Talk:Black history in Puerto Rico
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Moved content from main page
^^^^^ you are wrong there are white americans who have (african slave ancestors and may or may not know it but they are white thomas jefforson descendants are white not black there are black americans who have white ancestors or natove or all 3. get your facts straight please african americans are colored people of various shades its true that some half black half white= mullatos (one black parent and one white)say they are black only thats on them nobody is forcing them. african americans have backgrounds of creole, native americans, and white or white european african americans are black people skin comes of high yellos to the darkest brown
ever heard of the (west african slaves of maybe sieraa leoneans origin) gullah and geechee people they formed a tribe called the seminoles along side with renegade native americans
It's called punctuation, try learning about it. whatever you were trying to convey, it's pretty unintelligible.
[edit] requested cleanup
this page contains many unverified facts, statements of a biased nature, and grammatical or usage errors. Requesting cleanup
[edit] Before Columbus
Could someone please give us some sort of information to back up the contention that there was cross-Atlantic trade between Puerto Rico and Mali? And why Mali, which is landlocked? RickK 06:18, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Although I don't doubt that there easily could have been scattered contacts in the pre-Columbian era (ships blown off course, if nothing else), no evidence shows that they were extensive. The claim seems to be tied to a Muslim claim of primary discovery, viz. Muslim Legacy in Early America, a web page which at least points to some of the primary sources which have made such claims see also. Neither of these is reliable enough to be a Wikipedia source, I'm afraid. --Dhartung | Talk 10:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- With regard to Mali being landlocked, I believe the borders, as such, were not the same in the 13th Century as they are today. In fact, it was more a sphere of influence than an actual country. I found a little of this information at www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CIVAFRCA/MALI.HTM.
Furtivito 21:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Furtivito. I've been thinking about what I said above overnight and instead of just deleting, I'll probably say something like "there are indications that ..." or something like that, but tone down the bold assertions. RickK 21:34, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I've put in some weasel words, but it still needs sources. RickK 23:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I often find that weasel words and POV problems stem from poor organization, so I tried to remedy that with an introductory section and renaming of the sections. I hope this provides a better foundation for further improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 02:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My point of view
I just wanted to note that I mcreated this article out of goodwill, to honor with this work those Puerto Rican Blacks that are, like sometimes they are are everywhere else, relegated by other countrymen and women, and that I garnered all the information that I found available to create it.
One must remember, we are talking about an issue that reaches as far back as the pre-Columbus era, records were very shaddy, to sat the least, back then.
Thank you all for your suggestions and attempts at making this a better article and God bless you, from the bottom of my heart.
Sincerely yours, "Antonio Workaholipedian Martin"
[edit] African Americans
Puerto Ricans are not african americans, not even black puerto ricans, we are better described as Afro Caribbean. Blacks from the Caribbean. African Americans share a culture and a common history which, eventhough in some ways similar, not the same as the slaves and the descendants of blacks in Puerto Rico. For that reason I am removing the categories. I welcome any opinions or comments. Cjrs 79 16:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, technically, since Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and Puerto Rico is an American Commonwealth, the term African-American is accurate. It may be nit-picky, but its true =-) Hihellowhatsup 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The term african-american is grossly inaccruate. I have been doing some major research in the subject of naming, and there have been many advances in decoding the "language" of the slave trade. It has been determined that the word "Negro" did not mean African. It only refered to a dark skinned person. There were a group of American Indians who showed up in Europe for sale as Negros. One book, (i cannot recall the name, it was published in the past 3 years or so), also points out that the only time the Spanish would refer to an African as Negro, was when they called them, Negro de Guinee(sp). I'll try to find the book title so i can site it. The term "colored" or "people of color" (used more on the mainland) also refered to American Indians too. The point is a large number of "black/Negro" Americans have way more American Indian heritage then they actually realize, and their heritage (corn-bread, grits, sweetpotato/pumpkin pie, greasing hair) connects them more to their American Indian (or Indigenous) heritage than anything else. African-American does NOT reflect this. The only time an "Indian" was really called an Indian was when they were on tribal land,had tribal "documents", or were fighting against the Europeans. If you were enslaved, or working for the Europeans, You were pretty much known as a negro or negro slave (in "latin" america, the terms were a bit broader, such as metizo(sp), etc but these were only VISUAL determinations, not genetic and very rarely using lineage information).
Specifically for Purto Ricans (black or otherwise) it was found that they have much more Taino genetic heritage than once thought. http://www.indio.net/aymaco/Proof.htm again, this makes the term "latin" a misnomer, as Purto Ricans could call themselves "Taino" and be entirely correct with the only problem being that Taino refers to a culture, not a genetic heritage.
I am authoring a book (geared more towards to black American decendents of American Indians of the Eastern American mainland) that comes to the conclusion that the American Indian populations were not decimated as badly as once thought, and that there are large numbers of people who are in fact outgrowths (decendents) of the original peoples. Culturally and genetically.
I'll try to edit some of the front page to reflect this information at a later date (or someone else can, if they have access to the book....at the very least put up the Taino information http://www.indio.net/aymaco/Proof.htm )
[edit] "purchased"
It is commonly agreed upon that using such terms when referring to the North-Atlantic slave trade is sheer folly. Slaves were not merely 'purchased'. A more balanced term would be 'brought'. Not too expletive and certainly not Pat Buchanan's version of history. Changing the intro ..
