Talk:Demographics of Puerto Rico/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citing Sources

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

mtDNA

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.

But How...

can you have a females ancester and not a male one? This is a bunch of biblical crap!--220.238.2.146 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the whole premise of the studies User. This has nothing to do with the Bible or crap for that matter. It has everything to do with science. You see when you compare a "representative sample" of MtDNA(our mothers) with that of the Y- Chromosme (our fathers lineage) you begin to see a pattern in the samples history. I've heard researchers refer to it as "Directional mating"...it shows the patterns of intermating amongst different ethnic groups.

Our pattern shows that the Mestizo (Ameridian women and European men) sought each other out in much higher frequncies then previously thought. that really isn't so surprising tho --women of color have historically sought out to place their offspring at a greater social advantage. The only way you could do that is with men from a dominant society --in this case, European men...what is really surprising here is that there were so many Amerindians on the island for the first 300 years.

This scientific evidence together with folklore, dental records, medicinal and linguistic records highlights an aspect of our ancestry (and identity) that has been surpressed throughout the 20th Century. This is forcing some of us to re-examine our 20th century historians (i.e. cultural elites) since they are the ones who CHOOSE which aspect of our IDENTITY is included (or EXCLUDED)from our History books and anthologies. This lack of DISCOURSE and appreciation of our true identity within our coummunity has sadly done more damage to our Puerto Rican psyche then we may want to admit to. I'm begining to believe that this damage is irreprable.

Your post really exemplifies that....

F.P.S. __________________________________________

Depending on population history, mtDNA may not be a good indicator of the genetic contribution of a historical population to a current one. Take this theoretical example: European men arrive on an island with a native population. They kill the native males and have children with the females. These offspring all have native mt DNA and European Y chromasomes. European men continue arriving on the Island, and compete with the first mixed generation males for mates among the first mixed generation females. This process continues for unchanges for hundreds of years. After hundreds of years, 100 % of the islanders would have native mtDNA and European Y chromasomes. However, their native inheritance has now become extremely small- after two hundred years, would only be 5%. While this scenario is an exageration of the history of Puerto Rico, it is useful for understanding why the fact that 60 % of Puerto Ricans have native mt DNA does not mean that Puerto Ricans are on average 60%, or even 30%, native. It is rather a statemtent about the history of population development on the island, and must be taken in its historical context.

Ignorance Most of what I see in this page is pure ignorance. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, did most of my studies there and visit frequently. To say that PR is a "mulatto" majority is quite false but to say that they are pure Spanish is also rubbish. The mtDNA is only an indicator,like the above commentator stated, of certain traits and ancestors, not all. MtDNA only takes into account one SMALL portion of our bloodlines. According to the study around 67% of Puerto Ricans have a female Taíno ancestor. Ok, great that can mean that they have ONE native Taíno ancestor and is not taking into full account the person's complete lineage. Male Y chromosone for Puerto Ricans are around 75% European, again that could mean that the person had one or more European ancestors. To anyone that has lived in Puerto Rico and has visited Dominican Republic or Cuba it is obvious that among the greater antilles Puerto Rico is the most "white", and I'm not saying that because being white is better or anything like that but the stupid political correctness that some try to follow by not saying the truth is just as bad as the racism that has hurt so many. If nuyoricans want to accept the message of black power and want to over emphasize the role of Africans and Taínos in our society then go ahead, speak yoruba and change your names to Guarionex. Infact several Puerto Rican writers and historians such as Jose L. Gonzalez ("El pais de los cuatro pisos")have awknoledged that Puerto Rico was prevented from forming a predominantly mulatto society (like Dominican Republic) mainly because of considrably less need for slave labor and the important "Real Cedula de Gracias" of 1815 which allowed European Catholics to move to PR with few restrictions. Because of the mass migration,mainly of Corsicans,Frenchmen,Portugese,Germans etc (in fact around 17% of PR's have Corsican-French surnames)in addition to the already present Spanish migration (mainly Canary Islanders, Gaicians and Catalonians)our population grewn drastically to the point of reaching about 1 million in 1900. this doesn't mean that the African and Taíno legacies aren't important or highly visible, it just means that there is a lot that many Puerto Rican's must learn about our culture and heritage to really understandour "demographics". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alesmanuel (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico as a place/not a race

I see it like this. My parents were born there. My father stands from a mixed creole/spanish/european background, my mother taino and black. What am I? I wasn't born there...and yes I do say I'm puerto rican but as times moves forward and more different races settle and populate amongst the island, it is not a race. This is the truest way to see oneself. Such as the US...to say you are american is merely a declaration of one's nationality, to delve deeper into the ethnic makeup of an individual discloses their racial composition. Still in the end it is up to one to define themselves. I'm latina, but I'm multiracial, no doubt about it. I'd look foolish walking around saying I was white. 71.243.247.70 01:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Islam makes up 0.13% of the population and yet is allocated much more space than any other religion in the article. Moreover, it is very biased as conversions to islam are presented as "natural" for Latinos. This section has to be stripped off its biased content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.242.22 (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2010 (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.

No they don't. They only know how to lie and pretend to be white. Peoples from Spain are hardly the whitest people around. Besides, PR is our (USA) country and we know better! puerto ricans are not white.. we are mixed people who think were white.. i dont but most of family does even thou their clearly mixed with black and indian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.239.60 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

References and footnotes

Add them, the start of this article is unreferenced and appears to contain original research Bleh999 08:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

DNA section needs better simplicity/explanation

I think its obvious PR has more European ancestry than any other group on the island. Especially considering the indigenous population was wiped out and limited mating between african slaves and European immigration. Anyone reading the Dna section will be lead to believe PR's are mostly Indigenous/Black when that is not the case. Just walk around the island the vast majority of people look as though they are from the Medi Sea regions of europe.

Random photos of Puerto Ricans on the bus in San Juan:

http://gallery.me.com/davsot/100792/IMG_0809/web.jpg

http://gallery.me.com/davsot/100792/IMG_8069/web.jpg

http://gallery.me.com/davsot/100792/IMG_8071/web.jpg

Protest in Old San Juan:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/06/02/alg_puerto_protest.jpg

Looks mostly European decent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.97 (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Raw data with no explanation is useless. So the DNA test tell me the majority of Puerto Ricans have an Indigenous ancestor of some kind. What about some more explaining? I know it's pretty obvious Puerto Rico is a mostly multiracial society but it's pretty obvious genetics for most lean way more to the European/White side of things than the Black, Indigenous, or Asian. That should be explained in more detail. It's not called the Whitest island in the Caribbean for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.19.166 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oooh wow, pictures of a portion of ONE city on the island. Yea hat oughta convince anyone. *eyeroll*

Anyone reading the Dna section will be lead to believe PR's are mostly Indigenous/Black

Yeah sure they will, despite the fact that both this and the main PR article start out with clear references to the 80% WHITE MAJORITY count that the island gives. Let's ignore that fact and paranoically overreact to breakdowns of detail which allude to non-white ancestry on the island.

It's not called the Whitest island in the Caribbean for nothing

You're right. It may very well have to do with trend of dishonest and corrupted data collecting PR has long been documented to engage in. Nevertheless, there will of course be a "whitest" portion of any given area, but that in itself doesn't have to be indicative of something that can be called a "white country". 66.67.116.32 (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________ Isn't San Juan Puerto Rico also the whitest City in Puerto Rico though? I mean that is where the elite are so that city would have more Whites then maybe other cities on the island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.99.145 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A sentence is out of place and needs to be moved.

I've never edited a Wiki page before, so I'm leaving this for someone else to fix. The misplaced sentence is:

"These findings are consistent with the historical record that the native male Taino population was virtually wiped out shortly after the arrival of the Spanish colonists to the Island.[32]"

It's currently at the end of a section called "The Psychology of Women and ChildBirth issues" and it makes no sense there. It's a complete non sequitur. Instead, it looks like it belongs in the previous section, at the end of the paragraph under "Women in the diaspora." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:30D0:AAF0:BC84:997:9877:FFB2 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)