Will Hispanics be the new Whites

[CravingMountains]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The crucial question is how mixed is mixed enough? Clearly the average Mexican is Mestizo, and thus mixed race. But what if you're talking about a "white" Cuban who is genetically 90% white and 10% black? What if you're talking about someone like Louis CK who is 1/4th Mexican? In both cases they have some nonwhite ancestry, but not enough to change the basic impression of whiteness.

This becomes crucial because, as I said, in the next several generations a ton of Latinos will marry out. Currently around a quarter of Latinos marry interracially, but the number is much higher (36%) for those native-born in the U.S. Their half-Latino children will probably speak very little Spanish and be more likely still to marry generic "white" Americans. Someone half Latino/half white will probably be around 25% nonwhite genetically, if they have kids with a white American, they will be around 12.5% nonwhite.

As a conclusion, let's look at Fred Armisen. He is half Venuzuelan, 1/4th German, and 1/4th Japanese. Do you think most people look at him and see a nonwhite person?

Fred Armisen doesn't look entirely white to me. That nose screams something else.

My whole thing is that if you have obviously non-white physical features then you shouldn't be putting white on the census or trying to change what the definition of white is in public discourse. Sure, Cameron Diaz or Louis CK could say they are white. But those two are a rarity when it comes to Non-Hispanic white Americans and Hispanic Americans mixing. Cameron in particular doesn't seem to show any trace of non-white physical features. But that is a RARITY. White people have recessive genes that usually just get overpowered when mixed.

People like George P. Bush, or Jessica Alba, or Jennifer Lopez, or Demi Lovato have obviously non-european blood in them. If the future of Hispanics is going to look like them then most definitely no, Hispanics are not going to be the new white. I might be 80 years old in a wheel chair saying it to them in a few generations, but this white guy doesn't consider those people to be white.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by CravingMountains

Fred Armisen doesn't look entirely white to me. That nose screams something else.

My whole thing is that if you have obviously non-white physical features then you shouldn't be putting white on the census or trying to change what the definition of white is in public discourse. Sure, Cameron Diaz or Louis CK could say they are white. But those two are a rarity when it comes to Non-Hispanic white Americans and Hispanic Americans mixing. Cameron in particular doesn't seem to show any trace of non-white physical features. But that is a RARITY. White people have recessive genes that usually just get overpowered when mixed.

People like George P. Bush, or Jessica Alba, or Jennifer Lopez, or Demi Lovato have obviously non-european blood in them. If the future of Hispanics is going to look like them then most definitely no, Hispanics are not going to be the new white. I might be 80 years old in a wheel chair saying it to them in a few generations, but this white guy doesn't consider those people to be white.

George P. Bush is clearly not "white" in present parlance. Jennifer Lopez is iffy. The other two I wouldn't say have obviously non-European blood, judging by the pictures I see of them. I knew plenty of Italian, Greek, or Jewish girls when I was young who looked pretty much like them. White does not equal blond hair and blue eyes after all. It's like saying Natalie Portman, Kim Kardashian, or John Turturo isn't white.

But as to the broader point, I just think it doesn't matter what people look like, or even what they self-identify as. In the U.S. we basically have black people, white people, and immigrants. All immigrants, if they are here for three generations, lose their language and most of their culture, and begin intermarrying with "white" Americans to a large degree, until their original "ethnic" identity is largely lost.

At one point, white meant just a fraction of northern Europeans - even the Irish weren't considered to be "white." Then white came to embrace much darker Italians, Greeks, Armenians, and even Christians from the Middle East. If you go to Australia, for example, Greeks are not seen as white, but they are here. Why? Because they aren't black! Whiteness came to be defined as the absence of any visible blackness.

I fully expect the way things are going the same thing will be true 50 years hence. They might not self-identify as white, but being a quarter Mexican will be looked at as being about as common as being a quarter Italian today. And the people who are part Latino - hell, even those third generation who aren't intermarried - will have essentially identical accents, politics, and social attitudes to the "white" people who surround them (because they will live in "white" neighborhoods, by and large). They will not behave as blacks have in the U.S., who have remained a culture apart since the founding of the nation. They will fold into the American whole and assimilate.

[CravingMountains]

Originally Posted by eschaton

George P. Bush is clearly not "white" in present parlance. Jennifer Lopez is iffy. The other two I wouldn't say have obviously non-European blood, judging by the pictures I see of them. I knew plenty of Italian, Greek, or Jewish girls when I was young who looked pretty much like them. White does not equal blond hair and blue eyes after all. It's like saying Natalie Portman, Kim Kardashian, or John Turturo isn't white.

But as to the broader point, I just think it doesn't matter what people look like, or even what they self-identify as. In the U.S. we basically have black people, white people, and immigrants. All immigrants, if they are here for three generations, lose their language and most of their culture, and begin intermarrying with "white" Americans to a large degree, until their original "ethnic" identity is largely lost.

At one point, white meant just a fraction of northern Europeans - even the Irish weren't considered to be "white." Then white came to embrace much darker Italians, Greeks, Armenians, and even Christians from the Middle East. If you go to Australia, for example, Greeks are not seen as white, but they are here. Why?Because they aren't black! Whiteness came to be defined as the absence of any visible blackness.

I fully expect the way things are going the same thing will be true 50 years hence. They might not self-identify as white, but being a quarter Mexican will be looked at as being about as common as being a quarter Italian today. And the people who are part Latino - hell, even those third generation who aren't intermarried - will have essentially identical accents, politics, and social attitudes to the "white" people who surround them (because they will live in "white" neighborhoods, by and large). They will not behave as blacks have in the U.S., who have remained a culture apart since the founding of the nation. They will fold into the American whole and assimilate.

The bold I don't believe for a second. You weren't alive then. No one who was around centuries ago to tell us what race people considered Irish to be is alive today. I have a very very hard time believing that Americans in the early 1800s didn't consider a red haired, blue-eyed, freckle-faced Irishman to be white. Some people on this forum spout that nonsense and it seriously just needs to stop because it makes absolutely no sense.

Being one quarter Mexican in the future will never mean the same thing as being one quarter Italian. If you are 75% Irish and 25% Italian you are still 100% European. Not the case if you are 75% Irish and 25% Mexican. You are gonna have a huge chunk of non-european ancestry.

Will we all get along? Most definitely. But most Hispanic descendents in the future will most definitely display many of the same physical, not white characteristics that Hispanics have today. If they take a DNA test like 23andme, that non-european ancestry will pop up in full view. The same thing doesn't happen with Italians or Greeks or Jews.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by CravingMountains

The bold I don't believe for a second. You weren't alive then. No one who was around centuries ago to tell us what race people considered Irish to be is alive today. I have a very very hard time believing that Americans in the early 1800s didn't consider a red haired, blue-eyed, freckle-faced Irishman to be white. Some people on this forum spout that nonsense and it seriously just needs to stop because it makes absolutely no sense.

Being one quarter Mexican in the future will never mean the same thing as being one quarter Italian. If you are 75% Irish and 25% Italian you are still 100% European. Not the case if you are 75% Irish and 25% Mexican. You are gonna have a huge chunk of non-european ancestry.

Will we all get along? Most definitely. But most Hispanic descendents in the future will most definitely display many of the same physical, not white characteristics that Hispanics have today. If they take a DNA test like 23andme, that non-european ancestry will pop up in full view. The same thing doesn't happen with Italians or Greeks or Jews.

There's been whole books written on the question of the whiteness of the Irish in the 19th century, so don't act as if this is made up. No matter what racial category they were afforded, the things said about them in the popular press were similar to those said about Mexicans today. They were considered to come from an alien culture which would never assimilate to the American way of life. They were decried for taking jobs away from hard-working Native-born Americans. And yet they folded into the American mainstream quite successfully, to the point that by the 1860s they were a fairly well accepted element of American life.

Another example is Finns, which were sometimes barred from U.S. citizenship until 1908, on account of being seen as "Mongols." This despite the fact that Finns have the highest proportion of blond hair and blue eyes of anywhere in the world.

Jews are perhaps an even better example, because in the living history of some elderly people, Jews were not considered white in America. The Ivy League schools had Jewish quotas (to stop too many Jews from taking slots away from WASPs) which remained in force until the end of World War 2. No one outside of Neo-Nazis wouldn't call Jews White today however.

[CravingMountains]

That book Eschaton, is not about Irish becoming white. It is about them coming to America as a poor people and ascending to the upper classes. The book's title is nothing more than a metaphor. The actual racial classification of Irish has never been in question. They were discriminated a lot in the mid to late 1800s but their belong to the white/european race was NEVER in question. The Irish are some of the most fair skinned on this earth. The whole premise you are speaking doesn't make one lick of sense.

[JMT]

Thread closed.