Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There was fairly little mixing between European settlers and the first peoples in what is today USA and Canada. There was extensive mixing in what is today Mexico (modern day: 65% Mestizo, 17.5% Amerindian, 16.5% White, 1% Black, Asian, or other, source: wiki: Mexico. Argentina had very little mixing (modern day: 97% European, 3% Mestizo, source: wiki: Argentina ).

Are there existing theories, literature?

Here are my rough ideas, (disclaimer: not backed up with research!)

Gender balance of settler community

If a settler community was considered a family destination (like the USA), then European men and women moved and had children with each other. Settler communities that were composed primarily of men would mate with women from the first peoples.

Religious conversion and development of new national identity

Shared religion and integration into a shared national community would make mating more likely. There was large-scale conversion to Catholicism among first peoples in Mexico. There was not large-scale conversion to the varieties of Christianity among first peoples in USA/Canada. Co-religionists would make more feasible mating partners. What is more, co-religionists could be more likely to develop a shared sense of national identity (e.g., as "Mexicans") than a people following very different religions. Having different senses of national identity would make people less likely to mate (e.g., in Canada and USA).

share|improve this question
1  
Jack Rakove explains it fairly well in his free lecture series. Spanish settlement was based on extraction of resources and ownership of people. English settlement was based on ownership of land and long term growth. The French had different notions. –  Mark C. Wallace May 8 at 12:04
1  
You could test your second theory by comparing mixing among the French (who mixed culturally and religiously) and the Spanish (who only mixed religiously). –  Mark C. Wallace May 8 at 12:07
    
@MarkC.Wallace Thanks for the link. (Obviously, I still have a long way to go.) Inter-colonial comparisons aren't enough considering the difference between Mexico and Argentina. Any broad theory would need at least some other variable to explain Mexico/Argentina divergence. –  jabberwocky May 8 at 12:24
1  
It might help to compare populations and demographics over time, to see the roots of the segregation or integration. But I think the main point will be settlement versus extraction, with gender balance a big symptom of that. Those who wanted to settle brought wives or daughters. The most interesting analysis would be comparing mitochondrial and Y DNA of the various populations. If a place like Mexico or Puerto Rico had lots of European fathers and non-European mothers, you'd be able to trace that with haplogroups and Y types. –  NL7 May 8 at 14:11
1  
The dividing line is not nearly so sharp as you suggest. –  litlnemo May 10 at 6:53

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.