http://www.mexica-movement.org/
What can be made of it? I'd say an illustration of the irony of the perverse nature of claiming national sovereignty and howling jingoistic platitudes when the nation-state is itself based on the unjust dispossession of indigenous communities. Of course, it's primarily targeted toward the issue of immigration from Mexico, and is Aztec-centric, as its very name indicates.
The point as I conceive it is that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central/South America are predominantly Native American. In Latin America, there is a different conception of what it is to be an “Indian” than there is in the U.S. While many boast of the smallest percentage of Native American blood here, the population of Central/South America is disdainful of it to a point where the term “mestizo,” designating mixed racial status, is used for those that are predominantly Native American rather than half-breeds, and Native Americans are defined as those who adhere to traditional cultural life, regardless of genetic or racial background. Despite this, the darker-skinned population is still a political and economic underclass, with the ruling class being predominantly white of Spanish descent.
The populist opposition to neoliberalism is often found in indigenous society; the violent insurrection of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (a predominantly Tzotzil Mayan group) was launched in the poorest and southernmost Mexican state of Chiapas on January 1, 1994, the same day that NAFTA went into effect. Moreover, Native Americans are known to have suffered unjust dispossession and violence at the hands of European settlers, relevant today because of the fact that the sins of the dead have created lasting repercussions that manifest themselves in the form of economic inequalities based on race.
There is a perception in the U.S. that Mexican and Central/South American immigrants are foreigners, even among those that welcome them. Whether it’s that they’re hard-working laborers who should be valued as guest workers or illegal invaders that should be deported, they’re regarded as foreigners nonetheless. If this perception is challenged through knowledge that immigrants are predominantly Native American, and there is some association of them with acknowledged U.S. tribes like the Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc., the perception of them as foreigners will be replaced with one of them as unjustly dispossessed natives, perhaps to an extent to shift public opinion. “La Migra” are the shock troopers behind another Trail of Tears…
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith
It looks like clever marketing ad for "Avatar."
Leviathan: . If this perception is challenged through knowledge that immigrants are predominantly Native American, and there is some association of them with acknowledged U.S. tribes like the Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc., the perception of them as foreigners will be replaced with one of them as unjustly dispossessed natives, perhaps to an extent to shift public opinion. “La Migra” are the shock troopers behind another Trail of Tears…
. If this perception is challenged through knowledge that immigrants are predominantly Native American, and there is some association of them with acknowledged U.S. tribes like the Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc., the perception of them as foreigners will be replaced with one of them as unjustly dispossessed natives, perhaps to an extent to shift public opinion. “La Migra” are the shock troopers behind another Trail of Tears…
Well, thats because they are (mostly) foreign to the US proper. A good portion of the true Mexican 'Indians' are descendant from tribes in central or southern Mexico. The Indians in the US are completely different ethnic groups; and from what I know of them, they are often hostile to 'hispanics'.
Angurse: It looks like clever marketing ad for "Avatar."
It was up attracting the ire of every Minuteman groupie long before the movie came out. I do frown on their endorsement of the movie as something parallel to what occurred in America, though; the noble savage is still a savage.
If true, it would be the biggest irony of ironies that subcomandante Marcos is white. Also, "subcomandante" reeks of hierarchy.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
sicsempertyrannis:Well, thats because they are (mostly) foreign to the US proper. A good portion of the true Mexican 'Indians' are descendant from tribes in central or southern Mexico. The Indians in the US are completely different ethnic groups; and from what I know of them, they are often hostile to 'hispanics'.
There are certainly important ethnic and cultural differences, but they're not determined by national divisions. Of the categorical divisions between North American (excluding Mesoamerica and south) Indian societies, national borders do not parallel them. The Mexican Huichol or the Tarahumara, for example, have more in common with the Apache and the Navajo than they do with the Aztecs, despite the practice of classifying "Mexican Indians" as one group. And the Apache and Navajo have more in common with the Huichol and Tarahumara than they do with the Cherokee or the Iroquois.
The most common criticism I envision is that this group improperly ascribes homogeneity to North American Indian society, when there was so much tremendous variation, and that the immigrants that they defend have no true ancestral claim to U.S. territory since their ancestors were Native Americans of Mexico and south rather than the U.S. But again, we usually conceptualize all U.S. Indians as having some common claim to the U.S. as a whole in terms of that argument despite the fact that the Iroquois have no claim over Florida and the Cherokee no claim over Maine due to their lack of ancestral presence there. This group seems to focus on the rather crude categorization of "race."
What we should also consider, however, is whether peaceable relations that facilitated freer or more libertarian migration without the rigid national divisions we now have would have developed (particularly among societies of the same cultural category), as they did among the European "tribes" of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. If so, the national boundaries derived from the unjust forcible and fraudulent acquisition of property that the creation of states in America entailed have no ethical basis.
Daniel Muffinburg: If true, it would be the biggest irony of ironies that subcomandante Marcos is white. Also, "subcomandante" reeks of hierarchy.
How is that related to the topic?
Leviathan: Daniel Muffinburg: If true, it would be the biggest irony of ironies that subcomandante Marcos is white. Also, "subcomandante" reeks of hierarchy. How is that related to the topic?
You mentioned the zapatistas.
Daniel Muffinburg:You mentioned the zapatistas.
Not as a central focus of the topic. I'm also inquiring about the "irony." I personally don't think it poor strategy to incorporate communications from someone who is white and consequently speaks excellent Spanish, and can therefore convey Zapatista ideology to most Mexicans more effectively.
Leviathan: Daniel Muffinburg:You mentioned the zapatistas. ... I personally don't think it poor strategy to incorporate communications from someone who is white and consequently speaks excellent Spanish, and can therefore convey Zapatista ideology to most Mexicans more effectively.
... I personally don't think it poor strategy to incorporate communications from someone who is white and consequently speaks excellent Spanish, and can therefore convey Zapatista ideology to most Mexicans more effectively.
I don't either. Che was also white (mind you, my sources on this are Gael Garcia Bernal and Benecio del Toro, lol), but that is besides the point.
Daniel Muffinburg: Leviathan: Daniel Muffinburg:You mentioned the zapatistas. ... I personally don't think it poor strategy to incorporate communications from someone who is white and consequently speaks excellent Spanish, and can therefore convey Zapatista ideology to most Mexicans more effectively. I don't either. Che was also white (mind you, my sources on this are Gael Garcia Bernal and Benecio del Toro, lol), but that is besides the point.
That is correct, he was white like most Argentinians (including our own dear Juan) and had no problem admitting as much. One of my favorite ironies is how often you will see his portrait in a march for Mexican immigrants, when he himself thought they were nothing but a bunch of illiterate indians.
Leviathan:
The once and future America.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Leviathan: What we should also consider, however, is whether peaceable relations that facilitated freer or more libertarian migration without the rigid national divisions we now have would have developed (particularly among societies of the same cultural category), as they did among the European "tribes" of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Spanish, French, Dutch, Germans, etc. If so, the national boundaries derived from the unjust forcible and fraudulent acquisition of property that the creation of states in America entailed have no ethical basis.
Yes, but using their definition of "with the right to migrate everywhere on 'our' continent", it would therefore be OK if I as an 'indigenous' Scotsman (American of Scottish descent) to boot any Chinese, Englishmen, Irish or anyone else out of 'my country' - because alot of the radicals in this movement want to expel all Europeons. But if the white birthrate remains low like it is, then Meso-Americans might just depopulate at least southern California by the only non-aggressive means at their disposal.
Stranger: The once and future America.
Let's hope not.
sicsempertyrannis:Let's hope not.
It looks pretty accurate.
Angurse: sicsempertyrannis:Let's hope not. It looks pretty accurate.
It's practically already split that way sociologically.
Except that the US based Indians have a pretty low birthrate, while some white groups such as Southerners (ie me) have at least replacement level birthrates. I can see places like southern California, southern Texas, and most of New Mexico/Arizona becoming dominated by meso-Americans, but not the whole continent (which is what the map was showing - different types of Indians, broadly speaking).
Byzantine: Angurse:It looks pretty accurate. It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though.
Angurse:It looks pretty accurate.
It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though.
Let's subdivide it until we get to the individual.
sicsempertyrannis: Except that the US based Indians have a pretty low birthrate, while some white groups such as Southerners (ie me) have at least replacement level birthrates. I can see places like southern California, southern Texas, and most of New Mexico/Arizona becoming dominated by meso-Americans, but not the whole continent (which is what the map was showing - different types of Indians, broadly speaking).
"Southerners" are just a mix of former native Americans with British, Spanish and French settlers.
If you look at the map as a socio-cultural map instead of a racial map, you have pretty much the America of today. It's funny how climate changes people.
Daniel Muffinburg: Byzantine: Angurse:It looks pretty accurate. It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though. Let's subdivide it until we get to the individual.
And then what? The individual stays holed up in his box of a territory?
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Byzantine: Angurse:It looks pretty accurate. It does, actually. I was hoping for even more subdivision though. Let's subdivide it until we get to the individual. And then what? The individual stays holed up in his box of a territory?
No.
Stranger: "Southerners" are just a mix of former native Americans with British, Spanish and French settlers. If you look at the map as a socio-cultural map instead of a racial map, you have pretty much the America of today. It's funny how climate changes people.
"Southern" is both a fairly homogeneous ethnic group and a socio-cultural division. The map doesnt quite match reality, but it is close.
Daniel Muffinburg:I don't either. Che was also white (mind you, my sources on this are Gael Garcia Bernal and Benecio del Toro, lol), but that is besides the point.
It's not completely unrelated, as there's a popular misconception that all "Hispanics" are non-white, despite the fact that "Hispanics" merely refers to an ethnic group that can include persons of any race. Che Guevara was Irish (his father's maternal surname was Lynch), Basque, and Spanish, and while he probably had some indigenous blood in him and was thus a "castizo" (a predominantly white "mestizo"), he was effectively white and certainly looked nothing like Jon Lee Anderson's depiction of him:
The terms "Hispanic" and "Latino" are categorizations of linguistically related nations, with the language in question being Spanish in the term of the "Hispanic" countries (though "Hispanic" is derived from "Hispania," the Roman word for Iberia, so Portuguese nations should probably be included), with "Latino" sometimes being used to incorporate the Portuguese nations that "Hispanic" excludes. Despite this, I usually don't encounter Filipinos or Spanish-speaking Africans (and sometimes even Latin American blacks) being considered "Hispanic." What the Mexica Movement and the like-minded object to is the erasure of indigenous ancestry that these terms cause; it's ridiculous for Benito Juarez to be incorporated into the same group as white men like Juan and Jonathan, for example. It would be odd for African-Americans to be considered "Anglos" because they typically have English names and speak English, so it should be just as odd for Amerindians to somehow lose that identity through "Hispanicization," since Anglicization hasn't done that to those in the U.S. Anyone with a drop of Cherokee blood boasts of it and those that lack it claim to have it.
So this sort of pro-Indian sentiment is occasionally seen; the Mexican anarchist Lazaro Gutierrez de Lara was certainly agitatedly concerned with it. In his The Mexican People: Their Struggle for Freedom (full view available there), he wrote:
It is commonly supposed that the Mexican race is made up of degraded half-castes, the joint product of the most backward nation in Europe (the Spanish) and the primitive savages of the southern portion of North America. The Aztecs, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Mayas, and allied races which made up the entire population of Mexico at the time of the Conquest still constitute 60 per cent. of the population, and in spite of the fact that they have been compelled to adopt Spanish names and the Spanish language, this 60 per cent. of the nation - the working class of Mexico - still retain their ancient blood in all its purity.
These demographics aren't precisely true today, but it is the case that Mexico and many other Latin American countries are predominantly Indian, with this obfuscated by the classification of a substantial number of them as "mestizos," though most are not half-breeds, and more than that, it would certainly be odd to separate mulattoes from blacks, as we'd not have a black president if that was done. This ought to be similarly odd and out of place.
While Indians are more prevalent in southern Mexico than northern Mexico, and all territory in Mexico south of the central area is Mesoamerican and separate from the "Southwest" category that bands the Navajo and the Huichol, it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that through war, bloodshed, liberal revolution against monarchy, and the eventual establishment of peaceful relations between various Amerindian communities, the restrictions on immigration from one portion of America to another would likely not be present. So the gist is that sans British, Spanish, French, and Dutch importation of disease and ethically unjust acquisition (through force and fraud) of territory and productive resources from these Amerindians once they'd been sufficiently weakened by plague and conflict with each other, things would be quite different. And perhaps that arrangement should be honored, as property gained through theft is not rightfully owned at all.
sicsempertyrannis:That is correct, he was white like most Argentinians (including our own dear Juan) and had no problem admitting as much. One of my favorite ironies is how often you will see his portrait in a march for Mexican immigrants, when he himself thought they were nothing but a bunch of illiterate indians.
I've heard the quote, along with an alleged comment that "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." I don't know if they're legitimate or not; they're not on his Wikiquote article and I haven't seen any primary source for them. Do you have one? Regardless, I think his service in the black Congo and the Indian Bolivia are of greater value than whatever personal attitudes he may have had.
How is continent anything less of a non-existent concept than nation? The US is a set of states. A continent is too.
It seems arbitary to dictate how much land you are indigenous to. Though, if you own land and have lived in a certain area; then it's a different story. We can grant that they belong where they wish to own land and that borders and laws are basically used stupidly. But to say it encompasses something called a "continent"... which did not exist in the absence of geographical markings after nation-based conquering... is nonsense.
The map is not the territory, as Korzybski used to say.
Furthermore "rights" do not exist at all either. And are equally non-existent concepts, rather than real things. And are a statist concept: the ability to petition a monopoly for some guarantee of some freedom. If they wish to live somewhere is a different issue if they have a right to. No one should begrudge them any wish, though... No one has a right to anything; going anywhere on the continent or anything else.
As long as they drift in "rights" land, they will never overcome any state and get what they wish. Malcolm X once said "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." That's not to say violence and expropriation is best... that isn't what is meant. But realize what you do depends on how you interact with others. Rather than what others owe to you by right.
Leviathan:] It's not completely unrelated, as there's a popular misconception that all "Hispanics" are non-white, despite the fact that "Hispanics" merely refers to an ethnic group that can include persons of any race. Che Guevara was Irish (his father's maternal surname was Lynch), Basque, and Spanish, and while he probably had some indigenous blood in him and was thus a "castizo" (a predominantly white "mestizo"),
It's not completely unrelated, as there's a popular misconception that all "Hispanics" are non-white, despite the fact that "Hispanics" merely refers to an ethnic group that can include persons of any race. Che Guevara was Irish (his father's maternal surname was Lynch), Basque, and Spanish, and while he probably had some indigenous blood in him and was thus a "castizo" (a predominantly white "mestizo"),
I can find no source for that, and he certainly referred to himself as 'Europeon'.
I've heard the quote, along with an alleged comment that "The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations." I don't know if they're legitimate or not; they're not on his Wikiquote article and I haven't seen any primary source for them. Do you have one?
A quick look, and I can find no source but it has been repeated enough (with no refutations) that it is probably true.
Regardless, I think his service in the black Congo and the Indian Bolivia are of greater value than whatever personal attitudes he may have had.
Value? He wanted to replace authoritarian governments with his own totalitarian governments.
No European borders does not entail one continent. From what I read in Indian novels the animosities between various Indian ethnicities were high and personal. The message of this poster sounds forced in this context. Probably there would be a lot more borders than there are now.