Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; Dengar01; GOPsterinMA; justiceseeker93

“Hispanic” is not a “race” it’s a catch-all ethnicity of every Spanish speaking group. People who are called Hispanic have to pick a “race” on the US census form to go along with Hispanic status. I guess most of those that are mixed White and Indian check White. Apparently some are Hispanic Asians, I guess that means Filipinos?

It’s confusing ethnicity and race. Which is probably the government’s fault.

I wouldn’t dub Portuguese as “Hispanic” because Portuguese is not Spanish. Portuguese-American politicians though love to say they are to woo voters. 3 Cali Congressman in the Central Valley. My uncle’s ex-wife was part Brazilian, next time I see my cousins I’ll ask them if they consider that Hispanic or “Latino”. They probably consider it “Brazilian” just like they consider their Norwegian ancestry “Norwegian “, just like most Hispanic people consider themselves “Mexican” or “Cuban” or what have you.

And Arabs, Turks, and Iranians they don’t have a separate category for, they don’t consider it “Asian” (Indians from India along with East Asians who look very different) but White. Some Arabs have dark skin, some not. Turks look a lot like Greeks.

Some British people call dark skinned Pakistanis and Indians “Black”.

It’s all stupid and confusing.

As for Mormons and Christianity, I’m no theologian and I couldn’t care less but I’d say they are, they have Jesus in their official title after all. In either case we’ve had Unitarian Presidents, if Mormon isn’t Christian then Unitarian probably isn’t either, right?


109 posted on 04/17/2012 1:13:56 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


To: BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; fieldmarshaldj; Dengar01; GOPsterinMA; justiceseeker93

Re: Hispanic Asians, I forgot all about Alberto Fujimori!


110 posted on 04/17/2012 1:43:31 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: Impy

I don’t think many Filipinos consider themselves Hispanic, but who knows? There are honest-to-goodness Latin-Anericans of Chinese or Japanese descent, though, particularly in Peru (where Alberto Fujimorinbecame president).

If you’re an Argentine whose four grandparents were Italian, Croatian, Ukranian and German, you’re “Hispanic.” Not only is Hispanic not a racial category, it is barely an ethnic category.


111 posted on 04/17/2012 3:01:21 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: Impy
>> I wouldn’t dub Portuguese as “Hispanic” because Portuguese is not Spanish. Portuguese-American politicians though love to say they are to woo voters. 3 Cali Congressman in the Central Valley. My uncle’s ex-wife was part Brazilian, next time I see my cousins I’ll ask them if they consider that Hispanic or “Latino”. They probably consider it “Brazilian” just like they consider their Norwegian ancestry “Norwegian “, just like most Hispanic people consider themselves “Mexican” or “Cuban” or what have you. <<<

Yeah, Brazilians are always being classified as "Hispanic" despite the fact they speak Portuguese. I agree the government terminology is pretty much:

Hispanic = from a spanish-speaking culture

Latino = From a latin-based culture, except those white people of Italian ancestry don't count. But if your ancestry is 100% European Spaniard, congratulates, you're a minority!

Idiotic government policies in action. The ironic thing is "Hispanics" weren't considered a "minority" until there were lots of them in the United States. Back when Texas entered the union and "Hispanics" became Americans, they'd simply assimilate into the anglo culture. 100 years ago, if you were born here and your name was "Jose Gonzales" and your ancestry was Cuban, you'd just be classified as a white citizen and granted all the civil rights that "John Smith" and his ancestors from England had, unless you "looked" non-white. If anything, people with Spanish ancestry were more likely to face discrimination from being Catholic than having the name "Gonzales". Also, according to our government, to be "Hispanic" you don't actually have to have any background in Spanish culture yourself, just ancestry from a spanish country. Hence, Cameron Diaz is somehow "Hispanic" because her grandfather came from Cuba. Yet Rob Schneider is NOT "asian" (or latino), when his grandmother was a Filipina who married his grandfather when he was stationed in the Philippines.

Don't ask me to explain the double standards. Apparently I'd be "latino" if only my great grandfather Augusto came from Spain instead of Italy. The people who invented latin don't "count" as latinos, for some reason known only to the U.S. government. ;-)

>> And Arabs, Turks, and Iranians they don’t have a separate category for, they don’t consider it “Asian” (Indians from India along with East Asians who look very different) but White. Some Arabs have dark skin, some not. Turks look a lot like Greeks. <<

The census forms had all "hispanic" people select their race in a separate category, and although they're allowed to check multiple boxes ("White" and "Ameican Indian" if you have mixed ancestry), most of them checked "Other" and tried to list their "race" as whatever their national origin was ("Mexican")

According to the government, people from the Middle East and northern Africa are all classified as "white", regardless of skin color. (this often annoys Arabs, who do not consider themselves white and don't want to be classified as such) People from the Mediterranean area (Greeks, etc.) are also "white". People from the Indian subcontinent are "asian" (specifically, "east asian", which is what refer to people from India and Pakistan as in England), although when I hear the word "asian" I think Oriental.

>> In either case we’ve had Unitarian Presidents, if Mormon isn’t Christian then Unitarian probably isn’t either, right? <<

A point simply ignored by the "conservatives" ranting and raving that America is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED if a "non-Christian" is elected. I'd pay real money to send the "Republic, not a Democracy" people and the "I'll never vote for a non-Christian" people back in time 100 years to the election of 1912. The choices were:

1) Woodrow Wilson, a "progressive" Democrat and Presbyterian Christian who is the son of a minister, Rev. Joseph Wilson.

2) Theodore Roosevelt, a "progressive" Republican-turned-third party candidate, a Dutch Reformed Christian.

3) William Howard Taft, conservative Republican, a Unitarian who occasionally attends church at Cincinnati's First Congregational-Unitarian Church, and is President of the National League of Unitarian Laymen. While he admires the life of Jesus personally, he flat out states "I do not believe in the divinity of Christ."

Can't imagine how they'd vote. "Sin" by voting for the conservative Republican? Cast a token protest vote for the Christian conservative polling 1% as the Prohibitionist Party's nominee, and throw the election to Wilson? (whom they claimed "destroyed our Republic"). Vote for one of the progressives because he says Jesus is his savior?

And the ironic thing, freepers who can't stand Santorum keep calling ME an "evangelical" and "religious right" candidate because I favor social conservatives. Ha!

114 posted on 04/17/2012 10:43:50 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson