Negro's Riot

Hmmmmm.......I don't know what will happen here.


There is certainly intermarriage already.....but there are sometimes big cultural differences. For instance, a lot of the women coming in seem to have suffered female genital mutilation etc.


But, here has been an African community here for quite a long time, and certainly those who have been here a while mix a lot.



We had a lot of South African and Zimbabwean political refugees for a time. Many have gone home.......


One of our friends became a minister in the first post white government in Zimbabwe.


I am sure he has now been killed by the nut in power there. We stopped hearing from them...

Yes, it does. No one here denies it.

Can't figure out why she does.

Albaturkey

White 321179 71.59%
Black or African American 13854 3.09%
American Indian and Alaska Native 17444 3.89%
Asian 10068 2.24%
Asian indian 1421 0.32%
Chinese 1946 0.43%
Filipino 1050 0.23%
Japanese 835 0.19%
Korean 825 0.18%
Vietnamese 2829 0.63%
Other Asian 1162 0.26%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 452 0.1%
Native Hawaiian 160 0.04%
Guamanian or Chamorro 122 0.03%
Samoan 63 0.01%
Other Pacific Islander 107 0.02%
Some other race 66292 14.78%
_________________
The demographics agree with your speculation.
What could possibly be Other Race?

interesting stats Lash but I don't think they honestly reflect albaturkey, the stats published here show Anglo (white) to be 40%, perhaps your stats reflect just within the city limits which would skew the data significantly. I live in the burbs, on my street of 12 homes there are 3 anglo homes.

ah I got it, under "white" would be included all latin/spanish/mestizo/mexican.

That's sort of weird--I guess. The whites aggregate in the city, rather than the burbs.

It's the opposite here.

nah, see above.

Re the sig line quote (above) - I couldn't agree more

Now, to the substantive post:

1788 - British colonisation - policy of protectionism towards indigenous persons. They were considered British subjects (just that no-one though to ask them if they were okay with that) and the governor of the new colony emphasised that British law protected indigenous people (stop laughing, this is history at work).

1788- until about late 19th C - the policy was still protectionism but then gradually shifted to assimilation

1901 the various colonies and province federated. Indigenous persons were omitted from the Constitution and until 1967 effectively became "non-persons" except that the policy of assimilation was still in place.

1960s policy of self-determination introduced

1967 - referendum passed the question ' should aboriginal people be included in the census?" This meant that aboriginal people then became Australian citizens and could vote etc.

It's a bit more complex than I've outlined but this is a very sketchy view.

In terms of social policy it really is important to note that we're talking about indigenous people, not "blacks". Skin colour is irrelevant. It's heartening to note that several academic institutions in Australia and the US (and I think Canada) are working on the issues that adversely affect indigenous people in all three countries.

Some interesting info from the fed govt here link

in the south-west the term "white" (seldom used) refers to caucasian which is inclusive of all europeans including spanish which then extends to mexican-mexicanamerican/latino/chicano/mestizo, the other use of "white" would be refered to here as "anglo".

I they "they" (whoever they are) used the term Hispanic for those of Mexican, Spanish, Latino, etc. descent?

the list Lash provided shows zero of any hispanic/latino/mestizo/chicano/mexican/spanish for albuquerque. curious that.

perhaps those unfamilar with "mestizo" the word refers to "mixed" usually used as mixed mexican/native american.

My last post was supposed to say "I though they..." Hate I can't fix my mistakes.

Yeh, the American Southwest is a special case. For one thing, the term 'blacks' is meaningless. If we're speaking of skin pigmentation, a lot of Mexican mestizos would have to be included. But they're not, generally speaking. So we have to speak of ethnic backgrounds. There ain't a whole lot of African-Americans (which is what 'blacks' means elsewhere in the country) to begin with, except in Texas. Thus, in terms of housing they integrate quite easily. Mexican-Americans do tend to live in barios, however. But city-wide or state--wide census figures often do not differentiate between them and 'whites.' As Dys has already said, however, the term 'whites' is hardly ever used in the Southwest. The preferred term for pale-skinned folk is Anglos. Even when the white person happens to actually be Scandinavian or Mediterranean, he/she is still described as 'Anglo.' The whole demographic thing is further complicated by the presence of a sizeable Native population. Not all of them live on reservations. I've certainly seen numerous Amerinds on the streets of Albequerque as well as elsewhere. Gallup, NM seems to have more Navajos than Anglos. (I say "seems" because that's only an impression, not a statistical facts.) One reason I love the Southwest, NM and AZ in particular, is because it's such a melting-pot. You run into blue-eyed people named Begay (Begay is probably the most common Navajo surname).

I'll second that admiration for the South-West MA - the couple of times I've been there (as a tourist of course) I was fascinated by it. It reminded me of our outback but then it was at times so very different. And until I went there I never realised the significance of Four Corners (had to check the map out to make sure they weren't having me on).

In half a year's time, I might well join your admiration group :wink:

That's terrific Walter - I hope you find it as fascinating there as I did. Just the landscape itself is amazing. The national parks are worth a couple of days each just to wander around. I kept thinking the whole time I was there for my first visit, that I'd wandered onto the set of a 1950s Western - I loved it

Any nice cowpersons?

I find it revealing that Lash sees race as an issue of "color." When i lived for a while in Nuevo Mexico--specifically, Nuevo Mexico del Norte, the locals considered that there were two operative social divisions: Us (from their perspective) and the Anglos. Anglos meant "whites," "blacks," Pagans, Chrisitians and Jews--anyone whose family had not been there before Kit Carson and the rest of the Anglos theives showed up. Since in N.M. del Norte most families had been there for from 300 to 400 years, and the Anglos only started showing up in the years before we stole it from Old Mexico, it made perfect sense.

*************************

Oft times, this silliness is about stereotypes. People are "white" or "black," even though one or the other obviously has some little or a lot of African blood. To the white southern racist, even a drop or two of African blood makes you a "nigra." And for such minsets, the only other group are Jews. I have classic Black Irish features, which means i have a big nose and curly hair. Whenever i've been in Ireland, i looked like about half the rest of the population, and did not stand out at all. Many, many times in my life, north and south, i've had Americans ask me if i'm a Jew--kind of brands them from the git go as racist in my mind, since they're operatiing from a purely superficial stereotype.

"the locals considered that there were two operative social divisions: Us (from their perspective) and the Anglos. Anglos meant "whites," "blacks," Pagans, Chrisitians and Jews--anyone whose family had not been there before Kit Carson and the rest of the Anglos theives showed up."


Lol! Like the "black white men" in "Little Big Man".