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.
then again, you would probably 'believe' that the unequal representation of black and brown jellybeans in a bag of candy was some insidious racist plot
Without seeing a copy or reading it (which was written in 1972, by the way), I do not know the context any of the quotes are used in. But since the general content of the book (as I read in a couple of newspaper reviews) it about past history, including the time period of the U.S. annexation of half of the Republic of Mexico. Are those quotes, taken from writings of that time period (the 1800's)?
On the Gonzalez speech, a lot would depend on how it was framed in the book.
(ADDED)
With a little looking, a little of mentioned "Plan of San Diego". PLAN OF SAN DIEGO. With the outbreak of revolution in northern Mexico in 1910, federal authorities and officials of the state of Texas feared that the violence and disorder might spill over into the Rio Grande valley. The Mexican and Mexican-American populations residing in the Valley far outnumbered the Anglo population. Many Valley residents either had relatives living in areas of Mexico affected by revolutionary activity or aided the various revolutionary factions in Mexico. The revolution caused an influx of political refugees and illegal immigrants into the border region, politicizing the Valley population and disturbing the traditional politics of the region. Some radical elements saw the Mexican Revolution as an opportunity to bring about drastic political and economic changes in South Texas. The most extreme example of this was a movement supporting the "Plan of San Diego," a revolutionary manifesto supposedly written and signed at the South Texas town of San Diego on January 6, 1915.
So i have my doubts on the rest of the OP's article.
If you bothered to read its currently being taught in our schools as RAZA STUDIES.
This is a reiteration of the initially refuted false premise, not a new argument.
Your own post was a false premise. You choose literalism over reality.
"La Raza" is meant in the context of "the people" -- but more specifically, the glorification and promotion of a PARTICULAR people of Central America, mostly Mexican and Guatemalan who have significant "indigenous" blood and Mestizo appearance. It is an exclusionary group. Mexicans have a heavy indigenous mix overall, with what... 10-12% pure Spaniards? 1% if that black? (Interestingly, the majority of those Mexicans who were in the American Southwest when it transferred from "Mexico" to the "United States" have more in common genetically with Europeans than they do fellow "Mexican" indios from Chiapas, due to the SPANISH settlement of the Southwest. Mayans and Aztecs never had dominion over the US Southwest, but most illegal immigrants from South of the Border these days are of the indio variety).....
La Raza is ethnocentric and racist because it excludes and promotes the peculiar Chicano Hispanic mix over Anglo whites, Hispanic whites, blacks, Asians, etc.
Indeed, "La Raza" is not an advocate for all Hispanics or Latinos of South America. It has no relevance to Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and especially not white Uruguayans or Argentinians.
If you bothered to read its currently being taught in our schools as RAZA STUDIES.
This is teaching terrorism
If that is the case, then any book about the founding of this nation, would be considered a book for teaching terrorism and should not be used or taught in schools.
As a history book, the only thing I care, is if it is factual. If it is, then let it be used along with other books.
Since the original article failed to mention the "San Diego Plan" in the book was from 100 years ago, I tend to take any mention of so-called raza studies in the blogpost with a grain of salt.
Last edited by plannine; 04-15-2011 at 09:35 AM..
Reason: sticking to topic
One translation of "La Raza" in Castilian is "The Race." Since there is no Latino race, the rendering of "La Raza" as "The People" or "The Community" that the NCLR official position favors seems plausible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
"La Raza" is meant in the context of "the people" -- but more specifically, the glorification and promotion of a PARTICULAR people of Central America, mostly Mexican and Guatemalan who have significant "indigenous" blood and Mestizo appearance.
Mexico is not in Central America. More to the point, while most Mexicans and particularly Guatemalans may possess a majority of Amerindian admixture, the majority of so-called "Mexican-Americans" and U.S. Hispanics do not, as they possess majority European admixture. As recorded in Genetic admixture and gallbladder disease in Mexican Americans, "Overall, the proportionate genetic contributions from European, Native American, and African ancestries in our sample were 0.575, 0.390, and 0.035, respectively." As recorded in Maximum likelihood estimates of admixture in Northeastern Mexico using 13 short tandem repeat loci, "Maximum likelihood estimates of admixture components yield a trihybrid model with Spanish, Amerindian, and African ancestry with the admixture proportions: 54.99% +/- 3.44, 39.99% +/- 2.57, and 5.02% +/- 2.82, respectively." As recorded in Genetic admixture, self-reported ethnicity, self-estimated admixture, and skin pigmentation among Hispanics and Native Americans, "Among self-identified Hispanics, the average NA admixture is 32.7%...(see Table 1), slightly lower than the 34.1% found by Bonilla et al. (2004a) in their southern Colorado sample. Among self-identified NAs, the average NA admixture is 71.8%..., a value significantly larger than observed in Hispanics (P \ 0.001)."
Mexicans and so-called "Mexican-Americans" constitute 65.5% of the U.S. Hispanic population, meaning that they are more than seven times as numerous as the second most populous Hispanic ethnic group, Puerto Ricans, who constitute 9.1% of U.S. Hispanics. Therefore, it seems probable that a commensurate level of Hispanic activism would be oriented towards the Mexican and "Mexican-American" populations. Guatemalans and so-called "Guatemalan-Americans" only constitute 2.2% of the U.S. Hispanic population, so it seems improbable that they would be similarly represented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
It is an exclusionary group. Mexicans have a heavy indigenous mix overall, with what... 10-12% pure Spaniards? 1% if that black? (Interestingly, the majority of those Mexicans who were in the American Southwest when it transferred from "Mexico" to the "United States" have more in common genetically with Europeans than they do fellow "Mexican" indios from Chiapas, due to the SPANISH settlement of the Southwest. Mayans and Aztecs never had dominion over the US Southwest, but most illegal immigrants from South of the Border are of the indio variety).....
Considered as an Indian ethnological region, the Southwest (including northern Mexico) was relatively sparsely populated compared to Mesoamerica due to the historical disparities in agricultural production and resultant population densities. Amerindian admixture levels in modern populations are proportionate to these historic population densities; as recorded in Analysis of genomic diversity in Mexican Mestizo populations to develop genomic medicine in Mexico, "In most analyses, samples from central regions were closer to ZAP, while samples from northern regions were located closer to CEU, correlating with Amerindian population density in those regions, both in modern days and in the pre-Hispanic period (19)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
La Raza is ethnocentric and racist because it excludes and promotes the peculiar Chicano Hispanic mix over Anglo whites, Hispanic whites, blacks, Asians, etc.
The NCLR would presumably focus on aid to Hispanics rather than Anglos, since the underlying assumption of minority group activism is that of underdog advocacy. However, the claim of specific preference for ethnic "Mexican-Americans" other than that which is commensurate to their status as the most populous Hispanic ethnic group (by far), has not been supported. In addition to that, it does not seem plausible because Mexicans do not possess a homogenous racial admixture, instead clustering at various points along the Amerindian-European admixture continuum, which is true of the Hispanic population as a whole, and all constituent ethnic groups. "Mexican-Americans," or "Chicano Hispanics," do possess a more homogenous racial admixture, that of majority European and minority Amerindian genetic background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Indeed, "La Raza" is not an advocate for all Hispanics or Latinos of South America. It has no relevance to Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and especially not white Uruguayans or Argentinians.
Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic are not in South America. Uruguayans and Argentines are mixed-race. As recorded in Genetic Admixture Estimate in the Uruguayan Population Based on the Loci LDLR , GYPA , HBGG , GC and D7S8, "Our genetic admixture estimate showed evidence that the main genetic contribution comes from Europe with a small Amerindian and a minor African contribution with the admixture proportions: 84.1%, 10.4%, and 5.6% respectively. Genetic distances between the Uruguayan sample and several other Latin American populations revealed the closest genetic relationship with the Argentinean capital city, probably because its common history and demographic characteristics."
Aside from that, your claims are assertions without supportive arguments or evidence. It seems relatively straightforward and plausible that the NCLR and Hispanic activist groups would offer services to all Hispanics based on their common linguistic and cultural characteristics, in line with their own officially stated positions. If there is evidence to the contrary, present it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC
If that was what is was meant to be called then the name would have been "el pueblo"
"El Pueblo" is a linguistic alternative to "La Raza." There is a North Carolina based organization called El Pueblo allied with the NCLR. However, since it seems improbable that an organization would choose the name "The Race" in reference to a specific racial group when that directly contradicts the multi-racial nature of ethnic Latinos, only to deny the meaning of the name that their founders chose, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that "La Raza" ought to be best rendered as "The People" or "The Community."
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.
