, an.
uh:

samum
‘ 2». ..
aw”? ‘

‘3;
.231.

 

. LR c.

9...... .a
win...
3%
.chrdmfiaia. “.6...-

a
o 1:1
n

.%F

 

 

(I A
I 5.. 5.?
szi.
b n-
..1 17th.
.3. . :1.
2;... “1:13,. . .
rail. .1‘..¢.:,-.y§
.. 5:... z . .1. x a.“ .
w, n. . .ys .
.
‘rnsC‘
. MM”...
A 3..
.54.): .
'Ellis...
(21...;
aft-r." U-K‘
. n93. .. v}.
. : ER: 1.
1.3.... f t ..
£if;i.!l. hflhfind

1:52.
>n.,.l.1

1.1 .i.\

. «4.. .
$392.

 

/Z 092

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Reconfiguring Dominicanness: Competing Discourses
Surrounding Race, Nation, and Identity In The
Dominican Republic

presented by

Kimberly Eison Simmons

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Anthropology

 

 

Major professor

Dr. Scott Whiteford

Date .5 ’ 14L“

MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

(1560': ‘éw'lw’b'

DEC J 4 2004
11

Me 322% 2W5“;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRCIDateDuo.965-p.15

RECONFIGURING DOMINICANNESS: COMPETING DISCOURSES
SURROUNDING RACE, NATION, AND IDENTITY
IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
By

Kimberly Eison Simmons

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Anthropology

2002

ABSTRACT
RECONFIGURING DOMINICANNESS: COMPETING DISCOURSES
SURROUNDING RACE, NATION, AND IDENTITY
IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
By

Kimberly Bison Simmons

This dissertation maps the process of nationness - a sense of national belonging --
which finds expression in discourses involving ideas of race and color in the construction
of a “mixed-race” identity. How is this type of nationness created? How is mixedness
articulated? What is the relationship between structure and agency in this process? What
is the outcome in terms of the categories in circulation to define people? How do people
define themselves? How does this change over time and space? What is accepted,
negotiated, and rejected and under what circumstances? All of these inter-related
questions facilitate the mapping of nationness here in the dissertation.

While nationness, race, nation, and identity are central themes explored here in the
dissertation, it is through discourses -- what people say, what is expressed, and what is
written and recorded - that provides the context of the research. This dissertation offers
a conceptual framework for understanding Dominicanness - which I define as the “sense”
of being Dominican in national and racial terms -- over time and space. The data reveal
prevalent ideas surrounding race “mixture” in the formation of nation in the Dominican
Republic. Importantly, mixture is a point of entry linking race, color, and nation in the

articulation of Dominicanness, in similar yet competing ways. These competing

articulations find expression in discourses -- any thoughts/ideas, beliefs, words, and/or
actions that have been/are expressed with regard to being Dominican. The discourses
illuminate the changing importance of ancestry, history, place, and color as categories
change and people make new claims about “who they are.”

I define five discourses -- Gente de Color, Hispanidad, Mestizaje, Mulutaje, and
Africanidad - and assess how the nation defines itself during different sociohistorical
periods by asking the following questions: 1) What are the current racial and color
views/concepts, and why have they emerged? 2) How are racial and national identities
defined and articulated within the racial discourse? 3) How are people defined by the state
and how do they define themselves? and 4) What is the status of transnational migration
to and from the Dominican Republic in terms of actual migration, ideas and relocalization?
In the final analysis, I examine how Dominicanness has been reconfigured, how it
articulates mixture, while offering a different way of conceptualizing such mixture
(African/Black - European/White) in Latin America and the Hispanic Caribbean by way

of Mulutaje.

To

DEDICATION

David, my husband and colleague,

Asha and Aria, our daughters,

my parents, Wilson and Ludia Eison,

my sister, Kamika, and my extended family

for all of your endless love, support, and encouragement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are a number of special people I would like to thank for helping to make
this research and dissertation possible. I am especially grateful and indebted to my major
professor, Dr. Scott Whiteford, for guidance, support, encouragement, and feedback
throughout my doctoral program and dissertation research. I want to express my
gratitude to the members of my doctoral guidance committee, Drs. Laurie Kroshus
Medina, Ann Millard, Judy Pugh, and Ruth Simms Hamilton, for their overall support
and time spent with me discussing ideas related to my research. All of your time and
assistance throughout this process has been much appreciated.

Words cannot express my gratitude to David, my husband and colleague, for
companionship, inspiration, and support. As special word of thanks is reserved for our
wonderful daughters, Asha and Aria, for opening up a new world to me; my parents,
Wilson and Ludia Eison, for believing in education and the pursuit of knowledge and for
instilling these values in me; my sister, Kamika and her family; as well as my in-laws and
extended family for moral support, prayers, and encouragement throughout my graduate
program. For all that you have done to support me over the years, I want to convey my
sincere appreciation.

Thanks to the faculty and staff in the Department of Anthropology, especially to
Gail, Nancy, and Dr. Lynne Goldstein. Thanks to the staff in the African Diaspora
Research Project (ADRP), especially to Dr. Ruth Hamilton, Joan, and Gloria. A special

word of thanks is reserved for my fellow student colleagues in the Department of

Anthropology, ADRP, the Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA) and the Afi'ican
- Latino/a - Asian - Native American (ALANA) group at Michigan State University for
the exchange of ideas and friendship. I would like to especially thank Noel, Eduardo,
Raymond, Shu-yao, Vera, and Luiza.

Also, this on-going dissertation research would not have been possible without
funding. I wish to acknowledge the following funding sources: Minority Competitive
Doctoral Fellowship (MCDF), Summer Acceleration Research Fellowship, Social Science
Research Council (SSRC) Summer Workshop and Fellowship for International Migration,
and the Martin Luther King - Cesar Chavez - Rosa Parks (KCP) Future Faculty
Fellowship. A special word of thanks is reserved for Drs. Maxie Jackson, Dozier
Thornton, Dorothy Harper Jones, Evette Chavez, and Karen Klomparens, and their
assistants, in conjunction with funding and ongoing support.

Importantly, this dissertation would not have been possible without the kind help
of a number of people in the Dominican Republic assisting with contacts, transportation,
housing, childcare, and other research arrangements. A special word of thanks is reserved
for them for helping to make the goal of dissertation research a reality by sharing their
experiences and a part of themselves with me. I would especially like to thank all of the
participants and following individuals, families, and institutions: Carmen “Lilly”
Gonzalez and family (Holly, Lilibeth, Laura, and Melba) for years of assistance,
fi‘iendship and extended family; The Bisono Family (Nancy, Dionisio, Dionisio Alberto,
and Leonardo Bisono) for their hospitality and cultural consulting during 1998; Cesar

Franco, Rosa, and the staff at the Archivo Histérico de Santiago; Ochy, Wendy,

Benvienda at ldentidad; the staff at CIPAF; Clara and the staff at the Junta Central
Electoral in Santiago; Ana Rosa and Margarita at the Altagracia Church; the staff of
Coordinadora de Cibao; the staff at the Nucleo de Apoyo a la Mujer; the VeraS-Pola
family, Mariana Moreno; Bruni Fernandez and family; Janet F emandez; my colleagues at
PUCIvflvi in Applied Linguists and Spanish for Foreigners; my colleagues at the Council
on International Educational Exchange (CIEE) in Santiago and New York; and Blas,
Chiqui, Ligia Duarte, and everyone who participated in the dissertation research. Thank
you for sharing your experiences and a part of yourselves with me and for extending a

hand of hospitality and fi'iendship, helping to make this dissertation possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

I.

II.

III.

Introduction
Research Statement and Overview
Nationness and Mixedness
Why an Anthropological Focus on Race?
My “Identity” in the Field
Dissertation Structure

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Race and Nation
Nationness in Latin America and the Caribbean
Identity Construction
Mestizaje
Mixture, Status, and Peoplehood in the Americas
Venezuela
Belize
Ecuador
Puerto Rico
Nationness, Race and Nation in the Dominican Republic:
Exploring Dominicanness
Arguments in the Dissertation Related to the Dominican Republic

Research Site, Methodology and Procedures
The Caribbean as a Culture Area Within Anthropology
Caribbean as Open Frontier
Afro-American Anthropology
A Caribbean Research Site: Santiago de los Caballeros,
Dominican Republic
The Research Setting in Santiago
Demographic Information
Painting a Transnational Portrait
Research Procedures
Participant Observation
Structured Interviews
Informal Interviews
Focus Groups
Archival Data
Data Analysis
Data Presented in the Dissertation

quay—o

42
43

45
45
45
46

49
52
52
53
55
56
58
59
59
61
61
62

VI.

VII.

Historical Construction of Dominicanness (1900-1930): Gente de Color
Gente de Color (People of Color): The “Colored” Discourse (1900-1930)
Racial Views and Concepts
Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and National
Identities
Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories
Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

Hispanidad Discourse (1930-1961): Rafael Leonidas Trujillo and
the Shift away from de Color
Racial Views and Concepts
Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and
National Identities
Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories
Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization
Three Memos

Mestizaje: The Dominant Contemporary Discourse Surrounding Race
and Racial Identity in the Dominican Republic (1961-1989)
Racial Views and Concepts
Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and
National Identities

Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories
Interview with Celia
The Cedulazation Process
Interviews

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

Mulutaje and Africanidad: Emerging Discourses Surrounding Race,
Racial Experiences and Ancestry in the Dominican Republic
(1989 - Present)

A. Mulutaje
Racial Views and Concepts
Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial
and National Identities
Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories
Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

B. Africanidad
Racial Views and Concepts

Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial
and National Identities

ix

64
65
65

67
67
78

80
80

84
88
106
112

127
128

130
139
141
146
156
168

175

175
176
181
187

I92
193

193

Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories
La Casa por la Identidad de la Mujer Afro (Identidad)

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

VIII. Conclusion
Dominicanness, Race and Nation
Racial and National Identities in the Dominican Republic
on the 'Ground'
Endnotes
Appendix A Interview Schedule
Appendix B Informal Interview Schedule

List of References

196
196
205

212

213

217

223

231

237

239

Table I

Table II

Table III

Table IV

Table V

Table VI

Table VI]

Table VH1

Table IX

Table X

Table XI

Table XII

Table XIII

Table XIV

Table XV

Table XVI

Table XVII

Table XVIII

Table XIX

LIST OF TABLES

Santiago Population Census by Gender, 1903
1916 Santiago Census Santiago de los Caballeros

Nationality of Resident Foreigners in the City of Santiago
de los Caballeros in 1916

Nationalities in Santiago, 1903 and 1916

Race in the First National Census, 1920

Race According To Province, 1920

Religion According to Province, 1920

Nationalities, 1920

National Population Census May 13, 1935

Foreigners (All Races) by Province, 1935

Dominicans: Racial Categories, 1935

Foreigners: Racial Categories, 1935

Color of the Dominican Population, 1950 Census
Race and Color of the Dominican Population, 1935 Census
Race and Color in Comparison, 1935 and 1950 Census

Race and Color of the Dominican Population, by Gender in
Comparison, 1935 and 1950 Census

Nationality, 1950 Census
Nationality by Comparison, 1920 and 1950 Census

Religion, 1935 and 1950 Census

68

69

70

72

73

74

75

77

89

90

91

92

95

96

97

99

101

103

104

Table XX First Language, 1950 Census 105

Table XXI Ce’dula Color Categories 155

xii

I. Introduction

Research Statement and Overview

This dissertation maps the process of nationness -- a sense of national belonging --
which finds expression in discourses involving ideas of race and color in the construction
of a “mixed-race” identity. How is this type of nationness created? How is mixedness
articulated? What is the relationship between structure and agency in this process? What
is the outcome in terms of the categories in circulation to define people? How do people
define themselves? How does this change over time and space? What is accepted,
negotiated, and rejected and under what circumstances? All of these inter-related
questions facilitate the mapping of nationness here in the dissertation.

While nationness, race, nation, and identity are central themes explored here in the
dissertation, it is through discourses -- what people say, what is expressed, and what is
written and recorded -- that provides the context of the research. This is to say that I am
not grappling with ideas of race, nation, and identity per se as much as how they are used
in the construction and configuration of nationness, and I use discourses as a point of
entry. Race, nation, and identity are not concepts that stand alone. This is to say that
they always, and perhaps only, find articulation in relation to other ideas, peoples, and
places. Thus migration and transnationalism play a part in either introducing, reinforcing,

or challenging existing ideas about nationness.

What does the migration of people and goods, of ideas and information, between
and across national borders reveal, and simultaneously conceal, about the nature of the
relationships between nation, race, and identity? This question has become central as the
nation has emerged as a central analytic focus due to the massive movement of people
across borders and as nations struggle to (re)imagine themselves in the face of such
migrations, particularly where certain immigrants are viewed with suspicion and
contempt.

In the social science literature, it is assumed as people move across national
boundaries they leave and enter places with different histories and racial, ethnic, and
national systems that shape identities (Basch et. al 1994). Given this type of movement
across racial systems, racial identities may change since racial and national identities are
mediated by time, place, and space. One of the major thrusts of my research was to find
out if racial identities change in the sending country as a result of ideas in motion about
racial systems. In this vein, I questioned the assumption that national and racial systems
are self-contained in an era of heightened levels of bipolar migration and new forms of
communication. So, I sought to examine the mutual influencing relationship between
systems, and among actors, focusing on the sending country, with a primary receiving
country as a backdrOp.

Underpinning the theoretical assertions expressed here is an implicit assumption
about the nature of identities; namely that they are not static or bounded, but rather are
socially and historically contextualized constructs that give meaning to interpersonal and

translocal systems of power (Kahn 2001). My research shows that new forms of

identity can and do emerge not only in the host county as we know, but also in the
sending country, having an impact not only on how actors define themselves but also on
how the state defines its “members” in racial and national terms. This leads to the

configuration of nationness.

Nationness and Mixedness

In introductory anthropology classes, students often learn that people are
products of their environments in terms of their cultural practices, religious expressions,
and ways of defining themselves. Being a “product of a particular environment” suggests
that there are forces at play that seek to shape the ideas and actions of people and that
people themselves are interacting with these force. Becoming a product is a process
involving place-specific histories and social relationships over time within different
environments (e.g. family, school, church, etc.). This is to say that people come to have a
sense of “who they are” based on different sets of relationships in different environments.

In particular, I examine the emergence of nationness in terms of “mixedness” in the
case of the Dominican Republic and show that despite waves of immigration to the
Dominican Republic, efforts were made to describe the majority of the population in
mixed-race terms that continue today. To capture the essence of nationness, and in this
case, Dominicanness, I use the idea of discomse in order to frame the idea and usage of
mixedness. Discourses contain ideas of race and nation -- often defining Dominicanness in

the newspapers, in conversations, in textbooks, in speeches, etc.

Specifically, I focus on how Dominicans (in the Dominican Republic) configure
their racial identities and have configured them over time. I examine how the Dominican
state has defined Dominicans and Dominicanness, ' and how Dominicans, in turn, have
defined themselves in relation to the state, each other and the United States. I underscore
the relationship between race and nation, and structure and agency, in an attempt to
examine the “relocalization” (Long 1996) of socioracial2 identities due to transnational
forces. 1 also examine the impact that transnational migration and other transnational
projects (e.g. cable television, print media, and music, etc.) have on ideas of race in the
Dominican Republic with respect to newly created categories and ways of describing
“mixture” and Dominicanidad (Dominicanness). What emerges is a complex and
sometimes contradictory labeling system with layers of meaning all contained within the
competing discourses outlined here in the dissertation.

It is important to mention here that my point of entry was, and is, the ongoing
construction and configuration of racial identities in the Dominican Republic, within
historical and contemporary socio-cultural contexts, not transnational migration per se.3
Nonetheless, such transnational migration experiences serve as a backdrop to explore how
discom'ses have been created to address 1) how particular identities may change outside
the Dominican Republic, and moreover, 2) the impact that such experiences have on
“local” constructions and conceptions of racial and national identities in the Dominican
Republic.

My data suggest that experiences in the United States, with respect to the US.

racial system and its racial categories, are conveyed to relatives in the Dominican Republic

(e.g. through telephone conversations, television, and print media). In other words, like
remittances, ideas about race are in transit, having an impact on “local” people’s
conceptions of themselves, one another, and the wider world.

In this vein, this dissertation offers a conceptual framework for understanding
Dominicanness -- which I define as the “sense” of being Dominican in national and racial
terms -- over time and space.4 Until now, such a framework has not been proposed in
social science literature. The conceptual fiamework stems from the data - I moved from
the data “up” to some of the larger conceptual and theoretical ideas and assertions. At the
heart of the data are prevalent ideas surrounding race “mixture” in the formation of nation
in the Dominican Republic. Importantly, mixture is a point of entry linking race, color,
and nation in the articulation of Dominicanness, in similar yet competing ways. 5 These
competing articulations find expression in discourses - any thoughts/ideas, beliefs,
words, and/or actions that have been/are expressed with regard to being Dominican. The
discourses illuminate the changing importance of ancestry, history, place, and color as
categories change and people make new claims about “who they are.”

Based on my data analysis, I have created and named discourses that represent
different periods -- all of the discourses define Dominicanness and contain ideas about
race, nation, and mixture.6 The discourses are presented and defined based on
ethnographic and archival research in Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic.7
Gente dc Color (People of Color) and Hispanidad (Spanishness) are historical discomses
which serve as the backdrop for the ideological construction period when ideas of race and

nation were furnly planted from 1900-1961 (see below). The three contemporary

discourses, Mestizaje,8 Mulutaje, 9 and Afiicanidad, '0 follow the historical discourses and
detail how, and for what reasons, views of race and nation are changing.

Mestizaje has emerged within a “generational”11 “mixed-race” discourse, with
indio12 as its primary race/color13 category, and is coterrninous with the historical
discourse of Hispanidad. Mulutaje and Africanidad developed as “corrective” and
oppositional discourses and often overlap in their articulation and categories.
Conceptually, however, Mulutaje developed as a result of increased transnational
migration of Dominicans and their racialized experiences in the United States - mulato/a
(mulatto) is its primary race/color category. Similarly, Africanidad developed due to
increased transnational migration in combination with a “conscious” acceptance and
articulation of African ancestry and alliances with other peoples of African “descent”—-
Afi'o-Dominicano/a (Afro-Dominican) is its primary race/color category. This suggests
that indio, mulato/a, and Afro-Dominican are competing racial/color identities in the
Dominican Republic and are in circulation because of agentive forces -- increased
migration, reflection, new forms of communication, and organization -- that call into
question historical views and concepts of Dominicarmess.

Each of the racial discourses is framed with references to ideas of race and nation
and their interrelationship in the co-construction of racial/color identities especially in the
construction of being a “mixed race people.”l4 Thus, the larger anthropological, or social
science issue, addresses the ways in which racial and color identities are then linked to
nation during a time when there is increased migration across national borders and new

forms of communication between people across borders. How are racial identities

redefined in the nation when people emigrate? How are they redefined when people
immigrate and reside within its borders? What is the changing significance of nationness
then over time and space, along the lines of race and color, and what contributes to this
change?

In order to answer these broader questions, I examine the historical and
contemporary situation in the Dominican Republic along these same lines. In each of the
five discourses mentioned above, I ask the following questions to assess how the nation
defines itself during different sociohistorical periods”: 1) What are the current racial and
color views/concepts, and why have they emerged? 2) How are racial and national
identities defined and articulated within the racial discourse? 3) How are people defined
by the state and how do they define themselves? and 4) What is the status of
transnational migration to and from the Dominican Republic in terms of actual migration,
ideas and relocalization? In the final analysis, I examine the changing nature of these racial

discourses and their confluence with a national imaginary.

Why an Anthropological Focus on Race?

In the April (1997) issue of the Anthropology Newsletter, race is raised as a topic
of importance on the front page. In an effort to discuss race throughout the discipline, the
editor is encouraging submissions for the upcoming academic year. Given the various
definitions of race used by multicultural educators, journalists, and others, the editor is

asking for the voices of anthropologists, who could bring their knowledge and expertise to

a variety of topics such as the implementation of a multiracial category on the US.
Census in the year 2000, the racial labeling of remains during forensic cases, and the
relationship between social race and racism, etc. At the end of the article, the editor
claims that the discipline, as a whole, is ambivalent towards race, thus explaining the
“silence” not only in terms of the literature but also in public discourse surrounding issues
of race.

This silence is also reflected in anthropology departments around the country
with regard to the canon. When the findings from the recent survey of anthropology
departments were published, race was not mentioned as a topic to be explored as we enter
the let century, ethnicity was.l6 Thus, I feel the need to address my interest in race
given the recent debates surrounding race vs. ethnicity in the discipline.

By way of review, anthropologists have long been interested in human diversity
(biological, cultural, and material) on a global scale (Baker and Patterson 1994; Harrison
1995; Blakey 1987; McKee 1993). At the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists made
assumptions about race and racial groups as being biological, and the idea of race was used
in anthropological theory and research.17 Anthropologists stood firmly on the foundation
that early biological scientists and evolutionists had created about race (Baker 1998).

Along these same lines, ideas had emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries about
biological races which led (either consciously or unconsciously) to the justification of
slavery, expansion, and colonization by those who exercised power over Others they
sought to enslave and colonize. In fact, the making of the modern world cannot be fully

explained without discussing the practice and application of ideas of biological race, with

regard to the various plantation economies that depended on such distinctions for division
of labor, and its relationship to the subsequent racial hierarchies and racial structures that
emerged in the New World. In other words, race became more salient during slavery
throughout the Americas (Smedley 1993).
At end of the 20th century, and looking back in retrospect, we see that race was
central to the founding of anthropology at the turn of the 20th century (Harrison 1995;
Blakey 1987):
The relationship between the anthropological discourse on race and the prevailing
racial construct has been close and often reciprocal. The processes that construct
race have also helped to shape the field of anthr0pology; anthropology, in turn,
has helped to shape various racial constructs. The social context from which tum-
of-the-century constructs of race emerged -- industrialization, poll taxes, public
lynchings, unsafe working conditions, and Jim Crow segregation -- at the same
time gave rise to a professional anthropology that espoused racial inferiority and,
as a consequence, supported and validated the status quo (Baker 1998: 3).
Race was based on ideas of biological difference and was viewed as natural. However, as
mentioned above, anthropologists have recently become ambivalent towards race and
“silent” not only in terms of the literature but also in public discourse surrounding racial
tOpics.l8 Clearly, there has been a paradigm Shift during this century to replace race with
ethnicity; the implication is that they are the same (or represent the same ideas) and that
the processes of racial and ethnic formation follow the same trajectories. While some
anthropologists of color continue to advance ideas about the importance of race (Harrison
1995; Blakey 1994, 1987; Baker and Patterson 1994; Gregory 1994), the discipline as a
whole has embraced ideas of ethnicity (e.g. Eriksen 1993) as a way of describing cultmal

differences and group afiiliation. ‘9

For the purposes of the dissertation, I define race as a relational20 sociocultural
construct based on ideas of biological differences of both individuals and groups involving
power, access to resources, and labeling practices within social and historical contexts. It
is my position that, as a concept, race is not only necessary to examine the ways in which
people have come to define themselves individually and collectively, but also in terms of
understanding the past, inequality and differential access to resources, representation, and
power relationships. While race still tends to encompass ideas of biological difference
(e.g. skin color, hair texture, etc.), it also relates to people’s everyday lives in terms of
how others see them, how they see themselves, and the positive/negative experiences
they have based on this perceived difference (e. g. racial profiling, occupational
discrimination, etc.). In this way, people are socially marked - in positive, negative, and
neutral ways -- because of their different phenotypic characteristics. In other words,
phenotypic differences have a social reality - from the creation of categories describing
certain mixtures, to structural inequality and unequal access, to information and resources.

While individuals and groups are socially marked and have different social realities,
the recognition of such differences by the actors themselves often varies. In other words,
those who are racially marked and named often “know” it because of the social realities
they face as a result of such naming, whereas those who mark and name others do not
always see themselves as being “raced” because of their vantagepoint. Frankenberg
(1993), provides an example of this in her book on the social construction of whiteness
when she reveals that Whites often don’t see themselves as being raced; other people are

raced.21 She illustrates how race has shaped the lives of women in her sample in terms of

10

their social geography (e.g. neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc.) She provides an
example of racial boundary maintenance when a White woman goes to a Black neighbor’s
house and does not sit down or does not drink from a Black person’s glass. One point
she raises in the book is that race shapes White women’s lives and that whiteness is a
position of structural advantage and a standpoint from which Whites view themselves and
Others.

In the same way then, Black, White, mulato, negro, and indio are all different
vantagepoints and positions of relative advantage and disadvantage at different points in
time Moreover, these represent different standpoints from which there are varying
worldviews and experiences. Such differences are rooted in historical processes and
circumstances, sometimes not directly involving the present-day actors. The
relationships, categories, and distribution of wealth and resources, have their roots in
long-standing ideas and interactions between actors who have preceded us in time (c. g.
grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.). It is in this vein that I explore how ideas of
Dominicanness emerged along with ideas of race and nation and how identities were
constructed and articulated over time, in a homogenizing manner, leveling out differences

in the Dominican Republic while simultaneously erasing similarities with Haiti.

My “Identity” in the Field22
The relative advantages and disadvantages of particular identities were more than
academic or theoretical interests of mine. Indeed, how people in the field defined and

identified me came to shape not only my research but who I understood myself to be on a

ll

daily basis in a context that was so similar, and yet so different, than the one I came from
in the United States. Therefore, before introducing the theoretical and conceptual ideas
that frame the dissertation, I find it necessary to position myself and describe my
experiences in the field as an Afi-ican American woman and the ways in which I was

defined by subjects:

My greatest personal benefit came from a sense of belonging, a sense of place.
People often insisted that I must have a Belizean ancestor somewhere in my past;
when I denied this, they settled upon the idea that our ancestors must have come
from the same area in Africa but ended up on ships with different destinations.
Most ethnographers yearn for some degree of acceptance by those they study.
Like them I too had hoped to become well regarded by my consultants, but I
experienced more. I found an extension of solidarity based on color, common
roots of oppression, and often gender (McClaurin 1996:16).
The experience that Irma McClaurin describes here is very similar to my own experience
in the Dominican Republic where I found myself being absorbed into the collective
Dominican body, often being referred to in terms that Dominicans use to describe
themselves such as la clarita or india clara (light-skinned). Such terms stand in stark
contrast to the terms typically used to describe Americans of European descent --
gringo/a or Norte Americana/a (North American) -- terms which automatically mark
them as outsiders. To me these terms -Ia clarita, india clara- signify an acceptance of my
phenotypic similarity which, for many Dominicans, means that I have to be Dominican.

Irnportanfly, these words are used by Dominicans in reference to Dominicans and, among

other things, serve to reinscribe who a Dominican is and what they look like. Such terms

12

are seldom, if ever, used to describe White Americans, and this labeling process has
important implications for the degree of access to Dominicans’ inner lives.

My incorporation into Dominican society was neither seamless nor complete, of
course, and my experiences speak to the complexity of Dominicans’ notions of
themselves. Because of my U.S.-Spanish accent, for example, people usually asked me if
I was de aqui a de alld “ fiom here or final there” (meaning the United States).23 The
construction of here and there is a way of conceptualizing a Dominican diaspora and
relationships between Dominicans on the island and Dominicans in the United States.
This construction may also be viewed as a narrative of authenticity, of who is Dominican
and who is a Dominican.24 Often Dominicans born alld are thought of as less Dominican,
and this had important implications for me.

Because I was viewed as being a Dominican from “there” - the US. was a place
known locally for its racist practices - many Dominicans who had never traveled there
would ask me about my experiences as a Dominican woman with racism. Consequently,
and interestingly, during the research experience, I realized that there was a mutual
positioning taking place -- l was positioning Dominicans within the context of the
“African Diaspora” while they were positioning me within a “Dominican Diaspora” -
recognizing both similarities and differences. Thus, while I was an Afi'ican American
woman in the field, I also became and accepted india clara and mulata identities in the
Dominican Republic as this is how others defined me in like-relation to themselves.25 The
next chapter illustrates how I collected data and shows which data are presented here in

the dissertation supporting the main arguments.

13

Dissertation Structure

The dissertation is divided into eight chapters. Both archival and ethnographic
data will be presented throughout the dissertation in order to illustrate how these
discourses have been shaped and how the relationship between race and nation actually
worked in sync to shape identities over time. Following this introductory chapter, I link
the research to larger theoretical issues involving the relationship between race and nation
and the co—construction of racial and national identities within the realm of nationness.
The chapter on methodology and procedures follows the theoretical chapter and outlines
how the research site was selected along with background information about Santiago and
the Dominican Republic, as well as stressing the methods that were used to collect data.

The rest of the dissertation analyzes the different racial discourses beginning with
the historical chapter which sets the stage to further explore the three contemporary
discourses in the context of race and nation. The chapters, Historical Construction of
Dominicanness (Gente de Color) and Hispanidad (Spanishness), contain relevant archival
and census data and indicate that Dominicanness encompasses ideas of mixture and long-
standing generational history in the Dominican Republic - Catholicism and Spanish
language are also tied into Dominicanness where ideas of mixture are expressed. These
historical chapters are then followed by two chapters exploring the contemporary
competing discourses surrounding Dominicanness (Mestizaje, Mulutaje and Africanidad)

using ethnographic and archival data.

14

Chapter eight, the final chapter, is the conclusion and pays particular attention to
the complexities presented in the previous chapters and offers an overall summary and
analysis. In the end, I offer another concept to consider mixture in Latin America and the
Hispanic Caribbean - Mulutaje - as a more historically “accurate” way of describing
African/Black and European/White mixtme that we find in the Dominican Republic, for
example. This would serve as a parallel concept to Mestizaje. Mulutaje offers a way to
conceptualize mixture in the Dominican Republic in a way that Mestizaje cannot.
Mulutaje gives meaning to mulato within particular historical and social contexts. If
mestizo is the primary category within Mestizaje, then mulato is the primary category
within Mulutaje. In the case of the Dominican Republic and other countries with similar
histories with people of African descent, Mulutaje takes that history and experience into

account.

15

11. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

How to analytically capture and classify the very complex mixtures of peoples in
the Americas has long challenged scholars. This becomes more complicated when there
are different types of mixtures involved and competing claims about who people are.
How do scholars classify mixture in a particular place? How do particular governments
(the state) classify people? How do people classify themselves? And finally, how do
we, as researchers and scholars, address all of these complimentary and sometimes
competing classifications of people? This is the task at hand.

My research yields one thing in common -- that scholars, the state, and people
themselves agree on one thing - that they are “mixed.” Scholars have at times defined
Dominicans as mulato; the Dominican state has defined the majority of the population as
mestizo; and Dominicans, most often, use the term indio to define themselves.
Throughout the research, the most commonly expressed statement was “we are a mixed
people.” So, I begin with the idea of mixture, of being mixed race. This means that race is
a part of the equation -- the belief in distinct biological groups -- making the idea of
“mixed race” possible.

Five discourses fiame the dissertation -— Gente de Color, Hispanidad, Mestizaje,
Mulutaje, and Africanidad -- as a way of examining what people say about themselves,
how the state writes about and records such information, and what is expressed in
television and print media about Dominicanness and mixedness. In this way, discourse

captures how people see themselves, what they know, and what they and others say

16

about them (Foucault 1979). From this vantagepoint, within the context of discourses,
ideas of race, nation, and identity are all expressed. What comes together here in the
discourses is how mixed race is tied to being and feeling Dominican - bringing together
racial and national identities. Again, what I offer in the end, is a concept that
reconceptualizing race mixture in Latin America and the Hispanic Caribbean - the concept

of Mulutaje.

Race and Nation

To talk about nation, therefore, is to talk about race. We are coming to understand
that concepts of nation and race can be usefully understood to be two poles of a
single historical discourse. If at its core the concept of nation is oppositional and
hierarchical, the nation stands in opposition to those defined as biologically
different only by envisioning the nation as composed of those who are biologically
similar (Basch, Schiller and Blane l994:3 7).

World history has, arguably, been racialized at least since the rise of the modern
world system; racial hierarchy remains global even in the postcolonial present; and
popular concepts of race, however variegated, remain in general everyday use
almost everywhere. Thus, any effective sociological theory of race seems to
require, at a minimmn, comparative historical and political components, some sort
of sociology of culture or knowledge, and an adequate microsociological account
(Winant 2000: 170).

The 20th century represents a period of many transitions and shifts in which race
and nation” have become more salient not only in the United States but in other countries
as well.27 There have been Significant movements of ideas and people -- internal, regional,

and international migration -- especially during the turn of the century as people crossed

l7

borders in large numbers and entered new territories (Appadurai 1991, 1990; Basch et al
1994; Gilroy 1993; Kearney 1995; Long 1996). As a result of such peopled movements,
nations have had to redefine themselves in terms of membership (e.g. citizenship),
national belonging, and race -- in this way, the nation becomes analogous to the “people”
of that territory (Wallerstein 1991).

I suggest here in the dissertation that the nation emerges as an important concern
in the 20th century due to the massive movement of people across borders as it weds
people in the formation of race and nation and co-constructs racial and national identities
in the process of defining “nationness” (Medina 1997; Williams 1989). In other words,
nationness is expressed along racial and national terms as lines are drawn and distinctions
are made about a sense of belonging to a particular place or community within or across
borders as research on transnational migration suggests (Duany 1996, 1994; Oboler 1995;
Foster 1991; Georges 1991; Gold 1996; Grasmuck and Pessar 1991; Kearney 1995; and
Basch et a1 1994). In either way, a sense of belonging is established within or across
borders.

Transnationalism may suggest a type of “in-betweenness” in that actors are
between places and have competing responsibilities in different places. This in-
betweenness also translates into competing, or at least multiple, identities people
(re)cross borders and (re)define themselves (and are defined) in new ways. As Oboler
(1995) suggests, state imposed classifications of immigrants to the United States often
conflict with self and group definitions. She asserts that the ethnic designator “Hispanic”

is often rejected by those who are classified as such for governmental purposes. The term

18

“Hispanic” was created after 1970 (after Puerto Ricans and Mexicans had already
established their presence in the United States as “Puerto Ricans” and “Mexicans”). As
immigration from Latin American countries increased, the United States found it
necessary to classify this “group” of people. All of a sudden there was a flattening out of
national differences in an effort to homogenize people from Latin America and the
Spanish-speaking Caribbean.

While “Hispanic” as a category was (and is) contested, and while country of
origin, “Latino/a” or other identity labels are preferred, Oboler suggests that actors use the
“Hispanic” category in order to have access to state resources (e.g. housing, education,
etc.). In this case, we see that actors position and define themselves due to varied social
and economic circumstances.

Austerlitz (1997) provides another example of the nation in a transnational sense
with respect to the transnational identity of Dominicans in New York City. One way in
which a “Dominican” identity is articulated in New York is through the merengue (the
national dance in Dominican Republic). The majority of Dominicans in the United States
live in the Washington Heights section of New York. Given this clustering, Dominicans
have long been defined as a transnational community (Austerlitz 1997; Grasmuck and
Pessar 1991; Hendricks 1974). The statement “more ‘Dominican’ than Dominicans on
the island” emerges fi'om the literature as a way to describe the actions and practices of
Dominicans in the United States (e.g. Dominican foods, music, dance, dress, etc.).
Austerlitz illustrates how Dominicans use their social and cultural capital to (re)create

spaces for identity “expression” in New York.

19

Whether nations are viewed as bounded or unbounded in not the main issue here
because regardless of whether people are “within” borders or across borders, there are
articulations of being a member of a community -- a community with certain “shared”
characteristics. In other words, people define themselves and are defined as belonging (or
not belonging) to a particular community across geographical spaces. In this way, the
unbounded or bounded nation is “imagined” as Anderson (1991 :6) posits in that “the
members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet
them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”
If this is the case, there have to be means of communicating or expressing this communion
on a larger scale (e.g. national anthems, pledge of allegiance, holidays and other days of
national reflection and remembrance, etc.). One of the ways that such ideas are
communicated is through very public and ongoing discourses which can articulate the
relationship between race and nation is a webbed one, linking biology, “culture,” and
peoplehood.

In this way, the imagined nation is simultaneously defined in racial terms in
defining the nation. As Medina (1997) notes, “in linking territory with a sense of
peoplehood, nationalist projects28 homogenize difference by defining shared
characteristics which mark the persons who inhabit that territory as the same “kind” of
people (Medina 1997: 760). This suggests that when differences exist, they are actually
homogenized in the formation of nationness and peoplehood. Foster (1991) asserts this
type of homogenization takes place in the form of historical memory and the creation of a

“we” as products and achievements of history.

20

I agree here inasmuch as homogenization takes place to create common history,
like people and characteristics, however, it also appears that homogenization only
encompasses certain “traits,” histories, and “types” of people in the formation of
peoplehood. Consequently, with the increased movement of people across borders, we
find the articulation of a homogenized “we” in relation to a not-yet homogenized
“they.” 29 As mentioned above, as groups enter new territories, they often find
themselves defined in new ways or attention given to their “place” of origin. The politics
of naming is important as the nation redefines itself and as well as the people who enter
and reside in its borders and identifies and labels the “friends” and “strangers” (Simmel
1950).

Brackette Williams (1989) examines the naming process and asserts that the
dominant group always starts with itself and names everyone else from their
vantagepoint. For example, in the United States, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (the
dominant group) names racial and ethnic groups in relation to themselves (the normative
group which is both unnamed and unmarked). In this way then, the dominant group has
the charge of homogenizing the nation and labeling Others. This is what happened in the
United States and also in the Dominican Republic where a “light-skinned” elite named
others in relation to themselves.

Ong (1996) Offers another example. She posits that immigrants undergo either a
whitening or blackening process when entering the United States and are treated
differently based on their human capital (money, education, etc.) and social capital

(family and other networks). To illustrate this, she uses the example of Asian refugees

21

and wealthy Chinese immigrants. Whereas the refugees were subjected to the
“blackening” process, the wealthy Chinese immigrants were “whitened” due to their
resources, education, and networks; in this way, they were not a “liability” like the
refugees. The whitening and blackening process also points to social class and the status
that immigrants are assigned based on their capital. In a similar way, in the Dominican
Republic, Haitian immigrants are subjected to the blackening process while European
immigrants are subjected to the whitening process.

This discussion is not to suggest that nation, or that the idea of the nation, is not
contested by the actors themselves because there can be competing notions of nation.
However, this discussion does suggest that while competing notions may exist, and while
the ideas may be contested, that there are often forces in operation (e. g. the state)30
seeking to create and define what the nation is. In so doing, the state can, through
unifying methods (anthems, pledges of allegiance) create one idea of the nation that
permeates society in schools and other institutions.

Returning to race, both Williams and Ong highlight the importance of race and a
positioning that results fi'om a recognition of difference. Social class and gender interact
with race in this process of marking difference. As Higginbotham (1992) states “[l]ike
gender and class, then, race must be seen as a social construction predicated upon the
recognition of difference and signifying the simultaneous distinguishing and positioning of
groups viS-a-vis one another. More than this, race is a highly contested representation of

relations of power between social categories by which individuals are identified and

identify themselves” (253).31 Without doubt, there is a relationship between race and

22

social class in the above examples that show that some groups are first “raced” then
“classed” while others are “classed” then “raced.” I assert that one has to enter at a
particular point, however, in order to make sense of such experiences and to see how
these inequalities are related.

I enter at the point of race in the dissertation to illustrate what the discourses
reveal about race (an in some cases, social class and gender as these are also integral parts
of a person’s lived experiences). It is not my intention, however, to rank systems of
inequality such as race, gender, and class because they are all important -- I emphasize the
importance of race along with other anthropologists who believe, because of history and
social realities, that we need to reconsider race and the ideas that have shaped categories
and lived circumstances. I also examine the anthropology of race in that race has been
constructed differently in various parts of the world based on history, social
circmnstances, relationships of power and the people who define and create categories.

The United States is a backdrop in the dissertation as I present some of ways in
which ideas of race in the United States are expressed in the Dominican Republic through
cable television, print media, letters, etc. In comparison, the racial system in the United
States has a different history than that of the Dominican Republic. In the United States,
the idea of race is often viewed as a bi-polar racial construct in its definition and
articulation (Davis 1991; Smedley 1993). Omi and Winant (1994) suggest that “[racial
formation is] the sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited,
transformed, and destroyed (55).” This of course, is tied to historical events over time

linking Blacks and Whites in the United States in a particular way, in a particular

23

relationship of power and resources (e.g. slavery, segregation, Civil Rights Movement,
etc.).

This type of formation relates to the discussion of homogenization and
imagination in that despite the presence and struggles of other groups in the United
States, racial dynamics and identities are often homogenized and imagined as Black and
White. Latinos in the United States often find themselves homogenized as “Hispanic”
(Oboler 1995) and outside of the Black - White discourse on race. Although with more
Afro-Latinos entering the United States, namely Dominicans, who are simultaneously
defined as both Black and Latino, Afi'o-Latinos enter the bi-polar discourse on race in the
United States (Torres-Saillant and Hernandez 1998). In contrast, in the Caribbean, it has
been argued, race is more fluid and not as rigid as we find in the United States (Rodriguez
1994; Safa 1998; Martinez-Echazabal 1998). However, as we will see among the

complexities, while there are some differences, there are also similarities.

Nationness in Latin America and the Caribbean

The idea of nationness, a type of national belonging, that links people with a
particular history, “culture,” identity, and practice is changing in Latin America and the
Caribbean due to transnational forces that serve as an impetus for new ideas, increased
flow of people, technology, goods, and new forms of identities and alliances. In
particular, the ways in which people are defined and define themselves are changing.

Throughout the Americas, various categories were created during colonization to describe

24

——-—

 

the “newness” as a result of mixtures between European colonizers, enslaved Afiicans,
and indigenous peoples (among others). This idea of mixture is a long-standing one and is
based on ideas of biological difi‘erence (as discussed earlier with regard to race). Racial
categories resulting from such mixtures have a corresponding social status”2 - inferior or
superior - associated with them (Wade 1997; Baker 1998).

The early formation of nationness was rooted in a racial system that attached
meaning to phenotypic differences as well as social class status33 that has lingering effects
today. I suggest, because of the history of slavery and plantation societies in the
Americas, that nationness webs race with nation (the people), and is being reconfigured
due to the interaction between external and intemal forces as evidenced by changing racial
and color categories and the articulation of “new” identities. In other words, defining the
nation is an ongoing process depending on who is entering and leaving national borders,

prompting redefinitions, changing categories and new identities.

Identity Construction

[Identities] are relationships that are forged at particular loci where power,

history, and sociocultural models merge with people and practice

(Kahn 2001 :2-3).

Identities are more than sociocultural constructions. Identities are created within
certain and particular contexts and histories, involving inter-relationships and power.

While people are defined by others as well as the state, they also define themselves (in

similar or different ways) as identities are relational. Relational categories can emerge in

the form of binary oppositions such as Black and White (in the United States) or in the
form of gradations of color as in Brazil, Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic for
example.

Identity construction is an ongoing process by which “I” and “we” are
understood, defined, contested, and possibly redefined. Such processes can be mapped
by exploring how actors define themselves (and under which circumstances) and how
they are defined by other actors as well as the state. This is done while contextualizing
their experiences in order to understand how they, as individuals and/or a group, have
been defined and situated over time while defining and situating themselves. By
considering the situated/situating relationship, we begin to better understand contestation,

struggle, power relations, and individual and collective action.

Mestizaje

A primary characteristic of race and nation in Latin America and the “Hispanic”
Caribbean is mestizaje, or race mixing, which has long been associated with Latin America
since colonization pointing to the encounters between Spaniards, indigenous peoples, and
enslaved Afiicans. Martinez-Echazabal (1998) writes that mestizaje is a process of
interracial and or intercultural mixing and is the “foundational theme in the Americas”
(1998: 21). For her, mestizaje is tied to national identity and defining characteristics of
nations in Latin America (e.g. lo cabana/the Cuban, lo mexicano/the Mexican, etc.) as well
as cultural identities that are emerging throughout the region (e.g. Japanese Brazilians,

Mexican Lebanese, Argentine Jews, etc.). I agree with Martinez-Echazabal here in the

26

sense that mestizaje is linked to national identity. I would add, however, that mestizaje
also creates a particular racial type, or racial types, that are then associated with the
nation and are defined according to the “type” of mixture.

AS Safa (1998: 3) states “the Americas have long been an arena for extraordinary
mixtures of cultures and peoples born of diasporas fiom Afiica, Asia, and Europe. These
mixtures have given rise to different racial constructions, known in the Caribbean as
creolization and in Latin America as mestizaje, that have been used to syncretize and
refashion race and ethnic mixture into distinct forms of national identity.” By
refashioning race and ethnic mixture, the nation itself is reconfigured. Safa continues:

Latin American and Caribbean countries distinguished themselves from their

European colonizers on the basis of their mulatto, mestizo, or creole identity, that
is, as “new” and culturally and biologically mixed peoples (Safa 1998: 4).

The part that I want to underscore here is the idea of “newness” and mixed categories that
represent different “types” of mixture. Both Martinez-Echazabal (1998) and Safa (1998)
juxtapose mestizaje with the racial binarism of the United States where the bipolar black-
white racial construct, and its relationship to hypo-descent (commonly referred to as the
“one drop rule”) that defines anyone with “one drop” of Afi'ican “blood” as Black (e.g.
Davis 1991).

Davis (1991) asserts that the Black category and position is “...the one [that is]
occupied in the United States by all persons with any black ancestry. The one-drop, or

hypo-descent, rule assigns all such persons to the status of the subordinate group, which

27

in this case means blacks” (Davis 1991 :1 l3). Offering an explanation for why this racial
system was established, he continues by saying that “American slave owners wanted to
keep all racially mixed children born to slave women under their control, for economic and
sexual gains, and that to define such children as anything other than black became a major
threat to the entire system” (Davis 1991: 113-14). I return to this point when discussing
some of the differences during the slavery period in the Americas with respect to
intermediate racial categories.

Using the United States as a backdrop to examine mestizaje in Latin America,
Martinez-Echazabal (1998) and Safa (1998) suggest that mestizaje is more fluid while
hypodescent is more rigid. It should be mentioned that the United States did not always
have a bi-polar racial system. In fact, at different points in time, the system was more
similar to Latin America in terms of racial classifications until the turn of the 20th
century. According to Lee (1993), the Black population in the United States was divided
into four categories on the 1890 census (Black, Mulatto, Quadroon, and Octoroon) until
there was concern over the status of mixed race people in the south (Lee 1993;
Williamson 1980; Davis 199] ). Enumerators for the 1890 census were given the

following instructions and definitions (Lee p. 77):

“black” should be used to describe those persons who have three-forths or more
black blood; “mulatto” those persons who have from three-eighths to five-eighths
black blood; “quadroon” those persons who have one-eighth or any trace of black
blood (U .8. Bureau of the Census 1989, p. 36).

28

Thus, before the turn of the 20th century, the US. had a more “fluid” racial system in
terms of the categories that “traced” African ancestry and “blood.” In 1900, however, the
racial classifications dropped from eight categories (with half of them classifying the
Black population), to five -- mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon were eliminated. Mulatto
was reintroduced for two more census years, in 1910 and 1920; 1920 was the last time
mulatto was recorded on the census (Lee 1993). However, fluid “folk” categories
remained in the United States within the Black community as a way of describing color
even though official intermediate categories have been dropped.34 Hypo-descent
developed during slavery and became more firm in a post-emancipation, Jim Crow
segregation period where access was permitted or denied and housing and education were
restricted based on White or Black status -- cementing the bi-polar white-black racial
construction we have and experience today in the United States to a large extent (Davis
1991).

While the intermediate category of mulatto ceased to be an official category after
1920 in the United States, intermediate categories remained, and grew in number, in Latin
America and the Caribbean -- the number of categories contribute to the idea of fluidity in
the region compared to rigidity in the US. However, some similarities remain. In theory
and practice, both mestizaje and hypo-descent contain ideas about blood in terms of race
being passed down through blood lines, creating “mixed-blood ” individuals. “Purity” of
blood is equated with a pure “rm-mixed” race; thus, “mixed-blooded people” were
considered to be “less pure” (Wade 1997). Here, blood is used as a symbol and to

symbolically represent mestizaje (Smith 1997).

29

In Latin America and the Caribbean, Blacks (Afi'icans) and Indians were
considered inferior to Whites (Europeans), and one strategy used to physically erase their
presence was to incorporate their offspring into a larger group of “new” people (Wade
1993). Often referred to as mestizo or mulato, these new groups were seen as different
from both Whites and Blacks and occupied a different social status somewhere betwixt
and between the two bipolar groups. In effect, the practice of whitening, blanqueamiento,
in a larger context, sought to erase the Black presence (Wade 1993: 298) in the creation of
a new people.

I suggest then, in terms of nationness, that the process of mestizaje creates a
“new” people who are then associated with a particular place (e.g. Colombia, Venezuela,
Brazil, the Dominican Republic, etc.). Thus, the formation of a national identity
depended on the success of mestizaje in a biological and cultural sense. In some countries,
mestizaje implied racial democracy, or racial equality, in the absence of “pure” or distinct
races. Brazil and Venezuela are two countries that are said to have racial democracies in
social science literature - Venezuelans have been described as “cafe con leche” (coffee
with milk) (Wright 1990). Along with mixture brought new social definitions to describe
such mixture - thus, new social groups emerged. These groups have names, historically,
largely due to biological characteristics -- thereby becoming racialized groups.

Therefore, the process of mestizaje is distinctly linked to race and nation in the
formation of a “new” race of people who then represent the nation itself. Importantly,
while mestizaje produces a “new” people, along with new racial categories and ideas of

mixture, it does not have a complete homogenizing effect as there are remaining groups

30

that claim Indian or Indigenous, Spanish Creole, and Black identities. Some people who
claim these identities and other identities may be able to claim different ones based on
whether or not their identity is affirmed by others (Dominguez 1994). I return to this
point later in the dissertation when I describe how some Dominicans claim indio, Afro-

Dominican, and Black identities based on how others in a particular group define them.

Mixture, Status, and Peoplehood in the Americas

Wade (1997) suggests that by the time of the Atlantic slave trade and formation of
the New World, European colonizers already had firm ideas of who Afiicans were
although they didn’t know about Native Americans:

“[a]t the time when the Spanish and Portuguese arrived in the New World,

Africans were a well-known category of person. Some of this knowledge derived

from classical texts, religious sources and travellers’ tales; but some of it derived

from direct contact with Africa, by virtue of voyages of exploration down the

West Afi'ican coast from the 14305 which had resulted in Afiican slaves entering

Lisbon from the 14405” (25).

Wade goes on to say that both Africans and Indians were considered inferior to the
Europeans and were assigned a social status (or location) based on prejudicial beliefs. The
inferior status of Africans and Indians translated into types of work and labor (e. g.
enslaved, indentured, etc.) that is still evidenced today despite emancipation and racial

“democracies.” In general, ideas of racial difference justified the formation of a stratified

society in the United States (Baker 1998) and throughout the Americas -- such ideas of

31

differences web race and class in the present day reality in Latin America. As Martinez-
Alier (1989180) suggests:
By the nineteenth century it had become well established that Afiican origin
implied slavery. The Cuban economy run with slave labour perpetuated colour
prejudice as a conventional device to justify slavery. The criterion chosen to
classify the population hierarchically was physical appearance and particularly

skin colour, this initially being the most consistent and also the most salient
difference between the two groups.

In can be argued that in Cuba, and in other Hispanic countries as well, that the social class
and social status hierarchy was established along racial and color lines. Class is often
evident when examining differences in Latin America, but what may be less evident is the
racial foundation on which the class system is based. I am not arguing against class as
much as I’m arguing that class alone does not paint a complete portrait of the experience.
Entering at the point of race, one can explore the ways in which class and gender interact
with race. I agree with Torres (1998: 288) when she asserts:
In the past, scholars who compared the racial-color continuum in Latin America
and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean to the racial bifurcation in the United States
and elsewhere demonstrated how race and class are interrelated (Hoetink 1967,
Mintz 1971, Duany 1985). However, for the most part, these scholars argued
that class relations in Latin America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean took
precedence over race relations, and thereby they failed to analyze how discourses
about class relations euphemize race and provide a means to deny the existence
and persistence of racist practices.
For me, social class is tied into ideas of race and rooted in the colonial period when people
were assigned a particular social status (class based) due to their perceived racial

difference. Throughout the Americas, Afiicans seemed to have the lowest social status

when compared to American Indians (Wade 1997), the Chinese (Martinez-Alier 1989),

32

and East Indians (Segal 1993). In this way, labor was divided along the lines of racial
“types,” and what type of work people could perform.

For instance, cutting sugar cane is a very labor intensive task that is often defined
as “Haitians’ work” in the Dominican Republic (Martinez 1999). In interviews, I
ascertained that there were other job-related tasks that were defined as “Haitian” or
“Dominican.” For example, during large construction projects (e.g. an apartment
building), Haitian immigrants are typically doing the most labor intensive work involving
carrying building materials and working with cement while Dominicans do more of the
detailing work such as painting. This type of work site serves as a microcosm for
examining Dominican-Haitian relations in terms of actual work assignments, ideas of
“who does what,” and social status.

Haiti is, of course, a nation-state, and a person fiom Haiti is defined as Haitian.
Children born of Haitian parents in the Dominican Republic are considered to be Haitian
or Dorninico-Haitian, not Dominican. Haitians’ social status in the Dominican Republic
is still that of immigrant. As discussed earlier, immigrants are often racialized as they
enter a new country or territory. The experience of Haitians, as immigrants, in the
Dominican Republic vis-a-vis immigrants from Europe has been completely different.

Linking Haitians with an agrarian past (as well as a past with slavery) Moya Pons
(1995) discusses the association of Haitians in the Dominican Republic with sugar. He
talks about the agrarian, cattle-ranching, society that the Dominican Republic experienced
after the Spanish Creolesi‘5 left the Dominican Republic during the turn of the 20th

century. These Spanish Creoles emigrated to other countries in the region leaving much of

33

the sugar production activities in Haiti (I discuss this period in the historical chapter).
Moya Pons asserts that slavery continued in Haiti after a period of decline in the
Dominican Republic (although it was still a Slave society). This cattle ranching period
continued to witness stratification although poor Spanish Creoles, mulattos, and Blacks
were considered to be more or less in the same economic situation and involved in trade
with Haiti.

The role of race, as a structuring agent, was very important throughout the
Caribbean to maintain a racial hierarchy and division of labor. The racial, and structural,
inequalities persist today despite efforts to advance racial democracy theories. Harris
(1964), Hoetink (1985, 1970, 1967), MOmer (1967) and others have contributed to our
understanding of race relations in the Caribbean. Again, at present, the literature often
reflects the conflation of race and class in the Caribbean. “There are no racial problems in
the Caribbean, only class problems” or ‘er don’t ask for race on our census, so we are
not racist.” These are common, yet problematic, statements. If we consider the historical
processes that created racial inequality in the Caribbean, can we say that race is not an
issue because official categories no longer exist? What about the social structures? This is
not to suggest that there is not a correlation between race and class because there is; those
at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder are dark-skinned -- many socioracial categories
continue to reinscribe such a status, as we will see in subsequent chapters.

Stratification in the Dominican Republic soon reflected a color order as it did in
other places in the Americas. As stated earlier, mixture created an intermediate social

status for people who came to be defined as such. The categories often conveyed a sense

34

of in-betweenness. Throughout the Americas, there were, and still are, ways of defining
and classifying mixture, based on race, along the lines of color. These categories, while
constructed and relational must also be affirmed by others -- affirmation is a key aspect to
the articulation and assertion of identities. I agree with Dominguez (1994) when she

states:

I take the position that social identities do not exist without public affirmation.

Social identifies are Simply not who we are genetically nor how we as individuals

think about ourselves. They are, I contend, conceptions of the self, constructed in

time and place both epistemologically and socially in opposition to other such

selves (10).

The idea of identities needing to be affirmed is especially relevant later in the
dissertation when I discuss how socioracial categories find expression in different places
and among groups that affirm different types of identities at different points in time. The
following examples provide a regional comparison of racial and color categories
emphasizing the ways in which certain identities are affirmed. In the end, this

comparative backdrop will illuminate the Dominican Republic as unique case with respect

to the intermediate categories, historical memory of slavery, and affu'mation of identities.

Venezuela36

Socioracial categories such as pardo, casta, zambo, mulatto, moreno, and negro
have been used at different points in time in Venezuela to define, position, and quantify

peoples of African descent. However, at present, official categories no longer exist, and

35

the census no longer records or reports race, and as a result, Venezuela now claims to be a
country without racial distinctions, a racial democracy -- the term that is often used to
characterize Venezuela and Brazil.37

The analogy of “cafe con leche” (coffee with milk) is often used as a metaphor of
the mixture that has resulted from years of whitening practices. Venezuela is imagined38
to be a country of mixture with no racial divisions and no ideas of black pride or
négritude. Venezuela, like other countries that practiced whitening in the Americas
(blanquemiento), expressed ideas of “marrying up” (marrying a person with a lighter skin
tone) to “lighten” to “improve the race.” Ideas surrounding marrying up also exist in the
Dominican Republic (and have existed in the Black community in the United States). To
encourage blanquemiento state policy encouraged emigration fi'om Europe in 1830 and
banned Black migration during the same time period to ensure white physical dominance
and reinforce “lightening” on a larger scale. Similar immigration restrictions were made in
the Dominican Republic to curb Black migration.

Thus, blanquemiento was the biological strategy, as it was in Puerto Rico (Torres
1998) and the Dominican Republic. The cultural strategy in Venezuela involved attaching
negative values to blackness and positive values to whiteness. For example, the folklore
undermined the self-esteem of Blacks and reminded Venezuelans of African decent of
their origin as slaves as depicted in cartoons, jokes, and comic strips (Wright 1990: 45).
Therefore, Afro-Venezuelans were effectively reminded of their ancestry, racial heritage,
as well as their social location and place in society - this despite not having racial

categories on the census. This is one key difference between Venezuela and the

36

Dominican Republic. Such negative values and stereotypes were not linked to “mulatto”
or dark-skinned Dominicans - they were instead linked to Haitians. Dominicans were
not reminded of their ancestral ties to slavery -- they were reminded of Haitians’ past

with slavery.

Belize
In 1991, Belize had the following “ethnic” census categories: Mestizo, Creole,
Garifuna, Ketchi Maya, Mopan Maya, Other Maya, Indian, German/Dutch Mennonite,
White, Chinese, Syrian, and Other (Medina 1997:768). These categories reflect the
perceived differences surrounding difference in culture, language or ancestries:
The Creole category is associated with black identity and ‘mixed’ ancestry, ‘of
which at least some element is Afiican’ (Judd 1992, p. 172). The Garifuna
(formerly labelled Black Carib) embrace a ‘mixed’ identity attributed to the
physical and cultural amalgamation of fiee Africans into indigenous Carib society
in the eastern Caribbean. Mopan, Kekchi and Yucatecos often invoke distinct,
language-based identities, though some Mopan and Kekchi leaders have been
working to establish an overarching Maya identity. Persons who self-identify as
Spanish are officially labelled Mestizo, a Spanish word which refers to mixed
indigenous American and European ancestry. Several smaller officially

enumerated categories - Indian, Chinese, Syrian, Mennonite, and White - are less
central members of the nation (Medina 1997: 758).

Isolating the Creoles and Garifuna, Medina suggests that language, place, and origin are
markers of differentiation between these two groups. Interestingly, both groups are of
African descent - one claims to be descendant of “free” Afiicans (Garifuna) while the
other claims to be descendants of “enslaved” Afiicans (Creoles). Also, the Garifuna claim

indigenous ancestry (Carib), and this is an important part of their identity as Medina

37

(1997) asserts. I wonder if the status of being free or enslaved played a role in their
relational identities over time (based on whether or not their Afi'ican ancestors were
enslaved or not). I will explore this idea later when I discuss the relationship between
Dominicans and Haitians, where free vs. enslaved status, and claims of indigenous

ancestry, I think, have been germane to racial formation in the Dominican Republic.

Ecuador

Radcliffe and Westwood (1996) explore nation, place and identity in Ecuador.
Like Mexico, Ecuador is imagined to be a “mestizo” nation, and Afro-Ecuadorians are
marginalized as a result of falling outside of the national imagination. Mestizaje was
integral in the creation of the mestizo (1996: xii):

[T]he ideology and practice of creating new ‘races’, through miscegenation; under

the myth of mestizaje, the majority of the national population were to be
mestizos and become the new Latin America.

[Mestizo/a is] a person with both Spanish (or European) and indigenous heritage.

Here, Radcliffe and Westwood make a claim similar to Wade (1993, 1997) that the term
“mestizo” is derived from the concept of mestizaje, and that Latin America is often
imagined as a “mestizo” formation. Thus, people of Afiican descent (Afro-Americans)
are often marginalized not only in terms of lived experiences but also in terms of much of

the research on race mixture and identity.39

38

Radcliffe and Westwood use the concept of “geographies of identities” to talk
about space and the locations of people to certain places (e.g. the coast, the interior, etc.).
This idea is similar to Jackson and Penrose (1993) and Frankenberg (1993) in that place is
used to convey a sense of physical location but also a particular relationship to that place
and an identity that stems fi'om “being” in/fi'om that place. This type of association is
similar in Puerto Rico and in the Dominican Republic where people in different regions
are considered to have certain characteristics and a particular identity. When presenting
the racial groups in Ecuador, they do so by region (Sierra and Coast). They list the
following racial categories: Whites, Indigenous, Mestizos, Mulattos, and Blacks (p. 69).
In Ecuador, as in Mexico, indio is a derogatory word denoting “backwardness” and is thus

not used as a category.

Puerto Rico

According to Duany (1998), there are three primary “physical” types in Puerto
Rico: White, Black and mulatto. In addition to skin color, these categories are defined by
hair texture as well as facial features. Despite the categories, it has been argued the
racial/color spectrum in Puerto Rico is fluid and is more of a continuum, or “rainbow”
(Rodriguez 1989). Like the Dominican Republic, there are ways of describing color that
fall outside of these three primary categories (e. g. trigueir’o, moreno, indio, prieto, etc.).
And also, like the Dominican Republic, there is an intermediate category of mulatto - this
is a primarily difference between the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and the United

States:

39

The main difference between Puerto Rican and North American models of racial

stratification is not the treatment of blacks - who are accorded a subordinate

status in both societies - but rather the mixed group. In Puerto Rico, light

mulattos often pass for whites, whereas in the United States, this intermediate

racial category does not even exist officially (Duany 1998: 154).
The naming of an intermediate category, I think, has been instrumental in the construction
of peoplehood in places that have and use such a category. By this I mean that the
intermediate categories of mulato, indio, mestizo, etc. point to the emergence of a new
people with particular experiences.40 It can be argued that mulatto in Latin America,
while capturing a sense of mixture, is also a social position or location that has ancestral
ties to a “free status” during slavery. This was not necessarily the case in the United
States - being mixed did not guarantee fieedom, so mixed people, mulattos, were often
enslaved although they might have performed different tasks and in different physical
spaces (e.g. the field slave vs. the house slave). I contend that the lack of an intermediate
category for the majority of the 20th century in the United States created a larger Black
community with a common history of slavery albeit varied experiences due to color and
social class based on their mixed or un-mixed status."l

The idea of mixture also played a role in shaping ideas of integration and equality
(which are largely false):

Puerto Rican nationalist practices draw upon an ideology of mestizaje (the

sancocho) that is rooted in the blend of Spanish, indigenous, and African cultures.

Upon first glance, it appears that a national emphasis on mestizaje in Puerto Rico
promotes processes of social integration; however, this is still a hyper-privileging

of individuals of European descent with phenotypic features associated with

“whiteness” (Torres 1998: 286).
The “hyper-privileging” practices that Torres describes here also takes place in the
Dominican Republic. The emphasis on mestizaje and the intermediate racial categories
place “mixed looking” or lighter people in relation to darker skinned people. The
relationship becomes a contrast where distinctions are made about the perceived social
status of the person based on phenotype and other markers (such as dress, language, etc.).

In general, the above discussion paints a broader picture of a region and
widespread practices. In this vein, the Dominican Republic emerges as a unique site to
examine the co-construction of racial and national identities because of its relationship
with Haiti. From “mestizo” vs. “negro,” the Dominican Republic sheds a different light
on how nationness was defined and configured, and is being reconfigured due to agentive
practices as well as transnational forces interacting with “nation ” ones in the
reconfiguration of Dominicanness.

As in other places in Latin America and the Hispanic Caribbean, race and nation
are webbed in the formation of nationness. In the Dominican Republic “being mixed” has
been, and continues to be, tied to ‘being’ Dominican. Mixture, or the idea of mixture, is a
“given” - and the discom'ses surrounding mixture compete in defining of mixture itself.
This is especially true of Mestizaje and Mulutaje. Afiicanidad is less concerned about
defining the mixture -- it recognizes mixture, but more importantly, it seeks to recapture

the Afiican past. The idea of mixture is a key concept throughout the dissertation.

41

Nationness, Race and Nation in the Dominican Republic: Exploring
Dominicanness

In the dissertation, I illustrate how racial and national identities have been co-
constructed and articulated in the Dominican Republic, throughout the 20th century, and
describe the ways in which Dominican actors are currently redefining themselves, along
the lines of race and color, based on different life experiences, transnational migration
experiences, as well as relationships and linkages they maintain outside of the Dominican
Republic. In addition, I assess the impact that migration and other transnational projects
have on ideas about race in the Dominican Republic in terms of newly created categories
and ways of describing mixture and Dominicanidad or Dominicanness.

While mestizaje, as race mixture, is applicable in the dissertation when I describe
the ways in which Dominicans defined themselves over time -- even as mestizo -- I
suggest that in the case of the Dominican Republic, it is necessary to conceptualize
mixtru'e in a different way. For me, mestizaje, as an overarching conceptual idea, is
problematic when addressing mixture in the Dominican Republic where like in Cuba,
Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Brazil, and Colombia, there are people of African descent as
“mestizo” (as a term) is derived from mestizaje. Instead, the conceptual idea that brings
together all of the “ancestries” and subsequent categories that we find in a place like the
Dominican Republic is one that emerges fiom the mixture in terms of the creation and

embodiment of race/color categories.

42

Therefore, I suggest the concept of Mulutaje as a way of describing and analyzing
the race/color categories that emerge as a result of African/Black - European/White
mixture, and I introduce the term “colorization” as a way of describing and analyzing
color categories within a particular racial category. Conceptually, colorization is similar
to mestizaje in that its point of departure is also race mixture, but it diverges in that it is
linked to “of color” discourses and categories such as “colored,” “light,” and “dark” and
implies Afiican ancestry. Furthermore, what has emerged in the Americas, especially
among communities of Afiican descent, as a result of mixture, is the proliferation of
categories that attempt to describe color. Color categories are often defined within and
across groups and are linked to history, ancestry, and race.42 This is especially relevant
as the dissertation focuses on race/color categories, identities, and their webbed

relationship to race and nation.

Arguments in the Dissertation Related to the Dominican Republic

Sancocho. Mezcla. Liga. These are a few of the ways in which Dominicanness is
articulated. Sancocho is a national dish and culinary favorite for family gatherings and
celebrations. Similar to a gumbo or stew, sancocho is filled with various ingredients -
chicken, potatoes, yucca, plantains, etc. -- and is often used as a metaphor to describe the
mixture associated with being Dominican. Mezcla and liga refer to a combination of
groups and mixture and are commonly used when referring to race in the Dominican

Republic -- it is the idea that Dominicans are a “mixed race” people.

43

In the chapters that follow here in the dissertation, I argue that 1) Since the
Dominican Republic is often imagined to be a counuy where people are of “mixed”
ancestry, Dominicanness has been constructed along the intermediate lines of
mestizo/indio/mulato -- having excluded, historically and contemporaneously, different
immigrant groups -- in order to define and construct a “Dominican” national identity along
the lines of color, religion, and language; 2) Racial categories, used in and before 1935,
were replaced with color categories in 1950, where mestizo (racial category) was
substituted with indio (color category) in order to construct a national identity
encompassing color as a contemporary defining characteristic of Dominicanness; and 3) It
a combination of actual migration to/fiom the United States and ideas about race
“entering” the Dominican Republic from the United States that contribute to the
emergence of new racial/color identities in the Dominican Republic, affecting both

migrants and non-migrants in similar ways.

III. Research Site, Methodology and Procedures

The Caribbean as a Culture Area Within Anthropology

The Dominican Republic is geographically located in the Caribbean Sea and is
physically a part of what we have come to refer to as “the Caribbean.” As a geographical
area, the Dominican Republic has much in common with neighboring countries in the
region (history of plantation economies, slavery, migration, etc.). This section
conceptually links the Dominican Republic with countries in the region to shed light on

how racial and national identities were configured over time and space.

Caribbean as Open Frontier

Michel-Rolph Trouillot (1992) suggests that Caribbean Region is an open frontier
in anthropological theory. This statement begs the question, “why is the Caribbean just
now open to anthropological theory?” In his review article, Trouillot asserts that
anthropologists have only recently become interested in the Caribbean as a culture area
because of how the Caribbean was first imagined and constructed by scholars. He gives
his article as an example; it is the first review article on the Caribbean to appear in the
Annual Review of A nthropology.

Unlike Afiica and Asia, for example, the Caribbean was not viewed as an
“isolated” and “remote” area. Moreover, it was not “pure” and “in tact” as African and

Asian countries were “imagined” to be. More Specifically, with a history of genocide of

45

indigenous peoples, enslavement of Afiicans and indentured Asian laborers, Trouillot
claims that the Caribbean was not “Western” enough for sociologists and not “native”
enough for anthropologists. The idea of “mixture” and heterogeneity, with different
peoples coming into contact with one another and “mixing blood and cultures,”
contributed to the avoidance of the Caribbean as a culture area until recently. This may
have contributed to the paucity of research and subsequent publications focusing on such
issues as identity in the Dominican Republic.

This is not to suggest, however, that all anthropologists have avoided the region
because this is untrue. Early contributions included Melville Herskovits (e.g. “New World
Negro” and “Afiicanisms”) and Zora Neale Hurston (Afro-American folklore). Julian
Steward’s work on Puerto Rico (1965) influenced many of his students to continue
research in the region. Sidney Mintz, one of Steward’s students, and one of the pioneers
in this area, conducted research in the Caribbean and contributed to what would later be
referred to as “Afro-American” anthropology (Mintz and Price 1976). The work of R. T.
Smith (1973), on family and kinship in the 1960’s, with a particular emphasis on
matrifocality (mother-centered households), found its way into Afro-American
anthropology combining race and gender in explaining Black women’s roles and position

within their households.

A fio-A merican Anthropology
The Caribbean was, at once, termed “Afro-America” within Anthropology.

Herskovits, DuBois, Hurston, and Turner were all instrumental in creating a foundation

46

for Afro-American Anthropology (Houk 1993). In the mid-20th century, Herskovits
suggested that anthropologists be concerned with Afiican derived “culture” in the New
World in terms of retentions and syncretism (Houk 1993). This focus later shifted to
explore peoples of Afiican descent in the Americas (primarily the Caribbean) with regard
to Afro-American cultural practices.

Whitten and Szwed (1970) introduced Afro-American Anthropology to the
discipline in 1970 with their edited volume A fi'o-A merican Anthropology: Contemporary
Perspectives. In the introduction, Mintz states that “Afro-American” can refer to
biological and cultural phenomena while “Afro-Americana” refers to culture. Whitten and
Szwed also suggested that the focus should be on culture since groups mutually influence
each other. Since the publication of that volume, much has been written in an attempt to
redefine the Caribbean as “Afio-America,” explore family structures (e.g. matrifocality),
as well as trace some of the “Africanisms” (e.g. religions (Haitian Vodou, Brazilian
Candomble, Cuban Santeria, etc.), music, beliefs and rituals, and other “cultural”
practices).

The issues surrounding biology and culture were not only prevalent in academic
circles but also in “American” communities where naming practices and labels were
contested. For example, in the United States in the late 19808, Jesse Jackson and others
met and discussed the relevance of the racial category “Black.”” This meeting led to the
group proposing a change in nomenclature fiom Black to Afiican American. “Black” had

been historically constructed as a racial/biological category while Afiican American

47

represented an ethnic/cultural category and mirrored the hyphenated identities of White
ethnics (e.g. Polish-American). Thus, Afiican American became an ethnic category.

There has been a proliferation of “Afro” identities throughout the Americas and
the ways in which scholars describe peoples of African descent as a result of this shift in
the United States. Interestingly, while the change in the United States stems fi'om group
reflection based on a particular history, experience, and set of relationships, “Afro”
became a way of describing all people of Afiican descent in the Americas - this was an
unintended outcome.“ Consequently, Afro-American Anthropology was
reconceptualized in this process.

Houk (1993) describes the webbed relationship between the emergence of
“Afi'ican American” as category for a particular group of people and how this change
altered Afro-American Anthropology. In fact, Mintz and Price (1976) changed the title
of their book in response to the name change from The Birth of A fio—A merican Culture to
The Birth of A fiican—A merican Culture. Houk suggests that Afro-American
Anthropology had been more in line with culture before changing its name to African
American Anthropology (in concert with the category change), and in effect, moved away
from culture toward race. This is interesting in that the category shift, as a group marker,
moved away fiom the racial marker of Black to the ethnic marker of Afiican American.
Afiican American Anthropology, in my view, still maintains a link to “culture,” but the
difference now is reflected in linking people with their history, experiences, and their

cultural practices -- webbing ideas of culture and biology.

In line with globalization and the proliferation of ideas, when a new category is
introduced, as was the case with “African American,” it became a new marker for a
particular group with a particular history, but at the same time, it became a way of
describing people of African descent throughout the New World and is used throughout
Latin America and the Caribbean today. This is evidenced by groups defining themselves
as Afro-Latino, Afio-Caribbean, Afro-Dominican, and even Afiican American (as a way

of talking about being of Afiican decent in the Americas).

A Caribbean Research Site: Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic

I have grown quite familiar with, and fond of, Santiago de los Caballeros (Santiago)
over the past six years -- this was my third fieldsite visit. I first went to Santiago in
1993, while at Iowa State University, to conduct research for my master’s thesis. During
that time, I had a university affiliation with La Pontificia Universidad CatOlica Madre y
Maestra (PUCMM), a private Catholic and prominent university in Santiago, and worked
closely with Carmen Gonzalez, who at the time, was the Director of the Women’s
Studies program at (PUCMM). I also met and had on-going discussions with some of the
faculty members associated with the Council on International Educational Exchange
(CIEE) about my research interests.

The personal and professional contacts that I made in 1993 have been very
instrumental during the course of my graduate study at Michigan State University, in

terms of general assistance in the field with introductions, discussions as well as feedback.

49

I returned to Santiago in 1995 to conduct a pre-dissertation research pilot study focusing
on race, color categories, and identity, with a particular focus on women. Thus, my
dissertation research, from May to November of 1998, to some degree, was longitudinal
in scope as I was able to build on previous conversations and interviews and expand
relationships with key individuals who then became cultural consultants during the
dissertation research. While Santiago was my primary fieldsite during the dissertation
research, I also made occasional trips, however, to Santo Domingo, Puerto Plata, and the
Dominican-Haitian border which provided opportunities to have informal interviews with
people outside of Santiago.45

Santiago is located in the northern region of the Dominican Republic in a
mountainous region and proudly claims to be the first Santiago of America - as displayed
by the Rotary International sign at the entrance of the city. In general, the Dominican
Republic, touts itself as the first Spanish settlement in the New World and takes great
pride in that fact as evidenced by the historic buildings and monuments in Santo
Domingo. I conducted ethnographic and archival research in Santiago. As the second
largest city in the country, Santiago is a dynamic place as it has witnessed large numbers
of out-migration to the United States (a primary sending region) as well as in-rnigration
fiom the compo or rural area into Santiago and surrounding areas.

Since 1968, the Dominican government has been attempting to decrease the
growth rate by implementing family planning programs and by encouraging emigration to
the United States. As a result, many Dominicans migrated to New York City and

continue to do so. In 1990, 60.4% of the population lived in urban areas following

50

extensive rural to urban migration that took place during the 19703. Because of the
massive rural to urban migration, many cities are, at present, over-crowded.

In terms of unemployment, the overall rate was 28% in 1994. Despite the
unemployment rate, women migrating fiom rural areas have more employment
opportunities than men as they typically find work in one of the fiee trade zones
(factories), local stores, as “marchantas” (women who sell produce in neighborhoods -- a
Santiago phenomenon), or as housekeepers. There are various job openings for women in
the free trade zones as they are sought because of the need to sew shirts, pants, or shoes
(as these tasks are defined as women’s work).46 Currently, women account for half of the
population in the Dominican Republic following (as they have throughout the 20th
century).

The unemployment Situation can often be grim for men, as they do not have as
many options as women in terms of local employment resources; so some men leave the
Dominican Republic to seek work elsewhere (typically the United States). Some men do,
however, serve in supervisory positions in the factories, drive public cars and taxis, or
work in some of the neighborhood stores. People who migrate to the urban areas do so in
order have better access to schools, clinics, and jobs; however, they are often met with
hardships."7

Grasmuck and Pessar conducted a survey in Santiago in 1981, and according to
their findings (Grasmuck and Pessar 1991), “almost one out of four Santiago households
has been directly involved in out-migration” (67). They found that most of the migrants

were men, but there was evidence of sons (32.1%) and daughters (26.2%) as first migrants

51

of the household as well as wives (2.4%) and husbands (16.6%) (page 69). At the time
of the survey, one-third of the m'ban families (33.8%) had, at some point, received some
form of aid fiom relatives living abroad (71). This number has increased in recent years

(T ones-Saillant and Hernandez 1998) and is continuing to increase.

The Research Setting in Santiago

Demographic Information

The most recent census was taken in 1993, and the total population in the
Dominican Republic was 7, 293,390. There continue to be more females than males as
3,742,593 were female (women and girls) while 3,550,797 were male (men and boys).
The census data also indicate that there are, at present, more people living in urban areas
than rural areas as there were 4,094,263 residents in urban centers and 3,199,127 residents
in rural areas. Santiago (city and province) is a primary receiving location in terms of
migration from rural areas (due to more employment and educational opportunities,
access to healthcare and family support). The total population for Santiago Province in
1993 was 710,803 with 366,668 females and 344,135 males, and the city of Santiago de
los Caballeros had a total population of 493,412 with 258,050 females and 235,362 males.
According to more recent statistics (World F actbook 1998), the estimated total
population of the Dominican Republic, in 1998, was 7, 998, 766 with 60% of the

population between the ages of 15-64 and 35% between 0-14 years of age.

52

Painting a Transnational Portrait

Dominican circular migration has been well documented (Grasmuck and Pessar
1991; Grasmuck and Pessar 1996; Georges 1990; Hendricks 1974) where New York City
and the region of Cibao surrounding Santiago have been identified as the primary receiving
and sending communities respectively. In line with US. scholars, Dominican scholar
Bueno (1995) gives voice to the migration experience of five Dominican migrant women
(who returned to the Dominican Republic) by recounting their experiences with
employment, rearing children, public assistance, relationships, and discrimination in New
York City.

The causes of international migration, settlement patterns, and transnational
communities have been the topics of various studies in recent years. Grasmuck and
Pessar (1991) have focused on division of labor, social class relations, in sending and
receiving communities, social networks, as well as the reasons that Dominicans migrate to
the United States. While many broader issues are explored here in this work, there is little
attention given to ethnic group formation or racialized identity that is very much a part of
this migration process. While class and gender are considered, Grasmuck and Pessar seem
to overlook elements of race and color which, in the United States, transform the class and
gender experience all together. Since the United States “racializes” gender and class
(Higginbotham 1992), the inter-relationships between race, gender become more

important when exploring migration and settlement experiences.

53

Another work focusing on Dominican migration to the United States (Georges
1990) explores patterns of migration and culture change over time. Again, while this work
illuminates the reasons and consequences of migration, a piece of the migration experience
is missing with regard to race and where Dominicans are “located” racially within the
system and in their own communities.

A key element lacking in both works on Dominican migration is human agency.
Societal structures are in place and are part of the analysis, but there is no sense of the
strategies that were used by individuals to create options and opportunities for
themselves. In other words, how do Dominicans impact the structure? By not
considering the human agency-societal structure relationship, we fail to understand how
individuals, in a pro-active manner, contest categories and organize their lives. Moreover,
we don’t learn about their everyday “lived experience.”

Furthermore, we don’t have a sense of how Dominicans’ racial and color identities
change in the United States and what impact this has on the Dominican Republic in terms
of return migration, correspondences, and ideas about the US. racial system that are
“transmitted” to the Dominican Republic. As Davis asserts (1991: 121):

The same light mulatto defined as black in the United States might be classed as

“coloured” in Jamaica and white in Puerto Rico. Sixty percent of more of the

migrants fiom Puerto Rico are perceived in the United States as blacks, yet most

of those 60 percent are racially mixed and were known on the island by one of the
many color terms other than black, and many of them as white.

The idea here is that these racial/color categories are linked to nations and particular (and

webbed) histories. This is the part of the puzzle I address here in the dissertation.

Research Procedures

I conducted ethnographic and archival research for the dissertation for a period of
six months in Santiago, Dominican Republic, beginning in May of 1998. The overall
ethnographic sample is comprised of the following individuals: 1) individuals who have
not left the Dominican Republic; 2) individuals who have migrated to the United States;
and 3) Dominican-Americans (residents or citizens of the US.) visiting family in Santiago.
In order to examine how racial and national identities are constructed, as well as how they
may change over time, I found it necessary to have a sample of non-migrants as well as
migrants in order to understand “local” conceptions of Dominicanness and how/why
these ideas may or may not change.

I used a multi-method approach to fully explore the questions in the research. As
a whole, my data consist of the following: 1) 100 interviews using an interview schedule
(open-and closed-ended questions); 2) 35 in-depth informal interviews; 3) 150 ce'dula
observations; 4) five discussion/focus groups with different socio-economic, gender, and
migration status (women at the Coordinadora, men at the Gran Teatro dc Cibao, men and
women at the bookstore at the National Supermarket, CIEE students (U .S. and

Dominican students), and women in the barrio of Crista Rey); 5) 10 photo exercises; and

55

6) newspaper clippings, census data, and archival data (early census reports, newspapers,
letters, memos, etc.).

All of the participants had relatives residing in the United States as well as in the
compo (rural area) in the Dominican Republic. Many had relatives in other regions of the
Dominican Republic. The non-mi grants in my study often came to construct new
identities for themselves based on what they read, discussed in groups, or because of
what they heard about racial experiences in the United States. All of the migrants spoke
about the U.S. and its “preoccupation” with race as they found themselves in a different
national context where the meanings of familiar categories were different, and where they
themselves were defined in new ways. The Dominican-Americans discussed their
transnational migration experiences and how their own ideas about race and racial and
identities changed in the United States and how they negotiate these identities as they

move across borders.

Participant Observation

As I settled back into Santiago for the third time, I found myself having similar yet
different experiences as a participant observer. Unlike my previous experiences in the
Dominican Republic, 1 was, for the first time, accompanied by my husband and colleague,
David, and our one-year old daughter, Asha. Having a family in the field was a different

experience for me in that I was treated differently by others and experienced life more

56

“closely as a Dominican” because I had to encounter the healthcare system (e.g. pediatric
visits) and daycare options (daycare centers vs. in-home care), grocery shopping, etc.

In 1993 and 1995, I was always asked questions about not having children (since I
was married). My master’s research suggested that motherhood is one of the most valued
roles of women in Dominican society and that women aren’t quite “women” (gender
status) unless they have children. I was expected to have children, and women in my
study didn’t understand why I was “waiting” to have children. During this most recent
trip, not only was I a mother, but my daughter was in the field with me. I found myself
focusing a lot on her health and well-being. I realized that many of my “worries” came to
mirror those of the women in my study in 1993 when I explored the cultural construction
of gender and female identity (e. g. women were concerned about potable drinking water,
water-bome illnesses, childcare, education, safety, etc.). Having a child in the field gave
me insights that 1 otherwise might not have had as well as relational experiences due to
my status as “mother.”

I draw on some of the experiences I had at birthday parties, the Centro Espafiol
(The Spanish Club Center in Santiago), PUCMM functions, nightclubs, family gatherings,
childcare centers, clinics and hospitals, grocery and retail stores, hair salons, restaurants,
and the Junta Central Electoral (where I observed 150 ce'dula application procedures). In
addition, to these sites of interaction, I also had encounters with conchos (public cars) and
taxi drivers, my neighborhood pharmacy and colmado (small neighborhood store), banks,

and potable water supplier.

57

I participated in workshops and conferences such as the Afi'o-Latin American
Research Association (ALARA) Conference in Santo Domingo, Identidad ’s workshop in
Santiago, the Columbus Day (a.k.a. “Race Day”) meeting on racial identity at the
Coordinadora. The curriculum development consultancy that I had with CIEE afforded
me the opportrmity to work closely with some of the students from the United States as
well as with PUCMM faculty involved with the program. The following is a summary of
the overall data collection; although for the purposes of the dissertation, I am closely

analyzing the census and archival data as well as the informal interviews.

Structured Interviews

The interviews focused on color classifications, the importance/non-importance of
race, ancestry, self-description, and the most important personal identity (e.g. color,
national, racial, or other). Using a snowball sampling method, I first interviewed people
that I knew and later asked them to suggest other possible candidates (indicating that I
wanted to interview people with different experiences (migration, color, gender, socio-
economic, etc.). I also interviewed people that I saw frequently as a participant observer
(e.g. at the colmado, pharmacy, PUCMM, grocery and retail shops, taxi drivers, etc.).
The sample was comprised of migrants as well as non-migrants, people who claimed
different types of socioracial identities, men and women, people from different social
class backgrounds, and different age groups. The snowball sampling, while it helped me

to create diversity within the sample, also was “culturally appropriate” in that

58

introductions are typically made in order to have “access” to people/groups and be

“trusted” (see Appendix A).

Informal Interviews

As with the structured interviews, I began the informal interviews with people 1
came into contact with over time (e. g. daycare center staff, pharmacy staff, the colmado
owners, taxi drivers, etc.). For example, I often called one of four taxi drivers when I
needed to travel a distance; thus, we were able to have on-going discussions about

I explored some of the same issues in the informal interviews as I did in the more
structured ones. I wanted to know about ideas of race, color categories, migration
experiences, knowledge of the U.S. racial system and experiences that Dominicans have in
the United States, as well as how identities are constructed and how/why they may
change in the Dominican Republic. With some of the informal interviews, I incorporated
a photo exercise in which I referred to a photo and asked the respondents to describe the
person in the photo in terms of color, race, and nationality (all of the photos were taken

from Dominican magazines and newspapers).

Focus Groups

Each focus group was organized and selected for different reasons - the primary

reason was to interact with different groups and people with varied background and

59

experiences. Each was different in terms of the composition of the group (color, socio-
economic, gender, and migration status) as well as the discussion that took place. In each
focus group, I attempted to explore issues related to the research by asking different
types of questions and using different points of departure. For example, during the focus
group session with professional men and women (middle-class) at the bookstore in the
National Supermarket in Santiago, I started with a brief discussion of identity to
contextualize the discussion, defining nationality, color, and race. We began with two role
play exercises involving two volunteers (with a participant recording her observations and
taking notes during the discussion). The first role play exercise, based on an actual event,
examined the migration experience fiom the U.S. Customs perspective whereby a
Dominican migrant is questioned about the indio color category on her passport as she
goes through customs. The second role play, also based on an actual experience, involved
traveling to Puerto Rico to attend a conference where the participant was thought to be
Puerto Rican, not Dominican because of color. With each exercise, I told each of the two
volunteers individually what their respective role was (without saying who the other
person was or what his/her role was). AS a group, we watched the scenario unfold and
discussed the issues that each exercise presented.

By point of comparison, another focus group involved a group of men (different
ages but mainly ranging fi'om 20-40 years of age) outside of the Gran Teatro de Cibao
(where they were employed in various capacities). At that time, much had been written
in the newspapers about the Sammy Sosa-Mark McGwire home run race, and there was

tremendous excitement in Santiago surrounding Sosa. Again, I introduced the topic and

60

asked general questions for discussion purposes and then moved into a more focused
discussion involving Sosa and how the participants interpreted what was happening to
him in terms of celebration and media depiction in the United States and in the Dominican

Republic.

Archival Data

I worked closely with the archivist, Cesar Franco, and staff at the Archivo
Histérico de Santiago and gathered early census reports, newspaper clippings, letters and
memos. The archival data complement the contemporary data I collected (newspaper

articles, television footage, and popular culture images and messages).

Data Analysis

After having recorded notes and observations, I began some of the data analysis
while in the Dominican Republic in order to begin making sense of what I was reading,
hearing, and observing. I also began preliminary analysis of the interviews (transcription
and translation fi'om Spanish), looking for trends, shifts, and various complexities in order
to clarify points and/or ask different types of questions. The data that are presented in
the dissertation consist of the following: 1) interview excerpts; 2) findings and narratives
from informal interviews; 3) fieldnotes; 4) cédula observations; and 5) tables fiom the

censusdata.

61

Data Presented in the Dissertation

As with any research project, there is always more data than can be used in the
writing process. As stated in the introduction, this dissertation is about the articulation
of Dominicanness in racial and national terms over time. To this end, the data in the
dissertation consist of the census, newspaper, and encyclopedic data I collected at the
Archivo Histbrico de Santiago (Historic Archives of Santiago) along with informal
interviews and the interviews and observations at the Junta Central where the cédulas
(the national identification/election card) were issued. Thus, the data illustrate how ideas
of Dominicanness were expressed in the media, by the state, and by people who articulate
certain identities. The census data show how the state classified people over time and the
importance it gave to national origin, race, and color. The interviews demonstrate how
people talk about and define themselves in relation to the state and each other, and the
observations and interviews fiom the Junta Central Show the state defines its “members”
along the lines of color. The presentation of the data is organized around the idea of
discourses, where race and nation are articulated within 1) an historical context that
helped to shape, define and “root” Dominicanness and 2) the contemporary discourses
that both maintain and challenge existing notions of Dominicanness.

Chapter four moves into the historical part of the dissertation focusing on how
Dominicanness - the sense of being Dominican - has been constructed over time. In
particular, I focus on the period before the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo, paying

attention to changes in racial/color categories as well as the Dominicanization process that

62

defined the Dominican Republic as a Roman Catholic and Spanish-speaking country

comprised of “mixed” people since the turn of the 20th century.

63

IV. Historical Construction of Dominicanness (1900-1930): Gente de Color

This historical chapter roots Dominicanness within a particular point in history as
my point of departure. As stated earlier in the introduction, if the movement of people
across borders weds them in the formation of race and nation while co-constructing racial
and national identities in the articulation of nationness, then a cursory glance at history
should provide insight into some of the more salient periods when particular identities
were articulated over others in the configuration of nationness. Here, I suggest that
Dominicanness, while part of a much larger history and events, has its roots in periods of
emigration and immigration and ideas of race and social status:

Historians have shown that the present-day population of the Dominican

Republic is the result of the intense mixture of peoples of European, Afiican, and,

to a lesser extent, Amerindian origin. By the end of the 18th century, the majority

of Dominicans were classified as colored - that is mulattos and blacks or, in

contemporary parlance, pardos and morenos (Duany 1998: 150).

I consider a self-defmed historical period, 1900-1930, in order to show how early
ideational seeds were planted along the lines of racial and national identities, having an
impact on the present. This period is a pre-Rafael Trujillo/U.S. occupation era (the next
chapter is that of the dictatorship itself). Many participants point to the era of Trujillo
as a time when Dominicanness was constructed along the lines of being mixed race, anti-
Haitian, Spanish-speaking, and Roman Catholic. To Show what Trujillo might have been
reacting “against” during his regime in reconfiguring Dominicanness, I explore the state-

sanctioned categories that preceded Trujillo.

Again, in this chapter, and throughout the dissertation, I rely on census and
archival data (e. g. newspaper clippings and advertisements) for references to race, color,
and nationality. Much of the data in this chapter are from census reports during the first
half of the 20th century and speak to a growing concern of labeling groups according to
national origin and race. National origin has a prominent position on the census, detailing
at times, gender composition according to nationality. Interestingly, the term “race” is
used throughout the census during this time period but is later changed to “color” referring
to the same groups of people - the relevance of this is discussed later.

In my view, the Gente de Color discourse positions the Dominican Republic with
other countries in the Caribbean as well as other peoples of African descent, due to a
shared history of slavery and colonization, whereas Hispanidad (next chapter) constructs
a “Spanish-Dominican” diaspora in the sense that Spain is viewed as the Motherland and
distances itself away floor the “Black” Caribbean and similar peoples of African descent
in the Americas. I have created tables hour the census data as a way of presenting the
ways in which national origin and race were interrelated in the construction and
articulation of Dominicanness. The importance here is the attention to classifying people

and the ways in which categories were defined and how they changed.

Gente dc Color (People of Color): The “Colored” Discourse (19110-1930)
Racial Views and Concepts
As stated earlier, at the turn of the century, there was a belief in races as distinct

biological groups, and many places had to contend with creating categories for specific

65

types of “race mixture.” In the Dominican Republic, according to archival and census
data, there were three state-sanctioned racial groups (blancos, mestizos, and negros). The
mestizo category included both the mixed (Black-White) population as well as the Asian
immigrants (see Table V below). While mestizo described the majority of the population
in racial terms, at the same time, mestizos were also considered to be of color. This
discourse maps the relationship between race and color -- those who were non-White (in
racial terms) were of color (racially and in terms of the color categories describing varying
degrees of skin color).

Since the emigration of many Spanish Creoles at the turn of this century, a light-
skinned mestizo/mulato“ elite has been the normative group.49 AS Torres-Saillant
(1998:134) states:

The decay of the plantation and the virtual destitution of whites helped to

breakdown the social barriers between the races, stimulating interracial marital

relations and giving rise to an ethnically hybrid population. The racial integration
and ethnic hybridity that characterized seventeenth-century Santo Domingo
explain the emergence of the mulatto as the predominant type in the ethnic
composition of the Dominican population.
The mestizo/mulato elite then defined everyone in relation to themselves; Haitians were
negro (Black), the European immigrants were blanco (White). Considering the literature

at the time, “outside” scholars defined Dominicans as mulato, but the state used mestizo

as a way of defining mixture - the census demonstrates this distinction.

Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and National Identities

The racial discourse de color was often articulated in newspaper articles and
advertisements where Dominicans were described as “damas y caballeros de color”
(women and men of color) during the early 20th century.50 It was normative to be “of
color” - this is to say, non-White. In addition, at the same time, the Dominican Republic
imagined itself to be “part of the West Indies.”5 ' The fact that the Dominican Republic
was “imagined” to be comprised of people of color and “in the West Indies,” during the
early part of the century is very important, because this image would soon be changed,
purposefully, after the rise of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo (1930-61), as we will later explore.

In general, the co-construction of race and nation is made evident when a nation-
state becomes concerned with an inventory of its people with respect to who resides
within its borders. Along these lines, the census provides a way of directly dealing with
race and national origin. Immigration and categories of nationalities are often tangled in
the web of race, nation, and national belonging and are expressed in the taking and

recording of the census.

Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories

The following tables have been created from census data collected at the Archivo
Histérico de Santiago. These tables illustrate the importance of classifying people in
terms of “Dominicans” and “non-Dominicans” at the turn of the century as there were

different groups residing in the Dominican Republic at the time.52

67

Table I
Santiago Population Census by Gender, 1903

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Groups by Gender Population
Dominican Men 4,775
Dominican Women 5,624
Spanish Men 60
Spanish Women 31
French Men 4
French Women 7
flglish Men 3
English Women 0
German Men 1
German Women 0
Belgian Men 1
Belgian Women 0
Danish Men 2
Danish Women 1
Dutch Men 2
Dutch Women 1
Italian Men 33
Italian Women 0
Arab Men 113
Arab Women 80
Chinese Men 2
Chinese Women 0
American Men 64
American Women 28
Cuban Men 23
Cuban Women 13
Haitian Men 31
Haitian Women 20
Venezuelan Men 1
Venezuelan Women 1
Mexican Men 1
Mexican Women 1

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: 1903 Census of Santiago. Archivo Histérico de Santiago. Translated as
presented by K.E. Simmons.

68

Table I shows the diversity that existed in Santiago during the early part of the 20th
century. It also shows that there was attention given to not only defining national groups
in the sense of knowing who was Dominican but also knowing the national “origins” of
the remaining residents. There was also interest in knowing the gender composition of the
population at this early point in time. The alphabetical location of Haitians is worth
noting here as they are listed in order with the other national groups - this later changes
as their presence in the Dominican Republic is closely monitored. Haitians’ presence

takes more of a prominent position on the census in later years, especially during the

 

 

 

Trujillo era.
Table II
1916 Santiago Census
Santiago de los Caballeros
Total Population in Santiago 14,774
Gender Nationality Religion
Women Men Dominican 7 Foreign Catholic Other
8,077 6,697 13,167 I 1,607 14,303 471

 

 

 

 

 

Above, Table II summarizes the gender, nationality, and religious background of
the population in Santiago in 1916, thirteen years after the first census. Here,

“Dominican” and “Foreign” are the two categories for nationality, and “Catholic” and

69

“Other” categorize the religious practices. Here, we see the early formation of
Dominicanness in religious terms - being Dominican and Catholic.
The next table is similar to Table I in terms of detailing nationality in Santiago de

los Caballeros.

Table III
Nationality of Resident Foreigners in the City of Santiago
de los Caballeros in 1916

Nationality Population

North American 692
Haitian 388
Arab 184
Puerto Rican 104
S ' 60
Italian 49

' 37
Chinese 21
French 18

Cuban l6
' 13

German 10
Venezuelan

Danish

Dutch

Colombian

Mexican

 

TOTAL

Unlike the nationality table from the 1902 census that was concerned about gender and
nationality, this nationality table accounts for total group representation. This table

shows that there was growing diversity in Santiago in 1916. Interestingly, “North

70

American” and “Ara ” are nationality categories. North American refers to someone from
the United States while Arab typically refers to Lebanese immigrants to the Dominican
Republic. The data Show that there was an increase in North Americans and Haitians
during this time. The North American presence is due, in large part, to the U.S.
occupation of the Dominican Republic from 1916-1924.” There were more Haitians in
the Dominican Republic during this time because of a growing need for labor in the sugar
cane fields for the export of sugar (Martinez 1999). Other emerging groups are the Arabs
and the Chinese - the Arabs were an active part of the commercial life as merchants, and
the Chinese were involved in laundry services and restaurants (Hoetink 1982). This all
points to an increase in peopled migration to the Dominican Republic for a variety of

reasons.

71

The next table compares the nationality groups in Santiago during two census

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

years.
Table IV

Nationalities in Santiago, 1903 and 1916
Nationality Total 1903 Total 1916
Dominican 10,399 13,167
Spanish 91 60
French 11 18
Italian 33 49
Haitian 51 388
Arab 193 184
Chinese 2 21
American (North American) 92 692
Cuban 36 16

 

 

 

Table IV illustrates the change in population in terms of nationalities recorded behveen
1903 and 1916 in Santiago. As noted above, there is a significant increase in Haitians and
North Americans. There is also a decrease of Spanish Creoles because many of them,
who had the financial means, emigrated fiom the Dominican Republic and went to Cuba,

Puerto Rico, and other places (Hoetink 1982; Nelson 1988).

72

 

 

The next set of tables map nationality and race in the Dominican Republic in 1920
during the first national census. This data reveal some of the early defining points of

Dominicanness while classifying Dominicans and foreigners along religious and racial

 

 

 

 

lines.
Table V
Race in the First National Census, 1920
Total Population 894,665
Racial Category Number Percentage
Blancos/White 223,144 24.9%
(Dominicans and
Foreigners)
Mestizos/Mixed 444,587 49.7%
(including Amarillos/Asians)
Negros/Black 226,934 25.4%
(including 28,258 Haitians)

 

 

 

 

Note: Generally in the provinces, the number of whites in the cities is higher than in the
campo. Haitians account for 3.2% of the population.

AS Table V illustrates, there were three national (official) racial categories in the
Dominican Republic in 1920. Blanco, as a category, includes both White Dominicans and
White foreigners. Mestizo includes both mixed Dominicans as well as Asian immigrants
(Chinese in particular) - this changes in subsequent censuses. Negro, similar to the
blanco category, encompasses two groups - Black Dominicans and Haitians. I suspect

that Negro also included the immigrants from other Caribbean countries who, along with

73

Haitian laborers, also worked in the sugar cane fields. These immigrants were often from
the British, Dutch, and Danish Islands of the Caribbean.54 The fact that these early
categories were defined in this way is worth mentioning because the make-up of these
categories change at a later point in time - mestizo later becomes the primary category of
mixed Dominicans and negro is later used most often to refer to Haitians.

Continuing to map race during the first census, the next table reflects the racial

composition according to the provinces in 1920.

Table VI
Race According To Province, 1920

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

74

Province Blancos Mestizos Negros
Santo Domingo 32,985 58,013 55,644 |
San Pedro de 8,141 14,839 | 15,629
Macoris
Seybo 14,791 27,416 16,513 !
, Azua 21.503 47,895 .. 31,746 i
Barahona 9,800 23,853 I 14,529 i
Samaria 3,000 8,307 H 5,608 i
Pacificador 25,092 38,570 .. 14,554 {
La Vega 26,084 62,369 17,792 I
Espaillat 14,217 29,416 .. 7,313 l
Santiago 41,825 62,665 —" 18,550 i
Puerto Plata 13,106 37,750 H 8,067 i
Monte Cristi 12,600 33,484 __ 20,989 '
!
TOTAL 223,144 444,587 ‘ 226,934 1

Isolating Santiago province, in relation to the rest of the country, Table VI shows that
there were more Blancos and Mestizos in Santiago than in any other province in 1920.
Santo Domingo had the most number of Negros -- this is still the case today. The fact
that there were more Blancos and Mestizos in Santiago during this time period is
important in terms of the current ideas surrounding race in Santiago -- many participants
suggested that Santiago has more light-skinned people than areas in the south (e.g. the

capital, Santo Domingo).

Table VII
Religion according to Province, 1920

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Province Catholic Protestant Jewish Other
Santo Domingo 145,950 575 24 103
San Pedro de 33,056 5,513 0 40
Macoris

Seybo 57,391 1,296 3 30
Azua 101,083 58 2 1
Barahona 47,927 250 0 5
Samaria 14,779 2,127 6 3
Pacificador 77,984 225 O 7
LaVega 106,141 87 5 12
Espaillat 50,747 1 87 2 10
Santiago 122,806 198 0 36
Puerto Plata 57,766 1,141 6 10
Monte Cristi 66,795 270 7 1
TOTAL 882,425 1 1,927 55 258

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

Table VII illustrates the predominance of Roman Catholicism throughout the
Dominican Republic. Santo Domingo had the largest number of people in the Jewish and
“other” religious categories. The majority of the Protestants resided in San Pedro de
Macoris -- many of them came from other Caribbean counties to work. The second
highest Protestant group resided in Samana - this is likely related to the historical group
from the United States (Black Americans from the African Methodist Episcopal Church)
who emigrated to the Dominican Republic when it was Haiti (1822-44). The Protestant

and Jewish presence will be explained in the following racial discourse section.

76

The next table shows the attention to nationality in the first national census and

highlights the diversity, in terms of national origin, in the Dominican Republic in 1920.

Table VIII
Nationalities, 1920

Nationality/National Origin Total

87

China
Cuba
Danish Antilles

United States
France

French Antilles
Haiti

Dutch Antilles

Antilles
Ital
Puerto Rico
S .
Turk
Venezuela
Colombia
Mexico
Denmark
Russia
Canada

Arabia

 

Table VIH illustrates that there was tremendous diversity within the population in

1920 in terms of national origin. Attention was given to recording exacting where people

77

were from. Spain (1,444), Haiti (28,258), Puerto Rico (6069), Syria (1,187), the Dutch
Antilles (1,449), French Antilles (1,093), and English Antilles (5,763) were among the
nationality largest groups residing in the Dominican Republic at the time. The following
countries had fewer than ten (10) people: Costa Rica, Corcega, Finland, Austria, Ecuador,
Brazil, Peru, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Indostan, Holland, Argentina,
Poland, Panama, and English Guyana (names are time-Specific). Here again, the Haitian
and Antillian presence is linked to labor and agricultural work. This diversity becomes

important later as ideas of Dominicanness take root along the lines of national origin.

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

The United States occupied both the Dominican Republic and Haiti for years
during this time period. While in the Dominican Republic, from 1916-1924, the U.S.
Marines established a U.S. Military Government and Guardia Nacional Dominicana
(Dominican National Guard -- GND) -- this is where the “post-intervention” President
Rafael L. Trujillo received his military training. Examining some of the declassified
memos from this time, it is clear that the U.S. viewed Haiti as a “Black” country. What is
less clear is how the U.S. viewed the Dominican Republic in relation to Haiti. In the
United States at this time, the mulatto category dropped fiom the census, and all mulattos
“became” Black.

The United States might have viewed the Dominican Republic, at least the
“mulatto” population in the Dominican Republic, in a similar way as it did “mulattos” in

the United States although there were some place-specific differences. In the United

78

States, power relationships, White-Black relational categories, legal segregation, and
institutional forms of racism restricting access to resources to people of color were
simultaneously occurring. In the Dominican Republic, the United States exercised
military control of an island comprised of Blacks (Haiti) and mulattos (Dominican
Republic). I suspect that the United States played a role in that distinction in the
Dominican Republic as evidenced in the United States because while “mulattos” officially
became Black in the United States in 1920, they often enjoyed an elevated social status
over darker-skinned Blacks (Davis 1991).

Returning to the point of migration, there was a great deal of transnational
migration to and from the Dominican Republic during this time. While many Spanish
Creoles emigrated from the Dominican Republic to other countries in the region, Haitians
and Black Caribbean people immigrated to the Dominican Republic often to work in the
sugar cane fields. The fact that there was a decrease in the Spanish Creole population (a
Blanco group) concurrent with an increase in Haitian and other Caribbean immigrants
(Negro groups) is very Significant in the next period as the racial discourse moves away

fiom one de color to one embracing Hispanidad (Spanishness) in the next chapter.

79

V. Hispanidad Discourse (1930-1961): Rafael Leonidas Trujillo and the Shift away
from de Color

As discussed in chapter IV, the period before Trujillo witnessed tremendous
emigration fiom and immigration to the Dominican Republic. The United States also had
a physical presence in Hispaniola at the same time. All of the groups that resided in the
Dominican Republic were listed and recorded on the national census as part of the
national body. Haitians didn’t seem to have any more prominence than any other
national group. All of this changed as Rafael Trujillo came to power and institutionalized
categories and immigration policies that would have a lasting effect on how the Dominican
nation would be imagined and configured at the end of the 20th century. In this period,
from 1930-61 , I pay close attention, to the importance of knowing where Haitians reside
and the efforts that were made to decrease Haitian immigration while increasing

irnnrigration fi'orn Europe.

Racial Views and Concepts

During the regime of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo (1930-61), race is conceptualized
with a distance to “Blacks” and “Afiicans” and moves away from one “of color” as we
reviewed in the last chapter. Changing and removing references to Blacks, Trujillo put
forth an ideology of Hispanidad which then emerged as a way of talking about Dominican

people and “culture”

80

Instead of redefining the Dominican Republic as a mulatto nation - as Mexico’s

postrevolutionary mestizo elite had redefined that country as a mestizo nation --

he surrounded himself with white sycophants and Hispanophile intellectuals like

Joaquin Balaguer, and transformed the white elite’s identification with Spain into a

national ideology of hispanidad, which define Dominicans as “the most Spanish

people of America” (Winn 1992:289).

Hispanidad meant embracing “all that was Spanish” and identifying and appreciating
Spanish culture and society. In this way, Spain became the point of reference and a link
to understanding Dominican life and people.

The idea of mixture continued to exist within Hispanidad as the majority of
Dominicans were considered to be a liga (mixture), and in particular, an Indigenous-
Spanish mixture. It is this “type” of mixture that forms the basis for the construction of
indio. Again, while indio literally means “Indian,” it represents skin color and the
variation in color due to mixture over time. While indio is used most often as a color
category, it is also a racial “type” since it defines a racial status in-between Black and
White category.

As we saw in the last chapter, mestizo continues to be used as a racial term on the
census, and indio emerges as a racial and color term on the cédula (the national
identification card). For light-skinned Dominican elites, mestizo and indio were preferred
race/color categories over mulato since they do not imply Afiican ancestry, and for that
reason, a mulato identity is not articulated - mestizo was used in place of mulato, and
indio became the institutionalized color category. Much of what happens during this time

period is a reaction to earlier circumstances (e.g. the decrease in Spanish Creoles and the

increase of Negro immigrants). The “reaction” to Haitians during the regime of Trujillo

81

are rooted in what has been termed the “Haitian Domination” of the Dominican Republic
from 1822-44. During this particular time, the President of Haiti, Jean Pierre Boyer,
wrote a message to the then leader of the Dominican Republic, Jose Nunez de Céceres,
indicating that he had made the necessary preparations to unite the island; this was
against the backdrop of the imminent French invasion entering from the Dominican
Republic side (Moya Pons 1995: 122). Céceres did not want unification but felt he
couldn’t win and despite resistance, Boyer soon became the leader of the entire island, but
resigned in 1843 because of growing tension and revolts, seeking exile in Jamaica (ibid.
page 139).

Boyer left a legacy with which future generations would have to contend, and in
particular, Trujillo. In particular, religious freedom of expression and language would be
highly contested in later years as Boyer invited various groups to settle in the Dominican
Republic. One of these groups consisted of Black Americans, affiliated with the
American Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in Philadelphia, PA. At the invitation of
Boyer, they left the United States and settled in Samana Bay, on the eastern peninsular
coast of the Dominican Republic. They continue to reside there, with some of them
speaking a form of “Old English,” and are still members of the AME church they formed
in Samana. Jehovah Witnesses also settled in the Dominican Republic during this time,
and the role of the Catholic church changed during the time of Boyer in terms of being
“the church” of the people. Boyer also ordered the abolition of slavery in the Dominican

Republic and attempted to create a more egalitarian state:

82

This revolution would consist of the abolition of slavery and the institution of a

new land-tenure system based on French and Haitian practices, as well as the

social and juridical equality of whites, mulattos, and blacks (Moya Pons 1995:

123).

Trujillo sought to change the image of the Dominican Republic in the minds of
outsiders by hosting international fairs and displaying photos of Spanish immigrants and
very light women (with captions stressing the beauty of Dominican women).55 I suggest
that this was an attempt to change the image of the Dominican Republic, fi'om an “of
color” country to a very light, almost white ideal. While scholars outside of the
Dominican Republic often described the Dominican Republic as a predominantly racially
mixed country comprised of “mulattos,” Trujillo continued to use mestizo and later indio
to racially classify the majority of Dominicans - there was a consensus regarding the
“significance” of mulatto and mestizo in the Americas, and Dominicans were not
considered to be mestizo by “outsiders” when defining mixture and mixed categories.

Haitians were associated with the “browning” of the Dominican Republic, and
they became the “undesired” immigrants while Europeans became the “desired”
immigrants. All of this was part of a larger “biological” effort of blanquemiento
(whitening). The cultural strategy then involved the appreciation of Spain in terms of
cultm'e, religion, and language. The relationship between biology and culture was forged
in a state-sanctioned attempt to create a nationality, change and rewrite history, and

through instruments of fear, create a climate where much of these changes were

implemented and accepted -- this was the power of the Trujillo regime.

83

Much of what I outline here deals with Dominican-Haitian relations over time.
The Dominican Republic found itself in a unique situation even before the turn of the
20th century. The United States had at one time considered making the Dominican
Republic a U.S. territory, and the island itself was unified under Haitian rule from 1822 to
1844. The Dominican Republic came to define itself in direct opposition to Haiti and
harbored resentment for the alleged “browning” of the Dominican Republic.

While ideas of race and nation are firmly planted during this period, social class
and social status also took shape. Dominicans, as a whole, were considered to be “better
off” than Haitians. One participant in my research suggested that “even the poorest
Dominican is better off than a Haitian.” This comment speaks to racist practices that
keep Haitians in neo-slavery conditions where they are marked as “poor,” “dirty,”
“disease-ridden,” and to be “feared” (because of Haitian voodoo and the “belief” that
“Haitians eat people”).56 I return to this discussion in the next chapter on mestizaje and

contemporary relations with Haiti and Haitians in the Dominican Republic.

Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and National Identities

Hispanidad is both a racial discourse and a Spanish diaspora in its articulation
during the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo. Within the reahn of Hispanidad, mestizaje
emerges.57 Here, mestizaje -- in the sense of race mixture - assumes that there are
distinct racial groups, and that if/when miscegenation occurs, the offspring will be

“racially mixed.” Blanquemiento - in the sense of whitening -- refers to the actual

practice of race mixing or whitening. While Hispanidad advances the absolute
appreciation of everything “Spanish,” it also firmly established and rooted mestizaje and
blanquemiento.

Trujillo declared that the Dominican Republic was the most Spanish of the
Americas and that Dominicans should identify with everything Spanish (Moya Pons
1995; Winn 1992). It has been said that Trujillo ordered the (re)writing of history in
order to 1) erase the presence of sub-Saharan Afiicans and to 2) suggest that the Afiicans
who were brought as slaves to the Dominican Republic were fi'om North Afiica (Winn
1992; Torres-Saillant 1995). Trujillo also allegedly ordered the removal of one of the
drums used in merengue music because it sounded “too African” (Austerlitz 1997). The
altered historical account became part of the Dominican history as it was told and retold
in text books as well as in oral tradition, explaining why many Dominicans do not
consider themselves to be of Afiican descent. The category “indio” was attractive to
Trujillo in that it implied racial mixture and could be used as a color denominator to
describe skin color (e.g. indio clam/light skinned or indio oscuro/dark skinned). While
indio never appeared on the census, Trujillo was effective in institutionalizing it as he set
in motion its usage on the cédula, a state-sanctioned identification card (T orres-Saillant
1995).

AS alluded to above, the creation of indio, and its significance as a non-Black
race/color identity, was created in relation to Haitians who were considered to be Afiican
and racially Black}8 Again, this might have to do with the lingering effects of slavery and

the tasks that people were assigned based on their socioracial category in that Haitians

85

were closely associated with slavery, strenuous manual labor, and “being” Black - this
was echoed by participants throughout the research. The usage over time of indio color
descriptors and categories had the effect of distancing Dominicans fiom their Afiican
heritage and ideas of blackness in an attempt to create an affinity towards Spanish ideals
against an Indigenous (Taino) landscape. The effort to advance Hispanidad not only
meant a cultural affiliation with Spain, but also a “biological” one. White was used to
classify someone of Spanish (or other European) ancestry, and Black was used to classify
someone of Afiican ancestry (Haitian or other West Indian). Immigration from Spain and
other European countries was encouraged while Haitian immigration was not only
discouraged but unwanted (see memos later in this chapter).

According to interviews, Trujillo was successful not only in creating images and
giving meaning to categories, but also in maintaining a level of appreciation of everything
that was Spanish and depreciating anything that had to do with Haiti. In essence, he
created a systematic fear of Haitians and belief that they were not to be trusted and
needed to be closely monitored - he also reminded people that the Dominican Republic
had been “invaded” by Haiti in 1822 and this was not to happen again. Relying on the
media and educational system to perpetuate his ideas, Trujillo, in effect not only
orchestrated a racialized immigration project (see memos later in this chapter), but he also
planted and sowed seeds for on-going anti-Haitian sentiment as he was greatly influenced
by the racist ideology of Adolph Hitler which culminated in the extermination of

thousands of Haitians residing in the Dominican Republic in 1937:

86

The Haitians living near the border were completely marginal to Dominican
society and the territory they occupied functioned as an extension of Haiti.
Haitian currency circulated freely in the Cibao, the main agricultural region of the
country, and in the south it circulated as far as Azua, only 120 kilometers fi'om

Santo Domingo. Trujillo did not want to accept that fact. He traveled to the

fiontier at the beginning of October 1937, and there gave a speech announcing that

the occupation by Haitians of the frontier territories must not continue.

Afterwards, he ordered that all Haitians remaining in the country be exterminated.

In the days following October 4, 1937, the army assassinated all Haitians on sight.

Eighteen thousand Haitians were killed. The only ones able to save their lives

were those who managed to cross the border and those protected by the sugar

mills, which did not want to lose their Haitian labor force (Moya Pons 1995: 368).

When there was international and public protest against this act, Trujillo allegedly
paid large sums of money to Haiti for damages and suggested that there were border
disputes. The present-day tensions between Dominicans and Haitians, as well as
contemporary images have their roots in this particular period. Importantly, despite
efforts to remove them, Haitian immigrants and their descendants still have a presence in
the Dominican Republic, albeit a difficult life, performing arduous tasks and working long
hours for little pay (e.g. construction work, sugar cane fields and other plantations, etc.)
and facing tremendous discrimination.

The United States and neighboring countries (e.g. Mexico and Cuba) were made
aware of the growing tensions between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In a letter to
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rafael Trujillo writes “My Government will concur in
the conciliation procedure initiated by Haiti with the same desire it has always cherished
of giving the Government and people of Haiti the most complete satisfaction with regard

to any legitimate claim that they may present on the ground of the regrettable and

regretted incidents that occurred in the Dominican territory early in October.”59

87

In his response to Trujillo, President Roosevelt writes “Permit rne further to
express my gratification by reason of Your Excellency’s statement that the Government
of the Dominican Republic will not give the slightest ground for a disturbance of the peace
of America, in the preservation of which all the peoples of the New World have so great
and legitimate an interest. I extend to Your Excellency my most sincere wishes that the
controversy which regrettably exists between two sister republics may obtain a rapid,
just, and pacific solution through the utilization of the inter-American peace instruments
to which they have now announced their determination to have recourse.”60 President
Roosevelt was also in communication with the President of Haiti and other heads of state
in the region about the “controversy” and possible “disturbance” in the region. Because
of the ongoing conversations surrounding the massacre at the governmental level between
the United States and the Dominican Republic, the United States played a part in
monitoring the situation between Dominicans and Haitians in the Dominican Republic

while keeping a close eye on Trujillo himself.

Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories

As presented in the tables below, during this time, there is a growing importance
of quantifying Haitians, in both rural and urban areas, and along the lines of gender. The
census of 1935 is an important official document in terms of what it suggests; there was a
close monitoring of the Haitian population. For the first time, in the census summary, the
Haitian population data are prominently placed after Dominicans and foreigners, drawing

attention to the numbers and their overall presence in the Dominican Republic (see Table

88

am

of]

"Ft

(Sec

inl

\M\%\W\M

101'

901111

dillere

DO. I demonstrate here that the numbers of Haitian significantly drop between the 1935
and 1950, according to census figures, following what was termed the matanza (massacre)
of Haitians in 193 7, at the request of Trujillo as discussed above.

Another trend during this period is differentiation between “Dominican” and
“Foreign” categorizations of race in that the racial composition of Dominicans has its own
table followed by the racial composition of foreigners residing in the Dominican Republic

(see the following tables). The next table provides a closer look at the foreign population

 

 

 

 

 

in 1935.
Table IX
National Population Census May 13, 1935
Total Inhabitants 1,479,417
Dominicans 1 ,406,347
Foreigners: all races 73,070
Haitians:
Urban Zones Men: 1,571
Women: 1,436 (3,007 total in Urban Zones)
Rural Zones Men: 30,748
Women: 18,902 (49,650 total in Rural Zones)
Total: 52,657

 

 

SOURCE: 1935 Census, Archivo HistOrico de Santiago. Translated by K.E. Simmons.

Like previous population census tables, Table IX also makes distinctions between
Dominicans and Foreigners. However, for the first time, there are two striking

differences: 1) the classification of foreigners of “all races” and 2) the detailed

89

 

classification and quantification of Haitians, along the lines of gender and in terms of rural
or urban location. Again, it is important to note the number of Haitians residing in the
Dominican Republic in 1935 as this number is significantly later (following the matanza
in 1937). The next table focuses on the distribution of foreigners in the Dominican
Republic of all races in 1935.
Table X

Foreigners (All Races) by Province, 1935

PROVINCE MEN WOMEN TOTAL

Montecristi 1 l 1
Puerto Plata 1

La V

Duarte

Samaria
National District

T

San Pedro de
Macoris

Azua
Barahona

 

TOTAL 27 1

SOURCE: 1935 Census, Archivo HistOrico de Santiago. Translated by K.E. Simmons.

The above table “unpacks” foreign to Show where “they” reside. The majority of

foreigners resided in Seybo province followed by Azua. At this point, a “we” and “they”

 

C011

 

H.

de

emerge as the data indicate where the foreigners reside. The next table illustrates the racial

composition of Dominicans in 1935.

Table XI
Dominicans: Racial Categories, 1935

 

 

 

Racial Category Number
Blanco (White) 184,741
Mestizo (Mixed) 994,420
Negro (Black) 227,160

 

Amarillo (Yellow/Naturalized Chinese) 26

 

 

Total 1,406,347

 

 

Note: With regard to race, Dominicans are divided into the following groups: Blancos
(White) 184,741; Mestizos 994,420; Negros (Black) 227,160; Amarillo (yellow) 26. The
last group refers to naturalized Chinese.

Unlike the census of 1920 where there were three racial categories (where Asians
were included in the mestizo category), there are four racial groupings in the 1935 census.
Here, the Naturalized Chinese have their own category, amarillo, moving out of the
mestizo category. This category shift, I suggest, is an attempt to define the majority of
the Dominican population as mixed, and importantly, as mestizo. Again, at this point in
time, mestizo, not mulato, is the intermediate racial category that is used to describe and

define mixture in the Dominican Republic.

91

 

 

 

 

Table XII presents an interesting view of race among foreigners.

Table XII
Foreigners: Racial Categories, 1935

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blanco (White) 7,992
Mestizo (Mixed) 4,248
Negro (Black) 60,517
Amarillo (Y ellow/Asian) 313
Total 73,070

 

 

 

Note: The foreigners are: blancos (white) 7,992; mestizos 4,248; negros (black) 60,517,
and amarillos (yellow) 313.

The above table shows that Negros outnumber the other racial groups among the
foreigners. In fact, if we compare Table XI with Table XII, we see that the majority of
Dominicans are classified as mestizo while the majority of foreigners are classified as
Negro. This is an early formation of the idea that Dominicans are mixed while Haitians,
for example, are Black (despite the fact that there are Black Dominicans as well as mixed
Haitians).

The same categories are used for “Dominicans” and “foreigners” in these tables
suggesting that someone could be a White, Black, Mixed, or Chinese Dominican or White,
Black, Mixed, or Asian foreigner. That the same racial categories exist for both
Dominican and Foreign populations seems to suggest that race is viewed as a constan --
what changes here is nationality. Later, I will demonstrate how nationality and race are

merged in the formation of Dominicanness and the idea that Dominicans are mixed.

92

 

 

Looking at the 1935 census closely, it appears that there is a stronger emphasis on
identifying and naming the foreign residents in terms of their provincial locations. This is
the type of data that Trujillo allegedly relied on to implement immigration initiatives,
targeting certain provinces in the Dominican Republic (see discussion below).

There are some Significant shifts that followed the census of 1935, linking
Hispanidad to the present. In particular, the census of 1950 moved away from race and
racial classifications in favor of color as a category (although at this time, there was no
clear distinction between race and color). In other words, the shift from race to color was
in name only as the categories themselves as they did not change - there were still four
categories (negro, blanco, mestizo, and amarillo). For the first time, color and nationality
were defined for census purposes (see below), bringing a definition to these categories in
terms of what they represented. Another shift at this time involved the first-time usage
of “La Repriblica,” as a way of talking about the Dominican Republic -- it was placed on
the census as a complete representation of the population with regard to color (see the
tables below following the definitions that were used to guide the census takers).

As mentioned above, color and nationality were defined for the first time for
census purposes in 1950. These definitions are fiom the 1950 National census (regarding
color and nationality)“

Color- Se determine e1 color, no la raza, de las personas empadronadas. Se clasifico la

poblacién en blanca, negra, mestiza y amarilla, segr'rn el caso, y de acuerdo a la apreciaciOn
del empadronador, quien fue' instruido para que salvo en circunstancias especiales, hiciese

esta pregunta (xiv).

93

Color - The color, not the race, was determined of registered people. The population
was classified into white, black, mixed and yellow categories, according to the case, and
according to the census taker, who was instructed to ask questions in special
circumstances (xiv).

Nationalidad- Esta pregunta cubrio dos aspectos: en primer lugar se anoté:
“dominicano,” “naturalizado dominicano,” o “extranjero,” de acuerdo con la declaraciOn de
la persona interrogada. Si esta declaraba ser naturalizada dominicana, en un segundo
renglén, como consecuencia a esta prirnera anotacién, se hizo constar a que nacionalidad
pertenecia antes de haber adquirido la nacionalidad dominicana. Si por el contrario la
persona declare ser extranjera, en este mismo segundo renglén se anotaba su nacionalidad
(xiv).

Nationality - This question covered two aspects: in the first place one noted: 'of the
Dominican Republic,’ 'naturalized of the Dominican Republic,’ or 'foreigner,’ in accordance
with the interrogated person's declaration. If he/she declared to be naturalized of the
Dominican Republic, in a second line, as consequence to this first annotation, it was noted
that there was a different nationality prior to having acquired the nationality of the
Dominican Republic. If on the contrary the person declares to be foreign, in this same
second line, the nationality is noted (xiv).

This shift from race to color is similar to that of other countries in Latin America (such as
Brazil and Venezuela) that claim to have no racial distinctions. This is a “no race”
position in favor of a color spectrum (from light to dark) based on racial mixture. I
discuss this later in the dissertation when I present an overview of whitening practices in
the region.

In 1950, “color” replaced “race” as a category header for blanco, negro, mestizo,
and amarillo. According to instructions, the census taker had to record the color of the
person, but in situations where their color was not obvious, he/she might have to ask.
While the previous censuses dealt with nationalities and classifying different national
groups, this was the first time a definition appeared on the census to the reader to

interpret the results.

The following tables Show how race and color became intertwined and how
Dominicanness was firmly defined, not only in terms of race and color, but also in terms
of nationality and first language.

Table XIII
Color of the Dominican Population, 1950 Census

NOTE: The following table contains the exact same categories, but in 1950, the title of the
table read “color,” not “race” as is did in 1935.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Color Total Urban Rural

La Repr'rblica/Ihe 2,135,872 508,408 1,627,464
Dominican Republic

Blanco/White 600,994 182,297 418,697
Negro/Black 245,032 61,053 183,979
Mestizo/Mixed 1,289,285 264,52 1 1,024,764
Amarillo/Asian 561 537 24

 

 

 

 

In Table XIII, we see that the majority of the population was classified as mestizo and
that the majority of the mestizo population lived in rural areas in 1950. In fact, the only
urban-based majority was the amarillo group. The majority of blancos, negros, as well
as mestizos resided in rural areas. This will shift in later years due to rural to urban
migration.

Again, this is the first time that La Repriblica (The Dominican Republic) is used in
the total as a “sum of its parts.” By way of comparison, the next table, from 1935,

categorizes Dominicans into “color” categories.

95

 

Table XIV
Race and Color of the Dominican Population, 1935 Census

 

 

 

 

 

 

Color Total Urban Rural

La Republica/The 1,479,417 263,625 1,215,792
Dominican Republic

Blanco/White 192,733 59,400 133,333
Negro/Black 287,677 47,198 240,479
Mestizo/Mixed 998,668 1 56,720 841 ,948
Amarillo/Asian 339 307 32

 

 

 

 

Again, this table is taken from the 1950 census data but refers to the population of 1935.
Interestingly, the title is “Race and Color of the Dominican Population,” but the
categories are labeled “color” not “race.” Later in this chapter, I consider some of the
memos during the regime of Rafael Trujillo (1930-61) that demonstrate that Trujillo was
influenced by the racial thinking of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Like Hitler, Trujillo
believed in the idea of racial purity and the “biological threat” of “non-white” or “racially
inferior” groups. For Hitler, they were the Jews, and for Trujillo, they were the Haitians.
Within the ideology of racial supremacy, these two groups, Jews and Haitians, were
considered to be inferior within particular national contexts.

In 1950, the categories of the census seem to reflect post W.W.H ideas of “no-
race” in favor of color. In other words, we see a “race to color” shift in the way in which
groups are defined in the Dominican Republic -- again, this also minors Brazil and
Venezuela, for example, in the idea of racial democracy. In 1935, these same categories

were considered racial categories, and in 1950, they became color categories. This is an

 

 

1h.

important shift in terms of how this “Simple” change came to influence the no-race
contemporary view we see today in the Dominican Republic.
The following chart details the change in population along the lines of race and

color in 1935 and 1950.

Table XV
Race and Color in Comparison, 1935 and 1950 Census

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Color 1935 1950
Blanco/White 192,733 600,994
Negro/Black 287,677 245,032
Mestizo/Mixed 998,668 1 ,289,2 85
Amarillo/Asian 339 561
TOTAL 1,479,417 2,135,872

 

 

What Table XV shows is that there was a Significant increase of blancos between 1935
and 1950 while there was a simultaneous degrease of negros. The memos presented later
in this chapter point to heightened European immigration efforts which could explain the
increase in the blanco population illustrated above. All of the racial/color categories
experienced an increase from 1935 to 1950 except for those in the negro category. This
decrease in negro population followed the matanza of the Haitians in the Donrinican-
Haitian border commmrities.

The population changes, I suggest, played a role in nation building. The
Dominican Republic became a place that witnessed immigration fiom Europe and horn

the Caribbean region. European irnnrigration was favored over what was considered

 

“Black” immigration. The numbers indicate that there was growth among Whites in the
Dominican Republic - Whites were necessary for the biological whitening strategy that
Trujillo wanted to, and did, implement.

As I will discuss later, over time the idea of immigration played a lesser role in
constructing nationness in the Dominican Republic in terms of how people came to see
themselves with respect to their histories and ancestry. The Dominican Republic is not
imagined as a land of immigrants - the focus is not on immigration per se. Instead,
immigration is a necessary component in the construction of Dominicanness in that the
sense of being Dominican is linked to being racially mixed. This mixture is due in part to
immigration and whitening practices implemented by Trujillo. I will return to this point

later in the chapter.

98

The next table considers racial and color composition according to gender in 1935

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and 1950.
Table XVI
Race and Color of the Dominican Population, by Gender in Comparison, 1935 and
1950 Census

Gender/Color 1935 Total 1950 Total

VARONEs/MEN 750,704 1,070,742
Blanco/White 94,082 286,736
Negro/Black 1 56,1 32 133,292
Mestizo/Mixed 500,1 5 2 650,224
Amarillo/Asian 338 490

HEMBRAs/WOMEN 728,713 1,065,130
Blanco/White 98,651 314,258
Negro/Black 131,545 1 1 1,740
Mestizo/Mixed 498,51 6 639,061
Amarillo/Asian 1 71

 

 

 

Here Table XVI shows the change in population along the lines of race and color between
1935 and 1950 for both men and women. In both gender categories, there was an increase
in the Blanco, Mestizo, and Amarillo categories and a decrease in the Negro category -
again, this followed the matanza of Haitians in the Dominican Republic. It is striking,
however, that while there is a sharp increase in the Blanco category for men and women,
there is a significant decrease in the Negro category for men and women. These data

reflect the efforts of the time - to encourage White immigration and discourage Black

 

 

eli

immigration while working to rid a “Black presence” in the Dominican Republic (see
memos below).

The above table also illustrates that in both 1935 and 1950, there were more
Blanca women than men while Negro, Mestizo, and Amarillo men outnumbered women in
the same categories in both years. In combination, the total population of men
outnumbered women by only 5612. In 1950, we begin to see the results of some of
Trujillo’s efforts mentioned above. It seems that by increasing the presence of both
White men and White women, to an extent, whiteness is preserved (e. g. social status,

elites, etc.), and at the same time, the goals of whitening are achieved.

100

E 1.0.0.AEQQEEnsneuemuuuflflhflflflfl

 

 

The next table illustrates the attention given to nationality and gender in 1950.

Table XVII
Nationality, 1950 Census

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nationality Total Men Women
La Republicaflhe 2,135,872 1,070,742 1,065,130
Dominican Republic

Dominican 2,103,249 1,048,236 1,055,013
German 240 136 104
Austrian 145 86 59
Canadian 113 75 38
Cuban 389 225 164
Chinese 455 431 24
Danish 62 35 27
Spanish 1,599 1,078 521
American (USA) 1,098 603 495
French 550 353 197
Haitian 18,772 13,275 5,497
Dutch 383 214 169
Hungarian 174 1 15 59
Inglesa 4,797 3,593 1 ,204
Italian 405 287 l 18
Jamaican 6O 42 18
Lebanese 631 378 253
Mexican 54 24 30
Palestian 143 93 50
Polish 67 38 29
Puerto Rican 1,706 969 737
Russian 141 80 61
Syrian 94 62 32
Venezuelan 85 45 40
Other 460 269 191

 

 

 

 

101

 

In 1950, in terms of gender, there were slightly more Dominican women than men. The
national groups with the most striking difference in gender ratios are the Chinese, Spanish,
Haitian, and Inglesa (Black immigrants from the English Caribbean) where the men greatly
outnumbered the women in the same categories. In fact, except for Mexicans and
Dominicans, men outnumbered women in all national categories in 1950. This has
implications for marriage and reproduction. It would seem likely then that men would
leave their national group in order to marry and have children.

This table also illustrates that there were numerous “nation ” groups residing in
the Dominican Republic and were categorized as such - according to national origin. In
1950, these national groups hadnot been incorporated into the larger Dominican
population as “Dominican;” they were still tied to their place of origin. In the case of the
“French” and “Haitians,” it is unclear if the descendants of mulato Haitians (from 1822-
44) are classified here as Haitian, French, or Dominican, given their family surnames and
importance attached to color.62 I wonder, over time, if the descendants of mulato Haitians
became Dominican or “French,” while the Black Haitians remained Haitian. Again, the
“Inglesa” category refers to the “cocolos” from neighboring Caribbean islands (e. g. St.
Kitts, Antigua, St. Martin, Montserrat, Anguilla, etc.) who were migrant workers on the
sugar cane estates in the Dominican Republic (Martinez 1999). The Inglesas and
Haitians were both racially defined as Black but were considered to be different national
groups. Being Black, they both were assigned similar tasks with regard to sugar cane
labor and production. How the Black American descendants in Samana were classified

during this time remains unclear -- they did not come to work on the sugar estates.

102

Continuing with nationalities and the classification of national groups, the next

table shows the change in population according to nationality between 1920 and 1950.

Table XVIII
Nationality by Comparison, 1920 and 1950 Census

Nationality Total 1920 Total 1950

German 87 240

Canadian 12 113

Chinese 455

Cuban 389
' 1

American SA 1 098

French 550
Haitian 1 772
4 797
Italian 405
Puerto Rican 1 706
Dutch 383

 

This table shows that there was a significant increase among the German, Canadian,
Chinese, French, English, and Dutch national groups. That the white immigration, with
the exception of Italians, has increased since 1920, is due to efforts to attract more Whites
to the Dominican Republic (see memos later in this chapter). The Cuban, Puerto Rican,
and Haitian populations have decreased in part due to emigration to other locations in the

Caribbean (Hoetink 1982; Nelson 1988).

103

The diversity of national origins and nationalities in the Dominican Republic also
suggests that there would be some diversity in religious denominations. Table XIX

Shows that there were different religions present in the Dominican Republic in both 1935

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and 1950.
Table XIX

Religion, 1935 and 1950 Census
Religion 1935 1950
La Republica/The 1,479,417 2,135,872
Dominican
Republic
Catholic 1 ,458,790 2,098,474
Protestant 15,3 84 30,538
Buddhist 0 56
Jewish 0 463
Adventist 0 2,902
Other 5,243 1 ,356
None 0 1,845
None Declared 0 238

 

 

 

Table XIX shows an increase in all of the religious categories except for “other” between
1935 and 1950. The most prevalent religion is Roman Catholicism followed by
protestantism. Buddhist, Jewish, and Adventist were among the new categories added to
this census in 1950 -- they had “0” recorded practitioners in 1935.

I later argue that part of the Dominicanization process emphasized Roman
Catholicism and Spanish language as two important defining characteristics of being

Dominican. The census data reflect an effort to identify certain practices and link them to

104

 

national groups. In order to dissuade other religious practices and languages, other than
Roman Catholicism and Spanish, the state had to first identify and locate them.

The next table shows the focus on first language in 1950.

Table XX
First Language, 1950 Census

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Language Total Men Women
La Repr'rblica/The 2,135,872 1,070,742 1,065,130
Dominican Republic

Spanish 2,093,195 1,043,760 1,049,525
Arabic 1,978 1,100 878
French 25,405 16,747 8,658
English 12,140 7,288 4,852
Italian 562 372 190
Other 2,578 1,554 1,024
Unknown 14 11 3

 

 

 

 

Clearly, for the majority of the population in 1950, Spanish was their first language.

There was a significant group of people, however, who spoke either French or English as

their first language. It is not clear if people who spoke a language other than Spanish for

their first language also Spoke Spanish. Arabic, French, English, and Italian are recognized

as languages while Haitian Creole is not. Later in this chapter, I will demonstrate how

Creole is viewed as an “inferior” language.

In sum, this section, using census data, illustrates the growing importance of

“knowing” who was “Dominican” and who was “foreign” as well as classifying the

general composition of the Dominican Republic (e.g. language, race/color, first language).

105

 

These data are tied into early articulations of Dominicanness in the face of immigration
(both desired and undesired) and in terms of the formation of a Dominican national

identity that encompasses race and color, religion, and language.

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

One of the largest Caribbean migrations during this century involved Cubans
(leaving Cuba since the early 1960’s). They primarily went to the United States although
some went to the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (Hoetink 1985). People from the
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico also migrated in large numbers during this century
throughout the Caribbean and primarily to the United States (Georges 1990; Grasmuck
and Pessar 1991; Hendricks 1974; Kasinitz 1992; Portes and Rumbaut 1990; Watkins-
Owen 1996). Some sociologists, referring to early migration, attributed it to “push-pull”
factors whereby migrants were seeking to improve their lot elsewhere because of
economic constraints in their home countries.

As suggested earlier (and examined closely in the next section of memos), Trujillo
worked to increase immigration from Europe, the “desired” immigrants, all while curbing
immigration from Haiti, the “undesired” immigrants (Martinez 1999), and placing
restrictions on Dominicans emigrating to other countries (Torres-Saillaint and Hernandez
1998). His actions shed light on the historical formation and construction of the
Dominican nation as well as his ideas about Dominicanness itself - he planned to

“lighten” the population and create a non-Black/non-White racial people and category.

106

The following commentary, “We Need Immigrants,” was written in 1930 and

clearly articulates the “need” for immigrants but of a certain “type”

 

...Como no podemos traer todos esos inmigrantes, de un sOlo golpe, podriamos, en
cambio, seleccionar un grupo de ellos y dar principio en seguida, sin fabulosos
gastos, a la obra de poblar nuestro suelo de gente sana, honrada y trabajadora, tan

necesaria para aumentar la riqueza el poder y el bienestar de nuestra Patria.

Y de ninguna parte podriamos traer mejor gente que de Espafia. El inmigrante
espaifol, por afinidad de raza, religién e idioma, es el que mejor liga hace con

nuestro pueblo, y es, por lo tanto, el que mas nos conviene.

No hablaremos mas del irnportante problema de que nos libraria automaticamente
el fomento de esta inmigracién. No hablaremos de que ella evitaria la lamentable
despoblacién de nuestra tierra, para pasar a hacer una consideracién de otro
irnportante Inal de que nos libraria también la llegada al pais del elemento sano y

tabajador [sic] de que venimos hablando.

Este mal, es la lamentable “haitianizacibn” de que estamos siendo victimas. Todos
saben que la inmigracién haitiana ha llegado a tomar tal incremento, que constituye
un peligro cierto para nuestra personalidad latina, para la fisonomia de nuestro
pueblo, para la Patria, en fin, dejando a un lado las insinuaciones Pues bien; sabido
esto, sale al paso en seguida una de las mas apreciables ventajas de la inmigracién a
que primero nos referimos. Poniendo a estos inmigrantes como barrera en los

carnpos cercanos a nuestro lirnite occidental, queda suprimida la invaciOn.

 

 

 

Source: El Diario, January 15, 1930, from the “Lineas Editoriales” section entitled
“Necesitamos Inmigrantes,” fiont page; Archivo Histbrico de Santiago.

107

Translation

 

...As we cannot bring all those immigrants, at one time, we would, on the other
hand, select a group of them and soon after, without much expense, work to
populate our land of healthy, honest and hard-working people, as it is necessary

to increase the wealth, the power and the well-being of our Homeland.

And there is no other part from where we could bring a better people than that of
Spain. The Spanish immigrant, for likeness of race, religion and language, is the

best combination with our community, and, therefore, the one that we need.

We won't speak any more of the important problem that would liberate us
automatically as a result of this immigration. We won't speak that it would
prevent the lamentable depopulation of our land, to continue to make a
consideration of the importance that we would be liberated by their arrival to our
country bringing a healthy element and work ethic that we are talking about.

This bad [situation], is the lamentable ' haitianizacion' that we are falling victim to.
Everyone knows that the Haitian immigration, over time, has created certain
danger for our Latin personality, for the physical features of our community, for
the Homeland, in short, leaving a side the insinuations well; knowing this, let’s
move quickly toward the advantages of the immigration to which we first referred.
Placing these immigrants as baniers in the rural areas near our western border, the

invasion is suppressed.

 

 

 

The type of immigrant that is clearly desired and wanted is Spanish because perceived
likenesses -- race, religion, and language. Interestingly, the Spanish were considered to be

White not of “mixed race.” Haitians, on the other hand, pose a threat of sorts to

108

Dominicans’ “Latin personality,” “physical features,” and homeland because of their
perceived differences - they are undesired immigrants. Some of the same themes in the
above commentary are also mentioned in official documents discussing the importance of
“populating” the land, Spain being the primary source of immigrants, the growing
importance of race, language and religion, and the Dominican Republic as “homeland.”
Memos later in this section show that Trujillo and other governmental officials actually
articulated the “nee ”to “inject white blood” in the borderlands and to make Spanish
language the official language and Roman Catholicism the official religion often in response
to “Haitianization.”

Haitianization is often viewed as type of “biological invasion” in terms of the
potential “darkening” of the Dominican population over time as well as a “cultural
invasion” because of perceived cultural differences in language, religion, and customs. In
this way, Haitianization, as a process, is linked to ideas of social and cultural threats
against Dominican people (e.g. language, religion, and practices). The idea of
Dominicanization then is presented to counter Haitianization with regard to solidifying
ideas of who Dominicans are in terms of “mixture,” language, and religion within
Hispanidad. These cultural practices and expressions, along with race and color, in sum,
form distinguishing features of Dominicanness during this point in history.

Another example of the early formation of Dominicanness can be found in the
following speech excerpt by Adriano Mejias, Director of Immigration, in April of 1932,
(delivered by radio)"3 It illuminates the image that Trujillo created of the Dominican

Republic when encouraging immigration fiom Europe:

109

 

 

In no other place in the world do foreigners find such consideration, fiiendship and
help as in this hospitable country. We invite European and Spanish-American
immigrants, taking of course, the neccessary [Sic] restrictions, to come to our
country and make an honest living in this beautiful and fi'uitful land, and help us at
the same time in the development of agriculture, industry and commerce.
Merchants with capital are also foreigners to whom we give most attention and at
the same time try to give them protection and help as may be expected in a
civilized country. Nowhere will their capital, invested or not, be more secure than
in this country. The positive and evident fact that 95% of the busines [sic]
community in this country is formed by foreign men and capital, is a proof of
what we say (92). We are in need of factories of the following: dry goods,
chocolate, bonbons, fish canning and preserving, milling plants to make flour fi'om
yuca to be mixed with wheat flour for baking bread of superior
quality...Consequently, we have stated that the Dominican Republic is an ideal
country for desirable forcing [sic] immigrants, for the following reasons: 1.-
Because her climate is healthy and the sanitary services are governed by laws
which are enforced. 2.-Because her inhabitants are hospitable. 3.-Because her soil
is very rich and fiuitful and uncultivated to a very large extent. 4.-Because her
population is very small. 5.-Because she has a magnificent geographic location,
with modern and rapid means of communications. 6.-Because her laws protect the
immigrant worker and guarantees justice. 7.-Because the government is a
protector of all those who work and produce. Immigrant farmers, experts in
tropical cultivation, (we do not mean peons), of good habits and of desirable race,
workers who are experts in their trades, skilled mechanics, manufacturers with
technical knowledge in certain industries, merchants with cash capital for
investment in the Republic, are invited to come to our country and share with us

the hazards of life, assuring them that they will soon feel at home” (92-93).

 

110

 

It is clear here that while there is consensus that the population is “small” and needs to be
increased, there is growing concern over how to increase the population in terms of who is
encouraged/discouraged to settle and contribute to the population. What emerges here,
and in other archival documents, is a reference to desirable race and work ethic. The
assumptions were that Europeans, and Spanish in particular, were not only of desirable
race but were good workers and had a great deal to contribute to society, while Haitians
were of an undesirable race and were considered to be less than good workers and had
little to contribute to Dominican society. The “desirable” immigrants were guaranteed
certain rights and privileges under “Dominican law” while the ‘firndesirable” immigrants
were not ensured the same type of treatment and protection under the law.

In theory and practice, the Donrinicanization process sought to define the nation
in terms of its members, affirm the importance of Roman Catholicism (religion), and
assert the importance of Spanish language. This next section explores three memos fiorn
the archives, in a collection assembled by a Dominican scholar, Bernardo Vega, who was
recently the Dominican Ambassador to the United States. Dominicanization is articulated

in these memos along the lines of race, nationality, religion and language.

111

Three Memos
Memo #1 Original Text“

 

 

REPUBLICA DOMINICANA
SECRETARIA DE ESTADO DE LO INTERIOR Y POLICIA

Cuidad Trujillo, D.S.D.

9 de julio de 1943
14484
Al: Sehor
Secretario de Estado de la Presidencia,
SU DESPACHO.
Asunto: Medidas para evitar que se hable creole
en la regiOn fi'onteriza dominicana.
Ref: Su oficio No. 10304, de feche 7 de mayo
prémimo pasado
1.-- En relacién con su atento oficio de referencia, cumpleme informar a

Ud. que, a pesar de que esta Secretaria de Estado ha realizado un cuidadoso y detenido
estudio acerca de la posibilidad de dictar mediad que tiendan a evitar el uso del creole
en la regiOn fronteriza dominicana, ha encontrado que ni por via legal ni por via
administrativa es posible en la actualidad irnpedir el uso de este dialecto.

2. -- El deseo expresado por el Excelentisisimo [sic] Sefior Presidente de
la Repr’rblica de desterrar de la regiOn fronteriza el uso de una lengua extrana en absoluto a
nuestra idioma, no puede ser mas plausible por su elevado sentido patriético.
Entendemos, sin embargo, que ello mas bien podria obtenerse como resultado de un
constate esfuerzo didactico y educacional.

Le saluda muy atentarnente,

M.A. PENA BATILLE,
Secretario de Estado de 10 Interior y Policia.

PB/dhp

 

112

 

Memo #1 Translation

 

 

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE INTERIOR AND POLICE

Cuidad Trujillo, D.S.D.
July 9, 1943
To: Mr. Secretary of State of the Presidency,
YOUR OFFICE.
Matter: Measures to avoid that Creole is Spoken

in the border region of the Dominican Republic.

Ref.: Number 10304, dated May 7

l.-- In relation to your attentive engagement with indices, I would like to
inform you that, in spite of the fact that Secretary of State has carried out a careful and
detailed study about the possibility of preventing the spread of and avoiding the
usage of the Creole in the border region of the Dominican Republic, he found that
neither legal nor administrative means is possible at the present time to prevent
the use of this dialect.

2.--The desire expressed by the Excelentisimo Mr. President of the
Republic to banish of the use of a strange language in the border region in absolute to our
language, that is recommended for their high patriotic sense. We understand, however that
it could be obtained as a result of an didactic and educational effort.

Very Sincerely,

M.A. PENA BATILLE,
Secretary of State of the Interior and Police

 

The above memo shows that there was an attempt at the national level to monitor
the usage of Creole and to determine whether or not its usage could be stopped in the
border areas. Here, Creole is described as both a strange language and a dialect. There is a

direct comparison to Spanish being the “superior” language to Creole as well as being the

113

 

preferred language. Speaking Spanish suggests that there is a stronger sense of patriotism
in the Dominican Republic. This memo shows how language, and in particular, Spanish,
became part of the national fabric in terms of defining certain characteristics of national
belonging or nationness. The next memo speaks to the issues of language and religion in
the Dominicanization process focusing on a particular community in the Dominican

Republic.

114

Memo #2 Original Text65

 

 

Num.
Ciudad Trujillo,
Distrito de Santo Domingo,
8 de julio de 1944.
Del: Secretario de Estado de la Presidencia.
A1: Ser’ior Secretario de Estado de 10 Interior y Policia
Asunto: Dominicanizacién de Samaria

1. -- En cumplirniento de instrucciones que me ha dado e1 Honorable Sehor
Presidente de la Republica, transcribo a usted, para su conocimiento y fines de lugar, los
sigueintes pérrafos de una informacién que, en relacién con el asunto, le ha sido rendida a
Su Excelencia:

“Desde hace tiempo viene ocupando la atenciOn del Excelentisimo Senor
Presidente de la Republica, el problema que representa el uso de idiomas, dialectos y
practicas que entrafian un morbo en la cultura del pais. Este caso tipico y extremadamente
original que ofrece la Comun de Samaria, podria conjurarse, rapida y efectivamente, es mi
creencia, cuando mi querido e Ilustre Jefe quisiera iniciar en las Carnaras Legislativas, estas
dos Leyes:

Ley de Cultos, por virtud de la cual se reglamente la fonna en que podra’n
establecerse Iglesias en el pais, Pre'dicas y Cultos en espar'fol; fijaciOn de dias y horas
para la celebracién de estas; cantidad minima de adeptos necesaria para obtener permiso
de instalacién, etc.

L_ey sobre el uso de idiomas adulterados y dialectos, por medio de la cual se
reglamente el uso de éstos en el pais. Punto fundamental de estas reglarnentaciones debera
ser la prohibiciOn absoluta para los dominicanos del uso de dialectos o idiomas
adulterados. Sanciones fuertes y ejecuciOn en forma drastica, completarian el cuerpo de
esta ley.

En la ciudad de Samaria funciones en la actualidad las siguientes Iglesias:

- sigue-

 

115

 

 

-#2-

Iglesia Catélica Apostélica Romana

“ Evangélica Domirricana
“ de Pentascote’s

“ de Dios

“ F e Apostélica

66

Adventista del Se’ptimo Dia.

Otras tantas Iglesias, dependientes de éstas, funcionan en los carnpos. En la
Comun de Sénchez ocurre lo mismo, no obstante la pequena poblacibn que caracteriza a
estas dos poblaciones de la Penisula y el considerable dafio que estas pre'dicas y oficios,
multiples y constantes, producen a la agricultura.

Entiendo que en nada puede colidir la Ley de Cultos a que hago referencia, con el
Canon Constitucional que consagra la “Toleracia de Cultos”. Se trata Simplemente de una

reglamentacibn, tal como se hace cn el Comercio y con el derecho al voto, cuyas libertades
garantiza la ConstituciOn.

Ningr'rn precepto constitucional se le podria oponer, tampoco, es mi creencia, a la
Ley sobre uso de dialectos etc. - Estamos obligados a defender la pureza de nuestro
bello y rico idioma, y esta ley llenaria a cabalidad esos propOsitos.

Con la promulgacién de laS dos leyes citadas, y con la actividad de las autoridades

encargadas de ejecutarlas, la dominicanizacién de la Provincia de Samaria puede
hacerse rapidarnente”.

Muy atentamente,

R. Paino Pichardo

 

 

116

 

Memo #2 Translation

 

[Number
Ciudad Trujillo,
District of Santo Domingo,
July 8, 1944

From: The Secretary of State of the Presidency
To: Mr. Secretary of State of the Interior and Police
Matter: Dominicanization of Samana

1.- In response to the instructions that the Honorable Mr. President of
the Republic gave me, I reproduce here, for your knowledge, the following paragraphs, in
relationship with this matter, that have concerned His Excellency:

“For some time now this has come to occupy the attention of His Excellency
Mr. President of the Republic, the problem and malady that the use of languages, dialects
and practices represent in the culture of the country. The Community of Samana
presents this typical and extremely unique case, it could be plotted, quick and indeed, it is
my belief, when my dear one and Boss wanted to initiate in the Legislature, these two
Laws:

Law of Worship, for virtue of which regulated the form in which one can establish
churches in the country, sermons and worship in Spanish; fixing of days and hours for the
celebration of these; minimum number of necessary followers to obtain permission to
establish, etc.

Law on the use of adulterated languages and dialects, which are regulated in the
country. The fundamental point of these regulations is the absolute prohibition for
Dominicans to use such dialects or adulterated languages. Strong sanction would be
carried out in drastic form, and would complete the body of this law.

In the city of Samana the following churches exist at the present time:

 

- continued -

 

117

 

 

-2-

Roman Apostolic Catholic Church
Evangelical Church of the Dominican Republic
Pentecostal Church
Church of God
Apostolic faith
Seventh Day Adventists

Other such churches exist in the rural areas. The same thing occurs in the
Community of Sanchez, nevertheless the small numbers of these two populations of the

Peninsula and the considerable damage that they preach and occupations, on an ongoing
basis, take precedent over agriculture.

I understand that nothing can conflict with the Law of Cults to which I make
reference, with the Constitutional Canon that consecrates the ' Tolerance of Worship'.
One tries a simple regulation, just as one makes in trade and with the right to the vote,
whose fi'eedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution.

No constitutional precept could be opposed either, it is my belief, to the Law on
use of dialects etc. - we are forced to defend the purity of our beautiful and rich language,
and this law would fulfill this purpose.

With the promulgation of the two mentioned laws, and with the activity of the
authorities in charge of executing them, the Dominicanization of the Province of Sarnana
can be made quickly.”

Very sincerely,

R. PAINO PICHARDO

 

 

 

Here, we see how the use of language and worship practices are viewed by the
Dominican government during this period in time. The religious plurality that was
encouraged during the Haitian Occupation period in the Dominican Republic (1822-44)

was now considered to be a threat to Dominican culture. In order to ensure that

118

Dominicans would speak only Spanish, new sanctions were put in place to keep people
from speaking other languages. The letter states that the “fundamental point of these
regulations is the absolute prohibition for Dominicans to use such dialects or adulterated
languages.” In other words, Dominicans could not speak any language other than Spanish
-- the Spanish-only policy was put into place and enforced by sanctions. To be
“Dominican” meant that one had to speak Spanish.

The other point raised here is that of religion. The domininations mentioned in the
letter are called into question by the Dominican government. Claims are made that the
religious practices in Samana take precedent over agricultural work and that there is
“considerable damage” in what they preach. At the same time, the domininations are
viewed as being “not from here.” The suggestion here is that Dominicans not only speak

Spanish but are (or should be) Catholic.

119

The next memo introduces the idea of “injecting new blood” into the border

regions of the Dorrrinican Republic as mentioned in an earlier discussion in this chapter.

Memo #3 Original Text"6

 

 

EL JEFE SUPREMO Y DIRECTOR
DEL
PARTIDO DOMINICANO

MEMORANDUM

al Honorable Ser‘lor Presidente de
la Republica-

Es evidente que las poblaciones ubicadas en 0 cerca de la linea fronteriza necesitan
inyeccibn de sangre nueva, especialmente de la raza blanca.

Me permito recomendar que los Secretarios de Estado de 10 Interior y de
Agricultura, Industria y Trabjo se pongan de acuerdo para enviar a esas poblaciones
aquellas personas de raza judia o extranjeros de otras razas que deseen irse
a trabajar tanto la agricultura como las ramas del comercio. Se podrian enviar también
profesionales -médicos, etc. - quienes pudieran cooperar al levantamiento del nivel de esas
poblaciones en lo que a patriotismo y desarrollo de sus riquezas naturales sea necesario.

Creo que esto puede ser muy beneficioso a1 pueblo dominicano, y creo ademas,
que el Gobiemo debe prestar toda clase de ayuda en el desarrollo gradual de este plan, el
cual me permito recomendar a la consideracién y compresiOn del seifor Presidente de la
Repriblica.

Rafael L. Trujillo

Ciudad Trujillo,
3 de abril, 1939

 

120

 

Memo #3 Translation

 

 

THE SUPREME BOSS AND DIRECTOR
OF THE DOMINICAN PARTY

MEMO

the Honorable Mr. President of
the Republic

. It is evident that the populations located in or close to the border need injection of

new blood, especially of the white race.

I recommend that the Secretaries of State of the Interior and of Agriculture,
Industry and Work make an agreement to send to those populations people
of Jewish race or foreigners of other races who want to leave in order to work in
agriculture as branches of trade. They could also send professionals -- doctors, etc. who
could assist in the rising of the level of those populations in patriotism and development
of their wealth as necessary.

I believe that this can be very beneficial to the pueblo of the Dominican Republic,
and I also believe that the Government should lend every type of assistance in the gradual
development of this plan, the one which allows myself to recommend this to be

considered by the President of the Republic.

Rafael L. Trujillo

Ciudad Trujillo,
April 3, 1939

 

This memo from Trujillo, in a “post-Haitian massacre” era, makes “a case” for
immigration, and in particular, “White immigration” to the border areas. The language of

“injecting new blood” and “white blood” illuminates Trujillo’s ideas about race and race

121

 

mixture in terms of whitening, or lightening, the Dominican borderlands. The idea of
“white blood” in the borderlands is directly related to the presence of Haitians in these
same areas. Here, Trujillo is suggesting, in my view, that these areas have become “too
dark” in terms of color and “too Haitian” in terms of language and worship practices, and
the white blood is both a biological and sociocultural metaphor and strategy.

Trujillo’s emphasis on injecting white blood in these areas was the precursor that
led to his effort to not only increase immigration from Europe but also brutally decimate
many Haitians residing in the borderlands. He specifically names people of “Jewish
race” and foreigners of “other races” (compared to Haitians who were foreign and Black).
He calls for doctors and other professionals to resettle in these communities to offer
services and develop their wealth.

Trujillo mentions the Dominican pueblo in terms of something that would
supposedly benefit an entire people or community. The idea of the Dominican pueblo
exists today. The use of, and the idea of, pueblo falls within the construction of
nationness as people associate themselves with particular places, being of a particular
religion, speaking a particular language, and being of a particular “type.” The pueblo
brings to mind the people and the likenesses and connections between them that form a
community with shared characteristics.

In combination, these three memos paint a picture of how Dominicanness was
both constructed and policed during this time period. What emerges in these memos, in
addition to the importance of language, religion, and “lightening,” is the significance of the

borderlands themselves. As an abstract idea, the borderlands become important in the

122

entire Dominicanization process in terms of identifying who is at the center of
Dominicanness as well as who is on the border or periphery. As a peripheral space, both
Haitians and newly arrived White immigrants have shared the borderlands which has kept
them from being incorporated into the “Dominican mixture” in terms of who gets
classified as “Dominican,” on census forms, for example. In this respect, this sense of
self, of being Dominican or non-Dominican, took root during the regime of Trujillo
because of his attempt to define, implement, and educate people about their composition
and history (the history was rewritten to reflect his views on the composition of the
country). In other words, both Haitians and White immigrants fall outside of the mestizo
and indio conceptualizations in large part because they are viewed as being “purely”
Black or White, not mixed.

The census data presented in the tables earlier in this chapter show who was
identified as mestizo, negro, as well as blanco during a time when Trujillo orchestrated
both the European immigration efforts and the massacre of Haitians residing in the
Dominican Republic (1937) as a biological whitening strategy. The following excerpt is
taken from the book, Soszia: From Refitge to Paradise, and provides insight into the lives
of Jewish descendants, those invited by Trujillo, to settle on the northern coast of the

Dominican Republic years after the Haitian massacre (Eichen 1995: 7-8):

123

 

 

The sad destiny of thousands and thousands of human beings, stripped of their
properties, harassed from their homes, mistreated, tortured and sent to extermination
camps, prompted the President of the United States of America, Franklin D. Roosevelt to
convoke in the year 193 8, and International Conference to discuss the immigrant Jews, in
the city of Evian, France.

Thirty-two countries sent delegations. The result was depressing, none showed
willingness to admit the Jews that were left without a country.

Only the delegation from the Dominican Republic, declared that their country was
willing to give protection to One Hundred Thousand refugees, victims of the nazi
persecution.

The Dominican Republic let the doors open to save thousands of innocent lives
from the holocaust in Europe.

The noble gesture of its government and people constitutes a historic event of the
XXth Century.

Meanwhile, at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean efforts were being made to
make the promise a significant event, a reality.

After many meetings held in 1939, the American Jewish Joint Agricultural
Corporation (AGRO-Joint) takes charge and supplies the initial capital to start the
project and so the base for the foundation of the Dominican Republic Settlement
Association, Inc. (called, La Dorsa) has been formed.

On January of the year 1940 Dr. James N. Rosenberg, President of La DORSA,
moves to the Dominican Republic and on January 30, 1940 the Dominican Government
signs an Agreement, ratified immediately by the National Congress.

The Generalisirno Dr. Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina, donated 26,000 acres
of his property in Sosria, in the Northern coast of the country, in the name of the

Dominican Republic and as a personal contribution for a humanitarian project.

 

124

 

Eichen also mentions in the book that it was at the request of Trujillo’s daughter
(who had befriended a Jewish woman in EurOpe years earlier) that be granted permission
for Jewish refugees to settle in Sosr'ra (in the northern part of the Dominican Republic).
Not only did he grant permission for 100,000 Jews to settle in the Dominican Republic,
he also gave them some of his own property to assist them in their resettlement efforts.
He offered his own land and other resources for their settlement in the hopes that they
could assist in his whitening efforts by intennarrying with Dominicans.

In Germany, Jews were viewed as “impure,” “inferior,” and “non-White,” much
like the Haitians were viewed in the Dominican Republic. There were two human
tragedies here, both involving persecution and loss of life - Germany witnessed the
Holocaust, and the Dominican Republic witnessed the matanza. Archival documents
raised questions about the relationship between Trujillo and Hitler - Trujillo began to
dress like Hitler and espouse similar ideas about racial supremacy. Trujillo seemed to be
influenced by Hitler and his racist ideology. One could argue that Trujillo’s acceptance of
the Jewish refugees allowed him to redeem himself somewhat in the eyes of the
international community after word had spread about the matanza. The irony here is that
the Jewish refugees, once viewed as “non-White” in Nazi Germany, represented
whiteness to Trujillo and became White in the Dominican Republic. The Dominican
Republic was to be a refuge for the Jews while being a place of peril for many Haitians
who were believed to pose a biological and cultural threat to the construction of

Dominicanness.

125

The next chapter moves away from the dictatorship to more of a contemporary
period that is directly influenced by Hispanidad and the ideas of mestizaje. After the
assassination of Trujillo in 1961, there were uprisings and instability. The United States
was very concerned about Communist sympathizes in the Dominican Republic and
possible alliances with Cuba. After a period of turmoil, Joaquin Balaguer, a member of
the Trujillo regime, emerged as President of the Dominican Republic and perpetuated the
ideas of Hispanidad, but during this particular time period, the discourse moved into one

of Mestizaje.

126

VI. Mestizaje: The Dominant Contemporary Discourse Surrounding Race and
Racial Identity in the Dominican Republic (1961-1989)

In many ways, Mestizaje resembles Hispanidad in its articulation. The difference
here is that while there is still an appreciation for Spanish contributions and influences,
the Dominican Republic as homeland springs forth as one of Trujillo’s legacies. In this
way, Dominicans are linked to a particular land, a particular history, and are a particular
“type” of people. The claim “We are Dominican,” emerging from the ethnographic data,
is Significant in terms of linking people to a place, at different points in time, and web race
and nation in a way that being Dominican means having a generational presence, roots,
and liga that is particular to the Dominican Republic.

As Wade (1993) suggests:

On the one hand, the glorification of the mestizo draws its meaning and force from

the history of mestizaje and the emergence of a large set of mixed people in the

country...One the other hand, blanqueamiento, by envisaging a future in which
blackness and indianness are not only absorbed but also erased from the national
panorama, giving rise to a whitened mestizo nation, srnuggles in discrimination and
turns the vision into an impossible utopia. Because, by definition, every
whitening must also be a darkening, and if darkening is avoided by lighter people
discriminating against the darker, then no ultimate progress towards a totally
mestizo nation, let alone a whitened mestizo nation, is possible. This possibility
of seeing in nationalist discourse about race mixture both a celebration of mixture

and a discrimination against blacks and indians is a characteristic of the

contradictory coexistence of mestizaje and discrimination in Colombian society
(Wade 1993: 19).

There are a number of important points in what Wade posits here such as the ideas of
absorption -- erasing people -- in the formation of something “new.” The concept of

whitening does not take into account a resultant darkening of a people -- people are

127

darkened while they are lightened. In the Dominican case, people try to hold on to ideas
of being indio, and to a lesser extent mestizo, all the while expressing that they are
“denying that they are Black and that they have Afiican ancestry” (commonly expressed
to me during interviews).

As I suggested earlier, mestizaj e, as a conceptual framework, is difficult for me in
that I find it problematic as it does not accurately reflect the “mixtme” that we find in the
Dominican Republic. Mestizaje implies mestizo not mulato as mestizo literally means
European - Indigenous mixture. In this way, the Afiicans, the negros, have been erased
and “absorbed” in order to configure and articulate ideas of mixture and Dominicanness.
The concept of mestizaje maintains distance fiom Afiican ancestry, and because there
was an African presence in the Dominican Republic, I find that mestizaje doesn’t quite
anchor my analysis. I use it, however, because it loosely refers to race mixture, because
the Dominican elite chose it because of its non-Black connotation, and because
Dominicans themselves often talk about being mestizos in the sense of being mixed. 1 will
return to this point in the final analysis, but for the purposes of this chapter, it is an

overarching way of presenting the data on contemporary ideas of mixture.

Racial Views and Concepts

As expressed earlier, the current views during this time period are linked to the
past, and in particular, the racial discourse of Hispanidad. The idea of mixture defines

Dominicans as a liga, or mixture/combination, of Tainos, Spanish, and sometimes

128

Afiicans and their descendants. A way of talking about the liga is often associated with
sancocho, the national dish, composed of various ingredients (meats and vegetables) very
similar to a gumbo. AS in Puerto Rico, the idea of sancocho is very important in terms of
talking about mixture because it recognizes diversity in a common “stock” (the stock is
the base that is prepared before the other ingredients are added). In this way, the stock
represents a commonness of history and “like ancestry.”

During interviews, the general acknowledgment of the liga was typically followed
by a discussion of the mixture, in terms of ancestry, and the resultant phenotypic
variation and social importance of skin color. Often, the liga is presented in various ways
although the most prevalent way of talking about the Dominican liga is to evoke a sense
of triangular mixture resulting from miscegenation between the above mentioned groups.
However, the liga has also been presented as a bi-polar type of mixture between the
Tainos and Spanish as well as a multi-race mixture resulting from the presence of various
immigrant groups residing in the Dominican Republic over time (as presented in the
census data tables in the previous chapter). It is important to mention that while the
triangular concept includes Afiicans, the Mestizaje discourse maintains distance from
Afiican ancestry and blackness, as the historical discourse did, and purposefully links
Haitians with Afiican heritage and practices as well as with a Negro/Black racial category.

As the dominant contemporary discourse in the Dominican Republic, Mestizaje
comprises mestizo, indio, and the overall sense of being a mezcla (of being mixed) because
of the historical liga between groups. Mestizaje is thus linked to historical memory and

national pastness as it has firm roots in the historical discourse that witnessed the

129

formation of Dominicanness with ideas of mixture firmly planted. While mestizo was the
racial category that categorized the majority of Dominicans, with regard to the official
census categories presented in the last chapter, indio soon replaced mestizo as a way of
describing color as well as the racial “in-betweenness” and liga of Dominicans.

While racial classifications are no longer recorded or used on the census in the
Dominican Republic, there are similar color categories on the national identification/voter
election card, the cédula. In this chapter, I will review text books and present data fi'om
interviews as well as from observations made during the “cedulazation” process (where
cédulas were issued) in order to explore the socialization process and the way in which
Mestizaje is used to anchor Dominicanness, in terms of the indio color category, and its

embodiment and expression on a daily basis.

Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and National Identities

Importantly, Mestizaje continues to retreat fiom notions of Afiican ancestry in
favor of a national identity that encompasses a variation of Skin color, referred to as indio.
Many participants said that “we deny that we have Afiican ancestry - that we are
Black.” This points to a knowledge of African ancestry and a concunent and conscious
distancing from it. Statements such as ‘five all have some ‘Black’ behind the ear” also
reveal an acknowledgment of Afiican ancestry, but, in this case, it is something that can

be “hidden behind the ear,” or simply “tucked away.”

130

India is the preferred category that captures a sense of mixture without reference
to blackness and/or Afiican ancestry. By this point in time, “indio” has been well
established as descriptive and used by people to describe themselves and others -- this is
due to history and the configuration of Dominicanness along the lines of race and color.
In relation to White, indio is non-White, and in relation to Black, indio is non-Black. It
was created to distinguish the majority of Dominicans, who were mixed, from White and
Black, and at the same time, with a distance away fiom blackness in large part because of
Haitians’ association with Afiica and blackness."7

Much of the articulation of race and nation during this period can be found in
school text books, newspapers, as well as on the cédula. The following excerpt is taken

from a third grade social studies textbook that is widely used in the Dominican Republic:

Al Alurnno68

A ti nirio dominicano.

[Has pasado de curso! iYa estas en tercero!

[Cuantas cosas conoces ya! Y, sin embargo, [cuantas te faltan por conocerl Cuando
estudies cada tema de los que aqui se te presentan iras descubriendo y aprendiendo nuevas
cosas de tu pais. Sabras de sus montafias y rios; de sus hennosos valles y ciudades; de
sus riquezas y productos mas importantes. Conoceras cOmo y de qué vive el hombre de
nuestro pueblo; de las luchas y hazafias de sus grandes hombres para forjar el pais en el
cual vives. Para reconer ese camino que hoy empiezas queremos ir contigo, ser tu amigo,
y enseflarte, a través de las paginas que fonnan este libro, esa pequefla y hermosa parte

del mundo que es tu patria: la Repriblica Dominicana.

131

Translation
To the Student

To you Dominican child.

You have passed the course! You are already in third grade!

How many things you already know! And, however, how many things you have yet to
learn! When you study each topic presented here you will discover and learn new things
about your country. You will know about its mountains and rivers; of its beautiful
valleys and cities; of its riches and products most importantly. You will know how
Dominicans live; of the fights and feats of its greatest countrymen to shape the country in
which you live. We want to go with you to travel the path that you begin today, to be
your fiiend, and teach you, through the pages that form this book, that small and beautiful

part of the world that is your homeland: the Dominican Republic.

This introduction to the student does more than introduce him/her to a new level of social
studies. The words paint a picture of the Dominican Republic that reminds students that
the Dominican Republic is their homeland with a past full of history and beauty. I
conducted a brief interview with two young girls, in elementary school (who used this
text book when they were in the third grade) focusing on what they learned in their social
studies class about their history and the composition of the Dominican Republic. When I
asked them what they remembered reading and discussing in class about their history in
particular, they said that they learned about the Tainos and where/how they lived as well
as about their Spanish ancestry. Interestingly, their first response was to talk about the

Tainos. The interview continued along these lines, and I asked if they had learned about

132

Africans, and they said “no.” They indicated that they had not been told about the
African presence in the Dominican Republic and that the only time they discussed Afiica
at all was when they discussed Haitian immigration to the Dominican Republic. Here, the
girls commented on what they read and learned about Dominican history. Such books are
written by people who offer historical and sociocultural accounts of events and people.
The Tainos continue to have a “presence” in the Dominican Republic because
they are the subjects of articles and books and are often depicted in museums such as the
Museo del Hombre Dominicano (Museum of Dominican Man). Hispaniola was inhabited
by Caribs‘l9 and Arawaks (e. g. Tainos) when Columbus arrived in the Americas, and they
were soon decimated due to diseases, etc. (Henry 1994). This is significant as images and
references of Tainos are, at present, (re)cmerging. An example of this is the Taino word
for the island of Hispaniola, “Quisqueya.” Some examples of its usage include”: 1)
referring to the Dominican Republic as Quisqueya; 2) Quisqueya Beer; 3) the article
entitled “La Quisqueyana” (Tancer 1973); and 4) the monograph Quisqueya on the
Hudson: The Transnational Identity of Dominicans in Washington Heights (Duany
1994). Also, the cover of Caribbean Contours (Mintz and Price 1985) contains an
illustration of Taino art. This (re)cmergence of the Taino is something that we see in the
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico (it is not as evident in Cuba perhaps because Fidel
Castro once defined it as an Afro-Latin nation). Some anthropologists and other social
scientists, possibly in response to how the images are used locally, have used the image of
the Tainos to represent the Caribbean, especially the Hispanic Caribbean (e.g. Mintz and

Price 1985; Hoetink 1985; Mintz 1974).

133

The interview with the girls prompted me to talk with educators about historical
accounts and the “official” history of the Dominican Republic. I learned that the
Department of Education had only recently formed a committee to revise the history to
be more inclusive by writing Afiicans and the Afiican presence “back into” Dominican
history. I met one of the educators on that committee who told me that there was some
resistance to the idea, but it was time to have a more accurate account and complete
understanding of history (I discuss revisionist history and opposional efforts in the next
chapter)”

Realizing that this socialization process extended beyond the schools, I examined
some of the public reference materials to see how history was represented, how racial
categories were named and defined, as well as the social significance/meaning of these
categories. The Enciclopedia Dominicana, first published in 1976, like many other
encyclopedia, contains historical facts and information about important events and people
in Dominican history. Looking for contemporary definitions of some of the racial/color
categories that are currently in circulation (e. g. social use and on the cédula), I examined
the encyclopedia for definitions and examples. The most recent volume was published in
1997, however, the definitions of mestizo, negro, and mulato remained the same in 1997
and 1976.72

I begin here with the definition of Mestizaje:

Si bien el mestizaje, como fusién de razas, fue un fenémeno donde concurrieron
blancos, negros e indios, es importante resaltar que de todos esos estratos sociales,

(los mas bajos e inferiores, denominados malas razas o malas castas, eran los de

134

mayor pigmentacién negra, resultando los negros puros ubicados en el ultimo
peldaflo social). Cuando los grupos minoritarios blancos se percataron de la
irnposibilidad de detener o evitar la proliferacibn de castas y el empuje ascensional
dc éstas, intensificaron las medidas discriminatorias segregacionistas. La
discriminacién y el prejuicio racial contra el negro fue un fenOmeno que estuvo - y
aun esta - presente en la historia del pueblo dominicano y en casi todo America

(Enciclopedia Dominicana vol 5 1976: 93).

(Translation)

Although mestizaje, as coalition of races, was a phenomenon wherewhite, black
and Indians converged, it is important to mention that those social strata, (the
lowest and most inferior, named bad races or bad castes, had dark pigmentation,
resulting in pure blacks being Situated in the last social rung). When the white
minority groups noticed the impossibility of stopping or avoiding the
proliferation of castes and the advancement of these, they intensified the
discriminatory segregationist measures. The discrimination and the racial
prejudice against blacks was a phenomenon that was -- and still is -- present in the

history of the Dominican Republic and in almost throughout America.

It is clear fiom the definition that mestizaje in general was defined as a liga or mixture of
the races, with Blacks being the “inferior” race. There is an association of race and caste
linking those with dark pigmentation with conditions of poverty, connecting race and
social class. At the same time, this definition recognizes discrimination based on color,
linking race and color. Also, mestizaje is linked to a discrimination practice -- a

“blending” or incorporation of the “inferior” races or castes.

135

Mestizo, mulato, and negro are defined below and provide the sociocultural

context for their contemporary usage (the definitions were the same in 1976 and 1997):

I) Mestizo73 - En general nombre dado a la persona nacida de padre y madre de diferentes
castas. En America aplicabase a los hijos de los matrimonios mixtos espar'foles e indios.
Dmante la colonizacién, que duro desde el siglo XVI hasta mediados del XIX, el mestizaje
o fusién de raza fue un fen6meno que acopar‘io todo el proceso.

1) Mestizo - In general it is a name given to the person born of a father and mother of
different castes. In America it applies to the children of the mixed marriages between
Spaniards and Indians. During colonization, from the XVI century until half of the XIX
century, mestizaje or fusion of race was a phenomenon that accompanied the entire

process.

Mestizo is the result of mixture between Spaniards and Indians. Here, the idea of caste is
used to talk about these two “distinct” groups. Caste is also used in other places (e.g.
India) to refer to color. In different contexts, caste can mean race or color. The definition

also states that mestizo was part of a larger process of race mixing throughout

colonization. The definition of mulato follows:

2) Mulato74 - Nombre dada en America a los hijos de espafiol y negra. Los mulatos, tanto
los nacidos en las colonias espafioles o aquellos que por emigracibn habian nacido en la
metrOpoli, mantenian su condicibn de sometidos, aunque muchos llegaron a adquirir la
condiciOn de libres. Los mulatos llegaron a constituir una categoria étnica importante en
tanto producto resultante de la mezcla racial (71 )...Dentro de la categoria racial de mulato
existian diversos tipos, a saber: a) el mulato propiamente dicho o mulato blanco, que

resultaba del cruce del europeo y del negro; b) mulato morisco o sirnplemente morisco,

136

resultado de la mezcla de blanco con mulata blanca; c) mulato prieto, era el hijo de negro y
mulata parda. Estos tendian a pasar por negro por su color bastante oscuro; d) los pardos
o zambos, resultantes de la uniOn de negros con indias. Esta mezcla segr'In tono de la piel
sufiia una gran subdivisiOn. Muchos mulatos casaban a su vez con blancos y otros

mulatos (72).

2) Mulatto - Name given in America to the children of Spaniards and Blacks. The
mulattos, many born in the Spanish colonies or those born in the city due to immigration,
maintained their enslaved condition, although many ended up acquiring freedom. The
mulattos ended up constituting an important ethnic category resulting fi'om racial mixture
(71) ...Different types exist within the racial category of mulatto: a) mulatto, or white
mulatto, is the offspring of a European and a Black; b) Moorish mulatto, or simply
Moorish, is the result of the mixture between a white man with a white mulatto woman;
c) blackish mulatto, was the child of a black man and a brown mulatto woman. They
tended to pass for black because of their dark color; (I) Pardos or Zarnbos resulted from
the lmion of blacks with Indians. This mixture according to skin tone sustained a large

subdivision. Many mulattos married whites and other mulattos.

In the above Spanish language definition, one is a mulato if the father is Spanish and the
mother is Afiican. There are more gender-specific references within this definition than
the others listed here. Interestingly, there are different “types” of mulatos based on color
and ideas of ancestry. Presented here are various intermarriage possibilities with their
offspring racially defined. The way that mulato is used here -- shades of mulato -- is very

similar to how indio is used today. The definition of negro follows:

3) Negros75 - Naturales de Afiica, traidos a America como mano de obra esclava para

trabajar en las minas y en laS grandes plantaciones. La venta de los negros constituyo un

137

lucrativo negocio que en America estuvo regulado por licencias concedidas a través de la

Corona espaffola.

3) Blacks - Natives of Afiica, brought to America as slave labor to work- in the mines and
in the large plantations. The sale of Blacks constituted a lucrative business inAmerica
that was regulated by licenses granted by the Spanish Crown.

Here, there is no mention of racial possibilities of offspring, only who peoplewere, where
they were from, and what they were brought to America to do. This is also=the shortest
definition of the three given here.

The definition and meaning of mestizo given in the Enciclopedia Dominicano refers
to a specific type of mixture, Spanish-Indian. This is how mestizo has been: and generally
is, defined throughout Latin America. If we take the meaning literally, there is no
reference to Blacks or Afiicans in this mixture which brings me back to my previous point
about mestizo, and mestizaje in general, constructed in a bi-polar way that excludes and
distances Blacks. It was mestizo that was used first as a racial category then color-
category on the census in the Dominican Republic as we explored in the last chapter. The
twist here is that while other countries claimed mestizo identities (e. g. Mexico, Equator,
etc.), they were descendants of Spaniards and Indians, but in the Dominican Republic, the
term came to represent mixture in general with a strong ancestral tie to the. Tainos, “blood
or no blood.” The more important point, however, is the distancing away from blackness
in terms of how mixture is cast in the Dominican Republic, fiom mestizo but indio.
Interestingly and surprisingly, there were no definitions for blanco or indio in the-

Enciclopedia Dominicana. Criollo was defined as children of Spaniards bominthe

138

Dominican Republic. Today, criollo often refers to Dominicans born abroad, typically
residing in New York.

Again, within the Mestizaje discourse, mestizo and indio are used more frequently
than mulato in terms of talking about being mixed (mulato in its definition and cultural
significance includes blackness). Again, the everyday usage of indio, with skin color
variation descriptions, tends to mirror the above definition of mulato (with attention given
to different types of mulattos). Descriptions such as indio/a claro/a (light skinned) or
indio/a oscuro/a (dark skinned) are common in everyday expression. Also, descriptions
such as “la clarita” (the light-skinned one) or “la morena” (the dark-skinned one) are
commonly used. At the same time, there are a number of color descriptions used in
conversation that fall outside of the state sanctioned categories (e. g. moreno/a, triguefio/a,
prieto/a, etc.).

By way of comparison, a person who is negro, according to the above definitions,
is the only one in the group with a presumed “pure” quality with references to Afiica. In
this way, we begin to see images emerging of Dominicans vis-a-vis Haitians in terms of
mixture and black purity (despite the prevalence of dark-skinned Dominicans and mixture

among Haitians).

Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories

Wanting to see how the state assigns racial/color categories based on the socio-
cultural significance of racial/color categories as well as how the categories differ fiom

earlier ones used on the census, I observed the “cedulazation” process (where cédulas are

139

issued), over the course of three weeks, at the Junta Central Electoral in Santiago.76 It
was announced in the newspapers that new cédulas would be issued with finger prints
and a photograph (updating and verifying data in the computer system) as a way of
preventing fraud during elections (as the cédula is used as a primary identification card as
well as voter card).

Since 1995, I have wanted to observe the process of obtaining a cédula. Thinking
that it was somewhat like applying for a driver’s license in the United States where a
person walks into an office, take a number, an when called, enters into a negotiation
process with the employee of the state who then asks for the person’s height and weight
among other characteristics while performing vision tests, etc. For people who drive in
the United States, a driver’s license also serves as a primary identification card, like the
cédula.

Unlike the driver’s license scenario where race is no longer recorded (it used to be
listed on my driver’s license in Indiana, but many states have stopped listing race on the
license itself), the cédula lists color as it is one of the characteristics that describes the
person along with height, weight, and gender (according to an interview that I had with
one of the Junta staff members). I wanted to see if the category was simply descriptive
or if it served more as a racial category. I was particularly interested in seeing how
representatives of the state enter into negotiation with people about their color. I was
fortunate to be able to observe this process as well as interview some of the staff.
members about how they classify people and how some of the categories, especially

indio, are becoming increasingly problematic.

140

In order to observe the process, I had to go through a series of introductions and
meetings where I was introduced to people who were made aware of my research and
intentions. This was done through a chain of social networks; a close fiiend introduced
me to the President of the Junta Central (his cousin) who introduced me to the Secretary
of the Junta Central, who then introduced me to one of his staff members, a woman who
would be issuing the cédulas, Celia. Celia took me around the building and made other
introductions. After a meeting with the Secretary and Celia, l was told that I could
shadow Celia (sit with her, conduct interviews, etc.) and observe the cedulazation
process.

Before the cedulazation began, I had the opportunity to interview Celia. An

excerpt fiom that interview follows:

Interview with Celia
August 4, 1998

The cedulazation process was intended to update cédulas (to make changes to names,
addresses, etc.) and to start a computer data base for all cédulas to prevent election fiaud.

Kim Can we talk about the changes in the cédula? You told me before that indio was
not going to be on the cédula this time. This is the first time that it won’t be on
the cédula

Celia Right. We used indio before. Indio doesn’t exist.

K What happened to suggest that indio doesn’t exist.

C I don’t know. I have the idea that indio means “indigenous,” and I realized that
we are not indigenous - pure indigenous. We are mixed, but there are no Indians

here.

K For the cedulazation, what are the color categories? amarillo...

141

amarillo, mulato, blanco, negro, and mestizo
Do you think that mestizo is a substitute for indio?
It comes from indio and is a way of talking about mixture of blanco and negro,

like mulato -- we don’t think of ourselves as mulatos here. Indio used to refer
to the Tainos - they called them indios.

Celia suggests that indio and mestizo are interrelated - that mestizo comes from indio.

These two categories have often served as a substitute for the other (e. g. mestizo on the

census, indio on the cédula, etc.). The idea of racial purity is mentioned here and follows

throughout the interview. Purity means distinct groups. Her argument here is that

Dominicans are mixed and that the categories are not racial but color descriptive. I’ll

return to this point later. The interview continues:

K

Do you think there is a difference between mulato and mestizo? What is the
difference?

For us, mulatos are darker than mestizos, and negros are darker than mulatos.
and amarillo?

Oriental

and blanco?

Europe...Germany...

The other day, someone said that mestizo refers to a mixture between
Dominican and Haitian...

No. Here the mixture of Dominican and Haitian is mulato or negro because they
are very dark although there are Haitians of French ancestry (White). Many of
them are descendants of enslaved Afiicans. But a mixture of Dominican and
Haitian is mulato because we are “a little bit” lighter than they are.

142

K Do you think that the category mestizo is used because of influence from Mexico?
C Could be. Because Mexicans have a similar color -- not real dark, but not too light
either.
Here, we begin to see how color plays a part in the naming process. According to Celia,
mulatos are darker than mestizos. The definition of mulato in the Dominican
Encyclopedia referred to mixture of Spaniards and Africans (with variations within the
mulato category based on color and ancestry). For someone like Celia, who was charged
with defining people on a state-sanctioned identification card, this visual naming exercise
based on phenotype was all the more interesting to me as a researcher. Does everyone
have the same definition? Can mulatos be lighter than mestizos? Who decides? I later
asked these questions of Celia and others at the Junta Central Electoral. I return to these

questions after the interview:

K I read that Rafael Trujillo institutionalized indio by placing it on the cédula.

C Yes. He “planted” everything. He “planted” (established) indio -- because he was
racist. They were racist. They said indio to avoid saying negro.

K What will happen during the cedulazation when a person, who is used to being
classified as indio, will not be classified in that way since indio will not be on the
cédula this time? What do you think the reaction will be?

C You don’t have to ask them what color they are. You have the option to look at
them and choose a color. For the most part, they accept what you choose. There
are many people with different backgrounds, classes, and they know that you are
working, and they accept what you choose.

I began to see how the cedulazation process differed from the driver’s license scenario I

began with. Here, people are defined by state appointed staff who assign a color category

143

based on how people “look.” While this may happen in certain situations in the United
States, people tend to classify themselves at the present time (e.g. census, governmental

forms, etc.). The interview continues with a focus on Dominicans in the United States:

K Do you think that the experiences that Dominicans have in the U.S. have an
influence here in terms of the categories like indio?

C I don’t know. There are indios there, real indios (Indians). There is the category
indio there (U .S.) because there are pure Indians. In Mexico, there are pure

Indians, and in many countries in Latin America, there are pure Indians. But here,
no.

K Have your relatives talked about their experiences in the United States with
respect to racial classifications?

C Yes. I have a cousin in the United States, and she told me that the United States is
racist...when one wants to rent an apartment. There is racism against Latinos.
They saca (cast aside) Latinos. The United States is, to us, a country that is very
developed. Racism still exists there and here.

K How is racism manifested here?

C Against the Haitians because of their color. We rechazamos reject them. We
don’t sacar them (cast them aside), but we reject them because of their color --
they are dark -- even though many of us have the same color.

K IS there tension between light-skinned Dominicans and dark-skinned Dominicans?

C Yes. Sometimes. Although there are more light-skinned men (claro) with indio
women and more light-skinned women (Clara) with dark-Skinned men (oscuro).
The color of one’s skin does not change. We are human beings.

K Are the classifications on the cédula racial or color classifications?

C Yes, and they refer to color. Blanco, negro, indio, mestizo, come from races.

K Are these distinct groups?

C No...we are all mixed. There are no distinct groups like in the U.S. You can have
a Chinese and Dominican, Colombian and Peruvian, Peruvian and Chilean. There

144

are no, as you say, groups. They come together, but there are no distinct racial
groups. We are a mix.

K Can money change a person’s classification? Does money whiten?

C Here no. You may be a millionaire, but if you are prieto (dark), you are prieto.
You cannot change your color.

K Some people say that color is not race -- that color is descriptive. Or that
Dominican, the nationality has more to do with race than color. What is the
concept of race here in the DR?

C We start with color. Oriental is amarillo, that the Mexicano is mestizo, that
the Haitian, the Afiican, is negro, that there are mulatos - from races. We are
mixed from so much immigration. There are Japanese, Chinese, Spanish,
Turkish - everything that you can imagine is here. There is a tremendous mixture.
We Dominicans are not pure.

This section of the interview highlights the importance of color (e.g. color of Haitians,

money cannot change color or whiten, etc.) as well as the idea of racial mixture in relation

to purity. Celia ends by saying that “we are not pure.”

While there are a number of inter-related ideas presented in Celia’s interview, I
want to emphasize some of her comments that are relevant to the discussion in this
chapter. She said that they (she and others at the Junta Central Electoral) used to assign
indio as a category, although indio doesn’t exist. It was when Celia reflected on the
meaning of the word indio as Indian that she realized that Dominicans were not
indigenous, pure indigenous. For Celia, mestizo comes fiom indio and is a way of talking
about the Black-White mixture without using mulato because, in her view, Dominicans

don’t want to think of themselves as mulato -- this was also expressed by many other

participants. Mulatos are darker than mestizos, and negros are darker than mulatos. Part

145

of her own reflection stems from her awareness of “pure” indigenous people outside of
the Dominican Republic and a critical reflection on Dominican History. What follows
here is an ethnographic account of my visits to the Junta Central Electoral to observe the
cedulazation process. Much of what Celia said here in her interview was rearticulated

during my visits.

The Cedulazation Process

When the cedulazation began, there was a buzz in Santiago as people wanted to
obtain the new cédula. I went to the Junta Central on the second day and found a line of
people extending out of the main door of the building and onto the sidewalk. In many
ways, it was a frenzied process without much structure (e.g. extremely long lines, delays,
etc., and it was common to wait 6-8 hours to get into the building to have the cédula
issued). Inside the main building, the line moved slowly to the outside courtyard and
finally to a large entrance to a side building where the cédulas were processed. Only a
certain number of people were allowed in the room at one time, with approximately 200-
300 people waiting outside without much to do but wait in line. In extreme heat and, at
time, rain, people had to wait outside until they were instructed to enter the building by
the police officers who Were guarding the main doors.

On the first day, there were two police officers guarding the entrance, but as days
passed, and the lines grew longer, more police were there (some with batons), keeping
lines straight and dividing the courtyard groups into separate lines according to gender. 1

made my way to the courtyard and to the front of the line, by excusing myself and

146

assuring people that I was not cutting in front of them to obtain a new cédula for myself,
and asked for Celia. I told the police officer that I was there to observe the process and
that I had permission to be alongside Celia. He told me that Celia was on break and asked
me to wait in front of the line for her. With everyone looking at me with my bookbag
heavy on my shoulder, I thought I needed to introduce myself, at least to the people who,
all of a sudden, were in back of me. As I waited for Celia, I talked to the women closest
to me, Maria, in the line for women. Maria told me that she resides in Miami and was in
Santiago visiting family and decided to get the new cédula.

Again, according to my earlier interview with Celia, I thought that indio was no
longer going to be a color category on the cédula and would be replaced with mestizo. She
and I both thought, for the first time since Trujillo’s institutionalization of indio, that it
was not going to be used, and that people used to being defined as indio on the cédula
would be defined in a different way (this turned out not to be the case, however). Maria
and I discussed this while we waited in line. Upon hearing that indio would not be a
category on the cédula, Maria responded by saying that indio doesn’t exist and that it
was invented in the Dominican Republic. She also said that indio loses its meaning in the
United States because everything is painted in Black and White.

Around this time, Celia was making her way back to the side building to enter the
cedulazation area. Upon seeing me, She introduced me to the police officer and let him
know that I had permission to be there and could come back at any time to observe the
process; this was helpful during subsequent visits. I entered with Celia and continued my

conversation with Maria after she entered the room.

147

The room was set up with a lot of hi-tech equipment such as computers, cameras,
printers, and bright lights. There was only room for about 20 people at one time. After
waiting outside, people had to wait in a line inside, seated against the wall until they were
motioned come over to an open station. Normally, there were about seven open stations,
at any given time, where people could renew or apply for a new cédula. After Celia
introduced me to other staff members in the room, letting them know that the Secretary
gave me permission to observe the process, I sat next to Aaron, who showed me the color
categories, as he issued a cédula.

Again, based on the interview that I had with Celia previously, I thought that the
“official” cédula color categories were going to be blanco, negro, mulato, amarillo, and
mestizo (replacing indio) because she had indicated that the staff had been advised of this
change in their training session. DeSpite what they were told, and despite efforts to
remove it, indio remained on the cédula, and Celia didn’t know it had not been removed.
Not only was it to be dropped, but it was to be replaced by mestizo (which was earlier
dropped in favor of indio on the cédula). On July 13, 1998, the president of the Partido
de la Identidad Dominicana -- PID (Dominican Identity Party) was interviewed for an
article entitled “El PID llama a sustituir e1 te'rmino “indio” de la cédula” (PID calls for a
substitution of indio on the cédula):

El presidente del Partido de la Identidad Dominicana, Aulio Collado Anico, sugirié
una legislacién para que cambie el calificativo de “indio” que se establece como
color de la piel de la gran mayoria de los dominicanos en la cédula de identidad. El
dirigente politico considera incorrecta esa denominacibn, ya que obedece a

prejuicios raciales histOricos, cuando en realidad e1 color de la gran mayoria de los

148

dominicanos no es blanco, negro, ni tampoco indio, sino que la mejor
representacién es el mestizo. Collado sugiere a la Junta Central Electoral que se
propone a promover reformas legales, incluyendo la confeccién de una nueva
cédula de identidad personal, para que trate de corregir esa deformaciOn racial en
pos de que el calificativo de indio sea sustituido. (page 1 of the El Cibao section of

Listin Diario by Ricardo Santana)

Translation

The president of the Dominican Identity Party, Aulio Collado Anico, suggested a
legislation that changes the "indio" designation of skin color that describes
majority of Dominicans on the cédula. The political leader considers this
denomination to be incorrect, refening to historical racial prejudices, when in
reality the color of the majority of Dominicans is not white, black, neither indio,
however the best representation is mestizo. Collado suggests to the Junta Central
Electoral that he intends to promote legal refonnations, including the making of a

new cédula, to try and correct the racial deformation after indio is substituted.

Here, Anico recommends mestizo, not mulato as a category that best represents
the “majority of Dominicans” who are not White, Black, nor indio. Despite PID’s
efforts, however, mestizo was not introduced as a new category and did not subsequently
replace indio. Thus, the five color categories were blanco, indio, mulato, negro, and
amarillo. I sat as Aaron motioned to a woman to come to his station -- she then sat
directly in front of us facing the computer. She was very light-skinned with light hair and
blue eyes. As Aaron entered some of her personal information (e.g. phone number,

address, etc.), he told me that the color categories were problematic and that they do not

149

always accurately describe the person’s color. He then said, “Take her, for example, how
would you classify her? Is she blanco or indio?” He said that she did not seem to “fit” in
either category. She wasn’t quite “white” and she wasn’t dark enough (in combination
with her hair and eye color to be indio). He then asked her if She considered herself
blanco or indio, and without hesitation, she said “indio, put indio.”

After her cédula was processed, Aaron said that there should be other categories
that more closely describe a person’s color since there are no variations of color (e.g. indio
claro or indio oscuro) on the cédula; indio then represents a range of possibilities. He
suggested triguei'ro (wheat color) which he said would have captured the previous
woman’s color more accurately, more than blanco or indio. Triguen'o is a term that
people use in daily expressions to refer to someone who is in-between blanco and indio.

The next woman who was motioned to Aaron’s station was dark-skinned with
shoulder-length black hair that was textured in appearance (natural style not chemically
relaxed). Again, Aaron turned to me and said that she didn’t seem to fit into one of the
categories as She was darker than indio and almost negro, so he chose mulato. Unlike the
woman before her, she didn’t have an option as to what her color would be even as Aaron
struggled to define her according to the five color options. When I asked if people could
choose their color category, he said that they could define themselves in terms of color,
but the cédula official had to agree with the self definition -- this is an example of
identities needing to be affirmed -- and the category had to be an official one.

A young woman, upon seeing her picture on her new cédula, wanted to retake the

picture, using more light. She said that she looked too dark, like a “Haitianita” (little

150

Haitian girl) on her picture. When I asked her what she meant by “Haitianita,” she said
that her pictures are usually lighter and she looked “too dar ” in this picture. They didn’t
take her photo again, so she left.

Since mulato was a new category during this cedulazation, I wondered how people
would react to being classified as mulato for the first time. However, the longer I
observed the process, the more I realized that there was resistance to assign mulato as a
category despite the fact that many of the cédula officials told me that “indio doesn’t
exist” and that it really “wasn’t a color.” India became the default category in most of
the instances unless someone was extremely light-skinned with light eyes (blanco) or
Chinese-Dominican (amarillo), etc.

Observing a large number of people, ranging fiom light to dark, being classified as
indio, I asked Lena, another cédula official whose station was next to Aaron’s, when she
would classify someone as negro. She responded by saying that when someone is
“‘ negro negro,’ I put negro.” I observed her station over the next hour and never saw her
use negro or mulato to classify anyone (even when people were dark-skinned); she
consistently used indio.

Another point is that people often didn’t know when their color was being
recorded. They were asked their height, if they had a phone, new address, etc., but color
was a category that was filled simply by the cédula official looking out fiom behind their
computer at the person in front of them and choosing one of the five categories, most

often indio.

151

If people had major changes (e.g. an address, employment change, etc.), their
cédula had to be processed in another center and picked up another day. If people were
simply renewing their cédula with the same information, more or less, their cédula was
processed in the room, and they could receive it the same day. Before the cédulas were
printed, people had a chance to review a proof Sheet. People seemed to look for mistakes
in how their name was spelled, address information, etc. I never witnessed anyone with a
dispute over color. At the same time, color was coded by the time the cédula was printed
(blanco-b, negro-n, indio-i, mulato-m, amarillo-a).

Responses to questions dealing with color categories on the cédula during
interviews hinted at the fact that people often use other categories to describe color, either
by being more accurate in terms of attaching light or dark to indio, or by using terms like
triguefio (wheat), moreno (brown) or prieto (dark). Interviews also revealed that people
don’t always know how their cédula defines them in terms of color. For example, one
man told me that his cédula said triguefio when trigueiio is not a category on the cédula.
Another woman told me her cédula classified her as india clara when the cédula does not
use clara (light) or oscura (dark). One man commented that “they just put what they
want to.”

Over time, I realized that this was the attitude of people obtaining their cédula,
that the officials would simply define them however they chose to because “that’s what
they did.” I asked Celia, if in her experience, anyone has ever insisted on one category

over another, and she said that a man came in and wanted to change his color from indio to

152

negro (that was the only reason he came to obtain a new cédula), and she changed it for
him.

Celia was the only official I observed using categories other than indio. In fact,
Celia tended to use mulato and negro exclusively and told me that “We are not indios.
There are no indios here. India is not a color. It was invented here. We are mulatos and
negros, so I am going to use those categories.” As I sat next to Celia, I observed her
consistently using mulato and negro and wondered if there would be any confrontations
as people reviewed their proof Sheets. Because of the codes, some people might not have
known how their color was classified. While cédula applicants might not have realized
that they were being classified as mulato and negro at Celia’s station, other cédula
officials took notice. During a staff meeting, Celia was told that she uses negro and
mulato too much as she responded by saying “That’s what we are. We are not indio.”

Celia’s station became a site representing change in the face of resistance. This
became apparent when an older dark-skinned man came to Celia’s station wanting to
renew his cédula. This process took about 25 minutes as the computer screen fine after
taking his picture three different times. The situation grew to be more interesting as the
man sat patiently, while making a few joking comments to the women around the station.
Celia asked for his cédula number which retrieved his previous personal data. He
indicated that he had moved, so Celia asked for his address and changed it in the system.
When she got to the screen to choose a color, his “current/previous” category was in the
system which was indio. Celia looked out from behind her computer and changed indio to

negro and prepared to take the picture. The screen fioze.

153

After re-starting her computer and the software program again, Celia rc-entcred his
cédula number, changed the address, came to the screen with indio again, looked at him,
and changed indio to mulato, took his picture, and the screen froze again. After starting
the computer again, and entering all of his personal information, she came to the screen
with indio again (as this had not been saved before because of the screen freezing), looked
at him and changed indio to negro (as she did the first time), took his picture, and the
computer froze again. This was an unusual circumstance as her computer hadn’t done
that before. This time, she called her supervisor who came over, re-started her computer
as Celia walked away momentarily, sat in Celia’s seat, asked the man his cédula number
and when prompted, changed his address and other information. When he came to the
color category (which still had him classified as indio from his previous cédula), he looked
out from behind the computer and left him classified as indio, turned the light on high and
took his picture. The interesting part is that this man came to get a new cédula and was
classified as negro, mulato, negro, and back to indio and never knew it.

Another interesting case was when Aaron was processing a woman’s cédula and
had difficulties because the last name She provided didn’t match what they had in the
system from her previous cédula. He entered her information three times and had
changed her existing indio classification from indio to mulato, back to indio, and finally to
mulato on the third attempt to process her renewal. In total, I observed 150 cédula

applications, and results are as follows:

154

Table XXI
Cédula Color Categories

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n=150
Color Category Women/Hembras Men/Varones Total
Indio 50 75 125
Blanco/White 4 6 10
Negro/Black 0 3 3
Mulato/Mulatto 6 6 12
Amarillo/Asian 0 0 0

 

 

 

 

As the numbers Show, the most used category was indio. Even as the proof
sheets were returned to one of the officials, at a glance, I could see that indio was the
prevalent category. Of the three negro/Black and twelve mulato issued cédulas, Celia
processed all but one of them. Even though there was tremendous color diversity in the
processing area, indio, most always, was the default category. I did not witness any
amarillo categorizations during any of my visits, but I was told that the category is used
for people of Asian descent.

The next section moves outside of the Junta Central Electoral and away fiom the
cédula to explore the ways in which people actually talk about color, race, and nationality

and how these ideas are expressed in terms of Dominicanness and national belonging.

155

 

Dominicanness and National Belonging Expressed in Interviews

Claudio
30, taxi driver

I first met Claudio as I was leaving the archives in El Centro (the center) of
Santiago. It was noon, and that meant going home for lunch, as most people do in
Santiago (depending on their work schedules). Lunch is the “heaviest” meal of the day,
and it is an important time for the family to gather.77 Noon is also the time that the
national anthem is played over all of the radio stations and in El Centro over loud
speakers and often inside department and grocery stores.

The traffic out of El Centro around noon can be heavy, so I was lucky to find a
taxi to get home. After I entered the car and greeted Claudio, we immediately began a
conversation about the day and its course of events. He was on his way to take lunch to
his wife who worked in one of the Free Trade Zone factories on the edge of Santiago.
This first conversation actually led to subsequent interviews and a focus group with a
group of young men that Claudio assembled to talk about race in both the Dominican
Republic and in the U.S. using the Sammy Sosa/Mark McGuire homerun race in 1998 as a
backdrop.

Claudio talked about how he almost made it to the United States to live and work:

The land is for everyone. It Should be for everyone. We have all of these borders.

I went to the United States once, but they won’t have me. I put my picture on

my cousin’s visa and made it out of the Dominican Republic, but when we landed

at JFK, people were waiting for me. They took me to a room and questioned me
and put me on the next plane back to the Dominican Republic. The only part of

the United States that I saw was the airport. I don’t know if I can go back. I was
engaged to a woman who was a U.S. resident, but I didn’t work out. Here (DR),

156

you have a life but the future isn’t certain, and in the United States, the future is

certain but you don’t have a life. I have family there, and they say that life is

hard.
Claudio’s mention of borders is revealing because while people can travel, their travel may
be restricted especially at borders as they encounter customs officials and police who
inspect documents for entry. There are laws in place that govern such movement. For
Dominicans who to travel to the United States, a visa is required (immigrant or non-
immigrant). The American Consulate in Santo Domingo, where visas are issued, is said to
be one of the busiest in the world. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for people to
get a visa. This was Claudio’s experience. Since he was unable to obtain a visa legally, he
chose to alter his cousin’s passport (something other people talk about doing) for a
chance to go to the United States.

For Claudio, it was worth the risk. What he wanted was a future -- he didn’t
expect to have a “life” in the United States because of work. We discussed not having a
future in the Dominican Republic and his feelings of economic uncertainty. I asked him
about Dominicans who leave the Dominican Republic to live and work in the United
States - they leave because they can earn more money, but “life” is harder, more difficult
because of language, discrimination, and racism compared to “life” in the Dominican
Republic:

To be Dominican, and live here, means tranquillity. Economically, we are more or

less stable. To me. skin color is not as important as nationality. Moreover, what
is most important is the person.

157

For Claudio, nationality was more important than color -- being Dominican was
more important than color. However, as we continued the interview, it was clear that he
had firm ideas of “who he was” along the lines of race and color. He described himself as
triguer'io (color) and mulato (race). He commented that if he were in the United States, he
would be a “person of color” and that he would continue “feeling” Dominican (this was a
commonly expressed sentiment). Although Claudio considered himself to be racially
mulato, he claimed having European and Indigenous ancestry, not Afiican.

When I asked about skin color variation, he commented that the “climate can
change a person’s color, making them lighter or darker.” This was another commonly held
idea - that while biology played a role in phenotype, the environment did too. The
presence of the sun, cold weather, and other factors could change skin color from light to

dark or visa versa - this was the idea.

Samuel
28, taxi driver

Like Claudio, Samuel, 28, is a taxi driver. Unlike Claudio, he has not traveled to
the United States but has family in New York City. I met Samuel through Claudio who
suggested that he would be another person to interview about race and nationality in the
Dominican Republic. When I had to travel a distance, I typically called and requested
Claudio or Samuel to continue discussions on this topic. On the topic of identity, Samuel

commented:

158

To me, national identity is more important, to be Dominican. My family speaks
of a hard life in the United States. There is discrimination there and a problem of
acceptance. Here, we don’t accept the Haitians. There is racism here against
them. Their color and culture are different from ours. I’m proud to be Dominican.

We have merengue music and the rhythm of life although it’s a small and poor

country.

Like Claudio, Samuel says that national identity is more important to him than any other
identity - being Dominican is important to him. And he also expresses his notion of the
type of life experienced by many Dominicans in the United States - the idea that life in
the United States is hard for Dominicans. Samuel alludes to the idea of acceptance - that
Dominicans experience discrimination in the United States and may not be accepted by
others. He likens this to the experience of Haitians in the Dominican Republic where
Haitians often experience discrimination.

When we discussed the issues of race and color, Samuel said that he thought of
himself as indio (color) and negro/Black (race). He was one of the first people to self-
define as Black and to distinguish between indio as color and Black as race. He said that
there were blancos, negros, and mestizos in the Dominican Republic and that Dominicans
were the liga of negros and blancos. This led to the idea of ancestry. Samuel said that
he had Afiican ancestry stemming from when Haiti and the DR were unified as one
country, Haiti (1822-44). Here, Samuel echoes what the two young girls said earlier -
that they learned about the African presence in the Dominican Republic when they

learned about Haiti and Haitians residing in the Dominican Republic over the course of

history.

159

 

— """"""'

Carmen
17, student

Carmen, works in one of the neighborhood pharmacies (family owned and

operated), and I interviewed her during one of my visits to the pharmacy about identity:

To me, Dominican identity is more important than color or race, but Santiago is

very racist. My sister is light-skinned and is dating a dark-skinned man, and my

parents don’t like it at all. They don’t want her dating him. He is Dominican, but

a dark Dominican.
Again, nationality is expressed as the most important identity. Santiago is considered to
be one of the “lightest” cities in the Dominican Republic - Carmen refers to it as being
racist. In Cannen’s case, with respect to her sister’s boyfiicnd, her parents were also
thinking about grandchildren. If the idea is to “lighten,” in a color conscious society, and
they already have a “light-skinned” daughter, then they don’t want their daughter to
marry someone significantly darker than her. This is a good example of what Wade
described earlier (that every lightening is a darkening). If this same couple were to marry
and have children, the husband would be whitening his lineage because his wife was
lighter-skinned, but the wife would be darkening her lineage because her husband was
darker-skinned.

Here, the boyfriend’s nationality is not important -- he is Dominican, but he is
dark-skinned. It is his color and ideas of ancestry that are called into question. Carmen

said that her parents would not change their viewpoint because they were “set in their

ways” and did not want their daughter dating someone so dark. She presents an

160

interesting scenario -- the one of dark-skinned Dominicans being associated with either
being Haitian, looking Haitian, or having Haitian ancestry. In the event that someone is
uncertain if a person if Dominican or Haitian, they will listen closely to the Spanish -- it
is thought that Haitians don’t speak Spanish well. So, when color alone doesn’t reveal
“national origin,” in this case, language does.

When I asked Carmen about her color and race, she described herself as indio/a and
said that her race was also indio/a. She said that if she were in the United States she
would be very proud of being Dominican and would remain indio/a. With respect to
ancestry, she said that she has European, Indigenous, and Arab ancestry. For Carmen,
her identity was something she could not change and would not change if she resided in
the United States. She did say, however, that a change in identity depends on the person
-- that for some people, this is possible. For her, she was proud of her Dominicanness
and “indioness” and said she didn’t see that changing.

As I was interviewing Carmen, her mother entered, listened for a while, and
responded to some of the issues and said that Dominicans are “una mezcla, mestizo” (a
mith, mestiza) and commented that there are many blacks, “la raza negra en la
fi'ontera,” (the black race near the border) and that the Dominican Republic was
comprised of the descendants of indigenous people, Spaniards, and enslaved Afiicans.
While her mother referred to Dominicans as being mestizos, she included Africans along

with Spaniards and indigenous people in this racial equation.

16]

Angela
44, mother, college-educated

I met Angela on a two-hour bus ride to Santo Domingo as we sat next to each
other. At the time of our self introductions, I was reviewing some of the questions I had
on my interview schedule. She asked me about my research, and after telling her about it,
she agreed to an interview. After a brief conversation about our lives and travel
experience, I began the interview. Angela is married, has one child and is a homemaker.
She has a university degree and has been to the United States to visit family on various
occasions. She spoke about race and color in the Dominican Republic:

There are two classifications of indio, claro (light) and oscura (dark). Dominicans

are mezclados (mixed). Unlike the United States, there are no racial divisions here.

Race means color here, not nationality. Blanca/White and Negro/Black produce

the rare color indio. We don’t have any distinct groups here because we are a

mixture. Indio is a mixture of blanco/White and negro/Black, more or less a

mulato. The majority of Dominicans are indio. India means color and indigenous.

Indios are indigenous with a color between blanco/White and negro/Black.

Angela raises some interesting points here. She says that Black and White produce the
“rare” color, indio. Angela’s assertion that indio is “more or less mulato” is significant
here because, like many other participants, she distances herself fiorn the idea of mulato
because of its direct reference to a Black-White liga, but, at the same time, she also
recognizes it.

Angela links indio to indigenous in the since that indio has historical significance as
we explored earlier in relation to the Taino Indians. To me, indio is also tied to a sense of

being an indigenous Dominican, not an “Indian,” but a person who has had, through

ancestral ties, a generational presence in the Dominican Republic and can claim this liga.

162

When I asked her how she defined herself, she said that she was indio with Spanish and

German ancestry.

Lisa
20, business student

Lisa is a business student at the Pontificio Universidad Coto'lico Madre y Maestro
(PUCMM) in Santiago and has traveled to the United States several times. Imct her at
her parent’s florist shop where she is employed on a part-time basis (when she’s not at
the university). She told me that she has given much thought to race and color based on
her own experiences in the United States and the growing presence of U.S. educational
exchange students residing in her neighborhood (living with host families).

With respect to the importance of national identity, Lisa commented that:

National identity is the most important identity. It is like a card you carry that

contains everything like color and race. Color and race fall within nationality. For

example, when I think about an “American,” I think of someone who is White,
blonde, and speaks little Spanish even though I know there are different types of

Americans. This is the image that comes to mind. This is how we are

programmed to think. When I think about a “Dominican,” I have an image of

someone who is indio with curly or textured hair, etc. Dominican also refers to
the culture and personality that a person has. It’s also a fixed point of view that
the person has -- it’s complicated.
Lisa states something that is key throughout the dissertation -- that national identity is
constructed in a way to encompass race and color -- that we are socialized to associate a
particular “type” of person with a particular place even though, intellectually, we know
there are different “types” of people in that place. Her perspective hints at

homogenization in the effort to level out differences in the “irnaguun ” of a “Dominican”

163

or an “American” of a certain type. Homogenization in this case is linked to how we are
socialized to think in terms of images -- images that are perpetuated through the media,
schools, families, and other institutions, linking race, nation, and national belonging.

Lisa defines herself as india in terms of color and said that when she is in the
United States, she continues “feeling” Dominican and didn’t think that neither her
Dominican identity nor india identity would necessarily change if she lived there. When I
asked her to define indio she said that it is a mix of negro/Black and blanco/White, a
mulato, indio or moreno. When asked about her ancestry, she denied having any
European, Afi'ican, or Indigenous ties, claiming only Dominican ancestry.

Mixture here comes together in the categories of either mulato, indio, or moreno.
While moreno typically refers to color, Lisa uses it to refer to a person of mixed Black-
White ancestry. Lisa’s response to the ancestry question that I raised was actually
somewhat different from other people I interviewed (although it, too, was expressed in
other ways). Like some other participants, Lisa said that she only had Dominican
ancestry. So, while the idea of mixture exists, more importantly, here the Dominican

national identity has been constructed as one ancestry and homeland.

Luisa,
48, colmado owner (small neighborhood grocery store)

Luisa and her husband own a colmado, a small grocery store, in one of the
neighborhoods described as a somewhat exclusive professional, upper-middle-class

neighborhood. Luisa lived in the United States (New York City) for thirteen years and

164

recently returned to Santiago to live after having left the Dominican Republic in search of

a better life and more economic opportunities. She commented on being Dominican,

social class, and the importance of knowing “where you come from.”
National identity is the most important as it defines where you come from. There
is a difference between race, color, and nation with regard to identities just like
there are different classes (middle, upper, and lower). La Zurza, where we are
now, is different from Pequin. Pequin is a marginalized community. People in the
lower class have to send their kids to public school. That’s why we go there
(United States) to have a better life, economically speaking. But this country
(Dominican Republic) is very good. Dominicans in the U.S., even though they are
there, raise their children with the same values and customs they had here in the
DR. Change depends on the person. You don’t have to change your values.
Your customs stay more or less the same. Some people change because they are
in search of money. They are chasing the dollar, and chasing the dollar can change

you. Dominicans there (U .S.) are marked because of color. White people mark
other people. For that reason, there is racism.

Again, nationality emerges as the most important identity because it links you to a
particular place, a place of origin. Having lived in the United States, Luisa could express
the hardships and discrimination that Dominicans face there -- she clearly links this
discrimination to color. Her comment “White people mark other people” is in line with
an earlier discussion of the racial naming process in that the normative group identifies
and names Other people in relation to themselves (while they remain unmarked and un-
named). In the Dominican Republic, the normative group is indio, but in the United
States, the normative group is White.

Luisa also speaks of resistance in terms of teaching children “Dominican values”
and not allowing money to change one’s attitude, customs, etc. She also talks about

advantages and disadvantages that some people have based on their social class and where

165

they live (e.g. access to schools). For her, going to the United States, living and working,
was an attempt to better her life economically although she faced challenges.

Another distinction that Luisa made during the interview (that was also made by
other participants) was that “White” in the Dominican Republic has a different meaning
than “White” in the United States. The difference is that a very light-skinned person in
the Dominican Republic may be defined as indio/a clam/a, triguefio, or even White in
terms of color, but in the United States, White represents more of a “pure” category with
European origins and ancestry. So the same person who is considered to be indio claro in
the Dominican Republic may be considered Black in the United States because of
hypodescent (“the one-drop rule”) which refers to the historical process where anyone
“suspected” of having any African/Black ancestry was, and is, considered to be Black in
the United States (Davis 1991).

As we talked more about color, Luisa said that she defined her color as indio, a mix
of blanco/White and negro/Black), and with regard to race, she defined herself as a mestiza
(negro/Black and blanco/White) with African and Spanish ancestry. Luisa uses the
category mestiza, not mulata, to define herself racially.

Nelsa
30, domestic worker

Nelsa works two days per week, commuting from a semi-urban community

outside of Santiago where she has no running water or telephone, and has scarce

electricity.78 I learned during the interview that she never learned to read. She is in a

166

consensual union with one child and has an 8th grade education. For her, life was very
difficult, and it was hard to find work.

I asked her about the significance of indio. For her, indio meant “another class of
person.” It could also mean color, indigenous, and/or race depending on the context. She
defined herself as Dominican, with only Dominican ancestry, saying her family never
discussed having any other ancestry. She described herself as indio (color) and said that
her race was india oscura (dark indio) because “that’s what it says on my cédula.”

Nelsa expressed to me that she didn’t know much about history and that her
family didn’t talk much about this subject. Like in some of the previous interviews,
Nelsa said that her ancestry is Dominican. She was the frrst person to say that she
defines herself as her cédula defines her. In some of the other interviews, participants
expressed that the cédula officials simply “put what they want to,” without regard to
how a person defines him/herself.

In sum, these interview excerpts speak to a number of issues. The first is an
awareness of Dominicans’ experiences in the United States as a minority. All of the
interviews, while addressing issues of racial/color and national identities, also allude to life
in the United States and point to a consciousness of Dominicans’ experiences abroad. A
male participant said “Here in the Dominican Republic, we discriminate against the
Haitians, but in Puerto Rico and the United States, we become the Haitians.” Many of
the interviews shed light on the type of discrimination and “racism” toward Haitians and
the type of discrimination that Dominicans face abroad because they are “darker” than

some other Latino immigrant groups. In the Dominican Republic, since “being” Black

167

remains “behind one’s ear,” the issues surrounding having African ancestry and being
labeled as “Black” become more salient in the United States where Dominicans are marked
in multiple ways -- as Spanish-speaking and often as Black given the U.S. racial system

where they become, for the first time, a racialized minority.

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

As stated earlier, identities in general are becoming increasingly more important as
people find themselves moving across regional, national, and international borders as well
as being shaped by (and shaping themselves due to) global forces and processes. Just as
important is how people define themselves while simultaneously being defined by others
(e.g. other people, the state, etc.). It has been argued that global processes come to
impact local actors’ lives and circumstances in terms of reconceptualizing and
understanding “localized” identities (Friedman 1994; Kearney 1995; Featherstone 1995;
Long 1996). Statements such as “what is global is embedded in the local” continue to
point to local processes within the global arena. Long’s (1996) idea of re-localization
speaks to this issue. He asserts that re-localization is the end result of globalization
whereby new local social forms are either reinvented or created due to processes of
globalization.

This is what is taking place, in part, in the Dominican Republic - people and
ideas are returning with “new” ideas of race that interact with the “present” ones. What

takes place is a sifting of the influences, where the ideas are remade, and identities are

168

reconfigured. While globalization is not a new phenomenon, what is different here is that
these processes involve increased numbers of people migrating across borders (to find
work, etc.), the ways in which information is shared through different technologies such
as fax machines, televisions, and electronic mail, and the proliferating presence of
multinational corporations.

Also, nations, once viewed as bounded entities, are now conceptualized as
unbounded as social actors cross and (re)cross boundaries and are a part of nation building
processes in two or more nations (Basch er. al 1994). This involves multi-stranded or
multi-layered relationships that link transnational migrants to both their society of origin
and the society of settlement (Basch et. al 1994). This “in-betweenness” suggests that
social actors maintain links with family and friends in their home societies which has
implications for return or circular migration, migration of relatives and fi'iends, as well as
the flow of commodities and money (Basch et. a1 1994; Duany 1994; Georges 1990;
Grasmuck and Pessar 1991; Hendricks 1974).

This in-betweenness also translates into changing and homogenized identities as
transmigrants continue to (re)cross borders and situate themselves in home and host
societies. As immigration from Latin American countries increased, the United States
found it necessary to classify this “group” of people. All of a sudden there was a
flattening out of national differences in an effort to homogenize people from Latin
America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean as Hispanic (Oboler 1995) or as Black

because of phenotypic similarities to Afi'ican Americans and other groups.

169

One of my focus groups involved professional men and women in Santiago and
explored the U.S. Customs aspect of immigration. An area of focus was the treatment of
Dominicans at John F. Kennedy airport in New York City. One participant said “We
always get questions about indio and what it means since there are no Indians here (in the
Dominican Republic)” Someone else said, “They look at us and think we have plantains,
coconuts, coffee, and other food with us because we are Dominican.” Another participant
said “some people wonder how I can be so light and Dominican. They ask if I’m Puerto
Rican. They think all Dominicans are dark.”

These three statements highlight the treatment of Dominicans on three inter-
related levels. The first involves a series of questions involving race and the significance
of indio as it is listed on the passport. In telling Dominicans that there are no Indians in
the Dominican Republic, the customs official makes a claim not only about their identity
claims but also on Dominican history, practice and race. The second is a marking due to
nationality -- the idea that “they” are traveling with these goods. These items are
stereotypical markers of being Dominican. The third level is one of color. Dominicans
are thought of as darker than Puerto Ricans and Cubans, for example. So, some light-
skinned Dominicans are questioned about “being” Dominican when they travel abroad.

In general, transnational migration is very characteristic of this time period to the
extent that there are specialized courier services such as Taino Express, EPS, and
Business Mail that service the Dominican Republic. This period witnessed an increase in
emigration to the United States, in large part, because of the change in immigration policy

that allowed Dominicans to leave in great numbers and because of a shift to import

170

substitution and a subsequent loss of jobs in the Dominican Republic (Torres-Saillant and
Hernandez 1998). In combination with the establishment of the free trade zones
throughout the country, as part of the Caribbean Basin Initiative to stimulate growth and
stability in the Caribbean, the United States flooded the marketplace in the Dominican
Republic with all types of U.S. products. With the U.S. immigration Act of 1965 as a
backdrop, the shift to import substitution and subsequent unemployment and poverty
served as motivation to leave for the United States -- in search of employment
opportunities and betterment (ibid.).

As stated earlier, New York City (NYC) has been the primary receiving
community for Dominicans in the United States (Grasmuck and Pessar 1991; Duany
1994; Hendricks 1974). In fact, NYC has come to represent the United States in the
Dominican Republic is so much as NYC means the United States to many people. The
existence of a Dominican community in the United States along with their sustained
efforts to maintain transnational relationships (e. g. remittances, travel, phone calls, letters,
etc.) contributed to the construction of a type of Dominican diaspora in the sense that the
Dominican Republic is viewed as the homeland and the place where their roots are. In
many of the interviews, and in everyday conversations, there is the idea of a aqui “here”
(Dominican Republic) and alla' “there.” This is how people talk about Dominicans in the
DR and Dominicans in the U.S.

While in the United States, one way in which a “Dominican” identity is articulated
in New York is through the merengue (the national dance in Dominican Republic). The

majority of Dominicans in the United States live in the Washington Heights section of

171

New York. Given this clustering, Dominicans have long been defined as a transnational
community (Austerlitz 1997; Grasmuck and Pessar 1991; Hendricks 1974). The
statement “more ‘Dominican’ than Dominicans on the island” emerges from the literature
as a way to describe the actions and practices of Dominicans in the United States (e.g.
Dominican foods, music, dance, dress, etc.).

India has found its way into Dominican popular culture across borders. For
example, Mery Hernandez, a Dominican folk singer, is known as “India Canela.” One of
her albums has “India Canela” prominently on the cover, and there are two songs on the
album with “indio” in the title: 1) “Las Indias de Bani” (“The Indias of Bani”) and 2) “La
India y su acordeon” (The India and her accordion). In fact, “la India Canela” is written
on her accordion. Another example involves a favorite merengue song fi'om the album, A
Caballo, by Kinito Mendez. The song is entitled Ritrno Merembe with a second title of
“Los Indios” and begins by calling out (against steady dance drumming) “los indios.” The
response is ululation (the stereotypical “war cry” of Native Americans in the U.S.).
Also, on our way to Haiti via Dajabén (one of the border communities), we passed
through a town named “Los Indios.” These are just some of the ways in which indio has
been incorporated into the social landscape of the Dominican Republic.

In sum, this chapter traces some of contexts in which Dominicanness is
articulated. In particular, there is a sense of shared history and pastness, a Dominican
ancestry and homeland, as well as shared sense of being and feeling Dominican, mixed, and
indio. Here, mestizo identities have been recast as indio identifies, moving away fiom,

albeit not completely, race to color. There are still remnants of mestizo-ness in the sense

172

of mixture (representing the mixture of different races) with indio capturing color. While
the Junta Central’s category is labeled “color,” it is more representative of a racial
category as indio represents a “type” and range of colors. Mulato, as I was told, is darker
than indio (darker than indio oscura and lighter than negro).

The overall reluctance to use any other category other than indio during the
cedulazation process points to a continued distancing away from blackness. It is in this
vein that these identities have become generational and more place-specific. With the
playing of the national anthem at noon combined with other patriotic symbols evoking
images of the Dominican Republic as homeland, it becomes more clear as to why the
image of the Dominican Republic is that of the mestizo and someone who is a gradation of
indio.

The collective memory of Dominicans as a mixed people, historical points of
reference, and on-going references to the “majority” of Dominicans being mestizo (in
earlier census reports) and indio (on the cédula) continue to reaffirm Dominicans as a
mixed people, not Black or White, but a combination of the two and yet quite distinct
from both of them. People who are then defined as White or Black are on the periphery
with respect to this contemporary articulation of Dominicanness. Over time, with a
sense of pastness, Dominican peoplehood came to be expressed as a mixed status, as
definitions and meanings were created in relation to whiteness and blackness, against the
backdrop of Indio-ness.

I argue here that while this peoplehood grew out of an ideology and practice of

race-mixing, and what the literature refers to a mestizaje, that mestizaje does not quite

173

adequately reflect the reality of the Dominican Republic. I agree with Wade above that as
social scientists, we have come to understand that mestizaje represents any race mixture
in Latin America, however, in its application, it has most commonly been used to explain
the specific mixture of Spanish and Indigenous peoples (e.g. Mexico, Peru, etc.) with the
category of mestizo coming from the word “mestizaje.” Thus, the scholarly reproduction
of this idea, combined with the continual research focus on the specific Spanish-Indian
mixture, has to some degree contributed to the invisibility of people of African descent in
Latin American in the theorization of mixture.

Unquestionably when mestizo is evoked in the social science literature, it is not
the image of an Afio-Dominican, Afro-Peruvian, Afro-Mexican, etc. Even the definition
of mestizo in the Dominican Encyclopedia reflects the definition, and academic consensus,
that was used historically throughout Latin America to describe the offspring of
Spaniards and Indigenous people; this definition was based on the literature.
Consequently, while mestizo as a socio-racial term maintains distance from blackness, so
does mestizaj e.

By placing the Dominican Republic within the context of two diasporas, one
“Dominican” and the other African, while exploring mixture, we see a recognition of
African ancestry that is articulated in two similar yet different ways. The next chapter
explores two contemporary emerging discourses in the Dominican Republic that move
away fi'om mestizo and mestizaje to express the sense of being mulato (Mulutaje) and/or

Afio-Dominican (Africanidad).

174

VII. MULUTAJE AND AFRICANIDAD: EMERGING DISCOURSES

SURROUNDING RACE, RACIAL EXPERIENCES AND ANCESTRY

IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (1989-Preeent)

While Mestizaje is still the dominant discourse during the present time, there are
two emerging, often inter-related, discourses surrounding racial identities that consciously
and purposefully assert Afi'ican ancestry as an integral part of the Dominican mixture.
The liga is still used as a way of conceptualizing the mixture over time, however, the
African past and presence is reclaimed during this time period (1989 - present). Mulutaje
and Africanidad both suggest that Dominicans have not learned their entire history as it
has been a “partial” Dominican history that intentionally excluded Africans as well as
their contributions to Dominican “culture” and society.

At the same time, there are claims that the previous and current racial/color
categories have been, and still are, void of any reference to African ancestry.
Consequently, for reasons that we will explore in this chapter, Mulutaje and Afi'icanidad
are emerging, and overlapping, racial discourses in the Dominican Republic and not only

challenge the racial categories but also seek to articulate Dominicanness in new ways.

Mulutaje

Racial Views and Concepts
For some, the racial views are changing to reflect a Negro-Blanca mixture -- with
assertions of being mulato. The mulato category has emerged, in part, due to Dominicans’

experiences in the United States with race and racial categorizations and the lack of an “in-

175

between” category and a different meaning for “indio.” Again, directly translated, “indio”
means Indian or indigenous, and in the United States, Dominicans are not considered to
be Indian, indigenous, or from India. It is through interactions with peOple and
institutional structures that define Dominicans in new and different ways in the United

States that facilitates this process of Mulutaje.79

Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and National Identities

“The whole world is laughing at us because we call ourselves indio. They know

there are no Indians here.” -- Maria, a participant

The racial discourse of Mulutaje forms in the United States and in other places
where Dominicans redefine themselves based on the available categories. While mulato is
no longer an official category in the United States (as it was dropped fiom the census in
1920), and has not been used for the majority of the 20th century, it is the in-between
category that most represents indio in that it is “in between Black and White.” According
to Grasmuck and Pessar (1996), while some Dominicans self-classified as Black or White
in terms of race, the majority of Dominicans in New York City wrote-in “mulatto” as an
“other” category in the 1990 census.

As I expressed in the last chapter, ideas about living in the United States return to
the Dominican Republic through correspondences and visits with family. In this case,
Dominicans in the United States learn that it is difficult to assert an indio identity because

1) it translates into Indian and has different historical and contemporary meanings; and

'176

2) people are confronted by others who define them as Black, “of color,” and suggest that
they are “denying who they are.”

Chiqui Viciosa, an accomplished Dominican poet, spent numerous years in the
United States and said that she considered herself to be india clara when she went to the
United States in the late 19605 - early 19708. I met Chiqui at one of her poetry readings
in Santiago and saw her on another occasion in Santo Domingo. She spoke about her
experiences in the United States at the poetry reading.

One of the most profound experiences that she had was when she went through
U.S. Customs at J.F.K. airport in New York. “The customs offrcer asked me what india
clara was, and I said “my race.” He looked at me and said that there were no Indians in
the Dominican Republic and that I was not india clara in the United States.” Chiqui said
that this was a defining moment for her because up until that point, no one had challenged
her own racial concept and self definition. She was india clara in the Dominican Republic
but was suddenly told that she was not india dam in the United States. This was just
the first of many challenges that Chiqui faced that would prompt her to call into question
her identity and history.

Chiqui attended Brooklyn College and was surrounded by other Dominicans,
Afiican Americans, and people from the Caribbean. In this context, she realized that the
Dominican Republic was part of the Caribbean -- until this point, only Jamaica, Puerto
Rico, Cuba, etc. were part of the Caribbean. Earlier in the dissertation, I talked about the
Dominican Republic being conceptualized as part of the West Indies - this changed

during the Trujillo regime, when in an effort to link the Dominican Republic to Spain,

177

references to the West Indies and the Caribbean were not as prevalent as before. Chiqui
said that her experience in the United States taught her a lot about herself and the
Dominican Republic. She began to be more critical in her thinking and reflected on how
she was socialized. “I really hadn’t thought about bleaching creams and the emphasis on
“marrying up” until I was in the United States.” so Bleaching creams lightened one’s
complexion and were advertised in newspapers in 1918 and in subsequent years - they
were also marketed in the United States. Here, marrying up refers to the practice of
marrying someone lighter in the attempt to have lighter-skinned children.

Chiqui was in the United States during the Civil Rights Movement and was
influenced by everything that was happening around her with regard to racial and gender
oppression. “I was influenced by Angela Davis and the Black Panthers and wanted to be
like Angela. I learned a lot from the Black community in the U.S.” When she signed my
book, she wrote “Kimberly Simmons: Because I have learned so much from your country
and your women. Thanks.” Chiqui said that because of her experience in the United
States, she defines herself most often as mulata and says that the Dominican Republic is
comprised primarily of mulatos and negros. Her experience illustrates how identities are
articulated in various contexts. While Chiqui considers herself to be mulata, she knows
that others might not affirm that identity in the Dominican Republic - they instead define
her as india clara. Thus, among other mulato-identified people, she is mulata, and among
india-identified people, she is india -- her socioracial identity depends on which group
she’s with and how they define her although she claims both identities at different points

in time.

178

Mulutaje also found expression during a recent presidential election in the
Dominican Republic in May of 1996. The public discourse that surrounded the two
candidates fiom opposing political parties, Leonel Fernandez (the current president of
PLD), and the late Francisco Pena Gomez (PRD), was both racial and national. Leonel
Fernandez was residing in the United States prior to the election while Pena Gomez was
residing in Santo Domingo. Fernandez was new to public service, while Pena Gomez had
served as mayor of the capital city, Santo Domingo. The debate had little to do with their
histories in public service and more to do with race and national origin.

The debate advanced the idea that Pena Gomez was Black and of Haitian descent
while Fernandez was mixed and Dominican albeit living in the United States. The
opposition to Pena Gomez grew as fears were generated that, if elected, the island would
be unified again and the borders would open to let Haitians enter the Dominican Republic
fieely - thus a renewed fear of Haitianization ensued. Most of the accusations were
traced to the outgoing president’s party (Balaguer). I closely followed the election, and
during that time, Pena Gomez had won the most votes (46%), however, because none of
the three candidates had received a majority vote, a change was implemented from
Balaguer’s “camp” -- that a candidate had to win by a majority in order to be elected.
This was the first time such an initiative was made and passed. In effect, what this meant
was that the “people” had elected Pena Gomez, but the Balaguer regime did not want to
relinquish “control” of the government to him -- Balaguer, fi'om the third major political

party, along with former president Juan Bosch, endorsed Fernandez for the “run-off”

179

election with Pena Gomez, and subsequently Fernandez won by a slight margin (51.25%)
albeit a “majority.”

There were two currents running through the election campaign: 1) Balaguer and
others linked Pena Gomez to Haiti, defined Dominicanness along the lines of race and
national belonging, and tried to create fear among voters; and 2) the “people” despite the
racialized context during the election, voted for Pena Gomez in large numbers during both
elections. Before the election, Fernandez made a comment about the issue of race in the
election. In a New York Times article before the election in 1996, he commented on the
discourse surrounding Pena Gomez being Black and the insinuation that he was non-Black
-- he said that while Pena was Black, he himself was not White - he was a mulato, and all
mulatos in the United States were Black. Mulato was subsequently placed on the cédula
during Fernandez’ presidency -- this is the first time that mulato has been an official
state-sanctioned category in the Dominican Republic since the first national census was
taken in 1920.

The above statement, Fernandez is claiming dual socioracial status, as a mulato
and as Black. He identifies as being mulato, but asserts that mulatos in the U.S. are Black
-- he first uses a category that isn’t “popular” in the Dominican Republic, then uses the
U.S. definition of blackness to illustrate that he, like Pena Gomez, is Black. The racial
systems of the Dominican Republic and the United States are put alongside one another
to make the point of likeness of Pena Gomez’ being Black in the Dominican Republic and

his being mulato/Black in the United States.

180

Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories

Within the Mulutaje discourse, mulato replaces indio as a way of describing and
capturing a sense of mixture between Black and White. Again, indio is still the most
prevalent category as we explored during the cedulazation process, but it was mulato, not
mestizo (as proposed by PID) that found a place on the list of color categories in 1998.
In terms of replacing indio in everyday conversations about race and color, mulato is
gaining popularity in part because of 1) the ways in which return migrants and their
children talk about their experiences in the United States and; 2) the media and popular
culture descriptions of Dominicans and their relationships with other groups in the
United States.

Cable television makes U.S. images more accessible to viewers in the Dominican
Republic. The following example is taken from my fieldnotes when we attended a

birthday party:

September 3, 1998
We went to Stella’s Christening this morning and returned from her birthday party
this evening with Asha. There were about 20 adults and 15 children in the
apartment. I said that I would take pictures and videotape the party. It didn’t
take long for the party to divide along gender lines, with the men sitting outside
and the women in the kitchen preparing the snacks and sitting with the kids in the

living room. I sat by a woman I didn’t know and began talking to her when her

181

daughter came up and asked her if she could go outside. She responded, “You can
go outside and sit with your father, Kenia.” I was curious that her daughter was
named Kenia because it is a common name in the Afi'ican American community
and wondered how she decided to name her daughter Kenia. When I asked her,
she said “I didn’t know what to name her, and I asked my husband. He was
watching t.v. one day, a program from alla (the U.S.) and saw a woman whose
name was “Kenya” - she looked like us, and we both liked the name.” I told her
that I too liked the name and that it was common in the U.S. and that “Kenya is a
country in Afi'ica.” At this point, she looked at me and said “I didn’t know that.”
On our way home, I found out that David had had the exact same conversation
with Kenia’s father about her name, and the father said he didn’t know that Kenya

was a country in Afiica.

Shortly after the birthday party, I read in a newspaper that one of Sammy Sosa’s
daughter’s is also named “Kenya.” The point here is that within both the Mulutaje and
Afi'icanidad discourses, there is increased interaction between Dominicans and African
Americans, and other groups of African descent throughout the Americas, in part because
of perceived similarities and racial awareness in the United States - this was a recurrent
theme in the interviews among participants who had traveled to the United States. As

Torres-Saillant and Hernandez (1998) state:

182

When Dominicans come to the United States, however, they escape the ideological
artillery that sustains negrophobic thought in the homeland, and they have a
greater possibility of coming to terms with their real ethnicity. In North America,
a racially segregated society where the color of one’s skin has often mattered more
than the content of one’s character in obtaining jobs and opportunities, Dominican
may find it expedient to assert their blackness. Cognizant that the larger white
society does not differentiate racially between them and Haitians or other dark-
skinned Caribbeans, Dominicans become accustomed to speaking of themselves as
a “people of color” and ally themselves with the other peoples of color in the
struggle for survival (143-44).
The above statement links Dominicans with a larger homogenization process of blackness
in the United States. While there may be language, social class, and other differences,
some of these features are flattened due to phenotype and “who they are” in this place.
Here, Torres-Saillaint and Hernandez hint at a larger Black community that forms in the
daily struggles for survival, and while I agree with this, I think that Black ethnic groups
also form as a result of the differences along the lines of nationality, language, cultural
practices, etc. Nonetheless, the United States is a place where Dominicans and Haitians
have more in common than not and where the distinctions that were made in the
Dominican Republic are not made in the United States -- the United States is also a place
where connections are made with other peoples of African descent based on perceived
similarities in experience and history.
Again, one of the differences in the United States is the lack of an in-between
racial category that defines people of mixed Afi'ican and European descent As discussed
earlier, similar color categories exist within the Afi'ican American community (e.g. light-

skinned, dark-skinned, etc.), but these are color descriptors similar to indio, but in a

socioracial sense, there is no intermediate category at this point in history. Thus, since

183

this category doesn’t exist, it means that Dominicans then are in a position to negotiate
White, Black, or mulato socioracial identities in the United States (Grasmuck and Pessar
1996).

In a larger “Black” space, there is room for exchange, mutual influencing, and
increased interactions between groups. Such interactions and exposure through media
have a mutual influencing effect on socioracial categories as discussed above as well as
naming practices, hair styles (e.g. twists and curly locks, etc.), music (e.g. merengue hip
hop/house, Latin jazz, etc.):

...Proyecto Uno has succeeded in creating an aesthetic of its own by drawing from

Dominican and Latin sounds and mixing them with elements of rap, house, and

other musical modalities from hip-hop urban culture in the United States (Torres-

Saillant and Hernandez 1998:138).

Merengue house and hip-hop are very popular musical forms. On Proyecto Uno’s album
entitled New Era (1996), there is a song, Latinos, that combines merengue with hip-hop
and rap in a song about Latinos. The song itself in musical form and style is
representative of transnational experiences -- the song is partly in Spanish and English.
Here are some of the lyrics from the song:

You keep it tight right

Or what

All night

Latinos making noise cause it’s only right

Son Latinos, because son Latinos, because son Latinos, because son Latinos

(They are Latinos)

Say it loud

Hell yeah
Say it loud

184

Both of them are dark...
Both of them are Black...
Both of them are light
Both of them are White

La fiesta no quiere parar... (The party doesn’t want to stop)

Both of them are dark...
Both of them are Black...
Who the hell are you?
Proyecto Uno...Dominican

Son Latinos, because son Latinos, because son Latinos, because son Latinos (They
are Latinos)

We’ve got it going on

We wreck the party, baby
We’ve got it going on

We wreck the party, baby
On and on and on...

Now when I say Alpha you say “ho”
When I say “yes yes” you say “yo”

Presente mi gente... (my people are present)
Merengue hip hop...

Venga con suya (Come with yours)
No one can flip it like these four guys
Merengue hip hop...

Adelante (Let’s go -- forward)

Espana

Puerto Rico
Venezuela
Santo Domingo
Honduras
Guatemala
Mexico
Nicaragua
Chile

Panama...

185

Mi gente esta caliente (My people are hot)

Son Latinos, because son Latinos, because son Latinos, because son Latinos (They

are Latinos)

This song speaks to a number of issues that are relevant to the dissertation and
combines a number of complexities. First is the weaving of Spanish and English — the
English is in rap form, using both U.S. and Jamaican style of rapping. The second is a
recognition of mi gente, or my people and the diversity that exists among Latinos (light,
dark, and other references in the song). From the inside of the CD cover, the artists
provide what they term a “Proyecto 1” dictionary where different terms are defined.
There are two that are of particular interest here: 1) “Dominiquefio which is a “mezcla de
un Dominicano y un Puertoriquefio -- mixture of a Dominican and Puerto Rican
(Dominicans and Puertoricans who drink out of the same mug)” and 2) “Chocolate” Por 10
regular un dulce, pero en este caso se refiere a la gente morenita. Por ejemplo: Magic y
Nelson son los hermanos chocolate por ser los “Negritos” de Proyecto. The Brothers of
the Crew.” (Normally something sweet, but in this case it refers to brown people. For
example: Magic and Nelson are the chocolate brothers for being the “Blacks” of Proyecto.
The Brothers of the Crew).

This last definition leads me to the third issue that’s raised in the song, and that is
the assertion of blackness and being Black. Light is contrasted to dark (light being White
and dark being Black). All of a sudden, the socioracial continuum that is often presented

among Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, among others, shifts to Black and White in the

186

United States. Also of note is that the two who are “dark” are Dominican, while the two
who are “light” are Puerto Rican. Also of interest here is that “brother” is a term that is
used among Afiican Americans for Black men. Finally, the song has as its finale a roll call
of “Latino” countries beginning with Spain. Spain is thus linked with Latin America in

the formation of “mi gente.” All of this is done to an African derived rhythm and sounds.

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

The Mulutaje discourse emerged because of an increase in transnational migration,
access to U.S. images via cable and intemet, etc. Based on interviews, there is also
tremendous migration within the Dominican Republic as people fi'om the rural
communities migrate to Santiago and surrounding areas (semi-urban) for employment
opportunities -- especially in the free trade zones. In addition, there is a sizable Haitian
community working in the sugar cane fields, in construction, and in other areas around the
city.

With respect to the experience of Dominicans in the United States, Torres-
Salliaint and Hernandez confi'ont the issues surrounding racism in the United States along
the lines of class:

Ironically, it is neither the unskilled nor blue-collar workers who most

dramatically suffer the oppressive weight of racial discrimination. Their own

social segregation, their confinement to labor markets populated mostly by their
own people, keeps them or the most part fi'om stepping outside their immediate

ethnic milieu. As they hardly ever get to interact with people from the dominant

sectors of society, they stay largely away fi'om the settings where the drama of
racism can be felt directly. It is really the professionals and those most qualified

187

to compete for employment, education, and commercial opportunities in the

mainstream who feel it in their flesh. It is they who get the chance to experience

personally the extent to which their phenotype can limit their aspirations (Torres-

Saillant and Hernandez 1998: 157).

While Dominicans in general may experience some forms of racism in the United
States, they suggest here that it is the middle class, or at least those individuals with
human and social capital that most often confi'ont racism. For this reason, I presume, we
find more Dominicans entering into civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and
historical Afiican American sororities and fiatemities in U.S. colleges and universities.81
The issue of social class is interesting here in that Torres-Saillant and Hernandez suggest
that early studies (e.g. Grasmuck and Pessar 1991; Georges 1990; Hendricks 1974 ) relied
primarily on ethnographic studies of small communities in the Dominican Republic and
suggested that the post-1965 Dominican migrants to the U.S. were primarily rural,
uneducated, poor, unskilled, and jobless (Torres-Saillant and Hernandez 1998: 34). They
argue instead that most migrants actually came from the urban middle-class, and were
neither poor nor uneducated. They were Dominican doctors and other professions who
“became” entrepreneurs to supplement their incomes in the United States because of
practices that kept them from fully participating in their professions without further
training and education. This ties into the earlier discussion on the middle class being
confi'onted with racist practices in the United States (alongside others in without as much
social and hmnan capital).

Returning to Ong’s (1996) idea of “blackening” and “whitening,” it becomes clear

that Dominicans, despite educational level and professional preparedness, are subject to

188

blackening processes in the United States. During a recent visit to Michigan State
University (1999), Dominican sociologist Ramona Hernandez suggested that Dominicans
in the United States do not follow the same trajectory as other Latinos because they tend
to be darker. Instead, their experiences tend to mirror those of similarly positioned
African Americans in terms of discrimination they face and employment options.

An article written by Dominican journalist Aristofanes Urbaez in El Siglo (July,
1995), described a fourth of July celebration in New York City involving Dominicans and
African Americans. Although he is not directly referenced in the article, there is a photo
of Rev. Jesse Jackson, who according to two of my cultural consultants, is a “symbol”
representing the Afiican American community. The title of the article is “Bailando con
los negros” (“Dancing with the Blacks”) and is interesting in that it paints a picture of life
in the United States - one involving a shared social space of Dominicans and Afiican

Americans and the question of race in the United States:

Compartiendo con aquellos negros, que celebraban al igual que los blancos, la
Independencia de su pais, los Estados Unidos, una barrera de prejuicios rodaron
por el suelo y comprendimos mas los intereses y los sentimientos de los negros
nortetamericanos, que contrario a muchos de nosotros, nacionalistas postizos, se
sienten orgullosos de ser negros, de sus costumbres y tradiciones, incluidas sus
diferentes manifestaciones de religiosidad. Ningt’rn norteamericano negro - ahora
lo sabemos mas que nunca -- se cambiaria por un blanco, porque en la negritud esta
su raza, su cultura y la fuerza de sus raices. iQué grata experiencial Creemos que
tanto Pena, como Leonel F emandez, porque alla todo mulato es “negro”, deberian
acercarse a la comunidad negra norteamericana en busca de recursos y apoyo a sus
aspiraciones.

189

 

Translation

Participating with the blacks there (U .S.), who celebrated the Independence of
their country, the United States, the same as whites, a barrier of prejudices
surrounding us and we better understood the interests and the feelings of North
American Blacks, that contrary to many of us, nationalists, they feel proud of
being black, of their customs and traditions, including their different
manifestations of religion. No North American Black -- we now know this more
than ever would change to be White, because in blackness is their race, their
culture and the force of their roots. What a welcome experience! We believe that
both Pefla and Leonel Fernandez, because all mulattos are black there, should be
closer to the North American black community in search of resources and to
support their aspirations.

The author, writing for a Dominican audience in the Dominican Republic, informs the
readers that Dominicans shared in the fourth of July celebration in New York City. More
than that, he conveys a sense of experience in the U.S. and the idea that Dominicans “now
understand” the interests and feelings of Black Americans and that Black Americans are
proud to be Black, unlike Dominicans. Importantly, he suggests that both Pena Gomez
and Leonel Fernéndez (a “mulato”) are Black in the United States and that much could be
learned and gained by Dominicans and African Americans joining forces. This article is an
example of a transnational project, and more specifically, transnationalism embedded in
the “local.” Dominicans in the Dominican Republic learn of the experiences of
Dominicans abroad, and in particular, about changing ideas of race and community
building.

Another example of the “there” within “here” can be found at the Museo del

Hombre Dominicano (Museum of the Dominican Man). I was struck by a wing of the

190

 

museum depicting life of Dominicans in New York City. There were two large mural-
type paintings showing various aspects of the city (taxi cab, movie theaters, traffic,
people sitting on benches, “peep shows,” etc.). The marquee of the movie theater lists
the following movies: Embassy, Airplane, Dressed to Kill, and Egyptian Film Festival).
Of interest are Embassy and Airplane which are representative of the Dominican
experience of obtaining visas to travel to the U.S. and the actual travel experience via
airplanes as well as remittances that are sent fi'om NY to the Dominican Republic.

The other painting depicts a letter written to a relative in the Dominican Republic
and says that it is cold in New York and that the work is hard. She says it’s like living in
a jail but she is there (in New York) out of necessity. The letter ends with the question of
whether or not the relative has received the money she sent. This painting represents
what some participants said during interviews - that many Dominicans are in the U.S.
out of economic necessity and send money and other items such as clothes and shoes to
family members in the Dominican Republic. Traveling back and forth, people are often
met with questions about working abroad and what they are bringing with them.

Each time I went to the Dominican Republic, I had similar experiences in the
airport. In 1995, with my U.S. passport in hand, I was asked questions about being
Dominican and coming back to the island (e.g. what I was bringing for family, if I was
born there, etc.). When I left the customs area and main doors of the airport, I noticed a
group of college-aged students from the U.S. An Afiican American student seemed upset
about something. I walked over to the group and said hello, and spoke to him in

particular. He looked at me and said “They think I’m Haitian. When they saw my U.S.

191

 

passport, and noticed that I spoke English, they said that I must be Haitian-American.”
In similar, yet different ways, we were both defined and labeled before we left the

airport - I was defined as Dominican, and he was defined as Haitian. We were both
dressed in a similar fashion, spoke English, and had U.S. passports. However, it was our
color that set us apart. Because he was dark-skinned, he was defined as a Haitian
American, and because I was light-skinned, I was defined as Dominican American (even
though we are from the same “community” in the United States).

As I stated in the beginning of this chapter, Mulutaje, and claims of being mulato
often stems from experiences one has in the United States interacting with the U.S. racial
system. Afiicanidad, and claims of being “Afro-Dominican,” also stems from experiences
had outside of the Dominican Republic. The two overlap in many ways, but there are

some particularities that arise within Afiicanidad that I review in the next section.

Africanidad

Afiicanidad transcends nation as it links people on a macro-level, across borders
and nationalities. In this way, Africanidad refers to the Afiican diaspora which Hamilton
(1990) defines as:

a type of social grouping characterized by a historical patterning of particular
social relationships and experiences. As a social formation, it is conceptualized as
a global aggregate of actors and subpopulations, differentiated in social and
geographical space, yet exhibiting a commonality based on historical factors,
conditioned by and within the world ordering system (Hamilton 1990: 18).

192

Like Mulutaje, Africanidad is a fairly new discourse surrounding race and nation and the
articulation of “new” identities based on experiences outside of the Dominican Republic, a
critical reading of history, and reflection on the past. In relation to the historical
construction of Dominicanness, Afiicanidad, as a discourse, is less concerned with an
intermediate category and defining mixture as much as it is the reclaiming of an Afiican

ancestry and linking the Dominican “nation” with an Afiican past.

Racial Views and Concepts

Again, Afiicanidad and Mulutaje overlap in the sense that they both recognize
Afiican ancestry and emerge after having an experience “a fuera de” (outside of the)
Dominican Republic that causes a “period of reflection.” While Mulutaje is linked to the
mulato race/color category, Afiicanidad asserts a Negro/Black and/or Afi'o-
Dominicano/Afro-Dorninican identity. The main difference here is that Mulutaje still
captures a sense of racial “in-betweenness,” and Africanidad extends beyond mixture per
se to address issues of ancesuy and similarities throughout the African diaspora. Mulato
is also more wide-spread in its use in the Dominican Republic than “Afro-Dominican.”

This will be discussed at the end of this chapter.

Racial Discourse and the Articulation of Racial and National Identifies

The racial discourse of Afiicanidad is in reference to the African diaspora. I later

discuss some recently formed Dominican organizations that are making claims about being

193

Black and/or Afro-Dominican, linking themselves and their experiences in the Americas
with Afiican Americans and others in the diaspora (e. g. Minority Rights Group 1995).
Afiicanidad involves reclaiming of African ancestry, organizing efforts with other peoples
of African descent (e.g. Casa por la Identidad de la Mujer Afi'o--Identidad) to articulate a
new discourse of race and nation -- one that springs forth due to increased transnational
migration and personal and group “reflections” on history.

By way of example, October 12 is Columbus Day in the Dominican Republic, and
in recent years, various individuals and groups have attended celebrations or presentations
to discuss Christopher Columbus and the legacy of the “encounters” that followed. The
following commentary is taken from Identidad’s newsletter and discusses the significance

of Columbus Day”:

En octubre se conmemora una feche importante para las y los latinoamericanas/os y
caribefias/os. Para los sectores tradicionales y conservadores de nuestros paises en la
fecha del 12 de octubre constituye la celebracion del dia de la raza, el encuentro de
culturas, para otros sectores Octubre nos recuerda la masacre, la explotacion de que fueron
objeto grandes poblaciones indigenas y negras esclavas traidas desde el Afiica como firerza
de trabajo para la acumulacion de riquezas de la colonia espaflola en el proceso de la
mundializacion del capitalismo.

Fruto de este proceso de colonizacibn que se ha irnpuesto hace hoy 506 afios, la identidad
de nuestros pueblos se presenta confusa, con tendencias a asumirnos solo como una parte
de lo que somos, resaltando unicamente la herencia historica de la cultura espafiola, no asr'
de la indigena y afiicana, lo que se nos revela en la cotidianidad en manifestaciones racistas
que van desde las formas mas sutiles (“en mi casa negro e1 caldero”) hasta las més
complejas (“se busca joven de buena presencia”).

Octubre debe servir para seguir profimdizando sobre el tema de la identidad y el racismo,
recordando nuestro pasado historico para poder construir un presente sin confusiones.

194

Translation

An important date is commemorated in October for Latin Americans and Caribbeans. For
traditional and conservative sectors of our countries October 12 constitutes the
celebration of race day, the encounter of cultures, for other sectors in October we
remember the massacre, the exploitation of large populations of indigenous and black
slaves brought fi'om Afiica like a work force for the accumulation of wealth of the Spanish
colony in the process of world capitalism.

Because of this colonization process that began 506 years ago, the identity of our
communities is confused, with tendencies to assume only a part of who we are, only
referring to the historical inheritance of the Spanish culture, not the indigenous and
African, that is revealed to us daily in racist manifestations from the more subtle (in my
house the pot is black) to the most complex (looking for a young person of good
presence) forms.

October should continue to serve as a time to intellectualize about the topic of identity

and racism, remembering our historic past in order to be able to construct a present
without confusions.

The name of Identidad’s newsletter is as revealing as what they discuss here in this issue
about Race Day. “Cirnarrona” literally means runaway slave woman and not only brings
attention to a “forgotten” slave society in the Dominican Republic but also a form of
resistance used by the slaves themselves. For them, Race Day represents an “encounter”
of cultures and exploitation of indigenous and enslaved Afiicans in the process of “world
capitalism.” They also suggest here that there is a national confirsion about “who they
are” which is made evident by the constant reference to Spanish origins. Along with other
groups and individuals that meet and submit essays to the newspapers and make

television appearances on Race Day, they claim that this day should be a day for

195

 

reflection and consciousness raising to create a socio-historically accurate identity
“without confusions.”
Individual Identities and State-Sanctioned Categories

Within Africanidad, people define themselves as Negro/a or Afio-Dominicano/a. i

While the state recognizes Negro as a category on the cédula, it is seldom used for

 

Dominicans as we explored in the previous chapter. Afro-Dominican is the identity that
women in La Casa par la Identidad de la Mujer Afio (The House for A fro-Dominican
Women’s Identity-Identidad) promote.83 Afro-Dominican is also an identity that some
Dominicans in the United States claim.84 I have worked with Identidad since 1993 and

have witnessed change within the organization in terms of leadership and mission.

La Casa par la Identidad de la Mujer A fro (Identidad)

Identidad, comprised of approximately twenty core members, is located in Santo
Domingo.85 The leadership is comprised of women with a college education although the
general membership is quite diverse. Most of the women reside in urban areas and are
involved with other organizations for women’s economic and social betterment. Identidad
strives to “reach” women across social class lines as these women often don’t have the
educational training and experiences abroad fiom which contestation and consciousness

often arise.

196

While most of the members reside in the capital, others live in Santiago, as well as
in other parts of the Dominican Republic. Their meetings were held periodically, in part
because of members’ schedules -— women often traveled to conferences, went to the
United States to work or visit family, conduct research, and facilitate worksh0ps. These
workshops provided a forum to reflect and discuss race-, color-, and gender-related
topics. Women members in Santo Domingo frequently traveled to Santiago and other
cities in order to bring these ideas to women. By facilitating workshops with women
throughout the country, Identidad reaches out and raises awareness across social class
lines to the extent that claiming a Black identity, and later an “AfioDominican identity,”
extended beyond women in the middle class.

When I left in 1993, I left my copies of Essence magazine with them (as they had
requested African American women’s magazines). At the time, I didn’t realize the impact
this popular Black women’s magazine would have on the organization with regard to an
image. When I returned in 1995 for further research, Identidad was using the image of
Susan L. Taylor (the editor-in-chief of Essence at that time) on the cover of their
newsletter. The title of the newsletter read “Red de Mujeres Afiocaribefias y
Afi'olatinoamericanas” (Meeting of Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Latin American Women,
dated Year 1, No. 5, 1994).86 The director of Identidad, at that time, explained that
Taylor and her comrowed hair (braided hair) represented their ideal of beauty and
strength.87

In 1995, Identidad identified five organizational objectives: 1) promote a broad

process of reflection that serves as a premise in the search of identity; 2) help other

197

 

women become aware of the relationship between racial and gender discrimination and
oppression; 3) reveal the contributions of Black women in the formation of the nation; 4)
demythologize the dominant stereotypes about Black women; and 5) convey ideas that
advance accurate models of identity with regard to Black women.88

During this same year, a rupture occurred within the organization over its name
and the terminology used to describe women’s experiences within the group. In
particular, a small contingent of lighter-complexioned women questioned the exactness
and accuracy of the term Negra in the organization’s name to captm'e their experiences -
negra was a category usually attributed to Haitians, Africans, and extremely dark-
complexioned Dominicans. The label “Black” - with its contentious historical and
contemporary meanings - became the focal point of what amounted to a protracted
exercise in identity politics. Other phenotypic traits also came into question, namely hair
and its presentation -- women rejecting the use of hair relaxers and straighteners and
instead wearing their hair “natural” (e.g. afro, braids, curly locks, etc.). Color, as a
distinguishing feature, was also interrogated by the women as light-skinned women were
made to feel that they were not “Black enough?” Light-skinned Dominican women in
Identidad, while they defined themselves as Black, were, at times, met with looks of
disapproval by darker-skinned women in the organization.

The end result of this rupture was the founding of Cafe can Leche, (Coffee with
Milk), a new, albeit short-lived, organization which articulated new notions of race,
mixture, color, and gender in the Dominican Republic. Identidad did not have a large

membership, so when Cafe can Leche formed with some of the original members of

198

Identidad, it had an impact on the organization not only in terms of members but also in
terms of focus. In effect the co-existence of Identidad and Cafe can Leche, divided these
Dominican feminists into negra and mulara camps. In response to this newly formed and
competing organization, Identidad underwent reorganization and redefinition after what
was termed a “period of reflection” and renamed itself by replacing negra with Afio—
Dominicana. The purpose was to recreate Identidad and reunite the group by bringing
women from Cafe con Leche back into Identidad -- which is what happened. One of the
formding members of Identidad, and former member of Cafe can Leche, Carmen, became
the new director of Identidad.

As demonstrated here, moving away fiom Black as a color marker as well as a
racial one, women redefined themselves as “Afro-Dominican,” focusing on Afiican
heritage, recognizing the African diasporic experience with regard to mixture, and linking
themselves with other women of African descent in the Americas and throughout the
Diaspora. Carmen commented that “they began to question the significance of Black as a
descriptive category and decided, after a period of reflection, that they were of Afiican
descent, with mixture, and it was important to claim an Afro-Dominican identity which
includes all mulata and negra Dominican women.”0

At present, Identidad is working to raise awareness about racism and sexism,
making claims that race and gender, along with class and sexuality, need to be focal points
in research and articulations of Dominicanness. Part of this means that they align

themselves with Haitian women and other women of the African Diaspora as a response

to the marginalization they experience in the Dominican Republic - expressing their

199

 

identity as “Afro-Dominican.” The use of Afro- as a way of reclaiming and embracing
Afiican ancestry is radical in the Dominican Republic, because while ideas of mixture
persist, they are not typically explained with reference to Blacks as many Dominicans
maintain distance fi'om both blackness and having an Afiican ancestry and past.

Since their inception in 1989, Identidad hosted the first meeting of Black Latin
American and Caribbean women in the summer of 1992. They also participated in the
Cross-Cultural Black Women’s Studies Summer Institute, in Venezuela in 1993. Most
recently, they held a feminist workshop, that I attended in Santiago in May of 1998, and
they used this forum to discuss plans for an upcoming meeting of Latin American and
Caribbean feminists in 1999. They also sponsored a workshop on combating racism in

1998. Along with a reorganization came a new mission and revised objectives:

Es una organizacion de mujeres de origen afro que enmarcamos nuestro trabajo en
la transformacion de las estructuras sociales y politicas reproductoras y
transmisoras de ideologias que fomentan los prejuicios raciales y por condicion de
género...La mision de Identidad es enfi'entar todo tipo de discrirninacibn étnico
racial, rescatar y promover los aportes de la cultura afro a nuestra conformacion
social. Los linearnientos estrategicos parten de: a) empoderar alas mujeres negras
en el rescate de su identidad afio a traves de lo sirnbolico, lo artistico, y lo
religioso; b) la denuncia de todo tipo de discriminacion a cualquier persona por su
condicion étnico racial 0 de género; e) la investigacibn; d) la articulacibn-para
combatir e1 racismo y el sexismo...91

Translation

It is an organization of women of Afiican origin that fi'ames our work in the
transformation of the social structures and political reproducers and transmitters
of ideologies that evoke the racial prejudices and for the condition of gender...The
mission of Identidad is to confront all types of racial/ethnic discrimination, to
rescue and promote the contributions of the Afiican culture to our social fabric.

200

The strategic boundaries consist of: a) empowering Black women in the rescue of
their Afro-identity through the symbolic, the artistic, and .the religious; b)
denouncing all types of discrimination of any person based on their racial/ethnic
status or gender; c) doing research; (1) speaking out against racism and sexism...

The above objectives highlight the point that it is necessary to “rescue” or recover their
Afro-Dominican identity as this has been buried in the historical memory. They link their

recovery with a mission to combat sexism and racism in their objectives while combining

 

research and action.

These views were further articulated when I attended a public forum that
Identidad organized entitled “Que Somos Etnicarnente las Dominicanas y los
Dominicanos,” (What We Dominicans are Ethnically) in July of 1998, at the public
library, in Santo Domingo. During the course of the discussion, Carmen explained why

Identidad is advancing an “Afro-Dominican” identity:

...yo pienso que hay una identidad mas global que es la caribefia, y yo pienso que
ciertarnente independiente de las diferencias que podarnos tener y ahora que
estamos haciendo estudios sobre eso, no podemos pensar en el Caribe como una
unidad porque inclusive dentro del Caribe hay una diversidad increible. El Caribe
es ya una construccion historica que hemos ido creando a través de los aflos y que
es parte de nuestra identidad, aunque no la asumimos, a pesar es desde esa optica
que se nos ve desde fuera. Qué sucede aqui en este pedazo de isla?

Cbmo defrrrirla etnicamente, sea un proceso de construccion, sea una cuestion de
que estrategicamente sea mas valido asumir certa categoria u otra? Yo me inclino
evidentemente por la propuesta Afro-Dominicana en el sentido de que para mi, y
yo no soy una estudiosa del tema, sino que es una opcién mas sentimental y
militante que otra cosa, la propuesta de la categoria A fro-Dominicana me resuelve
la mezcla, es decir lo dominicano es una construccién historica de mezclas de
culturas: hispana, afiicana e indigena -- aunque por opcion politica optamos por
destacar aun que otra o elirninar una y otra. Ahora bien yo creo que hay un
predominio de la cultura afiicana que se ha adaptado a los tiempos. Aqui, y hay

201

evidencias, el elemento afro es fundamental -- por eso Identidad de las Mujeres
Afro.

Translation

I think a more global identity is that of the Caribbean, and I think independent of
the differences that can have, and we are now conducting research on that, that we
cannot think of the Caribbean like a single unit because there is incredible diversity
within the Caribbean. The Caribbean is already a historical construction created
through the years, and it is part of our identity, although we don't assume it, and it
is fiom that lens that we are viewed by the outside. What happens here on this
island? How to define someone ethnically - is it a process of construction, a
question of what category is more strategically valid to assume? I am inclined to
lean toward the proposed Afro-Dominicana in the sense that for me, and I am not
an expert on the topic, but rather it is a sentimental and militant option more than
anything else; the proposal of the category Afro-Dominicana resolves for me the
mixture, that is to say that Dominican is a historical construction of mixtures of
cultures: Spanish, Afiican and indigenous -- although for political preference we
opt to highlight one over another. Now, I believe that there is a predominance of
the Afiican culture that has adapted over time. Here, and there is evidence that
the African element is fundamental - for that reason [we call ourselves] Identidad
of the Afro Women.

Carmen expands on a number of ideas in the above section. She suggests that there is
tremendous diversity within the historically formed Caribbean -- constructed in
somewhat a homogenizing way that flattened out differences. She also suggests that a
“Caribbean” identity is one that Dominicans don’t typically assume. Chiqui also
mentioned this as well -- that it wasn’t until she was studying in the U.S. that she came to
realize the Dominican Republic was “in” the Caribbean.

Carmen explains the rational for using “Afro” when articulating women’s

identities. She combines ancestry with a strategic positioning that runs contrary to the

ways in which women (and men) are typically defined. For her, this identity calls for

202

militancy to rescue of the African past in the articulation of mixture with a reference to
Africa. While not designed to describe the mixture, Afro-Dominican takes into account
the processes of mixture stemming fi'om slavery and the colonial period (and post-colonial
era). “Opting” to highlight one ancestry over another for “political reasons” is similar to
the Afiican American experience in the United States (and the historical formation of the
one-drop rule). Again, while the one drop rule recognizes mixture, one ancestry is
highlighted over the others for legal, economic, social, and political purposes. Carmen
recognizes that the historical adoption and institutionalization of indio erased the Afiican
past and ancestral ties and also kept dark Dominicans on the extreme side of the indio
continuum.

Enrique, a Dominican scholar who lives in the United States and Canada

commented:

No se puede hablar de la identidad sin tener en cuenta la cultural. Que es lo que diferencia
una cultura de la otra, es precisamente la significacion que nosotros tenemos sobre la vida,
la muerte, relacion hombre-mujer, la enfermedad. Eso es lo que diferencia una cultrua de
otra...Si nosotros ponemos por ejemplo el caso de la gente que construye su identidad en
un contexto multicultural, el caso de los dominicanos y dominicanas en los Estados
Unidos, ellos y ellas tienen que lidiar con dos sistemas culturales distinctos...0tro aspecto
que ha resurgido muy ligado a lo primero es el caracter dina'mico de la identidad 0 sea la
identidad no es una constante, no es una cosa pegada sobre la pared, es por el contrario es
unidad de continuidad y cambio - el mismo ej emplo de los dominicanos en Nueva York
nos sirve. Nosotros llegamos a los Estados Unidos con una identidad, con una idea de lo
que somos, y cuando llegamos a los Estados Unidos de America, yo que nunca me he
definido ni sentido negro -- de repente yo aprendo por primera vez que soy negro y aqui
yo soy un indio, entonces el individuo tiene que lidiar con todas estas asignaciones, con
patrones con modelos diferentes y coger y dejar.

203

Translation

One cannot speak of identity without keeping culture in mind. What is different from one
culture to another is precisely the ideas that we have about life, death, the relationship
between men and women, illness. That is what differentiates one culture fiom another. If
we use the case that people constructing their identity in a multicultural context, for
example the case of Dominican men and women in the United States, they have to
struggle against two different cultural systems. The dynamic part is that identity is not a
constant, it is not something stuck on a wall; on the contrary it is of continuity and
change - the same example that Dominicans in New York provides. We [Dominicans]
arrive in the United States with an identity, with an idea of what we are; when we [my
family] arrived in the United States of America, I, who had never defined myself or felt
black, all of a sudden learned for the first time that I am black, and here (in the Dominican
Republic) I am an indio; the individual has to then struggle with these categories, with
standards with different models.

Here, Enrique uses a personal experience to illustrate what happens when two racial
systems collide -— it is the struggle to define who one is while being defined by others in a
different place. The reconfiguration of identities is located in this site of struggle and
negotiation. He suggests that Dominicans arrive with a sense of who they are and that
self of sense changes in the United States because they are often defined as Black. On an
individual level, it is a struggle of sorts, but on a much larger level, these same actors
interact with both racial systems, and indirectly, and perhaps directly, play a part in
transforming the racial system in the Dominican Republic. This is an example of ideas

that come to reshape categories and definitions in the “relocalization” process.

204

 

Transnationalism: Migration, Ideas, and Relocalization

Again, this period is marked by increased transnational migration. Unlike the
experiences abroad within the Mulutaje discourse, Africanidad is less concerned about
asserting an “in-between” racial category that “makes sense” across borders. Instead, it
views Afiica as an ancestral place that links the Dominican Republic to other places and
Dominicans to other peoples of Afiican descent. Thus, groups organize around such
objectives as combating racism, asserting identities, raising awareness, and revising history
and align themselves by traveling to attend meetings around these issues.

By way of example, the poster that Identidad used in 1992, when they hosted the
first international conference of Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Latin American women, in
Santo Domingo, was used on the cover of a book entitled Connecting Across Cultures and
Continents: Black Women Speak Out on Identity, Race and Development (Pala 1995).
The book contains papers that were given at the Fifth International Interdisciplinary
Congress on Women, in Costa Rica in 1993. Sergia Galvan, a member Identidad,
participated in the meeting in Costa Rica and discussed the relationship between race and
gender oppression in Latin America in her paper and in the book:92

The economic and structural adjustment policies in most of the countries in Latin

America, instead of supporting participation of Black women in the labour

market, actually increase their poverty, marginalization and exploitation. Black

women are found in the worst-paid jobs in housework and agriculture, and

continue to be among the poorest in society (Galvan 1995: 50).

It is often the case that social race, as a factor in shaping women’s lives, in the Dominican

Republic, is often ignored in favor of a social class analysis. Is a simply a coincidence

205

that those who occupy the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder “happen” to be
dark-skinned? Identidad is concerned with this question as it relates to Dominican
women at home and abroad. One of the ways in which Dominican women are racialized
abroad is through the traffic of women as commercial sex workers in Europe:

At the regional level, the traffic of women (and girls) is increasing dramatically day

by day, especially of Black women. The myths and prejudices surrounding Black

women’s sexuality are used to promote and support the trafficking of Black

females in order to satisfy men’s sexual fantasies (Galvan 1995: 50).
The traffic of women is a major concern in the Dominican Republic, especially among
Black feminists. Identidad is among one of the women’s groups that suggests that
Dominican women are lured away under the premise that they will work by performing
artistic acts in Europe (e.g. singing and dancing, etc.), but after their arrival, they realize
that the work is actually sex work that may involve singing and dancing -- this is one of
the few options, however, that they have to cover their airfare and other related expenses
(the fine print on the signed contracts -- travel expenses have to be paid by them). More
work is currently being conducted on this, but according to Identidad and CIPAF”, a well
established feminist research organization in Santo Domingo, half of the sex workers in
the Netherlands are Dominican women -- and there is evidence that sexual tourism is
becoming more racialized as German and other European men request the
“companionship” of Black women when they visit the Dominican Republic.

Combining research and activism, women in Identidad conduct research and travel

to local, regional, and international meetings and conferences that deal with racial

206

oppression of women in order to form alliances with other Black women and to make
visible their plight in the Dominican Republic. From the trafiicking of women, sexual
tourism on the island, the prevalence of violence in the factories of the free trade zones, to
the role of women as mothers, as primary socializing agents of children (Safa 1995),
Identidad is rallying around a number of issues while promoting an “Afro” identity.

Through their efforts, and along with other women’s groups, they have been able
to bring about some change in the Dominican Republic. And as they continue to make
connections with other Black women and recognize the similarities and differences in
terms of their experience, they play a part in reconfiguration of racial identities, and
redefinition of the Dominican Republic as part of the African Diaspora.

In a more general sense, at this point in time, there is continued transnational
migration from the Dominican Republic to the United States and visa versa. There is
migration to/from Haiti, and there is tourism in the major tourist centers in the Dominican
Republic (e.g. Puerto Plata, La Romana, Santo Domingo, etc.). The Amber Museum in
Puerto Plata showcases some of the finest amber in the country as well as fine wood
carvings of Taino-like figures. Haitians are known more for their wood carvings as this is
associated with “Afiican art.” I asked one of the sales clerks if there was a Dominican
artist working with the carvings, why they were using “indigenous” figures, and why they
had carvings alongside the amber, and he responded by saying “No. They are Haitian
artists, although some of them are working with Dominicans to show them how to do the
carvings. The Tainos were the first people here - they were indigenous like the amber --

so we have their images here in the museum. Tourists are really interested in the carvings

207

 

-- that’s what they want.” Thus, in addition to their labor in the sugar cane fields and
construction projects throughout the Dominican Republic, Haitians are now being
summoned for their cultural production. Because of tourists’ interest in carvings, Haitian
artists are asked to create “Dominican” images and produce something “indigenous”
utilizing their skills and tradition of woodcarving. This is one of the outcomes of
increased tourism.

Another aspect of tourism involves Dominicans who return for vacation and stay
at one of the resorts often fiequented by Europeans, Canadians, and Americans (a symbol
of status and “wealth”). By way of example, David, Asha, and I went to Puerto Plata (a
coastal community) one weekend. The hotel where we stayed had recently opened and
already had a number of tourists from Germany and Canada. On this particular weekend,
there were a few Dominicans there as well - from the DR and fiom the U.S. What
unfolded there was interesting and illustrates some of the complexities in the dissertation
involving Dominicans abroad. There is an expectation that Dominicans should speak
Spanish when interacting with the “local” hotel staff. This was evident as we witnessed a
number of exchanges between staff and hotel guests. When the hotel staff interacted with
European guests, they attempted to speak German or English. The language of choice by
the hotel staff was Spanish, even with Dominican guests who spoke English more than
Spanish. When David went to get a towel, the attendant only spoke to him in Spanish.
David explained that he was learning Spanish and wasn’t fluent, at which point the

attendant told him to be proud of being Dominican and speak Spanish - so they

208

continued in Spanish. When David walked away, he overheard the same attendant
speaking fluent English to a Canadian guest.

We continued having similar experiences throughout our stay there. The issue of
being “Dominican” vs. “Dominican Dominican” also emerged during this time. Being
fi'om here (DR) or there (U .S.) translated into a type of “authenticity.” Those born in the
U.S. or having resided there over a number of years was considered “Dominican,” but
those who were born in the DR, and lived and resided in the Dominican Republic, were
considered “Dominican Dominican.” It was something about the experience of never
leaving or leaving temporarily but continuing to reside in the Dominican Republic that
meant that one was “truly” Dominican. “Dominican Dominican” claimed a particular
identity, history and experience.

Another interesting manifestation of transnationalism involves meeting the
“needs” of tourists, and in particular, appropriating racialized images fiom the United
States -- irnages that have been lifted out of their sociohistorical context and could take on
a different meaning. Later that night at the same hotel, we attended a variety show.

Many of the staff that we had been interacting with during the day were performing in the
show. Some of the acts were impersonations of Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, etc.,
but the one that was “curious and disturbing” was done in blackface with stereotypical
images and “slurred black speech” (in Spanish). The predominantly White audience
laughed and clapped during the blackface performance. I wondered if the shock we felt
was shared by anyone else. Then I wondered if the same racial attachments and

significance, that this type of performance had in the United States years ago, were linked

209

to these images in a similar way to be considered racial images and stereotypes in the
Dominican Republic. I wondered how the audience interpreted the show -- what was its
significance in the Dominican Republic? Was this an “import” from the U.S. without the
racial connotations? It’s difficult to know, but I suspect that on the one hand, the
performance could have been viewed as a “U.S.” comedy form, thus stripped of its
sociohistorical racial overtones, but on the other hand, it could have been performed at the
request of guests who wanted a certain “type” of show.94

This reminds me of what Wright (1990) expressed about Afi'o-Venezuelans - that
despite not recording race on the census, Afio—Venezuelans were often reminded of their
“status” with negative images in cartoons. They were reminded of their slave history, and
that despite having money and education, they still were descendants of slaves. The
Dominican Republic does not have this particular “memory.” Dominicans are not
reminded that they are descendants of slaves -- they are reminded that Haitians are
descendants of slaves. And while there are racialized images of dark Dominican women as
“mammies” and domestic figures associated with certain brands of foods (like “Aunt
Jemima” in the U.S.), some of the other racialized and stereotypical images that might
have been used in the United States or Venezuela were used to represent Haitians, not
Dominicans, in the Dominican Republic. This is changing, however.

Thus, the articulation of Africanidad changes this perspective on Haiti, and of
being of African descent. The linkage is one that connects people of Afiican descent due
to a sense of shared history, circumstance, and experience. The assertion of Black and/or

“Afro” identities then links Dominicans with Haitians, Afiican Americans, Afro-

210

Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans, etc. It is a stance that recasts history and the formation of

the Dominican nation along the lines of a Black Atlantic experience (Gilroy 1993).

211

 

VIII. Conclusion

I began the dissertation by stating that the nation emerges as an important concern
in the 20th century due to the massive movement of people and ideas across borders,
wedding people in the formation of race and nation while co-constructing racial and
national identities. This is the process of defining “nationness” over time and space.
When people and ideas cross borders, they not only have an impact in the place of
destination, but also in the place of origin as these ideas and people continue to recross
borders and boundaries. This suggests that people interacting with racial systems within
different national contexts may change how they define themselves and have an impact on
social structures.

While ideas traveled between places, so did people. With local, regional, and
international travel increasing over the century due to wars, voluntary and involuntary
migration, and socio-economic reasons, borders became more salient as did the
reconfiguration of nationness. In the Dominican Republic, there was migration from Haiti
and other Caribbean nations as well as from the United States and Europe. The
Dominican Republic would also witness a large exodus of people in the post-Trujillo era
due to economic restructuring policies and a shift to import substitution that prompted
more people to look to the United States as a place for economic and social advancement
(Torres-Saillaint and Hernandez 1998).

A nation once defined in one particular way can change over time as more people

enter and leave its borders and as “new” ideas are introduced. 1 have focused here on the

212

 

Dominican Republic as a case study to illustrate how such change takes place. In
particular, I traced the importance of the idea of mixture (the liga) and used it as a point
of entry to examine Dominicanness as mixture links race, color and nation in the
articulation of Dominicanness. Socioracial categories changed over time as people made
new, and competing, claims about “who they were.” Color and ideas of race continue to
be an important criterion in both the Dominican Republic and in the United States in the

configuration of racial identities.

Dominicanness, Race and Nation

This dissertation examined the ways in which Dominicanness, in both racial and
national terms, were articulated over time in the Dominican Republic. I demonstrated
how racial and national identities are reconfigured as people immigrate to and emigrate
fi'om the Dominican Republic. While categories have changed to some extent, what has
remained constant is the idea of mixture.

The five discourses -- Gente de Color, Hispanidad, Mestizaje, Mulutaje, and
Africanidad -— illustrate the changing significance of Dominicanness. The discourses
themselves reflect the “ideas of the time” as well as the ideas of people and the state at
given points in time and history. The socioracial categories themselves were reconfigured
due to immigration and emigration and the relationships between people across borders.
Thus, the discourses all recognize some level of inter-connectivity between states and
individuals where ideas and resources are often exchanged - this is why there tends to be

some overlap between them.

213

The Gente de Color discourse (1900-30) expressed a belief in races as distinct
biological groups that made race mixture possible. During this time, there were three state
sanctioned racial groups (blancos, mestizos, and negros) -- mestizo described the majority
of the population in racial terms. Importantly, during this time, Dominicans considered
themselves, and were considered by others, to be “of color.”

The Hispanidad discourse (1930-61) moved away from being “of color” toward a
more Spanish ideal (Hispanidad). The ideal racial type was conceptualized with a
distance to Blacks and Africans. Hispanidad embraced “all that was Spanish” in
appreciation of Spanish culture and society. Spain became the point of reference and a
link to understanding Dominican life, people, and practices (e.g. the church, language,
etc.).

The Mestizaje discourse (1961-89) is the dominant contemporary discourse and
resembles Hispanidad in its articulation. While there is still an appreciation for Spanish
contributions and influences during this time, the Dominican Republic as homeland
emerges as one of Trujillo’s legacies. Dominicans are linked to a particular land, a
particular history, and are a particular “type” of people due to homogenization practices
in imagining the nation. The claim “we are Dominican” is significant in terms of linking
people to a place at different points in time and webs race and nation in a way that being
Dominican means having a generational presence, roots, and liga that is particular to the
Dominican Republic.

The Mulutaje discourse (1989 - present) is one of the two emerging discourses

challenging Mestizaje. It articulates a new racial view and reflects a negro - blanco (Black

214

- White) mixture with assertions of being mulato. The mulato category has emerged due
to Dominicans’ experiences in the United States with race and racial categorizations and
the lack of an “in-between” category in the United States. This is combined with the
experience of learning that “indio” has a different meaning in the United States and refers
to different “types” of people (e.g. Native Americans, Indians from India, etc.). It is
through interactions with people and institutional structures that define Dominicans in
new and different ways in the United States that facilitate this process of Mulutaje.

The Afiicanidad discourse (1989 - present) overlaps with Mulutaje in the sense
that they both recognize Afiican ancestry and emerge after having an experience outside
of the Dominican Republic that cause a “period of reflection.” While Mulutaje is linked
to the mulato socioracial category, Africanidad asserts a negro (Black) and/or Afro-
Dominican identity. The primary difference is that Mulutaje still captures a sense of
racial “in-betweenness,” and Africanidad extends beyond mixture to address issues of
ancestry and similarities throughout the Afiican diaspora.

With the exception of Mulutaje and Africanidad, the discourses begin at the state
level with governmental elite defining people and creating categories and policies that have
a direct impact on how the nation is imagined. Mulutaje and Afiicanidad discourses,
however, challenge the state and the historical and dominant ideas about ancestry,
“accurate” identities, and history itself (although the state seems to be moving toward
Mulutaje). These two inter-related discourses emerge during a time when Dominicans
enter (and often reside in) the United States and learn that they are defined in different

ways due to a different set of social and historical circumstances. There are competing

215

notions of indio and what Black means, all prompting them to reconsider “who they are”
and how they define themselves in this new environment.

In general, the Dominican Republic was not unique in its creation of racial/color
categories as we see this throughout the Americas. What is especially peculiar here is the
ways in which the state created categories that were outside of the social history of the
country in terms of insinuating Indian-Spanish mixture with mestizo, for example. While
the elite, at various points in time, were negrophobic, I suspect that racial thinking in the
United States (and elsewhere) may have played a role in perpetuating those beliefs
especially during the early part of the 20th century when the U.S. Marines occupied both
the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The so-called “mulatto escape hatch” (Safa 1998;
Degler 1971) could have played a role in the distinction between Dominicans and Haitians
on the part of the United States:

Degler (1971) has termed this the “mulatto escape hatch” because it makes

mulattos more acceptable to whites than blacks and distances them from blacks by

offering them greater opportunities for social mobility.
Strategically, the United States was in a position to make these distinctions between the
Dominican Republic and Haiti.

Another point of interest is the shift from race to color (demonstrated in the
change in census categories) in that race mixture becomes a presumption -- with resulting
“color” variation. If race mixture is presumed, and if being mixed is a characteristic of
Dominicanness, then historically and at present, certain “groups” have been, and still are,

excluded from this particular construction of nationness. Those groups defined as “pure”

216

 

in the Dominican Republic, without much intermarriage and mixture, find themselves on
the ends of a bi-polar racial/color system that defines the majority of Dominicans as being
distinct fi'orn these groups.
Within the realm of transnational migration, we see other types of reconfigurations
in terms of delimiting territories and defining membership along national lines. With the
incorporation of different national groups, the national memory of the Dominican 5

Republic actually consists of competing views of history -- some place emphasis on the

A“

Spanish, others place emphasis on the Tainos, and yet others place emphasis on the
“encounters” between groups. In the homogenizing practices surrounding these histories,
the African presence was, in effect, erased from the historical record and memory -- this is
being rescued, however, at the present time, as the emerging discourses show. Along
these lines, several grassroots organizations in the Dominican Republic are currently
working to rescue the African past and form alliances with Haiti and with other groups in

the Afi'ican diaspora.

Racial and National Identities in the Dominican Republic on the “Ground”

In sum, I found that racial and national identities are often linked to each other in
the expressed consensus that indio was “invent ” in the Dominican Republic and is tied
to being Dominican in a national sense. In this way, the configuration of Dominicans as a
“mixed” people is then characterized by the in-between category of indio. As I have

presented here, indio as a concept and category, has been contested by people being

217

reflexive as a result of experiences abroad or rethinking the course of history in the
Dominican Republic.

The more historically “accurate” category, mulato, officially entered the discourse
due to its inclusion on the cédula and because of individual claims of being mulato
(articulated in interviews, in newspapers, etc.). Despite this, however, there is still
resistance to self-defining as (and assigning) mulato because it denotes African ancestry
and blackness which is often “denied.” I think, however, that mulato will gain more
widespread acceptance within the next few years simply because of the consensus that '
“indio does not exist” and the need to replace it with something that captures a racial in-
between status. However, I don’t think that mulato will be the only in-between category
in circulation because indio has a long-standing tradition of usage - I think that indio will
still be used if only in conversations between people to describe color. The political
party PID may continue to advance the idea of mestizo instead of indio. And Identidad
will work to advance Afro-Dominican. Without doubt, there are a number of agentive
forces in place challenging these categories and how they articulate the sense of being
Dominican.

Some Dominican scholars are examining issues surrounding racial identity by
reviewing historical claims and making new assertions about the need to revise history and
to have a more accurate representation of the past as the past relates to Haiti and
socioracial categories. Such works include La Identidad Social y National en Dominicano:
Un Andlisis Psico-Social (Zéiter Mejia 1996); Al Filo de la Dominicanidad (Mateo 1996);

La Presencia Negro en Santo Domingo (Andujar Persinal 1997); Sobre Racismo y

218

Antihaitianismo (Franco Pichardo 1997); Los Negros, Los Mulatos y la Nacio’n
Dominicano (Franco Pichardo 1989); Ensayos Sobre Cultura Dominicano (Vega et. a1
1997); C ultura Popular e Identidad Nacional (T ejeda Ortiz 1998); Mujer y Esclavitud
(Albert Batista 1993); Memoria del F oro: Por Una Sociedad Libre de Prejuicio Racial
(Identidad 1997); El Otro del Nosotros (One Respe 1994); and Azucar y Haitianos en la
Republica Dominicano (Manuel Madruga 1986).

In addition, in recent years, Dominican organizations have been created in an effort
to organize around issues of identity and coalition building with Haitians and other people
of African descent. Identidad is one of the primary organizations involved in the
conscientization effort. Other groups include the Women of the Altagracia Church, the
women at the Coordinadora de Mujeres de Cibao (Women’s Coordination Effort of
Cibao), and the organization One Respe. They all work to combat racism, create
coalitions with Haitians, and assert Black, mulato, or Afro-Dominican identities. There is
another group in Santo Domingo closely linked to Identidad, and includes men and
women, in the celebration of the African past and legacy in the Dominican Republic.

In the final analysis, mixture is a distinguishing feature linking a sense of shared
history and pastness, “Dominican” ancestry, as well as a sense of “being” and “feeling”
Dominican throughout the discourses in the dissertation. Mixture has been translated into
the construction and usage of mestizo/indio/mulato and is at the center of “Dominican”
national identity along the lines of color, mixed-race, religion, and language. I agree with
Duany (1998) and Torres-Saillant (1998) when they suggest that Dominicans in the

United States negotiate a Black identity based on how they are perceived given the

219

history of the United States with hypodescent. However, I disagree with Duany when he
states that “[r]egardless of the exact demographic composition of the Dominican
Republic, the dominant discourse on national identity defines it as White, Hispanic, and
Catholic” (1998: 150). In my assessment, the dominant discourse (Mestizaje) espouses
a non-White, non-Black, “in-between” identity - thus, while most Dominicans would not
say they are Black, they also would not say they are White either. This is the point of
the liga - it represents a combination/mixture and the sense of a “new” people.

However, the liga, and articulations of Dominicanness will continue to change as long as
people and ideas continue to cross borders and interact with other people and different
racial systems - redefining the system and its categories while being defined by the
system and other actors.

Returning to the points I made in chapter two, this research suggests that race and
nation are wedded in the co-construction of racial and national identities in the process of
defining “nationness,” and in this particular case, Dominicanness. To an extent,
homogenization takes place to create common history, “like” people and characteristics.
At the same time, however, homogenization only encompasses certain “traits,” histories,
and “types” of people in the formation of peoplehood. As a result, with the increased
movement of people across borders, a homogenized “we” forms in relation to a not-yet
homogenized “they.”

I state that nationness is changing in Latin America and the Caribbean due to
global, transnational, and Afiican diasporic forces, as mentioned throughout the

dissertation, serving as an impetus for new ideas, new forms of identities, and alliances.

220

l

More specifically, the ways in which people are defined and are defining themselves are
changing. Thus, defining the nation is an ongoing process depending on who is entering
and leaving national borders, prompting (re)definitions, changing categories and new
identities. For that reason, the issue then becomes one of interaction between “local” and
“global” forces, the movement of people and ideas, as well as interactions between racial
systems that have an impact on how people are making sense of who they are along the
lines of race and nation with mixture as a “given.”

Another point is that mestizaje has long been associated with nationness in Latin
America and the “Hispanic” Caribbean. Defined as a process of race mixture, it suggests a
beginning point of newness. In the dissertation, I illustrated how mestizaje becomes a
foundational theme, and a “given” in the Dominican Republic where Dominicanness is
defined in terms of newness but also in terms of a long-standing history of mixture. Thus,
the Dominican case illustrates a micro-level and place-specific process within a larger
process of “race mixing” which defrnes certain mixtures and identities along the lines of
Mulutaje within a larger Afiicanidad discourse.

I suggest here, by way of an anthropological contribution, another conceptual
framework to examine issues of race and race mixture in those places where there are
people of African descent, particularly in the Americas. While the concept of mestizaje
offers a useful way of presenting ideas of mixture among mestizo populations, it falls
short in the case of the Dominican Republic where the majority of the population is
mulato. Instead, I suggest the usage of the conceptual framework of Mulutaje (parallel

framework to Mestizaje), as described in the previous chapter as a discourse, as it more

221

“accurately” reflects the mixture in the Dominican Republic (African/Black -
European/White). Importantly, Mulutaje is rooted in the context of the African diaspora

of Afiicanidad.

222

 

Endnotes

' I define Dominicanness as the sense of being Dominican.

2 I use ‘socioracial’ as a way of talking about different racial categories that emerged
within different social contexts. Wade (1997) and the African Diaspora Research Project
(ADRP) at Michigan State University also use socioracial categories as a way of
describing categories that are based on ideas of biological differences and skin color
variation

3 The dissertation does not examine the reasons for transnational migration or the social
consequences and experiences due to migration.

4 Dominicanness is tied to ideas of nationness and a sense of national belonging.

5 It is important to mention here that while I often refer to ‘competing’ discourses, there
is, at times, overlap between them.

6 I capitalize the discourses throughout the dissertation.

7 I realize that Santiago may be different in comparison to the rest of the country. While
there are some overarching ideas about socioracial categories, in the Southern region, more
people may claim a ‘Black’ identity based on the fact that there are more ‘Black’
Dominicans in the south (see the census data). Also, immigrants from other Caribbean
countries tended to settle in that region (working in the sugar cane fields) and were often
assigned to the ‘Black’ category (see the census data) along with Haitians.

8 Mestizaje refers to “race mixture” and has been used as a way of conceptualizing such
mixture in Latin America and the Caribbean. In its application, however, it is most
always used, and closely associated with, the specific ‘mixture’ of Europeans and Indians.
I discuss this at a later point in the dissertation.

9. Mulutaje refers to the specific mixture of Europeans and Afiicans (and their
descendants). According to my literature review, mulutaje has not been applied in
previous research, since in theory, mestizaje is supposed to represent all ‘types’ of race
mixture.

‘0 Africanidad refers to the acknowledgment and articulation of African ancestry (alone or
with other ancestries). In this way, those who choose to define themselves as mulato
and/or A fro-Dominicano/a fall within the Mulutaje and Africanidad discourses because
each claim Afiican ancestry. Africanidad also implies a conscientization process and
organization around Afiican ancestry. I will explore this later as I link Afiicanidad to the
African Diaspora.

” Generational presence and/or history, refers to a long-standing generational experience
(parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.) in the Dominican Republic and the sense
of Dominican roots.

'2 Indio literally means “Indian” in Spanish, but its usage is more closely associated with
skin color variation and represents a category in-between Black and White.

'3 At times, I will write “race/color” when examining race and color simultaneously or
when color functions as race or visa versa.

223

 

'4 The idea of mixture is closely associated with Dominicanness and ideas of race in the

Dominican Republic. In other words, to be Dominican is to be “mixed.” This was a

common comment during interviews and focus groups.

'5 I use periods as a way of linking ideas of race, nation, and identities to a particular

point in time, and they function as reference points and provide a way a tracing ideas.

They are not strict time periods defined by critical moments in history, but they are

defined, in a sense by prevalent ideas of the time and the people who are articulating

those ideas. The Gente de Color discourse (1900-1930) is a precursor to the Trujillo

regime; in order to discuss Trujillo’s anti-Haitianism and anti-Black stance, I found it P
necessary to demonstrate what he was ‘changing’ and reacting against fiom an earlier time '
period. The Hispanidad discourse (1930-1961) is directly linked to the regime of Trujillo.
What follows is the Mestizaje discourse (1961-1989); this is the dominant discourse and
extends to the present, but I created another time period for the present (1989-present)
because of the emergence of Mulutaje and Africanidad marked by the founding of the iL
Black Women’s Identity Movement in Santo Domingo in 1989.

'6 This is based on an unpublished paper that Karen Sacks gave at the 1996 AAA

meetings.

‘7 Even when anthropologists shifted to the idea of cultures (Boas), there were still

references to biology and inherited “cultural” characteristics. In this sense, the shift fi'om

races to cultures continued to advance ideas of biological difference.

'8 In the April (1997) issue of the Anthropology Newsletter, race was raised as a topic of

importance on the ham page. In an effort to discuss race throughout the discipline, the

editor encouraged submissions during the academic year.

'9 Much of the debate srurounded race as a biological construct and the need to move

away from the idea of differences based on biology.

2° The term relational here refers to how people are often labeled in relation each other. In

this way, Black and White are relational racial categories involving actors, relationships,

social circumstances, and lived experiences.

2‘ I capitalize “Black,” “Blacks,” “White,” and “Whites” throughout the dissertation

when referring to 1) race and 2) individuals or groups of people who define themselves (or

are defined) racially in this way due to sociohistorical circumstances. This suggests that

people embody these categories. I do not capitalize “black” and “white” when used in a

descriptive way. Whiteness and blackness, as processes, are also not capitalized.

22 This section is based on my chapter entitled “A Passion for Sarneness: Encountering a

Black Feminist Self in Fieldwork in the Dominican Republic” and is part of Black

Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Praxis, Politics and Poetics. Edited by Irma McClaurin.

Published by Rutgers University Press, 2001.

23 See Glenn Hendricks, The Dominican Diaspora: From the Dominican Republic to New

York City- Villagers in Transition (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia

University, 1974), Eugenia Georges The Making of a Transnational Community:

Migration, Development, and Cultural Change in the Dominican Republic (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1990), Sherri Grasmuck and Patricia R. Pessar, Between Two

 

224

 

Islands: Dominican International Migration (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1991) for more on the history of Dominican migration to the United States, and Jorge
Duany Quisqueya on the Hudson: The Transnational Identity of Dominicans in
Washington Heights, Dominican Research Monographs (New York: The CUNY
Dominican Studies Institute).

2‘ The idea of a “Dominican Dominican” emerged during interviews as a way of talking
about a person who has not emigrated (but may have traveled outside the Dominican
Republic and returned). This idea also suggests having ancestral ties in the Dominican
Republic that can be traced back over generations.

25 My husband, David had very similar experiences and was defined in “local” terms and
socioracial categories . Like me, he was considered to be Dominican, fi'orn “there” (the
United States). Our daughter, Asha, was often referred to as “la Dominicanita” (little
Dominican girl) followed by references to her apparent “Dominican blood.”

26 I use nation here to refer to the people of a particular place and a sense of community.
Later, I introduce the concept of the state (the government) in relation to the nation.

27 I am using the ideas of race and nation as they are reflected in the discourses
surrounding identity in the Dominican Republic as the discourses contain ideas of race
and nation. Thus, the dissertation does not focus on race and nation per se but rather
how these ideas have been expressed in creating and maintaining Dominicanness over
time.

28 Medina (1997: 760) defines a nationalist project as one that “defines and delimits
membership in a nation, links that nation to a particular territory, and organizes and
explains the distribution of state resources among its members.”

29 From another vantagepoint, there could be a competing “we” that emerges.

30 Here the state (and the nation-state) refer to the government and governmental agencies.
3' While I find Higginbotharn’s definition of race useful, I would add that it is important
to remember that the social categories are peopled and that the power between social
categories involve actors as well.

32 I use social status here to refer to a particular social location or position within the
society.

33 Again, when I use the term social class status, I am referring to a particular social
location based on socio-economic factors (e.g. income, education, etc.).

3" In the larger Black community in the United States, it is common to use color categories
as a way of describing someone’s skin tone/color. “Light-skinned,” “dark-skinned,” “high
yellow,” etc. are used within the community to talk about color. There are some
similarities between these categories and the ones used in the Dominican Republic (e.g.
claro - light and oscuro - dark). See Russell et. a1. 1992 for a discussion of color in the
United States among African Americans.

35 Here, Spanish Creoles refers to the children of Spanish parents born in the Americas.
36 This section is based on a paper I gave in 1996 at the 95th Annual AAA meetings in
San Francisco, CA, entitled “There is No Racial Democracy Here: Exploring Afro-
Venezuelan (Re)Emerging ‘Commrmity of Consciousness’ and Action” (with Dr. Ruth

225

 

 

Simms Hamilton as co-author). This paper is also being prepared for publication for a

forthcoming series on the Afiican Diaspora, by the African Diaspora Research Project, at

Michigan State University (co-authored with Dr. Ruth Simms Hamilton).

37 Despite the fact that these categories are no longer state sanctioned, some of them are

used socially among actors themselves to describe each other.

38 In this section, I refer to how countries are imagined in terms of how they are portrayed

in the literature.

39 However, there has been recent work done on Ecuador to explore the experiences and

identities of Afro-Ecuadorians (e.g. Whitten and Quiroga 1998).

‘0 While it can be said that all of the categories, including blanco and negro, represent r
“new” groups of people in the Americas, I am focusing on the “newness” of intermediate t
categories and ideas of mixture.

4' This is in reference to the one-drop rule where mulattos became Black in the United
States. Before the one-drop rule, mulatto was an intermediate racial category. When
mulattos became Black, a bi-polar racial system emerged that we still see today (with the
exception of the “multiracial” category).

42 As I suggested earlier, the racial/color categories took root during the different colonial
periods. The categories defined people, work, and access to resources.

43 When I was in high school, in Gary, Indiana, I was a member of a mayoral task force
involving the youth of the city. Mayor Richard Hatcher (at the time) was part of the
group that decided to change the group reference name Black to Afiican American. There
was discussion of this in newspapers and urban magazines at the time.

4" The Black Power Movement of the 60’s and 70’s also had an impact on the region as
well as other movements in the Caribbean.

45 While conducting research, I experienced one of the Dominican Republic’s worst
natural disasters in nearly twenty years, Hurricane Georges. Toward the end of my
fieldwork experience, I became enveloped by the preparation for the hurricane and
eventual relief efforts. Having a family in the field amplified this experience in terms of
overall preparations and concern. While the entire island was in Georges’ path, Santiago
was fortunate in that there was little structural damage (except for some of the “marginal”
communities living by the river and in dried river beds in the city). Nonetheless, this
experience became a focal point for the rest of my research experience until I left the
Dominican Republic in November of 1998. The hurricane was an overwhelming
preoccupation of many people who were living in its aftermath (e. g. concerns about
potable water, electricity, transportation and communication problems, scarcity of staple
foods, and rising food costs). Many of my post-Georges encounters dealt with the
hurricane and its impact on peoples’ lives.

46 The ideas presented here on gender and gender roles are taken fiom my master’s thesis
research I conducted in the Dominican Republic during the summer of 1993. My MA
thesis (1994) is entitled “The Cultural Construction of Gender and Female Identity in the
Dominican Republic,” from Iowa State University, Department of Anthropology.

226

 

’7 The Dominican Republic is experiencing tremendous growth in terms construction
projects (apartments, homes, and strip malls). These projects, while they create more
jobs, also contribute to the widening gap between socioeconomic classes in terms of being
able to afford housing and purchase items from these new stores.

48 I use mestizo/mulato to suggest that while the majority of Dominicans were defined as
mestizo, I chose to describe them as mulato within the context of this historical period.
The combination here represents their category along with my own. I will later link the
category mestizo to mestizaje and the ways in which both of these prove to be
problematic in the Dominican case.

49 See Nelson (1988), Harry Hoetink (1982), and Moya Pons (1995) for an in-depth
account and analysis of the Spanish-descended Creole emigration fiom the Dominican
Republic.

so This particular advertisement was for a hair product on May 20, 1918 (running on
numerous days) in El Diario (The Daily) in Santiago.

5’ “El Diario ” is followed by “Santiago de los Caballeros, Republica Dominicana, W.I.”
(taken fiom the masthead in 1918).

52 This census predates the first national census in 1920. See Hoetink (1982) for more of
a historical description of transnational migration during this time period.

53 See Moya Pons (1995) for an in-depth account of the occupation.

5" See Hoetink (1982), Knight (1978), Rout (1976), and Williams (1970) for a more
thorough discussion of migration throughout the Caribbean.

55 From reading declassified documents, it is evident that the United States maintained a
relationship with Trujillo (after the U.S. military occupation ended and into Trujillo’s
presidency).

’6 Many participants expressed these views of Haitians and the ‘racist’ treatment that
Haitians received in Santiago.

’7 Hispanidad is the foundation of the dominant contemporary discourse surrounding
Dominicanness today, Mestizaje.

58 The idea that Haitians were, and are, closely associated with Africa, African practices,
and blackness was prevalent throughout the interviews.

59 This was from a letter dated December 17, 1937, in The Department of State Press
Releases, Saturday, December 25, 1937, Vol. XVII: No. 430, Publication No. 1106, page
494.

60 This was from a letter dated December 20, 1937 in The Department of State Press
Releases, Saturday, December 25, 1937, Vol. XVII: No. 430, Publication No. 1106, page
495.

6' These translations, as well as all of the others in the dissertation, are mine.

62 Some participants with French surnames in Santiago claim ‘French’ ancestry. The
unification of the island from 1822-44 brought together many peoples (French and
Spanish Creoles, Black and mulatto Haitians and Dominicans, former slaves from Haiti
and newly emancipated slaves from the Dominican Republic due to the unification of the
island).

227

 

 

63 This is taken fiom La Repriblica Dominicana (The Dominican Republic), Propaganda
Pro-Turismo (Propaganda in Be Half [sic] of Tourism)l 932 (Habana [sic] Cuba) Empresa
Editorial Cubana, Inmigration [sic] and Touring Section (in Spanish and English)

Archivo Historico de Santiago.

6" Source: La Vida Cotidiana Dominicana.: a través del Archivo Particular del
Generalisimo. Bernardo Vega 1986: 139. Santo Domingo: Fundacion Cultural
Dominicana. Archivo Historico de Santiago

65 Source: La Vida Cotidiana Dominicana.: a través del Archivo Particular del
Generalisimo. Bernardo Vega 1986:143-4. Santo Domingo: Fundacion Cultural
Dominicana. Archivo Historico de Santiago

66 Source: La Vida Cotidiana Dominicana.: a través del Archivo Particular del
Generalisimo. Bernardo Vega 1986: 145 Santo Domingo: F undacion Cultural Dominicana
Archivo Historico de Santiago.

67 These assertions are based on participants’ responses during the interviews I
conducted.

68 Source: Luz Almanzar de Escovar, Estudios Sociales, 3 grado, Texto Basico, Editora
Centenario, S.A. Santo Domingo. page 3.

69 The Caribs were described as “cannibals,” and the Arawaks (e.g. Tainos) were defined
as “gentle.” The “Caribbean” was named in reference to the Caribs.

70 These examples are based on preliminary research.

7' A colleague in Santiago Domingo, Maria Filomena Gonzélez, and her husband received
permission from the Department of Education to write a history text book for public
schools (with a new emphasis on the Afiican presence).

72 The Archivo Historico de Santiago had the 1976 volume, and I compared these
definitions with those in the 1997 volume from the library at PUCMM.

73 Source: Enciclopedia Dominicana, 1976 Publicaciones Reunidas, S.A.: Barcelona. vol 4,
page 240.

74 Source: Enciclopedia Dominicana, 1976 Publicaciones Reunidas, S.A.: Barcelona. vol
5., page 72.

75 Some: Enciclopedia Dominicana, 1976 Publicaciones Reunidas, S.A.: Barcelona. vol 5,
page 90.

76 The cédula can be issued at age 16 (with no voting rights until the person reaches 18).
This particular cédula was valid until 2004.

77 The afternoon lunch and siesta follows a Spanish tradition, although this is changing
slightly since more people have to work (as grocery stores and specialty shops typically
remain open during the lunch period).

78 Nelsa helped us around the house on occasion.

79 I use the United States as the place where indio is contested and reconsidered. In
actuality, it happens throughout the Americas as well as Europe.

8° Bleaching creams have been used by women in Afiica and in the African diaspora as a
way of ‘lightening’ the skin. Such creams were advertised in Dominican newspapers in
1918 and beyond. This was a practice in the Dominican Republic and in the United

228

 

States. “Marrying up” refers to the practice of marrying someone with lighter skin in an
attempt to have lighter-skinned children. Again, this was/is a practice in the Dominican
Republic, among some people, as well as in the United States in the larger Black
community. In the United States, one discourse surrounds racial prejudice and the hope
that children with lighter skin won’t have to contend with as much racism. Another
discourse involves internalized racism and the belief that ‘lighter’ is better. See Russell et.
a1. 1992 for a more thorough discussion.

8‘ Perusing popular magazines targeting the Afiican American community, I have seen the
wife of former NAACP Chairman Ben Chavis (who is Dominican American) being
referred to as “Afro-Dominican.” Also, Black Issues in Higher Education had an article
on Dominican ‘Deltas’ (Delta Sigma Theta (DST) Sorority, Inc.). DST is an historically
Afiican American women’s public service sorority.

’2 Source: Cimarrona, Octubre 1998, Afio 2, No. 7, p. l.

83 When the group formed in 1989, they were known as El Movimiento por lo Identidad
de lo Mujer Negro (The Black Women’s Identity Movement). I later talk about the
division in the organization around issues of color and a subsequent reorganization to
include all women of African descent in the Dominican Republic.

34 This section is based on two papers I gave at professional meetings: 1) “Becoming
Afro-Dominicanas: (Re)Negotiating India in the Company of Sistahs.” Paper presented
at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Anthmpological Association. Washington,
DC, 1995; and “Las Mujeres Negras: A Grassroots Approach to Collective Identity in
the Dominican Republic.” Paper presented at the 118th Annual Meeting of the American
Ethnological Society. San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1996.

85 Again, this section is based on the 1995 AAA paper cited above as well as my chapter
“A Passion for Sarneness: Encountering a Black Feminist Self in Fieldwork in the
Dominican Republic” mentioned above.

86 I offered to be an ally and to help them tell their story, to facilitate the visibility of
Identidad in the Dominican Republic and in the United States, and to assist them in ways
that would contribute to their growth and sustainability as an organization (e.g.
identifying funding sources, participating in workshops, donating magazines that deal
with African American women’s issues, etc.).

87 Nica, the previous director, had moved to the United States.

88 I translated these objectives, from some of Identidad’s earlier publications for the
AAA and AES papers cited above.

89 Here again is another similarity between Dominicans and Afiican Americans.

9° This is my translation fiom an interview with Carmen.

9' In Casa por la Identidad de las Mujeres Afro “Memorias del Taller Sobre Estrategias y
Metodologias para Combatir el Racismo” (“Memories of a Presentation about Strategies
and Methodologies to Combat Racism”) Santo Domingo, 1998.

92 This quote by Galvan, is from the paper she presented at the meeting in Costa Rica.
Some of the papers have been published in the edited volume, Connecting Across

229

 

 

Cultures and Continents: Black Women Speak Out on Identity, Race and Development,
Achola O. Pala, editor, 1995, published by Women, Ink. for UNIFEM.

93 CIPAF is Centro de Investigacion Para la Accion F emenina (Research Center for
Feminine Action) is an NGO and self-defined feminist organization based in the capital,
Santo Domingo.

9" I plan to explore these issues in the future. The performance was disturbing on a
personal level, and it wasn’t until I processed it that I began to wonder about its
significance and relevance in the Dominican Republic.

230

APPENDIX A
Formal Interview Schedule

Santiago de los Caballeros (Santiago), Republica Dominicana
Investigacion Doctorado 1998

ID#
Ge'nero

Hola. Buenos/as dias/tardes. Me llamo Kimberly Simmons, y soy una estudiante de nivel
doctorado en antropologia cultural, en la universidad del estado de Michigan, en los
Estados Unidos. Estoy haciendo una investigacion sobre identidades culturales (colores,
raciales, nacionales), género, y migracién hacia los Estados Unidos. Me gustaria hacer una
intrevista con Ud sobre esta tema. Su cooperacibn es completamente voluntaria, y si Ud.
decide participar, puede sentir segura de que las respuestas que me da seran
completamente confidencial. Muchas gracias por su asistancia. Su participacién es
importante para el éxito de este investigacion. Lo aprecio mucho. Puede hacer preguntas
de mi cuando quiera.

Informaciou General

1. 5Cr'rando nacio Ud?
2. gDonde nacio Ud?
3. gCual es su estado civil?
4. 5Cual fue el ultimo grado de escolar que Ud. completo?

 

 

 

5. éTiene hijos/hijas? _ si __ no
b. LCuantos?
c. gCr'rantos viven con Ud?
d. éCuantas personas viven en su casa?

 

 

6. gTiene trabajo a fuera de la casa? si no a veces
b. [,Ql'le tipo de trabajo hace?
c. g, Cr'rantos horarios trabaja Ud. durante el dia?

 

 

 

d. g, Cr'ranto gana? mensual
7. (Ha viajado a los Estados Unidos? si no
b. LDbnde?
c. Cr’ral firel el razon por su viaje? visitar familia vacaciones
buscar trabajo colegio/universidad otro

231

0- 'l ’nflmfi

d. Era la primera vez? si no

e. Incluyendo este viaje, Lcuanto tiempo ha viajado a los Estados Unidos?

8. (Ha vivido en los Estados Unidos? si no gCr'ranto tiempo?
9. gTiene familia en los Estados Unidos? si no
b. gQuie’n?

 

c. LDonde viven en los Estados Unidos?
d. LCt’ranto tiempo han vivido en los Estados Unidos?
e. gCuantas veces le han visitado aqui?

 

 

 

Identidad Cultural: Color, Raza, y Nacién

10. 5C1'rantas clasificaciones de colores hay aqui en la Republica Dominicana?
LCémo son?

 

11. gCt’ral es mas importante en términos de identidad cultural (en su Vida)?
identidad de color identidad de nacidn identidad de raza
otro LPor que?

 

12. gExiste e1 concepto de en:

a la Republica Dominicana? si no no 56

b. los Estados Unidos? si no no se'
13. gSignifica raza:

a. el color de la piel? si no no se'

b. la nacionalidad? si no no sé

14. {Hay grupos distinctos (como blancos, negros, indios, etc.) en:
a. la Republica Dominicana ? si no no 56

b. los Estados Unidos? si no no se'

15. {,Existe racismo:

a. en la Republica Dominicana? si no no sé

b. en los Estados Unidos? si no no 56

c. (3H3 experimentado racismo? si no no sé gCémo?
16. (Ha oido la palabra indio? si no

b. gQue sigrrifica?

 

c. LCr'rantas clasificaciones hay?

 

232

d. 5E5 cada dominicano/a indio/a? si no no sé

e. (,Son los/las dominicanos/as en los EE UU indios? si no no sé

 

 

17. LSignifica indio/a:

a. dominicano/a? __ si __ no __ no sé
b. e1 color de la piel? __ si _ no _ no se'
c. indigena? _ si _ no _ no se'
d. la raza? si no _ no sé

18. (ES posible ser:

a. haitiano/a y dominicano/a? _ si _ no _ no sé
b. chino/a y dominicano/a? _ si _ no _ no sé
c. judio/a y dominicano/a? _ si _ no __ no Se
(1. americano/a y dominicano/a? _ si _ no _ no sé
e. negro/a y dominicano/a? __ si _ no _ no se'

19. En te'rminos de sus origenes, Ud. diria que su familia proviene de:

Europeos _ sr _ no __ no sé
Africanos __ si __ no __ no sé
Indigenas _ si __ no _ no sé
Otro

 

20. 5C6mo describe:
a. los/as haitianos/as?
b. los/las Dominicanos/as que viven en los Estados Unidos?

21. {Como se define a si mismo/ma?
a. LComo se define en la cédula?

 

 

22. 5Como me define?
b. LCbmo piensa que me definiria en la cédula?

 

 

Gracias por su tiempo y cooperacién. Lo aprecio mucho.

Comentas/Preguntas

233

APPENDIX A

Interview Schedule
(Translation from Spanish)

Santiago de los Caballeros (Santiago), Dominican Republic
Dissertation Research, 1998

ID#
Gender

 

Consent

Hello. Good morning/afternoon. My name is Kimberly Simmons, and I am a doctoral
candidate in cultural anthropology at Michigan State University, in the United States.

My research explores the construction of cultural identities (e.g. color, racial, national),
gender, and international migration to the United States. I would like to have an interview
with respect to this topic. Your cooperation is completely voluntary, and if you decide
to participate, you can be assured that the responses that you give me will be completely
confidential. Thank you very much for your assistance. Your participation is important
for the success of this research. I really appreciate it. Feel free to ask me any questions
at any time.

General Information

1. When were you born?
2. Where were you born?
3. What is your marital status?
4. What is the last grade level you completed?

 

 

 

 

5. Do you have any children? __ yes no
b. How many?
c. How many live with you?
d. How many people live with you?

 

 

6. Do you work outside the home? __ yes _ no __ sometimes
b. What kind of work do you do?
c. How many hours per day do you work?
d. How much do you earn? monthly

 

 

234

7. Have you traveled to the United States? yes no

 

 

b. Where?

c. What was the reason for your trip? __ visit family _ vacation
__ look for work __ college/university _ other

d. Was it the first time? _ yes _ no

e. Including this trip, how many times have you traveled to the United States? _

8. Have you lived in the United States? yes no How long?
9. Do you have family in the United States? yes no
b. Who?

 

c. Where do they live in the United States?
d. How long have they lived there?
c. How many times have they visited you?

 

 

 

Cultural Identity: ColorLRace, and Nation

10. (How many color classifications are there in the Dominican Republic?

 

 

 

What are they?
11. What is most important in terms of cultural identity (in your life)?
color identity national identity racial identity
other Why?
12. Does the concept of race exist in:
a. the Dominican Republic? yes no don’t know
b. the United States? yes no don’t know
13. Does race mean:
a. skin color? yes no don't know
b. nationality? yes no don't know
14. Are there distinct groups (e.g. Whites, Blacks, Indians, etc.) in:
a. the Dominican Republic ? __ yes no don't know
b. the United States? yes no don't know

15. Does Racism exist in:
a. the Dominican Republic? yes
b. the United States? yes

no don't know
no don't know

235

c. Have you experienced racism? yes no don't know
How?
16. Have you heard of ‘indio/a’? yes no

b. What does it mean?

 

c. How many classifications are there?

 

 

d. Is every Dominican ‘indio/a’? _ yes no __ don't know
e. Are Dominicans in the United States ‘indio/a’? __ yes _ no
_ don't know

17. Does ‘indio/a’ mean:

3. Dominican? __ yes __ no _ don't know

b. skin color? _ yes __ no __ don't know

c. indigenous? _ yes _ no _ don't know

d. race? __ yes _ no __ don't know
18. Is it possible to be:

a. Haitian and Dominican? __ yes _ no _ don't know

b. Chinese and Dominican?_ yes __ no _ don't know

c. Jewish and Dominican? __ yes _ no _ don't know

d. American and Dominican? __ yes __ no __ don't know

e. Black and Dominican? _ yes _ no _ don't know

19. In terms of ancestry, would you say that your ancestors were:

European _ yes _ no _ don't know
African __ yes __ no _ don't know
Indigenous _ yes _ no __ don't know
Other

 

20. How do you describe:

21. How do you define yourself?

22. How would you define me?

a. Haitians?
b. Dominicans living in the United States?

 

 

 

a. How do you define yourself on the cédula?

 

 

b. How would I be defined on the cédula?

 

Thank you for your time and cooperation. I really appreciate it.

Comments] Questions

236

APPENDIX B
INFORMAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

(Translation from Spanish)

Date
Gender

 

Consent

Hello. Good morning/aftemoon. My name is Kimberly Simmons, and I am a doctoral
candidate in cultural anthropology at Michigan State University, in the United States.

My research explores the construction of cultural identities (e.g. color, racial, national),
gender, and international migration to the United States. I would like to have an interview
with respect to this topic. Your cooperation is completely voluntary, and if you decide
to participate, you can be assured that the responses that you give me will be completely
confidential. Thank you very much for your assistance. Your participation is important
for the success of this research. I really appreciate it. Feel free to ask me any questions
at any time.

Questions about Racial, Color and National Identities

1. For you, what is most important between national, racial, and color identities?

2. Is there a difference between national, racial, and color identities? Explain.

3. For you, what does it mean to be Dominican?

4. When you think of your cultural identity,
a. What is your nationality?

237

 

b. What is your color?

c. What is your race?

5. If you were in the United States, do you think that some of these identities would
change? Why?

6. In terms of ancestry, would you say that your ancestors were:

European __ yes _ no __ don't know
Afiican __ yes __ no _ don't know
Indigenous __ yes _ no __ don't know
Other

 

Discussion of These Issues
Comments/Questions

238

LIST OF REFERENCES

Albert Batista, Celsa
1993 Mujer y Esclavitud en Santo Domingo (Woman and Slavery in Santa
Domingo). Santo Domingo: Editora BUHO.

Anderson, Benedict
1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. New York: Verso.

Andr'rjar Persinal, Carlos
1997 Lo Presencio Negro en Sonto Domingo. Santo Domingo: Impresora Briho.

Appadurai, Arjun
1991 “Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and Queries for a Transnational
Anthropology” in Richard Fox (editor) Recopturing Anthropology.
Pp. 191-210. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1990 “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy” in Public
Culture. 2(2): 1-24.

Austerlitz, Paul
1997 Merengue: Dominican Music and Dominican Identity. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.

Baker, Lee D.
1998 From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race 1896-
1954. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Baker, Lee and Thomas Patterson
1994 “Race, Racism and the History of U.S. Anthropology” in T ronsforming
Anthropology, 5(l,2).

Balibar, Etienne and Immanuel Wallerstein
1991 Race, Notion, Class: Ambiguous Identities. New York: Verso.

Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller and Christina Szanton Blanc

1994 Notions Unbound: T ronsnotionol Projects, Postcoloniol Predicoments and
Deterritorialized Notion-States. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach
Publishers.

239

Blakey, Michael L.
1994 “Passing the Buck: Naturalism and Individualism as Anthropological
Expressions of Euro-American Denial” in Steven Gregory and Roger
Sanjek (editors) Race. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press,
pages 270—284.

1987 “Skull Doctors: Intrinsic Social and Political Bias in the History of
American Physical Anthropology; with Special reference to the work of
Ales Hrdlicka” in Critique of Anthropology. 7(2): 7-35.

Bueno, Lourdes
1995 “Experiencias de migracion de retomo de mujeres dominicanas: historias de
vida de cinco mujeres” (“Return Migration Experiences of Dominican
Women: Life Histories of Five Women”) in Género y Sociedad (Gender
and Society), 2(3), January-April, 1995. Santo Domingo: Editora Buho.

Davis, F. James
1991 Who is Black? One Nation ’s Definition. University Park: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.

Degler, Carl N. (cited in Safa 1998)
1971 Neither Black nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the
United States. New York: Macmillan.

Dominguez, Virginia R.
1994 White by Definition: Social Classification in Creole Louisiana.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Duany, Jorge
1998 “Reconstructing Racial Identity: Ethnicity, Color, and Class among
Dominicans in the United States and Puerto Rico” in Latin
American Perspectives, issue 100, vol. 25 No. 3, May 1998 pp.
147-172.

1996 “Imagining the Puerto Rican Nation: Recent Works on Cultural Identity”
in Latin American Research Review. 31 (3): 248-267.

1994 Quisqueya on the Hudson: The T ransnotionol Identity of Dominicans in
Washington Heights. Dominican Research Monographs, The CUNY
Dominican Studies Institute.

1985 Ethnicity in the Spanish Caribbean: Notes on the Consolidation of Creole
Identity in Cuba and Puerto Rico, 1762-1868. Ethnic Groups 6:99-123.

2A0

Eichen, Josef David
1995 Sosuo: From Refuge to Paradise (translation by J. Armando Bermudez)
Santo Domingo: Amigo del Hogar

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland
1993 Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Pluto
Press.

Foster, Robert J.
1991 “Making National Cultures in the Global Ecumene” in Annual Review of
Anthropology. 202235-60.

Foucault, Michel
1979 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison New York: Vintage Books.

Franco Pichardo, Franklin J.
1997 Sobre Racismo y Antihoitionismo (y otros ensoyos). Santo Domingo:
Impresora Vidal.

1989 Los Negros, Los Mulotos y lo Nocio'n Dominicano (Blocks, Mulottos and
the Dominican Notion-eighth edition). Santo Domingo: Editora Nacional.

F rankenberg, Ruth
1993 The Social Construction of Whiteness: White Women, Race Matters.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Georges, Eugenia
1990 The Making of o T ronsnotional Community: Migration, Development, and
C ulturol Change in the Dominican Republic. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Gilroy, Paul
1993 The Block Atlantic: Modemity and Double Consciousness.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gold, Steven J.
1996 Transnationalism and Vocabulories of Motive in International Migration:
The Case of Israelis in the United States. East Lansing: Population
Research Group.

241

 

Grasmuck, Sherri and Patricia R. Pessar
1996 “Dominicans in the United States: First- and Second- Generation
Settlement, 1960:1990” in Silvia Pedraza and Ruben G. Rumbaut (editors)
Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America.
Pp. 280-292. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

1991 Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Gregory, Steven
1994 “We’ve Been Down This Road Already” in Steven Gregory and Roger
Sanjek (editors) Race. Pp. 18-3 8. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.

Hamilton, Ruth Simms
1990 Creating A Paradigm and Research A gendo For Comparative Studies of
the Worldwide Dispersion of Afi'icon Peoples. Monograph No. 1. African
Diaspora Research Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Harris, Marvin
1964 Patterns of Race in the Americas. New York: Walker and Company.

Harrison, Faye V.
1995 “The Persistent Power of “Race” in the Cultural and Political Economy of
Racism” in Annual Review of Anthropology. 24: 47-74.

Hendricks, Glenn
1974 The Dominican Diaspora: From the Dominican Republic to New York
City -- Villagers in Transition New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.

Higginbotham, Elizabeth
1992 “African-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race,” in
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 17(2): 253-4.

Hoetink, Harry
1985 “‘Race’ and Color in the Caribbean” in Sidney W. Mintz and Sally Price
(editors) Caribbean Contours. Pp. 55-84. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

1982 The Dominican People 1850-1900: Notes for a Historical Sociology.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

242

1970 “The Dominican Republic in the Nineteenth Century: Some Notes on
Stratification, Immigration, and Race” in Magnus Momer (editor) Race and
C loss in Latin America. Pp. 96-121. New York: Columbia University
Press.

1967 Caribbean Race Relations: A Study of Two Variants. London: Oxford
University Press.

Houk, James
1993 “The Terrninological Shift from “Afro-American” to “Afiican-
American”: Is the Field of Afro-American Anthropology Being
Redefined?” in Human Organization 2 (3):325-328.

Identidad (Casa por la Identidad de la Mujer Afro)
1997 Memoria del F oro: Por uno Sociedad Libre de Prejuicio Racial. Santo
Domingo: Editora Buho.

Jackson, Peter and Jan Penrose (editors)
1993 Constructions of Race, Place and Nation. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.

Judd, Karen (cited in Medina)
1992 ‘Elite reproduction and ethnic identity in Belize’, PHD dissertatin, City
University of New York.

Kahn, Hilary E.
2001 “Respecting Relationships and Bio de Guadalupe: Q’eqchi’ Mayan
Identities in Livingston, Guatemala” in The Journal of Latin American
Anthropology. 6( 1 ):2-29.

Kasinitz, Philip
1992 Caribbean New York: Block Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.

Kearney, Michael
1995 “The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and
Transnationalism” in Annual Review of Anthropology. 24: 547-65.

Knight, Franklin W.

1978 The Caribbean: The Genesis of o F rogmented Nationalism. New York:
Oxford University Press.

243

Lee, Sharon M.
1993 “Racial classifications in the US census: 1890-1990” in Ethnic and Racial
Studies vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 75-94.

Long, Norman
1996 “Globalization and Localization: New Challenges to Rural Research” in
Henrietta L. Moore (editor) The Future of Anthropological Knowledge.
pp. 37-59. New York: Routledge.

Manuel Madruga, Jose
1986 Azucor y Hoitionos en lo Republico Dominicano. Santo Domingo: Editora
Amigo del Hogar.

Martinez-Echazabal, Lourdes
1998 “Mestizaje and the Discourse of National/Cultural Identity in Latin
America, 1845-1959” in Latin American Perspectives, issue 100,
vol. 25 No. 3, May 1998 pp. 21-42.

Martinez, Samuel
1999 “From hidden hand to heavy hand: Sugar, the state, and migrant labor in
Haiti and the Dominican Repubic in Latin American Research Review.
34(1): 57-84.

Martinez-Alier, Verena
1989 Marriage, Class and Colour in Nineteenth-Century Cuba: A Study of
RociolAttitudes and Sexual Values in a Slave Society. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.

Mateo, Andres L.
1996 Al Filo de lo Dominicanidad. Santo Domingo: Libreria La Trinitaria.

McClaurin, Irma
1996 Women of Belize: Gender and Change in Central America. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

McKee, James B.
1993 Sociology and the Race Problem: The F oilure of o Perspective. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.

Medina, Laurie Kroshus
1997 “Defining Difference, Forging Unity: The Co-Construction of Race,
Ethnicity and Nation in Belize” in Ethnic and Racial Studies. 20(4):757-
780.

244

 

 

Minority Rights Group (edited volume)
1995 No Longer Invisible: Afio-Lotin Americans T odoy. London: Minority
Rights Publications.

Mintz, Sidney W.
1974 Caribbean T ronsformotions. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.

1971 Groups, Group Boundaries and the Perception of Race. Comparative
Studies in Society and History 13:43 7-43.

Mintz, Sidney and Richard Price
1976 The Birth of A fi'ican-Americon Culture: An Anthropological
Perspective. Boston: Beacon Press.

Momer, Magnus
1967 Race Mixture in the History of Latin America. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.

Moya Pons, Frank
1995 The Dominican Republic: A National History. New Rochelle: Hispaniola
Books.

1979 Historio Dominicano Para Nifios C uorto C urso. Barcelona.

Nelson, William Javier
1988 “Dominican Creole Emigration: 1791-1861” in Centro de Investigaciones
del Caribe y Américo Latino (Caribbean Institute and Study C enter for
Latin AmericouCISCLA) Working Paper Series, paper #32. San German:
Inter-American University of Puerto Rico.

Oboler, Suzanne
1995 Ethnic Labels, Latino Lives: Identity and the Politics of (Re)Presentotion in
the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant
1994 Racial F ormotion in the United States. New York: Routledge.

One Respe
1995 El Otro del Nosotros. Santo Domingo: Editora Buho.

245

Ong, Aihwa
1996 “Cultural Citizenship as Subject-Making: Immigrants Negotiate Racial and
Cultural Boundaries in the United States” in Current Anthropology 37 (5):
73 7-762.

Pala, Achola O. (editor)
1995 Connecting Across Cultures and Continents: Black Women Speak Out on
Identity, Race and Development. New York: UNIFEM.

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut
1990 Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1990 “Introduction: Who They Are and Why They Come” in Immigrant
America: A Portrait. Pp. 1-27. Berkeley: University of California Press.

1990 “From Immigrants to Ethnics: Identity, Citizenship, and Political
Participation” in Immigrant America: A Portrait. Pp. 94-142. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Rodriguez, Clara E.
1994 “Challenging Racial Hegemony: Puerto Ricans in the United States” in
Steven Gregory and Roger Sanjek (editors) Race. Pp. 131-145. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Rout, Leslie B. Jr.

1976 The A fiicon Experience in Spanish America, 15 02 to the Present Day.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, Kathy, Midge Wilson and Ronald Hall
1992 The Color Complex: The Politics of Skin Color Among Afiican Americans.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Safa, Helen I.

1998 “Introduction” in Latin American Perspectives. Issue 100 vol 25 no
3. May, 1998 pp. 3-20.

1995 The Myth of the Mole Breodwinner: Women and Industrialization in the
Caribbean. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sirnmel, Georg

1950 “The Stranger” in Kurt H, Wolff (editor) The Sociology of Georg Simmel.
Glencoe: The Free Press.

246

Smedley, Audrey
1993 Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of o Worldview. Boulder:
Westview Press.

Smith, Carol A.
1997 “The Symbolics of Blood: Mestizaje in the Americas” in Identities vol 3
(May ‘97), pp. 495-521.

Steward, Julian
1965 The People of Puerto Rico. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Tejeda Ortiz, Dagoberto
1998 Culturo Popular e Identidad Nacional. Santo Domingo: Mediabyte, S.A.

Torres, Arlene
1998 La Gran F amilia Puertoriquefia “Ej Prieta de Belda” (The Great Puerto
Rican Family is Really Really Black) in Normal E. Whitten, Jr. and Arlene
Torres (editors) Blackness in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Bloomingon: Indiana University Press. Volume II, pp. 285-306.

Torres-Saillant, Silvio
1998 “The Tribulations of Blackness: Stages in Dominican Racial
Identity” in Latin American Perspectives, issue 100, vol. 25 No. 3,
May 1998 pp. 126-146.

1995 “The Dominican Republic” in No Longer Invisible: Afro-Latin Americans
Today. London: Minority Rights Publications. Pp. 109-138. Edited by
Minority Rights Group.

Torres-Saillant, Silvio and Ramona Hernandez
1998 The Dominican Americans. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph
1992 “The Caribbean Region: An Open Frontier in Anthropological Theory” in
Annual Review of Anthropology. 21 :19-42.

Vega, Bernardo
1986 La Vida Cotidiana Dominicano: o trovés del Archivo Particular del
Generalisimo. Santo Domingo: Fundacién Cultmal Dominicana.

Vega, Bernardo, Carlos Dobal, Carlos Esteban Deive, Rubén Silié, José del Castillo, and

Frank Moya Pons
1997 Ensayos sobre Culturo Dominicano. Santo Domingo: Amigo del Hogar.

247

Wade, Peter
1997 Race and Ethnicity in Latin A merico. London: Pluto Press.

1993 Blackness and Race Mixture: The Dynamics of Racial Identity in
Colombia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel
1991 “The Construction of Peoplehood: Racism, Nationalism, Ethicity” in
Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein Race, Notion, Class: Ambiguous
Identities. London: Verso. 71-85.

Watkins-Owen, lrrna
1996 Blood Relations: Caribbean Immigrants and the Harlem Community,
I 900-1930. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Whitten, Norman and John Szwed (editors)
1970 A fro-American Anthropology: Contemporary Perspectives. New York:
Free Press.

Whitten, Norman E. Jr. and Diego Quiroga
1998 “To Rescue National Dignity”: Blackness as a Quality of Nationalist
Creativity in Ecuador in Normal E. Whitten, Jr. and Arlene Torres
(editors) Bloclmess in Latin America and the Caribbean. Bloomingon:
Indiana University Press. Volume I, pp. 75-99.

Williams, Brackette F.
1989 “A Class Act: Anthropology and the Race to Nation Across Ethnic
Terrain” in Annual Review of Anthropology. 18:401-44.

Williams, Eric
1970 From Columbus to Castro: The History of the Caribbean 1492-1969.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Williamson, Joel
1980 New People: Miscegenotion and Mulattoes in the United States. New York:
The Free Press.

Winant, Howard
2000 “Race and Race Theory” in Annual Review of Sociology. 26: 169-85.

248

Winn, Peter
1992 “A Question of Color” in Americas: The Changing Face of Latin America
and the Caribbean. Pp. 277-306. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Wright, Winthrop R.
1990 Cofé con Leche: Race, Class and National Image in Venezuela. Austin:
The University of Texas Press.

Zéiter Mejia, Alba Josefina

1996 Lo Identidad Social y Notional en Dominicano: Un Anolisis Psico-Sociol.
Santo Domingo: Editora Taller.

249