Post by recluse on Jul 16, 2004 4:02:16 GMT -5
18th Century Spanish Colonial "Casta" Paintings of Mexico
img4.imgspot.com/u/04/198/06/castiza.jpg
[/img]
Institutional racism? Sure. But can we move past that for a moment and look at a few things?
First, I like them as paintings. They are some of the best genre paintings that I've ever seen. But they also fascinate me as (1) a careful, elaborate system of tracing the development of race-mixing, and (2) a detailed cultural and sociological portrait. The anthropology may be worse than worthless and the sociology may be more fanciful than accurate (Ilona Katzew in one of the links I've provided claims that they can be thought of as a kind of PR campaign aimed at the European elite.) But where else have you seen such an attempt at ethnography? Pastimes, clothing, specific foods, livelihoods, etc. of each group are depicted in rich detail.
Some might also be surprised by the tenderness of the families portrayed. The painters and those wealthy patrons who bought them seem not bothered to see a loving family of a white woman with a black man, a white man with an indian woman, nor any of their mixed-race children.
The classificatory system
This system varied from one nation to the next in Latin America but there were terms in common. Many of these terms were colorful and comical such as "tente en el aire" ( hold yourself in mid-air), "no te entiendo" (I don't understand you or perhaps I can't figure you out), "salta atras" or "torna atras" (jump back or return backward, similar to the British American idea of a "throwback).
There were bizarre ideas involved. Not only was the race of the parent taken into account but sometimes the race and sex were in ways that were complicated.
Also it was believed that Indian blood could be bred out, producing a pure Spaniard. But African blood could never be bred out. Between white and black there was a progression with each generation becoming more and more white. But just before the African blood was bred out, either a tente en el aire or an albino (always depicted in the paintings as a perfect northern European), would appear then the next generation would be a torna atras, a reversion back to black.
In spite of that, in looking at various classifications, I noticed that a pattern emerged that an Indian was equivalent to someone who had one African and three Spanish grandparents. Based on that I devised a summary based on the number of African vs. Spanish great-great-great grandparents. It’s nothing official; it’s in conflict with some of the systems; and it’s taken from more than one colonial system. It’s just an impression, take it for what it's worth. I doubt that anyone could distinguish someone who is 1/32 African from someone who is 4/32 African.
The number in brackets to the left signifies the number of African great-great-great grandparents
[ 0] blanco
[ 1]
[ 2] Castizo and tente en el aire (British=mustifini)
[ 3] chamizo
[ 4] MESTIZO, CHINO (British=mustee)
[ 5] gibaro
[ 6] cholo, coyote
[ 7] coyote
[ 8] MORISCO, INDIO (British=quadroon)
[ 9] barnocino
[10] moreno
[11] jibaro
[12] PARDO, CALPAMULATO
[13]
[14] zambaigo
[15] barcino, albarazado
[16] MULATO, chambujo
[17]
[18] cambur
[19]
[20] LOBO
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] ZAMBO (British=sambo)
[25]
[26]
[27] zambo
[28] PRIETO
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] NEGRO
Those of you of Iberian heritage, especially, what do you think? Are you familiar with this? Did I completely screw up the presentation of these paintings?
Links, better information, more paintings:
www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/CULPEPER/BAKEWELL/thinksheets/castas.html
www.gc.maricopa.edu/laberinto/fall1997/casta1997.htm
www.utexas.edu/courses/stross/ant322m_files/castas.htm
www.tam.itesm.mx/art/colonial/ecolon28.htm
www.virginia.edu/history/courses/owensby/images.html
albino
mulato
img4.imgspot.com/u/04/198/06/castiza.jpg
[/img]
castiza
mestiza
zambiaga
mulato
mestizo
torna-atras
Institutional racism? Sure. But can we move past that for a moment and look at a few things?
First, I like them as paintings. They are some of the best genre paintings that I've ever seen. But they also fascinate me as (1) a careful, elaborate system of tracing the development of race-mixing, and (2) a detailed cultural and sociological portrait. The anthropology may be worse than worthless and the sociology may be more fanciful than accurate (Ilona Katzew in one of the links I've provided claims that they can be thought of as a kind of PR campaign aimed at the European elite.) But where else have you seen such an attempt at ethnography? Pastimes, clothing, specific foods, livelihoods, etc. of each group are depicted in rich detail.
Some might also be surprised by the tenderness of the families portrayed. The painters and those wealthy patrons who bought them seem not bothered to see a loving family of a white woman with a black man, a white man with an indian woman, nor any of their mixed-race children.
The classificatory system
This system varied from one nation to the next in Latin America but there were terms in common. Many of these terms were colorful and comical such as "tente en el aire" ( hold yourself in mid-air), "no te entiendo" (I don't understand you or perhaps I can't figure you out), "salta atras" or "torna atras" (jump back or return backward, similar to the British American idea of a "throwback).
There were bizarre ideas involved. Not only was the race of the parent taken into account but sometimes the race and sex were in ways that were complicated.
Also it was believed that Indian blood could be bred out, producing a pure Spaniard. But African blood could never be bred out. Between white and black there was a progression with each generation becoming more and more white. But just before the African blood was bred out, either a tente en el aire or an albino (always depicted in the paintings as a perfect northern European), would appear then the next generation would be a torna atras, a reversion back to black.
In spite of that, in looking at various classifications, I noticed that a pattern emerged that an Indian was equivalent to someone who had one African and three Spanish grandparents. Based on that I devised a summary based on the number of African vs. Spanish great-great-great grandparents. It’s nothing official; it’s in conflict with some of the systems; and it’s taken from more than one colonial system. It’s just an impression, take it for what it's worth. I doubt that anyone could distinguish someone who is 1/32 African from someone who is 4/32 African.
The number in brackets to the left signifies the number of African great-great-great grandparents
[ 0] blanco
[ 1]
[ 2] Castizo and tente en el aire (British=mustifini)
[ 3] chamizo
[ 4] MESTIZO, CHINO (British=mustee)
[ 5] gibaro
[ 6] cholo, coyote
[ 7] coyote
[ 8] MORISCO, INDIO (British=quadroon)
[ 9] barnocino
[10] moreno
[11] jibaro
[12] PARDO, CALPAMULATO
[13]
[14] zambaigo
[15] barcino, albarazado
[16] MULATO, chambujo
[17]
[18] cambur
[19]
[20] LOBO
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] ZAMBO (British=sambo)
[25]
[26]
[27] zambo
[28] PRIETO
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] NEGRO
Those of you of Iberian heritage, especially, what do you think? Are you familiar with this? Did I completely screw up the presentation of these paintings?
Links, better information, more paintings:
www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/CULPEPER/BAKEWELL/thinksheets/castas.html
www.gc.maricopa.edu/laberinto/fall1997/casta1997.htm
www.utexas.edu/courses/stross/ant322m_files/castas.htm
www.tam.itesm.mx/art/colonial/ecolon28.htm
www.virginia.edu/history/courses/owensby/images.html