[Beren]

I am not an expert, but it seems to me that Latin America is rather very Westernised than Western. If Latin America is Western, then India is somewhat Western too, isn't it?

[Smertios]

I am not an expert, but it seems to me that Latin America is rather very Westernised than Western. If Latin America is Western, then India is somewhat Western too, isn't it?

Most Latin Americans descend directly from Europeans. They speak European languages, have european customs, practice Christianity. As I said before, the Brazilian genetic composition is 70% Portuguese. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cuba and Puerto Rico have a white majority. Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, El Salvador, Belize Honduras, Nicaragua and Mexico have a Mestizo majority (i.e. 50% European, 50% indigenous) and the Dominican Republic has a Mulatto majority (i.e. 50% African, 50% European).

India does not have any cultural, linguistic, religious or genetic affiliation with Europe...

Latin America is just as "westernized" as the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, to be honest...

[Albert Camus]

You are partially correct:

In some Latin countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, and to a lesser extent Chile most people have European ancestry. In fact 50% of folks in Argentina are Italians. There is also a large contingency from Spain and many other European countries including Germany and England. Jews are also plentiful. There are no blacks in Argentina and the colonizers almost exterminated the indigenous population. In many ways Argentina and Uruguay are much more white than America (assuming you consider Italians as white).

You obviously read the us census data regarding Puerto Rico where 80% of people see themselves as white. In reality genetic studies in the island only show about 10% with European blood and no mix. The rest are mixed with black or indigenous, but as long as they do not look overtly African they mark themselves as white in the census.

Many other Latin countries have a predominant Spanish culture which is European. However, many countries have large indigenous groups.

Otherwise, I agree. Latin America is mostly Western in culture. The problem is that most Americans think Latin Americans are the Mexican guys that mow your lawn here in the USA.

[Andropov]

Latin America is not part of the West; it is a mix of Western and Amerindian cultures and ethnicities, and thus is its own discrete civilization.

[Smertios]

In some Latin countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, and to a lesser extent Chile most people have European ancestry. In fact 50% of folks in Argentina are Italians. There is also a large contingency from Spain and many other European countries including Germany and England. Jews are also plentiful. There are no blacks in Argentina and the colonizers almost exterminated the indigenous population. In many ways Argentina and Uruguay are much more white than America (assuming you consider Italians as white).

Yes, that was one of my points in the first post

Costa Rica also have a white majority and very few mestizos. Chile is a complicated case, because Castizos (75% European) there are considered white.

Cuba also has a white majority, but the Mulatto population is growing.

And Brazil not only has a white majority, it also has the third largest white population on Earth (after the US and Russia) and, consequently, the largest white population in the southern hemisphere.

You obviously read the us census data regarding Puerto Rico where 80% of people see themselves as white. In reality genetic studies in the island only show about 10% with European blood and no mix. The rest are mixed with black or indigenous, but as long as they do not look overtly African they mark themselves as white in the census.

Well, the problem here is that you are thinking about it from the one-drop rule perspective. You don't need 100% white blood to be considered white, otherwise Portuguese and Spanish couldn't be considered such, given the relatively large amount or berber and arab blood that came with the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, for example. Or Russians wouldn't be considered white either, given their mixing with Turkic and Uralic groups from Siberia. Puerto Ricans, as far as know, have over 70% of European blood on average, right? That is enough for them to be considered white.

Many other Latin countries have a predominant Spanish culture which is European. However, many countries have large indigenous groups.

The only cultures that remained indigenous were Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala and, to a lesser extent, Mexico, Paraguay and Ecuador. Other countries, while having a major Mestizo population, kept their culture closer to Europe...

Otherwise, I agree. Latin America is mostly Western in culture. The problem is that most Americans think Latin Americans are the Mexican guys that mow your lawn here in the USA.

Yes, precisely.

Latin America is not part of the West; it is a mix of Western and Amerindian cultures and ethnicities, and thus is its own discrete civilization.

Just like New Zealand is not Western, but a mix of Western and Maori cultures, right?

[Istanbuller]

Latin America is not part of the West; it is a mix of Western and Amerindian cultures and ethnicities, and thus is its own discrete civilization

How ridiculous.

Your race raped all races and forced them to be Western.
Look what Darwin says about Turks:

The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turks
hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking at the world at no very
distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been
eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.
(Darwin. Letter to W. Graham. 3 July 1881)

Whites are not innocent.

[Albert Camus]

Well, the problem here is that you are thinking about it from the one-drop rule perspective. You don't need 100% white blood to be considered white, otherwise Portuguese and Spanish couldn't be considered such, given the relatively large amount or berber and arab blood that came with the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, for example. Or Russians wouldn't be considered white either, given their mixing with Turkic and Uralic groups from Siberia. Puerto Ricans, as far as know, have over 70% of European blood on average, right? That is enough for them to be considered white.

I don't believe in the one drop rule because it will soon become a moot point. Humans are able to travel to all corners in the world. That means that racial mixing is inevitable and this can be verified by simple observation. Many Nordic women love men of color. In 10,000 years everybody in the planet will be of mixed ancestry.

Western culture is not related to race or place of birth.

[Smertios]

I had a funny experience that relates to this subject, today. I was talking to a Swedish friend of mine through msn and she asked me to show some photos of my town to her so she could see how Brazil was like. And I did and she started saying that she was disappointed, because she wasn't expecting something like the US She asked me why weren't there people dancing in the streets or why the houses were not made of mud and why everybody looked so normal and not like shirtless waxed gods xD She said she was disappointed, because in her dreams Brazil was always an awesome exotic place and now I had showed her a place that was just as boring as Sweden and the US (her own words ).

This is just another great example of how foreigners see Brazil as an exotic paradise, when, in fact, it is just another boring western country Haha

I don't believe in the one drop rule because it will soon become a moot point. Humans are able to travel to all corners in the world. That means that racial mixing is inevitable and this can be verified by simple observation. Many Nordic women love men of color. In 10,000 years everybody in the planet will be of mixed ancestry.

Western culture is not related to race or place of birth.

I agree. But you said that I was wrong to say that Puerto Rico has a white majority, because only 10% of the population had full European blood. I'm just saying that, when the one-drop rule isn't used, most of the Puerto Ricans end up being considered white, because they have substantially more European than Native blood. If you compare a Puerto Rican or a Cuban to a Mexican or a Colombian for example, you will see that they are a lot "whiter".

I'd go as far as saying that the total impact of the Native genetics on the Puerto Rican society is close to the impact of the Maori genes on NZ, but culturally speaking, the Maori contributed a lot more to NZ than the Taino did for Puerto Rico...

[Albert Camus]

From what I can see in Latin America and in the USA Western Culture is a function of education and socioeconomic level.

A Red Neck from the south of the US is as non-Western as an indigenous Mexican.

There are prominent black populations in Cuba as well as PR and Brazil.

[Smertios]

From what I can see in Latin America and in the USA Western Culture is a function of education and socioeconomic level.

A Red Neck from the south of the US is as non-Western as an indigenous Mexican.

But, by that logic, a well-educated and rich Mexican would also be considered western, whereas a poor African-American from Louisiana who speaks a French creole wouldn't... A Sami person from Norway would also not be considered western. That's a really weird definition, in my opinion

There are prominent black populations in Cuba as well as PR and Brazil.

There are prominent black/mulatto populations in all of the Americas to be honest, including the US and Canada. African-Americans constitute 12% of the US population, while Black Brazilians constitute 7% of the Brazilian population. In neither case that would make the country non-western, considered those blacks were assimilated into the Western culture.

I'd say that the biggest difference between the US and Brazil, in terms of racial/ethnic composition (well, emphasis on the racial part, as Brazil and the US were populated by different ethnic groups) is that Brazil has a large multiracial population that can't really be described as anything. For example, in Brazil, if you are mostly white, you are white and if you are mostly black, you are black. I'm inventing these numbers, just to give the idea, but let's say that, if someone is over 70% white, he is white. If he is over 70% black, he is black. If he is over 70% indian, he is an indian. Now, anyone that is in between is considered multiracial ("pardo", as we say in Portuguese).

In the US, on the other hand, there is no such thing as a multiracial classification. You are only white if you are fully white, and you are black if you have any amount of black blood. However, if you are white but has a small amount of Native American blood (1/16 or 1/8, for example), you are still white. And if you have more native blood than that, you are Native American.

Now, taking a third example, just to make the point. If you have some Maori blood in NZ, you are also white, unless you are majorly Maori.

So the only difference there (and I'm gonna assume that it is the same case for PR and Cuba, but feel free to correct me if that is not the case) is that the classification system is different. What is perceived as white (and by extension, occidental) is different in each of those 3 (or 5) countries, but there is no doubt that their society and culture is intrinsically white and Eurocentric. And that obviously echoes from the proportion of people identified as white in each society. If we look at Haiti, for example, that was clearly colonized by an European power on the same manner as Brazil, the US or NZ, their racial composition remained African, and that obviously echoed in their culture (that's why I am still not sure if the non-Hispanic Caribbean should be part of the West or not).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This case with the non-Hispanic Caribbean is quite complex for several reasons. For example, if you analyze it well, you will see some very interesting patterns. All those nations were populated primarily by black peoples, but it was a forced colonization. The European powers brought blacks from several different ethnic groups and forced them to establish residence (originally as slaves) in those islands. Those peoples came from several different ethnic backgrounds, so they did not speak the same languages or practiced the same religion. The result was obvious, their society evolved into that of a creole people, that developed new forms of speak that would use the colonizer's language as a basis, but would include elements from the African languages and customs. So, the non-Hispanic Caribbean is creole in nature. Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Haiti, the Netherlands Antilles, San Andreas, Anguilla, the Virgin Islands etc. All of them have populations that are clearly black (the white and indigenous factors did not influence their society much) but that are creole in nature. All of them also have their own creole languages.

Now, if you compare them to the former Portuguese African islands (Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, Annobón), you will see the exact same pattern. They were all uninhabited islands before the Portuguese got there (a minor difference from the Caribbean, I agree). The Portuguese then brought black Africans from different ethnic backgrounds to those islands, and creole identities were developed there. All those islands have Portuguese-based creole languages as their national languages now. In a way, the former Portuguese African coast was some sort of "Portuguese Caribbean". But of course those nations are always considered to be part of the Black African World. So maybe it makes more sense to say that the non-Hispanic Caribbean is an extension of the African culture, not the West.

Anyway, there is something that is interesting about Cape Verde. They, unlike other creole populations, have a strong contact with Europe. They even have a lot of European blood (they are mostly Mulattos). So sometimes they see themselves as an "European"/Western people. They changed their flag a few decades ago, changing the African colors (red, green, yellow, black) by European ones (blue, white, yellow). They even went as far as making their flag have a blue field with a circle of yellow stars. And a few years ago, the Cape Verde government announced their intention to apply for membership in the EU.

So, in the end, this case with the African-European Creole peoples is complicated. That is definitely not the case for Latin America (or the Iberic America, as I put Haiti as a Creole people a well - and French Guiana kind of counts as a creole nation too), because there (here) the culture is predominantly Eurocentric. So, from a cultural point of view, Latin America is definitely Western (not westernized, as the descent from European peoples is direct).

Someone mentioned India, but the case there is completely different, as there is no substantial European descent in the population. Indians were westernized and many of them speak English, for example. But that was a culture that was introduced into a different population. They were just a native population that was introduced to western customs and adopted it after a few generations. This is not the case for Latin America, as the colonizers either brought their own families or mated with the natives, teaching their children their own customs, which were western in nature.

And obviously there are other complicated cases too, like the Afrikaner Coloured in South Africa, for example. But I don't see how Latin America can count as non-Western at all, when the culture, the genes, the society etc are predominantly European and Christian and Latin Americans are direct descendants of European colonists...

[Albert Camus]

Being half white/half black/half indigenous, etc is not the same as having a blend that develops over hundreds of years.

In PR you can see women that are clearly a blend and not half and half. This is easy to see because you see the same blend in the parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. This blending started with the arrival of the 1st conquistadores who were single men desperate to have sex.

The genetic DNA composition of Puertoricans was analyzed many years ago by a Harvard doctor with a phD in genetics.

He discovered no pure indigenous, but found indigenous DNA in 60% of the population. He also discovered black DNA in 30% and as I said before 10% had European DNA only.

Despite the above numbers 80% of people see themselves as white and this is in agreement with the Brazil data you describe.

We must not forget that there are American whites with black DNA. This was the result of the master having sex with the black slaves over several generations. At some point the offspring looked white and decided to act white and blend with the rest of the white population. Many white Americans that consider themselves white will admit to have some native American blood as well.

As I said above: Racial mixing is inevitable and in 10,000 years everybody will look the same. Ha, ha.

[Dave]

As I said above: Racial mixing is inevitable and in 10,000 years everybody will look the same. Ha, ha.

What's inevitable about it? Other possibilities include separation or certain races vanishing from this world. In 10,000 years everyone will not look the same. In societies which practice miscegenation at a high rate, such as those of Latin America, the effect is that the class structure develops a racial gradient. At the higher end of the social pyramid people more resemble Europeans, and the further down you go the ladder the more people resemble Indians. This takes places owing to the unequal abilities between races.

[Chill]

Native Indians have pretty high IQ I hear.

[Dave]

Native Indians have pretty high IQ I hear.

American Indians in US testing have consistently been in the mid-80s range.

Data is spotty for those in Latin America, but usually around the low-80s. Presumably this would rise with access to American standards of nutrition.

Eskimos are in the low 90s, consistent with the typical advantage northern peoples have.

[Andropov]

Are not Amerindians Mongoloid? Why do they not have the same general intelligence as other members of their subrace? This seems indicative of a flaw in the theory that race and IQ are causally related. This 20+ point difference denotes that the effects of environment on intelligence are significant.

[Smertios]

Are not Amerindians Mongoloid? Why do they not have the same general intelligence as other members of their subrace? This seems indicative of a flaw in the theory that race and IQ are causally related. This 20+ point difference denotes that the effects of environment on intelligence are significant.

Because obviously intelligence is not 100% genetic. In fact, I'd say that the genetic part is very small, given that some weird effects like the Flynn effect exist. IQ is quite fluid. The same person being tested throughout his life will have different results each time. In case of large groups, the IQ even rises with time.

Also, there are no biological human races. The concept of human races is purely anthropological. Social Darwinism is a myth. So there is nothing of Mongoloid about Amerindians, because Mongoloids don't really constitute anything separate...

[Dave]

Are not Amerindians Mongoloid? Why do they not have the same general intelligence as other members of their subrace? This seems indicative of a flaw in the theory that race and IQ are causally related. This 20+ point difference denotes that the effects of environment on intelligence are significant.

Scandinavians have a very high percentage of blue eyes and blond hair. Sicilians have a fairly low percentage.

Very small genetic differences can have outsize effects. Amerindians are descended from Mongoloids (and all their Y-DNA shares the same mutation), but there are quite a few distinctions. Did you know that Southeast Asians also have lower intelligence than Northeast Asians?

Because obviously intelligence is not 100% genetic. In fact, I'd say that the genetic part is very small, given that some weird effects like the Flynn effect exist. IQ is quite fluid. The same person being tested throughout his life will have different results each time. In case of large groups, the IQ even rises with time.

No one maintains that intelligence is 100% genetic. However, most psychologists do maintain that the variance in intelligence in individuals is primarily but not exclusively attributable to heredity. There remains debate on the variance between groups, primarily because liberals refuse to admit the obvious truth.

Also, there are no biological human races. The concept of human races is purely anthropological. Social Darwinism is a myth. So there is nothing of Mongoloid about Amerindians, because Mongoloids don't really constitute anything separate...

Sure...we're all the same

[Tainari88]

I had a funny experience that relates to this subject, today. I was talking to a Swedish friend of mine through msn and she asked me to show some photos of my town to her so she could see how Brazil was like. And I did and she started saying that she was disappointed, because she wasn't expecting something like the US She asked me why weren't there people dancing in the streets or why the houses were not made of mud and why everybody looked so normal and not like shirtless waxed gods xD She said she was disappointed, because in her dreams Brazil was always an awesome exotic place and now I had showed her a place that was just as boring as Sweden and the US (her own words ).

This is just another great example of how foreigners see Brazil as an exotic paradise, when, in fact, it is just another boring western country Haha


I agree. But you said that I was wrong to say that Puerto Rico has a white majority, because only 10% of the population had full European blood. I'm just saying that, when the one-drop rule isn't used, most of the Puerto Ricans end up being considered white, because they have substantially more European than Native blood. If you compare a Puerto Rican or a Cuban to a Mexican or a Colombian for example, you will see that they are a lot "whiter".

I'd go as far as saying that the total impact of the Native genetics on the Puerto Rican society is close to the impact of the Maori genes on NZ, but culturally speaking, the Maori contributed a lot more to NZ than the Taino did for Puerto Rico...

This is a very interesting thread. And I am not happy that I can't reply with depth until next week due to puter issues. But, I must let Smertios know that the Tainos were from the Amazon basin originally. Genetically they belong to the Brazilian jungles and the Venezuelan jungles as well. Culturally
speaking the indigenous Caribbean peoples had variation. Cubacanan (Cuba) had Carib indians. Puerto Rico had Tainos. DR (Rupublica Dominicana) had Carib indians as well. They were not the same culturally. The Meshica/Nahuatl speaking Aztecs from the Valley of Mexico--were known imperialists in the Caribbean islands and had open trade with the indigenous Tainos of Boriken. The Taino indians of Boriken (Puerto Rico) had a very extensive trade going on with an astounding amount of Indigenous groups. We did not know how extensive until very recently based on credible physical material artifacts in archaeological excavations--sponsored through El Instituto de Cultura Puertorriquena--and Dr. Ricardo Alegria's team. Ricardo died recently. What the evidence suggests is that the trade routes for the Tainos were indicative of a very interesting culture that was a lot more far-reaching and well traveled than what was once believed. Some codices that were re-examined from the Spanish initial conquest period of history of the island then took on a very new meaning. The Tainos had told Columbus to look further west for gold, and for jade and for many other things. e The Spanish unfamiliar with the variety of Indigenous cultures never made the connection until much later (28 years later).

The Spanish caravels had a Black slave. Juan was his name. Lol. There were Black free men in the Caribbean from the beginning.
The Roman Catholic church and their political infighting at the time also played a role.

I wish I had a good computer. Suffice it to say that the Tainos were very interesting indigenous group---and were relative newcomers to Boriken. The Land of the Noble Lord. They had women Caciques (chieftains) and were the best mariners of all. Lol. A lot of their contributions were stricken from the official history books for a series of reasons that are very fascinating.

When I get this damn computer replaced---I will get into it with a lot more detail.

[Chill]

because Mongoloids don't really constitute anything separate...

It's quite arbitrary to conclude that there is no such thing as Mongoloids, Caucasians etc., if that's what you mean.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's quite arbitrary to conclude that there is no such thing as Mongoloids, Caucasians etc., if that's what you mean.

Not really. The scientific evidence seems to show quite clearly that the concept of race has no biological basis.