I will start with CNN in Spanish and some pictures of theirs respective countries:

 

Gabriela Frias, Mexico

 

Mexicans:

 

Claudia Palacios, Colombian:

 

Colombians:

 

Ismael Cala, Cuban

Cubans:

 

Carolina Escobar, Chilean:

 

 

Patricia Janiot, Colombian

More Colombians,

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Unless possibly you're a casting director for a movie studio and trying to predict audience reaction in various places.

I remember decades ago when I was an immigrant in Canada I have serious trouble to figure it out if a Chilean was in the street. The only time I could figure it out for sure it was at September 18th, my country's birthday. At that day all chileans in town weared andalucian flat hats, the same kind our cowboys do ... The rest of the days, Chileans were invisible among Canadians.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Zcz94sfE4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Zcz94sfE4

Anyways, here there are Nahuatl speaking natives, relatives of the real Aztecs:

 

 

As you can see, physically they are not that different from average Mexican. The division is in culture, and specially in the levels of poverty that affect native americans. There there is a big wall that still has to be turned down.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLH0457oP70&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLH0457oP70&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUNgEk-jUVQ&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUNgEk-jUVQ&feature=related

 

With respect to internal divisions, ours is a very uniform people, with the exception of the Mapuches. And makes sense. The Mapuches were an independent society all the way since 1541 (Spanish invasion) up to 1881, the year when the Chilean army finally invaded the Mapuche territories, and they started to lost theirs lands, that were given to germans, upper class land lords and that now are at the hand of wood companies.

There is not internal divisions according to degree of admixture and cultures, of the kind you see in Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, Colombia or Argentina.

 

 

Well .... it was back in the 1970's when very few Latinos resided in Canada.The Anglo-Canadians had no reason to seek out " foreign looks " among the general populace in their daily life.

 

To this day,I haven't met any Anglo or northern European descent couldn't distinguish Mestizos at a glance .

 

 

 

 

 

And I wasn't talking about what WASP people could distinguish...

I was talking about what MYSELF couldn't distinguish.

 

 

 

 

I visited Vancouver and Ontario provinces several times.Canada is now a multi-racial nation like USA ( lesser extend,though ).

 

America's Mexican overflows are there ,it's an epidemic.

 

 

 

 

 

I bet Canada is, by now, a lot less white than the U.S.

 

With respect to Mexicans in the U.S. you better get accustomed to it, or move to Europe -which is full of Africans and muslims already-. Obama realized that when say Americans should learn Spanish

 

 

Overwhelming majority Cuban-Americans are pure blood Spanish.They're the most highly educated Hispanics in America.

 

1 notable successful assimilated Cuba-born immigrant was Desi Arnez ( married to America's beloved comedien Lucille Ball ),co-starred and producer of TV hit sit-com of 1950's & 1960's " I Love Lucy " !

 

 

 

 

 

 

These individuals have physical build & facial features not any different from Mexicans of acculturated-Spanish indigenous people and Mestizos have higher percentage of indigenous bloodline otherwise 50% ( give or take ) of Mexican population look " mixed ".Also,there is 10%-20% have fair-skin and very Spanish appearance.

 

The division is economic not culture !

 

 

 

By the way, don't tell me "white" Americans are pure europeans either. Many have obvious non-european admixtures.

 

 

Yes ... several as a matter of fact.First 2 back in high school,1 America-born counselor who was very tall and dark and head janitor there.I thought both were Mexicans or Chicanos until I overheard my teacher referred them as " Spaniard " and she spoke to the janitor in Spanish.They did look European not mixed.

 

Most American-Whites do have little Amerindian admix,but they're undisputed predominately European.US's past racial segregation attributed to this result.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.... Sure... If you say so.

So if I understand you correctly you are saying these people do not look very different? That the lady in the first picture could just as well have been indigenous and the people in the second picture look like soap actors or newscasters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfE8gTVzKk

(Guatemalan Mayans - opressed by other Mayans who have been forced into civil patrols and military)

 

Exactly. That's exactly what I say. Not only Amerindian blood is widespread in the mainstream, even in the upper classes, but all populations in Latin America overlap. Even more, not all Indigenous people look Amerindian these days. Just look at Commander Marcos, the rebel from Chiapas indigenous movement, the Zapatistas, and ask yourself why he doesn't show his face. I bet one of the reason is that he doesn't look Mayan whatsoever

 

 

Yeap. He looks as indigenous as the Che Guevara

 

Common Amerindians with "European" aspect:

 

 

 

 

Oswaldo Guayasamin, Ecuador, painter

 

 

Mercedes Sosa, Argentina, singer

 

 

Elicura Chihuailaf, Chile, billingual poet:

 

 

 

 

See the movie carefully. I bet the kid whom Rigoberta Menchu touch at the head, probably a relative, doesn't look very far from Spaniards, either.

 

I don't know what is your idea of Spaniards or Italians, but although they have some blonds and blue eyed people, most of them are light brown, and not few are straight brown. As I said before, many Spaniards won't be noticed as foreigners in most places of Latin America, while a "gringo" tall blond person would call the attention at once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It well may be. However, most Mexicans don't meet both conditions at the same time. The Mexicans that look Indigenous and are really Indigenous make a small minority in that country, and the point was if Mexican TV shows the realities of the majorities.

 

In any case, it could be that Mexican TV is like the Bill Cosby show. The time you see a pure "African" in that show, and not the common mulattoes that they select, it will be a time to celebrate  

 

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Of course Marcos doesn't look Mayan, because he is not a Maya. He's not even from Chiapas, but from Tamaulipas. AFAIK he has never even claimed he is indigenous.

 

 

Yes, that particular kid, but most of them look very different from Spaniards - I mean not the city people, but the Maya. I do know how Spanish people look, and that they're sometimes quite dark. It's obvious that they would be less noticable than some light skin blonde person, because a blond person would stick out completely - and he would be noticed from very far away.

 

I was searching for Mayan, when I saw this video. The reason I found it was that they mentioned something about Mayan in the text. But Pinguin, I'd say that Spaniards can look more NA than some of these people do!  which is kind of even more noticable because they have Irene Bedard as an entertainer, and some southern guy at the end of the video, showing the stark contrast.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wbu5g7oDD8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wbu5g7oDD8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is so different from your point of view?

 

They have the same facial features, the same straight black hair, the same dark eyes, the same thin lips, the same rounded faces. Yes, indigenous country women are shorter and usually fatter as well. Besides, they are exposed all day long to the sun, so they are usually darker than city fellows, and (if you know about Amerindians), the color of skin vary dramatically between people heavily exposed to the sun and who aren't, in "races" other than nordics and blacks (people you guys are accustumed to see in North America and Europe) skin color is more constant.

 

So, what's the difference?

 

In Latin America we usually pay a lot more attention to facial features than simply skin color as you guys do elsewhere. We pay a lot of attention to the shape of the noses, because give us a lot more information about origins than other clues. The line of the hair is also an interesting clue (black ancestry has wide forefronts, caucasians in the middle and natives narrow and very particularly shaped hair.

 

With all these antecedents at hand, it is a lot easier to know the relation between people that just looking the degree of poverty in subjects, the cleaness, the tipical dresses, or the facial expresions (natives don't usually smile; they don't have a reason for doing so)

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand our stereotype of Americans is that you all guys are blond blue eyed pale people. Which is not true. Just think in Bill Cosby and Obama; both browner than everyone down here. And also it isn't true for quite a lot of white Americans.

 

You guys aren't really Germans.

 

I'm sure you know that better than I do. I don't know what is most common.

 

Is this Italian any different looking than the Mexican newswoman?

 

Maybe a bit in the details, but it doesn't stand out, imho.

 

That's the point, Jams. That European phenotype above overlaps with the native.mestizo.white continium. It is absolutelly impossible to tell appart that "kind" of Italians, Spaniard, French, or even Moors or Arabs from the average Mestizo people. You mix northern European with Amerindian and the same faces appear!

 

If someone doesn't agree, well just try to take a trip to South America and find out directly on site. Here we have large populations of Spaniards, Italians and mestizos. Nobody knows who is who.

 

China poblana:

 

 

 

It´s a rather complicated story with threads a couple of hundred years back:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Latin_American - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Latin_American

 

 

In some countries, yes. Not in all the region, though. They are quite important for Cuba and the Caribbean and for Brazil. Other countries, like Uruguay, Peru and Ecuador have Black minorities. Some other countries don't have an African heritage at all. So, they are important for some Latin American countries but not for all.

 

Besides, there is not "Afro"-Latino people. Eitheir you are Latino or African. Black people of the region may choose. Celia Cruz, Pele and other voted for Latino, and that's what they are.

 

There is nothing complicated about it. American Indians aren't Blacks. Those tribes that influenced by the white man become slave owners are paying the price of theirs past sins.

But those Black people aren't Indians, but wannabes. They aren't even sambo, to start with.

That depends on the individual that you are refering to. Some balck people claiming to be native american are fakes and are only interested in benefits.

 

But some genetically black people have very strong claims to being native american as their ancestors were adopted fully into tribal culture, language and dress.  This adoption included fighting as Native Americans against the U.S. military and being forcibly re-located along with the "genetic" native americans. Black Seminole leader John Horse illustrates this.

 

These people today are as "native american" as the "asiatic" native americans whose

DNA is primarily anglo. What keeps them from being counted as such is money.  This is especially with casino operating tribes who have a very strong incentive to limit tribal membership (asiatic, black or otherwise). In doing so, they can have some very creative and very technical rules for defining tribal membership.   

However, groups like the blacks cherokees and the garifunas, don't convince me they are real indians at all. In culture, maybe, but they doubtfully have a single drop of the ancient peoples.

 

Here in North America, back and native American relations have been far more friendly. This included tolerating and in some cases, sheltering run away slaves and intermarriage.  Some Native Americans also avoided deportation by joining free black communities (Lumbee "indians" of North Carolina. These inter-marriages produced some mixed groups in the U.S. south, usually known as "red bone" blacks.

 

Of course, some tribes did own black slaves and black regiments were used against reisisting natives. Even still, Native American slave owners were generally viewed as less oppressive than whites and Black regiments, though very effective in battle, did not commit atrocities against indian civilians.

I agree. And since both groups were treated equally bad, neither group was used as brutal "enforcers" against the other.

 

This was different from the European colonial empires who routinely favored one group of locals over the others. The favored group was then used as enforcers. For example, Zulus in South Africa.

 

http://www.johnhorse.com/index.html - http://www.johnhorse.com/index.html

 

 

When the DNA technique is refined we will be better and better in locating the whereabouts of our ancestors and how they moved and mixed with each other. Interesting.

 

post edited

 

For me spaniards,italians, portuguese, greek and many french (specially southern ones), etc  are not white, . Even many british look quinda strange and not like real white people, otherwise looks at noel gallagher, and the whole band oasis, the beatles, tom jones, gordon brown, george best , gordon banks, victoria beckham, mr bean, and so many others i could be take the whole day to name.

There the proof:

http://www.aragonradio2.com/blogs/aragonesmusica/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/oasis2.jpg - http://www.aragonradio2.com/blogs/aragonesmusica/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/oasis2.jpg

note how the guy in the rightmost look alike to the chilean football player Ivan Zamorano.

and the 3 in the most right have a mediterranean aspect and coloring.

 

White americans aren't what i usually think about a white person, i hardly would confuse them with people from the northern  europe. which have often sharper features and are much more tall and blonde as a group.

But those Black people aren't Indians, but wannabes. They aren't even sambo, to start with."

Penguino, a few points: First, the Whites did not bring slave owning to the Americas. Slavery was here when the Whites got here.  Yes, the Whites (and by definition, that includes Spanish and other Southern  Europeans. Not all "Whites" have blond hair and blue eyes) introduced African slaves to the Americas. But some did manage to escape and, by adapting their life style to some Amerindian groups, became recognized lodges or clans of certain tribes. The Seminole were among those, and Cherokee law recognized the Slaves of Cherokees, later former slaves, as members of the Cherokee nation. So being a Black Indian was a cultural statement. Even the U.S. Army recognized Billy Bowlegs as an Indian, albeit an Afro-Indian (a term that did not then exist).  So (Secondly), Afro-Americans who have recognized ties to various tribes are hardly "wannabes". If their tribes recognize the historial and cultural link, then they are as "Indian" as anyone else. Thirdly, the great maajority of White Americans are exactly that. Pure White. Yes, it is "cool" these days to claim some remote ancestor as "Indian", but the great majority of White immigration to the U.S. took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, after the Frontier was settled. There were simply too many Whites and too (comparatively) few Indians at that time to produce the mestizaje that occurred in Mexico after the conquest. So, Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman notwithstanding, the great majority of U.S. Whites are exactly that. Wearing made in Taxco Indian looking jewelry and "feeling" for any and all putative "native American" causes won't change that. Finally, regarding other posters, there was no magical empathy between African American soldiers of the four "Negro" regiments and the Indians. That myth was invented recently my some pseudo-historian social "scientists". The 24th and 25th Infantry, and 9th and 10th Cavalry, went wherever they were ordered to go, and fought whoever raised arms against them.  Just like their White counterparts did. As for massacres, the few that occured were not the work of Regular regiments, but state volunteer units. Sand Creek, the most notorious, was the work of Colorado volunteers.  Washita Creek and Wounded Knee can both be disputed, given the number of troops that were killed in action. And in neither of the latter were the "victims" unarmed. The real point here was that "massacres" were not the policy of the Army, so it makes no matter whether the troops were Black or White.  Yes, I'm aware that this flies in the face of "popular history". But then, just because a particular view is popular does not render it history.

 

average white american has  6% of amerindian admixture, and they (for the most part)  don't look that "white " to me if you would ask. My american friends tell me , i'm an american mutt" nobody in america think themselves as pure whites.

 

With respect to Indians, I bet Americans are very confussed. You can spot there lot of "white" Americans who look Indians, but identify as whites, and people see them as whites! Then you see nordic people and blacks that call themselves Indians!

 

And then, you look for the history of Indians in the United States and you are forced to read about Black Americans!

 

I miss the simplicity of Hispanic America, where there are only two people: average and indigenous. And the Indians not only look Indigenous but also speak an indigenous language. And they make theirs own clothes instead of importing it from Taiwan.

What I don't see is ANY Amerindian influence in Garifunas, besides the fact they speak an indigenous language. Beside the tongue, theirs genetics and also theirs dances and customs are 99.99% from West Africa. In the same way you don't consider a Japanese speaking English a real Anglosaxon, I don't consider Garifunas speaking Arawak real Amerindians. And I see them as the greatest wannabes of the Americas. That's all.

I do consider indigenous the so called "white" Caribs, though, -who are sambos or afroindigenous- to be the real thing. Just look and them and you realize they have indigenous ancestry.

 

 

So, they aren't white either, but moorish (morenos). Period.

As a side note, Mexican law determines whether an individual is an indigenous person or not based on their ability to speak the language of their claimed tribe. Genetics, physical appereance, birth place etc do not matter.  The only exception is for a few Baja Californian bands whose languages are extinct.  If they lived in Mexico, the Garifunas would be considered indigenous.

 

 

(A Canadian Cree, or an American Sioux, are not indigenous to Patagonia or Amazonia, either).

Besides, we don't determine "ethnicity" based on skin. After all ethnicity is culture and not genetics.

In Latin America we call people like they look. A blond pale person is going to be called "white" and a dark haired, brown eyed, slighly tanned person is going to be call "Moorish".

As simple as that.

What is funny for Latinos is that so many "Moorish" people call themselves "White" in Europe. It is not racism. It is only that we find it ridiculous. It like people that say they are thin when they are fat, or they prettend they are tall when they are small. Nothing more serious than that.

With respect to Garifunas. Come on. These people is not Amerindian. In fact, they are one of the most pure West Africans groups that live in the Americas.

 

These are Garifunas:

 

 

What Amerindian is in this drum dance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Garifunas are pathetic wannabes.

Of course I don't deny the rights of real Afroindigenous descendent people, which preserve the native culture. I consider the Carib to be the real thing

 

These are Caribs of Dominica and elsewhere. Do you notice the difference? I do. They have Indian blood!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been in your country twice, and most people (natives) seem quite blonde to my standards, i also been in quite a few countries more.

The fact is that you northern europeans consider only albinos to be blonde, come on dutch people or any northern europeans look totally different to italians , or anyone outside northern europe, for the contrary many white americans wouldnt call the attention in italy or spain. I would dare to say most northern europeans are blonde to international standards (except the brits or irish which are mixed with native bretons(dark preceltic people) and therefore not that white.

 

However, white is definitely a cultural term, it is not a literal term or even a racial term. It pretty much means Western European. After all, there is no one who is literally "white". And anyway, Europeans don't use the term at all, except for a few misguided individuals, and certain sayings. Therefore, to say that someone is white or not, based on his looks, is meaningless - perhaps except to Americans, south or north. Of course, being white also means not being black.

The looks make all the difference. In fact, in Latin America, the term "white" describe a looks; not a race. So, if you have a brown caucasian and call it white, it is a contradiction on terms. Don't you see it?

 

There is no bigotry or anything in there. It is simply logic. If you call people "curly" they have to be curly, and you can't include straight haired in that subset. If you call people "blue-eyed" you don't include brown eyed in that set. The same with "whites". If the people is brown; no matter how "caucasian" it is, or where it was born, the people is not white.

 

At least, for the standards of Latin America, lots of Brits look mixed between "white" and "moorish". In fact, but it is curious that some Brits look Spanish and others, believe it or not, have certain resemblance with Amerindians. And I am talking about native Brits, and not the waves of immigrants that have changed the demography of the islands since the last 50 years.

 

With respect to the idea that white means not black, that's a dicotomic concept that is more common in Northern Europe. In Latin America we have the idea of many different "races" and many different combinations of mixtures. We never think so much how "impure" is people, but just describe them on how they look.

 

 

 

So maybe Swedes are only white people in the winter  :-)

 

The most blond people are the finnish, they have the highest percent of blondes in the world.

 

For instance, Carlos Gardel, the tango singer of French origin, had the nickname of the "moorish child of the market", and he was not very dark at all; only dark haired and eyed.

 

 

Now, Francisco Pizarro, was quite brown, perhaps darker than the Incas. No kidding. So of what "whiteness" we are talking about? Of Pizarro or Atahualpa?

 

 

Perhaps Francis Drake would also be called moorish in here.

 

 

 

 

 

Pinguin doesn't refer to the abilitty to tan that many white people can have, but the natural skin tone of a blonde/fair haired  person from northern europe is 99% of times lighter than of a black/darkbrown haired brown eyed southern euro or non european which is often at least olive.  So we can't call white someone who isn't as simple as that.

 

 

Exactly !

 

I think Latin Americans look vary region to region and country to country depending on the genetic components.

 

 

 

 

But the tan can easily give raise to mistakes, especially if tanned North europeans dye their hair dark. In a warm sunny climate you can never know who is tanned or who has a natural brown skin tone.

 

And many brits have actually a lighter skin tone (with or without tan) than many Scandinavians. And on Ireland people are very pale even from a Swedish point of view.

 

This is a computer generated vision of how average North American people would maybe look in the future.

 

A larger image of this Time cover (The New Face of America Nov 18 1993) can be seen here:

 

http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/time/74#i3696 - http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/time/74#i3696

 

 

 

It surprises me since 13% of people in the states are black. And lets no forget many others which happens to be dark skinned. Anyways an average face of U.S  in 2009 would look more ethnic.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1331241277014504920ZVucBA - http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1331241277014504920ZVucBA

 

or

 

http://image34.webshots.com/34/4/12/77/331241277ZVucBA_ph.jpg - http://image34.webshots.com/34/4/12/77/331241277ZVucBA_ph.jpg

 

 

http://image34.webshots.com/34/4/12/77/331241277ZVucBA_ph.jpg -  

 

I actually know a girl who looks little like the girl on the Time cover. She is 25% black.

 

With respect to the Tainos, at least in Cuba there is written references to the extinction by intermarriage there. So, the idea that Tainos become extinct should be revised, particularly when genetics shows high level of Amerinian genetics not only in Puerto Rico, but also in Cuba and Dominican Republic. Besides, how many natives wives and children accompanied the conquistadors to Mexico? Archeological evidence show there were many. 

 

I found your post so interesting I open a thread with it, called: Cosmic Race concepts in Latin America.

 

http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27227 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27227

 

Why? Because the Puerto Rican concept is not alone. That idea exist in DR, Mexico, Chile, Brazil and in many other countries of latinoamerica, if not in all.

 

 

I think one must separate the issues about if the Tainos still live in form of genes that are incorporated in todays mainstream population, in areas where Tainos once lived, from the exctincion of the Tainos as a particular people (or peoples) with their own culture and traditions.