The Taínos, commonly called the Arawak Indians, were the main people who lived in the Caribbean when Columbus arrived in 1492. He called them “Indians”, thinking he was in Asia.
The Tainos in 1491:
- Population: about 3.5 million, maybe as many as 8 million (England at the time had about 5 million).
- Language: Taino, an Arawak language. Calling them “Arawak Indians” is like calling the English “Germanic Europeans”.
- Lands: LaTaína: mostly the islands of the northern Caribbean:
- the Bahamas,
- Turks & Caicos,
- most of Cuba,
- Jamaica,
- Hispaniola (Haiti, Dominican Republic),
- Puerto Rico,
- Virgin Islands,
- Anguilla,
- St Kitts & Nevis,
- Antigua and Barbuda,
- Montserrat.
- maybe Guadeloupe and part of Florida.
- Towns: about 500 to 1000 people. At the centre was a town square where ball games, dances and religious ceremonies were held. Houses were bell-shaped with high pointed roofs. Each house held 10 to 15 families.
- Government: Ruled by caciques, kings, who received tribute and inherited their position. Nearly all were men.
- Society: nobles and commoners. Property passed through the mother’s side. Some men had more than one wife.
- Economy: mostly farming and fishing. Full-time craftsmen.
- Food:
- grew: cassava (manioc), making it into bread, their main food. Maize, sweet potatoes, pineapple, beans, squash, yams, calabash, tobacco.
- raised: ducks, dogs.
- hunted: birds, lizards, hutias, manatees, fish, turtles.
- gathered: guava, shellfish, nuts, earthworms.
- other: smoked cigars, drank herb tea, sometimes did cohoba (hallucinogen)
- Religion: shamans, spirit world, underworld, nature gods, idols, ghosts, visions. Opiyelguabirán, a dog-shaped god, guarded the underworld. The ocean is what is left of a worldwide flood.
- Sport: batey was huge. It was like volleyball but without a net and you were not allowed to use your hands.
- Technology: towns, pottery, farming, sea travel, gold, no iron, no writing, no calendar. Their culture supported millions while remainingin balance with nature (ecosystemic). LaTaina was one of the most densely populated parts of North America. Cassava could produce as many calories per hectare of land as rice or maize, twice as many as wheat.
- Military technology: spears, bows and arrows, pepper gas.
- Enemies: the Carib, who lived in the islands to the south-east, from Grenada to about Guadeloupe.
- Origins: Western linguists think they came from the Amazon by way of the Orinoco River in Venezuela. In 400 BC they began spreading to the islands. By AD 900 they were in Jamaica.
Spanish genocide and disease wiped out 85% of the Tainos. The Spanish debated whether the Tainos had souls in the Valladolid Debate (1550-1551).
The Spanish took Taino wives. They brought in African slaves to take the place of dead Taino workers. Today Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic are, genetically and culturally, a mix of Spanish, Taino and West African:
- Puerto Rico: genetically 10% to 15% Taino
- Dominican Republic: Taino ways of fishing, farming, building and healing live on in the countryside.
Contributions to the West: the Caribbean, smoking, cigars, tobacco, barbecues, maize, cassava, papaya, guava, sweet potatoes, hammocks, canoes, rubber balls and probably syphilis.
Taino words in English: Those in italics above and: cannibal, Caribbean, Cuba, Haiti, hurricane, iguana, Jamaica, manatee, mangrove, savannah.
See also:
- Guanahani – the island where Columbus first landed
- The Taino genocide
- Garifuna – an Afro-Arawak people
- The Spanish – modelled on this post
- Race in the Dominican Republic
- Christopher Columbus
- Indian
- shaman
- barbecue
- Haiti: a brief history
- Native Americans and history:
I do not believe that many so-called puerto-ricans are 10-15% Taino . I believe many of them have greater percentages of Taino blood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe the majority of Puerto Ricans actually have less Taino admixture than 10 or 15%. I think Virginian blacks have a greater percentage of Amerindian blood, because of the amount of time Europeans were on the island.
LikeLike
According to some of the Caribeño members on one of those so-called “Human Biodiversty” forums, 15% or more Amerindian aDNA (autosomal DNA) was considered a lot. One young Puerto Rican member’s aDNA test result showed about 15% or more Taino ancestry. This was met with surprise from many of the other Caribeños on the forum Several congratulated him.
LikeLike
The sad and interesting part is that according to history (that used to be taught to us in the Caribbean and is taught in the US) is that the “Tainos” were wiped out by the Spanish. which was not necessarily true.
Many ran to the mountains, like in Jamaica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Dominican Republic and formed the original “Maroon” or cimarrónes villages.
Many times, the Tainos were re-classified so that the Spanish could defy the Church and continue to use them as slave labour.
LikeLike
My family is from Jamaica and I have read that the Tainos were the original inhabitants of Jamaica along with the Arawak Indigneous Indians. Columbus landed on Jamaica in 1494 and saw these Indigneous Indians there. And they were wiped out completely when the Spanish came. They claimed the island, enslaved the Indians and put them to work. The Tainos died from diseases and genocide.
It wasn’t long until the Spanish imported African slaves from West Africa to pick tobacco and sugarcane on the plantation. And the English took over Jamaica in 1655 and pretty much ruled it until Jamaica got their independence from Great Britain in August of 1962.
I doubt any of my ancestors were Tainos since they were wiped out so quickly.
@Linda
I agree with you.
@Deepkchocolate
I believe that Puerto Ricans have more Taino blood than just ten to fifteen percent
LikeLike
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
Some argue the Caribal were busy raiding the Tainos for women, when the Spanish arrived.
LikeLike
I know that Tainos, as a group, are more or less wiped out and we have almost no choice but to write this article from a Eurocentric perspective.
I wonder what the same article would sound like from a Taino perspective (say, we had a few still around today and they wanted to write a brief article about their own history).
LikeLike
Adeen,
When the Spanish went to war with the English in 1655, the Taino’s were still living and were enslaved along with the African. The Spanish colonists gave them their freedom so that they could fight against the British.
This was a common practice with the Spanish — to use their slave labour as soldiers.
After the Spanish officially surrendered to the British 5 years later, the Taino and Africans went up into the mountains to join Taino and Africans already living there and they became the first “Maroons”
My grandmother (mom’s side) is Maroon and according to them, the last remaining Taino’s had intermixed with the Africans — so they believe that most Maroons who descended from the Windward Maroons (Nanny came from this group), carry Taino ancestry.
I don’t remember where I read it, but the last known “full-blooded” Taino was seen and reported in the early 1700’s in Jamaica.
Either way, we know they did not “die off” before the British got there because Jamaican culture is made up of many Taino traditions.
The island still carries the name given to it by the Tainos. The “jerk” we have in our food was taught to the Africans by the Tainos and other bush herbs and teas.
LikeLike
a British athlete (Caribbean descended), Colin Ray Jackson, did a DNA test and he found out that he has 7% Jamaican Taíno DNA.
“Colin decides to go to Jamaica to have a look first at his father’s side of the family. Although it’s been many years since he last visited the country, his initial nerves are allayed by the results of his DNA test, which reveal him to be 55% sub-Saharan African, 38% European, and 7% Native American – the last result coming as quite a surprise!
Keen to work out where this unusual genetic make-up comes from, Colin learns more about the background to his Native American ancestry. When Jamaica was first colonised by the Spanish, their arrival largely spelled the end for the native Taino Indians. Some managed to survive inland, but most either succumbed to the sword or diseases brought by the European invaders.
The Tainos mixed with slaves who had escaped from the Spanish and who made their own ‘Maroon’ communities, so it’s possible that Colin’s remote ancestors were Maroons – or cimarrones (from the Spanish cima, or summit).
So successful were the Maroons that in 1739 the British drew up a formal treaty with them in order to legitimise their self-government, although rebellions continued throughout the eighteenth-century. Learning this, Colin wonders whether it could be the root of his own rebellious and determined nature.”
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/episode/colin-jackson
LikeLike
“jefe
I wonder what the same article would sound like from a Taino perspective (say, we had a few still around today and they wanted to write a brief article about their own history)”
Linda says,
Here is a website that does just that — writes from a “Taino” perspective (of course, diluted Taino ancestry) – Jatibonicu Taino People of Puerto Rico
http://www.taino-tribe.org/jatiboni.html
Document 3. The 1898 Removal of Tainos to US American Indian Schools
“It should to be mentioned, that these Taino American Indians people had been forcefully removed from Puerto Rico by the US United States Federal Government and placed in their American Indian Schools back in 1898.
It should further be noted that the ELA Commonwealth Government of Puerto Rico still publicly claims that Taino Indians, as an ethnic American Indian race of Puerto Rico, do not exist.
Ask yourself: Is this not a very foolish public statement being made by the present day Commonwealth Government of Puerto Rico in lue to the fact of the existence of these United States historical documents?”
LikeLike
[…] "The Taínos (tah-EE-noes), commonly called the Arawak Indians, were the main people who lived in the Caribbean when Columbus arrived in 1492. They are the ones he called “Indians”, thinking he was in Asia."…"Spanish genocide and disease wiped out 85% of the Tainos. It shocked Europe, even back then. And yet, despite all that – or, rather, because of all that – the Spanish debated whether the Tainos had souls in the Valladolid Debate (1550-1551)." […]
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
Very informative post.
LikeLike
@ Linda: Thanx, for the add information to Abagond’s post. That was informative as well.
LikeLike
This is off topic, but a post about Nanny of the Maroons, very interesting historical figure in the history of Jamaica.
LikeLike
@ mary burrell, I also appreciate Linda for the knowledge she brings to this blog about the original American peoples of the region.
I hope Linda doesn’t mind if I include one of her previous comments here.
Careful distinction is made between Amerindians and the Indians from India who are part of the Caribbean/South American populations.
From the Fake Indians thread.
(https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/fake-indians/#comment-144279)
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I see your point, but I am not sure if this ^^ is a sound analogy.
Wouldn’t it be more fitting, perhaps, if we said that by calling the Tainos “Arawak Indians” it is more akin to calling the English “Norman Africans”?
******************************************************************************************
The English (not in the modern sense, but as an early medieval ethnic descriptor) WERE a Germanic people, and therefore, European.
The Taino, though, are not Indians.
They did not hail from India; so their languages are not Asian.
What you seem to be saying is that the Tainos are as “Asian-Indian” as the English are European.
LikeLike
[…] See on abagond.wordpress.com […]
LikeLike
@Linda
Thank you for your information on this. You seem to know more about this than I do although I studied a little but of it at school. As a woman of Jamaican descent, I wish I knew more about Caribbean history. You really did put me to shame when I was reading the information you had about the Tainos and their influence on Jamaica.
When I go off on my own, I will try to read about more about Caribbean history.
@Bulanik
The Tainos were called Indians by Christopher Columbus because he believed that he landed on the East Indies. He didn’t realize that he landed in the Caribbean aka Western World. But you are right that they aren’t Indians. Tainos are the Indigneous inhabitants of the Caribbean islands of Jamaica-where my family is from, Puerto Rico, Cuba etc.
LikeLike
“smoked cigars, drank herb tea, sometimes did cohoba (hallucinogen)”
Whoa, even the Tainos indulged in drugs. Sounds like a Marijuana equivalent.
LikeLike
Why do we celebrate Columbus Day? He had a wick agenda planned for these people.
LikeLike
*wicked* ^^^^
LikeLike
@ Adeen, you said:
😀 Correct.
I was first taught about Christopher Columbus in the 1960s whilst still a youngster in Jamaica. Some of my father’s family are Indian (Asian), so there was always a clear line of demarcation drawn between us “real” Indians and Columbus’ misuse of the word to describe the populations he met.
*
Initially I wasn’t sure how come you could have interpreted my comment about India and the Tainos the way that you did, because you seem to miss my point, and logic. Calling theTainos “Arawak Indians” is more akin to calling the English “Norman Africans” rather than “Germanic Europeans” (as Abagond does) simply because the Tainos are American, and not Asian.
But, on second thoughts, it’s no surprise because the misnomer of calling Tainos “Indians” was artificially, forcibly and violently imposed on the surviving populace by Europeans over the centuries.
It became accepted in the language (by some) like a “shorthand”, and a very dismissive one. That was done without question, and without alternative — in the Americas for a long. Even now, It doesn’t even sound strange to a lot of people in the Americas, as a result, and they might not see how it could matter.
Isn’t there an ongoing discussion about that, too, because some indigenous people reject this designation, whilst others embrace the identity as “Indian”?
However, as I have said over and over, outside the Americas, Indians (whether they are from, or in India, or are a part of the Indian Diaspora in the world outside the US, for example), also claim “Indian” as an accurate and true self-descriptor. That cannot be dismissed: there are well over a billion Indians in the world, and they make up at least 18% of the world’s population.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/31/census-17-percent-world-indian
LikeLike
@Bulanik
I am Jamaican as well so it is nice to hear from a fellow Jamaican.
I didn’t misunderstand at all. Columbus called them Indians because he thought that he landed on the East Indies. And he and other Europeans started calling them Indians.
He actually landed in the West Indies. They weren’t Indians as from India. They were the native Indigneous people of Jamaica. That is what I mean.
LikeLike
@Mary
I agree with you. I believe that Columbus was a murderer and thief that enslaved Native Americans and tried to colonize their land.
We should never celebrate Columbus Day. He was a criminal.
LikeLike
@ Adeen
I am not sure if I am getting my point across.
I didn’t say (or believed) that you misunderstood.
Both of us are familiar with the historical reasons; Columbus, the West Indies, the East Indies, etc., how the misnomer came to be.
But that is not my point. My point was Abagond’s analogy — “calling Tains “Arawak Indians” is like calling the English “Germanic Europeans”.
No, wrong. Tainos are essentially “American” in that analogy.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
Oh now I see your point. Thanks for clarifying. I am Caribbean as well and yes you are right. You are right about the Taino Indians.
Honestly as young person with not much life experience, I know enough Caribbean history to debate but not enough though. I want to learn more about Jamaica since my family is from there.
Sorry for my misunderstanding. It is me that misunderstood.
LikeLike
@ Adeen, I am partly to blame for not being clearer, sorry about that.
I would also like to learn more about Jamaica and that part of the Americas, too. There is a lot which is not common knowledge, and much which has been taught incompletely.
LikeLike
Agabond, good topic. There is also a small population of Carib people in Trinidad who are working to preserve their traditions. I think if you were to check you would find many Trinis have some Carib blood.
LikeLike
@Bulanik: Thank you and Linda once again for adding more information. I like learning.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
I do thank you for giving me for information about the Tainos though. I liked reading your responses. I would like to read more about Jamaica and the Americas too.
@Anne
The Caribs were violent and were cannibals. Yes many Trinidadians do have Carib blood.
LikeLike
“Ongoing research since the last decade undercuts claims for an exclusive indigenous pedigree by would-be later [sic] day Taínos and their supporters. So called “autosomal” or “admixture tests” show that Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Cubans are persons of mixed ethnic background – mostly European and African WITH SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER PERCENTAGES OF INDIGENOUS [emphasis mine] and others. These studies have also been criticized for their limited utility, but they have also been judged to be more reliable than studies that focus on distant ancestry and on single male and female lines of ancestry [i.e., Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA / mtDNA].”
http://www.theventureonline.com/2011/12/the-myth-of-taino-survival-in-the-spanish-speaking-caribbean/
LikeLike
This: “The Caribs were violent and were cannibals.”
followed by…
this: “Yes many Trinidadians do have Carib blood.”
– – –
Hmm….It’s interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
Thank you for the history lesson about the Taino people. I’ve always wondered what happened to the Arawak Indians after the genocide of The People. Whole Nations were wiped out and as a result, no longer exist and not too many people talk openly about it. That’s pretty sad. It’s good to hear the truth rather than a rehash of old filtered American history.
LikeLike
Bulanik, Great to see you 🙂
You can nick any of my words anytime if it keeps you coming back to add your words to the table.
Mary and Adeen, I do my best to add whatever knowledge I can.
My maroon grandmother was the person who inspired my love for the “land” and for my African/Jamaican ancestors and traditions — she was a knowledgeable woman who did her best to pass on what she knew, to me (our elders in society are a valuable resource)
LikeLike
@ Linda
“(our elders in society are a valuable resource)”—-This is very true.
LikeLike
So whites came and murdered everything on two legs that didn’t have a pink hue to their skin. Fits their M.O. I must say though that I had no idea about the Valladolid Debate. Holding a giant fuckin’ spectacle to act as though they cared about the welfare of non whites. These white “christians” haven’t changed. At all.
Whether or not they will is up for debate, but you all can debate it. I’m sticking with my answer.
LikeLike
@Linda, the African-descended side of your family are Maroon: very cool.
She taught you well 😀
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
When people say “Arawak Indians”, the “Indians” part means someone native to the Americas. That makes it comparable to “European”, “Asian”, etc. I know it is illogical, but in that context that is what the word means.
LikeLike
Yes, of course, Abagond, this much ^^ is clear.
Nevertheless, I am curious to know your opinion on how Indians (Asia) should respond to this.
In my experience, I have met Indians (some from India, some from the diaspora) who not only think it is illogical, but do not accept this explanation.
They found it frustrating — at best. They found it “annoying” to have to qualify that they were Indian Indians, Asian Indians, or ‘real’ Indians (lol).
Others were amazed at the way people who knew better were so lazy and complacent at perpetuating a mistake that affected so many people (like a billion and half people).
(That is not my opinion, btw — only what I have seen/heard.)
LikeLike
@Bulanik,
I really think most people understand your argument that the original word “Indian” in English refers to people in, or with origins in India. But at the same time, you (and even people in India) must also realize that the word “Indian” in English also refers to Native Americans. It has already been integrally part of the English language for centuries even if Asian Indians and people of Asian Indian descent think it is misused.
So, using this definition of Indian (which, in English, is still technically correct), it is not at all wrong for Abagond to use a term like “Arawak Indians” where “Indians” refers to the native peoples of the Americas. It may seem illogical to Indians from India, and in fact, there have been many political movements to change this usage of “Indian”, but despite that many find it illogical, irrational or even downright offensive, but it is indeed, a common and accepted use of the word. As Abagond indicated, in the context he used it, it is correct.
How should Asian Indians respond? I think that they should recognize that although it is a superficially illogical use of the word and a peculiarity of English, Asian Indians, as users of English, should recognize that it is a widely accepted use of English in that context. Accordingly, using “Indian” to refer to Native Americans is NOT a mistake despite what a billion and half people may think. It might be superficially a misnomer, but it is certainly not a mistake. Check ANY reputable English language dictionary, and you will find that definition (I just check 6 dictionaries and they all defined it that way). I would have to tell Asian Indians that they have to acknowledge that the word “Indian” is also used this way in English. It is not an error.
I have heard Australians use “Black” to refer to persons descendant from Aboriginal peoples there. In the USA, the word “black” might mean something else. But I must acknowledge that the use in Australia is also correct.
LikeLike
@ jefe.
But Abagond was speaking in continental terms, wasn’t he? Hence “European”. The English are European. India is Asia. Arawak Indian is America.
***********************************************************************************
Look, I understand what Abagond meant and said, really.
Wasn’t I at pains to say so upthread?
So what’s wrong with putting the point across from another perspective — it’s not because people don’t “understand” or can’t check dictionaries themselves.
Abagond and you “should” understand THAT.
Does anyone really think that the writers of the dictionaries are going to break the mold and say otherwise about the name Columbus gave and say it is suddenly wrong?
And no, not everyone “must” and “should” wordlessly and automatically realize and recognize the Americas’ context in the way they think and speak and self-identify. That might be a bit of a stretch for over a billion people. LOL.
CHECK that, if it’s possible 😀
I take your point, but I have also heard Maoris of NZ refer to themselves as “blacks”. The Russians also refer to the people of Caucasus as “blacks”. The Austrians I used to know traditionally referred to the dark-haired among them as blacks, too. Calling people black is not that unusual outside the US context.
Incidentally, I was initially surprised when I first heard that South East and East Asians in the US had (at one time) rejected the notion that Indians were Asian, too. But generally, I feel what this probably highlights is the under-written nature of Indian history, geopolitics, etc.
But that silence and invisibility is another subject.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
He didn’t use that in the original post, but alluded to that in his response to you.
Nothing wrong with putting forward the point from another perspective. 😛
But in actuality (despite some might feel “unfortunately”), “Indian” is one of the accepted (and indeed “correct”) names used to denote the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, albeit technically a misnomer. It probably would be more accurate to call them “Americans” but “American” is not used in that context. Readers of English would not understood that use (ie, “American” to refer to indigenous peoples of the Americas) unless it was specifically defined first in order to shape the context. Without that context definition, it cannot be used that way. In fact, it would be wrong (albeit technically correct).
There has been political movement for the past half century to redefine the term, ie, to use a different term other than “Indian” to denote the aboriginal peoples of the Americas. Many other terms have been proposed, and some of them are being used (Native American, Amerindian, First Nations, etc.). None of them have replaced the term “Indian” or caused it to become obsolete. Maybe in one hundred years, the situation will be different. Today it is not.
Maybe a better example would be the term “Mongolian”. One hundred years ago, it was used in the USA to denote a “race”, referring to people with origins in East Asia, including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans. You would see it written into laws and legal documents. Now should Mongolian people (ie, people with origins in Mongolia) feel offended or at least odd that a term that refers to them be used to denote other people? Perhaps. Now that term has not been used for over 50 years to denote persons of East Asian descent or origin. No one would dream of referring to Korean-Americans as “Mongolian” today. Maybe the same fate will happen to “Indian” re: aboriginal peoples of the Americas in 100 years. But today, it has not yet happened.
It is indeed confusing — “American Indian” and “Indian American” refer to completely different things.
LikeLike
Jefe, Abagond. I mean the following comment in an light-hearted way:
Maybe I am the insane wanderer in the desert on this point (lol), but it seems the “which kind of Indian” and “are Indians Asian” questions may need clarification again and again — even in the US context:
A memo from New York’s police a memo issued a few days ago, on 16/9/2013:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/new-york-police-issues-memo-to-clarify-indians-are-asian-too/422362-2.html
LikeLike
^ exactly.
Maybe, another term will be created in the future. Let’s look forward to it. But today, NYC police officers need demography training due to the terminology.
LikeLike
@ Bulanik
Asian Indians have a right to be annoyed. On the other hand, American Indians have a right to call themselves what they want. “Caucasian” has the same issue.
I am not a fan of the word. It is messy and awkward. In the post above I do not use it on my own account.
I wrote a post on the term “Indian” as applied to the natives of the Americas here:
There I said my practice was this:
LikeLike
@ Jefe 🙂
Did Abagond refer to the Arawak Indians in a continental way in his original post? I believe he did. In Abagond’s original post he said:
I interpreted this in the not-standardized way, suggesting that saying the English were “Norman Africans” was probably more analogous. https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/tainos/#comment-192180
It is Abagond’s practice — and perhaps his policy — to question the way language is used about ethnicities, and the impact it has on the telling of history, economics, etc. He is right to do so: a lot is taken from granted and some things do remain unquestioned and it does no harm to discuss the why and the how.
You raised an excellent point when you said:
You are right on this point, certainly. But the association with Mongolian never became popularized in this sense. I always felt it was not quite right when children with Downs Syndrome were called “Mongols”, as I recall back then.
But this is a tricky one question. We are talking about a nationality later conflated with the invention of race science. And this is like walking a minefield of definitionss (lol).
“Indian” does not really have the accompanying designation of a race, does it?
Note: Mongolian became “Mongoloid”.
In some early definitions of the “racial” categories, there were 3 supposed races: Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid.
There was never Indianoid.
Indians in India — apart from the populations in the North East — were not generally classed as Mongoloid in that strict framework, and it followed on from that that they were not perceived as “Asian” in the later modern sense, either.
(Well certainly not in the US or Australia, from what I used to see.)
Accordingly, to this way of thinking, Indians (India) are mostly Caucasoid, or what I have heard termed “dark Caucasian”!
But as we know, Asia is a geographic. Mongoloid, Negroid, Caucasoid, etc., refers more properly to Anthropogeny. “Arawak Indian”, even if it was a language mistake and illogical, and popularly understood and generally accepted — is neither.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
I certainly agree with that, and have said as much in my previous comments.
You always contextualize your use of those words and fill in the blanks where necessary.
LikeLike
@Bulanik
It indeed does. It was used in the sense of race in a similar way that “Mongolian” was used in the sense of race, sometimes even in the same laws or documents (eg, blood quantum). It is still used today in the sense of race.
I was talking about “Mongolian” used to designate race in the US, when it should be referring to a nationality. It is similar to “Indian” used to designate race in the US when it refers to a nationality. I am not talking about the words “Mongoloid” or “Mongolism” although those terms certainly deserve a discussion themselves. 😛
LikeLike
In the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Mongolian, Malay, Asiatic Indian and American Indian are specified as separate races:
http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/encounter/projects/monacans/Contemporary_Monacans/racial.html
They are all referred to as “colored” which included also “Negroes”. Mongolian included people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean origin. Malay included SE Asians and Filipinos.
It was not invalidated until the SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia (1967).
LikeLike
@ Jefe, thanks! What you say is truly eye-opening.
“Blood quantum” is not something that I know anything about. I shall certainly be looking that up. 😀
I had no idea that Indians were classed as a race in US law, but I wouldn’t claim that I have much knowledge and true understanding of the US’ way of categorising the “colored” groups of people like this.
As for “Mongolian”, in my mind I immediately think of various peoples like the Uzbeks, Kazakhs, various other Turkic nationalities, and the majority Khalka of Mongolia.
I had heard of this Loving v. Virginia ruling, though, but I doubt if I really understood properly!
This is all quite different to the way I was taught to see race in the European context…
LikeLike
@ Jefe
contd., that said, I am under the impression that in the “vernacular” outlook — the popular notion — of what is Asian in the US seems to have shifted somewhat bumpily and reluctantly to include Indians. I am not sure why this seems to be so, or what the history of that is. This is simply an impression that I have, as I have not spoken to family based in the US about this.
It could be a question of how the US has seen Asia, and what it associates with the geography and culture of the Asian continent. There is the not-that-rare notion that India is an “Arab” or “Middle Eastern” nation. The racial commentary surrounding the Indian Miss America springs to mind…
Perhaps India is not perceived as being a significant cultural, historical, philosophic or geographic player in the continent during US history? That is not to say that India’s influence on other Asian nations was insignificant. I am thinking of the influence on Indonesia or Japan, for example.
The irony here is that Columbus came to the Americas precisely because he was looking to trade with India — one of the richest countries and a super-power in the world at the time.
LikeLike
@Bulank
(My parentheses / brackets)
“Asian” was never used to describe a demographic group of people or a race in the US before the 1960s (during the Vietnam War and the growth of Asian American activist groups modeled after the black civil rights movement), when it was introduced as a concept to unify various ethnic groups in opposition to how white people lumped different groups together and treated them similarly, and in opposition to be recruited to fight in the Vietnam war were East and SE Asians were vilified as g**ks so that they can easily be dehumanized and killed. Later in the late 60s and early 1970s, it was further promoted to replace the word “Oriental”, which was viewed as a dehumanizing epithet in the USA. It really took off as a pan-Asian identifier post-Vincent Chin in the 1980s.
It was not used during Jim Crow or the segregation era.
Unlike “Indian” which has been used in North America and the global English speaking world since the 16th century to denote the aboriginal peoples of the Americas (and still used today in that sense), “Asian” as a vernacular demographic term is relatively new. As such, one would expect its meaning to shift dramatically as people figure out what it means. Perhaps the main thrust of that is the use by the US government and universities in their statistics and affirmative action programmes which has basically codified its use in vernacular speech, esp. in younger generations (born post 80s).
I would suggest that you not base it purely on how the USA views Asia in a geographical and cultural sense, or on India’s influence on other countries. It think it has at least partly to do with the need to gather statistics and enforce affirmative action. There are many “Asian-Americans” who are not comfortable with the word Asian either or who prefer to refer to themselves in other terms.
LikeLike
Jefe, ah, I see — or beginning to! I much appreciate your overview.
It is also quite revealing, and disturbing, to read how “Asian” became codified into vernacular speech. Violence seemed to to have played a massive part (not unusual, it seems, in the naming and cultural visibility of an ethnicity).
Information about the subject and impact of Asians in the Americas is pretty sparse on the ground. I’d love to know what the best places and books might be to educate myself a bit more this under-written subject?
I’d also be interested in better understanding of “Mongoloid” or “Mongolism”. It could be an interesting subject for a post.
LikeLike
How do you feel about the term “West Indian” to refer to contemporary (not aboriginal) peoples of the West Indies, or the islands of the Caribbean, Even Abagond refers to himself as “of West Indian origin”. The original term of “West Indies” was actually West India.
Likewise, “East Indies” refers to SE Asia, esp. the Malay Archipelago and over to Micronesia and Papua New Guinea. Its name also derived from the Indus river and was originally “East India”, eg, “Dutch East India”. In fact, the name of the country “Indonesia” is derived from this also.
Both of these terms are still used.
Are you confused by the terms “Mongolian”, “Mongoloid” and “Mongolism” and “Mongol”? They all have their own meanings, although they look similar.
LikeLike
There was amusement (at times) when relatives of mine used to break down the absurdities of that very thing by jokingly referring themselves as: “East Indian West Indians” or, more speculatively as:
“West Indians of West India.”
No, I don’t feel confused by Mongolian/Mongoloid or Mongolism, but I do feel that Mongoloid, as a word, for me at least, is tainted with pejorative associations: race science, plus juxtaposition with terror, invasion, and the like, thus I believe care needs to be taken in its use.
As for Mongolism, I used to hear it a lot around descriptions of mental retardation primarily because of my speech, reading and writing difficulties whilst a youngster and being around a lot of people who were considered “Mongols” and “spastics” at the time. The use of the term carried a racial aspect to it that made my skin crawl and still does, I suppose.
I would hear “Mongolism” with regard to the appearance of children born of incest, for instance, or with Down’s Syndrome. The implication being that this was the most degenerate outcome of “Caucasoid” normalcy/beauty, the result of which was birth defects… The association reeks of ridicule and inferiority, shame and ignorance.
LikeLike
All 3 terms are pejorative, except for when Mongolian is used to denote an inhabitant or native of Mongolia. pre-60s, “Mongolian” in the USA also had a meaning similar to “Mongoloid”, ie, it was a racial designation. Both are dated pejorative terms denoting race.
“Mongolism” is a dated pejorative term for Down’s syndrome (should not be referring to other forms of mental disability or birth from incest), but could be more likely if both parents were carriers of Down’s syndrome chromosomes.
“Mongols” are the ethnic group hailing from Central and North Asia.
So, your relatives were East Indian West Indians with origins in East India or West India? 😛
LikeLike
@Bulanik
I think there is a growing amount of literature on it. Abagond recommended the book by Frank Wu. If you want something particularly about Indian Americans, it might take a little research.
Admittedly, the history of Asians in the Americas has been quite OMITTED from the historical narrative.
Hope this is not to off topic already.
LikeLike
Most recent results of DNA in Puerto Rico show that the African and Native American genetic contribution run neck and neck with a difference of 5 points between them. The 15% Taino is the average amount however the highest amounts found are 39%. Also keep in mind that being identified as Native American is more thanjust DNA, it’s also a cultural legacy often passed down in the family. Traditions that are still maintained often much more then are found in many east coast Native American reserves.
LikeLike
Good description of Taino societies, but I am not sure they were present in all those regions of the Caribbean you mention. And isn’t there scholarly debate on the whole Taino/Carib dichotomy being a product of European invention?
What are your sources for your population estimates? I’ve only read Samuel Wilson’s book on the Chiefdoms of Hispaniola, but he suggests reasonable estimates for Hispaniola (Haiti and the DR) would be around 500,000-1,000,000, and the other islands in the Greater Antilles were less densely populated with smaller populations, with maybe 250,000 people in Puerto Rico before the European conquest.
In an excellent compendium of essays and primary sources on Caribbean history, one scholar analyzes the ‘numbers’ game for estimating the contact population of Hispaniola, and it really depends on how reliable one believes the early Spanish sources to be…
In short, I am not sure anyone can say with any certainty how many people were living in the Caribbean or Hispaniola specifically, in 1492. People like Las Casas had their own motives for exaggerating the population, while others have their motives for minimizing it…
https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/catalog/bib_2145566
LikeLike
@ talibmensah
That is a middle range value of the ones I saw. I also considered how much of a population cassava could support. After Mesoamerica, the Caribbean was the most densely populated part of pre-Columbian North America.
LikeLike
Ah, yes, cassava was the main crop and seems like it could support high populations where Tainos settled in favorable locales. Wilson claims that part of the reason the Hispaniola population declined so rapidly is the disruption of cassava agriculture by the Spanish.
I never realized the Caribbean was so densely populated then!
LikeLike
[…] Los Taínos – https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/tainos/ […]
LikeLike
Need to read more, explore more, revise more. The truth as it may be , better than the out right lies. That have never been taught. But what has been inside our souls is that, we can feel the pain, though it was covered.
LikeLike