Talk:Dominican Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Location map

The map image:LocationDominicanRepublic.png can be added to the new Dominican Republic page when it is created in the format set out by WikiProject Countries. It is mentioned here so that whoever eventually makes the new page knows that the map already exists. - Vardion 09:21, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Country Map

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 03:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the lower Kelisi map, --SqueakBox 03:09, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Lower map is more accurate,--The guy who knows it all 08:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The lower map provides more info but the upper one is clearer reduced/as a thumbnail. LuiKhuntek 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The lower map would be better if it was reduced in size, but the upper map is better as they are. Renesis13 19:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The first map is more appropriate as most other country articles seem to have the same format map (CIA World Factbook, right?). The lower map is much too large and a bit annoying in its coloring. --Ajdz 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

hello

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

Bold Text

the reign of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, there have been anti-Haitian pogroms, slaughtering 18 thousand of haitians at the border

Why is that bolded? It is awkward and is midsentance. I will change unless someone objects. --SeanMcG 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

it is necessary for people to know... 69.86.130.215 04:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

International Affiliations

If anyone has any problems with the new section, please say so here. I know it's a bit messy and it extends the length of the page ten-fold, but I sincerely believe that the information it contains is relevant. Black-Velvet 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Military

Should it be noted somewhere that, according to the CIA world factbook the Dominican Republic has spend 0 dollars on military budget? Does it even have an army of it's own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.7.78 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 August, 2006 .

Yes, the Dominican Republic has armed forces with army, naval and air force divisions. The 0 dollars on the CIA Factbook page is probably just an error. See [http://secffaa.mil.do/] (armed forces) and [http://www.ejercito.rd.mil.do/] (army) - quique 01:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Largest City: North Reading?

I don't think the Dominican Republic is quite ready for the likes of North Reading... Someone may want to change that...

Question about history section

Who deleted the history section on this web-page. Their was some problems, but they should be remedied with editing, not with vandalism. With regard to the statement "it claims that 84% of Dominicans have African Ancestry" when 84% are physically black, whether mixed down the line or not, they are predominately black. I would it's the "whites" that have some African ancestry, and whom may even be mulato themselves." Race is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, racial norms DO NOT clearly translate from one society to another. The black-white dichotomy in the U.S., in which any amount of African descent automatically makes one black, is not applicable to Latin America. The majority of Dominicans identify themselves as mixed-race, often as 'indio,' 'indio oscurro' and 'triguero,' don't insist that they really should be seen as black according to North American racial categories. Particularly instructive on this subject is H. Hoetink's Caribbean Race Relations (1971).

Err, I would mostly agree, except, for one thing, about how Black is defined in the US. A descendant of African slaves who happens to be very pale complexioned can "pass" for white and identify themselves as "white," and individuals have done so throughout US history. There certainly has not been any legal prohibition against doing so in modern times. Likewise, such a "white-looking" person can also identify themselves as "Black," especially when living in a Black community, and especially when raised by parents who have dark complexions. One cannot argue that race is a social construction, and simultaneously argue about how African ancestry 'determines' race in the US. That puts one in the position of discriminating against peoples of Arabic-African, or northern African descent for one thing. On the other hand, terms like "triguero" do shed some light on racial views of Dominicans, and it is appreciated. I would also hope people can find more up-to-date references; for instance, generally US usage now favors the term African-American, which wasn't used back in 1971 Cuvtixo 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The EARLY HISTORY section contains a derogatory statement towards Africans. They are referred to as DUMB and STUPID. It should be entirely deleted as it is offensive.69.29.95.212 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject for the Caribbean area, including Anguilla, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Caribbean. Interested parties should add their names there so we can determine if there is enough interest to start such a project in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is piecemeal. Centuries are totally overlooked while detailed sections like The arrival of the Guamikena (the covered ones) should be moved to the History of the Dominican Republic entry. LuiKhuntek 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for a brief overview and instead got way too much detail about the first few years of contact with Europeans and a very external overview of U.S. intervention. It looks like nothing happened since 1492 except the occasional U.S. intervention. --Ajdz 06:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, the history section is quite Eurocentric. It neglects to mention columbus' virtual genocide of the Arawak Indians described in Zinn's People's History of the United States. This was a very important event in the early history of Hispaniola. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.190.54 (talk • contribs) .

I definitely agree that the history portion is Eurocentric at the least. It claims that 84% of Dominicans have "some African Ancestry" when 84% are physically black, whether mixed down the line or not, they are predominately black. I would it's the "whites" that have some African ancestry, and whom may even be mulato themselves.

Just fyi- by "physically black," I assume you mean dark-skinned, having a dark complexion. Modern usage of "Black," at least in English, is as an ethnic self-identification, which as you correctly observe, does not depend solely on complexion or traced ancestry or lineage. By "Eurocentric" do you mean of modern political Europe, or by people who identify themselves by European ancestry? I fear a U.S-centric bias (whether liberal like Zinn or more politically conservative) How do Dominicans, particularly dark-skinned descendants of African slaves, generally identify themselves? AfroCarribean, Mullatos, Mestizo, Creoles? Surely there's a way to be sensitive without descending into political-correctness. Cuvtixo 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

French

if they got their independence from haiti, why dont they speak french instead of spanish—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.207.127 (talk • contribs)

Because they were a Spanish colony originally.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The story goes as follows. We should start by mentioning the fact that Haiti was split out of the Spanish Colony of Santo Domingo after the French took over the western region of the Hispaniola island in the 1700s (that region had been deserted because of constant sacking). Later on, the French were granted full dominion of the island. Haiti became independent from the French in 1804. Spanish had dominated the colony since 1492, and Haiti only dominated the Eastern Side of the island for 22 years. --Zavreio 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

um the Dominicans Declared formal Independence from the Spanish Ruling and after of a couple of Years The Haitians "Conquered" The Eastern Side after the fall of the "Ville of Santo Domingo" present Capital..Shortly after(22 Years), Dominicans became independent and they never adopted the French Speakings or Culture. EdwinCasadoBaez 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Images from the Dominican Republic

My Internet side http://gallery.olafzesewitz.de/rd/ can supply meaningful supplementing pictorial material to the article. The pictorial material published there by me is not subject to restrictions of use in this format. It exclusively concerns own digital photos. The decision over screen selection, Upload and/or mounting an externally link on my web page I would like to leave to the authors of the article. --ozes

The Myth of the Native People total annihilation

I was born and raised in the Dominican Republic. As far as I can remember, I was taught in school that the natives Indians disappeared at the start of the colonial period and that African slaves replaced them. Most Dominicans actually believe that, even thought that is not the whole story.

Fact is, a significant amount of the native Indians actually assimilated and in the early colonial times around the sixteen-century most were either called Spaniards in official figures, or were not counted at all. Your wealth (or lack of) decided if you were counted or not. Another fact is that early colonist did not brought along a lot of women with them, so they took Indians and African women as wives.

Dr. Juan Martinez Cruzado, a geneticist from the University of Puerto Rico did a DNA survey in 2004. I’m currently trying to find out about the actual results, although I remember hearing about it in a Discovery Channel piece about pre-Columbian cultures in the Dominican Republic.

This survey is based on a similar study conducted by Dr. Martinez in Puerto Rico. This survey showed that “61 percent of all Puerto Ricans have Amerindian mitochondrial DNA, 27 percent have African and 12 percent Caucasian” [1].

I also found an article by Dr. Lynne Guitar [2] about the Myth of the native Indians extinction, which I do recommend and should be taken into consideration in any discussion about the demography section in the Dominican Republic article.

It would be great if someone should incorporate this information in the article, since I don’t consider myself qualified for this task.

Best regards,

Ulises Jorge San Juan, PR

The problem is, you guys keep trying to rewrite history complicate a simple matter. Race in DR is not so hard to define from the outside. People know what a black person looks like. That would be 99% of DR's. When looking at African-Americans only (in most people's minds, they are the only ones who can be mixed...), then you see the various types from mixing with the different types of white. FOr any type of PR that you can show me, I can show you an AA with the same look. I think DR's want to run away from their blackness by trying make it appear as if they are so mixed. If you were so mixed, you would not look so black. I know that the DR 'government' looks mixed is is in a minority in appearance for the whole country. PR's are mixed, but only with black and white-like (Spaniards who were already a little mixed with the Moorish blood, so the pure white claims are gone with that too!), not this native blood that both groups seem to want to resort to.

You are clearly trying to fool yourselves into thinking that you are dark because you are natives. PR's and DR's DO NOT look like Mexicans who are natives. Every now and then, I my see a 'touch' of it in some faces(while most of their make up is black or white-styled), but this could be recent and not from 500 years ago. It is sad what colonialism can do to the minds of it's victims. To think, if AA's were allowed to be accepted into US society, they too would think that same these uncle tom PR' and DR's(in general) and no one on earth would have an idea of blackness and the total enslavement of the black mind would have been complete. It goes to show what racism can do. It can back fire on the racists! Now white women want black men. GO figure.--71.235.81.39 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalismo asqueroso

Ugly vandalism is creeping up by ugly English speaking folks, be on the lookout!, shame, shame!!

¡Vandalismo muy asqueroso por angloparlantes se esta viendo asi que devemos estar atentos! – 64.237.186.38 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? If you going to make that assertion, at least point out where so it can be corrected.

Ulises —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

It's becoming bothersome and will bury wikipedia into oblivion if not dealt with, please don't tell me you haven't noticed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Republic&diff=118280042&oldid=118279892 – 64.237.186.38 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed and I agree. I don't know how prevalent it is, but I've noticed it in a couple of articles about the Dominican Republic or Dominican personalities.Ulises Jorge

As Wikipedia can be edited by anyone vandalism is a steady problem. From my experience it is not specially bad an topics related to the Dominican Republic. And also the vandalism gets removed and dealt with [3] reasonable quick. Of course the vandalism is usually in English as this is the English Wikipedia. I think the best way to deal with this is to improve the articles with good sourced information and to help in removing vandalism you spot. Happy editing! --VirtualDelight 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

VirtualDelight & et all; correct, vandalism is throughout, and en Español also, professionalism is the key, in any language – 64.237.189.124 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Vandalism on this page is terrible, can someone edit these lies.

Question

How come there are NO articles based on the dominican-haitian border conflict?

Do you mean the current situation or the wars in the 19th century?

Ulises Jorge

User:EdwinCasadoBaez

I dont think the conflicts in the Dominican and Haitian Border is not significant enough to be added to this articles but i think it could be a good idea of Making a sepparate article including Problems in the border and the increasing immigration Of Hitians into DR!

User:EdwincasadoBaez

Demographics

Whats going on? somebody keeps on messing up the demographics section!!!vandalism.

I know the CIA "fact"book is supposed to be "official" and therefore "trustworthy," but we all know that Dominicans are not mostly European mixes! Dominicans, who are the same people as Haitians, are have much more African blood in them than African-Americans. Just because people speak Spanish does not automatically change who they are.

I bet the person that is saying this doesn't know a thing about dominican history and it's people. first off, you need to have knowledge and think before you talk. you're making a fool of your self. LEARN, and DOMINICANS and HAITIANS ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE!!! that's the stupidest thing ive ever heard in my life. I respect your opinion to say whatever you want but that's just your opinion don't put your personal opinions on this article CIA knows much more about dominican demographics than you do.let them do there work and chill... Kevin S.

WP:RS - whoever has the sources to back it up can put it on the page. WLU 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is already there, CIA.gov

Also, there is too much use on incorporating Taino natives with Spanish-speaking islands in the Caribbean. We know from history that most of the natives were killed off or shipped to Spain. It is an island after all. I think that people need to come to Wikipedia and get as much truth and not propaganda or idealism here as possible. Do you relaize how many people out here that you thought were just regular black people? Alphonso Riebero from the Fresh Prince, Miguel Muniz and Santana from the Steve Harvey Show just to name three. You don't mistake them for being mixed with "European." I personally know many no doubt about it, blacker than black Dominicans who contort their faces and bodies when I called them black! They go into a fit when I say that they and the Haitians are the same people. Both countries have the same people makeup. Black African first, hard to tell mixed(brown) from past generations and the mulatto look. This is the way it is. If you know anything at all about the CIA, it is the you cannot find any "facts" from them, just propaganda spread out on behalf of "national security/brainwashing" purposes.--71.235.81.39 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My friend, you really need to get your facts straight about the racial make up of the people of Hispaniola. At the time of Haiti independence in 1804 around 95% of the population was African born. The cruelty and exploitation that made Haiti the western hemisphere richest colony mean that most slaves died in the sugar plantations, thus the need to keep importing slaves from Africa to replace them. There was only a small minority of white colonist, most of whom were either killed of fled the country after independence, and a small number of mulattos and free blacks. On the eastern side of the island, the population was (and still is) mixed race. Event though slavery was abolished on the eastern part of the island in 1822, slave imports from Africa ceased two centuries before. So blacks in the eastern part of the island (Spanish speaking, Catholic and who’s main economic activity was cattle ranching) are very different indeed from the African slaves that worked on Haiti’s sugar plantations. If you mean to imply that the dominant race was African, in that sense you are right, because most of the mixing was between Europeans and Africans and to a lesser extend with the native Tainos. (Because of their reduced numbers, since most natives Americans were either killed or assimilated). After the Dominican Republic separation from Haiti, it received a significant number of immigrants from Europe and the Middle East, but not in sufficient number to alter the racial makeup of the country (as I stated, mulattos are still the majority of the population). Not so Haiti, were over 90 percent of the populations are the direct descendants of the African slaves that created the country.Ulises 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Ulises Jorge, San Juan, PR

Well you kind of agree with me, but you still want to insist that most of the country is mixed. The mixed population of DR is similar to that of Haiti. You just don't see the mixed Haitians on TV, so I guess that is why you think as you do. Haiti and DR's main population are from slaves, so is Puerto-Rico, but II will not get into that right now. I see that you are from PR, so your agenda is clear. You, like other Spanish-speaking peoples think that just because you speak Spanish it some how makes you white all of a sudden. Haitians speak a Latin-based language, so they are latinos! The bottom line is, history took place. If you hate some of your history because you may be embarrassed by it, then I feel sorry for you. You have to learn to live with the facts. The facts are, black people are not just from Africa and the US! They don't just speak English, Arabic and some other languages, they DO speak Spanish AND you mixed ones are the Africans too!

My friend, have you ever lived in Haiti or the Dominican Republic? Had you read the Wikipedia articles about both countries? I had. I was born and raised in the Dominican Republic, and I have been back almost every year since I left after I graduated from high school in 1985. Let’s look at this matter another way (since the facts I provided you before did not convince you). According to you, Jamaicans and Haitians are the same people. Both countries are 90 percent black, so following your logic, they are the same people, right? The fact that Jamaica was a British colony and Haiti a French one is irrelevant, since racial make up is the only factor that defines the identity of a country, right? What about the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico? They must be the same people, right? About the same racial makeup, Spanish speaking, similar music and food. One has been an independent country since 1844 and the other is a U.S. territory. But again, following your logic, they are the same people. Does that makes sense to you? Finally, since you know so much about me and what I feel about being black, why don’t you show me the courtesy of at least signing your post and let me know where you come from? It obvious that you are neither Haitian or Dominican, because your lack of knowledge on both countries racial makeup and identify is abysmal.

Ulises San Juan, PR

Haitians do not speak a latin based language they speak french which is not latin derived. they don't consider themselves latinos but Afro-caribbeans because most of them are of African descent.william s

French is Latin derived. Just because Spanish-speaking peoples in the Americas hijacked the word Latin to mean Spanish, it does not make it so.--71.235.81.39 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WE did not hijacked nothing. French is not latin derived. DO you even know what is a latino, u should look at the latin-american wikipedia article. romance languages those derived from latin predominantly SPANISH and PORTUGUESE not french.

You must not know what the word 'predominantly' meeans. You also must be a fool to look in a Latin American article to find the meaning of Latin. You are proving what I write is the truth my man. In a Latin American, article, of course Spanish and Portuguese are the main languages! Now Latin languages is not even European, but keeping it there - Italian is the MAIN Latin based language as it is Latin slang. A vast majority of western European languages are Latin based. Spanish, as spoken in Spain sounds more Latin (don't forget the Arabic words, not to mention blood introduced by the Moors) that your Spanish. On top of that, many Spaniards don't even want to be called hispanic or Latino.

This is so stupid how people are arguing over dominican demographics. The history is already out there it's done with. If you are dominican you would know about your history and your ancestors diffrent ethnicities. One or two peoples opinions is not gonna change anything. I do not know where you got the idea that dominicans want to be "white" so badly. I sure don't mind and I don't care if im white black or whatever were all humans, but I thought The dominican history and it's demographics was not going to be taken as a big deal. you cant rely only on your own opinion or personal thoughts about dominicans. I suggest you just find the facts. And nobody is denying there "blackness". I am domincan and I think I should no better about my dominican race. that's why I say Im mixed to not only focus on one of my many dominican ethnic backgrounds. Im guessing since Im very pale toned you would expect from me to say Im white when I actually do not consider myself this way. Iam mixed. william.s

Again, this is why it is up to people like me to assist you with education. The history of the island along with the appearance of thew people tel us what the deal is. You are right, your opinion or some other twisted 'latino' opinion will not change FACTS. I see that you people are 'all human' when confronted with the truth, but white (wannabes) in your minds or in front of African-Americans, but never in front of whites of course!

Of course you and your fellow conspirators never thought that the demographics of DR or PR would be of concern. You thought that you could just slip in that most of you are white and no one would notice. People clearly noticed. Everyone but yourselves. You Dominicans are some of the last people to say that you are multi-racial or even 'mixed.' You are hardly mixed and your 'mixture' is similar to that of you western neighbor and blood brothers in Haiti. Yes, you ARE trying to deny your blackness by trying to pass yourself off as mixed, white, native, latino or claiming to be of a Dominican race. As in typical uncle tom fashion, you mentioned everything that you are not except the one thing that you are - black!

I know it hurts your sole to be called that, but slavery happened in places that don't speak English buddy. No country in this hemisphere can claim to be a race. These countries exist because of greed and mixing. Not everyone has native blood in them. Not every Spanish-speaking person is white or has "European" blood. Dominicans and PR's are some of the biggest Toms out there! The shocking part is, that you people can be blacker and your cultures are almost all African. African-Americans have almost no African culture despite what some try to live by. You and the rest of the brothers need to come to terms with yourselves, then and only then will the black man do his thing. --71.235.81.39 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, Im not denying my "blackness" I never said "I was not black" and I never said I was white either. it seems like by saying im mixed bothers you, and it also seems like if someone where to say there mixed, would automatically make them black in your eyes. but is not even about me or other individuals, is about proving whats right so for other foreigners to discover the dominican history as it really is.And how would you say that african americans have almost "NO" african culture, it seems like if you were contradicting the term and denying your blackness as you say.but i also think, what would u say about people like alicia keys or faith evans (for example) and other mixed african americans. that there just plain black, and would you think it would be fair for them to deny there caucasian roots as well.its funny how u call dominic's and puetorocs stupid slurs like uncle tom's like if we were so despreate to be white. like if we will gain something from that. how would you place people in a specific ethnic group by them just telling you there dominican or puerto rican or watever. Im also guessing that other latin american countries like panama, cuba, honduras or venezuela, because these countries as well have a significant black/ or mixed/black population similar to the Dom.Rep, u would just name them or clasiffy them as just being a plain black country and it would sound very ignorant for any one to think this way.By this point iam surelly guessing you are not dominican so what will make you know better than N/E 1 else. you should ask some dominican grandfather about the history and ignore where you are getting these weird ideas... william.s

See, an Alicia Keys or Faith are half white or "Italian," BUT the biggest difference between (most) of OUR mixed people is that they can recognize and ACCEPT their blackness. They do not run or try to hide from it. They can speak on their white side if they wish, but white America seems to regard them as black anyway, although the latest game plane seems to be trying to take away blackness from black people. Just look at how they describe Hale Berry or look at the music today - whites are trying to make black music and the companies are making black artists make white type music, which I am sure is just a way to make the white artists sound as if they are making something more rea than the blacks.

You ARE so desperate to be white! I have studied you peoples all of my life. I once messed with a PR girl and I heard the Spanish she was talking to her mother when she told her that I was black. I heard her mother go off over the phone. The girl then said "it's alright mommy, he is light." Another time, I messed with a female who was of a 'typical' type of PR, but who's mother was an African-styled PR. The daughter wanted to get with me, but the mother objected and she is a lot blacker than me! How do you explain that? No, she did not know me or even get the chance to talk to me.

Now you mention some other countries. See, I always pick on PR and DR for a reason. You have very high degrees of Uncle Tomism. You not only believe that you are white, you also view yourselves from a white perspective. FOr instance, instead of calling yourselves black, you will say that you are darker, implying that you are white, but just darker. You always make a clear distinction between yourselves and African-Americans. You make it very clear that we are black (of course it is hard to say in front of lighter blacks) and you are 'something else.' You call white people "Anglos" instead of white. This implies that you are of a different type of white (Spaniard I presume) from their type of white.

Those countries that you have mentioned, they DO accept their blackness. Every person I have met (clearly black) from one of those countries has NEVER had a problem calling themselves black! Look at Hugo Chavez. He can call himself black, but you people who are of even clearer African decent can't? You have a problem. Part of the problem is that the US wants the division. If all of you brothers came to the US and came as here as black people, just like Europeans who know nothing of whiteness are almost forced to be white do the same, then black numbers would keep increasing. See, keeping us separate and in limbo keeps the numbers down. The white man knows that you are uncle toms and uses it to his advantage. If you don't buy it, then how come you used to be called hispanics, but now it's "non-hispanic white or non-hispanic black?" He already knows that you will choose white if given a chance. He know that the whiter looking ones hate to be lumped in with the 'others' and have always wanted the 'white' treatment fro being more or less white. It is a big game and your weakness and self-hate keeps you playing on another team, even if you are not on the team that you think you are on.--71.235.81.39 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

U keep on saying things i didn't say. you are making predictions of me when you don't even know me. Im not even the one u should be saying these things to. calling me uncle tom is so stupid. you keep thinking i wanna be white so badly like if were going to die if I wasnt white, I know what I am and I am proud of it,latino/dominican.Im guessing you had bad experiences with other dominican white wannabe's ((which I have never seen in my life a dominican act by this manner)) I wonder what part of the US do you live that the dominicans act this way, down here in NYC,NY (where I live) dominicans and puertorocs mainly share neighborhoods with african-american so how would that make them uncle tom's? if we were so uncle tom's as you say wouldn't you think we would have no type of associations with black culture, and get as far from it as we can. but we don't. so how does that make us white wannabe's. I know dominican's have black/african in them and in this discussion forum I have never denyied it and its making you frustrated like if I did. but how is i said, I also have (( and 73% of dominicans have aswell according to the leading international website CIA.gov))european ancestry. why is it so hard to accept that. if you would see me you me you would clearly see that. and I dont say this because this website says it but I was born and I went to school for 3 years in the dom.rep so I know dominican people. I bet you have'nt even visited this country your talking about.and u call me the uncle tom. I hope you can backup your response w/ facts instead of your personal thoughts or negative opinions... william s

When I write, I am not talking about YOU, I am talking about DR's in general. You guys do want to be white very badly. EVERY TIME I called a DR black to his or her face they had a saddened look on their faces. Kind of like there world came crashing down. Also, many times I have met DR's and they try to act like a black American is something so strange to them that they need to get away from us. It is as if they know that we know, that they are back, but they do not want to be seen as such. The same for you since you want to call yourself a latino and not use the word black. You hispanics act as if African-Americans are pure African and you are mixed! In fact, it is the other way around! You guys are more pure.

I live in CT - same thing baby. PR's and DR's live in the same neighborhoods as AA's because the whaite man made you. He did that because you are not white. Even while living in the same hoods, you people try your best to be different. You make sure that you are always speaking Spanish, especially to make sure that no one mistake you for an AA. You refer to yourselves as 'latino' or ANYTHING but black. I cannot tell you how many DR's and PR's I have met and when I called them black, they denied it and got mad. When I talk to what I think is a regular black female, they get mad when I call them sister or black. If they did not say that they were 'latino,' I would never have known. You do not have any associations with 'black' culture, and you do run from it - when you are in a mostly white setting. You run from it after you use AA's to get on in the entertainment world doing OUR thing, but then pander to whites after you blow. You also end up realizing that you need us so you go back to us when you need a career boost(Rosie Perez, J Ho',Fat Joe etc.). WHen you get into a mostly white setting (say college, jobs or malls), you make it very clear that you shoud not be seen as black people, but as so-called 'latinos.' You are running.

You may not have directly denied your blackness (as the clearly black ones can't), but you indirectly deny it when you use words such as 'latino,' 'taino,' 'hispanic,' 'Spanish' or dark. You also do it when you describe yourselves as 'dark'(as opposed to your main white!), 'brown,' or just calling a light-skinned one 'white' when it would be 'light'from a black main perspective. You are not fooling me, I have studied you all of my life. I know all of your tricks of the trade and your shame of your blackness. I cannot deny that you see DR and PR's as white because it is what you consider white, but it is not the case. Mixed with white - yes. DR's main group is black mixed with a little white type people. PR's are mulattoes who have mixed with each other, in general. On channel 13 years ago, they had a show on about this very topic. They showed a DR guy coming to AMerica, brown-skinned like the rapper Rich Boy. He made the comment that when he was in DR, he was considered white, but in the US he 'had to adjust' to being called a black man. HE said that it was a shock for him. I take it many of you feel the same way and would rather keep you white status that you had in that tiny country. --71.235.81.39 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG I have never met a person repeat themselves so many times.but Im just gonna say one last thing and not say again because I don't think you'll undestand the point that I have tried stating for some time now. I just notice that you not only refer the whole dominican country 100% black but you also consider latinos/hispanics to be 100% blacks aswell.if you were so educated as u say wouldn't you know that latinos are a mix of many ethnicities: black,white,mulattoes(which most dominicans are),mestizos,native americans,asians and it keeps on going.though from your point of view all you do is clump everything together and say we are just plain blacks and ignore everything else. why are you so focused on proving dominicans or watever else we are blacks when we already know this no body is denying anythig (well clearly your dominican friends do). but for you to see that the majority of dominicans R mixed with europeans and taino, and that in other populatinos, some r PURE blacks and some r PURE white europeans or spanish, in your eyes we are denying are blackness and calling r selves just whites. and u keep thinking that were ashamed of it . if we were so asahmed why in the dr people still follow some african traditions to this day. Now....do u get what I mean?...william. s

You keep trying to confuse and dilute the issue by bringing in other countries and peoples. Each so-called Latin American country, like ALL countries of the western hemisphere have different histories and reasons for their populations. The two constants are natives and African slavery. Natives as you should know and as you should stop pretending exist in the Caribbean, are a scarce people. There are no more in the Caribbean. Any mixture with what was left of them are hardly visible in the present populations without recent migrants. In the US and Canada, you should know that they were virtually wiped out, but many actual natives still manage to exist, mainly in lesser known states. From the southern US(along the Mexican border) on down, the natives are there. Many do not think of a Mexican as a native but that is what they are - not hispanic or so-called latino.

When I say black, don't be a fool and act like I mean 100% black (whatever that is). You know what I mean by black. All people are mixed, even those called white. This is why I use the terms 'black-styled' and 'white-styled' to show differences in hispanics. You are more likely to find someone who is almost all black in appearance in the so-called hispanic world than you are to find a 'pure' white. You people have fooled yourselves into thinking that peoples related to Spaniards are some how the whitest of the white, when they were mixed with Moors before they came over here. I admit that they were fighting in the name of Spain/Portugal and Europe, but as can be seen on portraits painted by them, the black mixture is clear! So this fantasy on DR's being 'mixed' is BS. Sure, mixing takes places, but the vast majority of your makeup even with the 'mixed' ones is a very black appearance. More so than in African-Americans. I think you are argument is similar to men who sleep with men, but refuse to accept or be called gay.--71.235.81.39 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why don't YOU define the 'word' latino? I know that you can't in reality. It is a made up word for those to deny their blackness while not being able to be white. The name further complicates things because many people still think that all Spanish-speaking peoples are Mexican-styled.

You need to become better educated my man. Wikipedia is not the place to look for non-biased results. You will only find propaganda and lies, unless it realtes to science. You , like the editors of many countries, peoples, states, cities and regions all over the world are telling things as they wished they were instead of how they really are. Arguing about PR's and Domincans not being black is about the same as your eyes playing tricks on you.--71.235.81.39 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, the CIA are masters of murder and propaganda. They cannot be trusted for anything! The proof is just looking at their 'fact' book. If you think that these more often than not, darker than African-Americans are not the majority, then you are living in a dream world. It is more than clear what happened. More slaves existed outside of the US than in it. If the US had not been so racist, than the the blacks in the US would have thought as you do - thinking that they are white and never wanting to acknowledge their blackness.

I know some 'editor' will again get at me for not talking about the article and accusing me of 'making trouble,' but I am going with the flow. If the flow is on here and you have not said a word to them, don't say a word to me for telling the truth.--71.235.81.39 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the dominicans are mixed about 73% mixed with white,black,taino(amerindian)((I don't say this because some random website says it, but I am dominican and I have lived and studied the history there)) so it wouldn't be right to judge or place us in a specific ethnic group, because this percentage of dominicans are multiracial that's why they can't say "Im White" or "Im Black" or "Im Amerindian" they are mixed, they represent many ethnicities. It is not that they deny there race its just that they can't just clasify or represent themselves as one race. Though they are other dominican groups which have mostly African ancestry. Other groups are build of white european ancestry 16%. I personally classify myself as mixed but my family's ancestry is mostly spanish but in the other hand I have black and Taino(amerinidan) family ancestry as well. Like many other mixed dominicans. I hope this demographics issue is not taken as a big deal because is not. William.S

My man. No matter how you try to spin it, most Dominicans are mostly black, not mostly mixed. I am black, but just about every Dominican I have come across and there have been many, have been not only blacker than myself, but I thought many were Africans! Even these types don't like to be called black. If you were mostly mixed, you would look closer to PR's. The minority of Dominicans look like the average PR light skinned variation. The majority are no doubt about it very black. Shame on you people for trying to cal your Haitian brothers black and you trying to run away from you blackness. This is why I always bring up the black thing with Dominicans. When I bring it up, it is pretty hard for them to deny anything, although the discomfort on their faces is very clear.

PR's and Dominicans have an inferiority complex. You desire to be white while denying all of the black that you can. You have the nerve to claim native ancestry when they were killed off. I don't see Haitians trying to claim native ancestry. As much as you hate to accept it, Haitians and Dominicans ARE the same people. The island is not exactly large like Australia you know. It is tiny, plus there is not where else to go! This is why I scour articles such as these just to see what lies you people are telling. On the street, people (who know the history) will say that PR's are mixed. People, INCLUDING PR's always call Dominicans black. All of the PR's I know call them black. In today's climate, some PR's are finally accepting their blackness(a very small number), but still carry on(marrying with the whitest PR's) as if color was a serious issue with them. I guess being mixed is hard when you don't want to be the slave, but want to be the master only. Watch the 'editors' go crazy...--71.235.81.39 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this link on for size.[4] --71.235.81.39 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I tried on for size and look what I've found:

'Jay Jolliffe, 36, a dark-skinned Panamanian who runs a marketing research firm in New York, remembers being called the ugliest of racial slurs used against blacks when her family moved to a white neighborhood in Queens when she was 6. All her life, she said, some whites have subjected her to their stereotypical views of African-Americans. She still feels pressured sometimes to choose between her racial and cultural identities.

"When I state I am a black Latino, some African-Americans feel like I am trying to deny my blackness," she said.

"Here, you have to define who you are within these very narrow margins."'

I see where you come from. You live in Connecticut and think that meeting Puerto Ricans and Dominican living there makes you an authority in Cabibbean culture and society? You have never been to either of the countries you are talking about. You are looking at the world from the perspective of your own culture and environment, because that the only one that matters, right? So I have to choose how I see myself because that the way thing are done in your country?

Ulises

San Juan, PR

Actually my man, PR is in 'my' country! Like that article also states, hispanics think that they are white where they come from, but when they get here, it's a whole different ball game. There is a reason that PR's and Dominicans are put in black neighborhoods my friend.

Again, the truth and the reality of biology and history hurts - if you had the burning desire to be white, but it is still the truth. There is no need to hurt over it - brother.--71.235.81.39 02:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um guys I dont think wikipedia is a nice place to argue but i could surely say that Ulises is closely to the truth. I'm Dominican and I lived in D.R for the eight early years of my life. I Visit constantly and have a broad connection with family residing in the country. Different sections of D.R 30 Years ago were almost entirely white or Mixed. My Mom comes from the Santiago and Cibao region and almost everybody was of Spanish or European Background and white(if referring to color). After the fall of Trujillo in the 1960's The Country has been constantly pounded with Haitian immigration from the West Side of Hispaniola. Now this places in the Cibao And Santiago area which used to be of a predominantly white or mixed Population are no longer white or from Spanish Background because of the Cultural Difussion, but we Still hold a lot of differences from Haitians in Culture, Social, And Economically. It Doesnt only come out to The Color of Skin...Is more than that!...by the way i looked of CIA.gov and it holds very accurate information which should stay in Wikipedia. I believe there has to be a balance of accurate info not simply public opinion.EdwinCasadoBaez 02:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the place when lies are in an article like this. ANY fool knows that DR's are more black than African-Americans! This 'white' in the so-called 'latino' world is not a real white, but 'whiter' appearance, although these people are just mixed. You people want ANYTHING white so bad, you make yourselves look like absolute fools trying to be it. I do mean FOOLS! Haitians and DR's are the SAME people. In order to fool yourselves into believing that you are white, you love to call Haitians black, but act as if you are not and that they have nothing to do with you. All black peoples in the western hemisphere are brothers, even if many Spanish-speaking brothers are Uncle Toms. DR's and Haitians are literally brothers. Like Sudan and Egypt, one has been invaded a little more with some 'others' coming through. You people are the same and the only ones who don't see it is you. For the record, everyone else sees it!--71.235.81.39 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

• No, they are not. Dominica is a former British Colony and the Dominican Republic was a Spanish Colony.

Ulises 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)ulises

Nothing close in relation are in between Dominica And DOm.REp...the only similar thing is that they are both in the Antilles and Tropics...Thats about it becuause they hold different cultures too!EdwinCasadoBaez 02:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How come there is no article based on the Dominican-Haitian border conflict? user:RacerboyGTR

Fuck the people that work on these pages and dont allow anyone to add or make new pages based on the dominican rep. you all are a bunch of fucking online dictators.

Dominicans Demography

According to the BBC in ESPANOL 90% of Dominicans are black or afro-descendents (descendents of africans). As to whether or not these people classify as black likely depends on which country you come from. But it is clear from the article that 90% of Dominicans in the latin american world are considered to be of african descent which is what we in the west usually call blacks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/specials/2007/esclavitud/newsid_6380000/6380241.stm Just click on the dominican republic and you will see it has a total population of 9.2 million 8.4 million which are afrodescendiente or descendents of africans which the west usually considers black. You will also notice that it says Domiicans are 90% black.

I don't know where the multi-racial figures used by the CIA factbook came from nor will I try to guess. But judging by the indepthness of not only this article but the entire set of surrounding articles around about blacks inlatin america I would lean more towards the acuracy of this article. Not to mention that most readers of wiki in english are americans, brits, canadians, and aussies. Where people who are multiracial are usually considered to be the race they most look like. Ie. No one argues hally berry is white. Or how many blacks are mixed with native and white no one argues that they are those races or even mixed raace.

Whatever happens, don't just change the figures in the article while leaving the old reference, as was done before (the article quoted the BBC but the reference was for the World Factbook, which gives different numbers; this is incredibly confusing). If you want to change them, provide a new reference backing it up. That BBC article is in no way more authoritative than the World Factbook; they don't say where they got their figures from either (and it's only 1 article). Most Dominicans have some mix of black and white ancestry, but that doesn't speak to what ethnic group they identify with. Rather than trying to assign them to one, we should just report the statistics as we have them- most Dominicans are of mixed blood, and according to the CIA World Factbook, some are not (or at least have predominantly one heritage). --Cúchullain ^t/c 02:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you sound like a reasonable person, which is becoming increasingly hard to find on this site. As I said before, I don't know what the source of the World Factbook is. We have to remember that only represents the american view as it is compiled by the CIA. Actually the BBC article says that they got their numbers from UNICEF. As for BBC and UNICEF not being as reputable as the CIA World Factbook. Well I'm not going to attack your source but lets remmeber this is the same CIA who keeps people in Cuba without trials and overthrows governments and told us there was WMD in Iraq. I just think that a news media group in Britain or an NGO would be much less bias than say a government agency in its reporting. As for the mixing I agree 100% with you. I'm not here to argue that Dominicans are no Haitians, and I definitely recognize that they are mostly mixed, but they BBC website in Espanol simply states that 90% of Dominicans are black in the way that the West defines it, people who look like black people more so than any other race(like creoles), however this by no means means that they are solely only black, and as I said before most of them are mixed. For example, Leonel Fernandez, would be considered black almost always in the west like we say obama barrack is black but both of them are no doubt mix raced. Just to reiterate there is no dispute that the majority of people are mixed race but when any western looks at dominicans they see someone who generally looks black, like how obama looks black, but is clearly of mixed race.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1216926.stm. Ie no reasonable person would attempt to say any of these guys were 100% black but they are definitely mix race but look black by western standards.

Simply because the CIA World Factbook is produced with CIA information does not mean the information is false, whatever your opinion of the CIA. Similarly, criticism about the CIA in general is irrelevant to a discussion of the material in the factbook (if there's a problem with the info, discuss that, not the agency that funds it). The BBC website is only an article rather than a compendium of information, and the authors are clearly relying on some other source for what they print. You say the info comes from UNICEF; well then quote a UNICEF document, but make sure it is attributed properly. Perhaps we can include both figures (the World Factbook says A, UNICEF says B)

As for whether the BBC site says Dominicans are "black in the way that the West defines it", as far as I can tell, all it says is that 90% of Dominicans are afrodescendiente, meaning "of African descent". At any rate the "West" doesn't define "black" in one particular way (and what is the DR if not part of the West? They surely don't define it in the same way the English do). This line of argument is irrelevant; we should be quoting what the sources say about Dominicans' ethnic backgrounds, not trying to interpret the data according to some hypothetical standard of who is black and who is not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the CIA Factbook is false but many people who have been using the factbook for the last 8 years know that they seem to arbitrarily change racial categories. For example, adding or dropping latino americans in different issues, and reddefining who is black/mixed particularly in Carribean countries. All I'm saying is that I don't know how reputable a source is when it tells you that 100% of people in Greece are Greek when I see tons of Homeless Gypsis trying to steal from people in downtown Athens. Or how the CIA factbook lies about the number of blacks and natives in Argentina. Yes and I can that this is a lie because I've been told so by natives from Argentina, there is an array of articles that can be found on google searches from reputable sites. It claims Argentina is like 97% white when natives and meztitos are much higher in the population than 3%. Anyways that is another issue. If you took the time to look around you would notice that all the articles on the page I linked about the BBC was actually an extensive contium of information about black in latin america. As for you saying that because the BBC is relying on another source and therefore I must retrieve that source and put it in your hand for it to be included in the article. I'd say you are being a bit unfair to me because I'd have to spend tons of time looking through UNICEF's records trying to find it. You have to remmeber that the CIA does not conduct first hand censesus in the Dominican either, so if I have to go and get the original from UNICEF as they are the original source of the BBC's info, then I will request that you go and get the original information from the CIA factbook at the Bureau of the Census (Department of Commerce), https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html because clearly CIA agents are not in dominican republic handing out census an are depending on someone elses figures as well. Thus to hold you to the same standard as you are holding me in getting original documents. We could both go and get that information, and make life harder for each other but that would just be a waste of time because that does not change the facts that the two sites disagree on numbers and that is why we disagree. I think that we both have repuatable sites here that they should just be included. I can go and get UNICEF's original documents but that won't really mean anything because obviously the BBC didn't pretend to get fake numbers from UNICEF and create articles on it. Besides, unless you read spanish you won't understand it anyways.

I'm no race specialist or any expert on the issue of race but when someone talks about a carribean person being of African descent I think it is understood that we are talking about black people. Unless it is white africans from South Africa, or Arabs from the north, but history shows that these people are not the people who were enslaved and brought to the Carribean. For example if I say Haitians are of African descent any person with a brain knows I'm saying Haitians are black. From my understandding this whole african is just some stuff by black people to make it all p.c. I'm not saying there is universally agreement on who is black but all western will agree for example that people who are the descendets of slaves brought from africa to the americas are black, eg. no one in the western world that I knows disputes that michael jordan is black. I'm not really going to get into the poltics of how dominicans define themselves, I'm going to look at the facts. Many people in Ireland say that they are black but that doesn't make it true, I've been told by a jew that he is blacker than me cause his ancestors were black, and I laughed because 1 I'm not black and two he doesn't look very black. The point is people can define themselves as anything, lets look at the facts.

Well wikipedia would already agree that people who are the descendent of enslaved africans are black, if you don't believe go type it in wiki right now. This is not really hypothetical clearly there is a way to say some people are black and some are not. If I found a site saying 90% of Dominicans were of european descent I don't think we would be arguing if they were white, it would be understood by both of us that it means they are white. I think that as you said before we should just use both sources. I'm going to put them in, if you have a problem with they way I put it feel free to discuss it or modify it (Dualldual 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I guess the bottom line is, we need to only be quoting sources on this issue. Both sources provided so far say that a wide majority of Dominicans are of mixed race; the World Factbook gives additional figures on other groups. We should not inject our own interpretations of what the figures mean. As for the problem between the sources, UNICEF's actual figure as quoted in the BBC page needs to be found, then we can use it instead of or alongside the World Factbook.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how saying that someone of african descent is black is really a personal interpretation I think anyone with a brain thinks that but if you have such a problem with it I'll leave it out. As for finding UNICEF numbers feel free to do so if you please, but I'm not wasting my time going through orchards of records by unicef when the bbc has laid it out for me quiet clearly. I wouldn't ask you to go to the Burea of Census to confirm that CIA factbook is correct beacuse it is just a slippery slope. If I don't want to believe your figure I can say well where did the Burea get their information from and send you on a wild goose chase. I intend on no goose chasing and a speedy resolution to thsi demographics dispute. In fact the BBC says right on its page "El siguiente mapa refleja la población negra, descendiente de africanos esclavizados, en países de América Latina y el Caribe" Which roughly translates as the map reflects the population of black(negra), descndents of enslaved africans in the latin americas and cariibean. So me saying they are black is not really even a personal interpretation, it says right on the page in big bold letters.

As the BBC does give CEPAL/ECLAC as a source I've found the follwing report [5] downloadable here [6] but if one looks at the table on page 11 of this report the numbers given for the Dominican Republic are the same as provided by the World Factbook. VirtualDelight 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the page you gave and it supports the BBC's numbers. It clearly states there are 150 million africans in latin america. If the number for the dominican was below 90% and was actually 10% as you claim then it would not be 150 million in the latin americas it would be a couple million less but we see clearly from its own statement that it is not true. there are some 150 million people of African descent in the region. Most live in Brazil, where they account for half the population, Colombia (20%), Venezuela (10%) and the Caribbean (16%)."

I wonder where the BBC got their 90% figure, then? At any rate there's no need to change the source from the Factbook if they both give the same numbers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dualldual, there are now several issues with the info you want to introduce, and your presentation of it. One is easy - the article does not claim that 90% of Dominicans are black, it says they are afrodescendiente or "of African descent". This includes both people who are mixed and unmixed- the article could also find that 90% of Dominicans are eurodescendiente and it wouldn't contradict the previous numbers. The terminology is confusing, and it may be against the way you're used to thinking of race, but we can't say something like, "the country is 90% black" when that isn't what the source says. You should check out the article on black people for information on people who do and don't consider themselves black.

The second issue is the source itself- the BBC page doesn't name where they got their 90% figure from, and as VirtualDelight points out, the CEPAL/ECLAC gives the same numbers as the World Factbook. The BBC article needs to be ruled out as a source (and it doesn't claim to be an authority, it's just an article), but we should use the sources they used if we can. Unfortunately the one we've checked out so far hasn't matched up to what the article says.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article does claim they are black it says right in there. Here is the article in spanish translated for your conveinece. "El siguiente mapa refleja la población negra, descendiente de africanos esclavizados, en países de América Latina y el Caribe. El Fondo de Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF) señala que el 30% de la población de la región -150 millones de personas- es afrodescendiente y que el 92% de ella es pobre."

The translation says: "The following map reflects the black population, descending from african slaves, in countries of latin america and the carribean. Unicef says that 30% of the population in the region -150 million people are descendet of africans 92 % of which are poor"

Well if you find a group of articles from a credible world renown newspaper and a unicef or any ngo saying 90% of dominicans are of european descent I have no objections. But you don't have that you only have a little web page from the CIA factbook which arbitaraly changes race and ethnicity of its people in any country depending on americas relation with that country.

When one clicks on the dominican republic it tells us that 90 % of the dominican population are of african descent. I'm no race expert but if a source says 90% of Haitians or Dominicans or any country are of African descent anyone with a brain knows they are refering to black people. In fact it says that the map reflects the black population in latin america and the caribean right in the title. The point is I'm not claiming this, you are saying I am but it simply is not true, it says so right in the title. If I'm making this up then explain to me what you think when you read this "El siguiente mapa refleja la población negra, descendiente de africanos esclavizados, en países de América Latina y el Caribe" (this map shows the black population of african descendents of slaves in latina america and the carribean) and you click on the dominican and it says 90% african descent, which we see is used interchangeably with the word negra, or at the very least that is what it says. Nonetheless leaving the article as it is, is very misleading to readers. One who reads this article would readily conclude that blacks made up only 10% of the population when it appears to be 90% with some admixtures. We can get into long winded race debates, but when you see halle berry you see a black woman and when you see nicole richie you see a white woman classifying people like these as mixed misrepresent the facts. People don't care about our racial theories and mixes. Lets be honest here if nicole richie walks down a street people see a blond white woman not a black woman. When Halle Berry walks down a street people see a black woman not a white woman. To present the facts otherwise simply misrepresents the truth and the reality of what people see. This is because we don't know who is mixed with what and as race we classify people based on there physical appearance. Ie we nicole richie is white cause she has white skin and we say berry is black cause she has brown skin.

Well the other guy who got his source had nothing to do with the BBC source. The BBC got its information from UNICEF, it says that quiet clearly. If you've noticed VirtualDelight source has nothing to do with the BBC source but perhaps it has to do with his source; perhaps he miss translated something, I don't know, but the source he gives is clearly not the one that the BBC used. There are already several issues with the CIA factbook, such as the fact that it changes and redefines race based on its fancy. So I will ask you to find another source.

Well according to you "the BBC page doesn't name where they got their 90% figure from" according to the bbc "Fuentes: CEPAL, UNICEF, Fundación África Vive" Sources CEPAL, UNICEF and the african foundation of life. Now I'm not international renown journalist but if you are please scan you phd in journalism into the computer screen so I may take a look.

Well the BBC is more reputable than the CIA cause they don't change their figures overnight based on political motives and they don't tie up muslims and dunk them in water in cuba. So if the BBC source is not to be used, it up to you to prove the journalist who comprised the list as liars just as it would be up to me to disprove the cia factbook as liars, which I can't do, and that is why I'm saying lets just incorporate both pieces of info into the article. Neither the CIA factbook nor the BBC is the original source, neither went to the dominican and took a census, so lets quit messing around on that nonsense(Dualldual 02:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

The wording in your most recent edit was much better, but the issue with the source remains. I reiterate that while the BBC is quite reliable, they did not collect that data themselves, and they don't provide statistics on the whole of the population. Your problem with the CIA is a separate issue. Then there is the problem that the only link you have provided supporting the 90% figure is in Spanish, contrary to WP:Attribution. Bottom line is, if you want to include those figures, look up the sources the BBC used and reference them.

I'm not going to debate you any further about who is black and who is not in the DR, but please consider that your perception of race is not the issue here. As for your opinion of the World Factbook, if there really is some problem with its information that I'm not aware of it should be discussed elsewhere, because it is used as a source all over Wikipedia. --Cúchullain ^t/c 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are some what stuck on this point of your claim that because BBC did not take a census in Dominican Republic in your view, therefore it is not relaible on reporting those statistics. By that logic only the Dominican government would have the right not only to talk about the ethnic make up of its country but also they would be the only ones allowed to post here on wiki because none of us should be allowed to show the domincan governments or any other organizations census statistics. I find that somewhat demanding and it seems to have nothing to do with standards at wiki. I can easily argue that the CIA doesn't provide a complete picture of the stats, for one they don't discuss the amount of native indians in argentina and other south american countries.

As for your opinion of the BBC News, if there really is some problem with its information that I'm not aware of it should be discussed elsewhere, because it is used as a source all over Wikipedia.

As for wiki being against foreign language citations, well I think a census about the dominican in espanol is more reliable than one by english speakers who seem to never have left america. Wiki says this about foreign language sourcing "English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves" Well at this time I can't find the english equivalent of the article, in fact I don't even know if one exist, and even if it did, it would be hard for me to find, I probably would have to call unicef and ask them for it in which I would have no way to show you once I get the document as I have no scanner and you have no way of reading unless you speak perfect spanish. So according to wiki standards it is an acceptable incorporation since I can't find an english translation of it. As for the footnote I did attempt to add that. So the standard you are holding me to is actually above the wiki standard as you can clearly see; your asking me to find the original census which will 99.99% likely be in espanol anyways. Therefore it is acceptable I quote the BBC as long as I use the footnote.{{pseudosig|Dualldual}}

First, please don't make vindictive statements as you did above ("as for your opinion of the BBC News...") Second, think what you want about CIA or the World Factbook, that isn't the issue here. It seems you have finally incorporated your BBC statistic without either deleting the other sources or or claiming it said something it didn't. This is acceptible to me for the time being, though I would greatly prefer a reference that wasn't a news article in Spanish. There are several sources for demographic information about the DR (not only from a government census, but that would be acceptible too), including the ones used by the BBC. I very much doubt that they are as hard to find as you seem to believe, and it doesn't matter if they're online (and it would be okay if such a primary document wasn't in English). I encourage you to try to look some up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that figure it is obviously wrong. It says 30 percent of Cubans are black! please. That is both an understatement and a overstatement at the same exact time. Why because most Cubans are Mulattos 51 precent, 11 percent are black, see my point? It both over estimates and under estimates at the same time. This source incorrect. Not only that but it also underestimates the Black population in Costa Rica. It says it is 2 precent it is reality according to the CIA world Fact book 3. Same thing goes with Colombia they underestimate its black population. At least the CIA world fact books has creditable sources when finding it information about a country and Yes the CIA world fact book is correct. To say they are not because of the WMDs is crazy, since they were partly right and what does finding out if Iraq has WMDs have to do with the Demographics of Dominican Republic. They don't they can not be compared.(24.60.175.168 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't really see who you are and how many phds you have to remove the figure. While me and Cuchullain where try to debate this like civlized human beings you just pop out of no where claiming to be an expert on this info. Please scan in your harvard or oxford phd into the computer for us all to see as well as the census you took in the Dominican Republic which allows you to state that me, and the BBC, a well respected international medium chain, are obviously wrong. You can't really have an understatement and an overstatement at the same time. Well the majority of sources would seem to infer that the majority of carribean even in contries like cuba and dominican are black because as you see here http://www.uiowa.edu/~c016003a/mapslavetrade.gif something like 60% of all 15-20 million slaves brought went to the carribean. Now I don't think that Haiti and Jamaica where the only countries taking on slaves and if you were to assume that it would leave a gap of about 60% as to where the rest of the africans went. This article discusse how at 1827 half of cuba was still black and 40% of them still slaves. Anyways I'm not here to debate Cuba.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/images/slave_trade_1650-1860_b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_trade.htm&h=351&w=600&sz=58&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=x-KNskvp1sTUfM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dslave%2Btrade%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

As for Costa Rican misestimate I would disagree with you, 1% change in data is no biggy. In fact if anything it just show that my source is reliable because it has roughly the same number in many instances than the CIA factbook. The fact that it sometimes even underestimates the black population in Columbia and other circumstances simply proves that it is not bias or sexing up the number of blacks as you seem to be suggesting. Actually the CIA has no source for its info except itself, which leads me to believe we should look at it with a higher level of scrutiny. No self respecting person believe that the Cia was right about WMD's in Iraq. If anything that instance just shows how they will make up evidence that doesn't exist for political purposes. Further this site proves that the CIA factbook definitely does change it statisical numbers significantly. Especially regarding race.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:i-90dI0iexQJ:www.thedialogue.org/iac/documents/Informe_sobre_raza.pdf+90+%25+de+la+dominicana+es+afrodescendientes&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5

When you look at the number of african descendt in republic domincana you see that it is 84% Scroll down to fuentes(sources) now scroll down to secondary sources or fuentes secundaries. Notice right there for Dominicana republic that the cia world factbook 2002 is a source for this 84% african origin stat. Now if one searches for the cia factbook 2002 you notice that the stat is back to what it is currently showing. Let be realstic here I find it hard to believe that in the last five years the race ratio's and percentages have stayed exactly the same in the dominican. What this indicates is that the CIA not only is changing its number grossly over time, but they are also going back and changing their past figures to cover up their perceived mistakes. This indicates to me an unreliable resource or at the very least one that should be looked at with high scrunity. I have found two totally unrelated articles that place the dominca population at 84-90% african where as the only stats supporting this 11% black theory can all be traced back to the cia factbook, who as we changes its number—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dualldual (talk • contribs)

It's good we're bringing in additional sources. One point though - I think many of the sources that look independant are actually going to be relying on the Factbook's numbers, adding the 11% the Factbook gives for those who are exclusively black and the 73% who are mixed race to get 84% of the country who have black blood.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cuchullain here. If you look at the primary reference given in your source, the Race Report 2003 of the IAC - here a link to its English version [7] - it is the study by Bello and Rangel I have linked to in my comment above. This study does give the same figures as the CIA. As your source states Afro-descent is the term applying to that segment of the population with African ancestry, which I think of course includes mixed ancestry. So I don't think the CIA changed anything in its publication but the 84% are those of Afro-descent. But thats in the article already. --VirtualDelight 08:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you saying that people of African descent include people of mixed ancestry is original research and an assumption. As Chuchullain said how if you say that mixed people are of african ancestry then you could easily say that the dominican is 90% of european ancestry as well. Even looking at other countries in the sources it is clear that CIA factbook has significantly changed the numbers of many countries. So then why don't we put that 84% of all dominicans are of african descent. Because it seems rather silly to try to determine who is full black and who is mixed based only on phenotype. Ie. if someone is very black they might say they are black even though they might actually be mixed and vice versa, someone who is light might not be mixed but just assumes they are.(Dualldual 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

See thats my point. The sources obviously are not correct on many other countries black populations including the Dominican Republic. It is obvious then from have from VirtualDelights source that the CIA world fact boook figure is correct and they got it from a creditable source.(24.60.175.168 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Well slow down there, let us remmeber that we really only have two sources. The cia factbook, and the article. The other report has cited the cia factbook as its source, none the less the figure it gave was closer to the article than the cia factbook. It said 84% of dominicans are of african descent. Now how that divides is matter of interpretation which we are not allowed to do because that is original research. All we know is that two sources say that 84-90% of dominicans are of african descent. Further, one of the sources say that they are the descentdents of black slaves. And the cia factbook tells us 11% of dominicans are black and the rest are mixed and white. Further we cannot simply assume that the factbook is correct because they do not site their info and did not do the research themselves so we have no way of checking to ensure the info is accurate. If you are trying to alledge that the bbc news has made a mistake in its article then how do I know that the factbook did not type in the wrong number as well? Especially since it sites no sources???(Dualldual 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Not A Great Decision But I have to Semi-Protect

Guys Theirs No other choice but to semi protect this page...Ugly Vandalism is a plague in this page.. Is becoming uglier and uglier to the point that we have to protect it by any means. I have already received several bad comments about how bad this article is becoming...and this is making wikipedia less trustworthy..please do not revert my descicion.And if you dont belive it,look at the history section a few days ago!EdwinCasadoBaez 21:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)