From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please check out the archives of discussion for any contentious points. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Mestico should not be included in this article[edit]

I feel that mestico should not be included in this article mestizo due to the fact that it is a Portuguese word that does not have the same meaning as mestizo which is a Spanish word. The Portuguese equivalent of the Spanish word Mestizo is non other than the Portuguese word Mameluco The word Mameluco is a term of Portuguese origin describing the first generation offspring of a European and an Amerindian. Mestico is not the same as Mameluco.

Chile isn't a country with a Mestizo majority?[edit]

Apparently according to the map in this page Chile is neither a mestizo nor indigenous majorital country. I'm not sure the queality these stadistics may have, as I dont posses an exact approximate, but if you ask a non-fasist or travelled Chilean he will tell you that Chile is a mestizo country. Unlike Argentina, Chile had a massive mestizaje process, as they ad both a substancial amount of native americans and married them, instead of killing them like in Argentina. Moreover, I'm also aware that Argentina recieved a much larger european inmigration both by number and percentage; in contrast to Chile where the popultion descendant of european migrants accounts for some 20-30%. I'm not sure how good the wikipedia article for chilean inmigration is, but it accoutns the population with european descent as a 17%. Then again, why is Chile counted as a non-mestizo country? By comparison, chile cant be put on the same level of Argentina when It comes to mestizos, Chile is much more similar to the rest of Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) True Chile is a country with a large mestizo population but there is also a part of the total population with a notorious european ancestry specially basque, german, italian and french that had not mixed at all with the rest of the population. This is true specially in the center and the south. This part of the population dominates important aspects of the political and social life of the country. The mestizo population also has less indian blood than in other countries of Latin America. Because the chileans of european descent are mostly in a good economic and social position and the mestizos mostly in a modest economic and social position and since most "non-fascists" belong to the poor or mestizo class and since this poor class has recently improved its status but still resents this elite they like to claim that their ethnic group is the overwhemly predominant group. I am chilean and lived 14 years there and iv my personal experience there I saw a lot of mestizos (although not so mestizos) but also a lot of white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the image of mestizos in a concert[edit]

I want to include the image in the article because it represents how variated mestizos can be nowadays, i really don't see nothing wrong with it and a real life image about the topic in question is always a must in wikipedia. If anybody that disagrees with me is free to coment here and tell me why. Angelicality (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi I'm theryx and although the user Angelicality continue advocating a particular point of view about the image, I respectfully say that I am in total disagreement with the user Angelicality. The people from Colombia appears in the image but the image doesn't say the ethnicity of these people for this reason is more appropriate to use images of people who know certainly that they are mestizos. --Theryx7 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to use single images, because the article is not large enough to support the prescence of multiple images (we need many, because not all mestizos look the same). We've discussed the in-image statement varius times before, now tell me, what do you think the people in the pic looks like? Angelicality (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the mestizos can be very different but the reality is that the people that appears in the image are from Colombia but the image does not describe the ethnicity of the people, Colombia is one of the most ethnically diverse countries of Latin America, therefore it is wrong to think that a group of Colombians are all mestizos. It is a serious mistake, the right thing is to use images of people who know that they are mestizo, 3 photos of famous mestizos from different parts of the world with a correct adjustment of size will allow that images are correctly positioned within the article. --Theryx7 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As of now I've spend nearly one week looking up articles of famous people from latin america, mainly Colombia and Mexico, however, in none of these articles the ethnicy of the people is explicitaly stated, so i believe we will have the same problem bringing up images of famous persons. For such, the image of the concert in Colombia stills the best option, because, to put 4-6 images in the "modern day usage" section is plain impossible. Angelicality (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not impossible to find famous people who are mestizo, moreover it has no sense in the article add an image that does not specify the ethnicity of that group of Colombians, the reality is that it makes no sense adding such images, as you yourself said if you do not know the true ethnicity of a famous person then no sense say that a group of Colombians are mestizos when actually you do not know the true ethnicity of these people.

Colombia is one of the most ethnically diverse countries of Latin America. --Theryx7 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The chile section: "mate with"???[edit]

"a process of 'mestizaje' began where white Spaniards began to mate with the local bellicose Araucanian population of Amerindians" - "mate with"? Seriously? We're not talking about animals here. Honestly not sure whether to change it to raped or had sex with, I don't know enough about it to say what a better term would be. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 15:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Intermarry would be the correct term.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There should be a Disclaimer on the Genetic studies section[edit]

There should be a disclaimer since the statistics shown here is not true for all Mexican individuals. My parents consider themselves "mestizos" I was believed to be mestizo as well. When I took the dna test I was expecting it be around the statistics here were showing. I was really shocked. My mom is from Jalisco (western Mexico) my dad from Zacatecas (central mexico), my dna shows 59% native american, 34% Caucasian (30% euro + 4% MENA), and 7% african! Far less european, way more native and african than expeting because of this article! and my family is not even from the South!--Anen87 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thats pretty obvious, if the Euro % was truely as high as stated you would see alot more "random" white looking kids in mexican families...In reality its very rare. Thats the middle class of course, lower class tend to be wholly Native American or close to it, upper class are far more white. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Is true, I guess I should have known better, only 1 of my 6 siblings came out a lighter shade, my grandma says he looks like Pepe Aguilar, but all the rest of us are medium-to-dark brown; typical. BTW an interesting note that I've came to realize after seeing other Mexican results is that a lot of them are so close but not quite Mestizo due to the presence of Sub Saharan African blood; it has down the european% in Mexicans, even after adding the MENA% they are still off by 1-5% from reaching true mestizo (50% Caucasian) this % they're off by is around the same amount SSA% occupies...--Anen87 (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)