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.
You're over simplifying Latin American race relations. The fact is, what happened in Brazil is not what happened in many other countries, and each country's experience must be considered individually. In Mexico, a strict race based caste system was created during the early period that endured and influenced ideas about race to this day. There is still a stigma about being indigenous in Mexico and people much prefer to identify as Spanish, even when they are mixed. A major reason for mixing in many areas was simply the large populations that existed when the Europeans arrived. Mesoamerican and South American civilizations were agrarian and complex, leading to large numbers of people, while population numbers and densities in many areas of North America were less. All peoples were affected by smallpox, but some had higher initial numbers and more people survived. It should be noted, in almost all early settlements by Europeans in North America there was considerable mixing with Native Women, but as Europeans continued to flow in their influence on the culture and genetics was overwhelmed.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM
You're over simplifying Latin American race relations. The fact is, what happened in Brazil is not what happened in many other countries, and each country's experience must be considered individually. In Mexico, a strict race based caste system was created during the early period that endured and influenced ideas about race to this day. There is still a stigma about being indigenous in Mexico and people much prefer to identify as Spanish, even when they are mixed. A major reason for mixing in many areas was simply the large populations that existed when the Europeans arrived. Mesoamerican and South American civilizations were agrarian and complex, leading to large numbers of people, while population numbers and densities in many areas of North America were less. All peoples were affected by smallpox, but some had higher initial numbers and more people survived. It should be noted, in almost all early settlements by Europeans in North America there was considerable mixing with Native Women, but as Europeans continued to flow in their influence on the culture and genetics was overwhelmed.
Good summation...yes I know Brazil is an exception but I shouldn't have used it as an example.
Your last point is correct. In the US, however, women, children.etc arrived with the men from day dot.
Yep. Brazil is an interesting case. So is a lot of the Caribbean. Basically, after reading some of the history of the country and the region, the Spaniards and Portuguese came and raped a whole bunch of women. Over centuries. Repeatedly.
Then came the slaves. Brazil was such a huge country with a huge forested area that escaped slaves would run away and find settlements of other escaped slaves, pirates, drifters, etc. This included enslaved Europeans, blacks from Africa, and natives.
These towns were known to produce tough villagers who could defend themselves viciously and stand up to much more well equipped soldiers. That sort of mystique surrounded these villages and the concept of intermixed marriages didn't really make as big a taboo subject.
However this is just broad strokes. Throughout Latin America, in many countries and even in Brazil, you have communities that keep themselves separate. Further, in many cases, it was the white descendants that kept a lot of the power to this day.
Though I do agree in general these days it is a lot more about social class than race.
Sociologists and anthropologists talk about two kinds of colonies:
- Colony of settlement
- Colony of exploitation
In a "colony of settlement", entire families (including women), come from the colonizer country.
In a "colony of exploitation", it's less usual the arrival of families, and it's much more usual the arrival of "adventurers" who are usually single man. The number of women that come from the colonizer country is much smaller than in a colony of settlement. And that large number of single men tend to take native women as spouses.
Almost all countries in Latin America were colonies of exploitation, unlike the USA and Canada, that were mostly colonies of settlement.
Argentina is an example more like the US or Australia, as a colony of settlement.
Most Argentines are either descended from the colonial settlers as well as non-Iberian European immigrants from the 1800s and 1900s, and consider themselves to a certain extent to be an "immigrant nation", don't they?
Geography also played a role in which areas became settler colonies (where men brought their wives and families). Some places were not as good a place to settle directly from the colonist's point of view, such as the humid tropical lowlands in central America or Brazil, which may not be as suitable for Old World European-style farming, and also had many dangerous tropical diseases -- slaves and plantations were used instead "on the ground".
As well, not just the actions of the colonists but the native population itself made a difference. The Andes and central America have more indigenous in their population in part because they had a history of settled empires and cities to an extent (like the Incas, Mesoamericans etc.). Settled agriculturalists have higher population densities than nomads/fishers/hunter-gatherers to begin with, and were also easier to "dislodge" and drive off their land and wiped out (eg. what happened in the US, Canada, Australia etc).
Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay had more of the "settler" pattern in part because of lower numbers of natives and climate/geography again, more like the Anglo colonies than the other ones.
You're over simplifying Latin American race relations. The fact is, what happened in Brazil is not what happened in many other countries, and each country's experience must be considered individually. In Mexico, a strict race based caste system was created during the early period that endured and influenced ideas about race to this day. There is still a stigma about being indigenous in Mexico and people much prefer to identify as Spanish, even when they are mixed. A major reason for mixing in many areas was simply the large populations that existed when the Europeans arrived. Mesoamerican and South American civilizations were agrarian and complex, leading to large numbers of people, while population numbers and densities in many areas of North America were less. All peoples were affected by smallpox, but some had higher initial numbers and more people survived. It should be noted, in almost all early settlements by Europeans in North America there was considerable mixing with Native Women, but as Europeans continued to flow in their influence on the culture and genetics was overwhelmed.
With regard to why the Spanish Americans classified mixed-race people into many social stratifications/castes with various degrees and labels (instead of a one-drop rule idea the US took), it's been chalked up by some historians to the idea of an re-application and extension/manifestation of the idea of Limpieza_de_sangre to the New World. Originally the concept distinguished the Iberians who thought of themselves as descendents as of the older Christians originally living there, opposed to descendents of Jews or Muslim Moors who converted to Christianity.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbler.
Argentina is an example more like the US or Australia, as a colony of settlement.
Most Argentines are either descended from the colonial settlers as well as non-Iberian European immigrants from the 1800s and 1900s, and consider themselves to a certain extent to be an "immigrant nation", don't they?
Geography also played a role in which areas became settler colonies (where men brought their wives and families). Some places were not as good a place to settle directly from the colonist's point of view, such as the humid tropical lowlands in central America or Brazil, which may not be as suitable for Old World European-style farming, and also had many dangerous tropical diseases -- slaves and plantations were used instead "on the ground".
As well, not just the actions of the colonists but the native population itself made a difference. The Andes and central America have more indigenous in their population in part because they had a history of settled empires and cities to an extent (like the Incas, Mesoamericans etc.). Settled agriculturalists have higher population densities than nomads/fishers/hunter-gatherers to begin with, and were also easier to "dislodge" and drive off their land and wiped out (eg. what happened in the US, Canada, Australia etc).
Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay had more of the "settler" pattern in part because of lower numbers of natives and climate/geography again, more like the Anglo colonies than the other ones.
Yes the original Inca civilization was largely in the Andes region, interestingly enough (contrasting with the typical pattern where civilizations establish in low-lying river plains) so the indigenous population densities in the more rugged western part of South America was higher. Brazil's history, as others have said, is again different.
The trend to establish civilizations in the highlands (whether Central or South America) continues to this day. Many major cities are located in the mountains or at high altitude.
By the way Trimac, have you read the book Guns, Germs and Steel (was a quite popular non-fiction book for a while)? It deals with how geographical factors shaped the history of civilization.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,037,872 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumbler.
By the way Trimac, have you read the book Guns, Germs and Steel (was a quite popular non-fiction book for a while)? It deals with how geographical factors shaped the history of civilization.
I've heard of it but haven't read it. Sounds fascinating. I'll try to read it as soon as possible, or download it to my kindle.
When Brazil was colony of Portugal, few Portuguese immigrated to Brazil, most of them males, so they came alone and had to mix with slaves and indigenous women… After the independence of Brazil much Italian and Germans families immigrated to Brazil, most of them live in south of Brazil and they normally don’t mix with others races.
By the way Trimac, have you read the book Guns, Germs and Steel (was a quite popular non-fiction book for a while)? It deals with how geographical factors shaped the history of civilization.
I have read that book.
It's a VERY, VERY GOOD book! I highly recommend to everyone that read that book, as well as another book of Jared Diamond named "Collapse".
Some people say that Jared Diamond is too much physical-geograph-determinist, but I disagree. He has very good ideas. And I think that Physical Geograph had an important role in the human History...
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.
