PDA

View Full Version : What are Mexicans and the South Amercians?



alphaknave
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 12:37 PM
In Vinland we usually think of Mexicans as illegal immagrants and a sort of culture and race. Their skin color is tanned, but arnt they just Whites? Arn't they decendants of the Spanish and Portugese settelers? Please correct me if I am wrong, and help me understand this topic a bit more.

Awar
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 02:12 PM
In Vinland we usually think of Mexicans as illegal immagrants and a sort of culture and race. Their skin color is tanned, but arnt they just Whites? Arn't they decendants of the Spanish and Portugese settelers? Please correct me if I am wrong, and help me understand this topic a bit more.

Mexicans are mostly Mestizos ( central-Amerindian + caucasoid mixes ).
The lower classes are usually more Mestizo and Amerindian, while upper classes
are more European.

From what I've read, some 60-65% of the population is Mestizo, the rest being Amerindian, European etc.

The Spanish and Portuguese people look very different from average Mexicans.

Allenson
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 02:13 PM
In Vinland we usually think of Mexicans as illegal immagrants and a sort of sub-human culture and race. Their skin color is tanned, but arnt they just Whites? Arn't they decendants of the Spanish and Portugese settelers? Please correct me if I am wrong, and help me understand this topic a bit more.

White is a weird term but being in the states myself, I understand what you mean. So, are Mexicans white?

From what I've read, there are some in Mexico in the higher classes who are still predominantly of European (usually Spanish) descent (say 95% or higher at a genetic level). So with this in mind, we can say that this minority is basically Europid at a genetic and a phenotypic level. Does this make them 'white'? Dunno. ;)

As for the much larger (in sheer numbers) Mexican rank and file, a different sort of entity appears. These are the ones that are crossing the borders in the dead of night in search of a few bucks and that we think of as illegal immigrants working at shit jobs for dirt wages.

Here, the European derived fraction of the Mexican gene pool is much smaller and in many cases, next to none. These folk, by and large, are the descendents of the native Indians who lived there when the Europeans arrived in the 1400s and in ernest, in the 1500s.

Percentages of European and Indian 'blood' will vary from person to person and region to region. There have been some genetic studies done (which I don't have on hand) which would paint a more precise picture--but I would hazard to estimate that the 'typical' Mexican peasant who desires to come to the US is anywhere from 50%-100% native Indian and what isn't Indian is some blend of European and even some African Negroid thrown in (though not a whole lot, I believe).


Old photos of Mexican school kids reveal the Indian heritage quite plainly:

http://www.llanogrande.org/media/photo/delta/ori/Mexican_School_in_Edcouch2--1940s1.JPG

http://www.llanogrande.org/media/photo/delta/ori/Mexican%20School%20in%20Edcouch--1940s.JPG

Another old pic showing a mostly Indian look (with a little black kid too ;) ):

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/es/ne/es_ne_mexican_1_e.html


Mexican president Vicente Fox has been noted as a largely Europid ("white") Mexican:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=%22vicente+fox%22

Huzar
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 03:54 PM
Mexican population is reported on De Agostini "ethnic atlas", like 60% mestizos, 30% amerindian and 10% white. These percentages are different from percentages of 100 years ago. The mestizo percentage increased violently by the begin of 20th century. Anyway, Latin american concept of race, is very different from Anglo-saxon concept like all you know very well. The real problem is the 60% of mestizo. This mass is very ambiguous phenotypically speaking. There are people who could pass for white med or south-med, while there are people who are not different from Amerindian, Although, all consider themselves mestizos. Probably the "phenotypical" reality is this : 20%, who could pass for white, 50% in the real mid, and a fully 30% (almost a third of pop.) predominantly amerindian.

Fredrik
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 04:21 PM
I found this Mexican actor which must have Spanish ancestry.
His name is Gael García Bernal.
Take a look and notice the light-mixed eyes which I guess are greyish-blue:

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tataragao/ga_enquadrado.bmp

Huzar
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 04:27 PM
[QUOTE=Fredrik]I found this Mexican actor which must have Spanish ancestry.
His name is Gael García Bernal.
Take a look and notice the light-mixed eyes which I guess are greyish-blue:

Are you sure he is mexican ? If it's so, he'is a perfect example of white mexican

Oskorei
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 04:27 PM
My experience of South Americans here in Sweden would indicate that the amount of Negroid admixture is notable. In some individuals that is, probably not in the whole populations.

Huzar
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 04:34 PM
My experience of South Americans here in Sweden would indicate that the amount of Negroid admixture is notable. In some individuals that is, probably not in the whole populations.

It depends from the latin american ethnicity you're talking. Every south american nationality has a particular racial background. Some nationalities have effectively a notable amount of african admixture (for example Colombians, Brazilian Venezuelan etc.). Perhaps i'll post a thread on the argument

Appalachian
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 05:24 PM
It depends from the latin american ethnicity you're talking. Every south american nationality has a particular racial background. Some nationalities have effectively a notable amount of african admixture (for example Colombians, Brazilian Venezuelan etc.). Perhaps i'll post a thread on the argument

From my experience, Venezuelans (at least the ones who come here to the US) tend to be among the Whitest of all South Americans. Argentinians are in this class, as well. Of the Colombians I've known, few show any noticeable signs of negroid admixture, but most show definite signs of South American Indian admixture, some looking almost like pure Indios. As for Brazilians, I've seen them run the gammut from tall, blonde haired, and blue eyed to coal black. One brazilian girl I know looks like a Roman goddess, and is surely one of the most beautiful women I've seen. On the other hand, I know a Brazilian girl who looks like Sammy Davis Jr. in female form. :)

What's both interesting and frustrating about some of the Mexican illegals who sneak into this country is that they don't even speak Spanish! Many of them only speak Mesoamerican languages like Mixtec. There was a case a year or so ago in Los Angeles in which an illegal migrant farm worker was spreading tuberculosis, but they couldn't treat him against his will, and they couldn't find anyone who spoke his language in order to convince him of the necessity of treatment. Why they didn't just deport him, I'll never understand.

alphaknave
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Thank you everyone. You have answered my question completly, and thank you for the speed of your responses.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, March 19th, 2005, 07:33 AM
Mexicans are a mixed people. They consist of Indian and mostly Spainish ancestry. This amount of Spanish ancestry varies widely. There is some Negroid and even Mongoloid blood involved since escaped slaves from the USA went South and in Baja California there was a population of Japanese fishermen. The upper socio-economic class, especially in Mexico City, is essentially Caucasian.

Non-Mexican Latins look down upon Mexicans as being lower or inferior to themselves. If you want to insult an non-Mexican Latin, you can always do so by calling him a Mexican. We have discussed the fact that some people from Argentina an Chile are fully Caucasian.

Mexican peasants have a distinctive attitude in which they see themselves as inferior to both whiter Mexicans and Caucasians. A little poem might illustrate their perceived station in life:

My name is Poncho
I work on the Rancho
I earn six pesos a day
I go see my Lucy
She gives me some P---y
And takes my six pesos away.

That's Mexican life.

Agrippa
Saturday, March 19th, 2005, 01:53 PM
Contraselection was at work in Mexico as well, so the percentage of European blood decreased compared to some decades ago.

But as others already stated, the percentage can differ from person to person, tough the majority of immigrants is definitely mostly Indianid, rather of the reduced-infantile-brachymorphic Zentralid variant.

alphaknave
Saturday, March 19th, 2005, 03:35 PM
Could they possibly have a very small bit of Moorish type blood since the Moors invaded Spain to spread Islam?

Agrippa
Saturday, March 19th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Could they possibly have a very small bit of Moorish type blood since the Moors invaded Spain to spread Islam?

Very small, but yes, I think so.

I think this map gives a good general impression of South America, thought the situation is of course much more complex in detail:
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=17035

Agrippa
Saturday, March 19th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Ok, so most of the europid are on the eastern and southern areas of south america.

I also noticed in northern Africa and in the Middle East, it classifies those people as Europids. Does that mean we are related to Arabs, Indians, Egyptions ect.?

Europid = Caucasoid in the German terminology. And finally we are related to chimps and even flies or worms in way, since we are all lifeforms, the question is just which grade relation, of kinship we have.

If its about other, non-European Europids/Caucasoids, they are much closer to us Europeans than non-Europids.

Lets say it that way (with absolutely wrong and hypothetical numbers) the difference between a Northern and Southern European is ~2, then between a Northern European and Arab (without non-Europid admixture, lets say Orientalid type) ~4, to a Mongolid ~10, a pure Negrid ~20 etc.

So its all a question of your perspective. Compared to a Negrid they are much nearer, thats clear.
Not only genetically but also morphologically, in phenotype they resemble Europeans much more and are of the same race (not subrace obviously).
On the other hand compared to differences inside of Europe, the difference is significantly greater to non-Europeans in almost all normal cases, especially from the genetic perspective. (there are small exceptions)

Southern Jarl
Friday, June 3rd, 2005, 03:45 AM
Non-Mexican Latins look down upon Mexicans as being lower or inferior to themselves. If you want to insult an non-Mexican Latin, you can always do so by calling him a Mexican. We have discussed the fact that some people from Argentina an Chile are fully Caucasian.


I don't know how much other Latin Americans would be insulted if called a Mexican, but, personally, I would be seriously offended.
A large part of the Argentine population is fully caucasian, although there are many who to argentine eyes are white, but in fact they've got vissible non-white traits. The concept of whitness is (anfortunately) not as "rigid" as it is (I think...) in the US. One thing for sure: the amount of negroid blood is minimal, as historically we had few slaves, and 50 years after freeing them, we sent them to the meat grinder in the war against Paraguay, so very few were left. Ironically, those who made Argentina negroid-less and "mainly" white, were liberals!
Chile, on the other hand, is a different story. From personal experience, the majority of chileans strike me as mestizos, except for a few isolated pockets of german/austrian immigrants.

Welund
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 07:52 AM
Mexican president Vicente Fox has been noted as a largely Europid ("white") Mexican: "Largely" white? The upper class isn't "largely white". It's almost entirely white. White Canadians probably have more admixture. He's a tall, light-skinned, European-descended man. (Spanish + Irish?)

Todesritter
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 09:39 AM
I love Vicente Fox's racialist perspective on illegal immigrants being willing to do jobs black Americans would not even deign to do, of course he did not use those words precisely. :P

The media whipped up a storm over his opinion and words chosen and his advisors had him largely explain away his earlier statement.


.... on the topic of the ethnicity of the Latin American lands, and Caribbean countries - It was found as the European countries created colonies and attempted to make them economically profitable enterprises using slave labor, the Amerindian was not well suited during the early phases of this investment, due to lack of antibodies for the first few generations of European conquest and empire building, and additionally their being heavily concentrated in terrible conditions. It was further noted once the areas where the most intensive labor were required, had depleted their native Amerindian slave population through high mortality rates, that black slaves did not seem to have these problems, (they had long since been exposed to all the same pathogens Eurasians had) so one of the first imports to these areas were African slaves, or sometimes black or partially black slaves from other areas of the New World where an excess supply could be had at a bargain.

This is the general pattern, and it lead to pockets of the Latin world being heavily black or mulatto, typically in these areas where economics drove their being imported before the native Amerindians had been exposed enough generations that they were again as useful as forced labor as the blacks. So areas such as major ports, or regions with early investment in sugar production or mining have a higher probability of heavy black admixture.

Watch the movie Brazilian movie 'City of God' ( Cidade de Deus ) if you have not been to the country, and if you would like to see a sample set not unrepresentative of any Latin country's urban/lower class, and their range of ethnicity.

QuietWind
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 02:41 PM
I love Vicente Fox's racialist perspective on illegal immigrants being willing to do jobs black Americans would not even deign to do, of course he did not use those words precisely. :P


I haven't heard the statement, but it is so true. Illegals come over and work long hard days out in the fields for little pay. You won't see a negroid doing that these days. Negroids think they are above such "slave labor." Many of the illegals in America are harder working than their "citizenized" relatives. The Mexicans on welfare are the ones who actually obtained citizenship and no longer feel they need to work. They have a welfare mentality (as we call it). The illegals don't get such handouts from the gov't.

Todesritter
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 03:01 PM
Mexican president invites Sharpton, Jackson to collaborate (SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/16/mexico.fox/ (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/16/mexico.fox/))

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Posted: 3:17 AM EDT (0717 GMT)



http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/americas/05/16/mexico.fox/story.fox.file.jpg

Mexican President Vicente Fox

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif


(CNN) -- Mexican President Vicente Fox called two American civil rights leaders late Monday and told them he regretted any offense to African-Americans when he said Mexican immigrants in the United States take jobs "that not even blacks want to do."

Fox spoke separately by phone with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, according to a statement from the Mexican Foreign Ministry.

The statement said Fox invited them to Mexico to "join forces" on working for immigration rights and civil rights for immigrants in the United States.

Fox told the men that he "regretted if he offended the African-American community" and said he has "great respect for the African-American community," according to the statement.

The ministry said Fox understands the African-American community has worked hard to fight against discrimination and that as a result of that fight the Mexican community in America has benefited greatly.

In an interview on Fox News, Sharpton said the phone call was a "step in the right direction," but he called on the Mexican president to issue a formal apology.

"If in fact what he expressed to me on the phone was so, then he needs to demonstrate that those statements, one, do not reflect how he feels; and two, he needs to formally apologize," he said.

Jackson did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. But on Saturday, he called the remark "a spurious comparison" with "ominous racial overtones." (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/14/fox.jackson/index.html))

Earlier in the day, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher dubbed the Mexican president's comments "a very insensitive and inappropriate way to phrase this."

"We would hope that they would clarify the remarks if they have a chance," Boucher told reporters.

Fox made the comment Friday to a group of Texas businessmen meeting in Mexico, prompting outrage in the African-American community.

He criticized recent steps the United States has taken that the Bush administration said were aimed at curbing illegal immigration.

Fox discussed the role that many Mexican immigrants occupy in the U.S. economy.

"There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States," he said in Spanish.

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 03:24 PM
I haven't heard the statement, but it is so true. Illegals come over and work long hard days out in the fields for little pay. You won't see a negroid doing that these days. Negroids think they are above such "slave labor." Many of the illegals in America are harder working than their "citizenized" relatives. The Mexicans on welfare are the ones who actually obtained citizenship and no longer feel they need to work. They have a welfare mentality (as we call it). The illegals don't get such handouts from the gov't.

Thats why theyre being imported to abuse as a form of labour, becayse theyll do the hard work that nobody else will, without expecting decent pay. I find it disgusting especially when they hide behind arguments that this is for the good of the immigrants.

Todesritter
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Thats why theyre being imported to abuse as a form of labour, becayse theyll do the hard work that nobody else will, without expecting decent pay. I find it disgusting especially when they hide behind arguments that this is for the good of the immigrants. I strongly agree:

I find both American and Mexican politicians (other Latin American countries as well) are very hypocritical about this issue.

The US economy is definitely addicted to illegal immigrants, we should either make it legal, and therefore able to be regulated helping to ensure the cost of working-class labor is not held artificially low for native working-class, or we should go cold-turkey, so to speak on our illegal immigrant addiction.

It is highly disingenuous for the elite in both countries to profit from this situation, and then pay lip service, and tax dollars to partially funded, un-enforced programs designed to stop illegal immigration.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, June 19th, 2005, 04:14 PM
I strongly agree:

I find both American and Mexican politicians (other Latin American countries as well) are very hypocritical about this issue.

The US economy is definitely addicted to illegal immigrants, we should either make it legal, and therefore able to be regulated helping to ensure the cost of working-class labor is not held artificially low for native working-class, or we should go cold-turkey, so to speak on our illegal immigrant addiction.

It is highly disingenuous for the elite in both countries to profit from this situation, and then pay lip service, and tax dollars to partially funded, un-enforced programs designed to stop illegal immigration.

It seems that both countries do profit from illegal immigration or else this problem would have been fixed years ago.

-Mexico loses it's poor
-America gains cheap labor

That and restricting immigration even illegal immigration could come off as xenophobic which is one of the biggest taboos in American politics.

Lega_Nord
Sunday, September 18th, 2005, 04:50 PM
It depends on which Hispanic country your talking about , if you have white characteristics and your from the Caribbean then your guaranteed to be White European due to the fact that the Spanish didnt leave any Natives alive, they died in slavery or disease

Antonio
Sunday, September 18th, 2005, 06:44 PM
many of the Argentinans and some of the South Americans are Spanish and Italian descent, especially argentina. Brazil is a mix of all different forms of europeans, amerindians, and blacks. Bascially South America is predominatly Amerindians, Spanish and Italian, and you have some Northern Europeans and Blacks that are mixed in with them.

Central America consists of MAINLY Amerindians, especailly in Costa Rica and Honurdas... etc. Many of the Mexicans are of 100% Aztec disent (amerindian). While the majority is still Mestizo (a mix between Spanish and Aztec Blood, u still have just SPanish and European people.

I hate to say this but you even have some Vietnamese and Chinese people that live in Mexico... but they are a very SMALL minority.

Agustinik
Saturday, October 1st, 2005, 06:30 PM
There are just 2 countries in South America that could be considered White: Argentina And Uruguay.

Argentina is 70% White (about 25,000,000 from 37,000,000). The rest are indians and mestizos. Many of them have come from Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru in the 90´s. Negros doesn´t exist here, but now they´re coming from Sierra Leona, Nigeria and Brazil.

Argentinian Whites have mainly Italian and Spanish ancestors. We have also blood from Portugal, France, Germany, Poland, England, Ireland, Greece, "Slavland" (every slavic country), and all the other European Countries (in that order).

White small minorities are Chineses, Blacks, Arabs, and Jews (we´re the second American country with more jews after the USA:~( ).

Uruguay is 90% white, from Italian - Spanish ancestors. Whiter than any other country in South America, but only with a population of 2 millions, so they´re very few (1,800,000). The rest are blacks and mestizos.
I don´t know about other minorities.

Brazil can´t be taken as a White country but they still have the larger White population in South America - nearly 50% from a total population of 170,500,000 (about 85.250.000 whites). They live mainly in the southern States and some of them want to separate this territory from the northern states, inhabited mainly by blacks and mestizos.
Whites Brasilians speak portuguese and are from Portuguese, Italian, German and Spanish descent.
Other minorities are japaneses, koreans and indians.

Chile in divided like Brazil: Whites are in the south and the north is mestizo and indian. I don´t know how many they are but I know they´re a minority, being mestizos the core of the population.
Whites in Chile are Spanish, German and Slavic.

Paraguay is like Mexico: A Spanish-Indian admixture with pure indians and pure Europeans as minorities. They speak Guarani, and indian language, and many of them can´t speak Spanish. Whites in Paraguay are mainly Spanish, but I know there are German, Italian and Swiss colonies.

Bolivia is a land of pure indians and one of the poorest countries in South America. They speak Quechua and Aimara, and some of them an extrange Spanish. Whites are a tiny minority but without them the country´d collapse. There are either a minority conformed by mestizos. Indians hate Whites and mestizos as if they were the same, and often kill some of them.
Whites in Bolivia are mainly Spanish and Italians, and there are some Germans and Slavs.

Peru is the other pure South American Indian country. They speak Quechua, Aimara and Spanish. There are zones inhabited by blacks and indian-black mixtures in the coast. Whites and mestizos are the rest of the population. Whites are mainly rests of Spaniards from the colonies age.

Ecuador is a Spanish-Indian mestizo land like Mexico. The rest of the population is conformed mainly by pure indians. Europeans are a tiny minority, the remaining from Spanish colonists. There are some blacks and blacks mixtures either.

Venezuela and Colombia. Whites are a minority conformed by Spanish-Italians. I don´t know how many they´re. Blacks, indians and many kind of mixtures conform the core of the population.

Surinam Here you have everything but whites: Indians (from India), Blacks, Pacific Islanders, Amerindians, Chineses, and mixtures from all this groups between them and with whites. Europeans can be counted with your fingers.

Guyana Indians from India, Amerindians, Blacks, and mixtures. Europeans are a very tiny minority as in Surinam.

French Guyana French overseas territory. Inhabited mainly by blacks and white-black mestizos. Whites are very few and are French.

I don´t know about Central American and Caribbean countries. I know Mexico is exactly the same than Paraguay and Ecuador.


- Agustín (Real non-indian, non-black, non-mestizo Latin American)

maskedhate
Thursday, October 6th, 2005, 09:11 PM
I don´t know about Central American and Caribbean countries. I know Mexico is exactly the same than Paraguay and Ecuador.

Most of Caribeans are mulatos

Cole Nidray
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 12:10 AM
It's important to note that there are a lot of Mexicans that are still pure South AmerIndian.

They are called Mestizos only because they reject the ancient traditions and consider themselves Catholic.

Here's an example of a Mestiza with no noticeable Europid admixture,

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/neoconquistador/beanette.jpg (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y159/neoconquistador/beanette.jpg)

Edited to remove Rule 6 violation.

maskedhate
Friday, October 7th, 2005, 05:31 AM
It's important to note that there are a lot of Mexicans that are still pure South AmerIndian.

They are called Mestizos only because they reject the ancient traditions and consider themselves Catholic.

Here's an example of a Mestiza with no noticeable Europid admixture,







Yes there are pure amerindian mexicans, but the most are mestizos, and that woman on the photo is for sure pure amerindian, But i think it is not dificult to recognice it, here in Argentina people who don`t know anything about races can recognice an indian, don`t matter how is he dressed

Southern Jarl
Saturday, October 8th, 2005, 04:39 AM
There are just 2 countries in South America that could be considered White: Argentina And Uruguay.

Argentina is 70% White (about 25,000,000 from 37,000,000). The rest are indians and mestizos. Many of them have come from Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru in the 90´s. Negros doesn´t exist here, but now they´re coming from Sierra Leona, Nigeria and Brazil.

Argentinian Whites have mainly Italian and Spanish ancestors. We have also blood from Portugal, France, Germany, Poland, England, Ireland, Greece, "Slavland" (every slavic country), and all the other European Countries (in that order).

White small minorities are Chineses, Blacks, Arabs, and Jews (we´re the second American country with more jews after the USA:~( ).

Uruguay is 90% white, from Italian - Spanish ancestors. Whiter than any other country in South America, but only with a population of 2 millions, so they´re very few (1,800,000). The rest are blacks and mestizos.
I don´t know about other minorities.

Brazil can´t be taken as a White country but they still have the larger White population in South America - nearly 50% from a total population of 170,500,000 (about 85.250.000 whites). They live mainly in the southern States and some of them want to separate this territory from the northern states, inhabited mainly by blacks and mestizos.
Whites Brasilians speak portuguese and are from Portuguese, Italian, German and Spanish descent.
Other minorities are japaneses, koreans and indians.

Chile in divided like Brazil: Whites are in the south and the north is mestizo and indian. I don´t know how many they are but I know they´re a minority, being mestizos the core of the population.
Whites in Chile are Spanish, German and Slavic.



- Agustín (Real non-indian, non-black, non-mestizo Latin American)

What's your source?
Argentina: I don't dare to say that 70% of Argentines are white...perhaps I am deceived, but the perception I get from the streets is that the percentage of mestizos is really high, comparable to whites in number, I guess. The problem is that most people have no racial awareness nor basic (racial) knowledge, for there are lots of people who are beleived to be white and are just light skinned mestizos, their "non-whiteness" being in other traits rather than skin color, so that's why those numbers reflect such a high percentage of whites.

Uruguay: again, I believe that within that 90% there are more than just a handful of mestizos...

Brazil: 82.000.000 whites?! wow...I'd really like to know your source! That is a number I had never heard of...I thought that whites were definitely a minority there (with, proportionally, a large number of Northern Europeans)!

Chile: our beloved friends ;) ... well, now we agree. Foreigners sometimes get the wrong perception, that Argentina, Uruguay AND Chile are "white" countries...well, for the first two, at least this is arguable, and probably whites are above 50%, but Chile is a strongly mestizo country, whites being confined to aristocracy (Spaniards?) and some northern immigrants (mostly in the south).

Greetings from a fellow countryman :) (I don't like the word "Latinamerican" - a useless generalization, lets just be Argentine ;) )!

Agustinik
Saturday, October 8th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Argentina: I don't dare to say that 70% of Argentines are white...perhaps I am deceived, but the perception I get from the streets is that the percentage of mestizos is really high, comparable to whites in number, I guess. The problem is that most people have no racial awareness nor basic (racial) knowledge, for there are lots of people who are beleived to be white and are just light skinned mestizos, their "non-whiteness" being in other traits rather than skin color, so that's why those numbers reflect such a high percentage of whites.

You think 30% of mestizos isn´t a big number?
It´s like 12 millions! In a country of 37 millions it´s a lot. I agree if you say Argentina is getting darker very fast, and we can in some years be outnumbered by indians and mestizos, but right now 70% is valid.
Yes, there are mestizos who declare being White, but there are Whites who declare being mestizos or even indians too (you know why). 70% is just an aproximation, but it´s near the real number by now.


Uruguay: again, I believe that within that 90% there are more than just a handful of mestizos...

The same than Argentina, the number of mestizos declaring being White can made the percentage to change but not too much.


Brazil: 82.000.000 whites?! wow...I'd really like to know your source! That is a number I had never heard of...I thought that whites were definitely a minority there (with, proportionally, a large number of Northern Europeans)!

They are a minority, Brazil´s population is like 170.000.000. Whites are gathered in the southern states while the huge rest of the country is inhabited by negros. And remember that the number of Whites in Brazil is decreasing fast too.


Chile: our beloved friends ;) ... well, now we agree. Foreigners sometimes get the wrong perception, that Argentina, Uruguay AND Chile are "white" countries...well, for the first two, at least this is arguable, and probably whites are above 50%, but Chile is a strongly mestizo country, whites being confined to aristocracy (Spaniards?) and some northern immigrants (mostly in the south).

¡:thumbup !


Greetings from a fellow countryman :) (I don't like the word "Latinamerican" - a useless generalization, lets just be Argentine ;) )!

Latin American means Latins from America. Since we Latins are White, we are the only people with a right to call ourselves Latin.
It´s like saying German-American. Even when a negro or indian can speak english, it doesn´t make him/her/it a German American. They´re Afro-Americans and Indians.

So we are Latin American Argentinians:thumbup
¡Saludos!

Digitalseal
Sunday, January 29th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Why do so many people in the U.S. consider people of Central and South-America to be of the same race?, i often seen them categorized as Latino or "Hispanic"

And i also agree that many full-blooded Amerindians Consider them self to be Part indigenous American or mestizo. The majority og Central and South America is Indigenous American or Part-indigenous American according to the The World Factbook 1999.

Also a very high amount of West-Africans and Mullato (mixed African and European)

Herac
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 06:14 AM
Brazil can´t be taken as a White country but they still have the larger White population in South America - nearly 50% from a total population of 170,500,000 (about 85.250.000 whites). They live mainly in the southern States and some of them want to separate this territory from the northern states, inhabited mainly by blacks and mestizos.
Whites Brasilians speak portuguese and are from Portuguese, Italian, German and Spanish descent.
Other minorities are japaneses, koreans and indians.

The brazilian census tell us that brazil is 50% white. But, the majority of mixed and even some blacks consider themselves as "white".

In my opinion, Brazil is 25% (or less) white. Now the population is 180.000.000, and I think that Brazil's white population is not much bigger than 40 million.

I mean people of pure european ancestry, one-drop rule. :D

But it stills a huge number... bigger population than many countries in Europe, for example.

I live in the south and the separatist movement here has a great racial apeal. These movements are mainly formed by white preservationists, mainly of teuto/venetic stock.

Æmeric
Monday, February 13th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Why do so many people in the U.S. consider people of Central and South-America to be of the same race?, i often seen them categorized as Latino or "Hispanic"

And i also agree that many full-blooded Amerindians Consider them self to be Part indigenous American or mestizo. The majority og Central and South America is Indigenous American or Part-indigenous American according to the The World Factbook 1999.

Also a very high amount of West-Africans and Mullato (mixed African and European)
Hispanic was a term the Federal Government started using in the 70's to classify people of minority status with origins in the spanish speaking counties of Latin America. Back in the early 60's the "Hispanic" population of the U.S. was about 2% to 3% of the total population (3 to 5 million). It was predominately Mexicans, located in the Southwest & California & Puerto Ricans in N.Y.C. At this time Mexicans were a small minority in the Southwest, less then 10% in California. During the sixties the great wave of immigration from Latin America started. This is when south Florida became an Cuban enclave. The term Hispanic was coined to create a common identity among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans & Cubans when "Hispanic" minorities were still concentrated in a few areas of the U.S. scattered widely apart. Basically by giving them a common identity it increased their political power, by creating a Hispanic coalition.(There is currently a Hispanic caucus in the U.S. House of Represenatives). Currently the U.S. has at least 40 million "Hispanics", possibly 50 million, and this includes Salvodorans, Dominicans, Guatamalans, Hondurans etc. They are no longer a regional minority but have spread out over the lower 48 states, and dominate many areas politically. Mexicans are still the largest segment of the Hispanic population with at least 60%. About 25% of all births in the U.S. are to Hispanic women. Hispanics are now 35% of California's polution and a majority of births in that state. Racially "Hispanics" from Mexico & Central America are usually Mestizos or Indians. Metiszo doe not mean an even 50/50 mixture of White & Indian, many times the indian admixture is greater. Hispanics from the Carribbean Basin are generally White/African or White/Indian/African. There are some Hispanics who are predominately European in heritage but still have special status as members of the "Hispanic" minority group.

garethMann
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 03:44 AM
Argentina: I don't dare to say that 70% of Argentines are white

Argentina is easily the whitest Spanish speaking country in the world, far whiter than even spain. This is because there are almost no Idigenous peoples there, and there are more German and Italian imigrants than Spanish Immigrants. In fact Argentina is probably the whitest nation in the Americas, far whiter than the United States, and probably whiter than Canada too.

The Italian prominence in Argentina is so strong that it is common for people in South America to consider Argentinains and Italians as the same and use the words "Italiano" and "Argentino" interchangably.

maskedhate
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 05:11 PM
The Italian prominence in Argentina is so strong that it is common for people in South America to consider Argentinains and Italians as the same and use the words "Italiano" and "Argentino" interchangably.

You are absolutly right, Here in Argentina italian surnames rae much more common than the spanish ones.

Both my father and mother surnames are Italian altough i have 32% of spanish blood too.

And our ascent is very influenced by the italian, you can verify that by hear our spanish.

Southern Jarl
Wednesday, February 15th, 2006, 04:26 AM
Argentina is easily the whitest Spanish speaking country in the world, far whiter than even spain. This is because there are almost no Idigenous peoples there, and there are more German and Italian imigrants than Spanish Immigrants. In fact Argentina is probably the whitest nation in the Americas, far whiter than the United States, and probably whiter than Canada too.



I wish that was true. Unfortunately, it is not. First of all, most of our Italian immigrants were of Southern origin, as dark or even darker than Spaniards. Second, there's a large portion of the population that's classed as white while being mestizo. As for the indigenous peoples, they have been partially absorbed; the rest were destroyed (with a few exceptions).
Therefore, Argentina is much less white than Spain, not to say Canada and probably the US. Trust me, I live there (in one of the whitest areas).

maskedhate
Wednesday, February 15th, 2006, 03:24 PM
First of all, most of our Italian immigrants were of Southern origin, as dark or even darker than Spaniards.

Remember that the tanned skin is common in medish people, more if we considerate that here the climate is more warm than in Italy.

You can see the details here http://racialreality.shorturl.com/

Here
Wednesday, February 15th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Remember that the tanned skin is common in medish people, more if we considerate that here the climate is more warm than in Italy.

You can see the details here http://racialreality.shorturl.com/


Well, 8% of the population in Buenos AIres is immigrant from countries like Bolivia and Peru even more indians than Mexico. So you can get an idea where are we going Can't you?

Here you can get an approach to the knowledge of the Argentine population.

What Buenos Aires is coming everyday more like Los Angeles almost 30% of the population are immigrants from indians countries, and they have lot of kids!!. While an average argentine have 1 or 2.


http://cometoargentina.tripod.com/id5.html

http://cometoargentina.tripod.com/id6.html

Dombvi
Sunday, February 19th, 2006, 12:20 AM
I consider Mexico to be an American Indian nation, mestizo Mexicans who make about 60% of the country, have of course European ancestors but they look predominantly Amerindian to me.

maskedhate
Sunday, February 19th, 2006, 03:14 PM
Well, 8% of the population in Buenos AIres is immigrant from countries like Bolivia and Peru even more indians than Mexico. So you can get an idea where are we going Can't you?

Here you can get an approach to the knowledge of the Argentine population.

What Buenos Aires is coming everyday more like Los Angeles almost 30% of the population are immigrants from indians countries, and they have lot of kids!!. While an average argentine have 1 or 2.



Yes, I know...sadly it is our present reallity
But 70% of whites in the whole country is a certain number for now, i know that this number will lower in some years, the indios have familys of about 7 childrens and we of about 2.

Here
Sunday, February 19th, 2006, 06:15 PM
Yes, I know...sadly it is our present reallity
But 70% of whites in the whole country is a certain number for now, i know that this number will lower in some years, the indios have familys of about 7 childrens and we of about 2.


20 years ago, Argentina was for sure whiter than US, whichalready had blacks, and same Mexicans. But we have had a lot of indians from Bolivia, Peru and Paraguay mostly coming to our country for ages. Just imagine if you have lot of problems dealing with the Mexicans just imagine, what it is to have four countries around us with non whites wanting to come to your country!. :thumbdown :thumbdown

Gothmog
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 07:03 AM
The brazilian census tell us that brazil is 50% white. But, the majority of mixed and even some blacks consider themselves as "white".

In my opinion, Brazil is 25% (or less) white. Now the population is 180.000.000, and I think that Brazil's white population is not much bigger than 40 million.

I mean people of pure european ancestry, one-drop rule. :D

But it stills a huge number... bigger population than many countries in Europe, for example.

I live in the south and the separatist movement here has a great racial apeal. These movements are mainly formed by white preservationists, mainly of teuto/venetic stock.

I couldn't agree more... In fact, a recent study by a group geneticists from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) concluded that 98% of the patrilineal haplotipes found in the blood of the brazilian "whites" are indeed european. On the other hand, the matrilineal heritage is 61% non-european (33% indian and 28% african). These numbers varies from region to region: 66% of the southern whites are truly european, while 54% of the northern whites have indian blood an 44% of northeasterners have african ancestry. Since, according to the last census, the so called whites constituted 51% of the total population of the country - which lies around 180,000,000 - it is pretty safe to say that Brazil has around 35,000,000 europeans. Although this is a small fraction of the country's total population, in absolute terms Brazil is the second most european country in the american continent and the tenth in the world.

Æmeric
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 03:51 PM
I couldn't agree more... In fact, a recent study by a group geneticists from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) concluded that 98% of the patrilineal haplotipes found in the blood of the brazilian "whites" are indeed european. On the other hand, the matrilineal heritage is 61% non-european (33% indian and 28% african). These numbers varies from region to region: 66% of the southern whites are truly european, while 54% of the northern whites have indian blood an 44% of northeasterners have african ancestry. Since, according to the last census, the so called whites constituted 51% of the total population of the country - which lies around 180,000,000 - it is pretty safe to say that Brazil has around 35,000,000 europeans. Although this is a small fraction of the country's total population, in absolute terms Brazil is the second most european country in the american continent and the tenth in the world.
Genetic tests on patrilineal haplotypes & matrilineal (mitochondrial) dna is useful in determining the racial makeup of a population group but not neccessarily an individual. A man with a European paternal grandfather, a African paternal grandmother, a Amerindian maternal grandfather & a European maternal grandmother will have a European haplotype & European mitochondrial dna but will be only 1/2 European. The genetic testing cited above shows "White Brazilians" to be on average 68.5% European. It dos'nt tell us what percentage of "Brazilian Whites" have insignifincant non-white ancestry.

Here
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 07:27 PM
The genetic testing cited above shows "White Brazilians" to be on average 68.5% European. It dos'nt tell us what percentage of "Brazilian Whites" have insignifincant non-white ancestry.


The question is how can they mistake a 40% black with a white?, I've seen many times Brazilians telling white to someone with obviously non white traits (of course there are lots of whites in Brasil, but my point is that sometimes they do what I said) I guess the same happen in Mexico, I've seen it too.

I've read that in the average white in Us is 2% native or black. That means there are lot of pure white people and some of 10% or so native american who think themselves as whites. And that made an average of 2% non whites in American whites. Probably the percentage is less or more the same here in Argentina. Here we would never see someone 40% non white as white. Any Argentine would think that Maradona is white For God's sake!. But Pele has called it white :| when they were interview together few months ago.

You as a Brasilian tell me is that the thruth or is simply my perception Does it happen sometimes?

Æmeric
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006, 08:14 PM
I've read that in the average white in Us is 2% native or black. That means there are lot of pure white people and some of 10% or so native american who think themselves as whites. And that made an average of 2% non whites in American whites. Probably the percentage is less or more the same here in Argentina. Here we would never see someone 40% non white as white.

I have heard of the figure of 2% average non-white ancestry for White Americans. However in the U.S. there are many "White Hispanics" who are really mestizos or quadroons/octoroons. Americans statistics can be hard to interprete because of the government's classification system which has Hispanic as an ethnicity not a race. On racial statistics most Hispanics are lumped in with Whites even though most Hispanics in the U.S. are non-white.

Part of the assumption of Negro ancestry in Whites is based on how many Negroes pass into the White population every year. Many of the mathematical formulas to estimate this are flawed. For instance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/passing one of the mathematical formulas (the Philadelphia rate) suggests 1 out of 500 children born into the black community will pass into the White population. The Black population is currently about 36 million so that means 72,000 (36 million divided by 500) individuals born black are currently passing for White. The Wikipedia article claims a figure of 72,000 a year. This formula counts these persons passing once every year instead of just once in a lifetime. If you estimate the average lifespan of an American Negro as being 70 years this come to about 1030 every year.

Gothmog
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006, 12:15 AM
First of all I must apologize if I've misinterpreted the data. I just wanted to shed some light into the subject. Anyway, it was frivolous of my part, since I'm not a geneticist, but a historian. Secondly, I didn't want to say that Brazil should be considered a white country. On the contrary: my objective was to show Brazil as a gigantic racial melting pot. 35,000,000 whites represents less than 20% of the total population. And they are scattered over an area almost the size of western Europe. Even the South is very mixed. This leads to my third point: Race is viwed by many in Brazil as a social concept, rather than a biological one. Dark skin is associated with a low social condition, since the descendants of the slaves tend to be poor. But as soon as blacks improve their social status, they somehow whiten. This can be shown by Ronaldo's (football player from Real Madrid) words in a recent interview to a brazilian newspaper. When asked how he felt about racism in european football, he answered: "I think all black players suffer. But I, who am white, also suffer with such ignorance." As to the indians, for many they just disapeared from history. Few whites realize they have native-american ancestry, although it's clearly visible. The caboclos (indian halfbreeds) were more easily accepted by the portuguese (who were also dark skinned) than the mulatos. I, myself, do have indian ascendency!

Æmeric
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006, 04:08 AM
Who runs Brazil? It is an integrated society? Is the country ran by Whites like South Africa before the end of apartheid or is it ruled by Mulattos & Africans like in Detroit or Atlanta?

Gothmog
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 06:20 AM
Nobody runs Brazil. That's our biggest problem. Our president is a semi-illiterate socialist who is so inept that has delegated his powers to his subordinates who, on their turn, frequently act against each other. On the integration issue, we tend to see our country as a model of racial tolerance. This comes back from Vargas, who created the myth of brazilian racial democracy with the aid of scholars like Gilberto Freyre and Sérgio Buarque de Holanda in an attempt to integrate the black population into the republic. Although Brazil is indeed a very tolerant country in racial matters (we don't have segregated neighborhoods for different ethnical groups, like the USA or Europe) it's undeniable that, in general, blacks live in much worse conditions than the so called "whites". It's important to emphasize that the number of european whites and african blacks is relatively small in Brazil: most brazilians may be considered browns (a mix of europeans, africans and indians - whites, blacks and reds). But we live in a social apartheid, so to speak, with a veiled racism between whites and almost whites on one side and blacks and almost blacks on the other. Recently, following the american example, the african-brazilian identity is being more respected and cultivated, but the chasm which separates "whites" and "blacks" is still great. As to our leaders, the vast majority of our politicians is "white", the blacks being clearly underrepresented in the major political bodies (curiously, Rio Grande do Sul, one of the most europeanized states of Brazil, is one of the few which have had a black governor).

Southern Jarl
Thursday, February 23rd, 2006, 04:59 PM
This leads to my third point: Race is viwed by many in Brazil as a social concept, rather than a biological one. Dark skin is associated with a low social condition, since the descendants of the slaves tend to be poor. But as soon as blacks improve their social status, they somehow whiten. This can be shown by Ronaldo's (football player from Real Madrid) words in a recent interview to a brazilian newspaper. When asked how he felt about racism in european football, he answered: "I think all black players suffer. But I, who am white, also suffer with such ignorance."

I agree. I think that it's probably the same throughout the whole of Latin America. I see it over here, it seems that the underlying reasons for "racism" are social. For example, individuals of dubious racial background who have managed to reach a high social position (through economical success and/or upbreeding) aren't called "negros" (the local term for mestizo in a rather depreciatory way) as are the lower classed, racially similar mestizos. Some "original" aristocrats might look at them with suspicion, but only a few would really feel uncomfortable should any of these fellows marry into the family.
It's funny how Ronaldo puts it. They have to tell you that they're white, it's just that otherwise you wouldn't notice. :D

Herac
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 07:10 AM
I agree. I think that it's probably the same throughout the whole of Latin America. I see it over here, it seems that the underlying reasons for "racism" are social. For example, individuals of dubious racial background who have managed to reach a high social position (through economical success and/or upbreeding) aren't called "negros" (the local term for mestizo in a rather depreciatory way) as are the lower classed, racially similar mestizos. Some "original" aristocrats might look at them with suspicion, but only a few would really feel uncomfortable should any of these fellows marry into the family.

This thing has a name: it's called hypocrisy.

A rich negro it's not a negro, but a "brownie/darkie". A rich light mullato is "white". The more money you have, the less melanine you have.

Blacks and whites have a similarity here - blacks suffer the veiled racism wich Gothmog written about, and whites suffer the institutional racism, promoted by the government and the midia. The worst of all is that this racism is mostly a bias from mongrels towards african and european-brazilians.

There are a few communities of preserved whites, deep in the south and in some isolated ares of south-east... and period. Maybe the italians are the most well preserved group, alone in their communities in the southern moutains and the hills of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. The same way for the germans, but they are in outnumbered in comparison with italians.

Even Gothmog said he has amerindian ancestry. That's sad... :(

Euclides
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 01:40 PM
I couldn't agree more... In fact, a recent study by a group geneticists from the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) concluded that 98% of the patrilineal haplotipes found in the blood of the brazilian "whites" are indeed european. On the other hand, the matrilineal heritage is 61% non-european (33% indian and 28% african). These numbers varies from region to region: 66% of the southern whites are truly european, while 54% of the northern whites have indian blood an 44% of northeasterners have african ancestry. Since, according to the last census, the so called whites constituted 51% of the total population of the country - which lies around 180,000,000 - it is pretty safe to say that Brazil has around 35,000,000 europeans. Although this is a small fraction of the country's total population, in absolute terms Brazil is the second most european country in the american continent and the tenth in the world.

Whites in Minas Gerais State?.. Significant numbers of really whites you will only find in South Brazil and in a minor in São Paulo State.
The question is why they consider as being ''white'' ...