Census: Hispanics Fuel US White Population Growth

[Magister Eckhart]

Black and even pure black-Hispanics are just a minority in America as well as Pure Indians or Cayotes" . The average Hispanic is Mestizo (ranging from 45% to even 60% euro) since the largest group are Mexicans with +40 million, Castizos (ex.Mexico, Colombia, Chile) follow as second, then mulattoes and moriscos at 3rd place who many of them come from Caribbean countries like Cuba, PR, Dominican Rep.. Correction: Cuba isn't mestizo country it's rather a criollo and mulatto(black+white)e country, but you might find some folks with indigenous looks over there.

The biggest threat to the U.S are Caribbean blacks like Haitians, Jamaicans (not Hispanics), they breed like rabbits and are all over the place, to give you an idea of how the situation has worsen in the east-most tip of Cuba the Haitian population has reached an all time high of over 300,000 threatening to swallow the remaining mulattoes, criollos and moriscos there and become the majority. It's worst in South florida they have a part of the city named after them " Little Haiti".

I am surprised to find Cuba to be a Mulatto country; so many of the revolutionaries look Mestizo to me, while those fleeing the country seem predominately European in appearance. Without a doubt, the threat posed by Jamaicans and Haitians cannot be overstated, but at the same time I am unsure Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are somehow better. The best of the population seems to stay right where it is in Republica Dominicana, Chile, Columbia, Argentina, etc.

I do not, in general, mind Cubans, Argentinians, Chileans, and Dominicans. I find the most disgusting bunch to come from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Central America. Indeed, most Cubans I have met are so civilized I would have mistaken them for Spaniards if they had not told me they were cubanos.

[Odoacer]

I think people tend to forget that Mulattos and Mestizo are both 50% non-Euro, because I've seen a lot of people elevate Mestizo above Mulatto, as if the savage Indianos are somehow superior to the savage Negroes. I am sure the Spaniards would never make such an error.

I'm not sure what our Spaniards would say, but historically, one could breed up from Indio to Español: Indio + Español = Mestizo -> Mestizo + Español = Castizo -> Castizo + Español = Español. This wasn't the case for the Negro: Negro + Español = Mulato -> Mulato + Español = Morisco -> Morisco + Español = Albino, etc. I'm sure lines were blurred more & more over generations, but the important point is that blacks were regarded as inferior to Indians - whose native aristocracies were recognized by the Spanish - & this was also reflected in law.

[Han Cholo]

Some Hispanics do. Remember, "hispanic" is an incredibly broad term, and incorporates Criollo (100% Euro), Castizo & Morisco (75% Euro), Mestizo & Mulatto (50% Euro), Coyote (25% Euro), Indio, Negro & Zambo (0% Euro). I think people tend to forget that Mulattos and Mestizo are both 50% non-Euro, because I've seen a lot of people elevate Mestizo above Mulatto, as if the savage Indianos are somehow superior to the savage Negroes.

They are indeed and were recognized as such by most people who came in contact by them. The africans were just cattle/dragging animals. I'll stop here as I don't want this to sound like Amerindianist propaganda.

I am sure the Spaniards would never make such an error. Criollo and Castizo are really the superior groupings, but they, by and large, stay in their own countries (except Cuba, where the Mestizos took over and the Criollos and Castizos largely fled, if I am correctly informed).

Not much Mestizos and Castizs in Cuba I'm afraid. Those people you're mistaking as Mestizos are probably descendants of Canary Islanders who are generally swarthier.

EDIT: I've taken the time to illustrate this; hopefully I've got it right, but I welcome commentary and critique from our Spanish members.

It's quite accurate however the terminology is far more extense.

[SilverKnight]

I am surprised to find Cuba to be a Mulatto country; so many of the revolutionaries look Mestizo to me, while those fleeing the country seem predominately European in appearance. Without a doubt, the threat posed by Jamaicans and Haitians cannot be overstated, but at the same time I am unsure Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are somehow better. The best of the population seems to stay right where it is in Republica Dominicana, Chile, Columbia, Argentina, etc.

I do not, in general, mind Cubans, Argentinians, Chileans, and Dominicans. I find the most disgusting bunch to come from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Central America. Indeed, most Cubans I have met are so civilized I would have mistaken them for Spaniards if they had not told me they were cubanos.

Yes they (Cubans) are well I would say about half of them, the rest are pred.whites " criollos", and some blacks and mixed people with native as well. The same applies to Dominicans just that our population has more native and African influence instead but in moderate level .

And yes Puerto Ricans who live in the mainland US are the worst, they're scums living of off welfare and have a reputation for giving Hispanics a bad image as well as some Central Americans (with the exception of Costa Ricans who are pretty civilized).

[research_centre]

They must be using the Apricity criteria .

GOOD ONE!

[StonyArabia]

It is not Ironic. USA Natives and Native Americans in general are a very different groups from us, bar certain Mexican Native Ethnicities who are quite assimilated in mainstream society. It's not different than when one of you does not like Arabs or Turks. You're both to some extent racially and biologically related but you're still a differentiated populations with different culture and beliefs. The same about us. I'm not hostile towards them though.

The hostility between Arabs and Turks with that to Europeans is due to history and a different religion and culture, not much to do with race. As well North American Amerindians are much closer to Mexican Amerindians and Mestizos, than Arabs are for example, but the comparing with the Turks it would somewhat similar, since they actually have a lot of European traits biologically and racially before the Turkoman Oghuz conquered region.

[Han Cholo]

The hostility between Arabs and Turks with that to Europeans is due to history and a different religion and culture, not much to do with race. As well North American Amerindians are much closer to Mexican Amerindians and Mestizos, than Arabs are for example, but the comparing with the Turks it would somewhat similar, since they actually have a lot of European traits biologically and racially before the Turkoman Oghuz conquered region.

This is exactly what I'm saying.

[Magister Eckhart]

They are indeed and were recognized as such by most people who came in contact by them. The africans were just cattle/dragging animals. I'll stop here as I don't want this to sound like Amerindianist propaganda.

Many individual tribes are very dignified and civilised in their behaviour; however, the majority of those from south of the Rio Grande do not seem to match this description. The bloodlust of the Aztec matches the brutality of the Negro, maybe even exceeds it. The Amazonian savages today cannot be romanticised into any sort of "noble savage". I do not see why Amerindians from the Spanish sphere of influence are automatically superior to Negroes. Perhaps they can be in certain places, but I am skeptical overall.

Not much Mestizos and Castizs in Cuba I'm afraid. Those people you're mistaking as Mestizos are probably descendants of Canary Islanders who are generally swarthier.

Indeed, I stand corrected.

It's quite accurate however the terminology is far more extense.

I would love to make an expanded illustration; this casta system fascinates me.

[Han Cholo]

Many individual tribes are very dignified and civilised in their behaviour; however, the majority of those from south of the Rio Grande do not seem to match this description. The bloodlust of the Aztec matches the brutality of the Negro, maybe even exceeds it. The Amazonian savages today cannot be romanticised into any sort of "noble savage". I do not see why Amerindians from the Spanish sphere of influence are automatically superior to Negroes. Perhaps they can be in certain places, but I am skeptical overall.

Well, comparing Aztec's brutality with Negro brutality is not a fair deal. A closer approximation would be Mongol brutality. They're not automatically superior as there were a few of them who were pretty basic in their lifestyles (Amazonians, Patagonians, etc..). I'd say the Indians North of Rio grande are far more disruptive with their Alcoholism and glue inhaling inside their reservations. Amerindians south of the Rio grande, despite their bad fame often tend to keep to themselves and the only crimes they might commit is stealing cows from their neighbors.

Aztecs (and other peoples from Mesoamerica) formed big cities for example. They had mathematical and astrological knowledge. They had a semi-written language and a numbering system and all of this happened in 100% isolation. I don't think Negros ever developed writing systems bar regions with considerable Semitic or Islamic influence.

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, comparing Aztec's brutality with Negro brutality is not a fair deal. A closer approximation would be Mongol brutality. They're not automatically superior as there were a few of them who were pretty basic in their lifestyles (Amazonians, Patagonians, etc..). I'd say the Indians North of Rio grande are far more disruptive with their Alcoholism and glue inhaling inside their reservations. Amerindians south of the Rio grande, despite their bad fame often tend to keep to themselves and the only crimes they might commit is stealing cows from their neighbors.

Aztecs (and other peoples from Mesoamerica) formed big cities for example. They had mathematical and astrological knowledge. They had a semi-written language and a numbering system and all of this happened in 100% isolation. I don't think Negros ever developed writing systems bar regions with considerable Semitic or Islamic influence.

This is true, there has never been a native African Civilisation - Mali was Mohammedan and even Great Zimbabwe was Semitic in origins.

Nevertheless, the Iroquois Confederacy deserves more credit than you are affording it. The Mexica may have build mighty cities and established a civilisation in the Spenglerian sense, but how truly "civilised" were they?