Talk:Zambo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tina Turner is half african american, half native american, maybe she could be mentioned somewhere in the article, since I think she is probably the most famous zamba.

I understand the term Garifuna to be a specific term for the descendants of the Black Caribs who were deported from St. Vincent to Honduras in the 18th century - this term applies to a specific group (classed with other Amerindians in Belize), not a general term for mixed African-Amerindian people (e.g., the product of a mixed marriage between a person of black ancestry and one of Maya ancentry in Belize would not be Garifuna). Guettarda 01:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying that Garifuna is a "general term" to denote those of mixed Black and Amerindians strains. The General term is indeed Zambo, but in those of St. Vincent and related isles and their descendants in Honduras are known as Garifuna, and as such, the term Garifuna only applies to those Zambos. Al-Andalus 14:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The article says exactly that:

Zambo (Cafuzo in Brazil, Lobo in Mexico, Garifuna in Saint Vincent and Honduras) is a term of Latin American origin describing peoples of mixed African and Amerindian racial descent.

This means that Cafuzo, Lobo and Garifuna are synonyms of Zambo. Sure, the definition of "zambo" would encompass the Garifuna. But to list it parenthetically at the start of the article implies synonymy. Guettarda 19:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also removed references to modern St Vincent - the Garifuna were deported over 200 years ago. The modern Vincentians of mixed Carib and African blood are simply called Carib or part-Carib. (The British deported the "Black Caribs", the less mixed "Yellow Caribs" were allowed to remain, although they have largely been absorbed into the majority population. Guettarda 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguishing "zambo" from "sambo"

Is there no connection to the term (considered racist) "Sambo", as used in the United States to refer to a stereotyped image of black people? ("little black Sambo")

Answering my own question:

zambo

 1  definition  found 

 From  Webster's  Revised  Unabridged  Dictionary  (1913)  [web1913]: 

 Zambo  \Zam"bo\,  n.;  pl  {Zambos}.  [See  {Sambo}.] 
 The  child  of  a  mulatto  and  a  negro;  also  the  child  of  an 
 Indian  and  a  negro;  colloquially  or  humorously,  a  negro;  a 
 sambo.

• This term is for many, synonymous with the offensive term "sambo". Comments on including commentary to the effect that, despite the cute historical etymology, in contemporary usage the term may be regarded as equivalent to "negro" or "coloured"? RealityCheck 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous, troll. Check the date of the reference: 1913. Blatant, unchallenged racism was the fashion then. People in the American South and elsewhere regularly referred to blacks as "niggers" and "darkies," too. *x* deeceevoice 02:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• My friend, I'm not sure whether you normally address people who seek RFCs in this way, but partially to see whether you can show that you're not a fairly unpleasant individual, I will have another go at this. Wanted: constructive comments and support sought for making sure that "zambo", which is aurally indistinguishable from "sambo", is not confused with the latter term. I'm thinking of something basic like "the term must not be confused with the ethnic slur 'sambo', because...". We must ensure there can be no confusing these two apparently different terms. RealityCheck 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not equivalent terms. It seems clear to me that Zambos generally are treated not only as mixed-raced individuals, but as distinct ethnic minorities in their own right -- which is evidenced by the ridiculously low percentages quoted in the article and the earlier wording, which I altered: "Zambos don’t generally constitute any proportion of most countries in Latin America, but they do represent small minorities in the north-western South American countries of Colombia (3%), Venezuela and Ecuador, and along north-western Brazil where they are known as Cafuzos...." -- like the Garifuna in Honduras. Clearly, throughout portions of Latin America, there are millions of blacks mixed with indio blood who live outside of these specific communities as members of the general population. Further, historically, Negro -- with capital "n" in the U.S. since the 1940s or '50s -- refers to any person with African ancestry, regardless of ethnic admixture.

Finally, given that the ethnic slur "sambo" is thought to originate from "zambo" -- which should be mentioned in the piece -- it is absolutely unacceptable to propose that "zambo" and "negro" or "coloured" be considered "equivalent" or interchangeable. I am of African, Cado, Cherokee (and Irish) ancestry -- that I am certain of. You wanna imagine my reaction if someone were to call me "zambo" as a synonym for "Negro"?

You don't.

Consider my observations, my comments in the immediately preceding paragraph, and then recheck the wording on your earlier entry. That is how your comment reads, and this is typical of the back-handed, pervasive racism of this website. Understand why I assumed you were simply some gutless, racist troll tryin' to start some shyt up in here. I even checked your edit history briefly, but because your language as I read it was so off-the-wall, I still believed your motive was something other than imparting objective information.

My apologies. But in the future, since this is cyberspace and your words are the only means by which you can be known, please express your intentions more clearly.

Yes. Certainly, it would make sense to include the wording you suggest. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 09:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. We are all responsible for the way we choose to conduct ourselves. I am responsible for my wording, but you are responsible for the particular way in which you chose to respond. And I do not grant that your response to the wording of my first post was reasonable, so we will need to agree to disagree on this particular point. Regarding your other points, personally I do not have a graduated response to terms like "sambo", "negro" or "coloured". I regard them as equivalent in the sense that I find them all equally offensive. All this simply returns to my original point. Here we have an article about "zambo" which contains all this "cute historical etymology" about the term but does not say a thing about how offensive the term can be because it sounds just like "sambo". Anyway, I think that we agree on the important thing so I will have a shot at the wording at some point. RealityCheck 11:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand. My apology was not for my conduct, but for the misunderstanding. I do not apologize for taking strong exception to wording which seems to suggest that "in contemporary usage the term may [or "can"] be regarded as equivalent to 'negro' or 'coloured'" One question: is the word in the Spanish-language context considered a pejorative -- perhaps not inherently so, but because of societal racism/color bias? Is it a word people seek to avoid? deeceevoice 12:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's why I suggest we agree to disagree. Re Spanish context, I do not know. Do you think we should consult further on this point, all leave it, as this is the EN Wiki? RealityCheck 13:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article becoming African rather than Zambo

This page is starting to become an editorial with an African POV. One editor in particular is adding one-sided info by categorising the subjects of this article (the Zambos) as Blacks. The article is here to discuss the Zambo, not Blacks. However, I do agree that the all the issues about Zambos should be, in fact MUST be, addressed by the article, including those encountered by virtue of the African heritage, but let's not forget to address it on the perspective of their Native American heritage. As user deeceevoice has it now, the twang of the article has become Afrocentric. The African element is only one side of the coin. It would be just a POV to turn this article into a Native American page, and insist on analyzing the Zambos as Amerindians.

Let's address both heritages. Al-Andalus 16:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

On another note, I have also been reverting cut and paste jobs being inserted into the article, again by user deeceevoice that doesn't even pretend to address Zambos, but is blatently on the concerns of Blacks in Latin America.

• is the case in nations such as Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Panama and Brazil. In part because of the prevailing anti-black racism in many societies, however, these populations often do not identify themselves as black or having African progenitors; they simply consider themselves "Latino" or even white.

What????? Because of discrimination Zambos simply identify as Latino or even White? This is getting out of hand! That entire paragraph is written in the context of Mulattos, since it is Mulattos that are of mixed European (White) and African ancestry, not Zambos. Unless you're unaware, many Zambos often follow the cultural traditions of their Amerindian heritage, not their African one. In Bolivia their mother language is even the indigenous language Aymara.

Again, that entire paragraph is written in the context of mulattos. How on earth could Zambos consider themselves "Latino" or even white, if as already stated, many follow Amerindian traditions, identifying them with Amerindians, and there is no White heritage for them to supposedly identify with it. The one drop rule of the United States is not applied in Latin America, and Zambos are not classed as Blacks, most identify as Zambos, and if forced to identify as just one of thier ancestries, most would simply identify with the Amerindian side based on cultural practices. '''Al-Andalus 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

You may not be aware of it, but here in the U.S., there are plenty of Afro-Latinos and Indio-Latinos who consider themselves "white." Indeed, the FBI apparently officially categorizes Indio-Latinos as "white Hispanics," to differentiate them from Latinos with obviously African ancestry. In Puerto Rico, for instance, lots of brown-skinned Afro-Latinos are under the misconception that they have no "black blood" in them at all. When they come to the U.S. they get a rude awakening. So, no. The article speaks to the issue of Afro-Latinos -- not "mulattos."

"Zambo" clearly is a term that applies not only to specific communities, but to racial/etnic admixture. Hence, the mention of terms like "Garifuno," et al. I've merely introduced the English-language equivalent of the term in that somewhat generic context.

The matter of racial discrimination against Afro-Latinos speaks to Latinos with African ancestry -- "pure" (if there is such a thing) Africans, as well as Afro-Indio-Latinos -- or, depending on the country and individual identification, Zambos, Garifunas, etc.

Am I understanding your objection? And does this respond adequately to your concerns? deeceevoice 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I urge you to wikify your edits and put them into conttext! Clarify that it is in the United States. Apart from context, wikification of your edits is a big problem. Make sections, put things in order so it makes sense. Clarify things, don't just cut and paste. Al-Andalus 17:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

IMO, the text makes perfect sense as is. If you have a substantive problem or questions or concerns about the material I've included, then here's the place to raise them. You don't need to school me in how to edit on this website. If you want a change made, then make it. If I agree, I'll let it stand. 'S that simple.deeceevoice 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the direction this article has taken. While the information contained is all correct (as far as I can tell), it must be edited into a context dealing with Zambos as Zambos, and not as Blacks. The one drop rule classification pattern of anyone with any degree of African ancestry as Black - the commonplace standard of Blackness in US race relations - must not be supplanted into Wikipedia. The plights of Zambos must be addressed in their article in the correct context as Zambos (people of mixed descent, with two heritages, where neither is prioritised), not as Blacks or "Afro-Latinos". It is misguided and one-sided ethnocentrism to pretend to academically analyse a people, by taking into account only one side of their make-up (especially if it is the side that most of them identify with the least in the first place). In this case, the POV being taken is of analysing Zambos as Africans who happen to have Amerindian admixture. Just as flawed would be to analyse them as Amerindians who happed to have African admixture. Let's address them as what they are, as Zambos, and analyse their plight in THAT context, in the context of their mixture. Al-Andalus 04:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC).

Let's do this again. The article is about a singular phenomenon, or group of people, collectively: people in or from Latin America of mixed African and Indian descent. The name "Zambo" is a Spanish one. Encompassed in that category are people of various nations, who go by different names (Garifuno, Lobo, Cafuzo, etc.), who have their own distinct cultures. "Afro-Latino" is a term which also describes these people -- assuming they are, like many of them of African and Indian heritage. It is within this context that the information has been introduced. I've taken a brief look at the piece and will return later to make certain changes, but much of the information will remain; it is entirely relevant. deeceevoice 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand the discussion of the meaning of the word Zambo might be in an historical context. Today in Central America, the word Zambo is extremely racist and used in a derogatory way to describe individuals of African descent. I caution you to use the word only in it's historical context and not to describe individuals. The caption under the picture of President Chavez in the "Zambo" article, can basically be translated to mean "Half Nigger"

68.49.186.49