U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is the context of the usage of the term Hispanic appropriate as a designation?
Yes; it's appropriate in the regard that it recognizes that Latin American's are legitimately ''minorities.'' 14 21.21%
No; It's an inappropriate designation that was created as a crafty political device. 45 68.18%
I am not acquainted enough with this subject to judge. 7 10.61%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2008, 05:18 PM
Status: "Make America the Great Joke Again" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Denver
9,059 posts, read 15,467,286 times
Reputation: 5288

Advertisements

This is the true definition of Hispanic:

Quote:
A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
MSU Human Resources - Definitions of Racial/Ethnic Identifications


But I think this one applies more today:
Quote:
adj.
Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.
n.
A Spanish-speaking person.
A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent.
Hispanic: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
Quote:
Word Origin
Hispanic
Origin: 1889
The first European language spoken in North America in modern times was a Hispanic one, the Spanish language brought over in Columbus's three ships in 1492. St. Augustine, Florida, the oldest city in what is now the United States, was Hispanic too, founded in 1565 by Pedro Menéndez de Avilés. And of course what is now the southwestern United States was Hispanic for several centuries, an outpost first of Spain and then briefly of independent Mexico.

Not that anybody used the word Hispanic in the English language then, however. As a designation for the heritage of Spanish language and culture in our hemisphere, it is newer. We find English writers as far back as 1584 using Hispanicall to refer to Spain. But it was only in about 1889, as nearly as lexicographers can determine, that we realized Hispanic would be a suitably descriptive designation for residents and citizens of the United States who traced their immediate ancestry not necessarily to Spain but to the Spanish-speaking lands to our south.

In the 1970s, with renewed awareness that the United States was peopled from many more directions than England alone, Hispanic American gained popularity--along with similar terms such as Native American, AFRO-AMERICAN (1890) or African American, and Asian American--as part of our burgeoning lexicon of diversity. Hispanic American, generally shortened to Hispanic, displaced the often misleading Spanish as well as the impossibly awkward Spanish-surnamed person. It also recognized a growing sense of community among a varied population whose roots were in many different soils south of the border but whose language and culture gave them much in common.

In the present day, Latino (1946) has emerged as an alternative to Hispanic. It is preferred by many, in part because it acts more like a Spanish word and also because it invokes cultural ties with Latin America rather than Spain
Personally I think the term is now a matter of pride and for some, distinction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2008, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Yet; person of 'Hispanic' heritage (insert race here______) born/raised in Sweden, UK, Australia, Germany, etc. would be a national/citizen of one of the countries in question-----and, not 'Hispanic' under US gov't guidelines.

OTOH:

There is no Hispanic DNA------if anything: most Spaniards, Portuguese, English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh males share the same basic 'Y' chromosome.

As do many of the above groups' descendants--------both Anglo and Latino here in the USA, Canada and Latin America let alone other places colonized by men from any of the six listed 'ethnicities'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 05:29 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,612,395 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50 View Post
This is the true definition of Hispanic:


MSU Human Resources - Definitions of Racial/Ethnic Identifications


But I think this one applies more today:


Hispanic: Definition and Much More from Answers.com


Personally I think the term is now a matter of pride and for some, distinction.
Thanks for looking this up---pretty much what I'd have guessed. It STILL seems like quite a stretch to me-it's hard for me to see much commonality in this HUGE category....

I will concede that, If we're talking about the "Human race", perhaps we could say there's a "hispanic part of the world"--OK, fair enough. It's not the Middle East, it's not China, it's not Scandinavia, true enough. It's "Latin America and Spain"--OK

But I STILL don't think this works in --(for example) a classroom of kiddies, or a neighborhood. The Greeks, the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, and the Jews are all "Anglos", while the Puerto Ricans, the Argentines, the Mexicans, and the Colombians are all "hispanics"? Seems like the classroom teacher would find this very difficult, and so would the kiddies....They might want to 'divide up' differently----or not to divide up at ALL....(Just my opinion)

BTW, I also think the term is DIVISIVE---I think it categorizes people. One of my very biggest "Pet Peeves" is the term "legal Hispanic". I find this VERY demeaning. It sounds too much to me like an "educated Black"----or an "open-minded white"-----or a "law-abiding Italian". It's condescending.
I REALIZE that the term has become fashionable, due to the presence of millions of NON-legal Hispanics. But it STILL stings, and it's STILL demeaning....

Last edited by macmeal; 02-05-2008 at 05:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 06:45 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,581 times
Reputation: 37
''I'll say ONE THING about "Hispanic", though...as silly as it is, it's a LOT more descriptive than "PERSONS of COLOR"......try to put THAT in a neat category....ever eat a "person of color" dinner?....or listen to "music of color"?......didn't think so..''

You're right. In this world, you can always find something worse than anything. The term ''people of color'' is the media's way of trying to separate what they want people to believe is ''white'' and non-white. What they're doing is revising history. Many young people like myself have no clue what to think. For example, for as small as an Asian or Latin American (nonetheless non-white Latin American) population that exists in the south, it'd be politically incorrect to insinuate they would have been subjected to the segregation of the south.

Even if they were treated differently than whites, it wasn't in the same fashion to how they treated blacks. The discrimination Mexican-Americans have endured in this country is similar to those of immigrant's who came before them. Out of all immigrants, Mexicans have arguably been treated the best. And no I don't consider all American white kid making a joke about migrant workers elevated harassment. What Japanese-Americans had to endure was worse. Irish immigrants were treated much worse than them.

A comparable group for them would be Italians. Italians were them 100 years ago. They were catholic countries with too many people that needed to dump out there poor to a country that would offer them citizenship at a quick rate. The only difference is that Mexicans primarily use the west and mid-west more frequently, where as Italians used the northeast and some similar areas in the central.

Anyone who says ''people of color'' is simply a brainwashed idiot. It's like the media wants people to believe no matter if you're black, foreign or anything, you'll be subjected to severely poor treatment, which isn't true. Most immigrants who come to this country do endure culture shock, but are accepted well. This country will be as good as you make it for yourself. The only difference is there are a decent amount of countries that are more worth going to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 07:04 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,581 times
Reputation: 37
''I'd prefer the term South American, but then again, thats really not geographically correct. Latin American works.''

Both wouldn't be bad. The problem is that both could seem general and steal the individual country in which you are or descend from. A geographical reference would be politically correct because these countries have somewhat similar culture, economic situations, religious views, climates, histories, styles of governments, ect.

This would still be an unclear reference regarding the ethnicity issue though. It shouldn't be an issue, but people can't just re-construct things to fit their day to day lives, just because our government and media doesn't provide us with clear distinctions. In Europe and other parts of the world, they don't need government intervention on these kinds of social issues because they think at a better level. They're more self-confident and don't need to be babied.

This government should treat people of Latin American descent as if they were of European descent. ''Brazilian'' or ''Colombian'' is not an ethnicity. With the exception for people of indigenous descent (who should be better acknowledged), these countries are secondary countries in the regard that thy were discovered in the post-1492 era. People in this country don't understand this. Even a lot of people of these descents can't get past a broad sense of this. If they can't take the energy into researching your heritage though, than that person shouldn't act as if they're interested in their culture.

About 49% of people of spanish-speaking Latin American descent in this country claim to be racially white. About 48% says they're either two or more races, or don't feel a good enough option was provided by our incompetent Census. This government secludes them when they want to from whiteness, and inserts them as they please.

That is why I believe this government is protecting the status quo's whiteness. In between 51% of the United States will be of European descent in 2050 (24% Latin American, 13% black, 11% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1% Native American/Alaskan Native). As flabbergasting as this actually sounds, even if you were of direct Spaniard descent that came to the United States, the United States government would not classify you as white under the 1970, 1980 or 1990 Census'. Some Americans are so stupid they actually take into this sometimes. Isn't it obvious what they're doing though? When everyone is assimilated and Latin American immigration is just about done, they'll re-classify them as white.

Half of that 24% will classify themselves as white, so this country would still technically be 63% white (as opposed to 69% white not counting people of Spaniard descent as white in 2000). People of Latin American descent are being used like little toys to what ever fits their government's interests. In return, the Latin American immigrants will not have children who have to suffer impoverished generations. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, if this country let people knew what was going on and actually took the initiative to help destroy the factions to ''blackness'' that are keeping inner-city African-Americans behind. This government plays games in telling people that we are all equal, yet we except separations we can't control that go too far and stand in the way of economic assimilation.

Basically, the term's Hispanic and people of ''color'' need to go. It's not as if any unfiltered intelligent uses them anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 07:07 PM
 
608 posts, read 880,943 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
Yet; person of 'Hispanic' heritage (insert race here______) born/raised in Sweden, UK, Australia, Germany, etc. would be a national/citizen of one of the countries in question-----and, not 'Hispanic' under US gov't guidelines.

OTOH:

There is no Hispanic DNA------if anything: most Spaniards, Portuguese, English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh males share the same basic 'Y' chromosome.

As do many of the above groups' descendants--------both Anglo and Latino here in the USA, Canada and Latin America let alone other places colonized by men from any of the six listed 'ethnicities'.
Yup there is no Hispanic DNA. In NY there are restaurants run by Cuban-Chinese. Guess what they speak 3 languages one of which is Spanish. So they are technically Hispanic too. Though I don't recall if the census has a box for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 07:14 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,612,395 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyc0127 View Post

A comparable group for them would be Italians. Italians were them 100 years ago. They were catholic countries with too many people that needed to dump out there poor to a country that would offer them citizenship at a quick rate. The only difference is that Mexicans primarily use the west and mid-west more frequently, where as Italians used the northeast and some similar areas in the central.
.
SOME similarities, true. The fact is that Mexican immigration is pretty much unique. It's a fact that Mexico did (for a few years) actually "own" a large part of the US. They were here first (a very FEW individuals) and these folks were 'absorbed' into the new 'regime'. They've been coming, more or less steadily, ever since. "Mexicans" represent just about the OLDEST as well as the NEWEST immigrant groups.
But whether their claim to the land is legitimate, is VERY "Iffy". France, Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, Russia, and Holland ALL "owned" parts of the US at one time, too...nevertheless, their modern descendants have no "hereditary claim" here.

The great "wave" of Italian immigration arrived at a time when America was a "tough club" to get into. The 'newbies' were teased, mocked, ridiculed, and generally "stigmatized" into assimilation as rapidly as possible. There was little sympathy for their problems. Society considered these Italians "lucky" to be here (and they AGREED), and felt no need to 'accomodate' them..they were expected to do the accomodating, themselves---and, over the years, they did so.

Today, long-established Mexican-Americans form a large, traditionally patriotic part of the population in the SW. The "new guys" though, arriving in recent years, have now entered a society eager to "accomodate" them. They are encouraged to retain their culture, and assimilation isn't pushed or even encouraged---it's just a personal choice. Even legal status is no longer mandatory. People who circumvent the laws aren't called 'trespassers'--they're called "illegal immigrants"--or, many times, just 'immigrants'.

There's a BIG difference in what the Italians "stepped into" back in 1900, and what the Mexican illegals are encountering today.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 07:37 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,581 times
Reputation: 37
''PS--- notice that the term "anglo" is rapidly losing its credibility--why? Because it's SILLY!..what on EARTH is an "Anglo?".....just about as sensible a term as "Hispanic" though...''

I've only lived in the east-coast time zone in my life, so I've obviously received much less exposure to that term. I have researched it though. Here is my take on it.

Very few white Americans call themselves by that title. It sounds awkward to them. They actually don't say anything. If they were to self-identify, it'd probably be as Americans. People have a way in this country of saying ''Americans'' for white people, without having to use any adjective that comes before it. It doesn't sound right to them.

The only people who do use it usually are in the ''gray'' territory (primarily Mexican immigrants of a few decades ago). To them, saying white sounds tasteless or controversial. They aren't stupid though. They know their future children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will co-exist in the same areas with them. They're very reluctant to denying their ''whiteness'', because they don't want them to be treated differently. They don't want them to have to limit themselves to people of their descent as some kind of unnecessary ethnic obligation. Most immigrant's still holding many of their foreign thinking patterns. If people had this idea of ''racial obligation'' in Mexico, than you wouldn't see the majority of the population be meztiso.

To them, they don't want to put their ''whiteness'' in jeopardy. It's not because they believe in the racial aspect to it, because they could care less for that part. It's because they attach it to the ideal of Americanism in which I described. They take being white pretty much equates to the face of America. They don't want to be different. They know they'll have to endure the foreign and counterculture part of things, but don't want to endure any more than this.

The only people you'd see saying this would probably be Edward James Olmos in a movie like Selena. Or a grandmother who is passing improper judgement. I'm of a few different backgrounds, but I noticed a similar circumstance in my own grandmother. My father's side of the family is of Italian of descent, my mother's is of Irish and a little Spaniard.

There is no such thing as the ethnic Italian identity in this country anymore. Most lost their identity in the 50's for several reasons such as people becoming less religious, moving to suburbs and economically assimilating. They held onto their ethnic title for about 50 years, likewise to Irish. If any of you don't believe me, than explain to me why Rudy Giuliani's heritage was never brought up. So many new things have been embraced (Clinton - women, Obama - half black - with Kenyan born father, Mitt Romney - Mormon, part Mexican/Nicaraguan descendant - Bill Richardson). However, in her day, she may have acquired more recognition.

She was born in 1939. None of her parents were from Italy, but all four of her grandparents were. My grandfather was of Italian descent too. One of his parents was an immigrant (his father immigrated in 1926) and his mother was from the U.S. Both of my grandparent's didn't speak Italian fluently, but were lower-middle class and my grandfather was blue-collared. Both were raised in their ethnic enclave (Boro Park, Brooklyn). They moved out to the suburbs in 1962 though (Staten Island - even though it was a really crapy suburb).

She obviously had anxiety in this move. She often feared that her children might be treated ''differently.'' She soon realized that the area she moved to actually had a lot of people with similar histories looking for a cheap out though. She'd often refer to white people as ''Irish'', even if she didn't know if they were. It was her indirect denotation of a non-Italian catholic.

Technically, she was probably right a lot (under lineal terms). That doesn't mean it was politically correct to assume though. Nonetheless was here ethnic identity dissolving, but people of Irish descent lost their ethnic identity a half century before she moved out to the suburbs. They didn't call themselves Irish. They didn't self identify as Irish. Even though being the ''all-American'' whites don't seem to be statistically significant in New York City (even though the movies, shows and camera men at sporting events try to prove otherwise) , it doesn't mean they automatically receive an ethnicity because they don't seem to fit into that city very well.

It was her scapegoat. By denoting people as ''Irish'' (or more uncommonly ''German'') without any prior knowledge, it protected her ''whiteness'' and Americanism. She isn't that smart, so she wouldn't actually realize it, but she basically believed that ''white privilege'' was more valuable than who she actually was? Realistically where she knew it or not, her heritage was dissolving either way, but allowed her heritage to go down with a bad taste.

I once asked her if she was given a choice from the Census: white or Italian, which would she choose. She said white. I said, what if you had more than one option? She still said white. She said it wasn't anyone's business to know her business, even though she says she's proud to be of Italian heritage. With that, she's destroyed her heritage because she curved her heritage more than a Tom Glavine curve ball. However, she did say her father would have chosen Italian. It's likely because he was more self-assured of his identity and accepted the world as it was in his time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 07:41 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonCynic View Post
Yup there is no Hispanic DNA. In NY there are restaurants run by Cuban-Chinese. Guess what they speak 3 languages one of which is Spanish. So they are technically Hispanic too. Though I don't recall if the census has a box for that.
Said Cuban-Chinese are indeed Hispanic; Alberto Fujimori, the former president of Peru is also a Latino-------of 100% Japanese heritage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 07:50 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,581 times
Reputation: 37
''This is the true definition of Hispanic:''

This is the technical American version of things. This wouldn't technically apply to those in Latin America though. They don't recognize the term ''Hispanic'' as an ethnic or cultural reference. Even if it were more politically correct under cultural terms, they just have better options than to do that. Each country had their own individual culture and doesn't feel the need to group their heritage with another. These people pride themselves in their individualism and are not desperate.

On the other hand, in America, people are more ''needy.'' They have a way of believing that if you don't exist, you aren't important. Although that could be partly true, that's part of the sacrifice of coming to this country. It might suck to not be able to relate to others, but it'd be worse to create your own world and own rules. That's what video games are for.

People do not live under the terminology of technicalities. People live their lives as their society promotes. The term Hispanic has never been integrated nor necessary in Latin America. The best you'll see there with that term is if there is some sort of international business connection with the United States that is merely describing the linguistics of a person. You might also see a commercial on a Spanish channel in the United States (like a cell phone commercial saying ''Hispano'' - the technical modernized translation for the term Hispanic). That is because they are purposely marketing to Latin American immigrants in the United States who have obviously been corrupted with our American view of this.

I say let people of Latin American descent judge this for themselves. It's there descent, so they should have a voice in this. Most people of Latin American descent either came during this generation or after. They have never been given a choice upon any ethnic designation. They deserve a larger voice and should ask for opinions from people of variety of country's backgrounds, education levels and economic situations.

Basically, as a cultural designation, it's not that this term is inappropriate, but rather obsolete and uninteresting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top