Source: https://mexika.org/the-mestizo-concept-a-product-of-european-imperialism/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:06:23+00:00

Document:
The terms mestizo and metis (as well as such comparable words as half-caste, half-breed, ladino, cholo, coyote, and so on) have been and are now frequently used in Anishinabe-waki (the Americas) to refer to large numbers of people who are either of mixed European and Anishinabe (Native American) racial background or who poses a so-called mixed culture.
Today, virtually all of the peoples who are categorized as half-caste or mestizo live in zones where European imperialism has been active during the past several centuries (the South Pacific, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Macao, Vietnam, India, Singapore, South Africa, and throughout Anishinabewaki).
Peoples categorized as “half-caste” or “mestizo” tend to have several characteristics in common: they reside in areas subjected to recent European colonialism and imperialism; they seldom possess the power or resources to determine their own destiny (either political or intellectual-psychological); their existence is usually a direct byproduct of European imperialism and colonial policy; and they are primarily people with both European and non-European ancestry, almost never with mixed European national backgrounds.
To place this discussion in proper perspective, let us contrast the situations in Mexico and Spain. North American social scientists and intellectuals and the ruling elite of Mexico commonly seem to agree that Mexico is a mestizo nation, that not only are most of its people racially mixed but that its dominant culture is also mestizo. North American Anglo-Saxon scholars, in particular, delight in using the mestizo and Indo-Hispano concept when discussing Mexico and Chicanos (persons of Mexican background in the United States). It is very clear that Anglo scholars (and the Mexicans and Chicanos influenced by them) regard the very essence of the Mexican-Chicano people as mestizo (except for the perhaps ten percent of the Mexican people who are regarded as indio).
(3) Racially, the modern Spaniard probably carries relatively few indigenous genes, the latter having been greatly overwhelmed by Carthaginian, Celtic, Latin-Roman, Germanic, Arab, Moorish, Berber, Jewish, black African, and Gitano intermixture.
In both a racial and culture sense, then, the Spaniard is profoundly a mestizo. In fact, it is safe to say that (except among the Basques) the Spanish culture of modern times is almost wholly non-Spanish in origin (in terms, at least, of specific traits) and is thoroughly mixed. Surprisingly, however, one never finds Anglo-Saxon social scientists categorizing the Spaniards as a mestizo. One never finds scholars describing a Spanish subgroup as part Gitano or as a North African physical type. One never finds social scientists attempting to dissect the Spanish people and then to tell them who they are!
Why is this so? We know that during the fifteenth century, for example, there were many subgroups (such as maranos, mozarabes, moriscos, and so on) among the population. We know also that even today regional variations can probably be identified in Spain. Why is the Castillian-speaking Spaniard allowed to have dignity and security of being simply a Spaniard, of possessing an ethnic identity, a nationality, while the Mexican and the Chicano are even now dissected and categorized, first, as mestizos and only second as Mexicans or Chicanos?
Most people possess a mixed culture and mixed ethnic background. To say, therefore, that a village is mixed when it is an integrated community, is either to lie or to add nothing new to our knowledge of that village.
It is true that there are cities, villages, and even entire regions where peoples of different ethnic loyalties and cultures are living in close juxtaposition (as the Greeks and Turks in Istanbul). Such a place can be regarded as being multiethnic or biethnic, but it is not truly mixed precisely because the different ethnic groups are separate, although geographically intermingled.
Mestizo and such comparable terms imply outcast (i.e., belonging to no ethnic group or casta). People who possess a national or ethnic identity, no matter how much they have mixed historically with other peoples, can never be mestizo.
In most regions of Anishinabe-waki there has been a gradual, imperceptible transition of a village (or tribe) from being composed of people of purely indigenous descent to being composed of people of mixed racial descent. In many cases the group has experienced no sharp change in ethnic identity. Thus, many North American Anishinabe groups have changed from being racially Indian to being racially mixed. However, they have retained their identity as Cherokees, Powhatans, Mohawks, and so on. Similarly, many Mexican, Central American, and South American villages have gradually acquired European or African admixture without any sharp transition, although in some instances the people have come to regard themselves as no longer being indios, because the government (and racist custom) regards the term indio as a derogatory one.
An example of the latter trend is the gradual “disappearance” of the Opata people of eastern Sonora. It is quite clear from the historical evidence that the Opatas imperceptibly changed as a result of missionization, serving in the Spanish army (against the Apaches), fighting in the many post-1821 civil wars and rebellion in Sonora, and perhaps to a lesser degree, intermarrying with Spanish-speaking Mexicans. In 1821 most Opata towns were still “Indian,” although undoubtedly many residents were bilingual in Opata and Spanish, and virtually all were Catholics. By about1900 the grandparents were still speaking Opata, but their grandchildren had shifted largely to Spanish and wanted to be thought of as Mexicans. The Opata towns had, in effect, ceased being Opata and had become simply Mexican (or mestizo, as the Anglo-Saxon researcher and Mexican census-taker might assert). In this area, as in many others throughout Anishinabe-waki, the change from tribal loyalty to a new national loyalty was not primarily a biological-racial change but simply a gradual, imperceptible change in self-definition by others.
The Spaniards were shrewd colonialists. They gave minor privileges (uniforms, batons of office, and the right to collect tribute) to caciques (chiefs), in order that the native leadership would prevent their people from rebelling. They also gave privileges (of a minor nature) to each different caste (indios living in villages sometimes were exempt from certain taxes, while mestizos, mulattos, and others were able to obtain minor positions in the army, move about freely, except in Indian villages and so on). People with some degree of European ancestry were ordinarily able to wear European-style clothing and obtain concessions not available to most Anishinabe (Indians).
A racist system was created by the Spaniards which favored light skin and European descent. Natives were regarded as inferior or childlike beings, and almost all who were ambitious sought to deny nonwhite ancestry or at least to be as white as possible.
This system, which saw each minor caste or class trying to curry favor from above at the expense of those below, served very well to keep the masses divided and distrustful of each other. It also resulted in many people of predominantly native descent pretending to be either mestizo or criollo (white or near-white) in order to be considered “una persona de razon” (a rational person). To the Spaniards, the native generally was not “de razon,” but mixed-bloods could be!
The concepts of mestizo, coyote, lobo, cholo, pardo, color quebrado, and many others, were invented by the Spaniards, and Spanish policy kept these categories alive throughout the colonial epoch. Were those concepts of any real objective value, apart from being useful to the ruling class? It is extremely doubtful if the differences between a coyote (three-quarters Anishinabe), a mestizo (one-half Anishinabe), a lobo (Anishinabe-African), a pardo (Anishinabe-African-European), and so on were at all significant except in so far as the Spanish rulers sought to make them significant. It is true that there may have been cultural differences between natives and mixed-bloods speaking a native language and living in a native village, on the one hand, and Spanish-speaking person (of whatever ancestry) on the other hand. But those differences relate to political loyalty and culture and not directly to mestisaje as such.
On the other hand, if there were cultural differences and antagonisms existing between mestizos and indios, whose fault was it? Who created the conditions of exploitation which caused Anishinabeg to rebel? Who created a system wherein one could rise upward only by repudiating one’s native blood and exploiting native people?
In short, the Spaniards created the system that created castes that were different one from another. They also created such rankings to accomplish their selfish purposes.
Let us dwell on this point for a moment by contrasting the development of Aberdeen, Scotland, with Santa Fe, New Mexico. The people of Aberdeen have a mixed origin, being of Scottish (Gaelic-speaking), Scandinavian, Norman-French, Flemish, and Anglo-Saxon descent. But this fact of biological mixture is of little ultimate significance in the history of Aberdeen. Of much greater importance is the fact that Aberdeen became a Broad Scotch and English language enclave in what have been a Gaelic-speaking region and that Aberdeen was a royal burg, a town loyal to the Scottish crown rather than to any Highland clan (tribal) chief. Of greater significance, also in the history of Aberdeen is the fact of socioeconomic and religious tensions within the city, totally unrelated (it would seem) to ethnic origins. In sum, whether an Aberdonian is one-fourth Gaelic of one-half Scandinavian or all Anglo-Saxon is of only passing interest. Loyalties to Aberdeen, to religion, to economic classes, to Scotland, are all of infinitely greater significance. Finally, all native-born Aberdonians are, and have been considered Scots, whether of Scottish or non-Scottish descent.
Ah, but there is a difference between Aberdeen and Santa Fe. In Santa Fe, the racist colonialist, strategy of the Spaniard and implanted the notion of nonwhite inferiority. Therefore, whether one was dark or light or classed as mestizo, blanco, o’indio did make a difference! The difference is not, however, due to the intrinsic significance of mestisaje but only to a racist-colonialist stratification based upon racial descent.
If left alone, the so-called Metis would have been to the Cree people what the mixed-bloods were to the Cherokee Nation: an influential subgroup within the overall nationality. To some degree this undoubtedly occurred in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, since the line between Indian and Metis even today is ethnically obscure in many areas.
Generally, the lighter the skin color the more acceptable a person was in colonial Atlantic seaboard society. Elaborate government records were not kept, but it would appear that visual inspection and local white opinion was utilized to determine whether or not a person was sufficiently white to vote, bear arms, hold office, or marry a white person (the laws varied from area to area, requiring anywhere from one-half to seven-eighths white blood to qualify as a white).
The Anglo-Americans very definitely adopted a system of giving different rewards to different castes and keeping nonwhite groups at odds with each other whenever possible. This was especially true in keeping Indians, free coloreds, and blacks (mostly slaves) from associating with each other (the fear of combined Indian-slave rebellions or raids was great in certain regions). After being militarily subdued, Indians generally became except from being enslaved (although many were enslaved before ca. 1750). They also were sometimes able to preserve a small tract of land in return for paying tribute. Free coloreds (mixed-bloods of all shades and free blacks) were able to move about more than tributary Indians and sometimes were able to vote and bear arms in the militia. Light-skinned mixed-bloods, who were able to prove they met the admission standards, could become white.
This attempt to divide the Anishinabe into subcastes and to make much of the degree of blood may be useful to the bureau, but it does not really reflect the truly significant divisions within the native community. For example, from the 1820s through the1860s the Cherokee people were at times divided into two major factions. One group was highly Indian in loyalty and was composed of full bloods, but it also included many mixed-bloods, and its official leader was John Ross (seven-eighths white, one-eighth Cherokee, by blood). The other group was oriented toward the slave-owning, plantation economy of the south and was composed primarily of mixed-bloods. However, its leaders included full-bloods such as Stand Watie.
The key difference between these two Cherokee groups was the degree to which they were oriented toward Anglo-American values. One was quite interested in Southern-style wealth acquisition while the other was more traditionally Cherokee in its values. Mixed-bloods and full-bloods were found in both groups. Therefore, we again see that being biologically mixes is less significant than other factors, such as ethnic loyalty and values.
(3) because native national(tribal) loyalties have remained strong.
It may be that there are Anishinabe-white-black mixed-bloods in the South and East who possess almost no group pride and who would choose to become white if they could. (Too dark to become white, many are being absorbed into the black population.) Such people perhaps come closest to the concept of being mestizo or out-caste.
In the United States many Chicanos of unmixed physical appearance are classified as whites with Spanish surnames.
In Mexico a man of complete Indian appearance who wears a suit, has a college education, and speaks Spanish has to be mestizo, since he could never be an indio.
For instance, the Paraguayans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, and El Salvadoreans, are not Indians. How could they be? They belong to nation-states! But why not? Have they magically changed their raced merely because of intertribal mixture and the absorption of a few aliens? Are the Germans no longer Germans because they merged different tribes, changed their religion, and social system? If Europeans can remain Europeans while going through processes of tremendous social change, Anishinabeg can remain Anishinabeg while doing the same thing (no matter what white social scientists want to tell us)!
Let us not confuse these two processes. Both assimilation and proletarianization would demand that the native Anishinabe (or African) cultures and tribes be destroyed. Both would demand that the conquered groups learn new skills, learn European language, and become part of the cash economy. But there the similarity ends. An assimilation policy would require the liquidation of racism, color consciousness, and resistance to intermarriage. Clearly, the white ruling groups of the Americas (even in the so-called relaxed Latin countries) have had no intention of doing that.
We might ask also, how is it that the white-oriented ruling groups stay in power in such overwhelmingly non-white countries as Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, and so on? Perhaps these rulers have learned to use the Spaniard’s old trick of pitting cholo against indio, caste against caste, and city against countryside. Doesn’t the policy of liquidating the Indian fit into this nicely? For example, an Inca-oriented Quechua revolution cannot probably occurring Peru as long as the cholos are led to believe that they are different and better than indios. No real revolution can take place in Guatemala as long as indios distrust ladinos and ladinos look down upon indios. It all seems so clever and (thus far) so successful.
Divide and conquer. Keep divided and control.
Before 1910 it was common for the Mexican intelligentsia to refer to themselves as blancos in contrast to los indios. Until very recently also it was common for Mexican-Americans to refer to themselves as whites, Latinos, Spanish-Americans, or Hispanos. More recently, firs in Mexico and now in the United States, the mestizo concept has come to be used (along with the ambiguous la raza terminology and de habla espanol in the United States).
This movement from whiteism and Spanishism to mestizoism can be as a progressive step, in that apparently the presence of Anishinabe ancestry is being acknowledged. In that sense perhaps it should be encouraged.
On the other hand, to be a mestizo is to be a nothing in particular (as discussed above). All people are mestizos to one degree or another, so for the Mexicano or Chicano to say he is a mestizo is to say, in effect, “I am a human being.” Moreover, in its usage it says, “I am an out-caste, a confused in between person.” (It may well be that many Chicanos are confused about the clash between Mexican and Anglo-American values, but mestizo is not used to refer to that cultural conflict). The traditional culture of most Chicanos is not mixed. It is a well-blended, fully integrated culture that has been evolving and changing for thousands of years.
More significantly, to be a mestizo is to cop-out. It is to accept the Spaniard’s colonialist-racist ideology. It is to fall supine before the European’s racial grading system instead of struggling for psychological liberation. It is to deny one’s own people’s history in order to have a masochistic, obscene relationship with the invaders and conquerors.
It is to be suspected that many Chicanos, Mexicans, and other nonwhite groups in Anishinabe-waki grasp at being called mestizo, not because of a desire to acknowledge Anishinabe descent, but quite the opposite reason, to affirm white descent. A mestizo (according to the racist caste system) is, after all, not a lowly indio. He is at least part-white and, therefore, part-civilized, una persona de razon.
The mestizo-ladino-cholo-caboclo syndrome is also a major weapon in the arsenal of the white or near-white ruling cliques of many regions of Anishinabe-waki. It prevents the unification of the oppressed nonwhite masses in a common liberation struggle.
Who are the Mexicans? The Mexicans are what they always have been- Mexicans. Since (and before) 1520 they have absorbed many non-Mexicans (including other Anishinabeg as well as Asiatics, Africans, Spaniards, and so on); and their culture has changed (as do all cultures). Fundamentally, the Mexican people go back into history as far as we can see into the past. They have no need to explain their present status by denying their continuous past or by genuflecting before the shrine of mestisaje! The word Mexican historically means Aztec-Nahuan. Isn’t that enough?
Basically, the peoples of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Paraguay are, at one and the same time, both Mexicans, Guatemaltecos, Salvadoreans, et cetera, and Anishinabeg.
A clear distinction must be made between the use of the term mestizo as a purely descriptive statement of fact and the use of the term to categorize an entire community or people forever. For example, Winston Churchill could (I suppose) have been classed as a mestizo, that is, a person of mixed ethnic descent (since he was part-Indian). His identity was not that of a mestizo, however, since he was clearly and completely British.
It follows that when the term mestizo is merely used as a descriptive term, a person can be both mestizo and Indian, or both mestizo and French, or both mestizo and Filipino. For example, Cornplanter can be described as a mestizo (i.e., as an individual of known ethnic intermixture) and also as a Seneca. His nationality was, however, Seneca.
Similarly, individual Chicanos can be described as mestizo if they look part-European or know of anon-Indian ancestor. Their identity, however, is Chicano, and the Chicano group, by virtue of its cultural, racial, and historical continuity, cannot be categorized as mestizo.
The oppressed peoples of the world are struggling to liberate themselves from both the material and the psychological forces of imperialism. Unfortunately, a “Brown is beautiful” movement has not yet penetrated many sections of Anishnabe-waki. Many people are still castrated by feelings of racial and cultural inferiority implanted by European colonialists and their neocolonialists successors.
The mestizo concept, as used by the Spaniards, by white ruling cliques, and by social scientists, is an anti-Indian, psychologically paralyzing tool of colonialism. It must be exposed and replaced by concepts rooted in the realities of American life.
1. “Staff Paper-Spanish-Speaking Peoples,” United States Commission on Civil Rights, February 5, 1964(draft).
2. Harold Driver, Indians of North America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 602.
3. C. Wilson Record, “Intergroup Conflict in the Bay Area,” Public Affairs Report, Bulletin of the Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California Press, Berkeley, v. 4, August 1963, p. 5.
4. Earl Raab, Editor, American Race Relations Today, (New York: Double-day, 1962), p. 167.
5. R. H. Dana Jr., Two Years Before the Mast, (New York: A. L. Burt Co., n.d.), pp. 72-3, 160.
6. Quoted in Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny, (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1963), pp. 165-77.
7. Frederick Law Olmstead, A Journey Through Texas, (Dix, Edwards and Co., 1857), p. 126.
8. Paul S. Taylor, “Mexican Labor in the United States: Imperial Valley,” University of California Publications in Economics, v. 6, no. 1, pp. 88-9, 93.
9. Paul S. Taylor, “Mexican Labor in the United States: Valley of the South Platte, Colorado,” in Ibid., v. 6, no. 2, pp. 230-2.
10. Paul S. Taylor, “Mexican Labor in the United States: Chicago and the Calumet Region,” in Ibid., v.7, no. 2, pp. 227-8, 232, 234-7, 280.
11. Paul S. Taylor, “Mexican Labor in the United States: Dimmit County, Winter Garden District, SouthTexas,” in Ibid., v. 6, no. 5, pp. 389-90, 418, 421,425, 432-3, 436, 442, 446, 449.
12. Manuel Gamio, Mexican Immigration to the United States, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930),pp. 52-56.
13. Victor S. Clark, “Mexican Labor in the United States,” Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, No. 78, September 1908, pp. 466-7.
14. Carey McWilliams, North From Mexico: the Spanish-Speaking People of the United States, (New York: J. P. Lippincott Co., 1949), pp. 208-09. Quoted by permission of Carey McWilliams.
15. Taylor, “Mexican Labor in the United States: Valley of the South Platte, Colorado,” pp. 212-16.
16. Conference on Social and Educational Problems of Urban and Rural Mexican American youth, Occidental College, April 6, 1963, pp. 25-28.
17. E. Cordoza Orozco, “Mexica: An Identity for Mexican-Americans,” mimeographed pamphlet, ca. 1966.
18. Pete Silva Sloss, “One Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire,” in La Palabra Alambre de MASH, v. 4, edition 5,July 1972, pp. 15-66.
19. “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan,” El Grito del Norte, v. 2, no. 9, July 6, 1969, p. 5. Quoted by permission of El Grito del Norte.
20. Jack D. Forbes, “The Mestizo Concept: A Product of European Imperialism,” unpublished manuscript.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.