The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Flight from White Finally Reaches the Upper Rio Grande
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Nobody in America has been prouder of their white ancestry than the Hispanic descendants of settlers / conquistadors sent by the King of Spain to what is now New Mexico and southwest Colorado. But even these New Mexico Hispanics are getting into the Flight from White. From the New York Times:

Indian Slavery Once Thrived in New Mexico. Latinos Are Finding Family Ties to It.
By SIMON ROMERO JAN. 28, 2018

ALBUQUERQUE — Lenny Trujillo made a startling discovery when he began researching his descent from one of New Mexico’s pioneering Hispanic families: One of his ancestors was a slave.

One? How many ancestors did he have?

“I didn’t know about New Mexico’s slave trade, so I was just stunned,” said Mr. Trujillo, 66, a retired postal worker who lives in Los Angeles. “Then I discovered how slavery was a defining feature of my family’s history.”

Mr. Trujillo is one of many Latinos who are finding ancestral connections to a flourishing slave trade on the blood-soaked frontier now known as the American Southwest. Their captive forebears were Native Americans — slaves frequently known as Genízaros (pronounced heh-NEE-sah-ros) who were sold to Hispanic families when the region was under Spanish control from the 16th to 19th centuries. Many Indian slaves remained in bondage when Mexico and later the United States governed New Mexico.

The revelations have prompted some painful personal reckonings over identity and heritage. But they have also fueled a larger, politically charged debate on what it means to be Hispanic and Native American.

A growing number of Latinos who have made such discoveries are embracing their indigenous backgrounds, challenging a long tradition in New Mexico in which families prize Spanish ancestry. Some are starting to identify as Genízaros. Historians estimate that Genízaros accounted for as much as one-third of New Mexico’s population of 29,000 in the late 18th century.

“We’re discovering things that complicate the hell out of our history, demanding that we reject the myths we’ve been taught,” said Gregorio Gonzáles, 29, an anthropologist and self-described Genízaro who writes about the legacies of Indian enslavement.

Those legacies were born of a tortuous story of colonial conquest and forced assimilation.

New Mexico, which had the largest number of sedentary Indians north of central Mexico, emerged as a coveted domain for slavers almost as soon as the Spanish began settling here in the 16th century, according to Andrés Reséndez, a historian who details the trade in his 2016 book, “The Other Slavery.” Colonists initially took local Pueblo Indians as slaves, leading to an uprising in 1680 that temporarily pushed the Spanish out of New Mexico.

The trade then evolved to include not just Hispanic traffickers but horse-mounted Comanche and Ute warriors, who raided the settlements of Apache, Kiowa, Jumano, Pawnee and other peoples. They took captives, many of them children plucked from their homes, and sold them at auctions in village plazas.

The Spanish crown tried to prohibit slavery in its colonies, but traffickers often circumvented the ban by labeling their captives in parish records as criados, or servants. The trade endured even decades after the Mexican-American War, when the United States took control of much of the Southwest in the 1840s.

Seeking to strengthen the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, Congress passed the Peonage Act of 1867 after learning of propertied New Mexicans owning hundreds and perhaps thousands of Indian slaves, mainly Navajo women and children. But scholars say the measure, which specifically targeted New Mexico, did little for many slaves in the territory.

Many Hispanic families in New Mexico have long known that they had indigenous ancestry, even though some here still call themselves “Spanish” to emphasize their Iberian ties and to differentiate themselves from the state’s 23 federally recognized tribes, as well as from Mexican and other Latin American immigrants.

But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story. The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …

Pointing to their history, some descendants of Genízaros are coming together to argue that they deserve the same recognition as Native tribes in the United States. One such group in Colorado, the 200-member Genízaro Affiliated Nations, organizes annual dances to commemorate their heritage.

“It’s not about blood quantum or DNA testing for us, since those things can be inaccurate measuring sticks,” said David Atekpatzin Young, 62, the organization’s tribal chairman, who traces his ancestry to Apache and Pueblo peoples. “We know who we are, and what we want is sovereignty and our land back.”

And maybe a casino …

 
• Tags: Flight from White 
Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Who would have guessed that all those mestizos in New Mexico actually had Indian blood?

    You just can’t make this stuff up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.

    DNA has a way of eliminating cherished myths:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/sex-god-and-dna-the-creation-of-new-mexicans/253406/

    A 2004 study showed that the Hispanos in San Luis valley are about one-third Indian and two-thirds Spanish-European. They have a small portion of African ancestry, averaging 3 percent. The Hispanos generally resemble other Hispanic and Mexican-American groups, while having a somewhat higher proportion of European blood than the rest. Genetic research also has confirmed the harshly one-sided nature of the admixture. By paying special attention to the y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), scientists proved that the genetic exchange in the early years of New Mexico was almost entirely between Spanish males and Indian females.

    The intercourse that turned Spaniards into New Mexicans continued for decades, geneticists believe, extending from the Pueblo tribes to the more resistant blood of the Navajos, Apaches, and Utes. But after the Hispanos were formed, mating took place within a closed circle. Europe would send no more of its genes. The historical record indicates that the Kingdom of New Mexico had very little immigration after being established.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I’ve been to New Mexico. I honest don’t know what is “New” about it. Everything is just like the old Mexico. Everyone is fat, brown, rude as heck, wears neck tattoos, drives a low rider and speaks only Spanish.

    But I suppose we’d better brace ourselves. The rest of the country will look like that in 5 years with Trump’s new Mass Amnesty Plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @George Taylor
    There many arty, affluent liberal White people in Santa Fe. Amazingly enough they still employ at least I hoped there employed, local Hispanic criados or servants. Somethings never change.
    , @MountainMan
    Ahhh......New Mexico......the "Land of Enchantment." Really beautiful up north. "High desert"

    The people, the "Hispanic" locals, are kinda sorta something unique. Same for the Indians.

    NM gets more federal subsidies per capita than any other state. I wonder why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The trade endured even decades after the Mexican-American War, when the United States took control of much of the Southwest in the 1840s.

    Seeking to strengthen the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, Congress passed the Peonage Act of 1867 after learning of propertied New Mexicans owning hundreds and perhaps thousands of Indian slaves, mainly Navajo women and children. But scholars say the measure, which specifically targeted New Mexico, did little for many slaves in the territory.

    I think they just inadvertently made the Gringos look good.

    Also, if this form of slavery persisted in New Mexico beyond 1865, then did it persist in Mexico as well? And if so, when did it end in Mexico?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Also, if this form of slavery persisted in New Mexico beyond 1865, then did it persist in Mexico as well? And if so, when did it end in Mexico?
     
    Counting "debt peonage," it lasted until at least the Mexican Revolution ( 1910–1920).
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I agree, white people come off squeaky clean in this one.

    “It’s not about blood quantum ...
     
    #WampumNotQuantum!

    #WhenDoWeWantIt?
    #WeWantItNow!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t see this necessarily as flight-from-white. Too many ‘Hispanics’ are only partly white, and many are more brown than white. And some are all-brown.

    European Jews can be said to be white, so when Jews pretend not to be white, that is bogus.

    But many ‘Hispanics’ should never have been labeled as such in the first place. Calling a brown person a ‘Hispanic’ is like calling blacks and American Indians ‘English’.

    I say let non-white Hispanics declare themselves indigenous and non-white. Make them hate white Hispanics as invaders and destroyers.

    Why is this good? Because Latin whites are a bunch of a**holes.

    If Latin whites were honest about their whiteness and allied with American whites, they’d be good amigos to have. But your typical Latin white is a two-faced weasel like Guillermo Del Toro. These lowlife scum have enjoyed white privilege in ‘Latin American’ nations forever. They’ve lorded over browns and mestizos. Their ancestors committed mass genocide, practiced mass slavery, and etc.

    Now, Okay, history is bloody, and all people have blood on their hands. We shouldn’t judge people by what happened in the past. Also, browns were plenty bloody too.
    But, these Latin-Whites come to the US, pretend to be ‘people of color’, act pure as snow, and blame Anglo-Americans for all the crime of white people. How low can you get.
    It’s like Jews playing it both ways. To hide their over-representation in power and privilege, they become ‘white’, as in HollywoodSoWhite. But when it comes to White Guilt, that’s only for the goyim since Jews are ‘victim groups’ too. Never mind Jewish bankers funded much of Western imperialism and sold opium to the Chinese.

    Anyway, if Latin Whites had been honest, they could have been good allies with Anglo-Whites. But they decide to play people-of-color victim card in the US. Also, it’s a clever way to divert non-white rage in Latin American nations at gringo. White elites in Latin American nations are nervous about all those browns who resent white privilege. So, why not push these browns to America and make gringo out to be the Mal Blanco. It’s Looney Tunez.

    We don’t have gringos going to Mexico and making movies about how evil white Latino oppressed the poor browns. But we have scum like Del Toro coming here and making a movie about evil whitey oppressing the noble negro and how the white race can be redeemed by a white woman having sex with a fish.
    For that reason, White Latinos are worse than browns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    This is a very confused post. You say it's not flight-from-white, then proceed to describe flight-from-white-ness to a T.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @ben tillman
    Who would have guessed that all those mestizos in New Mexico actually had Indian blood?

    You just can't make this stuff up.

    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.

    DNA has a way of eliminating cherished myths:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/sex-god-and-dna-the-creation-of-new-mexicans/253406/

    A 2004 study showed that the Hispanos in San Luis valley are about one-third Indian and two-thirds Spanish-European. They have a small portion of African ancestry, averaging 3 percent. The Hispanos generally resemble other Hispanic and Mexican-American groups, while having a somewhat higher proportion of European blood than the rest. Genetic research also has confirmed the harshly one-sided nature of the admixture. By paying special attention to the y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), scientists proved that the genetic exchange in the early years of New Mexico was almost entirely between Spanish males and Indian females.

    The intercourse that turned Spaniards into New Mexicans continued for decades, geneticists believe, extending from the Pueblo tribes to the more resistant blood of the Navajos, Apaches, and Utes. But after the Hispanos were formed, mating took place within a closed circle. Europe would send no more of its genes. The historical record indicates that the Kingdom of New Mexico had very little immigration after being established.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    it is surprising to see that the original hispanic population of New Mexico is more amerindian than the actual Indian tribal members in America.

    DNA testing indicates the typical Navajo tribal member is just 12% Native American...while the typical member of the cherokee tribe is just 7% Native American....this is why they discourage DNA testing and never discuss DNA testing. In fact they have never found a Cherokee tribal member to be more than 35% Native American. The average member of an American Indian tribe is 90% white, based on DNA testing. The Cherokee Nation had 50,000 enrolled members in 1980; today there are more than 300,000. Images of the cherokee Youth council would provoke the same reaction as Trump. http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20161004_-2016-17-Tribal-Youth-Council-sworn-into-office

    If the United States ever started using DNA testing to determine tribal membership, most Cherokee would be kicked out of the tribe, as would all the the tribal members who own the profitable Foxwoods casino in Connecticut..As Trump once stated "They don't look like Indians to me".
    , @ben tillman

    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.
     
    I know. But to outside observers, they appear to be mestizos. And it turns out they are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Colonists initially took local Pueblo Indians as slaves, leading to an uprising in 1680 that temporarily pushed the Spanish out of New Mexico.

    Popé’s Rebellion. A bloody business:

    The Pueblo Revolt of 1680—also known as Popé’s Rebellion—was an uprising of most of the indigenous Pueblo people against the Spanish colonizers in the province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, present day New Mexico.[1] The Pueblo Revolt killed 400 Spanish and drove the remaining 2,000 settlers out of the province. Twelve years later the Spanish returned and were able to reoccupy New Mexico with little opposition.

    In 1598 Juan de Oñate led 129 soldiers and 10 Franciscan Catholic priests plus a large number of women, children, servants, slaves, and livestock into the Rio Grande valley of New Mexico. There were at the time approximately 40,000 Pueblo Indians inhabiting the region. Oñate put down a revolt at Acoma Pueblo by killing and enslaving hundreds of the Indians and sentencing all men 25 or older to have their foot cut off. The Acoma Massacre would instill fear of the Spanish in the region for years to come, though Franciscan missionaries were assigned to several of the Pueblo towns to Christianize the natives.[2]

    Useful to remember stuff like that when Spanish apologists try to sell you the White Legend….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Revolt

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. @istevefan

    The trade endured even decades after the Mexican-American War, when the United States took control of much of the Southwest in the 1840s.

    Seeking to strengthen the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, Congress passed the Peonage Act of 1867 after learning of propertied New Mexicans owning hundreds and perhaps thousands of Indian slaves, mainly Navajo women and children. But scholars say the measure, which specifically targeted New Mexico, did little for many slaves in the territory.
     
    I think they just inadvertently made the Gringos look good.

    Also, if this form of slavery persisted in New Mexico beyond 1865, then did it persist in Mexico as well? And if so, when did it end in Mexico?

    Also, if this form of slavery persisted in New Mexico beyond 1865, then did it persist in Mexico as well? And if so, when did it end in Mexico?

    Counting “debt peonage,” it lasted until at least the Mexican Revolution ( 1910–1920).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @istevefan

    The trade endured even decades after the Mexican-American War, when the United States took control of much of the Southwest in the 1840s.

    Seeking to strengthen the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, Congress passed the Peonage Act of 1867 after learning of propertied New Mexicans owning hundreds and perhaps thousands of Indian slaves, mainly Navajo women and children. But scholars say the measure, which specifically targeted New Mexico, did little for many slaves in the territory.
     
    I think they just inadvertently made the Gringos look good.

    Also, if this form of slavery persisted in New Mexico beyond 1865, then did it persist in Mexico as well? And if so, when did it end in Mexico?

    I agree, white people come off squeaky clean in this one.

    “It’s not about blood quantum …

    #WampumNotQuantum!

    #WhenDoWeWantIt?
    #WeWantItNow!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Funniest shi* I ever did see.

    “I’m a proud ‘shi*holer’.” LOL.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Trump's great strength is that he pulls this out of people.

    George Dubya certainly couldn't force people to make such jackasses of themselves.
    , @Pat Boyle
    This is just silly. My grandmother came over 'on the boat' from Ireland. It is quite possible that in Boston or someplace where there were a surfeit of Irish immigrants, someone called her a "Mick'.

    But that was a century ago. I have never had anyone call me a an ethnic slur because it would be pointless. The Irish have done well in America, When they first arrived they were comparatively uneducated. The British had tried to deny education to the Irish for centuries. But today the Irish do just fine on the SAT, ACT or the GRE PISA or any of the other many aptitude tests we have.

    As Sidney Riley pointed out "Everyone hates the Jews and everyone loves the Irish, I choose to be Irish". So no one is offended by being called a Mick whereas as calling someone a 'N*gger' is a terrible and probably actionable offense. This is because blacks in America have utterly failed to advance like almost all the other racial groups.


    I wouldn't call an Italian a Wop but if I did it wouldn't have much sting because the Italians gave us the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance. Italy has among the highest national IQs in Europe - higher than France or Britain. Italians have much to be proud of so pointing out that someone is of Italian heritage is easy to bear. But Africans have never quite measured up so pointing out to a black person their African heritage is unforgivable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. I’ve been hearing entirely too much about this “blood-soaked frontier”. It’s time for some Clorox by the tank-car load and maybe a wall or something.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. >>The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …

    Anybody could have told you that just by looking at New Mexicans, whatever their claims to sangre pura were. But now they don’t wan’t to be white. Ok, don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out. They all vote blue anyway, so what does it matter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. The trade then evolved to include not just Hispanic traffickers but horse-mounted Comanche and Ute warriors, who raided the settlements of Apache, Kiowa, Jumano, Pawnee and other peoples. They took captives, many of them children plucked from their homes, and sold them at auctions in village plazas.

    Sounds like the slave markets of West Africa back in the day!

    The Spanish crown tried to prohibit slavery in its colonies …

    That’s a new one on me. Slavery was ubiquitous in Spain’s Caribbean colonies, and also very widespread in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama (hence all the black, mulatto and zambo people in those countries). As far as I’m aware, it was legal (though not especially common) in Mexico until independence.

    The trade endured even decades after the Mexican-American War, when the United States took control of much of the Southwest in the 1840s.

    Hardly a surprise. After all, as the article notes, slavery was legal in the US until 1865.

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story.

    Ah! So now they like genetics!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The Crown attempted at various times and with varying success, to prohibit the enslaving of Indians. In fact, Africans were imported largely to provide an alternative to enslaving of Indians, given the existing labor shortage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. I bet American blacks will be really excited to learn that Mexicans are horning in on their slavery/reparations racket.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Does this explain Lou Piniella?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. So Hillary apparently made a surprise visit to the Grammy’s.

    Does anyone still doubt that she’s prepping to run yet again in 2020?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    It's the only way Trump will win re-election, so bring it on!
    , @Daniel H
    >>>Does anyone still doubt that she’s prepping to run yet again in 2020?

    I don't doubt it one bit. In fact, I'm certain that she will run.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. There was still quite a big slave trade in Mexico in the early 20th century.

    B Traven wrote about in March to the Monteria. A similar slave trade, used in the rubber tapping industry, was rampant in Peru until very recently (the main reason it has died out is that Indian tribes have mostly perished and the coca trade has displaced rubber).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. The New York Times is full of sloppy stuff like this paragraph:

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story. The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …

    I’ll attempt a rephrasing of how most busy readers skimming this article understand this paragraph:

    A genetic expert from one of the most prestigious government scientific laboratories has conducted a project to analyze the genomes of a large, representative sample of New Mexican Hispanics, and has conclusively shown that about a third of their ancestry is indigenous North American Indians.

    But look closer. Here’s another, more critical take at an interpretation:

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.

    I don’t know which version is closer to the truth. I don’t want to bother researching this guy. But a close reading of the paragraph doesn’t really make me confident in the claim given or in his expertise. Los Alamos advertises for “research technicians,” and as you can see here, it’s something an overblown “sanitation engineer” style title, requiring forklift skills:

    https://lanl.jobs/los-alamos-nm/research-technician-4-5/00D3979386C7480A9A7D7B6E2C628EAC/job/

    And do you think any researcher has done a comprehensive analysis of New Mexican Hispanic genomes? And if so, do you think that the database that the analysis uses has a good sample of Central and North American indigenous DNA to go from? Razid Khan has commented on the bizarre results that happen when the underlying database is incomplete, which all of them are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Assume for a moment the statistics are true. Is that actually a glimpse into a more complex story? Are people generally unaware of the existence of mestizos?

    Very often, the NYT's version of intrigue, complexity, subtlety, etc. consists of: "Oh crap, I forgot that basic fact everyone and their mother either knows or used to know before people like me started teaching them things!"

    , @Kevin Brook
    I know of many New Mexican Hispanos who tested their autosomal DNA and subsequently uploaded their data to GEDmatch. One of them, for example, scores 27.36 percent Amerindian plus 4.98 percent Siberian in the deep-ancestry calculator Eurogenes K36. So, essentially, this person has 32 percent American Indian DNA - within the range quoted by the other researcher.
    , @gcochran
    People have looked: 30% is about right.
    , @ben tillman

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.
     
    Ha ha. Entirely plausible account.

    That doesn't mean his figures are wrong, though. It just means we shouldn't be relying on his word.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Anon
    I don't see this necessarily as flight-from-white. Too many 'Hispanics' are only partly white, and many are more brown than white. And some are all-brown.

    European Jews can be said to be white, so when Jews pretend not to be white, that is bogus.

    But many 'Hispanics' should never have been labeled as such in the first place. Calling a brown person a 'Hispanic' is like calling blacks and American Indians 'English'.

    I say let non-white Hispanics declare themselves indigenous and non-white. Make them hate white Hispanics as invaders and destroyers.

    Why is this good? Because Latin whites are a bunch of a**holes.

    If Latin whites were honest about their whiteness and allied with American whites, they'd be good amigos to have. But your typical Latin white is a two-faced weasel like Guillermo Del Toro. These lowlife scum have enjoyed white privilege in 'Latin American' nations forever. They've lorded over browns and mestizos. Their ancestors committed mass genocide, practiced mass slavery, and etc.

    Now, Okay, history is bloody, and all people have blood on their hands. We shouldn't judge people by what happened in the past. Also, browns were plenty bloody too.
    But, these Latin-Whites come to the US, pretend to be 'people of color', act pure as snow, and blame Anglo-Americans for all the crime of white people. How low can you get.
    It's like Jews playing it both ways. To hide their over-representation in power and privilege, they become 'white', as in HollywoodSoWhite. But when it comes to White Guilt, that's only for the goyim since Jews are 'victim groups' too. Never mind Jewish bankers funded much of Western imperialism and sold opium to the Chinese.

    Anyway, if Latin Whites had been honest, they could have been good allies with Anglo-Whites. But they decide to play people-of-color victim card in the US. Also, it's a clever way to divert non-white rage in Latin American nations at gringo. White elites in Latin American nations are nervous about all those browns who resent white privilege. So, why not push these browns to America and make gringo out to be the Mal Blanco. It's Looney Tunez.

    We don't have gringos going to Mexico and making movies about how evil white Latino oppressed the poor browns. But we have scum like Del Toro coming here and making a movie about evil whitey oppressing the noble negro and how the white race can be redeemed by a white woman having sex with a fish.
    For that reason, White Latinos are worse than browns.

    This is a very confused post. You say it’s not flight-from-white, then proceed to describe flight-from-white-ness to a T.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    No, flight-from-white refers to white people who pretend not to be white.

    Jews pretending to be not-white is flight from white.
    Some Italians tried this crap too.

    And it also applies to Latino whites who pretend to be people of color.

    But many 'hispanics' really are NOT white. Calling them 'hispanic' gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It's ridiculous. It's like American Indians pretending to be of English heritage. Greater race-mixing blurred the lines between Latinos and indigenous people in Latin America. Still, the category of 'Hispanic' needs to be altered drastically. It should be white latinos or people who are mostly white.

    Now, the people mentioned in the article could be mostly white with drop of non-white blood. It would be bogus for someone who's 80% white to claim indigenous 'slavery' blood.
    However, so many people in Mexico and elsewhere really should be seen as a different category.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Anon
    Funniest shi* I ever did see.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuTReBPNx88

    "I'm a proud 'shi*holer'." LOL.

    Trump’s great strength is that he pulls this out of people.

    George Dubya certainly couldn’t force people to make such jackasses of themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "George Dubya certainly couldn’t force people to make such jackasses of themselves."

    To quote Tony Soprano, " Yeah, well it's common knowledge that he's retarded."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Stephen Marle
    The New York Times is full of sloppy stuff like this paragraph:

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story. The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …
     
    I'll attempt a rephrasing of how most busy readers skimming this article understand this paragraph:

    A genetic expert from one of the most prestigious government scientific laboratories has conducted a project to analyze the genomes of a large, representative sample of New Mexican Hispanics, and has conclusively shown that about a third of their ancestry is indigenous North American Indians.
     
    But look closer. Here's another, more critical take at an interpretation:

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.
     
    I don't know which version is closer to the truth. I don't want to bother researching this guy. But a close reading of the paragraph doesn't really make me confident in the claim given or in his expertise. Los Alamos advertises for "research technicians," and as you can see here, it's something an overblown "sanitation engineer" style title, requiring forklift skills:

    https://lanl.jobs/los-alamos-nm/research-technician-4-5/00D3979386C7480A9A7D7B6E2C628EAC/job/

    And do you think any researcher has done a comprehensive analysis of New Mexican Hispanic genomes? And if so, do you think that the database that the analysis uses has a good sample of Central and North American indigenous DNA to go from? Razid Khan has commented on the bizarre results that happen when the underlying database is incomplete, which all of them are.

    Assume for a moment the statistics are true. Is that actually a glimpse into a more complex story? Are people generally unaware of the existence of mestizos?

    Very often, the NYT’s version of intrigue, complexity, subtlety, etc. consists of: “Oh crap, I forgot that basic fact everyone and their mother either knows or used to know before people like me started teaching them things!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen Marle

    Assume for a moment the statistics are true.
     
    Yes, they may be true, or have a grain of truth to it, or at least be Fake but True™, and that's interesting stuff. I'm just criticizing the way the Times reports it and sources it. The article should quote an expert on genetic analysis with "knowledge of the matter," or a representative of 23andMe or another company, or better yet get multiple sources, and then qualify how certain their guess is, and qualify it given how inexact this stuff is now.

    Louis Henry Gates, Jr., in his TheRoot.com piece on "Exactly How ‘Black’ Is Black America?" cited five sources, including 23andMe and a National Geographic project, and came up with numbers ranging from about 20 percent to 35 percent for the mean white admixture for blacks, a pretty wide range of estimates. And that was based on a huge amount of testing, tuned specifically to detecting African genes, backed up with a big demand for testing due to Gates' PBS show.

    https://www.theroot.com/exactly-how-black-is-black-america-1790895185

    I don't have a link, but Razib Khan has described how lack of adequate samples for certain ethnicities can result in hilarious results, such as genes for one group being classified as a completely different group just because the latter was present in the database and the former wasn't. Again, I just do not believe that anyone has enough genome data on indigenous Americans for this stuff to be accurate.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Stephen Marle
    The New York Times is full of sloppy stuff like this paragraph:

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story. The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …
     
    I'll attempt a rephrasing of how most busy readers skimming this article understand this paragraph:

    A genetic expert from one of the most prestigious government scientific laboratories has conducted a project to analyze the genomes of a large, representative sample of New Mexican Hispanics, and has conclusively shown that about a third of their ancestry is indigenous North American Indians.
     
    But look closer. Here's another, more critical take at an interpretation:

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.
     
    I don't know which version is closer to the truth. I don't want to bother researching this guy. But a close reading of the paragraph doesn't really make me confident in the claim given or in his expertise. Los Alamos advertises for "research technicians," and as you can see here, it's something an overblown "sanitation engineer" style title, requiring forklift skills:

    https://lanl.jobs/los-alamos-nm/research-technician-4-5/00D3979386C7480A9A7D7B6E2C628EAC/job/

    And do you think any researcher has done a comprehensive analysis of New Mexican Hispanic genomes? And if so, do you think that the database that the analysis uses has a good sample of Central and North American indigenous DNA to go from? Razid Khan has commented on the bizarre results that happen when the underlying database is incomplete, which all of them are.

    I know of many New Mexican Hispanos who tested their autosomal DNA and subsequently uploaded their data to GEDmatch. One of them, for example, scores 27.36 percent Amerindian plus 4.98 percent Siberian in the deep-ancestry calculator Eurogenes K36. So, essentially, this person has 32 percent American Indian DNA – within the range quoted by the other researcher.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen Marle

    I know of many New Mexican Hispanos who tested their autosomal DNA and subsequently uploaded their data to GEDmatch.

     

    Can you drive a forklift?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @guest
    Assume for a moment the statistics are true. Is that actually a glimpse into a more complex story? Are people generally unaware of the existence of mestizos?

    Very often, the NYT's version of intrigue, complexity, subtlety, etc. consists of: "Oh crap, I forgot that basic fact everyone and their mother either knows or used to know before people like me started teaching them things!"

    Assume for a moment the statistics are true.

    Yes, they may be true, or have a grain of truth to it, or at least be Fake but True™, and that’s interesting stuff. I’m just criticizing the way the Times reports it and sources it. The article should quote an expert on genetic analysis with “knowledge of the matter,” or a representative of 23andMe or another company, or better yet get multiple sources, and then qualify how certain their guess is, and qualify it given how inexact this stuff is now.

    Louis Henry Gates, Jr., in his TheRoot.com piece on “Exactly How ‘Black’ Is Black America?” cited five sources, including 23andMe and a National Geographic project, and came up with numbers ranging from about 20 percent to 35 percent for the mean white admixture for blacks, a pretty wide range of estimates. And that was based on a huge amount of testing, tuned specifically to detecting African genes, backed up with a big demand for testing due to Gates’ PBS show.

    https://www.theroot.com/exactly-how-black-is-black-america-1790895185

    I don’t have a link, but Razib Khan has described how lack of adequate samples for certain ethnicities can result in hilarious results, such as genes for one group being classified as a completely different group just because the latter was present in the database and the former wasn’t. Again, I just do not believe that anyone has enough genome data on indigenous Americans for this stuff to be accurate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Kevin Brook
    I know of many New Mexican Hispanos who tested their autosomal DNA and subsequently uploaded their data to GEDmatch. One of them, for example, scores 27.36 percent Amerindian plus 4.98 percent Siberian in the deep-ancestry calculator Eurogenes K36. So, essentially, this person has 32 percent American Indian DNA - within the range quoted by the other researcher.

    I know of many New Mexican Hispanos who tested their autosomal DNA and subsequently uploaded their data to GEDmatch.

    Can you drive a forklift?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Stephen Marle
    The New York Times is full of sloppy stuff like this paragraph:

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story. The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …
     
    I'll attempt a rephrasing of how most busy readers skimming this article understand this paragraph:

    A genetic expert from one of the most prestigious government scientific laboratories has conducted a project to analyze the genomes of a large, representative sample of New Mexican Hispanics, and has conclusively shown that about a third of their ancestry is indigenous North American Indians.
     
    But look closer. Here's another, more critical take at an interpretation:

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.
     
    I don't know which version is closer to the truth. I don't want to bother researching this guy. But a close reading of the paragraph doesn't really make me confident in the claim given or in his expertise. Los Alamos advertises for "research technicians," and as you can see here, it's something an overblown "sanitation engineer" style title, requiring forklift skills:

    https://lanl.jobs/los-alamos-nm/research-technician-4-5/00D3979386C7480A9A7D7B6E2C628EAC/job/

    And do you think any researcher has done a comprehensive analysis of New Mexican Hispanic genomes? And if so, do you think that the database that the analysis uses has a good sample of Central and North American indigenous DNA to go from? Razid Khan has commented on the bizarre results that happen when the underlying database is incomplete, which all of them are.

    People have looked: 30% is about right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    This is a very confused post. You say it's not flight-from-white, then proceed to describe flight-from-white-ness to a T.

    No, flight-from-white refers to white people who pretend not to be white.

    Jews pretending to be not-white is flight from white.
    Some Italians tried this crap too.

    And it also applies to Latino whites who pretend to be people of color.

    But many ‘hispanics’ really are NOT white. Calling them ‘hispanic’ gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It’s ridiculous. It’s like American Indians pretending to be of English heritage. Greater race-mixing blurred the lines between Latinos and indigenous people in Latin America. Still, the category of ‘Hispanic’ needs to be altered drastically. It should be white latinos or people who are mostly white.

    Now, the people mentioned in the article could be mostly white with drop of non-white blood. It would be bogus for someone who’s 80% white to claim indigenous ‘slavery’ blood.
    However, so many people in Mexico and elsewhere really should be seen as a different category.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    But many ‘hispanics’ really are NOT white. Calling them ‘hispanic’ gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It’s ridiculous.
     
    The Hispanos of New Mexico are about 1/3 Native and 2/3 European (the ratios are revered for Mexican Mestizos - so a New Mexican Hispano is like what you would get if a Mexican Mestizo married a Spaniard). They speak a European language and follow a European religion.

    Why shouldn't their main identity be as Europeans? Should there be a 1 drop rule?

    To a lesser extent, for Puerto Ricans. On average, they are 50% European, 30% African and 20% Native (this varies with individuals and regions). Why shouldn't the "main" identify of a people who are more European than anything else by descent, and who speak a European language and follow a European religion not be European?

    , @guest
    "No, flight-from-whiten refers to white people who pretend not to be white"

    Pull out your iSteve Glossary. The "flight-from-white" (a play off of "white flight") phenomenon is any and all people running away from identifying as white, including borderline cases who in the past might have been expected to beg the bouncer to let them in the White Club on any pretext.

    Latin Americans didn't used to be automatically classified as Other, and ones that looked as white as Benecio Del Toro probably would have tried their hardest to be considered white, instead of playing the non-white identification game as you describe.
    , @guest
    "many 'hispanics' are NOT white. Calling them 'hispanic' gives the false impression that their main identity should be European"

    On the contrary, the term "Hispanic" was promoted to cut people off from whiteness. As a new category on the census during the Nixon administration, it virtually invented a racial category that was part-white, yes, but is thought of today as mostly brown.

    Very few people in the U.S., at least, think Spain when they hear "Hispanic." Rather, they think of Latin American mestizos.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Shhh! Keep this quiet, because the official narrative is that black folk were the only slaves in all of history.

    Seriously, anyone who ever picked up a book on Mexican and LatAm history knows about Spanish enslavement of the indigenous populace. I guess we Anglos are the only people in the US who have bothered to read these things, which is a lot harder than simply waving a Mexican flag.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Shhh! Keep this quiet, because the official narrative is that black folk were the only slaves in all of history.
     
    Yeah, and slavery only ever happened in the bad old USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. I want in on this racket. Even after arriving in America, precisely 50% of my ancestors were oppressed, forced to toil all day for nothing other than food and shelter, and coerced into sexual relationships with white men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. “We know who we are, and what we want is sovereignty and our land back.”

    Same here, a*****e. Same here.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @Anon
    No, flight-from-white refers to white people who pretend not to be white.

    Jews pretending to be not-white is flight from white.
    Some Italians tried this crap too.

    And it also applies to Latino whites who pretend to be people of color.

    But many 'hispanics' really are NOT white. Calling them 'hispanic' gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It's ridiculous. It's like American Indians pretending to be of English heritage. Greater race-mixing blurred the lines between Latinos and indigenous people in Latin America. Still, the category of 'Hispanic' needs to be altered drastically. It should be white latinos or people who are mostly white.

    Now, the people mentioned in the article could be mostly white with drop of non-white blood. It would be bogus for someone who's 80% white to claim indigenous 'slavery' blood.
    However, so many people in Mexico and elsewhere really should be seen as a different category.

    But many ‘hispanics’ really are NOT white. Calling them ‘hispanic’ gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It’s ridiculous.

    The Hispanos of New Mexico are about 1/3 Native and 2/3 European (the ratios are revered for Mexican Mestizos – so a New Mexican Hispano is like what you would get if a Mexican Mestizo married a Spaniard). They speak a European language and follow a European religion.

    Why shouldn’t their main identity be as Europeans? Should there be a 1 drop rule?

    To a lesser extent, for Puerto Ricans. On average, they are 50% European, 30% African and 20% Native (this varies with individuals and regions). Why shouldn’t the “main” identify of a people who are more European than anything else by descent, and who speak a European language and follow a European religion not be European?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    good points

    Puerto Ricans are typically closer to 65% European, 20% African and 12% Native.
    https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2014/07/25/genographic-project-dna-results-reveal-details-of-puerto-rican-history/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @AP
    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.

    DNA has a way of eliminating cherished myths:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/sex-god-and-dna-the-creation-of-new-mexicans/253406/

    A 2004 study showed that the Hispanos in San Luis valley are about one-third Indian and two-thirds Spanish-European. They have a small portion of African ancestry, averaging 3 percent. The Hispanos generally resemble other Hispanic and Mexican-American groups, while having a somewhat higher proportion of European blood than the rest. Genetic research also has confirmed the harshly one-sided nature of the admixture. By paying special attention to the y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), scientists proved that the genetic exchange in the early years of New Mexico was almost entirely between Spanish males and Indian females.

    The intercourse that turned Spaniards into New Mexicans continued for decades, geneticists believe, extending from the Pueblo tribes to the more resistant blood of the Navajos, Apaches, and Utes. But after the Hispanos were formed, mating took place within a closed circle. Europe would send no more of its genes. The historical record indicates that the Kingdom of New Mexico had very little immigration after being established.

    it is surprising to see that the original hispanic population of New Mexico is more amerindian than the actual Indian tribal members in America.

    DNA testing indicates the typical Navajo tribal member is just 12% Native American…while the typical member of the cherokee tribe is just 7% Native American….this is why they discourage DNA testing and never discuss DNA testing. In fact they have never found a Cherokee tribal member to be more than 35% Native American. The average member of an American Indian tribe is 90% white, based on DNA testing. The Cherokee Nation had 50,000 enrolled members in 1980; today there are more than 300,000. Images of the cherokee Youth council would provoke the same reaction as Trump. http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20161004_-2016-17-Tribal-Youth-Council-sworn-into-office

    If the United States ever started using DNA testing to determine tribal membership, most Cherokee would be kicked out of the tribe, as would all the the tribal members who own the profitable Foxwoods casino in Connecticut..As Trump once stated “They don’t look like Indians to me”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    Lol @ the Cherokee Youth Tribal Council. Thanks for the link. I can't believe that about the Navajo, however. Do you have a link for the number you cite? I thought they were one of the few un-admixed tribes.
    , @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    I agree... it is strange that members of actual recognized Native American Tribes are typically 90% European, while the typical Hispanic American just 60% European ( yet most Hispanics count themselves as white)
    , @anonymous
    As PT Barnum-God bless him!--said "There's a sucker born every minute." America's one indisputable contribution to the annals of Western Civilization is in the form of "The Big Con" (it's what has kept Madame Hillary and the Husband of Record in power). In the case of these bogus "Indians" who run the casinos, the One-Drop Rule no doubt prevails. Whoops, make that "Droplet."
    , @Corn
    Oh good Lord. I clicked on that link. I’d say AT LEAST nine or ten of those kids would be identified as white by a jury of random Americans on the street.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @AP
    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.

    DNA has a way of eliminating cherished myths:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/sex-god-and-dna-the-creation-of-new-mexicans/253406/

    A 2004 study showed that the Hispanos in San Luis valley are about one-third Indian and two-thirds Spanish-European. They have a small portion of African ancestry, averaging 3 percent. The Hispanos generally resemble other Hispanic and Mexican-American groups, while having a somewhat higher proportion of European blood than the rest. Genetic research also has confirmed the harshly one-sided nature of the admixture. By paying special attention to the y chromosome and the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), scientists proved that the genetic exchange in the early years of New Mexico was almost entirely between Spanish males and Indian females.

    The intercourse that turned Spaniards into New Mexicans continued for decades, geneticists believe, extending from the Pueblo tribes to the more resistant blood of the Navajos, Apaches, and Utes. But after the Hispanos were formed, mating took place within a closed circle. Europe would send no more of its genes. The historical record indicates that the Kingdom of New Mexico had very little immigration after being established.

    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.

    I know. But to outside observers, they appear to be mestizos. And it turns out they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Correct. Although, because they are 1/3 Native in comparison to Mexican Mestizos who are about 60% Native, there is some truth to their beliefs about themselves. They are like what you get if a Mexican Mestizo marries someone from Spain.

    The term in Latin America for such people was Castizo:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castizo

    But I guess it wasn't used in New Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Now, let him read about the truly, truly horrific things that the Catholic Church did in the process of converting the natives to Christianity (and, just incidentally and secondarily for sure, getting then to hand over their gold).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. @ben tillman

    The reference is to Hispanos, the original Hispanic population of New Mexico,not new arrivals from Mexico. They speak a 16th century dialect of Spanish and traditionally considered themselves to be Spanish, descendants of conquistadors, and better than Mexicans.
     
    I know. But to outside observers, they appear to be mestizos. And it turns out they are.

    Correct. Although, because they are 1/3 Native in comparison to Mexican Mestizos who are about 60% Native, there is some truth to their beliefs about themselves. They are like what you get if a Mexican Mestizo marries someone from Spain.

    The term in Latin America for such people was Castizo:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castizo

    But I guess it wasn’t used in New Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    Didn't we get into this argument in another thread?

    Mexican mestizos are ~60% European.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/genomic-ancestry-of-mexicans.html
    , @Flip
    I've read that some of the Spanish blood was shown to be from Jewish conversos who immigrated to the New World, which is consistent with some of their family stories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. PBS had a documentary called, “The Last Conquistador”.

    Renowned sculptor John Houser has a dream: to build the world’s tallest bronze equestrian statue for the city of El Paso, Texas. He envisions a stunning monument to the Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate that will pay tribute to the contributions Hispanic people made to building the American West. But as the project nears completion troubles arise. Native Americans are outraged — they remember Oñate as the man who brought genocide to their land and sold their children into slavery.

    What I recall taking away from this was the huge rift between hispanics and the Tribes. Of course many looked similar to outsiders, but the hispanics were definitely proud of their Spanish ancestry and thought of themselves as such. While the Tribes were proud to be Apache, etc.,

    This is from 2008, but I remembered it because of the divide it showed between hispanics and the Tribes . As you recall many people have used the argument that hispanics are really the true owners of the North America since they are ‘natives’. But as this film showed, the hispanics look down upon those who are full native, and the natives consider them Spanish. Culturally they are in different worlds.

    Of course I don’t think PBS believed this is what they were airing, but I suppose it’s one of things you have to read between the lines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Stephen Marle
    The New York Times is full of sloppy stuff like this paragraph:

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story. The DNA of Hispanic people from New Mexico is often in the range of 30 to 40 percent Native American, according to Miguel A. Tórrez, 42, a research technologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of New Mexico’s most prominent genealogists. …
     
    I'll attempt a rephrasing of how most busy readers skimming this article understand this paragraph:

    A genetic expert from one of the most prestigious government scientific laboratories has conducted a project to analyze the genomes of a large, representative sample of New Mexican Hispanics, and has conclusively shown that about a third of their ancestry is indigenous North American Indians.
     
    But look closer. Here's another, more critical take at an interpretation:

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.
     
    I don't know which version is closer to the truth. I don't want to bother researching this guy. But a close reading of the paragraph doesn't really make me confident in the claim given or in his expertise. Los Alamos advertises for "research technicians," and as you can see here, it's something an overblown "sanitation engineer" style title, requiring forklift skills:

    https://lanl.jobs/los-alamos-nm/research-technician-4-5/00D3979386C7480A9A7D7B6E2C628EAC/job/

    And do you think any researcher has done a comprehensive analysis of New Mexican Hispanic genomes? And if so, do you think that the database that the analysis uses has a good sample of Central and North American indigenous DNA to go from? Razid Khan has commented on the bizarre results that happen when the underlying database is incomplete, which all of them are.

    A hobbyist genealogist with no science training in genetics, who researches birth records for Mormon clients as a side job, and who works refurbishing chemical processing machinery at Los Alamos, a job with no connection to genetics, read somewhere on the web a while back that New Mexican Hispanics have about 30 or 40 percent Native American blood, he seems to remember, although maybe this was from a non-random sample of n=7, and he tweeted that in response to some Twitter dust-up, and our reporter saw that and contacted him, and on the basis of his self-reported genealogical hobby, which is sort of conceptually a heritage version of genetics if you kind of think about it, quoted him as an expert.

    Ha ha. Entirely plausible account.

    That doesn’t mean his figures are wrong, though. It just means we shouldn’t be relying on his word.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Berty
    So Hillary apparently made a surprise visit to the Grammy's.

    Does anyone still doubt that she's prepping to run yet again in 2020?

    It’s the only way Trump will win re-election, so bring it on!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. You gueros are morons.

    Skin tone in Latin Americans is extremely fluid, and not a good marker for ancestry. Even siblings can exhibit a wide array of “ethnic” looks, which includes but is not limited to skin tone. (I’m tempted to post some family pictures, but I won’t.)

    The OP article and the one posted below (an NPR write-up on the subject from a year ago) has pictures of the folks involved. Not surprisingly, they run the gamut: some are phenotypically white, others look more mestizo, and none would you confuse for full-blooded Mayans or Navajos. All are about 60-70% European, 30-40% Amerind, with a spattering of African here and there. Most of these people were quite happy to identify with that majority-Spanish part of themselves until recently.

    https://www.npr.org/2016/12/29/505271148/descendants-of-native-american-slaves-in-new-mexico-emerge-from-obscurity

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @The Alarmist
    Shhh! Keep this quiet, because the official narrative is that black folk were the only slaves in all of history.

    Seriously, anyone who ever picked up a book on Mexican and LatAm history knows about Spanish enslavement of the indigenous populace. I guess we Anglos are the only people in the US who have bothered to read these things, which is a lot harder than simply waving a Mexican flag.

    Shhh! Keep this quiet, because the official narrative is that black folk were the only slaves in all of history.

    Yeah, and slavery only ever happened in the bad old USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @guest
    Trump's great strength is that he pulls this out of people.

    George Dubya certainly couldn't force people to make such jackasses of themselves.

    “George Dubya certainly couldn’t force people to make such jackasses of themselves.”

    To quote Tony Soprano, ” Yeah, well it’s common knowledge that he’s retarded.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. El Paso on the Rio Grande has a 12% white population. Guess what was the ethnicity of the last Mayor and guess what special museum is in that city?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Travis
    it is surprising to see that the original hispanic population of New Mexico is more amerindian than the actual Indian tribal members in America.

    DNA testing indicates the typical Navajo tribal member is just 12% Native American...while the typical member of the cherokee tribe is just 7% Native American....this is why they discourage DNA testing and never discuss DNA testing. In fact they have never found a Cherokee tribal member to be more than 35% Native American. The average member of an American Indian tribe is 90% white, based on DNA testing. The Cherokee Nation had 50,000 enrolled members in 1980; today there are more than 300,000. Images of the cherokee Youth council would provoke the same reaction as Trump. http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20161004_-2016-17-Tribal-Youth-Council-sworn-into-office

    If the United States ever started using DNA testing to determine tribal membership, most Cherokee would be kicked out of the tribe, as would all the the tribal members who own the profitable Foxwoods casino in Connecticut..As Trump once stated "They don't look like Indians to me".

    Lol @ the Cherokee Youth Tribal Council. Thanks for the link. I can’t believe that about the Navajo, however. Do you have a link for the number you cite? I thought they were one of the few un-admixed tribes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @AP
    Correct. Although, because they are 1/3 Native in comparison to Mexican Mestizos who are about 60% Native, there is some truth to their beliefs about themselves. They are like what you get if a Mexican Mestizo marries someone from Spain.

    The term in Latin America for such people was Castizo:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castizo

    But I guess it wasn't used in New Mexico.

    Didn’t we get into this argument in another thread?

    Mexican mestizos are ~60% European.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/genomic-ancestry-of-mexicans.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The study you linked to (at least regarding Mexico City) was for all Mexicans, not only Mestizos. About 10-15% of Mexicans are white, and this increases the overall European percentage.

    The picture is a bit complex, the wiki article summarizes it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos_in_Mexico#MtDna_and_Y_DNA_studies

    Indian ancestry varies depending on location and social class. Northern Mestizos are the most European (up to 60%, only a little less European than New Mexican Hispanos who are at 70%), southern the least (30%). Poorer ones are more Native than wealthier ones.

    Meztizos coming to the USA tend to be from central Mexico and tend to be poorer, but not dirt-poor. They are about 50% to 60% Native. Here is a study:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5332296/

    The genetic ancestral background was 56% IA, 38% European, and 6% African.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141260

    Using a custom Illumina GoldenGate Panel, we genotyped DNA from 4,662 cohort participants for 87 Ancestry-Informative Markers. On average, the participants were of 50.2% Native American ancestry, 42.7% European ancestry and 7.1% African ancestry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Travis
    it is surprising to see that the original hispanic population of New Mexico is more amerindian than the actual Indian tribal members in America.

    DNA testing indicates the typical Navajo tribal member is just 12% Native American...while the typical member of the cherokee tribe is just 7% Native American....this is why they discourage DNA testing and never discuss DNA testing. In fact they have never found a Cherokee tribal member to be more than 35% Native American. The average member of an American Indian tribe is 90% white, based on DNA testing. The Cherokee Nation had 50,000 enrolled members in 1980; today there are more than 300,000. Images of the cherokee Youth council would provoke the same reaction as Trump. http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20161004_-2016-17-Tribal-Youth-Council-sworn-into-office

    If the United States ever started using DNA testing to determine tribal membership, most Cherokee would be kicked out of the tribe, as would all the the tribal members who own the profitable Foxwoods casino in Connecticut..As Trump once stated "They don't look like Indians to me".

    I agree… it is strange that members of actual recognized Native American Tribes are typically 90% European, while the typical Hispanic American just 60% European ( yet most Hispanics count themselves as white)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. And maybe a casino …

    And Affirmative Action, set-asides, minority contracts, etc. Theys be victims, too, you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @AP
    Correct. Although, because they are 1/3 Native in comparison to Mexican Mestizos who are about 60% Native, there is some truth to their beliefs about themselves. They are like what you get if a Mexican Mestizo marries someone from Spain.

    The term in Latin America for such people was Castizo:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castizo

    But I guess it wasn't used in New Mexico.

    I’ve read that some of the Spanish blood was shown to be from Jewish conversos who immigrated to the New World, which is consistent with some of their family stories.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. American Indians held blacks as slaves and kept captive whites as slaves. Must be something in the water.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. @Anon
    Funniest shi* I ever did see.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuTReBPNx88

    "I'm a proud 'shi*holer'." LOL.

    This is just silly. My grandmother came over ‘on the boat’ from Ireland. It is quite possible that in Boston or someplace where there were a surfeit of Irish immigrants, someone called her a “Mick’.

    But that was a century ago. I have never had anyone call me a an ethnic slur because it would be pointless. The Irish have done well in America, When they first arrived they were comparatively uneducated. The British had tried to deny education to the Irish for centuries. But today the Irish do just fine on the SAT, ACT or the GRE PISA or any of the other many aptitude tests we have.

    As Sidney Riley pointed out “Everyone hates the Jews and everyone loves the Irish, I choose to be Irish”. So no one is offended by being called a Mick whereas as calling someone a ‘N*gger’ is a terrible and probably actionable offense. This is because blacks in America have utterly failed to advance like almost all the other racial groups.

    I wouldn’t call an Italian a Wop but if I did it wouldn’t have much sting because the Italians gave us the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance. Italy has among the highest national IQs in Europe – higher than France or Britain. Italians have much to be proud of so pointing out that someone is of Italian heritage is easy to bear. But Africans have never quite measured up so pointing out to a black person their African heritage is unforgivable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Berty
    So Hillary apparently made a surprise visit to the Grammy's.

    Does anyone still doubt that she's prepping to run yet again in 2020?

    >>>Does anyone still doubt that she’s prepping to run yet again in 2020?

    I don’t doubt it one bit. In fact, I’m certain that she will run.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    She's been doing occasional and creepy PR stunts, like near-empty booksignings, bumping into a random hiker who turns out to be an employee, and a very low energy twitter presence.
    But the rumor is that tomorrow is a big day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Anon
    No, flight-from-white refers to white people who pretend not to be white.

    Jews pretending to be not-white is flight from white.
    Some Italians tried this crap too.

    And it also applies to Latino whites who pretend to be people of color.

    But many 'hispanics' really are NOT white. Calling them 'hispanic' gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It's ridiculous. It's like American Indians pretending to be of English heritage. Greater race-mixing blurred the lines between Latinos and indigenous people in Latin America. Still, the category of 'Hispanic' needs to be altered drastically. It should be white latinos or people who are mostly white.

    Now, the people mentioned in the article could be mostly white with drop of non-white blood. It would be bogus for someone who's 80% white to claim indigenous 'slavery' blood.
    However, so many people in Mexico and elsewhere really should be seen as a different category.

    “No, flight-from-whiten refers to white people who pretend not to be white”

    Pull out your iSteve Glossary. The “flight-from-white” (a play off of “white flight”) phenomenon is any and all people running away from identifying as white, including borderline cases who in the past might have been expected to beg the bouncer to let them in the White Club on any pretext.

    Latin Americans didn’t used to be automatically classified as Other, and ones that looked as white as Benecio Del Toro probably would have tried their hardest to be considered white, instead of playing the non-white identification game as you describe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Anon
    No, flight-from-white refers to white people who pretend not to be white.

    Jews pretending to be not-white is flight from white.
    Some Italians tried this crap too.

    And it also applies to Latino whites who pretend to be people of color.

    But many 'hispanics' really are NOT white. Calling them 'hispanic' gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It's ridiculous. It's like American Indians pretending to be of English heritage. Greater race-mixing blurred the lines between Latinos and indigenous people in Latin America. Still, the category of 'Hispanic' needs to be altered drastically. It should be white latinos or people who are mostly white.

    Now, the people mentioned in the article could be mostly white with drop of non-white blood. It would be bogus for someone who's 80% white to claim indigenous 'slavery' blood.
    However, so many people in Mexico and elsewhere really should be seen as a different category.

    “many ‘hispanics’ are NOT white. Calling them ‘hispanic’ gives the false impression that their main identity should be European”

    On the contrary, the term “Hispanic” was promoted to cut people off from whiteness. As a new category on the census during the Nixon administration, it virtually invented a racial category that was part-white, yes, but is thought of today as mostly brown.

    Very few people in the U.S., at least, think Spain when they hear “Hispanic.” Rather, they think of Latin American mestizos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "On the contrary, the term “Hispanic” was promoted to cut people off from whiteness. As a new category on the census during the Nixon administration, it virtually invented a racial category that was part-white, yes, but is thought of today as mostly brown."

    'Hispanic', like 'Jewish', is a two-headed hydra. It turns non-white Meso-Americans into whites and turns Latin whites into People of Color.

    This is why white Latin scum like Del Toro plays it both ways. But then, Latins have no sense of honor. Look how Paulie turned against his boss Vito Corleone. Or look how the 'take me to America' guy turned against Michael. Or look how Pachanga turned against Carlito.

    Never trust Latins. They are like Greeks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNjUkieqZXE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Orwellian State
    I've been to New Mexico. I honest don't know what is "New" about it. Everything is just like the old Mexico. Everyone is fat, brown, rude as heck, wears neck tattoos, drives a low rider and speaks only Spanish.

    But I suppose we'd better brace ourselves. The rest of the country will look like that in 5 years with Trump's new Mass Amnesty Plan.

    There many arty, affluent liberal White people in Santa Fe. Amazingly enough they still employ at least I hoped there employed, local Hispanic criados or servants. Somethings never change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @guest
    "many 'hispanics' are NOT white. Calling them 'hispanic' gives the false impression that their main identity should be European"

    On the contrary, the term "Hispanic" was promoted to cut people off from whiteness. As a new category on the census during the Nixon administration, it virtually invented a racial category that was part-white, yes, but is thought of today as mostly brown.

    Very few people in the U.S., at least, think Spain when they hear "Hispanic." Rather, they think of Latin American mestizos.

    “On the contrary, the term “Hispanic” was promoted to cut people off from whiteness. As a new category on the census during the Nixon administration, it virtually invented a racial category that was part-white, yes, but is thought of today as mostly brown.”

    ‘Hispanic’, like ‘Jewish’, is a two-headed hydra. It turns non-white Meso-Americans into whites and turns Latin whites into People of Color.

    This is why white Latin scum like Del Toro plays it both ways. But then, Latins have no sense of honor. Look how Paulie turned against his boss Vito Corleone. Or look how the ‘take me to America’ guy turned against Michael. Or look how Pachanga turned against Carlito.

    Never trust Latins. They are like Greeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    You have it exactly backwards. The term "Hispanic" is not what turns non-white Meso-Americans into whites. That is, if they want to be counted as whites. Which increasingly they don't. Looking white--to any degree--is what does the trick. If they don't look white, no one, and I mean NO ONE, thinks of them as white. With or without the term "Hispanic."

    Prior to the invention of a separate "Hispanic" category, there was a much higher chance they'd be counted as white. Which was true of Jews as well, back when it was more to their advantage to blend in. But Hispanics aren't like Jews, first of all because they're less able to blend in. More importantly, because Jewishness is an ancient distinction, whereas "Hispanic" is of very recent vintage. It was invented specifically to cut off borderline cases from whites. Jews, on the other hand, are a double-edged class because of Jewish psychology, mostly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Travis
    it is surprising to see that the original hispanic population of New Mexico is more amerindian than the actual Indian tribal members in America.

    DNA testing indicates the typical Navajo tribal member is just 12% Native American...while the typical member of the cherokee tribe is just 7% Native American....this is why they discourage DNA testing and never discuss DNA testing. In fact they have never found a Cherokee tribal member to be more than 35% Native American. The average member of an American Indian tribe is 90% white, based on DNA testing. The Cherokee Nation had 50,000 enrolled members in 1980; today there are more than 300,000. Images of the cherokee Youth council would provoke the same reaction as Trump. http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20161004_-2016-17-Tribal-Youth-Council-sworn-into-office

    If the United States ever started using DNA testing to determine tribal membership, most Cherokee would be kicked out of the tribe, as would all the the tribal members who own the profitable Foxwoods casino in Connecticut..As Trump once stated "They don't look like Indians to me".

    As PT Barnum-God bless him!–said “There’s a sucker born every minute.” America’s one indisputable contribution to the annals of Western Civilization is in the form of “The Big Con” (it’s what has kept Madame Hillary and the Husband of Record in power). In the case of these bogus “Indians” who run the casinos, the One-Drop Rule no doubt prevails. Whoops, make that “Droplet.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    America’s one indisputable contribution to the annals of Western Civilization is in the form of “The Big Con”
     
    I prefer Vector Calculus, Statistical Mechanics, Information Theory, and the detective story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Orwellian State
    I've been to New Mexico. I honest don't know what is "New" about it. Everything is just like the old Mexico. Everyone is fat, brown, rude as heck, wears neck tattoos, drives a low rider and speaks only Spanish.

    But I suppose we'd better brace ourselves. The rest of the country will look like that in 5 years with Trump's new Mass Amnesty Plan.

    Ahhh……New Mexico……the “Land of Enchantment.” Really beautiful up north. “High desert”

    The people, the “Hispanic” locals, are kinda sorta something unique. Same for the Indians.

    NM gets more federal subsidies per capita than any other state. I wonder why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Daniel H
    >>>Does anyone still doubt that she’s prepping to run yet again in 2020?

    I don't doubt it one bit. In fact, I'm certain that she will run.

    She’s been doing occasional and creepy PR stunts, like near-empty booksignings, bumping into a random hiker who turns out to be an employee, and a very low energy twitter presence.
    But the rumor is that tomorrow is a big day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Anon
    "On the contrary, the term “Hispanic” was promoted to cut people off from whiteness. As a new category on the census during the Nixon administration, it virtually invented a racial category that was part-white, yes, but is thought of today as mostly brown."

    'Hispanic', like 'Jewish', is a two-headed hydra. It turns non-white Meso-Americans into whites and turns Latin whites into People of Color.

    This is why white Latin scum like Del Toro plays it both ways. But then, Latins have no sense of honor. Look how Paulie turned against his boss Vito Corleone. Or look how the 'take me to America' guy turned against Michael. Or look how Pachanga turned against Carlito.

    Never trust Latins. They are like Greeks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNjUkieqZXE

    You have it exactly backwards. The term “Hispanic” is not what turns non-white Meso-Americans into whites. That is, if they want to be counted as whites. Which increasingly they don’t. Looking white–to any degree–is what does the trick. If they don’t look white, no one, and I mean NO ONE, thinks of them as white. With or without the term “Hispanic.”

    Prior to the invention of a separate “Hispanic” category, there was a much higher chance they’d be counted as white. Which was true of Jews as well, back when it was more to their advantage to blend in. But Hispanics aren’t like Jews, first of all because they’re less able to blend in. More importantly, because Jewishness is an ancient distinction, whereas “Hispanic” is of very recent vintage. It was invented specifically to cut off borderline cases from whites. Jews, on the other hand, are a double-edged class because of Jewish psychology, mostly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @anonymous
    As PT Barnum-God bless him!--said "There's a sucker born every minute." America's one indisputable contribution to the annals of Western Civilization is in the form of "The Big Con" (it's what has kept Madame Hillary and the Husband of Record in power). In the case of these bogus "Indians" who run the casinos, the One-Drop Rule no doubt prevails. Whoops, make that "Droplet."

    America’s one indisputable contribution to the annals of Western Civilization is in the form of “The Big Con”

    I prefer Vector Calculus, Statistical Mechanics, Information Theory, and the detective story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @AP

    But many ‘hispanics’ really are NOT white. Calling them ‘hispanic’ gives the false impression that their main identity should be European. It’s ridiculous.
     
    The Hispanos of New Mexico are about 1/3 Native and 2/3 European (the ratios are revered for Mexican Mestizos - so a New Mexican Hispano is like what you would get if a Mexican Mestizo married a Spaniard). They speak a European language and follow a European religion.

    Why shouldn't their main identity be as Europeans? Should there be a 1 drop rule?

    To a lesser extent, for Puerto Ricans. On average, they are 50% European, 30% African and 20% Native (this varies with individuals and regions). Why shouldn't the "main" identify of a people who are more European than anything else by descent, and who speak a European language and follow a European religion not be European?

    good points

    Puerto Ricans are typically closer to 65% European, 20% African and 12% Native.

    https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2014/07/25/genographic-project-dna-results-reveal-details-of-puerto-rican-history/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Seth Largo
    Didn't we get into this argument in another thread?

    Mexican mestizos are ~60% European.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/09/genomic-ancestry-of-mexicans.html

    The study you linked to (at least regarding Mexico City) was for all Mexicans, not only Mestizos. About 10-15% of Mexicans are white, and this increases the overall European percentage.

    The picture is a bit complex, the wiki article summarizes it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizos_in_Mexico#MtDna_and_Y_DNA_studies

    Indian ancestry varies depending on location and social class. Northern Mestizos are the most European (up to 60%, only a little less European than New Mexican Hispanos who are at 70%), southern the least (30%). Poorer ones are more Native than wealthier ones.

    Meztizos coming to the USA tend to be from central Mexico and tend to be poorer, but not dirt-poor. They are about 50% to 60% Native. Here is a study:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5332296/

    The genetic ancestral background was 56% IA, 38% European, and 6% African.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141260

    Using a custom Illumina GoldenGate Panel, we genotyped DNA from 4,662 cohort participants for 87 Ancestry-Informative Markers. On average, the participants were of 50.2% Native American ancestry, 42.7% European ancestry and 7.1% African ancestry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Seamus Padraig

    The trade then evolved to include not just Hispanic traffickers but horse-mounted Comanche and Ute warriors, who raided the settlements of Apache, Kiowa, Jumano, Pawnee and other peoples. They took captives, many of them children plucked from their homes, and sold them at auctions in village plazas.
     
    Sounds like the slave markets of West Africa back in the day!

    The Spanish crown tried to prohibit slavery in its colonies ...
     
    That's a new one on me. Slavery was ubiquitous in Spain's Caribbean colonies, and also very widespread in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama (hence all the black, mulatto and zambo people in those countries). As far as I'm aware, it was legal (though not especially common) in Mexico until independence.

    The trade endured even decades after the Mexican-American War, when the United States took control of much of the Southwest in the 1840s.
     
    Hardly a surprise. After all, as the article notes, slavery was legal in the US until 1865.

    But genetic testing is offering a glimpse into a more complex story.
     
    Ah! So now they like genetics!

    The Crown attempted at various times and with varying success, to prohibit the enslaving of Indians. In fact, Africans were imported largely to provide an alternative to enslaving of Indians, given the existing labor shortage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Spanish monarchy was much more concerned about what we would call human rights than the English monarchy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Lived for several years in North NM back in the early 80s. The locals, the old-time Spanish descendants, were indeed very proud of being white, as opposed to the more recent immigrants who were mestizos. They spoke much more harshly about “Mexicans” than any Anglos I ever heard.

    Interesting that this may now be changing to some degree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @Logan
    The Crown attempted at various times and with varying success, to prohibit the enslaving of Indians. In fact, Africans were imported largely to provide an alternative to enslaving of Indians, given the existing labor shortage.

    The Spanish monarchy was much more concerned about what we would call human rights than the English monarchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Very true. But then the English colonization of North America was characterized very much by "benign neglect" by the home government, which was immensely more concerned with the sugar islands of the Caribbean.

    The Spanish government, OTOH, tried from almost the beginning to control what happened in their American colonies, often almost to a micro-managing level.

    Didn't work, of course, as it couldn't given the communication tech of the time.

    IOW, the Spanish concern about human rights in their colonies was a part of their far more activist idea of what government should do in the colonies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Some Indians in New Mexico did well. The Laguna Indians in Grants New Mexico where I was born founded Uranium and sold the rights off and made lots of money. So, things were not always bad for the Indians in New Mexico. If the gentleman who lived in LA was younger, he could make more money working as an oil worker in New Mexico. New Mexico now is the third largest oil producer behind Texas and North Dakota now in the US which means that New Mexico has some good paying jobs for Mexicans and Indians and is not all about slavery as the article writes here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Travis
    it is surprising to see that the original hispanic population of New Mexico is more amerindian than the actual Indian tribal members in America.

    DNA testing indicates the typical Navajo tribal member is just 12% Native American...while the typical member of the cherokee tribe is just 7% Native American....this is why they discourage DNA testing and never discuss DNA testing. In fact they have never found a Cherokee tribal member to be more than 35% Native American. The average member of an American Indian tribe is 90% white, based on DNA testing. The Cherokee Nation had 50,000 enrolled members in 1980; today there are more than 300,000. Images of the cherokee Youth council would provoke the same reaction as Trump. http://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20161004_-2016-17-Tribal-Youth-Council-sworn-into-office

    If the United States ever started using DNA testing to determine tribal membership, most Cherokee would be kicked out of the tribe, as would all the the tribal members who own the profitable Foxwoods casino in Connecticut..As Trump once stated "They don't look like Indians to me".

    Oh good Lord. I clicked on that link. I’d say AT LEAST nine or ten of those kids would be identified as white by a jury of random Americans on the street.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Steve Sailer
    The Spanish monarchy was much more concerned about what we would call human rights than the English monarchy.

    Very true. But then the English colonization of North America was characterized very much by “benign neglect” by the home government, which was immensely more concerned with the sugar islands of the Caribbean.

    The Spanish government, OTOH, tried from almost the beginning to control what happened in their American colonies, often almost to a micro-managing level.

    Didn’t work, of course, as it couldn’t given the communication tech of the time.

    IOW, the Spanish concern about human rights in their colonies was a part of their far more activist idea of what government should do in the colonies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored