Before I begin, allow me to preface by stating how heinous I think the treatment of non-caucasian races has been throughout history, in particular blacks. I am not of colour, but I am a historian, so I have at least some small understanding of the horrific nature of human past.

So please understand I am not taking issue with your post or sentiment, just woth one statement within:



This one puzzled me. Why would the black community 'hate' people from a different era and a different time like that? While in NO WAY trying to justify slavery, these people were a product of their time, recall that slavery was only removed in the UK in 1772, 50 years before it was common practice all over the world. That does not justify it by ANY stretch, but it does place it in real context.

As an example, until the first world war, women were second class citizens, unable to vote or have certain legal rights. Again, wrong and absurd in hindsight, but does that mean women are justified in not accepting any historical figures prior to suffrage, in particular if these figures had nothing to do with the continued opression?

Mankind, one must be ashamed to say, has always measured itself by compairason. There have been slaves since the dawn of time; under The mesopotamian civilisations, Egypt, Greece Rome, through the dark ages in Europe, and so on.

Unless your country is less than 200 years old, every nation on the planet has a history of slavery in one form or another. Again, not a justification, but a reality. I think everyone here would say we are a FAR, FAR better world now that the institutuion is gone from the first world, but the fact that it once existed should not lead us to dismiss or discredit figures who lived at a less civilised time.

Blacks can racially be called blacks.
Whites can racially be called White.
But Hispanics CANNOT be racially called brown.

Why?
Well, because Hispanics are not a race.
Hispanics are a culture shared by many different nationalities in which the three races are present.


Hispanics: A Culture, Not a Race - Hispanics and Latinos: A Culture - Not a Race!
http://members.tripod.com/~Campello/hispanic.html


BTW

I don't believe in viewing people in any other way
than human.

But if I should decide to classify, then the responsible and respectful thing to
do is be accurate.

Otherwise I would run the risk of
being viewed as
ignorant or biased.

Hispanics did use the word "brown" for a while in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

What’s acceptable or desirable changes with time. In my early years in public schools (the late 1940s) the words "Latin American" were commonly used to describe people of Hispanic origin. The epithet of the day was “greaser.” Then in the 1960s there was a group called the “Brown Berets” and the word “Chicano” was in vogue.

Brown Berets

Then we had he label Mexican-American (though not all people assumed to be Mexican-American had their roots in Mexico). So, Hispanic became preferred.

Some years ago I used to see this rather objectionable bike dealer in Borders on occasion. One day he was telling us that Texas Ranger star Juan Gonzales and his wife came into the store to buy mountain bikes. According to the dealer, Gonzales kept telling him that he was the Juan Gonzales, to which he claimed to have responded, “Yeah I know and so are half the other Meskins (Texas slurring) named that." I have trouble believing that anyone would say this to a big powerful athlete like Gonzales. What’s equally appalling is the bike dealer’s ignorance. Juan Gonzales was from Puerto Rico—not Mexico.

It’s really nice when we have the opportunity to call each other by our names.

BTW: Thanks for some excellent information Vermillion.

I think that the best strategy would be to call people by their first names. If one is trying to be extra polite, then one could refer to them by Mr., Ms., or Mrs. followed by their last names. Sir or ma'am is also a nice touch if the situation warrants it.

That would be the most correct practice in my humble opinion.