Talk:Mexicans

Mexican women?

I look a images from Mexican Women with very interesting life.--Marrovi (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not vandalize this page and other ethnic-related pages as it shows a low level of intellectuality.

The title says it. By ignorant fools, these ethnic-related pages such as Mexican, African-American, Native-American and such are being vandalized daily by uneducated people. Please stop doing so as it shows you inhabit no manners and no level of respect and intellectuality.

Ultraman X77 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's completely useless to try and reason with the people who vandalize these articles. They are mostly stupid and immature kids with no sense of reason. Other times It's just idiots who think they are being funny. They do not care at all so the best, and only, thing we can do about it is to put the article under protection so only serious editors can make changes to the article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we look at archived threads that have been inactive for 30 days? They don't appear on this talk page. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures "People of Mexico"

There is a ridiculously large amount of Amerindian pics, with practically no mestizo pictures. We should even out the pics.--Fernirm (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We should remove them or declassify them. This page is not about racial relations in Mexico and if it were it would need to have damn good sources. As it is now it has none - and neither do most of the pictures. The attempted racial classification is completely outdated and misrepresent ethno-racial groupings of Mexico by fitting it into a mostly american common sense model and it also seems to be completely original research by those attmpting the classification. This article is really low low quality and the pictures do not help.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not such thing as "clearly mestizo" Meztizo is a cultural concept - not a racial one that can be judged by phenotype. Race relations have not been biologicaly founded in Mexico since independence did away with the caste system - you are grossly misrepresenting the issues.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with racial relations. We're just putting pictures of Mexicans of different phentoypical races.--Fernirm (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Putting in pictures to represent phenotypical races is original research unless they come from a source that is explicitly using phenotype as a base for racial relations in mexico. You won't find such a source because phenotype is not what mexicans use to classify eachother into race. That is why including such pictures is misrepresenting the question of race relations in Mexico. In Mexico ethnicity and race is based mostly on socio-economic status (like in Brazil). Please don't put more racial information into this article before you have solid sources to do so. It will be removed quickly.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Article's factual accuracy is disputed

Maunus I noticed you added these tags to the top of the article. Yet, there is no specification as to which claims are the ones being disputed. Please elaborate, because other than the last paragraph in the subsection about the languages of Mexico all claims appear to be verified with sources and links. What exactly is in dispute? Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the tags at the top of the article as well as the unsourced information at the end of it. All claims are supported with cited sources, there is no need to dispute the claims of this article when they are all based on cited sources and not on original research. If anyone feels that anything needs to be disputed state it here. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats not the way it works Ocelotl. I have argued extensively here and in the pages of Mexico, and Mestizo that the basic division of the Mexican people in to supposedly racially defined groups such as "white/mestizo/indigenous" is not supported by sources - and is in fact not relevant in a Mexican context. This article consists mainly of a section about racial categories that are no longer in use - Mexican society does not operate with a racial distinction of white, mestizo and indians as the colonial spanish casta system did - but cultural distinctions - being mestizo (this term itself is abandoned in Mexican social studies) does not mean to be of "mixed blood" it means to be of mixed culture, and indigenous does not mean to be descended purely from precolumbian inhabitants of Mexico - it means to have part in a culture that preserves many of its traditional aspects. This is what is the problem with this article it attempts to make it look like Mexican society is divided along bio-genetic lines when in fact it is not and has not been since the independence when the casta system was abolished. The sources used to make this fake biological race distinction look real is one genetic study that doesn't go anywhere towards showing that these genetic difference have any social reality in Mexico. They speak only about biological diversity - not about what that means in mexican society. The section on Mesitzos has no sources at all. This is particularly worrying since this category basically nolonger exists - mexicans donidentify as mestizos but as mexicans - the category is no longer used in government censuses. The section on indigenas correctly shows that this is a culturally not genetically defined concept - but the structure of the article belies this as the other categories are attempted to be biologically constructed ""indigenous is sandwiched inbetween the invented racial categories of white and mestizo. The section on white is based on the assumption that selfidentifying as criollo is the same as being white. In: short the entire build up of this article is based on an authors own assumptions about how best to understand the composition of the mexican people - not on any authoritative source that actually shows that this racial division is used to classify mexican people today. Each section has its own sources to show that there is a group called "white, criollo, indigena etc." - but there is no source that shows that this racial division is actually used to describe the mexican people today. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and the OR tag will need to be in place untill this is changed.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that U.S. whites and U.S. blacks are pure? How do we know U.S. Amerindians are pure? Most of the people who identify with the said 3 races are not pure (as studies have definitively shown), yet they identify and identified with those races. A blue eyed, pale skinned mestizo Mexican of 50% white blood will be considered white by society, just like a 40% Amerindian man dressed in Indigenous tribe clothes will be identified as Indigenous. Or a 80% white Mexican who identifies as mestizo is techinocally mestizo, but to other societies would surely be grouped as white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.14.12 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maunus I think it would do well if you add sourced information on that subsection about race that specifically deals with how the concept of race was abolished in Mexico and how Mexicans don't actually view themselves in this light. When I'm editing the article I am doing so from an American point of view and you know how they must categorize everything by race/gender/class etc... This is why from the beginning I have been having these awkward problems too because in Mexico and Mexican society all this sub-division is not only foreign it's also viewed by some as dangerous. I would add this information myself but i don't have sources. Also all these unrealistic articles that have sprung up about Black-Mexicans Arab-Mexicans White-Mexicans Spanish-Mexicans are just absurd and are getting out of hand in distorting the reality of Mexican society. I had tried to argue once before that half of these spin-off articles can go under one Article dealing with "Criollos" just like the article for Indigenous Mexicans while the great majority can be included as sub sections to this article and don't need to be their own article. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The big problem is that there doesn't seem to be any sources dealing specifically with race in a mexican context. I have serached fairly extensively online and in big university libraries. That is why the section on race is almost doomed to be OR. I can find statements for the abolition of indigena as a racial concept in the years of Cardenas - I can also find statements that mestizo isn't in official use in Mexico (and hardly in colloquial use either) any more. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is also necessary to remove the material that isn't adequately sourced.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should be rethought and written with a firm basis in sources about Mexican demographics, sociology and cultural history - not on CIA factbook nonsense or naive accounts of genetics studies as if they provide sufficient background for understanding racial categories in Mexico. Alternatively you could look at articles such as People of the United States and Canadian people for inspiration.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the race section based on good sources - it is now called race and ethnicity and it gives an actual description of how the two concepts are related in modern mexico. I would have included a section on "genetic Makeup of the Mexican population", but the INMEGEN link is dead and I can no longer find it on the INMEGEN website. If you can find it you could rewrite a sectiopn on the genetic composition of the mexican population, but be sure not to misrepresent the sources. For example the text said that INMEGEN "sampled 300 mestizos and concluded that 80% of the population is mestizo" which makes no sense what so ever.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Maunus I don't see any problems with the new sub section only that it's incomplete. There is still the other side of that coin where as Miguel León-Portilla has pointed out the Mexican National identity and society doesn't completely shun and think the indigenous legacy is all pejorative or degrading. There is also how Mexican Nationalism has adopted indigenous imagery and history for it's own. For example, look at various nationalistic works whose names or imagery is modeled after indigenous civilizations. Mexican Nationalism sees itself as being heirs of Indigenous Civilizations much like some European nationalists see themselves as heirs of Roman or Greek civilization. Look at the rectory tower and library for the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Look at military and federal insignia which heavily uses Aztec, Mayan, or Teotihuancan imagery. And also it's not just the indigenous who are thought of as backwards, primitive and superstitious. There are also the white Norteños and Rancheros who are seen in a very negative light as being barbaric, savage, uneducated, uncouth and primitive. The subsection is one sided and shows the indigenous heritage of Mexico wrongly as being somehow undesired or suppressed when the opposite is true. I see you mentioned briefly the indigenous revival but didn't elaborate on that. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its one sided - it represents the sources at hand completely - and believe me I have searched extensively and used all that found. I can try to elaborate on the indigenista period in the 40-60's of which Leon Portilla is part. It is an ironic and sad fact that the indigenistas appropriation of indigenous cultural hertiage for the purposes of forging a national identity was not at all accompanied by any actual rise in socioeconomic status experienced by the indigenous people, but rather an increased pressure of conforming to the national identity. The indigenous revival is best exemplified in the Zapatista uprising and the San Andres accords, I will add them to the section as well. Sources about race and ethnicity don't mention any negative stereotypes limiting whites in the north or elsewhere, and socio-economic statistics certainly don't support any such conclusions either. There are of course poor mestizos and white mexicans, but they would be treated in a section on social class - not ethnicity, their socio-economic status cannot be said to be dependent on their ethnic status as in the case of indigenous peoples. Please try to present sources when you argue that a particular view is misrepresented, it is hard to work with statements of opinion and anecdotal evidence. When you find some reliable sources feel free to incorporate them into the section, but please think of the overall coherence of the section as you write.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Ocelotl on this issue. It seems like the article currently is simply taking the view that most Mexicans view the Indigenous as being backwards and impoverished. This is simply not the case. Possibly amongst bigots and people who try to justify the repression of said indigenous peoples but in modern society being Indigenous is not particularly associated with backwardness and underdevelopment. It is very unencyclopedic to be displaying these statements as if they were the general Mexican view on Indigenous peoples. Despite the fact that many Indigenous peoples are poor and live under hardships they and their cultures are still held in high regard by Mexican society, many times even by the white Mexicans and Mestizo Mexicans. I think this is a poor summary of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico's current role in Mexican society and an unencyclopedic one as well! Foxxygrandpa (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora

We need a section about migration and Mexican diaspora identity in the US and elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture changes

I decided to remove some old black and white pictures; there were too many of them. But I had to include a black and white picture of Pedro Infante, a very famous Mexican, I tried to find a good picture of Cantinflas but couldn't find one. Lila Downs is more of a Mexican American. Rito-Palormes or whatever his name was really was just a random guy, so... And Maria Sabina's picture didn't look like a good portrait, and her other portrait was black and white, so I just decided to remove her. I added Cajeme to represent Mexican Indians, but I removed him to make room for Carlos Slim and because Cajeme's picture is also black and white. I added Gael Garcia Bernal to represent a more contemporary that's not plain black and white. Also, I added Pio Pico to represent Afro-Mexicans (I think Andres Pico would look better though) and I also added Carlos Slim, to represent Arab Mexicans. I want to add a picture of an East Asian Mexican, like Luis Nishizawa, but I can't find a good picture of him or of any East Asian Mexican.--Fernirm (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos

There are five rows, I say we add a sixth row that includes Miguel Hidalgo, Jorge Negrete, and Agustin de Iturbide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.1.212 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous, no native people, no women, no interesting people, only actors and musicians as Mexican people. --Marrovi (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is ridiculous - the article isn't called "dead white male mexicans".·Maunus·ƛ· 14:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I can provide some photos of the Mixe and other native individuals, although then you tread into the issue of photos of identifying individuals. That said, Mexico's Freedom of Panorama laws may allow for some leeway. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 06:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

The picture collection should be less vertical and more square. Anyone else supports slightly altering the arrangement?--76.2.31.112 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad pictures, José José, Andrés Pico no is interesting Mexican People. --Marrovi (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Population genetics?

The current snippet on "population Genetics" displayed in the article appears to contradict the 2009 INMEGEN study: PNAS Article. How does the European (EUR) genetic contribution go from 58% in 2006 to 41% in 2009 and the Amerindian (AMR) from 31% to 61% in 3 years? Methinks the abstract to of the article to which this snippet is linked does not share all the data; or it's data is being misrepresented in the article as it does mention that the study was conducted only in certain states which would not represent the entire Mexican variety as a whole as the 2009 study intended to do. The INMEGEN website for some very foolish reason decided to take down the original publication where it was more clear for the lay reader to see the figures. Anyway these current stats being mentioned about the genetic composition of the Mexican population are wrong, simple common sense would tell you this but also the 2009 genetic study which showed radically different figures. Somebody needs to correct this mistake or delete the subsection entirely because it's misinformation. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If the study said that Mexicans are 80% Indigenous, I'm sure you'd be more than happy to leave it alone...--Fernirm (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And I am most sure that it is because it says "Mexicans are (genetically) 58.96% European" that you insist on leaving this misinformation posted. Ever since I first started this Article I have been having a mountain of trouble with people trying to claim Mexicans are more "White" than they actually are even when all the data and evidence says otherwise. Now I am not a geneticist, which is why I have posted that experts in this subject come and interpret the scientific jargon found in most of these published genetic studies. But here you have it from the Horse's Mouth (In Spanish): Televisa News Segment, Aritegui. I'm not touching the Article until an expert has been consulted on this matter. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"And I am most sure that it is because it says "Mexicans are (genetically) 58.96% European" that you insist on leaving this misinformation posted." So what is it supposed to say? That Mexicans are 58.96% Amerindian? Then would that not be misinformation? LOL You know what? I have seen a mountain of people too, but a mountain of people who claim Mexicans are more Amerindian than they really are (like you). And here is a study that shows otherwise (plus other studies conducted) and now you want to deny it. Now, I am no geneticist, but I am not in favor of Indigenists who try to make Mexicans out as Amerindians or overwhelmingly/mostly Amerindian. I saw both videos you posted (and the part 2 to one of the videos), and none state the specific amounts of ancestry in Mexicans. Now, if there was a Mexican census on race, and it showed white Mexicans to form a higher percentage than Amerindians, then I am sure you and others would protest, but if it said there more percentages of Amerindians than whites, then I am sure you would be content. Am I right?--Fernirm (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Mexican Indigenism since it was started mostly by Criollos in the 1920's. What I am saying here is that the information from your source contradicts all other sources I have seen. It's as if the study was conducted on a particular community that does not represent the wider demographic of the Mexican people. And you say there are mountains and mountains of Mexicans claiming Mexicans are more Amerindian than we really are? Or could it be that the Hispanicists are the ones living under the delusion that Mexicans are predominantly European? No wait, scratch that; I have talked to Hispanicists and not even they believe in this. Their agenda is only that the Hispanic Element is the "Superior Element" in Mexican culture and national identity; they never go as far as to claim "most" Mexicans are "mostly" of European admixture. This delusion is a phenomenon I have observed to be a awkward response, spread mostly through YouTube, 1,2,3, to all the videos created by fanboys of the Mexica Movement and by all other Mexicans who happen to want to re-establish their identity on the racial grounds that they happen to be predominantly Indigenous, 1, 2, 3, 4. If you saw the last video of the first list you will realize that it doesn't take a cultural Anthropologist with a Ph.D in ethnography to realize that the claim that the majority of Charros are predominantly white is as big a lie as "Weapons of Mass Destruction" back in 2003: Charros. And lastly yes yes I know, This is probably the most unprofessional response I have ever given in Wikipedia but I had to bring to light the cause and origin of this obvious conflict between Euro and Ameri sides that has sprung up all over the web these past few years. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)