The Study of Racialism Forum Index
The Study of Racialism
Discussion of U.S. Racialism
Please read The Rules before posting.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch     RegisterRegister 
   Log inLog in 
'

AFROPERUVIAN: AN INVENTED ETHNICITY
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Latin America
Author Message
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 03:57    Post subject: Re: study Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Garifuna genetic study in Belize


The study show, without doubt, they have African ascestry.
As far as I saw the Amerindian ancestry is not so clear, what one would expected.

Omar


Nice try. The focus was on African genes. This part is undeniable:

Our analysis of mtDNA control
region sequences in an archival sample of Black
Caribs, or Garifuna, of Belize, confirms historical reports
that suggest high levels of admixture of the
original Island Caribs with West African people, and
show specific genetic afinities with the Yoruba people.
The presence of an identical mtDNA substitution
at position 16 278 in Africans and haplotype V
Amerindians suggests that this haplotype could be
the result of African admixture, as in the case of our
Carib sample, and indicates the need for caution in
interpreting DNA data in the absence of independent
historical information about a population group.

Also important is the groups compared:
Native:
Nuu-Chah-Nulth, from Vancouver, CA
Yakima of Washington, US
Ngobe and Kuna of Panama.

NONE are Carib or Amazonian Indians.

African:
East Pygmy, West Pygmy, Herero, !Kung and Yoruba

As we know the Yoruba had a big presence. No surprise a closer affinity was found.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 04:16    Post subject: Caribs Reply with quote

No kidding this time, Jaime, but the evidence is not conclusive in the side of Amerindian ancestry. Of African ancestry, of course, no one doubt it. The point of the Amerindian ancestry perhaps is better explain in another paper. If you see it, please say it so.

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 13:43    Post subject: Re: Caribs Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
No kidding this time, Jaime, but the evidence is not conclusive in the side of Amerindian ancestry. Of African ancestry, of course, no one doubt it. The point of the Amerindian ancestry perhaps is better explain in another paper. If you see it, please say it so.

Omar


No, it is conclusive on Amerindian ancestry. Just not the specificity of which group, because the groups chosen were not of the same region.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 15:39    Post subject: Re: Caribs Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
oevega wrote:
No kidding this time, Jaime, but the evidence is not conclusive in the side of Amerindian ancestry. Of African ancestry, of course, no one doubt it. The point of the Amerindian ancestry perhaps is better explain in another paper. If you see it, please say it so.

Omar


No, it is conclusive on Amerindian ancestry. Just not the specificity of which group, because the groups chosen were not of the same region.


Do you got a more precise study?

By the way. What about the genocide?

If it is true they exterminated the Caribs, then forget they are Native Americans. If so, I would not wonder the "discrimination" of other Natives would be very justified, indeed!

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 16:33    Post subject: Re: Caribs Reply with quote

oevega wrote:

By the way. What about the genocide?
If it is true they exterminated the Caribs, then forget they are Native Americans. If so, I would not wonder the "discrimination" of other Natives would be very justified, indeed!
Omar

One, the claim is hearsay by English who explained away the dark skin by claiming a genocide projecting their own acts onto the Garifuna. No evidence of this claimas to actual occurences.

Two, the Garifuna are not descriminated by Carib indians, but Natives on the Mainland in Central America.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 16:55    Post subject: Re: Caribs Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
...One, the claim is hearsay by English who explained away the dark skin by claiming a genocide projecting their own acts onto the Garifuna. No evidence of this claimas to actual occurences.

Two, the Garifuna are not descriminated by Carib indians, but Natives on the Mainland in Central America.


Jaime,

Are you sure? Do you got more evidence or is just your interpretation of the facts. In other terms wishfull thinking.
I have found at least two places that claim such genocide of Caribs by blacks existed. So I believe that at least we should consider that possibility.

After all, Arawaks tribes exist that do have some degree of African admixture in the Antilles. However none of them look fully African like the Garifunas at all.

Although most modern genocides have been commited by Europeans and Asians, Blacks are not free of commiting them. Think in Ruanda, in the Haiti massacre of whites, or in what has happened in some locations of Africa with white settlers. Yes, Africans are not free of evil.

Please, try to investigate with an open mind. After all we are trying to get to the truth.

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 17:08    Post subject: Re: Caribs Reply with quote

oevega wrote:

Are you sure? Do you got more evidence or is just your interpretation of the facts. In other terms wishfull thinking.
I have found at least two places that claim such genocide of Caribs by blacks existed. So I believe that at least we should consider that possibility.


I find it ironic that only the English claimed this supposed history. And the Caribs that encountered the French never told them this tragic story. Furthermore, the English never reported any specific event.

Quote:
After all, Arawaks tribes exist that do have some degree of African admixture in the Antilles. However none of them look fully African like the Garifunas at all.


Which ones? Depends what you are looking at. I have seen many mixed looking Garifuna. And many non miced looking ones.

Just hypothesising, but onn St. Vincent, they were constantly importing slaves, but not Caribs. So a constant supply of runaway slaves joining the Garifuna, would never be strong enough to change the culture, but would slowly make the African DNA become predominant.

Quote:
Although most modern genocides have been commited by Europeans and Asians, Blacks are not free of commiting them. Think in Ruanda, in the Haiti massacre of whites, or in what has happened in some locations of Africa with white settlers. Yes, Africans are not free of evil.


Never said they were. In Equador they did kill many natives and those battles were recorded. But they do not show the level of indigenism that the Garifunas do.

Quote:
Please, try to investigate with an open mind. After all we are trying to get to the truth.


Always do. I just haven't seen any good evidence on this claim.
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 18:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was the massacre in haiti of European women and children as well?

Yes, the abuse was terrible. And that could lead to extreme violence in response, doesn't change it was a masaacre. It only mitigates the causes of that massacre.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 20:02    Post subject: Gen Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
Was the massacre in haiti of European women and children as well?

Yes, the abuse was terrible. And that could lead to extreme violence in response, doesn't change it was a masaacre. It only mitigates the causes of that massacre.


It was a massacre without justification.
In the U.S. and the Hispanic countries of the Americas, the defeated people was not killed in mass, only the soldiers died.

No wonder the French never forgot Haiti. And never forgive them.

Let's study the Garifuna events, then.

Omar
Back to top
sagascend
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2087 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 20:17    Post subject: Re: Gen Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
Was the massacre in haiti of European women and children as well?

Yes, the abuse was terrible. And that could lead to extreme violence in response, doesn't change it was a masaacre. It only mitigates the causes of that massacre.


It was a massacre without justification.
In the U.S. and the Hispanic countries of the Americas, the defeated people was not killed in mass, only the soldiers died.

No wonder the French never forgot Haiti. And never forgive them.

Let's study the Garifuna events, then.

Omar


This is entirely untrue. American Indian women and children were frequently slaughtered by US soldiers during battle or once it was over. If you consider slaves "defeated people" women and children were also killed en masse, whether they died en route to the new world or were killed by slavers/slavemasters.

Haiti was a killing field during the Revolutionary period. Blacks killed mulattos and Whites. Mulattos killed Blacks and Whites. Whites killed mulattos and Blacks. Each found justification in the murder of innocent people (and not so innocent). The mulatto/Black militarized elites justified their massacres and wrote the story their way because they won but it doesn't change what happened.

Haiti's contributions to the New World are rarely acknowledged, especially in the US. The foreign policy of the US since Haiti's inception has been detrimental to the stability and self-determination of the nation, but it's not widely discussed or acknowledged.

I won't even get started with the portrayal of a colonizing and imperialist nation as the victim. Cry me a river for France because its colonies and slaves refused to take anymore abuse. Or Spain or England for that matter Rolling Eyes

Click here.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 21:04    Post subject: Re: Gen Reply with quote

sagascend wrote:
This is entirely untrue. American Indian women and children were frequently slaughtered by US soldiers during battle or once it was over. If you consider slaves "defeated people" women and children were also killed en masse, whether they died en route to the new world or were killed by slavers/slavemasters.


A crime does not justify others. Each crime is to be treated by separated.
The point was to prove that Black people can also be genocide given the right circumstances. That's all.

Quote:
Haiti was a killing field during the Revolutionary period. Blacks killed mulattos and Whites. Mulattos killed Blacks and Whites. Whites killed mulattos and Blacks. Each found justification in the murder of innocent people (and not so innocent). The mulatto/Black militarized elites justified their massacres and wrote the story their way because they won but it doesn't change what happened.


But does not refute the fact when they got in power they took a bloody revenge with the defeated population. A genocide with all its letters.

Quote:
Haiti's contributions to the New World are rarely acknowledged, especially in the US.


In Latin America we know they become free first. Nobody denies that.

Quote:
The foreign policy of the US since Haiti's inception has been detrimental to the stability and self-determination of the nation, but it's not widely discussed or acknowledged.


Haiti has been free for 200 years. More than most of the rest of the nations of the hemisphere. Now is the poorest place in the hemisphere in absolute terms.

Quote:
I won't even get started with the portrayal of a colonizing and imperialist nation as the victim.


Nations are not victims. Populations are.

Quote:
Cry me a river for France because its colonies and slaves refused to take anymore abuse.


That's legitimate. Genocide is not.

Quote:

Or Spain or England for that matter


Nowhere in Latin America there was a genocide against Spaniards after they were defeated. And the British in the U.S. were not massacred either when the colonies achieved independence.

Only Haiti started with a genocide and it has ended in the most extreme poverty.

Omar Vega
Back to top
sagascend
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
{Posts: 2087 }

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 23:14    Post subject: Re: Gen Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
[quote="sagascend]
This is entirely untrue. American Indian women and children were frequently slaughtered by US soldiers during battle or once it was over. If you consider slaves "defeated people" women and children were also killed en masse, whether they died en route to the new world or were killed by slavers/slavemasters.


A crime does not justify others. Each crime is to be treated by separated.
The point was to prove that Black people can also be genocide given the right circumstances. That's all.

Quote:
Haiti was a killing field during the Revolutionary period. Blacks killed mulattos and Whites. Mulattos killed Blacks and Whites. Whites killed mulattos and Blacks. Each found justification in the murder of innocent people (and not so innocent). The mulatto/Black militarized elites justified their massacres and wrote the story their way because they won but it doesn't change what happened.


But does not refute the fact when they got in power they took a bloody revenge with the defeated population. A genocide with all its letters.

Quote:
Haiti's contributions to the New World are rarely acknowledged, especially in the US.


In Latin America we know they become free first. Nobody denies that.

Quote:
The foreign policy of the US since Haiti's inception has been detrimental to the stability and self-determination of the nation, but it's not widely discussed or acknowledged.


Haiti has been free for 200 years. More than most of the rest of the nations of the hemisphere. Now is the poorest place in the hemisphere in absolute terms.

Quote:
I won't even get started with the portrayal of a colonizing and imperialist nation as the victim.


Nations are not victims. Populations are.

Quote:
Cry me a river for France because its colonies and slaves refused to take anymore abuse.


That's legitimate. Genocide is not.

Quote:

Or Spain or England for that matter


Nowhere in Latin America there was a genocide against Spaniards after they were defeated. And the British in the U.S. were not massacred either when the colonies achieved independence.

Only Haiti started with a genocide and it has ended in the most extreme poverty.

Omar Vega[/quote]

If you believe people are responsible for their actions, as I do, then of course Black people can and have massacred with no regard to innocence or guilt. The distinction for me in Haiti is not in the killing, but in the rationale for it. Slaveholders in Haiti of all colors who held other human beings as slaves in the most brutal ways brought this massacre upon innocent White and mulatto people. It was their choices that sealed the fate of their descendants, just like Haitians have paid dearly for taking their freedom with such inhuman slaughter. If there was no code of honor in boiling women alive and killing babies as slaves then why would there be for women and children of the slaveholding class? Haiti isn't comparable to Nazi Germany or Rwanda. This was not genocide but a massacre:

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents that would qualify as war crimes or atrocities. Massacres in this sense do not typically apply to combatants, except figuratively, although the deliberate mass killings of prisoners of war are often considered massacres.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre


Besides, the Polish soldiers who joined the revoluntionary forces were not massacred. Mulatto slaveholders were also killed, as were the few free Blacks who owned slaves as well.

In Haiti, however, no group should be singled out and martyred unless we are talking about the thousands of slaves who were worked, beaten and brutalized to death by uncaring masters.

Perhaps the killing during the transition of power in Latin America was not on the scale of thousands, but I doubt seriously that revolutions were bloodless, whether for the innocent or guilty. Women and children are the most vulnerable populations in any conflict between people, and often bear the brunt of victory because they are the "spoils of war." But that doesn't get written about much.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Thu 06 Jul 2006 23:41    Post subject: Re: Gen Reply with quote

sagascend wrote:
...
If you believe people are responsible for their actions, as I do, then of course Black people can and have massacred with no regard to innocence or guilt.


That's all what I say.

Quote:
The distinction for me in Haiti is not in the killing, but in the rationale for it. Slaveholders in Haiti of all colors who held other human beings as slaves in the most brutal ways brought this massacre upon innocent White and mulatto people. It was their choices that sealed the fate of their descendants, just like Haitians have paid dearly for taking their freedom with such inhuman slaughter. If there was no code of honor in boiling women alive and killing babies as slaves then why would there be for women and children of the slaveholding class? Haiti isn't comparable to Nazi Germany or Rwanda. This was not genocide but a massacre:...

Massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents that would qualify as war crimes or atrocities. Massacres in this sense do not typically apply to combatants, except figuratively, although the deliberate mass killings of prisoners of war are often considered massacres.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre


Perhaps you are right. My only point is that, given the conditions, people of any ethnic or racial background can commit massacres and genocides.

Quote:

Perhaps the killing during the transition of power in Latin America was not on the scale of thousands, but I doubt seriously that revolutions were bloodless, whether for the innocent or guilty. Women and children are the most vulnerable populations in any conflict between people, and often bear the brunt of victory because they are the "spoils of war." But that doesn't get written about much.


In Hispanic America there were very large battles for the time, with hundred of thousands of deaths. However, for the most part, the defeated were just captured and expelled from the countries. And that was it.

The post was to highlight the fact that Black people can also commit massacres and that could had happened to the Red Caribs.

The whole point was to enfatize the following mystery. Are the Garifunas the descendents of the Caribs or the people that drive them to the final extinction? That is what I would like to know. Some people in the web has say the later. I don't know but I wish to know.

The situation in Haiti and with the Caribs is similar in many respects, and I suspect something happened there. I don't know that's why I ask.

Regards,

Omar Vega
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Fri 07 Jul 2006 12:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Brief History of St. Vincent

When we first came to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines there were two things that I noticed that surprised me. One was the relative lack of racism. This doesn't mean that there isn't a kind of snobism that ranks a lighter skin superior to a darker skin, but there isn't the blanket hostility by people of color toward the euroamerican minority that there is on some of the other islands.

I attributed that in part to the lack of an overpowering tourist industry with its requirement of servility and consequent resentment. But beyond that, the variety of color shades in the Vincentian complexion was comparable to French rather than former British islands. That meant that there had been friendlier relations in the past as well as the present.

The other thing that surprised me was the placement of guns in Fort Charlotte.

In most fortresses that overlook harbours, the guns point out to sea to aim at approaching ships. On St. Vincent the guns pointed inland to what was probably jungle or plantation when they were installed. Fort Charlotte was designed to defend against the islanders.

Finally, in January 2002, a talk by Prof. Hilary Beckles of UWI (Barbados) helped me to understand that these were two faces of the same phenomenon: the turbulent history of the island of St. Vincent and the Garifuna (or Black Carib) people. The following brief outline of St. Vincent and Garifuna history is based on Prof. Beckles' talk and several sources on the internet.

Early immigrants

After two migrations of pre-pottery people, there was a third migration of people who we call the Arawak, and who migrated from the areas now known as Guyana, Surinam and Venezuela around 160 CE and settled the Antilles. There were other movements around the Antilles and urbanization of the people on the bigger islands, but by 1300 or so St. Vincent was populated by a people who did subsistence farming and fished and spoke a language in the Arawak family and a trading pidgin we call Carib.

When the Spaniards arrived in the Americas in the early 1500s, they settled into the larger, urbanized islands like Cuba and Hispanola. In addition to mining and plantation agriculture they introduced foreign diseases and an oppressive system of forced labor that decimated local populations. African slaves were therefore imported into the New World beginning in 1517. By the 1600s slavery of Africans was fully established in the Caribbean.

Barbados is a flat island, well suited for the kinds of farming that can effectively utilize slave labor. But it is a relatively small island, so slaves who escaped from their plantations would be easily recovered unless they left the island on small boats. If they did they would tend to be blown to St. Vincent or the Grenadines. They and survivors of shipwrecks of slavers off the coast of Saint Vincent were taken in and assimilated into the Island Carib. Their descendants are called the Black Carib, known on the mainland as the Garifuna or Garinagu.

Europeans

The Carib resistance, mountainous terrain and lack of open flat areas kept European colonists away from St. Vincent long after other Caribbean islands had well-established European settlements. The island remained a nominal Spanish possession until 1627, when it was granted by the British crown to Lord Carlisle. The Caribs had tolerated small farms operated by a few French settlers but were resistant to the British plan of large slave-powered plantations.

In 1667 a meeting was held between Calinago (Carib) chiefs and Gov Willoughby of Barbados. This was a unique example of negotiation between Europeans and local authorities. The Europeans usually just took what they wanted by force, but this didn't work on St. Vincent. The indigenes were too fierce and the countryside too wild.

The British were already crowded in Barbados and they wanted land and indigenous "Yellow" (or "Red") Caribs as workers. They also wanted the Black Caribs to be returned to slavery, as the British considered them to be escaped slaves.

The Chiefs said the British were free to travel to and trade in St. Vincent but would get neither lands nor labour. They also assumed that, in return, their people would have free access to trade in Barbados. Willoughby returned two months later with 54 men to start a settlement and the Calinago chiefs considered the agreement broken and declared war which, with pauses, effectively lasted for 150 years.

In December of 1675 a committee of the Merchants of London had met with the Colonial Office to ask the government to provide the resources that would allow Governor Willoughby to "destroy all of the savages of the Windward Islands". This policy of deliberate genocide explains what finally happened.

In 1730 the British and French made an agreement that neither was to settle St. Vincent in view of the Carib hostility. In 1762 British started settlements anyway, which explains why the cannons were pointed inland.

The Caribs continued hostilities and, with the aid of the French recaptured the island in 1779, but it was returned to British sovreignity in 1783 by the same Treaty of Versailles which ended the American Revolution.

With the return of British troops and mercenaries from the American War, the scene was again set for open warfare. With the death of Principal Chief Chatoyer the British emerged as the victors in June of 1796. They then unleashed a massive man hunt, trapping and banishing 4,644 overly "rebellious" Black Carib to Baliceaux Island - where they were held on a 464 m. high cliff! Others manage to escape to South America and to the neighboring Antilles Islands.

Attempts at overwhelming the native Caribs having failed; the British deported most of them in 1797. Of those deported, the lighter-skinned "Yellow Caribs" were classified as "benign" and returned to St. Vincent. Today, many Creole-speakers on St. Vincent are descendants of the Yellow Carib. A number of Yellow Caribs were moved to a reservation at Sandy Bay, in the northeastern corner of St Vincent.

The remaining 2,026 captives were left on Honduras' Roatan Island with limited food and supplies on April 11, 1797. They were abandoned there because "not even an iguana could survive there", i.e. as a deliberate act of genocide. However Spaniards transported the Garifuna to the mainland. The Garifuna returned the favor, supplying food for the entire colony - which was dying of hunger because Spanish farming practices are not suited to the tropics.

The British abolished the trade in slaves in 1807 and abolished slavery in 1833. Thus the full application of the slave economy and the absence of free Black Caribs only had a life of 40 years on St. Vincent; while plantation slavery on, for instance, Cuba lasted from 1600 to 1880. Slavery therefore had less of a psychological impact in St. Vincent than it had on other Caribbean islands.

This was recognized in 2002 when the Unity Labor Party, having won the election of 2001, in parliament declared that the first National Hero of St. Vincent would be Chief Joseph Chatoyer, who led the guerilla war against the British Empire until his death in 1796.

It is the Yellow and Black Caribs of history, and the Garifuna of today, who provide a role model of strength and independence that allows the people of St. Vincent to have a self-image that requires no taint of inferiority no matter how dark (or light) their complexion.

It is that confidence in themselves that makes it possible for melanin-deficient people like Sally and me to be comfortable even as part of a tiny euroamerican minority.


A more accurate historical description of actual events.

Notice the Yellow-Carbs were still in existence and it was Brits that deported them and then returned some of them to St. VIncent.

And it was they who separated the groups. Which might expalin the phenotype predominance.
Back to top
pinpanpun
New User
New User


Joined: 27 May 2006
{Posts: 24 }

PostPosted: Fri 07 Jul 2006 14:17    Post subject: The Haitian Revolution Revisited Reply with quote

(From Haiti Progress, Vol. 18, no. 22, 16-22 August 2000)


Two hundred and nine years ago on Aug. 17, the French colony of Saint-Domingue erupted in a giant slave rebellion. It would mark the beginning of thirteen years of revolution, culminating in the 1804 declaration of independence of Haiti, the first nation in Latin America.

Sixty-two years ago, a Trinidadian scholar named C.L.R. James published an account of that first and last successful slave revolution, entitled The Black Jacobins. The work has become the definitive English-language account of the period.

In recognition both of the revolution and James, we will reproduce passages from The Black Jacobins over the next three weeks. We encourage any reader who has not read the book to do so, and anyone who has, to return to it. Rarely has any writer so concisely presented and effectively analyzed one of history's most pivotal class struggles.

James' many footnotes detailing his sources have been omitted, and some paragraphing has been added to ease reading. We have retained James' references to the colony as San Domingo. The first selection comes from the chapter entitled The Property.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The stranger in San Domingo was awakened by the cracks of the whip, the stifled cries, and the heavy groans of the Negroes who saw the sun rise only to curse it for its renewal of their labours and their pains. Their work began at day-break: at eight they stopped for a short breakfast and worked again till midday. They began again at two-o'clock and worked until evening, sometimes till ten or eleven.

A Swiss traveller has left a famous description of a gang of slaves at work. They were about a hundred men and women of different ages, all occupied in digging ditches in a cane-field, the majority of them naked or covered with rags. The sun shone down with full force on their heads. Sweat rolled from all parts of their bodies. Their limbs, weighed down by the heat, fatigued with the weight of their picks and by the resistance of the clayey soil baked hard enough to break their implements, strained themselves to overcome every obstacle. A mournful silence reigned. Exhaustion was stamped on every face, but the hour of rest had not yet come. The pitiless eye of the Manager patrolled the gang, and several foremen armed with long whips moved periodically between them, giving stinging blows to all who, worn out by fatigue, were compelled to take a rest - men or women, young or old.

This was no isolated picture. The sugar plantations demanded an exacting and ceaseless labour. The tropical earth is baked hard by the sun. Round every carry of land intended for cane it was necessary to dig a large ditch to ensure circulation of air. Young canes required attention for the first three or four months and grew to maturity in 14 or 18 months. Cane could be planted and would grow at any time of the year, and the reaping of one crop was the signal for the immediate digging of ditches and the planting of another. Once cut, they had to be rushed to the mill lest the juice became acid by fermentation. The extraction of the juice and manufacture of the raw sugar went on for three weeks a month, 16 or 18 hours a day, for seven or eight months in the year.

Worked like animals, the slaves were housed like animals, in huts built around a square planted with provisions and fruits. These huts were about 20 to 25 feet long, 12 feet wide and about 15 feet in height, divided by partitions into two or three rooms. They were windowless and light entered only by the door. The floor was beaten earth; the bed was of straw, hides or a rude contrivance of cords tied on posts. On these slept indiscriminately mother, father, and children. Defenseless against their masters, they struggled with overwork and its usual complement - under-feeding. The Negro Code, Louis XIV's attempt to ensure them humane treatment, ordered that they should be given, every week, two pots and a half of manioc, three cassavas, two pounds of salt beef or three pounds of salted fish - about food enough to last a healthy man for three days. Instead, their masters gave them half-a-dozen pints of coarse flour, rice, or peas, and half-a-dozen herrings. Worn out by their labours all through the day and far into the night, many neglected to cook and ate the food raw. The ration was so small and given to them so irregularly that often the last half of the week found them with nothing.

Even the two hours they were given in the middle of the day, and the holidays on Sundays and feast-days, were not for rest, but in order that they might cultivate a small piece of land to supplement their regular rations. Hard-working slaves cultivated vegetables and raised chickens to sell in the towns to make a little in order to buy rum and tobacco; and here and there a Napoleon of finance, by luck and industry, could make enough to purchase his freedom. Their masters encouraged them in this practice of cultivation, for in years of scarcity the Negroes died in thousands, epidemics broke out, the slaves fled into the woods, and plantations were ruined.

The difficulty was that though one could trap them like animals, transport them in pens, work them alongside an ass or a horse and beat both with the same stick, stable them and starve them, they remained, despite their black skins and curly hair, quite invincibly human beings; with the intelligence and resentments of human beings. To cow them into the necessary docility and acceptance necessitated a régime of calculated brutality and terrorism, and it is this that explains the unusual spectacle of property-owners apparently careless of preserving their property: they had first to ensure their own safety.

For the least fault, the slaves received the harshest punishment. In 1685 the Negro Code authorized whipping, and in 1702 one colonist, a Marquis, thought any punishment which demanded more than 100 blows of the whip was serious enough to be handed over to the authorities. Later the number was fixed at 39, then raised to 50.

But the colonists paid no attention to these regulations and slaves were not infrequently whipped to death. The whip was not always an ordinary cane or woven cord, as the Code demanded. Sometimes it was replaced by the rigoise a thick thong of cow- hide, or by the lianes - local growths of reeds, supple and pliant like whalebone. The slaves received the whip with more certainty and regularity than they received their food. It was the incentive to work and the guardian of discipline. But there was no ingenuity that fear or a depraved imagination could devise which was not employed to break their spirit and satisfy the lusts and resentment of their owners and guardians - irons on the hands and feet, blocks of wood that the slaves had to drag behind them wherever they went, the tin-plate mask designed to prevent the slaves eating the sugar-cane, the iron collar. Whipping was interrupted in order to pass a piece of hot wood on the buttocks of the victim; salt, pepper, citron, cinders, aloes, and hot ashes were poured on the bleeding wounds. Mutilations were common, limbs, ears and sometimes the private parts, to deprive them of the pleasures which they could indulge in without expense. Their masters poured burning wax on their arms and hands and shoulders, emptied the boiling cane sugar over their heads, burned them alive, roasted them on slow fires, filled them with gunpowder and blew them up with a match; buried them up to the neck and smeared their heads with sugar that the flies might devour them; fastened them near to nests of ants or wasps; made them eat their excrement, drink their urine, and lick the saliva of other slaves. One colonist was known in moments of anger to throw himself on his slaves and stick his teeth into their flesh.

<www>.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Sat 08 Jul 2006 06:25    Post subject: garifunas and red caribs Reply with quote

Hi,

The comments follow. First the pictures

These are pictures of the Caribs of Dominica, the genetic descendent of the Caribians







These are Garifunas, cultural inheritors.




And these are Arawaks







Amazonian natives





And this is the aspect of a "pure", just contacted people of the Amazon,




Comments:

After researching sites I started to agree with Salssasin. Perhaps the idea of a Genocide from Black to Red Caribs is not pausible. Besides, it is obvious for the pictures that today's Caribs are also mixed.

What is more curious is the following:

(1) Garifunas are almost completely Africans white the Caribs of Dominica of today are more Zambo (Afro-Indigenous).

(2) While Garifunas preserved the Carib language, the Caribs forget it.

My conclusion (Salssasin won't agree, of course Smile is the following:

While the Caribs are closer in genetics to ancient Caribs they lost their culture. On the other hand, Garifunas preserved the culture of ancient Caribs alive. Curious, isn't it?

By the way, the third set of pictures show the Arawaks. The closest Native American group to the ancient Caribs. Although Arawaks show admixture, this is smaller than in the other groups.
The Yonomami of the Amazon is an example of a people that is still Amerindian, like the just contacted tribe of the last picture. That is very likely the aspect the ancient Caribs have. For language one has to ask the Garifunas.

Amazing topic of study.

I don't know how much native blood the Garifunas have, and I believe is not much, but at least they are the legitimate inheritors of an extinct culture.

Omar
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Sat 08 Jul 2006 17:08    Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Yes THe Caribs of Dominica remained a lot stronger in identity and less admixture. They did not adopt Blacks as Caribs in the same way. DIfferent history.

The Yanomani, and the other Amazonians are cute pictures but I prefer people directly related.



All it shows is that while Garifunas have predominant African admixture, the admixture had to have been slow such that each new infusionj adopted the larger culture. That is why I beleive runaway slaeves were constantly adding to the population, whie no new carib infusions were.

Quote:
After researching sites I started to agree with Salssasin. Perhaps the idea of a Genocide from Black to Red Caribs is not pausible. Besides, it is obvious for the pictures that today's Caribs are also mixed.

Exactly.

Quote:
(1) Garifunas are almost completely Africans white the Caribs of Dominica of today are more Zambo (Afro-Indigenous).


More African, not almost completely.

Quote:
(2) While Garifunas preserved the Carib language, the Caribs forget it.

Colonial influence. Theyn did not pick up an African language. They were still under foreign control compared to the free Caribs of St. Vincent.

Quote:
My conclusion (Salssasin won't agree, of course Smile is the following:
While the Caribs are closer in genetics to ancient Caribs they lost their culture. On the other hand, Garifunas preserved the culture of ancient Caribs alive. Curious, isn't it?

No disagreement there.

Quote:
By the way, the third set of pictures show the Arawaks. The closest Native American group to the ancient Caribs. Although Arawaks show admixture, this is smaller than in the other groups.
The Yonomami of the Amazon is an example of a people that is still Amerindian, like the just contacted tribe of the last picture. That is very likely the aspect the ancient Caribs have. For language one has to ask the Garifunas.

I have seen better examples from the Caribs in Suriname and the Guyanas. Even Venezuela.

You can still see pictures of old Caribs and their relativs the Galibi:


You still see them there:


Quote:
I don't know how much native blood the Garifunas have, and I believe is not much, but at least they are the legitimate inheritors of an extinct culture.


Not extinct. It survived on the mainland. Just not on the islands.

Omar
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Sun 09 Jul 2006 02:10    Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:
...
The Yanomani, and the other Amazonians are cute pictures but I prefer people directly related...


Today's Arawaks have some admixture, Caribs have a lot more, and Ganifunas, it seem, does not have amerindian blood at all, at least looking to theirs phenotype.

On the other hand the pre-contact colonization of the Caribbean came from Northern South America and was done by Amazonian people, like to Yonomani. So, in genetic terms, and in phenotype, the people that looks closer to the original Caribs are precisely the people of the Amazon.

That was the purpose of the pictures.

Omar Vega
Back to top
Salsassin
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
{Posts: 3508 }

PostPosted: Sun 09 Jul 2006 14:25    Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs Reply with quote

oevega wrote:
Today's Arawaks have some admixture, Caribs have a lot more, and Ganifunas, it seem, does not have amerindian blood at all, at least looking to theirs phenotype.

On the other hand the pre-contact colonization of the Caribbean came from Northern South America and was done by Amazonian people, like to Yonomani. So, in genetic terms, and in phenotype, the people that looks closer to the original Caribs are precisely the people of the Amazon.

That was the purpose of the pictures.

Omar Vega

Again, your assumption is that all native Amazonian tribes looked the same. They did not. ANd there are still pure Caribs in the Guyanas.
Back to top
oevega
SuperMentor
SuperMentor


Joined: 04 May 2005
{Posts: 2021 }
Location: santiago, chile

PostPosted: Sun 09 Jul 2006 16:33    Post subject: Re: garifunas and red caribs Reply with quote

Salsassin wrote:

Again, your assumption is that all native Amazonian tribes looked the same. They did not. ANd there are still pure Caribs in the Guyanas.


Pictures please. Genetic studies, please. As far as I can see, they are already mixed. Which is fine, but which show they don't look exactly like theirs ancestors.

Omar
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Study of Racialism Forum Index -> Latin America All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group