Talk:Spaniards in Mexico

Translation of Spanish Mexican in Spanish, it would actually be español-mejicano, because Hispanic has a different meaning, Im going to change it.

In Mexico we just call them "Españoles." There is no such term as Españoles-Mexicanos, Mexicans simply do not speak that way. When we are speaking of someone who is not Mexican we refer to them by their respective nationality alone. For example, when refering to people from Cuba we just call them "Cubanos" disregarding whether or not they live in Mexico or are just visiting. This is the typical mannerism of Mexican speech. The idea of conjugating nationalities in this manner comes from the Anglo-American speech where they use such terms as Mexican-American Asian-American Italian-American etc. This speech technique simply doesn't exist in the Mexican tongue and what everyone here in Wikipedia seems to be doing is portraying Mexican culture and values through Anglicized lenses. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition

This article seems to confuse Criollos with Spaniards. Throughout the course of Mexican history which covers the 300 years of "Mestisaje," including the 200 years thereafter the nation's independence the Mexican population has gone through extensive racial and cultural metamorphosis. The Criollo population is not a Spanish population and hasn't been considered one for the better part of these last 500 years. Since early on the Mexican born Criollos with each successive generation being born in Mexico gradually began to become culturally as well as biologically disconnected from the Spaniard identity. Anyone who would dare claim Miguel Hidalgo, Pancho Villa, or Vicente Fernandez as Spaniards would be considered outright fools by the Mexican people who are conscious of their identity. Check with the Mexican historical records and see that the literature therein portrays the Criollos as a separate group from the Spaniards and consider them Mexicans lumped together with Mestizos and Amerindians. Today Criollos are not even identified as a separate group in the Mexican population's consciousness, with the notable exception of a few ethnic nationalist who seek to peddle a racial image of Mexico by feigning a higher number of their racial group. The "criollo" word only appears in history textbooks where Mexican children learn of the events in Mexico's history but never is the word applied or used in the term of events as of the early 1900's [1] to the present.

It is funny that Miguel Hidalgo should be claimed as being a Spaniard here when he clearly wasn't. He was a Mexican Criollo; in fact he was the first to decree the abolition of the very caste system by which ethnic nationalists using this article would seek to claim him under a segregate ethnic-racial group. In short words, Miguel Hidalgo Himself wold most likely protest some of this article's claims and assumptions. Spanish-Mexicans would have to be those individuals who have recently migrated to Mexico excluding the Criollos who have been in Mexico for almost half a millennium and are thoroughly Mexican feeling no affiliation or commonality with Spain, it's culture or identity. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are truly Spaniards in Mexico?

Two people are pictured in this article as being Spanish-Mexicans when there isn't clear proof of it: Ramón Novarro and Salma Hayek. In the article for Ramón Novarro his descent isn't specifically mentioned; he could as well be a Mestizo who looks Criollo like the famous María Félix whom many people think is a Criolla but in actuality was a Mestiza, as her father was a Yaqui Indian. [2] Salma Hayek is mentioned as being of a Spanish mother and Lebanese father thus she isn't technically a Spaniard but rather mixed-race. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article seems it was supposed to capture all people in Mexico that are Desceded from Immigrants to Mexico from Spain regardless of how distant their ancestors. The title may be wrong. A person's ancestry does not change just beacuse their ancestors arrived 2-3 hundred years ago...same for any country in the world.....All the other group articles at the bottom of the page are all their ancstry. Hayek is part lebanese who are a mediteranean people who is still half Spanish ancestry wise, she said this herself...Ramon novarro, i did read that his ancestors came from Navarra in Spain which is why he chose his stage last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.38.37 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Being Spanish-Mexican is very different from being of Spanish descent. This article, due to the it's title Spanish-Mexicans, denotes those people living in Mexico who are Spaniards excluding those of Spanish descent who are long established in Mexico. To use the United States as an example take their immigrant population in contrast with their established population. You don't see anybody say that George W. Bush is an English-American, he is just referred to as being American because his European legacy extends beyond our immediate history. The Bush family are of English and German descent but they are not said to be English/German-Americans and calling them such would be considered ridiculous. You ask if a person's ancestry is less Spanish just because their ancestors arrived 300 years ago? Well the answer is yes unless that group of people remained isolated and inbred and still preserved their culture for those 300 years never adopting any Mexicanisms. In the course of those 300 years their descendants would have been Mexicanized as their children would have grown up in Mexican culture and almost certainly intermixing with other people learning Mexican ways and traditions gradually losing whatever beliefs of mannerisms that made them culturally Spanish. To give you another example look at the Mayors of Chicago: Richard J. Daley and Richard M. Daley. Richard J. Daley's biography mentions him as being of Irish-American descent and sometimes calling him an Irish-American. Now look at his son, the current mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley, he is no longer referred to as being Irish-American but rather as just American. Now, if you want an article that deals with people who are of Spanish descent you have both the White Mexicans and Criollos articles. This article is titled Spanish-Mexicans which in the English language is specifically meant to deal with recent 1st or 2nd generation Spanish immigrants living in Mexico as Mexican citizens who still haven't been thoroughly Mexicanized in Mexico's own "Melting Pot;" or it can go beyond 2nd generation if in Mexico there are Spanish communities in the same way the U.S. has segregate immigrant communities. But since Mexico is not a nation of immigrants to the same extent as the United States the same principles cannot always be applied to Mexico. Another segment this article can include are the Spanish immigrants that arrived in Mexico during the colonial era but who are still not to be confused with Criollos because this group included Mestizos and Castizos.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ocelotl, i disagree with the way you determine one's race or ethnicity based on their assimilation to the rest of the population. One does not magically become non-white or non-whatever descendant just because they are Mexican. -- Lancini87 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, being a descendant is not the same as being actually of that ethnicity or race. I am a descendant of Spaniards, that does not mean I am Spanish, I am not even "white." An Ethnic Group is one that shares certain beliefs, values, habits, customs, and norms because of their common background. Mexicans may have a common background with Spaniards but Spaniards do not have a common background with Mexicans on account of Mexican's predominant Amerindian ancestry and particularly Mexican Indigenous and Hybrid cultural-regional influences thereof. According to Conrad Phillip Kottak in the book Window on Humanity: "Ethnicity means identification with, and feeling part of an ethnic group and exclusion from certain other groups because of this affiliation." One who is ethnically Spanish cannot be said to be ethnically Mexican and vice versa. Some can be "racially" Spanish but still be Mexican due to affiliation (acculturation) or citizenship yet still retaining a separate ethnic identity. So you can disagree as much as you like but this is the standard definition for what ethnicity is. This article is not about descendants, those would be the Criollos; Spanish-Mexicans are just that: Spaniards living in Mexico excluding established Criollos. One's ethnicity is based on one's cultural affiliation, so it follows that the descendants of Spaniards who have become acculturated into the Mexican identity cease to become Spanish unless they themselves make a conscious effort not to become acculturated nor to intermix with Mexicans and remain as isolated immigrant communities. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ocelotl, what you propose would be too narrow a scope, and I throw in unusual, maybe even unique for Wikipedia articles. Most articles that I've come across which have titles of this sort, i.e. made up of two demonyms, refer to people of the latter's nationality who are predominantly or fully of the former's ancestry. So a "Spanish Mexican" is a Mexican who is predominantly or fully of Spanish ancestry. I think the article should be about them, with Criollos as a subset of the group. Maybe the article should be renamed to "Mexicans of Spanish descent" or "Mexicans of Spanish ancestry". If there are concerns that these titles would be overbroad, then maybe "White Mexicans of Spanish descent" (or ancestry) should be used. Spanish expatriates in Mexico, if they are to be kept out of this article, should be dealt with in an article about the Spanish diaspora or in its own article if the subject merits it. SamEV (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

SamEV that is what I have been saying and that is what this article is about. There are already articles for anyone of either predominantly white (White Mexicans) or predominantly Spanish descent (Criollos). This article is more in the scope of Spanish Diaspora because the Spanish people dealt with in this article are not "descendants" of Spaniards, they ARE Spaniards 100% so to speak. I can see how Criollos would be a sub-group of Spanish-Mexicans in this article if these are predominantly Spanish or 2nd or 3rd generation of Spanish parents living in Mexico and still retain a significant Spanish identity. But in this latter case we would be dealing with the gray area of the matter where identities overlap and we would be left to judge whether the glass is half empty or half full. But you are right: "two demonyms, refer to people of the latter's nationality who are predominantly or fully of the former's ancestry. So a "Spanish Mexican" is a Mexican who is predominantly or fully of Spanish ancestry." Criollos may or may not be predominantly of Spanish ancestry, and even if they biologically are, they may not identify themselves as such based on their ethnic affiliation with Mexico. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You edited the lead to what it currently reads. The article is clearly about all people of Spanish descent (at least those predominantly so), icluding those of colonial ancestry. Absolutely each section begins by referring to the colonial period. For that reason and those I gave, I'm about to return the lead to the previous version and I ask you to discuss the matter here and convince the rest of us. SamEV (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC); 00:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's arguable that a section about Criollos should be added, but I suppose that merging the Criollo article into this one is not warranted. SamEV (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Belinda (Spanish/French), Luis Miguel (Spanish/Italian), Salma Hayek (Criolla/Lebanese). How are these people Spanish-Mexicans again? Why isn't belinda a French-Mexican, Luis Miguel an Italian/Puerto Rican-Mexican or Salma Hayek a Lebanese-Mexican? Do you all see what I am trying to say? It's the old problem of "is the glass half empty or half full?" Or more like: "is the glass half water and half oil trying to passing off as a full glass of Soda?" Ocelotl10293 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I just think you can't restrict this to Spanish expatriates; I'm not as interested in other issues pertaining to this article. The rest of you who are really involved should decide whether to focus the article on those who are predominantly Spanish, or significantly Spanish, or to any extent Spanish, ancestrally. If it comes to it, just take a vote (psst, but rembember, Wikipedia is not a democracy). SamEV (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that this article is a mess, and it's much to ambiguous to be a serious encyclopedic article. It doesn't establish any clear scale on who is Spanish and who isn't. It seems to me like it's taking the route of ethnic nationalism where as many people as possible are being included like they have done with the concept of "Whiteness" in the White Supremacist world or of "Blackness" by the Afrocentrics. In the ethnic nationalist world the one drop rule is used to include as many people into their group as possible to engorge their numbers; so even if a person is 1/8 Spanish this would be enough to claim he/she is a Spaniard whether or not such person identifies as Spanish (such as me). I'm "part" Spanish but that does not mean I am a Spaniard and even if I claim to be I would most likely be laughed out the room. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, it looks like you have a clear idea about whom the article should include. If you don't think others will mind, then edit the article according to your reasoning. SamEV (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Title

This article obviously shouldn't be called ‘Spanish immigration to Mexico’; it's about much more than that. There appears to have been disagreement as to the meaning of the word ‘Spanish-Mexican’ in the past (see ‘Who are truly Spaniards in Mexico?’ above); to me as a resident of the US, terms like ‘German-American’ and ‘English-American’ do not seem ridiculous when applied to Americans of German or English descent, respectively, and thus it makes sense to me to call the article ‘Spanish-Mexicans’. If usage differs in Mexico, we should obviously call the article something else, but if it doesn't that seems to be the most reasonable solution. Esszet (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 Most Mexicans have Spanish ancestors mixed with different indigenous tribes, African slaves in some areas and immigrants from the rest of the World....But calling Hernán Cortés an "immigrant" is ridiculous. Hernán Cortés is the Conquistador not just of the Aztec Empire but all the states around it, and many territories which were never part of the Aztec Empire. The New Spain Viceroyalty was much, much bigger than the Aztec Empire. Anyway, the descendants from Moctezuma and the Aztec aristocracy mixed with Spaniards and are now part of the Spanish aristocracy with fidelity to the King of Spain. Cortés is not an immigrant but the Founder of Mexico.--88.16.152.145 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gustavo rojo vieji.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Anacolchero6px.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)