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.
"Hispanics" were originally white. Ask any of your elders.
Those groups have never not been white. They experienced some social exclusion, but they were always considered white.
So were Indians from the Asian subcontinent but almost none of them were treated as white. Nikki Haley for example classifies herself as white but it is debatable if White Americans consider her white.
So were Indians from the Asian subcontinent but almost none of them were treated as white. Nikki Haley for example classifies herself as white but it is debatable if White Americans consider her white.
Did you read that article? It's just one more example of the left trying to create separate identities, boost their importance and use them for political advantage.
Did you read that article? It's just one more example of the left trying to create separate identities, boost their importance and use them for political advantage.
I haven't seen this discussed much in the media but almost no one discusses how Black Americans have actually kept with the broader population growth rate in America while White Americans have not. In 1960, non-Hispanic White Americans made up 88.6% of the population while Black Americans made up 10.5% of the population. In 2015, non-Hispanic White Americans make up 62% of the population while Black Americans make up 13% of the population. The ratio of White Americans to Black Americans in 1960 was 8.4 White persons for every 1 Black person in America. It is now approximately 4.7 White person for every 1 Black person in America.
This generally explains why movements like Black Lives Matter today are far more powerful than movements like the Black Panthers were in the 60s and also why Black political concerns are given more coverage than they were back in the 60s. Republicans are eventually going to have to relent and expel the racism and white identity politics that is permeating the entire party. They simply don't have the numbers to keep this going.
On this, as other posters have pointed out. Latinos/Hispanics were previously counted as "white" in the past and so that added to the numbers of "whites" in America.
That said, I do not believe BLM has any "power" versus the Black Panther Party of the past. BPP was MUCH more highly organized and effective in their local communities as it related to the Black Power Movement than BLM is today.
Also BLM is NOTHING to compare to the actual Civil Rights Movement and the organizations and churches involved in that movement. They were much more "powerful" than BLM. BLM is mostly an online social justice movement and they have not done much of anything to assist black people in America, unlike either BPP or CRM participants.
In regards to "black political concerns given more coverage" I do not believe this is the case considering I do a lot of historical research with a focus on black history. Black people have always been socially active and from even the 1830s forward (with the rise of the black abolitionist by way of Frederick Douglass in particular) our demographic had a constant presence in media. However, "media" today is just more of a monster than it was in the past. But the CRM in the 60s and 70s had people saying the same things back then as they say about some of BLM activities today - how black people "whine" about race and that we "agitate" or "cause riots and violence and police to be attacked." All of this stuff was talked about on the news in the past and in newspapers and on radio. So it was just as prominent.
IMO the only time when "black issues" weren't in the forefront consistently was the 1980s and 1990s (except for the LA race riot and OJ's trial). And IMO this has to do with the fact that black Americans were heavily effected by drug epidemics during that time so there weren't as many vocal activists on race issues as activist were focused more on community issues at that time.
Did you read that article? It's just one more example of the left trying to create identities, boost their importance and use hurricanes, political advantage.
Yeah, they really love their Racial categories dont they. They even create ones where there were none before: Hispanic, White Hispanic, Afro Hispanic. We should definately have categories for Arabs, North Africans, Irish, and Italians so we can have true racial/ethnic recognition Definately one called Afro-Anglo for our President
The whole concept of the minority is just a modern liberal identity group politics scheme.
Mexicans were always considered Mexicans and the same for all other nationalities of latin America as far back as I can remember or older people I know can. Really they would be no differently situated from say a southern Italian Catholic who is admixed with middle easterner and north African and darker and less European genetically.
Originally the idea historically was to give gravy to blacks and American Indian tribes native to the US (not to all the tribes of the entire Americas). Of course the liberal political group identity scheme wasn't going to end there and kept isolating all the way to non-Hispanics, non-Jewish whites as the scapegoats and also divided by sex.
LOL on the bold. Just like all the other "free stuff" that us blacks supposedly get, I have yet to get my "gravy" lol.
I don't particularly like gravy though so that may be a good things
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Fertility rates have fallen for all racial groups and now aren't that different. However the Black fertility rate was 2.5 a recently as 1995 while the White fertility rate has been 1.8 for decades. Another cause is only 10% of immigrants are "White non Hispanic", compared with 90% before WW2. A third factor is the rising rate of White parents having children with non White partners, the children are still half European DNA but on the census's "White non Hispanic Only" category are zero percent White.
As others have already said... White non Hispanic and Latino are lame ways to label people. In the USA it's such a diverse group it doesn't mean much. A Latino could be 100% European, 100% African, 100% Native America, even 100% Japanese (millions of them in South America). In the US census someone that's half German and half Italian and from Argentina would be considered 'non White and someone that's 100% African from Panama wouldn't be Black.
In the long run the future of America is a mixed race population where race categories won't matter, think of Tiger Woods. When America was founded the notion of White Unity didn't exist, people from Italy and even German were considered barbarian invaders.
There was tension between Mexicans and Anglo-Americans, some Mexicans were lynched just like everybody else was, but in Texas both groups were white. Mexicans were part of the white community and they were complicit in the discrimination and terror that black people went through in Texas:
Mexican men were responsible for the Dallas bombings in 1950.
"Latinos" today, are trying to rewrite history and pretend that they were a downtrodden minority group that was helping out in the civil rights struggle…it's a lie. They were actually part of the problem.
In Texas, Mexicans were klan-robe white, and bombed black people's homes. Like their Anglo counterparts they didn't want black people in their white communities and schools, and were complicit in Jim Crow - not victims of it.
First of all, Hispanic is NOT a race, some are white, some are black, some are native american, the vast majority are mixed. This has alot to do with history, as there was alot more race mixing and just overall openness in Spanish/Portuguese colonies which lead to predominantly mixed populations in Latin America today, while in English/French colonies Europeans and Africans were moreso segregated from each other which lead to more pure races to this day in the US and some of the Caribbean. Overall it depends on the country of origin.
Maybe, in the 1940s and 50s white hispanics made up most of the US hispanic population. But since the 60s, theres been very heavy immigration from more mixed hispanics, more mestizo looking mexicans, more mulatto looking puerto ricans, mulatto/black dominicans, mestizo/native central americans. They always been just as poor as us blacks, but with a little less discrimination, tho they did get they're share of discrimination which is partly the reason for the formation of groups like Brown Berets and the Young Lords. Sh*t, on the eastcoast many predominantly hispanic/puerto rican areas are just as poor and dangerous (if not more so) then nearby mostly black areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone
"Hispanics" were originally white. Ask any of your elders.
Those groups have never not been white. They experienced some social exclusion, but they were always considered white.
Seems to me that you are just a hateful spiteful black man who has some type of dislike for hispanics. I love my people, just not dummies like you. Just so you know, I'm a darkskin Black woman, and my husband/children's father is a mulatto hispanic of Puerto rican descent (looks exactly like R&B artist Chris Brown just a shade lighter). Let that sink in, brotha
Last edited by DarkLoFan; 11-02-2016 at 04:35 PM..
Fair enough. And of Asians? I believe they were not considered legally white. Only Europeans and, among Hispanics, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans were legally white. Anti-miscegenation laws applied to Asians and Blacks only. Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and whites were free to intermarry with each other
Felipe Luciano, a mulatto Puerto Rican once told a story of how the doctor asked his Moms of whether to mark him as black or white, LOL.
Thing is though, on the streets, it was pretty much clear what he was seen as by the general society.
I think only reason some groups had that option is because if they were officially designated as colored public and political opposition would even make commonwealth status dead on arrival, much less statehood.
Piri Thomas sure as hell wasn't accepted as a white brother either in the north or the south.
The old school PRs were able to better hold on to to their cultural identity and like most other groups who did the same were at least stable working class.
The more Americanized POC seem to do worse.
Last edited by kovert; 11-02-2016 at 05:17 PM..
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.
Definately one called Afro-Anglo for our President
