Talk:Tejanos

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tejano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102074700/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/HHBindex.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415073050/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/15/album1.html to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/15/album1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140415073401/http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/16/album1.html to http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Hhb/16/album1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007045056/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/92.4/guglielmo.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fjah%2F92.4%2Fguglielmo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tejano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509184531/http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/tejanoorigins.htm to http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/tejanoorigins.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107221247/http://www.texastejano.com/Webpages.asp?Wpid=34 to http://www.texastejano.com/Webpages.asp?Wpid=34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Language Use in the Lower Rio Grande Valley

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and was thinking about writing an article that covers Spanish Language Use in the Rio Grande Valley. However, I noticed this page and [[1]]. My goal was to try and get something a little bit like [Language in the Phillipines]. What are your thoughts? Joshua 00:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Spanish Creoles

@Aearthrise: Can you explain why are changing the definition of Tejanos to "Spanish Creoles"? Sources seem to commonly define Tejanos as either Texans of Mexican descent,[2][3][4] or Texans who are descended from the original Spanish/Mexican settlers of Texas before it was annexed into the United States.[5][6][7] The term "Spanish Creole" doesn't seem to be a very common term in reference to this group. The book you cite defines them as "Mexican Texans" on Page 1,[8] and it doesn't contain the term "Spanish Creole". They are not necessarily criollos as your link to that page suggests, as sources indicate that they can also be mestizos. [9][10] It seems like you are engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Gardeka (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Gardeka.

Under "Texas Creoles," we see definitions that pertain to the original Tejanos (known as Creoles), which included people of African and European heritage, and mixed peoples. Sources below show this of meaning Creole:

Andrew Delbanco (2019). The War Before the War Fugitive Slaves and the Struggle for America's Soul from the Revolution to the Civil War. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 190.

"One man's anarchy was another man's liberty, and Texas, to the latter, looked like the place to be. It was only a matter of time before conflict broke out between the newcomers and those who had preceeded them- Spanish Creoles as well as indigenous Indians who allied with one side or the other or tried to stay neutral. By 1835, sporadic fighting had turned into organized warfare. From the point of view of white English-speaking Texans and their advocates in the United States, the conflicts with Tejanos was a glorious reprise to America's own war of independence..."

Phillip Thomas Tucker (2014). Emily D. West and the "Yellow Rose of Texas" Myth. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 100.

"Generations of free blacks, born in both Mexico and Texas, had called Tejas home- hence they were essentially not only black Creoles but also black Tejanos..."

The wikilink in your response above points to the top of the criollo article. The top of the article only emphazises the racialized criollo definition of Central and South America.

However, if you look at the Creole wikilink redirect in the lede, it points to the specific definition of Creole in the United States "Criollo people#In the United States". This is the definition of "Spanish Creole" used in the lede, and encompasses the following groups: Louisiana Creoles, Floridian Creoles (Floridanos), Californian Creoles (Californios), and Texan Creoles (Tejanos).

I see now through other sources, that Spanish Creoles and Mestizos also had a similar distinction to how French Creoles and Méstis (mixed French Indian) were different:

Gary Clayton Anderson (2019). The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, 1820–1875. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 5, 33, 35

"Yet the United States, which Texas ultimately joined, had adopted a constitution that offerred some protection to people of color like those encountered in Texas. Even in southern states such as Louisiana, Spanish and French Creoles had basic civil rights."

"This sense of a Texan identity expanded after Mexico gained its independence in 1821. During Mexico's early development- one dominated by divisive discord- Tejanos generally enjoyed excellent relations with nearby Anglos in Louisiana; much of the commerce that originated in Texas was tied to New Orleans or other northern gulf ports. Many Creole Tejanos from northeastern Texas in particular had much more in common with Louisiana than with Mexico."

"Though all increasingly called themselves Tejanos, in reality, distinctions based on a Tejano's politics, his birth, and his blood defined and separated the Tejano community into various factions."

The author offers a more specific "Creole" Tejano meaning, and calls them "Elite Tejanos", and showed more urban tendancies:

"Generally old-line Creole families being of Spanish blood mostly but having occasionally intermarried with early French settlers or Indians."

"The majority of the elite Tejanos lived in and about Mexican towns, such as San Antonio, Goliad, and Nacogdoches."

The author also contrasts the Elite Tejano and Mestizo cultures:

"The majority, especially those in the Nueces River valley and north of it, were mestizos (or mixed-bloods), with origins in Mexican Indian society."

I shall readd the mestizo, mixed Spanish Indian definition to the top, because they did indeed form a faction within the Tejanos, distinct to Creole, which indicated either more elite upbringing, or old-world blood. Aearthrise (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

edit warring

Carlstak and Aearthrise, I've protected, but please discuss with the IP; their point is not invalid. Valereee (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The IP is misinformed. I'm part Cherokee, and I have Native relatives who all call themselves "Indians". I don't know this person's ethnicity, but it's typically white people with no Indian ancestry and who don't actually know any Indians, who insist so vehemently that "Indians" is incorrect to use as a demonym for Natives of the Americas. They make bold to speak on behalf of Native peoples with no regard for how Indians themselves feel. In such a case, it's just another instance of "the white man knows best" syndrome, trying to deprive Indians of self-determination.

In an editorial published in Native Times titled "Native American vs. American Indian: Political correctness dishonors traditional chiefs of old", The Native Sun News Editorial Board writes:

"That sad part of this entire fiasco is that so many of the so-called "elitist Indians" have allowed themselves to be bullied into using the name "Native Americans" and even "Native" by a white media that seems to have set the agenda for what we should be called.

So if you travel to any Indian reservation out west you will soon discover that nearly all of the indigenous people refer to themselves as "Indian", especially the elders who are still fluent in their Indian language."

Peter d'Errico, Professor Emeritus of Legal Studies at University of Massachusetts has written:

"Native American" is a phrase coined in the liberal years of the 1960s to replace "Indian" with a supposedly more appropriate term. Regardless of the intent, the term is no more appropriate than its predecessor. "America" is derived from Amerigo Vespucci, a 16th century Italian navigator who was once said to be the "discoverer" of the continent. How can the people who were already here be named with his name?"

We have The National Congress of American Indians and the online news platform Indian Country Today, "The voice of Indigenous people throughout the Americas".

The Smithsonian Institution has its National Museum of the American Indian.

I can name many more examples. Carlstak (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying discuss rather than reverting. The fact you believe you are right is not an excuse for edit warring. The discussion belongs here, not in the edit summaries. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems odd. I reverted an edit made by an IP with no prior editing history who has made three reverts counting their initial change of text added by Aearthrise, and announced their intention to keep edit-warring before you intervened. Did you read what I wrote? I am the only person here actually discussing the issue. I've produced Native sources that support the use of "Indian", and an academic source that addresses this directly.

The IP, whose viewpoint you seem to favor, has produced nada and is not participating in the discussion as you requested, but had plenty to say in their edit summaries that indicated a battleground mentality. All I said in the edsum of my single edit was "Not so. Many "Native Americans" prefer to call themselves "Indians". Now here I am, the only person contributing to the discussion, and actually engaged with sources to support my position. Carlstak (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't favor any viewpoint. I favor opening discussions when reverting. If the other person never shows up at the talk, you've done your best. If they revert again once protection ends in a few hours without coming in here to discuss, ping me and I'll p-block the IP from the article. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but your page protection preserves the IP's preferred version, so they're not likely to revert once the protection ends. If I or Aearthrise revert back to the version actually supported by sources, we're edit-warring. At this point the IP seems to have the single-purpose of making this change, and does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. Carlstak (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which version was protected. That doesn't make it somehow the right version, and you're free to revert once protection ends. What I meant is if the IP reverts again without coming in here first to discuss, they can be p-blocked to try to get them to the talk.

I don't agree that it's clearly a NOTHERE situation; looks to me more like a RGW, which isn't necessarily problematic all by itself and may simply be an education issue. Valereee (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Carlstak (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, sometimes it's hard to make sure you're communicating accurately in text. :) Valereee (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Although page protection has been lifted, I'm leaving the page as is because on second thought I think it's clearer. I see that the edit-warring IP with no interest in using the talk page has made no other edits. I think that tells us everything we need to know about this person. Carlstak (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)