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.
"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)."
I don't know what you consider white. I guess most people who are not Hispanic would think that Andy Garcia is exactly at the borderline for a white person. I'm not just talking skin color etc., it's the overall look. I've seen a really light skinned Mexican next to a dark Cicilian Italian and the Italian appeared more a caucasian than the Mexican. Latin America is about 20 -25% white at most.
Spain had different culture than the Brits, bringing women on these conquests was not done. Just check your history. South America did have some early 20th century migration from Europe, but nothing like the United States. Few million, tops.
''I don't know what you consider white. I guess most people who are not Hispanic would think that Andy Garcia is exactly at the borderline for a white person. I'm not just talking skin color etc., it's the overall look. I've seen a really light skinned Mexican next to a dark Cicilian Italian and the Italian appeared more a caucasian than the Mexican. Latin America is about 20 -25% white at most.
Spain had different culture than the Brits, bringing women on these conquests was not done. Just check your history. South America did have some early 20th century migration from Europe, but nothing like the United States. Few million, tops.''
Look at the first couple sentences of the first paragraph. Moderator cut: personal attack He's obviously mediterranean. He could relate to what someone in Spain or Italy might appear to commonly look like. He was in the godfather. Now, if being Spaniard or Italian is ''border-line'' white is a whole different argument. To the northern European descended predominance of white America, it might seem that way. When referring to internationally though, they are still white. Remember, being white is a social construction. It's the ideal of power. Even if a group like Finnish are obviously much more white, it's not a thing of technicality. It's about the ''empowerment'' of being white. Spain has had a lot more interaction with the western hemisphere and colonization than they did. Ironically, this government would say Spaniards are technically the least ''white'' of all European, Middle Eastern and North African countries, yet they were more oppressive and owned more slaves than anyone else. The second ''grayest'' group would be Portuguese, who are arguably the second most brutal group (who started the African slave trade).
Basically, being white is more of an icon. You wouldn't really feel white if you didn't come across people who didn't look like you nor share the same culture. So the whole impact of ''whiteness'' is much greater in Spanish through their cultural (not necessarily ethnic - although sometimes) integration with blacks and Native Americans. The philosophy is similar (although definitely not as excelled in such a short period of time) to the Nazi's feeling against Jews, Gypsies, Poles, gays and disabled people. The Spaniards killed off any indigenous person who weren't willing to adapt to their lifestyle (especially Catholicism). They torchered blacks likewise to the Germans did with Jews. Obviously, there reasoning was different (Hitler's hate vs Spain's economic desires). The only difference was that Spaniards gave a crappy choice to blacks and indigenous peoples, where as Jews and non-Aryan's in Germany didn't have any.
I don't know when Andy Garcia's family arrived to Cuba, but if they did during the more predominate 1600's or 1700's era, than it's likely somewhere down the lines his family owned slaves. Obviously, their ''whiteness'' wasn't being challenged in Cuba. I don't think the people who they killed and enslaved would have challenged that either. So if some below-average educated mid-western truck-driving ''Americana'' doesn't consider them
white, than I really doubt their opinion's are valued internationally or by Americans who actually have a brain.
Chances are, that typical ''Americana'' ancestors never even owned slaves. That hypothetical person's ancestors could have arrived during the era in Europe in the era of around when the civil war was ending.
So by all means, Andy Garcia is ''very'' white under international definition because of the psyche of his
ancestors. Technically, Spain may not be the whitest, but most others and I probably wouldn't be interested in arguing about who's ''technically'' 'not whitest' within Europe. You wouldn't have to really think that hard to do that.
''I've seen a really light skinned Mexican''
This light-skinned or dark-skinned crap needs to go. For one, that isn't how people identify in Latin America. And even if something in that area was used referring to skin complexion, it has to be absolved of and not integrated into our American system. The reason why is because the only group who uses that in this country are blacks. All it will do is confuse the terminology and deny the whiteness and oppression of their ancestors. Asians don't say that. Middle-Easterners don't say that. The American media wants to promote people to believe in the theory of this, because the propaganda helps influence the unity of the conformity to the make-believe ''Hispanic'' ethnicity.
Being that the ''light-skinned'' Mexican you described is likely to be both of Spaniard and indigenous descent, you're showing societal favor to the non-whiteness. By claiming ''light-skinned'', you're saying it's more in a reference to the ''non-white'' part of them, rather than it is actually acknowledging the indigenous descent. In America, that is how we're taught to think. It's similar to that ''one drop rule.'' It's as if you are mixed, than people refute the possibility of you being white altogether. In Latin America, that isn't done.
The social construction of whiteness could still be interpreted as ''full white'' if you look it there. That is why I say being ''white'' actually doesn't exist, but is rather something society has created. Trying to bring that philosophy into the United States just can't mesh. When people try to mesh that, that is when things become perplexing. You just can't do that. So by believing in the term ''Hispanic'' would actually be a counterculture to Latin American culture because they don't believe that all ethnically are one, especially be mere technicalities.
It also helps give the permission to tag-teaming ''Hispanics'' with blacks in the media. How often do you see thing's that tag-team them together in newspapers? When Bush was speaking in the state of the union address, he tag-teamed them together by saying ''Blacks and Hispanics test scores have risen.'' First off, even if ''Hispanics'' even did exist and that statement was true, the reasoning is completely different.
''Hispanics'' are not poor once they're Americanized. They reasoning for why their poor is because of their immigration status. The countries they come from are poor and they have too many babies which interrupts a possible career a women might have. The difference between being lower-middle class and middle-class in this country for a family of four is usually the female spouse's income. When Latin-Americans are in their second generation they're literally the same as European-Americans, if not better because of the possibility of bilingualism.
However, allowing them to be overshadowed by the poor immigrants intertwines the belief that people of Latin American descent are ''poorer'' in this country, which helps tag-team them next blacks, who they have nothing to do with. The reasoning for why African-American's have lagged behind economically is because of non-assimilation. It's because they use their history as an excuse for their lives. It's because so many of their parents should have never had the right to be parents. This usually isn't true in the south though because their family and religious values are higher.
Plus, if you don't work and make your own money in the south, no one is going to hold your handle. You'll suffer bad. Just look at the victims in Hurricane Katrina. 28% of the people in New Orleans didn't even have a car, even though their public transportation is horrible. Black immigrants from the West Indies and West Africa are actually very affluent and don't associate ''blackness'' into any of their economic or educational situations. So for them, it's mostly an inner-city African-American problem and not really a black problem how our media also loves to portray.
It's sad that we still do live in this modern-world with the idea of ''whiteness.'' The only way to defeat this is if we are all assimilated, and educated and economically equal. When that happens, we won't have to argue about the ''whiteness'' of people like Andy Garcia. Assimilation may suck that all of us lose the group traits that help give us our identity, but actually will advance who we are as individual people because we'll be more self-reliant and have more choices.
I know they didn't on there conquests, but they did when they moved here after the conquests were done. People continue to immigrate to the ''new world'' after societies had been established. Believe it or not, we aren't that off on our idea of how much of ''white'' we believe Latin America is. You believe 2 out of 3 are, I believe 3 out of 9 are. The way how I interpret it is that people should be giving the option to describe how mixed they are, or more in detail to what mixes they are. Although I'm not so concerned about the lineal part of thing's on social standards, literally knowing how much of their ancestry comes from Europe, Africa and natively Latin America would be valuable for demography.
../The only difference is that one may ''look'' different than the general population and that they're much more likely to be Catholic (even if it is just by title). They own their own businesses, drive trucks, work in retail stores, teach in schools, do border patrol and are soldiers just like anyone else. An argument could be made that areas like southern Texas are poorer than most of the country, but that's the same for all in that region.
It was basically created to serve the needs of the poor immigrants. It's upsetting that people who are most American than others would be tied into this poor intentioned term. One way or another, when this term becomes obsolete, the term will dissolve. And people 50 years from now will not know much about this. No one will tell anyone how it got there nor how it left. It will seem awkward to those who lived through out, just like it is to people who were raised and attended high school before 1970. You don't here them commonly expressing their dissatisfaction nor confusion with this term though.
Maybe because I live in the SW -- but I think the so-called "hispanics" of the SW don't look like Mexicans. To me they look like Americans, they dress like Americans. I'm referring to those people whose family roots go back for many generations -- and it's more than "rich" or "poor" because the long-time American hispanics don't look like rich Mexicans or poor Mexicans.
I also don't think Europeans look like white Americans. Same for Africans and black Americans. There is just something about style of dress, height and size, way of walking and talking, gestures -- all that -- that makes Americans look like Americans. When you see a group of Europeans in the USA, you can usually tell that they are from Europe -- and you can pretty much figure out if they're from England, Scotland, versus France or Germany. Culture and nationality do make for a certain "look" apart from race.
Wealthy Mexicans visiting here -- whether fair skinned or brunette, dress in a different way than the more casual American-dressing "chicanos" or other Spanish surnamed Americans. The Mexican Mennonites coming here to shop don't look like tourists from Germany -- nor do they look like American whites of German ancestry -- even though the "race" and ethnicity are one in the same.
Maybe because I live in the SW -- but I think the so-called "hispanics" of the SW don't look like Mexicans. To me they look like Americans, they dress like Americans. I'm referring to those people whose family roots go back for many generations -- and it's more than "rich" or "poor" because the long-time American hispanics don't look like rich Mexicans or poor Mexicans.
I also don't think Europeans look like white Americans. Same for Africans and black Americans. There is just something about style of dress, height and size, way of walking and talking, gestures -- all that -- that makes Americans look like Americans. When you see a group of Europeans in the USA, you can usually tell that they are from Europe -- and you can pretty much figure out if they're from England, Scotland, versus France or Germany. Culture and nationality do make for a certain "look" apart from race.
Wealthy Mexicans visiting here -- whether fair skinned or brunette, dress in a different way than the more casual American-dressing "chicanos" or other Spanish surnamed Americans. The Mexican Mennonites coming here to shop don't look like tourists from Germany -- nor do they look like American whites of German ancestry -- even though the "race" and ethnicity are one in the same.
I went to Mexico and its odd that they focus on European styles from their very haircuts to the close they wear, of course only the ones that can afford it. Nevermind the fact they are close to the U.S.
I have learned from this thread that Hispanics have a whole different view of race than pretty much the rest of the world. Middle Easterners would be barred from this conversation because they live in their own bubble where religion is paramount over race. And I said Andy Garcia would be considered white, but that his look would be right on the borderline on the white side of course. God, it is sad to see Hispanics so overwhelmed by this racial/color stratification thing, even to this day. The vast majority of you are mixed, just accept it and embrace this because you are the future of what the world will be, withoug the racial caste system of course. We don't need labels for mixed people like Mullato or Mestizo or Happa etc., because those terms for old colonial derogatory labels, Pan Racial would be a fine title. No need to go into percentages and schitzophrenic crap like that. Totally unnecassary and would open a hellish pandoras box that would divide us even further, if that was possible.
Even if spanish colonizers brough women later, you are talking about 100+ years of intermingling with the natives. Thats alot of Pan racial kids running around, and thus procreating further adding the color spectrum you see now.
I have learned from this thread that Hispanics have a whole different view of race than pretty much the rest of the world. Middle Easterners would be barred from this conversation because they live in their own bubble where religion is paramount over race. And I said Andy Garcia would be considered white, but that his look would be right on the borderline on the white side of course. God, it is sad to see Hispanics so overwhelmed by this racial/color stratification thing, even to this day. The vast majority of you are mixed, just accept it and embrace this because you are the future of what the world will be, withoug the racial caste system of course. We don't need labels for mixed people like Mullato or Mestizo or Happa etc., because those terms for old colonial derogatory labels, Pan Racial would be a fine title. No need to go into percentages and schitzophrenic crap like that. Totally unnecassary and would open a hellish pandoras box that would divide us even further, if that was possible.
Even if spanish colonizers brough women later, you are talking about 100+ years of intermingling with the natives. Thats alot of Pan racial kids running around, and thus procreating further adding the color spectrum you see now.
The funny thing is that we are the ones pointing it out. My parents were born and raised in Mexico and the issue of ones color never came up when they were growing up. Some were light skinned like my mother, and some were a little darker like my dad. The "caste" system so-to-speak is not really as out there as say the Indian caste system. These things are really not discussed, we Americans see to have open minds about everything which allows us to notice things like these.
I truly hope our open mindedness can teach Latin America to abondon, outright racist imagery in their culture. Tela Novelas would be a good start. Not only a majority of the actors are white, the few non-whites you see are maids, servants or criminals. The culture in the United States in this day and age would never accept that. We even like seeing the exotic in different peoples and actually have black people (not bleached black) living in Mansions right next to rich white people as "black people", not a new warped perception that they are now white due to their wealth. Crazy....
I truly hope our open mindedness can teach Latin America to abondon, outright racist imagery in their culture. Tela Novelas would be a good start. Not only a majority of the actors are white, the few non-whites you see are maids, servants or criminals. The culture in the United States in this day and age would never accept that. We even like seeing the exotic in different peoples and actually have black people (not bleached black) living in Mansions right next to rich white people as "black people", not a new warped perception that they are now white due to their wealth. Crazy....
But then again isn't White skin and blue eyes the most sought after type? Lets start off in our country, Abercrombie and Fitch? American Eagle? White skin and blue eyes is deemed beautiful in all cultures and countries. There have already been famous Afro-Mexican actors in various "telenovelas" such as Destilando amor and this other one I forgot the name of, he's an Afro-Mexican priest who is like Thalia's (the singer) guide.
Maybe because I live in the SW -- but I think the so-called "hispanics" of the SW don't look like Mexicans. To me they look like Americans, they dress like Americans. I'm referring to those people whose family roots go back for many generations -- and it's more than "rich" or "poor" because the long-time American hispanics don't look like rich Mexicans or poor Mexicans.
I also don't think Europeans look like white Americans. Same for Africans and black Americans. There is just something about style of dress, height and size, way of walking and talking, gestures -- all that -- that makes Americans look like Americans. When you see a group of Europeans in the USA, you can usually tell that they are from Europe -- and you can pretty much figure out if they're from England, Scotland, versus France or Germany. Culture and nationality do make for a certain "look" apart from race.
Wealthy Mexicans visiting here -- whether fair skinned or brunette, dress in a different way than the more casual American-dressing "chicanos" or other Spanish surnamed Americans. The Mexican Mennonites coming here to shop don't look like tourists from Germany -- nor do they look like American whites of German ancestry -- even though the "race" and ethnicity are one in the same.
I truly hope our open mindedness can teach Latin America to abondon, outright racist imagery in their culture. Tela Novelas would be a good start. Not only a majority of the actors are white, the few non-whites you see are maids, servants or criminals. The culture in the United States in this day and age would never accept that. We even like seeing the exotic in different peoples and actually have black people (not bleached black) living in Mansions right next to rich white people as "black people", not a new warped perception that they are now white due to their wealth. Crazy....
Tiger Woods (yeah I know, he is less than 1/2 Black but still) is such an example
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.
