quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
well, Mexicans are not racially or culturally European. Unlike the British Spain never sent very many people to the new world. What spainish culture was imposed on Mexico was quickly changed to fit the local Indian culture.

---

Actually you are quite wrong and its because you don't really know that Mexico is a nation and not a race of people. This is boring, you are simply too uneducated to carry this conversation on with. But yes it is a common misunderstanding to equate Mexican with a race. There are significant European people (blond blue eyed people) that represent the upper class of Mexico. The "TRUE" Indian population actually occupy the lower classes. Actually the race issue in Mexico reminds me a bit of Somalia. In Mexico you have mixed people that refuse to acknowledge that they are mixed and insist that they are just European similar to many of the Somalians that insist that they are pure Arab and can trace their lineage back to Mohammed.

But the culture in Mexico is almost entirely European. Boring, boring, boring, boring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Osirion, I'm not going to argue with you about it, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Read Fahrenbach's book, 'Fire and Blood.'It is a great history of Mexico and will clear up all those issues for you, if you mare interested in the subject.

---

You mean like Mexicans are actually a race of people? So you quote a book and that is suppose to make you an expert that can tell me that Mexican people represent an actually race.

quote:

---

Horemheb says: here in Texas we have many mexican cultural adaptations that go back as far as the 18th century, that does not make us mexican. As is usually the case when people have a limited education they tend to over simplify.

---

LOL Hor, you don't seem to fully comprehend the historical and cultural situation of both Egypt and your own state of Texas!

The African affinities of Egypt are continuous from pre-dynastic times up until the Arab conquest with people only in the very rural areas who still practice the ancient African customs.

quote:

---

Osirion says: Mexico is an Indian culture? That speaks Spanish and worships a White God name Jesus? Has a fixation on light skin and discriminates against Native Americans and Blacks.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

Mexicans dress like Europeans, talk like Europeans, and the dominant social group looks like Europeans! Maybe they are Europeans!!! Good grief. From Bull fights, to soccer, to there calendar system, language, religion, etc, etc etc. They even like to dye their hair blonde and prefer Women with blue eyes and blonde hair. Just look at their movies! They don't even have Indians represented in their entertainment except in a mocking way. No, Mexico doesn't resemble the Aztec culture very well at all. The Spainiards did a good job of stamping the Native American culture out of Mexico. If you want to see Indian culture you will only find it in the most poorest of neighborhoods, but the best place to see it is in the jungles of Guatemala or in South America. Very distinct cultural differences.

---

The sad thing is Osirion is right! Mexico as well as many other latin countries still practice the racial caste system that their conquerers have placed! The many pictures of Jesus and the virgin Maria are still the blue-eyed blonde Castillian-beauties. The movies and especially soaps are a big joke, since all the actors and actresses look Spanish -as in from Spain! Many Mexicans not only bleach and dye their hair but some also bleach their skins, and some(those who can afford it) even get plastic surgery to make their faces look more European! These are the effects of colonized minds and it must stop!

With that said, even if we did give him the red/brown color and the slight thicker lips with a more boulbous nose, it was still be classified as a caucausian by today's standards. It is just a double standard. Again, people from New Guinea are not classified as Black simply due to their head shape even though facial features are clearly African. King Tut is just the reverse of this. He has some Eurasian facial features with typical Negroid cranium.

Current Racial Classifications (note that Nelson Mandela is non-negroid and so are the people from New-Guinea ).

Capoid Types
1.) Khoid (Hottentot)
2.) Sanid (Bushman)

Australoid Types
1.) Negritoid (Australoids of southeastern Asia, Indonesia/Malaysia, and the Andamans)
2.) Veddoid (Australoids of southern Asia, forming a belt from southern Arabia to the Iranian Plateau and reaching the strongest frequency in India)
3.) Jomonid (Australoid element of the Ainu)
4.) Papuan-Melanesian (Papua-New Guinea, Melanesia, Tasmania)
5.) Australian (Australia)

Negroid Types
1.) Bambutid (pygmies, yay!)
2.) Paleonegrid (forest belt region of Central and West Africa)
3.) Sudanid (West Africa)
4.) Bantid (Bantu Africa)
5.) Nilotid (the Nile)
6.) Aethiopid (Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia)

Mongoloid Types
1.) Sinid (China, Japan, and Korea)
2.) Tungid (Chukotka-Kamchatka, Eskimo regions, northern Urals, Mongolia, Siberia, Tibet)
3.) Austrid (Indochina and the South Seas)
4.) Amerind (North, Central, and South America)

Caucasoid Types
1.) Atlanto-Mediterranean (Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, North Africa, some parts of Mesopotamia and the Levant)
2.) Brunn (Ireland, Scandinavia, and some parts of coastal North Africa)
3.) Alpine (widespread throughout all Eurasia, found in most concentration in Central Europe and the West Asian highlands)
4.) Borreby (Germany, Denmark, etc.)
5.) Corded (when merged with the Danubian, created the Nordic)
6.) Danubian (when merged with the Corded, created the Nordic)
7.) Afghanian (Iranian Plateau)
8.) Cappadocian (Asia Minor and the Levant)
9.) Nordindid (Northern India)
10.) Orientalid (Arabia and other parts of Middle East)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I've seen millions of Mexicans over the years and have never seen one with bleached skin.

---

Just watch the Spanish speaking channels and you will see plenty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

I think it is quite obvious that the latest reconstruction is art work and not science. There is no way to accurately determine soft tissue shapes (note the word accurate). Consequently there are a lot of "guestimates" as to the type of nose ending, thickness of lips and the color of skin. And just like Europeans have done with Jesus, these guestimates are usually done in the likeness of political idealism rather than based on evidence which in this case there is plenty of evidence to the skin color, and nose shape, etc (simply ignored).

With that said, even if we did give him the red/brown color and the slight thicker lips with a more boulbous nose, it was still be classified as a caucausian by today's standards. It is just a double standard. Again, people from New Guinea are not classified as Black simply due to their head shape even though facial features are clearly African. King Tut is just the reverse of this. He has some Eurasian facial features with typical Negroid cranium.

Current Racial Classifications (note that Nelson Mandela is non-negroid and so are the people from New-Guinea ).

Capoid Types
1.) Khoid (Hottentot)
2.) Sanid (Bushman)
____________________________________________-

these are black people,and one of the earliest negriod types,we are aware that some books say these folks are classified as something else,but we know better.
_____________________________________________

Australoid Types
1.) Negritoid (Australoids of southeastern Asia, Indonesia/Malaysia, and the Andamans)
2.) Veddoid (Australoids of southern Asia, forming a belt from southern Arabia to the Iranian Plateau and reaching the strongest frequency in India)
3.) Jomonid (Australoid element of the Ainu)
4.) Papuan-Melanesian (Papua-New Guinea, Melanesia, Tasmania)
5.) Australian (Australia)

_____________________________________________
most of these folks are black too and for me that means negriod.
_____________________________________________

Negroid Types
1.) Bambutid (pygmies, yay!)
2.) Paleonegrid (forest belt region of Central and West Africa)
3.) Sudanid (West Africa)
4.) Bantid (Bantu Africa)
5.) Nilotid (the Nile)
6.) Aethiopid (Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia)

Mongoloid Types
1.) Sinid (China, Japan, and Korea)
2.) Tungid (Chukotka-Kamchatka, Eskimo regions, northern Urals, Mongolia, Siberia, Tibet)
3.) Austrid (Indochina and the South Seas)
4.) Amerind (North, Central, and South America)

Caucasoid Types
1.) Atlanto-Mediterranean (Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Greece, North Africa, some parts of Mesopotamia and the Levant)
2.) Brunn (Ireland, Scandinavia, and some parts of coastal North Africa)
3.) Alpine (widespread throughout all Eurasia, found in most concentration in Central Europe and the West Asian highlands)
4.) Borreby (Germany, Denmark, etc.)
5.) Corded (when merged with the Danubian, created the Nordic)
6.) Danubian (when merged with the Corded, created the Nordic)
7.) Afghanian (Iranian Plateau)
8.) Cappadocian (Asia Minor and the Levant)
9.) Nordindid (Northern India)
10.) Orientalid (Arabia and other parts of Middle East)

_____________________________________________
most afghanians and iranians are mixed but i have seen some black ones in afghanian and alot of white iranians.
______________________________________________

---

mandela is negroid and the south african system see him that way and the world that is why he his call the first black president of the new south africa,folks in new guinea are black,it is in websters.

look up the word negriod in a current dictionary and it would include the ones from new guinea and oceania area.

mandela by the way might have some san folks or the other black group in his background but he his still a unmixed negriod and he his a xhosa (a large black african group in southern africa),and the san are black and for me they are negriod,i do not care what some fake scholar wrote,past or present.

[

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I've seen millions of Mexicans over the years and have never seen one with bleached skin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
correction-you have to care to some extent because they put out misinfo out there and the foolish and racist ones eat it up.these are the same folks who would say the mande and most or all west africans are not negriod if we let them get away with it,so it is up to folks concern with the truth to stop them in their tracks.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 18 May 2005).]

---

You not misunderstanding me are you? I don't agree with race classifications as they are now defined. To me its just a bunch of political double standards often motivated by racist idealism. Though I am not sure if it is all intentional, just not well thought out and based on misconceptions.

Never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

For example, I don't think Hor is racist, just not well informed. I could be wrong but thats my opinion. Clearly Erroneous is racist, thats undeniable. Maybe Hor is a closet racist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
You not misunderstanding me are you? I don't agree with race classifications as they are now defined. To me its just a bunch of political double standards often motivated by racist idealism. Though I am not sure if it is all intentional, just not well thought out and based on misconceptions.

Never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

For example, I don't think Hor is racist, just not well informed. I could be wrong but thats my opinion. Clearly Erroneous is racist, thats undeniable. Maybe Hor is a closet racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
You not misunderstanding me are you? I don't agree with race classifications as they are now defined. To me its just a bunch of political double standards often motivated by racist idealism. Though I am not sure if it is all intentional, just not well thought out and based on misconceptions.

Never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

For example, I don't think Hor is racist, just not well informed. I could be wrong but thats my opinion. Clearly Erroneous is racist, thats undeniable. Maybe Hor is a closet racist.

---

Its more like biological racism on the part of Europeans than slavery that is the cause of many sentiments. Slavery in the U.S. was abolished in 1865--a long time ago, and the same time the serfs(slaves) were freed in Russia--and by that time some 15-20% of blacks were free persons(note: some of them were members of the group that founded the nation of Liberia many years before 1865).

To support my point consider the fact that the Europeans did practice slavery--American type-in Africa in places like Cape Verde--whose population sees itself as "superior" to the peoples of Guinea Bissau and Senegal on account of their mestizo roots that many Cape Verdians claim.

Note too that the Portugese also practiced slavery in Angola and Mozambique and the South African settlers did purchase slaves from Malaysia, India, Angola and Namibia.

The British and French also practiced forms of slavery as they dragooned and forced Africans away from their villages and farms to grow crops for export, work in the mines(especially copper)and to construct railways and buildings for the vast colonial enterprise. Colonialism did engage in slavery when required.

The essence of slavery is unfreedom a nd being subjugated to the will of another. In this regard Apartheid was slavery and King Leopold's ineffable violence against the hapless Congolese was a mixture of slavery and genocide. Leopold's enslavement of the Congolese people led to 10 million deaths in just a few years. Those Congolese who could not run away were enslaved to the rubber collection: either you brought in your quota or your limbs were chopped off--pour encourager les autres!

But back to my point about contemporary sentiments: it is more about biological racism than anything else. It manifests itself in a number of ways--from black(African for the most part) professional footballers being subjected to monkey calls and bananas from audiences all over Europe(admittedly Britain and France don't figure here anymore) to the constantly negative press that Africa gets(in South Africa it's called Afropessimism) up to the heated debates about whether blacks ever produced civilisation(this site is implicitly about that issue).

The central point about biological racism is that people of African origin are less advanced intellectually(and even morally) than other races and as a result have not produced technologically advanced societies("civilisations") and must always look for guidance and direction from the superior European peoples if they are to make any progress in the world. It is also based on the premise that the only hope for the black is to seek to assimilate as much as possible into the superior cultures of the European because African cultures were/are instrinsically backward and are necessarily incapable of making real human progess. The argument is also made that when any black or African culture shows any semblance of human progress it must be due to recent or ancient infusions of superior European genes. The "wipe-out" of Africa is also evident even in the aesthetic sphere: in the West a "beautiful" or "handsome" black--from the standpoint of Western aesthetics--is always assumed to have a beautifying "mixture" somewhere. And African peoples that are viewed as comely are assumed to derive that comeliness from some infusion of European DNA some time in the past.

Note too that the majority of theoretical arch-racists today are all directly European: Richard Lynne, J. Phillipe Rushton, Jean-Pierre Hebert, Tatu Vanhanan, et al. I note though that Arthur Jensen, William Shockley and Vincent Sarich are, of course, American. So biological racism is a Pan-European enterprise not necessarily American.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

I've seen millions of Mexicans over the years and have never seen one with bleached skin.

---

Thought Posts:

CONSERVATIVE PUNDIT AND DIEKENES BUDDY Steve Sailer -

http://www.isteve.com/ImportingMexicanInequality.htm

Importing Mexico's Worsening Racial Inequality

by Steve Sailer www.VDARE.com
5/12/2000
Home

Email Steve

Part 2 of a Series on the Mexican racial hierarchy and its implications for America

Will immigration end America's racial divides? Will interracial marriage convert our descendents into a beige nation of Tiger Woods look-alikes? Will the flood of Latin American immigrants, who lack the North American prejudice against "miscegenation," usher in a new era of racial equality where a person's class cannot be assumed based merely on his color?

This is the argument of Gregory Rodriguez, a fine young Southern California journalist of "Unzist" viewpoint - i.e., pro-immigration but pro-assimilation, in the manner of Ron Unz. "Latinos, whose history has been one of mixture and among whom mestizos are the rule rather than the exception, understand hybridity, a notion that America's discourse on race desperately lacks. … Perhaps once we have fully adopted the concept of mestizaje into our racial dialogue, we will recognize that Los Angeles is well on its way to becoming a mestizo metropolis." [http://www.med.ucla.edu/cesla/oped/5-5-96.htm]

This theory sounds plausible. In many ways, it is appealing. Yet, there's just one little problem. After an experiment lasting nearly 500 years in Latin America, intermarriage has utterly failed to eliminate racial inequality. Mestizo nations like Mexico and mulatto nations like Brazil are bywords for vast concentrations of wealth among the white ruling class contrasted with extreme poverty among the darkest citizens. In fact, in Mexico racial segregation is worsening.

What Americans don't comprehend is that, although Mexico doesn't have a Color Line, it has an insidious Color Continuum. Latin American immigration will push us toward an even more extensive racial caste system than the white-black gap that has so long troubled us.

As my last column showed [http://www.vdare.com/sailer_mexico.htm], the corruption of Mexican political life that grows out of this hereditary inequality should certainly give us pause.

Mexico's top political scientist Jorge G. Castaneda described the striking human disparities in Mexico like this:

"But the inequality is not simply economic; it is also social. A government undersecretary (one level down from the top echelon of public service) earned in 1994 (prior to devaluation) approximately $180,000 after taxes … -- almost twice what his U.S. counterpart earned before taxes. His chauffeur (provided by the government, of course) made about $7,500 a year. The official addresses the employee with the familiar "tu," while the latter must speak to the former with the respectful "usted." The official and his peers in the business and intellectual elites of the nation tend to be white (there are exceptions, but they are becoming scarcer), well educated, and well traveled abroad. They send their two children to private schools, removed from the world of the employee. The employee and his peers tend to be mestizo, many are barely literate, and they have four or five children, most of whom will be able to attend school only through the fifth grade." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97feb/mexico/castaned.htm

Readers in the American Southwest will find this portrait of life in Mexico less and less alien. Of course, here our increasingly faux egalitarian informality that de Tocqueville found so prevalent among Americans dictates that wealthy white American masters insist that their mestizo servants call them by their first name. Nor do whites call their servants "servants," instead, laboriously describing them as "the cleaning lady," "the babysitter," the "gardener," and so forth. Still, as a description of America's future, the essentials are about right. The big difference, of course, is that to prevent mestizos from "becoming scarcer" in elite jobs in America, we offer them anti-discrimination bureaucracies and quotas.

How did Mexico end up like this, despite twenty generations of intermarriage? Surprisingly little is written about Mexico and race. In the U.S., we aren't really aware of the wide racial range among Mexicans since almost all Mexican-Americans are mestizos. This is because the non-Spanish-speaking Indians of the Deep South have been so downtrodden that until recently they lacked the confidence to immigrate. (Mexican Indians who don't speak Spanish, however, have been showing up in California in recent years. Since they haven't assimilated into Hispanic culture in 480 years, perhaps Mr. Rodriguez will inform us when they can be expected to assimilate into American culture.) And Mexico's white elite finds life south of the border far too sweet to come north for anything other than advanced degrees, advanced medical care, and advanced shopping.

The CIA Factbook claims that Mexico's 100 million people are 9% white, 60% mestizo, 30% Indian, and 1% other. These are fairly arbitrary estimates. It could be that some of the whites and Indians are a little bit mixed, but not enough to show. Since Spaniards and Indians tend to share dark hair and dark eyes, and aren't all that far apart in skin color, without DNA tests it's hard tell whether or not people who look pure Spanish or Indian aren't really slightly mixed. For example, audiences can be forgiven for accepting Spanish movie star Antonio Banderas in roles where he plays a mestizo Mexican. (On the other hand, flamboyant, grandiloquent Spaniards and stoic, taciturn Indians tend to differ radically in personality.)

Nonetheless, the Mexican elite tends to look strikingly European. In Tim Burton's affectionate biopic Ed Wood about the worst movie director in history, our hero Ed runs into his hero Orson Welles. The great man complains that in his new film A Touch of Evil, the idiotic studio has cast Charlton Heston as a Mexican! This seemed awfully funny, until I was looking through the handy pictures of top Mexican politicians and drug barons (not mutually exclusive categories) included in Andres Oppenheimer's luridly frank portrait of Mexico, Bordering on Chaos. There I saw a photo of Hank Gonzales, former Mayor of Mexico City and billionaire. (His motto: "A politician who is poor is a poor politician"). Damn, if he didn't look like Chuck Heston's brother. And everyone else looks pure Spanish.

Mexicans don't talk much about race due to the Mexican government's national ideology that We Are All Mestizos. By insisting upon this, the intractable problems of the horrendously exploited pure Indians of the deep South can be obfuscated, while the fact that most of the extremely wealthy are pure white or near white can be obscured.

Yet, despite Mexico's massive problems, we should not wholly denigrate this Mestizo Mythology. Keep in mind that Mexico is still a far more successful country than many similar Latin American countries – such as its southern neighbor Guatemala, where white vs. Indian mass butchery has been recurrent. The Mestizo Myth may have played some role in keeping Mexico from turning into Guatemala. Further, Mexico may be the only country in the Western Hemisphere to assimilate almost completely (genetically and culturally) its West African population. Thus, it's hardly surprising that Mexicans tend to find it prudent to subscribe to the Mestizo Myth.

There's a regional aspect to race in Mexico. The backward south is heavily Indian. The central highlands around Mexico City tend to be mestizo, while the desert North, which was almost unpopulated until the 20th Century, is whiter. Thus, the recent call by the Chicano academic Charles Truxillo for the creation of a breakaway Republica del Norte, which would consist of southwestern U.S.A. and northern Mexico, paradoxically reflects the Northern Mexican's regional/racial bias against the more Indian parts of Mexico.

It seems odd, though, that the Mexican Establishment is so white and getting whiter. After all, in times of upheaval such at the 19th Century Reforma or the early 20th Revolucion, hard-charging mestizos and even pure Indians clawed their way to the top (such as Benito Juarez, the only Indian ever to be President). The ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (or PRI) started out fairly mestizo.

In the late Twenties, the various warlords, robber barons, insurgent generals, and godfathers who had emerged from the bloodshed as the highly fractious ruling class agreed to institutionalize the Revolution. Their brilliant innovation was to make the President a dictator, but to allow him only a single 6-year term. This inculcated patience in other politicians. If you didn't like the current President because he didn't let enough rakeoffs trickle down to your faction, don't assassinate him, just wait. Your clique's turn would come eventually. Loyalty to the system rather than to the current President became the most admired virtue. This brought a massive reduction in political violence.

Corruption was pervasive, of course. But initially it was fairly broadly distributed, rather like in Chicago's quite similar one-party machine. For example, to shine shoes in Mexico City, you have to belong to the PRI-run Shoe Shine Union. To stay in the union you must show up at PRI political rallies and act wildly enthusiastic about its candidates whenever the TV cameras are pointed in your direction. But in return, the PRI subsidizes your union's health and burial insurance plans. For some poor shoeshine guy, this kind of traditional machine politics is not such a bad deal. As in Chicago politics, in the past, most Mexican politicians were ethnically similar to their constituencies.

So, how come most of the top dogs in the PRI and other high-status realms no longer look mestizo? (For example, although the dour leftist Presidential candidate Cuauhtemoc Cardenas is mestizo, the charismatic rightist candidate Vincente Fox has an Irish grandfather and is 6'5" tall, towering close to a foot over the heads of the average Mexican man.) This whitening trend is especially strange due to all the nepotism among Mexican elites. Many of the big shots in Mexico today are the grandsons and great-grandsons of mestizos who made the family fortune during the Revolution … yet they are much fairer than their distinguished ancestor. What in the world is going on?

In my next column, I'll explain what is happening. But here's a hint: watch Spanish-language shows on Univision and count the percentage of women who are blonde. It's as if the casting director for these shows aimed at Mexican-Americans is David Duke.

Steve Sailer (www.iSteve.com) is president of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His much celebrated and much hated article on interracial marriage among blacks, whites, and Asians -- "Is Love Colorblind?" -- is posted at
http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm