Is Puerto Rico a racially integrated place or is it like Mexico (movers, home)

[NJ Chutzpah]

Is Puerto Rico a racially integrated place? Or is like Mexico where the euro descendants dominate, and just make themselves rich by holding everyone else down.

[St.Croix to Seattle]

I was Born and Raised in St.Croix near by and grew up with a lot of travel between Puerto Rico and it is very racially diverse,The People with money of any race take full use of the Low wages that are paid on the island just like mine and become very wealthy,the pay is usually about 30 cents on the dollar or less for a similiar job in the States,just as it is in St.croix but it is a great place for a small business as long as you speak spanish-which by the way there is really no way of telling who is local as there are black,white and european Puerto Ricans.

[hindsight2020]

I would say those with more apparent european look tend to fare better. Because of the cultural uniqueness to day-to-day living in PR and the small land area/high population density in the metro areas, Puerto Ricans of all racial heritages intermingle well. However, do not be misled by that, racial hierarchies are alive and well in PR and yes, the PR bourgeoisie is predominantly white. The difference is as I said before, in PR said person only has to deal with racial differences, as culturally they are somewhat homogeneous. When moving to the CONUS, in the abscence of racial AND cultural commonalities, the frictions are more apparent and perceived as harsher. This was predominantly the birth cause of the "newyorican" and other flavors of third-generation cultural identities in the CONUS. This would be the closest equivalent to "chicanos" for the Mexicans. Historically, both groups' (more newyoricans, chicanos to a lesser extent) almost instant graviation to the African-American influence in defining such identities up here, created a sense in which the rest of this country accepts at face value that white Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans cannot possibly exist.

So, the above poster is correct as well, there is still a lot of misconceptions in terms of the racial makeup of PR. Just like Méjico, a substantial segment of the population in places like Cuba and PR is made up by people who would be considered as "white" up in the CONUS. I would know, I live in Louisiana and until my mother calls me on the cell phone and I start talking in that very native "puertorriqueño" flavor of spanish, people would never know I'm Hispanic.

[ontheroad]

Tricky question, in my view: I know so many Puerto Ricans having grown up in NYC, and I don't think I could put any into one box, except with no exception they all visit their family and home island regularly.

I now have a long term friend (non-PR) whose son moved to PR with his wife and two children, and get a varied impression from her. Overall I think economics everywhere is the divide, and probably PR is no different.

As for colour, I bet Puerto Ricans come in every shade from pure snow-white to dark, dark chocolate.

[mlv311]

Originally Posted by NJ Chutzpah

Is Puerto Rico a racially integrated place? Or is like Mexico where the euro descendants dominate, and just make themselves rich by holding everyone else down.

I'm not going to deny that color is a factor, as in many other places, but I think that in PR, more than color, socioeconomics is a great divide. Growing up there, your family's socioeconomic background mattered as much as any merits you earned on your own.

[mrkool]

Originally Posted by NJ Chutzpah

Is Puerto Rico a racially integrated place? Or is like Mexico where the euro descendants dominate, and just make themselves rich by holding everyone else down.

I've always wondered about folks who think like you, and claim that "whites" or "Europeans" have this ability to dominate and hold other groups down?
In many places where whites have been accused of this, like Mexico, South Africa, and other places, they are only a small % of the population.
People with large amounts of white blood are a distinct minority in Mexico.
In South Africa, during apartheid there were only 4 million whites, and 25 million blacks, as I recall.
So in cases like this, how is it that such a minority can "hold down" such a majority?
Isn't it possible, just possible, that in many places whites have a disproportionate amount of power and privilege simply because they have a better aptitude at business, politics, etc.? Maybe it's not about "holding down" others, or any evil doings, but just simply ability and talents.
Otherwise, it's sort of hard to explain how small numbers of whites "hold down" larger numbers of other groups.
Can't wait to see the flak I'm going to get for suggesting this theory in response to the inflammatory comment about whites by the original poster.
If I get called "racist", then he/she had better also.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by mrkool

I've always wondered about folks who think like you, and claim that "whites" or "Europeans" have this ability to dominate and hold other groups down?
In many places where whites have been accused of this, like Mexico, South Africa, and other places, they are only a small % of the population.
People with large amounts of white blood are a distinct minority in Mexico.
In South Africa, during apartheid there were only 4 million whites, and 25 million blacks, as I recall.
So in cases like this, how is it that such a minority can "hold down" such a majority?
Isn't it possible, just possible, that in many places whites have a disproportionate amount of power and privilege simply because they have a better aptitude at business, politics, etc.? Maybe it's not about "holding down" others, or any evil doings, but just simply ability and talents.
Otherwise, it's sort of hard to explain how small numbers of whites "hold down" larger numbers of other groups.
Can't wait to see the flak I'm going to get for suggesting this theory in response to the inflammatory comment about whites by the original poster.
If I get called "racist", then he/she had better also.

i have 3 words for you to disprove your theory: George W Bush

really, it has nothing to do with ability and talents. it has to do with who knows whom and who gets those opportunities without truly having to work for it from the ground up. those who come from the same caste or know each other through families have a much better shot at becoming successful in the real world.

[mrkool]

Originally Posted by wehotex

i have 3 words for you to disprove your theory: George W Bush

really, it has nothing to do with ability and talents. it has to do with who knows whom and who gets those opportunities without truly having to work for it from the ground up. those who come from the same caste or know each other through families have a much better shot at becoming successful in the real world.

Is that right? Wow... then please explain how for centuries white Europeans, wherever they went in the world, quickly became the conquerers, the movers and shakers, the discoverers, etc. All without knowing anyone or having really any way to get unfair, unearned opportunities. And they did it when they were very small in numbers compared to the indigineous peoples. This has occurred over and over in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and other places that white Europeans ventured. They had no infrastructure or contacts in place, yet did phenomenal things in terms of discovery, civilizing, building, etc. It was white Europeans and Americans who found the oil in the middle east, and knew what to do with it and how to extract and refine it. The natives hadn't done that. Europeans discovered all the precious metals/mineral wealth in Africa, knew it's value, technical uses, and figured out how to extract and process it. The natives hadn't done that.
To say that white Europeans didn't have special talent and abilities, and got their power and prosperity all over the world through "contacts" and so forth, is just the silliest sort of poltical correctness. Look at an exhaustive list of all the inventions of the past few hundred years, who the inventors were and where they came from. See a pattern? Would this not denote exceptional talent and ability, for crying out loud? You've got alot of explaining to do...
You cannot refute anythiong I've said, except with liberal cliches and pseudo-history. The true historical record is quite clear.
And I really don't know what to say about the anti-Bush comment at the beginning of your post.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by mrkool

Is that right? Wow... then please explain how for centuries white Europeans, wherever they went in the world, quickly became the conquerers, the movers and shakers, the discoverers, etc. All without knowing anyone or having really any way to get unfair, unearned opportunities. And they did it when they were very small in numbers compared to the indigineous peoples. This has occurred over and over in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and other places that white Europeans ventured. They had no infrastructure or contacts in place, yet did phenomenal things in terms of discovery, civilizing, building, etc. It was white Europeans and Americans who found the oil in the middle east, and knew what to do with it and how to extract and refine it. The natives hadn't done that. Europeans discovered all the precious metals/mineral wealth in Africa, knew it's value, technical uses, and figured out how to extract and process it. The natives hadn't done that.
To say that white Europeans didn't have special talent and abilities, and got their power and prosperity all over the world through "contacts" and so forth, is just the silliest sort of poltical correctness. Look at an exhaustive list of all the inventions of the past few hundred years, who the inventors were and where they came from. See a pattern? Would this not denote exceptional talent and ability, for crying out loud? You've got alot of explaining to do...
You cannot refute anythiong I've said, except with liberal cliches and pseudo-history. The true historical record is quite clear.
And I really don't know what to say about the anti-Bush comment at the beginning of your post.

NOTE: not all 'White' people are successful socio-economically, the Irish till in the last 75 years had a terrible reputation.

And; many Asian cultures tend to do very well...........in particular, the Japanese and overseas Chinese.

Small minority admittedly; but, the most successful socio-economic group here in the USA are Blacks of Nigerian, Kenyan, etc. heritage.

[Sam I Am]

MODERATOR: This is not the forum to debate race or George Bush, Asians or Irish and the historical significance of ethnicity...move it over to Politics and Controversies if we want to discuss anything other than integration in Puerto Rico.