Talk:Vicente Guerrero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additions by an anonymous contributor[edit]

It's interesting, because some of the anon's other edits have been pure vandalism:

Vicente Guerrero was Mulatto not Mestizo. This means that he was of African-Spanish blood not Indian-Spanish. He was in fact an ex-slave and even today Guerrero state has the highest number of Negroes and Mulattos in Mexico.

Should be easily verified and incorporated into the article. Anyone want to try?* 03:26, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that inacuracy in the description of Guerrero's Ethnic composition, the information should be corrected, to truly honor the only Black president Mexico has had.

Is it a coincidence that he abolished slavery!!!

Guillermo Elenes

In other words he was a Black man. My family is of mixed African, Native American and English blood and when people see me they say hey what's up my sista. They know a Black woman when they see one. Nita [12:03am CST 09-07-06]

But when you see a portrait of Vicente Guerrero he has no visible Afro charateristics. I doubt anyone would say what's up brother to him if he were alive today . Guerrero was a mestizo who might of had some African blood. But he was overwhelmingly non African. Keep on mind that the "One drop rule" was an American invention, that people in Latin America do not adhere to. You are what you are and having a little African blood does not make you black. 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]

Historically speaking, Mexico, as well as the rest of Latin America, had a different history of racial mixing than that of the U.S. Most evidence seems to indicate that Guerrero was of tri racial ancestry (Spanish, Amerindian, African) and thus would have been classified as such. The overwhelming majority of "mestizo" and "mulato" people of Latin America have tri racial ancestry as well (although this is often obscurred or denied). Even then, however, a person of mixed ancestry would have been considered as such; this contrasts completely with the U.S. model of race, as African Americans, the majority of who are of tri racial ancestry, are almost always considered "black" (of African descent), and nothing more. In many ways, "El Negro" Guerrero was, for all purposes, a black man in Mexico, but his mixed ancestry was recognized as well. 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)James Lopez[reply]

At the time that Guerrero was born (1782) most of the population in New Spain was amerindian, more than 60% of the total population. Most evidence indicates that he was a zambo (amerindian/african) and perhaps most likely predomantly amerindian with some african blood. His portraits back this up also, aside from his hair his characteristics where very amerindian. --Sukozo (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Indeed, I can't believe how inaccurate this article was, given that Guerrero is the ultimate Revolutionary after the deaths of Hidalgo and Morelos.

In other words, he is the most important mexican revolutionary after Morelos! How could they miss that?

Besides Ted Vincent, and other Afrocentrics, are there any notable scholars/historians that confirm Vicente Guerrero's African heritage? There are alot of Afrocentrics who claim that just about every important Mexican figure was black. From Zapata all the way back to the Olmecs. And judging by the portraits that i've seen about Guerrero he really didn't have any African features, unlike portraits you see depicting Frederick Douglass or other historical figures who are clearly of African origin.– 01:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Mike[reply]

Thats simply because Guerrero was most likely predomantly amerindian with some african blood, all aside from his hair was amerindian. For some reason he is considered an "afro" but not an "amerindian", Guerrero was most likely a zambo, and not a mulato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukozo (talkcontribs) 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African heritage[edit]

From Fernando Orozco Linares, Gobernantes de México, Mexico City: Panorama Editorial, 1993, ISBN 968-38-0280-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum:

Guerrero...era cuarterón, es decir, con una cuarta parte de sangre negra, alto, de pelo ensortijado ye de buena presencia.


Guerrero...was a cuarterón [similar to quadroon], that is to say, with a one-fourth part of Negro blood, tall, with curly hair and a good presence.

This book is a very good source. See also "The Integration of the Negro into the National Society of Mexico" in Race and Class in Latin America, Magnus Mornor, Ed., Columbia University Press, 1971, ISBN 023108661X.

And from the Spanish Wikipedia:

Guerrero nació en la ciudad de Tixtla el 10 de agosto de 1782 en el seno de una pobre famila campesina. Sus padres fueron Pedro Guerrero y María Guadalupe Saldaña. Su pobreza y su condición de mulato en el régimen virreinal le cerró la oportunidad de estudiar y pasó sus primeros años ayudando a su padre en las tareas del campo.


Guerrero was born in the city of Tixtla August 10, 1782 into a poor campesino family. His parents were Pedro Guerrereo and María Guadalupe Saldaña. His poverty and his condition as a mulatto in the viceregal regime closed the doors of opportunity to study, and he spent his early years helping his father in the field.

There are many web pages that give the same information. And the portrait in the article is certainly consistent with African heritage.

External links:

--Rbraunwa 00:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicente Guerrero was a zambo. Ameridian from his mother side and african from his father. --Sukozo (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery prohibited in Texas timeline?[edit]

It is stated accurately that Mexico prohibited the importation of slaves into Texas. However, it implies here that this was prohibited as early as 1821, when slavery was completely legal in Mexico. This is not necessarily contradictory. Many nations banned slave trading long before they banned slavery itself. However, it is my understanding that the ban on slave importation was completely ignored, if not still legal, until later on. Now, I'm still not sure why this section is relevant to Guerrero himself, except for the purposes of gratuitous Anglo bashing. This doesn't seem to be the appropriate place for it, since among most Anglos in Texas at the time, Guerrero was well-liked, especially after Santa Anna took power and they realized what they had lost under a more benign ruler.

Since 1739, no significant slave trade had existed in Mexico. Slavery was officially abolished in all territories controlled by the independence movement since October 19, 1810;[1] the ban was confirmed at its earliest national congress, in 1813, and at the Plan de Iguala in 1820.[2] In September 1821, when Mexico finally won the war, a Commission on Slavery reported than only 3000 residents remained as slaves within the country, mostly in Veracruz (where some Spanish troops remained).[3] Guerrero's decree is significant because it made clear, once and for all, that slavery would not be tolerated in the new country. - Esteban Zissou (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Ethnicity[edit]

According to Official Spanish documents, Guerrero and his family were "American Spanish", i.e. Criollos (Spanish born in America). However, ' Vicente Guerrero had mixed heritage, including Amerindian and African ancestry. Additionally, most likely this Amerindian and African ancestry entered the Guerrero's family line already mixed with Spanish genetics and not in "pure" Amerindian and African form.

However, there's no doubt that culturally they were completely Criollos/Castizos/Mestizos, e.g. his father supported strongly the Spanish rule in New Spain (Mexico and southern USA), which was very harsh on both Amerindians and African slaves. On the other hand, justice as well as strength were deemed very high by southern families like Guerrero's. So, for all practical purposes they were Novohispanos and later Mexicans, period. It is a curious thing that some "American" (i.e. from USA, but notice that the rest of the Continent is also America) historians tend to point to Guerrero as a "Black Indian" because of his non-dominant (both culturally and physically), mixed Amerindian and African ancestry, whereas historically and at worst ('at worst' according to the racially elitist Spanish caste system), he was regarded as a "cuarterón", i.e. 3/4 Spanish and 1/4 something else (Spanish+Indian+African); althought officially, during his life, he was regarded as "American Spaniard" (i.e. in documents emitted by the Spanish Colonial Government, at least before he joined the Insurgent cause) and was on occasion regarded as "Excelentísimo Señor Don Vicente Guerrero"( His Excellency Sir Don Vicente Guerrero!) by both Mexicans and Spanish. It was his detractors and political rivals who later began to slur him racially and humble down his origins.

In the USA ethnicity is very important (even nowadays they ask for it to both their citizens and foreigners in most of their official forms under the field "race/ethnicity" and is often remarked, in Mexico we don't, we are all Mexicans), so it is not surprising that some American historians had hurried up to point to Guerrero as a "Black Indian", either because he was not fully White (according to their standards) or because they would have liked him to be so (i.e. a "black indian", because of diverse motivations like afrocentrism, indigenism, sensationalism, etc.). However, he was a mixed heritage Mexican that was culturally Novohispano, with Mestizo/Castizo/Criollo ways typical of traders, merchants and horsemen from the southern countryside. That was something very characteristic of him, e.g. he often wore something similar to Charro/Andalusian-like/Vaquero/"Cowboy" attires in Mexico City (they were not used to those garments there) when he was President of Mexico (the country) and he liked hand-to-hand combat and (as Santana also did like) cockfighting! That attitude was what made him popular among his supporters (who ranged from the poor of the lowest social classes to the very rich in the liberal factions all over the country), and that's why his more 'refined' detractors hated him (who also ranged from poor people of the lowest social classes to the very rich in the conservative factions).

So, don't try to use "American" racial standards/biases with Mexican people/heroes! You simply can't. We differ on that regard.

Guerrero protection of human rights and liberalism, aren't those worthier of emphasis?[edit]

(Related to the UNESCO study)

There is not doubt that the contributions of Vicente Guerrero to human rights and egalitarianism were very important (and should be emphasized and described in more detail in the webpage). His reforms achieved social justice for the oppressed, e.g. Africans, Indians, poor Mestizos, etc.. In this regard, his reforms surpassed those of the USA and many European countries; he tried to supress State-driven ethnic discrimination more than a century before them!. I can see why then, the interest on making him one of the champions of indigenist and black revindication movements by 'making' him indigenous and black exclusively.

However, one must have in mind that his reforms were made in an all-inclusive context, i.e. they were made for all Mexicans, regardless of ethnicity, and more within the spirit of true liberalism (which should also be emphasized in the webpage, including reforms and ideas) than within the context of the specific social 'fight' of a particular ethnic group. That's why some historians refer to Guerrero as the "most Mexican" of all Mexican heroes. Notice that even the Anglo-Saxons from the USA prized him because of many of his reforms, specially those that were very amicable and liberal towards Anglo-Saxon immigrants (e.g. the Austin quotation), but nevertheless, nobody claims that because of that Guerrero was Anglo-Saxon, even when in some of the paintings made of him he might had looked like one.

Some historians and people of his time regarded him as a Cuarteron (3/4 Spanish, 1/4 black and indigenous,--->historians), others as indigenous ('neutral' individuals and 'enemies'), others as black ('enemies', racism included), others as mestizo or mulatto ('neutral', 'friends' and 'enemies'), such that in the future most of the people that wrote about him limited themselves to describe him as 'dark' ('obscure') or trigueño ('olive-skinned', 'swarthy'). The rest is just myth. I don't know how on such a basis and on the visual analysis of paintings it can be claimed that his father was black and his mother indian (specially because the paintings are portraits of him, not of his parents, and many of them are posthumous). Also, the fact that his father was a royalist (supported Spanish rule) and his uncle was, in fact, a royalist soldier (i.e. part of the Spanish militia) does not seem to fit well with an exclusive indian and black heritage. The colonial regime was very harsh on blacks and indians, and did not allow them to have property, nor have freight businesses (much less gun making businesses) nor admit them among their military hierarchy. So, most likely Guerrero belonged to some of the Casta that included some Spanish heritage, but however he was mixed, with also black and indian heritage. Notice however, that as many insurgents and liberals, Guerrero despised the Spanish Casta system, that's why they all claimed to be Americans (from the American continent) and Mexicans (their country), regardless of their ethnic origin (Mixed, Spanish, Indian, Black, Asian, etc.). For the Mexicans 'forefathers', "All men are created equal" was for real, not just something nice to put on paper.

AKMX (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)AKMX[reply]

Legacy, cont'd.[edit]

Back in the early 1980s, I recall seeing an old U.S. LST in the service of the Mexican Navy in port at Little Creek, VA, with the name Vicente Guerrero. Do not know whether it's still active. BubbleDine (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in lead[edit]

Mexican and primary sources provide no evidence on Guerrero's ethnicity. There is speculation that he might have been African but this is in line with the Mexican ideology of Mestizaje which seeks to present all personalities of relevance as belonging to some racialized population. We have literally zero evidence on Guerrero's racial ancestry beyond Morelos' physical description which presents him as Caucasian. Such controversial issues should not be included in the lead.Huasteca (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article simply needs to be the translation of the Spanish language version here which has plenty of sourcing and information. If everyone agrees I can begin translating. Stating Guerrero was black because one sloppy American source misportrays him as black is just wrong - especially considering the US's hysterical obsession with race, anything related to ethnicity coming from this country should be treated with extreme caution - particularly in matters related to Latin American history where local sources should suffice.Huasteca (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnicity in the lead fails both: MOS:ETHNICITY ("Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."—The color of his skin is not what makes him notable; he is notable because he was the second president of Mexico—) and MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH ("The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific"). The article doesn't go beyond "Morelos described him as "A young man with bronzed or tanned skin ("broncineo" in Spanish), tall and strong (N.B. "fornido", strapping, muscular), aquiline nose, bright and light-colored eyes and big sideburns"", and therefore should not be mentioned as the second characteristic of Guerrero. (CC) Tbhotch 01:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tbhotch Why are you sending me warnings on my talk page? I have no issue with your edits. Seem reasonable to me. Huasteca (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is edit-warring 101. (CC) Tbhotch 20:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Huasteca: I have been working on the parish records. The caste designations are blurry. Vicente and his family were referred to as mestizo and later españoles likely because of their social status. His mother's family were mestizos or españoles depending on the records. She had a comopund last name common with spaniards. In his father Juan Pedro's baptism it says he was mulato, his father Manuel mestizo and mother Micaela de Campos mulata. In documents the parents of Michaela (great grandparents of Vicente, Joseph de Campos and Maria Rita de Nava) were reffered to as "pardos libres", but by 1795 in the burial of Maria Rita de Nava they reffered to her also as mestiza. So far from what I see the closest African lineage comes from Vicente's paternal grandmother and it is possible that it isn't the only line. I have been contributing to this tree on familysearch. There are still a few things I haven't verified like whether the Maria Guadalupe Hernandez that they put as his wife is the right one or if they just added the first Maria Guadalupe Hernandez they found in Tixtla at that time.

Why Saldaña[edit]

Vicente Guerrero never used the last name Saldaña. Using the paternal and maternal surnames wasn't done regularly in Mexico until the early to mid 20th century, although it is seen in some families from Spain or other uncommon occasions. His mother's last name was the compound paternal last name of "Rodríguez Saldaña" which her father had in his marriage and some other records and her brother also had in his marriage. Others in the town also had the same compound last name and were likely family. They sometimes only went by Rodriguez but more often went by Saldaña, probably because Rodriguez was more common and maybe because the preist's last name was Saldaña. Vicente's mother's is "Maria Rodriguez" in the padrón of 1791 and Maria Guadalupe Rodriguez when his father remarried in 1816. Vicente's father and grandfather also used the last name "Tescucano" (but usually Guerrero). So far I have seen two documents for each. I don't think it is right for us to give people names because that's what we think it would be according to modern rules and what they think they know about him. I think their names should be the names that they used when they were alive. The only name he ever used was "Vicente Guerrero", not Vicente Guerrero Saldaña, Vicente Guerrero Rodriguez, nor Vicente Guerrero Tescucano. (Excluding his baptism of Vicente Ramon, where his dad's surname was not written initially, and it failed to mention which day he was born.)


August 10 was the day he was baptized. It didn't say how old he was, but most likely 1-3 days old in his baptism. If he was named for a saint it could have been August 6,7, or 9th. There is also one argument that he once had a birthday party (in 1830 I think) in April. The first biography said that his birthday was the 10th and other sources say the 9th, but they seem to all be based on his baptismal date and/or a guess. Bottom line is that nobody knows for shure which exact day he was born.

Sources are probably assuming the baptism was on his birthday.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racial background of Vicente Guerrero[edit]

Look, I know that actual evidence for Guerrero's racial background is scarce, but it's extremely odd not to discuss how one of the most important figures in Mexico's War of Independence is often viewed as being partly black. Even if Guerrero was actually just a mestizo, or even just white, you have to a least mentioned this viewpoint. Saturdayopen (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[4] says mixed African, Indian, and Spanish.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm going to revert Huasteca's edit. This feels wrong. Saturdayopen (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with Tbhotch on this. (See Mentioning ethnicity in lead is contrary to MOS:LEAD. Also if there is no evidence or consensus on his racial origin therefore the article cannot state this as a fact. Guillaum Lille (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to believe you just created an account to discuss this and to make the same modifications another sockpuppet performed? (CC) Tbhotch 17:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]