Talk:Jamaica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Jamaica. (rated as Top importance)
Assessment comments
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.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance within African diaspora.
Jamaica is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] More Propaganda From Wikipedia

Once again, a top wikipedia member goes out of his/her way to try and spread more propaganda on the Jamaica page. Talking about a country's residents skin complexion? now this is an all time low for wiki, they just can't accept the CIA WORLD FACTBOOK on Jamaica stating that the country's population is over 90% black so now they've resort to talking about how the population isn't the normal type of black lol. I mean, should people go into countries like Italy, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Argentina, etc., and create a separate, skin complexion part? I guess they should write "These countries usually state that they have a White majority, although most residents have a dark-tanned skin complexion that usually people of Indian, Mexican, South Asian, etc., ...origins have"

I have no idea what this wikipedia moderator agenda is, but unless a similar article about skin complexion goes up for every other country on the wikipedia page, there's no reason why one should be on the Jamaica page.

[edit] Lets get this cleared

So apparently the CIA world factbook is incorrect when showing Jamaica's population data but correct when used in every other country? I've been using wikipedia for years now and over 95% of the data info they use here on countries are based off the CIA world factbook. So apparently the CIA's got it wrong on Jamaica but right everywhere else lol. And Jamaica's motto is based off the fact that all humans started out of Africa but branched off into many different races, tribes, creed, ect. but we're still united as one people (which we are cause we all camed from one land).

Btw, that whole "mixed" argument can be used on any country, about anyone/a specific race, ect. I've known various Brazilian "white people" that has a high amount of African admixture but still choose to call themselves white and that's what the government accept them as...so chill dude.

Jamaica's motto "Out of Many, One People" means that many people such as Africans, Syrians, Jews, Europeans, Chinese, Indians, came to Jamaica, but now they are ONE people: Jamaicans. It doesn't matter what kind of black or brown or Afro-Indian or Afro-Afro you are, except to peanut-brain racists. Hoserjoe 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea I am White and Black Both of my parents are from Jamiacan. Iam Mixed thats a Perfect Example. My Hair is Stright like white people but my skin color is tan like People from Mexico, or like people from Thailand. So know one really know what race iam.

Yes, mon, unu mus like some kin of chiney-boy! 19:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, and all those races you just listed exist in every single country in the world, not just Jamaica, so basically everybody in the world is mixed if you wanna look at it that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.138 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unbelieveable

The official CIA world factbook states that the Jamaican population consists of 90+ percentage Black and 0.2 percentage White. The fact that a Top Wikipedia member went out of his/her way to modify this fact shows how little an average person should trust this site.Any Country/Thing that shows positiveness for Black people Wikipedia goes out of there way to modify it and try to include Whites in any successful story of Blacks.

Ok My father Is A white Jamaican. His Mother was Born in England and she move to jamaica when she was little. My Father's dad was born in Jamaica and His father was from England. So my Father Grew up in jamaica a White Jamican he had Blond Hair and brown eyes. He live mostly the life most white jamacian's live a nice houes with a servent. They are very stong in the christian Religon. My dad tells me most people in jamaica dont look at the color of poeple skin but of who they are thats why he like the way jamaica thinks more than america. And he tell many white jamaican still live there today so i think the hole only o.2 should be moved to 3%. Thank you.and also Many Chinese and Indian people live in jamaica iam talk it should say Chinese 4%, Indian 7%, white 3%, Black 90.1% thank you. Skateremorocker

Jamaica's population is officially over 90 percentage Black people, change that BS information y'all have in your Demographics_of_Jamaica's page. BABYLONS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drake2u (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

What is the point of this deranged rant, other than to make people feel bad? How does "90% black" show "positiveness"? Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and there's no place for fantasy and insults of this kind. The Jamaica motto is "Out of Many, One People" which means there's no room for trying to figure out who is blacker than whom. There is no value in trying to suss out stuff like that. Hoserjoe 03:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If "there's no room [in Jamaica] for trying to figure out who is blacker than whom," why is there still a "colorocracy" in Jamaica with light skin having a greater value over dark skin? Why is it still common for men to prefer "brownings" over dark skinned women? I'm not saying there is still overt racism like there was in the colonial times, but there are still the remnants of that in contemporary Jamaican society.

Also, why are there so many Jamaicans (including many on Wikipedia) who believe that most Jamaicans are mixed? It's as if they took the story of the priveliged class of Jamaica (which consists of many people of mixed ancestry), and transformed that into the story of all Jamaicans. How many times has someone put a sentence in the demographics alleging that most Jamaicans are mixed, while the facts clearly show that at least 90% of Jamaicans are of UNMIXED African ancestry? Vgmaster 11:54, 20 April 2007 (EST)

The problems of Jamaica don't stem from who is blacker than whom (is PJ Paterson, the privileged former PM, too black or not black enough? Does Portia Simpson Miller have 'good' hair, or not 'good' hair? Is her nose 'too wide' or not 'too wide'?). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so if it's just trendy perceived notions about colour and preferences you're presenting, and not measurable facts, this is not the right place. If you're claiming that light skin is more valued than dark skin, then you'll need to support your statement. Hoserjoe 07:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening comments

is a [[Template Uh, the Info Box on Jamaica is pretty shaky. Someone seems to have mixed it pretty thoroughly with Barbados. Which makes me wonder about the rest of the page... 11/8/03


It seems like a lot of this content, and certainly the image, is directly copied from the CIA World Factbook - Jamaica site. I am planning on contacting the CIA to see if this was used with permission. - Shadowe - 05/23/04

Americans pay for the CIA's research so it's in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.32.82 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


All information from the CIA World Factbook is allowed. - Shadowe - 05/23/04


Police seek Jamaican singer after armed attack on gay men

Warning to visitors: It's a criminal offense to engage in homosexual behaviour in Jamaica. Homos will be beaten to death by the citizens [1] Hoserjoe 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricanes

Ivan is close to here. It is now 60 miles South of Montego Bay, Jamaica. --Patricknoddy 13:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 13:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy 9:18 September 11, 2004 (EDT)

[edit] Copyvio

69.141.70.196, who thinks Rastafarians are stupid, added material straight from [2] which is a copyvio, and therefore must be reverted on sight. Her also removed stuff he considers stupid, --SqueakBox 00:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the added text contains material from multiple sources. For instance, "By the end of the 16th century the Arawak population had been entirely wiped out, suffering from hard labor, ill-treatment and European diseases to which they had no resistance" appears to be copied from "http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/central_america_and_caribbean/jamaica/sugar_plantations.php", and "Vast numbers died as a result of forced labor and thousands more committed suicide by hanging themselves or drinking poisonous cassava juice to escape from their bondage. Mothers are said to have murdered their children rather then let them grow up and suffer the slavery they had known under Spanish rule" quoted in [3], among other places. In my opinion the number of copyright violations justifies reversion of the page. User:Xero, please feel free to continue to edit it but write in your own words, please. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The recent edits [4] continue to contain copyright violations (for example, "Jamaica is an independent country, completely self-governed since 1962 when the island ceased to be a British colony. Jamaica is governed by a parliamentary democracy, After Independence, Jamaica chose to be a part of the British Commonwealth, and to keep the Queen of the United Kingdom as the constitutional monarch, the titular head of the country. The Government of Jamaica was patterned on the Westminster model of government, and is composed of the Queen as head of state, and a bicameral Parliament. In Jamaica, the Governor General, who is appointed by Her Majesty upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Jamaica, represents the Queen" from [5] and "Jamaican Jews have contributed much to the island's rich history and cuture. Poet Daniel Lopez Laguna, 1635-1730, a survivor of the Spanish Inquisition who converted biblical Psalms into poems. A book of these poems, "Espejo Fiel de Vidas," The True Mirror of Life, was published in 1720 and holds the distinction of being the first book to be published in Jamaica under British rule" from [6]. I'll revert these changes. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rastafari

I have asked Xero to source his claim that only outsiders believe they think Haile selassie is God. According to him no self-respecting rasta would believe such a thing, --SqueakBox 01:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm Jamaican and have a few Rastafarian friends, there are actually "sects" within the movement with what I feel are conflicting views. There are some who (you get the impression) do believe that and there are others who give you the impression that they believe otherwise. The two sects of the religion I'm aware of are the "Nyah Bhingi" and the "Bobos," the latter being a more radical and militant "denomination" within the movement. They do have similar views in some respects however, there are some obvious conflicting views between the two. There may be more sects within the movement however, I'm not aware of these, I plan to carry out further research in order to get more info. And let me add, not al Rastafarians practic/believe in the smoking of marijuana - which happens to be illegal in Jamaica!!!

Interesting! Perhaps you should edit Rastafari movement, SqueakBox 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National bird

The "Doctor Bird" is listed as: Swallow-Tail Hummingbird Trochilus ploytmus at [7], the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade" website. Elsewhere (including in Wikipedia) Trochilus ploytmus is called the "Green-and-black Streamertail" and the Swallow-tail Hummingbird is listed as (e.g., Hummingbird) is said to be Eupetomena macrourus. I've stuck with the latin name, but not really sure what the best option is. Guettarda 20:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery, etc.

This article is very sparse. The island's history of slavery should be fleshed out, and mention should be made of its role in the triangular trade. Some further reference to African/New World African, East Indian and Rastafari cultures are warranted, as well. deeceevoice 17:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Paul

Is Sean Paul Jamaican?

Yes, he is. Have a look at the Sean Paul article. Guettarda 6 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Sean Paul is what you Call a Mixed Jamican. His Fahter Is Is all white but he was born in jamican. and his Mother is Haf Chinese and Haf Black. So Sean Paul is Haf White And A quater Chinese and a Quater Black. That why most people look at him and say oh hes spanish or hes a White jamacian.skateremorocker

[edit] Demographics

The section on Demographics is COMPLETE nonsense:

Someone has concluded that Jamaican patois includes "syntax from various African languages, Spanish, Arawak, French, Chinese, Portuguese, and East Indian languages." There is no basis for this conclusion, and I propose to sort it out into something more logical. For instance, other than a few shards of broken pots, there's no trace of anything Arawak in Jamaica. Nor are there any Chinese, Spanish, East Indian, or Portugese words or syntax. Hoserjoe 06:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"The majority of the population is of mixed race, of Black, Indian, Chinese and British, Irish and other European heritage. People of single race compose a tiny minority, although many members of minority groups (particularly Hindustani and Chinese) have managed to remain unmixed. Unmixed Indians comprise 1.7% of the population and unmixed Chinese are 1.3%. Mixed Indians are about 0.6%."


^^^ That is a gross exageration. Signficangly mixed race persons make up a small minority in Jamica, and the vast majority (at least 90%) are black and unmixed. The statistics given in the CIA world fact book are more acurate.

Can you stop with the use of "black" in an encyclopedia, please? In the UK, Pakistanis are called "black". In America, Africans are called "black". In Haiti, "black" people are either "mulatto" or "dark". It's not a useful term to use in an encyclopedia! And, in addition, it's not particularly useful information since it's almost impossible to measure. Hoserjoe 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jm.html

Ethnic groups: black 90.9%, mixed 7.3%, East Indian 1.3%, white 0.2%, Chinese 0.2%, other 0.1%

_______________________________________________________

lol. The country Jamicia is very similar to South Africa's population! A MAJORITY Black (unmixed) population, with around a 8% Mixed raced group! Mixed raced people are in the vast minority! And it is very easily to tell them apart from the Black population whom in general are very dark in complexion!

________________________________________________________

On some sites you will find that Jamican's of African descent represent about 70-75% of the population and a couple of the Jamaicans Site Keywords Jamaican Sites. On Jamaican sites it states that 70-75% of the population is of African descent and the rest Being of mixed and Unmixed descent so how come most american sites claim that 90 0r 95% of the population is of straigt african descent. Being born and raised there,and also being to every place from St.Catherine to Ocho Rios to Downtown and Uptown Kingston and St.James and St.ann The list goes on i've seen so many places and met so many differnt people the population is mostly african but i sure as hell wouldn't say 90-95%. I think it makes more sense to get your information from the jamaican sites than making an educated guess about the demographics and the country overall population and it's people, I mean who would know the country best othet than jamaicans themselves, i cant make an hypothesis about america's demographics and it's people because i've only been heer so lond and i don't know the country's overall population and it's people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.112.205 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)




I don't know if I agree... as a Jamaican I know for a fact that many mixed race people claim themselves as Black, for the sheer fact that there is a strong black pride, Back to Africa type movement on the island. For example, Damien Marley is obviously of mixed heritage but is very into the Rasta movement.

If Bob Marley is half-English (his father), does that mean he's "black", "brown", or "white"? In Jamaica, Marley would be called a brown-skin boy, so calling him "black" is not useful unless you're trying to change history. Hoserjoe 03:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes My fahter Is a white Jamaican and He has friends who are white Jamaicans Who swear there Black and not white. And most of the Population Thing on there is wrong also it should be Mixed 10.5%,Chinese 4%, White 5%,Indian 8%,Black 90.1%. should need to change it.

Uhh . . . that adds up to 127%

________________________________________________________


"Over the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of Jamaicans have emigrated, especially to the United States but also to Canada and the United Kingdom..... Due to Commonwealth Law and Jamaica's history with Britain, most Jamaicans that emigrate, go to the United Kingdom..."

Which is it? Do most of them go to the UK, or have they emigrated "especially to the United States"?

_______________________________________________________

Why in the world is Jamaica's involvement in the Winter Olympics included in the Demographics section? Also, the person who included this paragraph wrote the incorrect year of Jamaica's first participation in the Winter Games. Additionally, the team has never placed as high as fourth in the Olympics. Also, there's no possible way that the bobsled had any kind of effect on the Jamaican economy. Bobsledding can hardly be classified as an "industry". JediScougale 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And Henry Morgan was chicken liver

How anybody could write a history of Jamaica and leave only one line or so about Henry Morgan [8] is quite beyond me. And by the way is there a certain US general and high official of some repute? El Jigüe 2-9-06

No, not Chicken Liver, as we in Jamaica say "Duppy Pickney" (which amounts to just about the same as chicken or chopped liver), and what about one certain pirate a lad by the name of Edward Teach maybe you know him as "Blackbeard" and how about Port Royal - Once the richest seaport "this side of the pond" (or was the world), "the wickedest city on earth."

[edit] Education

this is an excerpt from the education part of the article

Presently the following categories of schools exist:

Early Childhood – Basic, Infant and privately operated pre- school. Age cohort – 2 – 4 years.

Primary – Publicly and privately owned (Privately owned being called Preparatory Schools (Prep). Age cohort 4 – 11 years.

Secondary – Publicly and privately owned. Age cohort 11 – 18 years.

Tertiary - Community Colleges, Teachers’Colleges, Vocational Training Centres, Colleges and Universities.

There is no free education in Jamaica, which results in an enormous amount of uneducated people, particularly in the more impoverished sections of the country.


How can schools be owned publically, but not be free?

>> While public schools may be free in other countries, its not so in Jamaica. It may help if you think of the public schools as not being completely reliant on the government - they do collect fees and receive private donations.


In Jamaica things are different than they are in the States, schools collect fees, but not tuiton. Tuitons are only paid in priavte schools.

[edit] Politics

Someone with more local knowlege than me needs to update "In February 2006, Portia Simpson Miller was elected by delgates of the ruling People's National Party, to replace the current Prime Minister, P. J. Patterson, at the end of March 2006 when he leaves office." now that she's taken office. I can tell that she's taken office, because I'm in Kingston, and all the right-wing radio talk-show hosts deplore her supposed feminine vanity continuously. Good luck to her and the country, if I can say that without being political. --Bill


Not to turn this political, the majority of her support came from what is called by her "the grass-roots or the bowels of the people," and personally I think a country's political future should not be determined LARGELY by the lower classes, they tend to be less interested in matters political (well at least here in Ja.).

[edit] Time of the first settlement

I am not expert in Jamaica, but it seems that it most be wrong here, check with History of Jamaica "The original Arawak or Taino people from South America first settled on the island between 1000 and 400 BC." --Tejto

The problem is, there is no evidence anywhere of Arawak "settlements". As near as the National Museum and the National Heritage Trust have been able to conclude, Arawaks were fisher folk who moved about the coastline in small groups. The first colonials, the Spanish, were unable to persuade the Arawaks to do anything so they killed them all off. Every last one. Hoserjoe (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime rate?

I've read that crime has gotten so bad in Jamaica it's unsafe for tourists outside of walled resorts and that gangs have practically unchallenged control of vast areas of major cities, especially at night.

Links:

http://www.jamaicancaves.org/jamaica-crime.htm

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1147.html

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85307/john-rapley/the-new-middle-ages.html

My God, that is utter rubbish, that has to be the most untrue statement ever made, no such thing occurs here in Ja. Tourists (I know this for a fact) are just about as safe as anywhere in the world, if not safer! Let me ask one question, would you as a tourist feel comfortable in a "walled resort" with no exposure to the outside world, which you came to enjoy in the first place. And about "gangs" having" unchallenged control of vast areas of major cities" is trash in its purest form!!! As I think of it I get really upset, kindly get facts straight before you go around repeating garbage you hear from some under-read, "informatinally-challenged" and facts starved idiot on some crappy talk show or wherever you heard that swill. You had to be on the net to post that comment, google helps, if you are not sure what I mean, I mean LOOK IT UP!!! The Police in Ja. is making positive steps in an effort to stem the level of crime in the country, which has been on the decline since the new police commissioner (Lucius Thomas) has taken over. There are many award-winning efforts to stem crime and violence, which happens to be a hugely exaggerated problem in Ja. It does exist, but not to the extent the media wants it to look, where do you think this is, the wild west? -Kamron

Name calling and hyperbole does your argument no good. Utter rubbish? Check the links I posted. One is from the Dept. of State (US), another from Foreign Affairs magazine, whose essayists are well known and respected and whose readership includes political leaders around the world. Did you even bother to follow the links I posted? I thought not. Pride in one's country is to be commended, but in the future, instead of posting knee-jerk reactionary drivel, try following up with some vetted sources of your own. I would like to have seen links to credible sites that back up the claim that Jamaica's police have a handle on the gang problems in the major cities. Let's see stats. If the US State Department has concerns about the crime rate in Jamaica, then I would agree there's a serious misconception somewhere.
BTW, widespread gangs having de facto political control of major cities is not confined to Jamaica; Mexico and Brazil are also having serious problems right now in some cities. The Foreign Affairs article discusses the syndrome... it is only one expert's opinion, granted.
-- jlowery
I happen to know by personal experience, as well as other sources, that it is safe enough for tourists to walk outside of the walled resorts. However, there are many theories about the gangs in Jamaica, so I suppose that part can be left out for the time being. As for the crime in Jamaica, it is a real concern, and quite verifiable, so that should probably be included. Nancysing 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The probability that a tourist out for a walk will run into criminals is low enough. The real crime in Jamaica is in public corruption and the drug trade. The only way to get something done in Ja is to threaten to shoot someone. And that happens about 5 times a day. But a tourist out for a walk inspecting the higglers' wares, or visiting a nightclub, is not likely to have any problems. Jamaican justice can be quick: the citizens will kill a robber (homsexuals, too) on the street if they catch one in the act. They will literally beat him to death on the street. The local citizens will protect tourists in trouble (in the daytime, at least, except for homos) Hoserjoe 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sectarianism

While it is understandable that people have their own religious beliefs and disagree with others, we cannot accept them using wikipedia as a vehicle for sectarian prosletizing. For example, the phrase "Protestant denominations, which is evidence of Jamaica's active and lively intellectual climate. Roman Catholicism, a remnant of early Spanish immigration from the time of the Inquisition" clearly associates Prostestantism with 'lively intellectual's and Catholicism with 'the Inquisition'. This is pure sectarianism - associating one religious group with negative events in order to promote another by association with positive qualities. The same edit goes on to describe Rastafarianism as 'unorganized, cult like'. It is more neutral and relevant to point out that both Protestantism and Catholicism were brought to Jamaica as part of the colonization process of Britain and Spain respectively. 'Cult like' as a phrase has no meaning and 'unorganized' is simply false (decentralised does not mean unorganized). It is pointless using the Jamaica page to prosecute a religious war of words. It is sufficent to link the words to their respective articles so that readers can learn more.

How can you be sure that Christianity was brought by England and Spain? African Christianity is easily a thousand years older than Europe! Hoserjoe 07:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm also not sure about Jimmy Cliff playing a "psychopathic reggae-musician who gets caught up in crime" either!--Zleitzen 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) maybe it
So what would you call Jimmy Cliff's character who goes about shooting helpless people, without any guilt, so he can be a public bad-boy and a star? He's a plain everyday psychopath, in any language. His character is that of true-life psychopathic criminal, Ivan Martin, who left a trail of murder throughout Jamaica in the late 1940's.
It's fraudulent to claim that Rastafarianism is not unorganized. Rastafarianism is totally disorganized and varies from one village to the next. It changes from one year to the next. Nothing is written down. Rastas don't mind this. It's part of the package. Hoserjoe 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arawak survival?!

"The original Arawak or Taino people from South America first settled on the island between 1000 and 400 BC. Although some claim they became virtually extinct following contact with Europeans, others claim that some survived." Oh really?! What legitimate source claims that? I just completed W.J. Gardner's "A History of Jamaica" a month or two ago and the clear implication from Gardner is that the Arawaks were completely whiped out under Spanish rule. This claim needs sourced --Raogden 21:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jamaica National Heritage Trust is trying to find any traces of Arawaks, but not a lot has turned up. I don't see how anyone can claim there's evidence of Arawaks. The fact that Jamaicans eat breadfruit or ackee is not evidence of Arawak culture. Breadfruit was brought from the South Pacific by the Brits, and ackee is a poisonous trash tree that will kill your ass dead if not cooked proper. Hoserjoe 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When I visited Montego Bay last, I was given a tour of different properties, and the women we were with was very insistant that there was no way that everyone of these people were extinct. She went on to talk about a grouop of people that lived in a mountainous region that were indigenous to Jamaica. She said that they are a sovereign people like the Native Americans in the United States, with their own government and their own way of life. I am doing some research on this and would realy like to know more about these people. I got the impression from this women that the people she was refering to were the Arawak Indians. This was a representative that was from JamPro. --Baxley8 03:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There's neither hide nor hair of Arawaks remaining anywhere. She was probably thinking about Maroons from Cockpit country, or maybe some Rastas on Quickly motorbikes come down from the hills. With their locks, and a cloud of smoke around their heads, they maybe resemble "natives" like in a Hollywood movie. But Arawaks? No, not even close. 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much this will help with my research. But I do have one question, you don't think that it was possible for anyone to excape, or move away, or marry/sleep with someone of another race (such as the europeans) and continue their race? It's very sad. Can you tell me any more about what happened? Thanks again for the info!!--Baxley8 19:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat fittingly, they survive in the Jamaican coat-of-arms. -24.149.203.34 (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] small

through the small nation jamaica been a rich in culture

[edit] Questionable Circumstances??

"It remained the capital until 1872, when the city of Kingston was named capital under questionable circumstances."

Does anyone know what these circumstances were? I feel like this answer is very vague. I'm new to wikipedia, but I don't think it is a NPOV statement? YoniLevin 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You can read about the drama by looking up Kingston in Wikipedia, where you'll see: "In 1755 the governor had decided to transfer the government offices from Spanish Town to Kingston. But, it was thought by some to be an unsuitable location for the Assembly in close proximity to the moral distractions of Kingston, and the next governor rescinded the Act. . ." In other words, Kingston was a great place to drink rum and chase big-bottom girls. Hoserjoe 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Rum

I believe that the "National rum" line at the bottom of the list of "nationals" should be deleted and/or reworked into a different section because:

1. It's uninformative. (An answer of "it doesn't have one" is given.)
2. It's nonsensical and therefore becomes confusing or possibly even comical. (Most countries have national birds and national flowers, but I don't know of any country having a national rum.)
3. It could be seen as stereotypical and therefore offensive.

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including Jamaica, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Caribbean. Interested parties should add their names there so we can determine if there is enough interest to start such a project in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] republic

Jamaica is to become a republic by 2007 per announcement of prime minister in September 2003. (EB 2006)

Really? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.132.78.94 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I need a source for this if its true. Blackjays 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime

I think a section needs to be on the crimes that commonly occur in Jamaica against gays/lesbians. New articles can be found here: [9]. Additionally, there should be a link to the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica.

Warning: It's a crime in Jamaica to BE a homo. So crimes against homos can occur openly on the street. Homos should not be obvious in public. Hoserjoe 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If anything, there should be a section or paragraph DISCOURAGING "open" homosexuals from even stepping foot in Jamaica. Blackjays1 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would add something under the "Crime" section, at a minimum mentioning crimes against LGBT persons and referencing the LGBT rights in Jamaica page. The page appears to be semi-protected; can a more trusted user please make this addition? Steve Radant (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving "Emigration"

Hey guys, the page on Jamaican Diaspora is pretty empty, and it's because most of the info that should be there is under Emigration on this article instead. Should we move it? If there are no oppositions in a week, I'm planning to move it. Chrysaora 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, leave it here. People is Jamaica's biggest export. 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote for List of Jamaican Americans at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamian Americans. Badagnani 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEMOGRAPHICS.......

Why did the CIA website change the demographics? with the amount of minorities in jamaica they need to change that crap..as a light skinned jamaican (brown to be exact) i noticed that darker jamaicans have a problem with the growing amount of minorites i had a problem believing that the black part was 90+. so after searching

i found this on jamaica's section in the university of the west indies website that LOOKS LIKE THE REAL DEAL.. THE DEMOGRAPHIC PART LOOK'S AS IT SHOULD. THOUGH I THINK WHITES AND CHINESE AND OTHER SHOULD BE MUCH HIGHER.. here is what they give 76.3% African descent, 15.1% Afro-European, 3.4% East Indian and Afro-East Indian, 3.2% Caucasian, 1.2% Chinese and 0.8% Other. and also population on wikipedia is wrong. change it cause UWI put: 2,754,000 (2002 est.)

there is no way they could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.12.199 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what i was stating in the previous paragraph about jamaica's ethnic makeup and it's population. On most jamaicans site it states that there are more people than 2.6 million people on the island around 2.7 to 2.8 and its ethnic makeup is mostly african. There is also a large Afro-european population and a growing Cauascian and East Indian and Afro East Indian and Also a Chinese Jamaican Population and a growing Lebanese Pouplation and much more.I don't see how they can get it so wrong when it's on the Jamaicans Site stating the real population and it's ethnic makeup.

[edit] Bruce Golding is not Prime Minister yet!

While it seems Golding's party has won the election he does not become Prime Minister until he's sworn in by the Governor-General. Please don't jump the gun! Also, the current PM is refusing to concede defeat according to press reports so it's possible she will continue as PM until her party is defeated by a vote of confidence in the Jamaican parliament or, more likely, until the recounts are completed. If and when she does concede Golding becomes Prime Minister-designate until he is sworn in. Reginald Perrin 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emigration split

I've been watching the Enigration section for awhile,a nd have noticed it growing larger and larger. Much of the info is not directly related to Jamaica itslef, such as descriptions of US Labor Day celebrations in NYC. The Jamaican diaspora is a stub at this point, and one with no sources at all. I would like to split most of the details of overseas info to that article, and hopefully we can find some sources to go along with it. - BillCJ 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As this is the country overview article an important topic like emigration should be covered in its own article and this article should contain a short summary of the main article on Jamaican emigration. At the moment there the articles Jamaican American, Jamaican-Canadian and British African-Caribbean community with some sources and a bit more of information which could be used to expand the Jamaican diaspora article. VirtualDelight 11:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] I think Cool Runnings should be mentioned in the article

Cool Runnings --Krakko 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool Runnings has very little significance to the island itself, its just an American media cash cow trying to get some revenue from the popularization of being Jamaican at the time. It would fit better in our National Bobsled team page Krayziegunts (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skin Complexion

The recent addition on skin complexion has rightfully been removed, though the best reason was not mentioned: Original Research. In addition, the entire section was very subjective and biased, and does not reflect anything other than pure personal opinion. Some or even all of the factors expressed may well be completely true, but without verifiable sources, it cannot remain on Wikipedia. Even if all the other points mentioned in the deletion are addressed, it would still need to be sourced properly before being allowed to remain. - BillCJ 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. There is a strong correlation in Jamaica (and most of the western world) between skin complexion and social status. Who denies this? 2. This phenomenon is usually referred to as 'racism' but I refrained from using judgemental language, due to the complexity of the subject. 3. The name 'Ackees' was not chosen by accident. I know what it is I am writing about. 4. The paragraph is it's current length because the phenomenon is a significant, obvious and an important element of Jamaican society. 5. Contributors are welcome to edit the paragraph, (make it shorter, more accurate, etc) but not to remove it. 6. I challenge any contributor to factually disprove a single sentence in this paragraph.

Ackees 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamaica is a racist place - even the dogs on the street in Kingston are racist. However, nobody cares too much about it, and people still say "Good Morning" 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoserjoe (talk • contribs)
I challenge you to factually prove every sentence of your paragraph. Now, while I do not doubt that it exists as it does every where else, but to accord it such a place in this article suggests that it is an on-going problem. As Bill said above, this is mostly OR, and if you are serious about introducing this into this article, I strongly suggest you locate a few academically published articles to bring weight to your statement. Sephui 13:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Akees, please remember: The threshold on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Even if everything you said is true, you cannot add it without credible, verifiable sources. - BillCJ 16:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
BillCJ. Do not patronise me. What I have said is 'verifiable'. Go to the list of Jamaican Prime Ministers. How many of them are 'dark-skinned' by Jamaican standards? Only one. That is the verification. It is you who are biased. You are removing this paragraph not because it is not 'verifiable', but because you personally don't like what is being said as a result of your own subjective bias. I only have to look at your page to see where your bias lies - it is as plain as a picture - and a picture is worth a thousand words. You are applying a double-standard. If you were being sincere you would systematically go through the entire article removing every sentence that was not 'verified'. How dare you interfere in a subject of which you have literally no knowledge. As I said, go to the list of Jamaican Prime Ministers. How many of them are 'dark-skinned'? Ackees 01:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So now you know my complete personal history from my user page? Who is being patronizing? Oh, and I only have one picture on my user page, and it was a gift! - BillCJ 02:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dearest fellow Wikers, I have seen the error of my ways. Please accept my sincere and humble apologies. I have now included 10 purely academic references, including some from things called 'books' (as opposed to just ripping stuff from the CIA facebook). These 10 references now mean that my humble little paragraph contains half of all the references cited on the page!! Further attacks on my academically well-founded paragraph will result in a citation for vandalism. And like I said, a picture is worth a thousand words.Ackees 02:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for provinging the sources. I will be wading through them as I have time to verify the content, and possiblebly adding counter sources. Btw, it's counter-productive to threaten vandalism charges in content disrputes, and makes it sound like you're from "bak a Mocho". And you are welcome to add unsourced tags to, or even remove, any items in the article of which you question the validity. Oh, and I always find it odd that those who decry judging by the color of one's skin are so quick to judge others who disagree with them by their color. My parents raised me not to judge people by their color, and now you want me to judge the PMs by their color? What kind of ganja are your smoking? THat's the most racist crap I've heard in awhile, and you'll just ignore it because you've decided I'm biased. You no absolutely nothing about me, yet you ask me how I dare you interfere in a subject of which you have literally no knowledge. That is quite a presumptuos statement, and it proves your own racial bias quite well. - BillCJ 03:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You keep adding to that section, and it'll soon be half the article, to go with have the references! I'm already in the process of splitting off the Emigrant section to another article because of its length. Perhaps you should conseder moving it to its own or another page (such as Race in Jamaica), as I'm sure the section will grow as others add other valid points of view. A smaller summary can be left in its place, with a DAB ilink to the main article. Respectfully asking, even tho I'm white and can't possible understand the importance of the issue to Jamaicans~ - BillCJ 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
BillCJ|Up to this moment you have still not provided a single 'counter' to my paragraph.
To answer your charges. I have not 'judged' Jamaica's PMs. I have simply noted the correlation between skin colour and social status. And, as I have not 'judged' them, you cannot accuse me of racism, after all, being the Prime Minister is not in itself a 'character flaw' - I wasn't accusing them of some crime. However, although you say, 'I know nothing about you', I note that you describe yourself by a word which means 'pure' 'light' and 'clean'. Self reflection is such a difficult habit to acquire.
How odd that you should accuse me of being 'racist', yet in the same breath claim that you can't appreciate the importance of 'the issue' to Jamaicans. You need to make up your mind.
I did not judge you by your colour. I had no idea that you had a pale complexion until you started boasting about it (believe me, I'm not impressed). I was merely drawing attention to the clear bias towards a certain romanticised, euro-centric ideal of beauty that is reflected on your page. You might be green for all I know, but your tastes are your tastes. If you don't want people to know what you truly, madly, deeply love, then don't exhibit it.
I find it sad that you will be devoting your precious and valuable time to 'adding counter sources'. Presumably, this means that you'll present studies proving that the darker a person's skin is, the more likely they are to be rich and powerful. Oh dear! I really ought to warn you that, with the world's political-economy structured the way it is, you've set yourself be a very, very, very lengthy and tiresome task. Perhaps if we come back in a hundred years you'll have something to show for your efforts.
Instead of all that bluster you could always just admit that you were wrong and try and adjust to the more accurate world view I have afforded you. Most of your comments mean that the 'thanks' you initially gave ring somewhat hollow. One Love xx Ackees 04:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of independent, neutral comments addressed to Ackees : refs 3 and 5 don't go to the place that they say they do. Either you've made an error with the URL, or you're trying to pull a fast one. I'll assume good faith...but please correct it. Secondly, As far as I can see, you've provides citest that, except for the above, back up individual small components of your paragraph, but your overall point that skin complexion is equivalent with caste and social status isn't supported by references (unless I missed one, and if so, feel free to point me in the right direction). It looks to me that you've cobbled together a number of cites that really have little to do with your overall point and used them to come to a conclusion that you're trying to promote, which is "original research" and is not appropriate here. You've got till tomorrow to back up with cites your core premise, else the whole section will be coming out and will be put here on the talk page until its inclusion can be fully discussed. Also, in your statement at the top of this section, you said that contributors are not permitted to remove your paragraph. That is not so. Our policies allow unverified and original research information to be removed. Don't go accusing someone of vandalism when they're upholding our policies. Lastly, please read our consensus policy: what's supposed to happen when someone objects to your contributions is that you're supposed to come here to the talk page and discuss them, not keep adding them back in. By my account, you're reverted 3 times now, which puts you on the verge of being blocked for violation of our WP:3RR three reversion rule. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In Ackee's defense, he did add the references on the last revert, so I'm not going to quibble on that one. He addressed the primary reason for the reversions in that edit, which was a lack of sources. P.S. I'm sorry if some of my above comments may have cossed WP:NPA - I'll try to keep my comments toned down from now one. - BillCJ 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, first off, I have to take my hat of to BillCJ who came to my defence. Wasn't expecting that, considering that moments before he was describing me as a racist.
Now, as for Mr Radecki '. Let's get straight to the point. I've introduced a paragraph that looks at the 'common knowledge' that, in Jamaica, as in virtually the entire world, there is a clear correlation between skin complexion and social status (measured by any number of factors, from income - to political power). However, your assertion that I claimed that 'skin complexion is EQUIVALENT to with caste and social status' is false in point of fact. Why, because:
1. I did not use the term 'equivalent' - because this is not an 'equivalence'. Nor can they be. Skin colour is a completely different thing to social status. What I said was that there is a CORRELATION. This means that you can 'relate' the two things. Which is different to saying that they are 'the same' or that they are 'equivalent'. In fact, I specifically pointed out that the last but one PM of Jamaica was dark-skinned.
2. I did not mention the term 'caste' at all.
So, if you intend to contradict my points then the very first thing you must do is cite them accurately. Your assertion that I have 'cobbled together' a number of cites that have 'little to do with' my point is also false. I was actually challenged by BillCJ to cite every one of my sentences. I have gone to academic sources of the highest quality, each of which is exactly pertinent. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, my cites are by far the most numerous and academic on the Jamaica page. In these circumstances I think that your threat to block me would be a misuse of your administrative status, particularly as 'administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute'. I have not violated Wikipedia policy in any way. All I have done is contribute, defend my contribution with a bit of dry humour and backed up my contribution with references.Ackees 04:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Copied (with additions) from my talk page: First, you didn't read my comments very well. I said, "I'm not getting involved in debating the actual issue here, I'm concerned about how you're handling the process, and you're running afoul of our policies." I'm not disagreeing at all with your content. The only thing that you were being threatened with a block over was 3RR, and as I'm not involved in the content dispute, I'm not at all abusing any authority. I'm questioning if your content, the way it is presented, is appropriate in terms of our policies. I don't think you understand our original research (which we abreviate as "OR") policy very well. Just because something is "common knowledge" doesn't mean that you write about it from your personal common knowledge. It means you don't just look at a series of photographs and make your own analytical conclusion here from them. OR means that you don't present your own conclusions, even if there is evidence to support them. We only report here what others have concluded elsewhere. What you present you have to demonstrate that it has been presented by other sources...that means your conclusion, your point, has been presented by others and can be backed up by reliable, verifiable sources. That's why I asked if you would point me to the specific reference where someone else has stated that this is an issue. I don't care how dull or how controversial a subject, our process needs to be followed. As far as removing it, if I remove it the reason isn't that I disagree with your subject or your conclusions, it's only that you haven't demonstrated that other sources are stating your point, in other words, it would only be removed if it fails WP:V. So, again, I ask you: point me to the specific reference that gives your overall point. Thanks. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] skin complextion

I see nothing wrong with what the person wrote in that section i mean for all i know it could be true and for your information jamaica 90% black lol bullshit its 76%. you must be one of them darkie jamaicans who cant except the demographic change. and i hope they fix the population part cause i know it is wrong. as i stated before the university of the west indies said this themselves and i gave the link so to the person who made this page needs to look it over and see what i and most others have been trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.12.199 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] population numbers have gone up...

To whoever takes care of this page the cia world fact book came to its sences and put the correct population outcome. you should do the same. PLEASE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.12.199 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the CIA World Factbook kept the old numbers just to be stubborn or something. It's more about having relialbe sources to quote, especcially official government ones. It's the same thing here. I you have a direct5 link to the CIA factbook page, that would nice, and I'll try to update the numbers in a day or two. (Busy in real life, so I don't have time right now to do a search.) - BillCJ 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here you go Bill https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jm.html thats the link for you. and for the demographics:http://www.uwi.edu/territories/jamaica.aspx thats where i got my info and i will beileve no other website. also how about some more pictures. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.12.199 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get to it in a few days, as I can. Feel free to try to add the info, but if you get to a point were you aren't sure what to do, just revert, and I'll check it over later. As to the UWI source, if the information is reliable (peer-reviewed or or published by a reliable publisher, then it can be used. If another reliable source disagrees, then we either have to include both sources, or leave them both out. We can't choose our sources because we like what it says, but rather based on whether it is verifiable and from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. - BillCJ 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaicans are majority mixed

LOL. This has got to be the biggest joke I ever heard. There defintely is a mixed race group like the prime minister who make up about 7% of the population. I can find no credilbe sources that even support these claims as the ones in the article are all broken, which doesn't surprise because the links probabily never existed. I don't see any significant difference in terms of skin color between most jamaicans and other africans. Are Jamaicans dark as say people from Ghana, no, but do Jamaicans look like people who are multiracial or mixed like alicia keys and mya, definietely not, and the ones who do are that 7%. As for Nigerian being dark, anyone who thinks this probably knows nothing about Nigeria, and Africa, it is a shame to say but often I find that there are more black westerns who think that all africans look like robert mugabe, while they forget about nelson mandela's and kofi anna's(who buy the way is from Ghana); than there white counterparts. In fact that is a totally different topic, but the majority of Jamaicans probably do not even orginate from Nigeria or Ghana, they probabbly come from the interior of africa in place like Chad, Sudan, Rwanda, south libya or even the Congo as when slavery was on the slaves were people who came from small villages that did not really belong to any nation. At that time there were several powerful nations who traded slaves, but those slaves were always from the interior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.27.30 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Visually, the current prime minister looks to be what Jamaicans call a "red man". These people are usually descended partly from the Maroons, who were children of escaped slaves who went to the mountains and mixed with the surviving Amerindians (Arawaks in Jamaca's case). As to the rest of what you say, I'm sure there's alot of truth in it - there are few people anywhere in the world who don't have a mixture of races somewhere in their background, especially those in former colonial countries. As to the slaves being from the deep interior of Africa, the evidence of reserachers, especially linguists, seems to confirm the Jamaican slaves came mostly from West Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, etc.), tho not necessarily the coastal regions - Africa is a BIG continent, and Nigeria and the COngo do stretch deep into the continent. Anyway, if you have some reliable sources that cover what you've written, it would be an interesting read, and perhaps there's something that can be used here. - BillCJ 02:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Bruce Golding, the current Prime Minister - mark you, is without a doubt a black woman (definitely), NOT a man
Bruce Golding, the current Prime Minister - mark you, is without a doubt a black woman (definitely), NOT a man
Portia Simpson-Miller, the previous Prime Minister - definitely not a man
Portia Simpson-Miller, the previous Prime Minister - definitely not a man
A "red man" in Jamaica is similar to "brown". There is no evidence anywhere of Africans mixing with Arawaks. In fact, there's hardly even a stick of evidence of Arawaks. If you find some, you will be up there with Darwin for excellent research. But so far, nothing but a zero. And the current Prime Minister, mark you, is without a doubt a black woman (definitely), NOT a man. The previous Prime Minister was even more definitely a man of serious blackness. Mind you facts - this is how challenging rumours get started! Hoserjoe (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice looking woman! Also, you might want to read Jamaican Maroons, which states: Maroons in Jamaica intermarried with Taíno and Miskito people from Central America. - BillCJ (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As an experienced Wiki person, you should know better than to use unsubstantiated folklore, rumour, and legend as a Wiki source! Jamaican history is filled with undocumented and bogus nonsense, and your source is one good example. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that any Arawaks survived past the mid-16th century, nor any evidence that any Maroons who date from the mid-17th century, ever met any Arawaks, let alone merged with Arawaks. Maroons are likely Nigerian or thereabouts in origin, and stubbornly remain(ed) so to this day. But if you can find a reputable source that says otherwise . . . Hoserjoe (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As an experienced Wiki editor, I know that either claim needs a verifiable source. If your source is as good as your info on who is Prime Minister, then it's probably not worth much. Anyway, provide your sources, and will use them, if they pan out. Don't, and we can't. - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Rahtid! I went on vacation and the Prime Minister changed. Last I heard she was contesting the election result. Well, we fondly remember the defeated PM an her previous noisy self! Never mind - the Arawaks are still dead and gone 400 yrs with only a few chicken bones to mark their former presence. If you find any other evidence, we will gladly receive it, like the news of Portia being given the boot. Hoserjoe (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Origins

Considering the fact that most Jamaicans who post here seem to think the idea that most Jamaicans are mulattoes, and the fact that most Jamaicans don't look like nations that have majority mulatto populations like dominican republic and puerto rico and cuba. In addition to the fact that none of the sources most cited for demographics seem to disagree that Jamaica is a anything less than 90% black and to add to the fact that every link was either fake or broken. I think the entire claim should be removed. The idea that Jamaica is 90% mixed is highly misinforming to people who know nothing of the island. As for Jamaicans being lighter because of racial mixing, the claim is simple a claim because there seems to be no genetic test done and any test done could be subject to error. Further wiki does not try to interepret claims, ie most brazilians claim to be white, even many who'm are known to be mixed with black or who may be considered black in america and britain, we simply present claims of others. So if 60% of brazilians claim to be white that is what we say they are unless they look obviously black. The truth is virtually all people in the western and mediterrain world are mixed with some other race, and to state this in every article is just posting useless information that cannot be proved. IMO claiming Jamaicans are mixed is just trying to stir up trouble and seems to be consistent with an unspoken policy in wiki that seems to want to, as other posters suggested, deny the "blackness" of certain peoples. Ie. I have seen examples where a minister in Dominican Republic stated something like 90% of Dominicans are african descent but a poster was attacked for posting that, and held to unnecessary standards to prove it even though it was right there. If I were to see such an effort made to assert the whiteness of dominicans, I doubt it would face any resistance. Anyways what should you expect from a site run by 20 year old white boys https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jm.html#People http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107662.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihba (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Noboby said that jamaicans think mullatoes are the major population we all know that black is but what most of us are trying to say is that its only 76% black the rest is everything else. once agian we have chinese, east indian, white(english,irish scotish,german,.(arab)lebanese,syrian. and mixed race(mullatoes,mixed indian, black, chinese etc) and those have been growing. ive givin links from some websites what more do you people want. more links? i can go fetch some but its not like you people will listen except for bill) its not like we are like that poor carib country haiti that has little to no ethnic diversity. we have lots some people need to open there eyes and look and read cause most of what i get are from jamaican run websites ok. just telling how i feel no disrespect i just dont wanna see my countrys demographics fucked up anymore.;-) here is a link showing all the ethnic groups i listed: http://www.jamaicagleaner.com/pages/history/story0055.htm thats just chinese but if you click the other links it will show you the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizainfini (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lizainfini you must understand that Haiti has a much larger population than Jamaica does so it appears as if their is little ethnic diversity but Haiti probably has more mulattos and europeans than Jamaica does. Most white-descended Haitians left the country because of the turmoil to the U.S and France so they're not counted in the census and many mulattos in Haiti classify themselves as black because of the history regarding the country. That messes up the census quite a bit. The small percentage of the Haitian population that are mulattos are most likely more numerous than their counterparts in Jamaica (do the math). As I said..mulattos appear more prominent in Jamaica because the population is much smaller than Haiti's. Fact of the matter is that both countries are largely black and that's all that matters. gulag (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.199.241 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If the demographics changed that much we should have seen a change in the CIA factbook reports as they get new numbers every year directly from the countries. Pretty much the reason why it is considered one of the best sources for data like demographics is because it tends to be quite impartial. For example they recognize that most Cubans and Columbians and dominicans are mulattoes rather white (which is what they claim to be) and they recognize that mosy north africans are actually berbers rather than arabs. Once again the link you provided did not provide any specific detail about demographic percentage, which is part of the problem with your claims. You are saying one thing but your sources don't agree with them. For example most people wouldn't consider 2000 a wave of immigrants in an island of 2.4 million black people. From what I get from the article it seems more like chinese were assimilated into the main culture rather the other way around. For example, mexico was 10% black in 1900s but most of them were assimilated so we don't say that all their desdents are mixed because they don't really look all that different from other mexicans. Same goes for arabs and black in spain, italy and those other countries. It is conforming with a policy here at wiki. We don't point out every single drop of non-pure blood and conclude that the person is mixed b/c for it is impossible and become pointless to say so and so was 1/8 irish, 1/8 black, 1/8 mexican(who was half black) 1/8 jamaican (who was quater peurto rican)...etc. no one wants to read an article like that and it tells me nothing about ancestry. Also my personal experience indicates to me that Jamaican Chinese are better off than average jamaicans and tend to leave cause the country has lots of violence, but that is IMO and not necessarily fact.

Anyways I'll quit babling and get straight to the point. The CIA factbook is usually considered to be the autority on demographics for wiki because they are alot better gathers of infomation than we are and than newspapers, etc. because they go straight to the source, the government of Jamaica, and those are the number we use. It is not our job to interpret information, unless it is blantanly wrong. And when I saw hurrican hit jamaica, all of the people their looked dark black like that singer bean man, not like Sean Paul or the prime minister, and I think that is most peoples perception of Jamicans, anything else would be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihba (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ok ihba i guess your right.;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizainfini (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bondservants

I just want it to be known that a part about bondservants who came to Jamaica should be added to the article too, since they did in effect play a major role in our history.

Then find a reliable source, and start writing. Or give the source here, and let someone else look at it. - BillCJ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billcj

thanks for eracing that. that idiot just got under my skin thats all made me show my ugly side but its not just here its other pages to... anyways thanks agian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.56.197 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As a Rastafari Jamaican...

As a Rastafari Jamaican, i'm taking offence to whoever keeps editing out the Rastafari religion out of the 'religion sect' paragraph. Rastafari has been an integrated part of the Jamaican culture since its begginings in the 1930's and this type of behaviour is unnacceptable. You don't have to agree with my religious views, but please show my religion it's respect. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake2u (talk • contribs)

You can start by not disrespecting other religions yourself. Removing other information to make way for yours is not the way to make your point. If you have a problem, discuss it. THe material you've been adding is not being removed because anyone dislikes your religion, but because it is unsourced, poorly-written, and duplicates material in the "Culture" section of the article. I don't know why it's there instead of in the Religion section, butbeing disruptive is not the way to get your voice heard. I'm discussing making changes to the "Religion", Demographics", and "Culture" sections below, and you're welcome to participate in a civil manner. - BillCJ (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion reorganization

I'd like to reorder some of the sections in the article, including splitting off the Religion section from demographics to its own section, as it is in manyt national articles. We'd also include the religious portion of the Rastafari text in the "Culture" section. - BillCJ (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --John (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've brought up creating a dedicated article on "Religion in Jamaica" with another editor. To this point, the only such article is Islam in Jamaica, but it is skimpy as it is on hard (reliable) sources. That article could probably be merged into the new article, and any other "Religion in Jamaica" stubs that are out there, if there are any. (The oldest of those stubs would be better moved to the new title, if it's not likely to be expanded on its own soon.) THis may be something for the furture, but as religion is a big part of Jamaican culture, there should be enough info to make a good article at some point. - BillCJ (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] United Kingdom's heavy reliance on slavery

Dear All,

This sentence...

By the beginning of the 19th century, the United Kingdom's heavy reliance on slavery resulted in blacks (Africans) outnumbering whites (Europeans) by a ratio of almost 20 to 1, leading to constant opportunities for revolt.

...is unsubstantiated and most likely inaccurate. The contribution of slavery based industries in Jamaica to the economy of the British Empire has not been substantiated to an agreed extent. Given the business interests that existed with India, South East Asia, China, North South America, etc, (not to mention the domestic economy), it is unlikely that the UK was ever 'heavily reliant' on Jamaican based slavery. A more accurate sentence would be:

By the beginning of the 19th century, the heavy reliance on slavery of Jamaican-based British business interests resulted in blacks (Africans) outnumbering whites (Europeans) by a ratio of almost 20 to 1, leading to constant opportunities for revolt.

[edit] Archived?

I think this page should be archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizainfini (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead then. - BillCJ (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

I don't know any black Jamaicans, including myself, who identify as West-African. We are Jamaicans. So I removed from the demographic ethnicity "West-African" to "African", although even that is still dubious because it cannot be sourced and more importantly it is inaccurate.--KGBarnett (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to "History of Jamaica", paragraph 2

The last sentence of, "History of Jamaica", paragraph 2 states, "...'monteca' being the Spanish word for land." The Spanish word for land is "Tierra". "Monteca" may be translated as, "butter", "fat" or "grease", in English. See any Spanish-English dictionary for confirmation.Schryver (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Schryver!. I changed it to "lard", which is the literal translation, so named for the historical hunting of wild boar for the lard-making industry. Perhaps it was a typo, or a mis-reading of the "map" from the reference?--KGBarnett (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)