more hispanics in us calling themselves indian

[bcbm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/nyregion/more-hispanics-in-us-calling-themselves-indian.html?_r=1

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

good clip about this topic:

UoG-nu2-h2E

[Tim Finnegan]

I wonder, is this to any extent a reaction to the increasing level of public anti-Hispanic rhetoric and ideology in the US, as in, Hispanic people (for want of a better word, given the context) feeling compelled as part of the struggle against this ideology to reclaim their right to ethnic auto-identification, and depart from imposed (i.e. European-American) conceptions of ethnicity? I ask this because it reminds me of the previous emergence of a distinct "African-American" identity as a self-asserting alternative to the imposed category of "Negro". (Feel free to tell me if I'm talking bollocks on either count, mind.)

[BIG BROTHER]

I would be part of this group of people so I can answer why.

Calling yourself indian, is the way in which many of us are taking a political stance against Colonialism, Neo-Colonialism and Imperialism.

Culturally speaking for better or worse we are part indigenous, part european, part african and even some asian.

But as many workers from so-called latin-america develop conciousness many take up the indigenous identity as way to politcally define themselves.

[the last donut of the night]

pretty cool

[black magick hustla]

But as many workers from so-called latin-america develop conciousness many take up the indigenous identity as way to politcally define themselves.

i really doubt this. i think hispanics that call themselves "indian" are either really indian (as in not mestizo), or are activists. a lot of xicano nationalists take the indigenous identity but i think they are not representative of hispanic workers as a whole.

[BIG BROTHER]

i really doubt this. i think hispanics that call themselves "indian" are either really indian (as in not mestizo), or are activists. a lot of xicano nationalists take the indigenous identity but i think they are not representative of hispanic workers as a whole.

Well first of all lets get rid of the term hispanic which is higly chauvinist and Ethnocentric.

You hit correct ponts, we do have actually indigenous people migrating here and Xicanos have taken up indigenous identity as a political stance.

But there is a segment of mestizo people taking up indigenism as a political stance. Among the migrant youth for example I have witnessed this.

Among the majority of workers from so-called latin america, the post-colonial mestizo nationalism is much more common along with latin-american nationalism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

this is kind of unrelated to the actual topic, but aren't the Tlaxcala the tribe that allied with Cortez against the Aztecs?

[agnixie]

this is kind of unrelated to the actual topic, but aren't the Tlaxcala the tribe that allied with Cortez against the Aztecs?

One of the many that did.

[BIG BROTHER]

this is kind of unrelated to the actual topic, but aren't the Tlaxcala the tribe that allied with Cortez against the Aztecs?

In all practical purposes the Tlaxcalan's were the true conquerors of the Mexica(the proper name of the Aztecs), the Totonacas, along many of the nations that were subject to Mexica rule allied with the Spanish.

[Jose Gracchus]

this is kind of unrelated to the actual topic, but aren't the Tlaxcala the tribe that allied with Cortez against the Aztecs?

Yes.

[GPDP]

As a person born and raised in Mexico, and currently living in the US without papers... I gotta say I don't much identify with this movement. I mean, I think it is in a way kind of understandable, and it is true many aspects of contemporary identity among Hispanics/latinos/Xcanos/whatever were indeed imposed upon them, and carry the legacy of European colonialism. I get all of that.

But personally, I have come to the conclusion that my identity rests not within an ethnic past, but within my status as an undocumented worker and as a communist. I do not want to speak for all of my fellow brethren, of course, but the whole thing about identifying with my indigenous roots and reclaiming my culture from that imposed by centuries of imperialism and exploitation to me sounds like trying to get back to some golden age. And believe me, I do not say this to make light of the literal rape of the Americas by the Europeans. I just don't find any particular attachment to that era or its people. Not anymore.

Of course, I'm sure many feel much different about this whole deal than I do. And that's fine, really. I guess it's just not for me. I don't really identify with any nation or ethnicity anymore. I don't see what calling myself an indian will really accomplish for me. I'm a human and a worker first and foremost.

And I just want to stress I am not at all criticizing those who do choose to take up the identity of indigenous. You have your reasons, and I am sure it makes perfect sense to you. Perhaps it's just because of how I was brought up that I do not feel an attachment to my ethnicity, even for the purposes of repudiating imperialism. I already know I should hate it because of my own personal situation as it is. Everything else only strengthens my convictions.

[BIG BROTHER]

As a person born and raised in Mexico, and currently living in the US without papers... I gotta say I don't much identify with this movement. I mean, I think it is in a way kind of understandable, and it is true many aspects of contemporary identity among Hispanics/latinos/Xcanos/whatever were indeed imposed upon them, and carry the legacy of European colonialism. I get all of that.

But personally, I have come to the conclusion that my identity rests not within an ethnic past, but within my status as an undocumented worker and as a communist. I do not want to speak for all of my fellow brethren, of course, but the whole thing about identifying with my indigenous roots and reclaiming my culture from that imposed by centuries of imperialism and exploitation to me sounds like trying to get back to some golden age. And believe me, I do not say this to make light of the literal rape of the Americas by the Europeans. I just don't find any particular attachment to that era or its people. Not anymore.

Of course, I'm sure many feel much different about this whole deal than I do. And that's fine, really. I guess it's just not for me. I don't really identify with any nation or ethnicity anymore. I don't see what calling myself an indian will really accomplish for me. I'm a human and a worker first and foremost.

And I just want to stress I am not at all criticizing those who do choose to take up the identity of indigenous. You have your reasons, and I am sure it makes perfect sense to you. Perhaps it's just because of how I was brought up that I do not feel an attachment to my ethnicity, even for the purposes of repudiating imperialism. I already know I should hate it because of my own personal situation as it is. Everything else only strengthens my convictions.


Yea that is understandable. I actually started like you, being in the same situation you are in, and being from the same country. Except my journey in the Revolutionary struggle, has led me not to abandon Marxism, but also to embrace Xicanismo/Indigenismo.


Having that said, I think the interesting thing about this, like I said before is that this is not that important culturally, as in essence I know my culture and the same of a good number of "hispanics" is a mestizo one. What makes this interesting is that this is a form of revolutionary Nationalism.

[black magick hustla]

Yea that is understandable. I actually started like you, being in the same situation you are in, and being from the same country. Except my journey in the Revolutionary struggle, has led me not to abandon Marxism, but also to embrace Xicanismo/Indigenismo.


Having that said, I think the interesting thing about this, like I said before is that this is not that important culturally, as in essence I know my culture and the same of a good number of "hispanics" is a mestizo one. What makes this interesting is that this is a form of revolutionary Nationalism.
is it really "revolutionary" nationalism though? nobody is denying that those feelings are understandable, but it always seemed to me that the ones that speak the most strongly of this "cultural politics" are college intellectuals, and that average folk do not really take up this "indigenism" or "xicanoism". there is a lot of mythmaking in xicano nationalism, including making up cartoons of pre-capitalist civilizations. i think "nationalism of the opressed" always ends up marshalled one, or the other faction of capital. it obfuscates class politics, it makes it seem as if "we are all in it", while society is divided in classes.

[black magick hustla]

to continue, you might say that "xicano nationalism" is revolutionary insofar it might, on the surfcace, intersect with some of our goals (tell the migra to fuck off). however, even if that was the case, a communist will be forced to break ranks and denounce leadership, look at what happened with union of farm workers and the chavez nepotistic mafia.

[BIG BROTHER]

to continue, you might say that "xicano nationalism" is revolutionary insofar it might, on the surfcace, intersect with some of our goals (tell the migra to fuck off). however, even if that was the case, a communist will be forced to break ranks and denounce leadership, look at what happened with union of farm workers and the chavez nepotistic mafia.

lol the UFW purged its radical members and its in the sad state it is now, because it capitulated to the Democratic Party. Although there is a lot of UFW nostalgia in the Xicano movement and the UFW had a real significance in the development of it, the UFW was never more than a narrow-minded trade union.

And no Nationalism of the oppressed is not confined to only intellectuals, just go to your nearest "immigrant" rights protest which is one of the more militant movements in this country, you'll see that Nationalism is a significan ideological force.

In the 60s the class struggle was taken up by nationalists against capitalism and imperialism because of the chauvinism and well off condition of the white working class. So no rather than being counter productive, nationalism of the oppressed is the only thing that has keep the struggle alive in this country.

Their goals ain't "just telling the migra to fuck off" as a movement in reality there is different level of conciousness, but the more advanced ones is really for the end of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism. Denouncing their leadership for not being communists would be a very ultra leftists and stupid move which would probably burn your bridges when trying to connect your party with the community.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It´s an interesting situation. I know some Mexicans in America who consider themselves Indigenous peoples and not Hispanic (but all of them immigrated from Mexico personally, and are not 2nd generation etc, so legitimately were raised in indigenous households). In fact, since Hispanic implies Spanish language and not all immigrants know much Spanish, it´s quite clear that the picture of immigration from Latin America is much more complicated than being 'Hispanic'. Several million Mexicans and Guatemalans speak indigenous languages first, and so it´s quite an accurate description of those people still in their countries.

Consider the EZLN too, which needed Spanish-speaking outsiders like Marcos to spread their message because the bulk of members consisted of those who only knew Mayan languages. We do know that people from these kinds of communities migrate as well as those from more Mestizo communities.

Another issue to consider is that of race relations within Hispanic countries. Many Hispanic countries have as much racism towards indigenous people as America does towards its minorities. Look at Mexican television or Spanish television in America and you see barely any brown faces-they are almost all white. Indios are hardly seen in a positive light by many 'upper class' folks. If anything, I think American indigenous and 'Latin American' indigenous have a lot in common in regards to social isolation and overall discrimination, as well as a total historical degredation of their cultural heritage. Lest we forget, only 100 years ago the Mexican government was enslaving Yaqui nomads and sending them to the Yucatan as slaves.

Lastly, their culture, such as the Dances (which are common among American Indians) and so on are quite similar. The religions are related too-there are many connections between Southwest American Indian religion and ``Pre-colombian`` religion and the catholic-indigenous syncretism.


As for Mestizos, they can call themselves 'Indigenous' just as much as Obama or Jimi Hendrix or Bob Marley can call themselves 'Black'. Mestizos are a mix of indigenous and hispanic origin people of course.


So I have no problem with Chicanos identifying with indigenous roots. I´m sure many grew up in indigenous households, but even those who didn´t still have a direct cultural and historical connection. Nor is it a bad thing if American Chicanos build positive relationships with indigenous communities both in the USA and in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia etc

[Agnapostate]

Two central reasons explain this phenomenon.

The first is that more Hispanics are Indian in recent times. Whereas Hispanic immigrants of times past primarily came from northern Mexico, the implementation of trade liberalization and the failure to pursue equitable globalization strategy has exacerbated cross-country wage differentials between the U.S. and Mexican and Central American countries.

While corn has been a staple crop of Mesoamerica for several thousand years, Mesoamerican agricultural infant industries were not prepared for direct competition with cheaper imports, i.e. capitalist inequity begets more capitalist inequity. Rural farmers were therefore displaced and migrated north.

The Indian population of Mesoamerica has historically been the highest in North America because of the aforementioned agricultural tradition and remains so today, as well as the most populous region of Mexico and Central America, so when migration from that region increased, the percentage of Hispanics that were Indian did also.

The second is that ethnic identity politics has increased awareness of the Indian component of Hispanics' admixture, which was traditionally denied or minimized due to social stigma. The Chicano movement that developed in the civil rights era of the 1960's derived its name from the term "Mexicanos" (historically pronounced "Meh-shee-kan-os), which referenced the Aztecs.

The institution of Chicano Studies courses in many ethnic studies programs has further disseminated information about this Indian admixture component that influenced many people to self-identify as "Chicano," even, in my view, Mexican-Americans and Hispanics that don't have a meaningful basis for claiming to be Indian, because they are often descended from the whiter populations of northern Mexico.

The "Hispanic" ethnic category is artificially created, and aggregates a very diverse and different number of people, based on linguistic commonalities. An equivalent category would be to take the populations of all Anglophone countries in the world, regardless of ethnic, national, or cultural background, and call them "Anglo," and treat this "Anglo" category as something of significance regardless of the internal ethnic stratification that existed within the category.

To sum up, the "American Indian/Alaska Native" count would be substantially boosted by incorporating many Hispanics (which is an ethnic category separate from "race" in U.S. Census data), as was written by Jack Forbes in in 1980 in Undercounting Native Americans (http://nas.ucdavis.edu/Forbes/Undercounting_Natives,_1980.pdf) and is even truer today.

[Aspiring Humanist]

It might be as a reaction to those militiamen assholes calling for hispanics to "go back to mexico" and those of european descent whining about a mexican invasion when in reality the mexicans have indigenous blood in them and the europeans are the ones who invaded in the first place

[Franz Fanonipants]

I wonder, is this to any extent a reaction to the increasing level of public anti-Hispanic rhetoric and ideology in the US, as in, Hispanic people (for want of a better word, given the context) feeling compelled as part of the struggle against this ideology to reclaim their right to ethnic auto-identification, and depart from imposed (i.e. European-American) conceptions of ethnicity? I ask this because it reminds me of the previous emergence of a distinct "African-American" identity as a self-asserting alternative to the imposed category of "Negro". (Feel free to tell me if I'm talking bollocks on either count, mind.)

no, like maldoror said either (the vast majority, I imagine) these folks are actually indigenous people who migrated from rural parts of LA to the US or (the far smaller in number) chicanos who see themselves as a part of a pan-american indianism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

is it really "revolutionary" nationalism though? nobody is denying that those feelings are understandable, but it always seemed to me that the ones that speak the most strongly of this "cultural politics" are college intellectuals, and that average folk do not really take up this "indigenism" or "xicanoism". there is a lot of mythmaking in xicano nationalism, including making up cartoons of pre-capitalist civilizations. i think "nationalism of the opressed" always ends up marshalled one, or the other faction of capital. it obfuscates class politics, it makes it seem as if "we are all in it", while society is divided in classes.

this is undeniably true.

an interesting historical similarity exists between this sort of identity mythmaking by chicano nat'lists in the 60s-70s (more 70s) and the formation of "hispanic" or directly-spanish identities for chicanos in the broader SW (especially New Mexico) during the 1880s and onward. white supremacy fueled the creation of a Spanish past for mexicanos living in the american southwest. folks like gov. prince in new mexico, c.f. lummis, and other "sympathetic" anglos were joined by mexicanos/chicanos in the sw to create a mythological connection between the sw and the iberian penninsula in an effort to gain political recognition for the sw.

i highly recommend john nieto phillips' the language of blood, but also laura e. gomez's manifest destinies.

[Agnapostate]

It might be as a reaction to those militiamen assholes calling for hispanics to "go back to mexico" and those of european descent whining about a mexican invasion when in reality the mexicans have indigenous blood in them and the europeans are the ones who invaded in the first place

That theme is argued by the ethnonationalist Mexica Movement (http://www.mexica-movement.org). This blog post (http://bermudaradical.blogspot.com/2008/10/against-mexica-movement.html) is a criticism of their ideology that I essentially agree with, though their demonstration of this irony is still rhetorically sound.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

You know, as long as this doesn't translate into creepy Mexican Imperialist claims over the American southwest (as if the Mexico of Santa Ana was actually an "Indigenous state" or that the Mexica empire ever held control over California), there's no problem. As I said in my earlier post, the whole culture of both the US and post-conquest Mexico is based on denying indigenous rights, heritage, culture and language. It is akin to black rights-stressing the value of African culture and heritage played a role in black freedom and the creation of self-identity. It didn't always turn into creepy racism like that of the New Black Panther Party, and often helped create a sense of self identity.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i mean us out of america and shit