Posted: Sun 09 Jul 2006 14:25 Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs
oevega wrote:
Today's Arawaks have some admixture, Caribs have a lot more, and Ganifunas, it seem, does not have amerindian blood at all, at least looking to theirs phenotype.
On the other hand the pre-contact colonization of the Caribbean came from Northern South America and was done by Amazonian people, like to Yonomani. So, in genetic terms, and in phenotype, the people that looks closer to the original Caribs are precisely the people of the Amazon.
That was the purpose of the pictures.
Omar Vega
Again, your assumption is that all native Amazonian tribes looked the same. They did not. ANd there are still pure Caribs in the Guyanas.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 09 Jul 2006 16:33 Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs
Salsassin wrote:
Again, your assumption is that all native Amazonian tribes looked the same. They did not. ANd there are still pure Caribs in the Guyanas.
Pictures please. Genetic studies, please. As far as I can see, they are already mixed. Which is fine, but which show they don't look exactly like theirs ancestors.
Posted: Mon 10 Jul 2006 02:44 Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Again, your assumption is that all native Amazonian tribes looked the same. They did not. ANd there are still pure Caribs in the Guyanas.
Pictures please. Genetic studies, please. As far as I can see, they are already mixed. Which is fine, but which show they don't look exactly like theirs ancestors.
Omar
Feel free to show your genetic studies that Caribs in Guyana are mixed.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Mon 10 Jul 2006 04:15 Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Again, your assumption is that all native Amazonian tribes looked the same. They did not. ANd there are still pure Caribs in the Guyanas.
Pictures please. Genetic studies, please. As far as I can see, they are already mixed. Which is fine, but which show they don't look exactly like theirs ancestors.
Omar
Feel free to show your genetic studies that Caribs in Guyana are mixed.
After you show me the Garifunas have native american blood, I will be glad to search for it. Anyways, for me it does not matter that Natives are mixed. Pure Natives, Mestizos and Zamboes have the right to theirs native culture, given they still keep it. No problem for me and no problem for the U.N. either.
Posted: Mon 10 Jul 2006 19:00 Post subject: Re: Paper
oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Already did.
No. You don't. Look for a better paper please. That does not show anything conclusive. Go.
Omar
Wrong. You have yet to disprove the paper. Just your opinionm of lack of conclusivity is not enough. You have to show how those same results would have occured without admixture.
In fact, now I demand it as proof. I gave you evidence, either refute it with evidence or admit you are giving unsubstantiated opinions.
Slaveholders in Haiti of all colors who held other human beings as slaves in the most brutal ways brought this massacre upon innocent White and mulatto people. If there was no code of honor in boiling women alive and killing babies as slaves then why would there be for women and children of the slaveholding class?
Nobody denies that slavery in Haiti was particularly brutal. It's well known. However I have doubts about "Killing babies as slaves" when the slaves did not even usually reproduce themselves in Haiti. "Boiling women alive?" Where is your evidence for this particular claim you use to "justifiy" what happened to innocent White and Mulatto women and children in Haiti?
Also at the time of the revolution most Blacks in Haiti had still been born in Africa. They had been captured by black Africans like themselves who had sold them to the Europeans. Black Africans considerably enriched themselves on the slave trade.
Sagascend wrote:
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
That's why the massacre of the white population as well as parts of the Mulatto population was genocide. It was DESIGNED TO wipe out the non-black element. In line with this Dessaliness Constitution negrified all Haitians. In addition throughout the 19th and early 20th century "no white person regardless of national origin could become a Haitian."
Slavery on the other hand , while extremely cruel, was economic exploitation which resulted in premature death. The people who perpetrated it included black Africans who considerably enriched themselves on the trade and without whom the trade would not have been possible. Did all this justify the genocide of the non-black population once blacks had the power over the island? For me the answer is clearly no. By the way slavery exists in Africa up to this day.
Also the man who had partly ordered Dessaliness to kill thousands of Mulattoes was Toussaint. Toussaint had been a slaveholder himself. The reason for the genocide: to secure his personal power.
Also while it may be politically and ideologically convenient for some to conflate the two colonization and slavery in the Americas are two different topics. Most countries have been colonized by others at some point in history. Colonization usually has negative AND positive aspects to it. In the case of European colonization in Africa Europeans ALSO brought medical progress to Africa. This made Africa's population TRIPLE within only a few decades. Schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers were founded. Roads were built. Especially in the case of French speaking the language of the former colonizer today enables Africans to communicate whith each other who otherwise would never have been able to do so because of their numerous different languages. Was colonization justified? Of course not that's why African countries gained their independence. You won't find many people in France today who want to take back their former colonies in Africa. Do the negative deeds of some members of a certain race throughout history justify racism against an entire race like in the recent rapes of white women in Ivory Coast or the recent attacks on Jews in Paris perpetrated by some Blacks to name just a few examples? Hardly. Also your idea that we should just accept that there are always women and children and other "collateral" victimes is unacceptable.
It would seem to me that this is precisley what racism is about. Holding an entire race responsible for the deeds of some members of that race while at the same time excusing and downplaying a massacre perpetrated by members of another race. (in this case perpetrated by blacks)
Black racism differs from white racism but exists just as much. For example most black racists will assume that blacks are somehow morally superior to whites whom they view as inherently racist by nature thus "justifying" their own negative sentiments and those of other Blacks against them.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 26 Jul 2006 14:32 Post subject: Agree
Mariani wrote:
Sagascend wrote:
Slaveholders in Haiti of all colors who held other human beings as slaves in the most brutal ways brought this massacre upon innocent White and mulatto people. If there was no code of honor in boiling women alive and killing babies as slaves then why would there be for women and children of the slaveholding class?
Nobody denies that slavery in Haiti was particularly brutal. It's well known. However I have doubts about "Killing babies as slaves" when the slaves did not even usually reproduce themselves in Haiti. "Boiling women alive?" Where is your evidence for this particular claim you use to "justifiy" what happened to innocent White and Mulatto women and children in Haiti?
Also at the time of the revolution most Blacks in Haiti had still been born in Africa. They had been captured by black Africans like themselves who had sold them to the Europeans. Black Africans considerably enriched themselves on the slave trade.
Sagascend wrote:
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
That's why the massacre of the white population as well as parts of the Mulatto population was genocide. It was DESIGNED TO wipe out the non-black element. In line with this Dessaliness Constitution negrified all Haitians. In addition throughout the 19th and early 20th century "no white person regardless of national origin could become a Haitian."
Slavery on the other hand , while extremely cruel, was economic exploitation which resulted in premature death. The people who perpetrated it included black Africans who considerably enriched themselves on the trade and without whom the trade would not have been possible. Did all this justify the genocide of the non-black population once blacks had the power over the island? For me the answer is clearly no. By the way slavery exists in Africa up to this day.
Also the man who had partly ordered Dessaliness to kill thousands of Mulattoes was Toussaint. Toussaint had been a slaveholder himself. The reason for the genocide: to secure his personal power.
Also while it may be politically and ideologically convenient for some to conflate the two colonization and slavery in the Americas are two different topics. Most countries have been colonized by others at some point in history. Colonization usually has negative AND positive aspects to it. In the case of European colonization in Africa Europeans ALSO brought medical progress to Africa. This made Africa's population TRIPLE within only a few decades. Schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers were founded. Roads were built. Especially in the case of French speaking the language of the former colonizer today enables Africans to communicate whith each other who otherwise would never have been able to do so because of their numerous different languages. Was colonization justified? Of course not that's why African countries gained their independence. You won't find many people in France today who want to take back their former colonies in Africa. Do the negative deeds of some members of a certain race throughout history justify racism against an entire race like in the recent rapes of white women in Ivory Coast or the recent attacks on Jews in Paris perpetrated by some Blacks to name just a few examples? Hardly. Also your idea that we should just accept that there are always women and children and other "collateral" victimes is unacceptable.
It would seem to me that this is precisley what racism is about. Holding an entire race responsible for the deeds of some members of that race while at the same time excusing and downplaying a massacre perpetrated by members of another race. (in this case perpetrated by blacks)
Black racism differs from white racism but exists just as much. For example most black racists will assume that blacks are somehow morally superior to whites whom they view as inherently racist by nature thus "justifying" their own negative sentiments and those of other Blacks against them.
I agree with your comments. Genocides are genocides and period. No excuses should be allowed and all should be condemned. Fanatism of any color, political idea or creed, goes easily to the extremes, and no group is free of falling into that.
By the way, the very idea of isolotion that Haiti impossed to itself, discouranging the immigration of whites, for instance, could be the cause they missed most of the dynamic that allowed other societies of the hemisphere to prosper. The immigrant has been an important factor for the development of the Americas, and does not matter if the immigrant is European, Arab, Chinese or East Indian, if they bring theirs skills and energy they produce a possitive impact in society.
Industrialization in Brazil, Chile and Argentina was produced by Brits, Italians, Arabs and Germans, for example. If they were not come, perhaps we would be a lot poorer than today.
Compare Trinidad and Tobago with Haiti. The former allowed immigrantion of East Indians, the later closed to foreigners. And the differences in standard of living are really unbelievable.
Some images of Afrodescendants in Peru:
These are are autoidentified afrodescendants. That doesn't mean they consider themselves Black or African, but they are in touch with their African roots.
Posted: Tue 04 Sep 2007 13:55 Post subject: Re: Agree
oevega wrote:
Compare Trinidad and Tobago with Haiti. The former allowed immigrantion of East Indians, the later closed to foreigners. And the differences in standard of living are really unbelievable.
Omar
Veering off topic but East Indians in Trinidad and elsewhere in the Caribbean were indentured servants by and large. Though their descendants may be more entrepreneurial than the descendants of Africans in these countries, they still make up a sizeable portion of the under class.
In Trinidad, as in the rest of the Caribbean, the members of the business class are usually Arabs, Jews, Chinese, and the descendants of the European settler elites.
Trinidad's standard of living has more to do with its natural resources and less chaotic and corrupt political culture than simply immigration.
I believe is fine a group of 300 descendents of Blacks in the Valley of Azapa claim they have an African heritage (although some are, most of them are not even Blacks at all). Yes, they should preserve their traditions and their customs, and that's fine. But from there to claim that Chile as a whole has an African heritage is way out of proportions
This is a very common view in Latin America so I cannot disagree with Omar. The good thing is that people with African heritage are coming out and saying I am proud of my African ancestry if even I look otherwise.
If you look at the telenovelas and the print/marketing media, you all have, there is a preference for Eurocentric definitions of beauty and acquisition of material goods. They/we do not want to see Africans or indigenas of pura sangre messing up the social scene!
Even the statement :they do not look black: is a telling point within the culture! What is that about?
Posted: Thu 06 Mar 2008 02:55 Post subject: Re: Agree
oevega wrote:
Mariani wrote:
Sagascend wrote:
Slaveholders in Haiti of all colors who held other human beings as slaves in the most brutal ways brought this massacre upon innocent White and mulatto people. If there was no code of honor in boiling women alive and killing babies as slaves then why would there be for women and children of the slaveholding class?
Nobody denies that slavery in Haiti was particularly brutal. It's well known. However I have doubts about "Killing babies as slaves" when the slaves did not even usually reproduce themselves in Haiti. "Boiling women alive?" Where is your evidence for this particular claim you use to "justifiy" what happened to innocent White and Mulatto women and children in Haiti?
Also at the time of the revolution most Blacks in Haiti had still been born in Africa. They had been captured by black Africans like themselves who had sold them to the Europeans. Black Africans considerably enriched themselves on the slave trade.
Sagascend wrote:
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
That's why the massacre of the white population as well as parts of the Mulatto population was genocide. It was DESIGNED TO wipe out the non-black element. In line with this Dessaliness Constitution negrified all Haitians. In addition throughout the 19th and early 20th century "no white person regardless of national origin could become a Haitian."
Slavery on the other hand , while extremely cruel, was economic exploitation which resulted in premature death. The people who perpetrated it included black Africans who considerably enriched themselves on the trade and without whom the trade would not have been possible. Did all this justify the genocide of the non-black population once blacks had the power over the island? For me the answer is clearly no. By the way slavery exists in Africa up to this day.
Also the man who had partly ordered Dessaliness to kill thousands of Mulattoes was Toussaint. Toussaint had been a slaveholder himself. The reason for the genocide: to secure his personal power.
Also while it may be politically and ideologically convenient for some to conflate the two colonization and slavery in the Americas are two different topics. Most countries have been colonized by others at some point in history. Colonization usually has negative AND positive aspects to it. In the case of European colonization in Africa Europeans ALSO brought medical progress to Africa. This made Africa's population TRIPLE within only a few decades. Schools, universities, hospitals and newspapers were founded. Roads were built. Especially in the case of French speaking the language of the former colonizer today enables Africans to communicate whith each other who otherwise would never have been able to do so because of their numerous different languages. Was colonization justified? Of course not that's why African countries gained their independence. You won't find many people in France today who want to take back their former colonies in Africa. Do the negative deeds of some members of a certain race throughout history justify racism against an entire race like in the recent rapes of white women in Ivory Coast or the recent attacks on Jews in Paris perpetrated by some Blacks to name just a few examples? Hardly. Also your idea that we should just accept that there are always women and children and other "collateral" victimes is unacceptable.
It would seem to me that this is precisley what racism is about. Holding an entire race responsible for the deeds of some members of that race while at the same time excusing and downplaying a massacre perpetrated by members of another race. (in this case perpetrated by blacks)
Black racism differs from white racism but exists just as much. For example most black racists will assume that blacks are somehow morally superior to whites whom they view as inherently racist by nature thus "justifying" their own negative sentiments and those of other Blacks against them.
I agree with your comments. Genocides are genocides and period. No excuses should be allowed and all should be condemned. Fanatism of any color, political idea or creed, goes easily to the extremes, and no group is free of falling into that.
By the way, the very idea of isolotion that Haiti impossed to itself, discouranging the immigration of whites, for instance, could be the cause they missed most of the dynamic that allowed other societies of the hemisphere to prosper. The immigrant has been an important factor for the development of the Americas, and does not matter if the immigrant is European, Arab, Chinese or East Indian, if they bring theirs skills and energy they produce a possitive impact in society.
Industrialization in Brazil, Chile and Argentina was produced by Brits, Italians, Arabs and Germans, for example. If they were not come, perhaps we would be a lot poorer than today.
Compare Trinidad and Tobago with Haiti. The former allowed immigrantion of East Indians, the later closed to foreigners. And the differences in standard of living are really unbelievable.
Omar
probably because these skilled workers, take advantage of the poorer class,
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
