Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the only place where I have seen the Spanish and the Portuguese labelled as the most racist when the opposite was true. Maybe it has to do with the large amount of Americans here, since the USA was born from mostly British colonies.
You must not know your history or have been living in Latin America to long because it seems you haven't been exposed to the true! The Portuguese and the Spanish basically invented the racial superiority concept. When they first encountered the Native people of North and South America, the Spanish and Portuguese did not see them as equal. You really need to read a history book that is not so heavily influenced by Latin American propaganda. Did you know that the Spanish colonizers almost wipe out the entire Native American population to extinction!.
You know what "Antonio84" if the Spanish and Portuguese weren't so racist then why aren't there many Afro-Latinos or full blooded Amerindians in high political positions. If Latin America's race relations are so much better than the U.S. than why is there hardly any Afro-Latinos on Latin American television. There is hardly any representation of Afro-Latinos and Amerindians in Latin American society whether though the media or politics in general. If the Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries were so much less racist than the English speaking countries then "Why hasn't there been an "Afro-Latino President yet"?
El Salvador once banned blacks from immigrating to their country. This was a law that was tolerated up until the 1980's. Where was the outcry from other Latin Americans countries on that issue? Oh yeah that right, most of them remained silent.
So don't come on here and try say that America is so much more racist then Latin American countries because that is simply not the case. Just because a country doesn't acknowledge racism doesn't mean racism does not exist in that country. To help educate you here is a documentary of a Harvard Scholar who journeyed all of Latin America to get a better understand of what life is like for Afro-Latinos. I think you could learn a lot from this documentary.
You must not know your history or have been living in Latin America to long because it seems you haven't been exposed to the true! You really need to read a history book that is not so heavily influenced by Latin American propaganda.
Why are you assuming I'm not from the United States, that I don't currently live in the United States and that I haven't read various books from different perspectives on this subject?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
Did you know that the Spanish colonizers almost wipe out the entire Native American population!.
That only happened on the Caribbean islands and most of them died from diseases the indigenous population had no antibodies for, since they were never expose to them until the encounter. Simple stuff like the common cold was extremely devastating for entire tribes. A single Spaniard sneezed while visiting a tribe, a week later the entire tribe was well on its way to extinction and no one knew why. That was the number one killer.
Despite that, the indigenous population remain very large and much of their genetic blueprint is still present in the majority of the Latin American population, even in the Spanish Caribbean (to a lesser extent in Cuba, greater in Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), as mitochondrial DNA studies have proven.
The one's that truly almost wiped out the native american population was the British in North America. Remember that the British colonialist once took many blankets and infected them with the smallpox virus, then gave them as "gifts" to the native americans who were apparently shivering from the cold. The latter accepted them as act of kindness, not knowing it was a genocide in the making.
Today the native american population of both the USA and Canada hover around 1%, completely unacceptable for countries on former Indigenous ruled land and today majority white. Compare that with Mexico (11%), Peru (48%), Ecuador (25%), Guatemala (40%). Add to that the mestizo/mixed majority in those and every other country and things become quite clear.
Through out Latin America I have met descendants of the indigenous people, both mixed and pure blooded, by simply walking around. I have yet to bump into a native american here in the US. Such a shame. I've been to their casinos, though. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
You know what "Antonio84" if the Spanish and Portuguese weren't so racist then why aren't there many Afro-Latinos or full blooded Amerindians in high political positions.
Do any of these men look white to you? They sure don't to me and many of these countries had the first non-white president practically a century before the US did and have had many more since! How does the US stands on that front, despite all the Affirmative Action laws to force its people to act in ways they wouldn't if left to their own decision?
As a bonus, look in what other category has many Latin American countries beaten the USA:
When was the last time the US had a woman president? What about a vice president? Latin America has been there and done that!
There are many more, so let me know if you're interesting in learning more about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
If Latin America's race relations are so much better than the U.S. than why is there hardly any Afro-Latinos on Latin American television.
Have you ever seen Latin American television? While its true that in some countries there is a noticeable lack of "Afro-Latinos" (in some because they hardly have any black or mulatto people, as is the case in Argentina), in the countries that do have a sizable amount, the television has quite a few, in many countries even a majority of "Afro-Latinos." This is especially true in Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Panama and even in Colombia.
But you will have to travel to various countries and watch their television, their movies, their musicians, etc while you're there. That's the only way you can know for sure, as I have done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
If the Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries were so much less racist than the English speaking countries then "Why hasn't there been an "Afro-Latino President yet"?
There are plenty of additional examples. Let me know if you want to see them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
El Salvador once banned blacks from immigrating to their country. This was a law that was tolerated up until the 1980's.
El Salvador is the smallest Spanish speaking country in the world and the only one that had such a law. They don't even make up 1% of the Latin American population. Plus, its one of the countries with the least percentage of whites in the whole hemisphere, the vast majority of the population being mestizos/mixed. If you want to use that as a convenient example for your agenda, go ahead, but I say its too small to be used for generalizations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
So don't come on and try say that America is so much more racist then Latin American countries because that is simply not the case.
I guess that explains why the USA needs Affirmative Action programs to force its people to act in non-racist ways. Makes perfect sense.
Look at many of those countries south of the USA with much more mixed populations than the US. Most have had non-white presidents no just many years before the US, but also multiple times. Now various Latin American countries have even beaten the US in having a woman president and vice president!
In social settings, you know, where people are not forced by law to be with those they don't like, there's much more voluntary mixing between people of different races and color than is typical in the USA. Clear signs that Latin Americans more racist than Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
Just because doesn't acknowledge racism doesn't mean it does not exist.
Hm, I wonder why I said this in my previous posts:
"For some reason in internet forum debates people begin to talk about completely different things and assume its one and the same."
And this:
"...the Portuguese/Spanish were convinced that while the non-whites were inferior to whites..."
And this:
"What I am saying is that the Spanish/Portuguese were the least racist of all the European colonialists."
I'm going to be nice by assuming some people simply have reading comprehension problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
To help educate you here is a documentary of a Harvard Scholar who journeyed all of Latin America to get a better understand of what life is like for Afro-Latinos. I think you could learn a lot from this documentary.
I don't need to watch documentaries, I read the history books, contemporary essays and research papers. But most importantly, I have traveled to various Latin American countries for month at a time, and I have not only spoken about this and other issues with various people that range from experts in their fields to the everyday person. In my trips, I have also lived the experiences and seen with my own eyes how the people treat each other in various types of settings.
Its always interesting coming back home to the USA, because that's when I noticed how much more racist Americans tend to be when there's no law forcing anyone to act a certain way. Also the constant use of race as a major identity label is racist in its way and is much more prevalent in the US than in Latin America.
Answer the following question truthfully: What Latin American countries have you visited?
I'm not talking staying for a week on a resort, I mean actually visited, being immersed in the culture and spend upwards of 3 or 4 weeks, maybe even more. Going off the beaten path.
How many have you visited, how many times and which were those Latin American countries?
Why are you assuming I'm not from the United States, that I don't currently live in the United States and that I haven't read various books from different perspectives on this subject?
Because going off your past comments it is clearly evident that you are misinformed about racism in Latin America. Also your trying to paint this picture that the Spanish and Portuguese were not that racist compared to other European colonizers and that is simply not true.
Quote:
That only happened on the Caribbean islands and most of them died from diseases the indigenous population had no antibodies for, since they were never expose to them until the encounter.
No it happen in Central America and South America as well.
Quote:
Despite that, the indigenous population remain very large and much of their genetic blueprint is still present in the majority of the Latin American population, even in the Spanish Caribbean (to a lesser extent in Cuba, greater in Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), as mitochondrial DNA studies have proven.
I guess it only took a couple hundred years for the indigenous population to start reaching stable numbers.
Quote:
The one's that truly almost wiped out the native american population was the British in North America. Remember that the British colonialist once took many blankets and infected them with the smallpox virus, then gave them as "gifts" to the native americans who were apparently shivering from the cold. The latter accepted them as act of kindness, not knowing it was a genocide in the making.
The Spanish almost wipe out the Aztecs and Inca cilivilizations. Weren't there actions just as horrible?
Quote:
Through out Latin America I have met descendants of the indigenous people, both mixed and pure blooded, by simply walking around. I have yet to bump into a native american here in the US. Such a shame. I've been to their casinos, though. lol
Most live on Indian reservations and yes I agree it is a shame.
Quote:
When was the last time the US had a woman president? What about a vice president? Latin America has been there and done that!
That's all good information but what does that have to do with race relations in Latin America?
Quote:
Have you ever seen Latin American television?
Yes and it's almost always the White or very light skinned Latinos playing the lead roles. Rarely do you ever see a Black or dark skin Latino on telenovelas. If they are on there, they are usually cast in stereotypical roles. If you don't believe just turn to "Univision" or "Telemundo" and you will see for yourself.
Quote:
While its true that in some countries there is a noticeable lack of "Afro-Latinos" (in some because they hardly have any black or mulatto people, as is the case in Argentina), in the countries that do have a sizable amount, the television has quite a few, in many countries even a majority of "Afro-Latinos." This is especially true in Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Panama and even in Colombia.
From what I've seen there are almost never any Afro-Latinos in lead roles on Spanish speaking television, regardless of country.
Quote:
But you will have to travel to various countries and watch their television, their movies, their musicians, etc while you're there. That's the only way you can know for sure, as I have done.
You do know that there is a thing call the internet right?
Quote:
El Salvador is the smallest Spanish speaking country in the world and the only one that had such a law. They don't even make up 1% of the Latin American population. Plus, its one of the countries with the least percentage of whites in the whole hemisphere, the vast majority of the population being mestizos/mixed. If you want to use that as a convenient example for your agenda, go ahead, but I say its too small to be used for generalizations.
That still doesn't change the fact that was one of the most racist things a sovereign country could ever do. That says a lot when a country tolerates a law like that all the way up to the 1980's. It also doesn't surprise me that it was Spanish colonized country that did this. Even you would have to admit that was pretty damn racist for a country to go out of their way a ban an entire race from living in their country. No wonder why there black population is so low.
Quote:
I guess that explains why the USA needs Affirmative Action programs to force its people to act in non-racist ways. Makes perfect sense.
I lot of those Latin American countries could really use Affirmative Action.
Quote:
Look at many of those countries south of the USA with much more mixed populations than the US. Most have had non-white presidents no just many years before the US, but also multiple times. Now various Latin American countries have even beaten the US in having a woman president and vice president!
If Latin America was so much better race relations than the U.S. than why hasn't there been any full blooded Afro-Latinos as President. All of the so called Afro-Latino Presidents you have shown probably have less than 1/8 African ancestry. All of them are mostly light skin and I have yet to see a dark skin Latin American President yet. Shouldn't there have been one by now "Antonio84"? If Latin America had such better racial opportunities than the U.S. then why haven't we seen many full blooded Amerindians or dark skin Afro-Latinos?
Quote:
In social settings, you know, where people are not forced by law to be with those they don't like, there's much more voluntary mixing between people of different races and color than is typical in the USA. Clear signs that Latin Americans more racist than Americans.
If Latin American Countries like Brazil were so color blind as you claim than why did it take up until the 1880's to abolish slavery? That was over 20 years after the U.S. abolished slavery.
Quote:
Hm, I wonder why I said this in my previous posts: "For some reason in internet forum debates people begin to talk about completely different things and assume its one and the same."
You can't talk about race relations in Latin America without understanding the history of race relations in Latin America.
Quote:
I'm going to be nice by assuming some people simply have reading comprehension problems.
And I'm going to assume that some people clearly misinformed about reality and are ignorant about actual facts. lol
Quote:
Its always interesting coming back home to the USA, because that's when I noticed how much more racist Americans tend to be when there's no law forcing anyone to act a certain way. Also the constant use of race as a major identity label is racist in its way and is much more prevalent in the US than in Latin America.
If you had been observant enough you would have notice that racism in most of those countries are swept under the rug when compared to the U.S. Meaning its largely hidden or ignored but like I said before, just because it isn't talked about does not mean it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Answer the following question truthfully: What Latin American countries have you visited?
I'm not talking staying for a week on a resort, I mean actually visited, being immersed in the culture and spend upwards of 3 or 4 weeks, maybe even more. Going off the beaten path. How many have you visited, how many times and which were those Latin American countries?
Have you? For all I know you could be full of crap saying you been to all of these countries but in reality you haven't. All I can give you are the facts. It's entirely up to you if you choose to accept the facts or not.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 03-28-2012 at 11:18 PM..
The Spanish many times after reproducing with slaves or indigenous women would simply abandon their children, based on the simple fact their off spring wasn't "racially pure". Also the Spaniards many times didn't believe the "Criollos" weren't racially pure based off the fact they weren't born in Spain.
this the Spanish Caste System during colonial times
Peninsulares (Españoles europeos)
Persons of Spanish descent born in Spain (i.e., from the Iberian Peninsula, hence their name). Generally, there were two groups of Peninsulares. The first group includes those that were appointed to important jobs in the government, the army and the Catholic Church by the Crown. This system was intended to perpetuate the ties of the governing elite to the Spanish crown. The theory was that an outsider should be appointed to rule over a certain society, therefore a New Spaniard would not be appointed Viceroy of New Spain. These officials usually had a long history of service to the Crown and moved around the Empire frequently. They usually did not live permanently in any one place in Latin America. The second group of Peninsulares did settle permanently in a specific region and came to associate with it. The first wave were the original settlers themselves, the Conquistadors, who essentially transformed themselves into lords of an area through their act of conquest. In the centuries after the Conquest, more Peninsulares continued to emigrate under different circumstances, usually for commercial reasons. Some even came as indentured servants to established Criollo families. Therefore, there were Peninsulares of all socioeconomic classes in America. Once they settled, they tended to form families, so Peninsulares and Criollos were united and divided by family ties and tensions.
Criollos (Españoles criollos or Españoles americanos)
A Spanish term meaning "native born and raised," criollo historically was applied to both white and black non-indigenous persons born in the Americas. In the contemporary historical literature, the term usually means only people who in theory were of full direct Spanish ancestry, born in the Americas. In reality white Criollos could also have some native ancestry, but this would be disregarded for families who had maintained a certain status.[15]), As the second- or third-generation of Spanish families, some Criollos owned mines, ranches, or haciendas. Many of these were extremely wealthy and belonged to the high nobility of the Spanish Empire. Still, most were simply part of what could be termed the petite bourgeoisie or even outright poor. As life-long residents of America, they, like all other residents of these areas, often participated in contraband, since the traditional monopolies of Seville, and later Cádiz, could not supply all their trade needs. (They were more than occasionally aided by royal officials turning a blind eye to this activity). Criollos tended to be appointed to the lower-level government jobs—they had sizable representation in the municipal councils—and with the sale of offices that began in the late 16th century, they gained access to the high-level posts, such as judges on the regional audiencias. The 19th-century wars of independence are often cast, then and now, as a struggle between Peninsulares and Criollos, but both groups can be found on both sides of the wars.
Indians (Indios)
The original inhabitants of the Americas and considered to be one of the three "pure races" in Spanish America, the law treated them as minors, and as such were to be protected by royal officials, but in reality were often abused by the local elites. After the initial conquest, the elites of the Inca, Aztec and other Indian states were assimilated into the Spanish nobility through intermarriage. The regional Native nobility, where it existed, was recognized and redefined along European standards by the Spanish and had to deal with the difficulty of existing in a colonial society, but it remained in place until independence. Indians could belong to any economic class depending on their personal wealth.
Mestizos
Persons with one Spanish parent and one Indian parent. The term was originally associated with illegitimacy because in the generations after the Conquest, mixed-race children born in wedlock were assigned either a simple Indian or Spanish identity, depending with which culture they were raised. (See Hyperdescent and Hypodescent.) The number of official Mestizos rises in censuses only after the second half of the 17th century, when a sizable and stable community of mixed-race people with no claims on being either Indian or Spanish appeared.
Castizos
One of the many terms, like the ones below, used to describe people with varying degrees of racial mixture. In this case Castizos were people with one Mestizo parent and one Spanish parent. The children of a Castizo and a Spaniard, or a Castizo him- or herself, were often classified and accepted as a Criollo Spaniard.
Cholos or Coyotes
Persons with one Indian parent and one Mestizo parent.
Mulattos or Pardos
Persons of the first generation of a Spanish and Black/African ancestry. If they were born into slavery (that is their mother was a slave), they would be slaves, unless freed by their master or were manumitted. In popular parlance, mulato could also denote an individual of mixed African and Native American ancestry.[18] Further terms to describe other degrees of mixture included, among many others, Morisco, (not to be confused with the peninsular Morisco, from which the term was obviously borrowed) a person of Mulatto and Spanish parents, i.e., a quadroon, and Albino (derived from albino), a person of Morisco and Spanish parents, i.e., an octoroon.
Zambos
Persons who were of mixed Indian and Black ancestry. As with Mulattos, many other terms existed to describe the degree of mixture. These included Chino and Lobo. Chino usually described someone as having Mulatto and Indian parents. (Since there was some immigration from the Spanish East Indies during the colonial period, chino is often confused, even by contemporary historians, as a word for Asian peoples, which is the primary meaning of the word, but not usually in the context of the castas. Chino or china is still used in many Latin American countries as a term of endearment for a light-skinned person of African ancestry. Lobo could describe a person of Black and Indian parents (and therefore, a synonym for Zambo), as in the image gallery below, or someone of Indian and Torna atrás parents.
Blacks (Negros)
With Spaniards and Indians, this was the third original "race" in this paradigm, but low on the social scale because of their association with slavery. These were people of full Sub-Saharan African descent. Many, especially among the first generation, were slaves, but there were sizable free-Black communities. Distinction was made between Blacks born in Africa (negros bozales) and therefore possibly less acculturated, Blacks born in the Iberian Peninsula (Black Ladinos), and Blacks born in the Indies, these sometimes referred to as negros criollos. Their low social status was enforced legally. They were prohibited by law from many positions, such as entering the priesthood, and their testimony in court was valued less than others. But they could join militias created especially for them. In contrast with the binary "one-drop rule", which evolved in the late-19th-century United States, people of mixed-Black ancestry were recognized as multiple separate groups, as noted above.
I think it's a good thing that Brazil is so diverse with many racially-mixed people. I know there is still prejudice based on skin colour there, but I'm wondering, assuming the Spaniards and Portuguese were as racist as the early American colonists, why did America pursue a policy of segregation, while in Latin America intermarriage between natives, Europeans and later black slaves was common and even promoted? Was it to 'breed out' the Indians, as what the government tried to do in Australia with our Aborigines? The settlers in the US, in contrast, just wanted to herd off the Indians to small reservations or outright kill them. Is 'racial purity' more of an Anglo-Saxon rather than a Hispanic thing?
Why was racial segregation in the US South so extreme during the Jim Crow era? Like blacks not allowed to marry whites, many black men hanged for being with white women. Other nations with a colonial past, presumably also pretty racist, never took things that far.
-----
Castilians and Portuguese were no different in that respect to early English colonizers. Jim Crow laws did not exist when America was in the making, it is more a result of the arrival of consolidated families and churches.
There's a movie called No Name City that explains the phenomena. Trampers, pioneers, sourdoughs and gold diggers had no qualms about having Indian wifes, but when cities consolidated such behaviour was not tolerated.
If English would have conquered Mexico, they would have behaved in a similar way than Spanish since Mexicans outnumbered Spanish, and in many aspects Aztecs were more civilized.
For example, Castilians did not conquer Mexico, Cortez meddled in a Civil War that comprised practically all Indian nations against Aztecs. He won the war thanks to his Indian lover, la Malinchina. At that time, women, horses and wine did not travel well and most white women died during the journey, and there's a saying in old Castilian that goes "en cuestiones de jodienda no hay enmienda".
Castilians went to America to get rich, to be Hidalgos, not to work with their hands. The Crown protected Indians by law (at least in theory) and an Indians were considered to be the same than a clean blood Castilian (in theory).
Later, when society became consolidated, Castilians or Criollos brought women from Europe, but remained with their Indian or Mulatto lovers. Other regions followed a similar course than the US and they massacred Indians when they gained independence (Argentina, Brazil, etc).
Because going off your past comments it is clearly evident that you are misinformed about racism in Latin America.
LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
Also your trying to paint this picture that the Spanish and Portuguese were not that racist compared to other European colonizers and that is simply not true.
They weren’t as racist as the British.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
No it happen in Central America and South America as well.
Oh, I see. You should publish a new history book, because your “vision” of what happened doesn’t lives up to what has been written. Considering all the books I’ve read about this topic so far, I should have bumped into this by now. Hmm, wonder why I haven’t…
It would be a tremendous loss to humanity for your incredible knowledge of things that no other expert has discovered. It would be a tremendous loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
I guess it only took a couple hundred years for the indigenous population to start reaching stable numbers.
Hmm, I wonder why the native americans of the US haven’t recuperated to more than 1% of the population. Since the USA was so less racist than much of Latin America, it only makes sense that there would be more native americans in the US than in any Latin American country.
Why is that not the case? Explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
The Spanish almost wipe out the Aztecs and Inca cilivilizations. Weren't there actions just as horrible?
Right. That explains why the indigenous population has been so numerous in Mexico and Peru, the centers of the Aztec and Inca civilizations, respectively. To this day, almost half of Peru is of Inca origin with most of the rest being mestizos of Inca extraction. I guess since the British were much nicer to the native americans, that explains why they hardly exist at just 1% of the US population.
It all makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
Yes and it's almost always the White or very light skinned Latinos playing the lead roles. Rarely do you ever see a Black or dark skin Latino on telenovelas. If they are on there, they are usually cast in stereotypical roles. If you don't believe just turn to "Univision" or "Telemundo" and you will see for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
From what I've seen there are almost never any Afro-Latinos in lead roles on Spanish speaking television, regardless of country.
Let me guess, you’re going by what you saw in the Miami-based Univision channel or the Los Angeles-based Telemundo? Both are owned by American companies, LOL.
Here, let me show you a few examples of actual Latin American media:
News:
Felix Victorino is interviewed due to his extreme popularity and for being one of the most highly respected news anchors in the Dominican Republic.
Cuba
Movies:
Serious shows focused on social/economic/political issues:
It goes on and on and on… but since you haven’t been to Latin America, it makes sense you don’t know this. J
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
If Latin America was so much better race relations than the U.S. than why hasn't there been any full blooded Afro-Latinos as President. All of the so called Afro-Latino Presidents you have shown probably have less than 1/8 African ancestry. All of them are mostly light skin and I have yet to see a dark skin Latin American President yet. Shouldn't there have been one by now "Antonio84"? If Latin America had such better racial opportunities than the U.S. then why haven't we seen many full blooded Amerindians or dark skin Afro-Latinos?
This is a perfect example that you have an agenda.
I already gave you examples!
Ulises Heureaux, he was 100% of black African extraction. The guy was so dark, he was almost blue!
Evo Morales is 100% of Amerindian descent.
If you were not so busy trying to push your racial agenda, you would had noticed that!
Now, much more interesting is why did the USA had to wait until 2008 to vote its first non-white president into office. The guy is still 50% white and his black heritage is not even connected to the slaves, but rather an immigrant from Kenya! The slaves weren’t even from that part of Africa! Lets talk about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
If Latin American Countries like Brazil were so color blind as you claim than why did it take up until the 1880's to abolish slavery? That was over 20 years after the U.S. abolished slavery.
Brazil’s case was peculiar when it came to abolishing slavery. Its often used by those with a racial agenda. I always find it interesting how people like you ‘forget’ to mention that the only Latin American places that abolished slavery after the USA was Puerto Rico (1873) and Brazil (1888). Every other place abolished slavery many years before the USA, starting with Argentina in 1813, a full half century before the US! By the 1830s all but four Latin Americans had abolished slavery (a good third of a century before the US).
Much more remarkably, after slavery was ended, not one Latin American country imposed segregation. Interestingly, the USA had the need for segregation and subjected your people for another 97 years after “abolishing” slavery. African Americans were, in effect, still slaves despite being free. You were the ones subjected to the longest slavery of any Western Hemisphere country!
No other Afro-descended people suffer what your people have suffered under the most racist of colonialists and their descendants, the British!
157 years of British colonial slavery, 89 years of American slavery, and 97 years of segregation; a total of 343 years!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly;
You can't talk about race relations in Latin America without understanding the history of race relations in Latin America.
I can talk about race relations in Latin America because I studied its history, I’ve experience it in person, and I’ve discussed this with experts and everyday people. This is why its obvious to me that you have an agenda. Its ok, you’re a victim of the most racist colonial power ever to exist, the British!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly;
And I'm going to assume that some people clearly misinformed about reality and are ignorant about actual facts. Lol
That’s what I think too. Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly;
If you had been observant enough you would have notice that racism in most of those countries are swept under the rug when compared to the U.S. Meaning its largely hidden or ignored but like I said before, just because it isn't talked about does not mean it doesn't exist.
It is talked about, that’s what you don’t get! And how can you get it, when you don’t know what you’re talking about!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly;
Have you? For all I know you could be full of crap saying you been to all of these countries but in reality you haven't. All I can give you are the facts. It's entirely up to you if you choose to accept the facts or not.
Yes I have, but apparently you haven’t and it shows. I’ve been to Mexico, Panama, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, and last November I was in Dominican Republic. I even posted some pictures of my trip to the Dominican Republic here in the forums. All of my trips have been from between 3 weeks to just over a month. I have also dated many Latino women and have wonderful friends from many countries south of the border, have been accepted by wonderful Latino families and have had more than my fair share of opportunity to discuss and study this issue; of all races and mixtures.
The problem here is that you are talking about something you know little about, and based on that limited knowledge, you’re trying to impose some sort of racial agenda and it shows.
Travel to the region. Once you start doing that, your views will definitely change and we can continue with this debate. I can’t continue to debate this with someone that hasn’t even been to a single country in Latin America and yet, wants to be an expert on its matters. LOL
Travel to the region. Once you start doing that, your views will definitely change and we can continue with this debate. I can’t continue to debate this with someone that hasn’t even been to a single country in Latin America and yet, wants to be an expert on its matters. LOL
Arguing with you is like arguing with a dead horse. Showing a few examples of Afro-Latinos in the Media doesn't change the fact that Afro-Latinos do not have a large representation in film, television or politics in Latin America in general. This also doesn't change the fact that blackness is still looked down upon in many Latin American countries. The Dominican Republic has one of the largest Afro-descendant populations in Latin America and yet most of them don't even acknowledge their African heritage. Most of them believe they are of full Spanish ancestry or a mix of Spanish/native Indian ancestry. Basically most will check off anything but black on their census sheet. You don't think that's racial supremacy caused by Spanish colonization? At least in the U.S. the majority of blacks acknowledge they have African ancestry. In many Latin American that is simply not the case.
For someone that has claimed they've traveled so many times to Latin America I find it hard to believe that you are so oblivious to the reality of these countries. Maybe you need to get out of the tourist area and actually go to the real parts of the country and find out what life is actually like for many Afro-Latinos or Amerindians living in those countries. I can guarantee you will have a much different perspective then your close minded viewpoints on those countries. I'm not directing this to you but in general, it's usually hard for someone to recognize racism when they themselves have never experienced it.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 03-29-2012 at 02:07 PM..
Arguing with you is like arguing with a dead horse. Showing a few examples of Afro-Latinos in the Media doesn't change the fact that Afro-Latinos do not have a large representation in film, television or politics in Latin America in general. This also doesn't change the fact that blackness is still looked down upon in many Latin American countries. The Dominican Republic has one of the largest Afro-descendant populations in Latin America and yet most of them don't even acknowledge their African heritage. Most of them believe they are of full Spanish ancestry or a mix of Spanish/native Indian ancestry. Basically most will check off anything but black on their census sheet. You don't think that's racial supremacy caused by Spanish colonization? At least in the U.S. the majority of blacks acknowledge they have African ancestry. In many Latin American that is simply not the case.
For someone that has claimed they've traveled so many times to Latin America I find it hard to believe that you are so oblivious to the reality of these countries. Maybe you need to get out of the tourist area and actually go to the real parts of the country and find out what life is actually like for many Afro-Latinos or Amerindians living in those countries. I can guarantee you will have a much different perspective then your close minded viewpoints on those countries. I'm not directing this to you but in general, it's usually hard for someone to recognize racism when they themselves have never experienced it.
Thank you for the clarification. When you travel to Latin America and do as I did, then we'll talk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It also doesn't surprise me that it was Spanish colonized country that did this. Even you would have to admit that was pretty damn racist for a country to go out of their way a ban an entire race from living in their country. No wonder why there black population is so low. 