For those who don't know. Black Latinos
-
Black Latinos
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=asr40oHwA5U&feature=related
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY4uf49dMqg&feature=related
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkoKSMiKjTM&feature=related
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=unsa8JTs_Bo (read the description. It's an african ritual that cubans perfrom).
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA_1C2Dlno0 (black venezuelans)
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr2sVfNxyhU&feature=related (black chileans)
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGVVqrXo04&feature=related (Uruguay).
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vEUGFCn6_Y&feature=related (Mexico)
Need I go on. I think I can give you an example for every single Latin American country.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Unfortunately I think they don't know. Asian Latinos are relatively recent. Asian immigration to Latin America and the U.S. started in the late 1800's. But Blacks have been in the Americas since the inception of Latin America and the Spanish and Portuguse conquering of those areas. And your "typical" latinos are actually an admixture of Africans, Native Americans and Iberians (to different degrees per country and family), with sizeable populations of Africans and Native Americans who have not mixed so much still existing in all Latin American countries. All Iberians have mixed with Africans or Native Americans in the Latin America. If they haven't it's because they are very recent immigrants from Iberia, or because they're lying or they don't know of their African ancestors. Iberia incorporates Spain, Portugal, Galicia and the Catalan terroritories (which are part of Spain).
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace
I think they do know. The Spaniards and the French were pretty cool with the recognition and rights of mulattoes and mestizos in their settled communities in America and these bi-racial people would even go to the respective european nations to recieve an education. I think that the English were highly racist and not only abhored miscegenation, but failed to recognize bi-racials as they were in America, hence the institution of the Racial Integrety Act in the early 1900s.
I would not say latinos are typically bi or tri racial but they are definately significant in many latin American countries, however, there are some latin American countries that are overwhelmingly caucasion such as Uruguay and Argentina.
All Iberians have mixed with Africans or Native Americans in the Latin America.
I think that is inherently false and is a forced position which you are free to believe in.
If they haven't it's because they are very recent immigrants from Iberia, or because they're lying or they don't know of their African ancestors.
Endogomy is a fairly common practice among people so I would not say that people are lying about these things. There are instances in America where some white families denied any african ancestry and were proven false and due to the one drop rule were declared blacks no matter how minute the ancestry may have been. There are many people in America today of African descent who are the descendants of Mulattoes who refer to themselves as blacks and that's okay. It should not be a problem for people to identify as white if they had a black ancestor somewhere in the recent or less recent past. Look at the current head of the NAACP, he looks white, he's a mulatto actually, but in America he is a black man because he has a black parent, the same thing with Obama. So when people talk about the first black president, they are wrong, but those who speak of Obama as possibly being the first president with African ancestry, that rings more true. It's always an interesting conversation though.
Joe
-
I would not say latinos are typically bi or tri racial but they are definately significant in many latin American countries, however, there are some latin American countries that are overwhelmingly caucasion such as Uruguay and Argentina.
I would say that that is typical and any revisit to Latin American history along with a visit to Latin American shows this clearly.
Quote from Anwar
All Iberians have mixed with Africans or Native Americans in the Latin America.I think that is inherently false and is a forced position which you are free to believe in.
You say inherently false and I say historically true. The rate of intermixture among Iberians in Latin America was so wide spread that all White (iberian) people in Latin America have some degree of African admixture.
Quote
If they haven't it's because they are very recent immigrants from Iberia, or because they're lying or they don't know of their African ancestors.Endogomy is a fairly common practice among people so I would not say that people are lying about these things. There are instances in America where some white families denied any african ancestry and were proven false and due to the one drop rule were declared blacks no matter how minute the ancestry may have been. There are many people in America today of African descent who are the descendants of Mulattoes who refer to themselves as blacks and that's okay. It should not be a problem for people to identify as white if they had a black ancestor somewhere in the recent or less recent past. Look at the current head of the NAACP, he looks white, he's a mulatto actually, but in America he is a black man because he has a black parent, the same thing with Obama. So when people talk about the first black president, they are wrong, but those who speak of Obama as possibly being the first president with African ancestry, that rings more true. It's always an interesting conversation though.
Latin Americans are typically mixed, and just because they put their more Caucasian looking members on TV more (and in government positions) that doesn't give an accurate truth about the true racial make up of most Latin Americans. Lying about African ancestry or ignoring it is very common in ALL of the Americas among people who don't clearly show that African admixture, Argentina and Uruguay are examples of that. Their African populations mixed so much with the more numerous European populations (in the case of Argentina they were the orignal Spaniards, plus Italian and German immigrants) that the only imprint it left is darker white people (and a number of other phenomena like headshapes and facial types, hair texture, lips and body types). So you say these countries are mainly caucasian whereas I would say that they are also partially African although the African admixture was (for lack of a better word) overpowered by European blood. However in Uruguay and Paraguay there was also significant Native American mixture. So much so that Guarani is the national language. So even when the percentage of African blood is on the level of 5-20 percent, even though the people look "caucasian" they are still only partially Caucasian no matter what they say (which is also governed by social and historical circumstances). And a trained eye can see it as clear as day. But for the most part I agree with you. I wouldn't say that the head of NAACP Benjamin Todd Jealous looks white at all. If that is your concept of white . . . I don't know what to say. He looks like he has obvious caucasian (and African) ancestry, but he definitely does not look white. He does look like your 'typical' latin American (or even Arab in certain countries), especially if they are from the Spanish carribbean. And it figures doesn't it?
By the way in the Applachians there are whole communities of tri-racial isolates (also in other towns on the east coast). And they range from looking like dark-skinned white people to light skinned black people (genetics show that they are pretty much Afro-European admixtures with little to no Native American). But they like to call themselves descendents of Turks and such even though that has absolutely no historical or genetic foundation. I had a run-in with a guy in California once who was from the Applachians and I was shocked. For all practical purposes he was white, but the shape of his head, the proportion of his face and everything else made it obvious that he was black too. His girlfriend who was obviously Afro-American, told me beforehand and I didn't believe it until I saw it. But I've come accross a number of white people like that, and the funny thing is that other white people can't tell. The crazy part is that he didn't know (I addressed this phenomenon above as did Al-nabi). But it was more than obvious to those of us (Afro-Americans) who have a good deal of European admixture in our close or distant families. And these people along with Afro-American-White mulattos (which ususually adds an extra shot of European admixture from the Afro-American side) always look like your typical Latinos. And just a cursory look at history explains that, especially when most africans brought to the Americas went to what would become Latin America (including Argentina, Mexico, Uruguay and Paraguay).
Godbless,
Anwar -
By the way the Spanish were better than the French, and the English were the worse of all. Although for a time in the U.S. octaroons and quadroons were recognized as white, that died out because of internal conditions in the U.S. and anyone for whom African ancestry could be proven (or if that ancenstry was visible in anyway) was relegated to the Afro-american community, re-enslaved or marginalized (and pretty much put in hiding, hence the communities in the appalachians or other isolated tri-racial communties). But that whole 'the closer you are to looking European the better we treat you' was still some fully racist stuff that the French, the Spanish and the English fully practiced. Even mulatoes and mestizos were still slaves and second class citizens. It's just that they were a degree over their darker counterparts (in the house instead of the field. Working the elevators instead of in the back kitchen). And the Spanish and Portuguese mixed so much that their place in society began to become more and more equivalent to that of their mixed progeny. But all parties (even those who remain predominantly African) still suffer from that whole 'the more european you look' syndrome, all throughout the Americas.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace
One thing about the Spanish is that they have tended to call anyone who appears to be white, white. I understand that there are mestizos besides the mulattoes in many parts of latin America. I have a mestizo cousin. Still I cannot agree with you that the typical Latin American is either mulatto or mestizo because there also tend to be equally if not larger populations of caucasions in Latin America. I'm not much of a Spanish t.v. viewer but I would think the reason you tend to see more caucasions or bi-racials on their programs is the same as you would see more whites and blacks on American t.v. programs.
The French were not all that bad and got better with the idea of miscegenation after the French Revolution. The One Drop Rule is definately a problem here in the U.S. and it is actually a violation of Civil rights due to Loving v. Virginia. I find it amazing that many Americans still do accept the racist Racial Integrety Act of any race. There are blacks who call bi-racials of black heritage (whether mixed with asian, indian, or caucasion) black, and whites do the same thing. I tend to think this is only done with people of black heritage. I do not think there are many mestizos, or hapas who are called indian or asians for being part of either.
Anyone of african ancestry had always been a second class citizen even when free. Their freedom basically hung on a string so having respectability in the white communities were important for them. There was a high level of slavery even among the mulattoes, but of the people of color who were free in America 9 in 10 were mulattoes. There was a time in American history when Mulattoes were recognized as such, but when the ODR began to take precedence their identities were stripped of them, at least in the eyes of other Americans. I think I should point out that mulattoes did accomplish some things even during the antebellum period in America economically, and during reconstruction there were many mulatto leaders who did take positions in the American government.
Colourism is a disease in America, among all the people and it should stop. Blacks do not need to think mulattoes and their descendants are of the belief that they are better than them, nor do mulattoes need to think that they have to be more pale to be better people. Content of the character matters and anyone can have good content.
Joe
-
Peace,
One thing about the Spanish is that they have tended to call anyone who appears to be white, white. I understand that there are mestizos besides the mulattoes in many parts of latin America. I have a mestizo cousin. Still I cannot agree with you that the typical Latin American is either mulatto or mestizo because there also tend to be equally if not larger populations of caucasions in Latin America. I'm not much of a Spanish t.v. viewer but I would think the reason you tend to see more caucasions or bi-racials on their programs is the same as you would see more whites and blacks on American t.v. programs.
Again, a visit to any latin American country will assure you that most of the populations are mulattoe or mestizo (the degree of that mestizaje and mulatoness vary to different degrees in different regions and famlies, going all ways, sometimes more native American, sometimes more caucasian and somtimes more African). You are plainly wrong but for sake of courtesy in argument I will just say I plainly disagree with you an I believe the fact disagree with you as well. You might not believe me, but you'll have to go visit to see. In mexico the majority are mestizo and native American (although some prefer not to be called indigenous). That is just truth. In the U.S. there has historically been heavy segregation so our population is pretty separated along racial lines with some slim grey areas between different races. But I'm seeing that you don't really have a good idea about has been going on in Latin America since the 1400's. My major was in Spanish (language and culture) and I focused heavily on Latin America, I watch Spanish TV (from Mexico, the Carribbean and South America) every single day and my wife is from the Domincian republic and I have been there many, many times. It's needless to say that we have many Mexicans in the U.S. (I lived in california for some time too, most mexicans look like typical native Americans in the Southwest except on TV where they are intentionally whiter than most) and where I grew up there were plenty of Hispanic Carribbeans as well. I think you need to go get a book on racial history and Latin America and do some more personal research as well. What you call Caucasian population in Latin America are the lighter Mulatoe and Mestizo populations who have more than 50% European blood. I hope you realize that you are completely in the wrong here. Again, go get some specials on latin America, and some books on racial identity, and Africans and Native Americans in Latin America. You just admitted that what you think is white can actually be Mulatoe, as in the case of the head of the NAACP (and if his black parent is Afro-American that means that he is more than just 50% European) What I am saying is more than obvioius to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.
The French were not all that bad and got better with the idea of miscegenation after the French Revolution. The One Drop Rule is definately a problem here in the U.S. and it is actually a violation of Civil rights due to Loving v. Virginia. I find it amazing that many Americans still do accept the racist Racial Integrety Act of any race. There are blacks who call bi-racials of black heritage (whether mixed with asian, indian, or caucasion) black, and whites do the same thing. I tend to think this is only done with people of black heritage. I do not think there are many mestizos, or hapas who are called indian or asians for being part of either.
If they weren't, the Haitians wouldn't have rebelled and killed all the white people they came accross and yet spare the more mixed Mulato and Creole classes. And U.S. blacks call bi-racials black because all Afro-Americans have mulatoes, zambas (Afro-Amerindian mixes) and even Afro-Asiatic mixes (from early chinese migration to the south) in their families and are themselves in fact biracial or triracial. No matter how dark or how black you might consider them to be, there is at the very least European ancestry in their family tree. So bi-racials of black heritage are black because non-biracial blacks who have historically had bi-racials in their family are technically just as bi-racial as that person with two parents of different races. You get me? About every single "black" person in the U.S. is actually bi-racial him or herself. So in the American scheme bi-racials are still just as black as many blacks who don't have two parents of different races; one black and one not. And if you watch any show or read any book about Blacks in French territories and the creole classes of mulatoes, octaroons, quadroons etc, you would know that all of these groups were relegated to second or third class citizens and were all subject to slavery. French white males didn't even marry into creole classes (that would be a sin in their eyes) but just maintained them as mistresses (well maintained sexual slaves) subject to punishment at any given time whenever the relationship became a scandal. And it is obvious that French females could only sexually interact with other white French males as a matter of law and culture. Where are you getting your information from dude? And why all this Eurocentricity which blantantly dismisses the facts of Latin America?
Anyone of african ancestry had always been a second class citizen even when free. Their freedom basically hung on a string so having respectability in the white communities were important for them. There was a high level of slavery even among the mulattoes, but of the people of color who were free in America 9 in 10 were mulattoes. There was a time in American history when Mulattoes were recognized as such, but when the ODR began to take precedence their identities were stripped of them, at least in the eyes of other Americans. I think I should point out that mulattoes did accomplish some things even during the antebellum period in America economically, and during reconstruction there were many mulatto leaders who did take positions in the American government.
Agreed. But why this need to separate Mulattoes from other blacks? You can be black and mulato. Especially since like I said almost all African Americans have non-AFrican ancesty in their family trees as well. But we agree that they were second class citizens still and subject to slavery. I don't know what ODR is (I hate acronyms) but even though 9 of 10 freed blacks were mulatoes, there were also a great number of slaves who were also mulatoes. This idea of trying to somehow make mulatoes separate from being black is totally wrong. Atleast in an American context. What about Obama's kids? What are they? See. Obama is black AND mulato. And many blacks have been mulatoes, zambas, etc. etc. These are not exlusive terms and trying to turn the clock back to a time when mulatoes may have not been considered black not only seems inherently anti-black but it is also impossible because Caucasians have always viewed mulatoes and people of African descent as black, atleast up until the point where European blood is so much that it takes a trained eye to tell. The reasons why most freed colored people were Mulato is obvious. There were some Euro-Americans who had hearts and who couldn't bear to see their children as slaves, treated like property or sold away. That respect in white community usually had to do with blood relationships in those white communities. Occasioanlly it was because of other genuine or sometimes ingenuine reasons.
Colourism is a disease in America, among all the people and it should stop. Blacks do not need to think mulattoes and their descendants are of the belief that they are better than them, nor do mulattoes need to think that they have to be more pale to be better people. Content of the character matters and anyone can have good content
Colourism is still a disease in Latin America, the Arab world and the Indian subcontinent believe it or not. Not to mention Britain and mainland Europe, the progenitors of colourism. Your last statement about content of character is obvious, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. What they do in their every day lives to contradict what they claim to agree with is another matter.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace
I do not think a visit here and there to latin America can assure me or anyone else that this is how it is. I could end up in the craziest and poorest town and end up generalizing about Mexico. We agree that there are bi-racials in latin America, we just disagree concerning the their populations. You tend to call the latins liars, I say they may do so here and there but I think that generally people realize and are not afraid to admit to their heritages in latin America.
ODR is the One Drop Rule which was the racial code of the South and something which you obviously endorse when you say, "So bi-racials of black heritage are black because non-biracial blacks who have historically had bi-racials in their family are technically just as bi-racial as that person with two parents of different races." I always ask people who think like this, "well why are they not white?". They generally respond by saying, "well here in America they will be seen as black because they are part black". To which I reply, "than you support a racist doctrine which had been outlawed over 40 years ago in Loving v. Virginia".
I'm quite aware of the left-hand marriages that have occured in the U.S. with the Society Balls and how some of them have resulted in the concubines of white males coming off either well to do or very rich.
Your last statement about content of character is obvious, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
This is another area in which I disagree with you otherwise people would not judge others negatively simply due to difference in race. If they do say they agree, and there are people who will say it and still make foolish judgements, they do not practice what they preach. Apparently you can pick out those latin liars, but can you see these liars, I wonder since you say you do not think anyone would disagree with me saying, "Content of the character matters and anyone can have good content".
Joe
-
Interesting. Thnx
-
Peace,
I just want to say that I am not generalizing Latinos as Liars. Don't try to accuse me of some negative blanket statement that I did not make. What I am saying is that many Latin Americans are either ignorant of their racial makeup (which makes them ignorant and not liars) or they are not honest with themselves and deny the African or Native American in them for social reasons. In general Brazilians and Cubans no matter how white they are recognize their African or Native ancestries. The general populations of other Latin American countries are either ignorant of the origins of their ancestors or know and hide it, excepting those elements of society that obviously can't hide it. I don't care about the court Case Loving Vs. Virgina. People who have visible African ancestry have been categorized as black historically, just as you still call many Afro-Americans black despite their non-African ancestries. Now I am not endorsing ODR. What I am saying is that if you can see the influence of African ancestry then that person is Black. But in the Afro-American sense of the word you can be Black culturally which means culturally Afro-American. The other meaning of Black which is just as prominent is just a statement that means that one has visible African ancestry. So you can be white and black at the same time, get that! I've met a few white black people actually. They are black because they have visible or known African ancestry and they are white because of how fair they are or how much European ancestry they show. So even though that sounds like a contradiction it's not. It's pretty much the same as the Latin American definition of white based on looks and actual color even with the knowledge or visibility of African or Native American ancestry. I know you won't want to recognize that, but that will only be because you refuse to open your mind. And when I said visit latin america, obviously that meant taking a tour of the country you chose to visit, not getting stuck in one area (and why did you have to choose a ghetto? hmmm). See how you will invent anything to deny the truth of the issue at hand? But do you, I'll keep spreading the truth. The ignorant will always find reasons to justify their baseless opinions.
Here you are talking to someone who majored in Spanish, with a concentration in Latin American studies, and yet you still feel confident in believing something that I am telling you, if you studied some more, you would see is not true. But it is a necessary belief for Eurocentrists that most of the world be white and as far removed from African influence as possible. That is unfortunate, but it is apart of the Eurocentric mindset to block out the color in the world. THe unfortunate part is that this is a mindset that is growing in momentum, whereas in earlier times these things that I am telling you were common knowledge. Now people are suprised to see black people when they go to Latin America, and most don't even know how to recognize a real Native American. Bush is quoted as having said, 'There are black people in Brazil?' And he's educated!!! The Eurocentric mindset seems to be getting more closed-minded and more ignorant of the truth of world and the especially the non-white world, more and more every day.
Not to mention the Afro-centrists and their extreme opinions which mimic the idiotic patterns of Eurocentric thinking, which is Deny the other, and the influence of the other even if it is shared participation. Deny, Deny, Deny and in the worse case scenario Ignore, Ignore, Ignore.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace
What I am saying is that if you can see the influence of African ancestry then that person is Black.
True, but here you are again wrong because there are mulattoes, and quadroons who may physically look white who are still considered black due to their black ancestry. This is part of the culture of "passing".
So you can be white and black at the same time, get that!
There are mulattoes who do not see it that way and feel themselves to be a different sort of people and as distinct from black or white people.
I've met a few white black people actually.
I'm actually trying to being nice to you by trying to let you be humble with what you know and do not know, but you are being exceedingly "cocky" concerning what you do know, but are ignorant of what you do not know. I have a cousin who is mulatto and can "pass". He looks white but he is not white, he is bi-racial, but does not consider himself either or, but as distinct when it comes to racial lines of thinking. Again, you say "I've met a few white black people acutally" and prove once more your heeding the ODR. These people are just as mulatto as someone who shows some visible sign of black ancestry. There are mulattoes who look completely black as well. This does not all of a sudden make them "black white".
Bush is quoted as having said, 'There are black people in Brazil?' And he's educated!!!
Please, lol, clearly you are being close-minded. Bush is an idiot. This is not the dumbest thing he's on record doing.
Joe
-
Peace
Here you are talking to someone who majored in Spanish, with a concentration in Latin American studies, and yet you still feel confident in believing something that I am telling you, if you studied some more, you would see is not true.
...and in response I quote you again....
Bush is quoted as having said, 'There are black people in Brazil?' And he's educated!!!
Joe
-
peace,
True, but here you are again wrong because there are mulattoes, and quadroons who may physically look white who are still considered black due to their black ancestry. This is part of the culture of "passing".
Wow, do you think I don't know about the culture of passing? Am I not Afro-American? I find it funny that you are trying to teach me about things that are part of my identity and that I have known and seen since I was yay tall. The interesting part is that people of African descent who passed ussually had to say they were of Mediterranean or Latin American descent. Hmmmm. You already know what i'm thinking. Believe me, us black people can see it, because about all of us have family members with very high levels of visible European ancestry. It's white people who are often fooled. And are dumbfounded when they learn about it.
There are mulattoes who do not see it that way and feel themselves to be a different sort of people and as distinct from black or white people.
And i can tell you why that is. First it is because of the social ramifications of being black in White Society. As well as the social ramifications of having significant European ancestry in predominantly lower class, but also post-60's Afro-American society. Light skinned historically black Afro-americans catch hell for their visible European ancestry from darker skinned Afro-americans. For many Mulatoes it can be a social lose-lose situation, to which they try to find a way out. Hence they may rebel against both. Most find that they actually have a place as mulatoes in Afro-American culture and society where they have absolutely no place in European society unless they are light enough to pass. However, many mulatoes suffer from the historical Afro-American white-supremacist syndrome, wanting to associate with whites more than other afro-americans. You still find that among Afro-americans who will over-emphasize their non-african ancestry and belittle their African ancestry. And American mulatoes are not immune from this, I've seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears. And that opens them up to more criticism from more afro-centric blacks.
I'm actually trying to being nice to you by trying to let you be humble with what you know and do not know, but you are being exceedingly "cocky" concerning what you do know, but are ignorant of what you do not know. I have a cousin who is mulatto and can "pass". He looks white but he is not white, he is bi-racial, but does not consider himself either or, but as distinct when it comes to racial lines of thinking. Again, you say "I've met a few white black people acutally" and prove once more your heeding the ODR. These people are just as mulatto as someone who shows some visible sign of black ancestry. There are mulattoes who look completely black as well. This does not all of a sudden make them "black white".
And this where you refuse to understand the nature of the American (including the Americas) color scheme from its non-malicious point of view. I know those people who can pass are mulatto(probably technically quadroons or octaroons). But you keep acting like Mulatoe and black are exclusive and they are not. I told you that the term black can mean having African ancestry.
I had a college friend whose dad was a black trinidadian (it was obvious he had some white in him too although everyone would classify him as black) and her mom was white. She was for all practical purposes white but she was black as well. People of african descent, especially if it is visible, even if they can "pass" they are both black and white. Why is that? For the 15th time becuz being black does not exlude European ancestry to any degree and in the Afro-american usage of the word being white does not exclude African ancestry to any degree. So you use ODR as if by calling someone black you negate the extent of that person's European ancestry. And that is how white people have historically seen it, which is obviously wrong. But for the 1000th time people of Afro-European admixture who tend more towards the European, are both black AND white, and by accepting both of those defintions you also accept their admixture. Get it?
Here you are talking to someone who majored in Spanish, with a concentration in Latin American studies, and yet you still feel confident in believing something that I am telling you, if you studied some more, you would see is not true.
...and in response I quote you again....
Quote
Bush is quoted as having said, 'There are black people in Brazil?' And he's educated!!!Good one, but I was pointing to the general Eurocentric mindsets of even educated white people. He is obviously not educated on this topic, but the fact that he is educated you would expect him to know something like that. And this ignorance is becoming more and more widespread even among educated people.
I know bush is not a perfect example, but I was pointing to the general knowledge of the people and their ignorance of these things. Obviously the fact that i studied this excludes me from that. But nice try. I like how you want to prove me wrong based on what you want to percieve as a cocky attitude. I'll tell you what I think it is. You don't know and you hate the fact that i am teaching you things that you didn't know and thereby exposing your ignorance. And the fact that you had picked a stance and made opinions about things that you had no real knowledge of is unfortunate indeed. But I can understand that natural need to defend yourself in order to defend your self-pride. My advice is to let the pride go, absorb and then go confirm for yourself.
Godbless,
Anwar -
latino isn't a "race", just a mix of cultures..native, black, white, etc..
-
Riseupmyppl,
Yes, we know. That is why I started this thread to expose the lie that Latino/Hispanic is a race. Latino is a linguistic category usually applied to the Americas only. And the majority of latin America is a mix of African, European and Native American ethnicities and cultures. In different places some of these ethnicities and cultures predominate others. But 99 percent of the people in Latin American have atleast 2 if not all 3 of these ethnicities in their blood. Thnx for your observations.
Godbless,
Anwar