Identity politics: Mexico & elsewhere in Latinamerica

[Kitsunegari]

Since we talked about this a little in a previous thread: Mexicans are by and large a very mixed bunch, maybe >50% European, 45% Native American, and 5% African on average. For the most part there is less Native blood in the north, and much more in the south, near the border with Guatemala. The relatively small mostly European-derived population (peninsulares were those actually born in Spain, criollos or gachupines were born in the New World) has traditionally occupied a dominant position in the social order, many important figures in Mexican history were creoles, eg Father Hidalgo.

Mexican culture (if such a broad term can be applied at all for such a diverse area) is therefore highly syncretic as well. There are lots of Native loanwords, blending of Catholicism with local beliefs, interesting cuisine, etc.

This began to change some in the mid 19th century with a series of civil wars in which mestizos and even Natives (Benito Juarez) asserted their power. However, their is still a (justified) perception that European Mexicans wield a very disproportionate level of influence; even some immigrants, notably the world's richest man Carlos Slim (Lebanese Maronite like my dad's family xD), have risen fast in Mexican society. Despite all this, it seems that there has been a trend of emphasizing the Native aspect of Mexican identity since the last civil war (ended in 1920s). This is easily visible in mural art, statues of native historical figures like Cuauhtemoc, music etc. On the more extreme side there are clowns like Aztlan movement, Rage Against the Machine, and others who glorify the "Aztecs" and vilify Europeans (even the Spaniards whom they are largely descended from) and even claim to support reconquering their ancestral homeland.

So, how important is the "indigenous" movement in Mexico (I guess it has similar incarnations elsewhere) in current political discourse?

As an amusing aside, I found this video of Jessica Alba on George Lopez's show a while back, she is 1/2 mestizo and 1/2 white, but finds to her surprise that she is genetically 87% European. Yes, many Americans confuse Mexico and Spain on a regular basis and don't realize the former is in Europe

[Justice and Mercy]

Yes, many Americans confuse Mexico and Spain on a regular basis and don't realize the former is in Europe

I think you're missing what Ms. Alba was saying. There is a conception among Americans that southern Europeans, namely Spaniards, aren't that white, much like our neighbors to the south.

Racial categorization to us is primarily a means of differentiating between aesthetics so that we can describe people, and southern Europeans are darker-skinned. That's why Alba easily looks half-latino. Geographical regions don't mean a whole lot, we don't describe people as "looking European".

"Ohymygod" whites (as Lopez and Alba put it) are fairer-skinned.

EDIT: With that said: I despise the "indigenous" movement in Mexico just as much as I despise any ethno-nationalist seperatism or supremacism, and I have worked with one latino who described himself as an "Aztec" and had Aztec-styled tattoos. Because it annoyed me I demanded that I be called "Aryan" instead of "white".

[Kitsunegari]

think you're missing what Ms. Alba was saying. There is a conception among Americans that southern Europeans, namely Spaniards, aren't that white, much like our neighbors to the south.

That is what I mean: uneducated people often use "Spanish" as a catch all for anything south of the border, which is hilarious.

"Ohymygod" whites (as Lopez and Alba put it) are fairer-skinned.

Also he called here Farah (Fawcett)

[Justice and Mercy]

That is what I mean: uneducated people often use "Spanish" as a catch all for anything south of the border, which is hilarious.

It makes sense. Can't refer to "anything south of the border" as "Mexican", and latino/chicano haven't caught on yet (because they sound stupid and contrived).

It's not any more ridiculous that referring to white Americans as "anglos" or America as part of the "anglo world".

[Kitsunegari]

No it does not, that's retarded, Spain is a country in Europe. You don't call Brazilians Portuguese.

[Justice and Mercy]

No it does not, that's retarded, Spain is a country in Europe. You don't call Brazilians Portuguese.

Why would I? Brazil is a single country. I can just say "Brazil". Should we say: "All of latin America that's not Brazil or Haiti?"

Calling them "Spanish" makes sense, as long as the context is clear.

'Course, I just call 'em "Mexican", but I've lived in the Southwest my entire life.

[Kitsunegari]

Brazil is a single country.

So is Spain.

Calling them "Spanish" makes sense, as long as the context is clear.

What's wrong with Latino or Hispanic?

[Justice and Mercy]

So is Spain.

Which we call "Spain."

Never heard anything except Spain called "Spain."

What's wrong with Latino or Hispanic?

Latino is contrived, and why is "hispanic" fine with you but not "spanish"? It's pretty much the same thing.

[Facupay]

So is Spain.

What's wrong with Latino or Hispanic?

Latino is related to the romance languages, so Quebec would be added to the latin-americans and the indigenous people would be left out.

Hispanic could be correct but it comes from Hispania, the roman province. Portugal always felt represented by the Lusitanians so some brazilians might disagree with being called hispanic-americans and you still leave the indians out.

You can't name them after a continent because they are two: South America and North America + caribbean.

"Latin america" is a huge grey area with tons of different cultures, languages, religions, colors of skin, geography and economic development, it's impossible to classify it correctly.

Americans should just stick to "hispanic" to talk about brown, poor people who speak spanish.

Edit: Maybe Ibero-americans could do the trick.

[Kitsunegari]

Which we call "Spain."

Never heard anything except Spain called "Spain."

Then why apply that name to people who haven't been Spanish subjects in 200+ years?

Latino is contrived, and why is "hispanic" fine with you but not "spanish"? It's pretty much the same thing.

Hispanic is a linguistic/cultural term, not a nationality, i don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Latino is related to the romance languages, so Quebec would be added to the latin-americans and the indigenous people would be left out.

Maybe Latin but not Latino.

[Condottiere 40K]

What happened to the Semites?

[sumskilz]

What happened to the Semites?

If you mean New Christians, they seem to have made a significant contribution to the gene pool, but that part of Latin American ancestry I think they're in denial about.

[Aanker]

There is nothing wrong with emphasizing a cultural heritage (for instance, Aztec or Mayan symbolism, names, etc.) as part of the national identity, as long as this cultural heritage is not regarded as supreme to other cultures and as long as it does not infringe upon the rights or identities of minorities.

I think that Mexico, in an attempt to make itself more unique (and perhaps even more attractive to tourists), is doing the right thing by acknowledging its Native American roots. The Aztecs and Mayans built impressive civilizations and their descendants live in the country today: it is thus perfectly logical to represent their presence in art, litterature and symbols. What I do not like, however, is the apparent disdain for anything that the Europeans brought, but it is possible that my perception of this "anti-Conquistador" attitude is wrong or even exaggerated, but if such an attitude exists, it is a way of suppressing a part of Mexican history that cannot be neglected. The Europeans did bring slavery, hypocrisy and religious domination to new heights with their arrival, but the positive influences cannot be forgotten and played a crucial role in establishing Mexico as first a distinct province, and later a nation.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I going to overlook the overly reductionist posture of placing Mexico and the rest of Latin America(a concept which even included Haiti at some point) together and state one thing:

South American countries face similar problems of socioeconomic nature yet perceive and reproduce them on radically different ways, a reality that's mostly tied to the cultural heritage of every particular country or more precisely that country's particular ''cosmopolitism''.

There's basically very cosmopolitan areas(Uruguay, Argentina's River Plate basin and Patagonia, Brazil Coastal cities and Brazilia or Rio Grande, Santiago and Southern Chile) which you might easily equate to countries in Souther Europe or certain areas of the US while on the other hand there are countries with geographic areas as culturally indigenous as it gets(most of Bolivia, very northern Argentina, Rural Peru, Ecuador, inner Amazonic Brasil etc.).

The Urban/Rural and Cosmopolitan/Traditional divides in Latin America are the 2 variables that have and still determined our realities as cultural entities.

[Justice and Mercy]

There is nothing wrong with emphasizing a cultural heritage (for instance, Aztec or Mayan symbolism, names, etc.) as part of the national identity, as long as this cultural heritage is not regarded as supreme to other cultures and as long as it does not infringe upon the rights or identities of minorities.

Why emphasize ethno-national identities when it comes to politics at all?

Such backwards thinking is becoming a huge threat in such places as Europe, which certainly ought to know better.

Then why apply that name to people who haven't been Spanish subjects in 200+ years?

Because it's useful, and it fits.

I'm not English, I'm mostly German, but if someone from Mexico called me an "anglo" I would certainly understand what he meant and why he used that word.

Hispanic is a linguistic/cultural term, not a nationality, i don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

But we aren't even speaking of nationality, we're speaking of race. To the American mind the usefulness of race is the ability to describe different-looking people. That's why a half-black man like Obama is simply described as "black", because that's how he looks.

[Col. Tartleton]

Jessica Alba is almost entirely white? Alba? White?


Dirty blonde hair, brown eyes, well within European tan boundaries...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Shocking...

Now, if Lopez was 87% Caucasian I'd be mildly surprised because he looks as American as Sitting Bull but not exactly shocked.

I consider Obama "Black" purely on the facts he married a black woman, integrated himself into that community, has daughters who are by and large black, and he can pass as black. He looks far more like his mother than his father. He considers himself black from his politics although not to the absurd levels of some other prominent members of that group.

Frankly I think the entire concept of the African-American culture as distinct within a culture is outdated.

According to some author who is escaping me, African-Americans have either individually submitted or rebelled. Louis Armstrong being a submitter who went out of his way to be a "" stereotype so that he could make money as a talented musician and still respect the divides of that time and not offend the expectations of the white audience. On the other hand you've got the guys who want to aggressively push. You have to wear one of two masks and you can't be yourself. You're either going to be the passive servant or the dangerous outsider. I think there's merit to that analysis, but we're never going to get anywhere if that's the choice. The only way to actually fix things is to stop trying to fix things. How do you improve race relations? You stop relating as races.

[Kitsunegari]

But we aren't even speaking of nationality, we're speaking of race. To the American mind the usefulness of race is the ability to describe different-looking people. That's why a half-black man like Obama is simply described as "black", because that's how he looks.

Fine, well it's certainly not a racial or even ethnic term either.

The Urban/Rural and Cosmopolitan/Traditional divides in Latin America are the 2 variables that have and still determined our realities as cultural entities.

So would you say that the current paradigm is that of a nativist, movement often agrarian that opposes globalization vs a traditional technocratic elite?

[Condottiere 40K]

I would suppose that any political faction that bases it's support from the agrarian sector would find globalization threatening, if their members find they not only can't compete on the international level, but foreign products were eroding their proportion of their domestic market.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I would suppose that any political faction that bases it's support from the agrarian sector would find globalization threatening, if their members find they not only can't compete on the international level, but foreign products were eroding their proportion of their domestic market.

Depends, in countries with a large share of peasant population like Mexico, Peru or Bolivia the settled population in rural areas very much prefers to maintain their traditional way of life. While on the other hand in heavily industrialized countries(like Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay), where the Rural Sector is ruled by capitalist forms and capital intensive production, the idea is to continue increasing the connection with the rest of the Global Market because prices are really good right now(especially in 2012 and 2011 because of USA's drought).

[Squiggle]

African american as a distinct culture is in no way outdated, nor is the analysis that your either a rebeller or a submitter in anyway accurate either. Quit reading literature.