An educational video about the African diaspora in Latin America (speak, developed)
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.
The other thing that I think influences this is that the Spaniards never truly rejected the African descendants from being considered Spaniards, which I think is quite a novel idea considering what happened in the non-Spanish lands in this hemisphere.
The Spanish constitution of 1812 basically said that any man that was not a slave was a Spanish national. In most Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, most people of color were free (except in Cuba, even though most of the population was made up of whites and free people of color, just that the free people of color were outnumbered by the ones that were not free). Cuba was an exception not just in Latin America, but in the entire Spanish World. Cuba was heavily influenced by the arrival of the French that fled Haiti during the Haitian Revolution, so this probably explains Cuba's peculiar social situation vis-a-vis the rest of Spanish America.
All of this influences the way people see themselves. Add to this that after slavery was officially abolished, Spanish America didn't went down the road of racial segregation or reducing the value of a non-white vote to 1/3 of whites or any of the other peculiarities that became the modus operandi in English America and is the main reason for why African descended people in English-speaking America tend to suffer from more racial resentments than those of the Spanish-speaking America.
The Spanish even considered the Native Americans as legitimate Spanish nationals, which is another difference with what the British did to the Native Americans in the good ole US of A where most were restricted to reservations that were nations within the US nation.
Even in Asia, the Spanish considered all natives of the Philippines to be Spanish nationals, not quite what happened in the other European colonies in that part of the world.
A French writer, when Haiti was still a colony of France in the 1700's, tried to explain why French Santo Domingo became the richest colony in the history of the world while Spanish Santo Domingo, on the same island, was one of the poorest in the Spanish world and much poorer than French Santo Domingo. His conclusion? That the French did everything they could to keep their whiteness as pure as possible and that the government of French Santo Domingo did not suffered from "the horror" that afflicted the government in Spanish Santo Domingo (aka, modern Dominican Republic) where the Spanish allowed people of color and even free blacks in government positions. Keep in mind that this was in the 1700's.
The other thing that I think influences this is that the Spaniards never truly rejected the African descendants from being considered Spaniards, which I think is quite a novel idea considering what happened in the non-Spanish lands in this hemisphere.
The Spanish constitution of 1812 basically said that any man that was not a slave was a Spanish national. In most Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, most people of color were free (except in Cuba, even though most of the population was made up of whites and free people of color, just that the free people of color were outnumbered by the ones that were not free). Cuba was an exception not just in Latin America, but in the entire Spanish World. Cuba was heavily influenced by the arrival of the French that fled Haiti during the Haitian Revolution, so this probably explains Cuba's peculiar social situation vis-a-vis the rest of Spanish America.
All of this influences the way people see themselves. Add to this that after slavery was officially abolished, Spanish America didn't went down the road of racial segregation or reducing the value of a non-white vote to 1/3 of whites or any of the other peculiarities that became the modus operandi in English America and is the main reason for why African descended people in English-speaking America tend to suffer from more racial resentments than those of the Spanish-speaking America.
The Spanish even considered the Native Americans as legitimate Spanish nationals, which is another difference with what the British did to the Native Americans in the good ole US of A where most were restricted to reservations that were nations within the US nation.
Even in Asia, the Spanish considered all natives of the Philippines to be Spanish nationals, not quite what happened in the other European colonies in that part of the world.
A French writer, when Haiti was still a colony of France in the 1700's, tried to explain why French Santo Domingo became the richest colony in the history of the world while Spanish Santo Domingo, on the same island, was one of the poorest in the Spanish world and much poorer than French Santo Domingo. His conclusion? That the French did everything they could to keep their whiteness as pure as possible and that the government of French Santo Domingo did not suffered from "the horror" that afflicted the government in Spanish Santo Domingo (aka, modern Dominican Republic) where the Spanish allowed people of color and even free blacks in government positions. Keep in mind that this was in the 1700's.
The other thing that I think influences this is that the Spaniards never truly rejected the African descendants from being considered Spaniards, which I think is quite a novel idea considering what happened in the non-Spanish lands in this hemisphere.
The Spanish constitution of 1812 basically said that any man that was not a slave was a Spanish national. In most Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, most people of color were free (except in Cuba, even though most of the population was made up of whites and free people of color, just that the free people of color were outnumbered by the ones that were not free). Cuba was an exception not just in Latin America, but in the entire Spanish World. Cuba was heavily influenced by the arrival of the French that fled Haiti during the Haitian Revolution, so this probably explains Cuba's peculiar social situation vis-a-vis the rest of Spanish America.
All of this influences the way people see themselves. Add to this that after slavery was officially abolished, Spanish America didn't went down the road of racial segregation or reducing the value of a non-white vote to 1/3 of whites or any of the other peculiarities that became the modus operandi in English America and is the main reason for why African descended people in English-speaking America tend to suffer from more racial resentments than those of the Spanish-speaking America.
The Spanish even considered the Native Americans as legitimate Spanish nationals, which is another difference with what the British did to the Native Americans in the good ole US of A where most were restricted to reservations that were nations within the US nation.
Even in Asia, the Spanish considered all natives of the Philippines to be Spanish nationals, not quite what happened in the other European colonies in that part of the world.
A French writer, when Haiti was still a colony of France in the 1700's, tried to explain why French Santo Domingo became the richest colony in the history of the world while Spanish Santo Domingo, on the same island, was one of the poorest in the Spanish world and much poorer than French Santo Domingo. His conclusion? That the French did everything they could to keep their whiteness as pure as possible and that the government of French Santo Domingo did not suffered from "the horror" that afflicted the government in Spanish Santo Domingo (aka, modern Dominican Republic) where the Spanish allowed people of color and even free blacks in government positions. Keep in mind that this was in the 1700's.
The other thing that I think influences this is that the Spaniards never truly rejected the African descendants from being considered Spaniards, which I think is quite a novel idea considering what happened in the non-Spanish lands in this hemisphere.
The Spanish constitution of 1812 basically said that any man that was not a slave was a Spanish national. In most Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, most people of color were free (except in Cuba, even though most of the population was made up of whites and free people of color, just that the free people of color were outnumbered by the ones that were not free). Cuba was an exception not just in Latin America, but in the entire Spanish World. Cuba was heavily influenced by the arrival of the French that fled Haiti during the Haitian Revolution, so this probably explains Cuba's peculiar social situation vis-a-vis the rest of Spanish America.
All of this influences the way people see themselves. Add to this that after slavery was officially abolished, Spanish America didn't went down the road of racial segregation or reducing the value of a non-white vote to 1/3 of whites or any of the other peculiarities that became the modus operandi in English America and is the main reason for why African descended people in English-speaking America tend to suffer from more racial resentments than those of the Spanish-speaking America.
The Spanish even considered the Native Americans as legitimate Spanish nationals, which is another difference with what the British did to the Native Americans in the good ole US of A where most were restricted to reservations that were nations within the US nation.
Even in Asia, the Spanish considered all natives of the Philippines to be Spanish nationals, not quite what happened in the other European colonies in that part of the world.
A French writer, when Haiti was still a colony of France in the 1700's, tried to explain why French Santo Domingo became the richest colony in the history of the world while Spanish Santo Domingo, on the same island, was one of the poorest in the Spanish world and much poorer than French Santo Domingo. His conclusion? That the French did everything they could to keep their whiteness as pure as possible and that the government of French Santo Domingo did not suffered from "the horror" that afflicted the government in Spanish Santo Domingo (aka, modern Dominican Republic) where the Spanish allowed people of color and even free blacks in government positions. Keep in mind that this was in the 1700's.
The other thing that I think influences this is that the Spaniards never truly rejected the African descendants from being considered Spaniards, which I think is quite a novel idea considering what happened in the non-Spanish lands in this hemisphere.
The Spanish constitution of 1812 basically said that any man that was not a slave was a Spanish national. In most Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, most people of color were free (except in Cuba, even though most of the population was made up of whites and free people of color, just that the free people of color were outnumbered by the ones that were not free). Cuba was an exception not just in Latin America, but in the entire Spanish World. Cuba was heavily influenced by the arrival of the French that fled Haiti during the Haitian Revolution, so this probably explains Cuba's peculiar social situation vis-a-vis the rest of Spanish America.
All of this influences the way people see themselves. Add to this that after slavery was officially abolished, Spanish America didn't went down the road of racial segregation or reducing the value of a non-white vote to 1/3 of whites or any of the other peculiarities that became the modus operandi in English America and is the main reason for why African descended people in English-speaking America tend to suffer from more racial resentments than those of the Spanish-speaking America.
The Spanish even considered the Native Americans as legitimate Spanish nationals, which is another difference with what the British did to the Native Americans in the good ole US of A where most were restricted to reservations that were nations within the US nation.
Even in Asia, the Spanish considered all natives of the Philippines to be Spanish nationals, not quite what happened in the other European colonies in that part of the world.
A French writer, when Haiti was still a colony of France in the 1700's, tried to explain why French Santo Domingo became the richest colony in the history of the world while Spanish Santo Domingo, on the same island, was one of the poorest in the Spanish world and much poorer than French Santo Domingo. His conclusion? That the French did everything they could to keep their whiteness as pure as possible and that the government of French Santo Domingo did not suffered from "the horror" that afflicted the government in Spanish Santo Domingo (aka, modern Dominican Republic) where the Spanish allowed people of color and even free blacks in government positions. Keep in mind that this was in the 1700's.
Your premise is faulty. If you look at the origins of where antagonisms and colonial methods used originated from, you'd see that it originated from Portugal and Spain by way of the Arabs and Muslims and Islam.
And Cuba had segregation as well and it was extremely bad. Segregation and racism were legally practiced and brutally enforced and ensconced in Cuba until Castro came into power. The only difference is Cuba and South Africa NEVER had a one drop rule in place. Mind you that one drop rule has nothinh to do with slavery. One drop rule was only used in some USA southern states from 1931 and 1967, and even by jurisdiction and courts did such matters and quantum etc vary.
And there were race wars and race riots and racial tensions in Panama and Colombia, and Venezuela, and even Brazil among other places. Panama City for a long time had a walled city (intramuros) for whites and elites (which was part of and known as San Felipe) while the extramuros or outside walls was known as arrabal de Santa Ana, and the people were referred to as arrabaleños which means "slum dwellers". The arrabal was left to fester and an area where blacks, people of color, and the poor lived and this went on for a long time during the colonial period and even into much of the 20th century.
Last edited by MelismaticEchoes; 01-27-2014 at 12:07 AM..
Well MalaMan, this is one of the mysteries of US American way of thinking. Even when it comes to AA's, most of them have been in the USA for far longer than most other people. It is true they were severely mistreated for decades, but I think its time for those AA's with an African 'homeland nostalgia' to simply let that go, and those who don't want to let it go should seriously consider moving to one of those African countries.
Its funny that no one goes around talking about the 'European diaspora' and at the same time include all the descendants of Europeans since the day Columbus arrived, including those of mixed race too.
Actually, there are African Americans moving to African countries. Ghana already has a sizable population living there. South Africa is another country that many African Americans have moved to, or are strongly considering it. One of my favorite actors, Isaiah Washington has become a citizen of Sierra Leone, and is getting other African Americans to consider living there, and investing in the country. Senegal is another country that has a sizable population of African Americans. I just shook my head at "It is true they were severely mistreated for decades", and "homeland nostalgia", and "to simply let that go". Just. Wow. I don't even know how to respond to such condescending words. Also, please refrain from comparing the experience of African Americans to any other group in this country. There is no comparison.
Your premise is faulty. If you look at the origins of where antagonisms and colonial methods used originated from, you'd see that it originated from Portugal and Spain by way of the Arabs and Muslims and Islam.
My premise is based on actual historical documents and the opinion of people that have been to these places during the hundreds of years they existed, not by the revisionist history in some history textbooks and documentaries with hidden agendas. Notice that all of these opinions of eyewitnesses to this society, all took place in the various years of racial segregation in countries such as the USA.
I will cite a few regarding Santo Domingo (modern Dominican Republic), a few are translations from their original in Spanish:
“If you can even call the inhabitants of the Indies Spaniards, whose blood is mixed with that of the Caribs and the blacks, its quite rare to find a single man whose blood doesn't have that mixture.” – Weuves, a Frenchman in 1715.
“There is not a single Spanish or Portuguese colony that doesn’t have mulattos in possession of the dignities of first order. For this reason, these nations probably don’t have a single drop of pure blood due to the mixture with the blacks or the ancient Moors. Compare these two nations with the French, the Swiss, the Germans and it can be seen with no difficulty the superiority of their blood compared to the other two, in the same manner as the beauty of their bodies and the superior spirit and soul.” – Weuves, the same Frenchman in 1715.
“The population of the Spanish part is composed of three classes, the whites, of which I have just spoken, the freed-people, and the slaves. The freed-people are few in number, if compared with the whites, but their number is considerable, if compared with that of the slaves. That prejudice with respect to color, so powerful with other nations, among whom it fixes a bar between the whites, and the freed-people, and their descendants, is almost unknown in the Spanish part of Santo Domingo.
…The political constitution of the colony admits no distinction between the civil rights of a white inhabitant and those of a freed person. It is true, and even strictly so, that the major parts of the Spanish colonists are a mixed race: this an African feature, and sometimes more than one, often betrays; but, at the same time, its frequency has silenced a prejudice that would otherwise be a troublesome remembrance. With respect to the priesthood, people of color are admitted into it without difficulty…
From the removal of this prejudice with regard to color, necessarily arises a unity to the slaves. They are usually fed as well as their masters, and treated with a mildness unknown in the colonies of other nations.” –Moreau de Saint-Mery (Frenchman from Martinique) in 1796.
“Whites, blacks, amerindian, and mixed men; lets strenuously march united to save the country from evil tyrants and to show the world that we are all brothers.” –Juan Pablo Duarte, founder of the Dominican Republic circa 1843.
“The great majority, especially along the coast, are neither pure black nor pure white; they are mixed in every conceivable degree. In some parts of the interior considerable numbers of the white race are to be found, and generally in the mixed race the white blood predominates. The Dominican people differ widely in this particular from the Haitians, among whom the black race is in complete ascendancy.
They seem to be practically destitute of prejudice of class, race, or color. In their intercourse with each other and with strangers, they are courteous in manner, respectful, and polite. In all their relations with them the Commissioner found them kind and hospitable.” –Samuel Hazard (American) in 1871.
“I have never in my life been as impressed as with the Dominicans. Doesn’t matter their color, from the time I arrived in Puerto Plata to the moment I left the island, I witness the most natural and elegant courtesy, not only towards the foreigners, but also among themselves.” –Samuel Hazard in 1871.
“Haiti has made a horrible race war to destroy the European and American blood from her own sons; Santo Domingo never felt that type of racial hatred; in its people there are no racial preventions; her sons are white and of color, but they live fraternally with each other and in harmony with men from other origin.” - Jose Ramon Abad in 1889.
“In company, side by side, mulattoes, blacks and whites have lived,
worked, enjoyed themselves and fought their revolutions. There is
absolutely no color line. A friend of mine from Virginia received
quite a shock the first time he attended a state ball in Santo Domingo
and saw an immense negro, as black as coal, a member of Congress,
dancing with a girl as white as any of the foreign ladies present. He
rushed to the refreshment room and beckoned to a tall mulatto in a
dress suit: "I'll have something to cool off, here waiter--" He was
stopped just in time for he was mistaking the secretary of foreign
affairs for a waiter; but after this experience he was afraid of
giving his order to anyone else for fear he might be offending some
other high official. The blacks are commonly the lower laborers, but
negroes are to be found in all grades of society and are not
infrequently represented in the cabinet itself. Of the presidents the
majority have been of mixed blood, but several, like Luperon and
Heureaux, were full-blood negroes.” – Otto Schoenrich (American) in 1918.
An interesting aspect of the Dominican flag, created in the mid-1800s, is the large white cross which represents the unity of all the races under the guidance of Christian principles and peace:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelismaticEchoes
And Cuba had segregation as well and it was extremely bad. Segregation and racism were legally practiced and brutally enforced and ensconced in Cuba until Castro came into power.
The segregation that was practiced mainly in Havana took place in the 20th Century due to the influence of southern Americans, especially the tourists, that felt offended and disgusted by the much more equal treatment that the non-white Cubans received. This is also why most of the venues where segregation was imposed tended to be related to the American fueled tourism industry, which itself was mostly contained in Havana. It was not a "leftover" from the Spanish colonial era, because Cuba never imposed segregation while it was under direct influence from Madrid. It was not the Spanish way of doing things, but certainly the British way (and should be no surprise that segregation took hold in Cuba once American influence began to be felt, with the USA being the offspring of the British Empire.)
In fact, this is what the African American Langston Hughes said about the Cuba he visited in 1930:
“There are no Jim Crow cars in Cuba, and in official government ceremonies and in less official ceremonies and in the carnivals, the citizens of all colors unite and mix themselves.
The prejudices that excluded blacks from the new luxury hotels in the 1950s were still a thing of the future.”
I forgot to include the following articles from the first Spanish constitution promulgated in the 19th Century. I will quote them with print screens of the official document and subsequently translate them.
Article 1. The Spanish nation is the reunion of all Spaniards in both hemispheres.
PS. By both hemispheres, the constitution is alluding to Spaniards living in Spain, America, and in Asia.
Article 5. Spaniards are:
1st… All men that are born free and live in the domains of Spain, and their sons.
4th… The freed-men from the moment they acquire their freedom anywhere in the domains of Spain.
PS. Notice that Spanish nationality is not based on race or color, simply on those recognized as people before Spanish law, in other words all people that were not slaves, including free blacks, mulattoes, mestizos, and Amerindians. The blacks that were slaves became Spaniards the very moment they were emancipated.
Article 10. The Spanish territory comprises on the peninsula and its possessions and adjacent islands: Aragon, Asturias, Castilla la Vieja, Castilla la Nueva, Cataluna, Cordoba, Extremadura, Galicia, Granada, Jaen, Leon, Molina, Murcia, Navarra, Basque Provinces, Seville and Valencia, Baleares Islands, Canary Islands and the other possessions in Africa.
In North America: New Spain with New Galicia and the Yucatan peninsula, Eastern Internal Provinces, Western Internal Provinces, Island of Cuba with the two Floridas, the Spanish part of the Island of Santo Domingo, and the Island of Puerto Rico with the other adjacent islands to these and on the continent in both seas.
In South America: New Granada, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Provinces of Rio de la Plata, and all the adjacent islands in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
In Asia: the Islands of the Philippines and all the islands that depend on its government.
PS. New Spain / New Galicia / Yucatan are all modern Mexico, the two Floridas are the modern U.S. state of Florida and the coastal strip of Alabama and Mississippi, the Spanish part of Santo Domingo is modern Dominican Republic, New Granada is modern Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama; and Provinces of Rio de la Plata is modern Argentina, Uruguay, and I think Paraguay too.
All of them were integral provinces within the Kingdom of Spain, similar to the relationship between modern Hawaii and the United States, or Martinique and France. In all of them, without exception, slaves were a minority of the population while most people of color were free and the number of whites was considerably larger than the number of slaves, hinting that most whites were not slave owners. The exception to this is Cuba and only during the second half of the 19th Century as the effect of the mass slave holding French from Haiti begins to take hold in eastern Cuba.
So we can conclude that Latin America was less racist than the USA was before de facto and de jure Jim Crow ended.
However the USA has evolved way beyond this, so I remain perpetually amused when those who peddle the myth that racism isnt a problem in Latin America, and that there hasnt been systematic exclusion of people classified as black/darker mulatto, use as a comparison the Jim Crow USA rather than the much evoloved USA of 2014.
Is it because it has become harder to make that point when any one can be blind folded in Rio de Janeiro. They will immediately know the type of neighborhood that they are in once the blind fold is removed, just by looking at the people. Favela neighborhoods have darker people than Ipanema and similar neighborhoods where most will be white or very minimally mixed.
Aside from the Dominican Rep, which is overwhelimingly consists of darker people, Cuba, which always had a black middle class (contrary to the lies that the Castro sympathizers peddle), and certain Central American countries with West Indian descended populations, darker Afro descended people are way under represented in the upper middle class in most parts of Latin America.
Yesterday I watched CNBC at 4PM where they were doing a wrap ofr the financial markets. Two of the commentators were black. This in the USA with a black population of 14% (inclusive of those who self define as bi/multi racial). Brazil a similar population will be much higher. I wonder what I will see on El Globo when we are discussing political policy, or the financial markets.
Latin Americans must stop fooling themselves that this is 1950. This is 2014 and the USA hyas done loads to address its racial issues. Increasingly many black empowerment leaders in Latin America, especially Brazil, look to the USA for inspiration. This is because they havent seen the same degree of upward mobility, because discussion of racism is not allowed.
In most Latin American countries mulattoes outnumber blacks, and the mulattoes themselves are a tiny minority that usually makes up single digit percentages. The Latin American countries where people of color make up significant proportions of the population are quite a handful.
The overall feeling that I get is that some African Americans seem to want to downplay the much less racist attitude that developed south of the USA. Take this comment as an example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
Aside from the Dominican Rep, which is overwhelimingly consists of darker people, Cuba, which always had a black middle class (contrary to the lies that the Castro sympathizers peddle), and certain Central American countries with West Indian descended populations, darker Afro descended people are way under represented in the upper middle class in most parts of Latin America.
That is a way of downplaying the fact that racism was less of an issue for the Spanish (and even the Portuguese) compared to the British and the French. This downplay by trying to insinuate that the Spanish and Portuguese reacted in less racist way due to the larger numbers of non-whites, but if that ratio was reversed, then the Spanish and Portuguese, as white people, would had been as racist as the British and the French.
That way of thinking is simply wrong, because if it was right then how can anyone explain the reaction of the British/Dutch in South Africa, a country where non-whites were the overwhelming majority? What about what the British did in Zimbabwe? The British/Dutch imposed the most extreme form of racism and segregation in those countries despite being outnumbered by a huge ratio. Even in Singapore the British segregated the population based on ethnic origin and this was even said by the leader of Singapore. He even pointed out that problem as one of the more serious obstacles inherited from British rule that threatened the economic miracle that Singapore is now known for.
What about what the French did in Saint Domingue (modern Haiti)? In fact, even in colonial times many foreigners that visited the French and Spanish sides of that island commented how different the attitudes of the Spanish was towards the non-whites compared to that of the French. There was even a French diplomat who after having visited the French colony and the Spanish province on that island, he roughly said “its unbelievable how on one side of this island the French have done everything they can to keep the purity of their blood, even passing laws to control the power of the mulattoes; while on the Spanish side of the island the situation is favorable for the complete fusion of the two races (whites and blacks).” The French and the Spanish on that island even had issues with each other because the slaves that escaped from the French were granted their freedom as soon as they crossed into the Spanish side and became free subjects of the Spanish king and queen. One time the French invaded the Spanish part and captured as many blacks as they found and took them to Saint Domingue and subjected them to slavery. The Spanish response was to invade the northern part of Saint Domingue (modern Haiti), kill every French person they found along the way, capture all their black slaves, and took them to the Spanish side and then gave every single one of them their freedom and allowed them to live in freedom in a new town they named San Lorenzo de Los Mina (today its a neighborhood of Santo Domingo). People need to accept that these differences are not mere reflections of the racial make up of each society, but fundamental differences in these cultures and how they viewed non-whites. The simple fact that the Spanish treated every single free person, including the free blacks, as Spanish nationals is a major fundamental difference with the way the French/British/Dutch/etc molded their colonial societies.
There are historical reports of foreigners that visited the Philippines in colonial times and mentioned how different the Spanish were from the other European powers in Asia, where they would see whites and non-whites in positions of political power which was something unthinkable in the British, French, Dutch, etc colonies in Asia.
These differences in racial attitudes during colonial times have a direct impact in our times, and people can’t simply pretend that it’s the same everywhere and that one size solutions fits all.
One thing that I have been noticing for quite a few years is that the level of racial resentment depends on how each society was treated, from a racial point of view, during their colonial years. There is definitely more resentment in societies that emerged from the British/French/etc empires than those from the Spanish or the Portuguese. There are exceptions in each group of countries, but the overall tendency goes along those lines. And there is nothing wrong in this respect, considering that each society is a product of its history, but people need to stop wanting to impose their views unto others. These views are often more appropriate for their society given their colonial history than for other societies where things developed differently.
Last edited by AntonioR; 01-29-2014 at 05:08 PM..
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.
