One-Droppists also use discrimination as an excuse to bind mulattoes loyalties mainly to them. Funnily they usually don't care that A LOT of discrimination actually goes undetected by classing mulattoes and blacks into one group when it comes to discrimination.
1. Mulattoes face discrimination from both sides
2. Today blacks as a group are much more powerful and influential than mulattoes.
3. A racist white person will always fill in a quota for blacks by just hiring mulattoes rather than blacks.
4.Mulattoes are discriminated against because they are mulattoes and blacks are discriminated against because they are black. They are usually not perceived the same way no matter how they actually call themselves. You said it yourself:
Salsassin wrote:
if you look more Black you are discriminated against
5. Other minorities are often much more disadvantaged than blacks. Blacks being the most disadvantaged of all is a propaganda narrative designed for political manipulation.
6. Middle phenotypes continue to be desempowered by the old black white or (afrodescent-eurodescent) narrative
7. Dealing with discrimination by seperating a countries population into newly created (which many of them are) "ethnic groups" only generates additional barriers, devision and hate in societies where there are no other barriers and where minorities without african ancestry are also discriminated against.
8. It's unfair to give more advantages to a middle class person of any race than to a poor person of another race simply because of race. He is still middleclass and there are A LOT of poor people of any race in Latinamerica.
I know we all live our mixedness differently. For some it means creating additional divisions between blacks, whites and other minorities...
Last edited by Mariani on Thu 29 Jun 2006 06:32; edited 1 time in total
Afrodescent implies you HAVE to have African ancestry.
mariani wrote:
This means the concept of "afrodescendency" is mainly ancestry and phenotype and not culturally based since people without african ancestry cannot be considered "afrodescendent" even if they're totally "immersed" in afrolatino cultural traditions. That's all I wanted to hear from you Salsassin.
Salsassin wrote:
And heritage. Don't forget heritage. I never said Afrodescent people where just people who adopted the culture. There are people that are part of Afrolatino cultures that are not Afrodescent. But have adopted the sociocultural aspects of Afrodescent people in the area.
What about those with SOME african ancestry whose "heritage" is not different from the mainstreampopulation of their country? What about people with some African ancestry who have been adopted and raised by "eurodescendents" for example? Are they still "afrodescendent" because of their ancestry and phenotype?
Salsassin wrote:
Afrodescent peoples in Latin America who have certain phenotype ranges do have many common experiences.
Since "Afrodescendents" can have any phenotype which phenotype range exactly are you referring to?
Also what about those whose experience is extremely different from each other like often the case between very light mulattoes and very dark blacks for example? The experience of mulattoes and mestizos also might have some parallels not shared by blacks or Indians. In Brazil for example mulattoes and mestizos are both classed as pardo. In many cases they might also have the same heritage - syncretic, mixed mainstream heritage.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 13:55 Post subject: Agree
Mariani wrote:
One-Droppists also use discrimination as an excuse to bind mulattoes loyalties mainly to them. Funnily they usually don't care that A LOT of discrimination actually goes undetected by classing mulattoes and blacks into one group when it comes to discrimination.
1. Mulattoes face discrimination from both sides
2. Today blacks as a group are much more powerful and influential than mulattoes.
3. A racist white person will always fill in a quota for blacks by just hiring mulattoes rather than blacks.
4.Mulattoes are discriminated against because they are mulattoes and blacks are discriminated against because they are black. They are usually not perceived the same way no matter how they actually call themselves. You said it yourself:
Salsassin wrote:
if you look more Black you are discriminated against
5. Other minorities are often much more disadvantaged than blacks. Blacks being the most disadvantaged of all is a propaganda narrative designed for political manipulation.
6. Middle phenotypes continue to be desempowered by the old black white or (afrodescent-eurodescent) narrative
7. Dealing with discrimination by seperating a countries population into newly created (which many of them are) "ethnic groups" only generates additional barriers, devision and hate in societies where there are no other barriers and where minorities without african ancestry are also discriminated against.
8. It's unfair to give more advantages to a middle class person of any race than to a poor person of another race simply because of race. He is still middleclass and there are A LOT of poor people of any race in Latinamerica.
I know we all live our mixedness differently. For some it means creating additional divisions between blacks, whites and other minorities...
I have being reading your posts and I totally agree with you.
You are describing exactly what the most numerous subgroup of Latin America think about racial issues: mestizos (Euro-Indians)
In the case of mestizos we believe we got the right to claim BOTH sides of the heritage, both European and Native. Europeans don't like we claim theirs heritage like our own because we are not "pure", and Natives sometimes don't like we claim theirs either. However, we know we are BOTH whether they like it or not. And they won't change our mind.
In our side is the fact we are quite numerous and our weitgth is feel.
Good luck with your ideas. You are in the right track. You deserve to claim both heritages because you are both.
Once a mixed native in the U.S. say to an elder he was "half" Indian. The elder answer was so simple and deep: "which part of you is the half indian? the feet, the right arm? which one?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 14:14 Post subject: Afrodescendents
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
Regardless of whether he's the norm or not is this Chinese person Afrodescendent ?
Is a person that goes learns Mapuche culture Mapuche? No. Only if he is adopted into the culture or born into it does that non mapuche bloodline become Mapuche.
Just for your information, Jaime, the Mapuches are a different society from mainstream Chileans. If you talk about Chileans you can get into the endless issue of how much Native they are, and most Chileans descend of Picunches, Huilliches, Diaguitas, Changos and even Aymaras, all extinct groups. Not necesarily Mapuches.
Now, what make Mapuches a distinct culture is the following:
(1) They have a territory that's theirs for thousands of years.
(2) They have a language.
(3) They have a tradition that come from pre-contact time.
In short, they are and Ethnical Indigenous group. A parallel group inside the Western Society.
We are not talking here about a racial minority. We are talking about an indigenous society. And the U.N. recognize the rights of the Indigenous people as distinct to the rest of the people of a given country.
Australian aboriguines have those rights in Australia, Maoris in New Zelands, and Koishan in South Africa. A Black person in the Americas, no matter how you twist it, is not indigenous.
Now, the term "Afrodescendent" is not well defined. Is flexible. That's the problem.
Quote:
Who is "Afrodescendent" here? Who isn't? They might all have the same culture.
...
They might. Especially in Cuba where Afrodescent people are the majority.
Curious idea. Statistics say that Eurodescendent people is the majority in Cuba. Do you see? Those statistics are so easy to manipulate with the one drop rule. "Afrodescendent" is a concept based in the ODR.
One-Droppists also use discrimination as an excuse to bind mulattoes loyalties mainly to them. Funnily they usually don't care that A LOT of discrimination actually goes undetected by classing mulattoes and blacks into one group when it comes to discrimination.
straw man. We are not talking about one droppism or classifying people as Black. We are talking about cultural affiliations. And an umbrella group that refers to many populations that have recieved discrimination and have kept certain elements that come from their African heritage and/or their expereince being Afrodecent. Within this umbrella group there is a huge variability, and not all people of Afrodescent identify with Afrodecent cultures as they have merged with the main stream. In fact, many Afrodecent populations are predominantly mixed. Either AfroEuropean or Afroindigenous or all three.
Quote:
1. Mulattoes face discrimination from both sides
Feel free to provide sources that this is the case in Latin America.
Quote:
2. Today blacks as a group are much more powerful and influential than mulattoes.
Again provide a source of this claim in Latin America. And the richest of Blacks in the US are mostly MGM's
Quote:
3. A racist white person will always fill in a quota for blacks by just hiring mulattoes rather than blacks.
And this is against mulatos how?
Quote:
4.Mulattoes are discriminated against because they are mulattoes and blacks are discriminated against because they are black. They are usually not perceived the same way no matter how they actually call themselves.
Varies by region. In Latin America it is a sliding scale. They could care less if you are mulato or pure African decent. But the more you have certain features the higher chance of discrimination. (add indigenous features as well)
Quote:
You said it yourself:
Salsassin wrote:
if you look more Black you are discriminated against
Exactly
Quote:
5. Other minorities are often much more disadvantaged than blacks. Blacks being the most disadvantaged of all is a propaganda narrative designed for political manipulation.
Feel free to show me your source of one population in Latin America that is 'much more' disadvantaged than Blacks in Latin America. Indigenous and Black groups invariable always are the two lowest rungs, and they are comparable.
Quote:
6. Middle phenotypes continue to be desempowered by the old black white or (afrodescent-eurodescent) narrative
In Latin America, middle phenotypes have merged into the mainstream and are quite empowered. It is the ones that have more Africanized or Indigenous characteristics that will be marginalized.
Quote:
7. Dealing with discrimination by seperating a countries population into newly created (which many of them are) "ethnic groups" only generates additional barriers, devision and hate in societies where there are no other barriers and where minorities without african ancestry are also discriminated against.
Feel free to provide, in fact I demand, by the rules of this board, a source that shows these are newly created ethnocultural groups.
Quote:
8. It's unfair to give more advantages to a middle class person of any race than to a poor person of another race simply because of race. He is still middleclass and there are A LOT of poor people of any race in Latinamerica.
Again, a strawman as Affirmative Action does not exist in most latin American countries. But more anti-racism and prejudice laws have to be created and/or enforced.
Quote:
I know we all live our mixedness differently. For some it means creating additional divisions between blacks, whites and other minorities...
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 16:30 Post subject: Re: Afrodescendents
oevega wrote:
Just for your information, Jaime, the Mapuches are a different society from mainstream Chileans.
And many Afrodiasporic cultures do too.
Quote:
Now, what make Mapuches a distinct culture is the following:
(1) They have a territory that's theirs for thousands of years.
(2) They have a language.
(3) They have a tradition that come from pre-contact time.
Sorry bub, culture is not determined by timeline, language or if it existed before contact. That is exactly what a creolized culture refers to.
Quote:
We are not talking here about a racial minority. We are talking about an indigenous society. And the U.N. recognize the rights of the Indigenous people as distinct to the rest of the people of a given country.
Sorry bub, don't beleive in races. They are an ethnosocial group formed on the basis of racial opression and common ground history.
Quote:
Australian aboriguines have those rights in Australia, Maoris in New Zelands, and Koishan in South Africa. A Black person in the Americas, no matter how you twist it, is not indigenous.
They are if their culture was a creole culture, even if Afrobased, formed in the land.
Quote:
Curious idea. Statistics say that Eurodescendent people is the majority in Cuba. Do you see? Those statistics are so easy to manipulate with the one drop rule. "Afrodescendent" is a concept based in the ODR.
Wrong. Becuase it is not claiming exclusivity. Just that Afrodecendency and experience is a part of them. Unlike the concept of Black and White, Eurodescendency and Afrodecendency can overlap. But most people aren't discriminated as much for Eurodescendency. Only in places like the US, Jamaica and others where fanatical negritude and antimiscegenationhave taken a hold are people of both Afro and Eurodescent antagonized. When I am antagonized it is because they think I am fully Eurodescent (And nordic to boot), but my family that looks mixed has no problem whatsoever in altin America.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 16:55 Post subject: Re: Afrodescendents
Salsassin wrote:
...Sorry bub, culture is not determined by timeline, language or if it existed before contact. That is exactly what a creolized culture refers to.
....
Sorry bub, don't beleive in races. They are an ethnosocial group formed on the basis of racial opression and common ground history.
Quote:
Australian aboriguines have those rights in Australia, Maoris in New Zelands, and Koishan in South Africa. A Black person in the Americas, no matter how you twist it, is not indigenous.
They are if their culture was a creole culture, even if Afrobased, formed in the land.
Nop. Some groups can have rights to certain lands, but they DO NOT HAVE the right to be called indigenous, at least the INDIGENOUS part is predominant. Some mestizos and zamboes can be part of an Indigenous society if there is a line of blood to their indigenous ancestors and if the cultural links have not been broken or replaced by foreign cultures.
"Afrobased" people can apply for indigenous status in Africa, but not in the Americas. Not Euro Afro or Asian are indigenous to the Americas. Plain and simple.
Read the sources,
Quote:
In 1972 the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) accepted as a preliminary definition a formulation put forward by Mr. José Martinez Cobo, Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations:
Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.
This definition has some limitations which were subsequently noted by the organization. The definition applies mainly to pre-colonial populations, and would likely exlude other isolated or marginal societies. In 1983 the WGIP enlarged this definition (FICN. 41Sub.211983121 Adds. para. 3 79) to include the following criteria:
(a) they are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there;
(b) precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country's population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterised as indigenous;
(c) they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own.
In 1986 it was further added that any individual who identified himself or herself as indigenous and was accepted by the group or the community as one of its members was to be regarded as an indigenous person (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. para.381).
Since "Afrodescendents" can have any phenotype which phenotype range exactly are you referring to?
Obviously, the ones that stygmatize them more as African decent.
Quote:
Also what about those whose experience is extremely different from each other like often the case between very light mulattoes and very dark blacks for example?
What about it? Recognition of Afrodescent cultures does not invalidate any shuch exploration.
Quote:
The experience of mulattoes and mestizos also might have some parallels not shared by blacks or Indians.
Yeah, its called the Criollo experience.
Quote:
In Brazil for example mulattoes and mestizos are both classed as pardo. In many cases they might also have the same heritage - syncretic, mixed mainstream heritage.
You just said it. Mainstream.
Last edited by Salsassin on Sat 01 Jul 2006 15:45; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 18:01 Post subject: Re: Afrodescendents
oevega wrote:
Nop. Some groups can have rights to certain lands, but they DO NOT HAVE the right to be called indigenous, at least the INDIGENOUS part is predominant. Some mestizos and zamboes can be part of an Indigenous society if there is a line of blood to their indigenous ancestors and if the cultural links have not been broken or replaced by foreign cultures.
"Afrobased" people can apply for indigenous status in Africa, but not in the Americas. Not Euro Afro or Asian are indigenous to the Americas. Plain and simple.
Wrong as usual.
1. Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.
A creolized culture cannot exist in the old world. it was created in that land. it is indigenous to the land.
Quote:
In 1972 the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) accepted as a preliminary definition a formulation put forward by Mr. José Martinez Cobo, Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations:
Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.
This definition has some limitations which were subsequently noted by the organization. The definition applies mainly to pre-colonial populations, and would likely exlude other isolated or marginal societies. In 1983 the WGIP enlarged this definition (FICN. 41Sub.211983121 Adds. para. 3 79) to include the following criteria:
(a) they are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there;
(b) precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country's population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterised as indigenous;
(c) they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own.
In 1986 it was further added that any individual who identified himself or herself as indigenous and was accepted by the group or the community as one of its members was to be regarded as an indigenous person (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. para.381).
Preliminary definiton. and it is but one definition of Indigenous placed by one organization just like the US tried to define Hispanic.
In Belize, the Garifuna are indigenous.
Last edited by Salsassin on Sat 01 Jul 2006 15:46; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 19:07 Post subject: Re: Afrodescendents
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
...
"Afrobased" people can apply for indigenous status in Africa, but not in the Americas. Not Euro Afro or Asian are indigenous to the Americas. Plain and simple.
Wrong as usual.
1. Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.
A creolized culture cannot exist in the old world. it was created in that land. it is indigenous to the land.
People of Africa is not indigenous to the Americas, Jaime. I will repeat.
People of Africa is not indigenous to the Americas (repeat it 100 more times, please)
Look, Afrikaners have lived in South Africa for more time than your famous quilombo's people in the Americas.
Are Afrikaners indigenous to Africa? Don't be silly.
Quote:
Preliminary definiton. and it is but one definition of Indigenous placed by one organization just like the US tried to define Hispanic.
In Belize, the Garifuna are indigenous.
Yes, and in Suriname Indians came from India. Belize is not even part of Latin America after all. And your famous Garifunas are NOT natives of Belize or Guatemala. They might have certain American Indian admixture, maybe, but they ARE NOT indigenous to the regions they live now. A Quechua is not indigenous in Canada, or an Inuit in the Amazons. The Natives of those countries are the MAYANS. Not the garifunas. Sorry.
Very convenient way of defining things you have.
Indigenous, ha!
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 19:23 Post subject: Re: Afrodescendents
oevega wrote:
People of Africa is not indigenous to the Americas, Jaime. I will repeat.
People of Africa is not indigenous to the Americas (repeat it 100 more times, please)
Repeat it 1000 for all I care. Afrodescent people who formed unique cultures in the Americas mixing with other elements are indigenous o that area.
Quote:
Are Afrikaners indigenous to Africa?
Nope but the Basters are.
Quote:
Yes, and in Suriname Indians came from India. Belize is not even part of Latin America after all. And your famous Garifunas are NOT natives of Belize or Guatemala. They might have certain American Indian admixture, maybe, but they ARE NOT indigenous to the regions they live now. A Quechua is not indigenous in Canada, or an Inuit in the Amazons. The Natives of those countries are the MAYANS. Not the garifunas. Sorry.
They are still considered indigenous. To St. Vincent. And the Mesquito to Central America. The UN isn't Latin America either. Nice try.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 19:46 Post subject: Re: Afrodescendents
Salsassin wrote:
Quote:
Are Afrikaners indigenous to Africa?
Nope but the Basters are.
So, why not Afrikaners? Aren't they in Africa longer than the Garifunas in Central America? Or to be indigenous you have to be dark skinned?
Quote:
They are still considered indigenous. To St. Vincent. And the Mesquito to Central America. The UN isn't Latin America either. Nice try.
So, be what you wish. You know better than the UN then. You define what is and what is not, after all. So please give us your definitions so we can get informed. So how to argue with you?
But still, indigenous are the Native peoples of the Americas, not wannabes allowed
One-Droppists also use discrimination as an excuse to bind mulattoes loyalties mainly to them. Funnily they usually don't care that A LOT of discrimination actually goes undetected by classing mulattoes and blacks into one group when it comes to discrimination.
Salsassin wrote:
straw man. We are not talking about one droppism or classifying people as Black. We are talking about cultural affiliations. And an umbrella group that refers to many populations that have recieved discrimination and have kept certain elements that come from their African heritage and/or their expereince being Afrodecent. Within this umbrella group there is a huge variability, and not all people of Afrodescent identify with Afrodecent cultures as they have merged with the main stream. In fact, many Afrodecent populations are predominantly mixed. Either AfroEuropean or Afroindigenous or all three.
We have already established that the people you refer to as "afrodescendent" do not neccessarily have any particular heritage or 'culture' that distinguishes them form the syncretic mainstream heritage and 'culture' of their country. Just on a side note, culture lives from exchange. If you want to seperate a certain group of people from the mainstream based on 'cultural differences ' (real or imagined) the result will be cultural atrophy.
It's also highly unlikely that based on phenotype she
faces the same discrimination as him
or that their experience is even remotely the same.
Mariani wrote:
Mulattoes face discrimination from both sides
Salsassin wrote:
Feel free to provide sources that this is the case in Latin America.
They do everywhere in the world, from South Africa, to the US. Even in Latinamerica mulatto identity is discriminated against by the binary black- white narrative exported by black american organizations who heavily support blacks in Latinamerica. But it's true that black-mulatto, mulatto-black, black-white, mulatto-white discrimination has been very much neglected in academic studies so far, in favor of the usual black-white analysis.
Mariani wrote:
2. Today blacks as a group are much more powerful and influential than mulattoes.
Salsassin wrote:
And the richest of Blacks in the US are mostly MGM's
Further proof that by classing mulattoes as black, blacks still remain disadvantaged. The real problems are only covered up and the only ones who benefit from this are MGMs who deny their identity.
Mariani wrote:
A racist white person will always fill in a quota for blacks by just hiring mulattoes rather than blacks.
Salsassin wrote:
And this is against mulatos how?
Mulattoes are denied their identity and blacks remain disadvantaged and marginalized. The only reason why this doesn't happen more often in the US (it probably still happens often enough) is because there are not so many mulattoes around compared to blacks. In Latinamerica however there are.
Mariani wrote:
Mulattoes are discriminated against because they are mulattoes and blacks are discriminated against because they are black. They are usually not perceived the same way no matter how they actually call themselves. You said it yourself: "if you look more Black you are discriminated against". Exactly
Salsassin wrote:
They could care less if you are mulato or pure African decent. But the more you have certain features the higher chance of discrimination. (add indigenous features as well)
Why were mulattoes able to assimilate much more than blacks? Why do whites get married more to mulattoes than to blacks? Why are there more mulattoes in positions of responsibilty than blacks? But you're contradictiong yourself here anyway by admitting that the more you have certain features the higher chance of discrimination. Any phenotypical range from Wesley Snipes to Wentworth Miller and beyond is simply waaaayyyyyy to large to cover this reality.
Salsassin wrote:
Feel free to show me your source of one population in Latin America that is 'much more' disadvantaged than Blacks in Latin America. Indigenous and Black groups invariable always are the two lowest rungs, and they are comparable.
I was actually referring to the US where illigal Mexican immigrants are often much more disadvantaged than blacks. As for Latinamerica Indigenous and Blacks are probably comparable today. Historically I would say that slavery was bad but genocide (as in the case of the Indians) was even worse.
Mariani wrote:
Middle phenotypes continue to be desempowered by the old black white or ("afrodescent"-"eurodescent") narrative.
Salsassin wrote:
In Latin America, middle phenotypes have merged into the mainstream and are quite empowered. It is the ones that have more Africanized or Indigenous characteristics that will be marginalized.
It only shows again that mulattoes and mestizos are not in the same boat as Blacks and Indians.
Also I'm not sure whether the black phenotype as such (in women for example) is perceived as negatively in Latinamerica as in the US. However one cannot make the African of Indian phenotype 'more acceptable' by 'mixing them with white genes' because they will no longer be African or Indian. That's eyewash and blacks and indians will still be marginalized. In the US it's especially the black woman who pays the price for this ODR-practice. It's much healthier for blacks, indians or asians to work on a healthy self-image rather than trying to look like mulattoes, mestizos or hapas which will always only come across as ridiculous.
Mariani wrote:
Dealing with discrimination by seperating a countries population into newly created (which many of them are) "ethnic groups" only generates additional barriers, devision and hate in societies where there are no other barriers and where minorities without african ancestry are also discriminated against..
Salsassin wrote:
Feel free to provide, in fact I demand, by the rules of this board, a source that shows these are newly created ethnocultural groups...
I remember a thread about people with very little african ancestry who imported afrocultural traditions from Brazil and Africa into Chile within the past two years in order to claim a disadvantaged status but I can't be bothered to search for it right now. As for other groups it's often merely a matter of interpretation.
Mariani wrote:
It's unfair to give more advantages to a middle class person of any race than to a poor person of another race simply because of race. He is still middleclass and there are A LOT of poor people of any race in Latinamerica
Salsassin wrote:
Again, a strawman as Affirmative Action does not exist in most latin American countries.
'In most' means AA still exists in some and black US cultural imperialists are pushing for it also, based on the ODR.
Salsassin wrote:
But more anti-racism and prejudice laws have to be created and/or enforced.
Yes, especially because so many different minorities are affected by racism. (Indians, mulattoes, mestizos, blacks, gypsies?, polynesians, asians, etc.) What a ridiculous idea that all these people should give up their identities in order to fight racism.
Also who knows whether a Brazilian of mainly german descent from southern Brazil cannot be discriminated against in Bahia, especially as black north-american ideologies become more and more influential in Brazil. The current "blacks always opressed" versus "whites always opressor" analysis doesn't even allow us to find out.
Mariani wrote:
I know we all live our mixedness differently. For some it means creating additional divisions between blacks, whites and other minorities...
Salsassin wrote:
Speak for yourself miss mulatto supremasist.
Well Salsassin a supremacist thinks in terms of hierarchy. Personally I'm convinced that people who immediately think in terms of "supremacists"," inferiority", "superiority", etc. in relation to others who simply want to be recognised for what they are do so because they cannot conceive differences other than in terms of hierarchy. They often believe in those hierarchies. The problem is with themselves. One-Droppists for example often cling to the ODR because they harbour feelings of inferiority. Most mulattoes who identify as such don't think that way. However many black-identified mulattoes do feel superior to blacks.
Also personally I want mulatto identity to be recognised but I don't advocate for mulattoes to neccessarily become a so-called "ethnic group". It all depends on the type of society in my opinion. I think that in societies where there are no race-based "ethnic groups" so far there shouldn't be created any, be they black, mulatto or anything else because this would only lead to additional conflict. In multicultural societies like the US however where race-based "ethnic groups" already exist the situation might be different because mulattoes can't unilaterally disarm themselves against forces so much more powerful than them.
Ovega wrote:
Curious idea. Statistics say that Eurodescendent people is the majority in Cuba. Do you see? Those statistics are so easy to manipulate with the one drop rule. "Afrodescendent" is a concept based in the ODR.
Salsassin wrote:
Wrong. Becuase it is not claiming exclusivity. Just that Afrodecendency and experience is a part of them. Unlike the concept of Black and White, Eurodescendency and Afrodecendency can overlap. But most people aren't discriminated as much for Eurodescendency. Only in places like the US, Jamaica and others where fanatical negritude and antimiscegenationhave taken a hold are people of both Afro and Eurodescent antagonized. When I am antagonized it is because they think I am fully Eurodescent (And nordic to boot), but my family that looks mixed has no problem whatsoever in altin America..
Mulattoes share just as much experience with "Eurodescendents" as with "Afrodescendents". Salsassin. Btw human experience is not reduced to discrimination. This vision is extremely reductive and poor. There is A LOT more to life and culture than discrimination. Building a whole identity on negativity, discrimination, suffering etc. instead of looking for practical solutions for these problems that do not create devisions by creating so-called "ethnic (in reality meaning racial) groups" in countries where most people share the same culture is not a solution in my opinion. It only leads to the same hate and conflict which exists in the US.
Also negativity can only produce a culture of negativity. That's exactly what is happening with African- Americans and blacks in other countries who are influenced by them. Their whole identity is centered around racism and negativity. That way they will never be able to leave the past behind. Also in order to justify the existence of their "ethnic group" racism has to continue to exist. That's why so many cultivate resentment- which is a choice of course. The same will happen in Latinamerica once concepts of ODR-based "afrodescendency" will be fully established.
Mariani wrote:
Since "Afrodescendents" can have any phenotype which phenotype range exactly are you referring to?
Salsassin wrote:
Obviously, the ones that stygmatize them more as African decent.
Which ones exactly? Where do you draw the line? What exactly do these stigmatizing traits consist of? Again a whole "ethnic group" built on negativity and "stigma". Great.
Mariani wrote:
Also what about those whose experience is extremely different from each other like often the case between very light mulattoes and very dark blacks for example?
Salsassin wrote:
What about it? Recognition of Afrodescent cultures does not invalidate any shuch exploration.
You are not advocating for mulattoes to explore their experiences with both blacks and whites, Salsassin, you are advocating for mulattoes to mainly explore their experiences with blacks. You're missing the very essence of what being mulatto is all about. Your concept is extremely one-sided and it also furthers ODR thinking. It maintains and furthers the same binary black versus white view which denies mulattoes their identity as mulattoes, as people who are both in one person.
Mariani wrote:
The experience of mulattoes and mestizos also might have some parallels not shared by blacks or Indians.
Salsassin wrote:
Yeah, its called the Criollo experience.
Why should they not explore it further? Especially in countries like Brazil for example there might be commonalities and identity-related issues not shared by monoracials. However from what you say I gather that you want mulattoes to be classed with blacks - with blacks alone just like One-Droppists even though you're not one of them (of course).
Mariani wrote:
In Brazil for example mulattoes and mestizos are both classed as pardo. In many cases they might also have the same heritage - syncretic, mixed mainstream heritage.
Salsassin wrote:
You just said it. Mainstream.
Is it a bad thing to be mainstream? Especialy if the mainstream culture is already very syncretic? If their heritage is mainstream than that's what it is. "Heritage" disqualifies as an excuse for "afrodescendency" just as much "culture".
Your concept of "afrodescendency" is entirely ancestry and phenotype based Salsassin, The rest is just retoric.
Last edited by Mariani on Fri 30 Jun 2006 09:12; edited 3 times in total
Mariani wrote:
2. Today blacks as a group are much more powerful and influential than mulattoes.
Salsassin wrote:
And the richest of Blacks in the US are mostly MGM's
Further proof that by classing mulattoes as black, blacks still remain disadvantaged. The real problems are only covered up and the only ones who benefit from this are MGMs who deny their identity.
There is no "proof" of anything that can be distiguished because, as you said, no (or not enough) studies have been done. I imagine they would be very hard to do now because African Americans are mostly MGM. You are looking for "pure" mulattos in a population that doesn't see itself as such. It seems like you want to extract the lighter skinned folk with no regard to other characteristics, and I woud caution against that thinking when considering discrimination in the US. There is no Latin American visual classification of differences in phenotype in the US among Blacks, not in a meaningful way. It is very likely that Wesley Snipes and Wentworth Miller face some of the same discrimination if discrimination against them is based on ODR, which it has been in the US.
When your goal is to separate by phenotype and essentialize experience, you set a trap for yourself. You are totally minimizing (really, ignoring) the impact of class and education. In the US, these have been equalizers for minority groups of all phenotypes, with Black women in particular benefiting more than Black men (when it comes to education).
Is it your contention that mulattos and mestizos face less discrimination than their less mixed and/or more African-looking counterparts in the US? If so where are your sources that support that contention?
US Blacks that remain disadvantaged tend to be poor to low middle class, urban/rural, and undereducated in failing schools. There are plenty of MGM folks in this group. There is no "paper bag test" for the ghetto. Remember that in the US, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Mexicans tend to be more disadvantaged (wealth, education) than Argentinians or Cubans, so that there may not be a direct correlation between African phenotype and disadvantage. The correlation could be ethnic, linked to recency of immigration, English language skills or other factors. The correlation you are trying to make between European phenotype and advantage among Blacks is certainly true of the past, may have regional variations, but may not be as straightforward when you consider other factors. The view strikes me as nostalgic until studies demonstrate otherwise.
Anecdotally speaking, are you aware that most prominent Black Republicans are very darkskinned (Armstrong Williams, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice)?
And to your point about illegal Mexican immigrants, it doesn't sound like you have ever been to the Southwest in the US. There is no prototypical Mexican or Mexican immigrant. There is diversity based on education, income, occupation, etc. that doesn't correlate neatly with phenotype because opportunities for all people of Mexican descent are better here. But all you see on tv are the Indian-looking Mexicans jumping fences. You don't see that Indian-looking Mexican American border patrol agents are taking them back across the border.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 30 Jun 2006 15:07 Post subject:
Quote:
Anecdotally speaking, are you aware that most prominent Black Republicans are very darkskinned (Armstrong Williams, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice)?
Coni Rice dark skinned???? Wow, I guess it is a matter of how one perceives skin colour!!! From my perspective, Condi looks like a "MGM".
Anecdotally speaking, are you aware that most prominent Black Republicans are very darkskinned (Armstrong Williams, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice)?
Coni Rice dark skinned???? Wow, I guess it is a matter of how one perceives skin colour!!! From my perspective, Condi looks like a "MGM".
LOL isn't that the truth! We're about the same color, actually. Dark brown = darkskinned in my lexicon.
Honestly that's why I think this search for "mulattos" is going to be very difficult indeed in the US.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 30 Jun 2006 15:39 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
...Remember that in the US, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Mexicans tend to be more disadvantaged (wealth, education) than Argentinians or Cubans, so that there may not be a direct correlation between African phenotype and disadvantage...
Hi,
Just some caution is adviced to analize that data.
Argentineans and Cubans than migrate to the U.S. tend to be the better educated fellows of their countries. The difference in income and in developing, for example, between Argentina and DR is huge. The first is almost a developed country, the second has the level of an average third world country.
In the case of Mexicans, most of the immigrants that go to the US are the poorest and most uneducated people in Mexico. The highly educated Mexicans remain in Mexico almost always.
So, here we have a lot of different variables to analize, and race seems to be the less important. Consider class, education, position in the former country, etc. and then it would be easier to see how people will do in the U.S.
I bet a Black cuban doctor do better in the US that a poor White illiterate peasant from Colombia.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Dark brown = darkskinned in my lexicon.