Talk:Demographics of Puerto Rico
|
|
Can the person who posted the following comment please cite their source?
<<< Current findings show that the majority of the islanders are Mulatto(mixed Caucasian and African) with varying degrees of Native American bloodelines.>>>>
From what I've read on the matter the most recent Mitochondrial (maternal) DNA results from the island reveal a 62% Amerindian presence in our lineage and the African presence is ONLY at 26%. It also seems that preliminary Y-Chromosome(paternal) test on the islands populace also points to a MUCH smaller African presence then was previously believed (barely 20%). How can anyone then claim that "Mulattos" are the "majority"?
Also, on reviewing the "page history" link on this topic I found some interesting posts. I would appreciate some clarification on these comments by those who posted them…
<<<A form of Spanish known as Bozal spanish is the language of the island. Bozal is a mixture of Spanish and Congo with Portuguese words. The Spanish of Puerto Rico has few Indian words left in their language such as Hammack. >>>>
Sorry, but almost no one on the island speaks Bozal (if indeed that is even a language). Puerto Rico (and the rest of the Spanish speaking Caribbean) DID NOT develop anything resembling a Creole language such as Papiamento (in Curacao) or Palenquero (in Colombia). In fact, there are ONLY about 20 to 30 African words that have made it into the Puerto Rican lexicon today. Whereas, there are over 400 to 500 TAÍNO words (not just Amerindian) that survive in the Puerto Rican lexicon. Therefore, the Taíno contribution is much more significant to the Puerto Rican vernacular then the African element is -- these genetic results only serve to further raise questions regarding the true racial makeup of our ancestry.
<<<<Bozal has a particular characteristic usually people associate with puerto ricans which is the dropping of the 's' and the using of the 'l' as a 'r' because there is no 's' and 'r' in the congo language. ">>>>
These linguistic characteristics also belong to the people living in Southern Spain (Andalucia and Extremadura). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/andalusian_dialect
So it is more than likely that these linguistic characteristics came from there, no? But that shouldn’t really surprise anyone, the overwhelming majority of our fathers came from this region of Spain for over 3 centuries. More importantly, the phonetic characteristics of the “l” and “r” letters in the Puerto Rican vernacular has more in common with the regional dialectal usage of Andalucians then it has with that of sub-Saharan Africans being that we interchange the consonants --we don't replace them as the black population does on the island. Also, many Andalucians share with Puerto Ricans (especially from the Central-Western part of the island) the characteristic of 'preserving' words that have the “r” sound instead of words that originally contained the “l” sound (i.e. Alcarde -instead of its correct form- Alcalde). Blacks on the island did not have the "r" sound in the first place -- so it would be rather difficult to interchange (let alone PRESERVE) a sound that they have NEVER had in the first place, no?
This ''preserving'' of the consonants “l” and “r” was first noted by the eminent philologist, Tomás Navarro Tomás, in the early 20th Century. This interchanging of the consonants is very different from replacing the "r" with "l" which is what is witnessed amongst the black population on the island. In other words, you can not equate the vernacular of the people on the eastern part of the island to those living in the Central-Western parts due to the REALITY that these areas were 'culturally and racially' ISOLATED. Linguist, such as Prof. William Mcgenney and researchers from Temple University, have recently backed up the islands 'regional dialectism' findings. http://lingref.com/cpp/wss/1/paper1009.pdf
It seems that island scholars and educators have under-appreciated the Taíno and Andalucian element of our ancestry for some odd reason. I'm hoping that these attitudes will change soon. In any case can the person who made these comments clarify them by stating their sources , I would truly appreciate it.
I second the call for sources! Especially for the mitochondrial and Y-chromosome data that is quoted. -R. S. Shaw 05:14, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
Puerto Rican Point of View
The Demographics of Puerto Rico should be written in a Puerto Rican point of view, because it is their country, so they know better.
For those who want to learn more about the recent genetic test/results I suggest you visit these sites. I apologize for not getting the actual test for I do not have the test in a format in which it can be uploaded on the web, but I do have an interview with the chief researcher (Prof. Juan Martinez). I hope this resolves the matter. Bare in mind that these results have been updated since the date of the interviews...
http://www.kacike.org/MartinezEnglish.html
"Of the 800 participants, 489 (61.1%) had mtDNA of indigenous origin, 211 (26.4%) had mtDNA of African origin south of the Sahara, and exactly 100 (12.5%) had mtDNA of Caucasian origin. [9]"
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2003/vol7n50/PRGenePool.shtml
"'Our samples for the Y chromosome were almost exactly reversed,' he said. About 70% of the Y chromosomes in his 800 samples showed European traits, 20% African and 10% Indian."
F.P.S.
With regards to mtDNA and y-chromosomes: It's important to remember that these two are only markers, and do not indicate what we would call "race" or provide any clue of the individual genetic background beyond that sometime in their past, one of their ancestors passed on that particular gene. For example, an Taino female could have passed on her mtDNA to one of her daughters, and as long as there is an unbroken line of daughters from her to the present, that same mtDNA will still be present, no matter what "race" those daughters or their respective mates were. Same goes for y-chromosomes and the patrilineal descent. As it is phrased now, the article is slightly misleading in it's tone, implying that there is a genetic support determining a person's racial mix, when in fact "race" is a very poorly understood phenomenon in genetics.
- I don't perceive how the article is misleading with regard to race. It doesn't seem to say much at all about race. It seems very careful to say things like "61% of all Puerto Ricans possessed at least one female Amerindian ancestor". This is talking about origins, not race. Also, it is phrased to avoid implying you can say much at all about how much a person has ancestry of a particular origin. "At least one" leaves that wide open. -R. S. Shaw 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
...
The article is not misleading, in fact, the test where not designed for the purpose of defining race at all, if indeed you could even do that, they were designed to highlight the amount of admixture within the general population --not any ONE individual. The test could have a whole host of results, but on the island, it tends to point to a mestizo majority --this sets it apart from the rest of the region! I would agree that autosomal test are more accurate in reflecting an INDIVIDUALS racial/ethnic makeup but they DO NOT shed light on the general population or the greater populations mating selections throughtout an extended time period (in this case 500 years).
Mtdna/Y chromosome studies do a much better job on shedding light on that matter. You are correct in stating how Mtdna is passed on, but these test do much more. They also suggest WHAT happened throughout that time frame. For example, if a present day grandmother has inherited Amerindian mtdna then so would all of her offspring and syblings -- yet, ONLY the female members in her family (daughters, sisters, cousins)have the ability to pass on that indigenous Mtdna. Her sons could not pass on that indigenous Mtdna. For males to pass on that Amerindian Mtdna they would have to find a partner who ALSO HAS IT. In this case, OTHER Puerto Rican women with a shared Amerindian legacy. If his partner possesed an African Mtdna past then THAT African 'lineage' (Mtdna) would be visible in the present Mtdna results. This mestizo majority scenario seems to have been the NORM for the last 21 generations on the island.
If a high incidence of interacial mating had taken place on the island then you would see a much more EVENLY DISTRIBUTED pattern regarding the 3 major groups. (i.e. 33% African, 33% White, 33% Amerindian)-- but the OPPOSITE seems to have happened. The rigid nature of our Caste system (Hidalgo) probably has everything to do with that. Do not get me wrong, that African presence is visible in todays population -- but it is just MUCH, MUCH smaller then anyone had expected. In fact, the Amerindian Mtdna predominates. Which indicates that the indigenous/Mestizo population was MUCH, MUCH larger and more involved in our islands history/culture then our revisionist historians would like them to be. This probably explains why a high level of cultural syncretism took place, yet you don't see a large African presence in our popular culture until the 20th century. Again, this brings into questions the self-serving agendas that drive those in academia, but then again, that would take up too much time to address right now.
In any case, those may be only "markers" to you, but that doesn't make them any less valuable in highlighting our ancestors mating preferences over that extended period of time (500 years). When combined together --in a representitive sample-- Mtdna and Y-chromosomes studies can give you valuable insight into that POPULATIONS racial/ethnic makeup. Again, I believe Prof. Martinez referred to it as 'directional mating'. Bare in mind, that Directional mating implies much MORE then just that we had "one" female ancestor or "origins", it also points out that for 21 GENERATIONS --that 'unbroken line'-- these two groups (Amerindian women and White men) sought each other out and SUCCESSFULLY mated with each other -- resulting in the islands present day mestizo majority. This 'unbroken' lineage sets Puerto Rico apart from the rest of the Caribbean. In the Dominican Republic, for example, you can see just the opposite regarding Mtdna and Y chromosome studies-- a mulatto majority predominates there.
(F.P.S.)
- Everyone has an 'unbroken lineage'. It is probably misleading to imply that today's ethnic origins mixture is a result of European men and Amerind women mating in each of the last 21 generations. There are many ways the ratios could have come about. It could have happened in just one or two generations, if for instance 95% of Amerindian men failed to mate in those generations but European men did successfully mate in those 1 or 2 generations. (The mtDNA ratio is presumably mainly because of the low population of European women in earlier times.) By the way, SHOUTING is distracting; italics or bold would do better for emphasis. -R. S. Shaw 01:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is it 'misleading'? Sorry Mr. Shaw, but your scenarios for the present Mtdna/ Y chromosome results seems extremely unlikely. You see, Indigenous women had already mated with European men in the Dominican Republic during the first few generations of the islands development --and even in higher numbers-- yet their results are the opposite to Puerto Rico's. Obviously, the selective mating decisions --and conditions-- of the islands inhabitants were different. Don't get me wrong, other scenarios might be possible, just like Indigenous women could have given birth to mostly female children over the centuries and African women could have given birth to mostly males over the centuries to bring about the recent results, but that would be incredibly unlikely -- Your scenario is equally so. Women --especially those from subordinate cultures -- are notorious for gravitating towards men from the dominant culture, in this case, white men. I believe anthropologist refer to that process as 'hypergomy'.
You see, we have records going back for centuries documenting the maritual unions between indigenous women and European men...we also have 'Limpieza de Sangre' documents up until 1870 that highlight the desire of socially ambitious mestizos who wanted to move on up in our society...in fact, we even had a category for pure 'indios' up to the first half of the 19th century. It is well documented in the Americas -- except for the Caribbean that is. These test also seem to back up the linguistic and documentary evidence of the island. Again, the desire to erase that amicable union between these two cultures is headed by modern historians and social scientist who have their own self-serving agendas.
ps. thanks for the tips. F.P.S.