Poll: Large Number Of Texans Doubt The Theory Of Evolution, Believe In Human-Dinosaur Coexistence
A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune survey shows just how destructive a politicized right-wing curriculum can be. A large number of Texans polled said they still don’t believe in evolution and are convinced that humans and dinosaurs co-existed:
– 51 percent disagree with the statement, “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.”
– 38 percent agree with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.”
– 30 percent agree with the statement, “Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.” Another 30 percent said they “don’t know” whether the statement is true.
Texas Poll
Refusing to believe in evolution is a point of pride for many conservatives, who are also trying to indoctrinate young people with their same misguided views. The right-wing Texas State Board of Education has been reviewing the direction of the state’s social studies curriculum and textbook standards. Some of their changes include adding “causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” “documents that supported Cold War-era Sen. Joseph McCarthy,” and how to “differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.”
In terms of textbook standards, as Texas goes, so goes the nation. The state “is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks.” Publishers are often “reluctant to produce different versions of the same material,” and therefore create books in line with Texas’ standards. (HT: Daily Kos)
En este blog publicare articulos y comentarios de interes para entender el acontecer cultural en aspectos politicos, sociales y educativos.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Coalition Says More Than 20,000 Teachers In Illinois May Lose Jobs Next Year.
Coalition Says More Than 20,000 Teachers In Illinois May Lose Jobs Next Year.
The Chicago Daily Herald (3/29, Holdway) reports that "a coalition of Illinois education groups says more than 20,000 teachers could be laid off from state schools in the next school year." Based on surveys returned by three-quarters of the 944 school districts that received the, the coalition says that 9,764 of the planned layoffs will be "certified staff members -- basically, teachers," another 5,867 will be "noncertified staff members," and 1,597 will be "certified retirees not being replaced." In a news release, coalition member Brent Clark said, "This data only reflects expected job losses. ... The situation is far worse when we factor in elimination and reduction of hundreds of programs in sports and music and school activities that are so beneficial to students." The Daily Herald notes that the coalition is made up of the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Association of School Business Officials, "the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Principals Association," and the Illinois Association of School Administrators.
Illinois Districts Lay Off Nearly 10,000 Teachers As State Struggles To Catch Up On Payments. The Chicago Sun-Times (3/27, Ihejirika) reported that "in recent weeks, state education funding woes have triggered a tsunami of pink slips to thousands upon thousands of teachers and support staff in school districts statewide, with about 9,800 announced layoffs of teachers so far." Said Illinois Education Association spokesman, Charlie McBarron, "What looms this school year is devastating for all of Illinois. It's going to significantly diminish the quality of education throughout the state." Because the state is "woefully behind on paying its 2009-2010 bills -- and eyeing further budget cuts in 2010-2011 -- districts such as the Chicago Public Schools are drastically plugging holes that may only get bigger."
The Chicago Daily Herald (3/29, Holdway) reports that "a coalition of Illinois education groups says more than 20,000 teachers could be laid off from state schools in the next school year." Based on surveys returned by three-quarters of the 944 school districts that received the, the coalition says that 9,764 of the planned layoffs will be "certified staff members -- basically, teachers," another 5,867 will be "noncertified staff members," and 1,597 will be "certified retirees not being replaced." In a news release, coalition member Brent Clark said, "This data only reflects expected job losses. ... The situation is far worse when we factor in elimination and reduction of hundreds of programs in sports and music and school activities that are so beneficial to students." The Daily Herald notes that the coalition is made up of the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Association of School Business Officials, "the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Principals Association," and the Illinois Association of School Administrators.
Illinois Districts Lay Off Nearly 10,000 Teachers As State Struggles To Catch Up On Payments. The Chicago Sun-Times (3/27, Ihejirika) reported that "in recent weeks, state education funding woes have triggered a tsunami of pink slips to thousands upon thousands of teachers and support staff in school districts statewide, with about 9,800 announced layoffs of teachers so far." Said Illinois Education Association spokesman, Charlie McBarron, "What looms this school year is devastating for all of Illinois. It's going to significantly diminish the quality of education throughout the state." Because the state is "woefully behind on paying its 2009-2010 bills -- and eyeing further budget cuts in 2010-2011 -- districts such as the Chicago Public Schools are drastically plugging holes that may only get bigger."
Born Again, Sort Of : How the first Christians understood Jesus' resurrection.
Born Again, Sort Of
How the first Christians understood Jesus' resurrection.
By Larry Hurtado
Posted Friday, April 2, 2010, at 9:48 AM ET To observant Christians, Easter is about much more than bunnies and chocolate eggs. In 2008, Larry Hurtado examined how early believers came to grips with the idea of Jesus' resurrection. His column is reprinted below.
Easter Sunday represents the foundational claim of Christian faith, the highest day of the Christian year as celebration of Jesus' resurrection. But many Christians are unsure what the claim that Jesus had been raised to new life after being crucified actually means—while non-Christians often find the whole idea of resurrection bemusing and even ridiculous.
These differences over what Jesus' resurrection represents and discomfort with the whole idea are nothing new, however: Christians in the first few centuries also had difficulty embracing the idea of a real, bodily resurrection. Then, as now, resurrection was not the favored post-death existence—people much preferred to think that after dying, souls headed to some ethereal realm of light and tranquility. During the Roman period, many regarded the body as a pitiful thing at best and at worst a real drag upon the soul, even a kind of prison from which the soul was liberated at death. So, it's not surprising that there were Christians who simply found bodily resurrection stupid and repugnant. To make the idea palatable, they instead interpreted all references to Jesus' resurrection in strictly spiritual terms. Some thought of Jesus as having shed his earthly body in his death, assuming a purely spiritual state, and returning to his original status in the divine realm. In other cases, Jesus' earthly body and his death were even seen as illusory, the divine Christ merely appearing to have a normal body (rather like Clark Kent!).
The idea of a real, personal resurrection—meaning a new bodily existence of individuals after death, in one way or another—did not originate with Christianity or with claims about Jesus. Instead, it seems to be first clearly reflected in Jewish texts dated to sometime in the second century B.C., such as the biblical book of Daniel 12:2. At the time, it was a genuinely innovative idea. (Alan Segal's book Life After Death gives an expansive discussion of the origins of the idea of resurrection.) Many peoples of the ancient world hoped for one or another sort of eternal life, but it was usually thought of as a kind of bodiless existence of soul or spirit set in realms of the dead that might or might not be happy, pleasant places. In still other expectations, death might bring a merging of individuals with some ocean of being, like a drop of water falling into the sea.
The ancient Jewish and early Christian idea of personal resurrection represented a new emphasis on individuals and the importance of embodied existence beyond the mere survival or enhancement of the soul, although there was debate about the precise nature of the post-resurrection body. Some seem to have supposed it would be a new body of flesh and bones, closely linked to the corpse in the grave but not liable to decay or death. Others imagined a body more like that of an angel. But whatever its precise nature, the hope of resurrection reflected a strongly holistic view of the person as requiring some sort of body to be complete. With ancient Jews, early Christians saw resurrection as an act of God, a divine gift of radically new life, not an expression of some inherent immortality of the soul. That is, the dead don't rise by themselves; they are raised by God and will experience resurrection collectively as one of the events that comprise God's future redemption of the world and vindication of the righteous.
In the ancient Judaism of Jesus' time, however, resurrection was not universally affirmed. Some devout Jews (particularly the religious party called Sadducees) apparently considered the whole idea ridiculous, as evidenced by the New Testament, which gives us some of the most direct references to disputes among ancient Jews about the matter. In Mark 12:18-27, Sadducees taunt Jesus with a question about a woman married several times, asking him whose wife she will be following the resurrection. Jesus strongly affirms resurrection, but he insists that those resurrected will not marry and portrays the Sadducees' question as reflecting a foolish ignorance of God's power.
In the earliest expressions of their faith that we have, Christians claimed that Jesus' resurrection showed that God singled out Jesus ahead of the future resurrection of the dead to show him uniquely worthy to be lord of all the elect. However, the paradigmatic significance of Jesus' resurrection was also very important for early Christians.
n Christianity's first few centuries, when believers often suffered severe persecution and even the threat of death, those who believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection found it particularly meaningful for their own circumstances. Jesus had been put to death in grisly fashion, but God had overturned Jesus' execution and, indeed, had given him a new and glorious body. So, they believed that they could face their own deaths as well as those of their loved ones in the firm hope that God would be faithful to them as well. They thought that they would share the same sort of immortal reaffirmation of their personal and bodily selves that Jesus had experienced. Elaine Pagels, a scholar of early Christianity, has argued that those Christians who regarded the body as unimportant, perhaps including "Gnostics," were less willing to face martyrdom for their faith and more willing to make gestures of acquiescence to the Romans—for example, by offering sacrifices to Roman gods—because they regarded actions done with their bodies as insignificant so long as in their hearts they held to their beliefs.
By contrast, Christians who believed in bodily resurrection seem to have regarded their own mortal coils as the crucial venues in which they were to live out their devotion to Christ. When these Christians were arraigned for their faith, they considered it genuine apostasy to give in to the gestures demanded by the Roman authorities. For them, inner devotion to Jesus had to be expressed in an outward faithfulness in their bodies—and they were ready to face martyrdom for their faith, encouraged by the prospect of bodily resurrection. Indeed, Christian martyrs are pictured as engaged in a battle with the Roman authorities (and the Devil, whom Christians saw as behind Roman malevolence toward them), with the martyrs' bodies as battlegrounds in which the integrity of their person and their personal salvation could be lost or retained.
Historically, then, how Christians have understood Jesus' "resurrection" says a lot about how they have understood themselves, whether they have a holistic view of the human person, whether they see bodily existence as trivial or crucial, and how they imagine full salvation to be manifested. Does salvation comprise a deliverance from the body into some sort of immediate and permanent postmortem bliss (which is actually much closer to popular Christian piety down the centuries), or does salvation require a new embodiment of some sort, a more robust reaffirmation of persons? This sort of question originally was integral to early Jewish and Christian belief in the resurrection. In all the varieties of early Christianity, and in all the various understandings of what his "resurrection" meant, Jesus was typically the model, the crucial paradigm for believers, what had happened to him seen as prototypical of what believers were to hope for themselves.
Become a fan of Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Larry W. Hurtado is head of the School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. His recent books are The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? and Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
How the first Christians understood Jesus' resurrection.
By Larry Hurtado
Posted Friday, April 2, 2010, at 9:48 AM ET To observant Christians, Easter is about much more than bunnies and chocolate eggs. In 2008, Larry Hurtado examined how early believers came to grips with the idea of Jesus' resurrection. His column is reprinted below.
Easter Sunday represents the foundational claim of Christian faith, the highest day of the Christian year as celebration of Jesus' resurrection. But many Christians are unsure what the claim that Jesus had been raised to new life after being crucified actually means—while non-Christians often find the whole idea of resurrection bemusing and even ridiculous.
These differences over what Jesus' resurrection represents and discomfort with the whole idea are nothing new, however: Christians in the first few centuries also had difficulty embracing the idea of a real, bodily resurrection. Then, as now, resurrection was not the favored post-death existence—people much preferred to think that after dying, souls headed to some ethereal realm of light and tranquility. During the Roman period, many regarded the body as a pitiful thing at best and at worst a real drag upon the soul, even a kind of prison from which the soul was liberated at death. So, it's not surprising that there were Christians who simply found bodily resurrection stupid and repugnant. To make the idea palatable, they instead interpreted all references to Jesus' resurrection in strictly spiritual terms. Some thought of Jesus as having shed his earthly body in his death, assuming a purely spiritual state, and returning to his original status in the divine realm. In other cases, Jesus' earthly body and his death were even seen as illusory, the divine Christ merely appearing to have a normal body (rather like Clark Kent!).
The idea of a real, personal resurrection—meaning a new bodily existence of individuals after death, in one way or another—did not originate with Christianity or with claims about Jesus. Instead, it seems to be first clearly reflected in Jewish texts dated to sometime in the second century B.C., such as the biblical book of Daniel 12:2. At the time, it was a genuinely innovative idea. (Alan Segal's book Life After Death gives an expansive discussion of the origins of the idea of resurrection.) Many peoples of the ancient world hoped for one or another sort of eternal life, but it was usually thought of as a kind of bodiless existence of soul or spirit set in realms of the dead that might or might not be happy, pleasant places. In still other expectations, death might bring a merging of individuals with some ocean of being, like a drop of water falling into the sea.
The ancient Jewish and early Christian idea of personal resurrection represented a new emphasis on individuals and the importance of embodied existence beyond the mere survival or enhancement of the soul, although there was debate about the precise nature of the post-resurrection body. Some seem to have supposed it would be a new body of flesh and bones, closely linked to the corpse in the grave but not liable to decay or death. Others imagined a body more like that of an angel. But whatever its precise nature, the hope of resurrection reflected a strongly holistic view of the person as requiring some sort of body to be complete. With ancient Jews, early Christians saw resurrection as an act of God, a divine gift of radically new life, not an expression of some inherent immortality of the soul. That is, the dead don't rise by themselves; they are raised by God and will experience resurrection collectively as one of the events that comprise God's future redemption of the world and vindication of the righteous.
In the ancient Judaism of Jesus' time, however, resurrection was not universally affirmed. Some devout Jews (particularly the religious party called Sadducees) apparently considered the whole idea ridiculous, as evidenced by the New Testament, which gives us some of the most direct references to disputes among ancient Jews about the matter. In Mark 12:18-27, Sadducees taunt Jesus with a question about a woman married several times, asking him whose wife she will be following the resurrection. Jesus strongly affirms resurrection, but he insists that those resurrected will not marry and portrays the Sadducees' question as reflecting a foolish ignorance of God's power.
In the earliest expressions of their faith that we have, Christians claimed that Jesus' resurrection showed that God singled out Jesus ahead of the future resurrection of the dead to show him uniquely worthy to be lord of all the elect. However, the paradigmatic significance of Jesus' resurrection was also very important for early Christians.
n Christianity's first few centuries, when believers often suffered severe persecution and even the threat of death, those who believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection found it particularly meaningful for their own circumstances. Jesus had been put to death in grisly fashion, but God had overturned Jesus' execution and, indeed, had given him a new and glorious body. So, they believed that they could face their own deaths as well as those of their loved ones in the firm hope that God would be faithful to them as well. They thought that they would share the same sort of immortal reaffirmation of their personal and bodily selves that Jesus had experienced. Elaine Pagels, a scholar of early Christianity, has argued that those Christians who regarded the body as unimportant, perhaps including "Gnostics," were less willing to face martyrdom for their faith and more willing to make gestures of acquiescence to the Romans—for example, by offering sacrifices to Roman gods—because they regarded actions done with their bodies as insignificant so long as in their hearts they held to their beliefs.
By contrast, Christians who believed in bodily resurrection seem to have regarded their own mortal coils as the crucial venues in which they were to live out their devotion to Christ. When these Christians were arraigned for their faith, they considered it genuine apostasy to give in to the gestures demanded by the Roman authorities. For them, inner devotion to Jesus had to be expressed in an outward faithfulness in their bodies—and they were ready to face martyrdom for their faith, encouraged by the prospect of bodily resurrection. Indeed, Christian martyrs are pictured as engaged in a battle with the Roman authorities (and the Devil, whom Christians saw as behind Roman malevolence toward them), with the martyrs' bodies as battlegrounds in which the integrity of their person and their personal salvation could be lost or retained.
Historically, then, how Christians have understood Jesus' "resurrection" says a lot about how they have understood themselves, whether they have a holistic view of the human person, whether they see bodily existence as trivial or crucial, and how they imagine full salvation to be manifested. Does salvation comprise a deliverance from the body into some sort of immediate and permanent postmortem bliss (which is actually much closer to popular Christian piety down the centuries), or does salvation require a new embodiment of some sort, a more robust reaffirmation of persons? This sort of question originally was integral to early Jewish and Christian belief in the resurrection. In all the varieties of early Christianity, and in all the various understandings of what his "resurrection" meant, Jesus was typically the model, the crucial paradigm for believers, what had happened to him seen as prototypical of what believers were to hope for themselves.
Become a fan of Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Larry W. Hurtado is head of the School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. His recent books are The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? and Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
“Tea Party” Merchants of Fear
An Editorial by Warren J. Blumenfeld
As a student of history, and a longtime resident of Boston, I am very troubled by the so-called “Tea Party” movement’s current (mis)appropriation of the term.
The original direct action protest on December 16, 1773 by British American colonists was the culmination of longstanding grievances against the British government under the battle cry of “no taxation without representation.” According to the British Constitution, only Parliament could levy taxes, and since colonists were prohibited from voting for members of Parliament or of sending their own representatives to serve in Parliament, they considered the series of taxes, including the tea tax, a violation of their rights as citizens of the British realm.
The current movement contains no well-developed political philosophy other than extreme hatred of what they consider “Big Government,” which they view as the cause of the nation’s troubles.
House Minority leader, U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), referred to Teabaggers as “great patriots,” and stated: “It’s not enough, however, for Republicans to simply voice respect for what the Tea Partyers are doing, praise their efforts, and participate in their rallies. Republicans must listen to them, stand with them, and walk among them.”
The Teabaggers with their Republican allies have very deftly used the rhetoric of fear verging on paranoia to exploit people’s anxieties about their economic well being and, quite ironically, even to vote against their own economic interests.
Tea Party leaders espouse all forms of dire warnings, and Boehner asserted that the health care bill “is Armageddon” and “it will ruin our nation.” To the contrary, the newly passed law, while unfortunately severely neutralized over the past year, actually serves middle class and working class people by limiting insurance companies from restricting coverage to people with previous conditions, it increasing the rights of parents to continue covering their adult children on their policies until the age of 26, it provides greater choices in health care coverage, and as projected by the National Budget Office, it will reduce the deficit over the next decade.
I do see, however, a clear parallel between the protestors aboard the ship on Boston harbor and the recent Teabaggers. Through a collective mythology, many of us were taught in school that the protesters donned Indian clothing and face paint for their tea dumping actions. In actuality, while the majority were not so attired, some were. I find this problematic since they were acting out racist stereotypes of the so-called “thieving heathens.”
While I would hope that the vast majority of current Tea Party Members would not personally condone oppressive actions, a number of followers have engaged in racist, homophobic, ableist, and misogynistic name calling and other acts of violence.
For example, at a rally held in front of the U.S. Capitol shortly before the House was to vote on the impending health care legislation, a protestor spat upon Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), another called Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.) a “ni---,” and someone called gay Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) a “fa—ot” through distinctive lisppy intonations. And supporting the protestors, Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) held up and physically swatted a picture of Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from atop the Capitol balcony.
Protestors throughout the country hurled bricks through windows of some Democratic representatives and a Democratic Party office, sent death threats and racist faxes, and even delivered a coffin to one congressperson’s office.
At a Tea Party rally held in Columbus Ohio, some protestors heckled a U.S. veteran who sat on the ground holding up a sign “I Support Health Care.” Screamed one Tea Partyer: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong damn town.” Another threw five-dollar bills in his face shouting: “I’ll decide when to give you money!”
In a March 23, 2010 tweet, in reference to the passage of the Congressional health care bill, Sarah Palin commented: “Commonsense Conservatives and Lovers of America, Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” In addition, on her website, she constructed a page listing vulnerable Democratic Party elected officials projected through the cross hairs of a rifle. While I do not connect the current spate of violent actions to Palin’s words, I wonder how her statements constructively contribute to the debate.
I actually agree with Tea Party follower’s contention that great economic disparities exist and are widening in this country, though not for the reasons they assert. So-called “Big Government” is not the cause of the problem. The relatively unregulated and unfettered Wall Street, banking, and “free market” systems constitute the actual threats.
According to the organization, United for a Fair Economy, by 2004, the top 10% of the population owned 71% of accumulated wealth in the country. Subdivided even further, the top 1% owned 31% of the country’s wealth. The wealthiest 1% own approximately 45% of all stocks and mutual funds. In addition, the very rich pay less in taxes than at any point in recent history. Overall, the concentration of wealth is even more extreme today than during the Great Depression.
I find it unbelievable that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world fails to provide quality health care to an estimated 47 million of its citizens. Echoing this sentiment, President Nickolas Sarkozy of France, during a speech this week at Columbia University stated: “The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them ... is something astonishing to us [in France].”
Quality health care coverage must be considered as a right and not as a privilege for some. Collectively, we cannot allow the merchants of hate to distort and manipulate the facts and divert our attention from the genuine roots of the problems we currently face.
Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Office 515-294-5931 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-294-5931 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Home 515-232-8230 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-232-8230 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
wblumen@iastate.edu
As a student of history, and a longtime resident of Boston, I am very troubled by the so-called “Tea Party” movement’s current (mis)appropriation of the term.
The original direct action protest on December 16, 1773 by British American colonists was the culmination of longstanding grievances against the British government under the battle cry of “no taxation without representation.” According to the British Constitution, only Parliament could levy taxes, and since colonists were prohibited from voting for members of Parliament or of sending their own representatives to serve in Parliament, they considered the series of taxes, including the tea tax, a violation of their rights as citizens of the British realm.
The current movement contains no well-developed political philosophy other than extreme hatred of what they consider “Big Government,” which they view as the cause of the nation’s troubles.
House Minority leader, U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), referred to Teabaggers as “great patriots,” and stated: “It’s not enough, however, for Republicans to simply voice respect for what the Tea Partyers are doing, praise their efforts, and participate in their rallies. Republicans must listen to them, stand with them, and walk among them.”
The Teabaggers with their Republican allies have very deftly used the rhetoric of fear verging on paranoia to exploit people’s anxieties about their economic well being and, quite ironically, even to vote against their own economic interests.
Tea Party leaders espouse all forms of dire warnings, and Boehner asserted that the health care bill “is Armageddon” and “it will ruin our nation.” To the contrary, the newly passed law, while unfortunately severely neutralized over the past year, actually serves middle class and working class people by limiting insurance companies from restricting coverage to people with previous conditions, it increasing the rights of parents to continue covering their adult children on their policies until the age of 26, it provides greater choices in health care coverage, and as projected by the National Budget Office, it will reduce the deficit over the next decade.
I do see, however, a clear parallel between the protestors aboard the ship on Boston harbor and the recent Teabaggers. Through a collective mythology, many of us were taught in school that the protesters donned Indian clothing and face paint for their tea dumping actions. In actuality, while the majority were not so attired, some were. I find this problematic since they were acting out racist stereotypes of the so-called “thieving heathens.”
While I would hope that the vast majority of current Tea Party Members would not personally condone oppressive actions, a number of followers have engaged in racist, homophobic, ableist, and misogynistic name calling and other acts of violence.
For example, at a rally held in front of the U.S. Capitol shortly before the House was to vote on the impending health care legislation, a protestor spat upon Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), another called Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.) a “ni---,” and someone called gay Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) a “fa—ot” through distinctive lisppy intonations. And supporting the protestors, Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) held up and physically swatted a picture of Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from atop the Capitol balcony.
Protestors throughout the country hurled bricks through windows of some Democratic representatives and a Democratic Party office, sent death threats and racist faxes, and even delivered a coffin to one congressperson’s office.
At a Tea Party rally held in Columbus Ohio, some protestors heckled a U.S. veteran who sat on the ground holding up a sign “I Support Health Care.” Screamed one Tea Partyer: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong damn town.” Another threw five-dollar bills in his face shouting: “I’ll decide when to give you money!”
In a March 23, 2010 tweet, in reference to the passage of the Congressional health care bill, Sarah Palin commented: “Commonsense Conservatives and Lovers of America, Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” In addition, on her website, she constructed a page listing vulnerable Democratic Party elected officials projected through the cross hairs of a rifle. While I do not connect the current spate of violent actions to Palin’s words, I wonder how her statements constructively contribute to the debate.
I actually agree with Tea Party follower’s contention that great economic disparities exist and are widening in this country, though not for the reasons they assert. So-called “Big Government” is not the cause of the problem. The relatively unregulated and unfettered Wall Street, banking, and “free market” systems constitute the actual threats.
According to the organization, United for a Fair Economy, by 2004, the top 10% of the population owned 71% of accumulated wealth in the country. Subdivided even further, the top 1% owned 31% of the country’s wealth. The wealthiest 1% own approximately 45% of all stocks and mutual funds. In addition, the very rich pay less in taxes than at any point in recent history. Overall, the concentration of wealth is even more extreme today than during the Great Depression.
I find it unbelievable that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world fails to provide quality health care to an estimated 47 million of its citizens. Echoing this sentiment, President Nickolas Sarkozy of France, during a speech this week at Columbia University stated: “The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them ... is something astonishing to us [in France].”
Quality health care coverage must be considered as a right and not as a privilege for some. Collectively, we cannot allow the merchants of hate to distort and manipulate the facts and divert our attention from the genuine roots of the problems we currently face.
Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Office 515-294-5931 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-294-5931 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Home 515-232-8230 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-232-8230 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
wblumen@iastate.edu
Read what a white reporter wrote in a Georgia Neswpaper and forward it
This is a MUST read which resonates with at least 90% of the
> > world. Please, please pass this one on, even if you have to print
> > it and mail it to your "computer challenged" friends and relatives.
> >
> > Read what a White Reporter wrote in a Georgia Newspaper
> >
> 
> > Andrew M. Manis is associate professor of history at Macon State
> > College in Georgia and wrote this for an editorial in the Macon
> > Telegraph.
> >
> >
> > Andrew M. Manis: When Are WE Going to Get Over It?
> >
> > For much of the last forty years, ever since America "fixed" its
> > race problem in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, we white
> > people have been impatient with African Americans who continued to
> > blame race for their difficulties. Often we have heard whites ask,
> > "When are African Americans finally going to get over it?
> > Now I want to ask:
> > "When are we White Americans going to get over our ridiculous
> > obsession with skin color?
> > Recent reports that "Election Spurs Hundreds' of Race Threats,
> > Crimes" should frighten and infuriate every one of us. Having grown
> > up in "Bombingham," Alabama in the 1960s, I remember overhearing an
> > avalanche of comments about what many white classmates and their
> > parents wanted to do to John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
> > Eventually, as you may recall, in all three cases, someone decided
> > to do more than "talk the talk."
> >
> > Since our recent presidential election, to our eternal shame we are
> > once again hearing the same reprehensible talk I remember from my
> > boyhood.
> >
> >
> > We white people have controlled political life in the disunited
> > colonies and United States for some 400 years on this continent.
> > Conservative whites have been in power 28 of the last 40 years.
> > Even during the eight Clinton years, conservatives in Congress
> > blocked most of his agenda and pulled him to the right. Yet never
> > in that period did I read any headlines suggesting that anyone was
> > calling for the assassinations of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan,
> > or either of the Bushes. Criticize them, yes.
> > Call for their impeachment, perhaps. But there were no bounties on
> > their heads. And even when someone did try to kill Ronald Reagan,
> > the perpetrator was non-political mental case who wanted merely to
> > impress Jody Foster.
> >
> >
> > But elect a liberal who happens to be Black and we're back in the
> > sixties again. At this point in our history, we should be proud
> > that we've proven what conservatives are always saying -- that in
> > America anything is possible, EVEN electing a black man as president.
> > But instead we now hear that school children from Maine to
> > California are talking about wanting to "assassinate Obama."
> > Fighting the urge to throw up, I can only ask, "How long?"
> > How long before we white people realize we can't make our nation,
> > much less the whole world, look like us?
> > How long until we white people can - once and for all - get over
> > this hell-conceived preoccupation with skin color?
> > How long until we white people get over the demonic conviction that
> > white skin makes us superior?
> > How long before we white people get over our bitter resentments
> > about being demoted to the status of equality with non-whites?
> >
> >
> > How long before we get over our expectations that we should be at
> > the head of the line merely because of our white skin?
> > How long until we white people end our silence and call out our
> > peers when they share the latest racist jokes in the privacy of our
> > white-only conversations?
> >
> > I believe in free speech, but how long until we white people start
> > making racist loudmouths as socially uncomfortable as we do flag
> > burners?
> > How long until we white people will stop insisting that blacks
> > exercise personal responsibility, build strong families, educate
> > themselves enough to edit the Harvard Law Review, and work hard
> > enough to become President of the United States, only to threaten
> > to assassinate them when they do?
> >
> >
> > How long before we start "living out the true meaning" of our
> > creeds, both civil and religious, that all men and women are
> > created equal and that "red and yellow, black and white" all are
> > precious in God's sight?
> > Until this past November 4, I didn't believe this country would
> > ever elect an African American to the presidency. I still don't
> > believe I'll live long enough to see us white people get over our
> > racism problem.
> >
> > But here's my three-point plan:
> >
> > First, everyday that Barack Obama lives in the White House that
> > Black Slaves Built, I'm going to pray that God (and the Secret
> > Service) will protect him and his family from us white people.
> >
> > Second, I'm going to report to the FBI any white person I overhear
> > saying, in seriousness or in jest, anything of a threatening nature
> > about President Obama.
> >
> > Third, I'm going to pray to live long enough to see America
> > surprise the world once again, when white people can "in spirit and
> > in truth" sing of our damnable color prejudice,
> >
> > "We HAVE overcome."
> > **************************************
> > It takes a Village to protect our President!!!
> > world. Please, please pass this one on, even if you have to print
> > it and mail it to your "computer challenged" friends and relatives.
> >
> > Read what a White Reporter wrote in a Georgia Newspaper
> >
> 
> > Andrew M. Manis is associate professor of history at Macon State
> > College in Georgia and wrote this for an editorial in the Macon
> > Telegraph.
> >
> >
> > Andrew M. Manis: When Are WE Going to Get Over It?
> >
> > For much of the last forty years, ever since America "fixed" its
> > race problem in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, we white
> > people have been impatient with African Americans who continued to
> > blame race for their difficulties. Often we have heard whites ask,
> > "When are African Americans finally going to get over it?
> > Now I want to ask:
> > "When are we White Americans going to get over our ridiculous
> > obsession with skin color?
> > Recent reports that "Election Spurs Hundreds' of Race Threats,
> > Crimes" should frighten and infuriate every one of us. Having grown
> > up in "Bombingham," Alabama in the 1960s, I remember overhearing an
> > avalanche of comments about what many white classmates and their
> > parents wanted to do to John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
> > Eventually, as you may recall, in all three cases, someone decided
> > to do more than "talk the talk."
> >
> > Since our recent presidential election, to our eternal shame we are
> > once again hearing the same reprehensible talk I remember from my
> > boyhood.
> >
> >
> > We white people have controlled political life in the disunited
> > colonies and United States for some 400 years on this continent.
> > Conservative whites have been in power 28 of the last 40 years.
> > Even during the eight Clinton years, conservatives in Congress
> > blocked most of his agenda and pulled him to the right. Yet never
> > in that period did I read any headlines suggesting that anyone was
> > calling for the assassinations of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan,
> > or either of the Bushes. Criticize them, yes.
> > Call for their impeachment, perhaps. But there were no bounties on
> > their heads. And even when someone did try to kill Ronald Reagan,
> > the perpetrator was non-political mental case who wanted merely to
> > impress Jody Foster.
> >
> >
> > But elect a liberal who happens to be Black and we're back in the
> > sixties again. At this point in our history, we should be proud
> > that we've proven what conservatives are always saying -- that in
> > America anything is possible, EVEN electing a black man as president.
> > But instead we now hear that school children from Maine to
> > California are talking about wanting to "assassinate Obama."
> > Fighting the urge to throw up, I can only ask, "How long?"
> > How long before we white people realize we can't make our nation,
> > much less the whole world, look like us?
> > How long until we white people can - once and for all - get over
> > this hell-conceived preoccupation with skin color?
> > How long until we white people get over the demonic conviction that
> > white skin makes us superior?
> > How long before we white people get over our bitter resentments
> > about being demoted to the status of equality with non-whites?
> >
> >
> > How long before we get over our expectations that we should be at
> > the head of the line merely because of our white skin?
> > How long until we white people end our silence and call out our
> > peers when they share the latest racist jokes in the privacy of our
> > white-only conversations?
> >
> > I believe in free speech, but how long until we white people start
> > making racist loudmouths as socially uncomfortable as we do flag
> > burners?
> > How long until we white people will stop insisting that blacks
> > exercise personal responsibility, build strong families, educate
> > themselves enough to edit the Harvard Law Review, and work hard
> > enough to become President of the United States, only to threaten
> > to assassinate them when they do?
> >
> >
> > How long before we start "living out the true meaning" of our
> > creeds, both civil and religious, that all men and women are
> > created equal and that "red and yellow, black and white" all are
> > precious in God's sight?
> > Until this past November 4, I didn't believe this country would
> > ever elect an African American to the presidency. I still don't
> > believe I'll live long enough to see us white people get over our
> > racism problem.
> >
> > But here's my three-point plan:
> >
> > First, everyday that Barack Obama lives in the White House that
> > Black Slaves Built, I'm going to pray that God (and the Secret
> > Service) will protect him and his family from us white people.
> >
> > Second, I'm going to report to the FBI any white person I overhear
> > saying, in seriousness or in jest, anything of a threatening nature
> > about President Obama.
> >
> > Third, I'm going to pray to live long enough to see America
> > surprise the world once again, when white people can "in spirit and
> > in truth" sing of our damnable color prejudice,
> >
> > "We HAVE overcome."
> > **************************************
> > It takes a Village to protect our President!!!
20 datos sobre Herencia Multicultural en Puerto Rico
20 datos sobre Herencia Multicultural en Puerto Rico
La herencia multicultural de Puerto Rico es uno de los temas que necesita ser más estudiado para entender la riqueza cultural que tiene la cultura puertorriqueña. La sobre simplificación causada por el trinomio tradicional de la mezcla del negro, del taíno y el español puede ser una de las causas. Esa puertorriqueñidad que comenzó a nacer entre las generaciones y generaciones de habitantes de la isla durante el siglo 16 fue enriquecida por muchas otras culturas. Aquí algunas influencias multiculturales de la cultura puertorriqueña:
1. Durante el siglo 16 llegaron a vivir a la isla grupos de franceses, ingleses, portugueses y holandeses.
2. También durante el siglo 16 miles de africanos –esclavos fueron transportados a PR desde la región oeste y sur del Sahara en África, incluyendo Yoruba e Igbo. Esta ola de esclavos se unió a los que ya estaban en la isla desde los inicios de la colonización.
3. Una ola de miles y miles de españoles de las islas canarias se unieron a los que se habían mudado a la isla desde los inicios de la colonización. Este grupo representa la mayoría de inmigrantes contantes que llegaron a la isla seguido de los africanos esclavos. Durante el siglo 18 y 19 la oleada de canarios fue tan significante que poblados completos eran habitados por canarios.
4. Muchos franceses que huyeron de Haití durante la revolución haitiana de 1791 fueron a vivir a Puerto Rico, haciendo comunidades en el área oeste principalmente Mayagüez y San Germán. Entre los apellidos de origen francés están: Bernard, Thomas, Robert, Leroy. También nombres como Jessica, Sonia, Nicolás, Mary, Felipe, Jacqueline, René, Henry (Jenry), Olivia, Violeta, y Luis.
5. Durante el siglo 17 y 18 se mudaron a la isla algunos ingleses principalmente del área de Escocia.
6. En el 1815 la corona española revivió el Decreto de la Cédula de Gracia para estimular a otros europeos a mudarse a sus colonias de manera de aumentar la población y la inversión en la colonia de Cuba y Puerto Rico. A raíz del tratado, se mudaron a Puerto Rico cientos de franceses, alemanes e irlandeses. En particular, los irlandeses inmigraron en gran cantidad en busca de trabajo y huyendo a una hambruna en Irlanda durante los siglos 18 y 19. Muchos de ellos se situaron en el área de Bayamón y Guaynabo principalmente soldados de descendencia irlandesa que se quedaron a vivir en la isla luego de terminada la guerra hispanoamericana. Apellidos notables en la isla de la herencia irlandesa son: O'Neill, Richardson, Martin (Tambien es Frances), McClintock, Monroe, McCormick, Sullivan (Sulivan), Gilbert, Coll, Lowry, Power y Giralt, Riley, Bithorn.
7. Apellidos notables de origen alemán son: Von, Otto, y Mayer. Nombres de etimología alemana son: Edgar, Roger, Ingrid, Albert, Adelaida, Adolfo, Edward (Eduardo), Edwin, Alfred (Alfredo), Wini, Edmundo, Robert (Roberto), Rodney, Waldemar, Richard, Marvin, Ferdinand, Roland (Rolando), Edmund (Edmundo), Harold, y Herman (German).
8. La llegada de judíos a la isla de PR ocurre desde la llegada de Colón a la isla con los judíos conversos que se vieron forzados a renegar sus religión por la prohibición del judaísmo en España. Por lo que la influencia judía llega a la isla directamente desde España.
9. El mayor número de judíos se estableció en la isla durante la segunda guerra mundial. Durante el siglo 19 algunos judíos se mudaron a la isla y continuaron practicando su religión secretamente en las áreas del centro de la isla lejos de San Juan y huyendo a la inquisición española para finalmente integrarse a la religión católica.
10. Por la influencia judía en España es sorprendente la cantidad de apellidos de origen judío o usados por judios, por ejemplo: Anderson, Artime, Kaplan, Kopel, Levy, Meyers, Bravo, Duprey, Ledeé, Gómez, Delgado, Méndez, Hernandez, Rodríguez, Toledo, Ramirez, Saez, Cardoso, Espinoza, Sabat, Machado, Abrams, Cavalleron, De La Torre, Lousada (Lozada), Villa Real, La Porte (La Porta), Sharron, Perez, Vidal, Lobos, Shalon, De La Cruz, Pizarron, Mendes, Fonseca, Rodriguez y Vargas, Castro, Carvajal, Leon, Navarro, Robles, Sevilla, Mirante, Del Monte, Galante, De Jesus, Moreno (en hebreo quiere decir maestro), Perez, Herreras, Diaz, Silva y Lopez. Muchos de estos apellidos fueron usados anteriormente por judíos en España.
11. En el caso de los apellidos Díaz, Errera, Rocas, Fernández, Silva, Mendes, López o Pereira muchos padrinos de la fe cristiana les asignaron estos apellidos a los judíos recién convertidos a la religión cristiana. Algunos de estos nombres de origen del latin como Lopez viene del latin lope o lupus que quiere decir hijo del lobo.
12. Una ola de judíos llegó a la isla desde Cuba con la llegada al poder de Fidel Castro en los años 1950’s
13. El Decréto de la Cédula de Gracia en el 1815 también atrajo a la isla pequeñas olas de holandeses, chinos, griegos, italianos, malteses, libaneses, córiscos y portugueses especialmente de las islas de Azores.
14. Apellidos del italiano son: Lombardy, Colombo, Rossi, Ferrer, Esposito, Bruno, Costa, Marino, De Luca y Nazario. Nombres de origen italiano son: Adalberto, Adriano, Alberto, Agapito, Andres, Andrea, Antonio, Dino, Eligio, Federico, Filiberto, Gustavo, Naldo, Orlando, Roberto, Alba, Brunilda, María (quiere decir rebelión en italiano), Luisa, y Sandra.
15. Algunos apellidos de origen chino en Puerto Rico son: Chang, Chin, Kun, Lee, Wong, Wu.
16. Los españoles en PR en su mayoría venían de Canarias, Asturias, Cataluña, Castilla, Andalucía, Galicia y el Vasco. En su mayoría los canarios sobrepasaron los distintos grupos con olas de migración en los años 1695, 1714, 1720, 1731 y 1798. Muchos académicos atribuyen la creación de la cultural del Jibaro o Jivaro (Campesino blanco de la montaña) a los canarios. Muchos canarios también llegaron a Cuba y Santo Domingo. Muchos académicos señala la similitud en el dialecto del español entre estas islas con los canarios como por ejemplo, el uso del “que tú quieres?” mayormente usado en estas islas, y menor usado en Panamá y Venezuela en donde la cantidad de canarios fue menor.
17. En el siglo 19 cuando las únicas colonias españolas en América eran Cuba y Puerto Rico las migraciones de canarios a PR fue increíble que poblados enteros fueron formados con la relocalización de los nuevo migrantes para trabajar en la industria de la azúcar.
18. Un censo sobre dueños de negocios de finales del siglo 19 reveló que en el área de San Juan el 26% de los dueños eran Asturias, 24% del Vasco, 17% de Galicia, 12% de Mallorca, 9% Catalán, y el otro 10% se dividía entre personas de Canarias, Castilla, Valencia, Andalucía, y Santander. Mientras en la región de Mayagüez y Ponce la mayoría eran catalanes y una minoría de italianos, franceses, alemanes y córsicos.
19. Entre los apellidos córsicos más comunes están: Bracetti, Capetillo, Paoli y Mattei.
20. En los años recientes bajo el gobierno de EEUU la multiculturalidad en la isla es aun mayor con influencia de dominicanos, cubanos, mexicanos, chilenos, venezolanos, polacos, japoneses, coreanos entre otros grupos culturales que siguen aportando a la formación cultural de Puerto Rico.
Alberto Lopez-Carrasquillo
La herencia multicultural de Puerto Rico es uno de los temas que necesita ser más estudiado para entender la riqueza cultural que tiene la cultura puertorriqueña. La sobre simplificación causada por el trinomio tradicional de la mezcla del negro, del taíno y el español puede ser una de las causas. Esa puertorriqueñidad que comenzó a nacer entre las generaciones y generaciones de habitantes de la isla durante el siglo 16 fue enriquecida por muchas otras culturas. Aquí algunas influencias multiculturales de la cultura puertorriqueña:
1. Durante el siglo 16 llegaron a vivir a la isla grupos de franceses, ingleses, portugueses y holandeses.
2. También durante el siglo 16 miles de africanos –esclavos fueron transportados a PR desde la región oeste y sur del Sahara en África, incluyendo Yoruba e Igbo. Esta ola de esclavos se unió a los que ya estaban en la isla desde los inicios de la colonización.
3. Una ola de miles y miles de españoles de las islas canarias se unieron a los que se habían mudado a la isla desde los inicios de la colonización. Este grupo representa la mayoría de inmigrantes contantes que llegaron a la isla seguido de los africanos esclavos. Durante el siglo 18 y 19 la oleada de canarios fue tan significante que poblados completos eran habitados por canarios.
4. Muchos franceses que huyeron de Haití durante la revolución haitiana de 1791 fueron a vivir a Puerto Rico, haciendo comunidades en el área oeste principalmente Mayagüez y San Germán. Entre los apellidos de origen francés están: Bernard, Thomas, Robert, Leroy. También nombres como Jessica, Sonia, Nicolás, Mary, Felipe, Jacqueline, René, Henry (Jenry), Olivia, Violeta, y Luis.
5. Durante el siglo 17 y 18 se mudaron a la isla algunos ingleses principalmente del área de Escocia.
6. En el 1815 la corona española revivió el Decreto de la Cédula de Gracia para estimular a otros europeos a mudarse a sus colonias de manera de aumentar la población y la inversión en la colonia de Cuba y Puerto Rico. A raíz del tratado, se mudaron a Puerto Rico cientos de franceses, alemanes e irlandeses. En particular, los irlandeses inmigraron en gran cantidad en busca de trabajo y huyendo a una hambruna en Irlanda durante los siglos 18 y 19. Muchos de ellos se situaron en el área de Bayamón y Guaynabo principalmente soldados de descendencia irlandesa que se quedaron a vivir en la isla luego de terminada la guerra hispanoamericana. Apellidos notables en la isla de la herencia irlandesa son: O'Neill, Richardson, Martin (Tambien es Frances), McClintock, Monroe, McCormick, Sullivan (Sulivan), Gilbert, Coll, Lowry, Power y Giralt, Riley, Bithorn.
7. Apellidos notables de origen alemán son: Von, Otto, y Mayer. Nombres de etimología alemana son: Edgar, Roger, Ingrid, Albert, Adelaida, Adolfo, Edward (Eduardo), Edwin, Alfred (Alfredo), Wini, Edmundo, Robert (Roberto), Rodney, Waldemar, Richard, Marvin, Ferdinand, Roland (Rolando), Edmund (Edmundo), Harold, y Herman (German).
8. La llegada de judíos a la isla de PR ocurre desde la llegada de Colón a la isla con los judíos conversos que se vieron forzados a renegar sus religión por la prohibición del judaísmo en España. Por lo que la influencia judía llega a la isla directamente desde España.
9. El mayor número de judíos se estableció en la isla durante la segunda guerra mundial. Durante el siglo 19 algunos judíos se mudaron a la isla y continuaron practicando su religión secretamente en las áreas del centro de la isla lejos de San Juan y huyendo a la inquisición española para finalmente integrarse a la religión católica.
10. Por la influencia judía en España es sorprendente la cantidad de apellidos de origen judío o usados por judios, por ejemplo: Anderson, Artime, Kaplan, Kopel, Levy, Meyers, Bravo, Duprey, Ledeé, Gómez, Delgado, Méndez, Hernandez, Rodríguez, Toledo, Ramirez, Saez, Cardoso, Espinoza, Sabat, Machado, Abrams, Cavalleron, De La Torre, Lousada (Lozada), Villa Real, La Porte (La Porta), Sharron, Perez, Vidal, Lobos, Shalon, De La Cruz, Pizarron, Mendes, Fonseca, Rodriguez y Vargas, Castro, Carvajal, Leon, Navarro, Robles, Sevilla, Mirante, Del Monte, Galante, De Jesus, Moreno (en hebreo quiere decir maestro), Perez, Herreras, Diaz, Silva y Lopez. Muchos de estos apellidos fueron usados anteriormente por judíos en España.
11. En el caso de los apellidos Díaz, Errera, Rocas, Fernández, Silva, Mendes, López o Pereira muchos padrinos de la fe cristiana les asignaron estos apellidos a los judíos recién convertidos a la religión cristiana. Algunos de estos nombres de origen del latin como Lopez viene del latin lope o lupus que quiere decir hijo del lobo.
12. Una ola de judíos llegó a la isla desde Cuba con la llegada al poder de Fidel Castro en los años 1950’s
13. El Decréto de la Cédula de Gracia en el 1815 también atrajo a la isla pequeñas olas de holandeses, chinos, griegos, italianos, malteses, libaneses, córiscos y portugueses especialmente de las islas de Azores.
14. Apellidos del italiano son: Lombardy, Colombo, Rossi, Ferrer, Esposito, Bruno, Costa, Marino, De Luca y Nazario. Nombres de origen italiano son: Adalberto, Adriano, Alberto, Agapito, Andres, Andrea, Antonio, Dino, Eligio, Federico, Filiberto, Gustavo, Naldo, Orlando, Roberto, Alba, Brunilda, María (quiere decir rebelión en italiano), Luisa, y Sandra.
15. Algunos apellidos de origen chino en Puerto Rico son: Chang, Chin, Kun, Lee, Wong, Wu.
16. Los españoles en PR en su mayoría venían de Canarias, Asturias, Cataluña, Castilla, Andalucía, Galicia y el Vasco. En su mayoría los canarios sobrepasaron los distintos grupos con olas de migración en los años 1695, 1714, 1720, 1731 y 1798. Muchos académicos atribuyen la creación de la cultural del Jibaro o Jivaro (Campesino blanco de la montaña) a los canarios. Muchos canarios también llegaron a Cuba y Santo Domingo. Muchos académicos señala la similitud en el dialecto del español entre estas islas con los canarios como por ejemplo, el uso del “que tú quieres?” mayormente usado en estas islas, y menor usado en Panamá y Venezuela en donde la cantidad de canarios fue menor.
17. En el siglo 19 cuando las únicas colonias españolas en América eran Cuba y Puerto Rico las migraciones de canarios a PR fue increíble que poblados enteros fueron formados con la relocalización de los nuevo migrantes para trabajar en la industria de la azúcar.
18. Un censo sobre dueños de negocios de finales del siglo 19 reveló que en el área de San Juan el 26% de los dueños eran Asturias, 24% del Vasco, 17% de Galicia, 12% de Mallorca, 9% Catalán, y el otro 10% se dividía entre personas de Canarias, Castilla, Valencia, Andalucía, y Santander. Mientras en la región de Mayagüez y Ponce la mayoría eran catalanes y una minoría de italianos, franceses, alemanes y córsicos.
19. Entre los apellidos córsicos más comunes están: Bracetti, Capetillo, Paoli y Mattei.
20. En los años recientes bajo el gobierno de EEUU la multiculturalidad en la isla es aun mayor con influencia de dominicanos, cubanos, mexicanos, chilenos, venezolanos, polacos, japoneses, coreanos entre otros grupos culturales que siguen aportando a la formación cultural de Puerto Rico.
Alberto Lopez-Carrasquillo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)