The concept of white is different in Latin America. If a person "looks" white IS white. White is the label of a phenotype and nothing more. A person is not more or less important because is white, in the same sense a person is not considered better if fat or thin. The important thing in Latin America is not skin but PEDIGREE. The last name and the family one belong is quite a lot more important that just some genes that code color of skin.
According to this opinion here, Self-identity counts little and what matters is if you look white your ARE white. The FACT is, a Latin American who said he looks white but is not white posts right here on OneDropRule. What are the odds he is the only Latin American who identifies in that way?
I think the distinction lies in that fact that in areas of Latin America where there has been a lot of admixture, white is not an identity, but rather a discriptive term for how someone looks. With no one drop rule, "white" can be little more than a descriptive term, as opposed to an exclusive, quasi-ethnic group as it has been in the U.S.
I get you, partly. Do the scholarly papers on the ODR, picture the so-called Endogenous Color line? Does it exist in space between a “black" person and "white" person screaming, “you cannot get married, and physically blocking them form admixing genitically”? If it is there, amazingly, they manage to edit it out of the pictures I’ve seen of the U.S.
Somehow I don’t see how marriage has anything to do with one person in the U.S descrbing another person as white, black, or Asian as an identity, or mistreating a non-white person on the basis of color. When Rodney King had his civil rights violated on prime time TV, was that because he crossed the endogenous color line?
Are people in Latin America answering questions about what a person is like primarily with a description of their skin? People are going round saying that person is white, this person is preto, why? What is so informative about them describing themselves as white, or any of the 100s of shades below it?
Quote:
This person who looks white but is not is one-dropping himself on the basis of being in the United States. I would be if you asked him to describe his skin color in his country of origin he would say white.
I thought it would have been eveident who I had in mind, but he didn’t answer as you characterise in that other thread. Please re-state this part, so I can try to understand your point. If your not sure who I was taling about, I will post the interaction, or probably he post in himself.
Last edited by Altertude on Sat 20 May 2006 21:29; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Fri 19 May 2006 22:13 Post subject: Re: Whiteness: Description or Identity?
Altertude wrote:
Are people in Latin America answering questions about what a person is like primarily with a description of their skin? People are going round saying that person is white, this person is preto, why? What is so informative about them describing themselves as white, or any of the 100s of shades below it?
Hi,
As I see it, It does not work that way.
In Spanish (and certainly in Portuguese) there are skin color labels that are more or less the following: Rubio (blond), Blanco (white), Trigueño (light brown), Moreno (midium brown), Negro (dark brown and black).
There are also labels for mixtures and origins that are Nordico (Nordish), Europeo (souther european), Arabe (Arab), Chino (East Asian), Nativo (Indian), Mestizo (Indian+European), Mulatto (Black + European), Zambo (Black+Indian), others.
Now, people don't usually self identify at least is a FOREIGNER or belong to a distinct culture (which means is an ethnic Native American or a Gypsie, for example). All other people are describe by skin and approximative mixtures, and that's all. And that is done only if necessary, like in the case of a policial investigation for example.
People know that a Moreno (Blond) can be a sibling of a Rubio (Nordish), or whatever. Also know a European can be Moreno (Brown) and that a Mulatto can be Rubio (Blond). But people don't care so much about it. Those are facts of life.
When somebody ask about "race" we translate like the question is about the external phenotype and period. And when they ask about "ethnicity" then the country where one lives applies (at least the person is ethnic native american, which means speak a Native language and lives in a tribe today).
In most of the census, people don't chose the ethnicity. The official looks the person and decides by himself what the people is.
By the way, in most Latin America the race is not considered as a relevant statistics whatsoever. At most they ask if people is foreigner or if they belong to a specific minority, like Indians, Jews or Gypsies, for instance.
It can even be a class label. If you are part of the mainstream and ambiguous (not markedly of a specific sub group), then you will be considered blanco.
I have worked on college campuses for nearly 35 years as a professor, a civil rights activist and as an author on issues of race and sport. I see white students, faculty and administrators cheer for African-American student-athletes. I see images of those same student-athletes on posters in stores and on the walls of white students' dorms. That makes it even more troubling to me that our college campuses today are the third biggest site for hate crimes in America; that nearly 1 million bias incidents take place on our campuses each year; that some white college students thought that it was funny and fun to dress in black face during Halloween parties last October and have a mock lynching of a black student.
We do not need to see Klansmen walking in robes on our campuses to learn how to hate. The internet, which provides us with so many wonderful things, also has more than 600 hate sites where we can learn to hate another person based on what they look like, where they are from, or what they believe in. All this stands in stark contrast to the posters of African-American student-athletes or white students cheering in the stands at basketball and football games where African-American student-athletes lead the play.
These are among the reasons why we often ask the question, "What is it about sport that helps some black athletes transcend the issue of race?"
The comeback of Michael Jordan in the 2001-2002 NBA season reminds me of a survey once done of people walking along Venice Beach in California. They were shown two photos and asked which one they recognized first. One was depicting Jesus Christ while the other was the back of Michael Jordan's bald head. The fact that the more people said that they recognized the photo of Michael Jordan tells us a lot about our society. He is even more recognizable today with his sensational comeback.
What is it that makes so many white Americans buy into commercials telling them that they want to be like Mike? Does this mean that he has really transcended the issue of race? Does Tiger Woods success in transforming an all-white sport into one that seems to embrace him as the #1 superstar mean that race has been transcended in that sport and we are working in a new society?
Those thoughts can be abruptly halted when we read stories about athletes who get in trouble with the law, athletes who commit crimes of sexual assault or are arrested for drug abuse. Each time an athlete is arrested, I get phone calls from the media asking me, "What is it about athletes that make them more inclined to be drug users, sexual predators" or whatever the crime is.
The fact that those questions are asked regularly about basketball and football players but rarely about hockey or baseball players who may have an equal number of arrests on the books tells me that we continue to stereotype African-American athletes in these politically correct times. We should not forget that the African-American athlete who was described as the first to transcend the issue of race is now viewed with scorn and derision by the same generation which may have had his poster on their wall when they were growing up.
O.J. Simpson was the first African-American athlete to be widely used in commercial and endorsements deals, to star in movies and seemingly be accepted into the homes of white people around the country. Now O.J. Simpson is described as the African-American athlete who most divides the races in America. That is being said as though the races were once together. Why did O.J. have this appeal so many years ago? Was it his incredible ability on the field combined with good looks and a complete absence of public political consciousness?
What makes white Americans want to be like Michael Jordan? Is it Jordan's greatness combined with a constant smile and an unwillingness to delve into controversial issues such as racism that makes him so beloved across racial lines?
What makes some white Americans afraid that our children will want to be like Allen Iverson or Barry Bonds? What is it about Iverson or Bonds that makes some whites a little bit scared of them? Is it that Iverson is more hip-hop than the mainstream white culture, that Bonds is not a smiling face? What is it about Tiger Woods that makes us embrace him and at the same time let his counterparts in tennis, Venus and Serena Williams, seem to be far less loved and embraced? Is it Tiger's brilliance on the course? His charm? Or is it that he has remained on the sidelines regarding social and political issues? Is it that the Williams sisters are so physically powerful and braid their hair? Is it that they talk about racism when most athletes have not been able to do so without paying a heavy price.
Have we really transcended race when African-American athletes are unable to speak out for fear that their careers will come to an abrupt end or that they will not get endorsement deals? As a social activist, I know that it has been hard to get athletes to speak out on social issues. They are justifiably afraid that doing so will cost them their job or their endorsements. Those who have tried have paid a severe price.
Tiger Woods learned about the consequences soon after his first Masters victory in 1997. The golf world did not know how to react to Tiger's first Nike commercial when a universally negative response instantly followed its release. So there was Tiger Woods, fresh out of the blocks, saying that he could not play on the courses of many country clubs. He asked, "Are you ready for me, world?"
The press responded in one of two ways. The first was that Tiger could play anywhere he wanted so why was he complaining. Of course, he could. However, I think that Tiger was referring to people who looked like him but were not named Tiger Woods. Too many could not play on too many courses. The second response was that he let NIKE exploit him to sell products to African-Americans. It seemed to me at the time that any market for golf gear for African-Americans was very small. If it increased even 100 fold, it would not even make a blip on NIKE's enormous bottom line.
But talking about race and golf could hurt NIKE's sales to its overwhelmingly white customer base who at best ignored existing racial barriers in golf. Tiger was the first athlete I ever saw make a comment about race in a commercial and he got RIPPED, badly.
Tiger seemed to learn a lesson there. It is a lesson that I wished he and other athletes had not learned. No more political issues! We are always ready to tear down sports heroes at a moments notice. Tiger was not about to let that happen and did not. His new $100 million NIKE contact was just one reward.
That being said, there is a case of an athlete formerly despised by many whites who is now embraced by them. Does his example demonstrate that when athletes speak out for the principles they believe in, their place in history will eventually be secure? But in this case, it surely took time, going all the way back to the tumultuous 1960s when Muhammad Ali was the sports equivalent of Malcolm X in the tempest over the issue of race. Thirty-five years later, Ali is the most sought after athlete in the history of sport.
Soon after becoming heavyweight champion, Ali became a Black Muslim. White America, then so fearful of Black Muslim leader Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, rejected Ali. His subsequent refusal to join the Army during the Vietnam War widened the rift between himself and mainstream America. The international embrace of Muhammad Ali, which began with the opening ceremonies of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, brings that hope that an athlete can transcend race. Ali had been designated several years ago as the United Nations' Messenger of Peace.
I cannot imagine any public figure who could have had the same impact after September 11th when there were hundreds of reports of anti-Muslim incidents in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ali appeared in the first benefit concert for the victims and reminded the world that he also represented the face of Muslims, that Islam was a religion of love and peace. The number of incidents plummeted as America came even more together as a team.
There had always been a huge racial divide in our country. Ali's life shows us how bridges can be built. Ali obviously had an amazing athletic career and, finally, became beloved by the same public which once viewed him as being terribly divisive.
The legacy of Ali includes publicly demonstrating his pride as a black men, emphasizing boldly that race does matter as no other athlete has done so forcefully before or since. He was accused of dividing the races because he stood so stall as a black American. Ali now brings people of all racial groups together by preaching "healing" and appealing to everyone, irrespective of their race, religion or age. He has really transcended our differences.
After September 11th, we are now more cautious about using the term hero for sports figures. For me, Ali has earned the title because of the leadership he has given to us. His story shows how the American public can come to truly embrace a hero irrespective of race and welcome his stand on principle. On almost any given Sunday I can turn on the TV and see the smiling Tiger Woods tearing up a course or the handsome Michael Jordan weaving his magic around the rim. I love to watch them and appreciate that we are in an era in which white America barely sees that they happen to be African-American.
I wish they would speak out but understand why they do not. Maybe they will someday see that they can be like Muhammad: be great, smile, and confront the important issues. If they do that and white America barely sees that they happen to be African-American but recognizes them as human beings fighting for justice, then we will really be somewhere as a society.
The fact that this has happened in the case of Muhammad Ali tells me that his example highlights the real meaning of an athlete transcending race.
Northeastern University's
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF SPORT IN SOCIETY
360 Huntington Avenue, Suite 161 CP
Boston, MA 02115-5000
Phone: (617) 373-4025
Fax: (617) 373-4566 / 2092
E-MAIL US at sportinsociety@neu.edu
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 363 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Sat 20 May 2006 21:18 Post subject:
The quotes somehow got reversed in the first post, what I wrote is in the farthest out box, and Mr. Vega's quote is in the innermost box.
I speak from my personal experience in Puerto Rico and second hand accounts from other places.
Quote:
I think the distinction lies in that fact that in areas of Latin America where there has been a lot of admixture, white is not an identity, but rather a discriptive term for how someone looks. With no one drop rule, "white" can be little more than a descriptive term, as opposed to an exclusive, quasi-ethnic group as it has been in the U.S.
This is what I mean. Race or "raza" is used in Pueto Rico colloquially the way we would use nationality. If you are Puerto Rican, your race in Puerto Rico is Puerto Rican. Your color is a different story. The way your color would come up is as follows. Your friend asks you to pick up his cousin for him wherever. Naturally, you ask how does s/he look. Your response is almost certain to include a description of skin color. The discription may be blanco/a, trigueno, bien prieto, or what ever. Literally translated, this means white, wheat colored, really dark. Realistically, what it means is light skinned, medium brown skinned, or dark skinned. If they are as light as your avarage "white" north american, they will probably note this fact by saying they really pale. Obvioulsy, you'll also get a discription of height, weight and possibly hair texture. Or someone says hey, do you know so and so, and if you hesitate or are unsure, you will get a physical description including skin color.
There is no concept of "white" as a distinct group of people. You can have siblings who are different colors. It is acutually very common.
In the US, when someone describes someone else as a "black male" that could mean that they have a skin tone like Prince or like Michale Jordan. Never in a million years would someone who looks like Prince be descibed as black in Puerto Rico.
Quote:
This person who looks white but is not is one-dropping himself on the basis of being in the United States. I would be if you asked him to describe his skin color in his country of origin he would say white.
I'm going to back off on that and let him answer for himself with respect to his identity in the USA. All I'm saying is if he was in Latin America waiting to meet someone at the airport who had never seen him before and this person asked what he looked like, I assume he'd say "I'm white" or some equivalent-(blanco, rubio, etc.). Otherwise they would have a hard time finding him.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 20 May 2006 21:55 Post subject:
MisterLawyer wrote:
The quotes somehow got reversed in the first post, what I wrote is in the farthest out box, and Mr. Vega's quote is in the innermost box.
I speak from my personal experience in Puerto Rico and second hand accounts from other places.
Oops, sorry about that chaps. Have corrected the first post now.
Quote:
I think the distinction lies in that fact that in areas of Latin America where there has been a lot of admixture, white is not an identity, but rather a discriptive term for how someone looks. With no one drop rule, "white" can be little more than a descriptive term, as opposed to an exclusive, quasi-ethnic group as it has been in the U.S.
Quote:
This is what I mean. Race or "raza" is used in Pueto Rico colloquially the way we would use nationality. If you are Puerto Rican, your race in Puerto Rico is Puerto Rican. Your color is a different story. The way your color would come up is as follows. Your friend asks you to pick up his cousin for him wherever. Naturally, you ask how does s/he look. Your response is almost certain to include a description of skin color. The discription may be blanco/a, trigueno, bien prieto, or what ever. Literally translated, this means white, wheat colored, really dark. Realistically, what it means is light skinned, medium brown skinned, or dark skinned. If they are as light as your avarage "white" north american, they will probably note this fact by saying they really pale. Obvioulsy, you'll also get a discription of height, weight and possibly hair texture. Or someone says hey, do you know so and so, and if you hesitate or are unsure, you will get a physical description including skin color.
There is no concept of "white" as a distinct group of people. You can have siblings who are different colors. It is acutually very common.
Okay, fine that makes sense about the descriptions. But what about those 'high class' whites you mentioned previously, they sound like 'royal whites'? The only thing which is strange for me would be considering a country as a race. It seems a very parochial way of looking at things.
In the United Kingdom the seperate populations are Scots, Irish, Welsh and the English. Before around the 1950s most inhabitants of England held the opinion that to be English one had to be "white". Even today there is slippage between whether a non-white person can be English or only British. Obviously these kinds of ideas go back to when a seperate language was sufficient to define a seperate race.
Quote:
In the US, when someone describes someone else as a "black male" that could mean that they have a skin tone like Prince or like Michale Jordan. Never in a million years would someone who looks like Prince be descibed as black in Puerto Rico.
American's of Prince's phenotype - in Puerto Rico I wonder how they fit into Puerto Rico's nationialism...and Puerto Rico is a U.S territory, isn't it?
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sat 20 May 2006 22:33 Post subject: white guilt: reloaded
Let me set this out differently, in case I mess up the quote order.
oevega wrote, "The concept of white is different in Latin America. If a person "looks" white IS white. White is the label of a phenotype and nothing more."
I had difficulty perceiving those comments as accurately, or truly representing Latin Americans. I was certain it was not true of at least one Latin America in our peer group her on OneDropRule. Below follows what I think the most germane parts from the thread White Guilt:
http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=1555
Let me know if you feel the edit pulls any statements out of their original context.
Altertude: Are you white?
Salsassin: No I am not, but I look like one.
Altertude: Have you tried identifying as white?
Salsassin: Nope, but I know what it is to look it.
Altertude: You have the same phenotype as a white person, so why are you not a white person?
Salsassin: Cause white is a social construct I was not raised with. I was raised in a creole culture. My family is mixed.
Altertude: How would someone know you are not white if you look it?
Salsassin: If they beleive in races, they probsbly wouldn't unless they see my family.
Altertude: Does that construct have any connection to the color line or the ODR? Not raised within, because I suspect you became aware of it at some point, so you have lived with it, its just for whatever reason you find yourself OUT not IN.
Salsassin: WHEN I CAME TO THE USA, I BECAME AWARE OF THE COLOR LINE IMPOSED IN THE MENTALITIES OF MANY. IT JUST WASN'T THE SAME IN LATIN AMERICA. NOR DO I GO BY OTHER PEOPLE'S PREJUDICED OPINIONS ON HOW I SHOULD IDENTIFY.
Altertude: What is the construct of whiteness about if a person suspected of mixed ancestry can be a white person?
Salsassin: DEPENDS ON REGION, TIME, GROUP ETC. IN THE USA MANY PEOPLE GO BY QUANTUMS, OTHERS BY ODR, OTHERS BY VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 00:30 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Salsassin wrote:
DEPENDS ON REGION, TIME, GROUP ETC. IN THE USA MANY PEOPLE GO BY QUANTUMS, OTHERS BY ODR, OTHERS BY VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
I thought I answered it quite succinctly here.
I added on this thread another aspect. Ethnic affiliation. If you are of ambiguous looks but with no set ethnic affiliations except for the mainstream, then you will be seen as blanco. I was seen as blanco by many. My father may see himself as one as well as mestizo. Never asked him. Growing up first generation mixed between Peruvian Creole culture and American 'White'. I saw my culture's mixed identity much more succinctly and thus never saw it as a 'white' one per se. It had too many indigenous and african influences, so I always so it as creolized as far back as I can remember. I may describe some of my cousins as blancos and others as not based on appearance, but i do not see them as part of the blanco culture (predominantly European influence and ancestry) I see my father's ethnicity as a combination of serrano and criollo culture) So I see my self as half White half Creole, but predominantly Creole as I was raised in my father's coastal family, not in my mother's White culture.
Like many Blacks who are first generation mixed, but are raised in the black culture and see themselves as Black and not as mixed.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 04:25 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Altertude wrote:
oevega wrote, "The concept of white is different in Latin America. If a person "looks" white IS white. White is the label of a phenotype and nothing more."
I had difficulty perceiving those comments as accurately, or truly representing Latin Americans. I was certain it was not true of at least one Latin America in our peer group her on OneDropRule. Below follows what I think the most germane parts from the thread White Guilt:
http://backintyme.com/ODR/viewtopic.php?t=1555
Hi,
Salssasin IS white. He is also a Peruvian person, so he, like all latinos, love his mother land. Peru is a melting pot country that have a thousands of years old heritage of ancient indigenous civilizations. Peru was also the capital of the Spanish Empire in South America. And today is the home of many ethnic groups, including Natives, Whites, Blacks and Asians.
As a result, Salssasin identify with is country and his people (all of them). And he won't left anyone outside of that identity.
Salssasin is creole, which means in Latino slang, he is a "real" natural of his land, not a recent immigrant. A person who has roots in the place he was born.
But any of these contradicts the fact his phenotype is white.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 12:20 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
When Salsassin affirms his earlier contextualisation, “Depends on region, time, group etc. in the USA many people go by quantums, others by ODR, others by visible appearance,” - I cannot make sense of again being told by oevega that, "Salsassin IS white", AND, "Salssasin is "creole"". In the "white guilt" thread, I asked Salsassin if he was white, not if he was a “Peruvian person”, “latino”, “loves his mother land”, or if “Peru is a melting pot country...” I asked him if he was white, and I am satisified with the series of answers he gave as re-posted in this thread, and am thankful for the further aspects of his family background he adds here.
Salsassin wrote:
I added on this thread another aspect. Ethnic affiliation. If you are of ambiguous looks but with no set ethnic affiliations except for the mainstream, then you will be seen as blanco. I was seen as blanco by many.
What are ambiguous looks...is it like a Halle Berry, Jennifer Lopez, or a Geraldo, or Jennifer Beals; a uniform beige color, straight-ish hair and inconspicuous features possessed by a person who could be from anywhere in the world?
Salsassin writes of “American 'White'”, and “blancos as a description of appearance”, but also how blanco equals “culture (predominantly European influence and ancestry)”. Does “American 'White'” describe the same thing as ‘blanco appearance'...what is the difference between "American White" and his mothers, “white culture”?
Salsassin wrote:
I see my father's ethnicity as a combination of serrano and criollo culture) So I see my self as half White half Creole, but predominantly Creole as I was raised in my father's coastal family, not in my mother's White culture.
I am having trouble putting together the culture answers with the ethncity affiliation. Do I have it right ethnically and phenotypically: blanco appearance, blanco ethnicity/culture (“half white”), and Creole (serrano and criollo) culture (half Creole).
You bring up a useful example - A first generation black and white mixed “race” person born in America, is raised within a bubble of "black culture" in a bath of Euro-American culture, wouldn’t you say? Is your mothers “white” culture as dominant an influence in Peru, as the influence of European culture on the U.S, and globally too?
oevega wrote:
But any of these contradicts the fact his phenotype is white.
That makes partial sense. Do you mean his skin is the color of a white crayon or white bond paper?
Last edited by Altertude on Sun 21 May 2006 14:07; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 13:50 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
oevega wrote:
Hi, Salssasin IS white.
WRONG. I look 'white'. A descriptive term. Soy blanco en apariencia. No soy Blanco. In English, when you say someone is white, they are not going to understand that you are light skinned. We will tell an Asian woman in peru that she is blanca. But we are saying she is light skinned. The terms blanco or blanquiñoso come to mind. I am not White, in identity, ethnicity or any supposed racial phenotype. In the only thing I am 'white' in Latin America is in an attempt to say I am light skinned. An albino from Africa would be blanco in SA as well.
Quote:
He is also a Peruvian person, so he, like all latinos, love his mother land. Peru is a melting pot country that have a thousands of years old heritage of ancient indigenous civilizations. Peru was also the capital of the Spanish Empire in South America. And today is the home of many ethnic groups, including Natives, Whites, Blacks and Asians.
As a result, Salssasin identify with is country and his people (all of them). And he won't left anyone outside of that identity.
Salssasin is creole, which means in Latino slang, he is a "real" natural of his land, not a recent immigrant. A person who has roots in the place he was born.
You are correct there.
Quote:
But any of these contradicts the fact his phenotype is white.
And mess up here again. In Spanish, to say you look white as far as appearance can mean two things. You are light skinned or you have the look of a 'White" (European decent) person.
Soy blanquiñoso, palido, pero no me considero producto solo de las etnias blancas.
In English, I am light skinned so I am whitish, I look like Whites, but I am not just a product of White ethnicity.
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 14:18 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Altertude wrote:
What are ambiguous looks...is it like a Halle Berry, Jennifer Lopez, or a Geraldo, or Jennifer Beals; a uniform beige color, straight-ish hair and inconspicuous features possessed by a person who could be from anywhere in the world?
From light to medium brown. The darker the skin the more like Europeans or Middle Easterners the faces would have to be. If not people would start to see them more as negros, mulatos, or chinos, or whatever. We are talking decription. Now many people may be described as morenos and be seen ethnically as blancos. Ethic affiliation plays a huge role in indentity. The terms they use descriptively are apart from this though.
Ella es blanca y tambien es china en descriptivos coloquiales
Quote:
Salsassin writes of “American 'White'”, and “blancos as a description of appearance”, but also how blanco equals “culture (predominantly European influence and ancestry)”. Does “American 'White'” describe the same thing as ‘blanco appearance'...what is the difference between "American White" and his mothers, “white culture”?
Not sure where you got that American White is just about appearance. While in Latin America, a person may be called blanco for a variety of reasons that can be exclusive from each other, in the US, if you are called White, you are assumed to have the look and the predominant ancestry. And to many you also have to be a part of the ethnicity as well.
Quote:
Do I have it right ethnically and phenotypically: blanco appearance, blanco ethnicity/culture (“half white”), and Creole (serrano and criollo) culture (half Creole).
Almost. My parent's divorced when I was three. I was raised almost all my life in the Creole culture. So blanco/white appearance, Creole ethnicity, Blanco/White, Serrano/Creole direct ancestry.
Quote:
You bring up a useful example - A first generation black and white mixed “race” person born in America, raised within a bubble of "black culture" in a bath of Euro-American culture, wouldn’t you say? Is your mothers “white” culture as dominant an influence in Peru, as the influence of European culture on the U.S, and globally too?
My mom met my dad in the USA. She was moved down to Peru. My mom's culture did not exist in Peru. Even the peruvian blanco/hispano culture was foreign to her. Although you see influence like you see American icons globally today.
Quote:
oevega wrote:
But any of these contradicts the fact his phenotype is white.
That makes partial sense. Do you mean his skin is the color of a white crayon or white bond paper?
I guess I am burnt amber and cadmium yellow white.
Fourth of the bottom on this chart.
Level 4 last of the warms.
Last edited by Salsassin on Sun 21 May 2006 18:32; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 17:03 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Altertude wrote:
..You bring up a useful example - A first generation black and white mixed “race” person born in America, is raised within a bubble of "black culture" in a bath of Euro-American culture, wouldn’t you say? Is your mothers “white” culture as dominant an influence in Peru, as the influence of European culture on the U.S, and globally too?
oevega wrote:
But any of these contradicts the fact his phenotype is white.
That makes partial sense. Do you mean his skin is the color of a white crayon or white bond paper?
Hi Altertude:
Yes, you are getting the idea. In Latin America terms like "race", "ethnic group", "culture", "social class" and "citizenship" ARE NOT synomyms.
The situation in the U.S. will be something like the following. Imagines four individuals: a French-Swiss descendent, a Italian descendent, a Haitian descendent and a Dominican descendent.
Now, imagine the Swiss is blond and dark eyes as speak French
The Italian is curly has green eyes and light brown and speak Italian
The Haitian is black, has green eyes, and curly and speak French
The Dominican is straigh hair dark skinned and speak Spanish.
Let's see what they have in common.
The Swiss and the Italian are caucasians, or White in U.S. racial terminology. The Haitian and the dominican are dark skinned or Black in the U.S. racial classification.
But,
The Italian and the Haitian are curly, while the Dominican and the Swiss have straigh hair. The Italian and the Haitian have green eyes, while the Swiss and the Dominican have brown eyes.
The Italian and the Dominican can talk each other and the Swiss and the Haitian can communicate between them as well.
How you can see, culture, ethnicity and race are not the same and even in phenotypes certain things cross borders (in the example the curly hair and the green eyes).
In our terms, a White Latino IS NOT a "gringo". Even if it has a "gringo" phenotype. That's the difference.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 17:48 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Salsassin wrote:
Altertude wrote:
What are ambiguous looks...is it like a Halle Berry, Jennifer Lopez, or a Geraldo, or Jennifer Beals; a uniform beige color, straight-ish hair and inconspicuous features possessed by a person who could be from anywhere in the world?
From light to medium brown. The darker the skin the more like Europeans or Middle Easterners the faces would have to be. If not people would start to see them more as negros, mulatos, or chinos, or whatever. We are talking decription. Now many people may be described as morenos and be seen ethnically as blancos. Ethic affiliation plays a huge role in indentity. The terms they use descriptively are apart from this though.
Yes, I'm understanding how people perceive and describe each other in Latino/Hispanic terms. Similar to Spanish language having the "tu" and "Usted" forms, verdad? A regular description of say Teri Hatcher would be a dark haired white woman. The lady in the picture in old language fits the description of Mongoloid, would you say? Bascially, she has the looks of a light Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, maybe maybe the ethnicity. As the eyes are uniform she could pass for other ethnicities.
Salsassin wrote:
Not sure where you got that American White is just about appearance. While in Latin America, a person may be called blanco for a variety of reasons that can be exclusive from each other, in the US, if you are called White, you are assumed to have the look and the predominant ancestry. And to many you also have to be a part of the ethnicity as well.
Yeah, I didn't set that sentence out clearly enough.
Essentially, I wanted to show the 3 different things we're examining. 1) “American 'White'”, 2) “blancos as a description of appearance”, 3) blancos as a culture (predominantly European influence and ancestry).
This is the crucial difference between the U.S use of blanco/white and the Latino use of blanco/white. Like I said above in terms Spanish language; the term has two sides/form, but in the U.S, only one form and meaning.
Salsassin wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Do I have it right ethnically and phenotypically: blanco appearance, blanco ethnicity/culture (“half white”), and Creole (serrano and criollo) culture (half Creole).
Almost. My parent's divorced when I was three. I was raised almost all my life in the Creole culture. So blanco/white appearance, Creole ethnicity, Blanco/White, Serrano/Creole direct ancestry.
I'm curious, why do you make a distinction between ethnicity and ancestry here? Do you add Creole ethnicity to explain the being raised in Creole culture?
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 18:08 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
..You bring up a useful example - A first generation black and white mixed “race” person born in America, is raised within a bubble of "black culture" in a bath of Euro-American culture, wouldn’t you say? Is your mothers “white” culture as dominant an influence in Peru, as the influence of European culture on the U.S, and globally too?
oevega wrote:
But any of these contradicts the fact his phenotype is white.
That makes partial sense. Do you mean his skin is the color of a white crayon or white bond paper?
Hi Altertude:
Yes, you are getting the idea. In Latin America terms like "race", "ethnic group", "culture", "social class" and "citizenship" ARE NOT synomyms.
Having never been there I don't know, and sorry if I gave the impression they were the same. I just have a strong suspicion that they are significantly connected. The world is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, I gots to make sense of things on a planetary level.
Oevega, did I get an answer to my question?
Quote:
The situation in the U.S. will be something like the following. Imagines four individuals: a French-Swiss descendent, a Italian descendent, a Haitian descendent and a Dominican descendent.
Now, imagine the Swiss is blond and dark eyes as speak French
The Italian is curly has green eyes and light brown and speak Italian
The Haitian is black, has green eyes, and curly and speak French
The Dominican is straigh hair dark skinned and speak Spanish.
Let's see what they have in common.
The Swiss and the Italian are caucasians, or White in U.S. racial terminology. The Haitian and the dominican are dark skinned or Black in the U.S. racial classification.
What is a caucasian?
Quote:
How you can see, culture, ethnicity and race are not the same and even in phenotypes certain things cross borders (in the example the curly hair and the green eyes).
In our terms, a White Latino IS NOT a "gringo". Even if it has a "gringo" phenotype. That's the difference.
You described neither ethnicity, nor culture there (unless in older usage I described earlier) but phenotype.
So a person of Prince's phenotype from U.S or Europe would never be called be called a "gringo" in Chile or surrounding areas?
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 18:42 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
oevega wrote:
In our terms, a White Latino IS NOT a "gringo". Even if it has a "gringo" phenotype. That's the difference.
Not neccessarily. I was called gringo in Peru. If you look like a nordic European, you might be described as gringo as well. Depends on region. Even the lighter skinned people might be called gringo.
Gringo is used both to describe light skinned people and to describe foreigners. SO an Afro-American would be described as a Gringo as well.
Gringo comes from Griego. Foreigner. But it was used so much to refer to American foreigners and the steretyope of their look (White) that it bacame a synonym of White looking. Yet anyone percieved as American no matter what their look will also fall under that classification.
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 18:52 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Altertude wrote:
A regular description of say Teri Hatcher would be a dark haired white woman.
As would Halle Berry and Jennifer Biels.
Quote:
The lady in the picture in old language fits the description of Mongoloid, would you say? Bascially, she has the looks of a light Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, maybe maybe the ethnicity. As the eyes are uniform she could pass for other ethnicities.
Right. We would just say China. Chinese. But also blanca, white as far as color looks.
Quote:
This is the crucial difference between the U.S use of blanco/white and the Latino use of blanco/white. Like I said above in terms Spanish language; the term has two sides/form, but in the U.S, only one form and meaning.
correct.
Quote:
I'm curious, why do you make a distinction between ethnicity and ancestry here? Do you add Creole ethnicity to explain the being raised in Creole culture?
Ancestry just means what is in your background. Ethnicity is what you are raised with. An adopted person has one ancestry, but could have a complete different ethnicity based on where they were raised.
Quote:
I can just imagine the looks you'd get describing yourself like that to the average "Jose or Joanna".
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 21 May 2006 19:06 Post subject: Re: white guilt: reloaded
Altertude wrote:
Having never been there I don't know, and sorry if I gave the impression they were the same. I just have a strong suspicion that they are significantly connected. The world is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, I gots to make sense of things on a planetary level.
...
Oevega, did I get an answer to my question?
....
What is a caucasian?
Well, I agree the world is getting smaller. The only thing with Latin America is that globalization and mixings started in here and in large scale 5 centuries ago. The fusion of races and cultures is already a part of history, not something going on in the present. That's why we can't be clear cut in those matters in here. All terms and divisions are fuzzy and artificial. They don't match reality. Actually, in daily life we don't even care about it.
Well, "caucasian" is a description used by American cops to capture certain criminals that have a particular phenotype
As far as I know there is nothing else in common between "caucasians".
For example, there are dark East Indians that speak an Indo-european language white white Basques don't speak a non "aryan" language. There are people in Hong Kong that are Christians while people in the Balcans there are Muslims. etc. There are North Africans, Persians and some East Indians that are more "white" that many Southern Europeans or Russians.
And I have seen many British people that look exacltly like Native Americans. I don't know why but they exist.
In Latin America the police would use "Blanco" (white) or "Rubio" (blond) instead of "caucasian". As you see, those terms are only practical for policemen, and are in the same cathegory of tall-small, fat-thin, strong-weak, curly-straigh, etc.
Quote:
You described neither ethnicity, nor culture there (unless in older usage I described earlier) but phenotype.
So a person of Prince's phenotype from U.S or Europe would never be called be called a "gringo" in Chile or surrounding areas?
Well, put Prince together with Arnold Schwartzeneger and send them to a trip to Acapulco. There locals will comment a couple of "crazy gringos" has just arrived to town. What I mean is the following, Latinos consider a person OUTSIDE the culture to be more distant than another fellow Latino inside the culture, regardless of race. So if a Black Cuban and an Blond Argentinean meet a person from Sweden, of course the Cuban and the Argentinean will feel closer together and will consider the Sweden to be a "martian".
Is like the concept of American. If a black sportman or a white astronaut make something outstanding, all Americans are happy and nobody remembers race. That's the point.
Then you would understand why Latinos are so proud of Franklin Chang-Diaz, our most outstanding astronaut. A Puerto Rican fellow of chinese ancestry that was baptised "Franklin" in honor of Benjamin Frankilin
Funny, I seem to recall someone round her praising to the skies the strong cultural connections of Hispano/Latino culture, which makes me think Chileans are not always expressing identity at the national level.
The identity people follows is the national identity of the country, not their particular familiar descendency. It's so hard to explain, but I would try.
Perhaps another Chilean has explained your countrymen's idea of identity elsewhere. Chilean's not identifing with their family is strange to me. Is Chile a state with the population as one family, and the leader as parent—and eveyone's surname is Chile?
Quote:
Imagine you are an Australian, then your country is Australia and your Queen is called Queen Elizabeth II. Now, if you are a Chilean your land is Chile, and Chile's ancestors are the ancient natives and Spain. Spain is like the image of the Queen for us. Is an idealize land, more in the imagination than in reality. Is the land of "some" of our ancestors and the origin of "most" of our culture.
I don't know if you get it.
In my particular case, my ancestors came from France, Italy, Spain and Natives. But those French and Italians does not count at all because they are not part of the "official" origin of my country.
Uf!!! I don't know if I could transmit the idea. People follow the identity of the country and not the one of the family tree.
I don't really think the Australian example helps any. Queen Elizabeth II is the actual head of state or some offical position in Australia. It's nothing idealised or in the imagination. Neither were the descriptions of Hispanic/Latino cultural identity you previously expounded on. They were put over in a way to say it was important. And Spain was most certainly a part of that collective cutural identity.
Quote:
Well, William asked about people in Chile not when they go to America, and that is why I'm still a bit confused. At the level I observe it the "white" thing is also a European thing.
Quote:
Chileans consider themselves "white" because most have skins that vary from light brown skin to white.
Does "White" mean the same thing as light brown skin?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
