“The term is a U.S. invention,” explains Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center....If it's an invented, created category, the questions become: Who is using this category and for what purpose? What are the alternative categories, and who has something to gain/lose from using those categories? What is the political dynamic that feeds the dominance of this political categorization and suppresses the alternatives, and what changes would cause those alternative categories to become prominent?
“There is no coherence to the term,” says Marta Tienda, a sociologist and director of Latino studies at Princeton University. For instance, even though it’s officially supposed to connote ethnicity and nationality rather than race — after all, Hispanics can be black, white or any other race — the term “has become a racialized category in the United States,” Tienda says. “Latinos have become a race by default, just by usage of the category.”...
If most Hispanics are united in something, though, it’s a belief that they don’t share a common culture. The Pew Hispanic Center finds that nearly seven in 10 Hispanics say they comprise “many different cultures” rather than a single one. “But when journalists, researchers or the federal government talk about” Latinos, Lopez acknowledges, “they talk about a single group.”
२३ जून, २०१३
"If all ethnic identities are created, imagined or negotiated to some degree, American Hispanics provide an especially stark example."
"As part of an effort in the 1970s to better measure who was using what kind of social services, the federal government established the word 'Hispanic' to denote anyone with ancestry traced to Spain or Latin America, and mandated the collection of data on this group."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२८ टिप्पण्या:
228 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The linked article is interesting (and long), but there's an obvious error: "the federal government established the word 'Hispanic' to denote anyone with ancestry traced to Spain or Latin America."
If I can trust Wikipedia, the government's definition excludes Brazilians.
Who is using this category and for what purpose?
¡Viva La Raza!
Most of the MSM don't seem to know any actual "Hispanics". While they all speak Spanish, they are divided by race, class, ethnicity. These countries have significant differences in culture. To point out the obvious: An illiterate Amer-Indian from Southern Mexico and Jewish lawyer from Buenos Aries are both "Hispanics".
Its as if everyone from the Middle East was lumped into one categories.
"According to a 2012 Pew survey, only about a quarter of Hispanic adults say they identify themselves most often as Hispanic or Latino. About half say they prefer to cite their family’s country of origin, while one-fifth say they use “American.” (Among third-generation Latinos, nearly half identify as American.)"
The article makes one think that the term belongs to the government and to politicians.
Re: "f I can trust Wikipedia, the government's definition excludes Brazilians."
The Brazilian People, Or Just Those with the Same-Named Waxing?
So an Argentine is hispanic and a Brazilian is not? Ha, that's funny.
I was just in a museum in Utrecht, Netherlands to see a collection of Russian Christian icons. Nearly all the depictions of Christ, the apostles and Mary are of dark skinned persons.
What did these artists know (or believe) that we do not?
First, trust Wiki at your peril.
Second, remember Lurch's trophy wife (or is he her trophy husband?) is not allowed to call herself an African-American even though she was born in Mozambique, so the Brazilian thing, though weird, is in line.
Third, this is just to create more petty, bickering camps, like the LGBTOASDFGZXCV thing.
Fourth, it's used as a race by the Feds, but clearly it isn't, so it's just a shell game.
Ann Althouse said...
What is the political dynamic that feeds the dominance of this political categorization and suppresses the alternatives, and what changes would cause those alternative categories to become prominent?
Uncle Saul and the Permanent Democrat Majority?
PS For those who haven't heard, the New RINO AmnestyCare gives amnesty immediately, but security can wait a few years.
There is no race but human.
Are people of Mestizo ancestry considered white?
Re:
"According to a 2012 Pew survey, only about a quarter of Hispanic adults say they identify themselves most often as Hispanic or Latino."
A Racial/Ethnic Moebius Strip.
You are Hispanic Because the Government Says That You are Hispanic. What You Think Does Not Matter. Along the lines of: If you Are a White Man of South African Descent you are Not an African American.
When We Get to Transgendered Hispanics the Government Classification Becomes Really Confusing.
Government: You are a Hispanic Male.
Citizen: I Am a Mexican Woman named Lucy.
Nonapod said...
Are people of Mestizo ancestry considered white?
Nowhere south of the Rio Grande.
And soon, nowhere north.
If I can trust Wikipedia, the government's definition excludes Brazilians.
???
The 2010 Census specifically make the term Hispanic/Latino, since Latino includes Brazilians.
Here is more on the naming dispute
It is weird indeed. And then to imagine all these disparate people's votes can be won by legalizing the immigration status of a lot of low-skilled Mexicans who aren't really supposed to be here.
"If it's an invented, created category, the questions become: Who is using this category and for what purpose? What are the alternative categories, and who has something to gain/lose from using those categories? What is the political dynamic that feeds the dominance of this political categorization and suppresses the alternatives, and what changes would cause those alternative categories to become prominent?"
and
"The article makes one think that the term belongs to the government and to politicians."
And, the connection between La Raza and the government is not transparently obvious?
You may wish to spend some time in California.
It's immediately obvious here.
Regardless, people should continue to vote Democrat, since, after all, they'll take responsibility for this nonsense and fix it.
lol.
"There is no coherence to the term [Hispanic, or Latino, if you wish]", says Marta Tienda, ... director of Latino studies...
So, what is she directing?
So an Argentine is hispanic and a Brazilian is not? Ha, that's funny.
Nor would be people from Guyana, French Guiana, or Suriname. I'm originally from Guyana but I've never described myself as Hispanic even though I speak Spanish quite well.
The answer to the pretend question is obvious, as always the dems relentlessly seek to divide the USA into various privileged interest groups (PIGs) to add to their fascii (bundle)of PIGs. The primary thing that unites these PIGs is that they seek preferential treatment from the gov. The fascii approach is terrible for the USA but has worked for the dems.
Yeah, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Spanish, Argentines, etc. are really different from each other culturally, who knew? Anybody who pays attention.
Brazilians are not not hispanic cuz they don't speak spanish.
It appears that the whole "Hispanic" naming thing is American in origin. Outside of the US people refer to themselves by country of origin ...Mexico, Cuba, etc.
In California (especially SoCal) there is a vicious chauvinism that arises from Mexican "Latinos", since they are the largest group. They browbeat other "Latinos" into political submission and also jealously guard their political power from non-Mexican Latinos.
In California, kids applying for colleges, 100% Caucasian, play the Elizabeth Warrenesque, "I have Latino Blood In Me" game all the time.
Usually by citing a maternal great grandmother...
Affirmative Action. Paying dividends for the unqualified and dishonest.
I've never once heard a Spanish person in Europe refer to himself as Hispanic or Latino.
It appears that the whole "Hispanic" naming thing is American in origin.
Well played, Darleen.
Most Mexicans are Aztecs.
It is really hilarious that people from Spain are not considered "Hispanics" because they are Europeans.
If you think that is bad though, consider the category of Asians, which includes the original Aryans from India, Chinese and Japanese who would kill each other if the US did not keep them at bay, and people from other Asian nations which fear the Chinese and Japanese with good reason.
Seriously, has there ever been a time since the rise of the Know-Nothings when we have not had one political party, usually the Republicans, that garnered votes from people who feared their new neighbors because they spoke a different language or worshipped a different god, and one party, usually the Democrats, who shamelessly pandered to the minority du jour in hopes of garnering their votes.
European immigrants in the 20th century gravitated to the Democrats who welcome them with open arms and a place at the public trough while the Republicans shoved Prohibition down their throats and restricted immigration. The grandchildren of those immigrants rose socially and economically and discovered Reagan, especially when the Democrats tried to promote busing and racial quotas just as their children had a chance of doing well in school. The great grandchildren of those immigrants are becoming Democrats again because of cultural issues where Republicans are against everything that has happened since 1960. The GOP's best hope is that descendents of today's immigrants from Latin America and Asia will figure out that what the Democrats really want is ever bigger government without limit.
Hey, I won the Hispanic Scholarship for my law school class at UT Austin by virtue of having been born in Paraguay. I'm blue-eyed, fair-skinned and pretty much Irish (more so than Obama) and the beneficiary of an excellent Chicago suburban pubic education. What a country!
Affirmative action is a crock, of course. That said, the first president of Chile was Bernardo O'Higgins and many Paraguayans have had Irish blood ever since the local young women started grabbing any European that walked by to breed with, 90% of their own men having been massacred in a single war by the Brazilian slaves commanded by Duque de Caxias and others.
All I need to do to be Hispanic is change my last name to Garcia.
"As part of an effort in the 1970s to better measure who was using what kind of social services"
If memory serves, Hispanic came about in the very early 70s, with Latino right before.
Right after Teddy Kennedy's immigration law and just at the same time as Rules for Radicals.
Wotta coinkydink!
Darleen said...
It appears that the whole "Hispanic" naming thing is American in origin. Outside of the US people refer to themselves by country of origin ...Mexico, Cuba, etc.
In California (especially SoCal) there is a vicious chauvinism that arises from Mexican "Latinos", since they are the largest group. They browbeat other "Latinos" into political submission and also jealously guard their political power from non-Mexican Latinos.
Sounds like somebody ought to start turning the Lefties' methods against them and do some Divide And Conquer.
Tim,
In California, kids applying for colleges, 100% Caucasian, play the Elizabeth Warrenesque, "I have Latino Blood In Me" game all the time.
My twin grandsons have 1 2nd gen Irish grandfather, 1 1st gen Italian grandfather, one mutt grandmother (me) and one 3rd gen Mexican grandmother.
Though their last name is Italian, I'd love to screw with CA colleges by having them list themselves as Latino when they get to applying for college (if CA colleges are still solvent in seven years)
There's plenty of Irish ancestry among the Hispanics, going back to the Armada and the "Black Irish".
Mexico's last Viceroy was named O'Donoju.
Go to the St Paddy's Day Parade in Tucson and half the people there are Mexican (I had to explain stuff like the San Patricios to The Blonde).
An illiterate Amer-Indian from Southern Mexico and Jewish lawyer from Buenos Aries are both "Hispanics".
The Jewish lawyer doesn't have to be from Buenos Aries or anywere else south of the Rio Grande. Defined the way Professor Althouse's link stipulates, Sephardic Jews whose ancestors were thrown out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in the late 15th century qualify. So the Jewish lawyer could be from New York City or San Francisco and still legally qualify -- the 500 year separation from Spain notwithstanding.
Darleen, the attitude of L. A. Latinos reminds me of the Boston Irish in the days of James Michael Curley referred to Italian and Jewish immigrants as "lesser races". Curley was precluded from attending the 1932 Democratic convention because he was sent to prison for taking a postal service exam on behalf of an illiterate constituent. That didn't stop our boyo. Jaime Miguel Curleo proudly cast his vote for FDR as a member of Puerto Rico's delegation.
I guess that made Curley a Hispanic, as was Eamon Devalera, the first Irish head of state, who was the bastard American child of a Cuban
This all started when LBJ, under pressure from blacks and the Left, was forced to start measuring Civil Rights success by tracking and documenting "minorities who had suffered discrimination in America."
He hired 2 Jewish lawyers to set up the EEO and define who the minorities were. The lawyers defined based on their preconceived notions of who needed extra consideration.
To they not only pulled "Hispanic" out of their asses, but also "Native American" and "Pacific Islander" after talking with campus ethnologists and sociologists. They never thought about how immigrants to America that never suffered civil rights abuses in America would be treated in preferences...because back then - immigrants were not an important demographic. So they just lumped in any arriving black with existing American blacks in remedial hiring goals..same with hispanics.
The two Jews work was codified by the Democrat controlled Congress, wierd definitions without rational basis adapted by colleges, the US Census, all workplaces required to file EEO data. Then the Courts.
Hispanic is not the only ridiculous definition.
Native American includes those in Canada after tribes with members on both sides of the Border raised hell. But magically stops at the Mexican Border. Any south of that, even if full-blooded Mayan indians now cleaning toilets for 1/32nd Indian blood Casino Indians in CT as arriving Guatemalan illegals...are not Native Americans. They are defined as "hispanic".
Whites on pacific islands are not "Pacific Islanders". Nor are East Asians from Island Nations like Japan, Malaysians, the Philippines, Indonesia...or their descendents in Hawaii. Nor Aleutans - classified as "Native Americans"..same with those living on Canadian islands in the Pacific.
Eichmann would have quit the Reich in frustration if he had been charged with sorting out the racial designations in the modern U.S.
If latino is not a real race, can we be "racist" if we are against open borders and an influx of millions of illegals (who happen to be Mexican)?
If Latino is not a real race, then when Latinos talk about La Raza, are they just talking out of their ass?
"European immigrants in the 20th century gravitated to the Democrats who welcome them with open arms and a place at the public trough while the Republicans shoved Prohibition down their throats and restricted immigration."
Wrong. No one (except a few leftist and drunks) cared about restricted immigration or Prohibition.
20th Century immigrants voted Democrat because the Democrats gave out the goodies and supported labor unions. They also supported Segregation - but very few immigrants cared about that.
I recently went to a "promotion ceremony" at a local Oceanside middle school. It was for 8th graders who've made it through and will begin high school. When I went through the system, we didn't make a such a big deal about it but out here it's different. Fully 3/4 of the student body is Latino either by name or on the face of it. Many are immigrants.
The school's principal gave a stirring speech, being sure to mention her personal connection to Caesar Chavez — "my parents marched with him" — before repeating her speech in fluent Spanish.
She brimmed with optimism. I looked and listened for any sort of resentment — the sort that the Democrats say the Tea Party engenders. I listened for any hint or dog whistle. But I heard nothing. The closest she came was to advise her students "not to take things personally." Which I found odd. Why should there be any resentment? The California Public school system is quite generous to all — less so at the primary level than the secondary and university level so quite literally there is nothing to bitch about.
The only thing that bothered me was that during the pledge, many (well most) of the parents declined to put their hand over their heart. Maybe there should have been a reminder in Spanish? But all the kids showed respect for the pledge and also for the color guard — yes we have a real ROTC color guard at every such event.
I was heartened.
They're from the government, and they are here to help.
Sephardic Jews whose ancestors were thrown out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in the late 15th century qualify. So the Jewish lawyer could be from New York City or San Francisco and still legally qualify -- the 500 year separation from Spain notwithstanding.
==================
Not true.
Unfortunately for such Jews, not a few of which have done some work wheedling and finangling trying to get affirmative action preferences on that basis...and Spaniards and Portugee that came straight to the US...by the AA bingo game, they are considered European whites.
But genetically identical Jews or Portugees or Castillians born South of the US Mexico Border or on "hispanic Caribbean islands" are official hispanics.
However, many Jews are involved in legal machinations to try to get Spanish passports on the "dispossessed Spaniard" claim in case the money dries up in America, or things in South Africa or Israel continue to get worse.
Always looking for a country of convenience, as untethered Cosmopolitans with no loyalty to any nation..as the Russians say of them.
They're from the government, and they are here to label you.
Cedarford wrote:
To they not only pulled "Hispanic" out of their asses, but also "Native American" and "Pacific Islander" after talking with campus ethnologists and sociologists.
part of the problem then is the words they come up with to define a group. But even if the words are imprecise does that mean that the group itself doesn't exist? For example to use of the word Asian as opposed to Oriental to describe Japanese, Chinese and Koreans as a race. The problem being, that Asia is a pretty large continent covering a lot more than just Asians, as they like to be defined.
Similarly, African Americans to define blacks. Many blacks in America have never been to Africa, and White Africans would be African American. Further, Africans from Africa who come to America are often bewildered by the differences between the African experience and the African American experience.
So too with Native American to define Indians. As is often pointed out, if you were born here,you are a Native American. I'm a native American. But am I an Indian?
But then if you use terms that are more accurate to define a group you are racist. YOu can't use Oriental to define an Asian anymore because someone takes offense, even though it's a more precise word.
Maybe the problem is language itself.
I see almost nothing positive about our creating and recognizing of race, but the negatives are endless and severely damaging throughout our entire civilization like a plague. You would think that an intelligent species would react appropriately to that and CUT THE SHIT OUT!
It's mostly academics who continue to spread and support this disease rather than fight it, and they do it for selfish reasons. In fact, all recognition of race now as well as in the past has always been about selfish greedy motives. Stop it already!
It seems to me that the only way we will get past it is if academia cleans up it house and stops it's selfish little race baiting business model. They rest of us will never drop it as long as the "intellectuals" keep developing new products to sell in this market. Stop your nasty nasty business.
cokaygne said...
European immigrants in the 20th century gravitated to the Democrats who welcome them with open arms and a place at the public trough while the Republicans shoved Prohibition down their throats and restricted immigration. The grandchildren of those immigrants rose socially and economically and discovered Reagan, especially when the Democrats tried to promote busing and racial quotas just as their children had a chance of doing well in school. The great grandchildren of those immigrants are becoming Democrats again because of cultural issues where Republicans are against everything that has happened since 1960. The GOP's best hope is that descendents of today's immigrants from Latin America and Asia will figure out that what the Democrats really want is ever bigger government without limit.
Wrong.
They started becoming Republicans after WWII when they started making something of themselves and found out the unions were in the way.
Because some of them stopped having kids in the 70s and later, there aren't enough to go around.
The real irony is, right now, the Rs offer no real opposition and buy into the mind games played by the media because the real opposition, the Tea Partiers, would push them out. So they've joined with the Democrats as "their" Republicans.
The day there is a real opposition, things will change, but it's gonna get real ugly between now and then.
The irony is, given the fact the Mexicans want to be THE minority in this country, blacks may well be driven back to the Rs, assuming they offer real opposition.
“There is no coherence to the term,” says Marta Tienda, a sociologist and director of Latino studies at Princeton University.
There's no coherence to any racial term! Africa is a diverse continent. It's insane to lump all people with black skin together. It's like saying Italians are just like the Irish. No, they're not.
White tells you nothing. Black tells you nothing. Yellow tells you nothing. This whole racial construct is vile and irrational, a stupid reminder of slavery. That was the point of race (and racism) to justify slavery in the USA while fighting for freedom.
The only reason for race is to divide people. And you are dividing people upon a particularly noxious characteristic. Just stop it. Stop it now. Stop it with the census. Stop dividing people into races, stop talking as if you are rational. You're not rational, you're an idiot. The whole socialist/race program is vile, and utterly offensive to liberal society.
The answer to race and racism is not more and more and more racial categories and government tinkering. You idiots. The answer is to be rational and recognize common humanity. And you know this! So do it.
There are millions of smart, affluent, educated, law abiding, entrepreneurial South Americans who would love to emigrate to the USA but are hindered from legally immigrating to the USA. It is insane to give preference to uneducated, unskilled, poor, illegal from Mexico over vastly more qualified South Americans who want to migrate to the USA.
It is also insane to ignore the history between the USA and Mexico. We took Cali, NM, Ariz, and Texas from Mexico and they haven't forgotten it. When Mexicans have sufficient majorities in those states, they won't be taking their marching orders from either the dems or the GOP.
Recently I had an interesting experience involving Hispanic identity. On a few occasions over the past month I've worked with a 30ish woman, not from the same company as mine, who had blonde hair, light skin and eyes, and speaks with a strong foreign accent. I figured that she probably was Polish or Russian even though the accent didn't seem right.
Last week I found out that she's from Argentina. At first I couldn't believe that I hadn't recognized her accent as a Spanish accent - once I knew what it was, it was very obviously a Spanish accent. Then I realized what had happened. I'm so accustomed to thinking of Spanish-speaking people as brown that my mind couldn't accept that this completely non-brown person was Hispanic.
Peter
Me: So there's no such thing as Hispanics?
Marta Tiendo: Exactly. It's a completely incoherent category.
Me: Then your cush job as professor of latino studies or whatever the hell you call yourself and all the perks that come with it is a sham.
Marta Tiendo: Well, I didn't...look, it's vital to study these issues and since I'm a...shut up!
It seems to me that the only way we will get past it is if academia cleans up it house and stops it's selfish little race baiting business model. They rest of us will never drop it as long as the "intellectuals" keep developing new products to sell in this market. Stop your nasty nasty business.
Bravo!
It is also insane to ignore the history between the USA and Mexico. We took Cali, NM, Ariz, and Texas from Mexico and they haven't forgotten it. When Mexicans have sufficient majorities in those states, they won't be taking their marching orders from either the dems or the GOP.
The Spanish in turn took alta California from the natives. And in a sense, that's who's taking it back--not the Spanish.
The Brazilian People, Or Just Those with the Same-Named Waxing?
Oh, no ....
Peter
Didn't it used to be that Americans thought of themselves as Virginian or Carolinian or something otherwise state-ish?
According to a person who's involved in higher education and in the position to know, almost 3/4 of people with one Mexican parent self-identify as white. He also says that affirmative action is less of a boost in college admissions than it used to be.
Peter
The Democrats have done very well with "Blacks" as a reliable voting block, so it makes sense to try to create another and larger one too. And in any case, liberals just love to categorize and pigeonhole other people.
However, about "Hispanics" Washington (and New York) is also absolutely clueless; it is remarkable that the "Hispanics" put up with the really insulting language being used about - and to - them by the MSM.
And Marco Rubio is certainly not from around here, and I don't think he cuts much ice with anyone born and raised on the upper Rio Grande.
And you are dividing people upon a particularly noxious characteristic.
Of course, skin color is not, in and of itself, a noxious characteristic. What's noxious is this attitude that skin color should be valued and categorized.
Imagine a society where left-handed people were enslaved, and discriminated against, because left-handed people are el diablo.
Southpaw devils!
And imagine all the shit our society goes through, talking about those damn right-handed people, and how they have all the advantages. Every day we would hear about driving on the right-hand side of the road. People would protest, and demand that we drive on the left-hand side of the road. And the government would rotate years, and we would flip from a right-side-driving society to a left-side-driving society, and back again. And we would be up to ass in car wrecks! And the liberals would spend $10 billion dollars trying to resolve the car wreck problem. They would say, "we need more training about what year it is and what side of the road you're supposed to drive on."
And Althouse would blog endlessly about our right-hand-left-hand fight. The Supreme Court would hear case after case after case. And we'll cry about how awful it is, and how it will never be fixed. "In your subconscious, you know you're a right-handed bigot!" And the shit would go on and on.
Now say you are born into this society. And you grow up in it. So you're used to talking about right hands and left hands. It sort of makes sense. Everybody else is talking about it.
But in the back of your head there's a little voice.
"You idiots! Shut up about the hands! Who gives a shit what hand you're using?!"
jimbino,
Hey, I won the Hispanic Scholarship for my law school class at UT Austin by virtue of having been born in Paraguay. I'm blue-eyed, fair-skinned and pretty much Irish (more so than Obama) and the beneficiary of an excellent Chicago suburban pubic education. What a country!
Does John McCain get to be Hispanic by virtue of having been born in the Canal Zone? Genuinely curious here.
The exclusion of Brazil from the legal definition is idiotic. What separates Brazilians from other South Americans apart from language? And yet a descendent of Venezuelans who speaks only English is "Hispanic," while a descendent of Brazilians who speaks only English is not. And a Spaniard who speaks only Basque qualifies.
You see the absurdities on full display in the coverage of the George Zimmerman trial. The jury supposedly contains five white jurors "and one Hispanic." Since "Hispanic" is not a race (according to the government), the "Hispanic" juror might well also be "white," just like Zimmerman. She might even have a black grandparent, just like Zimmerman, which would still render her white enough for the NYT.
Just say "no".
I know it's very intoxicating, and it feels good, and you can make good money dealing it to others, but please, just give it up. You are ruining your family.
Imagine George Zimmerman is ambidextrous. And the NYT is like, "Right-hand bigot!" And then they find out he actually used his left hand.
Oops.
ironrailsironweights,
Argentina has a large German diaspora population. I'm not quite sure how it became established, but it was already there in the early 20th c. I came across it reading Jorge Luis Borges' non-fiction writings. There seem to have been a lot of not-so-crypto-Nazis around Buenos Aires during the Second World War.
Racial, gender, sexuality, etc polarization is working great for the dems so they will continue doing it. Almost all the people who vote dem are either in one of the dem PIGs (privileged interest groups) or are too ignorant/stupid to figure out what is going on. At this point, the best approach is for conservative states to grow a pair and claw back power from the feds. Once Mexicans dominate Cali, Texas, NM, Ariz, they might see federalism as a constitutional way to achieve effective political independence from the gringo.
Now wait, lets not go off the deep end here. Left-handed people are pretty disgusting, and nobody wants one in their family, and it goes without saying that soulless Gingers can't be ignored. Lefthanded Gingers? Well, they shoot horses don't they?
My Grandmother from England is Caucasian, but my Grandfather is not although he's from the Caucuses in Asia. My sister-in-law is Latin because she's from Chile, S. America but not Hispanic although her ancestors arrived from Spain (Espania, Hispania). Her son is Hispanic because he was born in the US and doesn't have a catagory other than Hispanic. My friend's wife is Caucasian because she's from Italy, but she's not Latin because Italians aren't Latin anymore.
I'm so confused.
edutcher -- that's LGBTOASDFGCVXYZ to you.
If it's an invented, created category...
Um, they all are, lady. Including: English, Irish, Jewish, Spanish, German. They all are. Every "race", every religion, every nationality. All artificial constructs. All man-made. None of them determined by any biological metric, with the attempted exception of the Nazis.
What prevents conservatives from getting this?
so the jig on the racial shell game is up.
The Spanish language is hateful to the anglos.
What will we do with Mandarin Chinese next?
Meade thought I was Hispanic a week or so ago, lol. I have some ancestors from the Black Forest, so I guess I could be a person of color after all, heh.
Hispanic is a cultural-linguistic category, that retains salience in America to differentiate it from passionless, Calvinist conceptions of Anglophile identity.
That's a hell of a lot more interesting and useful (to me) than knowing the borders of which modern European nation-state north of the Alps some Althouse commenter's grandparents originated in.
Last time I was at the doctor they gave me a form that asked my race, I put down alarmingmixofunknownorigin/other.
Rhythm and balls wrote:
"Um, they all are, lady. Including: English, Irish, Jewish, Spanish, German. They all are. Every "race", every religion, every nationality. All artificial constructs. All man-made. None of them determined by any biological metric, with the attempted exception of the Nazis.
What prevents conservatives from getting this?"
Um,Which party doesn't get this again? Which party has their black coalition, and their latino coalition, and is pushing quotas along racial lines? The same ratial lines that the Klan pushed back in the day that democrats supported them.
Im against racial quotas, because of this very thing. Yet to Democrats, that's racism. I think you're in the wrong party. Or you might want to rethink your critique and direct it at the left, where you come from.
Anybody who lives in New York knows that "Hispanics" or "Latinos" comprise many different cultures and traditions. You got your Mexicans and you Guatemalans who don't get along. The Dominicans hate the Puerto Ricans. There is only one thing in which they are all united.
They don't like black people.
Ritmo said:
"What prevents conservatives from getting this?"
Althouse is not conservative, she votes mostly dem.
Your argument is that there is no such thing as race? Tell that to the dems. Conservatives push for a color blind society, dems create privileged interest groups based on race and other characteristics.
You have so much to learn.
Yeah, but that's because everyone finds something to compete against in NY, Baron.
bagoh20 wrote:
I see almost nothing positive about our creating and recognizing of race, but the negatives are endless and severely damaging throughout our entire civilization like a plague. You would think that an intelligent species would react appropriately to that and CUT THE SHIT OUT!
Except there are those differences. There are white people and black people, and Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Korean) and there are Latinos. But despite that being the case, one shouldnt' make race an identity rather than a trait. You might be white, but there is no such thing as a WHite identity. Its turning race into identity and then engaging in identity politics that is the problem.
And why the libs and democrats are so damned evil and racist. They are carrying on from the KKK. Same exact mentality. Divide and conquer.
And color blindness (not accepting race as identity) becomes "RACISM" to the left.
Your argument is that there is no such thing as race?
I didn't say that, you emu. I said it's an artificial construct. Is that something else that conservatives don't understand, that artificial =/= "imaginary"? Artificial things are still real. Like skyscrapers, for instance. Very artificial, very real. Are they useful, is the question. You guys think national labels are, but "racial" labels aren't. Even though both are artificial. Racial labels are important because we fought a civil war over them.
Lots of people fight or compete with lots of others, so there's no reason to add to it. But that doesn't mean that we ignore conflict or competition - which is the idiotic conservative's answer to the problem.
Althouse is more conservative than you think.
Ritmo's arguments are in complete denial of reality, par for the course for a lefty.
Ritmo, do you agree that the dem approach of assembling fascii (bundles) of privileged interest groups based on race is completely bogus, cynical and ruinous for the country? Do you agree that affirmative action is terrible for the country?
"Althouse commenters who think there's some big difference (other than in name only) to whether their grandparents were Polish, German or Welsh are as boring as..."
As long as it stays in the realm where you can afford to be bored by it then we are good. When you start deciding who gets what and who must give what based on these traits, then it's not so boring anymore.
"May you live in interesting times."
Which party has their black coalition, and their latino coalition...
Those "coalitions" represent cultures, which you resent because your understanding of culture doesn't extend beyond a visit to KFC and an evening viewing prime-time TV.
Ritmo, do you agree that the dem approach of assembling fascii (bundles) of privileged interest groups based on race is completely bogus, cynical and ruinous for the country? Do you agree that affirmative action is terrible for the country?
Ritmo the retard wrote:
Lots of people fight or compete with lots of others, so there's no reason to add to it. But that doesn't mean that we ignore conflict or competition - which is the idiotic conservative's answer to the problem.
No, conservatives are arguing the Martin Luther King position. At the end of the day content of character matters more than color of skin. Democrats are still with the Klan when it comes to race. Race is EVERYTHING.
Typical Ritmo, long on insults, short on facts and logic. More heat than light.
The history of the human race is the history of people labeling each other in groups. Mainly our group and everyone else.
The Native American tribes almost universally made the name of their tribe the word "the people" in their particular language. Everyone else is not a person.
Labels are what unite us. By dividing us. So we know who we don' like or are not supposed to like.
This Mexican guy in my building previous to this one objected to my use of Hispanic. It was frustrating, so I go, "What do you want?" He said, "Latino." That sounded good to me so it's been Latino ever since.
This is America, where you invent yourself. You can be anything you want.
That's why I was so doggone upset with that census with its contrived categorizations, I went nuts with that thing, all those personal questions that are none of their beeswax, but they say right on there that money is involved worth considering and answering, but I get one little space to be, caucasian, and no place specifically for cracker, or cheese cracker, or the one I would pick, Cheez Whiz on Ritz cracker, or a regular all-in-one Cheez-It cracker.
Ritmo's arguments are in complete denial of reality, par for the course for a lefty.
Which reality, praytell, did I deny?
The only reality I see being denied here is your refusal to accept that artificial or social realities are still realities. You seem to make the conservative mistake of finding culture to be a completely immutable thing, or something that we must agitate against with our very fiber.
Other people, the realistic ones, the progressive and moderate ones, take a more flexible approach to what culture is.
Ritmo, do you agree that the dem approach of assembling fascii (bundles) of privileged interest groups based on race is completely bogus, cynical and ruinous for the country? Do you agree that affirmative action is terrible for the country?
And there you have the leftist ideology. I decide which cultures are good and which are evil based on what restaurant you visit, or whatever I can come up with this week to maintain the grievance addiction I make good use of like a crack dealer selling rocks of wax.
No, conservatives are arguing the Martin Luther King position.
40 years after his death they say that culture and society are irrelevant. This was never MLK's position, actually.
It started with the Neanderthals who started called the new kids on the block "homo sapiens."
Because they were homos.
No self respecting Neanderthal wanted to be hanging around with the homos.
Ritmo wrote:
Those "coalitions" represent cultures, which you resent because your understanding of culture doesn't extend beyond a visit to KFC and an evening viewing prime-time TV.
You poo pooh nationalism but promote balkanization. Again this is the difference between the melting pot conept and multiculturalism. I am a product of many cultures (german, Irish, Italian, Greek and a few others) and in some cases the family still maintains their various cultures. But they are assmilated and Americans first.
Cultures aggregate, Steve. Just like people of any shared interest or experience associate. Deal with it.
Do you need a craniotomy to let in enough light to get that fact?
Why deny something so basic?
Ritmo specializes in side tracking discussions by insults and refuses to answer direct questions cuz he's got nothing.
Ritmo, do you agree that the dem approach of assembling fascii (bundles) of privileged interest groups based on race is completely bogus, cynical and ruinous for the country? Do you agree that affirmative action is terrible for the country?
Nowadays if you don't buy into the whole radical gay agenda of same sex marriage and being Boy Scout Leaders and Locker Room attendants for Little League teams you know what they call you?
A Neanderthal.
Same as it ever was.
Shorter Ritmo: "Racism is a good thing."
The crack dealer thinks addiction is a good thing too. What would he do without it. He sure isn't going to help eliminate it, is he? So you support racism, because it supports you.
You poo pooh nationalism but promote balkanization.
No, not really. I just value culture. I don't consider any hostility or offense taken to any one culture if I enjoy a night out at the Italian opera, for instance. I could go to a Samba festival the next day.
Which are things that you would never do.
Ritmo specializes in side tracking discussions by insults and refuses to answer direct questions cuz, once you get past his insults, he's got nothing.
Ritmo, do you agree that the dem approach of assembling fascii (bundles) of privileged interest groups based on race is completely bogus, cynical and ruinous for the country? Do you agree that affirmative action is terrible for the country?
40 years after his death they say that culture and society are irrelevant. This was never MLK's position, actually.
I dont' say culture is irrelevant. I say it isn't paramount.
I dont think MLK was a multiculturalist by the way. He was all for the Melting Pot concept.
"40 years after his death they say that culture and society are irrelevant."
Holy shit, that's stupid. What book did you get that out of, or did you develop that all by yourself?
Does nobody use "Chicano" anymore?
Steve, I think affirmative action must likely be outdated and more harm than good given the president's identity in 2013, but of course you never asked for my opinion.
That's a different issue from promoting diversity, which every business now (finally) understands is good for the bottom line.
You're just pro-homogenization and cultural uniformity, which is the death-knell of any empire that wants to stay relevant.
The same Rome that the deified Founding Fathers modeled their political system off of was a melting pot. Dealt with the same issues. Successfully so, too, when it veered from your more fear-based approach.
Ritmo wrote:
No, not really. I just value culture. I don't consider any hostility or offense taken to any one culture if I enjoy a night out at the Italian opera, for instance. I could go to a Samba festival the next day.
Which are things that you would never do.
Right. Because you know what I would do. Fuck you.
I've gone to Opera, and Reggae conerts. Just the other day I ate Indian food, and the day before I had Chinese food.And Mexican food the day before that. Get off your soap box, you twat.
"Steve, I think affirmative action must likely be outdated and more harm than good given the president's identity in 2013, but of course you never asked for my opinion."
I asked your opinion several times, actually. Anyway, good for you to actually finally answer the question and bonus points for getting it right.
Lol, jr. Mexican food? Really?
Taco Bell?
Make sure to try the turtle soup.
;-)
I'm just f-in' with ya, dude. I mean, yes, there's a larger point there, but your skin is way too thin to see it.
I think it is important to draw the critical distinctions between the different cultures that are termed "Hispanic" or "Latino."
For example all wetbacks are beaners but not all beaners are wetbacks.
I asked your opinion several times, actually. Anyway, good for you to actually finally answer the question and bonus points for getting it right.
You demanded it as if your way of understanding things was the only way and thanks for sharing your whole Ein reich, ein volk, ein ANTWORT perspective on political agreement.
If you trade insults with Ritmo, you are playing his game. He is god at insulting but muuuch weaker at rational informed argumentation. Ignore his childish insults and focus on the argument. He has conceded that affirmative action is now a net negative so that is progress and shows there is hope for him.
That's a different issue from promoting diversity, which every business now (finally) understands is good for the bottom line.
Ugh! What you mean is corporations have hired employees whose sole job is to think about diversity. We have wasted millions, if not billions, on this shit. These employees go to diversity conferences and talk about how to increase diversity.
It is not "good for the bottom line," which is why liberals have to mandate this diversity horseshit via stupid lawsuits that rely upon statistics as opposed to actual discriminatory intent.
If the stupid lawsuits disappear, then the whole diversity industry disappears. And companies can go back to providing health insurance to their employees instead.
No, wait, liberals fucked that up, too.
Please do not speak of this "bottom line" again, Ritmo, because I spit up milk through my nose when you do that.
Steve, reciprocity is a good way to avoid insults. I'm not being cross-examined and you're not an attorney.
You don't want to ask Baron what he thinks of attorneys.
You're not the only one who gets to ask questions or to make a point here.
He has conceded...
Why not say "He agrees..."? Unless the entire point of this blog is team sport.
Which I suppose it is, actually.
nm
A good friend of mine calls me "Beaner Schnitzel".
It also helps them understand ways of accessing markets that the hard-core cons here think shouldn't exist (because they are fans of monoculture), St. Croix, and you should probably see a doctor if that nose-milk problem persists.
Ritmo,
Affirmative action is one of the key ways dems get votes. Without AA, the percentages of blacks and hispanics voting dem would go way down and dems would lose a bunch more elections. Are you ok with that?
BTW, you can tell that I was asking, not demanding, cuz the sentences ended in questions marks (?).
Lol, jr. Mexican food? Really?
Taco Bell?
Make sure to try the turtle soup.
Does Taco Bell have turtle soup? I wouldnt know because i haven't eaten there in a while. NOt that I dislike it.
But when you were talking about businesses accepting diversity,isn't Taco Bell an example of a business doing exactly that. So, if I went to a Taco Bell, why would you attack me for it?
Taco Bell is Americanized Mexican food. People go to it because they like the taste. It's an example of culture experience that's been assimilated. Not some foreign thing that is to be feared. The whole point of a melting pot as opposed to a balkanized society.
Yes, "agreed" would have been a more collegial word choice than "conceded".
It also helps them understand ways of accessing markets that the hard-core cons here think shouldn't exist (because they are fans of monoculture),
My "monoculture allows for chinese food, and Mexican food. What world are you living in?
Affirmative action is one of the key ways dems get votes. Without AA, the percentages of blacks and hispanics voting dem would go way down and dems would lose a bunch more elections.
Another thing you could call it is "not condescending to disfavored groups by denying their negative experiences in a society that isn't naturally stacked in their favor", but I guess you'd prefer to lose elections.
As anyone who's read (thoughtfully) about Lee Atwater knows, the same thing was always done for whites or the dominant groups, just with talks of tax breaks after segregation and plantation societies broke down.
Now we're at a turning point. If you want to deny one-half of the reality of racial political pandering post-1968, you can still do that. But your average black voter won't. Neither will your average HIspanic voter.
jr, I have nothing against Taco Bell. But you should definitely try seeing if there's a local taqueria every now and then worth trying out, too.
"What is the political dynamic that feeds the dominance of this political categorization and suppresses the alternatives, and what changes would cause those alternative categories to become prominent? "
One could ask the same question about the categories which have appeared on the census since 1790. We've gone back and forth on a number of issues ("mulatto" versus "black"), tracking country of origin, etc. There's also the limitations of available technology--until the 2010 census the ability to handle complex questions was limited.
And the next time you're in NO, try the turtle soup at Commander's Palace.
During the last census, I checked my ethnicity as Other, and then wrote in American.
They called me on the phone, and asked me to clarify. I told them I have an American passport. The conversation ended shortly thereafter.
Ritmo wrote:
jr, I have nothing against Taco Bell. But you should definitely try seeing if there's a local taqueria every now and then worth trying out, too.
How do you know I don't? It's the assuming on your part that makes an ass of you (but not me).
The count groups by their leaders.
The MSM says who the leaders are.
Only their narratives run.
It also helps them understand ways of accessing markets that the hard-core cons here think shouldn't exist (because they are fans of monoculture), St. Croix, and you should probably see a doctor if that nose-milk problem persists.
That's what they say, but these businessmen are lying, Ritmo. You have to mandate it, or it wouldn't be happening. It's too retarded a concept to come up in a capitalist society. Only a socialist would spend money on that.
"We need black people to sell to black people because I have white skin and I do not understand black people." The. Whole. Concept. Is. Idiotic.
If you're right, quit mandating the horseshit and let companies compete. Some companies might spend money on diversity training to increase the bottom line. Other companies might think it's a waste of money.
Competition works, Ritmo. That's why socialist planning in a room is so idiotic and painful to a society.
Think of it like "monopolies are bad." You don't like monopolies, right? But here you are, mandating that every corporation act the same way, because you know how to increase their bottom line. Stop planning the economy, you leftists suck at it. Everybody sucks at it. Bill Gates thought the internet was stupid. This is why we need dynamic competition and not idiotic socialist mandates enforcing 19th century racial theories.
Does nobody use "Chicano" anymore?
I did once long ago and was brought up short and informed that that was a California term, and it would be appreciated if I did not use it about respectable New Mexicans.
Ritmo,
I would like to know what you think, would you please answer the question with a direct answer (for example, yes or no)?
Affirmative action is one of the key ways dems get votes. Without AA, the percentages of blacks and hispanics voting dem would go way down and dems would lose a bunch more elections. Are you ok with that? Or would you continue AA, even though you think it is a net loss, cuz AA helps dems win elections?
The point of my question is that it is one thing to recognize that something is wrong, it is another to do the right thing even when there is a political cost.
It is funny that you desire such polite discourse when you routinely insult others.
It also helps them understand ways of accessing markets that the hard-core cons here think shouldn't exist (because they are fans of monoculture),
for hard core conservatives, the most important color is green. So they wouldn't want to restrict markets along racial color lines since it would impact the ability to earn money from all the groups.
Michelle said,
Does John McCain get to be Hispanic by virtue of having been born in the Canal Zone? Genuinely curious here.
What the gummint says or does mostly makes no sense at all, ever. John McCain can call himself Hispanic, though the Canal Zone was American territory. I have no Amerindian or Iberian blood that I know of, but I am Hispanic by culture (early life in Asuncion) and language (Guarany and Spanish). My father, however, was attached to the American Embassy in Paraguay, which is also American soil. So I was born a Hispanic American, though only Congress in all its wisdom could have figured that out. Since I'm an American by birth, never naturalized, I hope to become President and help put an end to this ethnic nonsense.
Saint Croix wrote:
"We need black people to sell to black people because I have white skin and I do not understand black people." The. Whole. Concept. Is. Idiotic.
It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand.
/sarc.
Think of it like "monopolies are bad." You don't like monopolies, right? But here you are, mandating that every corporation act the same way, because you know how to increase their bottom line.
This is the biggest cop-out you ever came up with, St. Croix. You're better than this. If you think that lower standards are the way to better competition, just come right out and say it.
Stop planning the economy, you leftists suck at it. Everybody sucks at it.
It's interesting that the most dynamic corporate innovations seem to be left-wing: Henry Ford offering a higher wage, GOOGLE catering to quality-of-life among its employees. Must suck to have your economy driven by people who are visionary and not stuck in stodgy and greedy, old-school paradigms, eh?
Bill Gates thought the internet was stupid.
Did he? Really? I mean, I know he made a fortune stealing others' ideas and preventing them from being hatched by the inventors themselves, but I thought that whole browsers war issue might have proved this wrong.
In any event, even he learned that greed can only get you so far. Hence, philanthropy. Innovative philanthropy to save the Africans from disease, even.
The true visionaries and biggest successes don't seem to be on your side, St. Croix.
I had a neighbour who was 3rd generation American of Italian immigrants. He called himself Hispanic. Left me gobsmacked.
Affirmative action is one of the key ways dems get votes. Without AA, the percentages of blacks and hispanics voting dem would go way down and dems would lose a bunch more elections. Are you ok with that? Or would you continue AA, even though you think it is a net loss, cuz AA helps dems win elections?
My answer is that it's ultimately a moot point. If it weren't AA, there would be another way to pander to/respect/not condescend to this group or that that the other group's natural political leadership would rail against.
The point of my question is that it is one thing to recognize that something is wrong, it is another to do the right thing even when there is a political cost.
I think what Lee Atwater did was wrong, but others here disagree. The fact is that culture exists, cultural distinctions exist, and competition between cultural groups (whether they are also called "races" or not - it's irrelevant) also exists. Whichever way of pandering will be seen as wrong by the other.
But that doesn't mean we deny the existence of a category just because it's a man-made category. My high school diploma is also a man-made category. Marriage is a man-made institutions. Do conservatives want to deny their existence as well, simply when it suits them to belittle their importance?
It is funny that you desire such polite discourse when you routinely insult others.
I just try to give what I get. If you think I started off on the wrong foot by being coarser with you than you'd anticipated or provided, I'm sorry. It's possible I was. I'll admit to feeling a little feistier this morning. ;-)
Henry Ford was not left wing.
What is the political dynamic that feeds the dominance of this political categorization...
I found it towards the end of the article.
There is one moment, however, when assuming the Latino label feels right, even urgent. When the political debates over immigration turn ugly, when talk of self-deportation and racial-profiling laws and anchor babies permeates campaigns, the distinctions and nuances seem to dissipate.
Its a political tool used to leverage political power.
I was going to say 'naked political tool', but that would leave me open to charges of betamax-profiling.
Ritmo,
So, do you think affirmative action for blacks and hispanics, should be stopped or continued?
As I recall from Anthropology class (quite a while ago), race is a set of metrics by which people can be classified. Skin color is only one of them. It was asserted that among the black population in Africa, there were groups who differed more from each other than from whites.
Race may have some validity if one is an anthropologist (scientists are all about measuring and classifying, you know), but otherwise it is bogus. I find it ironic (and somewhat sad) that the first "African-American" president is so far removed from the actual black experience in this country.
Ritmo wrote:
In any event, even he learned that greed can only get you so far. Hence, philanthropy. Innovative philanthropy to save the Africans from disease, even.
Who's against philanthropy? Gates could only do it because he became phenomenally wealthy through commerce. But what Republican is saying you can't give your money away. Was Gates philanthropy a product of Microsoft? It seems to have been more of a personal decision on how Bill Gates wants to spend his money.
The issue with republicans is not Bill Gates spending his money on philanthropy, but govt spending Bill Gates's money on govt.
If you think that lower standards are the way to better competition, just come right out and say it.
Mandating diversity training is not "higher standards." It's typical liberal horseshit. "Let me screw up the economy while I preen in the mirror about how noble I am. Meanwhile, I want you people to contemplate diversity. No, wait, write a paper on it. I want a 10,000 word essay on racial diversity on my desk by Monday. This is how we make money, I learned it at university."
Barely on topic, but apparently nobody has read the immigration bill.
Seriously, the Supreme Court ought to strike down any law that has not been read. What the fuck, liberals? Were you always this insane?
Ritmo wrote:
think what Lee Atwater did was wrong, but others here disagree. The fact is that culture exists, cultural distinctions exist, and competition between cultural groups (whether they are also called "races" or not - it's irrelevant) also exists. Whichever way of pandering will be seen as wrong by the other.
well first you totally misconstrued or misprepresented what Lee Atwater actuall did. But if he did do what you say he did, why do you consider it wrong? Because it was done to appeal to white people and not black people? If your'e going to buy into the whole racial pandering to get votes, and think that race exists, and competition between races exist,why shouldn't whites be able to use the same mechanisms to further their race, along the same lines? Black is beatiful is racial identity but White is Right is racism? You can't have it both ways.
Don't damn Lee Atwater for appealing to things you think are legitimate when it comes to other races. (Even though, as I said, Lee Atwater said he did the exact opposite, so you're wrong in your characterization).
If I were a more conspiratorially-minded leftists, I'd say that conservatives never got rid of affirmative action because it gave their white constituents something to resent, and more motivated to vote for them based on that.
Ritmo,
So, do you think affirmative action for blacks and hispanics, should be stopped or continued?
Stopped. Ideally, speaking. ;-)
Henry Ford was not left wing.
He was also a Nazi sympathizer.
But he sure was progressive!
Saint Croix wrote:
Mandating diversity training is not "higher standards." It's typical liberal horseshit. "Let me screw up the economy while I preen in the mirror about how noble I am. Meanwhile, I want you people to contemplate diversity.
Why, when I go to a chinese restaurant are all the people working there Chinese? Shouldnt they have some Eskimoes and transvestites for diversities sake?
Mandating diversity training is not "higher standards."
Right. Because it's really a low standard to mitigate the potential for conflict among your workforce and the various communities that they might represent.
You're really hitting gutter balls today, St. Croix. What gives?
Ritmo wrote:
f I were a more conspiratorially-minded leftists, I'd say that conservatives never got rid of affirmative action because it gave their white constituents something to resent, and more motivated to vote for them based on that.
Conservatives haven't gotten rid of affirmative action because lefties keep pushing affirmative action. Since you now say you are against it, why are you pushing the lefty argument and calling the conservatives the bad guys?
You seem postively schizophrenic.
Ritmo,
So, do you think affirmative action by the government for blacks and hispanics (i.e. preferential treatment by the government for hispanics and blacks), should be stopped or continued? A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.
Because it was done to appeal to white people and not black people?
It was done to appeal to privilege, and I don't like that.
Anybody who lives in New York knows that "Hispanics" or "Latinos" comprise many different cultures and traditions. You got your Mexicans and you Guatemalans who don't get along. The Dominicans hate the Puerto Ricans. There is only one thing in which they are all united.
They don't like black people.
Mexicans have some rivalry with Salvadorans (there aren't nearly as many Guatemalans), but it's well short of hatred. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans get along well. And Hispanics in general have reasonably cordial relations with blacks.
Peter
I already said yes, Steve.
I'm not 100% sure, but maybe 51%.
And as far as where it resides on my list of priorities, I'd say somewhere down there with getting City Hall to fix the crack on that sidewalk a couple blocks from where I live.
But your doggedness and fixation on this gives me even greater pause. It makes me wonder if my sentiment or position isn't in error. I don't like being allied with people who expand such little issues into things of great import so monomaniacally. It leaves me anxious and wondering whether I'm going the wrong way.
I like the calmer constituency. ;-)
Jonathon Swift wrote in "Gulliver's Travels, Chapter 6,
"My master was yet wholly at a loss to understand what motives could incite this race of lawyers to perplex, disquiet, and weary themselves, and engage in a confederacy of injustice, merely for the sake of injuring their fellow-animals;"
Who knew you were a race, Professor?
to mitigate the potential for conflict among your workforce
snort. I want a 10,000 word essay on the pro-life movement, Ritmo, on my desk by Monday, because you used the term "sea monkey," and your insensitivity has caused conflict on the blog, and so fewer people are using the Althouse portal to shop at Amazon, and I know this is true because I went to university.
Ritmo wrote:
It was done to appeal to privilege, and I don't like that.
I though it was done to white blue colllar workers. You know, the backward rednecks from the south. (or as Obama might have said,those clinging to their guns and religion). Suddenly rednecks are privileged?
And you have a problem with pandering to priviledge but not to race? So, David Duke is ok appealing to whites, so long as they are white trash and not plantation owners?
As a man whose family is from Portugal, I always thought it strange that many segments of the government exclude us from getting better treatment than the rest of Americans. Not that I'm biothered. The government should be forbidden to even recognize these ethnic sources.
Since I'm Portuguese, and much of Portugal was overrun by the Moors, someday I'm going to start calling myself a black man so that I can get the preferred treatment. If Elizabeth warren is an Indian, I can be a black man.
"snort. I want a 10,000 word essay on the pro-life movement, Ritmo, on my desk by Monday, because you used the term "sea monkey," and your insensitivity has caused conflict on the blog, and so fewer people are using the Althouse portal to shop at Amazon, and I know this is true because I went to university."
It just so happens that the diversity being pushed corresponds to lefy dogma. Pure coincidence of course.
I though it was done to white blue colllar workers.
It definitely wasn't done for them. Being done to them has a nice, sarcastic ring to it, though. ;-)
It was done to bring their votes in with those votes of the more privileged to arouse a political majority. It did so by rallying them around racial solidarity, rather than around economic solidarity, pushing the Republicans over the edge numerically. For a generation, it worked.
Something that I'm wondering isn't motivating Mr. S. Koch right now, in fact...
Ritmo,
Of course it is one thing to think that affirmative action is a net loss and another to be willing to get rid of it cuz of the political cost. Glad to hear that you are for getting rid of affirmative action by the government, even if it costs the dems a bunch of elections.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who do stuff they know is wrong cuz it helps them win elections.
Since I'm Portuguese, and much of Portugal was overrun by the Moors, someday I'm going to start calling myself a black man so that I can get the preferred treatment. If Elizabeth warren is an Indian, I can be a black man
You can apply the one drop rule. hey, it worked for Halle Berry.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/halle-berry-cites-drop-rule-daughter-black-white/story?id=12869789
What can the government do?
Not this.
At least not very well, creating perverse incentives and more patronage and distrust of government.
Thanks Steve.
We should all try to be honest and challenge our biases when we can.
It did so by rallying them around racial solidarity, rather than around economic solidarity,
Except Lee Atwater didn't do that. Regan pushed blue collar economic solidarity arguments and not racial ones.And Reagan won the same voters that Carter did earlier, when he ran a similar campaign. Lee Atwater specivically argued that it would be stupid to make a campaign based on race in the south.
And yet, this is what democrats still do to this day when they divide their coalition into interest groups and "the black vote". Since you seem ok with that, I wonder why you would fault LEe for doing it (even though, as I said, he didn't).
There are seven different classifications for blacks (Negroes).
Wherever there is injustice, you'll find Shitmo practicing his Putumayo arts from diverse Bozeman.
He knows the mind of the Brazilian slave, the conquered Aztec, the wandering Jew.
Solidarity!
Do you have a problem with the concept of "the black vote" ritmo? Or democrats, or republicans courting it?
Isnt' that a vote along racial solidarity lines, BY DEFINITION? And yet courting "The White Vote" would somehow be racist.
Regan pushed blue collar economic solidarity arguments and not racial ones.And Reagan won the same voters that Carter did earlier, when he ran a similar campaign. Lee Atwater specivically argued that it would be stupid to make a campaign based on race in the south.
That's why Atwater said the appeals were coded, subconscious, and not overt. The better to rally that kind of resentment over.
There were heavy elements of racial resentment cloaked in economic rhetoric. He said exactly that.
Racial resentment would have looked too ugly to have avoided a backlash. Appealing to the interests of rich whites over poor blacks was bland enough to work. Depicting the rich whites as "heroes" and the poor blacks as "moochers" also gave justification to those who took the economic arguments seriously.
It doesn't seem to be working anymore, though. Funny how that happened right when merely the demographic changes reached a tipping point though, isn't it?
Ritmo,
Affirmative action isn't a little thing, it is racial and gender discrimination by the government. It enables dems to buy black and hispanic votes using our tax dollars, a profoundly corrupt approach that has an enormous impact on elections. It is a profound threat to our republic.
For what it is worth, Nixon invented AA with his "Philadelphia Plan", a clever ploy to drive a wedge between construction trade unions and African Americans by claiming that the trade union tradition of offering apprenticeships to the children of current members was racist. The remedy was to require government contractors to hire a quota of minority workers.
Ritmo, Ford paid higher wages and got better workers. Google offers unique benefits to attract creative workers. Both are examples of private enterprises beating the market by doing something good for their workers. No government bureaucracy or thuggish union ordered them to do that. Why don't liberals understand that?
Do you have a problem with the concept of "the black vote" ritmo? Or democrats, or republicans courting it?
Isnt' that a vote along racial solidarity lines, BY DEFINITION? And yet courting "The White Vote" would somehow be racist.
I don't have a problem with people within living memory of firehoses and dogs being unleashed on them for wanting to access schools (after every prior generation being either subjugated or denied legal equality) doing that. If something like that had happened to whites (as something closer to it did with the Irish) then I wouldn't have a problem with their reaction being political, either.
Progressives have always got a plan for society.
It never works as promised, and just doesn't work well at all.
A big money shell game where they get the engineer the game and feel good about themselves.
Ritmo wrote:
That's why Atwater said the appeals were coded, subconscious, and not overt. The better to rally that kind of resentment over.
And do you think that there is no appeal to subconcsious and coded appeals to resentments, when appealing to "the Black vote" today? Or when discusing affirmative action programs, for example?
Yeah, Nixon was not conservative. He also did price controls (haha).
Affirmative action isn't a little thing, it is racial and gender discrimination by the government.
It's a small corrective impulse to address the even greater and opposite evil, which was so profound that it would have destroyed the Republic. It almost did, in fact. Just one or two battles more.
This is small potatoes compared to that. There will be no Civil War and dissolution of America over affirmative action. You have to be realistic enough to understand that.
Ritmo wrote:
I don't have a problem with people within living memory of firehoses and dogs being unleashed on them for wanting to access schools (after every prior generation being either subjugated or denied legal equality) doing that. If something like that had happened to whites (as something closer to it did with the Irish) then I wouldn't have a problem with their reaction being political, either.
And so anytime a democrat courts the black vote, their message is couchec in code that appeals to that resentment, no?
You've just revealed the democrat playbook. So then, don't damn Lee Atwater for doing that which is done by your side all the time. Even though, again, he didn't say what you say he said.
And do you think that there is no appeal to subconcsious and coded appeals to resentments, when appealing to "the Black vote" today? Or when discusing affirmative action programs, for example?
See my 3:29 PM answer. If you are so afraid of blacks or any tiny advantages they retain in the face of greater social and longstanding historical disadvantages, then your propensity to deal rationally with the facts isn't great enough for me to want to sympathize with you, let alone be politically allied with you.
At least there is a grudging acknowledgement that Hispanics come in all shades, unlike the term African American. Africa is a geographical location, not a race. I happen to be both white and African.
...claiming that the trade union tradition of offering apprenticeships to the children of current members was racist.
Such a dilemma. You spend your working life in the comfort of your union cartel, then the goddam gov tells you that it's unfair that your kids get the inside track for the next round.
The Daleys understood the unfairness of it all.
Ritmo wrote:
It's a small corrective impulse to address the even greater and opposite evil, which was so profound that it would have destroyed the Republic. It almost did, in fact. Just one or two battles more.
And you're still arguing the civil war. Democratic appeals to past resentment when courting the black vote and the need to maintain programs in perpetutity will address that grieveance FOREVER. Whatever, you say Lee Atwater.
Why not, address reality today. There are plenty of blacks who are rich and successful in this country. WE even have a black president. Arguing we nee dpolicies because of the civil war, while ignring the present reality only makes you look like someone who isn't living in the modern world.
Ritmo wrote:
If you are so afraid of blacks or any tiny advantages they retain in the face of greater social and longstanding historical disadvantages, then your propensity to deal rationally with the facts isn't great enough for me to want to sympathize with you, let alone be politically allied with you
The fact that you're a complete asshole makes me not want to be politically allied with you either.
THe issue was that there wasn't a level playing field. Giving advantage to one side today to make up for the other side not having a level playing field fifty years ago is not exactly fair to the people of today. Fifty years from now are we going to give advantage to the people hurt by affirmative action?
And you're still arguing the civil war.
Which I'll keep doing for as long as any other American wants to argue over the importance of the founders and what was said in their founding documents.
Asians, are a minority who are doing well academically. And they are hurt by affirmative action. Why should they have to suffer because we're out to get Whitey?
Rhythm and Balls said...
If it's an invented, created category...
Um, they all are, lady. Including: English, Irish, Jewish, Spanish, German. They all are. Every "race", every religion, every nationality. All artificial constructs. All man-made. None of them determined by any biological metric, with the attempted exception of the Nazis.
No, most of them have to do with where people came from and, in most cases, the language they spoke, so it's not artificial.
Ritmo wants to play one of his little games again.
Hispanic is a cultural-linguistic category, that retains salience in America to differentiate it from passionless, Calvinist conceptions of Anglophile identity.
Once again Ritmo proves he needs to be written in purple crayon and then read to him in baby talk for him to understand.
The fact that you're a complete asshole makes me not want to be politically allied with you either.
Goodbye, jr! Enjoy the Taco Bell.
I note for the record, Dear Steve, that it was whiny little ranter jr who initiated the rude profanities while stomping his feet this time, not I.
This is really the best (and probably, only) response to such childishness.
Ritmo wrote:
Which I'll keep doing for as long as any other American wants to argue over the importance of the founders and what was said in their founding documents.
We live in the modern world. I never met a slave. And I was born after Jim Crow. and people younger than me have even less first hand knowledge of those things. So why not address your arguments to the world we live in now?
I can see why you have sucn animus for republicans by the way. Becaus your mindset is still in the Civil War and Jim Crow. ANd you think, because of your bias that all repubicans are the same as the whites who opposed integration.
Except, because of your bias you ignore the fact that it's republicans who are arguing for color blindness. And that YOU are the one arguing for continuing to view everthing through your racial prism.
Ritmo wrote:
This is really the best (and probably, only) response to such childishness.
Whaaaah!
It just so happens that the diversity being pushed corresponds to lefy dogma. Pure coincidence of course.
yes, that's right, JR! But even if we are mandating sensitivity training for slights-against-Republicans, the whole shabby industry is a waste of time, money, and mental energy.
You can't force people to be "sensitive." You can only enforce censorship and send the anger underground.
It's idiotic to force Ritmo to write a pro-life paper. Let's indoctrinate Ritmo and fix his mind!
It's idiotic for Ritmo to be spending his work time on political shit that has nothing to do with whatever hypothetical business would hire Ritmo.
And it's idiotic for Ritmo to say that his 10,000 word paper will "increase the bottom line."
Cedarford on Jews:
Always looking for a country of convenience, as untethered Cosmopolitans with no loyalty to any nation..as the Russians say of them.
How about some facts for a change, you poisonous toad:
[World War I] was a total war and therefore a total disaster. But in a perverse and not too surprising twist of events, the Jewish population of Europe suffered most. As individuals, the Jews fought in the armies of all sides, becoming super-patriots in their respective countries, determined to prove that they really “belonged.” This was especially true of German Jewry. Over 12,000 Jews died fighting for the “Vaterland.” Their patriotism and sacrifice would turn to ashes, literally, within twenty years.
German Jewish soldiers fighting for “der Vaterland". Picture courtesy of Leo Baeck Institute for the Study of the Culture and History of German-Speaking Jewry
But in spite of their super-patriotism, the Jews in Germany were subject to accusations of disloyalty. In 1916, the German General Staff ordered a census of all Jewish soldiers in the army to determine how many actually served on the front line. The fabricated census was publicized with great fanfare, intimating that the Jews were shirking their duty. The actual results showed that 80% of all Jewish soldiers served on the front lines, far higher than the general population, but this was never released to the general public.
Go back to any conversation Ritmo is in. And see how quickly he resorts to name calling. Suddenly he's all about the civil discourse. Dude, you do realize that we read this blog and know your posts right?
Eat shit.
The categorization essentially bundles the pandering.
dutch,
I'm not giving the blog my full attention today. So would you explain to me how this thing you said...
most of them have to do with where people came from and, in most cases, the language they spoke, so it's not artificial
is different from this thing Ritmo said:
Hispanic is a cultural-linguistic category...?
I'm missing some nuance.
You can't force people to be "sensitive." You can only enforce censorship and send the anger underground.
Stormfront.com has been driven underground?
The MSM says who the leaders are.
Its a Pandering Bundling Scheme.
Wait, haven't we had most of this discussion before? Yes, I think we have.
We live in the modern world. I never met a slave. And I was born after Jim Crow. and people younger than me have even less first hand knowledge of those things. So why not address your arguments to the world we live in now?
We live in the modern world. I never met a [founding father]. And I was born after [the revolution]. and people younger than me have even less first hand knowledge of those things. So why not address your arguments to the world we live in now?
So why not address your arguments to the world we live in now?
The world we live in now has been partly determined by the affirmative action programs of the past. To say that they are now counterproductive is not remotely the same as saying they were never a good idea.
Go back to cockaygne's comment about the "Philadelphia Plan". AFAIK, there were no actual Jim Crow laws in PA ever, but how was the system of favored status for kids of (overwhelmingly white) union workers going to allow blacks to compete freely?
You're completely wrong if you think that once the fire hoses were turned off that discrimination ended in all aspects of daily life.
Eat shit.
AKA: I am soooo convincing and soooo winning this argument!
Lol.
"If Latino is not a real race, then when Latinos talk about La Raza, are they just talking out of their ass?"
Why, yes, yes, we are. Now shut up and sign the check.
Chip S. said...
dutch,
I'm not giving the blog my full attention today. So would you explain to me how this thing you said...
most of them have to do with where people came from and, in most cases, the language they spoke, so it's not artificial
is different from this thing Ritmo said:
Hispanic is a cultural-linguistic category...?
Sim-bull.
In the article, which Ritmo neglected to read, it admits the "Hispanic" thing is linguistic only.
Most of the Latin American nationalities have their own culture
Ritmo just blah blahs along with the Lefty rap of how it's cultural-linguistic.
My point was that identifying someone by their place of origin and the language he speaks (which, until a couple of hundred years ago were unique - the English spoke English, French spoke French) is perfectly natural and by no means artificial.
Ritmo,
When you don't insult people, you raise your game to a whole nother level.
There is a white looking TV news reader here in Philly named Rob Quinonez- you should hear the exaqggerated accent he uses to pronounce his last name Qeeeeeeeeyyyoooonyyeezzzz. I think it has paid off for him - he has been working steady here for the last 20-25 years.
Most of the Latin American nationalities have their own culture
And yet they largely share a common religious and linguistic heritage.
Then there are the cultural differences b/w MN and MS.
And then there's Belgium.
The basic point is that "culture" isn't a discrete thing. You can aggregate up from very specific locations and dialects to as high a level of similarity you think is relevant for the question at hand.
If you're arguing over the pisco sour, e.g., it's important to distinguish b/w the Peruvian and Chilean versions. But you're still more likely to be able to order some kind of pisco sour in a bar in Argentina than one in Seattle.
I see almost nothing positive about our creating and recognizing of race, but the negatives are endless and severely damaging throughout our entire civilization like a plague. You would think that an intelligent species would react appropriately to that and CUT THE SHIT OUT!
Well say there was a healthy society desiring to integrate with the 21st Century work pool. One might think the country would import Doctors, Engineers, Scientists, etc.
But instead, we import Mexicans.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the average illegal gets a net of $14K in taxpayer benefits per year, and with Amnesty up to $23,900 per year. I think it makes sense for the US to discriminate in immigrants to bring in the what the country needs.
Perhaps country of origin isn't the best solution, but it's a pretty good start.
Perhaps country of origin isn't the best solution, but it's a pretty good start.
There's a much better way: auction off green cards, then subject all the winners thorough background checks before letting them in.
Totally nondiscriminatory, while weeding out anyone who can't pay his own way.
cokaygne is a historical illiterate.
Start with "European immigrants in the 20th century gravitated to the Democrats who welcome them with open arms and a place at the public trough while the Republicans shoved Prohibition down their throats and restricted immigration"
18th amendment, passed by the senate, 1917- 64th congress D-56, R-40, 65th D-54 R-42. Just exactly how did the minority party sneak a constitutional amendment through?
Over the presidents veto?
The Democrat Party is now and was then the party of division- forcing Americans into groups other then one big group called Americans, then setting the groups against each other. The only difference between now and then in the groups they appeal to.
Immigration Act of 1917- Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.
Wheen the SS St. Louis, crammed with Jewish refugees feom Nazism was turned away from our shores, Dems controlled both houses and the White House, and Jews were loyal to and remain loyal to the Dems. A mystery to me, but it's true.
I find every liberal I know personally to be historically illiterate just like cokaygne. It's easier to hold silly beliefs when you are ignorant of reality.
I'm rather amused by this whole discussion insofar as prior to post Apartheid S. Africa, almost EVERY academic textbook (written mainly by lefties) that analyzed Sou Africa compared it to Nazi Germany mainly due to the use of minor bureaucratic functionaries to make official racial designations based on eyballing alone. This was regarded as especially loathsome as the "cape coloured" designation--applied mainly to Indians and mixed-race peoples--so vital to one's financial/economic future success in S. African society (i.e., by NOT being designated "black") hinged entirely on the totally subjective opinion of a minor bureaucrat based on visual inspection alone.
And here we are discussing the use of arbitrary categorical racial designations by the United States government--the VERY sort of governmental activity that the left, especially, used to severly castigate the S. African government for as being both totalitarian and odiously nazi-like in nature.
No savage irony in that..
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा