Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 01 Apr 2009 12:31 Post subject: Question about Latin American vs Spanish culture
I realize the definition of "white" is different in Latin America than the Anglo portion of the Americas, but what about Spain.
Would this man be considered white by most Spaniards or Portuguese (in Europe)
I know that in Brazil, the guy above, Ronaldo, at some press conference said he was "white". A reporter inferred something about his race and he corrected them.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 444 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Wed 01 Apr 2009 14:46 Post subject:
My experience is that in Spain, he would be viewed as "Latino." Spain has received significant immigration from Latin America, and all Latin Americans are referred to there as Latinos-regardless of phenotype. The Spaniards do not see themselves as Latinos, but as Spaniards. Bigots would refer to him as "Sudaca" a slur that comes from the Spanish for South American-Sudamericano. It has both a geographic and racial connotation, the geographic meaning from Latin America, and the racial meaning being of visible mixed race or native american phenotype.
My experience is that in Spain, his being a foreigner would be much more significant than his phenotype. Its not really a question of white or not. Sorry for the lack of a real answer, and I can't speak for Portugal.
Posted: Wed 01 Apr 2009 19:46 Post subject: Re: Question about Latin American vs Spanish culture
Dragon Horse wrote:
I realize the definition of "white" is different in Latin America than the Anglo portion of the Americas, but what about Spain.
Would this man be considered white by most Spaniards or Portuguese (in Europe)
I know that in Brazil, the guy above, Ronaldo, at some press conference said he was "white". A reporter inferred something about his race and he corrected them.
There's more room for self-identification over there (Brazil) than here in the U.S. A person with similar looks could just as well consider himself mulatto or black.
My experience is that in Spain, he would be viewed as "Latino." Spain has received significant immigration from Latin America, and all Latin Americans are referred to there as Latinos-regardless of phenotype.
Not really true. In Spain "Latinos" are the peoples from the Lazio (a.k.a Latium), which is a region of Italy, and the adjective "latino" is used to denote all things coming from there. "Cicerón es un escritor latino", "Esta lápida tiene una inscripción latina", etc. By extension, all things/regions romanized by the Romans themselves are considered "latinas", especially if their language is a dialect of the Latin language itself: "Spain is a Latin country (España es un país latino)", "France is a Latin country (Francia es un país latino)", "Italy is a Latin country (Italia es un país latino)"; "Romania is a Latin country (Rumanía es una país latino)", etc.
In Spain we call "Hispano-américa" those places of America which were under the influence of Spain and which have a Spanish culture. And then, we call "Ibero-américa" those places which were under the influence of either Spain or Portugal (which includes Brazil).
The term "Latin-america" is alien to Spanish culture (of Spain): we do not use it, as the Romans did not ever set foot on the soil of America, and therefore America was never romanized. The term "Latin-america" is an USA invention to segregate Anglo-america away from the rest of (Catholic) America. Therefore, Latin-america, if we would have to accept it as a concept, would include Hispano-América, and Brazil and the French Canada and French Guyana and Haiti, which are all under a Latin-meta-derived culture. However to us it makes not much sense to amalgamate together all these countries, and therefore we have no use for the concept of "Latin-america".
In recent times, the term "Latinamerican" has become known in Spain through USA-centric Hollywood products and mass-media, so we in Spain do know what the Yankees mean with it, but we ourselves don't use that concept. Not only that, we are somewhat horrified when we hear it abbreviated as "Latinos" to designate the peoples from Mexico, Perú, etc. To us, that is comparable to calling Saxons the Jamaicans, or some such. Ridiculous!
In Spain the peoples from South America are called "Sudamericanos", and if we want to include the peoples from Central America and Mexico, Cuba and Puerto Rico, then we say "Hispanoamericanos" or "Iberoamericanos" or just "americanos". That is true, if we are put in a pinch then we abbreviate them all as "americanos", not as "latinos". Because Americano is anyone from the other side of the pond, North and South; although we are aware, again thanks to Hollywood, that the Yankees want to keep that name only for themselves. So as long as they call the Mexicans, Peruvians, etc., latinos, we do take great pleasure to reply that they all are just Americans, all the way from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska.
Quote:
The Spaniards do not see themselves as Latinos, but as Spaniards.
We do not see ourselves as "Latinos" according to the USA definition for "Latino", but we certainly see ourselves as "un pueblo latino" according to the definition of "Latino" which has been going on for more than two milleniums. So Spain indeed is a Latin country, although Spain is not a Hispano-american country.
Quote:
Bigots would refer to him as "Sudaca" a slur that comes from the Spanish for South American-Sudamericano. It has both a geographic and racial connotation, the geographic meaning from Latin America, and the racial meaning being of visible mixed race or native american phenotype.
Not exactly true.
First, sudaca is an informal abbreviation of "sudamericano" as you say, but it is not insulting per se, it's just informal.
It's typical to end in "-aca" nouns and substantivated adjectives when in a familiar setting:
(But you won't hear those spoken unless you hang out with your Spanish friends...)
Second, "sudaca" is anyone from Hispano-america in the South, irrespective of race, religion or class. Sudacas are identified by their accent always, and by their looks sometimes. That is to say, an Argentinian descending from only Germans is still 100% sudaca: you catch him when you hear him talk. However, a Mexican is never a sudaca, as he is not from the South of Hispano-america: Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto-Ricans are generally referred to by their own nationality in Spain.
About the slur connotation of the use of the word "sudaca", that depends how you use it. In Spain is not an insult to refer to someone as "Negro" or "Gabacho" (French) or "Guiri" (street-slang for tourist), but these words can also be used as insults if that comes handy. You must not forget Spanish is one of the most elaborate languages you can pick to insult someone, as almost everything you say can be an insult if you don't use either an amicable/formal tone or plenty of diminutives when going informal. That's why we gesticulate when talking: we need to express the intentions to the words we are saying, their pure meaning is not enough.
Quote:
My experience is that in Spain, his being a foreigner would be much more significant than his phenotype. Its not really a question of white or not. Sorry for the lack of a real answer, and I can't speak for Portugal.
You are right here: Ronaldo principalmente es un brasileño. In Spain his condition of non-Spanish is stronger than his condition of non-white. Although his condition of Brazilian makes him very close to us: in the past Portugal was part of Spain, and they are quite like us.
We are, of course, not blind to the fact that he is not physically like us, and we consider him "mulato", but that condition itself does not go much further than being "tall", "short", "fat" or "thin" -- I'm not saying it is best or indiferent to be mulato in Spain, but it's not much of an issue as long as you want to be intergrated and follow and take part in Spanish customs -- nobody is certainly excluded of taking part in them just for being mulato. The point is, we certainly would NOT consider him "black", as he is not such a thing for us. "Es un mulato blanquito", he is a pale mulato. In Spain we usually don't call anyone "black" unless he is so, and by this I mean, black like coal, for example a pure breed person inmigrating from Senegal or Cameroon. Those are real blacks. As an counter-example, we don't consider Barack Obama to be black, he is clearly a mulato to our eyes.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 444 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Tue 21 Jul 2009 15:01 Post subject:
Quote:
Not really true. In Spain "Latinos" are the peoples from the Lazio (a.k.a Latium), which is a region of Italy, and the adjective "latino" is used to denote all things coming from there.
I have to disagree. I am under the impression, from spanish media and talking with Spaniards that the use has already changed. There is a "inspector jefe de bandas latinas" in Madrid, and in the following video, one interviewed citizen states "los latinos son el problema." Not that it doesn't also retain its original meaning in some situations, but I doubt he is talking about people from Lazio.
First, sudaca is an informal abbreviation of "sudamericano" as you say, but it is not insulting per se, it's just informal.
Again, if a Spainiard hears some reggaeaton, and says "yo no escucho eso, eso es mierda de negros y sudaca," you are going to claim that is not racist, just informal.
Sudaca in spanish carries the same sort of connotation as "Jap" in english. Yes it is an abbreviation. Yes there are certainly people who use it without racist intentions. It was also however used so frequently as a slur that its polite usage has grown impossible. I have heard sudaca used specifically as a racial slur based solely on phenotype by an actual south american-an Argentine. So you could say I disagree.
Because Americano is anyone from the other side of the pond, North and South; although we are aware, again thanks to Hollywood, that the Yankees want to keep that name only for themselves.
For what it's worth, few here care, or even think about it. Since the country's name is "United States of *America,* it's natural for us and for others to refer to it as "America" and ourselves as "Americans."
The US government makes it a policy to refer to the country as the "US" rather than "America" overseas, because of sensitivity in Latin America, but --
When I was overseas for the first time and someone asked where I was from, I answered (having read about the government policy) "the US." Whereupon they said "What?" After I repeated myself, they said, "Oh, you mean America!" So much for government policy.
It seems to me that this really has more to do with habits of speech than anything else. I mean, Native Americans are usually referred to as "Indians," a misnomer if there ever was one . . . and a southerner here might be deeply insulted to be referred to as a "Yankee," since to a southerner, a Yankee to them is someone from up north. Or take the term "New Yorker," it generally refers to someone from New York City rather than New York State. Or Washingtonian, which refers to someone from Washington, D.C. rather than Washington State. This stuff just happens.
Not really true. In Spain "Latinos" are the peoples from the Lazio (a.k.a Latium), which is a region of Italy, and the adjective "latino" is used to denote all things coming from there.
I have to disagree. I am under the impression, from spanish media and talking with Spaniards that the use has already changed. There is a "inspector jefe de bandas latinas" in Madrid, and in the following video, one interviewed citizen states "los latinos son el problema."
I am not aware of that usage in Spain, but then it probably is because those gangs perhaps call themselves "Latinos", which obviously is they appropriating the name with which the USA labels them, and somehow bringing here that Yankee's misnomer.
I very much doubt the members of the "maras" in Centroamérica call themselves "Latinos" when they are at home, buy they perhaps do when they immigrate to the USA, thusly adopting the name the Yankees cast on them (which I quite understand, given how self-righteous the Yankees are, how could they be wrong in their name calling?, it would be impossible to fight that while staying in the USA).
MisterLawyer wrote:
Quote:
First, sudaca is an informal abbreviation of "sudamericano" as you say, but it is not insulting per se, it's just informal.
Again, if a Spainiard hears some reggaeaton, and says "yo no escucho eso, eso es mierda de negros y sudaca," you are going to claim that is not racist, just informal.
That expression would be insulting perhaps, but not racist. Would it be racist to say bullfighting is a typical Spaniard's shit? I don't think so: it would be certainly confrontational, but I even doubt it would be insulting, and it would be absolutely not a racist statement. The same happens with your example about raggaeton.
MisterLawyer wrote:
I have heard sudaca used specifically as a racial slur based solely on phenotype by an actual south american-an Argentine. So you could say I disagree.
I don't understand what you are saying... That you heard an Argentinian call somebody else "sudaca"? That would be funny, because the Argentinians are the quintessential "sudacas", whatever race they may bring along.
-------------
JoshH wrote:
pepinno wrote:
Because Americano is anyone from the other side of the pond, North and South; although we are aware, again thanks to Hollywood, that the Yankees want to keep that name only for themselves.
It seems to me that this really has more to do with habits of speech than anything else.
That is true. And in Spain we are not in the habit of using the word "americano" to refer to the people from USA, only. When we say "americano", we mean anyone from that continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and in occasion to those more closely related to us, the Hispano-americans, who are also "americans" and the more relevant "americans" from Spain's point of view.
I very much doubt the members of the "maras" in Centroamérica call themselves "Latinos" when they are at home, buy they perhaps do when they immigrate to the USA, thusly adopting the name the Yankees cast on them (which I quite understand, given how self-righteous the Yankees are, how could they be wrong in their name calling?, it would be impossible to fight that while staying in the USA).
I read an explanation of the origin of the American usage of "Latino" not long ago, in a discussion in the New York Times. It seems the trend was begun by a writer for the LA Times, IIRC because he was looking for an alternative to "Chicano," and, unfortunately, it caught on.
Again, no real right and wrong here in my opinion, just a new English loan word the sense of which may now be spreading back to the countries of origin. Though I confess I'm not wild about the word myself: Because the word is now being used in a new sense, it can and does cause a certain amount of confusion. And it seems to me demeaning and insulting. Judging by the comments I saw in the discussion in the Times, I'm not alone in feeling that way. Latin Americans whose families have been in this country for generations and don't know a word of Spanish or Portuguese don't like the implication that they speak a foreign tongue.
"Latin-American" is also a misnomer of sorts, in that it really should refer to French speakers as well. But I guess such ambiguities are unavoidable, since there's no well-known term that describes Americans of Spanish and Portuguese descent. "Iberian-American" might make sense, but I don't think most people would know what it means, and language never has and probably never will be completely logical, at least as long as columnists enjoy coming up with cutesy patronizing names.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Jul 2009 10:57 Post subject:
JoshH wrote:
pepinno wrote:
I very much doubt the members of the "maras" in Centroamérica call themselves "Latinos" when they are at home, buy they perhaps do when they immigrate to the USA, thusly adopting the name the Yankees cast on them (which I quite understand, given how self-righteous the Yankees are, how could they be wrong in their name calling?, it would be impossible to fight that while staying in the USA).
I read an explanation of the origin of the American usage of "Latino" not long ago, in a discussion in the New York Times. It seems the trend was begun by a writer for the LA Times, IIRC because he was looking for an alternative to "Chicano," and, unfortunately, it caught on.
Again, no real right and wrong here in my opinion, just a new English loan word the sense of which may now be spreading back to the countries of origin. Though I confess I'm not wild about the word myself: Because the word is now being used in a new sense, it can and does cause a certain amount of confusion. And it seems to me demeaning and insulting. Judging by the comments I saw in the discussion in the Times, I'm not alone in feeling that way. Latin Americans whose families have been in this country for generations and don't know a word of Spanish or Portuguese don't like the implication that they speak a foreign tongue.
"Latin-American" is also a misnomer of sorts, in that it really should refer to French speakers as well. But I guess such ambiguities are unavoidable, since there's no well-known term that describes Americans of Spanish and Portuguese descent. "Iberian-American" might make sense, but I don't think most people would know what it means, and language never has and probably never will be completely logical, at least as long as columnists enjoy coming up with cutesy patronizing names.
Latino does not refer to Portuguese speakers, according to the U.S. government, only Spanish.
Quote:
Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire -"Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban"-as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.
Latino does not refer to Portuguese speakers, according to the U.S. government, only Spanish.
Quote:
Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 questionnaire -"Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or "Cuban"-as well as those who indicate that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, the Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish, Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.
As far as I can tell, that usage is peculiar to the census bureau, e.g.,
Quote:
Main Entry: La·ti·no
Pronunciation: \lə-ˈtē-(ˌ)nō\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural La·ti·nos
Etymology: American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano Latin American
Date: 1946
1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America 2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States
As far as I can tell, that usage is peculiar to the census bureau...
No. Other federal agencies use similar definitions. For example, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the executive agency that investigates discrimination and negotiates settlements under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4 to 2000e-5b) defines the Hispanic Race as: "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."
On the other hand, other agencies have their own rules, the Small Business Administration probably being the strangest. They connect Hispanic-ness to education. Graduate from college and you are no longer Hispanic by their regulations. State agencies are even weirder. Massachusetts once accused several firefighters of fraud for claiming to be Hispanic when, according to the charges, they were merely "culturally Hispanic" not "racially Hispanic." And California has ruled that, by law, immigrants from Spain are not legally Hispanic (a term reserved in California for Latin Americans).
Please keep in mind that if you try to make sense of U.S. ethnopolitical terminology in government you will just get a headache.
As far as I can tell, that usage is peculiar to the census bureau...
No. Other federal agencies use similar definitions. For example, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the executive agency that investigates discrimination and negotiates settlements under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4 to 2000e-5b) defines the Hispanic Race as: "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."
On the other hand, other agencies have their own rules, the Small Business Administration probably being the strangest. They connect Hispanic-ness to education. Graduate from college and you are no longer Hispanic by their regulations. State agencies are even weirder. Massachusetts once accused several firefighters of fraud for claiming to be Hispanic when, according to the charges, they were merely "culturally Hispanic" not "racially Hispanic." And California has ruled that, by law, immigrants from Spain are not legally Hispanic (a term reserved in California for Latin Americans).
Please keep in mind that if you try to make sense of U.S. ethnopolitical terminology in government you will just get a headache.
I've always assumed, perhaps naively, that in ordinary American usage, "Latino" and "Latin-American" usually refer to South or Central American Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, while "Hispanic" refers specifically to Spanish new- or old-world origin. Those laughably ad hoc government definitions of "Hispanic" seem to be designed to funnel aid and preferences to those who are more likely to need them, a consequence of the cultural shift in emphasis from New Deal socioeconomic equality to civil rights era racial and ethnic equality . . .
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Wed 22 Jul 2009 14:15 Post subject:
JoshH wrote:
fwsweet wrote:
JoshH wrote:
As far as I can tell, that usage is peculiar to the census bureau...
No. Other federal agencies use similar definitions. For example, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the executive agency that investigates discrimination and negotiates settlements under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4 to 2000e-5b) defines the Hispanic Race as: "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."
On the other hand, other agencies have their own rules, the Small Business Administration probably being the strangest. They connect Hispanic-ness to education. Graduate from college and you are no longer Hispanic by their regulations. State agencies are even weirder. Massachusetts once accused several firefighters of fraud for claiming to be Hispanic when, according to the charges, they were merely "culturally Hispanic" not "racially Hispanic." And California has ruled that, by law, immigrants from Spain are not legally Hispanic (a term reserved in California for Latin Americans).
Please keep in mind that if you try to make sense of U.S. ethnopolitical terminology in government you will just get a headache.
I've always assumed, perhaps naively, that in ordinary American usage, "Latino" and "Latin-American" usually refer to South or Central American Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, while "Hispanic" refers specifically to Spanish new- or old-world origin. Those laughably ad hoc government definitions of "Hispanic" seem to be designed to funnel aid and preferences to those who are more likely to need them, a consequence of the cultural shift in emphasis from New Deal socioeconomic equality to civil rights era racial and ethnic equality . . .
Well I would say, at least based on my experience, most Americans likely don't know Brazil is not Spanish speaking and most Americans would call anyone from South American (Spanish speaking or not) Latino or Hispanic. Americans are somewhat geographically challenged.
Those laughably ad hoc government definitions of "Hispanic" seem to be designed to funnel aid and preferences to those who are more likely to need them...
Yes indeed. That is the point of identity politics--to get more goodies for your own group.
JoshH wrote:
... a consequence of the cultural shift in emphasis from New Deal socioeconomic equality to civil rights era racial and ethnic equality.
Yes, that is true if you look at A-As and Hispanics. But German-Americans fought to get benefits for their ethnic voting bloc in the early 1800s, Irish-Americans did the same in the mid 1800s, Italian-Americans did it in the late 1800s, and so forth. Identity politics as a weapon to get government benefits is an old tradition in the United States.
For example, the main historical inaccuracy of the film "Gangs of New York" is not the bloody violent nature of identity politics of the time--they got that right. The film errs in implying that there were only two gangs: Irish and Anglos. In fact, in the Jacksonian era every ethnic group (Hispanics, Germans, A-As. etc.) had its own gangs.
Well I would say, at least based on my experience, most Americans likely don't know Brazil is not Spanish speaking and most Americans would call anyone from South American (Spanish speaking or not) Latino or Hispanic. Americans are somewhat geographically challenged.
Other federal agencies use similar definitions. For example, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the executive agency that investigates discrimination and negotiates settlements under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-4 to 2000e-5b) defines the Hispanic Race as: "All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."
That definition is quite funny in a strange Monty-Python way: "we define the Hispanic Race as blah-blah-bla, regardless of race". That's just hilarious!
By the way, by reading these forums I'm quite surprised about the USA fascination with race-labeling. In Spain, it is legally prohibited to collect information about a citizen's race or ethnic ascription: it is illegal not only to collect such information, but also to ask about it in any business and/or official relationship/paperwork, and for any business and for all Government bodies and agencies at all levels. In Spain you can see for yourself someone's physical appearance, but you won't see his race written down in any official document (not even by self-determination of the individual himself). That's why we are so shocked when we make a tourist tour in the USA and you have to keep filling up your god-dammed race in all the paperwork, it feels like they could as well ask you about your penis size or something...
That definition is quite funny in a strange Monty-Python way: "we define the Hispanic Race as blah-blah-bla, regardless of race". That's just hilarious!
By the way, by reading these forums I'm quite surprised about the USA fascination with race-labeling. In Spain, it is legally prohibited to collect information about a citizen's race or ethnic ascription: it is illegal not only to collect such information, but also to ask about it in any business and/or official relationship/paperwork, and for any business and for all Government bodies and agencies at all levels. In Spain you can see for yourself someone's physical appearance, but you won't see his race written down in any official document (not even by self-determination of the individual himself). That's why we are so shocked when we make a tourist tour in the USA and you have to keep filling up your god-dammed race in all the paperwork, it feels like they could as well ask you about your penis size or something...
There are a number of reasons for that, such as monitoring the prevalence of discrimination, making sure that members of minority groups have fair representation in Congress, and describing appearance on documents that are used for identification, such as driver's licenses and passports.
That definition is quite funny in a strange Monty-Python way
Yes. Many people notice that. Again, though, trying to make sense of bureaucratic regulations will make your head hurt.
pepinno wrote:
I'm quite surprised about the USA fascination with race-labeling. In Spain, it is legally prohibited to collect information about a citizen's race or ethnic ascription
Yes. The United States is unique in this sense. Nevertheless, as JoshH pointed out, government-coerced "racial" self-classification is justified as being in a good cause. Whether it really is in a good cause or simply a way of extracting benefits, as JoshH also suggested, is arguable.
Some other nations have comparable quirks. I seem to recall, when we lived in Madrid (Puerta de Sol) during Franco's regime, that we were sometimes officially asked our religion--something that would not be done in the United States.
Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 22 Jul 2009 19:30; edited 1 time in total
That definition is quite funny in a strange Monty-Python way: "we define the Hispanic Race as blah-blah-bla, regardless of race". That's just hilarious!
By the way, by reading these forums I'm quite surprised about the USA fascination with race-labeling. In Spain, it is legally prohibited to collect information about a citizen's race or ethnic ascription: it is illegal not only to collect such information, but also to ask about it in any business and/or official relationship/paperwork, and for any business and for all Government bodies and agencies at all levels. In Spain you can see for yourself someone's physical appearance, but you won't see his race written down in any official document (not even by self-determination of the individual himself). That's why we are so shocked when we make a tourist tour in the USA and you have to keep filling up your god-dammed race in all the paperwork, it feels like they could as well ask you about your penis size or something...
There are a number of reasons for that, such as monitoring the prevalence of discrimination, making sure that members of minority groups have fair representation in Congress, and describing appearance on documents that are used for identification, such as driver's licenses and passports.
That sounds like a nice rationalization to keep the segregation going in paper so they (whoever) have all the paperwork already done when need be to re-establish it in novel ways...
And I don't buy neither argument:
to segregate in paper to fight the discrimination? It just looks like it only achieves to maintain the race-labeling frenzy in the minds of everyone in the USA.
to consign race on documents to help identification? I guess we in Spain already have this technology to make those small identification photos for the (mandatory since 1939) National Identification Card (where there is no consigning of race whatsoever, and we do have a history with Franco to keep everyone identified at all times). USA could try these photos thingies out sometime.
----------------------
[Edited to add:]
fwsweet wrote:
pepinno wrote:
I'm quite surprised about the USA fascination with race-labeling. In Spain, it is legally prohibited to collect information about a citizen's race or ethnic ascription
Some other nations have comparable quirks. I seem to recall, when we lived in Madrid (Puerta de Sol) during Franco's regime, that we were sometimes officially asked our religion--something that would not be done in the United States.
Yes, that is true. But with Franco Spain was a dictatorship under the National-Catholicism ideology. We have for some time been no longer a dictatorship, and we have dropped the mandatory Catholicism part in the State (it is now also legally prohibited to collect information about the religion ascription of the people, as well as about their sexual orientation, etc.). The USA, in the other hand, looks like it still is a National-Racialist state as it was in the past (before to marginalize the minorities, now supposedly to affirm them, but always with the Racialism in mind), which is odd and frankly quite passè.
That sounds like a nice rationalization to keep the segregation going in paper so they (whoever) have all the paperwork already done when need be to re-establish it in novel ways...
And I don't buy neither argument:
to segregate in paper to fight the discrimination? It just looks like it only achieves to maintain the race-labeling frenzy in the minds of everyone in the USA.
to consign race on documents to help identification? I guess we in Spain already have this technology to make those small identification photos for the (mandatory since 1939) National Identification Card (where there is no consigning of race whatsoever, and we do have a history with Franco to keep everyone identified at all times). USA could try these photos thingies out sometime.
First of all, I haven't seen any race labeling frenzy in the minds of the American public lately. In fact, I've seen a poll that said a majority of Americans would prefer to eliminate the ethnic identity checkmarks on the census form.
Each nation has its own history of minorities and discrimination, and as Frank pointed out, other nations sometimes divide people along different lines, e.g., by religion.
As to identification, not all documents have photographs, and in a country as ethnically varied as the United States race is a useful indicator of appearance.
Regarding discrimination, I can only assume that you aren't familiar with the purposes to which this information is put. Information about race and ethnicity is absolutely necessary to monitor compliance with programs like Affirmative Action and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and, as I said, to insure that minorities have representation in Congress, since districts can be gerrymandered in such a way that minority neighborhoods are divided up among surrounding ones, reducing representation. Given that Southern states have a tawdry history of denying black Americans the right to vote, such monitoring is an important guarantor of civil rights, and this information is used in court cases. It also provides useful information about the flow of people within and to various parts of the country, and helps identify racial profiling by the police, redlining, and so forth.
It certainly has no role in furthering discrimination, and hasn't for many years, except perhaps to the extent that, as some claim, programs like Affirmative Action are a form of reverse discrimination.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Americans are somewhat geographically challenged.