>Mexicans larp as Aztec despite being mostly Spanish>Peruvians larp as conquistadors despite being mostly indioWhat causes this?
>>18452823>OP larps as a thread despite being garbage
>>18452823>Mexicans >mostly Spanish
>>18452823Peruvians are the sons of the Huanca, Cañari, Chanka or Chachapoya that fought alongside Spaniards to defeat and conquer the Incas. They are Conquistadors too.Mexicans are the mix of the Tlaxcalans, Cempoalans, Totonacs, Chalcas, Huexotzingos or dissafected Texcocans that fought along Spaniards to defeat the Aztecs, and those very Spaniards. They are Conquistadors too. Their ancestors must be turning in their graves seeing their current stupid behavior, claiming as their own the serpent that once suffocated them.
>>18452823Meximutts are retardedimagine larping as savages that thought human sacrifice was heckin cool o algo and were so reviled by their neighbors that they'd rather ally with whitoid devils from across the ocean to destroy them.
>>18452823Mexico was literally a majority Amerindian country like Peru and Bolivia until Independence, hue.https://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxpoprev/cambridg3.htm>Recovery was accompanied by a great mixing of peoples of different ethno-racial backgrounds. The only comprehensive figures on the subject for the entire colonial period were crafted by Aguirre-Beltrán. Figure 2 roughs out the evolution of the three principal ethnic stocks—Indian, African and European—and their intermixtures from conquest to the last decade of colonial rule>Indians always made up the overwhelming majority of the population of colonial Mexico, and people of solely African or European origin were always only minor fractions>The second largest group by the end of the sixteenth-century was the "Euromestizos," that is, Spanish-speakers of mixed Indian and European stock. Within a century of conquest Indo-mestizos (mixed stock Indian speakers) and Afro-mestizos (Spanish-speaking mixed groups with an African component) also made up a sizeable fraction of the population>There is consensus that demographic recovery, in addition to growth, meant transformation. Infusions of European and African stocks were slight (and predominantly male), as Figure 2 shows. If the Aguirre-Beltrán series is sound, foreign stocks peaked around 1650 with 35,000 Africans (two percent of total population), mostly slaves, and 10,000 Europeans, mainly Spanish speakers>The most dramatic change was the growth of mestizos, or people of mixed stock, which, according to Aguirre-Beltrán, constituted almost 25% of the population as early as 1650, rising to 40% in 1810>Historians agree that in colonial Mexico racial categorizations were fluid (documents usually speak of "calidad" instead of "raza"—character or reputation, instead of race), and that passing was common. Thus, the rapid growth of the mixed population was a matter of economics and sociology, but demography was also important
>>18452887>Historians agree that in colonial Mexico racial categorizations were fluid (documents usually speak of "calidad" instead of "raza"—character or reputation, instead of race)This kills the Hispanist.>In the Royal Decree of 1514, the king authorized the legality of mixed marriages to promote evangelization, but Spaniards only married indigenous women from the elite or nobility, although they continued to have illegitimate children with native women and concubines, since, in many cases, they had their legitimate wives in the Iberian Peninsula. In the early days, illegitimacy and miscegenation became practically equivalent categories>In 1549, Charles I of Spain prohibited mulattoes, mestizos, and any illegitimate children from holding any municipal office, public position, or receiving land grants in the Americas.>For the Spaniards of that time, not having pure Spanish blood was a sign of inferiority. The more Spanish "blood" they possessed, the higher their social status. Even access to higher education required a certificate of "purity of blood.">This "purity of blood" was an instrument of discrimination that guaranteed the right of legitimate children to inherit their parents' property and to obtain certain public or religious offices
>>18452898That kills nothing. There is no racial motivation behind it, but rather one of security and politics. After Gonzalo Pizarro's rebellion in Peru (1544-1548), the Crown feared that the conquistadors and their descendants (many of them mestizos) would form a local aristocracy that would challenge royal authority.Similarly, the so-called purity of blood was not a racial concept, but a precautionary measure to prevent potential false converts from gaining positions of power and disrupting things from within (as would happen, for example, at the Second Vatican Council).
>>18452823>>Mexicans larp as Aztec despite being mostly SpanishNobody does that here.>B-but some 3rd generation chicano at my college campus said....Nobody cares. Enter the real world.
>>18452929>There is no racial motivation behind itBullshit. At the court of the emperor Charles V in Valladolid there were already discussions about the legality of the conquest, whether slavery should be abolished or not, the existence of races, etc., three centuries before Great Britain and North America. The positions that dominate modernity, i.e., the "racist" Eurocentric, emerged with the friar and theologian Ginés de Sepúlveda that defended conquistadors rights to subdue the natives, and the anti-racist, emerged with Friar Juan Bartolomé de las Casas that opposed to the conquest. The third option adopted by the emperor, the integrative globalist, proposed by Francisco de Vitoria, the father of the School of Salamanca and precursor of the law of nations that governs modernity.>Sepúlveda defended the position of the colonists, although he had never been to America, claiming that some Amerindians were "natural slaves" as defined by Aristotle in Book I of Politics. "Those whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them, those, I say, are slaves of nature. It is better for them to be ruled thus." He said these natives are "as children to parents, as women are to men, as cruel people are from mild people". These assertions in regard to some but not all Amerindians were made in Democrates alter de justis belli causis apud Indos (A Second Democrates: on the just causes of war with Indians) Rome, 1550. Although Aristotle was a primary source for Sepúlveda's argument, he also pulled from various Christian and other classical sources, including the BibleEven Las Casas was responsible for Negro Slavery in Caribbean, who was undeniably racial.>In his early writings, he advocated the use of African instead of Natives in the West Indian colonies. Las Casas's 1516 Memorial was the direct cause of Charles V granting permission in 1518 to transport the first 4,000 African slaves to Jamaica
>>18452947>BullshitAgain... not because of race, but because of natural law; to combat the abominations committed there (cannibalism, human sacrifices...) and to initiate a process of civilization and Christianization (which, until fully completed, cannot place the Indians in a position of equality). Ginés de los Ríos was not a racist. Scientific racism as we know it didn't arrive (ironically) until the Enlightenment.It's like what you said about De las Casas and his preference for African slaves. That wasn't because of racism either; they were prisoners of war, proven enemies of Christianity and the faith. Let's remember where the Black slaves fled from the former English colonies to regain their freedom (yhe Spanish Florida).
>>18452961>Ginés de los RíosError. Obviously is Ginés de Sepúlveda...
>>18452961>to combat the abominations committed there (cannibalism, human sacrifices...) and to initiate a process of civilization and Christianization (which, until fully completed, cannot place the Indians in a position of equality)Which coincides with the degree of Spanish blood they had. Or are you going to tell me that Mestizos had no more rights than the Amerindians?>Ginés de los Ríos was not a racistHoly copium.>Scientific racism as we know it didn't arrive (ironically) until the EnlightenmentDude, Racism has always existed.>Mediæval Roman Greeks of Constantinopolis were White and knew it, e.g. 11th century "Byzantine" Roman historian Michael Attaleiates attributing giving some advice on race (attributed to the emperor)>«The emperor's plan was to send their leaders back in the hope they might bring their people to their senses. He had honored them with the rebirth of holy baptism and the greatest gifts, hoping to use them to avert war, or so he thought, he spared their lives and restored them to their clans. But he realized then it is utterly pointless to “try to paint an Ethiopian white” for “to benefit a bad man is like feeding a snake. Grace is unlikely to engender goodwill from either one.” For once they returned to their own people, they behaved again in accordance with its customs, and would not cease their provocations. They made continual raids and ravaged the lands all round, plundering everything in their path and drenching Roman land with blood. So the emperor was yet again forced to send a mighty army against the barbarians.» (Historía Michaelis Attaliotæ)>Black slaves fled from the former English colonies to regain their freedom (yhe Spanish Florida)Cuba was literally the penultimate country in America to abolish Slavery due to pressure from le heckin Anglo-Masonic racist USA.
>>18452991>are you going to tell me that Mestizos had no more rights than the Amerindians?They had the same rights as human beings with full dignity and as subjects of the Crown. The Indians simply had a special guardianship for the reasons already mentioned (the encomienda is a feudal system, not slavery), but they were free, owners of the properties they possessed before the arrival of the Spanish, entitled to a fair wage and no more than eight hours of work under any circumstances, and they maintained their own authorities, laws, and local traditions, as long as they did not contradict the Christian faith. Obviously, there are some immoral individuals who try to take advantage, but that's why the figure of the Protector of Indians existed: to defend their interests in court (as indeed happened). And, unlike the mestizos, they were not obligated to perform military service.>Dude, Racism has always existed.That example you gave isn't racism either.>Cuba was literally the penultimate country in America to abolish Slavery due to pressure from le heckin Anglo-Masonic racist USA.It was the english that pressured, for the same economic reasons that they abolished slavery in their territories in the first place (with the industrial revolution and capitalism, it was no longer profitable; on the contrary, it was a burden...), not out of love for humanity or fear of God. Remember also that Spain (and especially the Hispanic American bigwigs, including the Cuban slave-trading elites) had long been infested with liberalism and Freemasons, hence those unnatural and execrable behaviors (why do you think the Spanish spent the entire 19th century beating each other up in constant civil wars; and the good guys lost...).
>>18453144>They had the same rights I stopped reading here.>The Mestizos were not confined to the reducciones (Indian settlements), and could move between rural and urban areas, working as artisans, small merchants, supervisors, or in agriculture>Indians were required to pay tributos (taxes) to the Crown and to provide free or cheap labor through the mita (rotating work in the mines). Mestizos were exempt from these obligations>Mestizos could serve in the militia and the colonial army, which gave them power and a status superior to that of Indians>Mestizos were raised in culturally Spanish environments, spoke Spanish, and dressed like Europeans, which facilitated their acceptance into intermediary roles, often acting as supervisors of Indians>Over generations, if a Mestizo married a Spaniard, the descendants could be considered Castizos and Criollos (Whites), acquiring greater social mobility and, in some cases, a certificate of purity of bloodEven figures like Tupac Amaru II, the leader of the largest Indian rebellion in Hispanic America, were mestizos. It was Pardocracia that the Criollos feared during the times of Independence from Spain, not the Indian masses.
>>18452872Several Peruvian presidents have been of Incan descent, this is also the case in neighboring countries.
>>18453144>why do you think the Spanish spent the entire 19th century beating each other up in constant civil warsDoes the spanish being barely-catholicized nafris have anything to do with that (it does)
>>18453368is everything racial essentialism for you?
Mexico is probably the greatest example of country wasting its potential for hundreds of years. If only they were a little bit whiter
>>18453316>I stopped reading here.You stop reading where it suits you...The need for permission from the lord to travel outside your homeland is another medieval trait, a matter of order (even more so, as already explained, during a process of civilizing tutelage and Christianization). In Europe, the same thing happened to peasants, who had to ask their lord for permission to move to another place.And it wasn't just the Native Americans who paid tribute. EVERYONE paid. Theirs was simply different because, given their situation, the payment was, at least initially, for obvious reasons, in kind (corn, cacao...). But everyone else had to pay taxes (alcábala, diezmo, almojarifazgo, quinto real, media anata, etc.). The idea of a racial caste system is simply a lie (which served the interests of Spain's enemies at the time).>>18453368>Does the spanish being barely-catholicized nafris have anything to do with that (it does)Liberal traitors vs. traditional Catholics. As simple as that.
>>18453812Mexico could've been an industrial powerhouse like China if they weren't a fucking dysfunctional mess.
