all 4 music genre was born in Mexico. But not one was influenced by negro slaves. In fact the tiny German settlers who settled in Northern Mexico and in the state of Sinaloa had more of an impact in music in Mexico.
The myth of a large black slave precense i,s only a myth, a joke .lol
Sooooooo...if African slaves don't influence the music within a country their presence cannot be "large" and is small enough to be mythical?
Influence is not just about numbers in any case. How many Black musicians live in Japan? How many Chinese ku fu experts live in Harlem or the Bronx? What proportion of the Italian American community are in the Cosa Nostra?
People you see as mestizos could be 1/8 or 1/4 black very easily and look little different from the locals...there is a lot of black admixture in some "Native tribes" in the South of Mexico according to genetic studies...that admixture go there somehow and Amerindians did not bring it across the landbridge from Asia.
The "black" people you see are those who are not mixed enough to blend in that's all. Mexico shares a land border with Belize, which does have a Spanish/English speaking mulatto population, I'm sure there has been gene flow across the border before Mexico militarized the border.
All the blacks that were in Mexico did not just disappear. Genes don't lie. They interbred to the point where they no longer are a seperate people...oh well, get over it. What's the big deal?
Mexico had very few blacks in Mexico. Mixing hardly took place in Mexico between Amerindians and blacks. The Spaniards made sure they hated each other so their was no alliances against the Spanish crown.
I know my people very good, and their isn't any black genes among Mexican population. They is some among the costa Chica and Veracruz, but they are a super tiny minority.
Very Belizeans live in Mexico. And they made no racial impact on Mexico neither did the few Black Semionles lol that Salssin put .
all 4 music genre was born in Mexico. But not one was influenced by negro slaves. In fact the tiny German settlers who settled in Northern Mexico and in the state of Sinaloa had more of an impact in music in Mexico.
The myth of a large black slave precense i,s only a myth, a joke .lol
Sooooooo...if African slaves don't influence the music within a country their presence cannot be "large" and is small enough to be mythical?
Influence is not just about numbers in any case. How many Black musicians live in Japan? How many Chinese ku fu experts live in Harlem or the Bronx? What proportion of the Italian American community are in the Cosa Nostra?
Don't you get it? African blacks have influenced every country they were enslaved or settled. That just never happen in Mexico. THe tiny German community had more of an influence music wise in Mexico than a African black influence. Are you going to tell me Germans have made more of a music impact world wide than the Black African diospara? I don't think so.
all 4 music genre was born in Mexico. But not one was influenced by negro slaves. In fact the tiny German settlers who settled in Northern Mexico and in the state of Sinaloa had more of an impact in music in Mexico.
The myth of a large black slave precense i,s only a myth, a joke .lol
Sooooooo...if African slaves don't influence the music within a country their presence cannot be "large" and is small enough to be mythical?
Influence is not just about numbers in any case. How many Black musicians live in Japan? How many Chinese ku fu experts live in Harlem or the Bronx? What proportion of the Italian American community are in the Cosa Nostra?
Don't you get it? African blacks have influenced every country they were enslaved or settled. That just never happen in Mexico. THe tiny German community had more of an influence music wise in Mexico than a African black influence. Are you going to tell me Germans have made more of a music impact world wide than the Black African diospara? I don't think so.
Obviously not since African slaves were brought to Mexico. The case you are making is pretty illogical. Influence can be brought about by tiny numbers of people or even without physical contact.
And "impact" worldwide? It depends on what impact you are suggesting. I could argue that German composers have had a huge impact on world music.
People who settle a land leave their imprint in various ways. There is no magic formula based on DNA. It seems you are reluctant to concede that there were Africans in Mexico that were absorbed into the population. Not one poster has suggested that the absorption was large or that the population of Mexico resembles Brazil. But the genes don't lie.
The people that was kicked out were the Moors and the Jews, Blacks were always a small minority between the Moors. You know that.
It is true that the sub-Saharan element among the Moors who invaded Iberia was probably minimal. Many Muslims in Iberia were actually converted natives. It's amazing how many people believe the Moors were sub-Saharan. I believe this fallacy comes from Shakespeare's Othello. The Moors themselves were most likely a Berber-Arab amalgam. Of course, they must have had some sub-Saharan admixture, since sub-Saharan DNA is higher in North Africa than anywhere in Europe. Other sub-Saharans were imported into Iberia during the slave-trading era.
In Sicily, during the Saracen (Moorish) occupation, there were all sorts of people imported, including Black Africans. The Saracens also invaded and held Sardinia and parts of southern Italy.
Eventually, some of the sub-Saharans in these regions, as well as those in Holland, Britain, Germany, France, and northern Italian ports, were absorbed into the population (just as sub-Saharans had been in ancient Greek and Roman lands, including Greece proper and Italy proper), leaving no phenotypical trace for the most part. But genetics reveals them.
Interestingly, I know (through a friend) of a few sparsely populated, rural, isolated communities in malarial river valleys in south Portugal where a few of the people display noticeable African physical characteristics. Another friend who visits Italy often recently mentioned that some rural villages in Calabria, Apulia, and Sicily contain such people. And my mom, who grew up in Yugoslavia, mentioned that when her father (killed in the war) was stationed in rural parts of Bosnia, he saw people with partly African features. My grandfather was curious about this, and was told that the Turks had placed these people there, and they gradually began to mix with the locals, but sub-Saharan features were still present. It would stand to reason that such people exist in Spain, Holland, Britain, etc.
However, these people are small minorities. The absolute vast majority of Europeans (north and south) do indeed look like Europeans.
Typical looking Berbers,Morocans ,Algerians. Caucasian people
The Moors in Spain Iberia were CAUCASIAN people not black people.
all 4 music genre was born in Mexico. But not one was influenced by negro slaves. In fact the tiny German settlers who settled in Northern Mexico and in the state of Sinaloa had more of an impact in music in Mexico.
The myth of a large black slave precense i,s only a myth, a joke .lol
Sooooooo...if African slaves don't influence the music within a country their presence cannot be "large" and is small enough to be mythical?
Influence is not just about numbers in any case. How many Black musicians live in Japan? How many Chinese ku fu experts live in Harlem or the Bronx? What proportion of the Italian American community are in the Cosa Nostra?
Don't you get it? African blacks have influenced every country they were enslaved or settled. That just never happen in Mexico. THe tiny German community had more of an influence music wise in Mexico than a African black influence. Are you going to tell me Germans have made more of a music impact world wide than the Black African diospara? I don't think so.
Obviously not since African slaves were brought to Mexico. The case you are making is pretty illogical. Influence can be brought about by tiny numbers of people or even without physical contact.
And "impact" worldwide? It depends on what impact you are suggesting. I could argue that German composers have had a huge impact on world music.
People who settle a land leave their imprint in various ways. There is no magic formula based on DNA. It seems you are reluctant to concede that there were Africans in Mexico that were absorbed into the population. Not one poster has suggested that the absorption was large or that the population of Mexico resembles Brazil. But the genes don't lie.
If black slaves could not influence Mexico in music,what makes you think the average black slave lived enough to influence a nation? The average slave in Mexico lasted only 3 years on average.
Few Mexicans have black in them. No more than 200,000.
Not like the crazy chart Salssin put up.
Caucasian? I didn't think most Europeans and people of European ancestry originated from the Caucasus mountains. The Turks didn't kidnap that many, did they?
Caucasian? I didn't think most Europeans and people of European ancestry originated from the Caucasus mountains. The Turks didn't kidnap that many, did they?
Yes the Berbers and the Moors were are Caucasian.
3 races Caucasianiod(white race)
Caucasian? I didn't think most Europeans and people of European ancestry originated from the Caucasus mountains. The Turks didn't kidnap that many, did they?
Yes the Berbers and the Moors were are Caucasian.
3 races Caucasianiod(white race)
Mongoloid race
Negroid race
3 races? Really? Where do they come from and how does one delineate between them? You may want to read the thread in the Site Management forum on the definition of race before answering.
Look, Tony, you really need to read The Rules before you post any more.
The very first rule presented is: “Factually inaccurate statements are not tolerated. Moderators will challenge any statement of fact that appears to be simply made up. No exceptions. This site’s survival depends on the accuracy of the facts presented. Please remember this. Do not make factual claims in this web site that you cannot back up with credible sources. Never. Not once.”
You have violated this and other rules repeatedly, probably with meaning to or perhaps without even realizing it. But the fact is that you have violated them and I must warn you to stop now or I will have to suspend your posting privilege. Here are some examples:
Garciaparra wrote:
Genetic studies doesn't mean anything.
Rule B.2. This is an unsubstantiated opinion stated as fact. Genetic studies mean a great deal. If you have any data to refute any specific study, now is the time to present it.
Garciaparra wrote:
Most Spaniards and Portuguese have like 0.5% black blood, does that make them black?
First, rule A.3.b, this is a strawman. No one here has suggested that Spaniards (or Mexicans, for that matter) are “black.” Second, rule B.4.k, it is not clear what you mean by “black” in this context
Garciaparra wrote:
It's a hidden Agenda to blacken Mexico.
Rule A.3 ad hominem.
Garciaparra wrote:
99.9999% of the people in Guerrero and Veracruz looked and were Mestizo,Amerindian or European.
Rule B.2. Are you referring to genetic admixture and suggesting that there is less than one part per million of subsaharan admixture in the population of Guerrero and Vera Cruz? That is less than in England or Norway. Please provide your source for this extraordinary claim.
Garciaparra wrote:
But not one [Mexican music genre] was influenced by negro slaves.
Rule B.2. Please provide source.
Garciaparra wrote:
The myth of a large black slave presence i,s only a myth, a joke .lol
Rule A.3.b strawman. What do you mean by “large”? The number of slaves imported to colonial Mexico is well known. Also, several shiploads of U.S. Gulf Coast Creoles migrated to Vera Cruz in the 1840s and 1850s.
Garciaparra wrote:
Mexico had very few blacks in Mexico. Mixing hardly took place in Mexico between Amerindians and blacks.
Rule B.2. Please provide source.
Garciaparra wrote:
I know my people very good, and their isn't any black genes among Mexican population. They is some among the costa Chica and Veracruz, but they are a super tiny minority.
This is gibberish. You cannot say that “there isn’t any,” and follow it by saying “there is some” in the very next sentence. What do you mean by “super tiny minority?” The genetic admixture studies give a concrete fraction of subsaharan ancestry. If you can refute them do so. Otherwise, keep your unsubstantiated opnions to yourself.
Garciaparra wrote:
The Moors in Spain Iberia were CAUCASIAN people not black people.
Rule A.3.b strawman. No one suggested that Berbers are “black.” Rule B.4.k, what do you mean by “black.”
Garciaparra wrote:
Yes the Berbers and the Moors were are Caucasian.
Maya already explained that they do not come from the Caucasus. If you have another meaning for “Caucasian,” please explain it.
Rules B.4.a and B.4.b. There are no bio-races in the human species. There are socially defined groups called “races,” but your personal definition of how many there are and how they are delineated is probably unintelligible to anyone else.
Again, this is just a warning since you are new here. But you really need to read The Rules before you post any more. Stop violating the rules immediately or I will have to suspend your posting privilege.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 04:09 Post subject: Comment
Hi Frank,
Too bad Tonny was suspended.
Although I can't agree with the fact he lost his temper, I can't hide the fact I agree with what he said.
Mexico doesn't have an African heritage of importance at all, no matter all the genetical studies or historical recopilation some schollars make. Even if the numbers are correct, that only mean the importation of individuals, not of cultures. The fact is Blacks haven't had an impact in Music or in other Mexican traditions at all. That's easy to see when one compares Mexico with Cuba, Dominican Republic or even Uruguay, where the African presence can be seen easily.
The insistence of some people of injecting African heritages in countries that don't identify with that is not only throublesome but irritating for locals. I know it first hand when I remember that 100 descendents of Blacks in the frontier town of Arica (people that were former Peruvians) is spreading to the world the importance of Africa for Chilean identity. Something ridiculous, but that certain international groups of interest don't want to accept. The same goes for the 4 million Blacks imported in Spain (heared somewhere else), that Moors were Blacks, that Spaniards and Italians are Blacks and other myths than are beeing repeated once and once again, particularly by Afrocentric groups but also in White Supremacy groups.
That propaganda machine exist and is noticeable for any Latino that think. And it is producing tensions right now. It is a pitty, because the African heritage is important for the region as a whole, and for some countries in particular, but not for all.
As genetic shows, Latinos in average are first Souther European, second Indigenous and third Blacks, in that order, and in mixtures that vary from region to region. That's something we know and we have always know.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 04:52 Post subject: Re: Comment
oevega wrote:
Too bad Tonny was suspended.
I agree, but I had no choice.
oevega wrote:
I can't hide the fact I agree with what he said. ...
I think that you (and probably Tony, too) are conflating three different issues. I agree with you on the first two. I disagree on the third.
The first issue (what this thread is about) is that USAmericans are blind to the fact that there is only one culture among Westernized Latin Americans, not two. It is easy to show that Black Anglo-Americans are ethnically distinguishable from White Anglo-Americans. They differ culturally in many ways: in dialect, religious practices, foods, music, songs, stories, dances, economic circles, even dress. But, while there are ethnic groups in many Latin American countries, "Black" is seldom one of them, in that dialect, religious practices, foods, music, songs, stories, dances, economic circles, and dress seldom vary with how much African admixture you have. The result is that USAmericans come up with solutions to problems that are based on a false premise--the existence of an Afro-Latino culture (in the sense described above). It is frustrating repeatedly to try and fail to communicate that the lack of an endogamous color line (the grandmother phenomenon as I think Caribj put it) invalidates their most basic assumptions. I sympathize with your fustration.
I also agree that Chile, Argentina, and Mexico are even more alien to Anglo-Americans than most of Latin America. There were so few Africans imported to those lands that their African genetic admixture is now too sparsely distributed to show up in anyone's phenotype (like Spain or Portugal). Hence, there are few if any African-looking people in those countries.
I disagree with you on the issue that I moved to the molecular anthopology forum. Because you (and, I think, Tony) are senstive to USAmerican misinterpretation of "race" in Latin America (especially of Chile, Mexico, and Argentina), you insist that DNA studies are invalid, that African genetic admixture does not exist, that we can learn nothing about migrations and assimilation from DNA. The simple fact is that DNA studies show conclusively that the genes of the eleven million Africans imported to the New World are still here, scattered throughout the continent, concentrated in some places (Bahia, the Caribbean, coastal Peru) and sparse in other places. Apparently, you find these facts so distasteful that you try to discourage others from studying them. This must also be frustrating, but I cannot sympathize. Facts are facts. Even if you fear that some Anglo-Americans will draw false conclusions from them, facts are indifferent to your rejection.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 05:10 Post subject:
Well,
I think I agree with you in your possition. Yes, there is admixture in all Latin America, not only of Whites, Indians and Blacks but also of East Asians, Arabs, Germans and whatever people exist. The mixtures are in different proportions, as we both agree. That's the way it is.
However, in the matter of culture I dissagree. There is not even the number of people what determine a culture but historical events and certain mechanics that escape my comprehension.
Let me give you an example: Uruguay. For all standards, Uruguay is a European country that has a quite small Native American admixture, almost inexistent and with no surviving indian culture at all. Most people is European, but they have a minority of Blacks (Perhaps 4% of the population).
But you couldn't believe the impact of the African culture into the White population. Why an European people celebrate the cult of Jemanja and dance to the drums of Candomble? In the Indian part it is also amazing Uruguayans are fanatic mate drinkers, and indigenous potion they drink in giant pots all day long wherever they go.
On the other hand, other peoples could have African ancestry but they don't identify with it, but with European or Indian culture. That also exist.
Latin America is that way: strange and different. And I believe if people want to know it, there is no better way that ask to locals.
Finally, foreigners must realize Latin America is not uniform. It is not a huge Mexico, Brazil or Cuba, but a mozaic of hundred of regions with different peoples. Across a mountain one find Menonites, and farther one can find Japaneses, Mulattoes, Quechuas or any other people.
However, in the matter of culture I dissagree. ... Let me give you an example: Uruguay. For all standards, Uruguay is a European country that has a quite small Native American admixture, almost inexistent and with no surviving indian culture at all. Most people is European, but they have a minority of Blacks (Perhaps 4% of the population). But you couldn't believe the impact of the African culture into the White population. Why an European people celebrate the cult of Jemanja and dance to the drums of Candomble? In the Indian part it is also amazing Uruguayans are fanatic mate drinkers, and indigenous potion they drink in giant pots all day long wherever they go. On the other hand, other peoples could have African ancestry but they don't identify with it, but with European or Indian culture. That also exist.
You are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. What I said was that an individual's culture within any particular country does not vary with how much admixture he/she happens to have. In your example, Euro-looking Uruguayans and those few with a touch of Africa have precisely the same customs (heavily influenced by Africa). Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil is the same--Yoruba Candomble ceremonies attended by European-looking worshippers. In PR it is the other way around. Everybody is Spanish and follows all the Spanish customs (especially regarding processions tied to the church calendar), even the very darkest ones. Within any given country, how dark you are does not significantly affect how you worship, how you talk, how you make music, or what folk-tales you tell your children.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 10 Apr 2007 13:27; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 06:05 Post subject: What is ethnicity?
Frank wrote:
Quote:
It is easy to show that Black Anglo-Americans are ethnically distinguishable from White Anglo-Americans. They differ culturally in many ways: in dialect, religious practices, foods, music, songs, stories, dances, economic circles, even dress.
The problem here, as I've pointed out for many years in "Interracial Voice," is that the "mulatto elite" are culturally far more "white" than "black." Most of the Anglo mulatto or mixed-white autobiographical material I've read describes people who are basically like other whites of their class but feel tainted or restricted by their "Negro blood."
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 13:15 Post subject: Re: What is ethnicity?
Powell wrote:
Most of the Anglo mulatto or mixed-white autobiographical material I've read describes people who are basically like other whites of their class but feel tainted or restricted by their "Negro blood."
Yes. The demonstrable existence of a distinct Black U.S. culture (as defined above) apparently contradicts the equally demonstrable existence of a large segment of the African-American community that displays cultural traits indistinguishable from other Anglo-Americans. I suggest that the 19th-century history of African-American ethnicity resolves this apparent contradiction in two ways.
First, until the Great Migration that started around the turn of the 20th century, Black Yankee cultural traits were very different from those of the descendants of slaves. The customs, dialect, religious practices, music, songs, folktales, etc. of the Black Yankees were indistinguishable from those of White Yankees, especially in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Indeed, for example, some AME ministers looked down with horror at the interactive call-and-response style of religious worship among Black southerners, which they considered heathen and "ridiculous." Today's African-American culture blends traits of slave descendants and of Black Yankees. (There was a third tributary to the stream, irrelevant here--Gulf Coast Creoles.) The confluence of ethnic traits was not unopposed. To this day, some upper-crust Black Boston Brahmins reject traits that came from the south.
The second reason that African-American cultural traits seem contradictory in the sense you describe is that, while African-American-ness denotes membership in an endogamous group, it is also a U.S. ethnicity. And, like every other ethnicity, there are certain traits that come out more in ethnic festivals and rituals within the group than in the public persona exposed to mainstream society. The easiest way to see this is in speech patterns. I have observed even (Black) professors at a college reception/cocktail party interacting with diction better than most Whites, switch pronunciation when they cluster in an all-Black group. This should not surprise. Jews, Puerto Ricans, Trinis, Badians, even some Irish-Americans do the same thing.
To my mind, the best outline of the still-in-process formation of Black ethnic traits is Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1980). My favorite account of the 19th-century Black Yankees and their struggle to avoid assimilation by the blended Black culture that emerged after Reconstruction is Elizabeth Rauh Bethel, The Roots of African-American Identity (New York: St. Martin's, 1997).
Incidentally, the fight among the descendants of the Black Yankees to preserve their own heritage against the homogenizing impact of the descendants of slaves is still very much going on, not unlike the similar struggle of the Gulf Coast Creoles. Lawrence Graham, Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class (New York: HarperCollins, 1999) erroneously sees this as class differences, but then Graham tends to see lots of things as class difference.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 14:15 Post subject: Re: What is ethnicity?
fwsweet wrote:
Powell wrote:
Most of the Anglo mulatto or mixed-white autobiographical material I've read describes people who are basically like other whites of their class but feel tainted or restricted by their "Negro blood."
Yes. The demonstrable existence of a distinct Black U.S. culture (as defined above) apparently contradicts the equally demonstrable existence of a large segment of the African-American community that displays cultural traits indistinguishable from other Anglo-Americans. I suggest that the 19th-century history of African-American ethnicity resolves this apparent contradiction in two ways.
First, until the Great Migration that started around the turn of the 20th century, Black Yankee cultural traits were very different from those of the descendants of slaves. The customs, dialect, religious practices, music, songs, folktales, etc. of the Black Yankees were indistinguishable from those of White Yankees, especially in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Indeed, for example, some AME ministers looked down with horror at the interactive call-and-response style of religious worship among Black southerners, which they considered heathen and "ridiculous." Today's African-American culture blends traits of slave descendants and of Black Yankees. (There was a third tributary to the stream, irrelevant here--Gulf Coast Creoles.) The confluence of ethnic traits was not unopposed. To this day, some upper-crust Black Boston Brahmins reject traits that came from the south.
The second reason that African-American cultural traits seem contradictory in the sense you describe is that, while African-American-ness denotes membership in an endogamous group, it is also a U.S. ethnicity. And, like every other ethnicity, there are certain traits that come out more in ethnic festivals and rituals within the group than in the public persona exposed to mainstream society. The easiest way to see this is in speech patterns. I have observed even (Black) professors at a college reception/cocktail party interacting with diction better than most Whites, switch pronunciation when they cluster in an all-Black group. This should not surprise. Jews, Puerto Ricans, Trinis, Badians, even some Irish-Americans do the same thing.
To my mind, the best outline of the still-in-process formation of Black ethnic traits is Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1980). My favorite account of the 19th-century Black Yankees and their struggle to avoid assimilation by the blended Black culture that emerged after Reconstruction is Elizabeth Rauh Bethel, The Roots of African-American Identity (New York: St. Martin's, 1997).
Incidentally, the fight among the descendants of the Black Yankees to preserve their own heritage against the homogenizing impact of the descendants of slaves is still very much going on, not unlike the similar struggle of the Gulf Coast Creoles. Lawrence Graham, Our Kind of People: Inside America's Black Upper Class (New York: HarperCollins, 1999) erroneously sees this as class differences, but then Graham tends to see lots of things as class difference.
This summation sounds 100% correct to me. I would add the cultural conflation also occurrs due to intermarriage of Yankees and Southerners. The Great Migration of Black southerners to the industrial cities in the North is surely the standout phenomenon that blended regional traditions among Blacks. When cultures collide in marriage and mere neighborhood interactions, it is only a matter of time before a new blended culture is shared among the later generations.
A funny aside: A Black family I'll call the Smiths are originally from Philadelphia/southern NJ. Mom and Dad moved with the kids to Virginia, with some kids moving further south to North Carolina eventually. The members of the extended family who remained up North sniff that these Smiths have become "slow" and "too Southern" and need to move back up North, but the newly southern Smiths would vehemently deny that they have picked up any southern cultural norms (which, after living there 15+ years and even marrying and raising kids with southerners, is patently ridiculous). To them, Southerners are still "those people" who are "not like us." This is, incidently, not a colorist point of view. Members of this family purposefully "darken the line" because many consider themselves "too lightskinned."
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 14:36 Post subject: Re: Comment
oevega wrote:
Hi Frank,
The fact is Blacks haven't had an impact in Music or in other Mexican traditions at all.
Just like Africans have had some impact on tango music in Argentina, Afrocans in Mexico have had some impact on the music of that nation.
Preemptive strike: Please note that I'm not saying that Mexican musical traditions are heavily African-influenced or that the primary influences in Mexican music aren't Amerindian and Spanish.
Mexican Son:
Mexican son first appeared in the 17th century and is a fusion of indigenous, Spanish and African traditions, much like Cuban son. But in Mexico, the music exhibited lots of variation from region to region, both in rhythm and instrumentation. Some of these regional sones include son jarocho from the area around Vera Cruz, son jaliscenses from Jalisco, son huasteco, son calentano, son michoacano, etc.
Quote:
http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2006/02/16/Campus/Cultural.Fest.Showcases.Black.Influence.In.Mexico-1920987.shtml
Cultural Fest showcases black influence in Mexico
Band discusses effects of cultures on Mexican music and history
By: Andrea Castillo
Posted: 2/16/06
Anabel Tapia, a member of the Chicago-based Mexican band Tarima Son, danced in a strong, passionate rhythm atop a platform on McCormick Tribune Forum's stage Wednesday night. As she moved and swayed her skirt, the other members played Mexican stringed instruments and sang in Spanish. The audience of about 30 clapped along with the beat.
Alianza and Hispanic/Latino Student Affairs held its annual Cultural Fest on Wednesday. "African Mestizaje in Mexico" explored the African influence in Mexican culture and featured a concert performed by Tarima Son, a Chicago band that plays traditional music from Veracruz, Mexico.
The band formed in January 2002 and presents educational workshops in addition to playing private parties and concerts. Their style of music is familiar to mainstream audiences in songs like "La Bamba."
Tarima Son's style is called "son jarocho," which blends Spanish, indigenous and African influences into music. It is accompanied by the "zapateado jarocho," a rhythmic dance performed atop a platform called a "tarima," from which the band derives its name.
"Being from Mexico, we had an interest in all kinds of Mexican music, especially Afro-Mexican music," said band member Roberto Ferreyra.
Cultural Fest, in its sixth year, brings in a speaker or performer from a specific Latin American country or region. Past Cultural Fests have featured guests from places such as Puerto Rico and Brazil.
This year's event was co-sponsored by African American Student Affairs. Because of the affiliation, Alianza wanted to hold an event that would include both Hispanics and blacks.
"We wanted to do something with Black History Month," said Weinberg senior Ana Valenzuela, president of Alianza. "We wanted to educate our members and NU about something people don't know about."
Taking all of these elements into consideration, Alianza decided to address the African influence in Mexico.
"This is something people are not aware of. People think it's either black or Latino, but being black is essentially part of being Latino," said Lijia Evariz, a Weinberg junior and Alianza's vice president.
Between songs, Ferreyra gave a brief history on the African influence in Mexico during the period of Mexican colonization.
The Spanish brought in African slaves after 80 percent of the indigenous population was killed off by disease or forced labor.
Ferreyra also discussed the role of race in Mexico.
"In Mexico, there was a melting of cultures, and classes (were built) among race," he said.
This racial oppression frustrates Ferreyra.
"I don't like the terms of race. There is one race - the human being," he said.
Audience members were surprised by how the Cultural Fest performance linked Hispanics and blacks.
"I was shocked about the history and how Africans were forced into the mountains (of Mexico)," said McCormick junior Aquee Easley. "It was very informative."
SESP junior Brie Jefferson said more events such as Cultural Fest would help promote harmony between different racial groups at Northwestern.
"I feel it would promote more side-by-side things," she said. "Many times, one group dominates the other."
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 14:45 Post subject:
Mexican music in general is a branch of European music. In the Andes you find Native music and in the Caribbean African music, in most the countryside peoples you find country people music rooted in Spanish music. However, in all the regions, music travels faster than people and influences are very marked from everyone to everybody else.
That's why you find Cuban dancing Flamenco and Gloria Estefan singuin Andes music.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
