*Generally speaking, of course.
Can we agree on a mutually-offensive term? One that will piss everybody off? I suggest we call all of them “spics.”
(Ducking and running as fast as my stumpy legs can take me)
Wow, Wikipedia can be totally full of bullshit: “People believe “Spic” is a derogatory term, but it was never meant to be offensive at all. When police officers would pull over Hispanic or Latino people they would have no idea of what they were saying. So the police would write down “Spanish Person In Custody” which stands for Spic. For example police would say, “We got a Spic”, and the term has been used ever since.”
The post in question pissed me off, as well. It’s right up there with a coworker of mine who explained to me that the house they were renting had roaches because Hispanic people lived in it before they did. :rolleyes:
Although I did enjoy the stricken look she had on her face when she remembered that my last name is Hispanic.
My last name is German. My SIL was dating a fellow named Ryan. She wasn’t at dinner when my various in-laws launched into offensive Irish comments. A BIL, who knows my background better than they, gave me a funny look, but I was not offended. I said, “He’s Pig-Shit Irish. I’m Lace-Curtain Irish.” Which isn’t fair since he’s a good guy, but it shut them the fuck up.
Young Mr Ryan was approached a few years back to run for political office, despite having no such ambitions. At the time The Illinois Republicans had a run of good luck running Ryans. Then the governor went to jail and another dropped out of the Senate race, making Obama president. I don’t think they’ve called back.
You are making this too complicated. All we really need to know is are all brown people brown?
Every punitive measure just makes the abuse and exploitation that much worse for undocumented people, and does absolutely nothing to stem the tide of immigration. As well it shouldn’t - considering the people who come here do so because the alternative is to starve. Higher rates of injury and death on the job, being denied pay, sexual assault by employers, domestic violence, blackmail, financial scamming and a number of injustices all go unreported because of the culture of fear created by anti-immigration policy in the United States. That’s leaving aside the grinding poverty, chronic health problems and psychological havoc caused by this continued marginalization. So no, I don’t think human beings ‘‘need to be marginalized’’ for any reason.
Can a blue man sing the whites?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
And do you agree that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans fled the country during Operation Wetback back in the 50s?
How many people died of starvation in Mexico last year?
Seriously? You think no human beings should ever be marginalized?
Can I take it you oppose all boycotts of all groups anywhere?
No – some brown people are black, and some brown people are white people who can afford to spend their holidays on the beach.
False. That’s not even remotely true, and I’ve had more personal contact with actual illegal immigrants than most. I’ve also traveled extensively in Mexico and Guatemala. Is it poor relative to the U.S. and full of squalor and corruption? Yes. But they ain’t starving, honey.
They come here because they can make 10x as much here for the same work as they can in their home country, even if it means getting paid below minimum wage. It’s really that simple.
I’ll try to remember not to do this, but I am ADD.
The way I define then make them synonyms with “gorgeous” and “awesome” respectively. But we don’t get to define words on our own.
But I did make a mistake above, I meant “all Hispanics are not Latinos, but all Latinos are Hispanics”.
But what you said was:
which is still wrong, no matter how you stretch the word “Hispanic”.
From here on out, I’m calling all people Fred. I don’t care what they look like.
It should be: “all Hispanics are not Latinos, and not all Latinos are Hispanics”.
I don’t drink, but maybe I should start and have an excuse for this kind of things. :mad:
If you check dictionary.com, the second definition for “Hispanic” is “Latin American.”
At Merriam-Webster.com, the second definition for “Hispanic” is “of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin”
The first is “of or relating to the people, speech, or culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal”
So here’s my question:
Why should I believe an anonymous person on the internet who insists that the dictionary is wrong?
Hispanic means having to do with the Iberian peninsula or more modern times, Spain, a successor to Hispania. Hispano-America, from where Hispanic Americans come, includes essentially all Spanish speaking countries of the Americas. Latin America means all American countries that speak romance languages including Spanish, Portuguese, and French, and technically all English speaking American countries other than the United States and Canada including Jamaica (yes Latinos), Haiti, etc. Quebec is French-speaking, but it isn’t considered part of Latin America. So in short, in the USA Hispanic technically means anyone from a Spanish-speaking American country. Latino technically means anyone from a romance language-speaking American country south of the US border, including all Hispanic American countries.
“illegal”, as is generally used in the context of undocumented immigrants, is a means of implicating a criminal offense on someone who is not in violation of any criminal laws of the USA.
Nonsense, there is no (general) exact, official definition for the word “hispanic” or any other English word for that matter.
Out of curiousity, I tried to find the definition used by the Census Bureau and found this:
Note that arguably, this definition would include not only Brazillian-Americans, but also Hindi speaking people from Suriname.
Your quote only lists Spanish-speaking countries of the Americas. In any country there are subpopulations who speak other languages but they aren’t what defines that country’s official language.
Now you are trying to use a US census definition (which incidentally still matches for the most part the definition I gave) as though the US government gets to decide any of these definitions for the rest of the world. They are not limited to the USA, they are accepted as such by all American countries and the world at large.
But since you like goverment sources and wiki articles, this from the wiki on “hispanic” does explain some of your misconceptions if you are relying on them to provide you a definition.
It also lists “South America” in general. Agreed?
No I am not. The US government doesn’t get to officially define words (generally speaking) and you don’t get to either.
You seem to know the “technical” definition of “hispanic.”
Ok, then what is the definition and what is your source?
The etymology of the word beginning with Hispania and working its way down to mean any Spanish-speaking country or Spanish-influenced thing. Then taking that to the meaning specifically when meant as a noun to reference a person in the USA, a “hispanic” or a “latino” - and what countries of origin those terms indicate. Hispanic indicates someone from any Spanish-speaking country of the Americas.