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.
Hispanic is not a race. It's an ethnicity. It is a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. It's related to Spanish colonialism.
The term was first introduced in the U.S. census in 1970. Prior to that time Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans were identified as white.
Is it more accurate to say that white Mexicans, white Puerto Ricans, and white Cubans were identified as white? I know that the law didn't distinguish specifically, but I argue it was clear who people were talking about. The ruling classes in these societies considered themselves to be white, but this wasn't what the rank and file in these communities identified themselves as. Prior to 1930 in the US, Mexicans, as an example, were considered "white" at the behest of the white and mixed ruling class in Mexico. When the Census that year changed Mexican to be a separate racial classification, the same ruling class protested and fought to be reclassified as white. I argue this was less so about Mexicans wanting to be considered white, and more about the white and mixed ruling class trying to protect their identity.
I have Afro-Cuban relatives who have lived in Cuba for generations. I guarantee you that they would have never been considered as white under the law if they visited the US and used the "I'm Cuban" excuse if people actually saw who they were. If they tried to identify as white on US immigration forms and in US society, they'd get laughed out of town.
Is it more accurate to say that white Mexicans, white Puerto Ricans, and white Cubans were identified as white?
All Mexicans regardless of color or physical appearance were "white" without distinction - especially in Texas history. And it wasn't just on paper, people actually regarded them as white in real life.
Racial distinctions were made among Cubans and Puerto Ricans, but still the vast majority were of European origin and were considered white.
In practice the whitest most European-looking "hispanics" (typical Cubans and Puerto Ricans) are considered to be minorities who are not white at all. They even get called "people of color" when they have no color. So it has a definite racial connotation.
And this is not a concept that historically existed in the United States. It's all very new.
I remember Antonio Banderas winning an award for something when he was hot back in the 90s and they were calling him "the first non-white actor in history" to win said award, and people were referring to him as an "actor of color" just because he spoke Spanish and had a Spanish last name. I remember thinking, "Really?!? Because dude is from SPAIN, which is in Europe (not that all Europeans are white either)." Sure, he may a tan, Mediterranean European, but he is SITLL white/caucasian. Spaniards are QUICK to tell you that they are white Europeans, even the tan ones with dark features from the South of Spain like Antonio Banderas, Penelope Cruz, etc. Obviously the U.S. media hasn't gotten the memo on that yet.
Last edited by NoClueWho; 01-20-2022 at 09:40 AM..
By definition, Filipinos would also be Hispanic. Many have Spanish surnames and the language has Spanish influence, with the Philippines being a Spanish colony for over 300 years.
Right. I always wonder why people don't mention Filipinos more as Hispanic or part of the Spanish diaspora. Same goes for Equatorial Guinea in Africa.
All Mexicans regardless of color or physical appearance were "white" without distinction - especially in Texas history. And it wasn't just on paper, people actually regarded them as white in real life.
Racial distinctions were made among Cubans and Puerto Ricans, but still the vast majority were of European origin and were considered white.
Under the strict terms of the law (at least federal law), yes, all Mexicans regardless of color were "white," but that wasn't the case in the day to day lives (and even wasn't the case universally as a matter of law). And this wasn't the case as a matter of State law either, to include in Texas as I get to below. We've had this debate before, you and I.
Throughout the American southwest, as an example, there were Mexican and white schools during the same period that federal classifications legally defined Mexicans to be "white."
Mexicans and Mexican Americans were also regularly discriminated against on account of color through everything being excluded from movie theaters to dining to being being barred from swimming during "whites only" pool weekends. Source: https://www.latinousa.org/2016/03/11...the-southwest/
Note, this doesn't even get to the fact that you had Afro-Mexicans and mixed Afro-Mexicans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexicans. Just like my Afro-Cuban relatives, I can guarantee you that Afro-Mexicans and mixed Afro-Mexicans wouldn't be treated as white if visiting the US simply because they stated that they were "Mexican." Again, from what I'm reading about actual experiences and from knowledge of race classifications in the US at the time, this classification seems like it was something pushed for by the mainly white and mixed white Mexican political class. If you look at the depictions of Mexican presidents, as an example, they are overwhelmingly white or mixed with large European admixtures, which provides some insight into who exactly was pushing to classify Mexicans as white.
Speaking of Texas, specifically, this piece from PBS gives a good rundown of the horrible discrimination that Mexicans faced in Texas (presumably Mexicans who weren't white): https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexp...e/films/class/
Given the history of this country where practice and law excluded racial minorities (to include American Indian Native Americans, blacks, Asians, etc.) as inferior and subject to discrimination, it seems strange to argue that Native American Mexicans were somehow treated as "white" in society because they could claim to be "Mexican" In my view, this would be like saying that since many state laws didn't explicitly discriminate on account of race during the Civil Rights era (some did, but not all) and since federal law explicitly treated blacks and whites as equal both under the Constitution (14th Amendment) and inferior federal legislation (to include the Civil Rights Act of 1866), blacks were viewed as equal to whites. We know in practice such wasn't the case.
Here's another case of a clear race-based discrimination against non-white Mexicans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation During Mexican Repatriation, between 500,000 and 2 million (number probably closer to 2 million given that CA estimates that 400,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were removed from that state alone) Mexicans and Mexican Americans were, without due process, rounded up and sent "back to Mexico" by immigration authorities. Why? Because of their "proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios": https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...01892.0001.001
Staying on Texas, the infamous Hernandez case shows the U.S. Supreme Court cutting through the myth that Texas treated Mexicans as white based on actual practice among those in society.
In the Hernandez case, the State of Texas argued that the only two races protected under the 14th Amendment were "white and Negro"; Texas tried to claim that excluding Mexicans from a jury with a Mexican defendant didn't violate the 14th Amendment on account of race as Mexicans were considered to be "white" under the law. The Court, however, explicitly wrote that the Hernandez proved that Mexicans constituted a separate class, "distinct from whites." In reaching its decision, the Court noted that, among other factors, the testimony of "responsible officials and citizens contained the admission that residents of the community distinguished between "white" and "Mexican." Note, Hernandez wasn't demanding that there be Mexicans on his particular jury, but rather argued that the general practice of exclusion denied him even the possibility of a fair trial in violation of the equal protection guaranteed under the Constitution. Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../475/case.html (the actual text of the case)
Note, in the Hernandez case, the defense showed that people of Mexican ancestry were systematically excluded from juries in at least 70 Mexican counties, this despite Texas not officially having any laws prohibiting citizens with Mexican ancestry from serving on juries.
I don't dispute that up until a certain point historical records generally listed Mexicans and Mexican Americans as "white" (with the exception of the 1930 Census, of course). The issue here for me is over societal acceptance of Mexicans--particularly non-white Mexicans (with white being understood to be Mexicans of European ancestry)--as being white.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 01-20-2022 at 09:46 AM..
All Mexicans regardless of color or physical appearance were "white" without distinction - especially in Texas history. And it wasn't just on paper, people actually regarded them as white in real life.
Racial distinctions were made among Cubans and Puerto Ricans, but still the vast majority were of European origin and were considered white.
Especially in Cuba and Puerto Rico, the Native inhabitants of the islands were rather quickly wiped out early in Spanish colonial history so there wasn't centuries of race mixing like in Mexico with Native peoples. I would bet most people on those two islands have much more Spanish/European heritage and genetics than they do Native American.
Right. I always wonder why people don't mention Filipinos more as Hispanic or part of the Spanish diaspora. Same goes for Equatorial Guinea in Africa.
I do believe as far as Filipinos, they can choose whichever category they wish to and still be correct, either Asian or Hispanic when being tallied for the census. I'm sure most people in the Philippines never thought of themselves as Hispanic despite having Spanish surnames, unlike what is considered the norm now in America.
Especially in Cuba and Puerto Rico, the Native inhabitants of the islands were rather quickly wiped out early in Spanish colonial history so there wasn't centuries of race mixing like in Mexico with Native peoples. I would bet most people on those two islands have much more Spanish/European heritage and genetics than they do Native American.
While the early decimation of Indigenous/Native inhabitants on islands like Cuba and Puerto Rico is certainly true, I keep seeing people in this thread hint or say that MOST Cubans and Puerto Ricans are mostly or completely white/Spanish/European. While that may be true for many more of them than most people in the U.S. realize, the Black/African ancestry of a large number of Cubans and Puerto Ricans also needs to be taken into account. I think it's just that---especially in the case of Cuba---most of the migrants you see in the U.S. mainland from the island tend to be White. But that's hardly reflective of all or the majority on the island itself. Most are a mix of Indigenous/Native (all be it a small percentage) and Black African and White Spaniard/European, or a mix of Black African and White Spaniard/European.
Quite a few Cubans and Puerto Ricans are actually even mostly or pretty much purely Black/of African descent, and would be classified as Black/African American in the U.S. mainland if people only looked at their physical appearance and never heard them speak with an accent or speak in Spanish.
Last edited by NoClueWho; 01-20-2022 at 09:11 AM..
While the early decimation of Indigenous/Native inhabitants on islands like Cuba and Puerto Rico is certainly true, I keep seeing people in this thread hint or say that MOST Cubans and Puerto Ricans are mostly or completely white/Spanish/European. While that may be true for many more of them than most people in the U.S. think, the Black/African ancestry of a large number of Cubans and Puerto Ricans also needs to be taken into account. I think it's just that---especially in the case of Cuba---most of the migrants you see in the U.S. mainland from the island tend to be White. But that's hardly reflective of all or the majority on the island itself. Most are a mix of Indigenous/Native (all be it a small percentage) and Black African and White Spaniard/European, or a mix of Black African and White Spaniard/European.
Quite a few Cubans and Puerto Ricans are actually even mostly or pretty much purely Black/of African descent, and would be classifed as Black/African American in the U.S. mainland if people only looked at their physical appearance and never heard them speak with an accent or speak in Spanish.
And that's the reason why "Hispanic" can and never should be used as a reference to someone's race which goes back to the original question of this thread.
And that's the reason why "Hispanic" can and never should be used as a reference to someone's race which goes back to the original question of this thread.
Exactly!!! It speaks to the larger point of this thread that "Hispanic"/Latino is NOT a race. It is a culture and an ethnicity, and ANYONE of ANY race can be Hispanic/Latino.
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.
In my view, this would be like saying that since many state laws didn't explicitly discriminate on account of race during the Civil Rights era (some did, but not all) and since federal law explicitly treated blacks and whites as equal both under the Constitution (14th Amendment) and inferior federal legislation (to include the Civil Rights Act of 1866), blacks were viewed as equal to whites. We know in practice such wasn't the case. 