# Is Latin-America more European or Amerindian?



## Jtolj

I'm curious. I used to in my youth believe most of the natives were killed off and the Spanish just had dark skin, but I then realized the Latinos are Natives. I wonder if the majority of people are in fact more associated or associate themselves more with being from which background?


----------



## cuchuflete

Please explain what you mean by "the Latinos are Natives."

Your question omits a rather obvious option: association with
a background and current reality that is a blend of indigenous, European, African, Asian and other groups.


----------



## Jtolj

cuchuflete said:


> Please explain what you mean by "the Latinos are Natives."
> 
> Your question omits a rather obvious option: association with
> a background and current reality that is a blend of indigenous, European, African, Asian and other groups.


That a primary descent of theirs is Native American. I just mean in majority.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Many Latin American countries have a significant percentage of Native population, therefore they are bound to be "AmerIndian".


----------



## Namakemono

Jtolj said:


> the Spanish just had dark skin


You thought this is what the Spanish look like?


----------



## don maico

Argentina is mostly european or neo European. At lkeat its major cities like Buenos Aires with its huge immigrant populaiton are most definitelky european by inclination it use to be said than an argentine was an Italian who spoke Spanish wished he was French and admired the Brits. Confusing or what?Of course there aree indigenous strongholds particulalry in the northwest but on the whole I would say neo Europeans. Arent mericans( sorry estadosunidenses) the same?


----------



## Jtolj

Namakemono said:


> You thought this what the Spanish look like?


Well, in the south.


----------



## Outsider

Some Spaniards do look like Evo Morales, but that's irrelevant. I think the Amerindian influence in Latin America -- and also the African influence, in many places -- is unquestionable, regardless of what people may look like.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

There are lots of countries in America with different backgounds so this changes a lot from one to other. Spain wasn't "so interesed" as England was in exterminate the native Americans to rule the conquered lands. That's the reason that makes people of most Latin American countries to have more native American roots, but this doesn't make these countries to have exactly the same history and there are other places like Argentina whose population was very europized (?) much later than the conquest ages.

The funny part is when Latin American with Amerindian heritage immigrants in Spain (a pretty new immigration phenomenon) identify themselves as "latinos" whilst actually in "latinoamericano" "latino" is the European root so they are among the "less Latin" people around.



Jtolj said:


> Well, in the south.



You're wrong. Nobody in Spain would have any doubt in identifying Evo Morales as American by his looks.


----------



## Jtolj

http://www.un.org/av/photo/ga/images/ven1110.jpg This is even more amerindian. Those ears and the lack of facial hair.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

The curly hair and thicker lips of Chávez look less Amerindian to me, althought I'm not sure if these are completely imported features. And I don't think he has less facial hair than Morales (well, I have to admit it's pretty hard to see that in a shaved face  ).


----------



## don maico

If one wanders round the streets of Buenos Aires one could be forgiven for thinking these steets belonged to many a city in Europe, most especially the affluent sectors like Palermo and parts of Belgrano.These buildings, many built during the late 19th and early 20th, have a definite European look about them. The city also boasts several shops , stores ,hotels restaurants and cafes of european origin. There used to be a Harrods and a Maple store. Clubs, founded quite clearly by Brits , have names like Buenos Aires lawn tennis club or Tigre rowing club.Then there is Hurlingham and Belgrano Athletic club( my uncle once played both rugby and bowls there) and Buenos Aires club which has both a cricket and a rugby team. Then there are the bilingual shools some of which like St Georges and St Andrews modelled themselves on British public schools . The there are the milongeras where tango is played and danced- nothing indigenous about them.
Amerindian there is little to be seen. Maybe the feria at Los Mataderos with its gaucho shows and products for sale would be an exeption.But form memory the people for up north are generally looked down upon . They are labelled cabecitas negras and unless they have soccer skills or are particularly fortunate, face a life of poverty.


----------



## Tsoman

Do american indians not have any facial hair? Now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing any indian with a beard.


----------



## Jtolj

Tsoman said:


> Do american indians not have any facial hair? Now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing any indian with a beard.


They don't have hair on their face nor various parts where Europeans would.


----------



## hedonist

> I think the Amerindian influence in Latin America -- and also the African influence, in many places -- is unquestionable, regardless of what people may look like.



That is true.



> Spain wasn't "so interesed" as England was in exterminate the native Americans to rule the conquered lands.


 If there is a strong indigenous presence left in the Americas to this day it wasn’t because of the benevolence of any of the invaders. That is such a patronising and Eurocentric take on things. Contrary to the conquest myth Native Americans weren’t passive frightened savages paralysed with fear that were at the mercy of a small band of foreigners with superior technology. They’ve survived and helped shape what is now referred to as Latin America to various degrees, their influence is larger in some places than others of course. Their contribution is usually not mentioned because it doesn’t tie in nicely with the myth of conquest that has been propagated since the arrival of Europeans. In reality most of what is attributed to the “conquest” of the "Indians/indios" was achieved by the mixed-race Mestizo population that thrived in the established Spanish colonies, whom through the subsequent years gradually absorbed (by force or voluntarily) the remaining non-Latinized population. This is very similar to what happened in the United States of America's westward drive from the east coast, only that they were predominantly European in their genetic make-up and did not accept non-"white"/mixed race individuals into their society. 

http://criticamedicina.blogia.com/2005/071201-mitos-de-los-conquistadores.php



> La frase "conquista española" y todo lo que ésta implica, ha seguido utilizándose a lo largo de la historia porque los españoles estaban muy preocupados de describir sus logros y conquistas como contratos concluidos, como voluntad de la providencia o hechos consumados. A pesar de estas pretensiones la conquista siguió y sigue todavía incompleta.


http://www.historycooperative.org/c...cooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.4/br_89.html



> The fourth myth, the myth of "completion," looks at the notion of the conquest's inevitability. The conquerors' accounts presented their actions as inevitably leading to some wonderful conclusion, as something already accomplished, even as divinely inspired. Their motivation was clear: they sought to reap the benefits of the conquest even before pacification had been concluded, to be the first to claim the victory and thereby the greatest share of reknown. The other motivation was far more institutional, insofar as it inspired monarchs as well: they sought to portray the conquest as part of a divine plan in which the Spanish crown was an agent of God. In this way, Spain could better forestall the claims of other European powers.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

hedonist said:


> If there is a strong indigenous presence left in the Americas to this day it wasn’t because of the benevolence of any of the invaders.



That was completely essential. I suggest you to make some research on Bartolomé de las Casas and the revolutionary path he started and on the so called "Black Legend."

And the existence of the mestizo mix of races it's a proof by itselft of the difference of attitudes between the different conqueror nations and their effects on the native peoples.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

don maico said:


> Amerindian there is little to be seen. Maybe the feria at Los Mataderos with its gaucho shows and products for sale would be an exeption. But from memory the people for up north are generally looked down upon . They are labelled cabecitas negras and unless they have soccer skills or are particularly fortunate, face a life of poverty.



The Amerindian population in Buenos Aires is enormous and invisible unless you pay attention.  They're the bricklayers, the cleaning ladies, the families who collect scrap cardboard and plastic at night, the squeegee kids, the carpenters, the students who work full-time AND try to graduate from university while commuting from the villas miserias, the road workers .....


----------



## don maico

Chaska Ñawi said:


> The Amerindian population in Buenos Aires is enormous and invisible unless you pay attention.  They're the bricklayers, the cleaning ladies, the families who collect scrap cardboard and plastic at night, the squeegee kids, the carpenters, the students who work full-time AND try to graduate from university while commuting from the villas miserias, the road workers .....



there might be a considerable presence but amearindian culture or legacy is not terrrble eviudent form waht I can remember. When one thinks of BA it is the Colon , 9 de Julio, Palermo,the major shopping streets, the marina etc - all very European .. Only the Gaucho symbols ie clothing leather goods boots etc make one aware here is another Argentina inland.


----------



## snila

Actually, Latin-America also includes Brazil and countries occupied by France (small territories) like Guyana Francesa.  Latin-America is geographically identified starting in Mexico and ending in Chile.

There were different groups of immigrants (Europeans but also from Asia, Africa) coming in different centuries, but usually people talk about three mainly roots: Indian (indigenous), White and Black.

Indigenous groups are heterogenous also.  Is not just the way they look, but their customs and culture.  Culture or nationality is an interesting choice and I guess that many of them would choose culture.  But the way, many of them do have hair on ther face , believe me.


----------



## hedonist

> That was completely essential. I suggest you to make some research on Bartolomé de las Casas and the revolutionary path he started and on the so called "Black Legend."


It’s common knowledge that Bartolome, “one” man that had his heart in the right place, exaggerated to get his point across so his version of events are now taken with grain of salt. Along with all other account of the “conquerors”, they had their own agendas to worry about so it’s understandable that factuality and accuracy wasn’t their primary concern. In any event the Iberians never had total control of the vast amount of land they claimed to have “conquered”, like the sources I’ve provided argued it was a fanciful notion. They had various strategic colonies all the over the continent but because of the sheer size of the continent, there were large areas were a significant number of free “indios” probably weren’t aware that they had suddenly become property of another country. These are the people I’m specifically referring to. It was only through gradual expansion of the Spanish colonies in the subsequent years that they these areas and its inhabitant were incorporated, sometimes by force and sometimes voluntarily, into the flourishing, dominant Latinized mixed-raced society that had spawned since the arrival of Europeans.




> And the existence of the mestizo mix of races it's a proof by itselft of the difference of attitudes between the different conqueror nations and their effects on the native peoples.


It wasn't so much an attitude but a NECESSITY. The invaders or "conquerors" relied heavily on the assistance of ALLIES. Yes, that's what is frequently forgotten when this period in history is brought up. Northern Europeans, on the other hand, went at it alone, that was the MAIN DIFFERENCE. 

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,885481,00.html#article_continue



> The conquistadores were wrongly named. Those brave men who crossed the Atlantic to "discover" the New World were neither all-conquering, nor all Spanish. Perhaps they should have been called adventurers, collaborators or opportunists, though if you ask a Latin American, you'll hear some choicer suggestions.





> Spanish empire as a collaborative effort, the creation of Europeans and, perhaps most of all, native Americans and African slaves.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

So we should pick up an eraser and erase a lot of points in, for instance, Brazil's map just because there are tribes who live unaware of Brazilian's government, shouldn't we? Maybe you're confusing "conquer" with "extermination" - they were the same for some countries then, but not for all.

Bartolomé de las Casas was "one" man. Hitler, Francis Bacon and Aristotles alse were "one". So what? He was the winner of the Valladolid debate:



> The junta ruled in favor of Las Casas' position. Although implementing this position was strenuously opposed and to a large extent sabotaged by the colonists, it also became the official position of both the King of Spain and of the Catholic Church.



How can the official position of the king and of the Catholic Church at one of it's highest power ages ever be not absolutely relevant? Hence they started to handle the American enemies as their European enemies (introducing political plays, mixing and such) and as a target for the evagelization missions instead of shooting down every one native that appeared on the horizon.

Was that a need for Spain but not (for no reason) for the other powers?


----------



## luis masci

Jtolj said:


> the Spanish just had dark skin, but I then realized the Latinos are Natives.


Is this what did you imagine we look like? 


don maico said:


> The city also boasts several shops , stores ,hotels restaurants and cafes of european origin. There used to be a Harrods and a Maple store. Clubs, founded quite clearly by Brits , have names like Buenos Aires lawn tennis club or Tigre rowing club.Then there is Hurlingham and Belgrano Athletic club.


Don't forget there is also a city called "Moron".


----------



## Dr. Quizá

luis masci said:


> Is this what did you imagine we look like?
> 
> Menudas hombreras gasta ese hombre. Cuesta más rodearlo que saltarlo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget there is also a city called "Moron".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that's Spanish. My grandfather was from Morón de la Frontera, in Seville.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cosmic

Chaska Ñawi said:


> The Amerindian population in Buenos Aires is enormous and invisible unless you pay attention. They're the bricklayers, the cleaning ladies, the families who collect scrap cardboard and plastic at night, the squeegee kids, the carpenters, the students who work full-time AND try to graduate from university while commuting from the villas miserias, the road workers .....


 
I think you are absolutely wrong. First of all, we are no "ashamed" because of these people , but :

The most of bricklayers working in this country, as you must know , had come from Bolivia and Paraguay. The cleaning ladies  form Paraguay (a well-known but discrimitative expression here is "sirvienta paraguaya") , etc, etc,etc.


We are mainly first - my case - , second  , or third argentine generation. But native cultures have a huge influence over our everyday way of living. We can think of an Italian drinking mate .

But the are no slogans like "keep Britain white" here .


----------



## don maico

luis masci said:


> Is this what did you imagine we look like?
> 
> Don't forget there is also a city called "Moron".



Sorry but I am not acquainted with that city

i couldnt find it in the interactive map of the province either( maybe not a very good map). which partido would it be in?


----------



## cuchuflete

Don Maico,
From Wikipedia:



> *Morón* is a city in the Argentine province of Buenos Aires, capital of the Morón Partido, located in the Gran Buenos Aires metropolitan area, at 34°39′S 58°37′W. Buenos Aires City is easily reached from Morón by road and by urban train like TBA ( Train Buenos Aires ).


----------



## JGreco

Oh this question really irritates me the most *AND IGNORANCE ABOUNDS FROM ALL THE STATEMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD!* First, I am tall, light skinned , light haired, and greened eyed. I might appear white but I still recogize that I am a mestizo and my ancestors are mainly indigenous and less European. I sometimes hate when I hear people especially mestizos like me calling Spain "La Madre Patria" because to me I feel nothing for Spain or feel culturally closer to Spain. Half my family is Panamanian and half is Brazilian. Both sides don't see themselves as "European" but as Latin American. When I went to Spain on vacation a couple of years ago I could have blended in easily with the "Europeans" but when they found out where I was from they saw me nothing more than another annoying "Sudaca". I hate even my own Latin American media with their telenovelas in both spanish and Portuguese speaking areas being of mostly "white faces" or so called white faces which really doesn't reflect the majority of the population. The Argentinians on this forum really seem to reflect some of the stereotypical things that many other Latin Americans from different "And Much darker" countries in Latin American countries feel that the attitudes of many Argentinians are elitest and slightly racial on their attitudes towards the rest of Latin America. This forum topic has really made me very upset and me who is apparently white to most people I meet am now going to sign off for the moment to have breakfast with my very afro-amerindian looking mother and my blond haired father. I am looking forward to your comments....


----------



## Namakemono

> When I went to Spain on vacation a couple of years ago I could have blended in easily with the "Europeans"


 
Why did you use inverted commas here?



> mostly "white faces" or so called white faces which really doesn't reflect the majority of the population.


 
It does in Argentina and Colombia, as I've heard.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> Don Maico,
> From Wikipedia:



thank you


----------



## Tsoman

Namakemono said:


> It does in Argentina and Colombia, as I've heard.



In colombia there are a lot of white faces.

tell me if anyone else has had experiences like this:

I've heard white colombians talk about how much they dislike spain (their ancestors) for colonizing their country. I think that a lot of them believe that they are indians when they obviously are not (for the most part)


----------



## Cosmic

Can´t talk about any other american country out of Argentina , Uruguay and Brazil. No idea about Panama neither genetical nor racial. But , what really matters, we may be racially white ,  but our still formig culture is really ours , despite of what another argentinian said.


----------



## Namakemono

Tsoman said:


> I've heard white colombians talk about how much they dislike spain (their ancestors) for colonizing their country.


 
I hate that attitude. I have yet to meet a Spaniard who says the same about Italy.


----------



## Tsoman

Namakemono said:


> I hate that attitude. I have yet to meet a Spaniard who says the same about Italy.



yep. history is history. And it as no morals


----------



## Jtolj

I actually made xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on this topic in both English and Spanish. It's about xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx and actually part of it is about xxxxxxxxxx, but it deals in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. *annoyed Moderator Note:  These forums are not to be used for any kind of promotion.  Read the rules.   *


----------



## Julito_Maraña

Jtolj said:


> I'm curious. I used to in my youth believe most of the natives were killed off and the Spanish just had dark skin, but I then realized the Latinos are Natives. I wonder if the majority of people are in fact more associated or associate themselves more with being from which background?



First, one thing is what people *consider *themselves and quite another what they really are. This study (in Spanish) for example, says that 56 percent of the people in Argentina have _some_ Amerindian ancestry and that is what is considered, by far, the most European of Latin American countries. And you can't really tell by looking at someone that they have some "native" blood. People don't look at Cher and say "Wow! She must have some Creek!" or "She must be Armenian." That doesn't mean Argentinos feel or should feel like they are native Americans.

And that doesn't mean Argentina isn't very European. I think it is. That's a cultural thing. Culturally, Argentinos and Uruguayos are very more European than Ecuadorians (as a general rule) and they thus integrate into life in Spain and Italy much easier than say, Dominicans. 

Diego Maradona did not go into the big culture shock other Latin Americans go through when they go to work in Spain and Italy and it matters not one iota whether he has Amerindian DNA or not. 

It's not a racial thing. Martinicans are culturally more French than Algerians and thus adopt to life in France much easier than Algerians (who are generally 'whiter').

Colombians, as a rule, are not as European but there are parts of Colombia which are essentially German and other parts which are afrocaribbean. Even one country is too big to generalize. I don't think you can say that Latin American is mostly anything. The place is just too big.


----------



## JGreco

People seem not to realise that in Latin America (especially Brazil) people are so genetically mixed that the concept of race does not exist. I have people in my family that are very dark on my mom's side while about a third of my dad's family who are full panamanian are blond haired and blue eyes who if told they where white would probably get upset because that woud be denyig a part of their ancestery. Most people who are white in Latin American would like the term "blanco mestizo" or "mestizo blanco" referring to them so to not deny their amerindian or african decent in their background.


----------



## cirrus

Looking at parts of this thread anyone would think that there are whole tranches of Latin America which are whiter than the driven snow. So my question is where are the African and Amerindian masses?  Are they confined to TV documentaries and folkloric reserves?

This picture appears radically different from any part of Latin America I know. The references to Colombia in particular I find plain shocking. There the make up of the people very depends on the area.  The population of the Chocó for example is 98% black and some 2% Amerindian (figures from the 2000 census).  Even in areas which are considered as more white, there has been a considerable amount of mestizaje.  Whether people who pride themselves on having a "European" identity would bring themselves to admit this is a different matter.  Perhaps many still cling to notions of racial superiority which belong to a different era.


----------



## Outsider

I think there's another factor involved, which is that many _Northern_ Americans and Europeans tend to stereotype Latin America as a backward, chaotic, land of "brown people" living in "banana republics", totally different from "civilized" and "nordic" North America (as if there hadn't been racial mixing in North America, too).
That naturally annoys Latin Americans, who react by emphasizing the _opposite_ side of their culture. And then the Northern Americans and Europeans accuse Latin Americans of being racist (as if _their_ closet were skeleton-free), which of course annoys Latin Americans even more.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

cirrus said:


> Looking at parts of this thread anyone would think that there are whole tranches of Latin America which are whiter than the driven snow. So my question is where are the African and Amerindian masses?  Are they confined to TV documentaries and folkloric reserves?



Looking at this thread, or any one country, is like judging England's population by looking at the England football team or the US Olympic basketball team. I don't know how many people make "a tranch" but there are large groups of many ethnic groups in Latin America. 

Everyone in Peru isn't Japanese like Alberto Fujimori but there are large Japanese communities in Latin America. Not all entertainers in Latin America are of Arab descent like Selma Hayek, Shakira, Abdalá Bucaram, and Emilio Esteban, but there are large Arab communities in Latin America. Not all Latinos are jews like Jorge Drexler, José Pekerman, Illan Stavans, and Jacobo Zabludovsky. But we have those too. I just mentionned a few  people but those people came out of communities. I don't know if that's what you mean by "tranches."


----------



## JGreco

I completely agree with you outsider. You would think that with the influx of television channels out of Latin America (especially Univision, Telemundo, or TV Globo) that people would think different. Also, all of the wonderful movies that come from the minds of many latin directors such as Salles would give you a different since of Latin America. But I guess people will remain ignorant of the people in latin america who speak Iberian languages eh...


----------



## cirrus

Julito_Maraña said:


> I don't know how many people make "a tranch" but there are large groups of many ethnic groups in Latin America.


That's exactly my point.  Latin America is anything but uniform.


----------



## vlazlo

First of all, forgive me if this is disjointed but I am in class, my students are working on a quiz and have to stop every few moments and answer questions.  That being said, I LOVE Latin America as it is such an incredibly diverse place.  In relation to the question I'm going to pose a few questions: Being that Latin America is such a huge and diverse region, how can one truly begin to determine this? Where do we start?  Genetically/phenotypically?  Culturally?  Does one outweigh the other?  Someone earlier posted something to the effect that race doesn't exist in Latin America.  I totally disagree with this.  The perception of race may be different but to say that there is no concept of race is incorrect.  Ever look at any Mexican or Peruvian casta paintings?  Ever wonder why on Latin American television, most of the actors are white (even in countries where whites are a minority) or why non-whites have not typically been represented politically???  One of the most disparaging terms I have heard Latin Americans use is "indiazo".  Is this not based on some perception of race?  I think that it is best to look at Latin America like a beautiful Venn diagram with three circles:  one for Amerindian, one for European and one for African.  In some areas, one dominates and in some, others.  Gotta run, kiddos are finished with their quiz.


----------



## ronanpoirier

vlazlo said:
			
		

> Genetically/phenotypically?


I didn't have time to read anything before so I'll give this Genetical view. 

Some years ago, a research was done, here in Brazil, to see what's the origins of the Brazilian white people.
The results: 100% of the people had European origins from their parents side. On the mother side, it was 1/3 for each origin: European, Amerindian and African.
It was based on genetical markers. It was made by anallising the mtDNA (which ALWAYS goes from mother to son/daughter and the Y chromossome, which ALWAYS goes from father to son.) I have no idea how they could determine that for women since they don't have the Y chromossome, but anyways...
What's the reason for that? It sounds simple: Portuguese men left their spouses on Portugal and they came to Brazil, so they got to have intercourse with the natives and slaves. So we have European fathers and Indian/African mothers.
In Argentina a similar research was done and, I don't remember well, the results were: 100% European fathers and 46% Indian mothers, 53% European mothers and just 1% of African mothers.
However those researches have some weird points. For example, what if I had an indian greatmother, mother of my father? I wouldn't receive her mtDNA which my dad has, so her origins won't be on the marker. However, the physical traces such as eyes, hair and skin are in other parts of the DNA, so I'd may have Indian traces but my genetical markes would say something different.
Resuming, I don't know anything else!


----------



## Outsider

vlazlo said:


> In relation to the question I'm going to pose a few questions: Being that Latin America is such a huge and diverse region, how can one truly begin to determine this? Where do we start?  Genetically/phenotypically?  Culturally?  Does one outweigh the other?


Latin America is a geographical or political region. Everything else it may be is an extra.


----------



## araceliearambula

ronanpoirier said:


> I didn't have time to read anything before so I'll give this Genetical view.
> 
> Some years ago, a research was done, here in Brazil, to see what's the origins of the Brazilian white people.
> The results: 100% of the people had European origins from their parents side. On the mother side, it was 1/3 for each origin: European, Amerindian and African.
> It was based on genetical markers. It was made by anallising the mtDNA (which ALWAYS goes from mother to son/daughter and the Y chromossome, which ALWAYS goes from father to son.) I have no idea how they could determine that for women since they don't have the Y chromossome, but anyways...
> What's the reason for that? It sounds simple: Portuguese men left their spouses on Portugal and they came to Brazil, so they got to have intercourse with the natives and slaves. So we have European fathers and Indian/African mothers.
> In Argentina a similar research was done and, I don't remember well, the results were: 100% European fathers and 46% Indian mothers, 53% European mothers and just 1% of African mothers.
> However those researches have some weird points. For example, what if I had an indian greatmother, mother of my father? I wouldn't receive her mtDNA which my dad has, so her origins won't be on the marker. However, the physical traces such as eyes, hair and skin are in other parts of the DNA, so I'd may have Indian traces but my genetical markes would say something different.
> Resuming, I don't know anything else!


 

I have to say that that is fascinating, and true, considering our culture that a man can have as many women as he wants, and that historically, it was okay for white men to have many native women in the americas or the philippines, guam, equatorial guinea, wherever the spaniards had colonies in history, but for a white woman to be with a native man was preposterous, una puta, una sinverguenza, descarada.


----------



## DCPaco

Tsoman said:


> Do american indians not have any facial hair? Now that you mention it, I don't remember seeing any indian with a beard.


 
I'm still reading the responses...but there is a word for this hairlessness associated with Amerindians:  lampiño.


----------



## DCPaco

snila said:


> Actually, Latin-America also includes Brazil and countries occupied by France (small territories) like Guyana Francesa. Latin-America is geographically identified starting in Mexico and ending in Chile.
> 
> There were different groups of immigrants (Europeans but also from Asia, Africa) coming in different centuries, but usually people talk about three mainly roots: Indian (indigenous), White and Black.
> 
> Indigenous groups are heterogenous also. Is not just the way they look, but their customs and culture. Culture or nationality is an interesting choice and I guess that many of them would choose culture. But the way, many of them do have hair on ther face , believe me.


 
I agree with you regarding Latin American including all those countries that have a language that comes from the Latin.  Unfortunately, that is not how the Americans or "United Stateans" (as I call them) use it...they use it to mean all the stereotypes they have formed in their heads and have come to associate with the third world and in this sense, they eliminate Brazil because Brazil appears more to them as the second world.  They also exclude the francophonic countries because afterall the noble anglophonic classes have always wanted to be francophones....but I'll continue reading.


----------



## DCPaco

Latin America is very diverse and this is a difficult question.  

I will speak of Mexico because that's where I'm from.  There are regions of Mexico that are far more Amerindian than European.   There are people who by their appearance you can tell, whether they be dressed in modern urban attire, are of Native American ascendence.  The colonial regions of Mexico--Guanajuato, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, Michoacán (just to name a few)--have more people that are either more European or at least mestizos with recursive European coupling.  Similarly, their traditions are more European.  Now, in Monterrey, there are more people with Germanic traditions (the acordeon is a big instrument there) and that's because of their Jewish-German ancestry (and without any malicious intent, people of Monterrey are known for two things:  they call each other "primo" because many old families there are related due to endogeny; they are penny pinchers ("codos" but we sometimes say: es de Monterrey and that's enough to understand).  In Tamaulipas, which is next to Texas, you have people with last names like Dupont, LaFayette, among others, because Texas was under the French.  Coahuila (which was the part of Texas that ended up south of the border) had people from Spain, France, and Germany--the Indian tribes of these regions known as the Coahuiltecos were wiped out by disease and the few that remained crossed with the Europeans.  I think a large part of Mexico identifies with a lot of the European legacy; however, Mexico would not be Mexico without its Amerindian culture (especially not without the Amerindian gastronomy).


----------



## Outsider

araceliearambula said:


> I have to say that that is fascinating, and true, considering our culture that a man can have as many women as he wants, and that historically, it was okay for white men to have many native women in the americas or the philippines, guam, equatorial guinea, wherever the spaniards had colonies in history, but for a white woman to be with a native man was preposterous, una puta, una sinverguenza, descarada.


I don't think Ronan was referring to polygamy. (Not exclusively a white man's custom, by the way.)


----------



## hedonist

Dr. Quizá said:


> So we should pick up an eraser and erase a lot of points in, for instance, Brazil's map just because there are tribes who live unaware of Brazilian's government, shouldn't we? Maybe you're confusing "conquer" with "extermination" - they were the same for some countries then, but not for all.
> 
> Bartolomé de las Casas was "one" man. Hitler, Francis Bacon and Aristotles alse were "one". So what? He was the winner of the Valladolid debate:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the official position of the king and of the Catholic Church at one of it's highest power ages ever be not absolutely relevant? Hence they started to handle the American enemies as their European enemies (introducing political plays, mixing and such) and as a target for the evagelization missions instead of shooting down every one native that appeared on the horizon.
> 
> Was that a need for Spain but not (for no reason) for the other powers?




 Nowadays some indigenous people may not be, but the Brazilian government certainly is even though it may have little relevance in their lives. 

Modern Brazil or any other South America country for that matter is hardly comparable to the first European colonies established 500 years ago where both the invaders and a significant number of natives in large chunks of "unexplored" land were blissfully and mutually unaware of each other for decades. It was only until colonies thrived, expanded and subsequently absorbed that that obviously changed, like it is now in Brazil and neighbouring countries.




> Bartolomé de las Casas was "one" man.


I’m of the opinion that it takes the word of more than just one person to verify something and regard it as reliable account of events.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

hedonist said:


> Nowadays some indigenous people may not be, but the Brazilian government certainly is even though it may have little relevance in their lives.
> 
> Modern Brazil or any other South America country for that matter is hardly comparable to the first European colonies established 500 years ago where both the invaders and a significant number of natives in large chunks of "unexplored" land were blissfully and mutually unaware of each other for decades. It was only until colonies thrived, expanded and subsequently absorbed that that obviously changed, like it is now in Brazil and neighbouring countries.



Those lost amazonian tribes aren't "modern Brazilians" and not radically different of how they were 500 years ago. There probably were less differences between the colonizers and the old tribes than between the current isolated tribes and "modern Brazilians", so let's pick the rubber!




> I’m of the opinion that it takes the word of more than just one person to verify something and regard it as reliable account of events.



But the King and the Pope weren't of your opinion... after a very intense and long debate and they were who made a difference.

BTW, even Las Casas' adversary didn't agree extermination. Inspired by Aristotle, he thought Amerindians should be slaved, but not wiped out.


----------



## hedonist

> Those lost amazonian tribes aren't "modern Brazilians" and not radically different of how they were 500 years ago. There probably were less differences between the colonizers and the old tribes than between the current isolated tribes and "modern Brazilians", so let's pick the rubber!



I honestly don't know what you're getting at.  Brazil and other American countries took years,  centuries even,  to become what they are today. It didn't happen overnight, it was a long arduous process. 



Obviously because of the sheer size of the continent there are few (less than one per cent of the brazilian population I believe) that have not assimilated to the predominant ethnic group but that only serves to prove my point that after 500 years that still hasn't been achieved.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Honestly, I don't know what's the point of that rethorical observation about the word "conquer" - specially if those guys are less than 1% - if it is not to avoid the question of the thread.


----------



## mistorrlo

As a native Mexican, and after travelling all over the country, I've learned a great deal about Mexican history. After learning so much about my country's history, I had a complete different view on Mexico. Modern Mexico has a unique mix of people. Almost over 70% of the nation is Mestizo (European and Indian), about 15% European, 11% Indian, over .5% is  black, mulatto, zambo (Indian and Black), 1% is East Asian, and the rest of the nation is categorized as Middle Eastern and other. Mexico is known for being a nation of people that compose of Spanish and Indian ancestry. But there is much more to Mexicans than just that. While the Spanish greatly influenced the entire nation, there were other European groups that settled in great large numbers in Mexico. The French, Germans, Italians, Dutch, and Irish left behind their influences as well. Many believe there were only a few black slaves brought to Mexico, but that is completely false. In 1810, approximatley 10% of the nation's population was black. I was so shocked when I learned this at one of the museums in Mexico City. The reason why blacks are no longer common to find in Mexico is because they mixed into the nation's incredible melting pot. I learned that in just a little over a hundred years after the year 1810, practically all of the black population mixed with the all the different ethnicites. Today, most of the black population resides along the cost of the State of Veracruz. I also learned that practically all of the nation's Indian population resides in the southern states of Mexico. Indians make up almost half the population of two states in Mexico, the states of Yucatan and Oaxaca. In Yucatan and Oaxaca, I found that most of the Indians in Yucatan have slanted eyes, brown skin, had very hairless features, dark eyes, and straight dark hair. While 70% of the nation is called Mestizos, these people are more than just mestizos, many do not know that they are descendants of the black population that quickly mixed into the melting pot. While blacks are excepted in Mexico today, I don't believe they were accepted back in the colonial era because the vast majority of mexicans do not know how strong the presence of blacks in Mexico was. Black have been ignored in Mexican history. Which is truly awful. There were a great amount of Filipinos that arrived in Mexico too, but they too mixed into the melting pot. Chinese and Japanese immigrants arrived in great large numbers too, but like the filipinos, they too mixed into the melting pot. The same occurred with those from the Middle East, but most of the Middle Easterners that immigrated to Mexico were Lebanese. Mexico is also the home of many Jewish immigrants. Other European miniorities were from Swedish, Russian, Polish, Portuguese, and British. There were more than 70 different Indian civilizations that inhabited to Mexico. They all had a different culture from one another. The result of the Indians mixing with the ethnic groups of Europe, Asia, and Africa, caused the nation to have one of the world's most unique cultures. In every region and state, I found different foods, customs, music, dances, beliefs, fiestas, and the people would always change. In some regions people would resemble the Europeans and in others would resmeble the Indians like in the south of Mexico for example. The customs of the Indians and immigrants fused into one and scatttered across the country. That is why you will be so surprised by the many different things you will find when traveling in Mexico. It's a very interesting country. I thought all Mexicans shared the exact same customs and all looked like one another, but I was proven wrong. When people say all Mexicans are dark, where somprerros, and all those stereotypes that we are given, I always defend the identy of the people. In the past I would have let go of those stereotypes about Mexicans, but now all that has changed. Mexico is a country based on the ancient, colonial, and modern times. The architecture is amazing, in many many many parts of Mexico, you feel like your in a European city. There is so much neo classical architecture in Mexico. I loved walking around the streets of Mexico City, Guadalajara, Guanajuato, Puebla, Monte Rey, there were many many cities and towns that had so much beautiful European architecture. Every state, and every region within each state, share different customs from one another. But of coarse, the most important and biggest customs in all of Mexico, exist in each culture that is found in Mexico. This is what unites Mexicans together. A study was made in Mexico, and it was found that the vast majority of Mestizos carry more European blood than any other ethnicity. 70% of their blood derives from the Europeans and the rest mostly from the Indians and Africans. Mexico truly is a melting pot, and I have never been more proud of being Mexican after learning about my country, and of coarse traveling around it too. When you travel around Mexico, take note of the many different things you will find, you will be impressed.


----------



## BehindtheDoor

Jtolj said:


> Well, in the south.



When you think that Andalusians have a pure "Incan" face, then you have a really big problem.

Note: Yeah, I know that Evo isn't Quechua like Atahualpa, but Aymara. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.


----------



## DCPaco

mistorrlo said:


> The same occurred with those from the Middle East, but most of the Middle Easterners that immigrated to Mexico were





mistorrlo said:


> *L**ebanese*. Mexico is also the home of many *Jewish* immigrants. Other European miniorities were from Swedish, Russian, Polish, Portuguese, and British. There were more than 70 different Indian civilizations that inhabited to Mexico. They all had a different culture from one another. I thought *all Mexicans shared the exact same customs* and all looked like one another, but I was proven wrong. When people say all Mexicans are dark, *where somprerros*, and all those stereotypes that we are given, I always defend the identy of the people. In the past I would have let go of those stereotypes about Mexicans, but now all that has changed. Mexico is a country based on the ancient, colonial, and modern times. The architecture is amazing, in many many many parts of Mexico, you feel like *your in a European city*. There is so much neo classical architecture in Mexico. I loved walking around the streets of Mexico City, Guadalajara, Guanajuato, Puebla, *Monte Rey*, there were many many cities and towns that had so much beautiful *European architecture*. Every state, and every region within each state, *share* different customs from one another. But of *coarse*, the most important and biggest customs in all of Mexico, exist in each culture that is found in Mexico. *This is what unites Mexicans together*. A study was made in Mexico, and it was found that the vast majority of Mestizos carry more European blood than any other ethnicity. 70% of their blood derives from the Europeans and the rest mostly from the Indians and Africans. *Mexico truly is a melting pot,* and I have never been more proud of being Mexican after learning about my country, and of *coarse* traveling around it too. When you travel around Mexico, take note of the many different things you will find, you will be impressed.


 
Lebanese settlers ended up largely in Mexico City and since it is a large country and very diverse, it is best to speak of the regional nuances addressing the locations (even if at this point I think this should be a new thread). Mexico City is home of the second largest population of Jews in the world outside of Israel. (However, many people of European ascendance in Mexico are of Sephardic ancestry and the Jews you are speaking of Ashkenazic.) As for the indigenous cultures of Mexico, you speak in the past tense but there are at least 62 of these cultures still active and speaking their native tongues. As for the homogeneity of the country, it isn’t homogeneous because it is a large country and you just have to travel or speak to the people of different regions to know that the cultures vary from area to are and it’s no different in that sense from any country in the world. Part of the diversity (just as we see it in Latin America as a whole), comes from the different European groups that settled in each region. Of Mexico, I can give a few examples: La Nueva España-Mexico City region; La Nueva Galicia-Jalisco, Guanajuato, Aguascalientes, etc.; La Nueva Extramadura-Coahuila, and other northern parts; La Nueva Vizcaya-Chihuahua, Zacatecas, etc.; among others. (Also, in Nuevo León, you have polkas because of the large German group of people who migrated to that region of the country.) If you ask the people of Spain how different each of those cultures are (the original cultures that bear the same name, minus the “Nueva”) they will tell you and you take that and fuse it with the plural native cultures of Mexico and you end up with a far greater group of diversity. The style of architecture that is most present in Mexico is Baroque and that is it’s Spanish legacy; so, when we speak of architecture (at least the old cathedrals) we should call it Spanish architecture—because it is certainly not the European architecture of the United States.

You also shouldn’t be surprised that the mestizos carry a greater amount of European genes since many of the indigenous areas that were colonized suffered many deaths due to diseases that they were unaccustomed to dealing with and extermination—wherever that may have been the case. As for melting pot theory, I’m not sure that I buy it. We are a people that are proud of our heritage and we are a country that has come together and certainly our gastronomy is known and imitated throughout the world but every region of Mexico will have its regional gastronomy that is unlike anything in any other part of the nation. Just an example: in the northeast, we fry our tortillas for tacos…in the center of the republic, they lay the tortillas on the meat to get a bit of the fat on them and in the South they eat the tacos with the tortilla dry. In Nueva Galicia, they eat more with white bread (“bolillos”) than they do with tortilla. In the northwest, they eat fish tacos and in the area across from Arizona and New Mexico, they call “burritos” what those of us in other regions call “tacos de tortilla de harina” (flour tortilla tacos).

At the risk of being overtly pedantic, there were a few orthographic issues in your reply that I’m willing to overlook; however, it’s: Monterrey (Nuevo León) and not Monte Rey. (Monterey, with one R is the California sort.) Also, it is "sombreros" not "somprerros". Because you are not a native speaker of English, I will overlook the English issues; however, I cannot overlook the issues in Spanish (and I mean this with all due respect...if we aren't careful, we'll end up talking like Rudolfo Anaya or Laura Cisneros).


----------



## Elibennet

don maico said:


> there might be a considerable presence but amearindian culture or legacy is not terrrble eviudent form waht I can remember. When one thinks of BA it is the Colon , 9 de Julio, Palermo,the major shopping streets, the marina etc - all very European .. Only the Gaucho symbols ie clothing leather goods boots etc make one aware here is another Argentina inland.


When you say that the presence of the indian origins is not present in Buenos Aires, I wonder what Buenos Aires you saw.  I myself descend from Italians and my husband from Spaniards, but as Chaska Ñawi said, if you look around a little bit you will find the "original landowners" in the faces of the beggars and those who do menial jobs. Apart from that, it´s common to talk about Argentina from Buenos Aires. In the provinces it is also common to see people with darker skin. What is more, in the latest years there has been a big immigration wave from Bolivia and Paraguay, which adds to the number of people who have a native american aspect.

Anyway, don Maico, I notice you enjoyed Buenos Aires very much. 
I´ll tell you something: when I first visited Paris I told my friend "why did we spend so much money to come here, this is Buenos Aires!"(of course, we don´t have an Eiffel Tower) This shows that the European influence in our country has been much bigger than in other latin american capital cities.


----------



## DCPaco

Elibennet said:


> I´ll tell you something: when I first visited Paris I told my friend "why did we spend so much money to come here, this is Buenos Aires!"(of course, we don´t have an Eiffel Tower) This shows that the European influence in our country has been much bigger than in other latin american capital cities.


 
Many people from Spain who have been to the colonial regions of Mexico have said that it is very similar to what they have in Spain.  In Mexico, it isn't just the capital that has European flavor, but perhaps every capital of every state in the country.

I have to say that I can't help but notice a certain disdain toward the natives of your country and the neighboring countries in your posting.

Elibennet:  I had a professor from Argentina and she explained that many historians claim that the reason why Argentinians are seldom mestizo is because there were no aborigines there; however, she also explained that new historical accounts explain massive genocides brought on by the European settlers of Argentina.  Which do you believe is the true history of Argentina?

Another thing that we should all be very clear about Argentina is that after World War II it became a haven for Nazi Germans.  Perhaps they helped perpetuate the story of how European Argentina is.

Best regards to all!

Paco


----------



## Mate

DCPaco said:


> Elibennet: I had a professor from Argentina and she explained that many historians claim that the reason why Argentinians are seldom mestizo is because there were no aborigines there; however, she also explained that new historical accounts explain massive genocides brought on by the European settlers of Argentina. Which do you believe is the true history of Argentina?
> 
> Paco, I understand that you are addressing Elibennet but since there is no response so far let me throw a few facts on the table: Native American (Pueblos Originarios) people were quite numerous in our territory before the Desert Campaign was carried out by Gen. Julio A. Roca in the second half of the XIX century.
> 
> It was a successful, well organized and carefully designed strategy. Despite this and other massacres, mestizo population fortunately is still very abundant here.
> 
> I doubt your teacher was really into the thing regarding this matter.
> 
> Another thing that we should all be very clear about Argentina is that after World War II it became a haven for Nazi Germans. Perhaps they helped perpetuate the story of how European Argentina is.
> 
> I disagree. German Nazis seldom showed themselves in public for all these years. Now, perhaps all the refugees are dead due to natural causes (age).
> 
> They have had an almost unnoticeable influence compared to that of other immigrants coming from Spain, Italy, Russia, the UK, Poland, Syria, France and many other countries.
> 
> But we had our own Nazis here: those that are held responsible for the *National Reorganization Process* (Proceso de Reorganización Nacional)
> 
> Best regards to all!
> 
> Paco


 
I clearly understand why we Argentine and more precisely "porteño" people are not very popular among our Latin American neighbors. 
It is a regrettable fact and, believe me, I feel really sorry about that.

Saludos - Mate


----------



## AuPhinger

This has certainly been a fascinating thread.  I have not been able to study it---rather, a quick read, a "skim", you might say.    I am from the US.  We are all probably aware of our background here of (primarily) European immigration and handling of the Native populations.  Nothing to be proud of in this latter area, but then (in MY opinion!!) that is also the case pretty much all over the world for that stage of history!  The conqueror is seldom totally benevolent!!

In the early 1950s, I spent over two years in a small town in the selva of central Peru---small town of Tingo Maria.  What an experience for a 10-12 year old boy!!!  Walking down the "main street" of Tingo, you could hear at least---probably more than, half a dozen languages:  Spanish, Quechua, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, English---that is eight, and I know there were more at times.  This was a town of maybe 1500---what a melting pot!!!

Keep in mind, this was not long at all after World War !!, and MANY of the world's citizens had been on the move! 

  Since that time I also lived in Bogotá for some time, and my parents went on to live in Guatemala and Honduras for a total of around 25 years.  My comment, though that of an outsider, is that the population of “Latin America” is essentially Mestizo—or perhaps better said “South American”---lots of Native Indian, lots of European, and plenty from the rest of the world!


----------



## lforestier

I am from Puerto Rico. We are proud to be a mestizo people with a little bit of Amerindian, Spanish and African blood. That said, when last surveyed, over 50% said they were of European anscestry, 25% of African ancestry and the rest were mixed. It was taught in our school system that the natives were wiped out by the Conquistadores and Africans slaves were brought to replace them. So they's not much actual amerindian looking people in PR. If you go to some cities (Guaynabo City) you would think you were in Ireland since many Irish worked for the Spanish Army and helped build the impressive fortifications surrounding the old city. Many settled in Guaynabo, which is called Ciudad de Conquistadores,and the mayor is named O'Neill. 
If you go to the town of Loiza, the music and faces will remind you of a West African village.
Thus is diversity.
Personally, my ancestors are from Catalonia, Corcega and southern France. Also I have 50% Korean blood. Because of it, my fellow countrymen do not believe that I am Puerto Rican and think I am Mexican, Filipino or Peruvian. Apparently, my oriental side makes me look amerindian, which is rare in PR.


----------



## ubikargie

If we think that you can know one city just by remembering a five star hotel and its sourroundings, then Buenos Aires is an european city, in some areas french, in others spanish.
I live in Buenos Aires. This city has a population of 3 million in the metropolitan area, but if you take in account the suburbs, it raises to 13 million. Especially in what is called "second ring" (the sections more distant from downtown)
 we can consider that mestizos are a majority.


----------

