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.
Until quite recently, in Cuba they did not have any blacks on TV except if they were musicians or baseball players. They received a lot of flak from Miami and now they have "tokens" everywhere, except in serious matters. Some regional TVs (stated owned and part of Cubavision) are not that advanced, they claim that blacks produce a strange optical effect and they come out greenish or darker, in fact, everything in Cuban television comes out greenish.
When I watch old Cuban TV programs from before the revolution (1959), it's quite amazing to see many more blacks than in a supposedly communist and equalitarian TV.
I guess that Communists perceive blacks as children that have to be indoctrinated and educated by benign and "solidarian" white ideologues, scientifics, etc. Now, they are profoundly deceived by blacks since there are many black dissidents, or Cuban blacks that "copy the evil ways of African Americans" (raggaeton, rap, AA clothing, etc).
Not sure if its already been pointed out but the culture of Paraguay is an interesting case of a sort of cultural hybrid created by Spanish colonists intermixing with indigenous wives. The native Guarani language is still widely spoken there even though most people are mestizos.
One important point is that for a long and early chunk of Spanish and Portuguese colonial history, the colonies were not meant to be settler colonies, but more plantation economies and conquests meant to generate cash crops or extract resources to send back for the good of the crown. This meant a lot more campaigning through the territories and setting up plantations with a very imbalanced gender ratio among the conquerors consisting mostly of men with many indigenous and African slaves under their control. This incredibly dominant position with none of the watchful civility back home to check their impulses meant the Spanish and Portuguese had many women under their near absolute control. Additionally, the territories conquered often had very different and harsher climates compared to that of Spain which made it somewhat less attractive for settlement.
On the other hand, many of the British colonies outside of the West Indies and Africa such as the United States and Canada had from early on where settler colonies where entire families emigrated at once.
Also the Portuguese and the Spanish had endured hundreds of years of Arab domination, while the British not quite. As such, the Portuguese/Spanish were more accustomed to being around non-white people and didn't thought much about mating with non-whites.
Another thing many people ignore is that illegitimate children never received the last name of their father, but rather that of their mother. Most mestizos have Spanish last names, indicating recognition from the part of their Spanish fathers at some point, IMO.
Also the Portuguese and the Spanish had endured hundreds of years of Arab domination, while the British not quite. As such, the Portuguese/Spanish were more accustomed to being around non-white people and didn't thought much about mating with non-whites.
Another thing many people ignore is that illegitimate children never received the last name of their father, but rather that of their mother. Most mestizos have Spanish last names, indicating recognition from the part of their Spanish fathers at some point, IMO.
A colonial philosophy that Brazilian sociologist Gilberto Freyre came up with is called lusotropicalism. Basically, he said that the Portuguese were better colonizers. He said that the Portuguese adapted easier to tropical lands, mixed with the indigenous population more than anyone else. The reasons he gave was that Portugal was warmer, inhabited by Moors, Visigoths, and Romans, and the geographical position close to Africa.
I don't think the Portuguese colonial policy was much better than anyone else. However, it leaves alot to wonder.
Also the Portuguese and the Spanish had endured hundreds of years of Arab domination, while the British not quite. As such, the Portuguese/Spanish were more accustomed to being around non-white people and didn't thought much about mating with non-whites.
Another thing many people ignore is that illegitimate children never received the last name of their father, but rather that of their mother. Most mestizos have Spanish last names, indicating recognition from the part of their Spanish fathers at some point, IMO.
-------
The few Arabs and Berbers that came to Hispania were white, there were no non-whites in Muslim or Christian Spain, except a few African slaves owned by the very rich.
The only blacks in Spain are "Los negros de Gibraleón, Huelva"
They are also called "Columbus blacks". They have been in Spain since the XVI Century. Their ancestors were African slaves that fled from the ships that had to take them to America from Palos de Moguer, Huelva. Some were trapped by the Inquisition and sent to America, others managed to scape and they are still living there, in Gibraleón. No much mixing in 500 hundred years since they still look black.
The few Arabs and Berbers that came to Hispania were white, there were no non-whites in Muslim or Christian Spain, except a few African slaves owned by the very rich.
I thought they were referred to as Moors and that word originally meant dark.
Anyway, there's even a popular dish called Arroz con moros (rice with Moors), with the "moros" being the black beans.
It's also known as Moros y cristianos (Moorish and Christians), but again, the "moros" refers to the black beans. And despite the existence of beans with lighter color, I have never seen the name of this dish used when lighter color beans are used.
Why would this Spanish dish be referred to in that way? Why are the Moros represented by the black beans? Could it be a reference to the darker (hence, less white) nature of the Moors that ruled Spain and Portugal for hundreds years?
Whatever happens to be the answers to these questions, the Moors definitely looked different from the Spanish and Portuguese. There's no other reason why they would be referred to with a word meaning dark.
But, I could be wrong.
Also, here's an interesting quote:
Quote:
Strangely Moorish Spain wasn't really ruled by Arabs. It is true that many high positions were taken by Arabs but most of the Moors were Berbers. Later Muwallads (converted Christians) together with the offspring of the first invaders became dominant in Moorish Spain. The invaders brought no women so the second generation of Moors were already half Hispanic!
Not really, Berberiscs were similar to Southern Spanish at that time (711). Moorish became different when large amounts of black slaves flooded the area from 1650 onwards. Those blacks were brought by the same Arab traffickers that sold slaves to Portuguese dealers to export to America.
You can see the difference between Berberiscs and Blacks in Lybia. Lybians are white, and as all berberiscs, their origin is not Africa but the Middle East.
Moorish Spain was ruled by Arabs from Jordania, Syria, Irak and Yemen and by Visigoth turncoats converted to Islamism. Muwallads or Muladies (Hispano-Romans and Hispano-Goths converted to Islam) and Dimmies or Mozarabs (Christian living in Muslim territory paying a tax) were the immense majority, maybe 99 percent.
The presence of Berberiscs and Arabs in Hispania was always scarce, no more than 20.000 in a sea of 7.000.000 to 8.000.000 Hispano-Romans and Hispano-Goths. They won in 711 because a large part of the Visigoth army sided with them.
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.
The U.S. is as racially mixed (or more) than Spanish/portuguese speaking america.
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.
-----
The South was a defeated nation and they took refuge in racism and religion, but they were not like that before. That's why many very old families have their pinch of Comanche or black, and then you have the Melungeons, etc.
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.
