what parts of chicago is considered a white, asian or hispanic ghetto? (Canton: income, to live in)

[ajolotl]

Originally Posted by JoeyPants

Most Mexican immigrants in Chicago are from rural areas, not large cities. Sort of country bumpkins if you will. So yeah, Pilsen would not resemble Guadalajara.

Yeah, we're I'm from they're called "cholos".

[ajolotl]

where, not we're

[surlycue]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

Yeah, we're I'm from they're called "cholos".

Um no. Cholas/os/Chonga: Urban Dictionary: chola

Definitely not bumpkin types. Actually, aside from gelled curls, Cholas share no commonalities to actual Mexicans in Mexico. Every time I have ever visited family there the only Cholas I saw were the ones that drove down from Texas to save money shopping.

[Lookout Kid]

The talk about "light-skinned Hispanics" kind of floors me, since the term "Hispanic" is really a very broad umbrella including people with all mixtures of European, Native American (several tribes and civilizations), and African ancestry. So a "light-skinned Hispanic" could actually be, well, white for lack of a better term. Plenty of Mexicans in the upper classes have almost 100% Spanish ancestry. I've known several Latin Americans with light brown or blonde hair (non-dyed). So yeah, a Spaniard could look quite a bit like an Italian.

[surlycue]

^^I think that is in part why the term Latino has gained favor in recent years. I have always considered Spaniards to be white, especially since light hair/eyes is much more common to Spaniards then in their mixed ancestry descendants in Latin America/Caribbean.

The upper class citizens in most Central and South American countries tend to be of lighter complexion also because darker skin is shunned (however subconsciously) just like in India. The indigenous peoples were generally thought to be the lowest rung of society but I think that that is finally starting to turn a corner with the election of an indigenous president in Bolivia and the peoples civil movements that have been taking place in recent years.

[Mister Mappy]

My friend's Puerto Rican husband actually lookes very Slavic. The kids in his neighborhood used to call him "Polaco" when he was growing up.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by surlycue

^^I think that is in part why the term Latino has gained favor in recent years. I have always considered Spaniards to be white, especially since light hair/eyes is much more common to Spaniards then in their mixed ancestry descendants in Latin America/Caribbean.

The upper class citizens in most Central and South American countries tend to be of lighter complexion also because darker skin is shunned (however subconsciously) just like in India. The indigenous peoples were generally thought to be the lowest rung of society but I think that that is finally starting to turn a corner with the election of an indigenous president in Bolivia and the peoples civil movements that have been taking place in recent years.

I've railed about this before and I'll do it again: "Latino" or "Hispanic" is such a contrivance to begin with, even by the standards of contrived racial/ethnic designations. I have no use for an ethnic designation that puts Cameron Diaz and Jessica Alba and people whose ancestors arrived here from Spain 300 years ago in the same classification as someone who is 3/4ths first-nations, just arrived here last April, and was a 4th-class citizen in his home country. Or lumps that poor guy in with one of my classmates who is considered Hispanic because parents were from Argentina even though he has blond hair, blue eyes, and a German surname.

[ajolotl]

that's hilarious. Those definitions have nothing to do with the central american meaning -- an Indio from the mountains who is unsophisticated, etc. The term is then extended beyond that as somewhat of an insult (depending on how you take it).

Originally Posted by surlycue

Um no. Cholas/os/Chonga: Urban Dictionary: chola

Definitely not bumpkin types. Actually, aside from gelled curls, Cholas share no commonalities to actual Mexicans in Mexico. Every time I have ever visited family there the only Cholas I saw were the ones that drove down from Texas to save money shopping.

[ajolotl]

Thank you, Drover!

Originally Posted by Drover

I've railed about this before and I'll do it again: "Latino" or "Hispanic" is such a contrivance to begin with, even by the standards of contrived racial/ethnic designations. I have no use for an ethnic designation that puts Cameron Diaz and Jessica Alba and people whose ancestors arrived here from Spain 300 years ago in the same classification as someone who is 3/4ths first-nations, just arrived here last April, and was a 4th-class citizen in his home country. Or lumps that poor guy in with one of my classmates who is considered Hispanic because parents were from Argentina even though he has blond hair, blue eyes, and a German surname.

[ajolotl]

There is nothing subconscious about it. People openly talk about the shade of everyone's skin any opportunity they get. It's an obsession. It's also one of the main reasons I get embarrassed bringing U.S.-born friends with me when I visit.

Originally Posted by surlycue

^^I think that is in part why the term Latino has gained favor in recent years. I have always considered Spaniards to be white, especially since light hair/eyes is much more common to Spaniards then in their mixed ancestry descendants in Latin America/Caribbean.

The upper class citizens in most Central and South American countries tend to be of lighter complexion also because darker skin is shunned (however subconsciously) just like in India. The indigenous peoples were generally thought to be the lowest rung of society but I think that that is finally starting to turn a corner with the election of an indigenous president in Bolivia and the peoples civil movements that have been taking place in recent years.