Talk:Mestizo

Archives
Archive 1 (December 2002-October 2006)

Format this page like this?

Eurasian (mixed ancestry) is a page, similar to this, about peoples of a mixed race (in that case European and Asian). This page would look much better if it was formatted similar. Casey14 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Mestizo Racism in Latin America

The whole section on "Mestizo racism in Latin America" is a rant and borders on, if not become, racist. It does not belong in an encyclopedic article. I think it should be deleted. Silverchemist 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mestizo, as a term, is a negative POV statement

The colonial period has really injured the mentality of all the people involved. So much racism and exploitation has made people adopt pretty stupid perspective on identity. Nobody on Earth is PURE, so EVERYBODY is a Mestizo! Unless your an Eskimo or a Laplander, you are probably not pure.

Why did Europeans always want to adopt the posture of purity in colonial period? Was it a way to break the link of the natives to humanity and make it easier to execute something evil? The truth is Europeans don't really do this anymore, but the poor people they once tormented still suffer the mental torments via words like "Mestizo".

A typical Latin American mestizo is dark skinned like a "native" American (AMERICAN), dark haired like an American, and dark eyed like an American. So, the presence of some rogue Spanish/Portuguese/French adventurer in an otherwise unbroken chain of purity is UNMEANINGFUL to our identity. Let us drop the moniker, forget the link, and be more centric to our true identity in America. America is home and has been home for 20 millennia. If a French person had one Polish ancestor 500 years ago, would they called themselves a Franco-Pole Mestizo or just French?

It is better for Latin Americans to simply forget Spain. Spain sucks. Spain is garbage. Looking up to Spain is ridiculus. Do Americans from the USA look up to Spain? Spain is degenerate. Spain is where Europe's porn is made. Spain has nothing to offer. In the USA, one could start college, obtain a masters, obtain a PhD, conduct a Post Doctorate, make millions of dollars, and live a long life and there would be no need or importance to reading something written by Spaniards, studying Spanish, or much less speaking to Spaniard. Let Latin American declare true independence and drop colonial monikers and call ourselves Aztecs, Lencas, Olmecs, Caribs, Mayas, Araucanians, and Incas.

Bottom line, Latin Americans need to be more like Americans from the USA. Never let someone else define you and never look up to something that sucks. This is why the USA rocks. Follow the leader, the leader is showing us the way.

Why don't you grow up? Haven't you noticed that most people in the US are descended from Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, and they speak a European language, English? What a delightful self-contradiction that you use the word 'Latin American' - what could be less authentic than that? Even if Latin Americans don't like Spain, the fact is that what they read, watch or listen to in Spanish doesn't come from Spain at all, just as as most of what North Americans read, watch or listen to in English doesn't come from England!Quiensabe 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned comment is pure racism anyway, and denial as well. Mestizos exist. It's simply a factual matter, not a POV. The comments about Spain are pure racism.

Mestizos who assume an indigenous identity to the exclusion of their actual ancestry and cultural conditioning are playacting, and also imposing themselves on indigenous communities. There is nothing progressive about this. It's delusional, disruptive, and yeah, juvenile. Tmangray 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that your position the Jews as well, that all these European-blooded Jews are "playacting", pretending to be Middle Eastern people, even though many of them have white skin and come from Russia? Careful, your KKK sheet is showing. Dropmeoff (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We also note your self-contradiction: you start by saying everyone is mixed, no such thing as pure, then go on to speak of an "unbroken chain of purity". Tmangray 18:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree THERE are Mestizos in Latin America, as well as Criollos, and Zambos(Although the term is not used much at all).

I agree that the above statement was degrading towards spain, but he has a point. Have you ever noticed, that to be considered Native American in the U.S, you must be from a tribe? Meanwhile to be African American, you don't have to be from an African tribe. I find it sad that the majority of brown latinos coming to the U.S. are forced to consider themselves to be mixed. Even if both of their parents are brown, they are still mixed just because they have Spanish ancestors from 500 years ago. They are forced to not have a race. While whites can be white, blacks can be black, Native Americans of the US can be Native American, but latinos, predominately Mexicans, are simply mestizo. Their are plenty of blacks who have a lot of European blood (many have nearly half) speak English, a European language. But they are still black. The same is for Native Americans from the US and American Whites. But when a Mexican or other latino is of some European blood and speaks spanish, than they are automatically "mestizo". Why is this? Why is it only in latin America this happens? It seems that in Latin America, everyone loses their originally identity. Part of the reason, is that in the US some people think hispanic is a race when of course it isn't. The fact of the matter is that these so called "mestizos" are not even mestizo. A mestizo is someone with one Native American parent and one European parent. The fact is that is that these "mestizos" are still Native Americans just like African Americans are black Native Americans in the US are Native Americans and Filipinos are Asian. All of the people I have mentioned have European blood due to admixture with Europeans, yet are still granted the original identity of their ancestors. That being said, why should a Latin American be denied his right to be an Inca, a Mexica, Mayan or Taino, just because his/her people were raped and enslaved and forced to speak Spanish? They shouldn't. 69.143.182.220 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

99% of mestizos today are not themselves the product of rape. Most mestizos include the ancestry of several indigenous groups as well as Spanish, so even if they were to choose to live a traditional life, which one should they choose?

And choice implies something subjective. One's ancestry is objective, a biological fact not subject to choice. One can pretend to be a traditional "indian", but it is only a pretense, and likely to be at odds with authentic culture. Yes, a mestizo is a native American, but they are also European, and also something else. THAT is a fact.

The observation that Americans automatically regard all Latinos by the term "mestizo" does not ring true. The term is hardly used at all in the US, outside of anthropology courses. The census has never included such a category. Instead, the catch-all term "Hispanic" is used, without regard to "race". Tmangray (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do hope that you realize the vast majority of Native Americans of tribal Nations in the United States have European blood. Do you mean to say that they too are playacting and denying their ancestry and culture? Or are they exempt somehow? Please explain.24.126.115.119 (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of dispute of whether race can ever be a "biological fact", a point put forward by the AAA just last decade to the US Census Bureau. Rather, race is a social construct. Also, I am concerned by any talk of "authentic culture" and what this means - culture is dynamic and ever-changing, so how do we define authentic? I think these are two areas that need to be clarified, or removed completely, from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaLuehrsen (talk • contribs) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Racism section

The section on racism needs to be rewritten. I don't know anything about the subject, but the last three sentences of the third paragraph are argumentative and betray bias. Redkern 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No Mestiço ascendancy in East Timor

This section about East Timor is complete and utter garbage, which is why I removed it (again!)

"Much like the mestiso minority in the Philippines, the East Timorese mestiço minority typically comprises most of the small privileged upper and upper-middle classes, surrounded by a mass of impoverished unmixed natives."

Wrong. There are many Timorese with no European ancestry, who make up the small middle class, along with ethnic Chinese.

"From Indonesia's invasion of the country on December 7th, 1975 - just a week after East Timor's unilateral declaration of independence from Portugal on November 28 - Timorese movements for independence from Indonesia were also largely headed by Portuguese-speaking mestiço activists."

Wrong. Less than five per cent of Fretilin leaders or cadres had any European background - see José Ramos Horta's book Funu: The Unfinished Saga of East Timor, Red Sea Press 1987, page 130.

America Ferrera is mestiza

Look at her facial features, specially her eyeshape and wide cheekbones, it is more closer to an amerindian than a spaniard

A Seperate article for Mixed Bloods

Okay, first and foremost, I am a Mestizo, and I am White and Indian. I don't say I'm not White. Anyways, as one of the few people in the United States that considers themselves Bi Racial(and not "Some Other" race. I really think there she be a page for Mixed Bloods. I am American, and I would like to read about the Mixed bloods in this country. I understand that we have had a significant contribution to North American society. I think it would be only fair. 71.226.149.3 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mixed blood

In the United States the term Mixed bloods is not used to describe Mestizo's and should not be used as such in this article. Like the person who wrote before me says a Mestizo is a bi-racial person of a White and American Indian racial combination. Never is the mixed bloods term used in the media, in newpapers, schools, census bureau or in any official documents to describe a person of Caucasion and American Indian descent. The person who wrote before me is correct in that Mixed blood belongs in a seperate article as mixed blood is to general a term for Mestizo which is, again a person of purely European and Native American blood. If not substantiated should be removed immediately, I will edit if someone does not respond within a weeks time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.247.26.36 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mestizos" are indigenous. The idea that they posses equal European and Native American blood is part of an ethnocide against the Indigenous people of the Americas and a plan to exterminate them. Otherwise we'd call the Native Americans in the U.S. mestizos as well and we'd call black people mulattos. It's sad that wikipedia is contributing to this genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.115.119 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As to the first comment here, the term mixed blood is in fact used more often than mestizo to refer to people of mixed European and indigenous American ancestry in the United States.

As to the next comment, what absolute nonsense, and irrational. Yes, mestizos are indigenous. They are also European. They are both, and they are also something unto themselves. Their ancestry is a simple, obvious fact. It's not a debateable point. It just is. So what's the nonsense about it being "ethnicide" or "genocide"? Those terms refer to mass murder, not the offspring of intermarriage. What rationale could you possibly have that isn't purely racist? Tmangray (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So you would say the same about Jews? That they are mixed people, neither "Semitic" nor European? Do you play "Race Police" with Black people, too? What is your methodology for declaring people to exist or not exist? A swastika? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dropmeoff (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who Is and Who Isn't

I see several disputes about specific people who may or may not be mestizos. I believe that this may be futile unless you have access to their respective pedigrees. Also, because so many people are mestizos in, for example, Mexico (the genetic studies are pretty conclusive about this), even among the generally lighter elite who typically emphasize their "Spanishness". Also, because the degree of mixture varies widely. Also, because appearances (phenotype) are very deceptive. In the same family, it is not uncommon to have one sibling who may appear indigenous and another who may appear Spanish, yet they are children of the same parents. Sometimes a phenotype from one part of the world may resemble another somewhere else (for instance, perhaps Maradona's Italian ancestry.) Sometimes, phenotypes crop up in later generations. Unless there's a really good reason to include someone on a list of mestizos, perhaps it would be better to omit them. Tmangray 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Need for Article on Mestizaje

We are considering the articles on race, hybridity, miscegenation, and we think that the "mestizo" article is lacking and needs revision.

In searching "mestizaje" the Wikipedia brings you directly to "mestizo," and perhaps this is not the best way to understand the differences between what should be two seperate entries. Mestizo, for one, is a very static concept; whereas mestizaje implies ambiguity and an historical process, dynamic relationships. Mestizaje, of late, has been brought up in light of globalization, and how we might think of the global community in racial and ethnic terms. This is not encompassed by a term--mestizo--that relies on a statistical reference to the people of a particular nation. Indeed, mestizaje could be seen as a challenge to static categories of race, rooted in notions of racial purity.

Certainly, there are groups that worry about using "mestizaje" to replace the standard goal of multiculturalism, but the entry for "race of the future" is clearly ambiguous in its conception, given that the picture on the cover of the Time Magazine could be defined as both a "mix" of races and the new face of a "multicultural society"--which implies a spectrum of colors.

Perhaps mestizaje allows us new ways of thinking about national, community and individual identity, shaking the foundations thereof, because it references not the solitary idea of the individual but the coming together of people.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kruiser (talk • contribs).

Generally speaking, the term mestizo is based on the concept of race, while mestizaje connotes more of the cultural side. One might say that mestizaje is mestizo culture, or the process of cultural mixture between the ancestral racial groups (whether biologically-defined, which is problematical, or socially-defined). The category "mestizo" has definite historical meaning in various countries, and merits this article, regardless of other related issues. A section on mestizaje would probably be a good idea within this article. A separate article---maybe---but if it's going to be about globalization, etc., I think that might be more appropriately handled as part of existing articles on race, race mixture, and so on since mestizaje is more of a Latin American term. Of course, maybe it will become part of the global vocabulary, but I'm not sure that it is yet. Tmangray 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in, I arrived here looking for 'mestizaje', which I would like to learn more about. -- Sammermpc 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to the Section on African Admixture?

I don't know why the mention of African admixture in the mestizo populations of Latin America is no longer included in this article. Most historians and geneticists agree that African ancestry is part of the mix of most, if not all, mestizo populations of Latin America-- to varying degrees, maybe, but it certainly is something worth mentioning, especially since probably only a minority of mestizos today fit the classic colonial description of a mestizo (having one Spanish parent and one Amerindian parent). Also, other ethnicities have contributed to the ancestry of the mestizo populations of Latin America, including Chinese, French, German, and Lebanese (among others). The prior request for an article on "mestizaje" has the correct idea, but the African "third root" of mestizo Latin America should be included again in this article.69.235.152.61 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)James Lopez

• Hi there unknown user. People of Afican ancestry have their own significant articles, such as Mulatto and Zambo. These respective groups belong in that category. Other ethnic groups you have discussed such as Chinese, French, German and Lebanese descents does not form a significant figure of the population of Hispanic America / Latin America etc. These respective ethnic groups only form a minority. Please provide references or citations such as "Facts" to support your statement and issues. Please feel free to add informations in the article if you provide the facts to support your statement. This is because we are creating and keeping all articles based on a "Encylopedia"; and free from Nuetral Point Of Views. Thank you! --Ramirez 8:18 pm February 10, 2008 (UTC)

• • Hello there. Here are a couple of links to articles regarding African admixture in the mestizo populations of Mexico (and Puerto Rico) in particular:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1449501

http://www.isteve.com/2002_Where_Did_Mexicos_Blacks_Go.htm

I understand and acknowledge what you say about mulato and zambo being more appropriate, but I certainly think it is worth noting that many mestizo populations have also absorbed African influences into the mix. This also indicates, in my opinion, that the original Latin American meaning of "mestizo" is often no longer strictly applicable, and the word has become more of a generic term to refer to anyone of mixed ancestry. 69.235.152.61 (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)James Lopez

I agree that in common usage, the term mestizo today trends toward its literal meaning of "mixed" without necessary limitation to strictly Spanish-indigenous ancestry, although it can be so limited, depending on context. Tmangray (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It also varies by region, depending on the common ancestries in that region. For example, in the Spanish-speaking caribbean, it more often means white/black mixed ancestry than white/indigenous mixed ancestry. --Delirium (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another article that pertains to African admixture within mestizo and Latin American populations:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JDD-4R1VW24-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a438392f361613d15dce197b06aed6bc 69.235.166.4 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)James Lopez

Mexican Census

I see someone states in their edit summary that the category "mestizo" is still used in the Mexican census. The last time I researched the subject, which may have been before the last census, I found that Mexico had dropped racial categories after its census in the 1920s. Tmangray (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i dont know about that because i looked it up in the cia world factbook and it states that 60% is mestizo , 30% amerindian 9% white and 1% other though for some reason i feel its really 30% mestizo and 60% amerindian but in any event the cia has got to be geting these numbers from somewhere maybe mexican government does put race on census--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

When I looked into that, I found the CIA and others base those numbers on other things, including some extrapolation based on the last racial census in the 20s or 30s. Notice how rounded the figures are. And even back in the 1920s, the distinction drawn between Indian and Mestizo was made using cultural factors, such as principal language spoken, or type of village. The general ratio of the CIA estimates sounds roughly true, based on my own experience and also based on the few genetic studies done thus far. Culturally, though, the nation is thoroughly mestizo, regardless of actual "racial" ancestries. Tmangray (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i agree many mexicans identfy as mestizo more for cultural reasons than actual ancestry reasons thats why i mentioned in reality the number if based strictly on ancestry the native american number would be higher than the mestizo number in mexico--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I found an interesting article online which refers to the 1921 census. I've posted it to the "external links" section. Tmangray (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

mestizos, diabetes, percentages

The abstract of the article clearly states: "The high frequency of Native American-derived genes in the contemporary Hispanic population predict a higher frequency of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM)". This is well-known in epidemiologic circles. The 60-something percent of "white" ancestry you cite is mostly by admixture, and characteristic of the northern region of Mexico. Nonetheless, the Native American component of the admixture is the reason why there is a higher proportion of diabetes mellitus. The essential fact here is that these individuals are mixed. This is not really news, is it? Tmangray (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"High frequency of" does not mean "mostly". Even if it's true that the white ancestry is mostly by admixture, the source does not state this at all. It simply states that 61% of Mexicans are of European ancestry. The source does not support the changes. The previous version acknowledged that their actual biologic ancestry varies from this, but by changing that to is largely mixed, you're changing the meaning a little and without a source that supports that. "For Mexican Americans, 31% of the contemporary gene pool is estimated to be Native American derived, whereas 61 and 8% are Spanish and African derived, respectively. In Puerto Rico, the percentage of contributions of Spanish, Native American, and African admixture to the population are 45, 18, and 37%, respectively. For Cuba, the parallel estimates are 62, 18, and 20%" That quote doesn't say anything about the Spanish gene part being "admixture". Kman543210 (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's irrevalent. He was talking about diabetes. As for the source he said northern mexico. Northern mexico is whiter than southern mexico.75.6.146.236 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SacDollar.jpeg

The image Image:SacDollar.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable Mestizos

can we come up with more than 2 mestizos worth mentioning? This is mildly embarassing lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.59.240 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

mestizo - any mixed blood or specifically European/white father and non-Euro/non-white mother?

I didn't see this in the article and think it should be up top with the definition. My understanding is that mestizo originally only referred to children of European or white fathers. If the mother was not white or European, the child was considered fully non-white or indigenous. Does anyone know if this is true? I think it comes from European property law and was codified in later miscegenation laws as well, though mestizos generally held better status in European colonies than indigenous/native persons. Perhaps the discussion could go in the section on race? 75.60.202.158 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mestizos in Chile

Chile's mestizos may be mostly white, but they're still mestizo. Shouldn't it be listed on the side panel? According to this University of Chile page, the mestizo population is 65%.

http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/medinae/cap2/5b6.html

Eric323 (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there's be a few genetic tests on the Chilean population I belive, resulting in a wide range of different results from something around 25% of the population to as high as 65% so its best to say its inconclusive at the moment.

It also could depend on how they do the surveys, in the North of Chile and around Temuco one would expect higher rates of Mestizos, so that being the case if the genetic surveys covered different areas (i.e. 1 covering just the central valley and 1 covering all of Chile) then the rates would be different.

There's the same problem in England with some scientists claiming the English to be "Celtic" and then others claiming them to be Germanic invaders.

217.171.129.73 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Métis term in Canada - can somone please include this information?

The term Métis in Canada can refer to the ethnic group found in the prairies, but in other parts of french canada the word simply means a person of european and amerindian descent. For example, in Quebec, where some regions have a native american majority, there is much miscegenation, and french people there refer to these people are métis, with no relation to the ethnic group in the prairies who speak a cree dialect. -october 15, 2009

brazil

how can you say that the 42.3 of the population is mestizo without references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.217.238 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mestizo

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mestizo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lizcano":

• From White people: "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI".
• From Chilean American: "Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI" (PDF).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mexico's mestizo population

Hello, I would like it if you people, especially the user C. Kent or whatever his name is, would put factual evidence for mestizos in Mexico and not a source that doesn't work. The source link for Mexico's mestizo poulation is broken, it doesn't work. Mestizos in Mexico are 55-60% according to most sources and estimates, if someone would like to research it, I have. Most sources (even here on wikiepdia) say that Mexico's mestizo population cannot be 70-80% due to the 18-30% white AND CASTIZO and 11-30% Amerindian.

You throw these race labels around like they are scientific facts. Tell me, what is the "mestizo" population of Israel? I'm sure you're answer is, "But only Mexicans can be mestizos! The white race is PURE!". You don't care about dissecting Jews the way you are so very eager to practice that "racial purity" pseudoscience upon Mexicans. Dropmeoff (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Genetic studies done of various Mexican populations and regions reveal that Mexicans are indeed over 80% Mestizos, [1] that is, racially mixed between European and Amerindian. In scientific/biological studies there are no such things as "castizos" or any other fractional denomination of race, castizos biologically fall under the category of Mestizos which in the scientific terminology is meant to indicate those who have European and Amerindian admixture regardless of degree. Mexico has received relatively small numbers of European immigrants and those who did arrive in the 1800's 1900's have mostly intermarried with the rest of the population thus causing admixture, or mestizaje. Of course there are notable exceptions such as immigrant colonies who intermarry and thus are still "European" and the famous German Mennonites. But these people are below the 10% mark of the overall Mexican population. According to this source: [2] criollos "White Mexicans" constitute only 8% of the Mexican population while mestizos made up between 80% and 90% of the Population. This article also mentions the distinction between Biology and Ethnography when using terms such as criollo, mestizo or Amerindian. A nation can be genetically one group but culturally another. Mexico's culture and self-identity is very unique and distinctive which makes it non-European thus Mexicans are not ethnically "criollos" (mostly). Even those who are biologically criollos, but who live within the Mexican culture such as Vicente Fernandez or Antonio Aguilar, are not ethnically criollos but rather Mestizos culturally. So in whichever way you want to see it, Mexico is ethnically and racially Mestizo by over 80%, the Exceptions are the indigenous communities and the European communities such as the Mennonites or others like them. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people have an agenda when it comes to how Mexico is represented in Wikipedia, they manipulate the statistics to fit their point of view. These individuals either augment or reduce certain demographical numbers to fit their point of view and do not consider the sources cited. If the sources contradict their opinions these people simply remove them. In the edit I made today (February 7, 2010) I misworded my statement; I meant to say that Hegemonicing a single source is NOT backed up by Wikipedia's guidelines. Numerous sources are better than one, and updated scholarly sources are much better than unscholarly, outdated, or ambiguous ones. The CIA WFB is a good source but there are much better, and up to date, ones out there. The sources provided for the Mestizo demographics of Mexico are from two scholarly sources, thus they constitute as reliable compared to the CIA website which hasn't been updated on Mexico's racial demographics for more than a decade, in a previous discussion another editor pointed out that the CIA's data is the same as that shown in the Mexican census from the 1920's. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What about White mestizos?

Is this article asserting that "white = racial purity"? Is this a Stormfront.org web page? The "white racial purity" overtone is so loud, it's deafening. The presumption of this article is that "Whites are racially pure, and therefore not mestizo/mixed." Why aren't the Jews mentioned predominantly in this page? They are the most mixed nation/ethnic group on earth: European, Sephardic, Middle Eastern, Ethiopian, etc. Why aren't European people mentioned here as Mesitzos? The Spaniards have a large degree of North African Berber bloodlines and many Eastern Europeans have some Asian features. This article needs to mention that "Mestizo" is not a biological classification, but a European colonial "racial purity" ideology. I thought such ideologies were discredited by encyclopedias after 1938? Apparently not for Wikipedia. 69.229.108.91 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)69.229.108.91 (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Mestizo is a racist, colonial term, not biological science

It needs to be restated that the notion of mestizo assumes that European people are unmixed, and hence, something of a pure race. This is racist pseudoscience. All of humanity has mixtures of some sort. This idea that White=racial purity belongs on a KKK site, not in a Wikipedia article. Dropmeoff (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "mesitzo pride" photos

I propose to remove the photos of Porfirio Diaz and Inca Garcilaso de la Vega as "notable mestizos". The (discredited) notion of promoting people through 16th century Spanish colonial race ideology is itself perpetuating a discredited caste system. Would we do the same with a page on Octoroons? or Half Breeds? Bluntly speaking, it is perpetuating Spanish racism (and we all know how wonderful that has been for the people of Latin America, don't we?). Dropmeoff (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, Porfirio Diaz was blatantly pro-White in his ideology, not pro-"mestizo". He powdered his skin to look European (other photos show just how dark his skin really was) and is infamous for promoting "Whites-first" immigration policies to Mexico, viewing Europeans as racially superior, and hence, better for the country. Dropmeoff (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And for those who insist on having photos, then at least depict the indigenous features that comprise the majority of so-called "mestizos". As it is, this article is incredibly Eurocentric. These two current photos give the impression of "Spanish people with a tan". Someone like Cesar Chavez or George Lopez might be better choices to display the tonal range of this racial ideology. Dropmeoff (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by user C.Kent87

This is to report that this article edited by user C.Kent87 (talk).

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Just recently, he deleted an entire section on "Criticisms of the term mestizo" by academics. This user also inserts personal opinion statements that seem to be in the "promotion business" of this unofficial (and biologically unscientific) term of "mestizo", as if it were somehow official or a primary identity used by people or governments.

Looking over the History of edits to this page, it is clear that C.Kent87 (talk)'s main contributions to this article have been to simply delete things.

C.Kent87 (talk) seems to delete more than he actually contributes in writing.

We should remember that this article pertains to a discredited idea in terms of biology and even census-taking. As such, we should expect to see information that expands on the historical context and origins of this term (which is still used informally, just as the term Nigger is sometimes still used informally).

Per Wikipedia's "good faith" requirement, I have supplied supplied much information about the historical nature of this term "mestizo" and academics who have questioned its accuracy or validity.

• Mestizo is a racial ideology.
• It is part of a Spanish colonial racial hierarchy (caste system / casta).
• There are academics who have criticized the term.
• And the term has now fallen into disuse and is often deemed "distasteful" for official use, except by White Supremacist groups (i.e. Stormfront.org, who uses the term quite often as a racial insult).

These are facts. I have not deleted any of the internal articles discussing "who, what, where, how much". But user C.Kent87 (talk) seems to have no problem with vandalizing information that does not jive with his personal preference for promoting the term.

I don't mind if user C.Kent87 (talk) feels a positive thing for this racial ideology, but he should not project his "racial purity" feelings onto this article.

By deleting the entire section on "Citicisms of mestizo", C.Kent87 (talk) has shown that he engages in academic censorship and will resort to vandalism in order to promote an outdated racial caste ideology. Dropmeoff (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around the word "vandalism". Do not attempt to equate the word mestizo with the word 'Nig---'. You need to stop accusations and cool off. You have also made many questionable comments and edits. I have left comments on your talk page. Using words such as "projecting his "racial purity" feelings" is the FARTHEST from what I am doing. I hope you would consider putting on your breaks and editing/deleting these accusations.C.Kent87 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Message: I am not the one vandalizing the article. You are inserting large amounts of POV and making many accusations which is against Wikipedia Policy. I've given you advice on how to go about. I have left a good amount of what you inserted because I think there is a place for it, just not in large amounts. I am not trying to "cover up" anything.

You accuse me of having "racial ideologies" - Let's get one thing straight - I AM Mestizo and I have ancestors from the Americas and Europe (A very equal amount from both). You took one look at my username and starting making many presumptions - isn't that what your trying to "fight"? By the way, I have read questionable comments made by yourself - and I have to question your motives as well.

You tell me, "you seem to be emotionally attached to promoting this phrase as an official designation". You can assume anything you want. I can tell you, however, that I have no problem being labeled a mestizo, because what else can I call myself? 'Mixed'? That's what 'mestizo' means after all, isn't it? You have no foundation in saying that "Europeans are a starting point" because they are the only racially pure group. The Indians were considered a " pure race" as well and that is why Amerindian ancestry was found in many "Espanoles". Do I like the fact that the casta system (With support from many Spaniards, Not all) layed out a racial hierarchy? No, but at the same time the words assigned to the different mixes can be used "matter of factly". Is someone with half European and half African ancestry not mixed?

Even the Queen of Spain at the time supported Spaniards mixing with Amerindian women... In my opinion someone who is obsessed with "racial purity" would not support that. You may have several rebuttles to that argument, but it still stands - Many Europeans became united by blood to Amerindians, and they chose to do so. They became a family. I don't call that racism. There is a more innocent side to this, you have to agree.

You accuse me of taking many tones, such as,"Yeah, but they like calling themselves mestizos/half-breeds" - Since we are a mixture of BOTH people groups it is correct to note what we are using the word "mestizo". It is what the word means. I have no shame in calling both of those groups my ancestors. Rather, it is a source of pride for me. Now, do many people in Latin America and elswhere call themselves mestizo? YES. And you can't stop it, nor can you make it a source of shame.

Likening my edits to someone who puts "They like calling themselves Nigg--" is where you cross the line. Stop making personal attacks and we can work on this. I will use the words of a commentor on your talk page, "I have the distinct impression that some of the differences between you and -------- are due to misunderstanding each other, more than to fundamental differences. I respectfully ask that you consider this possibility." C.Kent87 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies clearly state that "changing" the titles of another users Discussion section is vandalism. You have done this. You have clearly vandalized this page two times in two days, deleting academic information that discusses the issue in question. You made it clear that this is personal to you, that you identify strongly with Spain and its Spanish "racial purity" program. That's fine. But don't project your attitudes of "racial purity" and "racial cast ideology' onto Wikipedia.

You crossed the line when you deleted an entire section of academic references and material because you identify with a racial purity ideology. You are in no position to maturely contribute to this page (your biggest contributions thus far have been to delete other people's work).

Because this is the second time I have brought this up with you, and it is the second time you have deleted/vandalized material here, I will submit your user name with a complain to Wikipedia through the proper channels.

I have added to this article's material. You merely delete other people's work. Tell me who is the vandalist? Dropmeoff (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of a Mestizo

A Mestizo can either be:

1) A person of Amerindian and European ancestry or 2) A person of Amerindian ancetry who no longer belongs to a Amerindian culture and participates in the wider Metizo culture of their country.

Why exactly are there so many people on here who are calling the Mestizo's Amerindian? The Mestizo are usually of dual Amerindian and European heritage, those who deny this are denying and downplaying the European heritage of the Mestizos.

It is true that in some populations of Mestizos, such as those around Southern Mexico that Amerindian component is stronger, however they particiapte in the wider Mestizo culture of their country. Even so, by labelling Mestizos as Amerindian how can you prove that each and every one of them is indeed Amerindian? Some populations of Mestizos carry 50/50 Amerindian and European ancestry, some maybe carry more Amerindian, and some would carry more European so what exactly is the problem?

I don't personally like the term Mestizo though, it covers to broard a geographical area, even the Amerindians themselves vary hugely both culturally and physically in such a large area so I'd prefer terms related to the nations such as "Mexicans", "Guatemalans" and "Chileans".

---

Finnaly my personal opinion is that those who activly seek to downplay that the Mestizos are on the whole decended from both Amerindians and Europeans are basically being racist - yes the two groups mixed to varying degrees, but it is ridiculous to label them as either Amerindian or white, Mestizos should be proud of both their lineages.

Kentynet (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that one "should be" proud of something that they are clearly not proud of is the beginning of cultural repression; just as when Amerindians are told by the dominant (and often alien) culture that they "should be" proud of the greater culture, because it brings them into modernity, and leave behind their ancestral identities because they are often subversively considered primitive, backwards or alien to the greater mestizo culture. The main and constant battle in this postcolonial era in the Amerindian Americas is over self-determination. People have the inherent and undeniable right to define themselves in their own terms and reject any foreign labeling, misnomer or exonym. If outsiders still refer to Amerindian groups by traditionally wrong names like: Aztecas or Tarascos, that is fine as long as this mislabeling is kept outside the group and doesn't try to change that people's self-awareness of their own identity. The problem begins when anyone actively tries to inject a foreign name (Which often carries a foreign identity) into another group; in this case, Amerindians by calling them Mestizos which can be made into such a lose and vague term that it can include practically anyone. So I think it's best that we stick to the historical definition of the term as it was invented by the Spanish and not get into modern definitions of what the term should/could mean. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ocelotl

The user oclelotl is using the CIA's information of Natives being 30% of Mexico's population, later, he also uses the same CIA world factbook to say that whites in Mexico are 9%. However, he says that mestizos are 86% and draws a mean between two sources of information. First I thought he was an indigenist because he put that Natives are 30% or MORE of Mexico's population, but the CIA concurs, so I decided to leave it alone. Next, he inflates the number of mestizos from 60% to 70%, later he inflates it to 80%, and now he's inflated it to 86%. 86% mestizos + 30% Natives + 9% white + 1% other > 100%. He is putting information that makes Wikipedia look unreliable, because the information and sources conflict with one another. Would someone care to review these things?--76.83.0.12 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not conflict, they overlap due to the differences in criteria employed in the research by different sources. We already discussed this problem in the Talk page of the Mexicans article, check it out. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree you can leave 86%, but you MUST also include 60%, do something like "60%-86%", don't take one side and not consider the other. That is what makes a good research article for information. You can't just put out information from one side and not put in from the other, I say that is bias, leaning towards the indigenous (as you like to) and trying to eclipse the European side.--76.83.0.12 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)