Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: org.whodat; Mrs. Don-o
WRONG! Take a look at a genetic sample of the Mexican population sometime.

The Mexican population was 50% Indian, 40% Mestizo and 10% white/other at the the time of the Mexican revolution. The Indian population is now down to around 30% due to assimilation into the urban mestizo culture.

Remember that in Mexico to be an "Indian" you must identify with one of the indigenous cultures and speak an Indian language (Nahtual, Tarascan, Quiche, etc.). Most of the "mestizos" in southern Mexico are close to pure Indian in terms of ancestry, but are not considered as such since the assimilated into the westernized mestizo culture.

Your figures are based on fantasy. All one has to do is travel in Mexico, or even look at the faces of their people to see the strong Indian presence, both racially and culturally.

The only countries in the Spanish speaking world that had Anglo-American style "genocide" was in the Caribbean (due to disease) and the southen cone (due to the military campaigns of General Rosas, who wanted to clear the Pampa for grain and cattle).

Just in terms of cultural preservation and survival, I put the Spanish and the French well ahead of the Anglos. While their policies stressed "cultural genocide" (through assimilation), they generally steered clear of the racial apartheid/ethnic cleansing that was so common in Anglo-America.

20 posted on 11/05/2007 11:33:07 AM PST by Clemenza (Rudy Giuliani, like Pesto and Seattle, belongs in the scrap heap of '90s Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Clemenza; org.whodat

Good point, Clemenza. The French, and even moreso the Spanish, frequently intermarried with the indigenous people (and these marriages were recognized by religion and law, and their offspring were legitimate and fully heirs). The English intermarried to a small extent, mostly without benefit of law or clergy, but more frequently killed indigenous tribal people or drove them off.


21 posted on 11/05/2007 11:59:59 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Clemenza; org.whodat; Mrs. Don-o
Just in terms of cultural preservation and survival, I put the Spanish and the French well ahead of the Anglos. While their policies stressed "cultural genocide" (through assimilation), they generally steered clear of the racial apartheid/ethnic cleansing that was so common in Anglo-America.

I'd agree. The French treated the Indians the best, I'd have to say.

I'd also add that the English weren't as bad as they are often made out to be. First of all, look at the Indian Wars that the English participated in the early days, and you find that many of them were fought with Indian Allies. I'm quoting figures off the top of my head here, but I believe the Pequods were destroyed with 100 Englishmen and about 400 Narragansett. The Tuscarora were defeated with 100-200 Englishmen and 800 Yamasee Indians.

And then there's the "uncomfortable" fact that many tribes were destroyed by the Iroquois--without white people's help--in the 1600s. The entire Ohio valley was almost depopulated before settlers began to arrive: the Indians that were found there had all relocated there after the Iroquois Wars were over.

23 posted on 11/06/2007 7:58:33 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson