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.
Not really, at least in the case of Cuba. In Cuba, "blanco people" tend to be white most of the time, as the reports indicates. People with some degree of black blood that pretend to be white receive a very large array of names, maybe 300 hundred. Around 50 percent of "blancos", I thought there were only 30 percent. The report indicates that rural Cuba is predominantly white, either gallego or canarian, more so the third city, Holguin. Quite interesting. Urban areas, that were predominantly white before 1959, are now more African due to population mouvements.
Relationship between census categories, melanin levels and individual ancestry proportions
As indicated above, 55% of the participants self-reported to be “blanco”, 33% “mestizo” and 12% “negro”. These proportions are similar to those based on the report of an external observer; there were discrepancies for only 65 out of the 1019 individuals. Several measures of concordance indicated excellent agreement between both classifications (Cohen's kappa = 0.8873 [17], Ciccheti-Allison's kappa = 0.9091 [18] and Fleiss-Cohen's kappa = 0.9345 [19]).
Age did not have a significant effect on melanin levels (M), measured quantitatively with the reflectometer (melanin index) [20], but there were significant differences in melanin index by sex (males M = 40.68±10.7; females M = 39.17±9.45; P = 0.015). The average melanin index of the total sample was 39.8, but there was a broad distribution of values, from 23.4 to 85.9. In individuals who self-reported to be “blanco”, the average melanin index was 34.06±3.70 (mean ± SD), in those who self-reported to be “mestizo” 41.69±6.29 and in those who self-reported to be “negro” 60.59±8.87 (Figure 2). The differences in melanin levels between census groups were significant (ANOVA with sex as a covariate: F = 4.30, P<0.001).
Yes folks always run off to the "whitest" areas to do their DNA surveys to prove how "white" the population is.
Cuba is a heavily mixed country, NOT white. I note the use of the term "mestizo" rather than "mulatto".
That's like the other one who claims that Dominicans are more Spanish than they are African.
Yes, but I don't hear or read anyone making the case for going back to the lifestyle of the extinct Romans. Maybe its part of white privilige, white people can live modern lives while everyone else should 'return to the extinct civilizations.'
We're not going back to native civilizations, but we're going back to failed communism being Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela and so in differents degrees of lack of democracy.
Portugal and Spain are now part of european union.
Yes, but I don't hear or read anyone making the case for going back to the lifestyle of the extinct Romans. Maybe its part of white privilige, white people can live modern lives while everyone else should 'return to the extinct civilizations.'
Who said that anyone wanted to go back. The point made was that present day peoples with indigenous blood should be assertive of their background, instead of feeling that they do not measure up. Most of Latin American people have indigenous blood. They are brainwashed by movies, tv and newspapers that they are not as good as their "white" counterparts, directly or indirectly.
Historically they have always being portrayed as savages to them and to everyone else. They are constantly being told that people with European features are better. and that Indian features features are ugly. They internalize this and really begin to believe it as true. By the same token people with white features begin to internalize that they are superior, by the reasons mentioned. Which is totally absurd.
In Mexico even most of the European looking ones identify as mestizos and show pride in the indigenous roots as much as everything else. It really is quite shocking to hear Mexicans that in most countries would be taken as white say they are as mestizo as any other mestizo.
At the current rate the middle class in Latin America is growing at inprecedented rates composed mostly by mestizos.
The point made was that present day peoples with indigenous blood should be assertive of their background, instead of feeling that they do not measure up.
Yep, lets pretend that the cultures of Latin America are composed of only the Spanish input. That's a realistic portrayal of the region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjester
Historically they have always being portrayed as savages to them and to everyone else.
Indigenous people for the most part belonged (and many still do) to backwards societies. That's a savage. What do you want exactly? For people to be told that the indigenous societies were all on equal footing with the European ones at the time of their discovery? It's ridiculous, but people don't need to be rocket scientists to know that villages made of huts aren't signs of an advanced society. Sacrificing hundreds of kids and young people in an attempt to end a drought is not a sign of an advanced society. Walking barefoot, eating with hands while sitting on the ground, and not using a wheel to make life better are not signs of an advanced society. It doesn't takes a rocket scientist to figure out that arrows with their tips covered in venom are no match for canons, swords, and rifles.
Good luck convincing anyone that this society is on equal footing with modern societies. A war between each group, each using their own weapons, will be a fair one. Yep, all the same and anyone that says otherwise is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjester
They are constantly being told that people with European features are better. and that Indian features features are ugly.
The only indigenous people that are portrayed as ugly are the ones that are not graceful when it comes to aesthetic. I've never heard of anyone referring to many tribes in the Amazon as ugly people, especially the women.
Even in colonial times this was the case. The written accounts of the Spanish fron when they arrived in the Caribbean almost always describes all the indigenous groups from all those islands as a very good lookig people. This type of description doesn't appears as often when the Spanish reached much of Mexico and Central America, but they do speak positively of the good looks of many of many indigenous tribes from what is now Venezuela. This is due for very obvious reasons.
The Guarani from Paraguay have always been considered a good looking people, but the Quechuas and Aymaras from the Andes not so much. That is not part of some conspiracy, its an expression of something that is obvious.
If you like flat foreheads and faces, more power to you. But most people are not prone to considering that good looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjester
They internalize this and really begin to believe it as true.
Nope, in the areas where people believe that is true is in areas where the indigenous people are not good looking. In areas where the indigenous are handsome the prevailing notion is that they are handsome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjester
By the same token people with white features begin to internalize that they are superior, by the reasons mentioned. Which is totally absurd.
What I find absurd are the things tbat you are posting here. Some people here are simply delusional, imo. Reminds me of a friend that was bothered when the US invaded Afghanistan and in the TV video clips taken from fighter jets showed groups of Afghanis "counterattacking" the flying jets by mounting horses and waving their swords at the air. She felt that those clips 'made the Afghanis look primitive.' For Pete's sakes!
Indigenous people for the most part belonged (and many still do) to backwards societies. That's a savage. What do you want exactly? For people to be told that the indigenous societies were all on equal footing with the European ones at the time of their discovery? It's ridiculous, but people don't need to be rocket scientists to know that villages made of huts aren't signs of an advanced society. Sacrificing hundreds of kids and young people in an attempt to end a drought is not a sign of an advanced society. Walking barefoot, eating with hands while sitting on the ground, and not using a wheel to make life better are not signs of an advanced society. It doesn't takes a rocket scientist to figure out that arrows with their tips covered in venom are no match for canons, swords, and rifles.
Good luck convincing anyone that this society is on equal footing with modern societies. A war between each group, each using their own weapons, will be a fair one. Yep, all the same and anyone that says otherwise is absurd.
Let me explain to you again. Indigenous people living in huts, caves and sacrificing babies have been found all over the world, at different times in history. There have been indigenous backward people in Northern Europe, (Read what Tacitus a Roman historian had to say about Northern Europe's indigenous tribes. "lived in huts, lived off the land, sacrificed babies") " They were white barbarians until the Romans civilized them.
Of course, the Romans were civilized by Greece; and the Greek got most of its civilizations from Crete, Egypt, Mesopotamia, The Hindus Valley people etc. Gradually these white Northern Europeans backward people became members of the"advanced" society you are talking about.
The problem lies with the fact that indigenous Indian Latin Americans today are still bombard by the media and society as being backward while "whites" are seen as if they have ALWAYS have been advanced; when that has never been the case. Germania (Ancient Germany) by Cornelius Tacitus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebi
They are really native Americans who speak Español. I discovered a lot of Latino people have Native American relatives. So why don't they claim there inheritance and land back already? I mean why can anybody explain?
Should Europeans also go back to the time when they used to burn witches at the stake?
They are really native Americans who speak Español. I discovered a lot of Latino people have Native American relatives. So why don't they claim there inheritance and land back already? I mean why can anybody explain?
Do you think you can convince US army to let then take their land back?
Talk to then and if it is in accordance, it's done!!
PS: I don't speak spanish.
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.
