occupied mexico occurred less then 200 years ago, under the current form of the us federal government. not millenia. in our lifetimes the occupied half will go back to mexico.
Spanish should be the second official language of USA
****WE were never Mexicans. We're SPANISH, and our families were here for 400 years -- this was New SPAIN, not Mexico."****
Eh, la Nueva España = México, son la misma cosa. Y quien ose decir lo contrario muestra una asombrosa ****IGNORANCIA****. Intentar separar los conceptos de Español y Mexicano como si su origen fuesen dos cosas distintas es el disparate mas grande que he escuchado.
Eh, la Nueva España = México, son la misma cosa. Y quien ose decir lo contrario muestra una asombrosa ****IGNORANCIA****. Intentar separar los conceptos de Español y Mexicano como si su origen fuesen dos cosas distintas es el disparate mas grande que he escuchado.
Brennus : « The Czechs & Slovaks are some of the most intelligent people in Europe ».
Et de l'Univers aussi !
Et de l'Univers aussi !
<<Eh, la Nueva España = México, son la misma cosa. Y quien ose decir lo contrario muestra una asombrosa ****IGNORANCIA****. Intentar separar los conceptos de Español y Mexicano como si su origen fuesen dos cosas distintas es el disparate mas grande que he escuchado. >>
Telling you like it is, Sigma. If it doesn't fit into your world view, that's your problem, not mine. Apparently the Spanish settlers of northern New Mexico viewed the revolutionary government of Mexico with the same disdain that the loyalists of British America had for the revolutionary government of the fledgling US. And to say that New Spain equals Mexico is not necessarily true, any more than it would be true to say that the 13 British colonies were exactly the same as the subsequent US -- no, they weren't. Different political setup, different organization, different allegiences; yes, they occupied the same geographical area and one evolved into the other, but they were separate entities in many ways. There are sound reasons why we do not date the existence of the US from 1607, when the first permanent British colony was founded at Jamestown, but only from the declaration of independence in 1776 -- it was not the same country. The same applies to Mexico and New Spain.
Telling you like it is, Sigma. If it doesn't fit into your world view, that's your problem, not mine. Apparently the Spanish settlers of northern New Mexico viewed the revolutionary government of Mexico with the same disdain that the loyalists of British America had for the revolutionary government of the fledgling US. And to say that New Spain equals Mexico is not necessarily true, any more than it would be true to say that the 13 British colonies were exactly the same as the subsequent US -- no, they weren't. Different political setup, different organization, different allegiences; yes, they occupied the same geographical area and one evolved into the other, but they were separate entities in many ways. There are sound reasons why we do not date the existence of the US from 1607, when the first permanent British colony was founded at Jamestown, but only from the declaration of independence in 1776 -- it was not the same country. The same applies to Mexico and New Spain.
no, they weren't. Different political setup, different organization, different allegiences; yes, they occupied the same geographical area and one evolved into the other, but they were separate entities in many ways.
Habia ciertas diferencias si, pero si eran prácticamente la misma cosa ¿por qué? cuando México se independizó de España, el sistema politico y administrativos nunca sufrió un cambio importante, lo único que paso fue que el poder politico paso de manos de los Españoles a los criollos (Españoles nacidos en América, ej. Mexicanos de ascendencia Española), la misma forma de govierno se conservó, la misma estructura social y económica implantada por España fue conservada, el mismo sistema económico- administrativo fue dejado prácticamente intacto.
Ustedes tal vez no consideren las 13 colonias como el inicio de Estados Unidos, pero nosotros si consideramos la etapa de la colonia (México como la Nueva España) una etapa en la vida de nuestra nación, la cual la comenzamos a estudiar históricamente mucho antes de que llegarán los Españoles a grandes razgos estudiamos la historia de nuestro pais en estos episodios:
1.México prehipánico (Enfocado a tribus indígenas como los Aztecas), México colonial (México como la Nueva España) 2.México Independiente (a grandes razgos la parte mas importante aqui es la invasión y el robo de la la mitad de nuestro territorio por parte de Estados Unidos) y 3.México contemporáneo (el cual abarca a partir de la revolución Mexicana hasta nuestros dias).
Nosotros si consideramos a la Nueva España como México antes de ser independiente te guste o no, es innegable ciertas diferencias en la forma de administración politica, pero cultural y socialmente si eran la misma cosa.
Habia ciertas diferencias si, pero si eran prácticamente la misma cosa ¿por qué? cuando México se independizó de España, el sistema politico y administrativos nunca sufrió un cambio importante, lo único que paso fue que el poder politico paso de manos de los Españoles a los criollos (Españoles nacidos en América, ej. Mexicanos de ascendencia Española), la misma forma de govierno se conservó, la misma estructura social y económica implantada por España fue conservada, el mismo sistema económico- administrativo fue dejado prácticamente intacto.
Ustedes tal vez no consideren las 13 colonias como el inicio de Estados Unidos, pero nosotros si consideramos la etapa de la colonia (México como la Nueva España) una etapa en la vida de nuestra nación, la cual la comenzamos a estudiar históricamente mucho antes de que llegarán los Españoles a grandes razgos estudiamos la historia de nuestro pais en estos episodios:
1.México prehipánico (Enfocado a tribus indígenas como los Aztecas), México colonial (México como la Nueva España) 2.México Independiente (a grandes razgos la parte mas importante aqui es la invasión y el robo de la la mitad de nuestro territorio por parte de Estados Unidos) y 3.México contemporáneo (el cual abarca a partir de la revolución Mexicana hasta nuestros dias).
Nosotros si consideramos a la Nueva España como México antes de ser independiente te guste o no, es innegable ciertas diferencias en la forma de administración politica, pero cultural y socialmente si eran la misma cosa.
There are sound reasons why we do not date the existence of the US from 1607, when the first permanent British colony was founded at Jamestown, but only from the declaration of independence in 1776 -- it was not the same country. The same applies to Mexico and New Spain.
No no aplica lo mismo, a diferencia de Estados Unidos, en México (antes de su creación como nación y antes de la llegada de los Españoles) ya existian una gran variedad de ricas culturas como la Maya o la Azteca que en conjunto con la mezcla con la cultura Española, dieron forma a varias de las caracteristicas de nuestra cultura nacional. Mientras que en Estados Unidos los Ingleses eliminaron a todas las culturas indigenas, y nunca se mezclaron con ellas, nunca existió un mestizaje, por ende ustedes no tienen esa cultura pre-colonial que nosotros si tenemos.
No no aplica lo mismo, a diferencia de Estados Unidos, en México (antes de su creación como nación y antes de la llegada de los Españoles) ya existian una gran variedad de ricas culturas como la Maya o la Azteca que en conjunto con la mezcla con la cultura Española, dieron forma a varias de las caracteristicas de nuestra cultura nacional. Mientras que en Estados Unidos los Ingleses eliminaron a todas las culturas indigenas, y nunca se mezclaron con ellas, nunca existió un mestizaje, por ende ustedes no tienen esa cultura pre-colonial que nosotros si tenemos.
Eso es verdad, pero las culturas Mayas y Aztecas no estaban totalemente dentro las fronteras Mexicanas, y tampoco ocupaban todo el espacio de lo que ahora es Mexico.
Aun que si estoy de acuerdo con ud. que la situacion no era la misma que con la de los Estados Unidos. Pero eso aplica mas a la situacion etnica que a la situacion geografica.
Aun que si estoy de acuerdo con ud. que la situacion no era la misma que con la de los Estados Unidos. Pero eso aplica mas a la situacion etnica que a la situacion geografica.
Uriel, you're wasting your breath. Neither of you is ever going to convince the other.
Since we are off the topic of languages anyway, I have a question for all posters who are Mexican or of Mexican descent. Are you all predominantly Spanish? I know Sigma and LAA both claim to be predominantly Spanish (or at least say they appear that way). What about the rest of you?
I find it intriguing that anyone would call the Mexico of today a beautiful mix of cultures like the Mayans and Aztecs. And all this time I believed them to have been extinct, conquered by the Spanish conquistadors.
Here is an account of the history I learned, written on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Conquest_of_Mexico
It ends:
"Unlike the English-speaking colonists of North America, the majority of the Spanish colonists were single men who married or made concubines of the natives, and were even encouraged to do so by Queen Isabella during the earliest days of colonization. As a result of these unions, as well as concubinage and secret mistresses, a vast class of people known as "Mestizos" and mulattos came into being. But even if mixes were allowed, the white population tried, largely successfully even today, to keep their status via a caste system."
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista_de_M%C3%A9xico
It should be noted that the article in Spanish ends on a different note:
"Seguiría un sincretismo que daría origen a una nueva raza mestiza y a la postre, a una nueva nación que se esforzaría por sobrevivir y combinar, de la mejor manera posible, ambas culturas."
Which is the truth? I don't expect to get a straight answer, but I've seen a few telenovelas on Univision and Telemundo.
If you don't know waht I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenovela
"One of the most common complaints are that telenovelas are not representative of the actual racial makeup of the country where they are produced. Most telenovelas, no matter where they are from, tend to have white, blond, blue-eyed stars. Whenever an "ethnic" looking person appears, usually they are of lower class and hold jobs such as janitors, reserving all the higher-class jobs for the lightest-skinned actors."
Since we are off the topic of languages anyway, I have a question for all posters who are Mexican or of Mexican descent. Are you all predominantly Spanish? I know Sigma and LAA both claim to be predominantly Spanish (or at least say they appear that way). What about the rest of you?
I find it intriguing that anyone would call the Mexico of today a beautiful mix of cultures like the Mayans and Aztecs. And all this time I believed them to have been extinct, conquered by the Spanish conquistadors.
Here is an account of the history I learned, written on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Conquest_of_Mexico
It ends:
"Unlike the English-speaking colonists of North America, the majority of the Spanish colonists were single men who married or made concubines of the natives, and were even encouraged to do so by Queen Isabella during the earliest days of colonization. As a result of these unions, as well as concubinage and secret mistresses, a vast class of people known as "Mestizos" and mulattos came into being. But even if mixes were allowed, the white population tried, largely successfully even today, to keep their status via a caste system."
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista_de_M%C3%A9xico
It should be noted that the article in Spanish ends on a different note:
"Seguiría un sincretismo que daría origen a una nueva raza mestiza y a la postre, a una nueva nación que se esforzaría por sobrevivir y combinar, de la mejor manera posible, ambas culturas."
Which is the truth? I don't expect to get a straight answer, but I've seen a few telenovelas on Univision and Telemundo.
If you don't know waht I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telenovela
"One of the most common complaints are that telenovelas are not representative of the actual racial makeup of the country where they are produced. Most telenovelas, no matter where they are from, tend to have white, blond, blue-eyed stars. Whenever an "ethnic" looking person appears, usually they are of lower class and hold jobs such as janitors, reserving all the higher-class jobs for the lightest-skinned actors."
Sigma : « Ustedes tal vez no consideren las 13 colonias como el inicio de Estados Unidos, pero nosotros si consideramos la etapa de la colonia (México como la Nueva España) una etapa en la vida de nuestra nación, la cual la comenzamos a estudiar históricamente mucho antes de que llegarán los Españoles a grandes razgos estudiamos la historia de nuestro pais en estos episodios (...) »;
C'est vrai que le *REGARD* porté sur le passé n'est pas nécessairement le même dans tous les pays, même si l'objet (ou la direction) du regard paraît similaire à première vue.
C'est vrai que le *REGARD* porté sur le passé n'est pas nécessairement le même dans tous les pays, même si l'objet (ou la direction) du regard paraît similaire à première vue.
Tiff, it's just fun to fight with Sigma because he just takes this crap SO seriously -- and personally. And he's so intransigently anti-American that he'd argue with me if I said the world was round and the sky was blue.
And given the number of Indians and part-Indians I've met over the years, it's so far off the mark to say that the British eliminated the Indians and their cultures that it's just funny. But that's all part of his prejudice -- that the US is a bunch of evil Anglos intent on keeping everyone down and Mexico is an earthly paradise of racial harmony. He's really not sure what to make of US hispanics at all, because they just throw that nasty monkeywrench into his carefully-constructed view of How Things Are (Or At Least Should Be).
And those actors on the novelas ARE whiter than white, aren't they? ;P
And given the number of Indians and part-Indians I've met over the years, it's so far off the mark to say that the British eliminated the Indians and their cultures that it's just funny. But that's all part of his prejudice -- that the US is a bunch of evil Anglos intent on keeping everyone down and Mexico is an earthly paradise of racial harmony. He's really not sure what to make of US hispanics at all, because they just throw that nasty monkeywrench into his carefully-constructed view of How Things Are (Or At Least Should Be).
And those actors on the novelas ARE whiter than white, aren't they? ;P
Well first of all, it should be said that the actors in the telenovelas use makeup, their true skincolor is not always portrayed.
And secondly, I do agree that most actors in telenovelas seem to be lighter skin mestizos to just plain whites, which isn't really representative of the reality. In the towns where I have relatives in (Torreón Coah, Chihuahua Chih, Durango Dgo, Zacatecas, Zac, Cd. Juarez, Chih), most people tend to be on the lighter side of the dividing line between White and Indian.
And as for the articles, I'd say they are both right. The races do live in harmony for the most part, there's no racism like in the USA, not outward racism anyway, because just about everyone is part something. But Indian people do seem to be looked down upon, but not because of their race, simply because they are seen as poor and uneducated since most live life separately from the Western society of Mexico. It's more of a clash of cultures matter, than anything racial.
And as to this:
<<And given the number of Indians and part-Indians I've met over the years, it's so far off the mark to say that the British eliminated the Indians and their cultures that it's just funny>>
Native Americans aren't even 1% of the population! It's still some 9% away from being funny if you ask me
And secondly, I do agree that most actors in telenovelas seem to be lighter skin mestizos to just plain whites, which isn't really representative of the reality. In the towns where I have relatives in (Torreón Coah, Chihuahua Chih, Durango Dgo, Zacatecas, Zac, Cd. Juarez, Chih), most people tend to be on the lighter side of the dividing line between White and Indian.
And as for the articles, I'd say they are both right. The races do live in harmony for the most part, there's no racism like in the USA, not outward racism anyway, because just about everyone is part something. But Indian people do seem to be looked down upon, but not because of their race, simply because they are seen as poor and uneducated since most live life separately from the Western society of Mexico. It's more of a clash of cultures matter, than anything racial.
And as to this:
<<And given the number of Indians and part-Indians I've met over the years, it's so far off the mark to say that the British eliminated the Indians and their cultures that it's just funny>>
Native Americans aren't even 1% of the population! It's still some 9% away from being funny if you ask me
« ... since most live life separately from the Western society of Mexico. It's more of a clash of cultures matter, than anything racial. »
Is that not what it's ultimately about almost EVERYWHERE though? I'm not American, but I cannot believe that many Americans today actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others.
Is that not what it's ultimately about almost EVERYWHERE though? I'm not American, but I cannot believe that many Americans today actually believe that certain 'races' are inherently superior/inferior to others.
PUREBRED Native Americans may only be 1% of the population, but a large number of Americans can (and do) claim part-Indian heritage. In fact, most who can are very proud of that Choctaw grandmother or their sixteenth of Blackfoot blood. And I should point out that to gain official tribal membership in an American Indian tribe, you only have to prove a percentage of Indian blood (the required percentage varies by tribe). A quarter, an eighth, or even a sixteenth are acceptable for most tribes.
I might point out, guest, that a LARGE percentage of Border Patrol agents are themselves hispanic -- especially on the southern border. Therefore racism is not their motivation....
I might point out, guest, that a LARGE percentage of Border Patrol agents are themselves hispanic -- especially on the southern border. Therefore racism is not their motivation....