[quote="Salsassin"]Again, who says they consider all Africans ugly? They just hold the mulatto phenotypes as better. [quote]
Salsassin did you read that article? A women when asked if black women can be pretty says that they come in with their big behinds thinking that they are cute when they arent. Another said that when she went out with her hair styled natural she was asked if she just came out of jail. Another said that people opined that a match should be dropped into her "nest". Certain schools ban natural hairstyles and braids. Many other examples.
Salsassin read that article again. This isnt mere mulatto preference. There is open revulsion to SSAfrican features, even though at least 10% and maybe more of the population possesses this. And not just Haitians either. I have been to islands (St Kitts, Nevis, Antigua and St Maarten) where many Dominicans are migrating and many of these people arent distinguishable in phenotype from the local mainly African population. What I did find interesting is that some of these Dominican women on arriving seem to have discovered that natural hairstyles arent that bad. Based on the article their lives in the DR seems miserable should they exercise that grooming choice there.
Again, who says they consider all Africans ugly? They just hold the mulatto phenotypes as better. But they resent the Haitians.
Salsassin rather than arguing with me just scroll up to the thread, press the one about Dominicans. A woman who was bold enough to be named (suggesting that she felt pretty sure taht no oen would seek her out and verbally abuse her) said that blacks are UGLY. Now please dont get cute and say that that doesnt include Africans (SSAfricans implied as few North Africans came to any part of the Caribbean) because I would love to meet mulattoes from West Africa who arent part European or Arab. To reject "black" features is to reject Africa. Towards the end an American professor who was in the DR to study African influences on Dominican culture was told to go to Haiti. In the middle of the article activists who wanted to discuss the African influences on Dominican culture mentioned that there is virtually no interest in this topic.
LOL. I read the article. Now read the other posts from Dominicans that I presented. The article is biased and presents quotes of those that sound negative. Not the ones that are positive.
LOL. I read the article. Now read the other posts from Dominicans that I presented. The article is biased and presents quotes of those that sound negative. Not the ones that are positive.
Some might say that the article tells the truth and that those Dominicans are in denial. I mean we all know, and even you admit that in the DR being black is not positively viewed despite the fact that maybe as much as 30% of the population might possess that phenotype. The issue is why hate black when there are many Dominicans who are black but who have no connection to Haiti.
The issue is why hate black when there are many Dominicans who are black but who have no connection to Haiti.
Please clarify your meaning. It appears that you may be using two different meanings in the same sentence. See 3.3.11.
Also, the statement that "as much as 30% of the population might possess that phenotype" apparently means that 30% are "black-looking to you. Obviously, there is no way to tell whether they are "black-looking" to themselves, to me, or to anyone else.
LOL. I read the article. Now read the other posts from Dominicans that I presented. The article is biased and presents quotes of those that sound negative. Not the ones that are positive.
Some might say that the article tells the truth and that those Dominicans are in denial. I mean we all know, and even you admit that in the DR being black is not positively viewed despite the fact that maybe as much as 30% of the population might possess that phenotype. The issue is why hate black when there are many Dominicans who are black but who have no connection to Haiti.
LOL. I read the article. Now read the other posts from Dominicans that I presented. The article is biased and presents quotes of those that sound negative. Not the ones that are positive.
Some might say that the article tells the truth and that those Dominicans are in denial. I mean we all know, and even you admit that in the DR being black is not positively viewed despite the fact that maybe as much as 30% of the population might possess that phenotype. The issue is why hate black when there are many Dominicans who are black but who have no connection to Haiti.
Source.
That same article that the Miami Herald printed. Its a reputable paper with extensive readership and has as much credibility as that of Dominicans who respond. It repeats the revulsion that Dominicans have to blackness. Are the only blacks in the DR Haitians?
The issue is why hate black when there are many Dominicans who are black but who have no connection to Haiti.
Please clarify your meaning. It appears that you may be using two different meanings in the same sentence. See 3.3.11.
Also, the statement that "as much as 30% of the population might possess that phenotype" apparently means that 30% are "black-looking to you. Obviously, there is no way to tell whether they are "black-looking" to themselves, to me, or to anyone else.
I use black in the same sense that the Miami Herald did. Black looking includes those with phenotypes apparently rejected by Dominicans based on the article such as dark skin, kinky hair, full features, etc. Many Dominicans have these features, surely not just those of Haitian descent. So the notion that Dominicans reject those features based only on Haiti doesnt tell the full picture.
I use black in the same sense that the Miami Herald did. Black looking includes those with phenotypes apparently rejected by Dominicans based on the article such as dark skin, kinky hair, full features, etc. Many Dominicans have these features, surely not just those of Haitian descent.
This site holds to a higher intellectual standard than the Miami Herald. You are expected to adhere to this site's higher standard if you want to continue posting here. It is acceptable here to cite a newspaper as a data source. If nothing else, your doing so reveals the poverty of your argument, since everyone reading these words knows that any newspaper's goals is to sell newspapers, not to inform. Hence, they are no more trustworthy than any other profit-motivated, non-peer-reviewed, non-accountable, non-verified public medium.
But it is not acceptable here to claim that even Dominicans who are "black" deny being "black," and then to define "black" as anyone with some visible African features. Obviously, they do not deny nor hate themselves. What they hate is the idealogical notion of Blackness as an oppositional culture. You have been suspended in the past for deliberately conflating an appearance-based usage of "black" with an idealogical ethno-political membership usage of the same word.
The last time that you insisted that appearance-based "blackness" and ethno-political membership "blackness" were the same thing, you were suspended for one month (5/10/07 - 6/09/2007). This time, your suspension will be for two months. I advise you to immediately stop conflating those two meanings of the word.
Just because you personally insist on linking slight African appearance with membership in an ethno-political group does not mean that those who reject your error hate themselves nor their appearance. It simply means that they hate the ethno-political label that you want to apply to them.
What I did find interesting is that some of these Dominican women on arriving seem to have discovered that natural hairstyles arent that bad. Based on the article their lives in the DR seems miserable should they exercise that grooming choice there.
That's what really shocked me about the article, frankly. A professor of sociology carrying on about big butts and bad hair?
I do see a distinction in the avoidance of Black Americaness/blackness amongst some Dominican Americans and their seemingly anti-SSA attitude portrayed in the article, which was attributed to Dominican-Haitian relations rather than the U.S ODR. It's my opinion that this attitude is not about ethnicity or ethnic groups, but about racialized phenotype. If all a darkskinned Brazilian/Puerto Rican/Cap Verdean/Malian with broad features and coiled hair needs to do is walk into a Dominican neighborhood to be harrassed about their appearance, it wouldn't matter what language s/he speaks or what part of the world they come from. Would Dr. Big Booty have something negative to say about a thin Haitian mulatto woman with straight hair and a small backside? Probably not unless she opened her mouth.
If all a darkskinned Brazilian/Puerto Rican/Cap Verdean/Malian with broad features and coiled hair needs to do is walk into a Dominican neighborhood to be harrassed about their appearance, it wouldn't matter what language s/he speaks or what part of the world they come from. Would Dr. Big Booty have something negative to say about a thin Haitian mulatto woman with straight hair and a small backside? Probably not unless she opened her mouth.
Just because you personally insist on linking slight African appearance with membership in an ethno-political group does not mean that those who reject your error hate themselves nor their appearance. It simply means that they hate the ethno-political label that you want to apply to them.
Where did I in this thread insist upon anything? If we go by those who are Afrodescendant (black and mulatto) then DR census statistics indicate that 85- 90% are. Clearly I dont imply that 90% are black.
I merely suggest that not all who are considered black in the DR are Haitian or Haitian origin. If the 30% number that I threw out bothers you then I take it back. What is more significant is that not every black person, as defined in the DR is Haitian origin. Therefore this issue with "blackness" as defined in the DR and as mentioned in the MH articles (and many other accounts of the DR) is more than just Haiti. Its about Dominicans who are descended from Dominican slaves who are not classified as mulatto, and its about the descendants of African Americans and West Indians migrants as well. Its also about the whole "Indio" thing when most Tainos died out long ago.
What the Miami Herald article suggests is that what ever being black in the DR is its not a good thing hence the reports of harrassment as cited by MH. Now if some think that statements made in that article (not made about Cuba) are wrong I will welcome them to deconstruct their central thesis. I can only ponder why is it that we dont see similar articles posted about Cuba or even Puerto Rico, especially now that Cuba has also become a majority black/mulatto nation based on some statistics.
The point was that the central thrust of this article was not about an ethno political labelling. It was about the revulsion of some based on appearance, and to a lesser extent a trivialization of African influences in Dominican culture.
This is purely subjective, based only upon your own personal eyeball. As such, it is meaningless.
caribj wrote:
then DR census statistics indicate that 85- 90% are.
Source, please. You have 24 hours. The current DR census does not classify people thus. If it did, it would be in error. By the first criterion above (afrodescent), the correct figure would 100 percent. By the second criterion, the authorities would have had tro parade every DR citizen before your eyes in order to ask for your ruling. I do not believe that they did this.
caribj wrote:
I merely suggest that not all who are considered black in the DR are Haitian or Haitian origin.
Considered black" by whom? By you? Who cares what you think? By some DR government authority? Cite the authority. Your use of passive voice betrays your lack of factual foundation.
caribj wrote:
Its about Dominicans who are descended from Dominican slaves who are not classified as mulatto...
"Classified as mulatto" by whom? By you? Who cares what you think? By some DR government authority? Cite the authority. Your use of passive voice betrays your lack of factual foundation.
caribj wrote:
Its also about the whole "Indio" thing when most Tainos died out long ago.
What, exactly, is the "whole Indio thing"? That Dominicans of perceptible African appearance call themselves "Indio," rather than "Black"? What does that have to do with anything, other than that it apparently rubs you the wrong way?
caribj wrote:
Where did I in this thread insist upon anything?
You just do not get it, do you? As long as you stick to saying that Dominicans see themselves this way or that, or that they look to you this way or that, you are on solid ground. But the moment you start implying that they are "really" this or that, or that "they are considered" this or that (in the weasel-word passive voice) you are conflating different definitions of blackness.
Try this. What, exactly, is your thesis? Is it that "what ever being black in the DR is its not a good thing"? If so, please provide a falsfiable definition if what "being black" means. Said another way, what sort of evidence would convince you that there is no such thing as "being black" in an objective sense.
caribj wrote:
Now if some think that statements made in that article (not made about Cuba) are wrong...
They are far, far worse than wrong. They are unitelligible because they lack objective referents. To say that Dominicans refuse to consider themselves black despite being black is like saying that unicorns only mate on odd-numbered Thursdays. It is not wrong. It is meaningless gibberish.
caribj wrote:
now that Cuba has also become a majority black/mulatto nation based on some statistics.
Based on what objectively replicable statistics? You have none. The newspaper has none. There are none. There is no way objectively to determine whether someone is black or mulatto.
caribj wrote:
The point was that the central thrust of this article was ... about the revulsion of some based on appearance...
Is your thesis is that Domincans generally dislike obvious African looks? If so, say it and stop being deliberately ambiguous.
caribj wrote:
and to a lesser extent a trivialization of African influences in Dominican culture.
Is this your thesis? Then say that they trivialize African folkloric influences in their culture. But do not say that they hate "being black," since this implies that they are black, which is non-falsifiable.
Its also about the whole "Indio" thing when most Tainos died out long ago.
Please don't doge the prior quote
Salsassin wrote:
I asked Lynne Guitar how many Dominicans claim Indio:
Quote:
From: Lynne Guitar [mailto:lynneguitar@yahoo.com] I wish I knew, Jaime, but it would take a lot of time and research to find out. I would guess that the number would be very few, for there is no social, political, or economic advantage to claiming to be "indio," in fact, quite the opposite, for to be "indio" is synonymous with being "stupid" and "gullible." Also, the Dominican teachers and school books hit hard on extinction for the Taino--most Dominicans accept the word of the "authorities" without question, even when their parents and grandparents use terms and concepts that have come down to them via the Taino.
My name is Jorge Estevez, my family comes from a town in the Dominican Republic known today as "Laguna Salada" (salted Lagoon) but part of it is still called "Jaibon". At the turn of the century, the whole town was known as "Guabay". Jaibon is in the "Cibao" region of the Island.
All my family came from the campo (country side). Some family members have never left the campo and are still there today. We immigrated to the U.S. in 1961. I was left behind with my father and did not make it back to New York until I was 5 years old. We settled in the Inwood section of Upper Manhattan.
From early on, being one of the few Dominican families in the area, I became aware of how distinct we were from the other people in the neighborhood. We had different words for many things that other Latinos had, for example, we would say "un chin" as apposed to un poquito, or Auyama for calabasa, himagua instead of twins, ciguato instead of podrido, etc., and this among other things became a source of pride, in who we are and where we came from, for me.
On Saturday mornings my mother and grandmother told stories of our campo that fascinated me. There were stories of "Ciguapas," creatures that lived in the woods and had long hair and inverted feet. There were the stories of brave Indians who would rather die than succumb to the Spanish. Women whom my family believed were beautiful were always compared to Anacaona, a Taino Cacika (chief) who was murdered by the Spanish. My mother always maintained that bravery and jealousy were the two things that ruled an Indian’s life. My mother would put us to sleep with songs with Indian themes, one in particular she created from an old Cuban poem dedicated to the Taino.
My grandmother always told us that we were Indio. Even when I pointed out to her that we had family members who were black, she would in turn point out the ones that looked Indian or Spanish. To her it did not matter how mixed we were, because we had a history in Jaibon and that history was ultimately Indian. My mother on the other hand always told us that we were Indian and Black, and although she never used the word Taino to describe us, she did use Indio often. When I wanted to know about our African heritage she would just raise her shoulders and tell me she did not know what that was, but if it was anything like the Haitians, then we were different. She never spoke in racist terms when it came To Afro- Haitian/Dominicans because she recognized them as being a part of who we are as well. Her knowledge of the campo however was incredible as was her assertion of our connection to these things.
Some tales involved family members who had strange powers, and could shape-shift. My grandmother’s uncle, Don Choro was said to be able to change into any animal or plant. Other stories included "Botijas" (dreams) in which Indians would bring you messages or point out where buried treasure was hidden.
Of all the things we learned, nothing compared to "Casabe" and the planting of food crops and medicines. They spoke of "tua-tua" and how it could only be picked at certain times of the day, but that it was a great cure for diarrhea. Guanabana leaves were great for headaches, and so on. Yagua and Cana were the best for making Bohios (thatched roof houses), and guano was good for weaving Hamacas, arganas, and macuotos. "Cayucos" were a type of cactus that produced a fruit called "yaso" and it was made into a drink, as was the "behuco de Indio" that was used for "mabi".
The Casabe is made from the bitter yucca, which is poisonous. When we made casabe my mother would tell us that the best utensil to spread the yuca flour on the griddle was the bottom shell of a Hicotea (fresh water turtle). This always bothered me because I always liked keeping turtles in the house, but my mother would only allow land turtles, not the water kind, because she insisted they brought bad luck. When I questioned her as to why it brought bad luck, she just didn’t know. All she knew was that her grandparents in the campo always maintained that these animals should not be kept in the home.
Years later I read a Taino creation story from a book and realized why she had this taboo. According to the story the spirit being Deminan Caracarcol had children with a fresh water turtle, and these children became the first people, so in essence the turtle was a symbol of our mother and our ancestors never ate her flesh for that reason. It was then that I understood why my mother perpetuated a taboo with out even knowing why. After 500 years of Christianity, it is truly amazing how certain taboos and traditions have remained. Owls for example are considered messengers of death in the Dominican Republic. Many Native people in this Hemisphere also have this same perception of owls. In Europe the owl is seen as a symbol of wisdom.
I remember how once, while my mother was making casabe and telling me stories, my mind drifted back in time, and I wondered if maybe 500 years ago there was some other little boy watching his mother make casabe while listening to stories of our homeland, of heroic warriors and great shamans. At that moment I knew that our connection to these things are strong and it is the root of who we are and defines us as a people.
For me it boils down to where I come from. I identify with the roots of our culture in the Caribbean. I am extremely proud of our heritage. So when I am asked where I come from, I always answer: I am Taino from the Dominican Republic, from the town of Jaibon.
Also from Jorge:
Quote:
Baracutay12@aol.com wrote:
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:51 PM
Hello, Max Forte forwarded your email to me.
As for your inquiry, yes there have been two, although very limited, DNA studies done in the Dominican Republic.
The first were conducted by an Italian company along with the Late Dr. Luna Calderon. These studies were focused in the Barahona region. Of the 29 samples taken (all from people displaying mostly African heritage) 10 had Native American Mitochondrial DNA.
In the second, Professor Juan Martinez Cruzado of Puerto Rico took 196 samples and of these 33 percent had Native American MTDNA. What should be noted is that in previous studies in Puerto Rico where the population is 4 million people, 800 samples were taken and 61 percent of these were Indian. The DR has over 9 million people so a much higher representative number of samples must be obtained before any conclusion can be made.
That said there are a few things that are clear though:
(1) the question as to whether or not there is Native descent in the DR has been answered and the answer is yes.
(2) The samples in the DR are Haplo groups A and C. The C haplo groups and types match the Puerto Rican C group. But the Haplo group A does not match the Puerto Rican A. This implies that the Haplo group A in the DR is from an older population that mixed with the Arawakan speaking peoples that entered the region some 3 thousand years ago.
I took a Bio-geographical DNA test, one that gives percentages of mixture. I tested positive for all three, except that my Native American Markers were so high that it implied that my ancestors were "pure" up to 5 generations ago. Not bad for a supposedly extinct people!
I actually took the test three times because at first I was not at all convinced that such a thing was possible.
On my first test which was called the 2.0 DNA print test My percentages were 29% Native American, 39% African and 32% Caucasian. It was this first test that confirmed for me what my grandmother always said about our families’ descent. She claimed that her grandmother and all the people of the place I come from in the DR were pure Indians. So since I had 29% Indian that means my mother would have perhaps twice as much and so on.
But then I took an updated version of the test, 2.5 , which goes deeper into the genome and this one revealed that I was 42 percent Indian.
One thing though. I think that as important as the tests are, they are also a bit misleading. I think that Identity is more about culture than genes. The reason why I have always identified with Native is because of the campesino culture which is very Native in the DR.
At the end of these tests I am still as Indian as I was at birth. The thing is does confirm however is that our history in the Caribbean must be re-written. That the Taino became extinct 30 years after contact with the Spanish is just about the biggest myth ever created and we in the Caribbean bought that side of the story, hook line and sinker!
If you have any further questions please contact me at this email address.
Thank you
Jorge
The census in the DR specifically breaks out "black" and "mulatto" and its becoming a practice by some (NGOs and International agencies) to collectively group them under the term Afrodescendant.n The break out is 16% white, 11% black and 73% mulatto. I presume that Dominicans have their own notions as to who fits into what category.
]The point was that the central thrust of this article was ... about the revulsion of some based on appearance...
Is your thesis is that Domincans generally dislike obvious African looks? If so, say it and stop being deliberately ambiguous.
[.
That is exactly what I was saying and I went on further to say that such looks are NOT limited to those of Haitian extraction so the excuse that its purely a anti Haitian thing doesnt quite sell. Especially given the legacy of explicitly racist theory propagatenot too long ago by Balaguer.
Sagascend raised an interesting point of how a mulatto from Haiti would be treated especially given that many wouldnt look too different from many Dominicans.
Salsassin read that article again. This isnt mere mulatto preference. There is open revulsion to SSAfrican features, even though at least 10% and maybe more of the population possesses this. And not just Haitians either. .
I thought that this was quite explicit. I said revulsion to SSAfrican features. The 10% comes from the DR census which regards 11% as being black, as defined in the DR.
The census in the DR specifically breaks out "black" and "mulatto" and its becoming a practice by some (NGOs and International agencies) to collectively group them under the term Afrodescendant.n The break out is 16% white, 11% black and 73% mulatto. I presume that Dominicans have their own notions as to who fits into what category.
False. there hasn't been a color designated census in the DR since 1960.
The 10% comes from the DR census which regards 11% as being black, as defined in the DR.
This is in error. Furthermore, since it has been discussed to death on this site (see http://onedroprule.org/viewtopic.php?p=0946#10946, for example), I suspect that it is deliberate falsification. You now have three outstanding moderator requests:
1. You wrote: "DR census statistics indicate that 85- 90% are [black]." I informed you that the current DR census does not classify people thus and asked for your source. Instead of providing one you have simply repeated the falsehood.
2. You wrote (in passive voice) that some Domincans were "considered black." I asked "by whom?" You have ignored the request for a source.
3. You wrote (in passive voice) that some Domincans were "classified as mulatto." I asked "by whom?" You have ignored the request for a source.
To avoid suspension, you must answer all three by 2007-07-18 02:00 GMT.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
