By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - I learned something new about Mexico (was researching Indigenous)

Nahault aka (Nahua population AKA aztecs is about 2 million still alive) , and Yucatec aka Mayan are still around I thought they were extinct?

Love history this is 2022 

Last edited by SegaHeart - on 22 January 2022

Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Around the Network

This is exciting



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Purepecha tribe is 202,000 in mexico they help cortez as allies in war against the aztecs , and the other tribes on op list which others ally to aztec or allies to cortez I don't blame them many tribes were used as human sacrifice . I started studying this because my DNA said I have Toltec in my genes the ancestors of the aztecs oddly? Toltec where ancestors of aztecs , mayans and tribe I have in Honduras Central America.

Last edited by SegaHeart - on 22 January 2022

Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Yes indeed. In fact you will find that indigenous Americans make up much, much larger portions of the population in central and South America than here in North America. In Bolivia they actually make up a majority of the population, and Evo Morales was the first indigenous leader of an American nation.


There are a variety of historical reasons for this, but broadly speaking the Catholic European colonial powers (Spain, Portugal, France) were more interested in converting the indigenous populations to Christianity, while the Protestant colonial powers (England, Netherlands) were more interested in land acquisition, settlement, and extraction.



aTokenYeti said:

Yes indeed. In fact you will find that indigenous Americans make up much, much larger portions of the population in central and South America than here in North America. In Bolivia they actually make up a majority of the population, and Evo Morales was the first indigenous leader of an American nation.


There are a variety of historical reasons for this, but broadly speaking the Catholic European colonial powers (Spain, Portugal, France) were more interested in converting the indigenous populations to Christianity, while the Protestant colonial powers (England, Netherlands) were more interested in land acquisition, settlement, and extraction.

Yeah



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Around the Network

Mexico like 80% population is Mestizo (Indiginous + european) or mixed with another race, while 16 million are other tribes (Indigenous) and 2 million are nahua aka aztecs



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Even the most common surnames in Yucatan are Mayan nos hispanic like the rest of the states in Mexico.
https://sipse.com/novedades-yucatan/apellidos-mayas-comunes-yucatan-estudio-241556.html
I have met people whose grandparents spoke mixteco or otomi, though they only speak spanish.

 



aTokenYeti said:

Yes indeed. In fact you will find that indigenous Americans make up much, much larger portions of the population in central and South America than here in North America. In Bolivia they actually make up a majority of the population, and Evo Morales was the first indigenous leader of an American nation.


There are a variety of historical reasons for this, but broadly speaking the Catholic European colonial powers (Spain, Portugal, France) were more interested in converting the indigenous populations to Christianity, while the Protestant colonial powers (England, Netherlands) were more interested in land acquisition, settlement, and extraction.

Christians, period, were focused on sharing the Gospel and are still. If England/Netherlands were more focused on land acquisition, settlement, and extraction, it's because many in the colonies and after independence weren't letting faith drive their decision making process.

We often focus, at least in regards to the American colonies, on their makeup being the puritans or other Christians fleeing persecution in Europe, and a great many were. But the colonies were also the dumping ground of criminals and other misfits and many of those people went on to trailblaze out west without being converted themselves.



One the reasons was that mesoamerica was more populated than the rest of north america, so they didn't need to bring settlers to their colonies to work the land since they already had the native work force.

One of the places in which they needed to bring european work force to new spain were the jalisco highlands since they couldn't conquer or reach an agreement with the native of the region (chichimecas), so they decide to annihilated them.

And the reason why the spaniard couldn't conquer the chichimecas was because the chichimecas were a nomadic group unlike the aztecs who had a state structure.



Dulfite said:
aTokenYeti said:

Yes indeed. In fact you will find that indigenous Americans make up much, much larger portions of the population in central and South America than here in North America. In Bolivia they actually make up a majority of the population, and Evo Morales was the first indigenous leader of an American nation.


There are a variety of historical reasons for this, but broadly speaking the Catholic European colonial powers (Spain, Portugal, France) were more interested in converting the indigenous populations to Christianity, while the Protestant colonial powers (England, Netherlands) were more interested in land acquisition, settlement, and extraction.

Christians, period, were focused on sharing the Gospel and are still. If England/Netherlands were more focused on land acquisition, settlement, and extraction, it's because many in the colonies and after independence weren't letting faith drive their decision making process.

We often focus, at least in regards to the American colonies, on their makeup being the puritans or other Christians fleeing persecution in Europe, and a great many were. But the colonies were also the dumping ground of criminals and other misfits and many of those people went on to trailblaze out west without being converted themselves.

I think there were extremely important theological differences between Catholics and Protestants at the time that radically altered their relationships with indigenous Americans, the issue of pre-ordination being by far the most important. Most European Protestant settlers in North America believe firmly that their land theft and genocidal warfare was morally righteous because they were members of the spiritual “elect”, and that the indigenous were damned to hell from the moment they were born. 

also, I disagree with the notion that English Protestants were keeping persecution. The puritans in particular believed the English crown was too soft on Catholics and wasn’t religiously strict enough.