4 ms·

I’m not sure why there isn’t more of an active association between so-called “Hispanics” in North America and the Aztecs and other pre-European cultural groups

I’m not sure why there isn’t more of an active association between so-called “Hispanics” in North America and the Aztecs and other pre-European cultural groups in the area. The current “Hispanics” are largely descended from the natives, I think? I put “Hispanics” in quotes because it’s pretty weird to be labeled by the language of your conquerors who don’t even control anything in the area anymore.

lupusreal 2y ago
The genetic background of Hispanics varies considerably from individual to individual, a lot of them are lily white by any visual measure and most of them have considerable if not majority European ancestry. In any case, culturally it's no contest; they have far more in common with European cultures than the Aztecs. Remember that most of them are Catholics, not humans sacrificing sun worshipers.
- artistic_regard 2y ago
  [dead]
jcranmer 2y ago
> The current “Hispanics” are largely descended from the natives, I think? You can generally divide most of the Americas into three categories: (mostly) pure indigenous ancestry, mixed ancestry (Mestizo is the common term), and (mostly) European ancestry. In regions where slavery was important, you also have significant groups of African ancestry, mixed African/indigenous ancestry, and sometimes Asian ancestry from post-slavery labor importation. In most of the Americas, the dominant ethnic group is mestizo. Greenland is the only country where indigenous peoples are the clear majority, and Guatemala is probably the only other country where indigenous comes closest to being a plurality over mestizo. (The degree to which modern people accept indigenous versus mestizo as a term varies from country to country). > I put “Hispanics” in quotes because it’s pretty weird to be labeled by the language of your conquerors who don’t even control anything in the area anymore. The vast majority of modern Latin Americans speak Spanish or another European language as their dominant language.
miningape 2y ago
I think you put too much stock into the conquered / conqueror narrative. These are living breathing cultures which develop in their own ways beyond the interactions of their ancestors. The majority of the population is a blend between both, and even many cultural traditions are a clear blend of both (Dia de los Muertos being probably the most obvious). Most Hispanics I've spoken to about this see it all as apart of what makes them, them, not some artificial separation based on what modern politics thinks of the groups their ancestors were apart of. In another sense you cannot remove one part and still have the Hispanic people, and they also cannot reconstruct what has been lost. You can also see this with groups like the Cape Coloureds who have their own distinct culture from the black, white, and indian cultures which it grew out of. > who don’t even control anything in the area anymore Note that they still speak Spanish and many are Catholic to this day - you can identify a lion by the marks of its claws so to speak.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
This seems like a very Anglo and anachronistically racialist take. Catholic colonial empires were characterized by a different ethos than, say, the Protestant English. The former involved a good deal of intermarriage (beginning with Cortes himself) and saw what could be described as cultural transfiguration and fusion. The latter tended to see the natives through the lens of Amalek (ask the Acadians about their experiences with the British). So, the distinction between conqueror/conquered is a false dichotomy, as Hispanic peoples are heirs to the heritage of both. And even where the heritage of non-Spanish origin is concerned, here, too, it is not quite so simple. After all, Cortes did not conquer Tenochtitlan with his merry band of men alone. He did so in alliance with the enemies of the Aztecs (e.g., Tlaxcalans, Tetzcocans, Cempoalans, Huejotzingans) who numbered in the thousands, and these do not include the historical enemies of the Aztecs, some of whom were conquered by them.
- r14c 2y ago
  "hispanic" is also more like a general term than an identity that anyone in latinoamerica actually holds. we largely identify with our home regions (which actually correspond pretty closely to pre-colonial cultural groups). "hispanohablante" and "latino" are far more common terms than "hispano", but are not really used except in very broad terms. however, due, in part, to the incomienda system there's a lot of erasure of indigenous and afro contributions to our cultures.

lupusreal 2y ago

The genetic background of Hispanics varies considerably from individual to individual, a lot of them are lily white by any visual measure and most of them have considerable if not majority European ancestry. In any case, culturally it's no contest; they have far more in common with European cultures than the Aztecs. Remember that most of them are Catholics, not humans sacrificing sun worshipers.

artistic_regard 2y ago
[dead]

jcranmer 2y ago

> The current “Hispanics” are largely descended from the natives, I think? You can generally divide most of the Americas into three categories: (mostly) pure indigenous ancestry, mixed ancestry (Mestizo is the common term), and (mostly) European ancestry. In regions where slavery was important, you also have significant groups of African ancestry, mixed African/indigenous ancestry, and sometimes Asian ancestry from post-slavery labor importation. In most of the Americas, the dominant ethnic group is mestizo. Greenland is the only country where indigenous peoples are the clear majority, and Guatemala is probably the only other country where indigenous comes closest to being a plurality over mestizo. (The degree to which modern people accept indigenous versus mestizo as a term varies from country to country). > I put “Hispanics” in quotes because it’s pretty weird to be labeled by the language of your conquerors who don’t even control anything in the area anymore. The vast majority of modern Latin Americans speak Spanish or another European language as their dominant language.

miningape 2y ago

I think you put too much stock into the conquered / conqueror narrative. These are living breathing cultures which develop in their own ways beyond the interactions of their ancestors. The majority of the population is a blend between both, and even many cultural traditions are a clear blend of both (Dia de los Muertos being probably the most obvious). Most Hispanics I've spoken to about this see it all as apart of what makes them, them, not some artificial separation based on what modern politics thinks of the groups their ancestors were apart of. In another sense you cannot remove one part and still have the Hispanic people, and they also cannot reconstruct what has been lost. You can also see this with groups like the Cape Coloureds who have their own distinct culture from the black, white, and indian cultures which it grew out of. > who don’t even control anything in the area anymore Note that they still speak Spanish and many are Catholic to this day - you can identify a lion by the marks of its claws so to speak.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

This seems like a very Anglo and anachronistically racialist take. Catholic colonial empires were characterized by a different ethos than, say, the Protestant English. The former involved a good deal of intermarriage (beginning with Cortes himself) and saw what could be described as cultural transfiguration and fusion. The latter tended to see the natives through the lens of Amalek (ask the Acadians about their experiences with the British). So, the distinction between conqueror/conquered is a false dichotomy, as Hispanic peoples are heirs to the heritage of both. And even where the heritage of non-Spanish origin is concerned, here, too, it is not quite so simple. After all, Cortes did not conquer Tenochtitlan with his merry band of men alone. He did so in alliance with the enemies of the Aztecs (e.g., Tlaxcalans, Tetzcocans, Cempoalans, Huejotzingans) who numbered in the thousands, and these do not include the historical enemies of the Aztecs, some of whom were conquered by them.

r14c 2y ago
"hispanic" is also more like a general term than an identity that anyone in latinoamerica actually holds. we largely identify with our home regions (which actually correspond pretty closely to pre-colonial cultural groups). "hispanohablante" and "latino" are far more common terms than "hispano", but are not really used except in very broad terms. however, due, in part, to the incomienda system there's a lot of erasure of indigenous and afro contributions to our cultures.