Who doesn't like the word hispanic?

[Cleita]

I believe it was a word coined to push people who come from south of the USA border into a box.

Since we are such a varied group of people, what should we be called? Latinos is more encompassing but not entirely true. Spanish isn't true either because many people shoved into the hispanic demographic aren't Spanish, it's just the language that is spoken. And even then many languages are spoken through Latin American by indigenous people, as well as Portuguese.

Anybody have any suggestions for a new word, or should we just go along with hispanic?

[RagingInMiami]

1. It's inaccurate

Just like "Anglo" is innaccurate to describe anybody with white skin, including Jewish-Americans, French-Americans, Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans, who might not even have a drop of English blood in them.

But I really don't see any malicious intent behind Hispanic or Anglo for that matter. I guess Hispanic refers to a common language. I don't think Brazilians are labeled Hispanics. Maybe they're just "other".

I think "Latin American" is more accurate, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about what the government or the media or other Americans want to call me.

[Cleita]

2. You know it never was on government documents prior

to the word being coined to describe us as a race. So when you went to the DMV or SS office on some forms you had to check off your race, like caucasian, African American, Native American, Asian, Pacific Islander. Since most Latinos can check off the first three and there are Asian Latinos as well, it turns we are not any single race. So why did they do this? I think it was a way to separate us from the white people into an underclass because many Latinos thought they were of European descent and described themselves as such. My son-in-law, who is Mexican American has caucasian on his birth certificate. Since I was born in Chile, the Chileans don't care about race so there is no space on my birth certificate for it.

However, we are culturally different from most white and black Americans especially since our language is different so I guess we need some sort of word to describe us.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. Funny that...

on my military papers I was considered "white" and in my drivers license "caucasian" for some reason:silly: In reality I am a light "morena" or "piel canela".

The term "Hispanic" don't bother me. To me it just means that I was born in a Spanish speaking country. I believe some Latin Americans dislike the term "Hispanic" due to its association with Spain (grudge over Colonization seems to be a touchy subject to some just like Anerican Indian and European Americans) But of course, I might be wrong.

Latina, Hispana, Latin, Morena, prieta, hispanic, Puertorra, Boricua, Caribeña... I don't care. Call me whatever you want.

[flordehinojos]

28. i love the word "Caribeña" because i love the Caribbean Sea ...

just earlier this morning i was, in my mind, going back to my childhood and early adolescent years when i swam in the warm waters of the bay in santiago de cuba... the problem with the word CARIBEÑA to describe latinos/latinas in general is that not all come from the area of the CARIBBEAN SEA.

[RagingInMiami]

4. Growing up in Miami

I always considered myself a white Latino. I have black hair and brown eyes and I look Hispanic, even though my dad was Virginian and had green eyes. But even then, my Colombian family members range from some who have fairer skin than I have as well as green eyes to some who are very moreno with very prominent Indian features.

But down there, they just consider themselves Colombian. There are black Colombians, but even then, I don't think it says they are black on the celudad, what they call the national ID. It has a picture so I guess there is no need for a race column.

When I moved to Arizona at the age of 26 with an American girl I was engaged to (no, I didn't go through with it), I was shocked to learn that I wasn't white. She even told me that I wasn't white, but Hispanic.

Shit, I didn't even know I was Hispanic because in Miami, at least back then, we called ourselves "Latin". But I figured if I had to make a choice between Hispanic and White, I'm going with Hispanic. I didn't even give it a second thought even though technically, I guess I could have picked white.

[Swamp Rat]

5. E os brasileiros? Não falam espanhol...

falam português. :)

[Cleita]

6. Si, por este razon, la palabra no sirve para todo.

That's why the word is misleading. I'm sure there is a logic fallacy out there when you try to create an ethnicity that doesn't in fact exist.

It would be as if all white and English speaking people all over the word would be lumped together, calling them yanks because that label just doesn't fit everyone over the world that would be lumped into that demographic.

[Xipe Totec]

19. That's why I like the term Iberoamericano

Iberian-American, which includes Brazil.

As you know, I have a soft spot in my heart for Brazilians, Cape Verdians, and Portuguese.

:hi:

[Cleita]

32. Hey, I like it too.

We should shorten it though. Maybe Iberams? Ideas anyone.

[Popol Vuh]

7. I don't use the term Hispanic or Latino

The way I see it, we are indigenous Americans with some european (spanish) in us. We were born here in America as with most of our family tree. So IMO the correct term to refer to us as is either Native or Indigenous Americans. That is unless you're all or mostly european.

[calico1]

8. What does the term "Latino" mean?

I am Puerto Rican so my ancestory is from Spain, mixed in with Black slaves and a sprinkling of White, French and other European settlers. To me when I think of the word "Latin" I think of the ancient language and also of the Latin language groups which also include French and Italian and Portuguese. I usually refer to myself as Hispanic and never knew until recently that it offended some people. My roots are not from South America though so what should I call myself?:shrug:

[Popol Vuh]

9. It means

Persons related to or derived from the people or culture of Spain. link

Most of us here are mostly related to or derived from the Indigenous people of America. Whether it be the 500 nations of North America. Or the Aztec of Mexico. Or the Inca of South America, etc.

calico1, I think its not necessarily that some people are offended by being called Hispanic or Latino. Its just that with most of us here in America with brown skin are not mostly from Spain.

However, if they're like me, I detest the history of what the Spaniards did to my ancestors. But at the same time I am not offended by someone who refers to me as Hispanic or Latino because I know they're just using that term because that's what they've always thought was the correct one.

[calico1]

10. Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, I agree. The Spanish were horrible. In fact, they killed off the natives of the Island. Where are your ancestors from, btw? It seems the Spaniards screwed all of us, eh?

[demosincebirth]

11. Horrible in what sense?

In their quest for gold they did put an end to human sacrifices in Mexico, Central America and South America, which at the time, in Mexico alone the Aztecs sacrificed up to 50,000 humans in some years. I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out some facts that are sometimes over looked.

[calico1]

12. You tell me.

What I have heard about is the slaughter of our native tribes.

[demosincebirth]

13. I don't disagree with you, Calico. I'm just pointing out some facts

that no one talks about. In History, civilized society has always expanded with the use of the sword. Just sayin'.

[Popol Vuh]

14. Horrible in the sense of

genocide, subjugation, plunder, willful destruction of a culture, etc.

In their quest for gold they did put an end to human sacrifices in Mexico, Central America and South America, which at the time, in Mexico alone the Aztecs sacrificed up to 50,000 humans in some years. I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out some facts that are sometimes over looked.

After slaughtering about 90% of the population, its not like there was anyone left to be sacrificed. "The European and white American destruction of the native peoples of the Americas was the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world."
link



The Aztec did do a lot of human sacrifices, but so did european cultures as well as lots of other cultures. So the Aztec were not unique in that sense.

In Aztec culture the Sun needed human sacrifice to rise again the next day, and the people who were scarified considered it a honor to be sacrificed.

Another thing to note about the Aztec vs the Spaniards. The Aztec didn't wage war in the same manner as the Spaniards. The Aztec didn't kill just for the sake of killing as was the case with the Spaniards. The way the Aztec waged war was to capture the enemy and sacrifice them in their sacrificial ceremonies. To me and you, we might say, so what's the difference, they still killed them? But the differences is; the Aztec mindset was not to waste life, and killing just for the sake of killing was an enormous waste of life to them.

By no means did the Spaniards replace some evil culture with some respect for life culture. On the contrary, they destroyed a highly advanced culture that was much more advanced in astronomy, medicine, ecology, etc, and replaced it with a greedy, disease infested, no respect for life culture.

If you haven't already, just read the accounts of Cortes and the Spaniards when they give their thoughts about how they thought they were dreaming when they came unto Tenochtitlan.

The simple fact is. Whatever you or I might think of as suffering under the hands of the Aztec is totally dwarfed by the holocaust the Spanish brought upon the people.



Three good books to read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/050028346X/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-5222838-2420843?n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806122951/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-5222838-2420843?n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1419611631/ref=pd_bxgy_img_a/002-5222838-2420843?ie=UTF8






P.S. Another thing to point-out about the Spanish vs the Aztecs. In Spain, if someone was caught practicing or just having knowledge of plant medicine. They would be called a witch, convicted as a heretic and tortured to death under the Spanish inquisition. The same faith was true if you studied astronomy and stated any findings that contradicted the bible (which pretty much all astronomy does).

On the other hand, in Aztec Mexico this was certainly not the case..

[Cybergata]

15. ...and we can't forget all the book burning!

All those amazing books by the Maya, burned, all in the name of religion. :grr: I've been studying the Meso-American pre-Columbian cultures all my life, and teaching pre-Columbian civilizations to 6th or 7th graders for 30 years. There is nothing like book burning to make a teacher want to cry.

Anyone who had power, had more atrocities than those with less power. Hum, sound like nothing has changed! We can debate the atrocities of all ancient people over and over because they all did things we can't understand today, but of all the conquering Europeans, no other people intermarried with the Native peoples as much as the Spanish did, especially in Mexico. I celebrate my ancestors coming to New Mexico along with their Native or Mestizo wifes in the 1600s and 1700s. I celebrate the culture that grew out of both the Aztec and Spanish peoples, which a part of the culture of the southwest today.

It took a long time for my Native self to forgive my Spanish self because all over Latin America, the Spanish were brutal to the Native people. I just had to keep reminding myself just how brutal people were around the time of the Mexican conquest. The brutality of the Aztecs to their neighbors is shown in the fact that their neighbors allied themselves with the Spanish. The Spanish killed, enslaves, and brutalized the Natives of Latin America. The sad fact is that it was disease which came with all Europeans that was the poison of genocide that killed the largest percent of Natives in the Americas. Mexico had 1/3 of the Native population after the Spanish came to Mexico. It is a true testimony to the resilience of the Native people that there are so many living today.

Oh, BTW, the Pueblo Native part of me kicked the Spanish part of me out of New Mexico in 1680. This was the FIRST American revolution. The Spanish came back, but they learned a lesson about being good neighbors to the Pueblo people.

[EFerrari]

16. Wow. Although my DNA was South and also East at the time

lol, where can I read about that, Cybergata? It sounds like quite a story!

[Cybergata]

17. Are you asking about the Pueblo Revolt?

If you are asking about the book burning, I'll look for a link on my Latin America School Web Page and be back with you but if you are asking about the Pueblo Revolt, I'm not sure where to look on the Web,. I've been learning about it and teaching about it for so long I can easily type the story right here. It will take less time than searching for a ling.

The Spanish almost gave up on New Mexico after they found nothing of value (as in the Seven Cities of Gold) here with the previous expeditions, Coronado's being the most notable of them. The Franciscans said they had many converts among the Pueblo People, so the Spanish king, I believe it was Philip II who was a very pious man, couldn't give up on all these new converts, so they sent in Franciscan missionaries. The Franciscans had a good track record in South America, but they were pretty nasty here in New Mexico, although I'm sure they believed that they were doing the right thing. They were nasty to the Pueblo People and they were nasty to the Governors. The governors gave back as good as they got. I won't go into the governor hitting the lead priest with whip made from a tree branch or the lead priest who chained a governor up for a year.

The Franciscans set up missions at some of the major Pueblos here in New Mexico. Pueblos are the apartment house structures built of mud and clay by the Indigenous people we call the Pueblo People here in New Mexico.

The Franciscans took over Pueblo lives. The Pueblo People didn't have a problem with Christianity, in fact they could see some similarities to their own religions. The saints aren't to far away from their own ideas of Kachins, which are the spirits of their ancestors or messengers from their gods, which were all gods connected with nature.

The priests outlawed the Pueblo religion, and harshly punished those who practiced it. The Pueblo people were also expected to built the large mission churches and work for the church as servants. Wall building has always been women's work in the pueblos, so the men were constantly humiliated and teased for building the walls of the church. Plus one of the worse punishments for Pueblo people is to have their long hair cut off, and that was one of the punishments. I can not stress enough just how terrible this was for them. It is a major humiliation, not to mention a travesty to hair lovers as myself. Also, the priest had the Spanish settler/soldiers destroy the Pueblo Kivas. This is literally destroying their churches. BTW, Kivas are underground ceremonial chambers where the men of their clan or moiety plan their religious rites or as a meeting place for the men.

At the same time the Spanish had used an encomienda system to defend and protect New Mexico. The settlers were part time soldiers, and the Pueblo people were to work for them for a couple of weeks a year as a way for the king to pay the settler/soldiers for their service to the king. The Pueblos people were also required to give a tax of a bushel of corn and one item like a blanket. In Pueblo society the men were the weavers, and they had long made cotton cloth. So their work was never done, and sometimes the Governors found ways to exploit the work of the Pueblo people. They had sweatshops in the Palace of the Governors where Pueblo people worked making cloth. Believe me, if it was no palace, although we have always called it that. It is a larger than typical for the time adobe structure. We in New Mexico keep propping it up because it has been around since the early 1600s.

For a while the two governments of New Mexico, the church and civil government, were busy fighting each other for control of the Native people and control of the each other. Once they stopped fighting and worked together, the Franciscans really stepped up their quest to destroy the Pueblo religion. It just happened that at the time the Franciscans stepped up their efforts to wipe out the Pueblo religion, New Mexico was suffering one of its periodical, prolonged droughts. Pueblo people were dying of starvation, and the tax was draining them even more than normal. The worse was that they had no control of their lives and couldn't even do their rain dances.

There was a major block in uniting the Pueblos. In New Mexico there are three very distinct language groups among the Pueblos, and one these three has three dialects, It has always puzzled me. The cultures of the differing pueblos have strong similarities, but their languages seem to come from the four directions of the world. Oh, the fourth distinct Pueblo language is used among the Hopi of Arizona. The pueblos had always remained separate of each other. Even Pueblos with a similar language can't always understand what is being said by another Pueblo. Ah, but now some of them did have a common language, that is the Spanish that they were forced to learn by the Franciscans.

Not all the Pueblos united, or joined the Revolt. When it took place, sometime in 20s in August of 1680, it was pretty vicious. Some people who have this stubborn idea that they are Spanish :rofl: call it the something or another massacre, but personally, I've always seen it as a revolution that the Spanish deserved. The missions were the one place that felt the most severe wrath of the Pueblos. A high percent of the Franciscans were killed and the churches were destroyed. Many settlers, some of my ancestors even, were also killed. There are also stories of Pueblos that took in Spanish settlers into their pueblos, especially women, to protect them from the being killed. Many of these people and their half Pueblo children moved back into the Spanish community when the Spanish came back. When the Spanish headed south, the revolt stopped.

I've always thought it was cool that the Pueblos of New Mexico, a people not generally know as warriors or fighters, were the one Native group that successfully kicked out their European conquerors. When the Spanish came back in 1693, they were a different type of Spaniard. Many were Mestizo, or Spanish with Natives wifes. There were Sephardic Jews trying to get away from the Inquisition that moved their office to Mexico City, since many Conversios had moved there to get away from them in Spain. They were people who wanted to work the land, just as the Pueblo people did. There was no more encomienda, no more missions, no more destruction of Kivas, and in time it wasn't important if you were Spanish or Pueblo, just that you were New Mexican.

I'm off to find the book burning link.

Here is one: http://www.ambergriscaye.com/earlyhistory/5.html

Here's a link to my Latin America links, but mostly to pre-Columbian cultures: http://www.jms.aps.edu/JMS/Lopez/link1.htm

Here is a link to pictures of Mayan and Aztec codices: http://www.jms.aps.edu/JMS/Lopez/codices.htm

and, although I have a link on my school pages for New Mexican Native People, the one on my personal page is probably more up to date. http://cybergata.com/native.htm

One more edit.. I forgot to mention just how much I've been giggling over your Subject heading "Wow. Although my DNA was South and also East at the time" :rofl:

[EFerrari]

18. Cybergata! What an amazing story! I've studied in a small way

what they called "Native American Philosophy and Belief Systems" and whatever other courses I could squeese in, so I recognize kiva, pueblo, missions and so on. I even learned to make willow baskets and did a long study of the Southern Paiute people. But, I've NEVER read this story. It's fascinating!

And how surprising that I haven't. lol

:toast:

Thank you SO MUCH for writing it out for me. And thanks so much for those links!

[Cybergata]

21. I love New Mexican History and...

it has always been a history that was as much Native American as it was Spanish. All natives were on an equal footing with the Spanish during the Colonial period from 1693-1820, and received equal treatment, unlike the rest of Latin America at the time. Of course everybody here a mix of genetics anyway, plus it was a damn hard place to survive at the time. The closest settlement to NM was Chihuahua, so they were an island on their own.

New Mexico was a true melting pot between the two groups both in genetic mixing as well as cultural mixing. In the Spanish communities, women became the wall builders, and the Pueblo People started working with silver. The Navajo (Diné) started using sheep as their measure of wealth and using wool to weave blanket.

This brings up the nomadic Native cultures in New Mexico, who made life pretty miserable for both the Spanish communities and Pueblos alike. Now they had Spanish horses, so they could raid, pillage, rape and take captives. I kept running into ancestors who died with arrow wounds fighting off raiding Indians.

It wasn't until the United States moved in that they stopped the raids, but the U.S.used double dealing with them. It is so shameful how badly the U.S. was at keeping treaties with the Native Americans. One of the most devastating groups to raid the settled folk in New Mexico were the Comanche. The Spanish had peace talks with Comanche leaders, and they reached an agreement. The Comanches were good to their word, and never raided another Pueblo or Spanish settlement. Now that is what making treaties should be all about.

[Xipe Totec]

24. With all due respect,

I would point out that at no time did the native Spanish population exceed 10% of the total population of Mexico. This means that most of the present population of Mexico are descendants of the original indigenous people. That is quite different from the situation in the present United States, where the indigenous people were wiped off the map through deliberate genocide.

What you are repeating here is the black legend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

The other point I would make, respectfully, is that the Indigenous population of Mexico was under the protection of Queen Isabella and therefore, specifically, out of reach of the Inquisition. The Inquisition in Mexico persecuted false converts, Jews and Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity but continued to practice their own religions. I do not condone the Inquisition, but I also don't want to condemn it on false facts.

Thirdly, Fray Bartolome de las Casas was a personal enemy of Columbus and many of his accusations against him have been debunked. Bear in mind as well that de las Casas wanted to spare the indigenous populations of the new world by importing black slaves which he did not consider human.

Bartolome de las Casas was no angel.

Peace.

[Popol Vuh]

25. Some points..

And I don't mean any disrespect either.

I think you might be reading a bit incorrectly into some of my points.

When I mention the Spanish Inquisition. I am merely stating facts about the lack of respect toward human life by the Spanish (with no specific reference to location given). This was in response to another poster's post about the Aztec and human sacrifices and quoting numbers derived by Cortes and his men, which by the way are in dispute. You would expect Cortes to exaggerate in order to make himself look justified in doing what he did.

I had also taken note of that poster's choice of language with respect to gold. Cortes wasn't just on a quest for gold, rather, he was on a quest to "plunder" gold and other wealth from people and do it by any means necessary. And to achieve this he did destroy a nation and its culture.

With regard to the point you bring up about Mexico being under the protection of Queen Isabella. Do you also take the position of not condoning that fact alone, being that it means conquering a people and their nation?

My reference to 90% of the indigenous people of America being wiped out as a result of European empire is something that I will still stand-by. Now whether or not the Spanish population ever exceeded 10% is something that I have no information. But just because 90% of a population gets wiped out doesn't mean that those responsible have to make up 10%. The Spanish population numbers is something that I'll have to research. But I still stand by the 90% figure. Point of note: this 90% represents killings, disease brought by the disease infested European, and the harsh conditions the Spanish brought onto the indigenous Americans.

Lastly in regard to the link you posted. I have a major problem in the way it appears to minimize the Spaniards' fanatical greed and their intolerance to a people, their nation and their culture to satisfy that greed.

After everything is said. What we have is Europeans driven by greed with no respect for other people or their land and wealth coming over to America and plundering and destroying a culture.


Peace my brother..

[Xipe Totec]

31. All I ask for, is balance

All I ask is that we not categorically condemn all Europeans as evil, and assume all goodness of the native population.

Because, ultimately, we are all humans and have the same vices, weaknesses, and virtues:



The Spanish are perhaps unique among conquerors in their soul-searching ethical inquiry into the results of their actions throughout the 16th century. "Spain was constantly debating with itself: 'Am I right, am I wrong? What is it I'm doing with these peoples?'" notes Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes in "The Buried Mirror: Reflections on Spain and the New World" (which was published both in book form and as a television documentary to commemorate the five hundredth anniversary of Columbus' landing by presenting the wealth of syncretic cultural manifestations to which it gave rise). Dominican Bishop Bartolomé de Las Casas worked for 50 years to improve the way the Spanish treated the Indians; in 1552 he published "A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies". Bernal Díaz, a soldier in Cortés' army, also wrote a history of the conquest of Mexico, summing it up in this sentence: "We came here to serve God, and also to get rich."

Woodrow Borah of the University of California, Berkeley, points out that "The Spanish made a place for the Indians--as part of the lowest order, but at least they had a place", whereas, "North Americans in many cases simply exterminated the Indians." The native population of Mexico certainly decreased dramatically, but survived alongside the Spanish conquerors and mingled with them. According to Mexican poet Homero Aridjis, "The Spanish were conquered in turn by those they conquered".

http://www.go2mexico.com/?page=mexico_articles/day_of_the_race.php



From: The New Laws of the Indies, 1542

The Laws and ordinances newly made by His Majesty for the government of the Indies and good treatment and preservation of the Indians created a set of pro-Indian laws - so pro-Indian that they some had to be revoked in Mexico and in Peru due to settler opposition. where the viceroy was killed when he attempted to enforce them.

The conflict was between "feudalists" who favored the encomienda system because it maintained society as in the Old World, and the more centralizing "regalists" who wanted to preserve royal power in Spain's new Empire. Eventually the encomienda was allowed to continue.

Charles by the divine clemency Emperor ever august, King of Germany. . . . To the Most Illustrious Prince Don Philip our very dear and very beloved grandson and son, and to the Infantes our grandsons and sons, and to the President, and those of our Council of the Indies, and to our Viceroys, Presidents and Auditors of our Audiencias and royal Chanceries of our said Indies, Islands and Continent of the Ocean Sea; to our Governors, Alcaldes mayores and our other Authorities thereof, and to all the Councils, magistrates, regidores, knights, esquires, officers, and commoners of all the cities, towns, and villages of our said Indies, Islands, and Tierra-firme of the Ocean Sea, discovered and to be discovered; and to any other persons, captains, discoverers, settlers, and inhabitants dwelling in and being natives thereof, of whatever state, quality, condition and pre-eminence they may be. . . .

. . . Item, We ordain and command that from henceforward for no cause of war nor any other whatsoever, though it be under title of rebellion, nor by ransom nor in other manner can an Indian be made a slave, and we will that they be treated as our vassals of the Crown of Castile since such they are.

No person can make use of the Indians by way of Naboria or Tapia or in any other manner against their will.

As We have ordered provision to be made that from henceforward the Indians in no way be made slaves, including those who until now have been enslaved against all reason and right and contrary to the provisions and instructions thereupon, We ordain and command that the Audiencias having first summoned the parties to their presence, without any further judicial form, but in a summary way, so that the truth may be ascertained, speedily set the said Indians at liberty unless the persons who hold them for slaves show title why they should hold and possess them legitimately. And in order that in default of persons to solicit the aforesaid, the Indians may not remain in slavery unjustly, We command that the Audiencias appoint persons who may pursue this cause for the Indians and be paid out of the Exchequer fines, provided they be men of trust and diligence.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1542newlawsindies.html

Peace and understanding, my brother.

[Cybergata]

26. Hum...just how to answer this...

I've been thinking for a while about how to respond to your post. Oh well here goes. The indigenous people were not wiped off the map in the United States, not that the U.S. Government lack a policy of genocide, mostly directed at the Plains Indians. There are many native groups that have a strong and thriving population, not to mention just how many people in the U.S. knowingly or unknowingly have a Native American or two in their family trees.

The Spanish may not have had a policy of genocide toward the Natives of the Americas, but when we speak about the Spanish coming to the Americas for Gold, Glory and God, the Spanish were in first and foremost in the Americas for wealth. Native Americans were enslaved and worked to death in mines and in the fields of the Spanish in Latin America. I serious doubt that the main reason the Spanish started using African slaves was to spare the indigenous people, although Bartolóme de las Casas may have advocated this. He and other Franciscans may have helped to rid Latin America of the encomenda system which led to the exploitation of the native peoples, but that doesn't mean the people who wanted to gain riches and power for themselves and Spain didn't find other ways to exploit and use the natives. The Hacienda systems that were set up next used "the cycle of debt" to keep the natives enslaved. Plus who do you think are the revolutionists in Latin America? They are Mestizo and Indigenous people who have never been allowed to share in the power or wealth of their countries.

There are entire native populations that were totally wiped out. The Tianos of the West Indies is a good example. Where was Queen Isabel when the Spanish hunted the kind and good Tianos in the same manner the British hunt foxes. She was far away in Spain. A lot of good her protection was. I feel sick just thinking of this. When the Spanish arrived in the Caribbean Islands, the first to offer them help, food and hospitality were the same people they hunted like animals.

Have you ever read the accounts of the Spanish conquest in the Americas. The conquistadors were brutal, and I say that after finding out just today that I can trace my ancestrial lines back to a conquistador who was present at the siege of Tenochtitlán. They not only raped, pillaged and plundered the Aztec, but they destroyed the largest city for its time, one that the Spanish described as the most beautiful place that upon approaching it it was like a dream. The European cities were filthy, but Tenochtitlán was cleaned daily. Pizarro was worse in the Andes. To deny the treatment of indigenous people by their conquerors is just like believing George Washington never told a lie or cut down a cherry tree. Plus it is to deny the truth.

You soften the Inquisitions treatment of conversios with your statement "false converts, Jews and Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity," plus by the time most of the descendants of those conversios lived in the New World for a time, they were basically Catholic. Some may have practiced the faith of their forefathers in hiding, and you'd be amazed to find some of these folks still here in New Mexico who are also the most devote Catholics you can find anywhere. The traditions were part of a family traditions, and the tradition of being hush, hush about it was an even stronger tradition. Anyway, if you look into the use of the Inquisition, it was often used as a political tool much like any witch hunt. Anytime the government is allowed to use religion to hound people or question their loyalty and faith, you know they just can't help but enjoy using this as a tool of power over other people.

[Xipe Totec]

27. It will take me some time to respond as well,

Because I do want to have a dialog on the subject.

For the moment, let me just sketch out the direction of my response.

1).- I have read the accounts of the conquest.

2).- The Spanish conquistadors had allies among the the native indians, particularly the Tlaxcalans. Some of them received titles of nobility, became landowners, and traveled northward with the Spanish. The Tlaxcalans did not come as slaves, but as allies and equals. That was not the case for all tribes, but it was the case for some of the tribes that aligned themselves with the crown.

http://www.houstonculture.org/mexico/tlaxcala2.html

3).- I do not soften the treatment of the inquisition, but it is an error of fact to accuse them of persecuting the native indian population. They were here after the Spanish Jews; after my ancestors who fled northward into Chihuahua, Coahuila, New Mexico, Tamaulipas, and Texas.

I'll go over my research material and respond in more detail, perhaps this weekend.

Peace.

[Cybergata]

29. I wrote the previous post with my heart...

and with the knowledge I have. The Taino people I speak of were called the Arawak-Taino people of Haiti. This group of Taino were wiped out. Here's a good web page discussing them: http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/precolumbian/tainover.htm

For a long time the treatment of Native Americans by their European conquerors, or the wondrous things that their ancestors did before the Europeans came was never discussed or taught in schools. This all changed in the 70s and especially the 80s. There seems to be a back lash against the inclusion of the evils of the conquering Europeans.

I've been teaching middle school Social Studies for over 30 years. I have noticed the reversal that has happened since the Bush administration took office. The trend has moved back to what I like to call the "cherry-tree" version of History, that is the glory of the Conqueror and the U.S. can do no wrong. This is pretty much the version of History people of my generation had in schools during the 60s. This is very sad that at a time when Archaeologists are having some very spectacular finds in Mexico, Central America and the Andes (pushing back the date of American Civilizations to an equivalent of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian Civilization) that pendulum is swinging back to omitting Native History.

Omitting Native American History is just a small part of what is happening. In some very conservative areas of the country, Social Studies has been totally eliminated. The College Boards (the AP movement) started pushing for more analytical thinking in the study of History, which I'm sure the fundies and Bushites really fear. My goodness questioning the state's version of history, the bible, the fundies or those in power, that is totally unacceptable. Also, in some districts teachers are given scripted lesson plans, and they will be fired it they don't follow them. I would go crazy if I were given a script. Part of the joy of teaching is that I'm constantly learning new things. A script would end that, plus I shudder at the thought about what is in the script. "The Native Americas were happy that they were brought the great Civilization of Europe." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: That's what I'd be during reading the neo-con script.

[Popol Vuh]

30. Cybergata

I really love reading your posts. I myself (at age 40) was a product of cherry picking and omitted history education. That is until about twelve years ago when for no apparent reason, I looked at everything around me and saw all the bullshit. Since that time I've been driven with a deep desire to study, study and study to learn the truth, and to learn my history.

It makes me angy to discover all the lies and all the bullshit that's taught in schools and plastered all over the news and billboards everyday. It makes me angry that people who don't take the time to dig and research to find out what the truth really is, will ridicule and criticize people who do.

Thank god for Teachers like you and Archaeologists who are brave enough to challenge the (so-called) official story when there's hard evidence to the contrary.

One thing I'd like to point out. Doesn't it strike anybody as odd, that when you went to school, and when you watch the history or discovery channel, or when you go through the list of movies that's been produced over all the years. Don't you find it as odd the blatant absents of a rich history of a very ancient culture that was so much more advanced in astronomy, math, medicine and ecology than was much of the history of Europe? Also the blatant absents of the absolute devastation and theft of an entire continent of people that is the modern history of the Americas? Yes I know you get a little bit here and there. But that's like looking through a straw at a totally watered down version.

Where's the major production movies based on ancient American history such as the many you can see based on European history?

Where's the major production TV shows on ancient American history equal to the types you can watch about the Roman Empire, the Greeks, the Vikings, the British Isles, etc?

Even when someone comes around and tries to produce a major production as Kevin Costner did with the documentary "500 Nations". You don't see it played on the History Channel -- no even on PBS. Why?

I know why...........because that's brown people history, and because it doesn't shy away from showing what Europeans did to our ancestors.

I should at this point, point-out that I could care less what color skin an individual has (in fact I am soon getting married to a gal who's blood is Irish). But I do care about the truth and not ignoring it.


Cybergata, too bad we live as far as we do from each other. I'd love to have someone like you and with your knowledge as a neighbor.

[Cybergata]

33. You need to check out the Maya

The Aztecs weren't the creators of much of their civilization. I always use Greek and Rome to explain to my students how Greece created the civilization that Roman adopted and spread. The Mayas were the master minds who had writing, they used the concept of zero, which the Europeans had yet to borrow from the Phoenicians,a calender more accurate than any in the world at the same time, and of it would follow that they were master astrologers. Of course there were people in Meso-America that they borrowed from as well, but they are truly the most progressive people of their time. The Toltecs borrowed from them, and the Aztec from the Toltecs.

The Aztec were actually the late comers to the Valley of Mexico. They made a long journey from Atzlan, which probably was some where here in New Mexico. According to their legend, they were looking for that eagle with a snake in it's beak, perched on a prickly pear cactus whose fruits looked like human hearts. According to their legends, their god, whose name I can say but I don't have a clue how to spell, told them that was THE sign of where they were to make their new home. I love the Aztec legends.

When I first started teaching in 1975 at the youthful age of 21, I was teaching something called "Roots of Our Heritage." We learned about the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans and Medieval European History. I looked at my class full of Brown faces and figured that these topics didn't begin to cover OUR roots, so I started teaching about the Maya, the Aztec, the Anazi & their Pueblo descendants, and the Diné, I've taught U.S. History and basically what would be Cultural Anthropology, but I was so happy when the 7th curriculum, New Mexico History, allowed me to continues teaching about the groups I started included in the 70s. Aztec sacrifices are just perfect for seventh grade boys,

I must acknowledge my father who told me stores about the Aztec and Maya when I was a kid. They stories seemed so "other worldly" to me at the time. I often wondered if he weren't making them up. When I started reading up on the subject, I really had to thank my father because what he told me was what I was reading in the books I found at the University library. My father's stories about our family's past and the Spanish speaking world is a treasure I've tried to passed on to my students.

[judaspriestess]

20. I use Hispanic or American or TEX-Mex

I don't use Mexican cause I am not from Mexico. I was born in the United States of America but I have that obnoxious attitude of I'm a TEXAN. (Bush was born in Conneticut so he is not a Texan)
I embrace my heritage and am proud to be of Mexican descent but I don't like to call myself a Mexican.

[EFerrari]

22. Hi there, judaspriestess.

Maybe he's not from Conneticut, either. Personally, I think he's an alien. :)

[judaspriestess]

23. Howdy Partner

you are too kind to Bush, hes a fucking lizard