Print Page | Close Window

How do Latin Americans look

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Modern Culture
Forum Description: Discussions on modern literature, visual arts and music...
Moderators: ulrich von hutten, King Kang of Mu
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27133
Printed Date: 23-Sep-2018 at 05:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: How do Latin Americans look
Posted By: pinguin
Subject: How do Latin Americans look
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 13:30
I opened this thread to discuss seriously if the people shown on Latin American and Hispanic networks TV and movies look or not like average Latin Americans.
 
I will start with CNN in Spanish and some pictures of theirs respective countries:
 
Gabriela Frias, Mexico
 
Mexicans:
 
Claudia Palacios, Colombian:
 
Colombians:
 
Ismael Cala, Cuban
Cubans:
 
Carolina Escobar, Chilean:
 
 
Patricia Janiot, Colombian
More Colombians,
 
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/janiot.patricia.jpg -
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)



Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 18:44
I fail to see how this can be discussed 'seriously'[1]. I don't mind looking at some of the pictures though. Thumbs Up
 
[1] Unless possibly you're a casting director for a movie studio and trying to predict audience reaction in various places.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 01-May-2009 at 22:31
I have to agree with gcle on this one. Too subjective. I believe Octavio Paz' point in referring to his own race as the "raza cosmica" was to underscore the fact that such a wide variety of racial and racially mixed groups can share the same citizenship and culture.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 00:41
I just wanted to show the the readers of CNN in Spanish, bassed on Atlanta, U.S., are just average people from Latin America.
I remember decades ago when I was an immigrant in Canada I have serious trouble to figure it out if a Chilean was in the street. The only time I could figure it out for sure it was at September 18th, my country's birthday. At that day all chileans in town weared andalucian flat hats, the same kind our cowboys do LOL... The rest of the days, Chileans were invisible among Canadians.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 01:31
An Aztec dance in Mexico these days. As you can see, most dancers have a "white Mexican" look. Well, at least from the oppinions about "race" among Mexicans I have heared in this forum...
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Zcz94sfE4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Zcz94sfE4


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 02:31
The dance is in Taos, New Mexico. And if the dancers are from New Mexico, then chances are that they are Aztec wannabees. I respect their desire to know about their past, but there is very little chance that they are descended from Aztecs. The troops who conquered New Mexico were Tlaxcalan. The great majority of "Nortenos" are descended fron either Tlaxcalans or Tarascans, and yes, I am aware of previous posts on "Tarascans".  You can also find such troupes in the "zocalo". They are a modern phenomen, not unlike the Anglos all dressed up in robes and whatever, claiming to represent pre-Christian Europe. Except for their genes, they are little different from Boy Scout troops who dress up as "native Americans" for Thanksgiving pageants. 

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 02:49

Indeed. There are some people, in places like Mexico, who wants to recall Aztec customs back to life. However, they are authentic modern Mexicans as much as the Mayas of Chiapas. People also forgets that Indigenous pure groups are a minority in Mexico these days and that most people is mixed.

The point is clear, the people that shows on TV are representative of Mexicans.

Anyways, here there are Nahuatl speaking natives, relatives of the real Aztecs:
 
 
As you can see, physically they are not that different from average Mexican. The division is in culture, and specially in the levels of poverty that affect native americans. There there is a big wall that still has to be turned down.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 03:51
Yes, you can find real nahuatl speaking Mexicans right in front of the hotel next to the U.S. Embassy. But they are just one of many ethnicities that makes up Mexico. There is an ethnic division in Mexico that is greater than Chollos versus Indios, and that is Nortenos versus those who are not Norteno. Nortenos see themselves as the powerhouse of Mexico. They produce the goods that bring Mexico foreign exchange. And they pay the taxes that keep the Mexican state afloat. "Chilangos" despise and loath the Nortenos, but the Nortenos don't really care. They live in their own neighborhoods, frequent their own clubs, listen to their own music, and generally prefer a cuisine common to Northern Mexico. They also have a preference for Tecate beer. Many of the Nortenos are, genetically, Indians, but their culture is shared with Mestizos, and even the "Espanolitos" of long established families. They are the powerhouse nof Mexico, and the truth of the matter is that they have a lot more in common with Anglo Texans, than they do the denizens of Mexico City.Of course, the majority of Texans fail to recognize this. They share the same territory, eat the same kinds of food, listen to music whose only real difference is the language in which it is sung, driunk the same beers and tequila, wear the same kind of clothes, hats, and boots, and attend the same kjind of churches on Sunday morning. They even drive the same brand and type of vehicles. Yet the Anglo Texans see themselves as unique, but not Nortenos. The Nortenos see themselves as unique, but not Anglo Tejanos. Yet they both share common, yet disputed, culural aspects.

Just some thoughts for you Pinguino. As you know, I've never been in Chile, yet I suspect that you know some Chileans who are much like these "Texans" and "Tejanos". Thank God the world is a fascinating place. We will never be bored.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 04:10

Well, Norteño music sounds pretty "low class" and bad-taste kind of music in Chile. People that like that kind of music are usually the more ignorant countryside peasants. Our own country music is pretty elegant, and derivates directly from Spanish traditions. A show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLH0457oP70&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLH0457oP70&feature=related
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUNgEk-jUVQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUNgEk-jUVQ&feature=related
 
With respect to internal divisions, ours is a very uniform people, with the exception of the Mapuches. And makes sense. The Mapuches were an independent society all the way since 1541 (Spanish invasion) up to 1881, the year when the Chilean army finally invaded the Mapuche territories, and they started to lost theirs lands, that were given to germans, upper class land lords and that now are at the hand of wood companies.
There is not internal divisions according to degree of admixture and cultures, of the kind you see in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, Colombia or Argentina.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:09
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
 
 
I remember decades ago when I was an immigrant in Canada I have serious trouble to figure it out if a Chilean was in the street. The rest of the days, Chileans were invisible among Canadians.
 
 
 
 
 
Well .... it was back in the 1970's when very few Latinos resided in Canada.The Anglo-Canadians had no reason to seek out " foreign looks " among the general populace in their daily life.
 
To this day,I haven't met any Anglo or northern European descent couldn't distinguish Mestizos at a glance LOL.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:15
You haven't been in Canada. If you imagine it is the nordic paradyse, you are wrong.
And I wasn't talking about what WASP people could distinguish...
I was talking about what MYSELF couldn't distinguish.
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
 
You haven't been in Canada. If you imagine it is the nordic paradyse, you are wrong.
 
 
 
 
 
I visited Vancouver and Ontario provinces several times.Canada is now a multi-racial nation like USA ( lesser extend,though ).
 
America's Mexican overflows are there Shocked,it's an epidemic.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:23
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

... 
I visited Vancouver and Ontario provinces several times.Canada is now a multi-racial nation like USA ( lesser extend,though ).
 
America's Mexican overflows are there Shocked,it's an epidemic.
 
I bet Canada is, by now, a lot less white than the U.S.
 
With respect to Mexicans in the U.S. you better get accustomed to it, or move to Europe -which is full of Africans and muslims already-. Obama realized that when say Americans should learn Spanish Confused


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Ismael Cala, Cuban
 
 
 
 
Overwhelming majority Cuban-Americans are pure blood Spanish.They're the most highly educated Hispanics in America.
 
1 notable successful assimilated Cuba-born immigrant was Desi Arnez ( married to America's beloved comedien Lucille Ball ),co-starred and producer of TV hit sit-com of 1950's & 1960's " I Love Lucy " !
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:35
Do you really believe that? I still have to find a Cuban that isn't at least marginally mulatto or even Indigenous. They all have some drops.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:42
America's earliest Cuban immigrants fled communist revolution of Fidel Castro.They were the landowners and wealthy business families of predominately Spaniard ancestry.
 
 


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 07:44
Moved to Modern Culture.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 08:21
Hey moderator, you will left empty the section about history of the Americas

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 09:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

People also forgets that Indigenous pure groups are a minority in Mexico these days and that most people is mixed.

 
 
 
As you can see, physically they are not that different from average Mexican.
 
The division is in culture, and specially in the levels of poverty that affect native americans. There there is a big wall that still has to be turned down.
 
 
 
 
These individuals have physical build & facial features not any different from Mexicans of acculturated-Spanish indigenous people and Mestizos have higher percentage of indigenous bloodline otherwise 50% ( give or take ) of Mexican population look " mixed ".Also,there is 10%-20% have fair-skin and very Spanish appearance.
 
The division is economic not culture !
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 09:39
Have you ever seen Spaniards? I do. Some of them are darker than the natives of Cuzco.
 
By the way, don't tell me "white" Americans are pure europeans either. Many have obvious non-european admixtures.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 09:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
 
Have you ever seen Spaniards? I do. Some of them are darker than the natives of Cuzco.
 
By the way, don't tell me "white" Americans are pure europeans either. Many have obvious non-european admixtures.
 
 
 
Yes ... several as a matter of fact.First 2 back in high school,1 America-born counselor who was very tall and dark and head janitor there.I thought both were Mexicans or Chicanos until I overheard my teacher referred them as " Spaniard " and she spoke to the janitor in Spanish.They did look European not mixed.
 
Most American-Whites do have little Amerindian admix,but they're undisputed predominately European.US's past racial segregation attributed to this result.
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 10:08
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

...
Most American-Whites do have little Amerindian admix,but they're undisputed predominately European.US's past racial segregation attributed to this result.
 
 
.... Sure... If you say so.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 12:24
So if I understand you correctly you are saying these people do not look very different? That the lady in the first picture could just as well have been indigenous and the people in the second picture look like soap actors or newscasters?




-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 16:04
I don't think Spaniards look like the people in this video, tough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk
(Guatemalan Mayans - opressed by other Mayans who have been forced into civil patrols and military)


-------------
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ - http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/ - http://www.raipon.org/


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 16:24
I went out for a couple beers last night a Chilean girl. She is pretty proud of being Hispanic, but her skin is more fair then mine, granted I've been working in the sun lately. She also has green eyes. Going by what pinguin is saying, you wouldn't know she was Hispanic, but she seems to like to make it clear when you talk to her lol.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 19:36
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

I have to agree with gcle on this one. Too subjective. I believe Octavio Paz' point in referring to his own race as the "raza cosmica" was to underscore the fact that such a wide variety of racial and racially mixed groups can share the same citizenship and culture.
The concept of the raza cosmica came from Jose Vasconcelos, a Mexican intellectual who created the modern education system. Paz was probably referencing him.


-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 20:40
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

So if I understand you correctly you are saying these people do not look very different? That the lady in the first picture could just as well have been indigenous and the people in the second picture look like soap actors or newscasters?
 
Exactly. That's exactly what I say. Not only Amerindian blood is widespread in the mainstream, even in the upper classes, but all populations in Latin America overlap. Even more, not all Indigenous people look Amerindian these days. Just look at Commander Marcos, the rebel from Chiapas indigenous movement, the Zapatistas, and ask yourself why he doesn't show his face. I bet one of the reason is that he doesn't look Mayan whatsoever Confused
 
 
Yeap. He looks as indigenous as the Che Guevara LOL
 
Common Amerindians with "European" aspect:
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:27
Famous "Indigenous" people that "crossed":
 
Oswaldo Guayasamin, Ecuador, painter
 
 
Mercedes Sosa, Argentina, singer
 
 
Elicura Chihuailaf, Chile, billingual poet:
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:33

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

I went out for a couple beers last night a Chilean girl. She is pretty proud of being Hispanic, but her skin is more fair then mine, granted I've been working in the sun lately. She also has green eyes. Going by what pinguin is saying, you wouldn't know she was Hispanic, but she seems to like to make it clear when you talk to her lol.

Curious. If you are just a bit darker than average Chileans, you would be called "negro" down here or in Argentina ConfusedConfused... No kidding.



-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:35

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

I went out for a couple beers last night a Chilean girl. She is pretty proud of being Hispanic, but her skin is more fair then mine, granted I've been working in the sun lately. She also has green eyes. Going by what pinguin is saying, you wouldn't know she was Hispanic, but she seems to like to make it clear when you talk to her lol.

Curious. If you are just a bit darker than average Chileans, you would be called "negro" down here or in Argentina ConfusedConfused... No kidding.



-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:37
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Exactly. That's exactly what I say. Not only Amerindian blood is widespread in the mainstream, even in the upper classes, but all populations in Latin America overlap.

There's a difference between having some Amerindian blood and being Amerindian. If you are an indigenous Mexican (and look indigenous) there's no way you can ever become an attractive soap hero. The fact that even Swedish-looking soap stars may have some Amerindian ancestry does not disprove that fact.

Quote Even more, not all Indigenous people look Amerindian these days. Just look at Commander Marcos, the rebel from Chiapas indigenous movement, the Zapatistas, and ask yourself why he doesn't show his face. I bet one of the reason is that he doesn't look Mayan whatsoever Confused

Of course Marcos doesn't look Mayan, because he is not a Maya. He's not even from Chiapas, but from Tamaulipas. AFAIK he has never even claimed he is indigenous.



-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:45
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

I don't think Spaniards look like the people in this video, tough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk
(Guatemalan Mayans - opressed by other Mayans who have been forced into civil patrols and military)
 
See the movie carefully. I bet the kid whom Rigoberta Menchu touch at the head, probably a relative, doesn't look very far from Spaniards, either.
 
I don't know what is your idea of Spaniards or Italians, but although they have some blonds and blue eyed people, most of them are light brown, and not few are straight brown. As I said before, many Spaniards won't be noticed as foreigners in most places of Latin America, while a "gringo" tall blond person would call the attention at once.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 21:56
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


There's a difference between having some Amerindian blood and being Amerindian. If you are an indigenous Mexican (and look indigenous) there's no way you can ever become an attractive soap hero. The fact that even Swedish-looking soap stars may have some Amerindian ancestry does not disprove that fact.
 
It well may be. However, most Mexicans don't meet both conditions at the same time. The Mexicans that look Indigenous and are really Indigenous make a small minority in that country, and the point was if Mexican TV shows the realities of the majorities.
 
In any case, it could be that Mexican TV is like the Bill Cosby show. The time you see a pure "African" in that show, and not the common mulattoes that they select, it will be a time to celebrate LOLLOL 
 
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Of course Marcos doesn't look Mayan, because he is not a Maya. He's not even from Chiapas, but from Tamaulipas. AFAIK he has never even claimed he is indigenous.
 
I see, he maybe just another "indigenist" that reads Guevara and follow Castro's instructions...Confused
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 02-May-2009 at 23:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

I don't think Spaniards look like the people in this video, tough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk
(Guatemalan Mayans - opressed by other Mayans who have been forced into civil patrols and military)
 
See the movie carefully. I bet the kid whom Rigoberta Menchu touch at the head, probably a relative, doesn't look very far from Spaniards, either.
 
I don't know what is your idea of Spaniards or Italians, but although they have some blonds and blue eyed people, most of them are light brown, and not few are straight brown. As I said before, many Spaniards won't be noticed as foreigners in most places of Latin America, while a "gringo" tall blond person would call the attention at once.
 
 
 
Yes, that particular kid, but most of them look very different from Spaniards - I mean not the city people, but the Maya. I do know how Spanish people look, and that they're sometimes quite dark. It's obvious that they would be less noticable than some light skin blonde person, because a blond person would stick out completely - and he would be noticed from very far away.
 
I was searching for Mayan, when I saw this video. The reason I found it was that they mentioned something about Mayan in the text. But Pinguin, I'd say that Spaniards can look more NA than some of these people do!  which is kind of even more noticable because they have Irene Bedard as an entertainer, and some southern guy at the end of the video, showing the stark contrast.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wbu5g7oDD8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wbu5g7oDD8


-------------
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ - http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/ - http://www.raipon.org/


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 02:05
Indeed. Mayans don't look Spaniard. But Mexicans in general don't look Mayan or Spaniard but with all the varieties in between. So, it makes sense that most people shown on TV belongs to the largest majorities. From my experience in Lat Am TV, it is not strange, either, that pure Amerindian looking people shows on TV. However, dressing as Europeans and wearing executive suits. It is more common, though, to see them in the news and other activities rather than at the time prime on soap operas.
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 04:54
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

The dance is in Taos, New Mexico. And if the dancers are from New Mexico, then chances are that they are Aztec wannabees. I respect their desire to know about their past, but there is very little chance that they are descended from Aztecs. The troops who conquered New Mexico were Tlaxcalan. The great majority of "Nortenos" are descended fron either Tlaxcalans or Tarascans, and yes, I am aware of previous posts on "Tarascans".  You can also find such troupes in the "zocalo". They are a modern phenomen, not unlike the Anglos all dressed up in robes and whatever, claiming to represent pre-Christian Europe. Except for their genes, they are little different from Boy Scout troops who dress up as "native Americans" for Thanksgiving pageants. 


Furthermore, this is a modern interpretation on the dances. I grew up watching people who did this kind of dances on the annual big religious procession, so I have a pretty good idea of what it looks like.

The dances were a bit off from the start. However, what really gave them away was when the dancers, in a line, did the do si do .



-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 04:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Indeed. There are some people, in places like Mexico, who wants to recall Aztec customs back to life. However, they are authentic modern Mexicans as much as the Mayas of Chiapas. People also forgets that Indigenous pure groups are a minority in Mexico these days and that most people is mixed.


The point is clear, the people that shows on TV are representative of Mexicans.


Anyways, here there are Nahuatl speaking natives, relatives of the real Aztecs:

 






 

As you can see, physically they are not that different from average Mexican. The division is in culture, and specially in the levels of poverty that affect native americans. There there is a big wall that still has to be turned down.

 


Yes, and these people soooo similar to the picture of actors that you posted on the other thread.

-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 05:02
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Yes, you can find real nahuatl speaking Mexicans right in front of the hotel next to the U.S. Embassy. But they are just one of many ethnicities that makes up Mexico. There is an ethnic division in Mexico that is greater than Chollos versus Indios, and that is Nortenos versus those who are not Norteno. Nortenos see themselves as the powerhouse of Mexico. They produce the goods that bring Mexico foreign exchange. And they pay the taxes that keep the Mexican state afloat. "Chilangos" despise and loath the Nortenos, but the Nortenos don't really care. They live in their own neighborhoods, frequent their own clubs, listen to their own music, and generally prefer a cuisine common to Northern Mexico. They also have a preference for Tecate beer. Many of the Nortenos are, genetically, Indians, but their culture is shared with Mestizos, and even the "Espanolitos" of long established families. They are the powerhouse nof Mexico, and the truth of the matter is that they have a lot more in common with Anglo Texans, than they do the denizens of Mexico City.Of course, the majority of Texans fail to recognize this. They share the same territory, eat the same kinds of food, listen to music whose only real difference is the language in which it is sung, driunk the same beers and tequila, wear the same kind of clothes, hats, and boots, and attend the same kjind of churches on Sunday morning. They even drive the same brand and type of vehicles. Yet the Anglo Texans see themselves as unique, but not Nortenos. The Nortenos see themselves as unique, but not Anglo Tejanos. Yet they both share common, yet disputed, culural aspects. Just some thoughts for you Pinguino. As you know, I've never been in Chile, yet I suspect that you know some Chileans who are much like these "Texans" and "Tejanos". Thank God the world is a fascinating place. We will never be bored.


You are right. I will correct a minor mistake. Most of the revenue that the Mexican state has comes from oil, not from taxes. There is rampant tax evasion on Mexico, and you must remember, and it is especially strong among the wealthier people. One of the horrible proposals of Lopez Obrador was to strengthen the tax collecting agency, Hacienda, to find tax evadors.

How long did you live in Mexico? Are you Mexican? You get the country. There are at least two or three more people around here with an interest in Mexico and Mexican history

-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 05:46
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

...Yes, and these people soooo similar to the picture of actors that you posted on the other thread.
 
What is so different from your point of view?
 
They have the same facial features, the same straight black hair, the same dark eyes, the same thin lips, the same rounded faces. Yes, indigenous country women are shorter and usually fatter as well. Besides, they are exposed all day long to the sun, so they are usually darker than city fellows, and (if you know about Amerindians), the color of skin vary dramatically between people heavily exposed to the sun and who aren't, in "races" other than nordics and blacks (people you guys are accustumed to see in North America and Europe) skin color is more constant.
 
So, what's the difference?
 
In Latin America we usually pay a lot more attention to facial features than simply skin color as you guys do elsewhere. We pay a lot of attention to the shape of the noses, because give us a lot more information about origins than other clues. The line of the hair is also an interesting clue (black ancestry has wide forefronts, caucasians in the middle and natives narrow and very particularly shaped hair.
 
With all these antecedents at hand, it is a lot easier to know the relation between people that just looking the degree of poverty in subjects, the cleaness, the tipical dresses, or the facial expresions (natives don't usually smile; they don't have a reason for doing so)
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 20:07
Hugo, I studied Mexican history in university, live for five years in Texas (El Paso, and near Austin), used to own property outside McAllen, and was posted to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City for two and a half years. 

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 03-May-2009 at 20:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

I went out for a couple beers last night a Chilean girl. She is pretty proud of being Hispanic, but her skin is more fair then mine, granted I've been working in the sun lately. She also has green eyes. Going by what pinguin is saying, you wouldn't know she was Hispanic, but she seems to like to make it clear when you talk to her lol.

Curious. If you are just a bit darker than average Chileans, you would be called "negro" down here or in Argentina ConfusedConfused... No kidding.

I could be wrong, but I think she might be more fair then most Chileans, I don't know for sure though. I've also been working in the sun, so I'm darker then usual. But if I saw her on the street, I wouldn't have guessed she was Hispanic is what I was getting at.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 01:18
Those are stereotypes. Chileans are lighter (in average) that Mexicans and many wouldn't call the attention in the U.S.
On the other hand our stereotype of Americans is that you all guys are blond blue eyed pale people. Which is not true. Just think in Bill Cosby and Obama; both browner than everyone down here. And also it isn't true for quite a lot of white Americans.
 
You guys aren't really Germans.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 04:50
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Hugo, I studied Mexican history in university, live for five years in Texas (El Paso, and near Austin), used to own property outside McAllen, and was posted to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City for two and a half years. 


And you just joined! Welcome to AE. The main person interested in Mexico here is Mixcoatl, followed by a few others, with me included. Many of the most interesting conversations about Mexico happened in the sidelines though But with you around, maybe we can start having them here again.

-------------
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.




Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 04-May-2009 at 13:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Indeed. Mayans don't look Spaniard. But Mexicans in general don't look Mayan or Spaniard but with all the varieties in between. So, it makes sense that most people shown on TV belongs to the largest majorities. From my experience in Lat Am TV, it is not strange, either, that pure Amerindian looking people shows on TV. However, dressing as Europeans and wearing executive suits. It is more common, though, to see them in the news and other activities rather than at the time prime on soap operas.
 
I'm sure you know that better than I do. I don't know what is most common.
 
Is this Italian any different looking than the Mexican newswoman?
 
Maybe a bit in the details, but it doesn't stand out, imho.


-------------
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ - http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/ - http://www.raipon.org/


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 05-May-2009 at 04:27
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

... 
I'm sure you know that better than I do. I don't know what is most common.
 
Is this Italian any different looking than the Mexican newswoman?
 
Maybe a bit in the details, but it doesn't stand out, imho.
 
That's the point, Jams. That European phenotype above overlaps with the native.mestizo.white continium. It is absolutelly impossible to tell appart that "kind" of Italians, Spaniard, French, or even Moors or Arabs from the average Mestizo people. You mix northern European with Amerindian and the same faces appear!
 
If someone doesn't agree, well just try to take a trip to South America and find out directly on site. Here we have large populations of Spaniards, Italians and mestizos. Nobody knows who is who.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 04:30
Interesting excerpt in Far Outliers concerning the presence of Filipinos ("Chinos") in Colonial New Spain (Mexico).   Open the link and scroll down to Asians in New Spain. http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/  Should be the second article down in today's postings.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 07-May-2009 at 04:34
Sorry, that was "Asian Roles in New Spain. THe excerpts are in Far Outliers courtesy of the latest issue of http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/journals/jwh/ - Journal of World History (on http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_world_history/v020/20.1.slack.html - Project MUSE ), taken from an article is by Edward R. Slack Jr. on “The Chinos in New Spain: A Corrective Lens for a Distorted Image.”  One Filipina, the "China Poblana", gave Mexico it's national dress.

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 09-May-2009 at 16:54
Yes, there were some Philippines in Mexico. Few migrants, I think, but the crowd of the Manila Gallions were mainly people from Philippines. Even more, the Galions themselves were build in Philipines.
 
China poblana:
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 19:59
In many parts of the world, regarding different disputes about land and other issues people are turning to DNA to try to find out their ancestry and "racial" belonging.  In the US this is for example the case in an ongoing dispute between American natives (Amerindians) and Black American Natives (who the Amerindians calls Freedmen). The dispute concerns the Black Natives right to be a part of Amerindian communities and thus being able to share different kinds of compensation and grants from the state.
 
It´s a rather complicated story with threads a couple of hundred years back:
 
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/seminoles.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/seminoles.html?tw=wn_tophead_5


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 20:07
Don´t forget the black people of Latin America, the Afro-Latino people. They are also an important ingredient in the Latin American mix:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Latin_American - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Latin_American
 


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 20:16
When I was in Mazatlan, Mexico I really saw quite diversity from really faired skinned people to others with a very dark complexion. Some of the Mexicans were lighter skinned than me. I remember meeting a really cute Mexican female who was half German and she had blonde hair blue eyes. She really looked as out of place there as a orange next to an onion. I met people directly from Spain and even a few black Mexicans. The Indians from the mountain villages were small and had a very dark complexion and sort of reminded of the gypsies in Turkey with the colorful dresses the women wore. Sadly, they were out begging for money.   I think Mexico is as diverse as the USA but I have not been to any other Latin American country. The markets was the best place to see all the diversity in the people there and I loved those inside markets sort of like a farmer’s market. I would love to go to Argentina or Chile someday but Alaska is tops on my list. Like Greek/Turkiye I saw a lot of stray cats and dogs in Mexico but great idea because it keeps the mice/rats down.

My Mexican friend Moses said he knew a recent Greek immigrant in Mexico so people come from all over to live there and his mother was half Mexican and half Chinese.   I hear Brazil has the largest ethnic Japanese population outside of japan.

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 20:56
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Don´t forget the black people of Latin America, the Afro-Latino people. They are also an important ingredient in the Latin American mix:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Latin_American - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Latin_American
 
In some countries, yes. Not in all the region, though. They are quite important for Cuba and the Caribbean and for Brazil. Other countries, like Uruguay, Peru and Ecuador have Black minorities. Some other countries don't have an African heritage at all. So, they are important for some Latin American countries but not for all.
 
Besides, there is not "Afro"-Latino people. Eitheir you are Latino or African. Black people of the region may choose. Celia Cruz, Pele and other voted for Latino, and that's what they are.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 21:01
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

In many parts of the world, regarding different disputes about land and other issues people are turning to DNA to try to find out their ancestry and "racial" belonging.  In the US this is for example the case in an ongoing dispute between American natives (Amerindians) and Black American Natives (who the Amerindians calls Freedmen). The dispute concerns the Black Natives right to be a part of Amerindian communities and thus being able to share different kinds of compensation and grants from the state.
 
It´s a rather complicated story with threads a couple of hundred years back:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/seminoles.html?tw=wn_tophead_5 -
 
There is nothing complicated about it. American Indians aren't Blacks. Those tribes that influenced by the white man become slave owners are paying the price of theirs past sins.
But those Black people aren't Indians, but wannabes. They aren't even sambo, to start with.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 21:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
There is nothing complicated about it. American Indians aren't Blacks. Those tribes that influenced by the white man become slave owners are paying the price of theirs past sins.
But those Black people aren't Indians, but wannabes.
That depends on the individual that you are refering to. Some balck people claiming to be native american are fakes and are only interested in benefits.
 
But some genetically black people have very strong claims to being native american as their ancestors were adopted fully into tribal culture, language and dress.  This adoption included fighting as Native Americans against the U.S. military and being forcibly re-located along with the "genetic" native americans. Black Seminole leader John Horse illustrates this.
 
These people today are as "native american" as the "asiatic" native americans whose
DNA is primarily anglo. What keeps them from being counted as such is money.  This is especially with casino operating tribes who have a very strong incentive to limit tribal membership (asiatic, black or otherwise). In doing so, they can have some very creative and very technical rules for defining tribal membership.   


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 22:04

As a Chilean, that is used to another reality, this "romantic" love between blacks and indians as it is shown in the U.S. it doesn't make sense to me. At least in this part of the world, blacks were used as the executioners and tortures of Amerindians by the Spaniards, so when natives captured one of them they certainly had a worst punishment than theirs masters.

With respect to "addoptions", at least in my opinions, some mixed groups have the rights to claims amerindian ancestry. That's true for many meti groups, where mixtures are european and amerindian, but also for some sambo groups, where the mixture is between amerindians and blacks. In the last case I include sambos like the Caribs and other groups in the tropicals part of the Americas.

However, groups like the blacks cherokees and the garifunas, don't convince me they are real indians at all. In culture, maybe, but they doubtfully have a single drop of the ancient peoples.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 22:25
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As a Chilean, that is used to another reality, this "romantic" love between blacks and indians as it is shown in the U.S. it doesn't make sense to me. At least in this part of the world, blacks were used as the executioners and tortures of Amerindians by the Spaniards
Here in North America, back and native American relations have been far more friendly. This included tolerating and in some cases, sheltering run away slaves and intermarriage.  Some Native Americans also avoided deportation by joining free black communities (Lumbee "indians" of North Carolina. These inter-marriages produced some mixed groups in the U.S. south, usually known as "red bone" blacks.
 
Of course, some tribes did own black slaves and black regiments were used against reisisting natives. Even still, Native American slave owners were generally viewed as less oppressive than whites and Black regiments, though very effective in battle, did not commit atrocities against indian civilians.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 22:35

The difference, perhaps, was in the way Europeans viewed both group. Spaniards treated better Indians than blacks. Americans discriminated both groups the same way. So, it is logical they made alliances.



-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 22:48
^
I agree. And since both groups were treated equally bad, neither group was used as brutal "enforcers" against the other.
 
This was different from the European colonial empires who routinely favored one group of locals over the others. The favored group was then used as enforcers. For example, Zulus in South Africa.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 01:41
If one wants to read more about the Black Seminoles and their ties to the Amerindian Seminoles one can check out this interesting site:
 
http://www.johnhorse.com/index.html - http://www.johnhorse.com/index.html
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 01:50
Some of the DNA studies are giving interesting results showing that "pure" Amerindians, "pure" Blacks and "pure" Whites are actually rather rare in North America today. Most of the population is mixed in some ways.
 
When the DNA technique is refined we will be better and better in locating the whereabouts of our ancestors and how they moved and mixed with each other. Interesting.
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 02:00
That's true. If you have modern studies, please give us the link.
It is common to assume that only in Latin America there has been admixtures, but it seem North America had a good degree of admixture as well.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: SerHumano
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 03:48
post edited


Posted By: SerHumano
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 03:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Have you ever seen Spaniards? I do. Some of them are darker than the natives of Cuzco.
 
By the way, don't tell me "white" Americans are pure europeans either. Many have obvious non-european admixtures.
 
For me spaniards,italians, portuguese, greek and many french (specially southern ones), etc  are not white, . Even many british look quinda strange and not like real white people, otherwise looks at noel gallagher, and the whole band oasis, the beatles, tom jones, gordon brown, george best , gordon banks, victoria beckham, mr bean, and so many others i could be take the whole day to name.
There the proof:
http://www.aragonradio2.com/blogs/aragonesmusica/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/oasis2.jpg - http://www.aragonradio2.com/blogs/aragonesmusica/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/oasis2.jpg
note how the guy in the rightmost look alike to the chilean football player Ivan Zamorano.
and the 3 in the most right have a mediterranean aspect and coloring.
 
White americans aren't what i usually think about a white person, i hardly would confuse them with people from the northern  europe. which have often sharper features and are much more tall and blonde as a group.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 04:51
strangely enough, I do agree with you. I consider that white people is only the blue-blond eyed people of northern europe. Most white americans either aren't blond or blue eyed.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 05:26
In re:  (Penguin's comment) "There is nothing complicated about it. American Indians aren't Blacks. Those tribes that influenced by the white man become slave owners are paying the price of theirs past sins. 
But those Black people aren't Indians, but wannabes. They aren't even sambo, to start with."

Penguino, a few points: First, the Whites did not bring slave owning to the Americas. Slavery was here when the Whites got here.  Yes, the Whites (and by definition, that includes Spanish and other Southern  Europeans. Not all "Whites" have blond hair and blue eyes) introduced African slaves to the Americas. But some did manage to escape and, by adapting their life style to some Amerindian groups, became recognized lodges or clans of certain tribes. The Seminole were among those, and Cherokee law recognized the Slaves of Cherokees, later former slaves, as members of the Cherokee nation. So being a Black Indian was a cultural statement. Even the U.S. Army recognized Billy Bowlegs as an Indian, albeit an Afro-Indian (a term that did not then exist).  So (Secondly), Afro-Americans who have recognized ties to various tribes are hardly "wannabes". If their tribes recognize the historial and cultural link, then they are as "Indian" as anyone else. Thirdly, the great maajority of White Americans are exactly that. Pure White. Yes, it is "cool" these days to claim some remote ancestor as "Indian", but the great majority of White immigration to the U.S. took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, after the Frontier was settled. There were simply too many Whites and too (comparatively) few Indians at that time to produce the mestizaje that occurred in Mexico after the conquest. So, Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman notwithstanding, the great majority of U.S. Whites are exactly that. Wearing made in Taxco Indian looking jewelry and "feeling" for any and all putative "native American" causes won't change that. Finally, regarding other posters, there was no magical empathy between African American soldiers of the four "Negro" regiments and the Indians. That myth was invented recently my some pseudo-historian social "scientists". The 24th and 25th Infantry, and 9th and 10th Cavalry, went wherever they were ordered to go, and fought whoever raised arms against them.  Just like their White counterparts did. As for massacres, the few that occured were not the work of Regular regiments, but state volunteer units. Sand Creek, the most notorious, was the work of Colorado volunteers.  Washita Creek and Wounded Knee can both be disputed, given the number of troops that were killed in action. And in neither of the latter were the "victims" unarmed. The real point here was that "massacres" were not the policy of the Army, so it makes no matter whether the troops were Black or White.  Yes, I'm aware that this flies in the face of "popular history". But then, just because a particular view is popular does not render it history.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: SerHumano
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 06:03
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

In re:  (Penguin's comment) "There is nothing complicated about it. American Indians aren't Blacks. Those tribes that influenced by the white man become slave owners are paying the price of theirs past sins. 
But those Black people aren't Indians, but wannabes. They aren't even sambo, to start with."

Penguino, a few points: First, the Whites did not bring slave owning to the Americas. Slavery was here when the Whites got here.  Yes, the Whites (and by definition, that includes Spanish and other Southern  Europeans. Not all "Whites" have blond hair and blue eyes) introduced African slaves to the Americas. But some did manage to escape and, by adapting their life style to some Amerindian groups, became recognized lodges or clans of certain tribes. The Seminole were among those, and Cherokee law recognized the Slaves of Cherokees, later former slaves, as members of the Cherokee nation. So being a Black Indian was a cultural statement. Even the U.S. Army recognized Billy Bowlegs as an Indian, albeit an Afro-Indian (a term that did not then exist).  So (Secondly), Afro-Americans who have recognized ties to various tribes are hardly "wannabes". If their tribes recognize the historial and cultural link, then they are as "Indian" as anyone else. Thirdly, the great maajority of White Americans are exactly that. Pure White. Yes, it is "cool" these days to claim some remote ancestor as "Indian", but the great majority of White immigration to the U.S. took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, after the Frontier was settled. There were simply too many Whites and too (comparatively) few Indians at that time to produce the mestizaje that occurred in Mexico after the conquest. So, Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman notwithstanding, the great majority of U.S. Whites are exactly that. Wearing made in Taxco Indian looking jewelry and "feeling" for any and all putative "native American" causes won't change that. Finally, regarding other posters, there was no magical empathy between African American soldiers of the four "Negro" regiments and the Indians. That myth was invented recently my some pseudo-historian social "scientists". The 24th and 25th Infantry, and 9th and 10th Cavalry, went wherever they were ordered to go, and fought whoever raised arms against them.  Just like their White counterparts did. As for massacres, the few that occured were not the work of Regular regiments, but state volunteer units. Sand Creek, the most notorious, was the work of Colorado volunteers.  Washita Creek and Wounded Knee can both be disputed, given the number of troops that were killed in action. And in neither of the latter were the "victims" unarmed. The real point here was that "massacres" were not the policy of the Army, so it makes no matter whether the troops were Black or White.  Yes, I'm aware that this flies in the face of "popular history". But then, just because a particular view is popular does not render it history.
 
average white american has  6% of amerindian admixture, and they (for the most part)  don't look that "white " to me if you would ask. My american friends tell me , i'm an american mutt" nobody in america think themselves as pure whites.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 06:04
The term White in some countries don't include brown caucasian Europeans. In fact, in Latin America, most "White" Americans would be called browns (morenos) instead of whites (blancos).
 
With respect to Indians, I bet Americans are very confussed. You can spot there lot of "white" Americans who look Indians, but identify as whites, and people see them as whites! Then you see nordic people and blacks that call themselves Indians!
 
And then, you look for the history of Indians in the United States and you are forced to read about Black Americans!
 
I miss the simplicity of Hispanic America, where there are only two people: average and indigenous. And the Indians not only look Indigenous but also speak an indigenous language. And they make theirs own clothes instead of importing it from Taiwan.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 10:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I consider that white people is only the blue-blond eyed people of northern europe. Most white americans either aren't blond or blue eyed.

I don't know if you've ever been to Northern Europe, but most people here aren't blue eyed blond haired either.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 10:53
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

However, groups like the blacks cherokees and the garifunas, don't convince me they are real indians at all. In culture, maybe, but they doubtfully have a single drop of the ancient peoples.
 

Come on, that's ridiculous. You always go around here saying that most Latin American criollos and North American whites have native american admixtures but for some reason you're not willing to accept that black people can also have native american admixtures?

Besides, Garifunas speak a bloody Arawakan language, what more proof do you want?


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 14:22
I know there are black people with indigenous admixture. Your acusation is false.
What I don't see is ANY Amerindian influence in Garifunas, besides the fact they speak an indigenous language. Beside the tongue, theirs genetics and also theirs dances and customs are 99.99% from West Africa. In the same way you don't consider a Japanese speaking English a real Anglosaxon, I don't consider Garifunas speaking Arawak real Amerindians. And I see them as the greatest wannabes of the Americas. That's all.
I do consider indigenous the so called "white" Caribs, though, -who are sambos or afroindigenous- to be the real thing. Just look and them and you realize they have indigenous ancestry.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 14:24
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I consider that white people is only the blue-blond eyed people of northern europe. Most white americans either aren't blond or blue eyed.

I don't know if you've ever been to Northern Europe, but most people here aren't blue eyed blond haired either.
 
So, they aren't white either, but moorish (morenos). Period.


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 16:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I know there are black people with indigenous admixture. Your acusation is false.
What I don't see is ANY Amerindian influence in Garifunas, besides the fact they speak an indigenous language. Beside the tongue, theirs genetics and also theirs dances and customs are 99.99% from West Africa. In the same way you don't consider a Japanese speaking English a real Anglosaxon, I don't consider Garifunas speaking Arawak real Amerindians.
As a side note, Mexican law determines whether an individual is an indigenous person or not based on their ability to speak the language of their claimed tribe. Genetics, physical appereance, birth place etc do not matter.  The only exception is for a few Baja Californian bands whose languages are extinct.  If they lived in Mexico, the Garifunas would be considered indigenousSmile.
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 16:58
Not Indigenous to Mexico. In fact Garifunas aren't Indigenous to Guatemala, Belize or Nicaragua either. They claim they are Indigenous of the Caribbean, but the more likely is they are indigenous to somewhere in West Africa, probably Nigeria.
(A Canadian Cree, or an American Sioux, are not indigenous to Patagonia or Amazonia, either).


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 19:28
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

So, they aren't white either, but moorish (morenos). Period.

I'm Moorish? About 80% of all people I know are moorish?

Even ignoring the fact that biologically there is no base for races, it is ridiculous to call only people with blonde hair and blue eyes white. Not even the Nazis or the KKK say that.

Usually there are two common criteria to determin a persons ethnic identy:
1. ) 'biological': blood, DNA, haplotypes, you get the idea. It may be relevant for tracking ancient migration patters, but usually it says little about a persons ethnic identity.
2. ) cultural: language, religion, tradition. This is usually a much better way to determin a persons ethnic identity. After all, ethnicity is mostly a social thing, it's a complex of things people sharing that ethnicity identify this. It may run through different 'biological' lines or may separate two groups that are impossible to tell apart biologically. This is a fuzzier use (people may even have several identities on different occasions for example) but it is much closer to social reality. Self-idenfitication is the way to go: if people consider themselves member of an ethnic groups and most fellow members agree with it they are a member of it, no matter if their traditions are not genuinely part of that group or if they are biologically different.

Your yardstick for determining people's ethnicity however seem to be what ethnicity you want them to be. You don't like Garifunas? Then they are wannabees. You do like Puerto Ricans? Then obviously they all have taíno blood running through their veins and their customs are authentically Amerindian.

What you are doing is telling other people (on an basis you make up as you go if any basis at all) what ethnicity are whether they idenfify with it or not. Even though I have never behaved even remotely in a way the moors do (or did, they don't even exist any more) you are calling me moorish. Even though Latin American criollos social life does not resemble that if american indians one little bit you call them amerindian. Even though Garifunas continue to speak an Amerindian language and continue to follow amerindian customs (yes - they are heavily African as well, but that's not unique to Garifuna's. Or do you think bowler hats were used in the Precolumbian Andes already?) you tell them they are not allowed to consider themselves Amerindian.

I don't know what your obession is with dividing people along ethnic lines and tell people which ethnicity they are and are not allowed to identify themselves with, but I do know you're making yourself look ridiculous doing that.


-------------
"Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts"
"Atheists deny the existence of Satan, while simultaneously doing his work."

- Conservapedia


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 19:33
We use the term Moorish (Moreno) in the way you use brown in English.
Besides, we don't determine "ethnicity" based on skin. After all ethnicity is culture and not genetics.
In Latin America we call people like they look. A blond pale person is going to be called "white" and a dark haired, brown eyed, slighly tanned person is going to be call "Moorish".
As simple as that.
What is funny for Latinos is that so many "Moorish" people call themselves "White" in Europe. It is not racism. It is only that we find it ridiculous. It like people that say they are thin when they are fat, or they prettend they are tall when they are small. Nothing more serious than that.
With respect to Garifunas. Come on. These people is not Amerindian. In fact, they are one of the most pure West Africans groups that live in the Americas.
 
These are Garifunas:
 
 
What Amerindian is in this drum dance? LOL
 
 
 
 
 
 
Garifunas are pathetic wannabes.
Of course I don't deny the rights of real Afroindigenous descendent people, which preserve the native culture. I consider the Carib to be the real thing
 
These are Caribs of Dominica and elsewhere. Do you notice the difference? I do. They have Indian blood!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: SerHumano
Date Posted: 16-May-2009 at 21:34
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I consider that white people is only the blue-blond eyed people of northern europe. Most white americans either aren't blond or blue eyed.

I don't know if you've ever been to Northern Europe, but most people here aren't blue eyed blond haired either.
 
I have been in your country twice, and most people (natives) seem quite blonde to my standards, i also been in quite a few countries more.
The fact is that you northern europeans consider only albinos to be blonde, come on dutch people or any northern europeans look totally different to italians , or anyone outside northern europe, for the contrary many white americans wouldnt call the attention in italy or spain. I would dare to say most northern europeans are blonde to international standards (except the brits or irish which are mixed with native bretons(dark preceltic people) and therefore not that white.
 


Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 00:23
Lets not exaggerate the darknes of the Brits. Anything is relative, but there are plenty blond Brits, by your standard of blond.
However, white is definitely a cultural term, it is not a literal term or even a racial term. It pretty much means Western European. After all, there is no one who is literally "white". And anyway, Europeans don't use the term at all, except for a few misguided individuals, and certain sayings. Therefore, to say that someone is white or not, based on his looks, is meaningless - perhaps except to Americans, south or north. Of course, being white also means not being black.


-------------
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ - http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/ - http://www.raipon.org/


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 00:28
The looks make all the difference. In fact, in Latin America, the term "white" describe a looks; not a race. So, if you have a brown caucasian and call it white, it is a contradiction on terms. Don't you see it?
 
There is no bigotry or anything in there. It is simply logic. If you call people "curly" they have to be curly, and you can't include straight haired in that subset. If you call people "blue-eyed" you don't include brown eyed in that set. The same with "whites". If the people is brown; no matter how "caucasian" it is, or where it was born, the people is not white.
 
At least, for the standards of Latin America, lots of Brits look mixed between "white" and "moorish". In fact, but it is curious that some Brits look Spanish and others, believe it or not, have certain resemblance with Amerindians. And I am talking about native Brits, and not the waves of immigrants that have changed the demography of the islands since the last 50 years.
 
With respect to the idea that white means not black, that's a dicotomic concept that is more common in Northern Europe. In Latin America we have the idea of many different "races" and many different combinations of mixtures. We never think so much how "impure" is people, but just describe them on how they look.
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 03:07
One curious thing with many people here in Sweden is that they are white (almost literally) in the winter and brown in the summer. Some people that have very light blond hair and brown eyes can be more brown than south Europeans or middle easterners, after basking in the sun enough long time.
So maybe Swedes are only white people in the winter  :-)
 
The most blond people are the finnish, they have the highest percent of blondes in the world.
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 03:33

I was just pointing to the fact when Latinos say white mean a color of skin; not a "race". For a region that was colonized by Southern Europeans, in many cases it doesn't make sense to say Italian, French or Iberian is "white", because many are brown!

For instance, Carlos Gardel, the tango singer of French origin, had the nickname of the "moorish child of the market", and he was not very dark at all; only dark haired and eyed.
 
 
Now, Francisco Pizarro, was quite brown, perhaps darker than the Incas. No kidding. So of what "whiteness" we are talking about? Of Pizarro or Atahualpa?
 
 
Perhaps Francis Drake would also be called moorish in here.
 
 
 
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: SerHumano
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 03:55
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

One curious thing with many people here in Sweden is that they are white (almost literally) in the winter and brown in the summer. Some people that have very light blond hair and brown eyes can be more brown than south Europeans or middle easterners, after basking in the sun enough long time.
So maybe Swedes are only white people in the winter  :-)
 
The most blond people are the finnish, they have the highest percent of blondes in the world.
 
 
Pinguin doesn't refer to the abilitty to tan that many white people can have, but the natural skin tone of a blonde/fair haired  person from northern europe is 99% of times lighter than of a black/darkbrown haired brown eyed southern euro or non european which is often at least olive.  So we can't call white someone who isn't as simple as that.


Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 05:16
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

 
 
Lets not exaggerate the darkness of the Brits. Anything is relative,but there are plenty blonde Brits, by your standard of blond.
 
 
 
 
 
Exactly !
 
I think Latin Americans look vary region to region and country to country depending on the genetic components.
 
 
 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 05:58
what doesn't vary is our definition of white, moorish, black, chinese, etc. Latin Americans have a good eye, and they apply it not only to Latin America, I am afraid. We see Europe and North America as an hybrid continents, in fact. I bet that idea rocks the foundation of Europeans concepts of "race"

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 13:17
Originally posted by SerHumano SerHumano wrote:

 
Pinguin doesn't refer to the abilitty to tan that many white people can have, but the natural skin tone of a blonde/fair haired  person from northern europe is 99% of times lighter than of a black/darkbrown haired brown eyed southern euro or non european which is often at least olive.  So we can't call white someone who isn't as simple as that.
 
But the tan can easily give raise to mistakes, especially if tanned North europeans dye their hair dark. In a warm sunny climate you can never know who is tanned or who has a natural brown skin tone.
 
And many brits have actually a lighter skin tone (with or without tan) than many Scandinavians. And on Ireland people are very pale even from a Swedish point of view.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 13:29
 
This is a computer generated vision of how average North American people would maybe look in the future.
 
A larger image of this Time cover (The New Face of America Nov 18 1993) can be seen here:
 
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/time/74#i3696 - http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/time/74#i3696
 
 


Posted By: SerHumano
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 17:43
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
This is a computer generated vision of how average North American people would maybe look in the future.
 
A larger image of this Time cover (The New Face of America Nov 18 1993) can be seen here:
 
http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/time/74#i3696 - http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/time/74#i3696
 
 
 
It surprises me since 13% of people in the states are black. And lets no forget many others which happens to be dark skinned. Anyways an average face of U.S  in 2009 would look more ethnic.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 18:07
Indeed. If the United States would be fully mixed, it wouldn't look average Latino like that picture, but more like Dominican Republic.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 18:59
A extra picture of authentic Caribs of Dominica. please open the picture
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1331241277014504920ZVucBA - http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1331241277014504920ZVucBA
 
or
 
http://image34.webshots.com/34/4/12/77/331241277ZVucBA_ph.jpg - http://image34.webshots.com/34/4/12/77/331241277ZVucBA_ph.jpg
 
 
http://image34.webshots.com/34/4/12/77/331241277ZVucBA_ph.jpg -  


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 19:22
Originally posted by SerHumano SerHumano wrote:

[
It surprises me since 13% of people in the states are black. And lets no forget many others which happens to be dark skinned. Anyways an average face of U.S  in 2009 would look more ethnic.
 
I actually know a girl who looks little like the girl on the Time cover. She is 25% black.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 17-May-2009 at 23:33
Several items;  First, a couple of posts back, Mixcoatl posted this: "You do like Puerto Ricans? Then obviously they all have taíno blood running through their veins and their customs are authentically Amerindian."  I assume it was addressed to Pinguino, and I assume was a rhetorical question. Nevertheless, I should like to address it:

One of the characteristics of Puertorrican nationalism is the view that Puertorricans are a hybrid people, descended from Tainos, Spaniards, and African slaves. As a theoretical concept, it is as useful as "nos ancestres, les gaulois was to the development of French nationalism in the late 19th Century. The original concept dates back to a 19th Century romantic epic poem by Eugenio Maria de Hostos entitled "la Peregrinacion de Bayoan", which appealed to the belief that all Puertorricans were descended from Tainos. This reinforced de Hostos' vision of an "Antillean union" comprising Puerto RIco the Dominical Republic, and Cuba. De Hostos remains a giant on the list of "fathers of the nation", and later, the idea that Blacks also contributed to the Puertorrican mix also gained wide acceptance, particularly after the rise of Pedro Albizu Campos, a mulatto from Ponce who became in giant in the Nationalist Party in the 1930s. Actual Nationalist Party membership was always miniscule, but its ideas struck a strong chord among the majority of the islands intellectual class.  And thus the vision of Puertorricans as a unique blend of three races entered the island's subconscious, to the point that it was taught in the public schools.

It is not an erroneous idea per se, but as with all such constructs, it is overly simplistic. How pervasive it is was demonstrated a few years ago when a team from the University of Puerto Rico sought to take a genetic sampling of specific islands areas to discover the amount of "Taino" blood in the gene pool. The specific areas selected was a mountainous region between Yauco, Mayaguez, and Lares, two of which retained the name "La Indiera de ..." in the local geography. Persons selected were chosen based upon physical characteristics held to be generally common to native Americans. Of the entire carefully screened pool, only 6% showed a gene common to native Americans. In other words, the majority of persons who looked "Indian" were not.

Within days, on Island talk shows, and blog sites, those who favored a strong indigenous element within the Puertorrican genetic base were grandly proclaiming that "more than 30% of all Puertorricans had Taino blood." It got to the point that the authors of the study came out to emphasize that they had said no such thing. Little matter.

The first flaw I saw in the study was it's simplistic assumption that any Indian chromozomes were automatically "Taino". There was never a people in the Caribbean who called themselves "Taino". Rather niTaino was a word for one of the four classes of persons who constituted their ethnic group. The others were Priests, Chiefs, and Slaves. The word was applied to the people as a whole by later Spaniards. Those who studied Puertorrican history (a minority on the island) would note that by the 1540s, the "Tainos" no longer existed on the island, which was underpopulated to the point that the governor declared it a capital offense for any military age male attempt to leave the island to emigrate to Peru.  Yet "Indians" show up on the census as late as the late 1700s. Therefore Tainos must have survived. Perhaps. But Puerto Rico was also the recipient of native American slaves. The Spanish in Mexico shipped Indian slaves to Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico for labor. Generally, these were prisoners taken in varying rebellions against the crown, or who had committed some other serious offense. The nacsent Americans also shipped out the prisoners from King Phillips War to the "Spanish Indies". Unsurprisingly, there is even a family from Yabucoa whose last name is "Moctezuma". So, the fact that there is some "Indian" genetic base in Puerto Rico hardly constitutes evidence that the "Tainos" survived. Moreover, during the Latin American wars of independence, many refugees from modern day Colombia, Veneuela, Mexico, and Peru were allowed to resettle in Puerto Rico and Cuba. Indeed, the town of Lajas, in southwest Puerto Rico, was largely settled by such families from Venezuela. Many of these families were Mestizo, and thus brought an even larger slice of the native American gene pool in with them. They arrived early in the century that Puerto Rico was to see its population grow exponentially. The Carlist Wars in Spain sent waves of Spanish immigrants into the Caribbean. The French Wars sent a wave of Corsicans across the Atlantic. Then, with Italy's wars of reunification, further waves arrived. At one time, it was claimed that fully one third of all Puertorrican names are Italian in origin. Possibly true, but the real question is did its original owner enter Puerto Rico as a Spanish soldier (southern Italy was for a long time governed by the Hapsburgs, i.e., Carlos V, Felipe II, etc.), as an Italian sailor in the service of Spain, as an Italian immigrant, or as a Corsican? My point here is that "Spaniard - Black - Taina" vision of Puerto Rico's ethnic mix is overly simplistic and seriously flawed. It's most obvious proof? Not a single Puertorrican Historian can even translate the word "Boriquen" into Spanish. We know it as the name of the Island. We even know that the Carib word for Puerto Rico was "Obao Moin", or "Island of Blood". But no one ever recorded what Boriquen meant in Spanish. That, of course, has not stopped the Islands pseudo-historians from inventing fanciful translations and putting them in their web sites. Not has it prevented the particularly imaginative from creating Taino theme parks, with various mystic new age religious ceremonies allegedly handed down orally from generation to generation in their family. But, hey at least we did get "Turey el Taino" in the sunday comic strips.

For what it's worth.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 01:38
Interesting tesis. However, I don't see the point with respect to the thread, and with respect to this subtread about the definition of "whiteness"
 
With respect to the Tainos, at least in Cuba there is written references to the extinction by intermarriage there. So, the idea that Tainos become extinct should be revised, particularly when genetics shows high level of Amerinian genetics not only in Puerto Rico, but also in Cuba and Dominican Republic. Besides, how many natives wives and children accompanied the conquistadors to Mexico? Archeological evidence show there were many. 
 
I found your post so interesting I open a thread with it, called: Cosmic Race concepts in Latin America.
 
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27227 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27227
 
Why? Because the Puerto Rican concept is not alone. That idea exist in DR, Mexico, Chile, Brazil and in many other countries of latinoamerica, if not in all.
 


-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 10:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
With respect to the Tainos, at least in Cuba there is written references to the extinction by intermarriage there. So, the idea that Tainos become extinct should be revised, particularly when genetics shows high level of Amerinian genetics not only in Puerto Rico, but also in Cuba and Dominican Republic. Besides, how many natives wives and children accompanied the conquistadors to Mexico? Archeological evidence show there were many. 
 
I think one must separate the issues about if the Tainos still live in form of genes that are incorporated in todays mainstream population, in areas where Tainos once lived, from the exctincion of the Tainos as a particular people (or peoples) with their own culture and traditions.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 15:51
Everybody knows half the native cultures and languages of the Americas were wiped out. We shouldn't confusse that, though, with extermination of people. Assimilation, education and westernization have most of the blame.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 16:52
Pebbles, The earliest wave of Cuban immigrants to arrive in the United States were fleeing the Ten Years War, related to Spanish suppression of the Cuban war for Independence. Many of those went to New York. I believe Tampa's "Ybor City" was founded when the second wave arrived in the 1890s. Castro's revolution would have produced the third wave. Of course, Cuban immigration to the U.S. was not limited to these "waves". Desi Arnaz, just to cite an example, was already well established in the U.S. when Fidel came to power. 

-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 17:05
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

We shouldn't confusse that, though, with extermination of people. Assimilation, education and westernization have most of the blame.


Pinguino, I would have stated: "Assimilation, education, and westernization share most of the credit."

I see their absorption into the general population as a positive development, allowing them greater life expectancy, a higher standard of living, and greater opportunities. When I look at Latin America, geography certainly does a lot to explain why the Spanish speaking vice-royalties fractured into as many countries as they did (unlike Brazil, which held together). But, I also suspect that the indigenous contribution to the various populations (or lack thereof in the case of the "whiter" countries) influenced their decision to strike out on their own, rather than remaining unified. (and, yes, there were a host of other socio-economic factors involved) 




-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 17:24
Pinguino, How does 6% of a very small population base, selected for their physical appearance to Indians, living high in the mountains in what was historically an "Indian" area, justify your assertion that "genetics shows high level of Amerinian genetics not only in Puerto Rico, but also in Cuba and Dominican Republic."?

Where is this study?  Would you please provide a link? (If I missed it, I apologize)

And again, when you check the history, while there may be a respectable percentage of Amerindian genes among the Puertorrican population at large, it is erroneous to presume that it is "Taino". Given Puerto Rico's history, those genes stand a higher chance of having their origin in Mexico, Yucatan, northern South America, or New England.


-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 17:28
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

....
Pinguino, I would have stated: "Assimilation, education, and westernization share most of the credit."

I see their absorption into the general population as a positive development, allowing them greater life expectancy, a higher standard of living, and greater opportunities. When I look at Latin America, geography certainly does a lot to explain why the Spanish speaking vice-royalties fractured into as many countries as they did (unlike Brazil, which held together). But, I also suspect that the indigenous contribution to the various populations (or lack thereof in the case of the "whiter" countries) influenced their decision to strike out on their own, rather than remaining unified. (and, yes, there were a host of other socio-economic factors involved) 


The reason why the Spanish Empire fragmented and the Lusitanian Empire didn't it is relatively easy to see: the break down with the Spanish Empire was very violent, and took a longer time to happens. In comparison, Brazil independency was a relatively smooth process, similar to the pass from dominion to independent country that happened in Canada.

Besides, Spain didm't have a single colony in the Americas, but many. The main divisions were Cuba, the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico, Central America), the Viceroyalty of Peru (South America). From that starting point fragmentation continued further.

The Independency movements started in parallel in places like Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina, and it lasted from 1810 to the middle of the 19th century. Even more, Cuba wasn't independent up to the Spanish American war, and Puerto Rico never become independent!

So, no wonder Hispanic America couldn't build a single entity, unlike Canada, Brazil or the United States.




-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 20:29
Any relations



TO:





Would you like to be my nieghbor!!!

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 18-May-2009 at 21:12
Pinguino,

I found the second study on "Taino dna". It does clarify a few points. First, their master sample is from four skeletons discovered in the 1980s which radiocarbon has dated as from the 7th century. Second, the "RUM" (UPR of Mayaguez) testing was for mtDNA, not Y chromosome. Thus, it could only reveal if the person had a single maternal Taino ancestor within the past 500 years. More extensive Y chromosome testing would be necessary to determine the percentage of Amerindian ancestry versus that of African or European ancestry Third, , the first test group was "unrepresentative" in that only 33 persons were tested, of whom 23 evidenced Taino ancestry. The second testing involved randomly chosen subjects, one each from of 781 households (out of a 4 million total population). The results of that survey was (in 2001, I can find nothing more recent): Of the 300 samples mtDNA samples until then: 62% as having an Amerindian mother somewhere up the chain, 30% had a Black mother somewhere up the chain, and 8% had a Caucasian mother somewhere up the chain. Its author went on to caution that in Belen, Brazil, similar mtDNA testing identified 59% of the contemporary population as Amerindian, while Y chromosome testing identified only "less than 5% of the same population as Amerindian.

So, the DNA material does exist to show "Taino" DNA. And, if the "representative" slice of the population holds true, 62% of all Puertorricans have had at least one female ancestor within the past 500 years who was a "Taina". Obviously, that does NOT exclude them from having a whole lot of other mixture in their genetic soup, nor does it make them "Tainos". Such a finding is not surprising. In my old adopted home town, the names of those who had arrived in 1508 were alive and well, and many of their descendants still owned most of everything. There were even Ponce de Leons a few towns over, descendants of the first governor's daughter whose husband had adopted her family name. So, a few Taino women could very well be the progenitors of a gene pool numbering in the tens of thousands.



-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 19-May-2009 at 04:43
Well, that's very interesting. However, it is nothing new. It is simply the history of Lstin America, and we knew it even before the DNA analysis were in fashion. It is simply obvious that in a culture like ours, mainly Hispanic in language, religion, customs, traditions, etc. (the male part of culture, if you wish), you find so many femenine arts of indigenous origin. Our love for Amerindian textiles, and Amerindian recipees, is easy to explain when you realize most Latinos have an Amerindian woman in theirs family trees.

-------------
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net