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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.