Chicanos in population

Discuss Hispanic gangs, Southsiders, Sureños in LOS ANGELES COUNTY ONLY. There are four general geographic categories Hispanic gangs fall into for LA.
stateraised2000
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 658
Joined: July 5th, 2003, 4:34 pm
Location: L.A. county Califas...
Contact:

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by stateraised2000 » February 12th, 2004, 4:27 pm

lol...

Impala
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 214
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 2:21 am
Location: L. A. CA.

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Impala » February 12th, 2004, 5:48 pm

What world are you living in bro? Are you blind (or blond) or something?!

Primero; I got nothing but respect for anybody who has suffered under oppresion and still comes out on top.
Black/African-Americans are a perfect example of that people and there aint no fence between me and them; respect earned, respect given.
I was wrong 'bout assuming you were.
I heard your point of view before from a brother. No dis-respect to anyone out there

"you're probably just mad because there are more Black Americans with native (U.S. territory tribes) blood than there are mexicans with it. I'm sure that hurts, but that is also a fact."
No dog, I'm far from "mad" but I'd like to see you back up that "fact" with some type of reference.

"The native americans from above the border hada completely different culture ( smaller semi nomadic tribes) than those below the border (large scale cities with fuedal governments much like europeans of the time with kings and nobles and peasanst and slaves)."
Most tribes in the southeast were NOT semi-nomadic but agriculturalist with permanent settlements. e.g. Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw and others were actually considered "civilized by many white americans and you are right 'bout Blacks having Indian blood because many runaway slaves in the 1800's would find refuge with these southern tribes. (probably another reason they were removed by the U.S.)

In the far west coast from Canada to Baja they also had permanent fishing societies with villages etc. The Chinook, Hoopa, Haida and Kwakuitl to name a few.
In the southwest the Pueblos still stand as permanent homes for these people.

Looks like maybe you seen too many "cowboy and Indian" movies and think ALL Indians in N. America had feathers in their hair, hunted buffallo and rode horses. Who looks "ignorant" now dog?

"And they did not get along. they had very little to do with each other, and they didn't want anything to do with each other."
On the contrary tribes used various forms of "trade". "Strikingly different and internally diverse, they were often linked by far flung trade networks."
THAT is a quote from a NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC society 1991 Native American Issue.
"And they NEVER would have lived side by side peacefully with the natives that inhabited what is now the U.S.."
Never??? Wrong dog.

"this is HISTORICAL FACT. quit arguing and READ SOMETHING."
I read more then you think ese, just because you claim it's a fact means squat. I'm proving to you with ACTUAL data what I'm saying. One simple quote from an established source crumbled your sand castle.
Don't get your panies all wet now, you said some true things but your mistake is looking at the Aztecs and Maya and imposing them on ALL Indians south of the border. Likewise your looking at the Lakota (Sioux) and Cheyenne and imposing their culture on ALL Indians north of the border.

Before you accuse someone of being "ignorant" just because they disagree with you; you better step back. After the real "facts" exposed you may be the one looking like the ignorant one.

Glad to debate you anytime ese.

Impala

User avatar
BANDIT
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 68
Joined: July 8th, 2003, 5:35 pm
Location: WEST LOS 213 MID CITY DISTRICT
Contact:

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by BANDIT » February 13th, 2004, 8:56 am

ALL I GOT TO SAY IS MEXICAN/CHICANOS HISPANICS ECT.. ARE THE MAYORITY WERE NOT THE MINORITY!!! http://www.MidCityGang.com CHECK OUT OUR SITE!!

1OldSchool
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 132
Joined: January 7th, 2004, 6:54 pm

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by 1OldSchool » February 13th, 2004, 10:09 am

Panik: "In the old days, before the whites were here if y'all had tried to come up here, the resident tribes would have shot you full of arrows (and they did try) becasue Y'all are not brothers."

How do you know panik.. were you there? You have good arguments but you sound one sided believing the Euro version. You ever hear "never believe what you hear or read and only half of what you see". Dont believe everything out there. Many of the books and movies about history today were written from someone elses viewpoint and motives, no matter what the truth is.
So let me get this straight.. the native americans are not related to each other and kill each other on sight? The north and south are different native americans that are savages? hehe its like your saying that the blacks in Africa are not black and the whites in Europe are not white. You believe what you want lets leave it at that.

Panik
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1322
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 10:31 am
Location: W/S Santa Ana

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Panik » February 16th, 2004, 10:28 am

for one, i never called them savages, and yes they were all civilized. theyall had civilized societies. But they were completely different. The tribes in the US area never built anything permanent (except for the pueblo's, and that was nowhere near the same scale). They stayed in the same general area, yes. But they still moved around, and their villages were never in the exact same spot for many years. The aztec, maya, and inca built cities that were huge, sometimes bigger than any cities in Europe, and many are still there today. They were permanant and more like countries themselves, no tribes at all. The tribes of the north had loose knit structures with no absolute ruler. Each subset of the tribe had an elder or council of elders that would make dicisions for their small group. In the cities of the south, they were much like European governemts with kings, nobles, and slaves, with very little middle class. As for trade, people trade with cultures they don't like all the time, we still trade with North Korea and China. Does that mean we are friends, no. Money is money.
As for your historical knowledge, it's lacking. !st, the Choctaw, Cherokee, and the chickasaw are all from Oklahoma, alabama, and mississippi. Not really relavant to what we're talking about. The chinook, hoopa and Haida were from the very northern border of CA, Oregon, washington, and canada. Same for them. The apache and the navajo were the largest tribes in the southwest, and they had plenty wars with other indians throughout history. And they both warred with the mexicans. If any tribes should be considered the rightful owners of this land, wouldn't it be them? BUT WAIT. They only got to the area around the same time as the spanish. they migrated from up in canada and pushed other smaller tribes out of the way. So if they got here the same time as the spanish, who really owns the land? There is no clear owner of the land, because nobody ever really owned it for long, and until the americans took it over and colonized it and protected it and made it part of a country with set boundaries.
Anyway, I'm tired of educating you two, like I said, read a book or two. A one line quote from a magazine doesn't count.

Impala
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 214
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 2:21 am
Location: L. A. CA.

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Impala » February 16th, 2004, 8:12 pm

You know what Panik? Same goes for me too 'bout educating you; BUT a few things you said are so ridiculous anyone who stayed half awake in history knows better then you....and these points are:

"tribes in the US area never built anything permanent (except for the pueblo's, and that was nowhere near the same scale)."

1. Casa Grande Ruins, Arizona. 4 story structures erected between 900 and 600 years ago.
2. Chimney Rock Ruins, Colorado. Ruins of permanent Amasazi colony carbon dated at 1076 AD.
3. Lost City Ruins, Nevada. Pueblo ruins dated at 1200 AD.
4. Chaco Canyon Anazasi Ruins, New Mexico. Sprawling nucleus of Anasazi culture in 1100's. Thirteen large pueblos, 3,600 smaller sites.
5. Aztec Ruins, New Mexico. A major pueblo complex flourished from 1100 to 1300. Great Kiva is the centerpiece of one 500 room pueblo.
6. Coronado Ruins, New Mexico. Multi-storied Anasazi pueblo.
7. Pecos Ruins, New Mexico. Ruins of 660 room pueblo.
8. Salinas Pueblo Ruins, New Mexico. Three separate ruins.
9. Pueblo of Acoma, NM. Pueblo occupied since 1100.
10. Taos Pueblo, NM. Continuously occupied for a millennium. (1,000 yrs.)
11. Zuni Pueblo, NM. Site inhabited since prehistoric times.
12. Edge of the Cedars Ruins, Utah. Anasazi ruins dated at 1000 AD.
13. Glen Canyon Ruins, Utah. Many Anasazi ruins dated at 1000 AD.
14. Hovenweep Ruins, Utah. Pueblo ruins more than 700 years old.
15. Mule Canyon Ruin, Utah. Anasazi ruins with towers.
16. Red Cliff Ruins, Utah. Anasazi ruins, includes granaries.

Notice the dates...long before Spaniards came.

17. Moundville, Alabama. Major eastern mound site.
18. Crystal River, Florida. Large mound site.
19. Temple Mound, Florida. Missisippean culture mound site.
20. Etowah Indian Mounds, Georgia. Large mound site.
21. Cahokia Mounds, Illinois. North America's largest mound covers 14 acres; replica of Woodhenge, a sun calendar of cedar posts.
22. Angel Mounds, Indiana. Well preserved Missisippean site.
23. Effigy Mounds, Iowa. Site has some 200 mounds.
24. Marksville, Louisiana. Mound site.

The Mound and Missisipean cultures were dated at 500 BC. Mound sites were permanent settlements boasting populations greater than 10,000. A society based on agriculture and artisans. Evidence also shows a hiearchal society with class systems of nobility, warriors, artisans, peasants and slaves.
What was that about semi-namadic?..with no permanent settlements x-cept Pueblo?? And... oh yeah..loose knit society with no kings etc..maybe council of eldars??
Who needs to read books.. me or you?
Last edited by Impala on February 16th, 2004, 8:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
E`S`T
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 781
Joined: July 6th, 2003, 1:58 pm
Location: SCHOOLS IN SESSION

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by E`S`T » February 16th, 2004, 8:14 pm

orale Impala, nice education homie...

Panik
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1322
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 10:31 am
Location: W/S Santa Ana

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Panik » February 17th, 2004, 9:02 am

I'm not going point by point with you becasue it's a waste of time for everybody. #1 the Cahokia Mounds. The largest "permanent settlement" of the US. At it's peak it might have had over 10,000 people in it's society. But this included numerous villages and camps from miles around. It was just a larger subgroup of local indians. It hada chief and was run spretty much like any smaller band of indians. the only difference was that they were a very large group. But to compare this little "settlement" which is what it is called on it's own website, to The aztez, maya, inco, and the civilizations before them is not only a stretch, it's not fair to anyone that's reading and doesn't know any better. I'm talking about civilizations of MILLIONS, with single cities that have over 100,000 people each. Your talking about a whole society of 10,000 that was only that large for 100 years. You're getting desparate. #2. As for pretty much all of your examples that were in the southwest. THey were all done by pueblo, or pueblo related cultures which I already coevered. 99% of the time, these were built as temporary settlements. people would likve in them for a generation or two, then abandon it. And, on top of that, they usually only housed a couple hundred people. The largest ever only housed a little over 1000, and these were all individual settlements, they were not all cities under one centralized government, neither were the mounds. You are just foolish, and I hope you didn't spend all night researching this ridiculous argument. It took me about 10 minutes to get it over with. I stand by all earlier statements, they are true. These examples do nothing but prove my point.

1OldSchool
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 132
Joined: January 7th, 2004, 6:54 pm

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by 1OldSchool » February 17th, 2004, 9:52 am

Here we go again.. this vatos yappin like he was there. panix Everytime someone puts the proof in the pudding you take credit for it! hehehehe
"you have proved my point once again" duhhhhh

Panik
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1322
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 10:31 am
Location: W/S Santa Ana

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Panik » February 17th, 2004, 10:00 am

not sure what you're tryin to say old school, I only hope you're learning.

Impala
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 214
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 2:21 am
Location: L. A. CA.

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Impala » February 17th, 2004, 12:54 pm

"Many have eyes but still cannot see"

"People believe what they WANT to believe"

I'm done homie, you're right and I'm wrong.

Last quote:

"Never wrestle with a pig, you get dirty, he likes it"

Panik
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1322
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 10:31 am
Location: W/S Santa Ana

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Panik » February 17th, 2004, 1:01 pm

That's what I figured. gotta call me a pig to make yourself feel better huh? that's alright. I hope it worked.

Impala
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 214
Joined: January 19th, 2004, 2:21 am
Location: L. A. CA.

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by Impala » February 17th, 2004, 10:08 pm

Panik, aint nobody calling you sh_t!
It aint nothing but a quote, I didn't create it, I just read it somewhere.
If I wanted to call you a pig or anything I would just do it!

Let it go already dog.
I don't care anymore what you believe.
I know what I know because I studied. (CSULA)
I didn't make up anything and I aint on no power trip.
I TRIED to show you with DOCUMENTATION but you refuse to accept it.

F' it dog, I don't care.
That's where the quotes come in.
The first two are self explanatory; the second refers to arguing.

Go ahead and believe what you want. I gave it my best shot.
Personally, I think your prides in the way of learning; outside of that I aint got nothin' against you.

Peace, if ya willin' to accept it.
Time to move on.

Impala

K1LLJOY
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1504
Joined: January 26th, 2004, 9:30 pm
Location: YOUR CITY

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by K1LLJOY » March 3rd, 2004, 10:27 pm

on the cnn news they said 10 million mexicans in america are
illegal immegrants and they gona patrol the borders with more force

User avatar
wcrockets
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1580
Joined: June 23rd, 2003, 3:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Chicanos in population

Unread post by wcrockets » March 3rd, 2004, 11:20 pm

Lol.. they aren't going to patrol poo poo. There are approx 200,000 legal immigrants in the whole country and almost 11 million illegal immigrants just in California. We just spend about 34 billion dollars more on education the vast majority which will go to Los Angeles Public Schools to educate them. That's just a fact. The only problem I have is why aren't we just building up Mexico and integrating both countries into one country. All this illegal immigration hypocrisy doesn't make sense to me.

Post Reply

Return to “Gang Questions & Info: Hispanic gangs”