Posted: Fri 14 Oct 2005 12:36 Post subject: Re: Latinos and Whiteness
Quote:
They were not interested in promoting the equality of non-Hispanics who fell into the "Negro" classification.
Quote:
"they" were not interested in promoting the equality of ANYBODY that fell into the "Negro" classification, including hispanics.
That's interesting! Why exactly WOULD White Mexicans be concerned with changing the status of any non-whites to Whites? If anything it would make the White status of all Caucasian Mexicans seem unbelievable
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 16 Oct 2005 14:43 Post subject: Re: Latinos and Whiteness
girlfromthenc wrote:
Quote:
"they" were not interested in promoting the equality of ANYBODY that fell into the "Negro" classification, including hispanics.
That's interesting! Why exactly WOULD White Mexicans be concerned with changing the status of any non-whites to Whites? If anything it would make the White status of all Caucasian Mexicans seem unbelievable
Hi,
I think there is a real mistake in here. I am Latino so I believe I know very much the way my people think, including Mexicans.
(1) There is not a White-Mexico in the sense there exist a White-America. That is, a separated endogamic group separated from the rest of the people. In Mexico everyone marries with anyone else, given both belong to the same social and cultural status.
(2) Mexicans and Latinos in particular are called "white" when they happened to have light skin. To be white in Latin America is to have an aspect. Is like to call someone blond, tall, fat, or whatever. A description of the aspect. Nothing to do with culture, race or social status.
(3) I can hardly believe Mexicans want to become "white". In Latin America "white" means WASP. And WASP is a group that has produced a lot of pain to Latin America. For a Mexican to become a WASP is to work for the "enemy".
(4) White Americans are known in Spanish as "gringos". I hardly believe a Mexican would like to become a gringo.
It would be a very bad luck for that poor Mexican to be called a "gringo".
(5) Latinos don't need the label "white" to feel proud of their culture, traditions and themselves. We know we are worth people and that the future will be ours. We are proud of what we are... that's all.
Posted: Sun 16 Oct 2005 15:51 Post subject: Re: Latinos and Whiteness
oevega wrote:
<snip>Latinos don't need the label "white" to feel proud of their culture, traditions and themselves.
I think that Omar misunderstands. The people being discussed are USAmericans who happen to be of Latin American ancestry. These people have fought and continue to fight for acceptance as White USAmericans, or at the very least, to utterly reject any attempt to lump them in with Black USAmericans.
To answer girlfromthenc's question as to why they would want to avoid being seen as members of the Black community, it is because being labeled as a U.S. "Black" has traditionally meant (and still means, to some extent) being subjected to prejudice, discrimination, lack of opportunity, and oppression. I have a hard time grasping why anyone given the chance would not wish to avoid such a label and its fate.
To reply to Phil345, despite the odd-ball redneck or two, Hispanics have been remarkably successful at accomplishing this goal. This is well-proven by intermarriage statistics, as well as by hundreds of court cases and anecdotal examples.
Posted: Mon 17 Oct 2005 20:16 Post subject: Re: Latinos and Whiteness
Phil345 wrote:
Powell wrote:
An official designation as "white" or at least nonblack has always been a great advantage, even if many whites didn't agree with it. Mexican-Americans in this country were often treated as blacks (especially in Texas), but they responded to this discrimination by demanding to be classified as whites.
Quote:
1936
Pressured the U.S. Census Bureau to reclassify persons of Mexican descent from the designation of "Mexican" to "White". The 1940 census count reflected the change.
Its very misleading when people say "mexicans used to be white", as if all the brown and obvious non-white persons we are used to seeing, were somehow classified as "white". Only white Mexicans were classified as "white".
454. Mexicans.-Mexicans are to be regarded as white unless definitely of Indian or other nonwhite race.
Quote:
They were not interested in promoting the equality of non-Hispanics who fell into the "Negro" classification.
"they" were not interested in promoting the equality of ANYBODY that fell into the "Negro" classification, including hispanics.
Not so. Legally, Mexicans were considered white. They may have been treated as non-white-especially those who were more Amerindian in appearance-but legally they were white and their organizations (LULAC)strove at that time to bring their social status in line with their legal status. In fact marriages between Mexican Americans and many East Indian farm workers in California were considered illegal because East Indians were classified as non-white.
Now if you presume a natural alliance between people now designated as "people of color" , it would be difficult to accept the strong possibility that Mexican Americans as a group were not interested in promoting equality of anyone who fell into the Negro catergory. Or you may be tempted to believe only the white-looking ones were like this, but in fact there has never been any substantial, meaningful alliance between African Americans and Mexican Americans.
In Nicolas Vaca's book, The Presumed Alliance : The Unspoken Conflict Between Latinos and Blacks and What It Means for America, he intimates that many Mexican American owned establishments in the southwest and west often barred black people and denied them service. I doubt if all or many of the owners looked like Spaniards.
I don't know of any Chicano organization that reached out to civil rights groups in the 60s or marched with civil rights workers. Perhaps there were some, but I doubt it.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
