QuoteReplyTopic: Indian Books gone wrong...... Posted: 30-Apr-2009 at 13:53
Originally posted by lirelou
"The only "white" people is blond, blue eyed, pink skinned and tall. The rest are mixed. Either in Europe or in the Americas."
Wow! That's a rather Aryan-biased view. So Greeks, Italians, non-Norman or Flemish French, Serbians, Spanish (Except Catalunya, Romanian, and all those various and sundry other Europeans who are not "blond, blue eyed, pink skinned, and tall" are not Caucasians, i.e., "White".
Mr. Penguin, me thinks that thou art the one who is confused. Perhaps you should look up the term "Caucasian" in an encyclopedia, or some reliable social science book.
Actually, few Spaniards really qualified as "whites". That term is reserved, at least in Souther South America, for real white people, like a large part of Germans and Russians, and aren't applied to brown Italians, Spaniards or Greeks.
Do you know about Carlos Gardel, the French-born Argentinean Tango Singer? He was caucasian French but he was called the "moorish boy of the market"
I don't know how it is in Chile, but in Mexico they do tend to match the description that edgewaters gives: either total racist rants or noble savages. Sometimes you get them both at the same time.
And I can name names!Specifically, Jose Vasconcelos, the man who single-handedly invented a national education system out of thin air, was a raving racist who praised the virtues of the Native American noble savage while using indio as an insult to his political enemies. And that still goes on today; after all, Subcomandante Marcos pretty much preaches a noble savage narrative. And this ambivalence exists to this day.
Sure, Mexico has statues to great Native American historical figures, but at the same time the country discriminates so strongly against Native Americans that many of them choose to refuse to speak to their children in Nahuatl to prevent discrimination.
And I know that you are making a genetic argument, and you are right about that. However, culturally, there is a distinction between the mostly Spanish and the mostly Native American in Mexico, and this distinction is clear to foreigners, yet elusive to Mexicans.
That's true. But you shouldn't forget that even in pre-Columbian times, Aztecs and other civilized group discriminated against the nomadic peoples of the "hills".
The term "Indian" in Latin America is mainly cultural. And I agree with you that the Hispanic culture is very jellous and discriminate quite a bit against "primitive" cultures such as Amerindian. It is the communist and liberal ideologies of the "mestizo" who ofter have tried to "rescue" the Native cultures as an historical precedent. But they always choose the more developed civilization for that, the Aztecs for instance. Nobody identifies with the Indians of the hills, I am afraid..
Penguin, some Spaniards are white? Apparently the Royal Spanish Academy, the premiere arbitrator of what words do and do not mean in the Spanish language, do not agree with you.
"blanco, third meaning: Tratandose de la especie humana, dicese del color de la raza europea o caucasica, en contraposicion con el de las demas. Apl. a pers., u.t.c.s."
(White, 3rd meaning, referring to the human species, said of the color of the European or Caucasian race, as distinguished from that of the others (races).) For Spaniards not to be "white", they'd have to not be European or Caucasian. (abbreviations mean, Applying to persons, also used as a noun.)
Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola, Real Academia Espanola, 1970 Edition.
ps: you don't need to reply to this Penguin. Nothing you can say will overrule the Royal Academy's definition of what words mean in Spanish.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
I see, the "European race" or "Caucasian" is uniform looking.
OK, if so, there is no more arguments. I am going to call "blanco" to any European, no matter a more realistic name for theirs color of skin, for many of them, could be "moorish" or even "negro"
I don't know whether the Spanish academy is recognised as an authority outside Spain on anything, but it certainly is no authority on what words mean in English, which is what we are talking.
Only the US as far as I know still mangles the word 'Caucasian' into a racial term (as opposed to meaning 'appertaining to the Caucasus', its natural meaning) at all, and US usage is no authority on English in general. 'White' like 'black' is meaningless as an ethnic or racial designation, though it's reasonable to use it for albinos. Not that some people ever stop saying things just because they are meaningless.
'Fair-skinned' and 'dark-skinned' and other variants I guess pass muster, just as 'tall' and 'short', and I suppose if you like you could use a light meter to quantify degrees of melaning content in individuals, but I still can't see any sane reason whatsoever for wanting to do so. If you're trying to establish paternity, for instance, DNA is a much more useful source of evidence.
gcle2003, To my ancestors, they were whiter than us, thus we called them "or Paleface", "whiteman", "demon ghost". They were white to us, they were French and English, not Spanish or Portuguese.
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
gcle2003: Penguin, a Spanish speaker, said that few Spanish were white, and that in the Southern Cone, white is reserved for "real white people", not Spanish, Italian, French, etc. I assure that the Royal Academy defines what is "white" in ethnic terms for Spanish speakers, and I would bet that the majority of those Spanish speakers living in the Southern Cone give higher credence to the Academy's definition, than they do to Penguin's.
As for Canadian Guy, have you come up with that list of books yet?
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
gcle2003: Penguin, a Spanish speaker, said that few Spanish were white, and that in the Southern Cone, white is reserved for "real white people", not Spanish, Italian, French, etc. I assure that the Royal Academy defines what is "white" in ethnic terms for Spanish speakers, and I would bet that the majority of those Spanish speakers living in the Southern Cone give higher credence to the Academy's definition, than they do to Penguin's.
As for Canadian Guy, have you come up with that list of books yet?
You know, lirelou, the point is not whether the Spaniards or Italians are white or not. In fact, who cares?
The fact is that your people, the "Americans", are so obsesed with the term "white" that can't understand anything about ethnicity and genetics at all.
Being so confussed yourselves... what amazes me is how come you criticize Mexicans
Look at these actors of Mexican soap operas:
Do you find they are white? If so, either you need glasses or I am Swedish
Let us get back on topic; which is, stereotypes and inaccuracies in books about Native Americans. No reason to waste any more time on the various skin colors of different popultions - it gets us nor this topic anywhere.
I am sorry to tell you that I have seen plenty of people in Virginia that could be cousins of the actors that you posted. And keep in mind that most of the people here have Irish, English, and Scots ancestry (and maybe German, I am not sure about this one. :)
Case in point: the last actress, if she didn't bleach her hair, woudn't look too different from the Mexican actors.
And this is the point that I am making about people within a culture not seeing things: most Mexicans can't see what is wrong with the pictures that you posted. I didn't see it either until I was out of the country for years.
And why is this? Because the society has a built-in discrimination against Native Americans. Ironically more Native American looking Mexicans get to play good roles in the U.S. than they do in Mexico.
I am sorry to tell you that I have seen plenty of people in Virginia that could be cousins of the actors that you posted. And keep in mind that most of the people here have Irish, English, and Scots ancestry (and maybe German, I am not sure about this one. :)
.
So, does it means they are white?
You still doesn't see my point. For you, guys, "whites" are caucasians, Irish, English or whatever, by definition. You don't understand that in Latin America, white is a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION of the ASPECT of the person; not a race.
So, it is a CONTRADICTION that people with brown skin (not redish, almost transparent) be white. White people has white color of skin, that's all. In Chile, at least, we call whites "crabs", because when they tan turn live red ... If you don't turn burn red when tan you are not white. Period.
Originally posted by hugoestr
Case in point: the last actress, if she didn't bleach her hair, woudn't look too different from the Mexican actors.
.
Difficult, because MOST of the Mexicans actors I show there do have Amerindian admixture, and they show. The White actors I choose are not Americans. The man is Russian and the woman is German.
Many "White" Americans shows evident signs of Admixture, too. The problem is that you guys don't notice, but we do.
Originally posted by hugoestr
And this is the point that I am making about people within a culture not seeing things: most Mexicans can't see what is wrong with the pictures that you posted. I didn't see it either until I was out of the country for years.
.
Most of the actors are Mestizo; Average in Latin America. So, what's the point. They aren't pure blood natives, and in that I agree. But you should know that in Latin America the largest majorities are Mestizo and not pure blood people.
Originally posted by hugoestr
And why is this? Because the society has a built-in discrimination against Native Americans. Ironically more Native American looking Mexicans get to play good roles in the U.S. than they do in Mexico.
I bet you couldn't distinguish a Native American from a Mestizo if you see one; at least they are wearing traditional customs
It is interesting that the "racial" analysis of Americans show a lot more about the U.S. than Mexico.
The photos that you showed from Mexican actors show people who are predominantly European-looking if we contrast them with Mexican Native Americans. And it doesn't matter if they genetically have some connection with a Native American if most of their genetic material comes from Europe. Every single Mexican actor that you posted could come from somewhere from Europe.
The ones that look the most like Native Americans are invisible as leading men and women. They do appear often as comic reliefs, thugs, poor people and servants. And just to make it clear, Mexican media often fills the scripts with many references about how ugly and dark skinned those people are.
Coming back to the topic: Latin America does have negative narratives about Native Americans; if anything, the U.S. and Canada are probably more sensitive and respectful towards Native American cultures than modern Latin Americans are. And the fact that most Latin Americans have a cultural and genetic link Native Americans only makes the more shameful for Latin America. Yet many in Latin America can't "see" this
You still doesn't see my point. For you, guys, "whites" are caucasians, Irish, English or whatever, by definition. You don't understand that in Latin America, white is a PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION of the ASPECT of the person; not a race.
Agreed pinguin. And apart from albinos it's a lousy description of their aspect. Otherwise one would say of someone that they go 'white-faced' with shock or pain or anger. If they were white to begin with they couldn't go 'white-faced'.
So, it is a CONTRADICTION that people with brown skin (not redish, almost transparent) be white. White people has white color of skin, that's all.
No-one has white skin. Even if they have gone 'white with anger'.
The photos that you showed from Mexican actors show people who are predominantly European-looking if we contrast them with Mexican Native Americans. And it doesn't matter if they genetically have some connection with a Native American if most of their genetic material comes from Europe. Every single Mexican actor that you posted could come from somewhere from Europe.
About ten years ago, a group of French tourists were conducted to an indigenous Mapuche community in Souther Chile. They were received by a normal, average Mapuche family, which lived in an European-style house, dressed jeans, listen to rap music and saw soccer matches on TV. The French were so dissapointed they left the community and argued they were cheated by actors!!
As I say, it Amazes me that Americans and Europeans usually can't see obvious Amerindian features when people dress as high class or executives. They expect the native blood is so curious and calls so much the attention that when they see these Mexican actors they got convinced they are pure white.
But when the poor relatives of the same people jump the fence to the U.S. looking for work, they are obviously Indians...
It doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by hugoestr
The ones that look the most like Native Americans are invisible as leading men and women. They do appear often as comic reliefs, thugs, poor people and servants. And just to make it clear, Mexican media often fills the scripts with many references about how ugly and dark skinned those people are.
That's obviously a generalization. First, you have to realize Mexican TV has a regional reach, not only Mexican. If you only put Aztec dances on TV, I bet the ranking they have would decrease close to zero outside Mexico.
In second place, go to see American TV and movies and tell me if the actors they play there represent American reality. They don't.
The refined american beauty of the movies is only find in the movies.
If you consider that to be "ugly" is a sign of Indigenous people, I bet you are wrong. Famous movie actress as Rachel Welch, Salma Hayek, Victoria Principal and Lynda Crystal had obviously Amerindian beauty on them.
When in Latin America you see round chins, slighly oriental faces, delicated skins, small noses and several other physical features in women, they are sign of "Asiatic" admixture. If you compare Spanish woman with Latin Americans you will see that beyond skin collor and other damn analysis, the main diference are: how long are the faces, how long are the noses, how crowded are the eyebrows, and if the woman has a moustache or not
Originally posted by hugoestr
Coming back to the topic: Latin America does have negative narratives about Native Americans; if anything, the U.S. and Canada are probably more sensitive and respectful towards Native American cultures than modern Latin Americans are. And the fact that most Latin Americans have a cultural and genetic link Native Americans only makes the more shameful for Latin America. Yet many in Latin America can't "see" this
Latin Americans are more realistic. We know Incas were a tyrany, for instance; we know Aztecs were bloody and ancient Mapuches were very rude people. In that everyones agree, including the natives. We also agree in that the first waves of "conquistadors" were a bunch of criminals. There is nothing to hide in those histories because they are the truth of what happened here. In both sides there were human beings, both criminals and saints, as always happens.
Besides, in Latin America we are interested in that poor people progress and improve theirs quality of life, and if that means some traditions or language reduce theirs size or dissapear, that's the cost of progress.
Exactly - someone's got to do it, and it better be an insider, IMHO. Outsiders will always have some kind of tinted glasses which they view a culture with. They will never be neutral, even if they try to be. It is unavoidable that they use their own values and meanings to interpret whatever they may see.
But no-one sees a culture through more heavily tinted glasses than members of that culture themselves. If you wanted a good account of a Manchester United - Chelse game, would you pick a Chelsea or Manchester supporter? Or would you prefer one from Barcelona?
They may be biased, but it depends on what exactly they are describing. The ideal would be multiple sources, but that's more a concern with historical events. In this case, a description of a certain group´s traditions and beliefs, the info will have to come from the people in some way, and an outsider may misunderstand certain things, like concepts and words etc. They may also have to trust the people that inform them, which can be problematic if they are outsiders, especially if they are kind of thought of as untrustworthy.
There's also the problem of lumping people together that shouldn't be, creating untrue stereotypes etc.
Of course, sometimes outsiders will have the advantage of noticing things that are specific to other people, things that those people perhaps don't think about as specific to them and therefore forget to describe.
I suggest you see the thread "how latin americans look" and we continue arguing, and leave this thread on focus. But, of course I am talking about genetics and aspect: that's what Americans see on Mexican TV, physical features of people and associations with the American concept of race. Let's continue here
That's obviously a generalization. First, you have to realize Mexican TV has a regional reach, not only Mexican. If you only put Aztec dances on TV, I bet the ranking they have would decrease close to zero outside Mexico.
wha?
Oh, boy, I am forced to do this. I will have to show an actual Mexican show, very, very popular, by the way, depicting Native Americans.
You don't need to know Spanish to get the full impact of this. Missing from this clip is when the red hero call the chief ugly.
This thread started out over the lack of diverse reading material from an Indian perspective. Eventually it generated into a beauty contest. Hugo is right with the later in that ethnocentricity does exist, though sometimes we aren't aware of it. Where doesn't it not exist anyway? Of course not all Mexicans (or any other ethnicity for that matter) does not have all the classic good looks of popular actors/actresses. Denying this is futile. So why does it appear we try to make it so?
As for eliminating bias when describing the culture of an 'Indian', Jams' multimodal approach makes sense.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum