Talk:Demographics of Mexico/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

I erased references to the word "mulato" from the text. It is a word that derives from the Latin word "mulo", which means mule, supposedly meaning that those of mixed European and African descent are a mutated mix of two different species. It is now generally deemed a politically incorrect term. As you can see, I have re worded the text.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.103.227 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophes, etc.

An anon eitor keeps inserting greengrocer's apostrophes into the text ("1800's", etc.), as well as changing "native Americans" to "Native Americans". The former is just a mistake; the latter offers room for discussion; I take "native to be an adjective, and the whole to be an ordinary descriptive noun phrase, while the anon takes the whole to be a proper name. Any views from other editors? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Seeing the two side-by-side, I'm happier with Native American. Seems that the capitalized form is less likely than "native American" to be (mis-)construed as meaning any old person born in the Americas or (heaven forfend) any old person born in the USA. As for the other, every time an anon types a greengrocer's apostrophe, somewhere out there a fairy dies. –Hajor 02:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, it looks like it should be "Native Americans" or indians. (And thanks for explaining why I haven't seen a fairy at the bottom of my garden for years.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed all outstanding "native American" to "Native American". This also consistent with the style in the Widipedia entry Native American.

In addition, I've lowercased the word mestizo, since this is how it is presented in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.PaulV 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Headings, etc.

I've inserted headings in order to generate a table of contents. I found the article a bit confusing, so I've tried to identify what the paragraphs are about. Have cut wordiness throughout. I regard the copy-edit as essentially done, and have snapped off the copyedit tag from the top. PaulV 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans

Official statistics say Native Mexicans make up 13% [1] of the population (not 10% as the article says). Also, official statistics (same source, just read a little more) say 6% speak an indigenous language. The article, though, says, about the percentage of Amerindians in Mexico, that many believe the figure to be closer to 30%. The reason for the discrepancy is the federal government's policy of using spoken language rather than race as the basis of classification. How can it be so? If the "federal government's policy" for classification is "spoken language rather than race", then they would only report 6% of Amerindians, and not 13%. There is no such "federal policy" to use language as the basis of classification. You are simply looking at the wrong source, INEGI does not report race at all, it only reports language speakers; so people have wrongly assumed that this is the racial classification. Please browse all through the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, CDI ([2]) web page. (CDI was created in place of the Instituto Nacional Indigenista, INI). This webpage includes many of the recent changes in the Mexican Constitution (one which defines Mexico as a pluri-cultural nation, and another one on the rights of indigenous languages). It also reports that almost 13 million Mexican are Amerindian, but only half speak an Amerindian language.

Oh, by the way, the article also says that in Chiapas, Oaxaca and Yucatán, the majority of the population is Amerindian. Well, here are the official statistics (from the same source reported above): Yucatán (59%), Oaxaca (48%), Quintana Roo (39%), Chiapas (28%), Campeche (27%), Hidalgo (24%), Puebla (19%), Guerrero (17%) and San Luis Potosí y Veracruz (15%, both). In other words, only in Yucatan, the majority is Amerindian (maybe you can include Oaxaca, but not Chiapas, 28% is not majority). --J.Alonso 16:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody responded,so I made the pertinent changes to the article, according to information of the CDI, the 2nd article of the constitution and the Law of Linguistic Rights. More info can be found in another article I made: indigenous peoples of Mexico--J.Alonso 06:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There is mention about high population growth in the indigenous population. I've read on the net that Mexico has slashed it's fertility rate by aggressively promoting birth control through government funded family planning clinics throughout out the country. From the urban areas to remote villages.

The stereotypical "white American" perception of Mexico is that of a demographic timebomb. And the information I mentioned above seesm to directly counter this.

If Mexico has in fact slashed it's population growth through family planning, it would be nice to include in the article because it would have a large impact on Mexico's future economy, population, and relation to the USA. It would also highlight a high degree of pragmatism in a highly catholic (anti - birth control) nation.

The following phrase: Today Afro-Mexicans of relatively unmixed black-African ancestry, as well as Zambos and mulattos, represent only about 0.5% of the population, due to higher birth-rates amongst the other groups as well as their continued absorption into the general population. I don't doubt its veracity, however, the government has NO official records that prove this specific percentage. Would you mind citing your sources? --Alonso 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

These data are not to be trusted. Visit Mexico, hispanicized or not, it is Amerindian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.71.71 (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this shouldnt be here but its the first time i comment so sorry again.

Ok first I think there a huge "error" in the ethnography section, first it says this: "it is estimated that around 40% of the population is ethnically White or European, those having Spaniard, French or other Mediterranean ancestry; and then this: Whites or Europeans make up about 9% of the population, mostly descendants of Spaniards".

The other thing that I think could be changed is the title of the Europeans "section", I think it should say White Mexicans, or mexicans of european descent, not europeans. And I think it needs a "section" for mestizos the only number for mestizos that I found is here: "it is estimated that around 40% of the population is ethnically White or European, those having Spaniard, French or other Mediterranean ancestry, mestizos are similarly represented with 45% and 10% is purely Amerindian" Thanks and sorry for my english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.9.102 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How many Native Mexicans in Mexico?

I have also read that the number or percentage of native Mexicans in Mexico is actually much higher than official statistics and that the majority of Mexicans are NOT mestizos.Is there any truth in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.28.224 (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you read the section on Ethnography. It is well-referenced and will answer your questions. --the Dúnadan 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the truth is absolute. There is a demographic error that has propagated throughout wikipedia articles of many Central and South American countries, the Amerindian, the overt constant, is disregarded and said not to exist as he exists. Amerindian population percentages are severely underestimated (including mestizos which are largely hispanicized Amerindians) and European ones or ones of European derivation are inflated. This silent racism must cease to persist. Mexico is an Amerindian nation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.71.71 (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to go by the sources, not your opinion. There's no need to go to all the Latin American countries' talk pages pushing a certain point of view. Of course there are many Amerindians, but there are more Mestizos (both Amerindian and European ancestry). It may not be the majority, but there is also a population in Mexico, and other Latin American countries, that is predominantly of European ancestry. Kman543210 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

False. Precisely the ones who were understimated were the Whites, descendants of Europeans, after Mexican Independence and, above all, after the Mexican Revolution which was "indigenist". After the Revolution it was promoted the vision of Mexico as an indian Aztec nation trying to erase from the History books the figure of Hernan Cortés. The Aztec Emperor Moctezuma was portraited as the founder of the Mexican nation and for decades only the indian side of History was allowed. But that was a complete fallacy. Because the "hispanization" of Mexico took place mainly after Independence. In fact, the Founding Father of present day Mexico as an Spanish speaking Christian nation is the Conquistador Hernán Cortés. He built the modern Mexico and it is time for him to be recognised as such, instead of the ridiculous and false "indigenism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.146 (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The absolute truth of it is that science is at last trumping the age-old indigenismo-hispanidad dichotomy agonized over largely by a handful of zealous and perhaps insecure mestizo intellectuals. The findings are pretty conclusive thus far that upwards of 80% of Mexicans are mestizos genetically-speaking, with variations of ancestral contributions. Gee, what a surprise. Tmangray (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever anyone asks how many Native Mexicans there are in Mexico you will get 2 answers that are within the range of 10% to 30%. This is because there are two definitions of what "native" means: the racial and the political. The number of indigenous people under the political definition of the word is given by the Mexican Census, the INEGI and the CDI. But when you ask what is the actual number of racially indigenous Mexicans (excluding political correctness) the number is somewhere at 30% if you consider those people with a predominantly indigenous genetic admixture to be native as well as those who are hispanicized.

The most reliable sources of information regarding the indigenous peoples of Mexico comes from Mexico's own National Commission for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples (Mexican acronym: CDI) and Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Mexican acronym: INEGI), as well as publications made by universities or peer reviewed articles or journals and encyclopedias (that aren't wikipedia). Now here are some helpful and reliable links, but sorry guys, they are in Spanish. You all can use Google Translate, just copy and paste the material but I have to say that the translations are not always clear or coherent:

• Website for the CDI: [3]

• The following CDI links have more specific demographics and also defines the criteria for people to be counted as indigenous: [4] This other link will take you to where you can look at more articles which are similar to the previous one: [5]

• An academic publication by the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México which reveals racial demographics of various countries, Mexico included: [6]

• INEGI Publication on indigenous language speakers: [7]

• Population of Mexico and Chiapas from 1585 to 2000, indigenous people shown individually: [8]

Also, genetic studies should show a much clearer picture of the racial composition of Mexico since hard science is much better than judging a nation with 80% mestizos solely on physical appearance or self deluded opinions. Remember that there are mestizos who are genetically closer to the indigenous side but chose to identify as white just as there are those who are genetically closer to Europeans but culturally identify themselves as "indios." Here are some genetic studies:

• The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American MtDNA Haplogroups: [9]

• Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-America: [10]

• Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo populations: [11]

• Average ancestry proportions of 6 Mexican Mestizo subpopulations (This is supporting information for the above link): [12]

When one analyzes all the data that is available as well as look at Mexican History a picture emerges: Mexicans are predominantly Amerindian under a Hispanicised self-image. That controversial study by Mexico's National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN) revealed that the average Mexican mestizo has 51%+ Amerindian genetic admixture and that the Mexican population is >80% mestizo. I think the reason many chose to fight against reality is because, as many even in the United States and Europe have noticed, the Mexican popular media still carries a very strong neo-colonial culture that has the legacy of the caste system which has propagated a Hispanicised image of "Europeaness" into the Mexican self-image: Mexican Television from 1988Modern Mexican Television. The most common rationalization for those who are in denial of Mexico's racial heritage comes almost in the form of a conspiracy theory. Their rationale is that the post-Revolutionary Mexican government has brain washed the masses into believing they are indians through the education system. This is of course absurd and anyone who has ever had his hands on Mexico's school history books can see for themselves that no such brainwashing-language exists. From a personal point of view I think that this mentality is pathetic and it reminds me of this quote by Manuel P. Servin "But many [Amerindian women] seemed to have become aware of their inferiority to their white rivals. Chronicler Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo tells a pathetic story of how Indian girls tried to bleach their skin." Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please. Mexico is a mestizo nation. I think the only one in denial is you. Mexico is a nation that is multiracial. I think you want to deny that fact because you have an agenda. Wikipedia is not a place for people's crazy agendas. 19:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Rman22 (talk)

Attitudes toward race

I believe this section should be eliminated. It is not encyclopedic. --Alonso 17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Argentines in Mexico

It says in the article that there are 150,000 argentines in Mexico making it "the country where the largest number of Argentines live abroad". This is very clearly an error, since it's nowhere near the largest argentine comunity abroad. This is not surprising given that the link it's using as a reference [13] is full of such erros. For example it gives a figure of 70,000 argentines in Spain, when in reality there are 251,380 [14] or 85,000 in the US when there are more than 140,000 only in Los Angeles [15]. The link doesn't even provide a source for those figures.

About the actual number of argentines in Mexico, official data by the CONAPO [16] derived from the 2000 census gives a figure of 6,280. [17] [18] The Argentine Embassy -quoted in this 2003 Houston Chronicle article [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/925192/posts]- speaks of 12,000 . The Argentine Foreign Relations Ministry, -quoted in this 2006 Clarín article [19]- gives an estimate of 15,000 for Argentine residents in Mexico City.

All these numbers are clearly not consistent with the 150,000 estimate mentioned above.

If someone feels the article must have a figure of argentine residents, first it should remove the sentence where it says that is "the country where the largest number of Argentines live abroad". And it should use either the CONAPO figure of 6,280; the Argentine embassy figure of 12,000 or the figure of 15,000 in Mexico City estimaded by the Argentine Foreign Ministry.

Otherwise, I'll delete that reference in the next few days.

Masimossc 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have already discussed this issue in the Talk:Mexico. The numbers provided by CONAPO are only of legal Argentine residents (that is, with FM1 and FM2 status). In the same way, the number of legal Americans residents reported by CONAPO is about 300,000 whereas the real number of all legal and illegal residents (as reported by American Citizens Abroad) is over a million (given that Americans must not be residing abroad to receive Health care benefits, such as Medicare).

Neither Clarin nor the Argentine Embassy in Houston are primary sources (they do not conduct their own censuses in Mexico, but simply estimate or report what other institutions say, however, none of them cite their sources). You cannot use Clarin as your source for figures.

The 150,000 estimate of La Nación (which includes both legal and illegal) was also reported two years before by Reforma citing SRE. We had agreed in the Mexico article to keep the estimate, but to remove the phrase that says that it is the largest Argentine community abroad, since this might not actually be the case. Estimations of illegal immigrants anywhere in the world are far from precise, and they usually underreport the actual figure. In spite of that, and if you ever visit Mexico City you will confirm this, it is evident that the Argentine community there is quite significant, just in the same way the Paraguayan community is Buenos Aires is. --User:Dúnadan 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Houston Chronicle is quoting embassy figures, Clarín is quoting Ministry of Foreign Affairs figures. Now, if you're saying that neither of these are primary sources and can't be used as a reference, fine, but I can't see how the La Nación link -which doesn't even provide a source- can be used at all then. Masimossc 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the source cited on the Clarín newspaper (la cancillería). Even if that is the case, neither one is conducting a census in Mexico (Ministry of Foreing Affairs or Embassy figures) and at best only report those who willingly go to register their residence at their local consulates. Like it was discussed in the other article, the decision to keep the figure was not based on La Nación by itself. Like I just told you, similar estimations were also reported by Reforma citing SRE (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores). --Dúnadan 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to keep the figure that's ok, but you should also include some of the others figures I provided for the sake of painting a complete picture. You said it yourself that these estimations are far from precise, so the 150,000 figure is not a hard fact, but since its the only cited reference, people who read the article think it is. Masimossc 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK we can rephrase the sentence as it was rephrased on the Mexico article. Which other figures do you want to provide? I assume you are talking about the official legal Argentine resident in Mexico figure provided by CONAPO. I wouldn't include the figures of the Argentine diaspora in Spain or the US, after all this is an article about Mexican demographics, not Argentine demographics. --Dúnadan 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found another more realistic figure, the one from CONAPO is too low. It's in an article by Mario Gutierrez Vega, Suplemento Enfoque, Reforma, October 16th (2005). Its being hosted at www.ime.gob.mx. It gives a figure of 30,000 estimated argentines in Mexico, that's an estimation of both legal and ilegal. The source is the International Migrations Bureau of Argentina (Dirección de Migraciones Internacionales de Argentina). And is consistent with the total number of argentines abroad. This is the one I'd like to include. Masimossc 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The pdf paper by Gutiérrez Vega suffers from the same weaknesses the other sources. First, it only says that Argentines in Mexico are about 30,000. It doesn't say the figure includes both illegal and legal, and it doesn't provide a direct source for the claim. Based on the last page, you assume it comes from the Dirección de Migraciones Internacionales de Argentina, even though that institution could have provided any other information therein exposed, not necessarily the estimation. And again, this institution would only report the figure of the Argentines that willingly come to the consulates for registration, and does not conduct a census of all immigrants. Moreover, why do you prefer to use an article whose main purpose is to present the concept of voting rights of any Latin American immigrant instead of using SRE figures? I mean, how do we choose whose figure is correct or "realistic"?

I assume that you find it uncomfortable to say that a significant number of Argentines lives in Mexico. As a way of mediating this argument (which has already been discussed and we had a solution agreed before), I would say, again, let's rephrase the sentence. Instead of providing a direct figure for 150,000 we can say, estimations of both illegal and illegal vary from 30,000 to 150,000.

--Dúnadan 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that the 150,000 figure should be replaced with the 30,000 one. If both are included like you said, then it's fine.

So the final editing would be adding the 30,000 reference and deleting where it says that it's "where the largest number of Argentines live abroad". If you're involved in the spanish version of the article could you also change it there?

About your reservations. We know for a fact that all the legal argentine residents figures out there are 6,280 (CONAPO, 2000 [20]); 10,600 (Secretaría de Gobernación, La Nación, 2003 [21]) and 12,000 (Argentine Embassy, 2003 [209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/925192/posts]). All these are consistent among each other, since the CONAPO figure is prior to Argentina's economic meltdown.

The "Dirección de Migraciones Internacionales" is a department in the Foreign Ministry "La Cancillería". I know from this article [22] that the Foreign Ministry does include an estimation of unregisterd argentines abroad in its calculations. I also know that the total number of argentines (registered and unregistered) abroad is almost a million. [23]. Which is the figure the article by Gutiérrez Vega is using too, since it obviously comes from the same source. It's only logical to asume that the 30,000 include the unregistered argentine residents, given that it's 2.5 times the highest legal resident estimate by the argentine embassy and almost 5 times the lowest estimate from CONAPO.

Finally, it's not that I find the 150,000 figure unconfortable, it's that all the other data I've seen is not consistent with it, but because it was the only number referenced on the article people take it for hard fact when they really shouldn't.

Masimossc 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK we can rephrase it then to say that the Argentine community in Mexico is significant and has been estimated to be somewhere between 30,000 and 150,000, and we add links to the appropriate sources citing different figures.

Now, I wouldn't assume anything about the size of illegal vis-à-vis legal immigrants in Mexico (of whatever nationality). Immigration (specially illegal immigration) is much more complicated than simple arithmetics. Mexico's tourist and immigration laws are quite lax. Moreover Mexico receives around 20 million "tourists" per year (just to give a perspective, Argentina's amazing record high tourism fueled by the cheap peso is of 3 million tourists per year). This huge number complicates all sorts of immigration controls by SRE. For example, American illegal immigrants (expatriates and retirees) number more than a million, and that has even said to be a underestimate (I've read estimates of over 2 million). Finally, CONAPO does not estimate, it reports factual figures of legal residents. It was SRE the institution that estimated it, based on number of Argentine visitors (in Mexico visitors are required to fill and entry form to be rendered upon leaving the country, however, if the visitor loses this form, as it usually happens, they are only required to pay a small fee).

--Dúnadan 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That sounds good enough. Go ahead and edit it whenever you like then. Don't forget the spanish version too. Cheers. Masimossc 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't definately agree with those numbers. Most of the argentineans in Mexico work temporary, and many of the 150,000 are only tourists. The Argentinean goverment settled in 890,000 (source from 2008) argentineans living abroad, mainly in Spain, Unted States, Brazil, Chile and Canada.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacius2011 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Americans in San Miguel de Allende. The article states the following "just in the State of Guanajuato, in San Miguel de Allende and its environs, 200,000 Americans have their residence.[11]" I live in San Miguel and doubt that the total population (Mexicans, Americans, Canadians, etc.) in the whole area is 200,000. The combined population of Americans and Canadians is commonly thought to be around 10,000.

Jerry Steward

San Miguel de Allende's population is, of course, not 200,000. The statement, whose source is the reputable magazine "The Economist", refers to San Miguel de Allende and its environs, referring to all towns in the "Bajío" or Central Mexico (i.e. Guanajuato, Dolores, etc.). --the Dúnadan 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TFR

Why does the Sistema Nacional de Información Estadística y Geográfica show a substantially different total fertility rate (2.1) for Mexico than the CIA factbook (2.37) as of 2008? How accurate is the CIA factbook on TFRs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hernán Cortés, Founder of Mexico

The same way as Publius Cornelius Scipius should be considered the Founder of Hispania (Spain) as a Latin nation after the Roman invasion of 212 BC, Hernán Cortés should be considered the Founder of Mexico as an Spanish speaking Christian nation after the Spanish invasion of 1519.

The Iberian chief Viriato and the Aztec Emperor Moctezuma don´t represent neither present day Spain nor present day Mexico. That´s the real truth.

Of course Moctezuma cant be called founder of México, nor can Hernan Cortéz. IF theres one to be called founder of México, it should be Don Miguel Hidalo y Costilla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.9.102 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)