Talk:Demographics of Chile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook (2006 edition) which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents 1 Racism in Chile article 2 Ethnic divisions 3 Chile and my "vandalism" 4 Al Andalus: 5 Racial identity of Chileans 6 Chile is CASTIZO nation

[edit] Racism in Chile article

[1]

[edit] Ethnic divisions

It would be wrong to imagine ethnic divisions in Chile. It is a homogenous country. The section that Al-Andalus erased best describes Chilean society without falling in the trap of defining some Chileans as "mestizo" and others as "Europeans". This distinction does not exist in Chile. I have reverted to previous version.--83.45.170.219 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of anti-racists vandalizing Wikipedia pages and denying people simple factual information on a country. Everywhere in the world, there are real racial differences between people. Throughout South America, there are real racial tensions between the lesser peoples -- the mestizos and the indigenous -- and the whites. In fact, I'm looking at this article specifically to find a source on Chile's white v. mestizo v. indigenous population. So publish the figures and keep your sick antifa politics off of Wikipedia. 68.10.35.153 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources? --OneEuropeanHeart 03:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't wanna say Andalus is racist or the like, but some of his/her edits contained racially charged things on the people in Chile. He/she wanted to add informative data or facts on Chilean demographics...but it seems others disagree or took offense to them. The country's people does share a cultural origin and a few nations (Iceland, Greece, Iran, and Japan) has little racial/ethnic diversity...then one can find a history of different peoples settled these lands. What one calls homogenous may discover Latin America has no country of one race, the Chileans are indeed a diverse lot. Not even Argentina or Uruguay, and Bolivia or Paraguay aren't totally homogenous in terms of race. What about European cultural influences in like Peru and Ecuador? And the industrialization of Colombia and Venezuela under politically instable conditions? I'm sure Chile advanced beyond other countries (well...Brazil is the leading Latin American nation in economical size and industrial development), but it'll be great for Chile to share that with fellow Latin Americans and third world countries on self-improvements. However, the large class division between poor, rich and middle-class is dangerous for a society like Chile to operate like this. + 207.200.116.138 06:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile and my "vandalism"

Transfered from the Talk Page of users Al-Andalus and XGustaX (User_talk:XGustaX#Chile and my "vandalism")

[Al-Andalus,] if you conintue to revert accuratly source information you will be blocked. (XGustaX 06:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

We have had a bit of problems with statistics provided by the CIA regarding the percentage of ethnicities of i am cool the various countries around the world. What we do is use them figures found in the CIA World Book as a guide, but when there are statistics that may be gathered from the country's specific institutions (government organisations, embassy, Census) then we use those, but can also include the CIA estimates (note that the figures used by the CIA are their own estimates).

As it stands, the fact that the CIA states that the majority of people in Chile are either "white or white-Amerindian (ie. mestizos)" is not incorrect, but it is extremely vague and it could mean anything. Peru also possesses a majority that is "white or white-amerindian" (37% is mestizo and 15% is white, together they are 52%, and anything over 50% is a majority). The CIA in its previous editions stated that Chile was 93% mestizo, 3% Amerindian, and 2% white. That it now says the majority (95%) is "white or white-Amerindian" is no different, because 93% + 2% = 95%, but the other one was better because it was detailed. Either way, all estimates provided by both Chilean agencies and statistic agencies all state that mestizos alone constitute Chile's population majority. Now if we're gonna get into the subject of what proportion of Chile's mestizos (as already stated, 93% of the total population) are physically indistinguishable from an unmixed European and whether those should be accounted for seperately as part of the white population (possibly agumenting the white population from 2% to around 30%) then that it a totally different topic. If you have an understanding of Spanish, you may be interested to browse the Chile article in the Spanish Wikipedia to see how the discusión on the demographics of Chile evolved there, and how the current wording of the demographics section was setteled upon.

Putting aside for a moment the currently vague CIA figures for Chile's ethnicities; in regards to the Amerindian population, we should take into consideration Chile's own census statistics because they are indeed available. We must give priority to those statistics over the CIA. Chile's most current census (2002) states that 80.60Insert non-formatted text here of the total population considers itself an Amerindian and belongs to an Amerindian cultural group. [2]. In the census prior to that (1992), it stated 10.3%* of all Chileans were Amerindians (9.7% Mapuche, 0.6% Aymara) whether they were members of a officially recognised Amerindian cultural group or not (ie. groups that still practise their indigenous cultures). [3] That 10.3% did not include the indigenous Polynesian population of Rapanui (0,2% of the the total Chilean population). The decrease of Amerindians from 10.3% to 4.6% of the total Chilean population is as a result of the cleverly worded census question, allowing only Amerindians who belong to officially recognised cultural groups (groups that still practise their indigenous culture) to be counted as Amerindians. This trick to decrease the indigenous population and increase the mestizo population has already been denounced as "statistic genocide" by indigenous agencies. [4]

"En el Censo de 1992 se consultó a las personas de 14 años y más por primera vez si se consideraban pertenecientes a alguna "cultura". En esa oportunidad casi un millón de personas (9,7 del total) se declaró mapuche; un 0,6 manifestó ser aymara (casi 50 mil personas) y un 0,2% se declaró rapanui (alrededor de 22 mil personas)." [5]

"De acuerdo a los datos recogidos en el censo 2002, 692.192 personas, equivalentes al 4,6% de población total, pertenecen, en Chile, a grupos étnicos. A diferencia del censo realizado en 1992, que consultaba a las personas de catorce años y más acerca de su eventual identificación con alguna de las culturas mapuche, aimara o rapanui, el censo de 2002 preguntó sobre la pertenencia a uno de los ocho grupos étnicos reconocidos en la legislación vigente." [6]

"En términos demográficos es difícil determinar los factores que explican ésta disminución de la población indígena en nuestro país, como asimismo, las implicancias políticas que esto puede tener en larelación Estado-pueblos indígenas, especialmente porque ya han surgido algunas voces que plantean el tema del “genocidio estadístico”..." [7]

As for you labelling me a vandal, I would like for you to point out to me where the vandalism is. When have I been "warned by other users" for vandalising "the same pages constantly" (I assume you refer to Chile and Demographics of Chile), and that I persist "with this daily", allegedly when there is correctly cited "information" (I assume you meant to say "sources", and I have already explained the problem with the CIA's sources above.) I propose that we take this discussion to Talk:Demographics of Chile and get this all cleared out.

To be honest, I did not post to you earlier about your persistent reverts (ie. deleting the article’s content and replacing it with the vague "white and white-Amerindian") because I did not know it was you. In a way it was nice of you to make yourself known, but you could have done it in a more pleasant manner, without throwing accusations of vandalism (or to be factual, you did actually report me for "vandalism"). As it stands, I thought that the other person reverting and taking out the Chilean Census statistic (that I now know was you) was actually the vandal. As you probably realise now, I did have sources for my contributions and have provided them when incorporating new content into the article, the problem is that I don't do it over an over again when I'm reverting what I thought was your vandalism.

Hope to hear from you soon. Al-Andalus 12:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, I completly agree with you. Good work on investigating this issue! I'll restore the information immediatly. --Darklegions 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe XGustaX is an admin nor was his block threat a template. Please don't make empty block threats, SqueakBox 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

XGustaX, I see you got my message on your talk page, but instead of replying to my well-intention message, you reported me for 3RR (which was only because I had to revert your deletion of content from the article in the first place) in addition to your earlier report of "vandalism". Then you hurried to delete my post from your user page (difference between revisions). I would encourage you to contribute to wikipedia by engaging in dialogue with the community, especially if it is us who seek you out, giving you the benifit of the doubt, and are making the first steps to placate you even though it is you that is deleting content. I would appreciate a responce to my message. You may as well work with the community, or you may see yourself being labelled as the vandal and 3RR abuser. It is to your own benefit to cooperate with the community, and not ignore us, especially when it is us that have gone out of our way to dialogue with you, and it is you who is doing the deleting article content and falsely reporting vandalism and 3RR abuse. Al-Andalus 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

I know this is a contentious issue. But one cannot define an ethnic group purely on grounds of race. One cannot distinguish in any way a Chilean with 4% Indian blood from a Chilean of 100% Spanish origin, from one with 12%. How are you going to do this? You are creating an ethnic group on the basis of how much hair they have on their chest? Or on what? How straight their nose is? Or maybe how dark their skin...??? Mestizo is not a separate ethnicity in Chile. Ethnic Aymaras are an ethnicity since they have a sense of common ancestry, a common language and culture. I think separating a Spanish Chilean from a Spanish Chilean who's grandmother had some Indian blood into 2 separate ethnic groups is ridiculous and racist. AlAndalus since you are the most persistent defender of this senseless categorization, please answer my questions. What about a Spaniard who's grandmother was ethnic Roma. Or a Portuguese with African blood (about a quarter of the population of Portugal) Should we put them in a separate ethnic group and find a funny, archaic name for them? Mulatos? Moriscos? Mulatos Blancos, Mulatos Alobados, Indios Alobados???? Thats a lot of "ethnicties"... I think we should move into the 21st century. --Burgas00 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The scenario you have painted more accurately applies to Argentina and Uruguay, not Chile. One cannot by any means classify as mestizo someone whose Amerindian ancestry is around 4% or even 12% (examples you state). Those people would be white by all means, I agree here. Argentina and Uruguay are countries whose majority population (over 85% of the population each) is classified as white, and here half of these are indeed actually genetically white without Amerindian input. The other half have some Amerindian input, and in this case that it is around 1 Amerindian ancestor for every 15 European ancestors. This phenomenon is a result of the waves of European migrations that reached those two countries; waves of immigrants that were several times larger than the original colonial (mostly mestizo) populations. The mestizo population were absorbed into the vastly larger immigrant population, and now the majority population is “white” with the only Amerindian genetic to be found are as a distant legacy in half of them.

Chile's majority population and her population history, however, does not mirror the above scenario. Most of Chile's population is not phenotypically white. The majority population still is visibly mixed, although admittedly with an average admixture minutely higher on the Spanish side, but not really that far from the 50:50 ratio of the traditional definition of mestizo. Additionally, it must be stated that the levels of European input in Chile is nowhere near the levels of half of Argentina's white population (the half which has some distant genetic ancestry). Chile never recieved any comparable European immigration. Immigrants in Chile never surpassed 5% of her population. Furthermore, half of all immigrants throughout Chile’s history has been from other Latin American countries.

The average European admixture among Chileans (of whom over 90% are categorised as mestizos) is around 55% and the average Amerindian input is around 44%. This would come out to be around 7 of your great-great grand parents were Amerindian, and 9 were European. That's your average Chilean mestizo, and mestizos account for over 90%. This ratio does not merit a "white" classification because the admixture is still physically obvious, even though noticeably "lighter".

Of course there are those among the mestizos who would have more Spanish or more Amerindian ancestors than the average, but these are nonetheless minorities. If not counted as mestizos, the largest minority would be those who have considerably more European than Amerindian, and these I agree should be classified as white, perhaps augmenting the white population to 30%. Those who have more Amerindian than European ancestry would possibly augment the Amerindian population to around 15% (notice that according to the 1992 census, over 10% of the population did in fact identify as indigenous, and that it was a change of wording in the census 2002 and a change of parameters requiring linguistic and tribal affiliation for official government recognition that reduced the number to the current 4.6%). If we were to accept that Chile's physically white population stands at 30% (which I personally agree with), we must acknowledge that only a tiny few of these phenotypically white people are actually unmixed Europeans. Unlike the case with Argentina, half of the accepted white population (over 85% of the population) are indeed unmixed Europeans.

Even in this scenario, where whites in Chile are stated at 30% (now encompassing white-mestizos), that still leaves the remaining mestizos (who do look mestizo) as the majority population. For much more detailed information and sources and quotes please see the discussion that was had at the User_talk:Epf#Mestizos in Chile. Al-Andalus 09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok you are clearly informed on the issue of ancestry. But still is it correct to define people purely on grounds of race? Especially when being of mixed blood does not lead to any cultural or ethnic bonds nor does it lead to a clear barrier with those Chileans who are not mixed... We should distinguish ancestry and ethnicity. --Burgas00 10:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are no ethnic divisions between a supposed "white" and "mestizo" population in Chile. --El chicharrero 22:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Andalus:

• Firstly, in Latin America it is used for those who are predominantly amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America).
• Secondly, there is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry. There is no sense of common belonging shared exclusively by people with amerindian ancestry which excludes people who dont have this ancestry. This is a vital characteristic of an ethnic group.
• The word mestizo is pejorative in our language and should be used as little as possible. Ill give you an example. When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied.
• Finally, in our cultural community, Latinness, Spanishness (or if you want to use racial terms "whiteness") is an expansive concept which does not exclude people placing them in a different ethnic group on the basis of their blood being "tainted" as sometimes happens in the Anglo Saxon world. Although, I agree that in certain countries where racial divisions have been stronger due to a much larger Amerindian community, (such as Peru or Guatemala)this leads to implications regarding identity and ethnicity..
• Finnally, other more recent genetic studies on the population establish the amerindian imput of Santiago population between 0% and 40%. Where do you get your claim that this is based on observation?

In any case the word "predominantly" means "mostly", i.e. more than 50%.

Which genetic studies? All genetic studies on the Chilean population, undertaken by Chilean institutions or ones abroad, have indicated a generalzised average between 57 and 60% European (almost entirely Spanish) input and 43 and 40% Amerindian input. Could you please quote this research that alleges between 0 and 40% as the generalized contribution for Chile.

Also, the one study which you keep quoting (and deleting all other genetic studies) is a sociological study, not a genetic one. Its main purpose was to indicate a sociological perspective of the correlation between social class and proportion of amerindian admixture in Chile. The social study uses ABO blood types to indicate Spanish ancestry, and although this is a great way of showing a European ancestry, it in no way indicates if that European ancestry is from a mestizo or unmixed European. All it stipulates is that A type is more frequent among the upper classes, and A (or B for that matter) is not a blood type found in Amerindians.

One would think that, apart from the sociological value offered by the source in question, the genetic sources from Rothhammer and the joint genetic research from the University of Chile would hold higher authority over the matter.

If you see the source you keep deleting, Chile's most prestigious institution states that the segment of the population which would be classified as "white" stands at 30%, the visibly mestizo population stands at 65% (with an average admixture hovering just below the national generalized ratio of 60:40), and the population classified as amerindian stands at 5% (it also states, however, that if including people who appear Amerindian, the amerindian population would rise, perhaps to 10% as indicated by the 1992 census). This increase would of course have to come out of the 65% which is "mestizo", so no, not all mestizos in the 65% have that generalized national ratio. Most in fact are just below it, and a few way below it. Al-Andalus 08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits. You clearly have some sort of agenda regarding Chileans, wanting to class them as mestizos which is not an ethnic concept but a racial one. There is no place for this outdated racism on wikipedia.

--Burgas00 08:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial identity of Chileans

The study of demography in Chile indicates a population is not solely high proportion of American Indian ancestry, but evidence shown a high degree of European (white) ancestry than most Latin American countries (only Argentina and Uruguay are solidly Caucasian).

The Chilean government doesn't want to use racial/ethnic divisions in a society where differences based on race, color and ancestry are blurred or relatively minor. But, there are indigenous groups in Chile when it comes to cultural factors, and careful studies of ancestral lineage in native Americans found nearly all have Spanish descent.

Over 400 years of European, then Chilean rule have literally "Hispanized" their indigenous groups, but a tourist can drive to the Atacama region and observe most inhabitants are racially Amerindian in feature without a major European element. Same goes to "white" Chileans whom exhibit mostly Caucasian(light skin, red-brown hair or blue eyes) to note a partial "multi-ethnic" element from immigration in the past.

Chile as a nation might be called an Euro-Ibero-Latin American society, but wasn't saturated by a high influx of European immigration like Argentina or southern Brazil. It's easy to notice the Central valley and coastal towns in Chile are settled by Northern/Western Europeans. Over time like its' conquered native peoples, the descendants of immigrants (Italian, French and German descent) blended into the dominant Spanish-Hispanic culture.

No surprise the difficulty of racial categorization and ancestral lineage are observed in Chile, because traditional divisions in the country are socioeconomic class and geographic location, not skin color or ethnic identity. But the unmixed "white" Chilean percentage is 3 to 5%, equally low like the number of Amerindians. Other racial groups are Rapanui (native Polynesians) from Easter Island and "black" Chileans of African descent.

Poverty in Chile remains above average, despite a global reputation in decreased poverty rates in the 1980's and 1990's, thanks to business reform and social welfare programs combined to reduce poverty by half from 46% in 1987 to 18% in 2001. But 40% of Chileans are upper-middle class or live like westerners, and another 40% are lower-middle class or the working poor.

The problem of class stratification hasn't gone away and to continue strong economic growth is a challenge to Chile, where racial/ethnic lines are already enigmatic. I wonder what America (the US) is like if every race in the country merged into one "race" this way. +Mike D 26 07:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated the three categories and my fullest doubts if it'll be deleted. Enough edit conflicts already, it don't matter to the world if Chileans are "white", mestizos, Amerindians or a hybrid race of human beings. Most Latin American countries (Cuba, Dominician Republic, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc.) don't seem to have problems on how most of their citizens identify their "mestizo" or "mulatto" (white/African) origins. Here are the copied re-edited categories below.

 <<[edit] Ethnic groups

Whites and Mestizo, in various degrees of admixture marked by a sociogenetic gradient (see above), over 90%; unmixed may be 3.7%. In past Chilean census records through reliable magazine sources: Over half of the people are "European" in 1950 (National Geographic, February 1960, Chile); a third (30-35%) as "white" in 1960 (World Book Encyclopedia, 1970, Chile); about a quarter (20-25%) are "Spanish" in 1970 (The People's Almanac, 1975, Chile) and 40-45% as "mestizo" in terms of high degree of "Caucasian and American Indian" ancestries (National Geographic, June 1988, Chile).

Officially recognised Amerindian population as cited by and according to the current parameters of the Chilean National Institute of Statistics, 4.6%; other racial groups: Rapa Nui of Easter Island (2,500-but 10,000 live in the mainland), Asians like Japanese and Afro-Chilean total is under 1%.

[edit] Religions Roman Catholic 89%, Protestant 11%, Jewish NEGL under 1%, Other religions: Islam, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox under 1%.

[edit] Languages Spanish (universal among the population). There are speakers of European languages in immigrant communities and native languages by the Mapuche. >>

63.3.14.1 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edits on the article Demographics of Argentina, Are you a person who think that Caucasians are superior to Mestizos? Jespinos 17:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean Al-Andalus? I'm not him sorry. Al-Andalus is the one you talking about. He's been in trouble for outrageous comments on white superiority in the talk pages on demographics and racial issues on Latin America. The thing is Al-Andalus insist the Europeans are "culture barriers" not the Amerindians and their majority descendants. Amerindian influences are equal in Chile and Argentina to that in "mestizo" countries like Mexico, Peru and Colombia (and with Central America, the reason for high rates of poverty hasn't have to do with race, although Costa Rica and Panama has done better off).

Talk:Mexico has a vicious argument on the racial makeup in Mexico, comparisons of the HDI in Mexico with Argentina, and how the US looks down on Mexico (stereotypes, immigration issues and Mexican Americans). I understand the diversity of Latin Americans is well represented by what I read about some of their presidents: Alberto Fujimori of Peru (Japanese descent), Carlos Menem of Argentina (Syrian descent), Vicente Fox-Quesada of Mexico (half-Irish), Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (considered a 'mulatto' or 'mestizo' of three races: Spanish, African and Amerindian) and Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay (half-German).

However, not every countrymen shares his/her ethnoracial profile in the case of Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, like many Chileans have a high degree of European ancestry (like most Argentine and Uruguayans), but I won't be surprised if she had some Amerindian blood as the majority of Chileans have (could they be just as Amerindian like Ecuadorians and Bolivians?). I really don't like what Al-Andalus states on race, since it was mean-spirited and offensive to many people from Chile and elsewhere. 63.3.14.1 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chile is CASTIZO nation

Ok I do not understand the racial demographics of this article. Chileans do not consider themselves "Mestizo" in the non-white variety that others would consider in places like Peru, Mexico or Guatemala. Everyone in Latin America knows that Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are interchangable when describing "white" latinos to other people. Now I do agree that Chile is not as intermingled with the European-caucasian lineage as Argentina or Uruguay BUT Chile is still more or less a "white mestizo" or Castizo nation. All this means is that while the majority of the population is mixed Amerindian with European, that the population is still heavily titled toward the European rather than the Amerindian. To put it uber-laymen terms, the nation is composed of people similar to Cher, Burt Reynolds,Johnny Depp, Wayne Newton, and Lou Diamond Phillips. The Amerindian features are very noticeable but the lineage is tilted more toward the European than the Amerindian. And you can easily contrast the people I listed with mestizos in Mexico and Peru. That is why it is so hard to pin Chile down as "mestizo", when their population looks different from the traditionally supposed mestizo natons of Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.217.36 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

what on earth are ya talking about? chile has nothing to do with argentina or uruguay. they are two separate stories, comparable to each other but not with chile. it has to do with the proportion of imigration the two countries had compared to the small arrivals in chile. as far as mestizo goes, it simply means a person who is mixed white and indian. that is the way it is used in the article and throughout the website. if you are envisioning a specific ratio of mixture for a mestizo that is your own bias. btw, if your idea of an average mestizo being one of guatemala or peru, or even mexico, or southern mexico to be more precise, then your also a bit off the radar. those types of mestizo are no more the standard than the chilean mestizo. the average mestizo of the countries u mentioned are not "the average mestizo", they are more indian than white, and the average chilean mestizo is also not "the average mestizo" since they are a bit more white than indian. though both types are still mestizos technically speaking

no offense but i hav been to chile and all along the length and girth of the country, apart from the high classes u can easily tell people are mixed. and even then the elites are still mixed anyway. even in santiago all you have to do is venture out of providencia or las condes and the people are unmistakably mixed.

im not saying they look like peruvian or bolivian mestizos gosh no. btw, hald of peru and bolivia is not even mostly indian mestizos, but pure indians. i think if your taking those indians into account as mestizos, the of course chileans look nothing like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.250.121 (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a ridiculous bit of nonsense... "Mestizos" in all Latin American countiries are no different than eachother... if your speaking about the different degrees in European and Amerindian descent then state that instead. Besides, people sound idiotic when comparing apples and apples... Many of Mexico's mestizos are on the whiter side as well, but only Argentin, Uruguay and Chile are ever mentioned. Scared of loosing your tile of whiteness? What a joke. C.Kent87 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The common misconception is that Mestizo means indian. I can understand where the original poster is going with this. Chileans look on average a bit different than what is commonly known as mestizo. They look mixed but heavier on the European side. Point is, the CIA factbook in my opinion is the right way to describe the demographics of Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.34.13 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)