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.
You sound like a poster from stormfront, and I'm only saying that because they usually say the same stuff. It doesn't dictate anything because if you have not provided any type of advancements in either, why should you take acceptance to it?
There is nothing wrong with celebrating the accomplishments of your people. You are linked to the accomplishments of your people because genes aren't some arbitrary thing. People root for their school team or sports team or even company or whatever and are proud when said organization wins or accomplishes something. But people aren't often linked or tied to the team, school, company or whatever. But people are linked to those who share the same lineage, the same genes traced back thousands of years to a select group of people. I don't see why people celebrate the accomplishments of the Yankees or mets and not of their people. Competition is a natural thing. There is always competition in nature and it should be embraced.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating the accomplishments of your people. You are linked to the accomplishments of your people because genes aren't some arbitrary thing. People root for their school team or sports team or even company or whatever and are proud when said organization wins or accomplishes something. But people aren't often linked or tied to the team, school, company or whatever. But people are linked to those who share the same lineage, the same genes traced back thousands of years to a select group of people. I don't see why people celebrate the accomplishments of the Yankees or mets and not of their people. Competition is a natural thing. There is always competition in nature and it should be embraced.
People celebrate the accomplishments of the Yankees because their main goal is to play baseball and win. The Yankees aren't global leaders, and neither did the Yankees invent the first automobile.
Me personally if I invented a time machine for example, I would not want black people claiming superiority over people because of something I invented.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating the accomplishments of your people. You are linked to the accomplishments of your people because genes aren't some arbitrary thing. People root for their school team or sports team or even company or whatever and are proud when said organization wins or accomplishes something. But people aren't often linked or tied to the team, school, company or whatever. But people are linked to those who share the same lineage, the same genes traced back thousands of years to a select group of people. I don't see why people celebrate the accomplishments of the Yankees or mets and not of their people. Competition is a natural thing. There is always competition in nature and it should be embraced.
Mark Zuckberberg created Facebook and was a billionaire long before he was 30. He's white. He's also an exceptional person as most white people don't have what it takes to do that.
That's his personal accomplishment, not the white race.
When you go apply for a job, they want to know about YOUR qualifications, not your race. They aren't interested in HISTORY, but in what you personally do now.
When you go purchase something, you have to prove that YOU have the money. No one cares about your race at that point.
As it's been said before, racism is a dumb form of collectivism.
While people use them interchangeably they are not. Hispanic means any person who comes from a Spanish speaking country, with Spanish ancenstry/dominant influence. Latino was a term created to distance themselves from Spain and instead emphasize a Latin American identity.
Someone who is Spanish (from Spain) is Hispanic....but not Latino (no Latin American connection). However, Brazilians and Guayanese (for example) are not Hispanic (not a Spanish speaking or derived population) but Latino. That is a substantial difference....and the terms are not interchageable. East Coast Hispanics, typically PRs and Cubans were the last countries owned/loyal to Spain, and retained a strong Spanish identity, while much of the rest of Latin America (with a few exceptions like Argentina) sought freedom from Spain and became anti-Spain/spanish. The birth of "Latino" is all tied into the anti-Spanish/Latin identity.
East coast Hispanics are now using the term regularly...I personally prefer the term Hispanic or Antillano for us (PRs), but not Latino...Cubans and DRs tend to agree.
With all that being true, the word "Latino" is still a misnomer.
The word "Hispanic" derives from the Latin word "Hispania", the original name for the province of Spain. While most people of Hispanic ancestry, irrespective of the country of origin, didn't use this label until a generation ago, the term is still accurate in that it describes an ethnicity (although not a homogeneous one) with a common ancestral background and language originating in Spain.
The word "Latino", or the Latin people, is a word which originally referred to the people of Rome and the surrounding areas, which is in present-day Italy. The Latin language, which is not spoken any longer outside of Catholicism, evolved into five separate languages: Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese and Romanian. Therefore, "Latino" should logically refer to anyone whose ancestry originated from a country in which any of these five languages, with Latin origins, is spoken. Yet, this is entirely not the case. No Italian-American, for example, would ever self-refer as "Latino."
By similar logic, one could also argue that non-Catholic Hispanics (although they are a minority, they're still a sizable group) shouldn't be considered "Latino" as they have distanced themselves, at least culturally, if not linguistically, from the source of their "Latin" heritage.
Just to help the community, talk to people, give advice, make new friends. I want to gather enough people to make an annual fundraiser for washington heights.
Mark Zuckberberg created Facebook and was a billionaire long before he was 30. He's white. He's also an exceptional person as most white people don't have what it takes to do that.
That's his personal accomplishment, not the white race.
When you go apply for a job, they want to know about YOUR qualifications, not your race. They aren't interested in HISTORY, but in what you personally do now.
When you go purchase something, you have to prove that YOU have the money. No one cares about your race at that point.
As it's been said before, racism is a dumb form of collectivism.
Mark zuckerberg is jewish ethnically. He is not whit.
With all that being true, the word "Latino" is still a misnomer.
The word "Hispanic" derives from the Latin word "Hispania", the original name for the province of Spain. While most people of Hispanic ancestry, irrespective of the country of origin, didn't use this label until a generation ago, the term is still accurate in that it describes an ethnicity (although not a homogeneous one) with a common ancestral background and language originating in Spain.
The word "Latino", or the Latin people, is a word which originally referred to the people of Rome and the surrounding areas, which is in present-day Italy. The Latin language, which is not spoken any longer outside of Catholicism, evolved into five separate languages: Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese and Romanian. Therefore, "Latino" should logically refer to anyone whose ancestry originated from a country in which any of these five languages, with Latin origins, is spoken. Yet, this is entirely not the case. No Italian-American, for example, would ever self-refer as "Latino."
By similar logic, one could also argue that non-Catholic Hispanics (although they are a minority, they're still a sizable group) shouldn't be considered "Latino" as they have distanced themselves, at least culturally, if not linguistically, from the source of their "Latin" heritage.
Very true. All these labels technically apply to me since my family comes from Spain and moved to PR. But I'm whit, not mixed. It gets very confusing because people use the name of the country you were born in or from, and in the case of Latin America, there are natives, there are whites from Europe, there are mixed people and then there are blacks brought over as slaves. Hispanic and Latino can apply to all these groups but really makes it hard to identify.
Very true. All these labels technically apply to me since my family comes from Spain and moved to PR. But I'm whit, not mixed. It gets very confusing because people use the name of the country you were born in or from, and in the case of Latin America, there are natives, there are whites from Europe, there are mixed people and then there are blacks brought over as slaves. Hispanic and Latino can apply to all these groups but really makes it hard to identify.
You have additional groups in these countries as well. I've met people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arab and Indian(Asian descent) in Latin America. But these people group up speaking Spanish. And some Asians, Indians, or Arabs have married into other families of Latin America as well.
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.
I would
