Talk:Demographics of Mexico

Mexico Start‑class Top‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

comment

I erased references to the word "mulato" from the text. It is a word that derives from the Latin word "mulo", which means mule, supposedly meaning that those of mixed European and African descent are a mutated mix of two different species. It is now generally deemed a politically incorrect term. As you can see, I have re worded the text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.103.227 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes, etc.

An anon eitor keeps inserting greengrocer's apostrophes into the text ("1800's", etc.), as well as changing "native Americans" to "Native Americans". The former is just a mistake; the latter offers room for discussion; I take "native to be an adjective, and the whole to be an ordinary descriptive noun phrase, while the anon takes the whole to be a proper name. Any views from other editors? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the two side-by-side, I'm happier with Native American. Seems that the capitalized form is less likely than "native American" to be (mis-)construed as meaning any old person born in the Americas or (heaven forfend) any old person born in the USA. As for the other, every time an anon types a greengrocer's apostrophe, somewhere out there a fairy dies. –Hajor 02:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like it should be "Native Americans" or indians. (And thanks for explaining why I haven't seen a fairy at the bottom of my garden for years.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed all outstanding "native American" to "Native American". This also consistent with the style in the Widipedia entry Native American.

In addition, I've lowercased the word mestizo, since this is how it is presented in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.PaulV 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headings, etc.

I've inserted headings in order to generate a table of contents. I found the article a bit confusing, so I've tried to identify what the paragraphs are about. Have cut wordiness throughout. I regard the copy-edit as essentially done, and have snapped off the copyedit tag from the top. PaulV 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans

Official statistics say Native Mexicans make up 13% [1] of the population (not 10% as the article says). Also, official statistics (same source, just read a little more) say 6% speak an indigenous language. The article, though, says, about the percentage of Amerindians in Mexico, that many believe the figure to be closer to 30%. The reason for the discrepancy is the federal government's policy of using spoken language rather than race as the basis of classification. How can it be so? If the "federal government's policy" for classification is "spoken language rather than race", then they would only report 6% of Amerindians, and not 13%. There is no such "federal policy" to use language as the basis of classification. You are simply looking at the wrong source, INEGI does not report race at all, it only reports language speakers; so people have wrongly assumed that this is the racial classification. Please browse all through the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, CDI ([2]) web page. (CDI was created in place of the Instituto Nacional Indigenista, INI). This webpage includes many of the recent changes in the Mexican Constitution (one which defines Mexico as a pluri-cultural nation, and another one on the rights of indigenous languages). It also reports that almost 13 million Mexican are Amerindian, but only half speak an Amerindian language.

Oh, by the way, the article also says that in Chiapas, Oaxaca and Yucatán, the majority of the population is Amerindian. Well, here are the official statistics (from the same source reported above): Yucatán (59%), Oaxaca (48%), Quintana Roo (39%), Chiapas (28%), Campeche (27%), Hidalgo (24%), Puebla (19%), Guerrero (17%) and San Luis Potosí y Veracruz (15%, both). In other words, only in Yucatan, the majority is Amerindian (maybe you can include Oaxaca, but not Chiapas, 28% is not majority). --J.Alonso 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody responded,so I made the pertinent changes to the article, according to information of the CDI, the 2nd article of the constitution and the Law of Linguistic Rights. More info can be found in another article I made: indigenous peoples of Mexico--J.Alonso 06:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention about high population growth in the indigenous population. I've read on the net that Mexico has slashed it's fertility rate by aggressively promoting birth control through government funded family planning clinics throughout out the country. From the urban areas to remote villages.

The stereotypical "white American" perception of Mexico is that of a demographic timebomb. And the information I mentioned above seesm to directly counter this.

If Mexico has in fact slashed it's population growth through family planning, it would be nice to include in the article because it would have a large impact on Mexico's future economy, population, and relation to the USA. It would also highlight a high degree of pragmatism in a highly catholic (anti - birth control) nation.

The following phrase: Today Afro-Mexicans of relatively unmixed black-African ancestry, as well as Zambos and mulattos, represent only about 0.5% of the population, due to higher birth-rates amongst the other groups as well as their continued absorption into the general population. I don't doubt its veracity, however, the government has NO official records that prove this specific percentage. Would you mind citing your sources? --Alonso 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These data are not to be trusted. Visit Mexico, hispanicized or not, it is Amerindian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.71.71 (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this shouldnt be here but its the first time i comment so sorry again.

Ok first I think there a huge "error" in the ethnography section, first it says this: "it is estimated that around 40% of the population is ethnically White or European, those having Spaniard, French or other Mediterranean ancestry; and then this: Whites or Europeans make up about 9% of the population, mostly descendants of Spaniards".

The other thing that I think could be changed is the title of the Europeans "section", I think it should say White Mexicans, or mexicans of european descent, not europeans. And I think it needs a "section" for mestizos the only number for mestizos that I found is here: "it is estimated that around 40% of the population is ethnically White or European, those having Spaniard, French or other Mediterranean ancestry, mestizos are similarly represented with 45% and 10% is purely Amerindian" Thanks and sorry for my english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.9.102 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many Native Mexicans in Mexico?

I have also read that the number or percentage of native Mexicans in Mexico is actually much higher than official statistics and that the majority of Mexicans are NOT mestizos.Is there any truth in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.28.224 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you read the section on Ethnography. It is well-referenced and will answer your questions. --the Dúnadan 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the truth is absolute. There is a demographic error that has propagated throughout wikipedia articles of many Central and South American countries, the Amerindian, the overt constant, is disregarded and said not to exist as he exists. Amerindian population percentages are severely underestimated (including mestizos which are largely hispanicized Amerindians) and European ones or ones of European derivation are inflated. This silent racism must cease to persist. Mexico is an Amerindian nation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.71.71 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go by the sources, not your opinion. There's no need to go to all the Latin American countries' talk pages pushing a certain point of view. Of course there are many Amerindians, but there are more Mestizos (both Amerindian and European ancestry). It may not be the majority, but there is also a population in Mexico, and other Latin American countries, that is predominantly of European ancestry. Kman543210 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False. Precisely the ones who were understimated were the Whites, descendants of Europeans, after Mexican Independence and, above all, after the Mexican Revolution which was "indigenist". After the Revolution it was promoted the vision of Mexico as an indian Aztec nation trying to erase from the History books the figure of Hernan Cortés. The Aztec Emperor Moctezuma was portraited as the founder of the Mexican nation and for decades only the indian side of History was allowed. But that was a complete fallacy. Because the "hispanization" of Mexico took place mainly after Independence. In fact, the Founding Father of present day Mexico as an Spanish speaking Christian nation is the Conquistador Hernán Cortés. He built the modern Mexico and it is time for him to be recognised as such, instead of the ridiculous and false "indigenism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.146 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The absolute truth of it is that science is at last trumping the age-old indigenismo-hispanidad dichotomy agonized over largely by a handful of zealous and perhaps insecure mestizo intellectuals. The findings are pretty conclusive thus far that upwards of 80% of Mexicans are mestizos genetically-speaking, with variations of ancestral contributions. Gee, what a surprise. Tmangray (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever anyone asks how many Native Mexicans there are in Mexico you will get 2 answers that are within the range of 10% to 30%. This is because there are two definitions of what "native" means: the racial and the political. The number of indigenous people under the political definition of the word is given by the Mexican Census, the INEGI and the CDI. But when you ask what is the actual number of racially indigenous Mexicans (excluding political correctness) the number is somewhere at 30% if you consider those people with a predominantly indigenous genetic admixture to be native as well as those who are hispanicized.

The most reliable sources of information regarding the indigenous peoples of Mexico comes from Mexico's own National Commission for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples (Mexican acronym: CDI) and Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Mexican acronym: INEGI), as well as publications made by universities or peer reviewed articles or journals and encyclopedias (that aren't wikipedia). Now here are some helpful and reliable links, but sorry guys, they are in Spanish. You all can use Google Translate, just copy and paste the material but I have to say that the translations are not always clear or coherent:

Website for the CDI: [3]

The following CDI links have more specific demographics and also defines the criteria for people to be counted as indigenous: [4] This other link will take you to where you can look at more articles which are similar to the previous one: [5]

An academic publication by the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México which reveals racial demographics of various countries, Mexico included: [6]

INEGI Publication on indigenous language speakers: [7]

Population of Mexico and Chiapas from 1585 to 2000, indigenous people shown individually: [8]

Also, genetic studies should show a much clearer picture of the racial composition of Mexico since hard science is much better than judging a nation with 80% mestizos solely on physical appearance or self deluded opinions. Remember that there are mestizos who are genetically closer to the indigenous side but chose to identify as white just as there are those who are genetically closer to Europeans but culturally identify themselves as "indios." Here are some genetic studies:

The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American MtDNA Haplogroups: [9]

Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-America: [10]

Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo populations: [11]

Average ancestry proportions of 6 Mexican Mestizo subpopulations (This is supporting information for the above link): [12]

When one analyzes all the data that is available as well as look at Mexican History a picture emerges: Mexicans are predominantly Amerindian under a Hispanicised self-image. That controversial study by Mexico's National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN) revealed that the average Mexican mestizo has 51%+ Amerindian genetic admixture and that the Mexican population is >80% mestizo. I think the reason many chose to fight against reality is because, as many even in the United States and Europe have noticed, the Mexican popular media still carries a very strong neo-colonial culture that has the legacy of the caste system which has propagated a Hispanicised image of "Europeaness" into the Mexican self-image: Mexican Television from 1988 Modern Mexican Television. The most common rationalization for those who are in denial of Mexico's racial heritage comes almost in the form of a conspiracy theory. Their rationale is that the post-Revolutionary Mexican government has brain washed the masses into believing they are indians through the education system. This is of course absurd and anyone who has ever had his hands on Mexico's school history books can see for themselves that no such brainwashing-language exists. From a personal point of view I think that this mentality is pathetic and it reminds me of this quote by Manuel P. Servin "But many [Amerindian women] seemed to have become aware of their inferiority to their white rivals. Chronicler Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo tells a pathetic story of how Indian girls tried to bleach their skin." Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Mexico is a mestizo nation. I think the only one in denial is you. Mexico is a nation that is multiracial. I think you want to deny that fact because you have an agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for people's crazy agendas. 19:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Rman22 (talk)

Attitudes toward race

I believe this section should be eliminated. It is not encyclopedic. --Alonso 17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentines in Mexico

It says in the article that there are 150,000 argentines in Mexico making it "the country where the largest number of Argentines live abroad". This is very clearly an error, since it's nowhere near the largest argentine comunity abroad. This is not surprising given that the link it's using as a reference [13] is full of such erros. For example it gives a figure of 70,000 argentines in Spain, when in reality there are 251,380 [14] or 85,000 in the US when there are more than 140,000 only in Los Angeles [15]. The link doesn't even provide a source for those figures.

About the actual number of argentines in Mexico, official data by the CONAPO [16] derived from the 2000 census gives a figure of 6,280. [17] [18] The Argentine Embassy -quoted in this 2003 Houston Chronicle article [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/925192/posts]- speaks of 12,000 . The Argentine Foreign Relations Ministry, -quoted in this 2006 Clarín article [19]- gives an estimate of 15,000 for Argentine residents in Mexico City.

All these numbers are clearly not consistent with the 150,000 estimate mentioned above.

If someone feels the article must have a figure of argentine residents, first it should remove the sentence where it says that is "the country where the largest number of Argentines live abroad". And it should use either the CONAPO figure of 6,280; the Argentine embassy figure of 12,000 or the figure of 15,000 in Mexico City estimaded by the Argentine Foreign Ministry.

Otherwise, I'll delete that reference in the next few days.

Masimossc 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have already discussed this issue in the Talk:Mexico. The numbers provided by CONAPO are only of legal Argentine residents (that is, with FM1 and FM2 status). In the same way, the number of legal Americans residents reported by CONAPO is about 300,000 whereas the real number of all legal and illegal residents (as reported by American Citizens Abroad) is over a million (given that Americans must not be residing abroad to receive Health care benefits, such as Medicare).

Neither Clarin nor the Argentine Embassy in Houston are primary sources (they do not conduct their own censuses in Mexico, but simply estimate or report what other institutions say, however, none of them cite their sources). You cannot use Clarin as your source for figures.

The 150,000 estimate of La Nación (which includes both legal and illegal) was also reported two years before by Reforma citing SRE. We had agreed in the Mexico article to keep the estimate, but to remove the phrase that says that it is the largest Argentine community abroad, since this might not actually be the case. Estimations of illegal immigrants anywhere in the world are far from precise, and they usually underreport the actual figure. In spite of that, and if you ever visit Mexico City you will confirm this, it is evident that the Argentine community there is quite significant, just in the same way the Paraguayan community is Buenos Aires is. --User:Dúnadan 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle is quoting embassy figures, Clarín is quoting Ministry of Foreign Affairs figures. Now, if you're saying that neither of these are primary sources and can't be used as a reference, fine, but I can't see how the La Nación link -which doesn't even provide a source- can be used at all then. Masimossc 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the source cited on the Clarín newspaper (la cancillería). Even if that is the case, neither one is conducting a census in Mexico (Ministry of Foreing Affairs or Embassy figures) and at best only report those who willingly go to register their residence at their local consulates. Like it was discussed in the other article, the decision to keep the figure was not based on La Nación by itself. Like I just told you, similar estimations were also reported by Reforma citing SRE (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores). --Dúnadan 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep the figure that's ok, but you should also include some of the others figures I provided for the sake of painting a complete picture. You said it yourself that these estimations are far from precise, so the 150,000 figure is not a hard fact, but since its the only cited reference, people who read the article think it is. Masimossc 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK we can rephrase the sentence as it was rephrased on the Mexico article. Which other figures do you want to provide? I assume you are talking about the official legal Argentine resident in Mexico figure provided by CONAPO. I wouldn't include the figures of the Argentine diaspora in Spain or the US, after all this is an article about Mexican demographics, not Argentine demographics. --Dúnadan 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another more realistic figure, the one from CONAPO is too low. It's in an article by Mario Gutierrez Vega, Suplemento Enfoque, Reforma, October 16th (2005). Its being hosted at www.ime.gob.mx. It gives a figure of 30,000 estimated argentines in Mexico, that's an estimation of both legal and ilegal. The source is the International Migrations Bureau of Argentina (Dirección de Migraciones Internacionales de Argentina). And is consistent with the total number of argentines abroad. This is the one I'd like to include. Masimossc 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf paper by Gutiérrez Vega suffers from the same weaknesses the other sources. First, it only says that Argentines in Mexico are about 30,000. It doesn't say the figure includes both illegal and legal, and it doesn't provide a direct source for the claim. Based on the last page, you assume it comes from the Dirección de Migraciones Internacionales de Argentina, even though that institution could have provided any other information therein exposed, not necessarily the estimation. And again, this institution would only report the figure of the Argentines that willingly come to the consulates for registration, and does not conduct a census of all immigrants. Moreover, why do you prefer to use an article whose main purpose is to present the concept of voting rights of any Latin American immigrant instead of using SRE figures? I mean, how do we choose whose figure is correct or "realistic"?

I assume that you find it uncomfortable to say that a significant number of Argentines lives in Mexico. As a way of mediating this argument (which has already been discussed and we had a solution agreed before), I would say, again, let's rephrase the sentence. Instead of providing a direct figure for 150,000 we can say, estimations of both illegal and illegal vary from 30,000 to 150,000.

--Dúnadan 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to say that the 150,000 figure should be replaced with the 30,000 one. If both are included like you said, then it's fine.

So the final editing would be adding the 30,000 reference and deleting where it says that it's "where the largest number of Argentines live abroad". If you're involved in the spanish version of the article could you also change it there?

About your reservations. We know for a fact that all the legal argentine residents figures out there are 6,280 (CONAPO, 2000 [20]); 10,600 (Secretaría de Gobernación, La Nación, 2003 [21]) and 12,000 (Argentine Embassy, 2003 [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/925192/posts]). All these are consistent among each other, since the CONAPO figure is prior to Argentina's economic meltdown.

The "Dirección de Migraciones Internacionales" is a department in the Foreign Ministry "La Cancillería". I know from this article [22] that the Foreign Ministry does include an estimation of unregisterd argentines abroad in its calculations. I also know that the total number of argentines (registered and unregistered) abroad is almost a million. [23]. Which is the figure the article by Gutiérrez Vega is using too, since it obviously comes from the same source. It's only logical to asume that the 30,000 include the unregistered argentine residents, given that it's 2.5 times the highest legal resident estimate by the argentine embassy and almost 5 times the lowest estimate from CONAPO.

Finally, it's not that I find the 150,000 figure unconfortable, it's that all the other data I've seen is not consistent with it, but because it was the only number referenced on the article people take it for hard fact when they really shouldn't.

Masimossc 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK we can rephrase it then to say that the Argentine community in Mexico is significant and has been estimated to be somewhere between 30,000 and 150,000, and we add links to the appropriate sources citing different figures.

Now, I wouldn't assume anything about the size of illegal vis-à-vis legal immigrants in Mexico (of whatever nationality). Immigration (specially illegal immigration) is much more complicated than simple arithmetics. Mexico's tourist and immigration laws are quite lax. Moreover Mexico receives around 20 million "tourists" per year (just to give a perspective, Argentina's amazing record high tourism fueled by the cheap peso is of 3 million tourists per year). This huge number complicates all sorts of immigration controls by SRE. For example, American illegal immigrants (expatriates and retirees) number more than a million, and that has even said to be a underestimate (I've read estimates of over 2 million). Finally, CONAPO does not estimate, it reports factual figures of legal residents. It was SRE the institution that estimated it, based on number of Argentine visitors (in Mexico visitors are required to fill and entry form to be rendered upon leaving the country, however, if the visitor loses this form, as it usually happens, they are only required to pay a small fee).

--Dúnadan 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That sounds good enough. Go ahead and edit it whenever you like then. Don't forget the spanish version too. Cheers. Masimossc 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't definately agree with those numbers. Most of the argentineans in Mexico work temporary, and many of the 150,000 are only tourists. The Argentinean goverment settled in 890,000 (source from 2008) argentineans living abroad, mainly in Spain, Unted States, Brazil, Chile and Canada.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacius2011 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in San Miguel de Allende. The article states the following "just in the State of Guanajuato, in San Miguel de Allende and its environs, 200,000 Americans have their residence.[11]" I live in San Miguel and doubt that the total population (Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, etc.) in the whole area is 200,000. The combined population of Americans and Canadians is commonly thought to be around 10,000.

Jerry Steward

San Miguel de Allende's population is, of course, not 200,000. The statement, whose source is the reputable magazine "The Economist", refers to San Miguel de Allende and its environs, referring to all towns in the "Bajío" or Central Mexico (i.e. Guanajuato, Dolores, etc.). --the Dúnadan 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFR

Why does the Sistema Nacional de Información Estadística y Geográfica show a substantially different total fertility rate (2.1) for Mexico than the CIA factbook (2.37) as of 2008? How accurate is the CIA factbook on TFRs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hernán Cortés, Founder of Mexico

The same way as Publius Cornelius Scipius should be considered the Founder of Hispania (Spain) as a Latin nation after the Roman invasion of 212 BC, Hernán Cortés should be considered the Founder of Mexico as an Spanish speaking Christian nation after the Spanish invasion of 1519.

The Iberian chief Viriato and the Aztec Emperor Moctezuma don´t represent neither present day Spain nor present day Mexico. That´s the real truth.

Of course Moctezuma cant be called founder of México, nor can Hernan Cortéz. IF theres one to be called founder of México, it should be Don Miguel Hidalo y Costilla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.9.102 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population number?

it says:

Population
|| 111,157,200
|-
!|Male population
||  50,249,955
|-
!|Female population
||  53,013,433

how can this be? 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Population

where is the citation for the Population number used in the infobox, the CIA fact book has another number see here, either we provide a citation or we change to that number

Please reply to my message on my Talk Page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican People

I am trying to create an article that deals specifically with the Mexican people in the same manner as there exist articles about Japanese, Germans, and Puerto Ricans and I am having a lot of trouble because people keep redirecting the terms "Mexicans" and "Mexican People" into other articles that are not about this subject. Someone please disambiguate these terms so that I can create the article that deals specifically with Mexican People and not the Nation, it's politics, or demographics.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Demographic Trends?

Yes, I know I have edited without reason, and I apologize. My point: We may never know the real ethnography of Mexico since the Mexican gov't does not have a racial census. However, most statistics on this subject are estimates/educated guesses. I say the CIA world factbbook is wrong because it has old sources dating back to 1999 and 2004. The statistics/estimates for the ethnography of Mexico by the CIA is about 20 years old, about when the illegal immigration began. By that time, the demographics might have changed, and the 1990s also brought many white Latin Americans such as the Argentines. This is just my point of view, I am sorry if I have edited perhaps inapporpriately. But I just cannot see the Natives respresenting such a huge chunk of the Mexican population. Especially since most immigration to USA by Mexicans has been by Native and mestizo Mexicans, since all statistics show that they are the poorest in Mexico, whites would not go as illegals, or else the US popular media would picture illegals as white, and not brown (as they always do). The reason they are poor may be the effects of social racism, corruptness, the effects of the old caste system, or any combination of these three. If many mestizos and Natives are leaving Mexico and many whites (such as Argentines) are taking their place, then wouldn't you say that it is only logical for mestizo and Native populations to have shrunk and for white populations to have grown (if by just a little)?--Chris Iz Cali (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say we find more sources and stop relying wholly on the CIA world factbook.--Chris Iz Cali (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration from Mexico is not large enough to make Mestizo Mexicans a minority! Especially when you take into account the fact that they are not exactly infertile. Also the Mestizo (not the fully indigenous) population is bigger than the almost purely white (most are actually Castizos, offspring of Criollos and Mestizos; and Criollos were also usually descended from indigenous people, just distant enough to not count so much in racist Spanish caste laws). Making them out to be mostly white is pretty racist (and illogical, you can tell that most Mexicans are descended from Native Americans just by looking at them, they do not look Spanish etc.) and usually an attempt to say that immigrants from Mexico are white and thus just another immigrant group and thus has no connection to the land over the border, which was traditionally Native American (often Uto-Azteca).

But the government funded studies prove that most are mixed (Mestizo). _ El Santo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.3.161 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct paper for outdated Citation 69

Sorry I'm contributing w/o a username. Anyway, Citation number 69 fails to link to an actual resource. However, I think I found the paper it quotes here:

Evaluation of Ancestry and Linkage Disequilibrium Sharing in Admixed Population in Mexico. J.K. Estrada, A. Hidalgo-Miranda, I. Silva-Zolezzi, G. Jimenez-Sanchez National Institute of Genomic Medicine, Mexico.

http://www.ashg.org/cgi-bin/ashg06s/ashg06?abst=mestizo&sort=ptimes&sbutton=Detail&absno=10071&sid=458153

I tried to fix the reference but I couldnt figure it out. If someone could fix this -- thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.20.140 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say how to access the site step by step instead! 76.172.76.170 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Studies

Here I present three points about flaws in all the instruments and the methods used towards finding the genetic composition of Mexicans. Here is why I am making a big fuss out of it, this article is constantly cited.

1.- "The large majority of Mexicans can be classified as "Mestizos"

Please name a percentage! According to Wikipedia's standards, common knowledge had to be cited.

2.- "A study presented by the American Society of Human Genetics has showed..."

There is no proof that these were the results, if the link is broken!

3.- "The National Institute of Genetic Medicine (INMEGEN) in Mexico and supported by the government in the country showed that ...55% of indigenous ancestry followed by 41.8 % of European, 1.8% of African, and 1.2% of East Asian ancestry."

I don't buy this. Given that the Mexican Government has a corruption index of 3.1, therefore, there is a great chance that the researchers could have interviewed a hand-picked sample. Furthermore, the method of selecting the 6 states was not stated, the number of states that were used in the study constitute to less than 20% of the states in Mexico, and the sample size was too small. Concluding this, the experiment is both externally valid.

Please fix this!
Thank you 06:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your views of the Mexican government (which is very biased) and the validity of the test are irrelevant. The INMEGEN were government sponsored and thus important. Also they picked some of the most populace states. The percentages are fine and make sense when you look at Mexican history and the Mexican people. Trying to turn them almost completely (or mostly) white might be a US bias to try and justify the often racist attitude of anti-immigration against people from Mexico.

Your personal research and bias are not welcome on Wikipedia. - El Santo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.3.161 (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category Race

Shouldn't this be ethnicity? Race only really applies to the human race, unless it is being used archaically to refer to ethnic groups or even clans! - El Santo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.3.161 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are confusing the US usage of "ethnicity" as a euphemism for race, with the more common use of ethnicity to refer to cultural groups sharing language, customs and history. Race refers to largescale groupings of people who are ascribed to groups based on physical traits and usually also social class. In Mexico being "indigenous" or "mestizo" is not an ethnicity but a matter of "race" - belonging to a specific indigenous group e.g. "Maya" or "kickapoo" is "ethnicity". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading graph

The graph is very misleading, because the vertical axis doesn't start at zero. This makes the graph exaggerate the population growth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 08:55, 1 April 201 (UTC)

How is this 'misleading' when the dates are clearly provided? Why would it be more edifying to start at zero? When did the population stand at zero, 100, or 1,000? Your observation makes no sense to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Demographics of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with all these conflicting figures?

Is the indigenous population of Mexico 28% or 14%? Do 99.3% speak Spanish (#Languages) or is it 98.4% (the pie chart) or do 1.2% speak only an indigenous language (#Indigenous_peoples)? 172.5.154.148 (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Demographics of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Demographics of Mexico

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 Demographics of Mexico'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 "Britannica":

From Mexicans of European descent: "Encyclopædia Britannica: Mexico Ethnic groups". January 15, 2015.
From Greeks: "Linear A and Linear B". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved 3 March 2016.

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 ⚡ 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501131011/http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/24/tp-mexican-migration-appears-to-be-in-reverse/ to http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/24/tp-mexican-migration-appears-to-be-in-reverse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the colonial and present white/European population of Mexico

Of the most comprehensive data I've found, I've discovered that I'm correct in stating that colonial Mexico was not housing a more numerous amount of Spaniards than any other racial/ethnic group. We can start by looking at a graph compiled from the figures arrived at by Mexican anthropologist: Gonzalo Aguirre-Beltrán [24].

Aguirre-Beltrán estimates the indigenous population to be at 4.5 million by the beginning of the 16th century. By the middle of the 17th century, the population declines to roughly 1 million. The European population was at under 5,000 near the beginning of the 16th century. It grew to roughly under 15,000 by the mid-17th century. During this period of time, the mestizo population went from a similar under 5,000 people, to an estimated average of roughly 120,000 (mestizos included are hispanicized mestizos, indigenized mestizos, and afro-mestizos), which clearly shows mass interbreeding between indigenous peoples and Europeans, amplified with mass breeding between Mestizos. From the near beginning of the 15th century to the near beginning of the 19th, indigenous people had maintained being the vast majority in colonial Mexico.

Just to emphasize the validity of Aguirre-Beltrán’s work, he compiled these figures from the works of anthropologists like Angél Rosenblat, Juan Díez de la Calle, Alexander von Humboldt, Fernando Navarro y Noriega, etc. [25], and has been referenced and cited by people like Colgate University professor: Michael R. Haines, to Mesoamericanist: Michael Werner. Now, I'd never claim that Sherburne Friend Cook and Woodrow Borah are unreliable sources. On the contrary, their figures corroborate Aguirre-Beltrán’s figures.

In a source provided for the claim of Spaniards oftenly being the most numerous in colonial cities, it directs to a table that supposedly proves this by showing that of colonial Mexico City's 75.6% non-indigenous population, 66.7% of it is Spanish. Along with this, there’s a claim that Mexico City's demographics are reflective of Colonial Mexico's because it houses at least half of Colonial Mexico's total population. What isn't shown is a table that precedes this table on page 215 [26]. It states that for Mexico's central plateau, only 8.44% of the population is non-indigenous based on the average of all it's jurisdictions, which includes Mexico City. For the 3 jurisdictions of Mexico's central coast, 23.07% of the population is non-indigenous based on the average of all its jurisdictions. For Northern Mexico, 52.4% of the population is non-indigenous based on the average of all its jurisdictions. Keep in mind that these percentages are of all non-indigenous Mexicans, which accounts for people aside from Spaniards, like Mestizos and Africans.

When I classify lightness of skin, I am not necessarily conflating lightness with “whiteness” from a “Western”/American perspective, but from the average Mexican citizen's perspective. Mexicans tend to classify each other’s appearances and skin tones with the following slang labels: “negro”/“prieto”, “moreno”, “apiñonado”, “aperlado”, “blanco”, and “güero”. Now, negro is mostly used as a racial distinction rather than a skin tone, but it is still used as a skin tone in this context, nonetheless. From the average Mexican citizen's perspective, “apiñonado” and “aperlado” may be considered “light skin”, which would evidently be lumped into the same category as “blanco” and “güero”. So this would clearly be a place that would require clarification. As for “blanco” and “güero”, these classifications are more so reliant on the overall appearance of the person rather than just the isolated skin tone. A person may have very light to white skin, but may express other Amerindian phenotypes (like slanted eyes, proto-epithantic fold, and wide-set, pronounced cheekbones) [27], which would genetically classify them as a mestizo. A person that would be considered “güero” can have either dark brown, light brown, red, or blonde hair, along with their white skin tone and, possibly, colored eyes. These are the people who would be passing as “white” under the U.S.’s Western standards. There will be people in the “blanco” skin tone category who can be “white” passing because they may be lacking Amerindian phenotypic qualities. But like I have already clarified, a sizable number of Mestizos may display superficial, European qualities, like: white skin, colored eyes, lighter hair, etc. These isolated, superficial qualities don't necessarily make a mestizo white, just as a mulatto who expresses these same qualities would not be considered white. There are mulattos with light to white skin, colored eyes, and lighter--sometimes straight--hair.

Now that we've made these distinctions, we should break down what percentage of “light-skinned” Mexicans are “apiñonado”, “aperlado”, and “blanco”. According to a study conducted by INEGI [28][29], of those that consider themselves “light-skinned”, 37.4% are “moreno” (scale H), 5.2% are “aperlado” (scale I), and 7% are “blanco” (scale J and K). It should be noted that I'm combining scale J and K for convenience; it's possible that the people of scale J only consider themselves “blanco” and those of scale K “güero” simply because lighter skin can correlate with a higher presence of European ancestry, and, consequently, a complete, stereotypical, European appearance in this specific scenario. So, now that we've broken down this cohort of “light-skinned” Mexicans, we can ascertain that of the surveyed group, only 7% are definitely “white”; assuming that there are no white-skinned mestizos in this group. But this is not the only assumption we'll be making. We're also assuming that the people who were surveyed are being truthful in their assessment of themselves, and are not expressing any form of “pigmentism”. Afterall, pigmentism is a very present issue in Mexico.

Now that these issues have been brought forth and addressed, I will remove all inaccurate data provided by reverting to a version that lacked said information and provided more trustworthy information, as these edits have been found to not reflect academic consensus and have most likely been done in bad faith, and I can elaborate on this final point if necessary. HueyXocoatzin (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

You are not understanding what you are reading, the 20 jurisdictions you mention in your argument respecting the central plateau [30] do not include Mexico city or any provinces listed below it, this is obvious after a swift analysis because the summatory of the population of Mexico city and the provinces of Mexico, Tlaxcala, Puebla and Oaxaca is at aproximately 1,600,000 people more than five times higher than the total of the "20 jurisdictions", whose total population is 371,253 people, this actually aligns with my response in your talk page [31], where I told you that due centralization, a bunch colonial cities contained the majority of colonized Mexico's population (cities on which Spaniards often were the majority, which is precisely what the sentence in the article says). Your argument respecting Aguirre's Beltran estimations also favors my point of view, because the group he denominates "Euromestizos" is composed of criollos/whites and mestizos of predominant European ancestry and is bigger than that of of Indomestizos or Afromestizos, what he calls Europeans is what is coloquialy known as peninsulares (people born in Spain/Europe who were living in Mexico). In regards to the last two paragraphs of your reply, other than the fact that what you wrote is completely subjetive and distant from reality (because Europeans with the "H" skin tone exist in high numbers on all European countries and so do people with slanted eyes or curly hair) I don't have much to say. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cook explains that there are two types of presented data; the jurisdictions/sub delegations being separate from larger entities, mainly provinces.[32] So, yes, the average percent of jurisdictions are only for the specifically grouped jurisdictions. I was a bit confused at first because when I was calculating the total non-indigenous population averages, I compared them to the averages of the jurisdictions, which I presumed to be reflective of the whole region. The percentages I got from the average of the total non-indigenous population percentages were very similar to the average jurisdiction percentages. This was the case except for the 20 jurisdictions in the Mexican Central Plateau, which I just concluded was an error on my part for not taking into account some crucial confounding variables that were taken into account for the average jurisdiction percentage. What now needs to be established is how much of the population is European/Spanish in Colonial Mexico.

You're right in stating that colonial Mexico's population was “centralised”, but you're using Mexico City's population figures to push the notion of Central Mexico being largely made up of Spaniards. For starters, Provincial Mexico's population is 10 times larger than that of Mexico City's, and the Spanish population is greater than Mexico City's Spanish population while making up a smaller percentage of the non-indigenous population (136, 295 compared to 52, 706).[33] In the Central Plateau, the total non-indigenous population--excluding the 20 majority-indigenous jurisdictions--is 29.12%, with Europeans being 11.74%. The Central Coast’s total non-indigenous population is 26.37%, with Europeans being 9.66%. In Northern Mexico, the non-indigenous population is the highest percentage at 54.48%, with a European population of 25.63%. The total population of Europeans in these same locations is 498,931[34]--with the indigenous population being 1,684,882[35]. What needs to be taken into account is that this specific Spanish population, that Cook has isolated, is greatly inflated by Euro-Mestizos.

Cook clarifies that many mestizos who were born legitimately, were hispanicized, or were born of parents with high ranking, could and would be identified as “Españoles”; thus, they were an exception in the casta system because they were identified by “Calidad” rather than ancestry.[36] This means they were simply recorded as Spanish, which is something that Aguirre-Beltrán dissects.

Aguirre-Beltrán identified which of the recorded “Españoles” and “Spanish families” were racially mestizos or of full/predominant European stock. According to Robert Mccaa, in section 2.c.,[37] Aguirre-Beltrán’s definition for what constitutes a “Euro-Mestizo” is, “...Spanish-speakers of mixed Indian and European stock.” So, he's illustrated the ancestry of Euro-Mestizos, and hasn't clarified whether these Euro-Mestizos are predominantly European, as you claim, which wouldn't make up a large portion of this population, to begin with, since Spaniards have always been minor fractions of the total population, specifically compared to American Indians. Robert Mccaa explains in section 2.c.: “Indians always made up the overwhelming majority of the population of colonial Mexico, and people of solely African or European origin were always only minor fractions.“ Now, the distinction of “Euro-Mestizo” is clearly predicated on cultural upbringing, similar to “Indo-Mestizo”; however, the case is different for Afro-Mestizos/Pardos since it's defined as, “Spanish-speaking mixed groups with an African component”. Another thing to clear up is that, in the racial caste system, criollos and Peninsulares were not considered separate when “Español” was used to identify people within this racial category. Because of this, criollos were not considered Mestizos and were under the same title as Peninsulares of “Español”, which is not a colloquialism that only identifies Peninsulares. Knowing that Euro-Mestizos far outnumbered Spaniards, we can see how Aguirre-Beltrán's graph and Cook's figures line up (if you do the due diligence and separate Euro-Mestizos from Spaniards in Cook's figures, which, again, Cook did not do). To reiterate, if there are any displaced racial categories in Cook's numbers, they're under the title of “Español” when they should be under the title of “Mestizo”.

But just as a hypothetical, let's assume that the Euro-Mestizos in Aguirre-Beltrán's graph[38] were made up of criollos and predominately white Mestizos, and are given the label of whites (which is not the case). The whites in the mid-18th century would make up roughly 410,000 people. In that same period, Amerindians make up roughly 1,500,000 people. So, even with this non-existent qualifier that would inflate the total population of whites, they are outnumbered by the indigenous people--of course excluding Indo-Mestizos. But as I've already made clear, Euro-Mestizos were not made up of Criollos and predominately white Mestizos.

At the time of colonial America, the Spanish were very enamored with the idea of racial purity, which is precisely why they employed the Casta system. When it came to peopling the Americas with Spaniards, they were persistent on making sure those that would receive the title of a Peninsular was of pure Spanish and Christian bloodline, which was something that stemmed from its use in the Iberian Peninsula at the time of the inquisition.[39] But even with their obsession of racial purity, they had to interbreed with indigenous women since there really wasn't a sufficient supply of Spanish women to largely maintain racial purity, among whites, in Mexico. The rate of interbreeding between Spaniards and Amerindians is somewhat independent of marriage rates since bastardy was very common in colonial Mexico. Robert Mccaa explains in section 2.d.[40], “Bastardy was also more common in urban areas, particularly in the demographic blackhole that was Mexico City...“ There was also a shortage of Spanish women in colonial Mexico[41]. The rate of marriage between real Spanish men and women is not reported here since those numbers are obtained through Calidad rather than ancestry, which Aguirre-Beltrán has sufficiently broken down.[42] If those numbers are reflective of colonial Mexico, the “Español” marriage rate was 73% by 1821. At that point, the European population grew to past 13,000 (no longer colonial), and hispanicized Mestizos were at a staggering +1 million. As I already stated in my previous reply, there was a lot of interbreeding between Spaniards and Amerindians, along with heavy breeding amongst Mestizos, which is what greatly contributed to all three graphed Mestizo populations.

Back on topic, their peopling of the Americas was the most impactful on the modern face of the average Mexican. Their contributions to the average Mexican phenotype would involve the phenotype of the textbook “Español”; that is: white skin, larger lid openings, smaller cheekbones, smaller facial breadth, usually an anti-mongoloid tilt, lighter hair and eyes, etc. Any of these things can be infused with the Amerindian phenotype to produce a completely homogeneous mixing of the two ancestries, or it could produce a more heterogeneous mixture to produce a phenotype similar to these women[43][44] Mentioning that certain people in Europe have phenotypes that emulate those of slanted-eyed Mestizos, with an “apoñinado” skin tone, is just a moot point. Eurasians did not colonize Mexico; thus, they did not contribute to the Mestizo phenotype in any meaningful way. When determining the ancestry of a person's phenotype in Mexico, you need to take into consideration its history and on what hemisphere you're in. So my estimation of Mexico's “white” population being at least 7% of the total population is correct, unless all of the scale H people are whites who developed darker skin because of elongated sun exposure, which is not really probable since skin tone in Mexico is correlated with socioeconomic status[45]; ergo, whites in Mexico are much less likely to work as a laborer and develop darker skin, nor would they want it because of the aforementioned pigmentism.

As someone who's spent two years VEHEMENTLY dispersing and defending your points and sources on this page and others concerning Mexican Mestizos and Mexicans of European descent[46][47][48][49][50], I'd imagine you'd pay more attention to the content you put out. When I say this, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming it was just an honest mistake and not some meticulously put together web of somewhat related and isolated factoids that have been taken out of their full context. But I maintain that you've made all of these edits in bad faith, and were hoping to not be scrutinized to a T. Well, now that it's been demonstrated that your claims were disingenuously put together, I'll revert back to a version that doesn't contain any of the false information you put out, and I hope you'll do the same for the rest of the pages you've edited.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

The problem here is that there's a severe misunderstanding between us (which I chose to believe, isn't intentional) I'm going to be the most concise I can in this reply: First, the arguments you are bringing respecting how indigenous peoples were the majority in the Mexican territory as a whole (which was still largely uncharted) totally miss the point, because the sentence you are removing concerns colonial cities only in the colonial cities, all the sources point out and even you admit, Spaniards were the majority, there's nothing else to discuss in this matter. Your second point about the "Europeaness" of Euromestizos is full of unhealthy suppositions, as I told you before, in the Mccaa's publication you linked "European" refers to people who were born in Europe but were living in Mexico, and a couple of pages below they're refered to as "foreigners", similarly Aguirre Beltrán is clear when he says that the Euromestizos are mostly criollos [51] (page 96) and he states that criollos (as Mexicans born to white/European parents were called) amount to one million people. Your argument about skin color continues being a personal, flawed supposition, because ethnic Europeans with slanted eyes and skin a tone as dark as not H (which can't really be called "dark" and is fairly common) but "G" exists all over Europe (Sergio Ramos from the Real Madrid soccer team comes to mind). Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll always admit to misunderstanding something, and I, in fact, have already admitted to making an error and have thusly corrected myself. This, however, is not a case of misunderstanding on my part nor do I believe this is a case of misunderstanding at all.

Those numbers of Amerindians being the majority in "the Mexican territory" are not from territories that were largely uncharted. These figures come from provinces, cities, and jurisdictions. If these locations were largely uncharted, then we wouldn't have any of the data that we have now because there wouldn't be any documents that would inform us of the population there in the first place. And I never admitted to Spaniards being the majority in colonial cities, particularly Mexico City. I've already gone into detail on Cook's lack of differentiating between hispanicized Mestizos and Españoles (including Criollos).

I am making zero assumption about the ancestral status of Euro-Mestizos. I am basing my statements off the information Mccaa relays about Aguirre-Beltrán's definition of "Euro-Mestizo", which you have ignored. Instead of acknowledging my source's definition of “Euro-Mestizo”, you decide to source terribly interpreted data along with the writer's own definition of what constitutes a “Euro-Mestizo” (not of Aguirre-Beltrán), which involves a conflation with Criollo[52](p. 96, 98). This only further complicates the currently contended definition of “Euro-Mestizo” and can unnecessarily leave this definition up to debate. Seeing that our sources had conflicting information, you should've instead opted for a direct citation of Aguirre-Beltrán's definition of “Euro-Mestizo”. On page 267 of his “La Población Negra en México”[53], he clearly defines the term: “The euromestizo, incorporated into Western culture, always sought to be considered and taken for a white man. In the impossibility of denying remote indigenous characteristics that the European threw in his face, he made himself of the cultures and took into account that the indigenous was not classified among the bad races, by informing his lineage to highlight his Christianity and the negative data of not having a particle of vile blood.” It seems that my initial source's brief interpretation of “Euro-Mestizo” turned out to be correct: “...Spanish-speakers of mixed Indian and European stock.” The record has been set straight as this is directly from the source.

When “foreign stocks” are referred to in Mccaa's publication, they're specifically in reference to ethnic stocks that are not indigenous or a result of race-mixing. Ethnic stocks are initially discussed in the first paragraph of section 2.c.[54]: “Figure 2 roughs out the evolution of the three principal ethnic stocks—Indian, African and European—and their intermixtures from conquest to the last decade of colonial rule.” Now that he's laid-out what he'll be discussing in this section, he continues by explaining the mixed ethnicities and the statistical figures that encompass them. Then, in the 6th paragraph of that same section, he discusses the “foreign stocks”, of which were African and European. It reads: “If the Aguirre-Beltrán series is sound, foreign stocks peaked around 1650 with 35,000 Africans (two percent of total population), mostly slaves, and 10,000 Europeans, mainly Spanish speakers.” As you can see, the mention of “foreign stocks” is in line with what was intended to be discussed, which were ethnic stocks. And just to drive the point home, the sentence that follows that quote reads, “The most dramatic change was the growth of mestizos, or people of mixed stock…” Under the definitions that were set up here, do you honestly interpret that all mestizo groups are only made up of European born whites and African born blacks? If these were the qualifiers set by the author, then very little of the Mestizo populations would be defined by the mixing of those stocks and wouldn't be separated by practiced culture.

And, lastly, let me put to rest your contention with skin color once and for all, as I've already addressed this multiple times. Firstly, I'm not making any assumptions regarding the amount of mestizos who have the single, isolated phenotype of light-to-white pigmentation. What I'm arguing is that there will be Mestizos who will mark scale J and K off. Secondly, the people who colonized and affected the phenotype of the average Mestizo today were not “people from all over Europe”. They were, overwhelmingly specifically, white-skinned Spaniards (which stemmed from the inquisition era[55]), and there were plenty of them[56]. These are the Europeans who came in droves and interbred with indigenous Mexicans to produce Mestizos. They weren't Eurasians from Scandinavia or Near-Eastern mixed people from Southeast Europe. As for Sergio Ramos, he's at scale K[57] at his lightest and between H and I at his darkest (possibly artificially tanned ala bronzer)[58].[59]

And like I stated before, white skin is something that the average Mexican citizen seems to hold in high regards[60], so the amount of people who mark themselves as lighter-skinned in Mexico are not underrepresented. Either way, it seems ridiculous to believe that Mexico's population would be less or equally indigenous as it is white considering the fact that it remained majority indigenous and minority white[61], as was explained in Mccaa's publication in section 2.c., “Indians always made up the overwhelming majority of the population of colonial Mexico, and people of solely African or European origin were always only minor fractions.”HueyXocoatzin (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

Actually, according to historical accounts a large part of Mexico's territory was uncharted until late 1800s, and back when the census was being lifted several government envoys were killed by the hostile indigenous tribes so your statement is incorrect but this is moving away from the actual point of the discussion, I'll try to be even more concise this time: The sentence that reads "Spaniards often were the most numerous ethnic group in colonial cities" is completely correct because all the sources point out and you recognize aswell, Spaniards were the majority in both, the cities (not countryside nor adjacent tribes) of northern and western Mexico and also in the most populous cities in central mexico such as Mexico city and Guanajuato city, this is we are talking of colonized New Spain only not the totality of the territory. There's no "confussion" in respect to what constitutes and "Euromestizo" because the definition is given right in the page 96, and some pages below, in the section titled "establishment of a criollo consience" it is stated again that criollos were born to Spanish/European/White parents albeit some could have had traces of non-European ancestry, this added to the new cultural elements that combined European and Indigenous cultural imagineries led to the creation of the criollo identity (hence name "Euromestizos"), additionaly, if we go to the "source of sources" Aguirre Beltran takes his figures from the estimations of the 1793 census made by Noriega, who refers to criollos as "Spaniards/Whites" not as Euromestizos [62]. And with foreigners Mcaa means peninsulares, it just takes to look at the numbers of peninsulares at the time and then see the number of so called foreigners to see they're the same group. To continue with your skin color argument, well, it continues being tremendously personal and biased (because, if Sergio ramos is in the "K" scale then what scale say, David De Gea is?). Pob3qu3 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it’s as if you’ve been paying absolutely zero attention to what I’ve been thoroughly explaining. There’s no way you can be doing this unintentionally.

The uncharted territories of Mexico are irrelevant to this discussion. The percentages and numbers I gave you for the population of Mexico’s four regions (Central Plateau, Central Coasts, North, and West) are inherently not from uncharted territories. These numbers were attained through records of tributes--including Amerindian towns--which were liable for providing said tribute[63]. These provinces, parishes, and jurisdictions were tributaries because they were colonized. These territories are part of the colony. They don’t encompass the totality of larger, uncharted, colonial Mexico. So, those figures Cook calculated are all from what you define as “colonized New Spain”. Keep in mind that there’s a correlation with better, more detailed, documentation and higher concentrations of the Spanish population. So, this means that the figures given by Cook aren’t completely representative of larger Mexico’s indigenous population because the documents either weren’t documented with specificity or at all. This is what people like Aguirre-Beltran, Navarro y Noriega, etc. have taken into account when calculating the total population, and demographics, of Mexico.

So what that section has only clarified is that criollos began identifying with their birth place rather than their parents’ place of origin. And it states there that the possibility of Criollos not being 100% european is an exception, not the rule. Knowing this, you now really shouldn’t conflate “Euro-Mestizo” with “Criollo”. As I have already clarified (I’m getting really tired of repeating this), the term “Euro-Mestizo” was coined by Aguirre-Beltrán specifically to identify which of the Españoles were the exception of said casta classifications. I’ll quote him again. On page 267 of his “La Población Negra en México”[64], he clearly defines the term: “The euromestizo, incorporated into Western culture, always sought to be considered and taken for a white man. In the impossibility of denying remote indigenous characteristics that the European threw in his face, he made himself of the cultures and took into account that the indigenous was not classified among the bad races, by informing his lineage to highlight his Christianity and the negative data of not having a particle of vile blood.” See, I’m not confused about his definition of the term, there's only ever been a misrepresentation of it… done by you. Now, I’ll again explain why this distinction was necessary. The numbers Aguirre-Beltran used to determine the demographics came from Navarro y Noriega (as you stated and I’ve already explained), which came from Humboldt, which he calculated from the Revillagigedo census. The reason I'm regarding Aguirre-Beltrán in such high-esteem is because he produced the most comprehensive data regarding colonial Mexico's demographics. This is why his terms and their definitions are so important because Navarro y Noriega failed to make the distinctions he made. Again, Navarro y Noriega reported hispanicized Mestizos as “Españoles” because the census based their identity on their calidad. This inclusion of hispanicized Mestizos would inflate the recorded number of Europeans in colonial Mexico's censuses. Cook did this too, and even prefaced his graphs with an admittance to doing so, which he did only for simplicity to compare between his general figures and Aguirre-Beltrán's[65].

Mccaa clearly does not make a distinction between “foreign stocks” and his named ethnic stocks. I’ve already demonstrated that his mentioning of “foreign stocks” are in-line with his named ethnic stocks. And this is corroborated by Aguirre-Beltrán's definitions of “Europeos” as it's further explained by Cook[66]: “The first non-Indigenous category was that of the whites, who consisted of European immigrants and their descendants reputed to be of pure European stock.” Again, this is in reference to Aguirre-Beltrán's terminology, numbers, and graph[67].

I haven't made any arguments regarding the skin color of soccer players you've referred to (at least ones that involve the impacted demographics of Mexico). I've only classified the skin color of one. My arguments concerning skin color are the very real overlapping of light-skinned to white-skinned Mestizos[68] marking themselves off with scale J and K, or expressing the known pigmentism of Mexico by marking themselves off as lighter than what they really are. And, I've made clear to consider what part of the continent you're on when classifying a person's ancestry. If it's a Mestizo in Mexico, their ancestors are bound to be white-skinned Spaniards who were chosen to live in the colony, which is not a personal opinion[69][70][71][72]. What is completely biased is your giant leap of logic in assuming that Mestizos who identify as “light-skinned”, which is what they are, constitute the white population in Mexico. That is, once again, another horrible misinterpretation of the given data. As for the skin tone classification of David de Gea, he's at scale K[73], J [74], sometimes with a slight, yellowish tint that's only really visible in specific lighting[75][76]. Some of his other pictures make him look almost as pigmented as scale H, which leads me to believe that he artificially tans as well (bronzer/melanotan?). Regardless, it's clear that the darker tint isn't his natural, base skin tone.

What needs to be stressed is that I’ve addressed these points ALREADY. I’ve explained the traversed status of the locations that were listed by Cook in his chart of the four regions multiple times. I’ve given Aguirre-Beltran’s direct definition of “Euro-Mestizo” multiple times. I’ve explained the reason for coining the term “Euro-Mestizo” multiple times. This is not a productive discussion and I am not responsible for this stagnant state.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

There's another mistake from your part, because the big majority of indigenous tribes didn't paid any tribute, and this was a complaint that various governors made back when the census was being lifted. Adittionally, I'd like to see on what Aguirre Beltran backs up his claims of the majority of criollos being mestizos because no other source, especially the figures of Noriega, Humboldt or the original census state so (in fact, much has been written about the "criollo resentment" steeming from the unequal treatment criollos received compared to peninsulares despite being of the same race) your claim about he being a better source than the sources from which he based his work on is rather doubious (starting with the fact that the big majority of his work is not publicly aviable). But I believe we've strayed very far from any meaningful discussion and is in part my mistake, because I believed that this was a honest misunderstanding and that showing you proper sources would make you change your mind. But now is clear, based on your selective blindness regarding the sources (you favor Aguirre's over the data of the actual censuses he based his work on) I've presented to you and your poor, subjetive arguments respecting skin color that you are intentionally choosing to not understand.

But here's the thing, the sentence respecting the colonial cities remains correct, and you admitted it some days back then, when your argument to invalidate it was that indigenous peoples were the majority in New Spain as a whole (now you changed your argument to argue that even in colonized Mexico they were the majority, thing that your own source disproves because the so called "20 jurisdictions" of predominant indigenous population have a lower population than a few of predominantly Spanish colonial Mexican cities put together). Your argument about "light skinned Mexicans not being white because some might have some native ancestry" is pointless too, because the white category everywhere you look at includes people of predominant European ancestry aswell. This in no way means I concede to your claim, which I believe is tremendously wrong and can be objetivelly disproved by looking up different phenotypical traits in Mexicans, namely the abscence of the mongolian spot in half of Mexico's population or the frecuencies of blond hair and light eyes on Mexicans (that you keep removing for no reason). It's just that, as I said before, to argue about it is pointless when predominantly European people are always considered to be white by censuses and by the society. Pob3qu3 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not answering sooner than now. I completely forgot about this discussion and it only entered my mind today. Nonetheless, I haven't left the conversation yet for good, but I'm very disappointed to see what I'll be responding to, yet I'm simultaneously not surprised.

You state: “There's another mistake from your part, because the big majority of indigenous tribes didn't paid any tribute, and this was a complaint that various governors made back when the census was being lifted.”

“Indigenous tribes” didn't pay tribute because they weren't part of the colony. The Amerindians that did pay tribute were colonized. This is why Cook/Borah's calculations exist. A possible contention to the fact of some Amerindians not paying tribute would be: the ones who evaded it (by outright leaving the town) or were part of the people deemed as “Gente de Razón” by the Spanish[77]. If you were an Amerindian living in a tribute-paying town, you were bound to pay tribute. And, again, the given numbers are based off tribute censuses recorded in a specific period, so if they evaded tribute, they wouldn't be counted as tributaries because they wouldn't be in the records.

You state: “Adittionally, I'd like to see on what Aguirre Beltran backs up his claims of the majority of criollos being mestizos because no other source, especially the figures of Noriega, Humboldt or the original census state so…”

Aguirre-Beltrán never claimed that Criollos were Euro-Mestizos. You make that assumption because the source you provided incorrectly conflated Aguirre-Beltrán's “Euro-Mestizo” term and graph with their definition of “Criollo”, which Aguirre-Beltrán never did as I've demonstrated by directly quoting him. He specifically stated that he created the term “Euro-Mestizo” to differentiate between hispanicized Mestizos and Europeans, and they weren't just the Peninsulares. And like I've already clarified multiple times, Navarro y Noriega's numbers, Humboldt's numbers, and the original census’ numbers didn't clarify between hispanicized Mestizos, Criollos, and Peninsulares because the census based their classification on calidad and not racial background. His approach to the demographics of Mexico were intentionally much more holistic than any previous anthropologist.

You state: “...in fact, much has been written about the "criollo resentment" steeming from the unequal treatment criollos received compared to peninsulares despite being of the same race…”

The resentment Criollos developed against the peninsulares wasn't racially based. The peninsulares treated them as second-class citizens because they weren't born in their motherland of Spain. This was a belief the Spanish Crown held as well, since they were deemed as not as loyal in contrast to the Peninsulares and were, as a result, given less privileges than Peninsulares.[78] They were still very much regarded as higher status than Mestizos.

You state: “But here's the thing, the sentence respecting the colonial cities remains correct, and you admitted it some days back then, when your argument to invalidate it was that indigenous peoples were the majority in New Spain as a whole…”

I never admitted to any of what you claim. My exact quote: “But just as a hypothetical, let's assume that the Euro-Mestizos in Aguirre-Beltrán's graph were made up of criollos and predominately white Mestizos, and are given the label of whites (which is not the case)./So, even with this non-existent qualifier that would inflate the total population of whites, they are outnumbered by the indigenous people--of course excluding Indo-Mestizos.” That's concerning the total population of colonial Mexico and is in response to: “Your argument respecting Aguirre's Beltran estimations also favors my point of view, because the group he denominates ‘Euromestizos’ is composed of criollos/whites and mestizos of predominant European ancestry and is bigger than that of of Indomestizos or Afromestizos…” Nowhere in my response to you did I ever concede to Spaniards being the majority in colonial cities or in the colony of Nueva Hispania, especially since I've already specified and demonstrated that the population Aguirre-Beltrán identified as “Euro-Mestizo” is not of purely (or at least close to it) European stock like the Criollos and Peninsulares.

You state: “...thing that your own source disproves because the so called "20 jurisdictions" of predominant indigenous population have a lower population than a few of predominantly Spanish colonial…”

I didn't even include the 20 jurisdictions that were more-than-predominantly Amerindian in my calculations, and I even specified this in my response. I kept it out of my calculations because Cook/Borah didn't provide the “Español” population for those grouped 20 jurisdictions. I only calculated the locations of the given indigenous populations that also included the numbers for the “Español” population. And the group of 20 jurisdictions have a larger population than all of the higher percentage “Spanish” locations, with Mexico City being the largest housing 104,760 people for the total population[79]. Don't let your amnesia trick you AGAIN when I bring up these numbers because the “Español” population doesn't separate hispanicized Mestizos from actual, ethnic Spaniards. And that wasn't a source of mine to begin with. You provided it and I used it against you because you misinterpreted/intentionally isolated the data.

You state: “...the white category everywhere you look at includes people of predominant European ancestry aswell…”

Everything you've cited and explained has failed to demonstrate that the people being surveyed were of predominant European ancestry. What can be generally stated is that there exists some correlation with lighter pigmentation and European DNA, but on the other hand, a “few genetic variants could have relatively large phenotypic effects”.[80] And just for the record, a mestizo or mulatto with 60% European DNA and 40% African or Amerindian DNA isn't white, nor do they even phenotypically appear white-passing[81][82]. These people may technically be predominantly European through their DNA, but they're not “white”; this is true genetically speaking and by any current, Western definition, including the ones “racially conscious” Mexicans use to self-identify. They will, however, identify as white if they are at least “white passing”, which is most likely the bulk of all “whites” in Mexico. Now, since the majority of the Mexican population is racially Mestizo, they'll either express the dominant traits of darker pigmentation, which they do, or they'll much less commonly appeal to the recessive gene of their white ancestry and express much lighter pigmentation[83][84][85][86]. This is why I state that the fixed white population (including any “white passing” person) of Mexico will be supplemented by Mestizos who expressed their recessive genes in surveys/studies who are surveying for the pigmentation only. This will also be supplemented by the very relevant pigmentism and increase the likelihood of marking themselves off as lighter than what they are.

You state: “...namely the abscence of the mongolian spot in half of Mexico's population or the frecuencies of blond hair and light eyes on Mexicans…”

I have no definite idea what you mean by “the absence of the mongolian spot” (epithantic fold/mongoloid slant?) nor do I care for you to elaborate on this point. If you are referring to epithantic folds/mongoloid slant, then all I can ask is: where did you get that number of half the population having this isolated trait? Assuming that number is accurate, it wouldn't really speak much to the racial demographics of Mexico since it would only highlight that some Mestizos express the eye-shape phenotype of Amerindians and others don't. As for the frequency of blonde hair and light eyes, it's yet another bastardization of data to push the notion of Mexicans being whiter than what they are. The categories are: Blue/Gray, Honey, Green, Light Brown, Dark Brown/Black. The percentages for these categories are: 1%, 3/2%, 4/6%, 21%, 72/71%[87]--respectively. So we run into the same exact issue, again, in that you baselessly state that the light-brown-pigmented population in Mexico is representative of the white population.

Your arguments have gone from discussing the contents within the works of the scholar Aguirre-Beltrán, to you just leaning on wanting to discredit his work because of some personal disagreement you have. Your standard of an accomplished and respected scholar's worth only being predicated on the general public's level of availability of their works online is a useless, arbitrary, and cancerous one. It not only regresses any progress that has been and could be made in the dispersal of accurate information, but for Aguirre-Beltrán specifically--who has won various awards, has pioneered new fields in anthropology, and is renowned and respected by any scholar that has worked in his field--his terminology and figures have been referenced and discussed by many reliable secondary sources, like Sherburne F. Cook, Woodrow Borah, Michael Werner, etc. His work is a primary source for his work, which can be a secondary source for some of Navarro y Noriega's work, which is a secondary source for some of Humboldt's work, which is a secondary source for the Revillagigedo Census. If you can't understand the value of scholarly reexamination and reworking in academia, then you frankly have no business interpreting any scholarly sources, if that wasn't clear already.

Being obstinate doesn’t help your case, and only stagnates any sort of process being made. But, honestly, this is precisely what I expected knowing your history of being a fervent defender of your distortion of sources for nearly two years. You have invalid arguments; your numbers regarding the white population of modern Mexico are ill-defined and are a result of a tenuous mental link to attempt to correlate a collection of unrelated figures, you’re giving me the run-around, and this discussion ends now. We’ve reached the point of no further discussion as you’ve demonstrated that you're either not able to keep up-to-pace or are intentionally being disingenuous by not honestly acknowledging, addressing, or presenting my points or the terminology arrived at by respected scholars. Along with my patience, I've lost any and all interest in continuing this tail-chase of a discussion. I've invested enough of my time repeatedly explaining simple concepts to you in depth. I won't keep repeating myself since I've sufficiently demonstrated your inability to reiterate data. As this discussion closes, you’ve proven to not be a reliable source of information without a shadow of a doubt. There is no question as to whether your distortions are debatable, and at this point, there is also zero doubt that any past and further edits/reverts done by you are disruptive. Good luck in your life, I hope you find something that is actually productive for your and the general public's sake.HueyXocoatzin (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)HueyXocoatzin[reply]

All your claims are based on incorrect assumptions that numerous sources prove wrong, such as indigenous peoples being tributaries (only a very small percentage was) or you insisting that Europeans and Peninsulares are not the same thing even though when sources are compared, both groups are the same size. And the same thing happens with the Criollo and the "Euromestizo" groups: When sources are compared, turns out both groups are the same size. When I put in doubt Aguirre-Betran's sayings respecting Criollos being Mestizos I'm not being "obstinate" as you say, what I'm doing is weighing down the accuracy of the sources, to do so is necessary in the case of Mexico because the post-revolutionary racial homogenization ideology led to the fabrication of false narratives, a clear as water example of these false narratives is found in Aguirre's (and then Mcaa's book, who cites him) claim that there was mass race-mixing in New Spain because only European men arrived to it, thus they had to take native women as wives, this claim is absolutely false, as the actual census data states that there were more European women than men living in New Spain. Is because of false narrratives like this that we have to be careful about what do we include and what sources we prioritize in the article (your argument about prioritizing Aguirre Beltran for being a revisionist academic is actually self-defeating, because present day Mexican academics are revising XVIII and XIX century censuses data and, as it states in the sources used in this article, they've found that large scale misgenation never happened). Your arguments about phenotypical features remain as uninformed, subjetive and very incorrect assumptions (the mongolian spot, for your information, is a birthmark that is present in the big majority of non-caucasian babies). Not only that, but your argument about hair and eye color sounds oddly familiar [88]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A small section on genetics like in the Spanish version?

Given the controversy and ambiguity surrounding census groups, do you think it would make sense to add a genetics section like in the Spanish article? [89]. Humanophage (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]