Talk:White Latin Americans/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

About White Latin Americans

Firstly, im from Guatemala, unfortunately I got involved into ¨eurolatino pride¨ influence, and for these reason I joined here 5 years ago (other story) for ¨extend information of Guatemala¨ but my problem was the ¨eurolatino pride¨ that unfortunately is extend in whole Latin America. I always accepted that indigenous people are significant in Guatemala and I always feel proud for live in a country with one of most native population, but I feel ashamed that I only focus in white people. The entire information (percentages and tables) are false and manipulated, real investigations estimate 1 to 10 percent, and yes, half of population is pure Amerindian and 70 percent has important Amerindian genetic.

About whole Latin America, its really a shame and so unrighful that ¨eurolatino pride¨ exist, left away the Multicultural and Multirracial landscape of our region, with million of race-mixed types and significants Amerindians and Black population, also White population, but here in Wikipedia, most of Latinos writter are focus mostly in European descent, several articles that are loudy focused in European migrations (German Chilean, Spanish Mexican, French Ecuatorian, etc, etc, etc......), tables and tables with ethnic percentages (editor has one porpurse -unfortunately I was include-: rise the white percentage in some countrie). Its more easy stablish one solid ethnic information for the countries in the main article?, and not include several and several ethnic estimations in different articles?, according investigations that I readed, the most neutral Ethnic composition in all Latin American countries could be in this follow list:

• 1. Argentina

97% White&Mestizos (several mestizos could has Italian or French mixture), 3% indigenous and black; CIA. +60% of Argentines considered themselves as white; Latinobarometro

• 2. Bolivia

62% Indigenous, 6% White; Census.

• 3. Chile

60% Mestizo, 30% White; University of Chile. Maybe there are more than 40% of Whites

• 4. Brasil

48% White, 40% Mixed, 8% Black; Census.

• 5. Costa Rica

83% White&Mestizo, 6% Black, 2% indigenous, 1% asiatic; Census. +45% self-identificate as White; Latinobarometro

• 6. Colombia

58% Mestizo, 20% White, 18% Afro-colombian, 2% indigenous; CIA. Maybe there are 25% of whites and 22% of black

• 7. Ecuador

78% Mestizo, 8% indigenous, 7% white, 5% black; Census. Other invetigations estimate more than 20% of indigenous and nearly 10% of whites

• 8. El Salvador

Actually 11% is indigenous but only 1-2% conserve ethnic costums and languages, Whites could be 4 to 13 percent. CIA: 86% Mestizo, 13% White, 1% Indigenous

• 9. Guatemala

55% indigenous and 44% non-indigenous was estimated in 2005 (39% Mestizos). 56% Ladino, 43% Indigenous; 2018 Census

• 10. Honduras

7% indigenous, 5% white, 2% black; Census.

• 11. Mexico

35% White, 16% indigenous and 48% (approx.) mestizo; Academic Investigations.

• 12. Nicaragua

69% Mestizo, 17% White, 9% Afro-nicaraguan, 5% Amerindian; CIA.

• 13. Panama

11% White, 17% Black, 12% Amerindian; Census.

• 14. Peru

26% Amerindian, 59% Mestizo, 7% White; Census. According to Lizcano, nearly a half of Peruvians are Amerindians.

• 15. Paraguay

77% Mestizo, 21% White; Lizcano 2005.

• 16. Dominican Republic

70% Mixed, 16% White, 13% pure black; CIA.

• 17. Uruguay

+60% White, 8% maybe afromestizos, 4% pure black, rest notably Mestizo with European mixture; CIA & Academic Resources.

• 18. Venezuela

42% Mestizos, 36% Afro-venezuelan, 18% White; Lizcano.

• 19. Haiti

95% black, 5% mulattoes and white; CIA.

Facts:

• 1. In Argentina, a blood study confirm that 56% of population have important Amerindian Mixture, so we can conclude that 40-41% of Argentines are really of pure european ancestry since their physic appearaence. Although mestizo population is a significant composition, a notable percentage is actually a mixture of Italian or French ancestry with Amerindian (other type of mestizo), and possibly with Afrodescendant too.

• 2. Possibly Bolivia has the lowest percentage of White population (5-6%), but as in Argentina, a percent of Bolivians has German and Amerindian ancestry mixed, also in Peru, Chile, Ecuador and Guatemala a number of German migrants were mixed with Amerindians.

• 3. Only in Brazil, 9 out 10 Whites are of pure descent (+65% of European genetic contribution).

If we reduce the White percent to people with a predominant European heritage and European culturally, for the moment the percent of Argentina its the only clearly, but obviously we need to reduce for each other country, I think it would be in this way: Uruguay 60%, Brazil 42.2%, Argentina 40.8%, Chile 20%, Mexico 15%, Paraguay 14%, Colombia 13%, Dominican Republic 11%, Nicaragua 10%, Venezuela 9%, Costa Rica 8.6% (it was discovered that actually Nicaragua has more genetic European ancestry in their people than Costa Rica), Ecuador 7.1%, Panama 5.9%, Peru 5%, El Salvador 3.5%, Bolivia 2.1%, Haiti 1.7%, Honduras 1.3% and Guatemala 1%. All percentages include European citizens naturalized, but they are only representative in some South American countries and possibly Mexico too (specially US citizens).

Some day, when whatever ¨ethnic pride¨ no longer influence in mentality and the population know, acept and feel good after to know their roots, in this moment ethnic self-identifications surveys will be worthy and 100% accreditable to analyze ethnic groups composition in each country (around the world). Thanks for read. --Vers2333 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The recent changes you made to the article, which I reverted, weren't explained in the edit summary as to what your intent was, nor were they sourced (and, in at least one case, controverted the source that was there). What you need to do to improve this article is to find sources and present them in standard fashion (see Wikipedia:Citing sources), remembering that this article is about self-identification—which we're here to document, not to deplore—as much as about genetic makeup. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I added the false information in other account on 2015, I finally admit. So I will change the information of my country. Thanks for understanding. --Vers2333 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There's still the issue of Guatemala having been taken off the infobox list. It should have an entry there. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation, I added the country with 1.7 Million. --Vers2333 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Mongolian spot

@Lonerism20 and Pob3qu3: Lonerism20 removed the paragraph about the "Mongolian spot" some months ago, saying in their edit summary, discussing birthmarks goes far beyond the scope of this article. I totally agree. Pob3qu3 restored it stating The incidence of the mongolian spot has been observed to be directly related to race, which is only true if we define "race" in a biological sense, a definition that has been debunked by modern genetics, see e.g. Mongoloid. I removed that paragraph again, referring to WP:OR and WP:PSTS. What I mean is: The paragraph combines several studies, including one from Japan [sic !], thus violating Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. (see WP:SYNTH). The conclusion implied (not reached) is this case is that the "Mongolian spot" has something to with White Latin Americans. No, it doesn't, and that's why the paragraph doesn't belong here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:(talk) Hi Rsk6400, it seems your edits to the article have already been reverted. Several editors have had issues with the edits made by Pob3qu3, who seems to want to promote the idea of Mexicans being white and European, despite history, culture, demographics and the appearance of the average Mexican saying otherwise. This editor has repeatedly used pseudoscience, dubious sources, self authoring and unrelated or non-English sources to make their claims and resorts to deflections, whataboutisms, double downing, feigned ignorance and personal attacks when challenged.

The truth is Mexico failed to attract many immigrants after its independence and resorted to promoting concepts such as the cosmic race and mestizaje as outlined in the mestizo article to assimilate its native population. Additionally the 'brownness' and mixed Amerindian ancestry of the majority of its citizens are one of the reasons why the All-Mexico Movement failed during the Mexican-American war. This colonial mentality is a feature among Latin American elites who wanted to erase their indigenous and African peoples while promoting their 'Europeanness' as if that equates with being a developed nation. It may have worked in the 19th century but it is completely ridiculous today. I'm not sure if anyone believes there are more 'whites' in Mexico than Canada or Australia, but the above editor remains steadfast in their narrative which is displayed in the white Latin Americans article, European emigration and others to the point where they have become completely unencyclopedic. These are the types of edits that give Wikipedia its reputation for being an unreliable source and are a detrimental to all the hard work that is put into this site. --Lonerism20

If I'm not mistaken, every single source in said paragraph mentions the direct link that there is between the prescence of the spot and ethnic ancestry, this is why it belongs in an article related to ethnic groups and it doesn't constitute original research in any way. The argument that I've had problems about this with other editors before is not a good argument in reality, yes another editor wanted the section removed [1], but that editor is now blocked for persistent sockpuppetry [2], you attack my person saying that editors like me give a bad reputation to Wikipedia when in reality is the other way around. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in several steps. This was to show that each single source is irrelevant to the subject of the section, which is not "ancestry" in general, but "White Latin Americans in Mexico". If each single source is irrelevant, you cannot claim that they are relevant as a group, because that would constitute WP:SYNTH, as I already stated. BTW: You didn't reply to my concern about WP:PSTS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the text. For one thing, it's of long standing. Then, if contested material is to be discussed, it's better that it be present in the article, in order to be evaluated (I had to retrieve an old version to read the rendered version). Thirdly, I suspect certain characterizations given here are overbroad. Defining race has been debunked? There are certainly inherited biological traits peculiar to certain ethnicities. A colonial mentality wanting to erase indigenous admixture is shown here, when the Mongolian spot shows that such admixture or presence exists? Etcetera. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Regarding "colonial mentality", please read WP:NPA. You didn't reply to any of my concerns, neither to the one about WP:PSTS nor to the one about WP:SYNTH. I'd also like to ask why you think that a Japanese medical text or a text about "‎Nursing care of older adults" is relevant for this article. And I have two more concerns: If it's important that the spot shows that White Mexicans have indigenous admixture, we should add that statement to the article. But, because of WP:SYNTH, we can't. And the last one: Indigenous ancestry can be demonstrated much easier using genetics. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I would like that you elaborated on how is that a source that states that the frequency of the spot varies depending of ethnic group/ancestry is not related to the topic of White Latin Americas; how is that a source that states that the spot is much more common in Mestizo Latin Americans than on White Latin Americans is not related to the topic of White Latin Americans and how is that two sources stating the frequency of said trait in Mexicans and also stating that the frequency of it varies depending of the ancestry of the Mexican in question is not related to the topic of White Latin Americans. I looked up your edit summaries but all they say is that "it's not related to the topic" without giving any reason or explanation. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The first two sources I mentioned in my reply to Dhtwiki above are about a certain trait in humans in general. If you call that relevant, you can easily call any text that discusses an inheritable trait relevant (e.g. resistance to malaria, sickle cells, epicantic fold, albinism, and trillions more). For the rest, I already replied. You didn't reply to the problem of using primary sources. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: "Colonial mentality" refers to what was written above ("This colonial mentality is a feature among Latin American elites who wanted to erase their indigenous and African peoples while promoting their 'Europeanness' as if that equates with being a developed nation."). Regarding "no personal attacks", there were a fair number of strong, unsubstantiated assertions about another editor in that post, as well. As far as sourcing, all the sources are, or derive from, medical studies in what I assume are peer-reviewed journals. These are secondary, not primary, sources, and are usually regarded as reliable as it gets. As far as synthesis, I don't see anything but reporting on the statistical presence of the spot. I don't see it as much different from the preceding paragraph, both of which establish percentages of phenotypes that are set against racial and cultural self-identities that are the other focus of this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now that I misunderstood your remark about the "colonial mentality". I thought you were replying to me while in fact you were replying to Lonerism20. But I'm still not sure whether you realized that that comment was theirs, not mine. I also have to correct my statement about primary sources: The only primary source is the first one (ref. no. 93). But that's still a reason to remove it, at least in the absense of good reasons to keep it. Synthesis: I already stated above, The conclusion implied (not reached) is this case is that the "Mongolian spot" has something to [do] with White Latin Americans. Or, the other way round: The only source which mentions both the occurrence of the spot in Mexico and race is the last one, which says that it is "característico en bebés de razas orientales y pieles oscuras" - "characteristic in babys of eastern races and of dark skin." None of them combines White people and the spot in Mexico. The problems of other paragraphs are no reason to restore this paragraph. You still didn't answer to my other concerns. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Various corrections: The source number 93 is not a primary source, it's an study originally published in Mexico's infantil hospital medical bulletin that has been retrieved to the website that is being used as reference in the article, it makes a direct connection between European ancestrty and the abscence of the spot, so does the sources number 95 and 96, which do mention Latin American populations. In reality there is nothing to be argued here. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I belatedly realized that the comments were Lonerism20's (but before I replied). My post was immediately after yours, but I was responding to impressions I got from the entire previous thread, which did become somewhat confused in my mind as to who exactly was the author. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Both of you seem to confuse the distinction between reliable and unreliable sources with the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Of course no. 93 is reliable, but it is a primary source. This is obvious from the definition of secondary sources at WP:PSTS.

I don't understand why you think that European ancestry is mentioned in source no. 93. The nearest to that is "Argentina, país en el que la población es predominantemente blanca" - which talks about similar research done in Argentina. It also mentions "la población anglosajona", but "Anglosaxon" is obviously not the same as "White", and talks about various "tipos de piel", which still is something different than "White". If sources 95 and 96 mention "Latin American populations", they still don't mention "White Mexicans".

Since nobody defended no. 94 and no. 97, I hope that you don't object to my removing them. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you may need to re-read this discussion, as both @Dhtwiki: and I have defended all sources used in said paragraph: Dhtwiki clearly told you that they are not primary sources, as did I, also pointing out that are related to the topic at hand as they adress the frequency of said trait on Caucasian and Native American populations, which are directly related to the topic of White Latin Americans, there is no original research at all in the section, both of your tags are totally out of place. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I already answered to each and every point you raised. So, your suggestion to "re-read this discussion" seems a bit strange to me. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You may have answered something, but your posture does not align with reality nor with Wikipedia policy, and I say this in the friendliest way possible. Also it comes to my attention that another policy you are totally misunderstanding is the WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES one, which is intended to remove image collages that used to be place within infoboxes at the start of an article about a given ethnic group years ago, it is in no way intended to remove all images in an article, one or two images per section (if the size of said section warrants it) are fine. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, I think WP:WNTRMT (nos. 2 and 3) are very clear, while WP:DRIVEBYTAG is clearly not applicable. Pob3qu3, please remember to keep the discussion focussed. None of you replied to my point about ref. no 93 being a primary source, none of you was so far able to explain why a medical source that doesn't mention White Mexicans should be relevant here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference number 93 is a medical study published in a scholarly journal. How is that a primary source? I have to assume you're talking about the Japanese study not mentioning Mexicans, but it is surely relevant to the medical phenomenon under discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: I'm keeping the discussion focused, as the whole root of the issue here is that you are severely misunderstanding Wikipedia policy, all the sources are related to the topic at hand and no one can be considered a primary source. In this case it'd be more fitting that you explained how is that a skin lession that is notably absent from Caucasian/White populations is not related to the topic Caucasian/White Latin Americans (or Mexicans), because I seriously don't see how could you assert such things with an serious face. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Dhtwiki, of course no. 93 has been published in a scholarly journal. It's quite normal for primary sources to be published in good journals, but the interpretation of the data and facts provided by primary sources is normally done by secondary sources. That's how science works. WP:SECONDARY, which I already mentioned above, explains this very well.

Pob3qu3, please respect WP rules, I already mentioned WP:WNTRMT twice. I'd also suggest you read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rex071404#Final_decision no. 5. Regarding relevance: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). I already said, If you call that relevant, you can easily call any text that discusses an inheritable trait relevant (e.g. resistance to malaria, sickle cells, epicantic fold, albinism, and trillions more). I'd also like to know, which of the various definitions of "Caucasian" you are referring to. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading from Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources, purely primary source would be, say, someone reporting on their own Mongolian spot ("sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event"). Medical research falls in between primary and secondary ("both raw primary-source data (such as photographs and scatter plots of data points) plus analysis and synthesis of primary-source data collected in the experiment which is one step removed from the primary source material collected by the researchers.") To the extent the medical article provides analysis of the primary data, it is a secondary source. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Somebody reporting their own Mongolian spot would not be considered worthy publishing by any serious journal. If your interpretation were true, primary medical sources simply would not exist. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not in a journal; in a letter, diary, or autobiography; which is why reporting in a scholarly journal makes the cut as a secondary source, even if that reporting is based on primary sources: the aforementioned letters, etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you really think the authors of medical secondary sources peruse letters, diaries and autobiographies ? I think WP:SECONDARY is the best and clearest explanation of how science works. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Taken from WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

By this definition, and by your own admission (as you mention that, among other studies, the source number 93 cites an study from Argentina) the source number 93 IS secondary, thus the use of templates in that section of the article is not applicable, and you can‘t put them where you see fit or to deface sections or articles that you don‘t like, that‘s called WP:TAGBOMBING. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, neither the central statements of no. 93, nor the statements used in the article are "based on" other studies. They aren't "one step removed from [the] event", either. It's quite normal that primary sources in science also refer to other primary sources, but that doesn't make them secondary. You also misread WP:TAGBOMBING. And finally, you removed the OR-tag without even mentioning it. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:, to my understanding, the claims of OR have been completely refuted by now as you were claiming that the mongolian spot wasn't related to race/ethnicity, so no point on adding that template, @Dhtwiki: previous explanation regarding what constitutes a primary source is actually on point, taken from WP:SECONDARY: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences" and on top of this you must consider that is not the author directly publishing said research, but a website repository of scientific/medical articles, I'm very certain that you know this, but you were attemping to confuse other editors claiming that sources you dislike are primary under completely arbitrary criteria so you could remove them, similarly to how you deliberately misinterpret WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES to remove images you dislike. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's your understanding, and I'm pretty sure that it is a misunderstanding. Two editors see a problem, two don't. There is clearly no consensus, and the next time you remove a maintenance tag based on your understanding, I'll take it to WP:ANI/3RR. you were attempting to confuse other editors is clearly against WP:AGF. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one making the point that these particular sources are primary, not secondary. There's also the matter of your placing a template asserting that this article section contains original research. What are the examples of that? I don't remember any being given. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Add this info

According to Latinobarometro

The following table shows how Latin Americans answer the question What race do you consider yourself belonging to? in the Latinobarometro survey.

Country	Mestizos	Whites	Amerindians	Blacks	Mulattoes	Asians	Other race
Argentina	28%	56%	5%	3%	1%	1%	7%
Bolivia	63%	5%	28%	1%	1%	0%	3%
Brazil	16%	37%	3%	23%	12%	0%	9%
Chile	20%	73%	5%	0%	1%	0%	1%
Colombia	47%	25%	10%	9%	6%	1%	2%
Costa Rica	34%	37%	9%	4%	17%	0%	0%
Dominican Republic	29%	16%	6%	17%	25%	1%	6%
Ecuador	87%	3%	5%	2%	3%	0%	0%
El Salvador	60%	16%	16%	3%	5%	0%	0%
Guatemala	37%	7%	48%	1%	5%	1%	0%
Honduras	49%	19%	10%	5%	17%	0%	1%
Mexico	58%	9%	21%	1%	2%	1%	7%
Nicaragua	63%	15%	10%	7%	4%	0%	0%
Panama	43%	12%	18%	22%	5%	1%	0%
Paraguay	65%	22%	6%	3%	0%	0%	3%
Peru	77%	5%	7%	2%	1%	0%	8%
Uruguay	12%	74%	4%	4%	4%	0%	3%
Venezuela	43%	31%	8%	7%	9%	0%	3%
Total	46%	27%	11%	6%	6%	0%	3%

WikiJuan (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Real studies about Argentina

78/81% of white population

1985, UBA (Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires University): 81% white population (100% european): http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=LILACS&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=71338&indexSearch=ID

2006, Seldin, Michael F. et al (2006). «Argentine population genetic structure: Large variance in Amerindian contribution», en American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132(3):455-462, online December 18th 2006. 78% white population (100% european). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.20534

We need new studies, but the last ones are clear. 78/81% of white population for Argentina. The entire country, coast to coast and north to south. Not just some places, with notorious ethnic variations (manipulation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.59.81.250 (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• According to M. Caputo et al, 2021, X-DIPs studies show that the European genetic contribution is 52%, indigenous 39.6% and African 7.5%.
• Homburguer et al., 2015, PLOS Genetics: 67% European, 28% Amerindian, 4% African and 1,4% Asian.
• Avena et al., 2012, PLOS One: 65% European, 31% Amerindian, and 4% African.
  • Buenos Aires Province: 76% European and 24% others.
  • South Zone (Chubut Province): 54% European and 46% others.
  • Northeast Zone (Misiones, Corrientes, Chaco & Formosa provinces): 54% European and 46% others.
  • Northwest Zone (Salta Province): 33% European and 67% others.
• Oliveira, 2008, on Universidade de Brasília: 60% European, 31% Amerindian and 9% African.
• National Geographic: 52% European, 27% Amerindian ancestry, 9% African and 9% others.
• Corach, Daniel, 2010, Annals of Human Genetics: 78.5% European, 17.3% Amerindian, and 4.2% African ancestry.
• According to Norma Pérez Martín, 2007, at least 56% of Argentines would have indigenous ancestry. WikiJuan (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

References