[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’m going to put my money where my mouth is.
Between your ass cheeks?
[/quote]
Please stop projecting your fantasies. This is the politics forum.
Thanks.
JeffR
[quote]lucasa wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Maybe he is half African-American and half Latin-American and chose to go to the African-American tribe. The big question is, who cares? Survivor should have been gone after 2 seasons. It’s a gimmick that has been played out. It is now trite and boring, much like most reality TV.
Oh, I see, he chose to be an African-American. That’s much clearer, Thanks.[/quote]
It should make it clearer. If he’s half black, he is considered black by most people in this country unless he can pass very clearly for another race. Without knowing Halle Berry’s parents, I doubt most people are calling her “white”.
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I doubt most people are calling her “white”.[/quote]
I think most people are calling her “damn fine.”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.[/quote]
Oh, so he didn’t choose based on his nationality/ancestry (I’m betting actual Spanish via the Carribean), it’s just about skin color or facial features then? Now I understand.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.
Oh, so he didn’t choose based on his nationality/ancestry (I’m betting actual Spanish via the Carribean), it’s just about skin color or facial features then? Now I understand.[/quote]
Isn’t that what this entire country has based its relation of race on for hundreds of years? How many people do you think look at me and ask how much French or Trinidadian blood is in me? they see me as “black”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Isn’t that what this entire country has based its relation of race on for hundreds of years? How many people do you think look at me and ask how much French or Trinidadian blood is in me? they see me as “black”.[/quote]
Probably the same number that look at me and ask the same. I thought the point was to see beyond skin color?
To bring us full circle to pookie’s original post, pay attention to skin color, don’t pay attention to skin color, pleasing the ‘left’ wingnuts is just as difficult as pleasing the ‘right’ ones.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
pleasing the ‘left’ wingnuts is just as difficult as pleasing the ‘right’ ones.[/quote]
Well, you can’t make everyone happy, but you CAN make heaps of fucking dough. …and make YOURSELF happy. Hence, television. 
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.[/quote]
Um, that would be Latino, not Hispanic!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.
Um, that would be Latino, not Hispanic!
[/quote]
I think that he was using the term as the people from Survivor was using it, not because he doesn’t know the right term. Hence the quotes around the word. I, for one, was disgusted that the word hispanic is even being used (Not to mention that I am disgusted with the show in general, but that is another issue).
Most people know nowadays that Latino is the correct term, but this “show” insists on using hispanic, but claims to be promoting dialog around race interactions. It’s like calling Asians, “Orientals”. It is a made up, racist term that has no value.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
L-
Most people know nowadays that Latino is the correct term, but this “show” insists on using hispanic, but claims to be promoting dialog around race interactions. It’s like calling Asians, “Orientals”. It is a made up, racist term that has no value.[/quote]
The use of Hispanic is a regional thing. No one in South Texas refers to themselves as Latino, just like they don’t refer to themselves as Chicano. If you ask them, they are Hispanic, Tejano, or Mexican.
My two closest friends and I are all married to Hispanic women from the border area. They would never call themselves Latinas. Hispanic implies (rightly or wrongly) that they are of Spanish ancestry.
Wikipedia has a good explanation of it all:
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.
Um, that would be Latino, not Hispanic!
I think that he was using the term as the people from Survivor was using it, not because he doesn’t know the right term. Hence the quotes around the word. I, for one, was disgusted that the word hispanic is even being used (Not to mention that I am disgusted with the show in general, but that is another issue).
Most people know nowadays that Latino is the correct term, but this “show” insists on using hispanic, but claims to be promoting dialog around race interactions. It’s like calling Asians, “Orientals”. It is a made up, racist term that has no value.[/quote]
ACTUALLY. the etymology of the word DOES have some meaning, as does the word “Oriental”. The connotation of the word today has SOME racist context to it, but that’s becuase it was used in racist context previously.
The word ITSELF means “devaition from Spain”. Obvioiusly, “oriental” means “of the orient”, orient meaning “land of the rising sun.” So neither term is in and of itself a racist term, but has been twisted into one by racists.
Of note, this is exactly the same of many common racist terms, the “N” word included. The word “Redneck” in South Africa (or in Africaans, “Rooniek” sp? ) is a commonly used derogutory term for an English person.
[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
L-
Most people know nowadays that Latino is the correct term, but this “show” insists on using hispanic, but claims to be promoting dialog around race interactions. It’s like calling Asians, “Orientals”. It is a made up, racist term that has no value.
The use of Hispanic is a regional thing. No one in South Texas refers to themselves as Latino, just like they don’t refer to themselves as Chicano. If you ask them, they are Hispanic, Tejano, or Mexican.
My two closest friends and I are all married to Hispanic women from the border area. They would never call themselves Latinas. Hispanic implies (rightly or wrongly) that they are of Spanish ancestry.
Wikipedia has a good explanation of it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic[/quote]
doogie,
Thanks for enlightening me. I am obviously not familiar with South Texas regional terms. I know that other areas of the country that I have lived in, the term Hispanic is not viewed in a positive light and the people affected would rather be called Latino. Being a minority myself, I try to be sensitive to what others prefer to be called. Thanks again for the insight.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Nathan. yeah, he sure DOES NOT look black to me. Some of you are straight dumbasses. You know if you hadn’t heard his last name not one person on this board would think he was “hispanic”. Beyond that, I have had black friends with last names like Gonzales simply because their great grandfather may have been half mexican.
Um, that would be Latino, not Hispanic!
I think that he was using the term as the people from Survivor was using it, not because he doesn’t know the right term. Hence the quotes around the word. I, for one, was disgusted that the word hispanic is even being used (Not to mention that I am disgusted with the show in general, but that is another issue).
Most people know nowadays that Latino is the correct term, but this “show” insists on using hispanic, but claims to be promoting dialog around race interactions. It’s like calling Asians, “Orientals”. It is a made up, racist term that has no value.
ACTUALLY. the etymology of the word DOES have some meaning, as does the word “Oriental”. The connotation of the word today has SOME racist context to it, but that’s becuase it was used in racist context previously.
The word ITSELF means “devaition from Spain”. Obvioiusly, “oriental” means “of the orient”, orient meaning “land of the rising sun.” So neither term is in and of itself a racist term, but has been twisted into one by racists.
Of note, this is exactly the same of many common racist terms, the “N” word included. The word “Redneck” in South Africa (or in Africaans, “Rooniek” sp? ) is a commonly used derogutory term for an English person.[/quote]
knewsom,
Thanks for the lesson. My main point was that these terms, for the most part, (except in certain areas, as doogie has pointed out to me) are not viewed in a positive light and a show like Survivor, which is seen wordwide, should realize that. Of course, that would mean that the show would have some level of class, which it doesn’t
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
L-
Most people know nowadays that Latino is the correct term, but this “show” insists on using hispanic, but claims to be promoting dialog around race interactions. It’s like calling Asians, “Orientals”. It is a made up, racist term that has no value.
The use of Hispanic is a regional thing. No one in South Texas refers to themselves as Latino, just like they don’t refer to themselves as Chicano. If you ask them, they are Hispanic, Tejano, or Mexican.
My two closest friends and I are all married to Hispanic women from the border area. They would never call themselves Latinas. Hispanic implies (rightly or wrongly) that they are of Spanish ancestry.
Wikipedia has a good explanation of it all:
doogie,
Thanks for enlightening me. I am obviously not familiar with South Texas regional terms. I know that other areas of the country that I have lived in, the term Hispanic is not viewed in a positive light and the people affected would rather be called Latino. Being a minority myself, I try to be sensitive to what others prefer to be called. Thanks again for the insight.[/quote]
This is the perspective of most Mexicans, and doggie has it backwards.
The real issue here is that the term Hispanic was a recent development in attempts for those from Mexico to disown or disavow their Spanish roots. At least this is how many Mexicans view the issue. So saying you are Hispanic really is saying that you are of Mexican Indian (Mayan, Aztec, etc) decent without influence of those nasty Spanish who conquered Mexico years ago.
It is the same as saying you speak Esponial (South American Spanish) and not Castilian (Spanish spoken in most of Spain). Ask any Mexican and they will say Esponial, except the rich upper class Mexicans who will probably say Castilian. Many of the upper class in Mexico at least appear to be more Spanish than Indian.
In any case, as I have stated before, Hispanic is a politic term that is not reality for most; meaning most Mexicans have Spanish blood in them whether they like it or not.
Regardless of what is politically correct, Latino is the correct term for any country that is Latin based, and Mexico would be one of them.
I personally feel that what happened happened, and to pretend now that it didn’t is silly. So we are technically Latino, but if some Mexicans (and other south American countries) like separating themselves from their Spanish roots, more power to them, but they are still Spanish.
UCLA media bias study found:
-
National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it “conservative” – but just barely.
-
RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: “OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.”) with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a “liberal” group.
-
Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is “A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a “liberal” group.
-
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), b?te noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the “conservative” side of the ledger.
-
Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly “liberal.”
-
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more “conservative” than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.
Yup, that study sure has no glaring flaws.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
UCLA media bias study found:
-
National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it “conservative” – but just barely.
-
RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: “OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.”) with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a “liberal” group.
-
Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is “A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a “liberal” group.
-
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), b?te noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the “conservative” side of the ledger.
-
Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly “liberal.”
-
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more “conservative” than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.
Yup, that study sure has no glaring flaws.[/quote]
Do you have a link for this information. I find it very interesting.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
UCLA media bias study found:
-
National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it “conservative” – but just barely.
-
RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: “OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.”) with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a “liberal” group.
-
Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is “A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a “liberal” group.
-
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), b?te noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the “conservative” side of the ledger.
-
Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly “liberal.”
-
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more “conservative” than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.
Yup, that study sure has no glaring flaws.
Do you have a link for this information. I find it very interesting.
[/quote]
www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This is the perspective of most Mexicans, and doggie has it backwards.
The real issue here is that the term Hispanic was a recent development in attempts for those from Mexico to disown or disavow their Spanish roots. At least this is how many Mexicans view the issue. So saying you are Hispanic really is saying that you are of Mexican Indian (Mayan, Aztec, etc) decent without influence of those nasty Spanish who conquered Mexico years ago.
[/quote]
No. You’re wrong. Wikipedia has it correct. Hispanic is the equivalent of saying Spanish.
I assure you that your explanation of Hispanic is the exact OPPOSITE of how it is used down here. Down here Hispanic is used by those who don’t want to be considered Mexican. It is used to distinguish themselves from “common” Mexicans–those that are a mix of Spanish and the native Mexican Indians.
Therefore they call themselves Hispanic (Spanish) instead of Mexican or Latino (which is never really used around here).
In fact, the only time Latin is used is in LULAC–League of United Latin American Citizens. Its use sounds as strange as Colored People in NAACP.
And if you asked what type of Spanish they spoke, they’d say Tex-Mex.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
UCLA media bias study found:
-
National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it “conservative” – but just barely.
-
RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: “OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.”) with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a “liberal” group.
-
Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is “A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis” (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a “liberal” group.
-
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), b?te noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the “conservative” side of the ledger.
-
Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly “liberal.”
-
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more “conservative” than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.
Yup, that study sure has no glaring flaws.
Do you have a link for this information. I find it very interesting.
www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf
[/quote]
Thanks!