Talk:Afro–Latin Americans

Link to Spanish Wikipedia

The link to the Spanish Wikipedia points to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroamericano which is the Spanish article on African-Americans, not Afro-Latin Americans. 94.237.127.120 (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

100 Million!!?

That figure is patently absurd. Perhaps 5-8% of Latin Americans are of predominantly African ancestry. The only way one could arrive at such a figure is by including any latino with any degree of african ancestry at all, even if they're as little as 1/8th african. It's at best an estimate anyway, as nowhere near that number would ever self identify as black. Surely, in order to qualify as "afro-latino," someone would need to be majority african, or at the very least HALF african. If you wish to count anyone who has even the slightest trace of african ancestry as "black," then Spain and Italy are 100% black nations, as those people have a scant amount of african blood in their heritage. These number needs to be revised to a more realistic figure, or it needs to be clear that this number refers to anyone in latin america with even trace amounts of african blood.--71.82.138.47 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

afro latin?!?!

These terms that people invent are ridiculous.So let me understand a black canadian is only afro canadian , a black american is only african american.But if exist 2 americas like you normally like to say ,the "anglo-saxonic" america and the "latin" america . should'nt the black candians and black americans be called of afro anglo american? Probably you will say that this is ridiculous .but is as ridiculous as the term afro latin american.

The preceding post made NO sense at all12.230.34.2 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"sub-Saharan" Africa?

I noticed that racist love to keep black people confined to one part of Africa that they call "sub-Saharan," but whites can be anyone on earth including black people! The TRUTH is, blacks are in North Africa as wel and ALL of Africa is the black man's homeland. They want to take the black man out of North Africa and make something called white Berbers because doing so would create 'white' Moors who mixed with white Europeans. That would make the suspect groups (you know who they are and they cannot exscape their destiny) in their minds, erased of the idea of the black man being in their blood stream and there is nothing but 'pure' whiteness. Of course, if the black man ruled the earth today, these same groups would be going out their way to prove how black they were.

In addition to Moors, they need Africa that an ancient white man came into concact with to be white, so they can rewrite history to make it appears as if white were never at the mercy of blacks and that the only mixing that took place was in the new world - with blacks as slaves and white/white-like peoples(hispanics/Portuguese) as master. People can rewrite and lie about history as much as possible, but what is CLEAR from history, all ruling groups will fall one day and those on the bottom will be on the top. Just look at Europeans. ALL empire thought that they would be forever, but they eventually fell and hardly saw it coming.

So, black was not only in the form of the slaves, but the Moors beofose these peoples came here and in North Africa.--71.235.94.254 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Notion isn't Racist At All. Specifically, the native/indigenous sub-Saharan genes and aesthetics associated with them is what the criteria for belonging the Black Race consists of. These genes originated among Capoid and Congoid groups who are the indigenous groups of sub-Saharan African. Yes, the ancestry has been long present among N. African populations for centuries; however, it's not native to N. African, but rather sub Saharan Africa. The notion isn't racist, but more scientific. Arab and Berber groups are native to North Africa and first evolved as distinct Caucasian groups. Furthermore, modernly, most of North Africa (especially among those who fit the White, Middle Eastern or Mediterranean aesthetic) doesn't not claim to be Black.

The native/traditional cultural practices of most N. Africans tend to be more Arab, Berber, Persian influenced than influenced by cultural practices of sub-Saharan. North Africans tend to speak dialects/languages indigenous to the region which had little to no influence of sub-Saharan dialects. Conversely, some sub-Saharan African regions have been significantly influenced genetically, linguistically, and culturally by N. Africa. Places like Zanzibar or Nigeria have a dominant presence of N. African and sub-Saharan African infused cultural and linguistic roots inherited by the local sub-Saharan descended population.

Also, because Black is more of a social construct than a actual bloodline many N. Africans find discrepancy with it. You speak of the Moors, yes many of them had sub-Saharan ancestry, but not all of them. The sub-Saharan gene was present in various frequencies throughout the Moorish population, but not all Moors had this ancestry. The Moors where indeed a diverse population; however, they obviously made little to no distinction of this sub-Saharan ancestry. Most of the distinction of aesthetic differences was drawn due to the darker skin hue of many Moorish invaders compared to that of the native Europeans of the time. This skin hue was by default associated with Africa with no distinction or notation made of how the Moors that they saw came to acquire it. The acknowledgement was of the skin color and not of the sub-Saharan genetic connection. The insinuation then evolved that that all of Africa was dark skinned; that all of Africa was one raced (BLACK) - which isn't the case. This has NEVER been the case. Africa has always been diverse, has long produced populations of mixed race, and has seen centuries of miscegenation among it's people - even before Hellenic and European rule/influences.

As a matter of fact, the Moor identity was more Arab than sub-Saharan, especially since the sub-Saharan ancestry was mostly obtained via rape and the Moors has dominant social, cultural, political and linguistic influence that spanned from Asia, to Europe and into sub-Saharan Africa. Moor/Arab identity was the unifying factor that allow them to rule for so long and so many people of different ethnic/racial heritages. Furthermore, if you were to go back in time and ask any of the Moors who were on the forefront of their society how they identified, I doubt any of them would have said Black, or have even been familiar with the implied social construct or the concept of identifying as such. ~~ 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussions

All discussions which had their last dated entry prior to December 2006 have been moved to |/Archive 1. If there is anything there than needs to be resurrected, please start a new section on this page with an appropriate title.

By the way, I realize that all the items on this page --at this moment-- are signed by me. Please do not conclude that I considermyself "owner" of this article or the supreme authority. It just seems that for the recent past no one else is taking an interest in this discussion page. For my part, I'd welcome other users to join in --JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with Population estimates

The table in the IDB population estimates section shows "50%" prior to the main table, which is somehow added by the system. If anyone knows how to remove this, your help in doing so would be much appreciated. --JAXHERE | Talk 14:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. The problem was the Colombia had an extra column, and the "+" directly after the "|" in the code was causing it to do weird things. I put a space between the + and the | and removed the extra column. --sony-youth 14:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--JAXHERE | Talk 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

Please add Honduras.

IDB Population Estimates Section

Some users have been changing information in this section which is an extract from an official report. Nothing in this section should be changed unless there has been an error discovered in the material quoted from the report.

If the report is in error and there is sourced material to correct it, I'd suggest adding a footnote at the end of the section, with the corrected information and the reference to the source of the new information.--JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

List of famous

Is is possible to create a list of famous black Latinos?24.185.49.151 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What, you mean like Pele? I think that sounds a great idea --Episodiod 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the individual countries list a few. These could be expanded, a separate section could be dedicated to FBL's if there were sufficient, and I suppose, if the list proved extensive enough even a separate page would be justified. JAXHERE | ^Talk 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how many Latinos are in the United States, but I heard that 1.7 million of Latinos in the United States self-identify as black. Is this true? And how many Hispanic people are there in the USA?24.185.49.151 15:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DONE! Let me know what you all think. List of Famous Afro-Latinos RemoTheDog (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Mainly found on the mostly undeveloped Caribbean coast.
I changed it too:
Mainly found on the country's Autonomous regions of RAAN and RAAS.
Someone Undid my revision with the comment "vandal". I just wanted to know if/why my post wasnt apropriate.
LaNicoya 20:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well precisely, after all what do the Red & Anarchist Action Network or the Renin-angiotensin system have to do with Nicaragua. Well callaed vandalism, SqueakBox 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, i apologize, i hadn't noticed that. I was referring to Región Autónoma del Atlántico Norte and Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur which would i thought were RAAN and RAAS.
LaNicoya 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well do the edit again than. I am sure if you link correctly it will be fine, SqueakBox 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I owe an apology to LaNicoya for labeling the revert to "vandal", I had my doubts as to whether it was intentional, but when I followed the links that were placed they obviously had nothing to do with Nicaragua.JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

---

IDB population estimates

• This table is terrible! Who elaborate the table is a racist and afrocentrist! Overestimate the black population in America. View:
• Peru -> "Predominantly Indigenous, with much greater African than white contributions to the genetic pool. Britannica Yearbook puts an upper estimate of 10 percent on Blacks." (Note the racist bold text.)
• Mexico -> "The colonial population was always predominantly Indigenous with an important zambo/African strain. Black genetic contributions are probably equal to or greater than white." (In Mexico blacks does't exist or are very small minority. White pop. are 10-15%. Afro-mexican are 1% or less! Racist and no neutral point of view!)

and others cases of racism in table!

• This table is a great joke!

Anyone wikipedian, please, delete the table.

IDB table is wrong

The source can be reputable, but that doesn't make it infallible. Its product can still be wrong. Many of the claims are very much at variance with the preponderance of data. Overblown claims about the black genetic contribution and a constant downplaying of the white contribution does give the document a tone consistent with an Afro-centric agenda. SamEV 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I agree with your first thought, however, one of the rules of Wikipedia is that all information must be Verifiable and from a reputable source.

If you have some reputable source which disputes or is different from the IDB information it would be excellent to provide this information together with a citation to its source and then let readers decide for themselves which is correct.

Unfortunately Wikipedias rules do not allow us to provide "True Facts" unless they have been published in a recognized publication or uttered by someone who is a "recognized" expert or authority on the subject. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jax. I'm sorry I didn't see your reply until tonight. Thank you. You're quite correct about Wikipedia's rules. I'll do as you advice and will be adding alternate information this week (unless I change my mind, that is). I'll also try to finish reading the IDB report so that I can comment on it in a bit more detail. Take it easy. SamEV 08:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

merge of Afro Costa Rican

If there were any valuable information in that article I'd be for a merge, however, Afro Latin American already suffers from too much unsourced material and would only be adding to this problem with a merge. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Population estimate table

I dont understand it, by total population does it refer to the total population of blacks in the specific country?

On Costa Rica is says "Predominantly mestizo with more important white elements" Predominantly meztizo? How? 80% of the costa rican population are white.

On Nicaragua "Significantly mestizo and some zambo with important white contributions in many." How? The black population in Nicaragua is 9%, compared to the white population which is 17%. LaNicoya 09:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Total Population means the number of people in the country. Mestizo, by definition means a mixture of native american and european blood. This may have happened several generations ago and the appearance of people may be quite white, but the inclusion of indian blood somewhere in their ancestry still results in their being considered as mestizo.

The commentaries are those of IDB personnel. You might find some discussion of their rational in the report itself which you could download and read if you're interested, but even if you disagree with their views, it is necessary to find some other authorative source to cite and quote as expressing that view.

Sometimes the wiki policy of requiring valid published sources hampers us from correcting what seem to be blatant errors until we can find such sources.

I admit to finding the idb report, but I don't have any particular interest in it other than guarding that people don't make changes to it's content to create the impression that the changed information was part of their original report. If they've messed up, let's provide the correct information with sources and if we get enought of it to totally refute their report, then we could consider removing the entire thing. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The table

The population table is gone? Was this decided?

I corrected some numbers in the info box under "Regions with significant populations" i don't see that information is sourced so i cross checked with the cia worldfactbook and the number that were previously there are ridiculous. It said panama has 6.9 million people of black decent.. panamas total population doesn't even have 4 million people.

I recently corrected Ethnic groups in Central America which also was a mess, nothing was calculated correctly. See the "black and mulatto" sub-section there for Central America.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no discussion about removing the table containing info from the IDB report. I tried to re-instate it but ran into formatting problems and removed it again.

Personally, I think the person who took it out was wrong in doing so, because, as I remarked in other areas, the source is a recognized authorative source which the Wikipedia rules tell us we must rely on. Many people have made changes to the table, but without citing any sources. This may not mean that the changes are wrong, but inorder to follow the rules and "be respectable" we need to cite sources.

I've not been able to constantly supervise this page to make sure that people don't modify the table, so if someone else wishes to restore it, you're welcome to do it (IMHO) but perhaps it should be presented in another way so as to not attribute it to the IDB in its entirety so that individual parts might be changed without misleading the casual reader into thinking that the IDB was the source.

I feel this article is notorious for receiving updates without sources being cited and thus suffers from a lack of credibility as a consequence. Does anyone else have any other thoughts about this? JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Afro Cubans

I've modified slightly the information on discrimination in Cuba against people of Haitian descent. We only have the Cuban government's version of events and Cuba is a totalitarian country with one single government- approved newspaper, Granma http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/-- (whereas before Castro there were dozens of newspapers in Havana alone before Castro). Therefore any information obtained through that ONE source should be at least of some questionable objectivity. Also, I believe that whenever the Cuban government is mentioned we should clarify that it is Marxist-Leninist or totalitarian so that the reader knows the sort of government Cubans have -- there's no freedom of the press in Cuba. Should government information and stats be trusted? Or is such information imparted for the purpose of politically influencing public opinion -- i.e., propaganda purposes.Mig 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Mig 15:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, this notion that the Cuban people have "been declared Afro-Cubans" is completely ludicrous. Why don't they (the Castro government, I presume) declare that underwear should be worn on top on your head so they can check? I mean, they can say whatever they want because the Cuban government is a totalitarian regime where there's no freedom of press, association or expression. This "information" illustrates how incredibly controlling, arrogant and misleading the Cuban government is. More importantly, such a statement constitutes a negation of Cubans who are not of African heritage. I think that sentence above should be removed completely because it is capricious, arbitrary and false. Mig 14:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WE need to know the approximate number of Hatian-Cubans in Cuba. The information was vague. Were there as many as one-hundred-thousand? People come here for information and it should be as concrete as possible. Me thinks Mig 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Mig 19:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Hispanic

I really don't think Black Hispanic should redirect here, for one, if you type in "White Hispanic" it doesn't redirect to White Latin American (yes, I'm aware Spaniards are Hispanic, too), but that's the thing, not all Latinos are Hispanic, and not all Latinos are Hispanic, with that being said, the page about the White Hispanics has to do with Hispanics in the United States, if I wanted to read about Black Latin Americans, I would have typed in Afro Latino, so, please, someone fix that where it doesn't redirect here. Besides that,the information is missing on how many Black Hispanics there are in the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamanadam (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

Seriously, any collected data on Mexico's black community would say that there is almost no black people in Mexico. That being said, Mexico did import African slaves, yet the community was practically wiped out by intermarriage with Mestizo's and Indigenous populations. Making estimates of the black population due to the number that existed in the 1600's is not viable. 200,000 people in Mexico are considered black or mulatto, but about 800,000 have some black descendence, and as research shows, it is only when genetic testing is done that people who have some black ancestry is found and estimated at 800K. Honestly, who keeps chaning the information and grotesquely inflating the number of blacks in Mexico. 200,000 is the most realistic estimation.Saopabs83 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brazil

The Pardo Brazilians have white blood too, not only black blood. If this article includes the "Pardos" because they have black blood, the article white brazilians must also include them because they have white blood too. Pardo=Mulattoe Mulattoe=mixed white-black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.12.191 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• it´s false..pardo in brazil = mestizos too (only mongoloid and caucasoid blood).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Afro-Hondurans website

I've just taken a look at the Afro-Hondurans website used as a reference in this article, and its just not a credible source. Among other things it presents Miguel's Rebellion from the Mines of Buria as if it happened in Honduras when it happened in Venezuela/Colombia. Since there's a long quote from the site, I think we need to rething using this source, and find another one for the data. I've looked at a couple of scholarly articles on slavery in Honduras recently. Rsheptak (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

BRAZIL

Brazil is not a latin american country!! it is just a south american country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.122.61 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think Portuguese isn't a romance language?Kww (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil is in Latin America, in the US it's become synonyms with Spanish speakers, but the correct term for Spanish speakers is "hispanic" and the correct term for Portuguese speakers is "Lusophone". However, "latin" is supposed to refer to anyone who speaks a Romance language, that includes Brazil, because Portuguese is a latin language, just like Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian. Now if you we were talking about Guyana for example, then yes it would not be a latin american country, just a south american country because it is English speaking. Latino as it is used in the US to mean Spanish speakers only is 100% wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CFsafe (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• south america is part of latin/iberian american.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a consistant definition of blackness, or at least a discussion of it

The various country sections are jumping through hoops dealing with the various national definitions of "blackness" or "afro-latinamerican"ness. Each country is using a definition in its census to determine who is black, and those definitions can and do change with time. We need to know, for each country, what the current definition that's being used is. As an example I point you to the Honduras entry, where Lewis Henry Gates is using the blood quantum definition to estimate that the real black population is anywhere from 1.8-5.8% of the population in 1994, while the Honduran census counts as black those who self-identify as black, and arriving at 2% of the population being black. Its no mystery that the two methods are going to give wildly different numbers which are at the heart of both a scholarly and political debate. Since we are recognizing census figures as the authority rather than estimates, it would be helpful to know what definition the census numbers are based on for each country to know whether we have comparable data or not. Also, maybe a discussion of this would be useful as either a paragraph in the article, or a footnote on the table of populations. What do others think? Rsheptak (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Total World Number

I don't think these numbers are accurate, they don't seem to include those from Europe, Asia, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• this number is false..blacks in brazil = 6%; browns (negroids with caucasoids/mongoloids) not are 46%..in the "46%" have too many mestizos (mongoloid and caucasoid not negroid)..!23% + 6% = 29% (dna tests in minas gerais = 29% of mit. dna negroid..)!and autossomic most contribuitions of mongoloids and caucasoids in the most parts in the country..(except eastern pernambuco, northern maranhao, eastern bahia, rio de janeiro and minas gerais)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "encarta" :
  • Microsoft Encarta 2007.
  • Microsoft Encarta 2007

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Black French-Canadians?

I noticed this edit and have to ask: since the definition of Latin America includes the French-speaking areas, does a black French-Canadian count as an Afro-Latin-American?—Kww(talk) 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By pure logic, if it's demonstrated that French Canadians are Latin Americans, then Black French Canadians are Black Latin Americans. But hey, I'm just passing by... SamEV (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Contested statements removed

• Another issue is the validity of the numbers of people who are classified as black. In many countries the people who are counted as "black" or some mixture is based on choices made by individuals in responding to census questionnaires who may, or may not, define themselves as black based on their own ideas or specific cultural biases concerning blackness. In the late 1990s, it became possible to determine racial origin by studying certain DNA factors in individuals; however, this practice is not widely used to date.
• A further issue is that of the validity of racial identity. In some countries, it is believed that there has been an almost universal homogenization of the races and there have been attempts in other countries, such as Colombia, to eliminate racial differences by encouraging inter-racial marriages.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
• Certain critics consider [Puerto Rican] census figures to be skewed since they are based on self-definition and acute physical observation of census-takers.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
• In all, about 31 African tribes have been recorded in Puerto Rico.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}

Please do not return this information to the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did those 2 million "Afro-Mexicans" come from?

Is there any documentation that shows there are 2 million "Afro-Mexicans"? or is this just a number that includes those with some African genes (North-Africans included)?

This is the latest information about the genetic makeup of modern Mexicans http://www.informador.com.mx/tecnologia/2009/85280/6/dan-a-conocer-investigacion-sobre-componentes-geneticos-de-mexicanos.htm. The complete report was published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology in 2008. If anyone can find it and accesses it I'll appreciated since I am not familiar with that American institution and because I only have the news report: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortekman (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also a problem regarding the definition of "New Spain". Through out the article and its sources they mention that 200,000 African slaves where brought to New Spain which is true, but they assume present day Mexico was the only country that formed New Spain, when in fact it stretched down to Costa Rica and east to the present day countries of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hispaniola and Jamaica and of course what is now the U.S Southwest. So to say that blacks were the majority in Mexico is wrong, those 200,000 spread all over New Spain not just what is now known as Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortekman (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• mexico in the past have 250.000-500.000 slaves.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Joshua Project

http://www.joshuaproject.net is an unreliable source whose self identified mission is to identify the countriess with the largest unchristianized population in order to concentrate missionization on them. I don't think it can be used as a reliable source for the demographics of each country, as several edits have tried to claim. Other opinions welcome. Rsheptak (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. The source itself says in several places This data may contain errors and needs continual correcting and updating! The Ogre (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Population Tables and Who is Black

We've discussed this before, but RemoTheDog and I are in danger of getting into another edit war over this, and rather than just revert his changes again, I thought I'd open it up for discussion and for a wider consensus. In the table, we've been using the CIA world Factbook numbers as authoratative by convention. See "We need a consistent definition of Blackness", "Contested Statements Removed", "Where did those 2 million Afro-Mexicans come from" and other discussions above.

RemoTheDog has been interpreting all of the mixed race peoples listed in the CIA World Factbook table as "black" and modifying the table entries accordingly, citing as support an article by Juliet Hooker "Afrodescendent Struggles for Collective Rights in Latin America" (http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/857040_770849120_902542287.pdf) and a 1989 Country study on the Dominican Republic put on the Library of Congress Website (TOC here http://countrystudies.us/dominican-republic/). These don't exactly support his position, but what they do argue is that residents of these countries have a lot of unacknowledged black contribution to their heritage, and that black populations in these countries are larger than the acknowledged official population figures. I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree with counting all mixed race populations as afro-descendant.

Once again, it all devolves into how you want to count "blackness". Is it the blood quantum definition that if you have a single drop of black blood, you're black and count, or its is, if you identify as black you count? or is it, what the government counts as black is what we count. We have to agree on what we're going to use as a criteria, or we're just going to go through this all over again.

What do others think? Rsheptak (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

your silence is deafening. Many of the updates to the table turned out to not be supported when I consulted the sources footnoted. I've undertaken to update the table, country by country, using the latest figures from the CIA World Factbook. Rsheptak (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Since most of the black population lives in Brazil, it's important for you to notice that the "black" population are the blacks and pardos together, because if you use only the self-reported "black" population, they'll be only 7%. Latin Americans are usually very mix, then it's really hard to make a table including who is and who is not "Afro-Latin American". Opinoso (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that its very hard to make this kind of table. I am familiar with Pardos, and other "casta" terms in latin america. These aren't in question. What's in question are populations reported officially as meztizo, or mixed raced, unspecified, for the most part. RemoTheDog appears to want to count them as black in many cases. Rsheptak (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the concept of "pardo" is that it includes people of mixed European-African descent, but also people of Amerindian and European-Amerindian descent. From census figures, it is impossible to know how many of them are of African ancestry.

Is it really important to have precise figures? Wouldn't it better to acknowledge that this is impossible?

The concept of "Afro-Latin American" seems a superimposition of a different culture over Latin American culture. As the article itself says, it isn't commonly used in Latin America, where the term Negro is preferred (including by the people so labeled). Certainly this is the case of Brazil, were "Afro-brasileiro" isn't common usage, except when referred to things, not persons: "Afro-Brazilian Music", "Afro-Brazilian Religion". Ninguém (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pardo" in the Spanish colonies, is technically only people of Euro-African descent. I have no knowledge about how its used in Brasil. That said, of course, any casta term is malleable in the way its operationalized in the colonial period, so I don't see why they would't be equally malleable today. Ultimately its all in the eye of the person doing the categorization, and the identity that the person being categorized is trying to assert.

Yes, it is an impossible task to count afro-descendents in Latin America. The only count that makes sense to me is self-identification. Blood quantum is uncountable. Rsheptak (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no imposition of some culture or whatever. The term Afro-Latino is used by people of African ancestry from former Spanish colonies in the Americas. Same thing with Afro-Cuban, Afro-Columbian, etc. I've heard it and I've seen it, especially on Youtube. Blacks in Brazil, Cuba, and a few other nations were able to keep the African traditions the Europeans tried to take away. If you guys think not, then prove it. Don't assume. B-Machine (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

African of Argentina

hi there im writing from Argentina and i really dont understand very well what are we talking about when we say African people :is this people black or people of some african ancestry ? , there is really no "absolut" study that said that there is 2 million person of african ancestry in Argentina , may be is true but here in latin america because of the mixing of the blood maybe aperson has a black great -great father 2 italians great-greats father and one spanish great-greatfather makes him black , idont know yuo will see that is not like in united states here thereisnt some racial category and we dont clasify peolple for race or ethnicity by the way how can you say if it or it isnt of african ancestry , all the human race comes from africa too i found some mistakes in african argentines . how can you say that Beernardino Rivadavia or Rozendo Mendizabal were black without any references? i found another mistake here says that Raul Midon is an african argentine : first he is black because of his mother is black and he hasnt born or lived in Argentina so why you can say he is an afroargentine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.217.177 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• blacks in argentine not are a visible minority..in argentine have many mestizos in the interior of the country (northwestern), because blacks < 1%.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of African descendants from Haiti and Martinique based on accurate, but unpopular, criteria

Map showing the dates of independence of the countries of the Americas. Black shows areas not independent.

I am reinserting the section on Haiti deleted by RiverBlue2 suggesting that it is not a Latin American country. According to the article on the Americas Martinique is among the list of overseas regions, dependencies and other polities that belong to the American geographic region (not the nation), but do not fall into the category of being "sovereign states". Martinique is controlled, and was colonized, by France, one of the original Latin-based nations (culture, people and language). Furthermore, the island's original inhabitants, the Arawak and Carib peoples, are considered Indigenous Americans because they were native to the Americas. 80% of the indigenous population is of African slave, Caucasian, and Indigenous ancestry, carrying on the Arawak and Carib bloodlines.

According to the same article Haiti is among 35 sovereign states in the Americas. The country is part of the American geographic region. Although an independent nation Haiti was colonized by France, one of the original Latin-based nations (culture, people and language). Furthermore, the island's original inhabitants, the Taino peoples, are considered Indigenous Americans because they were native to the Americas.

Latin culture was not only inherited from Spain and Portugal via the colonial era - see Latin and Latins. Therefore, Martinique and Haiti are, indeed, a Latin American entities due to their geographic disposition of being in the Americas (which includes the Caribbean), and by way of cultural, ethnic and linguistic heritage. Thus, the African descendants living in both Haiti and Martinique are Afro-Latin American. Bab-a-lot (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of populations immigrated from or recently descended from Latin Africa

Proposed borders of the USLA

See: United States of Latin Africa - It's a part of Africa colonized by Latin countries such as France, Spain and Portugal. These countries left an undeniable mark on the local, indigenous, populations in terms of ethnic/racial, cultural and linguistic heritage. These countries, at one time, had distinct mulatto communities - unique histories worth looking into. This region also experience repatriation of Brazilian and Cuban slaves between the 1600-1800s, many of mixed heritage. Angola and Spain have Spanish speaking populations. Nigeria's Pidgin English has Spanish linguistic influence, which could stem from Calabar State contact with Bioko Island, or from repatriated Afro-Latin Americans. Other possible countries to consider not included in that article: Sierra-Leone, Cape Verde and Ivory Coast. Share your thoughts. Bab-a-lot (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• it´s ridiculous..the culture of africa is congoid and not "latin".. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

First Africans in the Americas

While there certainly is debate over the veracity of his claims, Ivan van Sertima's work into the pre-Columbus contact between African and Mesoamerican cultures adds an element of doubt into the discussion. Therefore, I propose removing the word "undoubtedly" and replacing it with "are thought to have". Furthermore, a sentence indicating that other theories of cultural contact exist should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• it´s a pseudo-science/pseudo-history..the most majority of statues in the mesoamerica was mongoloid feactures..only one have mongrel feactures..in the "ilha de pascoa" have many caucasoid statues..vikings have piooner in the americas with avanced tecnology in the seas..see: vinland..nem nas ilhas mais proximas da africa vc´s conseguiram chegar primeiro, dirá em outros continentes..lol!cabo verde was desabited and madagascar was malasian pre-french..guanches was a anciet caucasoid/europoid people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.73 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Total Population

I have changed the total number to the one supported by reliable and objective census data. The total comes to about 50 million, which matches perfectly the header statement of "5% of total Latin American population", and the per country data.

The "sources" claiming 150 million cannot be considered reliable, as they do not provide a basis for those calculations, and are in direct and significant conflict with census and self-identification data. The first article is especially silly, as it claims "an estimated" 100 million Afro-Latin Americans in 1990, out of a total of about 200 million (1990), meaning 50%+ of the total population.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, recently (mid June 2011) they have "upped the ante", so to speak. Instead of claiming 150 millions, they now claim 150,000,000,000 which, unless my math is off, means 150 BILLIONS... rather amazing since the entire world population is only about 7 Billions. It seems these individuals have severe math problems, or are just vandalizing the article, in which case they should be treated as such.Virgrod (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Changes I made to the Afro Puerto Rican numbers.

I changed the .27 million to the actual .87 million that is calculated from actual census results, the .27 million Afro Boricua count that was originally stated before did not include the Mulatto or Mixed percentages of Puerto Ricans, even though this was included for nearly every other countries Afro population count. Also the 2010 actual census if you read it, the 6.9 percent Puerto Ricans who identified themselves as being black has changed to 12.4 percent, and the mixed or mulatto percentage has gone up from 10.9 to 11.1, so changes were made based on the changes of the actual census. Bring the census count of Afro or Mulatto Puerto Ricans as of 2010 to .87 million or 23.5%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoricuaDeCora5 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Adriana Lima?

Adriana Lima is NOT an Afro-Latino. She may have Black ancestry but she is just multiracial like most Latin Americans, strongly leaning to the White side genetically. Just look at her facial features. Not a good representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.19.166 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion is confusing--you say she's not Afro-Latino and then that she is of "Black" [i.e., African] ancestry. N.B., How a person looks is not a definitive indicator of his or her racial ancestry. Safety Cap (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The assertion is NOT confusing to anyone who understands English. And you misquoted the original post, which simply said that she had some black ancestry, not that she was black. If having some degree of black ancestry means that a person is black, then of course, the whole world is black.189.38.128.114 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you consider Adriana Lima to be proper representative of Afro-Latin American people you are delusional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.242 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And you misquoted the original post, which simply said that she had some black ancestry, not that she was black. If having some degree of black ancestry means that a person is black, then of course, the whole world is black.

Yea, except that "the whole world" doesn't have Afro bloodlines that are recent and detectable like Adriana Lima's. Otherwise why would every person's so-called black ancestry never be mentioned, but someone like Adriana's is? Tell me you're not comparing her situation to the average white? Seriously, there is a baffling and bizarre habit I've seen of many (mostly whites) to adamantly object to Lima being labeled anything less than "primarily white" (except she also cites Japanese and Native blood, meaning probably she's primarily non-white). They will do this no matter WHAT you tell them, and no matter the fact that Lima has never exactly left her racial identity open to dispute (a la Vin Diesel). It's as if these people would find it so hard to believe that someone from Brazil with dark skin and full lips, could be non-white? Really, is that suuuch a stretch, folks? Oh and the fact that you cannot see African in her features (I can and always have) doesn't make you more qualified to dictate her ethnicity, it makes you less.

Citing "out of Africa" on the topic of Lima's black ancestry is really ridiculous. Every person is NOT part-black, you know this. Anyway, I have no problem with her being on this page, though I'll admit she could just as easily go under mixed/mestizo/mulatto page. However, if Lima (who IS part-black) identifies as Afro-Latina, that would be completely her prerogative, and her own words would be a perfectly valid basis to include her here. 69.205.76.174 (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Handling of "mixed" people, and CIA FB's unsupported claims

These issues are more directly connected to the section on the Dom. Rep., but likely apply to other regions. There is a well-known source, the CIA Factbook (CF), that claims that 73% of the DR population is of "mixed" background. The CF does not explicitly indicates (a) HOW do they arrive at those percentages, and (b) what do they mean by "mixed". And even if we knew what "mixed" means here, it is unclear how to handle the case.

• Point (a) likely applies to all sections that rely on the CF. Since the CF gives very specific percentages (as opposed to vaguer statements like "about 3 quarter") it seems they rely on some sort of specific demographic study. Unfortunately the CF does not say which study it is, when it was done, by whom, etc. The fact that the CF does not provide any information on its source should be made clear to the reader. Of course, we may still use the values they give, but with this clarification. Would you not agree?
• (b) A separate issue is that the CF does not clearly specify what "mixed" means. Obviously, African ancestry may be part of the mixture, but this cannot be assumed. For example, a person of both Caucasian and Native American background is certainly mixed, but is definitely not of African descent. Thus, we should NOT assume -- neither in the DR case nor in any other case -- that mixed necessarily includes African... it may very well include African in many cases, but we have no way to know in how many, unless the source explicitly gives that information.
• (c) Finally, even if we knew that "mixed" includes African ancestry, we still do not know the exact make-up, unless told by a reliable source. For example, a person who is 1% black, 49% Native and 50% Caucasian is certainly "mixed", but it would seem disingenuous to count this person as of "African Descent" when s/he is actually 99% non-African. The best way to handle mixed people is, in my opinion, simply as a range. For example, in the case of the DR, assuming that the CF unsupported claims is accurate, a factually correct statement is that 11%-84% of the people are of African descent. 11 is the percentage of confirmed (per CF) people of Black African descent. 84% is obtained by adding to 11% the 73% that corresponds to "mixed" people (possibly including African ancestry). Thus, the 11%-84% is factually correct (at least if one accepts the unsupported CF claim). Would you not agree?

Virgrod (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement "However, these sources do not explain how they arrived at these percentages" sounds like original research. Do you have a source for that claim? — Safety Cap (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, my source is none other than the CIA FB itself. All you need is to check what the CIA FB actually says. Can you find any note where they (The CIA FB) indicates how they got those numbers? If they do, then please, tell us where they do, and then we can probably list the original sources (where the CIA got their info). For the record, this statement has nothing to do with original research. It is simply a statement of a relevant fact: the CIA FB does not give any source for their percentages (unless you can see something I don't).Virgrod (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

not 1864

Judging from the other information (the events that came after), they obviously did not emancipate the slaves in 1864. I hope whoever understands the subject will correct this.189.38.128.114 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Afro-descendent

I just created Afro-descendent. I don't have an opinion on whether that should be a redirect, merge, or whatever, but the term does seem to have some provenance at the United Nations out of Nicaragua and Venezuela. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

African Latin American Not Afro-Latin American

From a Cultural Health point of view, the formal term is African Latin American or African Latino American. Term like Afro Latino is a nick name and can be construed as a Culturally Poisoned insult if not used in the proper context of its formal big brother.

"An Afro-Latin American (also Afro-Latino)"

Should read, African Latin American (also Afro-Latin American or Afro-Latino)

--Aunk (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)