Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 20:38 Post subject: Re: Here comes the science bit
Altertude wrote:
Its fruitless for fwsweet to disagree. What peers do is they offer competing conclusions from the raw data.
I agree. If Altertude can conclude from those data, that most Dominicans self-identify "racially," I would appreciate seeing the reasoning. Please. It is not enough to say "I observe a rock falling downward and thus conclude that things fall upwards." One must explain how one reached such an apparently counterfactual conclusion.
To me, the facts speak clearly that most Dominicans do not self-identify "racially." I conclude this because "racial" terms appeared relatively seldom in the Google-retrieved sample of Dominican self-introductions. ("Relatively" regards USAmerican self-introductions.) With what reasoning does Altertude conclude the opposite?
Altertude wrote:
Salsassin asks for a conclusion at the end of the section I quoted. Would fwsweet care to supply the answer using this...primary data?
I am not interested in Salsassin's request for conclusions. I am interested in the data. The data show that most Dominicans do not self-identify in "racial" terms. This obvious fact is important. (Again, if Altertude concludes from these data that most Dominicans do in fact self-identify "racially," I would like to read the rationale. Alternatively if Altertude has conflicting raw data, it is well past time to cough it up.)
This obvious fact is important because this entire thread has been based on two fundamental points: As explained in http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?p=10931#10931, the only two points under discussion in this thread are: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.
Now we see persuasive evidence that point (1) is counterfactual. The fact is that most Dominicans do not self-identify "racially" at all. This makes the second point moot. One cannot pass moral judgment upon someone for performing an act that they in fact did not perform.
Altertude wrote:
The question is why my challenge to the data's value (here labelled appeal to authority) went unchallenged, while fwsweet refocused the issues on the Dominican question?
I do not undertand. You never challenged the data in any way other than to claim that it lacked peer review. I explained why peer-review is inapplicable and irrelevant to replicable primary raw data. If you are skeptical of the raw data, replicate the experiment for yourself. I did. What do you mean by saying that I "refocused the issues on the Dominican question." That is the only topic at hand, after all. Specifically: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.
If Altertude wants to introduce a new topic, now that replicable primary data have wrecked the premise upon which the current topic is based ((1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.), I encourage him to start a new thread with whatever topic he wishes.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 14 Jul 2006 20:58; edited 2 times in total
I have seen many people from the DR and believe me that they're dark.They are dark like the dark people in Puerto Rico and Cuba.There's no doubt that there are white people in the DR but they;re a minority there.
First, no one has disputed that Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans look "dark" to werta. Second, I have seen no message in this thread that expressed an interest in how people look to werta. The topic of this thread comprises two points: (1) The first point is that Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." (2) The second point is that this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.
Please stick to the issue at hand or start a new thread.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 14 Jul 2006 20:59; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 20:55 Post subject: Re: Right
Altertude wrote:
Agreed, on what kind of science, but not on what you attribute the cause of such bad science.
Why is the Google sample of self-introductions "bad science" please explain. Omar has shown that some of the (very few) "racial" labels appearing in Dominican texts are spurious reference to US labels. This makes the evidence that Dominicans seldom self-identify "racially" even stronger, not weaker. One of us is totally missing the point here.
To refresh everyone's memory, the topic of this thread was the two statements: (1) that Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." (2) that this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part. We now have replicable primary evidence that the first is counterfactual. Omar has shown that it may be even stronger than we thought, since some of the "racial" usages are referring to USAmericans.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 22:31 Post subject: Re: Here comes the science bit
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Its fruitless for fwsweet to disagree. What peers do is they offer competing conclusions from the raw data.
I agree. If Altertude can conclude from those data, that most Dominicans self-identify "racially," I would appreciate seeing the reasoning. Please. It is not enough to say "I observe a rock falling downward and thus conclude that things fall upwards." One must explain how one reached such an apparently counterfactual conclusion.
I conclude per my first post, quoting Salsassin, you replied to that little reliable information about Dominicans can be had from those statistics. Not that opinions are better than statistics, but that nothing good comes from those statistics.
Quote:
To me, the facts speak clearly that most Dominicans do not self-identify "racially." I conclude this because "racial" terms appeared relatively seldom in the Google-retrieved sample of Dominican self-introductions. ("Relatively" regards USAmerican self-introductions.) With what reasoning does Altertude conclude the opposite?
'Fools gold!' No, it seems that conclusion is correct, but not because of those 'fools gold' statistics. I get that from the sources others posted. There is no evidence those pages showcased self-introductions of the categories under investigation. Certainly not the one which I examined and posted.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Salsassin asks for a conclusion at the end of the section I quoted. Would fwsweet care to supply the answer using this...primary data?
I am not interested in Salsassin's request for conclusions. I am interested in the data. The data show that most Dominicans do not self-identify in "racial" terms. This obvious fact is important.
That sir, is precisely the problem. Not being interested in the conclusion leads to up saying it is down, and falsehood masquerading as correctness. Is fwsweet claiming that once the data is in the job is done? Of course not, because he has gone straight to a CONCLUSION with regard to Dominicans, and closes off any further review of the data's veracity.
Quote:
(Again, if Altertude concludes from these data that most Dominicans do in fact self-identify "racially," I would like to read the rationale. Alternatively if Altertude has conflicting raw data, it is well past time to cough it up.)
The reason I edited out all parts of fwsweet's previous post is because I am not interested in answering the question of whether Dominicans self-identify "racially," on the basis of sampling how many times the words "soy", "Dominicano", "Dominicana", "indio", "india", "latino", "latina", etc. appear together on web pages or not.
Quote:
This obvious fact is important because this entire thread has been based on two fundamental points: As explained in http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?p=10931#10931, the only two points under discussion in this thread are: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.
And that is the closing off the parameters of the discussion, because of "obvious" facts.
Quote:
Now we see persuasive evidence that point (1) is counterfactual. The fact is that most Dominicans do not self-identify "racially" at all. This makes the second point moot. One cannot pass moral judgment upon someone for performing an act that they in fact did not perform.
Say whaa? Ain't persuadin me a nuthin'. It's a non sequitur dude. Fwsweet is missing the point about what is happening in the 'trenches' between DR's and Haitians. I could be incorrect, but it appears its actually the treatment of Haitians because of the way Dominicans oppositionally identify themselves to what they are not (Haitians) that is trying to emerge in this discussion, and has in bits of sources which he finds insufficent.
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
The question is why my challenge to the data's value (here labelled appeal to authority) went unchallenged, while fwsweet refocused the issues on the Dominican question?
I do not undertand. You never challenged the data in any way other than to claim that it lacked peer review. I explained why peer-review is inapplicable and irrelevant to replicable primary raw data. If you are skeptical of the raw data, replicate the experiment for yourself. I did.
You call it appeal to authority, I call it challenging the data (look again at my first post which examines one typical data set. How else could I do that if I was not curious about the data, which leads me now to well founded skepticism of it, as I addressed in my original post.
Quote:
What do you mean by saying that I "refocused the issues on the Dominican question." That is the only topic at hand, after all. Specifically: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.
As I've said, I mean your easily convinced by the statistics. Which is why you missed the manner in which I challenged the data I quoted, and indirectly the use of the Google statistics for assessing the Dominican questions.
Quote:
If Altertude wants to introduce a new topic, now that replicable primary data have wrecked the premise upon which the current topic is based ((1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.), I encourage him to start a new thread with whatever topic he wishes.
Yes, since we are clearly concerned with different issues it would be better we cease dialogue on these matters.
Last edited by Altertude on Fri 14 Jul 2006 22:34; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 22:32 Post subject: Re: Right
fwsweet wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Agreed, on what kind of science, but not on what you attribute the cause of such bad science.
Why is the Google sample of self-introductions "bad science" please explain. Omar has shown that some of the (very few) "racial" labels appearing in Dominican texts are spurious reference to US labels.
Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 22:58 Post subject: Re: Here comes the science bit
Altertude wrote:
Fwsweet is missing the point about what is happening in the 'trenches' between DR's and Haitians. I could be incorrect, but it appears its actually the treatment of Haitians because of the way Dominicans oppositionally identify themselves to what they are not (Haitians) that is trying to emerge in this discussion, and has in bits of sources which he finds insufficent.
I do not find indications of Dominican/Haitian hostility due oppositional cultural ideals "insufficient" in any way. Very much to the contrary. Indeed, in responding to sagascend I have expressed enthusiastic interest in exploring the background and details of these oppositional cultures. I cannot affirm whether this new topic "is trying to emerge," but it is a topic well worth discussing and I encourage it heartily. Please let us start a thread on the nature of DR/Haitian cultural (or at least rhetorical) self-perceptions as oppositional cultures--the historical background of this phenomenon and its current manifestations.
This present thread, on the other hand, can continue with its now-crumbling topic: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black." and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 23:23 Post subject: Google science
Altertude wrote:
..
Let Omar or someone else peer review and explain.
What I argued is very simple. You can't find real statistical data counting hits in Google, Altavista or Yahoo search engines.What you find is nothing more than coincides of words that show in the same page. That's particularly true if you are searching set of words like "argentinean black roots", let's say in Yahoo. The first hit is to a definition of African American in wikipedia, the second and third are about international music, etc. So, the search engine looks for the intersection of the concepts argentina, black and roots. One of this is music, other could be in painting, or in hospitals, etc. Now if you look for the whole phrase "argentinean black roots" or "argentina's black roots", the engine show no info.
If we are looking for how many people identify with something we should do a statistical poll. But even then the questions have to be well defined.
Posted: Fri 14 Jul 2006 23:38 Post subject: Re: Google science
oevega wrote:
So, "Google" science, I believe, is bad science.
Obviously I disagree. But in order to explain why one cannot ignore statistical "coincidences" merely because they are imperfect, I would have to explain engineering methodology, and this could easily sound arrogant. Let us drop the question of whether Google stats persuade. They persuade me. They do not persuade you nor Altertude. Nuff said.
Have you anything to add about: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black," and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part?
Joined: 02 Feb 2010 {Posts: 5 } Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 00:47 Post subject:
Altertude wrote:
Quote:
That sir, is precisely the problem. Not being interested in the conclusion leads to up saying it is down, and falsehood masquerading as correctness. Is fwsweet claiming that once the data is in the job is done? Of course not, because he has gone straight to a CONCLUSION with regard to Dominicans, and closes off any further review of the data's veracity.
I agree with this statement. With all due respect to the way business is conducted at ODR, the Dominican Republic / Haiti presented through this process is completely foreign [to my reality] -- of what's the Island.
Data can be easily manipulated, and in the case of the island; it is. This is from an article written in 1992 on NACLA's Report on the Americas / THE BLACK AMERICAS 1492-1992
ARE WE OR AREN'T WE?
BY RODOLFO MONGE OVIEDO
STATISTICS ON THE BLACK POPULATION IN MOST countries of the Americas are by no means based on uniform criteria. The undifferentiated use of terms like Black, Afro-American, Creole, Mulatto, Garifuna, Black-Indian, African Negro, Afro-East Indian, Zambo, Bush Negro, Antillean Negro, and Black-Caribbean lead to serious discrepancies. Brazil's census for examples, lists the black population at 5.84%, while the Britannica Yearbook places it at 33%, with similarly drastic gaps for panama and the Dominican Republic.
Classification may depend on the perceptions of the interviewee, the interviewer, or the bureaucrats who design the categories. In many countries lighter mulattos often describe themselves as white, white blacks identify themselves as mulattos or mestizos. More often than not the word mestizo is taken to mean a mixture of white and Native American, even when the persons describing themselves as such have evident African ancestry. Due to one or more of these factors, the last census in Argentina, for example, concluded that the country had no black population at all.
Some countries, including St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, have no primary sources of data, state-sponsored or private. In Cuba and Costa Rica the data is not accessible to the public. Colombia and the Dominican Republic do not measure ethnicity, even though passports and other identification cards note "color." International institutions often do not classify people by ethnic group, as is the case with the United Nations.....
That sir, is precisely the problem. Not being interested in the conclusion leads to up saying it is down, and falsehood masquerading as correctness. Is fwsweet claiming that once the data is in the job is done? Of course not, because he has gone straight to a CONCLUSION with regard to Dominicans, and closes off any further review of the data's veracity.
I agree with this statement. With all due respect to the way business is conducted at ODR, the Dominican Republic / Haiti presented through this process is completely foreign [to my reality] -- of what's the Island.
My conclusion was that most Dominicans are reluctant to accept or even reject "racial" self-labeling. I originally thought that this was your position as well, since all your evidence showed that Dominicans refused to self-identify as Black. I now understand that you disagree, and that you claim that most Dominicans embrace "racial" self-labels. I have asked several times that if anyone has any evidence of such a claim to please present it. So far, no one has.
Guys, I really hate to get formal, But I regret that I must (see http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?p=10931#10931). This is formal request #1 for your source that most Dominicans self-identify "racially" (rather than nationally or culturally).
Omar needs to lear the basics of a Bolean search. When you put a dash between two wrods, the search will only allow for those words in that order.
So while you can rule that there may be many reasons why people posted that they are something. like multiple quoting of one source, the FACT is that there are certain claims of identity that are very low on the net. Like that of DR's making racial claims. And some, for whatever reason, occur more frequently.
The only point I am bothered by the search is that there is no way to do a serch of the text on the page only and not of links pointing to the page that i know of. That would be more accurate. The lack of posts is not explained away though.
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 02:35 Post subject: Re: Google science
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
So, "Google" science, I believe, is bad science.
Obviously I disagree. But in order to explain why one cannot ignore statistical "coincidences" merely because they are imperfect, I would have to explain engineering methodology, and this could easily sound arrogant. Let us drop the question of whether Google stats persuade. They persuade me. They do not persuade you nor Altertude. Nuff said.
Have you anything to add about: (1) That most Dominicans refuse to consider themselves "black," and (2) That this attitude is morally reprehensible on their part?
Is there any search method that can exclude links to the page and only show hits that are directly on the page being looked?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 04:06 Post subject: Hits
Salsassin wrote:
...So while you can rule that there may be many reasons why people posted that they are something. like multiple quoting of one source, the FACT is that there are certain claims of identity that are very low on the net. Like that of DR's making racial claims. And some, for whatever reason, occur more frequently.
...
Yes. But that is only a matter of exposure.
I put you a simple example. Make a poll in one hundred people chosen at random from anywhere in the world, with the purpose of infiere the size of a place and its demography.
Ask them if they know Easter Island and Chile. (you can find hits in the web as well)
I bet most will know Easter Island and quite few about Chile.
But Chile is huge in comparison to the Island, and the continental Chile has 10.000 times the population of Easter.
103,000 for allintext: soy-chileno
59,600 for allintext: soy-chilena -chileno
1,180 for allintext: soy-mapuche
424 for allintext: chilena soy-mapuche
213 for allintext: chileno soy-mapuche -chilena
5 for allintext: soy-rapanui
330 for allintext: chileno soy-mestizo
59 for allintext: chilena soy-mestiza
21 for allintext: chilena soy-afrodescendiente
6 for allintext: chileno soy-afrodescendiente -chilena
782 for allintext: chilena soy-morena
724 for allintext: chileno soy-moreno
1,570 for allintext: chileno soy-blanco
272 for allintext: chilena soy-blanca
140 for allintext: chilena soy-indigena
74 for allintext: chileno soy-indigena -chilena
824 for allintext: chileno soy-negro
135 for allintext: chilena soy-negra
921 for allintext: chileno soy-indio
44 for allintext: chilena soy-india
14 for allintext: chileno soy-mulato
20 for allintext: chilena soy-mulata
684 for allintext: soy-latino chileno
263 for allintext: soy-latina chilena
36 for allintext: no-soy-negro chileno
19 for allintext: no-soy-negra chilena
45 for allintext: no-soy-blanco chileno
1 for allintext: no-soy-blanca chilena
180,000 for allintext: soy-peruano OR soy-peruana
1,070 for allintext: peruano soy-moreno
929 for allintext: peruana soy-morena
27 for allintext: peruana soy-india
961 for allintext: peruano soy-indio
57 for allintext: soy-afroperuano OR soy-afroperuana
70 for allintext: soy-chola peruana
595 for allintext: soy-cholo peruano
2,340 for allintext: soy-blanco peruano
476 for allintext: soy-blanca peruana
110 for allintext: soy-negra peruana
759 for allintext: soy-negro peruano
220 for allintext: soy-indigena peruano
28 for allintext: soy-indigena peruana -peruano
1 for allintext: soy-inca peruana -peruano
208 for allintext: soy-inca peruano
72 for allintext: soy-quechua peruano
7 for allintext: soy-quechua peruana -peruano
176 for allintext: soy-criollo peruano
6 for allintext: soy-criolla peruana
413 for allintext: soy-mestizo peruano
41 for allintext: soy-mestiza peruana
39 for allintext: soy-mulata peruana
24 for allintext: soy-mulato peruano
628 for allintext: soy-latina peruana
981 for allintext: soy-latino peruano
53 for allintext: no-soy-blanco peruano
15 for allintext: no-soy-blanca peruana
9 for allintext: no-soy-negra peruana
52 for allintext: no-soy-negro peruano
63,200 for allintext: soy-dominicano OR soy-dominicana
282 for allintext: soy-moreno dominicano
1,440 for allintext: soy-morena dominicana
201 for allintext: soy-negra dominicana
292 for allintext: soy-negro dominicano
138 for allintext: soy-indio dominicano
35 for allintext: soy-india dominicana
1 for allintext: soy-afro-dominicana
83 for allintext: soy-mulata dominicana
14 for allintext: soy-mulato dominicano
8 for allintext: no-soy-negro dominicano
6 for allintext: no-soy-negra dominicana
9 for allintext: no-soy-blanca dominicana
21 for allintext: no-soy-blanco dominicano
1,120 for allintext: soy-latino dominicano
880 for allintext: soy-latina dominicana
309,000 for allintext: I'm-american
325,000 for allintext: american I'm-black
132 for allintext: american I'm-afro-american
30,700 for allintext: american I'm-african-american
156,000 for allintext: american I'm-white
57,200 for allintext: american I'm-indian
28,400 for allintext: american I'm-native-american
37,300 for allintext: american I'm-hispanic
814 for allintext: american I'm-latino
44 for allintext: american I'm-mulatto
27,800 for allintext: american I'm-not-black
20,000 for allintext: american I'm-not-white
Of course they can miss many things, but they are still relevant to each other as any deficiencies in the search are equal to each search
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 04:41 Post subject: Data manipulation
Olorun1 wrote:
Altertude wrote:
....
Data can be easily manipulated, and in the case of the island; it is. This is from an article written in 1992 on NACLA's Report on the Americas / THE BLACK AMERICAS 1492-1992
Yes, indeed. Data can be easily manipulated, but not always in one direction. Many times dark skinned people are counted as Blacks but have other ethnic origins. Let me show you:
Europeans, Jews and Arabs have a numerous populations of individuals that are VERY curly. Many Northern Europeans and slavs have thick lips.
Prognatism is not uncommon between some American Indians.
Dark skins are not unknown between Indians, East Indians and some Southern Europeans as well.
All those people arrived to the Americas as well. People usually forget -and [b]keep forgetting[/b]- that the average European that arrived to Latin America were not the typical white of the United States, but browner people.
Now, some mixtures between Italian or Arabs and Amerindian, for example, can look very African. In tri-racial communities, for example, is very difficult to distinguish if a person is mestizo, mulatto or zambo. So, if someone start to count colors of skins or curly hairs (because they are very African) then the results would be very strange.
Perhaps the only way to determine things with precision are the DNA analysis. And they have show things very clearly. Some of the results have show that both the White and Black populations are around the standard estimations, and that correlate with what history says. What was understimated, and always is understimated, is the Native population.
Yes. Native DNA exist in all Latin America in larger proportions than usually though. Brazil is not (like people believe) a White & Black nation only, for instance. Amerindian genetics is very important as well.
On the other hand, in the U.S. there is not a single DNA study focused in the issue of how much Amerindian DNA has the general population. I guess is an important percentage.
Let's hope DNA analysis help to get a clearer picture, free of wishfull thinking and hidden agendas.
Joined: 02 Feb 2010 {Posts: 5 } Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 10:58 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
Quote:
Yes, indeed. Data can be easily manipulated, but not always in one direction. Many times dark skinned people are counted as Blacks but have other ethnic origins. Let me show you:
In the case of the island specifically, stats after stats do not usually correlates with the hue of the majority -- giving outsiders who solely rely on numbers an inacurate portrayal of the overall picture of the island, as well as their relationship to each other.
Is like me telling you about Chile solely based on biased information and bogus data -- you were born there and study from a different perspective [first hand account], that ought to fill the details of what makes the argument whole. For example, Salsassin posted an article, and picture of a man in DR who says he's Indian -- sort of a 'leftover' of the original people of the island -- where are the rest of his ethnic group? DNA testing attest to the fact that we're a 'mixed bag'. However, is society ready to accept everyone on an equal basis? I doubt it very much, we've know about mixture before DNA.
Joined: 02 Feb 2010 {Posts: 5 } Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 12:06 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Olorun1 wrote:
...
This is formal request #2 for your source that most Dominicans self-identify "racially" (rather than nationally or culturally).
Racially as we're used to [odr], Dominicans do not classify themselves. However, in doing so by culture and nationality, is a form of disassociating themselves from the Haitians and blackness. In DR Haiti is synonymous with being black, as Ernesto Sagas argues in the Antihaitinismo thread I posted in the Caribbean Basin Forum.
Joined: 02 Feb 2010 {Posts: 5 } Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 12:23 Post subject:
Part of Sagas' article on Antihaitianismo, explaining the roots of a Dominican identity, and perhaps the motives:
Even though the Amerindian population of Hispaniola was exterminated in less than a century, the Dominican elites portrayed the Dominican people as the descendants of these brave indians and the Spanish colonists. It was a greater honor to have a rebellious indian as a predecessor than an African slave. Soon, Dominican mulattoes started considering themselves indios (an obvious reference to their claimed indian ancestry). Mulattoes, who make up the majority of the Dominican population, disappeared, to be replaced by the Dominican indio. Being indio also helped the mulatto to "whiten" his own perception of his color and race (Despradel 1974, 94-97). To hide a common African past, the words "black" and "mulatto" also disappeared from Dominican Spanish, and were replaced by the less traumatic and more socially-desirable indio. "Black" and "mulatto" referred to Haitians, who were considered the real blacks.
This is formal request #2 for your source that most Dominicans self-identify "racially" (rather than nationally or culturally).
Racially as we're used to [odr], Dominicans do not classify themselves. However, in doing so by culture and nationality, is a form of disassociating themselves from the Haitians and blackness. In DR Haiti is synonymous with being black, as Ernesto Sagas argues in the Antihaitinismo thread I posted in the Caribbean Basin Forum.
Sagas's conclusion is the same as mine, which you disagreed with: that most Dominicans self-identify nationally or culturally and DO NOT self-identify "racially." Since you have now flipped back to this earlier, well-documented position, you need not provide sources. We already have many sources in this thread supporting the conclusion that most Dominicans DO NOT self-identify "racially" (including Salsassin's Google-search findings).
Next time, however, you might want to warn your readers in advance when you intend to switch to the opposite conclusion, and then jump back again back again two posts later when challenged by the administration.
Summing up, folks, this thread already provides many sources (academic opinions, government census forms, raw statistical data data on internet text) supporting the conclusion that most Dominicans DO NOT self-identify "racially" but, in fact, self-identify culturally or nationally. There is no need to post any more sources supporting this consensus observation. On the other hand, no shred of evidence has been presented of the opposite: that most Dominicans DO self-identify "racially." Henceforth, any message posted to this thread that makes such a claim without citing a source will be deleted without warning, even if you plan to flip over and then back again.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
