Early Spanish settlers were not inclined to mix with natives.

[B01AB20]

Researchers find that the first Spanish settlements in Mexico were multi-ethnic, but segregated.

Campeche was one of the first Spanish settlements in Mexico. This important port was founded in Yucatan in 1540, just two decades after Hernán Cortés' troops conquered the Aztec Empire. And little by little the enclave was growing. First some houses, then a church, later a colonial cemetery...

In just over a century, the church gave way to an imposing cathedral in 1680. The city was already fortified at that time, to face the constant attacks of pirates. Military architecture next to a walled historic district and Baroque style buildings.


It was also around 1680 when the first cemetery ceased to be used, which spent 300 years forgotten underground. Until in 2000 archaeologists rediscovered both the parish and the cemetery with up to 129 early colonial burials.

To study the remains, the researchers decided to extract DNA samples, but failed. The techniques of the time were not effective enough. But the latest advances have changed the landscape and experts at Harvard University have managed to collect genetic data from up to 10 individuals from this important site.

Their surprise when analyzing the results, as explained in an article published in the journal Antiquity, was that, although Campeche was a multi-ethnic place since its inception, the different indigenous populations, European and sub-Saharan African apparently did not mix with each other.

"We expected to find individuals with mixed genetic ancestry. However, our analysis found no evidence of this," says Dr. Jakob Sedig, "This seems to indicate that, although they were buried together, the different groups maintained some degree of separation in life," he adds.


There were six women and four men and none of them were close relatives. Most were local Native Americans, but people of European and sub-Saharan African descent were also identified. What there was was no evidence that people from different backgrounds had children together, which points to the segregation of these groups.



https://www.lavanguardia.com/cultura...pio-tanto.html
article in spanish.

So, early spanish settlers were pretty 'racist' and they were not prone to mix with natives or blacks, the unexpected conclusion.

[Tooting Carmen]

I thought it was the opposite: early Spanish settlers were mostly single men who married natives and Blacks en masse, but a combination of growing immigration from the Peninsula (including of women) and the rise of scientific racism gradually led to a reduction in such relationships.

[B01AB20]

I thought it was the opposite: early Spanish settlers were mostly single men who married natives and Blacks en masse, but a combination of growing immigration from the Peninsula (including of women) and the rise of scientific racism gradually led to a reduction in such relationships.

The logical conclusion is that were conquistadors the ones who, for necessity and political strategy as they were vastly outnumbered by natives, mixed with them.

The spanish settlers who came after them had other different politics regarding race mixing.

[Tooting Carmen]

The logical conclusion is that were conquistadors the ones who, for necessity and political strategy as they were vastly outnumbered by natives, mixed with them.

The spanish settlers who came after them had other different politics regarding race mixing.

Oh OK. So by 'early settlers' you mean migrants rather than the original conquerors?

[B01AB20]

Oh OK. So by 'early settlers' you mean migrants rather than the original conquerors?

Yeah, Conquistadors conquered, it's was a more or less intense but short period.
After that, settlers came to settle. A different story.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yeah, Conquistadors conquered, it's was a more or less intense but short period.
After that, settlers came to settle. A different story.

Even taking into account the casta system and so forth, I still don't think the Spaniards were quite so hostile towards miscegenation as the British, Dutch and possibly French clearly were. After all, nowhere in the Spanish-speaking world developed an outright Apartheid system in the Southern US or South African sense.

[B01AB20]

Even taking into account the casta system and so forth, I still don't think the Spaniards were quite so hostile towards miscegenation as the British, Dutch and possibly French clearly were. After all, nowhere in the Spanish-speaking world developed an outright Apartheid system in the Southern US or South African sense.

Yeah, so it seems.
But we don't know the whole story and it's not like we thought it was as this discovery shows.

[Cristiano viejo]

Even taking into account the casta system and so forth, I still don't think the Spaniards were quite so hostile towards miscegenation as the British, Dutch and possibly French clearly were. After all, nowhere in the Spanish-speaking world developed an outright Apartheid system in the Southern US or South African sense.

Spanish empire lasted 400 years while Jim Crow Southern USA and Apartheid just a very few decades, you can not compare.

Afrikaaners and Southern Americans are all mixed, mainly the first.

[Tooting Carmen]

Spanish empire lasted 400 years while Jim Crow Southern USA and Apartheid just a very few decades, you can not compare.

Afrikaaners and Southern Americans are all mixed, mainly the first.

But the latter two examples largely developed out of practices already in place to some extent during the British and Dutch Empires and essentially formalised and strengthened them.

[Cristiano viejo]

But the latter two examples largely developed out of practices already in place to some extent during the British and Dutch Empires and essentially formalised and strengthened them.

Yet they lasted infinitely less than the Spanish empire. Let see if when these ethnic groups turn 400 years old there is something left of them. I doubt it. Well, I am super sure.