There tends to be a correlation between ancestry and socio-economic class in Mexico, with “more indigenous” at the bottom and “more European” at the top. The vast, vast majority of Mexican immigrants to the use are from the lower socio-economic classes, so we don’t generally see the full spectrum of racial types in the US. Note that most Mexican presidents/Heads of State don’t look like the guys clearing tables at your local restaurant.
Likewise, the wealthier elite in Panama tend to have more European ancestry and because of this are known as rabiblancos (literally “white tails” or “white butts”). The poorer classes tend to be made up of people with darker skin with more indigenous or African ancestry.
That’s generally true in most Latin American countries, no?
And it’s interesting you brought up African ancestry. There’s a tendency in many Latin American countries to downplay that part of the mix in “mestizo”, but there is a lot more than most people think. Henry Louis Gates did an interesting show on that on PBS not long ago. Link.
You left out Subsaharian African, Latin American, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese…
The Moors ruled Spain for centuries until they were thrown out – the Alhambra being one relic of their stay – and the severed “Moor’s head” is still a proud heraldic device in some old coats of arms, with a characteristically sub-Saharan black-African profile and hair. Christopher Columbus had among his ships’ captains and crew some of the remaining moros [in Spanish that word meant ‘blacks’] who had not been expelled; one of them was the man who first sighted land. But the Spanish-from-Spain are still regarded as a pale white people, and probably the expulsion of (most of) the Moors in the 1400s has something to do with that.
Bringing blacks (as slaves) into the New World, having the Native American population already here, all of whom were of course taught to speak Spanish and Portuguese, made for a huge non-white “Hispanic” population in addition to the European immigrants. Even had there been no interbreeding at all, just sharing those languages would still have lumped them all together.
Moros has never meant black in Spain. Northern African or Muslim (or, as slang, a very jealous and posessive man), but never black.
It’s English that used moor sometimes as a shorthand for blackamoor, which does mean black.
In general, yes.
Bolivia is 62% indigenous, but current president Evo Morales is the first president from that group.
Technically, people of mixed European and African ancestry are mulattoes, and in the colonial period people of mixed indigenous and African origin were known as zambos. I don’t think there is a technical term for the trihybrid mix.
It varies enormously between countries. Panama, as part of a transit route, had a lot of African slaves, and many people are trihybrids. The percentage of African ancestry is also relatively high in the Caribbean islands where sugar cane was important (and the indigenous population was eradicated very early).
On the other hand, Argentina is the “whitest” country I have ever seen, including countries in Europe. Riding the subway in Buenos Aires I rarely saw anyone with dark skin.
I spent some time in the Dominican Republic. They had a huge number of adjectives describing different shades of black. Maybe at least twelve, I don’t remember exactly. Probably because Haiti is their neighbor.
Shows how fascinated some peoples are regarding color. Appears complicated to me.
Haiti has its own complicated system, too.
Humans are hierarchical. I don’t know if it is entrenched in our DNA or what, but we certainly have a tendency to split rather than lump.
My point, though, was a general unwillingness to recognize how much African is actually in the mix. Perhaps there is no word for it because there is a reluctance to embrace that part of the history.
Yes, I’ve heard it said that they even think of themselves are more European than the Europeans.
But have you been to Norway (or Sweden)? I did some work in Norway with a large corporation, and I remember walking into the company cafeteria and thinking: Man, I’ve never seen so many blond people together in one place. No one person would stand out in the US, but all of them together? It was like being in Lothlorien or something. Or may the original Village of the Damned. 
Yet, curious thing, in a dish “Moros y Cristianos” refers to black beans and white rice respectively.
Although (Spaniard here) I have to say that I have seen that dish made by my mother with white beans and rice.
The contrast is not between “black and white”, but between “beans” (moors = muslims) and “rice” (christians).
I also see that the “black beans with rice” variety is particularly popular in Cuba (this is not a dish that you see very often in Spain). Perhaps that particular variety of bean was easier to come by in the Caribbean, or something. Given the popularity of the dish there, most people will be exposed to that particular variety. Perhaps that is why most people think of “moros y cristianos” as “black beans with rice” instead of simply “beans with rice”.
Did you travel outside Buenos Aires proper?, in Greater Buenos Aires and the provinces (except perhaps Entre Rios, Cordoba and Santa Fé) the proportion of people with darker skin is far greater.
“Porteños” don’t like to recognize this fact but is true nonetheless.
In Cuba, it is called congri. Not unusual to have it 3 times a day.
Possibly, although here in Panama it doesn’t seem to be a particularly sensitive issue. Lot’s of people have a medium skin tone and kinky (African-type) hair. People who look mostly African are called morenos. People who look particularly indigenous (but are not actually members of the indigenous groups) are called cholos (long straight black hair, high cheek bones, etc.)
No, I was comparing it to London or Paris.
It was most noticeable in Buenos Aires. I’ve also been to Cordoba, Iguazu, Bariloche, Mar del Plata, and Puerto Madryn/Trelew. While there might have been a greater proportion of dark people in other areas, it was still less than most other places I’ve been in Latin America except maybe Costa Rica.
Is that because the native population in Argentina, like the US, was largely driven away or killed? Or were there just not that many to begin with? Or, something else?
It seems that the Spanish generally tried to convert and subjugate the native populations while the English (for lack of a better term) were more interested in taking the land and to hell with the natives. Of course, the Spanish settled in the Americas much earlier than the English did, too.
This is absolutely true in Mexico. (Colibri spoke of Panama, which has a more self-evident African portion in the overall ancestry pattern). In Mexico, mestizaje does “officially” (i.e., via government documents which touch on anthropological issues) include a significant African ancestral strain, but few Mexicans are aware of it.
Partial African ancestry is most evident in certain parts of Mexico, such as the Gulf coast of Veracruz and Tabasco states, and the “Costa Chica” of the Pacific coast of Oaxaca and Guerrero.
There was an interesting little exhibit about Black Mexican history at the Anacostia Museum of Washington, D.C. about three years ago.
Don’t forget the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, which is, in the larger towns like Limón, as black as, say, Charlotte Amalie, USVI.
Both. Except in the north, much of Argentina was not suitable for settled agriculture and so was not as densely settled as Mesoamerica or the Andean highlands. In the late 19th Century campaigns of extermination were carried out against the Indians in the south. And besides that, unlike other Latin American countries Argentina strongly encouraged immigration from Europe, especially from Italy, Spain, and Germany.
Yes, there is a much higher proportion of African ancestry along the Caribbean Coast of Central America, as in Belize and in Bocas del Toro and Colon provinces in Panama. (I’ve been to Limon.)