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.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,606 posts, read 55,846,883 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbler.
That's the way most of history has gone anyway. Men conquer a new area. Kill off the other men. Take the local women. You notice this even from reading accounts of history say in the Old Testament.
If you look at the diversity of the human genome (across the human race in general) you actually find more genetic diversity in the maternal lines than the paternal lines, which implies a lot more men didn't get to leave their legacy relative to women.
This pattern shows up in places time and again, and people have traced paternal ancestries to "big men" perhaps kings and conquerors, anywhere from Niall of the Nine Hostages, to Genghis Khan, basically men who had a big shot at many women and at leaving lots of sons with lots of women.
I'm beginning to notice this too. It's probably part of their collective competitive instinct. Instead of one male being dominant, a group of males becomes 'dominant' vs the conquered army. It kind of shows the Darwinian aspect of civilisations. The male instinct is to simply pass along HIS genes, he's not really as concerned with 'mixing' or whatnot, especially if he thinks he can dilute the native population.
This is seen in the policies implemented in South America and Australia. The conquerors literally wanted to 'breed the natives out'. They did do a lot of killing as well, but this was a slightly more acceptable policy at the time. In contrast, the US seems to have a policy of simply exterminating the natives.
This is seen in the policies implemented in South America and Australia. The conquerors literally wanted to 'breed the natives out'. They did do a lot of killing as well, but this was a slightly more acceptable policy at the time. In contrast, the US seems to have a policy of simply exterminating the natives.
Now, I don't deny the malicious intent, a lot of natives to be fair did die of diseases spread by the newcomers.
Also, regarding the natives exterminated/driven off land, note that the US has a lot more land conducive to European-style agriculture (eg. the rich farming on the east coast and California, the Great Plains and Midwest) so perhaps getting the natives off the land was more strategic in utilizing it.
Note that in Australia and Canada, the natives still live in large numbers in places not really used for farming (because it's too cold or too dry/desert-like or too poor in soil) and since the settlers couldn't use it/didn't want to take it much for themselves, there was less need to "get rid of them" (as their thinking went). In Latin America, the rainforest areas, unsuited for European-style farming again, preserve the most native populations.
This definitely has historical precedent (even predating European colonial times, such as the Bantu farmers of Africa in the arable lands vs. hunter-gather "bushmen" and Pygmy, or the hunter-gatherer Jomon culture vs. rice-growing Yayoi culture of Japan) and has to do with what I remember we were talking earlier about hunter-gatherers vs. farmers/ranchers. Whenever the land-use conflicts occur, agriculturalists always win and the natives are either assimilated, or dislodged or often only end up hanging on in marginal lands where the farmers/herders didn't want and didn't bother taking from.
So the fact that the US had more stringent policies than say Australia (sorry, I don't know that much about your history...lol), could mean it had more farming land at stake that it wanted to kick the natives off of.
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...
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.
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.
Lets be clear, all European colonialists believed that they were superior to the people they conquered. The evidence was in the conquering results. They thought that superior people were those that effectively conquered others and created company and wealth out of nothing. Since that's what happened and the Europeans were at the positive side of things, it makes sense they erroneously began to take an air of superiority. That's what happens to human in victorious positions since the times of the Egyptian pharoes and maybe even predating that!
That is where the British and Spanish/Portuguese pretty much coincided.
The question they faced was how will they create prosperous, civilized, and long lasting societies with so many inferior pure non-whites?
This is where the British and Spanish/Portuguese part ways. The former were convinced that the inferior blood of the pure non-white would degrade the entire society, because non-whites weren't fully human. Notice that in the US the vote of a black man was only as good as one-sixteenth of the whites, signifying the lesser human status the British and their descendants (and those that thought like them) regarded the non-whites. However, the Portuguese/Spanish were convinced that while the non-whites were inferior to whites, they were still full humans and as such, mixture would produce advantages as the non-white stock receives injections of the superior white blood.
The Anglos were concerned with keeping the white race as pure as possible, free from inferior taint and this explains why it was former British colonies the ones that adopted apartheid (US, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, etc). The Latins were not bothered with the thought of the whites having some non-white blood since they didn't believed it was damaging to society. A mixed race majority would guarantee not only the advancement of the non-whites, but also reduce the potential for racial tensions and subsequent race based revolutions.
Even today the effect of this is clearly visible. Americans are often suspect of white Latin Americans because so many have some mixture, while Latin Americans accepts even mixed race people that look white enough or majority white as white with no problems. We also see it in how Americans like to keep the rigid racial duality between whites and blacks by insisting that the mixed race should identify as black rather than mixed. However, in Latin America the mixed population is recognized as mixed. You can see the difference in social settings in the US where in restaurants, malls, etc you will see large groups of whites and groups of blacks being quite separate, with a few exceptions. In many Latin countries the social interactions are much more mixed up.
In the US people are VERY race conscious and often treat class issues as if they were purely racial, while in Latin countries race consciousness is much lower with status and class taking precedence.
You see how in American websites and forums race is a very popular topic while in Latin websites race rarely is much of an iss
In the US your identity is closely tied to your race, with each race within the American nationality being perceived as different versions of American culture, but the white version is the one accepted as the more legitimate one. In Latin America, your identity is much more closely tied to your nationality, then to your region, then to your class, and rarely does race even considered. In Brazil, Panama, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, etc there is a sense their nationality bonds their country men despite of race or color differences.
One last example is how Americans accept as Western only the white majority countries, excluding all of Latin America, even white majority Argentina and Uruguay since the thought of many of them being mixed but look white is enough for Americans to put in doubt their whiteness.
All of that is only the tip of the ice berg regarding this topic, but what remains constant is the undeniable fact that among European colonialists, the Portuguese/Spanish were less racist, put in place policies that encourage the mixture of the population rather than divide and/or exterminate to allow for a white only society to flourished, as the abritish did in North America, Australia and elsewhere.
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.
Lets be clear, all European colonialists believed that they were superior to the people they conquered. The evidence was in the conquering results. They thought that superior people were those that effectively conquered others and created company and wealth out of nothing. Since that's what happened and the Europeans were at the positive side of things, it makes sense they erroneously began to take an air of superiority. That's what happens to human in victorious positions since the times of the Egyptian pharoes and maybe even predating that!
That is where the British and Spanish/Portuguese pretty much coincided.
The question they faced was how will they create prosperous, civilized, and long lasting societies with so many inferior pure non-whites?
This is where the British and Spanish/Portuguese part ways. The former were convinced that the inferior blood of the pure non-white would degrade the entire society, because non-whites weren't fully human. Notice that in the US the vote of a black man was only as good as one-sixteenth of the whites, signifying the lesser human status the British and their descendants (and those that thought like them) regarded the non-whites. However, the Portuguese/Spanish were convinced that while the non-whites were inferior to whites, they were still full humans and as such, mixture would produce advantages as the non-white stock receives injections of the superior white blood.
The Anglos were concerned with keeping the white race as pure as possible, free from inferior taint and this explains why it was former British colonies the ones that adopted apartheid (US, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, etc). The Latins were not bothered with the thought of the whites having some non-white blood since they didn't believed it was damaging to society. A mixed race majority would guarantee not only the advancement of the non-whites, but also reduce the potential for racial tensions and subsequent race based revolutions.
Even today the effect of this is clearly visible. Americans are often suspect of white Latin Americans because so many have some mixture, while Latin Americans accepts even mixed race people that look white enough or majority white as white with no problems. We also see it in how Americans like to keep the rigid racial duality between whites and blacks by insisting that the mixed race should identify as black rather than mixed. However, in Latin America the mixed population is recognized as mixed. You can see the difference in social settings in the US where in restaurants, malls, etc you will see large groups of whites and groups of blacks being quite separate, with a few exceptions. In many Latin countries the social interactions are much more mixed up.
In the US people are VERY race conscious and often treat class issues as if they were purely racial, while in Latin countries race consciousness is much lower with status and class taking precedence.
You see how in American websites and forums race is a very popular topic while in Latin websites race rarely is much of an iss
In the US your identity is closely tied to your race, with each race within the American nationality being perceived as different versions of American culture, but the white version is the one accepted as the more legitimate one. In Latin America, your identity is much more closely tied to your nationality, then to your region, then to your class, and rarely does race even considered. In Brazil, Panama, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, etc there is a sense their nationality bonds their country men despite of race or color differences.
One last example is how Americans accept as Western only the white majority countries, excluding all of Latin America, even white majority Argentina and Uruguay since the thought of many of them being mixed but look white is enough for Americans to put in doubt their whiteness.
All of that is only the tip of the ice berg regarding this topic, but what remains constant is the undeniable fact that among European colonialists, the Portuguese/Spanish were less racist, put in place policies that encourage the mixture of the population rather than divide and/or exterminate to allow for a white only society to flourished, as the abritish did in North America, Australia and elsewhere.
The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese had many children with their slaves and the Native Americans does not mean they weren't racist. The Spanish brought few if any of their women when they colonized. Men, when they are desperate, will have sex with any woman.. doesn't mean they aren't racially biased against them.
The fact that the Spanish and Portuguese had many children with their slaves and the Native Americans does not mean they weren't racist. The Spanish brought few if any of their women when they colonized. Men, when they are desperate, will have sex with any woman.. doesn't mean they aren't racially biased against them.
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'm not sure. The Southern Europeans just mated a lot with the native Indian tribes of that region. A lot of people south of the U.S., are part African, too, like in the Caribbean and Brazil.
The U.S. and Canada have people of mixed heritage too, but not to the extent south of the U.S.
I'm not sure. The Southern Europeans just mated a lot with the native Indian tribes of that region. A lot of people south of the U.S., are part African, too, like in the Caribbean and Brazil.
The U.S. and Canada have people of mixed heritage too, but not to the extent south of the U.S.
It wasn't just Southern Europeans who mated and had mixed race children. France sent Polish mercenaries to put down a slave rebellion in Haiti. Some Polish mercenaries sided with the Black slaves in Haiti and deserted the French. After the Haitian Revolution, some Polish troops stayed in Haiti and mixed with the Black population, creating a distinct ethnicity within Haiti.
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.
