Talk:Mestizo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 For the Record 2 Mestizos in the Philippines 2.1 Disagreement with statistics 3 Mestizos in Argentina 3.1 Genetic reasearch reveals Argentina to be a nation of Mestizos 4 Mestizos in Honduras 5 Chart of Overall Latin American Demographics 6 "Official" statistics 7 Mestizos in Chile 8 Consider genetic testing via AncestryByDNA.com 9 TruthComission's Misinformations 10 Mestizo culture 11 Mestizo aristocrats 12 Cherokee 13 Métis and Métis people 14 mestiços in Asia 15 i'm confused 16 A Definition of a Mestizo 17 J-LO is not a Mestizo 18 Jose Rizal is not a mestizo 19 Chinese / Japanese are not European People 20 Too Many Weasel words and POV Statements in Filipino Mestizo article 21 Race and Poverty in Mexico, Central America, and South America

For the Record

For the record: Filipino Mestizos as claimed by the guy who posted the Addendum, are not concentrated in Manila but is scattered everywhere in the islands (as far south as Mindanao) high concentrations of Spanish Mestizos come from Cebu, Manila, Iloilo and Zamboanga in that order. Also, the genetic samplings used where not mostly tested to people in Manila, far from it. The genetic samples mostly came from Mindanao and Sulu (near the borders of Malaysia).

I do not totally agree with you. I work in the Filipino Spanish Chamber of Commerce in Manila and to say that its 1% is not exactly true! First of all Filipino Spanish are third or 10th generation Spanish they are all scattered everywhere in the islands. I have no clue why every topic in here is so focus to the Spanish last name in the Philippines! Yes Spaniards gave Filipinos Spanish last name and its true majority does not have Iberian Heritage but let me tell you this. Isn't the same thing happened in Bolivia? in Peru? in Guatemala? in Honduras????

Mestizos in the Philippines

I deleted the changes made that suggested 20% of Filipinos are mestizos. Not only is this a gigantic overestimation, but it is also historically impossible. There just weren’t enough Spaniards to have created such an immense proportion of past or present Filipinos to be mestizo.

Of all the Spanish colonies, the Philippines had the tiniest number of Spaniards, both in real numbers and as a percentage. And of these Spaniards, only a few fathered offspring in the Philippines, and of those that did father mestizos most were friars or priests.

Large-scale immigration of Spaniards, as happened in Latin America, never occurred in the Philippines. Historical evidence in Spain indicates that Spanish migrants to the Americas almost drained the entire population of Extremadura, a significant portion of Andalusia, as well as good numbers from various other regions including Euskadi and Galicia. This never happened for the Philippines. Most of the few that did go to the Philippines weren’t actually Spaniards, they were mostly Mexicans, who themselves later returned to Mexico.

Add to this the fact that native Filipinos didn’t die in the millions of introduced diseases, as happened to the Native Americans. Amerindians had no immunities for Old World diseases. In some areas 90% of the original populations died withing the first few years of conquest, in other areas the native populations were wiped out entirely and the only remanants left of their genetic legacy is indeed in the mestizos. Such is the case for Uruguay, a European-descended nation whose only "indigenous" population is the 8% mestizo minority, who themselves are of very diluted Indian ancestry and are often indistinguoishable from an unmixed Mediterranean, and where the Uruguayan mestizo's pride in his mestizaje comes not from the acclaim of his European ancestry, but as an effort to reclaim his indigenous descent. The same goes for places like Puerto Rico, where the only remanants they have left of the native Taínos are the few genetic markers in a phenotypically European Puerto Rican population, or in the very few zambos (mixed African and Native American) of the Dominican Republic. Filipinos didn’t experience this holocaust because they are located in Asia, one of the three Old World continents, and as Asians they had a history with these diseases, which meant they also had the immunities to combat them.

The suggestion that the original small population of Filipino mestizos eventually mixed back into the native population, endowing every modern Filipino (or even 20% of Filipinos) with an extremely diluted amount of Spanish blood and ancesrty, is a fanaticized hypothesis.

Spanish mestizos in the Philippines were a very small and privileged minority. Never did they surpass 1% of the population at any given period in history. It is precisely because of their rarity that these halfcast-Spaniards held high positions in society. For this reason they were also extremely endogamous, never again mixing back with natives. They thought of themselves as a separate class and ethnicity. The idea that they melded back into the native majority to make "mestizos" out of every living Filipino would suggest that they went against everything that they were taught. Mixing back with a native would "taint" the mestizo with more Malay blood than he “unfortunately” already had. Why - when the Filipino ideal of beauty and society was to be a mestizo - would mestizos then marry back into the native population? If anything, Filipino mestizo would aspire to marry on of the very few Spaniards and Mexicans so subsequent offspring and descendants could have as little native ancestry as possible. But since this never happened, they became endogamous, marrying only amongst each other. Thus, Filipino mestizos didn’t dilute back into the native majority.

The hypothesis of mestizos marrying back into the native stock could perhaps hold true only for Latin America. Mestizos in Latin America were a growing majority, while unmixed Spaniards were a healthy large minority. So there was nothing special about the mestizos there, they had no special status, they were not a rarity. They held no privalege. More importantly, the idealization of the Latin American wasn’t to be a mestizo as it was in the Philippines. Since most Latin Americans were indeed mestizos, the Latin American ideal was to be a Spaniard. Here, it wasn't uncommon for Latin American mestizos to marry back into native communities; here it could be said that some Amerindians may have Spanish ancestry through an absorbed mestizo ancestor. But not in the case of the Philippines. However, the existance or not of Spanish genes among self-identified "Native Americans" isn't the topic.

To this day in the Philippines, because almost everyone is native (95%), the ideal is to be mestizo, and most Filipinos will falsely claim to be so, even citing the "mestiza great-great-grand-mother" or Spanish "great-great-grand-father", with no evidence other than a Spanish surname [and let's not even start with how Filipinos acquired Spanish surnames]. In Latin America, apart from the relatively large unmixed European population (aprox. 30%), the great majority are mixed-bloods (mestizos and mulattos combined, aprox. 50%) and becasue of this, the ideal is to be unmixed Spanish. So in Latin America's case, many of the mixed-bloods will falsley claim to be pure Spanish. This is called colonial mentality. Al-Andalus 15:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The following was added directly to the article by 203.131.65.38 on 10 September 2004, and moved to the talk page by Benc:

I find your article debateble and innaccurate. While Filipinos have less mestizo population in all of the Spanish colonies, I disagree that only about less than 1% or 0.5% are Spanish mestizos. Historically, a MESTIZO is considered as those exclusively of European blood mixed with "indio". The chinaman are called "inchic" or "chinos". The ones mixed with Inchic and Indio is referred to as Chinese mestizo or Sangley/es during the old times. Notice that when a person is considered a Mestizo, it automatically means mixed with European (Spanish), whereas if a person is a CHINESE mestizo, this is to inform that he is mixed with Chinese (and not Spanish as the word "mestizo" originally meant). It is only recently that the word "mestizo" has been used on both. Taking off the Chinese from the mestizo with the intention of hiding the Chinese and make it sound broad to conform more to the standard of Filipino beauty which is (Spanish) mestizo. Nowadays, it has also been applied to Americans mixed with Malay(Indigeneous Filipino), now more referred to as "Tisoy". While those chinese mestizo are called "Chinito/Chinita" and/or "Chinoy"= (ethnic Chinese). "Chinito" does not only refer to Malays mixed with other asian ancestries but all orientals as well including the Chinese, Japanese and Korean.

An American Anthropologist, Otley H. Beyer divided the Filipino's racial makeup into:

40% Malay
30% Indonesian
10% Chinese
5%  Indian (Hindu)
3%  European and American
2%  Arab

Click this link for reference:

http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/countries/philippines/philippines.html

The Philippine population is currently close to 90 million people. I don't belive the estimate of the Spanish-mestizo population placed at around 1% to be innacurate. These are statistical figures and data provided by both Filipino census and government sources. In addition to this, the population of Spanish-mestizos in the Philippines never grew above 1%. In 1903 the population of Spanish-mestizos was 15,419, or 0.2% of the entire population. And if the population is said to be just over 1% now, it would mean that the fertility rate of mestizos in Philippines was inconceivably much higher than that of the native majority.

Now, this in itself doesn't make sense, you see, never has the fertility rate of a ruling class of any nation been higher than that of the natives. The educated and ruling class of any society have always shown similar characteristics, one of them being a tendancy of a drop of fertility.

If the native Filipino population is said to have increase by a factor of eleven in the 100 years since the 1903 Filipino census; from 7.6 million native Filipinos in 1903 to around 83 million native Filipinos in 2004, then the mestizo population would have had to increase by a factor of 65 to have been able to go from the the 15,419 (0.2%) of 1903 to the porported c. 1,000,000 (1%) that official figuers state for 2004. Despite this, we shall take it to be truth that in the case of the Philippines the ruling class somehow had a higher fertility rate, and an extraordinarily high one at that!

I bet that now the 1% estimate doesn't really sound like a small number, when one realises the actual numeric size of the Filipino population. The Philippines is almost 90 million strong today.

Also consider that the native population of the Philippines never had a holocaust, due to warfare but more importantly through disease, as happened to the Native Americans accross the American continent. Not only was Latin America's mestizo population growing so rapidly because of the high level of interbreeding between Spanish men and Native American women, but also because the mestizo populations created from these unions themselves were much more prolific amongst themselves, and with higher fertility rates than all other groups, as mestizos in Latin America were not a ruling class. In addition to this high fertility, the ratio of mestizo to amerindians was also swelling due to the extremely high mortality rate of Native Americans from Old World diseases.

If one suggested that more, let's say around 10%, of Filipinos were Spanish-mestizo, that would would imply that around 10 million Filipinos are Enrique-Iglesias-looking eurasians (himself a Spanish-mestizo), and it is obviouse that there exists no such number, anywhere in Pilipinas. Even within major cities where this population of one million Spanish-mestizos mostly reside, when one does bump into them they might appear to be slightly higher in numbers, but this is because they indeed look slightly different to the native majority sourounding them, thus the focus will centre on the rarity of the mestizo, they will stand out and thus make it appear that they could represent 5% of the population. But that's just a perception. This biased concentration on the mestizo is true even among native Filipinos. This is colonial mentality. If one based the ethnic composition of Pilipinas on the ethnicities seen on national TV, one could also summize that the Philippines must be 60% mestizo. But this is true for Latin America as well. If one was to watch their media and entertainment, one could conclude that their populations are around 80% white, when the reality is that it's around 50% mestizo and only 30% unmixed European.

So 1% doesn't sound wrong. If anything, it could only sound like a bit of an overestimation, considereing the number of Spaniards and Mexicans present in the country during the colonial period, and those that were present hardly ever produce offspring except for the clergy. Spaniards when they left Spain, they left with no women, and they saw themselves in need to get some, and they did, when they reached the Americas, but those Spaniards who left for Philippines, didn't leave from Spain, most left from Mexico and these men by then had already acquaried native women from the Americas. And at the end of the colony of Pilipinas, most of these men didn't stay in the Philippines and they didn't return to Spain, they returned to Mexico to their Families, because they hadn't produced families in the Philippines to stay back for, but they did in Mexico to go back to.

Al-Andalus 10:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagreement with statistics

I disagree with you, you are in no position to speak for all of the Spanish in the Philippines during the time period, saying that they hadn't produced families in the Philippines to stay back for, it sounds a bit racist and biased towards your own agenda. Many Spaniards STAYED in the Philippines after the war, with their families, and I know because that was the case with my family, as with many other families I knew growing up in the Philippines. A prominent example of this is Isabel 's maternal great grandfather, and her paternal grandparents, both full-blooded Spaniards from Spain who chose to stay in the Philippines and make it their home.

This is an encyclopedia, and the object of it is to be objective, not to infuse your own personal opinions on how things might've been, or to inject your own personal theories such as "most of these men didn't stay in the Philippines and they didn't return to Spain, they returned to Mexico to their Families, because they hadn't produced families in the Philippines to stay back for, but they did in Mexico to go back to." Who are you to speak for the Spanish men during the 1800s and 1900s who made Filipinas, Mexico, America Del Sur, or wherever country their home, when you weren't even alive during those times, and have no evidence to back up your statements?

I grew up in a Spanish-speaking Filipino family from Manila, the same as Isabel Preysler and many other families, and my family has been speaking Spanish for generations, so I know what I'm talking about, and I know my country because I've lived it, and I've been studying it my whole life. I'm not exactly sure what nationality you are, Al Andalus, but if you're not Filipino and lived your life as a Filipino, you have no right to make judgements or personal statements about other people's cultures, and as a human being, you have no right to ridicule those Filipinos who aspire to be mestizos saying "my great-grandfather, etc.", and to automatically dismiss that what they're saying is not true, because you don't know them personally, and you DON'T KNOW their family history, or to ridicule those Latin Americans who aspire to be Spanish, because every culture has a history that influences how society perceives things to this day, and how their society determines class structures. It's also just plain overly sarcastic, the way you say your opinion, and it shows a lack of respect for the beauty of the Filipino culture, as well as for the beauty of the Spanish culture in general. Posted by: 68.70.73.121

I don’t mean to ridicule, be rude, sound condescending or sarcastic. It’s just the plain simple facts.

In the Philippines, mestizos (of the Spanish variety) were always small in numbers, never reaching above 1% of the general population at any time (and that height of 1% is relating to contemporary numbers, who themselves are now of extremely diluted Spanish blood). It’s just that miscegenation in the Philippines wasn’t commonplace like in the Americas, it was extremely rare. There just weren’t many Spaniards or Mexicans to begin with.

Of the Spanish mestizos that were indeed sired in Pilipinas, the overwhelming majority were the resultant offspring of unions between Spanish clergymen and native girls. It is for this reason that these mestizos were never a part of nuclear families. A man of the cloak could never acknowledge siring a bastard child, as doing so would basically serve as a full confession and declaration of the breaking of his vow of celibacy. Much less would the man be able to marry the mother of his children to then form a nuclear family. Hence, when I say that the Spaniards and Mexicans didn’t have families to stay back with, I was referring to the fact that most of the few mestizos that were created in the Philippines indeed did originated from these doomed unions of clergymen with native girls. They just couldn’t stay back with them because recognition of such liaisons and families was barbaric to the church.

Meanwhile, of those fewer non-clergy Spaniards who procreated offspring with local girls, most were either already married (having wives either in Spain or native ones they had acquired in Mexico) with the Filipina merely serving as a concubine. In fact, it is documented that some Spaniards even sailed to the Philippines with their earlier coceived mestizo sons they had with Native American women. Ttheir sons accompanied them as co-captains or crewmembers. This alone indicates that most indeed had obligations and responsibilities that they left behind, if some even took their Mexican mestizo sons.

I do agree with you on one point. The fact that most Spaniards and Mexicans men eventually returned doesn’t mean that some didn’t stay. I agree with you here, as it is obvious that some did. This is why only very few families can rightly claim so, and I really mean a very, very, very few. But those who did stay were the rarity of all rarities. Those who stayed were four times a minority.

• 1st. Spaniards and Mexicans were a minority in the Philippines, never accounting for more than 0.5% of all people living in the archipielago;
• 2nd. Race mixing was extremely rare in Las Filipinas. Meaning most Spaniards and Mexicans didn't sire offspring
• 3rd. Of those few that did sire offspring most were clergymen
• 4th. Of those fewer who weren't clergymen most weren't fortunate enough not to have prior obligations back in Mexico or Spain that they would have to return to (whether it be positions in government and society they had left, families, lands or estates, etc).

So the simple fact is, most Spaniards didn't stay back, and the odds that one would stay back for a newly created Filipino family was even smaller. One must understand that Spaniards and Mexican never ventured to the Philippines with the mentality of settlers. They left for the Philippines because New Spain appointed them as officials to la Colonia de las Filipinas.

As a matter of fact, it was seen as a form of ridiculed having to go to Las Filipinas. Most viewed these sailors with contempt and hardly with the praise and reverence given to those sailing from Spain to the Americas. Those going to the Philippines were not only regarded as not being proper men of Spain, not the noble creole men of Mexico, but rather the rejects of Mexico. It was even immortalized in proverb. This alone encouraged them to head back as soon as their duties were fulfiled.

It must be acknowledge that initially the Spaniards that went to Latin America didn’t go with the mind of settling either. However, the difference is that after the first wave of Spaniards came, the one's with no plans to stay (i.e. conquistadors, missionaries and officials), not too much latter did wave, after wave, after wave, of immigrant settlers flood in. In fact, some Latin American governments were the ones that encouraged these waves of immigration so as to "mejorar la raza" (better the race) of so many of the mestizo and mulatto children that had been created by the first wave of Spaniards. Some goverments even offered farm land so Spaniards could come to better the race, and for each offspring the cleared up with more European blood (thus "helping" to whiten Latin America) monetary recompense was paid. So when these settlers eventually established themselves throughout the Americas, the original wandering Spaniards stayed too.

The Philippines never received any type of Spanish immigrant wave other than the first type described above, and of this type of Spaniards and Mexican that did land on Philippine shores, their numbers were small.

It’s an unfortunate truth, I know, but the fact is that of the Spaniard that did have Filipino mestizo children, most did abandon them. And as mentioned already, those who were fathered by clergymen were without a doubt abandoned (for the reasons given of the clergy), and most of the few Spanish mestizos, like it or not, are descended from these particular unions. This history of abandonment repeated itself with American-mestizos when their fathers also abandoned them when the US retreated at the end of the American occupation.

On another note, I would like to address the issue you brought up with the following quote: …you have no right to ridicule those Filipinos who aspire to be mestizos saying "my great-grandfather, etc.", and to automatically dismiss that what they're saying is not true…

Firstly, it’s not a matter of whether I have a “right” to state this. It is just reality. If all historical and current sources and data indicate that Filipinos of an actual mixed Spanish ancestry have never constituted anything above 1%, logic would dictate that if more than 1% of Filipinos claim to be so, whatever the discrepancy between 1% and the percentage of Filipinos declaring their ancestry as part Spanish must therefore also be the frequency of false declarations of Spanish ancestry. Now, the main reason why most Filipinos assume that they descend from a Spanish ancestor is because they posses Hispanic or Hispanic-sounding surnames. However, the way Filipinos acquired Hispanic surnames was very different to the way the people of the Hispanic world were bequeathed theirs. Surnames were imposed on Filipinos during the colonial era to facilitate tax collecting and record keeping.

Of Filipinos, only the 1% which have already been stated as trully being of partial Spanish ancestry actually derive their surname from a Spanish or Mexican ancestor. Why do you take offence to this fact? When your Spanish ancestry is put in doubt, it’s not an attack on you as a person. If the likelihood of Filipinos claiming Spanish ancestry is very high, and those who do actually have that ancestry is very low, then by all means it is not irrational to doubt the majority of the claimants. Unfortunately, for the few that do have Spanish ancestry, which you say you are one of, you will be doubted because of the very high nature of the frequency of false claims.

The only people to blame for creating the prevalent dismissals when Filipinos claim Spanish ancestry, and the assumption that ethnic forgery is being committed, is all those Filipinos that claim they are part Spanish, but aren’t.

In the Australian census for the year 2001, of all people who declared they were Philippine-born or born to one or two Philippine-born parents, 1 in 10 (10:100 or 10%) claimed their ancestry to be Spanish. Yet, if the true numbers of Filipinos who are of Spanish ancestry (mixed at most) is only 1 in every 100 (1:100 or 1%) then that means that Filipinos falsely claiming Spanish ancestry is 10 times greater than the reality. This means that of every 10 Filipino Australians claiming Spanish ancestry, 9 (9:10 or 90%) are claiming it falsely. The rates for Filipino Americans claiming Spanish ancestry is much higher (even higher in Hawai’i), with around 1 in 4 (25:100 or 25%) claiming so. This means that of 25 Filipino Americans claiming Spanish ancestry, 24 (24:25 or 96%) are claiming it falsely.

In fact, going back to the Australian census figures, of all Australians who declared themselves to be Spanish; 9% were born in the Philippines!?!?! Meanwhile 9% were born in Chile, 5% in Uruguay, 4% in El Salvador, 4% in Argentina, 2% in Peru, etc. Apparently there are more Filipino Australians who are ethnically Spanish (or at least they think they are) than there are Hispanic Australians who come from Spanish-populated Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, or Latin America in general for that matter? One need only to fly to the Philippines, get off the plane at Manila International Airport and walk just half a metre to realise that this is most definately not the case.

Furthermore, the Australian census includes a footnote explaining why so many Filipinos described themselves as Spanish, saying that; they often include the nationality associated with a colonial power, hence the significant proportion of Filipinos reporting their ancestry as Spanish. It isn't because they actually are of Spanish ancestry.

Having said all that, one must also concede that many Filipinos who falsely claim Spanish ancestry aren’t doing it out of deceit. Many truly believe that they are Spanish descended, but have absolutely no foundations to base this. Almost none have undergone genealogical research, and of the few who do, it is guaranteed that they are not. They end up discovering that they are merely catholic-professing, Spanish-surnamed native Filipinos. In fact, if you need to do genealogical research to see if you have Spanish blood, the odds are you will defiantly find you do not have a drop. All actual Filipino mestizo families wouldn’t need to undertake such research, because they have always known (I’m not talking about those that have always assumed). These families all have the birth and marriage certificates of their Spanish ancestors, the vessel documents of arrival and departure that they travelled on, photos, knowledge of living extended relatives in Spain (even if they’ve never met them, they know who and where they are). All this is because being of mestizo lineage was so prestigious in the Philippines, real mestizo families never passed on oral accounts. They passed on actual evidence, documents and their wealth.

Also, when you argue that because I wasn’t born or lived during the colonial period, making me incapable of dissertation on the subject with a degree of academic merit, you are grasping very thinly on a reason to discredit facts. It’s not my words or opinions what I have written, documents from the colonial era prove that the amount of Spaniards in the archipelago was extremely limited in numbers, census data, Filipino government statistical sources all attest to this.

Finally, I want to further single out this “aspire to be mestizos saying”. This is the reason why there is such disbelief of those claiming to be part Spanish, because it is merely an aspiration (meaning almost no one is, hence they aspire). It’s not about ridicule. It’s just fact. I feel sorrow, not humour, in light of this reality. Al-Andalus 18:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the fact is that you DON'T HAVE a right to speak for the Spanish men who lived during the 1800s and the 1900s, because you did not LIVE during those times, and you have no right to speak for those men unless you are actually a Spanish man from the 1600s-1800s, which YOU ARE NOT. Your statements about those men (saying "they didn't have families in this country, but did in this country, etc.") have no basis in FACT, and that is something that I could prove in a SECOND with tons of history books written about the Philippines, in English AND Spanish.

I feel sorry for YOU, because I read your other articles, and you seem to be hell-bent on putting down Filipino culture, with your ridiculous RACIST "IMSCF" topic. I know that there is colonial mentality in the Philippines, but THAT IS THE SAME COLONIAL MENTALITY THAT IS PREVALENT IN MEXICO, CHILE, AND ALL LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, it's from SPAIN. But to make ridiculous statements such as all Filipinos and Latin American mestizos and mulatos aspire to be white Spaniards (which you DID in the COLONIAL MENTALITY topic) is just plain ridiculous and void of any fact. WHO ARE YOU TO SPEAK FOR ALL FILIPINOS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT ONE? WHO ARE YOU, ONE SICK, SAD, TWISTED, DEMENTED, RACIST PERSON, TO SPEAK FOR ENTIRE GROUPS OF PEOPLE, WITH POPULATIONS IN THE MILLIONS?

I can tell you are coming from a RACIST perspective, because you DELETED all of the sections that I added about mestizos being an important part of founding the country after the Spanish-American war, which is the truth. Where is your HATE coming from? You're a SAD, SICK PERSON. And everybody knows that those who hold HATE in their hearts are going to burn in hell, in the after life, and in the hell that that they've created for themselves in the sad, ridiculous life that they're living, that YOU'RE LIVING, with HATRED in your heart.

Nobody has to prove ANYTHING to you about their bloodlines, especially a RACIST person such as yourself. If there's anyone that needs to show proof, it's YOU. Do you even speak and understand Spanish fluently? You probably don't even speak Spanish, and if you do, it's even more evidence why you're A SAD, SICK, TWISTED RACIST IDIOT by putting down your own Latin culture and history, which includes Filipinas, because it's obvious that you have ANGER towards the Latin culture for preferring whites in the media (based on your COLONIAL MENTALITY article), which only comes to one conclusion - that you have obviously shown everyone what an IDIOT you are by giving in to the same COLONIAL MENTALITY that you criticize by trying to denigrate the value of the Philippines' Spanish culture by saying that they don't have enough sufficient white blood, but Latin America's culture is valid because they do have sufficient white blood. What an IDIOT you are, and even more, YOU'RE SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THAT YOU'RE GIVING IN TO THE SAME COLONIAL MENTALITY THAT YOU CRITICIZE FILIPINOS AND LATIN AMERICANS FOR! WHAT A STUPID LOSER IDIOT YOU ARE! It makes me laugh to see how stupid and ridiculous you are.

There is strong colonial mentality in Latin America as well, and an aspiration to have WHITER kids, but like in THE PHILIPPINES, to say that EVERYBODY is like that, which YOU DID, is IN FACT A PERSONAL OPINION and HAS NO BASIS IN FACT. I feel sorry for you, because I can tell that there is a poison in your heart that makes you so hellbent on putting down the Filipino culture that is so beautiful, and the Latin culture that is so beautiful as well. History is history, but YOU AS A PERSON HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE STATEMENTS FOR THE SPANISH MEN WHO LIVED DURING THOSE TIMES.

I come from a Spanish-speaking family, and I have done a lot of research about Filipinas in Spanish textbooks, and nowhere does it say that it was a disgrace for Spaniards to come to the Philippines.

You forget that today in Latin America, huge INDIO populations are excluded from modern society, and that many mestizos and mulatos in Mexico, Chile, and all over Spanish America were also illegitimate children, in the Carribean, due to mixed children of former black slaves, the black slave women serving as concubines for white Spanish men, and the mixed mestizo children also of indio women and Spanish clergymen. Yes there is a history of Spain that is not so beautiful, but I feel sorry for you that you have so much hate in your heart that you're so hell-bent on trying to put down the Philippines, and Latin America in your "COLONIAL MENTALITY" topic. That is RACISM, except you just hide it with statements which you claim to be "facts", which in fact are statements based on rhetoric, racist hatred, and personal opinion, saying that you have the RIGHT to speak for all Spanish citizens and culture, especially during the 1800s when you weren't even alive, and are not a Spanish man who lived in the 1800s. Your racist statements putting down Filipinos and the Philippines in this topic, and putting down Filipinos and Latin Americans in the Colonial Mentality topic, and in all the other HATE topics you created such as that IMSCF topic, have no merit, and I feel sorry for unintelligent people such as yourself who have so much hate in their hearts, and at the same time, unintelligent, RACIST people such as yourselves who use internet forums like this for your own RACIST agenda to PUT DOWN OTHER CULTURES, but cover it up by trying to say that it's fact, when many history books written in English and Spanish would point out that what you're saying is INDEED based on pure rhetoric, and RACIST PERSONAL OPINION, unintelligent, RACIST people like you make me laugh. And I feel sorry for you. And like any other intelligent person with dignity and respect for other cultures, I'm not even gonna waste my time reading your posts based on a RACIST PERSPECTIVE from your own, internal HATRED towards a single group of people, or your replies that claim to be based on fact, but in reality, have their true basis in racist rhetoric statements. I feel sorry for people like you, and you make me laugh. There is so much hatred and racism in the world, and with your racist posts, you're one of those people that's contributing to it, and that's sad. You are a sad, sick person, and I feel sorry for you, and you make all of us laugh with your ridiculous statements based on racist opinions. I'll be looking down at you from heaven, and I'll see you burning in hell because of your hatred, and it's funny, because I can see that you're burning in hell at this very moment, the hell that you've created for yourself with your RACIST HATRED. I feel sorry for you. And at the same time, racist, bigoted idiots, who keep proving to the whole world how racist and unintelligent they are with statements such as those that you've made, racist, bigoted idiots like you make me laugh. RACIST IDIOTS like YOU, al-andalus, make us all laugh. --68.70.73.121 00:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"...I could prove in a SECOND with tons of history books written about the Philippines, in English AND Spanish."

Talk is cheap! The fact is, you you haven't proven anything other than your frustrations.

Every single word in your reply was an attack on my person, and nothing else. I can't even count how many times I was referred to as a devil and how I’m going to hell, and how there is hatred in my heart. And then you accuse me of talking in rhetoric? Please! That's what you've just done. Your entire reply was pure rhetoric!!! Just read it. You argue against all points going against your views, you have the audacity to dismiss (just ignored really) all sources of evidence, when you haven't even given a single one. Where in your reply did you give any evidence to your claims??? Once again, it was all merely your opinions. Put up or shut up.

You didn't give one single piece of evidence in favour of your argument. I, on the other hand, have done nothing but give source after source backing up my statements. And you then accuse me of elevating my opinions? It is you trying to convert your opinions into works of academic worth. You accuse me of having an agenda? Everyone has an agenda. Mine is to present facts, and to back them up with sources other than my own opinions and assumptions, like you are doing.

The reason why you spent all of your reply deedicated to telling me how putrid I am as a human being was because you had nothing else to argue. And even your attack on me is merely another opinion. Use facts! If you say I'm a racist, back it up with evidence! If you say I'm a devil, back it up! If you say I'm going to hell, back it up! If you say there is only hatred in my heart, back it up! But you can't. It is you who is narrowminded. Just because I state facts that contradict your opinions, you automatically responce to discredit me is to degrade my character. If I am racist, and have such hatred; name me one place where I have said Filipinos are infirior? Nowhere! Because I don't believe such a thing. Filipinos are a hard-working and honest people. Of strength, resiliance and intellect. They have a beautiful country, and a culture that is rich in history, and they have a history that posseses a wealthy of human experience. I have only admiration for the Philippines and Filipinos.

My dear USER 68.70.73.121, nowhere have I expressed my opinions. I can assure you of this. I will be honest, because I believe that is the best way to go. If I were trying to express my opinions, I would be stating that less than 0.25% of Filipinos are of partial Spanish ancestry, because that I what I honestly beileve. But I haven't stated that, have I? Why haven't I propagated my opinion? Because, it is just that, an opinion of mine, which I can't prove. I will only back up thing for which I have the data, evidence and sources to back them up with. I fight for a lot of things, even if i don't agree with them, but only if they are the truth. Figures and statistics given by the Philippine government and by all existing historical evidence indicates that 1% of Filipinos are of partial Spanish ancestry. So I am unable to say that the number is smaller unless I have the sourced evidence I would need to back up my opinion that only 0.25% are of partial Spanish origin.

Also notice that in the entirety of my reply, not once did I attack your person. I honesty thought this was going to be a civil debate where facts and figures would be used as our weapons. Instead, the only weapons you can muster are insults, defamation, and like the little girl that cried fox, you’re the one who cries racism when you can’t support your claims. I honestly thought that you were up for a legitimate debate on the topic and were prepared with all the data you said you had. You failed to do this. Why can't you post your evidence, your sources, if you so say you could do it in a second? You don’t, because you simply can't! Such evidence does not exist. And if it does, produce it, and hey, maybe I could learn something.

And anything that remotely sounds like facts that you may have said, I haven’t denied. "many mestizos and mulatos in Mexico, Chile, and all over Spanish America were also illegitimate children". When have I denied this? What you may have miss understood is that I said mestizos were created in greater numbers, by more people and a large percentage of them, and the practice was prevalent. In the Philippines, the numbers they were created was dismal, I wasn’t prevalent, there were hardly any Spaniards, and those Spaniards who did were mostly clergy. In Latin America, there was an abundance of Spaniards, the clergy represented a small fraction of them, but it doesn't matter, because in Latin America, unlike in the Philippines, the non-clerical Spaniards were the ones fathering the illigitamate, all of them. Bastards being born here, there, everywhere. They didn't do this in the Philippines. Only a few did, and most were priests, and there weren't many Spaniards and Mexicans to begin with.

With your pigheadedness all you are doing is furthering the belief already endemic of Filipinos, that they are intent on being known as anything other that Filipino. Tell me, which of your great-great-great-grandmothers was the mestiza? Lol. I’m sorry, I had to add that. You see, with all this nonsense of yours, all it has me is now questioning if you actually have any Spanish in you at all, or if you're just one of the 24 of the 25 out of 100 who only claim Spanish ancestry, but aren't of it.

For a person who says he knows a lot about the history of the Philippines and it’s people, you sure have included very little, nothing at all really, of it in your argument. Is "wealth of knowledge" that you've used to back up your argument also the "wealth on knowledge" you have regarding your supposed Spanish ancestry? Al-Andalus 18:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You only writes articles about races for disqualify to the hispanics. Nick that you have chosen leaves it well clear. You are RACIST and anti-hispanic.

Your articles about colonial mentality are falses. The preference for the blond hair is general in the world. It's not a defect of the horrible nature of the Hispanics, as you say in yor articles.

In addition, you writes about your prejudices. You should use genetic or scientific studies. By example, the genetics studies demonstrated that there are more puertoricans that descends from indians than blacks, but you writed the opposite sentence.

---

EXCUSE ME, BUT ENRIQUE IGLESIAS IS ONLY 1/8 FILIPINO. HIS MOTHER'S PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS ARE FULL SPANIARDS WHILE HER MATERNAL GRANDFATHER IS A SPANIARD..THUS, MAKING HIM ONLY 1.8 FILIPINO. AND PLUS, IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE LIGHTER SIDE THAT IS DOMINANT. I HAVE A HALF-CHINESE CLASSMATE BUT HE LOOKS VERY FILIPINO. YOU'LL ONLY DOUBT THAT HE'S HALF CHINESE WHEN YOU SEE HIS SURNAME. BESIDES, LOTS OF SPANISH MESTIZOS WERE EXILE OUT OF THE ISLANDS DURING THE CAVITE MUSTINY AND THE PALARIS REVOLT.

---

Al andalus you are an ignorant fool. You need to go to the University of the Philippines and check out their Filipiniana Section and so you can know how much of a ignorant woot you are. Filipinos mestizos mixing with the native population as a historical impossibility is just downright hilarious. Al andalus, you are a historical impossibility. If you should know, mestizos rarely mixing with the "native population" is the historical impossibility. I can give you countless National heroes, national artist, presidents, generals , politicians, etc etc. Who great-grandchildren are mixed with native population. And census is not a good reference to back it up. Example anybody who is 75% Spanish but was born here and is a native of the Philippines (including the parents) and speaks the language say, Cebuano, at home is still condsidered Cebuano as his ethnicity. Because race in the Philippines does not affect the socio-economic situation. Its ethnicity, gender, or social status. My parents have been a part of the census and they did not remember asking a family if they have spanish blood or chinese or what race they are (unlike the diverse people of America or Australia) because it is an irrelevant data. It does not affect the social issues that the Philippines confront. Furthermore, I wonder why did you choose an obsolete reference of 1903 Census, the very time where the Spaniards and theyre Filipino family are moving to Latin America and Spain as the Americans occupy the country. You should know that these people came back after the War because it is here where they identify themselves.

And then you just contradict yourslef by saying that mestizos are fully saturated with the natives. And then there are the politically incorrect words you use like miscegeny--words used only by by people in Ku Klux Khan. You are nothing but a pseudo-historic web geek.

Emilia's post: I have an essay regarding Spanish influence in Latin America and the Philippines. I'll print it out here:

Race Mixing and Westernization in Latin America and the Philippines In his book Race and Ethnicity, Belgian sociologist Pierre van den Berghe compares the impact of European colonization on Africa and the Americas. While the former largely retained its original character despite being under European rule, the latter ended up with a predominantly Western culture. As well, race mixing was widespread in the New World but occurred on a much smaller scale in Africa, with the exception of South Africa's Cape Province. The amount of acculturation and miscegenation moreover did not depend on whether the European power in question took an "assimilationist" approach, as France, Spain and Portugal did, or a "racialist" one, as did Britain and the Netherlands. At the end of the day, the Americas are a "cultural extension of Europe," whereas Africa is not. The same observation can be made of Latin America1 and the Philippines. Though both were under Spain's control for roughly three centuries, Latin America essentially adopted a Western (Iberian) culture as a result of colonization while the Philippines remained more or less as it had been before the conquest. Similarly, miscegenation between the conquered and conquerors took place extensively in the former region but was fairly negligible in the latter. To paraphrase van den Berghe, Latin America is a cultural extension of Spain; the Philippines is not. This is not to say that the Philippines was not influenced by three hundred years of Spanish rule. Among Spain's legacies to the islands were Castilian2 loan words to the local languages, Spanish personal names of the inhabitants, and perhaps most importantly, Roman Catholicism, today the religion of over 80% of Filipinos. (When it comes to being good Catholics, the Filipinos may have beaten their former colonial masters and the latter's overseas descendants at their own game. Several years ago the international newswires reported on Father Ener Glotario, a priest in Barranquilla, Colombia who refused to give communion to scantily clad female parishioners. I couldn't help thinking how much easier Father Glotario's life would have been if he were stationed in the Philippines, where the women, unlike their Western sisters, generally eschew miniskirts, midriff-baring tops and short shorts.) Yet the Philippines' status as an Asian country is undisputed not only geographically but also culturally. In fact, the example of the Philippines provides a powerful counterweight to claims by left- and right-wing ideologues alike that Latin America is not Western and that its "soul" is Indian rather than European. If such were the case, the counter argument might go, why did the region not end up like the Philippines, whose people were conquered by Spain but nonetheless kept their own languages and cultural traditions? One of the most striking differences between Latin America and the Philippines today lies in the racial composition of their inhabitants. Mestizos3 form the bulk of Latin America's population. By contrast, most Filipinos are of indigenous Malay stock, and individuals of mixed Spanish-Malay descent are relatively rare. What accounted for the low rate of miscegenation between Spaniards and natives in the Philippines? Certainly not a lack of desire by either party. Even clerics succumbed. Spanish chronicler Sinibaldo de Mas attempted to explain why so many Spanish priests in the Philippines broke their vows of celibacy: "The offense is most excusable, especially in young and healthy men placed in the torrid zone... The garb of the native women is very seductive; and the girls, far from being unattainable, consider themselves lucky to attract the attention of the curate, and their mother, father, and relatives share in that sentiment. What virtue and stoicism does not the friar need to possess!" (The good de Mas is perhaps a little too quick to blame the "girls" and their attire for his compatriots' lust. More likely, the women's eagerness to couple with curates stemmed from the higher social status that mixed race children in colonial -- and according to some sources, modern -- Philippines enjoyed compared to their unmixed native counterparts. In addition, I suspect Spanish priests' fall into temptation was due less to the native women's "garb" than to the fact that, as Pierre van den Berghe writes in his book Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View, "celibacy, however saintly, goes against most people's grain.") The main reason for the dearth of Spanish-Filipino mestizos was that few Spaniards ventured to the Philippines. For one, the voyage from Spain to the islands was considerably long. The Philippines in addition lacked natural resources like gold and silver that the Americas had and that might have convinced large numbers of Spaniards to migrate there (indeed, at one point the scarcity of potential riches led Spain to consider abandoning the islands). According to de Mas, in some Philippine villages the friar and/or the mayor were the only white residents. Whatever the cause, the low incidence of race mixing in the Philippines effectively stopped that country from going down the path of Hispanicization. The offspring of Spanish men and Filipino women4 may have adopted the culture of their fathers -- some mixed race families in the Philippines still speak Spanish among themselves, for instance -- but ultimately there were simply not enough Spanish mestizos in the country to have much of an effect on Philippine culture as a whole. Mestizos in Latin America conversely came to constitute the largest racial category in the region, so as a group they managed to maintain and promote the Spanish language and culture. One giveaway to Latin America's "Westernness" is the fact that the majority of the population speaks Spanish, not an indigenous language or even a Creole, as their mother tongue. On the other hand, it has been estimated that even at the height of Spanish domination only 10% of Filipinos were able to speak the language of their masters, and undoubtedly fewer still learned it as a mother tongue. And while the Americans who took over the islands in 1898 were much more successful in teaching their Filipino subjects English than the Spaniards were in teaching their language, the reality is that English in the Philippines is a lingua franca and an administrative medium rather than a mother tongue. Neither the Americans nor the Spaniards managed to eradicate the islands' Asian character. Going back to van den Berghe's argument, the example of the Philippines and Latin America shows that regions colonized by the same power may nevertheless turn out quite differently. It also shows how miscegenation can change the course of history. Despite Spain's assimilationist approach and occasional "successes" in the Philippines (such as religious conversion), the Spaniards failed to acculturate the islands to any significant degree. Spain's conquest of Latin America on the other hand transformed that region into a part of the Western world. As van den Berghe explains with regard to Africa and the Americas, differences in the Philippines and Latin America themselves rather than racial attitudes on the part of the colonizer were responsible for the different outcomes of European rule in the two regions.

(1) For the purpose of this essay, Latin America will refer only to the Spanish-speaking part of the region. (2) The term "Castilian" refers to the official language of Spain (as opposed to regional dialects and languages like Galician and Catalan). (3) Though the term "mestizo" literally means "mixed" in Spanish, for the purpose of this essay the term will refer to individuals of mixed Spanish and Native American descent in the Latin American context and to those of mixed Spanish and Filipino Malay origin in the Philippines. (4) The opposite combination was virtually non-existent, as even fewer Spanish women than men traveled to the islands.

Addendum: Regarding Spanish ancestry in the Philippines, two recent genetic reports studied the Y chromosomes (passed down from father to son) in the Filipino population. In one study, 3.5% of Y chromsomes in a Filipino sample were of European origin; in the other, 6%. Note that in the second report, the men in the sample came from Luzon, the region in which Manila is located. Since Manila was the only place in the Philippines that ever had a Spanish population, the 6% of European Y chromosomes may be higher than in the rest of the country. On the other hand, an individual with a mestiza mother and unmixed Filipino father would not have a European Y chromosome, so the percentage of Filipinos with Spanish ancestry may be higher than the two figures above. However, the percentage of European Y chromosomes is much lower than the proportion from mixed populations in Colombia (94%) or Chile (88%), so obviously the amount of miscegenation in the Philippines was much lower than that in Native America.

A former boyfriend of mine was a Filipino mestizo. He himself was often mistaken for being Italian (it was kind of funny when we'd go into an Italian shop, as I am of Italian origin, and people would think HE was the Italian one). His father was of principally Filipino descent, while his great-grandfather (his mother's paternal grandfather) was from Santander, Spain. However, my boyfriend's immediately family spoke a native language, not Spanish, at home. So some mestizo families "went native" and intermarried back into the Filipino population. This may have been due to circumstance, as the rarity of mestizos might have limited potential marriage partners. So the Philippines does have a mestizo population, but it is much smaller than Latin America's.

"In fact, if you need to do genealogical research to see if you have Spanish blood, the odds are you will defiantly find you do not have a drop. All actual Filipino mestizo families wouldn’t need to undertake such research, because they have always known (I’m not talking about those that have always assumed). These families all have the birth and marriage certificates of their Spanish ancestors, the vessel documents of arrival and departure that they travelled on, photos, knowledge of living extended relatives in Spain (even if they’ve never met them, they know who and where they are)." -- Okay, I have no quarrel with your statistics at all; they sound about right to me, but this part seems a little ridiculous. 3.6% of 80,000,000 people is over 2,800,000 people. 1% estimated actual Spanish contribution is still 800,000 people. I doubt all 800,000 have access to the kind of documentation that you're talking about. If we put maybe 80 individuals into family groups who might share this kind of documentation amongst themselves, that still means that 10,000 such forms of evidence must exist, some of which could be up to 300 years old or more. It doesn't seem like all mestizo heritage could be so well documented, especially considering the high possibility of illegitimacy.

I would say that the article is quite accurate. Is All Filipinos are Spanish, then might as well say we are all mixed. End of story. I can also see how immature some people are. Al Andus is calm and did not use fowl language. I think he is more accurate.

---

For those posting here. This is starting to sound ridiculous, especially with the bad spelling and grammar. This IP --68.70.73.121 is also making this sound like a chat room war (and please, you are the very epitomy of the "my great great grandfather" example, and your whole entry ridiculously proves that). In my opinion, Al Andalus' initial entry was actually very objective, and factual. But the "rebuttals" or responses are obviously highly opinionated, biased and nothing more than emotionally fired frustrations. And although I have not researched on the topic myself, I would refrain from giving Isabel Preysler examples as this only illustrates how "less-than-1-percent" the so called "mestizos" are and how a population sample was once again falsely generalized and used for a fact.

Mestizos in Argentina

There Are mestizos of significance in Argentina? It was my understanding that the majority of Argentinians are of purely European background. -- Zoe

Officially mestizos are about 3% or so of Argentinians, but some people place the 'real' number closer to 15 or 20%. It's all a matter of how you define these groups. In metropolitan Buenos Aires, the population is heavily European, but in the "hinterlands" there is a fairly large mestizo element.

The Argentinian "gauchos" (is there an article on them?) were often of mestizo origin as well. And they are a huge element of Argentinian national identity.

Syncrolecyne

The Argentinian goverment itself states that around 13% of it's population is local mestizos native to Argentina. These Argentinian mestizos are classified as "Argentinians" (European) to distinguish them from the immigrant mestizos of neighbouring Chile, Paraguay, etc. This is what causes the mestizo population to decrease to 3%. But the actual number of both local and immigrant mestizos combined is probably between 13% to 18%. Al-Andalus 05:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Genetic reasearch reveals Argentina to be a nation of Mestizos

A greater proportion of Argentina's population is composed of more Mestizos than previously thought. The country's majority in fact.

Source: [El 56% de los argentinos tiene antepasados indígenas]

Translation by: Al-Andalus

Clarín (Buenos Aires, Argentina), 16 January 2005.

56% of Argentineans have Native American ancestors

They determined it through genetic analysis. The rest of the population is in its majority of European origin. Of those who possess Native American markers in their DNA, only 10% are pure Native American.

Unknowingly and ingrained in their DNA, Argentineans carry a message of their ancestors. And in 56% of cases those who bequeathed it simply left written just one piece of data: their Amerindian origins. Of the current population, 44% descend primarily of European ancestors, but the rest —the majority— have a lineage partially or totally indigenous. This is how a study by the “Servicio de Huellas Digitales Genéticas de la Universidad de Buenos Aires” (Service of Genetic Fingerprints of the Univerity of Buenos Aires) determined it, from the analysis of cases in 11 provinces. “What lays revealed is that we’re not as European as we think ourselves to be”, says Daniel Corach, director of the Service, professor in the school of Genetics and Molecular Biology of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the UBA and investigator of the Conicet. In a second stage —together with Andrea Sala, investigator of the Conicer, and Miguel Marino, scholar of that institution— they analysed pure indigenous communities.

As of 1992, and taking random DNA samples from a total of 12 thousand persons, the scientist could pull apart at the strings of genes to reconstruct the history of the population that lives in our country. They wanted to know how much the original population had contributed in the formation of contemporary Argentina. Now, with the study finished, it seems that that contribution was quite a lot.

The analysis implicated the reading of codes inscribed in the mitochondrial DNA, which is contributed by all mothers, and in the Y Chromosome, which only men possess and which is bequeathed by their fathers. And, that by not combining during the union to create a new being, remain unchangeable in the different generations. The Argentinean investigators, in charge of the study, knew where to look in that puzzle of genetic codes. The method applied is not new. It has been in use since the mid 90’s. It is reduced to a single cell, in reality to their nucleus and mitochondria, two sites where molecules of DNA are found. Because, ultimately, everything is centred in those letters that designate a molecule composed of two chains of chemical units (Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine). The message depends on where these are positioned. One would have to think of it as an alphabet of four letters which form words. The message gives detail of the organism.

In that long line of combinations that form the Y Chromosome, there is a marker known by the letters and numbers: DYS199. In that location, in the case of Native Americans, there appears a typical characteristic —and scientifically proven— that all members of that community posses and which was verified in great numbers of Argentinean men. But that genetic characteristic, explains the scientist, doesn’t necessarily manifest itself with any visible physical feature. "[It is] from there that it was possible to sustain for such a long time the belief that the majority of the Argentine population was of European origin", says Corach.

Later, the team searched in a determined area in the mitochondria, also in a region that remains unchangeable and that identifies itself as HVR I. The result was the one expected: the majority of the sample had a non-Amerindian maternal ascendant. That is to say, there were mainly European mothers (53,3%).

The combination of these two data gave that there was admixture and that in 56% of cases there was an indigenous legacy in some place in the DNA. Of this segment of the population, only 10% were pure Native Americans, without any European component.

The surprise for Corach is explained as such: "It is believed that the two large genocides of the native population finished with 30,000 persons. Presumably there was more population. What probably happened is that they had descendants whom are still present. I believe that the European component is overestimated".

The scientist sustains that "the sample of the study is representative because it includes the urban population but not only of the Federal Capital", he explains. "If we analyse the population of the Barrio Norte it will give us a higher percentage of European origin ".

The method came from a scientific advance: for a few years it has been known that part of the history remains registered in the genetic material that humans carry. And such novelty permits to reconstruct the famous "where do we come from" of humanity.

In the beginning it could only be done with the material contributed by women, which is contained in the mitochondria. From there the polemic revelation the mothers of all men was the “Mitochondrial Eve”, an African woman. By the mid 90’s, the masculine component could be analysed, inscribed in the Y Chromosome.

Now, Corach and company want to find out how this population moved. Meanwhile the fundamental myth is put to question. Will that part of tour guides and encyclopaedias that say that over 85% of the population of Argentina are of European origin have to be changed?

Al-Andalus 08:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This press article is based on a scientific study using uniparental testing with predictably skewed results. Uniparental testing to determine race is in it's infancy but what has been established is that testing needs to be done at an individual level to determine overall admixture in a person thereby giving a better picture of the ethnic genetic components in the test population. Matrilineal DNA alone cannot be used to determine a person's race or the number of mixed people in a population because the concept of race is subjective. 56% of Argentinians may have detectable Amerind ancestry according to this study but not all are Mestizos.-CPellegrini 09:46, 21 May 2005(UTC)

Re: the opinion of 2005 CPellingrini. I wouldn't expect any different answer. They are in the stage of Denial.--192.44.136.103 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not an opinion and infact it is you in denial. I'm explaining that race is as much sociological as it is biological and is more subjective than just haplogroups and MtDNA. For example, in North America many 'whites' have Black, indigenous and other non European ancestry as shown in various DNA studies but are still considered 'white' and even then many European groups like the Sicilians are often not considered 'white' because of their swarthier skin tones so to say that 56% of a whole country is 'mestizo' based on nothing more than a newspaper article is bullshit. -CPellegrini 05:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Mestizos in Honduras

March 30th, 2004

In Honduras, when discussing "mestizo," the operant term is the African element, not slavery. Being a rugged backwater of the colonial Spanish Empire, bondage must have been, at most,"nominal," with captives easily finding freedom from their overlords. Also, Africans were present in areas deemed remote even by Honduran standards --viz., along the Mosquito Coast of eastern Honduras, as a result of occasional shipwrecks in that region. Olaudah Equiano, a black African, was welcomed by the natives of Honduras but enslaved in the United States in the 17th century.

M. Lopez Zolomon, comayagua@earthlink.net

Chart of Overall Latin American Demographics

Image:Latin america demographic.gif

Al-Andalus 13:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Link?--Lupitaº 04:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Official" statistics

What is the source of the "official" statistics regarding race in Latin America? In Mexico the government does not ask the race question, as the US Census Bureau does, so it is impossible to have "official" race statistics, at least for Mexico. --Lupitaº 03:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

US Goverment sources, individual national CENSUS where census data based on ethnicity is provided, and both goverment and independant international statistic agencies.

True, Mexico does not ask the race question in it´s census, and it is for this reason that they count their population of indigenous people by spoken language (please reffer to the article: demographics of mexico). Where those who speak Spanish only are assumed to be mestizo or white.

Mexican goverment agencies for indiginous affairs places the number of natives based on language spoken at just over 10% of the population. Having said that, the mexican goverment itself sees the error in this assumption based on language and how it could skew true numbers. Many monolingual spanish speakers may also be unmixed, or reltiveley unmixed indian, conversly, there may be some mestizos that may be bilingual in a native language, and for knowing such a language would be counted as "native". So once again, the mexican goverment states (this time unoficially) that the numbers of indiginous peoples would be better placed at 30% of the total population. this latter figuer is agreed by international statisc agencies as well as by international agencies for the betterment of native peoples.

The race question is not asked in mexico because their constitution guarantees equality regardless of ethnic origin, and as such, it can´t be included as a question as this would "discriminate". Most iternational agencies for the betterment of indigenous people attest the opposite, saying that the question should be included so the goverment can more propperly address the many problems faced by indigenous communities.

Al-Andalus 22:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide a link for the race statistics, even if they are not "official"? Where do they come from? I googled for official race statistics from other Latin American countries and couldn´t find a thing. I only found estimates of Indian populations; absolutely nothing regarding zambos, mestizos, mulattoes and such. Governments in Latin America do not ask the race question. If the "official statistics" are estimates of some white guy, I think it should be clearly stated in the article. What is the source of this information? What methodology was used?

In Mexico, language is asked as an indicator of ethnicity because this is how the Indian population regards itself. Indians do not define themselves as individuals with dark skin, in racial terms, but as members of a territorial community, with a distinct language; political, social and economic system; a name and a history as a community, that is, in social terms. Some member of indigenous communities are unmixed; others aren´t. Many Mexicans are unmixed however, they are not members of any indigenous community, so they are not considered Indians by either Indians or non-Indians. To define Indians in terms of race, and not as members of an indigineous community, is very... how shall I say this... American?

--Lupitaº 02:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Only Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica include the option in their census of classifying oneself as being of African descent. One can find official statistics on the Indian population for Latin America. But the is absolutely nothing official on mestizo populations. The are no non-official statistics either. These statistics simply do not exist. I will proceed to delete. --Lupitaº 16:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finally, Al-Andalus, you provided a reference to your "official statistics"! The CIA! Aren't you embarrassed? The CIA, [https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2075.html just like you, does not give a reference as to where they got their "official statistics". Could it have been from the same source they got their "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? My guess, that the "official statistics" came from some white guy was correct! We now know that the white guy is an anonymous CIA agent. Hardly a source for Wikipedia.

I will continue deleting until you provide a authoritative source that discusses its methodology and defines terms. By the way, how old are you? The patriotic manner in which you proudly state that your source is the CIA, as if that meant something, leads me to think you are a teenager with absolutely no academic formation and critical thinking skills. --Lupitaº 20:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not about to debate which sources YOUR PERSON considers worthy to be referenced. If you have any qualms as to the figures mentioned, I would suggest you address each country with a source of your own before deletion (as per Wikipedia protocol). The CIA was mentioned as one of the sources. If you believe that everyone should pass their sources by YOU to be approved prior to an update, I think you are misguided as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I am sorry, but unless you are a Wikipedia monitor you have no authority to delete things based on YOUR acceptance and liking of a specific source(s).

If you had taken a bit of time in researching (and if you had also read the edit comment) you would have realized it said “CIA (and other agencies)”. The demographics quoted in the mestizo article are not exact quotations of the CIA. Other sources

source?--Lupitaº 17:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

national Censuses) have been utilized, such as in the case for Argentina where the CIA figure says 3% mestizo and others but the article says 13% based on Argentine government sources.

source?--Lupitaº 17:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The same for Brazil, other sources have been used.

source?--Lupitaº 17:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Ecuadorian census data places mestizos at 75%,

source?--Lupitaº 17:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

but the CIA figure (of 60% mestizo) has been used instead to deflate this figure to take into account assimilated Amerindians.

Please, stop and think before you MASS DELETE figures explaining the distribution of populations which articles are dedicated to. Would you also delete explanations of demographic distribution of Blacks in Africa (noting that not all Africa is Black. North Africa is predominantly Caucasoid). Likewise, explanation of Mestizo distribution is inherent to the Mestizo article.

Again, I reiterate, if you dislike the the sources used (CIA being only one of them), find other “better” ones which YOU think befit.

One last thing. What have you against the “white guy”? What makes you think it is a White Guy at the CIA. If anyone is showing ignorance, it is you. You seem to have set ideas on who is in the CIA, and likewise, you seem to have a set idea of what the distribution of mestizos is. And if it is a “set idea”, it means it is only and opinion. So, I must say, that the teenager seems to be you. (Please! To all the teenage contributors to Wikipedia... Do not take offence! Unlike some, I don’t consider being a teenager a deficiency.

In any case Lupitaº, you´ve made it quite clear that ignorance has no age of minor. So back off on using “teenage” as an insult. And by the way, no, I´m not a teenager. I´m in my mid-twenties (unfortunately getting old).Al-Andalus 18:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Al-Andalus 18:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for calling you a teenager but your faith in the CIA as a source of knowledge is endearing. I also apologize to any other teenage Wikipedean who may have taken offense. My point is: I have no better statistics than the ones you quote because there are none. Mestizo populations have not been measured either officially or non-officially; the statistics do no exist. I have requested arbitration on this issue since it is not a matter of opinion whether statistics are valid or not, as you seem to believe. What gives them validity is the methodology used.

I would not oppose statements such as "Not all Africans are Black" or "Most Mexicans are mestizo" since they stand to reason. However, statements such as "91% of Africans are Black" or "83% of Mexicans are mestizo" must be accompanied by valid research. --Lupitaº 16:59, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UGHRRHHHHHHH! You keep on asking, SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE?!!! I have just stated them to you. Are you that THICK?

Argentine government data! International agencies for the Brazilian statistics. The 2001 Ecuadorian Census data for COMPARISON against the CIA data on Ecuador. And for other countries likewise. ETC. ETC. ETC.

First of all, did you post the statistics or are you just defending them? If you posted them, would you please give me the name of the source you got them from? It doesn't have to be a link.--Lupitaº 03:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You ask me where the hyperlink is to all this data?. Not all people source their data from web-based "knowledge banks". Unlike some people (you mainly) most other people on Wikipedia are educated in the fields of the articles they contribute to. And more often than not, they use sources other than those repetitive "fountains of knowledge" which are found provided on the internet. As a result, not all sources can be linked for YOUR pleasure of browsing. They can be mentioned, however, for you to do your own research. But let it be clear, we are not here to baby-spoon feed you.

Most internet based sources can’t be trusted unless they themselves state their own source. I recommend (not in a sarcastic way, but honestly) you stay away from them if this is where you are doing most of your research and sourcing to contribute to the fields of your interest. Especially if it here where you base most of your constant deleting of other Wikipedians inputs that may be more knowledgeable than your own.

This is why I don't consider the CIA source as valid: it does not state its own source. --Lupitaº 03:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only because you haven’t the access to (or just haven’t accessed) the same sources, does not qualify for your deletion of other’s input. Research first! And if you fail there, that is what the discussion page is for.

And, YES! I understand when you say that one cannot say that 84%, or 55.6% or 34% of a certain population is such-and-such unless it is accompanied by valid research. It is for this reason (you may not have noticed) that I have never included the statistics for Guatemala. All data that exists for that country is on "Ladinos" (which can be actual genetic mestizos, but also acculturate Amerindians), and to publish this as a statistic on mestizos in Guatemala would be misleading. Just thought if mention it to ease your mind. I am not out to destroy or misrepresent mestizos!

What is the source for the other statistics?--Lupitaº 03:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I contribute to many articles related to Hispanic issues and demographics, Australia and Australian race relations, Arab population, Judaic (Sephardim) history, and also Filipino race relations and related articles to Filipino demographics and the Hispanic era of Filipino history. I have also written the majority of the content of some articles of these mentioned articles.

As a matter of fact, I also have many zealot Filipino against me much like you. These accuse me of being a racist anti-Filipino. They accuse me of being a Hispanic-hater and say that’s why I hate Filipinos. Most of these tensions are also related to their opinion on the population demographics of the Philippines (past and present) in contrast to facts. They also want me to hyperlink historical documents, past and present census data How can I? Not all sources are from the net, and many of the sources I use aren’t in English. They may be originals in Spanish. But if it doesn’t{t go with their preconceived ideas of the topic, and if they can’t find it on a google search, then in their mind it mustn’t be true.

It's OK if your source is in Spanish, it is to be expected of official data from Latin America.--Lupitaº 03:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These people are also armed to the teeth for their edit-wars. Their ammunition, as mentioned, is also net-based sources which is almost always incorrect and gathered from forums and personal web pages full of opinions. Nothing remotely related to anything considered of academic credit or worth. But there are a few who not surprisingly - in contrast to those editor-happy passersby - happen to be university educated who help revert vanalizations to Filipino related pages by overenthusiastic (but unfortunately ignorant) contributors. Al-Andalus 17:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is one link to the Ecuadorian census data onEcuadorian population by ethnic self-identification in the VI Census of Population (in Spanish).

Very interesting. Thank you. I was not aware this question was asked in the Ecuadoran census. It definitely is oficial.--Lupitaº 03:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That’s it. You do other research on your own if you think it necessary. I am not going to look for net links for YOU when I myself don’t get my sources from the net, and to look for them for you is time wasting for me. Al-Andalus 17:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason I ask for your source of information is because you posted the statistics Is my assumption correct? If so, would you please reveal your source or sources?--Lupitaº 03:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the Peruvian statistics come from a census in the late 40s that may have overcounted the number of "pure-bred" Indians even at the time. It is my impression that most Peruvians identify themselves as mestizos - racially or culturally. Hasdrubal 23:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mestizos in Chile

There has been a bit of vandalizing on the constituency of Chile's mestizo population and its percentage of the population.

To date, all information provided by the Chilean government (Foreign Ministry and all Chilean embassy websites in the "Facts about Chile" sections) relating to the country's demographics attest to Chile being a nation of a mestizo majority. Of this Chilean mestizo population, most whiter, some in the middle, few darker- but all mestizos nonetheless.

If genetic research has revealed Latin America's whitest country (Argentina) to be to be a nation of "whites" descended from mestizos (i.e. the original mestizo population marrying “up” during the great European immigrant movements that flooded into Argentina and whitened that nation), then much less would Chile be as Euro-mestizo, considering Chile never experienced European immigration to the scale as did Argentina.

This is not to say that Chile's mestizo population is like Peru's or Bolivia's (most darker, few whiter, some in the middle). Or Mexico's and Ecuador's mestizo populations (many darker, some whiter, most in the middle). Or Argentina's, as it is now known that around 56% should be classified as mestizos by descent (none darker, most whiter, few in the middle).

Argentina's demographics, in its pre-European mass immigration period, must have looked somewhat like Chile's current demographics. Al-Andalus 06:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The european arrive to Chile, Argentina and Uruguay in tne same period and in proportional quantities to his own population. Gustavdelioncourt 02:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC).

European immigration has not been as important in Chile as in Argentina or Uruguay. Argentina abosorbed 7 million European immigrants for over a century. In the mid-1800's Argentina's population was only about one million people. It was these European settlers that increased Argentina's population to nearly 8 million by 1914.

According to Chile's census data, Chile also had a population of around one million at the same time period of the mid-1800's. In contrast, by 1914 Chile's population had only grown to just over 3 million from natural birth-rates of the existing population, not immigration. (Source: Chilean Census [1])

Today, in 2005, Chile's total population is still only 15 million.

In Chile immigration was only mildly officially encouraged in the 19th century with the arrival of the German immigrants. The Germans were an important cultural influence in the Valdivia-Puerto Montt area. However, even then, those Germans numbered no more than 7,000 immigrants (Chilean statistics, less than half of 1% of the population of the time). And yes, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Great Britain, Yugoslavia, and France also made small contributions to Chile's population, but all those have been taken into account. Inceidentally, the influence of the latter was not as strong as the German, which itself has already been stated to not have surpassed 7,000 people. Additionally, it's not as if those limited numbers of non-Spanish European immigrants actually melded into the mestizo majority of Chile, but rather kept endogamous or, if not, melded into the Spanish criollo minority.

To summarise, Europeans did NOT arrive to Chile as they did in Argentina or Uruguay; NOT in similar proportional quantities in relation to their populations NOR in any other way. Also, the time period of it happening, or not happening, is largely irrelevant and would have no bearing. And just as a further remark, proportionally, Uruguay received more European immigrants than Argentina, and yet even Uruguay still has an 8% minority of people who are recognisably mestizo (probably even more if we included those with distant Amerindian ancestry, as has already been demonstrated by genetic markers found in 56% of all Argentinians, who were previously said to be unmixed European).

N.B. Fijándome en tu gramática y ortografía, me supongo que tu lengua materna no es inglés. ¿Quizá sea castellano? Si deseas, estaría contento en proveerte una traducción de esta última entrada mía. Tan sólo pídemelo. Gracias. Al-Andalus 08:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Consider genetic testing via AncestryByDNA.com

This message was originally posted on http://www.voy.com/50000/141.html 06/26/04 3:52pm PDT. The discussion topic was titled, "IMSCF Syndrome ("I'm Spanish-Chinese-Filipino" Syndrome) in America" and provides an excellent solution to many of the issues brought forth in this webpage regarding accurate determination of race and ethnicity in the Philippines (or those of Filipino descent living elsewhere) .....

The AncestryByDNA.com genetic test should provide a more definitive answer regarding the genetic racial makeup of an individual. Recent advances in genetic testing have put the answer to questions/claims like those made on this website (e.g., I'm Filipino, Chinese, and Spanish, etc.). Whether your goal is to assist in validating your true racial makeup or just to satisfy your curiosity, Ancestry DNA testing is the only scientifically rigorous method available for this purpose in existence today.

http://www.ancestrybydna.com

The AncestryByDNA provides you with a simple and objective description of your ancestral origins. The test gives you an estimated percentage of ancestry from the four major historical population groups:

Native American: Those peoples that migrated from Asia to inhabit North, South and Central America.

European: Europeans, Middle Easterners and South Asians from the Indian subcontinent including India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

East Asian: Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders including peoples native to the Philippines.

African: Peoples from Sub-Saharan Africa such as Nigeria and Congo region.

There are two versions of this test. The test, itself, is fairly straightforward and simple. You will receive a test kit in the mail complete with instructions for collecting the DNA sample. This is done by swabbing/lightly scraping the inside of your cheek with a brushlike sample collector. After collecting the sample, you just mail it back in the preaddressed/postage paid envelope provided to you by the company. It's that simple!

The price for the "AncestryByDNA 2.0" Test is $158.00 USD.

The price for the "AncestryByDNA 2.5" Test is $219.00 USD, and is more detailed and comprehensive than the previous version.

It's true, unfortunately, that there are some Filipinos who will make bogus claims that they are part Chinese and/or Spanish as a means to bolster their sense of racial self-esteem. This is especially true for those who claim a significant amount of Spanish blood (or, occasionally, any other type of European blood) and have no real evidence to support those claims.

There are also those who make the same "Filipino, Chinese, and Spanish" claims who genuinely believe that that is their true racial makeup and for some of these individuals, it may very well be the case that they are some admixture of those three, although to what exact degree is something they can't readily determine. You can go by a person's appearance, to a certain degree, to make a rough estimate of that person's racial background, or go by what their parents, grandparents, or other relatives claim. But we all know that appearances are not that reliable, and in some cases, can be deceiving, and anyone can exaggerate and lie about their (or their children's, grandchildren's, or other relatives') racial background. And without proof, who can tell otherwise??? In some cases, they may not be deliberately lying, but may be simply trying to second-guess their or their relatives' racial background based on whatever assumptions they may have about certain aspects of the history of the Philippines (e.g., the Spaniards colonized the Philippines, they had many young single males in the Spanish military, and many of those young males, being deprived of women from their own country, decided to take the native women as wives and/or as sexual partners; the Chinese came as merchants and many of them (also single males) decided to settle in the Philippines, the same thing must have applied in their case ... blah, blah, blah) and/or whatever limited information they were given from their parents or other relatives (e.g., your grandfather's mother was half Chinese, your grandmother's father was from Spain, etc.) In either case, it's difficult, and often impossible, to prove definitively what, if any, percentage an individual has of any given race without an extensive amount of documentation (e.g., birth records, other historical documents and accounts, etc.) and even that has its limitations.

Genetic testing, on the other hand, provides information and/or can fill in the gaps that assumption and hearsay cannot. And I'm more than certain that many of these individuals who claim to be some admixture of Filipino, Chinese, and Spanish (for whatever reason) would, in the very least, want to know their true racial background. This is where AncestryByDNA comes in. This test is for anyone, regardless of race, who would like to learn more about their genetic racial background. For those who are interested, visit http://www.ancestrybydna.com.

TruthComission's Misinformations

This is in relation to user TruthComission's constant misinformation and edits of the term "Mestizo" (as supposedly used in the Philippines). I guess I can't say it any better than in the words already made by user Christopher Sundita in response to TruthComission’s edits of the articles Asian Latino and Filipino; Please stop redefining terminology (1).

To be honest, I don't know where you [TruthComission] have stumbled upon the idea that the term Mestizo, as used in the Philippines, was ever employed for mixed-raced Filipinos (Spanish and native Malay), but ONLY if that mixed race person could pass for a European. Are you implying that those mixed-raced Filipinos who appearance to be unmixed but who had known-and-verified Spanish ancestry, or looked to be of obvious mixed ancestry, were not called mestizos? I have a slight sensation that there is an agenda behind your attempt of re-defining how the term was historically used. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Historically, during the Spanish Colonial Era of the Philippines, there was an overemphasis on Malay "Indio". This means that if person who is a half-Spaniard exhibits stronger "Indio" features than European, he is not considered "Mestizo". If a person is a child of one mestizo parent and one native parent, he ceases to be "Mestizo", even thoug he is in fact mixed. Another point is that, a native South American, or in your term "Mexican" in the Philippines is still considered Indio just like the natives, unless of course, if the person is half-Spanish. What i mean when I said before that a "Mestizo is considered mestizo only if he could pass for a european" is that a Mestizo whose Indio features dominates more than the European, is not considered "Mestizo" but Indio-- this and ONLY this, i stand corrected. TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Could your motivation perhaps be to imply that more Filipinos are mestizos, but only those who could pass for European were those "unfarily" lucky enough to be the ones called Mestizos (which is still a coveted and aspired condition in the Philippines). Many of your edits on various articles point to a certain IMSCF Syndrome pattern. IMSCF Sydnrome is usually suffered on an individual basis, but with you it seems you're "suffereing" the Sydnrome for all Filipinos colletively. A martyr perhaps? LOL. One especially humorous gem was your edit at the Filipino and Asian Latino articles, where you wrote Filipinos are "Asian Latinos". But we’ll leave that alone for now. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Here your are trying to criticize my character and to demean my arguments. Is this your way to impress the people that you are entirely right and I, ridiculously wrong? You do sound verbally-meticulous in making articles but unfortunately, your articles are riddled with subtle bias and half-facts, your IMSCF syndrome article notoriously exhibits this "motivation". Which could also explain why your IMSCF syndrome article went down on the wikipedia cleanup trashbin, I guess this is your "humorous gem". Also, unlike your gem of an article, I did NOT add the Asian Latino-Filipinos on those articles, I simply modified the older version. In short, it was already there. Sorry, it wasnt me. (check out history) TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject, as has already been pointed out, a Mestizo is by definition a person of Spanish ancestry, although mixed with native bloodlines. Hence, to be classed as a Mestizo, a person had to be of Spanish and native ancestry in equal amounts, consequently looking like both and unable to pass for either. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

in equal amounts?!? you mean half-Spanish? You just verified what Im trying to say all along. Furthermore, mestizos can only be classed as such if they look like both and unable to pass for either(?) is YOUR ideal mestizo. (Please see Deoxyribonucleic Acid) TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, I haven't confirmed anything you have been trying to say all along. Mestizo being the term for someone of mixed race in equal amounts (i.e. one parent of each race) is the Latin American definition, because there came to be terms for all the other degrees of admixture. In the Philippines, "Mestizo" was/is applied to all people of mixed race, of all degrees of mixtures, regardless of more Spanish or more native. And yes, a person in Latin America was classed as Mestizo if they looked like both and passed for neither. It's not that it's the ideal, it's just how the term was used. Today in Latin America, however, Mestizo is used for anyone with significant amounts of both ancestries (not necesarily exactly 50:50, but there abouts) because all the other words (castizo, coyote, etc.) went into disuse over 100 years ago. Today in Latin America, people who yesteryear would have been classified as Castizos are just generally classified as "White", and those of predominantly Amerindian ancestry are generally classified as Indians, unless otherwise stated. In the Philippines, however, Mestizo it is still the only term in use (as it has always been the only term in use), and is used as it has always been used; of any mixture, of any ratio. Al-Andalus 08:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC).

If one looked or could pass for a European, then the Spanish Colonial Caste System dictated that that person was no longer a Mestizo, but instead, he was once again a "Spaniard" and consolidated with the Criollos. Of course, for a "mestizo" (this time I'm using the term in a generic manner, that is, a mix regardless of the ratio of ancestries) to achieve the legal status of a "Spaniard", he must have first been a Castizo (3/4 Spanish and 1/4 native), or should I say, what made him a "mestizo" who could pass for European in the first place was actually a castiza mother and Spanish father or a castizo father and Spanish mother. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Please see my above arguments. TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet in the Philippines, terms such as Castizo were never used, being that in the archipelago anyone who was of mixed race was deemed a "mestizo", whatever the race combination or the ratio of said ancestries. However, even though terms such as castizo (which differentiated "mestizos" who where 3/4 Spanish [castizos], from actual Mestizos who were 1/2 Spanish) were not being used in the Philippines, the concept was nonetheless the same; at the point where a given "mestizo" no longer visibly presents native admixture, and his phenotype is Euorpean, and could pass as such, that "mestizo" was once again legally categorised as a "Spaniard". Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Can you tell me which part did I say that Castizo was ever used in the Philippines? in the Isabel Preysler article? I was saying that thinking that you were Latin American so that you may get what i meant. Never did I say that the term were used in the Philippines. If I realize you were actually a Jewish Australian who hate Rose Porteous, I wouldnt have used the term. TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not even begin with Ms. Rose Porteous. Were I to hate her (which I don't, I think she's a funny character), it really wouldn't matter, because she has enough love for herself even if the world were against her. By the way, since you mentioned her name, a bit of trivia, she considers herself a Filipina-born Spaniard, disregarding the fact that apart from her pale skin she doesn't show one ounce of European admiture in her facial structure. Last time I saw her on TV she was having a garage sale at her mansion in Perth, putting the contents of her home on sale (although there was very little she actually wanted to sell, and the whole thing was for TV spotlight). Anyway, on the show which aired about a month ago, she was parading in Spanish folk dresses and dancing a terrible immitation of flamenco whilst throwing in a few "Olés" and some Tagalized Spanish loan words. Al-Andalus 08:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC).

The reason why terms such as Castizo were not in use in the Philippines - and why mestizo was a generic for "mixed" regardless of if you had 7/8 Spanish ancestry and 1/8 native ancestry or 7/8 native ancestry and 1/8 Spanish ancestry - was because there was no need to categorize the mixed-bloods by the ratio of Spanish ancestry. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

I totally disagree! Any Filipino whether he were racially mixed or not, if his features exhibits more "Indio" native malay, he is automatically considered "Indio". Are you implying that Jose Rizal's mother Teodora is mestiza? Never in her lifetime was she considered as such even up to today. She was just an "Indio" woman plain and simple. On the other hand, Jose was considered as Sangley Mestizo (from his father who is Sangley) for his supposedly death record (though, he demanded it be changed to Indio Natural) before his execution. Jose Rizal's mother, Teodora is quarter Spanish. Teodora bore 11 children, of these 11 children, 9 got married and had numerous children as well. Today, these children may now be aged or deceased and have probably numerous grandchildren. Are you saying that all of these children whose ancestry roots to Teodora are Spanish mestizos? If you like to be technical about it, maybe. But I dont think so, and most especially during Rizal's time, definitely not! Which got me thinking, if these children were to claim Spanish-Chinese-Filipino in their blood (which they are), does this means they have IMSCF syndrome? TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether you "totally disagree" or not, it doesn't change the Colonial Caste System. You see, as terrible as the Spaniards were to the native "Indios", the children they sired (whether bastard or legitimate) with the natives were never again treated with the same contempt as dished out to the pure "Indios". Once a person had Spanish in him, no matter how little, they were never again considered or treated like "Indios" by the Spaniards. Despite all their horrors, mistreatment, and contempt towards the native, paradoxically, the cruel Spaniards had some sort of kindness towards what they knew ultimately came from their own blood, however distant. It is for this reason that so many terms for different degrees of "mestizaje" were coined in Latin America. SO MANY WORDS were invented for individuals whose degree of Spanish ancestry got smaller and smaller, with the only purpose of inventing such a vast array of names (which were often times ridiculous) was because once a person has Spanish ancestry, no matter how little, they could not by law or reason be treated as "Indios". According to the law and thought of the time, any person whose phenotype was indistinguishable from that of an "Indio" yet had Spanish ancestry (no matter how distant) could not possibly be as savage as a pure "Indio". This condition of supremacy of one individual who is otherwise indistinguishable from a pure Indio was believed to be by virtue of the greatness of the Spanish blood. Hence you have terms like "cuarterón de indio", "cholo", "coyote", etc.

The GREATEST IRONY of all, is that despite the racial supremacy the Spaniards viewed themselves proprietors of, and despite the importance and greatness they gave to the purity of blood, the only exception where a person legally regained the status of being of "pure blood" (of one race, and not being considered of mixed race any more) was in the case were a person had enough Spanish ancestry to flood out the distant "Indio" blood. That's the paradox! A mixed raced person, no matter how much "Indio" he had, no matter how "Indio" he looked, once he had Spanish in him he'd never be considered or treated like an "Indio" by the Spaniards, not by law, nor by individual judgment. But a mixed race person, who had so much Spanish, and so little "Indio" blood, could not be considered mix-raced (de español/a y castizo/a, español/a). This however, did not apply to those with admixture of Negro (African) blood. (Please see the "Idea compendiosa del Reyno de Nueva Esparña" (1774), by the native of Cádiz, Pedro Alonso O'Crouley, that I have quoted)

So to summarise, your argument that in the Philippines term “mestizo” didn’t apply to those who by all means looked native ("Indio") in the Philippines, it’s a total load of hog wash, and is nothing more than unsubstantiated misinformation.

I noticed that you have now changed your edits from saying “who could pass for European” to “whose physical attributes are overtly Eurasian”. The truth is that, that is also FALSE and also purposeful misinformation. As already stated, “Mestizo” was the only term used in the Philippines, there were no other terms for other degrees of greater or smaller admixture, and “Mestizo” applied for ALL individuals who were of mixed blood in the Philippines, no matter the ratio, no matter the phenotype, as long as some Spanish ancestry was there. It has been proven with my above argument. Al-Andalus 08:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC).

Mestizaje wasn't wide spread in the Philippines, unlike Latin America. There were so few people of mixed Spanish and native ancestry in the Philippines that they have never accounted for more that 1% of the population at any given time, so separating those of mixed race (the "mestizos") into separate categories was of no benefit there. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Let me guess, you have sources that can verify your statement. The "National Demographics of the Philippines in 1902", is that correct? This is, after all, YOUR gospel truths. Im sorry, I find verifying your claim for a demographic statistics in 1902 a weak source for making these conclusions, would you please show me more than that. Convince me. TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In Latin America, however, those of mixed race soon composed the majority (numbering hundreds of millions) so further splitting them up into groups based on how much Spanish ancestry they had was a useful tool utilised by the colonial administrators to divide and conquer. One cagain, in the Philippines, all Spanish-mestizos, no matter how much or little Spanish ancestry they had, were kept in a single collective "us" mentality because there were so few of them.

In his "Idea compendiosa del Reyno de Nueva Esparña" (1774), the native of Cádiz, Pedro Alonso O'Crouley, also provides a detailed description of mixed lineages, and the uses of the various colourful terms of the castes. In this specific account, the author explains how Spanish blood, as opposed to Black blood, could be redeemed:

"It is known that neither Indian nor Negro contends in dignity and esteem with the Spaniard; nor do any of the others envy the lot of the Negro, who is the "most dispirited and despised.

If the mixed-blood is the offspring of a Spaniard and an Indian, the stigma disappears at the third step in descent because it is held as systematic that a Spaniard and an Indian produce a mestizo; a mestizo and a Spaniard, a castizo; and a castizo and a Spaniard, a Spaniard...

Because it is agreed that from a Spaniard and a Negro a mulato is born; from a mulato and a Spaniard, a morisco; from a morisco and a Spaniard, a torna atras [return-back-wards]; and from a torna atras and a Spaniard, a tente en el aire [hold-yourself-in-mid-air], which is the same as mulato, it is said, and with reason, that a mulato can never leave his condition of mixed blood, but rather it is the Spanish element that is lost and absorbed into the condition of a Negro....

The same thing happens from the union of a Negro and Indian, the descent begins as follows: Negro and Indian produce a lobo [wolf]; lobo and Indian, a chino; and chino and Indian, an albarazado [white spotted]; all of which incline towards the mulato" (O'Crouley, p. 20.)

While we're at it, I'd like to reply to TruthComission's edit summery; Criollos only refer to Filipino-born Spaniards, (syn. Insulares)

Yes, "Criollos" refers to overseas-born Spaniards, but only to those born in the Americas. It may have alos been used for those born elsewhere, but that wasn't common. Like "Castizo", "Criollo" wasn't used in the Philippines, originally the term "Filipino" served that purpouse. That is, Filipino originally implied a Philippine-born Spaniard, and it was synonyous with "Insular". However, the term "Filipino" was dramatically changed in meaning during the revolution. It was taken by nationalistic natives and redefined to refer to EVERYONE born in the Philippines, this in itself was done in an attempt to equalise the status of the natives with that of the original Filipinos (ie. the Philippine-born Spaniards, the Insulares). Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

You are wrong, Criollos were used in the Philippines. It is synonymous with the Insulares or Filipinos.

• (1.Peninsulares) (2.Insulares/Criollos) (3.Mestizos, Sangley Mestizos, Indio Principales/urbane indios) (4. Rural Indios)---this is the only colonial caste order in the Philippines. TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you [TruthComission] didn't know all this - made evident by your use of the words Criollo and Castizo when dealing with matters on the Philippines - clearly indicates your unfamiliarity with this subject matter. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Point cleared above TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you even Filipino? (Not that it's a pre-requisit to contribut to any page on Wikipedia related to the Philippines) Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Yes I am, are you? Obviously not! TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's just that you seem to know so little, or at least have great misconceptions, about the subjects you have contributed to. Although I'm sure you truly believe, without malice, that what you "know" is actually true. Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

And you think you do? Please! TruthComission 14:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, as to your misunderstanding of who were considered Spaniards, and what constituted a "Spaniard" in the Colonial System; "Español: Podía ser peninsular (nacido en España) o de ultramar (criollo, nacido en América; filipino o insular, nacido en Filipinas). El hijo de castiza y español se consideraba español (criollo)."

Translation: "A Spaniard: Could be a peninsular (born in Spain) o from overseas (criollo, born in the Americas; Filipino or Insular, born in the Philippines). The child of a castizo and a Spaniard was considered a Spaniard (criollo)"

While we're here, here is a brief table of the Spanish Colonial Caste System, for any future "misunderstandings".

• of a Spaniard and an Indian, begotten a mestizo;
• of a mestizo and a Spaniard, a castizo;
• of a castizo and a Spaniard, a Spaniard;
• of a Spaniard and a Black, a mulatto;
• of a Spaniard and a mulatto, a morisco;
• of a Spaniard and a morisco, an albino;
• of a Spaniard and an albino, a torna atrás;
• of an Indian and a torna atrás, a lobo;
• of a lobo and an Indian, a zambayo;
• of a zambayo and an Indian, a cambujo;
• of a cambujo and a mulatto, an albarazado;
• of an albarazado and a mulatto, a barcino;
• of a barcino and a mulatto, a coyote;
• of a coyote and an Indian, a chamizo;
• of a chamizo and a mestizo, a coyote mestizo;
• of a coyote and a mestizo, an allí te estás.

Al-Andalus 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC).

Mestizo culture

I think this article would benefit from a discussion of the term Mestizo as applied to culture, out side of the more narrow racial definition. See for example Carlos Fuentes' analysis of Latin (and Spanish) culture as "mestizo". Camipco 21:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

or Gloria Andaldua's book Borderlads La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco. 1987. fsdfBold text

Mestizo aristocrats

I have never heard of these Miravalles, but, from memory, the Spanish diplomat Diego Prado y Colón de Carvajal is the current duke or count of Moctezuma and a descendant of Christopher Columbus. --Error 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cherokee

Seeing the mention of a Cherokee ancestry for Johnny Depp, I am reminded that, for some reason, while other Indian tribes became extinct or mixed but separated, the Cherokee mixed a lot with White colonizers and, as a result, a sizeable part of Americans have some Cherokee ancestry (I am also reminded of Tina Turner). I guess that most of the North American mestizos come from Cherokees (the rest of the White/Black mixes with Indians are probably classed as some kind of Indian). There is also a phenomenon of (modern) Americans claiming a (false) Cherokee ancestry because it is in vogue. Somebody more knowledgeable could extend over it. --Error 23:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Métis and Métis people

How come there's a separate article for the word Métis? The modern ethnic group in North America is already dealt with in Métis people, and the use of this French word to refer to people elsewhere is explained under Mestizo. If that article is intended to refer to anyone of part-French ancestry from Indochina to the Pacific to the Caribbean, then I think it should be much more explicit about that. //Big Adamsky 21:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why there's a separate article, but it doesn't matter. A single article would be preferable. The answer is probably that the articles developed independently. John FitzGerald 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

mestiços in Asia

Mestiços in Portuguese are only used to refer to mixed Portuguese and African. Not Portuguese and Asian... Macanese where known as Macanese... I believe. When someone seems a mixed Portuguese and chinese one calls it macanese, not mestiço! Maybe defined as one... but it is not a usually used word, that also applies to East Timorese and Indians. Or the chinese or Timorese natives persieve them as such?--Pedro 16:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Mesticos can refer to those of mixed Portuguese and South Asian blood, specifically Goa, a small state situated just south of Bombay. The word Bombay actually comes from the Portuguese word 'bom bahia', for 'good bay'. Portugal played a significant role in South Asia, controlling a the states of Goa, Daman and Diu, sections of Gujrat, portions of Bengal including Calcutta and the island of Sri Lanka, not to mention the brief control of the Maldives. The largest number of Mesticos would be found in Goa, most of whom left for Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Sao Tome, or America after Portuguese departure from Goa in 1961.

The information about East Timor, making comparisons with the Philippines is complete drivel - yes, mestiços like José Ramos Horta were involved with the independence movement, but most Timorese leaders did 'not have any European ancestry. While Portuguese speakers are a minority, most of them will be Timorese with no Portuguese ancestry at all - or, like Mari Alkatiri, Muslim Arabs of Yemeni descent! Quiensabe 02:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm confused

aren't people who americans think of as typical mexicans/latinos all mestizo? are mestizos the dominant ethnic group in latin america? the article seems to represent mestizo as being a distinct ethnic heritage when i thought that the majority of latin americans were mestizo. if not, what ethnic group(s) are latin americans descended from? Joeyramoney 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A Definition of a Mestizo

• 1) A person descended from a recent or Historical mixture of Amerindian and European (Espaňol) ancestors.
• 2) A person whose parents or grand parents are any mixture of Amerindian and European (Espaňol) ancestors.
• 3) A person of mixed European (Espaňol) and Amerindian ancestry.
• 4) A person having one European (Espaňol) and Amerindian parents.

Al Andalus is a idiota HAAAA!, U do not know any thing about Mestizos?, Cabron VIIIVAAAAA La Raza, 12.12, June 20, From: the La Razas

J-LO is not a Mestizo

I read the article and it's cool, the only issue, that is misleading is Jennifer Lopez listed as a Mestizo. I mean common, she is not a mestizo?. Is she of or part Amerindian Blood? I don't know?? To to be honest with you, I really think that she is of African and European ancestry (Mullato) ! correct me if wrong.-- Ramirez 11:43 , August 23, 2006. (UTC)

Do you have any references to back up your comments? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Jose Rizal is not a mestizo

He has more chinese blood in him than, Spanish. I read his article and a tiny spanish descent doesn't make him a mestizo. Mestizos are supposed to be (caucasian/ European looking people).--Ramírez 01:12 27, August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese People are not European People

Chinese / Japanese are not European People

The Section is the Philippine article is mis-leading and made up, because Mestizo's are supposed to be mixed European and Indigenous ancestry, not mixed asian to asian. Why does Chinese people or Japenese get all the credit for being mestizos in the Philippines! Have some common sense! Mestizo is a Spanish Termonoligy for Mixed Spanish and Indigenous ancestry. I don't believed it! It's all bullshit homes! I can't even remember Mestizo being of Chinese / Japanese mixed with indigenous ancestry. Man all of Latin America well be shocked at this, if they hear this? Quote "a definition of Mestizos in the Philippines are of Mixed Chinese and Indigenous ancestry". The information in the Philippine Mestizo article should be correct, basic and clear to what mestizo really means! Chinese Mestizo should go the Filipino Chinese article, not in the Mestizo article...The Mestizo article should only be about the European and it's indigenous counterparts. All the information in the Philippine article category should be sourced!! -- Ramírez 01:05 am 24, September 2006.(UTC)

You must understand that in the Philippine(Historically speaking) context, "mestizo" would refer to anyone of native and non-native descent. Since during the Spanish colonial times, there were more(actually, they grossly overwhelmed the mixed Spanish-native people) mixed Chinese-native than mixed Spanish-native, the term has extended to them.(In the case of Latin America, it is other wise; there were many Spaniards and less Chinese) Some sources say that the Spaniards refered to the mixed Chinese-native as Mestizo de Sangley. In cases like this terms can be contextual.. You might find it surprising that the term "Chinito"(in the modern context of Filipinos) in the Philippines would refer to the shape of the eye similar to the North Asians(Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), not exactly to the people of Chinese/Japanese/Korean descent

All section in the Philippine article in dispute is sited now. Please provide correct information on this section or they well be deleted. -- Ramírez) 01:45am 24 September 2006.(UTC)

It's not a personal attack or something it's just i'm just doing my wikipedia job and that's to provide correct and accurate informations. It's hard for us Latin Americans to Understand the mestizo issue in the Philippines... Don't get me wrong It's not a personal attack, it's just some of the statements made in the Philippine article section is POV and needs to be sited and provide accurate info.- Ramirez 03:00 am, 24 September 2006. (UTC)

Purchase books regarding Philippine History. For most part, non-Filipino and Filipino writers would refer to them(Chinese-native mixed people) as Mestizos. Many sites, apparently, use also the term

http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Tagalog/Tagalog_Homepage99/impacts_of_spanish_rule_in_the_p.htm
http://www.soc.cornell.edu/gradstudents/limpe.shtml
http://theignatianperspective.blogspot.com/2006/07/filipino-mestizo.html
http://www.opnet.ops.gov.ph/speech-2001april23.htm
http://www.bayanihannationaldanceco.ph/news/news0005.html

This is probably the most interesting one http://news.inq7.net/regions/index.php?index=2&story_id=75586

They built substantial houses of cal y canto, an upper-class house of strong materials, which Mallat wrote, “generally belong to mestizos.” (Mestizo in Mallat’s time referred only to those of Chinese ancestry and the racial mix was reckoned patrilineally through generations. “Mestizo” to refer to the Spanish half-caste was a later development).

An 1885 document at the Philippine National Archives states that two Butalid sisters and their Rocha sister-in-law (as can be inferred) sold one such house of cal y canto—“situada en el sitio de Ubos”—and a small boat to a gentleman of the Tagbilaran principales surnamed Calceta.

The house was located on land surrounded on two sides by sea. (Was this the one bought by the antiques dealer?)

And, incidentally, the same document classified “Doñas” Butalid and Rocha, and the Calceta “don” as “mestizo sangley” or Chinese mestizo.

Too Many Weasel words and POV Statements in Filipino Mestizo article

To: Mr Al Andalus! I've got a Question for you? There are so many POV Statements in the Filipino section. There is to many self point of views and not enough sources to back it up, including Mestizo is about Beauty and Corrupt government etc.. Firstly i'd like to asked you, What is a Spanish Mestizo or A Chinese Mestizo in the Philippines? Do you have qualifiaction as Human Demographer! or Population Demographer!.There is No such thing as a Spanish Mestizo or A Chinese Mestizo. It's a made up word. Mexicans and the rest of Latin Americans are a predominant Mestizo nation; we don't call our self Spanish-Mestizos. We simply identify ourselves as Mexicans or by our countries name. Mestizo is a colonial term for Spanish and European origin! mixed indigenous ancestry. Secondly, About Jose Rizal he is not a Chinese-mestizo. He doesn't come from China. He comes from Filipinas. He is a Filipino-Mestizo of Chinese or Spanish origin or what ever!. It should be called Filipino-Chinese Mestizo or Filipino-Spanish Mestizo. Who ever evented the word Spanish-Mestizo? or Chinese-Mestizo? Before you start adding informations! Can you please cited your info. We are trying to Create a Encylopedia here, not about Self point of views to suit our needs. And also Mestizo is not about Beauty!! that's just a POV statement--Ramirez 02:31 am, October 21, 2006. (UTC)

You are right, mestizo means mixed European/Indigenous...except in the Philippines. In the early colonial period of the Philippines it shared this meaning, but with the advent of a larger population of mixed Chinese/Filipinos than mixed Spanish/Filipinos (not to mention any other ancestry mixed with Filipino, eg Japanese), the term lost all connotations to any specific race mixture in the Philippines. Today, mestizo in the Philippines means anyone of mixed ancestry [2], and doesn't even necessarily mean mixed race, since as you yourself so cleverly pointed out, Chinese and Filipinos are both Asians. In any case, the population of all types of mestizos in the Philippines was and is so small that there was never any need in comming up with an infinite number of terms to denote different race mixtures as was done in Latin America's castas terminology. Mestiso was, and remains, the only term used in the philippines for any Filipino mixed with another race or foreign ancestry. They were merly separate by terming them either Spanish-Filipino-mestisos or Chinese-Filipino-mestisos, etc...[3]

As for the connotations of mestizo to beauty in Filipino parlance, you only need google the terms beauty, philippines, and mestizo together to come up with hundreds of sources, including articles, sites, and forums that expandi into what is apparently termed the "mestizo theory" of beauty in the Philippines. To save you some time, here are a few links [4][5][6]

Also, the Filipino language word is mestiso, not mestizo. Al-Andalus 07:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reply:Thanks! for the informations dude. I'm goin to sleep it's almost morning.. night! :) Ramirez 3:00 am, October 21, 2006 (UTC)

Race and Poverty in Mexico, Central America, and South America

This section is full of essay-style contemplation and weird statements.

• "The legacy of the fiefdoms is the reason why Latin America is constituted by so many small nations, despite nearly identical cultures." Yeah, sure they are "nearly identical".
• "A Spaniard or Portuguese is actually a Mediterranean amalgamation, created by rape, plunder, and conquest, consisting of Celtic, Greek, Roman, German, Arab, (Moors and Berbers) Black Africans, Jewish, and Gypsy bloodlines. Were a "Mestizo" in Mexico can trace his ancestry neatly and relatively purely to the Aztecs and a Siberian land bridge; a Spaniard is a truly complete Mestizo mystery. Not very neutral text IMHO.
• "In large part and for the definitive worse, Latin American "Mestizos" have adopted the backward Latin culture and religion of Europe." More neutral assertations.
• "For Spain and Portugal, pillaging South America and Mexico for commodities like gold, silver, and sugar in a mercantilist economic structure for nearly 3 centuries, achieved no long-term competitive advantage over other Western European cultures like those of Britain, Holland, and Germany. Today, Spain and Portugal are two of the poorest countries of Western Europe." What is a 'long-term competitive advantage' according to the editor, then? Spain was perhaps the most powerful state in Europe in the 16th century.
• "For Latin America, adopting the culture of Europe's most backward nations..." <yawn>
• "...as the countries came to resemble backward European locations like Spain and Sicily." Sure.
• "However, as most of Latin America's current leadership has stronger educational ties with the United States, UK, and Holland, the culture is now changing and economic growth is escalating." So, US/UK/Holland good, Spain/Portugal bad? Or what is the reasoning behind this nonsense?

Somebody please revise the article. --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 11:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)