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.
''Dude, are you O.K.?????????
Andy Garcia is the whitest person I have ever seen, oh my god, like an angel.
I hope that helps. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think most people just wouldn't care about what you, others and I are talking about here anyway. But I do know from what I have witnessed around the world (was in the Navy) people see race the way I just explained. They like it simple, you know....''
I personally don't care what Andy Garcia is, but I was just making a point. If you'd rather me prove the whiteness of Latin American descendants, I could have used Jeff Garcia lol I was arguing that he was ''white.''
Seeing things as simple is both good and bad. It'd be great if all of us could just see people as people, but not everyone chooses to follow that. Life isn't as always as clear as black and white. It doesn't necessarily give social permission to ''create'' new groups either, but it's really like a catch 22. It's like if talk about ''race'' or ''ethnicity'' too much, we're societally deemed as bigots ; or if we don't openly communicate about this kind, the top of the hierarchy (aka the media) is able to use basic citizens like us as their toys. It's great that all of have the ability to appropriately communicate about this, because all of us have looked at new perspectives about the integrity of the term ''Hispanic'' that all of us might not have if we didn't.
Each Latin American country has a different way of looking at race for a variety of different reasons. This could range from the demographics (i.e. Uruguay being much more white) to the level of democratization (does everyone have equal economic opportunities and the possible level of socialism). Each nation's history also plays a large role.
The fact that Mexico never had African slavery (with the exception of a statistically insignificant numbers) would obviously show difference into their idea of what ''blackness'' is from a place like the Dominican Republic or Cuba. Because the indigenous population was mostly killed off or just outnumbered, their interpretation of what indigenous identity will be much different than a country like Mexico or Guatemala.
Mexico did have African slavery -- significant in that there were more Africans than Spaniards in the early days of Mexico -- but they did eliminate slavery 50 years earlier than the USA.
You're right about different attitudes toward race. In Mexico, race is more cultural -- if someone lives "like a white" or "like an Indian", that's more important than actual race -- which means in Mexico it's more possible to forget birth race and move into another race. And one of Mexico's only two Indian presidents was Porfirio Diaz who lived as a Spaniard and exiled to Spain after the Revolution.
I think that's because in Mexico, the Indians had their own aristocracy and the Spaniards of that time certainly respected aristocracies. And the former black slaves could live as former black slaves -- which only a few did, or just blend in with the mestiso population and forget about the slave heritage -- and that's what most did. In Mexico the only people you refer to as Indians are those who live as Indians -- no matter how obvious the Indian racial heritage is in a mestiso -- he is just a Mexican and doesn't see himself as an Indian -- because he doesn't live as one. Kind of the opposite in the USA where people will claim Indian blood -- even though they have little of it and have none of the traditions. In the USA -- race "sticks" more than it does in Mexico -- but both countries have their forms of racism.
''Dude, are you O.K.?????????
Andy Garcia is the whitest person I have ever seen, oh my god, like an angel.
I hope that helps. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think most people just wouldn't care about what you, others and I are talking about here anyway. But I do know from what I have witnessed around the world (was in the Navy) people see race the way I just explained. They like it simple, you know....''
I personally don't care what Andy Garcia is, but I was just making a point. If you'd rather me prove the whiteness of Latin American descendants, I could have used Jeff Garcia lol I was arguing that he was ''white.''
Seeing things as simple is both good and bad. It'd be great if all of us could just see people as people, but not everyone chooses to follow that. Life isn't as always as clear as black and white. It doesn't necessarily give social permission to ''create'' new groups either, but it's really like a catch 22. It's like if talk about ''race'' or ''ethnicity'' too much, we're societally deemed as bigots ; or if we don't openly communicate about this kind, the top of the hierarchy (aka the media) is able to use basic citizens like us as their toys. It's great that all of have the ability to appropriately communicate about this, because all of us have looked at new perspectives about the integrity of the term ''Hispanic'' that all of us might not have if we didn't.
Want some more examples of self proclaimed Mexicans?
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/fotos/hatton55754.jpg (broken link)
*Ricky Hatton, British Boxer
No -- it's not a condemnation -- "slobs" is too judgemental -- I would say it's "informal" or "casual". That's one thing about Americans that is interesting -- you put Americans in Mexico -- even quite wealthy Americans and they'll head to the market and buy clothes of the peasants to wear. I used to see Americans wearing huraches de llanta -- the sandals made from old tires but acting like they were the latest fad and you just have to wonder what goes through the Mexicans' minds when they see that kind of thing.
I think that's one thing very cool about Americans. Just like jeans started out being clothes of the working man -- and pretty soon even the richest people are wearing them. Classism exists -- but there is at the same time a strong anti-classism with Americans.
Like one Mexican guy here told me about Americans -- we have as our luxuries what other people have as desperate necessities. Riding bikes -- he was commenting on how Americans will work all week and then go out riding bikes while the Mexican rides a bike only until he could have a car -- and once he has a car, he never wants to go back to that bicycle -- and the last thing he wants to do on a Sunday afternoon is ride around on a bicycle again. And camping trips -- to work hard all year, living in a nice comfortable house to spend 2 weeks sitting around a fire and sleeping on the ground in a tent.
A German once commented that Americans have a lot of room, lots of closet space and so fill them with lots of cheap clothes but in Europe, they have small or no closets and clothes are few but more costly well made ones.
All true, all 'telling', but more on the concept of "human nature' I think, than anything about different countries. American blacks of extremely humble backgrounds were once noted for being "natty" dressers on "the weekend". My own grandfather (a builder of railroad bridges, wearer of rough clothing, whose work clothes included suspenders and steel-toed boots) spent his weekends wearing a tie. He wanted to put the "rough" image behind him. Camping? are you kidding? His family went 1000 years without plumbing or elecricity---why would ANYONE want to go sleep in a tent?
Even 'hiking' probably doesn't have a lot of appeal to people who don't have cars. Going without a shave, and showing up in public in your grubby 'sweat pants" is fine, for affluent people. Poorer folks, though, are more protective of their image. No 'sloppiness" for them, at least not if they can HELP it...
Interesting, the National Park Service a few years ago made quite a study in seeking to find why black Americans made up such a small percentage of visitors to most National Parks. I can't help wonder if the bitter legacy of discrimination and being ostracized from society hasn't made these folks VERY reluctant to take any interest in "grubby" stuff, like camping out and being surrounded by a "primitive" environment. I'm not sure exactly what the NPS 'study" found out....
Reminds me of the time a few years ago, at my wife's workplace, someone went around and got quite a large, multiracial group interested in booking an employee "Sea Cruise". One guy, though, happened to be a Vietnamese "Boat Person". He gave quite a rant about how he'd left Viet Nam at the age of 8, spending 3 miserable weeks at sea, and he had absolutely NO DESIRE WHATEVER to now voluntarily go on a "cruise"....just too many painful memories to ever make him change his mind.
'La Raza' anymore is a generic term hence many of us using it.
I literally means 'the race'; which is a code word for Mestizo Hispanics.
Few White 'Hispanics' associate with the pro La Raza types due to the inherent racism within Hispanic culture.
Yes, the literal meaning. It's literal meaning is only used among brown supremacists.
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.
''
