Posted on 10/16/2014 4:33:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Once upon a time, the liberal position was to reject the old discriminatory branding of people by the color of their skins rather than by the content of their characters.
Not now. Political and career advantage is found in trumpeting -- or occasionally making up -- genealogies.
Take the inexact category of Latino or Hispanic -- an often constructed identity that increasingly no one quite knows how to define. Almost anyone can be a Latino or Hispanic, from a fourth-generation American with one-quarter Mexican ancestry, to a first-generation Cuban, to a youth who recently arrived illegally from Central America, to someone whose great-grandparents emigrated from the Portuguese Azores.
What ties them together? Not necessarily appearance, their names, knowledge of Spanish or proximity of their ancestral homelands.
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is Latina -- her parents were Mexican-American. But her now-desperate Democratic challenger for the governorship, Gary King, claims that Martinez "does not have a Latino heart." Apparently for King, a self-appointed genealogist, if you do not share his liberal agenda, then you are, de facto, not Latino.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Series question? Which group are Cubans?
I bet they’d say that about Ted Cruz, too. Not hispanic enough.
Ethnic Aristocracies Have no Place in Modern America
But we have a minority cult idol in the WH
Ehem.. they aren’t aristocrats, they are Oligarchs. Very similar to Russian ones now. :)
Perhaps we need a version of the Nuremburg Laws here, to establish who is and who is not a member of the “right” groups. [/s]
I was listening to CSPAN last week and they had a guest from some Hispanic Political Group. His first talking point was, there were NO Hispanics in the US Senate.
I wanted to call and ask about Rubio and Cruz ...
Ah hus' wan' her ta get in mah belly!
LOL, Russian Mafia galore!
When the Black & Hispanic Caucuses sign up let me know.
First and foremost, just be AMERICAN.
The term "latino" is strange. It is derived from Latin, which in turn is derived from the region of Italy, Lazio (Latium in Latin) that surrounds Rome. Yet nowadays in the official vocabulary of the US government, it means someone who somehow is tied to the Iberian peninsula. One might have guessed that attention would have been restricted to Hispanics because the US has a lot of immigrants from Mexico who have Spanish surnames. But no. For some reason, the definition has been expanded to include Portugual and by extension Brazil. Romanians and French are not included, even they also speak a language derived from Latin. More strangely, Italians are not included, not even those from Lazio, who are the only true Latini. In the US, you don't even need a genetic "Latin" ancestry. The surname is enough. So a full-blooded Native American from Mexico with the surname of, say, Martinez, qualifies as a Latino, but someone from Rome does not, even if his surname is Marra (an old Laziale name).
It starts with a stupid premise:
“Being Mexican or Part Mexican”.
There is no such thing.
It would be like everyone emigrating to Mexico and trumpeting “I’m part American”.
“Really?”
How can either statement be true?
The respective countries are multi ethnic and ancestors from all over the globe.
To be Mexican is very much like saying “I’m Palestinian”...uhmmm, no yer not.
Within the boundaries of Mexico is a rich history pre dating Hernando Cortez.
Yeah, seems there were quite a few native tribes such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Zapotec, the Maya and the Aztec, to name a few.
In fact, there were hundreds of tribes.
Today, Mexico still has thise tribes but, it’s citizens draw on their ancestry from Spain, The Moors, Irish, German, Lebanese, French and many other blood lines.
There is, however, no such thing as Mexican Ethnicity.
There is no “Mexican” language before the year 1519. The languages were various and unique to each tribe, just they were for native populations within the borders of what would become America.
There is no common or grand Mexican history.
When archaeologists uncover lost cities and civilizations in Mexico they work mightily at identifying who the people were and they never declare them “Oh! Mexicans”.
So no, there are no Mexican Americans.
I’m no longer a white man. Henceforth, I am a proud Celto-Gael. It’s a designation inexact enough and scientifically amorphous enough to suit me. C-Gs observe about 90-110 holidays a year for which I will expect full pay. Stout and whisky are sacremental and I reserve the right seek blessings of those spirits anywhere anytime. There’s lots more but I too blessed this morning to get it all down right now for you.
You're either with your ethnic group or your against it. Race traitor is a term that might be used. Uncle Tom is too specific.
There's a lot to be said for rooting for your home team. Through history, that home team has been usually been defined by a combination of locale, religion, culture, and race. With the pot-stirring of multi-culturalism and immigration, it's become ever more important to define the home team as we used to in the US--in terms of culture and locale.
But, as we all have seen, the MSM and the educational establishment have sought to emphasize differences in culture and to redefine loyalties in terms of race, religion, and ethnicity. That will not work in a multi-cultural population!
I’ve been telling people for years I’m part Gaelic and part Celtic.
No one told me about all those holidays though...
French (mostly Romance, aka Roman, aka 'vulgar' Latin), and of course Italian and Spanish are purer Latin. Portuguese is primarily Romance as French. They're all Indo-European languages.
I think, at the end of the day, they somehow had to categorize or classify people and surnames. All in all, it's all Latin or versions of it, except English, which has more Germanic influence than Latin.
Your post, there are no Mexican Americans is very good, except things change. There are no Mexican Americans in history, but there are Mexicans today (in Mexico) and Mexican American today (in the U.S.).
From what I can tell, the emergence of a national (but not ethnic) identity of Mexico is real and all Mexicans are proud of the country’s rich history of pre-Columbian tribes, the colonial period, and the national period.
I think we conservatives would say the same thing about our country. American isn’t an ethnicity but it is a national identity that embraces our rich history. It’s the liberals who want to turn us into members of so many tribes.
With regard to being a hyphenated American, I suppose first generation immigrant have one foot in their country of origin and another foot in their country of choice. But I would be disappointed if second generation have such divided loyalties. In this view, there would be some Mexican Americans and they would either be resident aliens or naturalized citizens. In my view, Susana Martinez, having been a natural born citizen, is an American. Same thing with Ted Cruz.
I am an Angry-American.
I’m sorry, that was my job. Too many “sacramental” events I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.