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 02-08-2008, 12:52 PM
 
Location: California
3,432 posts, read 2,163,495 times
Reputation: 138

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Let's take it further: What happens to hispanics who aren't mixed at all?

White Hispanics...Cameron DIAZ, Christina AGUILERA...members of "LaRaza?"

What about black Hispanics who aren't mixed?
Hispanics who aren't mixed what do you mean? Christina Aguilera is half equadorian? Just because they appear WHITE people does not mean they aren't Mixed. I have a lot of cousins with White skin and colored eyes, our grandparents are pretty mestizo besides my grandma who has red hair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,650,644 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProLogic View Post
Hispanics who aren't mixed what do you mean? Christina Aguilera is half equadorian? Just because they appear WHITE people does not mean they aren't Mixed. I have a lot of cousins with White skin and colored eyes, our grandparents are pretty mestizo besides my grandma who has red hair.
In all fairness: most 'pure' Anglos' ain't 100% White.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2008, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,650,644 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
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.
Makes a lot of sense to me.

In fact: in my personal case; I hate cold/snowy weather because it reminds me of the Wash DC area which holds too many bad memories hence my living here in the West where it is warm and dry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2008, 08:55 PM
 
418 posts, read 265,382 times
Reputation: 37
''To throw a curveball into the 'Hispanic' conundrum: Felipe Fernandez-Armesta; was arrested for jaywalking in Atlanta a few years back.

Apparently in England jaywalking is not illegal and Fernandez-Armesta, being born and raised in the UK did not know that.

I find is ironic that the US Hispanic organizations did not scream in rage over a 'Hispanic' being manhandled by the police.

Hmmmmm........maybe being born/raised in the UK turns a 'Latino' into an 'Anglo'------in the eyes of la raza ''

Yeah, that is interesting, but explainable. For one, there are few people of Latin American descent in Atlanta. There are actually more in the surrounding suburbs (although statistically still less than the U.S). Basically, when there are no people of Latin American descent around, they have no identity, therefore people don't know what to think about them (kind of like the example I gave about people being unsure of where Middle Easterners ethnically fall) because there is no integrity in the term. In other word's, if someone of Peruvian descent lived in Alaska, they wouldn't have any identity.

People in the south wouldn't be enraged, because they wouldn't have known if he was ''Hispanic.'' Even if they did know though, it wouldn't be it's associated with being socially treated poorly nor economically behind. In the eyes of a racist from the non-south, the media controls them much more than southerners. Racist white southerners take a more bias oriented societal approach that has lived in their system for a very long time. That system tells them to hate blacks and hate what their values go against. That is why a white racist southerner/mid-westerner typically would hate blacks, Jews and gays. Even if they believe Latin Americans were united, what would they have societally against ''Hispanics?''

Most of them are too stupid too even know they're Catholic. If anything, they could societally relate to them. Both of their whites brutally owned slaves and a large proportion of their population wouldn't apologize for this. It doesn't mean they said it was good either, but they ignorantly just choose to ignore. In fact, the argument has been made the institutionalized racist exists in Latin America much worse than the U.S. Here's a good question though. What has more institutionalized racism: Latin America or the south? I believe it's a tie. People have that theory ''don't ask questions'' and people don't even think about these kinds of things a lot.

Where as on the other hand, a racist white in a more liberal area is engulfed by the national media. The media has less influence and less interest in the south. That is why if you were to talk to white racist loser in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, the two groups they'd rant against would be the media-tag team pumped: blacks and ''Hispanics'' or 'minorities' (which to them, means the same thing).

The biggest reason why it wouldn't exist is because without people, there is little political baggage. For one, in places like New York City, you see the media always tag-team the terms black and ''Hispanic'' to together, even though they have nothing to do with each other. Both of their predominate populations are lower-middle class, but it's for different reasons. Most Americans (especially white suburbanites who vote) are too stupid to see this though. If they see two poor people, they can't decipher why. Most of the time, they don't even try. They believe every word the media tells them. The liberal media uses this to separate identities of ''whiteness'' and ''non-whiteness.''

That is why they want you to believe that conservatism is only linked to white Christians. Remember, though most of the liberal media still is white. This is a fight for politics. The liberal media does a good job demonizing conservatives for having a non-diverse base. Basically, if your a liberal politician you want to spoon feed poor blacks, pretend you love them in front of them and make fun of them behind their back. If your a conservative, you don't even get involved. Personally, if it were to come between those two, it really sounds like conservatives are winning. That is much of the reason why Republicans have been much more united, which is why they've had the white house in 28 out of the past 40 years.

The local politicians and media can't use the term ''Hispanic'' as a weapon, if they are small in percentages. And if they're small in percentages, than any possible unity would be even further diminished. Basically, in Atlanta, you're either white, black or Asian. Some people might feel different to this (although rarely on a local level), but they wouldn't know how to react to possible ignorance pumped by the media, because it isn't to their norm. Basically, it'd be really awkward (and useless) to them.

Personally, I don't recognize any ''Hispanic American'' organization, because they're no less dirty than anyone else. They know it doesn't exist. A lot of their worker's aren't even of the make-believe ethnicity they don't even believe in. As far as I'm concerned, even if all of their lineage isn't European/white, La Raza is a white organization. I don't know if you meant that in reference to the actual organization or the kind of loser's you'd see in the movie Walkout (wasn't one of their main actors a main Mormon wife in Big Love on HBO?). Here is what I say. People who believe in ''la Raza'' are like divisions within white nationalism/supremacists. Both of them think they mean more than what they do.

Notice though, I said their a ''division'' rather than a ''version.'' Typically, people media and people that don't like La Raza would say groups like them are ''versions'', which inadvertently separates them from the white categorization. I say they're a division though, because not just are they white, but are all well in the interest's of white America the media and the government.


Let's look at the culture though. It is to my belief that there is no word for race is the Latin language. For what's in the Spanish language, maybe this is as close it's going to come. Did this belief exist in Latin America though? Surely, race (or skin complexion or features) did, but did it exist in the way we know it in America? No. And because people have felt the need to cultivate dog crap like this together, it's corrupted their culture. Basically, the few losers that may have believed they were treated differently for the way the looked (not that many) should have manned up like the rest of every immigrant. That was to go down hard in the immigrant generation, which meant working hard, keeping your mouth shut and providing a future. In this country though, you are taught to live for the day (and ironically always be one step ahead of yourself) and whine, so it doesn't surprise me that garbage like la raza exists.

Notice though, I said their a ''division'' rather than a ''version.'' Typically, people media and people that don't like La Raza would say groups like them are ''versions'', which inadvertently separates them from the white categorization. I say they're a division though, because not just are they white, but are all well in the interest's of white America the media and the government.


Although it doesn't go far, the same way how people are taught in school about Dr. Martin Luther King is how their attempting to inject Cesar Chavez into our public education system more. Most who went to high-school would have a lot less written about in his in their textbooks in the 80's as opposed to now. I have respect for Cesar Chavez, but not for the intentions of those who write in book's about him. He was an important man for immigrant farmers in California.

He wasn't a national figure head for ''Hispanics'', because most people of that descent in this country either didn't know who he was at the time (or may have not even been in the United States altogether) in which he was fighting for them to get better rights. In my opinion, he could be consider one of the best figure heads a union could idolize. However, he never did anything for people of Latin-American descent, because they never existed anymore united than those of European descent.

Each has gone their own separate way following the ideals of individualism. The corruption has even entered our education system now. And at the same time, they're disrespecting and destroying the historical legacy of a man who did much, but not what want people to believe. Basically, there was no ''Hispanic'' Martin Luther King, because ''Hispanics'' never existed. See how this crap gets squirmed into our system? Did any of you know or care about that? No, because it's small, but it all builds up.

Notice though, I said their a ''division'' rather than a ''version.'' Typically, people media and people that don't like La Raza would say groups like them are ''versions'', which inadvertently separates them from the white categorization. I say they're a division though, because not just are they white, but are all well in the interest's of white America the media and the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2008, 08:59 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,650,644 times
Reputation: 3785
Please explain Leander H. Perez of Louisiana.

He was a rabid White supremacist of Spanish heritage-------in other words: under US guidelines today, a Hispanic.

In most countries: there is no 'Hispanic' legal definition------they are lumped in whatever actual 'race' that is recognized by the government.

A brown Mestizo Hispanic in South Africa was counted as being 'colored' due to his skin tone whereas a White Hispanic was simply 'White'------with all of the racial advantages for the latter under apartheid in the last half of the 20th Century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2008, 09:24 PM
 
418 posts, read 265,382 times
Reputation: 37
''Hispanics who aren't mixed what do you mean? Christina Aguilera is half equadorian? Just because they appear WHITE people does not mean they aren't Mixed. I have a lot of cousins with White skin and colored eyes, our grandparents are pretty mestizo besides my grandma who has red hair.''

Well, that depends on how you look at it. The make believe ''Hispanic'' you described was Christina Aguilera. Nonetheless is most of the integrity gone in such a context, but it even becomes more a joke when you're ''mixed.'' Her mother's lineage was Irish.

Let me ask you this question. Why is that you question her father's lineage, yet not her mother's? Why are so assured that her mother is fully white, yet not her father's? I'm sure there are several reasons, but the main one is that the American culture has taught you that Euro-American people are locked safely in pure whiteness. No one has taught in this country that Latin American lineage is ''locked.'' In fact, it's little discussed because it's too complicated nor of the social interest of most of our citizens.

I doubt we seen what the rest of her family looks like or have access to the description of her lineage ''within the lines.'' American society has taught you that it's okay to question Latin Americans who are white physically, but not to do so for white Americans. Hypothetically speaking, even if we were to know that her lineage on her Irish descended side of the family was fully ''white'', it doesn't necessarily mean that her Ecuadorian side isn't fully (or 95%+) Spaniard/European descended.

There are pretty much two thing's we're arguing here: white or mixed. The thing is we don't know. You can make the argument that we shouldn't make a judgement as to if she is white or not on her Ecuadorian side because we don't know if she's white. However, we could also make the argument that you shouldn't make a judgement because you don't know if she's mixed. Truthfully, it wouldn't be right for any of us to judge. We are judging though, and if we were so timid to do so, this thread probably would have never existed.

With that coming in mind though, you have to work with what you got. The fact that she looks very white obviously leans to the probability we are probably right. You could make this argument about any though. What you're doing is taking the way how her ancestors culture was, inserting it into Americanism and staying confused because you're unclear of the facts.

I think it's somewhat ironic that you're arguing the ''fullness'' of Christina Aguilera's whiteness on her Ecuadorian side, when most people in Ecuador really aren't concerned for that. And where as in America where whiteness can be identified by statistical percentage, you put no importance on that and ''assume'' that her mother's lineal ''whiteness'' is full, which is actually what people in Ecuador would have done.

The fact is there is really no clear way for us to look at it. America and Latin America has different culture. You have to ask someone who has a neutral view who understands this topic (i.e. someone from South Korea or Nigeria). Our American culture mandates that statistical fractions/percentages determine much of the laws of the socially constructed whiteness; where as Latin America bases it off of your skin color/physical appearance, economic state and how you act (i.e. what is your level of education?). Both have indirect favoritism to whiteness, because both of their cultures were originally established by white colonizers who injected that blonde hair and blue eyes was the beauty of earth.

I'd like to hear a neutral perspective on this, because it would very valuable. Obviously, even for people that represent American, Latin American and mixes of both cultures have leaned much into a consensus to the belief that the term ''Hispanic'' actually doesn't exist and was injected into our culture as a crafty political tool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2008, 12:15 AM
 
418 posts, read 265,382 times
Reputation: 37

''Please explain Leander H. Perez of Louisiana.''

Well, it's ironic that Perez died in 1969, one year before the term ''Hispanic'' was implemented into our system. Leander H. Perez definitely proves two of my points. It's been somewhat difficult finding his lineal heritage, but obviously some of it is Spaniard. This isn't so much now, because much of all's individual heritage goes unrecognized, but history Spaniards were consider one of the most similar to the French in New Orleans. In general, there countries are similar because they are geographically located north/south of eachother, are (or were) predominantly Catholic and spread their colonization.

The way how French descendants were seen in Spanish speaking Latin American countries isn't that different visa versa. The difference is the common terminology. France obviously has had much less colonization than Spain. Spain and England were arguably the most powerful European empires. We notice that because the Spanish and English cultures are two most obvious cultures, languages and descents in our society and most of the western Hemisphere.

Because Spain's empire was larger, there was more opportunity from the French to move there as opposed to visa versa. New Orleans, little populated parts of the other areas in the Louisiana Purchase, Quebec and other parts of modern Canada were apart of their empire. Although it isn't statistically common, direct Spaniard descent (that came a while ago) is actually pretty common in New Orleans and areas outside of there (especially St. Benard's Parish).

Much of this reason is due to that area being very Catholic (historically - I don't people are very religious there anymore - if they still live there after Katrina). A couple hundred years ago, Catholics wanted to live with each other. The French were the first to establish this territory. So from a historical view, being of Spaniard heritage there in comparison to French is relatively similar to German to Austrian. I wouldn't be surprised if much of his lineage was French, but the part of his heritage that survived it's ancestry was his Spanish descent and last name.

During his career, I don't really think it mattered of whether you were of French or what ever descent down there, because few held onto the ability to speak the language. Outside of slavery, New Orleans history pre-1804 wasn't culturally relevant to the rest of the south (although what seems to be the south now may have not been fully developed up to that point). This changed of a century though. Although not so much New Orleans, many white Americans (with their slaves) migrated to Louisiana (or immigrated in the early-to-mid 1800's). By the 1920's, they were definitely apart of the ''deep'' south that practiced segragation.

Much of their ''ethnic'' identity has dissolved. Much of their culture is centered around the historical traits (i.e. Mardi Gras). Their historical scent referred back to their French culture though. Louisiana is the least educated and poorest state in the United States. They often take longer to catch onto the national trends of the country. Very little Latin American immigrated ever occurred there, so peoples view on Latin American immigrated would be dry. People often have the idea that because we are all Americans, we all should know everything that goes on throughout our history at different times.

Things just aren't like that. You could have went years without meeting an immigrant in the deep south for much of their history over the past century. Basically, by that day, you were either white or black with no increments of anything within those cateogrizations. People only judge on what they see in this box. Much of this comes out of the societal structure. Families pass down information. Even to this day, people there just don't understand nor interpret immigration the same way as the rest of America. People base their information off of what they been taught. And to what they've been taught outside of post-80's national-modern culture, the name Perez was seen as an accepting name in Louisiana (like the last name Pierre in Colombia or Panama).

This wasn't a ''gray thing'' either though. Obviously, if he was accepted on the white citizens council board, he was accepted to be apart of white supremacy. I don't think he would have accepted by more elevated groups of hatred such as the KKK though because of his ties to Catholicism, even though he was excommunicated to the church.

The reasons for why he promoted such hatred towards blacks was politically motivated. That system supported racism and he believe enough people would support him if he were against it. If he were to live another couple decades though, his last name would have been more questioned. Even George Wallace and Trent Lott got to express some levels of sorrow and disgrace, where as he did with disgrace. And because of his last name, his views are and will continue to be seen as awkward corresponding to our modern-day culture. If a typical high school student were to learn about him in class, it'd be difficult for him to understand any of this though. He'd be confused and never understand why his name was Perez, if he was white, non-white or what ever else. It wouldn't be all there fault though, because much of the reason is because people don't know about him.

''In most countries: there is no 'Hispanic' legal definition------they are lumped in whatever actual 'race' that is recognized by the government.''

It's not just that they don't have ''Hispanic'' though, but I don't think there is anything equally as politically incorrect that would designate Latin American as ''one'' anywhere in this world. Part of the reason is because Latin American descendants are very low in population outside of the Western Hemisphere (especially South Africa), but it's also because the world understands that several continents made them who they were. The rest of the world understands their heritage a lot better than Americans, even though many never even came in contact with them.

Some of the countries with smaller (but still statistically small) percentages are Canada and Spain. They properly designate this. They allow people to judge for themselves, without the political tampering and unwanted mediated tilted of their identity. In America, they'll ask someone who identifies as ''Hispanic'' to what there race is, but it really doesn't matter. Outside of demographical usage, it would never be recognized. People don't care for those demographics. Even though the government displaced ''Hispanic'' as a race, they don't want their citizens to know nor believe this.

It's because it's a political weapon (for both parties) and because they will insert it's whiteness to when they feel it's necessary (when America becomes more Asian-American and less non-Spaniard European-American). I could be wrong, but something similar is likely to happen if so. Basically, the elimination of the term Hispanic without a ''new box'' would indicate that immigration is over and their technical ''whiteness'' will indirectly be determined. Newer generations will have to be the ones to have this though, because so much of this generation and probably new one will be engulfed by the political terminology of this.

The apartheid system could be somewhat similar to Latin America's. Some mixing did occur, but much more of the population is black over white. In ways, the apartheid system was like the worst parts of Latin America and the United States racism. Unlike both those countries, Europeans actually went into a place where Africans naturally lived, and expanding their imperialism. They instituted a hierarchal system likewise to Latin America that based off of skin-colors (especially for the ''coloured'').

Unlike America, they acknowledged mixed and treated them differently (although still poorly) than blacks. They've also had Asian immigration which arguably ''blurred'' things. South Africa had a movement that's climax was similar to the United States though. Blacks were oppressed against their will and fought for their rights. Although their country has problems such as AIDS, they have really grown and are heading in the right direction into being one of the best nation's in this world.

Latin America never had this movement (or not at any level similar to America or South Africa) and that is why you find blacks as white Latin American's puppets. That is why you hear stories about people ''scrubbing'' their skin. They need to be heard and should be proud of the way they look and their roots. Even if America has gone about this with much ignorance, at least they've taken the interest into liberating. Latin America will never overcome this until their government's apologize for slavery and take the initiative to equalize all, which both the U.S. and South Africa needs to progress in doing as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2008, 01:31 AM
 
418 posts, read 265,382 times
Reputation: 37
http://www.city-data.com/forum/world...ionalized.html

I posted a new question on a new thread if any of you are interest. I wasn't sure how to post a new poll question on here, so I decided to do it there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2008, 01:45 AM
 
1,156 posts, read 1,876,339 times
Reputation: 317
I don't see why anyone would care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2008, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,650,644 times
Reputation: 3785
Bottom line:

There is no Hispanic race.

A friend of mine: born and raised in Mexico along with both of his parents considers himself to be Hispanic------never mind that all four of his grandparents immigrated from Russia/Eastern Europe.

Alberto Fujimori too is a Hispanic-------despite his 100% Japanese heritage.

Both Jose Gonzalez and Maria Arredondo are Scandinavian: one born/raised in Sweden and the latter is a Norwegian-------never mind their Spanish names. Neither one is a Hispanic.

In other words: 'Hispanic' and Latino' are weasel words-------they are deceptive as to what they purport to mean.
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