From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Racists oppose Afro-Cuban appointee to State Dept.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:04:49 GMT
Keywords: Mario Baeza, Assistant Secretary of State for Latin-American Affairs

In article <1993Jan28.144313.7595@Princeton.EDU> bvaughan@sheps.Princeton.EDU (Barbara Vaughan) writes:
>In article <frankp.728164978@galena> frankp@galena.bellcore.com (Frank Perez) writes:
>>kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (The Wise Man from the East) writes:
>>
>>>In article <moJ1XB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) writes:
>>>>kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (The Wise Man from the East) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <084yXB1w165w@netlink.cts.com> galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross) 
>>
>>>>In a nation [Cuba] whose population is 60 percent black....
>>
>>This is incorrect. According to page 581 of the 1992 Britannica World Data 
>>Book, the ethnic composition of Cuba is as follows:
>>
>>   white 66.0%
>>   mixed (mulatto) 21.9%
>>   black 12.0%
>
>I'm no expert, but I think racial definitions are kind of fuzzy in Cuba and
>other countries in that region (or at least are not similar to US).  I was
>told by several Cubans (who I assumed were black) that there was no racial
>prejudice in Cuba. I was suitably impressed until I realized that they
>were white by Cuban standards (or at least considered themselves so).  I 
>was then confused about whether to believe their denial of prejudice.  (A
>lot of white people in the US deny that prejudice exists, but it doesn't
>mean much.)  As a matter of fact, I kind of got the feeling that race was
>defined as follows:
>
>  white = me and everyone lighter than me.
>  black = anyone darker than me.
>
>At any rate, the whole thing was too complicated for me to understand.
>
>Barbara Vaughan
>

Thanx for bringing this up, Barbara. My understanding is that, for historical
reasons, racial designations in all of Latin-America (not just Cuba) are quite
differrent than those of the U.S..  This goes back to the way that the 
different colonial powers dealt with colonization and slavery. In those
colonies that were controlled by Portugal, Spain, and France, and other such
countries where the Catholic Church packed much clout, you were deemed to be
whatever race your father was. In addition to that, one route to freedom
for an enslaved woman (and her children with her) was to have at least some
arbitrary number of children by her captor, who, of course had to marry her
first and claim the children as his own. In this way the colonial powers
could ensure an ever increasing number of "their people" in place without
changing their practice of sending mainly soldiers/explorers (mostly/all men)
first, then settlers, to the colonies.
In the British Colonies that became the U.S., where the Catholic Church packed
little "clout" (and for that matter, neither did any of the Protestant
factions), the practice was to send settlers first, then soldiers/explorers.
This means that they sent they sent their own women and that they had little
need of the reproductive services of the enslaved women as a means of
increasing the subject/citizen population. The enslaved population was
regularly increased by direct importation, mostly of men. During Colonial
times, slavery in what was to become the U.S., was not yet a "Black-only"
thing. Africans, Native Americans, as well as poor whites were likely to be
enslaved. Folx were more than likely to be enslaved for a number of years,
usually seven, and then released. You race, and therefore your social
(slave or free) status was determined by the status of your mother, especially
after the time that slavery practices here had shifted from "indentured"
slavery to "chattel" (lifetime, and your children too) slavery. A slaveholder
in the U.S. could father as many children as he wanted to by his captives
without the formality of marraige, and with impunity. Gradually there came to
be laws forbidding "mixed marraiges"; the penalty for a white woman entering
into same was slavery for herself, and for any children that she might have.

I could go on........

Keith R
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:14404 talk.politics.misc:70119 alt.conspiracy:14737