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)
 
Old 02-20-2019, 10:19 AM
 
2,334 posts, read 950,299 times
Reputation: 1778

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP View Post
Why are you offended women choose to have children with white men over black men? It was probably for economic reasons even today women tend to prefer men that have more access to resources.
I didn't say that I was "offended". I'm just stating that that's the reason that they no longer exist. The Afro-Argentine women almost exclusively had children with European men. Repeating that for a few generations was enough to erase them from the history of Argentina.

People almost forgot that they existed and are creating wild theories to explain their disappearance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2019, 10:50 AM
AFP
 
6,898 posts, read 4,242,029 times
Reputation: 5878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
I didn't say that I was "offended". I'm just stating that that's the reason that they no longer exist. The Afro-Argentine women almost exclusively had children with European men. Repeating that for a few generations was enough to erase them from the history of Argentina.

People almost forgot that they existed and are creating wild theories to explain their disappearance.
This happened in the Europe as well in all countries that had a colonial Empire but there were much fewer slaves in Europe. It was normal for the clergy and pillars of the community to own at least one house slave in a few countries starting in the late 1400's and early to mid 1500's they got lighter and lighter. Many were already free in the 1500's and marrying into the lower classes. I've seen records where at ten to twelve generations a slave is recorded as being owned by a particular wealthy family and two hundred and fifty years later their descendants married most likely unaware of this history. There was never a clear separation of the races in Latin America and part of Europe like what most people assume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 12:37 PM
 
24,236 posts, read 17,624,924 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
Again, today there simply are no black people left in most of those countries, so it's not common knowledge.

Those people have literally never seen black people in their countries, so why would you expect a typical person to know that? They also tend to be very uneducated so it's not likely that they would know about little known history from colonial times.
There are small communities of Blacks in Argentina and Mexico and more recent arrivals from Haiti or certain African countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 12:42 PM
 
24,236 posts, read 17,624,924 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
No there wasn't. Typical African Americans are 80% African. That's virtually untouched. AAs are an african isolate group in the United States. And white Americans are purely European.

Legalized racial segregation and anti-miscegenation actually had the affect of preserving the black minority in the United States. Black minorities in Latin America bred themselves out in colonial times. They don't exist anymore. They've become a myth that people doubt ever existed.
No, there are white Americans with African ancestry and there are AAs who are less tha. 50 percent African. The 80 percent is a composite.
Argentina never had large numbers of Blacks like Brazil, Cuba, or other Caribbean nations. Iíve seen people as Black as tar in Colombia. Iíve seen Dominicans as Nlack as tar and they were Dominicans not Haitians. You made ridiculous gross generalizations about Latin America that made it sound like you read encyclopedia britannica. Ditto about your comments about African Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 02:12 PM
 
Location: London, UK
2,876 posts, read 1,551,564 times
Reputation: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
There are people who go to AntŠrtica. Not my cone of tea, but they have every right to go to where they want to.

And itís their money and time.

Yes, you suggested we go there because weíre Black but neither of us were interested.

You can love it all you want. Itís not on the radar of most traveling African Americans and nor will get on the radar of most traveling AAs.

You got defensive because CaribNYbwbd I explained why Black people in general when they travel will not go to the choco. Black people with money to travel generally like to essentially move away from poverty not towards. We have plenty of ghettoes in the US if we want to see impoverished Blacks, so there is no desire en masses to see impoverished Blacks in the jungles of Colombia. African Americans my age generally hate rural areas because their grandparents lived in poverty in farms in the South so if they have money to travel overseas weíd rather do Europe.

Thatís not putting down your decision to buy a house in the Choco at all. I am explaining, as a member of a group why the Choco does not appeal to us as a whole.
Understood. Thank you for the clarification, I see now there was a misunderstanding on my part regarding your reasoning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2019, 02:44 PM
 
2,334 posts, read 950,299 times
Reputation: 1778
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
No, there are white Americans with African ancestry and there are AAs who are less tha. 50 percent African. The 80 percent is a composite.
Pointing out the outliers doesn't make logical sense. The average black american is 80% African. That's not "mixed" by any reasonable stretch of the term. And that's after being surrounded by white people for 400 years. Anti-miscegenation and segregation preserved the black minority in the United States. That's why people are still black in the United States.

By contrast, in Latin America, the culture of "mestizaje" bred most of the historical black populations out and they were absorbed through racial admixture. There are comparatively few identifiable black people left in most Latin American countries compared to the United States.

In Mexico, Argentina, Chile, etc blacks were nearly completely absorbed. In other Latin American countries only small black minorities still exist. This is despite importing a similar number of African slaves that the United States did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2019, 12:18 PM
 
350 posts, read 608,378 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
Most of the black populations in Latin America bred themselves out and disappeared in colonial times through racial admixture. Mexico and Argentina are prime examples.
They are mulatto now. Especially in Brazil, I think people underestimated the number of Brazilians with a least one African ancestor, I think it could be as high as 70 million. This country is so mixed and for so long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2019, 09:41 AM
 
24,236 posts, read 17,624,924 times
Reputation: 9156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone View Post
Pointing out the outliers doesn't make logical sense. The average black american is 80% African. That's not "mixed" by any reasonable stretch of the term. And that's after being surrounded by white people for 400 years. Anti-miscegenation and segregation preserved the black minority in the United States. That's why people are still black in the United States.

By contrast, in Latin America, the culture of "mestizaje" bred most of the historical black populations out and they were absorbed through racial admixture. There are comparatively few identifiable black people left in most Latin American countries compared to the United States.

In Mexico, Argentina, Chile, etc blacks were nearly completely absorbed. In other Latin American countries only small black minorities still exist. This is despite importing a similar number of African slaves that the United States did.
Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico have lots of identifiably Black people.

Mexico never had many Black people to begin with. Argentina never had many Black people to begin with. Chile never had many Black people to begin with.

Brazil and the Caribbean got the most African slaves.

Later on, slaves were sent from the Caribbean to the US.

But back to other parts of Latin America, there are very identifiable Black populations in Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, and other parts of Central America.

Pointing out countries that NEVER had many Black populations to begin with and where people do DNA tests that identify them as 5% Black has NOTHING to do with anything. All it means is that there was never a significant Black population.

You can clearly see significant African ancestry in Brazil. Mixing does not get rid of African features in places where there are substantial populations of Black people (Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela, etc).

Barack Obama had a white mother (President of the US). Halle Berry had a white mother (first black woman to win an AA award).

I know why people like you try to claim Latin America as a racial utopia. These are poor, crime ridden countries with a lack of economic development. Nothing going on at all (and everyone trying to get out) but hey if we can lie and say we're racial utopia we can at least feel good about something).

Argentina, with it's history of horrible dictatorships, disappearances, military oppression, and economic collapse you want to claim was somehow a racial utopia in the past (it was never a major center of African slavery either). Chile, were Pinochet brutally slaughtered his political opponents in the 70s, is somehow a racial utopia?

Oh, both Argentina and Chile now get lots of Haitian and Dominican immigrants. Somehow I suspect these populations will be distinct for sometime........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2019, 09:44 AM
 
2,334 posts, read 950,299 times
Reputation: 1778
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
Mexico never had many Black people to begin with.
False! Mexico received a roughly equivalent number of African slaves that the United States did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2019, 10:17 AM
 
1,097 posts, read 462,442 times
Reputation: 921
If you look at any dna test of Latin Americans, regardless of country, most do have at least a tiny bit of African dna. I live in South Texas and commonly see people that likely have no idea they are part black. If you look at them from the side it is quite obvious. Now, most mexicans down here probably don't look part black, but I bet most of them are if you gave them a dna test. I myself could be .1% or something since I have ancestors from Mexico.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

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
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