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.
Well yeah, of course that's true. For one, they don't want to be miserable and don't want a cry for help. I don't consider there to be any ''radical'' Mexican groups, because they're losers. If they voluntarily chose to immigrate to the United States and are promoting the idea of being different than the white American population, they're useless to both themselves and society. Why move to this country to do that? If they were actually promoting their ideals in their own country though, it'd manage to have it's skewed fashion into leaning towards whiteness though.
They're obviously minimal to both Mexican and Mexican-American populations. They're just miserable losers who create unwanted anxiety because they think them (or ''there people'') aren't being treated fairly because ''they look different.'' A lot who actually believe in these garbage philosophies as you noted actually are relatively educated people, but have basically created their own little worlds. It always dissolve though. The person leaves, but the loser ideas stay. When they're 40 and have a job they don't like and complaining kids, their hobby and energy for hate will go away.
''As far as white guilt -- maybe it's not exactly guilt but Americans allowing themselves to be blamed for everything that goes wrong. Mexicans of Aztec descent certainly don't feel any remorse over their ancestors enslaving and cannibalizing other Indians of Mexico. They plain don't care.''
True, kind of like that example I gave with people in Germany's ancestors oppressing Jews. It's not to say people don't know it, but at an individual level - people don't think about it (and do their best not to) because they'd know it'd depress them and do nothing more than create hostility amongst groups. When Germany was started like crap after WWI, that's what got them hostile and needy for a leader they believe could improve their economic situation. And look at what Europe ''ragging'' on them created. Hell.
Regardless of whether you rag or ignore, obviously it shouldn't be at one extreme to the other. Everyone should know all the facts before ragging though. They shouldn't play a game of selectivity. Even if you weren't to blame at an individual level, you should societally acknowledge who's ancestors were internationally oppressive figures. That way, even if Americans look at them neutrally because of their newness, they know it'd be absurd to consider Spaniard descended Latin Americans ''oppressed'' or ''minorities'', when indeed their ancestors were the most abusing Europeans on this hemisphere.
As much as your post is enriched with information, I only read the first paragraph. Your posts are simply too long
If anyone is interested, I've created a new thread on City-Data. We discussed the poverty of inner-city African-Americans a little bit on here, but that's basically what this new thread is about. It's about finding solutions to assimilating impoverished African-Americans. So if anyone is interested, there's a poll and a few people have already posted and gotten involved.
Just one tip, Latin America, is the english version of what Hispanoamerica is in spanish. Both terms apply to people who comes from any spanish speaking country of the New World or America continent. Obviously people from Spain do not fit in any of these categories.
Just one tip, Latin America, is the english version of what Hispanoamerica is in spanish. Both terms apply to people who comes from any spanish speaking country of the New World or America continent. Obviously people from Spain do not fit in any of these categories.
Yes, true. That's why it is somewhat confusing to understand why people of Spaniard descent are considered Euro-America or white by our government. Sadly enough, our government classifies groups like ''Cubans'' or ''Colombians'' to be ethnicities, when they are no more an ethnicity than being American or Canadian. They acknowledge it in a crafty sense, but I guess it's a defense mechanism to allowing people to come to the reality that much of Latin America's descent in this country is indeed European.
Here is an interesting link showing the different looks of some countries. Bare in mind that when pertaining to Latin countries, the more educated chess playing types should in essence, come from the "whiter" upper class.
Keep in mind, Qatar is considered a caucasian country by the Census bureau. Iran and Turkey yes, but not Qatar.
Argentina and a couple of the Mexicans are the only ones that look white from the Latin countries.
Here is an interesting link showing the different looks of some countries. Bare in mind that when pertaining to Latin countries, the more educated chess playing types should in essence, come from the "whiter" upper class.
Keep in mind, Qatar is considered a caucasian country by the Census bureau. Iran and Turkey yes, but not Qatar.
Argentina and a couple of the Mexicans are the only ones that look white from the Latin countries.
I guess the two cubans to the right could be as well.
But I would say, contrary to some in this thread. The vast majority of
hispanics are not caucasian. Argentina has 30 million or so plus small minorities in the rest of Latin America definitely doesn't add up to the percentages some people claim. 20% of Latin America is caucasion, tops.
I guess the two cubans to the right could be as well.
But I would say, contrary to some in this thread. The vast majority of
hispanics are not caucasian. Argentina has 30 million or so plus small minorities in the rest of Latin America definitely doesn't add up to the percentages some people claim. 20% of Latin America is caucasion, tops.
Well, when people say ''cacuasian'' - it really can confuses things as a whole. Some will even try making the argument that Spain, Italy and other southern European as well as Eastern European countries don't exactly represent that. Social definitions do change over time though. And even part of the indigenous ancestry is somewhere related to mixtures of ''Cacuasian'' lineage if you really thought about it.
That isn't what their governments are reporting though. Much more than 20 percent claim to be white. I really don't care for what people are considering caucasian and white though. I'm speaking on literal lineage. And that is do people's ancestors come from Europe or not. That may not be how Latin American countries base of what's white and what isn't, but that's how things work in this country. And if one's ancestors do come from western Europe who spread imperialism and colonialism with slavery, raping and other oppressive measures, why wouldn't they be ''white?''
Another big thing you need to keep in mind is mixed lineage. You say 20 percent of Latin America is purely of European descent. You probably are a little off in that statistic, but not way off. However, you're compromising that with the American terminology. If you looked at this from a global perspective, there wouldn't be such an ''anti-white'' identity. If you're mixed with what ever, all sides are to be acknowledged.
That is why I say it's important if we are to attempt to keep any archives on census records, it's best to be as accurate as possible. And that requires acknowledging people's mixed ancestries. If 30 to 35 percent of Latin America is purely European descended, 10 pay is indigenous and 5 percent is black - there's still another 50 to 55 percent that's mixed. There isn't a categorization ''mixed.'' That's too wide open. Just because you are only part ''Caucasian'' doesn't mean you are not part Caucasian. And to many of people in Latin America, they don't see themselves as non-white because of technical lineage. They base off appearance.
This is why I say trying to combine all of Spanish speaking Latin America into one ethnic box is garbage. ''Hispanic'' is not an ethnicity. The government says it's no longer a race, which I appreciate (although the media doesn't refute that idea). The government still claims it's an ethnicity though. And when you see the 2010 Census, it will say mark your race and ethnicity. ''Hispanic'' is considering an ethnicity. ''Puerto Rican'' is considered an ethnicity. Those aren't ethnic groups. They're new world countries just like the U.S. and Canada and everyone in Latin America understands that. Most in Canada and Europe do too. Not enough Americans understand this because the media controls their minds and go unchallenged in how they want people to view those of Latin American descent.
That's why I don't say ''Hispanic'' with out throwing quotation marks around it. You're completely right that not enough are of one group. Those countries are much more diverse than ours basing on people's continental lineage. We should view their ancestry the same way how the rest of the world thinks of it. And that's that there is no such thing as ''Hispanic'', ''Latino'' or any other terms of that nature. If not, than our government should base off technical continental lineage - rather than skewing the definition of ''caucasian'' by not including Spaniard descent apart of it.
Well, when people say ''cacuasian'' - it really can confuses things as a whole. Some will even try making the argument that Spain, Italy and other southern European as well as Eastern European countries don't exactly represent that. Social definitions do change over time though. And even part of the indigenous ancestry is somewhere related to mixtures of ''Cacuasian'' lineage if you really thought about it.
That isn't what their governments are reporting though. Much more than 20 percent claim to be white. I really don't care for what people are considering caucasian and white though. I'm speaking on literal lineage. And that is do people's ancestors come from Europe or not. That may not be how Latin American countries base of what's white and what isn't, but that's how things work in this country. And if one's ancestors do come from western Europe who spread imperialism and colonialism with slavery, raping and other oppressive measures, why wouldn't they be ''white?''
Another big thing you need to keep in mind is mixed lineage. You say 20 percent of Latin America is purely of European descent. You probably are a little off in that statistic, but not way off. However, you're compromising that with the American terminology. If you looked at this from a global perspective, there wouldn't be such an ''anti-white'' identity. If you're mixed with what ever, all sides are to be acknowledged.
That is why I say it's important if we are to attempt to keep any archives on census records, it's best to be as accurate as possible. And that requires acknowledging people's mixed ancestries. If 30 to 35 percent of Latin America is purely European descended, 10 pay is indigenous and 5 percent is black - there's still another 50 to 55 percent that's mixed. There isn't a categorization ''mixed.'' That's too wide open. Just because you are only part ''Caucasian'' doesn't mean you are not part Caucasian. And to many of people in Latin America, they don't see themselves as non-white because of technical lineage. They base off appearance.
This is why I say trying to combine all of Spanish speaking Latin America into one ethnic box is garbage. ''Hispanic'' is not an ethnicity. The government says it's no longer a race, which I appreciate (although the media doesn't refute that idea). The government still claims it's an ethnicity though. And when you see the 2010 Census, it will say mark your race and ethnicity. ''Hispanic'' is considering an ethnicity. ''Puerto Rican'' is considered an ethnicity. Those aren't ethnic groups. They're new world countries just like the U.S. and Canada and everyone in Latin America understands that. Most in Canada and Europe do too. Not enough Americans understand this because the media controls their minds and go unchallenged in how they want people to view those of Latin American descent.
That's why I don't say ''Hispanic'' with out throwing quotation marks around it. You're completely right that not enough are of one group. Those countries are much more diverse than ours basing on people's continental lineage. We should view their ancestry the same way how the rest of the world thinks of it. And that's that there is no such thing as ''Hispanic'', ''Latino'' or any other terms of that nature. If not, than our government should base off technical continental lineage - rather than skewing the definition of ''caucasian'' by not including Spaniard descent apart of it.
The original peoples of Spain are caucasian. I don't think the rest of the world thinks that 30% to 35% of Latin America is caucasian. African immigrants, Asian immigrants and yes European immigrants can spot an average hispanic person. This is what they know. They "spot" them because they obviously look like what they are; mixed race. Most everyone on this planet knows what mixed race is. If you are mixed race in Latin America you definitely most likely have caucasian as part of your background. I've never heard anyone say that if you seem to definitely look mostly white, that you are white. Latin America is absolutely at least 65% or so of mixed race (mixed that you notice). Wanting to be white doesn't make you white. What is hard to understand about that logic. I'm not arguing that many in latin america claim to be white and truly believe it. I know it's true that in Latin America, that thinking is common culture. I am speaking of specifics, there are 3 races (social constructs based on appearance), and people can tell whether a person is one of those, or any combination there of. If you don't understand, I can see that the ingrained racial identity crisis that hispanics usually have, is present in yourself. Filipinos and Chinese are both East Asian, but Filipinos have caucasian genotypes mixed within them and most people can tell. Maybe Filipinos consider themselves Asian and not mixed, but just because they do doesn't mean it's true.
''The original peoples of Spain are caucasian. I don't think the rest of the world thinks that 30% to 35% of Latin America is caucasian.''
Yes, the people of Spain are. However, our government tries to curve that to how it fits their status quo's politics. Technically, 34 percent of Latin America is ''white''. Although it's not the greatest resource, it's the only thing I could find that referred to Latin America as a whole. Keep in mind too that there are non-Spanish speaking countries like Netherlands Antilles, Aruba and Haiti are included that could skew the number into a more non-white statistic. If those countries weren't included, the number would probably be about 37 or 38 percent. Much of the demography of those countries are black, so it somewhat shifts the number to be less white.
This is what several governments are reporting. Believe me, if they wanted to make their places seem white how many people would probably love it to be, they could do a lot better than that. Many of these countries get really into detail too. They have every categorization listed there except for ''zambo'', which probably wouldn't be much. 34% white, 11% indigenous and 7 percent black is right about what I said.
''African immigrants, Asian immigrants and yes European immigrants can spot an average hispanic person. ''
How? Most have never met anyone from Latin America? They'd have to be living here a little while to understand just the same way any other American citizen would. And you don't necessarily have to be of a certain physical appearance for someone to get the idea of where you're from. This could come through observing accents or just the nature of people from respective countries.
To those African, Asian and European immigrants you describe - they don't consider the terminology of ''Hispanic'' to exist. If you replaced those terms with Latin America, they'd be the first to tell you it'd be a very difficult judgement process. And most don't assume.
''They "spot" them because they obviously look like what they are; mixed race.''
So I assume when you see a mixed person like Halle Berry, Derek Jeter and Vin Diesel, it'd be appropriate to assume they're of a certain fake ethnicity too just because they're mixed? The only ones who have their own identity is the indigenous descended population primarily of only Mexican immigrants. Most are able to get a general idea under those circumstances, but it doesn't necessarily mean that person is from Latin America. Latin Americans generally have the same western African descent Americans do, so it's not like it's that easy to judge. And it isn't exactly that easy to decipher the difference of western Europe descent, nonetheless partial descent.
''Most everyone on this planet knows what mixed race is.''
There's no such thing. That's too broad. There's ''Meztiso'', ''Mulatto'', ''Zambo'', those who are mixed of white and Asian, black and Asian and what ever mixes you can think of. Classifying all as mixed just because they aren't exactly one of the three general categories (white, black, Asian) doesn't necessarily make it right to assume all the same thing.
''I've never heard anyone say that if you seem to definitely look mostly white, that you are white. ''
Maybe that's what you here in this country, but go to any of the nineteen Spanish-speaking Latin American countries and I guarantee you might here differently. And people often feel this way internationally. The reason why you haven't heard this from anyone not believe that is probably the same reason as myself. It's possible that most people who we've come across are Americans, or people who live in this country.
I don't care for the technical social construction of whiteness, blackness or anything else for that matter. I'm literally talking about continental lineage. And if you are partly of European descent, why shouldn't they have part of their ancestry acknowledged properly?
If we looked at those statistics above, if we used that 33.9% statistic (even if it's skewed because places like Haiti aren't white), we know that it's at least that European descended. Assuming Meztiso is 50/50 European/indigenous and Mulatto is 50/50 European/African, 7.6% out of 15.2% of the mulatto population is European descended. 13.5% of that 27% Meztiso population is European descended. Being that 2.8% is white and Meztiso, that would mean that 2.1% of that is European descended (3/4 white). And of that 1.7% that's ''mixed'' and 1.6% other, at least one third of that has to be of European descent (1.2%). Between all those statistics, approximately at least 3/5 of spanish Speaking Latin America is of European descent, between those who are full and mixed. And a little over half of that is full.
65 percent of Latin America isn't mixed either. 33.9% of Latin America is white alone. 10.9% is Amerindian and 6.9% is black. That means that 50.7% of Latin America is at least one race meaning that Latin America actually isn't predominantly mixed.
''Wanting to be white doesn't make you white.''
If you're half black in the United States, does that make you black? In our country, it's acceptable. And in Latin America, ''wanting to be'' or ''passing for'' white, is as good as being white (or the next ''best'' thing to being white in many their eyes). It's what their society demands. Being mixed under international terms means being of multiple lineages. European descent is not to be favored as it is in Latin America. Non-European descent is not how it seems to be in America. It's seen neutrally, meaning that their really only are two options. To magically believe in the ''mixed'' categorization or acknowledge all sides appropriately for demographical reasons.
''I am speaking of specifics, there are 3 races (social constructs based on appearance), and people can tell whether a person is one of those, or any combination there of.''
And I'm not refuting part of that statement. Those three social constructed beliefs of appearances are whites, blacks and Asians. Very little legitimate Asian ancestry exists in Latin America. The indigenous ancestry that exists is partly Asian, European and possibly even Eurasian. People aren't exactly always to identify who's Eurasian, Middle Eastern and other groups too, even if they are technically apart of one group. It's because the physical appearance of one's ancestors lineage is in between two different natural regions of the world. With the exception of everyone who isn't indigenous primarily mostly just in Spanish speaking Latin America, almost all of people on the Western Hemisphere don't descend from those identities.
People can't tell when people are combinations or what combinations. It doesn't mean people don't have an idea that people are ''mixed'', but people are usually able to figure out at least one thing someone is, because one thing usually sticks out more than anything. And in Latin America, that means white. And even in America, people usually come to the conclusion of judging them as white. It's just a matter of majority rule. It's not like ''guessing'' is exactly appropriate.
That's why I consider it to be very politically and socially inappropriate if someone were to physically identify a missing person, criminal or something like that as ''Hispanic'', ''Latino'' or anything. This isn't commonly done in many parts of the country, not so much even because people are concerned for Latin American and their descendants feelings, but rather that they don't know what that's supposed to ''look like.'' Just because you think someone is visibly mixed doesn't make it appropriate for one to assume someone is of Latin American descent. It's actually very prejudice. If you just don't know, don't answer. Chances are the cops, news and what ever else would say other.
Whether one personally knew the person, their last name or their accent would at least provide half the reasoning being that they actually didn't assume, how no one should rely on the rest of society (and especially a mostly non-intellectual one) to see it the same way (or proper way). If I ever had to identify someone that was missing, a criminal or what ever, I would completely refuse to say one is ''Hispanic.'' I'd only say white, black or Asian for literal physical reasoning that everyone in this world has a clear idea of. If one was mostly white and appeared to be white, I'd say white. Regardless of whether I knew or not. And if one couldn't be identified as such, I wouldn't answer or say I'm clueless.
''If you don't understand, I can see that the ingrained racial identity crisis that hispanics usually have, is present in yourself.''
I do understand the complexity of this issue. How is it present in myself? I am not of Latin American descent. Most people regardless of whether being of that descent or not do not know this issue in detail. Does anyone have a clear way of looking at this? The only clear way of looking at this is if you believe the simpleton idea that it is what ever the government and media tells you it is. The whole idea of saying the word ''Hispanic'' or ''Latino'' has become such a joke anyway. What makes you think the rest of the world isn't better acknowledging of this issue than Americans? If you said the word ''Hispanic'' in Europe, they'd either think one of two things. One, I got no clue what you're talking about. Two, you must be a stupid American who can't think for themselves.
''Filipinos and Chinese are both East Asian, but Filipinos have caucasian genotypes mixed within them and most people can tell.''
Yes, many Spaniards mixed with them during the time in which Spain colonized the Phillipines. Technically, if they were a primary Spanish-speaking country, you could claim they are ''Hispanic'' under crap American terms, right? Most can tell that they're mixed, but that's once they know they're of Filipino descent. It's improper to judge one as of Filipino descent, just because you believe them to be mixed. There are a decent amount of people of European/Asian mixed descent, so it'd obviously be an inappropriate judgement.
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.
