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.
Argentina was very proactive in "whitening" their demographics by heavily promoting European immigration and by other means (including genocide). The Dominican Republic tried to do the same under the regime of Trujillo. But the legacy of Afro-Argentines lives on in MANY of it's citizens and in the country's tango culture which was born out of the communities of Afro-Argentines.
There are millions of Afro-Argentines still today and most of them are descendants of the black African slaves brought to Argentina. Many are mixed and in addition many others are also silenced or their existence is swept and kept under the rug and not promoted. A lot of it is paper genocide. Think about it, it's all political semantics. If it was promoted and acknowledged and documented many would not be drowned in ignorance.
Brazil has more "blacks" than the United States. Actually, Brazil has the largest population of people of African descent outside of the continent of Africa. So, comparatively, does that mean the black population of the United States insignificant due to being a smaller percentage of the population?
Brazil's black population is only about 6%. If you are speaking of Afrodescendants in Brazil that's a different story. Brazil has the largest population of people of Afrodescent outside of Africa (NIGERIA to be exact).
Because people (like you) for some (very odd) reason love to perpetuate the "YOU'RE BLACK! YOU HAVE AFRICAN ROOTS!" garbage...it means nothing.
You aren't arguing geography when you say "African"..You are implying two things.
1 -skin color
And
2 - culture
And when it comes to those...they are not mutually inclusive when speaking of "Africans". Even if you want to address the racial complexes within hispanic cultures...there are many Africans who would never assimilate to the culture of American blacks. So does that count for anything?
Dominicans having African lineage still doesn't do a single thing to help Jakiyah McKoys case. And the whole argument you build is just trying to group anybody with a dash of brown into your personal, bitter agenda.
How do you even know that Jakiyah is even of any traditional colonial U.S. American black descent anyways, hmm? That's the caveat right there.
Race in Latin America is very fluid. People who are considered black here may not be in Latin America. Indeed, many Mexicans consider themselves white, even though they would not be considered white here. This is nothing new - extensive articles have been written about it.
Latin American people and their descendants usually have an escape hatch and can cling to the Hispanic and Latino labels without having to declare themselves as black or white or whatever etc. For example, why do people argue over Halle Berry's race or lump her into black identity but then turn around and look dumbfounded and shocked if Rosie Perez is assumed or thought to be black?
Latinos are exempt from the racist one drop rule while those of a mixed parentage whose races are tied to NON Hispanic/Latino-ness are often rakishly one dropped.
I already explained to you how La Raza discriminates against non-Hispanic Americans. Vying for amnesty because most of these illegals are Hispanic is racist. If they gave a damn about them then they wouldn't be advocating for amnesty with 23 million Americans out of work. Truth is paranoia? I didn't say the quote was publicly endorsed by them but that is basically what La Raza stands for.
Again, what is an undocumented immigrant? Illegals aliens have no rights in this country. Just how humane are they to break our immigration laws, steal jobs from Americans, reduce their wages and rape our tax coffers? Oh, I guess that's not inhumane though, right? La Raza isn't advocating for humane treatment of them they want amnesty for them. They aren't being treated inhumanely in the first place! No, its an ethnocentric, racist effort on their part plain and simple.
I have no further need to read or reply to your posts. Those ethnocentrics who put illegal aliens above our own citizens while playing the victim and race card for illegals make me sick. They need to look in the mirror for the true racism. Bye.
I've always been curious, where was La Raza during the whole Trayvon Martin controversy? Latinos should not be left off the hook or allowed to always ride the fence on controversial race matters. Latinos can be the perpetrators and/or victims depending on context and which side of the coin.
The whole Reconquista movement is racist and ethnocentrist bull****! Reclaiming lands of the USA because it was part of Spain is also linked directly to white supremacy and such factors and factions that preceded it in the first place.
How do you even know that Jakiyah is even of any traditional colonial U.S. American black descent anyways, hmm? That's the caveat right there.
Well if you read through the thread...I will ask the question a third (maybe fourth) time.
If you want to give a pass on ambiguity...
What is stopping anybody from any culture, walk of life, origin, skin color etc. etc. from entering any ethnic/cultural contest off nothing but face value claims??
PLEASE SOMEBODY ANSWER THIS QUESTION!
If you want to say that cultural/ethnic pageants are stupid...fine, SAY THAT. But that doesn't add any credibility to Jakiah McKoys mothers claims now does it?
Actually it was white folks who created the "One Drop Rule"...and tolerance did not factor into the equation. It was created (in practice) during slavery in the US to make certain that ALL of the children that 'massa' fathered would have the status of the (slave) mother and would therefore be his "property" no matter how white the children looked. It continued to be perpetuated (in law) in the early 1900s by, again, whites who were seeking to maintain their 'purity'.
What you posted here is completely false. Slavery had nothing to do with race. Slavery was MATRILINEAL. This was based on the sexist mysoginistic rule of matriliny or rather the rule of PARTUS SEQUITUR VENENTRUM. That means that you were only allowed to be a slave or be a potential target or candidate for enslavement if your MOTHER was a slave. There were slaves of ALL races, including large numbers of WHITE slaves. It was illegal to have race based slavery or to enslave someone for because of their race. Such was punishable and one would receive notable severe consequences for such. Also colonial documents don't even refer to a blacks as slaves or vice versa or that such is equivalent to such. During slavery, a person's race wad determined based on what they looked like. So if a person was mixed race during the colonial period but looked white they most often times would be considered WHITE. If they looked very mixed or identified as such they'd be labelled as mixed etc.
Not all race mixing was from rape. There were lots of complex arrangements and circumstances, unions and relationships that occurred between people of different races. In fact many WHITE woman even had children with BLACK men.*
If during the early colonial antebellum era, they had enslaved people based on their race the WHITE fathers would have been held more responsible or been and acknowledged and possibly chastised. Under partus SEQUITUR ventrum support could be provided behind the scenes and under hush hush agreements, with sole focus and onus, focus, and blame being put on and centered on and around the woman.*
Btw, there were masters, "massas", slave traders, captors, colonists, settlers etc of all races and race mixtures. There were also enslaved peoples of all races and racial admixtures and mixes.
As for the one drop rule no such thing existed during the antebellum colonial era or during slavery. One drop rule was a legal rule instituted on the books and in practice beginning in the 1930s. Mulatto and various other mixed race identities were recognized in the USA and on the censuses for virtually all of USA history. 1930 was the last year that mulatto and mixed race identity was legally recognized. After 1930 many ppl that identified as or were usually listed as mulatto or other or mixed had to get used to the risk of being possible mistaken for or listed as Negro or black etc. Many still weren't used to it and many still identified as mixed even during the one drop rule period. In some aspects it was also some black and mixed race black individuals that helped to support and boast/bolster the racist one drop rule, and many sectors of white and mixed race white elites didn't want a one drop rule, however some people of African descent grew arrogantly proud of their ethnic African American identity so they one dropped themselves and others. But this was only a tiny minority of ppl of color that advocated onr droppism. Most people were anti one droppist. One drop rule was put in place because of white supremacy and economic and social CLASS distinction and protection and to increase further division and create further competition. The one drop rule was a legal rule that sought to target people of mixed ancestry, and those whose ancestry was questionable. There was also a racist one drop rule that was applied to target Native Americans although it was not as severe as the hypodescent one drop rule method that was used to target blacks.*
In states like Oklahoma and Ohio legally someone like Obama would have been considered a WHITE man.
One drop rule was only implemented from 1930 to 1967. The successful 1967 Sulreme Court Case ruling of Loving V. Virginia helped eradicate and dismantle the racist one drop rule. In 1967 mixed race and multiracial identity and conciousness was further restored in the USA.
So mixed race identity faced paper genocide because of the implementing of the one drop rule in the South from 1930 to 1967. It did a lot of damage. Had there not been a one drop rule the USA probably would not have the racial controversies and hang ups in the manner that still seems to permeate USA society.
Last edited by MelismaticEchoes; 10-26-2013 at 03:44 AM..
Well if you read through the thread...I will ask the question a third (maybe fourth) time.
If you want to give a pass on ambiguity...
What is stopping anybody from any culture, walk of life, origin, skin color etc. etc. from entering any ethnic/cultural contest off nothing but face value claims??
PLEASE SOMEBODY ANSWER THIS QUESTION!
If you want to say that cultural/ethnic pageants are stupid...fine, SAY THAT. But that doesn't add any credibility to Jakiah McKoys mothers claims now does it?
Uh ok and your point? You also answered your own question. She'll have to find proof if that's what's up for question.
But you didn't answer MY question though. You applied stereotypes that you claim to be against or call out others for supporting. For example, you called her a "Grimey black American" which was uncalled for and not necessary.
I'm not disputing with you on the question of her proving her 1/4 Hispanic requirement proof. I'm simply questioning what you mentioned in regards to your contention with black Americams vs black or Afrodescent peoples of NON AA descent backgrounds.
And so again, you sought to divide or rather distinguish how black Americans of traditional colonial USA descent are different from more recent black diasporic immigrants and groups coming to the USA and non AA blacks in general and how they don't want to associate with or be confused as or lumped with or taken for being black American which is somewhat understandable but at the same time questionable.
Now with all that said, how do you been know that Jakiyah is of ANY colonial black Americam descent at all? Her NON Dominican Republic 3/4 worth of grandparents lineages etc could be from West Indian islands and nations and regions outside of PR, Cuba, DR pr could been be more directly from some African nations or who knows what else. All I'm doing is just pointing out the potential overlooked caveats. That's all
I think the difference is while a very Black look or a very White look is relatively uncommon in Latin America in general, the White European look is celebrated and overrepresented in the ruling class, and the Black African look is denigrated and overrepresented among the very poor.
White Latin American looks are not uncommon. It's no different than the USA. Each nation has all races and groups.
Some for black Latin American looks.
Ppl are just ignorant and it's funny how Latin Americans come to the USA and act all oblivious like there are no whites or blacks in Latin American countries! Blah lol
Uh ok and your point? You also answered your own question. She'll have to find proof if that's what's up for question.
But you didn't answer MY question though. You applied stereotypes that you claim to be against or call out others for supporting. For example, you called her a "Grimey black American" which was uncalled for and not necessary.
I'm not disputing with you on the question of her proving her 1/4 Hispanic requirement proof. I'm simply questioning what you mentioned in regards to your contention with black Americams vs black or Afrodescent peoples of NON AA descent backgrounds.
And so again, you sought to divide or rather distinguish how black Americans of traditional colonial USA descent are different from more recent black diasporic immigrants and groups coming to the USA and non AA blacks in general and how they don't want to associate with or be confused as or lumped with or taken for being black American which is somewhat understandable but at the same time questionable.
Now with all that said, how do you been know that Jakiyah is of ANY colonial black Americam descent at all? Her NON Dominican Republic 3/4 worth of grandparents lineages etc could be from West Indian islands and nations and regions outside of PR, Cuba, DR pr could been be more directly from some African nations or who knows what else. All I'm doing is just pointing out the potential overlooked caveats. That's all
I'm not seeking to divide..the concept of a LATINA Beauty Pageant is divisive in and of itself. Again, if you have an issue with the concept then that is fine and a much more principled argument than what the OP is spouting off about.
Overlooking potential caveats is one thing...but we can only scrutinize the CLAIMS MADE by the entrant. We can also scrutinize the promoters of the event for accepting their entry fee before throwing up red flags about her criteria.
But, if we go by face value here (which the OP and others are doing for Ms.Jakiyah McKoy)...the other entrants questioned McKoys credibility due to events that materialized AFTER THE FACT. So, why do these people not get the benefit of the doubt like Jakiyahs mother?
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.
