The Study of Racialism

Mr Sweets I know that you were itching to ban me. Any way the CIA offers those statistics. That is the source that I cited and that is used by many. As I told you if you have aproblem with them I suggest that you take it up with them as many consider their information on teh socio-economic status of many nations to be valid, inclusive of ethnic break down. Further in 1940 (according to a book called the Coloring of a Nation by david Howard) the 1940 census uses 77% mixed, and the rest split evenly between whites and blacks, remarkably close to what the CIA cites.


By the way I invite you to read that source that I cited by a Dominican American professor Silvio Torres Saillant. I can only imagine what your reaction will be as he opines about attitudes of Dominicans to race or towards African influences in their culture. Note you ignored this source. Another source. InterAmerican Dialogue report that has data used by the IDB and other entities in formulating policies towards what they call Afro Latin Americans. Cites 84% of the DR is AfroLatin using THEIR definitions of what Afrodescendant people are.

You have a huge job to do in refuting data adapted by the IDB, OAS and other entities who state that only 16% arent Afrodescendant. Dont know who got what first. The CIA or these entities but the arrive at teh same conclusion. Evidently many involved in Latin American socio economic development believe such data has some credibility whether or not such data was obtained from a recent DR census.

The problem is not that they were Afrodescendant though. It was that you claimed


You were asked what classification of Black you meant

Which South African features and how do you know the stats? Dark skin, Wide, noses? What exact features or combination of features and what is the evidence of open revulsion of those specific features?

Then without qualifying what Black you were talking about you created another stat of a phenotype. Not of how many were Afrodescent. I am Afrodescent and look Irish.

Then you clarified certain phenotypes, but you still din't provide any evidence that 10%/30% of the population had these traits, or that they hated them.
You tried claiming


But this stat doesn't say how many are Black and how many are mulato and even more important, how many have a certain phenotype. And if 10% or more identified as Black in the 1940 census, that would mean they weren't running from a sense of Blackness. I know in the 1965 census 10% were Black so they weren't running away from Blackness. 75% were Mulato So they weren't running away from their African ancestry, and we have no idea how many of the mulatos had which features. Nor do we know what the population is today. 1965 is almost 60 years ago.
To compare:
in 2000 the African American population was 12.3% while in 1960 it was 10.5% of the population of the US.
So making claims on an outdated census that could even have different numbers based on social perception even with the exact same people is inaccurate. And that still does not tell us the phenotypes of all those that claimed mulatto.

Salsassin given that this is not the forum for us to continue our dialogue, so though I have responses to you I cannot reply.

I suggest that you read any article written by Silvio Torres-Saillant about racial identity in the Dominican Republic. I referenced one above which the powers will ignore because it doesnt fit into what they wish to present. Once you read it it will be interesting to see how you react.

While you are at it research for yourself about comments by the OAS and other similar entities about RACISM (not colorism) in Latin America against Afrodescendants. They paint a bad picture like 80% in Colombia living in abject poverty and not just classism is considered the reason.

Take up your argument with Mr Torres Saillant who I suspect knows more about this topic than you or I know.

By the way its often the case that its the census taker who classifies. According to a book about racial identity in the DR (Coloring of a Nation) by David Howard in 1960 census takers were told to minimize the numbers of people clasified as "black". This suggests that people were classified based upon how they were perceived by the census taker, not by the person who was being enumerated.

Caribj, you were not suspended for claiming that Dominican society suffers from intense colorism, and all that that implies. Everyone knows that this is true about virtually all Latin American societies, especially that of the DR. Discussion of this well-known phenomenon is welcomed.

You were suspended for making up demographic numbers and falsely claiming that they came from the DR census, nothing more, nothing less. That you cannot or will not grasp this simple fact should make you question whether this site is an appropriate venue for your interests.

[quote="fwsweet"]

You were suspended for making up demographic numbers and falsely claiming that they came from the DR census, nothing more, nothing less. quote]

I see MR sweets. I am so influential that I convinced the CIA in their country profiles to use these numbers. Plus I also convinced the IDB, OAS and other NGOs who are studying RACISM (their words) against blacks and others of Afro descent to accept these numbers as being valid.

I never knew I had so much power to make up numbers and get powerful entities to use them!

Now my presumption wa sthat the CIA had a credible sources for their numbers. If they dont try to ban them too!

In addition if a forum is to be valid it must have diverse opinions. I definitely support your aggressive stance to ensure that such debate have high standards but I find it strange that some one shouldnt be on aforum because their perspectives on race and identity differ from yours. This is particularly as Latin America is undergoing change and traditional ways of looking at race and identity are now being questioned.
No longer is at accepted by all that "blacks" and other Afro descendants shouldnt establish their own NGOs to aggressively fight for their civil. political and economic rights. We see this happening in most of these nations with large Afro descended populations and in most instances they are extremely opposed to what people like Salsassin peddles that classism is the only major barrier that has prevented upward mobility of most Afro descendants in LatAm.

That is not a source. Your are simply making additional claims but without providing sources for any of them. Re-asserting the original claim is not providing a source. Making three additional claims is not providing as source; it just prompts demands for three more sources. Then making a dozen additional claims is not providing as source; it just prompts demands for a dozen more sources.

As explained in Commentary on the Rules:
This has nothing to do with diversity of opinion. You made up demographic statistics and falsely claimed that they came from the DR census. You have since made several more factual claims but have refused to back up even one with a real source (as opposed to a made-up one). That you cannot or will not grasp this simple fact should make you question whether this site is an appropriate venue for your interests.

Mr. Sweets writes:



So now you're demanding primary sources? Is that it? LOL!

If that's not it, then by what logic can you say a government report is NOT a source?

Not at all. The rules are clear. Secondary sources are acceptable. This accusation is a straw man. You have 24 hours to retract it. Your next suspension will be for one month.


I never said that. The rules are clear. A government report is an acceptable source. This implication is a straw man. You have 24 hours to retract it. Your next suspension will be for one month.

Are you now joining Caribj in claiming that the DR census reports that 90 percent of the DR population is "black or mulatto"? Are you now joining Caribj in claiming that some other source says that 90 percent of the DR population is "black or mulatto"?

Mr. Sweets writes:



It's a question, not an accusation. But if you want to see an accusation where none exist that is your choice. I am not going to retract an accusation I didn't make. What is clear though is that you are the one erecting a straw man. But you're above the rules, so who cares, right?






Actually, I was drawing a conclusion based on your decision to reject Carjib's answer to what his source for those statistics was. Now if the CIA or any other source is not accurate people can point it out. After all, the rules don't say the source has to be accurate, just credible.




And that is a bald face lie. Talk about unfounded accusations! But if you're the dictator, who cares, right?


You ought to stop using the rules as a pretext to suspend people whose views you don't like.

Caribj never provided a single source (neither a link nor a formal citation). Not once. He just kept naming possible sources, one after the other. His original claim named the DR census. He never provided a link nor a citation for this claim. In fact, the claim was shown to be fraudulent and fabricated. The problem is NOT that the DR census is wrong. The problem IS that the DR census says no such thing. You apparently do not grasp what it means to "provide a source." As explained in Commentary on the Rules:

My accusation is not unfounded. You can read Caribj's fabrication here:

...and see it repeated here...
High School Teacher's posting privilege is hereby suspended until 21 August, 2007 for violation of 4.6.