I found your post interesting because it brought up the lack of awareness about racist language, many just get up that way and have absolutely no idea how offensive certain labels are.

For instance, calling indigenous people "Hispanic" or "Latino" is incredibly racist. Both are white supremacist terms that erase indigenous identity, and in many cases African identity. The terms erase our identity and impose a Eurocentric history, one that celebrates the history of rape and conquest by Spaniards/Portuguese or the French.

For the record, the only Hispanics are people from the Roman province of Hispanic (Spain/Portugal). As to "Latino", the identity was born out of the French in the early 1800s who were desperate to stake further claims in the Americas.
They created the idea of Latin America, Hispanic excluded the French and they very much wanted to enslave and steal lands that were previously granted by the Pope to Spain and Portugal.

Anyway, the point is, we are not property of Europeans. Did you know that most of the people that colonizers call "Latino" or "Hispanic" have much higher Indigenous blood percentages than most US federally recognized tribes? Not that we should reinforce colonial racist blood quantum notions of hyperdescent or hypodescent.

Brazilians are not Hispanic, only Spanish-speaking people in the western hemisphere are.

And French speakers in the western hemisphere, from places like Haiti, Guadeloupe or French Guyana are not latinos.

BarcaBear said:

---

I found your post interesting because it brought up the lack of awareness about racist language, many just get up that way and have absolutely no idea how offensive certain labels are.

For instance, calling indigenous people "Hispanic" or "Latino" is incredibly racist. Both are white supremacist terms that erase indigenous identity, and in many cases African identity. The terms erase our identity and impose a Eurocentric history, one that celebrates the history of rape and conquest by Spaniards/Portuguese or the French.

For the record, the only Hispanics are people from the Roman province of Hispanic (Spain/Portugal). As to "Latino", the identity was born out of the French in the early 1800s who were desperate to stake further claims in the Americas.
They created the idea of Latin America, Hispanic excluded the French and they very much wanted to enslave and steal lands that were previously granted by the Pope to Spain and Portugal.

Anyway, the point is, we are not property of Europeans. Did you know that most of the people that colonizers call "Latino" or "Hispanic" have much higher Indigenous blood percentages than most US federally recognized tribes? Not that we should reinforce colonial racist blood quantum notions of hyperdescent or hypodescent.

---

You've definitely given me food for thought. I always thought "hispanic" referred to those people who (or really their countries' governments) spoke Spanish as a primary language and "Latino" as those people (or, again, their countries' governments) who spoke a Latin-based language (e.g., Spanish, Portuguese). I didn't know about the French connection.*

*Obviously, here, I don't mean the Gene Hackman film. That's a really good movie about which everyone should know!

8tiger said:

---

My statistics were of the United States. Not California. Another poster informed me California is not a majority white state. I was unaware of that.

---

It's curious about Latinos. They can sometimes be counted as a race (non-white) and sometimes broken up. There are plenty of people in Mexico who are far more of Spanish blood than indigenous, so is Latino/Hispanic actually a "race"? Or is it about self-identification, or what exactly?

Has been counted in different ways on the census, I believe.

8tiger, FYI, in the Bay Area we have a large Asian-Pacific Islander population (lots of Filipinos). When I had friends from Europe visit my high school classroom, that was what surprised them the most: the number of kids that were neither white nor black. Of course, that depends on the area and the school.

Also, 8tiger, let's have a great football game on Saturday! I wish I could say I will be there, but I'll watch on TV!

bear2034 said:

---

How on earth could this thread go sideways? One thing is clear, fans from both Cal and Auburn did not vote for a black-Asian woman as the Democratic presidential nominee.

---

How long are you suckers and losers going to cry over this?

Hmmm..I just think Auburn is more of a football school than Cal likes to think of itself.

Big C said:

---

8tiger said:

---

My statistics were of the United States. Not California. Another poster informed me California is not a majority white state. I was unaware of that.

---

It's curious about Latinos. They can sometimes be counted as a race (non-white) and sometimes broken up. There are plenty of people in Mexico who are far more of Spanish blood than indigenous, so is Latino/Hispanic actually a "race"? Or is it about self-identification, or what exactly?

Has been counted in different ways on the census, I believe.

8tiger, FYI, in the Bay Area we have a large Asian-Pacific Islander population (lots of Filipinos). When I had friends from Europe visit my high school classroom, that was what surprised them the most: the number of kids that were neither white nor black. Of course, that depends on the area and the school.

Also, 8tiger, let's have a great football game on Saturday! I wish I could say I will be there, but I'll watch on TV!

---

The ethnic breakdown for freshmen classes at UC Berkely is given here: https://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data-new-undergraduates

The freshman classes are majority (slightly over 50%) Asian. When talking about Cal undergraduates overall, you need to include our sizable JC transfer population that comes in as juniors and has a different racial and ethnic makeup.

As far as major Asian ethnicities at Cal, based on freshmen admits, it is:
1. Chinese
2. Indian/South Asian
3. Korean
4. Japanese
5. Filipino

Then there is Cal's sizeable "Middle Eastern" population which the standard arbitrary American racial classifications can't figure out which box to put them in (sometimes categorized as White, Asian or Black, but even Hispanic if the family immigrated to somewhere in Latin America before immigrating to the US).

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish can be both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful. What's the best way to refer to people from Mexico/Central/South America, as a group? Clearly most people have this as a concept in their heads so there should be a word for it.

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful. What's the best way to refer to people from Mexico/Central/South America, as a group? Clearly most people have this as a concept in their heads so there should be a word for it.

---

Clearly it is not "Mexican countries."

I do think it is always a good thing to examine why we have these ideas in our heads, where they came from and whether it continues to be useful to group them together and use the terms, adopt other terms or drop the concept altogether.

Much of this is an Anglo-American concept, viewing the US and Canada as being very different from everything else in the Americas, south of the US border, and each time the border changed. As Barca said, there is racism in much of this and may not be the way someone who is coming from a "Native American" or "Hispanic-American" perspective views it. Just always good to be mindful.

TomBear said:

---

Your point is valid, and I concur.

I'm simply saying that if one wants to neglect what's ahead by only looking behind themselves, they do it at their own peril.

I certainly wasn't suggesting anyone ignore the past. Cancel culture is one of the dumbest things I've seen happen in this country in a mighty long time.

Be aware of what's in the past, and then use it to move forward in good and common sense ways. The South is doing just that.

---

It's been decades since I've been south of the Mason-Dixie Line, so I'll have to take your word for the progress being made re racism there.

As for cancel culture, I don't really see it as all that different from what Americans have done for decades (if not centuries). We've always voted with our feet and our wallets. We've also always used the power of public moral suasion (including, shame and opprobrium) to make people change or to punish malefactors. Heck, that was the entire basis underpinning Dr. King's non-violent leadership in the Civil Rights Movement.

Going further back, there was the McCarthy era witch hunts for communists and communist sympathizers. That led to countless people being blacklisted and blackballed.

Roughly a decade before that, there was ostracism of anyone who spoke up against the war (WWII) once Pearl Harbor had been attacked. Those who did were seen as traitors and possibly spies not just by the state but among their neighbors, friends, family members, and communities.

Then there's also the era when public employees (including UC professors) had to swear an oath of allegiance to the US. If they refused to do so, they'd lose their jobs or not be hired in the first place.

While most of this is recent 20th century history. I'm sure similar things happened in the first half of the 20th century and before. I'm just having difficulty recalling any examples off the top of my head except more "communism"/"socialism" scares, including claiming labor unions were socialists. Wait, there was also claiming labor unions were un-American during WWI because it hurt the American war (production) effort as well as the jailing (and castigation) of those who spoke out against the war (e.g., Eugene V. Debs).

And of course, how can I forget the history of perforative Christianity in America?* I mean, the term "witch hunt" originated because of that! Those who were deemed insufficiently "Christian" were ostracized and arrested as "devil worshippers."

In short, "cancel culture" is nothing new. It's just a modern iteration of the same sort of ostracism that's been part of American society since its early colonial days.

*More humorous examples of performative Christianity in American culture are found in Mark Twain's writings, including _The_Adventures_of_Tom_Sawyer_ and "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven," and "The Mysterious Stranger."

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful.

---

I mean the key distinction here is that "Hispanicness" or "Latinness" was violently forced upon indigenous populations and attempts to subsume their indigenous identities. "Asian" does not carry that baggage.

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful.

---

I mean the key distinction here is that "Hispanicness" or "Latinness" was violently forced upon indigenous populations and attempts to subsume their indigenous identities. "Asian" does not carry that baggage.

---

Arguably, the Asian equivalent may be "Oriental."

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful.

---

I mean the key distinction here is that "Hispanicness" or "Latinness" was violently forced upon indigenous populations and attempts to subsume their indigenous identities. "Asian" does not carry that baggage.

---

I'm gonna say that the "Latinness" is also kind of necessary, because the true indigenous population isn't really what we're talking about anymore. Most "Hispanic" people are genetically a mix of the indigenous population and some other group (Europeans or Africans). It's a different group now, hence the need for a word to describe them.

So what should that word be, if the most commonly used ones are racist, in your eyes?

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful.

---

I mean the key distinction here is that "Hispanicness" or "Latinness" was violently forced upon indigenous populations and attempts to subsume their indigenous identities. "Asian" does not carry that baggage.

---

Arguably, the Asian equivalent may be "Oriental."

---

Yes, though part of why Oriental doesn't work anymore is because people landed on "Asian" as a more acceptable term. I haven't yet seen one as a replacement for "Hispanic" or "Latino" (I also assume other formulations like "Latinx" would be similarly offensive?).

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Serious question: if "Hispanic" and "Latino" are both racist, what is the non-racist word to use to describe the Spanish-speaking (and sometimes Portuguese-speaking) peoples of the Americas? It still seems like this is a useful classification.

---

I think it is both useful but also reductive. There are lots of native/first language and even monolingual Nahuatl, Mayan, etc. speakers in "Latin American" countries. It feels strange for example that an indigenous Mexican who immigrates from Oaxaca who speaks Yucatec Maya but not Spanish natively, and a Mexican-American of largely European descent who may or may not speak Spanish are both "Hispanic" in the eyes of the census.

---

Yes, and "Asian" is also reductive but still useful.

---

I mean the key distinction here is that "Hispanicness" or "Latinness" was violently forced upon indigenous populations and attempts to subsume their indigenous identities. "Asian" does not carry that baggage.

---

Arguably, the Asian equivalent may be "Oriental."

---

Yes, though part of why Oriental doesn't work anymore is because people landed on "Asian" as a more acceptable term. I haven't yet seen one as a replacement for "Hispanic" or "Latino" (I also assume other formulations like "Latinx" would be similarly offensive?).

---

The true irony is that most folks south of the border who would be described as "Latinx" by Americans actually prefer the term "Latine" since (1) Spanish terms tend to end in a vowel and (2) they actually started to adopt that term to self-identify before the "open-minded" English speakers north of the border insisted on adopting the term "Latinx," and insisted on forcing it on the native Spanish speakers down south. There's nothing like forcing conformity on a marginalized group by a privileged (relatively speaking) to prove one's open mindedness!

---

This is why I've never used the term "Latinx" myself. It's clear that the native speakers hate it.

I'm not aware of any broad consensus that "Latino" is a hated term.

I have to wonder who benefits from divisive topics?

Are we contributing to setting standards for people's thoughts?

Should morality be legislated?

In the contest of virtues, we all fail.

Fun Fact: Berkeley was one of the origins of eugenics.

#ThoughtPolice

#MakeOrwellFictionAgain

Can you save your rambling word salads for OT? They'll get ignored there , but at least they won't clutter the fb board with your brain drippings.

The dominant ethnicity in Mexico is mixed- about 60%.

AunBear89 said:

---

Can you save your rambling word salads for OT? They'll get ignored there , but at least they won't clutter the fb board with your brain drippings.

---

You have to be an Ai bot. Emphasis on little 'i'. Uh oh, did I just get put in the database.

Cal88 said:

---

Brazilians are not Hispanic, only Spanish-speaking people in the western hemisphere are.

And French speakers in the western hemisphere, from places like Haiti, Guadeloupe or French Guyana are not latinos.

---

you're clueless about the common usage and history of these terms. According to the Spanish and Portuguese, the Brazilians were in fact referred to as Hispanic. And since the French invented the term Latin America, then all countries are referred to as Latinos, even Belize despite the fact they speak English. Sounds like you do no listen to, watch, or read media or social media from throughout the Americas.

The ones who most commonly use these racist terms are European colonizers aka colonial settlers who happen to own and control the narrative on media networks like Univision and Telemundo, but the people actually reject these terms. We really actually laugh at how in the US white folks obsess about trying to portray as some unified identity using racist terms like Latino or Hispanic.

Youth in the US have taken to altering the spelling to contest other colonial aspects of the terms writing them as Latinx or Hispanx. In both cases people south of the US laugh at these new spellings as much as they laugh at anyone calling them Hispano or Latino. try going to a spanish speaking country south of the US and call a woman "latina". she will literally laugh at you for calling her a bathtub. "la tina" means bathtub in spanish.

contrary to what media pundits in the US claim, we will never have a single leader, and we will never unify under the racist colonial identity labels. I could break it down for you further, but if you can't comprehend the basics, then you will be lost in the complexity.

Most folks refer to themselves primarily by their nationality, and absent that by their race as Black or Indigenous in origin. People cringe at racist Spanish caste labels like mestizo or mulatto Black and Indigenous are the only identities that are not contested.