Question -is Quentin Sampson indigenous Guyanese

He looks so. Big up!

In reply to Chrissy

Just, please, don't cut this bannas hair, alyuh hear?

In reply to Curtis
Keep dem Delilah’s far away!

In reply to Curtis

SLK will cut his hair come playoffs lol. Big knock, man is a good talent. Great bat swing, timing and power but he needs to work on his onside game.

In reply to Chrissy

Why does it even matter??? Anyways he’s Keemo Paul’s cousin so yes he is.

In reply to Chrissy

His father is Amerindian. His mother is a health care worker... she's also one of the village leaders in Karia Karia.

Keemo mother is also Amerindian.

In reply to WIfan26

This is why I have a problem with this woman racist mentality. He is Guyanese, just leave it at that.

In reply to Edrich

You just found out such a thing...!

It's lucky he has no East Indian ancestry in him...

She has been called out on a few occasions.

We learn such from our parents.

In reply to anthonyp
Thanks bro - thought so. Lovely.

Would someone tell di ignoramuses on dis thread that indigenous Guyanese are not a race - ethnicity is not race dumbos.
Now in plain Guyanese KYS.

Let me learn ya ...when you are clueless, it's wise to stay quiet.

Amerindian: Naming, Power, and the Politics of Identity

The term Amerindian encapsulates less about the peoples of the Americas themselves than about the structures of power that defined them. Used as a collective label, it flattens extraordinary diversity into a single category of “Indigenous,” obscuring the multitude of races—the Arawak, Carib, Patamona, Diné, Lakota, and many others—that existed long before European arrival. While each of these communities embodies its own language, kinship networks, cosmologies, and governance systems, colonial administrators and scholars constructed “Amerindian” as a homogenizing term designed to simplify and control. As with much of the colonial lexicon, the word reflects not Indigenous self-understanding but the impositions of conquest.

Anthropologists and critical theorists consistently remind us that language is inseparable from power. Foucault (1980) argues that discourse does not merely describe the world; it produces knowledge and reality under specific regimes of power. In this sense, the category “Amerindian” functioned as a colonial discourse—an attempt to render Indigenous peoples legible to European systems of racial order, missionary activity, and governance. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) further identifies such naming practices as central to the “imperial project of knowledge,” whereby Indigenous communities are transformed into objects of study rather than sovereign subjects in their own right.

If race itself is understood not as a fixed biological category but as a social construction grounded in history and politics (Omi & Winant, 2015), then it should be asked: why are Indigenous nations not each recognized as distinct “races”? The answer lies in the colonial collapse of Indigenous difference into a singular “Indian” identity. Nineteenth-century racial science and anthropology positioned Europeans as the apex of civilization while relegating Indigenous Americans into one subordinate category, denying them internal diversity (Stocking, 198. To acknowledge the Arawak, Carib, or Maya as racially discrete peoples would have undermined the simplicity of colonial taxonomies and, more importantly, the ideological framework that justified domination.

This is not accidental but part of the broader logic that “the conquerors write history.” Colonial powers not only seized land but also curated cultural reality. By homogenizing Indigenous peoples under broad labels, colonizers positioned themselves as arbiters of identity. This reframing legitimated dispossession and assimilation, for peoples perceived as a single undifferentiated “other” could more easily be governed, converted, or erased. In their reduction to “Amerindian,” Indigenous nations were stripped of sovereignty at the level of naming.

Contemporary scholars of decolonization emphasize the urgent need to reject these imposed categories. Tuck and Yang (2012) argue that decolonization is not metaphorical but requires dismantling the structural foundations of colonial power, including its epistemologies and language. Replacing terms like Amerindian with the self-determined names of nations—Diné, Innu, Mapuche, Anishinaabe—is part of a political and cultural resurgence that restores dignity and autonomy. Naming is not trivial; it is an act of sovereignty.

Thus, the question—Who says they are not each a race?—unveils the politics of classification. The answer is clear: it was those empowered by conquest, colonial science, and governance who defined Indigenous peoples as one undifferentiated racial group. Yet this answer also clarifies the task before us: to restore the authority of Indigenous nations to define themselves. If conquerors wrote the first draft, then Indigenous voices must author the next—on their own terms, in their own names.

Sarge...

References
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

Stocking, G. W. (198. Race, culture, and evolution: Essays in the history of anthropology. University of Chicago Press.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.

Note : My mother was from Venezuela and classified as Amerindian by her conquerors.

Now KYS!

.....

The Caucasians that you love classified them as such
You claim to be a historian...what BS.

Another dunce from UWI.

In reply to sgtdjones

Forgive this unapologetic, shameless, Racist idiot, AKA, Chrissy.

google has deemed her useless. She is just lashing out.

In reply to StumpCam





He has been THE Stand out player for me.