George Zimmerman trial

Post Reply New Topic

Nope. I'm trying to explain that 'Spanish' and 'Hispanic' are different concepts, the same as 'British' and 'American'. Indeed, 'Hispanic' is a US term that designates south-american inmigrants. People from South America are called 'South Americans' (though this doesn't include Central America), Central Americans (just Central Americans), Hispano Americans (no Brazilians), Ibero Americans (Brazilians included) or Latin Americans (that would include Quebec too. In theory. In practice, nobody uses this term for this part of Canada). 'Hispanic' was invented in US to designate 'inmigrant from the south'. This word doesn't exist in spanish.

Spanish people in US claim that they're called 'Hispanic' too (something that they usually don't like), and they claim that people there often think that Spain is geographically in South America...

Well, to say the truth 'Hispanic' (no Hispano American, just Hispanic) exists in spanish, but it's used for history, specially back in time during Roman period, when Spain was called 'Hispania' (2000 years ago), though the map was slightly different from now:
http://b86a38.medialib.glogster.com/med ... ugusto.jpg

So no relation with the american term "Hispanic'.

And of course, 'Spanish' means Spain, from Spain (or its colonies back in history), that is a european country. The relation between Spain and South American countries (except Brazil) is very similar that the one between US and England: same lenguage, similar culture, but they're different things. And of course South Amercian countries are very different between them. Chile, for example, was called 'the American Switzerland' years ago, before Allende, and in many ways is much closer from european countries culture than from Bolivia, even though they share boundaries.

But this is internet. And what you get as answer when you're talking about this, is that:

:lmao: Hispanics have been in this country since before white people.

History FAIL.

Is there an official government definition of Hispanic? That includes how many generations after immigration it extends, and what fraction of heritage is required? At what fraction is someone no longer Hispanic? 1/16? 1/64? 1/100? Are there any criminal penalties for misrepresenting one's race? Who, if anyone, decides this stuff? Surely anyone with a Hispanic-sounding last name could say they were Hispanic and not be doubted, even if they were umpteenth-generation American with the tiniest sliver of Hispanic heritage. Who would know? Who would check? Same with every other ethnic category. (Excepting American Indians, as tribes have control of their own membership rolls.)

This labeling of ethnic/racial heritage irks me, in case you couldn't tell.

It generally means 'new-worlders who speak Spanish.' It has very little to do with race, except that statistically most hispanics have at least some Índio blood in them. It's not unheard of, or even unusual, to have immigrants to the US from South and Central America who are *not* hispanic, who speak neither Spanish nor English, and are of pure native blood.

Yes, I saw that. Doesn't change anything; the fact is, Spanish-speaking people, and native people, were here in North America (and Florida in particular) well before English-speaking/Brittish/Northern European people. People of Northern European descent have no claims to nativism on American soil.

Wrt. insults: Yes, I called you a name. Do you think that it's less insulting to say, "Did you learn in the school to use words? Smiles are cool, but you should try to express some thoughts, instead of posting smiles and randoms maps.

Try it, you'll find it very helpful," than it is to call someone, "estúpido"? Because you have an odd gauge for insults, if so. I was more succinct than you, but no more insulting.

Oh, does it only count (on a public forum) if it's directed at me? Is your personal insult somehow less of an personal insult, then?

The people who were the ancestors of the people whom we, today, call hispanic and latino, have been in North America, in particular Florida, California, Texas, etc, for longer than English speakers. Regardless of the terms one uses, that simple fact remains the same. If one goes strictly by prior occupation, they have greater claim to the land (especially those who 'look' latino and hispanic, because that 'look' comes mostly from their Native American blood) than do people of Northern European descent.

Now that the verdict is in and this thread is collapsing into a series of squabbles - I think we're done here.