mofi said:
Costa Rica would have the fewest. When I took latin american studies 3 years ago, they said that 98 or 97 percent of costa ricans are decendents of spaniards, where as some countries such as Equador, central american (guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador ect.) are much more native american (Mayan, Incan, Aztecan[mexico])
Generally,
People of african descent and/or partial african descent tend to live in areas known as tierras calientes, or hot grounds. These are areas near or slightly above sea level where the weather is hot and tropical. The reason for their relativel abundance in these regions is due to the adequacy of the climate for the growing of sugar and other labor intensive economic activities that in colonial times meant slavery. Thus, in Costa Rica, most of the the whites live in the Central Plateu around San Jose and other places. Once you hit the coastline areas, particularly the Caribbean coast around Limon, you start to see the presence of blacks and mulattos, more so than in the central area.
The Central Area of Costa Rica happens to be much higher above sea level, in areas known as tierras templadas or cool lands. These regions tend to be the areas where the Europeans who did moved to Latin American tended to live, in part due to the more liveable climate as oppose to the oppresive heat and humidity of the lowlands, but also because in the tierras templadas many insect borne diseases (ie. malaria, etc) were either not present and/or not as widespread and common as in the lowlands.
Thus, with the exception of the Spanish Caribbean, go to most hispanic countries in Central and South America and you will notice the warmer the climate, the more "africanize" the population appears to look, while the more cooler the climate the more "european" and/or "native" the population appears. There are exceptions, but generally this is a rule of thumb.
Having said that, it's important to note that the Africanize portion of the populations of many Central American countries are, for the most part, descendants of recent migrants, how recent depends on the history of the individual countries.
This could also be said about the DR, with relatively recent (last 100 years or so) large numbers of african descendants moving from other islands and countries of the region to work in labor intensive economic activities, particularly sugar. For a better example, Panama did not developed its relatively large african/mulatto segment of the population until the Panama Canal project was being built, first by the French and later by the Americans. Most of the african/mulatto population of Panama are primarily descendants of former Jamaicans who were attracted to the canal construction jobs by large numbers. Many, after the canal was built, settled there and became a distinct community within Panama.
With the case of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala; the african/mulatto characteristics tend to be much more present along the Caribbean coast. The modern Caribbean coast of Nicaragua and Honduras were once colonies of Britain, known as British Honduras, but unofficially as "the Mosquito Coast" and even today, that coastline is unofficially referred to as "Costa de Mosquito". Initially, the British deported the rebellious Carib indians (who according to all historical accounts that I have read were dark) from the island of St. Vincent and Greneda and a few other British controlled islands to the Mosquito Coast in order to allow for British economic development on the islands without the threat from teh Caribs. Later on, some of the Africans imported as labor commodities (ie. slaves) to Central America remained in the same areas they labored as slaves, once slavery was abolished, this was near the Mosquito Coast. Today, what you see along the Caribbean coast of Central America is a relatively large population of african/mulattos and a small population of Carib descendants, though it is believed that most of the non-white population in those regions have a mixture of each other. Non the less, there are frictions between the remaining Caribs and the African descendants as much as the friction between their own collectivized groups against the other groups of people in other parts of each respective country.
The case for South America mimics the Caribbean experience, except that it was limited mostly along the Caribbean coasts of Venezuela and Colombia, the Pacific coast of Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru, and the northern coast of Brazil, as far as importation of Africans as slaves to this hemisphere is concerned. In fact, Brazil absorbed over half of all African slaves brought to the new world, which is astronomical because the US absorbed very few slaves and yet, by the 1800s the US had more african descended people than did Brazil, which says quite something about general well being of the African slaves in Brazil vs. US. The case in the French colony of St Domingue (ie. Haiti) was much worst, if not the worst with an average life expectancy for the slaves who arrived at Port-au-Prince and Cap Frances (modern Cap-Haitien) to be a maximum of 6 months right before the revolution took place! In fact, Haiti and Brazil absorbed the vast majority of Africans brought to the hemisphere, but Haiti did not really absorbed them, but rather killed so many in their most barbaric form of the already barbaric slave system. No wonder Haiti was the site of the first slave revolt and no wonder they won, after such barbarism from the part of the French. To expand any further would be to go beyond the scope of this thread.
However, I will conclude with a simple fact that most people seem to not be aware of, or in some cases opt to ignore. There were many many Africans who did came to this hemisphere as free men and women, primarily men. Given this reality, the notion that every african or partial african descended new worlder is a descendant of a slave is incorrect, though it is true of most, but certainly not of all. In fact, there were free black Africans who came with Columbus on all four voyages of the discovery! Of course, they were hispanicized since they came from the Iberian peninsula, but they were black Africans none the less. The most famous (although almost nobody talks about him, though he deserves as much praise as Columbus and other great explorers, in my opinion) was a black African named Estevanico, who made great discoveries in Mexico and North America. In addition, in 1513, thirty blacks accompanied Balboa across the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) and to the summit of Sierra de Quarequa, where he discovered the Pacific Ocean. In 1519, three hundred blacks hauled Cortés's big cannons through Mexico and helped him defeat the Aztecs (Cortés insisted that Negroes were worth their weight in gold to expeditioners), including one African black who stayed behind to sow and reap the first wheat crop in North America.Blacks were with Ponce de León in Florida. They helped Pizarro conquer the Incas in Peru.They marched with Coronado in New Mexico and de Soto in modern-day Alabama in the United States.
These were FREE blacks, not slaves! So this notion of all african descendents or partial african descendants all being descendants of former slaves truly has little weight. It would be more correct to say, most have some genetic connection to a former slave, but many other blacks and mulattos are descendants of Africans who never knew what it felt to have shackles and their freedom taken away.
There, I have gone way beyond the tangent of this thread, but its important and interesting stuff about the history of humanity.
-NAL