AFROPERUVIAN: AN INVENTED ETHNICITY

The Study of Racialism
Discussion of U.S. Racialism
Please read The Rules before posting.

FAQ

AFROPERUVIAN: AN INVENTED ETHNICITY
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Latin America

Author

Message

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Mon 26 Jun 2006 10:47 Post subject:

And that is why you have sub cultures versus separate cultures. I never siad the Afroperuvian culture was not a sub culture.

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Mon 26 Jun 2006 16:51 Post subject: Talking

Salsassin wrote:

And that is why you have sub cultures versus separate cultures. I never siad the Afroperuvian culture was not a sub culture.

Hi Jaime,

Don't you got the impresion we are talking the same think?

All that I was arguing is that the cultures of isolated groups of ethnic Native Americans (or Polynesians) should have a special consideration by law because they are unique. They are cultures that have lived in isolation from the mainstream and that still keep most of their heritage intact.

In the case of Blacks, Whites, assimilated Indians, Mestizos, Chineses, Arabs, Gypsies, Jews and all the peoples of the Americas that live INSIDE the mainstream, it is TRUE they have subcultures, which is fine. But they also belong to the mainstream. Therefore theirs reality is not the same like the "people of the Jungle": the Natives outside westernized culture. The special status Indians have is to protect them from western society.

That's why I reject pooling together the issues of Afrodescendents and Blacks, because their realities are distinct. Don't you see it?

That's all.

Omar

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Mon 26 Jun 2006 16:53 Post subject: correction

I made a mistake above. I mean "putting together the issues of Afrodescendents and Indians". Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Mon 26 Jun 2006 17:20 Post subject: Re: Talking

oevega wrote:

That's why I reject pooling together the issues of Afrodescendents and Natives, because their realities are distinct. Don't you see it?

In most cases yes. But certain cases of Cimmarrones like the Choco and the Garifuna, i would say no.

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Mon 26 Jun 2006 17:53 Post subject: Re: Talking

Salsassin wrote:

..
In most cases yes. But certain cases of Cimmarrones like the Choco and the Garifuna, i would say no.

Well Salssasin, if those groups are zamboes (Indo-Africans), I don't see why they should not be considered Indigenous as well.

Yes, there are many natives that are genetically mestizos so I agree that a native that is genetically zambo has the same right to their native indentity and land.

In the case of the Garifunas, it is quite clear to me they are an indigenous people with certain admixture, but not less indigenous than the rest.

That it settles it?

Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 03:58 Post subject:

Never claimed they werent indigenous as well. They are still Afrodecent and have certain issues that pertain to that Afrodecendency.

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 14:39 Post subject: Choose

Salsassin wrote:

Never claimed they werent indigenous as well. They are still Afrodecent and have certain issues that pertain to that Afrodecendency.

Well, Just decide. What the heck are your famous garifunas?

They are not indigenous to the region they live today.
They -perhaps- have native ancestry.
They have a West African genotype.
They have a creole culture.
They speak an English creole (I believe).

It seem they are representatives of the U.N.

Curious people.

Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 16:42 Post subject: Re: Choose

oevega wrote:

Well, Just decide. What the heck are your famous garifunas?
They are not indigenous to the region they live today.

Omar, feel free to show to me that Mmost tribes have not migrated from one region to another. Aztecs originated in the Montana region, Quechuas in the Altiplano, yet they are considered indigenous now to other areas. The Garifuna are now considered indigenous in Belize.

Quote:

They -perhaps- have native ancestry.

They have native Ancestry.

Quote:

They have a West African genotype.

They have that ancestry yes.

Quote:

They have a creole culture.
They speak an English creole (I believe).

Nope. They speak a Carib language.

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 17:05 Post subject: Re: Choose

Salsassin wrote:

..Nope. They speak a Carib language.

You are right Jaime. According to a wiki-definition I read this.

Quote:

Garifuna is a Cariban language spoken in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Belize by the Garifuna people. Spoken by a majority of Afro-Hondurans.

A French-based creole language spoken in Livingston, Guatemala is also called "Garifuna".

So, it is a coincidence in name. The Garifuna language you are talking about is from the Arawakan family of Native American language.

Arawakan: family
Maipuran: subfamily
Northern Maipuran: subclass
Caribbean: region
Garifuna: language

As far as I know, if they speak a Native language and they descend of Native America they are Native American, as well as Afrodescendents, of course.

Settled?

Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 17:10 Post subject:

Yep, but the reason that their Afrodescendency is still important is that their African heritage has led them to be discriminated and/or have antagonism with not only Eurodecent populations but with some native populations as well.

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 17:53 Post subject: Garifunas

Salsassin wrote:

Yep, but the reason that their Afrodescendency is still important is that their African heritage has led them to be discriminated and/or have antagonism with not only Eurodecent populations but with some native populations as well.

Without forgetting, of course, that the Black Caribs (or Garifunas) comitted a genocide on the "Red Caribis" (the Amerindians) driving them to extinction.

No wonder there is no "garifuna" who looks native these days.

Yes, Salsassin, Afrodescency is very important for today's Garifunas, because that is theirs genetic make-up.

Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 20:23 Post subject: Re: Garifunas

oevega wrote:

Without forgetting, of course, that the Black Caribs (or Garifunas) comitted a genocide on the "Red Caribis" (the Amerindians) driving them to extinction.

SOURCE PLEASE Rolling Eyes

Quote:

No wonder there is no "garifuna" who looks native these days.

Many of the Garifunas do show their native ancestry.

Quote:

Yes, Salsassin, Afrodescency is very important for today's Garifunas, because that is theirs genetic make-up.

As is indigenous.

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 21:13 Post subject: Re: Garifunas

Salsassin wrote:

oevega wrote:

Without forgetting, of course, that the Black Caribs (or Garifunas) comitted a genocide on the "Red Caribis" (the Amerindians) driving them to extinction.

SOURCE PLEASE

Check this please:

Quote:

If you read the 17th and 18th century British sources you will find
that the "Black Caribs" had practically exterminated the "Yellow" or
"Red" Caribs.

http://www.labuga.com/Guess/karl.htm

Quote:

Many of the Garifunas do show their native ancestry.

Pictures this time, please.

Quote:

As is indigenous.

Do you think they are? I started to doubt it. Perhaps they preserve the language only. I don't know.

Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 21:46 Post subject: Re: Garifunas

oevega wrote:

Salsassin wrote:

oevega wrote:

Without forgetting, of course, that the Black Caribs (or Garifunas) comitted a genocide on the "Red Caribis" (the Amerindians) driving them to extinction.

SOURCE PLEASE

Check this please:

Quote:

If you read the 17th and 18th century British sources you will find
that the "Black Caribs" had practically exterminated the "Yellow" or
"Red" Caribs.

http://www.labuga.com/Guess/karl.htm

I like how you didn't finish the paragraph:

If you read the 17th and 18th century British sources you will find
that the "Black Caribs" had practically exterminated the "Yellow" or
"Red" Caribs. On the other hand if you read the French sources you will
find that the people populating the island are simply Caribs, although
there are a small number of people referred to as "Black Caribs" who
act like other Caribs, pretty much, but have some African
characteristics in their ancestry. They are harder to get along with
but are useful allies in war.

The British were in St. Vincent to grow sugar with the aid of slaves
from Africa, So if there were people who acted like Caribs but had a
complexion much darker than the British did they were obviously escaped
slaves who needed to be restored to their proper place. They tended to
see more "Black Caribs" than "Yellow" Caribs.

The French had a different bias. They were not particularly sympathetic
with the local people: they could easily exile all the locals like they
did in Martinique. But they wanted the people living in St. Vincent to
help them harass the British so that the French could eventually take
over the British posessions in the Caribbean. The colonists they sent
in did what the voyagers did in Canada, they did what farming and
trapping they needed to do to survive and in many ways adapted the
local customs that worked, including taking local wives. Being less
racist they tended to see just "Caribs", with maybe a small proportion
of "Black Caribs" who didn't like the French any more than they like
the British.

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 21:59 Post subject:

Garifuna genetic study in Belize

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 22:32 Post subject: study

Salsassin wrote:

Garifuna genetic study in Belize

The study show, without doubt, they have African ascestry.
As far as I saw the Amerindian ancestry is not so clear, what one would expected.

Omar

oevega
SuperMentor

Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

Posted: Wed 05 Jul 2006 22:53 Post subject: genocide

Check this:

Quote:

The island now was contested by the French and English, but the Caribs succeeded, for the time being, in preventing any white settlement. In 1673 a ship carrying African slaves shipwrecked off St. Vincent; many Africans made it ashore. They were enslaved by the Red Caribs and assimilated into their culture; later they rebelled against their masters, killing most of them; the former slaves now formed the Black Caribs, the majority population (the surviving Red Caribs held only on to a remote part of the island).

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/caribbean/stvincent16271814.html

It seems there was a genocide, indeed.

Are you really sure those fellows are Native American? I doubt. Picture please or more clear genetic studies.

Omar

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 03:42 Post subject: Re: genocide

oevega wrote:

Check this:

Quote:

The English had interesting ways of telling history. That is what you call hearsay. Carib indians did not have a culture of enslavement. In facy they usually just killed the males and married the females.

You are going to have to give something better than just one surfed website.

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 03:56 Post subject: Re: study

oevega wrote:

Salsassin wrote:

Garifuna genetic study in Belize

The study show, without doubt, they have African ascestry.
As far as I saw the Amerindian ancestry is not so clear, what one would expected.

Omar

Nice try. The focus was on African genes. This part is undeniable:

Our analysis of mtDNA control
region sequences in an archival sample of Black
Caribs, or Garifuna, of Belize, confirms historical reports
that suggest high levels of admixture of the
original Island Caribs with West African people, and
show specific genetic afinities with the Yoruba people.
The presence of an identical mtDNA substitution
at position 16 278 in Africans and haplotype V
Amerindians suggests that this haplotype could be
the result of African admixture, as in the case of our
Carib sample, and indicates the need for caution in
interpreting DNA data in the absence of independent
historical information about a population group.

Also important is the groups compared:
Native:
Nuu-Chah-Nulth, from Vancouver, CA
Yakima of Washington, US
Ngobe and Kuna of Panama.

NONE are Carib or Amazonian Indians.

African:
East Pygmy, West Pygmy, Herero, !Kung and Yoruba

As we know the Yoruba had a big presence. No surprise a closer affinity was found.

Salsassin
Suspended

Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

Posted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 03:57 Post subject: Re: study

oevega wrote:

Salsassin wrote:

Garifuna genetic study in Belize

The study show, without doubt, they have African ascestry.
As far as I saw the Amerindian ancestry is not so clear, what one would expected.

Omar

Display posts from previous:

	The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Latin America	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4