Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kransky (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 29 June 2007 (25% of Australians are Chinese?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

White Hispanic or White Latin American

This article has changed names from White Hispanic to White Latin American...while I feel the latter is used correctly, I feel most people use the term Hispanic when refering to 'the people that come from Latin America'. The phrase Non-Hispanic White is used for White people without ancestors from Spain or Latin America,...I think we should change it back to White Hispanic...it is correct to say they are Latin American, but for most people...it's Hispanic. Why wouldn't they put Non-Latin American White? I think many people have a hard time accepting that there are indeed 'White Hispanics' and by using 'White Latin American', it further alienates the term white from Hispanic...I'd like to hear other opinions. Thank You! --Cali567 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a new White Hispanic article. It's only a stub at this point. I still have some misgivings on whether it is necessary, though. SamEV 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we have to have two groups under different names for the same ethnic groupings? Is one for Americans (Hispanic) and one for the rest of the World (Latin Americans)? I agree with the info. on the White Hispanic article, I'm just wondering. Thank You. --Cali567 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they're not the same ethnic group, just as Asian American is not synonymous with Asian, for example. One descends from the other, but that doesn't make them identical. SamEV 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.24.192 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Argentinian Jews and Irish-Argentinians or Italian-Argentinians are Hispanic cause they speak Spanish, now Brazilians who are Portuguese, Italian, German, Spaniard, Slav, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Dutch, Scandinavian, Jew or Arab speak Portuguese, a neo-latin romance language.

Italian-Americans and French-Canadians are White, American and Latin.

Well, I can see where you're coming from..but I don't think in reality they are that different. As a person from such a country I am either Hispanic or Latin American. Most of the English readers here are from the U.S. In the U.S. we don't differentiate between these two very much. In a way I think people will get confused. There will never be a complete distinction...it just won't happen. They are apart of the same group. It's no different from being called Hispanic when you may be a Mestizo...then what about this: You may have the culture, but what if you don't speak Spanish? --Cali567 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't make the rules. There is an official distinction made by the U.S. government, which doesn't negate the Hispanicness of people in Latin America. In fact, it's b/c of their Hispanic heritage that the term is used in the U.S. for those of Latin American ancestry. To try to lump a third generation American from New York in the same basket as a rural Colombian just won't go. They're citizens of different countries, have different cultures, different histories, different attitudes, may speak different languages (third gen often don't even speak Spanish), etc. Hence different terms are needed. SamEV 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I mostly meant that we are not different racially...culture is something very different, I'm sure you know. I think it should at least be clarified on each of the pages that they are the same group...just different 'backgrounds'...by the way, I know you don't make the rules. I think this could have been avoided if you just created another page for White Latin Americans, instead of changing White Hispanic into it. I will say both pages sem to be correct anyway. Best of luck --Cali567 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Different backgrounds is enough. I'll try again: there are separate articles for, say, Italian people and for Italian Americans, even though they're the same racially (originally anyway). Their 'backgrounds' merit that separate treatment. SamEV 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is a person who speaks Spanish or has full/partial Spanish blood. Latin is a person who has full or partial Latin blood or speaks a Romance language, such as (but not limited to) Romanian, Italian, Portuguese, French and Spanish. Count Dracula was Latin!

Check out these articles, please: Hispanic, Latino and Latin peoples. SamEV 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Chile

Add Chile to the list considering that there are a high population of English, German and Galician Spanish Chileans.

Considering that Chile officially has no white people but instead has 'white and mestizo' people - due to their being combined as one census category - maybe Chile doesn't belong at all! But what the heck... SamEV 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is odd considering that Chile has a high proportion of German Chileans in the South. Pretty much everyone in Southern Chile has a German, Irish, or English last name. Have you ever seen the movie Machuca? The whole movie is about the white/amerindian split in Chilean society.

Spanish and Italians, too. You answered my next question, which was, is racism so bad in Chile that they have to seek unity by this pretense? I think that just sweeps the racial problems under the rug.

No, haven't seen the movie. I'll try to, then. SamEV 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse. Instead of addressing the differences in race and understanding it, the government seeks to unite Chileans by using a sort of noble lie. Not to say that there arent a significant number of mixed Chileans. There are. But that there is also a HIGHER significant number of white Chileans too.

Let me say that the figures I'm used to seeing were 66% mestizo, 25% white, 5% indian. So, while certainly in the minority by these numbers, that's still 4 million white Chileans. That's about the same as the population of Ireland, last time I checked. (I'll check again ... yep, 4 million it is). And again, honesty is the best policy, so yes, Chile should address race with genuine openness, not with tricks. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I have learned that whiteness in Latin America is more fluid than it is rigid. It is more about perception than anything . That is probably why countries like Chile and Costa Rica make White and Mestizo as one category on the census. It is about degree of racial whiteness; it is a spectrum. Just like white Americans who have indigenous or black blood are still white, Chileans who have indigenous blood are "White/Mestizo" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.83.73 (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Pictures

It seems a bit odd that you'd change the picture of Fox for Ricky Martin...after all of that talk about chile being so Germanic, you'll switch a part German ex-President (Fox was Fuchs before they changed it) for a Puerto Rican singer whom many in America think of as "brown"....? C.Kent87 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Martin is white. Americans cannot even tell the difference between a southern european and an amerindian. I would NEVER use thier concept of "white" because their view is tainted by the "one drop rule". They assume that white only means blonde haired and blue eyed or any Anglo/Nordic derived equivalent. They dont even recognize the Mediterranean sub-culture as a "white", even though it is. Whats ironic is that many Americans claim to have Native blood but still consider themselves white and then they turn around and claim that certain Southern Europeans are not white along with many Creole Latin Americans like Ricky Martin. What they fail to take note of is that many creoles like Alexis Bledel, Carlos Ponce and Mexican Director Guillermo Del Toro are probably more "white" then they are by thier own flawed standards.

This site should feature white Latin Americans of all stripes from fair, medium to olive skin, from Alexis Bledel to Andy Garcia to Gael Garcia Bernal. We shouldnt have to incorrectly narrow the true definition of white to an American standard. White Hispanic is not an oxy moron.

Good points, you make. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 'White Hispanic' is left open for interpretation, so don't shoot me down for using an 'American' viewpoint...fist of all, I'm a "White Latin American", and I'm sorry if his brown skin causes me to think he's brown...which he is. I don't think Americans are dumb enough to confuse an Amerindian with a Mediterranean, though there may be some (but that's another subject). Whites, I know, aren't limited to Nordic types...and don't label Americans with anything because everywhere you go there are preconceptions...not only in America. I will however agree with the "Whites having Amerindian blood" thing.....I think this is something that we have to work on, because to get a huge lecture about Latino 'whiteness' when asking a simple question...is a little much. A chip on ones shoulder is never good. C.Kent87 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still dont see how you see Ricky Martin as "brown". He is a bit tan, but his features are very European. He is olive skinned.

Hi, I actually changed the picture because even though i thought the Mexican president was a good photo, i thought id change the subject alittle and changed it to the R-Martin one..even though it may not be the best photo of him its good enough and if he is what some americans think of as being brown ,then they just have to compare him with some Spanish bullfighters and so on....i shouldnt need to explain.but there you go. I would use other or more pics of other people that repsresent the subject but its hard to get pics that are free to use too.

Why did it take this long to address the notion of White Hispanics?

It seems that lately there has been a upsurge in addressing the concerns of White Latinos. For years now our darker skinned brothers have been in the limelight taking full charge of the labels given to us by the Americans; Hispanic/Latino. Yet, as of late the White Hispanic has likewise been vocal about the diversity in the Latino culture constantly reminding the Americans that Latino is not a race, but a culture composing of different races. Maybe its because TRUE Hispanic culture is seeping into the United States with the surge in the Hispanic population. I mean in our mother countries, no one considers themselves racially latino. They use the same standards the rest of the world uses: black, white, amerindian, mestizo, mullato, asian. Is it me, or is logic catching up with the Americans and their attempts to group a diverse culture into one label for the sake of cementing a voting bloc? And also how in the world did this concept seem to just escape the attention of the Americans when we constitute for ONE THIRD of the continent! Lets discuss this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.205.3 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

The truth is definitely catching up: Latinos are diverse! No need to tip toe around it in pursuit of unity.

I'd say this diversity was easy to miss for most Americans due to: the fact that most Latin Americans and Latinos are white; the fact that most white Latin Americans and Latinos are of the Mediterranean types, whose whiteness has been challenged by the dominant nordicist outlook in the US; and lastly by Americans' widespread acceptance of the one drop theory, as the poster above said, where in it doesn't matter what a person's actual race is, only whether they have a drop of non-whiteness. But that theory is pretty much dead or dying fast. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing that is stranger is that there isnt this unity within our own mother countries like there is in the US. I believe its because in our own countries the Creole population usually has control of the media and politics so they determine the outcome of their demographics and dont have to tip toe around Political Correctness like we do in the United States. So in Latin American countries people are not going around saying that they're racially latino but address themselves as Afro-Latino, Mestizo, and Blanco. Americans in the US have to accept the fact that we're as diverse as they are and that Anglos arent the only whites in the country. I think it makes them a bit uncomfortable knowing that a white person can be into such things as mambo, salsa, and a festive culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.172.10 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Ha! A sense of humor about this stuff, good for you.

Good description about the situation in Latin America, too. At this stage, they're decades behind the US in terms of respect for all people, of all races. Hope it doesn't take half a century to catch up. SamEV 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fox

What? Ricky Martin is white in ALL Latin American countries. I just dont understand what peoples perception of white is these days? Ricky Martin has significant Southern European features. To me being non-white in Latin America is having signigicant Indegenous or African blood to where it does not make you look European. Like Benjamin Bratt or George Lopez. But Ricky Martin is white. Now in the United States is where white is screwed up because to them white means Nordic and only Nordic. Even they have a trouble labeling Italians as white but only do because they've lived here for so long and became Americanized. So I would NEVER trust an Anglo-American's definition of white because they are so racially deranged in keeping their socio-economic status alive.70.248.172.10

Anglo Americans are not "racially deranged" as you put it. Italians are accepted as white in the United States, as are Greeks, Jews, Spaniards, etc... As a U.S. citizen, I can say that there are really TWO (or more) groups of whites in the U.S. The largest group is the so-called "Anglo" Americans, which includes British, Irish, German, and other north-western European groups. There is also the "ethnic whites" who include Jews, Greeks, Slavs, Hispanics, etc... The fundamental difference is that by and large, "Anglos" have been here much longer, and have fewer ties to their "mother countries." Ethnic whites, on the other hand, tend to have more exotic names and traditions, and have more ties to their ancestral countries (still speak the language, celebrate the holidays, etc...) Most Americans have a hard time understanding the concept of white in Latin America, because our familiarily lies primarily with Mexico, which has a large mestizo minority. Also, most Latin Americans in the United States identify themselves as "Latinos" and not as whites, even though they may be. However, regardless of what Americans consider white to be, people of significant European or other Mediterrenean-area descent in Latin America would be white by anyone's standard. DBQer 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA WORLD FACT BOOK

CIA WORLD FACT BOOK as you all can see the CIA world fact book is incorrect in some demographycs for example mexico they dont have a census in ethnic groups so the white population of mexico is unknown.

You know what , i totally agree with you anonimous person, because i have been to several parts of mexico mainly the north like monterrey, and chihuahua and from my own MEX. experience almost every mexican i saw in these places where white with dark hair and dark eyes, similar to the people of southern europe which i have visited too. And about 5.8 to 5.10 feet tall pretty avarage to me , and the CIA world factbook has to be wrong because they dont even go and make genetic studies and census of mexico for racial origins and how can they even give an exact number they are so stupid, and i bet you most of those CIA people have not even been to mexico, i would say the population of mexicans that are white or at least look white is probably half of mexico's population, and as i mentioned before, if most of you think im wrong because you think white people have to have blonde hair and light colour eyes and that is why you think most mexicans are not white, well think again because mexican whites are of the southern european type and therefore they have dark hair and dark eyes but very fair skin, and this is probably at most, i would say half of the people in mexico and that is why i too disagree with the CIA world factbook.

The biggest group of white latin americans are the italians

28 millions in Brazil; 16 millions in Argentina; 2 millions In Uruguay; 2 millions in Venezuela; other 2 million between Colombia, mexico and Chile. Total 50 millions!

How can you proove all these Italian-descendants are Whites? Many of the Italian immigrants have married with non-Whites local Latin Americans.

Most White Latin Americans are those of Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. Opinoso 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely to be white you just need some white blood not 100%, one drop theory and all that, I would agree that the Portuguese are larger and the Spanish larger still as a white Latin American group though what we would need anyway is sources, SqueakBox 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is simple. In Argentina and Uruguay the averange of populaation is white. So, also the italians. In Brazil the italians live in the south (santa catarina, rio grande do sul), and all the population in this part of Brazil is white. In Venezuela probably are mixed, but i am not sure, becouse i know italo-venezuelan, and i have been 2 times, but all the italians were whites. Ps. In Brazil the portuguese are mixed with blacks and indios becouse they arrived centuries before the italians. And the mestizaje was a political way of colonization

• This is a stupid remark. Spaniard, Portuguese, Italians and other Europeans would not have segregated from each other since they all are white. You are again stying to take the "whiteness" away from the Portuguese and Spanish. In fact, Spaniards are a "whiter" race than italialians with a much higher prevelance of blondes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Map_of_skin_hue_equi3.png

I agree. I dont know why most people think that Spaniards are darker than Italians? It is generally known in Europe that Spaniards are the usually the second "lightest" in Southern Europe after the French.

Too much attention is given to the so called "ameridian admixture"

It seems like the entire article is about how non-white white Latin Americans are. Someone should redo it because in most countries like South Africa and Australia people could have their race officially changed. In fact American whites have generally 20% black ancestors. This has been proven by DNA tests so its a double standard. So I just think focussing on that through the entire article takes away from the fact that there are actually 100% white Latin Americans, not that those with a small amount of amiredian blood are not white too.

I for one would like to see a link to a source, or any credible literature, which presents the claimed finding; that non-Hispanic White Americans average 20% African admixture (or any other admixture for that matter).

That I am aware of, of all the literature from research findings on the subject, it is around 30% of the total non-Hispanic White American population that has recent African admixture, and that among those within that 30%, the degree of actual admixture is low. Meanwhile, those within the other 70% of the non-Hispanic White American population, that is, the majority of non-Hispanic White Latin Americans, do not have the genetic signitures indicating recent African adxmiture. Al-Andalus 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, of course there are those within the White population in Latin America which don't have any Amerindian or recent African admixture, but they are a minority within the White populations of the Latin American countries. Just to copy and paste a table from another referenced article in Misplaced Pages, it indicates the proportions of those people with admixture and no admxiture within the white population of some Latin American countries.

It is said that 50% of Brazilians are "white", or at least consider themselves white according to the latest brazilian census. However, 33% of those have Amerindian and 29% recent African admixture indicated by female mtDNA signitures. Together, 62% of White Brazilians have non-White admixture, either Amerindian or African. An aditional 2% have African admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 62% of White Brazilian are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 28% of White Brzilians don't have Amerindian or recent African admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 14% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

It is said that 85% to 95%, but let's use 90%, of all Argentinians are classified as "white". However, 45% of those have Amerindian admixture from the female (mtDNA) line. An aditional 9% have Amerindian admixture cindicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 45% of White Argentinians are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, 55% of White Argentinians don't have Amerindian admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 49.5% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

According to most souces and findings, 30% of all Chileans are classified as "white". However, 84% of those have Amerindian admixture from the female (mtDNA) line. An aditional 22% have Amerindian admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 84% of White Chilieans are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 16% of White Chileans don't have Amerindian admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 4.8% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

According to most souces, 20% of all Colombians are classified as "white". However, 90% of those have Amerindian and 8% recent African admixture indicated by female mtDNA signitures, together 98% of White Colombians have non-White, either Amerindian or African admixture. An aditional 1% have Amerindian and 5% African admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 98% of White Colombians are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 2% of White Colombians don't have Amerindian or recent African admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 0.4% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

These are big leaps from the averages for non-Hispanic White Americans. Al-Andalus 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for Argentina at least, these figure has been disproven. In fact Ameridian testing in general is not very reliable because it assumes that Ameridians are a "race", which we all known "races" do not exist. Secondly, is because in scientist thought these genes or "markers" were "unique" to Ameridians, but in reality all Ameridian "markers" are found in other places around the world, including Europe, especially in some (slightly more or less than half) of Southern and Eastern Europe. So in order to be fair and in order to keep true the Misplaced Pages's rules, we should remove that part of the article it does indeed focus too much on genetic studies. Etherroyal 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reputable source that disproves the figure for Argentine Amerindian ancestry? As far as I know, it hasn't been disproven but published as a serious research. Moreover, the 95% figure of White Argentines is based on self-ascription (that is, they ask you, "what do you consider yourself to be"). Needless to say, figures are not as accurate as a genetic study. I find that particular section on genetic studies far more interesting and conveys far more information that mere estimations made on physical appearance or personal ascription. --the Dúnadan 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you are having this argument proves that there is a double standard. Whiteness in colonized countries, including North Amrica, is based mostly on physical appearance. This whole "White-Latin American" article is focussing way too much on the admixture in White Latin Americans when the White American article does not do that. More can be said about the fact that white Latin Americans hold the most power in Latin America ect. Cultural aspects. Another thing is that, many if not most, white americans have Ameridian admixture and yet they are still considered white. Not even to mention African admixture.

This article reads as if it was written by a white or black north American with the steriotypes that go with that. Another point. Genetic studies gererally reflect the society under wich the tests were done. An American scientist would probably find more admixture in Latin America that is realistic and a Latin American scientist would probably find less. And when these tests are done there is no proof that the subjects are actually white people anyway. Care needs to be taken not to go on the subect's word only but also their close family and cultural background. I think these tests prove nothing.

This article is clearly bias. It simply has to be corrected. I am not saying admixture should not be mentioned but it is rediculous to have an article called. "White Latin Americans" and then 80% of the article is about non-white admixture. It is certainly not done in the White American article.

see White_american#Admixture, Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and Race_and_genetics#Admixture_in_the_United_States

• What is the point of the links? They just prove how little is said about admixture in the White American article. And in the "sub-saharan DNA in Europe" article it is not said wether the test were done on the white or gypsy or a mixture of both populations.

Cuba number

Why is the upper-estimate given the benefit? Bulldog123 03:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a serious re-edit

Or citations from a reliable source. "one fourth of the self-identified White Australian population acknowledges distant Chinese ancestry" Rubbish - at the 2006 Census only 3.4% of all Australians acknowledged Chinese ancestry. And "white" is an adjective that should not be capitalised Kransky 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)