Sigh, we know. And if we explained it to you further, you’d choose not to see it and focus one some minor semantic quibble. That’s what you do. Why do you think most of us just flat out refuse to engage you in serious conversation?
Lordy, I can’t even imagine what talking to you IRL would be like. Exhausting, would be my guess.
And no, I’m not going to provide you with three examples of where you’ve done this before, cross-referenced and indexed by date and type, so don’t even get started. Just :shrug: it off.
Assuming that’s true, you’ve just illustrated my point beautifully. For example, if an American who happens to be an Ashkenazi Jew or an Italian-American thinks to himself or herself “we could always be president,” then he or she is identifying with European-Americans as a group.
That’s nonsense. I generally consider other peoples’ arguments with an open mind. When I’m wrong, I usually admit it promptly.
I’m not sure if it’s “most,” but I do know that many people on this board dislike me intensely. It’s unsurprising, given that I enjoy arguing zealously in favor of those of my views which happen to be unpopular. I’m sure I could score a lot of points by bashing George Bush. He probably does deserve to be bashed, but that’s not interesting to me.
Actually not. In real life, I know better than to publicly proclaim that the emporer is naked.
Of course you won’t, because you are self-deceived. But keep telling yourself how smart you are. It makes no difference to me.
The fallacy in this is that black American slave descendants represent a cultural heritage unto itself, notwithstanding any specific, original African geographical roots.
The other fallacy is that anyone and everyone of African descent was treated the same by whites. The inequity was the same and no one with Kenyan parentage ever had any more rights tham someone with West African heritage, so your distinction is specious and sophist. Blacks who feel kinship to Obama are not feeling kinship to “Africa,” but to a black American, which is very much an ethnicity unto itself.
I still don’t get what you’re trying to say. It seems like you’re setting yourself up to make a point, but you haven’t gotten around to making it yet. Put your cards down, bub. What’s your POINT?
Mmhmm, like when you promptly admitted you were wrong about Brazillians being hispanic? :dubious:
I got news for you toots, it’s not what you argue about. It’s the way you argue. Why do you think threads in which you are involved tend to rotate around you? Because as a group, if there’s one things Dopers can’t stand, it’s logically inconsistent, poorly constructed arguments. You’re the debate team equivalent of Peter.
I would ask you to provide an example of one of my “loggically inconsistent, poorly constructed arguments,” but I think it’s most likely pointless. You are way too self-deceived. Consider the possibility that there is a beam in your eye.
I’m not sure what your point is. Obama is not descendant from slaves in this way. As far as I know.
This is a key point. In America, “Blacks” are a group in no small part because they are treated as a group. Well guess what? Whites are also treated as a group in many ways. Not exactly the same, but still. For example, a miscegination law might have forbade marriage between a black and a white.
Your dictionary (which you didn’t even name) says “American citizen or resident of Spanish or Latin-American descent.” By that definition, you have to live in the United States to be hispanic (I’m guessing this dictionary was published in the US meaning American = USA. Correct me if I’m wrong.) Starting to see how this definition might be a little flawed? And no, I didn’t imply Wikipedia is wrong, even after I cited it. I clearly explained this in post #50.
You’re right, I’m not the sole authority. But unlike you, I know what it means. Are you still saying Brazillians are hispanic?
So your point is . . . people identify with people of similar backgrounds? Earth-shattering.
Heh, I thought about that too. I would love to have been in the room with whoever wrote this at the time of writing. I doubt anyone could produce something like that under even the mildest scrutiny. These types of people love to wallow in ignorance like pigs in shit; it’s the reason why she didn’t respond to my comment, and no else did either, and no one is going to.
The difference between me and the people who buy this bullshit, is that even if this rant said something I wanted to believe, I would be questioning it, critically examining it, and fact-checking it. The least I would do would be confirm the freaking authorship. If someone lied about that, it might be time to consider that this isn’t being passed around by the most honest people in the world.
No, it’s just a matter of how people use the word. I admit that by your definition, Brazillians (whether living in the US or somewhere else) do not qualify as “Hispanic.”
According to your Wikipedia cite, people from Western Sahara are Hispanic. You seem to disagree with this. Therefore you are implying that Wikipedia is wrong.
Anyway, it’s purely a matter of semantics.
You know what it means to you.
Not by your definition of “hispanic.” Since you made a claim that “hispanic” is a culture (in post #21), you are entitled to define the word however you like. And like I’ve said repeatedly, I am willing to agree for the sake of argument that Brazillians do not count as hispanic.
Not exactly, but you are right that my point is not earth-shattering. The claim at issue is that “Black” (and “Hispanic”) count as ethnicities/cultures/heritages and “White” does not.
Why are you misrepresenting what I said and grossly oversimplifying something that has been explained to you already? Hispanic is not an on/off switch. Some countries are very hispanic (Mexico, Puerto Rico), some are mostly hispanic (Equatorial Guinea), some are partly hispanic (the Philippines), and some used to be be very hispanic, and are now not as much (Western Sahara.) For the third time: hispanic means in the style of the Spanish. Pick and choose language, architecture, religion, food, music, dance, clothing, etc; these things, when similar to the way things are in Spain because of Spanish colonial influence, make a country or a people hispanic. Many of the homes in Arizona are very hispanic compared to the homes in the eastern United States.
Are you throwing your arms in the air and sticking your fingers in your ears because a dictionary cannot spoon-feed you everything that a word connotes?
Ok, tell ya what, buddy: You Win. Brazillians are hispanic. Just let that be your little secret, ok? Don’t tell the 200 million Brazillians in the world who know they’re not hispanic. Now please go away and stop hijacking my thread. I don’t think anybody - including you - really has any idea what you’re talking about or ultimately what point you’re trying to make and how it applies to this thread. You obviously don’t want to have any sort of honest, open discussion, and you’re clearly refusing to learn anything or admit any misconceptions, misunderstandings, or gaps in knowledge you had/have. You’re just farting in an elevator at this point. Get off, please.
Nothing’s stopping a white person from expressing pride or anything else. The reactions of a bunch of darkies and race-traitors shouldn’t dissuade him, unless he’s a spineless cock-sucking coward who doesn’t deserve the freedoms good white men fought and died to secure for him.
