Oldbrit
Junior Member
Infidel
Posts: 67
|
Post by Oldbrit on Nov 25, 2005 8:04:27 GMT -5
[quote author=huzar board=genetics thread=1132812296 post=1132851961Brazil. The most complex of all. Yes, official percentage aren't exact, but neither too far from the truth. Predominantly caucasid pop. constitutes a stable 40-45% of brazilian population, not less. And is concentrated mostly in southern Brazil, near Argentina and Uruguay. [/quote] Here's a link to a study on African and European genetic markers in Brazilians www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/177 It seems that regardless of phenotype (black brown or white) the frequencies of the markers vary little.
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Nov 25, 2005 8:39:32 GMT -5
This study has been criticized because almost half of the samples came from peasants from a small village in the poorest region of Minas Gerais, and the rest were 200 people distributed unevenly from different regions of the country. The conclusion of the article is not that blacks, "browns" and whites are genetically very similar, but rather that most brazilian "whites" have a large ammount of black and Indian mitocondrial DNA with almost 100% european genes on the Y cromosome. Blacks and mulattos could get different results though. I don't think you can consider a study where 174 people out of 374 come from a small country village in one of the most backwards regions of the country as a good representation of the truth. They should do a similar study with thousands of people evenly distributed according to the population of each region. Then we would know what it's really like. [quote author=huzar board=genetics thread=1132812296 post=1132851961Brazil. The most complex of all. Yes, official percentage aren't exact, but neither too far from the truth. Predominantly caucasid pop. constitutes a stable 40-45% of brazilian population, not less. And is concentrated mostly in southern Brazil, near Argentina and Uruguay. Here's a link to a study on African and European genetic markers in Brazilians www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/177 It seems that regardless of phenotype (black brown or white) the frequencies of the markers vary little.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Nov 25, 2005 11:03:07 GMT -5
Most genetic studies out there rely on very small samples. Everytime I read "population ___" has x % of such and such markers, I take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Batrus on Nov 25, 2005 12:41:13 GMT -5
Prosperity has whitened chileans, like, "east asians" who become white in the usa by being succesful, educated and wealthy, but they are still mestizos. In 20 years they went from being classified an andean nation with peru and bolivia to be classified a southern cone nation with argentina and uruguay. for example in 1987, the per capita gdp of peru was 1430 dl, and chile´s was 1317 now chile´s is 6272 and peru´s is 2448 That's true. There's a lot of subjetivity involving classification. And a lot of countries (as people) are considered of different races depending on their economic status. For me that's the only explanation of how northern italians are considered germanics (not by all, but by some). I do not intend to offend northern italian (actually my half italian part is from alessandria), but to me they are clearly non-germanic. I would also like to know the opinion that the rest of europeans had of spaniards and portuguese before their economy improvement. I'm sure most of them considered them less white.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 25, 2005 12:58:39 GMT -5
Most Western Europeans had a negative attitude towards Spaniards because of the "Black Legend." Which had nothing to do with race but tried to make Iberians (more so Spaniards) appear cruel and fanatical.
References to Moors and their supposed non white contribution were often used to slight both groups.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 25, 2005 13:51:03 GMT -5
Most genetic studies out there rely on very small samples. Everytime I read "population ___" has x % of such and such markers, I take it with a grain of salt. Indeed. I'd say its impossible to answer the question in any reasonable manner for the whole continent, its only possible for specific regions. Argentina f.e. is to me an European nation with just minor admixture.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 25, 2005 14:18:03 GMT -5
Springa the situation with Minas Gerais from what I have heard is that the Southern and central region of the state is predominantly White but the northern region as you get closer and closer to the Bahian border is predominantly NonWhite.Is that accurate would you say.
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Nov 26, 2005 9:45:45 GMT -5
Could be so. One thing that's different between Minas and for instance Sao Paulo and Rio is that they didn't have migration from the northeast, and maybe because of that race and class and more interchangeable. In Belo Horizonte, the state capital, for instance, the poor neighborhoods are overwhelmingly black, not even "mixed" in the brown tri-racial northeast sense, but black, while the middle and upper classes are white. I know that it's a huge state, so each region is pretty different. The south is like an extension of Sao Paulo state and the north is "Sertao" (almost desertlike fields, I don't know if it's translatable) like the interior of Bahia, with a similar culture. Even the accents are different. Springa the situation with Minas Gerais from what I have heard is that the Southern and central region of the state is predominantly White but the northern region as you get closer and closer to the Bahian border is predominantly NonWhite.Is that accurate would you say.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Nov 26, 2005 15:58:49 GMT -5
These "white" statistics for Argentina and Chile are balloney. They include tons of people who are actually mestizos but consider themselves white and/or are socially seen as "white". It has nothing to do with how many % European DNA they have. Having said that, I'd say Argentina is indeed mostly white, just not 97%. Chile, on the other hand is definitelly mostly "light Mestizo". Which they consider white, by the way. Brazil too is supposed to be 53% white or something close, which means that 53% of the people declare they're white to the official census, not that 53% are 100% (or even 80%, or even mostly in some cases) genetically European. The real second place in percentage of whites is not Chile, but Uruguay, by the way. But anyway, the countries in South America with real substantial ammounts of people who would pass as Europeans are indeed Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile. Kingpin, It all depends on each country in South America, and is further broken down by each social class. I mean, you can have a country that is almost wholly Indian statistically, but if a person comes from the upper class he may have blue eyes and look to have stepped right out of Madrid. Take Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan from Cuba. They look cartoonishly Iberian (and indeed are). But they come from an island that has a massive black population [Cuba]. So, statistically, Cubans don't look like Spaniards. But statistically upper-class Cubans do. It's a question of the descendants of the slave-masters versus the descendants of the slaves. The same is true for the rest of South America. * Statistically, the whitest nation in South America is Argentina [at 97%]. With Chile, I believe, coming in a close second [at 95%]. When my wife and I were in Peru we got lonely for Americans. We saw a bus-load of students. The kids had blond hair, light-brown hair and unmistakable European features. (They stood out like sore thumbs among the almost-wholly Indian population of Peru.) As we got closer our excitement was dashed, however, as they turned out to be Argentines. Most Americans are programed to think that all South Americans are Aztecs or Incans. This is not true of Argentina or Chile, where--if you travel there--you'll think you're in a European country. (These places have far higher white ratios than the United States, by the way.) ** For backup on demographic statistics, see the CIA World Factbook. If you have any doubts, though, travel to these countries. Your doubts will clear up instantly. Argentina: www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ar.htmlChile: www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ci.htmlThat's true. A lot of it has to do with history, specifically of the Church and Europeans connoting Indians, and Indian culture, etc, as inferior and thus not desirable. Making a framework for this kind of self-hate. So if say a person is 1/3rd Indian and is obviously a mestizo he is likely to want to disown his Indian heritage, rather than European. Completely unlike, say blacks in America, or even metis here in Canada. This probably also has to do with the class gaps that are still prevalent today in south America. It's a paradox, seeing as a mixed Indian / European, would be more likely to askew himself to the Native side in Anglo- America, rather than in south America, which is supposedly without "racial barriers". I dont think that's the case though, I think it's more like racial denial.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Nov 26, 2005 16:06:45 GMT -5
Most Western Europeans had a negative attitude towards Spaniards because of the "Black Legend." Which had nothing to do with race but tried to make Iberians (more so Spaniards) appear cruel and fanatical. References to Moors and their supposed non white contribution were often used to slight both groups. I'm sure the belief was motivated, atleast in part, by national resentment in europe. However, these things don't just appear from thin air, there's always some truth to lies. Read some of the "philosophies" of Juan Gines de Sepulveda and see for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 26, 2005 16:06:49 GMT -5
Yes, and it's very interesting to see the transition between Mexicans and "Mexican-Americans". The latter almost immediately begins own up his Aztec or "Latino" heritage, usually in ignorance that they're to a large extent European, while the former does the opposite, though in denial, not ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 26, 2005 16:21:15 GMT -5
Truth is most Latin Americans regardless of phenotype and color have atleast some Amerindian ancestors even among the Latin Americans who are visibly Black or White,most of them have atleast a drop Amerindian blood in their family tree as well as there are not that many pure Europeans and pure Sub Saharian Africans in Latin America.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 26, 2005 17:37:18 GMT -5
Springa yeah I have seen some pics of Belo Horizonte alteast the nice areas and it looked like a beautiful city to me but I also know they have their share of favelas like Sao Paulo,Brasilia,and Rio.I think there's a movie called Radio Favela which is based out of Belo Horizonte.
|
|
|
Post by kingpin on Nov 29, 2005 23:52:51 GMT -5
whatever the people from this region are they are certainly not "latin". But yet they are still called latin. Thats all I here in the media is them being referred to latin. What do the actual south/central americans consider themselves?. Real latins came from a region in italy called latium not mexico/puerto rico.
nothing against these people at all it just seems latin is the wrong word, maybe its a media creation?
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Nov 29, 2005 23:55:06 GMT -5
Most Western Europeans had a negative attitude towards Spaniards because of the "Black Legend." Which had nothing to do with race but tried to make Iberians (more so Spaniards) appear cruel and fanatical. References to Moors and their supposed non white contribution were often used to slight both groups. I'm sure the belief was motivated, atleast in part, by national resentment in europe. However, these things don't just appear from thin air, there's always some truth to lies. Read some of the "philosophies" of Juan Gines de Sepulveda and see for yourself. Of course, stereotypes don't come from a void. But exaggerations are common when there is something to be gained. Also, Sepulveda had to debate the issue of the worth of native Americnas and he lost to De Las Casas. Of course, that didn't help the Ameridians much, in reality.
|
|