3 ms·

settled != colonized California indigenous who settled and mestizos who colonized share the same haplogroup d dna. They are the same people. And for what it'

• chaostheory 6y ago
  > settled != colonized So we're playing the semantics game now? Let me guess, you didn't make a racist comment. Instead you made a comment about ethnic pride? If we're playing this game, let's be clear on the definitions: settle - to establish in residence colonize - come to settle among and establish political control over the indigenous people of an area. > They are the same people. According to the Californios article you referenced, they are not the same people as the Native Americans who first settled in CA. "Californios included the descendants of agricultural settlers and retired escort soldiers deployed from what is modern-day Mexico. Most were of mixed ethnicities, usually Mestizo (Spanish and Native American) or mixed African and Amerindian backgrounds." Otherwise, (using your own language), the Californios wouldn't have colonized California > And for what it's worth the massive anglo/white immigration into California has been tantamount to ethnic replacement - not just in California but all over this continent. Thank you for confirming my suspicions of your comments being racist and no, I am not white yet I do find it ironic for one descendant of colonizers to complain about the descendants of other colonizers. I wouldn't be surprised if you considered Asians and Pacific Islanders as "invaders" as well. Also you're proving your ignorance yet again. Since you've mentioned your imagined "ethnic replacement" of Hispanics in CA (which the majority of I'm pretty sure are not as prejudiced as you - and let's not confuse ethnic cleansing with population changes from immigration & migration), let's go over CA's current or near current ethnicity statistics ordered by the largest: * Hispanic 39.29% (This has increased from 36.6%) * White, non-Hispanic 36.64% * Asian 14.525 * Black 5.51% * Pacific Islander 0.36% * Native American 0.35% (they are not Californios, and they are still here) * Other > So excuse me if I don't cry a river over fewer transplants. I'm not going to excuse and condone what I feel are posts from a racist reminiscing about ethnic purity in California. You do NOT post this type of garbage on HN.
  • atomi 6y ago
    Why do you think there are so many posts about people wanting to leave California? Do you think it's really all about taxes? It's not. The prevailing rhetoric of California being "bad" is mostly political and has racist anti-liberal roots. By shutting down counter views you're allowing those racist viewpoints to prosper. And by the way, none of your rhetoric counters what is historical fact. The plurality of California are not Hispanic by pure accident. Lastly, it should be possible to have a rational discussion about demographics on this site without people over reacting and name calling.
    • chaostheory 6y ago
      > Why do you think there are so many posts about people wanting to leave California? Do you think it's really all about taxes? It's not. From your initial post, I just thought it was about over-development. I didn't expect to be about demographics and ethnicity, specifically maintaining your idea of CA's racial "purity". Consequently, I was very confused when you asked me to leave CA. > The prevailing rhetoric of California being "bad" is mostly political and has racist anti-liberal roots. By shutting down counter views you're allowing those racist viewpoints to prosper Let me get this straight, by calling you out on your racist viewpoints, I am allowing racist viewpoints to fester? That totally makes sense. Who cares if other racist viewpoints have white, conservative roots? Racism is bad, period, regardless of its origins, the ideology of the people holding those ideas, and whether or not it's systemic. As shown by your own comments, conservatives do not have a monopoly on racism either. > And by the way, none of your rhetoric counters what is historical fact. That's great counter-argument with no details or facts, other than the slivers you've previously provided that I've quickly shut down. I guess your newest comment isn't rhetoric either? > The plurality of California are not Hispanic by pure accident. Yes, CA promotes diversity, yet you lament not having a more homogeneous population. The only difference between your views and "America First" proponents' view is the ethnicity being supported. > Lastly, it should be possible to have a rational discussion about demographics on this site without people over reacting and name calling. Forgive me for pointing out thinly veiled racist comments on HN. It's a natural conclusion to assume that racists comments are made by a racist. I am not over reacting. I initially assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt for too long. You're just downplaying your BS. Let's revisit your BS before you delete it: "_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming. California is our state." So apparently according to your view point, California is only for "Californios", Hispanics who originated from Mexico? "My qualms are more with the demographic changes these massive migrations brought. Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people. To me they make terrible neighbors and have zero regard for the land, nature or the people here. Some I assume are good people but I haven't met any." I don't even have to comment on this one. It speaks for itself, especially the last line. Since you're really into semantics, let's define racist: racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance