Thread: Spanish speaking people indigenous to this continent????

Hi,
I am new to this board and basically just wanted to join some kind of message board on this issue. It's an issue I've been concerned about for a long, long time as I've spent most of my life in the Southwest U.S. as well as worked and lived in a border town (3 miles from Mexico) for 6 years. I see all of America being just like this town within 50 years or sooner at the current level of illegal and legal immigration.

I have so much to say about this issue but I want to start with a question as I am not a world history buff by any means. However, with all this rhetoric about Mexicans being the only indigenous people on this continent, doesn't that little matter of Spain conquering the Aztec Indians of Mexico conflict with this assertion? The current descendants of Mexico and those for hundreds of years now, have been the result of the Spanish conquering the Native Indians of Mexico. Kind of like how the Europeans conquered the Native Americans of the current U.S.A.

The weakness I find in the Illegal activists' argument that they are the true natives of this continent is that they are actually the result of Spainards conquering Indians, not the descendants of the indigenous tribal indians before the 1400's. Not that I think the argument is sound anyways for other reasons. Just wanted to get some other opinions about that particular line of reasoning.

Thanks.

Welcome Jill74 !! It sounds like your knowledge of history is very good !!
We're very glad to have you with us.

Thanks for the welcome. I look forward to the discussions. I just noticed the post about the server move. Can you tell me if I should keep posting on this site?

Thanks,

Jill,

You might want to save your posts until Sunday when the move will be complete.

Welcome to ALIPAC!

I would say that there is some historical basis to identity and resonance between the Mexican under class mestizos and the Indians. Whiteness was seen as an advatage and the upper class tends to be lighter.

Their argument is based on the assumption that since the Aztec Indians ancestors were once a group living in the American Southwest the Southwest really is theirs. The Indians have a
few linguistic stocks just as Europeans do (Romance, Germanic and Slavic) and there are more than one in both the United States and Mexico. The Aztlan argument is based on shared use of Uto-Nahuano.

The argument falters in that the linguistic stock shared by the Utes, Pima and Hopi in the US and also the Aztecs actually extends in various tribes down to Nicaragua. For an argument to be valid the Mexicans demanding an open door into the United States should have opened their doors to the Uto-Nahuano of the Central American countries.

Wrapping up, if you want to start an argument call a Hopi a Pima. Indians even sharing the same linguistic stock have their separate tribal identities. Of the Sothwestern Uto-Nahuano few would trade membership in their tribal group for being a kind of Chicano.

hmmm...I don't remember my history all that well. It would seem to me that the European settlers landed at Plymouth Rock before the Spaniards got to Mexico...and then what about the French that also came?

Mexico nor Spain ever settled the SW...some Spaniards were in Cali but there were very very few in Texas...


Does that mean that anyone that rode across, walked across, looked across has claim to the land?
RR

St. Petersburg Florida is the oldest city in what is now the USA. That is the only thing I know for sure right this minute. I could probably come up with a few more facts but I'm too dang tired.

There is some truth that the Aztec and Am Indians were in this part of the country before the Anglos - but they were here before the Spainards also.

It is a pretty sticky wicket to go down the slippery slope, I would say.

Since in the last years, they have discovered that many SW Indians share a DNA with the Asians -supporting the land bridge theory. We know, at least history tells us and the Indians say, there were people here before the Indians - the 'Old Ones' or 'Old People'

So my thoughts on the subject. There are very few places on the planet today inhabited by its original people.

So, should I decide I could just go back to Ireland and push someone out of their lovely 'wee thatached cottage'? I don't think so - might be worth a try, though.

That talk is just a smoke screen.

I have heard that Vicente Fox does not have enough Mexican blood in him to qualify as a minority in the US.

In South Eastern New Hampshire lie ruins of an ancient civilisation that archeologists profess to be some 7000 years old.

It is layed out stone work and has some of the characteristics of ancient druidic constructions found in England.

Needless to say the origins were a "mystery" until something was found amongst the ruins.

Found was a tablet, upon which was a symbol etched into the stone.

It was the Celtic symbol for the SUN!

Nobody owns this Continent, but those that can keep it. If we are to use the logic of the reconquistas then for sure New England belongs to pasty white people. What a joke(their logic that is)!

STAND for the Rule of Law, in the only Nation created to center on the Rule of Law, not men.

BTW: Kennewick Man(google it) found in the Pacific Northwest...genetic analysis of his DNA found him to be a Caucasoid, uh that's a White Guy. The Indians were a bit put off by this application of SCIENCE.

Stick with the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and we will prevail, all of us, of all races, creeds, sexual orientations...etc. etc.etc.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW! MY YANKEE AMERICA!

Yes, stick with the constitution. I agree.

The situation we find ourselves in now demands the enforcement of our laws. It is an unusual situation, however, in that those hired and sworn to uphold and enforce the laws are the ones making sure the laws are not enforced.

So what do we do in that situation?

Sure we can vote - but unless we vote out every single one of them - what difference will it make. They have all had an opportunity to do something about it. They have just recently found out we had a problem - one would think.

So what do we do?

We can't enforce the law - that would put us outside of the law - and up against our very powerful government.

Where am I wrong here??