Talk:Aztlán/Archive 1

Archive 1

City beneath the Grand Canyon??!!?

Has anyone put forth the idea that the city beneath the Grand Canyon may have been Aztlan? Its prolly just a bunch of conspiracy theory-malarkey, but it's an interesting thought...check out the external link if you've never heard about it...Supposedly there was a big story in the phoenix gazette in 1909....

Grand Canyon Story

--Solacium Christiana 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit needed

I think this article needs some clean up. I won't put the tag on it, but maybe some of us could take a crack at it with a focus on grammar and spelling -- Joaquin Murietta 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Aztec

The word Aztec, rarely used by the Mexica to describe themselves, derives from Aztecatl, meaning "from Aztlán."

I've read that the term Aztec was not rarely used, but never used, being a word made up well after the Spanish conquest. Can this be confirmed? --Bletch 23:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See the article about aztecs. It´s a bit more complex. Aztec was used by those culture that claimed their ancestors came form Aztlan, like tepanecas, matlazintecas, xochimilcas, hexotzingas, tlatlelolcas, and of course, tenochcas or meshicas. Meshicas called themselves aztec the same way as an englishman or an american could call thenselve anglosaxons... because they may come from the same culture and speak the same language, but most of the time they would not use it. It was not unitl the XIX that Hudboldt suggest the name aztec to refer to the prehispanic "meshica or mexica" kingdom, to diferenciated them from modern mexicans. The name aztec was then used to refer to alos to those under the Meshica rule. Nanahuatzin 06:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the info. --Bletch 13:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aztlán as Arctic

Brief note to the writers. It is generally accepted that the peoples of the Americas originally came from Asia over the Bering land bridge, and according to several models, either along the coast or through a ice-free zone down through what is now Canada.

If Aztlán has a connotation of whiteness, and it is mentioned as being in the far north, could this not have some weight: We came from the far north where it is white. The Arctic traverse.

I do not wish to disrespect the notion of Aztlán being in former Mexican territory, but it seems to me that the legend has a strong possibility of being connected with a very vivid memory of the experience of walking along glaciers, no?

Interesting thought. My major concern is that the crossing of the Bering Straight was at least 10,000 years earlier, an awfully long time to retain such an event. My 2¢, Madman 15:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That would contradict the stories about the mexica (aztec) living there under the ruling of the Azteca Chicomostoca. Actaully most considered now just a mythical place, posible a reelaboration of the myth of Tamoanchan. Nanahuatzin 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Aztlan

The article states that the term Aztlan was used by activists in the 60's to refer to the southwestern portion of the United States. This is an opinion. Aztlan as refered to in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan - was written similar to a poetic verse. In fact the portions of El Plan mention that Aztlan is the people - the people are Aztlan. The idea of Aztlan as used by writers of El Plan were spiritual moreso than an actual reference. The search for Aztlan - was the search for the people - a search for identity in a world of confusion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.192.48.79 (talk • contribs).

• All the article says is "the name Aztlán was taken up by Chicano activists of the 1960s and 1970s to refer to the area of the Southwestern United States". Is this untrue?? Not in the least. It took me 5 minutes to find this, for example: THE ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF THE CHICANO MOVEMENT by Roberto Rodriguez. I have taken off the POV label and inserted the word "some" before "Chicano activists". Madman 04:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

American Patrol Promo: Aztlan

This link has a depiction of Aztlan in which it is taken out of the U.S., and THAT is what is ticking people off in the U.S. I'm in a extremely conservative area of the U.S. - Here, some preachers even consider Disney demonic, pro-liberal, because of "Environmentalist" movies such as Bambi and Finding Nemo, Political Correctness as Satanic, and purchasing lottery tickets as purchasing tickets for going to hell. One preacher I met considers BET and Disney AS Satanic and does not let his family see that filth, as he called it. Martial Law 07:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your link is bad ML.--Rockero 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to www.americanpatrol.com and on the left side of each link Glenn posts is a little pix. Some depict a map of Aztlan, among other pixes, such as one depicting Prez. Bush AS Pinnocchio, the wooden boy with the nose that grows when he lies. Martial Law 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the archived articles have the pix as well. Martial Law 20:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the bad link. The 'correct link is Glenn Claims that Aztlan will be taken out of SW US. Martial Law 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC) In case this does'nt work, go to Glenn Spencer, then to External links. Martial Law 00:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Accent on Aztlan?

Surely it is pandering to imperialism to include the accent on Aztlan, which entirely reflects the pronunciation of the conquistadores?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.136.90 (talk • contribs) 24 October 2006.

• Let's find a reference explaining why the accentless version should be preferred. Then we can summarize the argument without engaging in pushing a point of view or conducting original research. --Dystopos 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We have had the discussion countless times with many words. The conclusion we normally reach is that unless the accented spelling is the most accepted English spelling the accent goes. (In my view however the spelling should reflect neither spanish nor english langauge but the nahuatl language and it should be written "aztlān")Maunus 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean the Nahua wrote in Latin characters? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they still do.Maunus 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And all this time I thought they used glyphs. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a diffence between reflecting the pronunciation of a language and using the orthography/script of a language. The final a in aztlan is long in the nahuatl language, stress is on the first syllable. In the 16th century orthographies for nahuatl in latin characters were developed both by spanish missionaries and by n ativee nahuas who soon swapped their glyphic writing with roman characters. The only early orthography that distiguishes short and long vowels is that of Horacio Carochi and he used the macron (overlying bar) to show vowel length, and this is the reason that thee modern day latin script for nahuatl often shows vowel lentgh in this way. The reason spaniards write many nahuatl words it with an accent is that they don't have a distinction between long and short vowels and instead perceive the longer duration of the second syllable to be stress, which in spanish is marked by acute accent on the vowel. It seems that the policy on wikipedia is to not care about how words are actually pronounced in their original languages but that all languages should be written only with characters that exist in english, fair enough then we'll write it aztlan. I just personally think it's a bit lazy and disrespectful to the original languages, but consensus decides.Maunus 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, in principle I agree with you- where there exists a standardised orthography for some Mesoamerican indigenous language, and the term's currency in english prose is not otherwise very well established, then we should as far as possible observe the orthographic conventions of the original language (and not the conventions of the intermediary language, ie Spanish. Thus in the current scenario, the title would either be Aztlan or Aztlān, depending on whether or not this term is thought to be unambiguously well-enough established and recognised in english (and really, there'd only be a minority of Mesoamerican terms which are so widely-known and used in general english discourse to have taken on a standardised english spelling- I'm not sure aztlan is one of those). The current title (with accented vowel) reflects spanish orthography (ie neither english nor nahuatl), and so it would seem inconsistent to use it.--cjllw | TALK 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• So now that we've shared our points of view and conducted our original research, can anyone suggest the style guide or other best reference for preferring an Anglicized latinization to an Hispanicized one? Or better yet, a published discussion of various points of view if there are legitimately more than one? --Dystopos 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the original research (in the sense of some novel theory or claim introduced by a wikipedian) comes into it. Standard written english does not mark vowel length or stress with diacritics (other than poetically/archaically), standard spanish orthography does. "Aztlan" comes from Classical Nahuatl, not Spanish, and while I understand there's no universally-observed orthography for this, the one in which vowel length is indicated by a macron is a reasonably standard and widely-recognised one (see for eg SIL/Ethnologue on Nahuatl here. See also Nahuatl transcription and its attendant references.

Perhaps not quite the same thing, but a couple of guidelines from academic sources which explain general preferences for using Mayan orthographies in publications may be found in this note and this file (p.5 of the pdf doc). There are probably similar guideline statements for Nahuatl languages, perhaps Maunus is more familiar with these than I am.--cjllw | TALK 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Your reasoning makes perfect sense. I'm just trying to find a reference so that if the move is challenged we can point to something other than our own reasoning. The accented "Aztlán" appears (from my limited reading) to be the most common usage, so it is incumbent upon us to use a citation to claim that the common usage is not to be preferred. --Dystopos 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In any case, I propose that this article be moved to Aztlan (w/out accent) for the moment, since the spanish orthography would seem to be unwarranted. I'll do so in the next few days if there are no further objections.--cjllw | TALK 05:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A lie against Indigenous People everywhere.

WHat the hell deos that mean? it's in the In Fiction section. Vicco Lizcano 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

NPOV-section

"As of today, despite serious efforts of many scholars and activists, there is no evidence of the actual existence of Aztlán, never mind any proof of its specific location. Claims, unsupported by evidence, that Aztlán was situated in (what is currently known as) Arizona, Colorado or Utah seem to contradict a well-established consensus among scholars that these areas were inhabited by North American Indians who, as opposed to Aztecs, left enough artifacts in these areas to document their existence there. Also, North American Indians have specific names for the geographical areas and landmarks; those areas also figure into the tribal stories and history."

Has hostile tone, and makes claims that constitute original research. Please fix or we will have to remove it.--Cerejota 02:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hostile? To whom? And I don't see which part is supposed to be OR- statements to the effect that there's no convincing evidence that associates Aztlan with any particular, physical location would not be novel, or unciteable ones, for eg.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To political users of the term Atzlan: "despite serious efforts of many scholars and activists" and "unsupported by evidence" etc. This confuse several issues into one. Specifically, the political view of "Atzlan" as per the Chicano movement doesn't generally claim ancestral ownership, just that those areas were once part of Mexico. Some fringe new-age type groups, and some gangs do talk about this, but no one purporting to be serious students. The paragraph is a political attack disguised as scholarly response: you cannot answer a political assertion with a scholarly one in good faith - this is building an WP:OR strawman to then burn it. Apples and Oranges, my friend.--Cerejota 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that passage was specifically directed against the particular modern political recycling and adoption of the term by some, where its use is not meant to be taken as a literal claim to be associated with the Late Postclassic concept of the legendary aztlan, or as its physical location. Maybe it was thus intended; but there are as you note a range of other claims to have "found" the site of an historical aztlan, made by fringe enthusiasts, political opportunists, as well as a couple of more respectable sources. The article does need to mention that by the standards and consensus of research scholarship, such claims are speculative at best and there is no convincing evidence for any location. The brief statement to that effect now supplied by Maunus' edit should cover it for now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however it would be great if we could source it. My is intended to alert editors as to this want, not to question the validity of the statement as it is. I agree there is is no scholarly consensus. In fact, I personally think that this is just an ancestral myth, pretty much like all ancestral myths of pretty much all human cultures. However, I think we need to separate the contemporary political use from the anthropological investigative academic use.--Cerejota 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I supplied a reference from Michael Smiths "The Aztecs" it pretty much states that scholars have suggested anywhere form the state of Hidalgo to southwestern US, and others find it to be purely mythical - and that there is no agreement.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps since this contemporary political association does not really have all that much to do with the pre-Columbian concept, most of the detail in the section under 'Chicano Movement' could be moved to another article, such as Chicano Movement itself (which currently does not mention aztlan at all). Or, if used similarly by other groups as well, to a new article of its own. It's a bit like how other places can be described as an Eden, an El Dorado, or a Shangri-La — an attempt to evoke the mystery, romance and myth, without intending to imply it is the original.

The opening sentence of that section ("Due to the association of Aztlán with growing Mexican nationalism among Mexicans in the United States, and its northern location...") is not all that clear to me. I presume that by "northern location" it's referring to the traditions of Nahua migrations in which their ancestors are conceived of having wandered from somewhere to the north (of the valley of Mexico). But it could also be read as saying aztlan is to be associated with the Southwestern United States, mentioned afterwards. --cjllw ʘ TALK 12:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your suggestions, but not with the actions: I think the section is short enough that we do not have to move content, and definitely a mention must be done in this article of the use of the term in the Chicano movement, as it is usually how people outside of meso-american anthropology come to learn the term. Separating into a new page might be possible, however there is not currently enough content for this.

I have inteed put a {{main}} in there, and will rewrite the initial line to be clearer, basing myself on the information in Chicano movement.--Cerejota 05:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Maunus beat me to the rewrite... I think its a good one...:D.--Cerejota 05:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV-section 2

" Aztlán appears in the title of the 1968 manifesto issued by the radical Chicano youth movement that called for the liberation of that land from colonial occupation by the United States, even though Mexico "liberated" the same land from the Spaniards only 27 years before (and which Spaniards had liberated from native American Indians before that.)"

The "ironic" use of "liberation" is a clear, almost verbatim violation of WP:NPOV. I am removing the comment, and the tag I just put in.--Cerejota 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Stolen"

An anonymous editor persists in the POV assertion that the Mexican Cession was "stolen" by the U.S. rather than "taken", "acquired", or "purchased". Please discuss rather than just changing the gerund; I will not leave it as "stolen" without strong justification. Sketch051 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I support your change. As you pointed out, there are many other words that can be used and referenced with legitimate sources. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo documents the transfer of a quantifiable amount of surveyed and mapped lands, the Mexican citizens who lived on those lands, and a purchase price. Because the Mexican government agreed to the terms in the Treaty, albeit under duress, it would be hard to find a legitimate source which supports the claim that the land was “stolen”. --Chicaneo 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Look up "Mexican-American War" on Wikipedia -- if you don't think the territory was "stolen," you are on the side of the slaveholders in the debate. People like Abe Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, basically all the anti-slavery Whigs were against the war which they characterized as bullying, robbery, etc. Please do not go around trying to soften verbiage just because you can't stand the bloody truth. Joelrosenblum (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Use by Chicano movement (again)

This article is about the term Aztlan, and primarily about Aztlan as the (legendary?) homeland of the Aztec people. While it is certainly important to mention the present use of this term among the Chicano movement, this article is not about the Chicano movement itself. Discussion of whether members come from all walks of life or whether an organization is anti-Zionist don't belong in this article. That is, we need to focus on the use of this term by the movement and explain this use in simple and straightforward terms. Madman 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Madman (also FreeBSD), agreed that the Chicano movement angle is not significantly related to the primary meaning of this article, and that it really belongs in other articles devoted to those particular aspects. I support the moving of most of that material elsewhere, we only need a brief pointer to be left here to where those other topics can be more appropriately dealt with. Now, hopefully the article can concentrate on the original pre-Columbian significance of the concept, and not be distracted by differences in opinion about the Chicano movement in general.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I also suport moving the Chicano an other material. This must be concerned only in the lengend and the documental sources. Nanahuatzin 15:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we create an Aztlán (Nation) page for all of this nationalistic material about Aztlán? Then there would be no more confusion, and people wondering about the nationalist movement would be able to get their information. Thepiner (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Aztlán (Nation)

I'd like to propose the creation of an Aztlán (Nation) article. People go to the Aztlán and Nation of Aztlán articles and find references to, but nothing about the ideas behind a modern nation of Aztlán. One of the main arguments on these pages is about what to do with all this nationalistic material regarding Aztlán? The answer is simple, create an Aztlán (Nation) article that these articles need only refer to. Then there would be no more confusion, and people wondering about the nationalist movement would be able to get their information, and people wondering about the historical connotations won't get confused. I would like to co-write this article with whoever else is willing to if I get the support.

Thank you. Thepiner (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

At minimum, per MOS:CAPS, nation would not be capitalized. But if you're talking about a modern idea, I don't know if "nation" is the best descriptor. Perhaps "nationalist movement" would be a better idea; from what I know the idea exists but it's a matter of fleshing it out with reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Get some mentions of the aztlan ideas in reliable sources preferably printed ones. Then find a title that best expresses the contents of the article you want to create, I don't think "Aztlan (Nation)" will work because there is no such nation and it is highly unlikely that there ever will be one. (republic is worse since that even expresses something about the kind of government the non existing state doesn't have). Something like "proposed nation" might be better for Neutrality. But line up the sources first - the ones you had before were not good enough - line them up - then we can talk. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My familiarity with the concept comes from The Long Emergency, which could possibly be mined for sources. I may have read about it in 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus as well. Google books has some sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)