Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True, Mexicans have "un nopal en la frente", meaning that they have a cactus on their face. What that actually means is that they look undeniably Mexican. Now, the question is, what does a Mexican look like? EASY!
A Mexican looks like an Amerindian or Mestizo. Take George Lopez for instance, he looks like your typical Amerindian from Mexico, Central America, or South America. George Lopez is the perfect example of what people think Mexicans usually look like. Most Mexicans are Mestizo, with a significant portion of the population being of pure Amerindian descant.
Selena Quintinilla looks like your stereotypical Mexican, she's has obvious Amerindian features.
Selena is about 1/4 Cherokee supposedly.
George Lopez is majority European ancestry though by the way.
And Mexican Americans on average tend to be majority of European ancestry. Mexican Americans on average tend to have between 3% to 10% African ancestry.
So this basically shows that about 2/3rds of Hispanics in the US are Mexicans. Also consider that many of the other groups are strongly concentrated in the Northeast metro areas and parts of Florida, so outside of those regions you won't really find much "Hispanic" diversity at all.
True, outside the Northeast and Florida, there few metro areas where Mexicans arent the largest Hispanic group.
And Mexicans do represent about 60% of US Hispanics.
However, Mexican immigration to the US is now at an all-time low, while Puerto Rican migration to the US is at an all-time high.
Though, besides Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, most other Hispanic groups continue to grow, but at the same rate as they did the last decade, no major change in their immigration rates.
So the most noticable changes are within the 2 largest Hispanic groups.
Ah but the contradictions and intersectionality of terminologies make things tricky and even more confusing.
Hispanics are NOT a race. What about those Hispanics that marked down that they were/are racially black. What if the black stats included racially black categorized under the Hispanic/Latino ethnic category.
The Census is crazy lol!
The black stats do include those who are hispanic and check "black" under race. For the purposes of assimilation, the more relevant stat is what % of hispanics (of any race) marry someone non-hispanic (of any race)
Hispanics lag behind Anglophone Whites in every single measure of living standards. They do not control any major industries, political parties, or other major cultural/economic/political institution. Since they are marginal when it comes to political and economic power, they will have to assimilate or risk being marginalized, that means they have to learn English and also have to adopt American culture. So in essence, the changes will be rather superficial (like food and cultural appropriation by the mainstream) and Hispanics who do not assimilate will continue to be marginalized and continue to suffer from discrimination.
Hispanics lag behind Anglophone Whites in every single measure of living standards. They do not control any major industries, political parties, or other major cultural/economic/political institution. Since they are marginal when it comes to political and economic power, they will have to assimilate or risk being marginalized, that means they have to learn English and also have to adopt American culture. So in essence, the changes will be rather superficial (like food and cultural appropriation by the mainstream) and Hispanics who do not assimilate will continue to be marginalized and continue to suffer from discrimination.
That's been proven false in California, New Mexico, AND Texas, you don't need to assimilate, you simply need the numbers. You realize that in California, New Mexico, and Texas, Hispanic owned businesses are increasing right? In fact increasing percentage wise more than any other demographic. There's no need to assimilate their, the numbers have proven otherwise. Discrimination against Latinos only goes against them when they don't know English, most Latinos are bilingual, an undoubted bonus. Not to mention, the Hispanic purchasing power has already eclipsed the black purchasing power, and is increasing percentage wise, again, more than any other demographic. Mexican Americans specifically, being the bulk of that purchasing power.
Furthermore, the average age of Hispanics is almost half of that of whites. 27 for Hispanics, and 41 for whites. More specifically, Mexican Americans are on average 25, even lower than the average for the Hispanic in general. That in itself means less in wage, education, and power. A younger demographic will never be as powerful as an older more established one. That's just common sense.
In places like San Antonio, Spanish is spoken commonly, crime is low, and the local government is largely Hispanic/pro Hispanic. San Antonio is over 60% Hispanic, an overwhelming majority of which are Mexican American.
In all honesty this hispanophobia stuff is just fear mongering from the right that want your votes, and what better way to form a bond between one another than to set someone apart from you two and share a hatred for that person/people? It's simple divide and conquer.
George Lopez is majority European ancestry though by the way.
And Mexican Americans on average tend to be majority of European ancestry. Mexican Americans on average tend to have between 3% to 10% African ancestry.
Yes, George Lopez has a majority of European genetic ancestry, however that is irrelevant to the question at hand. That being: What does a Mexican look like?
I answered that, and the answer essentially is an Amerindian. Mexican Mestizos look very much Amerindian, as the Amerindian genes are dominant by nature (as proven by George Lopez). Though it's true that Mexican Americans are more on the European side, in Mexico Mestizos are more on the Indian side. The average Mexican Mestizo is 55% Native.
If Hispanic migration and growth in the US is like any other migration to the US from prior waves (Germans, Irish, slave Africans), the usual progression is typically:
1) "Oh that's cute, there's token presence" (i.e. pandering and not really a "threat" to the status quo)
2) "Someone has to keep them in their place!" (i.e. outright hostility bordering on insanity)
3) "Meh" (Acceptance and the end product: melting into the pot)
The product of migration to the USA is that the migrants typically, for a generation or two, stay with their own and don't venture too far outside their home cultures. The braver elements of the second generation and typical third generation folks are totally immersed in American culture and it absorbs them and they abandon to some extent the home culture's norms, and many times, marry outside of it.
So the real question is "what flavors will the Hispanic ingredients add to the stew that is American culture?"
The answer is pretty hard to come by, though I can think of some things: truly authentic Mexican and SA cooking. The local chains of "Mexican" food restaurants run by gringos peddle some Americanized bastardization of the luxurious home style cooking known as Mexican. In my area of Seattle, just go to an Azteca, then eat at a small mom and pop shop or a food truck and compare. You'll never step food in Azteca again.
So, goodness in getting more "real" hispanic cooking is in order.
The other thing I could see is a more nuanced look at Mexican/US history. Typically, US history glazes over the fact we fought a war of aggression against Mexico to capture territory. We only stopped because if we had conquered Mexico, there'd be millions of "wetbacks" (their words, not mine) ready to upset the WASP establishment. So they backed off. I'm sure we'll see more revisions to US history books if we're lucky.
And if we're also lucky, a more honest celebration of Cinco de Mayo. To be honest though I'm not holding my breath. Just look at St. Patrick's Day. A day of celebration ostensibly of St. Patrick converting the Irish to Christianity being bastardized by historical racist overtones (namely, the Irish are drunks) to perpetuate said racist hackneyed preconceptions. In other words: St. Patrick's day is nothing more than an excuse to get drunk at noon, and I don't expect Cinco de Mayo to be any better off in the future.
In the end, the best thing that will happen is probably the continued chipping away at the American psyche of "brown/black skinned people = dangerous/bad" to eventually "everyone's human, big whup."
If Hispanic migration and growth in the US is like any other migration to the US from prior waves (Germans, Irish, slave Africans), the usual progression is typically:
1) "Oh that's cute, there's token presence" (i.e. pandering and not really a "threat" to the status quo)
2) "Someone has to keep them in their place!" (i.e. outright hostility bordering on insanity)
3) "Meh" (Acceptance and the end product: melting into the pot)
The product of migration to the USA is that the migrants typically, for a generation or two, stay with their own and don't venture too far outside their home cultures. The braver elements of the second generation and typical third generation folks are totally immersed in American culture and it absorbs them and they abandon to some extent the home culture's norms, and many times, marry outside of it.
So the real question is "what flavors will the Hispanic ingredients add to the stew that is American culture?"
The answer is pretty hard to come by, though I can think of some things: truly authentic Mexican and SA cooking. The local chains of "Mexican" food restaurants run by gringos peddle some Americanized bastardization of the luxurious home style cooking known as Mexican. In my area of Seattle, just go to an Azteca, then eat at a small mom and pop shop or a food truck and compare. You'll never step food in Azteca again.
So, goodness in getting more "real" hispanic cooking is in order.
The other thing I could see is a more nuanced look at Mexican/US history. Typically, US history glazes over the fact we fought a war of aggression against Mexico to capture territory. We only stopped because if we had conquered Mexico, there'd be millions of "wetbacks" (their words, not mine) ready to upset the WASP establishment. So they backed off. I'm sure we'll see more revisions to US history books if we're lucky.
And if we're also lucky, a more honest celebration of Cinco de Mayo. To be honest though I'm not holding my breath. Just look at St. Patrick's Day. A day of celebration ostensibly of St. Patrick converting the Irish to Christianity being bastardized by historical racist overtones (namely, the Irish are drunks) to perpetuate said racist hackneyed preconceptions. In other words: St. Patrick's day is nothing more than an excuse to get drunk at noon, and I don't expect Cinco de Mayo to be any better off in the future.
In the end, the best thing that will happen is probably the continued chipping away at the American psyche of "brown/black skinned people = dangerous/bad" to eventually "everyone's human, big whup."
Sorry, but "*******" is a word of U.S, specifically white origin. That'd be like me saying "Gabacho" is your word.
I think by American psyche you mean the "White mentality". As Brown and black Americans don't think that way. So, again, that foolery is not common among minorities, but rather the ignorant segment of the "American" class you are referring to.
In the end though, we are indeed all human and we should just get along.
I think they can be considered immigrants, even though all are US citizens and there's virtually nothing (other than tight pockets in some) stopping them from moving to the mainland if they truly want to. But PR is an unincorporated territory of the USA and technically, whatever is unincorporated isn't quite part of the country. That's the reason PR has the option of joining the USA or going free, because they are not quite free but not quite joined either.
They have a foot in and a foot out.
Legally speaking Puerto Rico has "evolved" into an incorporated territory with the passing of Law 600 or the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act in 1952. It possess the same level of autonomy as a state of the Union but because of it's fiscal autonomy (exemption from Federal income taxes for all except those employed by the Federal government) Congress has chosen to not to apply the full rights of integration (the presidential vote, voting representation in Congress, etc).
How does one immigrate within their own nation? Does one immigrate from California to Idaho?
Legally speaking Puerto Rico has "evolved" into an incorporated territory with the passing of Law 600 or the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act in 1952. It possess the same level of autonomy as a state of the Union but because of it's fiscal autonomy (exemption from Federal income taxes for all except those employed by the Federal government) Congress has chosen to not to apply the full rights of integration (the presidential vote, voting representation in Congress, etc).
How does one immigrate within their own nation? Does one immigrate from California to Idaho?
Inquiring minds would like to know. Even more evidence of the Anglo American's resistance to consider us "Real Americans"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParadigmizedFactions
¿What does a "typical" Mexican even look like?
Guess
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
