Talk:White Latin Americans

Lizcano

In this article[1] Lizcano gives a very long theoretical definition of what he means by "etnia" and "grupos etnicos" - he explicitly states that "Whites", "Mestizos", "indians" are not Ethnic groups in the normal use of the term, they do not have a common identity and they do not interact. He basically states that he uses etnia as a shorthand for "Ethnic Category" using "category "in the sense of Giddens' "social category" as a label applied externally to groups who do not selfidentify as members of such a group. He then goes on to use Barth's concept of ethnicity in a novel way as he says that the groups can be seen as being ethnic groups in the sense of sharing particular cultural traits as the ethnic categories share important aspects of their history (in this case mostly the geographic ancestry of their cultures apparently). The most important part is that he makes it very clear that he does not consider "White people" or "Mestizos" to be ethnic groups in the usual meaning of the word which implies common identity. To the question of whether these groups could have common identity he says emphatically no.(p. 13). He is also clearly aware that most scholars would consider it is highly problematic to talk about "whites", "mestizos" and "Indians" as "etnias" - since he goes to a great lengths to explain and justify his use of that terminology. He talks about "la misma distincion entre etnia y grupo etnico defendida en este articulo" - clearly implying that the distinction requires to be defended (i.e. it is not generally accepted). ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits here are constructive, AFAIC. I do think it's important to show restraint and not try to use the article to tell the world how un-white one thinks White Latin Americans are. There are others who've come by here with that agenda. SamEV (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you know that what I am trying to tell the world is that current scholarship on the topic of race does not consider that there is such a thing as "white" or "unwhite" except relative to a specific social and historical context. Suggesting that anyone is arguing that Letin America is "unwhite" betrays a belief in the antiquated and ethnocentric view that the American definition of "white" is objective and immutable and the racial yardstick for how all other cultures and populations should be judged, whereas other cultures' varying definitions are merely misunderstanding or trying to mask the objective truth regarding their whiteness. I am not the one trying to include article's about whiteness of different populations in this encyclopedia, I am just trying to make sure that when we can't get rid of them they at least reflect the current scholarship and not outdated racial theories of the early twentieth century.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that to suggest that anyone has an agenda involving telling Latin Americans how 'white' or otherwise they are is highly questionable. Personally, my only objection has been in regard to people (Latin American or otherwise) insisting that they have the right to say whether someone else is or isn't 'white', and what 'being white' means. Stereotypes explain little, and hide a lot. Reducing Latin America to a set of mutually-exclusive 'ethnic categories' does nobody any justice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was that comment about agendas taken so personally? I was referring to the actual fact that we've had to deal with editors who seemed only interested in making edits that questioned the whiteness of this group. You can find out more about it in the talk page archives.

Not that it's anybody's business what my personal beliefs are, but as it regards race and Wikipedia articles, it goes like this: when a subject is notable and has reliable sources, I write what the sources say, my own beliefs be damned. So if Scholar X says that whites are a "groupo étnico", or clarifies that he means "categoría étnica" in Latin America, I write that whites are an ethnic group or ethnic category in Latin America. If in its field "Ethnic Groups" a source deemed accepatable by the WP community lists white people, I list them. It's not my assertion, but those sources'. I'm not under the conceit that it only exists or is a reliable source if I say so. SamEV (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between ethnic group and category is not commonly used, which is why he has to spend so many pages explaining its meaning and why he uses it. It is misleading the readers to use without a thorough explanation of what it means - layreaders cannot be expected to understand the way Lizcano is combining Giddens and Barth. If it makes sense to use Lizcano's numbers it would only be with a very large caveat and not as if they are somehow unproblematic and completely objective. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lizcano and Chile. I don't know if you can read Spanish or not, but if you read the Lizcano's paper, he recognizes that never studied the Chilean population, and only collected figures provided by other sources, without checking its veracity. In fact, reached such a point there are no figures fidables of white population in Chile, the CIA World Factbook puts "whites" and "mestizo" together in the same group. Moreover, Cruz Coke said on average the Chilean population is approximately 64% white and 35% Amerindian with traces of other admixture. But he doesn't give amounts or percentage of whites in Chile. It just says that in % every Chilean has a 65% European genes, which is very different. In fact he said: "The ethnic sources of Chilean populations are basically an admixture between Amerindian and European peoples. He never talk about "white Chilean people".--Jcestepario (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. (And yes, I do read Spanish well.) No source is perfect, but if it passes the reliability threshold, we can use it. You can add better sources, too. SamEV (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

JC, instead of removing one reliable source and replacing it one you like better, just *add* your source alongside the existing one. Please do not remove reliable sources. It violates WP:NPOV. There's room for more than one source and more than one POV. SamEV (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the source can't be used, but in the case of Chile Lizcano doesn't make any study and that he himself acknowledges. And Cruz Coke don't gives any number or % of "white Chileans", he said another thing. The sources must be used correctly. Regards. --Jcestepario (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree about the Coke source; my revert was about Lizcano, no Coke. The Coke source had escaped my notice until last month, but I forgot to remove it after noticing that it was misused. There's been at least one persistent pro-Chilean booster at this article.

Now back to Lizcano. Please drop by this thread at RSN, and see especially the last comment made there. The thread is about the Factbook, but the comments have general applicability. Lizcano doesn't have to have studied the Chilean population himself; It's OK if he merely used data produced by others. The most important thing is that he is a reliable source and that the statement made in this article about Chile is supported by the Lizcano source. This is key: it is pointed out at RSN that isn't even necessary that a reliable source give sources.

I kept what you added from the Factbook. SamEV (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The thread at RSN is of no relevance whatsoever regarding the question of whether your use of the Factbook is legitimate, or constitutes WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Luckily, most Wikipedians can read, so they can see that you're just in denial. for themselves. SamEV (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC); 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL, and then show me where it was stated that your calculations aren't WP:OR. And by the way, the population figures are estimates for July 2011, not actual data - though you are using them with old 'ethnic category' percentage figure in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I referred to your denialism there and no one had anything to say about it.

If you perceive that there's OR in the calculations, feel free to start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard. SamEV (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How big is an 'ethnic category'?

With regard to this contentious sentence in the lede: "According to one researcher about 36% of the population as of 2010, White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic category[22][2] in the region..." I have a simple question. Where is the 36% figure sourced? It doesn't seem to come from Lizcano, and the (contested) CIA source gives no total percentage. Unless it can be properly sourced, it needs to be removed immediately. In any case, since an 'ethnic category' is an external construct, it cannot possibly be cited as factual data - it is nothing more than opinion at best. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider including Lizcano here to give a large amount of UNDUE weight to a single researcher who's idea has had not general impact. That would be my reason for removing it. The ethnic category thing is basically part of the argument he is presenting that there are on average certain cultural and historical differences between the different ethnic category that set them apart as cultural macro-groupings. This is a much more interesting argument that his counting "white people" in Latin American. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Lizcano gives a figure for 'Criollos' not 'Blancos' - I don't see how it can be used at all. Or am I missing something here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Criollo" was the term used for American-born whites in colonial times (though it had other uses, too), and is used as a synonym for White sometimes, including by Lizcano, although most of the white influx occurred after the colonial era. SamEV (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC); 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually in Mexico Criollo now carries connotations of African descent much like "creole" does in most of the world, "Criollo" was never used as a synonym for "blanco" because it served to distinguish People born in Europe (peninsulares) from people born from European parents in the colonies.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually you are right Andy, since he does use Criollo consistently and Criollo is not a racial category of "whiteness" but one that describes European heritage Lizcano is in fact an argument for merging this article with the one on "criollos" or rename it to Latin American people of European descent. Criollos is a better ititle in my opinion because it is the closest to a category of whites that actually exists (or existed) throughout Latin America and it adequately captures the groups historical roots in the colonial era. It would however exclude recent immigrants from the category, but I find it to be good to make that distinction between recent and colonial immigrants to LA.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposals to rename away from White to Criollo have been made here and failed. Besides, Lizcano does use blanco.

BTW, the CIA, which uses "white" consistently, provides numbers that are very similar to Lizcano's. SamEV (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

CIA does not have any aggregate numbers for all of Latin America, using that source for statements about the entire group would be SYNTH.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. Give a quotation from the relevant policy. SamEV (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is not? Or are you just being contrary? The synth policy allows making simple calculations, but since we know from our reliable sources that "white" means different things in different countries and different contexts adding together the numbers given for "white" in all the individual countries is not just adding up a simple calculus but creating an statistical artefact with no prior existence. That is synthesis. In anycase the factbook is a substandard source that should not even be regarded as reliable in the first place.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that you seem unable to quote a policy, even though you're an administrator and should know policies well.

And yes, you clearly don't think that the CIA Factbook should be considered RS: But it is. You even tried to have it declared unreliable and didn't succeed. You just can't seem to accept that you're not the arbiter of reliability. SamEV (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see you quoting much policy, much less demonstrating understanding of them.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You insist that long-stable content be removed. The burden's on you. So again: policy, please. SamEV (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the burden is on the one who wishes to include content that is challenged. In this case that would be you.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, my (our) burden is to source the content. Your challenge is based on the simple fact that you don't like the sources. Since the sources have already been deemed reliable, your challenge is rather frivolous. What you should seek to do, as if you didn't know, is to balance those sources with the ones with whose POV you agree. SamEV (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But regardless of whether the source is reliable it doesn't support the claim.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what you keep allege. SamEV (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are claiming that the 36% figure is sourced from the CIA Factbook through "making simple calculations", can you show us the calculations that were used? Without this, your claim is worthless. It should be noted that the CIA Factbook [2] gives no figure for a separate 'white' category for Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay or Venezuela (actually it gives no percentages at all for Venezuela, yet another reason to question its usefulness as a source).AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? No one else at this article has had to have that explained, in my experience. The number of whites in the Latin American countries (percentage white multiplied by national population in each case) is totalled up, and this total is divided by the total population of Latin America.

You already know about Field Listing :: Ethnic groups; the population figures are collected in Field Listing :: Population. SamEV (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And where are the CIA Factbook figures for 'white' percentages in Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela to be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We keep no secrets. The fact that a precise percentage is unavailable for some countries would be disclosed. (Surely you've seen "N/A" in reliable sources in your lifetime, I assume.) It would just mean that the figure obtained from CIA numbers is a lower figure than what the actual would be if data were available for all. ('Per CIA figures, at least N% of the LatAm pop. is white (figures are unavailable for some countries)') Not that difficult to state. They are after all acknowledged to be estimates. SamEV (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC); 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But the CIA doesn't give a figure - it can't, as it doesn't have the data. The 36% figure is therefore WP:OR, created out of thin air from flawed data. In any case, the CIA cannot possibly be considered WP:RS for these figures - they are inconsistently compiled, and in some cases, just plain nuts (look at Spain, or Switzerland, for example) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just modified my last comment to make my point clearer. If you want to continue insisting that the CIA Factbook is unreliable, please do so there. SamEV (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll raise this at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, do you want to check the figures from the CIA are actually consistent with the 36% stated, or do I have to do this myself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather you do it. SamEV (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't include the source until there is a consensus to do so.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Let's see that promised RSN thread by Andy. SamEV (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_CIA_World_Factbook_a_reliable_source_regarding_ethnicity.3F. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of section: Puerto Rico 75% white!?!?!?

Why remove it? I am arguing about the source against reality and fact; it should be noted that the US Census is self-reported. There is not a 75.8% of “white only” population in Puerto Rico. There have been scholarly analysis at the University of Wisconsin, Madison by Mara Loveman and Jeronimo Muniz about this issue; such as the one below that this is not so. And that this idea is a political agenda of whitening the population. It should be noted clearly that this 75.8% is self-reported. Removing the thread in the discussion is trying to give the idea that this is not challenged and that the census is accurate regarding this issue of race.

“In 1899, a year after Puerto Rico came under U.S. dominion, the census reported that 62 percent of the population was white; by the year 2000, according to official census results, the white proportion of the Puerto Rican population reached 80 percent. Observers of Puerto Rican society have speculated about the sources of this trend, which is typically cited as evidence of the hold of “whitening ideology” on the island. To date, however, none of the hypothesized mechanisms of whitening have been subjected to empirical test.” http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/demsem/loveman-muniz.pdf

I will like to see the thread of discussion reinstated; by the person who removed it. I will assume good faith by that spurious removal of a legal thread of discussion. So please don’t play games WP:GAMES (See I can also cite policy!). That thread was in view with policy’s it is about a “source” in the article, and I was not trying to pass my opinion as a source not trying to do any original research. SilentBor (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The thread was removed per WP:NOTFORUM, since you were citing no external sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

SilentBor, your thread was heavy on personal opinion. Cite those sources instead with any edits you make or suggest. SamEV (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing we really know is that there was serious European immigration to the island, more so then any other. Previous census may have been skewed considering the Anglo-American definition of White versus the realistic dominance of Southern European genetics on a multicultural island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.1.37 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Largest ethnic category

Before I revert you, Andy, I'd like you to look at these consecutive edits and who made them: [3] and [4]. Your comment? SamEV (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Take your time, Andy (what's one more vexatious tag?): I'll be editing somewhere else and will continue checking my watchlist once in a while to see if you venture any reply. SamEV (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a source for a statement does not constitute a 'vexatious tag'. Regarding the diffs you give, I fail to see their significance. I suggest that rather than edit-war, you provide a source for the statement that "White Latin Americans constitute the largest ethnic category in the region", or remove it as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's vexatious, because the source is given next to the statement. "Cuadro 2" in the Lizcano source--here it is again: Lizcano, pdf page 34-- shows that Criollos/Whites compose 36.1% of the population, as even Maunus acknowledges implicitly in that second diff, since he only objected to the CIA Factbook's being used to support the statement. SamEV (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you citing Lizcano. or the table on p. 218? Lizcano refers (in the English-language Abstract) to "six ethnic groups... Latin or Iberian, Indigenous, Black, Creole, Garífuna and Asian". The table refers to 'Criollos', and the footnote (c) accompanying this category implies that it is a linguistic one, from what I can tell. Neither refers to a 'white Latin American' as an ethnic category. In any case, since an 'ethnic category' is an external definition, rather than a verifiable fact, to state that X category 'is' the largest is highly questionable - as Maunus's edit indicates, this is the opinion of a researcher, rather than measurable data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, there's no "citing Lizcano. or the table on p. 218", because that table is by Lizcano. By 'citing Lizcano' I and the others have always meant that table.

Secondly, Lizcano uses these terms interchangeably in that document: "blanco" and "criollo". It's always been that table that's been cited. I suggest you ask someone else who can read Spanish before you go on edit warring over this.

I remind you that your objection has already been addressed at RSN: a source that meets the reliability threshold can be used, and you can't get picky about what to include or leave out.

The source's reliability has been maintained. The data can be used. Find better sources if you continued to dislike Lizcano. But that the claim is sourced to him should be patently obvious to you by now. SamEV (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies over the confusion - the table is Lizcano's, I'd misread this. Having said that, I'm still not convinced that the table is referring to an 'ethnic category', rather than a linguistic one. As you say, a Spanish speaker, which I'm not, might be able to confirm this one way or the other - in such cases, an uninvolved translator is the best way to clarify things. Regarding the more general issue though, I don't see how you can use the source as a statement of fact, rather than for a statement of opinion. You know that the data is contradicted elsewhere, e.g. by Schwartzman, [5] who gives a figure for self-identified 'blancos/whites' in Argentina of 63%, rather than the 85% figure that Lizcano cites. Such contradictory data may well indicate that an unequivocal assertion that 'whites' are the largest ethnic category (whatever that means) isn't even backed up by all the data available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I (and Maunus) changed the statement in this article to "ethnic category" ([6], [7]) based on a source that Maunus dug up (I added it) in which Lizcano explains that that's what he meant by "etnia" (lit. "ethnic group").

"I don't see how you can use the source as a statement of fact, rather than for a statement of opinion."

Didn't you notice that today I added a clause that addresses your concern? I added "according to some sources", precisely so it wouldn't look like it's the absolute truth. If you'd like it reworded, we can work on it.

Lizcano is referring to ethnicity, and names the document and the table accordingly, as both of them contain the phrase "Composición Étnica" in their titles. Do have a look.

"You know that the data is contradicted elsewhere, e.g. by Schwartzman"

So add Schwartzman, rather than edit warring. Who's stopping you? SamEV (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

PNAD 2008 or 2010 give you >92 million white people, or 48.43% of Brazilian population. LOL, we became minority-majority.

It is probably because Pardo started to be perceived as multiracial rather than mulatto and Amarelo started to be perceived as Asian Brazilian rather than Mongolic and as such caboclos (mestizos — they are majoritary in our Northern, Northeastern and Center-Western regions and as such numerous and important among the Brown population, even if we're stereotyped as mulattoes) and ainokos (Eurasians/hafu — this term did not become taboo in Brazil since once Japanese Brazilians integrated, they disconsidered their impurity prejudices about miscegenation, but it was, and is in some rare cases, still not much popular among the community, because of the link that persons of mixed ancestry can or can not have with their original culture or the perceived sexism in much higher social acceptance of relationships between Asian women and White men rather than the opposite, nevertheless today it concerns only elder "Angry Japanese men") started to count as non-whites.

I doubt very much that light mulattoes here in Centro-Sul (our social construct of non-whiteness is rather different) would thought themselves White, and the main demographic shift was here. A light-skinned mulata can have sufficiently European-looking features to be accepted and consider herself as White, but White men are millions less numerous than White women here, differently from minorities were this gender demographic inequality is not this strong (what is really very weird since they are the main victims of violence and the regions where they perform the majority are the most affected by subdevelopment and bizarre forms of machismo — there are prejudices like "true men resists better the pain and are always healthy because they are made of steel since women is the fragile sex", NOT that male dominance and sexism is not present in all regions and socioeconomic classes of Brazil or that White Brazilians are naturally more rational and absent of Latin American prejudice instead of European egalitarianism [it can make me lulz much because our main "sources" were Portugal, Spain, Italy, Lebanon and Syria, totally not comparable with the differences between whites and mestizos in the United States, and again NOT that the stereotyped figure of Latino culture in USA can be totally true as something that differs them from us], but the cultural shift found between Centro-Sul and Northeastern Brazil, and the cultural shift between Centro-Sul's urban lower classes of higher African ancestry and the upper classes of mainly European ancestry, the Amerindian factor in urban development is quite undetermining except in the case of Caboclo immigrants from Northeastern Brazil which is a pretty traditional society, makes machismo worse among minorities in Brazil —, which generally make men live less than women, about >7 years what is very much here since our life expectancy is <75).

But also because multiracials have a higher birthrate than White people. Even if knowly both have closely-related genomes and ancestry (about 20% Brazilians have some Italian ancestry, mostly in states where people of color were a tiny minority before internal migration and social issues that made high birth taxes among them and as such most Italian Brazilians are white people, about >15% have some non-Southern European ancestry with 5% being somewhat noticeably, the others are all typical Portuguese Brazilians with some mixed ancestry as the Pardos), they are more religious, conservative, have lesser social status etc. same thing as happened in developed countries and other Latin American nations, but this time demonstrating that race is a mere social construct. If racial relations in Brazil become worse, Whites will not intermix with Pardos (it generates White children, at least for the social construct of White people made here) and by 2025 Brazil will be less than 40% White, except with more liberal reprodutive rights legislation which probably will make people of color birth rate equivalent to White one. 189.106.123.96 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Haiti French

I know for a fact that the "most French" did not "leave" following the revolution in Haiti. Most French were KILLED in the revolution. See the book Stoddard, Lothrop. The French Revolution in San Domingo. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1914. It was written by Lothrop Stoddard and earned him his PhD from Harvard.

Unsigned 26 Decemember 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to claim that, you'll need a better source than Lothrop Stoddard, a notorious exponent of racist theories. I suggest you find one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The man had a PhD from Harvard which he earned from writing the book. If you want to show that his book was somehow in error then go ahead and do so. I guess you'd have us believe that the slaves rose up in Haiti and then just stood by and let the French plantation owners leave without so much as a nasty word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Le Maire (D). "Un Dunkerquois Colon a Saint-Domingue. Lettres inedites de Domenique le Maire." In "Bulletin de l'Union Fauconnier. Societe Historique de Dunquerque," vol. IV p 461-591 (1901).

Mosbach (A). "Der Franzoesische Feldzug auf Sanct Domingo (1802-1803). Nach den Berichten vier polnischer Offiziere." (Breslau, 1882).

Gaffarel (P.): "La Politique Coloniale en France, de 1789 a 1830." (Paris 1908). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress good enough for you?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ht0017)

The carnage that the slaves wreaked in northern settlements, such as Acul, Limbé, Flaville, and Le Normand, revealed the simmering fury of an oppressed people. The bands of slaves slaughtered every white person they encountered. As their standard, they carried a pike with the carcass of an impaled white baby. Accounts of the rebellion describe widespread torching of property, fields, factories, and anything else that belonged to, or served, slaveholders. The inferno is said to have burned almost continuously for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that white persons were among the victims of the Haiti uprising. That is not the question. However, you wrote that "Most French were KILLED in the revolution". Find a source that backs that up. As for 'Library of Congress', it is just that: a library. You can find the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a library (I know: I have. In the library of a major British university). That doesn't mean they endorse the contents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you some sort of communist commissar of political correctness? What a joke "Whites were among the victims of the Haiti uprising" the uprising was coordinated mass violence against the white/French residents of Haiti! The black slaves rose up and killed every single white person on the island, except for a few dozen who managed to escape. I have a book that references a letter from a French soldier who was captured by an English ship as he left the island, and he stated "I doubt there are more than twenty whites left alive on the whole island." He said he saw every white in Les Cayes being killed, and he only avoided death by hiding himself. After the black slaves killed all the white people they killed virtually all of the mulattoes as well. To deny the obvious racial nature of the violence is to deny history.