A growing slice of Rome in the USA

[Ursus]

Most comparisons between Rome and the USA focus on American government and its geopolitical policies. I'm not going to rehash that as there a plenty of threads on it.

 

What interests me most is culture. Until recently the USA was presided over by a White, Anglo-Saxon English speaking Protestant majority. The language, culture laws and religions of the US are shaped largely by its status as a former British colony. Britain retained little of its Romanatis compared to the Continent after the Western Empire collapsed, internalizing the cultures of the Anglo-Saxon hordes, and thus this was passed on to America.

 

The WASP mentality has taken a hit in recent decades, thanks to the deconstruction of the academic counter-culture, as well as large number of non-WASPS entering the country.

 

Of the latter, the most significant are those from Central and South America, whom we call either Hispanics or Latinos. In contrast to WASP society, they speak a language descended from Latin. Most are Roman Catholic to some degree or another. They may and often do carry different cultural presumptions than Joe WASP.

 

Estimates project that Latinos shall form the majority of the American southwest by 2050 at the latest. They will form a significant presence in the urban areas of the rest of the country.

 

Clearly, every culture is potentially effected by a major demographic change. If a culture cannot assimilate an influx of "invaders" then it shall itself be assimilated. This particular demographic group is nearer and dearer to the Roman legacy than the current dwindling majority. Imagine a US that is officially bilingual with Spanish, where Catholicism is a much larger presence than now, and where Anglo-Saxon views on government and economy no longer predominate. In other words a US that is much more heavily influenced by the Roman legacy than it is now.

 

I find this all intriguing. And honestly amusing. The hand of Rome reaches out from the grave to conquer yet again.

[Northern Neil]

This is a very positive way of viewing the current demographic shift in the South West US. I remember someone on another thread saying that this area was originlly Mexican anyway?

 

One thing I have always found odd. Hispanics are viewed - even by themselves - as 'non-white' citizens of the US. Why is this? Aside from the Puerto Ricans and a few cuban exiles, who appear to be of mixed ancestry, it is quite plain that most of them are of entirely Spanish descent!

Edited May 4, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Ursus]

This is a very positive way of viewing the current demographic shift in the South West US. I remember someone on another thread saying that this area was originlly Mexican anyway?

 

Most of the American Southwest was annexed from Mexico by treaty. Some of the more militant Hispanic groups actually want to remerge it with Mexico.

 

One thing I have always found odd. Hispanics are viewed - even by themselves - as 'non-white' citizens of the US. Why is this? Aside from the Puerto Ricans and a few cuban exiles, who appear to be of mixed ancestry, it is quite plain that most of them are of entirely Spanish descent!

 

Not an expert on this field, but I think many Hispanics are actually a mix of Spanish and Natives.

 

Anyway, "white" in America historically meant the fair skinned, light eyed whiteness of Anglo-Saxons. While Italians, Irish, Polish and many Jewish people are more or less "white" they were not accepted as such by the establishment.

[Moonlapse]

Clearly, every culture is potentially effected by a major demographic change. If a culture cannot assimilate an influx of "invaders" then it shall itself be assimilated.

This has everything to do with school.

[docoflove1974]

This is a very positive way of viewing the current demographic shift in the South West US. I remember someone on another thread saying that this area was originlly Mexican anyway?

 

Most of the American Southwest was annexed from Mexico by treaty. Some of the more militant Hispanic groups actually want to remerge it with Mexico.

 

The bulk of it came after the Mexican-American War and subsequent treaties in the middle 1800s...a last chunk along the border came from another treaty later in the 1800s...if memory serves.

 

One thing I have always found odd. Hispanics are viewed - even by themselves - as 'non-white' citizens of the US. Why is this? Aside from the Puerto Ricans and a few cuban exiles, who appear to be of mixed ancestry, it is quite plain that most of them are of entirely Spanish descent!

 

Not an expert on this field, but I think many Hispanics are actually a mix of Spanish and Natives.

 

Sorta. Much depends on where you are, as there are different migration, conquerring, and immigration histories, but there is a generalization. It more-or-less breaks down like this (I'm using the Spanish terms, but the Portuguese ones are very similar):

 

When the Spaniards and Portuguese conquered the New World, those 'whites' who were born in the New World were called criollos, or 'creoles'...all white, zero indigenous blood...and you'll still see them in the high elite, particularly in Mexico and the Caribbean--very light haired and eyed.

 

Those Spaniards/Portuguese who mingled with the indigenous population--which accounts for the extreme majority of the Latin American population--are the mestizos, or those of mixed blood. In most Aztec-ruled areas, the mestizaje is thorough; in Mayan-ruled areas, it's much much less, but in the coastal areas it's pretty thorough. In the Inca-ruled areas, it varies, depending on where you are--coastal areas are highly mixed, up in the Andes are hardly mixed at all. In the Southern Cone (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and the eastern half of Paraguay) the indigenous population was mostly wiped out, save for very rural areas, so there is basically no mestizo population, and almost 100% European blood. In the Caribbean, the native (mostly Taino) peoples were also almost 100% wiped out, so most everyone is *mostly* European...many have gone to the Caribbean from Mexico and Venezuela, so there are mestizos, but from a different source.

 

The Spaniards and Portuguese brought many African slaves to run the agriculture...the products of the indigenous and African unions were mulatos, and are mostly in the Caribbean-touching parts of Central and South America (Shakira is from Baranquilla, Colombia, which is a big 'hub' for mulatos in that area). Those 'white' folk in Central/South America who mixed blood with the Africans are usually considered to be negros; in the Caribbean, there is so much intermixing that there usually isn't a specific term. Just that, as is typical to many areas, the lighter the skin, the more 'acceptable' you are.

 

There has been a large Asian population in much of Latin America for over 100 years...that's a whole other can of worms.

 

Now, that's most of it...there's much, much more.

 

Depending on the time involved, the Spanish-speaking population could have been 'indigenous'--as in, were here as part of being in New Spain, and then Mexico before California, Arizona, etc.--or were probably Mexicans who emigrated and immigrated for work and because of family ties. West of the Rockies there isn't much of a Caribbean Spanish influence--there are pockets, naturally, but mostly the Cuban, Puerto Rican and Dominican 'centers' in the US are on the East Coast. The Mexican Revolution of 1910 brought many into California and Texas, in particular, in order to flee from the chaos and corruption. With the various Central American Revolutions and guerilla movements from the 1940s on, more and more Central Americans account for the populations.

 

One other thing: again depending on when they came and where they came from, different groups are called (both on their own parts and by others) different names. At least here in California, my grandmother grew up with Mexican families--very common in the coastal communities of California for Italian and Mexican workers to live together--and they called themselves 'Spanish'...to say you were 'Mexican' meant that you were here illegally. That still held true through my parents' generation...until the 1960s and the Civil Rights movements, where there was a huge push to announce one's specific culture. The 'Pachucos' were those inner-city Spanish-speaking groups of a specific culture--big baggy pantsuits for guys, etc. 'Chicano' was never in existence until the 1970s almost.

 

Now? Who knows...'Latino' is often used, as a 'generic' term for anyone from Latin America...although often Spaniards are lumped in here. Which, btw, many resent...they see themselves as European (and they are), not Latin American...and it's often a contentious issue. 'Hispanic' is also used, often by the 'white' community to again relate to anyone who is from Latin America...although the history of this word, as most of you know, comes from 'Hispania'. 'Spanish' is really only used for someone from Spain.

 

Hope that helps!

[Virgil61]

... Imagine a US that is officially bilingual with Spanish, where Catholicism is a much larger presence than now, and where Anglo-Saxon views on government and economy no longer predominate. In other words a US that is much more heavily influenced by the Roman legacy than it is now.

 

I find this all intriguing. And honestly amusing. The hand of Rome reaches out from the grave to conquer yet again.

 

I think the influence goes both ways. A lot of Mexicans with families that I know in the Pacific NW tend to assimilate "American" values after a generation or two.

[Ludovicus]

I find this all intriguing. And honestly amusing. The hand of Rome reaches out from the grave to conquer yet again.

 

 

A Chilean in my family tells me that in regard to the settlement of the Americas by Europeans, the Spanish colonies were founded by men and the English colonies by families. That explains the mestizaje (racial mixing) that characterized all the lands settled by Spain in the Americas. There were no Spanish women at the beginning of the period with whom to create families. He goes on to say that the founding families of Chile almost all have indigenous blood in their lines. Later they married exclusively Spanish and European.

 

Did the Romans use the same settlement pattern-send in the army veterans without their families so that Roman genes would spread thru the new colony and cement the relationship to Rome? Or did Roman families follow the veterans to the newly conquered lands, esp in the West, to set up life?