Talk:Tejanos/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

From what I've heard the word "Tejano" means "Texan", and the word "Tejas" means "Texas".

But then I'm no where near fluent in Spanish... yet.

Gringo300 3 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It would have been spelled "texano" in earlier forms of Spanish before modern spelling reforms. The letter X in archaic Spanish used to be pronounced as a voiceless postalveolar fricative; now it is a voiceless velar fricative or a voiceless glottal fricative and spelled J – though certain Mexican place names, e.g. México, retain the archaic spelling. Don't get too confused about the word "tejas", though, because it also means "tiles" and is also a type of noodle. – Andyluciano 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Large revert to April 29th 2006 version

I just made a huge revert. Firstly because the article was rewritten by an anonymous IP editor who failed to cite any of the assertions (and removed important navigation features like the disambiguation toplinks). The second reason is that a user who has been working on the unverified Tejano (dialect) article had seen fit to copy-paste that into the article. So, I reverted to the last good version before those changes.

The article written by the anon may have good information, but without citation it's useless in the page. If anyone wants to track down sources and re-add bits to the article, the previous contents are here:

Much confusion exists regarding the identity of those who are called "Tejanos". A Tejano today is classified as a "Mexican Texan" or a "Texan of Mexican heritage". While this classification would correctly identify the "new Tejanos"; those people from Texas whose ancestors came from Mexico beginning in the period of time just before, during and after the Mexican Revolution of 1910 through today, it is a misnomer when applied to the people who were in Texas beginning in the Spanish Colonial Period before the first Anglo-Americans came to Texas and through the Texas Revolution. Immigration from Mexico to the U.S. in the period after the Mexican War and before the Mexican Revolution of 1910 was almost non-existent and statistically insignificant.

To this effect, it is incorrect to assert that Texas during the Spanish Colonial Period was a part of Mexico which was under Spanish rule. Mexico as a modern nation did not exist but until 1821, before this time Texas was a part of Spain, a province of New Spain, and the people born in Texas were citizens of the Kingdom of Spain, not of Mexico, since the country of Mexico did not yet exist. While the flag of Spain governed Texas for 308 years (from 1513 through 1821), and for a period of 301 years (from 1520 through 1821) the flag of Spain waved over Texas uninterrupted, the flag of Mexico waved in Texas for only 14 years. This period of Mexican jurisdiction over the people of Texas, from 1821-1835, was a period of an imposed Mexican rule which the colonial Texans never wanted, imposed by the historical circumstance of having been dropped in the lap of Mexico by Spain when Mexico earned its independence from Spain. The colonial Tejanos had never wanted Mexican rule, having had established an independent republic in 1813 which looked forward to becoming part of the United States. Because Mexican rule was imposed upon the colonial Tejanos and they never wanted it, from their perspective the period of Mexican jurisdiction would be correctly identified as the period of Mexican occupation.

It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish between the "new Tejanos", those people from Texas whose ancestors came from Mexico beginning in the period of time just before, during and after the Mexican Revolution of 1910 through today, and the "colonial Tejanos" or "Tejano Texians", that is, those people who were the original pioneers of Texas who tamed the wilderness of Texas starting in the Spanish Colonial Period and up through the Texas Revolution, and to define the colonial people of Texas in a more historically accurate way that would reflect their family histories and traditions and their self identification and the history and historical data that supports them.

It is necessary to draw this distinction because the people who came from Mexico starting just before,during and after the Mexican Revolution through today are and were of a different ethnic heritage than the ones who colonized Texas during the Spanish Colonial Period, of a different history. While the majority, not all, of the people who have come from Mexico since the Mexican Revolution are and drew their identity from the mestizos (people of mixed Indian and Spaniard blood) or genizaros (Indians who lost their tribal identity and adopted Spanish names and the Spanish language, of which much of the modern day Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. consists) and had their history and identity in the history of Mexico, the majority, not all, of the people who colonized Texas in the Spanish Colonial Period were and drew their identity from the Spaniards and the criollos (full blooded Spaniards born in the New World), and had their history and identity in the history of Spain and of the United States as a consequence of the participation of Spain and its colonial provinces of Texas and Louisiana in the American Revolution. This difference caused the people of Texas, the colonial Tejanos or Tejano Texians, to identify more with the people of Louisiana, which was a Spanish colony, and of the U.S., rather than with the people of Mexico. For this reason as early as 1813 the colonial Tejanos established a government in Texas that looked forward to becoming part of the United States. As revealed by the writings of colonial Tejano Texians such as Antonio Menchaca, the Texas Revolution was first and foremost a colonial Tejano cause, the Anglo Americans simply joined the colonial Tejanos in that cause, having been invited and recruited to do so by the colonial Tejanos, the Tejano Texians.

In summary, while a new Tejano is a Mexican American, Latino or Chicano generally of Indian or mixed Spanish and Indian heritage, a colonial Tejano, who can also be correctly identified as a Tejano Texian, is a descendant of those colonists who pioneered Texas as citizens of the Kingdom of Spain through the Spanish Colonial Period starting in the 1500's through the 1800's up to the Texas Revolution and who were generally of pure Spaniard blood, or hispanicized European heritage, including Frenchmen like Juan Seguin, Italian like Jose Cassiano, or Corsican like Antonio Navarro, generally of white Mediterranean race, although there was also a small number of people of mixed blood among them ranging from mulattos to mestizos who were excluded by the Spanish law of "limpieza de sangre", purity of blood, from participating in the colonization of Northern New Spain including Texas and the American Southwest. For these reasons a colonial Tejano, or Tejano Texian, is more accurately classified as a "Spaniard Texan" or "Spaniard Texian" or "Spaniard American" or as a "Texan of Spaniard heritage", as opposed to a "new Tejano" who is of Mexican heritage.

In direct relation to this distinction, genuinely Tejano music is related and sounds more like the folk music of Louisiana known as "Cajun" music and to the music of northern Mexico, rather than to the folk music of central and southern Mexico such as Mariachi and other Latino music. With the abundant use of the accordion, genuinely Tejano music is part of the foundation of Country Western music. The American Cowboy culture and music was born from the meeting of the Anglo-American Texians who were colonists from the American South and the original Tejano Texian pioneers and their "vaquero" or "cow man" culture.

It should be noted as well that in the Spanish language, the term "tejano" is simply the term to identify an individual from Texas regardless of race or ethnic background.

For a more thorough history of the colonial Tejanos,or Tejano Texians, including their participation in the American Revolution and the Texas Revolution click on the following Texas A&M University link: http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/images/texforum/txforumloya.htm

— Saxifrage ✎ 22:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems Alex Loya has created a content fork using this text at Tejano Texian. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The above information seems basically correct, although I'm hardly in any position to judge. Alex Loya, moreover, seems to have drawn upon and/or published a fair bit of research, see [1]. Albrecht 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the material at Tejano Texian and I only just noticed (stupid me) that it's not mere a cut-n-paste of this material, but it also has decent references. Thus, I've proposed that it be merged into this article. The testimony of the uninvolved editor below seems to indicate that this material is more accurate than the current article. (Note, I've no familiarity with this subject at all, so I can't judge. The sources look good though.) — Saxifrage ✎ 05:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello,

I am Alex Loya, and I am the person who wrote Tejano Texian. I am sorry about having replaced the original Tejano article, but it is true as Saxifrage says and Soy Tejano testifies that Tejano Texian is a more accurate definition of what a Tejano is, and I just didn't understand how Wikipedia works, I apologize. Because Tejano Texian is more accurate than Tejano I am sorry to see that the link from Tejano to Tejano Texian was removed, it really should be there. I have added some of the references I used in my research to the article. I had thought I created an account here, but, as I said, I just don't fully understand the workings of Wikipedia, so if one of you editors could help me get Tejano Texian fully into Wikipedia, that would be great, there really needs to be a counterbalancing view of what a Tejano is because the prevailing view is, as Soy Tejano says, mildly offensive and also inaccurate. Merging sounds like the right thing to do, so, whoever does the merging should.

Groups

It seems that there are perhaps three groups involved here:

1.) Spanish colonials who might not have been "Mexican" (this whole “debate” reminds me of Rudy Acuna's concern that some Latinos are "anything but Mexican" out of internal race awareness, or worse: racism). However, since these immigrants came from North African colonies, they may have been of mixed African-Spanish-Arab blood. This population was small and was closely tied to larger settlements south of the present day US-Mexico border.

This region was managed by authorities in Mexico City, Nueva España, of which Tejas was a province, so Texas might not have been part of a "Mexican" nation, but it was managed and organized by Spanish authorities in Mexico City, many of whom were born in Mexico City, then the primary bureaucratic center of New Spain, rather than "Spain." It was a colonial culture, so to say this was "Spain" is not correct.

India, Canada, and South Africa, for example (despite colonial propaganda), were not "Britian," or "England," but they were British Colonies.

2.) Mexican colonials who were "Mexican" but might have had stronger regional identities tied to Coahuila y Tejas. These were mostly mestizos but as scholars have documented some “became Spanish” over time as they became more prosperous. This population was small as well, but took on a stronger regional identity in Tejas, and like Anglo-American immigrants, in many cases, rejected the authority of “Mexico” in Texas.

3.) Mexican immigrants who came 1890-1930 were mestizos, more "Mexican" than these early colonials were, yet might have been regional in identity orientation. Some perhaps had stronger ties to villages and colonial haciendas near Torreon, Saltillo, Coahuila, and Monterrey for example. These immigrants came to be the largest population group in South Texas after 1930, and are commonly considered and consider themselves “Tejanos”. These Tejanos are those who write, sing, and record “Tejano” music. These Texans are today’s Tejanos or Texas-Mexicans (Tex-Mex) and see themselves as such, since they have been Texans for 70-120 years, and many intermarried with some of the earlier colonial settlers along the border.

Much of the music, and the folkways and language considered “Tejano” are a result of the mixture of all three influences on the food, music, and folklore of the region. There have always been tensions between these groups, but the entry needs to cover all three immigrant and settlement waves. The entry should not try to favor the "European" migrants over the mestizo. The meaning of the term has evolved and the entry needs to reflect these changes rather than a hard racial line.

--Msrodrig 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. "These immigrants came from North African colonies"... false. The vast majority of colonists of Northern New Spain came from mainland Spain or were the criollo children of families from mainland Spain and some from the Canary Islands. The Juan de Onate expedition included Spaniards from New Spain, criollos, Spain, the Canary Islands, the Balearic Islands, Greece, Italy, Portugal and one man from Flanders. Of the approximately 600 colonists, less than 90 were mestizos, for example.

"(this whole “debate” reminds me of Rudy Acuna's concern that some Latinos are "anything but Mexican" out of internal race awareness, or worse: racism)" To deny the descendants of colonial Tejano Texians their Spaniard heritage is the true racism, especially when their ancestors were so careful to preserve it every chance they had, showing that it was important to them. To insist upon the Spaniards being mixed African-Spaniard-Arab is just a way to keep robbing the original Tejano Texians of their heritage.

Of course, New Spain was no more Spain than New England was England, obviously. But the land belonged to Spain at that time as New England belonged to England. And in Northern New Spain, as opposed to India, and is in Canada the population was either British or French, so in Northern New Spain the population was generally Spaniard, so they understood themselves to be and so they called themselves in conversation and so they identified themselves.

2. " Mexican colonials who were "Mexican" but might have had stronger regional identities tied to Coahuila y Tejas. These were mostly mestizos but as scholars have documented some “became Spanish” over time as they became more prosperous."

This anti-Spaniard bigotry in favor of Mexican “mestizoness” among some historians who have had a strong influence in people’s understanding of the colonial population of what would be Texas and the American Southwest can be clearly observed, it can be easily pointed out in the way they repeat the myth that the colonial population “whitened” itself. Invariably, some writers stress as though it were a fact, which it is not, that as time went by and people became more financially affluent, they would “whiten” themselves in the way they were listed in the census. Invariably, the case of one individual, Antonio Salazar, a colonist of San Antonio who was from Zacatecas, is used as an example. In four different documents dated between 1789 to 1784 he is listed in incremental levels of “whiteness”, being listed in the earliest documents as “Indian”, and then as “mestizo” and finally as “Spaniard”. Based on this one example, and several writers use this same example, they conclude that the people “whitened” themselves in the census; they were really mestizos but, so these writers erroneously assert, they said they were Spaniards (David Weber, The Spanish Frontier in North America, p.324). This man, Antonio Salazar, is touted and showcased to, again, promote the myth that the Spaniards of Northern New Spain were really mestizos… yet nothing is ever, and I do mean EVER said about a man by the name of Perez Nieto from Sinaloa who in the May 20, 1782 garrison list of San Diego, California is listed as a Spaniard, but eight years later in the San Diego Census of 1790 he is listed as a mulatto, in fact experiencing a “darkening” of his race, exactly the opposite of what some writers claimed happened. Or nothing is EVER said about Francisco Serrano, who in the 1782 garrison list and the 1790 Census of San Diego, in one he is listed as a mestizo and in the other he is listed as a European, while in both he is identified as having been born in Sastago, Aragon in Spain (not in North Africa). In other words, it is agreed in both listings that Francisco Serrano was a Peninsular Spaniard, yet in one he is identified as a mestizo, experiencing a “darkening” of his race in contradiction to what some influential writers argue using the example of Antonio Salazar. You see, it could just as easily be argued that the opposite of what the writers claim happened, maybe they were actually all Spaniards and people have made them mestizos over time, which claim would actually reflect more the reality of what has actually happened. Yet, Francisco Serrano and Perez Nieto are both completely ignored while Antonio Salazar is showcased! It is evident that these writers are affected to the point of manipulating the truth by their own bias. So what is it then, if some individuals’ race changes from census to census? Well, one thing is certain, the fact that in a few cases some individuals’ race changed from census to census, and only the ones in which the race becomes whiter are mentioned while the ones where the race becomes darker are ignored, one thing is certain: that occasional circumstance should not be used to cast shadows on the “Spaniardness” of the colonial settlers of Northern New Spain. Those are isolated instances and should not be used to draw conclusions about the whole. Rather, the written testimony of who they were should be taken at face value, and that testimony says that the overwhelming majority of the colonial settlers of Northern New Spain including Texas and the American Southwest were Spaniards. Hey, Francisco Serrano was Peninsular!

3. The fact is that in Northern New Spain, including Texas and the American Southwest and the northern states of Mexico, as Professor Robert McCaa, Ph.D., of the University of Minnesota, historian and ethnographer expert in Mexico who has written numerous articles about the subject, writes, “The Indian base was never as dense as in the South (of Mexico) and in the North many Indian groups were annihilated by wars over the centuries... the white population did not intermarry very much (as I have shown in a couple of publications and as one can still see today in Parral)... Racial terms are rarely used, but the markers are readily understood and respected when it comes to selecting marriage partners” (Dr. Robert McCaa in a personal email to me dated November 16, 2003).

Mestizos in Northern New Spain were a very small minority,in fact,the mixed population of Northern New Spain was mulatto and not mestizo, making its population completely different from the population of Central and Southern Mexico, which was one very strong reason why not only the Tejano Texians but also the colonials of northern Mexico in colonial days, as criollos that they generally were, either fell on the side of Spain, or, as in Texas, attempted to even then establish an independent republic with view of becoming part of the United States. This is, in great part, why not only the Tejano Texians sought their independence from Mexico and to be included in the United States, but also the people of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, New Mexico and other northern provinces attempted to be independent from Mexico and establish an independent Republic of the Rio Grande (the fact that during the colonial struggle they declared themselves for the King of Spain, in northern Mexico, as well as the fact that they called their republic Republic of the Rio Grande and not Republic of the Rio Bravo, as the Mexicans called the Rio Grande, shows that their struggle went beyond a political struggle of centralism versus republicanism and it was an issue of identity for them, a distinct identity)

To deny the Tejano Texians their heritage in favor of newer immigrants is unfair and is truly racist,it is a terrible injustice and a cultural, not literal, genocide of the colonial people of Texas (and the American Southwest), for this reason the entry should distinguish between the new Tejanos and the Colonial Tejano Texians whose identity needs to be asserted and preserved.

--Msrodrig, That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree or disagree with merge?

This is a section for simply saying whether you agree or disagree with merging "Tejano Texian" into the "Tejano" article; please give no more than a sentence or so of elaboration, as we already have threads discussing the issue in great detail. Lawikitejana 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. It will take careful editing to make sure none of the good material is lost, but I don't think people are going to look up the "T.T." article, and the "Tejano" article will be greatly enriched and improved by judiciously edited addition of the other article (you can see its author already agreed to the merge concept).Lawikitejana 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, though the work involved will be considerable. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, I believe that the Tejano article is easier to search and that if these two articles were merged more information would be able for the common reseacher.Bennyj600 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)bennyj600

Most of this is historic but the word is now used in a broader sense.

The Texas State Historical Association

Basically, people that are of Hispanic descent but want to be labeled as Texans call themselves Tejanos. It's more for the affection of Texas than where your ancestors came from.

"Affection" for Texas (in your example as a U.S. state or as a lone-star republic) is most likely shared by Texans of European descent as the "opening up" of a new frontier, the possession of land and natural resources taken by force, and, ultimately, the stage for the United States to become a world power using half the land mass "stolen" from México; however, for Tejanos (en español), "affection" for Téjas most likely means affection for when this territory was (also) a lone-star republic and the possibilities that self-governance opened up for those Mexicans who fought and died for independence from México, but who were excluded from the rewards of a free Texas/Téjas... These Tejanos were essentially betrayed by the hordes of Anglo-American filibusters, and their descendants have had to swallow a lot of bitterness... There are two distinct realities here when you talk about the differences b/w Texans and Tejanos. However, on a positive note, both sides, as a necessity, have had to come to grips with history and adapt somewhat to the other's "reality," thus forming the new Tex-Mex hybrid reality.

Or am I wrong? Is there still a lot of racism against Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, other minorities in Texas?

Have the numbers of Mexicans in Texas reached a point where they can finally exercise some political, economic, and societal power to improve their status and that of Texas, as well...? MisterX117 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)' ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have read everything on this page, even the thesis written by Alex Loya, and I have to say you are wrong, even though theoretically you are right.

First of all to say Spaniard-Texan is wrong, because they are not citizens of Spain, sure some might have full Spanish lineage, but so do approx. 15 million Mexican citizens, yet they don't call themselves Spaniard-Mexicans. The only reason you want to label them Spaniard, is because right now being labeled a Mexican is "shameful", "embarrassing" because it comes with all kinds of stereotypes that no one wants to be stuck with, especially with all the illegal immigration problem. So you want to separate yourself from the Mexican label as far as possible to prevent Anglos from putting you together with the "dirty" Wetbacks.

You noted that these "Spaniard"-Texans are not Mexican since they're not Mestizo, kind of like saying that to be Mexican you have to be mestizo. Well YOU'RE WRONG!! The label "Mexican" is not a race(Mestizo or Mexica), as many believe, but rather a NATIONALITY. a Mexican can be a "Mestizo-Mexican", "White-Mexican"(Criollo), "Indigenous-Mexican" and even "Black-Mexican". You also have to understand that, although the word Mexican comes from Mexica (Aztecs), it does not mean you descend from these ethnic group. The true Mexica people who reside mostly in central Mexico can also be labeled "Mexican-Mexica" since there are also "Salvadoran-Mexica" since many Mexica tribes migrated as far as Central America centuries ago.

What I am trying to say is that all of those people who settle the northern part of Mexico were indeed Mexican, White-Mexicans, they felt love for the nation as the others, they helped defeat the royalist who didn't want to live under Spanish rule, they were happy to become a new nation, even if the label for this nation came from an indigenous tribe (Mexican; Mexica) it didn't matter. Sure there were those who didn't want to separate from Spain (the REALISTAS) like the Peninsulares, whom all lived in the capital, many criollos and many Mestizos, but they were the minority. And many of them indeed lived in Tejas, it does not mean everyone was one, and surely they didn't want to become part of the PROTESTANT ANGLO-SAXON U.S.A.

You say that the Tejanos didn't want to be Mexican, that they felt invaded by the Mexicans, WRONG!!! like I said before they WERE MEXICAN, the idea of a Mexican identity based on Mestizo didn't exist in those days, not until the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Therefore Mexican meant anything from Spanish-Mexicans to Amerindian-Mexicans. I feel like your trying to say that once Spanish rule ended all of New Spain adopted a Mexican-Mestizo culture, and therefore the Mexican-Criollos from every corner of the new Republic of Mexico, dind't feel Mexican since they were clearly no Mestizo.

You and other Tejanos are indeed Americans of Mexican descend, whether you are of Spanish lineage, Mestizo or Amerindian. If you want you could also label yourselves, if you are Criollos, "Northern-Mexican" as you said before most of Northern Mexico was settled by Whites. This way you can separate yourselves from the newly arrived Mexicans, who are predominantly Amerindian and come from the Southern part of the country, the most impoverished area in Mexico.

No one is trying to force you Americans of Mexican descend to side with the pro-Illegal immigrant groups. You can be of Mexican descend and be as American and side with the ones who want to stop illegal immigration. You can be of Mexican descend even if you don't practice the Mestizo culture as most Mexicans in Mexico do, since it became the national culture after the Mexican revolution. And by accepting your Mexican heritage, it will not make you less of an American.

REMEMBER MEXICAN DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE MESTIZO OR MEXICA. IT IS JUST A LABEL OR NATIONALITY GIVEN TO THOSE WHO LIVED IN NEW SPAIN AFTER IT'S INDEPENDENCE FROM SPAIN, WHETHER THEY WERE MEXICA, OR NOT.

Does it matter? No. The two sides here -- people insisting that they are not Mexican at all, and Mexicans in México making a fuss and looking down upon Latin@s/Chican@s who want to "negar que son mexicanos" (deny that they are Mexican) and using words like "pocho", all reeks of racism and prejudice. Give it up. We are all human beings. --24.251.240.229 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, putting racial politics aside, saying that people of Hispanic heritage who were already living in Texas, California, New Mexico, and other areas under Spanish and Mexican rule at the time of US conquest are simply "Mexican Americans" by virtue of the fact that the area was once controlled by Mexico, is potentially problematic as the Central American countries were initially part of Mexico after independence from Spain - One wouldn't call Guatemalans, Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorians, and Costa Ricans "Mexicans," so in that sense Tejanos, Californios, and Hispanos of New Mexico also constitute unique groups geographically and culturally by virtue of already living in their respective regions at the time of US conquest as opposed to Mexican Americans who immigrated later on (regardless of race). 2601:4A:501:750:C98A:3E:FFD2:8B18 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Tejanos are White Hispanic?

I am from Texas and I am White Hispanic because I'm half-Chilean of Spanish/Croatian/German ancestry and half-Argentine of Italian ancestry. I have met people who are Tejanos, people who can trace there roots when Texas was part of Mexico. Many of those Tejanos I met were Mestizo looking, have a brownish tint in their skin. Also many well-known Tejanos look mestizo; Selena, Eva Longoria, and Alberto Gonzales have browish skin. I don't why this article claims Tejanos are White Hispanic? Do Tejanos view themselves as White, or do they deny their Indigenous ancestry? Can someone explain this? Lehoiberri (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't that all Tejanos are White but that the majority are, be it by ancestry or self-identification. One cannot overlook the indigenous ancestry shared my many Tejanos as well as the large mestizo population scattered throughout the state. Of course there are fair-skinned mestizos who could easily pass for white and may self-identify as such. Then again, many Tejanos possess a Mediterranean complexion and so may be identified as non-white. M5891 (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a Tejana, my family is from Spanish Texas, with birth certificate proof. My great grandmother's parents were Spanish white, we got mixed with Comanche Indian blood, We are not Mexican Nationality, or have Mexican Indian blood, none of my ancestors are from Mexico, our birth certificates read white, because we are of Spanish ancestry. It's a Texas thing, because of our history, our Spanish ancestors were friends with the Anglos, so we learned to live like them, more white, even our Texas Native Americans. Tejanos from Spanish Tx. mixed or not have never liked Mexican people, (i say that in a peaceful way today), battled them at the Alamo with the majority Anglos to win Texas. We celebrate our Spanish ancestry with parades in Texas, and our independence from Mexico, we are proud to be Spanish or mixed Spanish. Mexico celebrates their independence from Spain. We wave the Texas flag, we are NOT from Mexico. The word Mexico did not even exist when we did in Tejas, the x by the way is pronounced with a "j". :) p.s. I call myself a SpAsian or as my anglo friend calls me, "White Indian" exactly what most of us are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triss0101 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sections included

I have divided this article into sections to comply with Wikipedia's "Manual of Style." I've also taken the liberty of removing the "Sections" warning tag. M5891 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article seems incorrect in stressing pure European/Spanish ancestry among Tejanos, present or historical

This article has many airs of bias or obsession in stressing that Tejanos are mostly of pure Spanish ancestry, as opposed to present-day Mexicans, or Mexicans who arrived in Texas from Central or Southern Mexico post-Mexican Revolution times. While it's known that Central and Southern Mexicans are more Indian than Mexicans from Northern Mexico who tend to be much whiter, and while this can easily apply as well to Tejanos as early as the time of New Spain, this article does not acknowledge enough the mixing between the few Spanish settlers (mainly men) and the many more Indians that were available. Didn't the Spanish missions of Texas like the Alamo play important roles in converting Indians to "Spanish" ways during colonial Texas times and didn't mestizos result from this activity as it did in Mexico and the rest of Spanish-colonial America?

Then this article says todays Tejanos are mainly white Hispanics when those I come across most of the time look mestizo, just like Selena and most of her followers. Or maybe the word Tejano is loosely used because wasn't Selena 2nd or 3rd generation Mexican and not a descendant of Spanish-colonial Texas? Didn't her grand-parents or something come from present-day Mexico in the 1960s or 70s during the rush of Mexican immigrants to the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb1052 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tejano has two distinct meanings, which awkwardly coexist in this article: 1. The descendants of early Texas colonists, before 1821. As only 4,000 Spanish subjects lived in Texas proper in 1821, and maybe a few thousand more in far South Texas (Nuevo Santander) and Paso del Norte (El Paso area), this is a relatively limited group. 2. Any Mexican American in Texas. This amounts to several million people, descended from various waves that began in earnest around 1880, but really peaked from around 1960-2000.

As far as ancestry, many of the early Tejanos were not quite as white as the article seems to indicate (Antonio Menchaca, for instance was visibly part African). But many, by virtue of being Canary Islanders, asserted a Spanish identity and minor nobility or hidalgo status. This made them Spaniards and "whites" by law. Many light-skined castas also became "white" in the borderlands. Still, they were probably more Spanish than the average southern Mexican Indo-Mestizo. 24.167.52.195 (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Selena.jpg

The image Image:Selena.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of Tejano

The article emphasizes Tejanos are less Mexican in cultural terms, but more of a combination of Hispanic/Latin, Anglo-American and otherwise ancestral origins like Louisianan French and Germanic-Slavic in the Edwards Plateau of Texas. When one discusses "Tejano", they mean a localized/regional Mexican/Texan or "Tex-mex" identity: in history, culture, food/cuisine and music genres (i.e. "Tejano").

The Tejano racial admixture is equally Amerindian or Native American from the local and transplanted tribes from both Mexico, Central America and North America (i.e. the Cherokees, Comanches, Apaches, Kickapoos, Pueblos, Choctans, Muskogeans, Seminoles and northern Aztecans) whom blended in and intermarried the colonial Spanish, French and other Latin European settlers when they established the province of Tejas, long separated from the authority of New Spain and later, felt neglected by the Mexican Republic in the 1830's.

The meaning of Tejano should be "Spanish/Mexican Texans" although the article seems to show or advocate the idea they don't always identify with Mexicans, but more as Hispanic/Spaniards and only recently with other Latin Americans whether they are white Criollo, mestizo or Amerindian (i.e. recently arrived Mexican immigrants).

But the Tejano identity has contained more cultural influences from white Anglos from the Southern U.S., the "wild west" symbolism of cowboys/vaqueros associated with Texas and the Southwest U.S. and how more Tejanos actually disliked Mexican rule in the Texas revolution (the case of Juan Seguin and his command of troops of "Mexican" Texans).

Now if one listens to "Tejano" music, it has alot of modern rock & roll/African American (R&B-soul-motown) and modern pop-disco-techno mixed, yet with the traditional Spanish-Mexican and "ethnic" (French-German-Italian-Slavic) polka-like/accordion-based sounds. "Tejano" music was passed down for many generations among the "Mexican" people of south Texas, often was sang in Spanish instead and was limited to the state or taken with them when Tejanos moved out in large numbers in the mid 20th century.

Tejanos also discussed the divide between them and Mexicans south of the Rio Grande began in the early 19th century. The people of Mexico knew Tejanos aren't Mexicans per se, and the music wasn't their traditional music, as the Tejanos came in great contact with "Gringos" or Anglo-Americans whom introduced Country, western and Celtic (i.e. Irish, Scottish or Welsh) ballads from the Appalachians (i.e. the large American Texan settlement pattern was from Tennessee).

Therefore the meaning of Tejano is more Anglo-American, ethnic European and "people of color" mentality (but not all Tejanos view themselves as "brown") with the Mexican-American activism against racial segregation or discrimination during the Civil rights movement in the 1960's. The article is more accurate on what defines the Tejanos in Texas, perhaps are a separate category or grouping of Mexicans lived on American soil for over 150 years or the present-day "Latino" community. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"...who were generally of pure Spaniard blood..."

As I read this article, I sense an underlying agenda which:

1) wishes to accentuate the role of Spanish-speaking settlers in the formative years of Texas, which, I assume, the author feels has been co-opted by Anglos (cf. the old Texaco cartoon Texas history booklet with racist stereotypes intact), but

2) which falls into the same racist trap by subtly devaluing racial admixture with Native Americans, while holding up some notion of "pure Spanish blood". Merely using such a term, especially to the wild mix of Native Iberian-Celt-Roman-Goth-Arab/Berber and who knows what else of Spain, as something "pure" must mean that a mestizo, who adds but one other ingredient to this amalgam, is somehow "impure".

I would also venture a guess that the author is the descendant of some old San Antonio family, at least on the maternal side. Wonder if I'm right... If so, we have an interesting POV problem here...

Janko (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh please...and are you saying that somehow Northern Europeans are “pure” too? I highly doubt there are any “pure” people in Europe...Europe has a long history of mixing...the only “pure” people in the world must be inbreds...I guess you’re just another ignorant American who know nothing of the world...and to say that all Spaniards are a mix of “Native Iberian-Celt-Roman-Goth-Arab/Berber” is ridiculous! Spain is a very diverse country with very diverse people...you need to go to Spain and visit the different regions and see how diverse it is. Plus...”Spanish” is a nationality, not a race... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.198.3 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, unless you are of “pure” British decedent, then you are not an “Anglo” an Anglo-Saxon is someone of British heritage only! Americans are horrible you always want to label people! No wonder everybody in Europe hates and makes fun of Americans... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.198.3 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Tejanos"

Is it worthy of mention that tejanos in some parts of Spain (Catalonia?) means blue jeans? They are called vaqueros elsewhere. --Error (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. That might be appropriate in Wiktionary, as a separate meaning of the word, but not here. --Thnidu (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong information

"Tejano (archaic spelling Texano) is the Spanish translation for the English word Texan, a term that refers to someone who originated from, or lives, in the State of Texas in the United States of America."

Actually, Texan comes from the Spanish Tejano. Remember that the ones who named Tejas were the Spanish not the British. Please, do not use fake or biased information.--189.216.174.53 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Si, that's an odd one (spanish adoption of Caddo native american term, IIRC). It was apparently changed back in June (here) and remained uncited since then. I've restore the pre-june verbiage which includes a fairly important distinction for modern usage. Cites on the rest of the material would be a good idea. Kuru (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What is considered "mainstream" culture in Texas?

In the section titled "Etymology and usage," the author of the article states that "a number of [Tejanos], especially among younger generations, identify more with the mainstream and may understand little or no Spanish."

What is considered "the mainstream" culture or society? Are you talking about Anglos? Mexicans? Tejanos? Texian? Does this mainstream culture speak only in English or Spanglish or Texan (for that matter)? When you say "mainstream," are you referring to a group of people who are socially and/or economically upper class? Also, I'm not sure what is the percentage of the racial mix in Texas, but do the large populations of Texans of Mexican descent/ Mexicans or Texans of European, African, Native American, etc. descent have more or less of an influence on the "mainstream" culture?

The writer seems to be inferring that speaking English is considered "mainstream," although the majority of the population seems to exist as a hybrid culture, or Tex-Mex, maybe even Spanglish mix, if you will...? Or am I wrong?

Could you please amplify what you mean by "the mainstream?" and provide a link to your source. Thanks!  :) MisterX117 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Laredo

I went ahead and linked Laredo in the History section to Laredo, Texas to avoid the disambiguation page at Laredo. There doesn't seem to be a page focusing on Spanish/Mexican Laredo and the paragraph covering the period is largely the same at Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo. The link should probably go to wherever we have the best coverage of the topic of historical pre-division Laredo and should be retargeted if that changes. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)