Latinos or Hispanics
Charles Riggs
I call Spanish-speaking people in
America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
rude?
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs|at|eircom|dot|com
mickwick
>I call Spanish-speaking people in
>America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>
>I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
>rude?
Au contraire. Some academics and pressure-groups think that 'Hispanic'
is demeaning and 'Latino' is empowering. I posted a link to a
professor's long (attempted) explanation of why this is so a few months
ago.
--
Mickwick
Martin Ambuhl
I remember too well when there were groups in the states bordering Mexico
insisting on "Chicano/Chicana" as empowering, while others were just as
loudly calling those terms demeaning and insulting.
What's a poor Anglo to do? Well, the right-wing crowd has it easy; they
just call them werbacks. And the apathetic just ignore it all.
--
Martin Ambuhl
mb
> I call Spanish-speaking people in
> America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>
> I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
> rude?
If you were still living in the US, both would be good enough. Now
you're in the wide world, you want to call them Latin Americans to be
understood.
R H Draney
>
>
>I call Spanish-speaking people in
>America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>
>I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
>rude?
There's even less agreement on this, e'en among those to whom the terms are
supposed to apply, than there is on Black/Negro/African-American...about all I
can say to help you is that there are people to whom one term applies and not
another:
(1) "Hispanic" means someone whose ancestry prominently features Spain, whether
the individual is from Barcelona, Rio de Janiero, Laredo, or Duluth...it matters
not whether that person can speak any more of the Spanish language than is heard
in the average Taco Bell commercial....
(2) "Latino" refers to those whose families come from the Spanish-speaking
countries of the New World...you'll not use this term to refer to a Spaniard,
nor to a Surinamese, but you can use it to describe a migrant farm-worker in the
central valley of California (place of birth is not itself a determining
factor)....
(3) "Chicano" is a tricky one...I *think* it only applies to someone living in
the United States but of Mexican ancestry...I've never heard it used for anyone
actually *in* Mexico (apart from an occasional tourist)...and if they trace
their roots to anywhere else in Latin America, you don't use it; it most
emphatically doesn't sit well with a Guatemalan or Nicaraguan....
(4) "Mexican"...best to play it safe with this term...use it *only* if you know
that the person you're applying it to is actually a citizen of Mexico...and
steer clear of "Mexican-American" altogether...some will use it to mean an
American whose parents were Mexican, others for a recent immigrant now living in
the US, still others for anyone who "lives the culture" of Mexico but not for a
fully assimilated person, and each will insist that applying it to anyone else
is wrong and offensive....
(5) "Wetback" should only be used if you were in DeMolay, in the company of at
least a dozen others likewise, drunk on beer, and wearing cowboy boots....r
Anna Skipka
> mickwick wrote:
> > In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I call Spanish-speaking people in
> >>America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
> >>
> >>I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
> >>rude?
> >
> >
> > Au contraire. Some academics and pressure-groups think that 'Hispanic'
> > is demeaning and 'Latino' is empowering. I posted a link to a
> > professor's long (attempted) explanation of why this is so a few months
> > ago.
> >
>
> I remember too well when there were groups in the states bordering Mexico
> insisting on "Chicano/Chicana" as empowering, while others were just as
> loudly calling those terms demeaning and insulting.
"Chicano" is still in favor. (Several California universities have
departments of Chicano Studies; popular writers such as Sandra
Cisneros refer to themselves as Chicanas.) However, Chicano means
Mexican-American, so it is not a substitute for Latino or Hispanic.
-skipka
Maria Conlon
> What's a poor Anglo to do? Well, the right-wing crowd has it easy;
> they just call them werbacks.
I don't think so. (Oh, okay. I know what word you mean.)
>.....And the apathetic just ignore it all.
Sure. "Ignoring" comes with being apathetic. (But who cares, right?)
Anyway: The terms "Latinos" and "Hispanics" are mainly governmentese
catch-alls. The actual _people_ are either Mexicans, Puerto Ricans,
Columbians, Hatians, etc. Sticking with their citizenship seems better
than trying to break everyone down into ethnic origins, even in broad
terms.
IMO.
Maria Conlon
Maria Conlon
> (5) "Wetback" should only be used if you were in DeMolay, in the
> company of at least a dozen others likewise, drunk on beer, and
> wearing cowboy boots....r
For anyone who wonders:
http://www.demolay.org/home/index.shtml
I think the Masons founded DeMolay. Not sure.
Maria Conlon
Raymond S. Wise
news:bjvq7l$nl7f9$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de...
Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
"Citizenship" doesn't quite work as a term to use when speaking of such
matters because the children born in the US of Latino parents are American
citizens: they would be Mexican-Americans, Columbian-Americans, etc.
Furthermore, all Puerto Ricans are American citizens (so you wouldn't say
*"Puerto-Rican Americans"). Then there will inevitably be Latinos whose
parents came from two different Spanish-speaking countries. What would a man
whose father came from Mexico and whose mother came from Columbia call
himself? (My guess is that if the subject were to come up, he would say "My
father is from Mexico and my mother is from Columbia.")
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote
[...]
>> Anyway: The terms "Latinos" and "Hispanics" are mainly governmentese
>> catch-alls. The actual _people_ are either Mexicans, Puerto Ricans,
>> Columbians, Hatians, etc. Sticking with their citizenship seems
>> better than trying to break everyone down into ethnic origins, even
>> in broad terms.
> Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
Yes. West African, I think. I was thinking of the name of the nation
(and spelled "Haitians" wrong, by the way, despite the fact that I know
a few). Then there's the fact that Haiti is on the island of Hispaniola.
It gets confusing.
> "Citizenship" doesn't quite work as a term to use when speaking of
> such matters because the children born in the US of Latino parents
> are American citizens: they would be Mexican-Americans,
> Columbian-Americans, etc. Furthermore, all Puerto Ricans are American
> citizens (so you wouldn't say
> *"Puerto-Rican Americans"). Then there will inevitably be Latinos
> whose parents came from two different Spanish-speaking countries.
> What would a man whose father came from Mexico and whose mother came
> from Columbia call himself? (My guess is that if the subject were to
> come up, he would say "My father is from Mexico and my mother is from
Columbia.")
I won't argue with what you're saying, Ray. I was trying to simplify the
situation by using citizenship, but you're right: that won't work
either.
It's true that Puerto Rico and Guam (don't forget Guam) are U.S.
territories, but I'm not sure that the title "American" is used for them
by others or even by themselves. To and among themselves, I think they
are Puerto Ricans and Guamians, and not "Americans." We could possibly
compare that to people saying they are Minnesotans, Michiganders[1] or
Tennesseans, etc., but I doubt that it is exactly the same.
So what's the answer?
[1] I refuse to use the lame "Michiganians."
Maria Conlon
andrew
"Charles Riggs" <NotM...@aircom.net> wrote in message
news:h3c5mvgohnjh7tfrn...@4ax.com...
>
> I call Spanish-speaking people in
> America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>
> I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
> rude?
I'll stick with "beaners," but that's just me.
I live in Buena Park, Southern California, at the heart of the immigration
problem. The Mexican students at the high school used to wear these shirts
proclaiming that they wanted to be called "Mexicans". It went something like
this:
NOT LATINO
NOT HISPANIC
BUT MEXICAN
Basically some "brown pride" bullshit. If the white students wore anything
mentioning their race they would be expelled.
mickwick
>I remember too well when there were groups in the states bordering Mexico
>insisting on "Chicano/Chicana" as empowering, while others were just as
>loudly calling those terms demeaning and insulting.
>
>What's a poor Anglo to do?
Indeed.
> Well, the right-wing crowd has it easy; they
>just call them werbacks. And the apathetic just ignore it all.
But not academia. Here's that ancient link:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/latam/schomburgmoreno/juntosweb.html
The apologia is called _Juntos y Revueltos: The US Latino Population at
the End of the Twentieth Century_, and it was written for and by Arturo
Madrid, the Norine R. and T. Frank Murchison Distinguished Professor of
the Humanities at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas.
An extract:
===
IV. Why So Many Names?
I start with names. They [the students] are curious about names, as is
confirmed by a questionnaire in which I ask them to list issues that are
of concern or interest to them. What does Hispanic mean? Where does it
come from? What is the basis of the opposition to Hispanic? Who does it
include/exclude? Why call ourselves Latinos? Why can't I just be
Argentinean [sic], or Colombian, or Ecuadorian, or Peruvian? Who is
Boricua? Who is a Nuyorican? Who is a Chicano? What is the difference
between Chicano and Mexican American? Why do people not want to be
called Mexican? What does raza mean? What is a cholo? a pocho? a
pachuco? Why the demeaning, disparaging, derogatory names? Why this
obsession with names? Why so many names? Can’t we all agree on one?
===
Subsequent chapter titles:
V. Do I Want To Hear This?
VI. Demography and Nomenclature
('The most intense discussions have to do with the distorted portrait of
heterogeneous communities resulting from the aggregation of data and
with the creation of an artificial, homogenous community through the use
of a universal label: Hispanic. The label, most opine, conflates
national origins, differing experiences, and cultural, ethnic, social,
and racial differences, and in so doing liquidates the history of the
longest-term and largest Latino [aka Hispanic] communities.')
VII. Hispanics: A Self-Inflicted Wound
VIII. Born in The U.S.A.
(Paraphrase: 'Increasing numbers of Latinos think of themselves as
Hispanics; others think of themselves as simply being American. Ho
hum.')
IX. Towards An Imagined Latino Community
The Norine R. and T. Frank Murchison Distinguished Professor of the
Humanities at Trinity University concludes with the words: 'We find
ourselves at the end of the 20th Century [sic] thus looking for new
models with which to enter the 21st Century [sic].'
And who could argue with that? Money well spent, I reckon. Three cheers
for the prof! Four cheers for Norine R. and T. Frank!
(That makes seven in all, by the way. Don't skip any.)
--
Mickwick
oncle
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[haven't seen his contribution yet]
>> Maria Conlon replied
[enormous split as to content of this thread]
Maria, please don't post interesting replies to messages that my poor
old sever hasn't yet downloaded... I've never been able to get used to
Usenet time-warp...
Seriously, thank-you all for your contributions. I have a colleague
here in France from Uruguay, and I'm in frequent contact with other
colleagues from Argentina. I have very much appreciated the
confrontation between "our" [UK / France / ...European..??] way of
thinking and that of the Americas.
DA
Evan Kirshenbaum
> are Puerto Ricans and Guamians,
Guamians: 63
Guamanians: 1,770
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology:
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an
| isolated lunatic, a religious
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art.
(650)857-7572
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon writes:
>
>> are Puerto Ricans and Guamians,
>
> Guamians: 63
> Guamanians: 1,770
I can't believe I did that. I wrote a piece not too long ago about Guam.
It's probably time to put me out to pasture.
Maria Conlon
Steve Hayes
>Charles Riggs filted:
>>
>>
>>I call Spanish-speaking people in
>>America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>>
>>I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
>>rude?
>
>There's even less agreement on this, e'en among those to whom the terms are
>supposed to apply, than there is on Black/Negro/African-American...about all I
>can say to help you is that there are people to whom one term applies and not
>another:
>
>(1) "Hispanic" means someone whose ancestry prominently features Spain, whether
>the individual is from Barcelona, Rio de Janiero, Laredo, or Duluth...it matters
>not whether that person can speak any more of the Spanish language than is heard
>in the average Taco Bell commercial....
I'm surprised at that. I've thought of it primarily as a linguistic term --
those whose first language is Spanish or a dialect thereof.
>(2) "Latino" refers to those whose families come from the Spanish-speaking
>countries of the New World...you'll not use this term to refer to a Spaniard,
>nor to a Surinamese, but you can use it to describe a migrant farm-worker in the
>central valley of California (place of birth is not itself a determining
>factor)....
So it wouldn't include Brazilians of Italian ancestry?
Again, I'm surprised.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Thanks, RH. That was the helpful sort of answer I was hoping for. Me,
I don't much care since I live in a land far removed from where these
questions frequently crop up. I was asking for my sister, who knows of
my contact with this group. She lives in New Mexico, the whitest woman
on the mountain. I've sent your answer on to her.
Charles Riggs
>
>"Charles Riggs" <NotM...@aircom.net> wrote in message
>news:h3c5mvgohnjh7tfrn...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I call Spanish-speaking people in
>> America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
>> rude?
>
>I'll stick with "beaners," but that's just me.
My sister said that's her husband's term for them, but I suspect she
was joking. She was serious when asking about the other possible
names.
R H Draney
>
>On 13 Sep 2003 08:24:39 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>(1) "Hispanic" means someone whose ancestry prominently features Spain, whether
>>the individual is from Barcelona, Rio de Janiero, Laredo, or Duluth...it matters
>>not whether that person can speak any more of the Spanish language than is heard
>>in the average Taco Bell commercial....
>
>I'm surprised at that. I've thought of it primarily as a linguistic term --
>those whose first language is Spanish or a dialect thereof.
There's a vast difference in this arena between what a word *should* mean based
upon its derivation and what it means in practice...this is one of those
words...I've known people with no Spanish language at all who consider
themselves Hispanic solely on the basis of their ancestry...and people who have
spoken Spanish as a co-first language who deny the term because their ancestors
came from the Cherokee strip....
>>(2) "Latino" refers to those whose families come from the Spanish-speaking
>>countries of the New World...you'll not use this term to refer to a Spaniard,
>>nor to a Surinamese, but you can use it to describe a migrant farm-worker in the
>>central valley of California (place of birth is not itself a determining
>>factor)....
>
>So it wouldn't include Brazilians of Italian ancestry?
>
>Again, I'm surprised.
Fair enough...you'd think it would mean anyone who could trace ancestry back to
a country with a language based on Latin, but I seriously doubt a certain
Romanian co-worker of mine thinks of herself as Latina...again, my description
is of the way the word is actually applied....
The only rule you can use in matters of this sort is "call people what they want
to be called"...you'll never win their hearts and minds with logic....r
R H Draney
>
>I live in Buena Park, Southern California, at the heart of the immigration
>problem. The Mexican students at the high school used to wear these shirts
>proclaiming that they wanted to be called "Mexicans". It went something like
>this:
>
> NOT LATINO
> NOT HISPANIC
> BUT MEXICAN
>
>Basically some "brown pride" bullshit. If the white students wore anything
>mentioning their race they would be expelled.
One woman I know claims she's one hundred percent Aztec in ancestry...the only
word of the three that would fit her is Mexican...(actually, I think the more
militant cases prefer to call the country Aztlan instead of Mexico)....
Maybe you could get yourself one of the shirts and alter the "but" to a third
"not"....r
Ross Howard
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrought:
>Anyway: The terms "Latinos" and "Hispanics" are mainly governmentese
>catch-alls. The actual _people_ are either Mexicans, Puerto Ricans,
>Columbians, Hatians, etc.
¿Qué? Since when have Ha[i]itians been Hispanics? And why pick on the
alumni of just one university?
***********
Ross Howard
Aaron J. Dinkin
> It's true that Puerto Rico and Guam (don't forget Guam) are U.S.
> territories, but I'm not sure that the title "American" is used for them
> by others or even by themselves. To and among themselves, I think they
> are Puerto Ricans and Guamians, and not "Americans."
"Nobody knows in America,
Puerto Rico's in America."
Stephen Sondheim, _West Side Story_
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Ted H.
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> "Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> writes:
>
> > are Puerto Ricans and Guamians,
> Guamanians: 1,770
So these would be residents of Guanama? <grin>
--
Theodore Heise <th...@heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
Javi
> "Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> news:bjvq7l$nl7f9$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What's a poor Anglo to do? Well, the right-wing crowd has it easy;
>>>they just call them werbacks.
>>
>>I don't think so. (Oh, okay. I know what word you mean.)
>>
>>
>>>.....And the apathetic just ignore it all.
>>
>>Sure. "Ignoring" comes with being apathetic. (But who cares, right?)
>>
>>Anyway: The terms "Latinos" and "Hispanics" are mainly governmentese
>>catch-alls. The actual _people_ are either Mexicans, Puerto Ricans,
>>Columbians, Hatians, etc. Sticking with their citizenship seems better
>>than trying to break everyone down into ethnic origins, even in broad
>>terms.
>>
>>IMO.
A very sensible opinion, IMO.
> Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French creole, so
it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
> "Citizenship" doesn't quite work as a term to use when speaking of such
> matters because the children born in the US of Latino parents are American
> citizens: they would be Mexican-Americans, Columbian-Americans, etc.
> Furthermore, all Puerto Ricans are American citizens (so you wouldn't say
> *"Puerto-Rican Americans"). Then there will inevitably be Latinos whose
> parents came from two different Spanish-speaking countries. What would a man
> whose father came from Mexico and whose mother came from Columbia call
> himself? (My guess is that if the subject were to come up, he would say "My
> father is from Mexico and my mother is from Columbia.")
From my European viewpoint it is redundant and ridiculous to label
someone as "Mexican-American": Mexico is in America, so all Mexicans are
Americans. But I understand the use when used by someone from the USA,
so no need to explain it again. I'm just stating my viewpoint.
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool
Javi
> I call Spanish-speaking people in
> America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
>
> I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
> rude?
The term "Hispanics" is more correct from an ethymological point of
view: nearly all America south of Rio Grande was colonized by people
from the ancient Hispania, modern Spain and Portugal. Of course, I know
that the current usage of a word is not determined by its ethymology, so
I won't fight about it.
The term "Latinos" and "Latin-America" is favoured by French and Italian
geographers, who try to encompass south-of-Rio-Grande America using a
term that do not leave their countries aside.
In Spain and Portugal we prefer the terms "Hispano-América" or
"Ibero-América".
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.
Carmen L. Abruzzi
poziNO...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/14/03 11:41 AM:
>
>> Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
>
> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French creole, so
> it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
No, no, no, no, no. "Latino" does not mean "Romance speaking" or anything
like it. It means something like "a person with ancestry in a new world
Spanish-speaking country living in the US". I wouldn't call a person born
and raised in Spain "Latina/o", even if living in the US.
I'd add that it generally means the person grew up in a community with
cultural ties to their ancestral country, either in that country or in the
States. Joe Ruiz who grew up in Michigan speaking English, playing American
football, and listening to Muddy Waters and Miles Davis is not Latino, even
though his parents immigrated from Mexico, and even though he might obtain a
special scholarship for Hispanics/Latinos. Not that one couldn't do all
those things and still be Latino, if one also listened to Norteño, or Salsa
or whatever.
R F
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> A very sensible opinion, IMO.
>
> > Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
>
> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French creole, so
> it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
No it can't. "Latino" refers exclusively to persons associated with
countries in Latin America and places that *would* be in Latin America
were they not territories of some nation-state that is not in Latin
America. "Latin America", today at least, refers only to countries in
the New World in which Spanish or Portuguese are the dominant languages.
Thus Haiti is not part of 'Latin America', though its neighbor the
Dominican Republic is.
> From my European viewpoint it is redundant and ridiculous to label
> someone as "Mexican-American": Mexico is in America, so all Mexicans are
> Americans. But I understand the use when used by someone from the USA,
> so no need to explain it again. I'm just stating my viewpoint.
Ay!
Michael West
"R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The only rule you can use in matters of this sort is "call people what they want
> to be called"...
Not a rule that's likely to gain much of a foothold
in AUE, I'd suggest.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
Donna Richoux
> "R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The only rule you can use in matters of this sort is "call people what
> > they want to be called"...
>
> Not a rule that's likely to gain much of a foothold
> in AUE, I'd suggest.
I'm surprised. Why do you say that, Michael? I've seen the principle
strongly defended here when it comes to how to pronounce personal names,
for example, and unusual pronunciations of town names, and names for
racial groups.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Steve Hayes
I've never met anyone who's wanted to be called either -- or not wanted to be
called either. The nearest we have here is Portuguese, and they seem quite
happy with being called Portuguese.
Raymond S. Wise
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
[Raymond S. Wise, replying to Maria Conlon wrote:]
> > Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
>
> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French creole, so
> it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
As others have pointed out, "Latino" does not apply to the French or
to others who speak French as a first language.
>
> > "Citizenship" doesn't quite work as a term to use when speaking of such
> > matters because the children born in the US of Latino parents are American
> > citizens: they would be Mexican-Americans, Columbian-Americans, etc.
> > Furthermore, all Puerto Ricans are American citizens (so you wouldn't say
> > *"Puerto-Rican Americans"). Then there will inevitably be Latinos whose
> > parents came from two different Spanish-speaking countries. What would a man
> > whose father came from Mexico and whose mother came from Columbia call
> > himself? (My guess is that if the subject were to come up, he would say "My
> > father is from Mexico and my mother is from Columbia.")
>
> From my European viewpoint it is redundant and ridiculous to label
> someone as "Mexican-American": Mexico is in America, so all Mexicans are
> Americans. But I understand the use when used by someone from the USA,
> so no need to explain it again. I'm just stating my viewpoint.
>
> --
> Saludos cordiales
> Javi
I'll take your word for it that you find "Mexican-American" redundant
and ridiculous, but it's misleading to attribute it to your "European
viewpoint." There are at least two countries in Europe, France and
Finland, in which a version of "America" is used to mean "The United
States of America" with a derived term, a version of "American," is
used to mean "a citizen of the United States of America." I've written
about this before:
or
[begin quote from Usenet post]
A look at the Finnish to English and English to Finnish dictionaries
at
http://www.freedict.com/cgi-bin/onldict.cgi
reveals that "Yhdysvallat" is "United States of America, USA,"
"Yhdistyneet Kansakunnat" is "United Nations," the English word
"state" translates into Finnish as "tila, valtio, valtakunta," and
"lainen" is used to indicate an inhabitant of a country or nation or
continent, so that "aasialainen" means "Asian," "amerikkalainen" means
"American, US citizen" (is the usual sense "US citizen," I wonder),
"brasilialainen" is a "Brazilian," and "englantilainen" is "English,
Englishman, Sassenach" (what's the story behind that last?)
That appears to make "yhdysvaltalainen" the equivalent of the standard
Esperanto term (only term in fact) for a citizen of the US, "Usonano"
(feminine form "Usonanino") and the French "états-unien" (_f._
"états-unienne"), which is not only all over the Internet and Usenet,
but is also in a couple of dictionaries, the *Petit Larousse* and the
*Petit Robert* according to the following Web site:
http://users.skynet.be/Landroit/ABL/etatsunien.html
which also mentions the variants "étatsunien" (_f._ "étatsunienne")
and "étasunien" (_f._ "étasunienne"). United States of America
Yhdysvallat, Amerikka Yhdysvallat United States of America, USA
[end quote if Usenet post]
I expect there are other countries in which the words "America" and
"Americans" are similarly treated.
It may well be that the French and Finns do not not naturally produce
such forms as "Mexican-American" in their languages, but this would
not be because they think it redundant, not because they think
Mexicans are Americans, but because they don't tend to form ethnic
terms in that way. The French would probably refer to
Mexican-Americans as either "Mexicains" or "Américains de l'ethnie
mexicaine." (If you go back far enough, you will see that hyphenated
forms used to describe ethnicity were once unknown in English as
well.)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur". More ordinary, but equally
jarring, was "ithu" for "issue". He didn't mention "scubbers",
though.
Michael West
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1g1b0fl.1w3k9gf7y6rduN%tr...@euronet.nl...
A somewhat oblique comment there. Name-calling
is well-entrenched here, I observe. (I almost wrote
"highly-evolved" but thought better of it.)
It isn't my impression that people who are its targets
particularly "want" to be called whatever they're
being called.
Steve Hayes
>
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>
>> A very sensible opinion, IMO.
>>
>> > Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
>>
>> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French creole, so
>> it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
>
>No it can't. "Latino" refers exclusively to persons associated with
>countries in Latin America and places that *would* be in Latin America
>were they not territories of some nation-state that is not in Latin
>America. "Latin America", today at least, refers only to countries in
>the New World in which Spanish or Portuguese are the dominant languages.
>Thus Haiti is not part of 'Latin America', though its neighbor the
>Dominican Republic is.
Ah well, perhaps you can get real Indians from Guyana and Surinam.
Raymond S. Wise
news:47dd044c.0309...@posting.google.com...
[...]
The passage in the last paragraph quoted above, "United States of America >
Yhdysvallat, Amerikka Yhdysvallat United States of America, USA," was an
error resulting from accidentally mixing the results of two copy-and-paste
operations and was not in the original Usenet post.
I should note that "états-unien" is not a standard term in French, but
rather a slang or colloquial term. A friend of mine who is French
herself--and an American citizen--and who visits France every year has never
encountered the term, although she is well aware of the French slang term
"Ricain" for "Américain." I'm quite certain that "Ricain" never means "an
inhabitant of the Americas" nor does "traduit de l'américain" ever mean
anything other than "translated from American English." The friend in
question dislikes the term "American" for "a citizen of the United States of
America," but she explicitly agreed with my point about "traduit de
l'américain" and I am sure she would also agree with my assessment of the
term "Ricain." She never encounters the term "états-unien" because she never
reads posts on Usenet and rarely reads items on the Internet, and young
French people must never have said "états-unien" in her presence: She heard
it first from me when I was discussing the word.
Raymond S. Wise
news:7f6amv012e1mp1uv5...@4ax.com...
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary at
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=33020&dict=CALD
gives /'gl&si@/, "GLASSy-uh," as the only British pronunciation. For the
American pronunciation, it gives one with the "long 'a'" (of "table") and an
"s" sound in the middle, /'gleIsi@r/, "GLAY-see-ur."
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=glacier
The Collins English Dictionary gives the /'gl&si@/, "GLASSy-uh,"
pronunciation and a /'gleIsi@/, "GLAY-see-uh," pronunciation, with no
American pronunciation indicated.
The most common American pronunciation, according to Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate, is /'gleIS@r/, "GLAY-shur," and that's how I say it.
What you heard as "ithu" for "issue" was likely either /'ISju/, "ISH-you,"
(as Collins puts it) or /'Isju/, "ISS-you," one of the pronunciations given
by Cambridge.
Laura F Spira
>
>
> I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
> pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur".
That looks like the way I was taught to pronounce it, admittedly by my
Lithuanian grandmother who always had a supply of Fox's Glacier Mints in
her handbag, but her spoken English was pretty good (her spelling was
atrocious, though). I only learned the American way when we went to
Alaska.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Matti Lamprhey
>
> I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
> pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur".
That's ambiguous. We Brits pronounce that first syllable to rhyme with
"sassy", not as we would the word "glassy". And we certainly don't
rhyme it with "Macy", as Leftpondians prefer it.
> More ordinary, but equally jarring, was "ithu" for "issue".
I think your TV must have momentarily lithped there.
> He didn't mention "scubbers", though.
Nor will I then. I might mention "scumbers", though, and suggest it be
repopularized. Also the sadly underutilized "scunge".
Matti
Jonathan Jordan
news:bk4148$p98n9$3...@ID-103223.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> >
> > I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
> > pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur".
>
> That's ambiguous. We Brits pronounce that first syllable to rhyme with
> "sassy", not as we would the word "glassy". And we certainly don't
> rhyme it with "Macy", as Leftpondians prefer it.
I didn't know the term "Brits" was restricted to people from south of the
Watford Gap.
Jonathan
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote...
> > "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > >
> > > I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight.
> > > He pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur".
> >
> > That's ambiguous. We Brits pronounce that first syllable to rhyme
> > with "sassy", not as we would the word "glassy". And we certainly
> > don't rhyme it with "Macy", as Leftpondians prefer it.
>
> I didn't know the term "Brits" was restricted to people from south of
> the Watford Gap.
When I hear the mention of "the Watford Gap" I reach for my Shibboleth
Discourager.
Matti
R F
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> >
> > I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
> > pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur".
>
> That's ambiguous. We Brits pronounce that first syllable to rhyme with
> "sassy", not as we would the word "glassy". And we certainly don't
> rhyme it with "Macy", as Leftpondians prefer it.
I think Leftpondians universally say /gleISR/ (or /gleIS@/ for
non-rhotics). "Glay-sher", IYW, not "glay-see-er".
Javi
in news:BB8A1BEF.3C8%carmenl...@yahoo.com gave utterance as follows:
> in article bk2ckm$o9u95$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, Javi at
> poziNO...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/14/03 11:41 AM:
>
>>
>>> Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
>>
>> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French
>> creole, so it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
>
> No, no, no, no, no. "Latino" does not mean "Romance speaking" or
> anything like it. It means something like "a person with ancestry in
> a new world Spanish-speaking country living in the US".
That may be your interpretation of the word, but is not the only allowed;
M-W says:
Main Entry: La·ti·no
Pronunciation: l&-'tE-(")nO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
Etymology: American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano Latin
American
Date: 1946
1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America
2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the U.S.
Main Entry: Latin America
Usage: geographical name
1 Spanish America & Brazil
2 all of the Americas S of the U.S.
So, "Latino", using the definition nº 1 of "Latino" and definition nº 2 of
"Latin America", can be used for any person from America south of the USA,
and Haiti is south of the USA. And anyway, countries from Portuguese origin,
as Brazil, are also in Latin America, so Spanish-speaking origin is not
compulsory for Latinos, unless you consider that Portuguese is a variant of
Spanish, which can be defended, but most Portugueses would consider it
offensive.
> I wouldn't
> call a person born and raised in Spain "Latina/o", even if living in
> the US.
Well, I'm a Spaniard, and I define myself as European, Latino, Hispanic,
Spanish, Andalusian, ...
> I'd add that it generally means the person grew up in a community with
> cultural ties to their ancestral country, either in that country or
> in the States. Joe Ruiz who grew up in Michigan speaking English,
> playing American football, and listening to Muddy Waters and Miles
> Davis is not Latino, even though his parents immigrated from Mexico,
> and even though he might obtain a special scholarship for
> Hispanics/Latinos. Not that one couldn't do all those things and
> still be Latino, if one also listened to Norteño, or Salsa or
> whatever.
You seem to consider "Latino" as an attitude in life, rather than a cultural
label. Your Joe Ruiz may be all what you say, but if he believes that he is
"Latino", he has the right to be labelled so. You cannot decide, only from
his preferences in sports and music, that he is Latino or he is not. As I
see it, it is a matter of self-definition: if a person says that he is
Latino, he is; and if he says that he is not Latino, he isn't.
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.
Javi
in news:BB8A1BEF.3C8%carmenl...@yahoo.com gave utterance as follows:
> in article bk2ckm$o9u95$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, Javi at
> poziNO...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/14/03 11:41 AM:
>
>>
>>> Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
>>
>> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French
>> creole, so it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
>
> No, no, no, no, no. "Latino" does not mean "Romance speaking" or
> anything like it. It means something like "a person with ancestry in
> a new world Spanish-speaking country living in the US".
That may be your interpretation of the word, but is not the only allowed;
M-W says:
Main Entry: La·ti·no
Pronunciation: l&-'tE-(")nO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
Etymology: American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano Latin
American
Date: 1946
1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America
2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the U.S.
Main Entry: Latin America
Usage: geographical name
1 Spanish America & Brazil
2 all of the Americas S of the U.S.
So, "Latino", using the definition nº 1 of "Latino" and definition nº 2 of
"Latin America", can be used for any person from America south of the USA,
and Haiti is south of the USA. And anyway, countries from Portuguese origin,
as Brazil, are also in Latin America, so Spanish-speaking origin is not
compulsory for Latinos, unless you consider that Portuguese is a variant of
Spanish, which can be defended, but most Portugueses would consider it
offensive.
> I wouldn't
> call a person born and raised in Spain "Latina/o", even if living in
> the US.
Well, I'm a Spaniard, and I define myself as European, Latino, Hispanic,
Spanish, Andalusian, ...
> I'd add that it generally means the person grew up in a community with
> cultural ties to their ancestral country, either in that country or
> in the States. Joe Ruiz who grew up in Michigan speaking English,
> playing American football, and listening to Muddy Waters and Miles
> Davis is not Latino, even though his parents immigrated from Mexico,
> and even though he might obtain a special scholarship for
> Hispanics/Latinos. Not that one couldn't do all those things and
> still be Latino, if one also listened to Norteño, or Salsa or
> whatever.
You seem to consider "Latino" as an attitude in life, rather than a cultural
label. Your Joe Ruiz may be all what you say, but if he believes that he is
"Latino", he has the right to be labelled so. You cannot decide, only from
his preferences in sports and music, that he is Latino or he is not. As I
see it, it is a matter of self-definition: if a person says that he is
Latino, he is; and if he says that he is not Latino, he isn't.
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.
R F
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
[Carmen Abruzzi:]
> > No, no, no, no, no. "Latino" does not mean "Romance speaking" or
> > anything like it. It means something like "a person with ancestry in
> > a new world Spanish-speaking country living in the US".
>
> That may be your interpretation of the word, but is not the only allowed;
> M-W says:
>
> Main Entry: La·ti·no
> Pronunciation: l&-'tE-(")nO
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
> Etymology: American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano Latin
> American
> Date: 1946
> 1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America
> 2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the U.S.
>
> Main Entry: Latin America
> Usage: geographical name
> 1 Spanish America & Brazil
> 2 all of the Americas S of the U.S.
>
> So, "Latino", using the definition nş 1 of "Latino" and definition nş 2 of
> "Latin America", can be used for any person from America south of the USA,
> and Haiti is south of the USA.
The definition is dead wrong. Haiti is not part of Latin America, and
Haitians are not Latin Americans or 'Latinos'.
> And anyway, countries from Portuguese origin,
> as Brazil, are also in Latin America, so Spanish-speaking origin is not
> compulsory for Latinos, unless you consider that Portuguese is a variant of
> Spanish, which can be defended, but most Portugueses would consider it
> offensive.
Brazil is definitely part of Latin America, unlike Haiti. But one thing
that makes it easy to consider Brazil Latin American is the perceived
common Iberian character of Spanish and Portuguese-associated cultures.
Whether that's bogus or not is a whole nother question.
I am not comfortable with the idea of calling Brazilians or
Brazilian-Americans "Latinos", though Brazil is unquestionably 'Latin'.
The definitions of 'Latino' that have been offered are oversimplified.
> > I wouldn't
> > call a person born and raised in Spain "Latina/o", even if living in
> > the US.
>
> Well, I'm a Spaniard, and I define myself as European, Latino, Hispanic,
> Spanish, Andalusian, ...
You're not a Latino. As a Spaniard, you're one reason why 'Latino' has
been replacing 'Hispanic'.
> You seem to consider "Latino" as an attitude in life, rather than a cultural
> label. Your Joe Ruiz may be all what you say, but if he believes that he is
> "Latino", he has the right to be labelled so. You cannot decide, only from
> his preferences in sports and music, that he is Latino or he is not. As I
> see it, it is a matter of self-definition: if a person says that he is
> Latino, he is; and if he says that he is not Latino, he isn't.
How far do you take that? If a white person considers himself black, but
is perceived by the rest of the world as white, is he white or black?
This might be difficult for a Spaniard to answer since Spain is not a
multiracial society.
Matti Lamprhey
It just goes to show that there's no Ossa without a Pelion threatening
to pile atop it.
Matti
Ross Howard
wrought:
>
>On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>
>[Carmen Abruzzi:]
>> > No, no, no, no, no. "Latino" does not mean "Romance speaking" or
>> > anything like it. It means something like "a person with ancestry in
>> > a new world Spanish-speaking country living in the US".
>>
>> That may be your interpretation of the word, but is not the only allowed;
>> M-W says:
>>
>> Main Entry: La·ti·no
>> Pronunciation: l&-'tE-(")nO
>> Function: noun
>> Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
>> Etymology: American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano Latin
>> American
>> Date: 1946
>> 1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America
>> 2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the U.S.
>>
>> Main Entry: Latin America
>> Usage: geographical name
>> 1 Spanish America & Brazil
>> 2 all of the Americas S of the U.S.
>>
>> So, "Latino", using the definition nº 1 of "Latino" and definition nº 2 of
Say qué? Spain has been a multi-racial society for going on for 1,000
years.
***********
Ross Howard
Javi
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
follows:
Then, M-W is dead wrong. I suppose that there have been changes in the
meaning of these words that are not reflected by dictionaries.
>> And anyway, countries from Portuguese origin,
>> as Brazil, are also in Latin America, so Spanish-speaking origin is
>> not compulsory for Latinos, unless you consider that Portuguese is a
>> variant of Spanish, which can be defended, but most Portugueses
>> would consider it offensive.
>
> Brazil is definitely part of Latin America, unlike Haiti. But one
> thing that makes it easy to consider Brazil Latin American is the
> perceived common Iberian character of Spanish and
> Portuguese-associated cultures. Whether that's bogus or not is a
> whole nother question.
I don't think it be bogus. Despite Portuguese wishes, both cultures (and
languages) are quite similar.
> I am not comfortable with the idea of calling Brazilians or
> Brazilian-Americans "Latinos", though Brazil is unquestionably
> 'Latin'.
>
> The definitions of 'Latino' that have been offered are oversimplified.
I know that words change their meanings, and when some time has passed,
dictionaries reflect those changes. "Latino" may be one of those words.
Anyway, the oversimplification you mention is in M-W.
>>> I wouldn't
>>> call a person born and raised in Spain "Latina/o", even if living in
>>> the US.
>>
>> Well, I'm a Spaniard, and I define myself as European, Latino,
>> Hispanic, Spanish, Andalusian, ...
>
> You're not a Latino. As a Spaniard, you're one reason why 'Latino'
> has been replacing 'Hispanic'.
I'm "Latin", if you prefer it, but after European and before Hispanic I'm
something that I call "Latino" but you seem to ignore. I feel that I have
something in common with Italians and Frenchpersons, something that Germans,
Scandinavians or Slaves don't have.
>> You seem to consider "Latino" as an attitude in life, rather than a
>> cultural label. Your Joe Ruiz may be all what you say, but if he
>> believes that he is "Latino", he has the right to be labelled so.
>> You cannot decide, only from his preferences in sports and music,
>> that he is Latino or he is not. As I see it, it is a matter of
>> self-definition: if a person says that he is Latino, he is; and if
>> he says that he is not Latino, he isn't.
>
> How far do you take that? If a white person considers himself black,
> but is perceived by the rest of the world as white, is he white or
> black?
He is black. I remember that there are some films dealing with the matter of
white black people (persons whose fathers were considered black but they
were born white) in USA; those films surprised me a lot. When I was younger,
I was quite surprised that some actors and actresses who were white for me,
considered themselves black because they have some black blood. I mean, for
me, a person with 25% of his ancestors black and 75% of his ancestors white,
is white; in USA, he is considered black, in Spain he would be white, or,
for some people who accept Hollywood films as an acceptable description of
the world, mulato, but few people would consider him simply black. Anyway,
the fact that a person be black or white is not important for me, so I don't
conciously classify a person I meet as black or white, but If he says he is
black or white, I'll accept it.
> This might be difficult for a Spaniard to answer since Spain
> is not a multiracial society.
We have high immigration levels lately, mainly from Africa and South
America. But we prefer not to define racial status: differently from the
USA's way, a person more white than black is white. This is not a common
trait of all Spaniards, as Hollywood is powerful transmitting the USA's
cultural values, but is valid for many Spaniards.
I worked with a person who was a 3rd generation Spaniard but whose skin was
quite black (surprisingly, his grandparents and parents had married mostly
with black Spaniards); he acted and spoke as any other Spaniard, so nobody
treated him differently, nor did he seems to think that he was different in
any way from the other co-workers. My girlfriend has worked with Spaniards
from northern Africa (yes, in Spain there are many people of North-African
origin, mainly from Ceuta and Melilla, Spanish towns in North Africa): their
skin is a bit darker than most Spaniards', and they are muslim, but almost
nobody treats them differently, nor do they think themselves that they are
different.
These are different cases from people just arrived to Spain who do not speak
Spanish as Spaniards, nor do they know the Spanish culture. These people are
regarded as "foreigners", but not because of their skin color: a white
Polish is as foreigner as a black African.
I believe that a society that defines itself as "multiracial society" is
just a racist society.
R F
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> > You're not a Latino. As a Spaniard, you're one reason why 'Latino'
> > has been replacing 'Hispanic'.
>
> I'm "Latin", if you prefer it, but after European and before Hispanic I'm
> something that I call "Latino" but you seem to ignore. I feel that I have
> something in common with Italians and Frenchpersons, something that Germans,
> Scandinavians or Slaves don't have.
I hear ya. But that doesn't make you an AmE "Latino"; it may make you a
"Latin", though that usage is, I believe, halfway towards archaicization
as regards Europeans or people of European but not Latin American
ancestry. It already excluded French people, certainly, and I suspect
even you would not regard yourself as having all that much in common with
Romanians. That is, whatever this usage of 'Latin' means today, it isn't
as broad as 'people from Romance language cultures'. It's closer to
'people from South[west]ern Europe Romance language cultures'.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I'm "Latin", if you prefer it, but after European and before
> Hispanic I'm something that I call "Latino" but you seem to
> ignore. I feel that I have something in common with Italians and
> Frenchpersons, something that Germans, Scandinavians or Slaves
Oy!
> don't have.
That would be "Latin" here, in the sense of
4 : of or relating to the peoples or countries using Romance
languages;
"Latino" is narrower.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe
Raymond S. Wise
news:bk4i7n$pf0m5$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de...
Haitians have never been Latinos, nor have Jamaicans. Merriam-Webster just
got it wrong here.
[...]
> I believe that a society that defines itself as "multiracial society" is
> just a racist society.
I'd say it's just the opposite. A society that defines itself as a
"multiracial society" is in the process of abandoning racism. When white
Americans did not see America as consisting of a multiracial society it was
extremely racist compared to how it is today, and even today there are some
racists who consider America a "white country" instead of a multiracial one.
John Dean
'Twas on the Thursday morning the Glazier came along,
With his blowtorch and his putty and his merry glazier song.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Javi
in news:vmc1538...@corp.supernews.com gave utterance as follows:
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> I believe that a society that defines itself as "multiracial
>> society" is just a racist society.
>
>
> I'd say it's just the opposite. A society that defines itself as a
> "multiracial society" is in the process of abandoning racism.
I see that you agree with me: a society that defines itself as "multiracial"
is (or was, if you prefer so) a racist society, be it in the process of
abandoning racism or not.
> When
> white Americans did not see America as consisting of a multiracial
> society it was extremely racist compared to how it is today, and even
> today there are some racists who consider America a "white country"
> instead of a multiracial one.
I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society is
better than a racist society, but better than this is a society that never
thought that racial differences were important, as the Spanish society. We
don't need to be a multiracial society because we've never been racists.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society
> is better than a racist society, but better than this is a society
> that never thought that racial differences were important, as the
> Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society because
> we've never been racists.
Not that I'm disagreeing, but perhaps you could comment on something
that came up a few years ago, when we were discussing "the pot calling
the kettle black", first attested in English in a translation of _Don
Quixote_. The word used there is "ojinegra", and Lee Rudolph wrote
However, a third near-contemporary of the two of them, Quevedo, in
his PREMATICA QUE SE HA DE GUARDAR PARA LAS DADIVAS A LAS MUJERES
DE CUALQUIER ESTADO O TAMA\~NO (etc.), at
http://griso.cti.unav.es/Quevedo/obras/Prosa/festivas/prematica_mujeres.html
, pairs "ojinegra" with "pelinegra", and does so in a way that
suggests (to me) anti-"Moro" sentiments that might be the closest
Spain of that time could approach to "racism" in a modern sense.
To be a bit more combative, it seems difficult to mesh "we've never
been racists" with the treatment of the indigenous peoples of this
hemisphere by the Spanish. That always seemed to be pretty much a
race-based two-class system to me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A burro is an ass. A burrow is a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |hole in the ground. As a
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |journalist, you are expected to
|know the difference.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | UPI Stylebook
(650)857-7572
R F
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society is
> better than a racist society, but better than this is a society that never
> thought that racial differences were important, as the Spanish society. We
> don't need to be a multiracial society because we've never been racists.
Evan K. raises an important point in this regard. How do you account for
the racial caste systems that are in place throughout Latin America today?
These were set up originally (in part by establishing systems of
enslavement of non-European populations, both indigenous and imported
African slaves) by Spaniards and Portuguese persons, or by Spanish and
Portuguese colonists if you prefer. Surely you don't regard the
institution of slavery in the Spanish Empire to be of a "non-racist"
character.
Skitt
Recognizing differences and using that recognition to one's own advantage is
a basic human trait. We are learning to deny it, but nevertheless, it will
always be there.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Javi
news:3ceyhu...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I'm "Latin", if you prefer it, but after European and before
>> Hispanic I'm something that I call "Latino" but you seem to
>> ignore. I feel that I have something in common with Italians and
>> Frenchpersons, something that Germans, Scandinavians or Slaves
>
> Oy!
>
>> don't have.
Do you oy because I wrote "Frenchpersons" instead of "Frenchpeople" or
because I wrote "Slaves" instead of "Slavs"? I'm not a native English
speaker, so I think that I deserve some mercy.
> That would be "Latin" here, in the sense of
>
> 4 : of or relating to the peoples or countries using Romance
> languages;
>
> "Latino" is narrower.
I think you are right, as I'm discovering.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
> news:3ceyhu...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> > "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> I'm "Latin", if you prefer it, but after European and before
> >> Hispanic I'm something that I call "Latino" but you seem to
> >> ignore. I feel that I have something in common with Italians and
> >> Frenchpersons, something that Germans, Scandinavians or Slaves
> >
> > Oy!
> >
> >> don't have.
>
> Do you oy because I wrote "Frenchpersons" instead of "Frenchpeople"
> or because I wrote "Slaves" instead of "Slavs"?
The latter.
> I'm not a native English speaker, so I think that I deserve some
> mercy.
Nah, your English is too good for that.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Javi
news:1qfbmvc57vrq3rkbn...@4ax.com gave utterance as follows:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:04:13 -0400, R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu>
> wrought:
>>
>> How far do you take that? If a white person considers himself black,
>> but is perceived by the rest of the world as white, is he white or
>> black? This might be difficult for a Spaniard to answer since Spain
>> is not a multiracial society.
>
> Say qué? Spain has been a multi-racial society for going on for 1,000
> years.
I know what you mean and I think that you are right, but I would not call
Spain a multiracial society, but a aracial society: race has never been
important in the Spanish society. Gipsies might object to that, but it was
their nomadic way of living, and nowadays it is their blood feuds, not their
race, what made them not to integrate in the Spanish society, integration
that most of them didn't want, as many of them preferred to lead a nomadic
life. But the few who preferred a sedentary life have integrated in the
Spanish society without problem.
Javi
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society
>> is better than a racist society, but better than this is a society
>> that never thought that racial differences were important, as the
>> Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society because
>> we've never been racists.
>
> Not that I'm disagreeing, but perhaps you could comment on something
> that came up a few years ago, when we were discussing "the pot calling
> the kettle black", first attested in English in a translation of _Don
> Quixote_. The word used there is "ojinegra", and Lee Rudolph wrote
>
> However, a third near-contemporary of the two of them, Quevedo, in
> his PREMATICA QUE SE HA DE GUARDAR PARA LAS DADIVAS A LAS MUJERES
> DE CUALQUIER ESTADO O TAMA\~NO (etc.), at
>
>
>
>
>
http://griso.cti.unav.es/Quevedo/obras/Prosa/festivas/prematica_mujeres.html
> , pairs "ojinegra" with "pelinegra", and does so in a way that
> suggests (to me) anti-"Moro" sentiments that might be the closest
> Spain of that time could approach to "racism" in a modern sense.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ng0c
Well, if this is ALL the racism that can be found in Spanish writers, it
seems quite minor. I suppose that I don't need to quote American writers to
show the difference.
> To be a bit more combative, it seems difficult to mesh "we've never
> been racists" with the treatment of the indigenous peoples of this
> hemisphere by the Spanish. That always seemed to be pretty much a
> race-based two-class system to me.
I see that the "leyenda negra" is still alive, even in intelligent minds. I
could mention the treatment received by North-American natives to show the
difference with Hispano-American natives, but it is so obvious that I'll
omit it.
Please, read my answer to R.F in this thread.
Javi
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
follows:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>
>> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society
>> is better than a racist society, but better than this is a society
>> that never thought that racial differences were important, as the
>> Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society because
>> we've never been racists.
>
> Evan K. raises an important point in this regard. How do you account
> for the racial caste systems that are in place throughout Latin
> America today?
There is not a racial caste system in Latin America today. It existed, but
it does not exist any more. I explain it as an indirect consequence of the
land property system inherited from Spanish and Portuguese colonists.
Nowadays, the fact that land property is mainly in the hands of descendents
of non-indigenous Hispano-Americans is a consequence of the way that the new
independent nations made their laws, not a direct consequence of the
(supposed by you) racism of the Spanish colonists. Anyway, I never wrote
that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are not racists
*nowadays*.
> These were set up originally (in part by establishing
> systems of enslavement of non-European populations, both indigenous
> and imported African slaves) by Spaniards and Portuguese persons, or
> by Spanish and Portuguese colonists if you prefer.
You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the matter,
but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish colonies. The
"encomiendas" did not enslave indigenous. African slaves was a different
matter, but I suppose that I don't have to explain how black slaves
descendants were treated in North-America, nor how North-American indigenous
were exterminated by the white emigrants in North-America. You may believe
that extermination is better than being deprived of ancestors' land, but I
don't.
> Surely you don't
> regard the institution of slavery in the Spanish Empire to be of a
> "non-racist" character.
Slavery existed in *all* countries until the 19th century. Spain is not an
exception in this, but it is in the sense that former slaves were
assimilated, if not in the first generation, in the subsequent generations,
to the non-slave population. We had lots of black slaves in Spain, mainly in
the 17th and 18th centuries, but nowadays their descendants are
indishtinguishable from the non-slave population descendants, because they
mixed with the poor Spaniards in those centuries without problem. How is,
and was, the matter in the USA? (rethoric question, no answer needed).
Jonathan Jordan
news:vmaub9g...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> > I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
> > pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur". More ordinary, but equally
> > jarring, was "ithu" for "issue". He didn't mention "scubbers",
> > though.
>
>
> The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary at
>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=33020&dict=CALD
>
> gives /'gl&si@/, "GLASSy-uh," as the only British pronunciation. For the
> American pronunciation, it gives one with the "long 'a'" (of "table") and
an
> "s" sound in the middle, /'gleIsi@r/, "GLAY-see-ur."
>
> http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=glacier
>
> The Collins English Dictionary gives the /'gl&si@/, "GLASSy-uh,"
> pronunciation and a /'gleIsi@/, "GLAY-see-uh," pronunciation, with no
> American pronunciation indicated.
>
> The most common American pronunciation, according to Merriam-Webster's
> Collegiate, is /'gleIS@r/, "GLAY-shur," and that's how I say it.
I say it exactly like the way I say "glassier" (with the "cat" vowel in the
first syllable). I think this is the most common British pronunciation, but
it isn't the only one. I've certainly heard it with the "face" vowel.
Chambers gives four pronunciations, which I would transcribe into ASCII IPA
as
/'glasj@r/ - "glas-yer"
/'glasi@r/ - the way I say it
/'glesj@r/ - "glace-yer"
/'gleS@r/ - like the one you say is the commonest American pronunciation.
(/a/ as in "cat", /e/ as in "face")
None of these are marked as specifically American, unlike, say, the /e/
variant of "tomato". The actual difference in sound between the first and
second versions would be small, I think, but I do perceive the word as three
syllables.
> What you heard as "ithu" for "issue" was likely either /'ISju/, "ISH-you,"
> (as Collins puts it) or /'Isju/, "ISS-you," one of the pronunciations
given
> by Cambridge.
Chambers gives three - /'ISju/, /'ISu/ and /'Isju/. I use the second, and
the third seems old-fashioned to me, but it does seem the most likely to be
misheard as "ithu".
Jonathan
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
> news:pti1hn...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> > "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial
> >> society is better than a racist society, but better than this is
> >> a society that never thought that racial differences were
> >> important, as the Spanish society. We don't need to be a
> >> multiracial society because we've never been racists.
[snip]
> Well, if this is ALL the racism that can be found in Spanish
> writers, it seems quite minor. I suppose that I don't need to quote
> American writers to show the difference.
The difference is that I would never claim that "we've never been
racists".
> > To be a bit more combative, it seems difficult to mesh "we've
> > never been racists" with the treatment of the indigenous peoples
> > of this hemisphere by the Spanish. That always seemed to be
> > pretty much a race-based two-class system to me.
>
> I see that the "leyenda negra" is still alive, even in intelligent
> minds. I could mention the treatment received by North-American
> natives to show the difference with Hispano-American natives, but it
> is so obvious that I'll omit it.
Oh, don't. I'm really curious how the treatment of, say, the Taíno
compares favorably with the shameful treatment of the North American
natives by the United States. It was a Spanish contemporary, de Las
Casas, who wrote that three million of them died between 1494 and
1508, leaving only 60,000. Even if that number is overblown and it
was just a million, it's hard to see the Spanish doing that to any of
the groups they were familiar with back home just "because they
could get away with it".
The main difference I see is that the Americans wanted land and the
Spanish wanted labor, so the tactics were different, but my
understanding is that it was quite a while before the Spanish in North
and South America--and the Spanish in Spain reading about them--
stopped thinking of the "Indios" as "different".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Oh, forget it: I can't write about
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this anymore until I find a much
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |more sarcastic typeface.
| Bill Bickel
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R F
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> The carbon unit using the name R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
> follows:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> >
> >> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society
> >> is better than a racist society, but better than this is a society
> >> that never thought that racial differences were important, as the
> >> Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society because
> >> we've never been racists.
> >
> > Evan K. raises an important point in this regard. How do you account
> > for the racial caste systems that are in place throughout Latin
> > America today?
>
> There is not a racial caste system in Latin America today. It existed, but
> it does not exist any more.
That is the most ignorant assertion I have ever read in five or so years
of reading AUE, WADR, and that includes the suggestion by one Californian
poster that Roman Catholics should be disqualified from holding public
office. The only Latin American societies that do not
currently have pervasive racial caste systems are those few that do not
have and never have had any substantial non-European-ethnicity population.
I've heard it claimed by leftists that Cuba abolished its racial caste
system under Castro, but the fact that control of Cuba has been in the
hands of one bearded cigar-smoking pointy-fingered fatigues-clad white
guy (of Galician descent to boot, no?) for over forty years makes me
skeptical.
> Anyway, I never wrote
> that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are not racists
> *nowadays*.
Read above: you said "we've never been racists".
> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the matter,
> but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish colonies.
Yes they were, though my understanding is that efforts to enslave the
indigenous Americans were often unsuccessful (because they'd tend to kill
themselves rather than endure slavery under the cruel Europeans), which is
what led, in some places, to the preference for enslaving Africans. In
any case, if they weren't slaves in some places, they were hardly treated
as equals of the Europeans. It's not accidental that Latin-American
immigrants to the US are predominantly poor persons of largely
non-European-ethnic ancestry. It's not accidental that 'Latino' or
'Hispanic' came to be regarded as a quasi-racial group in the modern US;
the reason is that the vast majority of such persons were, in fact, of
substantial non-European ancestry, descendants of, or themselves, victims
of racism and racial-caste-ism of Latin America.
> Slavery existed in *all* countries until the 19th century. Spain is not an
> exception in this, but it is in the sense that former slaves were
> assimilated, if not in the first generation, in the subsequent generations,
> to the non-slave population. We had lots of black slaves in Spain, mainly in
> the 17th and 18th centuries, but nowadays their descendants are
> indishtinguishable from the non-slave population descendants, because they
> mixed with the poor Spaniards in those centuries without problem.
Aha! If, as you say, Spaniards have no notion of 'race', how is it that
you can speak of 'mixing with the poor Spaniards' -- the very way you
frame the statement assumes that the black slaves in Spain were NOT
Spaniards. Get's!
Evan Kirshenbaum
> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> >
> >> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society
> >> is better than a racist society, but better than this is a society
> >> that never thought that racial differences were important, as the
> >> Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society because
> >> we've never been racists.
[snip]
> Anyway, I never wrote that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I
> wrote that we are not racists *nowadays*.
You might want to look up just above the snip. Had I known you only
meant today I wouldn't have brought up historical questions in my
other reply.
> > These were set up originally (in part by establishing
> > systems of enslavement of non-European populations, both indigenous
> > and imported African slaves) by Spaniards and Portuguese persons, or
> > by Spanish and Portuguese colonists if you prefer.
>
> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the
> matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish
> colonies. The "encomiendas" did not enslave indigenous.
There are a few groups who might want to quibble with that. In some
cases, you'd have a hard time finding enough survivors, though.
> African slaves was a different matter, but I suppose that I don't
> have to explain how black slaves descendants were treated in
> North-America,
Right. They were shamefully and criminally treated as subhuman. As
they were in the Caribbean.
> nor how North-American indigenous were exterminated by the white
> emigrants in North-America. You may believe that extermination is
> better than being deprived of ancestors' land, but I don't.
Vide "Taíno".
> > Surely you don't
> > regard the institution of slavery in the Spanish Empire to be of a
> > "non-racist" character.
>
> Slavery existed in *all* countries until the 19th century. Spain is
> not an exception in this, but it is in the sense that former slaves
> were assimilated, if not in the first generation, in the subsequent
> generations, to the non-slave population. We had lots of black
> slaves in Spain, mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries,
Define "lots". Were there regions where the slave population
outnumbered the free population?
> but nowadays their descendants are indishtinguishable from the
> non-slave population descendants, because they mixed with the poor
> Spaniards in those centuries without problem. How is, and was, the
> matter in the USA? (rethoric question, no answer needed).
I have no doubt that you guys did better than we did. (Speaking, of
course, in the inclusive "we" that refers to my country at a time when
none of my ancestors were here.) But as you are quick to point out,
that's not a very difficult bar to clear, and I suspect that the
history of the Spanish in this hemisphere has got to rank reasonably
high on any objective "racist" scale.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out
|of such a trifling investment of
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |fact.
(650)857-7572 | Mark Twain
R F
> I know what you mean and I think that you are right, but I would not call
> Spain a multiracial society, but a aracial society: race has never been
> important in the Spanish society. Gipsies might object to that, but it was
> their nomadic way of living, and nowadays it is their blood feuds, not their
> race, what made them not to integrate in the Spanish society, integration
> that most of them didn't want, as many of them preferred to lead a nomadic
> life. But the few who preferred a sedentary life have integrated in the
> Spanish society without problem.
So Spain is a wonderful place, provided everyone "integrates in the
Spanish society". If you want to be Jewish, you get kicked out (unless
you "integrate" by becoming a Roman Catholic). If you want to be Muslim,
you get kicked out. If you don't want to speak the Castilian dialect,
you get marginalized. I'm having trouble seeing how Spain is any
different from, say, Denmark.
BTW, are Basques who live in Spain 'Spaniards'? Is a Chinese immigrant to
Spain (supposing there are any) who, for whatever reason, refuses to speak
Spanish a 'Spaniard'? Looking at the history and present of Spain, I
think one conclusion can be drawn: the essence of Spanishness is
*conformism* and intolerance of *difference*. Viewed in this light, your
characterization of a "multiracial society" as a "racist society" seems
more disturbing.
Jerry Friedman
> Charles Riggs filted:
> >
> >
> >I call Spanish-speaking people in
> >America Hispanics. Am I right in this, or wrong? (Hi, Donna!)
> >
> >I'm pretty sure Beaners is out, but is calling them Latinos considered
> >rude?
>
> There's even less agreement on this, e'en among those to whom the terms are
> supposed to apply, than there is on Black/Negro/African-American...about all I
> can say to help you is that there are people to whom one term applies and not
> another:
I agree that there's no agreement, but the rest is not how I see it.
> (1) "Hispanic" means someone whose ancestry prominently features Spain, whether
> the individual is from Barcelona, Rio de Janiero, Laredo, or Duluth...it matters
> not whether that person can speak any more of the Spanish language than is heard
> in the average Taco Bell commercial....
"Hispanic": someone whose ancestry prominently features Spanish
speakers, regardless of ethnic origin. For many purposes it excludes
people from Spain (sorry, Javi). Popular east of the West Coast
states.
> (2) "Latino" refers to those whose families come from the Spanish-speaking
> countries of the New World...you'll not use this term to refer to a Spaniard,
> nor to a Surinamese, but you can use it to describe a migrant farm-worker in the
> central valley of California (place of birth is not itself a determining
> factor)....
"Latino": same as Hispanic, but can include Brazilians. Popular on
the West Coast.
> (3) "Chicano" is a tricky one...I *think* it only applies to someone living in
> the United States but of Mexican ancestry...I've never heard it used for anyone
> actually *in* Mexico (apart from an occasional tourist)...and if they trace
> their roots to anywhere else in Latin America, you don't use it; it most
> emphatically doesn't sit well with a Guatemalan or Nicaraguan....
I agree with your definition, and I don't think it's tricky except in
northern New Mexico and maybe other areas with pre-1848 populations of
Mexican ancestry. I particularly associate the term with southern
California and the left half of the political spectrum.
> (4) "Mexican"...best to play it safe with this term...use it *only* if you know
> that the person you're applying it to is actually a citizen of Mexico...and
> steer clear of "Mexican-American" altogether...some will use it to mean an
> American whose parents were Mexican, others for a recent immigrant now living in
> the US, still others for anyone who "lives the culture" of Mexico but not for a
> fully assimilated person, and each will insist that applying it to anyone else
> is wrong and offensive....
...
Since Charles was asking on behalf of his sister here in Santa Fe--in
New Mexico, you should definitely not use "Mexican",
"Mexican-American", or "Chicano" unless you know the person or the
person's ancestors came here from Mexico after 1848, probably after
1900.
I should add that some New Mexican descendents of the pre-1848
Spanish-speaking colonists call themselves "Spanish". This may be
going out of style, but it's still around. Some people in the same
ethnic group think that's silly and call themselves "Chicanos".
No one in New Mexico has objected yet to my use of "Hispanic". It's
nice to know from Andrew, though, that there are people who that would
offend.
Several Hispanics have told me that in Spanish, there are no insulting
words--it's all in how you say it. Others will disagree.
--
Jerry Friedman
Javi
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
follows:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>
>> The carbon unit using the name R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> in
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave
>> utterance as follows:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial
>>>> society is better than a racist society, but better than this is a
>>>> society that never thought that racial differences were important,
>>>> as the Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society
>>>> because we've never been racists.
>>>
>>> Evan K. raises an important point in this regard. How do you account
>>> for the racial caste systems that are in place throughout Latin
>>> America today?
>>
>> There is not a racial caste system in Latin America today. It
>> existed, but it does not exist any more.
>
> That is the most ignorant assertion I have ever read in five or so
> years of reading AUE, WADR, and that includes the suggestion by one
> Californian poster that Roman Catholics should be disqualified from
> holding public office.
Then I assume that you have read very little in those last five years.
> The only Latin American societies that do not
> currently have pervasive racial caste systems are those few that do
> not have and never have had any substantial non-European-ethnicity
> population.
And which few countries are those? Are they in planet Earth? I think it is
just the opposite: in the countries, as Bolivia, which never had a
substantial European population, the power is in the hands of the very few
European-descendants. On the other hand, countries that had a substantial
European population, which mixed with the indigenous population, have
nowadays a mixed population, and the ethnic origin is not as important as it
is in other countries.
Caste system? As it was in India? You have never been south of Rio Grande,
except as, maybe, a tourist.
> I've heard it claimed by leftists that Cuba abolished its racial caste
> system under Castro, but the fact that control of Cuba has been in the
> hands of one bearded cigar-smoking pointy-fingered fatigues-clad white
> guy (of Galician descent to boot, no?) for over forty years makes me
> skeptical.
I see. You are an anticastrist, and this justifies that you call "caste
system" a society that clearly is not based in race.
>> Anyway, I never wrote
>> that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are not
>> racists *nowadays*.
>
> Read above: you said "we've never been racists".
Really? Did I wrote that verbatim? I must tell my psychiatrist that I write
things that I don't remember later (or maybe it is just that you understand
what you'd like to read).
>> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the
>> matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish
>> colonies.
>
> Yes they were, though my understanding is that efforts to enslave the
> indigenous Americans were often unsuccessful (because they'd tend to
> kill themselves rather than endure slavery under the cruel
> Europeans), which is what led, in some places, to the preference for
> enslaving Africans.
Dead wrong. Indigenous Americans died because their immunological system
could not endure infections that were common in that age. Nothing to do with
giving them blankets used by smallpox sick people, as the USA's army did.
> In any case, if they weren't slaves in some
> places, they were hardly treated as equals of the Europeans. It's
> not accidental that Latin-American immigrants to the US are
> predominantly poor persons of largely non-European-ethnic ancestry.
It is not accidental at all: it just shows that, in Hispano-America,
indigenous people survived to the point that nowadays they are in majority.
> It's not accidental that 'Latino' or 'Hispanic' came to be regarded
> as a quasi-racial group in the modern US; the reason is that the vast
> majority of such persons were, in fact, of substantial non-European
> ancestry, descendants of, or themselves, victims of racism and
> racial-caste-ism of Latin America.
It is not accidental at all: it just shows that for many USA citizens it is
necessary to label people ethnically.
>> Slavery existed in *all* countries until the 19th century. Spain is
>> not an exception in this, but it is in the sense that former slaves
>> were assimilated, if not in the first generation, in the subsequent
>> generations, to the non-slave population. We had lots of black
>> slaves in Spain, mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries, but nowadays
>> their descendants are indishtinguishable from the non-slave
>> population descendants, because they mixed with the poor Spaniards
>> in those centuries without problem.
>
> Aha! If, as you say, Spaniards have no notion of 'race', how is it
> that you can speak of 'mixing with the poor Spaniards' --
If you want to take this conversation to a point where you say that I said
what I didn't say, then you can keep on writing for yourself and your
friends. I never told that Spaniards were blind to colours. I wrote that it
is not important, as shows the fact that nowadays there is not distinct
ethnic groups in Spain descendent from ancient slaves.
> the very
> way you frame the statement assumes that the black slaves in Spain
> were NOT Spaniards. Get's!
Of course, when they were slaves they were not first class citizens. But
when they ceased to be slaves, they had no problem to marry.
Anyway, you are out for me. I will not answer your answer, because you
cannot read what I write without interpretating it the way you want.
Raymond S. Wise
> The carbon unit using the name Raymond S. Wise
<illinoi...@mninter.net>
> in news:vmc1538...@corp.supernews.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> > "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> I believe that a society that defines itself as "multiracial
> >> society" is just a racist society.
> >
> >
> > I'd say it's just the opposite. A society that defines itself as a
> > "multiracial society" is in the process of abandoning racism.
>
> I see that you agree with me: a society that defines itself as
"multiracial"
> is (or was, if you prefer so) a racist society, be it in the process of
> abandoning racism or not.
This contradicts what you said above, however. Above, you said "I believe
that a society that defines itself as [a] 'multiracial society' is just a
racist society." But your reply makes clear that a "multiracial society" is
*not* "just a racist society."
>
> > When
> > white Americans did not see America as consisting of a multiracial
> > society it was extremely racist compared to how it is today, and even
> > today there are some racists who consider America a "white country"
> > instead of a multiracial one.
>
>
> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society is
> better than a racist society, but better than this is a society that never
> thought that racial differences were important, as the Spanish society. We
> don't need to be a multiracial society because we've never been racists.
I don't see how this can be reconciled with history. If nothing else, I
would identify Spain as having had a racist society on the sole basis of its
having had an empire. There are no empires formed after the 14th century
that did not exhibit some level of racism, and that includes the Soviet
empire. It certainly includes the Spanish empire!
Ross Howard
wrought:
>I never wrote
>that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are not racists
>*nowadays*.
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking, Javi. Three proper names might
make you want to rethink that statement: El Ejido, Martos and Lucrecia
-- three cases of racism of the most vicious kind, and fortunately not
frequent occurrences, that's true, but they represent a worrying
undercurrent of rejection of three ethnic groups in modern Spain:
Morrocan migrant workers in rural areas, gypsies in Andalusia and
Latin Americans in major cities, respectively.
The more immigrants there are (the numbers coming in have tripled in
recent years, and immigrants' children are the only ones keeping
Spain's birth rate stable), the more racism there will be. Spain in
2003 is demographically quite similar to Britain in 1963. And the
"paki-bashing" skinheads didn't pull on their boots until the early
Seventies, remember.
I wish I didn't believe this, but I do -- it's going to get worse.
Much worse.
***********
Ross Howard
Raymond S. Wise
news:44idmvobkrbp0cepl...@4ax.com...
Using those names, I was able to learn of the work of a professor named
Tomás Calvo Buezas who has written several books on the subject of racism,
including *El racismo que viene* ( = "The Racism Which is Coming" ).
The following works were cited at
http://www.imsersomigracion.upco.es/Publicaciones/Libros/espainmi/11%20Bibliograf%C3%ADa.pdf
By Tomás Calvo Buezas:
1989: *Los racistas son los otros: gitanos, minorías y derechos humanos en
los textos escolares,* E. Popular, Madrid.
1990: *El racismo que viene: otros pueblos y culturas vistos por profesores
y alumnos,* Tecnos, Madrid.
1990 *¿España racista?,* Anthropos, Barcelona.
1997 *Racismo y solidaridad de españoles, portugueses y latinoamericanos.
Los jóvenes ante otros pueblos y culturas,* Ediciones Libertarias, Madrid.
By Tomás Calvo Buezas, R. Fernández, and A.G. Rosón: the 1993 work *Educar
para la tolerancia,* Ed. Popular, Madrid.
Given Javi's comments, I found the following title particularly interesting:
*Los racistas son los otros: gitanos, minorías y derechos humanos en los
textos escolares*: "The Racists are the Others: Gypsies, Minorities, and
Human Rights in School Texts."
Javi
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bk51q7$pc9bo$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> The carbon unit using the name Raymond S. Wise
>> <illinoi...@mninter.net> in
>> news:vmc1538...@corp.supernews.com gave utterance as follows:
>>
>>> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I believe that a society that defines itself as "multiracial
>>>> society" is just a racist society.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say it's just the opposite. A society that defines itself as a
>>> "multiracial society" is in the process of abandoning racism.
>>
>> I see that you agree with me: a society that defines itself as
>> "multiracial" is (or was, if you prefer so) a racist society, be it
>> in the process of abandoning racism or not.
>
>
> This contradicts what you said above, however. Above, you said "I
> believe that a society that defines itself as [a] 'multiracial
> society' is just a racist society." But your reply makes clear that a
> "multiracial society" is *not* "just a racist society."
I don't think it is contradictory. It's only that you have explained me why
a multiracial society is not just racist, and I accept your explanation: my
viewpoint has changed a bit. This is what I like of Usenet, that there are
some intelligent people that help me to refine my beliefs.
>>> When
>>> white Americans did not see America as consisting of a multiracial
>>> society it was extremely racist compared to how it is today, and
>>> even today there are some racists who consider America a "white
>>> country" instead of a multiracial one.
>>
>>
>> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial society
>> is better than a racist society, but better than this is a society
>> that never thought that racial differences were important, as the
>> Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society because
>> we've never been racists.
>
>
> I don't see how this can be reconciled with history. If nothing else,
> I would identify Spain as having had a racist society on the sole
> basis of its having had an empire.
I had not thought of the Spanish empire, but of mainland Spain. Anyway,
Spanish slavism was not racist, as slaves could be of any race. In America,
Spanish laws never regarded indigenous as slaves, but as free men who needed
to be christianized ad maiorem gloriam Dei.
> There are no empires formed after
> the 14th century that did not exhibit some level of racism, and that
> includes the Soviet empire. It certainly includes the Spanish empire!
I wonder why you mention the 14th century. As I see it, the Roman empire was
as racist as the Spanish empire.
Javi
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
follows:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>
>> The carbon unit using the name R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> in
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave
>> utterance as follows:
[snip bla bla bla]
I don't answer to ignorants. Read some History. Learn what the "Spanish
black legend" has of true. Learn what a "caste system" is. And think why
there are so many indigenous in Hispano-America. As exterminators and
enslavers, Anglos were a lot better than Spaniards, but you will not drive
me to the stupid discussion "my ancestors were better than yours".
--
R F
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> I don't answer to ignorants. Read some History. Learn what the "Spanish
> black legend" has of true. Learn what a "caste system" is. And think why
> there are so many indigenous in Hispano-America. As exterminators and
> enslavers, Anglos were a lot better than Spaniards, but you will not drive
> me to the stupid discussion "my ancestors were better than yours".
My ancestors? Bwahahahahaha! My ancestors were cast out of Spain by your
Castilosupremacist forefathers! And they weren't in North America during
the period of the European-perpetrated Atrocities. I am no 'Anglo'; I am
from the East Coast (Largest Coast in the Americas), where the concept of
the 'Anglo' is completely foreign.
Get's!
Javi
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:58:27 +0200, "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com>
> wrought:
>
>> I never wrote
>> that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are not
>> racists *nowadays*.
>
> I'm afraid that's wishful thinking, Javi.
You may be *partially* right. Let's see it.
> Three proper names might
> make you want to rethink that statement: El Ejido, Martos and Lucrecia
> -- three cases of racism of the most vicious kind, and fortunately not
> frequent occurrences, that's true, but they represent a worrying
> undercurrent of rejection of three ethnic groups in modern Spain:
> Morrocan migrant workers in rural areas, gypsies in Andalusia and
> Latin Americans in major cities, respectively.
Let's start by the end: Lucrecia's case. She was murdered by some
ultra-right-wingers, but they were put to prison. The fact that in a society
there are some few racists can not be used to call that society racist, when
the racists that act racistly are put to prison. The opinion polls show that
Hispano-American immigrants are the more accepted immigrants in the Spanish
society. If this is the worst case, as it seems, in the last 20 years, of
racism against Hispano-American immigrants, I believe that nobody can say
that the Spanish society is against those immigrants.
El Ejido. A special case. A town that had thousands of north Africa illegal
immigrants living in the fields, many of them without work, in the hope of
getting a job in the greenhouses. This means that many of them had to steal
to survive. Police were not effective against this. One immigrant killed a
woman to steal her purse. Some people started a hunting of the immigrant,
though none was killed, but some were beaten. The reaction of the
authorities was to send more policemen and to arrest the people who attacked
the illegal immigrants.
If you go to Granada or Costa del Sol or Catalonia, you will see lots of
people from muslim countries, who live there without problem. Is this
racism? The El Ejido case is just a burst of violence against illegal
immigrants who lived apart from the rest of the town and stealed to survive.
When one of them killed a woman to steal, the town exploded. It was the
authorities fault to stop the process before, because the authorities knew
what was happening there but did nothing to prevent it. I don't know if you
watched tv and read newspapers then, but I can tell you that the reaction of
the Spanish society was to reprove the facts.
I don't remember clearly the Martos case, but I remember quite well the
facts in Mancha Real, another Jaen province town. A gipsy man killed a
non-gipsy man. The relatives and friends of the dead burnt the killer's
house. The six gipsy families that dwelled in Mancha Real fled the town. The
authorities reacted putting the killer to prison and also some of the
burners.
When a society reacts punishing the racists, it can not be called racist.
Anyway, to understand the reproval of gipsy's way of life by the Spanish
society (the polls say that gipsies are the less wanted neighbours for
Spaniards), it is necessary to know some facts about the Spanish gipsy
culture: they have blood feuds, and this means that whoever kills a gipsy,
be it accidentally or deliberately, whatever be the circunstances, the
killer has to be killed by a relative of the dead. There have been several
clear cases: a truck driver in Valencia who accidentally (he was driving his
truck in reverse to park, but unfortunately some little gipsy children were
playing unattended in the parking) run over a children was killed by the
child's relatives when he stopped and got off the truck to see what had
happened.
Another similar case in Levante happened when a car driver killed another
unattended gipsy child when parking. The driver survived because he fled
from the scene, but I heard on tv an uncle of the child saying that the
driver had to die, because he had killed the child intentionally. I know
that it was clearly just an accident, and that gipsy children are usually
left unattended in the streets, but the blood feud makes the relatives of
the dead look at the facts as they want.
It is not strange that most Spaniards do not want traditional gipsies as
neighbours, but when a gipsy leaves the traditional gipsy way of life, he
has no problem.
> The more immigrants there are (the numbers coming in have tripled in
> recent years, and immigrants' children are the only ones keeping
> Spain's birth rate stable), the more racism there will be. Spain in
> 2003 is demographically quite similar to Britain in 1963. And the
> "paki-bashing" skinheads didn't pull on their boots until the early
> Seventies, remember.
I didn't know. But I don't see signs in the Spanish society that show that
we are going to have the same problems at the same level as in Britain.
> I wish I didn't believe this, but I do -- it's going to get worse.
> Much worse.
Time will tell, but I do not believe that it will get much worse.
Javi
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see that Americans are in the right process. A multiracial
>>>> society is better than a racist society, but better than this is a
>>>> society that never thought that racial differences were important,
>>>> as the Spanish society. We don't need to be a multiracial society
>>>> because we've never been racists.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Anyway, I never wrote that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I
>> wrote that we are not racists *nowadays*.
>
> You might want to look up just above the snip. Had I known you only
> meant today I wouldn't have brought up historical questions in my
> other reply.
I meant that we never have had laws that discriminate people for its colour
of skin. This is what I meant by "we've never been racists", but, of course,
I cannot speak for the millions of Spaniards that existed before me. If some
or many of them were racists is a matter of sterile discussion. We can look
at the laws they wrote and say that they were not racists, we can look at
their known facts and say that some were racists and some were not.
>>> These were set up originally (in part by establishing
>>> systems of enslavement of non-European populations, both indigenous
>>> and imported African slaves) by Spaniards and Portuguese persons, or
>>> by Spanish and Portuguese colonists if you prefer.
>>
>> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the
>> matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish
>> colonies. The "encomiendas" did not enslave indigenous.
>
> There are a few groups who might want to quibble with that. In some
> cases, you'd have a hard time finding enough survivors, though.
??? Nobody has survived the last three centuries. But there are several
hundred millions of descendants of American indigenous in Hispano-America.
>> African slaves was a different matter, but I suppose that I don't
>> have to explain how black slaves descendants were treated in
>> North-America,
>
> Right. They were shamefully and criminally treated as subhuman. As
> they were in the Caribbean.
>
>> nor how North-American indigenous were exterminated by the white
>> emigrants in North-America. You may believe that extermination is
>> better than being deprived of ancestors' land, but I don't.
>
> Vide "Taíno".
The Taino people was the first to contact Spanish "descubridores" and they
died because they had not an immunoligical system able to deal with the new
diseases brought by the new-comers. They were not killed; they just died.
Nothing to do with giving them blankets used by smallpox sick people, as is
North America.
>>> Surely you don't
>>> regard the institution of slavery in the Spanish Empire to be of a
>>> "non-racist" character.
>>
>> Slavery existed in *all* countries until the 19th century. Spain is
>> not an exception in this, but it is in the sense that former slaves
>> were assimilated, if not in the first generation, in the subsequent
>> generations, to the non-slave population. We had lots of black
>> slaves in Spain, mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries,
>
> Define "lots". Were there regions where the slave population
> outnumbered the free population?
I don't think so. To define "lots" I'd have to look at my books, but I don't
have time now. I admit that my "lots" is not as big as it could have been in
the slave States of the USA.
>> but nowadays their descendants are indishtinguishable from the
>> non-slave population descendants, because they mixed with the poor
>> Spaniards in those centuries without problem. How is, and was, the
>> matter in the USA? (rethoric question, no answer needed).
>
> I have no doubt that you guys did better than we did. (Speaking, of
> course, in the inclusive "we" that refers to my country at a time when
> none of my ancestors were here.)
I don't know where my ancestors were in the past centuries, as I only know
my family's history from my great-grandfather, and this fact makes me
suspicious, because many Spaniards know their ancestors from several
centuries. I always assumed that my ancestors were Spaniards, but really I
don't know. Once a gipsy friend of mine told me that his grandfather had
told him that he had heard rumours that my ancestors were "cristianos
nuevos" (people of Jewish or Moor origin converted to Catholicism after the
16th century), and that I have a Jewish look, if this means something, and
certainly my look and my relative's is not the typical Spanish look. Also,
my surname is one which was used by Spanish Jews, but not only by Jews, so
who knows? Certainly, it does not matter.
> But as you are quick to point out,
> that's not a very difficult bar to clear, and I suspect that the
> history of the Spanish in this hemisphere has got to rank reasonably
> high on any objective "racist" scale.
This is quite relative. There were no Spanish racist laws in the hemisphere.
I suspect that, as racists, the Spanish empire would rank below the British,
Dutch and French empires.
Javi
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
follows:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
>
>> I don't answer to ignorants. Read some History. Learn what the
>> "Spanish black legend" has of true. Learn what a "caste system" is.
>> And think why there are so many indigenous in Hispano-America. As
>> exterminators and enslavers, Anglos were a lot better than
>> Spaniards, but you will not drive me to the stupid discussion "my
>> ancestors were better than yours".
>
> My ancestors? Bwahahahahaha! My ancestors were cast out of Spain by
> your Castilosupremacist forefathers!
I see. You are one from the chosen people. It is a great thing, and I
understand that your ancestors preferred to emigrate rather than to give up
their faith.
--
Saludos cordiales
R F
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> I see. You are one from the chosen people.
Yes, I'm from Brooklyn. (If Jan 'The Man' Sand is reading this:
Yo, let my People go already!)
R F
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Javi wrote:
> When a society reacts punishing the racists, it can not be called racist.
Perhaps, in which case the modern-day United States cannot be called
racist either. But though Spain as a *society* may be non-racist or even
anti-racist, that doesn't mean that every Spaniard or Spanish citizen is
not a racist, contrary to what you appear to have asserted in one or more
previous postings.
> Anyway, to understand the reproval of gipsy's way of life by the Spanish
> society (the polls say that gipsies are the less wanted neighbours for
> Spaniards), it is necessary to know some facts about the Spanish gipsy
> culture: they have blood feuds, and this means that whoever kills a gipsy,
> be it accidentally or deliberately, whatever be the circunstances, the
> killer has to be killed by a relative of the dead.
This sounds very much like the cartoonish picture of Muslims that our
Danish friend Per has drawn for the situation in Denmark. It also reminds
me of some expressions of ethnic and racial (and religious) prejudice in
the US. And you call yourself a Socialist!
> It is not strange that most Spaniards do not want traditional gipsies as
> neighbours, but when a gipsy leaves the traditional gipsy way of life, he
> has no problem.
Is he considered a Spaniard then? Is he considered a Spaniard before
then? Once again, we have the great flaw of European culture: a
tribalistic notion of national identity.
Note: None of these remarks of mine should be construed as being
anti-Norwegian. Norway is, from all I hear, a real nize place to live,
and the Norwegian citizenry includes a lot of very nize people.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
> news:isntfz...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> > "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> I meant that we never have had laws that discriminate people for its
> colour of skin. This is what I meant by "we've never been racists",
> but, of course, I cannot speak for the millions of Spaniards that
> existed before me. If some or many of them were racists is a matter
> of sterile discussion. We can look at the laws they wrote and say
> that they were not racists, we can look at their known facts and say
> that some were racists and some were not.
As in this "racist" country.
> >>> These were set up originally (in part by establishing systems of
> >>> enslavement of non-European populations, both indigenous and
> >>> imported African slaves) by Spaniards and Portuguese persons, or
> >>> by Spanish and Portuguese colonists if you prefer.
> >>
> >> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the
> >> matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish
> >> colonies. The "encomiendas" did not enslave indigenous.
> >
> > There are a few groups who might want to quibble with that. In
> > some cases, you'd have a hard time finding enough survivors,
> > though.
>
> ??? Nobody has survived the last three centuries. But there are
> several hundred millions of descendants of American indigenous in
> Hispano-America.
I realize that this may come as a shock to someone coming from a
country that doesn't perceive differences, but "American indigenous"
culture is not monolithic. There were groups that were largely wiped
out by the Spanish before they settled in to more stable long-term
arrangements.
> >> nor how North-American indigenous were exterminated by the white
> >> emigrants in North-America. You may believe that extermination is
> >> better than being deprived of ancestors' land, but I don't.
> >
> > Vide "Taíno".
>
> The Taino people was the first to contact Spanish "descubridores"
> and they died because they had not an immunoligical system able to
> deal with the new diseases brought by the new-comers.
Bummer having an immunological system so much worse than your
neighbors that it wipes your entile people out but only kills a small
fraction of them.
> They were not killed; they just died.
There were 60,000 people living on this island [when I arrived in
1508], including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over
three million people had perished from war, slavery and the
mines. Who in future generations will believe this?
Bartolome de Las Casas, 1561
About the author:
Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474-1566) was a 16th century Spanish
priest and settler in the New World who is famous for his advocacy
of the rights of Native Americans in the face of brutal torture
and genocide by Spanish colonialists. His pamphlet, _A Short
Account of the Destruction of the Indies_ gives a vivid
description of the atrocities committed by the conquistadors in
Central and South America, including many events to which he was
witness.
Dedicated to King Philip II of Spain, Las Casas explained that he
supported the acts of barbarism, when he first arrived in the New
World, but soon became convinced that the horrendous acts would
eventually lead to the collapse of Spain itself in an act of
Divine retribution. According to Las Casas, it was the
responsibility of the Spanish to convert the Indians, who would
then be loyal subjects of Spain, rather than to kill them. To
avoid the burden of slavery on them, Las Casas proposed that
African Negroes be brought to America instead, though he later
changed his mind about this when he saw the effects of slavery on
Africans.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolome_de_Las_Casas
> Nothing to do with giving them blankets used by smallpox sick
> people, as is North America.
Are you *positive* the Spanish didn't do that? Not to the Taíno, but
to the Inca?
Has smallpox ever been used for bioterrorism or biowarfare?
It has been documented that the British military gave blankets
from smallpox victims to American Indians who were sympathetic to
France during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767). Epidemics
that occurred afterward killed more than 50% of the affected
tribes. Prior to that, in the 15th century, Pizarro reportedly
gave smallpox virus-contaminated clothing to South American
natives. There are no reported recent uses of smallpox as a
bioweapon.
http://www.dhss.state.mo.us/Publications/CDManual/smallpoxfsm.htm
On several occasions, smallpox was used as a biological
weapon. Pizarro reportedly gave smallpox virus-contaminated
clothing to South American natives in the 15th century. During the
French-Indian War, the British gave blankets used by smallpox
victims to the Native Americans and consequently smallpox raged
through the Native American community and decimated their
numbers. This same tact was used by Dr. Luke Blackburn, the future
governor of Kentucky, during the Civil War. Dr. Blackburn
attempted to infect clothing with smallpox and yellow fever which
he then sold to Union troops. One Union officer's obituary stated
that he died of smallpox contracted from his infected clothing.
http://www.hs.state.az.us/phs/edc/edrp/es/bthistor2.htm
> I don't know where my ancestors were in the past centuries, as I
> only know my family's history from my great-grandfather, and this
> fact makes me suspicious, because many Spaniards know their
> ancestors from several centuries.
The reason I mentioned it is that, while I can't push my ancestry back
much farther than that, I do know that none of my great-grandparents
(and only three of my grandparents) were born in this country.
> I always assumed that my ancestors were Spaniards, but really I
> don't know. Once a gipsy friend of mine told me that his grandfather
> had told him that he had heard rumours that my ancestors were
> "cristianos nuevos" (people of Jewish or Moor origin converted to
> Catholicism after the 16th century), and that I have a Jewish look,
> if this means something, and certainly my look and my relative's is
> not the typical Spanish look. Also, my surname is one which was used
> by Spanish Jews, but not only by Jews, so who knows? Certainly, it
> does not matter.
If your ancestors were Conversos or other Jews who later converted to
Christianity in order to immigrate because it was *illegal* to be a
Jew in Spain from 1492 until, officially, I believe, 1968
(unofficially lifted in the 1860s) it probably mattered to *them*.
They undoubtedly decided to convert rather than to leave and forfeit
any property they couldn't sell or transfer (but in any case forfeit
any "gold or silver or coined money" they might have) knowing that
they shall not dare to return to those places, nor to reside in
them, nor to live in any part of them, neither temporarily on the
way to somewhere else nor in any other manner, under pain that if
they do not perform and comply with this command and should be
found in our said kingdom and lordships and should in any manner
live in them, they incur the penalty of death and the confiscation
of all their possessions by our Chamber of Finance, incurring
these penalties by the act itself, without further trial,
sentence, or declaration.
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html
But from this thread, I think I'm starting to see what you mean.
Spanish society is not racist in the sense that Spaniards don't care
at all about someone's color or ancestry--as long as that person
doesn't dare insist on identifying with a *culture* other than that of
mainstream Spanish society. Then all bets are off.
> > But as you are quick to point out, that's not a very difficult bar
> > to clear, and I suspect that the history of the Spanish in this
> > hemisphere has got to rank reasonably high on any objective
> > "racist" scale.
>
> This is quite relative. There were no Spanish racist laws in the
> hemisphere. I suspect that, as racists, the Spanish empire would
> rank below the British, Dutch and French empires.
Quite possibly. Would you like to contrast them with groups that
*didn't* consider it reasonable to create an "empire" largely
including people who didn't look like them?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
mickwick
>There is not a racial caste system in Latin America today. It existed, but
>it does not exist any more. I explain it as an indirect consequence of the
>land property system inherited from Spanish and Portuguese colonists.
>Nowadays, the fact that land property is mainly in the hands of descendents
>of non-indigenous Hispano-Americans is a consequence of the way that the new
>independent nations made their laws, not a direct consequence of the
>(supposed by you) racism of the Spanish colonists.
[...]
Supposed by many, including the Spanish colonists themselves. The
criollo squirearchy was particularly proud of its racism and guarded it
jealously. Indeed moves by the Spanish Crown to dismantle racial
privileges in its American empire provided the initial impetus for the
independence movements in the Viceroyalties of both New Granada and
Peru. Later, Bolivar and other criollos decided that independence was
more important than racial privilege and, in a very deliberate manner,
recruited America's discontented subordinate races to the independence
movement but the starting position was one of codified racial privilege
(and disprivilege, of course).
>You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the matter,
>but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish colonies.
? Bollo, matey.
What about the early island colonies? Or the later mita system of forced
labour. Or the slavery of the llaneros?
(Will someone please ask me about the Legion of Hell? There's nudity,
posh furs, bamboo, and undeviating savagery.)
--
Mickwick
mickwick
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
>>> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the
>>> matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish
>>> colonies. The "encomiendas" did not enslave indigenous.
>>
>> There are a few groups who might want to quibble with that. In some
>> cases, you'd have a hard time finding enough survivors, though.
>
>??? Nobody has survived the last three centuries. But there are several
>hundred millions of descendants of American indigenous in Hispano-America.
I think Evan was referring to the enslavement and consequent (and
probably involuntary) genocide of the Arawaks and Caribs by the first
Spaniards to settle in the New World.
[...]
>> But as you are quick to point out,
>> that's not a very difficult bar to clear, and I suspect that the
>> history of the Spanish in this hemisphere has got to rank reasonably
>> high on any objective "racist" scale.
>
>This is quite relative. There were no Spanish racist laws in the hemisphere.
Oh dear. Yes there were. Otherwise why the Edict of Aranjuez of 10th
February 1794 permitting non-criollos to adopt the title Don in the
American empire?
>I suspect that, as racists, the Spanish empire would rank below the British,
>Dutch and French empires.
If it had survived longer, perhaps it would. The Spanish Crown and the
Spanish Church do seem to have been concerned about the fates of the
native peoples. But the Spanish Empire was an early European empire and
in its heyday it was thoroughly racist in an early European way - in
fact, in law, in toto.
--
Mickwick
Javi
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in news:isntfz...@hpl.hp.com gave
>> utterance as follows:
>>
>>> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I meant that we never have had laws that discriminate people for its
>> colour of skin. This is what I meant by "we've never been racists",
>> but, of course, I cannot speak for the millions of Spaniards that
>> existed before me. If some or many of them were racists is a matter
>> of sterile discussion. We can look at the laws they wrote and say
>> that they were not racists, we can look at their known facts and say
>> that some were racists and some were not.
>
> As in this "racist" country.
Not exactly. In that country there have been until quite recently racist
laws, and, what is worse, a racist attitude in its mainstream society.
Anyway, I have to say that I didn't intend to offend any USA or British
citizens. I shouldn't have written, in an english usage group, despite my
beliefs, that a society that defines itself as multiracial is a racist one.
I fell into R. Fontana's trap, and at first it did not come to my mind the
fact that USA's society likes to define itself as multiracial.
Bummer? What is that? I'm afraid that I don't understand this paragraph.
>> They were not killed; they just died.
>
> There were 60,000 people living on this island [when I arrived in
> 1508], including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over
> three million people had perished from war, slavery and the
> mines. Who in future generations will believe this?
>
> Bartolome de Las Casas, 1561
But the fact is that pig influenza, transmitted to Tainos by the pigs that
Colon brought in his ships, was the cause of the death of more than 90%
of the indigenous Tainos (Wacht-el, 1976; Todorov, 1989; McNeill, 1984;
Crosby, 1991; Sotomayor, 1998).
[snip]
>> Nothing to do with giving them blankets used by smallpox sick
>> people, as is North America.
>
> Are you *positive* the Spanish didn't do that? Not to the Taíno, but
> to the Inca?
Nobody can prove that something did not happen.
> Has smallpox ever been used for bioterrorism or biowarfare?
>
> It has been documented that the British military gave blankets
> from smallpox victims to American Indians who were sympathetic to
> France during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767). Epidemics
> that occurred afterward killed more than 50% of the affected
> tribes. Prior to that, in the 15th century, Pizarro reportedly
Reported by whom? I think this is just a case of the "Spanish black legend":
smallpox appeared in the Inca empire in 1524, eight years before Pizarro
arrived. The first registered case of biological warfare is that of Sir
Jeffrey Anherts in North America during the Indian-French wars.
> gave smallpox virus-contaminated clothing to South American
> natives. There are no reported recent uses of smallpox as a
> bioweapon.
>
>
> http://www.dhss.state.mo.us/Publications/CDManual/smallpoxfsm.htm
>
> On several occasions, smallpox was used as a biological
> weapon. Pizarro reportedly gave smallpox virus-contaminated
I'd like very much to know what are those supposed reports.
> clothing to South American natives in the 15th century. During the
> French-Indian War, the British gave blankets used by smallpox
> victims to the Native Americans and consequently smallpox raged
> through the Native American community and decimated their
> numbers. This same tact was used by Dr. Luke Blackburn, the future
> governor of Kentucky, during the Civil War. Dr. Blackburn
> attempted to infect clothing with smallpox and yellow fever which
> he then sold to Union troops. One Union officer's obituary stated
> that he died of smallpox contracted from his infected clothing.
>
> http://www.hs.state.az.us/phs/edc/edrp/es/bthistor2.htm
>
>
> But from this thread, I think I'm starting to see what you mean.
> Spanish society is not racist in the sense that Spaniards don't care
> at all about someone's color or ancestry--
You got it. This is why I said that racism is not a characteristic of most
Spaniards, and has never been.
> as long as that person
> doesn't dare insist on identifying with a *culture* other than that of
> mainstream Spanish society. Then all bets are off.
Has it been other way in any other centralized societies? You seem to
believe that Spanish society was monolithic, with just one approved way of
behaving; I think that there has always been people in Spain who thought
differenty from mainstream society, and who behave differently, and this was
allowed as long as it was a private matter and didn't incite the envy of the
neighbours.
If you are interested on the matter, you might have a look at "Historia de
los heterodoxos españoles", by M. Menéndez y Pelayo. It deals only with
religious heterodoxes, but it will give you an idea of the diversity of
Spanish ideologies along the centuries.
Did you know that the Jesuits were expelled from Spain in the 18th century?
Did you know that in the 19th century there was in Spain a
"desamortización", which consisted on the confiscation by the State of the
Church's properties?
These are examples that show that the Church has not always been allied with
the Spanish State.
>>> But as you are quick to point out, that's not a very difficult bar
>>> to clear, and I suspect that the history of the Spanish in this
>>> hemisphere has got to rank reasonably high on any objective
>>> "racist" scale.
>>
>> This is quite relative. There were no Spanish racist laws in the
>> hemisphere. I suspect that, as racists, the Spanish empire would
>> rank below the British, Dutch and French empires.
>
> Quite possibly. Would you like to contrast them with groups that
> *didn't* consider it reasonable to create an "empire" largely
> including people who didn't look like them?
I'm afraid I don't quite understand this last paragraph. Which groups are
those? What empire?
Javi
news:cqtiRUB680Z$Ew...@shropshire.plus.com gave utterance as follows:
> In alt.usage.english, Javi wrote:
>
>> There is not a racial caste system in Latin America today. It
>> existed, but it does not exist any more. I explain it as an indirect
>> consequence of the land property system inherited from Spanish and
>> Portuguese colonists. Nowadays, the fact that land property is
>> mainly in the hands of descendents of non-indigenous
>> Hispano-Americans is a consequence of the way that the new
>> independent nations made their laws, not a direct consequence of the
>> (supposed by you) racism of the Spanish colonists.
>
> [...]
>
> Supposed by many, including the Spanish colonists themselves. The
> criollo squirearchy was particularly proud of its racism and guarded
> it jealously. Indeed moves by the Spanish Crown to dismantle racial
> privileges in its American empire provided the initial impetus for the
> independence movements in the Viceroyalties of both New Granada and
> Peru.
It is curious that a country whose Crown tried to dismantle racial
privileges be called racist. Which were those racial privileges? I guess
that they were not sanctioned by law.
> Later, Bolivar and other criollos decided that independence was
> more important than racial privilege and, in a very deliberate manner,
> recruited America's discontented subordinate races to the independence
> movement but the starting position was one of codified racial
> privilege (and disprivilege, of course).
There always have been and always will be groups of people with more de
facto privileges than others. The important point, as I see it, is that a
country whose laws sanction racial discrimination is a racist country, and
one that doesn't is not.
>> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on the
>> matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the Spanish
>> colonies.
>
> ? Bollo, matey.
>
> What about the early island colonies?
I see that you have done your homework. The fact is that as soon as 1542,
the Spanish Crown clearly stated through its laws that the American
indigenous were not slaves but freemen.
> Or the later mita system of
> forced labour. Or the slavery of the llaneros?
Which slavery is that of the llaneros? I've never heard about it.
> (Will someone please ask me about the Legion of Hell? There's nudity,
> posh furs, bamboo, and undeviating savagery.)
Ok. What is that Legion of Hell? Bamboo, the plant?
Javi
news:wLl5ZWBYQ1Z$Ewb$@shropshire.plus.com gave utterance as follows:
> In alt.usage.english, Javi wrote:
>> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
>>> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> You can believe me or not, or better, you can read historians on
>>>> the matter, but indigenous Americans were never slaves in the
>>>> Spanish colonies. The "encomiendas" did not enslave indigenous.
>>>
>>> There are a few groups who might want to quibble with that. In some
>>> cases, you'd have a hard time finding enough survivors, though.
>>
>> ??? Nobody has survived the last three centuries. But there are
>> several hundred millions of descendants of American indigenous in
>> Hispano-America.
>
> I think Evan was referring to the enslavement and consequent (and
> probably involuntary) genocide of the Arawaks and Caribs by the first
> Spaniards to settle in the New World.
Involuntary genocide? Sounds odd.
> [...]
>
>>> But as you are quick to point out,
>>> that's not a very difficult bar to clear, and I suspect that the
>>> history of the Spanish in this hemisphere has got to rank reasonably
>>> high on any objective "racist" scale.
>>
>> This is quite relative. There were no Spanish racist laws in the
>> hemisphere.
>
> Oh dear. Yes there were. Otherwise why the Edict of Aranjuez of 10th
> February 1794 permitting non-criollos to adopt the title Don in the
> American empire?
So, a law against racial privileges is an evidence of a racist society? And,
as it seems, the worst thing for the non-criollos was that some criollos
didn't allow them to use the title Don, and the Spanish Crown had to draw a
law against this inhumane behaviour? Interesting. Let me think about it:
some non-criollos wanted to use the title Don; this title was only used by
wealthy or important people, so we have to assume that some non-criollos
were wealthy or important people, wealthy or important enough as to make the
Crown draw a law allowing them to use the title Don. And do you call this a
racist society? I see it as less racist than the so-called "positive
discrimination".
>> I suspect that, as racists, the Spanish empire would rank below the
>> British, Dutch and French empires.
>
> If it had survived longer, perhaps it would. The Spanish Crown and the
> Spanish Church do seem to have been concerned about the fates of the
> native peoples.
And do you really think that this is characteristic of a racist society? For
me, it is just the opposite.
> But the Spanish Empire was an early European empire
> and in its heyday it was thoroughly racist in an early European way -
> in fact, in law, in toto.
If you say so... But I prefer facts to unknown people's opinions.
Javi
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
follows:
You are really good in making me answer your messages, despite my will of
not doing it.
> And you call yourself a Socialist!
No. Never in the last twenty years; when I was younger I felt sympathetic
towards the Israelis who lived in kibbutzim, but soon I realized that
socialist people living in stolen lands are just thieves; maybe when I grow
older I'll change my mind again, as lately I feel few sympathy towards the
Palestinians. And I don't understand the relation between being a Socialist
(not my case now) and thinking that the Spanish society is not a racist one.
Is this another of your traps?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in news:y8woek...@hpl.hp.com gave
> utterance as follows:
>
> > "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
> >> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in news:isntfz...@hpl.hp.com gave
> >> utterance as follows:
> >>
> >>> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> The Taino people was the first to contact Spanish "descubridores"
> >> and they died because they had not an immunoligical system able
> >> to deal with the new diseases brought by the new-comers.
> >
> > Bummer having an immunological system so much worse than your
> > neighbors that it wipes your entile people out but only kills a
> > small fraction of them.
>
> Bummer? What is that? I'm afraid that I don't understand this
> paragraph.
It means "It's a real shame". The sentence was sarcastic. I find it
hard to believe that the first group the Spanish happened to find just
happened to be so much more susceptible to a disease than other
nearby related groups, who got hit hard, but not wiped out.
> >> They were not killed; they just died.
> >
> > There were 60,000 people living on this island [when I arrived in
> > 1508], including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over
> > three million people had perished from war, slavery and the
> > mines. Who in future generations will believe this?
> >
> > Bartolome de Las Casas, 1561
>
> But the fact is that pig influenza, transmitted to Tainos by the
> pigs that Colon brought in his ships, was the cause of the death of
> more than 90% of the indigenous Tainos (Wacht-el, 1976; Todorov,
> 1989; McNeill, 1984; Crosby, 1991; Sotomayor, 1998).
I'm not familiar with those, but searching on "Todorov" turns up some
citations, including one attached to
Certainly, the same can be said of Columbus' regime, under which
the original residents were, as a first order of business,
permanently dispossessed of their abundant cultivated fields while
being converted into chattel, ultimately to be worked to death for
the wealth and "glory" of Spain.
http://www.uctp.org/ColumbusMyth.html
This goes on
Nor should more direct means of extermination be relegated to
incidental status. As the matter is framed by Kirkpatrick Sale in
his book, _The Conquest of Paradise_:
The tribute system, instituted by the Governor sometime in
1495, was a simple and brutal way of fulfilling the Spanish
lust for gold while acknowledging the Spanish distaste for
labor. Every Taino over the age of fourteen had to supply the
rulers with a hawk's bell of gold every three months (or, in
gold-deficient areas, twenty-five pounds of spun cotton);
those who did were given a token to wear around their necks as
proof that they had made their payment; those who did not
were, as [Columbus' brother, Fernando] says discreetly,
"punished"--by having their hands cut off, as [the priest,
Bartolomé de] Las Casas says less discreetly, and left to
bleed to death.15
It is entirely likely that more than 10,000 Indians were killed in
this fashion, on Española alone, as a matter of policy, during
Columbus' tenure as governor. Las Casas' _Brevísima relación_,
among other contemporaneous sources, is also replete with accounts
of Spanish colonists (_hidalgos_) hanging Tainos _en mass_,
roasting them on spits or burning them at the stake (often a dozen
or more at a time), hacking their children into pieces to be used
as dog feed and so forth, all of it to instill in the natives a
"proper attitude of respect" toward their Spanish "superiors."
[The Spaniards] made bets as to who would slit a man in two,
or cut off his head at one blow; or they opened up his
bowels. They tore the babes from their mother's breast by
their feet and dashed their heads against the rocks.... They
spitted the bodies of other babes, together with their mothers
and all who were before them, on their swords.16
No SS trooper could be expected to comport himself with a more
unrelenting viciousness. And there is more. All of this was
coupled to wholesale and persistent massacres:
A Spaniard ... suddenly drew his sword. Then the whole hundred
drew theirs and began to rip open the bellies, to cut and kill
[a group of Tainos assembled for this purpose]--men, women,
children and old folk, all of whom were seated, off guard and
frightened.... And within two credos, not a man of them there
remain[ed] alive. The Spaniards enter[ed] the large house
nearby, for this was happening at its door, and in the same
way, with cuts and stabs, began to kill as many as were found
there, so that a stream of blood was running, as if a great
number of cows had perished.17
Elsewhere, Las Casas went on to recount:
In this time, the greatest outrages and slaughterings of
people were perpetrated, whole villages being
depopulated.... The Indians saw that without any offense on
their part they were despoiled of their kingdoms, their lands
and liberties and of their lives, their wives, and homes. As
they saw themselves each day perishing by the cruel and
inhuman treatment of the Spaniards, crushed to earth by the
horses, cut in pieces by swords, eaten and torn by dogs, many
buried alive and suffering all kinds of exquisite tortures
... [many surrendered to their fate, while the survivors] fled
to the mountains [to starve].18
But I'm sure Las Casas has been thoroughly discredited in Spanish
academic circles. After all, he was just an eyewitness.
> >> Nothing to do with giving them blankets used by smallpox sick
> >> people, as is North America.
> >
> > Are you *positive* the Spanish didn't do that? Not to the Taíno,
> > but to the Inca?
>
> Nobody can prove that something did not happen.
Of course not. But I was surprised to find that sites, including two
I quoted from the Health Departments of US states, seem convinced that
it was plausible. I was surprised because I didn't think that enough
was known about the transmission of disease back then that they would
have realized that it would work. I don't know where these accounts
come from, but I don't find it hard to believe that he would have
tried it. But I admit that he probably would have bragged about it,
so if he didn't write it down it may well not have happened.
> You seem to believe that Spanish society was monolithic, with just
> one approved way of behaving; I think that there has always been
> people in Spain who thought differenty from mainstream society, and
> who behave differently, and this was allowed as long as it was a
> private matter and didn't incite the envy of the neighbours.
That's it exactly. Spanish society--as you present it--is tolerant of
differences as long as they're kept private. Gypsies who don't act
like Gypsies, Jews and Indians who convert to Christianity, etc., are
perfectly acceptable whatever their background.
In this country, we tend to take that as a mindset to be discouraged
and, indeed, of evidence of what we call "racism" or at least bigotry.
> >>> But as you are quick to point out, that's not a very difficult
> >>> bar to clear, and I suspect that the history of the Spanish in
> >>> this hemisphere has got to rank reasonably high on any objective
> >>> "racist" scale.
> >>
> >> This is quite relative. There were no Spanish racist laws in the
> >> hemisphere. I suspect that, as racists, the Spanish empire would
> >> rank below the British, Dutch and French empires.
> >
> > Quite possibly. Would you like to contrast them with groups that
> > *didn't* consider it reasonable to create an "empire" largely
> > including people who didn't look like them?
>
> I'm afraid I don't quite understand this last paragraph. Which
> groups are those? What empire?
You're comparing the Spanish with the British and the Dutch, whose
racist policies in the New World and in Africa are undeniable (and
also the French, about whom I know less, but what I know about their
policies in North America wouldn't seem to be as good an example).
What I meant was: How does Spanish history compare with that of, say,
the Swiss or the Finns or the Irish or the Dinka or the Iroquis or any
of the hundreds of other nations and peoples who didn't create
empires? Or to those groups, like the Romans or the Phoenicians,
whose tributaries didn't consist largely of people who were racially
different from them.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut
|It must be ut-
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social
(650)857-7572 | importance.
| Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Michael West
"R F" <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu...
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>
> > "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote...
> > >
> > > I was watching a Michael Palin show set in New Zealand tonight. He
> > > pronounced "glacier" as "glassy--ur".
> >
> > That's ambiguous. We Brits pronounce that first syllable to rhyme with
> > "sassy", not as we would the word "glassy". And we certainly don't
> > rhyme it with "Macy", as Leftpondians prefer it.
>
> I think Leftpondians universally say /gleISR/ (or /gleIS@/ for
> non-rhotics). "Glay-sher", IYW, not "glay-see-er".
That accords with my experience. And Australians --
older ones, certainly -- follow the British pronunciation.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
(Expat Yank)
Jerry Friedman
> The carbon unit using the name R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave utterance as
> follows:
> >> Anyway, I never wrote
> >> that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are not
> >> racists *nowadays*.
> >
> > Read above: you said "we've never been racists".
>
> Really? Did I wrote that verbatim? I must tell my psychiatrist that I write
> things that I don't remember later (or maybe it is just that you understand
> what you'd like to read).
You wrote "We don't need to be a multiracial society because we've
never been racists." It's at <http://tinyurl.com/nm4w>; scroll up to
your first response to Raymond Wise, currently response 27.
--
Jerry Friedman
Michael West
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:vmd7lu4...@corp.supernews.com...
The capacity of some people (such as our "Javi" here) for
self-delusion is always amusing.
"Javi" reminds me of a French woman I met once, here
in Melbourne, who spoke at length about the evils
of American racism (she'd never been there), and then
proceeded to tell me that when she was in Paris, she'd
cross the street to avoid sharing the sidewalk with
an Arab. But that wasn't racism (she explained). It
was "experience." That's different. See?
Raymond S. Wise
> The carbon unit using the name Raymond S. Wise
<illinoi...@mninter.net>
> in news:vmd7lu4...@corp.supernews.com gave utterance as follows:
[...]
> > There are no empires formed after
> > the 14th century that did not exhibit some level of racism, and that
> > includes the Soviet empire. It certainly includes the Spanish empire!
>
> I wonder why you mention the 14th century. As I see it, the Roman empire
was
> as racist as the Spanish empire.
I have often seen the ancient Romans pointed out as an example of a
non-racist society, and I have never read anything that indicated that they
had been in any way racist. If you know of such information, point me to it.
It's always good to learn new things.
Raymond S. Wise
> The carbon unit using the name Carmen L. Abruzzi
<carmenl...@yahoo.com>
> in news:BB8A1BEF.3C8%carmenl...@yahoo.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> > in article bk2ckm$o9u95$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de, Javi at
> > poziNO...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/14/03 11:41 AM:
> >
> >>
> >>> Haitians aren't Latino/Hispanic.
> >>
> >> Really? Haiti was a French colony, and they speak some French
> >> creole, so it can be labelled "Latino", though not "Hispanic".
> >
> > No, no, no, no, no. "Latino" does not mean "Romance speaking" or
> > anything like it. It means something like "a person with ancestry in
> > a new world Spanish-speaking country living in the US".
>
> That may be your interpretation of the word, but is not the only allowed;
> M-W says:
>
> Main Entry: La·ti·no
> Pronunciation: l&-'tE-(")nO
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -nos
> Etymology: American Spanish, probably short for latinoamericano Latin
> American
> Date: 1946
> 1 : a native or inhabitant of Latin America
> 2 : a person of Latin-American origin living in the U.S.
>
> Main Entry: Latin America
> Usage: geographical name
> 1 Spanish America & Brazil
> 2 all of the Americas S of the U.S.
Your post as I received it had a binary attachment, an image file of a
loudspeaker ("audio.gif"), from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate.
To prevent that from happening in the future, when you copy from the online
Collegiate or the online AHD4--because the same thing can happen with it
(the loudspeaker in that case would be sent as "pron.jpg")--first paste to
the Notepad and then copy from the Notepad and paste the result into the
message you are writing.
Javi
>
> Your post as I received it had a binary attachment, an image file of a
> loudspeaker ("audio.gif"), from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate.
>
> To prevent that from happening in the future, when you copy from the
> online Collegiate or the online AHD4--because the same thing can
> happen with it (the loudspeaker in that case would be sent as
> "pron.jpg")--first paste to the Notepad and then copy from the
> Notepad and paste the result into the message you are writing.
Thank you. You are right, this is what happened. As soon (no more than two
minutes) as I realized that my post had an attachment, I canceled it and
sent it again without attachments. As it seems, cancelations are not always
effective.
Javi
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in news:y8woek...@hpl.hp.com gave
>> utterance as follows:
>>
>>> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in news:isntfz...@hpl.hp.com gave
>>>> utterance as follows:
>>>>
>>>>> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> The Taino people was the first to contact Spanish "descubridores"
>>>> and they died because they had not an immunoligical system able
>>>> to deal with the new diseases brought by the new-comers.
>>>
>>> Bummer having an immunological system so much worse than your
>>> neighbors that it wipes your entile people out but only kills a
>>> small fraction of them.
>>
>> Bummer? What is that? I'm afraid that I don't understand this
>> paragraph.
>
> It means "It's a real shame". The sentence was sarcastic.
I realized the sarcastic tone, but it only made your message harder to
understand. "Bummer" in my dictionaries is only "one who bums".
> I find it
> hard to believe that the first group the Spanish happened to find just
> happened to be so much more susceptible to a disease than other
> nearby related groups, who got hit hard, but not wiped out.
But in other groups the mortality rate due to illnesses was also around 90%.
At the end of the 16th century the indigenous population of Central and
South America had dropped to less than 10% of the population level before
Spanish arrived. Then, in the following centuries, indigenous population
grew in number.
The fact that the islands indigenous population got hit a bit harder can be
explained due to several centuries (or even millennia, I cannot tell now) of
isolation, fact that would have made their immunological systems even less
apt to deal with new infections than that of mainland indigenous, who had
more contact with other people: the epidemic that killed Tainos was pig
influenza, a quite minor illness that seems to not have killed mainland
indigenous.
Also, the fact that they dwelled in islands can explain their failure to
raise their population level: when, in an island, the population falls below
certain level, it is almost impossible for the few survivors to reproduce,
as these few survivors are usually from the same family (it's the logical
thing: the body's ability to survive an infection is genetically
determined). In the mainland, they could emigrate and find spouses, in the
islands it was almost impossible.
I have to leave this message here. This evening I'll answer the rest of your
message.
Javi
in news:c774d05c.03091...@posting.google.com gave utterance as
follows:
> "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bk5gsu$p7jri$1...@ID-177688.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> The carbon unit using the name R F <rfon...@mail.wesleyan.edu> in
>> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@alumni.wesleyan.edu gave
>> utterance as follows:
> ...
>>>> Anyway, I never wrote
>>>> that we Spaniards have *never* been racists. I wrote that we are
>>>> not racists *nowadays*.
>>>
>>> Read above: you said "we've never been racists".
>>
>> Really? Did I wrote that verbatim? I must tell my psychiatrist that
>> I write things that I don't remember later (or maybe it is just that
>> you understand what you'd like to read).
> ...
Damn! I canceled that message few minutes after sending it, so I'll not
answer any post about it.
> You wrote "We don't need to be a multiracial society because we've
> never been racists." It's at <http://tinyurl.com/nm4w>; scroll up to
> your first response to Raymond Wise, currently response 27.
Yes, I wrote it, and I'm receiving due punishment.
But I still think that racism was not a characteristic of the Spanish
empire, and certainly is not of the Spanish society.
david56
> Damn! I canceled that message few minutes after sending it, so I'll not
> answer any post about it.
Unfortunately, many Usenet servers do not properly process
cancellation messages. Your posting might disappear from your own
news service, but it's likely to stay out there for ever.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Javi
in news:3f67ac80$0$88984$45be...@newscene.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> The capacity of some people (such as our "Javi" here) for
> self-delusion is always amusing.
I'm glad to read that someone is amused by some of my messages. The world
needs amusement.
> "Javi" reminds me of a French woman I met once, here
> in Melbourne, who spoke at length about the evils
> of American racism (she'd never been there), and then
> proceeded to tell me that when she was in Paris, she'd
> cross the street to avoid sharing the sidewalk with
> an Arab. But that wasn't racism (she explained). It
> was "experience." That's different. See?
You mental processes are a bit odd, becuase I never mentioned that I
consider myself racist or not. You might have undestood it as implied by my
assertion that the Spanish society is not racist and never has been, but I
was speaking about society as a whole, not about any of its concrete
members, not even me.
I'll never avoid an Arab or a Gipsy just because of their race. But I'll
avoid any person who looks suspiciously dangerous, be he whiter than me
(improbable but possible) or darker. This may be considered "classism" but
not "racism". Some bad experiences when I was younger had taught me that
other races' people are not worse, but nor are they better. I'll avoid any
dangerous-looking person in a lonely street, whatever be his race. I suppose
that you are quite young, as you don't understand that it is better to avoid
some people. Time will teach you.
Javi
No, it is the opposite: the Roman empire was non-racist, as it was the
Spanish empire. There may be a small difference, in the sense that the
Romans hardly met people from other races, while the Spaniards met quite
different looking people in America, and this lead to some individuals
having racist attitudes, but the laws were clearly anti-racist, as were the
majority of Spaniards.
Raymond S. Wise
I think this may echo something that Evan Kirshenbaum said, but if you judge
a society as being anti-racist simply on the basis of its having anti-racist
laws, then the United States of America must be one of the most anti-racist
societies which has ever existed.
I said "if...."
Javi
It's good to exchange opinions. I'm beginning to see that I was too adamant
in my opinions on the matter. The important difference between the Spanish
empire and others of the time, as I see it, was that Spain never had racist
laws, but anti-racist laws; I admit that sectors of the Spanish society had
(and have) certain racist attitudes.
About USA, the laws that sanction "possitive discrimination" are, as I see
it, racist laws. Also, a society that consider racial differences as
important is, in some way, a racist society; I mean, why label itself as
"multiracial" if race were not important? In Spain we prefer to not think
about it, so we don't label ourselves as "multiracial" despite the fact that
we have an increasing proportion of black ("Sudsaharianos" is the PC word),
Moors ("magrebíes" is the PC word), Chinese, American Indians
("hispanoamericanos" is the PC word),etc. people.
Mark Browne
Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes
>"Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>That's it exactly. Spanish society--as you present it--is tolerant of
>differences as long as they're kept private. Gypsies who don't act
>like Gypsies, Jews and Indians who convert to Christianity, etc., are
>perfectly acceptable whatever their background.
>
>In this country, we tend to take that as a mindset to be discouraged
>and, indeed, of evidence of what we call "racism" or at least bigotry.
Whilst I agree that this can be called "racist", having to fit in also
applies to people who are nominally already part of "mainstream"
society.
Saying that people should conform is not, of itself, racist. It is a
characteristic of many societies, and is necessary for those societies
to function. The question is whether the society is one that "should"
function.
--
Mark Browne
If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the
"From" address will be rejected