Why do dominican fear AFrica

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quisqueya

Bronze
Nov 10, 2003
682
0
16
From reading a previous posters comments on another thread regarding Africa.. I need to know why do dominicans group a Continent with different cultures, languages, ethnicity etc etc...in one category...For one there are many countries in Africa.. Many countries in Africa are doing much better economically than DR and regarding education DR doesn't stand a chance...

thus, from reading some posters comments..Why do so many dominicans on this forum have a negative view of a Africa...
 

xamaicano

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2004
1,011
26
48
Quisqueya said:
Why do so many dominicans on this forum have a negative view of a Africa...

And how would that make them any different from most people on the planet?
 

Quisqueya

Bronze
Nov 10, 2003
682
0
16
Xamaicano,

You are correct but I am directing this to dominicans...

QUOTE=xamaicano]And how would that make them any different from most people on the planet?[/QUOTE]
 

PorQue

New member
Jul 18, 2005
5
0
0
Quisqueya said:
From reading a previous posters comments on another thread regarding Africa.. I need to know why do dominicans group a Continent with different cultures, languages, ethnicity etc etc...in one category...For one there are many countries in Africa.. Many countries in Africa are doing much better economically than DR and regarding education DR doesn't stand a chance...

thus, from reading some posters comments..Why do so many dominicans on this forum have a negative view of a Africa...

It is just pure ignorance. the same reason why some dominicans who are black as the street will tell you that they are native indians or their grandparents are descendants of Spain.
 

AnnaC

Gold
Jan 2, 2002
16,050
418
83
From reading DR1 for many years it seems that Dominicans don't want to think themselves as descendents of slaves.

Don't yell at me this is what's been said here many times. :nervous:
 

carl ericson70

New member
Nov 15, 2003
204
0
0
Quisqueya said:
From reading a previous posters comments on another thread regarding Africa.. I need to know why do dominicans group a Continent with different cultures, languages, ethnicity etc etc...in one category...For one there are many countries in Africa.. Many countries in Africa are doing much better economically than DR and regarding education DR doesn't stand a chance...

thus, from reading some posters comments..Why do so many dominicans on this forum have a negative view of a Africa...

I agree that dominicans have a very negative view of africa, but in light of the dismal & backwards state of the continent, can you blame them?

Ponder this: Upon independence, africa had potentials(that on paper) weren't to be rivaled by most other independent/newly independent nations. Why? Many african countries were and still are ridiculously rich in natural resources and arable land. Also, the continent is rich in people reasources as well.

Many of the essential tools of nation building and economic growth were indeed there, when most african nations achieved independence. What happened...... africans proved themselves to be seriously inept at self-governence & socio-economic management, in african nation after nation. The majority are corrupt and civil wars have been common place. Africa should be a bread-basket of the world, but they can't even feed their own populations.

Dude...... by the way, exactly which african nations have standards of living or educated populations, which exceed those of DR? I think that's a rather proposterous statement. Ok, let's take for example the richest nation in africa(south africa). There, you'll find all of the trappings & convieniences of modern day western living, brought to you primarily by south africa's minority whites. Yet, the over-all quality of life for south africans as a whole is drasticly reduced, by the dismall living conditions of black south africans and mulatos(called coloreds). In south africa barely 40 percent of people can read and write. Outside of that, many south africans don't have plumbing, electricity or clean drinking water in their homes. When it comes to health issues, 25% of south africans are hiv positive. If this is the case in the richest of african nation's, imagine what it's like in the poorer african countries.

Moving on to yet another african giant: Nigeria. This is one huge failed state! Although the fourth largest prodcuer of oil on the planet, a nation chock-full of dreadfully poor people. Corruption is all but a second languge there and many nigerians have been nabbed running numerous high-profile scams in other countries. Even other africans are leary of them.

Then........... there's bostwana, a nation that might appear to be relatively well off by third world standards, but in actuality owes much of it's relative comfort to the fact that it barely has a population over one million and is insanely diamond/mineral rich. Yet, this tiny nation is also threatened by an hiv/aids rate that's higher than that of south africa(approx 30%).

What I'm driving at here, is that when you examine various quality of life indexes in different nations, it's apparent that african nations rank at the bottom. Indeed, DR and most carribean nations(otside of haiti) have done much better than african nations, since independence and it shows in higher life expectancies and qualities of life in the carribean. I think the average life span in the DR is 70+, yet in most of africa, it's barely 50 years. In my book.......... there's poor and there's poorer.

carl e
 
Last edited:
carl ericson70 said:
I agree that dominicans have a very negative view of africa, but in light of the dismal & backwards state of the continent, can you blame them?

Ponder this: Upon independence, africa had potentials(that on paper) weren't to be rivaled by most other independent/newly independent nations. Why? Many african countries were and still are ridiculously rich in natural resources and arable land. Also, the continent is rich in people reasources as well.

Many of the essential tools of nation building and economic growth were indeed there, when most african nations achieved independence. What happened...... africans proved themselves to be seriously inept at self-governence & socio-economic management, in african nation after nation. The majority are corrupt and civil wars have been common place. Africa should be a bread-basket of the world, but they can't even feed their own populations.

Dude...... by the way, exactly which african nations have standards of living or educated populations, which exceed those of DR? I think that's a rather proposterous statement. Ok, let's take for example the richest nation in africa(south africa). There, you'll find all of the trappings & convieniences of modern day western living, brought to you primarily by south africa's minority whites. Yet, the over-all quality of life for south africans as a whole is drasticly reduced, by the dismall living conditions of black south africans and mulatos(called coloreds). In south africa barely 40 percent of people can read and write. Outside of that, many south africans don't have plumbing, electricity or clean drinking water in their homes. When it comes to health issues, 25% of south africans are hiv positive. If this is the case in the richest of african nation's, imagine what it's like in the poorer african countries.

Moving on to yet another african giant: Nigeria. This is one huge failed state! Although the fourth largest prodcuer of gas on the planet, a nation chock-full of dreadfully poor people. Corruption is all but a second languge here and many nigerians have been nabbed running numerous high-profile scams in other countries. Even other africans are leary of them.

Then........... there's bostwana, a nation that might appear to be relatively well off by third world standards, but in actuality owes much of it's relative comfort to the fact that it barely has a population over one million and is insanely diamond/mineral rich. Yet, this tiny nation is also threatened by an hiv/aids rate that's higher than that of south africa(approx 30%).

What I'm driving at here, is that when you examine various quality of life indexes in different nations, it's apparent that african nations rank at the bottom. Indeed, DR and most carribean nations(otside of haiti) have done much better than african nations, since independence and it shows in higher life expectancies and qualities of life in the carribean. I think the average life span in the DR is 70+, yet in most of africa, it's barely 50 years. In my book.......... there's poor and there's poorer.

carl e

Hey Carl, you point out some good observation. But every single one of them is an effect. Could you elaborate on the causes and dont just go back 10 or 20 years. I'm interested an hearing (reading) them. Thanks.
Also have you read the book. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies??? The author won a politizer prize for writing it. It really really puts a lot of these causes and effects into perspective. It forces you to remove the racial element out of the human developement over thousands of years and explains why the continent of Africa is how it is and why countries like the US is how it is. Basically, "Environmental Luck" But please read it. You may get a better understanding.


Below is a summary

FROM OUR EDITORS
In this Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Jared Diamond argues that both geography and the environment played major roles in determining the shape of the modern world. This argument runs counter to the usual theories that cite biology as the crucial factor. Diamond claims that the cultures that were first able to domesticate plants and animals were then able to develop writing skills, as well as make advances in the creation of government, technology, weaponry, and immunity to disease.
ANNOTATION
In this "artful, informative, and delightful (book)" ("New York Review of Books"), Jared Diamond offers a convincing explanation of the way the modern world came to be and stunningly dismantles racially based theories of human history.
FROM THE PUBLISHER
Why did Eurasians conquer, displace, or decimate Native Americans, Australians, and Africans, instead of the other way around? In this groundbreaking work, an evolutionary biologist dismantles racially-based theories and reveals the environmental factors actually responsible for history's broadest patterns. A whirlwind tour through 13,000 years of human history, beginning when Stone Age hunter-gatherers constituted the entire population.

Here is a truly a world history, brilliantly written and radically new.
 
Last edited:

DRsScarface

New member
Feb 26, 2004
104
0
0
Most of the world is fearful of Africa. Even African Americans which shout "Black Power" get offended if you call them African or confuse them with an African. The media and history writers worldwide is controlled by mostly people of European ancestry and they choose what people see and read and they prefer to show good things about Europe and bad things about Africa so naturally people prefer Europe. Ask the average person wether black, white, asian or in between where they rather go Europe or Africa....the average answer would be Europe. You tell me why that is...........
 

DRsScarface

New member
Feb 26, 2004
104
0
0
By the way, I'm one of those "weird" people that would choose Africa. People look at me like I'm crazy when I say I want to visit Africa. LOL
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,485
3,189
113
I think this topic is totally irrelevant or hardly unique to the DR.

I've met Haitians who have been offended when referred to as Africans.

Something to think about!

If you want to test this, go to a person whom you know is a Haitian as ask him straight forward, are you african?

Watch the response and put attention to body language. Refer to their country as an African country and just watch them respond to you.

It's an eye opener.
 

bob saunders

Platinum
Jan 1, 2002
32,562
5,973
113
dr1.com
Below is a summary

FROM OUR EDITORS
In this Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Jared Diamond argues that both geography and the environment played major roles in determining the shape of the modern world. This argument runs counter to the usual theories that cite biology as the crucial factor. Diamond claims that the cultures that were first able to domesticate plants and animals were then able to develop writing skills, as well as make advances in the creation of government, technology, weaponry, and immunity to disease.
ANNOTATION


Domesticated grass(wheat,barley...etc) were first farmed and developed by Ethiopians, and well as domesticated goats,sheep and cattle before Europeans crawled out of caves. They also had a written language, forged metal(gold,copper and iron) but they never got much farther than that.so this must be an exception to Mr Diamonds theory, and that's all it is; a theory.
A more likely theory would be the effect climate has on countries. One could observe that the hotter the climate, the less advanced the civilization(if you count sucess in term of technology and wealth.
 

Pana

New member
Feb 12, 2005
174
0
0
DRsScarface said:
Most of the world is fearful of Africa. Even African Americans which shout "Black Power" get offended if you call them African or confuse them with an African.
You are so correct about this one. I am black my self and I have no conection to Africa what so ever and could care less what goes on there. Im sure alot of you Dominicano Morenos would agree with me.
 

Pana

New member
Feb 12, 2005
174
0
0
Nal0whs said:
I think this topic is totally irrelevant or hardly unique to the DR.
I agree with you to. Maybe the Threads Title should be changed to something that has to do with Republica Dominicana.
 

FuegoAzul21

New member
Jun 28, 2004
217
0
0
so far this thread is alrite , but i just hope it gets closed down before it turns into an ugly,stupid,ignorant race debate(you all know it will)
 

wventura

New member
Oct 21, 2003
70
0
0
Im gonna have to disagree with the implication that everybody has a negative view of africa....

...contrary to what people are saying afro-americans tend to be very afro-centric, and have an unrealistic romantisized view of africa....the same thing with cubans....they well with pride at the thought of africa....


...of course this is not true for dominicans...for reasons which have been discussed on this forum ad nauseum.
 
bob saunders said:
Below is a summary

FROM OUR EDITORS
In this Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Jared Diamond argues that both geography and the environment played major roles in determining the shape of the modern world. This argument runs counter to the usual theories that cite biology as the crucial factor. Diamond claims that the cultures that were first able to domesticate plants and animals were then able to develop writing skills, as well as make advances in the creation of government, technology, weaponry, and immunity to disease.
ANNOTATION


Domesticated grass(wheat,barley...etc) were first farmed and developed by Ethiopians, and well as domesticated goats,sheep and cattle before Europeans crawled out of caves. They also had a written language, forged metal(gold,copper and iron) but they never got much farther than that.so this must be an exception to Mr Diamonds theory, and that's all it is; a theory.
A more likely theory would be the effect climate has on countries. One could observe that the hotter the climate, the less advanced the civilization(if you count sucess in term of technology and wealth.

WRONG Again and I would definitely take a theory from a politzer prize winner than an emotional theory from yourself to satisfy whatever agenda you have.


Look them up, if you don't believe me without reading the book: Its not just his theory but reality of how the earth developed. People just had to migrate to find it, or die.
-wheat was first domesticated in the Fertile Crescent area of the Middle East
-barley first domesticated in the Fertil Crescent
-Maize is a cereal that was domesticated in Mesoamerica
-rice first domesticated in asia
-Oats are native to Eurasia and appear to have been domesticated relatively late
-The first possible use of domestic rye comes from the site of Tell Abu Hureyra in northern Syria
The common bean was domesticated independently in Eurasia and in ancient Mesoamerica and the Andes.
Alfalfa is native to Europe being found worldwide and most likely originated in the middle east,

In africa
-Teff, or Tef is a species of lovegrass native to northern Africa. It is similar to millet in nutrition and in cooking, but the seed is much smaller.

-Millet is the collective name of a group of genera of the grass family(Gramineae/Paniceae) widely grown around the world for food or animal feed.

I don't know too many people eating teff around the world
Thats it in Africa.

Along with that, there was no domesticated large animals to work the land.
Although it is not an excuse, it clearly put that region of the world at a disadvantage and forced the migration to areas like the fertil Crecent, Asia and Europe where those sources was.

If you read, you will be enlighten. There no agenda here, just understanding mans developement.

Please read it, because its obvious you have not. I know we are use to "sound bits" and your making a conclusion based on a 500 page book.

It is also known that out of 2 million known animal species, only 14 large animals could be used to cultivate the land. Even today in New Guinea, the people plant by hand because they were never introduced to large animals. All they had there and still have are pigs.

Ancient egypt did not have horses until people from the fertile crecent, introduced them horses.

13 of them were from the fertile crecent (EuropeAsia) and the 14th was the llama in South America. That was it. Sinse early man did not completly understand the land as we do today, there was overuse, and as a result you have more of a desert type environment in regions like the middle east and subsahara. This forced migration to more fertile regions. Again over time, Europe became overused and people stricken with disease hince you got the need for colonizing.

If you believe in the concept, "from one comes many" its just a basic understanding of human migration and that everyone is tied to each other. Its not an issue of superiority but an issue of how humans developed given the resources available.


So basically people moved the Europe because the earth was kind to the soil in that region which forced people to migrate there because thats were all the food was.

Approximate dates and locations of first domestication
hmmm. Dont see a single one in Africa except a donkey and of these
who could work large amounts of land. It is clear, that based on your geographical location, people were at a disadvantage.
And you know human nature, when you have control of something others don't have, you monopolize it and your able to discover more advances using them.

Species Date Location
Dog 10000 BC to 150000 BC Asia
Sheep 8000 BC Middle East
Goat 8000 BC Middle East
Pig 8000 BC China
Cow 6000 BC Middle East
Horse 4000 BC Ukraine
Donkey 4000 BC Egypt
Water buffalo 4000 BC China
Honeybee 4000 BC Southern Asia
Chicken 3500 BC Southeast Asia ?
Cat 3500 BC to 7500 BC Egypt or Cyprus
Llama 3500 BC Peru
Silkworm 3000 BC China
Bactrian camel 2500 BC Central Asia
Dromedary (Arabian camel) 2500 BC Arabia
Turkey 100 Mexico
Guinea pig 900 Peru
Rabbit 1500 Europe
Fox 1800s Europe
Mink 1800s Europe
Hamster 1930s United States
Deer 1970s New Zealand

Humans have tamed many thousands of animals that have never been truly domesticated. These include the elephant, giraffes, and bears.
They also had to have:

Flexible diet
Reasonably fast growth rate (thats why the elephant didn't succeed)
Ability to be bred in captivity (most african animals could not)
Pleasant disposition (thats why the buffalo was never used)
Temperament which makes it unlikely to panic(thats why people failed with the zebra)
Modifiable social hierarchy (many animals are individuals)
 
Last edited:

frank alvarez

New member
Apr 13, 2004
282
0
0
Dominicans deny their African heritage?

Going back to the original topic of the thread in its basic form, I think it was started by my statement, in another thread, that Haiti is perceived by some as an African country. Basically, what I meant and mean to say is that it is much more similar, in various ways, to an African country than other black Caribbean countries such as Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad/Tobago, St. Martin, etc. I don't think that in any way it belittles either Haiti or the African continent nor does it mean that 'Dominicans fear Africa'.

Perhaps the question should be, and it may be a valid one, 'why do many Dominicans deny their African heritage?' You would be amazed at how many light skinned, mulatto and dark Afro-Dominicans, when asked to say what their skin color is, say 'Indian'. I doubt that your average Dominican knows where the African continent is or can say the name of only one its countries.
 
Last edited:
frank alvarez said:
Going back to the original topic of the thread in its basic form, I think it was started by my statement, in another thread, that Haiti is perceived by some as an African country. Basically, what I meant and mean to say is that it is much more similar, in various ways, to an African country than other black Caribbean countries such as Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad/Tobago, St. Martin, etc. I don't think that in any way it belittles either Haiti or the African continent nor does it mean that 'Dominicans fear Africa'.

Perhaps the question should be, and it may be a valid one, 'why do many Dominicans deny their African heritage?' You would be amazed at how many light skinned, mulatto and dark Afro-Dominicans, when asked to say what their skin color is, say 'Indian'. I doubt that your average Dominican knows where the African continent is or can say the name of only one its countries.

They may deny it, but they certainly practice it.

What does the public school system teach???
 

Quisqueya

Bronze
Nov 10, 2003
682
0
16
As much as I hate to disagree with you wventura

I disagree with some of your comments...I have to admit I don't consider myself as african...Never considered of going there because of all the negative images that are portrayed in the media...but would love to go, now..

Regarding African americans being afro centric yes I do agree with you but besides that african americans dont know jack about Africa..I found it wierd when I see african american wearing Dashikis (sp) to me its another form of propaganda another form of exploitation. And it is definitely a romanticise view of Africa..then reality hits..majority of them have no desire to go there and to be quite honest wouldn't survive...Dominicans from el campo would have a better chance suriving in AFrica because they are use to tilting the land...fishing and killing goats, chicken to feed their family...I hope some dominicans understand where I'm coming from with this..and not feel insulted...

Wventura,

I guess you dont know too many cubans...again its an ideology and I haven't met any cubans wanting to go back to AFrica..I haven't met any haitian wanting to go to AFrica...Although many haitians professionals did go to some AFrican countries to help after their independence. But I believe you are saying that most black or mulatto have come to accept their african ancestry...


But can you blame us..In school we are taught everything about France and french literature...Even in AFrica students are taught about their colonial masters rather then their own struggle and resistance...How many african americans can you talk to about Leopald Senghor? These days kids barely know about their own leaders MLK, Malcom X, and literature James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Ricard Wright...

Same thing goes for dominicans...in school most are taught about Spain and how they were blessed to be colonized by them..If a dominican student has the means to study in Spain and returns back without graduating he is still well respected and idolized for going to "La Madre Patria"..and coming back with a spaniard accent....although now with most of dominicans migrating and living in the USA could give a rats arse about Spain.

Same thing goes for us Haitians if one has the means to study in France and returns empty handed he is still considered as a God...Telling countless stories about Paris and most important obtaining a parisien accent...now with a growing number of haitians migrating to the USA they could careless about France...

Now when it comes to culture I can't deny my heritage..none of us can...even the whitest and conservative dominican has to move his/her cadera to merengue...No matter how euro or "civilised" we feel or mixed its hard to not move to the rythm "we are all slave to the melodic sounds" have you ever seen a gringo grasping the groove of the african sounds of merengue, bachata, salsa..but once he becomes conscious the melodic spirit leaves his body and becomes clumsy again... ;)

What Im trying to say is we can't deny our culture no matter how brain washed or no matter how hard we push it under the rug...you might not appear like pitch black "subsahara africans and have a straight nose, long wavy hair but the tumbao will always possess you...


Listen to some african music from any country and listen to merengue,reggae, salsa, compas, zouk, etc etc...you will see the unremovable stain of africa within her lost children...




wventura said:
Im gonna have to disagree with the implication that everybody has a negative view of africa....

...contrary to what people are saying afro-americans tend to be very afro-centric, and have an unrealistic romantisized view of africa....the same thing with cubans....they well with pride at the thought of africa....


...of course this is not true for dominicans...for reasons which have been discussed on this forum ad nauseum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.