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 only reason why you discuss this and minimally admit to it is that I have forced you to and then you try to mitigate it.
You try to minimalize it as a little irritant and then pretend as if ALL of the USA remains a Jim Crow state or that ALL of the USA was like this in 1960. In fact the racism which existed in NYC in 1950 parallels what one will find in Bogota or Sao Paulo TODAY!
I'm more than happy to have the discussion. I don't shy away from discussions on race - in fact I think its important to do so especially in this day and age. So no you haven't forced me I more than oblige and I do not minimise it nor the colombia racial experience in any way, in fact I defend the Afrocolombian activists you so readily ridicule and simply give important and factual information on the racial experience in Colombia which of course follows a global pattern of parameters set out by colonialism BUT also has its own set of variables which I believe are important to highlight and address. These variables individually are by no means unique and parallels can be found in the maroon cultures of Suriname and the Anglo Caribbean as in the case of San Andres. However, the combination of geographic isolation, strong adherence to their African culture, the armed conflict, interaction with Amerindian peoples are quite unique when combined. Not to mention the Afro-Colombian identity splits into 3 main cultural groups.
I can't speak for Sao Paulo but I can speak for Bogota. Bogota is not a black town like New York was in the 1950's, specifically/especially Harlem. In fact you would be hard pushed to find a single black person in Bogota prior to the 80's and not just black people but any people that weren't from the Eastern range of the Andes. You wouldn't really see Caleños, you wouldn't see Paisas, you wouldn't really see Costeños, maybe a few Llaneros but the people from Bogota were by far and away Bogotanos or from the states of Boyaca and Santander in the eastern Andes range.
As I've stated countless times due to Colombia's extremely difficult geography and lack of resource to overcome that geography it meant that the regions were isolated from each other. So maybe you have a point that Bogota is like 1950's New York in the sense that black Colombians are only beginning to make a presence in the capital. I think estimates stand at just under half a million people that reside in Bogota are of some sort of African descent but they're all migrant groups from other regions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
I can assure you that as a black man I feel more acutely what being a black man is in Latin America than I do in NYC. There being black has a sharper connectivity to poverty than it does in cities like NYC because a black upper middle class is far less visible. And you know full well that in highly class conscious Latin America what being assumed to be poor brings.
In my case its been a benefit as I've never been targeted to be robbed and enjoyed the element of surprise, that is exactly how Chanelle Adams and Ambie feel too, black American/Trinidadian female solo travellers that actually have been/lived in Colombia unlike yourself. If you have the required abilities you can get on in Bogota especially in the current climate - despite the odd comment from the odd ignorant local. Nywriter can probably vouch for that also.
Subtitles available
Last edited by Pueblofuerte; 04-27-2018 at 08:28 PM..
You don't unconditionally condemn racism, you try to come up with excuses to make Colombia look better than the US or Brazil.
Hang on a minute! Of course I condemn racism I always have. And if its not made clear I completely condemn racism. Highlighting the Colombian racial experience is not making excuses. It's bringing to light important variables that are required to combat the route of the issue in the country and defending the Afrocolombian activists that caribny loves to ridicule and tread down upon. Much can also be learned from Colombia's Afro-Colombian communities especially in the preservation of their heritage, I don't think any other group in the Americas aside from maybe Haiti feel Africa as strongly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
That particularly Black woman from Colombia basically says that Black people were banned from the rest of the country (particularly the cities) until recently. She, from the Choco, says nothing about all Black people wanting to be rural campesinos. In fact she says as legal conditions/civil rights for them improved, that they chose to move to cities and to get good educations.
Don't be caribny version 2.0 now. Don't put words in her mouth, she never said they were banned from the cities - that is ridiculous. What she said is that things "in the past were difficult" but "things are getting better". Colombia's difficult geography and lack of infrastructure meant people didn't really relocate back then until about the 70's and even then not en-mass until the 90's/2000's. You would've been hard pushed to find a Paisa in Bogota in the 80's for example let alone a black person - now you see a considerable number - but even then not as much as say New York back in the last century.
FYI - It was me that introduced you to that video. I was the first person to post it on this forum so to say I don't give sources is a lie. In all my dealings with you I have provided sources. You just choose not to acknowledge them like when I published sources from the World Economic Forum, Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, the Guardian, Quacquarelli Symonds, the Times Higher Education, America Economia, World Health Organisation, DANE etc. regarding subjects as wide-ranging as your assertion to Spain's neo-colonial grip on Latin America to the Catalunya independence crisis to white colombians growing up speaking San Andres Creole.
Now here's another of Francia Márquez from La Toma, Nariño an afrocolombian activist that won the Goldman Nobel prize. These communities reject the capitalist model just as I was talking about. You can choose in your common fashion to ignore this source also.
And just in case I haven't made myself absolutely clear because caribny loves to manipulate and twist things. I condemn and abhor racism, however highlighting root causes and building people up is better than caribny's focus on ridiculing & trampling them down. The US racial experience/process cannot be equated to the racial experience/process of other countries.
Last edited by Pueblofuerte; 04-27-2018 at 08:03 PM..
Hang on a minute! Of course I condemn racism I always have. And if its not made clear I completely condemn racism. Highlighting the Colombian racial experience is not making excuses. It's bringing to light important variables that are required to combat the route of the issue in the country and defending the Afrocolombian activists that caribny loves to ridicule and tread down upon. Much can also be learned from Colombia's Afro-Colombian communities especially in the preservation of their heritage, I don't think any other group in the Americas aside from maybe Haiti feel Africa as strongly.
Don't be caribny version 2.0 now. Don't put words in her mouth, she never said they were banned from the cities - that is ridiculous. What she said is that things "in the past were difficult" but "things are getting better". Colombia's difficult geography and lack of infrastructure meant people didn't really relocate back then until about the 70's and even then not en-mass until the 90's/2000's. You would've been hard pushed to find a Paisa in Bogota in the 80's for example let alone a black person - now you see a considerable number - but even then not as much as say New York back in the last century.
FYI - It was me that introduced you to that video. I was the first person to post it on this forum so to say I don't give sources is a lie. In all my dealings with you I have provided sources. You just choose not to acknowledge them like when I published sources from the World Economic Forum, Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, the Guardian, Quacquarelli Symonds, the Times Higher Education, America Economia, World Health Organisation, DANE etc. regarding subjects as wide-ranging as your assertion to Spain's neo-colonial grip on Latin America to the Catalunya independence crisis to white colombians growing up speaking San Andres Creole.
Now here's another of Francia Márquez from La Toma, Nariño an afrocolombian activist that won the Goldman Nobel prize. These communities reject the capitalist model just as I was talking about. You can choose in your common fashion to ignore this source also.
And just in case I haven't made myself absolutely clear because caribny loves to manipulate and twist things. I condemn and abhor racism, however highlighting root causes and building people up is better than caribny's focus on ridiculing & trampling them down. The US racial experience/process cannot be equated to the racial experience/process of other countries.
She does say that Black people had a very difficult past in Colombia and she speaks to past discrimination. She does say it got a lot better and that Black people in Colombia have more opportunities.
Now if you unconditionally condemn racism, you can stop trying to say this country was better or worse and you can stop trying to rationalize the racial issues in Colombia. A part of fixing a problem is admitting that it exists, dealing with it and moving on.
You do see Black Colombians who move to Bogota or Medellin to work or study, so stereotype Black Colombians as all socialist or communist is silly.
Among African American intellectuals decades ago, communist and socialist were big as well for likely the same reasons you had communism among Afro-Colombian intellectuals. Communism claimed to be anti-racist and offer a better life for them. Of course the Soviet Union collapsed. Economic development and improvement in civil rights brought more opportunities for Colombians, who no longer had to be content with being peasants in whatever rural area. So many moved to cities in Colombia or left the country together (yes, Afro-Colombians leave Colombia too). People born in rural Colombia end up likely cellphones, computers, modern clothes, and other aspects of consumer culture just like everyone else in the world and are very much a part of the world today.
As are Hispanics, whites and anyone who doesn't have the ability to afford high rents in NYC. That isn't a function of race. Its a function of income.
In fact an interesting phenomenon that is developing in NYC is the white tenant and the black landlord as whites, who cannot afford to live where they have traditionally lived, are now forced to move to black neighborhoods. When they arrive they discover that some of the property owners are black. People who bought properties in the 50s to the 80s and who now can charge high rents.
Given that Asian and Hispanic poverty in NYC is now higher than black poverty, I bet those communities are impacted. This especially as they are more likely to be new immigrants, so not "grandfathered" into rent regulated apartments, Mitchell Lama or NYCHA as many blacks are. Hispanic homeownership is below black ownership in NYC as well. In fact Jamaicans and Haitians are as likely to be homeowners in NYC as are NYers on the whole.
Oh, but you cannot separate socioeconomics and race in NYC. You know very well that Black people are underrepresented in the private sector growth areas of the city. You yourself said that the jobs that had many Black people such as operations had substantial decline in NYC.
Landlords in NYC are very aggressive in getting rid of rent regulated tenants. I don't have to tell you that, you already know it. You also know that many of those Black property owners have cashed out and sold to deep pocketed investors.
You also know African Americans are not as likely as New Yorkers to be homeowners, as you mentioned NYCHA and various subsidized housing.
Things aren't as rosy for African Americans as you want to portray.
Having a Black president did nothing to stop the mass incarceration of Black people, police shootings of Black people, and has done nothing to curb the vast homeless Black population in NYC or LA or certain other cities.
"African-American and Latino New Yorkers are disproportionately affected by homelessness. Approximately 58 percent of New York City homeless shelter residents are African-American, 31 percent are Latino, 7 percent are white, less than 1 percent are Asian-American, and 3 percent are of unknown race/ethnicity."
As I mentioned many poor African Americans get evicted.
"Research shows that the primary cause of homelessness, particularly among families, is lack of affordable housing. Surveys of homeless families have identified the following major immediate, triggering causes of homelessness: eviction; doubled-up or severely overcrowded housing; domestic violence; job loss; and hazardous housing conditions."
Yes, Latin America definitely has had a bad history with Black people. Any place where people were brough to as slaves does. That does not justify you deliberately lying to score points. You are reminding me of Donald Trump and his alternate facts.
Re: the US electing a Black/mixed race President. Obama's father is a Kenyan Muslim. Since he was elected President there was a massive backlash against the election of a Black Muslim as President of the US, and the right wing used that as a rallying point. So now the US has Neo Nazi Trump as President, who says horribly racist things about Muslims, about Latinos, and doesn't particularly care for "the Blacks" who live in the "inner cities". Trump has said horrible things about Caribbean and African nations, and has suggested the US only take in Scandinavians.
CaribNY is being intellectually dishonest by claiming the US has made progress that it really hasn't.
British societies tend to have sharper lines between races, and after 1962 Britain gave nationals from it's former empire no advantage in immigrating to Britain or in obtaining British citizenship.
Immigrants to Spain, from non Latino countries have to live in Spain for 10 years unless they are rich. Immigrants from the former Spanish colonial empire (including Portugal's colonies and Portugal itself) only have to live in Spain for two years before getting Spanish citizenship, regardless of race or appearance. Those with Sephardic Jewish ancestry don't even have to be living in Spain to get Spanish citizenship, regardless of race.
Spain and Latinos tend to view anyone with Spanish or whatever Latin ancestry as one of them. Not to say they can't be racist, but still they view their people as their people. Britain rejects it's former colonies and Anglo-Saxon people in American reject mixed race people who are part Northern European.
So certain Anglo-Blacks in America have antipathy towards Latin America because the fact that people of African descent (Or Native descent) can be acknowledge as mixed race or Latino infuriates them when an Anglo-Black is not called Anglo-Saxon or really even acknowledged at all by Anglo-American people. So in short, Caribs sees Blacks or Natives "escaping" into a Latin identity and it infuriates and angers him.
British societies tend to have sharper lines between races, and after 1962 Britain gave nationals from it's former empire no advantage in immigrating to Britain or in obtaining British citizenship.
Immigrants to Spain, from non Latino countries have to live in Spain for 10 years unless they are rich. Immigrants from the former Spanish colonial empire (including Portugal's colonies and Portugal itself) only have to live in Spain for two years before getting Spanish citizenship, regardless of race or appearance. Those with Sephardic Jewish ancestry don't even have to be living in Spain to get Spanish citizenship, regardless of race.
Spain and Latinos tend to view anyone with Spanish or whatever Latin ancestry as one of them. Not to say they can't be racist, but still they view their people as their people. Britain rejects it's former colonies and Anglo-Saxon people in American reject mixed race people who are part Northern European.
So certain Anglo-Blacks in America have antipathy towards Latin America because the fact that people of African descent (Or Native descent) can be acknowledge as mixed race or Latino infuriates them when an Anglo-Black is not called Anglo-Saxon or really even acknowledged at all by Anglo-American people. So in short, Caribs sees Blacks or Natives "escaping" into a Latin identity and it infuriates and angers him.
Interesting. I always felt the UK and the US are more racially progressive than Spain and Latin America.
People from those countries tend to be less PC about racial jokes and talking about race in general. In Peru, where my dad is from, blacks and Indigenous people are constantly made fun of. There is even a common joke there that implies "blacks only think until noon." But it is all in good humor, at least if you ask this to many Peruvians.
Meanwhile, in the UK you could go to jail for hate speech. Also, in the UK there is a great number of intermarriage. IIRC, about 50% of all Afro Caribbean men in the UK marry or live with white women with Indians, Pakistanis, and Bengalis intermarrying as well but to a lesser degree.
In the US, intermarriage between whites and nonwhites is growing with Latinos taking the lead, followed by Asians. Blacks are also intermarrying to a larger degree as well.
Interesting. I always felt the UK and the US are more racially progressive than Spain and Latin America.
People from those countries tend to be less PC about racial jokes and talking about race in general. In Peru, where my dad is from, blacks and Indigenous people are constantly made fun of. There is even a common joke there that implies "blacks only think until noon." But it is all in good humor, at least if you ask this to many Peruvians.
Meanwhile, in the UK you could go to jail for hate speech. Also, in the UK there is a great number of intermarriage. IIRC, about 50% of all Afro Caribbean men in the UK marry or live with white women with Indians, Pakistanis, and Bengalis intermarrying as well but to a lesser degree.
In the US, intermarriage between whites and nonwhites is growing with Latinos taking the lead, followed by Asians. Blacks are also intermarrying to a larger degree as well.
while the UK has great number on intermarriage, the whole continent of latin america is mixed, mestizos y mulattoes are the absolute majority by far and have been for centuries. the Uk is today, where latin america was in 1620.
while the UK has great number on intermarriage, the whole continent of latin america is mixed, mestizos y mulattoes are the absolute majority by far and have been for centuries. the Uk is today, where latin america was in 1620.
Yeah but keep in mind that the UK wasn't really this diverse until maybe somewhere around the 1950's when many immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, and South Asia started to come, largely because of work permits.
I know the UK has had a black population even before then, but the UK has never been as diverse as it is now.
By contrast, the Americas have always been diverse since the 1500s.
Also of interesting note, the UK never had anti miscegenation laws while Cuba did.
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.
