Brazilians aren't considered Latinos, why?
- Thread starter mickeit
- Start date
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
It has everything to do with being ignorant. There is only one (correct) answer to this question, and the answer is the Brazilians who have origins in the Latin world (Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc.) ARE Latin! "Brazilian", like "Canadian", is just a nationality. It says nothing about the person's ethnicity! For anyone to suggest that they'd be pissed if they were Italian, and were called "Latino" or "Latin", clearly demonstrates a failing of the educational system here. The only reason an Italian would have a problem being referred to as a "Latino" would be if he has some xenophobic concept of Hispanics, and incorrectly associates that term with that group. The Romans were Latins. The Romans brought civilization to Italy (and a great many other parts of what is now Europe - it wasn't jack crap back then). My great grandfather was Italian. My great grandfather was Latin/Latino. End of story.
Latin has NOTHING to do with being Hispanic. But ignorance (not stupidity, not idiocy) tells some people that it does. There is no sin in being ignorant. All of us, myself included, are ignorant of a great many things. It is the failure in attempting to overcome that condition that is a sin.
Census Question #8
I know the government's stated reason. But I don't know if there are other reasons or not. Many broadly different, diverse groups are lumped together. And because the terminology is badly worded/technically incorrect here, legitimately, I could answer "yes" to this question. But as far as I know, there's no one in my family tree that is of Hispanic or Spanish origin. In this country, "Latino" is just a catch all, fairly meaningless word.
Additionally, the separate question of race/ethnicity has been on the census since 1790. Just a brief study of American history well shows the bizarre and illogical fashion in which we have classified people since that time. I think you're correct that it does have much to do with "political correctness". But some mistakenly believe that political correctness just came about in the 1970's/1980's. Well, they're a few thousand years off the mark. And in the case of this country, go back to Day 1.
There are likely people within the U.S. government who believe that the earth is just a tad over 6,000 years old too. I didn't vote for any of them. I didn't pay for their educations. Why are they the way they are? Why do they believe what they believe? I don't know. :dunno: Not my problem. But ignorance is what it is. And like "Latino", it shouldn't be considered an offensive word... unless one doesn't work to correct the condition.
The census is a perfect example that distortion that has occured, and I can assure you the majority of Italians answer as "white" on the census (or do they have that one column - "Latino, not of European decent"?).
Some of them have mixed with the indigenous, of course, but just like making broad generalizations that you accused me of doing, you're doing the exact same thing saying that all whites have non-white blood. Unfounded.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
That's not what he said.
Italians being Latin wasn't the question or the argument. It was that the Census Bureau doesn't consider Brazilians to be Latinos. I guarantee you that most Americans would readily consider Brazilians Latinos (thought most Americans probably have no idea that they speak Portuguese) and yes, through ignorance, somehow exempt Italians (and Romanians).
But some bizarre perversion of political correctness, not ignorance, was the reason that the Census Bureau neglected to include Portuguese-speaking Brazilians from the category. I can only imagine the overreaching scrutiny the Census forms were put through before receiving the thumbs up.
The Census Bureau actually added the term "negro" to the form (I think just this year). Talk about fucked up. It was because southern blacks still prefer the term over other terms (black, African American). :dunno:
I'm still not sure what exactly is wrong with "negro" as a racial classification but whatever. It just shows you what a clusterfuck this shit has become.
Kudos for you... couldn't explain it better... :glugglug:
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
And they don't consider actual Latins (Italians) to be Latinos either.
I don't recall the figure off the top of my head, but I read a year or so ago that some large percentage of Americans couldn't correctly name the continents, most of the 50 states, nor did they know who their Congressman is. So I'd say you're right. They know how to turn on a Playstation or an Xbox though. God help us all....
You can claim that it's "political correctness" that makes a man call a mule a horse. I just cut to the chase and call it ignorance... whether in reference to Portuguese speaking Brazilians, Italians or whomever. Here's another one from back in the day... what percentage of Latino blood would make you Latin/Latino? And would it be different in Lousiana than in New York state? What was funny about the race classifications that the U.S. and the state governments developed was that a person could be 7/8 Latino and only 1/8 Black... and yet he'd be classified as Black.
This is a great country. But we have had some really twisted morons writing things down on pieces of paper over the centuries. :rofl:
Yeah, and don't forget what the NAACP stands for, as if they're not stuck in the early-twentieth century. :tongue:
And what I find really crazy is that we listen to all these twisted morons over the centuries who wrote half-assed pieces of paper, but ignore the truly brilliant minds that crafted the document that should be guiding the whole process. The men of the Philadelphia Convention knew about things like race and ethnicity. In fact, they knew about them far better than we do because they lived in a country full of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, and not the melting pot of "1/16 X" and "1/32 Y" that we live in today. They could have easily and justifiably mandated Congress to "enumerate and categorize" or "enumerate and describe" the citizens of the United States.
They didn't. They mandated "enumeration" because it was all that mattered when allocating Congressional seats. And I still cannot comprehend what good comes of asking people their ethnicity on the census. All it does it reinforce ethnic divisions. Or, in this case, create ethnic divisions that don't even exist. It's unconstitutional, racist, and foolish.
The reason I refute the ignorance claims when it comes to the bureau is because bureaus are just that, bureaucratic. Everything is picked over and over analyzed and put through the committee gauntlet to the point where the process nullifies the intent of the process.
If the Census Bureau consisted of a few stodgy old coots listing racial or cultural groups as they remember them, I'd be the first to agree with you. But that's not the case.
I just think it's the opposite of ignorance. There's such an awareness of the possibility to offend that it becomes convoluted and over thought and ends up doing exactly what it tried to avoid. At least that's how I see it.
Really? Then it's probably because you aren't one.
What's wrong with it is that it is a term invented by "white" people and not what "black" people call(ed) themselves. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want the people that enslaved my people to tell me who I was.
There's nothing offensive about the word itself, other than it is a fairly useless way of categorizing people. What's the point in classifying people by a vague physical description that doesn't take into account genetics and ancestry, geographic location, culture and language?
Much like Europeans who weren't united as the "White Race" until a few hundred years ago, Africans never thought of themselves as one group of people. A group of people who lived 20 miles away could be thought of as just as different as someone who lived 2,000.
As for the topic discussion, it was stated right from the start. The Census Bureau (incorrectly) considers Latinos as Hispanics, and thus why Brazil is not one. It would seem to be political because their aim is apparently to separate Hispanics from the rest of the population when it comes to classifying them.
Some "Black people" object to "black" and some object to "African American."
The Words "Black", "African" and "American" were also created by white people. Hundreds and even thousands of years ago. "Negro" means "Black." That's a moot argument.
So black people shouldn't be classified by their race and be called negros or negroids in terms of race, but "black" isn't categorizing them? That makes no sense.
So? That has absolutely nothing to do with scientific classification of race. The truth is, negro is no more offensive than black. It's merely the Anglicized version of the word. We all accept that bullshit that it's somehow racist or ignorant because we're all a bunch of pussies who swallow anything we're told when it comes to "racial insensitivity". When Census forms or Harry Reid utters the word, there's this collective "Oooohing" as if the volcano god has just been upset and we're awaiting its reaction. But the truth is, for somebody to be offended by the term in an innocent context would require that person to put effort into being offended.
I suppose we should eliminate words like, "Jews" and "Mexicans" 'cause, hooboy, I've heard some vile adjectives attached to those nouns.
Dumb.
Of course it's not. Did you read anything that I said? You really think that my argument is based on the assumption that I don't know that they are the same thing? I'm not even going to repeat it again, if my one sentence summary of the point was too hard to understand then there's no getting through.
Yes, your point is quite dumb and lacks any sense. Your sarcastic implication that I find fault in racial classification based on skin color because of derogatory ethnic slurs is made up entirely of thin (and hot) air.
A Jew is someone of the Jewish faith. A Mexican is someone who is a national of Mexico. These are singular identifiers of a group title that people associated with and proclaimed. Those are no different than calling someone who follows Christianity a Christian, or someone from England, English. No one finds them offensive, unless they are not applicable to that person.
Well it's debateable but many African Americans associate the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse. This was ultimately used up until the civil rights movement so it can be associated with all the negativity before then. Older African Americans may still use the word or not get offended by it as they grew up before the civil rights movement and were more worried about 'sticks and stones' (erm lynching etc) than 'words'. The modern generations should be free from both physical and mental abuse so the word Negro is best confined to the dustbin of history.
Also White or Black as a racial classifier is not scientific at all. If a man has a half European half Indigenous American mother, and a half Asian half Hispanic father, and he marries a girl that is half Asian Indian and half Pacific Islander, than what scientific basis will be used to establish whether their kids are Black or White?
If they have light skin they'll be called White, if they have dark skin they will be called Black, and it will not be any clear indicator based on their genetics or ancestry. So I ask again, what scientific method is this based on?
If they have light skin they'll be called White, if they have dark skin they will be called Black, and it will not be any clear indicator based on their genetics or ancestry. So I ask again, what scientific method is this based on?
Just for fun here's the fractional breakdown to determine race based on the usual census categorization in that scenario:
Man = 1/2 white, 1/4 Other, 1/4 Hispanic
Woman = 1/2 White 1/2 Other
Child = 1/2 White, 1/8 Hispanic, and 3/8 Other
The kid will probably just go with White, even though she is predominantly not of European descent and will not have light skin and Anglo features, demonstrating the inaccuracy of such a system.
On the other hand, if the parents associate with a Hispanic or Black or Other culture and raise their child in that environment, than the child will more than likely consider that their race, despite (and perhaps because of) her unclear racial makeup... even further showing it's inefficiency.
Man = 1/2 white, 1/4 Other, 1/4 Hispanic
Woman = 1/2 White 1/2 Other
Child = 1/2 White, 1/8 Hispanic, and 3/8 Other
The kid will probably just go with White, even though she is predominantly not of European descent and will not have light skin and Anglo features, demonstrating the inaccuracy of such a system.
On the other hand, if the parents associate with a Hispanic or Black or Other culture and raise their child in that environment, than the child will more than likely consider that their race, despite (and perhaps because of) her unclear racial makeup... even further showing it's inefficiency.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Then tell your leftists to explain themselves.
