MUSEUM EXHIBIT: AFRICAN PRESENCE IN MEXICO
Latino USA's Maria Hinojosa and radio producer Yolanda Perdomo tour the African Presence in Mexico exhibit at the Mexican Fine Arts Center Museum in Chicago.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 16 May 2006 19:44 Post subject: Mexico
Quote:
Three roots
The combination of African, Spanish and indigenous people into interracial families goes back to the 16th century. Names like mestizo (Spanish and indigenous), mulatto (Spanish and African), and Zambo or Lobo (African and Indian) became common place. By the end of the 18th century, one-quarter of the total population was “racially mixed.”
Hi,
Yes. The Black heritage of Mexico should be remembered. Perhaps one day it could be an exhibit about their roots all over the Western Hemisphere.
However, there is just one thing I am certain Latinos detect and they don't like. Because it alters the truth.
First, take a look at this part:
"African, Spanish and indigenous"
We notice that African goes first, Spanish the second, and indigenous goes the third. Moreover "indigenous" goes in lower case! What that it means? What this order is telling us? Notice that the same goes for the definition of Lobo "(African, indigenous)".
The Indian goes the last !!!
That is means the Indian does not matter? In Mexico?
That's not true particularly in Mexico. Indian genetics is the largest majority of the population. By share of the genetic pot the order should be close the following: Indians 50% , Spaniards 35%, other Europeans 14%, Others peoples 1%. And in others there would be many groups, including Africans.
Indian heritage is outstanding in Mexico, because there were several civilizations in that country before any foreigner arrive, and should not be forgotten. Even in this poster, if you see the "Greek patterns" on them representing Mexico, those patterns are of Amerindian origin, or ancient Mexican.
Beside that, I believe is good people know the countries of Latin America have several different heritages, not only the ones of the mainstream.
That's precisely what is mean by the term La Raza: a melting pot.
It's called grammar. indigenous is not capitalized. If it had been Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, ect it would be capitalized. indigenous is a generic word.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 16 May 2006 20:46 Post subject: Grammar
Salsassin wrote:
It's called grammar. indigenous is not capitalized. If it had been Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, ect it would be capitalized. indigenous is a generic word.
Yes "indigenous" is just a generic way to say native, or is the way to say "nothing". Do you really think it is just grammar?
Why that word was selected in the first place? And why is always used in the last place? Authomatic writing, perhaps?
By the way, people don't usually call "indigenous" to the ancient people of Mexico. They preffer to call them the Olmecs, Mayans, Aztecs, etc., names that carry glory in them. That way sound it better. Besides even Mexico comes from Mechicas.
As I say before. Minorities should be remembered but majorities should not be forgotten in the process, either.
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 {Posts: 76 } Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Fri 09 Jun 2006 04:35 Post subject:
Quote:
Yes "indigenous" is just a generic way to say native, or is the way to say "nothing".
I understand your reaction, Omar. Many blacks feel the same way when African is put last. If it makes you feel better, in the more academic writings on old Europe (especially when speaking about invading cultures), "indigenous" is used in the same manner.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 09 Jun 2006 14:21 Post subject: Order
Emperor Cupcake wrote:
Quote:
Yes "indigenous" is just a generic way to say native, or is the way to say "nothing".
I understand your reaction, Omar. Many blacks feel the same way when African is put last. If it makes you feel better, in the more academic writings on old Europe (especially when speaking about invading cultures), "indigenous" is used in the same manner.
Hi,
I just feel the order should be according to the demography of each country. If a group has more people it should appear first, that's all.
In the case of Mexico, Native presence is predominant by large, and the native heritage permeates the culture.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
