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.
i know this is based on self classifications but i can garantee with certainty that the vast majority of those islands (lesser antilles, especially dominica) r definitely mixed. iv been to all those islands and dominica many times (since my wife is from there), the blacks there were super diverse in skin tones and about 30-40% of em honestly just looked mulatto, some very light skinned which makes me question the real numbers
in reality the only 2 places in the caribbean with very pure blacks are haiti and bahamas (yet bahamas is like 25-30% haitian, go figure)
even jamaica is pretty mixed tbh
mind u all those tiny islands (lesser antilles) r filled with haitian and dominican immigrants who both happen to be black, blending in perfectly with the locals except for haitians who r alot blacker than all those islands on average
That's not what the DNA results say, of which there are several.
For example, this one only includes Barbados but gives a general idea.
Similar results are seen in other tests for other of the Lesser Antilles except Trinidad & Tobago (though not all those islands and for some reason not all those islands are in a single one). I have never seen results for Dominica, but considering there is the Carib thing there thst may be an interesting result to look at.
Tough to falsify those, rhough none are exact. If it was "all the same," which generally is your message, differences such as these wouldn't appear in DNA test after test.
What does exist are regional variances in the DR, but you also have to keep in mind population densities and where it concentrates. I can definitely see how Samana (particularly the eastern part of the peninsula) is not very different in the looks of the people compared to say Barbados, but it's not the same Samana vs Santiago. For starters, all of Samana hovers around 1% of the DR's population while Santiago is considerably much more. It goes without saying that roaming through any streets in Santiago is more representative of the DR than roaming through any streets in Samana or Las Terrenas. The thing is that if you live in say Las Terrenas, the Samana peninsula is where you spend most of your time and basically that forms your image of what is the DR. Hey, there are parts of the DR that are virtually devoid of people. Anyone that lives their entire lives over there would think the DR is very thinly populated. Anyone that lives ir spend most or all of thrir time in the eastern DR might get the impression it's a very flat country and whatever mountains are quite low. In reality, a small part of the DR is quite flat and the eastern region concentrates the bulk. Most of the DR is not only very mountainous, but some of its mountains are talker thsn any mountains in the Caribbean islands and even taller than any mountains in the USA east of the Mississippi River. Of course, they will say "I live in the DR and flatness is what I'm seeing" while they spend most ir all of their times in places like Punta Cana, La Romana or San Pedro. The DR is a mountainous country not because people want it to be, it simply is. If in the DR and it looks quite flat, even if it looks like a huge flat area; keep in mind those are the minority areas because the mountainous areas are much bigger. For those that spend most of their times in places like Samana, the national averages seen in various DNA tests may differ from what they think it should be given that it isn't like that in Samana. However, those are national averages, not in this case the average of a marginal part of the DR in the greater sense of things.
Though outdated, this gives a good idea of how the population concentrates and distributes in the DR. You make a straight line from say Santo Domingo to Santiago and the bulk of the country's population lives within 15 kilometers more or less in either direction of that line. Today not much difference must be for the distribution, just the dense areas are slightly more dense given the increase pf population. https://thedominicans.org/2021/10/18...ican-republic/
This dichotomy between where most Dominicans live vs areas where most don't live can even be seen via other data. Take passengers via international airports as an example. There are two international airports in the east and not one of them have a significant flow of Dominicans that live on the island or abroad. For that the international airports in Santo Domingo and Santiago caters the bulk of Dominican airplane passengers. Not even the El Catey airport near the Samana peninsula caters to Dominicans. There is a new airport being built in Pedernales and it's almost a guarantee Dominican passengers are going to be very much the minority, if any.
Similar results are seen in other tests for other of the Lesser Antilles except Trinidad & Tobago (though not all those islands and for some reason not all those islands are in a single one). I have never seen results for Dominica, but considering there is the Carib thing there thst may be an interesting result to look at.
Tough to falsify those, rhough none are exact. If it was "all the same," which generally is your message, differences such as these wouldn't appear in DNA test after test.
What does exist are regional variances in the DR, but you also have to keep in mind population densities and where it concentrates. I can definitely see how Samana (particularly the eastern part of the peninsula) is not very different in the looks of the people compared to say Barbados, but it's not the same Samana vs Santiago. For starters, all of Samana hovers around 1% of the DR's population while Santiago is considerably much more. It goes without saying that roaming through any streets in Santiago is more representative of the DR than roaming through any streets in Samana or Las Terrenas. The thing is that if you live in say Las Terrenas, the Samana peninsula is where you spend most of your time and basically that forms your image of what is the DR. Hey, there are parts of the DR that are virtually devoid of people. Anyone that lives their entire lives over there would think the DR is very thinly populated. Anyone that lives ir spend most or all of thrir time in the eastern DR might get the impression it's a very flat country and whatever mountains are quite low. In reality, a small part of the DR is quite flat and the eastern region concentrates the bulk. Most of the DR is not only very mountainous, but some of its mountains are talker thsn any mountains in the Caribbean islands and even taller than any mountains in the USA east of the Mississippi River. Of course, they will say "I live in the DR and flatness is what I'm seeing" while they spend most ir all of their times in places like Punta Cana, La Romana or San Pedro. The DR is a mountainous country not because people want it to be, it simply is. If in the DR and it looks quite flat, even if it looks like a huge flat area; keep in mind those are the minority areas because the mountainous areas are much bigger. For those that spend most of their times in places like Samana, the national averages seen in various DNA tests may differ from what they think it should be given that it isn't like that in Samana. However, those are national averages, not in this case the average of a marginal part of the DR in the greater sense of things.
Though outdated, this gives a good idea of how the population concentrates and distributes in the DR. You make a straight line from say Santo Domingo to Santiago and the bulk of the country's population lives within 15 kilometers more or less in either direction of that line. Today not much difference must be for the distribution, just the dense areas are slightly more dense given the increase pf population.
This dichotomy between where most Dominicans live vs areas where most don't live can even be seen via other data. Take passengers via international airports as an example. There are two international airports in the east and not one of them have a significant flow of Dominicans that live on the island or abroad. For that the international airports in Santo Domingo and Santiago caters the bulk of Dominican airplane passengers. Not even the El Catey airport near the Samana peninsula caters to Dominicans. There is a new airport being built in Pedernales and it's almost a guarantee Dominican passengers are going to be very much the minority, if any.
i dont trust those dna studies my friend
really small sample for DR, all of em are tiny
and the biggest one they did as of now has the dominican population at 50% african, 40% europea, 8% north african/west asian, 4% native
it has the cibao too
mind u this was done by participants of university students of middle class origin, which we all know the majority of dominicans are poor
and as i said, i live here in DR, i go to santiago all the time, and i literally still see more black than white dominicans, with mulattoes being the majority
i would say the cibao as a whole today is 20-25% white/quadroon, rest 60% being mulattoes, dark mulattoes, and blacks at around 20-25% as well
and that doesnt include haitians
DR is basically the same racially to martinique, guadeloupe, curacao, and bonaire which they r all 70% mulatto just like DR
i know this is based on self classifications but i can garantee with certainty that the vast majority of those islands (lesser antilles, especially dominica) r definitely mixed. iv been to all those islands and dominica many times (since my wife is from there), the blacks there were super diverse in skin tones and about 30-40% of em honestly just looked mulatto, some very light skinned which makes me question the real numbers
in reality the only 2 places in the caribbean with very pure blacks are haiti and bahamas (yet bahamas is like 25-30% haitian, go figure)
even jamaica is pretty mixed tbh
mind u all those tiny islands (lesser antilles) r filled with haitian and dominican immigrants who both happen to be black, blending in perfectly with the locals except for haitians who r alot blacker than all those islands on average
I notice outsiders(especially in Latin America) exaggerate the one drop rule. But... I feel the USA has the best definitions for "Black" than anywhere. Only con(for outsider which I don't disgaree) is the inclusions of recent biracials. But other than that I feel USA's definition is clear cut. In South Africa for example you got Colored who look like Kobe Bryant saying they are not Black. And South Africans themselves told me that. USA's definition of Black is so clear cut that other non-American Blacks are using it more.
Now.... This is not me trying to tout that Black-Americans are somehow smarter than everyone. NO........ But places like Latin America has all these damn color/phenotype caste terms that its all over the damn place. The USA's definition of Black is not just on phenotype/color but DNA.
But all in all the one drop rule isn't really for other Blacks. In my opinion its ethnic based for African-Americans. For example Hallie Berry may not be Black(the non-ADOS definition) but she is African-American. But yea I am slowly seeing Afro-Brazilians using the USA version of "Black."
According the actual census Brazil have 30 millions of blacks the second largest black population outside Africa. preliminary result of the actual census is 30 millions. The African ancestry is predominantly in black Brazilians but in mixed and white Brazilians the ancestry is predominantly European. A lot of websites claim Brazil is 70%, or 80% black. People exaggerate the African influence in Brazil a lot.
According the actual census Brazil have 30 millions of blacks the second largest black population outside Africa. preliminary result of the actual census is 30 millions. The African ancestry is predominantly in black Brazilians but in mixed and white Brazilians the ancestry is predominantly European. A lot of websites claim Brazil is 70%, or 80% black. People exaggerate the African influence in Brazil a lot.
The problem that people in the US have is their failure to see is that the notions of race in the US is not compatible with the historical and cultural unique development of mixed race identity in Latin America.
Question: why are there so many black Americans who are invested in Latin American social dynamics? Like it affects you, personally? I've seen this weird combination from many that combines afrocentric theories to "claiming" "black" populations... even taking it as a personal affront if immigrants from Latin America don't see them as one and the same.
Are people actually upset that there are folk who see themselves as Dominican, Colombian, Panamanian, etc. first? That there isn't that same amount of tribalism that exists in the US? Things aren't perfect. Far from it! But to expect everyone to use a US-centric model for how they see the world... strikes me as imperialist.
Don't forget that countries like Mexico harbored runaway slaves and even today, many black Americans who move there say they face less racism than in the US (if at all). There is no "one drop rule" and most people don't go around calling themselves "black" Mexicans, "white" Mexicans, "brown" Mexicans, etc.
Do you know what was going on in Spain at the time?
In 1492 Spain ordered Jews to leave the country, convert to Catholicism, or be burned at the stake. Those forcibly converted, if they were found out to be practicing Judaism, were burned at the stake. Muslims were also expelled, forcibly converted, and if they found out to be practicing Islam, burned at the stake.
The Catholic church decided it was okay to plunder and enslave non Catholics, so the church actively supported conquest of the Americas and the ENSLAVEMENT of Africans. Spain and Portugal started the importation of African slaves to the Americans. The Americas were divided between Portugal and Spain, with Portugal getting Brazil (the church told them they could get Africa too) and with Spain getting the rest of the Americas.
Of course the expelled Jews, upon settling in Britain, France, and Holland quickly found work. Portugal and Spain were more advanced than the rest of Europe. These Jews took their advanced navigational skills and put them to use in other Western European nations, which were then able to get in on colonalism.
So basically, genocide of Jews, genocide of Muslims, genocide of Natives (places like the Dominican Republic and Cuba had most of the Natives worked literally to death, that's why large numbers of African slaves were brought in).
The Catholic Church and Spanish/Portuguese Imperialism committed crimes against humanity on a far grander scale than the Germans did during the Holocaust.
I kind of feel like you're skipping over the whole invasion and occupation bit. Spain was literally at war with Muslims over land for hundreds of years. To think they would embrace them as fellow citizens immediately after is a bit naive, plus, I remember one of the reasons they were expelled was due to them constantly rebelling? In general, winners write the rules, and Christians themselves were martyred for their faith before the Reconquista.
You mention Jews first, when they themselves played a part in just about every European nation's colonial endeavors. This is exactly why I won't put the blame all on Christians/Catholics (aside from having been raised one).
Inquisition was very relevant as it essentially committed acts of GENOCIDE against Jews and Muslims and was more HORRIFIC than the HOLOCAUST as it was perpetuated on multiple CONTINENTS. In fact, the Catholic church (who wanted all non Christians dead) authorized Spain and Portugal to conquer Africa and the Americas and yes this is linked to the Inquisition and the Catholic Church itself.
"You keep on using that word I do not think it means what you think it means"
Inquisition was mostly geared towards "lapsed" Catholics
In just two generations you can breed the black out of anybody's family. A minority that is exogamous can disappear without a trace.
This has actually been proven with modern DNA testing. If you've ever payed attention to Mexican ancestry DNA results, almost every single Mexican has some minute fraction of African ancestry. It's usually around 5% - the highest I've seen was 12%. What that shows is that the historical black population was completely absorbed into the general population.
Argentines are the same. They average about 5% African. That shows that the blacks weren't "exterminated", they blended in. Their descendants today are white.
I'd like to see these states for "almost every Mexican"
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.
