Sharpness in ethnic diversity "drop" between big urban centers & their hinterlands?

[Capsicum]

So does that mean that a WASP that becomes an atheist, or converts to another religion, is no longer a WASP because of the "P"?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

So does that mean that a WASP that becomes an atheist, or converts to another religion, is no longer a WASP because of the "P"?

I think it's cultural. A WASP who became an atheist is still a WASP; meaning even though they're no longer religious, they group up around it; family, upbringing...

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

They don't.



https://www.npr.org/2017/12/20/57199...en-study-finds

Intermarriage through the generations will certainly water tight cultural associations down. But when you have... "Among the estimated 42.7 million U.S. adults with Hispanic ancestry in 2015, nine-in-ten (89%), or about 37.8 million, self-identify as Hispanic or Latino. But another 5 million (11%) do not consider themselves Hispanic or Latino"... it's clear the association as Hispanic is pretty strong.

It's a very different situation in comparison to Italian or Irish or Polish immigrants who immediately are lumped in as white American and stay that way. As the Pew study would seem to suggest, Hispanics don't really start becoming "non-Hispanic" until after the 4th generation in America, and only likely due "intermarriage" with non-Hispanics.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by JManc

I think it's cultural. A WASP who became an atheist is still a WASP; meaning even though they're no longer religious, they group up around it; family, upbringing...

Yup, that's the gist of it. Lots of Boston Brahmins don't really go to church. They don't have to. Same as how a surprisingly low number of New England Irish, Italians, and Portuguese attend Mass. I am a cultural catholic (lowercase "c") who hasn't attended Mass outside of Easter and weddings / funerals in probably 15 years. I don't believe in essentially any of the dogmatic specifics (I've said many times on this forum that I am "Cathnostic"), but I still strongly identify with the overall culture and values. WASP cultural values and identity is different from that of the cultural catholics.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's a very different situation in comparison to Italian or Irish or Polish immigrants who immediately are lumped in as white American and stay that way. As the Pew study would seem to suggest, Hispanics don't really start becoming "non-Hispanic" until after the 4th generation in America, and only likely due "intermarriage" with non-Hispanics.

But the same applied to Italian, Polish, or Irish immigrants. Part of the reason why they became just "white American" in identity was because they married other white Americans who were not Italian, Polish, Irish etc. For a 4th generation Italian American to stay only Italian American and not other white American, they'd also have to marry Italians each generation up until now, so that's not that different from Hispanics who intermarry and lose the Hispanic identity, especially if they don't speak the language, like Italian Americans who don't speak Italian.

Also, some fourth generation Irish-Americans in Boston still feel proud to be Irish, even if far removed from the "old country".

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Also, some fourth generation Irish-Americans in Boston still feel proud to be Irish, even if far removed from the "old country".

The thing about Boston Irish is that there is still a steady volume of young Irish coming over constantly. Yes, there are plenty of obnoxious Plastic Paddies in the burbs who make the rest of us look bad, but there's also a good amount of tangible, 1st generation Irish influence in Greater Boston. My cousins are perfect examples. While ICE rounding up brown people under Trump's orders made all the TV coverage, there were plenty of Irish getting deported from Boston. Some who had been in the city for 20+ years.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40332646

Taking a summer job on the Cape and Islands or in Maine is still a right of passage for lots of Irish college kids. A good number of them just never leave once summer turns into fall.

[Docere]

The parents of the current mayor of Boston immigrated from Ireland in the 1950s.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But the same applied to Italian, Polish, or Irish immigrants. Part of the reason why they became just "white American" in identity was because they married other white Americans who were not Italian, Polish, Irish etc. For a 4th generation Italian American to stay only Italian American and not other white American, they'd also have to marry Italians each generation up until now, so that's not that different from Hispanics who intermarry and lose the Hispanic identity, especially if they don't speak the language, like Italian Americans who don't speak Italian.

Also, some fourth generation Irish-Americans in Boston still feel proud to be Irish, even if far removed from the "old country".

It's not the same. What you're saying is not true. Irish, Polish, Italian, etc. are classified as White right away. That does not hold true for Hispanic immigrants, 2nd gen, 3 gen, 4th gen...

White (or Black) and Hispanic are identifiers based on different criteria... one being race and the other being ethnicity.

Hispanic is a means to classify a broad minorty group of people who are newer arrivals.

There's no specific box for a 3rd generation Irish or Polish or Italian American to check when filling out official forms -- just White. The same cannot be said for a 3rd generation Cuban or Puerto Rican or Dominican or Mexican -- that Hispanic box is there for you to check.

And those 4th generation Irish (I'm 5th and 6th generation Irish) are still White. There's no Hibernian or Gaelic box to check.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

.

Hispanic is a means to classify a broad minorty group of people who are newer arrivals.

It really doesn't even do that. Someone of Spanish/ Mexican decent who has an Irish surname and whose family has been in Texas predating the RoT era is still considered Hispanic. Essentially it has become to mean anyone (no matter how far removed) with some ties to anything south of the USA (other than Brazil, Belize, Suriname, Guyana or French Guiana)

[Acajack]

I know that's not the intent, but the way the Hispanic category persists intergenerationally and cuts across other metrics, it's almost as if there is the expectation that it will stay "apart" forever.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

It really doesn't even do that. Someone of Spanish/ Mexican decent who has an Irish surname and whose family has been in Texas predating the RoT era is still considered Hispanic. Essentially it has become to mean anyone (no matter how far removed) with some ties to anything south of the USA (other than Brazil, Belize, Suriname, Guyana or French Guiana)

Right. And people from those nations can still be considered Latino, but not Hispanic. Like you said before, it's all bs.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's not the same. What you're saying is not true. Irish, Polish, Italian, etc. are classified as White right away. That does not hold true for Hispanic immigrants, 2nd gen, 3 gen, 4th gen...

White (or Black) and Hispanic are identifiers based on different criteria... one being race and the other being ethnicity.

Hispanic is a means to classify a broad minorty group of people who are newer arrivals.

There's no specific box for a 3rd generation Irish or Polish or Italian American to check when filling out official forms -- just White. The same cannot be said for a 3rd generation Cuban or Puerto Rican or Dominican or Mexican -- that Hispanic box is there for you to check.

And those 4th generation Irish (I'm 5th and 6th generation Irish) are still White. There's no Hibernian or Gaelic box to check.

Well, the Census is saying it'll be doing that for the next time data is being collected (or at least have options to check off). Many people have mixed feelings about this.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58233...-about-origins

Originally Posted by JManc

Essentially it has become to mean anyone (no matter how far removed) with some ties to anything south of the USA (other than Brazil, Belize, Suriname, Guyana or French Guiana)

There's more than that. Caribbean countries like Jamaica, the Bahamas, etc. that are English-speaking are not Latino or Hispanic. It's a mistake to assume all countries south of the US are all Spanish (or Portuguese) speaking, or even Romance language speaking. English and Dutch colonies exist too.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Right. And people from those nations can still be considered Latino, but not Hispanic. Like you said before, it's all bs.

No, there are non-Latin language speaking countries on that list -- Guyana, with English, Suriname with Dutch officially, etc. Even French (which is Latin-derived)-speaking places like French Guiana and Haiti are borderline and disputable.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know that's not the intent, but the way the Hispanic category persists intergenerationally and cuts across other metrics, it's almost as if there is the expectation that it will stay "apart" forever.

It depends on what the goal is of marking down Hispanic inter-generationally in terms of use for data?

Is it merely to record who has some Spanish-derived ancestry somewhere along the line and meant to just be an ancestry-related question?

Or does it imply something about culture (or usefulness in some kind of cultural accommodation or services, for communities within the country)? Because if assimilation happens to all immigrant groups, Hispanic or otherwise, no one can infer culture from one simple label of ancestry anyways. Marking down a label on a census alone, is not going to clue you in on what a person eats, dresses, speaks etc. (although there's also language data collection as separate questions), it's all just self-identity.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

There's no specific box for a 3rd generation Irish or Polish or Italian American to check when filling out official forms -- just White.

the last time i filled out a census form (2010) there was a box marked "other" with a write-in line, so as a 6th generation chicagoan of euro-mutt ancestry, i checked that box and wrote in "chicagoan".

fuck race. there are only two kinds of people in this universe: chicagoans and non-chicagoans.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Well, the Census is saying it'll be doing that for the next time data is being collected (or at least have options to check off). Many people have mixed feelings about this.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/58233...-about-origins



There's more than that. Caribbean countries like Jamaica, the Bahamas, etc. that are English-speaking are not Latino or Hispanic. It's a mistake to assume all countries south of the US are all Spanish (or Portuguese) speaking, or even Romance language speaking. English and Dutch colonies exist too.



No, there are non-Latin language speaking countries on that list -- Guyana, with English, Suriname with Dutch officially, etc. Even French (which is Latin-derived)-speaking places like French Guiana and Haiti are borderline and disputable.

I mentioned countries south of the US; Latin America. The Caribbean is a mixed bag of countries and cultures.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by JManc

I mentioned countries south of the US; Latin America. The Caribbean is a mixed bag of countries and cultures.

Well, I assumed you were also including the Caribbean region as it was south of the US, on a map too.

But even among those, Guyana and Suriname are English and Dutch speaking and I don't think they identify as Latino or Hispanic. I don't know if there's a large immigrant population from Suriname in the US, but lots of Guyanese for example, live in NYC.

[Capsicum]

I wonder, since Latin American and western hemisphere or new world countries broadly speaking can be multi-ethnic (eg. if someone says they're Brazilian, if they provide no other description of themselves, you can't tell whether they're black Brazilian, white Brazilian, a mix of origins, Arab Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian or whatever) and some just mark down the national origin but not the race, if there are people from other multi-ethnic countries who would do the same.

Even, say English speaking countries. Like if a Canadian or Australian lived in the US, and gave a wrote in response of "Canadian" or "Australian", just like some write in "American" or some other response that's not a race, you couldn't tell what ancestry they were. The Census would probably not slot that person into any pre-existing race category then, but still have the data?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I wonder, since Latin American and western hemisphere or new world countries broadly speaking can be multi-ethnic (eg. if someone says they're Brazilian, if they provide no other description of themselves, you can't tell whether they're black Brazilian, white Brazilian, a mix of origins, Arab Brazilian, Japanese Brazilian or whatever) and some just mark down the national origin but not the race, if there are people from other multi-ethnic countries who would do the same.

Even, say English speaking countries. Like if a Canadian or Australian lived in the US, and gave a wrote in response of "Canadian" or "Australian", just like some write in "American" or some other response that's not a race, you couldn't tell what ancestry they were. The Census would probably not slot that person into any pre-existing race category then, but still have the data?

I think pretty much any country created by another as a result of colonization are merely "nationalities" rather than ethnicities.

In the western hemisphere plus AZ/ NZ, they were populated largely by immigrants displacing the native population. In the ME and Africa, different ethnic groups were thrown together with arbitrary borders.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

No, there are non-Latin language speaking countries on that list -- Guyana, with English, Suriname with Dutch officially, etc. Even French (which is Latin-derived)-speaking places like French Guiana and Haiti are borderline and disputable.

I'm well aware, having lived in South America for 7 years. And it's not that I agree with this, but as the entire area is pretty much considered to be Latin America, it's inhabitants are referred to as Latinos by some definitions... Latin America being generally understood to consist of the entire continent of South America in addition to Mexico, Central America, and the islands of the Caribbean whose inhabitants speak a Romance language. - Encyclopedia Britannica definition

It's all bs.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I'm well aware, having lived in South America for 7 years. And it's not that I agree with this, but as the entire area is pretty much considered to be Latin America, it's inhabitants are referred to as Latinos by some definitions... Latin America being generally understood to consist of the entire continent of South America in addition to Mexico, Central America, and the islands of the Caribbean whose inhabitants speak a Romance language. - Encyclopedia Britannica definition

It's all bs.

The people of Guyanese descent I know personally don't refer to themselves as Latino.