Should the label Hispanic be dropped?

Should the label Hispanic be dropped?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 14 33.3%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 4 9.5%

  • Total voters
    42

Uprising

Woodpecker
The past few weeks I followed Nick Fuentes with all the election stuff going on. Admittedly, I never kept up with him that much although I know a little about America First and The Groypers.

Some of the comments that he gets on his Twitter are about him being Hispanic.

I've thought about the Hispanic label before but following Fuentes and seeing the comments about his origin made me think about it even more. If you didn't know Nick's last name, you would never know that he could trace his roots back to Latin America. The dude is white and would not in any way, shape or form stand out in Mediterranean Europe.

The Hispanic label is dumb and I think that it needs to be replaced. It's dumb because it's essentially a meaningless term that the powers that be use to divide us up even more than what we already are.

In my opinion, the Hispanic label should simply be dropped for:

White (or European)
Brown (or Native)

There's obviously not an exact line drawn in the sand between white or brown, and I know there is the term Mestizo but even the Mestizos in my opinion are generally white. Jennifer Lopez would probably be considered a Mestizo but she certainly wouldn't stand out in Italy or Spain. She's not Northern European but Southern European, there's different shades of white but it's still white or European:

jennifer-lopez-interview-smile-promo.jpg


The white and brown labels aren't perfect but people generally figure out where they stand on things and it isn't a big deal. Being white or brown are both alright, but it's insulting intelligence to say a that if a guy like Nick Fuentes married someone like Tiffany Trump, that their kids would be "mixed" or that they would be in an "interracial" marriage. They are both white and their kids would be white.

Someone like Marco Rubio and his family shouldn't be considered anything different than white. You would have no problems finding people that looked like this family in Spain, they are clearly ethnically Spaniards:

dd5be391690486c851c695cd9cf63761.jpg


Sometimes the term "Hispanic" is used in a hilarious way, like that Jorge Ramos guy who is on the Telemundo TV Channel here in America. On that channel and on interviews with guys like Tucker Carlson or Anderson Cooper, he makes himself out to be some kind of victim by playing the "minority card", as if he would be considered different than a German American or a Polish American if he spoke English without an accent. Dude is a white Spaniard and represents the elite of Mexico, it's insulting to hear people like him act like they should be given "minority" perks in our new messed up system where people like him act like they are oppressed or something:

636402834368234760-Jorge-Official-Pic.jpg


I think the term Latin America to refer to every country south of the USA is fine, because it was settled largely (not entirely but largely) by the Mediterranean Countries of Europe who spoke the Latin Languages that most everybody south of the USA speaks today (with some Native Group exceptions).

But the term Hispanic is absolutely pointless. On it's origin via wikipedia:

The term Hispanic derives from Latin Hispanicus, the adjectival derivation of Latin (and Greek) Hispania (that is, the Iberian peninsula), ultimately probably of Celtiberian origin. In English the word is attested from the 16th century (and in the late 19th century in American English).

So does that mean that if a Spaniard came to live in the US, than that person would be considered Hispanic? Or if a Portuguese person came to the US, that they would be considered Hispanic? To me that would be dumb. They're white/Europeans.

You could say that the term "white" in and of itself is too vague, which is a reasonable argument, but the thing is for the Anglo countries (and especially the US) we are all kind of mutts of various European ethnicities here. You need something to define us because very few white Americans identify based on their ethnic group anymore (a large part of that was forced assimilation of European ethnic groups in 1800's - 1900's and the English-Americans simply dropped the English label). Most white Americans can't tell you what they are ethnically and will simply make a guess of it or just go off of their last name.

Replacing the term "White Americans" with the term "European Americans" would be more appropriate in my opinion, of course that term would get vague in the era of globalism when you have people of African or Asian origin coming from places like England to live in America and calling themselves "European Americans", when that's not really what we mean by the term. But again people have eyes it's not hard to know what people mean.

In any case, whether we call ourselves White Americans or European Americans, white Hispanics should be a part of that group. I realize that they can and they do label themselves "White Hispanic" on census forms and such, but why do we even need the term "Hispanic" in there in the first place?

Again, why not just "white" or "brown" or if you don't want to use those terms, "European-American" or "Native-American".

I'm curious as to what everyone's thoughts are on this and it's 100% ok to disagree with me about anything that I wrote on this post.

Do you think the label Hispanic should be done away with? If so, what would you like to replace it with? Do you think that label is just kept around to divide the population up more than what it already is and that it's just preventing assimilation?

For the white people who married someone from Latin America, if you're marrying someone like Marco Rubio's wife or someone like Jennifer Lopez do you consider yourself to be in an interracial marriage? When your kids go to school, what are you going to tell your kid to put down on the racial category when asked?

Latin Americans on RVF, what do you think of the label Hispanic?

Are there any Spaniards, Italians or Portuguese on this forum? What do you think someone like a Marco Rubio, if he came from Latin America (rather than from the USA) and went to live in Spain (there's a lot of cases like this), what do you think he should be called? Hispanic? Latin American? A Spaniard? Or simply whatever country of origin he comes from and then his kids would be Spaniards assuming he married a Spanish woman?

I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I also made a poll so be sure to vote.
 

Pendleton

Pelican
The census already makes this distinction. One can identify as both white and Hispanic. It is a useful to maintain the distinction since "non-Hispanic white" is the closest we have to a measure of what is left of the American population. "Non-Hispanic white" is still too broad of a category to only capture Americans but is the best we have. Otherwise, the government and media would just report an inflated measure of "whites" and the extent to which America has been destroyed would be more fully concealed.

I have never understood the mindset that as long as we categorize foreigners like Fuentes, Rubio, Cruz, etc. as "white" that somehow makes everything good and Americans should be happy at being displaced because the people displacing them are "white."

Replacing the term "White Americans" with the term "European Americans" would be more appropriate in my opinion
Perhaps you are a migrant and projecting your own experience on to Americans. Americans have been in the US for 300+ years. This is especially true for whites down South. Labelling them "European Americans" - basically like they are foreigners in their own country - is both inaccurate and offensive. It would be like saying "Let's not call people English any more. Let's say Anglo-Britons. There are Anglo-Britons, Indian-Britons, Italo-Britons, Nigerian-Britons. No natives, no foreigners. All the same! Yeah!" :alien:
 

Ludelos

Pigeon
Colombian-American here. I agree that the label Hispanic should be dropped. I often joke with my Filipino friend that he's technically Hispanic since Spain colonized his country too. Call us Latinos.

The label Hispanic lost its significance once all of Spain's colonies achieved independence. Latin Americans no longer live under the rule of the Spanish crown so why are we using a label that was applied to denizens of Hispania?

Everytime I fill out an application, I have to select Hispanic/Latino for my ethnicity and then I am forced to select from white, black or mixed for my race. I go with either one depending on my mood lol and I technically wouldn't be lying for either choice due to my mestizo background. My dad and his side of the family is light skin and resembles Spaniards to a great extent. My mom is brown but has some light skin siblings that resemble Spaniards. My maternal grandfather is also brown. I was told that he was born in a coastal area that served as a former slave colony centuries ago so he most likely has African roots. Colombians are known to be one of the more mixed races. As you pointed out, some Latinos look more or completely Caucasian and some are clear descendants of brown Native Americans or dark skinned Africans. I saw lots of people black Colombians the last time I went to Cali.
 

Uprising

Woodpecker
Perhaps you are a migrant and projecting your own experience on to Americans. Americans have been in the US for 300+ years. This is especially true for whites down South. Labelling them "European Americans" - basically like they are foreigners in their own country - is both inaccurate and offensive.

I'm a white American with no Spanish (from Spain) or Latin American roots (for whatever it's worth), but thanks.

I disagree that labeling white Americans as European Americans is offensive. I don't think any white person would take offense to it. I think it more accurately gives a label as to what "white" means in America. Where white and European generally go hand in hand and are synonymous with each other.

I have never understood the mindset that as long as we categorize foreigners like Fuentes, Rubio, Cruz, etc. as "white" that somehow makes everything good and Americans should be happy at being displaced because the people displacing them are "white."

Not sure where in my OP you can find where I said that. I wrote my post to talk about the label of Hispanic, not necessarily the immigration issue of it.

That said, and I know this will may be an unpopular opinion among some, but I don't view immigration of people like Fuentes or Rubio any different than I would from European immigrants (though it should be said I'm certainly not advocating for mass immigration or the displacement of anybody and nowhere in my OP did I mention anything like that).

It would be like saying "Let's not call people English any more. Let's say Anglo-Britons. There are Anglo-Britons, Indian-Britons, Italo-Britons, Nigerian-Britons. No natives, no foreigners. All the same! Yeah!"

I don't know what you're getting at with this post. People generally do label people British-Indian or British-Nigerian. For the recent immigrants from Europe, I think they just call them Polish or whatever country they come from (but any Brits on here correct me if I'm wrong).

I'm certainly not advocating a "We are all the same" approach. That said, terms like white or European-American are generally useful to refer to a broader group of people rather than just the ethnicity.
 
Last edited:

SpyofMoses

Sparrow
Your post demonstrates the shortcomings of the word Hispanic. I'll second Ludelos's comment that Latinos is a better term. I am also a Colombian American. I prefer Latino since the language my family speaks comes from Latin, but beyond that my family's ties to Spain are long gone. Hundreds of years gone, just like my American family's ties to Britain.

A friend, who is PC, debated me for a bit about the term Latino. He said it's offensive. I told him I don't care since none of my family comes from Spain. Besides, Latino means someone who's language comes from Latin. That, or a person from Latin America. What is so offensive about that?

I have another friend who likes the term Hispanic. His grandfather is from Spain. He actually kinda looks like Nick Fuentes. I am not offended by Hispanic, just think it works better for my friend since he has historical ties to Spain. Although we are both "white," I've never heard anyone tell him he "doesn't look American" or that he looks "like an Indian." I get these comments regularly so I like the distinction that Latino has from white since people don't always think I'm white right away(unlike my friend).
 

Uprising

Woodpecker
Your post demonstrates the shortcomings of the word Hispanic.

Besides, Latino means someone who's language comes from Latin. That, or a person from Latin America.

so I like the distinction that Latino has from white
since people don't always think I'm white right away(unlike my friend).

How is Latino distinct from white? Argentina with it's 45 million population in that country alone is something like 95% white and they all speak Spanish and are from Latin America.

Based on what you just wrote, both Latino and Hispanic are pointless when it comes to talking about race or ethnicity.

I can say I'm American, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm white. You can say you're Latino, but that doesn't change the fact that you're white or the fact that you're brown, whichever one you are. American is not a race or an ethnicity (Native American is but not American) just like Latino and Hispanic are not a race or ethnicity.

I get what you're saying in that you could use the term "Latino" in the same way that I used the term "European" in my OP, as a broad description. Sure that can be true when it comes to things like culture, history, language, that Latino, Latin or Hispanic could be appropriate labels.

But when it comes to race and ethnicity, the Hispanic and Latino/Latin labels are basically pointless.

I'm just saying, calling people like Nick Fuentes who don't even speak Spanish or have much of any connection to their culture, which is what the Hispanic and Latino/Latin basically represent, then it's retarded to call him anything other than white when he's clearly a Spaniard.
 
Last edited:

Uprising

Woodpecker
I can say I'm American, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm white. You can say you're Latino, but that doesn't change the fact that you're white or the fact that you're brown, whichever one you are. American is not a race or an ethnicity (Native American is but not American) just like Latino and Hispanic are not a race or ethnicity.

I didn't have time to edit this quote but I wanted to mention that while American is not a race or ethnicity just like Latino or Hispanic is not a race or ethnicity, that doesn't mean the people of these countries/regions of the world did not make them what they are today and without those people, then America wouldn't be the America that we know today and let's say Mexico or Argentina wouldn't be the Mexico or Argentina that we know today.

But those people do not have an American or let's say Colombian ethnicity, because there is no such thing as an American race or a Colombian ethnicity. There's such a thing as an American nationality or a Colombian nationality, yes, but there are no ethnic Americans and no ethnic Colombians (there are racial Native Americans and ethnic Indiana tribes but those are the only racial/ethnic groups that come from the Americas).

Just wanted to be clear on that point.
 
The descendants of the Aztec and Mayan peoples and those who are mixed thereof, who have Spanish surnames and speak in the tongue of their conquerors (though many bastardize it) have been riled up by (((troublesome forces))) to despise "whiteness" for quite some time. La Raza did not start yesterday, but even that can't ignore who created them. Much of Europe was once a pool of colonized DNA by Hunnic and Mongol invaders, and the Gauls and Celts before them. But they got over it and out of the chaos after Rome's supremacy created a many great nations that lasted for centuries. The problem the "hispanics" of today have is that they are socially programmed to hate anything "white" but that inadvertently leads them to hating themselves on some subconscious level. Most of them are part European at some point in their genealogy. Some are all European, others are all Aztec, Inca, or Mayan. The colonization world was better off before the western think-tanks started introducing these divisive concepts, for the colonizers and those who were colonized. I say the term should be dropped, and people should just start acknowledging the hierarchy of conquerors as it is relative to human history as a whole.
 

Ludelos

Pigeon
I didn't have time to edit this quote but I wanted to mention that while American is not a race or ethnicity just like Latino or Hispanic is not a race or ethnicity, that doesn't mean the people of these countries/regions of the world did not make them what they are today and without those people, then America wouldn't be the America that we know today and let's say Mexico or Argentina wouldn't be the Mexico or Argentina that we know today.

But those people do not have an American or let's say Colombian ethnicity, because there is no such thing as an American race or a Colombian ethnicity. There's such a thing as an American nationality or a Colombian nationality, yes, but there are no ethnic Americans and no ethnic Colombians (there are racial Native Americans and ethnic Indiana tribes but those are the only racial/ethnic groups that come from the Americas).

Just wanted to be clear on that point.
My nationality is American and my race is mixed. However, if anyone in public were to ask me about my race and I didn't feel like having a conversation about my mestizo background, I would just say I am Hispanic or Latino for simplicity sake. I've never been one to care about my racial background. I consider my American nationality to be of far greater importance.
 
Colombian-American here. I agree that the label Hispanic should be dropped. I often joke with my Filipino friend that he's technically Hispanic since Spain colonized his country too. Call us Latinos.

The label Hispanic lost its significance once all of Spain's colonies achieved independence. Latin Americans no longer live under the rule of the Spanish crown so why are we using a label that was applied to denizens of Hispania?

Every time I fill out an application, I have to select Hispanic/Latino for my ethnicity and then I am forced to select from white, black or mixed for my race. I go with either one depending on my mood lol and I technically wouldn't be lying for either choice due to my mestizo background. My dad and his side of the family is light skin and resembles Spaniards to a great extent. My mom is brown but has some light skin siblings that resemble Spaniards. My maternal grandfather is also brown. I was told that he was born in a coastal area that served as a former slave colony centuries ago so he most likely has African roots. Colombians are known to be one of the more mixed races. As you pointed out, some Latinos look more or completely Caucasian and some are clear descendants of brown Native Americans or dark skinned Africans. I saw lots of people black Colombians the last time I went to Cali.
Ok, if one wants to make such a fine point in identity politics propose this for the next census here in the US.

Hispanic: if one's family came directly from the Iberian peninsula (I am not sure how one would handle Andalusian immigrants since some have Arab roots going back generations.

Latino: if one's family came directly from any geographical area south of the Rio Grande and the Spanish speaking Caribbean.

Do you see my point? If one starts to put identity politics into something as simple as a census form. It could get so out of hand that the 2030 census form could have the potential of being 5,000 pages long (much like a Congressional bill that nobody in Congress reads).

Personally I would like to see race and genealogical questions eliminated from the the US census and also all the legislation that requires it as well. But alas, I live in a dream world. But not the one that many of those in the Federal political class who think that to look good one must create ever more complex legislation to justify their positions in "The Club" (ref. any George Carlin's comedy routines).
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Hummingbird
Gold Member
We should just settle with: orange men bad.

There are multiple distinctions you can make. I think there is a distinction between White and European. Some Middle Easterners are white, like Bashar al-Assad; there are white Uyighurs; white Mongols; white Uzbeks; white Afghans; white Indians and Pakistanis; white Thais; white Indonesians; white Persians... All of these people are of higher status in their societies; as well as lighter-skinned people from black/brown areas.

There are people from Southern Europe who are browner than these; and some of them don't have particularly European features.

haplogroup-R1b.jpg


Western Europeans are most likely to have heritage from the R1b haplogroup - a genetic mutation that is passed on the paternal line. Celtic people are the most ethnically pure in Europe, being about 80%+ R1b. That is Irish, Welsh, Bretons and to a lesser extent Scots. After Celts the most pure are Polish and Armenians who have about 50% from one haplogroup.

Eastern Europeans have a lot more diversity. In the north-east those are more from Slavic and other related movements from the north-east. In the South they come from all over the place, due it it being at the confluence of many empires.

When we talk of white people we talk of people who have a large portion of their ancestry with deep roots in the north; and more brown people (who may be considered European) from a mix up those above in the north with various outside influences.
 

Lights

Woodpecker
OP says Hispanic is "meaningless" term. It's not.

Hispanic- n. a Spanish speaking person of Latin American descent, esp. one living in the US.

Hispanic denotes heritage, and has nothing to do the color of your skin;

Furthermore it is irrelevant whether someone would be able to TELL you were Hispanic without knowing your last name.
 

RonaldB

Pigeon
The Spanish language is more precise than English. A man is called "Latino" and a woman "Latina". I'm glad that most Latins in the US don't really care about the forced "Latinx" term. It's only the chubby brown Latinas and Latin cucks who use that term.
 

nagareboshi

Sparrow
It is a useful to maintain the distinction since "non-Hispanic white" is the closest we have to a measure of what is left of the American population. "Non-Hispanic white" is still too broad of a category to only capture Americans but is the best we have. Otherwise, the government and media would just report an inflated measure of "whites" and the extent to which America has been destroyed would be more fully concealed.

I have never understood the mindset that as long as we categorize foreigners like Fuentes, Rubio, Cruz, etc. as "white" that somehow makes everything good and Americans should be happy at being displaced because the people displacing them are "white."

Perhaps you are a migrant and projecting your own experience on to Americans. Americans have been in the US for 300+ years. This is especially true for whites down South. Labelling them "European Americans" - basically like they are foreigners in their own country - is both inaccurate and offensive.

This mentality (and others like it which are very prominent in RVF) doesn't really withstand the test of material changes. Bottom line is whether you support the constructed identity of "American" or not.

Looking objectively on the land, it was settled in pre-written history by Native Americans, then Spanish, then Anglos, and French, and then immigration waves from Germany, Ireland, Italy, Russia, and Yugoslavia.

When exactly did "real Americans" get destroyed? Was it when the natives were killed? When Spanish and French and Anglos intermingled together? Was it when German potato farmers settled the mid-West?

You mentioned that Americans have been in this country for 300+ years -- okay, understood, so Germans aren't real Americans; Donald Trump isn't a real American either then. Then what about the native people? They were here for over a thousand years. Oh, natives are not Americans because we killed them by force. Got it. So your argument could be that might makes right. In that case, if Mexico successfully takes over America, does that mean they get to decide what real America is?

In my opinion, the only real coherent and consistent idea of America is: "a collection of different ethnic people who remember their roots from the Old World, gathering together in a democratic republic". It's the only idea that actually stands up to the test of time and doesn't get decimated by immigration waves and statecrafted nationalism. I actually do think it would be a good thing for Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans to participate in their original cultures. The same "white nationalism" that allows Anglos, Irish, and Italians to become one race will easily be modified to support Hispanics.
 

RonaldB

Pigeon
This mentality (and others like it which are very prominent in RVF) doesn't really withstand the test of material changes. Bottom line is whether you support the constructed identity of "American" or not.

Looking objectively on the land, it was settled in pre-written history by Native Americans, then Spanish, then Anglos, and French, and then immigration waves from Germany, Ireland, Italy, Russia, and Yugoslavia.

When exactly did "real Americans" get destroyed? Was it when the natives were killed? When Spanish and French and Anglos intermingled together? Was it when German potato farmers settled the mid-West?

You mentioned that Americans have been in this country for 300+ years -- okay, understood, so Germans aren't real Americans; Donald Trump isn't a real American either then. Then what about the native people? They were here for over a thousand years. Oh, natives are not Americans because we killed them by force. Got it. So your argument could be that might makes right. In that case, if Mexico successfully takes over America, does that mean they get to decide what real America is?

In my opinion, the only real coherent and consistent idea of America is: "a collection of different ethnic people who remember their roots from the Old World, gathering together in a democratic republic". It's the only idea that actually stands up to the test of time and doesn't get decimated by immigration waves and statecrafted nationalism. I actually do think it would be a good thing for Anglo-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans to participate in their original cultures. The same "white nationalism" that allows Anglos, Irish, and Italians to become one race will easily be modified to support Hispanics.
Technically speaking, Americans are, or should only be consider, the descendants of the the British people who colonized the East coast. If I'm not wrong, I think all the founding fathers were majority British.

Also, we have to acknowledge that America was/is a Mason project, so I think that to have multi-ethnic (Mostly European) society was always the main purpose.
 

nagareboshi

Sparrow
Technically speaking, Americans are, or should only be consider, the descendants of the the British people who colonized the East coast. If I'm not wrong, I think all the founding fathers were majority British.

I am sympathetic to that statement since it is at least ideologically consistent. But one who believes in such a statement would also have to acknowledge that American identity has been destroyed for the past 150 years, and also affirm that "white American identity" is inferior to British identity.

Also, we have to acknowledge that America was/is a Mason project, so I think that to have multi-ethnic (Mostly European) society was always the main purpose.

Can you explain more? I thought the whole point of Masons would be that they were trans-racial rationalists and didn't believe in boundaries, or something like that.
 
Top