Why arent Mexicans considered native americans?

Mr Longnife has an excelent mood... to say Spain "never" claimed North America is a wonderfull joke...
The Spanish Empire was from Vancouver to Chesapeake Bay... or I must to say Bahía de Santa María... To write Spaniards weren´t in North America is as silly as to write British weren´t in India....

 

Eygptian, roman, hebrew, chinese artifacts?...sorry thats absolute Bull...

dna of indiginous peoples of the americas all came through beringia, are they related to euros, asians and africans? absolutely since we're all one giant family, all of us from africa....if you're implying anything else well that would be just more BS...

 

Mexicans are a mix of Injuns and Spaniards, so they are really a mix of European and Native Americans. As far as native goes though, well there is no evidence that the Aztecs, Maya etc were the first indegenous inhabitents of this land, people settled in waves in the "new world" these people could very well be one of the last waves, and Europeans would be the last wave. So European decendents who have lived in the Americas for generations can pretty much be designated native Americans.

 

The Brazilian sample (Figure 1A) shows widespread European ancestry with the highest levels being observed in the south. African ancestry is also widespread (except for the south) and reaches its highest values in the East of the country. Native American ancestry is highest in the north-west (Amazonia). The Chilean sample (Figure 1B) shows the least regional variation, with low levels of African ancestry throughout the country. European and Native American ancestry are relatively uniform, although somewhat higher European ancestry is seen around the main urban areas of the north and centre, Native ancestry predominating elsewhere, particularly in the south. The Colombian sample (Figure 1C) shows highest African ancestry in the coastal regions (particularly on the Pacific) and highest European ancestry in central areas. Native ancestry appears highest in the south-west and in the east of the country (Amazonia) but interpolations in these areas are based on few data points. In the Mexican sample (Figure 1D) Native American ancestry is highest in the centre/south of the country with the north showing the highest proportion of European Ancestry. African ancestry is generally low across Mexico except for a few coastal regions. The Peruvian sample (Figure 1E) shows substantial Native American ancestry throughout the country, particularly in the south, European ancestry appears highest around northern/central areas. African ancestry in Peru is generally low, except for parts of the northern coast.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004572

 

And you know I am wrong because......?? Because you say so?

 

ThirdTerm - Excellent data! Thanks for the link.

In the case of Mexico, the maps & mapping bear out what I saw in the year I spent there. The Native Peoples are most dense in the highlands north of Acapulco, the African population is most dense on the coasts, the European are concentrated in urban areas, & least concentrated where the Native Peoples are concentrated.

 

Because I was one year short of a degree in archeology when I made a career change, my daughter finished what started and better, two degrees archeology and history, so I keep up to date on archeology...what you're claiming is tabloid garbage...romans and eygptians and no atlantis or aliens?

 

I don't recall where I saw the genetic estimates for mexicans but I believe they are 80-83% indiginous heritage

 

What kind of scientific, anthropological, historical authority do you have to say that? American natives can be in Alaska and in Tijuana.. in Patagonia or in Amazonia... in Cuzco or in Amacuro....Can you write here why "american natives" are only from USA?
Maybe this in going to be a great surprise to you...but when Spaniards arrive to America they they get on to "Indians" everywhere... in Chesapeake and in Land of Fire (Tierra del Fuego)... and they didn´t write the "indians" from USA were "natives" and indias from Brazil not... Where are yous scientific sources, please?

 

In time of the Spanish Empire, the Mestizo population in Mexico was 23% in 1808 and 43% in 1885. However, the indian populaton (american "natives") fell from 60% in 1808 to 38% in 1885.
And now as you ca read: "Mexico has a population of unique genomic makeup as a result of its history.As of February 14, 2000, Mexico had a total of 97,483,412 inhabitants,occupying the 11th place among the most populated nations on earth, with anannual population growth rate of nearly 1.58%. The vast majority of the Mexican population emerged from a mixture between Meso-American native groups and Spaniards "

By other side.. in New Mexico, the "american natives" have Spanish DNA...not only indios pueblos but Navajos, Apaches, utes...
The intercourse that turned Spaniards into New Mexicans continued for decades, geneticists believe, extending from the Pueblo tribes to the more resistant blood of the Navajos, Apaches, and Ute

 

Yeah, the proper term is indigenous peoples. Basically those here before European influence. There were no Mexicans then because there was no Mexico. I know white Mexicans and brown Mexicans. Most are mixed Spanish and indigenous.

 

College instructors are usually way behind the current discoveries or filter facts through their own biases, these filters avoided teaching you about the Los Lunas rock and the Bat Creek stone as well as the ancient Jewish coins found in Ohio. Why should we not be surprised a college drop-out disagrees with archeologists who did get their degree and work in their field? College does not guarantee expertise in anything/everything.

Have you ever read or heard of The Table Of Nations or the haplogroup migration maps showing where and when people groups migrated from and where they settled?

 

Tablet translated as Paleo-Hebrew text "only for the Judeans" found at the Bat Creek, TN in 1889

View attachment 32628

Ancient Roman coins found in the Falls of the Ohio river 1963
View attachment 32630


The Ten Commandments found in Los Lunas, NM in 1850

View attachment 32629

The Bar Kokhba Coins from Clay City, KY found in 1952

View attachment 32631

 

(My bold)

You have to distinguish between Mexico the country & the Mexica - the tribe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

"Etymology

"Main article: Name of Mexico

"Mēxihco is the Nahuatl term for the heartland of the Aztec Empire, namely, the Valley of Mexico, and its people, the Mexica, and surrounding territories which became the future State of Mexico as a division of New Spain prior to independence (compare Latium). It is generally considered to be a toponym for the valley which became the primary ethnonym for the Aztec Triple Alliance as a result, or vice versa. q233 After New Spain won independence from Spain, it was decided that the new country would be named after its capital, Mexico City, which was founded in 1524 on top of the ancient Mexica capital of Mexico-Tenochtitlan."

(My emphasis - more details @ the URL)

The Mexica arrived in the Valley of Mexico in the 12th century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Migrational_period). So there have been Mexica there since then. The country of Mexico was so-named in 1524.

 

I stopped @ the one - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Creek_inscription

It doesn't seem likely. Has any corroborating evidence for these instances turned up? Documents, memoirs, diaries?

See the URL for a detailed history.

 

I will give you a bit of advice; Wikipedia can and is frequently edited for content by just about anyone with access. At certain times, what is referenced can be 180 degrees off what it states at another moment. Simply based on that, Wikipedia is extremely unreliable for anything scientific, political, religious even historical. It is best to look to the 3rd or 4th page of a Google search and look for websites related to the field you are researching.

Second, the couple who own and operate Wikipedia are left-wing zealots and they will exclude any and all edits to wiki that refutes their beliefs, in effect censoring all other thoughts and facts.

 

From the Ohio State University: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html

 

(My bold)

Yah, I use Wikipedia because it's out there, & well known. I use them as a general source & background.

As for Google - if I understand their search/retrieval/presentation criteria, you want the top entries on the 1st page of results (assuming you've constructed the search properly) - not the 3rd or 4th pages. But I'll defer to 'Net search expertise out there.

I clicked through a bunch of cites for "Bat Creek 1889" - most of them are v. dubious of the entire enterprise. & there were a couple that seem to have some kind of Mormon tie-in. Odd. The person you cite from OH is an economist, by profession. I assume archeology is a hobby or a sideline for him.

Without more convincing evidence, I remain agnostic about the Bat Creek find.

 

Try a search for Bat Creek tablet or Bat Creek stone and for Los Lunas tablet or stone. The facts are there. The coins are easier to find.

The Google top pages are often artificially placed near the top or are frequented by agnostics or detractors. The raw facts are usually deeper into the search.

 

(My bold)

Huh. I was reading off the Google pages, explaining how they rank search results - see https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/insidesearch/howsearchworks/index.html

You don't trust Google to explain how it ranks results? If that's so, Why would you use Google @ all?

& how do we know that agnostics or detractors frequent the Google top pages?

 

your birth certificates actually mention race/colour?

O.M.G

 

You may be ignorant of the businesses who sell their services to insure client businesses, charities, political, etc. are ranked higher in Google and other searches. The same can easily be done by causes, detractors or any other searches.

I guess you didn't know that.

 

Before you start taking NaturalBorn's "archeology" seriously....keep in mind-


He's a Young Earth Creationist who believes not just life on Earth, not just the Earth, but the Entire Universe?

is only 6000 years old.

 

(My bold)

Yah. You gotta start somewhere.

Until the finds you've described get some traction in the mainstream literature, I'll just wait for the corroborating evidence.

 

Ah, we agree, the mainstream media picks and chooses it's stories often ignoring what it is told to ignore by the Kremlinesque powers, sometimes by a editor/owner denier or who is fearful of the cause and effect of publishing/ broadcasting controversy.

Thankfully in the past few decades we have had alternative media sources, and a few courageous reporters. Should one mainstream reporter cover this criminal fraud as vigorously as Woodward & Bernstein did during Watergate, they would certainly win a Pulitzer Prize or whatever ego-award they wanted.