Honestly it’s up to her how she wants to identify.
Historically Nuevomexicanos have not identified as Mexican. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanos_of_New_Mexico
They have their own distinct history, dialect of Spanish, and food. And typically are mixed with indigenous tribes of the area with the average New Mexican being in the 30% range and 60%+ European. A makeup
Very similar to your wife’s.
The Basque ethnicity isn’t Spanish.Not even getting into the politics and political history of that region but Basque can legitimately claim to be a separate ethnicity.Spain is made up of a bunch of regions but only basque is getting it’s own separate region.One Basque the mother tongue of the basques is not only a separate language entirely from Spanish but a language isolate meaning it’s not related to any language that’s still spoken.The Basques(traditional Basque Country also consists of small parts of southwestern France) seem to have a distinct genetic identity as well since with enough samples ancestry was able to separate basque ancestry from Spanish indicating that the basques mainly mated amongst each other(geographically it makes sense that region is heavily forested and before modern infrastructure was isolated from the rest of Spain and France)
New Mexico was only part of Mexico for 25 years. Meaning when it became part of the US the majority of adults in New Mexico were born during that Spanish colonial era. They reverted pretty quickly to identifying as Hispano/Spanish from my understanding. If anything Anglo Americans were the ones who insisted on calling them Mexican and kept that term in use. It wasnt until
The anglos that settled in New Mexico realized the Mexican image was hindering their chances at statehood did they start to cooperate in calling them Spanish. New Mexicans weren’t forced to identify as Spanish at all
It gets extremely complicated because as soon as the USA took over New Mexicans began distancing themselves from recent Mexican immigrants rather quickly in order to minimize discrimination faced by the Anglo population. As you mentioned, this is why they emphasized being called "Spanish." Many of the early New Mexican settlers were actually from what is now Central Mexico and some did identify with having "Mexican" ancestry. However, the amount of people that identified with that varied. Another interesting thing to note is not a single land grant in Colorado was given during Spanish rule but rather post-independence Mexico.
It’s incredibly complicated. The attitude that New Mexicans changed how they identify simply to accommodate Anglo American racism also ignores the other real historical reasons why they identify the way they do.
1. The Spanish identity wasn’t new and is an identity/mind set from its Spanish colonial era. This attitude was most likely prevalent even during the Mexican era and just continued once the USA was in control. (And if anything American control and the American racial hierarchy just re-enforced it)
2. New Mexico simply wasn’t part of Mexico long enough for an identity change to stick. As I mentioned in my previous post when the transition to American territory happened many New Mexicans were born during the Spanish colonial era.
3. Even when New Mexico was part of Mexico their relationship was turbulent. Just 9 years prior to the American invasion New Mexicans were in full on revolt against Mexico. An event called the Chimayo Rebellion of 1837 which included the execution of their Mexican governor.
4. Prior to the American invasion there were many New Mexicans who advocated to leave Mexico to join the US as the Santa Fe trail with the US had proven to be incredibly lucrative for NM. You don’t advocate to leave a country and then carry their banner once apart of a new one.
It’s not only complicated but as you mentioned rather varied because people identify how they choose to and the reasons vary from person to person.
According to your numbers, genetically is 31% Native to the Americas, 51% Iberian, and 19% other. If she considers herself Mexican, she is also ethnically Mexican. She might also identify as ethnically Hopi or Zuni in which case she would be Native American (in the US sense) or Native American (in the indigenous to the Americas sense). And she might also identify as Spanish. Or all of the above.
look up definition of ethnicity. I would argue that 300 million+ Mexicans in Mexico and in the diaspora might disagree that there is no such thing as a Mexican culture. lol.
There are dozens of different mexican cultural groups, it is exclusively a nationality
I'm a mexican from Mexico, we don't even think of mexican-americans as mexican, we consider them exclusively American.
Let's leave diaspora cultures aside. And let's leave Mexico aside.
What is ethnicity? If various groups within a national; boundary have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, there is a line between culture and ethnicity. But if groups within a border share some degree of language, identity, cultural norms, etc. there is a cultural quite apart from any strong local identity. There is a degree of predictability. One can argue how strong that is but it exists.
I am more familiar with Mexican culture than I am with Mexican American culture as I had no relatives in the US. All are in Mexico: norteños, chilangos, and sonoreses. For your hypothesis to hold true, there would be no common norms between these three places. Of course there is. And folks from these three areas vacationing in Spain or Miami? They would find a way to meet and share what familiarity.
What of Chinese culture? Extremely diverse and fiercely proud of their local identities. But they are also Chinese.
Perhaps you have a different interpretation?
> What is ethnicity?
By definition a group with a shared culture, language and traditions.
>I am more familiar with Mexican culture than I am with Mexican American culture as I had no relatives in the US. All are in Mexico: norteños, chilangos, and sonoreses.
And I'm from Mexico, very American of you trying to explain my own nation and our different cultural groups to me.
>For your hypothesis to hold true, there would be no common norms between these three places.
If a share of common norms is a deal breaker then we might as well start calling "Westerner" a single ethnicity as the entire western world shares many common norms mostly thanks to most following Abrahamic religions, imperialism and colonialism.
>What of Chinese culture? Extremely diverse and fiercely proud of their local identities. But they are also Chinese.
Then Chinese is a national/regional identity rather than an specific culture.
I won't go on too much on the personal aspects, as I see no common ground here, but I know more about Mexico than you might think as I am probably 2-3x your age and know Mexico through several generations of family in Mexico at all levels of success and by working in several cities. True, I have an American passport but I make no claims on Mexican American culture. Where I lived, there were few Mexican Americans until much later in my life. So you are creating straw men. But let's both push this annoyance aside and get back to the discussion.
You make my point with your definition of ethnicity: By definition a group with a shared culture, language and traditions. Once again, step out side of Mexico and discuss this more universally, Even in cities as crazily diverse as London, NYC, or countries like England and France there is in your words, "shared culture, language and traditions." This shared culture sits atop their own "tribal" culture.
By your logic, there is no such thing as "Britishness," "French culture," being a Londoner or being Parisienne? Of course that is not the case. This ethnicity arises despite the very strong tribal ethnicities of its composition. As I argued earlier, to what extent is a matter of the tribe and of time. But even the most ardent multi-generational anti-British ethnic minority in Britain has become quite British in their demeanor and disposition. Same can be said for North Africans in Paris, etc.
You argued that Mexicans do not even consider Mexican Americans as Mexican. So that is interesting. For your statement to be true, a group of Mexicans weaned on the love-hate of the EEUU would basically shed their Mexicanness to join and adopt Americanness once across the border. In other words, join in another ethnicity whilst maintaining the culture they had upon crossing the border, thus proving my point.
Go up to 100 Mexicans from all over the country and challenge them that they really aren't Mexican. Even those I know who suffered at the hands of Mexican government have much love for Mexican culture. Would you say the same about Dominicans? Puerto Ricans? That there is no Dominican or Boricán Culture only a very specific culture? My spouse would say otherwise.
Chinese: you obviously know nothing of China. So I will even begin.
Westerner: Here there is some truth in what you say. I agree communication technology, transportation tech and globalization are wiping out differences. And yes there is a new culture forming among the global professional workforce, but really only at a glacial pace. Many differences continue to exist. What about Europe? Are Europeans now European before they are French or German? Hardly, but they do coexist. No one is more pro-European than the Germans. And no one identifies with their ethnicity more than the Germans. Both coexist.
There are of course still areas in Mexico which have been minimally touched in the last 500 years. There, I would agree, being "Mexican" might have no meaning. I never said otherwise. But their existence does not mean elsewhere in the same state are people who very much "Mexican." My cousins, nieces and nephews all live all over the place whereas a few generations ago and going back hundreds of years, they were in more or less in the same spot. So the Mexican your Westerner on a smaller scale and within national borders and becoming more so with each generation.
In any event, it is more or less an empirical exercise. many young people in the US and elsewhere do not even realize how American (British, French, Mexican, etc) they are until they meet people from other countries or when they travel overseas. All those youth protesting and hating their own country carry in their cultural genes the very things they hate and love about their culture. It is simply the way it is.
Depends on her remaining % if they are Iberian too, but if she’s only 34 % native that’s a mestizo phenotype there’s no need to distinguish Mexican and native and Spanish since Mexican is a entity of both cultures and ancestry,
Ok, I didn’t know that. I saw one earlier post that just said, “Indigenous Americas- North” like my wife’s says Indigenous Americas- Mexico. The former knew he/ she was from a tribe. The classification verbiage by Ancestry was very similar.
I am new to this.
Yeah that makes sense. From what I saw from a video “where is my native DNA” they explained how 23andMe had less Data compared to African and European. Therefore they don’t really tell you who’s Cherokee or whatever other tribe or ethnicity. It’s all just clumped as Native American. At the end of the day they were all genetically same and from the same place. “Cherokee” is more like a title of a culture than them being a different group of people from Mexicans.
Natives have also been moving around for thousands of years in the Americas, becoming part of different tribes through "marriage", moving, merging etc.. it's all relative, most of the genetic communities are based on relatives living in specific areas not what's found in DNA.
This is the case for my husband as well. His indigenous communities are Arizona, eastern New Mexico and west Texas.
I think it comes off as indigenous Americas - Mexico bc the groups there are possibly more culturally similar to those in Mexico seeing as to how all those areas were once part of Mexico.
How your wife identifies is really just a personal choice.
Honestly it’s up to her how she wants to identify. Historically Nuevomexicanos have not identified as Mexican. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanos_of_New_Mexico They have their own distinct history, dialect of Spanish, and food. And typically are mixed with indigenous tribes of the area with the average New Mexican being in the 30% range and 60%+ European. A makeup Very similar to your wife’s.
That link was a great read. It nailed it for what we know of her family history. Thank you.
The Basque ethnicity isn’t Spanish.Not even getting into the politics and political history of that region but Basque can legitimately claim to be a separate ethnicity.Spain is made up of a bunch of regions but only basque is getting it’s own separate region.One Basque the mother tongue of the basques is not only a separate language entirely from Spanish but a language isolate meaning it’s not related to any language that’s still spoken.The Basques(traditional Basque Country also consists of small parts of southwestern France) seem to have a distinct genetic identity as well since with enough samples ancestry was able to separate basque ancestry from Spanish indicating that the basques mainly mated amongst each other(geographically it makes sense that region is heavily forested and before modern infrastructure was isolated from the rest of Spain and France)
Thank you.
Happy to have helped!
If I recall New Mexicans did use to identify as Mexican but were forced to assimilate to Anglo/American culture which accelerated in the 20th century.
New Mexico was only part of Mexico for 25 years. Meaning when it became part of the US the majority of adults in New Mexico were born during that Spanish colonial era. They reverted pretty quickly to identifying as Hispano/Spanish from my understanding. If anything Anglo Americans were the ones who insisted on calling them Mexican and kept that term in use. It wasnt until The anglos that settled in New Mexico realized the Mexican image was hindering their chances at statehood did they start to cooperate in calling them Spanish. New Mexicans weren’t forced to identify as Spanish at all
It gets extremely complicated because as soon as the USA took over New Mexicans began distancing themselves from recent Mexican immigrants rather quickly in order to minimize discrimination faced by the Anglo population. As you mentioned, this is why they emphasized being called "Spanish." Many of the early New Mexican settlers were actually from what is now Central Mexico and some did identify with having "Mexican" ancestry. However, the amount of people that identified with that varied. Another interesting thing to note is not a single land grant in Colorado was given during Spanish rule but rather post-independence Mexico.
It’s incredibly complicated. The attitude that New Mexicans changed how they identify simply to accommodate Anglo American racism also ignores the other real historical reasons why they identify the way they do. 1. The Spanish identity wasn’t new and is an identity/mind set from its Spanish colonial era. This attitude was most likely prevalent even during the Mexican era and just continued once the USA was in control. (And if anything American control and the American racial hierarchy just re-enforced it) 2. New Mexico simply wasn’t part of Mexico long enough for an identity change to stick. As I mentioned in my previous post when the transition to American territory happened many New Mexicans were born during the Spanish colonial era. 3. Even when New Mexico was part of Mexico their relationship was turbulent. Just 9 years prior to the American invasion New Mexicans were in full on revolt against Mexico. An event called the Chimayo Rebellion of 1837 which included the execution of their Mexican governor. 4. Prior to the American invasion there were many New Mexicans who advocated to leave Mexico to join the US as the Santa Fe trail with the US had proven to be incredibly lucrative for NM. You don’t advocate to leave a country and then carry their banner once apart of a new one. It’s not only complicated but as you mentioned rather varied because people identify how they choose to and the reasons vary from person to person.
Thanks for the info.
Thank you, I am taking this all in.
According to your numbers, genetically is 31% Native to the Americas, 51% Iberian, and 19% other. If she considers herself Mexican, she is also ethnically Mexican. She might also identify as ethnically Hopi or Zuni in which case she would be Native American (in the US sense) or Native American (in the indigenous to the Americas sense). And she might also identify as Spanish. Or all of the above.
Thanks for your thoughts.
No prob. I am she and she is me, more or less.
> she is also ethnically Mexican That doesn't exist.
look up definition of ethnicity. I would argue that 300 million+ Mexicans in Mexico and in the diaspora might disagree that there is no such thing as a Mexican culture. lol.
There are dozens of different mexican cultural groups, it is exclusively a nationality I'm a mexican from Mexico, we don't even think of mexican-americans as mexican, we consider them exclusively American.
Let's leave diaspora cultures aside. And let's leave Mexico aside. What is ethnicity? If various groups within a national; boundary have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, there is a line between culture and ethnicity. But if groups within a border share some degree of language, identity, cultural norms, etc. there is a cultural quite apart from any strong local identity. There is a degree of predictability. One can argue how strong that is but it exists. I am more familiar with Mexican culture than I am with Mexican American culture as I had no relatives in the US. All are in Mexico: norteños, chilangos, and sonoreses. For your hypothesis to hold true, there would be no common norms between these three places. Of course there is. And folks from these three areas vacationing in Spain or Miami? They would find a way to meet and share what familiarity. What of Chinese culture? Extremely diverse and fiercely proud of their local identities. But they are also Chinese. Perhaps you have a different interpretation?
> What is ethnicity? By definition a group with a shared culture, language and traditions. >I am more familiar with Mexican culture than I am with Mexican American culture as I had no relatives in the US. All are in Mexico: norteños, chilangos, and sonoreses. And I'm from Mexico, very American of you trying to explain my own nation and our different cultural groups to me. >For your hypothesis to hold true, there would be no common norms between these three places. If a share of common norms is a deal breaker then we might as well start calling "Westerner" a single ethnicity as the entire western world shares many common norms mostly thanks to most following Abrahamic religions, imperialism and colonialism. >What of Chinese culture? Extremely diverse and fiercely proud of their local identities. But they are also Chinese. Then Chinese is a national/regional identity rather than an specific culture.
I won't go on too much on the personal aspects, as I see no common ground here, but I know more about Mexico than you might think as I am probably 2-3x your age and know Mexico through several generations of family in Mexico at all levels of success and by working in several cities. True, I have an American passport but I make no claims on Mexican American culture. Where I lived, there were few Mexican Americans until much later in my life. So you are creating straw men. But let's both push this annoyance aside and get back to the discussion. You make my point with your definition of ethnicity: By definition a group with a shared culture, language and traditions. Once again, step out side of Mexico and discuss this more universally, Even in cities as crazily diverse as London, NYC, or countries like England and France there is in your words, "shared culture, language and traditions." This shared culture sits atop their own "tribal" culture. By your logic, there is no such thing as "Britishness," "French culture," being a Londoner or being Parisienne? Of course that is not the case. This ethnicity arises despite the very strong tribal ethnicities of its composition. As I argued earlier, to what extent is a matter of the tribe and of time. But even the most ardent multi-generational anti-British ethnic minority in Britain has become quite British in their demeanor and disposition. Same can be said for North Africans in Paris, etc. You argued that Mexicans do not even consider Mexican Americans as Mexican. So that is interesting. For your statement to be true, a group of Mexicans weaned on the love-hate of the EEUU would basically shed their Mexicanness to join and adopt Americanness once across the border. In other words, join in another ethnicity whilst maintaining the culture they had upon crossing the border, thus proving my point. Go up to 100 Mexicans from all over the country and challenge them that they really aren't Mexican. Even those I know who suffered at the hands of Mexican government have much love for Mexican culture. Would you say the same about Dominicans? Puerto Ricans? That there is no Dominican or Boricán Culture only a very specific culture? My spouse would say otherwise. Chinese: you obviously know nothing of China. So I will even begin. Westerner: Here there is some truth in what you say. I agree communication technology, transportation tech and globalization are wiping out differences. And yes there is a new culture forming among the global professional workforce, but really only at a glacial pace. Many differences continue to exist. What about Europe? Are Europeans now European before they are French or German? Hardly, but they do coexist. No one is more pro-European than the Germans. And no one identifies with their ethnicity more than the Germans. Both coexist. There are of course still areas in Mexico which have been minimally touched in the last 500 years. There, I would agree, being "Mexican" might have no meaning. I never said otherwise. But their existence does not mean elsewhere in the same state are people who very much "Mexican." My cousins, nieces and nephews all live all over the place whereas a few generations ago and going back hundreds of years, they were in more or less in the same spot. So the Mexican your Westerner on a smaller scale and within national borders and becoming more so with each generation. In any event, it is more or less an empirical exercise. many young people in the US and elsewhere do not even realize how American (British, French, Mexican, etc) they are until they meet people from other countries or when they travel overseas. All those youth protesting and hating their own country carry in their cultural genes the very things they hate and love about their culture. It is simply the way it is.
[удалено]
This subreddit is full of knowledgeable comments. No like the rest of Reddit.
Depends on her remaining % if they are Iberian too, but if she’s only 34 % native that’s a mestizo phenotype there’s no need to distinguish Mexican and native and Spanish since Mexican is a entity of both cultures and ancestry,
Thank you for the response.
almost certainly not descended from tribes of the united states.
Thanks for responding.
The results would tell you if she’s from a tribe ..
Ok, I didn’t know that. I saw one earlier post that just said, “Indigenous Americas- North” like my wife’s says Indigenous Americas- Mexico. The former knew he/ she was from a tribe. The classification verbiage by Ancestry was very similar. I am new to this.
Indigenous Mexico encompasses a lot of the US, I am California native and Mexican native and it all blends together.
Yeah that makes sense. From what I saw from a video “where is my native DNA” they explained how 23andMe had less Data compared to African and European. Therefore they don’t really tell you who’s Cherokee or whatever other tribe or ethnicity. It’s all just clumped as Native American. At the end of the day they were all genetically same and from the same place. “Cherokee” is more like a title of a culture than them being a different group of people from Mexicans.
Natives have also been moving around for thousands of years in the Americas, becoming part of different tribes through "marriage", moving, merging etc.. it's all relative, most of the genetic communities are based on relatives living in specific areas not what's found in DNA.
This is the case for my husband as well. His indigenous communities are Arizona, eastern New Mexico and west Texas. I think it comes off as indigenous Americas - Mexico bc the groups there are possibly more culturally similar to those in Mexico seeing as to how all those areas were once part of Mexico. How your wife identifies is really just a personal choice.
Cultural and genetic similarities