The Racial Makeup of Hispanics

Repost from the old site.

This post has been updated with new information, photos and pie charts showing degree of genetic makeup here.

Let us take a look at a subject that most people seem to know little or nothing about – the genetic makeup of Hispanics in the Americas.

You think I am kidding? I now live in a town that is 70% Hispanic.

I recently informed some of these Hispanics, ranging from wannabe gangbanger graffiti-tagging teenagers in continuation high school and headed for nowhere, to university grads with their own businesses on the road to Yuppiedom, that Mexicans were a mix between American Indians and Whites, and that they were in fact part White.

This was met with incredulity and charges of lying all around, most depressingly on the part of the “university grad.”

Hence a bit of education seems to be in order.

As I noted in a previous foray into this area, there are two opposing poles of idiocy at work here. The first, a group of fools calling themselves Atzlanistas, or radical Chicanos, holds that Chicanos are “80% Amerindian”.

This is because their idiot ethnic nationalism is predicated on some BS “indigenousness” and related hatred of everything European and White, even though most folks espousing this line are probably majority-White.

The opposing pole of morons is of course formed by another group of ethnic nationalists, in this case the White Nationalist faction (What is it about ethnic nationalism that seems make morons out of even the most intelligent people?).

It would be very painful to admit that US Hispanics are a lot more like us White folks that these guys want to admit, so they conveniently code Hispanics as a “non-White race”. These clowns, in line with their enemies the Atzlanistas, also hold that Hispanics are 80% Amerindian, but in their case this is a bad thing, whereas for the Atzlanistas, it’s a thing of glory.

The truth will be depressing to both sides, but since they are both infected with brain-rotting Identity Politics, neither will be able or willing to see the truth.

The truth is that Chicanos in the US are at present (1998) about 60% White and 40% Amerindian. Actual figures were 57% White and 39% Amerindian and 4% Black in one study and 59% White, 37% Amerindian, 3% Black in another. About 10-15 years before, in the 1980′s, they were about 70% White and 30% Indian. Actual figures ranged from 68% White, 30% Amerindian and 2% Black in one study to 65% White and 35% Amerindian in another.

Mexico is about the opposite – about 65% Indian, 34% White and 1% Black. Guerrero had 22% (!) Black genes. Sonora, at the high end, had 58% White genes. The study also showed that Mexicans have come from all over the world.

Yet another study of Mexican genes found that they were quite similar to US immigrants – 59% White, 31% Amerindian and 10% (!) Black. White admixture ranged from 51-70% amongst in this study, and the highest Amerindian admixture in Mexico was 37% in Guerrero. 80% of Mexicans were classed as mestizos.

So the actual makeup of Mexicans themselves is somewhat of a mystery.

Black admixture in Mexico tends to be around 3-8%, or about 5.5% on average. And it seems to be split around pretty evenly.

However, note that about 20 years ago, the ratio was about 1-2% Black in the US, and now it is about 3-4% Black.

Most Chicanos had ancestors that came only from certain states – from the various Mexican mestizo states – the Western States of Jalisco and Michoacan, the West Central States of Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas, and the Northern States of Sinaloa, Nuevo Leon, Durango, Chihuahua and Tamaulipas.

Analysis of Mexicans from the Mestizo heartland of Monterrey, San Luis Potosi, and Zacatecas showed that they are about as White as Chileans or Argentines – 78.5% White and 21.5% Amerindian. Zacatecas in particular has long been noted for having an almost exclusively Mestizo population.

Mexico is actually pretty divergent. A study of the residents of the city of Tlapa, Guerrero, revealed that they are almost pure Amerindian. Yet I have met several Mexicans from Guerrero who look about as White as I do.

Some Zapotec Indians from Oaxaca. My town is full of Oaxacan Indians, and contrary to the linguistic pessimists in my comments threads, the languages seem to be doing quite well.

I recently saw two young men speaking a Zapotec language outside the DMV. They told me that everyone in the village back home spoke Zapotec, including all the kids, that it was even used in the schools, and that they both knew how to read it and even write it. They were impressed that I was interested in their language.

From these facts, a few things become clear.

There is a suggestion (unproven so far) that Hispanics in the US are much more White than the Hispanics in Mexico. The more Amerindian Hispanics may be staying in Mexico, whereas the Whiter ones may be coming here. This is precisely the opposite of most of what we hear about Mexican immigration (the poor Indians are all flooding here).

There is also evidence that Mexicans in the US are less Black than Mexicans in Mexico. In Mexico, Mexicans are 5.5% Black. In the 1980′s, Mexicans in the US were 1.5% Black, but that increased to 3.5% Black in the 1990′s.

There is a clear suggestion that Mexican immigrants to the US are becoming more Amerindian, more Black and less White over time. This accords with what most honest folks are noticing. Nevertheless, as of 10 years ago, they were still a majority-White people.

In fact, Mexico is so bad that even about 80% of Mexican professionals now want to come here. Fully 50% of the population of Mexico says they want to come to the US and are willing to risk the trip.

The Open Borders Lobby wishes to open our border to 55 million Mexicans. You don’t have to be a racist to realize what a catastrophe this would be for the US. I don’t think it would be so great for Mexico either, especially if 80% of their professionals high-tailed it.

It is idiotic for Atzlanistas to claim that a mixed-race people, possibly majority-White (60%), are 80% Amerindian.

It is equally insane for White Nationalists to claim that a majority-White (60%) population has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their precious and threatened White Race.

Now that I live in what is practically a part of Mexico, I have been observing the Chicanos and Mexicans around me, an interest that sparked these posts. One thing that is immediately clear is that there is no rational way to call this group of people a “race.”

This is genetic mystery casserole prepared by a master chef. You see all “types” and gradations and everything in between. You see dark-skinned Mexicans with Caucasian features. You see light-skinned Mexicans with Amerindian features. And I keep thinking I see Black here and there. And every possible jumble in between that you could possibly imagine.

It’s actually fascinating to observe them.

Since the gene mix was somewhat restricted (mostly Iberian Whites and Mexican Amerindians with a bit of Black), you do see some of what ethnologists used to class as anthropological “types” (although PC has probably made it illegal to discuss types anymore in ethnologies). That girl in the Walmart looks like the waitress in the bar. Then their triplet shows up at the gas station.

Even here, the diversity is striking. If one were to play Carleton Coon, you could probably come up with hundreds of Mexican “types.” You see what look like pure-blooded Spaniards here and there, and I am starting to suspect that different Mexican Amerindian tribal admixtures produce different types.

Here is a Tarahumara woman who looks a lot different from a typical Mexican Indian. From northern Mexico, this woman could easily pass as a Navajo.
Another Tarahumara woman, this one quite old. Even she does not look like most of the Mexican Indians you see in the US, most of whom are from Oaxaca and Guerrero.This is a Mayan Indian man from the far south of Mexico. As you can see, not all Mexicans are “Aztecs”, as Aztlanista lunatics insist and Mexican government propaganda implies.

Most disturbing to the idiots above is that many Mexicans could clearly be classed as “White” by any rational human being. They may look Mediterranean, Greek, Italian or Iberian, but they don’t look that different from some of the Whites I grew up with.

And yes, quite a few are pure Amerindians. Some of these look so Asian that you might think they were Filipinos. Yes, they are short and dark – something the White racists love to rant about – clearly shorter and less robust than California Amerindians.

But reduced size is an adaptation to a tropical climate – reduced body size makes it easier for the body to cool off in the heat – and of course melanin was essential for any humans evolving in tropical climes before the advent of suntan lotion.

In Mexico, Mexican society is quite stratified, and White nationalists think this is fantastic. WN’s also love to carry on about how “racist” Mexicans are, with the Whites lording it over everyone else and despising all the dark-skinned lessers, except they think this racism is just wonderful, as opposed to the variety directed at their own kind, which is sheer evil.

No, this photo was not taken in Orange County, California. It was taken in Mexico. The spectators are either tourists or White Mexicans. I think the dancers are White Mexicans, but a Spaniard wrote to tell me that they are Mestizos.

That may be true in Mexico, but I have noticed little of it here in the US, at least in the poor, mostly Mexican town I live in. White and lighter Mexicans carry on with darker and full-Indian Mexicans in the bars, and everywhere else, here. I watch them while they cavort and chat, searching for the signs of this horrible racism the WN’s insist is omnipresent in US Mexicans. Problem is I can’t see it at all.

I asked around, and one Mexican-American told me that “some” Chicanos in the US have racial attitudes towards skin color, but he acted like it wasn’t common or ubiquitous. Here again, the WN’s would be disappointed. He said most made no distinction between White, Mestizo and Indian (in fact these categories almost did not exist) but instead there was a general, continuum-type attitude that lighter skin was better.

He then described a beautiful young “light-skinned” Chicana that he fancied. What struck me as strange is that to my White eyes she was fairly dark.

Here is a good example of Mexican racism by an Overseas Chinese author, Amy Chua, from her World On Fire. Chua apparently thinks this sort of hierarchy is just groovy:

Almost without exception the Mexican officials, lawyers, and business executives we dealt with were light-skinned and foreign educated, with elegant European names.

Meanwhile, the people doing the photocopying and cleaning the floors were all shorter, darker, and plainly more “Indian-blooded”. While considerable social fluidity exists in Mexico, it is also true that lightness of skin correlates directly and glaringly with increasing wealth and social status. (p 59)

It is important to recognize where race-realists and White Nationalists are coming from. They think the state of affairs described above by Chua is normal, reasonable and rational – the way things should be, as it were, or even a God-made law, “Natural Law”, as the rightwing Catholics have it.

A recent IQ test undertaken by Richard Lynn at a public school in Mexico showed that in Mexico, White IQ is 98, Mestizo IQ is 94 and Indian IQ is 83. This is why the race-realists love IQ differentials so much. Because they see these IQ differentials as enshrining, for ever and ever, the situation that Chua describes above.

Ah, but let us examine these scores.

Let us say that the 14 point difference between Whites and Amerindians above means that Whites are 3X as intelligent as Amerindians and 50% smarter than Mestizos (a bit of a reach, but Arthur Jensen says an IQ of 145 is seven times more intelligent than an IQ of 100).

This entitles Whites to about 3X personal income of Amerindians and 50% more income than Mestizos, right?

Yet the reality is far different, as we see in Chua above. Instead of 3X the income, the elite has many times the income of an Amerindian, while the Amerindian lives in poverty. And the White elite has vastly more than 1.5X the income of Mestizos.

Indeed, the family of one man, Carlos Slim, has 50% of the wealth in all of Mexico. So even by the nasty rules of IQ, the inequality described by Chua above falls flat on its face, and so does race-realists’ justification of it.

While we are at it, we should note that the situation that WN’s rave about in Latin America – the Whites have all the money, the Mestizos and mulattos much less and the Amerindians and Blacks nothing – is not really true.

As we can see by this study, it is not true that all Whites of Latin America are rich (I can confirm this, as I see many “White” Mexicans who are quite poor in my town) and there are a reasonable (though still small) number of Blacks, mulattos and mestizos in the highest income categories.

So the situation in Latin America, while quite unfair and even racist, is not the White Supremacist paradise that the WN’s say it is. It is instead, as most things in life are, somewhat more complicated.

As long as we are pondering the racial makeup of Mexicans, let us look around, racially, at the rest of Latin America: Argentina and Chile are the prizes of Latin America for White Nationalists – the populations are said to be “all White,” the IQ’s are nice and high and so are the development figures. Yet studies show that Argentines and Chileans are not so White as WN’s say.

This study shows Argentines at 74% White and 26% Amerindian, which seems about right. It shows Chileans at 53% Amerindian and 47% White (I think that far overestimates Amerindian and underestimates White in Chile). Colombians are 48.5% White, 45% Amerindian and 6.5% Black (probably about right).

Brazilians, curiously, despite the fevered cries of WN’s that “the future of America is Brazil”, are 68% White, 17% Amerindian, and 15% Black.

However, see the comments at the end of the post for a probably better analysis of Brazilian genetics showing Brazilians as 52% White, 35% Black and 12% Amerindian.

While the WN’s scream about “Brazilianization”, I prefer “Cubanization”.

Cubanization should work just fine. 2% of the population of Latin America in Cuba produces 10% of the science grads, has the best educated population in the Americas, the lowest infant mortality and malnutrition, some of the longest life expectancy and are amongst the best-fed in Latin America. All this with all those darned Black inferior genes. How do they do it, and this is bad just how now?

These are typical Cuban women, and most of them are probably mixed-race to one degree or another. As you can see, they are starving, miserable, sickly and clothed in rags, since they live in a Communist Cuban Hell, or so the US media would have us believe. Although 37% of Cubans identify as White, we are getting into Latin American definitions of White here, and those are not the same as American definitions.

I had a Cuban-American girlfriend when I was 19 who looked something like the woman at left. Curious thing was that her father and mother were both a lot lighter than she was. How does that work anyway? I thought that a child cannot be darker than either of its parents?

Costa Ricans, which WN’s love to uphold as an “almost purely-White state” (see this link from a journal in the 1930′s, which claimed that 70% of Costa Ricans were pure White), are actually 61% White, 38% Indian and 3% Black – this is very much like the Hispanic population in the US, so despised as “non-White” by WN’s.

Other studies give us similar figures.

This study found Hispanic Costa Ricans 59% White, 34% Amerindian and 1% Black, while Black Costa Ricans were 76% Black, 14% Amerindian and 10% White.

Yet another study of Argentines showed that they were 79% White, 19% Amerindian and 2% Black.

Another cast doubt on the notion that many, if any, Argentines were pure White, and suggested that almost 100% of Argentines are at least part-Indian. That series of 94 Argentines found that they all had Amerindian blood, and that the lowest % was 1.5% (the highest ranged up to 84.5%). The average, in line with the study above, was 19% Amerindian, which seems about right.

However, another found that 56% of Argentines had Amerindian blood, and they had an average of 18% Amerindian in them. In many, it was not apparent on phenotype. Therefore, Argentina is a 44% White country and it is one of the Whiter countries in Latin America. However, it is still a majority-mestizo land.

Tragically, Argentine White nationalists have gone insane over this study and have tried to destroy the Wikipedia article. This is similar to the way that Italian and Greek White nationalists have gone nuts over the considerable evidence showing that Greeks and Southern Italians have ~5% Black genes.

Two studies out of Uruguay suggested a considerable amount of Amerindian and Black genes in Uruguayans. Previous studies found an average of 78% White, 10.5% Amerindian and 11% Black genes in Uruguayans. A study in the northern city of Tacuarembó found that residents were 31% Amerindian on the mother’s side (mtDNA).

Another study of Uruguayans in the Department of Cerro Largo found that they were on average 78% White, 15% Indian and 10% Black, similar to the study above.

Chile is quite similar – 30% of Chileans say they are White – but genes may give the lie to that. Most of the White component is from Spanish stock – mostly from Castille, Andalusia and the Basque Country.

Some Spaniards from Seville. In my town I actually see a lot of “non-White” Mexicans who look like these folks (especially the woman) to one degree or another.

The amount of non-Spanish White stock in Chile is not large, unlike Argentina, where large numbers came from Germany, Italy, Wales, Lebanon, Yugoslavia and other places.

Most Chileans are clearly mestizos – 69.5% of the population class themselves as such, but the true number is probably. Chileans, like Argentines, are about 80% White and 20% Indian, with some interesting, but not great, differentiations by class (dead link).

The upper classes are 85% White and 14% Amerindian, while the lower classes are 74% White and 25% Amerindian. Chilean Mestizos are also 1% Black.

As you can see here, most Chileans (every single woman in this picture) are Mestizos, whether they say they are or not. By their complexion and features, it seems reasonable that Chileans may be 20% Amerindian, as one study above estimates, but not 53% Amerindian, as the other does. This phenotype is ubiquitous among the mostly-Mexican Hispanics in my town. By the way, they sure are cute, huh?

Amerindians make up a full 10.5% of the population of Chile – 85% of them are Mapuches, who were never completely defeated by the Chilean government during the savage wars that raged in the mid to late 1800′s.

Chile is a profoundly racist and classist society compared to the US. On the Net recently, I learned of a flame war between Chileans and Peruvians on Youtube. I don’t understand Spanish well enough when spoken to understand the videos, so I don’t know all the details, however I gleaned a bit of it by looking at some Chilean discussion forums.

As I can read Spanish pretty well, I got a gist of the Chilean point of view. Many Chileans utterly despise Peruvians, whom they call Peruasnos, instead of the proper Peruanos (that means something like “Peruviasses”). Their main complaint against Peruvians, which they were not shy about making, was that Peruvians are dirty, filthy, inferior Indians.

That Chileans are 20% Indian is no matter. Chileans don’t see themselves as Indians, and Peruvians are, and that is that. The rank racism of the Chileans was appalling from a US point of view – sort of what you might find on Stormfront – except that this is apparently mainstream Chilean thinking.

I knew a Chilean once whose father had been in the Allende regime. He was studying sociology and planned to go live with an Indian community as part of his fieldwork.

Yet he laughed hysterically talking about the “ugliness” of Mapuches (I looked at photos on the Internet and thought the women at least were beautiful) and claimed that the Chilean poor were poor because they spent all their money on booze and gambling.

He also said in Chilean society it was important for a man to have “soft hands” (strange in such a macho society) because this meant that he was upper class and did not work with his hands like a lowly working-class guy. A glance at Chilean economic figures shows a society wildly stratified income-wise by class, far worse than even our increasingly Gilded Age America.

And the class attitudes above (reminiscent of, say, the British upper class) are all but absent from even upper-class US society. After meeting that fellow, and reading about Chile, I finally understood why men named Allende and Pinochet led the country for years, and why ferocious class division, and frankly class hatred, continues to wrack that land.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

173 Comments

Filed under Reposts From The Old Site

173 responses to “The Racial Makeup of Hispanics

  1. Pingback: US Hispanic Racial Dynamics « Robert Lindsay

  2. Pingback: More Race in Latin America « Robert Lindsay

  3. Obvious

    The reason so much of Latin America is a rather unpleasant place is because of the rampant race mixing that has occurred there. With race mixing comes massive social/political/economic disorganization and generalized social dissolution – mixed populations end up getting lorded over by more racially unmixed groups like elite/plutocratic Jews, Whites, Arabs, Asians, etc.

    It’s a virtual law that the Whitest parts of Latin America are also the most pleasant, prosperous, stable, and clean on that entire continent. Conversely, it is clear that the more racially mixed a given area of Latin America is the worse it is.

    And your whole bias in this article in referring to the Spanish immigrants to Latin America as ‘White’ is rather incorrect – Spaniards are themselves a bastardised racial stew of Arabs, Sephardi Jews, Blacks, Berbers, and some Northern Euro Whites…the elites of Spanish society were always those who possessed the most Northern European blood and who kept there blood as pure as possible.

    By virtue of geography, history, population movements, wars, and so forth, Spaniards are the least White of all Europeans – so they certainly aren’t a good barometer of judging or gauging Whiteness in Latin America or elsewhere.

    • tulio

      “It’s a virtual law that the Whitest parts of Latin America are also the most pleasant, prosperous, stable, and clean on that entire continent. Conversely, it is clear that the more racially mixed a given area of Latin America is the worse it is.”

      That would be as if the Mayans and Aztecs colonized Europe, made a caste system with themselves at the top, enslaved whites, raped white women, only allowed whites to do certain menial jobs and keeping most the wealth for themselves and saying, “see, anywhere the Indians live is a better and more prosperous place to live”. Well duh, no shit! That was the plan in the first place.

      • Pepperoncini

        Hit the nail on the head.

        • Pont

          Whites came before Hispanics and Asians. America about 17000 years ago people came from Europe were in the U.S. on the East coast. People came over the land bridge from Asia and mixed with these peoples later. So the Asians came 10,000 years ago.Three percent of the DNA is from white people. This was tested from American Indian tribes on the east coast. This was tested from graves tested before new whites came. They came before Hispanic and Asians. The Asian graves the people came after the whites. So the Eastern part of the U.S. was populated by whites. They say Chief Pontiac was mixed. These People are related to pre italic red long skulled people of Europe. There were also people before the Germans Scandinavian and Italian people came to Europe. Some were Mediterranean pre Italic whites. German Scandinavian people have Mediterranean pre italic and Baltic, Italic, Celtic, Indoeuropean in them. I also come from Normans of Italy. These people were Norman French, Norman Italian Italian, Celtic, Scandinavian and German These people are also from Indoeuropeans. The Norman Italian knights took over England because they used 10,000 Arab horses from Italy against the English. The English had no horses. This is where we get our English langage from. These people are from the white race. The white race was first before the Asians, Hispanics In the U.S.

        • rudy

          the whites that came supposedly 1700 years ago were exterminated by the inuit.

        • India Land of Paradise

          The thing with none whites is that they help whites look good and help them to bond together in a nationalistic way. None white ugliness is a big boon to whites. It helps in these two ways. Whites do need none whites around or they forget!

    • Juan Rivera

      The spaniards are not the only mixed poeple in europe. The british, french and germans are also a mixture of racial groups from northern europe. The fact that they are mediterranean doesn’t make them inferior to other european nations as you imply. Lets just remember that they built a worldwide empire that also included some areas in northern europe and almost conquered britain, just as the mediterranean romans conquered and ruled the germanic people who back then were viewed as “barbarians”

    • antonio dubois

      “Spaniards are themselves a bastardised racial stew of Arabs, Sephardi Jews, Blacks, Berbers, and some Northern Euro Whites…the elites of Spanish society were always those who possessed the most Northern European blood and who kept there blood as pure as possible.”
      Muy probablemente eres uno de esos sudamericanos con un odio visceral a los españoles. Lo que es evidente es que tienes pocos conocimientos de historia, no ya de España sino de toda Europa. A palabras necias, oidos sordos.

    • Wade in MO

      “Conversely, it is clear that the more racially mixed a given area of Latin America is the worse it is.”

      This must explain why pitch black Haiti is such a paradise.

    • ann varela

      Your ignorance is severe. Arabs are considered white. Jews are white, and Berbers are white. Spain has more blondes and redheads than Italy. Get an education.

      Ann

    • Killua Zoldyck

      “Their main complaint against Peruvians, which they were not shy about making, was that Peruvians are dirty, filthy, inferior Indians.”
      The Peruvians of the cities, the urban Peruvians , are mostly White, the upper middle income Lima city is mostly White, the Peruvian Amerindians are mostly rural, i don’t see this as Amerindian Peru vs White Chile ; i see this as Amerindian Rural Peru and Chile vs White Urban Peru and Chile ,the cities of both are more Whiteeee.

  4. Sorry, Obvious, I really despise Nordicism. As if WN itself was not bad enough, Nordicism is miles worse.

  5. Omar E. Vega

    “As you can see here, most Chileans (every single woman in this picture) are Mestizos, whether they say they are or not. By their complexion and features, it seems reasonable that Chileans may be 20% Amerindian, as one study above estimates, but not 53% Amerindian, as the other does. This phenotype is ubiquitous among the mostly-Mexican Hispanics in my town. By the way, they sure are cute, huh?”

    Yes, Chile is mixed and what? Educated chileans recognize that Chile is the result of mixture between Spaniards and Amerindians.

    And, of course Chilean girls are pretty. A lot more, in average, than many overweight gringas.

    • tulio

      “And, of course Chilean girls are pretty. A lot more, in average, than many overweight gringas.”

      Chilean women don’t have a reputation for being particularly pretty. I was down there for several weeks earlier this year and I didn’t see many stunners. A few were cute here and there, but Colombian, Brazilian and Argentine women have the reputation for being the most attractive. Though I didn’t find the Argentine women to be nearly as attractive as people rave about. Brazilian women blew them out the water.

    • tulio

      Oh and Chile’s “whiteness” depends on where you are. As you get closer to Peru and Bolivia, Chileans look quite indigenous. Santiago has quite a few white Chilenos. I’d say overall, Chileans appear to be somewhat whiter than Mexicans, but not as white as Uruguayans.

      I also found the Argentines to be more mestizo than I had thought. The rich areas of Buenos Aires like Recoleta looked quite European, but overall, for all the hype I hear about how white Argentina is, very many of its people would be considered light-skinned mestizos in the U.S. There are also quite a few Bolivian immigrants, who are generally despised.

      • Rafa

        I think that the Argentine government has an unspoken and unofficial policy of inflating the numbers of its “White” population every time they conduct their census. The last time I checked, Argentina was 97% White and 3% Amerindian…which begs the question, where are the Mestizos? The answer is quite simple. Argentine Mestizos are within the White population. As a soccer fan I can testify to this comment because whenever I see Argentina play in the FIFA World Cup, I observe that at least half of the team has some discernible native indigenous ancestry in the phenotype. Needless to say, I don’t believe that any of those olive-skinned Argentine soccer players will acknowledge their non-White genetic component. More than likely, they usually hide it under their Italian surnames which were legitimately obtained on their paternal lineage. However, like other Hispanic groups, Argentine maternal lineages have an indigenous genetic component greater than 50%. Who knows? They probably have quite a substantial Black African component too, but if having to recognize their Indigenous ancestry is hard enough, I doubt that Argentines would be willing to admit it. In case you’re wondering whether I have any sources to support my argument, I do. Check out this article in Spanish titled “La Identidad Genética De Los Argentinos” (The Genetic Identity of Argentines)
        http://www.indigenas.bioetica.org/nota28.htm

    • I’m not the right person to judge the attractiveness of Chilean women compared to women of other ethnic groups (as I’m Chilean myself).

      But speaking about being overweight, we’re not too far away from the excesses seen in Mexico and the U.S. :-(

  6. Stefan

    Spain a bastardized race?…Britain is by far more bastardized. Tacitus, a Roman historian made a clear description of how the Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germanics and Middle Eastern Scythians were. First of all, Roman historical documents from describe Carthaginian Port Town as far as in Ireland. Carthaginian traders were originally from Phoenicia.
    These documents from around 300 B.C. clearly describe the phenotype differences of the Romans from other Barbaric tribes. The Roman description of themselves is clearly the same as modern day Spanish person, Roman nose profiles resemble a Spanish nose profile. Romans describe themselves as having pale, easily tanned skin. dark hair and mostly having amber, light brown and more commonly Hazel eyes. The Celts, contrary to common ignorant beliefs were described during 300 B.C. as having pale skin that could tan dark hair and to a large degree, blue eyes. Many Hibernians ( Irish), however, were describe as having brown skin and dark eyes. Others as white with dark eyes and large noses.Ireland was then inhabited by a majority of Vasques, some Celtic tribes and many Carthaginian traders. The Germanic tribes were described as tall, blond and and light blue eyed, and reddish white skin. Scythians originated in what today is Kazakhstan and were describe by Tacitus (some centuries after) as tall, grey eyed and red haired. These historical descriptions explain why Italians, Spaniards, Southern French, Portuguse, and to some degree Romanians look alike. Romans were never a Nordic race, nor had blue eyes. The Mediterranean people are not a result of a bastardized race. The Roman Empire extended its influence to Britain and many Roman Nobles moved in what is today known as Wales. As an obvious result,a great percentage of Welsh people have hazel eyes, Roman nose profiles and Mediterranean skin, perhaps paler due to the fact that Britain is located in a Northern region. Some might even look Vasque still. The only reason Carthaginian or Semite phenotypes became uncommon is because of a constant absortion by other ethnicities. Greeks thought that blue eyes were a sign of cowardice and uncivilized people. Romans viewed Celtic, Germanic and other Tribes, except Greeks, as inferior to them. before the Roman conquest, technologically and culturally speaking, they were right, they possessed a poor writing system, did not have massive constructions and lacked a truly organized state. Germanic tribesmen rarely possessed any metal armor and fought naked. For Romans, Celtic or Nordic features were barbaric.
    Ironically, many people never take into account that Romans always feared and respected another tribe. This tribe was describe as almost gigantic, and physically powerfull. These tribesmen were the Today’s Dinkas, Berbers etc…
    Ignorant people think mestizo people look like indians or Arabs. I’ve been to Mexico and have some friends who are blond, blue eyed and both their parents look Indian, some others have green, hazel and grey eyes have white reddish skin, and some are even red haired with swarthy parents. I’ve seen mixed people in Sweden ( a great amount of population) who come from Sami parents( who came from Siberia and Mongoloid tribes) and are light blond, light blue eyed. The same in Finland and even in Greenland. This mix has happened thousands of years before the viking invasion so DNA tests prove that English people have Sami blood to a certain extent too, they just lack the phenotype. I think ignorant people think mix races among European and non European have to look non white, which is really stupid. Hungarians are also a mixed of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Magyar and Mongreals. Many Russians absorbed Sami,Ugric and Mongoloid people for centuries. And Jewish have also been mixing for almost a thousand years with some Europeans. If Jewish people didn’t conserve their religion, They would be considered European. In Germany many blond nordic looking were accepted in the Army even when their parents were Jewish. The final point is that when mestizo populations are constantly absorbed by just one group, over the centuries it becomes part of the culture that absorbed them. That is also the main reason why our languages constantly change, all Germanic languages used to be one but got mixed and changed. Same with Romance, Slavic and probably every single language in the world.

  7. Vanessa

    Orlando Bloom, keyra knightly, Sean Connery and Julia roberts look spanish or italian to me. you can tell the great diversity of people UK has. in a research conducted there they found out that blond hair in england is most common where the danegeld and anglosaxons first established. hazel eyes and dark hair are like you said common in wales. italians french portuguese romanians some welsh and spanish look the same except for some exceptions since they were conquered many times by other nations after the roman empire dissolved but still i dont understand what you say that red hair originated or was in ancient times common in kazakhstan. most people there look like mongols in fact the name kazakhstan is from an turkic word brought by mongols and the highest percent of red hair is found in russia scotlad, ireland france and scandinavia.

  8. Yodog

    All modern humans can trace their ancestry to the people who inhabited eastern Africa over 100,000 years ago. Apparently the San people (Bushmen) are the contemporary group which most resembles our common ancestors.

  9. Robert Lindsay…..How dare you insault the Mexican heritage in some manner that makes you look ridiculously stupid?..You wish you looked as beautiful as those hard working Mexicans up there. I’m full blooded Mexican resembling more of my Spanish side than Native and when I come across those who are short and Darker, I admire their beauty with respect. Everything you’ve mentioned in your writing,I’v been knowing since the age of 16. Now I’m currently 18 and Enjoying my culture more than ever before Because at least I know now that there are Idiots like you writing ignorantly.

    • Rafa

      How is Robert insulting Mexican heritage? First and foremost, please know that I’m Mexican (born in Tamaulipas) and that I applaud Robert’s efforts to educate people on the genetic diversity of the Mexican population. When I first stumbled upon Robert’s blog, I was flabbergasted! I seriously thought that finally SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT MEXICAN ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT when it came to debunking racial myths about Mexicans. I think there is a possibility that you might be taking Robert’s words out of context. Trust me, if you read the words in their proper context, Robert is NOT insulting anyone. He is is only presenting his perspective on the racial ancestry of Mexicans. He is by no means asserting an aesthetic description on the diverse phenotype of Mexicans. ¡Tranquila amiga, todo está bien!

  10. AtheistJew

    Sofia, i don’t think he was being racist.
    I take great interest in the hispanic race since i’ve been around this race for a long time, and trust me…i’ve heard all types of things and i can assure you that what Robert wrote was not “racist”.

    Your type are what makes people turn racist.
    Like Chicanos and farm boy gangsters who make other latinos here look like idiots.
    I’ve heard from a few Mexican classmates that they want to get rid of the Aztlan movement since it’s “stupid” and “racist”.

    You can be proud of your ancestry, but then when you choose to move to another country…you better learn the language and study the culture of that new country OUT OF RESPECT.

  11. Vanessa

    I am an undergraduate at a private liberal arts institution in California. My parents never attended college, neither did my grandparents. I have 3.8 GPA and scored 168 on my LSAT- I am Mexican and do not wish to be identified or affiliated with Whites.
    To insinuate that intelligence is concentrated in people of white descent is ridiculous. It reaffirms racism and legitimizes eugenics and other absurd social darwinian theories.
    Its not that Mexicans disrespect or loathe white culture. Its just frustrating that anything impressive or brilliant gets accredited to whites. I would like my intellectual and otherwise great pursuits to be accredited to my identity to native indians of Mexico. Mexican can be intelligent to and not because they have white in them.
    Indians, Asians, and blacks are attaining prestigious titles and fulfilling professional realms and doing damn well.
    This is NOT a white man’s world. The colored people no longer want to be intellectually, culturally, and spiritually conditioned by white traditions. We do not think we are superior to whites, but we also refuse to conform to the ideology that white ways are superior. They are not.
    Let us practice and enjoy our heritage. Our celebrations, languages, and traditions do not compromise greater American identity. They add to it.
    So don’t for a minute blame us for the insecurities of white people that we bask in our own culture.
    At least we have culture and know our roots.
    White girls at my school sleep with anyone and are so desperate for a guy. They have no roots, no respect.

    • Bay Area Guy

      Our celebrations, languages, and traditions do not compromise greater American identity. They add to it.

      Oh really?

      http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html

      We were doing just fine before you guys came along in large numbers.

      This is the United States, not some extension of Mexico. You either play by our rules or we’ll show you the door.

      Think I’m bluffing? Well, in addition to Arizona, 12 other states are pushing for harsher immigration laws.

      Until you realize that waving the Mexican flag while claiming you’re just as American and patriotic as us is a foolish strategy, you’ll continue to wear out your welcome.

      Something to keep in mind.

      • Diane

        Wow…what a misinformed diatribe. When did your ancestors get here jerkoff? I’m Mexican and my ancestors have been here for hundreds of years. They came over from Siberia 15,000 years ago when they crossed the Bering Strait. Can you beat that?

    • Observer

      At least we have culture and know our roots.

      White girls at my school sleep with anyone and are so desperate for a guy. They have no roots, no respect.

      Specifically, just what exactly are you so “proud” of about being Mexican?? (Clarification, please, otherwise, we’ll just chalk this up to ‘false bravado’.)

      And you got to be kidding comparing White girls to “Latino” (I put this in quotes since nearly all Mexicans are mestizo or Indio) girls, who have way higher rates of out-of-wedlock births compared to European Americans.

      • Diane

        That’s only because the slutty white girls have abortions.

        • Yermom

          As well they should. They know they don’t have the resources or time to care for a kid. They want to further their education and have a career and actually contribute to society rather than get on welfare.

        • Diana

          Vanessa, sluts come in all shapes and sizes and ethnicities. Are we reading the same article because the points Robert makes has nothing to do with what you wrote…
          @vemon or vermon lol so it’s ok to contribute to the garbage can filled with dead babies and possibly a STD infested, dumb, slutty, but educated white girl? Ouch. I’m Mexican and graduated from a univeristy and dont see only mexican women on welfare I guess the Mexican women who you see doing the back breaking, hard labor, jobs (and any other job that you and i probably wont do) doesn’t count for CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETY. Give me a break! Humorous how ones racisicm shines through when the topic has to do with Mexican DNA and the history of different races and ethnicities that have contributed to Mexicans. Some read or interpreted this as Mexicans being white or some other offensive way. But like Robert says, “if I’m not making you angry I’m not doing my job” :)

      • santos jaurigue

        Whitest of the white mixed with reddest of the red with a dash of super human african dna, what’s not to be proud of ?

    • An Unmarried Man

      Vanessa, just shut the fuck up. Your stream of bullshit is nothing but words piled upon words with the ulterior motive of being meaningful but failing that, you resort to ethnic self-righteousness. I’m Mexican too, bitch. Tell me what we have “contributed?”

      • santos jaurigue

        You contribute what you want, if you’re not proud of who you are you will act stupidly like some mexicans that have no pride of their heritage! Those are the ones that don’t contribute anything positive! Mexican men should honor their women and not call them bitches !

    • Dee

      You’re comments prove you are a racist.

  12. India

    100 years from now, the pure whites in America will have become very tiny in size because whites are interbreeding like crazy. I am afraid to say the once great American nation is doomed to failure. We can already see the demise started.

    • Rafa

      Actually, I think that Whites in America are in danger of becoming a minority in their own country because they are the ones with the highest rates of abortion. They are wiping out their next generation before it is even born. On the other hand, if they don’t abort their babies and interbreed with part Caucasian populations like Hispanics, their numbers would probably double in the next century.
      I really don’t believe Whites are going to become a minority in the U.S. They’re is just going to be more of them with Hispanic names. I mean, look at the NFL. Two of the three high profile Mexican-American quarterbacks of the last decade are actually White…Jeff Garcia (49ers, Bucs, Eagles) and Tony Romo (Cowboys). The third quarterback, Mark Sánchez (Jets), looks more like a Euro-Mestizo so typical of Northern México.
      I bet that most White Americans don’t have a clue that some of their famous celebrities are part Mexican. These celebrities include Linda Carter (Wonder Woman), Catherine Bach (Daisy in the Dukes of Hazard), Edward Furlong (Terminator 2).

  13. Ó Dochartaigh

    I really enjoy Latin American culture, particularly the music and dance. One thing that most people don’t realize is that Mexican music and dance was strongly influenced by white German immigrants. Northern Mexican music has a very strong polka esk feel to it, with the accordions playing that oom pah pah rhythm and the dancers using polka steps. Mix in Spanish Flamenco with a twist of native American flavor, and you have a nice cocktail.

    So Robert I have to agree with you, Mexicans are far whiter in ethnicity,(as you have shown here) and culture than than most white nationalist or Mexicans would like to admit. One thing that does bother me though, as Bay Area Guy has already mentioned, is their Mexican flag waving and their refusal to speak English. I think if you come to this country to become a citizen, the least you can do is respect the American flag.

    • Rafa

      The Mexicans who wave their country’s flag and who refuse to speak English are the ones who just moved to the U.S. They are usually poor and desperate and coming from the heavily indigenous states of Southern Mexico (Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, Tabasco). Given their social condition, they are as uneducated as your typical poor White folks from the Deep South who still hang good ol’ Dixie from their rusted pickups and even from their state government buildings. In other words, they are Mexico’s version of your proud, hard-headed rednecks and/or of the secluded Hillbilly mountainfolk of the Appalachian Mountains. I think they are more similar to the latter rather than the former.

      As far as Mexican music, you are so right about its European influence. However, the music you’re talking about is more commonly known as “Norteño” rather than “Ranchero” because it sprang from “El Norte”…..FYI, the WHITEST REGION IN MEXICO, particularly the Northeast (Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon). True Norteño music has subgenres that are rooted in the musical traditions of Germans and Czechs such as polkas and redovas. Once polkas and redovas became popular in Northeastern Mexico and in South Texas in the late 1800′s, they began to manifest themselves in cultural traditions on both sides of the border…from San Antonio to Monterrey….from Del Rio to Matamoros. To this day, polkas and redovas are as much a part of a Mexican northeasterner’ identity as are flour tortillas, carne seca (dried beef), and the very famous cabrito (baby goat) dish.

      On behalf of all decent, law-abiding Mexicans (The Majority of Mexicans), please accept my apology for how my countrymen have acted as jerks. ¡Saludos!

      • santos jaurigue

        Their’s nothing wrong with celebrating our culture , but we need to respect other americans! I think some americans make too much out of mexican pride , but don’t see anything wrong with irish , german , or italian celebratians !

  14. Ó Dochartaigh

    It seems I am having trouble with English myself LOL.

    “is there Mexican flag waving and there refusal to speak English.”

    THEIR Mexican flag and THEIR refusal to speak English.

  15. Pingback: Excellent Shot Across the Bow at the Nordicists « Robert Lindsay

  16. tonyspeed

    I would like to remind these jingoists that you did steal Mexico’s land from them. the whole western half of the united states is stolen goods. not to mention the stealing done from the natives in the eastern half of the united states. So for you to complain about Mexican immigration and refusal to speak English is ignorant at best. What goes around, comes around.

    BTW: Americans do not speak English. they speak some basterdised dialect of English.

    • tulio

      One of the truly dumbest comments I’ve ever read on this site.

      So who the hell did Mexico steal it from? Oh, you guys stole our stolen land. Boohoo!

      American and British English don’t differ very much. Language structure is pretty much identical, maybe a slightly different vocabulary for certain words. A Brit and an American can understand one another 100%. It’s not like the difference between Portugal Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese.

      • Bay Area Guy

        You said it, Tulio.

        It just amazes me the way people act as if only the U.S. has “artificial borders.”

        Yeah, as you’ve pointed out before, Mexico itself lies on stolen land. You know, considering there wasn’t a Spanish speaking nation called Mexico a thousand years ago.

        And as you’ve also pointed out, the Indians there still get treated like shit, have the fewest opportunities, and most of Mexico’s rulers and elites are predominantly of European descent.

        So who the hell is Mexico to lecture us regarding our “artificial border” and the way we stole the land from them and the Indians?

        And another thing. Both here and in Mexico, angry Mexicans frequently denounce the U.S as being the imperialist great satan, yet have no problem with romanticizing the glorious Aztecs.

        Hello! Those supposedly glorious Aztecs viciously conquered and oppressed their neighbors. I mean, there’s a reason why Cortez was able to rally other tribes against the Aztecs, which allowed him to conquer them.

        The Aztecs were the imperialists and blood spillers of their day, and yet it’s okay to celebrate them.

        And besides, all of that is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with our border policy today. To quote you again, Tulio, if they really want the land back, then let them declare war and try to take it back.

        Otherwise, our border policy is our border policy.

        And Tulio, you also mentioned how nothing will change because the left is far more dedicated and active, and those opposed are too apathetic and afraid of being called racist or xenophobic. Well, I say attitudes can change. And so can strategies.

        Advertisements/articles on the plight of white and black workers would be good. Also, you know, an insistence that every country has the right to determine its immigration and border policy. Heck, they should look at Mexico’s immigration policy!

        I can probably think of more. But that’s enough ranting for one comment.

        Stay tuned for the next installment.

        • tulio

          Yeah, that is ironic isn’t it? The Aztecs are to be celebrated even though they were imperialists yet they are not so generous to the U.S. You can’t reason with these clowns. I remember I used to work with this one brotha that was in school at UCLA. He said something that stuck with me through life years ago even though I no longer know him. “You can’t reason with an unreasonable mind.” All these protesters, Mecha types, open borders crowd are thoroughly unreasonable. They have their agenda and it is not going to be settled by debating with them. They want the southwest back, they want no enforcement of immigration laws because it will help Latinos become the dominant group. There’s nothing to reconcile with the professional reconquistadors.

          What we have to do is stand firm and put THEM on the defensive. I’m sick of being on the defensive just because I want the same damn law every other country in the world has. To enforce the damn immigration laws. I was listening to NPR today and they said the cops there can question ANYBODY they suspect is there illegally for ANY reason. They don’t need a bunch of legal hoops to jump through. I don’t see protests in the streets over it. This country is a laughing stock. But the difference between Italy and the U.S. is that the scale of illegal immigration to Italy is vastly smaller. It hasn’t hit a critical mass where there is so much strength in numbers. If a cop pulls over an illegal in Italy, they don’t have to worry about the streets of Rome being clogged with protesters.

        • tulio

          Mean to say: “I was listening to NPR today and they said the cops in *Italy* can question ANYBODY they suspect is there illegally for ANY reason.”

          I’m not of course saying I want that same exact law here. Just comparing the difference between how lax one is vs the other. You give an inch and people really do take a mile.

        • Bay Area Guy

          I was listening to NPR today and they said the cops there can question ANYBODY they suspect is there illegally for ANY reason. They don’t need a bunch of legal hoops to jump through. I don’t see protests in the streets over it.

          @ Tulio

          By “there,” I’m guessing you mean Mexico?

          But yeah, no other nation would have to deal with all these legal booby traps and protests in the street over enforcing immigration.

          This country is indeed a laughing stock. When people around the world see this, they know that they don’t really have that much to fear from the American Empire.

          I mean, as Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly pointed out, how the hell can we go around managing Iraqi and other Middle Eastern borders when we cannot even secure our own borders?

          When countries see this, they know that they don’t have to truly respect us, and that we’re not really that much of a force to be reckoned with.

          In short, they’ve lost whatever fear of us they might have previously had. And when you don’t fear someone (mainly an enemy), you don’t respect him.

          This shit, in a nutshell, is embarrassing. It’s time we put an end to it.

        • Rafa

          Everything pro-Aztec comes from Central Mexico, more specifically, Mexico City…the old capital of the Aztec Empire. Curiously enough, those Mexica Movement dumbasses in California and the rest of the U.S. Southwest are standing on territory that had NOTHING to do with Aztec culture. They are full blown fanatics with an identity crisis and an inferiority complex. Funny thing is they don’t realize that the majority of Mexican-Americans in the Southwest DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGY. Mexican-Americans in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado are predominantly Euro-Mestizo and tend to gravitate more towards assimiliation into broader American society, while retaining some aspects of their culture such as, you guessed it….THE FOOD!!! Gotta love those fajitas and flour tortillas!!!

        • santos jaurigue

          That,s water under the bridge, what’s important are the issues of today!

    • cptacek

      that is what happens when you lose a war.

      • santos jaurigue

        The only war that mexicans have lost is when they don’t believe in themselves.
        Our numbers are increasing in the southwest so all we need to do is work hard, get an education and conquer the american dream!

    • Dee

      Tonyspeed, you forgot that part about the Mexican government giving land to whites hoping they would fix their indian problem. You need to do more besides the freshmen course of history.

  17. FG

    Of the Latin American countries, I figure I would fit in best in Brazil. My DNA test indicated that I’m about 3/4 Euro and 1/5 African, which is not an unusual mixture for the central and southern parts of the country from what I hear.

    I see much criticism of the Latin American countries above, but is it justified? Why do Western Europe and the US always serve as the white reference when judging a society’s development? Personally, I’d much prefer to live in Mexico or Brazil than the very white Russia or Ukraine.

    • In Latin America, you would be considered White.

      • Bay Area Guy

        I agree.

        I’ve always thought the One Drop Rule was stupid.

        To me, “blacks” such as Walter Francis White are not black. I don’t care what anyone else says.

        http://www.answers.com/topic/walter-francis-white

        I also find it interesting the way blacks themselves are no the greatest supporters of the One Drop Rule. They use it as a way to increase their numbers and claim figures such as Cleopatra as “black.”

        (and the evidence that Cleopatra was part black is based on circumstantial and questionable evidence anyway)

        • FG

          I don’t think people like Walter White have ever been considered truly black in US society, not even during the Jim Crow period. I’ve heard that if you stuck to white social circles and didn’t agitate for black causes back then, you wouldn’t experience much trouble. Of course, Walter White didn’t follow this path.

        • melanianmike

          @BayAreaGuy, I found the manner in which you opined quite interesting. You said, “To me, “blacks” such as Walter Francis White are not black.” However, Walter Francis White, in his autobiography “A Man Called White”, calls himself black. Five of his greatx3 grandparents were “black” (likely direct “African” descendants) and the other 27 were “white” (European descendants.)
          It is also true that most blacks do not support the “One-Drop” rule for obvious reasons- it was simply used to keep the “white-race” pure (see Walter Ashby Plecker> Racial Integrity Act> Francis Galton> Eugenics.) As for “blacks” resorting the “rule” only when its convenient…well, I see where you’re going with it (acknowledged.) However, this in no way is contradictory, because the intent and context in which “blacks” do this is quite different from your over-simplified logic. As a “black” person I have included persons of “mixed-race” as black to, ultimately, point out just how unintelligible, opportunistic, and sociopathic the European-construct of “race” really is. Also, I am curious to know which Cleopatra are you referring to? There are 7…
          Now, if you are determining a persons color based on superficial flesh tones…well, I still could NOT agree with you. Europeans and there descendants tend to be “peach” or “pinkish” in color. Your darkest “African” would be a dark brownish/ purple at best and so on. Even albinos (in all “racial” groups) have a “pinkish” flesh tone… Peace be with you in your search for truth.

      • FG

        It’s kind of strange how many in the US classify near-white mixed people these days. There isn’t any official mixed race category. Rather, people of a stereotypical mixed phenotype are often classed as Hispanic, regardless of whether they have Latin roots. Light mestizos and mulattoes are not said to look mixed, but rather to “look Hispanic.”

  18. Michael

    I find the racial identity situation in Chile and Mexico to be troubling. Does it really matter how white a country is to prove they are developed and possess capabilities to have a fairly good standard of living? I read from the University of Chile demographic study based on genomes and found upwards to 65-70% of Chileans are “white”, but about 33-35% would stand out as “Amerindian”.

    Not at all, one can ask Japan and other east Asian countries, and it is obvious the So. Koreans and Taiwanese, Malaysians and Vietnamese, Thais and Filipinos, shown a great deal of economic progress and still (except for Japan) the majority of Asian countries’ HDI rating rank below Europe, the USA and Australia in the HDI index map as of 2009… and what race or color is the East Asians, eh? +

    • sexmachine

      Being white doesnt make u superior…learn history and stop thinking in the present tense…japan may be advanced today..how about 49 years from now?it could be thailand for all we know

  19. Fonzi

    I’ve always been fascinated by the complex mixture of different peoples and cultures in Latin America and learned a lot about the region through studying Spanish for several years in high school and college. I certainly agree that most Latin Americans are mixed to one degree or another and that racial constructions have always been much more fluid and laid back than historically here in the U.S. That said, Latin America clearly has its racism of course.

    Regarding the racial composition of the Mexican-American and Mexican populations, I think the reason why historically the Mexican-American community was more European was because there were more Spaniards who settled in what became the U.S. Southwest and fewer Natives. In fact, there’s a group of people known as “Hispanos” in New Mexico/Colorado who insist on being called Spanish-American rather than Mexican-American and have even preserved an archaic dialect of Spanish that was spoken in the 16th century due to isolation from the outside world.

    I don’t have a source handy now but DNA evidence indicated that they were mostly Spanish but still partially Native in ancestry, and hence would be mestizos, albeit lighter-skinned on average. I think perhaps these may have been the folks who were tested, because to be perfectly honest, most of the Mexican-Americans I’ve seen are mestizos with a rather strong Native element. I’ve also seen some who could easily pass for white (typically Mediterranean a la Spanish, Italian, etc.), but not most.

    I’m Italian-American myself, and I know that Spaniards look very similar to Italians, but the majority of Mexicans I’ve seen look to be at least 50% Native. Maybe where I live (Northeast), there are more Mexican immigrants from the central/southern parts of the country, where Native ancestry is stronger, but then again, maybe Native genes are often more dominant, hence you could end up with someone of predominantly European ancestry but with a largely Native appearance.

    Does anyone know how the Natives of the Southwest (i.e. Apaches, Comanches, etc.) viewed Mexicans when compared with themselves and with Anglo-American whites? Based on what I’ve seen and read, they viewed them as not the same race as the white Americans but by the same token not really Natives either, but I’m not really sure. I do know that they viewed Spaniards as whites.

  20. FG

    “I’ve always been fascinated by the complex mixture of different peoples and cultures in Latin America and learned a lot about the region through studying Spanish for several years in high school and college. I certainly agree that most Latin Americans are mixed to one degree or another and that racial constructions have always been much more fluid and laid back than historically here in the U.S.”

    Their “laid back” orientation to race is reflected in their racial terminologies. They have all sorts of words to describe mixed or ambiguous identity (e.g. moreno, mulatto, cabloco, zambo, …). By contrast, since the early 20th century (when “mulatto” was taken off census forms and fell out of popular use), the US has given little aknowledgment to racial blending. However, terms like “biracial”, “multiracial”, and “mixed” have been steadily gaining popularity as of late. The standard black-white dichtomous racialism of American society is under strain due to growing number of ambiguous offpsring of interracial relationships and the arrival of millions of Hispanics (who often regard themselves as mixed race). Such individuals do not fit easily into existing categories and for this reason see little advantage for themselves in highly polarized race relations. Of course, both black and white racialists will continue to promote sharply delineated racial boundaries, but it appears their hey day is coming to a close.

  21. Me

    “In fact, Mexico is so crappy”? Sure is unnecessary.

    Anyways, did you know that a substantial amount of Filipinos arrived in southwestern (around Acapulco) Mexico during the Spanish rule due to the Manila-Acapulco galleon in which Filipinos were brought to Mexico and vice versa. Many Chinese came to northwestern Mexico (especially in Baja California) and so did many Japanese and Koreans (both of whom also went to the Mexican states of Puebla and Chiapas). I’ve actually met a decent amount of Mexicans from Baja California who were either half-Japanese or half-Chinese. I would be interested to find out the number of East Asian genes in Mexican populations from northwest Mexico, particularly Baja California (especially Mexicali, where there’s even a Chinatown). Supposedly, most of the pure Chinese and alot of mxied Chinese were deported in the 1930s, meaning that Mexico could of easily become just as East Asian as it is black African (in terms of mestizo’s genes). Careful though, since Amerindians and East Asians are both Mongoloids, so there may be some confusion or overlap between the two, and what may be considered Amerindian may actually turn out to be East Asian. I even saw on the George Lopez show, that Lopez himself did a DNA test and came out to be 55% Caucasian, 32% Amerindian, 9% East Asian, and 4% black African. 9% East Asian is a lot in terms of Mexicans’ genetics and what’s expected. Also, there a decent amount of (pretty European, light skinned) Arabs in Mexico (who are mostly from Lebanon), alot of whom have become “mestizified”, but they’ll just count genetically as “white/Caucasian” since they are of the Caucasoid race. I think the fact that over the years, Italians, Germans, French, and other Europeans have contributed (small, but still) to certain Mexican populations. I know a guy who’s from the Mexican state of Sinaloa, and according to him, he’s descended from a German miner or something (he’s also light skinned and Caucasian looking).

  22. me

    Robert, do you have any charts for Mexican genomes? I’d like to see the genomes of different Mexicans from northern Mexico, western Mexico, central Mexico. eastern Mexico, southern Mexico, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and other US states with significant Mexican population (the parts that were part of Mexico before Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War) because I heard that when Mexico controlled those territories, mostly mulattoes and mestizos (and a few white Mexicans) migrated to the then Mexican province of Upper California, while mostly white Mexicans migrated to the then Mexican provinces of Texas and New Mexico. Plus all of the white Mexican and mestizo migration to those areas prior to 1950 (or somewhere between 1950 and 1990), and the modern Mexican Indian and mestizo migration from 1950 (or somewhere between 1950 and 1990). Also, if you can, try to find any East Asian genes/admixture in Mexicans (I’m pretty sure there is a little, even if it’s as low as 1% or less).

    • Hi, the Mexicans in the US have always been quite White. Traditionally around 70% White, 30%, Indian 1% Black. This began to change around 1990 in California, when it went to 60% White, 40% Indian and now it is about 46%, 46% and 8% Black on average here in California. Texas has always been the same, 70% White, 30% Indian. Don’t know about New Mexico. The reason for the 70% White, 30% Indian makeup in the Southwest has been that immigration has always come from North Mexico, the Whitest part of Mexico, where the makeup is about 70% White, 30% Indian. As you get further south in Mexico, people get a lot more Indian and a lot less White. Aguascalientes is the most Mestizo state in Mexico – almost everyone there is mestizo. Monterrey is the heart of White Mexico. People are very Indian down in Guerrero and Oaxaca. Black genes are concentrated on the east coast. Your average Mexican is 4% Black across the board. This is due to the large number of Blacks in 1810 being bred out over time by infusion into the rest of the population.

      • me

        But aren’t Spaniards themselves about 3-4% black? Which means that most black blood in Mexicans was obtained through Spaniards. Also, have you found any evidence that shows that Mexicans have a little East Asian in them?

        • I don’t have an answer to that one. The 4% Black in Mexicans is across the board, even in the Indians. There were millions of Black slaves in 1810, now there are almost no Blacks. Where did they go? Into the population.

          I don’t know of any Asian in Mexicans. I’ve never heard of any. If there’s any, it’s very small.

        • Everardo Zaragoza

          The East Asian segment in most Mexican is from Native Americans that came from Asia during the last age through Alaska. Any who, I was born in Jalisco, in the Los Altos area, I just my results back from 23andme.com (google company) and I was suprised to see that I am 70% Euro 28 % East Asian (amerindian) and 2% Black. Me like most Mexicans don’t associate ourselves with Spain as much as we do with Aztecs and Mayans, it is almost frowned upon to be proud of being Spaniard.

        • Rafa

          According to world famous Italian geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, every person on the planet has a direct genetic link to the first human inhabitants of what is now southern Africa. Interestingly enough, DNA evidence has been collected from the San Bushmen of the Kalahari which supports the argument that they are in fact the direct descendants of those early humans. Every one of us who are NOT San Bushmen are descendants of those Africans that migrated out of the continent in two waves starting about 150,000 years ago. This “Out of Africa” theory suggests that the first wave walked a path that followed the south Asian coast all the the way to Australia. The second wave walked into the Middle East and all the way up into what is now modern day Kazakhstan. From this point on, these early humans who went west became Caucasians and those who went east became East Asians, and later Native Americans. Needless to say, as humans were colonizing all the corners of the globe, they were still carrying the genetic markers of their African ancestors. It is when a mutation happenend in their DNA sequence that they become more genetically and phenotypically distant from their forebears. Hence, it doesn’t matter whether you are a Spaniard, or German, Chinese, Native American, or Australian Aborigine. Every one of us still carries a percentage of genetic markers from our African ancestors.

      • Rafa

        Robert, you could not have said it better. I myself am a native of the Northeastern Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo and have elicited too many surprises from Americans (of any race) when I told them I was Mexican. One of my college professors in Laredo, TX who happened to be a white female from Kentucky even said to me that it was very likely that anywhere in the U.S. people would probably think I was white. She even asked me if I had any Jewish ancestry. That said, time and time again I would find myself explaining to many Americans that my region (The Northeast) in Mexico was colonized rather than conquered because indigenous inhabitants were either low in number or non-existent. Unlike Central and Southern Mexico where the Spaniards came without their wives or families, in Northeastern (as well as Northwestern) Mexico they came in family units and managed to multiply across several generations. Nevertheless, the Spaniards who settled the Northeast included a diverse mix of Sephardic Jews, Basques, and Canary Islanders. Other Europeans such as Portuguese and Italians arrived in the colonial era while some French immigants arrived during the mid 19th century. And yes, I agree Monterrey has always been considered the city in Mexico with the largest percentage of inhabitants with White/European phenotypes. Like many Mexican Northeasterners whose families have been in the region for more than 5 generations, my ancestry comes from the state of Nuevo Leon of which Monterrey is the capital. Anyhow, I posted this comment with the intention of lending support to your comment regarding the 70% European admixture of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in Texas.

        • Rafa

          Correction. I think my family has been in the Mexican Northeast for 10 or more generations. I suspect that my ancestors (and descendants such as myself) have been going back and forth over the Rio Grande for close to three centuries already. Some of them may have even been among the Canary Islanders who founded the Villa de San Fernando de Béxar (Modern-day San Antonio, TX) in 1731. In my opinion, South Texas and the Mexican Northeast are still one and the same. Here are some wikipedia links of some our famous and infamous ancestors on both sides of the Rio Grande.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos_Benavides
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cortina

      • Rafa

        I recently ran into this video in YouTube, and I think it more than lends credibility to your argument concerning the European predominance in the gene pool of Mexico’s Northern regions. It comes from Televisa, one of Mexico’s two major broadcast networks (the other being TV Azteca). The anchor’s name is Joaquin López Dóriga and in the video he is basically reporting about Mexico’s genome project in which it was officially revealed what you’ve been arguing all along…Northern Mexicans are predominantly European in their ancestry. At the 2 minute and 17 second mark is where you can hear the truth from the horse’s mouth. BTW, it’s all in Spanish. But, I assume that a guy with a high level of intelect such as yourself will be able to grasp the context anyway. Cheers!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gbh3Mpg21U

  23. Me

    Hey, I am in a French language class. And in that class, about a week ago we started seeing a movie called “Cyrnao de Bergerac”, which is a classical French film based on a long nosed French soldier in Renaissance/Medieval France. More specifically, it takes place in the Gascony region, which is in southwestern France. I couldn’t help but notice how many of the Frenchmen in the movie look like Mexicans (some are even brown/tan-skinned). This is especially true for those who let their mustaches grow out (which is most of them). Then there’s a couple of scenes where the French are fighting the Spaniards. And the Spaniards look even more Mexican than the French. The Mexican-looking Spaniards doesn’t surprise me that much since most Mexicans are mestizos, but what does surprise me is how “Mexican” the French (at least the southern French) look. You should see the film yourself, it is quite itneresting looking at the French people, it looks like a bunch of (lighter-skinned) Mexicans speaking French, not different in appearance at all from the typical Mexican American in the Southwest or the typical Mexican of (non-southern) Mexico.

    • Rafa

      Well, a great portion (probably more than half) of the French population is genetically identical to their neighbors south of the Pyrenees. Many French people are rather dark haired and olive skinned. Ever heard of Alain Delon? He was a French movie star very popular in the 1960′s. Precisely in that era, when he was in his 20′s or 30′s, he did not look much different from the Mexican leading actors you now see in the Spanish-language soaps broadcast by Univisión or Telemundo. And just like you say that the actors in the Cyrano de Bergerac movie are “not different in appearance at all from the typical Mexican American in the Southwest…”, I would have to add that exclusive of Southern Mexico, it is fairly common to encounter Mexicans males with phenotypes similar to that of Alain Delon’s.

  24. Me

    Also, I don’t think the study from mexidata.info that says that Mexicans are 65% Indigenous 34% white, and 1% black is accurate. I believe that the results tend toward more Indigenous and less European due to the massive amount of population in heavily “Indo-Mestizo” southern Mexico versus comparitivly sparsely populated “Euro-Mestizo” northern Mexico. The study from the blog (the one that says that Mexicans are genetically 59% Caucasian) is more accurate I think, since that study comes directly from Mexico’s INEGI and from the American Society of Human Genetics. Moreover, it takes samples from diverse states of Mexico (north and south) and takes an average. 10% black (however strange it might seem) is more accurate since there was a large number of blacks throughout Mexico (many of the Mexican pioneers from modern-day northern Mexico and southwestern US were blacks or mulattos). Spaniards themselves contain over 2% black in them, so it’s extremely unlikely that Mexicans are only 1% black. And it makes no sense to say that mestizos in Guerrero have 22% black genes, but Mexico on average is 1% black. I think many Mexicans underestimate their blackness and overestimate their Indian component, while undermining their white component.

  25. Pont

    On a website they say some red people of europe came 15000 to 17000 years back and have some italic words in the seneca indian langage is this true. Hittite cross tents like american indians in asia minor. They say we came from 2 people and they populated the earth.

  26. Me

    Hey Robert, you might find this interesting: it is genetic admixture among Caucasoids. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TA_8jYWZQRI/AAAAAAAACcc/3quI0JWu2ls/s1600/admixture-caucasoid.jpg

  27. Nikephoros

    I think people have to come to terms with the fact that being white in Latin America is a matter of having the right genes for skin color, rather than having more European ancestry than darker skinned fellows. Simply put, Latin Americans are genetically quite homogeneous regardless of skin color.

  28. Trebor Yasdnil

    Hey. I admire your work. I have created my own blog and have made a post about Mexicans’ race. I think you might be interested in seeing it.

    http://lobertrindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/races-of-mexico/

  29. Trebor Yasdnil

    Out of a couple of years of research I have finally compiled something – in this case a post, which is just a summary of my findings. Also, I might be updating it regularly. i just updated now, so check out the beginning sections (the one talking about whites and white immigrants to Mexico) again. The racial classifications of Mexicans were just based on what Indians the mestizos were descended, what Spaniards (Galicians, Extremadurans, Castillians, Leonese, Basques, etc.) mestizo populations were descended from, and what the proportions of Indian and European (African and Asian also taken into account) blood mestizos had. But the classifications are not the best, but they were made out of fun and curiosity and for (even if wrong) model for Mexican populations. Thanks though, I’ll see if I’ll make more posts about other subjects on race later.

    • Interesting stuff. Are you Mexican yourself?

      • Trebor Yasdnil

        Yes. Also, sorry (this is tedious), but check it out again, I updated once more (go to the same part I update, I put in some more stuff about the Jewish presence in Mexico).

        • Cool, I have a Mexican Hispanic friend on the site. A lot of Hispanics just come here to fight me, and they get banned.

        • Trebor Yasdnil

          I’d be willing to bet alot of them are indigenists (those trying to prove that Mexicans are “80% Amerindian”).

        • Rafa

          Hey Robert, I better be that Mexican Hispanic friend you’re talking about…LOL. And, keep on posting! As for you Trebor, your blog is awesome and a very interesting map to go with it! I bet that if I showed your map with your racial classifications to most of my fellow Mexicans from Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, they would probably agree with it. ¡Hasta luego amigos!

  30. robert

    i always thought mexicans were part european part indegionous. am i wrong?

    • Rafa

      Well, I wouldn’t say you’re wrong. Most Mexicans are mixed to one degree or another. However, the degree of Indigenous or Spanish (or even Black African) ancestry will vary greatly depending on the region. As a Mexican guy myself who knows his country pretty well, I would have to say that there is a pattern, or trend, when it comes to Mexico’s racial reality. Basically, central Mexico is where the mixing between European and Amerindians took off. Most people there are about 50-50 in their DNA. In southern Mexico, where the bulk of the Indian population has always lived, racial mixing or “mestizaje” never really took off like it did in the central region. Northern Mexico, on the other hand, had a very small population of Amerindians that was quickly replaced by continuous waves of Spanish colonists that came in familiy units. The Northeast, where I’m from, was overwhelmingly White (colonial Spanish descent) until recently when Mestizos and Indians from the central and southern states began to move there. However, the descendants of the original White Norestenses (Northeasterners) remain dominant in the region. The Black presence, although miniscule, is relegated to states on the Gulf coast like Veracruz and Tabasco and southeastern states like Guerrero and Oaxaca. This pretty much sums up the racial reality since colonial times.

      Starting in the mid-1800′s, immigration from Europe and Asia altered the racial demographics of Mexico to a certain degree. For example, there is actually a Chinatown in Mexicali, Baja California, and along Mexico’s Pacific coast there are thousands upon thousands (maybe millions, who knows?) of people with Chinese ancestry. There are Protestant Dutch Mennonite communities in states like Chihuahua, Durango, and Zacatecas. Along the Gulf coast, many people have some degree of Middle Eastern ancestry, mainly Lebanese (Salma Hayek is from Veracruz). Mexico City, is pretty much like New York City in that it is a large metropolis where it is common to encounter (maybe not as common as NYC, but still common) people of a diverse array of backgrounds. Descendants of Eastern European Jews are a large presence there (many of them are TV journalists). The most famous of these is Jacobo Zabludovsky. Check out his picture on this link:
      http://connect.in.com/jacobo-zabludovsky/images–jacobo-zabludovsky-1-244587629379.html

      On a closing note, just keep in mind that while there is racial diversity in Mexico, racial consciousness is about ZERO. I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but I really believe it’s true….Mexicans DO NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE. Mexicans discriminate on the basis of socioeconomic class. It is true that most poor people in Mexico are dark-skinned (Predominantly of Indian and/or Black ancestry), but I would dare say that racism is filtered through classism and not the other way around. The fact that some people with strong Indigenous and/or Black features have risen up in Mexican society proves this. Take a look at the picture on the link below. It comes from an article in the Spanish language version of People Magazine. It is about a famous TV producer in Mexico (the Indian looking guy in the picture) who married a prominent entrepreneur (the light-skinned almost-white looking woman sitting next to him). I’m 100% sure that if HE WASN’T A FILTHY RICH TV PRODUCER, a predominantly White Mexican female wouldn’t even look twice at him. The picture is an explicit example of how a predominantly Indigenous looking Mexican male moves up in his country’s social pyramid.
      http://www.peopleenespanol.com/pespanol/articles/0,22490,1254667,00.html

      • Xera

        So do the recent European immigrants from non-Southern countries absorb the same ladder, code & views that has been established there concerning clas & Amerindians?

        Also how do these Mexicans view the Chinese & Chinese looking people? Are they at the bottom of ladder there & are Chinese (East Asian) males ignored by the Mestiza & top caliber women in Mexico & Latin America, as they are in the U.S and pretty much anywhere in the world besides Asia?

        • Rafa

          Recent European immigrants from non-Southern countries tend to have the best reception in Mexico. Usually, they and up marrying a White Mexican and the offspring of those unions are very likely to end up in positions of power. The best example I can give you is Agustín Carstens, Governor of the Bank of Mexico (In Wikipedia it says he’s married to an American woman). Here is a link to his website which contains a picture of him… http://www.agustincarstens.com/

          East Asians, such as the Chinese and Japanese, tend to jump right into the middle class as soon as they arrive. They have always been known to be merchants and small business owners, especially the Chinese. The most famous Chinatown is the one in Mexicali, Baja California. Unlike in the U.S., I think (just stating my opinion) East Asians have actually fared much better in mixing with the local Mexican population. Some famous Mexican movie stars and singers have some degree of Asian ancestry.

          In this link, you can see two pictures (one black and white dressed as a soldier and the other a color pic with a close-up of his face) of Noé Murayama, a very famous movie star from the 60′s and 70′s who is a Japanese-Mexican born in the state of San Luis Potosí.
          http://www.network54.com/Forum/223031/message/1121298380/Biograf%EDa+de+No%E9+Murayama

          The link below will take you to the official page of Ana Gabriel (whose real name is María Guadalupe Araujo Yong), a Chinese- Mexican singer from the state of Sinaloa.
          http://www.anagabriel.com.mx/indice.html

  31. I am pure Guatemalan. With Mayan Pride.

  32. sexmachine

    Michael ur comment is the pinnacle of ignorance and racist low iq drivel. 40 years from now thailand and vietnam may be more advanced than japan. Throughout history the many darker skin civilizations have created superior civilization…better than whites at that time period.the color white has nothing to do with intelligence and having a prosperous society…go back to stormfront…

  33. A. G. G.

    I don’t know about other groups, but according to a study from UNAM (largest university in “Latin” America), Dr. Marta Alicia Menjívar Iraheta, Department of Biology, found that the Mexican population on average has a genetic component of 70% indigenous (Native American), 25% caucasian and 5% African. That is fact.

    The article can be found on Mexico’s largest periodical publication, El Universal – http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulos/65769.html

    • Rafa

      Well, the bulk of the Mexican population is in the Southern half of the country where the Indigenous genetic component can very well reach the 70% mark. But, the farther north you go in Mexico, the less “Indian” people get and the 70% component can very well lean over to the European side. Besides, the study was done by UNAM, which is located in Mexico City and the article published by the newspaper, El Universal, also located in Mexico City. I wonder what findings would result from some genetic research done in the state of Nuevo Leon and then published by the most prominent newspaper of Monterrey, El Norte.

      • Bay Area Guy

        Hey Rafa, I once heard a radical “Chicano” type claim that Mestizoism was a myth, and that at the most 15% of Mexicans are mestizos. He of course claimed that it’s a white racist conspiracy that attempts to Hispanicize indigenous peoples, etc.

        What’s your take on this?

        From what I see, the vast majority of Mexicans in the U.S. are Indian or Mestizo.

        • Rafa

          First of all, thank you for considering my opinion. BAG, this might sound arrogant, but I think that when it comes to the whole Mexican “racial” question, I am one of the few people who can give you an honest and objective answer for 3 reasons: (1) I’m actually Mexican, not Mexican-American. I was born in the Northeastern state of Tamaulipas and raised in South Texas. Therefore, I always take into account my two perspectives…the American perspective due to my upbringing and the Mexican one due to my national origin. (2) I’m one of the few Mexicans in the U.S. with a college degree (BA in History) and a graduate degree (Master of Public Administration). (3) And, last but not least, I grew up in a border city which I always felt gave me an edge in anayzing the co-existence of two neigboring countries whose cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences make the Rio Grande look like an ocean.
          So, to answer your question, the fact that the guy you mentioned is a radical “Chicano” should flag his point of view as extremist. People like this guy usually hold such views because they have always failed to look at Mexican history through an empirical lens. Historically speaking, close to 90% of the entire Indigenous population of Mexico was wiped out during the Spanish colonial period. Those who survived either remained isolated in the far south of Mexico or mixed with the Spanish colonists in central Mexico. Northern Mexico, was sparsely populated by nomadic tribes, and given its vast “emptiness” (including the modern U.S. Southwest), this is where a diverse array of Spaniards actually arrived in family units. Sephardic Jews escaping the Spanish Inquisition concentrated in what is now South Texas and Northeastern Mexico (where I’m from). Basques got a hold of Durango, Chihuahua, and New Mexico. Castilian Spaniards mainly kept to themselves and ruled all of New Spain (U.S. Southwest, Mexico, and Central America) from Mexico City.
          Now, considering that Spaniards did not hold the same notions of “race” as their Anglo-Saxon counterparts, a person of mixed descent was not so much of a scandal as he or she would have been in English-speaking North America. Actually, it was to the advantage of the Spaniards to sire children with Indigenous females because Spanish women were not allowed to immigrate for a long period of time. Plus, the Catholic Church actually gave the green light to the Spanish Crown in the matter of racial mixing. To the Church, it was more a matter of acquiring new faithful Christians given the contemporary rupture with Protestant Europeans.
          By the 1700s, so much mixing had ocurred that the Mestizo (Spanish/Indian Biracial) population had become the dominant ethnic group in all of New Spain. However, the influx of peninsular Spaniards never really stopped, and those who were of the lower classes ended up marrying (it was totally legal by then) and having children with Mestizas, rather than with Indian females. This, therefore, ultimately diluted even further the Indigenous component in the genetic makeup of Mexican Mestizos. This ocurred to such an extent that a new racial group was created…Castizos (Castilian + Mestizo = Castizo). By this point, Castizos are now a notch above Mestizos in the Spanish caste system of the New World. But, they were still below Criollos (American-born Spaniards) and Peninsulares (Those born in Spain).
          When 1821 comes around, the Spanish are finally defeated and expelled after an 11 year old war of independence. Some historical sources in Mexico argue that its White population had reached the 40% mark by this time period. Some will say that it was about 20%. Either way, the interpretation of such statistics depends solely on whether one views Castizos as White or not. Obviously, for phenotypical reasons, Castizos have always been considered White in Mexico given their 75% or more European racial ancestry.
          In modern-day Mexico, I would dare say that the population of its Northern states (especially the ones on the border) is predominantly Castizo rather than Mestizo. Central Mexico is predominantly Mestizo even though a good chunk of its people have a Castizo look. Southern Mexico, is where the Indigenous population bounced back from its low numbers in the 16th century. States like Oaxaca and Yucatán are well over 50% Indigenous…which leads us to your last comment.
          Mexicans in the U.S. appear to be more Indian and Mestizo because they come from the more impoverished Central and Southern States. Mexicans from the state of Puebla, which is about 85 miles east of Mexico City, have started their American drem in New York. Mexicans from Oaxaca (who are very Indigenous btw) have arrived in large numbers to California. Mexicans from Durango (mainly Mestizos) have proclaimed Chicago as their American homeland. Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado (especially those that have been there for generations) tend to fall more in the category of Castizo or simply White.
          So, to finalize my take on what that radical “Chicano” told you about Mestizos being only 15% of the Mexican population and that there is a White racist theory conspiracy to Hispanicize Indians I would have to disagree with the former and agree with the latter for the following reasons: (1) Historical data says that Indians were almost wiped out but Mestizos kept reproducing and even getting Whiter (2) Even though I really wouldn’t calling it a conspiracy, the Hispanization of Indians is an obvious fact, but one that is self-inflicted. Most Mexican Indians are ashamed of their race and long to be accepted into the dominant Mestizo group (getting accepted by White or Castizo Mexicans is practically impossible). And, if that means speaking Spanish, losing their native languages, and baptizing their children with Spanish names so be it. It’s what they strive for if they want a decent shot at escaping the frequent discrimination they continually suffer.

        • Bay Area Guy

          @ Rafa

          Great response! I appreciate the time and thought that went into it.

          I think the main thing that throws North Americans off about Latin American notions of race is that whereas there’s more of a clear-cut “color line” in anglo countries such as the U.S., it’s more of a color continuum in Latin American countries like Mexico.

          I also think that your remark illustrates why Hispanics in the U.S. are so relatively unsuccessful: selective immigration. Just like Asian and Indian immigrants are highly successful due to being highly selected (in a positive sense), the Mexican immigrants the U.S. gets come from the lowest rungs of Mexican society.

        • Rafa

          @ Bay Area Guy…..Well, thanks for reading my post. I very much agree with you in that the concept of race in Mexico and the rest of Latin America functions more along the lines of a color continuum. There is no racial dichotomy like White/Black in the U.S. In Mexico we even have different terms that describe different colors and racial types. (1) Güeros are those people, whether they are Mexican or not, that have strictly a European appearance. It could also describe someone as being blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but white skin, dark brown hair and eyes, medium to tall body frame, prominent nose, and high cheek-bones (Indians have round cheek bones) may very well place someone in the Güero category. (2) Trigueños are those with a skin color which resembles that of wheat (wheat is “trigo” in Spanish). Usually, they have very strong European facial and body features just like the güeros. (3) Aperlados are those whose color is more like a “perla” or pearl. In my opinion, their features are right in between Euro and Amerindian. (4) Morenos are all those with dark skin. Last time I checked, the term “moreno” comes from Spain because that’s how the Spaniards described the North African “Moros” who invaded their country in the 8th century. Nowadays, “moreno” in Spain can describe anybody whose White but with dark hair and eyes. I think it carries the same connotation as “brunette” in North American English. In Mexico, though, it still has the same meaning it had when the Moors invaded Spain. (5) Prietos are all those that are darker than morenos. This term usually describes someone who has the appearance of a “pure” Indian or “pure” black. Bonus note: {Our Brazilian counterparts actually call their blacks “prêtos”}.
          In my humble opinion, I believe that Trigueños and Aperlados combined are about half the population in Mexico. Güeros are about 20-25% of the population. The rest are morenos (predominantly Indigenous) and prietos (Indigenous/Blacks).

  34. DC

    I’v also noticed that recent Mexican immigrant tend to be darker than those who have been here for several generations.

  35. Chtistiane Monroe

    Excuse me, and I don’t mean to be starting unnecessary arguments on your site, but I’m reall not appreciating the comments that you’re making about the least successful Hispanics having inferior black genes. I think that is true, but this world isn’t getting anywhere by you saying that. I don’t remember the white race ever being threatened the way other races were, and if we weren’t so deprived back then, we’d probably be just as smart ad you. Plus, being mixed with black isn’t as bad, because scientist say that by the end of time ever one’s going to be mixed with something, there will be no difference in race. Please don’t leave any rude comments after this, because I’m not trying to be rude in case there’s a misunderstanding.

    • I am not sure that I said that.

    • Rafa

      Chtistiane, if you allow me to state my opinion, let me just say that Robert’s blog is one THE BEST when it comes to having civil and intelligent discussions on topics most people seem to shy away from for fear of being offended or offending somebody else. That the least successful Hispanics have black genes (whether inferior or not) is, like you say, true. However, if we don’t talk about it we only perpetuate the problem. If we do talk about it, then we are actually shining a light on the problem and bringing attention to it so that maybe people can join the discussion and be more aware of this social ocurrence. Hence, once we are more aware of what’s going on, then that’s when we can become proactive and start changing things. That said, I would invite you to stick around, although this is really Robert’s blog and he’s the one who calls the shots.

  36. Marcos

    Mr. Lindsay, interesting article. I’m not certain I agree with everything in it, but it is thought provoking. I was confused by your reference to “white nationalist” as I wasn’t always certain to what group of people you were referring to with this description. White people with racist attitudes living in the USA or white Latin Americans with racist attitudes living lin Latin America? The context did not always make it clear to me.

    What I would have liked to see more of a discussion in the article was how “race conscious” some people of Latin American descent still are, regardless of where they live. Many (not all) Hispanics are quite “proud” that they look “white” and like to boast of how “white” their relatives look.

    I think that the poster Nikephoros was on to something when he or she stated: “I think people have to come to terms with the fact that being white in Latin America is a matter of having the right genes for skin color, rather than having more European ancestry than darker skinned fellows. Simply put, Latin Americans are genetically quite homogeneous regardless of skin color.” Something about this made sense to me. I think some [not all] light skinned Latins think they are better then their darker skinned fellow Latins because they see themselves as more “european” or “pure blooded” in some way. This to me is just as infuriating as the attitude of the Atzlanistas who you describe at the beginning of your article. I think the “lighter-skinned is better” mentality is insidious and much more pervasive among Latin Americans living here in the states then people in the community want to admit. By the way, I am from Central America and came to the US when I was a year old. Anyway, thank you for the thought provoking article.

  37. David

    Great job! You’ve made an excellent research up here! I’m so proud of my mestizo heritage. Let me tell you something. Here in Ecuador, we don’t care much whether we are pure indigenous, pure white, pure black or a mestizo a like me.. in the end, we all consider ourselves Ecuadorians! And that’s what matters.

    No big racial problems down here, but the sad true is that part of the indigenous people residing out of urban areas are still amongst the poorest due to decades of discrimination during the past, while most of the upper class are visibly Caucasian.. We have a hard work still to do to beat those economical imbalances among the society but in my opinion, it has nothing to do with race any more.

  38. Diana

    Hi Robert I commend you for expressing your thoughts and vital information on the subject. Please note that I am Mexican American from California 3rd generation born here. My mother was born here, her mother in el paso and their parents were tarahumaras, which interests me most. No my mothers father was born in , Zacatecas but raised in Jalisco he came to the USA in the 20′s and became a citizen. On my fathers side my fathers from Brownsville Texas his mom from matamoros tamaulipas and his father from Monterey Nuevo Leon!!!! My blood is a mixture of all kinds of different Mexicans from different parts of Mexico some of them are dark skinned and some are fair skinned with light colored eyes. Me? I’m fair in the winter and bronze in the summer with light brown eyes. When I was younger I hated not being accepted by fellow mejicanos who spoke no english (i learned it in college and watching novelas) classmates because I wasn’t considered a real “Mexican” for being born here, yet the whites didn’t welcome me either lol. Now I’m happy to share both worlds! I’m proud that I have the best of both worlds! Thanks for your article abd please send any other information my way. As mentioned my ancestors were tarahumaras and I’ve always wanted to learn and maybe trace family members

  39. Jeffrey Ho-sang

    all you so called”White latins” doesn’t make any sense. If you looked in the dictionary “white” means pure, and obviously none of you are. I’ve lived in scotland for eight years and 95% of that country is light blond hair or red hair with blue eyes coupled with white skin and light pink complexion. 99.9% of the time i could tell who’s mixed (currently lived in miami) regardless of complexion. whether you’re 70% euro, 50% indian or 20%black or vice versa, the appearance is obvious.The bottom line if youre not from northern, eastern or or western european countries ( Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, etc ). the argument is mute.

    • Diana

      Robert shares valid information based on research and facts. Too bad your comment is based on emotion.

    • Rafa

      Hey Jeff…I love your argument precisely because it is one that promotes the archaic “Nordicness=Whiteness” ideology. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but your way of thinking is one that is on its way out. The fact of the matter is that top caliber geneticists have gathered enough scientific evidence to conclude that the populations of the “Pure White” countries you mentioned have genetics roots in what is now central Eurasia…Armenia, Iran, Afghanistan, and India.

      Concerning the British and the Irish, for a long time they were predominantly considered Anglo, Saxon, and Celtic, but it is now widely accepted that their genetic lineage derives mainly from Ice Age migrants who left the Basque region of Spain and France. Come to think of it, how do you explain the existence of so many Brits and Irish with dark Mediterranean features?
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

      Anyways, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you have a problem with “White Latins” calling themselves as such. Trust me, as a “White Latin” myself I’m not seeking acceptance in the so called “Nordic” membership club. I’m not even offended if I’m not considered “White” because I know there’s people out there like you that still cling to the Blonde and Blue-Eyed ideal. I’m very well aware of a great portion of my ancestry being Basque/Mediterranean, but since I happen to be Mexican, there’s a 100% probability that I also have some degree of native Amerindian ancestry (even though I come from a region in Mexico where Amerindians were scarce).

      To make a long story short, I don’t believe that having non-White ancestry is a tragedy. On the contrary, the tragedy happens when people like yourself question the whiteness of “Latins” like me while at the same time being oblivious to the fact that Northern European genes are an offshoot of some Indo-Caucasian diaspora millenia ago.

      ***Bonus note: Caucasian = Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Iranian, and Turkish.

  40. Pepperoncini

    @Pont
    Nope, Whites did not precede the ancestors of Amerindians to the Americas. That is delusional WNist thinking based on the Solutrean hypothesis by Smithsonian Archaeologist Dennis Stanford and Univ. of Exerter’s Bruce Bradley. It is not a theory accepted by their peers.

    Even Stanford states that for people to claim these Solutreans were White Euros similar to modern Euros is wrong . Modern European ethnics did not exsist that far back, nor do we know if the ancestors of Modern Europeans even lived in Western Europe that far back.

    • Europeans @ 20,000 YBP had skulls that most resemble the Makah Indians of NW Washington. They looked nothing at all like White people in any way.

    • Pont

      European Solutreans crossed the Atlantic or came by the coast of U.S.. DNA has proven this. They were not Asian or black but white. The Asians and others try to say they are not white.. So they can say we are here first. The point you people are not first get over it. It is not your color. these peoples. skulls are Caucasian looking. The say dna is found
      from old bodies etc. Stop the coverup the point is you are Asians and not here first. These Indian people stop samples so it is more then 3 percent in the tribes of Chief Pontiac that are some white blood.. People have been going around the earth for along time get over it all of you. By the way all men are related to two people. Cold climate makes white skin hot climate black skin, The Solutreans came from europe. it is cold in europe You can not change what is true even if you reply. The Solutreans are first before the others.now. You people can not prove otherwise. You use stalemate like you play a chess game..You say Im first. We say the Solutreans.and have dna samples to prove it. But you have no proof you are first. And the Solutreans are different people then you people. Give them credit where credit is do. They were before you thousands of years. So who owns the land two people. I guess tribes do not settle and can not claim land if they go around the earth. Love and Peace to all Women and Men.

      • Pepperoncini

        None of what you said is accepted theory. You seemed to think that simply repeating over and over that the Solutreans were in the Americas 1st and were Europeans , makes it true.

        Why don’t you provide some proof of this DNA sample you speak of. Pretty sure you mean Mtdna X2 but you are wrong because the X2 in the Americas is not identical to the X2 in Europe.

        What proof do you have of Pre-Columbian Caucasian (caucasoid) skeletons in the Americas?

        • Pont

          We are talking about 3 percent dna that is from hunters from Europe. These people are not Asian. You are very Inteligent you study about Pre-Columbian. This is a good thing. But high intelligence always leaves an open mind.Correct answer is they are not Asian.But becareful you are getting brain washed by Majority. It is always easy to get with the majority. The minority died like the Solutreans.Try to keep an open mind.Go to South America and dig up the past. The professor I study with goes to South America and finds white figures. Mabe then you believe me that they were first.The Solutreans were not Asian so the Asians are not first. They Solutreans came from Europe. Some of my ancesters are more related to Solutreans than the Asians are related to Solutreans. Because we are not Asian. So the Asian mix is more than the white at 97 percent.This leaves you three percent. Us we come from Europe so we are more related to the Solutreans. because we did not come over the land bridge. Same with the U.S. in 100 years your children will look Asian..The reason that DNA does not have a match. Is that if people over five thousand years are seperated the DNA changes. And also with mixed people. This is true. And also time changes people they go to America from Europe and there skin is white to accept the cold. So the match may be closer. What I say is true. If we are all related to one another. . They left Europe. The Asian came later than the Solutreans.The Asian left African and went to Asia. Cold climate made the Solutreans white because of less sun. Then the Asians later mixed in with these people when they came over the land bridge. The point Im trying to make dna does not have to be Identical. It does not have to be. because of genetic drift. Look up drift. Antopologists that I know go to digs in Columbia. There are some figures white they find. They hide the white ones from antopologist and archaeologist. This is what there goverment does. So do American Indians. Lets not disturb the graves. Hide the white figures.. No pictures. Why is this. This is Politics. You think I am kidding you. If whites are first their people have no claim to land. Like I say people have claim before them and they know it. You can not take pictures. They are strict to the . archaeologist and archaeologist. Do you know in Japan they say there were no white people. In Turkey there are no white. Yes me friend just Turks. No Armenians people the Turks say ever lived here why. The Turks took over. There were never any whites according to the Indians.Guess what the whites are disapearing. And so will the white in the U.S.. So lets kept an open mind. We are the first they are the last to take over. The problem with people they do not want to know the truth what is going to happen to them. Atlantis Remember, no you do not remember the whites just like you do not remember the Solutreans.

        • Pont

          This is not Theory.. 3 percent is not identical because 97 percent asian is in the sample. And also the change came after 5 thousand years.But like i stated look up genetic drift. Over 5 thousand years the Jew will not be able to trace the cohen gene of the rabbis because of the Jew mixed. And also the gene changes of the cohen will not be identical like the Columbian dna and european. If I take 10 people descended from Jews who have the cohen gene after 5 thousand years and have them tested. The gene will not be close but near.This is the change. This is the answer. So in the indians they have these 3 percent genes that prove they are not here first. Sample are taken from Indians. Take the Jew if he has 97 Asian in him can the cohen gene be identical. We go by dna we do not need skeletons..
          We know Asians come from Africa.. People didn’t have the color they think.
          People think they were red some went north became white some went south became black. Some went to Asia became yellow. Do to climate. The gentic makers were changing at that time. Dna changes but we have the 3 percent difference.from Europe.

  41. Dave Le

    Hi, Just wanted to leave a comment about South America, Mexico, racism, their TV and the “one drop rule”. I am German/Italian American, love futbol and visited distant family in Argentina. Also traveled a bit in South America. Racism in SA, Mexico, as compared to present day USA, is like back in the 1940s. Even 10s worse since white people in these countries, outside of Argentina/Uruguay, are the vast, vast minority.

    Brasil, using the one drop rule USA perspective, is a 70-75% black nation. They have more blacks then any African country outside of Nigeria. Their TV is literally dominated by Portuguese and some Italians. Being West African full blooded in Brasil is hell. The thing is their TV programs and government have done such a helluva job on bending and shaping perceptions that the General Black/Mulatto/Pardo Public knows know better.

    Argentina/Uruguay are European majority countries. Killed all the natives then settled. Highly, highly racist towards very mestizo looking Bolivan/Peruvian/ Indio Americans, Chinese and definitely blacks. These countries have 0 problem openly calling someone a “Negrito” in their societies. If Mexican mestizo Americans/Immigrants think they’re getting discriminated against/racial treatment here, THEY HAVE NO IDEA. Ironically Mexican TV constantly is importing white Argies to fill their airwaves.

    Now to Mexico. There is what 8% white in the country yet the TV is so European dominated it’s not funny. When Spain won the World Cup and played a friendly in Azteca against Mexico, the Mexican Football Association trotted out about 10 white blond/Brunette kids during the pregame, no mestizos. I literally was shocked and had no idea Mexico had any white people, and even though I can’t stand the Mexican National team, felt bad for them and the 100,000 mestizos in the stands.

    The Mexican Government has done such a bang up job in creating a myth/exploitation with their new Mexican Race. They’ve painted it so that the 8% ruling white Spaniard Elite Class are the same exact equal people as the 85% mestizo. So the majority mestizo population sees the ruling white class as they would look in the mirror. So Race/racism “Isn’t A Problem in Mexico”, even more so when it comes to our leaders. Having these same exact corrupt leaders in power is never a problem, how convenient? You hear this all the time from Mexican Americans. They’re point a view has been so brainwashed/skewed/ that it is shocking. It’s Unbelievable how their mestizo general population hasn’t been able to overthrow their 8% white corrupted leaders. I’ve brought this up with them here and they don’t understand.

    You see theses “Gringo” MINORITY leaders in Brasil, Mexico, Chile,and some of these other SA countries use the “one drop rule” to their extreme exploitation and benefit. The general population in Brasil, Mexico, Chile etc. see their same corrupt white leaders, decade after decade, and can never question race. Which leads to never questioning motives on decisions, or questioning why the same white people are continuously in power.

  42. Rachel Moina

    Hello,
    I read your article and agree with you.
    I am of Mexican descent and consider
    Myself mestizo. My mother’s family where white Mexicans and my father Predominately
    Indian. I always say to people who try to lump us with blacks, that I am not black and have European blood so would side with whites. My family is from Chihuahua. I like you see European features in us. My older brother is blond , green eyed , I am medium skin brown eyed brown hair. Indian slant to my eyes. My family has practically all married whites and the grandkids are looking more European. I say one or two more generations and the Mexican blood is gone!
    My family asked us to keep our names in Spanish and our Catholich faith as even though we may change, that will not and will show where we came from.
    Sincerely,

    Raquel Molina

    • jjj

      why the mexicans always chose spanish names for them? if you are 50% european and 50% native, then 50% of your full name should be european (i think is should be the european surname that almost all mexicans have and you cant change it) and the other 50% should be native…is boring using the same names as plenty of other countries, be original and unique in the world, dont copy blindly the spanish culture just because is the tradition
      sad that the mexican blood will be gone since plenty of them are pretty like this mexican woman living in Japan

      • son goku

        you should have been named = Citlali Molina, not Raquel Molina;
        Raquel is a Portuguese or Spanish name so that is 50% european, but Molina is a Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian surname so is another 50% european, but u arent 100% european, u need to choose one 50% to be native, and since u cant change ur surname, chose a native name: Citlali

        • Monkey D. Luffy

          thats correct, the mexicans should reflect that that they are a mixture: 50% and 50%, plenty of beautiful native names and they only copy european names, that make mexico less interesting, kinda like a spanish rip off, that is being not original, is ok to copy the surnames because is impossible to change them, but to copy the names? does the spanish people copy mexican native names too? no, they are pretty satisfied with the names of their culture, and dont allow them to disappear, that is 1 disappointing thing about mexico

      • Rafa

        jjj, didn’t you read this article in its entirety? What about those Mexicans that are about 79% Euro and 21% Indian? Robert Lindsay, did make it point to emphasize the existence of predominantly European Mexican mestizos. Matter of fact, if I’m not mistaken THAT WAS THE MAIN IDEA OF THE ARTICLE!!!!

    • Rafa

      Raquel, you sound as if you’re more than desperate to become White. Amiga, I got news for you. Indigenous ancestry is a major element of Mexican ethnicity. It’s nothing to be ashamed about (as you imply) and it’s nothing to feel superior about (like the Aztlanistas/Radical Chicanos). Our Indigenous ancestry is simply a portion of our genetic heritage. Some of us have minimal amounts, some others have greater amounts. One thing is certain though, our Indigenous blood will NEVER be gone. It will always be there even though we might become as White as anybody else. It’s what distinguishes us Mexicans from the rest of the world.

  43. Badger40

    I highly recommend Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog for those of you interested in the current science of the genetics of all humankind. In particular, you can search his blog for referenced published peer reviewed research. Here, for instance, is a referenced paper regarding Mexican & Hispanic genetics: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/10/admixture-ethnicity-and-pigmentation-of.html
    I find many people often think they are something they are not. This is just ignorance, which can be remedied by true scientifically obtained knowledge.
    None of it should threaten anyone. And it should not be used to demean another gene pool of individuals we might call a ‘race’ or ‘ethnic group’.
    There should be no stigma attached to being any shade of white, or brown or olive. We are all descended from people who were adapted to their particular environment & that is all. To claim your particular ‘race’ as being better than another is nothing but stupidity & hateful. Culture? Well it is true that not all cultures are equal IF you recognize some kind of standard all humans should enjoy.

  44. Mouna

    Okay so again…why such topic? Who cares if someone is Aztec or plain White. It is up to the person who traces their point of origin. Stop making such a deal about the color of skin. My origin is from Spain y Mexico. My kiddos look like a red head spaniard; a light mestizo chicana but…my young one is a Moroccan of Berber decent. Arabs y los Latinos we just resemble alike! Que tengan un buen dia!

  45. Mouna

    Y claro q el nombre de Mouna is arabe for Mona porq en realidad son nombres arabes. Y claro q me gustan los nombres azteca y arabe. I indeed changed my name from Spanish to laa arabia version. So please lets just focusing on skin color and DNA! PLEASE!

  46. Mouna

    “QUIT” focusing on skin color & DNA

  47. Marie Brady

    Good article weird debate. I got my dna and I am 60% European ( including spanish and european jew) and 30% native american with a sprinking of middle eastern ( sephardic jew) Matches my geneaology and I am Mexican American. My dna supports robert’s theory . I supposedly look Italian butMy mom is a white mexican but my dad is a dark New Mexican “Spainard?

  48. Robert, do all mexicans have traceable amounts of sub-saharan african in them?

  49. Dave Mowers

    Somehow, It is my conscious finding symmetry with your detractors…for some mental reason, my British-mind wants to kick your azz in person, I want to find a reason to disprove your racism, to agree with what you maintain here…too find that you and me are in like mentality or of the same mind but I swear to God……

    “You make me angry in such a way that Niggers cannot compete”

    I somehow get furious at you but not the Africans that post at your blog?

    WTF is that? I apologize for my anger towards you which has no relation to our commonality, you blog or your nature.

  50. Dave Mowers

    ..ahh..somebody….Richard..,. yeah yeah yeah..somebody ring him somebody to… love

  51. Dave Mowerws

    I can say with authority that we, as a people, Aryans, do not like Richard but..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s