Who Were the First Residents of Los Angeles?

Repost from the old site.
In our never-ending attempt to fight ignorance and stupidity everywhere it shows its ugly head, we will examine the question of the racial makeup of the Californios, the original Mexican settlers in California. Later on, we will look at the racial makeup of the first settlers of LA, along the same lines.
First of all, let us demolish a particularly obnoxious form of Chicano nationalist crap: the Aztlan lie, perpetuated by radical racist Chicano nationalist idiots like this, this and this. According to this mountain of leftwing ultranationalist racist manure, Mexicans, otherwise known as Aztecs, are the true owners of a place called Aztlan, encompassing much of the southwestern United States.
These folks are upset because we fought a nasty war in which we invaded Mexico and stole part of their country. However, most of the Mexicans in California at the time (the 7,000 Californios) hated Mexico so much that they welcomed the Americans who started this immoral war. After all, the Californios had waged their own unsuccessful secessionist war not long before, a war savagely put down by the Mexican government.
However, the Aztlan BS lies on a steaming heap of lies of its own. For the Mexicans themselves stole “Aztlan” from the very Native Americans who they claim to represent! Holy hypocrisies, Batman! Yes, the Native Americans, not the Native Mexicans, were the original owners of this land.
I have worked extensively with Native Californians and their opinion of Mexicans and Mexico is not extremely high. I am sure they would be furious with the notion that this land really belongs to Mexico. They are still smarting over being taken over by the Americans.
So let us see now. Spain conquered Anahuac (the stupid name Chicano nationalists give to their fake country) in the 1500’s. Spain also conquered “Aztlan” right around this time, though they pretty much left “Aztlan” alone. In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain in an anti-colonial war.
Mexico then assumed imperialist domination over the Native Californians, herding them into missions which frankly resulted in the genocide (in terms of destruction of a people) of many Native California tribes, especially those on the coast.
The Indians were captured by force by these “charming Mexicans”, herded into missions against their will (a process that had really reached its peak under Colonized Mexico), where they were worked very hard and mixed in with so many other tribes that their languages and cultures were wiped out in the attempt at Catholic conversion. Running away from the mission was punished by whippings, beatings and imprisonments.
The death rate was high in the missions, mostly due to diseases. There were repeated Indian uprisings at these missions against their wonderful Mexican overlords. These usually ended unsuccessfully, but in a few cases, some priests were killed. Leaders of uprisings were typically executed by priests.
The Indians on the coast of California were particularly devastated by missionization. In many cases, we have few or no records of some of these languages since they disappeared as early as the early 1800’s.
So in all their endless bitching about White invaders coming from Europe and genociding the Indians (largely true to some extent) Mexicans themselves, both colonized and independent, invaded “Aztlan”, stole the land from Native Americans, and committed a variety of crimes against the natives.
So, Aztlan doesn’t really belong to Mexico – it belongs to Native Americans. But since they have been integrated into the US peacefully, it goes by default to the US.
As if the notion of Aztlan were not lunatic enough, not to mention the BS called Anahuac . Anahuac is the name given to the Valley of Mexico, where Mexico City is now located, by the arriving Aztecs.
The conflation of the Aztec Mexico City place-name of Anahuac by Chicano nationalists into the name for the whole continent of the Americas is extremely ethnocentric and is likely to fly well with few, if any, other (non-Aztec) Native Americans. Further, it is a frankly racist notion in and of itself. Chicano nationalists, being partly of Mexican Indian blood, claim Aztlan in the US for (partly) Mexican Indians, of all people!
Outrageous or what? And on what do they base this claim of sovereignty of (part) Mexican Indians over Native Americans?
Because, supposedly, according to some crazy Aztec myths, the Aztecs came from a land far to the north before they settled down by Mexico City. However, this is actually a misreading or deliberate propagandistic distortion of those myths, which actually refer to Aztlan as a land to East of Mexico, across a great sea, an island, to be precise.
Clearly, this story is just that, a crazy myth with no basis in reality. Yet Raza propagandists have either ignorantly or malevolently twisted this myth of an island across a sea into a myth of a “homeland to the north”.
This silliness rests on still more nonsense, mostly that all (part) Mexican Indians are actually Aztecs! In fact, the Aztecs were simply one large tribe (at this point a large collection of tribes who can no longer be considered one people) who had conquered, in Genghis Khan viciousness, many of the surrounding tribes.
They were hated by almost all tribes that were familiar with them as basically a Mexican version of Nazis, they were savage, vicious, cruel and brutal, they practiced horrible human sacrifices, and they either tried to Final-Solution or actually Final-Solutioned many other tribes. In short, they were a bunch of bastards, and their principal pastime was Final-Solutioning surrounding “Mexicas”.
Somehow, radical Chicano nationalists have decided that all Chicanos are really Aztecs! How the Hell do they know? Check out this page: there are 289 living Indian languages in Mexico. Granted, 28 of those languages are varieties of Aztec. But that makes 28 different tribes of Aztecs.
That’s 261 separate non-Aztec tribes if you will. Add in another (at least) five non-Aztec tongues that have gone extinct since Cortes landed in 1519 to get 265.
Out of 289 separate tribes, how do these idiots assume that all Mexicans are really members of the 28 Aztec groupings amongst the 289? Based on what evidence?! It’s as stupid as saying that all Native Americans are really Navajos.
Now, maybe the Aztecs really did have a homeland to the north and maybe they did not. Linguists and historians are unsure about this, and this “highly advanced tribe” called Aztecs, had not yet figured out, by the late date of 1519, a coherent way of writing stuff down, when Europeans, Middle Easterners and Asians had been doing so for centuries.
This same tribe of super-people had also not figured out bronze age metallurgy, which many cultures around the world had accomplished centuries or millenia before.
According to legend, Aztecs came from somewhere to the north around the year 830. Various suggestions for this Aztec homeland have been put forward, all the way from Wisconsin to the middle of Mexico.
The idiot Chicano nationalist claim to Aztlan is based on a misreading of the homeland of all of the Uto-Aztecan people (the Aztec tongues are all part of a large language family called Uto-Aztecan, which contains many non-Aztec tongues). But Uto-Aztecan is a huge language family that may be 5,000 years old . The homeland of the Uto-Aztecans was probably in southern Arizona.
But that does not mean that that is where the homeland of the Aztecs was, anymore than saying the homeland of the Germans (Germany) is the same as the homeland of the Indo-Europeans (Southern Ukraine). Somewhere around southern Arizona about 5,000 years ago, the proto-Uto-Aztecan split into Northern and Southern groupings.
But after that, there were a variety of splits inside of Southern Uto-Aztecan. As you can see, this theory just gets dumber and dumber. Proto-Aztecan itself did not even come into being until 600 AD, before which where was no such thing as the Aztecs.
Furthermore, the builders of Tenochtitlan built the city between 2100 and 1400 years ago. In 600 AD, it was destroyed. It appears that the builders of Tenochtitlan, then, were not even Aztecs, but instead were some other group.
Since the beginnings of the Aztec languages coincide with the appearance of a new group, described as Aztecan, and the destruction of the Tenochtitlan civilization, it appears that the Aztecs were not the builders of those pyramids but the destroyers of them!
And so what if Aztecs used to live in Arizona or wherever centuries before 1519?
We now accept that virtually no Indian tribe in the US was always in the spot where they were contacted, from the time of settlement from Asia to contact. We have been able to plot many migrations of Indian tribes pre-contact. It’s clear that they moved around, conquered, enslaved and genocided each other, practiced cannibalism on their enemies, (and were victims of all the above) and did all the things that tribes normally do.
Point is, giving “Aztecs” a bunch of Native American land in the Southwest because they “used to live there centuries ago but left” makes about as much sense as the Zionism that these La Raza morons despise so much, often to outrageously anti-Semitic degrees (see here for a sample, or, really, most anything on La Voz de Aztlan).
Now that we have demolished a few of these La Raza ethnic nationalist dung piles, let us move on to one of another of their cherished myths – that the original Californios were Mexican Indians.
Shall we start with a fascinating tidbit about the very first residents of Los Angeles ? Los Angeles was founded by a group of settlers from a place called New Spain on September 4, 1781, soon after the US Declaration of Independence. Here is a map of New Spain. Does New Spain (its jarring yet powerful flag is here ) mean the same thing as “Mexico”, not to mention “Aztec”? Of course not.
It included the entire Western US, a good part of the Midwest, all of Florida, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast, (yes) Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, Cayman Islands, the Mariana Islands and even the Philippines.
The best evidence is that the original settlers to LA came overland from Mexico. For a long time the Spanish government had been trying to get Spaniards to go to California, but hardly any of them wanted to go.
The first settlers were regarded by a local priest as “the dregs”, similar to the first settlers of Australia. It seems they were escaping something. Quite a few were criminals or fugitives. 2/3 of them were Mestizo or Mulatto. So much for “Aztlan”! Some even came from the Philippines (via Mexico). Do Blacks, Mulattos and Filipinos all get to carve out a chunk of “Aztlan” for themselves?
Here is the actual rundown, incredibly, from a Chicano nationalist website:
Jose de Lara, 50, a Spaniard from Spain (evil White man), with an Indian wife and three (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo children
Basilio Rosas, 68, an Indian from Durango, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 Black, 1/4 White) children
Antonio Mesa, 38, a Negro from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five mulatto (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) children
Antonio F. Felix Villavicencio, 30, a Spaniard (evil White man) from Chihuahua, Mexico, born in Mexico with an Indian wife and one (1/2 White, 1/2 Indian) mestizo child
Jose Vanegas, 28, an Indian from Jalisco, Mexico, [Los Angeles’ first ‘alcalde’ or mayor], with an Indian wife and one pure Indian child
Alejandro Rosas, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico, with an Indian wife
Pablo Rodriguez, 25, an Indian from Sinaloa, Mexico,, with an Indian wife and a pure Indian child
Manuel Camero, 30, a mulatto from Nayarit, Mexico, with a mulattress wife
Luis Quintero, 55, a Negro from Jalisco, Mexico, with a mulattress wife and five (3/4 Black, 1/4 White) mulatto children
Jose Moreno, 22, a mulatto from Sinaloa, Mexico, with a mulattress wife
Jose Rosas , 67, an Indian from Durango, Mexico and his mulattress wife and six (1/2 Indian, 1/4 White, 1/4 Black) or Coyota children
*A Filipino, Antonio Rodriguez, from Manila, Philippines, and his 11 yr old daughter were among the original group that set out to settle Los Angeles. They got sick in Baja California of smallpox and stayed there until they got better. When he got to Alta California, it was discovered that he was a good gunsmith and he was ordered to Santa Barbara Presidio to be an armorer.
There were:
14 mulattoes
12 Indians
9 Spanish-Negro-Indians
8 Negro-Indian Zambos
5 Spanish-Indian mestizos
2 Whites
2 Blacks
34 were at least partly Indian
33 were at least partly Black
29 were at least partly White
The Indians were clearly Mexican Indians; many early settlers to Los Angeles came from poverty-stricken Sinaloa in Mexico. Sinaloans, pre-contact, were not Aztecs.
Look at the above – one could hardly find a more mixed group of people. It’s Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition 200 years in the past. Does that look like a bunch of Aztecs from “Anahuac” to you? Of course not.
Let’s look at something else. Exactly what percentage of Mexicans were living in Alta California, which Mexican invaders, recall, stole from Native Californians? A whopping .1% of the Mexican population was living in “Alta California” in 1846 – only a pitiful 7,000 of the entire Mexican population were Californios, mostly members of 800 families.
White Americans made up 1,300 of the population and Europeans (both evil Whiteys, who La Raza claims has no right to be in Aztlan) were 500. Going by adult males, the Whites and Europeans, who were concentrated from about Monterey to Sacramento, were about equal in population to the Californios.
Here is a photo of a famous Mexican officer who led a war against local California Indians in 1828-1829. He looks about as “Indian” as I do. So much for the “Aztecs” of “Aztlan”.
Also, if the evil White European conquerors were so diabolical and all, why does the Raza not only speak the language of these evil White conquerors, but why also have they adopted much of the culture and religion of these hated genocidal folks? Not only do they speak this “evil language”, they champion it to the point of demanding that it be an official language alongside English.
Along the same lines, see here for an excellent demolition of an apparent radical La Raza professor, Manuel Servin’s, allegation that the Californios,

as the study of California’s settlement shows, were not Spanish, but overwhelmingly mixed-bloods from Indian, Spanish, and also Negro stock.

Attacking the notion that “Hispanic” or “Chicano” (whatever those words mean) culture or people were largely or even partly “Spaniard” is one of the favorite pastimes of the La Raza ethnic nationalists. Why the obsession?
Probably because they hate Whitey and European culture so much, while glorifying Mexican Indian (But only Aztec!) culture so much, that the notion that “Spaniard” forms a large part of “Hispanic”, “Latino” and “Chicano” culture and/or DNA really ticks them off. It’s self-hatred plus denial, pure and simple.
Ralph Vigil does a good job of demolishing this nonsense. First of all, “Spaniard” itself is not any kind of pure White race; instead, for 700 years or so before 1519, Spain had undergone an incredible amount of race mixture.
In the New World, a mestizo born in wedlock was “criollo”, or Spaniard; one born out of wedlock was “Creole”. There was a lack of White women at first, so 1/8 Indian and 1/16 Black still qualified one as “White” or “Spaniard”.
So much for race!
So much for race indeed, even to the present day. A Mexican Indian leaves behind Indian ways and magically transforms into “mestizo”. A Guatemalan Indian drops Indian ways and starts dressing like a mestizo and automagically becomes “Ladino”. Neither without a drop of White Blood.
Back to Vigil:

In order to arrive at a better knowledge of the Hispanic heritage of the borderlands, one should perhaps always keep in mind that this heritage consists of a Spanish, Mexican, and regional Southwestern past, and that an extreme emphasis on any part of the Hispanic heritage, whether it be the “Spanish cult” or the “Mexican-Indian” past, makes for a distortion of borderlands history.

So neither “they were Spaniards” nor the La Raza fetishization of Mexican Indians explains the matter well.
Vigil concludes that the matter, like so many things, is complicated. It does not lend itself to simple explanations or La Raza propaganda soundbites:

In conclusion, the student of the history of the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest encounters a civilization that in varying proportions has elements of Spanish, Indian, Mexican, and Anglo origin today.
Although these background influences are important for the analysis and evaluation of the formation of the people variously called Mexican, Mexican-American, Spanish, Spanish-American, Chicano, and other names, the difference between that which was Spanish, Mexican, and Southwestern or New Mexican in the colonial period can only be a matter of regional distinction within a similar general culture.
To claim, as Servín does, that Hispanos in New Mexico are not of Spanish stock or language or culture because of some race mixture over the centuries is to miss the importance of miscegenation completely. Vertical mobility existed socially and by the early nineteenth century, all those colonists in New Mexico not obviously Indian were Spaniards.
To claim otherwise is almost the same as stating that Spain ceased to be Spanish because of the Berber invasions, or that “Anglo-Americans” today are Indians because they eat corn, potatoes, and use tobacco.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

19 thoughts on “Who Were the First Residents of Los Angeles?”

  1. ” First of all, “Spaniard” itself is not any kind of pure White race; instead, for 700 years or so before 1519, Spain had undergone an incredible amount of race mixture.”
    Do you have proof of this Robert? I know some occured, but I don’t think it was “an incredible amount”. The way I understand it, most of the “moors” as we call them, we actually indigeous Iberians and not colonists. I’ve heard evidence of some black miliary slaves but that they were only in small numbers and no one seems to state exactly how many stayed. I do know that a major morrocan town, Marrakesh I think, was founded by a black military slave who had risen through the ranks. I’ve also heard that many palces where the arabs conquered they only came in small numbers and spread their language and religion through elite domination. Some slavs were brought in as slavs also. I don’t think any of these numbers are as high as many multiculturalist want us to believe, and that our general view of the history of Spain in clouded by A) multiculturalists and B) views inherited from british imperialists who were competing with Spain. There is also some mixture from the pre-islamic spain, but it is still to small to radically shift the populace. The idea of massive race-mixing in Spain is a Afrocentrist/Nordicist lie.
    “In the New World, a mestizo born in wedlock was “criollo”, or Spaniard; one born out of wedlock was “Creole””
    As I understand it a full-blooded spaniard in the americas was called a “criollo”, which means the same as creole, and a spainiard from Spain was called a “peninsulare”.
    ” After all, the Californios had waged their own unsuccessful secessionist war not long before, a war savagely put down by the Mexican government.”
    Mexico had many revolts in the early days as there was no real concept of a mexican. The Tejanos were another group that rose up (with help from others). Just to the south there was a group of northeastern mexican states that tried to break away and form their own republic too. The Yucatan also tried to break off.
    “Since the beginnings of the Aztec languages coincide with the appearance of a new group, described as Aztecan, and the destruction of the Tenochtitlan civilization, it appears that the Aztecs were not the builders of those pyramids but the destroyers of them!”
    I didn’t think that the Aztecs were down there until much later than 600 AD. I tought that they didn’t arrive until a couple centuries before the spanish conquest. The pyramids had been long abandoned. The aztecs, who were mere wanderers and raiders, couldn’t fathom how they could be built and concluded that they must have been made by the gods, hence the name. (Teotihuacan = place of the gods) Teotiuacan is the name given by archaelogists to the civilazation you labeled Tenochtitlan. Tenochtitlan was the aztec capital that was built in a lake, not on a mound. I believe it was founded sometime in the 1300s. I’ve also read that many pre-aztec indian tribes in central mexico refered to the aztecs, and other raiders from the north of mesoamerica, as chichimeca. Chichimeca means “dog people”.
    “. However, this is actually a misreading or deliberate propagandistic distortion of those myths, which actually refer to Aztlan as a land to East of Mexico, across a great sea, an island, to be precise.”
    I’ve never heard of it as an island. The way I understand it,many think that aztlan was most likely in the mexican state of Nayarit. I believe they even have it on their flag. If the island story is corrrect, do yo think that it is proof of a non beiring land bridge origin of some native americans?

  2. It’s hard to imagine someone confronting these facts and still buying the idiotic Aztlan myth. But your chances of convincing those who already believe it, or really, really want to believe it, are slim. The effort is still worth making though. Pieces like this could be very useful for educating those who are still on the fence, or who tend to look favorably on it without actually knowing all the crazy claims.
    Speaking of crazy claims, why do people take the Nation of Islam seriously? If there is a crazier and more counter factual mythology, I don’t know what it is. Scientology takes a lot of abuse, but even they proved to be right about one or two things. The NOI? Never. If they were just a black hate group, I’d be okay with it. But to base it on the Evil Scientist Yakub grafting a “germ” to create White Devils is just an insult to the intelligence. Do they even know what “grafting” is? Or “germs,” for that matter? Can’t even get Crazy Religion right…. Jeez…

  3. Well, I think radical Chicanos have stupid ideas and distortions of race for Mexicans. But what is a “Mexican Indian”? Mexico didn’t exist until a group of criollos decided to join arms with mestizos, Indians, blacks, mulattos, and zambos to overthrow Spanish rule. Independent New Spain was craved out of the mainland North American lands of colonial New Spain. It was given a name by criollos: Mexico – this was in an attempt to piss Spain off and show they wanted to dissociate themselves from Spain (because the word “Mexico” derives from “Mexica”, or Aztecs). So basically, “Mexican Indian” can’t be truly defined counter to “American/U.S. Indian) because “Mexican Indians” were all Indians from different tribes and cultures and had little in common who lived within the borders of the nation called Mexico. So, Navajos, Chumash, Comanches, Apaches, etc. would all have been “Mexican Indians” if the Southwest USA was still part of Mexico. About half of Mexico belongs to the Southwestern North American Indian cultural sphere. The other half belongs to the Mesoamerican Indian cultural sphere. And a small part belongs to the Californian Indian cultural sphere. All of the Indians (even some Apaches and Comanches) in current and former Mexican lands had been contacted by the Spanish and decimated (by Spaniards or Mexican government instituions) or assimilated to varying degrees until they identified as mestizo (or actually became it) and/or became culturally Hispanic (Spanish/European) – as happened to most of Mexico’s Indians. The difference is that when the US took over the Southwest, white Americans had an idea that neither the Spanish nor the Mexicans had: reservations. The Americans also decimated or assimilated the Indians, but for the most part, the Americans pushed the Indians into reservations and didn’t mix with them, and the Indian lands were populated by whites (for the most part). This is what distinguishes the Indian experience in the United States from the Indian experience in Mexico.

  4. Also, i have to disagree with you that all Californios hated Mexico. For one, I’ve never heard of a Californio revolution against Mexico, there was the California Republic, but it was created by Americans who made up the majority in northern Alta California. Also, Californios banded together and fought American soldiers in the Mexican-American War. They won a couple of battles against Americans, but in the end the American forces got reenforcements and the Californios were defeated. There were divisions among the Californios, and this led to their defeat. One former governor of Alta California of had said that Californios had reasons to detest Mexico City but were appalled at the idea of abandoning Mexico at a time of war to settle “family differences”. In the end, false/distorted information will be spread by people attempting to gain something politically out of it. I don’t think neither Mexicans from what is today Mexico nor non-Native (U.S.) Americans have a legitamate claim to the land. Most Mexicans whose ancestors have have been in the Southwest since it became American territory may have a legit claim to the land though, since they descend not only from Spaniards and non-Southwestern Indians, but from assimilated Indians (Pueblos, Chumash, etc.).
    I have even read that shortly after the Americans took over California, many of the Chumash mixed with mestizos into the Hispanic culture.
    And finally, I don’t support Chicano radical nonsense, but if the Comanches (who come from Shoshones that were from what is today Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. and migrated to what is today Texas) who live in Texas have a claim to (and are recognized as) being indigenous to Texas, then shouldn’t an Indian group who migrates from Quebec to New York or from Sinaloa to Arizona have a legit claim to be indigenous to the area where they migrated to?
    Again, I think the idea of Aztlan by Chicano radicals is BS, but then that would mean Indians (or even mestizos) from Mexico who migrate to the Southwest have a legitamate claim to it. But your arguements are derived from a certain kind of logic that is in favor of your own country (much like a Mexican nationalist’s logic would be in favor of Mexico), so there is no final true logic, just the ones we accept (most likely with bias). So, the question of propertyship in the end is never completly correct and it just comes down to who is the stronger nation at any given moment at time.

    1. I can tell you right now that the California Coastal Indians are not Assimilated to either the Hispanic Mexican culture or the White American culture, they still have the Maritime culture and and know exactly which Chumash Village their ancestors came from either on the Channel Islands, on the Mainland or both, jus because they were enslaved by the missions and Americans, and dispossessed, does not mean they have forgotten their ancestors and their culture. So I must insist, they are not assimilated, they just went underground for awhile.

  5. And finally (gasp) I am neutral to all points of view, I have my name therefore as “The Observer”. My avatar may have changed cause I made a mistake in my e-mail and fixed it.

  6. I don’t know if you all knew this, but so called “Chicanos” are so despised in Mexico. Hence, the more radical they get, the more they are despised by Mexicans. In South Texas, even the word “Chicano” has a negative connotation. Most Mexican-Americans in South Texas do not identify as “Chicano”. They rather identify as Hispanic, Mexican, Mexican-American, or Tejano.
    In my opinion, “Chicanos” in Cali are just poor souls with an identity crisis. I’m so glad I grew up in Texas!!!

    1. I have yet to meet a single Mexican, immigrant or American born, who has ever referred to himself as a “Chicano.”
      The only reason why the word “Chicano” is still in currency is because of useless “ethnic studies” classes at universities.

  7. Mexicans have identity issues, Mexican Americans even more. Sometimes I wish we wouldn’t have gotten our independence from Spain, sure Spain had a bullshit medieval system, but I’m sure shit could’ve been reformed. Well c’est la vie and now you Anglos are masters of the Americas, fuck it I’m moving to Europe(France or Spain).

      1. Well I guess I’d be considered harnizo, my mother looks castiza and my father looks mestizo. They both come from western Mexico, specifically Michoacan. Well what can I say the natives had some pretty cool cultures and meso american civilization was pretty advanced but Europe created a more advanced one and most Mexicans even the indigenous ones wouldn’t want to replace it with pre-Colombian society. It’s also rather natural that societies tend to expand, but I’m just glad that the spanish were just to damn horny to stick to pretensions of racial purity or else I wouldn’t exist lol.

        1. Speak for yourself dude! How do you know what they want, there are a lot of Natives who would die to go back in time, back to the way things used to be! There are millions of people who do not by into this whole modern rat race cess pool we have going on here!

  8. My Ancestors were with the De Anza expedition and the Rivera y Moncada expedition in 1769 . Father Serra was rude, arrogant, fanatical little man. If he called them dregs it was because they would not bow down and tolerate his tantrums. They were nothing like the Australian convicts, they were Soldadas de la Cueras (Leather Jacket Soldiers). Who were ordered by King Carlos II of spain to colonize Alta California. They were to colonize San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Monterey and San fransisco. They were so successful the Californios wanted to secede from Spain and Then Mexico. They felt abandoned by spain and Mexico. The Soldado de la Cueras were the best of the best, in horsemanship, marksmanship, and in fighting hostile Indians. The only reason they fought with Mexico against the Americanos is because the were defending their land. They never considered themselves Mexican or Spanish, but Californios. The Chumash Indians were not assimilated into being Mexican, Spanish, or white. They are still a culturally Boat building Seafaring race who still travel to the Channel lslands in their planked canoes. They did marry into the soldiers family but usually the spanish turned culturally Chumash, the Chumash were a matrilinial and matrilocal, so the children belong to the wives families and were considered full Northern Bear clan, or what ever other clan the foreign husband married into. As for Mexicans saying this is their territory, I think thats Bullshit. They are disrespecting the Indians north of the border, we all had our territorial claims in the past and we would fight over them, hell, what people wouldnt? There are a few like the Yaqui, Apache, Pima, kumeyaay, that have lands on both sides. But for say Mayans or Aztec to claim other indians territory just because you are some other type of indian and you happen to like it better on this side of the border! I dont think so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)