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 don't see nearly as many single white, Asian or Latino moms as I do single black moms in NYC. Usually it's mostly dark women that are single with children. Laugh at my comment, but deep down you know it is true.
There are many white single mothers/moms.
Many white single mothers who raise mixed race children often are considered the most vulnerable and most poorest according to one study.
I have been to Panama... And I absolutely can have it both ways. Because the colonization of Panama and DR are two very distinctly different cases.
Their historical demographics are much different. Panama was colonized by Colombia equally as long as it was by Spain...and Panama had a huge influx from Ecuador and Venezuela as well.
Totally different demographics...
DR is also twice as far north of the equator as opposed to Panama.
Lol. No you cannot have it both ways and one drop Panamanians but then make an exception for Dominicans or hold different standards for Dominicans. Panama is NOT a black country. Panama is a mostly mixed race country.
When were you in Panama and what parts of Panama did you go to?
Also what in the heck does Panama being closer to the equator have to do with anything? What does DR being north of the equator have to do with anything?
Panama was NOT a colony of Colombia and it was NOT colonized by Colombia. That's like saying Virginia was colonized by the United States.
Panama since colonial times was a Spanish province apart of and attached to Colombia/Peru/South America historically and culturally and would remain an integral part of Colombia as a province, state, department of Colombia after Bogota and the Viceroyalty of New Grenada achieved independence from Spain. Panama was always attached to Colombia and South America and included in the promulgation of the Constitution of Cucuta and with backing and insistence from Simon Bolivar.
The USA stole Panama from Colombia and Panama was created from a conference committe room from Wall Street. Wall Street carved out and created Panama. Panama was created by the French directors of the French Panama Canal Construction project board and comittee and the USA president Theodore Roosevelt and oppressive elite Colombian conservatives for profit and to build a canal through it. Panama was suppose to be under Colombian authority if the USA did not get what they could out of Panama. Also no Panamanian or Colombian ever signed the Panama Canal Treaty and Panama Canal Zone treaties.
And actually the largest immigrant group in Panama has always been Colombians. Although there are sizable numbers of Venezuelans coming in. Where did youhear about Ecuadorians coming into Panama?
When you use the term black are you referring to skin color or to the imposed racial stereotype concept of being descended from dark skinned peoples of the Sub Saharan African continent?
Last edited by MelismaticEchoes; 10-28-2013 at 04:29 AM..
Look, Tainos and ANY native from North/Central/South America were BROWN SKINNED. In the context of western culture we just alleviate natives (and any non-hispanic) of the "black" classification...for whatever reason. It's semantics. We don't force hispanics to identify as black/white because we have some deep underlying hatred of Africans. At least that is what I tend to believe.
I lean towards it going back to the stigmatization of dark skin and the observation of the distinct differences between dark and light skinned people.
Like a previous poster alluded to...the taboo of "black" predates colonialism...
I'm not getting what you are trying to say in your comment.
All I'm saying is that black is a term used for people descended from peoples of Sub Saharan Africa.
The Native Americans would correspond technically and scientifically to the "Mongolioid/Asian" race if following traditional fallacious race categorizations.
But they are NOT black and they are NOT white.
Also remember that Hispanics and Latinos are NOT races. Any race whether it be black, white, Native American, or Asian, or mixed race of any combination mix could be Hispanic/Latino.
I have been to Panama... And I absolutely can have it both ways. Because the colonization of Panama and DR are two very distinctly different cases.
Their historical demographics are much different. Panama was colonized by Colombia equally as long as it was by Spain...and Panama had a huge influx from Ecuador and Venezuela as well.
Totally different demographics...
DR is also twice as far north of the equator as opposed to Panama.
Panama and Venezuela have very significant triracially mixed race populations. Most are a mix of European, Native American, and African descent.
Based on your logic we could say Ecuador is a very black country as well since Ecuador has a large black population.
And the irony of that is the Moors, who were really the proto-capitalists of civilization, were a very diverse group. Their complexion spanned the spectrum.
But yes, they taught the game to the Euros. The Euros just mastered it.
If anyone should be mad at a group of people then it should be Arabs. It was the Arabs that promulgated it all. In Muslim, Arabic, Middle Eastern, and North African nations they still refer to black people as "abd" which means slave. They were the ones that attached black with the meaning of slave. In addition this set up and establishment for oppression and colonization was one that Spaniards and Portuguese adopted and they imposed it on their own colonies and peoples, and then the British would later try to catch up to the success of these groups and they began imposing it on their colonies. So that's my whole point right there. In addition Black Codes came from Spanish, Portuguese and French, and the Arabs had something similar. And people try to go out of their way to say that the British and Americans were the most racist or more racist, when it was the other way around. This doesn't even consider the fact of the methods of punishment that was used by colonial powers. But yeah, you get the drift.
And the irony of that is the Moors, who were really the proto-capitalists of civilization, were a very diverse group. Their complexion spanned the spectrum.
But yes, they taught the game to the Euros. The Euros just mastered it.
Actually the Arabs mastered it. In fact the Arabs are still engaging in enslaving blacks throughout the still to this day. There is even a documentary on it.
I'm not getting what you are trying to say in your comment.
All I'm saying is that black is a term used for people descended from peoples of Sub Saharan Africa.
The Native Americans would correspond technically and scientifically to the "Mongolioid/Asian" race if following traditional fallacious race categorizations.
But they are NOT black and they are NOT white.
Also remember that Hispanics and Latinos are NOT races. Any race whether it be black, white, Native American, or Asian, or mixed race of any combination mix could be Hispanic/Latino.
I think most people are aware Hispanic/Latino is not a race but it is the only ethnicity in America that we pigeonhole into the racial paradigm..
Aside from Africans and Euros, of course.
Indians, Natives and Asians are exempt apparently.
Wow...reel yourself in. You just went on an extremely long winded rant. A rant you set up by applying your own context to my comment.
In no way did I bash Farrakhan.
And again, you use the misnomer "mixed Afrodescent". It's a word that inherently implies that "afro" supersedes or, at the very least, is the greater portion of the makeup of ones lineage. And you have NO WAY to quantify that when attaching the claim to my wife. So, what are you basing that label claim on?
Look, for starters let me CLARIFY something. I'm very anti one droppist. I'm vehemently opposed to the racist one drop rule. I also abhor all forms of ethnocentrism including afrocentricism and supporters of such bull****.
I used the term "mixed Afrodescent" in quotes or rather parenthesis because I was using it sarcastically and at the same time loosely. I mean mixed race (which includes a mix that has black race African descent lineage in it). It was also an analogous claim based on the same stereotypical and assumptive standards you applied to other individuals such as Jakiyah McKoy and Louis Farrakhan and held them to.
For example you just like I are opposed to the racist one drop rule. My point is that your assumptions of other individuals at the expense of pointing something in regards to blacks or American blacks automatically from face value or assumption is not a good thing and that it goes to show that at times you are either stereotyping people or individuals who are not part of the group you are targeting or speaking out against or speaking about.
Just like how you claimed or stated that your wife is considered black to many, but is obviously NOT AA, the same concept and standards you hold for your wife's identity or other Dominicans or even other "blacks" or "Afrodescendants" or even mixed race peoples that are NOT AA, should be applied to other individuals. In other words don't pick and choose. Be fair and equal.
And again I can't stand Farrakhan and I find him to be a racist bigot.
Wow...reel yourself in. You just went on an extremely long winded rant. A rant you set up by applying your own context to my comment.
In no way did I bash Farrakhan.
And again, you use the misnomer "mixed Afrodescent". It's a word that inherently implies that "afro" supersedes or, at the very least, is the greater portion of the makeup of ones lineage. And you have NO WAY to quantify that when attaching the claim to my wife. So, what are you basing that label claim on?
Don't put words in my mouth or perhaps you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. "mixed Afrodescent" is NOT implying that Afro supersedes or is a greater portion of ones identity or ones lineage. I used that term loosely because you yourself mentioned it and it's a focus of the thread in regards to black and African ancestry in relation to others and contextual situation of the dialogue we are having especially with black and white and mixed vs black etc and vice versa. I simply was going to say mixed race lineage period, but I didn't want it to be misconstrued. In addition it's about Afrodescendants which does NOT mean black.
And just like you said that one has NO WAY of attaching claims of such a label, the same can be said for you as YOU have absolutely NO WAY to attach a claim to the ancestry of an individual like Louis Farrakhan or Jakiyah McKoy. Farrakhan is NOT of any African American descent. He is full West Indian descent. Jakiyah's Dominican grandparent could be questionable but her other 3/4 grandparents may not be AA either.
So with that said, just as you would not want one assuming or mistaking your wife for being an American black or any AA etc, don't impose stereotypes and then lump other individuals as being AA automatically from assumption or face value.
On the first point, that is exactly my point....your Dubois', Douglass' and MLK's just wished to see black americans integrate and assimilate into, what is now an imperialist regime.
Garvey wanted no part of it. Granted, he was self serving....as is any socio-political figurehead. But I digress.
Ah ok! I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying
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.
