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.
Disagree because that would create difficulty in calculating the entire Caribbean community. I agree with the general box or the option under the African and Asian groups etc. for those originating in the Caribbean. Hindus are a religion. Not all Indo-Caribbean people are Hindu
The African-American or black option does need to be expanded in general...at least to a write in box.
Brazilians fall under Latino.
Brazilians are NOT included in the Latino or Hispanic categories for the USA Censuses. Hispanic/Latino is a designation used and allocated SPECIFICALLY for Spanish speaking groups.
A Caribbean box will most likely get added for the 2020 census box categories. We have to just keep on pushing for it until lobbying and getting Congress to recognize it. The more persistent and vocally demanding, the more pressure and more respect we will all get in being recognized.
Brazilians are NOT included in the Latino or Hispanic categories for the USA Censuses. Hispanic/Latino is a designation used and allocated SPECIFICALLY for Spanish speaking groups.
A Caribbean box will most likely get added for the 2020 census box categories. We have to just keep on pushing for it until lobbying and getting Congress to recognize it. The more persistent and vocally demanding, the more pressure and more respect we will all get in being recognized.
It is interesting that Brazilians are not included as Latinos because they are Portuguese-speakers. But my post didn't state anything about Brazilians being Hispanic though, because of course, they are not. That Hispanic vs. Latino issue reminds me of the Caribbean vs. West Indian issue. LOL.
The bold is the issue for the Caribbean community. Caribbean people tend to keep to ourselves in certain ways and just go with the flow. Some people are so focused on "going back home" that they are not as interested in establishing a stronger community here among other issues. Hopefully, there are enough of us who are interested and persistent enough to make it happen.
That's due to most black Panamanians and Costa Ricans descend from Jamaicans and other blacks from the British West Indies. Also blacks from Nicaragua and Honduras have ties to the British West Indies too. What today is known as Costa Rica and Panama was never a massive slave region for the Spanish. Only Mexico (although much of that population has been absorbed), Cuba, Venezuela, and Colombia were major slave owning areas in the Spanish empire.
In the rest of the Spanish Caribbean (Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic) were among the areas that received the least amount of African slaves due to the extreme poverty of these places during colonial times.
In general, the Spanish didn't had much need to import African slaves, especially when its compared to the British and the French.
Where did you hear that most black Panamanians and black Coasta Ricans and black Central Americans being descended from British West Indian blacks? I'm curious to where you got such info from because it's a flat out lie and a myth. Central American nations and regions had plenty of massive significant numbers of African slaves. The descendants of colonial era Spanish speaking enslaved blacks still exist in these countries, and they are culturally different from English speaking black West Indians. Also there were large numbers of escaped slaves in Spanish Central American regions. In fact the first free community of escaped slaves was established in Pacora, Panama which still exists today in Panama City, and their descendants still live there. It was recognized as a free community for escaped black slaves in 1581/1582.
Yes, but the fact that until recent times, blacks were never quite numerous in any of the Central American countries and even in Puerto Rico and in the Dominican Republic, points to very low numbers of African slaves introduced to these places.
In the case of Panama, almost all of its black population was acquired to construct the Panama Canal and these were imported by Americans as free laborers mostly from Jamaica. Had that never happened, Panama wouldn't even have blacks right now and hardly any mixed black/white people.
In the case of the Dominican Republic, there are historical accounts written by American inspectors that arrived in the 1870s in attempt to drawn up a description of what the land and the people were like. In that time, the US was interested in annexing the Dominican Republic and the bulk of the population was described as mixed, but more to the white side, which is obviously not the case today. They are still mixed, but I wouldn't say the average Dominican is closer to the white side. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the sugar plantations that today covers the eastern Dominican Republic were established mostly by American companies and they imported many blacks from the British Caribbean and in the process darkening the population base as people continue to mix. Also large numbers of Haitians have moved to the Dominican Republic starting in the 1980s/90s, changing and continuing to change the racial composition of the average person seen on Dominican streets. Dominican historians have been aware that for practically the entire colonial period and for many decades after independence the average Dominican was much more light skinned and European looking than today, despite being racially mixed. With time, the racially mixed sector darkened as more blacks were added to the gene pool and their blood spread through Dominican society, keeping the mixed character of the people, but now its more of a black-mulatto mixed rather than a white-mulatto, for the most part, judging by appearances.
My basic point is that except for the lowlands of Colombia and Venezuela, central Cuba, along the pacific coast of South America from Ecuador to Peru; in most other places of the former Spanish Empire where there are sizable number of blacks, its mostly due to relatively recent migration patterns of free black men and not necessarily due to the flows of African slaves in colonial times.
In Mexico, which received a large amount of African slaves, most of the blacks mixed with the indigenous and mestizo population and today the African blood is highly diluted.
In places like Uruguay and Argentina, where very few Africans were imported, after the massive migration of Europeans in the late 1800s and until the 1950s/60s, the small number of blacks were mainly absorbed with the few Afro-descended people there being mulattoes at various degrees of mixture and African immigrants and black immigrants from other parts of Latin America.
This contrasts sharply with most of the British and French colonies where slaves were introduced. To this very day, most of the population in these places are black (except in the US, but in the former slave-owning areas of the Southeast, there are significant numbers of blacks and even counties where blacks are a majority) and trace their heritage to the slave trade to the very islands in which they now live. Also, since the French and the British didn't quite mix with blacks as much as the Spanish did, this helped maintain an almost intact large segment of blacks within each society. In the Spanish areas, except for the relatively recent arrivals of blacks, the ex-slaves mixed with the non-slave population and given that everyone else was lighter skin, a lightening process followed.
You're claims and statements regarding Panama are inaccurate.
The blacks shown in this video are descendants of blacks that have been living in Panama since the early 1500s. They are Roman Catholics and monolingual Spanish speakers and have Spanish names. See in this video:
Yes, but the fact that until recent times, blacks were never quite numerous in any of the Central American countries and even in Puerto Rico and in the Dominican Republic, points to very low numbers of African slaves introduced to these places.
In the case of Panama, almost all of its black population was acquired to construct the Panama Canal and these were imported by Americans as free laborers mostly from Jamaica. Had that never happened, Panama wouldn't even have blacks right now and hardly any mixed black/white people.
In the case of the Dominican Republic, there are historical accounts written by American inspectors that arrived in the 1870s in attempt to drawn up a description of what the land and the people were like. In that time, the US was interested in annexing the Dominican Republic and the bulk of the population was described as mixed, but more to the white side, which is obviously not the case today. They are still mixed, but I wouldn't say the average Dominican is closer to the white side. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the sugar plantations that today covers the eastern Dominican Republic were established mostly by American companies and they imported many blacks from the British Caribbean and in the process darkening the population base as people continue to mix. Also large numbers of Haitians have moved to the Dominican Republic starting in the 1980s/90s, changing and continuing to change the racial composition of the average person seen on Dominican streets. Dominican historians have been aware that for practically the entire colonial period and for many decades after independence the average Dominican was much more light skinned and European looking than today, despite being racially mixed. With time, the racially mixed sector darkened as more blacks were added to the gene pool and their blood spread through Dominican society, keeping the mixed character of the people, but now its more of a black-mulatto mixed rather than a white-mulatto, for the most part, judging by appearances.
My basic point is that except for the lowlands of Colombia and Venezuela, central Cuba, along the pacific coast of South America from Ecuador to Peru; in most other places of the former Spanish Empire where there are sizable number of blacks, its mostly due to relatively recent migration patterns of free black men and not necessarily due to the flows of African slaves in colonial times.
In Mexico, which received a large amount of African slaves, most of the blacks mixed with the indigenous and mestizo population and today the African blood is highly diluted.
In places like Uruguay and Argentina, where very few Africans were imported, after the massive migration of Europeans in the late 1800s and until the 1950s/60s, the small number of blacks were mainly absorbed with the few Afro-descended people there being mulattoes at various degrees of mixture and African immigrants and black immigrants from other parts of Latin America.
This contrasts sharply with most of the British and French colonies where slaves were introduced. To this very day, most of the population in these places are black (except in the US, but in the former slave-owning areas of the Southeast, there are significant numbers of blacks and even counties where blacks are a majority) and trace their heritage to the slave trade to the very islands in which they now live. Also, since the French and the British didn't quite mix with blacks as much as the Spanish did, this helped maintain an almost intact large segment of blacks within each society. In the Spanish areas, except for the relatively recent arrivals of blacks, the ex-slaves mixed with the non-slave population and given that everyone else was lighter skin, a lightening process followed.
Here is a video on the communities of Isla Saboga which is one of the islands of the Pearl Islands Archipielago located in the pacific side of the isthmus. The Pearl Islands are inhabited entirely by blacks. The blacks of the Pearl Islands descend from blacks that were born and raised in Spain, that were conquistadores and/or servants or indentured servants as well as slaves. Many slaves escaped and settled on Isla Del Rey (also known as Isla San Miguel, which is the capital city of Isla del Rey.)
Many people died digging for pearls and drowning in the waters, or were even eaten alive by sharks and some even comitted suicide to escape the brutal colonialist regime of serving their Spanish masters and owners.
But see this video of a community telling their story of life on Isla Saboga:
Yes, but the fact that until recent times, blacks were never quite numerous in any of the Central American countries and even in Puerto Rico and in the Dominican Republic, points to very low numbers of African slaves introduced to these places.
In the case of Panama, almost all of its black population was acquired to construct the Panama Canal and these were imported by Americans as free laborers mostly from Jamaica. Had that never happened, Panama wouldn't even have blacks right now and hardly any mixed black/white people.
In the case of the Dominican Republic, there are historical accounts written by American inspectors that arrived in the 1870s in attempt to drawn up a description of what the land and the people were like. In that time, the US was interested in annexing the Dominican Republic and the bulk of the population was described as mixed, but more to the white side, which is obviously not the case today. They are still mixed, but I wouldn't say the average Dominican is closer to the white side. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, the sugar plantations that today covers the eastern Dominican Republic were established mostly by American companies and they imported many blacks from the British Caribbean and in the process darkening the population base as people continue to mix. Also large numbers of Haitians have moved to the Dominican Republic starting in the 1980s/90s, changing and continuing to change the racial composition of the average person seen on Dominican streets. Dominican historians have been aware that for practically the entire colonial period and for many decades after independence the average Dominican was much more light skinned and European looking than today, despite being racially mixed. With time, the racially mixed sector darkened as more blacks were added to the gene pool and their blood spread through Dominican society, keeping the mixed character of the people, but now its more of a black-mulatto mixed rather than a white-mulatto, for the most part, judging by appearances.
My basic point is that except for the lowlands of Colombia and Venezuela, central Cuba, along the pacific coast of South America from Ecuador to Peru; in most other places of the former Spanish Empire where there are sizable number of blacks, its mostly due to relatively recent migration patterns of free black men and not necessarily due to the flows of African slaves in colonial times.
In Mexico, which received a large amount of African slaves, most of the blacks mixed with the indigenous and mestizo population and today the African blood is highly diluted.
In places like Uruguay and Argentina, where very few Africans were imported, after the massive migration of Europeans in the late 1800s and until the 1950s/60s, the small number of blacks were mainly absorbed with the few Afro-descended people there being mulattoes at various degrees of mixture and African immigrants and black immigrants from other parts of Latin America.
This contrasts sharply with most of the British and French colonies where slaves were introduced. To this very day, most of the population in these places are black (except in the US, but in the former slave-owning areas of the Southeast, there are significant numbers of blacks and even counties where blacks are a majority) and trace their heritage to the slave trade to the very islands in which they now live. Also, since the French and the British didn't quite mix with blacks as much as the Spanish did, this helped maintain an almost intact large segment of blacks within each society. In the Spanish areas, except for the relatively recent arrivals of blacks, the ex-slaves mixed with the non-slave population and given that everyone else was lighter skin, a lightening process followed.
In this video, you'll see Lucy Molinar. She is a colonial black, and is a Roman Catholic, Spanish speaking black woman. She is from Colon province, and her ancestors were enslaved in Panama. She is Minister of Education in Panama, and very popular and well known. She is considered to be Panama's answer to Oprah, basically a Panamanian version of Oprah:
Not sure that you are understanding the usage. It is used here and is used in other places in a way to distinguish them from Latinos/Hispanics from other regions. Haven't you heard the term "caribeño"? It means Caribbean. The term is certainly used. Do you speak Spanish at all?
The Caribbean is diverse. No one said that Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Cubans are like Jamaicans, Bajans and Trinis. Thus, why my statement was that they "Caribbean Latinos" will be fine to choose Latino/Hispanic. This doesn't really affect them either way.
Trying to designate a separate category for "Caribbean" opens up a whole can of worms which is why such a request is a non starter. The data collected will be skewed as it will not be understood by people.
So if a Puerto Rican feels strongly that he is "Caribbean" because he doesnt see why he should be put in a box with Mexicans, and other feels Hispanic and sees the notion of being lumped with Jamaicans as ridiculous what will you get?
Then there is the whole issue of whether Guyana is a Caribbean or a South American nation.
And what of those of West Indian descent from Panama, etc?
In addition there is the whole issue with Indo vs Afro Caribbean people. The two usually are quite separate so it makes no sense to claim that they constitute and common ethnic identity.
Better to check "black" (if one of African Ancestry), and then write in the Caribbean country where the person is from, or identifies with. Asian Caribbean people are too small in number and to separate them will need to demands from just about every group.
IThe main reason that many Caribbeans come to the United States is because they tend to be too dark to be a part of the 'elite' in their home countries.
.
I invite you to look at the skin color of most of the heads of state of the English speaking Caribbean. Dont know what crack pipe you are smoking. The BULK of the upper middle class in most Caribbean countries are people who self identify as BLACK (or also Indian in Tdad and Guyana).
The richest people are invisible to most people in thse islands and indeed one can spend all day watching Caribbean media and see not one sight of them. So few people down there spend time thinking about them.
To the contrary the white and light skinned populations in most parts of the Anglophone Caribbean are in numeric DECLINE, due to MIGRATION.
Now most AAs do not understand the subtleties pof teh skin color issue in these countries because the notions of who is or is not black is different. So you listen to some one who you think is black, but who wouldnt be back there, and then make a judgement across the board.
In societies where 90% of the population were black slaves the mixed freed people were treated differently from how they were in the USA where there was a large non slave owning group of whites to act as a buffer between the slave and the master.
Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Dominican Republic are ALL part of the Caribbean. CaribID even includes them.
And yet clearly they are a highly differentiated group from the majority of non Hispanics, typically have very distinct ethnic identities and every single sociological analysis will show that they pursue different paths of incorporation into the USA. There is a relationship between non Hispanic blacks from the Caribbean and the USA, no matter how SOME people from either side might wish to deny this.
Trying to designate a separate category for "Caribbean" opens up a whole can of worms which is why such a request is a non starter. The data collected will be skewed as it will not be understood by people.
So if a Puerto Rican feels strongly that he is "Caribbean" because he doesnt see why he should be put in a box with Mexicans, and other feels Hispanic and sees the notion of being lumped with Jamaicans as ridiculous what will you get?
Then there is the whole issue of whether Guyana is a Caribbean or a South American nation.
And what of those of West Indian descent from Panama, etc?
In addition there is the whole issue with Indo vs Afro Caribbean people. The two usually are quite separate so it makes no sense to claim that they constitute and common ethnic identity.
Better to check "black" (if one of African Ancestry), and then write in the Caribbean country where the person is from, or identifies with. Asian Caribbean people are too small in number and to separate them will need to demands from just about every group.
Panamanians are NOT West Indian. If that's the case, then Ecuadorians should be considered West Indian since a lot of West Indians to Ecuador. Hell, many Jamaican descendants live in Australia. Does that mean Australians in the USA should be considered West Indian?
Guyana does NOT even touch or border the Caribbean Sea and it's not even an island.
Also what about Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia which have Caribbean coast lines? Are they Caribbean?
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.
