That is what we call an anecdote. This is what we call data:
We didn’t start using the term “Hispanic” until recently, but that doesn’t mean people of Mexican heritage were treated as white.
That is what we call an anecdote. This is what we call data:
We didn’t start using the term “Hispanic” until recently, but that doesn’t mean people of Mexican heritage were treated as white.
joebuck20 was giving data, from military records. He didn’t say how big his sample size was, but there’s no a priori reason to think it wasn’t representative. It just means the picture is not neat and clear: it can be true that some federal bureaucracies considered Mexicans white at the same time as Californian institutions were discriminating against them as ethnically other.
In fact, the inconsistency is probably as good a reason as any that the current classification system has Latino as a race but not a race.
How is that different from the situation today? I don’t believe there’s anything stopping a Mexican-American from being considered white by the US military or any other US government agency.
IME, if a blond(e) or paler person is named “Gonzalez” or similar, people act with incredulity. “B-b-but… you’re white!” Some people can’t decide how to classify them. The media’s reporting of Zimmerman keeps calling him “white Hispanic,” as if that means anything.
Except Zimmerman is the opposite (looks Hispanic, doesn’t have a Hispanic name). More like the former Gov. Richardson of NM.
The guy I spoke to,did indeed mention that in some areas they faced discrimination and were considered nonwhite(Particularly the southwest)(Just like some Italians were placed in black schools)but were considered white ethnics by the majority of American society.
So you say. You have yet to give a cite to back up that claim.
I grew up on the east coast in the 60s and never saw a person of Mexican heritage other than the Frito Bandito or Speedy Gonzales. I suspect a large number of Americans had a similar experience.
What do you mean by a “cite”?
Reference to a recognized, authoritative source to back up your claim. Given the nature of your statement, though, I doubt there exists such a cite (short for citation).
I doubt it to LOL.But shouldn’t the testimony of people who grew up before those terms came into play,that Mexicans were viewed as different ethnicity and not as another race(As in the case of blacks or full on Amerindians)be enough?IMO asking for a cite to prove this,is the equivalent of someone asking for a “Reference to a recognized, authoritative source to back up the claim” that in the past the French were considered by the majority of Americans to be white
That’s technically true, but emphasizing the “numerical minority” aspect is misleading, since that’s not at all the essence of the term nowadays (see my Malaysia example).
Agreed! In fact, that’s the most succinct and accurate definition I’ve come across so far. Thanks!
That’s rather a broad statement, is it not? Two broad statements, in fact. But this is GQ, so we’ll let 'em slide.
Well, in this forum, we’re supposed to ask questions that have factual answers and to stick to factual answers. Your questions starts out with an assumption that can’t be shown to be true, and that I suspect isn’t. Like I said earlier, that might be a better topic for a debate thread in GD. That’s the way things work around here, as you’ll probably discover if you stick around long enough to be a regular poster.