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 02-03-2012, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Near Tours, France about 47°10'N 0°25'E
2,900 posts, read 4,075,990 times
Reputation: 1905

Advertisements

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?
I tend to think that the theories of "racial purity" are, if not an Anglo-Saxon thing, a northern European thing in general.
The latin countries of Europe have, I think, a very different relation to ethnicities than the Northern European tend to have. Racism has existed and still exist in both cases, but in latin countries the national sentiment seems to be more usually based on common culture (mainly language and catholic religion), rather than on a real or alleged genetic herency.
In Northern European nation cultures (that includes the USA), it seems that people tend to define on the idea of being part of a specific genetic heritage, or get more easily passionated about racial topics (especially true in the USA). In latin countries (in Europe or Latin-America), this is much less an obsession, people tend to think that what unite them is their land or their culture more than their genes (this is especially true in France which always has been mixed or genetically inclassifiable).

This is probably due to the history. In the latin countries whose cultural identity has been shaped in the Roman empire, the idea of genetic mixing is part of their identity since the begining. The Roman empire was such a big empire that attracted people from many areas, and where indigenous peoples (Iberians, Gauls, Basques) have been mixed with other peoples (the Roman colonialists, Greeks, phenicians, the Germanic invaders, etc...)
and resulting culturally latinized peoples of mixed ancestry (resulting usually dark or brown haired peoples, but with aslo other lighter types). Then, it was the Roman culture (and later the diverse Romance cultures) that united the peoples.
By contrast, the Germanic peoples used to be more isolated in the north of Europe (there are no other peoples more up), less in contact with areas of huge genetic mixings such as the mediterranean area has been. It results a bigger genetic homogeneity. At the time when the Roman empire was a tool of cultural unification of the diverse peoples of southern Europe, the Germanic north was still made of different tribes, with no political unity nor cultural unity, but more a thinking of defining one's identity on the belonging to the tribe/ to the genetic lineage.

This is probably a bit caricatural, but it can still be observe in how people usually define himself in Norther(Germanic) vs southern(latin) cultures.

This is also, in my opinion, why the idea of "muticulturalism" (=the idea that non-white newcommers imigrants have not to melt within mainstream population but to have better to keep its culture with other people of same origin in a "comunity") is more accepted in northern European countries (and USA); While the latin countries tend to expect that the newcommer imigrants have to mix and assimilated into the culture, whatever the "race" he has.

In Germanic-based countries I noticed that if a person doesn't "racially" look like mainstream, he is supposed to have and keep a different culture from mainstream one. Inversely, in latin-based cultures, a person, whatever is skin color is, is expected to interbreed with local population.
This is quite a different vision of society.

The result of this in the Americas gave the differences we notice between Anglo-America and Latin-America. In both cased there have been influx of various populations from various continents, but the result is very different;
- In north America the Native people have been keept appart, in their own communities, the same way the descendants of the African slaves developped their own sub-group, in their own neibourhoods. Even the white newcommers from Europe have tend to cluster and to define temselves in function of their country genetic origins more than with being just part of the USA or Canada: this gave the hyphenated Americans: Irish-Americans, Scottish-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc...
- In Latin-America this has been completly different. The Spanish and Portuguese colonialists did not kept the natives appart in their own culture, but they assimilated them into Spanish/Portuguese culture and into catholicism. The system was racist at the origins, and it had a violence at its base (assimilation is a hard thing to experience), but it eventually gave birth to real mixed people and less race-obsessed culture.
While, in Anglo-America, even if it is sometimes based on a political-corecteness idea (="...We don't have the right to "force" someone to be part of our people, if non-mainstream poeple live in their own community, it is better for them... and for us"). It appears respectuous of the individuals, but it is eventually a system which tend to incite people to considere themselves to be part or a racial identity above the national identity)
The thing is that English language has not even a word for "mestizo/mulato" or "métis/mulatre". In french and Spanish these words are widely used. In the USA you are either considered "white" or "black" or "hispanic"; While in latin countries, when speaking of "races" you can be "white", Mulato, mestizo... and all the intermediaries possible. "hispanic" in France or other latin countries is considered just as a cultural term that relates to the Spanish language... This includes obviously the Spanish people who are the original hispanic people. No one would think that "hispanic" or even "hispanic-American" (or latino-American) could be considered in the USA to be a racial group - especially since latin-American are so famous for being mixed. we don't need to define or classified them in a unique racial group, because what unite them is their culture, not their genes.

Last edited by french user; 02-03-2012 at 10:56 AM..

 
Old 02-03-2012, 10:52 AM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
21,393 posts, read 19,308,072 times
Reputation: 8493
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.
The Portuguese have been known to be relatively little racist. They have always mixed with locals no matter where they went. Just look at Cape Verde...
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil
2,566 posts, read 4,653,010 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by french user View Post
I tend to think that the theories of "racial purity" are, if not an Anglo-Saxon thing, a northern European thing in general.
The latin countries of Europe have, I think, a very different relation to ethnicities than the Northern European tend to have. Racism has existed and still exist in both cases, but in latin countries the national sentiment seems to be more usually based on common culture (mainly language and catholic religion), rather than on a real or alleged genetic herency.
In Northern European nation cultures (that includes the USA), it seems that people tend to define on the idea of being part of a specific genetic heritage, or get more easily passionated about racial topics (especially true in the USA). In latin countries (in Europe or Latin-America), this is much less an obsession, people tend to think that what unite them is their land or their culture more than their genes (this is especially true in France which always has been mixed or genetically inclassifiable).

This is probably due to the history. In the latin countries whose cultural identity has been shaped in the Roman empire, the idea of genetic mixing is part of their identity since the begining. The Roman empire was such a big empire that attracted people from many areas, and where indigenous peoples (Iberians, Gauls, Basques) have been mixed with other peoples (the Roman colonialists, Greeks, phenicians, the Germanic invaders, etc...)
and resulting culturally latinized peoples of mixed ancestry (resulting usually dark or brown haired peoples, but with aslo other lighter types). Then, it was the Roman culture (and later the diverse Romance cultures) that united the peoples.
By contrast, the Germanic peoples used to be more isolated in the north of Europe (there are no other peoples more up), less in contact with areas of huge genetic mixings such as the mediterranean area has been. It results a bigger genetic homogeneity. At the time when the Roman empire was a tool of cultural unification of the diverse peoples of southern Europe, the Germanic north was still made of different tribes, with no political unity nor cultural unity, but more a thinking of defining one's identity on the belonging to the tribe/ to the genetic lineage.

This is probably a bit caricatural, but it can still be observe in how people usually define himself in Norther(Germanic) vs southern(latin) cultures.

This is also, in my opinion, why the idea of "muticulturalism" (=the idea that non-white newcommers imigrants have not to melt within mainstream population but to have better to keep its culture with other people of same origin in a "comunity") is more accepted in northern European countries (and USA); While the latin countries tend to expect that the newcommer imigrants have to mix and assimilated into the culture, whatever the "race" he has.

In Germanic-based countries I noticed that if a person doesn't "racially" look like mainstream, he is supposed to have and keep a different culture from mainstream one. Inversely, in latin-based cultures, a person, whatever is skin color is, is expected to interbreed with local population.
This is quite a different vision of society.

The result of this in the Americas gave the differences we notice between Anglo-America and Latin-America. In both cased there have been influx of various populations from various continents, but the result is very different;
- In north America the Native people have been keept appart, in their own communities, the same way the descendants of the African slaves developped their own sub-group, in their own neibourhoods. Even the white newcommers from Europe have tend to cluster and to define temselves in function of their country genetic origins more than with being just part of the USA or Canada: this gave the hyphenated Americans: Irish-Americans, Scottish-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc...
- In Latin-America this has been completly different. The Spanish and Portuguese colonialists did not kept the natives appart in their own culture, but they assimilated them into Spanish/Portuguese culture and into catholicism. The system was racist at the origins, and it had a violence at its base (assimilation is a hard thing to experience), but it eventually gave birth to real mixed people and less race-obsessed culture.
While, in Anglo-America, even if it is sometimes based on a political-corecteness idea (="...We don't have the right to "force" someone to be part of our people, if non-mainstream poeple live in their own community, it is better for them... and for us"). It appears respectuous of the individuals, but it is eventually a system which tend to incite people to considere themselves to be part or a racial identity above the national identity)
The thing is that English language has not even a word for "mestizo/mulato" or "métis/mulatre". In french and Spanish these words are widely used. In the USA you are either considered "white" or "black" or "hispanic"; While in latin countries, when speaking of "races" you can be "white", Mulato, mestizo... and all the intermediaries possible. "hispanic" in France or other latin countries is considered just as a cultural term that relates to the Spanish language... This includes obviously the Spanish people who are the original hispanic people. No one would think that "hispanic" or even "hispanic-American" (or latino-American) could be considered in the USA to be a racial group - especially since latin-American are so famous for being mixed. we don't need to define or classified them in a unique racial group, because what unite them is their culture, not their genes.

Very good analysis!!!

I agree that there is a huge difference between the Latin culture (both in Europe and in the Americas) and the "Anglo-Germanic" culture (both in Europe and in the Americas).

The Latin culture is much more open to racial mixing. And I think it's really related to the Roman Empire, that received many immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and even Sub-Saharan Africa, more than 2000 years ago...

I also believe the Catholic religion has some influence... The Catholic Church is, by definition, an "universal" church. The very name "catholic" means "universal". It's an unified Church, worldwide, that has members from all races. I think that countries with a Catholic majority tend to be more open to racial mixing.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:44 AM
 
126 posts, read 169,018 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalaMan View Post
The Latin culture is much more open to racial mixing. And I think it's really related to the Roman Empire, that received many immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and even Sub-Saharan Africa, more than 2000 years ago...

I also believe the Catholic religion has some influence... The Catholic Church is, by definition, an "universal" church. The very name "catholic" means "universal". It's an unified Church, worldwide, that has members from all races. I think that countries with a Catholic majority tend to be more open to racial mixing.
The "Pilgrims" who came to the US were not tolerated for their extreme religious views not even in their own country such as in England, the Netherlands etc. They were religious extremists, they viewed the indians as savages, while the Roman Catholic church viewed the indians as humans who needed to be saved; thereby they developed religious syncretism (that is mingling the indian beliefs with the Catholic beliefs) to convert the indians.
As far as the Spanish sending violent oversexed men to the Americas is another extreme falsehood. The Spanish migrated continually for centuries (for over five hundred years continually men and women) It is not like one year thousands of Spanish men appeared then afterwards no one else left Spain for the Americas.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil
2,566 posts, read 4,653,010 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by diet1 View Post
The "Pilgrims" who came to the US were not tolerated for their extreme religious views not even in their own country such as in England, the Netherlands etc. They were religious extremists, they viewed the indians as savages, while the Roman Catholic church viewed the indians as humans who needed to be saved; thereby they developed religious syncretism (that is mingling the indian beliefs with the Catholic beliefs) to convert the indians.
As far as the Spanish sending violent oversexed men to the Americas is another extreme falsehood. The Spanish migrated continually for centuries (for over five hundred years continually men and women) It is not like one year thousands of Spanish men appeared then afterwards no one else left Spain for the Americas.


The Catholic Church activelly tried to convert the indigenous peoples of Brazil.

The Jesuit priests were sent by the Church, as "missionaires", in order to make the "catechization" of the indigenous peoples.

In all parts of Brazil, the priests have created many "aldeamentos" or "missoes", that were villages were the converted natives lived under the strict rule of the priests.

Many indigenous women who were Christianized by the Jesuit priests became wives of Portuguese colonists.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Near Tours, France about 47°10'N 0°25'E
2,900 posts, read 4,075,990 times
Reputation: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalaMan View Post
Very good analysis!!!

The Latin culture is much more open to racial mixing. And I think it's really related to the Roman Empire, that received many immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and even Sub-Saharan Africa, more than 2000 years ago...
Yes, but not necessary more open on the cultural mixing or diversity. Here in France we have xenophobia, but usually based on cultural aspects (sometimes associated with a noticeable "different from average" looks, so it can gives birth to racism). Above this I tend to think that the difference is what is considered to be the element that defines the identity of one person: In Germanic cultures this is more the idea of genetic heritage, while in latin cultures it is more the culture. I tend to think that the germanic cultures make the focus more upon the individuals, while the latin ones focus more on the group. The "collective" thing is the culture, and especially the language (the ciment of the nations); while the individual identity is his family history (so something linked to genetic heritage).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalaMan View Post

I also believe the Catholic religion has some influence... The Catholic Church is, by definition, an "universal" church. The very name "catholic" means "universal". It's an unified Church, worldwide, that has members from all races. I think that countries with a Catholic majority tend to be more open to racial mixing.
True. And I think it relates also to what I said above; the fact of being more based on the individual is somehow a Protestant thing. The Protestants church are independant on to the other... In the USA almost anyone can create his own church... and consitute its own "community".
it is true that in traditionally catholic countries, the "universality" of the church has played a great role in giving a greater sense of being part of "one", instead of being part of a "community".
I feel that in our countries, since the middle ages, the catholic church has played the "unifying" role that previouly played the Roman empire afer tis fall. the catholic faith had been spread to the Germanic areas after falling of the Roman empire, but curiously (or not that much curiously), these areas were the ones that cutted themselves the most easily from Roman catholic church to goes toward the reformation - Probably because the linked to Roman world was not something as much natural than what it was in the latin countries. In my country, France, we are since the revolution, and more recently (during the 20th century) have been becoming more distant towards the catholic church (after having been the main catholic country since the middle ages), but we have not leave this idea of "unity" that the church gave us. Now it is the concept of "Republique laïque" that replaced the catholic church as the "ciment" of the society. But I think that if we have that "republican" concept in a way that is quite unique among other western nation (especially when compared to Anglo-Germanic nations); is precisely because of the catholic herency.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil
2,566 posts, read 4,653,010 times
Reputation: 1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by french user View Post
Yes, but not necessary more open on the cultural mixing or diversity. Here in France we have xenophobia, but usually based on cultural aspects (sometimes associated with a noticeable "different from average" looks, so it can gives birth to racism). Above this I tend to think that the difference is what is considered to be the element that defines the identity of one person: In Germanic cultures this is more the idea of genetic heritage, while in latin cultures it is more the culture. I tend to think that the germanic cultures make the focus more upon the individuals, while the latin ones focus more on the group. The "collective" thing is the culture, and especially the language (the ciment of the nations); while the individual identity is his family history (so something linked to genetic heritage).
I have already noticed that "Islamophobia" is much more widespread in France than racism. Black Christian immigrants from the Caribbean and from the former African colonies face less discrimination than Islamic immigrants from Algeria, that have a much lighter skin. Maybe because the Christian blacks fit much more easily in the French culture than the Muslim immigrants.

I agree that culture is more important than race in the Latin countries.

That explains why the German immigrants to Brazil were almost "forced" to assimilate into the Brazilian society. Everyone expected them to mix with the general population, and integrate into the Brazilian culture. And that was what happened. The same is valid for the Japanese immigrants in Brazil.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 12:49 PM
 
12 posts, read 33,795 times
Reputation: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalaMan View Post
Those studies are VERY suspicious to say the least...

But even if they are right, there are some points that need clarification...


When you say "no one in the world is 100% unmixed or arian", you're probably right, but the fact is that you can't even think about comparing the degree of racial mixing of the Brazilian "whites" and the European whites. It can not be compared. A typical French citizen, for example, probably has only European born ancestors in his seventh or eight generation of ancestors. In Brazil, almost NOBODY has only "white" ancestors in the seventh or in the eight generation of ancestors. NOBODY. Except for very few exceptions - mainly people who have four immigrant grandparents (very rare case in Brazil nowadays).


To see the degree of difference, you should just compare the frequency of African and Amerindian haplogroups of mitochondrial DNA in the population of Brazilian "whites" with the frequency of those same haplogroups in the mitochondrial DNA of the population of European countries. Check this study:

Ancestry in the Americas | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

The study shows that, among the 47% of Brazilians who self-declares as "whites" in the Census, only 38% have European mitochondrial DNA. The other 62% of the self-declared "whites" have African or indigenous mtDNA. Now, check those same numbers in Europe... In most European countries, more than 80% of the entire population have mtDNA of European haplogroups.


So, when you say that 80% of the Brazilian DNA is European (and I sincerely doubt it) that DOESN'T mean that 80% of Brazilians are "white". NO! Even if 80% of the Brazilian DNA is European, that 20% of DNA that is not European is WIDELY DISTRIBUTED in the ENTIRE POPULATION. That means: each person has his little bit of non-European DNA, contributing for that overall 20%. The genetic studies show that most black people in Brazil have at least 40% of European DNA, sometimes even more. So, the distribution of European DNA and non-European DNA is very "egalitarian" across the entire Brazilian population, of all skin colors.

In sum: almost everyone is mixed, almost everyone has at least one African or indigenous ancestors in the seventh or eigth generation of ancestors.
Sorry, but I’m Brazilian and I don’t have any Black or indian ancestor in my family, all my grandparents emigrated from Europe in the first years of XX century, 3 of them came from Italy ( Sicilia and Veneto) and one from Spain (Galiza)… In 1920, nearly 80% of São Paulo city's population was composed of immigrants and their descendants, check this (São Paulo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). You need understand that Blacks slaves were directed to colonial city in Brazil as Salvador and Rio de Janeiro… São Paulo and southern of Brazil was almost uninhabited in that time. You forget that italian, german and japanese, for example, has more or less 100 years of immigration to Brazil, this is very short time to mix with everyone that you want. Go to university as mackenzie or FAAP in Sao Paulo, is almost impossible to find a black or a mestizzo there, and in southern Brazil there are entire white closed german speaking communities. Check Pomaroide city in Santa Catarina absolutely more than 90% full Germans. Check Holambra in São Paulo almost 100% is Dutch descendants. As I said you most of Brazil region is mixed but southern is exception, everyone know about this. If you don’t believe go there and check this. If you don’t go to real fates I would prefer don’t waste my time discussing about it… keep strong in your illusion… I just go to real fates.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 01:24 PM
 
126 posts, read 169,018 times
Reputation: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by obpumc View Post
Sorry, but I’m Brazilian and I don’t have any Black or indian ancestor in my family, all my grandparents emigrated from Europe in the first years of XX century, 3 of them came from Italy ( Sicilia and Veneto) and one from Spain (Galiza)… In 1920, nearly 80% of São Paulo city's population was composed of immigrants and their descendants, You forget that italian, german and japanese, for example, has more or less 100 years of immigration to Brazil, this is very short time to mix with everyone that you want. Go to university as mackenzie or FAAP in Sao Paulo, is almost impossible to find a black or a mestizzo there, and in southern Brazil there are entire white closed german speaking communities. Check Pomaroide city in Santa Catarina absolutely more than 90% full Germans. Check Holambra in São Paulo almost 100% is Dutch descendants. As I said you most of Brazil region is mixed but southern is exception, everyone know about this. If you don’t believe go there and check this. If you don’t go to real fates I would prefer don’t waste my time discussing about it… keep strong in your illusion… I just go to real fates.
I really don't understand your argument, are you saying that in another 100 years the south of Brazil will be very mixed?
I'd like to add that throughout history Sicily as well as southern Spain has been aligned much closer North Africa and the East than to Northern Europe. A few years back an Italian movie/documentary (pane e cioccolata) described how well those Southern Italian immigrants were "assimilated" to countries like Switzerland.
I still contend that the viral religious influence fueled racial paranoia in the US, whereas in Latin countries that was not the case.
 
Old 02-03-2012, 01:34 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
21,393 posts, read 19,308,072 times
Reputation: 8493
Quote:
Originally Posted by diet1 View Post
I really don't understand your argument, are you saying that in another 100 years the south of Brazil will be very mixed?
I'd like to add that throughout history Sicily as well as southern Spain has been aligned much closer North Africa and the East than to Northern Europe. A few years back an Italian movie/documentary (pane e cioccolata) described how well those Southern Italian immigrants were "assimilated" to countries like Switzerland.
I still contend that the viral religious influence fueled racial paranoia in the US, whereas in Latin countries that was not the case.
I would say so, yes, southern Brazil will also be much more mixed than today. In the big cities such as Porto Alegre 20% of the population are colored already. Since the south is doing well economically, people move there from all over the country...
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