Explaining the Race Issues
asopao said:
You still are not getting it. I'm gonna put it simple. What the hell the word " U.S.A" has anything to do with what we're talking about here?? :tired:
I know that you live in the U.S, thus, you saying " what people" think. I understand that. What you don't undestand that by doing this, it doesn't look " cosmopolotian". Cambeira's world also seems limited to " DR, Barbados, U.S". Now, if a Brazilian comes to DR, and start labeling Dominicans in his own racial terms, do you think that he'll take whaterer shyte the U.S labels people by looks as facts????
That's why I say, Cambeira's imput on " in the u.s, those mulattoes woulld just be considered as " blacks". Do you know what I mean now???
This idiotic bias just thrashes all his " essays". Leonel's wife doesn't look like a light mestiza at all, and " white" isn't only " blond hair and blue eyes".
race views is on the individual's eye, not based on " U.S" etc. The inclusion of any country doesn't have any place to be mentioned.
Agreeing with Asopao
I suppose you are using the majority rules mentality.
Considering that there are more countries where people are labeled by particular mixtures (ie. mulattos, zambos, quadroon, etc) as opposed to a legalized form (ie. legally, one drop of x blood makes a person x).
Differences in Classifications
I find it interesting why Americans in particular, are so strict in declaring who is white or not, but so liberal when it comes to declare who is black or not, with no disregard for people of mixed, because they put the mixed in the "inferior" race. Other countries, such as Mexico and Guatemala, also have this mentality, however there its not so much between whites and blacks, but whites and indians. In Guatemala, for example, one drop of indian blood is enough to consider a person indian. Its important to note that the difference of an Indian and an andino in Guatemala is mostly culturally based, rather than biologically. How a person dresses and lives (western or native styles) will define a person as either indian or andino (mixed). On the contrary, being white is simply being of pure european descendancy or so many generations of mixing with whites that native features are hardly noticeable.
With the case of Dominican Republic, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, and plenty other nations within LA and in the rest of the world, classifications of people are more based on cultural acceptance, rather than biological. Thus, a mulatto who is really a quadroon (these look white, except in certain private areas of the body which tends to be dark and/or dark gums in the mouth) would be considered white. Of course, pure whites are also considered whites as well. However, a rich white is always seen slighter whiter than a poor white. With the case of dark skin people, the wealthier the person the whiter they are, not by virtue of their skin color, but by virtue of their social standing and elevated class.
Point in case, Sammy Sosa (despite his extremely humble beginings and obvious dark skin color) is often looked upon as "whiter" than a similar person living in a slum. Is he looked upon as whiter because he may be whiter? No. Do people actually see him as whiter than others his same color? No. But, people do regard him with more respect, they put more attention to what he has to say, and many adore him due to his personal prosperity. Thus, being white is akin to being successful and being poor is akin to being black, but it has little to do with actual biological realities, but more so a social construct, much how the notion of race on a global level has been a social construct, at least that is what scientists and anthropologist are finding since genetically, humans don't seem to be that much different from each other, aside from the reality that each person alive is a unique being.
Who is correct?
The more American-Mexican-Guatemalan one drop rule base of defining race or the Caribbean-Brazilian social construct way of defining race?
The truth is that they cannot be compared. Why?
Because race in these two types of society means two different things. In US example, race means being genetically tied to a particular group of people. People of mixed heritage are given the race categorization of the group deemed inferior by that society. The issue of race in the US example is more an issue of power and preserving that power in the hands of the whites.
With the DR type example, the issue of race is a social construct, irrespective of genetical or biological evidence. This social construct is based on an elitist system that is based on preserving the power among the elites, let the elites be white, blacks, mixed genetically with each new generation, but whomever the elites are genetically they will maintain their power. In this system, a person from an underprivilidged background would get the chance to make it to the top of the society by virtue of improving his/her education, social status, wealth and the sort, with complete disregard of the person's genetics one's the person reaches a level of influence, prestige, class, and social status.
My Opinion and Why
Which is better?
In my opinion, the DR type is better, because all a person has to do is take control of the things he/she may actually have control over (education, personal well being, social status, class, etc - all these things can be learned). This actually allows different types of people to reach the upper levels of a society disregarding that person's genetic make up, unless the person is at the lower rung of society.
The US type is worst, because people who are not white genetically will be seen as less than ideal even if non-whites make it to the top of that society. This is evident in the deep drift between whites and non-whites in the United States in particular. This drift and racist way of living is reflected in the fact that even within upper class American society, whites and blacks for the most part have their own associations, clubs, sometimes even neighborhoods based on genetic classifications more so than actual wealth and class. The reason there are associations such as the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, or magazines based on race classifications, or an emphasis on developing pride based on race classifications is due to the constant inferiority complex imposed on non-whites in that country. Since non-whites realize that their system has no space for them to move beyond those negative titles and stereotypes, they will do the next best thing and that is form organizations, groups, and the sort that benefits their own types and sometimes even contest what the whites may have done.
As you can see, the DR system is more classist, the US system is more racist. The DR system gives all types of people a chance at being accepted by upper class society, the US system does not, because in the US a person classified as black is, for some reason, seen as slightly inferior to a person of similiar class, social status, and wealth who might be what they call white. Thus, the make up for this inferiority complex, you see organizations being developed by blacks for blacks in that country, as oppose to organizations for rich, middle class, and poor respectively as you see here in DR.
It's important to understand these things because only then you will understand one simple fact between race classifications in DR vs. US. They both are talking of apples and oranges and they cannot be compared.
The Issue of Western Societies
This also explains why Americans, in particular, does not regard Latin America as "western", but Latin American countries and even some European countries (particularly the meditteranean ones) do consider Latin America as part of the West and/or Western countries.
The Americans refuse to accept Latin American nations as western nations based on the issue of biological race, many Europeans and Latin American nations consider themselves western based on the relatively heavy European influence (particularly Spanish) in their society, more so than in most places around the world. The American classification is more racist, the Latin and Meditteranean Europe classification is more cultural based.
Again, the Latin/European classification of what society is western makes more sense, because being a western person has more to do with culture rather than race, because there are many caucasians living in north central Asia and middle east who are clearly not western, but look European. Thus, a western society remains western as long as the culture has heavy western influences, regardless of race.
The US classification of what society is western makes the least sense, because its too racially based. A society composed of mixed people or non-whites, but has tremendous western influences would not be considered western based on race along, which in my opinion is extremely racist and wrong.
Conclusion
This is why there is no consensus when race is being discussed on these boards, especially when people try to imply the US way of seeing race upon Dominicans or vice versa.
-NAL:rambo:
