Talk:Mestizo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Orphaned references in Mestizo

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

Reference named "Lizcano":

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

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

Mexico's mestizo population

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

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

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

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

The Mexican Mestizo demographic looks all out of whack. It needs to be fixed to meet Wikipedias Standards. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about White mestizos?

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

They are referred to as Castizo or light-skinned to pass as "white" and advance in the social economic ladder if the person of castizo appearance/parents desire to individually. The majority of Chileans, a large minority of Argentinans, and colonies of urban residents of Central Mexico may be dubbed "castizo" with evident Amerindian blood, but less than 26% or one-quarter of Amerindian descent with an overwhelming European geneaology.+ 71.102.11.193 (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mestizo is a racist, colonial term, not biological science

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

Proposal to remove "mesitzo pride" photos

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

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

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

Vandalism by user C.Kent87

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of a Mestizo

A Mestizo can either be:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Ocelotl

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

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

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

It cannot be 60% because one of the articles happens to be up to date and based on hard science which shows 80%, thus the number has to be somewhere over 80% even if it's as low as 81%. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese?

In Brazil, where I live, "mestiço" referring to ALL multiethnic peoples (Asian x African, Arabian x Austronesian, Australian Aboriginies x Siberian, etc), and I've seen people and books using the term to describe dogs with racial/plants with subspecie crossing. I'd like to see the sources of you to say that mestiços are just mamelucos/caboclos people - amerindian and white crossbred write as I learned in school and always read in brazilian sources. 189.106.0.57 (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• The portuguese language plagiarized the spanish denomination, includes criollo(in Brazil criollo not is a etnic spanish; "criollo" in Brazilian portuguese is a synonymous for "nigger") - mestizo in the original meaning is only mongoloid and caucasoid ancestors(in Brazil this is called "mameluco"); mameluco = mestizo..!! Mestiço/mestizo in the brazilian portuguese means "mongrel"/"mongrelizated"(your equivalent in the english language)..!!summarizing: mestizo in spanish = mongoloid + caucasoid (not negroid); mestizo/mestiço in portuguese = mongoloid + caucasoid + negroid(mongrel in english language)..!! signed by anon IP

One should read the article Demographics of Brazil about the complicated issue of racial politics and the transfluency of race compared with being "white" and "black" people in the USA, in how an individual identifies with a certain ethnic/racial heritage in a racially mixed country like Brazil. About 40% of the Brazilian population are mixed, not necessarily Amerindian and European, but can include African ancestry as well; and the over 30% of Brazilians whom are African and 15-20% stated they are white Caucasian with African ancestry, included an African-Amerindian admixture. These are estimates, not exact figures of a small margin of error, and the accuracy of racial data from the Brazilian census was hotly contested and debated. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is now a draft article on my user page at Draft Article: Mestiço (Brazil) and I have removed the reference which equates the Spanish "Mestizo" with the Portugese "Mestiço". You are all correct, the words are from two different languages, two separate cultures, and have two distinct meanings. When the fine points of the Portugese "Mestiço" are worked out we can upload it to an official article such as the Mestiços (Sri Lanka) one. Please feel free to access the draft article on my user page and work on it. Chicaneo (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Removed references to the Portegese Mestiço in the Etymology section and moved to Draft Article: Mestiço (Brazil). Chicaneo (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Removed Sri Lanka section and added to to Draft Article: Mestiço (Brazil). Chicaneo (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Removed Indonesia section and added to to Draft Article: Mestiço (Brazil). Chicaneo (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Removed Brazil section and added to Draft Article: Mestiço (Brazil). Chicaneo (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Argentina & Uruguay

The %'s listed in the article do not match up with the ones listed at the source. i have changed this back so that it in fact corresponds with the source being linked Midny71 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

|== 30 % ?== If today the term "mestizo" simply means Amerindian-European ancestry or other so-called "mixed" ancestry, then the figure should be more like 70 % plus in Latin America - in places like Mexico, Brazil and Peru even the (long established) "white" minorities are to a considerable extent "mixed", a fact confirmed by genetic tests - after hundreds of years this is to be expected. As for the claim in an above post that just 40 % of Brazil are "mixed" - you're dreaming! The trouble here, in this article, is not European and North American racism, the real trouble here is internal Latin American racism. I've met Latin Americans who have insisted they are "European" when in fact they are so obviously of "mixed" ancestry - of course out of politeness I quickly steered away from the topic and have so ever since. Provocateur (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Provocateur, I beg to differ regarding the "real trouble here" and it's not "Latin American racism" vs the lack of North American & European racism. (Sidebar: Technically, North America which includes the US, Mexico & other countries where Spanish is the primary language, is Latin America (see map at Colonial spain). The North American continent, was "discovered" in 1492 by a man who was financed by the Spanish crown and the Spanish explorers who followed claimed all of North America for Spain. The map shows that on the North American continent, Latin America includes all of Mexico & the nearly 2/3 of the United States - although it was not called North America it was called the "Indies" because Columbus had not accounted for the huge American landmasses between Europe and Indochina and he was hopelessly lost.) The real trouble here is that "Mestizo" is a term that is no longer in use in any official way by any of the countries listed in this article. "Mestizo" has ceased to be used in official census counts in the three Americas - North, Central, and South America for some time. It is an antiquated term, in terms of population counts, and yet the various editors of this article speak of "Mestizo" in the present tense, as if it were a relevant category today. The real trouble here is that the World Factbook promulgated by the US Central Intelligence Agency uses the term "Mestizo" in its population counts for the countries listed in this article and that some ding dong of an editor not only has taken CIA promulgated mis-information and put it in this article but has matched it up with tiny flags of the many countries who have not counted the "Mestizo" population for 100 years or more. The real trouble here is that this article is about "Mestizo", a Spanish colonial era term, and every other term for every other type of racially mixed individual known to mankind, on every continent (and some small islands), is also a part of this article. The real trouble here is that the Portuguese Mestiço redirects here when the Brazilian and the South American concept of Mestiço is radically different from the North American, Central American and Peruvian concept of Mestizo. The real trouble here is that editors have used this article as a dumping ground for their own original research and provincial ideals about "Mestizo" instead of contributing facts and citing sources to back up their edits. I could go on and on and on about what the "real trouble" is with this article, but my soapbox is rickety from overuse and it's about to break so I need to jump off. Ciao for now. ;) Chicaneo (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chicaneo's concerns - 'mestizo' doesn't describe any actual ethnic group but is a sorry remnant of the even horrible caste system of new spain that opnly continues to be used in American (as in US) literature when discussing the non-indigenous cultures of latin america. Nobody self-identifies as mestizo. This article treats the concept as if it were current and as if it were an actual ethnic group or racial - neither of which is true. And worse it doesn't even attempt to cite sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Its why I stuck the words "a traditonal term" into the opening, and others (much more knowlegeable than me) have added to it since. The CIA stuff, flags, numbers, I agree with you, they have no place here. Provocateur (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Section on multiraciality in the US removed: irrelevant

This section has nothing to do with the topic of this article which is "mestizo" - not simply mixed and multiracial categories in different countries. The concept of "Mestizo" is particular to the Latin American context and does not apply in the US. I've removed the section so it can possibly be moved to an article where it is more relevant e.g. Race in the United States.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Biracial/Multiracial - United States

Main article: Multiracial

Megan Fox,Native American ancestry

In the United States, the term "multiracial" is used to identify individuals of mixed racial heritage. "Mixed-blood" is the most common term for Native Americans mixed with any other race.

The old English language cognate of mestizo is "mestee", a word originating from the Middle French term "mestis", which is translated to métis in the modern French language. It was widely used by people of mixed White and Native American ancestry before the American Civil War in the 19th century. After the Civil War, the One-drop rule started to include Black people, and the word fell into disuse — except for members of the old tri–racial ethnic groups such as Melungeons, Brass Ankles, Chestnut Ridge people (or Mayles), and Redbones.

Nearly half (48%) of the 35 million Hispanic and Latino Americans counted in the Federal 2000 Census self-identified as "White", and another 3/7 (42%) as "Other". Multiracials came in at 6%. There are many multiracial people of different ethnicities living in the United States. An explorer by the name of Jean Baptiste Charbonneau was perhaps the most notable person of mixed ancestry in the region. His father, Toussaint Charbonneau, was a French Canadian interpreter, and his mother Sacagawea was a Native American Shoshone guide of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Jean Baptiste can be found depicted on the United States dollar coin along with his mother, Sacagawea. Prior to 1848 it was unclear where the Canada-US border lay, and later still before it was enforced. Many Metis lived in Montana and North Dakota.

Hawaii has the highest percentage of Multiracial Americans; mixed-race individuals form roughly 21% of Hawaii's population.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3