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.
''Due to a large amount racism in Latin countries, you may find that many hispanics are choosing white, when they are in fact mixed. My guess, having lived all over the country that the Hispanic population is about 15% white, 70% mixed, 10% Amerindian and 5% black.''
Wouldn't it be a contradiction to believe that such elevated racism exists, yet so much mixing has too? It's like people think that ''racial purity'' is to exist at such a higher level in the United States and West Indies. This injection of our media's view that Latin America is mixed like a human blender is ridiculous. I do agree that some racism exists there and definitely isn't as openly discussed as it is in this country. There is definitely an economic hierarchy that leans to favor whites. That is why more immigrants who have come to this country appear to be less white than what Latin America actually is, which could be giving off the wrong interpretation of what Latin America really is.
The only exception to that is Cuba. 93% of Cuban-Americans in south Florida have self-identified as white. Many often identify themselves as Spanish-Cubans, as some of their ancestors have arrived to Cuba from Spain earlier than other parts of Latin America (similarly to Argentines). Most who came were middle and upper-middle class. They were educated and wealthy in their respective communities in Cuba. They knew in a communist country they couldn't capitalize on such economic opportunities in a place only 90 miles away (which was growing to become a very affluent place). Cuba is actually 1/2 half black/half white, about 3/8 white and 1/8 black. Those demographics were much different a half century ago though. Cuba used to be much more white.
Obviously, in places like Mexico and Guatemala, the indigenous percentage will be well-above 10 percent. Places like Argentina, Puerto Rico and Uruguay are more white. The Dominican Republic is more black. I'd say in the neighborhood of about 35 percent of Spanish speaking Latin America is white alone (excluding low percentages of possible Native American ancestry). I'd say in between 5 and 10 percent is black. I'd say about 10 to 15 percent is of indigenous ancestry. I could be off a little bit, but I don't think I'm that far off. With that being said, I believe in between 40 to 50 percent is legitimately mixed. Each country has very different demographics, so judging a categorization of over three quarters of a billion people (and over 10 percent of the world).
Sorry that I forgot to finish off the last sentence.
With that being said, I believe in between 40 to 50 percent is legitimately mixed. Each country has very different demographics, so judging a categorization of over three quarters of a billion people (and over 10 percent of the world) would be imporer.
What is that right/right thing with the twirling dots in the middle under my message? lol I know it's 3:19, but my eyes aren't that tired lol I'm going to bed, so I'll try to get back to you guys either tomorrow or Thursday.
Under US gov't guidelines; Spaniards are counted as 'Hispanic' whereas people of Portuguese/Brazilian, etc. heritage usually are not.
Technically speaking: folks from Belize are not Hispanic------never mind that a Mestizo from there named Jose Martinez speaking Spanish 'should' be
OTOH: for God's sake; please do not refer to a person from Gibraltar named Enrique Hernandez, Spanish speaking and all as Hispanic or Latino-------the Gibs (their own nickname) see themselves as English.
Final point: Hispanic culture tends to be White Supremacist (although being wealthy 'Whitens' social acceptance in the elite); the standard of beauty there is white skin and blue eyes. Take a look at a telenovela from SOB; the actors there tend to look like typical Northern European Anglo/Whites------never mind most of 'em are Mexican, legally speaking. If I were a Mestizo; I would be hurt and offended due to most Mexicans being of at least part Indian lineage.
''Due to a large amount racism in Latin countries, you may find that many hispanics are choosing white, when they are in fact mixed. My guess, having lived all over the country that the Hispanic population is about 15% white, 70% mixed, 10% Amerindian and 5% black.''
Wouldn't it be a contradiction to believe that such elevated racism exists, yet so much mixing has too? It's like people think that ''racial purity'' is to exist at such a higher level in the United States and West Indies. This injection of our media's view that Latin America is mixed like a human blender is ridiculous. I do agree that some racism exists there and definitely isn't as openly discussed as it is in this country. There is definitely an economic hierarchy that leans to favor whites. That is why more immigrants who have come to this country appear to be less white than what Latin America actually is, which could be giving off the wrong interpretation of what Latin America really is.
The only exception to that is Cuba. 93% of Cuban-Americans in south Florida have self-identified as white. Many often identify themselves as Spanish-Cubans, as some of their ancestors have arrived to Cuba from Spain earlier than other parts of Latin America (similarly to Argentines). Most who came were middle and upper-middle class. They were educated and wealthy in their respective communities in Cuba. They knew in a communist country they couldn't capitalize on such economic opportunities in a place only 90 miles away (which was growing to become a very affluent place). Cuba is actually 1/2 half black/half white, about 3/8 white and 1/8 black. Those demographics were much different a half century ago though. Cuba used to be much more white.
Obviously, in places like Mexico and Guatemala, the indigenous percentage will be well-above 10 percent. Places like Argentina, Puerto Rico and Uruguay are more white. The Dominican Republic is more black. I'd say in the neighborhood of about 35 percent of Spanish speaking Latin America is white alone (excluding low percentages of possible Native American ancestry). I'd say in between 5 and 10 percent is black. I'd say about 10 to 15 percent is of indigenous ancestry. I could be off a little bit, but I don't think I'm that far off. With that being said, I believe in between 40 to 50 percent is legitimately mixed. Each country has very different demographics, so judging a categorization of over three quarters of a billion people (and over 10 percent of the world).
No way Latin America is 35% white. Mexico for a fact is only 10% white and Central America is even less than that. Brazil is about 1/3 white,(lots of Brazilian friends who confirm this) even though many mixed Brazis consider themselves white. Argentina and Uruguay are the only countries in Latin America with a white majority. You say that because there are so many mixed people in Latin America disproves that racism exists in Latin America. This couldn't be further from the truth. Spain unlike the British or French did not bring women when colonizing the Americas. Spaniards mixed in with the indigenous population and set up a system of racial/skin color stratification which of course put pure Spanish blood on top. Hispanic culture is indeed truly racist and does not show any inclination to want to change a system that has been in place for 400+ years. At least the United States has improved, not all the way there yet but at least Blacks aren't using the brown bag test anymore. Light skinned blacks and dark skinned ones are just black, that's it. Barack Obama is a first generation black/white mix and considers himself African American. In Latin America, Obama would be trying to bleach himself (socially) with enthusiasm.
I don't think "mestizo" would garner a lot of support, though. You'd have white talking heads going on and on about how it's a derogatory, outdated, racist, colonialist term, blah blah blah. But it's a heck of a lot more accurate than "Hispanic."
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to class Vincente Fox and his relatives as "Hispanic" when the guy is racially more closely related to my white-bread Anglo-Irish family than to a Guatemalan peasant farmer.
That being said, I was friends for a long time with a second-generation "Mexican-American" who had, no joke, an Irish first and last name. His dad was of Irish descent and was himself a fourth-generation Mexican citizen, who married a woman whose ancestry went back to Spain. Needless to say, the guy looked as European as Tony Blair, but was officially "Hispanic." Weird.
He was QUITE assimilated; if you didn't happen to know that the dude's dad had a Mexican passport, you could never have guessed he had any ties there at all.
About Vincente there....FOX doesn't exactly sound very Spanish to me. Perhaps he has some British or Irish background?
Under US gov't guidelines; Spaniards are counted as 'Hispanic' whereas people of Portuguese/Brazilian, etc. heritage usually are not.
Technically speaking: folks from Belize are not Hispanic------never mind that a Mestizo from there named Jose Martinez speaking Spanish 'should' be
OTOH: for God's sake; please do not refer to a person from Gibraltar named Enrique Hernandez, Spanish speaking and all as Hispanic or Latino-------the Gibs (their own nickname) see themselves as English.
Final point: Hispanic culture tends to be White Supremacist (although being wealthy 'Whitens' social acceptance in the elite); the standard of beauty there is white skin and blue eyes. Take a look at a telenovela from SOB; the actors there tend to look like typical Northern European Anglo/Whites------never mind most of 'em are Mexican, legally speaking. If I were a Mestizo; I would be hurt and offended due to most Mexicans being of at least part Indian lineage.
It is a basket of snakes. ''
Yeah, it is pretty ironic. Technically, this government would classify Pau Gasol as ''non-white'' or a ''minority'', even though he could pass the stereotypical Canadian lumberback. They'd also say Cameron Diaz and Frankie Muniz are only ''part white.'' They'd say Jacksonville Jaguars coach Jack Del Rio isn't white. Where as on the other hand, you could be a very dark Middle Easterner who isn't physically camouflage to white America would be technically considered as white as someone from Iowa who refers to their heritage as Americana lol It'd be one thing if people actually believed in this, but I guarantee more people would notice the physical differences in middle easterner than Jack Del Rio in a mall.
They'd also be more ''willing'' to listen to what Brazilian or Brazilian-Americans would have to say.
The term is becoming obsolete though. For one, many people of Latin American descent have just never marked it. In the 1970 census, they actually had to re-structure it all over again because five percent of America marked ''South American'', because white southerners literally thought that was their physical lineage.
Nowadays, more people mark it, but not an overwhelming majority. On a national level, being that they have immigration records, it isn't that hard. It's also usually done better in major cities like New York City (27%), Philadelphia (8.7%) and Los Angeles (46%) because they're access to these records are better. However, they have a difficult time maintaining their integrity at the local level. For example, I live in suburban New Jersey. I live about 15 minutes away from Camden, New Jersey which is about 39% of Spanish-speaking Latin American descent. Generally, if I were to pick up a white pages anywhere in Camden, Burlington or Gloucester county, I'd find that about 10% of last names are Spanish surnamed.
However, the census classifies the town I live in as 1.8% ''Hispanic.'' They say that the state of Alabama is more Latin American than half of southwest Jersey. Just for the sake of curiosity when I was bored out of my mind one day in high-school in the first couple weeks of the school year last year, I listened for how many Spanish surnames there were out of all the names in the class. I counted how many people were in each class. Right about 1/10 had Spanish last names. Even if the Latin American population was younger and it raised it to 2.5 to 3 percent, it's not where what it is in reality.
Point being, people of Latin American descent don't buy into this. Most immigrant's have never come across this before. Most white-Latin Americans don't feel they aren't white, and feel that this term is ignorantly being pushed upon them. People don't feel as if the terms Hispanic (or Latino) are politically correct to denote racial classification. I wouldn't say most feel invaded because they are so used to it, but rather that they just don't care.
Than you have a few idiots who really buy into it. Those usually are young people who want to feel special to be ''different'' kind of like a punk rocker. Or politicians. Or people that can't except problems in life to their blame, so instead of being a man, would rather blame it on something like ''discrimination'', which is rarely true. There is no such thing as discrimination against ''Hispanics'' in this country, because ''Hispanics'' simply don't exist. There is discrimination to all immigrants or possibly a race within Latin America, but it doesn't exist that much.
Personally, if I were of meztiso background in Mexico, I'd be offended too. It's just the way how the society is though. No matter what European colonization it was, they'll favor the imagery of ''whiteness'' because that was the ideals of the society that came before them (i.e. England, Spain) , because that's what everyone there looked like. America definitely does a better job at giving people who look differently (i.e. Blacks, Asians) from the general population a face. They don't even do a bad job all the time with people of Latin American descent. However, they like to purposely keep the lines blurry so they know what punches they can give and when to do it. They know that this kind of thing is too complicated for most Americans to handle or have interest into, so they have the average Joe right where they want him.
''No way Latin America is 35% white. Mexico for a fact is only 10% white and Central America is even less than that. Brazil is about 1/3 white,(lots of Brazilian friends who confirm this) even though many mixed Brazis consider themselves white. Argentina and Uruguay are the only countries in Latin America with a white majority. You say that because there are so many mixed people in Latin America disproves that racism exists in Latin America. This couldn't be further from the truth. Spain unlike the British or French did not bring women when colonizing the Americas. Spaniards mixed in with the indigenous population and set up a system of racial/skin color stratification which of course put pure Spanish blood on top. Hispanic culture is indeed truly racist and does not show any inclination to want to change a system that has been in place for 400+ years. At least the United States has improved, not all the way there yet but at least Blacks aren't using the brown bag test anymore. Light skinned blacks and dark skinned ones are just black, that's it. Barack Obama is a first generation black/white mix and considers himself African American. In Latin America, Obama would be trying to bleach himself (socially) with enthusiasm.''
I'm simply accumulating what most of these government's demographics in Latin America as a whole. I could be a little off, but for the most part I am accurate. I know that those government's could be a little off, but it's not as if they aren't recognizing people as mixed. They could sure make it sound a lot whiter than what they actually are implicating. And just because you are mixed, doesn't mean you aren't part white. Each country has a different interpretation of what ''being mixed'' is. In general, if you aren't at least one-quarter white, black or indigenous corresponding to what ever your mostly are, you aren't consider ''mixed.'' Some might follow 1/8 too. Usually, black ancestry has been given more recognition to social recognition at lower percentages than indigenous ancestry because it is usually more physically noticeable in a white (or predominantly white person). The hostility against blacks is also great than it is to those of indigenous descent too.
''Brazil is about 1/3 white,(lots of Brazilian friends who confirm this) even though many mixed Brazis consider themselves white. Argentina and Uruguay are the only countries in Latin America with a white majority.''
Why do they feel so differently about this than? Up until 50 years ago, Cuba was predominantly white. 81% of Puerto Rico claims to be white. Although that is probably a little off, I don't think it's ridiculous to believe that at least 2/3 of that island is white. Because there were only 15,000 surviving Taino Indians going into the 16th century, Native American ancestry there is very minimal compared to their 6 million descendants even if you considered natural increase. Being 1/32 of Taino descent wouldn't qualify for being ''mixed.'' Surely, technically it could be, but people don't live by that. The whole idea of race is a social construction. A lot of white southerners and mid westeners would be mixed if they counted their traces of Native American ancestry as ''non-white'', but they obviously don't.
This isn't so much about the ''whiteness'', but rather the non-blackness of Puerto Rico. I have it very difficult to believe that a guy like Edgar Martinez has black in him. And if he did, it would be minimal and probably as commonly found in white Americans in the United States. Puerto Rico is a predominantly Spaniard descended island, and they agree. If you were to meet one of American descent, they'd be likely to be more mixed because the full whites on that island before the 60's (and even still now) were more economically stable. Still though, 62 percent of New York City's Puerto Rican descendants claim to be white. On an earlier report, 58 percent said that. About 10% said black both times, and about 30% said mixed.
As innocent as Latin Americans think Latin America may actually be, they obviously can't disprove racism. They had slavery just like the United States. Many of their countries didn't abolish slavery until after our's did (i.e. Puerto Rico - 1873, Cuba - 1886). It does exist, but sort of the way you might see in more conservative parts of this country. It's kind of like the expression ''don't ask questions'' in reference to how or why that society is the way it is.
I do agree that about half of Latin America is mixed, but still over 1/3 is legitimately white. The reason why many of them can't trace their descent back to places in Spain or Europe is the same as people of European descent in this country. Even though more of their ancestors have been there much longer than white Americans, they still no more upon what country their ancestry descends from (usually Spain) because it's simply common knowledge. This is usually more true in Puerto Rico, Cuba and parts of central America. The only part of Latin America that has statistically significant non-Spaniard (or non-Portuguese) descended European groups are mostly in south America (i.e. Brazil, Argentina).
''Spain unlike the British or French did not bring women when colonizing the Americas.''
All three countries brought less women and children than they did men. I'm not disputing that Spain brought the least of the three, but they still did bring women. They really didn't in the beginning because of the physical strain to the voyages, but most Spaniard descendants in Latin America don't descend from the first-comers. There were still people who came in later parts of the 1600's, 1700's and sometimes even the 1800's. When more women came later on, the whiter of the populations would contain their whiteness by staying to mostly whites. It's true that much of their population's may have trickles of indigenous descent in countries that aren't heavily indigenous, but it just isn't statistically significant enough to matter. Maternal lineage will look different than paternally, but that doesn't mean that many people aren't white (or 95%+ white).
By all means, you're right that different systems were established. It doesn't mean similarities were to come out of both of them though. In general, as much white ancestry is believed to exist in Puerto Rico as there is to the United States. Most whites in this country are fully of European descent (or 95%+). Part of the reason why is because they came later, but it's as if the parts of this country that appear to have the driest non-diverse closed minded whites with high black populations (the south) appear to be the least mixed (for whites). By statistical percentages, white southerners ancestors have been in this country longer than any other and the climax of racism could be comparable to Latin America's system, so it seems somewhat perplexing.
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.
That being said, I was friends for a long time with a second-generation "Mexican-American" who had, no joke, an Irish first and last name. His dad was of Irish descent and was himself a fourth-generation Mexican citizen, who married a woman whose ancestry went back to Spain. Needless to say, the guy looked as European as Tony Blair, but was officially "Hispanic." Weird. 
