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.
Let me explain to you again. Indigenous people living in huts, caves and sacrificing babies have been found all over the world, at different times in history. There have been indigenous backward people in Northern Europe, (Read what Tacitus a Roman historian had to say about Northern Europe's indigenous tribes. "lived in huts, lived off the land, sacrificed babies") " They were white barbarians until the Romans civilized them.
Of course, the Romans were civilized by Greece; and the Greek got most of its civilizations from Crete, Egypt, Mesopotamia, The Hindus Valley people etc. Gradually these white Northern Europeans backward people became members of the"advanced" society you are talking about.
No one even dreams of telling white people to revert to extinct primitive European civilizations, that is suggested only to non-white peoples.
Sounds to me as if you are adjusting your claims, hmm... I wonder why you feel the need to do that.
Now, let me get this straight. You blame the 'media and society' (presumably modern society) for a ficticious proposition that you are claiming. Are we suppose to ignore that most "indigenous Indian Latin Americans" don't live modern lives but rather indigenous lifestyles? That most don't even live in cities, but rather in remote and often hard to reach rural areas, where 'the media and society' is least felt? That most live in poverty and abject poverty with all the implications that has regarding literacy (the ability to read the media) and access to technology (the ability to see the media via tv or radio)? That most actually have an indigenous language as their mother tongue and actually use their indigenous language in their daily communication among themselves?
Great! That's the perfect situation for what you are now claiming. Seems to me that you don't have any counter-arguments, hence the need to change your intial claims. Unbelievable.
Maybe you are not aware that most "indigenous Indian Latin Americans" don't live their lives as most "indigenous Indian North Americans" do. In fact, the Amerindians that are the most in touch with their traditional lifestyles and culture are the "indigenous Indian Latin Americans." As if that was not enough, they are also of the purest Amerindian genetic stock compared to the North American ones.
Yes folks always run off to the "whitest" areas to do their DNA surveys to prove how "white" the population is.
Cuba is a heavily mixed country, NOT white. I note the use of the term "mestizo" rather than "mulatto".
That's like the other one who claims that Dominicans are more Spanish than they are African.
Not true. The test comprised from the area with the highest black concentration, around Santiago to the areas with almost no black concentration, Holguin. Also comprised all intervening areas.
There are white areas and mixed and black areas. The country has no relationship whatsoever with Jamaica except geographic proximity.
They could use the term mestizo since Cuba has a very small Taino influence, as all Spanish Caribbean islands.
And it's also a self-definition, if a person that is 80 or 95 percent white, or even if he's 50 percent or 5 percent white, he's got every right to consider himself white even if he's not ethnically white. Those people in Jamaica consider themselves Africans and their relation with Africa is restricted to skin colour.
Many Americans consider themselves of European stock and they are less Europeans that many europeinized Africans and Asians.
It all comes down to culture.
As to the fact that everything African is considered "juju", backwards, violent, etc..not always the case. I've seen plenty of perfectly white people exert as "santeros". In fact, the best santeros are entirely white in that island. There are also plenty of European santeros, a festive look at the airport.
Last edited by humming100; 09-27-2015 at 05:36 AM..
That's what Americans did.
Since they brainwashed people into being "Americans" and created an amorphous mass called Anglos that includes non-European people, they adopted many features of the Native American imaginarium to the point that "Tonto" is the typical American character.
In Mexico even most of the European looking ones identify as mestizos and show pride in the indigenous roots as much as everything else. It really is quite shocking to hear Mexicans that in most countries would be taken as white say they are as mestizo as any other mestizo.
At the current rate the middle class in Latin America is growing at inprecedented rates composed mostly by mestizos.
They might do it upfront, "de cara a la galería"... to be PC, but they don't identify as mestizos. They use another word. From a cultural standpoint..somewhat.
Sounds to me as if you are adjusting your claims, hmm... I wonder why you feel the need to do that.
Great! That's the perfect situation for what you are now claiming. Seems to me that you don't have any counter-arguments, hence the need to change your intial claims. Unbelievable.
Maybe you are not aware that most "indigenous Indian Latin Americans" don't live their lives as most "indigenous Indian North Americans" do. In fact, the Amerindians that are the most in touch with their traditional lifestyles and culture are the "indigenous Indian Latin Americans." As if that was not enough, they are also of the purest Amerindian genetic stock compared to the North American ones.
I am sorry to tell you, you are not following what I am saying, so please do not respond to my posts.
I am sorry to tell you, you are not following what I am saying, so please do not respond to my posts.
I know exactly what you are saying, you simply refuse to accept how wrong you are. In any case, the best way of putting forward an agenda is leading by example. Let us know when you will give up all the Western comforts and adopt the lifestyle of extinct civilizations. Its not as if anything stands in the way of you doing that.
Calling Americans "Latin Americans" is another stereotype. It has been pointed out before that "Latin" is not an identity Americans identify with broadly.
Calling Americans "Latin Americans" is another stereotype. It has been pointed out before that "Latin" is not an identity Americans identify with broadly.
It is simply Americans.
It's not a "stereotype," it's an identifier, and many Latin Americans - once outside of Latin American nations - do adopt this identity to some extent or another, because they do indeed share a different culture from Americans and Canadians.
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.
