% of Whites in Latin American countries based on GEDmatch kits

[Tomenable]

Whites are defined as people with between 80% and 100% of Caucasian admixture.

GEDmatch samples for this statistic were collected by Argentano, Birdman and me.

South America:

Uruguay - 82.4% whites (n=210 GEDmatch samples)
Brazil - 48.3% whites (n=2997 GEDmatch samples) ---> This is very similar to 2022 census which reported 43.5%. Brancos
Argentina - 36.6% whites (n=2437 GEDmatch samples)
Venezuela - 20.7% whites (n=140 GEDmatch samples)
Chile - 17.8% whites (n=393 GEDmatch samples)
Colombia - 14.3% whites (n=392 GEDmatch samples)
Paraguay - 10.7% whites (n=131 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to CIA World Factbook only 3% are whites.
Ecuador - 5.1% whites (n=39 GEDmatch samples) ---> In 2022 census 2.2% of Ecuadorians self-identifed as white.
Peru - 0.6% whites (n=334 GEDmatch samples) ---> In 2017 census 5.9% of Peruvians self-identifed as white.
Bolivia - 0.0% whites (n=94 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to CIA World Factbook 5% of Bolivians are white.
Suriname - 0.0% whites (n=3 GEDmatch samples) ---> In 2012 census 0.3% self-identifed as white.
Guyana - 0.0% whites (n=2 GEDmatch samples) ---> In 2012 census 0.3% self-identified as white.

No samples from French Guiana and the Falkland Islands, but the latter has probably over 90% of whites.

North America:

Cuba - 84.1% whites (n=598 GEDmatch samples) ---> 64.1% of Cubans identified as white in the 2012 census.
Puerto Rico - 15.1% whites (n=1051 GEDmatch samples) ---> Very similar to 2020 census which reported 17.1% whites
Nicaragua - 14.3% whites (n=14 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to CIA World Factbook Nicaragua is 17% white.
Mexico - 11.5% whites (n=834 GEDmatch samples)
Jamaica - 6.1% whites (n=33 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to 2011 census only 0.2% of Jamaicans are white.
Costa Rica - 2.0% whites (n=153 GEDmatch samples)
Dominican Republic - 1.9% whites (n=107 GEDmatch samples)
Guatemala - 1.7% whites (n=59 GEDmatch samples)
Panama - 0.0% whites (n=109 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to CIA World Factbook Panama is 6.7% white.
Belize - 0.0% whites (n=31 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to 2010 census 4.8% of Belizeans are white.
El Salvador - 0.0% whites (n=28 GEDmatch samples) ---> 12.7% of Salvadorans identified as white in 2007 census.
Honduras - 0.0% whites (n=13 GEDmatch samples) ---> According to CIA World Factbook 1% of Hondurans are white.
Haiti - 0.0% whites (n=30 GEDmatch samples)

We also have 36 samples from various small Caribbean islands and among them five samples are whites.

 

[Tomenable]

Argentina is much less genetically European than you could think based on self-reported ancestry in their census. 53% of Argentinians from our sample are between 80% and 50% European and 10% are less than 50% European. The same applies for example to Costa Rica. On the other hand in countries such as Brazil and Puerto Rico census data is in agreement with genetic data.

 

[thunorr]

I think the definition of "white" in things like these should be 90-95% or more European, 80% falls within the Castizo range. Just my opinion.

 

[Tomenable]

I think the definition of "white" in things like these should be 90-95% or more European, 80% falls within the Castizo range. Just my opinion.

With at least 90% Uruguay is down to 51% whites, Cuba to 44%, Brazil to 20%, Argentina to 21%, Paraguay to 1%, etc.

Mexico is less than 2% white if we count only 90% or more Europeans.

 

[Riverman]

More than 3 quarters is a good definition in my opinion. But Argentina comes as a surprise, thought the numbers being higher. Obviously many more than in other countries are borderline.

 

[Tomenable]

People who are between 90% and 100% European genetically:

South America:

Uruguay - 51.4% (n=210)
Argentina - 20.6% (n=2437)
Brazil - 20.0% (n=2997)
Chile - 5.9% (n=393)
Venezuela - 3.6% (n=140)
Colombia - 2.6% (n=392)
Ecuador - 2.6% (n=39)
Paraguay - 0.8% (n=131)
Peru - 0.0% (n=334)
Bolivia - 0.0% (n=94) ---> But this doesn't include Mennonites who live in Bolivia.
Suriname - 0.0% (n=3)
Guyana - 0.0% (n=2)

North America:

Cuba - 43.6% (n=598)
Nicaragua - 7.1% (n=14)
Jamaica - 6.1% (n=33)
Puerto Rico - 2.0% (n=1051)
Mexico - 1.2% (n=834)
Costa Rica - 0.0% (n=153)
Panama - 0.0% (n=109)
Dominican Republic - 0.0% (n=107)
Guatemala - 0.0% (n=59)
Belize - 0.0% (n=31)
El Salvador - 0.0% (n=28)
Honduras - 0.0% (n=13)
Haiti - 0.0% (n=30)

 

[Tomenable]

More than 3 quarters is a good definition in my opinion. But Argentina comes as a surprise, thought the numbers being higher. Obviously many more than in other countries are borderline.

BTW the average for all Argentinian samples is 73% European, 24% Native American, 3% African.

Uruguay for comparison is 87% European, 9% Native American and 4% African on average.

Venezuela - 67% European, 22% Native, 11% African
Colombia - 65% European, 27% Native, 8% African
Paraguay - 65% European, 32% Native, 3% African
Chile - 65% European, 33% Native, 2% African

 

[ZZZZ1111]

Once mixed, a group will often have great personality mutation,due to same paternal origin,it brings great difficulties to the definition of ethnic groups

 

[Vitruvius]

People who are between 90% and 100% European genetically:

South America:

Uruguay - 51.4% (n=210)
Argentina - 20.6% (n=2437)
Brazil - 20.0% (n=2997)
Chile - 5.9% (n=393)
Venezuela - 3.6% (n=140)
Colombia - 2.6% (n=392)
Ecuador - 2.6% (n=39)
Paraguay - 0.8% (n=131)
Peru - 0.0% (n=334)
Bolivia - 0.0% (n=94) ---> But this doesn't include Mennonites who live in Bolivia.
Suriname - 0.0% (n=3)
Guyana - 0.0% (n=2)

North America:

Cuba - 43.6% (n=598)
Nicaragua - 7.1% (n=14)
Jamaica - 6.1% (n=33)
Puerto Rico - 2.0% (n=1051)
Mexico - 1.2% (n=834)
Costa Rica - 0.0% (n=153)
Panama - 0.0% (n=109)
Dominican Republic - 0.0% (n=107)
Guatemala - 0.0% (n=59)
Belize - 0.0% (n=31)
El Salvador - 0.0% (n=28)
Honduras - 0.0% (n=13)
Haiti - 0.0% (n=30)

The (relatively) high amounts in cuba and uruguay don't surprise me. I also agree that 80% is too low to consider someone white and is closer to castizo.

 

[Ricardo]

In Brazil a "Branco-White" is also a "social status quo" related to your social class and depends on the phenotype and social position. A rich and important mulatto or a rich and famous black football player are also considered and "respected" among the social "branquitude". If you are from a working class origin with manual labour, recent immigrants, you could be considered a "Preto pelo avesso"-black inside out, and only traditional Catholics can marry your family in a Igreja, a Central Church. In Brazil and Portugal from the Ancien Régime low class would mourejar -"work as a moor" and Islamism, Judaism and Protestantism have been considered social stigmas in upper class traditional circles and were crimes in the past, so, not Brancos Tradicionais in racist and classist conservative environments full of social prejudices like everywhere were people are also classified by your heritage as your ethnic stock, "old money" and old traditional genealogies.

 

[MOESAN]

The question is that you can have here an averaged big percentage of one origin but at the individual level very few "pure" or almost pure peopleof this dominant origin, opposed to there a lower percentage of tis averaged origin, but more indidivuals "pure" or almost "pure": its depends of the chronology of the mixings and of the cultural/political deportments of the people in a country (more or less "aparthaid", social classes segregation...

 

[thunorr]

People who are between 90% and 100% European genetically:

South America:

Uruguay - 51.4% (n=210)
Argentina - 20.6% (n=2437)
Brazil - 20.0% (n=2997)
Chile - 5.9% (n=393)
Venezuela - 3.6% (n=140)
Colombia - 2.6% (n=392)
Ecuador - 2.6% (n=39)
Paraguay - 0.8% (n=131)
Peru - 0.0% (n=334)
Bolivia - 0.0% (n=94) ---> But this doesn't include Mennonites who live in Bolivia.
Suriname - 0.0% (n=3)
Guyana - 0.0% (n=2)

North America:

Cuba - 43.6% (n=598)
Nicaragua - 7.1% (n=14)
Jamaica - 6.1% (n=33)
Puerto Rico - 2.0% (n=1051)
Mexico - 1.2% (n=834)
Costa Rica - 0.0% (n=153)
Panama - 0.0% (n=109)
Dominican Republic - 0.0% (n=107)
Guatemala - 0.0% (n=59)
Belize - 0.0% (n=31)
El Salvador - 0.0% (n=28)
Honduras - 0.0% (n=13)
Haiti - 0.0% (n=30)

It's lower than I expected.

 

[Tomenable]

I think Castizo is someone between 70% and 80% European while above 80% IMHO can be already considered white. Between 60% and 70% is Harnizo.

 

[Juan.delajara]

In Imperial Spanish America, most criollos ( Spanish born outside Europe), probably had some Amerindian blood, although it was not evident on genealogical records or pehnotypes, so they all were considered Spanish (criollos) on the public registrations. They probably were European between 80-90%, and had some Amerindian, and as many other spaniards, some amounts of North African and East Med Dna, as well. They looked like their Iberian born relatives, and were considered criollos and normally part of the Aristocracy on their own countries. With the arrival of other Europeans to South America on the XIXth and XXth century, they normally got mixed with them and were part of what now we call of "European descent". with ranges between 80% to 100% of European descent. On countries with more African presence, like Colombia or Brazil, for example, the African component of Criollos will also be a part of the 20 to 10% of this people. Is relevant to consider this historical aspects to understand who is considered of European descent on Iberian America, because most "white" South Americans have the same phenotypes of fully Europeans.

 

[Duarte]

I believe that the way you identify yourself ethnically depends a lot on how you see yourself and how people see you. I would say that it is a concept relative to your environment or the society to which you belong. In Brazil, I have no doubts about identifying myself as white because that is how people see me and that is how I see myself too. In the United States, for example, I would already lose this status quo simply because of my South American origin and my first and last name, which are 100% Iberian. I would not be white because Latin Americans, by definition, are not considered white. On the other hand, there is the feeling of belonging that I often see guiding many of the demonstrations in this forum. I removed information about ethnicity and haplogroups from my profile because I don't think I belong to any particular ethnic group, much less to a hypothetical group of "whites", since this depends a lot on what each person understands as white or non-white, and I certainly feel much more comfortable not identifying with any particular generic ethnic group, whether it is considered white or not. My various results lead me to follow this path. I am cosmopolitan.

FTDNA - Haplogroups

FTDNA - Autosomal

MyHeritage

ADNTRO

Tellmegen

Living DNA

 

[Tomenable]

^^^
You have Amerindian mtDNA haplogroup but no Amerindian autosomal admixture?

 

[Duarte]

^^^
You have Amerindian mtDNA haplogroup but no Amerindian autosomal admixture?

Yes. That's right. No Amerindian autosomal admixture and an Amerindian mt haplogroup.

 

[Riverman]

I have ancestors from which I have not a single segment left. If such an ancestor would the American Indian maternal ancestor, no or just one or two segments can easily be overlooked, if that's really all you got. On the other hand, many ethnicity estimates are simply wrong and miss trace levels.

 

[MOESAN]

considering the level of seriousness of these analysis, you could consider that bits under 1% (maybe even 2%) are without any signification. I consider that ethnically you could consider yourself as "Portuguese"... The light real or supposed North African parts may be considered as "incorporated" long ago in Portuguese ethnic feeling.

 

[italouruguayan]

I think that in Latin America, " whiteness" is a matter of appearances. So, if you look white, you are white. We never had something like the " one drop rule" because...there was no way to have something similar. Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro, both famous "Conquistadores" married with Native princesses as a way to legitimate their power.
My country Uruguay was part of the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, the last one to be created. . Except the northern part ( Alto Perú, current Bolivia) , with rich mines of silver and very populated, the rest was scarsely populated , mostly by hunther-gathered tribes. This was a very poor region, nobody wanted to come here . But a wealth emerged...the cattle and the horses that the Spaniards had brought reproduced immensely in the ownerless prairies. The Natives became excellent horsemen and took advantage of cattle. Some Spaniards and Portuguese began to do the same, often fleeing the law, and when they looked for a partner they met with Native women. Some escaped slaves also joined. And to add more variety, some other Europeans abandoned on the coast ( especially pirates : French, Dutch...) were part of the melting pot. The result: a type of people characterized by their lifestyle more than by their ethnic origin : the Gaucho.
Gauchos were the basis of the rural population in Uruguay, much of Argentina and southern Brazil.
But they were a small population. For example, when my country became independent in 1830 the population was...100.000 people!, mostly resident in the few towns and cities. The pure natives were almost exterminated, and the descendants of slaves lived mainly in the cities.
In 1908 the population reached 1 million people . Why? Because of immigration.
The newcomers married among themselves in the first or second generation... and then their descendants began to marry the " criollos" ( this word in Rio de la Plata region only means " people of the country").
This is why many " white" people in Uruguay, Argentina , Brazil and other countries are not " so white"....