No, that's not what he says. Re-read it. He doesn't say that most negros are free Indians. He literally says that cholos are the same as Zambos in that region, and that negros y sus mezclas, which can only mean people with African ancestry, are the majority:
"A los que en el uso oficial se les llamaba "zambos", en el uso social mesopotamico se les denominaba "cholos" [...]
A finales del siglo XVIII y comienzos del XIX, los Pueblos de Indios se derivan en un mar de poblaciones mestizas en movimiento, con un fuerte predominio de "negros" y sus mezclas."
The author is clearly stating that there was a large African element, mixed with Indians, in the population. As I said, the figures were surprisingly high to me too, but the text you link clearly shows a large tri-racial rural population, with a strong black element. In fact the whole book is about the presence of blacks not their absence!
A very conservative estimate of the black+zambo+mulato population of Argentina at independence would be 20-30%, though of course this wouldn't include criollos and Indians of partial black ancestry.
I don't disagree with your post, but it is important to remember that racism was not the only factor behind Argentina's "vanishing" black population.-snip-
Saberhagen, post: 15932178, member: 100398"]I don't disagree with your post, but it is important to remember that racism was not the only factor behind Argentina's "vanishing" black population.
20-30% is indeed a reasonable estimate of Argentina's colonial black population. However, talking in percentages and not in absolute numbers can be misleading. Argentina's total population in 1810 (excluding Uruguay of course) was of only 600k people. So we are talking about a black population of 120-180 thousand people.
The slave trade was abolished in 1813, when all children of slaves were declared free by law. Over the course of the 19th century and until WW2, Argentina received a staggering 7.5 million European immigrants - More than Canada, Australia, Brazil or any other country in the world after the USA. Per capita, this impact was even greater than in the USA. This explains to some degree how the black population was "swamped" into relative invisibility.
No doubt, racism explains the other part of the equation. A disproportionate number of black Argentines were recruited to fight in the civil wars (Rosas was particularly fond of doing this) and the Paraguayan War during the 19th century, and also a disproportionate number died during the 1871 yellow fever epidemic you mention, which killed around 8% of the population of Buenos Aires, disproportionately striking in the poorer quarters of the city.
However, the demographic impact of immigration and blending in should not be discounted. There was no "One Drop Rule" as in the United States. Modern genetic testing shows that as much as 5% of modern Argentina's population has at least one distant African ancestor, even if it's not "visible" in many, the genetic impact is still present. The African legacy also persists in history and cultural impact, having influenced the development of tango music, and through personalities like Ramon Carrillo who was a reknowned Minister of Health during the first Perón presidency who implemented many important reforms and improvements.
"the milonga is danced only by the compadritos of the city, who have created it as a mockery of the dances the blacks hold in their own places"
No, I'm not ignoring it.You're ignoring rampant blanqueamento that to this day persists in most of Latin America.
I was referring to the music style which has some of its roots in milonga and candombe, both styles which originated on the African community of the Río de la Plata region, particularly the latter.Tango developed from a dance that mocked the movements of black Argentinians by the white and mestizo working class after all
I agree, obviously we are dealing with a different type of racist policy from that which prevailed in North America but it is racism nevertheless, perhaps even more subtle and pernicious.Mestizaje is just as destructive if not more so once you peel back and see behind the mollification it's by design insidious.
That would inevitably create a pushback for local autonomy and cultural revival. Essentially, economic and political stability would eventually see the creation of a middle class with native ancestry, who would champion autonomy movements. I'm thinking more say, Irish Language and cultural revival.I doubt it. You will see less Hispanicization for sure and certainly stronger native languages, but native languages were in decline even before independence, and with rising nationalism, Spain will not be stressing local languages.
I'm not claiming this to be a Bourbon policy, but the result of activism from educated communities.Those were the policy of the Hapsburgs. Why would the centralist Bourbon backtrack on their eighteenth-century laws and policies, especially since those who know the indigenous languages are most likely not members of the criollos?
That would inevitably create a pushback for local autonomy and cultural revival. Essentially, economic and political stability would eventually see the creation of a middle class with native ancestry, who would champion autonomy movements. I'm thinking more say, Irish Language and cultural revival.
20-30% is indeed a reasonable estimate of Argentina's colonial black population. However, talking in percentages and not in absolute numbers can be misleading. Argentina's total population in 1810 (excluding Uruguay of course) was of only 600k people. So we are talking about a black population of 120-180 thousand people.
Well, the liberal elites existed in both the Americas and Spain, it's just that Ferdinand VII said "screw them"I see no reason why slavery would have been abolished in the Spanish empire without wars of independence. Yes, slavery was not as economically important in the River Plate as it was in the Caribbean, but, will the Spansih dictate a specific policy for a part of their domains? Or would they rather keep slavery in all the Indias? After all, they kept it in Cuba until quite late. Why would they abolish it in the River Plate? After all, the same laws were applied in all the empire (las leyes de indias).
Without the ideas of the liberal elites who rebelled against Spain and without the need for men in the rebel armies, slavery would have continued and the status of Blacks would have been even worse than IOTL during the XIX century (which it's a lot to say...)
I see no reason why slavery would have been abolished in the Spanish empire without wars of independence. Yes, slavery was not as economically important in the River Plate as it was in the Caribbean, but, will the Spansih dictate a specific policy for a part of their domains? Or would they rather keep slavery in all the Indias? After all, they kept it in Cuba until quite late. Why would they abolish it in the River Plate? After all, the same laws were applied in all the empire (las leyes de indias).
Well, the liberal elites existed in both the Americas and Spain, it's just that Ferdinand VII said "screw them"
Hmm, now that brings up a good point. Depending on how the independence wars are avoided, what does that say for Ferdinand's position TTL.
At the risk of having this turn into a "Would Napoleon win w/o Peninsular War" thread, why don't we just assume for this thread that Napoleon and the wars named after him are averted entirely?It depends why Spain still retains the Americas. If, for instance, there is no Peninsular War, this has a number of effects such as Napoleon winning, but it also means weaker liberalism in Spain and a very different Ferdinand.
At the risk of having this turn into a "Would Napoleon win w/o Peninsular War" thread, why don't we just assume for this thread that Napoleon and the wars named after him are averted entirely?
So Spanish America is more economically and linguistically homogenous?Nevertheless, the economy of Spanish America would be much better without unstable regimes... Such prosperity would doubtless flow to natives and other lower castes, and without the bloodiness of the wars of independence, race relations would certainly be better.
I do, however, severely doubt you’d see native languages recover...
Yeah, we don't have to get into the whole question of what, if anything, the Continental System evolves into in this thread, that point's been debated plenty on this board already FWIR.But this is a bit off topic.
So Spanish America is more economically and linguistically homogenous?