Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 07 Mar 2007 15:05 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
...
THis is the situation you have in much of Latin America. This has done nothing to limit racism, it has just created maybe a little less racism and a lot more colorism, meanwhile dark skin blacks, dark Amerids, are still at the bottom...but there is a hope that if you make good you can marry up and your kids won't be dark as you.
...
It's depends on which part of Latin America. There are regions were racism against Black people is even worst than in the U.S. Colorism is usually seen in the Caribbean and surrounding countries, plus Brazil.
On the other hand, in here people is more concerned about PEDIGREE rather than color of skin. A white person is nothing if he does not have the right ancestors and the money to support it. If you could hear the comments some upper classes people in Lat. Am. made about middle and poor classes White Americans you couldn't believe it.
Latin America has lots of Germanic looking people in the upper classes simply because we received large waves of European immigrants that frequently ended up in there, on the top of the social scale. Theirs descendents mixed with the local upper class, and the really look different from the rest.
The fact that colorism is rampant is a result of self hatred. I don't think colorism was rampant in pre-colonial homogenous African ethnicities in Africa. That is a direct result of being a minority in a country where the majority of people believed people of Non-European (or often Non- Anglo-Saxon decent) were inferior. The further you were from this ideal the uglier you were considered...also the more ignorant.
I disagree. As Dragon Horse himself points out, Latin Americans have raised colorism to a fine art, and yet they are not of this country, nor do they have any love for Anglo-Saxons. I suggest that colorism is attributable simply to the African slave trade. People who look more African are seen as descending from slaves. People who look more European are seen as descending from slaveowners.
I would add that colorism exists in many non-European societies prior to any contact with Europeans; the most obvious examples are the Indian sub-continent and the Arab Islamic world.
Additionally, colorism is a feature of societies that make up the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, the Swahili-speaking communities that make up present-day Kenya.
In Somalia the mistreatment of the so-called Bantu Somalis is rooted in their slave ancestry and their different appearance, including broader features and darker complexions. In Ethiopia the Semitic-speaking highlanders, in addition to being linguistic and cultural chauvinists, looked down on darker-skinned, broader featured people from other ethnic groups further south.
Arab conquest introduced colorism to the Swahili-speaking peoples, IMO.
Finally, I would add that colorism is just one of several social forces that impact people’s lives in many Latin American countries. The “blacks and Amerindians on the bottom everybody else in the middle and whites on top” image we have is far too simplistic a description of things in many Latin American countries, especially given the wide-spread social inequality and lack of social mobility that effect the lives of so many distinctly non-black and non-Amerindian-looking people. Being white is great, but if you have no money, your life is barely different from someone who looks like Wesley Snipes who is in a similar position socially.
This is, IMO, why no Malcolm X has emerged in the majority of these Latin American societies. It’s also the reason why there is no cross-class white unity that could lead to the rise of a David Duke figure or a white nationalist group with wide-spread support among white of all social classes. People of similar socioeconomic background but different phenotypes find that class-based, left-wing parties or organizations do a better job of articulating their concerns.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 07 Mar 2007 15:46 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
The fact that colorism is rampant is a result of self hatred. I don't think colorism was rampant in pre-colonial homogenous African ethnicities in Africa. That is a direct result of being a minority in a country where the majority of people believed people of Non-European (or often Non- Anglo-Saxon decent) were inferior. The further you were from this ideal the uglier you were considered...also the more ignorant.
I disagree. As Dragon Horse himself points out, Latin Americans have raised colorism to a fine art, and yet they are not of this country, nor do they have any love for Anglo-Saxons. I suggest that colorism is attributable simply to the African slave trade. People who look more African are seen as descending from slaves. People who look more European are seen as descending from slaveowners.
I would add that colorism exists in many non-European societies prior to any contact with Europeans; the most obvious examples are the Indian sub-continent and the Arab Islamic world.
Additionally, colorism is a feature of societies that make up the Horn of Africa: Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, the Swahili-speaking communities that make up present-day Kenya.
In Somalia the mistreatment of the so-called Bantu Somalis is rooted in their slave ancestry and their different appearance, including broader features and darker complexions. In Ethiopia the Semitic-speaking highlanders, in addition to being linguistic and cultural chauvinists, looked down on darker-skinned, broader featured people from other ethnic groups further south.
Arab conquest introduced colorism to the Swahili-speaking peoples, IMO.
This is also due to invasion or colonization by lighter skinned people (they just were not white Europeans). Basicaly, for a variety of reasons the lighter skin folks mixed with the traditional upperclass or replaced them. They were lighter Arabs, Persians, etc.
I'm using Europeans or Anglo-Saxons as an example because that is the America or Western example...feel free to take the same framework and apply it to other situations.
There is colorism in Japan and China, but it is nothing like Brazil for instance. Mainly it is just darker women are considered less attractive or darker people (especially in China though it is changing) are thought of as laborers, farmers, etc. There is no racial element or hatred associated with it.
One can argue there is colorism in Europe as well or other whites, I've seen whites make fun of each other for being too "pasty or pale" all my life.
I'm not particuarlly concerned with those examples because to me all discrimination is not equal.
People in China, and white folks in America will generally not deny one of their ethnicity a job or kill them because they are tan or too pasty.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Wed 14 Mar 2007 11:26 Post subject: contrast in culture
(I'm new to this forum and from Canada.)
Just to add contrast to the discussion in this article---in 1991 Canada had a census that included a category for "Ethinic Origin." This is what it said:
"ETHNIC ORIGIN
15. To which ethnic or cultural group(s) did this person’s ancestors
belong?
Mark or specify as many as applicable.
Note:
While most people of Canada view, themselves as Canadian,
information about their ancestral origins has been collected
since the 1901 Census to reflect the changing composition of
the Canadian population and is needed to ensure that everyone,
regardless of his/her ethnic or cultural background has equal
opportunity to share fully in the economic, social, cultural and
political life of Canada: Thereforeth, is question refers to the origins
of this person’s ancestors."
This is a far cry from the official racial designation that happens in the United States----yet Canadians were outraged by this. Many people protested by checking no categories but instead writing the word "Canadian" in the "Other" box.
We recently did another census and ethnicity was not even considered as a category.
Personally, if I were to move to a country that had official racial designations, I would find it horribly oppressive.
As for the question of "what does black mean?" (I think this is an important question in both of our countries): on the social surface it seems to mean anyone of visible African ancestry, but on a deeper and not discussed socio-psychological level, I think that Black = otherness. (I also think that this is terribly tragic for everyone.)
Posted: Wed 14 Mar 2007 11:40 Post subject: Re: contrast in culture
Patience wrote:
[Canada]recently did another census and ethnicity was not even considered as a category. Personally, if I were to move to a country that had official racial designations, I would find it horribly oppressive.
It is worse than that. The U.S.census has three separate questions on the subject. (1) A question on the long form asks you to fill in your ethnic heritage. (2) A different question on all forms asks whether you are "Hispanic" and, if so, asks you to choose among categories of Hispanics. (3) Finally, there is the "race" question, which the instructions say is independent of both ethnic self-identity and of Hispanic-ness (which are independent of each other). A stranger to the United States might get the impression that USAmericans are obsessed with the subject.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 14 Mar 2007 12:31 Post subject: Re: contrast in culture
fwsweet wrote:
Patience wrote:
[Canada]recently did another census and ethnicity was not even considered as a category. Personally, if I were to move to a country that had official racial designations, I would find it horribly oppressive.
It is worse than that. The U.S.census has three separate questions on the subject. (1) A question on the long form asks you to fill in your ethnic heritage. (2) A different question on all forms asks whether you are "Hispanic" and, if so, asks you to choose among categories of Hispanics. (3) Finally, there is the "race" question, which the instructions say is independent of both ethnic self-identity and of Hispanic-ness (which are independent of each other). A stranger to the United States might get the impression that USAmericans are obsessed with the subject.
I'm also curious as to why "Hispanics" get so much 'special' attention and what on earth would be their categories?
My guess for the section that I bolded is that the US government does not know what to do with the multiple mixed ancestries of this population and this is an attempt to try and sort this information out since it doesn't fit into the US racial schema.
The two gentlemen on the right are Alex Rodriguez(middle) and Derek Jeter(far right). Derek Jeter is biracial, white mother, black father. Alex Rodriguez is Hispanic. There are many white identified and black-identified people in the US who will impose a black label on Derek Jeter while putting Alex Rodriguez in a Hispanic (read, NOT black) category. Sooo, we now have a (not black category) Hispanic that looks like he's the same ethnicity as a biracial (read, Black by ODR) American man. If Rodriguez doesn't identify as black and Sub-Saharan ancestry cannot be determined by his appearance, I suppose that it's possible that this question is asked for this reason.
The categories of "Hispanic" are: (1) Puerto Rican, (2) Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, (3) Cuban, and (4) Other. For details, see questions 7 and 8 of the official 2000 U.S. Census form.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Wed 14 Mar 2007 17:02 Post subject:
Frank, thank you for the link to the census. It's amazing to actually see it. Even within some sort of a racial theory it makes no sense.
Mixedmom, if I saw that picture without explanation, I would think that those three men are brothers, and they all look like they could have some recent African ancestry.
Thank you both for helping me to better understand this issue.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
