Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1301 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Tue 10 Apr 2007 20:43 Post subject:
you seem to get very excited when the topic of any black people come up in Latin America other than blacks in the Carribean...and also very defensive. Is that accurate and is there a reason for that?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 11 Apr 2007 20:11 Post subject:
Dragon Horse wrote:
you seem to get very excited when the topic of any black people come up in Latin America other than blacks in the Carribean...and also very defensive. Is that accurate and is there a reason for that?
I can help. I am Latino, so I take things with passion.
Yes, there are reasons why I get upset.
(1) Many Latin Americans (like me) have the feeling that the external world don't have a clue about us.The external world not only invaded and robbed in our Americas, producing all the damage they could do, but after Independence, both Europeans and U.S. people continued to do so.
(2) During the Cold War both superpowers, the Soviet Union and the U.S. manipulated the mind of Latinos at theirs will. The result was at least 1 million casualties.
Many people -like me- have the feeling the only thing we can expect from outsiders is PREACHING. They preach religion, politics, economics and everything. We know that, and we have assimilated that's theirs attitude.
However, when we discuss Latin American "way of being". The mentality of the people. And foreigneirs to the region start to discribe OUR-WAY-OF-BEING according to theirs, allien (for us) world-view. I get upset.
These are a list of accusations I have seen in this site:
(1) Latinos are Blacks but they have a escape hatch (my oppinion is, that observation is ridiculous) Latinos call people Black, White or Brown according to its phenotype. A dark East Indian is a Black for us.
(2) Blacks are at the bottom. What is mean by that in a region where most Blacks are Mulattoes, Samboes or multi-racial? What does mean in a region where IN THE SAME family a sibbling could look "white", the other "black" and the third "indian"?
(3) Blacks of Latin America need a revolution to break free!
I ask you, do we really need another revolution MORE?
If it ever happened that would be a civil war, where families will be split in half.
(4) Mexicans are Black. No they are not. Mexicans are mainly Euro-Indigenous peoples. Black people represent a very small fraction of the population, perhaps one in ten thousands or even less. We can argue about genetical markers more or less, which are also small, but genetical markers don't say if they were introduced by slaves, Arabs or Europeans. Genetical markers don't define identities or cultures either.
(5) Afro-Latino identity should be in conflict with Latino identity, so Blacks of Latin America replicate the rights they have acquired in the United States.
Can you imagine the impact that could have in our populations? In many places Black populations are smaller that 4% and in many others smaller than 1%. Why makes Blacks so special to deserve a particular identity? What happened with the poors of all other races we have? What about Indians, mixed peoples, even poor Whites that live in the worst imaginable conditions? (The only place in the West where there are large masses of poor Whites is Latin America. I mean poor)
Why we should create more biasses were they didn't existed before?
All these things go in my mind when I get upset.
Why don't we discuss about LATINO identity, first? Why don't we see why the Spanish and Indian parts are important to us? Why don't we analyze how Blacks are considered PART of the melting pot of IMMIGRANTS that came to the Americas, enriching our lands?
Why don't people ask about the culture of Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia or Argentina, instead of the "African culture"?
In short, why don't we study what Latinos think about this and others issues before arguing so many imprecise, wrong and sometimes biassed things?
Follow Fwsweets advice on the other thread. Give it a rest. In fact go argue with the OAS, the IDB AND the World Bank who have identified Afrodescendants and the Indigenous populations of Latin America as having PARTICULAR problems within the context of those societies. Other than Amerindians of Guyana and Belize, no such comments have been made of the similarly backward Non Hispanic Caribbean. Note that blacks are minorities in Guyana (30%), Suriname (42%), Trinidad (38%) and Belize (under 40%). So the normal excuse that "well blacks are the majority in the Non Hispanic Caribbean" doesnt hold water in all cases. To make it easy for you in all those countries Sanaa Latham is black (she is the possible fronteir between "black" and "mixed". Halle Berry isnt as she is mixed. Bob Marley's part white ancestry has been recognized. Sean Paul's black, white, Portuguese, Chinese AND Indian heritages are also respected.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 11 Apr 2007 22:59 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
Omar,
Follow Fwsweets advice on the other thread. Give it a rest. In fact go argue with the OAS, the IDB AND the World Bank who have identified Afrodescendants and the Indigenous populations of Latin America as having PARTICULAR problems within the context of those societies. Other than Amerindians of Guyana and Belize, no such comments have been made of the similarly backward Non Hispanic Caribbean. Note that blacks are minorities in Guyana (30%), Suriname (42%), Trinidad (38%) and Belize (under 40%). So the normal excuse that "well blacks are the majority in the Non Hispanic Caribbean" doesnt hold water in all cases. To make it easy for you in all those countries Sanaa Latham is black (she is the possible fronteir between "black" and "mixed". Halle Berry isnt as she is mixed. Bob Marley's part white ancestry has been recognized. Sean Paul's black, white, Portuguese, Chinese AND Indian heritages are also respected.
I really don't get you. What are you telling me? That Blacks of the West Indies don't have economical problems? Please! Countries like Suriname, Jamaica, Suriname and particularly Haiti have lot of poverty and criminality.
Second, define me what you mean by "Afrodescendent". There are many people that are "Afrodescendents" have have no problem at all. Think in Salsassin and in Peter Ustinov. I can't believe they need special treatment.
With respect to "Indian", how does the World Bank defines Indian? As far as I know, most Indian descendents don't suffer discrimination at all, and don't even consider themselves Indians.
That's what I argue. The terminology used is always ambiguous.
If you go ahead and ask me if English or French speaking West Indians descendents suffer discrimination in Latin America I will say: ABSOLUTELY.
If you ask me if there exist certain "sexual" prefference for light skin and blue eyes in the region, I will say: ABSOLUTELY.
However if you say Blacks are poor, I will ask you TO DEFINE what is Black and what is not Black, and show me that really that's the case, and where.
I really don't get you. What are you telling me? That Blacks of the West Indies don't have economical problems? Please! Countries like Suriname, Jamaica, Suriname and particularly Haiti have lot of poverty and criminality.
Second, define me what you mean by "Afrodescendent". There are many people that are "Afrodescendents" have have no problem at all. Think in Salsassin and in Peter Ustinov. I can't believe they need special treatment.
With respect to "Indian", how does the World Bank defines Indian? As far as I know, most Indian descendents don't suffer discrimination at all, and don't even consider themselves Indians.
That's what I argue. The terminology used is always ambiguous.
If you go ahead and ask me if English or French speaking West Indians descendents suffer discrimination in Latin America I will say: ABSOLUTELY.
If you ask me if there exist certain "sexual" prefference for light skin and blue eyes in the region, I will say: ABSOLUTELY.
However if you say Blacks are poor, I will ask you TO DEFINE what is Black and what is not Black, and show me that really that's the case, and where.
Omar
1. Blacks in the NH caribbean are represented at ALL levels of society, from the President and CEOs of large corpoartions (some even owned by blacks) down to the poorest of poor. CLASS is the main issue not color. Now in LatAm SSAfrican appearing persons are concentrated at the bottom and even you concede that they face unique levels of bias directed against them as a partial explanation for this. This is the International development agencies have identified Afrodescendants in LatAm as having unique problems and colorism is a significant barrier in addition to classism.
2. Afrodescendant is used in LatAm because many of you get offended by the word black. AfroDescendant is NOT used in the NH Caribbean or USA. We are quite content with being called black.
3. West Indian descendants in LatAm have problems. Whats interesting however is that they appear to be doing better in Costa Rica and Panama than "blacks" of Latin heritage. There is talk of a middle class within this group in both countries. West Indian descendants in the DR and Cuba also seem to be well thought of. Despite the racism they encounter they were able to mobilize as a group to fight it.
4. The reason why you are demanding an explanation for "black" is why the term Afrodescendant was coined in LatAm to define who is and who isnt black or part black. I suggest you take your conversation to them.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 12 Apr 2007 19:07 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
2. Afrodescendant is used in LatAm because many of you get offended by the word black. AfroDescendant is NOT used in the NH Caribbean or USA. We are quite content with being called black.
.
I believe, "Afrodescendent" is an imported word of the Negritude International Inc., and impossed in certain Latin American circles; that's all
Now, the reason behind the "Afrodescendent" term, I believe, is just a way to inflate the demographics. That whay it is possible to count whites, mestizos and others people like Africans, no matter they don't look African at all. That way, the numbers of "Africans" in Latin America are huge, a lot more than you can see in daily life.
In other terms it is a word invented applying the "one-drop-rule", and used for political purposes.
caribj wrote:
3. West Indian descendants in LatAm have problems. Whats interesting however is that they appear to be doing better in Costa Rica and Panama than "blacks" of Latin heritage. There is talk of a middle class within this group in both countries. West Indian descendants in the DR and Cuba also seem to be well thought of. Despite the racism they encounter they were able to mobilize as a group to fight it.
.
Yes, I know that. West Indians are not considered Latinos but non-invited people. Something like Mexicans in the U.S.. In both cases the alliens look different than locals and have other customs, and are discriminated by that.
caribj wrote:
4. The reason why you are demanding an explanation for "black" is why the term Afrodescendant was coined in LatAm to define who is and who isnt black or part black. I suggest you take your conversation to them.
Well, if we speak of Afrodescendents, why we shouldn't speak of Francodescendents, Spanishdescendents, Italodescendents and Amerindian descendents. I we want to get really rididiculous I will show you how this "descendent" word-game could end. Let me show you myself as an example.
I am Francodescendents, Spanishdescendents, Italodescendents and Amerindiandescendent.
Ridiculous, isn't? The same goes for "Afrodescendents" who most of the cases have many origins. Besides, by culture they are not the produce of "Mama Africa" at all.
Like most Latin Americans, I preffer to be called by the country were I was born. In my case I am Chilean, without ambiguities and without refferences to far-away continents.
Yes, I know that. West Indians are not considered Latinos but non-invited people. Something like Mexicans in the U.S.. In both cases the alliens look different than locals and have other customs, and are discriminated by that.
[Omar
Many West Indians look no different to some Latins. I am always mistaken for Brazilian, Dominican or Cuban. Culturally we are also less different from a Caribbean Latino than would some one from Germany. Yet the German is more accepted. Omar honesty is a good policy.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 13 Apr 2007 02:35 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
oevega wrote:
Yes, I know that. West Indians are not considered Latinos but non-invited people. Something like Mexicans in the U.S.. In both cases the alliens look different than locals and have other customs, and are discriminated by that.
[Omar
Many West Indians look no different to some Latins. I am always mistaken for Brazilian, Dominican or Cuban. Culturally we are also less different from a Caribbean Latino than would some one from Germany. Yet the German is more accepted. Omar honesty is a good policy.
No doubt. But they are different on average. (There are also blond Mexicans)
Yes, you may be right. But we discussed here before that there was discrimination against West Indians in several Hispanic Caribbean countries, like in Cuba or PR, for instance. The same happens with Haitians in DR. And it can be appreciated in with the Black minorities in Costa Rica and Panama (many are former West Indians railroad or channel workes)
And discrimination (we conclude) was not only because they were Black but because they came from a different culture.
So I was just repeating what I learn here.
On the other hand, some dark Hispanic Caribbean people could be heavily discriminated by mainland Latinos.
[ But we discussed here before that there was discrimination against West Indians in several Hispanic Caribbean countries, like in Cuba or PR, for instance. And discrimination (we conclude) was not only because they were Black but because they came from a different culture.
So I was just repeating what I learn here.
Omar
1. Discrimination was because they were black, and in fact Costa Rica and Panama tried to specifically ban black (and Chinese) immigrants. Americans and British who were also English speaking Protestants didnt face the problems that the West Indians faced. Haitians, being more culturally African, faced even more.
2. The issue is that the RESPONSE of these West Indians to racism in LatAm and a middle class does exist within this group in Central America as a result despite the fact that most of these people are phenotypically more SSAfrican in appearance than their Latin equivalents.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 13 Apr 2007 22:51 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
1. Discrimination was because they were black, and in fact Costa Rica and Panama tried to specifically ban black (and Chinese) immigrants. Americans and British who were also English speaking Protestants didnt face the problems that the West Indians faced. Haitians, being more culturally African, faced even more.
2. The issue is that the RESPONSE of these West Indians to racism in LatAm and a middle class does exist within this group in Central America as a result despite the fact that most of these people are phenotypically more SSAfrican in appearance than their Latin equivalents.
I know about the topic. Latinos are usually quite xenophobics.
Tell me about it. We are crowed in here by Argentineans that took our jobs. If you believe is just a matter of race, I believe you are wrong. You should see how Central Americans are treated in Mexico.
Rich people avoid those things. Usually the White immigrants to Latin America have been upper middle class or rich. Chinese enterpreneurs also avoid discrimination. But that's not the same if one is poor and tries to immigrate to a Latin country. That could be real hell.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 14 Apr 2007 00:20 Post subject:
[quote="caribj"]
oevega wrote:
caribj wrote:
If you believe is just a matter of race, I believe you are wrong.
Pinguin
I guess the fact that measures were implemented in Costa Rica and Panama specifically prohibiting black immigration doesnt count.
Our countries believe we have the right to select who enters. Actually, that's common worldwide, even today. Besides, prohibiting black and chinese immigration was a common policy in almost all Latin America, and actually worldwide up to the 70s.
If you believe is just a matter of race, I believe you are wrong.
Pinguin
I guess the fact that measures were implemented in Costa Rica and Panama specifically prohibiting black immigration doesnt count.
Our countries believe we have the right to select who enters. Actually, that's common worldwide, even today. Besides, prohibiting black and chinese immigration was a common policy in almost all Latin America, and actually worldwide up to the 70s.
Omar
Its amazing how far you go to congratulate racism. Does it not bother you that some Latin countries had immigration policies as racist as that of the USA and yet many Latins claim racial tolerance?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 14 Apr 2007 00:42 Post subject:
caribj wrote:
...
Its amazing how far you go to congratulate racism. Does it not bother you that some Latin countries had immigration policies as racist as that of the USA and yet many Latins claim racial tolerance?
I don't congratulate racism. You ask, and I just tell you the truth as I see it.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Sat 14 Apr 2007 16:16 Post subject:
So it still looks like the lighter the skin color the better off one is...notwithstanding the fact one can have blonde hair and blue eyes and still be poor; yet the nordic appearance will ''get most of those over'' so to speak...if a choice had to be made in a selection process.
But since there are sooo many varying shades of color then those that have those varying shades are left to ''duke it out'' while those in the very nordic appearing societies say, ''this is the result.''
That comment isn't related to this political discussion at the macro level but the micro, which is another story altogether—yet intertwined.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
If you believe is just a matter of race, I believe you are wrong. You should see how Central Americans are treated in Mexico.