Some critics of the Taino movement were denying any biological
inheritance among the contemporary Boricua population. When faced
with the now famous DNA studies they defended their position by
stating that this Native American contribution could not be
attributed to the Taino bloodlines. They argued by reminding us that
for two hundred years, Native Americans were brought as slaves from
many parts of South,Central and North America, so these and not the
Taino may be our ancestors.
It seems to me that they did not read Dr. Martinez's full report. He
points out that the number of Africans taken to Puerto Rico vastly
outnumbered those of the Native American slaves who originated out
side of the island. If the biological contribution in question came
only from a imported source, then the number of persons with these
markers today would be smaller than the African. Therefore it is his
conclusion that the majority of the Native American genetic material
found in Puerto Rico today comes directly from the Taino population
since it surpasses the number of African contribution by 40%. We also
know that this DNA study was tracing the female line and records show
that the vast majority of slaves were male and their genetic
contributions would not show in this particular study.
The devestation of the Euopean invasion was felt in common by all
Native American nations. At the time of the first contact our Taino
ancestors numbered in the millions. It is interesting to note that
many smaller nations managed to escape extinction. The Cherokee were
estimated to have about 20,000 at the time on contact. Their numbers
were affected by the same conditions. During the Trail of Tears most
of the Cherokee were forced to leave their land for far away
Oklahoma. Less than 1,000 Cherokees managed to escape the removal and
were able to stay in their ancestral lands. Today their decendents
are known as the Eastern Cherokee and they have 13,079 enrolled
members. Just 48 years before the removal of the Cherokee we find a
military census in Puerto Rico that mentions 2,302 Indians living in
an area known as "Las Indieras" that same original census also
mentions that there was another Indian community of similar size
living in Anasco. This census is saying that there were at least
4,000 full blood Native Americans living in Puerto Rico at that time
(1778) They were full bloods because the Spanish were fanatical about
creating names and categories for those of any amount of mixture ie.
Mestizo,Pardo, Mulato,Trigueno, Jabao, Zambo etc. These people were
clearly listed as Indios. So I wonder why if we had 4,000 full
bloods just 200 years ago, how is it we have none today? Or do we?
How could the Eastern Cherokee go from a small group of 1,000 to
13,000 in 200 yrs. while the Taino go from 4,000 to 0 in the same
time frame ? There is no mention of wars or uprisings as was
happening in the USA at the time. So what could account for the
Taino's disappearance ? We see in the 1800 census that the category
of Indian has been left out. The numbers under the category of Pardo
also show a great increase. The Indians were simply put in another
category.
This other category " Pardo" has been translated as colored. Many in
the USA think of the term of color as being Black. Yet the census
form had a different listing for free Blacks. There were also
listings for enslaved Blacks and ensalved Mulatos. The term Pardo
(brown) was used only for free persons who were considered non Whites
and also non Black by Spanish standards. these were the bi-racial and
tri-racial combinations of Native American African and European
offsprings.
To insist that the Taino are extinct is to deny the overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. It is to imply that somehow under the same
circumstances and in some cases even better conditions than others,
our ancestors were too weak or too dumb to survive when others did.
It is to assume that our Taino blood line is thin and faint. That we
are claiming one individual who lived 500 years ago. These
conclusions are a mistake, and border on racist. The truth is that
200 years ago Native full bloods are documented to be in Puerto Rico
that they numbered between 2,000 to 4,000. That these people were in
contact with a larger population of Mestizos,Mulatos and Zambos. Most
of which by definition had a strong Native componant. Add to this the
fact that there was a strong level of isolation to many parts of
Puerto Rico, not only in the 1800s but even into the mid-20th
century.
In the early 1900's there were barely 60 miles of paved roads in all
of Puerto Rico. There were many communities that were inacessable
except by mule , horse or by foot. While every official town had
their own church, the surrounding villages did not. This is why
Puerto Ricans baptize their children twice. Once without a priest and
one with. Both of my grandmothers gave birth at home in huts with
only a mid-wife to help. My point is that in isolation the blood
quantum can stay the same indefinitly , if the persons reproducing
have the same quantum. So in communities where you have full bloods,
mixing with half bloods and these villages are isolated you will
still find many if not most with consistant and strong features
reflecting their indian background. This is the case in a large
proportion of our people. This is why so many of us stll fit the
discription given by Colon himself. Bronze skin tone, Straight black
hair high cheeks etc. Many of our families report that their children
are born with the " Mongol Spot" But doctors don't tell them that
it is a trait common with Asians and Native Americans , they just
tell them it means that the baby will be dark. This spot is what
originally was ment by the " Mancha de Platano" ( the Plantain Stain)
because that is what it tends to look like on our babies. Our Taino
bloodlines are not weak or faint, many of us just have to go back two
generations to connect with our Taino life ways. In terms of blood we
know it is there. We need only give the eye test to ourselves or to
some other close relative. I don't have to claim some one 500 years
ago. I claim my grandfather and both my grandmothers.
This is funny because I too noticed when I look at the Puerto Rican side of my family - the ones who look more indigenous - and some of the Puerto Ricans who have the indigenous look - there is a definite something that looks the same in the eye and forehead area - and also around the mouth I just started noticing it - unless it is my imagination
And yet all these studies kept saying "Ahh they were all killed off - Impossible"
It is /was getting to the pt where I could tell the diff between a Puerto Rican and a Cuban and Dominican if they had the more Indigenous look
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 17 Feb 2006 01:13 Post subject: The missing Indian
Liana wrote:
This is funny because I too noticed when I look at the Puerto Rican side of my family - the ones who look more indigenous - and some of the Puerto Ricans who have the indigenous look - there is a definite something that looks the same in the eye and forehead area - and also around the mouth I just started noticing it - unless it is my imagination
And yet all these studies kept saying "Ahh they were all killed off - Impossible"
It is /was getting to the pt where I could tell the diff between a Puerto Rican and a Cuban and Dominican if they had the more Indigenous look
B
Hi Liana,
Well, living in a country like Chile, I discovered something interesting. Science, archeology and history has shown we are a mestizo (meti or European-Indian) country. Moreover, in here the official history proclaims it loudly: "we are the result of the mixture between Europeans and Natives and period". So they teach this very well known fact in the schools and everybody agrees on it. However, if one ask directly to them most Chileans will say they are "Pure Europeans". They remember their french great-granddad, or the ancient British fellow that brough their last name, but they never remember natives at all. And they always have excuses. If brown they are from Andalucia, our Southern Italy, but they never remember their Indian part.
In short. I believe there is a shameful attitude in mestizos. The mestizo always believe it is an European and want to forget any link with ancient natives.
Also, in the Hispanic Caribben, Peru, Brazil and other places, in case of mixtures between Natives and Africans they are almost always clasiffied as Blacks and only Black. The native part get missed.
I believe that this fact make people think Natives have dissapeared, when the fact they did not dissapear from anywhere in the Americas, but in just a few unfortunatelly cases. Sometimes is quite ridiculous. I was reading a book that say a certain tribe dissapeared by genocide. And say literally: "The tribe YAGANA has at the end of the 19th centure "2000" people and today is extict only remain 4.000 mixed descendents". For me is very illogical that an extinct people has twice the descendents it had when it was not extinct
So, Natives in the Americas has becomed a phantom people. They are everywhere but nobody see them. The tribal natives are just the top of the iceberg of a huge population nobody knows exist. I believe, the percentage of people of Native descendency is at least 5 times the number of "legal "tribal" Natives recognized by the states of the Americas. At least half the population of the Americas, the U.S. included, has at least a "drop" of Native ancestry. The recognized natives in the Americas are 40 million people, but Native descendents have to amount at least to 250 million people, if not more.
But most are ashamed of have a Native root.
By the way. This is Cheyenne. A Puerto Rican singer that is very famous in the Hispanic world. For me, I bet he has native ancestry
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 23 Feb 2006 02:14 Post subject: For Liana
Liana wrote:
Hey Tocayo
Yes You are right,
He sure does look like it
The more I look at Puerto Ricans the more I believe I see native blood - I truly do
I dont' believe they were "all killed off within a generation" and more and more the evidence seems to be showing it
It's interesting what you say abotu Chile and the other countries too - the dark blood always seems to be said to come from Europe - not so!
B
Hi Liana !
Well, I believe we agree because we share roots in Latin America
Yes. I believe in Latin America most people have suffered the illness that in the US is called "passing". As we both know, most Latinos have at least "one-drop" of Native blood, and many have more than a drop. However, somehow people forgot its origin. Many people of mixed ancestry just claim to be white.
Why? quite simple. Most intermarriages happened between a white father and a native mother, and the children become legaly whites. And the culture of the conqueror ruled their lives. They spoke Spanish, become Catholics, and in many cases served directly the Spanish King. Their only pride was their last name that came from Spain.
The Spanish Empire was a place where Indians saved their life and their souls, but lost their culture. So, in one generation they were assimilated.
The only place where Native culture survived right inside the Spanish colonial society was in the kitchen, because it was a place dominated by women in those times. That's why the Latin American folk cousine is so fascinating, and preserves recipes from thousand of years old.
But it is time Latinos assume their identities right on. And some Americans as well !!! Nobody is free of having Indian blood in the Western Hemisphere. I saw in Canada metis that were as pale as Vikings, but they did not deny their origin, and quite the opposite, they were proud of it.
These pictures are of Native peoples. An amazonian native and a Mapuche native, both women. Have you seen people with that physical aspect in other ethnic groups?
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 {Posts: 76 } Location: Chicago, IL
Posted: Thu 23 Feb 2006 23:30 Post subject:
Cordy! *points at Charisma Carpenter (third picture down)*
Benjamin Bratt's mother is said to be Peruvian Indian. I know Charisma Carpenter's mother is Mexican.
Quote:
The more I look at Puerto Ricans the more I believe I see native blood - I truly do
That reminds me of something Chris Rock said about the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade. He talked about how when the part came for the Indians to make their appearance, "They had three real Indians and the rest were a bunch of Puerto Ricans with feathers in their hair! That's not Pocahantas! That's Jennifer Lopez!" Hmm....
Chuck Norris, Antony Queen, and ELVIS !! All of them are included. That's enough for me to prove the point
Natives did not dissapeared. They are part of the heritage of modern people that populates the western hemisphere. They are not missing. They live here with us and INSIDE us.
They are like a phantom people that we don't see. However, as times goes by things become clear.
You claim that there was no genocide because of naive ancestry in the mainstream population.
Some problems I have with your interpretation. Especially with the Tainos. Is that you don't consider the decimation of the male population a genocide. THey took women as their lovers, but how much choice did those women have? THeir men were being exterminated (much like the Caribs did woth the Tainos as well) And their culture was not passed on to the children, instead the Spaniard traditions were inculcated. I give credit to that ancestry, but there was still a genocide.
The population of Puerto Rico were determined by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), revealing mitochondrial maternal ancestries in this highly mixed population of 61.3% Amerindian, 27.2% sub-Saharan African, and 11.5% European." A preliminary study of the Y chromosome shows the opposite in the paternal line: Most islanders are descended from European forefathers 70%, with African heritage 20% coming in second and American Indian 10% third.
So why is the male Amerindian combination as low? If males weren't getting killed would't their contribution been higher? Look at how hight the female contribution was.
Tainos, as a people, were almost exterminated. The females were incorporated into a Hispanic culture. It was still mostly subjugation.
When I see strong creolized cultures, then i can say the Indigenous populations are still showing a strong presence. But when most of what they contributed was just children for Invaders to be raised in the invader way. I can't just see it as a union of cultures.
When I see a Johny Dep who still identifies strongly with his indigenous culture, or a Benjamin Bratt, then I see an indigenous person. When i see an Elvis or Chuck Norris, who just happens to have some ancestry, but no identity, I see a White guy.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sat 25 Feb 2006 14:24 Post subject: VERY GOOD POINT
Salsassin wrote:
Omar, I think you have a very idealistic perception of the world.
....
The population of Puerto Rico were determined by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), revealing mitochondrial maternal ancestries in this highly mixed population of 61.3% Amerindian, 27.2% sub-Saharan African, and 11.5% European." A preliminary study of the Y chromosome shows the opposite in the paternal line: Most islanders are descended from European forefathers 70%, with African heritage 20% coming in second and American Indian 10% third.
So why is the male Amerindian combination as low? If males weren't getting killed would't their contribution been higher? Look at how hight the female contribution was.
Tainos, as a people, were almost exterminated. The females were incorporated into a Hispanic culture. It was still mostly subjugation.
When I see strong creolized cultures, then i can say the Indigenous populations are still showing a strong presence. But when most of what they contributed was just children for Invaders to be raised in the invader way. I can't just see it as a union of cultures.
...
Hi,
Very good point !!!
The "conquest" of the Americas has a different impact in males and females of the native population. At least during the first generations, the invasion of the Americas was a very brutish business and lots of Native Americans males died both in wars and because of exploitation. That's fact.
But the feat of Native American women was different in many cases. Yes, the histories of rape and subjugation are partially true in some cases, particularly in the war times of the beginning, but that does not tell the whole history. To get the point one has to understand the condition of women in most cultures of pre-hispanic Americas. There are exceptions, of course, there always exist particular cases, but what follows is about the same across the Americas.
Like in Africa, Asia and other places at the time, Native women were considered goods that could be traded. In most native societies women has to do most of the heavy work in agriculture, handcraft manufacturing, house keeping and child rising. Men duties were war and hunting, and most of the time they rest, or were drunk, while women make the heavy work. This happened in Mexico, Chile and in many other native societies. Women were considered just goods to trade.
In Canada, in times of the pioneers, a Native woman could be bought with a sack of suggar. I hear that from a Quebecois about the history of one great-grand mother. And that, trading of women, was a common practise everywhere in the Americas. Even in Peru, the Virgin of the Sun institution, beside being a religious thing, also served as the goods to pay favors to good warriors and civil servants.
Now, Spanish men were not so bad, SOMETIMES. They come from a society were marriage was important and, although there was not equality in the modern sense, a husband has a strong duty with her spouse and children, at least in theory. Besides, we should not forget that Spanish society represented an advance in many respect for most Native american peoples and it was as a magnet for them; like modern immigrants feel attracted by developed countries.
Yes, they used to have real harems at the first times. Besides, Spaniards and other Latinos have the long tradition -You might know- to have two or three families in parallel. What is wrong is to believe that Native women were forced into subjugation. Many times they were bought to the tribes. In another Native women escape tribal life and went into the Spanish cities by themselves.
Living with the Spaniards was quite an attraction for Native women, because not only they were EXOTIC men, but also have another culture. Yes, it is true many Native women were only lovers, but many become legal wives as well with all the rights for her and her children. Many changed their names and become integrated to local societies.
There are sources that affirm that, immediately after the conquest, there was a huge difference in fertility between native women with native men, and those women that marry or live with Spaniards. The first group suffered a masive drop in ferlity, while the hispanized native was extremely fertile. Why it was so? Simply because the hispanized Native women was certain their kids would have a better future inside the Spanish society.
Moreover, from the biological point of view, to marry Spaniard has the advantage for women that their kids would resist better the bacterial illness that devasted the Americas, and it is very likely Native Women alrealy knew that.
Yes. The thing is very complex. Do you know that the Malinche, the lover or Cortes, considered a traitor by some, was actually given to the conquestator as a gift ? Do you know that descendents of them got integrated in Mexico's upper classes. Do you know that Francisca Pizarro, the daugther of the Peruvian conquistador and an Inca women, went back to Spain to enjoy the life of a noble?
Yes, that sexual imbalance exists in every single country of Latin America. In certain degree it was subjugation, but also, do not forget that many Native women contributed to this because they wanted to escape from their own cultures.
One sample more, that I can get the refferences if you wish. Around the XVIII century a bishop of Cuba wrote to the king of Spain that:
"Natives were become extint because Spaniards, lacking women, marry Indian women. An Indian that can marry an 80 years old women is lucky".
(Señor, los indios se van acabando, porque los españoles, a falta de mujeres, se casan con indias. Indios que puede haber una de ochenta años, lo tiene a buenaventura.)
Yes. And there are report of the high rate of homosexuality in native men on those times as well.
Things are not clear cut. The word genocide is not what applies here, I believe. It was just a competion for women, and the choices of the women themselves.
In short, in many cases, it was Spanish Man allied with Indian Woman AGAINTS Indian Males. It could even be one of the first femenine revolts of history against their condition.
Posted: Sat 25 Feb 2006 21:12 Post subject: Re: VERY GOOD POINT
oevega wrote:
Like in Africa, Asia and other places at the time, Native women were considered goods that could be traded. In most native societies women has to do most of the heavy work in agriculture, handcraft manufacturing, house keeping and child rising. Men duties were war and hunting, and most of the time they rest, or were drunk, while women make the heavy work. This happened in Mexico, Chile and in many other native societies. Women were considered just goods to trade.
That is an interesting claim. Could you gu=ive specific examples by ethnicty, like the Tainos? And how the Spaniard system treated them better?
Quote:
In Canada, in times of the pioneers, a Native woman could be bought with a sack of suggar. I hear that from a Quebecois about the history of one great-grand mother. And that, trading of women, was a common practise everywhere in the Americas. Even in Peru, the Virgin of the Sun institution, beside being a religious thing, also served as the goods to pay favors to good warriors and civil servants.
By natives or by Europeans. And what about Spanish people who maaried of their families for money as well.
Quote:
Now, Spanish men were not so bad, SOMETIMES. They come from a society were marriage was important and, although there was not equality in the modern sense, a husband has a strong duty with her spouse and children, at least in theory. Besides, we should not forget that Spanish society represented an advance in many respect for most Native american peoples and it was as a magnet for them; like modern immigrants feel attracted by developed countries.
I wonder how much of a magnet it is when the technology is being used to kill and exploit your brothers and fathers? I would need more specific examples.
Quote:
Yes, they used to have real harems at the first times. Besides, Spaniards and other Latinos have the long tradition -You might know- to have two or three families in parallel. What is wrong is to believe that Native women were forced into subjugation. Many times they were bought to the tribes. In another Native women escape tribal life and went into the Spanish cities by themselves.
True, but led to the situation that would lead to that migration?
Quote:
Living with the Spaniards was quite an attraction for Native women, because not only they were EXOTIC men, but also have another culture. Yes, it is true many Native women were only lovers, but many become legal wives as well with all the rights for her and her children. Many changed their names and become integrated to local societies.
Or maybe the situation for natives became so bad that living in a Spanish household became comparatively better.
Quote:
There are sources that affirm that, immediately after the conquest, there was a huge difference in fertility between native women with native men, and those women that marry or live with Spaniards. The first group suffered a masive drop in ferlity, while the hispanized native was extremely fertile. Why it was so? Simply because the hispanized Native women was certain their kids would have a better future inside the Spanish society.
Or maybe diseases played a role as well.
Quote:
Moreover, from the biological point of view, to marry Spaniard has the advantage for women that their kids would resist better the bacterial illness that devasted the Americas, and it is very likely Native Women alrealy knew that.
And again, that would be part of the genocide. Albeit unintentional.
Plus, if they knew Europeans were carrying diseases, natives problably werre dying after having sex with Europeans as well. Until immunity set in.
Quote:
Yes. The thing is very complex. Do you know that the Malinche, the lover or Cortes, considered a traitor by some, was actually given to the conquestator as a gift ? Do you know that descendents of them got integrated in Mexico's upper classes. Do you know that Francisca Pizarro, the daugther of the Peruvian conquistador and an Inca women, went back to Spain to enjoy the life of a noble?
Yes I was aware of their conditional priviledges. All you have to do is read about Inca Garcilazo de la Vega to get a feeel for how open they could be about their identities.
Quote:
Yes, that sexual imbalance exists in every single country of Latin America. In certain degree it was subjugation, but also, do not forget that many Native women contributed to this because they wanted to escape from their own cultures.
Need examples.
Quote:
One sample more, that I can get the refferences if you wish. Around the XVIII century a bishop of Cuba wrote to the king of Spain that:
"Natives were become extint because Spaniards, lacking women, marry Indian women. An Indian that can marry an 80 years old women is lucky".
(Señor, los indios se van acabando, porque los españoles, a falta de mujeres, se casan con indias. Indios que puede haber una de ochenta años, lo tiene a buenaventura.)
This is not evidence of willfull companionship.
Quote:
Yes. And there are report of the high rate of homosexuality in native men on those times as well.
You sure it was homosexuality and not bisexuality as seen through out the ancient world?
Quote:
Things are not clear cut. The word genocide is not what applies here, I believe. It was just a competion for women, and the choices of the women themselves.
Again, I think you are being idealistic.
Quote:
In short, in many cases, it was Spanish Man allied with Indian Woman AGAINTS Indian Males. It could even be one of the first femenine revolts of history against their condition.
I think you need to present a lot of evidence for that claim.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 26 Feb 2006 01:28 Post subject: Re: VERY GOOD POINT
Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
Like in Africa, Asia and other places at the time, Native women were considered goods that could be traded. In most native societies women has to do most of the heavy work in agriculture, handcraft manufacturing, house keeping and child rising. Men duties were war and hunting, and most of the time they rest, or were drunk, while women make the heavy work. This happened in Mexico, Chile and in many other native societies. Women were considered just goods to trade.
That is an interesting claim. Could you gu=ive specific examples by ethnicty, like the Tainos? And how the Spaniard system treated them better?
Hi "Salsassin",
I would like to call you by your real name, but I keep forgetting it, sorry
Well, I have not found a book that describe the condition of women in pre-columbian America in general, and I waiting someone publishes it, because it is a very interesting topic. What I tell then is only an abstract of accourding to many books I have read.
My best experience in the topics is in Chile, with the Natives called Mapuche. Yes, there are several descriptions of the life in those times. Perhaps the best book is one written by a witness of the times.
It is called (El Cautiverio Feliz) "The Happy Captivity" and was wrote in the 17th centure by a very educated Spanish fellow and very inclined to natives, who was captured by them and lived in their regions for several years.
The book is so precise that even natives of today look at their pages in search of lost traditions.
What he found? Well, that natives were cruel in war and easy going in peace. That they have a way of living that we could consider "hippie style". and were women were considered a collective property.
Yes. In many places of the Americas women were a property of the group rather than of a particular person. However. this changed from group to group somehow. But most of times, those "goods" (women) could be traded.
Also, Mapuche natives used to robb white women as well. They have the practise of robbing women one to the other from different clans, and when Spanish arrived they were considered a clan more, and their women were captured as well.
Quote:
Quote:
In Canada, in times of the pioneers, a Native woman could be bought with a sack of suggar. I hear that from a Quebecois about the history of one great-grand mother. And that, trading of women, was a common practise everywhere in the Americas...
By natives or by Europeans. And what about Spanish people who maaried of their families for money as well.
By natives and europeans !!! In many places the condition of women was very low, you know that. Yes, today people still marry because of money, but one can't go to the mall to buy a wife. Not anymore
Quote:
Quote:
Now, Spanish men were not so bad, SOMETIMES. They come from a society were marriage was important and, although there was not equality in the modern sense, a husband has a strong duty with her spouse and children, at least in theory. Besides, we should not forget that Spanish society represented an advance in many respect for most Native american peoples and it was as a magnet for them; like modern immigrants feel attracted by developed countries.
I wonder how much of a magnet it is when the technology is being used to kill and exploit your brothers and fathers? I would need more specific examples.
Well, one have to realize the following:
* Not all natives were treated like slaves at all. Some got quite a lot priviledges.
* What is true in the 16th century is not necesarily true in the 18th century. Things changed.
* In late colonial times, natives went to the cities and existed low classes neighbourhood like today. The city attracted natives as well as today.
I Don't have an especific reference, because there are not generalized studies either. Just peaces here and there.
Quote:
Quote:
Living with the Spaniards was quite an attraction for Native women, because not only they were EXOTIC men, but also have another culture. Yes, it is true many Native women were only lovers, but many become legal wives as well with all the rights for her and her children. Many changed their names and become integrated to local societies.
Or maybe the situation for natives became so bad that living in a Spanish household became comparatively better.
Yes. that's also true.
Quote:
Quote:
There are sources that affirm that, immediately after the conquest, there was a huge difference in fertility between native women with native men, and those women that marry or live with Spaniards. The first group suffered a masive drop in ferlity, while the hispanized native was extremely fertile. Why it was so? Simply because the hispanized Native women was certain their kids would have a better future inside the Spanish society.
Or maybe diseases played a role as well.
But how do you explain that women of the same race and origin, one with the Spanish society and one with of their tribal group, could have different fertility? The difference were conditions, for sure. The colonial society could AFFORD to have lots of children.
Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, from the biological point of view, to marry Spaniard has the advantage for women that their kids would resist better the bacterial illness that devasted the Americas, and it is very likely Native Women alrealy knew that.
And again, that would be part of the genocide. Albeit unintentional.
Yes. Most of the tragedy was not really intentional. But you have to remember that "GENOCIDE" means an intentional killing of an ethnic group.
Quote:
Plus, if they knew Europeans were carrying diseases, natives problably werre dying after having sex with Europeans as well. Until immunity set in.
Perhaps, but their kids usually survive the diseases. However, you well know that immunity is relative because those illness killed white and african people as well.
Quote:
Yes I was aware of their conditional priviledges. All you have to do is read about Inca Garcilazo de la Vega to get a feeel for how open they could be about their identities.
YES!!! He is one of the main sources.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, that sexual imbalance exists in every single country of Latin America. In certain degree it was subjugation, but also, do not forget that many Native women contributed to this because they wanted to escape from their own cultures.
Need examples.
Well, in every genetic study of Latin America, the sexual bias is obvious. It is in our genes. Perhaps Frank could colaborate in this point.
Quote:
This is not evidence of willfull companionship.
There is a book in Spanish called "Picaras Indias" which explain hundred of cases of "willfull companionship".
The fact are: many native women felt attracted to Spaniards. And also, spaniards found attractive many native women to the point they married them. Yes, ten years later the same woman was wearing Spanish clothes, assisting to the chuch and rising Spanish kids. That happened. Read that book.
Quote:
Yes. And there are report of the high rate of homosexuality in native men on those times as well.
Quote:
You sure it was homosexuality and not bisexuality as seen through out the ancient world?
Homosexuality developed in response to lack of women between certain native population, like is happening in some places of India and China today after years of sexual selection of babies
Quote:
Quote:
Things are not clear cut. The word genocide is not what applies here, I believe. It was just a competion for women, and the choices of the women themselves.
Again, I think you are being idealistic.
I am just pointing out that reality is not black or white. History is not made of the "good", the "bad" and the "victim", but a lot more complex than that.
Quote:
Quote:
In short, in many cases, it was Spanish Man allied with Indian Woman AGAINTS Indian Males. It could even be one of the first femenine revolts of history against their condition.
I think you need to present a lot of evidence for that claim.
[/quote]
Well. I could recommed you to read the book "Picaras Indias", that in an very funny way tell many realities of early colonial americas.
Quote:
Picaras Indias : Historias De Amor Y Erotismo De La Conquista
Author: Emilio Garcia-Meras
Format: Book
Published: January 1992
ISBN: 8480680016
That's the best book in the subject I have found, so far.
However, although less numerous, there also were natives that married white women as well.
History is a complex business, specially with Spaniards who were (and ARE) so contradictory.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
