So the racial development of Mexico is very different from the US, and it stems back to differences in immigration. Whereas in the US it was common to see whole families cross the Atlantic to the US (I'm speaking specifically of early settlement-- the mayflower colonies etc), in Mexico and other parts of Latin America the Spanish conquistadors arrived generally family-less, allowing them to have sexual relations (often forced, but not always-- read up on La Malinche for more info) with the native women. Additionally, rather than actively attempting to wipe out the native populations as in the US, the Spaniards for the most part chose to enslave native Mexican cultures for labor. So what ended up happening, particularly as generations passed, were that Mexico became, racially, a blend of native Mexicans and Spaniards. This led to a caste system as a way of creating separation and hierarchy in Mexico. The caste system in Mexico was something like this: Spaniards born in Spain (Peninsulares) > spaniards born in Mexico (criollos) > castas (blanket term for all people of mixed heritage, or mestizos) > Native Mexicans (Indians) > black people, mostly slaves or their free descendants.

How the castas section was subdivided and their height in the totem pole of Mexican culture depends a lot on the period, but what's important to recognize is that preoccupation with heritage was obsessive, mostly because what your background was determined the kind of power you could have. Some examples of castes within the casta section were: castizos (child of a European and a mestizo...often ended up considered criollos), mestizos (one Spanish parent and one Amerindian parent. Their status would depend on what culture they were raised in. Only applied to legitimate children), pardos (mix between native, Hispanic, and black), mulatto (1st gen Spanish + black), etc.

An atrocious and gross example that may help compare it to the US is thinking about it in terms of dog breeds. so if the US historically is mostly a set of 5+ predominant breeds that tend to mix only among themselves (think of how in many cities you still have Italian, Jewish, Black or Latino neighborhoods -- cultures sticking mostly to themselves) in Mexico it was all essentially a big pile of mutts-- with interbreeding being seen as much more acceptable and possible than in the US (common languages and lack of major influence from non-Spanish culture helps that to happen) with the dogs closest to being purebreds on the Spanish side winning the race.

In fact the class system was so rigid that it is partly the thing that inspired the Mexican war of independence-- one of the major reasons Mexico sought to become independent from Spain was that the criollos (people of Spanish descent but born in Mexico) got sick of getting treated as second class citizens. The war of independence became a joint effort between Criollos and mestizos to oust the peninsulares from power.

So even historically, despite its rigid caste system there was nowhere near the amount of segregation in Mexico that there was in the United States. They were of different social classes (similar to the class system in England), but these classes were (although not encouraged to intermarry) definitely allowed to interact with each other. Mestizos and indigenas (native Mexicans or Amerindians, the lowest group in the totem pole after slavery was banned) formed key parts of the New Mexican government almost from the beginning -- Benito Juarez became the country's first indigena president less than 50 years after the birth of the country and a good 3 years before the US civil war. To drive that point home-- Mexico's Obama moment was in the 1850s.

Of course as time went on, the mestizo community grew and became the majority of the Mexican population. Currently they make up 60% of the Mexican population, with Amerindians at 13% and Mexicans of European descent at 26% (this now also includes German, Italian, Polish, etc populations as well that immigrated during the world wars. The majority remains Spanish though). As it stands, social mobility is very possible for mestizo and white Mexicans, and a little bit less so for Amerindians, largely depending on what state you're in.

The 60s in Mexico were more similar to (and I believe inspired by) the 60s student movements in Europe than they were to the US. There was an interest in civil rights, but that was because The Mexican population was reacting to a totalitarian regime. There were union rebellions, student protests, and civilian protests against the lack of democracy (Mexico was run by the same party from 1929 to 1989). The tragic height of these protests was the massacre at Tlatelolco in 1968, where it is estimated that at least a few hundred peaceful protesters were massacred by the government (the official head count was only 20 dead). While tragic, the events weren't race related.

As for racism? It's a complicated question. Mexico in many ways defends bit also fetishizes it's Indigenous population. While they remain largely marginalized (partly due to racism, partly due to lack of education and linguistic issues, and partly by choice) they are also looked on fondly, almost nostalgically by the Mexican population at large. It is common, for eample, for major public works to be halted by protests because they happen to pass through native Mexican territory even THOUGH the native populations welcomed or were to be benefited by the construction (I believed this happened in early 2000s near Mexico City. On my phone but I'll cite when I get home.) also in the 90s, a revolutionary leftist group mostly out of Chiapas (a predominantly indigenous region) called the Zapatistas declared war on the "Mexican elite"-- their goal being mainly to try to preserve Chiapas's state autonomy and prevent governmental and corporate incursions into the state. This is the closest thing Mexico has had to a strictly indigenous civil movement, although it's died down significantly in the late 2000s.

As it stands there is a severe but subtle issue of racism in Mexico. It is cultural and stems from the notion (even to date) that the closer you are to European the better you are. Light skin and European features are highly preferred. There is severe xenophobia (and acts that could be considered hate crimes) towards immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, who either move to Mexico for better opportunities or travel through it to get to the US. The white minority tends to be treated with reverence (if you look at Mexican soap operas, the main characters are almost always white even if they are playing characters belonging in the lower classes). The racism is deep rooted and subtly expressed (and also deeply tied to Mexican values of exclusivity and elitism), so it is considered very hard to eradicate. I suppose it has less of an us vs them feel the way the US has, instead it becomes racism based on degrees (even in a room of relatively light skinned rich kids, if you're the less white kid there, you lose). In 2003 the Mexican government created a council to combat racism, and it is my understanding that they're attempting to tackle racism via national awareness campaigns and an introduction of civic and social integration material in schools that educates children about human rights and racial/cultural diversity. Also in 2003 the legal language was changed, so that it includes various indigenous dialects as well as Spanish, and there's even an effort underway (or it's already finished?) to translate the Mexican constitution to all major dialects.

Again, I'm on my phone, so I'm afraid I won't be too good at sourcing too much tonight, that said:

Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel I believe references the immigration differences between the US and Latin America. The airport incident comes from a FANTASTIC book by Jorge Castañeda called Mañana Forever -- i strongly urge you to read it if you are interested in Mexican cultural analysis (Also a very interesting read for Mexicans). The rest is pulled from my own memory, but I'll happily try to source any info I can.

TL;DR: Mexico has been historically much better than the US at institutional inclusion, but is still a very racist country in ways that are completely different from the US and reach way back to the days of colonization.

Briefly, no. The societal dynamics and tensions due to race followed a very different historical trajectory in Mexico than in the United States.

The situation in Mexico by the late 18th century was one of such racial intermingling and diversity between Europeans, Native Mexicans (i.e. indios), and Africans (both free and imported slaves), that the law and social custom recognized at least 16 but possibly as many as 64 or more named castas (castes). Persons of mixed blood were accorded a lower social status the further they were from being "pure" European, and so racial prejudice was both lawful and widespread. However, special laws protected indios who converted to Catholicism, and granted them the right to intermarry freely with Europeans. Unlike caste systems in other parts of the world, castas in New Spain were thus extremely permeable, and had limited effect on social mobility. Although wealth and power were very much concentrated on Europeans (and the highest-rank castas associated with a higher proportion of European blood), indios were by no means a permanent underclass. [1]

The castas did, however, create severe systemic disadvantages for people who were of European descent but not of pure European blood (i.e. criollo). One of the early aims of the Mexican Independence movement (1810-1821) was to abolish the caste system, e.g. this 1810 ban by Morelos. These people of mixed blood comprised an important part of the petite-bourgeoisie: bureaucrats, priests, craftsmen, traders... wealthy and collectively powerful but politically disenfranchised. The successful outcome of the Independence War meant that people of mixed and/or non-European blood were no longer barred from high offices. For instance, Mexico's second president, Vicente Guerrero, was of mixed, mainly African, descent.

Although the abolition of slavery was also an early goal of the Independence movement, it was not specifically addressed in the Constitution of 1824. It was left to the states individually to abolish it, which most did between 1825 and 1827. It was not until 1829 that slavery was abolished at the federal level. [2] While slavery and the slave trade was a recurring issue until the mid 1850s, at no point thereafter was a significant portion of the Mexican population enslaved.

However, much of the peasantry, mostly indios, lived under a system very close to serfdom for the next hundred years. Outside of Mexico City, the countryside was ruled by local landowners and potentates (caciques), and while some of them worried specifically about the advancement of the rural poor, most did not. Outside of the army or the Church, the peasantry had few opportunities for advancement. Caciques often involved themselves in regional uprisings and conscripted most of their rural populace to fight for their causes. While indios could theoretically own property and move from place to place, in reality they were exploited ruthlessly by the landowning and merchant classes. The main cause and tool of this exploitation was illiteracy, which was endemic; even as late as 1895, 48% of the population (6 out of 12.6 million) could not read or write.

Although some progress towards socioeconomic equality was made under the liberal presidencies of Comomfort (1855-1858) and Juarez (1858-1872), the latter himself a Zapotec Indian, the conditions of the peasantry remained dire, and worsened considerably under Diaz (1876-1910), as noted by the American journalist John Kenneth Turner:

By means of a careful placing of public offices, public contracts and special privileges of multitudinous sorts, Diaz absorbed all of the more powerful men and interests within his sphere and made them a part of his machine. Gradually the country passed into the hands of his office holders, their friends, and foreigners. And for this the people paid, not only with their lands, but with their flesh and blood. They paid in peonage and slavery. For this they forfeited liberty, democracy and the blessings of progress.

This deep inequality between the rural poor (who were mostly but not exclusively of indio descent) and the landowning elite was main engine of the Social Revolution of 1910-1913. One Revolutionary leader, Emiliano Zapata, rose up specifically to address the plight of the peasantry, as written in his proclamation "Plan de Ayala" (1911) (sloppy translation mine):

In light of the fact that the immense majority of peoples and citizens of Mexico do not own more land than that which they stand on, and cannot improve in any way their social condition, nor devote themselves to industry or agriculture, because the lands, hills, and waters are monopolized by a few hands; therefore, shall be expropriated with due indemnity, one third of these monopolies from their powerful owners, so that the peoples and citizens of Mexico may own farms, orchards, and ranches, and hold in trust tracts of land for towns or fields, and thus improve in every way and for every purpose the lack of prosperity and well-being of all Mexicans.

The post-Revolutionary, and still mostly current, Mexican Constitution of 1917 contains several provisions aimed at eliminating peonage, e.g. by guaranteeing public education, full voting rights, and the creation and regulation of collective farms (ejidos). This, combined with a migration from Mexico City to other urban centers, and the (later) growth in new urban centers, has for the most part resolved the deepest social inequalities. So, while the African-American Civil Rights Movement was in full swing in the United States, all Mexicans could vote, own property, earn a degree, and run for high office. Mexico had in some ways outpaced the United States in legislating equality, but had done so by very different route.

Sources (where not linked):

[1] Navarro García, Luis (1989). El sistema de castas. Historia general de España y América: los primeros Borbones. Ediciones Rialp. pp. 246. ISBN 9788432121074.

[2] Olveda Legaspi, Jaime. (2013) La abolición de la esclavitud en México, 1810-1917. Signos Históricos, núm. 29, enero-junio, 2013, pp. 8-34. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Unidad Iztapalapa: Distrito Federal, México. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=34428269001

(edit: formatting)

I came across this painting depicting different castas in Nueva España. It seems to be a common theme in the period. Were people this obsessed with racial classification at that time or was more of a artistic trope? How could a torna atrás trace his genealogy to this point?