''I must disagree with you. I can indeed tell who is latino (mulatto, mestizo) apart from others. American white and PR white don't look nearly alike.''
I'm not denying you can have a ''hunch'', but that doesn't mean you are right. When everything anything is mixed, the lines become gray. The level correctness become less. It's because the chance of an ''educated'' guess being right diminishes. This is the rules ours and other society's have created. It is accepted to come to the conclusion of someone being black, Asian or white as broad generalizations. Now if you wanted to figure out who's Kenyan, Korean or Polish, that's another thing.
The physical part of coming to this conclusion isn't the problem. The bigger problem is when people are either politically incorrect, or so scared of being politically incorrect that they say what they believe society tells them too. For example, if you had to identify a missing man as black (and he obviously was), the physical part of thing's would be acceptable. The part that would be inappropriate to judge would be saying it's an ''African-American.'' Because you don't know if they are American. In certain parts of this country like the deep south it's so rare to meet a foreign black, that they're society has never been taught this was wrong. For that matter, most of America hasn't. That has lingered onto the national politics of our system. That is why you could see someone commonly be identified as African-American. Saying they're of African descent wouldn't be wrong, but still could arguably be impounding on forcing an identity on an individual. Basically, if you aren't completely sure of something, this society doesn't give permission to you judge.
If you were to assume a person with black skin was American-born in this country, you'd probably have over a 90-95 percent chance at being right. The social lines are much more clear than the physical appearance of half black/half whites or Meztiso's (I don't like to say ''mulattos'', because I believe it's a politically incorrect term that sounds like something would say in the 50's). If you were to assume a 45 year old Asian guy was born in Asia, a similar percentage is likely.
It's not 99.9%/100% though. This might sound disgusting or inappropriate, but think of it like a condom lol If someone was told there was only a 93% chance you were to not become pregnant (and that is true for certain birth controls), I doubt you'd want to take that risk. Where as no birth control is 100% (with the exception of abstinence - which would never be done - it'd be like never coming to the easier physical conclusions like someone being ''black'' or ''white'')
Well, I don't even believe that the method you use is in the low-90's. It's obvious it isn't. An example of ''confusion'' people might have on trying to figure out one's physical appearance would be like Hawaiians within Asian-Americans. Lines aren't always clear there, but the ethnicity has existed for as long as any other old-world group. It's a natural group. They may represent different features of Asians and some whites and others (likewise to Native Americans or Eskimo's), but you'd still have a high chance of knowing.
Where as on the other hand, when someone mixes (i.e. Meztiso's are Spaniard/Native American), things become really confusing. This drops the chances of you ''knowing'' to the range of 60 to 80 percent (even if you're good). Therefore, that is the reason why it's not appropriate for you to ''assume'' one's 'blurry' or ''mixed'' ethnic background.
''I could differentiate Puerto Ricans from Dominicans as well.''
You haven't even gotten passed square one (nor even having the social permission of the educated society to ''guess''). That is knowing who is Latin American or Dominican/Puerto Rican. Even if you were to know someone is mixed, it doesn't mean they're Latin American. Even if you were knew they were Latin-American (which would you wouldn't), than breaking it down to those two groups become difficult. Beyond that, how are you supposed to differentiate? Because low-class New Yorker's have taught you the stereotypical differentiation of Dominicans being ''darker'' than Puerto Ricans.
Remember, all Dominicans and people of Puerto Rican descent are not the same human-being nor the same ethnicity. They're far from that. The probability of making that assumption isn't like 90+% of Puerto Ricans being white and Dominicans being 90 percent black. The numbers are different, but both have their whites, blacks and mixed populations. The problem is that your society has never taught you better. Your society hasn't given you the clear definition that being Dominican/Puerto Rican is not an ethnicity (nor anything close to it). Almost no indigenous blood exists. It's practically like saying someone's ethnicity is American (the last 4 letter's are the same in each nationality too lol)
America has taught you that you're like a Chinese, Italian, Kenyan or Syrian. You aren't. Much of the pride in those immigrants would have been diminished if they came to this realization. Their pride and lives are in their respective countries and has been for a few centuries. They're distant from Spain, Africa and any outside influence. The country that Dominicans came from was all they knew in their life experiences.
Another thing you have to realize is that the most populated group within Latin Americans is Mexicans (2/3 Mexicans). Mexico has over 100 million people. 60 percent of Mexico is Meztiso. 30 percent is indigenous. 9 percent is white. If you split the meztiso population, 60 percent would be indigenous and 39 percent white. Within Mexican immigrants, the indigenous population is higher because most of the immigrants came from the poorest parts of Mexico. The most isolated poor villages have the highest indigenous populations. They are the ones who desired the American dream the most, because they weren't appreciating the Mexican dream.
Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans are much more spread out throughout this country. Even though central and south American groups are lower in population, they're more spread out through the country too. They have higher indigenous populations. Most Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Cuban descended population bulks aren't west of Chicago/Milwaukee though.
With that being said, one could make the argument through the number of years of inhabitants of Mexico, that there is a somewhat unified physical appearance to Aztec Indians likewise to a large European group.
People could make the argument that they don't see whiteness or blackness in them. It doesn't permit the denotation of an ignorant term like ''Hispanic though.'' This government should recognize their indigenous heritage as an individual ethnicity like they do with Native Americans in this country. Aztec/Meztiso-Mexicans are what most American's taste of Latin-American descent is. That situation is irrelevant to those of Puerto Rican, Dominican and Cuban descent though.
Regardless of where you are in this world, if you are of mixed European and African descent, you're usually acknowledged to be either a member of both groups or mixed. Cape Verda (in Africa) is 70% black and 30% Portuguesse. Likewise to those in Latin America, their European blood comes from the Iberian peninsula. Many have mixed. An argument could be made that the physical traits they have are similar to those of half black/half white's in Latin America. They wouldn't tell you it's one ethnicity though. Although less in population, Eritreans present this example too.When Italy occupied Eritrea during WWII, many of Italian descent moved there. Some Eritreans moved to Italy. Many mixed.
If they were to leave their countries where this is common though, people wouldn't assume who they are because of their bias hunch like your own. You might not realize it, but having a neutral perspective like me is more valuable than your's. It could be possible that because you are a member of the group we've been discussing, that you are triggering yourself to want people to share a common interest. You're psychologically imposing this on yourself and others to satisfy your interest of not being ''lonely.''
''Another things is that if you look at a Puerto Rican closely you could see a little native American.''
That's pure ignorance. The Native American population was actually lower in Cuba and Cuba has more people. Why don't you say the same for Cubans? You're re-constructing your method of thinking to circle around making what you see in your day-to-day life seem like it makes more sense. That's the wrong approach. I know you have no evidence to back up that statement and I'm not going to expect you to present make believe garbage. Basically, you've assumed that Puerto Ricans have Native American in them because you don't believe they look like white America.
That isn't the reasoning for why you should be believing Puerto Ricans aren't though. What you're doing is picking out the 40-45% that's mixed and bloating up their percentages. If you're mixed with black (even if 1/4 or 1/8), it's possible it will leave a darker look on the individual corresponding to white America. I found two different percentages from New Yorkers of Puerto Rican descent that explain how they racially classify themselves. One is 62%. The other is 58%. Overall it's 60%. I believe that 55% are full European (or as European as the average American who from time to time has 1/16 or 1/32 Native American or black in them). I do acknowledge that Spain is a southern European country though. Most southern and eastern Europeans don't look different than white America though. Some do, but most don't. Most Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese, Jews and Russians are physically camouflage to the white population. People who don't believe this are re-constructing their brains to mesh with the social differences. In other words, if you saw a Russian immigrant who spoke horrible English, you'd always no he's different than the rest of white America. You give him a different look because of his uncommon situation. However, if you never know who he was and saw him walking down the street, you'd likely just believe he's a white American. The same could be said to a white who's 1/32 Native American in the mid-west. Most would never know, but when some absorb that, they'll re-construct their minds in thinking something like ''oh, now I see it.'' They might just use that bull ''eye shape'' example like you did.
More ''ethnic'' Europeans will have higher percentages in being darker and having physical features of the normal white populations. This is more common in Jews and Middle Easterners because the more east you go, the closer you go to Asia. Many Jews are mixed with Middle Eastern blood. Within that 55% of Spaniard and Puerto Rican descended New Yorker's, I believe 5% would represent something that doesn't appear to noticeably (without staring for an hour like a weirdo until you have a ''epiphany'') would not mesh with the typical white American image.
I believe the same exists in people of Italian descent in this city too. 8.7% of NYC is of Italian descent. Therefore, I believe in between 0.4% or 0.5% would fit that same criteria. Because Jews are mostly of Eastern European and Middle Eastern descent, it could be 25% of their population (or 5 out of 20 of NYC's Jewish population). Within Middle-Easterners, a distinctive ethnic appearance that would be separate from typical white America would be over half their population.
With someone like myself, I'm not apart of that 5 percent you'd see in Italians or Spaniards. However, if you had to look at me for as many consecutive minutes as my dentist had to when he pulled my tooth a couple weeks ago, maybe you'd start getting that ''educated guess.''
''Are you telling me that you cannot tell a Mexican apart from a German? I find that hard to believe.''
That's not a simple yes or no question. Sure, if you gave me two choices like A and B on a true and false test, I'd know. I'd probably be right 95% of the time. However, if I have to create those categorizations for myself, I'd likely be wrong. All of society would. Mexican is not an ethnicity either though. It's a mix. 60% of their population ranges from 1/4 Spaniard-1/4 Indian to 1/4 Indian-1/4 Spaniard.
If you were to break it down to a German and a Spaniard or Spaniard-Mexican on an A and B exam, I wouldn't be as correct. I'd still be a little more correct than the 50-50 possibility (probably 60%-70%), but the lines become much less clear.
''I will give you that the PR/DR are harder to separate from others but if you've been around them enough''
First off, what makes you believe I didn't? Many of my friends growing up were apart of both those backgrounds. Some of my uncle's, aunts and cousins are too. I grew up in New York just like most people on here. I didn't live in the Bronx or Washington Heights, but if you think I grew up in Iowa you're crazy lol
Second off, quote me on this. Puerto Ricans are no longer Puerto Ricans. I don't hang with 49 year olds who may have been born there, so I'm sorry I don't have the best impression of the average age. For someone of the age area where most of my friends are (18-22), they are no longer of any ethnicity. There is no such thing as being Puerto Rican anymore. People of that descent who are my age can't speak the language and no nothing of their culture. Most don't even claim to be Puerto Rican as a culture anymore (especially in the suburbs - where much of their population lives now). They don't want to embarrass themselves or be taken for a low-life imbecile.
I give myself the real dosage of reality. I don't make my own crap and eat like many of you have. There is no cultural distinction to be made between Dominicans and Puerto Ricans. The reason why is because Puerto Rican culture has seized to exist in the city of New York. Yes, I said it. Anyone who attends the Puerto Rican day parade needs to get a new hobby and a god damn life. It doesn't exist. It's a bunch of screaming retards that have no sense of what cultures is. No cultured human-being in this city even considers them to be cultured. That is why ''Puerto Ricans'' (as some of their delusional descendants believe) are a laughing stock to both Dominicans and first generation Dominican-Americans.
I have too much respect for the remains of Dominican culture that exist to throw them in the same category as non-existing culture. They understand the reality better because they've seen everyone do it before them. They didn't come as bad and have been able to take advantage of economic opportunities quicker upon arriving/immigrating to this city. Although the assimilation will work against Dominicans, the modern technology and better education will work in there favor. With that being said, I have more confidence that they'll be able to retain the fluency of the Spanish language, special culinary skills and ties to the Dominican Republic longer than Puerto Ricans did (even though Puerto Ricans should have actually held it longer because of the time period they came).
Maybe in other parts of the country regarding Puerto Rican culture where they've come more recently, it's different. However, in this city they came way before Dominicans, Middle Easterners, Asians, a lot of Eastern Europeans and other Latin American groups. In fact, they're right in a median point in between those groups and Italians, Polish and other early 1900's/late 1800's groups.
''You can line up 10 people who German/PR/Dominican descent and I could identify the Latinos.''
If I gave you that 81% of Puerto Rico and 16% of the Dominican Republic you wouldn't. Especially if I changed Germany to Spain or Italy. For yourself to believe in the term Latino proves you've been injected with a crap needle by this government. That term was never said in your ancestor's culture and likely isn't by your cousins back there. You used the word Hispanic even later in that paragraph. What are you a journalism in the media now? What you are trying to jazz it up by making things sound more ''creative?'' That proves even more that you've been injected with this propaganda?
The fact that you need to rely on other backgrounds to help ''preserve'' your own proves how weakly you may be holding onto it. If you were smart though, you'd realize it would be destroying the culture that use to exist and would be creating a new one. That isn't what's happening in the Dominican Republic, so why are you so interested in meshing and destroying your own? Every time you are taught like a baby to say ''Hispanic'' or ''Latino'' you are doing what European immigrants did 150 years ago. You calling yourself ''Hispanic'' is like them calling themselves ''European'' or ''white.'' Won't that be making you vague? Don't you think that's part of the reason why the government created it in the first place?
''I am Dominican myself and have grown up all my life with Hispanics.''
You may be Dominicans, but don't be surprised if your children aren't. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even marry someone of Dominican descent (and no ''Hispanic'' is not a 'fallback option' - even if they aren't white within Latin America - they probably will be socially and economically). You've described yourself as mixed, but more white. Well, don't you take into account that you are majority white? Don't you take into effect that those white ancestors owned more slaves than a planter in the south (unlike the rest of the Spanish-speaking caribbean, the black population is identical to the white in the Dominican Republic). If you think your families recent immigration stage as a scapegoat to that, don't believe international history of their socially constructed ''whiteness'' doesn't exist.
And we are jumping at the Puerto Rican numbers because it's common sense. WE know that Latinos are majority a mixed.
Than talk to the director of the Census in Puerto Rico. Talk to people of Puerto Rican descent in New York City. Maybe within your little circles they don't believe there white (even though their bloodlines and oppressive ancestors beg to differ). You may have a little idea within your box, but I got the ideological support of over 800,000 New York City residents.
You have to provide evidence to support your case. If you were a lawyer, would you go into court saying the guy is guilty because you ''know he is?'' Well if you did and didn't have luck, you probably wouldn't win. Why would they lie? Give me a good descriptive reason. Just think about it. Others have even pointed out the reluctance of youth's reluctance of ''whiteness.''
Here is how I see it. It actually is pretty simple. We saw the statistics for how Dominicans recorded themselves in 1990. Much less who came consider themselves mixed because of the American social system that was enforced on them. Even if you were attempting to have an argument with Puerto Ricans, it would immediately get refuted. Just look at the Dominicans demographics. 73% are mixed in the Dominican Republic. Only 40.8% say they are here. For Puerto Ricans, 11% say they're mixed on the island and in NYC 28 to 30% say they're mixed. How does that make any sense? You have never responded to the notion of economics either. If ''less white'' people in Puerto Rico were more willing to come, than why wouldn't blacks have come more if they were (and still are) on the lower social hierarchy in that island.
You should be thrilled that this amount of people are mixed compared to the island. It'd be one thing if you wanted to challenge the demographics within New Yorkers who understand little of their heritage/culture, but how could you make that international insinuation? Why would Mexico be right about their demographics? Why would the Dominican Republic and Cuba be right about their's? Why would Puerto Rico be the loan weirdo when it comes to marking a simple question on a piece of freaking paper?
With the exception of Cuba that actually has a decent economy (even if it communist), the U.S. Census provides Puerto Rico with a lot more money and resources than other Latin American countries could get to record these demographics. Why would the people on this island lie? It isn't because they envy ''whiteness''. If that were true other Latin American countries like Cuba, Colombia and Honduras would have recorded their demographics to favor ''whiteness.'' You're saying these statistics are wrong, yet these people voluntarily recorded these themselves. You aren't going back to the beginning though.
Why do you believe their lying? What possible reasons could they have? And why do you have such little confidence in them? Unlike yourself, I have more confidence and respect for people who live in Puerto Rico's abilities. Even though I might for their descendants in New York City regarding linguistic or cultural issues, I am confident in their ability to record their demographics in a respective neighborhood. Knowing whether you're black and white doesn't seem as far away from the expression as you make it seem. It's much easier to do that than speak a language.
''A Spaniard with an African mix have a specific look not like others.''
The same could be said to African mixed with a lot of things. There are over 20 famous athlete's, actor's, singers, ect. that are of black/Italian descent (i.e. Franco Harris, Roy Campanella, Alicia Keys, Mya, Vin Diesel). That girl who won the show last year with the guy who wears the clock around his neck had that mix too. You could say that mix has some ''yummy'' girl's too lol Mixing black and jewish could produce a unique look too. Look at Lenny Kravitz. Spaniards are not the only ''ethnic'' or flavored white group.
''We know this from history and from seeing them in our day to day lives.''
Maybe you don't know them as well as you actually think. Go around with a notebook and calculator and do the demographics for yourself. Go to a variety of ages, residencies and job occupations who share that descent. Don't be surprised if it comes out more to the looks of myself than it does to your bias interests. Remember, I got evidence and hard facts, you don't.
''That's bull****. ''
I've acknowledged that it's wrong. Isn't it possible that the 73% is a little bloated too? (I won't argue about that though being we already did). One on here said that Puerto Rico is in between 60-80% full-European descended. He was of Latin American descent. I believe that a median in that number is believable. At minimum, 2/3. I do believe in the black statistic (8%) and that a little over 1% is of indigenous ancestry is integrated into the general population likewise to the rest of the caribbean. I'm not going to deny people being 1-3% Native American. Even if they were a little more than that, society doesn't believe that qualifies for being mixed. Plus being of Taino decent in itself is technically a mixture of Asian and European. With all that being said, 20 to 25 percent of Puerto Rican is white/black mixed.
''I think a reason for this erroneous result was because Puerto Ricans have been brainwashed into believing white is better.''
That's a general statement. Why? Get into detail. I disagree because that just isn't true. I agree that a positive feeling to ''whiteness'' exists in Puerto Rico (and almost all of spanish-speaking Latin America), but I don't have reason to believe why that'd effect their demographics. If I were wrong, why haven't other Latin American countries screwed up their censuses as badly as you're proposing they did (even though they're funding and resources are much better)? Is there another Spanish-speaking Latin American country that even has the ridiculously incorrect statistics you're proposing Puerto Rico to have? Or ''wrong'' period?
''They are US citizens and have been during the time of segregation.''
That has little to do with anything. Do you know how many people in Puerto Rico don't know how to speak English at a proficient level? Or that have graduated high-school? I'm not demonizing them because internationally speaking they aren't so bad. However, they are very different compared to America. There are a lot of people who live there who have never stepped soil on the U.S. mainland territory and could care less if they ever do.
The civil-rights era effected the whole world. It was a worldwide fight against oppression. It effected Latin American countries with no affiliation to the United States a lot worse than many other countries in this world.
''The US when taking census did not want a large African percentage for obvious reasons...so they encouraged many Puerto Ricans to choose white even if they were obviously mixed. This idea has been passed down to following generations.''
I don't want to come off as stubborn or rude, but I know a lot more about the demographical issue a lot better than yourself (both in this country and internationally). I've studied a lot into this. The U.S. Census asking them their race is actually a knew thing. The government didn't impose stuff on them a while ago. I believe 2000 was the first time they ever did so.
Look at those two big blue words. ''Citation Needed.'' That means it's crapy of a crapy resource. If you read my message from before, you'd know I have a distaste for Wikipedia. I don't think any professor would consider that a good resource. It's because regular people make the information. I didn't want to use the resource in my last message, but I made sure it was correct but using others. I went into detail to find out if those demographics and social complexities were true. The only good thing that Wikipedia did in that was put it all together. And unlikely how they usually are off, they actually were correct in that because it was hard facts (and not perspective).
''These critics maintain that a majority of Puerto Ricans are racially mixed, but that they do not feel the need to identify as such.''
If you believe this, I got one question. Why? Why would anyone prefer to lie in the twenty-first century? What good is there to get out of this? Even if they did have social anxiety, it's not like any of the neighbors or friends know what they put.
'' "Black" suddenly began to disappear from one census to another (within 10 years' time), possibly due to redefinition of the term.''
If they were saying that about the mixed it'd be one thing, but that argument for black Puerto Ricans is severely weak. People got eyes. People live in this modern-day. They could correct themselves by just looking in the mirror now. I don't believe those ideals were imposed on Puerto Rico, because the results came out to be no where true. There economic prosperity was never comparable to the United States. There economical and technological advancement didn't push through until much of the rest of the world did which was 50 year's after the 1910-1920 bracket.
''In all, about 31 African tribes have been recorded in Puerto Rico[
citation needed].''
The same could be said to the rest of Latin America. There is actually a lot more African diversity within nationality's populations in Africa than there is in Europe. It's just that so few on the western hemisphere
are actually aware of this.
What did they prove that it's 1.7% instead of 0.4%? It's obvious that all caribbean islands have only European and African ancestry. What ever goes beyond that is statistically insignificant or too mixed in at small percentages to matter. I'm not arguing that like one quarter to half the population has some sort of Taino descent. I'm saying that the percentages are very, very small.
''After the abolition of slavery in
1873 and the invasion of the United States, a number of
African Americans have also migrated and settled in Puerto Rico.''
This is completely false. I don't even think I need to argue about this one because other's will completely agree lol A couple maybe. They sure know how to exaggerate the quote a ''number.'' It wouldn't make sense to go to a country that abolished 8 years later than your own. Through all the social anxiety they had to take on in this country, do you know how hard learning a new language would be? And leaving their families too?
And adapting to a likely forced upon denomination of Christianity (catholicism) that very few were apart of in the south. Remember too, Puerto Rico was a territory of Spain until 1898. Spain was more abusive and owned a lot more slaves than England. Being black and voluntarily living under an 1800's European monarchy/parliamentary system just don't go together. Discrimination wasn't going to be escaped by going to Puerto Rico. It would have actually been elevated.
''The PR's in the US census made more sense...but could use tweaking. ''
I don't disagree. I believe the statistics in the United States are more accurate. I do acknowledge at the same time that the ones coming to the U.S. were more diverse too. For those who were middle and upper middle-class there, life wasn't so bad. When you are living good in a place, it doesn't make sense to want to go to another.
With that being said, I believe 7 out of 10 (or any range of 2/3 to 5/7) of Puerto Ricans are could legitimately claim they're white (outside of the possibility of being 1-3% Native American, likewise to their slave-owning counterpart American southerners). I believe 5 out of 9 (or anywhere ranging from 5 or 6 out of 10) Puerto Ricans in New York City are ''white.''
Even if all that pro-white American garbage was pumped into Puerto Ricans 50 to 100 years ago, much of it would have been washed away in New York City. In fact, it feels sometimes that it turned completely opposite. The anti-white (especially working-class) sentiment indirectly produced by this powerful New York media have re-shaped the psychology of much of the youth. In a way, you could kind of say it's like one minus was given with their ancestors ideas of ''whiteness'' and one minus was given to the New Yorker's ''anti-whiteness.'' Even though both are negative, it could be like multiplication in math. It could have washed away that ''anti-white'' and ''media hate whitey'' idea. With that being said, that's why I don't think a number like 80% and 40% doesn't exist for them in this city. A more accurate like 60% exists.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
