The Study of Racialism

William

Every now and then I'll come across something that says that the Portuguese have "Negroid" physical traits. Usually, I'll find this "information" by stumbling across White Supremist websites, or else in old encyclopedias. Unsurprisingly, the infamous 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions that "Negroid types are common in central and southern Portugal," and that "the offspring of [black and white] unions are superior in character and intelligence to most half-breeds." It goes on to say that "this infusion of alien blood has profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation."

First off, I wouldn't trust any source that is so racist. But I know how the world was in 1911. It's the false information I'm trying to dispel. The Portuguese are not alone in being wrongly characterized by the 1911 Britannica. In the Italy chapter, a reference is made to the southern Italians being composed of "inferior" racial elements, and in the Malta chapter it is alleged that the Maltese are free of the "Negroid" blood that taints Sicily. I'm sure if I searched hard enough, I'd find this sort of thing written about all southern Europeans.

I have been all through Portugal, and the people, to my eyes, look like average southern European Mediterraneans. To be sure, I saw some types that resemble North Africans, and others that resemble Semitic peoples (both of which also are found in Spain, Italy, France, and Greece), but no one (in the native, non-immigrant) population that looked like he or she was part sub-Saharan. In the north of Portugal, there is even a smattering of Nordic-appearing types.

As Frank wrote in his excellent essay, "The Heredity of Racial Traits," even in (genetically speaking) 45%-sub-Saharan, 45%-European, 10%-Amerindian Puerto Rico, one will find that 10% percent of the population looks completely European, and many more still look at least predominantly European. So how can Portugal as a whole, with approximately only 7% sub-Saharan mtDNA, be a nation of people who look part African? It simply can't be, and it isn't. Incidentally, the 7% figure applies only to mtDNA, and sub-Saharan Y-chromosomes are absent or very low. The AncestrybyDNA website also estimates the contribution of sub-Saharan genetic material to the Iberians to be just under 7%. Also, according to a book I have, in the chapter discussing the slave trade of the 1400's - 1500's, there were "a total of 35,000 Black Africans who had once lived in Portugal, a number of which were absorbed into the population, leaving no phenotypical trace." Naturally, Mary Wilhelmina Williams' assertion that there was no marked color line, and the blood of the two races mingled freely, resulting eventually in Negroid physical characteristics in the Portuguese nation" is false, as is Lerone Bennett's statement that "by 1550, biracials outnumbered Europeans from the Algarve to as far north as Lisbon." Granted, the southern provinces of Portugal were always the most sparsely populated, and to this day, only 8% of the Portuguese live there; but when one looks at the numbers (35,000 Africans in a population of 1.5 to 2 million) Bennett's statement simply can't be true. What I read in an encyclopedia about Africans throughout the world probably is true: in 1550, Lisbon and some of the southern provinces of Portugal were about 10% black.

Having said all of that, a Portuguese friend of mine set out on a quest to search for the half dozen or so very small (about 500 inhabitants each), isolated, rural communities where native Portuguese occasionally display African physical characteristics, such as broad noses, everted lips, and kinky hair. The most well known is Rio de Moinhos, near Alcácer do Sal. This people of this community have long been known as the "mulatos do Sado," or mulattoes of the River Sado. There are a few other such villages in this area, as well as near Coruche and near Alter do Chão. All of these districts are either in the Alentejo or Algarve. He indeed did find a few mixed-looking individuals in the two towns he visited; but even here the majority of the people still looked like ordinary Caucasian Mediterraneans. Incidentally, these villages are in formerly malarial river valleys, and the population was isolated and even ostracized to some degree, so the people tended to marry only eachother.

If anyone has any comments, I'd be interested in in hearing them.

William

fwsweet · Posted: Fri 15 Apr 2005 13:12 Post subject:

As I understand it, William has two objections to the current consensus that estimates sub-Saharan admixture in Portugal to be about 7%. The first is that, except for people in a few rural villages, the Portuguese simply do not look African. Second, the current molecular estimates are based solely upon mtDNA and not on complete autosomal analyses of individuals.

I cannot offer much insight into the first point. "African appearance" is notoriously subjective. The very fact that Mediterranean peoples (including North Africans) have black hair, brown eyes, and swarthier complexions than people from within 600 miles of the Baltic suggests a modern (within the past 1000 years), gradual Afro-European DNA gradient from north to south. I certainly agree with William that virtually no Portuguese display the appearance of the Bantu-speaking peoples of west and central Africa. But this should not surprise. Sub-Saharan alleles are so sparsely distributed in this population that it would be highly improbable for them all to happen to align in the same individual. (For a rough computation of the probability of this happening for just for skin tone, see my essay The Heredity of Racial Traits).

Regarding the second, you have to work with the data that you have. Certain mtDNA haplotypes are found only in modern sub-Saharan Africa and virtually unknown in Europe (except in places like southern Portugal, southern Spain, Malta, etc.) These haplotypes are found at a 7 percent rate in the Portuguese population. This does not mean that the individuals with sub-Saharan mtDNA are wholly sub-Saharan or even that they have any more than negligible sub-Saharan admixture (any more than the mtDNA marker itself). But until someone funds autosomal studies of Portugal (like those that zsana posted at http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=312), mtDNA is all we have to work with. Nevertheless, it can be treated as a simple problem in statistical sampling. Assume that the 7 percent really means that seven out a hundred portuguese sampled have the sub-Saharan mtDNA marker. What is the likelihood that this means that the entire population (all the people, all the markers, all the chromosomes) have 7 percent sub-Saharan DNA? The standard formula for computing the 95th percentile error range of any sample is =1.96*SQRT(r*(1-r)/(2*n)), where "r" is the measured percentage (7 percent) and "n" is the sample size (100). Plug in those two numbers, turn the crank, and you find that the 95th percentle error range is +/- 3.54 percent. In other words, given the facts at hand, there is a 95 percent chance that the actual sub-Saharan admixture in the Portuguese population (all the people, all markers, all chromosomes) lies between 3.5 and 10.5 percent. Either taking more samples or using more markers would narrow this uncertainty.

William · Posted: Fri 15 Apr 2005 15:14 Post subject:

Thank you, Frank, for once again explaining these things so succinctly. I have learned quite a lot from just corresponding with you.

The issue over Portugal just struck me as strange, since I have been all through the country and have gotten to know many people there. It just baffles me that writers and encyclopaedia compilers can write untruths.

Another question for you, Frank: I recently read that in Holland it is "not uncommon for a sub-Saharan Y-chromosome and an Asian (presumably Malay) mtDNA to be found in the same phenotypically Caucasian male. Would this mean that the African slaves imported into Holland were males, and the Malay ones were females? Or that Dutch colonists and explorers brought home Malay wives? Is there any way to interpret the sparse data?

According to Bryan Sykes, 1% of Britons have an African or Asian ancestor. This isn't surprising, since Britain had been involved in the slave trade, and had been in control of India. But Sykes suspects the admixture occurred in Roman times, which is also reasonable. However, during the slave trade of the 1500s-1600s, Africans were certainly present in Britain, and Britain was in control of India (a possible source of the Asian DNA) in the recent past. Again, any way to interpret the little data available?

You mentioned Malta as being one of the populations where relatively recent sub-Saharan DNA has been found? Are any figures available.

Is it also true that eastern European populations (Russians, Hungarians, etc.) have significant levels of Asiatic DNA?

This whole subject fascinates me; it makes on realize the populations of the world are more related than what many believe.