To be a nationalist is to support world nationalism, which means that whether black or white or other, any group that endorses nationalism is your ally. (If European nationalists realized this, they would transform themselves from angry groups of people who hate negroes into a legitimate political movement.)
While I am in favor of "Mexican" nationalism, and I support the Aztlan movement, I think it's take to take a critical look at their claims. First, I want to analyze what it is to be Mexican, or rather, the pluralities of Mexican, and next, I want to look at a reasonable claim for these folks toward land and nation.
Mexico is a modern invention. The name is old, but the nation-state is new. Formed from remnants of Spanish and French colonial empires, the modern Mexican state is composed of people of European descent, people of mostly Aztec descent, people of mostly Mayan descent, people of African descent, and then, as the majority of the people, those who are primarily derived from the slave populations of the Aztec and Maya, mixed with random proportions of the above groups.
When we talk about Mexican nationalism, and as a non-Mexican, I'm doing so purely conjecturally, it makes sense to realize that Mexico's only legitimate claim has been to the area south of the Rio Grande. Anything north of that was Spanish or French colonization of areas that belonged to North American Indians, and before that, to groups of people like Solutreans, who came from France to colonize the new world before the Asiatic flood that composed the base of modern Indians. In fact, Indians as known in North America are by definition hybrids of Caucasoid, Asiatic and in some cases, other elements.
When the Aztlan movement wants to claim California, Texas, New Mexico etc as their land, they are forgetting that the Mexican colonization of that land occurred after it was unified as political territories by Europeans, and was mostly by people of Spanish descent. While it makes sense to me to create Aztlan, or a homeland for the descendants of the true rulers of Mexico, e.g. the Aztecs, it is illogical to extend this to territory that was politically claimed but never occupied by Mexico.
It makes sense to separate Mexicans by their root nationality. Why not an Aztec empire, and a Mayan one? Send the European-blood Mexicans north. There should be a restoration of one of the greatest cultures the world has ever known, the Aztecs, by allowing them separation and self-rule so they can practice their traditional forms of eugenics, which were rigorous and during the healthy days of the Aztecs - years before a small band of Europeans allied their slaves against them and destroyed them - ensured a high quality of population. The Maya had similar beliefs and techniques.
However, the restoration of Aztec and Mayan culture is not served well by making claims to vestiges of modern Mexico, e.g. lands north of the Rio Grande. Even when these were politically "Mexican" territories, they were not primarily settled by Mexicans, nor were they effectively ruled by Mexico. Mexican nationalists claiming North American land is like Texans claiming Canada: it just doesn't make sense.
That small matter aside, I suggest to all nationalists that they support the Aztlan movement and support Aztec independence, as the Aztecs and Maya were powerful and beautiful ancient cultures whose values are worthy of study for all.
December 16, 2005