[NewBee]

Originally posted by DoggyStyle82


There is a concept of race, especially how it was used on the census prior to 2000. In your example of what race would a Cuban be if the "appeared black". They would be and are still racially "black" despite their nationality. We must not confuse nationality or ethnicity for "race". Hispanics can be of any race (black, white, or indian/native american). What makes them Hispanic is their shared linguistic or cultural characteristics that define Hispanic culture.

Also African is not an ethnicity. An Ibo, a Yoruban, a Kikuyu, a Dinka, A Tigre, a Zulu, and a Hotentot are all Africans but they are very different ethnically and culturally. What they do share is that they are of the same race.

For the most part, until the loosening of immigration laws in the mid-70's, east of the Mississippi, most Americans were easily identifiable as White or Black, with some Puerto Ricans in major Northern cities. Most Hispanics were confined to South Florida, Texas and Califirnia. Now we have an influx of Central Americans, Asians, East Indians, etc who don't fit neatly into Black, White categories.

One last thing, because Hispanics can be of any race, its usually not their "race" that defines them in society, but how well they assimilate into the larger culture. The big "handicap" that they face is generally mastery of the English language. Cameron Diaz, Frankie Munoz, Christina Aguilera all have Spanish surnames, but they have the benefit of being "racially" white so that one or two generations removed from immigrant parents doesn't really make them "Hispanic" anymore whereas, if your skin is black, its gonna stay that way whether you change your culture or not (unless you are Michael Jackson of course).

Doggystyle, your post proves even more why the concept of race is irrevelant and shouldn't be used in the census. I am not sure if that was your intent, but thats what aI got out of it. But if that was your intent, I agree with you.