Joined: 31 May 2005 {Posts: 66 } Location: South Carolina
Posted: Mon 12 Sep 2005 16:26 Post subject: Casta Paintings
I read fwsweet's column about casta paintings and I have tried to find any racism implied in the paintings and I could find none. They seemed like couples doing normal things. The cultures and races were diverse and names were applied to each group. So how did the mixing of races evolve into social races, racial castes, and supposed hatred for Africans due to the Moorish conquest of Spain and Portugal. Didn't the Spaniards and Portuguese mix with blacks even before they both colonized the New World and parts of Asia and Africa? Here are a few sites that give the idea that the casta paintings were nothing more but to track the mixing of races and assign castes to different mixes. What is the origin of the words coyote, mulatto, mestizo, and lobo? How is race generally classified in Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela since each have majority populations that can trace their ancestry to an African, a Indian, and/or a European? Are every mixed race person considered a mestizo or is it only for those of white/Indian heritage? How much does the black legend of Spain play into the views of casta paintings?
I read fwsweet's column about casta paintings and I have tried to find any racism implied in the paintings and I could find none. They seemed like couples doing normal things. The cultures and races were diverse and names were applied to each group. So how did the mixing of races evolve into social races, racial castes, and supposed hatred for Africans due to the Moorish conquest of Spain and Portugal. Didn't the Spaniards and Portuguese mix with blacks even before they both colonized the New World and parts of Asia and Africa? Here are a few sites that give the idea that the casta paintings were nothing more but to track the mixing of races and assign castes to different mixes. What is the origin of the words coyote, mulatto, mestizo, and lobo? How is race generally classified in Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela since each have majority populations that can trace their ancestry to an African, a Indian, and/or a European? Are every mixed race person considered a mestizo or is it only for those of white/Indian heritage? How much does the black legend of Spain play into the views of casta paintings?
I love those Casta paintings. They show a wonderful array of people from all racial mixes doing all kinds of activities imaginable. Like you, I didn't find any racism in those paintings, which disappoints a lot of Americans accustomed to find race in everything. These paintings at least acknowledge the existence of multiracialism unlike North America, U.S. in particular. The Spaniards didn't hesitate to show black and mulatto men with white women, nor did they do so with black women(unmixed) with white men. The paintings of white men with unmixed black women made an impression on me because in America, we assumed that mixed women and black women are one and the same. Most U.S. depictions of "black" women with white men in Hollywood are in reality mixed.
Joined: 31 May 2005 {Posts: 66 } Location: South Carolina
Posted: Sat 01 Oct 2005 21:26 Post subject:
There is much colorism in the black community. In the music videos they mostly show women with slender or muscular builds, light skin, and long hair. People of color often show their hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. They are just as much colorstruck as many whites. I do think that the casta paintings are beautiful and there is a lot of leftist and politically correct thought in the States and that is what is coming to play referring to the casta paintings. A black man being shown with a white woman especially is STILL taboo in this day and age. It is not just because of white people who are making it taboo, it is also the black community. Black babies being adopted by white people is taboo in this country. A casta painting like that shown today would be a political statement in the States when in Latin America, it was normal.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 02 Oct 2005 00:44 Post subject: Casta paintings
gera2561 wrote:
There is much colorism in the black community. In the music videos they mostly show women with slender or muscular builds, light skin, and long hair. People of color often show their hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. They are just as much colorstruck as many whites. I do think that the casta paintings are beautiful and there is a lot of leftist and politically correct thought in the States and that is what is coming to play referring to the casta paintings. A black man being shown with a white woman especially is STILL taboo in this day and age. It is not just because of white people who are making it taboo, it is also the black community. Black babies being adopted by white people is taboo in this country. A casta painting like that shown today would be a political statement in the States when in Latin America, it was normal.
Hi,
In colonial times it was common in Latin America that the European men marry whoever he choosed.
There is a curious fact about it. The European man has to choose between a Native woman, sometime with good relations with local chiefs or the quite few European women that were very selfish because of that. And many Europeans women had not a very honest past. So for him it make sense to select a Native woman that usually will love him more. Also Native women preffered Europeans and were very interested in become part of the mainstream as well. (There are records of those times that show that Native women married with Native had very few kids or none, but when married with Europeans have lots of children)
In the case of Black women and white men the situation is usually as follow: there was real love in there. In colonial times a man has to really love a Black woman to marry her. Nobody forbide those marriages and in many places were considered normal. One can get informed by reading the ancient church records about the races of the couples that got married. Most marriages happened between free-Black women and white men, although it was also common that people got in love with their servants and, being Spanish people, they formalize those unions under the church.
Sometimes, the sponsors of the marriage of the bride were their own former slave masters. Some Hispanics and Portugueses feel remorse of slavery and more than once they freed their favorite servants and protect them.
In the case of Saint Martin of Porres his father was a Spanish noble and his mother a free-Black women of Panama. They did not get marry but the father recognized his son and worry all his life about him. In the case of Alejadinho, the Brazilian sculptor:
Quote:
Born in Villa Rica (Rich Town), whose name was later changed to Ouro Preto (Black Gold), Brazil, in 1738 (sometimes said to be in 1730) he was the son of Manoel Francisco de Costa Lisboa and his slave, Izabel. His father, a carpenter, had immigrated to Brazil where his skills were so in demand that he appears to have been elevated to the position of architect. When Antonio was young his father married and he was raised in his father’s home along with his half siblings.
The case of Xica da Silva is even more interesting. She and the governor of a region of Minas Gerais were in a very passionated love. The man was really nuts for her. And we are talking about the 17th Century ! Their story is real and was converted in a novel, and afterwards made a sucessful Brazilian soap opera (telenovela) some years ago. The house of Xica is in diamantina:
Posted: Mon 03 Oct 2005 16:46 Post subject: Re: Casta paintings
oevega wrote:
gera2561 wrote:
There is much colorism in the black community. In the music videos they mostly show women with slender or muscular builds, light skin, and long hair. People of color often show their hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. They are just as much colorstruck as many whites. I do think that the casta paintings are beautiful and there is a lot of leftist and politically correct thought in the States and that is what is coming to play referring to the casta paintings. A black man being shown with a white woman especially is STILL taboo in this day and age. It is not just because of white people who are making it taboo, it is also the black community. Black babies being adopted by white people is taboo in this country. A casta painting like that shown today would be a political statement in the States when in Latin America, it was normal.
Hi,
In colonial times it was common in Latin America that the European men marry whoever he choosed.
There is a curious fact about it. The European man has to choose between a Native woman, sometime with good relations with local chiefs or the quite few European women that were very selfish because of that. And many Europeans women had not a very honest past. So for him it make sense to select a Native woman that usually will love him more. Also Native women preffered Europeans and were very interested in become part of the mainstream as well. (There are records of those times that show that Native women married with Native had very few kids or none, but when married with Europeans have lots of children)
In the case of Black women and white men the situation is usually as follow: there was real love in there. In colonial times a man has to really love a Black woman to marry her. Nobody forbide those marriages and in many places were considered normal. One can get informed by reading the ancient church records about the races of the couples that got married. Most marriages happened between free-Black women and white men, although it was also common that people got in love with their servants and, being Spanish people, they formalize those unions under the church.
Sometimes, the sponsors of the marriage of the bride were their own former slave masters. Some Hispanics and Portugueses feel remorse of slavery and more than once they freed their favorite servants and protect them.
In the case of Saint Martin of Porres his father was a Spanish noble and his mother a free-Black women of Panama. They did not get marry but the father recognized his son and worry all his life about him. In the case of Alejadinho, the Brazilian sculptor:
Quote:
Born in Villa Rica (Rich Town), whose name was later changed to Ouro Preto (Black Gold), Brazil, in 1738 (sometimes said to be in 1730) he was the son of Manoel Francisco de Costa Lisboa and his slave, Izabel. His father, a carpenter, had immigrated to Brazil where his skills were so in demand that he appears to have been elevated to the position of architect. When Antonio was young his father married and he was raised in his father’s home along with his half siblings.
The case of Xica da Silva is even more interesting. She and the governor of a region of Minas Gerais were in a very passionated love. The man was really nuts for her. And we are talking about the 17th Century ! Their story is real and was converted in a novel, and afterwards made a sucessful Brazilian soap opera (telenovela) some years ago. The house of Xica is in diamantina:
Aleijandinho and Xica are both from Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Regards,
Omar Vega
I agree on your comments, Omar. However, in America, people are hypocritical and uptight over such depictions of interracial couples and their children with the exception of Native Americans and Asians. Every time when media or art shows a black-white or multiracial-white couple, there is a lot of controversy even today. Examples: Monster's Ball, Swordfish, Monday Night Football, and, of course, the 2004 Superbowl incident.
Guys and gals, what are your thoughts regarding my comment on America's uptightness toward depictions of interracial relationships and families?
Posted: Mon 03 Oct 2005 17:13 Post subject: Casta Paintings
Quote:
Guys and gals, what are your thoughts regarding my comment on America's uptightness toward depictions of interracial relationships and families?
I agree, but I think this only extends to black/white and to lesser extent black/non-black interracial relationships.
The funny thing is, in my experience, I've come across people who are neither black nor white who feel uncomfortable or even outraged when they encounter black/white interracial couples, especially if the black person is male.
I would have to agree with your observations on all counts. America in general is most certainly uptight in regards to black (or identifiably partially black biracial)/white unions being portrayed honestly, normally, and positively.
Oevega,
Thank you for the history lesson regarding the mores of early Latin America in regards to "miscigenation". Especially in regards to European men and women of color.
In America, as I'm sure you know it was a different story. I just finished reading this excellent book called Cane River. www.lalitatademy.com/ It's about the Cane River Creoles of Louisiana. Amazing book...
The hell and indignities these black, biracial, and for all intents and purposes genetically white (but socially colored and thus discriminated against because of the ODR) women and their white beaus and common law husbands had to go through in early America were enough to make you cry... For sure, there was coercion and many would say outright rape in some early instances of master/female slave relationships depicted in this book, HOWEVER towards the middle and end, a true love was felt between these white men and women of color who were relegated to a "tainted" unmarriagable caste because of the ODR.
This book gave a balanced picture - at least in my opinion - of the way life was (or could be) if you were a female slave in Early America.
Even though the U.S. is still far from where she should be "race" wise - it being 2005 and all - it has thankfully come a little farther for sure.
MUCH farther for many...
Felicia
Last edited by zsana on Mon 03 Oct 2005 18:15; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Mon 03 Oct 2005 18:04 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
G-Man wrote:
The funny thing is, in my experience, I've come across people who are neither black nor white who feel uncomfortable or even outraged when they encounter black/white interracial couples, especially if the black person is male.
In the case of people from the West Indies (either British or Spanish), it may be because the U.S. color line is so stark and vivid. For instance, there are few Puerto Ricans who are as African-looking as many African-Americans. In fact, what I remember most clearly of when I stepped off the plane to attend college in the 'States, was how very dark the Black Americans were. Puerto Rican "intermarriage" (if you can call it that) refers to couples who are perhaps a few skin-tone shades apart. In the U.S., it often means someone who looks startlingly Scandinavian paired with someone who looks equally startlingly Zairean. Just a guess.
Last edited by fwsweet on Tue 04 Oct 2005 04:07; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 04 Oct 2005 03:17 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
fwsweet wrote:
In fact, what I remember most clearly of when I stepped off the plane to attend college in the 'States, was how very dark the Black Americans were. Puerto Rican "intermarriage" (if you can call it that) refer to couples who are perhaps a few skin-tone shades apart. In the U.S., it often means someone who looks startlingly Scandinavian paired with someone who looks equally startlingly Zairean. Just a guess.
Hi Frank,
That's a good point. In Latin America most of "Black" people is already mixed so they are not really pure African at all.
When people talk about the 80 million Black descendents that exist in Brazil they don't realize most of those "Black descendents" are just a tone away from being considered white people anywhere.
I believe if white and blacks of the USA mix together the result would be very likely a country like Brazil, with almost the same proportions of peoples. What do you think?
Posted: Tue 04 Oct 2005 22:38 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
oevega wrote:
I believe if white and blacks of the USA mix together the result would be very likely a country like Brazil, with almost the same proportions of peoples. What do you think?
I do not think that there are sufficient African alleles in the United States to yield a large population fraction of mixed appearance. About 90 percent of U.S. alleles are European and about 10 percent are African. (African Americans are 12 percent of the population but have measurable European admixture.)
Ten percent African is double the African fraction that Spain, Argentina, or Chile have. It is a bit more than Portugal. It is roughly the same as Mexico. It is much less than Brazil's roughly 30-40 percent. So I would say the population would look like Mexico but without the Native American. Malta might be a good example.
To be precise, if such a 90-10 admixture were to mate randomly then at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, 54 percent of the population would be of northern European phenotype, 33 percent of Mediterranean appearance, 10 percent of Arab or Ethiopian appearance, and only 2 percent would of first-generation "mulatto" appearance. None would look distincly African.
If you have MS-Excel, you can click on http://backintyme.com/admixture/genetics.xls and experiment for yourself. Fill in the top row, from left to right with the percentages of a starting population in seven skin-tone categories from lightest to darkest. Then press "Run" and the program will compute the skin-tone distribution after a few generations.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 05 Oct 2005 00:03 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
Hi Frank,
As always you keep surprising me !
And as always I got more questions than answers
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
I believe if white and blacks of the USA mix together the result would be very likely a country like Brazil, with almost the same proportions of peoples. What do you think?
I do not think that there are sufficient African alleles in the United States to yield a large population fraction of mixed appearance. About 90 percent of U.S. alleles are European and about 10 percent are African. (African Americans are 12 percent of the population but have measurable European admixture.)
Quote:
Ten percent African is double the African fraction that Spain, Argentina, or Chile have.
It is a bit more than Portugal. It is roughly the same as Mexico.
I wish I could see the sources of those studies. I am interested in the differential between Spain with respect to Argentina and Chile. That would tell us, if those "African" genes in the Southern Cone are because of slavery or were carried by Spaniards, Italians. French, Portugueses or Arab immigrants.
Quote:
It is much less than Brazil's roughly 30-40 percent. So I would say the population would look like Mexico but without the Native American. Malta might be a good example.
Well. That might be without taking into account the 10 millions of East Asians and 40 millions of Latinos that live in the states. If you add East Asians, a 40% Latin contribution, US Native Americans, plus a percentage from White and Black population you got lots of "Native American" alleles. So your final result would be very likely something like Mexico
Quote:
To be precise, if such a 90-10 admixture were to mate randomly then at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, 54 percent of the population would be of northern European phenotype, 33 percent of Mediterranean appearance, 10 percent of Arab or Ethiopian appearance, and only 2 percent would of first-generation "mulatto" appearance. None would look distincly African.
That call my attention. It seems from that comment that science has discovered already that there is not a genetics that belongs to Mediterranean peoples. And that Mediterraneas as a race are only a mixture of South-Saharian Africans and Germanic peoples. Is that true? It seems to me that Mediterraneans (Arabs, Italians, Greeks, etc.) are diferent from both of those groups in several things. For example, height. The former groups are in average a lot taller than Mediterraneans. And also body hair. Both Germanics and South Saharian people have little body hair. Etc.
Perhaps William and African_Prince will want to jump in here.
oevega wrote:
I am interested in the differential between Spain with respect to Argentina and Chile. That would tell us, if those "African" genes in the Southern Cone are because of slavery or were carried by Spaniards, Italians. French, Portugueses or Arab immigrants.
There is no way to tell; these events are all too close in time. In fact, it is difficult to distinguish Afro-European mixing due to the slave trade from that due to the paleolithic re-colonization of Europe when the glaciers receded 16 kya.
oevega wrote:
It seems from that comment that science has discovered already that there is not a genetics that belongs to Mediterranean peoples. And that Mediterraneas as a race are only a mixture of South-Saharian Africans and Germanic peoples. Is that true?
Yes, that is true. Bantus are also a mixture of other peoples, as are Scandinavians, Chinese, Russians, Tutsis, Masais, Senegalese, Khoisan, Pakistanis, Melanesians, and everyone else on the planet. Everyone is a mixture of thousands of ancestral populations. There are no distinct "races" in a biological sense.
oevega wrote:
It seems to me that Mediterraneans (Arabs, Italians, Greeks, etc.) are diferent from both of those groups in several things. For example, height. The former groups are in average a lot taller than Mediterraneans. And also body hair. Both Germanics and South Saharian people have little body hair. Etc. I am wrong?
You are not wrong in noticing that humans display a great deal of physical variation, no matter what specific feature you pick. But you are wrong in assuming that different features vary together.
For example, the traits that you think of as "Negroid" (dark brown skin tone, kinky hair, steatopygia, broad nose, prognathism, thick lips) vary independently around the globe. The people with the darkest skin are not those with the kinkiest hair, and neither of those two groups are the ones with the widest noses, etc. Every physical feature varies regionally independently of any other physical feature. The only reason that North and South Americans fixate on a particular grouping of features (and call this grouping "Negroid") is because, by coincidence, this particular grouping of features happened to be common among the folks who were captured and sold in the transatlantic slave trade.
Far from being usable to establish "racial" identity, genetic findings destroy the very notion of biological "race." "Racial" identity is unrelated to genetics. There are no biological races (varieties, sub-species) among H. sapiens and never have been.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 05 Oct 2005 03:12 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
It seems from that comment that science has discovered already that there is not a genetics that belongs to Mediterranean peoples. And that Mediterraneas as a race are only a mixture of South-Saharian Africans and Germanic peoples. Is that true?
Yes, that is true. Bantus are also a mixture of other peoples, as are Scandinavians, Chinese, Russians, Tutsis, Masais, Senegalese, Khoisan, Pakistanis, Melanesians, and everyone else on the planet. Everyone is a mixture of thousands of ancestral populations. There are no distinct "races" in a biological sense.
Hi Frank,
Well, the nazi web page I don't believe is very reliable. I will look for better numbers
Just a comment. It seem you assume that Mediterranean people is the result of a mixture between Germanics and Bantu peoples. Would not be possible that the Mediterreaneans were older that both of the later groups and that both Germanics and Bantues were derivations of the more ancient Mediterranean-like group ? Perhaps that is already know. Otherwise is there a way to prove it ?
Posted: Wed 05 Oct 2005 12:28 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
oevega wrote:
Just a comment. It seem you assume that Mediterranean people is the result of a mixture between Germanics and Bantu peoples. Would not be possible that the Mediterreaneans were older that both of the later groups and that both Germanics and Bantus were derivations of the more ancient Mediterranean-like group? Perhaps that is already known. Otherwise is there a way to prove it?
The problem is that everybody is mixed and populations keep changing.
The region from Norway to Nigeria is typical. From 35 kya to 25 kya, several successive waves of immigrants came into the region from the east. Some migrated along the Mediterranean coast from what is today Lebanon to Iberia and then colonized northwards to the arctic and southwards across the rich verdant Saharan plains. Others groups came from what is now Russia, settled into the Baltic region, and then spread south to the Mediterranean. The last groups came from central Asia into Austria and then spread outwards in all directions from there.
When the glaciers came around 18 kya, humans were driven out of inland Europe and took refuge around the Mediterranean (the refugees were already a mixture of numerous earlier waves but now they mixed even more). When the glaciers melted around 15 kya, the totally mixed Mediterranean population was joined by several new waves from the middle east and from subSaharan Africa, and they all colonized inland Europe all over again.
Then, when agriculture was invented in the fertile crescent around 11 kya, successive waves of farmers from the levant washed over Europe, mixing with the existing mixed populations.
But even populations from the very first wave that never moved from where they settled (the Basques, for example) continued to change genetically. Drift (random change) accounts for most of the genetic variation among different populations, but adaptation also plays a role. Because grains lack vitamin D, Nordic farmers around the sunless Baltic lost their pigmentation around 5 kya and developed the pink skin that is unique to the descendants of Baltic farmers. Because planters spend more time in the sun than hunters, Bantu farmers around equatorial west Africa gained strong pigmentation around 5 kya and developed the dark brown skin unique to the descendants of Bantu farmers, and farmers in southern India and Melanesia. [The dark Australian aboriginal skin tone is an independent adaptation to hunting in a land with few trees.]
To recap, diverse immigrants came into the Norway-to-Nigeria region and mixed. When the glaciers came, the refugees mixed even more. When they recolonized Europe they were joined by new groups, some from subSaharan Africa. When agriculture was invented, new waves of immigrants flowed into the region. Meanwhile, at the same time as these movements were going on, populations everywhere continued to develop genetic variations (some random like prognathism, some adaptive like skin tone).
When the Roman Empire collapsed, even more successive waves flowed from Asia across Europe and the Mediterranean all the way south to Nigeria. For instance, you can find Hun genes throughout the region, although they are concentrated in France. Finally, in medieval times, the Almoravid Empire blanketed the Mediterranean from Senegamba in the south to Barcelona in the north, blending together all of its subject populations.
The problem is that no population is "pure" anything. Populations have been mixing since our species emerged from Africa. Simultaneously, genetic variation (random and adaptive) has been changing people's appearance, whatever their distant ancestry. The very features that 19th-century physical anthropologists used to identitify "races" are the most recently emerged and ephemeral.
Let me use an analogy to explain why the question is unanswerable. Imagine that you have a large tray into which you pour different colored paints from time to time. The paints continually flow and merge into each other. At the same time, paints in different regions of the tray independently take on new unique colors (and lose their unique colors just a quickly), regardless of their mixture. You look at a specific corner of the tray with green pigment (the Mediterranean) and ask if it is the result of mixing from adjacent blue (Nordic) and yellow (Bantu) regions, or if the blue and yellow were local adaptations from the original green. The answer is "yes." The visible variation between blue and yellow emerged just yesterday. But all three regions are the result of many prior mixings from all around the tray.
For a popular account, I recommend Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003). The most detailed scholarly account is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994).
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 05 Oct 2005 13:06 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
Just a comment. It seem you assume that Mediterranean people is the result of a mixture between Germanics and Bantu peoples. Would not be possible that the Mediterreaneans were older that both of the later groups and that both Germanics and Bantus were derivations of the more ancient Mediterranean-like group? Perhaps that is already known. Otherwise is there a way to prove it?
The problem is that everybody is mixed and populations keep changing.
The region from Norway to Nigeria is typical. From 35 kya to 25 kya, several successive waves of immigrants came into the region from the east. Some migrated along the Mediterranean coast from what is today Lebanon to Iberia and then colonized northwards to the arctic and southwards across the rich verdant Saharan plains. Others groups came from what is now Russia, settled into the Baltic region, and then spread south to the Mediterranean. The last groups came from central Asia into Austria and then spread outwards in all directions from there.
When the glaciers came around 18 kya, humans were driven out of inland Europe and took refuge around the Mediterranean (the refugees were already a mixture of numerous earlier waves but now they mixed even more). When the glaciers melted around 15 kya, the totally mixed Mediterranean population was joined by several new waves from the middle east and from subSaharan Africa, and they all colonized inland Europe all over again.
Then, when agriculture was invented in the fertile crescent around 11 kya, successive waves of farmers from the levant washed over Europe, mixing with the existing mixed populations.
But even populations from the very first wave that never moved from where they settled (the Basques, for example) continued to change genetically. Drift (random change) accounts for most of the genetic variation among different populations, but adaptation also plays a role. Because grains lack vitamin D, Nordic farmers around the sunless Baltic lost their pigmentation around 5 kya and developed the pink skin that is unique to the descendants of Baltic farmers. Because planters spend more time in the sun than hunters, Bantu farmers around equatorial west Africa gained strong pigmentation around 5 kya and developed the dark brown skin unique to the descendants of Bantu farmers, and farmers in southern India and Melanesia. [The dark Australian aboriginal skin tone is an independent adaptation to hunting in a land with few trees.]
To recap, diverse immigrants came into the Norway-to-Nigeria region and mixed. When the glaciers came, the refugees mixed even more. When they recolonized Europe they were joined by new groups, some from subSaharan Africa. When agriculture was invented, new waves of immigrants flowed into the region. Meanwhile, at the same time as these movements were going on, populations everywhere continued to develop genetic variations (some random like prognathism, some adaptive like skin tone).
When the Roman Empire collapsed, even more successive waves flowed from Asia across Europe and the Mediterranean all the way south to Nigeria. For instance, you can find Hun genes throughout the region, although they are concentrated in France. Finally, in medieval times, the Almoravid Empire blanketed the Mediterranean from Senegamba in the south to Barcelona in the north, blending together all of its subject populations.
The problem is that no population is "pure" anything. Populations have been mixing since our species emerged from Africa. Simultaneously, genetic variation (random and adaptive) has been changing people's appearance, whatever their distant ancestry. The very features that 19th-century physical anthropologists used to identitify "races" are the most recently emerged and ephemeral.
Let me use an analogy to explain why the question is unanswerable. Imagine that you have a large tray into which you pour different colored paints from time to time. The paints continually flow and merge into each other. At the same time, paints in different regions of the tray independently take on new unique colors (and lose their unique colors just a quickly), regardless of their mixture. You look at a specific corner of the tray with green pigment (the Mediterranean) and ask if it is the result of mixing from adjacent blue (Nordic) and yellow (Bantu) regions, or if the blue and yellow were local adaptations from the original green. The answer is "yes." The visible variation between blue and yellow emerged just yesterday. But all three regions are the result of many prior mixings from all around the tray.
For a popular account, I recommend Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003). The most detailed scholarly account is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, trans. Sarah Thorne (Princeton: Princeton University, 1994).
Hi,
Thanks Frank,
You mention that color changes started only about 5 kya. In the Americans men arrived between 40Kya and 20Kya. And we notice that in pre-contact populations there is also a lot of variety in skin color. Natives in the ecuator are a lot darker than the ones in both Northern Canada and the Patagonia.
Posted: Wed 05 Oct 2005 13:22 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
oevega wrote:
Natives in the ecuator are a lot darker than the ones in both Northern Canada and the Patagonia.
Yes, this is true. Nevertheless, the skin-tone difference between different Native American populations is not nearly as great as that between, say, Bantus and Nordics. Indeed, the lack of stronger skin-tone divergence among Native Americans (comparable to Asia, say) is one of the puzzles of phenotype variation. It is one of the two puzzles that I address in The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 05 Oct 2005 20:33 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
fwsweet wrote:
oevega wrote:
Natives in the ecuator are a lot darker than the ones in both Northern Canada and the Patagonia.
Yes, this is true. Nevertheless, the skin-tone difference between different Native American populations is not nearly as great as that between, say, Bantus and Nordics. Indeed, the lack of stronger skin-tone divergence among Native Americans (comparable to Asia, say) is one of the puzzles of phenotype variation. It is one of the two puzzles that I address in The Paleo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone.
Hi,
Perhaps Bantu are nordic are not as much related as the different tribes of the Americas are related between them.
Or perhaps the changes in skin and other features happened a lot earlier than 5 ky ago. Perhaps about 80 kya, at the times modern men was leaving Africa ?
Posted: Thu 06 Oct 2005 12:33 Post subject: Re: Casta Paintings
oevega wrote:
Perhaps Bantu are nordic are not as much related as the different tribes of the Americas are related between them. Or perhaps the changes in skin and other features happened a lot earlier than 5 ky ago. Perhaps about 80 kya, at the times modern men was leaving Africa? More data, please.
The essay I cited above summarizes the evidence. It also has a thorough bibliography on the subject.
It is the case that Native Americans are closely related. In the cited essay, I wrote, "...And more paleness was needed to enhance vitamin D synthesis which, together with calciferol ingested in meat, prevented neonatal skeletal malformations. But these adaptations functioned by the loss of genetic coding for dark complexion. The gene pool of the Native Americans who crossed through the Beringia bottleneck and populated the New World no longer had all the needed genes. The genetic variability subsequently available to their descendants simply did not include alleles at the five loci necessary to produce dark brown offspring."
The artistic evidence argues against either of the Euro-African skin-tone adaptations preceding 5 kya. Until about 3.5 kya without exception, paintings and painted sculpture depicted people as having a light brown skin tone (like the ancestral Khoisan and Ethiopians). Dark brown and pink skinned people both began to appear in art around that time.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
