A question about ethnic classification

I hope that there’s a factual answer for this, but if not, then my apologies in advance for making a mod have to actually work and move this thread :smiley:

I have no reason for asking this, other than having my curiosity satisfied.

OK, here in America, the term “White” when used as in “White man”, “White woman”, and so on, is used to described light skinned people of mainly European decent. However, if light skinned people of mostly European decent are born in Centeral/South/Latin American countries, then they aren’t considered white here in the US. Why?

For example, look at the ethnic make up of Puerto Rico. Whites make up a majority of the country, yet here in America, Puerto Ricans aren’t considered “White people”? Why?

It kinda depends on who is doing the classifying, of course. I tend to consider “white” anyone with a majority of European or Middle Eastern ancestors, but there are people who draw their lines differently.

The reason that folks from South of the U.S. borders often get lumped in with “non-white” is probably based on generalized xenophobia. They are “different,” so various people make assumptions that they are “mixed” (with Indians)–or, in some cases, the person will even claim that Iberians (who supplied the majority of European settlers to the lands to our South) are not “white,” either citing the Moorish conquest of Iberia (combined with some ignorance of who actually did the conquering) or simply deciding that “dark” people cannot be “white” if that person decides they are not white.
(I suspect that the Perons would have been considered “white” by a majority of Yanks, so don’t look for great consistency.)

:confused: I don’t quiet understand what you just said.
(I suspect that the Perons would have been considered “white” by a majority of Yanks, so don’t look for great consistency.)
[/QUOTE]

Perons? I’m not familiar with that word. Guess I’ll have to look it up.

I ment to post

Perons? I’m not familiar with that word. Guess I’ll have to look it up.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, and I just looked it up, the Argentine president, and his wives. Got it.

:eek: Not once, but TWICE I screwed up the coding. And the second time was worse, because I was trying to correct it :frowning: . Dang!

I’ve always had the hardest time selecting which box to choose when asked for my ethnicity. The whole “White (Not Hispanic)” thing always threw me off.

I am Puerto Rican. I am white.

I pretty much pick which ever one works best for the situation, or I leave it blank.

You ever fill out both? (Hispanic and White Not Hispanic)? :cool:

“Whiteness” is rather arbitrary. Some people equate “white” to the old “Caucasian” racial category. This makes everyone from Iceland to Sri Lanka (including broad sweeps East of Moscow and North of the Sahara in Africa “white.” Other people draw a whole set of imaginary lines around who gets to be “white,” pulling the borders back to exclude India, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Iran, Iraq, Turkey, or even Greece. Off to the West, they would tend to draw lines to exclude various people in Northern Africa and, possibly, Spain and Italy. The general tendency is to exclude groups based on the excluders’ perceptions of who has darker members than they want to admit to the “white” fellowship. So: the excluders simply decide that some ill-defined “dark” people cannot be “white” if the excluders decide they are not white.

I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

I am Mexican-American, I’m also a quarter German (from farmers who lived in south Texas, not some U-boat in 1945). I am “white” enough that if I don’t say what my background is, I am taken for someone of completely of European descent. For instance, I once was asked by a Serb if I was Serb or Croat! (“Mexican” seemed a safe answer for once).

I have friends and relatives who are white looking Mexican-Americans or Mexicans as well. Some are part “Anglo” (for the lack of a better word), but some are just predominatly Spaniard descended Mexicans. Anyway they generally think of themselves as “white” in the sense that they look a certain way - just as one thinks of people as “tall” or “redhaired”. But they don’t think of themselves as “white” in the sense of being Anglo-Americans of completely European origin. I’m not sure if I am being clear here. I think in the media and popular culture “white” implies a certain cultural upbringing as well as an appearance. Cooking tamales for christmas, having mariachis at your wedding, or quinceañeras for your fifteen year-old daughter is just not “white” as far as many people are concerned (though plenty of ‘Anglos’ participate in that along the border).

In Mexico, only a small part of the population is mostly or fully European (maybe 5-10%), and they are mainly in the middle and upper class people in larger cities. In places like Northern New Mexico, and the Mexican states of Chihiahua and Sonora there are little areas where Spaniards (including many Basques and Galicians)settled in the 17th century, and the “Indian” populations were to small to make a huge difference. To add to that, some Irish and Germans, and even Anglo-Americans settled to farm or mine in the 19th century. So there are quite a few people people with green eyes and blondish or reddish hair and maybe only a hint of Indian blood. But the vast majority of Mexicans, and the vast majority of Mexican-Americans in most places are mestizos, and in the majority of cases, are far more indigenous than European. Also a big part of the Mexican population in the south is unmixed Indian. So in the popular mind, “Mexicans” are by definition “nonwhite”.

But this thinking is akin to thinking “Canadian” or “Australian” is automatically “White” since roughly 90-95% or so of the population in those countries is white.

Its not just “white” Hispanics who run into this, I’ve known black Puerto Ricans or Panamanians who resent the idea that they are somehow less “black” than an African-American. Their way of life is actually pretty strongly rooted in African culture.
This Mexican politician represnted the area of Mexico where some of my relatives live. When I was there I did a double take when I saw many bumper stickers imploring to “Vote Jeffrey Jones” (I thought for a second the principal from “Ferris Bueller” was in hiding). He is from a Mormon settlement in Northern Chihuahua, and currently one of that states’ federal senators.

I’ve heard White, Caucasian and Caucasiod more finely divided.

“White” is pretty vague, but always seems to mean very fair skin and sometimes further implies Gentile.

“Caucasian” seemed more specifically to mean “from the Caucasus (sp?) mountains” or, more ancestrally, of eastern European or perhaps Gothic or Slavic descent. Thus the English are “White” but not “Caucasian”. Pretty sure I read this all carefully laid out in some old textbook. My supposition is that this distinctive meaning has been diluted and lost, and “Caucasian” became a more Latinate and polite replacement for “White” on forms.

Caucasoid, the most specifically defined, was (like Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid) one of the four all-encompassing, first-tier human ethnic categories. Caucasoid would include White and/or Caucasian above, and all the Jewish and Arabic and Indian peoples. I think Caucasoid would align perfectly with the pre-Hitler meaning of “Aryan”, which (since he gave that poor word a whole new implication) has been replaced by “Indo-European” (whose first root is also in “Hindu” and “India”).

Yeah, despite the variations of the criteria people have for thinking about who is “white” or not, usually, the most common is, light skin and totally, or mainly European decent, which is why I focused my question about those people and not people of Mestizo or Native American decent, for example, because, even though there are plenty of Mestizos and Native Americans with white skin, they aren’t predominantly European, so in that respect, I guess I can understand why they wouldn’t consider themselves, or be considered “white”, but I was feeling confused as to why some people with white skin and of European decent, still weren’t considered white, but I think you answered my question for me. It seems to be a combination of “White” being defined by culture as well, and also, over generalizations like “So and so is from Argentina, that’s a Latin America country. Latin American countries are predominantly non white, therefore, so and so isn’t white” Nevermind the fact that Argentina is 97% white. So anyway, I think I understand a lot better now, thanks.

That’s why on the U.S. Census forms, at least, they’ve split this question into two. One question asks for race, and the other asks if you are Hispanic. As I believe it says, “A Hispanic person can be of any race.”

Ed