Which place has more non communicative institutionalized racism? The South? Or spanish-speaking Latin America? (middle-class, fit in)

[nyc0127]

Obviously, historically speaking, slavery was the backbone to both of these places at one time. The south obviously has less people, but a higher blacker percentage. Latin America has a higher indigenous descended population too. Both have parts that arguably still held onto these traits of the ''old world.''

We see changing places in places like Atlanta and Raleigh, likewise to Brazil (Latin America - but Portuguesse speaking) in the sense that more of the general population's are assimilating, educating and become economically advanced. However, we still see traits come out of these places that just don't seem to fit into society well.

In the south, you have that ''lurk'' that is often tied into their societal history. Both whites and blacks still remain very religious there, although split politically for different reasoning. White southerners and urban Catholic's were the heart of the Democratic Party for a long time. Urban Catholic's assimilation and dissolved. They faded into their region.

When Democrat's took on the civil rights movement and Republican's stould idle, more black's started voting Democrat and whites transitioned into the heart of the Republican party. Even though the majority are against thing's like gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion, they're split for ethnocentric reasons centered around racism. It's talked about nationally, but little locally. And when it is, with the exclusion of the higher education and/or liberals, the social collaboration is socially separated to each's respective group.

In Latin America, it's simple. Turn on the spanish channel and look at the actor's. Most are citizens of Latin American countries that wouldn't be in this country if it weren't for a job. Some of those shows are actually made there. They're all much more white than their respective population. It is to my belief that about 1/3 of Latin America is fully Spaniard descended, and in between 5 to 10 percent of both full black and full indigenous. The other half is a mixture of different percentages for Meztiso's (half white/half indigenous); half black/half white (I don't choose to say ''mulatto'' because of it's negative 50's tone), Zambo's (half black/half native american - although I'm not sure how ''politically correct this is either'') and obviously mixes of the three.

Each country has different demographics, but it's obviously evident that mixing was more popular in America. Much of this is due to Spain's conquering methods. It was pretty much there were or no way. All were catholic and forced to live the lifestyle of the Spaniards. Many Native Americans were killed. Not many women we brought (although some and more later on in the 1600's and 1700's). It's important to note that each country has different demographics and that Latin America can't be judged as one, but all do have a somewhat similar social complexity, economic state and education level (with the exception of Cuba).

They are different in many ways, but similar too. I don't believe America acklowedges the slave trade in spanish-Speaking Latin America appropriatley. We are all one world. Americans have the tendency to believe that all Latin Americans are apart of all one ethnicity and don't understand the complexity of the enslavement that occured in Latin America outside of a textbook definition. It did occur. There were Europeans who did it to Africans just like Americans. Eventually, all became Americans or their respective Latin America country.

Some try to refute that there are whites in Latin America or blacks. Until people understand this clearly and look at this from an international perspective, thing's just won't be healthy for the future. Even though the south has it's problems, it has opened up and has went down with much disgrace. That will be beneficial in the future.

Latin America is catching up to the rest of the world economically, educationally and in some ways socially. They'll stay behind if they don't understand this though. People can't ignore this because they don't like this. People should know their lineal histories better too. They should know their ancestral trees to contain their history better. We are all individuals with our own personal situations and can't judge ourself from a societal overview while containing our right to choice.

I don't know if it ever will come, but the assimilation and democratization of Latin American countries (i.e. Mexico) will be necessary for the proper intregration and fairness for the future to come.

In order to understand this, I recommend you follow up on where we started this topic from. This is somewhat like a sub-topic that developed similarly to how the other one developed off a previous thread. This is an interesting topic though that I believe can draw a lot of distribution of a lot of different opinions and facts.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/immig...cy-term-4.html

[nyc0127]

Please only vote once. I will too.

If any of you choose to respond, I'll try to get back to oyu as soon as possible. I won't be online for the next day or two to respond.

[UrbanQuest]

It's really simple for me. Latin America hasn't changed at all and the South has. 39% of white males in Georgia voted for Barak Obama. It's just so obvious with the tele novelas and such. You won't find that outright white supremacism in Southern Media. What makes it worse, is that the South is majority white and Latin America isn't. Hispanics bring that ancient ingrained malarky here and try to push it onto to us, which shows how bad it really is. I couldn't imagine what it is like for a pure Native Amerindian or Black in Latin America. But then again, look at Sudan where the medium dark blacks with a little bit of curlyness in their hair and Muslim heritage trying to eradicate the darker non muslim blacks in their homeland. India has their caste system (not official of course) (skin color again). Why is it hillary won Florida and California? Hispanics did not vote for Barak Obama, although 93% white Iowa did. I hope the dude in Venezuela can change some of this, I think he's trying. It seems democracy is not the only thing this country needs to export around the world. Eracism.

[nyc0127]

I agree with most of your message. The only part I don't agree with is calling people in Latin America ''Hispanics'' or anything that would all throw them into the same category. Many different countries have different social situations, education levels, international integration and economical situations.

Even for Latin America though, this isn't a thing of white versus black. Many of the completely black caribbean islands (that aren't Spanish speaking) actually often do better for themselves than a decent amount of the Spaniard descended Latin Americans.
People get things confused though. It's as if people expect that if a place is all white, it means that they're racist. Usually, the more racist places in this country are places where blacks do live, especially if there is a powerful media behind it. As awkward as this would sound, if I were a middle class black man, I'd expect to be treated like a human-being (and not a color) in Iowa over New York City. Being rare might seem awkward anywhere, but because that is so people just aren't as quick to judge. It's not like blacks are poor in states like New Hampshire or Iowa.

Barack Obama has a unique case though. The media doesn't know what to label him. They like him a lot more than all the other candidates. That's because he's young and something new that doesn't have the last name: Clinton or Bush. I voted for Obama in the New Jersey primary. More poor and lower-middle class Democrat's have voted for Clinton, where as middle-class and upper-middle class Democrat's have voted for Obama.

The media has a lot of influence on people. They wouldn't know what to label Obama. You can't be a few different things meshed into one with a clear identity. Although few Americans are aware of this, his father is from Kenya (who was born Muslim and later became an atheist - not that it should matter, but to unintellectual Americans it does, just like being Mormon, Atheist or Gay). He's also half-white. His stepfather is from Indonesia, where he lived for a couple years.

You can't be black and muslim in this country. Now I know what thought comes to mind when I say that. People say, what about losers like Louis Farrakhan. They never understood the Islamic religion. Sure, maybe they understood it the way an educated man understands business, but it doesn't mean that is who he is. It's nothing against blacks, but if you are an American (or from the Western Hemisphere) and don't have recent foreign ties to the Islamic religion, it's difficult to understand how to create something new in which would have either seemed rare or a counterculture.

Even if the identity would have been respected, people wouldn't have this media-stigma of ''terrorism'' in there mind, if their ancestor's had been living in this country for 300 years. In fact, if by any stereotype the media has promoted, if you are to see some sort of explosion or something of that nature (and it isn't linked to the color codes of our 30% approval rated president), it'd be by the whitest American (i.e. Timothy McVeigh) and never by a black American.

Americans can handle thinking all that. It's too much work. To help simplify things, it sounds easier to say black. It also helps generate liberal interest. Plus, Democrats know they have Republican's right where they want them. They got an old man who comes off more nasty than Clinton who has been divorced. A lot of conservatives either just won't vote for him. The way I see it, who ever wins the Democratic nomination is probably our next president.

Going back to what you said though, wouldn't it be contradictory to state that the so-called make-believe ''Hispanics'' aren't voting for Obama because he's black? How would they have that old world trait in them? They wouldn't have the right to vote in this country at minimum 14 years to acquire citizenship, or probably even birth.

There is no such thing as being ''Hispanic.'' There is nothing such as being Latin American neither. If there was, it'd be similar to being North American. And we all know Canadians, Americans and Mexicans have a lot of social differences. There is such a thing to be ''foreign'' and represent the nature of your respective citizenship, but that usually wares away by the time you acquire citizenship (if you do exercise the right to vote).

Obama hasn't fought in those states as hard (or has just not generated the interest), rather choosing to be more intelligent about where he wants to allocate the large amount of money he has recently raised. Texas has a lot of poor people. Poor people are desperate and want dependability. Bill Clinton represents that. Even if Hillary isn't her husband, he's right next to her and will give her plenty of economic guidance that would necessary for our country.

''Hispanics'' don't exist. Anyone who believes they do is out of there mind. It just isn't feasible. There is no unity. There is no social constructed unity. Human beings form social construction, not government implementations. Do people actually believe that a bunch of people of a make-believe ethnicity (who are American citizens with the privilege of voting) all go into a room to discuss who they'll vote?

The only poor Latin-Americans in this country that would be any more concerned for a low-class collectivist style are immigrant's who have likely been in this country less than 14 years (many acquire citizenship a lot later than that). There is no such thing as the first-generation economically or educationally. Any Latin American descendant who keeps themselves behind economically is doing it at there own will just like any other American, and does so equally. If they choose to do so, they should consider themselves white trash. Is there a white trash vote (well yeah if you counted the Republican party's base - but they don't do it intentionally).

The reasons for why California didn't vote for Barack Obama is similar to New York and New Jersey. All three of those states got money and affluence. Middle-class Americans like Obama more than lower-middle class ones. I know that sounds a little ironic considering he has a more liberal voting record, but it's true. Hillary comes off as polarizing, but is obviously more concrete. She's like a mean teacher, yet good too. He's a good change that this country needs. If Hillary were to be president for 8 years, we'd have 36 years of at least one Bush or Clinton as a president or vice president.

Anyone who believes in the legality or governmentally created term ''Hispanic'' is going through the motions right along with their ignorant mommy and daddy (the media). Yesterday I watched something on CNN about the ''Hispanic vote.'' They had a women who identified herself as a Mexican-American from Chicago. She was well-educated, yet fed herself this garbage (largely because it's her job - but we all know she doesn't believe any of it). She was American as pie (and fully sounded it - even though she was foreign-born), yet she would irritably say the word ''Latino'' like half of her tongue cut out of her mouth.
She should be ashamed of herself. I'm sure I might baffle some by saying this, but it's true. Her career has been a waste and an utter disgrace. She has promoted a life of ignorance. She has given Latin American immigrants a separated feeling that leaves them in a socially awkward-kiss ass approach to Euro-Americans and a distaste with African-Americans who they often compete with working class blue-collared blacks for. She has done more harm than good. It's simple. You can't believe in the term ''Hispanic'' and consider yourself an intellect. Every time you say it you're injecting yourself with an IV of urine If you guys don't believe me, why don't Canadians, Western Europeans, Australians, South Africans or Japanese believe in this?


You're right, democracy might just be a little overrated. I wouldn't want communism or anything, but the right mix between Democracy and socialism needs to be created likewise to Western Europe and Canada. In some Scandanavian countries, they practically make it mandatory to raise your child the right way. Government intervention may suck, but they're doing a lot better than us and will continue to do so. Our dollar is worth 68 cents to the Euro right now.

[nyc0127]

What I meant to say with Clinton is that there are exceptions for how the economic's work out. As we can tell, Louisiana went for Obama, even though they're dead poor. Part of this could be due to the state being 39% black though. And liberal states like New York or California have went to Clinton. There are exceptions to things, but to believe in the context of the term ''Latino'' or ''Hispanic'' is a joke. It's a media invented political tool, that usually means nothing when it comes to voting.

The reason why I say that is because they vote along with the rest of the country. Most don't care for illegal immigration in any direction anymore than the next person. They do border-patrol just like anyone else (if they're a citizen) in the southwest. They vote along their region and economic statuses. In other word, if they live in Boston, they're voting liberally. If they live in California, they're voting conservatively. You could take every person of Latin American descent out of Florida, and Clinton still would have won that state (even though the delegates didn't count for anything). Where as she's gotten more interest in the northeast because that is where she's a senator.

I believe it's a tie between Latin America and the south, because you know if you went to the south you could still feel it (especially with the elderly). In some fashions, it works one way or the other. If I were to walk along a rural town holding with a pretty black girlfriend, I know people would both stare and polarize from myself. That's for both the whites and the blacks. They probably wouldn't do anything, but it doesn't mean I'd want to trust that my food in the waffle house wouldn't be tampered with.

If I went to Latin America, it would be more accepted, because it's much more common. However, if I were to socially express how most of the Spaniard descendants in those countries have enslaved blacks in those countries for years, they'd likely either polarize or more likely take a swing at me. If I were to do that in the south, more of the whites there would feel some sort of societal sorrow because they have been taught that's the right thing to do.

[SuperMario]

NYC0127,


Black denial
Nearly all Dominican women straighten their hair, which experts say is a direct result of a historical learned rejection of all things black

By Frances Robles
frobles@miamiherald.com
SANTO DOMINGO -- Yara Matos sat still while long, shiny locks from China were fastened, bit by bit, to her coarse hair.

Moderator cut: copyright violation

Look at this site:

MiamiHerald.com | Afro-Latin Americans

[SuperMario]

Wow...I just read the Dominican Republic section. I am shocked at the amount of rasicm there is.

Look at the whole website. They also go into detail on Cuba, Nicarauga and Honduras, and Brazil.

I have only read the Dominican part but wow.

I hate to admit it but many of my beliefs are shared by many Dominicans. I too look down on my African heritage and would prefer being white. I dont know where I picked this up but it seems like most of the country is like that. You gotta understand that Dominicans in general dislike Haitians. So being black means being Haitian. That is the worst thing you can say to a Dominican.....that he is Haitian.

Some quirks:

I do not agree that 90% of the population is either mixed or black. That is a overestimate.

I found it interesting that the one drop rule works in favor of whites in the country.

But that whole article spoke the truth.

With that article, I do agree that Latin America is more rascist than the American south.

[nyc0127]

I agree with most of your post. I do believe you're using the worst extreme of racism in Latin America though. It'd be like me using an extreme-right wing evangelical who hates gay people as a representation of the Republican party. I think the prejudice or not interest in blackness is far more accelerated in the Dominican Republic as opposed to the immigrants who assimilate in this country. For other groups, like Mexicans for example, there is more of a balance - but there are obviously different reasons behind this (i.e. like having almost no black people in their country).

People in both the Dominican Republic and much of Latin America favor whiteness, even if their ancestors don't come from (or predominantly come from) Spain or other European countries because they associate it with economic dynamism. No one in this country wants to be poor, as many people who are of full (or nearly full) African descent in the Dominican Republic are impoverished. Especially if they are to immigrate to a country like the United States or Canada, the ''whiteness'' they see in the media could be overwhelming - and to them relatable in the regard that is what their media tries to pump up as well, even though Americans really aren't that disproportional when it comes to public images anymore.

The fact that college student believe she isn't black is under the regards of social construction. From the way it sounds, she isn't interested in staying in this country long term and proudly would like to remain both a resident and citizen of the Dominican Republic in the future, but saying she's a ''Latina'' is merely disgracing all culture of Latin America by boxing everyone into one little corrupted Americanized box. She should be proud to be a Dominican and not feel the need to conjoin herself, just because Americans don't always recognize her identity they way she'd like.

I don't necessarily agree with the one-drop white thing all the way, but I do agree that they do reject their black identity. All people want to live as one, as it should be healthy, but we all know that isn't how things work out economically. How anyone embracing their roots is completely natural, but if we are to revise it - we are both destroying our history and tainting our futures. I think this is a problem for many people in the Dominican Republic, as America has it at a lesser level - but I couldn't blame any Dominican immigrant to be perplexed by all this, because both societies take little initiative to provide correctness to the situations.

[nyc0127]

Well, we do disagree somewhat, but there's nothing wrong with that. From an American perspective, obviously we'd lean more towards believing the south is more racist or a tie - because we're more acquainted. Being that you have foreign ties to their though, obviously it could indicate that you'd understand the sociology of the Dominican Republic differently and perhaps better. I don't know enough about there, but I'd like to.

''I hate to admit it but many of my beliefs are shared by many Dominicans. I too look down on my African heritage and would prefer being white. I dont know where I picked this up but it seems like most of the country is like that. You gotta understand that Dominicans in general dislike Haitians. So being black means being Haitian. That is the worst thing you can say to a Dominican.....that he is Haitian.''

Well, we all create our social definitions for what anything is. I don't think it's fair to say all Dominicans don't like Hatians (nor visa versa), but there is obviously some sort of tension. I'm not sure how embracing Hatians are of their ''blackness'' either, but being that they established their own freedom over 200 years ago, it shows that they have a better social regard for it.

Spain's influence on the Dominican Republic was great. For the better or for the worst, it has rubbed off on you and others. The same could be said to those who created the United States. My great-grandparent and great-grandparents from Italy would feel the same exact way. It's not because we want to prefer ''whiteness'', but because we want to be perceived by our society positively and do well economically. Americanism (similar to Dominican culture) is largely tied into whiteness. In America, it's a little more understandable because they're most of the population, but the goal is for all of us to get to the same point. If you democratize everyone and enforce social liberation with as little corruption as possible, than you could honestly say your system works. That's why I think Brazil and much of the West Indies has done well.

You're right, 90% of the population isn't mixed. The Dominicans government said 73 percent, which is probably around where it is. Defeating something like ''whiteness'' is a very difficult thing to do, but if all are to live similar lives like how it seems all of middle-class America does, than progression is to come. An argument could be made that levels of segregation do exist in Latin America, and for that reason, they should and probably eventually will fight for some sort of social reform.

[nyc0127]

not much white guilt among latinos?

Doesn't appear to be much from ''Latinos''. I'm not of Latin American descent, but I will say that it's nicer to hear the opinions directly from both Latin American immigrants and descendants rather than assumptions from talking heads in the media.

With white guilt, arguably white privilege becomes inevitable. If whites make more money than others, than their going to be expected more of. That's just how the system works. It really isn't a battle against whites though. What we're noticing is that immigrants of all races are going to assimilate, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have ended up here. Asians for example, who in the work force are predominantly foreign-born actually average higher income levels than whites in this country.

The American government has tried using the political device of ''Hispanic'' by taking people's eyes off the black problem, which is doing nothing more than accelerating the hostility and non-affluence of lower-class blacks. No good has come out of it. You can't just create new groups to try to blur things up. We all know that Asians, Latin Americans, West Indians, Middle Easterners and Eastern Europeans will completely live like Euro-Americans economically and socially. Guess who won't though. Non-southern African-Americans. This problem needs to be confronted if racism is to be defeated. When that happens, white privilege and white guilt dissolves. That is why many non-white immigrants/first-generation Americans show much resentment to blacks, because they know they do nothing to better themselves and to defeat ''white privilege.'' Money is the power of all in this country, especially for social issues.