This is an archive of past discussions about Demographics of Chile. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It would be wrong to imagine ethnic divisions in Chile. It is a homogenous country. The section that Al-Andalus erased best describes Chilean society without falling in the trap of defining some Chileans as "mestizo" and others as "Europeans". This distinction does not exist in Chile. I have reverted to previous version.--83.45.170.21920:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm tired of anti-racists vandalizing Wikipedia pages and denying people simple factual information on a country. Everywhere in the world, there are real racial differences between people. Throughout South America, there are real racial tensions between the lesser peoples -- the mestizos and the indigenous -- and the whites. In fact, I'm looking at this article specifically to find a source on Chile's white v. mestizo v. indigenous population. So publish the figures and keep your sick antifa politics off of Wikipedia. 68.10.35.15323:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't wanna say Andalus is racist or the like, but some of his/her edits contained racially charged things on the people in Chile. He/she wanted to add informative data or facts on Chilean demographics...but it seems others disagree or took offense to them. The country's people does share a cultural origin and a few nations (Iceland, Greece, Iran, and Japan) has little racial/ethnic diversity...then one can find a history of different peoples settled these lands. What one calls homogenous may discover Latin America has no country of one race, the Chileans are indeed a diverse lot. Not even Argentina or Uruguay, and Bolivia or Paraguay aren't totally homogenous in terms of race. What about European cultural influences in like Peru and Ecuador? And the industrialization of Colombia and Venezuela under politically instable conditions? I'm sure Chile advanced beyond other countries (well...Brazil is the leading Latin American nation in economical size and industrial development), but it'll be great for Chile to share that with fellow Latin Americans and third world countries on self-improvements. However, the large class division between poor, rich and middle-class is dangerous for a society like Chile to operate like this. + 207.200.116.13806:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
20% of Chileans have a Basque surname. Is it a joke?
We have had a bit of problems with statistics provided by the CIA regarding the percentage of ethnicities of i am cool the various countries around the world. What we do is use them figures found in the CIA World Book as a guide, but when there are statistics that may be gathered from the country's specific institutions (government organisations, embassy, Census) then we use those, but can also include the CIA estimates (note that the figures used by the CIA are their own estimates).
As it stands, the fact that the CIA states that the majority of people in Chile are either "white or white-Amerindian (ie. mestizos)" is not incorrect, but it is extremely vague and it could mean anything. Peru also possesses a majority that is "white or white-amerindian" (37% is mestizo and 15% is white, together they are 52%, and anything over 50% is a majority). The CIA in its previous editions stated that Chile was 93% mestizo, 3% Amerindian, and 2% white. That it now says the majority (95%) is "white or white-Amerindian" is no different, because 93% + 2% = 95%, but the other one was better because it was detailed. Either way, all estimates provided by both Chilean agencies and statistic agencies all state that mestizos alone constitute Chile's population majority. Now if we're gonna get into the subject of what proportion of Chile's mestizos (as already stated, 93% of the total population) are physically indistinguishable from an unmixed European and whether those should be accounted for seperately as part of the white population (possibly agumenting the white population from 2% to around 30%) then that it a totally different topic. If you have an understanding of Spanish, you may be interested to browse the Chile article in the Spanish Wikipedia to see how the discusión on the demographics of Chile evolved there, and how the current wording of the demographics section was setteled upon.
Putting aside for a moment the currently vague CIA figures for Chile's ethnicities; in regards to the Amerindian population, we should take into consideration Chile's own census statistics because they are indeed available. We must give priority to those statistics over the CIA. Chile's most current census (2002) states that 80.60Insert non-formatted text here of the total population considers itself an Amerindian and belongs to an Amerindian cultural group. [2]. In the census prior to that (1992), it stated 10.3%* of all Chileans were Amerindians (9.7% Mapuche, 0.6% Aymara) whether they were members of a officially recognised Amerindian cultural group or not (ie. groups that still practise their indigenous cultures). [3] That 10.3% did not include the indigenous Polynesian population of Rapanui (0,2% of the the total Chilean population). The decrease of Amerindians from 10.3% to 4.6% of the total Chilean population is as a result of the cleverly worded census question, allowing only Amerindians who belong to officially recognised cultural groups (groups that still practise their indigenous culture) to be counted as Amerindians. This trick to decrease the indigenous population and increase the mestizo population has already been denounced as "statistic genocide" by indigenous agencies. [4]
"En el Censo de 1992 se consultó a las personas de 14 años y más por primera vez si se consideraban pertenecientes a alguna "cultura". En esa oportunidad casi un millón de personas (9,7 del total) se declaró mapuche; un 0,6 manifestó ser aymara (casi 50 mil personas) y un 0,2% se declaró rapanui (alrededor de 22 mil personas)." [5]
"De acuerdo a los datos recogidos en el censo 2002, 692.192 personas, equivalentes al 4,6% de población total, pertenecen, en Chile, a grupos étnicos. A diferencia del censo realizado en 1992, que consultaba a las personas de catorce años y más acerca de su eventual identificación con alguna de las culturas mapuche, aimara o rapanui, el censo de 2002 preguntó sobre la pertenencia a uno de los ocho grupos étnicos reconocidos en la legislación vigente." [6]
"En términos demográficos es difícil determinar los factores que explican ésta disminución de la población indígena en nuestro país, como asimismo, las implicancias políticas que esto puede tener en larelación Estado-pueblos indígenas, especialmente porque ya han surgido algunas voces que plantean el tema del “genocidio estadístico”..." [7]
As for you labelling me a vandal, I would like for you to point out to me where the vandalism is. When have I been "warned by other users" for vandalising "the same pages constantly" (I assume you refer to Chile and Demographics of Chile), and that I persist "with this daily", allegedly when there is correctly cited "information" (I assume you meant to say "sources", and I have already explained the problem with the CIA's sources above.) I propose that we take this discussion to Talk:Demographics of Chile and get this all cleared out.
To be honest, I did not post to you earlier about your persistent reverts (ie. deleting the article’s content and replacing it with the vague "white and white-Amerindian") because I did not know it was you. In a way it was nice of you to make yourself known, but you could have done it in a more pleasant manner, without throwing accusations of vandalism (or to be factual, you did actually report me for "vandalism"). As it stands, I thought that the other person reverting and taking out the Chilean Census statistic (that I now know was you) was actually the vandal. As you probably realise now, I did have sources for my contributions and have provided them when incorporating new content into the article, the problem is that I don't do it over an over again when I'm reverting what I thought was your vandalism.
I don't believe XGustaX is an admin nor was his block threat a template. Please don't make empty block threats, SqueakBox15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
XGustaX, I see you got my message on your talk page, but instead of replying to my well-intention message, you reported me for 3RR (which was only because I had to revert your deletion of content from the article in the first place) in addition to your earlier report of "vandalism". Then you hurried to delete my post from your user page (difference between revisions). I would encourage you to contribute to wikipedia by engaging in dialogue with the community, especially if it is us who seek you out, giving you the benifit of the doubt, and are making the first steps to placate you even though it is you that is deleting content. I would appreciate a responce to my message. You may as well work with the community, or you may see yourself being labelled as the vandal and 3RR abuser. It is to your own benefit to cooperate with the community, and not ignore us, especially when it is us that have gone out of our way to dialogue with you, and it is you who is doing the deleting article content and falsely reporting vandalism and 3RR abuse. Al-Andalus02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC).
I know this is a contentious issue. But one cannot define an ethnic group purely on grounds of race. One cannot distinguish in any way a Chilean with 4% Indian blood from a Chilean of 100% Spanish origin, from one with 12%. How are you going to do this? You are creating an ethnic group on the basis of how much hair they have on their chest? Or on what? How straight their nose is? Or maybe how dark their skin...??? Mestizo is not a separate ethnicity in Chile. Ethnic Aymaras are an ethnicity since they have a sense of common ancestry, a common language and culture. I think separating a Spanish Chilean from a Spanish Chilean who's grandmother had some Indian blood into 2 separate ethnic groups is ridiculous and racist. AlAndalus since you are the most persistent defender of this senseless categorization, please answer my questions. What about a Spaniard who's grandmother was ethnic Roma. Or a Portuguese with African blood (about a quarter of the population of Portugal) Should we put them in a separate ethnic group and find a funny, archaic name for them? Mulatos? Moriscos? Mulatos Blancos, Mulatos Alobados, Indios Alobados???? Thats a lot of "ethnicties"... I think we should move into the 21st century. --Burgas0015:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The scenario you have painted more accurately applies to Argentina and Uruguay, not Chile. One cannot by any means classify as mestizo someone whose Amerindian ancestry is around 4% or even 12% (examples you state). Those people would be white by all means, I agree here. Argentina and Uruguay are countries whose majority population (over 85% of the population each) is classified as white, and here half of these are indeed actually genetically white without Amerindian input. The other half have some Amerindian input, and in this case that it is around 1 Amerindian ancestor for every 15 European ancestors. This phenomenon is a result of the waves of European migrations that reached those two countries; waves of immigrants that were several times larger than the original colonial (mostly mestizo) populations. The mestizo population were absorbed into the vastly larger immigrant population, and now the majority population is “white” with the only Amerindian genetic to be found are as a distant legacy in half of them.
Chile's majority population and her population history, however, does not mirror the above scenario. Most of Chile's population is not phenotypically white. The majority population still is visibly mixed, although admittedly with an average admixture minutely higher on the Spanish side, but not really that far from the 50:50 ratio of the traditional definition of mestizo. Additionally, it must be stated that the levels of European input in Chile is nowhere near the levels of half of Argentina's white population (the half which has some distant genetic ancestry). Chile never recieved any comparable European immigration. Immigrants in Chile never surpassed 5% of her population. Furthermore, half of all immigrants throughout Chile’s history has been from other Latin American countries.
The average European admixture among Chileans (of whom over 90% are categorised as mestizos) is around 55% and the average Amerindian input is around 44%. This would come out to be around 7 of your great-great grand parents were Amerindian, and 9 were European. That's your average Chilean mestizo, and mestizos account for over 90%. This ratio does not merit a "white" classification because the admixture is still physically obvious, even though noticeably "lighter".
Of course there are those among the mestizos who would have more Spanish or more Amerindian ancestors than the average, but these are nonetheless minorities. If not counted as mestizos, the largest minority would be those who have considerably more European than Amerindian, and these I agree should be classified as white, perhaps augmenting the white population to 30%. Those who have more Amerindian than European ancestry would possibly augment the Amerindian population to around 15% (notice that according to the 1992 census, over 10% of the population did in fact identify as indigenous, and that it was a change of wording in the census 2002 and a change of parameters requiring linguistic and tribal affiliation for official government recognition that reduced the number to the current 4.6%). If we were to accept that Chile's physically white population stands at 30% (which I personally agree with), we must acknowledge that only a tiny few of these phenotypically white people are actually unmixed Europeans. Unlike the case with Argentina, half of the accepted white population (over 85% of the population) are indeed unmixed Europeans.
Even in this scenario, where whites in Chile are stated at 30% (now encompassing white-mestizos), that still leaves the remaining mestizos (who do look mestizo) as the majority population. For much more detailed information and sources and quotes please see the discussion that was had at the User_talk:Epf#Mestizos in Chile. Al-Andalus09:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok you are clearly informed on the issue of ancestry. But still is it correct to define people purely on grounds of race? Especially when being of mixed blood does not lead to any cultural or ethnic bonds nor does it lead to a clear barrier with those Chileans who are not mixed...
We should distinguish ancestry and ethnicity.
--Burgas0010:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, in Latin America it is used for those who are predominantly amerindian in their ancestry. (It would apply in Mexico and Central America).
Secondly, there is no defined ethnic group in Chile which can be defined as mestizo, there are just people with more or less Indian bood, Spanish origin being nearly always the larger part of the ancestry. There is no sense of common belonging shared exclusively by people with amerindian ancestry which excludes people who dont have this ancestry. This is a vital characteristic of an ethnic group.
The word mestizo is pejorative in our language and should be used as little as possible. Ill give you an example. When the movie "Harry Potter and the half-blood prince" came out in the Spanish speaking world, it was translated into Harry Potter and the Prince, because of the negative connotations that the word mestizo implied.
Finally, in our cultural community, Latinness, Spanishness (or if you want to use racial terms "whiteness") is an expansive concept which does not exclude people placing them in a different ethnic group on the basis of their blood being "tainted" as sometimes happens in the Anglo Saxon world. Although, I agree that in certain countries where racial divisions have been stronger due to a much larger Amerindian community, (such as Peru or Guatemala)this leads to implications regarding identity and ethnicity..
Finnally, other more recent genetic studies on the population establish the amerindian imput of Santiago population between 0% and 40%. Where do you get your claim that this is based on observation?
In any case the word "predominantly" means "mostly", i.e. more than 50%.
Which genetic studies? All genetic studies on the Chilean population, undertaken by Chilean institutions or ones abroad, have indicated a generalzised average between 57 and 60% European (almost entirely Spanish) input and 43 and 40% Amerindian input. Could you please quote this research that alleges between 0 and 40% as the generalized contribution for Chile.
Also, the one study which you keep quoting (and deleting all other genetic studies) is a sociological study, not a genetic one. Its main purpose was to indicate a sociological perspective of the correlation between social class and proportion of amerindian admixture in Chile. The social study uses ABO blood types to indicate Spanish ancestry, and although this is a great way of showing a European ancestry, it in no way indicates if that European ancestry is from a mestizo or unmixed European. All it stipulates is that A type is more frequent among the upper classes, and A (or B for that matter) is not a blood type found in Amerindians.
One would think that, apart from the sociological value offered by the source in question, the genetic sources from Rothhammer and the joint genetic research from the University of Chile would hold higher authority over the matter.
If you see the source you keep deleting, Chile's most prestigious institution states that the segment of the population which would be classified as "white" stands at 30%, the visibly mestizo population stands at 65% (with an average admixture hovering just below the national generalized ratio of 60:40), and the population classified as amerindian stands at 5% (it also states, however, that if including people who appear Amerindian, the amerindian population would rise, perhaps to 10% as indicated by the 1992 census). This increase would of course have to come out of the 65% which is "mestizo", so no, not all mestizos in the 65% have that generalized national ratio. Most in fact are just below it, and a few way below it. Al-Andalus08:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting your edits. You clearly have some sort of agenda regarding Chileans, wanting to class them as mestizos which is not an ethnic concept but a racial one. There is no place for this outdated racism on wikipedia.
Probably there are not any ethnic divisions between mestizos and phenotipically white chileans. There is not a strong and clear division between ethnicities as there is between social classes (that is undeniable). But I am afraid many chileans are unwilling to recognize the indian inheritance of most of the population, and make many efforts to hide the obvious. This can also be explained by the situation of many upper class chileans, who may have on average little indian admixture (at least not noticeable), and make a generalization based on what they see as common in their social context (or in the media, that is also very biased towards european looking people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatopardo81 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Racial identity of Chileans
The study of demography in Chile indicates a population is not solely high proportion of American Indian ancestry, but evidence shown a high degree of European (white) ancestry than most Latin American countries (only Argentina and Uruguay are solidly Caucasian).
The Chilean government doesn't want to use racial/ethnic divisions in a society where differences based on race, color and ancestry are blurred or relatively minor. But, there are indigenous groups in Chile when it comes to cultural factors, and careful studies of ancestral lineage in native Americans found nearly all have Spanish descent.
Over 400 years of European, then Chilean rule have literally "Hispanized" their indigenous groups, but a tourist can drive to the Atacama region and observe most inhabitants are racially Amerindian in feature without a major European element. Same goes to "white" Chileans whom exhibit mostly Caucasian(light skin, red-brown hair or blue eyes) to note a partial "multi-ethnic" element from immigration in the past.
Chile as a nation might be called an Euro-Ibero-Latin American society, but wasn't saturated by a high influx of European immigration like Argentina or southern Brazil. It's easy to notice the Central valley and coastal towns in Chile are settled by Northern/Western Europeans. Over time like its' conquered native peoples, the descendants of immigrants (Italian, French and German descent) blended into the dominant Spanish-Hispanic culture.
No surprise the difficulty of racial categorization and ancestral lineage are observed in Chile, because traditional divisions in the country are socioeconomic class and geographic location, not skin color or ethnic identity. But the unmixed "white" Chilean percentage is 3 to 5%, equally low like the number of Amerindians. Other racial groups are Rapanui (native Polynesians) from Easter Island and "black" Chileans of African descent.
Poverty in Chile remains above average, despite a global reputation in decreased poverty rates in the 1980's and 1990's, thanks to business reform and social welfare programs combined to reduce poverty by half from 46% in 1987 to 18% in 2001. But 40% of Chileans are upper-middle class or live like westerners, and another 40% are lower-middle class or the working poor.
The problem of class stratification hasn't gone away and to continue strong economic growth is a challenge to Chile, where racial/ethnic lines are already enigmatic. I wonder what America (the US) is like if every race in the country merged into one "race" this way. +Mike D 2607:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the three categories and my fullest doubts if it'll be deleted. Enough edit conflicts already, it don't matter to the world if Chileans are "white", mestizos, Amerindians or a hybrid race of human beings. Most Latin American countries (Cuba, Dominician Republic, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc.) don't seem to have problems on how most of their citizens identify their "mestizo" or "mulatto" (white/African) origins. Here are the copied re-edited categories below.
<<[edit] Ethnic groups
Whites and Mestizo, in various degrees of admixture marked by a sociogenetic gradient (see above), over 90%; unmixed may be 3.7%. In past Chilean census records through reliable magazine sources: Over half of the people are "European" in 1950 (National Geographic, February 1960, Chile); a third (30-35%) as "white" in 1960 (World Book Encyclopedia, 1970, Chile); about a quarter (20-25%) are "Spanish" in 1970 (The People's Almanac, 1975, Chile) and 40-45% as "mestizo" in terms of high degree of "Caucasian and American Indian" ancestries (National Geographic, June 1988, Chile).
Officially recognised Amerindian population as cited by and according to the current parameters of the Chilean National Institute of Statistics, 4.6%; other racial groups: Rapa Nui of Easter Island (2,500-but 10,000 live in the mainland), Asians like Japanese and Afro-Chilean total is under 1%.
[edit] Religions
Roman Catholic 89%, Protestant 11%, Jewish NEGL under 1%, Other religions: Islam, Mormon, Eastern Orthodox under 1%.
[edit] Languages
Spanish (universal among the population). There are speakers of European languages in immigrant communities and native languages by the Mapuche. >>
You mean Al-Andalus? I'm not him sorry. Al-Andalus is the one you talking about. He's been in trouble for outrageous comments on white superiority in the talk pages on demographics and racial issues on Latin America. The thing is Al-Andalus insist the Europeans are "culture barriers" not the Amerindians and their majority descendants. Amerindian influences are equal in Chile and Argentina to that in "mestizo" countries like Mexico, Peru and Colombia (and with Central America, the reason for high rates of poverty hasn't have to do with race, although Costa Rica and Panama has done better off).
Talk:Mexico has a vicious argument on the racial makeup in Mexico, comparisons of the HDI in Mexico with Argentina, and how the US looks down on Mexico (stereotypes, immigration issues and Mexican Americans). I understand the diversity of Latin Americans is well represented by what I read about some of their presidents: Alberto Fujimori of Peru (Japanese descent), Carlos Menem of Argentina (Syrian descent), Vicente Fox-Quesada of Mexico (half-Irish), Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (considered a 'mulatto' or 'mestizo' of three races: Spanish, African and Amerindian) and Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay (half-German).
However, not every countrymen shares his/her ethnoracial profile in the case of Chilean president Michelle Bachelet, like many Chileans have a high degree of European ancestry (like most Argentine and Uruguayans), but I won't be surprised if she had some Amerindian blood as the majority of Chileans have (could they be just as Amerindian like Ecuadorians and Bolivians?). I really don't like what Al-Andalus states on race, since it was mean-spirited and offensive to many people from Chile and elsewhere. 63.3.14.105:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As usual, the racist idiot who intepreted the racial composition of Chileans who came to the conclusion that 52% of Chileans are of pure European descent after misinterpreting some University study, has had his racist rubbish spread to all articles were the ethnic origins of the Chilean population lie. The twit who has publish the ridiculous information have misinformed others of the truth. Most Chileans, indeed around 90% DO have some, if not a lot of Amerindian blood. However, the ration might bee 52% European and 44% Amerindian in the average Chilean, even if the percentage is very small amongst the upper classes. However, most Chileans, not even half, are anywhere near pure European-descent. The original upper-class married Incan princesses and cacique's daughters, and the sebsequent Spaniards and Eruopean immigrants intermarried amongst the descendents. Wikipedia should portray the truth, not some racists' fantasy based on ignorance and proved by biased university research.86.160.120.47 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Chile is CASTIZO nation
Ok I do not understand the racial demographics of this article. Chileans do not consider themselves "Mestizo" in the non-white variety that others would consider in places like Peru, Mexico or Guatemala. Everyone in Latin America knows that Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are interchangable when describing "white" latinos to other people. Now I do agree that Chile is not as intermingled with the European-caucasian lineage as Argentina or Uruguay BUT Chile is still more or less a "white mestizo" or Castizo nation. All this means is that while the majority of the population is mixed Amerindian with European, that the population is still heavily titled toward the European rather than the Amerindian.
To put it uber-laymen terms, the nation is composed of people similar to Cher, Burt Reynolds,Johnny Depp, Wayne Newton, and Lou Diamond Phillips. The Amerindian features are very noticeable but the lineage is tilted more toward the European than the Amerindian. And you can easily contrast the people I listed with mestizos in Mexico and Peru.
That is why it is so hard to pin Chile down as "mestizo", when their population looks different from the traditionally supposed mestizo natons of Latin America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.217.36 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
what on earth are ya talking about? chile has nothing to do with argentina or uruguay. they are two separate stories, comparable to each other but not with chile. it has to do with the proportion of imigration the two countries had compared to the small arrivals in chile. as far as mestizo goes, it simply means a person who is mixed white and indian. that is the way it is used in the article and throughout the website. if you are envisioning a specific ratio of mixture for a mestizo that is your own bias. btw, if your idea of an average mestizo being one of guatemala or peru, or even mexico, or southern mexico to be more precise, then your also a bit off the radar. those types of mestizo are no more the standard than the chilean mestizo. the average mestizo of the countries u mentioned are not "the average mestizo", they are more indian than white, and the average chilean mestizo is also not "the average mestizo" since they are a bit more white than indian. though both types are still mestizos technically speaking
no offense but i hav been to chile and all along the length and girth of the country, apart from the high classes u can easily tell people are mixed. and even then the elites are still mixed anyway. even in santiago all you have to do is venture out of providencia or las condes and the people are unmistakably mixed.
im not saying they look like peruvian or bolivian mestizos gosh no. btw, hald of peru and bolivia is not even mostly indian mestizos, but pure indians. i think if your taking those indians into account as mestizos, the of course chileans look nothing like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.250.121 (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is quite a ridiculous bit of nonsense... "Mestizos" in all Latin American countiries are no different than eachother... if your speaking about the different degrees in European and Amerindian descent then state that instead. Besides, people sound idiotic when comparing apples and apples... Many of Mexico's mestizos are on the whiter side as well, but only Argentin, Uruguay and Chile are ever mentioned. Scared of loosing your tile of whiteness? What a joke. C.Kent87 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The common misconception is that Mestizo means indian. I can understand where the original poster is going with this. Chileans look on average a bit different than what is commonly known as mestizo. They look mixed but heavier on the European side. Point is, the CIA factbook in my opinion is the right way to describe the demographics of Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.34.13 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion lacks any substance! Does anyone here can support any of these assertions based on something else than mere stereotypes? What people may look like to your eyes is not a fact! It is a totally partial and subjective statement with no scientific support. And that is not strange giving the case that chileans are generally biased against their native american inheritance, so many of them are always willing to hide it. The only genetic studies I know, based on scarce data, give support to the idea that indian ancestry is present in most of the population, and the relation with european ancestry is not 25/75, but closer to 40/60. There is also certain african admixture, as there was a sizable black population during the colonial era, but it accounts for less of the 5% of the admixture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatopardo81 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Cuek! Talk about stereotypes with no scientific support!
If you know of genetic studies that can be verifiable and don't constitute original research please feel free to add them.
It has come to my attention that a source being used in all article dealing with Chile's racial composition is being misquoted or misunderstood. The source is this one: [8]
The problems are these:
The source is being misrepresented as a a genetic study. It is not a genetic work! Nowhere in the source does it claim itself as presenting genetics figures.
The source is being used to present a white (by genetics) majority population in Chile (of up to 90%, gee wiz).
The source CLEARLY states that the categories it is presenting ARE NOT racial! The sources STATES they are using socio-racial definition of race in their "race" categories. That means that they are including as "European" those people who are culturally European (culturalmente "Criollo"; as the source says in Spanish, which traditionally means a white person born on the American continent). Because of these parameters the source it is using, it is including as white those mestizos whose cultural patterns are "criollo" (European). Thats why the source tallies a disproportionate number of Chileans as white. The source makes that very clear. It specifically states that most of Chile is classed as white, because it deemes the mestizos in Chile to be by and large culturally "European" as well. The title of the source says it too "Composición ETNICA [ethnic means identity, not biology] de las Tres Áreas CULTURALES [again, they are stressing the nature of the work by sayin "three cultural areas" of the American continent"] del Continente Americano"
The source is useful to tell us about the culture of Chile, NOT about the racial composition. I hope I can get some other users to read the source and back me up before I go and make changes, which I anticipate will be quickly reverted by some people.
It has been mentioned ad nauseum, that all available true genetic studies show the entire population of Chile (whether Amerindians, mestizos, or whites; except for a tiny minority among white who have yet to mix with Chilean-born Chilean whites/mestizos/Amerindians) has some degree of admixture. The average admixture rate of Chilean mestizaje (which is given by genetic studies) is 60% European to 40% Amerindian. (Much lower than 40 Amerindian component among those who identify as "white", and higher than 40 Amerindian component in those who identify as "Amerindians". Yes, Mapuches are actually mestizos too, only slightly more Amerindian that the non-Amerindian-identified mestizos in Chile, and perhaps still under 50% Amerindian. It is the middle classes that are neither "white" identified nor "Amerindian" identified that are closest to the 60/40 average.)
What we have in Chile is a population with
a large minority of "white" people (those with a very high component of European ancestry and very low component of Amerindian ancestry)
a majority who are "mestizos" (on average slightly greater in European ancestry and slightly lower in Amerindian ancestry, and who are culturally "white". there is only indigenous and non-indigenous culture in Chile. there is no "mestizo" identity in Chile. both mestizos and whites are part of the same culture)
a small minority of "Amerindians" (who are on average slightly greater on Amerindian composition than the non-Amerindian identified mestizos, and perhaps slightly higher in European composition anyway or around 50/50, but are culturally "Amerindian".)
The reason why we keep having so many problems in the Chile pages on Wikipedia is because there is NO DISTINCT separation between "mestizo", "white" and "Amerindian" cultures in Chile. Unlike places like Mexico, where the white segment has their own cultural patterns, and the Amerindian segment has their own cultural patterns, and the mestizos have cultural patterns separate from both those of the white segment and the Amerindian segment. In Chile, there is only a "non-indigenous" culture (shared by the white segment and the mestizo segment) and an "indigenous" culture (espoused by a segment which is also genetically mestizo, but who are Amerindian-identified).
One last thing. There is one source which is also being used to say 25% Amerindian and 75% European is the Chilean average mestizaje. that study is a blood group study! it says it researched blood types and attributed A and B blood types as being European and O type as being Amerindian. given the distribution differences in the strata of Chilean society, it estimated a 75% European input because of distribution pattern of foreign (European) blood types in Chileans. this, however, is not a genetic study. and it says only the distribution of blood types. the study is flawed in that it assigns O type blood as the Amerindian identifier, but it is NOT exclusive to Amerindians, and it is also present in others, including Europeans. Al-Andalus (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
All studies presented at the demographics of Chile, geneticists and historians are recognized worldwide as Francisco Lizcano, Claudio Esteva-Fabregat, E. García Zarza, R Cruz-Coke and others, we must make clear that none of them is Chilean.
By the way, and just so you know, Francisco Lizcano is not a genecist, but a professor of Latin American studies at the UNAM. Therefore, his book is cultural reference not a study done on the genetics of the Chilean people. Likeminas (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Picture of Chilean girls
By looking at this article it is evident that the white population is exaggeratedly being overrepresented.
There are at least 4 pictures depicting the European component of the Chilean people. There’s the French immigrants, The Italian immigrants, the girls with the football jersey, and the girls with the Chilean flag, YET, there’s not a single picture of an Amerindian Chilean or a predominant Mestizo.
I will be deleting some of the pictures, since there’s no need for so many of them to represent a single group, and I will be adding pictures of Mestizo and Amerindian Chileans.
This article needs some serious balancing. Likeminas (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is NOT a study but a rather speculative narration on gobalization and geography. Hence, I've removed it and left the real study.Likeminas (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Likeminas: I will revert your deletion of the picture of Chileans girls because they are just that: CHILEAN GIRLS wearing a national sport jersey. They are nationals of Chile and you do not have right to determine who are Chilean or not. Echidna2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echidna2007 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The article has a suitable design, but if you want to add some image do it, as long as is commensurate with the item in question.--Ccrazymann (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Major failures in the article Demographics of Chile
Demography studies three basic phenomena that define the population dynamics: fertility, mortality and migration. It also examines the structure of the population (in time and space) age and sex, and the shapes of families, kinship and ethnic affinities and linguistic correction.
The article does not meet the minimum standards to be called pompously "Demography of Chile." He does not mention or explain the changes during the demographic transition, as the decline in mortality in general (and particularly maternal and child), or the increase in fertility for most of the twentieth century, followed by a sharp drop until it reaches a level that is below replacement level (2 children per woman of childbearing age). Neither the epidemiological transition, which moves from a high prevalence of infectious diseases to other chronic-degenerative type. Neither the progressive aging of the population and the challenges it brings with it (reform the pension system, increased demand for elderly care, end of the "demographic bonus", etc.).
Another aspect that is overlooked is the family transition, which is trafficked in the twentieth century to a nuclear family model, smaller than the rural patriarchal family. Neither the increase of children born outside marriage (now are 50% of live births) nor the increased levels of relative informality.
Other relevant issues are the current problem of teenage pregnancy and sociodemographic and ethnodemographic inequalities (eg, between indigenous life expectancy at birth is lower, etc.)
This article focuses too much on issues, "ethnographic" that had little to do with demographics, and neglects the study of it as such.
The lower class family of 80, not representative of Chile today, something I also understand the demands of users who add the pictures, according to the section immigration European.--Ccrazymann (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither picture is that good. I live in a city which is very mixed racially, not just in skin colour but in the way people customarily dress,so we try to include images on our publicity that reflects the city both in terms of the location and the people depicted. The first picture could be of any girls anywhere in Europe or the Americas, there's nothing to suggest its in Chile. The second is better in that the girls are a more mixed group, and are more definitely associated with Chile. Even better would be if you could find photograps that have an immediate association with Chile and show clearly the mixture of ethnicities commonly seen. Does the national team in some sport have a good mix? Also, you should include a modern picture of a group of Mapuche. Just using that historical photo makes it seem like they are all extinct! Just my two-penn'orth --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
heterogeneous group that represents most of the Chilean population is clearly shown in the congregation of people in Chile, not a good idea to add an image with selected nation, such as football, representative of the lower social class, tennis, middle class, the pole of the upper class, I think the second image can also fit the European immigration section.
Major failures in the article Demographics of Chile noted that studies three basic phenomena that define the population dynamics: fertility, mortality and migration. It also examines the structure of the population (in time and space) age and sex, and the shapes of Families, kinship and ethnic and linguistic affinities correction.Another aspect that is overlooked is the family transition, Which is trafficked in the Twentieth Century to a nuclear family model, smaller than the rural patriarchal family. Neither the increase of children born outside marriage nor the Increased levels of relative informality.
Other relevant issues are the current problem of teenage pregnancy and sociodemographic and ethnodemographic inequalities.
This article Focuses too much on issues, "ethnographic" that had little to do with demographics, and Neglects the study of it as such, hence the original ethnic groups (Mapuches, Rapa Nui, etc.) should be moved to Chilean people and expand section, who do you think?--Ccrazymann (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ccrazyman on that this article is covering part of what is the scope of Chilean people, but the article Chilean people has also its own problems, Im not sure all Rapanui consider themselves Chilean.. or are considered such by people outside Chile (but this discussion belong in that article). I think the pictures of the current version are good enought for now; one mapuche, one of italian immigrants and one contemporary. I see little use for the images of blond girls above, shouldt they be deleted? The second image, Chilenas.jpg, could be useful if it had a propor description of what kind of spotsteam it shows, because i believe it is good enought to show high level Chilean school teams. Dentren | Talk15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
believe we must incorporate the image of the Caucasian girls in the section of European immigration, and there is an image of whites and mestizos who represents most of the population in Chile, another image of a Mapuche Amerindian and other immigrants, but no photo representing Caucasians, being a large and important sector in Chile.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.22.192.240 (talk • contribs)01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand you want to show the diversity of Chile, but remember this article is about demography not ethnography and in the image The italiands seems to be quite fair haired. :Putting blond people, just to show there are some few blond chileans seems quite irrelevant in this article. Dentren | Talk22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Friend Dentren, do very hasty observation, I think some users try to demonstrate the European ancestry of some Chileans product of immigration and not to emphasize directly to immigrants.--Ccrazymann (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not disagree with the supposed "concern" for most users to make clear that the Chilean mestizo "different" (read "more Caucasian") to the rest of Latin America. Nor would disagree with the assertion that this alleged concern has a touch racist. But otherwise, that "racism", if it exists, would be a phenomenon common to all Latin Americans (or not?); "Colonial mentality" (as someone quite rightly said there) legacy of the European immigrants, mentality that many Latin Americans have in common.--Ccrazymann (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The image of Chilean girls, one or two are perfectly compatible, the immigration section is very broad, and as stated above, one of the main aspects of demography are studying immigration. On the other hand many users agree that the image of chilean of origin European , is representative and justified in the immigration section. 2nanny6 (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think some anonymous users have agreed to "express their dissatisfaction" with the exclusion of the image Chilean girls, trying to include them in the article several times, to avoid a possible edit war (I'm afraid it has started). Include the second image in the immigration section, delete also the section on indigenous peoples, which, as explained above, has nothing to do with an article on demography (will expand the section on indigenous peoples in a more coherent article, for example Chilean people.)--Ccrazymann (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I do also agree to some extent in the "concern" for most users to make clear that the Chilean mestizo "different" (read "more Caucasian"), while this article is frequently target of Chilean racists that want to show the world how white Chile is, there is point there. However putting the image Chilean girls I do not think is a good idea.. by doing so we are creating this typical bias that overmemphatises blond-white-Chilean-Europeans that some Chilean vandals want to see in this page. Blond Chileans are less than 5%, so there at least one photo of traditional communites for each such photo. What impression do you get of the article if it has tree images; one of historic italians immigrants, another of some young people in santiago and a thirth of some blond girls.Dentren | Talk12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, suggests removing the image of Chilean girls of this item? I do not have any problem, but bothers reverse me again and again to anonymous users or "new" which I presume will return to add the image.--Ccrazymann (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have contacted some administrators to take a look at this page, we can also ask other users that contribute to Chile-related topics to a look. About the first image, Chicaschilenas.jpg, this should be removed I honestly dont thing these girls are Chilean and can imagine any possible usage of this picture.. Dentren | Talk18:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I am convinced that the photo of a "crowd" in Santiago reflects a bad intention in demonstrating "mestizo" quality of Chile's inhabitants. They look very squeezed, all together because they are coming from a football match. This fact is not spontaneous. I believe this was added by someone who tries to make to look bad and "Indians" to Chileans. People across the Andes usually do to diminish Chile because its economic success and recognized stability. If you look Argentina's page, curiously it also contains a photo of a crowd but, this time, a crowd in Rosario reflecting the importance of European immigration to Argentine ethnography and culture.(????). I am sure if we put a photo taken in Apoquindo it would look very European under this absurd standard.
Your changes no correspond to describe the Demographics of Chile or Chile as a nation, not even for ethnography (Greek ethnos-εθνος, "tribe, people" - and graph-γραφω, "I write" - literally "description of people") is a research method of social and cultural anthropology that facilitates the study and understanding of a particular socio-cultural field, normally a human community with its own identity. It is based on interviews and observation (participant observation is the most important), with the field work a basic tool in the research process. "It has to do with the study of culture or cultures of a population, not its composition "racial" or phenotypes and genotypes. That should be encompassed under bioarchaeology or physical anthropology or "study population", but in no case in an article of population or demography. Therefore, I ask that you refrain from changes and opinions as this 1):The only reliable sources regarding the ancestral origins of Chile's population are genetic studies, and all of these, thus far, indicate various majority figures for Chileans of admixed origin, in varying degrees of European and Amerindian admixture. 2): controversy: 35% Amerindian with traces [around 1%] of other admixture." the top 1%?, You are manipulating sources. Ccrazymann (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The references and manipulation of them
What is the problem with this reference? Which clearly says that the Chilean population is divided into: approximately 64% white and 35% Amerindian with traces of other admixture (mestizos). [9] now calculate the percentage of indigenous population in Chile is worth?¿, according to the Census 2002, 4.6% of the Chilean population considered indigenous, it is the only question that makes the census of Chile, regarding" ethnicity "of the Chilean population. Ccrazymann (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
German Chilean
He returned to the origin information, regarding German immigration in Chile, because it is not a small immigration, which only produced a cultural impact on Chilean society, the German colonists founded cities (Puerto Montt, Puerto Varas, Frutillar, Puerto Octay, Villarrica, Pucon, etc), to highlight to the day by day in all areas including politics, sports, culture, among others and, in numerical terms, was a mass migration, colonized much of southern. Only in the period of settlement arrived between 30,000 to 40,000 Germans [10][11], not counting those who settled in other parts of Chile, or those who arrived after this period, which is a higher immigration. Ccrazymann (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Something important to correct
It's necessary to update the information shown in the section "CIA World Factbook demographic statistics", because if you check CIA's webpage, you will realize that it has changed.
An image used in this article, File:Conce.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
Argentina, como Chile y Uruguay, su población está formada casi exclusivamente por una población blanca procedente del sur de Europa – más del 90 por 100 -, españoles e italianos en su mayoría, además de algunas minorías de judíos, levantinos (sirios, libaneses, armenios) y centroeuropeos, alemanes en su mayoría, llegados sobre todo después de 1800, oscilando los aborígenes entre el uno y el siete por ciento (E. García Zarza, 1992, 19)
According to the source, the characteristic shared by Argentina, Uruguay and Chile is having a majority White population coming from southern Europe, but only in Argentina the share of the White population would exceed 90%. An adequate reading comprehension is key to fully understand the quote above.
I have just modified 15 external links on Demographics of Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In the late 19th century, there were Cherokee Indian settlers from Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), USA made their way to Chile. An estimated 125,000 descendants of these settlers may live in Chile today. This was a disputed statistic in Wikipedia regarding Demographics and Emigration to Chile. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Demographics of Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of Chile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
