Latino is not a race, despite the Census debate

[Jamaal510]

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/latino-race-census-debate_n_2490592.html

The Census Bureau has sparked debate with a proposal to redefine Latinos as a racial category. The agency’s exploration into a new classification system stems from concern over the fact that some 18 million Latinos declined to identify their race in 2010.

But whatever new system emerges from the debate won’t change one key fact: "Latino" is not a race.

The term “Latino” refers to people of Latin American origin, and the countries of Latin America are diverse, multiracial and generally racially mixed. Most social scientists agree that race doesn't actually exist -- it's a social category invented to keep people apart. The diversity of Latin America makes it clear how hard it is to neatly classify people.

From Mexico to Patagonia you’ll find white people, black people and indigenous people, and all the possible combinations -- not to mention many people of Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds. More than 67 languages are spoken in Mexico alone. More people of African descent live in Brazil than any country in the world, except Nigeria.

To understand why so many Latinos have trouble identifying a race on the Census, it helps to take a look at the restrictive options available: white, black, Asian, Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native.

[Glorfindel]

1. When I was a kid, nobody thought Ricardo Montalban, Cesar Romero, Desi Arnez, or Carmen Miranda

as being a different race, just a different nationality, like French or Swedish.

[Awknid]

3. I remember

The first time I saw the term "Hispanic" on my college entrance papers. I asked someone what that was. It was completely new to me to think of the Rodriguez family down the street as something other than white! I still don't understand it.

[Downwinder]

6. The Figueroas had lived in Arizona a whole lot longer

than any of my family.

[ZombieHorde]

2. What makes a race a race?

How are these divisions created?

[Xipe Totec]

4. Is white a race? nt

[melody]

5. Strictly speaking, there are only two races -- Asian and African

And frankly, it all comes down to African.

There's no such thing as the white race either -- every other "race" is a blend of African and Asian, with some local traits factored in. However, it's a handy way of diluting an ethnic group's political power. Ergo, let us start with the "white" race -- which is my own (well, 3/4s of me).

[d_r]

7. its a problem

with trying to classify people in a meaningful way. Those ways are social constructs. People make up the definitions. There *really* isn't such a thing as race, ethnicity or so on. But society does define what social reality is. And in US society, "African-American" is certainly a "race," IMHO, as it is a group of people who share a certain history, and other people define them as a group and members of the group define their own identity with that classification. The definitions of "African American" is a social one - it isn't based on dna or anything like that, it is based on the meaning that we as a society place on it. The same thing applies to the other "racial classifications." Of course it is ethnic gloss. Of course the groups aren't homogeneous. Of course Asian-Americans, for example, aren't all the same. So the problem came from recognizing the difference between "race" and "ethnicity" (I am putting them in quotes to try to denote that I am using those terms as they have been used by census). In the case of "Latinos" it is a language-based or culture-based group, not a racial group. You can be black, white, indigenous, and a host of other things and still be part of the "Latino culture." So instead of defining it as "race" it was defined as "ethnicity." The two-step process was so that the person could check white or black or whatever in the frist step, then check "Hispanic/Latino" or however it was worded in the second step. So there was both race and this Latino/Non-Latino classification. This confused people though, and may Latino folks didn't check anything under race, just checked the line under ethnicity. The thing is, minority groups benefit from correct census counts. So you don't want the number of "Latino" folks under-identified, but you also don't want the number of "African-American" folks under identified. So they are trying to rethink how to define it. This is sort of a move in the right direction in a way - to consider all those social-made classifications as equivalent. But calling it a "race" just doesn't seem correct either. And then you run in to a different set of problems with under-reporting (what does a black person from Cuba check?).

There really isn't a good way of doing this, because we don't have good definitions because these are social constructs not biological ones. On the other hand, it is important to get accurate population counts. So it is a measurement dilemma.

It is unfortunate that we try to measure and define things like ethnicity and race.

[flamingdem]

8. The classification Latino runs the risk of reducing funds to blacks who

are often grouped under "Latino" and many from the Caribbean define themselves as white since the one drop rule is almost in reverse there.

[Igel]

9. That's sort of the goal.

In a system where some perks and privileges are distributed by race--one kind of "protected group" for lawsuits and legislation--the quick way to get some of those perks and privileges is to get designated as a "race."

Suddenly you have better standing in some lawsuits. You can argue that as a group you're disadvantaged in ways that "ethnic group" doesn't merit. You can get programs set up for you. You can more easily create institutions that give you political clout. I mean, for decades "Irish" and "Polish" ethnicities in the US were more likely to be poor and high-school drop-outs, and nobody much cared.

On the other hand, if funding is reduced to "blacks" because some of those formerly classified as black are now Latino, then they still get funding. It's just that the institutions set up now for administering to the black community will lose both funding and clients. (Then again, the black Latinos in the high schools I've been in have to make a clear choice--they either culturally align themselves with African-Americans or they accentuate their Latino heritage. For teens, group identification is really important.)

[John2]

10. We all come under the category

of the Human Race. Skin color was used to discriminate against certain nations and against certain groups of people. You can see the proliferation throughout Literature. Even different hues of white people were used to discriminate against each other. Scientists hardly ever uses the term anymore. They use ethnic populations. I have more common ties with a person in the United States than a person in Africa when it comes to language or tradition.

And I don't understand your argument? Skin color is more identifiable for discrimination. African Americans cannot assimulate into the majority population. Black Latinos will still be seen as Black. There are some people that look white and pass themselves off as white because they can. They use the system both ways. I don't call rectifying wrongs done to a certain group that has been discriminated against privileges. It is much more easier for an Irisn or Polish person to assimulate or lose themselves in the majority population. You cannot compare the experience of the Irish and Poles in America to Blacks. They have the distinction to be the only group of Americans sent here as slaves. And the discrimination of their Rights didn't end after Slavery was abolished. Measures were put into Law to protect their rights. And many times, they had to create institutions for support.