And the rest of the US media. Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez has something to tell you:
Open letter to CNN and other mainstream US media outlets:
1. The vast majority of Hispanics/Latinos in the U.S. (75 percent of us) were born and raised here, including many of us who have roots here that predate the arrival of the pilgrims.
2. “Immigrant” is not synonymous with “Latino” and the media should stop pretending they mean the same thing.
3. The CNN analyst who said today “Keep in mind, Latino voters are LEGAL immigrants, not illegal immigrants” should be FIRED for sloppy thinking. MOST LATINOS ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS AT ALL, PINCHE CABRON.
I dunno what “pinche cabron” means, but it can’t be good.
Check out the rest of the post for some righteous smacking-down.
H/T Roxanne.
I don’t know what it means either, but Babelfish translates it to DAMNED LITTLE CABRON.
Means fucking asshole.
Cabron (literally male goat) is kind of like saying asshole, old man, bastard, cuckold.
Pinche is very mexican, I don’t know if it has alternate meanings elsewhere.
Who knew the natives were spanish speakers before the europeans got here?
Who said that?
You do realize that the Spanish had colonized much of Mexico and the Caribbean before the Pilgrims arrived, don’t you?
zuzu, (I know you know this, but) the Spanish were Europeans. I think DG’s point has something to do with the fact that the descriptions “latino” and “hispanic” derive from the Spanish colonization. Indigenous folk are correctly referred to as indigenous not “latino.”
And many Latin Americans are more or less full-blooded Indigeno/a.
Well, no, as they say, duh, Gabriel. I’m well aware the Spanish were and are Europeans.
However, I fail to see what Defense Guy was blathering about in the context of the post. The only thing the original post had to say about European settlers was that many people who are now called Latinos were here before the Pilgrims landed. Nothing about being inherently Spanish-speaking or anything else.
Given Gabe’s comments, I should expand that.
Those Indigenos are as “latino” to CNN as criollo descendants of colonists.
GM mostly sums up my point. The next question is so what? At this time in history what does any of that matter? Why is it important that a person is a ‘pure blood’ native american? Do we really want to go back to that dark place where such distinctions are relevant?
I vote no.
The point is that the people running the media are acting like Latinos are some kind of foreign people when the vast majority have been in the US for generations or even centuries.
Her comment about the Pilgrims was meant to point out that there not only other people here before any Europeans set foot on North American soil, the Pilgrims were actually latecomers from the perspective of the Spanish Empire.
Where I’m from most Mexicans (they despise the term Hispanic) are 3rd generation, speak only English (except for swearing), and don’t sympathize too much with illegals.
I spy a strawman.
Ya think?
We’ve got frickin’ Ray Bolger dancing around in here.
In fact, I need a gif of him dancing to throw up when we spot a strawman.
There is another problem with these sorts of group labels. First, it assumes that a group affiliation is more important than a person’s individuality, which in many cases is just wrong. And second, Latino or Hispanic is used to label people that come from many, many different countries.
I take the immigrant comment as more of a indicator of when one came to be within the borders of the US. If you are born here, then you are not an immigrant. If you moved here, you are.
It’s not derogatory, or at least it shouldn’t be taken that way.
Why don’t you not derail the thread with a discussion of group labels and get back onto the topic of the post, which has to do with the media’s foreignization of Latinos such that “immigrant” has come to equal “Latino” in their parlance and Latinos are assumed to be foreign?
I think it has something to do with the fact that the largest block of immigrants currently are categorized as ‘latino’. It’s not an attempt to derail the thread.
The spanish speaking comment was meant to denote that the single biggest commonality between the ‘latino’ or ‘hispanic’ groups is that they speak the same native language.
The group comment is right on topic.
Do you disagree with the immigrant label if the person in question was not born within the borders of the United States?
Of course not. That’s the very definition of immigrant, silly.
And so what if the only commonality is being Spanish-speaking? They’re still lumped together and foreignized in the same way by the media, thus the point is still valid.
If the point is that the media is lazy about it’s language use and that this then can cause harm to all those who don’t question their message, then yeah, damn straight.
Ahem, it means a very great deal to the traditionally marginalized groups of Mayan (Quiche, Mam etc) and Nahuatl speakers who definitely see themselves as culturally different from mestizos. Course, seeing that there are different kinds of Mexican nationals does have political implications.
Media is not the only culprit. I even doubt that media is the root cause. In my experience leftists who favor loose immigration (and in this very site, too!) like to blame conservatives and classical liberals of racism towards mexicans (usually by using the term “brown people”) if they do not favor amnesty towards illegal immigrants, and favor border control. Indeed, it seems to me that “progressives” have deliberately muddled the terminology ( first confusing legal with illegal immigrants, then the term immigrant with race) so that they can club their opponents with accusations of hating brown people.
A nice ad hoc tactic, but don’t even pretend to have taken the high road here.
For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?
Sorry to get preachy.
Lucy Snowe
I am curious, mostly because I don’t know, about how those groups you mention are traditionally marginalized. If you have some examples/cites that would be helpful to me.
Wikipedia sums it up pretty well.
Article
You might also wish to research Rigoberta Menchu.
Thanks Lucy. I admit knowing nothing about Mexican bigotry.
What’s wrong Zuzu? Have a bad day? World not treating you right?
WTF, Marksman?
heh. zuzu the correct response is:
“What’s wrong Marksman? Are YOU having a bad day? Is the world not treating YOU right? ::mutter:: Jerk ::mutter::”
I kinda prefer “What’s the hair crost YOUR ass?”
Hmm. I’ve never heard that before. That a northern thing?
I think “hair across your ass” is a northeastern thing, maybe even a New England thing. I grew up with it in Connecticut, and I think my mother may have brought the expression with her from Maine.