I was looking at a new CNN story how half the kids in America are ethnic minorities, mostly because of the booming hispanic population.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12680174/

For one, its my understanding that most "hispanics" don't really like the term because it lumps Mexicans with Puerto Ricans with Braziilians, who are all racially and culturally very different.

But in most surveys and polls, "hispanics" generally have the same beliefes and convinctions as "white" America. They're almost unseparatable.

And seeing that hispanics could be considered European, see Spain, are they any different than Italian, Greek or other similar-looking immigrants that are considered white?

And to top it off, Arab Americans are considered white!?!

Would you consider Selma Hyak or Daisey Fuentes, if their names were Selma Smith and Daisey Jones, and they spoke perfect American english to be non-white?

My question:

Do you think "hispanics" are non-white?

Arab-Americans are indeed white (or, to use more correct term, "Caucasian"). What is so strange about that? In fact, if you look at the picture below, you can see that the representative of the Caucasian race is Pakistani. The race has nothing to do with how well people speak English and how dark their skin is. Many Caucasians have darker skin than representatives of other races (e.g. many residents of Pakistan and India).
So, to answer your question, "Hispanics" may or not be Caucasian - it all depends on whether their ancestors hail from Europe or from indigenous population.

P.S. Just curious - what are those "beliefs and convictions" that hispanics share with white America that are not shared by "non-white America"?

IMAGE LINK


Edited to remove image & replace with link in accordance with forum Rules.

Hispanic is synonymous with Spanish and Latin American. I guess that means all Mexicans are Hispanic, but not all Hispanics are Mexicans. Color of skin doesn't seem to enter into the definition.

Just that they tend to have more distnguished features from Europeans, i.e. darker skin and certain facial features. Since many hispanics are European-descendant, the resemblance to what we call "white" would be closer than Arabs, IMHO. But I'd argue that you could have an assimilated American hispanic, arab or european, and they may be indistinguishable.




And that's a great point. Really the non-white part of hispanic is the non-spanish part, or the Indian side. Again, lumping all hispanics together and calling them non-white is insane. In fact, there is racism in hispanic countries amongst their own populations.



In general, when surveys or polls are done, hispanics generally vote along the same lines as "whites". In fact, most Asian-Americans do as well. To be quite frank, blacks are typically the only group that has their own bias in surveys/polls.

I guess some history is in order.


This is true if you gloss over the fact that much of southern Spain was conquered by Moors, a people of Arab and Berber descent (nomads from northern Africa). Moorish rule lasted 9 centuries, plenty of time for Spaniards to mix blood with darker-skinned Arabs before Columbus’s fateful voyage.


It’s not insanity. It is practical to refer to a continent sharing a history that ties peoples of mixed ancestries together as Hispanic. By the way you’re forgetting the descendents of black slaves from western Africa are also Hispanic.

Hispanic comes from the term Hispaniola:


After the Spanish initially scourged native populations to take control of an area they would set up serfdoms and condemn survivors to forced labor. The horrible working conditions and new diseases meant the Spanish and other European colonialists would sooner or later run out of natives they could win for Christ, peace be unto Him. So they’d hop on their ships, round up a few more natives, and drag them back to already conquered land. It was up to entrepreneurs loyal to the crown to carve new territories. When native populations dwindled further they looked for West Africans and lowborn Europeans to fill the labor shortage. Eventually uprisings would overthrow governments appointed by the Spanish crown, and people were free to mingle.


You’re choosing to ignore Cuban voting trends or you know less about Hispanics than I thought.

Do you think "hispanics" are non-white?

Some people who identify as Hispanic are white in a pale skin & fair hair kind of way- let's use celebrity examples such as Cameron Diaz and Christina Aguilera.

Others are more 'Mediterranean' looking - Salma Hayek, being half Mexican and half Lebanese would typify this in more than one way. (As well as being droolingly gorgeous, as I'm sure more than just nighttimer would agree.

Still others probably should be described as Hispanic given their cultural and linguistic background, but their race means that they would more normally get described as black (another celeb/actor like this might be Giancarlo Esposito).

I've always thought that the term "Hispanic" was more useful to describe a linguistic or cultural group than any kind of race. I daresay that when it first got used it was pretty much meant to be the same as "Latino" which more clearly describes a set of physical features than "Hispanic" does.

But then, rather than showing how useless "hispanic" is, I'd say it was a clearer demonstration of how limited is the use of "white", because almost as few people to whom the term applies actually are white as black people are actually black (rather than somewhere between a pale pink and a dark chocolate brown, which is where most of the human race actually falls).

First, there is great contention about the term "hispanic" among "hispanics". Do you know who coined the term? Not hispanics.

But I personally have no problem with using hispanics or latinos. I understand who they're talking about. It's easier than saying Spanish-speaking-North-South-and-Central-Americans.

But in regards to race, culture and history, "hispanic" is a very poor term. I think it is insanity to refer to people as white or non-white when regarding hispanics. Because it's obvious, and you stated it, that not only are they not all Indian, they are also black!

I don't like the grouping, I think non-white and hispanic are not the same.



Cubans are a sub-group of hispanics. I think you missed my point.

My short answer: Hispanics are both white and non-white. I am Hispanic myself; my dad immigrated to the States from the Dominican Republic (the "Spanish Speaking" half of old-day Hispaniola, it now shares the island with Haiti). My mother was born in the states, but her parents had immigrated from Puerto Rico. My father is dark skinned (colored), while my mother is fair skinned (white). Hispanic is still the ethnic term they use to describe themselves, even though my father's lineage more closely follows that of the indigenous people of his island, while my mother's lineage is closer to the conquering Spaniards.

My longer answer: I think your question is flawed to some degree. Hispanic really doesn't adequately describe any one race. As you said, the term "Hispanic" is used interchangeably with "Latino" and lumps together very unique cultures within Central/South America and the Caribbean. The only thing that binds these cultures together is the fact that they were conquered by the Spaniards some time in their history, causing a subsequent assimilation of the Spanish language, as well as some customs and beliefs (Catholicism), not to mention racial mixing of the Spaniards who stayed with the indigenous people they conquered. Hispanic would probably work better as an "ethnic" term rather than racial. Even the term "white" doesn't do an adequate job because if you try to use it to describe Europeans, you run into numerous problems, since Europe itself is filled with unique cultures and colors. I think the real issue here is that no matter what, ANY term used to define a people will be inadequate, be it "white," "non-white/colored," "Hispanic," "Latino," etc. I have real problems with any term that tries to define a people because it assume a similarity that may not be as strong as you think. In the United States, a "Hispanic" can include a whole spectrum of ideas and beliefs because different families have been in the country for different periods of time. A family that has only first or second generation immigrants in the US (like mine) will have been brought up with a much heavier influence from their "homeland" than the fifth generation, which will probably be much more integrated into "mainstream" American culture (whatever THAT is). Yet both the first/second generation immigrants and the fifth generation immigrants will identify as Hispanics regardless of the fact that they may carry somewhat different values and beliefs, and this is assuming both families came from the same country. So, to sum it up, I think there are problems with all racial/ethnic terms because they never adequately describe a people, or even an individual. They can still be useful to show difference between someone of Puerto Rican descent and one of Japanese descent, but that's about it. It's important, when using racial/ethnic terms, to remember how limited they are in their describing power.

I'm not sure what this statement means blacks are typically the only group that has their own bias in surveys/polls, but it sure seems like the implication is that Blacks have a "bias" that is out of the mainstream. What kind of bias I have no idea, but I think my confusion is due more to a poorly constructed paragraph by RedCedar than my inability to understand.

Hispanics---at least the ones I've met or associated with---take pride in their racial identity and do not consider themselves Caucasian or "White." There are Hispanics who have Caucasian or Negro features but do not consider themselves as members of either. Does Cameron Diaz look much like Alphonso Riberio of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air?

Even outside the broad US definition of Hispanic, the term encompasses a very racially diverse population, often making efforts toward creating a Pan-Hispanic sense of identity difficult. While in the United States, Hispanics are often treated as a group apart from whites, blacks or other races, they actually include people who may identify with any or all of those racial groups.

In the mass media as well as popular culture, "Hispanic" is often used to physically describe a subject's race or appearance. In general, Hispanics are assumed to have traits such as dark hair and eyes, and brown skin. Many others are viewed as physically intermediate between whites and Amerindians or blacks.

Hispanics with mostly Caucasoid or Negroid features may not be recognized as such in spite of the ethnic and racial diversity of most Latin American populations. People of Spanish or Latin American ancestry who do not "look Hispanic" may have their ethnic status questioned or even challenged by others. Actors Cameron Diaz and Alfonso Ribeiro, for example, are both Hispanic, even though they may be presumed non-Hispanic because they do not fit the stereotype; the first being predominantly white (With some Native American roots) and the second predominantly black.

A great proportion of Hispanics identify as mestizo (mixed European and Amerindian), regardless of national origin. This is largely because most Hispanics are from Latin America, and much of Latin America is of mestizo descent. Mestizos constitute majority populations in most Latin American countries. Many other Hispanics may be of unmixed Spanish ancestry, primarily those from Uruguay, Argentina, and Spain as would be expected; or mestizos of predominantly Spanish ancestry, which are not uncommon amongst Costa Ricans, Paraguayans and Chileans. Some "Hispanics" (based on the U.S. definition) may also be of unmixed Native American ancestry, many of those from Bolivia, Guatemala, Peru — where they constitute a majority or plurality of the population— and a considerable proportion of those from Mexico, while many "Hispanics" born in or with descent from the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Colombia may be of African descent, be it mulatto (mixed European and black African), zambo (mixed Amerindian and black African), triracial (specifically European, black African, and Amerindian) or unmixed black African. The presence of these mentioned races and race-mixes are not country-specific, since they can be found in every Latin American country, whether as larger of smaller proportions of their respective populations. Even in Spain, the European motherland of Hispanicity, there is a slowly growing population of mestizos and mulattos due to the reversal of the historic Old World-to-New World migration pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

And speaking of drop-dead gorgeous Salma Hayek, my colleague across the pond, Julian was spot-on in pointing out how blurry it gets when one attempts to pigeon-hole a racial group into neat little categories of "White" and "Not White."

The problem with tidy little boxes is that untidy little people keep jumping out of their boxes and mixing things all up.

Viva la difference.

Hi there

I'm latin american. I'm aware of the terms "latino" and "hispanics" as well of the term "non-Hispanic White" (which I don't understand very well) used in the USA. I am also aware that the people defined by the first two terms don't always agree being called like that.

If those terms help you identify a group of people within your society, I guess it is alright but I also think they are not that logical and they are ambiguous.

A latin in my opinion is every person who speaks a language with roots in the latin. That would include everybody speaking spanish, portuguese, italian, romanian or french. In that sense, I think "Latino" is a good term to describe most people in Latin America and the caribbean (english-speaking people would not be then "latinos"). In that case we have Latin-american and Latin-european (Spaniards, Italian, etc.) - even though they are not called that way.

"Hispanics "are only those people who speak spanish - that would exclude the brazilians and the french-speaking people in latin America. That why we in spanish speak of "Hispano-america" which include every spanish-speaking country in Latin America and also of "Hispano-hablantes" which include Latin America and Spain.

The main problem for me is that neither "latino" nor "hispanics" describe a race because we, the people of Latin America are of all the colors of the rainbow and of all races. We can be White, Black, Yellow and Brown (and every thing in between). There are latin American chinese, japanese and indian. Most of all, we are mostly mixed. Which means that even if we look "White", the probability that we are actually mixed is very big.

So if that is the case, and you want to classify the race of somebody coming from Latin America, I guess your old classification of white, black, asian? is more than enough and you avoid cases as one friend of mine,who once assisted to a congress in the USA and wanted to check "caucasian" and "latino" since she is both.


There are so many famous examples in your country of Latinos of all colors that should answer your question clearer as anything written here, Aren't there?

Ciao!

And not the Spanish. However, people have never had a problem absorbing names for the sake of convenience or as a form of empowerment. What I find odd, though, is that first you stated you have a problem with the term Hispanic because, according to you, most Hispanics could pass for Europeans. Now you’re telling me you’re aware of the disagreements on Hispanic v. Latino within the Hispanic/Latino community.

Read further down in nighttimer’s article and you’ll find that some Latino other-directed social movements don’t like the Hispanic term because it sounds too Eurocentric. If Hispanic supports your racial profile of South Americans why is it inaccurate?


Well, Red, I’m not going to blow smoke up yours or anyone’s. There certainly are bigots calling themselves Hispanics today who would make their Spanish ancestors proud, but I always thought mulatto was just verbosity.

BTW, I believe some indigenous groups prefer indigenous names, and French and Portuguese descendents prefer Latino.


I don’t think I did. You can’t ignore geographic barriers. But in any case, if Hispanics continue voting Republican your comment on blacks having a voting bias will be, well, pointless. Or are minorities supposed to not vote consistently for one ideology over another to avoid demonstrating they’re biased, and is this biased supposed to be a bad thing precisely because we're minorities? Help a confused hispana out.

Per the Universal Residential Loan Application (URLA)you are required to fill out when applying for a mortgage, the federal government considers all hispanics to be white. In order to monitor individual lender's compliance w/ equal credit opportunity, fair housing, and home mortgage disclosure laws, the federal goverment requires that the ethnicity, race and sex of each borrower be disclosed. The applicant may elect to not furnish this information, but the interviewer taking the URLA is required to make an educated guess based on appearance or surname.

There are two options for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino

Five separate categories exist for race ( White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander)

Interestingly enough, in my experience, the great majority of individuals who select Hispanic do not mark any race at all. The lender must choose white if race is left blank. So, it would seem many Hispanics do not consider themselves white???

Do you think "hispanics" are non-white?

My father considered "Mexicans" as non-white, even if it were Antonio Banderas, who is from Spain. It wouldn't have mattered to him if he was from Europe. But then, my father was anti-Catholic as well, and he probably would have turned somersaults in his grave were he aware that I became a Catholic after having been raised generic Protestant.

Personally, I think it is a matter of degree as far as appearance and culture goes, and I do not consider it useful to try to determine whether a person is "white" or not. You have within the African-American community those people who were considered to be "high yellow" who were, even in the black community, treated more favorably because they looked more white.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm thinking that this happens within the Latino or Hispanic community as well. There are groups of people who value the more "European-looking" Spanish-speaking person, those who preferred seeing Catherine Zeta-Jones (who's Welsh with a Greek background) to having Salma Hayek serve as Antonio Banderas' leading lady in the two Zorro movies.*

I too kind of wonder about the assertion that Hispanics have cultural values more similar to those of Caucasians in contrast to the African-American community. The only example I can think of is the importance placed on the Hispanic male head of the house and that African-Americans, more out of unfortunate circumstances than anything else, typically have many females as heads of their households. And yet there is a large "macho" (if you will) feeling in the African-American male mystique, so go figure. It would sound racist to say that black men do not feel a sense of familial responsibility as much as Latino or "white" men.

I wish it weren't necessary to pigeonhole humans in our country. Perhaps the sooner we all produce children with a tan complexion and all eye colors are valued equally, we will have more social equality. Except - there's still the money thing, and there will be the have-nots, the haves, and the have-mores.

*Allow me a moment to drool over Antonio Banderas...

Just to muddle the waters a little bit more, I have seen forms where I had to check off one of these choices:

White (Non-Hispanic)
White (Hispanic)
Black (Non-Hispanic)
Black (Hispanic)

This tells me that Hispanic might be better considered as partly linguistic, partly cultural, partly historical, and partly biological (in the sense of usually, but not always, including some Native American ancestry mixed with European and/or African ancestry.) Which of these intermingled meanings dominates depends on the use to which we are putting the term. If we are discussing the issue of making English the national language, that raises linguistic, cultural, and historical questions. If we are discussing rates of diabetes, that raises biological and cultural questions. If we are discussing Catholicism, that raises cultural and historical questions. It seems clear to me that the term Hispanic can be used properly when discussing these issues. It is also clear that it is possible to use it improperly, in a way which divides us.

For the record, I am best described as a mixture of "White (Hispanic)" and "White (Non-Hispanic)."

Do you think "hispanics" are non-white?

I believe there are non-white Hispanics and white Hispanics. In terms of social experience, a non-white Hispanic (one that is a mix of Spanish and Native American) will have a different experience than a white Hispanic (one of primarily Spanish European descent). Again, it seems to come down to the color of the skin.

I never really thought about this before. Interesting.

My answer is that the concept of "race" is one of those obsolete notions that human beings seem on intent on retaining in spite of anthropological proof to the contrary.

The differences among people are primarily "cultural", not "racial". The technology of travel has ended the isolation among groups of people who adapted, via evolution, to climatic differences in a variety of ways the people insist on calling "race".

Yet, cultural differences are real and some cultures have demonstrated a better means of civilization that others.

Yet, there is almost pathological aversion to discussing these cultural differences out of the fear of being labeled a "racist" a "bigot" or a "supremacist".

"Hispanics", and people who identify with that label are members of a group that practices a distinct culture. You can find Hispanics who are blond/blue-eyed and those who give off very little reflected light.

I say it's high time that America take the leadership role in the world and once and for all eliminate the concept of "race" from our national life. This positive example could bring progress to the rest of the world and eliminate one perceived conflict point between people.

But that's just my "opinion".

I say it's high time that America take the leadership role in the world and once and for all eliminate the concept of "race" from our national life. This positive example could bring progress to the rest of the world and eliminate one perceived conflict point between people.

Very easy to say - if you happen to be white and middle class in this country. Because, well, white folks are being stopped for "driving while white" in this country.

White poeple find it very, very easy to make this pronouncement- because they don't deal with thier race on a day to day basis- it is, to be fair, a catch-22. I have seen the racism and bigotry at the institutional level my own self many times, in many different ways. And I am white, suburban middle class male.


Really- how does one make a broad pronouncement like that and actually propose something that actually works for someone other than white males?

White Hispanics are the most confusing I think though- especially in a pretty integrated community like were I live now, with very diverse nieghborhoods, with no "voluntary segregation". My buddy in my shop- Aaron, my painter and artist in my bike shop- white hispanic. If I didn't see his last name or he didn't tell me, I would in no way be able to say he was "hispanic". "Marine" is the only label I had in my mind when dealing with him. But checking off a box on a goverment form- kinda iffy?

Well, I'm white and was stopped for absolutely NO reason by a black police officer in Detroit. I had a flashlight flashed in my face as I tried to drive down 8 mile. I work with a company that has a majority black population with black managers and I've been discriminated against many times as well harassed for being white.

So I guess it's easy for me to say scrap the racial junk. The more you dwell on it, the worse it is. Blacks around here have hatred for whites even when they live in all black neighborhoods and probably see whites on rare occassions.

I don't think we should encourage the race debate nonsense. People should take responsibility for their situation and not use race as a reason to blame others.



I think it's a joke to even think about it. Why do you need to know whether they are hispanic or not? It's really meaningless and to be honest it upsets me that people get priviledges for simply having "hispanic" maked anywhere. Racially hispanics can be no different than Italian or Arab immigrants, yet they get no "perks". It's stupid and I hate it.

I'll give leeway for blacks. Unfortunately it ends up being a crutch where you actually encourage the disintigrating and ignorant culture that is black culture.

Do you think "hispanics" are non-white?

I think I'll take the "words have meaning" approach to answering this, because really, discussions like this can easily wind up all over hither and yonder, and there needs to be something to anchor them.

A person's "whiteness" depends on his natural skin hue. The less melanin, the more white. Unless there's something in the definition of "Hispanic" that precludes light-colored skin, the answer to the question has to be that they're not all non-white.

Now, what any of that has to do with anything that's relevant, I don't know.

White people who are looking for work in certain occupations ARE very aware of their race because it is such an important factor in hiring decisions. Consider two law school graduates vying for the same associate position at a major law firm. All else being equal (which it seldom is) the white candidate is at a distinct disadvantage. Large law firms give very high preference to non-white candidates, particularly African Americans and Hispanics.

What motivates the law firms are their large clients, the Fortune 500 companies that demand that their law firms have non-white attorneys, and that those non-white attorneys be in positions of authority. Some Fortune 500 companies (e.g., WalMart) have taken to dismissing some of their firms because the firms don't have enough non-white attorneys. This puts a premium on the non-white attorneys. Large law firms strongly prefer to hire non-white law school graduates, and they make no bones about it. Just take a look at the career section (or the diversity section) of their Web sites. Here's one good example:

http://www.morganlewis.com/go/diversity

Here's a law firm advertising that it takes race into account in hiring decisions (despite the prohibition against doing that). So . . . the pendulum has swung. When it comes to getting a job at a law firm, the white candidate is at a big disadvantage when he/she competes against a hispanic candidate.

As to the notion of white vs non-white hispanic, I recall a conversation I had some time ago with an acquaintance who's ancestors hail from Mexico. We were talking about race and heritage and such, and he mentioned that his ancestors include Spainiards and Indians. I asked, "and Africans too?" He had a very strong reaction against the notion that his ancestors included anyone from Africa. A strong reaction, indeed.

For my part, I wish the U.S. government would just give up on classifying people according to their ancestry, just as it long ago gave up on classifying people according to their religion. I find it divisive.

I agree that classification by ancestry is divisive - but furthermore pointless. Are Hispanics whites? - is there actually any meaning in the question, given that Hispanics can vary from pure Amerinds to pure white, and in some cases more or less black. The 'black race' in America has a massive proportion of white blood, and there is a lot more African blood in many whites than they realise.

Put simply Hispanic isnt a race. Its just a group of people united by the Spanish language who come/descend from Latin America or Spain (I think Portugal might actually be included aswell in that-not sure). There are White Hispanics, Amerindian Hispanics, Black Hispanics and alot of Metizo Hispanics (the majority of the mexican population apparently).

Generally i would say that those who descend totally/predominantly from Europe are white whilst those that are Metizo or even totally Amerindian are not and hence tend to have Brown skin.

Take these two examples. Personally i would describe Eva Longoria as a White hispanic. I can see she has that Hispanic/Spanish look to her but is still definitely white IMO and most probably is exclusively/predominantly of Spanish descent.
Now Amaury Nolasco (of prison Break) i would say is Hispanic but not white. Hes probably 50/50 Metizo or maybe even predominantly Amerindian.
Then u also have to remember that countries like Brazil, Columbia, Ecaudor, Cuba along with many other Latin American countries have large black populations. these too would/should be classed as hispanic i guess.

pic 1

pic 2





Edited to remove images in accordance with forum Rules -Jaime

This reminds me of a story my dad once told me, I was about 6 or 7 when this happened:

My dad had started working in L.A, and me, my mom, and my sister also moved there, to be with him. Me and my sister were enrolled in an L.A. public school.

My dad was called to the school's office to fill in a form with information about me... now, to give you an idea, I'm brazilian, my dad's brazilian, and my mom's brazilian... my mom is of portuguese and spanish ancestry with some distant amerindian roots, and my dad of is german, portuguese, and british/american ancestry.

So far as anyone can tell, I'm white... pale skin, hazel eyes, and light brown hair, and with heavily european ancestry.

However this didn't seem to matter to the school, because as my dad was checking the box next to "white" in the "race" section, the person who was overseeing the filling in of the form erased it and checked the box next to "hispanic/latino".

As I said, I was about 6 or 7 and could care less about this incident at the time, but years after that when my dad told me this story, it got me thinking about race and ethnicity and how utterly subjective it is.

Brazil is unique in Latin America in that is was colonized by the Portuguese instead of the Spanish, and later on received many immigrants from all over the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan, Lebanon etc... this makes our culture sort of different from other Latin-American countries. However, there are still many similarities betwee us due to the fact that Portugal and Spain are both Iberian countries (both comprised the Roman province of "Hispania") that share similar cultures and similar languages, so I really don't know wether to identify as Hispanic, Latino, White, or whatever... as I said before, I think it's too subjective, so I don't really care that much about it.