Dumb question, maybe, but does the term :hispanic" have anyhting to do with Hispaniola?
Sailboat
Only in that it is from the same root word: the Roman province that included Spain, Hispania.
It may be worth reading this Wikipedia article on Hispanic, which discusses the history of the word and controversy concerning its use instead of latino. The present sense of the word became common in the US only in the 1970s.
i am confused by the references to Irish people being originally black. Are you all talking about the Black Irish theory/myth or something else? If the former then even Unca Cecil disputes that they are actually black skinned.
I don’t see where anyone said they were black; Raguleader said they weren’t considered white.
I don’t think that’s true. Certainly the Irish were discriminated against, and as Celts may have been considered to belong to a lesser “race” than the Anglo British and other Germanic types. But they were still “white.”
“Caca del toro”. In context, it should be “caca de toro”, without the “l”.
As I said, “hispanic” or “latino” is rarely used. People are generally called “Chilean”, “Colombian”, etc… And it’s not like there’s an existing category for everybody. So, they probably would be called whatever they say they are. Except for the child of middle-eastern parents who would probably end up in the “arab” category.
I remember watching a program on PBS called “The Irish in America” (IIRC), and they discussed the “Black Irish” term briefly - the program’s take on it was that those people who could be called by this term tended to have dark, often curly hair, often have blue eyes, and their skin was not as pale as the native Irish; they definitely were not “black skinned.” And I think they were supposed to have been immigrants to Ireland (a loooooong time ago) from southern Scotland (I could be wrong about that, though).
The U.S. government does not use Hispanic as a racial category; a Hispanic may be of any race. From the Federal Register, June 9, 1994 posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/notice_15.html
- Utilization for Recordkeeping and Reporting
To provide flexibility, it is preferable to collect data on race and ethnicity separately. If separate race and ethnic categories are used, the minimum designations are:
a. Race:
- American Indian or Alaskan Native
- Asian or Pacific Islander
- Black
- White
b. Ethnicity:
- Hispanic origin
- Not of Hispanic originI used to know an ethnic Russian from Khabarovsk, on the Pacific coast. His family had been there for hundreds of years. He liked to mark that he was Asian on government forms, because after all, he and any ancestors he knew about were from Asia.
No, you’ve basically got it. The swarthy European folk who were labeled nonwhite a hundred years ago were my Sicilian ancestors. They were race-discriminated against.
I’m not sure exactly how or when we got reclassified as “white,” but it probably had something to do with World War I, in which Italy was allied with the United States. My grandfather served in France in that war with the U.S. Army. I bet by the time he was discharged they’d stopped calling him nonwhite.
We crossed the boundary from one “race” to another in the American mind. Hmm. No wonder I’m such a racequeer. But that would explain why so many Sicilian-Americans are the worst goddamn racists you ever met. It’s because of feeling the need to be differentiated from blacks, having recently been classified with blacks. To make sure nobody confused the two because whiteness brought more bennies. Step on top of blacks so you can climb up. Sick, isn’t it? I have this heavy ethnic legacy to live down. Ugh. My family never understood why I had to rebel…
Speaking of Spaniards… Sicily was ruled by Spain for centuries. During roughly the same time period that Mexico was Spain’s colony.
Actually, that was the original sense of “race” before Linnaeus and Blumenbach and their successors attempted to place scientific fences around the word. It indicated a group of people with a common ancestry (hence its borrowed application by Linnaeus, etc.), often with a single reputed ultimate ancestor. The Jews were the “race of Abraham”; the Irish were the “Milesian race” (from the legendary Milesius of Spain).
While the 19th century ethnologists were grappling with whom to shove into which category, the newer “traits” were applied to the older meaning of “races,” while the newer meaning of “race” was simultaneously being applied to the big three (or four or five) “races.”
I would be interested in seeing any citations where Sicilians (or Italians, in general), or Greeks, or whoever were actually identified as “not white.” The discrimination was clear, as they were, obviously, (in the eyes of their detractors) the lazy, sluggish, Catholic, Southern Europeans who lacked the intelligence and industry of the good, Protestant, hardworking Northern European immigrants. However, I cannot recall any official declarations (from scientists or lawmakers or courts) that deemed them anything other than white. (There were “racial” slurs from among the lower classer–generally those who were afraid of being overtaken economically by the recent immigrants–but they were certainly not segregated under Jim Crow laws or legislated against based on skin color.)