NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, Im doing this essay thing, and I want to ask you guys a question.

In terms of race, is there discrimination and disrespect towards latinos/ hispanics in the Lation/ Hispanic community (and/or country or orgin or ethnicity) based on skin color? and has it affected you?

Im of Mexican descent and I know it has affected me. Ever since I was a little girl, my mother would always call me prietita, even though when I mentioned it to my Latino/ hispanic friends, they were all seriously appalled.

OK, Im doing this essay thing, and I want to ask you guys a question.

In terms of race, is there discrimination and disrespect towards latinos/ hispanics in the Lation/ Hispanic community (and/or country or orgin or ethnicity) based on skin color? and has it affected you?

Im of Mexican descent and I know it has affected me. Ever since I was a little girl, my mother would always call me prietita, even though when I mentioned it to my Latino/ hispanic friends, they were all seriously appalled.

As far as I know, all the hispanamerican countries have rivalries...

I wouldn't know, but I would say most likely.

Of course there is. There is no 'Hispanic community' except that created by people who can't tell the difference between latinos. I was as shocked by this bald fact when I met my husband, a Chilean. I erred in believing there was some sort of cultural bond...but that is only true in the face of adversity. Chileans think Salvadoreans are stupid because they talk so slow, and Chileans on the whole tend to be 'whiter' than Central Americans (including Mexicans), but even within Chilean society there is prejudice. Indios and huasos are on the bottom rungs, easily identified by their skin colour and/or their accent, and 'whiter' more 'Spaniard' chileans still run the country. Peruvians hate Bolivians and Paraguachos has problems with everyone...and all these prejudices become entrenched in expatriate populations.

Then again 'prietita' can either be a term of endearment or a grave insult. As many descriptors in Spanish can be...gordita, flaquita, gringita, pelado, huaton, cabezon...etc.

Specifically in terms of skin colour, there is a lot of history there. Social standing during colonisation and after Independence was based on colour. There were even words for the most minute of ethnic mixes...quarter black, eighth Indian, half white...you had a specific name telling everyone your mix. That social structure has endured for hundreds of years, and social standing is only now becoming slightly more flexible...but in many Latin American countries your last name tells a very compelling story about what socio-economic status your family comes from.

Hispanic is about as vague to me as Asian-Pacific Islander (two categories the US government likes to use).

I see. If I speak Spanish and my parents speak Spanish, I'm probably Hispanic.

And if I eat rice, I'm an Asian-Pacific Islander.

It's not quite the same as race, but comes pretty damn close. Like Sinuhue said, there's a lot of national distinctions made based on the person's country of origin. My Mexican friends didn't necessarily like my Cuban friends, etc.

Hispanic is about as vague to me as Asian-Pacific Islander (two categories the US government likes to use).

I see. If I speak Spanish and my parents speak Spanish, I'm probably Hispanic.

And if I eat rice, I'm an Asian-Pacific Islander.
Yeah, I noticed on the LSAT practice tests these categories:

American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black/African Amer.
Canadian Aboriginal
Caucasian/White
Chicano/Mex. Amer.
Hispanic/Latino
Puerto Rican
Other

So a Spaniard...is not really latino, nor even properly speaking a hispanic...do they put white? And...well...the whole thing is stupid.

Hispanic is about as vague to me as Asian-Pacific Islander (two categories the US government likes to use).

I see. If I speak Spanish and my parents speak Spanish, I'm probably Hispanic.

And if I eat rice, I'm an Asian-Pacific Islander.

I say hispanic/ Latino because I didn't want to have to write down all of the names of the different countries were Hispanic/latinos live.

Hispanic means being a descendant of a spaniard or having spanish blood, mostly pertaining to Central America, the Carribean and Mexico.
Latino is the broad term used mostly for S.A. countries because not all S.A countries were conquered by Spain and not everyone has Spanish heritage there, its a big mixing bowl of people from Koreans to Russians, to Italians, etc.

oh, and if you eat rice, you are not an asian/pacific islander, you are a person who likes to eat rice.

I hate categories - they are usually inaccurate.

Yeah, I noticed on the LSAT practice tests these categories:

American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black/African Amer.
Canadian Aboriginal
Caucasian/White
Chicano/Mex. Amer.
Hispanic/Latino
Puerto Rican
Other

So a Spaniard...is not really latino, nor even properly speaking a hispanic...do they put white? And...well...the whole thing is stupid.

Exactly so. This is the very reason that the American Anthropological Association wrote in it's "Response to OMB Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting" (http://www.aaanet.org/gvt/ombdraft.htm)

The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term "race" from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed.

Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly--and perniciously--woven into the cultural and political fabric of the United States. It has become an essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because so much harm has been based on "racial" distinctions over the years, correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of "racial" consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that "race" has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population.

This is the dilemma and opportunity of the moment. It is important to recognize the categories to which individuals have been assigned historically in order to be vigilant about the elimination of discrimination. Yet ultimately, the effective elimination of discrimination will require an end to such categorization, and a transition toward social and cultural categories that will prove more scientifically useful and personally resonant for the public than are categories of "race." Redress of the past and transition for the future can be simultaneously effected.

The American Anthropological Association recognizes that elimination of the term "race" in government parlance will take time to accomplish. However, the combination of the terms "race/ethnicity" in OMB Directive 15 and the Census 2000 will assist in this effort, serving as a "bridge" to the elimination of the term "race" by the Census 2010.

I hate categories - they are usually inaccurate.

:) True, true.
Unfortunately, catagorising is sometimes needed (and even useful). Catagories simply need to be carefully considered, and reconsidered with some frequence.

As for the "rivalaries" my brothers current g/f told me that other latinos she tried to hang out with would call her " too white " being that shes light-skinned and would cold shoulder her.. :rolleyes: