Why did the Spanish mix freely with indigenous American population , while the Anglos/Dutch did not?

[UndertheOcean]

If they had , that would have reduced the "illegal" immigration problem a lot .

Heck , possibly Texas would not have seceded from Mexico and it wouldn't have been part of the union , or possibly all of mexico would have joined the Union.

But that point was always intriguing to me ... Anglos just refuse to intermarry , and when they do it is very rare . In my culture (Middle East) intermarriage is the NORM .

I think increasing the rate of intermarriage, say to 50% would go a long way in healing the wounds of the USA's and Latin Americas past, and silly laws like the one in Arizona will become totally moot.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. how?

:)

[jaksavage]

2. Give tax incentives

to marry persons of different skin tone.
The greater the difference the bigger the benefit.
How is that for liberal policy?

[UndertheOcean]

3. Cool Idea ! n/t

[Kalyke]

6. Cool.... I'd get tons.

My first hubby is Middle Eastern (Arabic and Muslim).

My current (and last) hubby descends from Polish Jews, but was born in South Africa.

I'm Irish, Scottish, English and Native American.

What's my tax break?

:hi:

[jaksavage]

13. Lets see

the square root of 4(blood lines) plus three bonus points(jewish,native american and so. african)
no points for the first hubby, sorry,=5
Lets use that as a divisor and divide your income by 5. That would be your deduction for multi ethnic diversity contribution, line 420 on your income tax return.

[Kalyke]

89. Why no points for the first hubby?

We have a son together... he'll carry on those bloodlines! :)

[MellowDem]

73. Horrible idea...

Tax incentives to marry persons with a different skin tone. Somehow I can only see abuse of the system. I suppose a tax cut will lead to true love? No, that is a horrible and superficial approach that won't solve anything.

[unpossibles]

4. I've thought about this too

I am a mutt, although mostly western European, so it's not so obvious. But I do think that as intermarriage is getting more common, that perhaps we'll start being able to see "us" as humanity instead of one small slice against "them."

As to your question, I am not sure. Every conquering nation had different practices, and to generalize the English tended to view intermarriage (even between classes of the same race/nationality) as something very bad to do until fairly recently, whereas many other nationalities do not see it as a big deal.

[KittyWampus]

5. Holy Macaroni, where to start. Intermarriage in the Middle East is the norm? You mean Jews happily

intermarry with Arabs? Moderate Muslims are happily accommodated in conservative households? REALLY?

The Spanish were murderous rapists, so calling that "mixing freely with indigenous American population" is just... insensitive at best.

"Anglos just refuse to intermarry"- I'm stunned you'd post that.

Maybe your Opening Post just reads differently than you intended?

[UndertheOcean]

7. continue , your critique is intriguing . n/t

[KittyWampus]

21. It's true the English brought more of their own people overall, including women.

French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch all imported fewer colonists from their respective homelands and also fewer women. So they did intermarry to a higher degree.

Of those groups the Dutch ended up running the shipping/financing operations more than actual work of colonizing.

So to a degree you can say the English colonies intermarried to a less extent. :)

It's interesting to explore the different geographical locations that each colonial power exploited and how that influenced history.

[Yupster]

77. I think that's the clearest answer

The English - Dutch brought their women-folk with them.

The Spanish didn't so they intermarried more with the local women. Same went for the French, but there just weren't many French who came across.

[UndertheOcean]

12. I meant intermarriage between Arabs ....

Most Arabs in the Levant are the product of Greeks + Historic Arab Tribes + Persians + Egyptians+Turkish+Armenians+Kurdish ... and their is no cultural taboo against intermarriage within that society.

The Jews are a little tricky , since most of them are recent immigrants from Europe (19th century nationalistic Zionism) and mostly white , so they have that tendency of isolating themselves .

Plus Jews historically had a problem with intermarriage. Even Arabs Jews tended to marry their own.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Like others in this thread, I will correct your mistakes.

Most Jews in the Levant are not recent immigrants from Europe, only about a third are and some of those are also from the Americas, the others are from the Middle East, North Africa, Ethiopia, China/"Far East", and India; hardly enclaves of "whites."

Also sounds like Arabs have a historic problem with intermarriage based on what you are claiming. Where you say Jews had a problem with intermarriage (marrying other Jews), your first statement is no different...Arabs marry other Arabs.

[UndertheOcean]

33. Aren't the Ashkenazi 50% of Israeli Society , correct me if I am wrong

Anyway , I think intermarriage and blending between the Arabs and the Jews is an EXCELLENT way of ending the craziness in the Middle East... I hope it starts to happen in significant numbers in our lifetime.

Thanks for the corrections.

[Behind the Aegis]

41. They are not.

These should help:

Jews
Main article: Israeli Jews
See also: Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Beta Israel, and Jewish ethnic divisions
According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2008, of Israel's 7.3 million people, 75.6% were Jews of any background<1>. Among them, 70.3% were Sabras (Israeli-born), mostly second- or third-generation Israelis, and the rest are olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) — 20.5% from Europe and the Americas, and 9.2% from Asia and Africa, including the Arab countries.<2>

About 35% of all Israeli Jews are recently (first or second generation) descended from European Jews, while 25% are descended from Jews who immigrated from Arab countries, Iran, Turkey and Central Asia. In addition, 45.6 thousands (0.8%) are, or are descended from Indian Jews, and 106.9 thousands (1.9%) - from Ethiopian Jews<2>.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel

Modern divisions

Geographic illustration of the major Jewish ethnic divisions in Afro-Eurasia c. 1490 ADHistorically, Jews have been identified into two major groups: the Ashkenazim, or "Germanics" ("Ashkenaz" meaning "Germany" in Medieval Hebrew, denoting their Central European base), and the Sephardim, or "Hispanics" ("Sefarad" meaning "Hispania" or "Iberia" in Hebrew, denoting their Spanish and Portuguese base). The Mizrahim, or "Easterners" ("Mizrach" being "East" in Hebrew), that is Middle Eastern and North African Jews, could constitute a third major group.

Smaller Jewish groups include the Georgian Jews and Mountain Jews from the Caucasus; Indian Jews including the Bene Israel, Bnei Menashe, Cochin Jews and Bene Ephraim; the Romaniotes of Greece; the ancient Italian Jewish community; the Teimanim from the Yemen and Oman; various African Jews, including most numerously the Beta Israel of Ethiopia; the Bukharan Jews of Central Asia; and Chinese Jews, most notably the Kaifeng Jews, as well as various other distinct but now extinct communities.

The divisions between all these groups are rough and their boundaries aren’t solid. The Mizrahim for example, are a heterogeneous collection of North African and Middle Eastern Jewish communities which are often as unrelated to each other as they are to any of the earlier mentioned Jewish groups. In modern usage, however, the Mizrahim are also termed Sephardi due to similar styles of liturgy, despite independent evolutions from Sephardim proper. Thus, among Mizrahim there are Iraqi Jews, Egyptian Jews, Tunisian Jews, Algerian Jews , Moroccan Jews Lebanese Jews, Kurdish Jews, Libyan Jews, Syrian Jews, and various others. The Yemenite Jews ("Teimanim") from Yemen and Oman are sometimes included, although their style of liturgy is unique and they differ in respect to the admixture found among them to that found in Mizrahim. Additionally, there is a difference between the pre-existing Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities as distinct from the descendants of those Sephardi migrants who established themselves in the Middle East and North Africa after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by the Catholic Monarchs in 1492, and a few years later from the expulsion decreed in Portugal.

Despite this diversity, Ashkenazi Jews represent the bulk of modern Jewry, estimated at between 70% and 80% of Jews worldwide<3><4> (and up to 90% prior to World War II and the Holocaust)<3>. As a result of their emigration from Europe during the wartime periods, Ashkenazim also represent the overwhelming majority of Jews in the New World continents and in countries previously without native Jewish communities, such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, with Venezuela and Panama being an exception since Sefaradim compose the majority of the Jewish communities in these two countries. In France, Mizrahi immigrants from North Africa and their descendants now outnumber pre-existing European Jews. Only in Israel is the Jewish population representative of all groups, a melting pot independent of each group's proportion within the overall world Jewish population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Modern_divisions

[jaksavage]

16. I saw a study

that tracked anglo saxon blood lines in england.
They were 95% successful at marrying only other anglos. Displacing native brits.
The lines were drawn in wales and scotland , wars fought to exclude the anglo saxon hordes.
They replaced the native english populations within a few generations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Not quite sure what you're saying, but it sounds wrong

Genetic studies have shown there was wide intermarrying between Anglo-Saxons and the existing British population all through England - it turns out the majority of 'English' ancestry is still the population that was in the area before the Romans came, let alone the Anglo-Saxons.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/

'Celtic' turns out to have been more of a culture than a new set of people than arrived in Britain; and some Anglo-Saxons came, taking power, and bringing in the new language, but they intermarried extensively. It's true they didn't make it so much into Wales and Scotland, but that was the politics and warfare of control - the existing rulers held that territory (though the population of Scotland was changing at the same time too, with some immigration and conquest from Ireland - the Scots, as opposed to the Picts).

[QC]

8. The English did freely intermarry with the native population.

That's why most of us here in the South have some native ancestry.

[EFerrari]

18. I wonder what would have happened if the French

had stayed longer. They had this whole plan to intermarry, it was actually policy.

[Tailormyst]

64. My children are french canadian and micmac (spelling?)

I also know a few other people with similar heritage. I had no idea it was policy!

[QC]

72. We would have a lot more savoir faire than is presently the case, I suspect. n/t

[Alcibiades]

59. That's true more of the south than the north

Of course, the south wasn't entirely "English" either. The non-native 15/16 part of my family has been here since 1688, and includes English, Irish, Scottish, French and Swiss.

This is America: we all wind up mutts. Even the so-called purebreds are mutts: they just don't know it.

[QC]

71. Yes, my family is a pretty volatile mix of Celts and Indians,

along with a bit of English blood.

The Southerners really did not seem to have the same hangups as those in the northern colonies.

[cloudbase]

9. The Spanish

didn't bring along many of their own women, where the English and Dutch did.

[Codeine]

10. Perhaps you live in a different America than I do,

because where I'm from it's completely normal for Hispanic/Latino folks to marry Anglos. Most of the couples I know are Anglo/Mexican couples. :shrug: Maybe it's just a SoCal thing?

[tammywammy]

15. Nah, I see that here in Texas too. n/t

[EFerrari]

11. What past? The State Dept is still defending the puppets they helped

to power in Honduras and they are still murdering journalists and their families. This is a story from May 9:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x35951

[Rex]

14. Things were unfolding differently in the North and South.

To most Anglicans, it would have been an affront in the eyes of God. You have to remember that these are people who worried about being hit by lightening for jacking off and wanted to dunk women into vats of water until they were dead (and therefore could NOT be a witch). The Spanish OTOH lived with 900 years of occupation and were hellbent on retaking land, cities, populations. When they found South America, it was at the height of the Reconquering period of Spain. Anglo-saxons on the otherhand, were escaping/banished for being religious wackos or holding extremist ideas about society. One group was conquering, the other was escaping persecution. Of course it all became about conquering and still is.

[UndertheOcean]

17. So , everyone is crazy , in there own way . Sums up humanity n/t

[Rex]

23. Yeah it does.

Also, most people didn't think native americans had souls...not until Pope Paul III said, 'yes they do' in 1537. Crazy times indeed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. That was the Puritans (New England) not the Anglicans (Virginia, the Carolinas)

All the witch trials were in New England, where the Puritans held sway.

(An Anglican is a member of the Church of England. It's not a synonym for Anglo-Saxon.)

[Rex]

48. I was talking about anglo-saxons.

Not the Church of England, I thought that point was made clear.

[MellowDem]

74. Anglicans are members of the Church of England...

so your point wasn't clear. And Angles and the Saxons were two of many different Germanic tribes that invaded England hundreds of years ago. The English don't refer to themselves as Anglo-Saxons, and whites don't refer to themselves as Anglos. I only ever really hear Hispanics use the term. Why? I don't know, ignorance? It doesn't really make any sense, as most whites in the US are quite a mix of European ancestry (and usually some others beside), and most aren't even English, but rather German and Irish.

[Rex]

82. I wasn't talking about Anglicans, again not my point.

It wasn't just the English that came to North America. Doesn't anyone read history books anymore? I could have added the normans too, but that would have just confused people more.

[JVS]

87. Admit you made a mistake.

[Rex]

92. LOL!

Thanks I needed that.

[csziggy]

83. In the South there were populations of Protestants that were driven out

Of the German Palatine. In my family history, we have a lot of them that moved to South Carolina to an area known as Dutch Fork for the "Dutch" that lived there. They later took up Baptist preaching, moved to Alabam and started the Southern Baptist Convention system. I suspect that they were similar to the Puritans in that they were so sure their way was the only way they made themselves insufferable to everyone else around them. I need to do some more research into exactly which form of Protestants they were back in Germany.

Even my Quaker ancestors were hassled in Ireland for being overly aggressive about proselytizing. That group originally immigrated to Pennsylvania then some came south to North Carolina. I have no doubt that if they had gotten up the zeal to go witch hunting, there would have been witch trials in the South as well as in Salem. The pictures we have of even the later ancestors, they are pretty intolerant looking jerks.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. The Quakers are/were opposed to all forms of violence, and there are no records of them

conducting witch hunts anywhere.

They were "intolerant jerks" when it came to the lifestyles of their own members, but they absolutely refused to commit violence against another human being.

There were also Austrian Lutherans who came to Georgia around Savannah when the Archbishop of Salzburg ordered them to leave in the eighteenth century. Their original church still exists and is still used by the descendants of that group.

So yes, I know that the religious picture in the South was more complex and that it was not solid Church of England (Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics, who were persecuted because they were suspected of owing allegiance to the pope instead of to the king), but the fact remains that all the witchcraft hysteria in this country was in New England among the Puritans.

[csziggy]

97. Yes and neither did the German Palatinate Protestants

But they were some tough old preachers in that crowd.

Of course, one of the ones I have a photograph of was not so intolerant. Although he was a preacher and his sect did not approve of liquor, he had a still. He had a box next to the rod to his farm where he would leave jugs of home brewed and people would take a jug and leave "donations". His granddaughter wrote a narrative of his life and made the comment that he never sold liquor, just took the donations. :spray:

[Cleita]

19. Okay, I'm going to ignore the offensive parts of this post and attempt to

answer your question. Historians say it's because the Spanish seldom brought women with them so they intermarried with the native population. The English and Dutch on the other hand brought their families with them so there were fewer mixed marriages among them. I do agree with you that there should be more intermarrying among various Americans of different cultural backgrounds. Hopefully, it will put racism behind us.

[UndertheOcean]

22. which parts are offensive ? n/t

[Cleita]

24. The first three sentences where you insinuate that

if Texas wasn't Anglo dominated, it wouldn't have seceded from Mexico. The facts didn't have anything to do with race and everything to do with preferring the democracy that the USA was offering to what government Mexico was offering politically at the time.

[UndertheOcean]

28. Oh , right , it was about "democracy" ....ok .

[WolverineDG]

79. Santa Ana revoked the Constitution of 1824 among other things

so it was a bit more complicated than what you want it to be. But thanks for playing.

dg

[MellowDem]

80. Part of it was the ban on slavery...

a lot of it was the abolishment of the Constitution of 1824, which was unpopular throughout Mexico. It essentially led to a more centralized form of government. The Yucatan state in Mexico also seceded due to this, but were subdued by Santa Anna's forces. It also didn't help that Catholicism was the "official" state religion.

Indeed, secession was pretty usual in the early years of Mexico. I suppose newly independent countries formed out of former colonies will be somewhat unstable.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

69. Actually, one of the bigger reasons for the war was Mexico's decision to enforce the ban on slavery.

There were a lot of reasons for the revolution and not all of them stemmed from a noble desire for freedom. Many were simply economic.

[Cleita]

99. Yes, as in all revolutions and changes in a sovereign state's status there

are many reasons and it does oversimplify to state only one reason, however, in a message board sometimes for brevity you pick the one that was the main reason. I just found the OP's reason not one of them.

[EFerrari]

27. There is a difference between intermarrying and servitude that includes rape.

That's something that stood out to me even though I understand what you were getting at.

[Warpy]

20. 'Scuse me?

Here in NM, they were kicked out for nearly two decades until they learned some manners and promised to treat indigenous people more fairly.

Elsewhere, Spanish conquerors found it was cheaper to go out and kidnap new Indian slaves than feed the ones they had.

The people who did freely mix with indigenous people were the French, who set up trapping and trading routes all over the north and into the west.

[EFerrari]

26. Researching indigenous people here in the Santa Clara Valley

I did find that when the native American slaves all died off building Mission Santa Clara, the civic leaders simply went to the Central Valley to capture more people to work for them. That's absolutely true.

[Cleita]

37. The Spaniards were especially brutal to the indigenous people in California and

in the Caribbean. However, in other countries, many of the Conquistadores made alliances by marriage to various tribal chiefs and kings to avail themselves of their warriors and resources. A few ship loads of Europeans didn't conquer Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Small pox and help from other indigenous tribes who had a grudge against whoever they were up against did the job. There were also disgruntled tribes under the thumb of the Aztecs who joined with Cortez and helped him defeat Montezuma. As a whole though the subjugated natives didn't fare well and were relegated to the bottom of the economic ladder in subsequent centuries under the yoke of their European patrones.

[EFerrari]

68. I have to rehabilitate that whole period

because I remember very little from school -- and whatever we did get stopped in 6th grade -- and the rest of my Native America studies were all north American.

[WolverineDG]

43. No kidding

If the Spanish were so "advanced," why did they limit government positions to full-blood Spaniards born IN SPAIN? If you weren't a "peninsulare," you were nothing.

dg

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Reaching for that hat as a historian

Given that Mexican History IS my field...

There are several points to make.

1.- Early colonists did "take" local women, but not just Aztecs or Mixtec, also Shawnee. Women were rare so men who needed you know... that... ahem took them. Some went to far as to marry, but to say that the Spanish willfully married... no, we call it rape. The same as it happened in North American Colonies. The process of colonization was just as brutal everywhere.

2.- Once the WHITE Slavery trade was firmly in place for the American Colonies or the Colonies south of the Rio Grande, people with money and influence waited for the ships to make landfall in Boston or Veracruz to pick and chose from what came.

3.- You think there is no racism in Mexico? Oy.

I could go on... but I have concluded over the years that the new cosmic race is part of the Mexican National Myth, just as we just did not engage in any miscegenation in the US is part of the American myth. Like all myths they have SOME reality, but not completely. There was a lot of hanky panky, for example, going on in slave quarters in the US, and with American Indians in the Frontier.

[guitar man]

29. Oklahoma-Irish/Native Americans

A lot of Irish immigrants came to work the oil fields in Oklahoma when drilling started here and wound up intermarrying with Native Americans. I bet 2/3 of the people I know here are of Irish/ Native American descent.

[Hekate]

55. Well that explains why every Oklahoman I've ever met who claimed to be Native American...

... (and not just "My great great grandmother", but claimed a tribe) had blue eyes. It always startled me a bit. TY for the info.

Hekate

[guitar man]

58. Yes indeed

There are a lot of blue eyed and green eyed folks on the tribal rolls here. Good people, lend you a hand and give you the shirt off their back to help out if you need it. At least that's the way my friends here are.

[Evasporque]

30. They did....

History was been mangled to hide that fact due to the United States' campaign of genocide on Native Americans in the 19th C.

In the 17th and 18th centuries there was a lot of commingling of the races.

As we pushed west...the WEALTHY wanted the land and it's resources...the Native Americans stood in the way so the GOVERNMENT aided the RICH (sound familiar?) and they proceeded to systematically eliminate Native Americans.

To do this they demonized the Native American and used fear, uncertainty and doubt to manipulate public opinion.

Post Civil War it got worse as the racial divide between Whites and NON-Whites was elevated to the extent that we are struggling to recover even to this day and the government is still loathe to admit that they reneged on every treaty and promise made.

[Rebubula]

31. If by...

...'Intermarry' and 'mix freely' by the Spanish you mean subjugate and rape with impunity - then I cannot argue with you.

Otherwise...this is just another historically myopic OP that deserves an UNREC.

[old mark]

34. They did not, really - the Spanish had many different words for

persons of varying types and degrees of mixed races - persons of mixed race and "Indios" had fewer rights - "Indios" having none. There were natives kept as mistresses-many of them slaves- and the mixing of thre races began there. There were very few European Spanish women in the American colonies, especially at first.
The Spanish were as prejudiced as everyone else.
mark

[virgogal]

35. Much intermarriage took place in Hawaii.

[Hekate]

56. Indeed it did. Of all the kids I babysat in my neighborhood, there were only 3 families that weren't

... intermarried: mine (Irish stew on both sides), the African-American Marine Master Sgt and his family next door to mine, and one Japanese-American family.

We grew up pretty much taking it for granted. But that was Hawai'i and that was then.

Hekate

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. ...

[Xithras]

38. Officially, there was a fundamental difference of opinions....and populations.

England and the Netherlands were high population Protestant countries in the 15th to 17th centuries, and saw the "New World" as a way to expand their nations and relieve their population pressures. The English kings and parliament didn't originally see North America as a "possession", but wanted it to become a part of England itself, populated by Englishmen and Anglicans. The natives were simply in the way. It's really no different than their attempt to Anglicize northern Ireland.

Spain wasn't looking to expand itself or bleed off excess population (right after the completion of the Reconquista, Spain had a much smaller relative population size, and there were large areas of Spain itself that were only very thinly populated at the time). Spain wanted gold and wealth, and saw the New World as a way to get it. The Pope, who expected large tithes from the Catholic rulers of Spain, supported them in that. The Pope, however, declared that the native populations WERE people, and they were to be Catholicized and brought under his authority. While the process was sometimes brutal, this was a defining difference. The Northern European governments wanted the natives out of the way. The governments still answering to the Pope were under orders to "Christianize and civilize" the natives. Under Papal law, the natives gained a number of very important rights once they were seen as Christian (enslaving and killing heathens was acceptable, enslaving and killing other Catholics was not...marrying heathens or selling them land was a sin, marrying and selling land to other Catholics was not).

When later Spanish settlers arrived, they found Spanish speaking Christian natives who were already not all that unlike themselves. This led to a huge difference in how the two populations mixed and married, compared to their neighbors further north who saw the natives as "outsiders" and "savages" well into the 20th century.

[UndertheOcean]

40. Thank you for the very informative post , makes total sense. n/t

[amborin]

39. ? historically inaccurate; in Chile, they extirpated most indigenous, as one example

[UnseenUndergrad]

46. During th 19th century...

the Time when th Vatican was losing most of it's worldly power.

The fact is that in Chile and in Argentina with it's "War of the Desert", the market for beef and crops like wheat became more valuable than the often warlike native population who would not comply. Thus, with the coming of the railroad, the telegraph and the repeating rifle... they went on a genocide spree that made the Plains war look like a picnic.

In other places however, those "indios" who DID comply often formed a vital (read: large) base of Catholic peasantry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. The Spanish mostly came to plunder and go home rich

They brought few or no women along.

The English came to plunder and settle. They brought their families.

[TexasObserver]

47. Your lack of knowledge of Texas history is apparent.

You wrongly think the Texas Revolution didn't include many Hispanic families on the side of the Texicans. It did. There were a number of Hispanic families who were prominent in the war as Texicans. The revolutionaries even called themselves "Texicans," not "Texans." The word Texas is derived from the Native American tribe the Tejas, which meant "friendly," and there was much intermarrying between Anglos and Native Americans or Hispanics. My great grandmother was a Comanche. One of my great uncles was named "Juan."

The Texas Revolution was by the Texicans against the Mexican army and government. It wasn't a battle between Anglos and Hispanics. It was a battle between Mexicans and Texicans.

A number of free black men served in the Texas Revolution and were Texicans. Greenberry Logan, Sam McCollough, Jr., and Hendrick Arnold are famous black Texicans of the Texas Revolution.

There's the reality of the Texas Revolution. Settlers who had settled the area through Spanish and Mexican land grants took over an outpost in fall, 1835, in what is now called San Antonio, and the fight was on.

[UndertheOcean]

49. What was the proportion of Anglos within "Texicans" ?

[TexasObserver]

50. You're proven wrong, and you attempt to divert.

Go read about Texas history if you want to know.

[UndertheOcean]

52. Just answer my very simple question, or not , your choice n/t

[TexasObserver]

61. You've been called on your numerous historical errors by many.

You should take some time to go educate yourself, instead of arguing with those who know more than you about this topic.

[WolverineDG]

81. Here, read this & learn something

Lone Star by Fehrenbach, available on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Lone-Star-History-Texas-Texans/dp/0306809427/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273630761&sr=1-1

Prominent in the story of the Texas Revolution are Lorenzo de Zavala, Juan Seguin, & the Brothers Esparza (defenders of the Alamo)

dg

[Flaneur]

51. The English wanted to eliminate the natives; the Spanish wanted to exploit them.

Plus, in both Mexico and Peru, the Spaniards confronted advanced, complex civilizations where they essentially just decapitated the leadership and put themselves in the old leaders' places.

[proteus_lives]

53. Several reasons.

It depends on the area and which tribes died-out and how fast.

Plus, English, Dutch and French colonists brought women and families more often then Spaniards/Portuguese.

But there was tons of inter-marriage anyway. Most First Americans have white/black blood in them.

[REP]

54. To convert them to Catholicism and enslave them on the missions and ranchos

Any California fourth grade student knows that.

[Old Troop]

57. Um, you mean the ones who weren't slaughtered or enslaved?

[Cleobulus]

60. Uhm, you do realize that most Latin American countries were oligarchies...

of white, minority, landowners, and indigenous serfs, right? Not all of Latin America was/is like Brazil, and only recently have many of them broken this pattern.

[datasuspect]

62. they were randy, swarthy swashbuckling bastards

[Tailormyst]

63. You need to read up on your history more

Really, you do. There weren't alot of inter-racial marriages going on. There was alot of sex and rape though.

And, by the way, my great grandmother was a Blackfoot who married into a family that dates back to 1620 in Plymouth.

Also I find your comments about anglos and inter-racial marriage to be absurd and pretty darn ignorant. Travel the world a little, I doubt you will see may countries with as many mixed marriages as you see here.

[Old Troop]

65. That's so interesting

Wasn't the Blackfoot Nation from the plains?

[Tailormyst]

75. I think Montana and Canada

He went west and came home with a wife. I have alot of friends here in New England that are part Wampanoag,Pequot and Narragansett. ( I may have butchered some of those spellings)

[EFerrari]

70. Mexico is 80+ % mestizo. And I found out that El Salvador

gets the door prize for assimilating both Spanish DNA and that of African slaves on this continent. Most of Latin America has more "mixed blood" than we have. And I say that as someone who is Heinz 57 herself. lol

[Tailormyst]

76. What is mestizo?

I love your posts. I often learn interesting things from them.

[EFerrari]

84. Mestizo means "mixed blooded".

[MrScorpio]

66. I think that the millions of indigenous Americans in the Spanish occupied areas are the reason

Made for plenty of opportunity.

Anyway, we had our fair share of intermarriage on the North American continent.

I, myself, am 1/16th Cherokee.

[a la izquierda]

67. Um intermarriage is NOT going to heal the wounds...

sorry.
Latin America is a disaster because of longstanding problems between the region and the US. Sex isn't going to fix it. Anyway, it'd be spun as some weird 21st century conquest.

[Hannah Bell]

78. "Anglos just refuse to intermarry" - lol.

[Tailormyst]

85. Maybe someday they WILL marry. I mean, we could even someday have a mixed race President!

[Octafish]

88. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Perhaps some colonizers more than others felt a sense of, eh, responsibility for those they impregnated. Others saved their big white wedding for that special someone arriving on the next bride boat.

Just wondering, perhaps a member of DU's thought police can help me phrase it scientifically.

Most of all: Excellent question, yours, UndertheOcean. Great thread, too.

[Donnachaidh]

90. Those people you call Anglos intermarry all the time

They didn't have a problem intermarrying with Native Americans.

And trying to dictate intermarriage, whether by bribery (tax incentive) or otherwise, is stupid. You honestly think people intermarrying is going to stop the racism and other problems?

How utterly naive.

[SwampG8r]

91. the spanish did not bring women until after the conquest was over

the bi racial children of early spanish were in a caste below the indians and were trusted by neither spanish or indian
my experience with mexicans in mexico has been that they tend to downplay their native side and indians in mexico are still looked upon as a peasant class

guatamala is also pretty bad on its indian population
but i havent been in guatamala for some time so maybe its progressed

[cliffordu]

93. The spanish conquistador came waaaay before spanish familes did.

That's the difference.

The dutch and English came over primarily as families, while the Spanish showed up as a bunch of horny soldiers and sailors.

Hence the early mixing of the spanish and the relative rarity among the dutch and the English....

[karynnj]

94. One conjecture - is that the Anglo/Dutch immigrated

specifically to set up colonies. There were women and children on the Mayflower and on the first boat to go to Virgina. My history is shaky here - but didn't the Spanish mainly come as conquerors - where it was just men?

[JCMach1]

95. Whoa Nelly, revisionist history there... MANY more here in North America

were killed in the epidemics during the first few generations after contact. Additionally, populations were always higher in South and Central America among the Native Americans.

Lower population meant less chance of mixing.

[JCMach1]

96. Also, not every culture in the Middle-East mixes with others so easily...

The inbreeding among cousins is so serious here in the Gulf, that a number of diseases cause serious problems and have to be screened before marriage.

Having the strict rules against intermarriage doesn't prevent it in the past, or the present. There is every shade of Emirati from African dark, to Persian pale white... and every shade in between.

[SoCalDem]

98. Didn't the Spanish arrive here as warriors/conquerors?

Boatloads of young & middle aged MEN arrived ,sans female companions, so once the fighting was finished for the day, they wanted some "companionship"...and it was probably more prudent to marry local, than to send back to Spain for women.

The Dutch/Anglos often arrived with families/companions, intent on settlement/commerce.

[uNGuD]

100. Why did the Spanish mix freely with indigenous American population , while the Anglos/Dutch did not?

The British looked down on the natives of their colonies along racial, considered inferior to any person who was not British.
The Spanish did not despise the natives because of race, racism practiced only ideological, if a person was Catholic, no matter who was Indian, black, white or mestizo. The Spanish tried to spread the Catholic faith among the natives.