had few Spanish settlers; they are “Indian” countries today (Peru, Ecuador, Honduras). Mexico is undoubtedly one of the latter; Spaniards bear little resemblance to the dark little hobbits filling Mexico and California.
Yes....so is Costa Rica. No indigenous people lived in the central value when the small Spanish farmers immigrated from regions to the south. In fact, Caribbean blacks were not allowed off the coasts and inland until 1948. Costa Ricans are mostly descendants of white Europeans.
True about mexico and mexicans. Just look at the buggers and it’s plain to see that they are a breed of indians.
Good info, thanks.