Talk:Mestizos in Mexico

Editing numbers and percentage

I really think that the exact number(69,732,568) should be removed. It is too specific for people who range from looking indigenous, to looking like a balanced mixed, or looking white. It should just say " Majority of Mexican population. Indefinite amount of mixed-race Mexicans ", something like that.

the definition of Mestizo can mean different things depending on who you ask. Some people might consider a Mexican Mestizo, and others will not, because as I said, not every Mestizo has the same look.

I also think the 60% Mestizo, 30% indigenous, and 9% white CIA link should be removed. That is taken from a census that took place nearly 100 years ago. Instead, it should just list DNA tests done, and estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFV210 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to

Hello, I notice that you've changed some of my edits in the article Mestizos in Mexico, I made this section to explain my edits and discuss future edits to said article, as to do so in edit summaries is impractical.

You changed the opening sentence on the grounds that the government didn't define Mestizo culturally and it does not promote the "Mestizo identity", however according to historical accounts the government did take the decision of defining Mestizo on cultural traits (chiefly language) [1], and several academics nowadays do define Mestizos on these grounds,[2][3] these same articles writen by such academics are already used extensively to reference the article so there's no reason for their "culture based" definition of Mestizo to not be mentioned in the opening sentence.

The INMEGEN quote that asserts that "93% of the Mexican population is racially mixed" does constitute a modern example of "Mestizo identity" propaganda, If you read the complete study here [4], the sentence asserts that Mexico is 93% Mestizos and 7% Amerindians, thus it negates the existence of Asian Mexicans, Afro-Mexicans, White Mexicans, Arab Mexicans etc. Also said 93% figure is found in the introducion section as a presumed amount, it is not reported as a finding of the study itself, it is impossible for it to be so, given that the study genotyped only people who self-identified as Mestizos, and the total number was around 300-400 people. Additionaly phenotypical studies do refute this claim, for example an study in Mexico City foun that 51.5% of Mexican children have the mongolian spot whilst 48.5% don't, [5] the mongolian spot is a birthmark that always appears on Mexicans who are racially mixed with Native Americans or are of complete Native American descent) [6] thus proving that the amount of biologically unmixed Mexicans is much higher than 7%.

In regards to the amount of Africans who arrived to Mexico in colonial times, I made research and accoring to the book "The Atlantic Slave Trade" in the page 27 the highest registered number of African slaves in colonial Mexico peaked at 35,000 on mid-1500s, for mid-1600s the number was 6000,[7] a figure of 250,000 to 350,000 is mentioned, but the book makes clear that said figure is the total number of slaves shipped to Peru and Mexico, with Peru taking most of them. Another book titled Immigration and Migration states in the page 93 that the total amount of slaves shipped to Mexico in colonial times was 110,525 [8]. I'll include these figures as a range, given that historical records can be unprecise and can understimate the cuantity of some racial groups.

Finally I notice that you removed a claim made by an INMEGEN chief geneticist in an interview with CNN where he asserts that the majority of the African contribution of Mexico came via Spaniards, there's no reason to not include this claim, as CNN is a reputable source and it's the only way to explain traces of African ancestry in Mexicans who live in regions who are not close to the southern Mexican coasts that saw the slave trade, nor are they close to the border with the United States.

I think this covers all the points of concern in regards to the article, If you have questions or suggestions don't doubt on replying as I'll be monitoring this page. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@User:Pob3qu3, transferred your post from my talk page. For future discussions over specific articles, the talk page of the article is preferred. Xochiztli (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: Giving the government definition in opening sentence raises issues with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view- it gives the impression of that specific defenition being "favored" or "definitive". The current sentence is pretty neutral: regardless of what definition is used, the group still refers to an ethnic group in Mexico.

The IMAGEN report shouldn't be used for anything more than what it is, ie don't extrapolate. I changed your prefacing ("several others mix-up both due lack of knowledge in regards to the modern definition and assert...") because you seem to have decided what is and is not, correct usage of mestizo. This gets into OR territory, see Wikipedia:No original research. If I understand IMAGEN's usage correctly, mestizo is used as being synonymous with genetically mixed race and is not a comment on an individual's self-identity. Not sure what you mean by Mongolian spots refuting the claim: mixed ancestry doesn't mean that specific genetic sequences (that might manifest in a trait like Mongolian spots) are always passed on.

The consensus across published works is that Mexico received more than 200,000 slaves during its 300 year colonial period (Google book results for 200,000+slaves+Mexico). You misinterpreted the sources you gave. The Atlantic Slave Trade: by 1650 the combined population for Peru and Mexico was between 250,000 and 300,000. Immigration and Migration gives the number 110,525 slaves imported to Mexico by 1639 (the sentence ends on page 94).

I removed this change because I wasn't sure what was being conveyed. It originally claimed that some sub-Saharan genetic markers came from Spain (which makes historical sense), but the changes left the implication that all non-European contributions were from Spain. This part really confused me: "...the as said [sub-Saharan] ancestry is of North African and Near East origin". Those two groups have more in common with Europe than with sub Saharan Africa (example, see Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup). Why would it be used as proof of sub Saharan ancestry?

On average, multiple studies have shown Mexico's population to carry 5~8% sub Saharan ancestry, significantly higher than on the Iberian peninsula. See:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula#North African influence, the section includes this bit on sub Saharan: "...it does not detect significant levels of Sub-Saharan ancestry in any European population outside the Canary Islands. Indeed, a prior 2011 autosomal study by Moorjani et al. found Sub-Saharan ancestry throughout Europe at ranges of between 1-3%, the highest proportion of African ancestry in Europe is in Iberia (Portugal 3.2±0.3% and Spain 2.4±0.3%)" comapred to the average 10–12% for North African.

You seem to be a relatively new editor. I wanted to add that your good faith edits and commitment to discussion is appreciated. Xochiztli (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead suggests that the cultural definition of Mestizois favored because it indeed is, according to five non-related recent academic and published sources, the current definition of Mestizo is culture/language based, not race-based. Still I include the race criteria on it even though no modern academic source supports it.

Wheter INMEGEN currently mixes the definitions to reach the high percentage of 93% or not is debatable. However what is not up to debate is that the assertion that "they found 93% of the Mexican population to be racially mixed" is extremely misleading, and as I stated above, when the whole study is read, that "93% of the Mexican population is racially mixed" is not stated as a result of the study, but only a presumed number used to flavor the introduction, which also negates the existence of all the racial groups in Mexico who are not Amerindians or Mestizos. Furthermore, the study was performed only in 300-400 self-identified Mestizos, which is in no way representative of the entire Mexican population. So regardless of it being modified or completely removed, the sentence in it's current state has no place in the article. The mongolian spot is relvant to the discussion, because as the book I linked states "Almost all the Mestizo population of Mexico has it" making your "genetic sequences" claim invalid.

The google search results you mention does not return any academic publication, it's mostly blogs, neither are there any books that support it, all the books, support a maximum number of around 100,000. In this case the quality of sources must be considered. Anyway this is not up to debate as the ranged format includes both points of view.

The results of genetic studies depend of the region where they are done, studies performed in the south of Mexico or that include states in the south of Mexico will indeed show an African average of around 5%, however studies done in the north regions of Mexico will return between 1%[9] or 0%[10] of African ancestry, specially if done in the general population instead of just on people who self identify as Mestizos. Due this, the source stating that the African influence is legacy of Spanish colonizers must be included, it also comes from INMEGEN itself and was published on CNN. Pob3qu3 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, You readded the contested sections and ignored my request for keeping the status quo until the dispute is resolved. You seem to have also completely ignored or misunderstood my concerns.

There are multiple defintions of mestizo: limiting it to two is still problematic. The culture based definition gives preference to its 20th century usage, what about colonial usage (which is covered in the article). The intro sentence needs to be as neutrally concise as possible.

I assumed your problem with the INMEGEN report was its genetic based defention of mestizo (BTW, a culture based definition of mestizaje is not the primary usage according to the RAE). If your problem is the "93% are mestizos", why did you add it? I still do not understand what your point on the Mongolian spot is (please, do not introduce to article, it may be original research). My point was that phenotype does not indicate genotype: some genetically mixed individuals may not have the spot.

What is absolutely true is your complete misrepresentation of Immigration and Migration. I will REITERATE: number 110,525 slaves imported to Mexico by 1639. The consensus across published works is that Mexico received more than 200,000 slaves during its 300 year colonial period (Google book results for 200,000+slaves+Mexico). Based on your comment ("it's mostly blogs, neither are there any books that support it"), it seemes you didn't even check the link.

Even better sources: Google scholar results for 200,000+slaves+Mexico. Again, the overwhelming majority of sources are for more than 200,000 during the entirety of Mexico's colonial period. Most (again, on average, ie nationaly not regionally) of the sub Saharan contribution is directly from these slaves. This shoud be made clear- mention of the indirect and much smaller contribution from Iberia should also be mentioned. The original text ("A smaller African contribution may have also come from the Spaniards; in Spain some 20–23% of genetic material is considered 'non-European', most of which is shared with North Africa and the Near East.") should be changed to clarify sub Saharan contribution. Regionality is discussed in the genetic studies section (where it makes sense), the history section is talking about historical national trends.

I am going to remove your changes for a second time since you did not address the concerns brought up: please don't readd until dispute is resolved. I am busy and may not be able to respond daily. I am also requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion for additional input on this discussion. Xochiztli (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead that i propose already uses both definitions

I included the 93% estimate because I seek to inlcude all the definitions used, and the mongolian spot claim is no way original research as everything is sourced, from the incidence percentages in the Mexican population to the rates of appearance in different races (or mixes of races).

You keep talking about the books I source not being good enough sources but you haven't showed any literary source that suggests that 200,000 slaves were shiped to Mexico alone (the 200,000 figure is always referencing the total slaves shiped to the spanish colonies), and even then I still respect and keep your claim when I have no reason to, I'm being rather permissive and considerate here but you are completely one sided and are reverting all my edits, that's not how wikipedia is meant to work.

I only re-added the contested sentences that have strong support by academic sources (for example, my proposal for the lead section has 5 sources to back it up and I can easily provide more) or sentences who do not conflict with the ideas existing in the article in any way, but actually complement them. I don't believe that request for Third Opinion applies when one editor (in this case me) has an overwhelming amount of good-quality sources and the opposing editor (in this case you) has only his/her opinion to contest my edits, request for third opinion is meant to be used when both editors have good-quality sources that contradict each other, that's not the case here. Accord to wikipedia guidelines, sourced claims are always prefered over non-sourced ones such as the ones you are doing and reverting every edit because it "hasn't been discussed" is recognized as a form of uncivility. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: I am following Wikipedia standards and norms. You have proven that you do not understand (or are willfully ignoring) Wikipedia policy.

Based on this response, I am left to assume you are completely irrational. You say that you "seek to inlcude all the definitions" and yet, you are limiting it to 2. Mongolian spots: read Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. You are completely ignoring my responses and links for the number of slaves in colonial Mexico (why even fight this one? When a multitude of sources prove you wrong).

Again -the whole point of this discussion- read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The majority of mestizo+Mexico results on Google scholar are for genetic studies, not cultural. See RAE link above. You are favoring a definition that was pushed by the government for a few decades and that started declining in the 1990s. Why should this specfic (in time) defenition be favored over the legal colonial (which lasted longer), genetic (most common modern usage), economic (such as in the case of "assimilated" indigenous people) or racial usage (such as in the EB or CIA world factbook)?

Of your sources: #2 and #3 are dated (from the 1990s), #4 uses a "current" language definition and there may be OR with #1 and #5 (they talk about language and "whites" being classified as mestizos, these are not definitions). As of 2015, the government allows for self identification as indigenous and/or afrodescendent- language is no longer barometer for nativeness. The rest of the population is unlabeled- there is no default to mestizo. The government hasn't pushed "mestizaje" in decades and officially adopted "pluriculturalism" in 1992.

You have readded the contested changes, see Wikipedia:Edit warring. It is clear that outside input is required. Xochiztli (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's norms say that statements have to be sourced, you are not following that one. And I don't see how the mongolian spot is original research as the source itself says that the mongolian spot is almost absent in Caucasian/European populations.

I'm afraid that Genetic studies done on self-identified Mestizos do not favor your point of view in regards of an "official classification" in any way, and nonetheless the racial definition is mentioned in the lead paragraph aswell, so honestly I have no idea why are you arguing here. Do you want the sentence to read:

"Mexican Mestizos are an ethnic group in Mexico which can be defined on a strict biological criteria, or by a cultural criteria (the language spoken)..."

instead of

"Mexican Mestizos are an ethnic group in Mexico which can be defined either by cultural criteria (the language spoken) or a more strict biological criteria..."?

that's sort of reaching too far. Also no strictly "economic Mestizo classification" exists. You claim that books published in the 90s are outdated but want the colonial classification from 200 years ago to be included, even though it's mentioned in the introduction already and I have included it myself twice [11][12], as you reverted it the last time, I don't consider this to be "edit warring". What are you even complaining about here? Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mestizos in Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170804041510/http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-92742016000200092&lng=pt&nrm=iso to http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-92742016000200092&lng=pt&nrm=iso

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussing Mestizaje as an ideology rather than ethnic group

I think this is one of the main confusions in the English speaking world. Mestizaje is a core component of Mexico's national ideology. It does not represent a distinct community but rather an idea. This should be discussed from the beginning of the article because any Mexican can and does consider himself on some level "Mestizo" regardless of actual ancestry. It is inbuilt in the education system. --Php2000 (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of Mestizos

There is the tendency in the US to associate Mediterranean features which are predominant among Mexico's large white population with that of Mestizos. One can be white without appearing nordic or having blond hair and the European component in Mexicans is Mediterranean. If we want show examples of "Mestizo" Mexicans, something which is controversial, it has to be at least people who could not pass for locals in any country in Southern Europe. For this reason I have removed the section portraying allegedly Mestizo Mexicans most of which are quite definitely white.Php2000 (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Euro bias for "Notable Mestizos"

The examples shown are castizos or otherwise predominantely european-looking. The average mexican mestizo has much more noticeable amerindian traits. 186.185.234.27 (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Mexicans have more White European DNA

mexico is 70% White European DNA the southern countries raise the numbers for Mexico and lower them for the southern countries included Spambeanie truth (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? -- Alexf^(talk) 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)