Talk:Afro-Latin American
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.) |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-Importance within African diaspora. |
|
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 To-do list for Afro-Latin American: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
Place importance on nations with significant or outspoken Afrodescendent populations. Nicaragua and Panama are nations with such populations. Can someone review changes made to the text/chart, keeping an eye out for unquoted text (even with citation), unsourced facts placed in the text, and demographic facts (which seems to be changed every few days or weeks)? Why is the person who changes the demographic information so persistent and what source is this person using to base his changes. Feel free to edit this list, removing items you attend to and adding tasks that need to be done. |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 Archives |
| /Archive 1 |
[edit] "sub-Saharan" Africa?
I noticed that racist love to keep black people confined to one part of Africa that they call "sub-Saharan," but whites can be anyone on earth including black people! The TRUTH is, blacks are in North Africa as wel and ALL of Africa is the black man's homeland. They want to take the black man out of North Africa and make something called white Berbers because doing so would create 'white' Moors who mixed with white Europeans. That would make the suspect groups (you know who they are and they cannot exscape their destiny) in their minds, erased of the idea of the black man being in their blood stream and there is nothing but 'pure' whiteness. Of course, if the black man ruled the earth today, these same groups would be going out their way to prove how black they were.
In addition to Moors, they need Africa that an ancient white man came into concact with to be white, so they can rewrite history to make it appears as if white were never at the mercy of blacks and that the only mixing that took place was in the new world - with blacks as slaves and white/white-like peoples(hispanics/Portuguese) as master. People can rewrite and lie about history as much as possible, but what is CLEAR from history, all ruling groups will fall one day and those on the bottom will be on the top. Just look at Europeans. ALL empire thought that they would be forever, but they eventually fell and hardly saw it coming.
So, black was not only in the form of the slaves, but the Moors beofose these peoples came here and in North Africa.--71.235.94.254 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Notion isn't Racist At All. Specifically, the native/indigenous sub-Saharan genes and aesthetics associated with them is what the criteria for belonging the Black Race consists of. These genes originated among Capoid and Congoid groups who are the indigenous groups of sub-Saharan African. Yes, the ancestry has been long present among N. African populations for centuries; however, it's not native to N. African, but rather sub Saharan Africa. The notion isn't racist, but more scientific. Arab and Berber groups are native to North Africa and first evolved as distinct Caucasian groups. Furthermore, modernly, most of North Africa (especially among those who fit the White, Middle Eastern or Mediterranean aesthetic) doesn't not claim to be Black.
-
- The native/traditional cultural practices of most N. Africans tend to be more Arab, Berber, Persian influenced than influenced by cultural practices of sub-Saharan. North Africans tend to speak dialects/languages indigenous to the region which had little to no influence of sub-Saharan dialects. Conversely, some sub-Saharan African regions have been significantly influenced genetically, linguistically, and culturally by N. Africa. Places like Zanzibar or Nigeria have a dominant presence of N. African and sub-Saharan African infused cultural and linguistic roots inherited by the local sub-Saharan descended population.
-
- Also, because Black is more of a social construct than a actual bloodline many N. Africans find discrepancy with it. You speak of the Moors, yes many of them had sub-Saharan ancestry, but not all of them. The sub-Saharan gene was present in various frequencies throughout the Moorish population, but not all Moors had this ancestry. The Moors where indeed a diverse population; however, they obviously made little to no distinction of this sub-Saharan ancestry. Most of the distinction of aesthetic differences was drawn due to the darker skin hue of many Moorish invaders compared to that of the native Europeans of the time. This skin hue was by default associated with Africa with no distinction or notation made of how the Moors that they saw came to acquire it. The acknowledgement was of the skin color and not of the sub-Saharan genetic connection. The insinuation then evolved that that all of Africa was dark skinned; that all of Africa was one raced (BLACK) - which isn't the case. This has NEVER been the case. Africa has always been diverse, has long produced populations of mixed race, and has seen centuries of miscegenation among it's people - even before Hellenic and European rule/influences.
-
- As a matter of fact, the Moor identity was more Arab than sub-Saharan, especially since the sub-Saharan ancestry was mostly obtained via rape and the Moors has dominant social, cultural, political and linguistic influence that spanned from Asia, to Europe and into sub-Saharan Africa. Moor/Arab identity was the unifying factor that allow them to rule for so long and so many people of different ethnic/racial heritages. Furthermore, if you were to go back in time and ask any of the Moors who were on the forefront of their society how they identified, I doubt any of them would have said Black, or have even been familiar with the implied social construct or the concept of identifying as such. ~~ 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Archived discussions
All discussions which had their last dated entry prior to December 2006 have been moved to |/Archive 1. If there is anything there than needs to be resurrected, please start a new section on this page with an appropriate title.
By the way, I realize that all the items on this page --at this moment-- are signed by me. Please do not conclude that I considermyself "owner" of this article or the supreme authority. It just seems that for the recent past no one else is taking an interest in this discussion page. For my part, I'd welcome other users to join in --JAXHERE | Talk 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Help with Population estimates
The table in the IDB population estimates section shows "50%" prior to the main table, which is somehow added by the system. If anyone knows how to remove this, your help in doing so would be much appreciated. --JAXHERE | Talk 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed. The problem was the Colombia had an extra column, and the "+" directly after the "|" in the code was causing it to do weird things. I put a space between the + and the | and removed the extra column. --sony-youth 14:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regions with significant populations
Please add Honduras.
[edit] IDB Population Estimates Section
Some users have been changing information in this section which is an extract from an official report. Nothing in this section should be changed unless there has been an error discovered in the material quoted from the report.
If the report is in error and there is sourced material to correct it, I'd suggest adding a footnote at the end of the section, with the corrected information and the reference to the source of the new information.--JAXHERE | Talk 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of famous
Is is possible to create a list of famous black Latinos?24.185.49.151 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
What, you mean like Pele? I think that sounds a great idea --Episodiod 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the individual countries list a few. These could be expanded, a separate section could be dedicated to FBL's if there were sufficient, and I suppose, if the list proved extensive enough even a separate page would be justified. JAXHERE | Talk 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how many Latinos are in the United States, but I heard that 1.7 million of Latinos in the United States self-identify as black. Is this true? And how many Hispanic people are there in the USA?24.185.49.151 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
DONE! Let me know what you all think. List of Famous Afro-Latinos RemoTheDog (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nicaragua
Mainly found on the mostly undeveloped Caribbean coast.
I changed it too:
Mainly found on the country's Autonomous regions of RAAN and RAAS.
Someone Undid my revision with the comment "vandal". I just wanted to know if/why my post wasnt apropriate.
LaNicoya 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well precisely, after all what do the Red & Anarchist Action Network or the Renin-angiotensin system have to do with Nicaragua. Well callaed vandalism, SqueakBox 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, i apologize, i hadn't noticed that. I was referring to Región Autónoma del Atlántico Norte and Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur which would i thought were RAAN and RAAS.
LaNicoya 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well do the edit again than. I am sure if you link correctly it will be fine, SqueakBox 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I owe an apology to LaNicoya for labeling the revert to "vandal", I had my doubts as to whether it was intentional, but when I followed the links that were placed they obviously had nothing to do with Nicaragua.JAXHERE | Talk 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
IDB population estimates
- This table is terrible! Who elaborate the table is a racist and afrocentrist! Overestimate the black population in America. View:
- Peru -> "Predominantly Indigenous, with much greater African than white contributions to the genetic pool. Britannica Yearbook puts an upper estimate of 10 percent on Blacks." (Note the racist bold text.)
- Mexico -> "The colonial population was always predominantly Indigenous with an important zambo/African strain. Black genetic contributions are probably equal to or greater than white." (In Mexico blacks does't exist or are very small minority. White pop. are 10-15%. Afro-mexican are 1% or less! Racist and no neutral point of view!)
and others cases of racism in table!
- This table is a great joke!
Anyone wikipedian, please, delete the table.
[edit] IDB table is wrong
The source can be reputable, but that doesn't make it infallible. Its product can still be wrong. Many of the claims are very much at variance with the preponderance of data. Overblown claims about the black genetic contribution and a constant downplaying of the white contribution does give the document a tone consistent with an Afro-centric agenda. SamEV 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sam, I agree with your first thought, however, one of the rules of Wikipedia is that all information must be Verifiable and from a reputable source.
- If you have some reputable source which disputes or is different from the IDB information it would be excellent to provide this information together with a citation to its source and then let readers decide for themselves which is correct.
- Unfortunately Wikipedias rules do not allow us to provide "True Facts" unless they have been published in a recognized publication or uttered by someone who is a "recognized" expert or authority on the subject. --JAXHERE | Talk 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Jax. I'm sorry I didn't see your reply until tonight. Thank you. You're quite correct about Wikipedia's rules. I'll do as you advice and will be adding alternate information this week (unless I change my mind, that is). I'll also try to finish reading the IDB report so that I can comment on it in a bit more detail. Take it easy. SamEV 08:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] merge of Afro Costa Rican
If there were any valuable information in that article I'd be for a merge, however, Afro Latin American already suffers from too much unsourced material and would only be adding to this problem with a merge. --JAXHERE | Talk 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Population estimate table
I dont understand it, by total population does it refer to the total population of blacks in the specific country?
On Costa Rica is says "Predominantly mestizo with more important white elements" Predominantly meztizo? How? 80% of the costa rican population are white.
On Nicaragua "Significantly mestizo and some zambo with important white contributions in many." How? The black population in Nicaragua is 9%, compared to the white population which is 17%. LaNicoya 09:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Total Population means the number of people in the country. Mestizo, by definition means a mixture of native american and european blood. This may have happened several generations ago and the appearance of people may be quite white, but the inclusion of indian blood somewhere in their ancestry still results in their being considered as mestizo.
The commentaries are those of IDB personnel. You might find some discussion of their rational in the report itself which you could download and read if you're interested, but even if you disagree with their views, it is necessary to find some other authorative source to cite and quote as expressing that view.
Sometimes the wiki policy of requiring valid published sources hampers us from correcting what seem to be blatant errors until we can find such sources.
I admit to finding the idb report, but I don't have any particular interest in it other than guarding that people don't make changes to it's content to create the impression that the changed information was part of their original report. If they've messed up, let's provide the correct information with sources and if we get enought of it to totally refute their report, then we could consider removing the entire thing. --JAXHERE | Talk 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The table
The population table is gone? Was this decided?
I corrected some numbers in the info box under "Regions with significant populations" i don't see that information is sourced so i cross checked with the cia worldfactbook and the number that were previously there are ridiculous. It said panama has 6.9 million people of black decent.. panamas total population doesn't even have 4 million people.
I recently corrected Ethnic groups in Central America which also was a mess, nothing was calculated correctly. See the "black and mulatto" sub-section there for Central America. LaNicoya •TALK• 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- There was no discussion about removing the table containing info from the IDB report. I tried to re-instate it but ran into formatting problems and removed it again.
- Personally, I think the person who took it out was wrong in doing so, because, as I remarked in other areas, the source is a recognized authorative source which the Wikipedia rules tell us we must rely on. Many people have made changes to the table, but without citing any sources. This may not mean that the changes are wrong, but inorder to follow the rules and "be respectable" we need to cite sources.
- I've not been able to constantly supervise this page to make sure that people don't modify the table, so if someone else wishes to restore it, you're welcome to do it (IMHO) but perhaps it should be presented in another way so as to not attribute it to the IDB in its entirety so that individual parts might be changed without misleading the casual reader into thinking that the IDB was the source.
- I feel this article is notorious for receiving updates without sources being cited and thus suffers from a lack of credibility as a consequence. Does anyone else have any other thoughts about this? JAXHERE | Talk 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Afro Cubans
I've modified slightly the information on discrimination in Cuba against people of Haitian descent. We only have the Cuban government's version of events and Cuba is a totalitarian country with one single government- approved newspaper, Granma http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/-- (whereas before Castro there were dozens of newspapers in Havana alone before Castro). Therefore any information obtained through that ONE source should be at least of some questionable objectivity. Also, I believe that whenever the Cuban government is mentioned we should clarify that it is Marxist-Leninist or totalitarian so that the reader knows the sort of government Cubans have -- there's no freedom of the press in Cuba. Should government information and stats be trusted? Or is such information imparted for the purpose of politically influencing public opinion -- i.e., propaganda purposes.Mig 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Mig 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, this notion that the Cuban people have "been declared Afro-Cubans" is completely ludicrous. Why don't they (the Castro government, I presume) declare that underwear should be worn on top on your head so they can check? I mean, they can say whatever they want because the Cuban government is a totalitarian regime where there's no freedom of press, association or expression. This "information" illustrates how incredibly controlling, arrogant and misleading the Cuban government is. More importantly, such a statement constitutes a negation of Cubans who are not of African heritage. I think that sentence above should be removed completely because it is capricious, arbitrary and false. Mig 14:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
WE need to know the approximate number of Hatian-Cubans in Cuba. The information was vague. Were there as many as one-hundred-thousand? People come here for information and it should be as concrete as possible. Me thinks Mig 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mig 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Black Hispanic
I really don't think Black Hispanic should redirect here, for one, if you type in "White Hispanic" it doesn't redirect to White Latin American (yes, I'm aware Spaniards are Hispanic, too), but that's the thing, not all Latinos are Hispanic, and not all Latinos are Hispanic, with that being said, the page about the White Hispanics has to do with Hispanics in the United States, if I wanted to read about Black Latin Americans, I would have typed in Afro Latino, so, please, someone fix that where it doesn't redirect here. Besides that,the information is missing on how many Black Hispanics there are in the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamanadam (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mexico
Seriously, any collected data on Mexico's black community would say that there is almost no black people in Mexico. That being said, Mexico did import African slaves, yet the community was practically wiped out by intermarriage with Mestizo's and Indigenous populations. Making estimates of the black population due to the number that existed in the 1600's is not viable. 200,000 people in Mexico are considered black or mulatto, but about 800,000 have some black descendence, and as research shows, it is only when genetic testing is done that people who have some black ancestry is found and estimated at 800K. Honestly, who keeps chaning the information and grotesquely inflating the number of blacks in Mexico. 200,000 is the most realistic estimation.Saopabs83 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brazil
The Pardo Brazilians have white blood too, not only black blood. If this article includes the "Pardos" because they have black blood, the article white brazilians must also include them because they have white blood too. Pardo=Mulattoe Mulattoe=mixed white-black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.12.191 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Afro-Hondurans website
I've just taken a look at the Afro-Hondurans website used as a reference in this article, and its just not a credible source. Among other things it presents Miguel's Rebellion from the Mines of Buria as if it happened in Honduras when it happened in Venezuela/Colombia. Since there's a long quote from the site, I think we need to rething using this source, and find another one for the data. I've looked at a couple of scholarly articles on slavery in Honduras recently. Rsheptak (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BRAZIL
Brazil is not a latin american country!! it is just a south american country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.122.61 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
