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.
It's not even really a racial designation, as I understand it; it's a linguistic one. They should have gone with "mestizo or indigenous Central American" or something like that, since that's what the powers that be seem to MEAN by the term.
Because I've met "Hispanics" who are as white as my grand-daddy. And "Hispanics" who are much blacker than Obama.
It's like calling everyone in the US who speaks English "Anglo," from Jesse Jackson to Nicole Kidman. Meaningless.
Hispanic is NOT a race. It's a pan cultural term referring to anyone that comes from a Spanish speaking country, nation, region, or culture. Hispanics can be of any race and/or religion.
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.
Technically the real Caucasians are people from the Caucasus mountains region!
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.
Caucasoid is an arbitrary parameter created in the 19th century. It is a residue, an anachronism. Two people can be 'Caucasoid' and not be closely related. Craniofacial plasticity is much more variable than was originally thought, so racial claims on craniofacial parameters are foolish. In microcosms, you might be able to show some relationship, but in global macrocosms, there are more mistakes than accuracy. Polytopicity is when two different groups of organisms that are not related end up having similar traits.
More like, if they are in similar environments, common factors may play a role in similar attributes. For example people in the circum Sahara developed thinner noses overall because of the dryer, hotter air. In Europe the colder dryer air had a similar effect. When we see broader features, they tend to be more recent migrations to dryer regions from more humid climates. Of course other factors can come into play as well. For example Neanderthals had wide nasal cavities but a very long nose that did a similar function to a thin nose. Clothing has played a huge role in allowing people with certain traits to migrate to regions they did not do so well in naked.
Humanity is infinitely diverse and a beautiful thing. We are playdoh to the environment. And now we change the environment to us.
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.
What are you talking about? I dealt with this issue in another one of my articles about the so-called Moors of Spain. If they truly were Moors then why are most “criollos†in Mexico today white people with Spanish last names? Also, for there to have been Moors “in the hundreds of thousands†as you say, then that meant that the local whites of Spain would have still outnumbered the Moors and most of the Moroccan/Algerian countryside would have been completely emptied of its human inhabitants. Today we find the main non-Amerindian Y-chromosome gene (haplogroup) in Mexicans to be R1b, the same that modern Spaniards have. If North Africans were the main population in Spain and the colonizers of Mexico, then the dominant gene would be E1b1b1b2 (E-Z827), not R1b. And we would also find E-Z827 to be a major gene in Spaniards yet it is found only in rather small amounts. They also did a genetic study back in the early 2000’s where a Muslim-era cemetery was dug up and several Islamic (not just Arabic) named (“Muhammadâ€, “Abdullahâ€, “Ahmadâ€, etc.) individuals from the cemetery were gene typed. The researchers found E-Z827 to be higher than in today’s Spanish population, and they also found a higher amount of sub-Saharan (black) genes than in modern Spaniards. However, the majority of the genes in the studied individuals was still R1b, the western European gene. So, even the Muslims of Spain were mainly R1b, not E-Z827. What does that say about their ancestry and the real number of Berbers/non-Europeans in Spain?
It is a well known fact that most of today’s Arabic-speaking peoples are predominantly descended from the pre-Islamic populations that lived there. The true original Arabs, the (peninsular) Arabians (Saudis, Yemenis, Omanis, Qataris, Emiratis), mostly carry Y-DNA haplogroup J1. The main haplogroup in Syrians, Iraqis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Bahrainis, and Jordanians is haplogroup J2, not J1. The main haplogroup in Egyptians and Libyans is E1b1b1b1 while most Tunisians, Algerians, Moroccans, and Mauretanians carry E1b1b1b2. Ironically, the only “Arabs†of the Arab world that carry mostly J1 are the Sudanese, who look black. However, the Sudanese carry a different subclade (“subgeneâ€) of the haplogroup (gene) J1 than the peninsular Arabians. So therefore, who is to say that the “Arabs†(aka “Moorsâ€, which is a foreign name that the Muslims of North Africa & Spain never used for themselves) of Spain were also not locals? It seems like they were because there are many descendants of the Spanish Muslims in Morocco and Tunisia, and many of them look European.
Well, first of all, there is no such thing as “Muslim ancestryâ€. Second of all, most of the Muslims in Spain were neither North Africans nor Middle Easterners. Initially of course, the first Muslim inhabitants of Spain were Arabians and Berbers. Later on, a few Syrians arrived. However, the majority of the Spaniards living within al-Andalus underwent a gradual process of cultural change similar to the cultural change which would impact most of the Amerindians in Latin America. Notice that when I say “cultural changeâ€, that does not mean “genetic change†or “racial changeâ€. It is simply a change in culture.
Most of the Amerindians in Mexico for example, became admixed with Spaniards. However, for those that didn’t and remained “pureâ€, their culture was still dramatically changed. They adopted the Castillian (“Spanishâ€) language and the Roman Catholic religion, and alot of them identify as “Hispanics†or “Latinos†(especially in the USA) even though obviously they are neither Spaniards nor Italians.
Likewise, a similar thing happened in the Muslim-ruled areas of Iberia/Spain itself from the 8th century to the 15th century. The original Muslim conquerors and settlers were mainly Berbers with a minority of Arabian (Bedouin, Yemeni, “Saudiâ€) settlers and later by a few Syrians who followed the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd ar-Rahman who fled Syria. Add to this a small number of enslaved peoples brought to al-Andalus (mainly blacks and eastern Europeans). Gradually however, the Arabic language and the religion of Islam took hold in the Andalusian society. Notice that at no point in the history of Andalusia were Spaniards ever reduced to a minority. (I use the word Andalusia to refer to all al-Andalus, not just today’s “Andalusia†province of the Kingdom of Spain.) The majority of Spaniards up until the middle of the 10th century were Christians who spoke in a form of Latin. Their form of Latin increasingly adopted Arabic words, phrases, and general lexicon and grammar. Around the middle of the 10th century, the majority of Spaniards living within Andalusia had converted to Islam. The Arabic language was then fully adopted by the 12th century, and it had supplanted the Arabized-Latin dialect (“Mozarabicâ€) that was spoken in Andalusia. So yes, Muslims did make the majority of Andalusia at one period in history, however, those Muslims were not North Africans or Middle Easterners, those Muslims were Spaniards. By the time of the Fall of Granada, the Muslim Spaniards had assimilated the minorities (MidEasterners, NorthAfricans, Visigoths, blacks, east Europeans) and the whole nation had become an “Arab†Andalusian society. That is to say, they identified as “Arabs†and these are the people who are ignorantly called “Moors†in the West. The only real Moors are Moroccans and North Africans.
That may seem far fetched, but consider that the Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, Moroccans, Libyans, Sudanese, and Mauritanians all identify as “Arab†even though they are of diverse origins and DNA studies have shown none of these people originate from Arabia. The only real Arabs are the Yemenis, Omanis, Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, and probably Kuwaitis (maybe Jordanians too). Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, Bahrainis, Sudanese, Mauritanians, Moroccans, Libyans, Tunisians, Algerians, and the “Arabs†of the Sahara and Iran are not truly Arabs at all. They are just descendants of pre-Islamic peoples who converted to Islam, adopted the Arabic language, and eventually became called as “Arabsâ€. It’s quite obvious that the Sudanese, for example, are not Arabs but it is harder for people to tell that Syrians, Egyptians, etc. are not Arabs either due to their Middle Eastern looks. So the Andalusian “Arabs†were not Arabs (nor Berbers nor blacks), they were just Arabic-speaking Muslim indigenous Iberians. This is similar to how the “Turks†of Turkey speak Turkish and are Muslims, yet they are obviously not Central Asian or Mongolic; they are Anatolians (plus some Greeks, Caucasians, Slavs, Albanians, etc.) who adopted the Turkish language and the Islamic religion. Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Moldovans, Romanians, and alot of Belgians and Swiss all speak in Romance/Latin languages, though that does not make them Romans or Italians right? This is all proved and backed up by multiple genetic studies. To deny this is to deny scientific evidence and believe in the old ignorance of medieval times.
I also have found that most of the people who claim the Spanish are mixed with Arabs/North Africans/blacks tend to be north Europeans and Americans (especially blacks), not Muslims.
Of course, today’s Spaniards are not Muslim nor Arabic-speaking because the Christian Spanairds from up north drove the Muslims away or converted them to Christianity and imposed the Romance (mostly Castillian) language upon them. Some of the descendants of the Andalusian Muslims live today in villages in Morocco and Tunisia. You’ll find that most of them look European, not North African. In fact, I covered this topic in one of my articles here, you should check it out.
Oh really? In the Y-chromosome, the haplogroup R1b (west European gene) is prevalent and is carried by over 50% of Mexican men. Haplogroups J1/J2 (Middle Eastern) and E1b1b (North African) combined show up in less than 20% of Mexican men. Haplogroups G, I, and R1a (Caucasus, Scandinavian/Balkans, and east Europeean, respectively) show up at around a combined 12% of Mexican males. Haplogroup Q (Amerindian/Native American) is carried by around 16% of Mexican males. Other haplogroups are also present in much smaller amounts. So yes, North Africans, Arabs, and Jews are ancestors of some Mexicans, but most of Mexicans’ male ancestors are Europeans (predominantly western Europeans) as shown by the high percentage of R1b and relatively high combined percentage of R1a, G, and I.
However, the percentage of J1, J2, and E1b1b is similar in Mexicans as it is in Spaniards. So this suggests that most Mexicans did not get this ancestry from North Africans and Middle Easterners directly, but rather they mostly got it from Spanish men who carried these lineages.
The only question that needs to be considered is if any demographic designations have an impact on clinical and scientific research to differentiate efficacy and safety by race. Otherwise it is much ado about nothing and is the essence of the creation of more 'victims' for political gain.
"legitimacy of the term ''Hispanic'' in the U.S."
It makes as much sense as using the term 'Asian' to describe all people and races that make up Asia, or white to describe someone from the South of Italy to Russia. It's more of a US creation than anything else.
"legitimacy of the term ''Hispanic'' in the U.S."
It makes as much sense as using the term 'Asian' to describe all people and races that make up Asia, or white to describe someone from the South of Italy to Russia. It's more of a US creation than anything else.
Even less sense for the word "Hispanic" because they 1 be of ANY race tho most in the US are Mestizo which are white/Indian mixes and Indians are "Asian" going by their DNA.
Even less sense for the word "Hispanic" because they 1 be of ANY race tho most in the US are Mestizo which are white/Indian mixes and Indians are "Asian" going by their DNA.
Yep, made up group created and perpetuated by the US Government.
"Indian mixes and Indians are "Asian" going by their DNA"
They would be related to some peoples of Asia but American Indians have their own specific DNA and even then it is different depending on tribe/region(s). You have people from Russia that are more closely/recently related to people of Northern China than to American Indians.
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.
