Never thought of this. Thanks! Oh, but they absolutely did. That's why they're largely Catholic and speak Spanish (or Portuguese, but that's more rare). This I understand. Thanks again.
Meh.. While it's true that the Spanish and Portuguese replaced the native language and religion of the pre-colonization civilizations, there are still a lot of cultural connections to their pre-colonization ancestry simply because they still live in the same place as their ancestors. That isn't the case with African-Americans. Also, Spain and Portugal lost most of their American colonies early in the 19th century, so even if we accept the Spanish and Portuguese erased the pre-colonial heritage, those former colonies have had plenty of time to build a national identity that is independent of Spain and Portugal.
The mita pretty much destroyed the indigenous population's previous way of life, I dunno, gotta side with Auria on this.
Mita was only employed in Chile on the Incan peoples.. which, again, remained Incan in many ways. In fact, mita was an Incan practice that the Soanish coopted and abused to create an indentured labor force.. The variation in culture you see in Latin America across the countries is specifically because the culture of the pre-Columbian civilizations heavily influenced the Spanish and Portugese cultures. As an example, Mexican cuisine is heavily influenced by the cuisine of the Mayans and Aztecs. The Day of the Dead tradition is traced back to an Aztec festival that was traditionally held in the summer, but slowly shifted to coincide with the Catholic All Saints Day. Etc, etc. Yes, the conquest of Latin America by the Spanish and Portugese destroyed the pre-Columbian civilizations and several hundred years of Spanish and Portugese rule changed their cultures, but the culture that developed across Latin America is a direct descendent of the pre-Columbian cultures that existed in those areas.. That’s in stark contrast to what happened to African-Americans.. Yes, some elements of African culture survived the enslavement process, but the slaves came from a wide area in Africa and they were intentionally split up across plantations to break familial and cultural bonds..
It was much more prevalent, in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and (IIRC) even Mexico had an encomienda system. http://web.stanford.edu/group/SITE/archive/SITE_2009/segment_9/segment_9_papers/dell_combined.pdf Yes, I agree. But the effect was to make them an underclass of impoverished, poorly-educated slaves. That has to have an effect. I agree completely. That's true, but it wasn't just that. The reason the mita didn't do nearly the same amount of damage as American slavery is because of how slaves were acquired. The Inca, Maya, and other indigenous groups were used as a workforce because enough of them survived the wars and diseases the Spanish brought with them. Not so in North America, so the colonists "had to" import a workforce. The way slaves were acquired in Africa meant bringing together people from different states and tribes, from all over West Africa. That's going to create a lot of disjunction in and of itself.
Latinos are also very strong small business owners. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/18/latinos-the-force-behind-small-business-growth-in-america.html I think Republican Latinos have many reasons on why some/many vote GOP. Gun ownership is high among Latinos, specially the ones that have been here many generations. Small business regulations drive many of them crazy, just as Argentine futbol. Very Religious and conservative (many come from the country side in their original countries) making the choice to emigrate from the home that they know to a country very alien (outside movies) to them is a process of self segregation/selection. It involves risk taking and strong motivation, so as you say more receiving to the bootstraps narrative. I would also include racism in the Latino community, many Latinos are quick to claim racism against them, but then ignore or downplay the same claims when other marginalized groups do the same, there is also this mentality in the Latino community that Latinos are hard working and work hard to earn what we get, while poor whites and poor blacks are lazy that just want government handouts, so the narrative of reducing hand outs can resonate among some in the Latino community.
Lets not Generalize too much. Some countries did not have lots of imported labor from Africa because there was a large number of population that survived and could be used (depending on what the labor was for), example Mexico. Some other outside North America had tons of slave labor imported, like Brazil and the Caribbean Islands. If you look at the number of slaves that were brought to the Americas from Africa, a very small percentage actually went to North America (USA+Canada) the vast majority of Africans ended up in the Caribbean and Brazil (places with small and/or very decimated local population). African-American culture (n the larger sense) should be way more represented by people of African decent in Brazil and the Caribbean, but we being the USA, our culture and ideas always trump the ideas and cultures of other countries.
Not to mention racism/classism within the various Latino communities. There is a "pecking order" of sorts among Spanish-speakers, where Mexicans may look down on Central Americans, Puerto Ricans look doen on Dominicans, Argentines looking down on other South Americans, etc. Gringos trying to lump them all inot one big bucket just because they speak the same language doesn't help.
The Encomienda system was extensively used in the Viceroyalties in the Americas and in the Philippines. IIRC, in Mexico, Peru and to some extent Colombia, the Spaniards had the "advantage" of finding large native nations that one way or another obeyed to a ruler or ruling class. The Conquistadores replaced their chieftains and kept at least some of the social order in place, without uprooting the populations. The native populations in the US were more fractioned and, as you mentioned, were decimated by war and disease, hence they were replaced by African slaves, uprooted and mixed without any regard for their lineage.
Maybe not Trumps party, Trump is just giving them what they always wanted in a much better way. Republicans are less divided on cultural issues than Democrats are The party turned Trumpy before the 2016 election, not after https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/04/daily-chart-8 ok, I will change my opinion then.
Yeah, but their Hispanic identity derived from the post-contact era, I'd argue. If you or your ancestors come here from Latin America, you generally know what country you came from and can identify directly with that culture. Mexicans, Salvadorans, Dominicans, etc. all have a direct sense of ethnic and national identity that was largely denied African-Americans.
Just to add on--that map perhaps understates the matter because so many slaves were acquired from further inland. And many of those places on the map were large slave-trading operations that did a wide-ranging business; so that there was significant ethnic and tribal mixing at work even before they were forced to board the slave ship.
It seems that Georgia has been a place where a lot of refugees from other countries get resettled. But yeah, it is surprising. We spent the night outside ATL in a suburb called Duluth, and it turned out to be Chinatown. So we had dumplings, not barbecue. Definitely not the stereotype.
If you haven't read Outcasts United, you should. Terrific book. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001NLL5UO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Yep. I think this is the backbone of the GOP Hispanic vote. It's not the upper socio economic South Americans who are too few to be statistically relevant. The backbone is assimilated (Americanized) rural Hispanics ... primarily in the SW (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas). I mean Texas is only 47% white. How else could they win elections without a significant share of Hispanic vote? The bottom line is that there are millions of Hispanic people in this country with little to no conncetion to the immigrant experience. Millions that don't even speak Spanish.
Also, once people are in the country, they seem to want to shut the doors to everyone else. That seems to cut across ethnic lines.
Not to mention that in the Southwest, primarily in New Mexico and southern Arizona, there was a lot of mining in the late 1800s, and a lot of that workforce were local Latinos. They became unionized and forceful so much that the mining companies brought in outsiders...from Eastern Europe, because they were cheaper. But the Latinos had community support for the most part because they had lived there for, in some cases, hundreds of years. Tucson was one of the first cities in North America to legalize interracial marriage, in the 1790s (was later changed when Arizona became a territory). Much of this was survival. As for the Church, there was an issue at first, when the Missions were built, but eventually there was a recognition between the Church and the local beliefs that mixed and many of the churches provided help in the time of drought (Arizona goes through periods of drought and plenty in cycles of 150 years or so, according to Jarred Diamond, and some of this matches an Arizona history book I read).
It has always been a tactic of the incumbent power structure to fracture the lower classes by vilifying 'the Other' Immigrants are the easy target. IT goes through phases based on the details of 'the Other' It has been Germans, Irish, Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Chinese , Mexicans, all depending on the era. Wages low? Crime high, corruption rampant? Blame 'the Other'. Its easy and effective.
I will have to agree with you. IMHO it depends on how easy the immigration system worked for them. Cubans, as a whole, have a harsher opinion on immigration and do not face the hurdles of a Mexican/Honduran applicant. My parents thought the immigration system worked well for them. However, they happened to be in the US on a work visa when the Chilean coup took place (1973). They applied for political asylum while in the US. During their wait, they had kids in the US. Those 3 things worked well in their favor but still took until 1980-1981 (mostly because of the green card/work visa entanglement and my parents waffling on staying vs leaving).
Maybe this should go on the immigration thread, but the mods can decide that. Some numbers on views by groups. (from 2015) http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/...as-mixed-views-of-immigrants-and-immigration/ And Even Latinos do not think other Latinos have a positive effect on the USA, at least not a majority. If you keep reading, it seems like food and music are the things that make people think in a positive while crime and economy makes people think about immigration on a negative view.
My perception (which off course is extremely biased) is that if you pass the first hurdle, you are in, 75-80% probability. The main problem is how long it takes from hurdle to hurdle, and depending on your situation could be as much as 2 decades. And yeah, Cubans will go through the whole process (from arriving to citizenship) in about 2 years, with the first hurdle (accept the case) being cleared almost automatically.