The "Hispanic" ethnic group in San Antonio (Victoria: home, gated)

[Goominim]

Originally Posted by Gennaver

Hello Goominim,

I just replied to the initial post. I've been mistaken for Norwegian and German, Indonisian surprising to me and only once did someone ask if I was Ojibwe, (yes, I am).

While I am fair, (Rubia) many in my family are darker and look like "Dances with Wolves". It just is how it is, right?
Gen

Hi Gen, Thanks for the reply. I'm probably the darkest complected in my whole family. An odd thing is that I've had blond hairs sprout on occasion (my hair is mostly black). The bad news is that the gray is ever-increasing. Regarding the hispanic term, I use that to describe myself probably because I'm not sure what else to use. Referring to myself as Mexican doesn't seem right, as I've never been there and I don't know anyone who lives there. As far as I feel about myself, I'm 100% American. The hispanic term is just descriptive of my past roots.

[ilmd]

Gennaver- Regarding IHS- Indian Health Service, pertaining to any part of health/medical. BIA, Bureau Of Indian Affairs encompasses a larger area- health/medical, housing, education, etc.

[stics]

Ispania/Spanish = Hispanic
We were once white until the Nixon Administration.........

The term Hispanic
During the 1970s, the federal government, namely the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under Richard Nixon?s leadership, needed to find another classification to account for the tremendous increase of Latino population and the word Hispanic was born. The term includes persons from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuban, Central and South America or other Spanish culture or origin regardless whether they are Indian, Black, or White. The government assembled a committee, among them a couple of Spanish-speaking individuals, who discussed this issue for six months. Unfortunately, the decision to use ?Hispanic? as an identifier was made under false assumption about the history, culture and geography of this specific population. According to Grace Flores-Hughes, the lead member of this committee, the term Latino was scrapped because of the similarity to Ladino (a language spoken by descendants of the exiled Spanish Jews). Additionally, Latino sounded too masculine, whereby women would be excluded, and if taken literally, it would include Italians, Portuguese, and French. Some who prefer to be called Hispanic feel that since ?we all speak Spanish? the term Hispanic would serve as the best identifier. Dr. David Hayes-Bautista, a noted historian, refutes that analysis in the following way. First, many dictionaries define the term ?Latin? as belonging to Mediterranean Europe while the term ?Latino? implies the connection to Latin America. Secondly, the rules of the Spanish grammar utilizes the masculine ending when lumping both sexes in a category but the term ?Latino? is sex neutral. Finally, there is a misconception that Spanish is the language spoken by all when in reality, people in Brazil (part of South America) speak Portuguese. Furthermore, many of the people from Central and South America are Indians and speak a different dialect.

[rstrstx]

Originally Posted by Hyun-Soo

When you go to Reynosa it seems as if 100% of the people at around are light complexion/European Spanish looking.

I don't see any AmerIndians or Mestizos there...

However when you come to San Antonio, Hispanics seem to be much darker and probably have Indian ancestries.
I guess the richer White Mexicans can afford to live there, while the sometimes opressed AmerIndians choose to come here.

I see you've been to the Reynosa Applebee's then

[imaterry78259]

Mexican orgins are predominantly- North African.Southern Spain and the mix of the native indians

[Gennaver]

Originally Posted by kenshin522

.... Most Anthropologists agree that the native population originated in Asia and migrated here...

I do not agree with it but thats what they say...
Peace.

Hello,

I'd be learey to even say "most" with Anthro's anymore.

Thing is, about that Berring strait theory and the Euro-dominant mindset...who is to say that the direction of travel wasn't reversed and that it was the Indigenous North Americans who did the travelling, right?
Gen-Giigoonkwe, (fish clan woman)

[Gennaver]

Originally Posted by Goominim

Hi Gen, Thanks for the reply. I'm probably the darkest complected in my whole family. An odd thing is that I've had blond hairs sprout on occasion (my hair is mostly black). The bad news is that the gray is ever-increasing. Regarding the hispanic term, I use that to describe myself probably because I'm not sure what else to use. Referring to myself as Mexican doesn't seem right, as I've never been there and I don't know anyone who lives there. As far as I feel about myself, I'm 100% American. The hispanic term is just descriptive of my past roots.

Hello Goominim,

I do understand and actually agree. Knowing that the general dominant society uses the terms Hispanic, Latino and Native American, (yikes on the AmerIndian though) I do use them too, I do understand, its all in how one self-Identifies and terms are terms, are just terms.
Gen

[Gennaver]

Originally Posted by ilmd

Gennaver- Regarding IHS- Indian Health Service, pertaining to any part of health/medical. BIA, Bureau Of Indian Affairs encompasses a larger area- health/medical, housing, education, etc.

Hello,
Yes, I am cognizant. However, generally it has been my experience that nurses do not referr to the "B.I.A." but rather to the IHS. Describing oneself as having worked for the BIA seems so much more removed and Federal than working for the tribes and patients of the IHS.

Just me though,
Gen

[kenshin522]

Originally Posted by Gennaver

Hello,

I'd be learey to even say "most" with Anthro's anymore.

Thing is, about that Berring strait theory and the Euro-dominant mindset...who is to say that the direction of travel wasn't reversed and that it was the Indigenous North Americans who did the travelling, right?
Gen-Giigoonkwe, (fish clan woman)

Because once again it would lay the burden of "stealing" land back on the Europeans... In my opinion, it is some nationalists/supremacists destiny to prove beyond all doubt that this land was not indigenous to anyone besides some of the native plant species. They do this by using different hypothesis as to how people got here and when... Everytime new evidence is submitted that contradicts what they've already claimed they disreguard it entirely or say that dating found by whatever dating method used was exaggerated...

I have questioned this as well... Firstly, Native Asians of the Mongoloid race are rarely darker than brown, except in some Tibets and other Southeast Asians whom now occupy lands where a once Negrito and Dravidian populations existed.

Native American range from very light to Black in skin color. The latter which gives some evidence of existing in an area very near or at the equator for a long period of time... If they had all came from Asia during the timeframe some people give us (12,000 - 20,000 years) they would probably not be that dark. Unlike Asians most Native Americans have very prominent features... Their faces are not flat, their lips are usually fuller and their hair can be straight or wavy. In some tribes in South America some children are born with blondish or ash blonde hair which will turn brown or dark brown when they become an adult... I don't remember hearing about too many asians born with these features.. The argument; non-amerindian ancestry or proof that Caucasians were already here and are responsible for the various features we see... Some of the professional and especially nationalists have stated that it may be that Native Americans stole the land from the already settled Europeans.

This is based little on skeletal remains or genetics... It is actually based on spear points some predating the Clovis culture which resemble those made by prehistoric people in France.

Some might say Kennewick man is proof that Europeans had a presence in precolumbus America... I don't discredit that.. I think many people might have found this land... However that is not to say they had such an impact as to change the genetic makeup of the Indigenous people... The Pure Blood Indians even when born lighter and with lighter hair do not show European ancestry.

Most have ignored Kennewick man's obvious non-caucasoid features simply stating that his long, narrow headshape is proof that he was a European.

It's even more sad that some are even discrediting Native Americans for the civilizations in MesoAmerica and South America.. Some inciting that there evidence pointing out that these people were influenced by an outside people, probably from Egypt. And that Kukulkan/Quetzalcoatl was indicted as being a white bearded man so therefore the Native Americans who later would become known as Aztecs, Mayas, Toltecs, Zapotecs and Incas did not invent anything on their own but instead had to be taught how to do it.

Yes Hispanic is a recent term. Latino might be appropriate when referring to everyone from Latin America who speaks a Latin derived language.
Hispanics in the USA might have once been considered White by law but were definitely were not looked at as one unless they were mostly White.

Especially when Speaking of the Mexicans... Infact, it is written in black and white in history that there was an "All Mexico" campaign where the US was planning on conquering the rest of Mexico and either including it as a state or its' states as a whole within this union. However some were not to happy about it, especially a senator from S. Caroliona named John Calhoun, who wrote to the President urgin him NOT to include Mexico within the Union as it would be disastrous... He goes on to say...

"I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. "

"...And even in the savage state we scarcely find them anywhere with such government, except it be our noble savages—for noble I will call them. They, for the most part, had free institutions, but they are easily sustained among a savage people. Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? Sir, I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions."

This is the reason Mexico was never included as part of the USA, and the reason Nixon had to seperate them. Until fairly recently people knew the History of Mexico and it's people. Today most of that is lost behind the Hispanic label. In some ways it has destroyed their ancestral and cultural roots. I'd hate to say it, but sometimes I blame it for the reason we have Chicano gangs. Having no knowledge of their past therefore having no "place" in this world leads them to ignorance, violence and lack of respect.
The BIA does not even recognize them and has pretty much made it clear that they will never recognize them as they were not historically located in the territory that the Americans conquered...

[ilmd]

Gennaver- I asked two of my nurse friends who also worked BIA/IHS what they felt about the cross terminology. They both didn't have any preference- to us, at least it is really the same. One of them said she hears the term 'reservation/res alot when describing work. It doesn't matter which abbreviation someone uses to us. It is like asking a person if he wants a 'soda', or a 'pop'- same thing. It might make a difference what you call it because of where you live in the US.