Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 19:50 Post subject: Re: Sr. Vega...
William wrote:
What do you know of the blacks who once existed in Argentina? I've heard that they comprised 10% of the population or something like that in 1830 and then disappeared when the country was swamped by European immigrants. The theory is that they were absorbed. I wonder if there are any genetic tests regarding this. Also, did this occur in Chile as well?
The best history on the genetic assimilation of the Black Argentineans is George Reid Andrews, The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800-1900 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1980). It pre-dates DNA studies, but is an outstanding traditional history based on the letters. diaries, and newspapers by and about this minority. It is a very human account that describes how the group struggled for acceptance into mainstream society.
They out-married at the same rate as other Latin Americans (there was and is no endogamous color line anywhere in Ibero-Amerca), and so their numbers dwindled year by year. Eventually, the last few African-looking Argentineans died out without ever gaining social acceptance. Their descendants, of course, permeate the population today.
I recommend the book, but be aware that as a mainstream U.S. historian, Andrews sees the assimiliation of the Black Argentineans as the ultimate act of White racism (although he never out-and-out calls it "genocide").
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 05 Dec 2005 22:17; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 23 Aug 2005 20:11 Post subject: Re: Sr. Vega...
William wrote:
What do you know of the blacks who once existed in Argentina? I've heard that they comprised 10% of the population or something like that in 1830 and then disappeared when the country was swamped by European immigrants. The theory is that they were absorbed. I wonder if there are any genetic tests regarding this. Also, did this occur in Chile as well?
Hi,
In Uruguay you can still find Blacks for instance. A small minority, though.
In Bolivia there are also some small Black minorities.
There are several theories for the dissapearence of Blacks in Argentina and other countries like Chile.
In the case of Argentina the census of 1830 counted the cities' populations without taking into account peoples that lived in the country side. Indians were never counted, for instance. The cities were very small indeed. A 100.000 people city was a large Metropolis at those times. So the Black population was not very large either. 10.000 to 30.000 as much I would say.
In Southern South America the agriculture and minning industries preffered to use Indian labour which was cheaper and abundant. In these latitudes agricultural products did not have the potential of coffe, suggar, cotton and other products that were used in plantation regimes.
There are other factors as well. During the independence wars lots of Blacks were sent to the front in both sides. Perhaps with the purpose to get rid of them. Who knows?
However, perhaps the easy way to explain the "dissapearence" is that at the times the Southern nations declared the "freedom of wombs" (slave's children were free), the slave owners decided it was a better idea to sale them to Peru, Brasil and other nations that had a large scale slavery.
During the XIX century up to the XX century, the nations South of the Ecuator, applied a policy of "whitening", encouraging large numbers of Europeans to come to these lands as well.
Besides, the mestizos (white-native) peoples had an extraordinary reproductive rate in those times, absorving all other minorities that come in contact. It was common during the XVII and XVIII centuries that Spaniards had real harems of Natives women, so the demography of the region changed very quickly.
In the case of Chile the only slaves that ever arrived here were the servants of the rich. Mine was such a poor country at those times (the only country in the Americas were the Spaniards lost money) that has to resort to prisoners for buildings bridges, forts and other structures. Natives were free, and the Hacienda system was that predominated here.
Actually, in most of Hispanic South America Black labor was a lot less intensive than in the Caribbean, Brazil and the United States. In here, the largest masses of peasants were Indians. They were free but had to work the regime of mita, which is a tax on labor.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 24 Aug 2005 16:19 Post subject: Re:
Quote:
The best history on the genetic assimilation of the Black Argentineans is George Reid Andrews, The Afro-Argentines of Buenos Aires, 1800-1900 (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1980). It pre-dates DNA studies, but is an outstanding traditional history based on the letters. diaries, and newspapers by and about this minority. It is a very human account that describes how the group struggled for acceptance into manstream society.
This sounds interesting, and I think I'd like to read it. This unfortunate and apparently much maligned group doesn't get the attention it deserves. I wonder if ordinary white Argentinians recognize this part of their past.
Quote:
They out-married at the same rate as other Latin Americans (there was and is no endogamous color line anywhere in Ibero-Amerca), and so their numbers dwindled year by year. Eventually, the last few African-looking Argentineans died out wihout ever gaining social acceptance. Their descendants, of course, permeate the population today.
This confirms what I've always thought. I'm going to see if I can find any genetic studies on the subject.
Quote:
I recommend the book, but be aware that as a mainstream U.S. historian, Andrews sees the assimiliation of the Black Argentineans as the ultimate act of White racism (although he never out-and-out calls it "genocide").
Ultimate act of white racism?? Good grief! If that's not an Amerian pespective, than nothing is! If anything, it's just the opposite, since there never has been an endogamous colour line. I'll bet damn near every Latin American would regard Andrews's conclusion as utter lunacy.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 24 Aug 2005 16:46 Post subject: Re:
Quote:
In Uruguay you can still find Blacks for instance. A small minority, though. In Bolivia there are also some small Black minorities.
I was unaware of this. I did read a genetics study on Uruguayans which found Amerincian and sub-Saharan DNA among the whites, but was unaware of any Black group still existing there.
Quote:
In the case of Argentina the census of 1830 counted the cities' populations without taking into account peoples that lived in the country side. Indians were never counted, for instance. The cities were very small indeed. A 100.000 people city was a large Metropolis at those times. So the Black population was not very large either. 10.000 to 30.000 as much I would say.
Yes, I thought the Black figure might be inflated, just like the various ridiculously high figures of Blacks in Portugal. Census reports of that time must be taken with a grain of salt, because, as you say, rural populations weren't included.
Quote:
There are other factors as well. During the independence wars lots of Blacks were sent to the front in both sides. Perhaps with the purpose to get rid of them. Who knows?
Yes, I've heard of this, although absorption must have taken place as well.
Quote:
During the XIX century up to the XX century, the nations South of the Ecuator, applied a policy of "whitening", encouraging large numbers of Europeans to come to these lands as well.
Yes, I've read about this. This immigration would have swamped the African and part-African populations, and swamped many visibly mestizo populations as well. The same must hold true for southern Brazil as well, as I've read that something like 1.5 million Italians, 1.2 million Portuguese, 1 million Spaniards, 900,000 Germans, and many other European and West Asian types entered southern Brazil in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Despite all of these immigrant groups, is it still safe to conclude that the Portuguese element is the strongest European one?
Quote:
Besides, the mestizos (white-native) peoples had an extraordinary reproductive rate in those times, absorving all other minorities that come in contact. It was common during the XVII and XVIII centuries that Spaniards had real harems of Natives women, so the demography of the region changed very quickly.
Yes, but in south Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay (and even parts of Chile), it appears that even the mestizos were swamped and absorbed by the new European arrivals. Of course, genetics reveals Amerindian ancestry among the whites, but the end result is that the white phenotype is dominant from the austral cone area to a little below the equator.
Incidentally, I read recently that the Valparaiso (sp.?) region is losing its German character through out-marriage. Is this true? You did mention before that most Germans had intermarried with other groups already, and that no ethnic group retains its identity in Latin America for more than 2 generations. So it makes sense for German character to be lost or diluted.
Quote:
However, perhaps the easy way to explain the "dissapearence" is that at the times the Southern nations declared the "freedom of wombs" (slave's children were free), the slave owners decided it was a better idea to sale them to Peru, Brasil and other nations that had a large scale slavery.
I have a Peruvian friend, Rosa, who is among the most beautiful women I've ever seen. She likes to brag about her Spanish ancestry, but the Amerindian ancestry is visible in her features, too. When I mentioned this to her, she got insulted and said she isn't a "Cholla" or "Cholita" or something like that. Anyway, she told me that there are entire villages in Peru where the population is Black. I never expected to hear this.
I have a Peruvian friend, Rosa, who is among the most beautiful women I've ever seen. She likes to brag about her Spanish ancestry, but the Amerindian ancestry is visible in her features, too. When I mentioned this to her, she got insulted and said she isn't a "Cholla" or "Cholita" or something like that. Anyway, she told me that there are entire villages in Peru where the population is Black. I never expected to hear this.
The Peruvian I knew, I never got to breach the subjects of Blacks in Peru. Heck, we didn't even get to the Indians either! This guy just kept telling me Hispanic meant Metizo! When he finally did speak of Indians it was always in the historical context!
I suppose I'm suppose to believe there are only 60% White 40% Indian people throughout Latin America and nothing else.........
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 24 Aug 2005 20:50 Post subject: Re:
girlfromthenc wrote:
Quote:
I have a Peruvian friend, Rosa, who is among the most beautiful women I've ever seen. She likes to brag about her Spanish ancestry, but the Amerindian ancestry is visible in her features, too. When I mentioned this to her, she got insulted and said she isn't a "Cholla" or "Cholita" or something like that. Anyway, she told me that there are entire villages in Peru where the population is Black. I never expected to hear this.
The Peruvian I knew, I never got to breach the subjects of Blacks in Peru. Heck, we didn't even get to the Indians either! This guy just kept telling me Hispanic meant Metizo! When he finally did speak of Indians it was always in the historical context!
I suppose I'm suppose to believe there are only 60% White 40% Indian people throughout Latin America and nothing else.........
No. You should not believe that. You must realize the genetic mix of different countries vary a lot. Dominican Republic is not Paraguay and Bolivia is not Uruguay either. There are "racial" differences that are VERY notorious between Latin countries.
Please see this table and you'll find out where Black population exists, where it doesn't and where it is the second largest minority.
Please see this table and you'll find out where Black population exists, where it doesn't and where it is the second largest minority.
I would take the table with a grain of salt. As far as I can tell, it is simply a retabulation of the CIA "ethnicity" numbers, for which no source has ever been given.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 02:34 Post subject: Re:
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
Please see this table and you'll find out where Black population exists, where it doesn't and where it is the second largest minority.
I would take the table with a grain of salt. As far as I can tell, it is simply a retabulation of the CIA "ethnicity" numbers, for which no source has ever been given.
Hi Frank,
I believe it is not that bad. Actually, as we know, it is very difficult to develop "racial" statistics in Latin America for the following reasons:
(1) Most people is mixed in different degrees on the different "races" of mankind. All "pure" peoples (including Whites, Indians and Blacks) are minoritary. Adding all those up they make a fraction of the mixed populations.
(2) There is a continuoum spectrum from one to the other races.
(3) Because the region is tree-racial (even four and fith racial if one includes Asians, Hindues and others) is very difficult to distinguish the mixtures. A light "mulatto" could look identical to a "mestizo" for instance.
(4) People don't colaborate. Latin Americans consider nobody has the right to ask them: what's your race? For us, that kind of question is insulting as to ask for the moral of one's mother
(5) Some people lie; even to themselves.
So, those statistics are just done by estimations.
However, recent genetic studies are showing the real proportions of the racial mix of Latin America. And, believe me or not, for what I know of the region, for what I see daily, and from the conclusion of those studies, I can assure you that famous table is VERY accurate indeed.
It got some problems though. For example, people know that Chileans are mestizos, but on the light side (1/4 amerindian 3/4 Europeans), so the statistic shows we are 90% mestizos and 10% white. Now, Bolivians have a greater number for white people that we do. However, when one visit Bolivia and Chile people notice immediatelly that my country is more european-looking than Bolivia. So, the best way to get an idea of how the countries are is just visiting them. Before that, and before precise genetic numbers, I believe that table is good enough.
It shows certain facts:
(1) "races" are not evenly distributed in Latin America. Descendents of Africans, in particular, are very important in the Caribbean and Brazil, where Afro-Europeans form half-population. In the small non-Latin countries of Caribbean Blacks are the majority of population. In other countries like the Andes, the southern cone, Mexico and some countries of Central America, the Black population is quite small or absent.
(2) Indian population is very important in Mexico and the Andes (one should remember that those regions were the places where the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empire were located; so had very high densities since pre-contact times), and form a second minority in most countries of Latin America, except by Brazil and the Caribbean; in the last ones Blacks are more numerous that Indians, but also exist although most are mixed and the population is smaller in proportion.
(3) The European population IS important and very large indeed. In most countries of Latin America. In many countries form a large percentage of the population. North Europeans features like green or blue eyes, light skin and blond hair are common in Latin America, although with a smaller frequency that in Europe. In Latin America the South European (Spaniard, Italian, Southern French, Portuguese) type is the one that predominates. There are large minorities of Germans and other nordic in Latin America as well.
The continent is diverse in racial terms. In culture is even more diverse, though. Latin America is a huge proportion of the planet, so it is natural it's very varied indeed.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 13:48 Post subject: Sr. Vega...
I am eager to see what you have to say about what I wrote above:
Quote:
Incidentally, I read recently that the Valparaiso (sp.?) region is losing its German character through out-marriage. Is this true? You did mention before that most Germans had intermarried with other groups already, and that no ethnic group retains its identity in Latin America for more than 2 generations. So it makes sense for German character to be lost or diluted.
and
Quote:
Anyway, she told me that there are entire villages in Peru where the population is Black. I never expected to hear this.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 13:50 Post subject: Frank...quick question on Duffy
I have a question on Fy(a-b-). I noticed that it was mentioned as a sub-Saharan blood protein found in Sicilians in that 1978 study. But it is also used by DNAPrint in autosomal studies. How is this? Is it present in autosomes as well as being a blood protein?
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 15:28 Post subject: Re: Frank...quick question on Duffy
William wrote:
I have a question on Fy(a-b-). I noticed that it was mentioned as a sub-Saharan blood protein found in Sicilians in that 1978 study. But it is also used by DNAPrint in autosomal studies. How is this? Is it present in autosomes as well as being a blood protein?
Yes. That was what the decoding of the human genome gave us: knowing which specific stretch of autosomal DNA produces any given protein (alternatively, what protein is produced by any given stretch of DNA that encodes for a gene).
The Duffy blood-group types have been known for many decades, as has their usefulness in identifying continent of ancestry. But it has been only within the past decade that we have known that a person's Duffy blood-group type is encoded on the long arm of his/her chromosome #1, about 23.2 centimorgans out from the chromosome's centromere.
In general, you can measure the end-result of a person's genetic makeup by serological analysis, or you can measure the actual genetic makeup itself in the DNA. The latter is more precise since some proteins are produced (or not) only in homozygotes and so are invisible to serological analysis but visible in the DNA.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 15:46 Post subject:
I see. Once again, very interesting. It's amazing what I've learned on this forum in a short time, compared with what I didn't learn on Racial Myths for 5 years! That shouldn't surprise, since that forum was a collection of people trying to prove their own ethnicities' purity, or the lack of purity of others' ethnicities.
I have a Peruvian friend, Rosa, who is among the most beautiful women I've ever seen. She likes to brag about her Spanish ancestry, but the Amerindian ancestry is visible in her features, too. When I mentioned this to her, she got insulted and said she isn't a "Cholla" or "Cholita" or something like that. Anyway, she told me that there are entire villages in Peru where the population is Black. I never expected to hear this.
The Peruvian I knew, I never got to breach the subjects of Blacks in Peru. Heck, we didn't even get to the Indians either! This guy just kept telling me Hispanic meant Metizo! When he finally did speak of Indians it was always in the historical context!
I suppose I'm suppose to believe there are only 60% White 40% Indian people throughout Latin America and nothing else.........
No. You should not believe that. You must realize the genetic mix of different countries vary a lot. Dominican Republic is not Paraguay and Bolivia is not Uruguay either. There are "racial" differences that are VERY notorious between Latin countries.
Please see this table and you'll find out where Black population exists, where it doesn't and where it is the second largest minority.
In response to what girlfromthenc wrote above, it has been my experience that many Latinos who reside in the United States, who are from mestizo countries, will often downplay Amerindian ancestry in their own background or in their country's ethnic/cultural makeup and play up Spanish or European ancestry.
Additionally, many Latinos I have encountered who are from countries that have a large African presence will often deny or downplay African ancestry in their own background or their country's ethnic/cultural makeup and play up Amerindian ancestry, even if the African ancestry and cultural influences are obvious.
I knew a young lady in my high school whose nickname was "India". She swore all of her ancestors were mostly Amerindians with some Spanish ones tucked away somewhere. Her appearance was very close to Irene Cara's or Haile Berry's.
William’s friend’s comments are not as atypical among Latinos here in the U.S. as we might think.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 17:50 Post subject: Re:
G-Man wrote:
I knew a young lady in my high school whose nickname was "India". She swore all of her ancestors were mostly Amerindians with some Spanish ones tucked away somewhere. Her appearance was very close to Irene Cara's or Haile Berry's.
William’s friend’s comments are not as atypical among Latinos here in the U.S. as we might think.
Hi,
Yes, I know. I used to believe I was a "white man" in my country. When I reach Canada, though, People was very kind to explain me I was not.
Some mestizos believe they are white and some mulattoes preffer to be Indians. Besides, Latinos are descendent of Spaniards, Italians, French and Portugueses, which are not very light either. So if they look "Negroid" perhaps is the Spanish or Jewish ancestor what are you really seeing.
Finally. Mexican and Dominican migration to the United States IS not representative of Latin America as a whole, AT ALL.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 25 Aug 2005 18:33 Post subject:
Mr. Vega wrote:
Yes, I know. I used to believe I was a "white man" in my country. When I reach Canada, though, People was very kind to explain me I was not.
I hope you don't tolerate lessons from the American or Canadian governments or populations as to how you should identify yourself. I suspect you were being facetious. LOL...
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
