Hello Everyone,

I saw in another thread, Black Male Shortage - Myth or Reality? (http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12213), where a Sister said ... "Sisters better take notice...there will be more women looking at the Black man...namely the latino women."This comment made me wonder ...

If a Black Brother or Sister is with a Latino Brother or Sister ...
aren't they still with an "African?"

In general, do Latinos consider themselves Africans?

In general, do Blacks consider Latinos Africans?

Are Latinos Africans too?

:heart:

Destee

I think that latinos are heavily discriminated against just like
we are-therefore, they consider themselves to be able to
relate to our culture in that they are oppressed in many ways
themselves. However, ethnically or culturally speaking

I think not :0)

one

pd

Hello my fellow Panafricanist!! Destee this forum is a great idea, and you deserve much credit for starting it.

To answer the question. There are "Black" Latinos, "White" Latinos, and "Mulatto" Latinos. Latinos are generally made up of the same racial background as Americans. South America and the Caribbean (containing the Hispanic countries Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominician Republic) has the same basic racial makeup as the U.S., with African slavery and the mixing of Europeans and Indians or Native Americans. A major difference in the two different cultures was the extent to which this "mixing" took place. Although race mixing is evident in the U.S. (with the high number of light skinned blacks in the country). Race mixing in South America was so ingrained in the society that the majority of the people are now what we would deem as mulattoes.

However in many countries there are Hispanics who are clearly black (having such a large percentage of African blood, that their skin is dark brown & their hair is course). As Panthaxx already pointed out, most of those Latinos who are "black" classify themselves as Hispanic. However I think this is a social-political strategy. From what I've observed, Hispanics suffer from an identity crisis. Most will tell you that race is classified differently in their countries. However being married to a African Spaniard, and knowing a handful of "black" Latinos that correctly classify themselves as black, I know that this isn't really true.

Hispanics are coming to this country to make a better life for themselves (to escape poverty & persecution in their homelands). In America blacks (despite the civil rights movement) continue to occupy the bottom of the social-economic system. If Afro-Latinos come to this county & identify themselves as black, then they would inherit the economic & social discrimination that we face. Since they are fleeing from poverty they don't want to face economic discrimination here. Therefore they disassociate themselves from blacks: "My skin might be dark, but I'm not black. I'm Cuban, Mexican, Dominican, etc."

Despite this trend, I still consider black Latinos part of the African Diaspora. I wouldn't be a true Panafricanist if I didn't. However it is important for them to recognize their blackness if we are to consider them allies in the struggle. Until they do, we are mistaken to expect their support.

indeed they are the answers is YES....

Latinos considering themselves other than African is evidence of the pervasiveness of rascism and white supremacy.

I''m in line with PanAfrica, both Latino and Hispanic are genaral terms. AfricanLatinos are few in numbers, they need to identify themselfs that way. if not then they are then just Latinos of African decent.. This of cause is more complexe than meets the eye.

Originally posted by Monetary
Latinos considering themselves other than African is evidence of the pervasiveness of rascism and white supremacy.

perhaps us considering them african is nothing more than arrogance.

we are family. but we are not the same. latinos are native americans. their culture is rich and complete. they are not african. we have met before. we have built empires on their soil. but we are not them. they are not us.

research bears this fact. "they came before colombus" wasnt about saying we were here first. just that we were here before slavery.

Welcome Ifasehun, and thank you for posting on the boards!

Now that the formalities are out of the way, I have to disagree with your statement that Latinos are "Native Americans". It is true that Latinos are mixed with "Native Americans", just as they are mixed with African and Spanish blood. However many African Americans also have "Native American" blood. Therefore, Latinos can not be anymore "Native American" than African-Americans. Also the culture of African Americans is rich and complete.

I see there is a need to clarify my point...and make a few others.

In reference to your "arrogance" comment, I only called Latinos African because of the same logic as Kemetsry; not because I'm arrogant. All humans come from Africans, hence all humans are Africans. However, looking at it that way would make the question moot.

To dig a little deeper, the comment I made about the pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy stems from the "light skin" vs "dark skin" mental condition that is prevalent around the world. This mental condition...in my opinion...has widespread ramifications because of racism or white supremacy.

So, those who can pass for white...no matter what their true background is...will claim that status by referring to themselves as whatever-American. Prime example...people from Mexico in the US. People from Mexico who claim their heritage and background who live in the US consider themselves Mexicans. Those who want to get a better life and indirectly disclaim their culture consider themselves Mexican Americans. African Americans...hmmmm...food for thought.

Like Mexico, I am under the impression that most countries exhibit discrimination because of color.

So, that was my logic for considering Latinos African.

I left myself open...let's see who will notice. :lol:

African Americans and Latin Americans have African,Black,and Euopean blood in thier veins.The only difference is that the Latin American's slave master spoke a different language.

From the little that I know . . .

Hispanic . . . spanish speaking countries, including those in Europe - - This is the broader category.

Latino . . . population from Latin American countries where spanish is spoken as the first language, regardless of race.

Hispanic/Latino is a category used in data reports for census records. Under the new guidelines for agency reporting, it's the FIRST question asked.

Race is a category used in data collection for census records. It refers to all others not of spanish culture or descent. It is the SECOND question asked in census reports.

Regardless of racial category, including mult-racial background, a person that self-identifies as an Hispanic/Latino will be counted as such regardless of whether they are White or Black.

(Politically progressive Mexicans prefer to be called Chicanos to distinguish themselves among all other Latinos. As you probably know, there are different political views among these groups and many do not like being "lumped" together)

People from non-spanish speaking backgrounds will be counted by how they self-identify as a part of a "race" category...White, Black, Asian, American Indian.

Are Latinos Africans? In a broad sense yes and Monetary pointed out. However, imo, the ones that are African are those that are direct descendants of African slaves that were transported to the Caribbean islands during the slave trade. So I don't consider all Latinos or Hispanics as being of African descent.

i would tend to agree with queen moreso.

but i want to make sure the point doesnt get lost:

this is NATIVE AMERICAN SOIL. from canada to s. america. if you are indigenous to this place you are a native american. the other designations speak more to who you were a victim of when europeans arrived in americas than anything else. or what country you call home. but all in all, they are native americans, not africans. if i married a cherokee woman (which would be impossible, because i am already married, but this is an anology. lol) and we had a child and that child married a black person and all the offspring thereafter - the child is african with cherokee roots. not cherokee.

we must be careful to denote who we sympathize with politically and who were are by ethnicity. the two are not always the same.

ifasehun, I am confused by your perspective and the analogy you use to support your opinion.

Let me ask a question and see if you can help me understand your point better.

Is it your position that Native Americans and Mexicans are indigenous people and therefore cannot be Africans because people from Africa were brought to the Americas when they were already here?

If this is your position, it would only apply to one Hispanic population, that being Mexicans. What about all the OTHER Latino groups from South American countries that are here in the U.S. or maybe even still living in their native countries?

I think we need to be clear as to how Hispanic/Latino terms are defined which is why I posted the definitions. It applies to more than Mexicans which I agree, is an indigenous (American) population.

my point is that an indigenous people are native american. hispanic and latino are partially artificial terms created to describe relationships between indigenous indians and white people.

latinos is short for latin, no? so its an eurocentric reference point. but whats important for this conversation to note is this: although all humans come from african genes originally, its doesnt make them "one of us." time, evolution and culture help create difference and diversity. just because a person has suffered racism at the hands of europeans doesnt make them african either. which is what a few other posts seem to be trying to do.

we came here prior to slavery - yes. did we found native america? well, yes and no. we were a part of the immigration of people that melted into one and created what we call native americans.

what are native americans composed of?
(1)mongolian asians. (a migrating group that also helped form the alaskan populace)
(2)africans, speficially a group that scientists and historians call "dimunitive blacks" (because they were shorter than most africans.)
(3)a smaller portion of early european that probably didnt look too close to what we call being white today, but are related nonetheless.

after many many years - these three bodies became one and created a discinctive culture and identity - native america.

so the answer is : no, hispanics and latinos are not africans.

i rushed to type, but i hope my position is much clearer now.
(3)

I challenge that Mexicans or any other Latino group are indigenous people to begin with. As knowing a good deal about their history, I know they are mixed with Spanish, "Native American, and yes some African blood. The "Native American" ethnic groups that existed in Mexico have either died off or intermixed with the Spanish conquerors many centuries ago. Indeed it has been noted by many Spanish explorers (who came to Mexico and the rest of Central and South America in the 1500s) that "Native American villages were litered with dead bodies within a week or two of their arrival (due largely to the exposure of smallpox, which Europeans brought with them when they came to the Americas). Millions more were killed when the Spanish developed the "encomienda" system, which was an early version of slavery directed at "Native Americas" also known as the Amerindians.

The overwhelming majority of the "Native Americans" that ifasehun speaks of died within the 1st few centuries of Spanish contact. The majority of those who survived would inter-mix and marry with their Spanish conquerors and the African slaves that were there. The result of that mix are the Mexicans you see today. While there are no doubt surviving Amerindians of pure blood that still exist in South America (just like their are in the USA), they are in the absolute minority. The same pattern occurred throughout South America and much of the Caribbean. Therefore Mexicans or any South American group (insert the Portuguese for the Spanish in Brazil) are no more "Native American" than African Americans, as we also have native american blood within us.

Pan, thank you for the history lesson. This is interesting. So those people that we refer to today as "Mexicans" are not an indigenous group to America but they are, essentially, African?

Hey NN.....you seem to be developing a serious interest in Africa, and African history, which I think is great! To answer your question:

No, I'm not saying that Mexicans are essentially African. I'm arguing that they are not an indigenous group to America, because they have inter-mixed with the true "Native Population" of South America, African slaves, and European colonizers (in their case the Spanish). The same has happened with us, except with us, the European colonizers where mainly the British (and in some cases the French). The colonial influence (and inter-mixing)in both of our cultures is reflected in the language that we speak. If Mexicans were truly "Native Americans" with no inter-mixing then you'd have a large number of Mexicans who continue to speak their "Native" tongue (which isn't Spanish).

Take Africa for example. Because of European colonization, every African country has a European language as their "official language": From English, to French, to Spanish, to Arabic. However, every ethnic group in every country has their "Native" tongue. Meaning their original language that existed before Europeans came to Africa. Among the Bubi in Equatorial Guinea the people speak "Bubi", this is the language they speak at home, and they learn Spanish in school. In Senegal most people speak Wolof in the home, and they learn French in school. The same goes for all of Africa, as well as India, and many countries in Asia. This happened because although Europeans occupied these countries (and practically enslaved the people), there was a small amount of intermixing, which allowed the people to retain their culture & language.

Finally I am not saying that Mexicans are essentially African, because while there was an African presence in Mexico. The African presence was much larger in Brazil and in Spanish speaking countries in the Caribbean. In Brazil, Africans make up the largest percentage (over 80%) of the country. The last slave ships to come from Africa in the 1890s (just a little over 100 centuries ago, and after slavery ended in America) went to Cuba. The Dominican Republic's interaction throughout the centuries has created a large African presence there. All that being said there are still black Mexicans. When your skin is as dark as Wesley Snipes, and your hair is like Don King, then you are obviously African......whether you want to be or not........lol! I have seen Mexicans that look like this, not as often as I encounter other Latinos with this appearance, but again they are there.

Moving away from the indigenous conversation for a minute, because that part is confusing me...help me to understand the focus of this thread..."Are Hispanic/Latinos Africans too?"

This might sound a little confusing but please bear with me a moment. I'm really trying to understand your perspectives.

So, in your opinion, what makes a person an African? Your blood mix, your native language, the place where you were born or originated from as a people, or the way you look?

Pan, does the language we speak determine our heritage? This theory would hold true and is consistent with the way the Census defines people. The census considers common language first.

But there's an additional factor involved which stems from a common blood-line, if you will. That explains Africans born in America.

So is what you saying, that because the majority of people in Brazil and the Caribbean were/are of African descent...regardless of the fact that they speak a common language that is foreign to them, despite the fact that they are not native to that part of the world, including the fact that their ancestors were mostly slaves transported from Africa, and taking into consideration the fact that they represent the majority (80%) of the Brazilian population--that makes them Africans too?

good questions NN

Determining heritage can be complicated. Language can be a factor; however, some might argue that language relects more a person's culture than it does their heritage. Appearance is obviously a big factor in determining heritage, but that too can be deceiving. I tend to judge heritage based on tracing where the majority of a person's ancestors come from. In other words I look at a common blood line as you already stated. That is how I link African Americans and other black people across the Diaspora to Africa. Knowing a lot of Africans and having African in-laws furthers this opinion. As all marvel at how African Americans look like the various ethnic groups they know in Africa.

okay, i can concur w/ panafrican on most of what he is saying. although i would say that from a spiritual, not empirical point (basically that i couldnt take my next comment through a scientific test to prove it..lol)

that there are more indigenous people that we believe. that the ancestors of those people continue to predominate a lot of these people.

(in african religion we note that every person has about 3 different people in them for the most part, but that ancestrally one is dominant. and that it doesnt always coorelate with what you see on the outside in the case of people that a product of miscengation or interracial relationships. from that standpoint the lines are harder to view, but in general we see the native american or amerindian as a very strong ancestral line that continues to exist with the mixed personage of Latin, S. American and Caribbean.

Again, if i had to back it up w/ empirical evidence, i would be shot in the water probably. but i am talking ancestrally.

In any case, I think scientifically speaking that they constitute something new, not quite european, not african - but w/ a base of indian (i hate that word.) which still makes them more indigenous that all of us.

colonization sure does complicate matters doesnt it? no black and white, only gray areas now.

i am still learning

i honestly don't know anything firsthand
about being an AFRICAN

i check the box for african american b/c
i am a very talented poet and the origin
of this talent began in Egypt according
to the greeting card association themselves

africans were basically robbed and exploited
of their talents and identity for the mere amusement
of white people since they couldn't naturally exercise
these same natural God given talents themselves
in knowing how rich my ancestry really is of course
i say it loud today that i'm a descendant of Africa and proud

i was born in America as a descendant
of black immigrants from the islands,
native americans, and african slaves
brought to america

panafrica ifasehun has a good point in
believing that latinos are native americans
give her some credit

think about it, where did latinos FIRST
originate? was it on native american
soil? if so, can we say that there is a
such thing as the classification of "latino"?

indians are basically becoming exstinct
we don't know what from what and who
from who anymore because everyone is
trying to live and maintain the best way
they know how and if that means declaring
themselves as anything but "black" or "indian"
then so be it for most people

peace

pd

I now have a clearer understanding of why ifasehun says that Latinos/Hispanics are Native American. However, I can also understand why NNQueen would say that they are Africans as well. I guess it's a toss up. You can't choose land mass or blood line to determine the answer to this question. You could use some genetic test to determine the answer. But, we all know that African genes dominate. So, I guess the point is to let them choose what they are to be...which group they are to follow or to belong to. I doubt seriously if they'll choose either one over the other...unless they are forced to or are afforded some privilege from doing so..such as choosing to be White over African or Native American to achieve status or attain wealth. Hence, I agree with PD...as she makes again the point I was making with the "color" issue in one of my previous posts.

The "color" issue was not to determine the race, ethnicity or to classify Latinos/Hispanics in any way. It was only to point out that, at this point, they may call themselves something totally different from what they were originally...and--I repeat--this point was made eloquently by PD in the previous post.

I could also try to categorize Latinos/Hispanics by looking at mannerisms, thought patterns, more or less right brain-left brain, etc...etc. They, overwhelmingly, would fit right in with Africans. Hence, I would consider them as Africans. But, I digress.

Everyone knows that the islands in the Caribbean and South America were major ports of entry for African slaves. African slaves were imported there to provide strong (unpaid) labor for the major crops or resources primary to the country's economy. They were treated like chattels similar to the way other property i.e., cattle, horses were treated--the way we were caught, transported and breeded to make us more adept to climate, immune to certain diseases, hard labor and other ways that were "profitable" for Europeans.

As a result, you have different "races" of people represented in those locations the same way as there are here in America. I personally know Black Puerto Ricans and White Puerto Ricans.

The "Black" PR's have an obvious appearance of people from Africa--very dark skin and other African physical features; the Whites are the exact opposite--very European looking. They're from the same country and speak the same language but if they didn't speak and you just looked at them, you would see them differently and think of them differently.

In the context of this thread. . . I think we all agree that everyone originated from Africa. However, in more modern terminology and by definition, these individuals (Black/White Puerto Ricans) would not be put in a "racial" category based on the color of their skin, but in an ethnic category based on their common language (Spanish) and country of origin (Puerto Rico).

So yes, they are all Africans, HOWEVER, to our natural eye--one group has a closer (blood) connection to Africa than the other group.

Just my opinion. . .

I don't really know, this is a very interesting topic. My father is Mexican and my mom is white, but I look white.....I dont know what that means, but in general we all came from the same place. Just look at the Afro-Cuban culture, some Cubans look black, while others look more light skinned.

Mariah Carey is half black but has the appearance of someone who could PASS for white from back in the day. Therefore, you more or less would fall in the same category. However, people who PASS for white in general would be treated like those who wouldn't PASS as being white if white people knew of your half black or half mexican side. Have you ever seen imitation of life featuring Lana Turner? If so, then you know what I mean or will understand after watching this movie.

During the construction of the Panama canal,workers were brought over from The West Indies.Most remained in Panama after the job was completed.Some even took Spanish names.Even though they are black in color,are they still considered Hispanics?

dbarka...in translation to modern definitions, yes, they are now "Hispanic" which is an ethnicity and not a race. It's an ethnicity (culturally based definition) because of the fact that what those "new" Panamanians have in common are the fact that Spanish is now their first language and Panama is their place of origin. Technically, they are Africans.


Leshon...you're in an interesting situation because, technically today, "Mexican" isn't considered a race but an ethnic culture. Caucasian is defined as a race. So technically, even though both of your parents are from different backgrounds, I don't know if you could define yourself as "bi-racial." The US federal government would classify you as Hispanic. Is that what you self-identify as?

Yeah that's pretty much it, but I don't really know how the US federal government works like that.

Quote:

"you couldn't be further from the truth. mexico is one of the countries with the largest and most significant surviving native population in the americas. at least 30% of the population are "pure natives", 60% being mixed, and 10% white. the average mexican is very likely more native than the average legally recognized native american in the US. "

Liviti, If 30% of Mexico's population are Amerindian (with little or no intermixture with Spaniards), then that still does not make Mexico an indigenous people. What that means is that 30% of Mexicans are Amerindian, just as 2% of the United States population is Amerindian. If 30% of Mexico is Amerindian, then that means 70% is not. Therefore it is NOT correct to classify all Mexicans as indigenous. I argued against a blanket statement that all Mexicans are Native American, not that there were Amerindians in Mexico.

The same applies to Equador, and almost every other country in Central & South America. With the possible exception of Peru (which you listed as having a 45% Amerindian population). If this is true, I actually think it is great. However I am curious how Amerindians in Peru were able to retain their culture, heritage, and blood to such a great extent when the rest of Amerindians in the Americas could not.

P.S. If the CIA World Fact and Meszito left out "African" in their Spanish-Amerindian racial mixture, then it is not completely accurate. There is an African presence in Mexico. The extent that it exist is debatable, but that it exist is not. It is evident in the clearly black Mexicans that exist in the country. It is evident in the extremely dark children that occasionally "pops up" (or should I say "pops out".......lol!) of "traditional Mexican Women who are married to "traditional Mexican Men. In short it is in their blood.

African Indians . . .
http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/native/native_thumbs.htm

I honestly can't believe that you people sarted this ****. No Latinos are not Africans. Not only do we have a different background and culture but we look different as well. Some ones skin color does not difine if they are african or not. Unless you were born in Africa shut the **** up you are not African. Hello there are white Africans as well.

Jazmin,

First of all welcome to our forums. It's unfortunate that you didn't see value in our topic along with so many of us here. I have a couple of reactions to your post.

1. It's great that you saw fit to respond to our thread. We try to have interesting and meaningful discussions here, as well as have fun. It would be even better if you refrained from using foul language and offered us more substantive reasons as to why you don't agree that Latinos are Africans.

2. This is a place where we emphasize respect and courtesy to those that come here. We ask that all our family exercise respect for each other and we're asking you to do the same. Your comments were rude and definitely in violation of our Forum Rules. May I suggest that you read the rules before you post here again so that you can be clear about what we ask all our members and guests to adhere to.

Finally, I must warn you. If you continue to post messages in this fashion, not only will they be removed, you will be banned from visiting here again and that would be a shame!

I hope this is clear. Again, welcome and I hope you see fit to cooperate and join us!

Peace :)

The most complex question you all must know it is quite simple. If you see my profile picture then you will see that I am black. I am in PUERTO RICO and understand that speaking from the Caribbean, we all have some type of african Blood in us. You bet so when you say hispanic/latinos are taking your men,.. then you are right. So what we are black too! How many black people have you seen that you said **** she looks hispanic. Do you tell her "you are white." When you know that history tells you we have all colors due to diaspora. Black does not mean you have to have tightly curled hair and being Hispanic/Latino does not say you have loose waves. **** IT PEOPLE! TRAVEL SOMETIMES!

I have been to Brasil all the way to Canada. Everywhere I have been I seen people I know I've seen in Puerto Rico. Lighter skinned Latinos in the Caribbean who deny the Black ~n~ them will suffer the mental disorder due to their lack of understanding. Alongside of that same thing to anyone who believes that latinos are not black. I will not apologize for this. If you dont live in the Caribbean and disagree with me shut up and move down here so we can revise your mind.

STOP SEPARATING OUR PEOPLE!!!

JUST BECAUSE YOUR LATIN SISTER CAN SPEAK SPANISH, DANCE, COOK, CLEAN JUST LIKE YOU. DONT HATE ON HER! I am going to tell you why Black men are coming over to the Black latin! side of things. Most Latin women I know cook at home and just like you they dont take any crap. I have dated american girls(non-white) who take me to their homes and dont even ask me if I want something to drink or eat until I ask. All of these girls where "Educated" and a couple of "Ghetto" queens. If you seen how we do it in latin america you will see why the divorce rate is lower.

When I see a women in the states I dont see black separating us, it is Language, Land Title and culture. Take that from us then we will be Black people again. Stop hating yourself and just love us! We aint going no where! Besides The second language in the states is officially SPANISH so regardless partna' you gotta convert and learn it. Hahahahahah!

LOVE YA AND STOP THE HATING OF YOUR OWN PEOPLE

Welcome Jazmin & Puerto_Rocco

Thank you for both of your contributions to this topic. However I must tell you both that we believe in respecting one another on this website. As such I ask you to please refrain from using any foul language (actual or implied). It is possible to communication one's point without having to resort to the use of foul language. In addition, don't demean the validity of someone's Forum topic (if you don't think it is valid, simply don't respond).

With that being said it is obvious that Puerto Rocco is a black man with some African ancestry, as is the case for so many of our brothers and sisters in the Caribbean (and South America). As a result, Jazmin you might want to take a different look at your beliefs. "Black" Latinos might have a different culture, but the do have a similar background to us. Dark skin isn't a coincidence. Also I challenge your view that you have to be born in Africa to be African. If you parents were from Italy, and your grandparents were from Italy. Even if you were born in America, would you not be Italian also because of your genetic heritage? I define race by genetic (parental) background, not nationality.

Rocco? What's that you're smoking in your picture?

I happened to be smoking on a fine cohiba my fair lady! :x: :x: :D :eek:

cuban cohiba that is... by the way are you trying to use your black woman power to calm me down? Hahahahah!

i AM AN aFRICAN-lATINO FROM PUERTO rICO, i AGREE WITH YOU pANAFRICA, bUT A GREAT MANY PEOPLE DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ACCEPTED DEFINITION. tRUE THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY, MANY HAVE BEEN STATED. bUT ON THE ISLAND OF p.r. HISTORY AND THE WAYS THINGS HAVE COME DOWN, PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO IDENTITY THEMSELFS DIFFERENTLY. i GROW up IN n.y.c AFTER 6. sO i DO SEE mySELF AS BLACK(AFRICA)man. BUT MY COUSINS DON'T. THEY SAY IF YOU HAVE OTHER BLOOD IN YOU, THEN YOU ARE NO LONGER BLACK. i DON'T FEEL THIS WAY, BUT PEOPLE DO HAVE THEIR WAYS.. Whoops, sorry about the caps, I just realize it was on. With love and respect Corvo

Thank you for your input Corvo

Rocco...did it work? You sound much calmer! :)

Hi Everyone,

I've been reading the post for a while. But this is my first reply. I had some info that might help with the discussion. It actually discusses the african divide in Latin america. The adr is:
http://condor.depaul.edu/~dialogo/back_issues/issue_5/alla_y_aca.htm.
It's very interesting. Here's a little of the article.
"And yet Puerto Ricans continue to ignore this more recent history and depend instead on a distorted past that distinguishes them from African Americans, specifically, and Blacks, more generally. We find, then, that the African diaspora has received even less attention than the Puerto Rican diaspora. But the fact remains that over 95% of the diaspora from Africa ended up in Latin America and the Caribbean; South America received 50% of those enslaved Africans, and throughout the colonial period Black people represented majority populations in all the major cities of the Spanish territories. The material and social contributions of these millions of Africans and their descendants to the making of Nuestra América cannot be exaggerated. Nor should we relegate the African presence to a distant past--in myriad forms Africa infuses almost every cultural space of this hemisphere, whether directly or indirectly, whether acknowledged or ignored."

Thankz for this piece of info u posed
thanks for sharing

Thanks indeed for your response Jaimia. It was very interesting, as well as very factual. The truth is there are a high amount of Afro-Latinos, especially in the Caribbean and Brazil. I have heard it said by many of them that race is classified differently in their respective countries (many African Americans except these statements at face value). However I don't believe this is the true story.

As a stated in my first post in this thread. I believe that Afro-Latinos identifying themselves only by their country or by the EXTREMELY broad title of Latino is a social-political tactic. Latinos are coming to this country to make a better life for themselves (to escape poverty & persecution in their homelands). In America blacks (despite the civil rights movement) continue to occupy the bottom of the social-economic system. If Afro-Latinos come to this county & identify themselves as black, then they would inherit the economic & social discrimination that we face. Since they are fleeing from poverty they don't want to face economic discrimination here. Therefore they disassociate themselves from blacks: "My skin might be dark, but I'm not black. I'm Cuban, Mexican, Dominican, etc."

I don't want to become inflammatory, but I suspect many Afro-Latinos of trying to "pass". Similar to what many light skinned African Americans have done over the centuries. In the case of Afro-Latinos however instead of using "light skin" they are using language and national origin. Comments made by a few Afro-Latinos who I know personally, and do identify with their blackness, confirms this. As well as the honest statements made by Corvo. That Afro-Latinos would go through such lengths to deny their African heritage is sad to me. However it is a reality that many Afro-Latinos do not want to be a part of the African Diaspora (black as coal, but don't wanna be called black).

Although as a PanAfricanist I consider them to be brothers and sisters. I don't consider them allies until (and unless) they claim their blackness. Again it is a shame because they could be powerful allies; however, you can't force an ostrich to take it's head out to sand.

I to embrace all of my Afro people. If anyone is interested there is actually a website called AfroLatino at: Afrolatino.com. There are many Proud Afro Latinos that celebrate their African roots. And I just met a Blacklatino that admitted that he once denied his roots. Even though he is dark skinned but now love all of his blackness. So there are those that embrace it and those that are learning. So there's still hope for even the weaker ones.

There is

humm!,.. the last three post are off. it sounds like that you can say, know more than AfricanLatinos what AfricanLatinos are. I think you totaly misconsive what latinos are and African Latinos are. there is a difereence is. North Americance blacks?African Americans, doen't deside what the definicions are. I am saying that, some are Latinos and some chose to be identifird as AfricanLatinos. We say what we are. Not Noth American"s Blacks. YOU are not qualified to tell, others how to see themselfs. That would be arrogent of you. You can't define others, NOt all Latinos are of African heritage, As no are n.Americans. But there are people in Latine America that are of African heritage.. You need to look closer at how some of you are ignoring what is on the table, of knowledge? I'm surprise at the lack of informatiom on this issue....?

I have never said that all Latinos are Afro-Latinos, nor did I imply that the majority of Latinos are of African heritage. I clearly made a difference between Afro-Latinos (whom I consider to be brothers & sisters) and the rest of the Latino community. If you feel that our defination of what an Afro-Latino is wrong, then please give your defination. Since you stated earlier that you consider yourself an African Latino, then your defination is extremely important to this topic. I only ask that you be specific, so no further misunderstanding are made

To add to what I just wrote. Corvo I think a more detailed explanation is in order because you stated that you consider yourself to be a African man, while your cousins don't. Since you more than likely have the same background & appearance as your cousins. Why do you consider yourself to be African? Why don't they? I think your answer would in turn answer much of the questions asked on this thread.

I am aware that there are Latinos and others who are not of african decent . I am also aware that there are people as Panafrican noted who might be passing. It takes stronger people to deal with racism there are those that are weaker and cannot so they choose to "pass" if possible. I don't feel that it's my place to tell anyone who they are, that WOULD be arrogant. I'm only referring to my Afrolatinos who have embraced me as well as I them.
I was referring to Afro people only. For those who do not consider themselves of African decent then I am not referring to you . I am not into recruiting anyone. If there are Afro latinos that are not of African descent or have a special African decent that is different from other people of African decent then I am not referring to you. I don't want to offend anyone. Or give the impression that I am trying to tell people who they are. if someones skin is as dark as coal and they say that they do not have African heritage thats fine and Dandy. Somethings are just common sense. Nothing has to be said. It's each persons choice to live as whom ever they choose to be. Be as different as you want. I have wonderful friends that are AfroLatinos who are my Afro family and don't mind me saying that. Hopefully the thought of being different is not being confused with being better than.
I will not longer post about the AfroLatino issue because I'm not qualified. I've already been taught my place.

I'm with you Jaimia, and please don't be discouraged from posting on this topic or any other. This is an open forum and message board. Some people might be able to add special insight, but no one's opinions are invalid.

Thank you Panafrica

Hi folks, I've been away, Doing a whorkshop on an African-Brazilian Art form, called Capoeira. When I responed I did not have alot of time.

I was trying to say you where a little off on your perseptions. Panafrica I was not accusing you of any thing. I wish to inform my Brothers and Sisters of different out-looks on this issue. Alot of how we(all People) identify ourselfs iare based on different critiria. As has been said of African-Americans historicly.

"That Afro-Latinos would go through such lengths to deny their African heritage" In puerto Rico most Latinos of African desent don't denei that they have African blood. because it's on their face. But because of the way P.R's have intregated historically, Race was looked at a little different that in the U.S of A. there, in PR you where not an African if you where part(blood) of an other race( i do understand that we are of one race).
So getting to my point. In PR, the populattion was mayed of onethird free blaks from spain and other parts, onethird white spanish, onethird tainos and Africans(enslaved). In PR unlike in the US of A you would stop being black, if you had Taino, or white blood in you( or many others). Remember that Free-Blacks also had a level of power here, Blacks were not without say, as here(US)

So I have adapted now the USA or African-American way of looking at race, in that if you have one drop of African you are a Black man. The rest of the world does not share this veiw, with us.

Corvo, thank you for explaining what you meant. I find your explanation even more interesting in that in PR, if your blood is mixed, one loses their identity as an African and in the USA it's the opposite.

The "one drop of Black blood" rule was put in place to establish and uphold racist attitudes and systems in the US. Mixing of races between Africans and Europeans was vehemently abhorred and strongly prohibited. This was a part of a deliberate and strategic plan to subjugate Africans to a less than human existence in this country and put us on the same level as chattel. So, to be all-African or even part African was something that people quickly learned was not something you wanted running through your veins.

I'm curious though, can you explain why people in PR think that if you're multi-racial, you're no longer African? Where did this way of thinking stem from? So if you're no longer African if you're of mixed heritage, what does that make you? Simply Puerto Rican? That would be like me saying that I'm simply an American.

Have I read what you wrote correctly?

Peace!

Adding my VERY late thoughts to this topic --


Mexicans/ Mezzo Americans have a ethnic lineage
to Native Americans -
So i would say that Mexicans and some
S. American hispanic peoples
have nothing to do with us Black folks
(except a shared enemey of course)

However,

Cuban and Puerto Ricans -
being one of the first destinations of
the Slave Trade into this Western part of the world -
are very much African.

Not all hispanics are the same.

I don't mean the dark skin brothers in Belize and Argentina -
I mean Cubans and Puerto Ricans have prominent
African features very different from Mexicans.

so.. that's that.


and if you know a cuban girl20 -25 whose single.
tell her to call me.

LOL @ Hyp.........this isn't Latino hook-up. But if you are truly interested in meeting an Afro-Cuban, you'd have to leave OH and come to NJ.....there are plenty here.

lol@Hyp....*smh* thanks for the reply...and it wasn't late. Who's computer you typing on? :)

NNQueen, Yes I think you are with , with what I wrote. " I find your explanation even more interesting in that in PR, if your blood is mixed, one loses their identity as an African and in the USA it's the opposite". Yes this is an interesting thing, that I had to sort out, because I am now bicultural. and it was not easy for me to come to where I'm now. But it did not become completely clear till I read some interesting history of the island now called Puerto Rico(Borinque).
Alot has to do with the attitudes of the Spanish (not all). Spain was conquired and occupied by the Moors for 450 years. They were admidnistered if you will by blackAribs- Aribs from North Africa. So that the spanish did not feel toward black-Africans the way the Britzs did. black-Africans where already working in spain as free men and some where enslaved Africans before colombus talked to the king of spain for ships. These Africans were stillled artisans and skilled workers of steel and masonry as well as ship builders. So that there work was needed in the new world when settlement had begone. Because PR did not have the laws of the USA, nor the scorn that the Yanks have. people just were not African if you where born in PR and was a Mulato or Meztizo, or a trigenllo(tricolor). The blackess of the slaves was put at the bottom of needs and rights. So people marreid others for higher status. Ofcause I am oversimplyfing the details, but peoples identity became toward the culture and the island. our food, music and dance, languish all reflect the three different cultures combined into one. So that most people of PR do mix, But not all, there are the provential, racist, white Spanish class that does not, and like the Britzs, pride themselfs as being pure.

Great response Corvo....thank you. I had to laugh at your last comment though "Spanish class.....pride themselves as being pure."

Is there such a thing as pure in the context of race other than Africans?

I don't think all Latinos are "African" particuliarly the majority of mexicans, peruvians and the like. THe respective countries were pre-dominantly mestizo, and not mulatto. Although all of these countries have african populations. With the exception of brazil, most latin american countries, excluding the caribbean comprise of mestizos or europeans. I would also suggest that we as black people should not be so hasty as to insist that latinos claim to be black. THey should be allowed to claim whatever heritage they deem fit. Hotep

I consider myself part of the African family

Latinos is not a race, it is a culture, it is based in latin america, the latin american population has whites, indians, blacks and asians and all kinds of mixtures of all of the above.

The africans that i have met consider me part of the family.

Some blacks from the USA consider me part of the family.

Greetings to all. Pardon the errors in posting [this is my first].

- I prefer the term Afro-[Nationality], because it connects the individual to the African Diaspora, inmediate roots, Motherland, and most importantly lets the world knows where his / her mindset is situated. For example, having being born in the Dominican Republic, I prefer the term Afro-Dominican. For someone who doesn't physically knows me, the term Afro-Dominican by itself says a great deal.

- Afro-Latin America is the most misunderstood segment of the African Family / Diaspora, and perhaps the most miseducated unless you're a Garifuna from Central America or a marginalized & segregated member from Ecuadorian, Peruvian, Mexican etc. societies. We are still to this day academically brainwashed to believe that Africans [Blacks] are a people without a tradition and a Story [not his- story]. We have Afro-Latinos still venerating Spain & Cristopher Columbus. Thanks to ancestors such as Afro-Puerto Rican, Arturo A. Shomburg [Shomburg Center in NYC for the Research of Black History] who dared to defied the racial 'statuo quo' at a very early in his native Puerto Rico - we have a rich Story to tell the world. He was born 10 months after the abolition of slavery in Puerto Rico.

http://www.si.umich.edu/CHICO/Harlem/text/aschomburg.html

Hotep and welcome Olorun 1,

very valid and important comments on this thread. Keep up the good work and enlightenment.

Peace

Olorun 1...welcome and thank you for the enlightening message!

Peace!

I'm Brasilian, I call myself brasilian because first I'm from Brasil and second our culture is an unique blend of cultures that came from Europe and other continents, but the most predominant of course is African, many people in Brasil may be considered mulattoes but mulattoes still have african blood in their vains, is confusing ! I agree that many latinos don't know their true identity, even more Brasilian

I'll tell you what I'm, I am a latino because my first language is a latin orginated language; Portuguese.
I'm not a hispanic because my country wasn't colonized by Spain ( even though the hispanic meaning in US is anyone that is latin american or descendents that live in the US)
I'm a native descendent because my grandma on my dad's side was descendent of natives
I'm part Italian because my grandpa on my mom's side had italian descendence
I have African lineage because my grandpa (dad's side) was black.
I'm brasilian because of all this blend, but if is to question whether I'm an african or not I would say yes, because my beliefs and my culture leads me to Africa

I hear ya Renata, I ask many people from former Portuguese and spanish colonies, who deny they are black... suppose you were to walk inside a diner in a small redneck town in Mississippi, today, what do they think the white folks would call them? you know the rest

Hotep

Indeed....Renata and Olorun1. Thank you for your input, it is much welcome in this discussion.

Jambo

-Thank you all for your warm welcome, and the 'homey' vibrations I get from your words.

*Sekhemu, your post reminds me of the scenario I usually paint to my fellow Dominicans. They're usually very critical of my accepted NEGRITUDE & I tell them that when the cops stop me, all he / she knows and sees is that they are in front of a goatee, shaved-head, earring wearing Black man - 6'1" 240 lbs.. Any sudden move in my part - and they give me the same treatment they gave brother Amadou Diallo [who was a small & slim brother]. In other words, if you don't know who you are, you can rest assured that the world definitely will properly,
classify you.

PEACE

As someone who would be a "white" Latina in the eyes of many, I consider myself to be a part of the African Diaspora. I think those of us that are more politically aware and frankly educated understand this notion and consider ourselves a part of it. However, in the Americas there has been a social caste system which has lead Hispanic/Latinos to believe that white is better. However, for the most part, I would say that national identity rather than racial identity is more valued in the Americas (excluding US and Canada).

One look at my family and you will see that our heritage is primarily African and European and I deny neither. However, am I African? No. Am I European? No. For me my identity is Latino because of the blend it represents.

As two Puerto Rican poets have said, "I am a Child of the Americas". I experience discrimination because of my accent. Some of my Latino Hermanos and Hermanas experience it because of their skin color. Much of our culture was created when three worlds collided and as such we share many things in common with all major racial groups including Asian.

As for the notion that the indigenous peoples of the Americas died when Columbua raped this land, that is incorrect. In South and Central America their are many native groups in the mountain and country sides that only speak their native language and still live as their ancestors did. Some of those groups have come to America for survival as well. There exist Mayans in North Georgia. They speak no Spanish and still have customs of their ancestors. If you look at the Spanish of certain groups of Latinos, you will also notice that their dialect has many words that are indigenous. Many of the words that I grew up speaking that I thought were Spanish were in fact Taino in origin.

I know I am late in this posting but I just ran across this site doing research for a project and had to put in my two cents.

Kijarah ... Welcome and thanks for sharing your view with us. Please feel free to browse the entire forum, adding input where ever you'd like ... feeling free to make yourself at home.

:heart:

Destee

Hotep..
Of course there is a tactic in place to divide us. Yes, hispanics are Africans. There is a richness in culture and complexion whether it be pecan tan or mocha mohagany.... WE ARE AFRICAN PEOPLE. The same AFRICAN people. We have been brought to all areas in and around the United States as well as other places. How can hispanics not know who they are? How can "black african americans" not know who hispanics are? Where do hispanics get that beautiful skin? Not mother Russia. (smile) I think that most black folks forget that when we were brought here (and i'm not talking about the Native Americans who migrated from AFRICA...) english was not our first language, therefore, and spanish wasn't the first language of hispanics.. let's unite and teach truth. eternally,

GODIVA 08-06-03

I think, we need to be careful not to insist, that all hispanics be called African. That would be a little misguided. The majority of Mexicans are for the most part Mexicas, or native american. the rest are Mestizo.

Ofcourse Mexicans comprise a huge portion of latin americans. A country like Argentina, is comprised of many transplanted Europeans from Italy, Spain, Germany and other western European countries. They also have a large Mestizo population as well. In fact Brazil, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, Domincan Republic and Honduras, are the few countries in latin america with large African populations

Countries like Venezuela, columbia, peru, curacao, guatemala et al have a minority African population. I'm everybody knows this. Or at least they should.

My point being is that I believe, we should allow Latinos/latinas to define themselves however they see fit. Even if it is obvious they are black or have african blood in their veins.

Black folks, we have been leaders in the struggle for equality and others follow along when it serves to benefit them.

At the rallys to end police brutality, who's mostly there?

At the crossroads of so called "civil rights" who were most of the people in the heat of the battle?

In the coalitions that deal with equality, civil rights etc. who are most of the people on board?

Who's had the most tumultuous history in this country?

Who's treated as underclass by other "minorities" concerning anything besides entertainment or giving them commerce?

Be accepting of yourselves and those that claim it first. Notice that these other groups aren't worried about who claims them or if we claim them.

It is important that WE know the TRUTH, but it is just as important to be able to build with those who accept it and let the cards fall where they may for those who don't.

Very good points Deepa, and very well said. True indeed

I feel you Deepa.

This Latino/African question makes no sense. Brazil has the second largest recognized African population in the world, only second to Nigeria. An African born in North America is no different and has no more claim to his African-ness, then any other African born in the exilic diaspora. So-called Latinos of African descent have to find their own since of African identity in their own time (not to say that many have not been in-tune with their roots all the time). Afro-Cubans still practice different forms of indigenous African religions, one being Lucumi (better known as Santeria).

Who scrutinized our since of African identity, when we were still going around calling ourselves Negroes, colored, Creoles and “just” Americans (no hyphenation)?

At one time, if you called us Black, we were ready to fight.

And god forbid, someone called us an “African”.

I understand, that many so-called Latinos are still trying to understand the racial politics of the Western Hemisphere. But you have to realize that this Black and Brown thing, though real, is really ridiculous. Believe it or not a lot of this is more about, what COLONIAL LANGUAGE you speak, then it is about racial or ethnic identity.

I was reading World Almanac years ago and it categorized, ALL PUERTO RICAN PEOPLE as Afro-Hispanic.

AFRO-HISPANIC, AFRO-CUBAN, AFRO-BRAZILIAN, AFRO-AMERICAN,

What’s the difference?

DIVIDE AND CONQUER, ALL THE TIME
DIVIDE AND CONQUER, ALL THE TIME

I’ll never forget watching a boxing match years ago, with a friend (African American), who happened to be light skinned with sort of hazel eyes. One boxer was Puerto Rican and the other was from, an English-speaking, formerly British colonized, island in the Caribbean. Both men were obviously of African descent. I asked him, which fighter was he betting on? He said, “the brother!” I said, “which one?” He said, “What do you mean? I’m betting on the Black man.” I responded, “Man, it’s obvious that they’re both Black.” I will never forget what he said,
“You know the one that speaks English."

DIVIDE AND CONQUER, ALL THE TIME
DIVIDE AND CONQUER, ALL THE TIME

ASHE,

Sun Ship

Footnote: In some parts of this post, I used Afro-American, instead of African American or “just” African, for contextual clarity.

there are persons in latin america who are african there are also persons who are european and there are natives. it really is no different than america. brazil for example has a large population of african, portuguese and native indian persons. although all are latino, all are not african. there is also a good degree of inter marriage thus the various shades of brown. i fail to understand how we can deny any of these people as being african. surely if they have african blood then they are, well, african.

I have read so many takes on what & who's African. Negritute is beyond what you see [eyes/physical]. It is a mindset moreso than biological and yet we cannot detach the obvious melanin trait from it.

Africaness, Negritude, Blackness ect.. for lack of a better term is a rebirth, a newfound consciousness of self. A self which was erased from the STORY of Our World. In claiming your NEGRITUDE, you're intergrating to what's human and spiritual.
*Remember the argument of white folks in the past to justify their cruelty to us: "They are uncouth, uncivilized, property, beasts of burden, the white men's burden, devoid of soul, they are like sheep - cattle - chickens blah-blah-blah." We have heard it so much & continue to hear it -- that some us continue to believe it and behave accordingly.

People of the stature of Adam Clayton Powell Jr., W.E.B. Dubois, Arturo Shomburg, Malcolm X and others have proven that skin color is NOT the primary ingredient to an African consciouss mind.

PEACE & MUCH RESPECT

I started reading this thread, but must admit that it was too much strain for my eyes this morning. An hour later into the reading I just skipped forward to a reply.

Growing up in Brooklyn, I've always had friends from many different cultures and backgrounds. When I was little, I had trouble understanding this concept of "race" and remembered how these racist nuns in the Christian school I attended made me feel like I should ONLY uphold the "white" aspects of my culture. After some inner soul searching, I went in the opposite direction seeking out the "black" aspects of my culture. Then, I realized how silly I was to ever have adopted a system that would cause me to segregate my own family and background. I did not want to be separated from myself, so I ended up calling myself a "spic" and leaving it at that. I was content to live with that reality. As long as I knew the TRUTH OF MY BEING, no words could offend me... people's small-mindedness could not harm me... I would be able to communicate this feeling, this knowledge, this wisdom to others who sought to find their OWN identity in this "Black and White" country.

After working in the agricultural fields of Bakersfield, California for 5 years, my grandfather moved to New York in 1962. He bought a two-story house and sent for the rest of the family who were still living on the island. This little brick flat was basically one of the few boricua "spots" in a community that was experiencing "white flight", the neighborhood of East New York in Brooklyn. The majority of the people moving in at this time were African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. So, I grew up around African-Americans and Boricuas. I didn't see a lot of "Whites" until I started attending High School in suburban Queens.

I upheld my family values first and then those of my adopted community who made me aware of what the REAL deal was. I studied all the Negro literature from Langston to Malcolm to MLK. Knowledge of my own people came from the Elders in my family who transmitted all their stories and wisdom through long drawn out conversations at the many neighborhood parties we used to throw. When I got older, I discovered the mystery of my history, my pride deepened. I began to understand how colonized I was. I knew we were not "white" or "black", but a little of everything. I just didn't know exactly WHAT. I would take one look at my family and get confused. Every shade and hair-type existed in my house-hold. It even seemed stranger to a lot of my American friends who used to make "mira mira" jokes about us on the regular (all in good fun, of course) cause we spoke Spanish with this machine-gun quickness and snapped our necks with the best of them. I couldn't explain US to THEM, so I chose to just NOT deal with those issues and went about my business. I dated women from every background without any issues. Well, except this one girl, her mother, an Italian lady, threw garbage bags over her plastic-covered furniture before I was allowed to sit down. She would always leave the room when I was there. I didn't like that feeling that I was "dirty", so I stopped visiting her. Eventually, we broke up because of differences, but I never forgot how they treated me. I felt like some "exotica".

My mother is of Afro-Taino descent and my father is descended from Canary Islanders (off the coast of Western Sahara). Neither side is, of course, pure... since Puerto Ricans have been intermarrying among peoples of varied cultures since the times when people first appeared on that island. Taino married Carib or Maya or Arawak (yes, Arawak are a separate people from the Taino... Taino are NOT a sub-group as previously believed... but, that's another story)... then, the Spaniards raped all the Native women, as the conquerors of the Caribbean were mostly MALE.

Who were these MALES to come into this "New World"? Spaniards, Portuguese and Moors (the navigators). Since the Caribbean was not seen as a place to settle, they did not bring their wives and families. They went into the islands with the intent to exploit and gain riches. After subjugating and annhilitaing the Taino culture, many Taino men women and children died from disease and/or violence (hanging, burning, impalement, dismemberment, etc.). The rest were "Christianized", forced to adopt Christian names and Spanish values. They blended in and formed the next generation of Caribbean peoples... the "mestizos" (from the French "metisse" meaning "mixed"). These hybrid people showed better resistance to diseases.

The first Africans brought into the "New World" during this time were Ladinos (not the Jews, but Africans reared in Spain as servants. Jews had been expulsed from Muslim Spain, along with Muslims, in 1492). Juan Garrido, a Ladino, is credited with bring many "Old World" cropseeds here into the Americas. After the Indigenous labor force was almost totally obliterated, the Spanish intensified the importing of Africans... the majority were from the Congo areas and spoke Bantu languages. They were agriculturally-inclined and could be subjugated easily. In the 19th Century, a more "urbanized" people, the Yoruba-speaking peoples of SW Nigeria (merchants, traders, specialists) were enslaved, shackled and brought over. They came in great numbers to replace the dying numbers of slaves on Caribbean plantations (so rigorous was slavery in the islands that slaves usually died after 7 years). Most African descended people from Cuba and Puerto Rico have a strong element of Yoruba lineages as these were the last ones brought over before emancipation. After the liberation of Haiti, the sugar industry shifted over to Cuba and P.R. Yoruba became incorporated into was is called "Bozal Spanish". Thousands of words, customs, values and beliefs entered the Spanish Caribbean world. The Yourba-speaking people were highly complex and extremely social. They quickly dominated the other ethnicities in those islands... mostly thorugh their organizational capabilities and their highly-urbanized ways. The history of the rising and falling of Empires in West and Central Africa closely parallels the periods as to WHICH ethnic tribes were sold into slavery. The Spaniards kept very detailed chronicles of their captures. This was a business, so the documentation was on point. Today, most tribal affiliations and pheno-typical traits of those brought over are known from these well-kept records.

Anglos who actually came to settle in the "New World" did so in the areas now known as the 13 original United States. These people brought with them their families. Because of this, segregation from "foreigners" was now possible. "Whites" could intermarry with other "Whites" and stay apart from the "Blacks". With the exception of Cuba, a huge plantation economy, most of the Spanish Caribbean people simply had sex out of wedlock or with someone from another so-called "race". The family unit was not so much a constant thing here in plantation societies. The one legacy that did remain from the Taino culture was that of the extended family... where families became huge villages due to the acceptance of other people's orphaned children... "hijos de crianza" ("raised children"). The African, who was used to living in large communities, also followed this ideal. Africans and Tainos freely intermarried and formed "Sambos", the name given to a cross hybrid between an African & a Taino. Moreover, Protestant America (the U.S.), who preached the deed and the Word, had a strong belief in frugalism. They purchased slaves at a cheap prace. They preferred those who were already raised and trained to work on plantations in the Caribbean, since Africans from Africa would be considered too wild and the most rebellious of the lot. They wanted enslaved Africans who would not run away. They wanted slaves who could easily adapt to the plantations of the American South. They left the African leg of the trade to the Spanish and Portuguese who were already used to "trading" on the Slave Coasts of that continent. The majority of slaves in the South came from the Islands of the Caribbean. So, the question now turns around... are U.S. African-Americans really Latino?

Canary Islanders began to come after the formation of the colonies and began to form the so-called "white" peasantry we hear about or read about in books or on the internet (cross check all your references as not everything you read in books or online is law... they're simply someone's opinions). The Canary Islands was a sort of "refill station" for "New World"-bound ships. This naturally attracted those island folks into the Caribbean. Ethno-linguists have noted that Canary Island Spanish has left an imprint in many words of the Puerto Rican vocabulary (ie: "guagua" for "bus"). These folks brought with them their own form of agricultural techniques. They were a people mostly formed from North African Berber (all colors and hair types), Spanish & Portuguese lineages. As they were claimed by Spain in the 15th century, they spoke the language of the colonizer. They ALSO intermarried.

My family traces its lineages back to Ponce, Puerto Rico as far back as the 1700's. Right now, there is a lot of talk going on because DNA evidence has rewritten the history which we have been taught. Although the business of slavery was well-recorded, census taking was not. The numbers were based upon what one considered themselves to be or waht people PERCEIVED them to be. People could also by "white papers" in what was called "Registro de Sangre" ("Blood Registry") if they could prove they had at LEAST one "white" parent for four generations back (obviously, no one was pure then... read "Not of Pure Blood" by Jay Kinsbruner). Up until the 1860's, the majority of African persons in Puerto Rico numbered around 50%. This scared European slavers who did not want another Haitian Revolution. Spain issued a decree in 1815 called the "Cedula de Gracias" ("Decree of Grace"), which stimulated "white" Catholic, European families to settle the islands. They were given a certain amount of $$$ and allowed to have 6 slaves. After this the African population began a steady decline due to intermarriage with an influx of people from Europe, Taino (a group of 2,000 who suddenly re-appeared in Puerto Rico right before the 1790's census after having been re-located to Mona Island for 200 years by the Spanish) & migrants from other areas of the Caribbean who were escaping the harshness of slavery in the other more oppressive colonies. Ponce, Mayaguez and Loiza received a high proportion of enslaved Africans and Taino who co-existed peacefully against Spanish-born authorities. Unlike written in the history books, Tainos did not ALL die off. Their CULTURE was destroyed, but they lived on as broken-up pockets of people who lived amidst the greater society (also, in the majority of persons who shared the Taino genes).

After the American invasion in 1898, immigration to Hawaii began out of Ponce (1900-1901)... all persons coerced to leave were mostly of Indigenous background. Then several waves of migration to NYC and the Northeastern U.S. began after 1910... escalating until the late 1950's. After 1959, white Cubans fleeing the Nationalization of Cuba ended up on the island forming the new "Puerto Rican" elite. Even Ferre, the pro-statehood governor, was of Cuban exile parents. These folks, along with other Republican-aligned persons, began the movement that would scare the crap out of most of us who do NOT want to become the 51st state.

In the 1930's a doctor operating under a Cecil Roades scholarship, intended to inject cancerous cells into Puerto Ricans in a thwarted genocide plot. He considered Puerto Ricans the "most thievish race to ever inhabit the planet" and that we should all be "wiped out". He murdered about 8 when he was discovered. (http://www.finalcall.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.pl?archive=2&num=269) He passed it off as cancer research.

In the 1960's the U.S brought "birth control" experiments to the island. In a documentary called "La Operacion" (The Operation) a U.S. plot was revealed to give hysterectomies to the black and brown women of the island in order to "whiten" the future generations of Puerto Ricans before incorporation into the 50 states. This came 5 decades after Roosevelt's initial plan to convert Puerto Rico into federal penitentiaries where, according to some of his private correspondence, would make the island "suitable to incarcerate uppity Negroes from the South"... away from the mainland populations. After seeing how they BOMBED Vieques for over 60 years, this never surprised me at all.


Now, Puerto Rico even has Asians, Koreans and other unchecked nationalities who live and call that island home. I prefer our OWN sovereignity... only so that we could better comtrol what is going on in our land. At this point, we have become America's favorite testing ground of everything from bombs to killer viruses. I believe we need to assert our identity and take our land BACK. It is a very different place than what it used to be.


The New Negro (http://www.rit.edu/~nrcgsh/bx/bx09a.html)
Race- Power of an Illusion (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm)
Amistad (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/gallup/amistad.html)

http://www.rit.edu/~nrcgsh/bx/bx09a.html

History is written by the conquerors. The Native peoples of North
America know this all too well, as they are still trying to bring the
truth to light. Now, their long-lost Caribbean cousins are beginning
the same process.

It's an uphill battle.

Most Puerto Ricans know, or think they know, their ethnic and racial
history: a blending of Taino (Indian), Spanish and African. Students
of the islands' past have read the same account for over 300 years;
that the Native people, and their societies, were killed off by the
Spanish invaders by the 1600s. It was always noted though, how many of
the original colonists married Taino women or had Taino concubines,
producing the original mestizaje (mixture) that, when blended with
African, would produce Puerto Ricans.

Those first unions, according to the conventional wisdom, explain why
some Puerto Ricans have "a little bit" of Native heritage. Mainly we
are Spanish, we are told, with a little African blood and far-away
Taino ancestry.

But the order of that sequence will have to change.

Dr. Juan Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto
Rico Mayaguez who designed an island-wide DNA survey, has just
released the final numbers and analysis of the project, and these
results tell a different story.

According to the study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation,
61 percent of all Puerto Ricans have Amerindian mitochondrial DNA, 27
percent have African and 12 percent Caucasian. (Nuclear DNA, or the
genetic material present in a gene's nucleus, is inherited in equal
parts from one's father and mother. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited
only from one's mother and does not change or blend with other
materials over time.)

In other words a majority of Puerto Ricans have Native blood.

"Our study showed there was assimilation," Martinez Cruzado explained,
"but the people were not extinguished. Their political and social
structure was but the genes were not.

"The people were assimilated into a new colonial order and became
mixed . but that's what Puerto Ricans are: Indians mixed with Africans
and Spaniards," he asserted.

"There has been an under-estimation of the Amerindian heritage of
Puerto Rico, much larger than most historians will admit," he said.

Martinez Cruzado cited the historical descriptions of life in Puerto
Rico during the 17th and 18th centuries as an example.

"These accounts describe many aspects that are totally derived from
Taino modus vivendi, not just the hammocks but the way they fished,
their methods of farming, etc.," he related. "It is clear that the
influence of Taino culture was very strong up to about 200 years ago.
If we could conduct this same study on the Puerto Ricans from those
times, the figure would show that 80 percent of the people had Indian
heritage."

Another historical moment that should receive more attention involves
the story of a group of Tainos who, after 200 years of absence from
official head-counts, appeared in a military census from the 1790s. In
this episode, a colonial military census noted that all of a sudden
there were 2,000 Indians living in a northwestern mountain region.
"These were Indians who the Spanish had placed on the tiny island of
Mona (just off the western coast of Puerto Rico) who survived in
isolation and then were brought over," Martinez Cruzado said. "They
became mixed but there were many Indians who survived but eventually
mixed with the Africans and Spaniards. These Mona Tainos must have had
a further influence as well".

Martinez Cruzado noted how many customs and history were handed down
through oral tradition. To this day on the island, there are many
people who use medicinal plants and farming methods that come directly
from the Tainos.

This is especially true of the areas once known as Indieras, or Indian
Zones.

He also pointed out that most of these Native traditions probably do
come from the Tainos, the Native people who appeared on the island
circa 700 AD. But there were other waves of migrations to Puerto Rico
and the entire Caribbean area.

Through the extensive study of the Puerto Rican samples, Martinez
Cruzado and his team have found connections between island residents
and Native peoples who arrived before and after the Tainos. He pointed
out how a few of the samples can be traced back 9,000 years from
ancient migrations, while others correspond to the genetic makeup of
Native peoples of the Yucatan, Hispaniola, Margarita Island and Brazil
among others. These latter genetic trails point to the presence of
other Native peoples who were probably brought to the island as slaves
from other Spanish or Portuguese colonies after the 1600s.

While island scholars will have much work to do to catch up with these
"new" facts, the genetic detective work for Martinez Cruzado is also
far from finished. As word spread of the remarkable survey, other
scholars from the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Venezuela began to
invite the Puerto Rican scientist to present his findings. They also
want him to assist in similar projects in their respective countries.

"We started a very similar survey in the Dominican Republic last
year," he stated. "And archaeologists from Venezuela and Cuba have
invited me to do the same and I intend to go . I hope to have a
proposal ready to collect samples in both of those countries and do a
Caribbean-wide study. They already have evidence of migrations from
both sides, north and south."

In the meantime, while Martinez Cruzado and his colleagues will focus
on the history of Pre-Columbian migrations, people in the current
Taino restoration movement (such as Nacion Taina, The Jatibonicu Taino
Tribal Nation of Boriken, Taino Timucua Tribal Council, the United
Confederation of Taino People, and others) are hoping that many of
their compatriots reflect on the following quote: "The DNA story shows
that the official story was wrong," Martinez Cruzado said. "This means
a much larger Amerindian inheritance for Puerto Ricans."

And if some folks in the Dominican Republic and Cuba are right, the
same will hold true for their histories.

(NNQueen) "I find your explanation even more interesting in that in PR, if your blood is mixed, one loses their identity as an African and in the USA it's the opposite.

The "one drop of Black blood" rule was put in place to establish and uphold racist attitudes and systems in the US. Mixing of races between Africans and Europeans was vehemently abhorred and strongly prohibited. This was a part of a deliberate and strategic plan to subjugate Africans to a less than human existence in this country and put us on the same level as chattel. So, to be all-African or even part African was something that people quickly learned was not something you wanted running through your veins.

I'm curious though, can you explain why people in PR think that if you're multi-racial, you're no longer African? Where did this way of thinking stem from? So if you're no longer African if you're of mixed heritage, what does that make you? Simply Puerto Rican? That would be like me saying that I'm simply an American."


You ARE an American... to us anyway. The thing obviously is that this country upholds the "one drop of Negro blood" rule, which, quite honestly, would make almost everyone black. Furthermore, if I were to say that I am "Black" only (I'm addressing the multitiude of posts I read here), after a while I would start running into such issues such as: "What makes a person 'black enough'?"... "Am I on this side or THEIR side?"... etc. Theories like the one of "Dr. Yacub" arise as a backlash to racist ideologies. Which, to be quite frank, is just as ridiculous as the ideas of separate "races". We are one "race" out of Africa... punto. Forget all that social shiznit and look at the REALITY of the world. We did not come out of a "Garden of Eden" and all that. Reality shows us what we are... hominids from one specific branch of the primate family. If we were truly of different "races", we would not be able to breed with each other. Sit there and talk about Creation myths til you're blue in the face. Tainos believe we came from a turtle... the Yoruba believe a chicken came down to earth and scratched around spreading the Earth. If I sat here and believed those "myths" (used to explain how things occured in a time when science did not exist in the way we know it today) word for word, I would be some out-of-touch NUTJOB who should simply be ignored. Science and religion should be looked upon as equal tools for which to decipher our environment. If you cannot raise your mental observations high and above the selfishly-created social constructs of this world, you may NEVER understand what Truth, in its true essence, is. If society doesn't want to rise along with you... you should STILL. Others will eventually follow suit.

Latinos, as a whole, tend to be CULTURE FIRST. It is how we've learned to cope with the incessant people mixture that is much, much higher than here. As U.S. citizens (sic), Puerto Ricans have been forced to accept U.S. terms in order to understand ourselves. This is one of the things which rubs us the wrong way about our colonizer. We do NOT care for that (even though there are some idiot Ricans that may feel the need to align themselves with this fallacious idea of "race"). The majority of us still prefer to be considered a people based on culture than the colors of our skins.

As I had said in a previous post, I learned to deal with "race" concepts as a child. I used to feel depressed about being a person of color. The racist nuns at the Christian school I attended drilled this "white ideal" into me that was almost very hard to erase. I began to despise myself for what I could not help. Now, these days, I have a much healthier outlook on the world. Anger is anger... and YES I feel highly upset when I go through documents that show how my fathers raped and killed my mothers. There is nothing I can do but COPE. This is 2004... not 1504. Things have to evolve into something and we are the only ones to evolve it. We can sit here and rant about injustice til the cows come home, but we need to be worrying about staying ahead in other things. Deal with these pains and then let the wounds heal. I embrace all aspects of me, and love the fact that I can represent the "crossroads". I am happy to be mixed and I indulge in the history of ALL of my cultures, though many here may make me feel bad about that and would coerce me to choose a side.

As far as KNOWING if we are African still, Puerto Ricans have a very high sense of culture. Of COURSE we do, we are proud of our rhythms which have their roots in Bomba and Plena... slave music. Check out the 2-hour Banco Popular documentary "Raíces". Although it is in Spanish, it captures our African-ness the best way I have seen so far. If you cannot understand the dialogue, let the music speak to your soul. In the last 100 years, colonialism by an imposing alien culture (the U.S.) has threatened to take away our own identity. We continually resist this. If it were NOT for a heightened sense of culture, then this would not be possible. We would have become a state a LOOOONG time ago. We KNOW what we are comprised of and uphold all of it. While there ARE some unconcscious self-haters lurking around, we are nevertheless proud of our mixture. Groups such as the "Young Lords Party" of the 1960's could not apply their Americanized tactics of dealing with the people in Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican (islander) experience is different from here. Even civil rights groups who visited the island could not find a foothold. People just didn't think that way. Puerto Rico did not evolve in the same way as the United States did. Yes, slavery was a reality until 1873, but it was not segregated as in the American South. Puerto Ricans are too mixed to even consider that option. Someone here posted that our not wanting to align ourselves with the "Black Struggle" meant that this was a conspiracy to keep African people apart. The only answer I have for that is that you need to come into the 21st Century. Just cause you feel that is right for YOU, does NOT make it right for US. Remember the concept of Cultural Relativism and the process of abiding by beliefs that have "ancestral authority". That statement makes it seem like we are to stupid to realize what has happened in our history. Please. I am sitting up in this forum talking with you all... so, how apart is that? I am suppostive of your causes, but don't expect me to align myself with the "hate whitey" doctrine cause I am not like that. While I understnad the grave injustices committed against us, I remain steadfast in my perception of... humans first.

I uphold the speeches of the great Dr. Pedro Albizu-Campos. He was born of a Basque Spaniard and an African-descended servant woman. Albizu understood the intricacies of what had evolved. He played the racists at their own game and made it into Harvard Law School. He was one of our brightest lights and showed us that even a "colored" person born at a destitute level could rise through what many considered one of the best of the higher academias in this country. He would have been our beacon of hope out of this colonial darkness had racist Americans not murdered him for preaching our independence. He knew how cut-throat the American government was. He understood the TRUE concept of being a Puerto Rican.

I understand how people view me in this country... I am not stupid. But, I do not have to subscribe to a hate policy in order to become accepted. I have my own terms.

Peace Brother dadachango69,


I find your comments most interesting. There is a lot of truth and understanding, in your post, but I think in a broader context "some" of your ideas are naïve and disingenuous. Since you have made reference to many things, concerning Black/Latino relations. Let me respond in general. You talk about the Puerto Rican rejection of civil right groups and differences in racial relations in Puerto Rico, as compared to the United States and then you "seem" to hold this up as an example of Puerto Rican homogeny and nondiscriminatory racial congruency. But lets look at the long history of Puerto Rico. How many dark-skinned Puerto Ricans have, historically, held positions of political power and land ownership? I assure you that throughout the Latino world where there was heavy miscegenation between Spaniard, Africano and Indio blood, Castilian physiognomy (non-African or Indian features) still controls the Latino legacy of politics, business, opportunity and beauty. Even in music, where Africans/Afro-Latinos were the progenitors, Latin America is exporting and promoting commercially viable “white-looking” Latinos to rest of the world as the best and most creative of the Latino/salsa musical genre. Afro-Latinos (especially those who look African) have no better break than, Black people in any other part of the world. Matter of fact, If Black or dark-skinned Latinos are “now” receiving more visibility and position in the Latino world (excluding entertainment), it can be directly and indirectly related to the worldwide civil rights movement, spearheaded and accelerated by North American Africans (Blacks), that has removed the veil of systemic and ideological racism, no matter how subtle. Sure, American-styled Jim Crow was never successfully exported, outside of the States, but European colonization and the racism imbued in it, defiantly left its mark on the rest of the world.

At the end of Slavery in the Latin world, the descendants of slave-owners and the descendants of slaves weren’t sitting together in the plantation house pallor room drinking rum and reminiscing about the good ol’ days and plotting their brighter future.

When Puerto Ricans are classified as an “Afro-Hispanic people” in some reference books, is there any part of that term that disturbs you? And why is that some Puerto Ricans can embrace the “Hispanic” part and not the “Afro-“part? Are you going to tell me that there aren’t “some” Puerto Ricans that have a problem with admitting or embracing their African ancestry? African-Americans and Puerto Ricans have a long interwoven history together here in the U.S., We are aware of a lot of this confusion about racial identity and denial in the Afro-Latino community, not excluding our own internal-racial (color) dilemmas, but when we address this concern or make the cultural and spiritual leap and call you “brother” you look at us, as if we’re the only one with the problem.

Did you know there is an Afro-Latino political movement, that is concern about their lack of representation in leadership roles, movie roles and many other areas of higher social life of the Latin world? Don’t you recall that it was the racist comments of a school teacher in Puerto Rico, concerning the under achievements of Black’s that energized “Afroborinqueño” Arturo Schomburg’s long history of collecting and archiving the great accomplishments of Africans/African Americans, regardless of what language they spoke.

Diasporic African descendents in North America should have no need to define or redefine what is Latino, Afro-Latino or Puerto Rican, as related to “Black-ness” and “African-ness”, as this thread suggest. But I think your pseudonym “dadachango69” should imply that we (African people) all have more in common, than not.

Ashe!

Brother Sun Ship

"In a broader context "some" of your ideas are naïve and disingenuous."

My ideals are based upon how Puerto Ricans view Puerto Ricans. I know how we flow, because I happen to be one myself.



"You talk about the Puerto Rican rejection of civil right groups and differences in racial relations in Puerto Rico, as compared to the United States and then you "seem" to hold this up as an example of Puerto Rican homogeny and nondiscriminatory racial congruency. But lets look at the long history of Puerto Rico. How many dark-skinned Puerto Ricans have, historically, held positions of political power and land ownership?"

Probably not many (of WHATEVER color), since Americans have pretty much taken a hold of every aspect of our country. We owned 93% of our land before the Americans came and messed it all up with their "corporate mentality". Now it's the anti-Castro Cubans who live there among "other" absentee multi-nationals. There are also puppets of the U.S. like Rosello among may others who side with this "great white dream" the U.S. is stickin up our kazoo. But, for the most part, the struggle for Puerto Rican independence came about BECAUSE we realized we were our own people. We would have had a major political victory and a first governor with Albizu Campos... a "Black" man... but, who killed him?... AMERICANS. Our own island history which WE seek to define shows this (not the erroneous stuff people write about us on the internet or in ridiculous misinformed literature.) Unfortunately, some people have their facts twisted because they never challenged the American "status quo"... some of us know different. We are a people born from rape and slavery. When we sought our independence... the first thing on the agenda was an end to slavery because we understood what we were... a mixture of three cultures. In 1937, we marched in Ponce to commemorate the abolition of slavery and got mowed down by submachine guns on order of Gen. Blanton Winship... a racist pig from Georgia who was appointed as our leader. Every time in the 20th Century when we expressed our views on something.... some American was rushing in to shut us up. They only listen when we shoot up Congress like in the 50's. At this point, we got used to it. We subtly ignore their attitudes and go about doing WHAT WE WANNA DO. No matta how much they push statehood in our face, we band together and form solidarity against it. Puerto Ricans by nature are this way. And, as a WHOLE we detest that form of thinking and, YES, I can speak for the majority of Boricuas. I know how most of us are. While there are some idiots in the bunch who sell themselves to stupidity, the majority of us uphold ALL CULTURES that compose US... as far as AFRO- this and that... there ARE Puerto Ricans that say that. Why should we deny what is a part of us? What I am against is extreme dissection by OTHERS of OUR people. I will not love my mother any more because she looks "Black" and my father less because he looks "White". I love them both EQUALLY and move on. We, as a people, tend to not separate and hate other "so-called" races like certain extremists want us to do. Acknowledgement of the differences is great, but we are not going the route of Protestant America. Our history was going somewhere else when it was "interrupted" by the American invasion. So, now we have acquired the history of a country that doesn't really want us except when there's a war to go to. But, eventually, we will come to a conclusion that allows us to maintain our heritage as WE want to... not as Americans, and these, so-called Caribeanists, want us to. Our reality is what it is. There is nothing we can do to escape that reality. I think it's beautiful that we can call ourselves a multi-ethnic people. And, although history cannot be changed, our sensibilities towards injustices have been. When I talk about the rejection of civil rights, it did not register in Puerto Rico... punto. Do you want me to tell you it did? Civil rights didn't get a foothold in PR... and thas just about the size of it. Maybe it did with the ones on the mainland who saw it as a way to fight against the common oppressor and actually lived in the belly of the beast. I understand and respect civil rights wholeheartedly, but I cannot side with just being a "Black Nationalist". Our identity is more than just black... it is brown and white as well... we can't and won't ignore this fact. Yeah, history is messed up, but to say we are multi-cultural doesn't mean we selling out. It means we love being who we are.


"I assure you that throughout the Latino world where there was heavy miscegenation between Spaniard, Africano and Indio blood, Castilian physiognomy (non-African or Indian features) still controls the Latino legacy of politics, business, opportunity and beauty."

You don't have to "assure" me about what I already know. I am extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of Puerto Rican and Caribbean history, politics and culture. Maybe that "white" reality is on Telemundo & Univision, but go ask Mexicans and Venezuelans about that. We don't have a station... we on some music video on B.E.T. gettin exploited along with the rest of your people.



"Even in music, where Africans/Afro-Latinos were the progenitors"

This is an arrogant comment. All people have musical abilities... Africans, Taino and Spanish cultures gave rise to our blended rhythms. If you are saying this to say that we all eventually came out of Africa... I can agree with that. But, I think this statement sells out other cultures which have greatly contributed to our music. "Salsa" is amalgamated music willingly fused together by people of ALL ethnic and cultural backgrounds, unlike Rock-and-Roll which came from your music through this Elvis guy... while "Blacks" got no credit for it. "Salsa" was named such because all the rhythms blended together like a sauce.



"Latin America is exporting and promoting commercially viable “white-looking” Latinos to rest of the world as the best and most creative of the Latino/salsa musical genre."

Just cause they look "white" don't mean they ain't mixed. And I guess, to you, the Cuban-born Queen of Salsa, Celia Cruz, "sold out" cause she had a collection of "Li'l Kim" blonde wigs somewhere in her stash. There's also Rafael Hernandez outta PR... one of OUR greatest classical composers, Cortijo, Ruth Fernandez, Roberto Roena, Bobby Capo, etc. Maybe they're not IMPORTED or CELEBRATED in your wonderfully segregated country, but they the sh*t in ours and amongst other like-minded Latino nations. We also export "black-looking" people in sports... Roberto Clemente, Alfredo Escalera, Victor Pellot, Felix Trinidad, "Chegui" Torres, Bernie Williams... did they go out there and preach "Black Power"? No, they represented their own countries to the fullest... upholding our FLAG and culture WAY HIGH and got mad respect from all of us spics. If white folks don't respect them, thas on them.... but ALL OF PUERTO RICO DID... believe that. Rafael Cordero and Jose Campeche were the greatest Puerto Rican painters of all time... BLACK. Julia DeBurgos... Rene Marques.... poets... BLACK... Myriam Colon... Lauren Velez... actresses... BLACK... The Cepeda family... BLACK... Miss World 1975 from PR... BLACK. The list is too many to mention. This stuff ain't on the internet, brah... it's in us and on our island. We celebrate our people regardless of what color they are. Don't judge the rest of the world by a United States template... no two cultures see things the same. Furthermore, we don't control the media . (In fact, there isn't MUCH that we actually control.) Our national music is Bomba and Plena. Ask any Boricua who is proud to be one and they will tell you the same. And, if they say, "No, I ain't Black... I'm Puerto Rican"... be intelligent enough to think that maybe they see "Black" as a culture... not a "race".



"Afro-Latinos (especially those who look African) have no better break than, Black people in any other part of the world. Matter of fact, If Black or dark-skinned Latinos are “now” receiving more visibility and position in the Latino world (excluding entertainment), it can be directly and indirectly related to the worldwide civil rights movement, spearheaded and accelerated by North American Africans (Blacks), that has removed the veil of systemic and ideological racism, no matter how subtle."

Thanks so much for your efforts in the struggle for humanity. Rosa Parks deserves the honor among many other historical figures who gave their lives for us to walk through the front door..



"Sure, American-styled Jim Crow was never successfully exported, outside of the States, but European colonization and the racism imbued in it, defiantly left its mark on the rest of the world."

And, as a people with our own ways of dealing with day-to-day issues, this is one we never let get out of hand. We started out like "mutts". So, this is pretty much nil. Maybe America has fought long and hard to have us revert into the slave-master mentality of Spanish peninsulares, but our own biologically-instilled sensibilities have kept our culture away from that. Our biggest issues was keeping the Americans from destroying our culture.



"At the end of Slavery in the Latin world, the descendants of slave-owners and the descendants of slaves weren’t sitting together in the plantation house pallor room drinking rum and reminiscing about the good ol’ days and plotting their brighter future."

Some places were like that, not all. History is different from place to place. Cuba tends to have that seperation more because it was a massive plantation economy at one point in history. Though from having been there many times and knowing many of the people there, it seems as if they are taking great strides in eliminating that. They have a long way to go as far as representation and some Europeans who invest there tend to favor the whiter looking people, but hopefully it will become more even-handed. I can agree with their socialist ideals. I see where they are headed with it. Cubans are very adamant about upholding their Cuban-ness... that don't mean racism still doesn't exist. On an island that is overwhemingly of African descent, a black religion... SANTERIA is the major religion accepted there... it would behoove them to make their representation known in politics as well... like wise for PR. We have to struggle against removing the negative issues iposed by an alien culture and allow our own to surface. Cuba and PR are only two places... there are many other distinct cultures in the Caribbean. History is peculiar in each place.



"When Puerto Ricans are classified as an “Afro-Hispanic people” in some reference books, is there any part of that term that disturbs you?"

It shouldn't. It means we are proud of our African-ness. We know that history has favored some folks and not others, but we are here to let the world know that we are what we are and thas about the size of it. I have been called a "spic" a "nig--" and it STILL don't change who or what I am. It makes me even MORE proud to be all that.



"And why is that some Puerto Ricans can embrace the “Hispanic” part and not the “Afro-“part?"

Why do some African-Americans call themselves "Black", "African", "Nubian", "Michael Jackson" or "whatever"? People define themselves however they feel. It's an unalienable human right.



"Are you going to tell me that there aren’t “some” Puerto Ricans that have a problem with admitting or embracing their African ancestry?"

some do... others don't... the majority who understand they have been colonized know their roots... although when we do this some Americans use to accuse us of being "wannabes"... this has caused us to be more into our own history... letting it absolve US and what we ARE.



"African-Americans and Puerto Ricans have a long interwoven history together here in the U.S."

True... economically we have been in the same neighborhoods and perceived to be everything from "strange blacks" to "marvelous mutts" and "dirty white trash".



"We are aware of a lot of this confusion about racial identity and denial in the Afro-Latino community, not excluding our own internal-racial (color) dilemmas, but when we address this concern or make the cultural and spiritual leap and call you “brother” you look at us, as if we’re the only one with the problem."

Destee calls me that and I think nothing of it. I am a brother...BROTHER... lol There are still many peculiarities which we don't learn EVEN IF we are in close proximity to each other. I always feel like I am at home in the presence of African-Americans and likewise, you would feel comfortable in mine.



"Did you know there is an Afro-Latino political movement, that is concern about their lack of representation in leadership roles, movie roles and many other areas of higher social life of the Latin world?"

Yes, I am part of one.



"Don’t you recall that it was the racist comments of a school teacher in Puerto Rico, concerning the under achievements of Black’s that energized “Afroborinqueño” Arturo Schomburg’s long history of collecting and archiving the great accomplishments of Africans/African Americans, regardless of what language they spoke."

Did you ever think to ask yourself whether the teacher was Puerto Rican or not? You "seem" so well-versed on my history. In the late 1800's the only teachers were "peninsulares" from SPAIN, the very ones Puerto Ricans hated and sought to get rid of. There were no real institutions in Puerto Rico for learning.... most of us were illiterate and out in a field somewhere. The Spanish liked it this way. After that the only teachers came with the American Invasion. Futhermore, that story which has become so popular among black bibliophiles was NEVER substantiated as fact. It may have been based on ill-treatment he received in San Juan... a major city where Spaniards were present. My grandma produced a documentary on him actually... which got her a couple of Emmys (the one that Wesley Snipes narrated)... I'll ask her about it tho I am pretty sure of what I have studied.



"Diasporic African descendents in North America should have no need to define or redefine what is Latino, Afro-Latino or Puerto Rican, as related to “Black-ness” and “African-ness”, as this thread suggest. But I think your pseudonym “dadachango69” should imply that we (African people) all have more in common, than not."

Alas, nothing is stopping us from sharing with you on many points... but we can redefine ourselves... because our history in Puerto Rico is too intertwined to separate these days... plus we can do whatever suits our community best. The culture is just ONE culture... made up of many parts... and we love all of it. My screen name means that I follow a specific belief, but I can turn around and call myself somethin like "Juracan" but it doesn't mean I believe myself to be a pure Taino... or call myself "Papi69" and suddenly I am pure Spanish. I am all of the above. That's my choice... my view... my life. I love all those things I am made up of. A screen name doesn't have to revolve around any specific thing. Does "SunShip" mean you are Egyptian? The bottom line is that if you wanna celebrate Blackness... be what you wanna be... more power to you. I am not trying to twist your arm to follow any particular way. I am present at all those rallies, too. But, my identity is PUERTO RICAN. The thread is about us and our "African-ness. So, I speak for the Puerto Rican contingent. I read almost ALL of these interesting comments which I find most amusing. It showed how people outside of us... perceive US. I just threw my nickle in.



Ashe back to you... brother.

Peace Brother dadachango69

I think where I generalized about Latin culture; you took liberty to make my comments seem to be specific about Puerto Ricans. I tried to be careful not to be an authority on any specific Latin culture, where my observations were broad. But, I find it interesting; you yourself have made specific and generalized comments about African American views as if you know us, better than we know you.

I never accused Puerto Ricans or any Latin culture of necessarily buying into the sterilized imagery (as far as music and movies) that has been exported, exploited and sold for the consumption of the west. To ask me if I thought Celia Cruz was sell-out because of her blonde wig is sort of ridiculous. But you can’t avoid the “image wars” in America, no matter where you come from. That why historically, America has promoted the Ricky Ricardo’s and Xavier Cugart’s over the Celia Cruz’s and Chano Pozo’s of the Latin world. And if you don’t think this game is still being played, then you are naïve. You don’t have be Latino to see how this plays out in America. I think to examine the contradictions in any particular culture or how one is perceived internationally as it applies to color, class or status, don’t have to be an offence to one’s own cultural uniqueness.

You act like Puerto Ricans are the only ones that have something to loose and nothing to gain in this discourse between Puerto Ricans and African Americans in the U.S. You act like Puerto Ricans are the only people of African descent who have “so-called” multi-racial backgrounds. Have you looked at African Americans lately. Because we hold up Africa as our spiritual, cultural and ancestral home, doesn’t mean we are in denial about our Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek and other Amerindian ancestry or even other racial mixing that happened, for better or for worse.

Because you “look” more “multi-ethnic” (the rainbow people??) doesn’t make you more “multi-racial” than any other group. You can’t focus on the darkness or lightness of skin and the curliness of hair. For, just as much as DNA can tell you a lot about a peoples morphology and genome, it also tells you nothing about a people spiritually or almost very little, if anything culturally. Even when some people talk about “genetic memory”, this is more of a metaphysical idea, than scientific.

Hey, look here brother I never racialized this subject. I’m talking more about African “people-hood”, perspectives and perceptions, not race.

I have always found it interesting that the media always talk about Black and Jewish relations. But I always believed that people of African descent had more in common than Blacks and European Jews, but maybe that’s just me, overly romanticizing the commonalities in African diasporic cultures.

Then there is that statement pertaining to black folks; where you said, “You ARE an American... to us anyway”. Then you go on using the term “America(-n)” to talk about the wrongs that have befallen Puerto Ricans. Look here Bro’ you need to be, a little more specific. Don’t lump black folks into that American b-ll sh*t that screwed the world.

There are Latino’s who happen to be Black, in my very close family. They were a part of my life from the day I was born. In some way or the other I have dealt with some aspect of Latin culture and music since I was a child. My relatives have always been proud of their unique cultural heritage and some have been traveling throughout the Latin world since the early 50’s. And their opinions about color, race, ethnicity and class are as diverse as any other people.

But hey brother, the fact that you can speak for most Puerto Ricans is very interesting and I’ll take you for your word (lol). And the fact that you may sarcastically call me the “ O great wise one”, :lol: that still doesn't make me an expert on, especially, Puerto Ricans or even on Diasporic Africans in North America.

But as long as African Americans love being Black folks and Puerto Ricans love being Puerto Ricans it’s going to be all right, after all. :lol:

Ashe,

Sun Ship

Maybe I did take the defense, because all my life I had to fight off all kinds of stuff. It is scary when you have a nation that is not really considered a nation because America comes in and scoffs at everything we do. But, I see where you are coming from, Brother Sun. Don't take offense at my defense. I do not claim to know AA as well as Ricans... and for all that I DO know... I don't know it all. Peace and Ashe. DC

I just reread your post... when I said "American" to NNQueen, I was using it in a different way than "American" in my reply to you... my reply to you was referring to the American government... sorry if I wasn't clear... I wouldn't lump you all together since I know you don't want to be. I don't know if I am even being clear here. This may be a touchy subject and I am getting all wrapped up in it. Let me end that here then.

I found this interesting link of a teacher I once met at Hunter College, John Henrik-Clarke. I always found his words very heavy, clear and true. I would like to share this with ya.

"You have the right to practice any religion and politics in a way that best suits your freedom, your dignity, and your understanding. And once you do that, you don't apologize."

- J.H. Clarke

The Concept of Deity (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/blpr/clarke3.html)


and some more links from that syght:

Professor Clarke (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/blpr/resources.html)

Pedro Albizu-Campos (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/blpr/albizu.html)

Peace, Brother dadachango69

You've just quoted one of my heroes! And I agree wholeheartedly, with his wisdom. For, I've been blessed with the great pleasure of hearing him lecture a few times and may he dwell with honor among the ancestors.

I will also check out the links you've posted. thanks for the information.

Peace,

Sun Ship

Hey Dada! (I'm stalking you *lol*)

I think the discrepancy comes in because we look at ourselves through cultural eyes while the US has forced people into color categories. Of course this happened everywhere in the western world, but with the arrival of independence in Latin America came the abolition of the slave trade. The US was the only nation in the western world to have retained that instituion for almost a hundred years after their independence from Britain. While racism still exists, albiet not on the same level as here, many Latino nations are finding ways to deal with that issue. In Cuba, there was the issue of the murder of thousands of Black Cubans in 1912 who fought for independence from Spain who were told that they could not form an Independent Party of Color. Since the revolution things have been changing there and the last vestiges of racism will (hopefull) soon be eradicated. The education levels there are very high and the literacy rate is the highest of Latin America. Ignorance is being sidetracked in favor of building a society with dignity that accepts all regardless of creed, color or orientation. While no government is perfect, I believe Castro's Cuba to be the best thing to have happened to my nation. The representation in government, you are right, is not what it should be but it trust that it will soon become a reality. The revolution is constantly reinventing itself. I have stopped believing the poisonous propoganda which the US government has put out to destroy us.

Puerto Rico is similar in its struggle for freedom as is my nation and we share a common heritage and history. There will come the day when your island will receive the respect for wanting to be what it wants to be. The great Jose Marti knew the evil machinations of the American government and warned us. Unfortunately, the Spanish-American War caused a big screw-up in our self determination struggle. Not to worry, the tide will change in this information age. I have hope and great prospects for Latin America specifically the Caribbean islands- the first place where wounds were inflicted.

As far as being considered "African", I am extremely proud of my roots. I am a teacher of African Yoruba culture. But, culturally and politically I am Latina FIRST. The struggle for African Unity is undeniably crucial and highly important, but I cannot negate my nation nor my society. Racist America could learn alot from people born at the crossroads of the world. We are not perfect, but we have our own ideas of how to deal with our own societal flaws.

(I called you, but kept getting a lady singing on your machine. We playing phone tag here. I am home in the early evenings until next month when I go to Santiago. Llamame.)

Love ya much, papito.

Miss "M"



I just reread your post... when I said "American" to NNQueen, I was using it in a different way than "American" in my reply to you... my reply to you was referring to the American government... sorry if I wasn't clear... I wouldn't lump you all together since I know you don't want to be. I don't know if I am even being clear here. This may be a touchy subject and I am getting all wrapped up in it. Let me end that here then.

I found this interesting link of a teacher I once met at Hunter College, John Henrik-Clarke. I always found his words very heavy, clear and true. I would like to share this with ya.

"You have the right to practice any religion and politics in a way that best suits your freedom, your dignity, and your understanding. And once you do that, you don't apologize."

- J.H. Clarke

The Concept of Deity (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/blpr/clarke3.html)


and some more links from that syght:

Professor Clarke (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/blpr/resources.html)

Pedro Albizu-Campos (http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/blpr/albizu.html)

Peace,

I have enjoyed the tenacious and sharing discourse I had with Brother dadachango69 and found the input of sister Qubanita, most enlightening.

But I would like to, reflect on some other ideas, as I ponder some of sister Qubanita’s post.

QUOTE sister Qubanita (the bold emphasis are mine):


“I think the discrepancy comes in because we look at ourselves through cultural eyes while the US has forced people into color categories.”


“As far as being considered "African", I am extremely proud of my roots. I am a teacher of African Yoruba culture. But, culturally and politically I am Latina FIRST. The struggle for African Unity is undeniably crucial and highly important, but I cannot negate my nation nor my society. Racist America could learn alot from people born at the crossroads of the world. We are not perfect, but we have our own ideas of how to deal with our own societal flaws.”

UNQUOTE


The US has forced people to do a lot of things, including, to racially, culturally and ethnically discriminate. Also, Racist America could have learned a lot, if it had just listen to the people, who were already here!

But it was not, just racist “Anglo-Americans”, but Europeans in general.

Remember the racial designates of Negro, Sambo (zambo), Mulatto, Quadroons, Octoroon and Creole (Criollo) dumped on some, if not all, of the backs, of diasporic African descendants in America and beyond, were not originally “Anglo-Saxon” words. For as we know, many of these, eventually racialized terms, were popularized by “non-Anglo enslavers” and were originally used more divisively, than as terms of endearment.

But lets ask our selves, how color-hoodwinked are African Americans, in relationship to others?

Is it color or culture for us?

Do I relate to Africa, because of color or culture?

What do I have to gain, in light of color and what do I have to loose, in light of culture?

Well, lets just take a “more” serious look at music, an important definer of a people’s cultural soul.

Do you think that I will give up the spiritual sounds of John Coltrane or Pharaoh Sanders; in order to complete some romanticized African identity, just based on color?

Can I really define myself, as an African American based on color alone?

Or do I understand the rhythmic nuances and can hear African reverberations echoed, off plantation walls, when I hear familiar, call and response musical incantations, in the sounds of Max Roach, Charlie Parker, Art Blakey and Miles Davis?

Or maybe I’m thinking about Irish Jigs and Scandinavian yodeling _(lol), when I'm listening to Billie Holiday, Eddie Jefferson, Bobby Mcferrin or Cassandra Wilson? ____ Maybe? Maybe not? _(lol)

Have my ears and theoretical understanding of African/African American music, deceived me?

Do my ears know the intrinsic sound of my mother’s voice? Or does she sound like a European?

Do I trade in the Blues, spirituals, field hollers and work songs, in order to be non-African American or “Blacker” than black???

Just as the Nigerian and the Ghanaian is culturally and politically defined. I have a long and proud legacy that cannot be denied and is second to known.

And just like Latin/Afro-Cuban music has had strong influences on certain aspects of African American music in North America, so has, Jazz especially, had a strong influence on Latin musicians. Ask Irakere, which included the musical genius of great Latin/Jazz musicians Chucho Valdes and Paquito D’Rivera. I don’t think Tito Puente, Arturo Sandoval, Ray Barreto or Hilton Ruiz have (or had) to be any less Latin to be able to embrace Jazz or to realize the obvious common thread and history, between Jazz and Latin/Caribbean music, which is Africa.

Many of these Latin musicians have talked openly, about the obvious and undeniable “African commanality” of both our music. A commonality that has many times, attracted us, to each other’s culture and musical expressions.

I don’t think it was just a random accident that, Jazz and Afro-Cuban music found each other many years ago, as in Dizzy Gillespie finding Chano Pozo and vice versa.

Why does Santana praise John Coltrane so much?

Or why does Mongo Santamaria’s Afro-Blue sound so sweet and deep when played by John Coltrane and other Afro-American Jazz musicians.

Or what is the, great Nigerian-Yoruba musical phenomenon, Fela’s, connection to the James Brown and John Coltrane sound.

Is this color or culture?

I will always wrap myself in the spirituality of “Dr. Watts”, Mahalia Jackson’s voice and Aretha Franklin’s soul.

When my father stretched skins over drums and burned out the center of reeds to make fifes in the isolated hill country of Mississippi and danced to syncopated rhythms that had no spiritual or cultural relationship to Euro-American society.

Was he relating to color or culture?

And if I hear and feel something in common, when I hear bombas, plenas, guanguancos and merengues or the hypnotic voice of Lazaro Ros singing to Elegua or the guttural sweetness of Celia Cruz saluting Chango, have I become mentally confused or abandoned or lessened my connections to my African American culture, be it spiritually, socially or politically?

We are all dealing with and embracing the same things, we love dearly. The things that have brought us thus far, which we mold into reflections of our own peculiar experiences.

But in closing… a Benin friend (a master woodcarver) once said, with tears pouring down his cheeks; tears invoked by listening to an recording of Carlos “Patato” Valdez and Francisco Aguabella playing Bata drums and chanting to the Orishas, "... brother, surely, blood is thicker than water”.


Same tribes, different ships; that’s all.

Ashe,

Brother Sun Ship

It is my understanding that the African tradition is the dominant key to "latin" culture. So while I can appreciate any brotha or sistahs right to identify themselves with what they deem true. Remember the old african saying, God is the master drummerPeace,

I have enjoyed the tenacious and sharing discourse I had with Brother dadachango69 and found the input of sister Qubanita, most enlightening.

But I would like to, reflect on some other ideas, as I ponder some of sister Qubanita’s post.

QUOTE sister Qubanita (the bold emphasis are mine):


“I think the discrepancy comes in because we look at ourselves through cultural eyes while the US has forced people into color categories.”


“As far as being considered "African", I am extremely proud of my roots. I am a teacher of African Yoruba culture. But, culturally and politically I am Latina FIRST. The struggle for African Unity is undeniably crucial and highly important, but I cannot negate my nation nor my society. Racist America could learn alot from people born at the crossroads of the world. We are not perfect, but we have our own ideas of how to deal with our own societal flaws.”

UNQUOTE


The US has forced people to do a lot of things, including, to racially, culturally and ethnically discriminate. Also, Racist America could have learned a lot, if it had just listen to the people, who were already here!

But it was not, just racist “Anglo-Americans”, but Europeans in general.

Remember the racial designates of Negro, Sambo (zambo), Mulatto, Quadroons, Octoroon and Creole (Criollo) dumped on some, if not all, of the backs, of diasporic African descendants in America and beyond, were not originally “Anglo-Saxon” words. For as we know, many of these, eventually racialized terms, were popularized by “non-Anglo enslavers” and were originally used more divisively, than as terms of endearment.

But lets ask our selves, how color-hoodwinked are African Americans, in relationship to others?

Is it color or culture for us?

Do I relate to Africa, because of color or culture?

What do I have to gain, in light of color and what do I have to loose, in light of culture?

Well, lets just take a “more” serious look at music, an important definer of a people’s cultural soul.

Do you think that I will give up the spiritual sounds of John Coltrane or Pharaoh Sanders; in order to complete some romanticized African identity, just based on color?

Can I really define myself, as an African American based on color alone?

Or do I understand the rhythmic nuances and can hear African reverberations echoed, off plantation walls, when I hear familiar, call and response musical incantations, in the sounds of Max Roach, Charlie Parker, Art Blakey and Miles Davis?

Or maybe I’m thinking about Irish Jigs and Scandinavian yodeling _(lol), when I'm listening to Billie Holiday, Eddie Jefferson, Bobby Mcferrin or Cassandra Wilson? ____ Maybe? Maybe not? _(lol)

Have my ears and theoretical understanding of African/African American music, deceived me?

Do my ears know the intrinsic sound of my mother’s voice? Or does she sound like a European?

Do I trade in the Blues, spirituals, field hollers and work songs, in order to be non-African American or “Blacker” than black???

Just as the Nigerian and the Ghanaian is culturally and politically defined. I have a long and proud legacy that cannot be denied and is second to known.

And just like Latin/Afro-Cuban music has had strong influences on certain aspects of African American music in North America, so has, Jazz especially, had a strong influence on Latin musicians. Ask Irakere, which included the musical genius of great Latin/Jazz musicians Chucho Valdes and Paquito D’Rivera. I don’t think Tito Puente, Arturo Sandoval, Ray Barreto or Hilton Ruiz have (or had) to be any less Latin to be able to embrace Jazz or to realize the obvious common thread and history, between Jazz and Latin/Caribbean music, which is Africa.

Many of these Latin musicians have talked openly, about the obvious and undeniable “African commanality” of both our music. A commonality that has many times, attracted us, to each other’s culture and musical expressions.

I don’t think it was just a random accident that, Jazz and Afro-Cuban music found each other many years ago, as in Dizzy Gillespie finding Chano Pozo and vice versa.

Why does Santana praise John Coltrane so much?

Or why does Mongo Santamaria’s Afro-Blue sound so sweet and deep when played by John Coltrane and other Afro-American Jazz musicians.

Or what is the, great Nigerian-Yoruba musical phenomenon, Fela’s, connection to the James Brown and John Coltrane sound.

Is this color or culture?

I will always wrap myself in the spirituality of “Dr. Watts”, Mahalia Jackson’s voice and Aretha Franklin’s soul.

When my father stretched skins over drums and burned out the center of reeds to make fifes in the isolated hill country of Mississippi and danced to syncopated rhythms that had no spiritual or cultural relationship to Euro-American society.

Was he relating to color or culture?

And if I hear and feel something in common, when I hear bombas, plenas, guanguancos and merengues or the hypnotic voice of Lazaro Ros singing to Elegua or the guttural sweetness of Celia Cruz saluting Chango, have I become mentally confused or abandoned or lessened my connections to my African American culture, be it spiritually, socially or politically?

We are all dealing with and embracing the same things, we love dearly. The things that have brought us thus far, which we mold into reflections of our own peculiar experiences.

But in closing… a Benin friend (a master woodcarver) once said, with tears pouring down his cheeks; tears invoked by listening to an recording of Carlos “Patato” Valdez and Francisco Aguabella playing Bata drums and chanting to the Orishas, "... brother, surely, blood is thicker than water”.


Same tribes, different ships; that’s all.

Ashe,

Brother Sun Ship
[B]

Sup Qu,

It's interesting you mentioned the 1912 incident cause Gloria Rolando did a documentary on that. When I went to Cuba this past summer, my friend (who is AA) and I went all over Havana and we didn't experience any racism. Some folks just looked at the way we dressed. Our clothes were not the kind they were used to seeing. "Blacks" and "Whites" intermingled without any issues. This was the same everywhere. I have been to Cuba many times and I still have yet to see anything overt as what I have seen here in the U.S. No one seems to care about the "race" question there. The only separation created was between the "Whites" who had relatives in Florida (85% of Cubans in the U.S. are of European origin) and the "Blacks" who did not have much of anything here in the U.S. "Whites" would send money to their families and, since the American dollar is (to a point) allowed there, it brought up their standard of living. However, I saw "Blacks" that lived "well" and "Whites" that lived "horribly", so it did not make sense to me. Overall, everyone seemed to have the same living standards. While institutional racism had been abolished and laws were no longer based on "racial" situations, there was still the remnants of hate in the hearts of people who knew what life was like before 1959. Cuba is a thoroughly integrated place. I remember having a casual conversation (in Spanish) with my friend from Matanzas who managed an Arara dance group there. I asked her if she ever wanted to leave Cuba. Her response was "why?" with a smile. "I have everything I would ever want here". Being that she was older, I could only deduce that life for her as a woman of African descent before the revolution was horrible. I was reminded of the excellent health care they receive and the advancements of African peoples in Cuba. Their level of intelligence left me in awe and I was ready to start the next socialist revolution in Puerto Rico :lol: Of course, I do not advocate violent insurrection. Our situation may be best achieved through use of the educational privileges many of us have been given through the forced union with the United States. We have raised the levels of understanding ourselves... most of us anyway.

It strikes me as incredible how the U.S. government has no respect for these people who are exhibiting their own pride in social advancements. But, then again, militarily, the U.S. is eye-balling their own backyard which is filled with anti-capitalist "commies". I could only conclude that some folks (who are here now) are mad because they lost their land when Castro nationalized everything in 1959. Castro decided to "wipe the slate clean" and start over. It is an experiment that will take a long time to perfect itself. But, at least, they are starting over from an equal, and somewhat level, playing field. I support them in their quest for self-determination and I will always feel welcomed in Cuba. That is my second home. The may be poor because of U.S. trade and travel restrictions, but their cultural and intellectual prowess is really something to be admired. They are Cuban first. This is how they chose to handle the horrendous history of slavery and colonization. I sometimes wish Puerto Rico could turn around and give America the finger for 44 years like they did... and just do what suits our people best. As it stands, Puerto Rican homes are literally "barred-up" to protect people from other Puerto Ricans who chose to live with capitalistic & violent ways. Even this new phenomenon of Puerto Rican-style hip hop (on the island) mimics more 50 cent than Sista Souljah. It is sad. To do what Castro did... that really takes "cojones". Power to LA GENTE !!

I found this article in my files which sounds about right from my experiences in Cuba. It doesn't seem tainted with the anti-Castro rhetoric of most exiled Cubans (who now live in the U.S. and Puerto Rico).




"Black Cubans are still faced with racism "

By Ricardo Chavira
The Dallas Morning News
September 17

Government panel studying problems

HAVANA - As a young man in the early 1950s, Clinton Adlum once made the mistake of walking through Miramar, a residential enclave of gated mansions and verdant gardens.

"Because I'm black and that's where the wealthy white people lived, guards stopped me and asked what I was doing there," Mr. Adlum recalled recently. "I had to leave."

Such stories were common in the virulently racist Cuba of those years. But with the triumph of Fidel Castro's revolution in 1959, blatant discrimination was supposed to have been swept away. Reality, says Maria Fragua, is something else. Ms. Fragua, a black historian, married a white man a few years ago and moved to his neighborhood.

"I was the only black person there. So, when my relatives and black friends came to visit, our neighbors wanted to know who they were and what they were looking for," she said.

What the two stories illustrate, say Cuban authorities, is that while Mr. Castro and his government greatly improved the lives of blacks by ending official discrimination, informal racism survives in this heavily black nation. Only now, they say, is the mostly white Cuban leadership coming to grips with that reality. A special commission is assessing the problem.

"There is no official racism here anymore," said Mr. Adlum, a retired diplomat. "But there is still a culture of racism. The mistake was to think that just by having everyone integrated, racism would fade away."

African slaves were brought to Cuba for three centuries, and slavery wasn't abolished until 1886. During those years and beyond, blacks were barred from white schools, neighborhoods, social clubs and other institutions. Afro-Cubans endured high unemployment rates, and when they found work were relegated to the lowest-paying, most arduous jobs. Early attempts by blacks to gain recognition were crushed. In one notorious 1912 incident, government troops killed about 3,000 blacks in fighting that erupted after an Afro-Cuban political party was declared illegal. Just months after taking power in 1959 the revolutionary government outlawed housing and workplace discrimination, banned all-white country and social clubs and, perhaps most significantly, granted free universal access to higher education. Mr. Castro, signaling the changes, announced that "in the schools white and black children must be together so that later the white man and black man will be in a position to earn their living at the same workplaces."

Pablo Diaz, a black foreign ministry official, said never before had a government so directly taken on racial discrimination. "You can't overestimate the positive impact that had on blacks," he said.

"My family was very poor, and before the revolution, nobody even dreamed of attending a university. Today, we have engineers, economists and doctors in my family. And there are many, many other black families who experienced the same change," Mr. Diaz said.

Rafael Belicer, 56, credits the revolution for changing his fate. "I'm an educated black man who can speak four languages - English, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish," he said. "I have a degree in civil engineering, and I'm driving a French Peugeot. . . . The revolution has been very good to black people in Cuba."

Gisela Arandia, a University of Havana researcher, said that blacks weren't entirely singled out by race but by circumstance. "Because they were so marginalized, blacks and mulattoes made great advances in the early years of the revolution," she said.

In a more controversial undertaking, the Castro government sent thousands of troops and advisers to African nations. About 70,000 African students were brought to Cuba for free educations. But many here say the government have made no further moves to root out subtle, intractable racism. Some blame the government's Marxist bent.

"The socialist commitment and strictly fair nature of the new regime would eventually assure the gradual and spontaneous resolution of the racial question," wrote Osvaldo Cardenas, a former Cuban official.

Further, as long as Cuba maintained hostile relations with the United States, "it was officially determined that any reference to race relations represented a threat that could divide the population along racial lines," according to Mr. Cardenas.

Even today, said Ms. Fragua, government-issued documents don't specify race.

Ms. Arandia said that practice stems in part from the centuries-old tradition of distinguishing between blacks and persons of mixed white and black ancestry, or mulattos.

"You have many people here who are don't think of themselves as black, [but] who in the United States would definitely be black," she said. "So you don't have anything like the level of black consciousness that you do in the United States. It also means you limit the possibilities that race will be discussed frankly."

Ms. Arandia, who is black and has studied race relations in America, said that Cuban racism shows itself in many ways. There are, for example, no blacks among the most important leadership posts, and only six of 24 top Communist party jobs are held by Afro-Cubans. In the burgeoning tourist industry, management jobs mainly have gone to nonblacks, say many Cubans. Blacks largely are relegated to menial jobs, such as kitchen helpers and hotel maids.

"Just look around here," Ms. Arandia said as she sat in the patio of the luxurious Hotel Nacional. "All the people working behind the counters are white."

Black actors and actresses frequently find themselves playing the role of servants or slaves, as in the current popular soap opera, Echo of the Stones.

Said Ms. Arandia: "We see these racist images that don't reflect reality. We have thousands and thousands of black professionals who are not portrayed in the media."

While no statistics are available, experts here say most of those imprisoned for criminal offenses are black.

"The army is heavily black, but blacks get only so far in rank," Ms. Fragua said. "There is just one general."

The crushing economic crisis that has engulfed Cuba since 1989 has hit blacks disproportionately hard, many here agree, because most emigrants are white. "Relatives abroad send home dollars, and few blacks receive them," said journalist Marta Rojas. Some white Cubans harbor anti-black sentiments, attitudes often openly expressed. At a dinner gathering here a few years ago the white host, a retired factory worker, lamented his neighborhood's ramshackle state. "It was beautiful until Fidel let all those blacks from the countryside move here," he said angrily. "They didn't care to keep up their apartments."

Roberto de Armas, a foreign ministry official, offered a different view in a recent interview. "Some blacks who had lived in poverty," he said, "had no idea how to care for their apartments. Merely changing their social situation is not enough. You have to educate them."

For all the evidence of racism, visitors to Cuba often are struck by how fully integrated Cuban society seems to be. Cubans of all hues mingle in public and socially, and intermarriage is not unusual.

"In that regard, we are further along than the United States," Ms. Arandia said. "There, blacks and whites generally don't sit down together. I've had African-Americans visit here, and they just don't understand how this happens."

And popular Cuban culture - especially music and dance - is strongly rooted in West African traditions. Santeria, an Africa-derived religion, rivals Catholicism in number of followers. Only now, and at the insistence of black intellectuals, is the Cuban government quietly reassessing the state of race relations. The commission formed to study the situation is expected to produce a report sometime next year.

Whatever the report's conclusion, many blacks say, the ultimate solution lies in changed attitudes. "In truth, 1959 to today is a very short time to cure an illness that is centuries old," Ms. Arandia said. "Cuba, and every other country on Earth, has to get beyond race. If we do, there will be no problem."


© 1998 The Dallas Morning News

Hey SunShip,

I found this interesting article amongst my files regarding this "cultural" vs. "racial" argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New Yorker, July 24, 1994

"One Drop of Blood," by Lawrence Wright
Copyright 1994 The New Yorker


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Washington in the millennial years is a city of warring racial and ethnic groups fighting for recognition, protection, and entitlements. This war has been fought throughout the second half of the twentieth century largely by black Americans. How much this contest has widened, how bitter it has turned, how complex and baffling it is, and how far-reaching its consequences are became evident in a series of congressional hearings that began last year in the obscure House Sub-committee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel, which is chaired by Representative Thomas C. Sawyer, Democrat of Ohio, and concluded in November, 1993.

Although the Sawyer hearings were scarcely reported in the news and were sparsely attended even by other members of the subcommittee, with the exception of Representative Thomas E. Petri, Republican of Wisconsin, they opened what may become the most searching examination of racial questions in this country since the sixties. Related federal agency hearings, and meetings that will be held in Washington and other cities around the country to prepare for the 2000 census, are considering not only modifications of existing racial categories but also the larger question of whether it is proper for the government to classify people according to arbitrary distinctions of skin color and ancestry. This discussion arises at a time when profound debates are occurring in minority communities about the rightfulness of group entitlements, some government officials are questioning the usefulness of race data, and scientists are debating whether race exists at all.

Tom Sawyer, forty-eight, a former English teacher and a former mayor of Akron, is now in his fourth term representing the Fourteenth District of Ohio. It would be fair to say that neither the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service nor the subcommittee that Sawyer chairs is the kind of assignment that members of Congress would willingly shed blood for. Indeed, the attitude of most elected officials in Washington toward the census is polite loathing, because it is the census, as much as any other force in the country, that determines their political futures. Congressional districts rise and fall with the shifting demography of the country, yet census matters rarely seize the front pages of home-town newspapers, except briefly, once every ten years. Much of the subcommittee's business has to do with addressing the safety concerns of postal workers and overseeing federal statistical measurements. The subcommittee has an additional responsibility: it reviews the executive branch's policy about which racial and ethnic groups should be officially recognized by the United States government.

"We are unique in this country in the way we describe and define race and ascribe to it characteristics that other cultures view very differently," Sawyer, who is a friendly man with an open, boyish face and graying black hair, says. He points out that the country is in the midst of its most profound demographic shift since the eighteen-nineties--a time that opened a period of the greatest immigration we have ever seen, whose numbers have not been matched until right now. A deluge of new Americans from every part of the world is overwhelming our traditional racial distinctions, Sawyer believes. "The categories themselves inevitably reflect the temporal bias of every age," he says. "That becomes a problem when the nation itself is undergoing deep and historic diversification."

Looming over the shoulder of Sawyer's subcommittee is the Office of Management and Budget, the federal agency that happens to be responsible for determining standard classifications of racial and ethnic data. Since 1977, those categories have been set by O.M.B. Statistical Directive 15, which controls the racial and ethnic standards on all federal forms and statistics. Directive 15 acknowledges four general racial groups in the United States: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black; and White. Directive 15 also breaks down ethnicity into Hispanic Origin and Not of Hispanic Origin. These categories, or versions of them, are present on enrollment forms for schoolchildren; on application forms for jobs, scholarships, loans, and mortgages; and, of course, on United States census forms. The categories ask that every American fit himself or herself into one racial and one ethnic box. From this comes the information that is used to monitor and enforce civil-rights legislation, most notably the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but also a smorgasbord of set-asides and entitlements and affirmative- action programs. "The numbers drive the dollars," Sawyer observes, repeating a well-worn Washington adage.

The truth of that statement was abundantly evident in the hearings, in which a variety of racial and ethnic groups were bidding to increase their portions of the federal pot. The National Coalition for an Accurate Count of Asian Pacific Americans lobbied to add Cambodians and Lao to the nine different nationalities already listed on the census forms under the heading of Asian or Pacific Islander. The National Council of La Raza proposed that Hispanics be considered a race, not just an ethnic group. The Arab American Institute asked that persons from the Middle East, now counted as white, be given a separate, protected category of their own. Senator Daniel K. Akaka, a Native Hawaiian, urged that his people be moved from the Asian or Pacific Islander box to the American Indian or Alaskan Native box. "There is the misperception that Native Hawaiians, who number well over two hundred thousand, somehow 'immigrated' to the United States like other Asian or Pacific Island groups," the Senator testified. "This leads to the erroneous impression that Native Hawaiians, the original inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands, no longer exist." In the Senator's opinion, being placed in the same category as other Native Americans would help rectify that situation. (He did not mention that certain American Indian tribes enjoy privileges concerning gambling concessions that Native Hawaiians currently don't enjoy.) The National Congress of American Indians would like the Hawaiians to stay where they are. In every case, issues of money, but also of identity, are at stake.

In this battle over racial turf, a disturbing new contender has appeared. "When I received my 1990 census form, I realized that there was no race category for my children," Susan Graham, who is a white woman married to a black man in Roswell, Georgia, testified. "I called the Census Bureau. After checking with supervisors, the bureau finally gave me their answer: The children should take the race of their mother. When I objected and asked why my children should be classified as their mother's race only, the Census Bureau representative said to me, in a very hushed voice, 'Because, in cases like these, we always know who the mother is and not always the father.'"

Graham went on to say, "I could not make a race choice from the basic categories when I enrolled my son in kindergarten in Georgia. The only choice I had, like most other parents of multiracial children, was to leave race blank. I later found that my child's teacher was instructed to choose for him based on her knowledge and observation of my child. Ironically, my child has been white on the United States census, black at school, and multiracial at home--all at the same time."

Graham and others were asking that a "Multiracial" box be added to the racial categories specified by Directive 15--a proposal that alarmed representatives of the other racial groups for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that multiracialism threatened to undermine the concept of racial classification altogether.

According to various estimates, at least seventy-five to more than ninety per cent of the people who now check the Black box could check Multiracial, because of their mixed genetic heritage. If a certain proportion of those people say, ten per cent should elect to identify themselves as Multiracial, legislative districts in many parts of the country might need to be redrawn. The entire civil-rights regulatory program concerning housing, employment, and education would have to be reassessed. School desegregation plans would be thrown into the air. Of course, it is possible that only a small number of Americans will elect to choose the Multiracial option, if it is offered, with little social effect. Merely placing such an option on the census invites people to consider choosing it, however. When the census listed "Cajun" as one of several examples under the ancestry question, the number of Cajuns jumped nearly two thousand per cent. To remind people of the possibility is to encourage enormous change.

Those who are charged with enforcing civil-rights laws see the Multiracial box as a wrecking ball aimed at affirmative action, and they hold those in the mixed-race movement responsible. "There's no concern on any of these people's part about the effect on policy it's just a subjective feeling that their identity needs to be stroked," one government analyst said. "What they don't understand is that it's going to cost their own groups"--by losing the advantages that accrue to minorities by way of affirmative-action programs, for instance. Graham contends that the object of her movement is not to create another protected category. In any case, she said, multiracial people know "to check the right box to get the goodies."

Of course, races have been mixing in America since Columbus arrived. Visitors to Colonial America found plantation slaves who were as light-skinned as their masters. Patrick Henry actually proposed, in 1784, that the State of Virginia encourage intermarriage between whites and Indians, through the use of tax incentives and cash stipends. The legacy of this intermingling is that Americans who are descendants of early settlers, of slaves, or of Indians often have ancestors of different races in their family tree.

Thomas Jefferson supervised the original census, in 1790. The population then was broken down into free white males, free white females, other persons (these included free blacks and "taxable Indians," which meant those living in or around white settlements), and slaves. How unsettled this country has always been about its racial categories is evident in the fact that nearly every census since has measured race differently. For most of the nineteenth century, the census reflected an American obsession with miscegenation. The color of slaves was to be specified as "B," for black, and "M," for mulatto. In the 1890 census, gradations of mulattos were further broken down into quadroons and octoroons. After 1920, however, the Census Bureau gave up on such distinctions, estimating that three-quarters of all blacks in the United States were racially mixed already, and that pure blacks would soon disappear. Hence-forth anyone with any black ancestry at all would be counted simply as black.

Actual interracial marriages, however, were historically rare. Multiracial children were often marginalized as illegitimate half-breeds who didn't fit comfortably into any racial community. This was particularly true of the off spring of black-white unions. "In my family, like many families with African-American ancestry, there is a history of multiracial offspring associated with rape and concubinage," G. Reginald Daniel, who teaches a course in multiracial identity at the University of California at Los Angeles, says. "I was reared in the segregationist South. Both sides of my family have been mixed for at least three generations. I struggled as a child over the question of why I had to exclude my East Indian and Irish and Native American and French ancestry, and could include only African."

Until recently, people like Daniel were identified simply as black because of a peculiarly American institution known informally as "the one-drop rule," which defines as black a person with as little as a single drop of "black blood." This notion derives from a long discredited belief that each race had its own blood type, which was correlated with physical appearance and social behavior. The antebellum South promoted the rule as a way of enlarging the slave population with the children of slave holders. By the nineteen-twenties, in Jim Crow America the one- drop rule was well established as the law of the land. It still is, according to a United States Supreme Court decision as late as 1986, which refused to review a lower court's ruling that a Louisiana woman whose great-great-great-great-grandmother had been the mistress of a French planter was black--even though that proportion of her ancestry amounted to no more than three thirty- seconds of her genetic heritage. "We are the only country in the world that applies the one-drop rule, and the only group that the one-drop rule applies to is people of African descent," Daniel observes.

People of mixed black-and-white ancestry were rejected by whites and found acceptance by blacks. Many of the most notable "black" leaders over the last century and a half were "white" to some extent, from Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass (both of whom had white fathers) to W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr. (who had an Irish grandmother and some American Indian ancestry as well). The fact that Lani Guinier, Louis Farrakhan, and Virginia's former governor Douglas Wilder are defined as black, and define themselves that way, though they have light skin or "European" features, demonstrates how enduring the one-drop rule has proved to be in America, not only among whites but among blacks as well. Daniel sees this as "a double-edged sword." While the one-drop rule encouraged racism, it also galvanized the black community.

"But the one-drop rule is racist," Daniel says. "There's no way you can get away from the fact that it was historically implemented to create as many slaves as possible. No one leaped over to the white community--that was simply the mentality of the nation, and people of African descent internalized it. What this current discourse is about is lifting the lid of racial oppression in our institutions and letting people identity with the totality of their heritage. We have created a nightmare for human dignity. Multiracialism has the potential for undermining the very basis of racism, which is its categories."

But multiracialism introduces nightmares of its own. If people are to be counted as something other than completely black, for instance, how will affirmative-action programs be implemented? Suppose a court orders a city to hire additional black police officers to make up for past discrimination. Will mixed race officers count? Will they count wholly or partly? Far from solving the problem of fragmented identities, multiracialism could open the door to fractional races, such as we already have in the case of the American Indians. In order to be eligible for certain federal benefits, such as housing-improvement programs, a person must prove that he or she either is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or has fifty per cent "Indian blood." One can envision a situation in which nonwhiteness itself becomes the only valued quality, to be compensated in various ways depending on a person's pedigree.

Kwame Anthony Appiah, of Harvard's Philosophy and Afro- American Studies Departments, says, "What the Multiracial category aims for is not people of mixed ancestry, because a majority of Americans are actually products of mixed ancestry. This category goes after people who have parents who are socially recognized as belonging to different races. That's O.K.--that's an interesting social category. But then you have to ask what happens to their children. Do we want to have more boxes, depending upon whether they marry back into one group or the other? What are the children of these people supposed to say? I think about these things because--look, my mother is English; my father is Ghanaian. My sisters are married to a Nigerian and a Norwegian. I have nephews who range from blond- haired kids to very black kids. They are all first cousins. Now, according to the American scheme of things, they're all black-even the guy with blond hair who skis in Oslo. That's what the one drop rule says. The Multiracial scheme, which is meant to solve anomalies, simply creates more anomalies of its own, and that's because the fundamental concept--that you should be able to assign every American to one of three or four races reliably-is crazy."

These are sentiments that Representative Sawyer agrees with profoundly. He says of the one-drop rule, "It is so embedded in our perception and policy, but it doesn't allow for the blurring that is the reality of our population. Just look a- What are the numbers?" he said in his congressional office as he leafed through a briefing book "Thirty-eight per cent of American Japanese females and eighteen per cent of American Japanese males marry outside their traditional ethnic and nationality group. Seventy per cent of American Indians marry outside. I grant you that the enormous growth potential of multiracial marriages starts from a relatively small base, but the truth is it starts from a fiction to begin with; that is, what we think of as black-and-white marriages are not marriages between people who come from anything like a clearly defined ethnic, racial, or genetic base."

The United States Supreme Court struck down the last vestige of anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia. At that time, interracial marriages were rare; only sixty-five thousand marriages between blacks and whites were recorded in the 1970 census. Marriages between Asians and non-Asian Americans tended to be between soldiers and war brides. Since then, mixed marriages occurring between many racial and ethnic groups have risen to the point where they have eroded the distinctions between such peoples. Among American Indians, people are more likely to marry outside their group than within it, as Representative Sawyer noted. The number of children living in families where one parent is white and the other is black, Asian, or American Indian, to use one measure, has tripled-from fewer than four hundred thousand in 1970 to one and a half million in 1990--and this doesn't count the children of single parents or children whose parents are divorced.

Blacks are conspicuously less likely to marry outside their group, and yet marriages between blacks and whites have tripled in the last thirty years. Matthijs Kalmijn, a Dutch sociologist, analyzed marriage certificates filed in this country's non- Southern states since the Loving decision and found that in the nineteen- eighties the rate at which black men were marrying white women had reached approximately ten per cent. (The rate for black women marrying white men is about half that figure.) In the 1990 census, six per cent of black householders nationwide had nonblack spouse--still a small percentage, but a significant one.

Multiracial people, because they are now both unable and unwilling to be ignored, and because many of them refuse to be confined to traditional racial categories, inevitably undermine the entire concept of race as an irreducible difference between peoples. The continual modulation of racial differences in America is increasing the jumble created by centuries of ethnic intermarriage. The resulting dilemma is a profound one. If we choose to measure the mixing by counting people as Multiracial, we pull the teeth of the civil-rights laws. Are we ready for that? Is it even possible to make changes in the way we count Americans, given the legislative mandates already built into law? "I don't know," Sawyer concedes. "At this point, my purpose is not so much to alter the laws that underlie these kinds of questions as to raise the question of whether or not the way in which we currently define who we are reflects the reality of the nation we are and who we are becoming. If it does not, then the policies underlying the terms of measurement are doomed to be flawed. What you measure is what you get."

Science has put forward many different racial models, the most enduring being the division of humanity into three broad groupings: the Mongoloid, the Negroid, and the Caucasoid. An influential paper by Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury, entitled "Gene Differences between Caucasian, Negro, and Japanese Populations," which appeared in Science, in 1972, found that the genetic variation among individuals from these racial groups was only slightly greater than the variation within the groups. In 1965, the anthropologist Stanley Garn proposed hundreds, even thousands, of racial groups, which he saw as gene clusters separated by geography or culture, some with only minor variations between them. The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, for one, has proposed doing away with all racial classifications and identifying people by clines-regional divisions that are used to account for the diversity of snails and of songbirds, among many other species. In this Gould follows the anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who waged a lifelong campaign to rid science of the term "race" altogether and never used it except in quotation marks. Montagu would have substituted the term "ethnic group," which he believed carried less odious baggage.

Race, in the common understanding, draws upon differences not only of skin color and physical attributes but also of language, nationality, and religion. At times, we have counted as "races" different national groups, such as Mexicans and Filipinos. Some Asian Indians were counted as members of a "Hindu" race in the censuses tom 1920 to 1940; then they became white for three decades. Racial categories are often used as ethnic intensifiers, with the aim of justifying the exploitation of one group by another. One can trace the ominous example of Jews in prewar Germany, who were counted as "Israelites," a religious group, until the Nazis came to power and turned them into a race. Mixtures of first- and second-degree Jewishness were distinguished, much as quadroons and octoroons had been in the United States. In fact, the Nazi experience ultimately caused a widespread reexamination of the idea of race. Canada dropped the race question from its census in 1951 and has so far resisted all attempts to reinstitute it. People who were working in the United States Bureau of the Census in the fifties and early sixties remember that there was speculation that the race question would soon be phased out in America as well. The American Civil Liberties Union tried to get the race question dropped from the census in 1960, and the State of New Jersey stopped entering race information on birth and death certificates in 1962 and 1963. In 1964, however, the architecture of civil-rights laws began to be erected, and many of the new laws-particularly the Voting Rights Act of 1965-required highly detailed information about minority participation which could be gathered only by the decennial census, the nation's supreme instrument for gathering demographic statistics. The expectation that the race question would wither away surrendered to the realization that race data were fundamental to monitoring and enforcing desegregation. The census soon acquired a political importance that it had never had in the past.

Unfortunately, the sloppiness and multiplicity of certain racial and ethnic categories rendered them practically meaningless for statistical purposes. In 1973, Caspar Weinberger, who was then Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, asked the Federal Inter-agency Committee on Education (FICE) to develop some standards for classifying race and ethnicity. An ad-hoc committee sprang into being and proposed to create an intellectual grid that would sort all Americans into five racial and ethnic categories. The first category was American Indian or Alaskan Native. Some members of the committee wanted the category to be called Original Peoples of the Western Hemisphere, in order to include Indians of South American origin, but the distinction that this category was seeking was so-called "Federal Indians," who were eligible for government benefits; to include Indians of any other origin, even though they might be genetically quite similar, would confuse the collecting of data. To accommodate the various, highly diverse peoples who originated in the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands, the committee proposed a category called Asian or Pacific Islander, thus sweeping into one massive basket Chinese, Samoans, Cambodians, Filipinos, and others-peoples who had little or nothing in common, and many of whom were, indeed, traditional enemies. The fact that American Indians and Alaskan Natives originated from the same Mongoloid stock as many of these peoples did not stop the committee from putting them in a separate racial category. Black was defined as "a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa," and White, initially, as "a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent"-- everybody else, in other words. Because the Black category contained anyone with any African heritage at all, the range of actual skin colors covered the entire spectrum, as did the White category, which included Arabs and Asian Indians and various other darker-skinned peoples.

The final classification, Hispanic, was the most problematic of all. In the 1960 census, people whose ancestry was Latin- American were counted as white. Then, people of Spanish origin became a protected group, requiring the census to gather data in order to monitor their civil rights. But how to define them? People who spoke Spanish? Defining the population that way would have included millions of Americans who spoke the language but had no actual roots in Hispanic culture, and it excluded Brazilians and children of immigrants who were not taught Spanish in their homes. One approach was to count persons with Spanish surnames, but that created a number of difficulties: marriage made some non- Hispanic women into instant minorities, while stripping other women of their Hispanic status. The 1970 census inquired about people from "Central or South America," and more than a million people checked the box who were not Hispanic; they were from Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi-the central and southern United States, in other words.

The greatest dilemma was that there was no conceivable justification for calling Hispanics a race. There were black Hispanics from the Caribbean, Argentines who were almost entirely European whites, Mexicans who would have been counted as American Indians if they had been born north of the Rio Grande. The great preponderance of Hispanics are mestizos--a continuum of many different genetic backgrounds. Moreover, the fluid Latin- American concept of race differs from the rigid United States idea of biologically determined and highly distinct human divisions. In most Latin cultures, skin color is an individual variable--not a group marker--so that within the same family one sibling might be considered white and another black. By 1960, the United States census, which counts the population of Puerto Rico, gave up asking the race question on the island, because race did not carry the same distinction there that it did on the mainland. The ad-hoc committee decided to dodge riddles like these by calling Hispanics an ethnic group, not a race.

In 1977, O.M.B. Statistical Directive 15 adopted the FICE suggestions practically verbatim, with one principal exception: Asian Indians were moved to the Asian or Pacific Islander category. Thus, with little political discussion, the identities of Americans were fixed in five broad groupings. Those racial and ethnic categories that were dreamed up almost twenty years ago were not neutral in their effect. By attempting to provide a way for Americans to describe themselves, the categories actually began to shape those identities. The categories became political entities, with their own constituencies, lobbies, and vested interests. What was even more significant, they caused people to think of themselves in new ways members of "races" that were little more than statistical devices. In 1974, the year the ad-hoc committee set to work, few people referred to themselves as Hispanic; rather, people who fell into that grouping tended to identify themselves by nationality--Mexican or Dominican, for instance. Such small categories, however, are inconvenient for statistics and politics, and the creation of the meta-concept "Hispanic" has resulted in the formation of a peculiarly American group. "It is a mixture of ethnicity, culture, history, birth, and a presumption of language," Sawyer contends. Largely because of immigration, the Asian or Pacific Islander group is considered the fastest-growing racial group in the United States, but it is a "racial" category that in all likelihood exists nowhere else in the world. The third-fastest-growing category is Other--made up of the nearly ten million people, most of them Hispanics, who refused to check any of the prescribed racial boxes. American Indian groups are also growing at a rate that far exceeds the growth of the population as a whole: from about half a million people in 1960 to nearly two million in 1990--a two-hundred-and-fifty-nine- per-cent increase, which was demographically impossible. It seemed to be accounted for by improvements in the census-taking procedure and also by the fact that Native Americans had become fashionable, and people now wished to identity with them. To make matters even more confounding, only seventy-four per cent of those who identified themselves as American Indian by race reported having Indian ancestry.

Whatever the word "race" may mean elsewhere in the world, or to the world of science, it is clear that in America the categories are arbitrary, confused, and hopelessly intermingled. In many cases, Americans don't know who they are, racially speaking. A National Center for Health Statistics study found that 5.8 per cent of the people who called themselves Black were seen as White by a census interviewer. Nearly a third of the people identifying themselves as Asian were classified as White or Black by independent observers. That was also true of seventy per cent of people who identified themselves as American Indians. Robert A. Hahn, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, analyzed deaths of infants born from 1983 through 1985. In an astounding number of cases, the infant had a different race on its death certificate from the one on its birth certificate, and this finding led to staggering increases in the infant-mortality rate for minority populations-46.9 per cent greater for American Indians, 48.8 per cent greater for Japanese- Americans, 78.7 per cent greater for Filipinos- over what had been previously recorded. Such disparities cast doubt on the dependability of race as a criterion for any statistical survey. "It seems to me that we have to go back and reevaluate the whole system," Hahn says. "We have to ask, 'What do these categories mean?' We are not talking about race in the way that geneticists might use the term, because we're not making any kind of biological assessment. It's closer to self-perceived membership in a population--which is essentially what ethnicity is." There are genetic variations in disease patterns, Hahn points out, and he goes on to say, "But these variations don't always correspond to so-called races. What's really important is, essentially, two things. One, people from different ancestral backgrounds have different behaviors- diets, ideas about what to do when you're sick-that lead them to different health statuses. Two, people are discriminated against because of other people's perception of who they are and how they should be treated. There's still a lot of discrimination in the health-care system."

Racial statistics do serve an important purpose in the monitoring and enforcement of civil-rights laws; indeed, that has become the main justification for such data. A routine example is the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Because of race questions on loan applications, the federal government has been able to document the continued practice of redlining by financial institutions. The Federal Reserve found that, for conventional mortgages, in 1992 the denial rate for blacks and Hispanics was roughly double the rate for whites. Hiring practices, jury selection, discriminatory housing patterns, apportionment of political power-in all these areas, and more, the government patrols society, armed with little more than statistical information to insure equal an fair treatment. "We need these categories essentially to get rid of them," Hahn says.

The unwanted corollary of slotting people by race is that such officially sanctioned classifications may actually worsen racial strife. By creating social- welfare programs based on race rather than on need, the government sets citizens against one another precisely because of perceived racial differences. "It is not 'race' but a practice of racial classification that bedevils the society," writes Yehudi Webster, a sociologist at California State University, Los Angeles, and the author of "The Racialization of America." The use of racial statistics, he and others have argued, creates a reality of racial divisions, which then require solutions, such as busing, affirmative action, and multicultural education, all of which are bound to fail, because they heighten the racial awareness that leads to contention. Webster believes that adding a Multiracial box would be "another leap into absurdity," because it reinforces the concept of race in the first place. "In a way, it's a continuation of the one-drop principle. Anybody can say, 'I've got one drop of something I must be multiracial.' It may be a good thing. It may finally convince Americans of the absurdity of racial classification."

In 1990, Itabari Njeri, who writes about interethnic relations for the Los Angeles Times, organized a symposium for the National Association of Black Journalists. She recounts a presentation given by Charles Stewart, a Democratic Party activist: "If you consider yourself black for political reasons, raise your hand." The vast majority raised their hands. When Stewart then asked how many people present believed they were of pure African descent, without any mixture, no one raised his hand. Stewart commented later, "If you advocate a category that includes people who are multiracial to the detriment of their black identification, you will replicate what you saw- an empty room. We can not afford to have an empty room."

Njeri maintains that the social and economic gap between light-skinned blacks and dark-skinned blacks is as great as the gap between all blacks and all whites in America. If people of more obviously mixed backgrounds were to migrate to a Multiracial box, she says, they would be politically abandoning their former allies and the people who needed their help the most. In stead of draining the established categories of their influence, Njeri and others believe, it would be better to eliminate racial categories altogether.

That possibility is actually being discussed in the corridors of government. "It's quite strange--the original idea of O.M.B. Directive 15 has nothing to do with current efforts to 'define' race," says Sally Katzen, the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at O.M.B., who has the onerous responsibility of making the final recommendation on revising the racial categories. "When O.M.B. got into the business of establishing categories, it was purely statistical, not programmatic--purely for the purpose of data gathering, not for defining or protecting different categories. It was certainly never meant to define a race." And yet for more than twenty years Directive 15 did exactly that, with relatively little outcry. "Recently, a question has been raised about the increasing number of multiracial children. I personally have received pictures of beautiful children who are part Asian and part black, or part American Indian and part Asian, with these letters saying, 'I don't want to check just one box. I don't want to deny part of my heritage.' It's very compelling."

This year, Katzen convened a new interagency committee to consider how races should be categorized, and even whether racial information should be sought at all. "To me it's offensive because I think of the Holocaust- for someone to say what a Jew is," says Katzen. "I don't think a government agency should be defining racial and ethnic categories-that certainly was not what was ever intended by these standards."

Is it any accident that racial and ethnic categories should come under attack now, when being a member of a minority group brings certain advantages? The white colonizers of North America conquered the indigenous people, imported African slaves, brought in Asians as laborers and then excluded them with prejudicial immigration laws, and appropriated Mexican land and the people who were living on it. In short, the nonwhite population of America has historically been subjugated and treated as second-class citizens by the white majority. It is to redress the social and economic inequalities of our history that We have civil-rights laws and affirmative-action plans in the first place. Advocates of various racial and ethnic groups point out that many of the people now calling for a race-blind society are political conservatives, who may have an interest in undermining the advancement of nonwhites in our society. Suddenly, the conservatives have adopted the language of integration, it seems, and the left-leaning racial-identity advocates have adopted the language of separatism. It amounts to a polar reversal of political rhetoric.

Jon Michael Spencer, a professor in the African and Afro- American Studies Curriculum at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, recently wrote an article in The Black Scholar lamenting what he calls "the postmodern conspiracy to explode racial identity." The article ignited a passionate debate in the magazine over the nature and the future of race. Spencer believes that race is a useful metaphor for cultural and historic difference, because it permits a level of social cohesion among oppressed classes. "To relinquish the notion of race--even though it's a cruel hoax--at this particular time is to relinquish our fortress against the powers and principalities that still try to undermine us," he says. He sees the Multi- racial box as politically damaging to "those who need to galvanize peoples around the racial idea of black."

There are some black cultural nationalists who might welcome the Multiracial category. "In terms of the African-American population, it could be very, very useful, because there is a need to clarify who is in and who is not," Molefi Kete Asante, who is the chairperson of the Department of African- American Studies at Temple University, says. "In fact, I would think they should go further than that--identify those people who are in interracial marriages."

Spencer, however, thinks that it might be better to eliminate racial categories altogether than to create an additional category that empties the others of meaning. "If you had who knows how many thousands or tens of thousands or millions of people claiming to be multiracial, you would lessen the number who are black," Spencer says. "There's no end in sight. There's no limit to which one can go in claiming to be multiracial. For instance, I happen to be very brown in complexion, but when I go to the continent of Africa, blacks and whites there claim that I would be 'colored' rather than black, which means that somewhere in my distant past- probably during the era of slavery-I could have one or more white ancestors. So does that mean that I, too, could check Multiracial? Certainly light-skinned black people might perhaps see this as a way out of being included among a despised racial group. The result could be the creation of another class of people, who are betwixt and between black and white."

Whatever comes out of this discussion, the nation is likely to engage in the most profound debate of racial questions in decades. "We recognize the importance of racial categories in correcting clear injustices under the law," Representative Sawyer says. "The dilemma we face is trying to assure the fundamental guarantees of equality of opportunity while at the same time recognizing that the populations themselves are changing as we seek to categorize them. It reaches the point where it becomes an absurd counting game. Part of the difficulty is that we are dealing with the illusion of precision. We wind up with precise counts of everybody in the country, and they are precisely wrong. They don't reflect who we are as a people. To be effective, the concepts of individual and group identity need to reflect not only who we have been but who we are becoming. The more these categories distort our perception of reality, the less useful they are. We act as if we knew what we're talking about when we talk about race, and we don't."

Peace Brother dadachango69

I’ve perused the article you posted and It seemed familiar to many other articles and books I have read over the years. And I notice over the years, none of this discourse ever really questions white-folks collective “whiteness”. It never screws with their classification, “Caucasian”.

H-mmmmm-mm._____ something to think about. ________Oh well.

Let’s get down to the real nitty-gritty. The one-drop rule was a ruse. And was devised by racist Europeans, to not only show their absolute disdain for Africans, but to also practice a sort of proto-eugenics. You would have to be a modern geneticist or a genealogy wizard, to prove a “one-drop” or “1/32” presence of African (Negro) ancestry. There was usually “no” credible evidence, scientific or otherwise when this rule was enforced.

Let’s face it, most people that are even one-fourth Black in the U.S., have historically lived as Whites. It was called “passing”, in this race-based country. For, Quadroons and even Octoroons were defined in a very narrow society where genealogy was closely monitored; it was like pure-breeding a particular "caste of Negro". I was told by my elders that they sometimes knew, their racially mixed cousins where living as whites, but would never reveal their relationship, for fear that their relatives would be harmed or killed. The people in this country that were designated as Black in this racist society, did not invent this paradigm and have been some of the most-civil, unwilling participants in this race game. Though we have had problems, navigating this miscegenation maze, we are always trying to accept and find common ground with many other “non-Anglo” or “non-white” ethnic groups, even those who reject our embrace. At the end of day, no one wants to associate with a people that the White-ruling class has historically buffoon-ed, scorned, dehumanized or distrusted.

In some kind of weird twist of fate or bazaar revision of history, African Americans have become the scapegoats, as various ethnic and racial groups try to redeem their selves. There is a growing movement among “mixed-race” people, to try to reestablish a mixed race identification or for the most part, to disassociate their selves with the classification of, “Black”. Though they present this lobbying as a practical and reasonable cause, in cruising the web and other media sources, there is a constant attack and castigation of African Americans, by these newfound “colored people”. Most of the comments and opinions from these multi-racial activists are vicious, demeaning and almost racist in nature and mostly directed at African Americans, instead of the white society that invented this pseudo-social science (race).

Almost every African American has light-skinned and dark-skinned living relatives and ancestors. We honor our heroes and notables from Adam Clayton Powell to Miles Davis. From W.E.B. Dubois to Marcus Garvey.

Did we exclude Arturo Schomburg because he was Puerto Rican or Toussaint L’Overture because he was Haitian? Why was Castro so welcomed in Harlem?

When light-skinned people in our community organized their own separate churches, social clubs and fraternities, did we riot and burn their institutions down, though these groups’ membership qualifications were discriminatory (color-based). And there were NEVER any similar dark-skinned “only” organizations, in our collective history. Some of these African Americans who joined these “blue vein” groupings, lived in the same neighborhood as their darker-skinned counterparts and participated in all other areas of Black society.

As the so-called neo-mulatto movement tries to wickedly revise the history of the only people (blacks) who truly accepted their mixed heritage, they have tried to become apologist for whites.

African Americans are an admixture of Africans, Native Americans, Chinese and Europeans and there are some Black enclaves with hardly any mixture at all. These ethnic lineages are no mystery to us. It’s not race, but our own cultural idiosyncrasies and norms, along with our inextinguishable spiritual, cultural and metaphysical connection to sub-Saharan Black Africa, that has strengthen our cohesiveness.

We have even moved beyond race, ethnicity and/or caste to try to invoke an ancient brother/sisterhood with Black people worldwide.

Do you really understand what’s behind this “so-called” “noble and righteous” re-categorizing of the census and this push to mulatto-size the U.S.? These divide and conquer ideas are not new.

Why have conservative whites joined this bandwagon?

Whites believe that if African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans and other groups with easily accessible racial or cultural commonalities started to unify UNDER ONE GROUPING, such as Africans or whatever. Then we would be an absolute threat, to their very existences. For, regardless of the distinguishing cultural characteristics and linguistics differences of Europeans, be they Swedes, French, British, Italian or Spaniard, they face the world as one collective idea and people-ness, called “Europeans”; Now, the EU (European Union).

Europeans are constantly finding new ways to show, their relevance to the world and their European cultural and political congruency, i.e. Indo-Europeans, the Aryan-model, Greco-Roman culture (Hellenization), Holy Roman Empire, Christendom, Western Civilization, Berlin Conference, Treaty of Roman, NATO and now, as before mentioned the “European Union”. They are more than glad to help “us” define and redefine our differences. Be it DNA, color, ethnicity, language or the racial inconsistencies of particular, previously defined people of color.

I will be glad when people of color spiritually, culturally and politically mature. For we don’t understand that no matter how important, familiar or intrinsic our nationalities or ethnicities are, African culture has always been and will always be absorbent, flexible and ever changing.

Ashe,

Brother Sun Ship

Ashe, Brother Sun Ship...thank you for your most enlightening and highly informative discourse. As an addendum re: our ethinc lineage:

If the European slave traders had been successful in their attempts to enslave the American Indian, there would have been no need for them to go to Africa for slaves. The Indian chose death rather than slavery, forcing the European to go to Africa for slaves. This resulted in the creation of a new race: the light-skinned African-American man and the light-skinned African-American woman...(which reminds us that all things work for the good in God's kingdom...)

There are three beautiful shades of Blackness: (1) the light-skinned brothers and sisters, (2) the brown-skinned brothers and sisters, and (3) the dark-skinned brothers and sisters. We can relate these shades of Blackness to the water in a well. For example, the light-skinned brothers and sisters represent the water at the top of the well; the brown-skinned brothers and sisters represent the water in the middle; and the dark-skinned brothers and sisters represent the water at the bottom of the well. It's all water, which means we're all the same. The water at the bottom - represented by the dark-skinned brothers and sisters - is the water that went in first! The light-skinned brothers and sisters are the surface of a dark, deep well, as the late, great Curtis Mayfield so eloquently put it...

*Jambo, greetings to all:

- I have read and read extensively so many of the well articulated arguments dealing with the original thread question [ Are Latinos / Hispanics - "Africans" too?]. The reality is that Afro-Hispanics are the descendants of the very first enslaved Africans brought to the so-called New World by the Spaniard. In documents submitted by the then Governor of the island of Hispaniola [Dom. Rep. / Haiti], Nicolas de Ovando circa 1500-01 -- He petitioned the sending of 'Bozales' slaves [African born] to be stopped because of their fierceness and inmediate running away to the mountains [Cimarronage = Maroonage], taking with them the indigenous and "teaching them bad habits". Ovando wanted 'Ladinos' slaves instead [Catholic and european born blacks]. Why the short trek down 'History lane' some may ask? In my view, without a solid point of reference to establish a strong foundation to the multiplicity of interpretations to the original questions -- well, we have a total collapse in a most important dialogue about a people w/o voice in 'apartheid' Latin America.

- Afro-Hispanics have a huge Story to tell not only to the world, but most importantly to OurSelves. It's a 500 + years Story of a people who continue to suffer a marginalization never seen before on the shores of America. From the edges of the 'Silver City' of Argentina, to the Afro-Colombians living in extreme poverty on the coast of Colombia, or the Afro-Peruvian and Afro-Ecuadorian from the historical poverty stricken city of 'Esmeraldas' [who has one of the highest cancer rate in the region due to the petroleum refineries dumping illegal waste into the rivers], on to the coast and bushland of Central America where the Garifunas continue to fight for their right to exist [just like the 'Geechie' People from the Carolinas Is.], arriving at Belize & the Mexican states of Guerrero and Veracruz.

- OURSTORY is a grand old secret which continues to be hidden by those who only want to use us to inflate their numbers by deeming us 'Latinos' and their dream of the "fastest and largest growing minority" in America, and yet are not favorably representing [Afrolatinos] at all in the media medium around the Americas. Is tragic as we speak and conmemorate the 200 years anniversary of the greatest revolution Africans have seen in this part of the world, the Haitian Revolution of 1804. A revolution which enabled the expansion of what is today the USA. The tragedy of all this is that without a Free Republic of Haiti, the so-called 'Great Liberator' or George Washington of Latin America, Simon Bolivar would have died in total obscurity if it wouldn't had been for the Haitian Army and munitions which aided him in liberating Latin America from the colonial power of the day, Spain. Simon Bolivar nationalistic doctrine of 'Hispanidad' or colorblind inclusion to a language and oppressing culture [Spain], continues to permeate Latin America today -- where its subjects blindly believe that race / color is not important or worse -- it doesn't exist!

- The African consciousness movement among so-called Latinos here as well as in Latin America continues to be a slow process for many reasons: Here in America for the most part, Afrolatinos devoid of an African consciousness continue to buy into the 'fastest growing minority' alluded to before. In Latin America, illiteracy, extreme poverty and lack of universal health access continues to be the biggest obstacle facing the awakenning of the 'sleeping monster' of the African Diaspora.

- Finally, we need to understand the roles of people like Afro-Puerto Rican Arthur A. Shomburg, who continues to be ignored by his countrymen as well as his monster contributions to the African Diaspora as well as the Puerto Rican liberation movement at the turn of the 20th. century. Garveyite and Afro-Dominican Carlos Cook in Harlem is someone who has been 'shoved' into the forgotten pit of history. Afro-Dominican Fradique Lizardo. Afro-Cuban Carlos Moore and Nicolas Guillen. Afro-Puerto Rican sisters, Dr. Georgina Falu and Mali Falu [over 30 years in Spanish radio and never given a chance to work tv]. Our beloved Dr. Yosef ben-Jochannan who's mother was Puerto Rican [and also speaks fluent Spanish].

Peace and Much Respect

If Africans are taught to speak spanish or english than what are they?

Thanks a lot, Olorun1, this thread was definitely in need of the cultural and historical perspective, of an Afro-Latino that’s not in denial.

You are on the mark.

Man, when will Africa ever unite?

Ashe,

Brother Sun Ship

Although I had decided against further posting ignoring calls of cawardness by sunship, which I saw as a greater strength to refrain rather than engage. I have been prompted by a few recent posts by sunship which I think need to be addresses as well as a demand by him to answer a previouse question, which is relivent to the current.

The following quotes by sunship are the reason for my response.

Quotes from sunship: “African Americans are an admixture of Africans, Native Americans, Chinese and Europeans and there are some Black enclaves with hardly any mixture at all. These ethnic lineages are no mystery to us. It’s not race, but our own cultural idiosyncrasies and norms, along with our inextinguishable spiritual, cultural and metaphysical connection to sub-Saharan Black Africa, that has strengthen our cohesiveness”.

“We have even moved beyond race, ethnicity and/or caste to try to invoke an ancient brother/sisterhood with Black people worldwide”

It is this idealism that I feel is the basis for his failure to understand and accept the greater society of black people around the world and indeed rather than strengthening our cohesiveness it divideds and ailinates us.

He says further that.

Quote sunship: “The one-drop rule was a ruse. And was devised by racist Europeans, to not only show their absolute disdain for Africans, but to also practice a sort of proto-eugenics. You would have to be a modern geneticist or a genealogy wizard, to prove a “one-drop” or “1/32” presence of African (Negro) ancestry. There was usually “no” credible evidence, scientific or otherwise when this rule was enforced”.

Although Again he is “misinforming” in regards to, the one-drop rule although consistant with the European sentiments of the time was infact, a result of the “The United States of America” not European “census” in 1890,were census enumerators were charged with the task of classifying people of mixed African and European descent as Mulattos (half and half), Quadroons (a quarter black), or Octoroons (one eighth black). This proved completely unworkable, and the mixed categories were discarded in 1900; the Mulatto class reappeared in 1910 and 1920. From 1930, the 'one drop rule' was subsequently adopted: 'one drop of black blood' consigned an individual to the black category. He is correct about it being a racist category created by white people wishing to isolate, catagorise, box and separate blacks to a discriminating end.

Sunship and those who hold the same views fail to see the connection with the racist categories created like the one-drop rule sought to do the same as he seeks unknowingly to do to the black peoples of the world. That is to strip them of their own cultures, history, religions, art, traditions and language, by classifying them into one inextinguishable group devoid of individuality. That is to incorrectly clasify all “Blacks as African”

For as sunship says of Europeans “For, regardless of the distinguishing cultural characteristics and linguistics differences of Europeans, be they Swedes, French, British, Italian or Spaniard, they face the world as one collective idea and people-ness, called “Europeans”; Now, the EU (European Union).

He is correct that they face the world as Europeans for their common economical good, but he is incorrect to say as a “collective idea of peopleness”. The recent victory against the USA export of subsidized steel is and example of the collective economic strength obtained by the Union. But they also face the world as individual countries, of varying cultures, religions, histories, and languages. And the recent failure of the proposed “European Union constitution” to come into affect due to its “inability” to represent the many and variying cultural, religoiuse, and political diffgerences existing on the continent is an example of the continets non existence of a “collective idea of peopleness”

The success of the Union will not be in its collective economic power but in its ability and willingness to accept the vast cultural and political differences of the people of Europe. Not the ability to combine themselves into one collective idea of peopleness.

The same will lead to the success or failure of the “pan-African” Union with Africa and the black people of the world. That is the acceptance of other cultures, polotics, histories and religions. The limiting classification supported by mainly African-Americans of to be “Black is to be African”, (and in many cases the American idea of what is African) is culturally restricting, ailinating and dare I say it, based on the same criteria as the one drop rule! That is, the color of our skin and physical appearance.

As I have said before, there are many Black cultures of the world who will and do dispute being labeled as African. There is resentment among balck nations and minorities around the world towards African-Americans, for this ideology strips them, in the eyes of the world who listen to America, their own identity. (It has nothing to do with their unwillingness to be seen as black)

Many of these Black peoples have forght for their country, their land, now it seems must fight for their culture? By the very people who share a similar struggle.

Sunship writes. Of the indiginouse Indians: Quote sunship “The Sudran, or Sudroid, race refers to the aboriginal populations of India. Formerly widepread over all of India, they were displaced from most of Hindustan (North India) and virtually all of the Deccan by invading Aryans. Sudroid includes the following peoples:

Sudroid

1.) Dravidoids (speakers of Dravidian languages)
2.) Untouchables or Avarans
_____a.) Antyajas/Dalits/SC
_____b.) Adivasis/ST
3.) Vedic Shudrs (Aryanized and enslaved blacks)

They are a black race, closely related to the Africans and Australoids, “as evident from” -

1.) Black skin , broad noses , thick lips and wavy-curly hair
2.) Linguistically, all the languages are related.
3.) Genetically they are closely related

The single criteria offered to umbrella all the black peoples of the world is just that, a criteria based on, “physical appearance” A classification supported by sunship and created by 18th century racists!

My country is one where we support repatrinisation of those of African decent, and we have seen many successed but unfortunately many failures. The failures come from an unwillingness to acknolage the differences our people and other black people of the world. We have recently seen genosid, war, political corruption and poverty. Not by Europeans but from our own. Our struggle is now an internal one, and an understanding of the variying individualilty of Africans and the greater black world is the key. Unfortunately there are parts of world who till see the Black people of the world as a indistiguashable culturally ethnic group, void of individual culture. Until this is chsnged the Black man will forever be separated from the rest of the world by one inaccurate classification, “The color of his skin. This very view is supported and promoted by many African Americans such as sunship, with the all “Blacks are Africa” and call for a single black one collective idea of peopleness.

There is a clear distinction between ancient first migrations of black peole from Africa, Africans themselves and those of African decent, Not the gentic one that exists between the ancient world explorers and Africas and African decent, but the cultural differences. Those are what need to be recongnised and embraced, this is what we will have in common not our physical likness.

I hade made point before regarding Black people of the world who do not claim an attachment to African and gave Australia as an example. The example was given for its simplicity to state. For the history of the Black Aboriginal Australian is clear and beyond despute. So to further prove my point I will answer the question by sunship regarding the relationship between the indiginouse Indians and Africa. And we will see how this ideology will unknowingly weeken the relationship and similar struggle between the varying black races of the world by stripping them of their own identity to support a pan-african ideal of to be “Black is to be African”.

The same ideal alienates many of those of recent African descent who although feel the connection to Africa, and their history, have an affinity with their current cultural background, and to which the same culturally restricting lable is applied.

The question is that of the Indo-African of which sun ship has put forward as prof of groups of black “Africans” who exist over the world. Also called Indiginouse Indians from the sub continent, or the ancestors of the Dravidian peoples or Negritos as they have been classified.

Lets start with the wonderful link sunship provided of an indiginouse Indian girl who he rightly called a princess.

Tribal Indian princess
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/yanadi.jpg

Now look at this equally buitiful Tribal Australian princess.
An Aboriginal girl
http://www.ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_kids_portr_1/Image/5.jpg

and these butifull children
http://www.ozoutback.com.au/postcards/postcards_forms/abor_children_1/Image/5.jpg

Now look at these indiginouse peoples.

Papua new guinea
http://uqconnect.net/~zzlhiess/PNG18.jpg
http://uqconnect.net/~zzlhiess/PNG20.jpg

Malaysia
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter35/35-size.jpg

Semang man
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter35/35-male.jpg

Shri lanka
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter48/48-vedda.jpg

Jarawa
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter48/48-negrito2.jpg

Philipino Nigritos
http://sites.uws.edu.au/social/psaa/negrito.gif

All these people share physical atrabutes such as those posted by sunship.

1.) Black skin , broad noses , thick lips and wavy-curly hair
2.) Linguistically, all the languages are related.
3.) Genetically they are closely related

and have been catagorised as Australianoid, indo African, negritoid, negrito, among others Catagories that are no longer used nor supported by anthropology.

But what they share is nothing compared to their individuality.

The first expansion out of Africa by modern humans occurred around “59,000–69,000” years ago from Africa, Migration routs can be traced via mtDNA and Y Chromosome to two main routs. One to the North and one to the south along the coast. These first migrations “independently” colonizing western Asia and India and, via this southern route reaching east Asia, Australia and possibly beyond.

The Coastal Southern rout is of interst to us as they represent the Negrito races still to be found beyond the African continent, in India and the Andaman islands of the bay of bengal, the Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua new Guinea and Australia.

These people have developed distinct cultures, retaining one common connection; they are the first people to explore the world.

Migration rout
http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter48/48-route.gif

Migration map
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2156-2-13-2.jpg

Expansions out of Africa.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/2/13


The indigenous people of the Indian continent like there nab ours on the Andaman Islands at the eastern end of the Bay of Bengal which were once connected to the mainland show that tribes migrated from Africa more than 60, 000 years ago and may have been living in isolation from the rest of the world.

The later history of India and migrations has displaced the people of the mainland subcontinent but one of the Andamanese groups remains untouched by modern man.
Modern India is a mix of migrations and cultures including the cast system, but the reminance of the first African migration can still be seen 60,000 years later.

Contrary to popular belief the Aryan thyory of invasion is just that and current archeological data and genetics has shown it to be unsupported. There was no mass war like white Aryan invasion creating the cast system rather a history of migration and displacement of the first peoples which has been mirrored in many other places from Philipines pigmies to Australia Atherten table land pigmies.

Peopling of India, genetics, linguistics, Archoelogical evidence,

“The earliest migrants into India, perhaps 50 kybp may have been the Austric speaking Homo sapiens, with the advantage conferred by the mastery over a symbolic language. Their genetic footprints may be discerned in the trends evident in the 2nd P.C of the synthetic genetic map of Asia. The next major waves of migrations around 6 kybp may have been those of wheat cultivators from the middle east and the rice cultivators from China and south east Asia. The former are likely to have been Dravidian speakers and contributed to the trend evident in the 1st P.C. of the synthetic genetic map of Asia. the latter may have been Sino-Tibetan speakers who would have contributed further to the trend revealed by 2nd P.C. The latest major migration around 4 kybp may have included several waves of Indo-European speakers equipped with horses and iron technology.

With these many streams of Homo sapiens coming in to the country over 50,000 years or more, India has developed what Cavalli-Sforza calls an incredibly complex genetic landscape. Our mitochondrial DNA data on 101 Indians permits us to estimate the time to common ancestry of our people on the basis of the pairwise differences in the mitochondrial DNA sequences. These estimates of course, depend on the assumed value of mutation rates; but 65,000 years is close to a reasonable estimate for the modal value of 9 (Fig.26).
Cast system in India.
The eight castes chosen were Niyogi and Vydiki Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vysya, Telega and Turpu Kapu, Yadava, Relli, Madiga and Mala. Significantly, the castes were ranked as 'upper', 'middle' and 'lower' instead of the four-level hierarchy of the traditional varna classification. Such a classification has in recent times apparently become more popular among anthropologists. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vysyas were grouped as 'upper' caste, Kapu and Yadavas as 'middle' caste and the remaining three as 'lower'. "In studies pertaining to origins of castes, one is liable to draw incorrect inferences by including castes belonging to different varnas in the same ranked cluster," points out Majumder.
Analysis of "genetic distances" - a measure of genetic similarity and affinity - of markers of mtDNA, the maternally inherited DNA, between caste populations and continental populations shows that, irrespective of caste rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans. And as one moves from the lower castes to the upper castes, the genetic distances to Asians increases, suggesting that Indian populations are predominantly proto-Asian but with affinities to West Eurasian genes. The West Eurasian admixture is, however, proportional to the ranking among castes. Analysis of a special set of mtDNA markers (called haplotypes), whose loci in the genome are closely linked and which tend to get inherited together, also showed that the West Eurasian admixture amounted to 20-30 per cent of mtDNA haplotypes.

Similar "genetic distance" analysis using the paternally inherited Y-chromosome presented, as indicated earlier, a distinctly different pattern of population relationships among castes and among castes and continental populations. In contrast to the mtDNA distances, Y-chromosome data do not suggest a closer affinity to Asians. The upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, the middle castes are equidistant from the two groups and the lower castes are most similar to Asians. The genetic distances between caste populations and Africans increase as one moves from lower to upper caste groups”

Genetic Distance and Language Affinities Between Autochthonous Human Populations
http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm

The simple statement that Indians (Or any of the many others mentioned) are Africans not only ignores the ancient history of the indiginouse people but ignores the complex history of the further migrations of the current Indian population. These people are separated from Africa genetically, linguistically, and culturally.
They are a people with an identity of their own which can and never will be taken away from them by calling them African.

Follow the bellow link for geneticand lebuistic relationships to see the individual development of these people over tens of thousands of years.

Further reading on the people of the Andaman Islands is also recommended as they are the last of the first explorers, in their untouched state.

The peopling of Indian, genetics language, migration, cast systems.
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html


Article about Andaman people
http://www.racearchives.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=889965236187

Article about Andaman people
http://www.gwu.edu/~andaman/Andpeople3.htm#People


Having established that these peoples who are often lumped into the classification of African, do indeed have their routs in Africa, and having established that these people over a period of 50 to 60 thousand years have developed their own identity, who would still call them African?

Many of these groups of people struggle for save their culture and way of live in an expanding world. Some would take their land, others would take their heritage!

Sunship is one who would take their heritage.

What a selfish narrow minded view. Based again on a racist classification of the color of the skin, stripping the people of their own identity.

These groups have been given the name of Negritos. A name based simply on the visual characteristics they share together between themselves and with other African peoples.

The Negrito (For want of a better word) can be found from the Negritos in Yemen (Middle east), to the Indigenous people of the Indian sub continent, the people of the Anderman Islands ( In the bay of Bengal), the Malasian Island Negritos, the Papua New Guinian highlanders, and the Australian Aboriginal as illustrated above.

During the 60,000 years these people have been separated from the African continent and indeed their African ancestors, Africa has become on of the most diverse gentic populations on the planet. Two individuals from one tribe in African can have more diversity than two people from two countries in Europe. A long history and much intermingling have produced many a varying African. The Negritos however have had little interaction and have existed in pockets from these ancient times, although from the same stock their isolation from each other have produced distinct peoples of their own, not just genetically, but culturally, religiously and artistacly. The one commonality remaining with mother Africa being their physical appearance, which was helped by their geographic position in the world.

Let me make this point one more time, 60,000 years!! of their own culture, and intermingling with their own people. These people are not African, they are definaely from Africa, they are now who they have become.

Sunship would use these classifications created by racists to separate the Black man , from the rest of humanity and extend it to all persons of the world that fit into this visual category based on nothing more than color of the skin and a few physical triats. The very idea he is against is the basis for his very own classification of all Black people into the one category. He discards with no considerderation or acceptance of history culture or religion of all these people of the world.

Ignoring up to 60,000 years and beyond, of history culture and religion to call them simply African.

What African Americans fail to understand is the vast differences of the black peoples of the world and this extends to the continent of Africa, ancient cultures with many differences.

Embrace the diversity of Black and aboriginal people, do not restrict them with labels, or catagoprise them in limiting boxes. This is what has been done for hundreds of years, would you now take their place?

I wonder would he and others like him call American Indians Asian? When their history in north America is as little as 10,000 years their origins confirmed as east Asia? Do you think American Indians would accept any asian society proclaiming they are simply asian denying them their own history or culture. Absolutly not!

How about the indiginouse New Zealander who has less than a thousand years on the Island, would you call them Asian because of their migration history, not just confirmed by genetics but by themselves. Again I think not

So why then do people like him feel that other people and cultures around the world be clased in a racist category based on a something as simple as “If it quacks like a duck well”

Be it a history of 60,000 years creating genetic linguistic and cultural uniqueness or a mear 500 years of cultural development such as the Latino sunship would deny them the right to their own culture and identity to support his own ideals.

Your lack of understanding of these black peoples extends to the diversity of the African continent.

You wait for day when people of color spiritually, culturally and politically mature, well my friend so do I.

I have been asked why I should have knowlwdge of these people if I am infact not one of them. Its simple its my work, and my country is making connections through cultural exchange and education.

Osman

First of all, you are in the wrong thread with this long and twisted dissertation about DNA. You have decided to try to put this debate out of context by removing it out of its original thread.

Secondly, I’m glad I have several post here that include my respect for ethnic and cultural differences as well as cultural and ethnic commonality, so intelligent people can read my balanced and sincere approach for their selves.

Thirdly, African Americans have more respect in the world than you think or “know”. Most of my peers, travel extensively because of their professions and garner more respect around the world than they do in the U.S., in light of their professions and cultural contributions.

Fourth, African American’s contribution to science, academia, culture and business speak for itself internationally in the white and Black world. Maybe I need to send you a non-biased history book or a copy of Black Enterprise magazine, which interesting enough has a recent article about Black and (mostly Afro-) Hispanic business uniting based on our common interest. Your ideas about us are without merit. You must be watching to many rap videos.

Finally, You are trying to replace racism, with some “Ozzy form” of divisive “culturalism” or “geneticism”. You are being just as divisive as racist, who also tried to use science to make their points.

Haven’t you learned anything from the past?

Even the Caucasian geneticist says, in fact that “we are all African” now that genetics have proved that Africa produced the first humans. So, why can’t a Black man who left Africa 400 or 4,000 or 40,000 years ago say the same thing or something similar to other Black people?

H-mmmmm____ ? Maybe that’s only, the white man’s privilege.

Also Ozzy, you can’t even start to tell us about the one drop rule in America, we have lived this foolishness and as far as you trying to correct me when I said “Europeans” as appose to “Americans”, white Americans are still European to us and our native American brothers. That’s why I have no problem using that term, to denote them.

You have so misconstrued and distorted this debate that much your post is almost laughable, if not nonsensical.

Like the old folks use to say, “ a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.”


Sun Ship


P.S. – don’t worry Ozzy, if you don’t run from the tenacity of debate again, I have a post coming soon, right up your alley. But if you’re going to hide behind your convoluted interpretations of how genetics and cultural differences, should negatively and divisively influence one’s thinking towards Pan Africanism or Unity among Black people, and become non-responsive, than let me know now, so I want waste my time.

Hey Ozzy, if Africans and other striving people throughout the world could have tough debates like this, without picking up weapons, we could probably get somewhere.

Just something for you to think about.____ Think Ozzy! Think!

It’s amazing how whites come from all over the world to America (or to any particular country) and still keep their individual cultural identity, never disturbing the Anglo-American or Euro-American racial paradigm and unite under one national and cultural idea.

Even this early experiment of, originally “Pan-Europeanism”, will over centuries and millenniums develop it’s own absolutely internally indistinguishable “so-called” racial, ethnic and cultural marker.

There is nothing stagnant in the modern world, but Africans (worldwide).

We're all afraid to loose what the white man gave us.

First of all your questions regarding the relationship between Africans and Indians were asked in the thread "Egyptian Artifacts and British Museums", an even less apropriate area would you not agree?,a thread I might add that you were responsible for diverting too the current subject. I think the responce is more relivent here than "Egyptian Artifacts and British Museums" If you missed the connection between my post and the current well I am not surprised

Quote sunship “Even the Caucasian geneticist says, in fact that “we are all African” now that genetics have proved that Africa produced the first humans. So, why can’t a Black man who left Africa 400 or 4,000 or 40,000 years ago say the same thing?•”

Its obvoiuse you were not paying attention, they can and do, no one debates the African origin of humanity and the black man who left 400 or 4,000 or 40,000 years can say the same thing, if he chooses, that’s the point “If he chooses“ he does not need you to make up his mind for him, and tell him who he is!!!”

In your coming post I would be greatfull to see any “quote” from any "organization" of the people I have mentioned who have made claim to be African.

Answer me this, If you believe in your own words above, any living person on the planet has a history dating back to Africa later than the people included in my last post, this includes the 35,000 years or less for all Europe and some of Asia. By your own definition you could not deny them the right to call themselves African? However I am sure I can find a quote were you have said they may not. What then is the criteria if not a matter of dates. I think my friend we are back to the color of their skin.

Here is another thought for you, The peoples I have included above with 60,000 or more years of history outdate “almost all” African cultures by tens of thousands of years. They outdate Egypt, they outdate almost all migration in the African continent itself.

You offer no argument, but to say I have “twisted dissertation about DNA”, one part of the argument offered is genetically related, and most of that is in support of an African origin, the rest is pointing you to the culture of these people and to who they feel they are.

Quote sunship “Hey ozzy, if Africans and other striving people throughout the world could have tough debates like this, without picking up weapons, we could probably get somewhere”.

At least we agree on something.

Look Ozzy,

Whites can call their selves Europeans, Caucasoid, Indo-Europeans, Africans or even Martians for that matter. :lol: I have no control, over what Europeans decide to do socially, scientifically or otherwise. You’re missing the point. White Europeans have used every term functional, constantly inventing and reinventing their reality. They have defined themselves in light of science and they have defined themselves in disregard to science.

They look for any useful reasoning to promote their collective activities.

In reference to what I said above, they are more concerned at this point, about their connection to undiscovered Martian organisms than people who are their direct genetic cousins here on earth.

Look, there is no scientist that can consider the physiology of the brain, without it’s primary association with what’s called the “mind”. And science has pondered over where the brain ends and the mind begins for decades and it still a scientific quagmire.

As I have said before, the debate over nature as appose to nurture is constantly ongoing.

To consider DNA in a scientific vacuum is very disingenuous, when it comes to how people are influenced psychologically, environmentally, sociologically, spiritually and even politically. And what connections they wish to develop in the future.

People are not specimens.

The scientific community surely has a foot up on biomedical developments because of the most recent marvels concerning genetics, but genetic science can only tell you so much about a people and nothing about their future cultural expressions or articulations.

People become other people by conquest, miscegenation, cultural interchange and other historical phenomenon that is not controlled by science or “necessarily” past ethnic or cultural identifiers alone.

The only people, who have divided, defined, colonized, associated, disassociated, named and categorized black people and others, in the past centuries have been mainly Europeans.

So don’t try to blame me (or other African Americans) of ignoring or denying other people's cultures, or try to become an apologist or revisionist for whites or white academia, especially at my expense.

Now when black people try to use any or all associations to develop a brotherhood that could undo the destruction and devastation the whites have dumped on the so-called “non-white world” you and your white counterparts CRY FOUL!

Since whites started this, and since this has to do with our survival, then we need to finish it.

White people have never and never will give a d-amn about DNA or culture when confronting the Black world.

For, whites have abused and distorted the view of skin color and every so-called “non-European” marker possible to destroy the foundations of the very cultures THAT YOU want to protect and help flourish and you have the audacity to examine my intentions!

Ozzy, I’m trying to save MY OWN culture, let alone tell somebody else what to with his or hers.

I’m not just concerned with, who’s called an African, but if you want to fight against the commonalities sought among Africans, with your scientific studies of DNA or your socio-anthropological analyzes of Diasporic Africans, then your war is with the international Pan-Africanist movement, not with me.

You know, there is a real concern among Black people and Black Africans and their descendents worldwide. They believe, that they have the right to speak at a modern international level, with other black people with the same racial dilemmas, without interference or European critique and observation. Telling us what is valid unity and what is not.

We need to bury that white man’s yardstick of knowledge, if its working against our collective survival.

If the Australian Aborigine calls himself a black man and wants to relate to me, with his culture intact, I’m not going to give him a long dissertation about cultural diversity, DNA or African American uniqueness.

There are Black people all over the world calling their selves black and have used African American political movements, iconography and social identifications. They notice how African Americans reconstituted the term “Black people”, removing the scorn and humiliation of having dark skin, thick lips, some cases wooly hair and all those features, “as you have said”, are just incidental and it has given them strength, towards their own unique cultural redemption. We have let them know that Black people are not the footstools and anthrop-zoological specimens to be examined and exploited by the white scientific world.

Matters of fact, some of these people were looking at African American “Black-oriented” social activism before we knew they existed.

People are united under Christianity, Europeanism, Islam, Judaism, Americanism, the diverse Latin linguistic construct, and all kind of social superficialities.


I repeat African Americans are not trying to rule the Blackness of the Black world.


I’ve just seen a Bulgarian soul-gospel singer on TV. Is she stealing my culture or has she crossed the cultural DMZ? Did I tell her to sing African American gospel?

It doesn’t bother me, Ozzy.

But when it’s time for her to deal with the social, cultural and political concerns of Bulgaria, I don’t think I’ll be invited as a participant.

Regardless if it fails or succeed, for now it’s called the EU (European Union) not the WU (World Union) or the EAU (European and African Union).

Ozzy, you may be an expert geneticist or extraordinary anthropologist, I don’t really know, but your understanding of how the world really ticks, stops there.

This is not the post I had in mind but I had to respond to your recent posting.

Peace,

Sun Ship

:book:

Is time for Africans to begin defining ourselves -- as opposed to letting others define us. OURSTORY worldwide needs urgent compilation if our children are to change Our World. We have a responsability to the vision of Arthur Shomburg and Carter G. Woodson. We have to turn the tide of Africans wanting to be everything in the world except Africans.

Continue to teach, I'll continue learning.

PEACE

As I read Ozzy and Brother Sun Ship, I keep wondering where the point of contention or disagreement is. Could there be a comparison between apples and oranges from your different perspectives? Is one arguing social constructs and influences, and the other genetics when it comes to Black people and how they are defined or how they define themselves?

The thread topic asks the question, are Latinos/Hispanics Africans too? Ozzy, is it your position that they are not, and Brother Sun Ship is it your position that they are?

Ozzy, if not, then why not? Brother Sun Ship, if yes, then why so?

Just need some clarification and summarization.

Thanks! :)

Before we continue I would like to make something very clear about the reason for the post in this section.

The enitial reason for the post was to respond to a number of requests by sunship to a respond to questions he posed.

The question asked of me by sunship was in regards to his assetion that “Indians are African”, an example given to support the greater question of, are all Black people of the world also African. He displayed a picture of a trible Indian girl as proof by her appearance and dared me to respond,

Quote sunship:” If Brother Ozzy thinks the young Black East Indian sister on this first page, has nothing to do with Black African people than he is more blind and insane than I thought.

He went further, by insulting me and continued by crying coward when I chose not to respond.

Quote sunship:” And you never dealt with the African/African Asian evidence I posted. Something is amiss here".

Then he again tried to coach me into a response. I chose not to as that was not the purpose of the tread.

Quote sunship:” Have thou runneth and cowardth, from the challenge of debate?
Haveth facts and information, I've presented stressed thee".

First he crys coward for not responding now he cries fowl that I have indeed replied with not just Genetic evidence to counter the assertion he had made, but with Archeological, historical and lingual evidence. Now he says its not his war and that I should be debating the subject with International Pan Africanist movements. He says.

Quote sunship”I’m not just concerned with, who’s called an African, but if you want to fight against the commonalities sought among Africans, with your scientific studies of DNA or your socio-anthropological analyzes of Diasporic Africans, then your war is with the international Pan-Africanist movement, not with me”.

And this

Quote sunship “So don’t try to blame me (or other African Americans) of ignoring or denying other people's cultures, or try to become an apologist or revisionist for whites or white academia, especially at my expense.

I made no attempt at all to analyze the African Diaspora, nor fight against the commonalities of Africans.

The African Diaspora are the AFRICAN people dispursed beyond their “ancestral homeland”, These people I have discussed, Indians, Australian, New Guineans, etc with 60,000 years of their own history deserve the right to call their own countries their ancestral homeland. which does not make them part of the African Diaspora. You seem unaware of your own terminology.

Now please do not try and tell me that you did not invite the debate. If you have evidence to counter then please let us continue. But you continue to insult and associate me as a “apologist or revisionst for whites or white academia, instead of debate.

My friend, my education in Cultural Anthropolgy, Archeology, sociology and Genetics has not come from what you term as a white European education. How ironic you try to discredit what I have to say by this continued attempt at connection my work and education to Europeans! And all this coming from you who lives in one of, if not the most, racist bias country in the world, and you with a European (American) education.

NNqueen I will try to make my case clear for you when I have time tomorrow, I am on my way home.

Osman

Ozzy, Ozzy, Ozzy

Ozzy I know you are confused again, but this is a thread about Latinos, Africans and Diasporic Africans, so your comments about DNA have to have some bearing on or even indirect inference to, the subject, Ozzy. So get my words back in context, I never called, New Guineans, Diasporic Africans.

When I refer to the International Pan African movement, I am trying to, not let you think that you are warring with my individual opinions, Ozzy. For, the commonalities sought out by Africans worldwide are in an international political and scientific arena and predate all of my comments.

Now lets get to the point!

Though I had to waste valuable time, I went and made a critique of the chronology of this African/East Indian and DNA debate. First of all, the DNA aspect of this debate, in reference to Africans/East Indians started in a thread posted by Sister Iya Ademide, who for some reason has been “banned” from this forum. It was YOU Ozzy who supplanted the African/East Indian and DNA question into the “Egyptian Artifacts and British Museums” thread started by Sister NNQueen.

Once again you “jumped horses in the middle of the stream”, trying to take the debate out of context. Unfortunately, because of Sister Iya Ademide’s “banning” I cannot pull up that thread or link to it. But if you look at the beginning of your rebuttals in “Egyptian Artifacts and British Museums”, you will see that you are referencing my statements from somewhere else, definitely not that particular thread.

But I was implored to respond to you there, with factual evidence, to an argument that you have constantly misconstrued.

And you have the nerve to try to misrepresent ME.

:nono: Shame on you, Ozzy.

Ozzy, lets follow your misguided and perjurious account of what you have said about me.

First of all. ____Listen good, Ozzy.

I have NEVER said Dravidians where Africans.

Repeat.
I have NEVER said Dravidians where Africans.

I knew this fact, when you were probably still cleaning chalkboard erasures for your teachers, in primary school.

I did say, that there were Africoids (Negroid) and Dravidians, as well as Indo-Africoid mixtures in Asia and the sub-continent (India). It was The Congolese linguist Th. Obenga who first proposed the term 'Indo-African' languages and Cheikh Anta Diop who first proposed the east/west migration from the Nile valley and Ancient Egypt to West Africa.

And even where there is no evidence of recent genetic African/Asian intermingling there are still open questions about ancient East African trade routes that may have led to cultural transfer. There are archeological projects that are looking into Black pre-Arabic trading post and settlements near Zanzibar and other places in East Africa.

You know, European scholars have an interesting way of disregarding cultural similarities and have always had an iconoclastic view of the Black world. They want to believe they were the only great seafarers and great explorers, basically getting to everyplace in the world first. But, when they look at Africans. At best, everything is just coincidental and open for interpretation. But when there is the slightest possibility of an Indo-European influence, anywhere in the world, theoretical suppositions and hypotheses becomes popular fact.

I’ve always understood the unique history and the cultural/genetic distinctiveness of Papuans, other Melanesians, Andaman Islanders, Micronesians, Australian Aborigines, Indo-Africoids including the diverse genetic, linguistic and ethnic qualities of Africans in Africa proper and African descendents in the Diaspora.

What have I said?

There are various ancestral connections in Africa and you cannot analyze the long history of a people, nor can a people research their ancestry, with the exclusion of the migratory patterns of their past. And it is up to the people their selves to build a historical construct that best support their modern psychology, ideology, sociology, including their spiritual and cultural identity.

I also believe a correct and holistic approach to this analysis, will define a peoples future and the prosperity, thereof.

It’s not just incidental that many African Latinos and African Americans have found an unusual spiritual self-awareness in the sacred African religions still preserved in places like Cuba and Brazil.

I also, do believe that there are people in the world, that have at the core of their cultural foundations, an “aboriginal”* progenitor, who just so happen to have had, a profuse degree of melanin in their skin. Though this biological marker may seem incidental to evolutionist and geneticist alike, this “so-called” superficiality (skin color), via outside intervention, has, unwittingly and involuntarily influenced those peoples livelihood, sociology, psychology, cultural retention and individual socio-biological survival, causing it to be more of an important determiner, than there genetic or cultural uniqueness. This fact has made skin color, unwillingly, an inescapable and inseparable factor in the cultural and biological evolution of these people i.e., be it the genocidal extermination of the Tasmanians or a miscegenation phenomenon, usually induced, by force and not by natural selection.

Not discerning their genetic diversity or their cultural complexities Europeans called them, n*gg*rs, boy, blacky, jungle bunny, coolies, servant, slave, Negro and savage. Matter of fact they were collectively and systematically dehumanized by some of Europe’s greatest minds and institutions. The scholarship was exhaustive. From anthropology to psychology. From physiology to sociology.

And everywhere the European has settled and prospered, these people have had shortened life expectancy, limited access to education, high unemployment, poor health care, lack of provisions, but plenty of hopelessness.

A paradigm called blackness or Black people was interjected in to the anthropological quandary; people were grouped under one exploitive and disposable umbrella, and strategically sub-divided for the overall enterprise of another invented “racial” anomaly called Caucasoid i.e. “THE WHITE MAN”.

Now when we (Black people) decide to re-capitalize on this tear in our pre-colonial and natural human fabric and reconstitute this term (Black) into something internationally progressive and not the imprisoning matrix that it was design to be, once again you CRY FOUL!

Isn’t that what cultural evolution is all about Ozzy, in part, working effectively to survive and function in the ever changing world environment? Always creatively working with what you got or what’s been dealt you.

Be it random, forced, implored, invoked or selected.

Does Ozzy ever think about this “racialized” group called, Caucasian?

And what makes them who they are and who they are not?

Ozzy wants to make the case that Europeans are having trouble with their cultural diversity and that’s why they will never be successful with the EU. This is laughable. Ozzy the EU is built on an archaic but effective oligarchic construct, which blossomed during the Holy Roman Empire of Germanic kings. A construct of Aryan Teutonic clanship, that has mythological overtones, but is sacred to the ruling families of Europe. Who used the knowledge of another unrelated people (Greco-Romans; not excluding the Moors) to reinforce their dynastic rule and supplant their barbarianism, hoping to induce the highest of civilizations.

But, I digress. What I have articulated has not just been the “Black man’s” saga.

I know that this has been the plight of many so-called “non-whites” after the incursion of white Europeans. But if there is commonality, Then I say explore it.

The Amerindians from South America to North America are searching for common ground. Every broad and historical alliance among Europeans, in light of the rest of the world has been based, foremost on their declaration of White supremacy.

History proves this.


Black people or Black Africans, no matter how dark or light have the right to investigate any and all perspectives or cultural constructs, as they try to survive and secure their future in this modern world.

I believe our survival depends on it.

Peace,

Sun Ship

P.S.- Ozzy "aboriginal"* is used to just mean "original people". I don't want you confused again.

Peace Sister Queenie :wave:

I am proposing that African, African Americans and Black people not only have the right to embrace and develop in the context of their own cultural backyards, but also have the right to define and develop a broad and all encompassing social model that includes the entire black family. Europeans have designed a social matrix that has disabled and destabilized every cultural community that is, in the genetic architecture of skin color, considered phenotypically dark skinned. Or, better yet the well-known international social identifier and pseudonym “Black”.

I believe just as Europeans (a mythological term, “Europa”) have internationalized their culture and have culturally influenced the development of social constructs for science, commerce, technology and language, which are now the standards of the world. We have the right to interact and make suggestions, in the market of free ideas toward re-righting the universal wrongs that have thwarted our progress.

Europeans have operated and prospered under all types of loose and superficial paradigms. Such as western civilization, Aryanism, Hellenism (Greek culture), Roman empire, Holy Roman Empire, Catholicism/Christendom, British empire, NATO and now the European Union. I’ve also heard the term “new world order” and Pres. Bush has used the term Anglo-American resolve, in the presence of Tony Blair.

Remember Europe, as well as China and Russia was actually divided into hundreds, if not thousands of tribes, linguistic groupings and ethnicities, not that much different from Africa. Almost every modern state in Africa has been defined by the previously occupying colonial powers. Tribes were split between states and many instances the only way for diverse tribes to communicate within the colonized state were the European’s language.

Every individual cultural idea we’re fighting for, is still in the context and psychological confines of the broader European’s societal and cultural grid.

Has Ozzy read, Marimba Ani’s, YURUGU? Have you Ozzy?

If we can’t get out of the box, we need to think out of the box.

If we can’t think outside of our individual tribal and cultural communities, we may please the anthropologist and "think" we're pleasing the ancestors, but we will never have a say on an international level concerning world affairs or even our own “individual” state of affairs.

But when we try to internationalize and interact with other people of color, under the white man’s social radar, we are told to get back in our place.


Even with all of our genetic diversity, weren’t Black people in the earth first. Didn't we build the world's first great civilizations and designed all sciences to promote our intrinsic genius and long-term survival?

But now we squabble, about our uniqueness, on the eve of our possible extinction.


The African on the continent is reminded, of how much his Diasporic brothers have changed and the Puerto Rican is told, “not to be beguiled by that English-speaking Black man”, the African American in the U.S. is told to only “speak to the other “Negroes” who speak English”. We are all told not to get too cozy with other Black people who may even favor us, but are too far away from us, on the genetic chart.

Every European (economically) controlled country, is keeping their “Black and Brown people” in check.

We are not allowed to have futuristic ideas or loose organizations based on mythological concepts or superficialities or new-found social binders and beliefs, like our European counterparts. Let alone our own broad and internationally effective identifier, i.e., "Black"-ness.

I remember a old racist Hollywood movie with the usual stereotypical black mammy in it played by, Ethel Waters, in which she song the racist and melodious words, “darkies never dream”.

When we apply creative imagination and a black futurist worldview to our conditions, all of the sudden the western world comes to use with unyielding parameters of science, culturalism and DNA.

You know what’s so fascinating about how Whites have selectively and strategically used DNA. If they really wanted to help Black people with this enhanced and liberating scientific understanding of genetics they could probably release 100,000 railroaded Black people from the penitentiaries of the world, tomorrow, if they were putting this science to a true social use on our behalf.

But you know the story.

By the way, Sister Queenie, Latinos of African descent, who want to identify their selves as Africans, are Africans, at the end of the day it’s still their personal choice based on their understanding. But I would just like to see more Black and Latino people have more information and wisdom when we make these choices of how we are going to define ourselves today and in the future.

Peace, Much Love and Ashe,

Brother Sun Ship

P.S. _ rushing, rushing, I hope there's not to many grammatical errors.

:toast:

I have to toast to you. You have articulated very well the sentiments of a rising minority in the African Diaspora. Minority in reference to an Afrocentric point of view of the world. We, the African-Hispanics who have broken the psychological chains and shackles of mental slavery, have been beaten not only by the master's whip -- but also by the whip handed down to those who look like us.

To arrive at this point in consciousness is a dramatic and most important; revolutionary complete overhaul and total rejection of an indoctrination from the womb -- to oppression. The oppression of 'striving for lightness' places a heavy burden of shame, low self-esteem and anxiety on the image of self, whether in the mirror or in the representation of your brother man. By rejecting what's 'expected' of a black person in Latin America, the individual comes to the realization of what's at stake: Family rejection, society ridicule and complete exile out of a nationalistic community [ex. Puerto Rican, Dominican etc...]. Whether African-Hispanics are accepted or not [as Africans] is not an important issue at all. We, for the most part have accepted the heavy price of rejection by our own so-called families and friends because of our embracing of our NEGRITUDE. The fact of the matter is that we are here to stay, and committed to change things. We owe it to those Afro-Hispanics who sacrificed their lives and have died practically in vain.

Personally, I despise the term Latino. We are lump into a category and are not represented accordingly in the media or academia. The Latino explosion in America is an explosion of WHITE LATIN AMERICA -- while BLACK LATIN AMERICA languishes in obscuirity and worse; ignorance.

This is an excellent stage for those who think Latinos are all alike. Perhaps they can possible be persuaded to think [and research] again.

PEACE & MUCH RESPECT

Quote sunship:” I have NEVER said Dravidians where Africans.

Repeat.
I have NEVER said Dravidians where Africans”.


Hmmm re read your own posts, and a few quotes from the links you provided for my education. I assume you support the pages you linked to from Runoko Rashidis site.

Lets first have a look at your own words.

QUOTE sunship“ Secondly, you need to brush up on your anthropology. ALONG WITH DRAVIDIANS, so-called Negroids and Negritos, including Negroid-Dravidian racial mixtures also dominated sub-continental India. This fact is found archaeologically, historically and genetically. I’ve seen many East Indians with strong African features and I’m not just talking about skin color”

Quote sunship: Here are some links, to some extraordinary web pages that will show you the political, cultural and ancestral connections between Africans of the sub-Saharan and African/Dravidians of sub-continental India. These pages deal with modern and ancient connections.

Very clear so far.

Quote sunship “If Brother Ozzy thinks the young Black East Indian sister on this first page, has nothing to do with Black African people than he is more blind and insane than I thought. “

Enough of your words, now lets have a look at what you intended me and others to read as support for your opinion.

Quotes from a links you provided:

Diop: “He showed that humanity originated in Africa, and that the first human being, the first person, was Black. The Blacks migrated from Africa to other parts of the world. The Blacks are also the ancestors of Indian Untouchables (Dalits). That is why the Blacks wherever they are, belong to one single family. Hence, the relevance of Diop's work, for India's Black Indus Valley Civilization is now widely accepted”.

“The questions we pose here are simply these: Who are the African people of India? What is their significance in the annals of history? Precisely what have they done and what are they doing now? These are extremely serious questions that warrant serious and fundamental answers. This series of articles, "The African Presence in India: An Historical Overview," is designed to provide some of those answers”.
And finaly
“As the groundbreaking historian Runoko Rashidi has often used the words "Black" and "African" interchangeably, I will remain loyal to his terminology and define all members of the Black race to be of Austroloid and Negroid descent. This merger of noble humanity is to include all the Aborigines of Australia, New Guinea, The Philippines, and Indonesia. It embraces the proto-Austroloids of Bangladesh and eastern India, the lower castes and tribal Dravidians of India, Sri-Lanka, the Andaman/Nicobar Islands, and ultimately all members of the African continent and its far-reaching diasporas on the western hemisphere of the Earth”.
In keeping with the forum rules here are the links again with your statement at the bottom.
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/caste.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/diop.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/dalits.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/elango1.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india2.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/bengal.html

Quote sunship: “Also read everything you can by RUNOKO RASHIDI. This brother, is one of the foremost scholars in the world, who deal with the African and African-Asiatic connection. He is well known by many distinguished East Indian and Dravidian scholars and activist. He has extensively researched and traveled India. Matter of fact, read his book, African Presence in Early Asia”.

Your words and the intended reading are presented as evidence that blacks in India including Dravidians are African. Again you backtrack on your won words.

Lastly

Since you did not understand the first time. None of the post involed as you stated “ scientific studies of DNA or socio-anthropological analyzes of Diasporic Africans”. Hence I clarified that Diasporic Africa does not represent the peoples included in my post including Papua New Guineans. I feel it is you who are confused.


Sunship is correct however in regards to the inappropriateness of me posting the subject here, in this thread. I apologise for that, as it has taken away from the subject I looked to address and that of this thread. I should have started a new thread or addressed it in the are “all Blacks African” thread

You write well and your command of the English language is fare beyond mine, but you use your skill to backtrack from your own words and expressed opinions.

Quote sunship:” I have NEVER said Dravidians where Africans.

Repeat.
I have NEVER said Dravidians where Africans”.


Hmmm re read your own posts, and a few quotes from the links you provided for my education. I assume you support the pages you linked to from Runoko Rashidis site.

Lets first have a look at your own words.

QUOTE sunship“ Secondly, you need to brush up on your anthropology. ALONG WITH DRAVIDIANS, so-called Negroids and Negritos, including Negroid-Dravidian racial mixtures also dominated sub-continental India. This fact is found archaeologically, historically and genetically. I’ve seen many East Indians with strong African features and I’m not just talking about skin color”

Quote sunship: Here are some links, to some extraordinary web pages that will show you the political, cultural and ancestral connections between Africans of the sub-Saharan and African/Dravidians of sub-continental India. These pages deal with modern and ancient connections.

Very clear so far.

Quote sunship “If Brother Ozzy thinks the young Black East Indian sister on this first page, has nothing to do with Black African people than he is more blind and insane than I thought. “

Enough of your words, now lets have a look at what you intended me and others to read as support for your opinion.

Quotes from a links you provided:

Diop: “He showed that humanity originated in Africa, and that the first human being, the first person, was Black. The Blacks migrated from Africa to other parts of the world. The Blacks are also the ancestors of Indian Untouchables (Dalits). That is why the Blacks wherever they are, belong to one single family. Hence, the relevance of Diop's work, for India's Black Indus Valley Civilization is now widely accepted”.

“The questions we pose here are simply these: Who are the African people of India? What is their significance in the annals of history? Precisely what have they done and what are they doing now? These are extremely serious questions that warrant serious and fundamental answers. This series of articles, "The African Presence in India: An Historical Overview," is designed to provide some of those answers”.

And finaly

“As the groundbreaking historian Runoko Rashidi has often used the words "Black" and "African" interchangeably, I will remain loyal to his terminology and define all members of the Black race to be of Austroloid and Negroid descent. This merger of noble humanity is to include all the Aborigines of Australia, New Guinea, The Philippines, and Indonesia. It embraces the proto-Austroloids of Bangladesh and eastern India, the lower castes and tribal Dravidians of India, Sri-Lanka, the Andaman/Nicobar Islands, and ultimately all members of the African continent and its far-reaching diasporas on the western hemisphere of the Earth”.

In keeping with the forum rules here are the links again with your statement at the bottom.
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/caste.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/diop.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/dalits.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/elango1.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/india2.html


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/bengal.html

Quote sunship: “Also read everything you can by RUNOKO RASHIDI. This brother, is one of the foremost scholars in the world, who deal with the African and African-Asiatic connection. He is well known by many distinguished East Indian and Dravidian scholars and activist. He has extensively researched and traveled India. Matter of fact, read his book, African Presence in Early Asia”.

Your words and the intended reading are presented as evidence that blacks in India including Dravidians are African. Again you backtrack on your won words.

Lastly

Since you did not understand the first time. None of the post involed as you stated “ scientific studies of DNA or socio-anthropological analyzes of Diasporic Africans”. Hence I clarified that Diasporic Africa does not represent the peoples included in my post including Papua New Guineans. I feel it is you who are confused.


Sunship is correct however in regards to the inappropriateness of me posting the subject here, in this thread. I apologise for that, as it has taken away from the subject I looked to address and that of this thread. I should have started a new thread or addressed it in the are “all Blacks African” thread

You write well and your command of the English language is fare beyond mine, but you use your skill to backtrack from your own words and expressed opinions.

I noticed that you refer to Rashidi’s work but you backed away or refused to deal with what I posted about Obenga and Diop. Even though you have held Diop and Obenga’s scholarship up as evidence for your argument.

I still stand by my choice to present Rushdi's scholarly opinions and photo essay to the forum. I believe Rushidi work is important and eye-opening, but like any scholarship or scientific work, it should be open to scrutiny and critique and I believe he is making breakthroughs that are important, as it applies to cultural identifiers and the Africoid (Negroid) presence in Asia.

But once again lets get to the meat of my own statements.

“ …ALONG WITH DRAVIDIANS, so-called Negroids and Negritos, including Negroid-Dravidian racial mixtures also dominated sub-continental India.”

What is it about the phrase “…ALONG WITH DRAVIDIANS” that you don’t understand.

Lets look in the dictionary:

along

adv.

1. As a companion: Bring your friend along.
2. In accompaniment or association; together: packed an atlas along with other books.

2: in accompaniment or as a companion; "his little sister came along to the movies"; "I brought my camera along"; "working along with his father"

4: in addition (usually followed by `with'); "we sent them food and some clothing went along in the package"; "along with the package came a bill"; "consider the advantages along with the disadvantages"

Entry: along
Function: adverb
Definition: together
Synonyms: accompanying, additionally, also, as well, besides, coupled with, furthermore, likewise, moreover, simultaneously, too, with

My next extracted quote:

“Negroid-Dravidian racial mixtures”

Are you going to tell me there are no Negroid-Dravidian “RACIAL MIXTURES”, in the sub-continent of India?


My next extracted quote:

“… African/Dravidians”

The slash was put there for a purpose, but maybe I should have spelt it out for you. I was still talking about Negroid-Dravidian

Why didn’t you highlight this portion of the quote:

"...I will remain loyal to his terminology and define all members of the Black race to be of Austroloid and Negroid descent."

"...Austroloid and Negroid descent"

"...AND Negroid descent."


Though I still accept Rashidi’s provocative scholarship, I have used my own specific wording.

This is why I accept Rashidi’s approach to anthropology. There has been a sort of "re-definition movement" in the modern African cultural community to choose what identifiers best explain us. If you have noticed in the Rashidi web pages but more so in other web pages and books by Dalits and Tamils, they also, by there own accord are starting to redefine there sociological constructs. Matter of fact, the first time I read about the African and Indian connection and the fact that Black Indians were viewing their selves in a larger and more cohesive paradigm along with Black Africans, IT WAS ON A TAMIL ORG. WEB PAGE. They were making sense to me. Basically, why accept someone else’s parameters of your existence?

Over the years I have heard many African scholars try to remove this Negroid term from the anthropological genre, because of it’s analogous association with the root word Negro, that had a long history closely related to social humiliation and it was patronizing in nature. Most recently some African scholars have preferred the term Africoid, for it was identifiable with land mass and at it’s root is the word, “Africa” which is widely acceptable and found to be a respectable term for and among Africans and African descendants. If you noticed when whites began the science of racial observation through out the world, the only group that was given a term that was directly related to land mass, was Caucasians and there are those who felt this was psychologically done for racial and political empowerment than for science. And Ozzy, if you think my definitions are problematic, there is no other scientific term more erroneous and disingenuous than Caucasoid.

We knew they had a agenda when they made Europe cartographically, as large as Africa and put it the center of the world.

I know you may also wrestle with the term “Black” also, but until dark skin people, of Africa and Asia decide to find another all encompassing word, if just for political reasons, than it has it’s usefulness.

I’ve talked to a young aborigine woman that had no problem using this term (Black people) when expounding on her people’s present situation and she was racially mixed! She talked to me, (a Black man in America) with a since of brother/sisterhood based on relevant commonalities. She told me, “If the white man don’t have a broader social paradigm for all Black people, than we need to find one ourselves. We should define our own anthropology”. I found her very impressive.

Ozzy, It’s not just me (or other African American’s) who’s been trying to re-educate the other ‘Blacks” in the world. They have been educating me. The more progressive one’s want to know what do we have in common, that's useful toward a pro-active Black universality and I have tried to look outside of the box and become a advocate for what they have projected toward me.

African Americans had become comfortable in our exclusive category, no matter what it was or is called, and though we have reached out to many groups looking for commonality, we had also became culturally isolated, like many other black people, throughout the world.

Why is it that Sudra’s and Black Palestinians or Black Iraqi’s are rarely seen on western television? Why is it that Afro-Hispanics and Moors are left out of most history books? This is not an accident Ozzy and these books were cosigned by European and American scientist alike.

I will stand by my observations about the picture of that beautiful Asiatic, young Black East Indian princess:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/pasa.html

When I see this picture, a picture I could hold up to many familiar looking, Black African faces, right here in the African Diaspora, I know there is something more to this Black world than we have been led to believe. And after looking at that girl’s face, if you gave me the choice of trusting my spirit, gut and soul or all of the genetic science in the world, in light of some important connection between her people and mine, I would trust spirit, gut and soul.

I wouldn’t care, if you said, she came from Venus.

It’s like when black people first saw the Olmec heads of Mexico and noticed something familiar and before we could express our opinions scientifically or otherwise, the European scientific world said, “This has nothing to do with you”.

Basically, "you didn’t see what you thought you saw".

I’ll let the forum family review these post and photo and judge for their selves.

Peace

P.S. - by the way Ozzy, "I DO KNOW" that "negro" and "black" are translations of each other, but they have definitely taken on different social connotations in European and Euro/American society. Believe me, negro or negroid has developed, a very specific meaning in modern society. It's like Nigeria, Niger and n*gg*r. An one letter difference or a distortion of pronunciation can have tremendous social implications

Ozzy! question?

Where does Africa end and Asia begins?

Quote: Ozzy

"Contrary to popular belief the Aryan thyory of invasion is just that and current archeological data and genetics has shown it to be unsupported. There was no mass war like white Aryan invasion creating the cast system rather a history of migration and displacement of the first peoples which has been mirrored in many other places from Philipines pigmies to Australia Atherten table land pigmies. "

Unquote

"...and your point is...?"

Hey Ozzy,I guess this change of theory makes a BIG difference. Just like the Europeans originally didn't have a mass war in or a mass invasion of America or Africa.

Yell, that's right. It was just migration and displacement.

Oh my, ____this is an eye opener. These facts change everything.

Oh my! Oh my!

Give me a break.

I guess the story of Black people, goes something like this:

"...and the evil little caste system and the wicked ole wolf of systemic racism just fell out of the sky and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

You need to learn how to interpret the sociological consequences of these facts they are more important than the facts their selves.

Notch up another one, now Dravidian/Africans means Negroid-Dravidian. Ill add it to my list of words you have redefined for me LOL.

Quote sunship “Why didn’t you highlight this portion of the quote”:

"...I will remain loyal to his terminology and define all members of the Black race to be of Austroloid and Negroid descent."

"...Austroloid and Negroid descent"

"...AND Negroid descent."

Unquote

Thank you for pointing this out, maybe I should have highlighted it. “Black race to be of Austroloid and Negroid descent”, "Black" and "African" interchangeably. Hence, Austroloid and Negroiid are Anthropological classifications, (Well they used to be, but have not been included in the anthropological dictionary for many years) which he uses for geographic areas, he clarifies this else were on his site, Have you actually read it????

So by his terminology Austroloid and Negroid are both” Black races! And with "Black" and "African" interchangeably. He is stating that All blacks are African. Including “Negroid-Dravidians.

Thank you for making Runoko Rashidis and your words more clear. Would you like a shovel or are you happy digging that hole by hand?


Your post structure is consistant and very successful

1, Avoid the subject
2. Find a small portion of post that’s remotely arguable, and divert the subject away from the true subject.
3. Fill post with Europhobic preaching as a crowed pleaser. Bring the subject back into perspective, Re-Europeans against us. To further divert the actual subject. (Most based on 19th century data I may add)9
4. Close with some wismical quote.

The funny thing it actually works for you. Like I said you have the gift for writing and saying nothing, If I had to guess I would say you had legal training.

This time you have diverted the subject to the word black. I have no problem with the word Black for myself or any other Black peoples, If you check my post you will find I have actually used the word Black people in every single post. Another attempt at diverting the subject.

My argument if you are STILL confused is that “Black” does not mean “African”.

As you know if you have actually read all of Runoko Rashidis site that he has claimed Australian Aboriginals have expressed their African connection, he has claimed the people of Fiji have made a statement to this affect, he has claimed that a Papua New Guinean government has claimed to be African, Etc Etc Etc. I have emailed some of these groups with the section of his site with these claims. I have asked permission to post either a new response or correspondence I have already received regarding the subject. Runoko has been previously emailed for proof of these statements and he has not replied.

I will let their comments if they accept, be my final post. Ill post it in Are all Blacks African thread.

Not that I think it will make much difference as you will no doubt tell everyone You “have once again experienced how the white western world has bamboozled, hoodwinked and distorted the minds of Black people worldwide. And how European science and education has taken away the black mans every sense of self-knowing, wisdom, spirituality, common sense and mother wit.

Having said what I have, you may not feel the offer to be genuine, but I would be more than pleased to show you my family and people, if you should travel to Africa west. I am not often home there but My family would welcome you with open arms. If this should ever be the case email me.

SekouOsman@hotmail.com

Osman

Quote: Ozzy

"Contrary to popular belief the Aryan thyory of invasion is just that and current archeological data and genetics has shown it to be unsupported. There was no mass war like white Aryan invasion creating the cast system rather a history of migration and displacement of the first peoples which has been mirrored in many other places from Philipines pigmies to Australia Atherten table land pigmies. "

Unquote

"...and your point is...?"

Hey Ozzy,I guess this change of theory makes a BIG difference. Just like the Europeans originally didn't have a mass war in or a mass invasion of America or Africa.

Yell, that's right. It was just migration and displacement.

Oh my, ____this is an eye opener. These facts change everything.

Oh my! Oh my!

Give me a break.

I guess the story of Black people, goes something like this:

"...and the evil little caste system and the wicked ole wolf of systemic racism just fell out of the sky and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

You need to learn how to interpret the sociological consequences of these facts they are more important than the facts their selves.


Quote Ozzy "There was no mass war like white Aryan invasion creating the cast system".

Displacement by migration has often included small conflict and violence, never said it didnt, Infact I would consider migration were another culture is overwhelmed by the migration as INVASION, regardless the amount of violence, and most other Anthropologist do as well. I made no mention of anywere other than India, Australian Athertain tablelands Pigmies, and Philipines pigmies, were further migrations 20 and 10 thousand years ago,displaced the first migration. The pigmies were the first peoples. Their is no evidance of war, even if they were capable of war considering they wuld have never numbered more than a few thousand at a time. I WAS NOT REFERING TO European colonisation. And if you had actualy read anything i posted and the links you would have know that, as any discusion about the pigmies in these countries would immediatley imply ancient migration.

And my point was considering you had made note of the fact the black indiginouse indians were part of the lower cast, and your site links delt with the so called Aryan invasion as creating this cast system, I coreccted and included a scientific paper to counter the statements. Geeeez man, you are realy getting desperate for things to pick at.

Same posting format as always.

Are Latinos / Hispanics - "Africans" too? (Original thread).

================================================== ===============

*Is it possible to connect all of this to the only thread dedicated to the invisible people of the African Diaspora?


PEACE

Brother Olorun1, you’re correct, this is my last response on this subject, please forgive my indulgence.

Ozzy, if the Black people of India have no African connections, than where did they come from? The sky? You must not believe in the “out of Africa” evidence. Any way you approach this Ozzy, they have to have an African connection.

I am interested in their particular connection to Africa (regardless of time and distance), because I see something familiar in our plight and future more than that of Europeans, Arabs or other groups, be these other groups call their selves Africans or not.

For what is obvious, is that, out of all of the people that evolved “out of Africa”, Black people worldwide have collectively experienced the same treatment in modern times, just because of their “Blackness” or very Dark skin. And if the Black people of the world are the first people of the world, why shouldn’t we have open dialogue and congress on this fact alone.

Your suggestion, of e-mailing “certain groups”, means very little. Who are you e-mailing among these peoples or countries? This broad and unspecific statement is as credible as e-mailing conservatives of a particular nation and getting from them, the truth and facts about liberals, of that same nation.

Here’s an example that’s in line with this thread.

Example: You could e-mail certain Puerto Ricans (be they laymen, politicians or scholars) who desire to be a state in the union of the U.S. and are totally in denial about their African heritage as appose to those who are aware and reflective of their African heritage and don’t want to have any part of the U.S.

Even Dravidians and Papuans ideas are as diverse as anyone else. They are not one political and social monolith.

Eventhough I still believe that Rashidi has put a light on a people who have been smothered out of the more popular areas of world affairs, never have I said, I believe EVERY USE of terminology or EVERY perspective that Rashidi has exercised. And you have the right, as well as the rest of this forum's participants, to scrutinize, debate and challenge every perspective and idea that he has proposed.

That is why I said, “for the family to read his works for their selves.

No man, be he scholar or scientist is beyond scrutiny. I scrutinize everything no matter how empirical the science or scholarship. For, this is how theories are challenged, altered and changed.

Now, let me state MY case again,

I am not trying to make Dravidians, Africans.

I do believe there are Black Africoid (Negroid) people in India.
.
These people have more in common with me, as far as their recent plight, than Europeans.

These superficial phenotypical identifiers of skin color and certain features (physiognomy) that have originated and are found extensively in Africa and other parts of India have taken on unbelievable importance and are still a powerful factor in the evolutionary development of a people denoted as “Black”. For it is part of a constant racial equation, that is directly effecting their lives.

In response, and as a counteraction, to this singling-out of sub-Saharan Africans and sub continental Asiatics, these aforementioned people who are denoted as “Black” have the right to reconstitute this superfluous designate (skin color) and design a future paradigm that is internationally inclusive and is recognized based on any and all commonalities, including, as beforementioned, the color of their skin.

In other words, as Brother James Brown said, “say it loud! I’m Black and I’m proud!”

I am more concern about my 60,000-year-old connections with them, than my 30,000-year-old connections with Caucasians.

You know it is interesting that Europeans are smarter now and would like to change all the suppositions (anthroprometrics, phenotyping, racial archetyping, etc.) that they’ve used to conquer the world.

But let me end with these adages.

“Once we learn the answers, they always change the questions”

And something the great historian and scholar, John Hendrik Clarke once said.

When asked, why didn’t he, like so many other African Americans, ever change his name to remove the erroneous ancestral lineage that is implied by his obvious European surname? He paused and responded from the depths of his convictions and said, He never pondered the changing of his name, because he wanted to make this European regret the day, he ever gave it to him.

From these words of strength, I say, “When we lived in a more divided world and we (Black people) never had to contemplate the importance or unimportance of skin color, the European should have left well enough alone. But since he interjected this factor into the development of African and Asiatic people, than we should, at first, respond collectively and effectively in the paradox that he created.

Ozzy, this dialogue has become weighty and I accept your willingness to end this discourse. I also respect your scholarship and opinions, regardless of the instigating verbiage and sarcastic innuendos, we both, may have been guilty of. (LOL).

I’ll be waiting on your post, related to your incoming e-mail correspondence.

I will read them and then move on.

I am still committed to my focus on Africans and their descendants in the Diaspora, including the societal plight of Black people worldwide.

Peace,

Brother Sun Ship

Once again, Brother Olorun1, you are absolutely correct and any other postings that I will supply to this thread will be related to the original subject only. I suggest that Brother Ozzy start a new thread with his e-mail correspondence and let the other members of this forum opine on his evidence. Peace.

Olorun1, As the question was directed to me also, I will respond briefly. The answer is yes.

We are all children of Africa, every one of us. Be it 60,000 years ago, 6000, or 600 years ago. And as sunship has said if one chooses to explore the connection to Africa then how can another deny. However, true is also the opposite. To denounce those who embrace their culture they have come to know, be it , 60,000 years, 6000 years or only 600 years ago, and not call themselves African, first! or not at all! is to deny them the choice. Be it Indiginous Australians or Indiginouse Indians who have 60,000 years of individual culture or Latinos who created their own only hundreds of years ago.

The commonality that will unite is in the indiginous and displaced peoples plight, which is always the same, and transends color, religion, politics and genetic origin.

Osman

Brotha SS... I was coming to post, but I see someone has been keeping you busy here... it's too late for me to indulge in logic and convo... at least at the level that this thread has gone.

Hope you are well tho. :lol:

Peace Brother dadachango69,


I’m welcoming your always poignant and insightful opinions back to this thread, my brother.

Man, Brother Ozzy dropped a “couple of 100 words” bomb on me in this thread :lol: concerning DNA and culture. It started a very provocative and engaging debate. Regardless, if we could agree or not, the discussion had it’s merits and I think we were both able to laid the foundations of our arguments and/or understandings.

I guess the only problem was that Ozzy picked up a debate that was from another thread, which made his insertion a little disingenuous. Both of us became somewhat obsessed in a discourse that sort of floated away from the original subject of the thread. Thankfully Brother Olorun1 rang the bell. :lol: But I think we were whining down our disquisitions, anyway.

But hey, I suggested that Brother Ozzy, start another thread and even though both of our names are on the thread, I guess it’s open for anyone who would like to comment on the plight of indigenous people worldwide. Regardless of the marquee-like look of the title “Ozzy to sunship” I don’t think we’ll be battling the before mentioned subject, in that thread. :lol:, but I do think the url links posted, in that thread may be very useful and informative.

Peace,

Brother Sun Ship

Peace family, :book:

For, anyone interested in this thread’s subject, it would behoove you to read Black Enterprise’s February 2004 issue. The cover story, The Afro-Latino Connection, is a very positive read :read:and is more than pertinent to this thread. When I have time I will post some excerpts from that particular article.

Peace :)

Well, Puerto Ricans in general do acknowledge African roots in them even if they are lilly white. Dominicans as a whole are different in that they look VERY Black, not saying all Dominicans but some will come out and say they are not Black in a Clarence Thomas sort of way. African Cubans are about 50/50 in acknowledging they are Black. Haitians(Creoles) mostly do identify as Black quicker than some Creoles in New Orleans LA. Not all cases are the same as I stated but some in the Diaspora and even some native African (pick a country) do not want to identify with us as Black or even African Anmerican, strange but true.
Edit-Well what I said may be said before. But in general, Black people from French speaking cultures are very friendly (based on my experiences with several Haitians and one from Martinique).

Excuse me, but Domincans do not look VERY Black. African-Americans look VERY Black. You sound way off when you speak. I bet you can't even understand Spanish. That being the case, how is it possible for you to understand Latino/Hispanic sensibilities. You need to be one, before you can talk about one. Latinos/Hispanics do not wish to identify with Black because it is an imposed category from the Anglo society which controls the United States. We identify with our country of origin and that is about it. I am Dominican and my ancestors are white and Indian. The brown in our skin is not necessarily from African genes. That does not mean we don't have or acknowledge our African blood. We know what we are and are proud to be what we are. The bulk of the African and Indian slave trade occurred in the Caribbean which is mostly Spanish-speaking. Our own sensibilities deal with these issues in our own way. Racial classification is still a hangup of the United States. Cubans are Cubans on their island, when they come here YOU call them AFROCUBANS. This society makes them aware of race and they start with that same loqueria. Again that does not mean they do not know they are Black. You seem to go on your perceptions of things which in all the cases you cited are wrong. And, as for Puerto Ricans, after 1995 and the situation at Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, I don't understand how they can even follow that race-bater Al Sharpton. 5 Latin women who had nothing to do with the owner died. We would much rather call ourselves what we are. As for the racism that may exist in some places, again that is something we can handle ourselves. Yadira.

Well, Puerto Ricans in general do acknowledge African roots in them even if they are lilly white. Dominicans as a whole are different in that they look VERY Black, not saying all Dominicans but some will come out and say they are not Black in a Clarence Thomas sort of way. African Cubans are about 50/50 in acknowledging they are Black. Haitians(Creoles) mostly do identify as Black quicker than some Creoles in New Orleans LA. Not all cases are the same as I stated but some in the Diaspora and even some native African (pick a country) do not want to identify with us as Black or even African Anmerican, strange but true.
Edit-Well what I said may be said before. But in general, Black people from French speaking cultures are very friendly (based on my experiences with several Haitians and one from Martinique).

Hello my fellow Panafricanist!! Destee this forum is a great idea, and you deserve much credit for starting it.

To answer the question. There are "Black" Latinos, "White" Latinos, and "Mulatto" Latinos. Latinos are generally made up of the same racial background as Americans. South America and the Caribbean (containing the Hispanic countries Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Dominician Republic) has the same basic racial makeup as the U.S., with African slavery and the mixing of Europeans and Indians or Native Americans. A major difference in the two different cultures was the extent to which this "mixing" took place. Although race mixing is evident in the U.S. (with the high number of light skinned blacks in the country). Race mixing in South America was so ingrained in the society that the majority of the people are now what we would deem as mulattoes.

However in many countries there are Hispanics who are clearly black (having such a large percentage of African blood, that their skin is dark brown & their hair is course). As Panthaxx already pointed out, most of those Latinos who are "black" classify themselves as Hispanic. However I think this is a social-political strategy. From what I've observed, Hispanics suffer from an identity crisis. Most will tell you that race is classified differently in their countries. However being married to a African Spaniard, and knowing a handful of "black" Latinos that correctly classify themselves as black, I know that this isn't really true.

Hispanics are coming to this country to make a better life for themselves (to escape poverty & persecution in their homelands). In America blacks (despite the civil rights movement) continue to occupy the bottom of the social-economic system. If Afro-Latinos come to this county & identify themselves as black, then they would inherit the economic & social discrimination that we face. Since they are fleeing from poverty they don't want to face economic discrimination here. Therefore they disassociate themselves from blacks: "My skin might be dark, but I'm not black. I'm Cuban, Mexican, Dominican, etc."

Despite this trend, I still consider black Latinos part of the African Diaspora. I wouldn't be a true Panafricanist if I didn't. However it is important for them to recognize their blackness if we are to consider them allies in the struggle. Until they do, we are mistaken to expect their support.
i would like to say while african-americans have some form of mixture not all african-americans are mixed just like some black latinos more so in brazil,but i do not consider brazil latino or hispanic , all latinos are not black

Excuse me, but Domincans do not look VERY Black. African-Americans look VERY Black. You sound way off when you speak. I bet you can't even understand Spanish. That being the case, how is it possible for you to understand Latino/Hispanic sensibilities. You need to be one, before you can talk about one. Latinos/Hispanics do not wish to identify with Black because it is an imposed category from the Anglo society which controls the United States. We identify with our country of origin and that is about it. I am Dominican and my ancestors are white and Indian. The brown in our skin is not necessarily from African genes. Our own sensibilities deal with these issues in our own way. Racial classification is still a hangup of the United States. Cubans are Cubans on their island, when they come here YOU call them AFROCUBANS. This society makes them aware of race and they start with that same loqueria. Again that does not mean they do not know they are Black. You seem to go on your perceptions of things which in all the cases you cited are wrong.


Welcome Yadira:

You are entitled to your views, and no one can invalidate someone else's experience. However, you should not accuse others of making generalizations, when you have done the same. Do not assume that Yaphet al-Wynn does not know how to speak Spanish, or any other African American for that matter. More of us speak Spanish than you realize. Also African Americans come in a multitude of complexions from almost white looking to Very Black as you have stated. If you say that you are Dominican, and your ancestors are White & Indian, then I believe you (although I question how you made a home on this forum). However, if you are trying to argue that most Dominicans share your unique ancestary, or do not have the same skin tone as an African Americans, then you will have a hard time convincing anyone who lives around a significant amount of Dominicans. In other words your protest might work in Philly, but it won't fly in New York, New Jersey, or with anyone who has visited the beautiful Island of the Dominican Republic and left the hotel resort.

There are Latinos from the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and parts of South America, who have a significant amount of African blood. That is not debatable. However, it has been stated early in this thread, that not all Latinos are African. I will also quote myself in an ealier post, which Locker has re-introduced in this thread: "I consider Black Latinos to be part of the Diaspora, I wouldn't be a true PanAfricanist if I did. However, it is important for them to recognize their blackness if we are to consider them allies. Unless they do, we are mistaken to expect their support". I bring up that specific quote for a reason. You stated that African Americans classify Cubans as "Afro-Cubans". In that statement you are incorrect. To gain the term "Afro" or "African" signifies an identity of one's blackness or African heritage. It is a term of self-identity, which a group (or sub-group) gives to themselves. That is to say just as those who call themselves African Americans (not every Black person in America likes this term), are identifying with their African heritage. Afro-Cubans are identify their blackness. In other words Afro-Cubans or any other Afro-Latinos give themselves this identity, it does not come from African Americans. I do not know where you got that idea from.

Yadira I invite you to visit the following website:

http://www.mundoafrolatino.com/english/index3.htm

This is one of many websites about Afro-Latinas written by Afro-Latinas. It is proof that there are Afro-Latinos who classify themselves as that. I do not know what Latinos of African descent gain by denying their blackness, but it is their right. However I will end this discussion by suggesting that if one can't speak on Latino issues if they aren't one. You should not jump into a PanAfrican discussion, if you don't understand PanAfricanism, and the context underwhich these discussions take place.

This discussion continues to get interesting as I read the opinions of new members added to this thread.

I'm looking forward to further comments by Brother Sun Ship relative to his last post.

I don't have anything new or exciting to add but I did want to share a few thoughts that came to mind as I read more of the recent comments. It appears that the discussion has taken a turn and is focusing on the sociological conditioning as opposed to anthropoligical lineage of Latinos being viewed as Africans or even connected to Africa.

In modern times, since RACE became a word in our dictionary to define people so they would know how to think about themselves, it's no wonder people's viewpoints differ drastically on this topic. People identifying with their cultural or social heritage and politically defined construct as opposed to their lineage that stems from an original people. People who look toward language and physical features to define who they are and where they belong in a racial category. People who calculate blood mixture. People who look at the leaves on the tree and never the roots. The roots are gnarled yet they are strong. The leaves are bright and colorful, yet they fall off the tree every year like clock-work. True, the leaves always grow back, but only as long as the roots of the tree are healthy and strong. The only way the roots will die is if something in nature kills them. But then as the tree dies, so will its leaves.

As I read some of some of the comments rejecting any notion of being connected to Africa, it made me think that some people live in denial and don't want to look beyond the surface to explore something much deeper and I wonder whether it's fear of what they might find. Because Africans and African Americans are portrayed in such negative ways and are treated so badly, have some people consciously decided to "cross over" and deny any connection to their African roots because they don't want to be perceived in the same way? I can understand that. After all, who wants to walk into a forest when it's obviously on fire?

People only know what they know but they can learn to know more. But it requires that you allow your mind to expand beyond what you know to receive new information. I've never heard it said that denial will set you free . . . but truth will.

Peace :spinstar:

Yadira, excuse me tell that to Sammy Sosa WHO is definitely Dominican. And Martinez (forgot the first name) the guy that wore dreds that play for the Boston RED SOX.

Correction, the dredlocked guy I WAS thinking of is Manny Ramirez who is Dominican as well AS the pitcher and teammate Pedro Rodriguez and Raul Mondesi (last I heard was with the Yankees) and you WANT to say that these guys (including Sammy Sosa) do not look BLACK?? A-Rod or Alex Rodriguez is Dominican also and whether he looks Black (well not obviously) or not is debatable. But there ARE Black people that do look like him.

Also RACE is not only an American construct Yadira and by your own comments, you are racist in some of the context of your comments. Also THERE IS racism historically in Cuban society-less so under Castro now and is so in Brazil. Brazil is not latino but predominately Portuguese. So race is not just an American construct. It is there world over in India and Australia and New Zealand.And I do not speak Spanish BUT I do understand a few words and insults.

Yadira-one last point. On the island of Hisponiola (sic), where the Dominican Republic is located, what formerly French possession does the Dominican Republic share a border with? Ding, ding, ding! Haiti! Want to say that that country do not have a very heavily African influence?

Yadira, excuse me tell that to Sammy Sosa WHO is definitely Dominican. And Martinez (forgot the first name) the guy that wore dreds that play for the Boston RED SOX.

You just really want to prove your point. I quipped on your comment that we are not VERY Black. If you understand subtleties then you would know that a majority of us are BROWN with whites and then blacks. Not all brownness is due to African genes. Some is and some isn't. That is the truth not something made up to make someone "feel good". I never denied that we have African heritage. My point was that we are an admixture of MANY other things. We have Arawak blood in Hispañola/Quisqueya, as well as Dutch, African, Spanish, Libyan, Lebanese, Arabic, French, etc. All of these are present in varying degrees as well. To say we look VERY Black is a generalization that does not deserve any real intelligent response. Many who want to create their own realities point out that Arawaks were annhiliated just to show how overly-African we are.

Sorry, if we choose to do things the way we want to do them. You don't like no one to tell you what to do, neither do we. Call us whatever you want to call US, get mad til your purple in the face- the reality is what it IS. We do not deny having Black in our people, but it is not all that we are made up of.

Furthermore- Brazilian culture is a Portuguese-speaking one and, like Spanish, that is a Latin-based language. Who do the Portuguese share a border with? Ding, ding, ding! Portuguese customs, etc. are similar to Spanish ones.

The term afrocuban is from the US. Ask the white Cubans in Florida. Its popularity is due to resurgence of African interests by Americans. Cubans did not use that term until white Florida Cubans (some who retain racist ideology) defined them as such. Seems like many Latins who come here or are born here tend to get their brains washed in the American laundromat. Go to the "lovely" islands and there is more pride than not in our differences. All isn't perfect cause even Trujillo had a problem with who he was (a mulatto). But, "Hispanicization" is not as rampant as you may think. Everyone doesn't aspire to run away from themselves. That, in itself, is a generalization and shows how shallowly one group of people views another. I am very proud of my rich color and appearance. If I had any black genes in me, wonderful. But, I know my personal history for the last couple of hundred years and that isn't evident. And, I don't like to pretend to be something I am not.

Panafrica, I reacted to Yaphet's generalization with another one. I landed here because my husband saved this link on the Favorites list. As far as trying to convince anyone, I don't think we have anything to prove. I saw a lot of misinformation being generalized, so I jumped right in. My "protest" comes from DR and Uptown Manhattan where I was born and grew up. Furthermore, speaking some Spanish or being around Dominicans is not your key to understanding our culture. America's arrogance is such that Americans think they can define the rest of the world for the rest of us. Unfortunately, this attitude seems to permeate all Americans regardless of culture or color. If you born and bred here, you tend to think like one. Even the idea that the U.S. alone is "AMERICA" is arrogant. As if the rest of us are not.

I am VERY Latina and I am quite aware of what is going on. We are mixed with a lot of things and our approach to dealing with racism is most certainly not as extreme as it is here in the United Snakes. If you want to align yourself with a "Black-only" mentality, then you would probably do best to work around us, because it would be futile to convince Latin americans that we should love black and hate white. I don't see that happening, our ideologies are moving away from that.

Yadira, you WERE the one coming on here say most Dominicans shared your ancestry, which many clearly DO not.Some of the ones I specifically mentioned look more Black than white (with the exception of A-Rod). Also, if the French imported African slaves in Haiti and the Spanish was doing likewise next door, are you specifically saying that there are ABSOLUTELY NO Dominicans that have African ancestry. If I recall, I NEVER said all Latinos had African ancestry in them. I was speaking of some Spanish cultures that some of the citizens that definitely did have African ancestry in them. The point I made was that Puerto Ricans, in general at leat admit it, even some of the whitest looking.I was the one that pointed out that Brazil was predomonately Portuguese. Mexicans generally are considered Indian and Spanish. But there WAS some importation of African slaves there, too. African or Afro Cubans is not entirely an American term. They call themselves Afri-Cubanos(anglicized, forgot the Spanish term) as well as the other Cubans do.

If Portugal and Spain are similar, why did they war with each other. And most Brazilians, no matter what, will tell you in a second that they are not Spanish.

Sister Yadira

You know, after awhile some of this overt nationalism or ethnic identity among “some” people from the Americas becomes as ridiculous as overt Americanism or even African Americans who are constantly over compensating their “so-called Blackness” until they almost become a caricature of what they are trying to imply. When nationalism goes to the extremes and denies all other facts, than it is as almost as bad as racism. I agree that the way this thread is titled may not “necessarily” yield the discourse that was intended. The category Latino is too broad to ask the simple question “Are Latinos / Hispanics - "Africans" too?” But questions and interests about the Afro-Latino world is a real topic, for a Pan African forum.

Pan Africanism, in general, let alone in this forum, is trying to overcome differences, not disrespect them. Matter of fact, slightly digressing; the “brother” who organized the first Pan African conference of 1900 was a Trinidadian named, Henry Sylvester Williams.

To say there isn’t an African-cultural/consciousness movement among Latino’s of African descent is not only disingenuous, but would be disrespectful to all Afro-Latinos, who through scholarship and African cultural pride have historically participated in this reality. African consciousness among many Afro-Latinos has a continuity that has been unbroken since leaving the shores of Africa itself. Amongst, almost all diasporic people of African descent, there have always been segments of each unique community, immersed in a continuous practice of their African cultural/spiritual heritage. Be they recognized it as African or not.

This notion that if you are not Latino, than you need to “shut up and sit down”, is silly. Thank god, that to some degree, I have had the best of many worlds in respect to my development, as a Black man. I never heard this type of divisive talk, among my Afro-Latino relatives. We talk about African culture, our commonalties, our differences and the uniqueness of African people in the Diaspora. I never heard this type of arguing among the Latin musician community. Many Latin musicians, especially percussionist, dig even deeper into the African aspects of Latin/Caribbean Music. They are usually among the first ones to enlighten and teach about the historic African commonalities of Black music in the states and the Afro-Latino sound.

I still laugh when I think about one of my uncles, who use to get on us about “cat walking” (you know how brothers in the hood like to swagger_lol) it reminded him of a dance called the “Babalu” (orisha/ Babaluaiye) or how he talked about, how much he disliked the “fufu” (starchy West African dish) his mother use to cook. He is clear, that he is a Latino of African descent and takes great pride in his African heritage, NOT EXCLUDING his national origins.

Quote: Yadira

“Cubans are Cubans on their island, when they come here YOU call them AFROCUBANS. This society makes them aware of race…”

Uquote


WHAT…?? :confused:

Sister, Sister, Sister…
At worst, this statement is sad…at best it is interesting.

Sister Yadira, Afrocubans used the term Afrocubanos way before many African Americans would even embrace the term, Afro-American. Latino scholars and musicians have embraced this term for decades to denote original African-Cuban music and culture, which is at the root of modern Salsa. Then you said :confused:“…Ask the white Cubans in Florida”,:confused: :lol: You've got to be kiddin’. :lol:

Black political and social consciousness in Cuba is as old, if not older, than that of African Americans. (links below) But, because we are in America (a super media power) we have had more exposure and success at getting our points across. And don’t allow this statement about media exposure take away from the sure tenacity displayed by Black people, as we sagaciously fought this racist super-power (America) both tooth and nail, for freedom and respect for all people of color.

Since you live in “North” America, let me put it like this, if it wasn’t for the civil rights movement and the unwanted militancy of the African consciousness movement in America, believe me, many Dominican's African roots wouldn’t be in question, in most of the United States_lol.

Basically, you wouldn’t need us to notice, how black you were_lol.

Man, there was a time when Latinos of African descent ran to the Soul Brother side of town for brotherhood and safety. And believe me it’s no accident why Blacks and Afro-Latinos are always close and interwoven in certain sections of American cities.

But now, everybody wants to “play-games” with Black people as if we’re cultural, spiritual and intellectual chumps… some people always call us brother or sister until whites give them a pass or relieve some of the “racist” pressure off their “Black/Brown” backs and then some of our “Brown compadres of yesterday” want to turn around and tell us how different they are from us.

Look sister, for every Afro-Latino that is in denial, when it comes to their African lineage there is an Afro-Latino that is not.

Man, why do you think Afro-Latino heritage, politics and social history has been ripped from the pages of the news and books about New World history?

Remember when you see the photo of the two Black sprinters who represented America 1968 Olympics, with their fist raised in defiance…remember one of them was named John Carlos (a brother of Afro-Latino heritage).

I’ve been told many times that many Dominicans had it bad, when it came to denial of African “racial” heritage and I’ve always dismissed it, because I hate to generalize, but your statements in your post have started me…. Ok, forget those thoughts.

Let the AfroCuban community speak for themselves historically, artistically, culturally and intellectually, links below:

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/

For direct examples in the same AfroCuba web page

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/photopages/independentsfoto.htm

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/labornueva.htm


Let some Black Puerto Ricans speak about racism among Puerto Ricans for their selves, links below:

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n14/PRConfrontsRace-en.shtml

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-03/11-25-03/a13op694.htm


Oh my…look what I found, …this may be problematic…

The excerpts below might make you a little dizzy Sister Yadira, so hold on tight to your Black African American husband before you read them:

Puerto Rico Herald
THE NEW YORK TIMES

For New York's Black Latinos, A Growing Racial Awareness
By MIREYA NAVARRO

April 28, 2003

“…Dominicans in New York City plan to open a museum and cultural center to document their immigrant experience. That is not surprising, given the growth of the Dominican population. But the name chosen for the center may come as more of a surprise: "Afro-Quisqueya," a nod to these Latinos' African roots.”

"The Dominican Republic is a country with a tremendous African influence; you see it in our daily customs, our music, our foods," said Moises Perez, executive director of Alianza Dominicana, an advocacy and social service agency that is building the Afro-Quisqueya Cultural Center on West 166th Street in Manhattan. Quisqueya is the Indian name for Hispaniola, the Caribbean island shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

“But self-identification can also be a personal choice. Nina Paulino, 42, a Dominican who organizes a festival of Dominican African dance in New York every year, is blue-eyed and olive-skinned but said she identifies herself as a black Latina as a political statement, to honor her father's side of the family.

"I had never given respect to that side of me" while growing up in the Dominican Republic, she said.”

"In the Caribbean we're white, but in this country we would be black," said Neyda Martinez, Fernando Ramirez's fiancée, who was born in Chicago to Puerto Rican parents. She is dark-skinned, with long wavy hair, and is often regarded as Indian in Puerto Rico but is more accurately mulatto, a mix of black and white.

"It's empowering for Latinos to say you're black instead of Indian," said Ms. Martinez, who identifies herself as a black Latina. "Usually people try to hide behind the romanticism of saying you're Indian. For some it's a denial of the blackness. It's a very personal thing how people identify themselves. You can't go by skin color."

The above quotes from this link below:

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n22/NYBlackLats-en.shtml

Lets link to those non-existent and invisible Afro-Latinos one more time, link below:

http://www.mundoafrolatino.com/english/index3.htm

I could overwhelm this thread with Afro-Latino related material, but it wouldn’t matter.

Maybe when I have some more time I will excerpt from the, Black Enterprise Mag. Article /The Afro-Latino Connection. It’s very, very interesting reading.

Peace

Divisive? Hardly. In your mind, because I don't agree with separation of races, it is ME who is divisive. OK.

"This notion that if you are not Latino, than you need to “shut up and sit down”, is silly."

Who made this comment? I surely never said this. It seems as if your ranting is a serious attempt to tell ME to shut up and sit down. Who said we don't have Black people in DR? Maybe you are reading thisng and taking them out of context while filtering them through how YOU see the world. I know what Dominicans are made of and I realize that some people love to claim themselves to belong to one race or another to escape themselves. That is not a new concept.

"To say there isn’t an African-cultural/consciousness movement among Latino’s of African descent is not only disingenuous, but would be disrespectful to all Afro-Latinos, who through scholarship and African cultural pride have historically participated in this reality. African consciousness among many Afro-Latinos has a continuity that has been unbroken since leaving the shores of Africa itself."

Again, who made THIS comment??

I am empowered by realizing that I have specific roots and believe in being true to who I am. So, you would prefer that I lie and say I am Black? I'm not. But, if I was there is nothing wrong with that. Your points are useless to me or any of us. You don't make me feel guilty the least bit. I know what I am and so do the majority of US.

You can overwhelm this thread with whatever you choose to. It doesn't make any difference. We know who we are. I never said we didn't. I blasted someone's generalization. We are not only African- get that straight.


Yadi

If Portugal and Spain are similar, why did they war with each other. And most Brazilians, no matter what, will tell you in a second that they are not Spanish.

If DR and Haiti are so similar, why did they war with each other.

Brazilians are NOT Spanish OR Portuguese. They are Brazilians- a Latin people.

Yadira, you are definitely REACHING! One fact-Spain and Portugal actually DID war with each other! Why was Columbus' trip to the Indies neccessary? Money, land and conquest was the goal of both sides! Also as Sun said, DR and Haiti hardly warred with each-maybe they have MORE in common, eventhough they are culturally different(French and Spanish?). Commonality, they got so abused by both the French and Spanish that they hardly had any time or desire to war with each other.

Yadira, you are definitely REACHING! One fact-Spain and Portugal actually DID war with each other! Why was Columbus' trip to the Indies neccessary? Money, land and conquest was the goal of both sides! Also as Sun said, DR and Haiti hardly warred with each-maybe they have MORE in common, eventhough they are culturally different(French and Spanish?). Commonality, they got so abused by both the French and Spanish that they hardly had any time or desire to war with each other.

I am not REACHING. I am being sarcastic.

Furthermore, DR & Haiti DID war with each other. Haitians took over in 1822 and derailed the then Spanish colony. 22 years later Dominican Republic was formed as a Spanish-speaking independent nation. Fact- not fiction.

Peace Sister Yadira,

You’re contradicting yourself and don’t even know it. Based on language and culture alone, you come close to implying or emphasizing an obvious division between Latinos and Black Americans.

Believe me Sister; no one wants you to CALL yourself BLACK. You are only what you say you are.

But you almost talk like you have a phobia about being called, “Black”. Look sister, there are African Americans who choose to go by many different names. In one African American family alone, individual family members use different terms to define their selves. Unity is not always about changing people, but as I have said before, it’s about finding common ground.

But, you sound like you prefer division.

Do you prefer national division to racial division?
Do you prefer ethnic division to color division?
Do you prefer linguistic division to cultural division?

One way or the other, you are still choosing one type division over another.

Lets look at Haitian and Dominican relations. There are political, historical commonalities and other good things to talk about “possibly” and there are cultural, linguistic and social differences that may be conflictual. If nothing else you share the same island; a commonality.

Lets look at this term Latino. What does it mean? Who invented it? How much do Mexican Latinos have in common with Dominican Latinos? How much do Panamanian Latinos have in common with Peruvian Latinos? And as some Latino cultures struggle to get over their differences, why did these differences exist, anyway? Could it have been cultural or even racial?

You use this broad sweeping term Latino (Latina), as if it were one indivisible and congruent culture. You know there are conflicts between different Latino cultures almost as bad as racism. I don’t know if you are an advocate for overall Latino unity, but I wonder if you care about what African looking and darker Latinos go through politically or socially. What I see in the Latin American countries looks like what white folks and some light skinned African Americans use to believe. The whites were comfortable having white dominance and the Creoles, mulattos, so-called “high yellows”, Redbones and blue veins were sometimes enjoying light-skinned privilege. When progressive African Americans, of all complexions, said this denial of African ancestry had to stop and started the embracing of their African heritage, the whites cried, “what’s wrong with you people, aren’t we all Americans.” And the many hardcore light-skinned elitists saw they were without an ally and out of step, and came correct.

And what’s interesting about this identity awaking was that just as many progressive light skinned African Americans spearheaded this movement as their were progressive darker and more West African looking black people.

Your cultural/racial paradigm is not as different as you think. We know that many Latin cultures have negative terms for African hair (so-called bad hair) or ideas of what are the preferred features and complexions for beauty, among many Latin countries. We are (African Americans) still dealing with this foolish now.

Who do you think you are talking too? Are you trying to deceive African Americans? You think, we don’t know you at all? Do you think your culture lives in a vacuum? Are you that naïve?

We have already been where you are. Your own Latino scholars, who are more open-minded and understand these problems and have learned a lot from us about the subtleties of racism and inter-cultural racism.

There are Dominicans with obvious West African lineage, in this country who would say, “they are American” (as in the U.S.A.), there are Dominicans who will tell you, “they are Dominican-American” (as in a Dominican citizen of the U.S.A.) There are Dominicans of obvious African lineage, who would not flinch, if you call them white, Latino or Hispanic. But if you call them Afro-Latino, Afro Hispanic or god forbid “Black” they would have a fit.

Look I have talked to Latinos from many countries and when they are honest, they all know of a derogatory pseudonym for their fellow countrymen who are considered black or with strong west African features, there is usually a part of their country where these people live in abundance and many times they are looked down upon and usually have less than anybody else. I know there are Latinos who not totally accepting of Blacks or Black Latinos and don’t want dark-skinned Latinos to marry their daughters unless they at least, have a lot of money (the great equalizer).

But, hey…
Basta!

Let me say this.

Sister, I welcome your presence in this forum and thread, even if we never agree. That’s cool.

But I’m curious.

Are you here to “just” straighten us out about all Latinos, all Dominicans or just your ethnic preference?

Did you come here to learn or teach? Or both? Or neither?
Do you believe you can learn something here, from Black People?

I asking humbly and graciously, that after you opine in this thread, what do you want to discuss with US (in these forums), …you know “us”, i.e., Black people aka African Americans?

Teach me, Sister Yadira. What do Dominicans and African Americans have in common?
Where can we unite?



Peace and ashe,

Sun Ship


P.S.

:confused: Sister I just saw a picture pop-up under your name. :confused: Is that you? :)

Well, _looka’cheer.
…My, My, My said, the preacher. :huh:

Seriously though… You're a beautiful sister and you look happy :) And that’s OK. :)

Yadira, if that truly be your picture that is by your name, hate to break it down to you like this and you can TRY to Kill me for saying this. Herb Alpert, J-Lo, the late Desi Arnaz,Sr and even A-Rod looks more white than you! Now you look more on the scale of a young Della Reese who is no doubt Black but she does have Native American features and ancestry. OR a young Lena Horne. You are no doubt beautiful, though! We may never agree, but I saw one or two actual no doubt about it Native American men in Missouri (one in traditional dress with long hair and the other-not). If I had to go by them and in comparison with Arawak Indians in the Carribbean (who WERE wiped out by the Europeans) and going by you looks-one would conclude that they(the Arawaks) were on the average darker than the original Americans here. But as pointed out by Queen and panafrica, with Latinos, Original inhabitants come in ALL shades from light to dark.

If this link works, this is the history of the dominican republic. Before anyone takes anything out on me. This is presumably written by Dominicans but the artwork is by a Dominican artist.

http://www.hispaniola.com/DR/Guides/History.html

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4344

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5090

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5132

If these links work,as Sun said-I really do not care if these individuals identify themselves as Black or not. But judging at first glance do they look more Black than white or vice versa in your opinion?

I think it is safe to say that since the Dominican Republic & Haiti occupy the same island, and were formed around the same time. They both share many of the same ancestors. Not just Carbs, Tainos, and Arowaks. I'm sure that the African slaves who were brought to these countries, where brought from the same ships in equal numbers. I am also sure that slaves were bought & traded from plantations between the two countries. Logic would dictate that. So despite the differences between Haiti & the Dominican Republic, they share much history & heritage.

On a seperate not, the skin tone debate is amusing, especially from the Latino side. I can't help but notice that Dr. Yadira, who is mixed with White & Indian is darker than myself...considerably so (see the Family Picture Forum to compare). The more I look at Yadira's picture, I can't help but agree with Yaphet al-Wynn. Them must have been some DARK Indians. :D

Not saying all Indians here in America were light. I have Cherokee in me. There WERE pictures in my grandfather's house(when I was young) where there looked like a dark pure bred Indian taken in the 1800's (thereabouts) with straight long hair hung about the shoulders, but his sons or kin looked like him but with different mixtures of hair types(from very kinky to curly). I COULD say I'm Indian too, but won't! Edit- Besides, I am VERY dark just like that Indian in the picture at my grandfathers. I have cousins that can BE mistaken for white and some for lighter colored Indians, like the ones I saw in Missouri. With the lighter skinned kin of mine that are lighter, they married OTHER light-skinned Blacks (i.e-like Vanessa L Williams). Only recently some of my YOUNGER cousins ARE marrying whites.Some divorced and some still married.

panafrica-seen your picture and compared it to Yadira's profile. You's right-you are lighter. Even lighter than the pictures of the Dominican baseball players I posted. Not quite on the order of Derek Jeter light but fairly close to A-Rod, though.

*In my view, and in order to separate misinformation from facts, historical background is a must. As an Afro-Dominican I continue to read in amazement how people expouse opinion devoid of fact when discussing such a complex issue as the two-nation island shared by Haiti and D.R.. Yadira has posted historical facts, only to be derided. In order to understand the current racial condition, and psyche of both Dominicans and Haitians we need some historical background a a chronology of events. The STORY of the first enslaved Africans in America begins in the two-nation island; Haiti / Dominican Rep. The island is probably the most African in the Caribbean because of its size, total population and cultural heritage.

Keep in mind that racism is a learned behavior. The 20th century in the American Continent was marked by a whitenning program, as well as the rise of American Imperialism. The rise of America as a world power, witnessed American military invasions to both Haiti and DR [1914-1915]. As we celebrate the bi-centennial of the greatest revolution [Haitian Revolution 1804] for Africans in the American Continent, we are still in fierce battle to understand OURSTORY.

- The Haitian Revolution should be a core course included in the American History curriculum. The loss by Napoleon powerful Navy of Haiti paved the way for the expansion of the USA. The Louisiana Purchase between France and Thomas Jefferson, gave the USA 800,000 square miles west of the Mississippi [for a mere 15 million Dollars] and the beginning of the end to the native American population here.

- The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 expelled Europeans from American territory.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch5_p3.htm
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html

- 1840-1850, Gunboat Diplomacy and Commodore Perry opening of the Asian trade markets.
http://www.grifworld.com/perryhome.html

- The Ten Year War of Independence in Cuba [from Spain] opened a window of opportunity to the USA to finally rid itself of the final obstacle to achieve its goal of domination through Imperialism [empire formation]. Spanish / American War of 1898 gave the USA, the Phillippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the current Guantanamo Base [Teller & Platt Amendments].
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/teller.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay

- 1904-5, the USA instigates a civil war in Colombia which led to the formation of the Republic of Panama & immediatelly began the construction of the Panama Canal.
http://www.escapeartist.com/panama4/panama4.htm

- 1914-15: USA invades Haiti and DR and remains governing the island [alas Iraq] for 20 and 8 years respectively. Afterwards controls the island through puppet governments. In DR installs one of the most ruthless dictators of all time, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo de Molina-Chevallier [notice his grandmother's name. She was Haitian]. On October 2 & 3, 1937 ordered the massacre of over 35,000 Haitians on Dominican soil [a lot of those massacred were dark-skinned Dominicans]. Trujillo always felt that DR was a country of too many dark inhabitants. He instituted a program which gave incentive to white immigrants from Europe and Puerto Rico, all in an attempt to lighten the Dominican Republic, with all the blessings of the Roosevelt Administration.

================================================== ==================

:book: CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS on the island:

*1492- The pirate/rapist/thief and slaver, Cristobal Colon arrives to the Island Quisquella/Haiti and renames it Hispaniola.

*1500/01- Documents of the times addressed to the Queen Isabela of Spain by the then ruthless Governor of the Island, Nicolas de Ovando, requests "Ladinos" blacks [born in Spain - Catholics] as opposed to "Bozales" [African-borne and "uncivilized"]. The first documented enslaved Africans are brought to the port city of Santo Domingo [the first established European city in the so-called new world]. These first Africans were believed to Woolofs.

*1522- The first documented slave revolt in the Americas is registered to one of the many plantations owned by the then Governor of the Island [and son of Cristobal Colon], Don Diego de Colon.

*1550- Historian document that over a span of approx. 50 years since the arrival of the European to the island, the indigenous population had disappeared. The African population preserved themselves by running away consistently to the Mountains which crosses over to Haiti [Baouruco]. The mountains ranges provided a natural defensive barrier of protection, where they were able to recreate life as it was lived back home in Africa. Some of these 'Palenques' or Maroons [Comarrones] settlements went undiscovered for over 80 years!

The thriving wild cattle brought by Spaniards to the island, allowed runaway comunities to use the meat for food and the leather for trade [guns and goods] w/ the 'Bucaneros' who were mostly French.

*1689- King Louis XIV passed The "Code Noir" [Black Codes] allowing the use of African slaves in the French colonies.

*1697 Treaty of Ryswick: Between Spain and France outlined the conditions of two separate European territories in the island. The Western 1/3rd. section of the island became the French colony of St. Domingue and later the independent nation of Haiti. The rest of the island or 2/3rd remained the colony of Spain and what is today DR. The striving and uncontrolled clandestine leather market for guns and goods posed a continous threat to the stability of the Spanish colony. Plantations were raided all the time by well armed runaways, prompting the decision to distnace themselves from the territory which was a safe heaven for Africans in the island. By giving France the 1/3rd section, Spain felt that the security of the island depended on the treaty.

*1776 American Revolution- The USA is formed as the descendants of England proclaimed their Independence. Monarchy is overthrown for the first time.

*1787/99- The French Revolution overthrows the French Monarchy w/ the guillotinning of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoniette [1793].

*1791- George Washington sends arms and ammunition [Mt. Vernon, N.Y.] to fight the Slaves' Revolt in St. Domingue [Haiti - Hispaniola], and to help put a stop as he said in his own words: "To the alarming insurrection of the Negroes in Hispaniola".

Here is a list of the recorded supplies George Washington sent to Haiti: 1000 muskets and bayonets, 110 musket cartridges, 5000 flints, 500 gun screws, 10 barrels of musket powder and balls, 1000 brushes and priming wires, 1000 cartridge boxes and belts, and finally cartridge paper and thread to make cartridges [from G. Washington's personal diary].

*1791 / 1803- A Jamaican runaway slave named Boukman leads the slale revolt which eventually culminated in an all out war of liberation [ THE HAITIAN REVOLUTION].

>Toussaint L'Ouverture Breda needs to be discussed alone in a separate thread in order for justice to his greatness be achieved. When Boukman was killed, Toussaint commanded and planned the establishment of the new Republic. He overthrew the French, English, Spanish etc.. out of the island. He was betrayed by both, Henri Cristophe & J.J. Dessalines.

*1795- The Treaty of Basilea. Spain ceded the whole island to France. Toussaint marched into the Spanish section of the island in the name of France. He liberated the African slaves from the plantations, and even paved the way for some of them to become soldiers and officers in his army.

*1804- Jean Jacque Dessalines declares himself Emperor for life of the newly formed nation of Haiti.

*1806- J.J Dessalines assasinated.

*1807-20? -- Civil War in Haiti divides the Republic into two separate entities: Northern Kingdom of Henri Cristophe, and the Southern Republic of Alexander Petion. After Cristophe commits suicide with a 'silver bullet', Jean-Pierre Boyer unifies Haiti.

*1821-1844 -- Haiti's Boyer rules the whole island until a clandestine movement called 'La Trinitaria' [The Trinity] led by Juan Pablo Duarte, the son of a Spanish merchant led a revolution which overthrew the Haitians -- Paving the way for the formation of the new Republic in 1844; The Dominican Republic.


PEACE

Olorun, most of the facts you posted was in the first link I posted of the history of hispaniola. Even going back to Columbus. When I first commented and NOT knowing whether Haiti and the Dominican Republic warred or not and if you reread my post-I said 'HARDLY' warred. I put that qualifier in that post for the possibility that THEY did war. Also in the history-REASON that Haiti invaded the Dominican Republic was that they threw out the French and became independent first and outlawed slavery,the Dominican Republic was Spanish and still had slavery. One of the reason for the Louisiana Purchase by Napolean and correct me if I'm wrong was to finance retaking Haiti and reinstituting slavery. The Haitians, if I read that history correctly, reasons for invading the Dominican Republic was 2 fold.1. To discourage the French from retaking Haiti and 2. To stamp out slavery in the Dominican Republic. The Haitians were successful and outlawed slavery with their invasion of the Dominican Republic. The Spanish elite losing profit from the outlawing of slavery revolted and was successful in evicting the Haitians. Calling their country the Dominican Republic, but the Spanish elite reinstituted slavery and hacked off the population in that they threw out the Spanish elite and outlawed slavery.Now the leaders of the Dominican Republic are discussed in my link.

Reason that I posted the history in the first place was for people to make their own judgements. Some things I missed and some things Yadira missed also.And some things we were BOTH correct on. But you do not have to be a history buff to KNOW that both the French and Spanish colonizers were cruel as hell and that history that I posted bear me out on that.

also, the Spanish genocide of the Indians that were there!

Brother Olorun1

Peace and blessings upon you, but what have you posted, that has ANYTHING to do with what Sister Yadira is trying to imply?!!

This little history lesson is not the original subject of her post.

You think we don’t know about the history of American imperialism, European colonization and Haiti or America’s monstrous campaigns against the rest of the world?!!

Come on brother. Let’s kick this up a notch!

African American activist and scholars have been writing and orating about this for decades. And African Americans have lived it!

It is at the core of every radical movement in this country.

Sister Yadira is trying to paint a utopian picture of her self and the racial socialization of Latino cultures and is deriding African Americans, as she attempts to group our comments exclusively with white America’s racial ideologies.

Man, she must think we are REALLY slow.

NO ONE KNOWS THIS WHITE RACIST PARADIGM AND ITS ANTICS LIKE US!

Many times People of color have made pilgrimage to African-America and learned about the tricks of imperialism, racism and so-called democratic capitalism and went back to their countries and initiated reform, nationalism and revolution.

As we may not know everything about Latinos, there is very deep philosophical and intellectual world, among African Americans that is foreign to Latinos.

We have a understanding of things and about this world, that are sometimes beyond words and these understandings are not always privy to even, all African Americans; for many of us are getting further and further away from the true history and the instructive whispers of our elders.

You need a more complex understanding of the history of African Americans, as it applies to race, color and caste.

Don’t you see from some of the links that I have posted that there is a long history of African Latinos who understand that their dilemma’s are “SIMILAR” TO OURS.

(And don’t freak Yadira, I said, “SIMILAR”.)

Sister Yadira is the one who has disregarded the facts about AfroCubans and other African-Latinos worldviews, including the ideas of some obvious, Afro-Dominicans.

Go back to my other post with excerpts and links.

We (African Americans) have dealt with this under the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Irish, let alone the English. Man, we can see the subtleties of the color/culture game a mile away. We live in the belly of the master teacher of this foolishness. Brother, I think you’re missing the point.

TO KNOW THE HISTORY IS ONE THING, TO INTERPRET IT, IS ANOTHER.

If some Latinos or many Latinos or all Afro-Latinos want to stay WHEREVER THEY ARE, as far as awareness than so be it. But Brother, everyone can grow and learn from others. I have asked Sister Yadira for ideas as it applies to Dominican and African American unity and commonalities.

Click, click, is the light bulb on? Are the ears open?

I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE ANYBODY MORE THAN WHAT THEY WANT TO MAKE THEM SELVES!

Man, I had an uncle who was African American, who looked like he just left the “teepee” yesterday, in other words he looked way, WAY more Native American than West African. But then I have an Afro-Latino uncle who has strong West African features and very dark skin.

I had older relatives who because of our obvious mixed heritage (like most AfrAm) refused to use the term Black or African in any shape, form or fashion. And my broader family is constantly diversifying ethnically.

So how can I try to make Yadira or any Latino, Black or anything more than what they are? How can anybody or I disregard another’s history, culture, customs or language?

so this thing about facts. What facts?

Yadira is opining on personal ideas and preference, not facts.

And you know what brother? That’s cool…


But if she wanted us to believe she doesn’t have any African blood in her ancestry. (????????) :confused:

Then man-n-nnn, she should have NEVER posted that picture. :lol:

Com’on Brother…we ain’t that slow.
Sister, ain’t got to insult our intelligence to state her opinion.

But, It's still a nice picture of a beautiful sister.


Ashe!

Brother Sun Ship :)



P.S.
Olorun1 and Yarida , what do Afro-Quisqueya mean to you and is this a misrepresentation of Dominicans

More links...on the first one. Sun if you posted this one already-I apologize in advance.

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/history.htm

This one is my favorite
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005343/photogallery-mptv-0

Ok, the point of the last 2 links. 1st one to show how far back that the AfroCubans named themselves(year 1806). Officially as an organization-one of their purposes were to purchase freedom for slaves. According to the Dominican history, they made no mention of the Arawak Indians there, but do in Cuban history.
The last point on the 2nd link to show (in my opinion) that Yadira does look a bit like a young Della Reese. In the Black and white photos-she is obviously younger but the one color picture of her, her skin tone looks close to Yadira's.

- With all due respect, I find your post somewhat arrogant. You have given what I posted a twisted spin. The fact that we are continued to be lump sum in a single group as the original topic can attest to; "Are Latinos / Hispanics - 'Africans' Too?" -- Then, Yes! There's a need to teach how this unique phenomenon of the two-island concept came about. If you know this, then is all good. However, what I find odd is you speaking for every African American here. There are a lot of our folks that don't know this.

- Sun Ship stated:

Many times People of color have made pilgrimage to African-America and learned about the tricks of imperialism, racism and so-called democratic capitalism and went back to their countries and initiated reform, nationalism and revolution.

*We know about Imperialism not because of a "pilmigrage to African-America", but because we, the Afrolatino community are the recipients of all 'isms' as it applies to racism, capitalism etc.. The notion that people of color have initiated reform, nationalism and revolution in our countries because of African-America is very flawed. Like African-America, we have looked back at Africa at times and Marxism. Just look at the Kenya model and the Mau Mau, Ghana and Nkrumah, Che & Fidel in South Africa - Latin America and Cuba.

As we may not know everything about Latinos, there is very deep philosophical and intellectual world, among African Americans that is foreign to Latinos.

*This is assumption. I don't know where are you writing from, but here in NYC, Afrolatinos have a profound understanding not only of African-American history and philosophy, but even more impressive -- a deep understanding of Africa in antiquity [philosophy as well]. Please give me explicit accounts of the intellectual world you're talking about. Is it the world of the Black Rennaissance where writes such as Zora, Baldwin, Wright, McKay, Dubois, Dunbar, Hughes made their mark? Or can it be their Afrolatino contemporaries such as Afro-Puerto Ricans Arthur Shomburg & Dr. Ben and his mentee Dr. Georgina Falu, and cuban poet Nicolas Guillen?

We have a understanding of things and about this world, that are sometimes beyond words and these understandings are not always privy to even, all African Americans; for many of us are getting further and further away from the true history and the instructive whispers of our elders.

*How can conciousness be limited to a chosen few? No individual [or group] holds a patent on knowlwdge and consciousness. That's the arrogance shown by the current administration when it applies to the rest of the world.

You need a more complex understanding of the history of African Americans, as it applies to race, color and caste.

*Perhaps folks around here may need to post their resumes and academic achievements in order to be taken seriously. How do you know that I haven't acquired that "more complex understanding .......?" Does having a double major in American Hist. / African Studies and a MA in Am. History helps a little bit in understanding you. Having studied under Dr. Clarke, Dr. Ben, Dr. Jeffries, Prof. Smalls and Dr. Scobie, Dr.Salient-Torres, Dr. Falu has given me a 'small' opening and 'peek' at not only the African-American world, but also the African Diaspora in general. I'm still seeking knowledge and understandingb, but w/o the usual constraints of arrogance, misinformation and arguments w/o substance.


Olorun1 and Yarida , what do Afro-Quisqueya mean to you and is this a misrepresentation of Dominicans

*Would you call every American, African-American? Although, the percentage of the Dominican population that's white / European is very small, there is nevertheless, a segment which does not fall under the Afro category.

Again, I'm a Historian / Griot, and because of this, I can't help but to first see things from that perspective. Quisquella [Mother of the Land] / Hayti [Land of The Mountains] was the name given to the whole island by its original people; the so-called Indians. I like to say that I'm Afro-Dominican as a point of reference for those who want to label me. Afro for Afrocentric thought and ancestry. Dominican for place of birth, customs and immediate family.

In answering your question, I've come to the conclusion that not every individual is at the same level of awakened consciousness, therefore, individuals will call themselves different things at every level they reach --- Is no different than when folks change religions.

PEACE

As cliche as it sounds, the following statement is so true...the ships sailing away from Africa with our ancestors held captive didn't only stop in North America but in South America and the Carribean. So the African ancestry is there and still very much alive, alive in those who choose to identify with their roots and alive in those who deny it, whether they acknowledge it or not...and whether anybody else does for that matter.

The ships even left our ancestors in Europe, does that make the Blacks there any less of Africa's children than African Americans?

The term "Latino" just acknowledges those from Latin America. But whoever said the people in Latin America were not black?

There's even an debate whether or not people who have black skin deny their blackness if they do not claim to be black. What about black skinned Latino's? If they were not black would they be denying something they were constantly told they were not even if thats what they were? If they filled out the census form and checked the box "Latino" would people then get bent out of shape because they did not say they were Black?

Of course they would. It just goes to show that no matter how one identifies oneself, whether politically correct or not, there will always be a group of people who will have a problem with it.

The term Afro-Latino sums up everything. Whether you are a dark skin latino, if you're mixed with black and latino, if you were born in latin america but have african heritage...you are Afro Latino. And whoever has a problem with that just has a problem with it. That's personal. But to get into a one sided discussion about it can offend those who consider themselves as such. I've read comments where some would disagree but I have to respect that. We all have our own opinion and stemming from our opinions come our identity.

Identity is something that makes no sense to be shared. We all are different in our own way.

What about Asian Latinos? Are they any less of an Asian if they were born in Latin America? It all goes back to image. If you don't look certain way and fit the ideal image of your category then you're bound to run into a few problems.

I know a Puerto Rican woman who has dreds and celebrates Kwanzaa and whatnot. She sees the African in her and embraces it. Is she wrong for doing that when she's fits the description of your stereotypical image of a latino?

You can't get anywhere in a discussion about race if you can't take it back to the facts. There will be no end and the cycle will continue.

This thread is just a small part of what Afro Latinos face on a daily basis. There is always someone telling you what you are and are not. But the truth is the truth and all we are doing is supporting the white mans economy by stuffing ourselves into boxes when the truth of the matter is that whether you're black, latino or both...we are all one family, with one struggle and that's that.

AfroBoricuaRoni, Welcome as well as Olarun. Look I am as curious as anyone as getting an Afro-Latin perspective as anyone. OK, in some of my earlier statement I could have been off in my observations when I first got on this particular subject, but most at least I DID research. I also posted links presumably written by Afro-Latins that I thought WAS enlightening to share with people as I went along to learn more. Now if there are disagreements with what I posted. Love to hear them. Now on the other person don't want to characterize their motives for posting and will deal with what is said. I believe Sun, panafrica,I,NNQueen and others did not characterize all Latinos as Africans or who may have African ancestry but dealt with Latin societies who may have MORE likely than not to have those connections.
Now with what this person said that Dominicans are not Black but Brown-excuse me? Now those who want to identify as being Black or have African ancestry is a personal decision, but me having eyes (well, decent vision) with people that identify themselves as Dominicans like Cubans and other populance in Latin countries comes in ALL shades. Now if I observe some Cubans, Brazilians, Dominican and other Latinos that look as dark or as West African looking as I am (whether individually that they identify themselves as Black or not is besides the point)-then am I supposed to ignore that to be 'politically' correct? If I can make that observation-you know white people in this country will-also! Now this person who shall remain nameless said that Dominicans are not Black and I named some famous Dominican MLB baseball players who look very close to it, this person also blew a gasket about it. Also this person said that Afro Cubans was an American term and ignored that it was the African-Cubans themselves that named themselves that, not the US, us or anybody else-they themselves identified themselves as such. Posted a link of Cuban history(presumably written by Afro Cubans themselves) that pointed out that that term is close to 200 years old and was a name of an organization they created themselves. Now if the historical links about Cuba and the Dominican Republic are wrong. Love to hear the other side of it.

the idea of black man/woman is very complicated. more complex is the idea of an african. fact is: as more and more brothers inter-marry with other races, the threat of racial extinction becomes real. malcom -x assertion that any race that breeds with a black begets black may not be true.

also, as some segments of black society begin to define themselves as latinos and coloureds and what have you, the blackness equation gets even more interpolated

asego

*excuse me for not reading everypost.. There are like 16 pages :driveby:


From what I know of Latino people(I have been reading about this subject and I have a few friends), there is a difference to many of them between the race and culture. To others, there is no difference. They will distinguish themselves as only latino or as afro-latino. Obviously, appearance plays a part. If they are as dark as me( I have VERY dark brown skin), then they are of african decent. That does not mean however that they will identify with Americans who are also of african decent. I call myself afro AMERICAN, many of my friends consider themselves afro CUBANS, afro DOMINICANS, afro PUERTO RICANS, etc. Some do some don't. Its all in how you were raised and what your preference is. Also, I believe it is incorrect to say that all of Dominicans or Cubans or any nationality for that matter are black cuz there are many white, middle eastern, asian, etc that may consider themselves that same nationality.

Just squeezing in here to say Haaaaaaaaaaay :wave: to Brother Asego !!! So good to see you posting !!! The Brothers are having their first "Brothers Only Voice Chat" right now ... www.destee.com/chat ... in case you didn't know.

:heart:

Destee

asego. Just getting this point across, no malice intended. Now in Brazil, there have been intermarrying or coupling between Blacks and whites and Indians for awhile. Now, you still have identifiable white, browns, inbetween and Blacks in Brazil. Don't know if identifiable Black or African, white or Indian has entirely disappeared from Brazil yet.

asego. Just getting this point across, no malice intended. Now in Brazil, there have been intermarrying or coupling between Blacks and whites and Indians for awhile. Now, you still have identifiable white, browns, inbetween and Blacks in Brazil. Don't know if identifiable Black or African, white or Indian has entirely disappeared from Brazil yet.

Identifiable Black/African most definately has not disappeared from Brazil. Especially from areas like Salvador. Irregardless of the images shown on TV, Brazil has one of the highest concentrations of Blacks in the world (more than most African countries)! Brazil was also one of the last countries in the Americas to receive slave ships from Africa (officially until the early 1890s, but rumored until the early 1900s). Therefore African culture remains strong in the country.

Brazil has the second largest Black African population in the world; second, only to Nigeria.

_______________________________

Of Spanish speaking countries in the Americas, the Dominican Republic has been denoted, as for as the DR national percentages, as having the largest black population. (but hey…maybe, maybe not.)

________________________________


I was going to respond to Brothers Olorun1 recent posting, but I may leave that for later. I’ll let others debate this threads heading. For its query, easily distorts an important discourse. I’m going to post “just” information recognizing Afro-Latino politics, culture and socialization.

I’ll let those who view their selves as Afro-Latino’s or Black Latino’s “speak for their selves” along with the facts that denote their social and cultural existence; as I tried to do with web links and excerpts from web pages in a previous post.

I agree with Brother Olorun1, “they are an invisible people” and believe me African Americans know how this feels and knows what this means.

This thread is in a forum about Pan-Africanism, which by it’s own ideological nature, is a very liberal, progressive and radical idea. And because the ideology of this forum is directed toward the thoughts and ideas of progressive Africans along with those of progressive African Americans and Afro-Latinos, any intelligent person who post here and who is conservative in their politics or social ideologies are probably posting for adversarial reasons.

But, they do have the right to post and opine in any of these forums. I assume as long as they adhere to the guidelines and directives of Destee.com. For this is something we ALL must do.

But with all that said, I will eventually start an individual thread that focus on the history, culture and politics of African Latino people.

Here is a short infomative excerpt found on the web.
I wonder how this has influenced the minds of present-day Latinos.

This was no better, if not worst, than Jim Crow.
This was breeding, eugenics, population control, "divide and conqueor", you name it, all rolled up in one.

And now some people have romanced and embraced the legacy of this type of madness, to the point of totally ignoring their African heritage, because under racial systems similar to the one below, African blood was the worst thing you could admit.

Let's read:


"Although the slave laws of Portugal and Spain were concerned with the immediate question of governing the growing African populations of the two nations, there is one way that the law of slavery made an enduring contribution to the culture of race relations in Latin America: the laws of Spain and Portugal reflected a stringent concern with group classification. This concern would increase with the Spanish and Portuguese settlement of what would become Latin America. Spanish and Portuguese settlers in the Americas, aware of their minority status, sought to maintain rigid separations among the different African, Indian, and mixed peoples that they ruled. This was to be accomplished through codification, the development of a highly precise system of racial classification through law. Spanish lawmakers were particularly artful at this, importing racial categories developed in Spain and adding to them classifications developed in the New World. Mexican anthropologist Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán reported on one such scheme employed in eighteenth-century Mexico. The codified categories indicated the designation and status of individuals according to the race and color of an individual's parents. The offspring of a:

1. Spaniard with an Indian woman is a Mestizo;

2. Mestizo woman with a Spaniard is a Castizo;

3. Castizo man with a Spanish woman is a Spaniard;

4. Spaniard man with a Black woman is a Mulatto;

5. Mulatto woman with a Spaniard is a Morisco;

6. Morisco man with a Spanish woman is a Chino;

7. Chino man with an Indian woman is a Step Backward;

8. A Step Backward man with a Mulatto woman is a Wolf;

9. A Wolf man with a Chino woman is a Gibaro;

10. A Gibaro man with a Mulatto woman is a Leper;

11. A Leper man with a Black woman is a Cambujo (very dark);

12. A Cambujo man with an Indian woman is a Zambaigo;

13. A Zambaigo man with a Wolf woman is a Calpa Mulatto;

14. A Calpa Mulatto man with a Cambujo woman is a Stay in the Air;

15. A Stay in the Air man with a Mulatto woman is an I Don't Understand Thee; and

16. An I Don't Understand Thee man with an Indian woman is a Step Backwards.

This and other similarly meticulous classification schemes were developed in part to strengthen Portuguese and Spanish rule in the Americas. Spanish colonial law in particular attempted to group the different racial categories into different castes with differing sets of legal privileges. This was done as part of a divide-and-rule strategy. Spanish and Portuguese colonial administrators were particularly concerned with preventing the subject peoples in their American colonies, the African, Indian, and mixed race populations, from making common cause. Their idea was that a strictly codified caste system--the Spanish actually used the word casta or caste--would foster a strict separation of the differing groups, facilitating Spanish or Portuguese rule.

The legal attempt to make fine racial distinctions had an ironic consequence. ....It would become possible to improve one's racial standing with the improvement of one's social standing. If being white meant that one was at the top of the social pyramid, while being black meant that one was at the bottom, these were not legally immutable characteristics. The successful individual,..., the person who struck it rich in the gold fields, those whom fortune smiled upon, could aspire to be white. In some cases, legal recognition of one's "whiteness" could actually be purchased. Even if whiteness might be beyond an individual's grasp, a free person of African descent might aspire to be recognized as a Mulatto, a Morisco, or some other mixed category."

Okay Brother Sun Ship, I know this was meant to be serious but I found it so ridiculous that it actually made me laugh! Dag, whose on first?

Queenie :spinstar:

You know Queenie you are correct, this stuff is so insidious that it is almost comical_lol. But believe me it’s just as sad as it is comical, but true.

Think of the terms mulatto (mule), quadroon, Redbone, high yellow or blue vein. Even black, red, yellow and brown have their social ironies, short of their neo-political importance. That’s why our scholars have endorsed the term, African (ancestral culture and land base).

Probably, any and all terminology can be etymologically or symbolically challenged for its validity, but this is more about control, division, manipulation and deception, more so than about names and terms.

Peace

Probably, any and all terminology can be etymologically or symbolically challenged for its validity, but this is more about control, division, manipulation and deception, more so than about names and terms.

Peace

Brother Sun Ship :bowdown:

To me, this statement you wrote wraps up, summarizes, draws to nice neat conclusion and ties loose ends to the majority of these threads: Control . . . Division . . . Manipulation . . . Deception! May I add another word to the list of what this is more about? It's Understanding.

I think this word is part of the psyche because the oppressor understands what it takes to feed his/her ego and they understand what would happen if they don't succeed in controlling, dividing, manipulating and deceiving Black people, they are driven by their madness to fulfill their agenda in order to dominate every living thing on the planet.

Peace :spinstar:

You know sister NNQueen, first of all your insertion, about their philosophical understanding, to what I had said, has added even more depth to this discussion.

We must always reiterate that this is not an accident or a random evolutionary phenomenon (the institutional and intellectual founding of white supremacy). I will go even further, “IT IS NOT MADNESS” to those who covertly manipulate the science of systemic and institutional racism. I think it’s only madness or insanity when we don’t believe it is real and/or intentional.

White-Western Civilization is doing, what has made it dominant. If we study diligently, we will see it (to dominate) is in their cultural psyche and their spiritual mythology. I wish more Africans, African Americans and African Latinos would read Sister Marimba Ani’s, YURUGU or Sister, Francis Cress Welsings’, ISIS PAPERS and properly interpret what these warrior griots were trying to tell us.

We rejected Marcus Garvey and Hon. Elijah Muhammad philosophical assertions, because their intellectual constructs seemed so crude and unsophisticated. But, I think the wisdom I have gather from old “almost-worked-to-death “ Black men :bowdown: and Black washwomen :bowdown:has been greater than any book I have ever read about racism or White supremacy. I believe we are going to have to rebalance our psyche, if we are going to get out of this dilemma.

Ashe,

Sun Ship

2 things-current news, 2 headed baby is in surgery to remove partially formed head in the Dominican Republic by an all Dominican medical team. Pray for the best.
Not so current news-the O Confederados. Who are they you ask? They are the Brazilian descendants of the Confederates that fled the US after or during the Civil War and got asylum in Brazil. Kid you not. The descendants hardly look like the original Confederates but are still displaying their heritage (the romanticized version).
Sun-nice heads up on those terms. Very pernicious in Brazil. As I stated before that no one will admit to African roots and will (if they can afford it) buy any designation above the African classification or just above it.

This is especially for Sister Yadira


Race and Politics in the Dominican Republic



Race and Politics in the Dominican Republic

By Ernesto Sagás



Editorial Reviews

About the Author
Ernesto Sagás teaches in the Department of Puerto Rican and Hispanic Caribbean Studies at Rutgers University. Recently he was guest editor of a special issue of the Latino Studies Journal devoted to Dominicans in the United States.

Book Description
Ernesto Sagás examines the historical development and political use of antihaitianismo, a set of racist and xenophobic attitudes prevalent today in the Dominican Republic that broadly portray Dominican people as white Catholics, while Haitians are viewed as spirit-worshipping black Africans. More than just a ploy to generate patriotism and rally against a neighboring country, the ideology also is used by Dominican leaders to divide their own lower classes.

Sagás looks at the notions of race held by Dominican elites in their creation of an imaginary "white" nation, particularly as the ideas were developed throughout the colonial era, then intellectually refined in the late 19th century, and later exalted to a state ideology during the Trujillo era. Finally, he examines how race and nationalist anti-Haitian feelings still are manipulated by conservative politicians and elites who seek to maintain the status quo, drawing on examples from recent political rhetoric and cartoons, campaign advertisements, and public school history textbooks.

The first book-length study of antihaitianismo, this work offers important lessons for studying racial and ethnic conflict as well as nationalism and comparative politics.



Brother Olorun1 have you read this book. If so, give me your comments on it, if not give me your comments on this editorial.

Peace,

Brother Sun Ship

Sun like you-I am posting info and links from the net-so some will not say that I'm making it up. If both links work-in one of them the last paragraph is VERY telling. Mine may not be as good as yours, Sun, but hope they get the point across.

http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2003/October/BRV_Oct03.htm

http://countrystudies.us/dominican-republic/23.htm

Redid the last one. if it works, check the LAST paragraph.

Hey Brother yaphet al-wynn, I’m going to bookmark that link and copy some of the….

Aw..man…I hit …paste…:jawdrop:



"Dominicans traditionally preferred to think of themselves as descendants of the island's Indians and the Spanish, ignoring their African heritage. Thus, phenotypical African characteristics were disparaged. Emigrants to the United States brought a new level of racial consciousness to the republic, however, when they returned. Those who came back during the 1960s and the 1970s had experienced both racial prejudice and the black pride movement in North America. Returning migrants brought back Afro hairstyles and a variety of other Afro-North Americanisms."




:eeek:Oops…Did I accidentally drop an excerpt of that knowledge Brother yaphet al-wynn directed me to?

Oh…that’s right. It doesn’t matter anyway, after what sister Yadira said.

I think she said… something like this (quote):
“You can overwhelm this thread with whatever you choose to. It doesn't make any difference. We know who we are.”


Peace :)

check out Manny Ramirez. He is wearing braids in the picture that I posted. But when I've seen him play on TV last year, the brother was sporting dreds or twists.

:read:

- To brother yaphet:

The Dominican racial complex is much more than a few i-net links. I don't mean to put down what you're trying to do here. Having experienced first hand the dilemma of nationalism vs. race in DR, I can tell you that although Dominicanism is a rather young phenomenom [the formation of the Republic was in 1844], the mission of the liberating and intellectual white elite was deep-rooted in a nationalistic program of brainwashing and cultural as well as family detachment from their brethren, the Haitians. I tried to make a connection to the historical roots of the problem earlier, only to be 'shot down' like a bird on a hunting trip. One cannot 'digest' what's going on in DR / Haiti w/o first knowing the real history of the island. It has taken me over 30 years to arrive at my current level of Afrocentric consciousness. It's not just time, but what I have done in between those 30 years to overcome something so deeply rooted in the psyche. I have often said that Dominicans are indoctrinated to this irrational way of thinking about themselves -- not at childbirth, but from the womb.

- To brother Sun Ship:
*You wrote;

"Dominicans traditionally preferred to think of themselves as descendants of the island's Indians and the Spanish, ignoring their African heritage. Thus, phenotypical African characteristics were disparaged. Emigrants to the United States brought a new level of racial consciousness to the republic, however, when they returned. Those who came back during the 1960s and the 1970s had experienced both racial prejudice and the black pride movement in North America. Returning migrants brought back Afro hairstyles and a variety of other Afro-North Americanisms."

- Actually, I disagree with a few of your points. First, we were not allowed to migrate in large numbers during the decade of the 1960's - early 1970's. I arrived here on Aug. 1970 at age 10. We actually began to go back in large numbers in the late 1970's and the decade of the 1980's. The explosion of crack cocaine and the importation of baseball stars in large numbers to the States had an economic impact on the island, as young people who left the island a few years earlier were returning not with and African consciousness, but rather with their pockets full of dollars. Afro hairstyles was mostly a fad or American fashion in DR[remember that even white folks here in America were 'perming' their hair into elaborate weird looking Afros].

- An Afrocentric consciousness is too a steep price to pay for an Afro-Dominican individual. Dominicans place family very highly, and to reject your so-called Dominican Heritage calls for a lonely road ahead for the rest of your life. Not many individuals are willing to travel that road. Yadira is a typical case of the Dominican who may be afraid to lose that Dominican identity, and perhaps travel that lonely road of rejection. She has chosen to keep her family ties and contenment by accepting what I call the 'Caribbean trilogy of race acceptance': Indian / Spaniard - European / and maybe a 'stain' of blackness way back in the past. The fact that she's coming here to this forum says a lot at the struggle of her psyche in rejecting the obvious [just look at her picture]. We have a color hierarchy in DR, just like they have in Haiti -- where Darkness sits at the bottom & lighter shades of blackness are at different levels of the pole. The lighter the less stressful and more advantageous.

- I have to run to work now. I'll go in deep into the article and the accepted terminology of "AntiHaitianismo" by Sunday, which is much more than anti-Haitianism, but rather a Negrophobe terminology. To call a Dominican, 'Haitiano' [Haitian] has the same consequences / implications of a white person calling an African-American the 'N' word here in America. Haitians are the 'bogeyman' by which nightmares are made of in DR. The story of the Haitians as written and told by the Negrophobe intellectual and former President [architect of the Haitian Massacre of 1937] Joaquin Balaguer is one that can easily be compared to the the movie the "Birth of A Nation", where the script was reversed to demonize Blacks. I will also like to talk about Black intellectual Dr. Jose Francisco Pena Gomez and his frustrations until his death to erase the assailment brought about by the white elite led by Balaguer.

PEACE

Brother Olarun,I did not want to go into a 'link' only deal, but I did so , in order that people like you, Yadira and others wouldn't say that I was making it up. But at least with the 'links', you can disagree, poke holes into what it is said, while taking the temptation for getting 'personal' out of it. See, you WERE more than free to disagree what somebody 'else' written without getting personal. See, we ARE making 'progress'. Agreeing to disagree.
Edit-with Yadira, before she posted her picture-I knew for sure that her appearance would be somebody, like Salma Hayek, Shakira, or even somewhat like an native as say likes eva mendez (I think). When I saw her picture and compared to what she previously said-I was VERRRRY disappointed. I was fully expecting somebody THAT could be mistaken for white or even native.If what I said was bad, believe me there are others would have said something a lot worse than me.

Besides, I really think that we really are learning something. We all had our own individual and personal journey to get to some semblance of 'African' or "Afro' Centricism. We all get there at different levels but I believe from the novice to the advanced-We all can stand to learn more.

Same Trip, Different Ships.

(Dominican authors and African Americans)(Interview)

Black Issues Book Review, March, 2001, by Milca Esdaille



Authors Julia Alvarez, Junot Diaz and Loida Maritza Perez talk about their distinctive Dominican heritage and their common cultural roots with African Americans

"Community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist ... it is learning how to stand alone, unpopular and sometimes reviled, and how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish."

--Audre Lorde, "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"

…Dominicans are a blend of the indigenous Taino Indians, the colonizing Spaniards and the Africans brought in chains to work the sugar plantations. Yet our claim to the Taino bloodline is as tenuous as it is ardent: by the mid-1500s only 500 Tainos had survived the merciless Spaniards.

It's our African lineage that is most enduring, still vibrant in our skin and hair. Ninety percent of the roughly ten million Dominicans, living at home and abroad, have African ancestry. This is the key link between the collective stories of African Americans and Dominicans. As a friend in college was fond of reminding me, "same trip, different ships."

When I was in college a number of racially charged incidents led me to discover that I was black, not just Latina. But my most valuable cross-cultural lessons came from books. Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston, Alice Walker and Malcolm X opened my eyes and heart. Gifted writers…, creating characters that serve as irresistible cultural guides.
__________________________________________________ ___

I recently engaged in this discussion with three gifted Dominican American writers: Julia Alvarez, a renown veteran with eleven books to her credit; Junot Diaz, who burst onto the literary scene amidst great fanfare in 1996; and newcomer Loida Maritza Perez. …they shared their views on how our two groups differ, and why we're kin.

"Latino writers stand on the shoulders of the African American writers who paved the way, …," says Alvarez. She cites "The Creation," a poem by James Weldon Johnson, with inspiring her early poetry. Lucille Clifton and June Jordan, were both influencial teachers with whom she studied. …

Drown (Riverhead, 1996), Junot Diaz' collection of short stories, was published to an avalanche of acclaim… … says Diaz. "If I had to single out the one author who had the most profound influence on my artistic and political development, I'd have to pull out Toni Morrison. Morrison fundamentally altered my entire vision of writing. She writes specifically for an African Diasporic community….; we people of African descent are her privileged audience ... the ones she is most centrally trying to dialogue with. …

Perez reminds us that our bonds transcend literary icons. "Our island was the first place on the continent to which African slaves were shipped," she says. "We share the blood of common ancestors. Language separates us, but our silence regarding our shared history also divides. We must learn from and be sensitive to each other's complex histories,…. We should refuse to be so easily fragmented--even by the unfortunate judgments some of us make about each other."

"African Americans are sometimes too quick to speak about Dominican race consciousness," says Diaz. "If we're honest, many African Americans still overvalue white characteristics and behavior. If there's one thing that ties African Americans and Dominicans together, it's our self-hatred, this tendency to value whiteness and to devalue blackness. It's a fundamental issue facing all African Diaspora communities. …

"The discussions that have emerged on the African diaspora are truly helpful," says Alvarez, "as they've opened up dialogue that supports the notion that one does not have to choose between identifying oneself as Latino or black." …Dominicans …have much work to do, too. Some of us have embraced a white racist view of African Americans we must vehemently reject." There is hope, however, as we look at the writing we've produced--both separately and together--that we are crossing the divides both in our lives, and in our literature.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________

Peace,

Sun Ship

One statement in that review that if I said it-it would have been hell to pay. "Yet our claim to Taino blood is as tenuous as it is ardent: by the mid 1500s there were only 500 Taino had survived the merciless Spaniards." When Yadira first made her claim to Indian blood, I was really thinking how can this be? Most of the Indians in the Carribbeans were wiped out by the Spaniards not too long after Columbus landed there. At least in the USA, South America, Mexico and Central America-there are still people that are identifiable as Indians or look fairly close to the original inhabitants that still exist, except in almost every island of the Carribbean. Should I have not been suspicious?
Edit-I forgot Canada. I should have not said the US, but North America.

Peace Brother yaphet al-wynn, In response to what you just posted, this is why I am, for the most part, "just" trying to post interviews, facts and information from Dominicans or about Dominicans.

Peace Brother Olorun1, your last post was very informative, honest and introspective. Maybe you can give me some insight on this community, below:



Samana: The Dominican Peninsula Of Surprises


Samana is home to a significant number of expatriated Americans. This is the direct result of early Haitian rule of the island of Hispanola (Dominican Republic or Republica Dominicana) when African slaves in the United States were offered full citizenship along with a free parcel of land, a dream not to be realized at the time in the US. Historical records indicate that as many as 6,000 to 8,000 former slaves made the trip and settled in this scenic part of the island. To this day, one is able to find significant numbers of the descendants of these original residents still here on this peninsula. Most still speak English as their first language despite Spanish being the national language of the island.



Peace

Brother Olorun1,

I want to graciously respond to some of your views and comments. I would like to first say, that I had no intention of coming off as arrogant, even though 20/20 hindsight suggest, that this could of easily been ascertained from my somewhat harsh and course response.

Sometimes, it is the heat of debate that drives my wording and not egotism.

But I found it interesting, that when you reentered the discussion, in light of the antagonistic and sarcastic responses of Sister Yadira, you interjected, immediately proclaiming the truthfulness of Yadira’s comments and assume she was being undeservingly derided. After her accusatory xenophobic diatribe (if we are to be truthful) about African Americans prejudiciously racializing the minds of black Cubans and trying to reinvent and redefine a “black” Afro-Latino social construct, I wouldn’t have thought that your response would have ignored her erroneous ideas. I know that I may have somewhat distorted your intentions, with the comment “…little history lesson”, but I felt you were ignoring the “true core” of the discourse and was reaffirming her position, by circumventing the real debate, while focusing on the triviality of historical facts and not the expressed context of the overall argument. Though your historical information was enlightening, I do not feel Yadira's position was in regard to history, but was based on the socio-psychological comforts imbued in negrophobia and the rewards to light or brown skin “mulattos” who denounce their African heredity.

But, if I was mistaken, I humbly apologize.

Now I do have some concerns about your other responses.

Quote Olorun1

*We know about Imperialism not because of a "pilmigrage to African-America….. The notion that people of color have initiated reform, nationalism and revolution in our countries because of African-America is very flawed. …African-America, we have looked back at Africa …Just look at the Kenya model and the Mau Mau, Ghana and Nkrumah, Che & Fidel in South Africa - Latin America and Cuba”
unquote

I think you try to “Latin-ize” or “Dominican-ize” my comments and I broadly, but specifically used the phrase “…people of color…”. I didn’t say we were the “exclusive” model for reform and wasn’t trying to infer a sanctimonious image in using the word “pilgrimage”, but to say that the activism and radical intellectualism of African Americans has not had an overwhelming effect on people of color and/or oppressed whites (i.e. Irish republic, eastern Europeans, etc.) for that matter, is not being exactly factual. Matter of fact, I believe Nkrumah of Ghana was profoundly influenced by his stay in Harlem and I have found it interesting that Fidel Castro has always made it his business to find ideological comfort and an audience in Harlem, when the rest of the country including some Latinos scorned him.

I have read over and over again the aspirations of struggling people worldwide, acknowledge the extraordinary human rights struggle by African Americans and how it has influence their sense of awareness and social consciousness. The foremost influence was the Civil Rights Movement, but there were even groups who call them selves “Black Panthers” among “Sephardic Jews” in Israel to Aborigines in Australia. So brother, I believe your response is flawed, not my statement. Be it the “March On Washington” or the “Million Man March”, the world has been watching and has been moved.

And with this said, African Americans have recognized Gandhi, Nkrumah, Castro, led the US boycott on South Africa and have been influenced by everyone from Fanon to Garvey.

Quote Olorun1

*This is assumption. I don't know where are you writing from, but here in NYC, Afrolatinos have a profound understanding not only of African-American history and philosophy, but even more impressive -- a deep understanding of Africa in antiquity [philosophy as well].
unquote

Brother to generalize about the profound understating of Afro-Latinos in NYC is sort of stretching it a bit. I lived in NYC for a short-stint many years ago and the only relatives I have there to this day, are Afro-Latinos. Brother, now you know that a large proportion of the Pan Afro-Latino world is not receiving the type of education and knowledge they should, about accomplishments of their African North American brothers and only a select few, usually those who have traveled to the states, be it for education or otherwise, "may" have a “profound understanding”. The last thing the U.S. and some of Latin America’s U.S. puppet governments wanted was a collective political and cultural awareness, involving oppressed Afro-Latinos and African Americans. From your own words this seems to be “part” of the problem in the Dominican Republic. And I admitted there are many African North Americans lacking in this Pan African worldview also.

Let’s take the example of you rightfully embracing African-Latino scholar, Dr. Ben; I wonder how often he has been requested to speak about African history and Egyptology in the Dominican Republic or the rest of the Latino world as compare to the venues he has had at Black colleges or at the behest of Black student unions. Afro-Latino actors and actresses have had to play African Americans in movies and so forth, because the U.S. and Latinos as a whole, have not been and are still not ready for an African looking, dark skin Latin movie star. Sometimes, those the Latino world has rejected, we have embraced.

I don’t think Dr. Ben lectures and tours all over the US are at the behest of Afro-Latinos or Latino people, as much as his invites from the African American academic community and if I remember correctly he is half Puerto Rican and half Ethiopian jew.

Quote Olorun1

*How can conciousness be limited to a chosen few? No individual [or group] holds a patent on knowlwdge and consciousness. That's the arrogance shown by the current administration when it applies to the rest of the world.
unquote

I think your response missed my statement by a mile, but still, if you are a Griot, as you have implied, be you were chosen, awakened, well studied or inspired, I think the Griot is in a world, of the unique and the few. Even with all that we have in common and can learn about each other, I believe there is unique knowledge among Afro-Latinos that is not always easily accessible to Africans outside of their cultural paradigm. And I respect that. This is not always projecting arrogance, but the difference in cultural and linguist subtleties, yet, some African Americans have received a unique spiritual and cultural dimension from their Afro-Latino brothers and vice versa, but we have deeper regions of our own spiritual and cultural psyche and ideas that is not always accessible to outsiders. As the old folks would allude to… that which is “more than just book sense”.

As you know, like language, all things are not intrinsically translatable.

Quote Olorun1

*Perhaps folks around here may need to post their resumes and academic achievements in order to be taken seriously. How do you know that I haven't acquired that "more complex understanding ......."[of African Americans]?
unquote

Maybe you have complex understandings [of us]…,But you also, have taken the position that many Afro-Latinos have endorsed, that every time African Americans comment on the racial and cultural socialization of Latinos, as you imply in one post heading …[it] "Is much more complex than that” This is echoed over and over again when African Americans try to relate to the Afro-Latino world, but when we talk about our own complexities you act like you have “a grip” of our cultural and “philosophical understanding”. Then you cite our own teachers as if they have given you “a key ”

Quote Olorun1

“Does having a double major in American Hist. / African Studies and a MA in Am. History helps a little bit in understanding you.”
unquote

Are you sure?

Now, who’s being arrogant now?

Quote Olorun1

… I'm still seeking knowledge and understandingb, but w/o the usual constraints of arrogance, misinformation and arguments w/o substance.
unquote

I will leave this comment, were it is.

But I guess in closing, I am puzzled about how you perceive what Dominicans have received from African Americans, because on one hand you seem to have received so much, along with other Dominican writers and intellectuals. But when you responded to this insert… “Emigrants to the United States brought a new level of racial consciousness to the republic…. Those who came back …experienced …black pride movement in North America. …Afro hairstyles and a variety of other Afro-North Americanisms.” You correct its assertion by claiming all they brought back was baseball money and “crack” money and fads. Now I accept your facts over this report, but it still sounds very generalizing. Are you sure that is all they received from being in the states?

Well, your thoughts, not mine.

Olorun1, This is just my response and humble opinions. I will celebrate the day every African culture embraces the writers, intellectuals and heroes of all African people, without suspicion, criticism or divisive scrutiny. We are making sacrifices everyday to stand on truth, as are progressive Dominicans. We believe in family also. How the African American family bounced back from U.S. slavery, speaks to that. We also have had an uphill battle, that still continues, as it is applies to expressing our Pan African aspirations. If you think your plight of reevaluating your African ancestry is any more complex than ours than you need to research the complexities of our journey again.


Ase!

Sun Ship

P.S. – One thing I have learned from my own personal Pan African family is our love for expressing our selves, to outsiders it always seems like a precursor, to an all-out knock down fight. As my mother once said, observing some of our Yoruba friends and relatives in friendly, but very expressive heated debate, after dinner. “So that’s where we got that from” :lol:

- Nothing but deep respect. In the course of re-connecting to ourselves again -- we'll run the rough road to unity. We are African family scattered and brutalized throughout the world, and from time to time we'll display some of the traits of our oppressor. The great thing about us is that we can quickly get back on point with the major task at hand. May I extend and olive branch of peace, and apologize for any misunderstanding, arrogant statements to you and brother yaphet. There are going to be times when we'll find ourselves walking this road again.

- As far as your last post, I feel that the difference between you and I is that I have lived both experiences [AA & DR / Latino] -- and have come to a different understanding as to the conflicts between the two groups. I can understand fully well your stand [which by the way, is consistent with the collective mindset when it comes to Dominicans by other groups] . I also can understand well Yadira's stand, as well as the most in denial dark -skinned Dominicans who want to be everything under the sun except black / African. Have you ever seen Afro-Puerto Rican baseball player Ruben "Indio" Sierra? Can you believe his nickname? Is not just a Dominican complex, but an African complex still struggling with the "Miseducation of The Negro" of Carter G. Woodson's fame.

Let’s take the example of you rightfully embracing African-Latino scholar, Dr. Ben; I wonder how often he has been requested to speak about African history and Egyptology in the Dominican Republic or the rest of the Latino world as compare to the venues he has had at Black colleges or at the behest of Black student unions. Afro-Latino actors and actresses have had to play African Americans in movies and so forth, because the U.S. and Latinos as a whole, have not been and are still not ready for an African looking, dark skin Latin movie star. Sometimes, those the Latino world has rejected, we have embraced.

I don’t think Dr. Ben lectures and tours all over the US are at the behest of Afro-Latinos or Latino people, as much as his invites from the African American academic community and if I remember correctly he is half Puerto Rican and half Ethiopian jew.

- The reason I talked about Dr. Ben, Dr. Falu, Carlos Cook and one of my heroes, Arturo Shomburg -- is because like any Afrolatino who undertakes the road to Afrocentricity - the price to pay is rejection and invisbility. In reading Shomburg in depth, one can imagine the pain he felt at this rejection. He died longing to return [accepted?] to the Puerto Rico of his childhood. He often spoke on his disillusion with the liberation movement of the two islands [Cuba & Puerto Rico] to which he belonged to, during his late teens.

Latinos [white] run the media vehicles in our world. Afrolatinos do not have economic, academic etc. power to dictate the direction or plots in movies or the projection of African faces in the media medium.


- As for the rest of your post, I think I'll leave it at that. I hope that we can continue to dialogue in order to reach a better understanding of the harm that was perpetuated not so long ago, and that which continues to keep us in a collective conflict of sort. If only we could sample our DNAs and discover how closely related we are -- then perhaps we can debate from our similarities rather than what we feel is different.

- I would like to invite you to meet a group of Brothers and Sisters who have come together under the Afrolatino banner. Please look at the substance of the core of the group, rather than the physical appearance of the forum. We have Afrolatinos from practically everywhere in Latin america as well as African Americans, Continental Africans etc, who are teaching and learning -- enroute to a better understanding of the African Diaspora and its many Stories.

http://afrolatino.community.everyone.net/community/scripts/directory.pl

PEACE & MUCH RESPECT

Do you prefer national division to racial division?

I prefer NO division actually. My two sons are people, not dominican and black, they are people. Unfortunately, viewed with a political mindset, they are black. They can call themselves whatever they feel like calling themselves. I don't really care. I only have issues when people place dominicans and any other group in one specific category that pigeonholes an entire group of people. When someone makes a blaket statment about us, I say something. You CAN'T cause you are not dominican. I can. As an INDIVIDUAL woman, I am 100% BANANA. I don't care WHAT you call yourself. You can cut and paste things from all over the internet till you are content with yourself. Other folks go to work. And, your prodding, even if it is disguised with supposedly nice words, will not pull me in- sorry. I don't hold hate in my heart. I marrried an african-american and mothered 2 by him. I love my husband for what he is and my children for whatever they want to align with. Moreover, I love ME for being ME.


Do you prefer ethnic division to color division?
Color is but one part of your genetic make-up.


Do you prefer linguistic division to cultural division?
I am what I have always been, Latina... as you are being what you have always been, Black.


Words surely do get a rise out of you, don't they. All your typing will not affect the way Latinos think. If they do, more power to you and the rest of the people in this forum. Translate all that into Spanish now. I am off to the lab.

Yadi

Sister Yadira, much has been written on this topic prior to your last post. I'm pleased to see a sister of your intellectual calibre and personal connection heavily engaged in this debate. In spite of the strong differences in opinions, I have found the discussion to be quite an interesting lesson about people's individual perceptions of who they are and what influences their opinions.

Brother Sun Ship has been one of your toughtest opponents on this topic and in one of his posts he asked you several questions of which there is one you failed to reply to. I thought it would be interesting to read your opinions on this question to see where there might be some agreement on this issue being discussed.

Quote Brother Sun Ship: "Teach me, Sister Yadira. What do Dominicans and African Americans have in common? Where can we unite?"

Pease sister and I'm looking forward to reading your response.

Queenie :spinstar:

Sun, Yadira these ARE two examples of commonality in the USA.

http://www.geocities.com/wrongfulconvictions/diaz/angerPersists.htm

http://rwor.org/a/v19/920-29/922/louima.htm

...... wondering if you have boys, sister Yadira -- and if you do: Are you teaching them to deal with the frustrations which comes with being a Black man in America? An America which is color-coded, and 'Negrophobe'. I was married to a Dominican woman with your complexion for 12 years, and remember listening to her telling my son that I was crazy -- and not to listen when I told him he was a Black man in America. She would tell him he was light brown. I asked her what was going to happen when the police stops him, or he's followed in stores or even worst -- he was stopped and frisked on more than one occasion. By the way he's a great and respectful young man -- who at 17 entered university studies and has maintained his scholarship w/ a 3.9 GPA in his sophomore year & yet he continues to be judged by what he looks like.

- I wonder if your husband feels the same as you, especially knowing the history of AAs in America . I don't mean to be intrusive in your personal life, and if you feel that way -- I apologize.

- [I] Do you prefer national division to racial division?

I don't think this discussion is about division, but rather - one of inclusion. Is about learning about what connects us rather than what divides us. Whether you call yourself Latina, Dominican etc... In the final analysis society has one treatment for people of color, regardless of language, nationality or customs. You are obviously according to your picture a Black woman in America, regardless of what you call yourself. In DR you are a 'morenita, negrita, prietica etc....' & would be treated accordingly. I respect the fact that you are telling people what your are or aren't, but the factual reality is another.

- By the way I was also born in DR, and have similar complexion as you; Black.

PEACE

Brother Olorun1, your personal insight and collective understandings are still on point.

Ashe! My brother.

Brother yaphet al-wynn, If we want to talk about pseudo-solidarity, you can go back to the 1932 Harlem riot, when the black citizens of Harlem rioted in response to an alleged beating of Lino Rivera, a 16 year old Puerto Rican young man, who was accused of stealing a pen knife, from a white owned store. Hundreds of African Americans were injured and three were killed. Now historians and revisionist can debate and contest the events that led up to the riot and the historical context, but I think, it showed that African Americans saw no difference in Afro-Latinos and themselves.

But, the before mentioned tid-bit, is just an historical teaser.

Sister NNQueen, I say this respectfully; I don’t think my olive branch request or question posed in this statement, "Teach me, Sister Yadira. What do Dominicans and African Americans have in common? Where can we unite?" is any longer relevant to, Sister Yadira, after her various responses.


You know Sister Yadi, when I look at your picture, you seem happy and might be sort of sassy (in a good kind of way) _lol.

What the little sisters use to sing on the sidewalk?
“put cha’ hands on ya’ hips and let cha’ backbone slip.” :lol:


Sister Yadi, you come to this obviously African American oriented forum, leap into the Pan African section and in that cultural and social context, you call yourself a sister (as far as gender), knowing very well what that intrinsically implies among conscious African American women and/or men. I don’t doubt that you are a sister, if not just only, a Dominican sister.

After looking at your picture, it is sad, that everyone but you knows, that you have “some” African ancestry.

Sister Yadi, regardless of what you THINK YOU KNOW about your heritage, sister, I have studied genealogy over 25+ years, and knowing your genetic and cultural makeup, is not as simple as, knowing your genealogical history.

Believe me African Americans can "naturally" see, some of the anthropometrics and physiognomies that imply, West African ancestry.




Now, what does this next statement suppose to mean?

“…one specific category that pigeonholes an entire group of people.”

I think when you say, you are “100% Dominicana” or 100% anything, you are contradicting yourself.
YOU have just pigeonholed yourself!!!

Here you go again:

“You CAN'T cause you are not dominican,”

Sister, that’s why I decided to post the views of other Dominicans; I think there is a growing number of progressive thinking Dominicans that agree more with me, than you. (as it pertains to this subject)

I find this statement is sort of cute :lol:, “Other folks go to work…”.

I guess you are implying I don’t work (?) :lol:
Is this some sort of racist negrophobic stereotyping? :lol:


Sister I have worked for myself and have been independent, probably twice as long, than you have had a job. And there are Black men like me, who have probably made more money in a day, than you have made in a week.

The fact that you are married to a Black man, is meaningless, when it comes to your case of “genetic deniability” that is revealed in your statements and this debate. There has always been a peculiar socialization in this cultural/color/racial paradigm of how people can marry or have affairs with someone from a group, that they despise or are xenophobic about.

I am going to assume that Sister NNQueen statement is correct, about you:

“I'm pleased to see a sister of your intellectual caliber…”

I mean, she might have interacted with you in the "live" chatrooms or you might have said some very intelligent and insightful things in some other threads, but I hope this is not because of your PhD. Though I am overly pleased and grateful when any African American, Afro-Latino or Latino can achieve, in what is sometimes a uphill battle, but in all my travels, interactions and conversations, I have come to understand that higher learning and intelligence don’t necessarily go hand in hand, let alone wisdom and understanding.

Now, I’ m not calling you an “educated fool” or anything. I can go to the local universities and find them.

But I’ll repeat what an old man once said, about “some” people, “It’s one thing to be called a fool, but it’s another thing to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Now, don’t take that personally Yadi, because there are some who would say, I am probably the most certifiable of fools, for trying to have an intelligent discourse with you and people who think like you.

Sister you can respond to this post if you like, but you need to think about what a Pan African forum and the other top forums here are trying to accomplish, (such as, Black Women - Sisters – Warriors). Even though misguided white liberals, miseducated negroes, mulattosized colored folks, black neo-con’s and negrophobic Latinos have the right to post their opinions at these forums, but I hope they know there are probably plenty other forums that whole-heartedly support many of their naïve and non-progressive views.

A few examples to ponder:

The Mulatto People
http://www.mulatto.cjb.net/

Tan Americans of Natirah Ancestry
http://hometown.aol.com/Natirah/H74MX.TXT.html

Here is one supposedly, coming soon:
http://lightskinpeople.com



Peace,

Brother Sun Ship

You just really want to prove your point. I quipped on your comment that we are not VERY Black. If you understand subtleties then you would know that a majority of us are BROWN with whites and then blacks. Not all brownness is due to African genes. Some is and some isn't. That is the truth not something made up to make someone "feel good". I never denied that we have African heritage. My point was that we are an admixture of MANY other things. We have Arawak blood in Hispañola/Quisqueya, as well as Dutch, African, Spanish, Libyan, Lebanese, Arabic, French, etc. All of these are present in varying degrees as well. To say we look VERY Black is a generalization that does not deserve any real intelligent response. Many who want to create their own realities point out that Arawaks were annhiliated just to show how overly-African we are.

Sorry, if we choose to do things the way we want to do them. You don't like no one to tell you what to do, neither do we. Call us whatever you want to call US, get mad til your purple in the face- the reality is what it IS. We do not deny having Black in our people, but it is not all that we are made up of.

Furthermore- Brazilian culture is a Portuguese-speaking one and, like Spanish, that is a Latin-based language. Who do the Portuguese share a border with? Ding, ding, ding! Portuguese customs, etc. are similar to Spanish ones.



The term afrocuban is from the US. Ask the white Cubans in Florida. Its popularity is due to resurgence of African interests by Americans. Cubans did not use that term until white Florida Cubans (some who retain racist ideology) defined them as such. Seems like many Latins who come here or are born here tend to get their brains washed in the American laundromat. Go to the "lovely" islands and there is more pride than not in our differences. All isn't perfect cause even Trujillo had a problem with who he was (a mulatto). But, "Hispanicization" is not as rampant as you may think. Everyone doesn't aspire to run away from themselves. That, in itself, is a generalization and shows how shallowly one group of people views another. I am very proud of my rich color and appearance. If I had any black genes in me, wonderful. But, I know my personal history for the last couple of hundred years and that isn't evident. And, I don't like to pretend to be something I am not.

Panafrica, I reacted to Yaphet's generalization with another one. I landed here because my husband saved this link on the Favorites list. As far as trying to convince anyone, I don't think we have anything to prove. I saw a lot of misinformation being generalized, so I jumped right in. My "protest" comes from DR and Uptown Manhattan where I was born and grew up. Furthermore, speaking some Spanish or being around Dominicans is not your key to understanding our culture. America's arrogance is such that Americans think they can define the rest of the world for the rest of us. Unfortunately, this attitude seems to permeate all Americans regardless of culture or color. If you born and bred here, you tend to think like one. Even the idea that the U.S. alone is "AMERICA" is arrogant. As if the rest of us are not.

I am VERY Latina and I am quite aware of what is going on. We are mixed with a lot of things and our approach to dealing with racism is most certainly not as extreme as it is here in the United Snakes. If you want to align yourself with a "Black-only" mentality, then you would probably do best to work around us, because it would be futile to convince Latin americans that we should love black and hate white. I don't see that happening, our ideologies are moving away from that.
DOminicans don't look AFrican, I gotcha... Sammy Sosa looks like an eskimo. You must be out or your mind Negress

Well, Puerto Ricans in general do acknowledge African roots in them even if they are lilly white. Dominicans as a whole are different in that they look VERY Black, not saying all Dominicans but some will come out and say they are not Black in a Clarence Thomas sort of way. African Cubans are about 50/50 in acknowledging they are Black. Haitians(Creoles) mostly do identify as Black quicker than some Creoles in New Orleans LA. Not all cases are the same as I stated but some in the Diaspora and even some native African (pick a country) do not want to identify with us as Black or even African Anmerican, strange but true.
Edit-Well what I said may be said before. But in general, Black people from French speaking cultures are very friendly (based on my experiences with several Haitians and one from Martinique).

This is the thing that set Yadira off!! Maybe I should have started off that this WAS MY experience at the beginning of this as I had at the ending. But since Yadira KNOWS my experience WITHOUT asking me-she is good. Besides, I about Puerto Ricans. Got that from someone's who IS Puerto Rican high UP in the organization that I work for-Social Security in the EEO. Also, there WAS one Puerto Rican female that WORKED here a few years ago, that said she WAS Black. She was like Mariah Carey in her complexion. Could be mistaken for white on some days and some days like a light skinned Black female.But since Yadira KNOWS my experiences so that she could tell me I'm wrong!!! :look: :spinn: :spinn: :look: On the Dominicans, the links that Sun supplied(and Olarun somewhat acknowleging SOME of its validity) and Yadira herself(on the Clarence Thomas thing) both are making me look like I WAS right without knowing it!!!!

Dark Skin is not a coincidence!! If your complexion ranges from golden caramel to mahogany brown to ebony night....then someone in your family slept with an African. :lol: While many try to deny this, it it obvious. White + Red does not Equal Brown. Nor does any other color combination, unless one of the components is black. If Yadira believes she has no African blood then that is her right. However like I said before, Yadira is at least 4 shades darker than myself, and whites have not corrupted my genes for 100 years. How is this possible? Strange Coincidence? Dark Indians? Dark Spaniards? I think not!!

Quote Brother Sun Ship

Now, I’ m not calling you an “educated fool” or anything. I can go to the local universities and find them.

But I’ll repeat what an old man once said, about “some” people, “It’s one thing to be called a fool, but it’s another thing to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Now, don’t take that personally Yadi, because there are some who would say, I am probably the most certifiable of fools, for trying to have an intelligent discourse with you and people who think like you.

unquote

Meaning no disrespect....but this was funny. :lol:

"wondering if you have boys, sister Yadira -- and if you do: Are you teaching them to deal with the frustrations which comes with being a Black man in America?"

maybe you think "two sons" is not clear enough...

"An America which is color-coded, and 'Negrophobe'."

They have a father who can fill them in on all the tidbits of that aspect of them.

"I was married to a Dominican woman with your complexion for 12 years"

Suddenly.

"and remember listening to her telling my son that I was crazy -- and not to listen when I told him he was a Black man in America. She would tell him he was light brown. I asked her what was going to happen when the police stops him, or he's followed in stores or even worst -- he was stopped and frisked on more than one occasion. By the way he's a great and respectful young man -- who at 17 entered university studies and has maintained his scholarship w/ a 3.9 GPA in his sophomore year & yet he continues to be judged by what he looks like."

I guess you married an unrealistic person. You need to take that up with your "supposed" ex-wife.

"I wonder if your husband feels the same as you, especially knowing the history of AAs in America ."

I don't have anything against being BLACK. If you want to speak on racial issues by all means speak for YOURSELF. I married a man who I thought was a wonderful human being. You are attempting to pull strings and am "string-less".


- [I] Do you prefer national division to racial division?

I don't think this discussion is about division, but rather - one of inclusion. Is about learning about what connects us rather than what divides us. Whether you call yourself Latina, Dominican etc... In the final analysis society has one treatment for people of color, regardless of language, nationality or customs. You are obviously according to your picture a Black woman in America, regardless of what you call yourself. In DR you are a 'morenita, negrita, prietica etc....' & would be treated accordingly. I respect the fact that you are telling people what your are or aren't, but the factual reality is another.

- By the way I was also born in DR, and have similar complexion as you; Black.


Bueno si eres negra aya tu, throw a party for yourself. Yo sigo siendo lo que soy- de raza indigena. Todo las personas en RD no son de la raza negra. Accusing someone you do NOT know is obviously not beneath you. You speak withOUT knowing who I am. Mi piel no tiene nada que ver con esto.


You can all sit here and have each other's back, that's fine. Continue to cut and paste and believe yourselves vindicated.

PEACE.

Sister Yadira ... Welcome ... :wave:

Thank you for joining us and sharing. Actually, you bring this topic full circle, after almost 200 posts!

Originally i posted this thread because in another thread, Black Male Shortage - Myth or Reality (http://www.destee.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12213), a Sister said the following:

"Sisters better take notice...there will be more women looking at the Black man...namely the latino women."

I got the impression from her comment, that Black Men that date Latino / Dominican women ... should be considered the same ... as Brothers that date White (non-Black) women ... the bottomline being that we (Black Women) lose another Black Man.

I on the other hand, with my very limited knowledge of this stuff, thought that a Brother is really with a Sister anyway, if he is with a "Latino," so it's not like we "lost" him.

But then you join, confirming her position, that we have in fact lost another Brother to a non-Black person!?

Am i understanding you properly?

Actually, much like White women (non-Black), you join us announcing that you are not Black, while at the same time making sure we know you have a Black man. I don't know why, but many White women do this too. Weird.

Anyway, the only difference between you and them, is that you look Black. I guess that's kinda like folk "sound'n Black" ... hmmmm ... can't really tell no moe' ... i don't reckon.

I had no idea my simple question would be the catalyst for so much discussion, sharing, learning, etc. ... thank you all for contributing to it.

Again, Sister Yadira ... Welcome! Please make yourself at home.

:heart:

Destee

Dr. Samuel Betances

African-Americans and Hispanics/Latinos: Eliminating Barriers to Coalition Building

Dr. Samuel Betances
Professor of Sociology, Northeastern Illinois University

(Published in The State of Black Hartford. Stanley Battle, Editor Hartford, CT: The Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc., 1993.)


"Because of historical bloody confrontation with Haitians across the Dominican border in the island of Hispanola, and since Haitians are perceived to be more Negroid, the Dominicans exaggerate their lighter mestizo and white heritage as connecting them to Europe via Spain rather than to Black Africa. This tendency is true in spite of the large masses of Negroid looking Dominicans. The political leaders of the Dominican Republic have almost all been white European looking. This illustrates more concretely their ideal aspirations on the issue of race."


Awl... man, I did it again Yadira. I must be possessed!! I keep cutting and pasting, excerpts from articles, about Dominicans.
Help me, Yadira.

HELP!!!!!

This issue is something I became aware of, some years ago and I only interject it into this thread because, I think this is the real culprit that is birthed from xenophobia and negrophobia, along with dehumanization.


United Nations Economic and Social Council
Commission on Human Rights
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery

23rd Session

Geneva May 1998


Forced labour on sugar cane plantations
in the Dominican Republic



Following many years of international complaints by Anti-Slavery International and others concerning the forced recruitment and terrible working conditions of thousands of Haitian workers on the state sugar cane plantations, the Dominican Republic Government updated its labour code in 1992 to protect workers by inter alia:

the introduction of the obligation to pay workers in cash and not in the form of vouchers or other payment and by the prohibition of employment of children under fourteen years of age. The new Code also legalised the formation of unions and the right to strike. - Dominican Republic Decree 400-17-90



Following the introduction of this law there was evidence that there had been a significant reduction in the numbers of children working on the sugar cane plantations and that trade unions had been allowed to recruit on the estates. However, it has been clear for some time that the new Code is still not being fully implemented and the recruitment and employment conditions of many Haitians working on government-owned sugar cane plantations are still in contravention of both the UN 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, and the ILO Convention 29 on Forced Labour. Both of these have been ratified by the Dominican Republic.

How Race Counts for Hispanic Americans
John R. Logan
Lewis Mumford Center
University at Albany
July 14, 2003



For nearly half the black Hispanic children, one of the parents is non-Hispanic black. In many of the remaining cases, one parent is identified as black Hispanic, while the other parent is white Hispanic or Hispanic Hispanic.

This result suggests that intermarriage is the most important source of the black Hispanic population, with a strong likelihood of having a non-Hispanic black parent.

White Hispanics are less segregated from non-Hispanic whites than from non-Hispanic blacks. They typically live in neighborhoods that are almost as white (39.6%) as they are Hispanic (43.8%), and where only a small share of the population is non-Hispanic black (9.3%). Black Hispanics are the most segregated from whites, and their segregation from blacks is unusually low. They live in neighborhoods where there are nearly as many black (28.2%) as white residents (34.0%).

Hispanic Hispanics are as segregated from blacks as are white Hispanics, but at the same time they are more segregated from whites.


Compared to other Hispanic groups, black Hispanics’ neighborhoods have the lowest median income, the highest share of poor residents, and the lowest share of homeowners.

Again a comparison with non-Hispanic blacks is useful. Their typical neighborhood has a median income of $36,200 and a poverty rate of 20.4% -- almost the same as black Hispanics, and quite distinct from white Hispanics. However, their neighborhoods have higher levels of homeownership (52.8%) and lower shares of immigrants and non-English-language speakers.

Black Hispanics potentially provide a bridge between the black and Hispanic communities. On the basis of social similarity, if it is necessary to combine them with another group, there are now better reasons to classify black Hispanics as black than as Hispanic.



Peace

Again,

"Black Hispanics potentially provide a bridge between the black and Hispanic communities. On the basis of social similarity, if it is necessary to combine them with another group, there are now better reasons to classify black Hispanics as black than as Hispanic."


"Black Hispanics potentially provide a bridge between the black and Hispanic communities.....social similarity...there are now better reasons to classify black Hispanics as black than as Hispanic."



THIS is what I've been talking about throughout this thread!!!!

THIS is the white man's fear!!!

WAKE UP BLACK PEOPLE!!!

Ashe!!

"Black Hispanics potentially provide a bridge between the black and Hispanic communities.....social similarity...there are now better reasons to classify black Hispanics as black than as Hispanic."

People have to WANT to be classified. Have a wonderful time convincing people who have deep roots in their own cultures. They may acknowledge their Blackness, but Latin-ness is the glue which holds us all together. No matter how messed up slavery has left our societies, we are not on the road to perdition.

It seems as if Black Americans have this desire to point out the Blackness of the world, but when half the world decides to show pride in their Blackness, there are alot of Blacks who say "You think you are Black, you think you down". It gets played. Enough with the being colorstruck crap and that goes for Dominicans or ANYONE who feels like that.

Trujillo was a horrible piece of doo doo. No one can deny his messed up ways. That is him and government BS. Myself, I never had an issue with Blackness and I am not running away from something I am not. DR is a mulatto & a mesitzo country. African and Arawak and Spanish and French etc. But, my initial response was that there are many other folks here ALSO. Some look like me others look dark with african features others blonde with blue eyes. They are all Dominican. There shouldn't anything wrong with that. Seems like there is a lot of convincing going around here. You can say all you want, people will continue being what they have always been. That's really about the size of it. In saying that is not denying Africanness to our country. I have no idea where some folks here are getting this from. Maybe you should worry about fixing what is wrong with your culture before you come trying to prove a point with anyone else. You are not the watchdog of the world. Being under White America so much maybe you acting in very much the same way- arrogant.

I guess if you are looking for fire- you will see the match lit.

As for Destee, if you feel you have lost another Black man, oh well. This is how you view the world. I cannot tell you how to see things. What is the point of a Black marrying a non-Black? Aren't African Americans already mixed with a whole bunch of stuff? This is not an issue with me. I am married with a family and all is thankfully well. Color never had anything to do with it, but if you say so- then I guess you will make it a point to make an issue out of it. It is not that stressful for me. Like I said- I hold no hate in my heart.

As for Destee, if you feel you have lost another Black man, oh well. This is how you view the world. I cannot tell you how to see things. I am married with a family and all is thankfully well. Color has nothing to do with it, but if you say so, then I guess you will make it a point to make an issue out of it. SunShip can continue standing on his soapbox. It is not that stressful for me.

No Sister Yadira, i don't feel i've lost anything, and i said that in my previous post.

You say, "Color has nothing to do with it," yet you joined us posting the fact that your color is not Black and your husband's is. Why mention these things if color has nothing to do with it?

:heart:

Destee

Sister Yadi, the progressively intellectual Dominican and Afro-Latino community has made my case for me. Your thinking is part of a world that has seen its day. There are plenty of mulatto web sites that will embrace your beliefs. But, we welcome you to comment and share here, anytime.

The evidence is clear; the Pan African diasporic world is reclaiming itself and finding common ground.

If you want to represent yourself here as Spaniard/Arawak than I hope you have something to contribute to this forum, that is useful.
You are not Afro-Latino. And that's a good thing.

Tell us something about being an Arawak Indian or a Spaniard?
Most African Americans have some Amerindian ancestry, tell us something about Native Americans that we can relate to?

Tell us something that could interest us about you being a Dominicana?

Tell us something that we don’t know?

Most of the people that you are debating with have contributed to many subjects, along with subjects mostly pertaining to African Americans.

This is a forum oriented toward Black people of African descent.

I will not no longer assume you are of African descent. Because you are not. As you have said, you are 100% Banana.

Tell me something about Bananas. You have my undivided attention. :)

Peace,

Brother Sun Ship

Sister Yadi, I will not no longer assume you are of African descent. Because you are not. As you have said, you are 100% Banana. Tell me something about Bananas. You have my undivided attention.

If I might interject my opinion on this Brother Sun Ship, I know quite a bit about Bananas. This is a fruit that Africans share with their South American & Caribbean brothers and sisters. In West Africa bananas are blended with baking power & flour then fried. This is a breakfast dish called Mackara. Africans share a love of plantains with Latinos. These can be fried or boiled. They can be covered with sauces or cheeses. Actually bananas is one of a number of diets that Africans & Latinos share. Both peoples love of rice is legendary, and both love beans. In truth the similarities between the two diets should not be surprising because many of these were brought over from African Slaves................Oh, I sorry I didn't want to go there. I might offend our non-Black/Pan-African "Brothers & Sisters". Carry on Sun Ship. You are doing a fine job. :wink:

See this article,if it works-
http://www.barnesreview.org/Sept_2003/Hispaniola/hispaniola.html

See this one, scroll down to an article posted by someone-

http://www.banana-coconut.com/ape****/archives/2003/12/23/00262.php

Now banana, in looking it up is a 'racial slur' (on most sites I've seen so far) that is how most Blacks or African Americans use 'oreo' against fellow Blacks or African Americans, except banana is used by Asians to denote a similar thing involving other Asians.
In the other 'article' the term banana or ripe banana is used by Haitians. Maybe Yadira can straighten us out on how it is used to denote people in the Dominican Republic.


Edit-the second WILL not work, because a word is censored. But that word is in the URL.
Anyhow if you have time or patience-key into yahoo.com-the phrase,"banana as a racial term used in the dominican republic".

I'd like to add my opinion as to what I see happening with this discussion. If I'm wrong Sister Yadira, please correct me but from what I've read of your comments, your reason for entering this discussion was not because you identify with us, African Americans, but to merely say that YOU do not identify as an Afro-Latina. I think I also see you conveying that you don't judge those among your Dominican heritage that do self-identify as Afro-Latinos. Am I correct? If I am correct, then I think the rest of us should (and some do) accept your opinion.

I think sufficient proof has been offered on a number of occasions to safely believe that not all Latinos think alike because many do recognize their African heritage that pre-dates their Latino heritage. You are correct, it is not up to us to debate with you about how you perceive yourself. We should all have that right.

Can we agree that the world is changing and so are the people in it? You have pointed out that it seems that "Black Americans have this desire to point out the Blackness of the world, but when half the world decides to show pride in their Blackness, there are alot of Blacks who say "You think you are Black, you think you down".

You know Yadira, this may be true in some instances, but I'm not sure how widespread this sentiment is among African Americans, particularly those that are more knowledgeable about the anthropological history of Africans and peoples around the world. So I wouldn't necessarily agree that African Americans are "colorstruck" as you define us. I would venture to say that much of how African Americans think is caused by how they've been treated due to their race. Melanin--facts are facts and can't be denied, regardless of how one thinks about themself. I would imagine there are many people who are walking around today, denying their African roots by trying to explain their tanned skin in different ways. But does it really change the facts?

I'm pleased that you take time out of your schedule to visit with us Yadira, and that you also see fit to share your opinions with us. As witnessed here, your writings have been fertilizer for some great discussion and I've learned a lot about my Afro-Latino brothers and sisters in the struggle. We gladly welcome them into our family here, and you too, if you decide to remain with us.

I hope that we can continue to have this dialogue in ways that are meaningful and uplifting. Several times I've sensed a flippant attitude expressed among us and often that can be debilitating to any further good human relations.

Sister Yadira, do you see anything that Africans and Dominicans have in common? Given your inter-cultural marriage, I'm curious to know what cultural perspective does your husband have and do you both see any value in teaching your sons about their diverse backgrounds? Also, what language(s) do you speak in the home?

Peace,
Queenie :spinstar:

Come to think of it,in what context is ripe banana by the Haitians?
Come to think of it, a ripe banana (to me) is yellow sometimes with brown spots, overripened is brown, rotten is black. Is my observation correct?

"Black Hispanics potentially provide a bridge between the black and Hispanic communities.....social similarity...there are now better reasons to classify black Hispanics as black than as Hispanic."

People have to WANT to be classified. Have a wonderful time convincing people who have deep roots in their own cultures. They may acknowledge their Blackness, but Latin-ness is the glue which holds us all together. No matter how messed up slavery has left our societies, we are not on the road to perdition.

It seems as if Black Americans have this desire to point out the Blackness of the world, but when half the world decides to show pride in their Blackness, there are alot of Blacks who say "You think you are Black, you think you down". It gets played. Enough with the being colorstruck crap and that goes for Dominicans or ANYONE who feels like that.

Trujillo was a horrible piece of doo doo. No one can deny his messed up ways. That is him and government BS. Myself, I never had an issue with Blackness and I am not running away from something I am not. DR is a mulatto & a mesitzo country. African and Arawak and Spanish and French etc. But, my initial response was that there are many other folks here ALSO. Some look like me others look dark with african features others blonde with blue eyes. They are all Dominican. There shouldn't anything wrong with that. Seems like there is a lot of convincing going around here. You can say all you want, people will continue being what they have always been. That's really about the size of it. In saying that is not denying Africanness to our country. I have no idea where some folks here are getting this from. Maybe you should worry about fixing what is wrong with your culture before you come trying to prove a point with anyone else. You are not the watchdog of the world. Being under White America so much maybe you acting in very much the same way- arrogant.

I guess if you are looking for fire- you will see the match lit.

As for Destee, if you feel you have lost another Black man, oh well. This is how you view the world. I cannot tell you how to see things. What is the point of a Black marrying a non-Black? Aren't African Americans already mixed with a whole bunch of stuff? This is not an issue with me. I am married with a family and all is thankfully well. Color never had anything to do with it, but if you say so- then I guess you will make it a point to make an issue out of it. It is not that stressful for me. Like I said- I hold no hate in my heart.


The contradictions here are astounding. If color is not an issue with you, why are you on an african centered forum. Indeed why have you spent so much time playing down the issue of color. Typically, most white people claim to be color blind. Interesting

I'd like to add my opinion as to what I see happening with this discussion. If I'm wrong Sister Yadira, please correct me but from what I've read of your comments, your reason for entering this discussion was not because you identify with us, African Americans, but to merely say that YOU do not identify as an Afro-Latina. I think I also see you conveying that you don't judge those among your Dominican heritage that do self-identify as Afro-Latinos. Am I correct? If I am correct, then I think the rest of us should (and some do) accept your opinion.

I think sufficient proof has been offered on a number of occasions to safely believe that not all Latinos think alike because many do recognize their African heritage that pre-dates their Latino heritage. You are correct, it is not up to us to debate with you about how you perceive yourself. We should all have that right.

Can we agree that the world is changing and so are the people in it? You have pointed out that it seems that "Black Americans have this desire to point out the Blackness of the world, but when half the world decides to show pride in their Blackness, there are alot of Blacks who say "You think you are Black, you think you down".

You know Yadira, this may be true in some instances, but I'm not sure how widespread this sentiment is among African Americans, particularly those that are more knowledgeable about the anthropological history of Africans and peoples around the world. So I wouldn't necessarily agree that African Americans are "colorstruck" as you define us. I would venture to say that much of how African Americans think is caused by how they've been treated due to their race. Melanin--facts are facts and can't be denied, regardless of how one thinks about themself. I would imagine there are many people who are walking around today, denying their African roots by trying to explain their tanned skin in different ways. But does it really change the facts?

I'm pleased that you take time out of your schedule to visit with us Yadira, and that you also see fit to share your opinions with us. As witnessed here, your writings have been fertilizer for some great discussion and I've learned a lot about my Afro-Latino brothers and sisters in the struggle. We gladly welcome them into our family here, and you too, if you decide to remain with us.

I hope that we can continue to have this dialogue in ways that are meaningful and uplifting. Several times I've sensed a flippant attitude expressed among us and often that can be debilitating to any further good human relations.

Sister Yadira, do you see anything that Africans and Dominicans have in common? Given your inter-cultural marriage, I'm curious to know what cultural perspective does your husband have and do you both see any value in teaching your sons about their diverse backgrounds? Also, what language(s) do you speak in the home?

Peace,
Queenie :spinstar:
NNQueen,

I seriously doubt that Yadira is concerned about the commonalities between blacks and dominicans. She's exerted a tremendous amount of energy showing how different her culture is from AA's. She has had ample opportunities to elaborate. It is clear to me that people like her are hear to go out of their way, that their slave master is better than ours.

Spare your diplomacy sistah, you don't really thinks she cares about your overtures... do you?

:D__I have rarely, if ever had the desire or need to correct my Sister NNQueen :bowdown: and have been an ardent advocate of intrinsic Pan African culturalism and African peoplehood as appose to "just" racialization. And have many times denoted that this universal collective identifier, known to the world as, the “Black people” as being quasi-political and also an ancient anthropological paradigm (original homo-sapiens) of significant international, historical and sociological usefulness.

But in quoting you, my sister Queenie, as relating to your post and question to sister Yadi:

“Given your inter-cultural marriage,…?”

unquote


I think Sister; the term “inter-racial” would be more apropos or relevant than “inter-cultural” as it applies to our non-black, Latina sister of color, Yadira, aka “La Bananita” .

This is my most humble opinion and will be posting my introspective knowledge about bananas in the very near future, in response to Brother panafrica’s enlightening and delectable information, on this most urgent subject. :D

Man, what I love about Bananas…..:tongue: ummmm. I just can’t wait to opine.

Please send any and all response concerning this post to the International Sisterhood of Nergrophobic Non-black House-Negroes ISNNBHN or to the their legal representatives, the law firm, Stepan', Fetchit, Mantan & Rochcester.


Peace,

Brother Sun Ship



P.S. - Hey sister Yadi, I 've changed the letters in your name from black to brown, check it out. Did I get the color right or do you think I need the change the font also. ___Peace

I'm sitting here laughing as I type this because you don't know how long I debated over using the term "inter-cultural" versus "inter-racial" in my last message to Sister Yadira. :lol: Anyway, guess what? If anyone was going to challenge me on the use of that word, I knew it would be you. :) So, don't concern yourself over having to disagree with me from time-to-time. That's how we all learn and grow. As always when I read you, I've learned something of great importance. Thank you. :teach:

Brother Sekhemu . . . greetings! You know, you ask a very good question. I'm sitting here scratching my head because I guess I'm not sure what it is that I expect of our sister from the DR, but I hope that she can find it in her power to share some of her perspective in terms of building bridges as opposed to dividing us as a people and on such thin thread. Well, we can always hope that those who find importance in coming here to exchange ideas, can do so with some semblance of civility and objectivity.

Peace,
Queenie :heart:

- I'm very much familiar with your self-hatred sickness. I refuse to go down to your level of absurdity by specifically replying to your post. Your sickness is so advanced that you've decided to deride me in typical Dominican fashion / veranacular:

Bueno si eres negra aya tu, throw a party for yourself. Yo sigo siendo lo que soy- de raza indigena. Todo las personas en RD no son de la raza negra. Accusing someone you do NOT know is obviously not beneath you. You speak withOUT knowing who I am. Mi piel no tiene nada que ver con esto.

Translation:
*Well if you're black [female - I'm male] is on you, throw a party for yourself. I continue to be of indigenous race / [stock]. Not everyone in DR are from the black race. Accusing someone you do NOT know is obviously not beneath you. You speak withOUT knowing who I am. My skin has nothing to do with this.

- I think the time has come to cutoff the 'back & forth' with you. Is definitely counter-productive to continue with this nonsense. You have a huge problem making a fool out yourself, posting your picture and then calling yourself indigenous. In the island of Hispaniola [DR ? Haiti], by 1560 the Arawaks / Tainos which you so proudly choose to identify with were completely eliminated from the island by your Spaniards.
The more you write, the more you reveal of yourself, and what's showing is real silly and ugly. How do you come to an Afrocentric forum with such hostility -- when everyone has welcome you as family? Oh well, this is the last you'll hear from me to you. You need to be de-programed, look in the mirror once in a while. :look:

Why I came in here is the first place is because of a commentary someone made. Where it has escalated to was due to where YOU ALL have decided to take it. I don't really have to point out anything about my heritage, but remember how this conversation took root. So, now you have reduced yourselves to ridiculing because you cannot understand that someone knows herself and is ok with that. You call it self-hatred. So, believe what you must in order to feel vindicated. I never insulted African-Americans, but you attempt to defame me- furthering your rant by calling Dominicans a "racist people". A "people" aren't racist- individuals are. And, simply because I point out that ALL Dominicans are NOT afro-descended you have turn this into sour soup. I am not racist- sorry. Nor have I been raised to be that way. But, if I point out how I am married to an African-American- you will find something to say about that, as well. Insecurity drives individuals to say all kinds of things. This is no sweat off my brow. I should have realized how unlearned individuals react to those who don't follow their suit.

Olorun1, you are definitely not the scholar beause your facts are OFF. Maybe it IS a good thing that you become silent. Study history, not the internet. Opinions are all over the web, truth unfortunately is NOT. Not ALL people have a problem with accepting their "negritud". Don't get upset just cause everyone doesn't agree with you. There are Indigenous people still around, you know- and they have mixed with all sorts of people Black and White. For PanAfrica who thinks that White and Brown doesn't make Brown- you don't seem to understand genes and how they work. Also, remember that Arawaks are equatorial- and are much darker than your North American types. But, stay within your scope, it suits you to be unbending and rigid in your PAN views. Right.

Furthermore- just like there are Latino people who align with Africa, there are others who align with Indigenous America. All in all, we are still bound by our Latin-ness. Some folks may have their own issues, but those who are sentient and able to understand things without resorting to emotional baiting- rise beyond this. But, continue with your blanketed statements and attempts at ridicule. I appreciate the jokes you make out of those who describe their Indigenous ancestry. All the previous posts here serve as an example to other Latinos who see the HATE exuded by a forum supposedly here to build and teach. You want support for your causes, but can't support other oppressed people- simply because they ALSO have agendas. The "hostility" you describe is when someone posts inflammatory comments such as how white women smell like dogs- then sit around and laugh about it. This is what you would I guess call adult and mature. I see what this forum is really about. I read around before I posted and intended on sharing knowledge and wisdom, but for WHAT? This leads to flippancy and what is the best way to make a person feel bad about themselves- make fun of their beliefs. You want me to speak on unity, but you have afforded me NO space to do so. Instead, you launch an all-out attack on someone who simply disagreed.

You attribute knowledge of self as ignorance. Aya tu. I guess in typical Dominican fashion, mandate la banana por donde te da la gana- and you can translate that with whatever internet tool you want or have a Latino friend do it for you again. I do not act hostile and I have NOT acted in such manner at ANY point in this conversation. Meanwhile you disguise a welcome wagon with a railroading of a person's beliefs about self- and THAT is supposed to be OK. Right. This is baiting someone to get some form of emotional response.

You are right. This is obviously a waste of time. Go ahead trying to convince the rest of Latin America how you feel. We have defined ourselves and will deal with racism our own way. Your hate of others and subsequent ridicule doesn't penetrate the way we deal with ourselves in life. Keep driving the wedge deeper- I will still sleep well at night next to the PERSON I love.

I think this time Yadira, African Americans and African-Latino's (including the Afro-Dominicanos) will deal with their own solutions, not the other way around.

Slavery, is over sister.

Even Massa's House-Negroes are in revolt.

So you better get on board. Before they burn down the Big House.

As James Baldwin said, "fire next time"

Quote Yadira:

"A "people" aren't racist- individuals are."

unquote


I guess sister Yadi has never heard of "systemic racism"

And she call US unlearnt. Please, read your post very carefully sister Yadi, you're constantly contradicting yourself.

Sister Yadi,

As far as the 100% pure bloodlines of pre-columbian indios, you might want to be careful about your assumptions, until you read;

They Came Before Columbus
by Ivan Van Sertima.

This book was written by an award winning scholar. He deals with the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence of African people in the Caribbean, and in Central and South America, before Columbus. The pre-Mayan culture, the Olmecs, circa 800BC is the most known of these civilizations of pre-columbian Africans. Their colossal stone heads are all over central america.


I was studying Yadi, way before the internet gave me access to knowledge.


Peace

It's way too late to speak sense now. You were having such a good time in your mockery- continue.

I can't be bothered with this forum anymore.

If you want out, let me help you with the links below.

1.) First, put on your high heel slippers

(hopefully, a pair that goes with that hot dress your'e wearing in your photo.)

2.) Put your computer mouse in your hand

3.) hold the mouse firmly, but not too tight

4.) take a deep breath and focus

5.) Now, all you have to do is click your heals and repeat after me:


There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home


Now, immediately click on one of the links below, before you turn black !!!!

The Mulatto People
http://www.mulatto.cjb.net/

Tan Americans of Natirah Ancestry
http://hometown.aol.com/Natirah/H74MX.TXT.html

Here is one supposedly, coming soon:
http://lightskinpeople.com

Interracial voice
http://www.webcom.com/intvoice/welcome.html



Sister Yadi, I enjoyed the debate. It's been a riot. :lol: and you know how Black folks love to riot. :lol:


Peace and Ashe,

Sun Ship :)



PS - Well forum family, I hope she made it through the black hole of internet linking, because you know, once you go black, you can never go back.

Ooops...did I say that. :D

Sun, I wish Yadira would not leave. She has been entertaining (in a Rush Limbaugh kind of way-I hope that she is not into painkillers-did I say that?) Seriously, as you pointed out that there is evidence of Africans or Negroids being among the pre-Colombian Indians in the Carribbean. Another matter (since it is Black History month), another tidbit that would freak Yadira out (along with those dirty Black Negroids mingling with those Indians before the Spanish showed up). If her white ancestry consisted of the Spanish from Spain (and presumably so). 2 points, one there WAS a Black man of African origin that SAILED with Columbus as part of his crew(not a slave) named Pedro Nina (or ending with and 'o' in the last name). How can this be? You may ask. Uhhh, Yadira-if you are still around, Spain was conquered by the Moors(Arabs, some may argue or West Africans that were freemen in Arab society)-anyhow they were described as very DARK and from Africa. They occupied Spain for awhile, intermarried with the populance before they were expelled.Another tidbit-their descendants still inhabit Spain in the city of Seville. Another tidbit, they hold festivals and parades in the street there, one part of the parade is the men dressing in white hoods and sheets (makes you wonder where those guys in that famous white supremacist group could have gotten their fashion ideas from-since those Black men were wearing those sheets and hoods in their parade over 500 years ago before that group with the 3 letters were formed). Another thing, before Africans were EVER slaves in America-their bloodlines were in the Greek and Sicilians(Italians or Romans) in ancient times. A few things that Greeks, the Medditerranean people (including Italy,Spain and Greece and all countries in that area) share with Africans. Sickle cell anemia, razor bumps and a few other maladies(edit-forgot to include that some Hispanics share those maladies now).

Oh yeah, Sun check your pms, if you did-never mind. My knowledge of Black History really consist of JA Rogers. his treatise is simple and comprehensive plus affordable. If my finances or economics allow me to-love to purchase the books of Ivan Van Sertima, Diop and Dr Ben Jochannon-who I heard are very heavy in African and world history as related to Africans.Have read Lerone Bennett in the Library a few times while attending school(both college and high school).

http://ri.essortment.com/whoweremoorsi_ogk.htm

Yes I'd like to correct a user who talked about whites in Puerto Rico.
Luis A. Ferre was not 100% Cuban and his father Antonio Luis Ferre Bacallao was no exile. Antonio Ferre Bacallo Cuban-born father of Ferre arrived in Ponce, Puerto Rico I believe in 1901 that is way before
Castro, in fact that's before Castro was even born. So Ferre's Father Was Not a Exile, rather An Immigrant. Now Ferre's Mother was born in Ponce of Catalan ancestry, so she was Puerto Rican. Just Thought I'd Point This Out. This Means Ferre was 50/50

Just Like To Point Out Something Out to yaphet al-wynn. Not all Spaniards are Arabs as you say. Spain is composed of Mediterranean
and Nordic types. Mediterrenean's are obviously the one's descended from the Moors and are dark but what about the Spaniards descended from the vikings and French. The has always been an influx of French
immigrants in Spain, so many blonde Spaniards can trace their roots to France and other's as I've said are Nordic types. Just look at Puerto Rican-born Carlos Ponce he's anything but dark in fact he looks
like an Anglo-American. Ponce's grandparents were from Spain. Or Cuban model Sissi she's looks pretty Nordic to me So you see, it's like saying that English people are black because there are
blacks in England. Most Spaniards are white, trust me.

I tried to show the sister some love but she never responded to any of my attempts to engage her in a different type of dialogue so I guess Brother Sekhemu was right, she was here to argue and not build bridges. *sigh* Granted the debate was heated but I think the door swung both ways when she accused posters of being flippant because she was too but it seems she couldn't handle it. Too bad because I really enjoyed reading what she had to say. Well, as the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat . . . and you all know the rest.

Sister Yadira, if you are still reading this thread, I hope after you have a moment to relax and take a breather, you will decide to re-join us in the discussion at the point you left off and that is on the topic of BUILDING connections between Afro-Latinos, African Americans and Africans. But of course, that's only if you feel qualified to discuss such topics.

Valdivieso, greetings and welcome! :wave: This is a good point to jump into the discussion. Hope you fare well and decide to remain with us to help us learn and grow.

Peace :spinstar:

Valvidieso. Welcome.I never inferred that all Spaniards are Moor descendants and in the link I posted, the pre-Moor leader of Spain was a Visi-goth, if not of Nordic stock, very close to it. Plus the Moors were stymied northward going to France. All Spaniards,Greeks,Italians and all in the Mediterranean are NOT African descended, but some of the population in those countries are and some of them do share maladies that are common to West Africans.See a link to razor bumps and sickle cell anemia. Each say that those ailments are common to Africans or West Africans (not all of them), but it does have a proviso in there of others who may have it, which do include Meditteranean persons.My thing to Yadira and the point that I was making was that she COULD have African traits through the Indians that were there, based on anthropological evidence and possibly through the Spanish bloodline per history and depending on location of said Spaniard. Never ever said those two ancestry was ever certain of African traits but there ARE very small to small to medium(not likely, but possible) possible chance of it occuring-even if direct African roots are not possible or proven.

Peace



For more information on the Moors, visit your local Moorish Science Temple.. :D

Even though I mentioned, Ivan Van Sertima’s book, They Came Before Columbus and regardless of the fact, that The Moors ruled Spain from 711 to 1492 AD or the fact that the early Iberians were non-white and probably some sort of African-Europoid (Negroid) stock. I can bet my bottom dollar that Yadira’s African heredity is probably from the trans-Atlantic slave trade.


Peace,

Sun Ship

More excerpts that may explain why Sister Yadira had or has a need not to recognize her African ancestry.

“The Dominican Republic is a nation deeply fragmented along class and racial lines. The inequality that exist between the 5 percent of the population who enjoy wealth, status, and power, and the 80 percent who live in abject poverty is perhaps the most important and obvious feature in the Dominican social structure. …The Dominican Republic class system is a deeply divided and unequal society, which contributes to poverty and violence, where the rich becomes richer and the poor poorer (Howard, 1969, Wiarda, 1982).”

“The class system separates the poor from the rich. The reality of class separation is evident everywhere, in clothes, housing, language, opportunities, and jobs. With many racially complex diversions in the Dominican Republic, these differences produce both socioeconomic and racial problems (Howard, 1969, Wiarda, 1982).”

“At the top of the Dominican social elite is mostly whites of European background. The lower class are not only poor, they also tend to be black descendants of the original slaves or more recent arrivals from Haiti hired to work on the sugarcane plantation. In between the elite and blacks is the mulatto. Most of the new middle class is from the mulatto, which are offspring’s of black and white parents (Howard, 1969, Wiarda, 1982).”

“The upper class dominate the nations’ social, political, and economic life. From a statistical viewpoint the class differences in the Dominican Republic consist of the bottom 50 percent of income earners who receive 18.5 percent of the national income, while the top 10 percent receive 38.5 percent of the national income. Whenever new wealth is generated in the Dominican Republic, the business and the professionals profit from it, and the urban poor see little change in their income or their lives. It is clear that poverty is the situation of life for most of the Dominican black population (Howard, 1969, Wiarda, 1982).”

Howard, D., 1969. Dominican Republic: Politics and Culture. London. Latin American Bureau.

Wiarda, HI., Kryzanek, M.J., 1982. The Dominican Republic: a Caribbean Crucible. Boulder, Colorado. Westview Press Inc.

Thank you Brother Sun Ship for continuing to share information with us about the recent debate we had with Sister Yadira. She shared a very interesting perspective on the topic of whether Latinos are Africans too, and although some of us disagreed with her perspective and made a great effort to support reasons why, the discussion eventually turned out very badly and I'm wondering whether Yadira's parting words could be true. If so, we certainly don't want to give people that impression about how we handle our conversations here.

Here is a quote of what she said that causes me some concern:

"But, continue with your blanketed statements and attempts at ridicule. I appreciate the jokes you make out of those who describe their Indigenous ancestry. All the previous posts here serve as an example to other Latinos who see the HATE exuded by a forum supposedly here to build and teach. You want support for your causes, but can't support other oppressed people- simply because they ALSO have agendas. The "hostility" you describe is when someone posts inflammatory comments such as how white women smell like dogs- then sit around and laugh about it. This is what you would I guess call adult and mature. I see what this forum is really about. I read around before I posted and intended on sharing knowledge and wisdom, but for WHAT? This leads to flippancy and what is the best way to make a person feel bad about themselves- make fun of their beliefs. You want me to speak on unity, but you have afforded me NO space to do so. Instead, you launch an all-out attack on someone who simply disagreed.

You attribute knowledge of self as ignorance. Aya tu. I guess in typical Dominican fashion, mandate la banana por donde te da la gana- and you can translate that with whatever internet tool you want or have a Latino friend do it for you again. I do not act hostile and I have NOT acted in such manner at ANY point in this conversation. Meanwhile you disguise a welcome wagon with a railroading of a person's beliefs about self- and THAT is supposed to be OK. Right. This is baiting someone to get some form of emotional response.

You are right. This is obviously a waste of time. Go ahead trying to convince the rest of Latin America how you feel. We have defined ourselves and will deal with racism our own way. Your hate of others and subsequent ridicule doesn't penetrate the way we deal with ourselves in life. Keep driving the wedge deeper- I will still sleep well at night next to the PERSON I love."

Brothers and Sisters, I know this is only one person's perception, as a member and moderator, I'm concerned if anyone feels this way about us. In my daily work I've learned how perceiving is believing and although what Yadira's claims may not have been our intent, I'm also aware of the difference between intent versus impact. What she descibes is the impact of how we made her feel and I, for one, did not intend to make her feel this way. Like her, I wouldn't want to be at a place if I was made to feel like this. Although Yadira was also 'guilty' of being flippant at times, it's not something that we want to encourage when we're discussing serious topics like this. All flippancy does is reduce the level of communication to one that is non-productive.

I don't think that we are like what Yadira described us as here, but I think this is a good time to think about it and inspect our individual behavior. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. We can debate with them about the reasons they believe the way they do. But we shouldn't get personal and attack people for what they believe in. We should focus on the topic and not the people. I want to apologize to Sister Yadira if we made her feel badly while she was here, particularly if there was anything I did that contributed to it. Regardless of what she might be thinking about us now, we're really a great community. :love:

Okay, let's move on with this discussion.

Peace :spinstar:

Sister NN Queen:

I wouldn't lose any sleep on the part of Yadira. In reality she came into a conversation that was pre-existing (17 pages long before she entered). Not only did she come into a pre-existing conversation, she came into the conversation "swinging" (ready to fight). Her entrance was in response to a comment that was offensive to her, yet she offended many with her initial comments: "Dominicans are not very black, African Americans are very black". In her following post she continued to argumentative, and abbrassive. Both you and Destee, made attempts to welcome her and be diplomatic, and those efforts were ignored. She never even acknowledged your kind words, which speaks volumes about her character. Her only intent was to give people a peace of "her mind", and to deter us from ever daring to say Dominicans are black again. She expected us to understand her views, the complexities and diverse background of Dominicans, without making any effort to understand the complexities and diverse background of African Americans (or PanAfricanism for that matter). Well I'm sorry, but that is childish. The world doesn't work like that way. As a married woman, with 2 children, and a Ph.D no less, you'd think that Yadira would know that. Even if she isn't black, you would think that she'd be interested in building bridges because she is married to an African American. Not only was Yadira determined to let us no she had NO black blood (even though it was obvious in her picture that she must have some), by her many comments it is evident that she has hostility towards Black people. So again NN, don't be upset.....the only person that should be disturbed by her post is her husband. I suspect that "brother" might be sleeping with the enemy.

pan, you STOLE my thunder! This WAS a TWO-WAY street here, Queen-which she started! Her coming here swinging proved my point, Sun's point,Olorun's point (he's a Dominican himself Queen-you wan