6 ms·

Finding Family Ties to Indian Slavery in New Mexico

36 points by benbreen 9y ago

AndrewGaspar 9y ago
My wife, who's from New Mexico, recently did one of those genetic heritage tests. It showed that she was, IIRC, 19% Native American and 21% Iberian peninsula. She doesn't seem to really consider herself as Native American as she considers herself Spanish, though, despite them being essentially statistically the same. It makes more sense in the context of there being a preference for Spanish heritage.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  Sure, or look at Obama, who is exactly as black as he is white(or, perhaps, even more white, since his father was little more than a sperm donor and his mother/her parents raised him). But he is considered by all, including himself, to be black. I find it interesting that in the US, mixed race people tend to become the least 'privileged' race, whereas in Mexico, at least in this one case this woman identifies with the more privileged group
  - eesmith 9y ago
    This examples is from New Mexico which, like Mexico, used the Spanish caste system. People from Spain were highest, followed by those with Spanish ancestry. Then came people with mixed indigenous American ancestry, followed by those with mixed African ancestry. It was quite complicated, with different names for the different caste systems. Essentially though, the more white you were, the more privilege you had. Before the US Civil War, it was somewhat the same in the US. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule : > free people of mixed race (free people of color) were considered legally white even if individuals had up to one-eighth or one-quarter African ancestry (depending on the state).[5] Many mixed-race people were absorbed into the majority culture based simply on appearance, associations and carrying out community responsibilities. These and community acceptance were the more important factors if a person's racial status were questioned, not his or her documented ancestry. After the US Civil War, the powerful whites in the US South worked to undermine the rights of free black people. Among other things, many states passed "one drop rule" laws, where any African or Native American ancestry (except descent from Pocahontas) meant that one was black. Quoting again from that Wikipedia page, "Among the colonial slave societies, the United States was nearly unique in developing the one-drop rule ... The same racial culture shock has come to hundreds of thousands of dark-skinned immigrants to the United States from Brazil, Colombia, Panama, and other Latin American nations. Although many are not considered black in their homelands, they have often been considered black in US society."
  - magic_beans 9y ago
    Mixed race people in the US are considered less 'privileged' only to white people, who find any race of people less privileged (as a whole, not on a case-by-case basis). But to minorities, people who are half white are seen as more privileged, especially in the black community.
    - specializeded 9y ago
      Same w/ Mexican American communities around the states, mejorar la raza and all that
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Mixed race people are often seen as outsiders by either race; how they personally identify can vary a lot (and often it's not simply with one or the other.)
      - eesmith 9y ago
        When you say "outsider", be sure that you don't mean the racist "tragic mulatto" viewpoint that mixed blood inherently (ie, from biological reasons) leads to tragedy and hurt. Even when seen as 'outsiders', meaning, as part of a different ethnic group, it's still not uncommon under European colonial rule that mixed white/black people have more privilege than black people. That is, what you say is not at odds with what magic_beans said. Spanish rule in the Americas had race-based caste system. This included New Mexico. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain : > Eventually a caste system was created to describe the various mixes and to assign them a different social level. ... The upper echelons of government were staffed by Spaniards born in Spain (peninsulares), the middle and lower levels of government and other higher paying jobs were held by Criollos (Criollos were Spaniards born in the Americas, or—as permitted by the casta system—Spaniards with some Amerindian or even other ancestry.[139]) The best lands were owned by Peninsulares and Criollos, with Native communities for the most part relegated to marginal lands. Mestizos and Mulattos held artisanal positions and unskilled laborers were either more mixed people, such as Zambos, recently freed slaves or Natives who had left their communities and settled in areas with large Hispanic populations. Haiti inherited the French racial caste system. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti : > Haitian mulattoes became the nation's social elite and racially privileged. Numerous leaders throughout Haiti's history have been mulattoes. Comprising 5% of the nation's population, mulattoes have retained their preeminence, evident in the political, economic, social and cultural hierarchy in Haiti. In the South African apartheid system, "coloured" people (with mixed heritage) had higher status than "African" people (meaning black). While not explicit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid you can infer from "Blacks were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people." that black people were less privileged than mixed race people.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > She doesn't seem to really consider herself as Native American as she considers herself Spanish, though, despite them being essentially statistically the same. My self-image is much more based in my cultural roots than my ethnic ones. Genetically, I'm 25% Jewish, but it's not a part of my identity on any significant level and doesn't impact my day-to-day life at all, except when I'm walking around during Sukkot.
  - AndrewGaspar 9y ago
    Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. If your family has always told you that you're of Spanish heritage, and that's important to you, you're going to identify more strongly with that, no matter what your actual heritage is. She's 20% Irish, too, I think, which just goes to show how tens of generations removed from your "culture of origin" can make the whole thing kind of a wash anyway. :)
- mc32 9y ago
  Just beware these tests are not accurate. They may omit (by virtue of your not carrying) ancestors' DNA. As someone eloquently sated, it could be called "genetic astrology". More here: http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586 http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningle...
elboru 9y ago
It seems like today everyone want to feel victimized somehow, sure a lot of terrible things happened in the past, and it's good to be aware of that so we won't let that kind of atrocities happen ever again. I'm from Mexico and here a lot of people "hate" on Spaniards because "they conquered us" that exclamation sounds pretty absurd when it comes from a dude with lactose tolerance and a big beard (both gifts from Europe). Population from northern states will have around 70% European DNA and 30% Native American, Southern states usually go the other way around 30% European 70% Native American, some researchers would say not even Native Americans of today are 100% pure natives, Mexico experienced a mix of cultures and blood since the XVI century. And yes it involved war, slavery and a lot of other atrocities. But the truth is we're not either the conquerors nor the conquered ones or you could say we're both, we're the result of that mix of cultures, trying to feel victimized for something that provoked one of your ancestors to other of your ancestors doesn't make sense.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I'm not so sure that people actively seek out a sense of victimization. I think that humans have a desire to have a positive identity, and with most Americans having fewer long-term careers, friends, religious connections, or community support, people are turning to identity politics to gain their sense of identity.
- alphabettsy 9y ago
  How does becoming more aware of the past mean everyone wants to be a victim? Part of learning about the past also involves learning about how past issues have carried us to where we are today and how sometimes the issues of the past still emerge in unexpected ways. The bigger issue is people wanting to continue being oblivious about how the past affects the present because it’s uncomfortable.
  - merpnderp 9y ago
    No they see individuals blaming their poor choices on things which happened hundreds of years ago. If your parents didn't give two craps about your education and you did poorly in school, that is your parent's fault, who made a conscious choice. If you do the same to your children, it is your fault. And to blame something which happened hundreds of years ago, is to ensure this problem never gets resolved, because making poor choices is easy when you don't suffer the blame.
yumraj 9y ago
It's sad that even a publication like NYTimes refers to Native Americans as Indians. It was an acceptable mistake at the time of Columbus, now not so much..
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- totalZero 9y ago
  I don't really find this usage offensive, so much as confusing. Indians are people from India. I read the headline and imagined an immigrant from India who is exploited by an employer or visa sponsor.
  - yumraj 9y ago
    As an Indian, from India, I do find it offensive and am sure that a lot of Native Americans would also find it offensive as it takes away from them their American heritage and ancestry.

36 points by benbreen 9y ago

My wife, who's from New Mexico, recently did one of those genetic heritage tests. It showed that she was, IIRC, 19% Native American and 21% Iberian peninsula. She doesn't seem to really consider herself as Native American as she considers herself Spanish, though, despite them being essentially statistically the same. It makes more sense in the context of there being a preference for Spanish heritage.

oh_sigh 9y ago
Sure, or look at Obama, who is exactly as black as he is white(or, perhaps, even more white, since his father was little more than a sperm donor and his mother/her parents raised him). But he is considered by all, including himself, to be black. I find it interesting that in the US, mixed race people tend to become the least 'privileged' race, whereas in Mexico, at least in this one case this woman identifies with the more privileged group
- eesmith 9y ago
  This examples is from New Mexico which, like Mexico, used the Spanish caste system. People from Spain were highest, followed by those with Spanish ancestry. Then came people with mixed indigenous American ancestry, followed by those with mixed African ancestry. It was quite complicated, with different names for the different caste systems. Essentially though, the more white you were, the more privilege you had. Before the US Civil War, it was somewhat the same in the US. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule : > free people of mixed race (free people of color) were considered legally white even if individuals had up to one-eighth or one-quarter African ancestry (depending on the state).[5] Many mixed-race people were absorbed into the majority culture based simply on appearance, associations and carrying out community responsibilities. These and community acceptance were the more important factors if a person's racial status were questioned, not his or her documented ancestry. After the US Civil War, the powerful whites in the US South worked to undermine the rights of free black people. Among other things, many states passed "one drop rule" laws, where any African or Native American ancestry (except descent from Pocahontas) meant that one was black. Quoting again from that Wikipedia page, "Among the colonial slave societies, the United States was nearly unique in developing the one-drop rule ... The same racial culture shock has come to hundreds of thousands of dark-skinned immigrants to the United States from Brazil, Colombia, Panama, and other Latin American nations. Although many are not considered black in their homelands, they have often been considered black in US society."
- magic_beans 9y ago
  Mixed race people in the US are considered less 'privileged' only to white people, who find any race of people less privileged (as a whole, not on a case-by-case basis). But to minorities, people who are half white are seen as more privileged, especially in the black community.
  - specializeded 9y ago
    Same w/ Mexican American communities around the states, mejorar la raza and all that
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Mixed race people are often seen as outsiders by either race; how they personally identify can vary a lot (and often it's not simply with one or the other.)
    - eesmith 9y ago
      When you say "outsider", be sure that you don't mean the racist "tragic mulatto" viewpoint that mixed blood inherently (ie, from biological reasons) leads to tragedy and hurt. Even when seen as 'outsiders', meaning, as part of a different ethnic group, it's still not uncommon under European colonial rule that mixed white/black people have more privilege than black people. That is, what you say is not at odds with what magic_beans said. Spanish rule in the Americas had race-based caste system. This included New Mexico. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain : > Eventually a caste system was created to describe the various mixes and to assign them a different social level. ... The upper echelons of government were staffed by Spaniards born in Spain (peninsulares), the middle and lower levels of government and other higher paying jobs were held by Criollos (Criollos were Spaniards born in the Americas, or—as permitted by the casta system—Spaniards with some Amerindian or even other ancestry.[139]) The best lands were owned by Peninsulares and Criollos, with Native communities for the most part relegated to marginal lands. Mestizos and Mulattos held artisanal positions and unskilled laborers were either more mixed people, such as Zambos, recently freed slaves or Natives who had left their communities and settled in areas with large Hispanic populations. Haiti inherited the French racial caste system. Quoting now from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti : > Haitian mulattoes became the nation's social elite and racially privileged. Numerous leaders throughout Haiti's history have been mulattoes. Comprising 5% of the nation's population, mulattoes have retained their preeminence, evident in the political, economic, social and cultural hierarchy in Haiti. In the South African apartheid system, "coloured" people (with mixed heritage) had higher status than "African" people (meaning black). While not explicit at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid you can infer from "Blacks were provided with services greatly inferior to those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured people." that black people were less privileged than mixed race people.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
> She doesn't seem to really consider herself as Native American as she considers herself Spanish, though, despite them being essentially statistically the same. My self-image is much more based in my cultural roots than my ethnic ones. Genetically, I'm 25% Jewish, but it's not a part of my identity on any significant level and doesn't impact my day-to-day life at all, except when I'm walking around during Sukkot.
- AndrewGaspar 9y ago
  Yeah, I guess that's kind of what I'm saying. If your family has always told you that you're of Spanish heritage, and that's important to you, you're going to identify more strongly with that, no matter what your actual heritage is. She's 20% Irish, too, I think, which just goes to show how tens of generations removed from your "culture of origin" can make the whole thing kind of a wash anyway. :)
mc32 9y ago
Just beware these tests are not accurate. They may omit (by virtue of your not carrying) ancestors' DNA. As someone eloquently sated, it could be called "genetic astrology". More here: http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586 http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningle...

elboru 9y ago

It seems like today everyone want to feel victimized somehow, sure a lot of terrible things happened in the past, and it's good to be aware of that so we won't let that kind of atrocities happen ever again. I'm from Mexico and here a lot of people "hate" on Spaniards because "they conquered us" that exclamation sounds pretty absurd when it comes from a dude with lactose tolerance and a big beard (both gifts from Europe). Population from northern states will have around 70% European DNA and 30% Native American, Southern states usually go the other way around 30% European 70% Native American, some researchers would say not even Native Americans of today are 100% pure natives, Mexico experienced a mix of cultures and blood since the XVI century. And yes it involved war, slavery and a lot of other atrocities. But the truth is we're not either the conquerors nor the conquered ones or you could say we're both, we're the result of that mix of cultures, trying to feel victimized for something that provoked one of your ancestors to other of your ancestors doesn't make sense.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
I'm not so sure that people actively seek out a sense of victimization. I think that humans have a desire to have a positive identity, and with most Americans having fewer long-term careers, friends, religious connections, or community support, people are turning to identity politics to gain their sense of identity.
alphabettsy 9y ago
How does becoming more aware of the past mean everyone wants to be a victim? Part of learning about the past also involves learning about how past issues have carried us to where we are today and how sometimes the issues of the past still emerge in unexpected ways. The bigger issue is people wanting to continue being oblivious about how the past affects the present because it’s uncomfortable.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  No they see individuals blaming their poor choices on things which happened hundreds of years ago. If your parents didn't give two craps about your education and you did poorly in school, that is your parent's fault, who made a conscious choice. If you do the same to your children, it is your fault. And to blame something which happened hundreds of years ago, is to ensure this problem never gets resolved, because making poor choices is easy when you don't suffer the blame.

yumraj 9y ago

It's sad that even a publication like NYTimes refers to Native Americans as Indians. It was an acceptable mistake at the time of Columbus, now not so much..

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
totalZero 9y ago
I don't really find this usage offensive, so much as confusing. Indians are people from India. I read the headline and imagined an immigrant from India who is exploited by an employer or visa sponsor.
- yumraj 9y ago
  As an Indian, from India, I do find it offensive and am sure that a lot of Native Americans would also find it offensive as it takes away from them their American heritage and ancestry.