posted
Indigenous Mexicans do not look like Mestizos
.
Some Mestizos may hate themselves. Their light and white skins betry their origin as the products of white French, Spanish and German men who exploited their Black and Mongoloid grandmothers to make the Mestizo raza.
Many Mestizos declare viva la raza, when in reality their faces and features tell the story of exploited indigenous Black and mongoloid women who were raped to satisfy the sexual desire of their white fathers, who murdered the husbands and lovers of their poor mistreated and abused indigenous grandmothers. Mestizos like their grandfathers seek to steal the history of Black Native Americans, because they are ashamed that their real history is the history of the criminals and sexual deviants who made their race.
That is why when they say viva la raza, they are celebrating the rape and exploitation of the indigenous Black and mongoloid people. To be proud of Mestizo heritage, while denying the history of the Black indigenous Americans is just them paying homage to the evil history of their grandfathers.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skin Bleach sales are targeted towards Women of colour. Generally, women are unaware of the health issues they are exchanging for lighter skin and their poor choices may also be indirectly encouraged by males who are just as ignorant of the negative trade-offs being exchanged for cosmetic reasons. Skin bleach sales are universally high not only in Mexico, but in all across the globe from Africa, to the US, Panama, Puerto Rico, Brazil, and Asia. The countries I've found less affected by this negative trend are the Islands.
-------------------- Selenium gives real life and true reality Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Indigenous Mexicans do not look like Mestizos
.
disregard Clyde's photo graphic
It is not a proper comparison
The top male compared to female
The bottom is old compared to young
That is bogus and disingenuous
The baseline must be the same
The best comparision is two fully developed adults who are not old and not with underdeveloped features (children or teenagers) but regardless a proper comparison is>
_________________________
a) people (not just one person) of one ethnic group who are of the SAME GENDER AND AGE
compared to>
b) people (not just one person) of another ethnic group who are of the SAME GENDER AND AGE
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Indigenous Mexicans do not look like Mestizos
.
disregard Clyde's photo graphic
It is not a proper comparison
The top male compared to female
The bottom is old compared to young
That is bogus and disingenuous
The baseline must be the same
The best comparision is two fully developed adults who are not old and not with underdeveloped features (children or teenagers) but regardless a proper comparison is>
_________________________
a) people (not just one person) of one ethnic group who are of the SAME GENDER AND AGE
compared to>
b) people (not just one person) of another ethnic group who are of the SAME GENDER AND AGE
_________________________
again, disregard Clyde's faulty and unsourced photo comparisons
you just hate to face the fact that Mestizos are neither Black nor mongoloid Native Americans. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
you just hate to face the fact that Mestizos are neither Black nor mongoloid Native Americans. .
Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry
unless you have redefined the word [/QB]
There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% . The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .
References:
1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.
3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.
you just hate to face the fact that Mestizos are neither Black nor mongoloid Native Americans. .
Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry
unless you have redefined the word
This graph is invented, Lisker did NOT use Y-chromosomes but frequencies of 6GPD and HBS.
quote:There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% . The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .
References:
1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.
3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.
.
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)
Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.
Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).
Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;
group black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20
In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.
Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.
Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117
quote:p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.
p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture.
Suares-Diaz points out that Lisker was not studying the whole country at large . His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times
Winters seems to forget that between his"1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
you just hate to face the fact that Mestizos are neither Black nor mongoloid Native Americans. .
Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry
unless you have redefined the word
This graph is invented, Lisker did NOT use Y-chromosomes but frequencies of 6GPD and HBS.
quote:There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% . The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .
References:
1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.
3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.
.
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)
Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.
Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).
Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;
group black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20
In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.
Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.
Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117
quote:p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.
p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture.
Suares-Diaz points out that Lisker was not studying the whole country at large . His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times
Winters seems to forget that between his"1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
you just hate to face the fact that Mestizos are neither Black nor mongoloid Native Americans. .
Mestizos by definition are people of combined European and Amerindian ancestry
unless you have redefined the word
This graph is invented, Lisker did NOT use Y-chromosomes but frequencies of 6GPD and HBS.
quote:There is a high frequency of African-Mestizo admixture ranging between 20-40% . The admixture rate between Africans and indigenous Mexican Indians ranges between 5-50% .
References:
1. Lisker R, et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
2. Suarez-Diaz,E. (2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960's. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47:108-117.
3. Lisker,R.(1981. Estructura genetia de la poblacion Mexicana. Aspectos Medicos y Anthropologica, Mexico: Salvat.
.
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” [u]Human Biology[[/u] 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)
Winters also like to play around with definitions to obscure. MESTIZO is defined as European + Indian; Nobody but Winters uses the term “mongoloid Native Americans”, which already presupposes what he intends to prove. MULATTO is defined as Black + white. Then there is African + Indian., and finally the trihybrid European + Black + Indian.
Aha! This could only happen after the arrival of the Spanish and African slaves. It is meaningless for the purposes Winters wants to use them. Also note there are more whites in Paraiso then blacks (30.9% vs 21.7%). Veracruz (35% vs 25.6%), Saladero (31.2% vs 30.2%). Black and White genetic contributions are the same in El Carmen and the only place there are more blacks is Tamiahua (40.5% vs 28.8).
Actually the more relevant part of the table is also not mentioned by Winters, i.e. not Mestizos, which by definition are already mixed with whites in Colonial Times. What we need is data on INDIAN GROUPS, Lisker Table 2 continues;
group black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.050 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.20
In these Indian groups you get zero African contribution with the exception of the Maya Chontal group at 5% (not very significant); the Chol live in the area of the Classic Maya civilization, the Zapotec live in the area where writing was first found in Mesoamerica, the Totonac are the Indians living in Veracruz--and the better example to use rather then the Veracruz mestizo sample cited by Winters, the Huasteco are the supposedly ancestral Maya speakers just before the Mande came.. The paper points out that populations used were monolingual and identified themselves as Indian-- therefore, if there had been precolumbian African contact in the Maya area these would be the groups where it would show up. It doesn't.
Winters is playing tricks again by omitting the part of the paper he is quoting in support of his position.
Suares-Diaz, E. 2014 “Indigenous populations in Mexico: Medical anthropology in the work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960s,” [u] Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences [/u]47: 108-117
quote:p. 114 Their area of study focused on the so-called Costa Chica in the Pacific Coast of southern Mexico, Lisker found that hemolytic anemaia was not that common in Mexican indigenous populations, but more interestingly, that the enzyme’s deficiency was correlated with distance to Cuijinicuilapa, a town in which African slaves had settled during colonial times. The farther from Cuijinicuilapa, the lower the frequency of G6PD and HbS; the village of Pochutla, for instance, showing a lower frequency than Ometepec. Using other blood markers, he calculated that in Cuijinicuilapa 56% of the genes are Negroid.
p. 114 These communities lived indifferent regions of the country, including the Northern mountains, and the east and west coast, where slave trade had taken place in the 16th century, according to Aguirre Beltrán. This time, Lisker obtained two thousand blood samples. The results confirmed the hypothesis of the Negro admixture in the west Mexican coast, in some places reaching a level of 40% of admixture.
Suares-Diaz points out that Lisker was not studying the whole country at large . His results apply only to communities where historically we knew that slaves had settled in colonial times
Winters seems to forget that between his"1200 BC Mande" and 2015 there were many centuries where African brought as slaves lived and bred in Mexico.
. No I haven't it is due to the slave trade that many contemprary Mexicans have African features.
posted
Because of the world political, economical, social system created by Europeans since the colonial era Mulato and Mestizo people don't want to be identified as Native Americans or Blacks but want to be identified as Whites.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic