Post by soul49 on Feb 27, 2019 18:16:03 GMT -4
After digging through multiple ancestral branches, I'm actually surprised how few PoC ancestors I have. I still have quite a bit of "Indio", "Mestizo" and "Mulato Libre" ancestors, but in general, the ones labeled "Espanol" are the majority.
Your race card has been denied. I'm afraid you will now need to return your "marginalized person of color" voucher.
Now there is the argument that these "Espanol" were not actually "pure", but rather have some racial admixture themselves, as well as better socioeconomic positions.
Seeing as you mention cases as late as 1800s, the way the terms were used might have changed with time.
Mainly what shocks me is that DNA tests always put me being a little more than half indigenous(making it my majority ancestry), yet these "Indio" ancestors are less numerous on records.
Such men would thus reproduce up to and including their old age with consequtive young women, plus would likely have kids on the side with a mistress of slave girl.
In contrast, a woman would just have 1-4 kids with usually just one guy until her late middle-age. Most of the time, she would not be able to remarry again when she got past 40 or so. Men at the bottom of the social ladder would not reproduce at all.
So, as weird as it sounds at face value: Each of us ends up having more (and more diverse) female ancestors than male ones.
This might manifest itself in many ways in a colonial setting, but most of the time you had more indian and mulatto women around than white women.
The majority of coonists were male.
No, in Mexico, Espanol meant "Criollo", a Mexican born white person, but like I mentioned, that doesn't always mean they were "pure". As I've stated, some of my Espanol ancestors had mulatto parents, but changed their race in their older years. My Espanol ancestors have been in Mexico since the mid 1500's.
Yeah I'm aware of the concept of higher status men having a better reproduction rate.
However, in my specific case, my Y DNA/paternal lineage is indigenous(Q-M3 haplogroup), plus I actually see more Indio men than India women in my lineage when it comes to records. Of course, the Espanola women weren't "pure", because my maternal haplogroup is also indigenous. When it comes to other groups, I see more Mulata/ Mestiza women as opposed to their male counterparts.
I just figured since my male ancestral line is indigenous, it would mean I would find more "indio" people in records overall, cause they'd likely marry or reproduce within their own groups.
Funny enough, at least in the 1800s, my indigenous male ancestors had more children with a variety of women. My non indigenous male ancestors in 1800's did have a mistress with a couple kids or so, but some of the indigenous guys literally had 3 or 4 families of 6 to 8 kids each lol.
Additionally, most of my male ancestors(regardless of their racial caste) had multiple marriages, it was not just the Espanoles from wealthy backgrounds.