
Finding Family Ties to Indian Slavery in New Mexico - benbreen
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/28/us/indian-slaves-genizaros.html
======
AndrewGaspar
My wife, who's from New Mexico, recently did one of those genetic heritage
tests. It showed that she was, IIRC, 19% Native American and 21% Iberian
peninsula. She doesn't seem to really consider herself as Native American as
she considers herself Spanish, though, despite them being essentially
statistically the same. It makes more sense in the context of there being a
preference for Spanish heritage.

~~~
oh_sigh
Sure, or look at Obama, who is exactly as black as he is white(or, perhaps,
even more white, since his father was little more than a sperm donor and his
mother/her parents raised him). But he is considered by all, including
himself, to be black.

I find it interesting that in the US, mixed race people tend to become the
least 'privileged' race, whereas in Mexico, at least in this one case this
woman identifies with the more privileged group

~~~
magic_beans
Mixed race people in the US are considered less 'privileged' only to white
people, who find any race of people less privileged (as a whole, not on a
case-by-case basis). But to minorities, people who are half white are seen as
more privileged, especially in the black community.

~~~
dragonwriter
Mixed race people are often seen as _outsiders_ by either race; how they
personally identify can vary a lot (and often it's not simply with one or the
other.)

~~~
eesmith
When you say "outsider", be sure that you don't mean the racist "tragic
mulatto" viewpoint that mixed blood inherently (ie, from biological reasons)
leads to tragedy and hurt.

Even when seen as 'outsiders', meaning, as part of a different ethnic group,
it's still not uncommon under European colonial rule that mixed white/black
people have more privilege than black people. That is, what you say is not at
odds with what magic_beans said.

Spanish rule in the Americas had race-based caste system. This included New
Mexico. Quoting
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain)
:

> Eventually a caste system was created to describe the various mixes and to
> assign them a different social level. ... The upper echelons of government
> were staffed by Spaniards born in Spain (peninsulares), the middle and lower
> levels of government and other higher paying jobs were held by Criollos
> (Criollos were Spaniards born in the Americas, or—as permitted by the casta
> system—Spaniards with some Amerindian or even other ancestry.[139]) The best
> lands were owned by Peninsulares and Criollos, with Native communities for
> the most part relegated to marginal lands. Mestizos and Mulattos held
> artisanal positions and unskilled laborers were either more mixed people,
> such as Zambos, recently freed slaves or Natives who had left their
> communities and settled in areas with large Hispanic populations.

Haiti inherited the French racial caste system. Quoting now from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti) :

> Haitian mulattoes became the nation's social elite and racially privileged.
> Numerous leaders throughout Haiti's history have been mulattoes. Comprising
> 5% of the nation's population, mulattoes have retained their preeminence,
> evident in the political, economic, social and cultural hierarchy in Haiti.

In the South African apartheid system, "coloured" people (with mixed heritage)
had higher status than "African" people (meaning black). While not explicit at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid)
you can infer from "Blacks were provided with services greatly inferior to
those of whites, and, to a lesser extent, to those of Indian and coloured
people." that black people were less privileged than mixed race people.

~~~
dragonwriter
> When you say "outsider", be sure that you don't mean the racist "tragic
> mulatto" viewpoint that mixed blood inherently (ie, from biological reasons)
> leads to tragedy and hurt.

No, I'm saying that, in practice a person if mixed White/Black background will
often be seen and treated as something-distinct-from-White (and disfavored for
that reason) by Whites and something-distinct-from-Black (and, again,
disfavored for that reason) by Blacks.

> Even when seen as 'outsiders', meaning, as part of a different ethnic group,
> it's still not uncommon under European colonial rule that mixed white/black
> people have more privilege than black people.

Yes, in systems with _de jure_ racism, often mixed race categories are in an
intermediate legal position between legally pure members of the dominant race
and legally pure members of the disfavored race.

This actually is often part of _why_ even the disadvantaged race, treats mixed
race individuals, like advantaged-race individuals, as disfavored outsiders
culturally, even long after that kind of legal system is gone.

> That is, what you say is not at odds with what magic_beans said

It was a refinement, not a disagreement.

~~~
eesmith
I wasn't suggesting that you were. It's a caution that the term "outsider"
likely isn't the right word, because it's close to historical racist
stereotypes, and from my admittedly poor understanding, might bring with it
other connotations than what you mean.

As I understand your use of 'outsider', a person with a white background is an
outsider to blacks, and will be disfavored for that reason by blacks, and a
person with a black background will be an outsider to whites and disfavored
for that reason.

In colonial countries the whites had the power, so even if what you say is
true, it's a relatively small component to the power structure of the culture.

What usually happens is that mixed race people form their own group,
historically identified with terms like "mulatto" or "brown" or "coloured".
They are not outsiders to other members of that group, and as a group have a
privilege level between those of whites and of blacks.

Your construction didn't seem to consider that a new racial group might form.

The "tragic mulatto" concept, as I understand it, is based on the premise that
there are only whites or blacks, that whites and blacks will both disfavor
mixed race people, and that mixed race people will not form their own racial
group with in-group privileges.

This is why I believed a caution was in order.

~~~
dragonwriter
> In colonial countries the whites had the power, so even if what you say is
> true, it's a relatively small component to the power structure of the
> culture.

I'm not making a commentary on the power structure of national level society,
I'm making a commentary on the way mixed race people are often treated by
various subcultures within that society.

> Your construction didn't seem to consider that a new racial group might
> form.

I think you have mistaken the word “often” in my post for the phrase “without
exception”. Trust me, had I meant the latter, I would not have said the
former.

~~~
eesmith
I think my confusion lies in that magic_beans was talking about power
structure, and specifically privilege. I continued on in that track not
realizing that you had changed to an orthogonal topic.

------
elboru
It seems like today everyone want to feel victimized somehow, sure a lot of
terrible things happened in the past, and it's good to be aware of that so we
won't let that kind of atrocities happen ever again.

I'm from Mexico and here a lot of people "hate" on Spaniards because "they
conquered us" that exclamation sounds pretty absurd when it comes from a dude
with lactose tolerance and a big beard (both gifts from Europe). Population
from northern states will have around 70% European DNA and 30% Native
American, Southern states usually go the other way around 30% European 70%
Native American, some researchers would say not even Native Americans of today
are 100% pure natives, Mexico experienced a mix of cultures and blood since
the XVI century. And yes it involved war, slavery and a lot of other
atrocities. But the truth is we're not either the conquerors nor the conquered
ones or you could say we're both, we're the result of that mix of cultures,
trying to feel victimized for something that provoked one of your ancestors to
other of your ancestors doesn't make sense.

~~~
alphabettsy
How does becoming more aware of the past mean everyone wants to be a victim?

Part of learning about the past also involves learning about how past issues
have carried us to where we are today and how sometimes the issues of the past
still emerge in unexpected ways.

The bigger issue is people wanting to continue being oblivious about how the
past affects the present because it’s uncomfortable.

~~~
merpnderp
No they see individuals blaming their poor choices on things which happened
hundreds of years ago. If your parents didn't give two craps about your
education and you did poorly in school, that is your parent's fault, who made
a conscious choice. If you do the same to your children, it is your fault.

And to blame something which happened hundreds of years ago, is to ensure this
problem never gets resolved, because making poor choices is easy when you
don't suffer the blame.

~~~
alphabettsy
What exactly are you referring to? If we’re talking in the context of
education, it’s well-established that education in this country is not equal.
The factors including race and class that led to this have their roots in
historical factors, yet a solution must be found as the issues exist today.

What exactly happened hundreds of years ago that you’re referring to?

------
yumraj
It's sad that even a publication like NYTimes refers to Native Americans as
Indians.

It was an acceptable mistake at the time of Columbus, now not so much..

~~~
totalZero
I don't really find this usage offensive, so much as confusing.

Indians are people from India.

I read the headline and imagined an immigrant from India who is exploited by
an employer or visa sponsor.

~~~
yumraj
As an Indian, from India, I do find it offensive and am sure that a lot of
Native Americans would also find it offensive as it takes away from them their
American heritage and ancestry.

