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.
I'm a little confused how Mormons and Jews ended up being grouped with Iranians, Nigerians and Indians. Mormons and Jews are on average richer, better educated and more intelligent than the vast majority human beings on the planet. Iran, Nigeria and India are all -- to one degree or another -- completely backwards impoverished nations. All three have powerful fundamentalist elements constantly trying to drag their entire nation back into the Middle Ages.
Bob Beckel obviously stepped in it. We'll see how Fox News damage control handles this.
IMHO those Nigerians and so on who LEFT their countries ain't the "normal" ones who buy into the local BS "culture" at home and those people will do well almost anywhere else.
Too; there's nothing "racist" about this thread since Black, Asian and while people are all being talked about.
I'm a little confused how Mormons and Jews ended up being grouped with Iranians, Nigerians and Indians. Mormons and Jews are on average richer, better educated and more intelligent than the vast majority human beings on the planet. Iran, Nigeria and India are all -- to one degree or another -- completely backwards impoverished nations. All three have powerful fundamentalist elements constantly trying to drag their entire nation back into the Middle Ages.
Bob Beckel obviously stepped in it. We'll see how Fox News damage control handles this.
I'm completely confused........Mormons are not a race, it's a religion How can they be a superior race? Though they do have linage of Ishmael.
Last edited by wildflower82; 01-17-2014 at 07:29 AM..
Oh, I thought this was going to be about Amy Chua...
I haven't read her latest book, but I wonder if her theory that Jews, Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons are superior cultural groups looks into the fact that a lot of those groups(not Mormons obviously) immigrate to the US these days as more educated groups or professional types, so the parents are more likely to promote education and learning for their children than poorer immigrant groups... If you go to India or China or Lebanon or Nigeria you can find all kinds of uneducated and fairly ignorant poor people...
This is exactly what her hypothesis stated. She wasn't talking about natives in their homeland, she was talking about groups that immigrated to the US. While I find it hard to believe, she claimed Nigerians had the highest percentage of PhDs of any immigrant group in the US. I'd love to see that verified somewhere, but it was interesting.
Some cultures are more adaptable to success in America than others. I think for me the key point is that cultures that have not bought in wholesale to the destructive post-60s liberal American culture are doing well. Those that bought into it not so much.
Your premise is faulty. You're looking at things in a very one sided narrow minded myopic tunnel vision view which over looks mutual, intra and interconnected and complex and diverse nuances of culture, history and transmission of ideas and race and time periods and trends and how they vary and the ways in which they can overlap and/or be the same or rather remarkably similar. You also overlook that the region or areas that comprise what is called so called "Latin America" (including Brazil and Haiti) consists of many various nations, which all have different histories and different cultures and even within each nation, it is not a monolith or homogenous and there are many differences within one nation alone even especially when it comes to history and culture.
You have to consider that race in and of itself is a social construct and can also be cultural perceptions that vary over time. Many whites that settled in Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies could have been of any race or had racial "admixtures" depending on what race one deems what.
Many whites did settle Latin American colonies and there were many that mixed as well but there were many that remained pure as well too. In fact many had extramarital affairs or relations. So in many examples you had Europeans that had an illegitimate mixed race child, and on the other hand a pure white child, and also the possibility of having other pure white children.
There were many pure whites that existed and maintained purity since the very earliest of colonial times.
So therefore there are many WHITES descended from the original white colonizers and white settlers of various classes and walks of life. Much of the elites of Latin American nations are descended from such.
This same exact thing did in fact happen in the USA and there was lots of mixing in the colonial USA, pre independence, and post independence. Mixing was and still is the norm in the USA. Also keep in mind that well over more than 3/4 of what is now the USA, was under Spanish, French, and/or Dutch colonial tutelage well into the 1800s so that is something thar you have to consider.
The 13 original colonies region were even French, Spanish, and Dutch colonies well over a century or two before the British settled and thoroughly began to further colonize it more.
Many of the first Africans to come to the US where freemen, not slaves, and there where no miscegenation laws so many mixed with European descent people and people of other racial and ethnic origins. So there was lots of mixing.
For much of USA history there were NO miscegenation laws, especially during the colonial and *antebellum and even postbellum period and areas and so people mixed freely with each other. Many of the Africans that came to the USA were NEVER slaves or enslaved and came to the USA free or as indentured servants but mostly free. Africans that had been baptized before or upon arrival to the New world would be FREE as well as their descendants. Many Irish were brought in as indentured servants and as slaves and so there were many cases of Irish women marrying and/or having children with African men. There are many that are descendants of such. Colonial Virginia is historically known for having lots of mixing. The colonial Southern united states resembles a microcosm of Latin America with interconnected and mutually shared culture. South Carolina had a lot of free and mixed blacks and people of color. Everywhere had mixing.*
In areas like Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida etc, there was lots of mixing. These regions were hybrid Spanish and French colonies since the 1500s.
In the USA, there were many black women that married and/or had children with WHITE men and also of white women having children with BLACK men.*
And much of the racial mixing was/is consensual.
And in cases when any raping occurred or has occurred it has happened and gone in both directions and combos and angles as and in regards to race and racial groups and race/racial mixing.
Most whites were not slave owners. In fact, many slave owners were biracial/multiracial. A slave owner often had more black ancestry than their slave often.
A mixed person that had white appearance was considered white. Race was based on appearance. So there were many mixed people embraced and accepted as WHITE by the white community and openly known to have black and other ancestries in them.
In addition many triracial isolates groups existed such as the Melungeons, Redbones, Lumbees, Brass Ankles, Jackson Whites etc. All of these groups lived as white or as mixed race and isolated often. Many famous people and elites are descended from these peoples and others. The Kennedys are descended from or admixed with Melungeons.
Heather Locklear is of Lumbee descent.
Johnny Depp has notable black African and Native American ancestry.
The USA is in fact very racially mixed. What do you define as mixed? What is your perception of such? Is there a percentage cut off or certain proportion one must have to be considered mixed?
Also identity and determining what group is more mixed than who or what can be moot in point or intentions because it all comes down to how the person identified in relation to determining how mixed one is in relation to others. Lol.
At the end of the day, most U.S. Americans can't claim to be pure anything.
Slavery in the USA was also color blind and based on partus sequitur ventrem.
The colonial set up and patterning of the 13 original colonies and the USA was modeled after Roman and Latin laws and even Greek/Grecian laws and and doctrine and input and the set up and methods of British often challenged or went against their own traditional ideas mostly or often eventually modeled their colonies after the Spanish, French, and Portuguese, and the Arabs as well as the racial terms and enslavement methods etc and many colonial powers worked in collusion with each other even when and while competing with and/or against each other. Arabs are the real culprits as they began slave trading of Africans since ancient times and this is what led to the Europeans taking part, although all groups of people were involved in slavery and slave trading. Arabs had mostly black slaves and mixed slaves but there were also white slaves too and the racist and colorist distinctions of white and black and light vs dark and good vs bad/evil etc.*
And btw, more than 1/3 of WHITE U.S. Americans have detectable notable genetic black African ancestry, and that doesn't even include the Native American ancestry and other races that many WHITE identified people are (ad)mixed with.
The whole "two largest minorities" sociopolitical semantics is tricky and complex at best. Hispanic is NOT a race. Hispanics can be of any race or race admixtures.*
NOT ALL black people in the USA are descendants of or are members of the ETHNIC GROUPING of people that our society currently refers to as and by the (misnomered) term of African American (AA). Many blacks and people of African descent from Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and elsewhere have migrated to the USA, and been falsely labelled as or categorized as African American or as part of that fold. These people are NOT African American.
In addition AA and black do NOT mean the same thing.
AAs are an ETHNIC group comprised of mostly multiracially mixed race peoples. AAs can be of any race. Black is more so a sociopolitical term that corresponds to an ethnic like usage in it's semantics. A person is either a member of an ethnicity/ethnic group or NOT. So therefore, one's ethnicity can not be diluted or broken down into fractions. A person never loses membership from an/their ethnic group or ethnicity. You can belong to more than one ethnicity or ethnic group. A person's race or racial admixtures can be broken down into factions or or degrees. So technically most AAs are NOT racially black people. They are all mostly mixed race. Some AAs are racially black, but they make up a minority of the AA ethnic community. And in some cases AAs are and can be white. In fact about 5% of AAs have been found to have absolutely little or NO African ancestry at all. That's because being AA is about a shared experience, having gone through surviving chattel slavery, and surviving Jim Crow and later on the imposition of racist segrationist one droppism and of course the positive uplifting and unifying Civil Rights movement, and thus a unique AA experience.
Again, varies by region, time period, etc. for example, only 100 years ago, in Ohio, Obama would have been seen as White man. They even put it in their code of law. That is what happened in Puerto Rico as well where more than half the population identifies as White even though the African ancestry in many is obvious. Again. experiences vary by region and blanket statements tend to be innacurate as they hold up in some cases and not in others.
The one drop rule was only legally enforced between 1931 and 1967 in some southern states and that was it and even then each court and jurisdiction varied on blood quantrums and how strict it was enforced and depending on the judge.
One group’s perception of what is “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed” whatever might not be anothers. In one culture you might be seen as Black, in another you wouldn’t. The Masses vary by region
Ultimately, the dichotomy of Black and White introduced in Jim Crow (believe it or not, one droppism and what not was not a part of slavery) has caused a lot of these antagonisms. Forcing people to pick sides.
Yep, no reading comprehension. I told you you had a choice, but that African American choice was influenced by what its cultural parameters for Black are. Jim Crow created a much larger community that identifies as Black as it fused in mixed groups as well. So your choice is still affected by what you see growing up. And again, it is not just you the individual, it is about general trends.
And based on studies etc and some of what you mentioned it's fair to say that more than 60% of people living in the USA has black African ancestry in varying degrees. And that doesn't even account for the Native American ancestry that many have and other racial ancestries one has.
I am confused as to why you chose my post to make this treatise? Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post? I don't know if you proposed to "school" me on things, but you would be best served to realize that I am CONSTANTLY making the argument that race is a social construct, and that terms like 'Hispanic' do not denote a race at all.
Let's break down my post that you responded to:
1) Natives weren't mostly killed by war, but rather disease. This is not disputed, nor touched upon in your post.
2) The Portuguese and Spanish did NOT Have the same settlement patterns and routine of bringing their women with them that the English did. Obviously, some did, but the settlement pattern was different, resulting in more mixing south of the border than north. You offer no counter-evidence that this was not a key factor in why populations south are more mixed than north. The Spanish, btw, had a ridiculous and convulted classification and social hierarchy system based on the color/race of your mother or father.
3) Whether success of culture is from the home country, America, or a combination of the two. You're post pretty much ignores that issue. Again, leading me to believe you are either projecting, or your own post is misplaced and not appropriate for this thread.
It may actually do you better to re-read the post I was responding to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bettafish
Americans killed almost all native people, but Spaniards married natives. That's why America is a western country but Latin American countries are not.
In south Africa, they didn't kill either. In Australia, they did.
There's a reason why the Spanish and Portuguese in-married more.
Finally, the "studies" showing 30% African contribution are outdated.
You may want to brush up on the current figures, advanced by Gates and verified by many self-reporting sites that study ancestry, where the figure of % of "American" white people having African contribution to be more about 5%.
And what about the percentages of "black" or sub-Saharan ancestry in the white American community? That will be the subject of another column. But suffice it to say here that, according to Mountain, "The bottom line is that 3 percent to 4 percent of people likely to consider themselves as all 'white' have some African ancestry -- between 0.5 percent and 5 percent."
Also, the amount of Native American contribution to both American "black" and "white" populations is VERY overstated, as genetic testing has revealed. Probably chalked up to whites not wanting those dark features to have come from a black ancestor, and vice versa blacks not wanting to admit that straight hair comes from white ancestors.
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.
How can they be a superior race? Though they do have linage of Ishmael.
