Your city's multiracial population/mixed unions

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

So, just because your day-to-day contact in the US is with the poorer immigrants (or their descendants) from Latin America, doesn't mean that is the whole picture. It just shows you that the lack of knowledge and a global view (including international travel) gives you a very limited understanding of reality.

Argentina and Uruguay are exceptions, though. Practically everywhere else in Latin America is at least Mexico-level "nonwhite", and most countries are overwhelmingly nonwhite, whether indigenous or African-based. Even Chile doesn't have many European-looking folks outside the upper classes.

And I doubt the racial profile of Mexican Americans is notably different than Mexicans. In both cases, the % indigenous or white are low, the % mixed is high.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In Canada at least we're kinda stuck with the term visible minority as it's used by the government and its statistical agency so lots of numbers and other documents and policies refer to that.

At some point I assume they will change it and I bet they're even working on it right now.

So stay tuned.

hopefully whatever they come up with will be adopted by the other states.

as i hope the canadian gun rules will be.

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Argentina and Uruguay are exceptions, though. Practically everywhere else in Latin America is at least Mexico-level "nonwhite", and most countries are overwhelmingly nonwhite, whether indigenous or African-based. Even Chile doesn't have many European-looking folks outside the upper classes.

And I doubt the racial profile of Mexican Americans is notably different than Mexicans. In both cases, the % indigenous or white are low, the % mixed is high.

Hey Crawford, are you Mexican/American? Your profile location says you are in Polanco, Mexico City.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

Hey Crawford, are you Mexican/American? Your profile location says you are in Polanco, Mexico City.

Wife is Mexican. I used to live there, and never updated profile.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by JManc

And white isn't really accurate since it traditionally does not include Middle Easterners and South Asians and is basically a 'catch all' for Non Hispanic white people of European decent.

According to the Census actually, everyone - regardless of how they look - from North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia is white. IIRC the line between white and Asian is the Afghani/Pakistani border.

In common parlance, many of these people are of course not "white" - though I'd argue that a lot of MENA people are indistinguishable from southern Europeans anyway (particularly Lebanese and Syrians).

There was some discussion about adding a MENA classification to the Census for 2020, but they decided against. I mean, there are all kinds of slippery issues to consider then. Are Israeli-Americans no longer white then? What about Maltese, Cypriots, Turks, or Armenians?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by liat91

The problem is with Hispanic people’s tendency to stretch whiteness a little to much, which would skew the results. They need to realize, there’s nothing wrong with being part black or part native, even if you could pass otherwise by the slimmest margins.

Hence my earlier point about racial categories not being rational. Racial categories are centered on "white". It's a social measurement, not a scientific one:

black + black = black
black + white = black
white + white = white

A person can have mostly European ancestry and still be black, but a person cannot have mostly African ancestry and be white. If you understand that then you can understand that whatever percentage of European ancestry that Hispanics have is irrelevant. Whether Hispanics are white just depends on whether other people accept them as white.

[eschaton]

I think it's also important to note that the experience of Latinos in the U.S. has - for the most part - been pretty good. Throughout the 19th century they not only had it better than blacks, but also better than Native Americans or Asians. They were all (even the obvious Mestizos) considered white by default. They never had to attend de jure segregated schools (California used to force Asians to attend special schools, but never did so for Latinos). They never had their right to vote infringed upon. They never were forced to live in segregated neighborhoods. They never had to worry about being able to marry Anglo people. It's worth noting that in the 1950s/1960s "mixed marriages" between whites and Latinos were seen as less outre than a Jew marrying a WASP or a Catholic.

There were of course various anti-Latino hysteria moments in U.S. history - the Zoot Suit Riots, Operation Wetback, etc. But these were really not all that different than the anti-immigrant hysteria that the U.S. had during various periods in history against now "white" groups like the Irish and Italians.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

A person can have mostly European ancestry and still be black, but a person cannot have mostly African ancestry and be white.

Tell that to certain Latinos of Carribean descent. Most Dominicans are white per self-identification, but certainly not by U.S. racial norms. Then I have a Mexican niece who's into indigenous self-identification but looks like someone from north of the Alps.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Tell that to certain Latinos of Carribean descent. Most Dominicans are white per self-identification, but certainly not by U.S. racial norms. Then I have a Mexican niece who's into indigenous self-identification but looks like someone from north of the Alps.

My experience with Dominicans is that second/third generation immigrants are much more likely to embrace being Afro-Latino.

Though interestingly modern genetic testing shows that most Dominicans are a little bit more European than African in descent, so the Dominican self-identity is actually more defensible than the American standard.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There was some discussion about adding a MENA classification to the Census for 2020, but they decided against. I mean, there are all kinds of slippery issues to consider then. Are Israeli-Americans no longer white then? What about Maltese, Cypriots, Turks, or Armenians?

Canadian stats (kind of?) overcome this issue by counting those who identify as White and Arab or West Asian not a visible minorities, but those who just tick off "Arab" or "West Asian" on the Census are classified as VMs.

Muslims from the region are more "racialized." Lebanese Christians, Armenians and Moroccan Jews tend to identify as white.

They do this for Latin Americans too. A white Argentinian is not a visible minority, a mestizo Salvadoran is.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My experience with Dominicans is that second/third generation immigrants are much more likely to embrace being Afro-Latino.

Though interestingly modern genetic testing shows that most Dominicans are a little bit more European than African in descent, so the Dominican self-identity is actually more defensible than the American standard.

There's also much more Black-Latino intermingingling in New York (where PRs and Dominicans are the largest groups) than there is in say, L.A. and Chicago.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Docere

Muslims from the region are more "racialized." Lebanese Christians, Armenians and Moroccan Jews tend to identify as white.

Recent genetic studies have again found that this has a basis in reality. Christian and Jewish minorities in the Middle East do have less of the fractional Sub-Saharan African ancestry than Muslims. Which makes logical sense when you think about it. In the Islamic world, it was much easier for slaves to gain their freedom - and the children of mixed unions between slaves and free Muslims were seldom slaves. In general virtually all slaves were held by Muslims, meaning those of mixed ancestry assimilated into the Muslim mainstream of the culture, rather than the religious minorities.

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Argentina and Uruguay are exceptions, though. Practically everywhere else in Latin America is at least Mexico-level "nonwhite", and most countries are overwhelmingly nonwhite, whether indigenous or African-based. Even Chile doesn't have many European-looking folks outside the upper classes.

And I doubt the racial profile of Mexican Americans is notably different than Mexicans. In both cases, the % indigenous or white are low, the % mixed is high.

You would not be able to tell how many 'European-looking folks' there are in your typical Latin American capital by doing a visual assessment on the street of people walking and using transit, as you would in your average European or North American city.

Pretty much everyone in the upper classes travels by car (due to crime and safety concerns). You would need to go to the country clubs, high end restaurants and nightclubs, private schools, private parties at people's houses, etc, etc. to see that the percentage is much higher than what the average tourist would see.

[Crawford]

Yeah, I'm well aware of all this, given I lived there, in such an environment, and married into such a family.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Latin Americas aren't conventionally "white". The upper classes are numerically small. Mexico City, Lima, Bogota, Quito, even Santiago, are all very "brown" cities. Few residents look straight outta Heidelberg.

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I'm well aware of all this, given I lived there, in such an environment, and married into such a family.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Latin Americas aren't conventionally "white". The upper classes are numerically small. Mexico City, Lima, Bogota, Quito, even Santiago, are all very "brown" cities. Few residents look straight outta Heidelberg.

Of course, I never denied that. My original point was from the very beginning that the term 'Hispanic' as it is used in the US is wrong because it is a cultural term, and it does not describe an actual race. There is no such thing as a 'Hispanic' race. Hopefully it is clear now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

There is no such thing as a 'Hispanic' race.

there's no such thing as any biological races.

they're all just social constructs.

hence why discussions like these can go in endless circles.

language, culture, skin color (and other physical attributes), genetics, and other sociological attributes get thrown in the blender to determine "race", and the results are light years away from having hard edges between them.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, I'm well aware of all this, given I lived there, in such an environment, and married into such a family.

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Latin Americas aren't conventionally "white". The upper classes are numerically small. Mexico City, Lima, Bogota, Quito, even Santiago, are all very "brown" cities. Few residents look straight outta Heidelberg.

I'd generally agree with this. But (although their Hispanic/Latino identity is perhaps up for debate) I think the average Brazilian is a lot "whiter" than is commonly believed. Most Brazilians are mixed, but the average is around 60%-70% European by ancestry, and by American standards, most people who are not "visibly black" would be considered white. And Southern Brazil in particular is really, really white.

Cubans (even non-diasporan Cubans) are generally speaking a lot whiter than people often realize as well, in part because Cuba continued to get lots of immigration from Spain through to the Spanish-American War. The average Cuban is over 80% European by ancestry. Most Cubans are white to "off-white" - with a notable Afro-Cuban community as well of course.

On the other hand, despite their own national conception suggesting otherwise, Costa Ricans are just as Mestizo as other Central Americans.

As an aside, I think that American standards for what a "white Hispanic" is are in part drawn by what white Cubans and the like (who tend to be a little mixed) look like - because I've noticed when people meet actual Spaniards from Spain, they tend to be confused they are pretty much indistinguishable from other Western Europeans.

[Docere]

About half of Hispanics identify as "white Hispanics" on the Census but that's likely an adoption to the American norm of the black-white divide.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Docere

About half of Hispanics identify as "white Hispanics" on the Census but that's likely an adoption to the American norm of the black-white divide.

I actually think it's the inverse: A lot of Hispanic immigrants self identify as white because in their home country they are whiter than most, or white is the default identity if you don't have recent indigenous ancestry. However, in many cases in the U.S. they are mixed enough they qualify as a "person of color."

In the second generation, and particularly the third generation, the attitudes of Hispanics converge on those of "mainstream America" meaning white self-identification is probably much more apt to be restricted to those who "pass."

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd generally agree with this. But (although their Hispanic/Latino identity is perhaps up for debate) I think the average Brazilian is a lot "whiter" than is commonly believed. Most Brazilians are mixed, but the average is around 60%-70% European by ancestry, and by American standards, most people who are not "visibly black" would be considered white. And Southern Brazil in particular is really, really white.

I have no way of knowing, but an average of 70% European seems very high for Brazil. Brazil seems to have the highest percentage of visibly African people in South America... and probably even larger than the U.S.'s visibly African population, since less than half of that country identifies as only European.