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.
Isn't it because many people from Latin America are just plain Caucasians whose roots are Spaniard, Portuguese, Italian, Irish, and Middle Eastern with very little or no Indigenous and/or African in them?!
Also, In this thread I give my reason of why I hate those terms.
If the measure of "White" is that most people are fully of European descent, only Argentina would fit the category of majority white in Latin America. The "white people" in the other Latin American countries are almost always "brown" [ie-mixed race], they just list themselves as white since its higher on the social ladder. Most migrants to the US even from Brazil are not white, they might list themselves as White, but...their not. Argentina is the exception where most people are fully European.
History classes are a rude awakening to Hispanics, in most classes I took where a large percent were Hispanic, they had a "wtf???are you kidding" look when the teacher said Spaniards were white and that most Mexicans are Indian or mixed with Indian. Even Cubans/Puerto Ricans who look white, have a dumbfounded look upon hearing it, as though they believed "hispanic" was its own race.
They identify as white, even if they are not, because for them it beats identifying as black, native or even mixed. White is right, everything else is inferior.
It depends on what the meaning of white is. According to the government census, "white" means having origins in europe, the middle east, and north africa BUT in crime statistics they would be listed as hispanic.
It depends on what the meaning of white is. According to the government census, "white" means having origins in europe, the middle east, and north africa BUT in crime statistics they would be listed as hispanic.
Let's be honest. There's not a meaning but a look. Take it back to the 1900's and 'passing'. If you've seen the film 'Skin' about a seemingly Black girl born to Afrikaan parents, you know it's more what you look like, your phenotype, than your genotype.
If the measure of "White" is that most people are fully of European descent, only Argentina would fit the category of majority white in Latin America. The "white people" in the other Latin American countries are almost always "brown" [ie-mixed race], they just list themselves as white since its higher on the social ladder. Most migrants to the US even from Brazil are not white, they might list themselves as White, but...their not. Argentina is the exception where most people are fully European.
History classes are a rude awakening to Hispanics, in most classes I took where a large percent were Hispanic, they had a "wtf???are you kidding" look when the teacher said Spaniards were white and that most Mexicans are Indian or mixed with Indian. Even Cubans/Puerto Ricans who look white, have a dumbfounded look upon hearing it, as though they believed "hispanic" was its own race.
Ehh not really. How many white Americans get a pass for being white even when they have Native American ancestry, but if they have the slightest African blood and they make it known they are no longer white? Why is the white definition so narrow? Of course it's all rooted in racist ideology. But to address your misguided statements Brazil is at most a 50% white nation. My mother is Brazilian of German/Portuguese descent. Along with Argentina, Uruguay and Chile (slim) have a white majority.
Spaniards, Italians, Jews, Portuguese, and other Mediterranean people are naturally tan and not attributed to racial mixing not that there's a problem with that.
Most "Hispanics" in the United States do not speak Spanish. You cannot blame them for their ignorance when they have Telemundo propaganda shove done their throats. Blame Corporate America.
In retrospect "race" is a socio-political construct. It's always changing and it's definition varies from country to country.
Ehh not really. How many white Americans get a pass for being white even when they have Native American ancestry, but if they have the slightest African blood and they make it known they are no longer white? Why is the white definition so narrow? Of course it's all rooted in racist ideology. But to address your misguided statements Brazil is at most a 50% white nation. My mother is Brazilian of German/Portuguese descent. Along with Argentina, Uruguay and Chile (slim) have a white majority.
Spaniards, Italians, Jews, Portuguese, and other Mediterranean people are naturally tan and not attributed to racial mixing not that there's a problem with that.
Most "Hispanics" in the United States do not speak Spanish. You cannot blame them for their ignorance when they have Telemundo propaganda shove done their throats. Blame Corporate America.
In retrospect "race" is a socio-political construct. It's always changing and it's definition varies from country to country.
Race is a construct in a social sense, when debating who is "white or black", but its also a genetic reality. If that wasn't the case then doctors would not ask you to list your race when visiting one...Afterall, some races are more prone to certain diseases than others. Just casting it off entirely as a "construct" is shallow. Sickle cell anemia is a disease that is almost exclusive amongst black people, and there are conditions that other races suffer from more than others to.
A Wolf can reproduce with a Coyote and produce fertile offspring, and a Wolf can reproduce with a Golden Jackel and produce fertile offspring. That doesn't mean that Coyotes, Wolves, and Golden Jackels dont exist and that all Canines are exactly the same does it ? Id like you to answer that one actually. Since they can interbreed, by your logic they are all the same yet differences are noted amongst the three sub-species of canine easily, and is accepted by Science.
To extend on that, Bears to can interbreed. Is a Brown Bear and a Polar Bear identical in all aspects ? Nope not at all.
If we are to believe Science, then we as Human beings are Animals to...So, why can "Animals" have races [or sub species] but Humans cant ? Its because some Professors decided that that idea is offensive, thats why. And of course some people will believe it hook line and sinker.
Like it or not there are differences, just because you believe everything you hear from a Professor doesn't negate that fact.
But OH thats right...A Polar Bear is a social construct, lets see how a Brown Bear fares up in the Arctic [remember, those two can reproduce together so they are the same]. Hah.
"Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they often do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species, but more distinct than the differences between breeds or races (races can be assigned to different subspecies if taxonomically different). The characteristics attributed to subspecies generally have evolved as a result of geographical distribution or isolation."
Scientific definition right there. Humans can indeed be defined, again like it or not. Guess your School needs to re evaluate who it has teaching. This is starter material for anyone taking Biology. Reading that, traits such as light skin = Genetic Isolation. Light eyes = Genetic Isolation. Dark Skin = Genetic Isolation. East Asian population = Same concept. The barriers are being removed today due to immigration but that does not mean differences are not there. And noting that there are differences in Humans is no more Politically motivated that noting that there are differences between a African Wild dog and a Wolf [African Wild dog can breed with a Wolf without a problem, but they are vastly different socially].
Nationalities are man made, ethnic groups are man made.....there's no such thing as genetic differences between someone with dark skin or someone with pale skin in sense that they are separate races. Humans are humans. There's no such thing as "Danes and Norwegians are a certain due to etc. or Nigerians and Ghanaians etc." Scientists can only look at patterns and certain markers that appear within a population. A study has been done already that Norwegians were "genetically" close an some ethnic group Africa than it was with most of Europe.
As for the last point about the wild dogs, is irrelevant to the idiotic statement you made about "blacks" being biologically different than "whites" which further proves my point you don't know what you're talking about.
I am asking this because I see that this has become a racialized term, even though they are ethnic (and political) terms. The census just came out and we're all talking about it. Let's break this down (and also clarify some things.)
1. "Hispanic" means that you come from a Spanish speaking country. That's it. This means that any race can have Spanish speaking ability. Likewise, there is no "Hispanic" race any more than the fact that we all speak English makes us all the "English" race.
2. "Latino" means that you are of origins to Latin America (or by extension-anywhere the Spanish white guys conquered basically). Some will include Brazil and Spain in this category, I do not.
3. Latino and Hispanic were terms created out of political opportunism by Nixon.
"Amid the African American civil rights struggle of the 1960s, many of these groups joined hands to demand voting rights, bilingual education and social services. Here they received a big assist from an unlikely source: Richard Nixon. Eager to bring Mexicans and other Latino immigrants into the Republican fold, Nixon also saw them as a potential bulwark against black political aspirations....
So Nixon threw his weight behind bilingual education, which has since become a bete noire for the GOP. He also ordered the Census Bureau to add a query on its 1970 form asking whether respondents were "Hispanic," hoping to further solidify this new voting bloc.
Census Bureau officials balked, noting -- correctly -- that the term lacked scientific and historical precision. They also worried that respondents wouldn't recognize it. So the most commonly used census form in 1970 asked respondents if they were of "Spanish" origin, not whether they were Hispanic."
4. Latino and Hispanic are not terms of racial designation.
"People with Spanish surnames can also be White, Black or even Asian-
What does a Hispanic look like?" asks Laurent Belsie of the Christian Science Monitor. Since it's a language-based designation, it's impossible to know. The grouping links Argentines of European descent with indigenous people in Guatemala whose culture predates Columbus. According to Hilary Shelton of the NAACP, "The Hispanic community is made up of very many different racial groups. African-Americans are still the largest racial minority group." Ignoring this fact, the term Hispanic is routinely applied to more than 90 million people of African descent who live in Latin America. In other instances, the term Hispanic has been used to define any person with a Spanish surname, opening the label to include Caucasians from Spain to Orientals from the Philippines. Clearly, this has become a bewildering human category." The Hispanic Myth - A Single Race?
As it stands, people of Latin American origin are typically a mix of three races, depending on what country they are from: Indigenous Indian (meaning one who is Native to the Americas), White (typically of Spanish persuasion), or Black (slave trade!- Yes, Spanish and Portuguese participated in this too- WAY more than their British compatriots). The proportion of these three races will vary from Latino family to Latino family. Of course, there are Latinos who are entirely black, Native American (yes, I'm going to use that term), or white.
Keep in mind the implications behind the fact that Hispanic is not a racial term. This means that two Hispanic could marry each and it could still be an interracial marriage (this was the case for my parents- my father was half Spanish Jew, a quarter black and a quarter white. my mother was all white- of Basque descent. This means I'm really HOT.)
Also, I believe that Latinos are splitting themselves up based on consanguinity. Meaning, white Hispanics are slowly marrying into the white American group and black Hispanics are slowly marrying into the black American group. This, of course, probably means that there will be a mass of mostly Mestizo Latinos left.
5.The terms "Latino" and "Hispanic" are not racial terms, but since they are terms of ethnicity and culture (both of which are quite fluid), they are used by Latino politicians (and other races of American politicians) to make their direct constituencies seem larger than they really are.
"As Garcia suggested, being "Hispanic" allows these leaders to increase the size of the constituencies they represent. It also helps specific groups reposition themselves in the political marketplace. Cubans, for example, constitute a small and steadily shrinking proportion of all Hispanics, but as "Hispanics" they become part of a rapidly expanding national presence. As Los Angeles Times editorial writer Frank Del Olmo (a Mexican) writes: "The term 'Hispanic' allowed other Latinos to use a large and growing Mexican-American population to increase their influence." Given Cuban foreign-policy concerns and the consequent role they seek to play in Washington this factor has been critical to their political aspirations.
Mexicans have become "Hispanics" for different reasons. Historically, they have felt ignored and isolated in the Southwest, at the farthest possible remove from the centers of the nation's economic and political power. But as "Hispanics," Mexicans are part of a group spread all over the United States, including Puerto Ricans in the Northeast and Cubans in Florida. Though hardly oblivious to the importance of their growing numbers, Mexican leaders are keen to avoid having their interests and problems dismissed as those of a regional group and understand the importance of being regarded as a national minority group."
E Pluribus Hispanic? (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?essay_id=16545&fuseaction=wq.essay - broken link)
6. "Latino" and "Hispanic" are terms that are also used to play the "racial spoils machine." People may not like this statement, but it is the truth. This is all under the ignorance of the American public, who believe that all Latinos are brown skinned and of indiginous Indian roots (i.e. Mexican or Central American). As a result,there are many white Hispanics who end up getting the benefits of "white privilege" and the benefits of "minority privilege." (This means that affirmative action is being given to the direct descendants of Latin American slave masters- nuts.)
"To observers such as Alejandro Portes, this confusion underscores the artificiality of the term "Hispanic." Yet the complaint misses the point: Imprecision is what makes the term so politically useful. On the most mundane level, it gives activists the option of throwing their opponents off-guard by insisting on the inappropriateness of the "label." More fundamentally, "Hispanic" speaks to the critical concerns of any disadvantaged group that seeks support from the modem welfare state. On the one hand, all such claimants must establish the legitimacy of their demands on the public sector. Largely because they follow in the wake of the black civil-rights movement, Hispanics today must base this legitimacy on claims of racial disadvantage and discrimination. On the other hand, claims must also be based on evidence that the group is worthy of help and yet not so disadvantaged that it is beyond hope. The old distinction between the "worthy" and "unworthy" poor endures in today's welfare state. The two facets of "Hispanic"—immigrant ethnic group and racial minority—meet the divergent requirements.
Despite the many social, cultural, and economic differences among these national-origin groups, the term "Hispanic" does have political substance. Today much of that substance derives from the notion of a nonwhite racial identity. Not without grounding in the way Hispanics see themselves, this identity is nevertheless exaggerated by leaders encouraged by our post-civil rights regime to compete with black as a racial minority. "
E Pluribus Hispanic? (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?essay_id=16545&fuseaction=wq.essay - broken link)
7. Latinos are made up quite significantly of one group: Mexicans (or those of Mexican origin.)
"In 2004, among Hispanic subgroups, Mexicans rank as the largest at 66 percent. Following Mexicans are: Central and South Americans (13 percent), Puerto Ricans (9.4 percent), Cubans (3.9 percent) and the remaining 7.5 percent are people of other Hispanic origins. In 2008, States with the largest Hispanic populations are California (13.6 million), Texas (8.9 million), New York (3.8 million), Florida (3.8 million), and Illinois (1.9 milion). Another significant point is that in 2004, 34.3 percent of Hispanics were under the age 18 in comparisons to 22.3 percent of non-Hispanic Whites. Among Hispanics, Mexicans have the largest proportion of people under age 18, at 36 percent."
8. Not all Latinos think of themselves as one pan-ethnic group. I don't need to even link anything here. Go read the California forum, then the NY forums, then the Texas forums, then the Miami forums and you get back to me and you tell me if a Mexican is like a Cuban is like a Puerto Rican. I do see a pattern that assimilated ones are more likely to identify as Hispanic or Latino.
9. Most Latinos are uncomfortable with identifying as mixed race and this is why many Latinos will check "other". Also, in Latin America, people are taught to look down on their Native and/or African roots. I'm quite okay with it, personally. I'm far more American culturally than "Latina" and I debated to even check off a "Latino" term. (I ended up doing it anyways.) In the future, I'm debating whether to stop checking it off and just identifying as "mixed race."
10. http://thehispanicmyth.com/- (broken link) It's a great nonbiased website that has alot of good information.
Because it's politically incorrect to say 'Mexican'.
Actually, when I was in public school, we had a lot of 'Mexican' immigrants. They always wanted to be called 'Spanish'. For some reason, for them there was more pride and dignity in being called Spanish rather then Mexican.
I dunno which Hispanics you've been around. Most of the ones I've been around (including my own family) aren't the least bit white, and while there is a veneer of Europeanness, at least among many, the Native and the African isn't far from the surface. You'll find whites in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, and there they predominate. They also predominate in South African style among the elites everywhere else. But whites are not the majority anywhere else in Latin America except for where I mentioned earlier.
Indigenous people as well as mestizos, zambos, mulattos and Africans. Most speak Spanish and have some cultural traits from there because of the colonial history of Latin America, but the majority of people in the Caribbean, Central and South America are not white Europeans.
There are certainly quite a few white Hispanic-Americans. I have many friends who are obviously white but are also technically "hispanic" due to their surname and ethnic origins. Furthermore, Cameron Diaz, Ricky Martin, and Christina Aguilera would be considered examples of white Hispanics. I would surmise that the 50% white hispanic statistic is probably accurate.
The most European country outside Europe is Argentina. lots of European blooded people there.
America is already a latin word. There is a true America (All the continent from Canada down to argentina) and there is Anglo-America, a country in central North America populated by English speakers who are not Anglo blooded, but a bunch of mestizos just like everyone else in the continent AMERICA.
THE U.S is something like Brazil, in demographics, but Brazilians speak Portuguese and US nationals speak English and Spanish.
All the American countries are different. The most european ones are Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, And Canada.
Hollywood is Fantasy, they hire a bunch of Aussies and Australians and give them the roles of "US nationals", then tourist come looking for a Pamela Anderson or a Hayden Christensen, but they end up finding an Oprah, or Adam Sandler.
Woah, you are way off. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Number one, the majority of American nationals speak ENGLISH. Number two, the demographics of Brazil and the US are in no way similar. Whites make up about 47% of the population of Brazil, whereas they make up about 75% in the US. Number three, non Hispanic whites, NOT mestizos, are the ethic/racial majority of the US. Where did you come up with mestizos? Number four, Aussies and Australians are the same thing. I don't even want to address your last comment...
I understand that you have some strange hostility toward "white" American culture, but that doesn't give you the privilege to skew facts.
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.
