Trackbacks & Pings

1. Too Much Going On - Short Links « Words From The Center, Words From The Edge on 16 Jun 2008 at 1:22 pm

   [...] Alex Alvarez has two recent posts over at Racialicious that are really eye-opening. First, New Study Shows that Latino Teens Are Pregnant Suicidal Junkies where Alex questions who they consider Latina/o and how they decided it which is an important factor [...]

Comments

1. dave wrote:

   at my nonprofit, we have to report on ethnicity (latino or not latino) and on race (black/white, but also asian, brazilian, portuguese, etc.). i think we use CDC-defined categories. so their demographics should take into account both. not sure if they do in practice, but it seems like they should be capable of it.

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 9:56 am ¶

2. Chris wrote:

   Why? Maybe because it provides more fodder for anti-immigration activists and their arguments that Hispanic-*ahem*-illegal immigrants are tearing apart the United States, morally as well as fiscally.

   Reminds me of a special I saw on the History Channel where politicians in the Southwest were pushing for criminalizing marijuana in hopes of arresting and driving out Mexican immigrants, who were the largest population of marijuana importers and dealers.

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 10:05 am ¶

3. Monie wrote:

   Hi Alex,

   I’m a Black woman and I have often been upset by the use of the word Hispanic for many different reasons. The first reason is that from what I understand the term Hispanic was the brainchild of Richard Nixon. Apparently Mr. Nixon back in the late 60’s and early 70’s felt Black Americans were gaining too much political power. So as a foil to this bourgeoning political power Mr. Nixon decided to group all people in the U.S. who had ancestry in a Spanish speaking country. His hope; that one day “Hispanics” would outnumber African Americans and usurp their political power.

   I could go on about the term Hispanic and that it obviously is not a race. But the last point I want to make is that like some African Americans using the N word, when some people continue to use the word Hispanic to refer to themselves it seems to give others license to do so.

   The most vivid and disgusting use of the word Hispanic for me was seeing former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales say before a crowd of people, “I am proud to be of the Hispanic race”.

   And with regard to studies that point out everything that is wrong with so-called Hispanics. Get use to it, America loves to study its minorities and tell them how badly they are doing compared to Whites.

   Thanks

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 10:24 am ¶

4. locked wrote:

   Hmmm. I would bet that the students were allowed to choose what “group” they identified themselves with. That’s how most surveys usually go. So maybe your problem is with the students for identifying themselves whichever way, and not the people who conducted it.

   peace

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 10:34 am ¶

5. wendi muse wrote:

   um, again, super big thanks, alex, for showing the world that HEY LATINOS COME IN VARIOUS COLORS…
   b/c somehow, the press keeps missing the f*cking memo!!

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 10:43 am ¶

6. Caro wrote:

   Maybe they are comparing all Latinos/Hispanic people to non-Hispanic white people and non-Hispanic black people, and they failed to accurately explain that… or is that giving them way too much credit?

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:31 am ¶

7. kiki wrote:

   I think the race question is hard for young Latin@s who are often not given sufficient options. In 2000 almost half of Latin@s checked ’some other race’ on the census since the choices did not include an option that Latin@s found acceptable. Many times kids are presented with a limited list of choices that do not adequately reflect their racial identity. This happens to my kids all the time and they’ll usually choose “other” which makes them feel marginalized. The native choice usually stipulates “with tribal affiliation” which they do not have but as my daughter will tell you; the fact that Europeans raped her ancestors does not automatically make her white.

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:59 am ¶

8. Philly Phil wrote:

   “This news is all very troubling, to be sure, but we’re just so distracted by the question of who, exactly, these Hispanic teens are.”

   is this a case of not seeing the forest for the trees?

   anyway we can discuss the “troubling news” instead?

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 12:13 pm ¶

9. K wrote:

   People don’t know the difference. When they did a census at my high school some years ago, we had the same problem. When they ask our ethnicity, my friends and I quickly checked the hispanic/lation box. But when they asked for race and that option wasn’t there we were confused. Later that day my dad explained that to me and that’s when I realized it, even though I have always known I’m mestiza. People don’t take the time to explain this to teenagers. Another problem is that some people don’t understand, I remember one of my friends came back the next day saying that her mom was upset because she had to mark the black box when she had to put her race. I remember her saying “I’m not black, I’m hispanic”. People don’t take the time to learn and understand.

   However, as Philly Phil says we should be focusing on the “troubling news” because no matter our conclusion, these kids still need to be helped so the numbers will go down.

   Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶

10. Abu Sinan wrote:

    The term “Hispanic” isnt a good descriptor. Generally speaking it means someone who descends from Spanish speaking countries with historic ties to Spain.

    I am not a fan of generic descriptors, they dont tell us much about the people. Look at Middle Easterners in the USA, they are told to use Caucasian or white.

    The descriptors mean little or nothing.

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 1:29 pm ¶

11. A. Taveras wrote:

    As K hinted at, many teenagers will not yet have begun to differentiate race and ethnicity. They identify as Hispanic, and to the extent they really are 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen members of families from throughout Latin-America it is as valid a grouping as any. These are all social constructs, no? Some phenomenon has been identified here, even if it takes some digging to figure out what that may be.

    Also, though I very much prefer Latino to Hispanic, but would not go so far as to say Hispanic is a slur as monie above suggests.

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶

12. j wrote:

    ‘Hispanic’ is not a race, but neither is black, white, Asian, etc. All of these categories are social constructions. The reason why this is confusing regarding Latino/as today is that this category is the most recently constructed of the racial categories. Embracing ethnicity (which is rooted in culture rather than the illusion of biological heritage that race is attached to) for all peoples would allow us to better understand that it isn’t a contradiction to be both black and Latina, etc. This also reminds me of how people often don’t see ethnic diversity amongst blacks because ‘black’ is identified as a strictly homogenous racial category.

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 1:50 pm ¶

13. Cara wrote:

    *Why is this just a “Hispanic” problem?*…..

    I’ve often asked that question when studies attempt to point out what is “wrong” with Blacks and Black Culture. I’ts like everyone gets a “turn” at the Fraternal Hazing that is WHITE-SUPREMACY in the U.S. So, tag – you’re it…..for now.

    (No laughing matter of course)

    All kids screw up…not just brown or black kids, but all kids! It’s like they never heard of a pregnant white pre-teen in the hills of the Apallanchia – hooked on Meth – and skipping school. It’s completely unfair; but of course those who conduct these sorts of studies have no intention of being “fair”. You can make stats and #s say what every you want to say as long it gives you the cusion to unjustly categorize a non-majority, non-white racial group.

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 1:51 pm ¶

14. Andrea Rodriguez wrote:

    Yeah, this is a confusing issue. When I went to college, it was the first time I saw a bunch of Latinos in the same room, and it wasn’t for a baptism or wedding as it always had been. I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood so even though I kind of looked different, I didn’t really think I was. When I went to college, one Latino pointed out to me “you’re not white!” and I though, “i’m not? then what am I since ‘Latino’ is not a race?” But then if you think about it, if you are a light skinned a latino, like my mother, is she to check off the “white” box? And what about my dad who is a dark skinned latino? So am I mixed? I’ve always thought of myself as Mestiza, but no one really understands that as it is a historical term. Arg!
    p.s. what is this study supposed to accomplish anyway?

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶

15. Chica Dificil wrote:

    There is RESEARCH evidence that acculturation has a negative effect and that it is associated with worse health outcomes, behaviors, or perceptions for Latinos.

    It would be more helpful to know if these “Hispanics” (Mexican, Central American, Carribbean) are 1st generation, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Because increased EXPOSURE to US mainstream culture has negative impact on our health.

    I wish the study would highlight the social and economic conditions the youth in this study faced that prolly account for the RISKY behaviors (I imagine low SES, unsafe neighborhoods, racism, poor educational system, etc).

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 5:56 pm ¶

16. La ~ msviswan wrote:

    “This news is all very troubling, to be sure, but we’re just so distracted by the question of who, exactly, these Hispanic teens are. ”

    “Black teenager of Dominican ancestry fall? Are her problems Black or Hispanic? Which interest groups will help her, which will decide she’s not their problem? Why is this just a “Hispanic” problem?”

    Forgive me, perhaps I’m interpreting this article differently. I get the point, but most of the said people mentioned (black hispanics/Dominicans) are not white, don’t consider themselves black, and don’t like to be considered “black” either way. They have been declaring there own non-black status just fine for a long time. Just the same, some of them do look differently from the “average” black individual. When it comes to preference by white and other non-black supremacy, they have also been getting the benefits of colorsim as well as having “non-black” status.

    So now there’s trouble in the valley, why is there even a question or an attempt to link the burden of said “problem” to another race, especially the black race? If it was something highly positive instead, were we going to share out the kudos or insinuate a link to the black race?

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 6:26 pm ¶

17. JW wrote:

    Race is a fiction. As a concept, it has absolutely no scientific basis.

    Ethnicity has meaning.

    I think what the original poster was driving at was not “Can the ‘blame’ be passed” but how does self-indentification skew the sample.

    Is it possible that more well-off kids with ancestry tracing to spanish-speaking cultures are more likely to check “Other”?

    Is it possible that some politically aware kids are put off by the phrasing of the question and just don’t do the survey?

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 7:53 pm ¶

18. no wrote:

    “race is a social construct ” “hispanics come in all colors” “I’m not black, I’m dominican/puerto rican/ a brazil nut” blah blah blah blah . heard it all before. it’s all bullshit. just stop it.

    fact is: there were no “latinos/hispanics” in the US until the 1980 census. in 1960 all “mexicans, puerto ricans and persons of latin american descent” were classified as white.

    the establishment of a hispanic demographic bloc was intended to reduce african-american political power.

    there is a serious strain of anti-black racism in “latino” culture that goes back about 400 years. 48% identified themselves as white in the 2000 census. 2% identified as black. wonder why?

    as an earlier poster stated: these folks want the benefits of colorism without the drawbacks of actually being identified as black. f_ck that.

    that said: now that i know that latino teenagers are partying that hard, I’m definitely admiring their can-do spirit and work ethic!

    Posted 13 Jun 2008 at 11:41 pm ¶

19. RCHOUD wrote:

    Hello,

    I’ve always wondered why these census surveys don’t employ an easier way of categorizing people. Like instead of categorizing by race they could ask people from what part of the world they or their ancestors hailed from. The breakdown could be something like this:
    European
    Middle East
    Asia (broken down further in to South and East Asia as well as Pacific Islander)
    Africa
    Latin America
    Native American
    Multiethnic
    That’s the way I personally categorize people because these racial constructs can get confusing.

    Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 5:45 am ¶

20. IKnowSomething wrote:

    I hate how when a form will ask you what race you are and state the following:

    check one:

    [ ] Caucasian or White
    [ ] African American (non- Hispanic)
    [ ] Asian
    [ ] South Pacific
    [ ] Hispanic (non-black)
    [ ] Other

    Funny thing is, I’m black and Cuban, and I have to mark other because of the stupidity of the people who created the poll. The worst thing about it, Hispanic refers to people descending from Spain, not Central and South America (including the Caribbean).

    I hate the system. Why don’t they just stop asking people about race…we’re supposed to be a melting pot, and not a mosaic nation. We do such a good job as a society to point out flaws in all of the ethnic groups, failing to realize all of the groups have the same flaws.

    Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:08 am ¶

21. DivergentDana wrote:

    “the establishment of a hispanic demographic bloc was intended to reduce african-american political power.”

    I’m confused… wouldn’t an increasing influx of Hispanics that were classified as white still reduce AA political power?

    Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 10:57 am ¶

22. DivergentDana wrote:

    “I hate the system. Why don’t they just stop asking people about race…we’re supposed to be a melting pot, and not a mosaic nation. We do such a good job as a society to point out flaws in all of the ethnic groups, failing to realize all of the groups have the same flaws.”

    Because all of the ethnic groups don’t have the same flaws at identical levels. Would you rather the racial achievement gap go unmentioned and unaddressed? How do you measure the impact of racism without categorizing people by race? Who created the “melting pot” ideal, and why is it sacrosanct?

    Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 1:02 pm ¶

23. jvansteppes wrote:

    This photo intrigues me, did it come out of the mainstream press? I’ve noticed in Canada that the media has an obsession with images of Native children and teens huffing gas in communities where substance abuse [never influenced by racism/colonialism/poverty of course] is common. The sheer number of photos of kids ‘caught in the act’ reveals a national obsession with seeing the pictures over and over again. Its funny how moralists are also voyeurs.
    Ultimately we arrive at the point where the kids don’t even have to be holding drugs or alcohol to merit the drug abuse caption, Black North Americans are another great example. A few years ago in Time magazine at a doctor’s office I remember seeing the headline ‘Canada to legalize pot?’ next to a picture of 2 black teens who somehow represented drug culture simply because they were black.

    Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 1:26 pm ¶

24. DivergentDana wrote:

    “I’ve noticed in Canada that the media has an obsession with images of Native children and teens huffing gas”

    I thought they were drinking milk, being particularly wholesome teenagers, and subsequently wondered why it stood in such stark contrast with the article contents. *shrugs*

    Posted 14 Jun 2008 at 9:17 pm ¶

25. MexiZilian wrote:

    They were just thrown in there because they’re Latinas.

    Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 12:32 am ¶

26. marge twain wrote:

    @DivergentDana:
    “Would you rather the racial achievement gap go unmentioned and unaddressed? How do you measure the impact of racism without categorizing people by race? Who created the “melting pot” ideal, and why is it sacrosanct?”
    Agree, very well put. And I thought those kids were drinking milk, too.

    @Monie: I’d never heard this story on the origin of Hispanic and I’m curious. I knew they used to be considered white, at the time when the U.S./Mexico border was wide open. Can you provide some more info on the Nixon origin? I read this on Wikipedia:

    “During the 1970s, the United States Government defined the term “Hispanic” to identify Latin American individuals, and their descendants, living in the U.S. regardless of race.[6]

    The ethnic label Hispanic was the result of efforts by a New Mexican U.S. Senator, Joseph Montoya, who wanted a label that could be used to quantify the Spanish-speaking population for the U.S. Census. The label Hispanic was chosen in part because in New Mexico, people of Spanish descent such as Montoya referred to themselves as Hispanos which was anglicized as “Hispanic.”

    Though our understanding of ethnicity needs to be more complex, ethnic identities do serve some useful purpose. We need to acknowledge that Hispanic doesn’t always look like Jennifer Lopez but there are common issues that we need a way of discussing. Likewise, I share cultural affinities with others from Anglo-America that are common across races(this is more obvious when in other countries)

    Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 4:07 am ¶

27. Chloe wrote:

    Hi all. I just have a few words about this, it might be a bit lengthy, but I’m just trying to put my two cents here, specially since I see that my point of view seems to differ from the overall thrust of the comments.

    First, (@ I Know Something) as far as I know, I just want to say that the US Census does not consider “Hispanic” to be a race. It considers “Hispanic origin” separately from race, as an ethnicity—and keep in mind that according to the census there are only two “minimum categories for ethnicity”, “Hispanic/Latino” or “Not Hispanic/Latino”, how subtle!!!
    (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html).

    I don’t know what kind of categorizations were used by this study, but even given the fact that “Hispanic” origin obviously overlaps with race categorizations ( at least in the census, one has the chance of checking “Hispanic” plus a race or races), I think the study probably counted people who self-identified as having “Hispanic” origins, and these types of surveys usually rely on self-identification, no? Anyway, I think Alex’s point is not so much about the study’s methodology as it comes to race, but the way that so-called “Hispanic” identity has been racialized in the US. As some have discussed here, the term “Hispanic” as an official racial/ethnic designation in the US originated during the Nixon administration and, to be a bit thorough, is arguably a catch-all term for people of Latin American and Caribbean origin whose background lies in a Spanish-speaking country. People whose cultural and ethnic roots lie in Latin America and the Caribbean come in many different races and colors, and present a challenge to the stark black/white dichotomy of race in America. A lot of “Hispanic” people would not identify as Blacks or Whites in the American sense, and many come from cultures and nations where racial categorizations are very different than what they are in America. In addition, a lot of “Hispanic” people from the Caribbean come from very racially mixed families, where the skin color of their family members range widely from very light to very dark or Black. Do these people, individually, have to choose to be one race over the other and alienate their next of kin? I myself am “Hispanic”, my mother and father are close in color but I am very light-skinned and my only sibling is very dark-skinned. So is my brother “black”? Am I “white”? Of course not. We have the same mother and father, we grew up together, we certainly have a hard time thinking we are different races, and definitely choose to identify ourselves with what we share (a common nationality and cultural background—we are both immigrants, btw) rather than what we don’t share (the same skin color). And since we come from the same set of parents and the same gene pool, are we really that different? I think in this case maybe people of so-called “Hispanic origin” choose to identify with their nationality and cultural background rather than identify with American racial categories that were created without them in mind. This self-categorization feeds into the idea of “Hispanic” as one segregated group existing outside of American racial categorizations. It then gets together with the stereotypical mainstream American image of a “Hispanic” or “Latino/a” as being a certain shade of bronze, and then voila!, the term “Hispanic” becomes a racial description that is accurate in describing only a small segment of the actual “Hispanic” population. Notice how JLo and Eva Longoria are considered “Hispanic” by mainstream American culture, but Cameron Diaz, Alexis Bledel, Christina Milian and Zoe Saldana are not.

    The problem of race and “Hispanic” origin is very complex, just look at the hostile comments in this thread that deal with Black (African-American) and “Hispanic” relations (@la~msviswan, @Monies, @No, etc). It is often the case that the term Black in the USA is synonymous with “African-American”, so it’s natural that someone who is “Hispanic” but not African-American would not identify as Black. Plus, a lot of Hispanics come from cultures where the term “black” as a racial descriptor is often eschewed for more, say, euphemistic terms that give away said culture’s problematic notions of race and built-in anti-Black prejudice. This definitely challenges the very idea of race and racial classifications in the US. Is it reasonable to create a group looking at only skin color and disregarding the person’s national origin, cultural background, and even language? Is there a problem with challenging the totalizing and silencing nature of such strict racial categorizations? We all certainly have the chance and the right to challenge categorizations that we feel do not accurately describe us.

    Is a Black Dominican family who recently immigrated to the US in the 90’s indistinguishable from an African-American family whose members have been in the US for many generations? I think it’s perfectly fine for, say, Black Dominican people to identify as Dominican before they identify as Black, they’d have more affinity for and more in common with other Dominicans and “Hispanics” than with American Blacks, and they probably wouldn’t call themselves “Black” in their own country. If this is difficult for the US Census to deal with, that’s their problem. Why should people change the way they see themselves to fit in with a bureaucratic racial categorization, or conform to a cultural idea of race that looks at them with hostility anyway?

    I’ve always had plenty of issues with race/ethnicity surveys. I always put “other” or “Hispanic/Latino”, I never pick a specific race, and I don’t think I have to. I am not going to change the way I see myself just so I could better fit in with some multiple choice form. We get to call ourselves whatever we want, I don’t see why that doesn’t register with people.

    “Hispanic” identity is definitely Racialicious’ blind spot. “Hispanics” as a group have become very racialized in the US, and yet we are not of the same race. This presents a problem when trying to include us in a discussion of race in the US that is predicated on the traditional American “Black/White” racial dichotomy. Some Hispanics are white, others black, others both, others neither, many are of indigenous/native descent and yet some others are of East Asian (mostly Chinese or Japanese) background. So what’s the problem with saying that “Hispanic is not a race”? It’s not.

    Sorry if that was a bit long, just throwing some thoughts out there.

    Posted 15 Jun 2008 at 11:03 pm ¶

28. DivergentDana wrote:

    “This self-categorization feeds into the idea of “Hispanic” as one segregated group existing outside of American racial categorizations. It then gets together with the stereotypical mainstream American image of a “Hispanic” or “Latino/a” as being a certain shade of bronze, and then voila!, the term “Hispanic” becomes a racial description that is accurate in describing only a small segment of the actual “Hispanic” population. Notice how JLo and Eva Longoria are considered “Hispanic” by mainstream American culture, but Cameron Diaz, Alexis Bledel, Christina Milian and Zoe Saldana are not. ”

    I’m not so sure that indigenous/mestizo-appearing people are a “small segment of the actual Hispanic population.” While segments that are formidable in size — especially outside of the U.S. — may be wrongly ignored, I do believe that the largest portion of the Hispanic population does indeed favor Roselyn Sanchez and Benjamin Bratt more commonly than Christina Aguilera and Gina Torres.

    Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 12:14 am ¶

29. kiki wrote:

    The changes mean that we are now given the opportunity to self identify instead of being labeled or categorized by others. “Hispanic” provided an insufficiently nuanced category for people who do not self identify as either black or white and although it does not adequately address the race question it has initiated a long overdue dialog on the subject. It is wrong to suggest that the category was created for the purpose of negation; it was created for affirmation. The new category was born as an attempt to represent our reality not to create a false identity as some have suggested.

    Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 4:16 am ¶

30. evilbunnytoo wrote:

    “This self-categorization feeds into the idea of “Hispanic” as one segregated group existing outside of American racial categorizations.”

    It’s late at night, but I also want to add in two points:

    (1) The history of defining what race a “hispanic” is has historically been the subject of tension in the U.S. beginning with attempts to strip away citizenship from Mexicans residing in the U.S. after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (TGH) under the argument that they did not fit the criteria for citizenship (white or the descendent’s of slaves).

    The decision was that (a) technically Mex-Am did not meet the definition of white and were more akin to Native Americans and were of mixed race, however (b) the TGH conferred citizenship on Mexican Americans. Therefor since Mex-Ams were citizens and they were not descendent’s of slaves, they must be white, but since they were not technically white a new category of “other white” was formed.

    This lead to Mex-Americans being declared “whites” legally but being treated as non-white and subject to de-facto segregation (this illustrates the historical link of citizenship and whiteness but it’s late and I won’t go into that).

    (2) the charge of Hispanics wanting “the benefits of colorism without the drawbacks of actually being identified as black” is rooted in the history of Mexican-black relations in the south.

    It was the deliberate legal strategy of Mexican-American advocacy groups to litigate against the de-facto segregation of their population in the south by arguing that they should not be de-facto segregated, particularly in schools, because they were white, and not black. This was a particularly losing strategy (because they were then segregated on the grounds of “english speaking ability” where all Mexican Americans were slotted into “special” remedial schools) and served to distance the Mexican American community from the African American community as they were engaged in constructing themselves as separate and apart from African Americans (and thus worthy of whiteness). Furthermore, as some legal historian and other historians and researchers have shown, there remained an ambivalence in the Mex-American community, where it was clear many individuals did not consider themselves to be white (but rather mixed) yet recognized that should the de-facto segregation end due to their being declared white they would benefit.

    Then the African American community was able to get a legal ruling regarding the end de-facto segregation under Brown vs. the Board of Education (not that de-facto segregation ended right then and there, but it gave weight to the struggle) and Mexican-American legal advocacy groups switched tactics – they began arguing that they had been discriminated against on the basis of race (as being non-whites).

    The courts rejected this argument regarding race due to their prior litigation strategy (arguing whiteness) and instead the advocates were able to show de-facto discrimination on the basis of surname.

    my roundabout point –
    This information is something that I learned on my own (I’m a Mexican American) and teach to my students (I’m a grad student who occasionally teaches a class on Mex-American integration into/away from the U.S. middle class) because I think it is important information and contextualize the relationship of “Hispanics,” particularly Mexican-Americans to American categories of citizenship, race, whiteness, and to other minority groups in the U.S. Often my students are unaware of the failed attempts to claim whiteness by Mexican-Americans and are confused by the “other white” status that Mex-Ams are assigned. In informal discussions students often feel hesitant to assign any racial category to the group. This hesitancy is highlighted by the “group” itself, particularly Mexican-Americans, who are split between “white” and “other race” in the Census. When asked my race I am at a loss and, like many members of my family and many other “hispanics” will fill in my ethnicity because I don’t fit into a neat U.S. racial categories (I mean, I have white and Native American ancestors [in my case, from tribes on both sides of the border]) and perceive myself and am perceived (and treated) by others as not-white.

    on the topic of the article -
    I have to say, without reading the CDC study in depth, tracking “hispanic” health data is important because, as pointed out earlier, there are studies which have emerged showing that over the length of residence and generations the health of “hispanic” immigrant populations in the U.S. gets worse. But the data needs to be tracked in the right way.

    In fact there is a phenonmenon called the Hispanic paradox, in which it seemed that immigrant hispanics had better health (despite lower SES and less resources) than native born groups.

    However, studying health by Hispanic subgroup, rather than by one large category, has proved more useful and the hispanic paradox has been shown only to exist for certain subgroups (Mexican-Am) and even then, within certain age groups and health issues – (low-birthrate babies and deaths after 65). So lumping “hispanic” teens together, from a health perspective, isn’t that useful. You need a lot of info like SES, region of the U.S., nativity, subgroup, etc…

    Sorry for the long post.

    Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 6:28 am ¶

31. dave wrote:

    another $0.02 from me …

    i need folks to consider that being asked to pick a race and an ethnicity is a GOOD thing.

    okay, outrage. get it out of your system.

    here’s how: my organization serves people living with HIV/AIDS. this sort of information is used to determine if we are currently offering enough services to the people who need it the most (not only client services but also prevention info, safer sex materials, peer leadership, etc). and i, along with everyone i know, makes it clear when we ask that we want to know what the person personally identifies as. and there’s a write in next to other, not just a box.

    so while i think its important to look at the terms used by the government for race and ethnicity, i’d like us to also appreciate how the information can also be used postively.

    Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 6:41 pm ¶

32. Albert wrote:

    Hispanic is usually the umbrella for people from any nation with mostly descendents of the spanish. So, Dominicans would be counted as hispanic. As for the segregated schools, try segregated cities. Most hispanic teens live in major cities and, in case you ahven’t noticed for yourself, neighborhood demographics have a tendency to lean a certain way. A school in one of these areas is bound to have more students of a certain race.

    Posted 03 Jul 2008 at 6:27 am ¶

33. tina wrote:

    I think that we must addresss the underlying foundation of all racial/ethnic categories utilized in the western hemisphere. European colonialization, enslavement, genocide and supremacy is upheld through the use of language.
    The current system that imbues hatred, mistrust, denial and antipathy among ALL American people , serves to concentrate economic, political, cultural power within the hands of gatekeepers.

    A few strings back someone commented that a black dominican family is better off to identify with the hispanics than Americans. Why should they? language withstanding, all African people share a common history of racial mixing, enslavement, poverty, and disenfranchisement. THIS IS DIVIDE and CONQUER.
    Secondly, using that logic, what shoud a black haitian family think? is that family french?
    What about a Black Jamaican family… are they English? What about an Asian Jamaican family..? should they be English too.

    I oppose the use of the term hispanic because it is divisive, misleading and gives props to The Spaniards. I’m a black American. We dont parade around the word, proclaiming pride in the fact that the British committed atrocities against us, we dont say we are are proud to speak their language, eat their foods, share their religion, values and bloodlines. African people in latin America need an organized voice, and they need to unite with their people here and on the continent. Peace
    Just think about it

    Posted 05 Jul 2008 at 4:01 pm ¶