[Giovonny]

(07-30-2013 01:11 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Does anyone else think it's weird how we classify each other by race even though it's possible to change your lineage from white to black or black to white in just 2 generations?

Yes, most people don't think about this stuff.

You have a unique perspective because you are bi-racial.

Being "mixed" is a different category all together.

*****

My race is American.

[Samseau]

(07-30-2013 02:11 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 10:56 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Legitimate European Spanish diaspora in the US is a tiny fraction of the Latin American presence (80k vs 52 million). Odds of Spaniards gathering in sufficient numbers to be mistaken for Latin Americans is very slim. And certainly, the closer you look the more you'll find different patterns in the various Hispanic subgroups (starting with the obvious, like Brazilians not even speaking Spanish).

Yeah, but what about white Latin Americans? Your typical Argentinian would be pretty offended and also confused if you said "Oh, you're not white, you're Latino" or "Hispanic". I'm not sure about white Mexicans, but surely Guillermo Del Toro is seen as white though right?

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

[Blaster]

(07-30-2013 01:08 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

How did the different races form?

Race as the genetic concept? Races are formed by divergent evolution.

If you divide up a species into two separate populations, prevent them from interbreeding, and subject them to different environmental pressures, they will evolve differently.

(07-30-2013 01:08 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Did we all start off as the same race?

Humans in general did not all start off as the same race, but many races of humans have probably died out or evolved into new ones.

(07-30-2013 01:08 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Are we all related?

In one sense, yes. The most recent common human ancestors to modern humans are estimated to have lived between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago.

Humans existed before them, but their DNA traces have disappeared. And before them, non-human hominids existed, and chimps before that.

[Teedub]

Relevant:

Along with some top comments. I do hesitate to do this as I feel like a race troll on behalf of white Latin Americans in the U.S!

Quote:

White Latin/Hispanic people will be considered 'white' within a decade or so. It happened with the Italians and even the catholic Irish! 'White' is more cultural in the States than it is anywhere else. For example, if you called a white Argentinian a 'Latino' he would't have a clue what that meant. They see themselves as European, because culturally and genetically - they are.

...and, perhaps more scathingly:

Quote:

People who say Spaniards are not Hispanic because they are not from Latin America need to be told the truth. Because they believe in a big lie. They equate Hispanic with Amerindian lands and not Hispania, a.k.a. Spain? Stupid, stupid, stupid. The U.S. needs to fix it's education. And then I even here Americans say shit like "Oh, Pitbull is not white, he's Cuban" as if Cuban is a race. That's ignorant. Cubans can be white or black or mulatto. The U.S. needs this education badly.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that you guys think Cuban is a race, but it is a train of thought I've found on the forum.

[Teedub]

(07-30-2013 02:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

[Blaster]

(07-30-2013 02:11 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 10:56 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Legitimate European Spanish diaspora in the US is a tiny fraction of the Latin American presence (80k vs 52 million). Odds of Spaniards gathering in sufficient numbers to be mistaken for Latin Americans is very slim. And certainly, the closer you look the more you'll find different patterns in the various Hispanic subgroups (starting with the obvious, like Brazilians not even speaking Spanish).

Yeah, but what about white Latin Americans? Your typical Argentinian would be pretty offended and also confused if you said "Oh, you're not white, you're Latino" or "Hispanic". I'm not sure about white Mexicans, but surely Guillermo Del Toro is seen as white though right?

White Latin Americans like Guillermo Del Toro are generally accepted as both.

Most of the time, you will not see people in the US saying "you're not this, you're that". Membership in the umbrella categories (Black, Hispanic, and Asian-Pacific-Islander) is quasi-voluntary. Do you identify as a member? Does that group accept you? Is your appearance and outward expression a close enough match to the majority perception?

If you are white, speak fluent English, and reject identification as a Latin American, most people in the US will simply shrug and say 'OK sure.'

[Teedub]

They shouldn't have to reject identification though should they? Surely, as it would be unfair. You can be BOTH Latin American AND white. It seems like the WASP elite sort of 'closed the books' as the mafia would say, on to who is 'white' and who isn't. Like that comment in the Pitbull video I posted above said, even Irish people weren't considered 'white' because they were catholic. I'm sorry to bang on about it, but as a European and non-American I just find it rather confusing and frustrating. Example being, the character of Tony Montana is seen as a non-white person, yet he was played by an actor everyone would say is white. Therefore, race (for white's and white hispanics) must be strictly cultural in America and not really based on science, or even skin colour - as Pacino's skin in real life is the same as Montana's! This is a crazy thread and I'm not invested in it, just trying to air my points!

[Blaster]

(07-30-2013 02:41 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Relevant:

Along with some top comments. I do hesitate to do this as I feel like a race troll on behalf of white Latin Americans in the U.S!

Quote:

White Latin/Hispanic people will be considered 'white' within a decade or so. It happened with the Italians and even the catholic Irish! 'White' is more cultural in the States than it is anywhere else. For example, if you called a white Argentinian a 'Latino' he would't have a clue what that meant. They see themselves as European, because culturally and genetically - they are.

...and, perhaps more scathingly:

Quote:

People who say Spaniards are not Hispanic because they are not from Latin America need to be told the truth. Because they believe in a big lie. They equate Hispanic with Amerindian lands and not Hispania, a.k.a. Spain? Stupid, stupid, stupid. The U.S. needs to fix it's education. And then I even here Americans say shit like "Oh, Pitbull is not white, he's Cuban" as if Cuban is a race. That's ignorant. Cubans can be white or black or mulatto. The U.S. needs this education badly.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that you guys think Cuban is a race, but it is a train of thought I've found on the forum.

It's true. Americans tend not to share the European preoccupation with race and racial differences.

Which doesn't bother me at all. In a nation full of country of origin (eg Cuba) tends to say a lot more about someone than their racial identity.

[Teedub]

^ Americans care MUCH more about race than Europeans, at least in the past few decades. It dominates the media there, it isn't mentioned here, well, at least not in Britain.

[Blaster]

(07-30-2013 03:03 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

They shouldn't have to reject identification though should they? Surely, as it would be unfair. You can be BOTH Latin American AND white. It seems like the WASP elite sort of 'closed the books' as the mafia would say, on to who is 'white' and who isn't. Like that comment in the Pitbull video I posted above said, even Irish people weren't considered 'white' because they were catholic. I'm sorry to bang on about it, but as a European and non-American I just find it rather confusing and frustrating. Example being, the character of Tony Montana is seen as a non-white person, yet he was played by an actor everyone would say is white.

Note: The WASP elite is not most of America.

I don't know what to predict as far as Latin American assimilation into white culture. I know for a fact that individuals are able to do it, but the big question is whether the US can absorb such huge numbers of immigrants, especially given the current state of the government and economy.

Quote:

Therefore, race (for white's and white hispanics) must be strictly cultural in America and not really based on science, or even skin colour - as Pacino's skin in real life is the same as Montana's!

It's not "strictly cultural" but probably much more cultural than in other parts of the world. In a country of immigrants, country of origin tends to matter a lot more than genetic markers.

[Teedub]

^ For me, it's not a question of genetics, or "genetic markers" - it's a 'look test'. Pitbull, for example looks white - he's white. George Lopez looks primarily Native, with a bit of Euro - Mestizo. Even though he's probably 70% Native, and some mestizos are the other way round. I mean, I come from a country that sees Oscar De La Hoya as probably an 'exotic' white person, whereas that probably seems insane from a North American point of view, so we're not going to agree on everything, but like I said in your rep point, this is a good debate and there's no heat or anger, just varying points.

I just found this video. It's very pro-white and a bit weird, but it sums up my point nevertheless:

I think my main point of frustration is the separation, I mean, Cameron DIAZ is 'Spanish' but she's white and nobody would contest it, but Jennifer Lopez is seen as something else, despite all her features being Caucasian. She wouldn't look out of place in Italy, Southern France, Spain or anywhere like that.

[Blaster]

(07-30-2013 03:15 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

^ Americans care MUCH more about race than Europeans, at least in the past few decades. It dominates the media there, it isn't mentioned here, well, at least not in Britain.

Yes, but only "race" in the terms I'm trying to explain, which is biased towards cultural and "country-of-origin" factors.

Certain media notwithstanding, though-- the American media does have an obsession with race and race trolling, that I will admit.

[Blaster]

Quote:

Jennifer Lopez is seen as something else, despite all her features being Caucasian.

Jennifer Lopez actively plays up her association with Latin America. She could identify as white (or both) if she wanted to.

Quote:

For me, it's not a question of genetics, or "genetic markers" - it's a 'look test'.

For me, it's an extension of looks into language/behavior/mannerisms/dress/preferences and other cultural aspects that tend to correlate strongly within the population.

[Teedub]

^ I think a big problem, as witnessed in the George Lopez DNA thing with Alba, is that it's REALLY uncool to be white. 'White' is seen as George Bush, Josh Groban etc. The WASPy type of white, Northern European, whilst being 'Latin' is cool. To a European, this is seen as odd, but as someone who understands American culture, I get it.

I was reading a U.S published football/soccer article, and they were saying that Kaka and Messi could really inspire the 'Hispanic' population in regards to soccer. They are white dudes from South America and have about as much in common with some L.A Hispanic as I do. They're Euro in their mindset, as white South Americans (even Mestizo's and black ones to be honest) identify (in fact, ALL Brazilians do) much more with Europe than North America - And I believe football plays a HUGE part of that. It's also why Brits/French/Germans etc see South Americans as a hell of a lot less exotic than North Americans do.

[soup]

Who could question the racistness of a white man that ads this as a lover? If you go get yourself a fat girl from another race and walk around with her, nobody is going to say shit to you.

[Teedub]

Interesting article from Steve Sailer, who has been mentioned in this thread.

http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/unb...occer.html

Regardless of his point, that is relevant to what I've been saying on this thread, he makes some interesting points:

Quote:

Let’s look at ESPN’s list from earlier this year of the “Top 50 players of the World Cup.” The five best players in the world -- Lionel Messi of Argentina (who is of Italian descent), Christiano Ronaldo of Portugal (a Tim Tebow-lookalike), Wayne Rooney of England, Kaka of Brazil (who is from an upper middle-class family), and Xavi of Spain --are white.

Out of the top 10, eight are white and two from West Africa. Out of the top 50, the proportions look similar. Judging from their pictures, I would say 10 are black, one is mostly white but clearly part black, and the other 39 look more or less white. None of the top 50 are East Asian or South Asian, and I don’t see any that are as mestizo-looking as, say, Diego Maradona, the star of the 1986 World Cup.

In contrast, only one American-born white guy has been selected to the NBA All Star game in the last half dozen years. Most of the prestige positions in the NFL other than quarterback are dominated by blacks.

Of the soccer top 50, 24 are white guys from the six sunny powers of Spain (9 of the top 50), Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. In other words, almost half of the global soccer superstars are Southern Europeans. As baseball discovered back in the days of Joe DiMaggio, it doesn’t really hurt your sport’s popularity to have stylish Mediterranean guys as stars. ...

FIFA could change the rules to make soccer more a test of explosiveness and sprinting ability, like American sports...

[Samseau]

(07-30-2013 02:43 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

I'd say it's used as both. I've had plenty of Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA refer to me as "gringo." They're the foreigners, and yet they refer to me as gringo.

The same goes for Hispanic. It's used to refer to cultural and racial differences.

Whether these differences are significant is another matter, but since both the left and right in the USA makes a big deal out this distinction it isn't going away anytime soon.

[speakeasy]

(07-30-2013 02:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it doesn't have anything to do with race.

Teedub is spot on in this thread. There is so much ignorance on the subject of Hispanics/Latinos. Many white Americans are Nordicists. They only consider Caucasians of northern European ancestry to be "true" whites. The opposing view is Pan-Aryanism. Where whites are more broadly defined and white phenotype is recognized outside of N. Europe as well, to places like Argentina, Lebanon, Spain, Syria. To white Americans, if you don't look like you could've stepped off the Mayflower, then you're not white. Which is ridiculous. Steve Jobs was an Arab, and he was also white. All those people who roughly "look white" share some common ancestry that goes back to the Caucasus mountains. To me they are all white. Though obviously, culture and ethnicity still come into play. But racially, Steve Jobs is as white as Mitt Romney. If he looks like he could come from Europe, he's white. End of issue. Many Hispanics look like they could come from Europe, many have negligible black or indigenous ancestry, but because they have a bit of a tan and their last name is Valdez, white Americans have decided they are not white. Even though there are people in Italy and Spain who look exactly the same way. It's weird to me.

[Teedub]

(07-30-2013 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:43 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

I'd say it's used as both. I've had plenty of Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA refer to me as "gringo." They're the foreigners, and yet they refer to me as gringo.

The same goes for Hispanic. It's used to refer to cultural and racial differences.

Whether these differences are significant is another matter, but since both the left and right in the USA makes a big deal out this distinction isn't going away anytime soon.

Again, what differences are there racially between you and a White Hispanic? None.

And regarding the politicians' making a difference, they won't. Why? They're idiots.

[Samseau]

(07-30-2013 05:04 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:43 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it isn't a racial categorization. It's completely different to the Hispanic thing where George Lopez and Ricky Martin are deemed the same race!

I'd say it's used as both. I've had plenty of Spanish speaking immigrants in the USA refer to me as "gringo." They're the foreigners, and yet they refer to me as gringo.

The same goes for Hispanic. It's used to refer to cultural and racial differences.

Whether these differences are significant is another matter, but since both the left and right in the USA makes a big deal out this distinction isn't going away anytime soon.

Again, what differences are there racially between you and a White Hispanic? None.

Uh... there are plenty of racial differences between various whites. Just go as the French what they think of the British. Or the Finish what they think of Russians.

Obviously a white Hispanic will have mixes from peoples indigenous to South America that a White European will never have.

[Teedub]

They're cultural differences, not racial, and if you can't see the difference you're really stupid. No, a white Italian Argentinian for example (See: Lionel Messi) won't have any indigenous influences.

You're clutching at straws mate.

[Teedub]

(07-30-2013 05:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 02:30 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

And a white Argentinian would call an American a gringo, even though the American is just as white as the Argentinian. What's your point?

Gringo just means foreigner, it doesn't have anything to do with race.

Teedub is spot on in this thread. There is so much ignorance on the subject of Hispanics/Latinos. Many white Americans are Nordicists. They only consider Caucasians of northern European ancestry to be "true" whites. The opposing view is Pan-Aryanism. Where whites are more broadly defined and white phenotype is recognized outside of N. Europe as well, to places like Argentina, Lebanon, Spain, Syria. To white Americans, if you don't look like you could've stepped off the Mayflower, then you're not white. Which is ridiculous. Steve Jobs was an Arab, and he was also white. All those people who roughly "look white" share some common ancestry that goes back to the Caucasus mountains. To me they are all white. Though obviously, culture and ethnicity still come into play. But racially, Steve Jobs is as white as Mitt Romney. If he looks like he could come from Europe, he's white. End of issue. Many Hispanics look like they could come from Europe, many have negligible black or indigenous ancestry, but because they have a bit of a tan and their last name is Valdez, white Americans have decided they are not white. Even though there are people in Italy and Spain who look exactly the same way. It's weird to me.

Thankyou!

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Just to clear this up.
Gringo essentially means Anglo, not foreigner. A Latin American wouldn't call a Chinese man or a Greek "gringo". That word is mainly used for people from the Anglosphere. Many Latin Americans would even call me gringo or practically gringo due to my American upbringing, despite the fact that my parents are both Hispanic.

It can be either neutral or pejorative depending on context, much like "Jew" is used in English e.g. today is a holiday for Jews vs. that cheap fucking Jew.

[Blaster]

(07-30-2013 05:11 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

They're cultural differences, not racial, and if you can't see the difference you're really stupid. No, a white Italian Argentinian for example (See: Lionel Messi) won't have any indigenous influences.

You're clutching at straws mate.

First-- superstars in entertainment are generally really bad examples of ethnicity because their image is crafted specifically for mass media. This applies to sports superstars as well, albeit usually to a lesser extent. If sports writers want to package "Messi" as Hispanic to appeal to a specific set of readership, that doesn't say anything about how people on the ground would actually relate to him if he wasn't famous.

The "Hispanic" umbrella is not precise. That is granted-- just like the "White" umbrella is also not precise despite speakeasy's protestations to the contrary (most people are NOT consciously "Nordicists" or "Pan-Aryanists"). The term has not evolved to be practical for use making fine distinctions between cultural and racial heritage. Given that, you will ALWAYS be able to find exceptions, when looked at from a certain perspective. Just because the boundaries are fuzzier than you're comfortable with doesn't make the whole concept crazy.

It's much like neighborhoods in a large city. If you're in the center of neighborhood A, you know you are in A and not B. You look around and see the famous landmarks and if you told someone to meet me in "A" they'd know what you meant. Likewise if you are in B you know you are not in A.

But on boundaries of these two neighborhoods it's different. You can look around and only see common residences. Unless you really know the area well, you won't be able to tell when A stops and B begins. Most people say they live in neighborhood "A" but some say they live in neighborhood "B". To someone just passing through, there would seem to be no rhyme or reason at all! But that passerby is also probably not going to care enough to make an issue of it. If someone claims to live in neighborhood "A" and it's more or less near "A" and not clearly in any other neighborhood then they aren't going to argue.

However, there may be people who do care and for whom it does matter, and they figure out the actual boundaries and document them for others. It may not become part of language, but you can look it up if you want. If you look up US demographics, you'll see the definition of Hispanic clearly accounts for white hispanics, black hispanics, and several other categories. The reason places like the UK do not use that meta-category is that they have no need for it. As large and diverse as the UK is, it's nowhere near as diverse as the US (especially if you focus mostly on Great Britain). Thus the top-level categories are far more inclusive, and this is reflected in common language and attitudes.

[Hencredible Casanova]

(07-29-2013 02:18 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 07:25 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Is this guy unqualified to speak about the Black experience because he is White?

That's an interesting question..?

How would we define "qualified"? It's probably impossible.

I think there are situations when are qualified to speak on the experience and evolution of another race. And, of course, there are many more situations when we are not.

I know Josh through a friend who went to college with him. He would agree with everything I've said in the other thread and with what I'm about to say.

Josh can speak to the experience of being a white guy in a predominately black institution from personal experience, but he can't speak about being black from personal experience because, the fact is, Josh is not a black man. He can't identify as such on government forms, and neither would a police officer who pulled him over, neither would a witness who reported him in as a suspect, nor would a job interviewer. Race is a social identifier in this country, and it's a loaded one. How can there be such a thing as racism otherwise?

Now, Josh is, of course, entitled to have opinions about black people and how he views the history they have endured as a group in this country, but the extent to which his account is credible with a black audience, will depend on how closely it comports with their experiences.

That's precisely the reason why guys like Tim Wise have credibility with many blacks. It's because what he says aligns precisely with the experiences many of us have. You can tell just based on what he says that he's spent considerable time around blacks and studying their predicament as a racial group in this country.

You can also similarly tell when a white person is more concerned about what they see as an erosion of their own opportunities, status and privilege in this country than they are about the plight of black people. When a white person challenges the points made by guys like Tim Wise by spewing diatribes full of character attacks/ad hominems while absent of cogent facts, arguing against irrevocable truths, and does not admit to any ignorance whatsoever, I think it's clear which side of the fence they're on.

Either way, the trend of the crumbling white male power structure in this country is only going to accelerate in the coming years. You can either get on the bus, stay where you are, or get run over.