"The original founding
families of Culver City,
California, for
example were the Talamantes and Avila
from
Aguascalientes... probably related to some
people in the group".
Yes Arturo,
There is a Talamantes from Taltenango (where is
that? I can't find it in a map) in my husband's lines in the Jalisco records,
but his son did not take on his surname. He took on his mother's surname,
Cervantes. Do you think he did that because his Talamantes father was
indigenous (his father's mother was surnamed Diegina), and it would
bode him better if he were known as a Cervantes? Especially if he looked
espanol as my husband does? I notice that trend (to take the mother's
surname) among the children of many Espanolas who married Indian men with
or without surnames. Their races were not noted since this was in 1839 in
Encarnacion de Diaz.
Emilie Garcia
Port Orchard, WA --
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:24
AM
Subject: [ranchos] Re: Mexican
Border
Ed/Angie:
Whatever the political status of the
American Southwest was
throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, it was if not
indigenous in
identity, certainly Mexican. Most of the settlers in
the area were
not Spaniards, as a lot of Anglo revisionist historians like
to
purport by glorifying the missions, etc., but Mexicans... Tlaxacaltec
colonizers in New Mexico, immigrants from Sonora, Chihuahua,
Aguascalientes, etc... The original founding families of Culver City,
California, for example were the Talamantes and Avila from
Aguascalientes... probably related to some people in the group.
The
following book is very well researched and provides a whole new
insight
into the attempted "de-Mexicanization" of Los Angeles. A
very good
read.
Whitewashed Adobe : The Rise of Los Angeles and the Remaking of
Its
Mexican Past
by William Deverell
Review:
Chronicling
the rise of Los Angeles through shifting ideas of race
and ethnicity,
William Deverell offers a unique perspective on how
the city grew and
changed. Whitewashed Adobe considers six different
developments in the
history of the city--including the cementing of
the Los Angeles River, the
outbreak of bubonic plague in 1924, and
the evolution of America's largest
brickyard in the 1920s. In an
absorbing narrative supported by a number of
previously unpublished
period photographs, Deverell shows how a city that
was once part of
Mexico itself came of age through appropriating--and even
obliterating--the region's connections to Mexican places and people.
Deverell portrays Los Angeles during the 1850s as a city seething
with
racial enmity due to the recent war with Mexico. He explains
how, within a
generation, the city's business interests, looking for
a commercially
viable way to establish urban identity, borrowed
Mexican cultural
traditions and put on a carnival called La Fiesta de
Los Angeles. He
analyzes the subtle ways in which ethnicity came to
bear on efforts to
corral the unpredictable Los Angeles River and
shows how the resident
Mexican population was put to work fashioning
the modern metropolis. He
discusses how Los Angeles responded to the
nation's last major outbreak of
bubonic plague and concludes by
considering the Mission Play, a famed
drama tied to regional
assumptions about history, progress, and ethnicity.
Taking all of
these elements into consideration, Whitewashed Adobe
uncovers an
urban identity--and the power structure that fostered it--with
far-
reaching implications for contemporary Los
Angeles.
--- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "aajay1073"
<aajay1073@y...> wrote:
>
> Ed,
>
> Sorry...I
have a tendecy to simplfy things and generalize... I
fully
>
understand what you mean.
>
> Thanks,
> Angie
>
> --- In ranchos@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Serros" <ed@s...>
wrote:
> >
> > Angie,
> >
> > As a point
of clarification, the independent country of Mexico
> owned much of the
> > Southwest for only a few decades (1810/1820 time frame to
~1848).
> Spain owned the
> > Southwest for centuries. The
only reason I bring this up is that
I
> hear the statement that
> > Mexico owned California all the time and I am not sure people
> remember the dates well or
> > fully understand the
entities involved.
> >
> >
> > Ed
>
>
>
|
