Talk:Chicano

Redirects

I don't think the Mexican-American page should redirect automatically to the Chicano page - the two terms are not entirely synonymous. Perhaps a separate page should be made for Mexican-American, as in the case of Hispanic American and Latino. Just my two cents.

- AvestanHamster 23:02, 6 September 2004

Etymology

The name Chicano is not entirely related to a Mexico-American people.

A theory states that after the colonization of the Spanish Empire, many Indians lost their tribal identity and some how became to work for the Acendados (land owner) who would keep them Adoctrinados, as they call them Christian domesticated, therefore with the help of the Catholic Church these Indians lost part of the tribal identity to become repressed by the Spanish Colonist. After the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty(1948), this people were know to be Mexicans since it they were Mexicans after the Independence of Mexico in early 1800's, but with the only difference that they had a strong feeling of alienation, since there was no strong support from the central Mexican government, when they were invaded by the Anglo Colonies and many of them felt that defending the territory was not going to help them since they had little representation from the central Mexican government and their luck was not going to change because they would still repressed under different government. Chicanos therefore are not really Mexicans or of Mexican decent, they are Native Americans that had lost touch with their original tribal right and customs. No all Chicanos feel that the world "Chicano" is offensive for the contrary they embrace this word as they embrace their right to be recognize as the original people of this land, without an Indian tribal name who stands for them. They recognize that they lost a battle and that their territory is occupied as most of it from Alaska to Brazil, because "We are were from different tribes, but only one people" "People of Bronze".

http://www.azteca.net/aztec/chicano.html

- 12.202.159.143, 14:22, 17 March 2005

Hello,

I'm coming in here rather late, I believe, but since discussion are never ending, one can say I'm in time. The word Chicano has its roots in the tribes that existed long before the Spaniard and English colonization of what they refer to the Americas. I place an addition to the etymology of the word as follows;

The word comes from the word Mexica (pronounce Me-ji-ca or Me-chi-ca) and the language of Mexicano. So that Chicano/a or Xicano/a is a descendent of the Mexica culture.

Although it has been edited already in the last 10 minutes I placed it. I'm not sure why it was move from the Etymology to the Societal and Cultural Aspects section since it would be wrong to deny the roots of the word under the heading of etymology.

I've provided a source, which the other entries have fail to do so. Maybe an extensive discussion must be generated on this since what has been given so far is not sufficient whatsoever. And please provide solid sources such as primaries and I will provide my own as well given the time.

Saludos, Best, and Salam Alay kum,

Marcelino 18:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the definition that Marcelino provided because the link was to a webpage that seemed more interested in advancing a specific cultural statement. I moved initially to culture, but then to the etymolgy section.

Marcellino, by your own admission you came late to the discussion. I made the move primarily because you put your line at the very beginning of the article. evrik 20:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. After reviewing the history on the page I find that other users need to be talk to. I've also sent them some questions on some of the older edits done.

But I really appreciate the return answer on this, thanks! I will post any replies on the other questions as soon as I receive them.

I really believe that a lot work is still needed on the term since its very important, for it implies a movement to recover the lost history of a civilization that still toils along with others in this country of USA. I know I might sound really really vague but as I said as soon as I get some answers on the edits done I will post more on the developing this inspiring word.

Saludos, Best, and Salam Alay kum,Marcelino 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "Chicana/o" does not only include Mexican-Americans although is an evolving term that includes all who believe in "la causa" no matter what race or ethnicity you might be. Personally, I view it as a political term that embraces the Plan de Aztlan as its philosophy an individual that is social conscious and culturally and poltically aware.

-Nathalie (157.242.213.58, 23:28, 11 October 2005)

Grammar

Chicano/as

I got this note:

I noticed that you changed "Chicano/as" in the same article to simply "Chicano". The "slash-as" was intentional. It indicates that the term refers to both males and females. It wouldn't be necessary in English, since our nouns do not indicate gender, but in Spanish, the suffix "-o" denotes a masculine. So in order that readers, especially those conversant in Spanish, will know that the discussion of both genders, the suffix "-as" was also included. I agree that the grammar and wording was a bit sloppy, so I'll try to clean it up, but I'm going to add the suffix back in. The article needs some major work anyways, so if you'd like to collaborate, I'd be glad to work with you. Please feel free to make your thoughts about changes to the article known on the article's talk page.--Rockero420 23:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing to this page for a while now. I just wanted to state that I don't like the term chicano/a, chicano/a, chican@, or any of the other variations. I have been editing them out of the page for several months now. Does anyone have a serious problem with that? evrik 19:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

User 68.127.82.160 added a large paragraph at the end of the article, which I've cut because it appears to be lifted from some MEChA literature as seen on these websites: [1], [2], etc. ←Hob 04:02, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

Seems fair for the deletion. I was the one who added the parenthetical sentence about how "mexica/mechica" means "barbarians." I've always considered the Mexican obsession with the Aztecs to be somewhat curious, considering what bloodthirsty assholes the Aztecs themselves were; the Spanish conquest was facilitated in large part by resentment against the folks in Tenochtitlan.--Slightlyslack 03:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the statement 'Aztlan was the dominant nation' to 'the Aztec empire was the dominant nation'. Calling that empire 'Aztlan' is somewhat like calling Greece 'Mount Olympus' or 'Atlantis'. If anything, the appropriate name would be 'Tenochca empire' or something like that. --Bletch 04:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- Your analogy is correct. The "Aztec Empire" was, at various times centered around the city-state Mexihco-Tenochtitlan and at other times, included the other city-states in the triple alliance. I have heard mesoamerican historians refer to it genereically as the "Mexi(h)ca Empire". --Pozole 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child, someone told me (I'm thinking my mother) that Chicano came from the Apache. He couldn't say Mejicano(Mexicano). It came out Mechicano. Then it was just shorten to chicano. Since there was no love lost between the two; chicano was used to refer to a *&^%$dirty low life. --Cypriano 19:58, 25 February 2005

Vatos and lowriders

I have deleted

But unfortunately chicanos are classified and stereotype as "gangsters" and the style differs from the average "Mexican" from Mexico. The mexicans from Mexico are normally categorized as "Border brothers" with their cowboyish dress attire and unique style of music where as the chicano dress attire and style are "Lowriders" and gang affliation vato locos form the surenos or nortenos.

This is, in a word, tontería. Yes, there's a kernel of an idea here, as well as some accurate observations, but in its present form it says nothing — certainly nothing I would want to build an article on. The article as a whole needs to be cleaned up to meet wiki standards. -24.126.41.116 19:58, 4 March 2005

"'Border brothers'" with their cowboyish dress attire'? Yes, in the north of Mexico, some people dress in cowboyish attire... But that's only in a handful of states. I agree with the above comment, and will delete the reverted "vandalism", too. --Deepstratagem 06:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Chicanos

I am adding Sandra Cisneros to the list of notable Chicanas. -Drogue 00:59, 10 August 2005

Sources

I believe we should look into other sources available in the Wikipedia realm but also Primary sources that can be found within textbooks of archeology, history, and the sort. I also believe we must constantly be citing those sources on each of the entries, not only because Wikipedia asks for it but because its essential for the development of the knowledge base that can be derived from each of various entries found throughout the Wikipedia realm.

A good example is the following wiki page for Aztecs. Check out their Discussion board. Very detail and precise.

thanks and keep on editing, Marcelino 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date

The article says the name dates from the early 19th century. This seems improbable to me. Does anyone have documentation of this? It probably was from the early 20th century, i.e. the early 1900's. --Lavintzin 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. After the treaties of Guadlupe Hidalgo in 1848 there were about 75,000 mexicans left in the territory but they were not refered as chicanos. The oldest reference to the word, that i have find comes from 1920 acording to a study by Tino Villanueva. (Tino Villanueva, Chicanos (selección), Lecturas Mexicanas, número 889, FCE/SEP, México, 1985, p. 7.) . The problem is that the word has now a full ideologic load that bring a lot of new meaning to the word. Nanahuatzin 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I think the date was incorrectly stated and was really intended to be early 1900s or 20th century. I think the writer confused the proper usage of time. Marcelino 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not Synonymous: Mexican-American and Chicano.

The word Chicano may have been by used by Anglo-Americans to describe poor farm-workers who crossed the Southern U.S. border in look for work, but that doesn't mean that all Mexican Americans fit that description. Additionally, the word is used almost exclusively by Chicanos as an expression of identity. It separates them from Anglo-Americans and it separates them from traditional Mexican nationals. It has been said that Chicanos exist in the space occupied by the hyphen in Mexican-American.

Additionally, the term Mexican-American is redundant, as most people from the Americas consider themselves geographically American (of the American continent; see Use_of_the_word_American). So there's already a problem with that term.

Finally, Chicanos are either political activists (rights for Mexican-American farm workers, illegal immigrants) or they simply do not identify with Mexicans, Mexican-Americans or even Americans (except in the geographical sense of "the Americas").

Therefore, Chicanos != Mexican-Americans. This is why I reverted J. R. Hercules' edits. If you can point out something I missed, I'll be glad to concede appropriate changes, otherwise, I feel you are doing a disservice to everyone by attaching the wrong meaning to already somewhat misunderstood terms. --Deepstratagem 08:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are problems with the article. One of the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject La Raza is to clean up Mexican-American/Chicano-related articles, and this one is on the block for a major rewrite. Some of your specific contentions are valid and some are not. So please don't be surprised or offended if your edits are changed when the rewrite occurs. We will try to take everyone's concerns into account.--Rockero420 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't know there was a project overseeing these topics, and I'll be glad to make changes in a more agreeable and constructive way, now that I know others are working on it. --Deepstratagem 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit back to the traditional, commonly-understood definition of Chicano, and added a reference to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Basically, the definition Deepstratagem tried to pass off would garner horselaughs from just any college professor of ethnic studies. If he wants to elaborate on the various obscure controversies surrounding the word Chicano, that's fine. But any encyclopedia worth its salt has to first be grounded in the commonly-understood meaning of terms and events.J.R. Hercules 19:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert your edit, but please understand that saying a Mexican-American is a Chicano is like saying an American is a Southerner. I also cited my source - the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Have you considered Merriam-Webster online may be inaccurate or outdated?

I further refined the definition of Chicano to make it more specific.70.111.30.235 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]