House approves bill to let Puerto Ricans vote to become 51st state

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by epchick

"Hispanic" to describe people of Spanish-speaking countries in and of itself is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to consider people from Spain "hispanics" because those are the people the word originally was designated for.

Spain is really an anomaly when it comes to designating "hispanics" or "latinos" even considering it a "Latin American" country. They have their heads so far up their own asses that it's just better to leave them out. They think themselves FAR superior than any other Spanish-speaking country.

I see Spanish (from Spain) artists on the Latino Billboard/Premios/Awards Shows/etc...so they're at least not shy about lumping themselves in with Latin Music.

Why would you consider the use of "Hispanic" for people of Spanish speaking countries inaccurate?

If you want to go right to the root of these designations, Latino could describe someone Mexican, Brazilian, or even Italian and Portuguese, because it means someone who speaks a Latin-based language. I know someone will probably argue with that, but I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Meanwhile, I had no idea WTF to put for my husband on the census. There was a question about being "Hispanic", but then the next question was about race, and it said that Hispanic was an ethnicity not a race (you can't tell them that, though - iLa Raza!). I finally ended up settling on "Native American - Zapoteca". I looked it up later, and technically, that's not off-base, because he's a Mesoamericano - which are people indigenous to middle Mexico-Central America, and are therefore Native Americans (even if they're not Native (NORTH) Americans.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Why would you consider the use of "Hispanic" for people of Spanish speaking countries inaccurate?

Because of what you said next:

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

If you want to go right to the root of these designations, Latino could describe someone Mexican, Brazilian, or even Italian and Portuguese, because it means someone who speaks a Latin-based language. I know someone will probably argue with that, but I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Most of us prefer you call us by out ethnicity (Mexican, Cuban, etc) but if you don't know it, "Latino/a" would be more accurate, and more accepted, than Hispanic. I personally hate being called 'Hispanic.'

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Meanwhile, I had no idea WTF to put for my husband on the census. There was a question about being "Hispanic", but then the next question was about race, and it said that Hispanic was an ethnicity not a race (you can't tell them that, though - iLa Raza!).

Is Mexican (I know you mentioned Zapotec, but I know they can go down through several countries). That's strange that the census didn't have that option--mine did. I put Mexican, or Mexican-American, under ethnicity and 'white' under race (i believe).

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by epchick

Most of us prefer you call us by out ethnicity (Mexican, Cuban, etc) but if you don't know it, "Latino/a" would be more accurate, and more accepted, than Hispanic. I personally hate being called 'Hispanic.'

I think that might be kind of like the Black/African American debate - some prefer one, some prefer the other. Some have a STRONG preference, and others it doesn't mater as much. I hardly ever hear my husband call himself Latino - he usually calls himself "Hispano". He wouldn't be offended, though, if someone called him Latino. He would only be offended if someone called him "gringo".

Originally Posted by epchick

Is Mexican (I know you mentioned Zapotec, but I know they can go down through several countries). That's strange that the census didn't have that option--mine did. I put Mexican, or Mexican-American, under ethnicity and 'white' under race (i believe).

Yes - I marked Mexican - I was talking about the race...are Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans really considered Caucasian? I would also probably throw in there that my husband is 100% indigenous, and his skin looks more like Sammy Sosa (BEFORE he went all Micheal Jackson with the white-boy drugs) or India Maria than Cameron Diaz or Edith Gonzalez.

[thetygerlily]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

If you want to go right to the root of these designations, Latino could describe someone Mexican, Brazilian, or even Italian and Portuguese, because it means someone who speaks a Latin-based language. I know someone will probably argue with that, but I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Meanwhile, I had no idea WTF to put for my husband on the census. There was a question about being "Hispanic", but then the next question was about race, and it said that Hispanic was an ethnicity not a race (you can't tell them that, though - iLa Raza!). I finally ended up settling on "Native American - Zapoteca". I looked it up later, and technically, that's not off-base, because he's a Mesoamericano - which are people indigenous to middle Mexico-Central America, and are therefore Native Americans (even if they're not Native (NORTH) Americans.

My husband is Brazilian and boy does he get riled up if he's every referred to as Hispanic or even Latino! The Hispanic objection is because they speak Portuguese and not Spanish. The Latino objection I have not gotten a clear answer on, I think it's more of colloquial usage usually assumes Spanish speaking and not the Latin-based roots.

We've had several people take the liberty of checking the Hispanic box for him on mortgage applications and the like. 1- don't assume based on looks and 2- people aren't required to provide that information, so it should be up to him. He gets even more riled up about that one!

Since there isn't a "Brazilian" box, I just check "Other" He would probably check Caucasian out of defiance but he isn't filling out the forms, so...

And back to your regularly scheduled programming... I'll be curious to see this one play out. I've always thought that (albeit a very small) part of the reason Puerto Rico, Guam, etc aren't states is because they don't want to deal with changing the flag. But that's the cynical part of me coming out.

[AnotherKD]

It just seems kind of shitty to me that we just fought a losing battle for trying to get DC statehood, and now about a week later, the House is like, Hey, Puerto Rico! Wanna join us?

We never got that opportunity. I'd like to see what the numbers would be if DC residents had a vote as to whether or not to become a state.

[Ooh La La]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

It just seems kind of shitty to me that we just fought a losing battle for trying to get DC statehood, and now about a week later, the House is like, Hey, Puerto Rico! Wanna join us?

We never got that opportunity. I'd like to see what the numbers would be if DC residents had a vote as to whether or not to become a state.

Considering the DC license plate says, "Taxation Without Representation," I'm sure DC residents would be thrilled to become a state.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by Ooh La La

Considering the DC license plate says, "Taxation Without Representation," I'm sure DC residents would be thrilled to become a state.

We actually get the choice to have "Taxation Without Representation" on our license plates. It is the default, but those who are against it can choose to have "A Capital City" on their plates, and while I don't see many of them, they are around.

Aside from repealing the 23rd constitutional amendment, what others also argue is that the new state that would be created would also have to take on the responsibility of policing/guarding all of the embassies and figuring out what to do with the federal areas, such as the Capitol Building, the White House, and even places like the memorials on the Mall. DC gets about $600,000,000 per year from the federal government because it hosts a lot of these things (even though we do have the highest federal tax rate per capita). We wouldn't get that money if we were to become a state. States that border us (MD and VA) tend to not support our creation of a state because they would lose money due to commuter taxes. The federal government part of the state would be impacted by the state's interference in certain issues (simply by way of physicality) and also DC's dependence on it, as we are a town that thrives on government work. The framers of the constitution envisioned a seat of government, and DC is quite small in the scheme of other "big" cities.

So, I guess that's some of the arguments that people around here can make.

[Ooh La La]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

We actually get the choice to have "Taxation Without Representation" on our license plates. It is the default, but those who are against it can choose to have "A Capital City" on their plates, and while I don't see many of them, they are around.

Aside from repealing the 23rd constitutional amendment, what others also argue is that the new state that would be created would also have to take on the responsibility of policing/guarding all of the embassies and figuring out what to do with the federal areas, such as the Capitol Building, the White House, and even places like the memorials on the Mall. DC gets about $600,000,000 per year from the federal government because it hosts a lot of these things (even though we do have the highest federal tax rate per capita). We wouldn't get that money if we were to become a state. States that border us (MD and VA) tend to not support our creation of a state because they would lose money due to commuter taxes. The federal government part of the state would be impacted by the state's interference in certain issues (simply by way of physicality) and also DC's dependence on it, as we are a town that thrives on government work. The framers of the constitution envisioned a seat of government, and DC is quite small in the scheme of other "big" cities.

So, I guess that's some of the arguments that people around here can make.

True, but it's always interesting for the proposition to become "New Columbia" to pop up in Congress every few years. These people at least have to get a representative.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by Ooh La La

True, but it's always interesting for the proposition to become "New Columbia" to pop up in Congress every few years. These people at least have to get a representative.

I completely agree. Hell, up until the 60s, we couldn't even vote for the President! (I say "we" as if I was alive in the 60s and lived here then... haha! )

[AGDee]

Yes, they are considered Caucasian. Back in my day, they taught us there were three races... Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. That was what every school child learned.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Yes, they are considered Caucasian. Back in my day, they taught us there were three races... Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. That was what every school child learned.

Funny you should mention that. My grandfather was considered Black.

[RU OX Alum]

Slight hijack: What does gringo mean? Does it mean simply "outsider" or does it mean specifically white anglo?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Slight hijack: What does gringo mean? Does it mean simply "outsider" or does it mean specifically white anglo?

Wiki's Answer

I've really only heard my husband use it in regards to white people, but Wiki says Mexicans use it for any US Citizen.

My dad said there was an old Army story about the Mexican-American war where the American armies were wearing green uniforms, and the officers would send them into battle by yelling "Green Go!", but I think that's just a story. It's similar to one of the Wiki proposed etymologies, but not the same.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

Slight hijack: What does gringo mean? Does it mean simply "outsider" or does it mean specifically white anglo?

More of the white anglo part than the outsider.

Usually when someone says 'gringo' they mean it in a more derogatory way. And we use it for people who *usually* are non-Spanish speaking white people.

A more affectionate term that could be used is 'guero' which doesn't always necessarily mean "blonde."

[Boodleboy322]

Very interesting - I would speculate that this won't get passed the Senate. I had the pleasure in visiting the "El Conquistador" Resort about a year ago in Fajardo and had a really good time. Everything was a little bit on the pricey side but worth it. They have a really good light beer there that you can't get in the US. If this thing does pass the Senate I wonder if any of these types of goods will be better facilitated to get over to the US. Anyway, the beer is called "Medalla Light". It is sort of like a Corona or Land Shark beer but better. It definitely tastes great in that Tropical heat by the Caribbean. If you're ever down there and want more Medalla for your buck I would highly suggest taking a rental car and head out to "El Yunque" for a day. El Yunque is a natural Tropical Rain forest out there. You'll have a blast and if you take your spouse or significant other there is a natural waterfall at the foot of the mountain that you can hike to and get that "Token" snapshot. Anyway, on the way you'll come across a little Puerto Rican convenient store near a little neighborhood. There's no AC in there but they do keep their beers refrigerated. You'll be able to get a 12 pack for the price of 1 back at your resort or hotel. Of course there is a plethora of Rums in PR. That should be obvious for any fan of the Captain or Bacardi. We'll see what happens here. I imagine that accepting Spanish as a second official language would stir up some folks opinions and legacies. As long as they are getting Federally taxed like the rest of us I have no problem with it.

Cheers,

Boodleboy322