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 02-04-2008, 10:35 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,488 times
Reputation: 37

Advertisements

In order to understand this argument, it is highly recommendable that you read from my first post on page 2 through 19. This wasn't exactly ''on topic'', but a sub-topic came out of this.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-york-city/236002-future-washington-heights-2.html

Yes, us Americans (and New Yorkers) are consumed in low-class collectivist by our powerful corrupt media. With that, comes a lot of gray territory though. Being that this is an international argument, it's worth bringing up.
It's drawn a decent amount of American and foreign interest.

The question has been brought out about the racial/ethnic identity of Latin America (especially the caribbean). I'd go more into detail on this message, but I'd prefer that everyone read all the messages on there. I'll try bringing the people from there onto here. If it doesn't work though, we'll probably continue writing on there.

My messages are a little long, but very informative. Please don't take it that I'm trying to push my view on others. My goal is just to open up people's eyes a little bit and provide them with more options of looking at this world.

If anyone is inquisitive on my position, I'm a 19 year old community college student in New Jersey (suburban Philadelphia). It will seem awkward, being people my age probably don't think level of interest in such a controversial subject. Or most for that matter. I'm open-minded and like knowing other's perspective which is why I brought this to the international forums.

I know that because this is city-data, it should have some sort of relavance to a city. I'd generally say the argument is about New York City (which is where I'm originally from) and their area's perspective on this. Or the United States as a whole.

If any of you have an opinion, response, question or anything, leave a message.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2008, 11:10 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,488 times
Reputation: 37
Also, I don't know what the rules are on voting, but please only vote once. I will only vote once as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 11:49 PM
 
269 posts, read 490,207 times
Reputation: 125
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.

Last edited by coffeehound; 02-04-2008 at 11:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 03:01 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,488 times
Reputation: 37
Yes, it is a linguistic one. The confusion often gets misinterpreted with the empowering corruption embedded by our media and the typical American's non-intellectualism.

I agree. Regardless of what term we use, all of us need to take in mind that assimilation for all immigrants is inevitable. Keeping sneaky political creativity has to be avoided. All are to virtually end up living like middle-class white America. The term Hispanic has created loads of programs that has helped speed up this process, being that most come from poor countries, with higher fertility rates and less college education. We should only use this as a term for demographical studies.

For Mexican-Americans, the government should recognize their ancestry better. They should allow people to mark Native American within foreign countries. As you noted, it'd be for the government to recognize ''Mestizo.''

The way I'm taking it is that most people are interpret this subject well will lean towards no. Most people who think inside the box and have come across this term a lot will say yes. And most people who have never really come across this topic (regardless of U.S. or internationally) will say they don't know enough to judge.

I expect for people to maybe not like that I don't mind going into controversial territory. I also hate playing the role of an educator, even though many Americans are in desperate need of being informed on something that is so integrated into their lives.

Also, eventually a few weeks from now, I'll post a second polling asking what people's interpretation is on this subject after they read through that other message board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 03:08 PM
 
269 posts, read 490,207 times
Reputation: 125
I don't think "mestizo" would garner a lot of support, though. You'd have white talking heads going on and on about how it's a derogatory, outdated, racist, colonialist term, blah blah blah. But it's a heck of a lot more accurate than "Hispanic."

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to class Vincente Fox and his relatives as "Hispanic" when the guy is racially more closely related to my white-bread Anglo-Irish family than to a Guatemalan peasant farmer.

That being said, I was friends for a long time with a second-generation "Mexican-American" who had, no joke, an Irish first and last name. His dad was of Irish descent and was himself a fourth-generation Mexican citizen, who married a woman whose ancestry went back to Spain. Needless to say, the guy looked as European as Tony Blair, but was officially "Hispanic." Weird.

He was QUITE assimilated; if you didn't happen to know that the dude's dad had a Mexican passport, you could never have guessed he had any ties there at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 04:06 PM
 
418 posts, read 264,488 times
Reputation: 37
''I don't think "mestizo" would garner a lot of support, though. You'd have white talking heads going on and on about how it's a derogatory, outdated, racist, colonialist term, blah blah blah. But it's a heck of a lot more accurate than "Hispanic."

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me to class Vincente Fox and his relatives as "Hispanic" when the guy is racially more closely related to my white-bread Anglo-Irish family than to a Guatemalan peasant farmer.

That being said, I was friends for a long time with a second-generation "Mexican-American" who had, no joke, an Irish first and last name. His dad was of Irish descent and was himself a fourth-generation Mexican citizen, who married a woman whose ancestry went back to Spain. Needless to say, the guy looked as European as Tony Blair, but was officially "Hispanic." Weird.

He was QUITE assimilated; if you didn't happen to know that the dude's dad had a Mexican passport, you could never have guessed he had any ties there at all.''

Yeah. It does seem pretty awkward sometimes. Although he probably doesn't relate to most Mexican immigrants who come to this country, it'd be wrong to classify him as ''not white.'' Most of America is well acquainted with either Mexican-Americans or Mexican immigrants though.

Not so much of America is acquainted with groups that descend from the caribbean. Puerto Ricans are 10 percent of NYC. 62% of them classified themselves as full white of Spaniard descent. Considering that most of their ancestors came during the 1600's and 1700's, it's obvious that somewhere down the line there was much slave ownership.

Most Puerto Ricans came to New York City in between 1945 and 1970. The city's percentage is the same as what it was in 1970. Few few black slaves existed in this city, as it wouldn't relate to modern demographics. Very few whites descend from the 18th century or earlier either. Almost no white people in New York City descend from the south.

They are the only legitimate statistically significant group in New York, New Jersey and most of the northeast that's ancestors brutally owned slaves. There is no such thing as Puerto Rican identity anymore, being that it has no impact upon your economic status. In fact, the fact they came as citizens and have an outside shot at properly speaking Spanish poses an advantage. Yet, people will tie them into problems that immigrants deal with who's ancestors could have likely been the oppressive figure too.

It's like people believe if you're an over-worked immigrant with too many babies and you're lower-middle class, the international history behind your family dissolves. It doesn't. The reason why most of these immigrants (in their respective generation) come poor is because there money isn't worth anything (as ours soon won't be either). That international history doesn't go away, even if our media severely ignores it and our citizens are too stupid to realize it.

Ironically enough, people could throw an ''oppressive'' icon into a Jewish American. Even though it's very possible that they could have had ancestors die in the holocaust. Yet, you could be a ''minority'' and be ''felt'' bad for, even if your ancestor's were the oppressive slave owners for several centuries.

The term Hispanic will absolve in 2050 when immigration slows down. This term was simply created to assimilate immigrants at a quicker pace through things like work-visa programs and financial AID. It's been used to over-populate this country which is destroying all our resources. We let uneducated immigrants with no skills in and groom them as we please. Countries like Canada and Germany actually demand good medical history, education, affluence and immediate economic potential before even arriving. They don't let too many people in so programs like socialized medicine aren't deprived from their citizens.

This term has also helped keep inner-city black Americans down. It isn't an excuse for being poor, but it's a moral responsibility of our government to help assimilate African-Americans. Their ancestors didn't voluntarily come to this country. Many still live like crap as we saw in Hurricane Katrina. As we know, this country doesn't have as much money as we used to (especially with this war), so not enough can be given to everyone. We allow grooming of numerous amounts of immigrants while this media (and indirectly government) promotes the collectivist black icon of a dog in our capitalist system, which inadvertingly elevates the success level of the rest of the country's positive icon.

It's going to take a lot of people being aware of the political incorrectness of this term, if there is any possibility of it being absolved of. It's continuing to leave people of Latin American descent in this country in an awkward paradox that they don't agree with nor live by the standards of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 04:46 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,610,630 times
Reputation: 2983
I think the term "Hispanic" is ridiculous--I defy ANYONE to define it clearly in any logical way. It's simply a catchall "PC" term, forced upon modern conversation by fear of being more 'specific"....A white, Italian-descended Argentine--an Indian from Bolivia---a Japanese-Brazilan,---a Mestizo Mexican---and a Black Panamanian---are all ONE ETHNIC GROUP, Hispanic? SPARE ME!!...I know too many American "anglos" whose first cousins in South America are "Hispanics" to ever fall for THAT one (I occasionally DO use it, but I hate it).

I'll say ONE THING about "Hispanic", though...as silly as it is, it's a LOT more descriptive than "PERSONS of COLOR"......try to put THAT in a neat category....ever eat a "person of color" dinner?....or listen to "music of color"?......didn't think so..

Last edited by macmeal; 02-05-2008 at 05:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 04:47 PM
 
Location: California
3,432 posts, read 2,156,404 times
Reputation: 138
I'd prefer the term South American, but then again, thats really not geographically correct. Latin American works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 04:55 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,610,630 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyc0127 View Post
Also, I don't know what the rules are on voting, but please only vote once. I will only vote once as well.
Interesting topic, for sure-didn't mean to belittle your efforts. My OWN family, and people I've known over the decades simply make me VERY leery of such "invented" terms. There are simply too many "mixes", too many hundreds of "ethnicities" within Latin America, who also live OUTSIDE Latin America, (which ITSELF has "moved its borders" in the past) to give ANY credence to the term. The only POSSIBLE way I'd allow "Hispanic" is as a designation of what someone ISN'T, not what they ARE...and even that is quite a stretch. I HATE the term, though have been guilty of using it myself...

INTERESTING thread, though.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2008, 05:04 PM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,610,630 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProLogic View Post
I'd prefer the term South American, but then again, thats really not geographically correct. Latin American works.
"South American" is probably as accurate as "Hispanic"....but we're talking ethnicities here. Any idea of the ethnicities present in South America? DOZENS....many of them having nothing to do with "spanish" OR "Indian"...I'd say there are PROBABLY as many backgrounds in South America as there are in the entire USA...No exaggeration...I just don't see how you could "categorize" them, unless you called them by their legal nationality (Peruvian, Chilean, Surinamese)--OR described EACH INDIVIDUAL alone....

As I said, the term ONLY makes sense when describing what they're "not"...as if you were in Brazil, and referred to someone as "an American" (NOT a Brazilian). But the Brazilians would understand that it wasn't an "ethnicity", it would be a "citizenship". "American" isn't an ethnic group, and neither is "Hispanic"--not by any accurate use of the term..

PS--- notice that the term "anglo" is rapidly losing its credibility--why? Because it's SILLY!..what on EARTH is an "Anglo?".....just about as sensible a term as "Hispanic" though...
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