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.
That right there is offensive. What does a 100% African look like? Never mind BEFORE the Europeans came you had an Arab presence in what is now called Northern Nigeria. The language spoken there, Hausa belongs to the Afro Asiatic group of languages such as Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, etc. Ethiopians are part Middle Eastern and many have at least some Caucasian features and you will find Africans like this across the Sahel, where the deserts meet the savannahs and the woodlands.
You cannot necessarily look at someone and tell they are an African.
Lastly people on City Data are WEIRD. No one actually goes around calling people MULATTO in real life contemporary America. It's an archaic term.
The term was used in the United States in the 1800s. Some of my ancestors were classified as mulatto. Big deal.
No one would refer to themselves as MULATTO. It more or less means mule (offspring of horse and donkey) and that in and of itself has some pretty nasty and offensive connotations.
The only place where I have seen some people offended by the word "mulatto" is in the USA and basically in the English language. I did noticed that the word is written with a double T, the way is spelled in English.
The word "mulato" is not offensive by itself in the Spanish language. Its not offensive now and it never was offensive. Even in Spanish dictionaries the word isn't depicted as offensive, unlike other truly offensive words.
I think the real reason some people from the USA are offended by it is due to the one-drop-rule, given that I have yet to meet someone that considers that word to be offensive and they themselves don't believe in and apply to themselves the one-drop-rule. Its a way of discouraging mixed black-white people from using that word as a description, in preference of the word black.
Notice I mentioned SOME people, because obviously there are many people that aren't offended by that word in the USA.
The only place where I have seen some people offended by the word "mulatto" is in the USA and basically in the English language. I did noticed that the word is written with a double T, the way is spelled in English.
The word "mulato" is not offensive by itself in the Spanish language. Its not offensive now and it never was offensive. Even in Spanish dictionaries the word isn't depicted as offensive, unlike other truly offensive words.
I think the real reason some people from the USA are offended by it is due to the one-drop-rule, given that I have yet to meet someone that considers that word to be offensive and they themselves don't believe in and apply to themselves the one-drop-rule. Its a way of discouraging mixed black-white people from using that word as a description, in preference of the word black.
Notice I mentioned SOME people, because obviously there are many people that aren't offended by that word in the USA.
If someone wants to refer to themselves as mixed race in the US context they would say biracial or multiracial.
But part of the problem is you cannot necessarily tell the difference between so called mixed race people and Black people.
If it kills you to be called Black based on how you look them there is something wrong with you that you need to work out with a therapist.
As for the one drop rule, Johnny Depp has a Black ancestor. So does Heather Locklear. No one is calling these people Black because they look white, group up white, and are white. Yet noticed they don’t have to say that they are mixed, either. They’re white.
It’s the ultimate in race obsession if you have to jump up and down to de late yourself mixes because you are ashamed of being Black. Most Blacks throughout North and South America are mixed and large numbers of Africans have Arab and/or European in them.
So what? Who gives a crap?
No one gives a flying frig what you are.
But back to mulato, you know very well it is not used in the Spanish speaking world these days. It’s archaic.
I suspect the word mulatto has origins in the Arabic word Muladi and the Mula(horse/hybrid) origin was later assumed by ignorant people who couldn't read and knew nothing about history.
I suspect the word mulatto has origins in the Arabic word Muladi and the Mula(horse/hybrid) origin was later assumed by ignorant people who couldn't read and knew nothing about history.
Keep in mind that the word "mulatto" is actually taken from the Spanish "mulato." As it always happen when one word is borrowed from one language to another, something is always lost in translation. Perfect examples of words that have been adopted in the English language but taken from Spanish are "negro" and "Indias."
The first one is offensive in the USA (in English its spelled the same, but it's said nee-gro) while in Spanish it was never offensive. In fact, in Spanish it means black and applied to the color and to people of a similar color. There is nothing offensive at all of the word by itself, never was and never is. Say that word as pronounced in English to a person that think of themselves as black in the USA, if they are real Americans expect a not so nice reaction from them, especially if who says it is not perceived as being black by the person who receives it.
The second word is "Indias." For whatever reason, Americans often think that "Indias" means "India," hence the notion that Columbus thought he discovered "India." In reality, Columbus never thought he discovered or was in India, but rather in The Indies (Las Indias), which is an archipelago in southeast Asia, where there are countries today such as Indonesia or the Philippines. The extra "S" at the end changes the Spanish meaning completely from the country of India to the islands of "Las Indias." Once the confusion was made apparent to the discoverers, they renamed the original Indies as East Indies (Indias Orientales) and the "new" Indies as the West Indies (Indias Occidentales). To make the misunderstanding even worse is that the Spanish referred to the entire Americas in several names, "Indias" being one of them. In Seville, Spain there is an Archivos General de Indias (General Archives of the Indies) where all official documents of every Spanish province in America is kept today. Houses that were built in Spain by Spaniards in America are known as Casas Indiana (Houses from the Indies).
The above is a narrow-minded perspective of other cultures as well. If I remember that poster’s background correctly, he does not simply come from Anglo culture and, if you have such a need to classify it that way based on the main language, then you are uninformed about Anglo cultures. He comes from one of the most uniquely diverse cultures in the world, where there are 5 other significant languages, and 10 other Amerindian ones.
Similar characteristics exist in his culture as well. Across the Caribbean/West Indies are similar “inoffensive interactions” and “terms of endearment.” Terms like “fatty” and “baldy” in English are normal in Caribbean/West Indian cultures. So what are you talking about?
Regardless, that doesn’t mean he isn’t entitled to his opinion about such descriptors. That is his opinion when comparing Americans and Latinos.
You're right in terms of descriptor-based references. As an inner London kid growing up in West and South London, I've had large contact (and influence as much of urban UK) from Anglo-caribbean culture. However, these descriptor based references common on the islands dies out when they come to the UK. It wasn't until about when I was 25 in a conversation with a Jamaican born work colleague was that I was made aware that descriptors like 'miss fatty' or 'china man' are innofensive terms in Jamaica. This same non negative connotation appplies with descriptor based terminology in countries like Colombia.
However, people like caribny who are migrants or off-spring of migrants seem to be removed from this cultural aspect of their island and have bought into the negative connotations these terms convey in the dominant Anglo cultures; US, UK, Canada, etc. This in fact makes me think that there may be an African root to these descriptor based 'terms of endearment'.
So "what I'm talking about" is although I wrongly generalised about Anglo-culture, I was particularly refering to "dominant" Anglo culture which Caribny has obviously bought into and uses it to pedal his agenda of sweeping statements without linguistical or cultural context. This makes me respond in kind with generalisations I usually do not make - just like your assumption of not being acquainted with Anglo or Caribbean culture when 1. Having been born in the Uk 2. Growing up in Brixton 3. Working in New York for a year 4. Living in Old Providence for 6 months.
It's funny how you attack my "narrow-minded" view. Which is actually a somewhat omitent constructed response on my part to caribny's myopic view, yet allow him off the hook??? Something is a little fishy there.
What bothers me about Latin racism is just a general glorification of whiteness...my wife is triracial and always uses filters on her cameraphone to make her skin look lighter than it really is, it never fails.
Glorification yes but you seem to lack global context because the glorification of whiteness is miniscule in LatAm compared to other places around the globe where skin bleaching is prevalent. Something actually quite rare in Latn America and which a few filters here or there don't even compare to.
Countries like China, South Korea and Thaland where bleaching chemicals are actually commonplace in their mainstream cosmetics, same is even true in some Nigerian beauty products. The caste system in India is also just as problematic and skin bleaching is common place there too.
Tradtionally the US has also perpetrated this glorification via media and Hollywood with the whole "Gentlemen prefer blondes" propaganda and the "acceptable black". It truly is a global phenomenon.
Glorification yes but you seem to lack global context because the glorification of whiteness is miniscule in LatAm compared to other places around the globe where skin bleaching is prevalent. Something actually quite rare in Latn America and which a few filters here or there don't even compare to.
Countries like China, South Korea and Thaland where bleaching chemicals are actually commonplace in their mainstream cosmetics, same is even true in some Nigerian beauty products. The caste system in India is also just as problematic and skin bleaching is common place there too.
Tradtionally the US has also perpetrated this glorification via media and Hollywood with the whole "Gentlemen prefer blondes" propaganda and the "acceptable black". It truly is a global phenomenon.
All true, but my post was only speaking in regards to the double standards, hypocracy, bs, etc between Latin America and the Anglo-American mindsets. I'm sure a lot more could be said, but that's what most sticks out in my mind. It's easy for people from both cultures to think that the other's way of thinking doesn't "make sense".
Keep in mind that the word "mulatto" is actually taken from the Spanish "mulato." As it always happen when one word is borrowed from one language to another, something is always lost in translation. Perfect examples of words that have been adopted in the English language but taken from Spanish are "negro" and "Indias."
The first one is offensive in the USA (in English its spelled the same, but it's said nee-gro) while in Spanish it was never offensive. In fact, in Spanish it means black and applied to the color and to people of a similar color. There is nothing offensive at all of the word by itself, never was and never is. Say that word as pronounced in English to a person that think of themselves as black in the USA, if they are real Americans expect a not so nice reaction from them, especially if who says it is not perceived as being black by the person who receives it.
The second word is "Indias." For whatever reason, Americans often think that "Indias" means "India," hence the notion that Columbus thought he discovered "India." In reality, Columbus never thought he discovered or was in India, but rather in The Indies (Las Indias), which is an archipelago in southeast Asia, where there are countries today such as Indonesia or the Philippines. The extra "S" at the end changes the Spanish meaning completely from the country of India to the islands of "Las Indias." Once the confusion was made apparent to the discoverers, they renamed the original Indies as East Indies (Indias Orientales) and the "new" Indies as the West Indies (Indias Occidentales). To make the misunderstanding even worse is that the Spanish referred to the entire Americas in several names, "Indias" being one of them. In Seville, Spain there is an Archivos General de Indias (General Archives of the Indies) where all official documents of every Spanish province in America is kept today. Houses that were built in Spain by Spaniards in America are known as Casas Indiana (Houses from the Indies).
So on and so forth.
In English people call the Caribbean West Indies and the people West Indian. Nobody confuses when someone say West Indian for Caribbean people with a South Asian from the Western part of India.
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.
