U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is raced discussed in The Americas 24/7
Yes, Latin Americas think about race all the time 1 33.33%
No, this board has been invaded by race extremists. 2 66.67%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:43 PM
 
578 posts, read 755,682 times
Reputation: 122

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
For some reason in internet forum debates people begin to talk about completely different things and assume its one and the same.

No one is saying the Spanish and Portuguese were not racist. Read carefully the second paragraph in my last post.

What I am saying is that the Spanish/Portuguese were the least racist of all the European colonialists. They were more likely to accept their mixed children as their own and give them privileges to an extent that was simply not imaginable in the British colonies. In fact, if a non-white wife accepted Spanish customs and reared her mixed children with a predominance of Spanish culture, she and her sons were seen as being more Spanish than native. That is one thing that NEVER happened in the British colonies since in the British colonial mindset, the race of the person overrides everything else, including education, culture, etc. The reasons for this I have already explained in my previous post. In the Portuguese/Spanish mindset, other social factors can and often did override race and color.

Also, the whole there were few women and that explains the mixture argument is pure hogwash, as the British would say. LOL

There were few women in most British colonies such as JAMAICA or INDIA, but do you see a mixed majority population over there? No and the reason is because the British were the most racist of the bunch. This I also explained in my previous post.

And last but not least, when the ex-British colonies encouraged white immigration, they often put in place disincentives towards miscegenation, in order to keep the whites as pure as possible (USA, South Africa, etc). The ex-Portuguese and Spanish colonies also encouraged white immigration, but they also encouraged miscegenation leading to the vast numbers of mixed race unions.

Come on guys, there's no need to deny that the Portuguese and Spanish were, in fact, less racist than the British. Its obvious.

Even when you take countries where few European women immigrated to (like Jamaica as an ex-British colony example and Mexico as an ex-Spanish example), what you notice is that regardless of the scarcity of white women, the Spanish had no problems accepting non-white wives and having non-white families while the British colonialists were too disgusted by the thought of that.

Hence places like Jamaica are overwhelmingly mono-racial, with practically unmixed blacks being the overwhelming majority, while Mexico, with its over 100 million people, is overwhelmingly mestizo/mixed.

No guys, that type of difference is not explained by the Spanish or Portuguese being more racist than the British. The opposite fits better with the evidence.
I think that's complete and utter bull**** what you stated about the Spanish and Portuguese being the least racist of European colonialist powers.

How can you even measure racism. How can it be least or worse?

Next I don't feel you can measure racism. Also I don't think that the Spanish and Portuguese vs British can be measured. It's all similar/same and different at the same time.

 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:47 PM
 
578 posts, read 755,682 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20 View Post
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.
Cuba had segregation and was like a Jim Crow/apartheid like society especially during the reign of Batista. It was only after Fidel Castro came into power that he began to dismantle this structure!
 
Old 08-17-2013, 09:16 PM
 
126 posts, read 168,902 times
Reputation: 172
The Iberian peninsula (Spain, Portugal) have always been more cosmopolitan, less neurotic and very confident of their culture as opposed to the isolated remote English islanders. The Iberian have had STRONG influences from the Phoenicians, Romans, Muslims and others. The English had minimal to nil.

When the Iberians came to the Americas, they came for (1) land (2) riches and (3)TO SAVE THE SOULS of the Indians; by converting them to Christianity. This was done by syncretism that is, combining and merging religious and cultural beliefs into one. Papal bull Sublimis Deus, 1493.

The English were miles behind the Iberans with respect to the acceptance of other beings, They could not imagine mixing with these wild savages (as they were described in early american literature) As far as saving the souls these "beasts". How could you? they did not have one in their view. A good Indian is a dead Indian was the popular motto.
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:09 PM
 
578 posts, read 755,682 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
LOL


They weren’t as racist as the British.


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.


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.


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.





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


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.


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!


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!


That’s what I think too. Lol


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!


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
Cuba had segregation until Fidel Castro came into power. During the reign of Batista it was very racist and segregationist.

Also remember that Cuba abolished slavery in 1886. African slaves were still being imported illegally until even the 1890s
 
Old 08-18-2013, 09:39 PM
 
6,932 posts, read 8,083,847 times
Reputation: 3025
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObscureOpulence View Post
Cuba had segregation until Fidel Castro came into power. During the reign of Batista it was very racist and segregationist.

Also remember that Cuba abolished slavery in 1886. African slaves were still being imported illegally until even the 1890s

Cuba was well mixed before the Castro revolution. The mulatto identity was already a firm identity throughout Cuba by 1900. This is well documented.
 
Old 08-19-2013, 07:07 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 7 days ago)
 
47,974 posts, read 45,435,742 times
Reputation: 15309
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
The Portuguese were the 1st European county to start the Atlantic Slave trade. Also the reason why Brazil let so many European immigrants into their country was because they thought the black population was to high. The Portuguese were hoping that the influx of European immigrants would mix with the black population to lighten the country in regards to skin color. I would put the Portuguese at the top of the list, narrowly beating the Spanish as the most racist among the European colonizers.
I wouldn't say the Portuguese system was "more racist" as it was just a different kind of racism. In Brazil, Blacks were considered a legacy of slavery. In Cuba it was the same thing. Although Blacks in Cuba could vote and hold public office, there was still discrimination against Blacks. Cuba wanted to present itself as a Caribbean extension of Europe. It did what it could to squash remnants of African culture. Cuba let in many immigrants from Europe, and Asia too. Gloria Estefan's husband, Emilio Estafan, is a Cuban of Lebanese descent.

In the USA, there is another kind of racism. Planned Parenthood started as a program to basically exterminate the Black population. The USA invited millions of European immigrants over to the USA as well. And even then, there were some issues. Groups such as the Italians and the Irish were not liked. Blacks were definitely hated and some people wanted Blacks to either be sent somewhere else, or exterminated. However, they weren't the only group hated. It extended to ethnicity. There were many who looked at Catholic immigrants as "a threat to American society".

However, there is one difference. European immigrants would eventually be considered "White". Blacks would never be considered "White", and would basically be excluded.
 
Old 08-20-2013, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 1,989,551 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I wouldn't say the Portuguese system was "more racist" as it was just a different kind of racism. In Brazil, Blacks were considered a legacy of slavery. In Cuba it was the same thing. Although Blacks in Cuba could vote and hold public office, there was still discrimination against Blacks. Cuba wanted to present itself as a Caribbean extension of Europe. It did what it could to squash remnants of African culture. Cuba let in many immigrants from Europe, and Asia too. Gloria Estefan's husband, Emilio Estafan, is a Cuban of Lebanese descent.

In the USA, there is another kind of racism. Planned Parenthood started as a program to basically exterminate the Black population. The USA invited millions of European immigrants over to the USA as well. And even then, there were some issues. Groups such as the Italians and the Irish were not liked. Blacks were definitely hated and some people wanted Blacks to either be sent somewhere else, or exterminated. However, they weren't the only group hated. It extended to ethnicity. There were many who looked at Catholic immigrants as "a threat to American society".

However, there is one difference. European immigrants would eventually be considered "White". Blacks would never be considered "White", and would basically be excluded.
The single largest lynching incident in the U.S. occurred to Italians in I believe Louisiana.

The U.S. also enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act for a while.

The internment of Japanese during WWII is a bit interesting too. Ironically, many of the American wealthy Jews principally profited from selling off the Japanese-Americans' property left or abandoned by Japanese-Americans shuttled off to camps. I believe the Japanese-Americans were given 2 weeks to sell all their property before they were rounded up to be sent into camps. Consequently, some sold their homes and businesses for dirt cheap. Not that I'm about to give an exact number, but recalling off the top of my head, some had say, to make up an example (me making up an example)... invested $30,000 into their business and had to accept as low a purchase offer as $2,000 to sell it because they only were given 2 weeks I think, by the U.S. Government, to square away their financial matters.

Some of the camps they were moved into were metal shacks, in hot climates, but I can't remember if they were in the desert or humid environments. I recall they had to use outhouses. They lived in those things for a couple years I think.

Today that would be a pretty unPC move. Unjust as well.
 
Old 08-21-2013, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Czech Republic
2,384 posts, read 5,845,380 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioR View Post
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.
I agree, they were already exposed to darker people because of the moors.
 
Old 08-21-2013, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Czech Republic
2,384 posts, read 5,845,380 times
Reputation: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObscureOpulence View Post
I think that's complete and utter bull**** what you stated about the Spanish and Portuguese being the least racist of European colonialist powers.

How can you even measure racism. How can it be least or worse?

Next I don't feel you can measure racism. Also I don't think that the Spanish and Portuguese vs British can be measured. It's all similar/same and different at the same time.
I also wonder why Hongkong and Singapore don't have so many mestizos.
 
Old 08-21-2013, 03:10 AM
 
Location: SGV, CA
816 posts, read 1,554,487 times
Reputation: 1242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermosaa View Post
I also wonder why Hongkong and Singapore don't have so many mestizos.
Well that would support the general assertion in this thread that the British had a lot more hangups over intermixing with the local population than the Spanish did.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Americas
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top