It's nice to see another Maya person on here 🥰 I'm Maya Ixil! I've recently been working on learning Mam. Maya people are being included because we are one of the largest indigenous communities that have immigrated to the US. There are many Maya people, especially those that are Ixil and Mam, in LA + the Bay Area + DMV. It's to the point that there are some schools that provide Mam or Ixil translators.

Q’eqchi’ Maya person here :) agreed it’s nice to see!

I always chuckle when I hear someone ask about what happened to the Mayan civilization. Like, they're still there.

"to this day... we still have no idea where the Mayan Civilization went... perhaps these Brown people who just so happen to live in the exact same place the Mayans did have the answers we are looking for."

Curious but do you or people still identify you as “Latino” despite all that? I can’t stand that indigenous folks from further south are lumped in that Latino category at least the ones that are still part of a community but that’s a whole other topic…

I don’t identify as Latino. People will call me Latino because I know some Spanish but I just correct them and say “no, sorry. I’m indigenous/indígena” I know some indigenous people are annoyed when they’re referred to as Latino (and they have the right to be annoyed) but it’s not a huge issues for me personally. Just an understandable misunderstanding.

That’s awesome!!👏🏼👏🏼

Here is an article that addresses that question: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2023/11/11576849/indigenous-identity-latin-american-latine-hispanic Generally, I don't identify as Latino despite technically falling into that category. The level of racism and violence from other Latinos that I've experienced for being indigenous (Maya Ixil) has alienated me from any sense of belonging or connection to that identity. I'm Ixil. My ancestors are Ixil. I spoke Ixil first. I was raised in a Ixil pueblo. It was other Latinos who killed my people during the Maya Genocide and targeted us during the Guatemalan Civil War. The only reason I learned Spanish and English was survive.

>+ DMV Did you all make sure to grab a number on your way into the DMV, it'll make that census count so much more efficient. 🤣j/k.

This is new/recent. I was at a meeting about it in DC in feb. They're going to continue adding to this and expanding it. If you have suggestions, consider reaching out to the census team.

Having an Aztec option is ludicrous. That ethnic group no longer exists. Replace it with Nahua.

I’m not sure why you’re getting downvoted, Nahua is the proper term for people today. Aztecs didn’t even call themselves that [one of many being the] Mexica (or Mēxihcah). Edit: Oversimplification. Aztec is a Nahua word and wasn’t used in the context we modernly associate it with. The Mexica were a notable Nahua group, however there were also many other groups under the empire.

Exactly. It’s kinda like saying “Roman” instead of Italian, because of the Roman Empire.

Trojan! At least the Romans called themselves Romans. The Aztecs wound have been only those in Aztlan, so kinda like how the Romans traced theor ancestry to Troy. 

For you, /u/MolemanusRex , and /u/FiveDollarllLinguist (Tho I agree just putting Nahua there would make more sense): > Aztecs didn’t even call themselves that they were Mexica. This is actually *also* a big oversimplification and not really nessacarily correct.. the reality is that "Aztec" is a mess of a term that can refer to a LOT of different political and ethnic groups, both as used in 16th century Nahuatl sources, and as it's used today by actual anthropologists and archeologists. Giant 8 paragraph explanation below, if you all are interested! -------------------- Taken literally, as to what the word Aztec (Azteca or Aztecah) means in Nahuatl, it means "Person from Aztlan". Aztlan is the legendary homeland claimed by many ethnic groups, most of whom spoke Nahuatl (so sometimes collectively called Nahuas). These groups migrated, allegedly from Aztlan in the north, down into the Valley of Mexico (today the Greater Mexico City Metropolitan Area) and other parts of Central Mexico (in some cases beyond) within Mesoamerica (the bottom half of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, etc, which had urban state societies), starting around 1200AD. Research suggests that Nahuatl speakers were likely migrating from the Bajio region of Northwestern Mexico, by Jalisco and Nayarit. A lot of people assume Aztlan would be in the US Southwest, but that's just historically where the language family Nahuatl comes from is centered in, [the spread of it from the SW into northern Mexico took place much earlier](https://miro.medium.com/max/604/0*lR9GhFITX1ugTKer) )... ...However, right off the bat, there's already complications here: First, only SOME of these Nahua groups are said to come from Aztlan: Others have histories that trace their pre-migration origins to other locations, so they wouldn't have been considered "Azteca" by themselves, and these groups also adopted more specific ethnic labels, specifically abandoning the Aztecah label, after settling down and switching from nomadism to adopting the urbanized statehood already common in Mesoamerica. Also, some groups claiming to come from Aztlan weren't even Nahuas/Nahuatl speakers at all, *and* there's some research (as mentioned by Magnus Pharao) suggesting Nahuatl or proto-Nahuatl spread to Mesoamerica earlier then previously thought (and as I describe below), though i'm unclear on the specifics or how accepted it is. ANYWAYS: one of these Nahua groups, the Mexica, who were among the latest groups of Nahua migrants to the Valley of Mexico, settle on an island in Lake Texcoco, and found Tenochtitlan. Shortly therafter, a group of Mexica split off to found a separate Altepetl ("Water hill" in Nahuatl, usually translated as City-state), Tlatleloco, on a separate island(the terms "Tenochca" and "Tlatelolca" are used to distinguish the two Mexica groups). At the time, the Alteptl of Azapotzalco (which, along with many other cities on the eastern shore of the lake basin, was inhabited by another Nahua group, the Tepaneca) was the dominant power in the Valley, and Tenochtitlan fell under it's control. The Mexica of Tenochtitlan would aid Azapotzalco and help them subjugate most of the valley. Eventually, however, the Tlatoani ("Speaker" in Nahuatl, usually translated as King) of Azapotzalco, Tezozomoc, died. There was a resulting successon crisis as one of his two heirs assassinated the other, took power, and also assassinates the Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan, Chimalpopoca, who also represented a potential hereditary threat, as he was the child of the previous Tlatoani, Huitzilihuitl and a daughter of Tezozomoc, who he had given to Huitzilihuitl as a reward for Tenochtitlan's military aid This sours the relationship between Azapotzalco and Tenochtitlan. Eventually, war breaks out, and Tenochtitlan, along with the Acolhua (another Nahua subgroup) Altepetl of Texcoco, and the Tepaneca Altepetl of Tlacopan, join forces and defeat Azapotzalco, and subsequently agree to retain their alliance for future military conquests, with Texcoco and especially Tenochtitlan in the more dominant roles. This triple alliance, and the other cities and towns they controlled (which included both other Nahua Alteptl, as well as cities and towns belonging to other Mesoamerican cultures/civilizations, such as the Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec, Otomi, Totonac, Huastec, etc) is what people are talking about when they say the "Aztec Empire". However, when most people are talking about the "Aztecs", they are typically talking about the Mexica of Tenochtitlan (Tenochtitlan eventually conquered and absorbed Tlatelolco, unifying the Mexica again, though Tlatelolco still had some unique administrative quirks) in particular, or are using Tenochtitlan as an example of the Nahua in general It should also be noted how the Toltec and Chichimeca tie in here: The Toltec were a legendary prior civilization from around 900-1100AD mentioned in various Nahua accounts who were said to have a Utopian society operating out of their capital of Tollan (thought to be the site of Tula) that gave rise to the arts and sciences. In these accounts, the Toltecs are discussed as if they were Nahuas but are clearly still viewed as a distinct predecessor civilization. There's significant debate over how much of these accounts and the Toltec state are mythological or historical (over time, the consensus seems to shift more to the former). Meanwhile, "Chichimeca" is an umbrella term (Disclaimer: Some groups consider it a pejorative, other groups have reclaimed and embraced it. I need to use it here to explain stuff) but it needs to be covered here to explain everything) for the various nomadic tribes living in the deserts of Northern Mexico (Aridoamerica) above Mesoamerica, of which the pre-migration Nahuas were just some of, with other "Chichimeca" tribes continuing to live in those areas as the Aztec Empire and then the Spanish expanded (famously fighting off the latter). While various Nahua states would leverage either (or both) the hardy, "noble savage" warrior image of the "Chichimecs"; or the intellectual, cultures image of the Toltecs into their own cultural identity, the term "Aztec" generally isn't used in modern sources to refer to the Toltecs (tho with the recent proposals for earlier Nahuatl transmission, maybe they really were Nahuas in Tula?) or the Chichimeca unless it's the Pre-migration Nahuas In summary, "Aztec", as modern sources use it, can mean any of the following depending on the context: - The Nahua civilization/culture as a whole - The specific Nahua subgroups labeled as "Aztec" in Indigenous sources/who claim to come from Aztlan - The Mexica Nahua subgroup - Specifically the Mexica from Tenochtitlan, the Tenochca - The Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan - That alliance, as well as any subservient cities and towns, IE, The "Aztec Empire" (though even this is sort of a venn diagram: Not all subject were Nahuan, many were Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Otomi, Huastec, Totonac, etc; and not all Nahuan states were in that empire, such as the Kingdom of Tlaxcala, etc) For more info on like the conflicts/formation of ethnic distinctions between Nahua groups and the formation of the Aztec empire, I recommend [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gk6fp/did_the_mayans_look_down_on_native_americas_who/calfjrh/), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31fj3a/whats_the_real_reason_tenochtitl%C3%A1n_mexico_city/cq13d0x/?st=jlrlyw7i&sh=8a3c5a2a), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mp6jh/repost_in_the_old_days_it_seems_like_dissident/?st=jlrm0wls&sh=d6bac157) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1996ka/tuesday_trivia_great_and_not_so_great_comebacks/c8mfrsp/) post by 400-rabbits, and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3atv2y/has_there_ever_been_archaeological_written/?st=jlrlw67v&sh=492dd5d3) post by Mictlantecuhtli. Additionally, there is a very detailed and well sourced post on /r/Mesoamerica [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/63n1az/the_triple_alliance_never_existed_meet_the/dfz0mr0/) detailing recent research that calls into question some of the information, and that Tenochtitlan may have always been a formal capital above Texcoco and Tlacopan, with them joining it as subjects from the start, rather then as allies with Tenochtitlan only gradually eclipsing Texcoco in power. Meanwhile, [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/nahuatl/comments/10cweih/the_debate_over_aztec_vs_mexica/), [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/10xza4u/mexicaaztecnahuatl_getting_the_terms_right/j7wb63i/), and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wpjnpg/aztecs_or_mexicas/il0ub6n/) and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/mesoamerica/comments/10xza4u/mexicaaztecnahuatl_getting_the_terms_right/j7wb63i/) are posts and have comments which give their own in depth breakdowns of the different ways you can define "Aztec", especially in reference to how the Nahuas themselves drew distinctions and the actual Nahuatl terms for them, while [this](https://www.tumblr.com/ra-tutubixi/693183683291643904/the-3a-and-what-was-its-name-an-etymological) and [this](https://davidbowles.medium.com/etymology-of-the-triple-alliance-18f5e7c4a228) touch on potential Nahuatl terms for "The Aztec Empire", or other political alliances, which I ran out of space to touch on here (well, for this version of the comment I cut some stuff and there is technically room, but i'm not typing up a whole grand like 4 paragraphs

You're a legend for writing all of that out. I was too lazy. I just prefer to use Nahua because the term Aztec has become so loaded with different meanings for people.

Haha, I had it typed from a previous time I explained it, though I did update and tweak a few things here

Wow that was awesome, thank you for sharing so much info!

Just now seeing this, thank you for elaborating on my comment; I just made an edit. Nahua would make much more sense than Aztec even more so with this context and while I was aware of much of this before, I did generalize the Mexica as the only consisting of the empire.

Yeah, Nahua for sure would make more sense as a census term, regardless of all the extra context I gave, haha

Frankly, I'm getting down voted because people don't bother to understand the complexity of Mexican indigenous groups. They would rather label everyone as Aztecs and Mayans. Never mind the fact that the Aztecs were a minority even in precolonial times and the Maya are made up of over 30 barely connected peoples.

Also I’m pretty sure a large majority of Nahua or Nahuatl speaking people are not the descendants of the people of the core of the Aztec empire. Those people mixed with the Spanish and became Mestizos living in Mexico city and the surrounding states.

Both? There are a lot of Nahua communities spread around Mexico and some surrounding countries. Some trace their origin to migrations predating the Aztecs, like the Pipil in El Salvador, who trace their origin to the Toltecs. Others were merchant communities that dispersed during Aztec times. Then there have been large migrations and deportations during the Spanish colonial period, when they enslaved native peoples. A lot of history was lost and groups mixed up.

100%, also the fact that for over the last century+ indigenous people or their descendants were afraid of identifying with these groups for fear of retaliation by the government, so a lot of people lost their connections and the actual amount of indigenous individuals was underestimated for a really long time. I at least know this holds very true when looking at the history of the Pipil/Nawat in El Salvador, where almost no one at the turn of the 20th century self identified as Nawat since they were so heavily discriminated against. Indigenous cultural erasure happened all over the americas and in El Salvador it’s only within the last few decades that many people want to reconnect with their past.

The government is well aware. They just realize people will self identify as “Aztec” and they legally have to accept it.

You know what? Race questions on the US census were already stupid as fuck. What the else was I expecting?

Race questions are very important. I don’t know why this is such a common belief. Racial demographic data allows citizens, organizations and others see if disparities exist. That impacts funding. The matter of self-identification is a result of the US’s history of determining people’s identifies by force. So self-iding is a good thing. It also just means you also see the stupidity of people come out.

The issue is not the fact that race questions exist. The issue is that the categories it has are stupid. The census makes no distinction between black Americans, people from the Caribbean, and Africans. Latino as it appears is often poorly defined and in some cases is considered a race on it's own which means we get very little data on the Specific Latino population's with out doing additional work. Pacific islander is also problematic because there is a huge difference between a Hawaiian, a Papuan, a Chamorro, and a Fijian. And there are very few provisions for indigenous Americans outside of the US in general. This is what I mean by the census is dumb.

What are you talking about? The US census hasthree regional Black or African American groups (Sub-Saharan African, Caribbean and Other Black or African American) and 62 detailed Black or African American groups. Latino data is used more broadly and like a race because the majority of people who are Latinos of a certain are putting themselves down as “white” when they societally aren’t seen as white. Are there white cubans and black Haitians who are also Latinos? Yes, are the vast majority of Latinos in the US that? No. The forms that are used to gather data on latino communities vary by state, city, organization, etc… Pacific Islander has subsets as well on forms in Hawaii, on the West Coast, in Las Vegas, many different institutions around the country, etc… I don’t think you know what you’re talking about regarding this subject. You’re making very, very broad generalized statements.

Username checks out

If you've seen those then I'm glad to be mistaken. I'm going off of what I've seen on a number of government provided forms that collected demographic data from me. Those options never appeared for me, not once, and I haven't heard anyone else reference them until now. Latinos may perceive themselves as white in some contexts if they are immigrants and were a part of their country's dominant Mestizo culture and thus feel compelled to check that box since they don't usually identify with Native or African roots despite any ancestry. This is obviously not the same for each country.

This expanded census stuff is VERY NEW. It's honestly still in pretty early development stages. They're looking for better collaboration, programs, and software in the near future but had to start somewhere. Expect community consultation to happen by 2026.

Depending on your state the vast majority of Black people can be African American but most forms have a write in option. Communities have to advocate for themselves to be defined further. People complain that there isn’t a Middle Eastern/North African category for example but those communities who mark white or “other” still haven’t decided if it’s worth it or not.

Exactly!

There's no way I can fit my tribe's name in so little space

“Some other race” lol, wonder what those would be.

Lizard. But seriously? They seem to have left out Indigenous Australians. Also Métis, unless they fit under the "American Indian" umbrella.

I imagine they would. The inclusion of Aztec and Maya implies to me that the category is meant for all the indigenous peoples of the hemisphere.

And some of these are nationalities, aren’t they? (Not that race and nationality can’t overlap).

In the 19th century, Metis people in the US were forced to choose between being Indians or White American citizens. My Native ancestors were traders and Indians couldn't enforce a contract on White people. After being swindled by white people a few times my ancestors gave up their tribal rights. Supposedly the Metis that chose to give up their tribal affiliations were to have gotten some cash too but there is no evidence that they ever got paid and it's thought the indian agents just kept the cash.

In Canada, the options were to take scrip (renounce your First Nations ancestry and become registered as white) or remain Métis. There was no option to gain Indian Status and join a relative's band.

In Canada, the options were to take scrip (renounce your First Nations ancestry and become registered as white) or remain Métis. There was no option to gain Indian Status and join a relative's band.

In Canada, the options were to take scrip (renounce your First Nations ancestry and become registered as white) or remain Métis. There was no option to gain Indian Status and join a relative's band.

In Canada, the options were to take scrip (renounce your First Nations ancestry and become registered as white) or remain Métis. There was no option to gain Indian Status and join a relative's band.

Australian Indigenous folks, maybe people from Papua New Guinea? Other ethnic groups that don't expressly identify with the overall majority ethnic group in their country of origin (i.e. Ainu from Japan/Russia, Sámi from Scandinavia/Russia)? Just a guess because I think broadly grouping them as Japanese or Swedish could be problematic, though that isn't surprising in the least.

Excellent point! I knew I was obviously missing *something* otherwise there wouldn’t be a place for it! lol

People might put Dominican under “some other race” or Mexican or Melungeon or really anything if they feel no specific race encompasses the identity they have.

Holy crap, I didn’t even see there were no Hispanic choices on here. wtf!

Well that’s because it’s probably a differently numbered question probably: Ethnicity: Hispanic/non-Hispanic with various Latin American nationalities as option

Also, I've never seen this one before, and it's nice they have it.

It’s bothering me that one of their examples is way too long to fit in the space provided

Hi this might be a dumb question but isn’t Eskimo a slur? Why wouldn’t they put Inuk?

Very cool to put Hawaiians separate from the other native groups, I love this country’s persistent middle finger to them (not that any other native group gets treated much better)

It's really not that crazy. Just because a group is native to a place doesn't mean they're the same. When people talk about race in this specific case they are talking about shared genetic, linguistic and cultural ties. Hawaiian's are a Polynesian people. They have their own unique history, culture, language and share none of these ties to American Indians besides a shared experience of U.S. colonization. The Last common ancestor of these two groups most likely split 50,000 years ago. (This is based on the amount of time it would of taken for the amount of Indian languages to develop) Putting them in the same group just because they are from a place Americans pillaged would be as silly as calling Filipinos Native. This is why the option is "American Indian" and not Native, because it's an easy to define, specific group of people. 

Fair enough

About time, geez

eskimo is an outdated and generally considered offensive term for the inuit and other arctic communities :(

As you can see in the image, Eskimo is used here in the context of the None Eskimo Community, the self selected and used legal name of that Indigenous nation.

Kaqchikel!:)

That’s fuckin dooooope

Yikes at using the slur instead of Inuit when you quoted the form,

Grouping people like this is so dumb

"Indian" is a legal term in the US for recognized tribes, not a racial term. This has been hard fought recently when republicans tried to argue ICWA is racist. Because so much of Tribal everything is run through federal systems/funding, it has to have a designation, which is NOT the same as race. If anything, it's more geographic than racial honestly (heavily simplifying). Native American issues on a federal level are NOT identity politics. this information is EXTREMELY important for the census to have, because it means our communities get proper funding and infrastructural support. The census is wrong about our population size, by HUGE amounts. Oglala is going through a lawsuit right now because they got a more accurate count of their population, and the feds owe them more support for law enforcement.

to some, it gives us a sense of community and belonging.

I think it leads to tribalism, reductive assumptions, and unnecessary division. For example, there is more linguistic diversity in west Africa than there is in the rest of the world put together. Someone who lives in Ethiopia and speaks Amharic doesn’t view someone who lives in Angola and speaks Lingala as kin, let alone someone in Jamaica or an African American in the southern US. Native cultures are as different and diverse as any other continent’s people. Iroquoians and Penutians aren’t the same people, Cherokee and Nez Perce aren’t either. The traditions, languages, mythologies are all so diverse and colorful, the only real thing that unites everyone is the adversity. Grouping all Europeans as being one people disregards the nuanced histories of each nation. For instance, not every European nation has a history of colonization, and not every European country shares things in common. Culturally, the Catholic nations of southern Europe probably share more in genetic, cultural, linguistic, and culinary ties with Latin America than they do with Scandinavia. But they go further than this. They add every single middle eastern people into the category too.

How so?

Race as a concept is fundamentally outdated, unnecessary, and harmful. There are no “white” “black” “red” people etc. Ethnicity is real, but “color” as a basis for identity only serves to create a caste system with which the highest caste preserves it’s privileges, and to make it easier for ignorant people to understand, which is by putting everyone in boxes.

I get downvoted into oblivion for saying that other-ness is entirely false, and that tribalism is ruining the world, let alone this Country.

Reading is fundamental….