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.
Uh, before this thread gets too far, y'all have to remember that the super-majority of African-Americans could be classified as "mulattoes" or whatnot if we went by Latin American standards and traditions. This is not just a Barack Obama thing.
The naming of various ethnic groups in the Americas is way more complicated (due to history, cultural tradition/oppression, etc...) than just giving some simple year 2012 analysis, diagnosis, and opinion.
African-Americans (I prefer saying Indigenous Black Americans, actually) are some of the most mixed-raced people in the world. The one-drop rule or (1/16 rule, etc.) was implemented as a tool to divide lower class people (blacks/mixed/whites) in order to keep the upper-class white gentry in power. However, what was used for centuries as "divide and conquer/control" tactic, eventually became a source of strength for Indigenous Black Americans since the line was very clear of who was "black" in the U.S.
Now, a new "divide and conquer/control" tactic is emerging with all of this talk of blacks that are not really black anymore, but mixed. Funny though, because 90% of IBAs are "mixed." (!)
Right! That's what people really just don't seem to grasp with the Black experience in the US, as opposed to somewhere like Brazil.
The US only received 5% of the African Slaves during the Slave trade. The vast, VAST majority of slavs went to L America. Due to this dearth in Blacks, the American Black population is actually mulatto, especially when you consider how a paltry 500,000 Africans can balloon to a size of more than 40 million. This is an amazing feat, especially when you consider that, unlike Asians or Whites, there has traditionally never been a steady stream of Blacks coming into the country.
That growth was home-grown, not imported.
Brazil received many, many more blacks, and due to this, one can greater discern who's "black" and who isn't. This holds true especially when you consider the differences in certain rates among American slaves and Brazilian slaves. Brazilian slaves died much more quickly, had much less kids, and were treated much more callously. This was simply due to Brazil's proximity to Africa, and due to this, the fact that slaves being taken there were cheaper. American Blacks were treated better, had more children, and were more "prized." It was much more expensive of a voyage to Charleston, Virginia, than Rio de Janeiro.
This made Americans, and ironically American culture, value "Black" more than Brazil.
The expendable nature of Brazilian slave treatment, and Portugal's push to populate the HUGE land of Brazil as quickly as possible to kick out the Spaniards, made the "mulatto" more prized. He represented population growth. The US didn't have this problem. It had a problem of needing more slaves. To that end, the one-drop rule was created. It allowed a slave-owner to get his kicks for profit (the child would then be black, and thus a slave, and thus something to make profit from), while still keeping with the "Whites above all" status quo. Thus, the creation of the "Black" American was born.
Every single Black American can honestly tell you that they know they have mixed blood, but society sees them as black, because due to our slave history, we are. If we received the massive amounts of slaves that Brazil did, we would probably have just as many definitions based on color that they do. But we didn't, and yet still needed more "Blacks" to work the field.
As I said, the growth was home-grown, and not imported. Brazil's was.
Right! That's what people really just don't seem to grasp with the Black experience in the US, as opposed to somewhere like Brazil.
The US only received 5% of the African Slaves during the Slave trade. The vast, VAST majority of slavs went to L America. Due to this dearth in Blacks, the American Black population is actually mulatto, especially when you consider how a paltry 500,000 Africans can balloon to a size of more than 40 million. This is an amazing feat, especially when you consider that, unlike Asians or Whites, there has traditionally never been a steady stream of Blacks coming into the country.
That growth was home-grown, not imported.
Brazil received many, many more blacks, and due to this, one can greater discern who's "black" and who isn't. This holds true especially when you consider the differences in certain rates among American slaves and Brazilian slaves. Brazilian slaves died much more quickly, had much less kids, and were treated much more callously. This was simply due to Brazil's proximity to Africa, and due to this, the fact that slaves being taken there were cheaper. American Blacks were treated better, had more children, and were more "prized." It was much more expensive of a voyage to Charleston, Virginia, than Rio de Janeiro.
This made Americans, and ironically American culture, value "Black" more than Brazil.
The expendable nature of Brazilian slave treatment, and Portugal's push to populate the HUGE land of Brazil as quickly as possible to kick out the Spaniards, made the "mulatto" more prized. He represented population growth. The US didn't have this problem. It had a problem of needing more slaves. To that end, the one-drop rule was created. It allowed a slave-owner to get his kicks for profit (the child would then be black, and thus a slave, and thus something to make profit from), while still keeping with the "Whites above all" status quo. Thus, the creation of the "Black" American was born.
Every single Black American can honestly tell you that they know they have mixed blood, but society sees them as black, because due to our slave history, we are. If we received the massive amounts of slaves that Brazil did, we would probably have just as many definitions based on color that they do. But we didn't, and yet still needed more "Blacks" to work the field.
As I said, the growth was home-grown, and not imported. Brazil's was.
Interesting. First I've heard that, but completely makes sense.
Right! That's what people really just don't seem to grasp with the Black experience in the US, as opposed to somewhere like Brazil.
The US only received 5% of the African Slaves during the Slave trade. The vast, VAST majority of slavs went to L America. Due to this dearth in Blacks, the American Black population is actually mulatto, especially when you consider how a paltry 500,000 Africans can balloon to a size of more than 40 million. This is an amazing feat, especially when you consider that, unlike Asians or Whites, there has traditionally never been a steady stream of Blacks coming into the country.
That growth was home-grown, not imported.
Brazil received many, many more blacks, and due to this, one can greater discern who's "black" and who isn't. This holds true especially when you consider the differences in certain rates among American slaves and Brazilian slaves. Brazilian slaves died much more quickly, had much less kids, and were treated much more callously. This was simply due to Brazil's proximity to Africa, and due to this, the fact that slaves being taken there were cheaper. American Blacks were treated better, had more children, and were more "prized." It was much more expensive of a voyage to Charleston, Virginia, than Rio de Janeiro.
This made Americans, and ironically American culture, value "Black" more than Brazil.
The expendable nature of Brazilian slave treatment, and Portugal's push to populate the HUGE land of Brazil as quickly as possible to kick out the Spaniards, made the "mulatto" more prized. He represented population growth. The US didn't have this problem. It had a problem of needing more slaves. To that end, the one-drop rule was created. It allowed a slave-owner to get his kicks for profit (the child would then be black, and thus a slave, and thus something to make profit from), while still keeping with the "Whites above all" status quo. Thus, the creation of the "Black" American was born.
Every single Black American can honestly tell you that they know they have mixed blood, but society sees them as black, because due to our slave history, we are. If we received the massive amounts of slaves that Brazil did, we would probably have just as many definitions based on color that they do. But we didn't, and yet still needed more "Blacks" to work the field.
As I said, the growth was home-grown, and not imported. Brazil's was.
Actually, most Black Americans are majority African blood and look it. The day that most truly embrace that incredible gift and stop denying and running from that, will truly be transforming.
Right! That's what people really just don't seem to grasp with the Black experience in the US, as opposed to somewhere like Brazil.
The US only received 5% of the African Slaves during the Slave trade. The vast, VAST majority of slavs went to L America. Due to this dearth in Blacks, the American Black population is actually mulatto, especially when you consider how a paltry 500,000 Africans can balloon to a size of more than 40 million. This is an amazing feat, especially when you consider that, unlike Asians or Whites, there has traditionally never been a steady stream of Blacks coming into the country.
That growth was home-grown, not imported.
Brazil received many, many more blacks, and due to this, one can greater discern who's "black" and who isn't. This holds true especially when you consider the differences in certain rates among American slaves and Brazilian slaves. Brazilian slaves died much more quickly, had much less kids, and were treated much more callously. This was simply due to Brazil's proximity to Africa, and due to this, the fact that slaves being taken there were cheaper. American Blacks were treated better, had more children, and were more "prized." It was much more expensive of a voyage to Charleston, Virginia, than Rio de Janeiro.
This made Americans, and ironically American culture, value "Black" more than Brazil.
The expendable nature of Brazilian slave treatment, and Portugal's push to populate the HUGE land of Brazil as quickly as possible to kick out the Spaniards, made the "mulatto" more prized. He represented population growth. The US didn't have this problem. It had a problem of needing more slaves. To that end, the one-drop rule was created. It allowed a slave-owner to get his kicks for profit (the child would then be black, and thus a slave, and thus something to make profit from), while still keeping with the "Whites above all" status quo. Thus, the creation of the "Black" American was born.
Every single Black American can honestly tell you that they know they have mixed blood, but society sees them as black, because due to our slave history, we are. If we received the massive amounts of slaves that Brazil did, we would probably have just as many definitions based on color that they do. But we didn't, and yet still needed more "Blacks" to work the field.
As I said, the growth was home-grown, and not imported. Brazil's was.
Actually, most Black Americans are majority African blood and look it. The day that most truly embrace that incredible gift and stop denying and running from that, will truly be transforming.
Of course we are, for the most part, majority black. By definition though, we are mixed. I have never denied my "blackness," and neither has most blacks. We know we have more than black in us, but choose still to circle/bubble in "BLACK" on the census. I am a little confused by what you think we should do to prove our blackness...American culture is deeply entrenched with "black" things. They give American culture the flare and "soul", and most Americans, black, white, or otherwise, will readily admit that.
Of course we are, for the most part, majority black. By definition though, we are mixed. I have never denied my "blackness," and neither has most blacks. We know we have more than black in us, but choose still to circle/bubble in "BLACK" on the census. I am a little confused by what you think we should do to prove our blackness...American culture is deeply entrenched with "black" things. They give American culture the flare and "soul", and most Americans, black, white, or otherwise, will readily admit that.
I agree with that as well. I don't think I've heard a black American who denies being black. They've always embraced it, it seems to me.
Quite the opposite of Latin America, in that regard.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Hopefully one day, the sooner the better, people will stop having to identify themselves by their race. That words like 'black' and 'white' will consigned to history.
I agree with that as well. I don't think I've heard a black American who denies being black. They've always embraced it, it seems to me.
Quite the opposite of Latin America, in that regard.
YES! This is actually one of the main breaks in the links between Blacks in the US and Blacks/Mixed peoples in L America. Because of American history, there is a movement TOWARD non-white, and because of this, someone with any discernible black features will be viewed and view themselves as black. The opposite ids true in L America, confusing and offending American Blacks. It's for this reason that I highly doubt a Civil Rights/Black Power movement can grow and flourish in the region. They're too busy trying to be "moreno", "trigueiro", "Taino", or "Moreno branco" to just simply be "negro."
There is this awesome PBS series called Black in Latin America that outlines the black experience in the region, and how different it was to the American response to races:
Essentially, the Casta system that Spain touted throughout the world made a racial hierarchy institutional, while the UK/America's "one-drop rule" made racial separation institutional. This, mixed with how expendable slaves were in L America made for a perfect storm of self-hate.
Latin America has a serious race problem. It's funny how at first glance, you would think the US got it wrong, but history has proven otherwise.
I remember watching a documentary about Brazil, and a Brazilian said (I'm paraphrasing) that all this talk of a racial democracy is just a way for white guys to more openly have sex with a non-white girl. I believe this is true.
Last edited by DginnWonder; 06-25-2012 at 09:23 AM..
Reason: Forgot to post Documentary link/
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by DginnWonder
YES! This is actually one of the main breaks in the links between Blacks in the US and Blacks/Mixed peoples in L America. Because of American history, there is a movement TOWARD non-white, and because of this, someone with any discernible black features will be viewed and view themselves as black. The opposite ids true in L America, confusing and offending American Blacks. It's for this reason that I highly doubt a Civil Rights/Black Power movement can grow and flourish in the region. They're too busy trying to be "moreno", "trigueiro", "Taino", or "Moreno branco" to just simply be "negro."
There is this awesome PBS series called Black in Latin America that outlines the black experience in the region, and how different it was to the American response to races:
Essentially, the Casta system that Spain touted throughout the world made a racial hierarchy institutional, while the UK/America's "one-drop rule" made racial separation institutional. This, mixed with how expendable slaves were in L America made for a perfect storm of self-hate.
Latin America has a serious race problem. It's funny how at first glance, you would think the US got it wrong, but history has proven otherwise.
I remember watching a documentary about Brazil, and a Brazilian said (I'm paraphrasing) that all this talk of a racial democracy is just a way for white guys to more openly have sex with a non-white girl. I believe this is true.
It is annoying how many non-white girls just fawn over white guys, as if they're like superhuman species.
I'm not even jealous, I don't even want anyone who generalizes entire races like this.
For whatever reason, I always think 'Jewish/Black' with Slash. I always think 'Latina' when I think of Mariah Carey.
Hi Tiger, you're quite right about the term Mulatto in Brazil. It is not seen as a negative term. Of course, it can be used negatively given the right context, for example by a prejudiced individual. But it can also take on a positive meaning.
It may have been born of the term "mule" back in the day and used pejoratively by some Europeans but its modern use does not have the same connotations.
BTW, there is no way to look 'Latina' as that is not a race. It would be the same as looking like an American citizen since American citizenship has nothing to do with heredity. Although insular/Caribbean Latin Americans do tend to have a small amount of Black admixture similar to Mariah Carey. If you went to Argentina, Chile or Uruguay, though, most of the population would look European with varying amounts of Amerindian folks. So Mariah would surely stand out in those areas. She would also stand out in heavily Amerindian Bolivia (as she's a predominantly White mulatta, not a full or predominant Amerindian like Bolivians). A phenotype that may be common in Dominican Republic may not be common in Peru and so on. Latin is as much a race as 'North American' is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DginnWonder
Essentially, the Casta system that Spain touted throughout the world made a racial hierarchy institutional, while the UK/America's "one-drop rule" made racial separation institutional. This, mixed with how expendable slaves were in L America made for a perfect storm of self-hate.
You've bought into the Black legend, it's a pity but something that is very prevalent in English speakers (whether European or Black). Sure, conquest was brutal but so was North America's. I've lived in the southern cone and no, there isn't more self-hatred among 'non-whites' in that part of the Americas.
The reason why very light 'mulattoes' and people with a small percentage of Amerindian blood often identify as White is precisely because there is more openness! North Americans (not all individuals so please don't be offended) tended to view even the smallest non-white admixture as somehow polluting, and that is what gave rise to the one-drop rule. Obviously, it makes more practical sense that if you look MAINLY WHITE, you are allowed to identify as such. That's all.
The term mulatto, as how the OP understands it, is supposed to be pretty much neutral in Brazil nowadays. It's just a way to define a person that is just as White as they are Black (hard to choose one when you're equally both!). That is all. It does not mean that "Latin" Blacks hate themselves!
I do not condone the barbarity that was the Spanish conquest of the Amerindians or their subsequent use of Africans as slaves. But neither to I pretend the same didn't happen in North America!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DginnWonder
Latin America has a serious race problem. It's funny how at first glance, you would think the US got it wrong, but history has proven otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kameradin
The "Black Legend"
Early instances of hispanophobia arose as the influence of the Spanish Empire and Inquisition spread through late-medieval Europe. During this period hispanophobia materialized in folklore sometimes referred to as "the Black Legend":
"The legend first arose amid the religious strife and imperial rivalries of 16th-century Europe. Northern Europeans, who loathed Catholic Spain and envied its American empire, published books and gory engravings that depicted Spanish colonization as uniquely barbarous: an orgy of greed, slaughter and papist depravity, the Inquisition writ large."
La leyenda negra, as Spanish historians first named it, entailed a view of Spaniards as "unusually cruel, avaricious, treacherous, fanatical, superstitious, hot-blooded, corrupt, decadent, indolent, and authoritarian." As Spain and England colonized the Americas, "[t]he Black Legend informed Anglo Americans' judgments about the political, economic, religious, and social forces that had shaped the Spanish provinces from Florida to California, as well as throughout the hemisphere."
Disclaimer: I'm basing my opinion on my knowledge of Chile. I think both of us made the mistake of using the term 'Latin America' to discuss two different countries. That's NOT ok!! There is no homogeneous Latin American social environment. We ought to stop talking about 'Latin America' and start referring to individual countries.
From what I heard from Spanish-speakers, they find American indifference to 'Latin' nationality pretty offensive. And it is. I mean Jamaica is a former British colony yet no one in the United States identifies with it as being 'the same culture as ours.' I know all we hear through the [mostly vapid] media is that there's a culturally homogeneous mass of land called Latin America but that's not right. Speaking the language has allowed me to talk to people of almost every Spanish-speaking country and trust me, there are vast cultural differences. Vast.
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.
