who are our mexicans?

john derbyshire has a blog post up @vdare — Aztecs and Hidalgos: Are Upper-Class Hispanics Importing Their Own Peons? — in which he points out that an awful lot of the u.s.’s pro-amnesty leaders are (genuine) white-hispanics — in other words, they appear to be of mostly european extraction — while on the other hand the vast majority of immigrants we get from mexico are actually mestizos or indios — or, as john dubs them, “aztecs” (over which some ninnies have pointed and sputtered, apparently).

which got me to wondering — again — who are our mexicans? are they really the descendents of/partly descended from the aztecs or what? pre-columbian mexico was very multi-cultural (lucky them!), so which mexicans are actually coming to the u.s. these days?

i’m going to try to get at that by examining which regions of mexico our mexican immigrants come from. that, obviously, will just leave us with a guesstimate of which sub-groups of mexicans are coming to the u.s., but until we get full genomic sequencing done on all immigrants entering the country, it’s the best i can do. i don’t know from which parts of mexico immigrants in past decades hailed, so perhaps a lot of them were/are indeed of aztec descent, but thanks to the mexican government’s consejo nacional de población (conapo), we do know where our most recent mexican immigrants are coming from today (2010).

before i post a couple of neat maps from conapo, let me mention again a couple of facts that most you are probably already aware of: 1) most mexicans are mestizos, i.e. of mixed indio and european heritage, 2) most mexican mestizos are more indio than they are european, and 3) the further south you go in mexico, the more indio the mestizos are [pdf].

ok. a couple of maps taken from here (specifically here [pdf] — click on maps for LARGER views)…

grades of the intensity of emigration to the u.s. by federal district, 2010 [names of four hottest districts added by me]:

immigration from mexico by federal district - 2010b

and grades of the intensity of emigration to the u.s. by municipality, 2010:

immigration from mexico by municipality - 2010

as you can see on the first map, four federal districts in mexico have “muy alto” (very high) emigration to the u.s.: michoacán, zacatecas, guanajuato, and nayarit. michoacán is the furthest to the south with guanajuato following, so presumably the mestizos from these regions are more indio than those from the other two regions. judging by the map of immigration from municipalities, the greatest numbers of immigrants come from zacatecas and guanajuato.

so who are these people? who were their ancestors?

the zacatecos were one of the groups referred to by the aztecs as chichimecas or “barbarians.” i’m not sure whether or not they spoke a language related to aztec, or were related to the aztecs, but they certainly were not a part of the settled aztec civilization. the zacatecos were nomadic hunter-gatherers and were reportedly expert archers. these are some of the peoples who gave the spaniards a run for their money in the chichimeca war with their armor-piercing arrows. cool!

from Soldiers, Indians, and Silver: The Northward Advance of New Spain, 1550-1600 [pgs. 39, 46-48]:

“The Zacatecos, tribesmen closest to most of the new silver mines, were the fourth nation of this Gran Chichimeca. They overlapped the land of the Guachichiles east and north of Zacatecas; they extended westward to border on the Tepehuanes near Durango; and they roamed as far north as Cuencame and Parras, where they touched upon the Irritilas or Laguna tribes. The Zacatecos were mostly nomadic, although a few groups were essentially sedentary. They were brave and bellicose warriors and excellent marksmen. Some Spaniards called them the most valiant and warlike of all the Chichimecas. They were mightily feared by neighboring peoples, especially the Cazcanes, whom they attacked constantly — fifty Zacatecos were known to have successfully raided a Cazcan pueblo of as many as three or four thousand inhabitants….

“The general way of life throughout this Gran Chichimeca varied little from tribe to tribe and from nation to nation. Contemporary descriptions of the customs and characteristics of the Chichimecas seldom noted important variations between one grouping and another….

“In hand-to-hand combat, the Chichimeca warrior gained, among other Indians and Spaniards, a reputation for courage and ferocity…. In fighting other Indians (Mexicans, Tarascans, Cazcanes), part of his courage could be accounted for by the contempt he felt for the tribes that had adopted the ways of the white man. And, as already implied, the Chichimeca came to have a lesser respect for the Spaniard himself as the Indian raids went unpunished….

“[H]is contact with Spanish military practice also led the Chichimeca to take more practical measures to assure success in fighting. He sent spies into Spanish-Indian towns for appraisal of the enemy’s plans and strength; he developed a far-flung system of lookouts and scouts (*atalayas*); and, in major attacks, settlements were softened by preliminary and apparently systematic killing and stealing of horses and other livestock, this being an attempt, sometimes successful, to change his intended victim from horseman to foot soldier.

“When the Chichimeca was attacked in his mountainous or other naturally protected stronghold or hideout, he usually put up vigorous resistance, especially if unable to escape onslaught. In such cases he fought — with arrows, clubs, or even rocks — behind natural barriers (or in caves) that had sometimes been made stronger by his own hands and ingenuity. Even the women might take up the fight, using the weapons of fallen braves….

“The high degree of Chichimeca accuracy with bow and arrow called forth much respectful and awed comment from his Spanish enemy. ‘On one occasion I saw them throw an orange into the air, and they shot into it so many arrows that, having held it in the air for much time, it finally fell in minute pieces.’ ‘In the opinion of men experienced in foreign lands, the Zacatecos are the best archers in the world.’ ‘They kill hares which, even though running, they pierce with arrows; also deer, birds, and other little animals of the land, not even overlooking rats … and they fish with the bow and arrow.’ Children of the Chichimecas were taught the use of the bow from the time they could walk, and they practiced by shooting at insects and the smallest animals.

“The forces and penetrating power of the Chichimeca arrow was always a puzzle to Spaniards, particularly in view of the extreme thinness of the arrow shaft. ‘It has happened that, in a fight between some soldiers, and some Chichimeca Indians, an arrow hit one soldier’s powder flask [of wood, usually], passed completely through it, then penetrated his armor, consisting of eleven thicknesses of buckskin (*gamuza*), a coat of mail, a doublet, and the soldier was wounded by said arrow.’ ‘It has happened that an arrow hit a horse on which a soldier was fighting and the arrow passed through the horse’s crownpiece (which consisted of a very strong leather and metal piece), his head, and came out through the neck and entered the chest, a thing which, if were not known to be certain, seems incredible.’ ‘One of don Alonso de Castilla’s soldiers had an arrow pass through the head of his horse, including a crownpiece of doubled buckskin and metal, and into his chest, so he fell with the horse dead on the ground — this was seen by many who are still living.’

“The Chichimeca bow was about two-thirds as long as the average body, reaching approximately from head to knee; it was probably made of such materials as cottonwood, willow, mesquite, *bois d’arc*, or juniper — woods that could be found in the area. The arrow, about two-thirds as long as the bow, was very thin, usually made of reed and usually with an obsidian tip, which was fastened to the shaft by human sinews or animal tendons. Shortness of bow, thinness of arrow, and the conchoidal edge of the obsidian combined to achieve a penetration the Spaniards could hardly believe. The fact that the Chichimeca arrow found its way through all but the closest-woven mail was a factor in the increasing Spanish use of buckskin armor on this frontier.”

iwitbb**: “Mexico’s National Population Council estimates that 600,000 natives of Zacatecas now live in the United States, a figure that is equivalent to 40 percent of the state’s resident population of 1.5 million. If the base population is supplemented by the number of children and grandchildren who have been born in the United States, the total number of Mexicans and Mexican Americans of ‘zacatecano’ origin living in the United States exceeds the number of people who reside in the state.”

so we’re not short of people from zacatecas.

most of the peoples of guanajuato were also some of these nomadic chichimeca folks. a lot of them were guamares, but the zacatecos were also present along with other hunter-gatherer chichimeca groups. like zacatecas, guanajuato was never a part of the aztec empire either. nor was it a part of another neighboring empire, the tarascan state which was run by the purépecha people (see section on michoacán below), although the areas of guanajuato that were adjacent to the tarascan state were influenced culturally by that state.

so the probable ancestors of many of the people from the two mexican regions from which the u.s. today receives the most migrants were nomadic hunter-gatherers with a warrior streak. right up until 1590 (the end of the chichimeca war), or just ca. 20 generations ago (counting a generation as roughly 20 years).

[edit: see also this comment.]

the pre-columbian michoacán area was inhabited by several different groups, but the ones that really left their mark were the purépecha people with their tarascan state. they were never conquered by the aztecs, and they built a really neat city of their own — tzintzuntzan — replete with some of those very fashionable (back in the day) latin american pyramids. interestingly, the purépecha language is not related to any of the neighboring languages of the region.

from Prehistoric Mesoamerica [pgs. 324-325, 329]:

“The Tarascan state occupied about 65,000 square kilometers (25,000 square miles) and included within its boundaries various ethnic and linguistic groups. Thus, it fulfills the formal qualifications required of an imperial system. The ‘Relacion de Michoacan’ relates that the Tarascans were ruled by a priest-king-god who governed a large political unit. In terms of area, it seems to have been the largest political unit in Mesoamerica at the time of the Spanish Conquest. The empire was administered by a wide variety of officials who handled matters such as taxes and censuses.

“Although 340 settlements are mentioned by the ‘Relacion de Michoacan’, only four of them qualified as cities, and they were located within the Lako Patzcuaro basin. The largest was the capital of Tzintzuntzan, which had been founded about A.D. 1000 as a center for the worship of two important deities. By 1350, the center had been transformed into an urban area sprawling along the lake shore, with a population of between twenty-five thousand and thirty-five thousand people. Archaeological survey has detected four districts that are the probable residence zones for four classes: upper and lower elite, commoners, and ethnic foreigners. Wards (barrios) for the various social and occupation groups survived in modern Tzintzuntzan into the twentieth century….

“The settlement pattern of the Tarascans was essentially rural, however, and most people lived in hamlets, villages, and towns….

“War was waged after the harvest was in, in good Mesoamerican manner. Spies (perhaps *pochtecas*) were employed for intelligence purposes. The Tarascans resisted the Aztec with a chain of fortified cities and with a professional army.”

so a more civilized group of peoples down in michoacán.

i didn’t have as much luck in finding out about the historic population(s) of nayarit — there doesn’t seem to be much info out there — not in english anyway. some nahua peoples (the aztecs are a nahua people) were there at some point and apparently built one small-sized city anyway. according to the wikipedia page for nayarit in spanish, the majority of the populace in nayarit today are the huichol people followed by the cora and also some nahual folks.

the huichol:

“…usually marry between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. Extended Huichol families live together in rancho settlements. These small communities consist of individual houses which belong to a nuclear family. Each settlement has a communal kitchen and the family shrine, called a xiriki, which is dedicated to the ancestors of the rancho. The buildings surround a central patio. The individual houses are traditionally built of stone or adobe with grass-thatched roofs.

“A district of related ranchos is known as a temple district. Temple districts are all members of a larger community district. Each community district is ruled by a council of kawiterutsixi, elder men who are usually also shamans.”


even more cool, re. the cora people:

“In the early 18th century they were an anomaly in that they had never permitted Catholic missionaries to live in their country. They had become a pagan island in a sea of Christian Indians and Hispanic culture. In 1716, a Spanish expedition to attempt to bring the Cora under Spanish control failed. However, in 1722, the Spanish returned in force and the Cora yielded. According to Spanish accounts many of them became Christian and practice, up until the present, ‘Catholic-derived customs.'”

so the descendents of some or all of these groups probably represent a large segment of mexicans coming to the u.s. right now.

what i think we should be asking ourselves — apart from why?? — is what are these different mexicans likely to be like given their (natural) histories? we’ve got a mix of peoples here ranging from the descendents of nomadic hunter-gatherer warriors to currently settled but isolated indios to the descendents of more civilized agricultural populations. so what sorts of selection pressures were the ancestors of all these mexican groups under for, say, the last one to two thousand years? what sorts of mating patterns/family types/social structures did these peoples’ ancestors have that might’ve affected the selection pressures on those populations?

who are our mexicans?

**iwitbb = if wikipedia is to be believed.

(note: comments do not require an email. huichol lady.)



  1. A resource that may be useful:

    Robert Mcaa, “The Peopling of Mexico” in A Population History of North America.


    Includes marriage ages in various states at various times, fertility levels, population growth, and (something this post didn’t really have much to say about), migratory patterns within Mexico over the last two centuries.


  2. @t. greer – “and (something this post didn’t really have much to say about), migratory patterns *within* Mexico over the last two centuries.”

    no, i didn’t have much to say about that, because i don’t know much about that! (~_^) thanks for the link! (^_^)


  3. well, that was a very interesting read, thanks!

    mccaa’s got a lot of info on internal migration in nineteenth century mexico, but none for the twentieth century (not in this article/chapter anyway). as far as the nineteenth century goes, the populations of the four districts that i discussed in my post did change (i.e. experience in-migration), but not that much. here’s what mccaa has to say [pgs. 281-283]:

    “The Mexican republic’s states and regions show great diversity in patterns of demographic change over the nineteenth century. The slowest-growing regions were the south and east, encompassing Oaxaca, Chiapas, Tabasco, Campeche, and the Yucatan. These regions shrank from one-fifth of Mexico’s total population at the beginning of the nineteenth century to one-seventh at the end. In contrast, the north doubled its demographic weight from 8% to 16%, notwithstanding the midcentury amputation of Texas, New Mexico, and Upper California. In the center, political chaos, beinning with the ‘Grito’ on Septemeber 16, 1810, and ending with the execution of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand Maximillian on June 19, 1867, provoked nearly one million war deaths and displacements. Consequently, the Federal District and nine neighboring states shrank in relative size, from 49% in 1810 to 40% in 1870, and then recovered to 43% by 1910. The center north, on the other hand, (Jalisco, including Nayarit, Colima, Guanajuato, Aguascalientes, Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, and Queretaro) was a place of refuge, gaining population during the early decades of the century when political unrest was greatest, and losing it in later decades when economic growth was more vigorous elsewhere.[124]

    Notwithstanding these disparate regional growth patterns, migration between states seems to have relatively modest over much of the nineteenth century. When reliable nation-wide migration data finally become available with the census of 1900, only 6.6% of males — and 6.1% of females — lived outside the ‘state’ of birth (‘federal entity’ in Mexican statistical parlance). Almost one-third of all interstate migrants resided in the national capital, Mexico City (Map 7.2). Three entities accounted for almost half of all migrants: the capital, Veracruz, and Coahuila. Twenty-six federal entities attracted fewer than 50,000 migrants each; eighteen drew fewer than 25,000, accounting for 21% of all migrants. Neither sending nor receiving many migrants were four hermit states: Chiapas, Oaxaca, Yucatan and Guerrero. Fewer than 3% of their native sons and daughters lived outside the state of birth and a like proportion of current residents were in-migrants.”

    the map on page 282 provides some numbers for our four federal districts from 1900:

    – michoacán: tot. pop.=936,000, in-migration=29,000
    – zacatecas: tot. pop.=462,000, in-migration=12,000
    – guanajuato: tot. pop.=1,062,000, in-migration=26,000
    – nayarit: tot. pop.=150,000, in-migration=4,000

    so, none of these states had a migrant population of more than ca. 3% of their total population. the question of who these people were also arises: how many of them were natives of those states returning from, say, mexico city to which they had earlier immigrated because times were bad there? who knows?

    well, maybe mccaa does, but i don’t see his source from footnote 124 online anywhere:

    McCaa, Robert. ‘The Peopling of Nineteenth-Century Mexico: Critical Scrutiny of a Censured Century.’ In James W. Wilkie, Carlos Alberto Contreras, and Christof Anders Weber, eds., Statistical Abstract of Latin America, vol. 30, part I, pp. 603-33. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles Latin American Studies Center, 1993.

    then, of course, the question of twentieth century internal migration remains. you’d think a lot of that would’ve been to urban centers, though, like mexico city, rather than out to more remote rural areas like zacatecas, but you never know!


    ANOTHER question would be: did the spanish settlers preferentially marry/mate with certain natives rather than others? in other words, are the mestizos in mexico more spaniards+settled populations (like the aztecs or mayans)? or are they equally spaniards+hunter-gatherers (like the chichimecas)? no idea!


  4. @me – “ANOTHER question would be: did the spanish settlers preferentially marry/mate with certain natives rather than others?”

    this doesn’t answer that question fully, but i did find some anecdatal evidence that the spaniards did marry/mate with the “barbarian” chichimecas. i also found out that the spaniards moved another population into the chichimeca territory (including the regions of zacatecas and guanajuato, i would guess) in the process of trying to pacify the chichimecas.

    from Making a New World: Founding Capitalism in the Bajío and Spanish North America [pgs. 85-86]:

    “Finally pacification began in the late 1580s. New policies sanctioned by the bishops and adopted by Viceroy Villamanrique and his successor don Luis de Velasco, the Younger, backed the change. A new generation of commanders led by Miguel Caldera proved pivotal to implementation. Caldera was a mestizo, son of a Spanish settler at Zacatecas and a Chichimeca mother (ally or captive?)….

    “In the late 1580s Caldera and others offered surviving Chichimecas a new deal: they could settle under the supervision of clergy and get land, seed, cloth, and lessons in planting, clothmaking, and Christianity…. Mines in San Luis Potosi opened by Caldera in the 1590s drew new waves of Spaniards north. Mesoamerican migrants from Tlaxcala, who were granted councils, lands, and livestock, came to live across lands from Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi to Saltillo. Whether Chichimecas saw Tlaxcalans as models, competitors, or invaders is unknown.”

    the tlaxcalans, in case you didn’t know, were collaborators (boo hiss!). according to wikipedia, 400 tlaxcalan families moved into chichimeca territory — dunno how many individuals totally that would’ve been:

    “In the late 16th century, Christianized and sedentary Tlaxcalans were recruited to settle and pacify the Chichimecas in what is now northeast Mexico. Tlaxcalans were used not only to fight but also to establish towns in villages in this nomadic people’s territory, to be a kind of example to them. Over 400 Tlaxcalan families would move north, but not until they negotiated and won special concessions from the Spanish. They included orders called ‘mandamientos de amparo’ to ensure that these families’ heirs would not lose the lands that were being granted to them. They also included freedom from tributes, taxes and personal service in perpetuity. These settlers were instrumental in pacifying this part of Mexico, and although these families eventually intermarried with the Chichimeca, they never completely lost their Tlaxcalan identity.”


  5. It doesn’t look as if the United States is getting particularly heavy immigration from the most Indio southern states of Oaxaca and Chiapas, or the Yucatan.



  6. @peter – “It doesn’t look as if the United States is getting particularly heavy immigration from the most *Indio* southern states of Oaxaca and Chiapas, or the Yucatan.”

    no. and who knows if that’s good or bad. one pattern that i found before (although it was, admittedly, a rather weak pattern — further research is required!) is that, in mexico, it seems as though the indios are some of the most civic-minded whereas the mestizos are less so — and the lighter-skinned mestizos less than the darker-skinned mestizos. go figure.


  7. @t. greer – “A ruling class doesn’t need to be civically minded. Who needs cooperation when you have coercion?”

    don’t get all dark on me, t. greer. i’m trying to hang on to what little optimism (which didn’t come naturally in the first place) i have left! (~_^)


  8. FWIW, one data point here in the small town plains states. The local ESL/Civics classes here have about a dozen regular students; almost all Mexican but a couple of Hondurans and a couple of Cubans.

    Only the Cubans could pass for white.

    The Amerindian content of the others is huge; most are short, several have the Aztec nose, many of the women have the oriental-type flat face.

    Also, there are two men with notable African ancestry showing in their hair. One is very dark and has the Aztec nose as well as many tattoos (some gang-related), the other is light skinned. Both the ones with African ancestry are VERY large, tall and broadshouldered with lots of upper-body muscle mass, which is very much an outlier characteristic in the Hispanics I’ve seen (and I lived in South Central Texas for 8 years, in north Florida for 4, and in metro Atlanta for years before that).

    These are the immigrants that speak Spanish that actually put forth effort to assimilate (taking advantage of Head Start/ESL/Civics/GED programs). I shudder to think of those that don’t bother trying.

    In my personal observation, the immigration we get from Mexico is the societal dregs and the least European-mixed.


  9. @jayman – “About lighter-skinned Mexicans being less civic-minded, it’s worth noting that the Spanish ancestors of most Latin Americans appear to be overwhelmingly from southern Spain (the inbred part)…. The uncivicness of certain Mexicans could stem more from their White component, oddly enough…”

    yeah, absolutely! that seems like it could be/should be right. maybe. (if any of it’s right, that is. (~_^) ) i did babble something about the spanish settlers being from southern spain in a comment once-upon-a-time.

    i’d love to know what the mating patterns were of the ancient atzecs or mayans or any of the other mesoamericans who managed to build large civilizations. perhaps like the colonial mayans, they didn’t marry that closely — maternal cousins of some sort, but not paternal. if some indigenous mexicans had a long history of that, perhaps they avoided the extreme sorts of clannishness that hinders civicness (like you find in the arab world). -?-

    (some other peoples that are, perhaps surprisingly, quite civic minded, if you’ll recall, are several african societiesmali, ghana, ethiopia … even rwanda. need to start looking into african populations, too!)


  10. @porkchops – “In my personal observation, the immigration we get from Mexico is the societal dregs and the least European-mixed.”

    yeah, i lived in l.a. for a while and interacted a LOT with latinos, and my impression is that most of our current immigrants from mexico are more indio than european genetically speaking.

    i got along great with the mexicans! — prolly ’cause i’m from another clannish group. (~_^) and they’re not the worst group of people you could find yourself living amongst — but i found that there was just soooo much low-level cheating and thievery going on. stupid stuff like swiping a packet of gum from the check-out counter WHILE you’re standing there paying for other stuff. i mean … really?! =/ and plenty of worse stuff, too, like insurance fraud.

    it’s not good. it’s not functional. it doesn’t make for a GREAT society. it makes for an ok society, but not a great one.

    (otoh, i worked with one mexican lady, and she had — has still, hopefully — five sons who ALL joined the military after 9/11 and wound up serving overseas. can’t have too few people like THAT in the country!)


  11. The Amerindian content of the others is huge; most are short, several have the Aztec nose, many of the women have the oriental-type flat face.

    Your point about the women brings up something I’ve noticed: at first glance it often can be difficult to tell whether a young woman is Asian or Latin American. Confusion of this sort is uncommon with a woman over age 25 or so or among males of any age.



  12. If IQ of mexico is around 89, do you think mexican immigrants have lower IQ than african americans


  13. Interesting to see that calling Mexicans ‘Aztecs’ in naughty in America. The vast numbers of Welsh and Irish I’ve met seem very happy to describe themselves as Celts. Sure, it may be inaccurate to call them all Aztecs, but no worse a sin than mixing up British and English? Why the upset?

    I’ve noticed that many of my countrymen (including many prone to be sympathetic to immigration-restriction Americans) are often a little baffled and confused by American hostility to ‘hispanic’ immigration as they imagine Mexicans to be like Cubans or Spaniards. ‘Aztecs’, OTOH conveys more clearly what the problem is. Is that the problem?


  14. t. greer

    “A ruling class doesn’t need to be civically minded. Who needs cooperation when you have coercion?”

    Unless voluntary cooperation is more efficient and produces greater synergy. If true the only time it will be really noticeable would be when a country shifts from a cooperation-based ruling class to a coercion-based one as its carrying capacity would plummet from the previous higher maximum carrying capacity to the new lower one. Even then that would only matter globally if the country in question was a critical component of the global economy.


  15. @working class englishman – “Interesting to see that calling Mexicans ‘Aztecs’ in naughty in America.”

    well, that’s the funny thing — as john derbyshire pointed out, a lot of mexicans actually refer to themselves as aztecs (however accurate that may be), so yeah … what’s the problem?! (^_^)


  16. @peter – “…at first glance it often can be difficult to tell whether a young woman is Asian or Latin American.”

    THANK you! i thought it was just me who has that problem. (^_^)


  17. @soxy – “If IQ of mexico is around 89, do you think mexican immigrants have lower IQ than african americans.”

    i’m not much of an expert/specialist when it comes to questions of iq — to be honest with you, i’m more interested in other aspects of human biodiveristy (note one of the tags to this post is: “because there’s more to hbd than iq” (~_^) ) — so you’d really be better off directing that question to an iq researcher or a more iq-focused blogger.


  18. @anthony – “Incidentally, the Purépecha language is one of the least weird (most typical) of all languages with sufficient data in the WALS for good comparisons. Second-most normal to Hindi.”

    how interesting! thanks! i had no idea. cool site, too. thanks for the link! (^_^)


  19. Zacatecos were almost extinct with the war of the Mixton in the late 1500, as well as the population of central Jalisco was also finished by the army of Nuño de Guzmán, Zacatecas was populated mostly with people from Jalisco, Tlaxcala, Puebla and Morelos, as to give a support to agriculture and mine working. The new Spain was planned seriously in its population. Few were the aztecs that survivied the holocaust of the conquest, Tlaxcallans were known as aztec killers in the first century of the Viceroyalty.


  20. I know you state above that you preferred to abstain from discussions of IQ, but I wanted to point out that people who claim that the average Mexican IQ is 88-89 might be presenting a distorted picture of things.

    For example, there is this study from Richard Lynn in 2005:

    “Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”


    As I don’t need to tell you, the majority of Mexico’s population is Mestizo, so that number is the most interesting. I think Lynn concedes that the score of native Indians was depressed due to poor nutrition and other factors. Nevertheless, a score of 94 is perfectly respectable — higher than the scores assigned to some European populations — and about 1/3 of a standard deviation higher than the number usually accorded to “Hispanics.” This study can’t be easily dismissed either, since it separated Whites from Mestizos (so the White score didn’t inflate the Mestizo score), and Raven’s PM is one of the more g-loaded and culturally neutral tests we have.

    I should also mention that Mexico has seen a significant increase in its STEM base in the last few years:


    It’s not fair to dismiss it as a “Third World” country like some of the more intellectually lazy racialists do, as if it were on the same level as a hellhole like Haiti.

    Also, regarding Chile: I’ve often seen people claim Chile is a European majority country like Argentina or Uruguay. It’s not quite so simple:

    “A public health book from the University of Chile states that 30% of the population is of Caucasian origin; Mestizos with an average 60% Caucasian ancestry and 40% Native American ancestry are estimated to amount a total of 65%, while Native Americans (Amerindians) comprise the remaining 5%.[77] A genetic study by the same university showed that the average Chilean’s genes are 64% Caucasian and 35% Amerindian.[78]”

    So Chile is more of a light-skinned Mestizo country, although many Chileans are in denial about this. What’s interesting is that Chile still outscores its whiter neighbor Argentina on numerous metrics: GDP per capita, standard of living, PISA scores, etc. It also has the most stable institutions and lowest corruption levels of any Latin American country.


  21. Sorry, I realized the Washington Post link above is incorrect. Here it is again:


    I also wanted to state that when people claim that the “average IQ” of Mexicans is 88-89, they’re arriving at that number by including the admittedly depressed of indigenous Indians. But this is dishonest, akin to claiming that the average IQ of African-Americans is the same as the average IQ of Americans in general.

    While I’m here, I thought this Wiki article might interest you, if you weren’t already aware of it:


    These points amused me:

    “The overall themes that emerge in these paintings are the “supremacy of the Spaniards,” the possibility that Indians could become Spaniards through miscegenation with Spaniards and the “regression to an earlier moment of racial development” that mixing with Blacks would cause to Spaniards. These series generally depict the descendants of Indians becoming Spanish after three generations of intermarriage with Spaniards (usually the, “De español y castiza, español” painting).[26]

    In contrast, mixtures with Blacks, both by Indians and Spaniards, led to a bewildering number of combinations, with “fanciful terms” to describe them. Instead of leading to a new racial type or equilibrium, they led to apparent disorder.”

    “Some paintings depicted the innate character and quality of people because of their birth and ethnic origin. For example, according to one painting, a mestizo (50% Spanish blood) was considered generally humble, tranquil, and straightforward; while another painting claims from Lobo and Indian woman is born the Cambujo, one usually slow, lazy, and cumbersome.”

    By the way, I think Ron Unz was basically correct that Mestizos are not much more intrinsically prone to violent crime than Whites. Of course, *any* race can become violent under the right conditions, and I think the violence in some Latin American countries can be explained by the Drug Wars and other non-genetic factors, similar to the high murder rates in countries like Russia and Ukraine. Given the proper environment, however, I don’t think Mestizos are more violent or aggressive on average. Note the above description of them as humble, tranquil, etc. This is corroborated by other intelligent observers before the age of political correctness. Lothrop Stoddard described them as stoic and docile. This is in stark contrast to his descriptions of Negroes as “animalistic” and “warlike.” Blacks really DO seem much more aggressive on average than other races, no matter what the context. I don’t think this is the case with Mestizos.


  22. @george – “”The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

    “As I don’t need to tell you, the majority of Mexico’s population is Mestizo, so that number is the most interesting.”

    oh, that is interesting, thanks! i agree — the average iq for mexico probably should be reckoned to be higher, then.

    the one thing i’d wonder about, though, is the fact that not all mestizos are created equal — some mestizos are more indio than others, some more euro (they’re referred to in mexico as “moreno oscuro” vs. “moreno claro,” and there’s a broad north-south difference, isn’t there? — more indio mestizos the further south you go). so…what, if any, difference is there in the average iqs of these groups…and, then, what numbers are we talking about? are there more morenos oscuros? more morenos claros? does any of that make a difference? dunno.


  23. The IQists don’t like to emphasize this, but in America the nature of the Hispanic-White gap is much different and more complex than the Black-White gap, and has been for decades.

    Take this analysis from Arthur Jensen:


    On page 305, he compares scores on the culturally neutral Figure Copying IQ test for different groups. Note that the scores for Mexicans of low SES are about the same for Whites of low SES, both of which are a little below Whites of high SES. However, both lower class Whites AND lower class Mexicans outscore upper class Blacks!

    Jensen concluded that the Mexican-White gap could be attributable entirely to environmental/cultural/non-genetic causes, while the Black-White contained a significant genetic component.

    The book is from the 1970s, but Occidentalist/Chuck has found similar trends while analyzing more recent scores:


    “At the same time, while controlling for SES reduces very little the black-white difference, it reduces the hispanic-white difference drastically. […] The fact that hispanics were more ‘culturally’ deprived than blacks while scoring higher in cognitive tests is exactly what I was able to find in both NLSY79 and NLSY97. This is all the more interesting since g*d correlations between blacks and whites were not affected by SES but when it comes to hispanics (against either blacks or whites), SES may make a difference.”


  24. @george – “Note that the scores for Mexicans of low SES are about the same for Whites of low SES, both of which are a little below Whites of high SES. However, both lower class Whites AND lower class Mexicans outscore upper class Blacks!

    Jensen concluded that the Mexican-White gap could be attributable entirely to environmental/cultural/non-genetic causes, while the Black-White contained a significant genetic component.”

    interesting! thanks. (^_^)

    btw, what were the scores of upper class mexicans? how did they compare? (i’m too lazy to look it up right now, but if you don’t recall, that’s ok. i’ll look it up later. (^_^) )


  25. Zacatecas, Michoacan, Nayarit, and Guanajuato aren’t southern Mexican states. They’re central Mexican states.


  26. @anonymous – “Zacatecas, Michoacan, Nayarit, and Guanajuato aren’t southern Mexican states. They’re central Mexican states.”

    yes. thank you. (don’t believe that i referred to them as southern mexican states, but thank you for the clarification anyway. (^_^) )


  27. The cora people look African I read some african history.
    you do know your information came from Wikipedia and not everything on there is true or a fact did you know that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s