Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuna-piano | Hacker News Reader

I've often wondered why Mexican people look so different from people in the US. Wikipedia makes me believe that Mexicans are generally a mix of European and native ancestry. But why does Mexico have so much more of that than the US? Especially considering we stole much of our land from them...

Why does the average person in Texas (excluding Mexico->US immigrants) look so different from the average person a few hundred miles south, but yet looks similiar to someone a few hundred (or thousand) miles north?

View on HN

Because the population density was much lower in pre-Columbian America than in pre-Columbian Mexico[0]. Note how Argentina has a similarly low population density - their current population also has a low level of indigenous ancestry.

There are some other nuances as well, like how the existing social structure was preserved in Mexico. Check out Why Nations Fail[1] for the details.

0: http://i.imgur.com/RI3uplJ.jpg

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail

"Population density"is a nice way to put it but hides fact that the local population was exterminated in the british colonies, and not in the spanish ones. That's why there is so few people of aboriginal descent in the US and not in Latin America.

Population density isn't "a nice way to put it", it's data from before colonization began. Regardless of what happened afterwards, the starting conditions were very different in what is now the US and Mexico.

Yes, the population map is exactly what I was looking for - makes total sense and explains the differences.

Thanks

> Wikipedia makes me believe that Mexicans are generally a mix of European and native ancestry. But why does Mexico have so much more of that than the US? Especially considering we stole much of our land from them...

Because the US (starting before it was the US) engaged in policy of separation from, genocide against, and subjugation-in-separate-polities of the natives, whereas the Spanish in Mexico (and elsewhere) implemented the encomienda system (essentially, a quasi-feudal manor system, where the natives were essentially in the role of peasants, but -- by royal decree -- free peasants, not chattel slaves like blacks in the US.)

> Wikipedia makes me believe that Mexicans are generally a mix of European and native ancestry.

The interesting aspect of the article is that the "native ancestry" part is very diverse itself.

> But why does Mexico have so much more of that than the US?

The Spanish mixed with the native population and created communities with them since the beginning. This process is 500 years old. Race boundaries have been erased. In the US this process is 100-200 years old.

> Especially considering we stole much of our land from them...

A lot of the land was very sparsely populated. Most migration to the West occurred after the 1840s. People coming from the East (NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Louisiana, etc). This explains why they are so similar to them.

"The Spanish mixed with the native population and created communities with them since the beginning. This process is 500 years old. Race boundaries have been erased."

It isn't true that boundaries have been erased, though it may seem that way because a majority of Mexicans are mixed European and indigenous (62%).

But about 10% is European, 7% indigenous and 21% predominantly indigenous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico#Ethnic_...

Well you would have to understand that Mexico is a mix, but not a perfect mix. Southern Mexican states have more Indigenous people, and mestizos there have more indigenous characteristics, but if you go to Northern states it won't be difficult to find blond people, that's because there were less native Americans in the north than in the south.

Then you have to understand that the poorest states of Mexico are in the south, therefore a lot of people from the South emigrates to the US, and that's where Americans get the stereotypical look for a Mexican.

As an anecdote, I live in a Mexican Northern state, in my last year of college I got the opportunity to study as an exchange student in Charleston S.C., I went there with other 3 students, the three of them were what Americans would call "White", some people were confused, how a Mexican could be white? They had a clear picture of how a Mexican should look like, and usually that picture comes from Mexicans with a little more indigenous blood in their veins, as myself, I have black hair and my skin is clear brown even though two of my grandparents had blue eyes.

So yeah, it all depends on where in Mexico you go, there are white Mexicans, native american Mexicans, even black and Asian Mexicans in the whole territory but we're part of a not so perfect mix, there are zones where one genetic pool is stronger than the other.

Someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong, but the diversity of Mexico might have to do with how strong the Central American nations were at the time of colonization. They had huge cities and much more complex government systems than their Northern native neighbours. There was thus less massacres and more intermingling down there.

The modern distinction may have been caused by the border itself (e.g. if you are a new immigrant in US, you probably have better opportunities away from the border).

I think I read somewhere, that as the central and south American civilisations were settled, with towns, cities and a ruling elite. The Spanish just replaced this ruling elite.

Whereas in north America, it was more nomadic peoples, so the Europeans couldn't just replace the existing rulers and carry on as normal, thus the eradication policy.

I didn't quite get this: They are nomadic, let's erradicate them?

"thus the eradication policy."

There was no 'eradication policy'.

Yeah, it was just the way it goes on the british colonies...

Because the native aztec population was not exterminated as the indians in US were. The spanish mixed with the locals but there weren't that many of them (spanish).

Wasn't interracial marriage illegal in the US until the 20th Ceentury?

> Wasn't interracial marriage illegal in the US until the 20th Ceentury?

Yes, and no. That is, it wasn't established as a federal Constitutional right until the decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967), but there were many states where it was legal prior to that (in fact, it was legal in 6 of the 13 original colonies at the time of independence, and there are several states that never passed laws prohibiting it.)

And even then, the laws that were passed only consistently prohibited whites from marrying blacks, though some of them also included all or specific other non-white "races".

I was reading about this case yesterday and found it really fascinating how the anti-miscegenation law in Virginia was crafted in what I imagine as the meanest way possible.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

Reply on news.ycombinator.com