6 ms·

The Invention of Hispanics

31 points by andrenth 5y ago

car_analogy 5y ago
> Tracing their ancestry in part to the Spanish who conquered South and Central America, they regarded themselves as offshoots of white Europeans. "In part" being the key words here. As https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Individual-level_human_population_structure2.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Individual-level_hum... shows, they do differ - they're genetically further from Europeans than Middle Easterners (who are still classified as white on the US census, itself a red herring). Yet the article contains no such graphs - how deluded must one be to think court cases, census categories, and obscure writings by sociology professors, are better determinants of ethnicity than genetically measurable kinship?
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Serbs and Croats would like to have a word, or Ukrainians and Russians. It’s entirely possible to be kin and distinct, and to care deeply about the distinction.
  - car_analogy 5y ago
    I chose my words carefully - better, not sole, determinant. But I notice you did not give an example of the opposite: a unified ethnic group composed of genetically distant sub-groups. More distant than different flavors of European melding into 'white' after crossing the Atlantic. Because that is what the article is selling. Such a group may well exist, but is the exception rather than the rule.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      American is absolutely an ethnic group. It’s not high salience in the US but it’s very obvious if you go abroad. Black Americans hang out with White Americans, not Africans. If you’re in a place where there are relatively few English speakers they all hang out together and the first split will be North Americans versus British + Irish + Aussies + Kiwis + South Africans.
      - car_analogy 5y ago
        > American is absolutely an ethnic group. Keyword "unified". There was a series of recent protests complaining some groups were not treated as well as others - if they're all merely "Americans", what did they form groups based on? Edit: On further reflection, no, even if you drop "unified", I don't see how you could consider Americans being a single ethnic group. Ethnicity is not assigned based on hanging out together when abroad. By that criterion, ex-Yugoslavians would become a single ethnicity.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        Unified by whose criteria? It’s a rare Irish person who identifies in any emotional way with being of Gaelic, Viking, Anglo-Norman or English ancestry but they are not evenly distributed by class, profession or political loyalty. It’s been almost a thousand years since the Normans conquered the English and Norman surnames are still wildly over represented among the professions and British ruling class. > By that criterion, ex-Yugoslavians would become a single ethnicity. Yes. In China they’re a single ethnic group in Shanghai in my experience. The salience of different ethnic identities varies by context. That’s what social construction of identities is about. Shared ancestry is not the only determinant of ethnicity. Mormons are an ethnic group. There are old stock Mormons all over the American Wear. Mormonism is also a universalist religion. Things are complicated.
      - watwut 5y ago
        Imo, African American is ethnicity too. It is complicated in US. But, a lot of issues related to race in US was difficult to me to understand, until it clicked that if I think about African Americans as about ethnicity too, some stuff starts to make sense.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        Yes. Nigerian-Americans aren’t African-American. Somali-Americans aren’t African-American. The descendants of Southerners who were held as slaves are African-Americans and over time some people of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry acculturate to that identity, most obviously and quickly West Indians, but they’re not African-American either.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > a unified ethnic group composed of genetically distant sub-groups African-Americans are such group. In Africa, they have many different ethnicities. Their descendants in America are all African-Americans, they dont differ at all between those who are from Nigeria 200 years ago and those who are from Angola. Within Africa, there are Nigelians and Angolans and they are distinct ethnicities. White people in America are such group. The descendants from Germans and French and Poland are all white Americans. In Europe, they are all different ethnicities.
- watwut 5y ago
  > how deluded must one be to think court cases, census categories, and obscure writings by sociology professors, are better determinants of ethnicity than genetically measurable kinship? Cause asimilation is a thing. And in fact you or your kids can become other ethnicity. German family who moved and became French. Czechs who moved and their kids became Hungarians. Hungarians who moved and became German. In all those case, no one knows or cares about origin. None of that is rare. Whole areas were assimilated into larger groups, their ethnicity changing over time (yes, pretty often it happened by force). The latter is literally what Putin is trying to achieve in Ukraine - make it Russia and suppress existence of that Ukrainian ethnicity. Ethnicity is not just or purely blood. That is why the sociology professors are better determinants if they actually studied that thing. Cause at least they know it is more complicated then just "genetical origin". When you go by genetic only, it is more of race then ethnicity.
neither_color 5y ago
The Hispanic category was a Frankenstein’s monster, an amalgam of disparate ethnic groups with precious little in common. The 1970 Census had included an option to indicate that the respondent was “Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, [or] Other Spanish.” Central American origin here. According to 23andme I could be anywhere from a quarter to a third Amerindian, and brown enough to have never been called or mistaken for white. Technically, we could be as "Native American" as many, well, Native Americans who have tribal affiliations, except we lost that continuity of culture over the course of 400 years of Spanish shenanigans, so we're not considered Native Americans. We also, depending on the country, tend not to look white. I wouldn't mind being just American and claiming that but small talk always devolves into some indirect form of "well, where are you really from?" and they certainly don't mean what US state I was born and raised in. It's a messy classification system that we're just forced to deal with. Choosing what "race" I am on a form is like signing a Terms and Conditions page I didn't read, solving a captcha and entering a 2FA so I can get on with my task.
distantaidenn 5y ago
The whole concept of race is fast becoming outmoded as more and more "mixed persons" are being born. I myself am a multigenerational mix (both parents are mixes) of 4 races -- 3 from my mother, and 2 from my father, with one overlap. I identify with 2 of these races, but acknowledge all 4; mainly due to cultural influence. As a child (wore my hair quite long then), I've had someone pull me aside and ask, "so umm...what are you?" Wasn't offensive, but rather humorous. For a time, I grew up confused. Looking back, I know it wasn't my fault, but due to the boxes society so wants to put is all into, so they can be comfortable. I've even had this conversation with my (I believe) majority race. If someone is 50%, we agree they are a member. But what about 40%, or 20%, or even 5%? At what point do we cut it off -- or rather should we cut it off? What if that 5% person was completely raised in said culture? When you begin to ask these kinds of questions, you begin to see the absurdity of classification. After all, the US used to have a one-drop rule...(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule) I'm not preaching some trans-racial ideology, but I do think we need to rethink the whole idea of race -- particularly in the US.
- spupe 5y ago
  There is no consistent definition of race in humans. Certainly no scientifically valid one. We are all playing word games, politically motivated ones as demonstrated by this article. That's not to say racism doesn't exist of course.
- prmoustache 5y ago
  European here. Back after WWII most european people, supported by the scientific community, agreed that the concept of race was not something applicable to human species. It is only used nowadays to talk about the breeding of particular groups of dogs, cats, cows and goats mostly. For us it all look weird and plain racist to hear race still being used in the US, including in official/administrative papers and law enforcement. We attribute that to a huge part of the US being reluctant to abandon segregation.
  - youeseh 5y ago
    I understand that many Europeans think that racism no longer exists in Europe - and I've never been there to see for myself - we do get the occasional story of black athletes getting bananas thrown at them in Italy, something that is weird and just plain racist. A person caught doing that in America would be permanently banned from the venue.
helpfulmandrill 5y ago
I mean, at least the article doesn't hide its political agenda, I guess...
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
> America’s surging politics of victimhood and identitarian division did not emerge organically or inevitably, as many believe. I feel there's a whole fascinating worldview behind this. Did right-wing Americans just declare racist bankruptcy and pretend that their long history of fighting against equality didn't count anymore? The first time I realised Trump would become president was when a sweet old lady Republican party local official calmly stated that "we didn't have a problem with race before Obama came along".

31 points by andrenth 5y ago

> Tracing their ancestry in part to the Spanish who conquered South and Central America, they regarded themselves as offshoots of white Europeans. "In part" being the key words here. As https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Individual-level_human_population_structure2.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Individual-level_hum... shows, they do differ - they're genetically further from Europeans than Middle Easterners (who are still classified as white on the US census, itself a red herring). Yet the article contains no such graphs - how deluded must one be to think court cases, census categories, and obscure writings by sociology professors, are better determinants of ethnicity than genetically measurable kinship?

barry-cotter 5y ago
Serbs and Croats would like to have a word, or Ukrainians and Russians. It’s entirely possible to be kin and distinct, and to care deeply about the distinction.
- car_analogy 5y ago
  I chose my words carefully - better, not sole, determinant. But I notice you did not give an example of the opposite: a unified ethnic group composed of genetically distant sub-groups. More distant than different flavors of European melding into 'white' after crossing the Atlantic. Because that is what the article is selling. Such a group may well exist, but is the exception rather than the rule.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    American is absolutely an ethnic group. It’s not high salience in the US but it’s very obvious if you go abroad. Black Americans hang out with White Americans, not Africans. If you’re in a place where there are relatively few English speakers they all hang out together and the first split will be North Americans versus British + Irish + Aussies + Kiwis + South Africans.
    - car_analogy 5y ago
      > American is absolutely an ethnic group. Keyword "unified". There was a series of recent protests complaining some groups were not treated as well as others - if they're all merely "Americans", what did they form groups based on? Edit: On further reflection, no, even if you drop "unified", I don't see how you could consider Americans being a single ethnic group. Ethnicity is not assigned based on hanging out together when abroad. By that criterion, ex-Yugoslavians would become a single ethnicity.
      - barry-cotter 5y ago
        Unified by whose criteria? It’s a rare Irish person who identifies in any emotional way with being of Gaelic, Viking, Anglo-Norman or English ancestry but they are not evenly distributed by class, profession or political loyalty. It’s been almost a thousand years since the Normans conquered the English and Norman surnames are still wildly over represented among the professions and British ruling class. > By that criterion, ex-Yugoslavians would become a single ethnicity. Yes. In China they’re a single ethnic group in Shanghai in my experience. The salience of different ethnic identities varies by context. That’s what social construction of identities is about. Shared ancestry is not the only determinant of ethnicity. Mormons are an ethnic group. There are old stock Mormons all over the American Wear. Mormonism is also a universalist religion. Things are complicated.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Imo, African American is ethnicity too. It is complicated in US. But, a lot of issues related to race in US was difficult to me to understand, until it clicked that if I think about African Americans as about ethnicity too, some stuff starts to make sense.
      - barry-cotter 5y ago
        Yes. Nigerian-Americans aren’t African-American. Somali-Americans aren’t African-American. The descendants of Southerners who were held as slaves are African-Americans and over time some people of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry acculturate to that identity, most obviously and quickly West Indians, but they’re not African-American either.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > a unified ethnic group composed of genetically distant sub-groups African-Americans are such group. In Africa, they have many different ethnicities. Their descendants in America are all African-Americans, they dont differ at all between those who are from Nigeria 200 years ago and those who are from Angola. Within Africa, there are Nigelians and Angolans and they are distinct ethnicities. White people in America are such group. The descendants from Germans and French and Poland are all white Americans. In Europe, they are all different ethnicities.
watwut 5y ago
> how deluded must one be to think court cases, census categories, and obscure writings by sociology professors, are better determinants of ethnicity than genetically measurable kinship? Cause asimilation is a thing. And in fact you or your kids can become other ethnicity. German family who moved and became French. Czechs who moved and their kids became Hungarians. Hungarians who moved and became German. In all those case, no one knows or cares about origin. None of that is rare. Whole areas were assimilated into larger groups, their ethnicity changing over time (yes, pretty often it happened by force). The latter is literally what Putin is trying to achieve in Ukraine - make it Russia and suppress existence of that Ukrainian ethnicity. Ethnicity is not just or purely blood. That is why the sociology professors are better determinants if they actually studied that thing. Cause at least they know it is more complicated then just "genetical origin". When you go by genetic only, it is more of race then ethnicity.

neither_color 5y ago

The Hispanic category was a Frankenstein’s monster, an amalgam of disparate ethnic groups with precious little in common. The 1970 Census had included an option to indicate that the respondent was “Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, [or] Other Spanish.” Central American origin here. According to 23andme I could be anywhere from a quarter to a third Amerindian, and brown enough to have never been called or mistaken for white. Technically, we could be as "Native American" as many, well, Native Americans who have tribal affiliations, except we lost that continuity of culture over the course of 400 years of Spanish shenanigans, so we're not considered Native Americans. We also, depending on the country, tend not to look white. I wouldn't mind being just American and claiming that but small talk always devolves into some indirect form of "well, where are you really from?" and they certainly don't mean what US state I was born and raised in. It's a messy classification system that we're just forced to deal with. Choosing what "race" I am on a form is like signing a Terms and Conditions page I didn't read, solving a captcha and entering a 2FA so I can get on with my task.

distantaidenn 5y ago

The whole concept of race is fast becoming outmoded as more and more "mixed persons" are being born. I myself am a multigenerational mix (both parents are mixes) of 4 races -- 3 from my mother, and 2 from my father, with one overlap. I identify with 2 of these races, but acknowledge all 4; mainly due to cultural influence. As a child (wore my hair quite long then), I've had someone pull me aside and ask, "so umm...what are you?" Wasn't offensive, but rather humorous. For a time, I grew up confused. Looking back, I know it wasn't my fault, but due to the boxes society so wants to put is all into, so they can be comfortable. I've even had this conversation with my (I believe) majority race. If someone is 50%, we agree they are a member. But what about 40%, or 20%, or even 5%? At what point do we cut it off -- or rather should we cut it off? What if that 5% person was completely raised in said culture? When you begin to ask these kinds of questions, you begin to see the absurdity of classification. After all, the US used to have a one-drop rule...(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule) I'm not preaching some trans-racial ideology, but I do think we need to rethink the whole idea of race -- particularly in the US.

spupe 5y ago
There is no consistent definition of race in humans. Certainly no scientifically valid one. We are all playing word games, politically motivated ones as demonstrated by this article. That's not to say racism doesn't exist of course.
prmoustache 5y ago
European here. Back after WWII most european people, supported by the scientific community, agreed that the concept of race was not something applicable to human species. It is only used nowadays to talk about the breeding of particular groups of dogs, cats, cows and goats mostly. For us it all look weird and plain racist to hear race still being used in the US, including in official/administrative papers and law enforcement. We attribute that to a huge part of the US being reluctant to abandon segregation.
- youeseh 5y ago
  I understand that many Europeans think that racism no longer exists in Europe - and I've never been there to see for myself - we do get the occasional story of black athletes getting bananas thrown at them in Italy, something that is weird and just plain racist. A person caught doing that in America would be permanently banned from the venue.

helpfulmandrill 5y ago

I mean, at least the article doesn't hide its political agenda, I guess...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

> America’s surging politics of victimhood and identitarian division did not emerge organically or inevitably, as many believe. I feel there's a whole fascinating worldview behind this. Did right-wing Americans just declare racist bankruptcy and pretend that their long history of fighting against equality didn't count anymore? The first time I realised Trump would become president was when a sweet old lady Republican party local official calmly stated that "we didn't have a problem with race before Obama came along".