Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

  1. #1
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    25,571
    Likes Received
    14281 times
    Likes Given
    9470

    Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    I put Hispanics in quotes because I know it's a contested classification. With this post I'm not trying to offend, just discussing a topic that goes in and out of my mind sometimes.

    So - my children from my previous marriage are part Native American. My exes family embraced the culture to some degree and my oldest son shows some physical NA characteristics.

    Yet - thinking back - I remember noticing that my ex looked a lot like his best friend, who was from Brazil.

    It seems to me that the definitive difference between the peoples who were classified as "Native American" or "Indian" and the peoples who were classified as "Hispanic/Mexican/etc" - are actually only divided by a line, a thin line, the southern boarder of the US - and likely not different, genetically speaking.

    Instead - the changing genetics that denote one race from another was likely a gradual change that cannot be defined with a line of location or physical existence - but a general region, US boarder aside.

    Why, then, is "Native American/Indian" classified culturally or genetically separate from "Hispanic/Mexican" ?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 04:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978
    Likes Received
    5175 times
    Likes Given
    7497

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    I put Hispanics in quotes because I know it's a contested classification. With this post I'm not trying to offend, just discussing a topic that goes in and out of my mind sometimes.

    So - my children from my previous marriage are part Native American. My exes family embraced the culture to some degree and my oldest son shows some physical NA characteristics.

    Yet - thinking back - I remember noticing that my ex looked a lot like his best friend, who was from Brazil.

    It seems to me that the definitive difference between the peoples who were classified as "Native American" or "Indian" and the peoples who were classified as "Hispanic/Mexican/etc" - are actually only divided by a line, a thin line, the southern boarder of the US - and likely not different, genetically speaking.

    Instead - the changing genetics that denote one race from another was likely a gradual change that cannot be defined with a line of location or physical existence - but a general region, US boarder aside.

    Why, then, is "Native American/Indian" classified culturally or genetically separate from "Hispanic/Mexican" ?
    "Classified" by whom?
    Native American/ Indian is a race (supposedly); Hispanic/Mexican is an ethnicity.
    One is supposedly a biological/physiological designation, while the other is a cultural designation. Hispanics can be white, tan, brown, or black.

  3. #3
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496
    Likes Received
    1880 times
    Likes Given
    3271

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    It gets pretty confusing, and it varies. For example, 97% of Argentina's population is of European descent, while most of Bolivia doesn't even speak Spanish as a first language. Its just another reason, why we shoudn't really make a big deal about this stuff. You're White, Black, Red, Bule? Who the Hell cares?
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  4. #4
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    25,571
    Likes Received
    14281 times
    Likes Given
    9470

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Yeah - classified by whom? I think that, there, really irons out why it's confusing and petty.

  5. #5
    Student
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Chinle, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-29-10 @ 01:28 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    276
    Likes Received
    80 times
    Likes Given
    6

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    I’ve got a lot to say here, so bear with me.

    You’ve hit on an important point - and an important reason for my anger about this new legislation. In racial terms, the majority of illegal and undocumented Mexican, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran immigrants are Indians/Native Americans. (I use the term “Native American” as a reference to the Americas, not to the United States, though it’s often not used that way). If enforcement of the legislation does entail racial profiling, it won’t be racial profiling of “Hispanics,” as has been inaccurately claimed; it will be racial profiling of Indians, regardless of their national origins. I myself am usually unable to distinguish between U.S. and Mexican/Central American Indians based on physical appearance alone, and I have far less faith in the abilities of a white law enforcement officer to do so.

    The “Hispanic” classification is a U.S. mechanism for categorizing all peoples with origins in Spanish-speaking countries (meaning that Brazilians aren’t technically Hispanics, since Brazil is not a Spanish-speaking country), as a common ethnic group, regardless of the profound national, cultural, and yes - racial, differences between them. It’s essentially parallel to a classification of all peoples with origins in Anglophone countries as “Anglos,” as I understand is a tendency in Israel. Most of us would laugh at the inaccuracy of grouping everyone of every racial and ethnic group from the United States, the British Isles, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, the rest of the Anglo Caribbean, etc., as one, yet that is exactly what the “Hispanic” classification does. The “Latino” classification is also an amalgamation of various nationalities, specifically those of “Latin America.” The “Latino” countries are basically all the Hispanic countries minus Spain (since it’s not in America), plus Brazil and Haiti because of their use of romance languages (hence the “Latin” reference, “Latino” simply being the Spanish word for Latin).

    Puerto Rico might be added as “Hispanic” and “Latino” and French Guiana as “Latino,” but as they are territories of the United States and France, respectively, and not independent countries, they usually are not.

    The definitions of these terms also mean that those born in the U.S. to Hispanic or Latino parents are not Hispanic or Latino themselves, since national classifications cannot be hereditably transmitted. It makes no more sense to say that a person is “half Mexican” than to say that a person is “half Canadian.” Despite that, the somewhat non-Anglo and often non-white identities of many children of Hispanics born in the U.S. still mark them out as distinct to the average U.S. person in a way that a child of Canadians never could be. At the same time, the assimilated white children of Hispanics are indistinct - most people never conceive of the fact that Charlie Sheen, Alexis Bledel, or even the Spanish surnamed Cameron Diaz are as “Hispanic” as many other people classified under that label.

    As to what you’ve said about Indians, your reference is to what I call the “Anglo-Hispano divide” on the U.S.-Mexico border, where those north of the border are considered “Indians” and “Native Americans” in popular discourse, while those south of the border are usually not even understood as Indians. (This includes the countries of Belize in Central America and Guyana in South America, despite the fact that they are Anglo countries, as well as the other non-Hispanic countries south of the border).

    The scarcity of Indians in the Anglo section leads to very low blood quantum standards and inbreeding within more pure-blooded Indian families. The idea that “one drop” of Indian blood makes a person an Indian is what led to the popularity of the “Cherokee princess grandmother” phenomenon among white wannabes. It’s also the basis for incorporation of mixed-breeds into generic “Indian” society, with exceptions such as the Metis of Canada existing. This makes enough sense to me personally; mixed-breeds will usually bear a greater phenotypic resemblance to the darker race. The terms “quadroon” and “octoroon” originated because racial admixture remained apparent to many people even if a person was only a quarter or an eighth black.

    Conversely, many countries in the Hispano section are majority or overwhelmingly Indian, though several are not. As a result, it’s in those countries where Indian membership is far more exclusive, which means many of our “Indians” would have been “mestizos” (a term meaning “mixed”), if they were born there. The actual “pure-blooded Indian” population is considered to be the rural underclass peasantry that might speak Spanish as a second language or not at all. Despite that, I’d suggest that the actual racial difference between these groups is overstated; so-called “mestizos” are not actual half-breeds, but rather majority or predominantly Indian.

    This is even true in the urban and metropolitan capital of Mexico City, which is characterized by multi-racialism.

    The reason for adoption of “mestizo” socio-cultural identity despite effectively Indian racial identity is due to the stigmatization of Indian socio-cultural identity in Hispanic societies, thanks to a caste system that was established by the Spanish in their American colonies.

    www.descendantofgods.tripod.com/id144.html

    The colonial policies of Spain, Britain, and the United States have invented the concept of mestizo and given reality to the concept through racist, caste-oriented policies that favor white persons over nonwhites while distinguishing grades of people within the nonwhite world. Isn’t time that this grading system is halted forever?

    The Plan to Liquidate the Anishinabe Peoples

    In Mexico an indio who puts on shoes, learns Spanish, and moves to a larger city becomes a non-Indian (he becomes mestizo or a Mexicano).

    In Peru an Anishinabe woman who sets up a small shop becomes a chola. She is no longer an india.

    In Guatemala a Cakchiquel who learns Spanish and moves to the city becomes a ladino. He is no longer indio.

    In Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, and elsewhere, millions of people who were indios just a few years ago are now officially campesinos. Bolivia has no more Anishinabegs, only peasants.

    In Brazil an Indian who takes up farming away from a tribal village becomes a caboclo or perhaps a mestizo or simply a Brazilian peasant.

    In the United States an Indian whose reservation is terminated becomes officially a non-Indian.

    In Canada an Indian whose group never signed a treaty or received a reservation is a metis.

    In the United States many Chicanos of unmixed physical appearance are classified as whites with Spanish surnames.

    In Mexico a man of complete Indian appearance who wears a suit, has a college education, and speaks Spanish has to be mestizo, since he could never be an indio.
    Though formally abolished long ago, a sort of informal apartheid remains in those countries. The political and economic upper and upper middle classes are dominated by whites and mestizos who act white, while the political and economic lower middle and lower classes are dominated by Indians and mestizos who act Indian (meaning that they’re often part of the rural peasantry). While they might be loath to admit this, this racial stratification even exists among Hispanic-American communities in the U.S.

    Phenotype and Schooling Among Mexican-Americans

    The study presented here examined the effect of phenotype (both skin color and physical features) on schooling attainment among Mexican Americans with data from the 1979 National Chicano Survey. It found that the lightest skin-toned and most European-looking quarter of the Mexican American population had about 1.5 more years of schooling than the darker and more Indian-looking majority.
    To give a broad summary, the countries of Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama in North America, all except Mexico also in Central America, and Venezuela, Colombia, Paraguay, and Ecuador in South America, are all recorded as containing “mestizo” majorities. The countries of Guatemala in North (and Central) America, and Bolivia and Peru in South America, are recorded as containing “pure-blooded” Indian majorities or pluralities. The country of Cuba in the Caribbean is recorded as containing a white majority and a substantial black minority, and despite the association of Anglo identity with “the north” and Hispano identity with “the south,” the southernmost South American countries of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are recorded as containing white majorities. The country of the Dominican Republic is recorded as having a “mixed” majority, which I interpret to mean a mulatto black majority, and its neighbor, Haiti, has a black majority. So just as it would be silly and wrong to expect the citizens of the Anglophone world to ignore their differences in a country that perceives them all as homogenous, it’s the same case with the citizens of Hispanic countries.

    Now, there certainly are cultural and national differences between the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Many people (particularly nationalists suspicious that you might be trying to push the point that most Mexican and Central immigrants are Native Americans), will emphasize this, and perhaps argue that the Indians of the U.S. are worlds apart from the Indians of Mexico or Central or South America, or the Caribbean. But this is ignorant, as those cultural and national differences do not correspond to the borders established between modern countries. To give you an overview of North America north of Mesoamerica (mainly linguistically based), it would look like this.



    All of America would look like this:



    This means that despite our shared nationality, my culture actually has less in common with a Seneca in New England than a Huichol in northern Mexico.

    This topic is far broader, and I cannot do it much justice here. For a beginning overview of the mestizo/Indian divide, you might want to look at this: Indians and Mestizos in the Americas

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827
    Likes Received
    1375 times
    Likes Given
    1288

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Many Mexicans have native American ancestry to one extent or another, which is why they, too, are prone to type 2 diabetes and other ailments common to that 'racial' group. Other Spanish speaking groups are predominantly European in origin, such as Argentina, many Cubans, etc.

    Hispanic is actually a language grouping, not an ethnic one. You also have a lot of people of African ancestry in some Spanish speaking nations. If you look at Mexicans, you'll see quite a variety of people, not everyone looks like the classic Mayan.

  7. #7
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-07-13 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808
    Likes Received
    279 times
    Likes Given
    2

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Mexicans tend to think of themselves as native americans. This is the basis for groups such as la raza to claim they are the rightful owners of the american southwest and us anglos as european interlopers.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    10-26-10 @ 04:34 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,978
    Likes Received
    5175 times
    Likes Given
    7497

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    Mexicans tend to think of themselves as native americans. This is the basis for groups such as la raza to claim they are the rightful owners of the american southwest and us anglos as european interlopers.
    Yeah, well... no it's not.
    The basis for that is Manifest Destiny, and the way we stole the American Southwest from Mexico.
    And I kind of agree with them, as it happens. They are in fact the rightful owners.
    They were happy to share what they had with the "European interlopers".
    My family's been in Texas on a Mexican land grant for 200 years.
    Mexico treated us better than we've treated them.

    They are the rightful owners. I hope someday, somehow, they take it back.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827
    Likes Received
    1375 times
    Likes Given
    1288

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Most Mexican's ancestors came from the south of Mexico and were Mayans. The arid north was sparsely inhabited by members of the Apache tribe, the Pueblos, Navahos, etc. Believe me, those Native people don't consider themselves Mexican. In fact, most Native peoples get mighty PO'd if you mistake them for Mexican.

  10. #10
    Tavern Bartender
    Sage lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    23,879
    Likes Received
    24671 times
    Likes Given
    22553

    Re: Genetic relation between Native Americans and "Hispanics"

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    It seems to me that the definitive difference between the peoples who were classified as "Native American" or "Indian" and the peoples who were classified as "Hispanic/Mexican/etc" - are actually only divided by a line, a thin line, the southern boarder of the US - and likely not different, genetically speaking.
    Yes, it is defined by a border. Genetically, it's pretty much the same thing. There are a few differences culturally/ tribally in the Native American population, but you're assumption is pretty sound.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •