Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

cicada wrote

decent 101 video but downvoted for click-bait title

6

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

lol, I used to think the same thing but over time I noticed that I could link a really great article or spend a ton of time writing a interesting post. But if I don't give it a click worthy title it gets ignored. So at this point its just automatic that all my posts get a title that raddlers click on. Never gonna stop writing inflammatory titles because we are all vulnerable to basic psychology.

4

tuesday wrote (edited )

I feel some type of way about a white Australian who lives in Argentina telling me what my experience is like in the United States with regards to what happens when white people find out family is from Cuba. Is it racism? Naw. Xenophobia? Sure. They're having a negative reaction to me based solely on my ethnicity and do absolutely treat me differently because of it. I'm not super happy at being told that doesn't happen, or if it does it's not important. This isn't an experience that other white people in America have. Other white people don't tell someone their last name is Smith and then suddenly the job interview is cut short or you don't get a call back from the applications you've submitted online until you use a less ethnic spelling of your name. This is a part of white privilege that white people who are members of latinidad don't get. And it's not without it's own kind of harm and alienation. Is it as bad as racial discrimination that people face when they're darker skinned than me? Not even remotely close, but it's still alienation. It's still a reminder that, to them, I don't belong here.

At any rate, the categorization of people from Latin America came at the end of a struggle by Mexican activists in California, Cuban activists in Miami and Puerto Rican activists in New York. At issue was that before the categorization of Hispanic as a pan-ethnic group people were either white or black depending on how dark their skin was and what the census taker decided for them. There was a huge push to do something to recognize that these people were struggling in a way that's different from the struggle of black people and that they were being invisibilized by being described as white.

At first the category was Hispanic, but it's shifted to Latine because Hispanic is about the language you speak, but Brazilians don't speak Spanish. Latino also includes indigenous or mestizo people, which might have been dis-included if they didn't also speak Spanish.

As a second generation America whose first language is English I am not, nor have I ever been, Hispanic. But I qualify as Latine, because it's more inclusive. Inclusivity trades off nuance though. The broader the categorization of latinidad the less useful it becomes personally. But it was never about individuals.

It's useful for data. Without it we can't see the disparity in pay between Latinas and white women (31% less). Programs and funding go to populations by numbers. Without a population identity there's no way for representation.

It's useless outside of the US though. It's not even particularly useful as a pan-ethnic community label unless you live in an area where there aren't regionally specific immigrant populations.

5

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Okay I made a strong opinion in a comment earlier but I deleted it as I wasn't confident enough to make the claim. I say that as I find this topic interesting. Now I hope I can explain why I have skepticism. I"ll try to be nice. If its out of turn or offensive thats totally ok. I can delete and have no problem apologizing. So you can read what my thoughts were on your comment or you don't wanna hear it and I can delete and apologize. I won't judge or care either way. I won't put up a fight. So if you don't wanna have to defend your position or hear critique than thats totally okay to. Read and/or respond if you wanna have a academic discussion. Otherwise tell me to buzz off. no hard feeings from me

So I agree that migrants from latin america can often experience xenophobia. But I struggle to understand how their oppression is different from many white european migrants. Now there are rare exceptions. For instance if there are indigenous people who happen to be white but are thoroughly ingrained in a indigenous groups culture. But generally speaking I don't see much reason to not treat almost all white people from latin america as 2nd class European settlers who maybe had a grandpa or greatgrandma who was indigenous or black.

Now in my opinion if xenophobia is offensive is history and relation in oppression. If a white french, german or spanish immigrant gets made fun of for bad english, weird culture of strange name I don't really care. Its just settler shit so its equal being rude / bullying. Harmful sure, oppressive? not enough for me to care.

So its history that makes xenophobia either offernsive or important. Like if you're a black african migrant to US yeah it matters. But like settler on settler xenophobia is actually something to laugh at. Its like a 1% taste of their own medicine. Like if I migrated to germany and people make fun of my accent and call me a hillbilly or whatever I don't think its something oppressive to whine about.

Now for the claim

This isn't an experience that other white people in America have.

I disagree with this greatly. I mean spanish migrants are going to have just as much of a problem with their names like jose, juan or pablo. Actually these are all like stereotypical latine names too. Which I mean doesn't disclose someone from being an oppressed group plenty of black people have european names. But like common, most latine names are just western european names. Most latines experience the same name discrimination as Spaniards would in america.

Now some latine names aren't spanish or portugeese. But I can't image they have much more issue than common eastern european migrant names like Tatyana, Ekaterina, Evgeniya or Bodashka. Which I wouldn't wanna put on a job interview. i don't even know anyone who could even pronounce the name. Often times you don't hear this as slavic migrants just translate some of the christian names like Krystiyan to christian or just change their name. So descrimination on names from latin america people might actually be less than eastern europeans because english people can actually pronounce spanish names but can't pronounce russian ones.

And regarding discrepancies in pay. I would imagine a afrikaaner fleeing the having to live under nonapartide south africa would have a hard time in the US. Like in south africa the average white person only makes 7 thousand. Which would put them behind in financial advantages. And russian migrants often have far less education and too often come from much pooer conditions. Which just leaves them disadvantaged to native born settler Americans like me.

Now with colonization of the new world I think the criteria for if a population is like a cohesive ethnic group is asking and seeing with your eyes if the decendants of salves and current indigenous groups are inigrated as the same ethnic group with the decendants of white europeans. Well lets take a look at cuba now the local indigenous people were by most definitions of the word sucessfully genocided off of cuba. Taino communities that weren't forcefully intigrated into spanish soceity or just killed don't exist. Its just spanish and african with a little bit of leftover taino. So we can't ask them since they don't exist. Which is suceeding where the americans failed.

Now slavery of africans was super common. And many cuban are so dark due to many having family members decendants of slaves. Many are intigrated, but lets face the elephant in the room, slavery was forcefully abolished by the spanish in 1886. About 50 years after south africa. Which means there are plenty of cubans who can talk about how their grandpa owned black people. I am very skeptical of a claim that people whos grandpa owned black people are culturally intigrated enough with the decendants of their grandpas slaves to call them the same ethnic group.

Now to be clear I still think latine is a term trying to solve a genuine purpose which is worthwhile. Though I think there is a discussion to be had on what is the nuanced and less problematic way to do this. I think most of my thoughts are going to be wrong because frankly I"m pretty ignorant. Though I think I have a speck of a point worth making. So I'm mostly thinking with you to try and figure out what is the incorrect view and what is reaosonable

Now lets not debate cuba. Lets debate brasil a much more obvious case. Many brazilians today own afro-brasilians. And having afro-brasilians work as sharecroppers on their plantations is really common. I think any attempt to portray people who look black who are slaves of people who look white as the same ethinic group starts to border on becoming offensive. As I'm certain these slaves have no voice in the conversaion on if they are in the same ethnic group as their masters that their masters are having.

Now lets check in with the indigenosu people of brasil who they are still working on settling their lands. Like right now. The brasilian government is sending settlers to steal indigenous lands and kill indigenous group. Many of who don't speak spanish or have any cultural integration into mainstream brasilian culture as they live in the jungle and stay in their villiage. Like brasilian migrants bascially know nothing about this group and have little cultural values with many of these indigenous groups. And my gut tells me that any attemp to portray said indigenous people currently bieng murdered so their land can be settled as the same ethnic group as the people genociding them does.

Like idk it seems to me that in the most obvious case of brasil the decendants of slaves have no say in their conversation since many are sharecroppers with no possessions other than clothes. Or indigneous people who don't want anything to do with it as they are just trying to not get exterminated. And the ones who get the voice are the slave owners, the army members shooting indigenous people to steal their land and the people who are mostly decendants of the spanish conquistadors or inidgenous people who got sick of being exterminated and integrated or the lucky black descendant brasilians who got off the plantation.

Now many latin american countries are far more intigrated that you could claim they are a whole ethinic group. Boliva might be a strong example but like the idea that latin americans are a whole ethnic group seems blatantly ridiculous if brasil is included. So I wanan circle back to the original prompt are the migrants from latin americans historically oppressed in a way closer to africans or are the closer to just european migrants.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here if this ethnic group includes migrants who are rich from their parents sharecropping plantation or their millitary bonus for doing genocide good. Its fine to talk about xenophobia but my knee jerk reaction is that latine as a discritptor does great service to portray primarily white europeans settler colonists and sometimes brown settler colonists as not settlers. I think it need a lot more skepticism. I think there are some latines who aren't settlers but I think most are. Treating them like british or german migrants seems reasonable. Tho this is not a rule but a generality as latin america requires far greater nuance.

I think questions should and need to be asked about who is making the defintions, who is not being included, what kinda negative behavior is being covered up and how many indigenous people have to be in a settler colonist family for them to not get treated as americans who are just poor because their ancesstors were worse at slavery.

I don't have answers honestly and I'm not nearly well enough informed to make any statesments. But my gut tells me to be hesitant and very skeptical of white people who have a family of slavery and settlers trying to be treated as oppressed in ways that their families victims have been experienced.

I wouldn't have a issue if it latine didn't exist and people just said things like I'm a migrant form latin america and didn't make up a term that squashed the groups their family has been oppressing and have incredibly large privilege over into the same oppressed ethnic category.

also we agree on like 99 percent. So its unfortunate we mostly just talk when we disagree. Whcih is also good is as its a good way for me to learn a lot.

2

tuesday wrote (edited )

But I struggle to understand how their oppression is different from many white european migrants.

I didn't say that it was either unique to my experience or that others don't share it. I'm not a white European migrant so I can't speak to their experience. I can say that there's a level of derision that comes when some folks find out that I'm "one of those Hispanics" (actual quote from a manager at a gas station where I was applying for a job) which positions me as other. I don't know if that happens outside of latinidad because I've never experienced it. Maybe it does, but I feel like that's ignoring that white America, especially in the South, HATES Latinos. And it's also creating this weird space where I feel like I have to account for the experiences of people who aren't within my community. I can't do that. I'm not here to compare. Their experiences are just as valid as my own.

Also a lot of your response isn't really relevant to the issue at hand. Indigenous people in Brazil aren't Latino because they don't live in the United States. The label Latino is specific to immigrants in the US. Using it to talk about everyone who lives in Latin America is wrong, because that's neither how they identify or how they speak about each other. But this is partially because no one but Americans do what we do (as far as I know) in identifying with heritages in a pan-ethnic way, as opposed to by the countries people are from. There are no Chilean-Guatamalans. There are people who live in Guatamala from Chile, for sure, but it's a pretty American thing to identify like that.

I think questions should and need to be asked about who is making the defintions

Literally immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, and Puerto Ricans (who aren't really immigrants). They had the conversation and Hispanic was the thing they ended on. And like they grappled with this too. At the time there was some effort to disclude people from Cuba, for example, because the migrants were overwhelmingly white and they were given advantages that other migrants didn't have access to. But in the end they decided to include everyone because there were shared experiences and the broader the term the more people it included, the better served the population is by the government.

I think these are important conversations, for people from Latin America in the United States to have. And we are. I've had multiple conversations, online, in person, in large forums with tens of people, in smaller forums with a handful of people. There's a lot of frustration, and there's a lot of confusion, and there's a lot of hurt tied up because we're often told (and grow up thinking) that Hispanic and Latino are titles given by colonizers. They aren't. They're titles claimed by the people who use it to talk about their particular American experience. We're talking about a self-created community. Not a state sponsored box that the United States government forced people into, but one that was created by the community it describes and then made to be accepted by the government.

At any rate, Bad Empanada is not the guy to have those conversations.

If we lived in a world without governments Latino as a category wouldn't exist. There would be no need for it. But because immigrants from Latin America, especially those who are black and brown (which was a category they toyed with, actually, just the inclusion of "brown" to clarify they're talking about racialized people - which was rejected because Indigenous Americans and activists from South Asia and the Middle East were like "naw, because we're brown too") face issues with discrimination, racialized violence, xenophobia, etc., they came together to create a community that could be represented in a way that didn't divide them by which country they came from because the experience they were sharing wasn't specific to their country of origin, just their existence in America. They decided to include white immigrant populations as well, it was an intentional decision because the broader the categorization, the more people who qualify, the better representation those people have.

I know a lot of people who find the term Latino useful. I know a lot of people who don't. That's their call though, not the call of an Australian of Greek heritage living in Argentina (which also has an overwhelmingly white population). Imagine me moving to South Korea, starting a YouTube channel named Bad Kim-Chi and making videos about the experiences of Asian immigrants in England? Not my lane. Not his either.

4

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

I think maybe I'm bad at explaing. But my contention is not that many people who identify as LatinX recierve racism or xenophobia. The contension is if they should overall be treated like most are just settler colonialists as most white people. So idk I'm trying to take about that but maybe it sounds like it's up for dispute if latines experience racism or xenophobia which I agree exists, is a problem that is fine to complain about. It's the whole settler colonialism History of this group which is important. Hence why history is important to bring up. Idk maybe I'm bad at explaing

1

Fool wrote

I think the problem with the statement is mainly with the word ignorant.

Contextually, as you've discussed, the Latine classification is an answer to a Settler problem - it would not exist outside the settler context.

Beyond that, and where the above video probably lies (noting I didn't actually watch it), it is not a useful term in the context of Latin American countries wherein their almost their entire population fall under the classification.

Further beyond that, I've met Europeans that extended the classification to any country with a Latin language as Latine (ie. Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, etc.) - removing anything useful from the term.

2

kinshavo wrote

I wanted to respond to your comment, bc I think it's interesting and have lots to do with colorism and how racism and whiteness is played in latam. I was probably add another layer, not sure the dynamics in US but being a 1st generation migrant is very different from being born Yankee and being a white-passing-Latinx, or that a white Argentinean have the same privileges that a wasp yankee have.

I think that one of the worst problems in yankee whiteness is the lack of understanding of colorism as one of key factors of racism, due to all the past history. While for Europeans besides the colorism they have this Colonial/Enlightened sense of duty to the World.

I saw a meme just today about queerness being used to cover whiteness, I think your post go along with this and I can see a lot of this behavior to justify whiteness and Colonialist mindsets in neurodivergent and queer people

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

idk I think that topic is one of the things that is super controversial and personal for some people so I gotta be like super duper careful what I was and be really confident in my position which I am not. So while I do stand that I have some concepts right I prob have many flaws I don't know yet. Plus I'm not confident enough that I could argue to an admin that I'm not minimizing the oppression of a group or whatever. But I'm glad someone found it interesting. Makes me a little more confident

I think like the dynamic of argentinia is that they are mostly just settlers who did a worse job then americans. So hence they experience imperialism and get the shit end of the stick from other americans. But yet are still settler colonizers of indigenous people and black slaves. Which I think in that example their experience of xenophobia should be treated like any other european migrant and not like poc or indigenous migrants. Though the convo is complicated as spanish and portugeese colonization had far more interacial births so unlike US or africa its not blatantly obvious who is a descendant of colonizers or inidgenous people. Which makes it kinda confusing.I actually have no idea how colorisim plays into this other than absolute basics.

Omg, I wrote a bunch about how american latinxs are but then I remembered this fucking hilarious video. It explains way better than words. God its hilarious in a really sad way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J49mV_lucl4

Yeah even for me the dynamic of latin america and colorism is actually even really confusing to me. Where I grew up it was still taboo to date / marry nonwhite people. Hence why the categories of indigenous, black and european are so obvious stateside. Plus one drop so any brown people mine as well be black. While in latin america such sharp classes aren't obvious. And if you're a little brown the idea of you being strongly related to settlers is really strange in the states.

Yeah I think leftist adjeacent groups really struggle with like stating that they like a oppressive group or whatever. When so much of the idpol has people fiercly identify as a oppressed worker or whatever. So the idea that you have to identify as the people you are supposed to hate is prob hard. When its way healthier to do it. I actually tolerate this bad empanada figure despite being a tankie because he says stuff like yeah I'm a settler and if a nearby indigenous person killed me to take the land back that would be based. And then just is able to promote that being a true fact without internalizing it so he can have pretty reasonable takes on things.

So yeah I agree completely with the queer thing as people struggle with understanding that they could b oppressed but actually also be a settler or whatevs. So it totally does cover up for it. Its honestly prob a problem routing from a hyper focus on identity rather than descriptors. I'd be glad to hear you speak more because I think you prob have a lot of useful things to say that would help me understand stuff better. Only if you want though

2

kinshavo wrote

One of the main issues here like others said is that Latinx born in the US have a different experience than Latinx living in their home countries. The US is a very racialized country bc of its own colonization and its own colonial mindset while Latin America is more racist/colorist by the same reason. Why the people on the video are confused about nationality/"race" is because the main reason to hold colonial rule in these countries is the perceived notion of belonging to the same people/nation. If they started to saw themselves as daughters and sons of the rape of the native by colonial forces many of this would be different.

And then we have lots of bits in the history of the continent like "Monroe Doctrine" and the erase of native languages and cultures. If anything Latinx in the US should feel closer to Natives and African Americans

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

And then we have lots of bits in the history of the continent like "Monroe Doctrine" and the erase of native languages and cultures. If anything Latinx in the US should feel closer to Natives and African Americans

Yeah race in the US is pretty weird. Like usually radicalized groups don't share their critique to the global stage. Which I can't blame it much as black people has a rich history of promoting anti imperialism and the US government shut it all down so a ton of progress has been lost.

3