Add topic
Active discussions

I understand the term Garifuna to be a specific term for the descendants of the Black Caribs who were deported from St. Vincent to Honduras in the 18th century - this term applies to a specific group (classed with other Amerindians in Belize), not a general term for mixed African-Amerindian people (e.g., the product of a mixed marriage between a person of black ancestry and one of Maya ancentry in Belize would not be Garifuna). Guettarda 01:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying that Garifuna is a "general term" to denote those of mixed Black and Amerindians strains. The General term is indeed Zambo, but in those of St. Vincent and related isles and their descendants in Honduras are known as Garifuna, and as such, the term Garifuna only applies to those Zambos. Al-Andalus 14:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The article says exactly that:
Zambo (Cafuzo in Brazil, Lobo in Mexico, Garifuna in Saint Vincent and Honduras) is a term of Latin American origin describing peoples of mixed African and Amerindian racial descent.
This means that Cafuzo, Lobo and Garifuna are synonyms of Zambo. Sure, the definition of "zambo" would encompass the Garifuna. But to list it parenthetically at the start of the article implies synonymy. Guettarda 19:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also removed references to modern St Vincent - the Garifuna were deported over 200 years ago. The modern Vincentians of mixed Carib and African blood are simply called Carib or part-Carib. (The British deported the "Black Caribs", the less mixed "Yellow Caribs" were allowed to remain, although they have largely been absorbed into the majority population. Guettarda 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the term African is misused and serves in many respects to mask the genuine history of autochithonous races.

I'm saying that in fact the black peoples found by Europeans to be living alongside or separate from the yellow and red races termed as Amerindian, are actually the remnant of the original inhabitants of the Americas.

The influx of disparate racial traits did not occur in the way almost all discourse on this subject presents it.

Blacks were there before anyone else.

The term African is a general term applied in recent times to anyone with dark skin and curly hair. This is an erroneous title. Africa is in fact a Roman word derived from a member of the Anemoi or indigenous Roman pantheon of deities. AFRICUS is the Roman god representing the wind coming from a South Westerly direction. The territory which is now modern Tunisia was a new province acquired from the Carthaginians by the Romans. They called it Africa (feminine form of Africus) because it lay to the SW across the sea from Rome (Africus being a possible derivative of an early Aryan language word for "Apricot" - on account of the wafting smell of that fruit coming across the Mediterranean - from a land then teeming with prolific vegetation; thus was deified a directional wind).

Just as Asia was named by Aryan language speakers describing an attribute (a land in the direction of the rising sun), so were other continents. Even Europe has an obscure and surprising meaning based on what was found in that land: Euros + Ops or Black Face.

So you see, to call the black indigenous peoples of the Americas African is misleading. They may not have come from the continent named Africa to begin with. Postulation says that many came across the Pacific Ocean or via land bridges existing at the time of their migration.

I believe the original people of these lands were supplanted by novel strains of humanity and that the white Europeans who arrived in the Americas were merely a second wave of non-black migration. They simply stumbled upon the consequences of an original influx of non-blacks; the remnant of the first wave constitutes the red and yellow straight haired inhabitants wrongly labeled as Indian. For the sake of ownership rights the Europeans simply masked the true identities of the original peoples claiming they were African slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing "zambo" from "sambo"Edit

Is there no connection to the term (considered racist) "Sambo", as used in the United States to refer to a stereotyped image of black people? ("little black Sambo")

Answering my own question:


 1  definition  found 

 From  Webster's  Revised  Unabridged  Dictionary  (1913)  [web1913]: 

 Zambo  \Zam"bo\,  n.;  pl  {Zambos}.  [See  {Sambo}.] 
 The  child  of  a  mulatto  and  a  negro;  also  the  child  of  an 
 Indian  and  a  negro;  colloquially  or  humorously,  a  negro;  a 
  • This term is for many, synonymous with the offensive term "sambo". Comments on including commentary to the effect that, despite the cute historical etymology, in contemporary usage the term may be regarded as equivalent to "negro" or "coloured"? RealityCheck 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous, troll. Check the date of the reference: 1913. Blatant, unchallenged racism was the fashion then. People in the American South and elsewhere regularly referred to blacks as "niggers" and "darkies," too. *x* deeceevoice 02:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • My friend, I'm not sure whether you normally address people who seek RFCs in this way, but partially to see whether you can show that you're not a fairly unpleasant individual, I will have another go at this. Wanted: constructive comments and support sought for making sure that "zambo", which is aurally indistinguishable from "sambo", is not confused with the latter term. I'm thinking of something basic like "the term must not be confused with the ethnic slur 'sambo', because...". We must ensure there can be no confusing these two apparently different terms. RealityCheck 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not equivalent terms. It seems clear to me that Zambos generally are treated not only as mixed-raced individuals, but as distinct ethnic minorities in their own right -- which is evidenced by the ridiculously low percentages quoted in the article and the earlier wording, which I altered: "Zambos don’t generally constitute any proportion of most countries in Latin America, but they do represent small minorities in the north-western South American countries of Colombia (3%), Venezuela and Ecuador, and along north-western Brazil where they are known as Cafuzos...." -- like the Garifuna in Honduras. Clearly, throughout portions of Latin America, there are millions of blacks mixed with indio blood who live outside of these specific communities as members of the general population. Further, historically, Negro -- with capital "n" in the U.S. since the 1940s or '50s -- refers to any person with African ancestry, regardless of ethnic admixture.

Finally, given that the ethnic slur "sambo" is thought to originate from "zambo" -- which should be mentioned in the piece -- it is absolutely unacceptable to propose that "zambo" and "negro" or "coloured" be considered "equivalent" or interchangeable. I am of African, Cado, Cherokee (and Irish) ancestry -- that I am certain of. You wanna imagine my reaction if someone were to call me "zambo" as a synonym for "Negro"?

You don't.

Consider my observations, my comments in the immediately preceding paragraph, and then recheck the wording on your earlier entry. That is how your comment reads, and this is typical of the back-handed, pervasive racism of this website. Understand why I assumed you were simply some gutless, racist troll tryin' to start some shyt up in here. I even checked your edit history briefly, but because your language as I read it was so off-the-wall, I still believed your motive was something other than imparting objective information.

My apologies. But in the future, since this is cyberspace and your words are the only means by which you can be known, please express your intentions more clearly.

Yes. Certainly, it would make sense to include the wording you suggest. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 09:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Apology accepted. We are all responsible for the way we choose to conduct ourselves. I am responsible for my wording, but you are responsible for the particular way in which you chose to respond. And I do not grant that your response to the wording of my first post was reasonable, so we will need to agree to disagree on this particular point. Regarding your other points, personally I do not have a graduated response to terms like "sambo", "negro" or "coloured". I regard them as equivalent in the sense that I find them all equally offensive. All this simply returns to my original point. Here we have an article about "zambo" which contains all this "cute historical etymology" about the term but does not say a thing about how offensive the term can be because it sounds just like "sambo". Anyway, I think that we agree on the important thing so I will have a shot at the wording at some point. RealityCheck 11:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand. My apology was not for my conduct, but for the misunderstanding. I do not apologize for taking strong exception to wording which seems to suggest that "in contemporary usage the term may [or "can"] be regarded as equivalent to 'negro' or 'coloured'" One question: is the word in the Spanish-language context considered a pejorative -- perhaps not inherently so, but because of societal racism/color bias? Is it a word people seek to avoid? deeceevoice 12:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's why I suggest we agree to disagree. Re Spanish context, I do not know. Do you think we should consult further on this point, all leave it, as this is the EN Wiki? RealityCheck 13:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Article becoming African rather than ZamboEdit

This page is starting to become an editorial with an African POV. One editor in particular is adding one-sided info by categorising the subjects of this article (the Zambos) as Blacks. The article is here to discuss the Zambo, not Blacks. However, I do agree that the all the issues about Zambos should be, in fact MUST be, addressed by the article, including those encountered by virtue of the African heritage, but let's not forget to address it on the perspective of their Native American heritage. As user deeceevoice has it now, the twang of the article has become Afrocentric. The African element is only one side of the coin. It would be just a POV to turn this article into a Native American page, and insist on analyzing the Zambos as Amerindians.

Let's address both heritages. Al-Andalus 16:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

On another note, I have also been reverting cut and paste jobs being inserted into the article, again by user deeceevoice that doesn't even pretend to address Zambos, but is blatently on the concerns of Blacks in Latin America.
  • is the case in nations such as Puerto Rico, El Salvador, Panama and Brazil. In part because of the prevailing anti-black racism in many societies, however, these populations often do not identify themselves as black or having African progenitors; they simply consider themselves "Latino" or even white.
Aymara-speaking Afro-Bolivian women from Yungas region of La Paz department in traditional highland Native American clothing, indigenous peasant hats and shawls.
What????? Because of discrimination Zambos simply identify as Latino or even White? This is getting out of hand! That entire paragraph is written in the context of Mulattos, since it is Mulattos that are of mixed European (White) and African ancestry, not Zambos. Unless you're unaware, many Zambos often follow the cultural traditions of their Amerindian heritage, not their African one. In Bolivia their mother language is even the indigenous language Aymara.
Again, that entire paragraph is written in the context of mulattos. How on earth could Zambos consider themselves "Latino" or even white, if as already stated, many follow Amerindian traditions, identifying them with Amerindians, and there is no White heritage for them to supposedly identify with it. The one drop rule of the United States is not applied in Latin America, and Zambos are not classed as Blacks, most identify as Zambos, and if forced to identify as just one of thier ancestries, most would simply identify with the Amerindian side based on cultural practices. '''Al-Andalus 16:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC).
You may not be aware of it, but here in the U.S., there are plenty of Afro-Latinos and Indio-Latinos who consider themselves "white." Indeed, the FBI apparently officially categorizes Indio-Latinos as "white Hispanics," to differentiate them from Latinos with obviously African ancestry. In Puerto Rico, for instance, lots of brown-skinned Afro-Latinos are under the misconception that they have no "black blood" in them at all. When they come to the U.S. they get a rude awakening. So, no. The article speaks to the issue of Afro-Latinos -- not "mulattos."
"Zambo" clearly is a term that applies not only to specific communities, but to racial/etnic admixture. Hence, the mention of terms like "Garifuno," et al. I've merely introduced the English-language equivalent of the term in that somewhat generic context.
The matter of racial discrimination against Afro-Latinos speaks to Latinos with African ancestry -- "pure" (if there is such a thing) Africans, as well as Afro-Indio-Latinos -- or, depending on the country and individual identification, Zambos, Garifunas, etc.
Am I understanding your objection? And does this respond adequately to your concerns? deeceevoice 17:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I urge you to wikify your edits and put them into conttext! Clarify that it is in the United States. Apart from context, wikification of your edits is a big problem. Make sections, put things in order so it makes sense. Clarify things, don't just cut and paste. Al-Andalus 17:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC).
IMO, the text makes perfect sense as is. If you have a substantive problem or questions or concerns about the material I've included, then here's the place to raise them. You don't need to school me in how to edit on this website. If you want a change made, then make it. If I agree, I'll let it stand. 'S that simple.deeceevoice 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
There is still a problem with the direction this article has taken. While the information contained is all correct (as far as I can tell), it must be edited into a context dealing with Zambos as Zambos, and not as Blacks. The one drop rule classification pattern of anyone with any degree of African ancestry as Black - the commonplace standard of Blackness in US race relations - must not be supplanted into Wikipedia. The plights of Zambos must be addressed in their article in the correct context as Zambos (people of mixed descent, with two heritages, where neither is prioritised), not as Blacks or "Afro-Latinos". It is misguided and one-sided ethnocentrism to pretend to academically analyse a people, by taking into account only one side of their make-up (especially if it is the side that most of them identify with the least in the first place). In this case, the POV being taken is of analysing Zambos as Africans who happen to have Amerindian admixture. Just as flawed would be to analyse them as Amerindians who happed to have African admixture. Let's address them as what they are, as Zambos, and analyse their plight in THAT context, in the context of their mixture. Al-Andalus 04:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC).
Let's do this again. The article is about a singular phenomenon, or group of people, collectively: people in or from Latin America of mixed African and Indian descent. The name "Zambo" is a Spanish one. Encompassed in that category are people of various nations, who go by different names (Garifuno, Lobo, Cafuzo, etc.), who have their own distinct cultures. "Afro-Latino" is a term which also describes these people -- assuming they are, like many of them of African and Indian heritage. It is within this context that the information has been introduced. I've taken a brief look at the piece and will return later to make certain changes, but much of the information will remain; it is entirely relevant. deeceevoice 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand the discussion of the meaning of the word Zambo might be in an historical context. Today in Central America, the word Zambo is extremely racist and used in a derogatory way to describe individuals of African descent. I caution you to use the word only in it's historical context and not to describe individuals. The caption under the picture of President Chavez in the "Zambo" article, can basically be translated to mean "Half Nigger"

Zambo or wolf?Edit

Weren't the products of Amerindian/negro unions actually called wolves? If you look at the painting in the main entry, the word used to describe the baby is lobo, which seems to mean wolf in spanish? (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Moebius

Hugo Chavez? Zambo?Edit

Where is the evidence that Chavez applies this term to himself or that a majority of Spanish speaking Venezuelan's do likewise? -- Rydra Wong (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful about this. Where is the source for this? - Gus (T, C) 2009-04-02 03:56Z

Hugo Chavez is obviously not a zambo, unless we consider that mestizos are zambos, which would be a mess. I am removing his picture. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • hugo chavez not is a mestizo pure; mestizo pure = mongoloid + caucasoid only; hugo chaves have a negroid blood in the curly hair, etc..

chavez = zambo + mestizo..and not zambo or mestizo only; it´s mongreloid..

Major RevisionEdit

I have made significant changes to this article and welcome comments or criticisms either here or on my talk page. I eliminated most references to mixed indigenous-African groups that have not been historically described as "zambos" since this group is fairly specifically confined to the Spanish speaking parts of America. It seems logical that someone might create a separate page for such mixed race people that would link to this page, that is the logical architecture to handle this toppic, rather than include non-Spanish speaking groups such as the Portuguese cafuzos or other groups with other names.Beepsie (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Zambo has nothing to do with mixed peopleEdit

Delete. Zambo and its derivatives Sambo etc are African in origin from the African surname Samba or Sambo and Sambou/Zambo. They are African surnames meaning one who gives comfort or comfort giver. They have nothing to do with mixed people and the word certainly does not originate from Spain or Portugal. (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've declined your speedy request as this article is not nonsense in the Wikipedia defined sense. If you have evidence for your view, please discuss it here on the talk page and cite your sources. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peridon,

As requested, please find source below:

  • African Languages and Ebonics by Dr. Katherine Harris, Central Connecticut State University. Africa Update. Vol. IV, no. 3 (Summer 1997) Pan-African Language Patterns Revisited:

"The erosion of African names also occurred. Samba, meaning comfort in Wolof, is still recalled in musical form in Brazil, where there remains a strong African presence. A possible derivation of Samba is Zambo (Southern/Central Africa), which also means to give comfort. Other derivatives are Sambu in Mandinka and Sambo in Hausa. The fact that the name was at one time fairly common and no longer used may have relationship to a song popularized by white Americans during the war from 1861-1865, "Sambo's Right To Be Kilt," and especially the derogatory usage of the name enshrined in the book Little Black Sambo."

Some Africans personalities with the surname/first name Samba/Samb/ Sambe/Zambo:

  • Amadou Samba: Chairman of Gacem Co Ltd

  • Samba Diabe Sambe {Samba}: one of the last remaining Xalam players.

  • Professor Benoît Ndi-Zambo: Cameroon
  • Philippe Mballa Zambo: Footballer from Cameroon

Here is a television interview of the man:

This article must be deleted immediately or a disambiguation tag added to it (as in the Samba Dance article). I call for the former because the name is African in origin and in African society, it does not mean what this article is purporting it to mean.

Thank you (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a content issue, and out of my field. Over to the editors of the article for comment... Peridon (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Image should be removedEdit

I attempted to edit out an image, only to discover it was "protected" (which seems to be contrary to Wikipedia's philosophy, but...). The painting entitled "Black man and mulatta produce a Zambo" is either mis-titled or else the entire body of the article is wrong about the meaning of the word 'Zambo'. A mulatta, by definition (see the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary or, for that matter, the Wikipedia entry), a woman of half black/half white ancestry. A black man and a mulatta will produce a child with three-fourths African ancestry and one fourth Caucasian-- and with no Indian blood at all. Thus, if the article is correct, the caption is wrong, and vice versa. If she were mestizo, it would arguably be a different story, although even then the child wouldn't be 50% African and 50% Indian, but rather 50% African, 25% white, and 25% Indian.

Granted, the "one drop" theory seems to point to white blood as being exceedingly weak (which the racists never seemed to get), but I don't think that a mestiza, let alone a mulatta, could be legitimately described as an Indian.ConegoFCZ (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)