Talk:Hispanic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The historial mistake.- Section

The section under the title "The historical mistake" is a dissaster. It is poorly written, in fact it seems to be an automatic translation of a text in Spanish. I consider that it is not accurate to include this discussion on the Hispatic Article, if the editor wants to keep it I suggest to move the sectionto an independen article about national identity in Spain since the discussion is only relevant to this region.

--Boboxford 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is necessary to explain the misunderstanding with the term Hispanic. If it is poorly written, you can rewrite it, but the article has to explain this issue somewhere.

It does not talk about the national identity of Spain. It talks about the origin of the term Hispanic, and why nowadays it has associated meanings that do not belong to it.

If such section does not exist, then we go back to the point we were months ago, this is, an article talking about the "Hispanos" and "Latinos" in the United States.

Therefore, the section is necessary.

Anyway, in case this discussion was only relevant "in the region of Spain", this would be its article, since Hispanic = Spain.

As I said, if you want you can reform it. Onofre Bouvila 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment. This section is not only a disaster, but a POV fest. FilipeS 11:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the section is POV nonsense. --Burgas00 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"dissaster", "poorly written", "automatic translation of a text in Spanish"... You "consider" many things, but you don't do much to change the situation.

All this has been discussed for long in this talk page (see the archive), and I think everybody agreed that until some substantial changes were introduced into the article, it talked only about the so-called "latinos" and "hispanics" from the United States, excluding the rest of the Hispanics from the world. With the changes that have been made in the late months, now all the Hispanics from the world are represented in the article. I don't really see what's wrong with that. The section "The historical mistake" aims to explain why there is so much confusion around the term Hispanic.

"Not only a disaster, but a POV fest". Tell me where do you see the POV. Mention examples, and prove that what this section says is not true.

Oh, hello Burgas, you had to appear soon or later. At least you have not deleted a half of the article, like you used to do. Thanks for that. "We all agree that the section is POV nonsense". Always with your great contributions. Since you seem to be unable to do positive contributions the article, you systematically try to discredit other people's contributions.

After all, the section can be better, or worst, but I honestly prefer the article like it is now, which talks about the history of the term Hispanic and its usage, and also about all the Hispanics from the world, than how it was before, which was just U.S. nonsense. THAT, was nonsense. When people proposed to merge this article with the Latino article. But now, it talks equitably about all the Hispanics in the world.

Back to the section The historical mistake, I'm bored of reading "this is pov nonsense", "this is poorly written", etc. Initially I wrote the section, because I thought that what there is explained had to be explained, because here everybody seemed, and still seem to be confused with the term Hispanic. But after me, many people also contributed there. You can contribute too if you want. But saying it's "POV nonsense" blablabla, or deleting entire sections like a "some people" used to do, does not help much.

Say what's wrong. Say where is the "POV nonsense". Maybe it false that the Castilians always excluded the Catalans, Basques, Galicians, etc, from being a part of Spain? That they always subjugated the other peoples from Spain? Maybe it is wrong that Hispanic has been associated to the "culture of Spain", being this a synonym of "Castilian culture" instead of "Culture of all the peoples from Spain"? Maybe it is wrong, that nowadays most people confuses the terms "Hispanic" and "Latino", and the same so-called "Latinos" do not even know what was "Hispania" and who are the Latin peoples? I don't see the "POV nonsense" anywhere. Maybe the article should talk only about the "Latinos" and "Latinas" from the United States, and the "Chicanos", and the "Mexican Americans", and all that stuff? Contribute to the section to make it better instead of criticizing. Onofre Bouvila 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Talking of "Eras of historical mistake" in which "people" do not "understand" the "true meaning" of hispanic is inherently pov. I think you dont properly comprehend the way wikipedia articles should be written. --Burgas00 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's expecting people from bygone centuries to conform to the ethnic peculiarities of the present. Not no mention that "Hispanic" isn't a term that Spaniards (or anyone else) ever really used much before the 20th century (the 19th, at most). They just said, and still say, "Spanish". Naturally.

Onofre, you ask me to say what's wrong. Here's one thing: the title of the section. "Historical mistake" should not be in it. When Spain was first named "Spain" and Spaniards were first named "Spaniards", they weren't trying to guess which term would be more appropriate in the 20th century. How could they predict the future? FilipeS 20:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's the title what is wrong, then change it, but don't blame the whole section. Onofre Bouvila 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the Luis Angel Firpo article, which called him a "Hispanic". Argentinians living in Argentina don't call themselves "hispanos": they're "argentinos". There's no "hispano-america", there's "America" or "America Latina". The whole notion of "Hispanic" is U.S.-POV, since Americans tend to lump all Spanish-speaking immigrants together, not realizing that people from Latin America self-identify with their individual nations. Artificially imposing the "Hispanic" label on countries where the word or its equivalent isn't even used doesn't fix POV, but adds factual error and comical anachronism, as in the case of Firpo. Djcastel 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with this. Hispanic america is a factual reality. Those countries formerly under Spanish rule, with Spanish language, culture and heritage... --Burgas00 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I still feel that Hispanic has various definitions. Djcastel is right in the sense that Argentinians would not fall into some of the US definitions of the term.

Onofre: The reason for which this article is plainly wrong is that the role of wikipedians is not to judge which definition is the correct one but to collect all the different possible definitions of the term. This exhaustive list of all the peoples in the world (Leonese?, Asturians???) with connections to Spain is completely unneccessary. I repeat once more, this article has to be revamped. It is not "the world according to Onofre". --Burgas00 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About what Djcastel said, you are wrong: you must not regard the term Hispanic as something imported from the United States. The term Hispanic existed before, and it has been used by the Spaniards and the other Spanish-speaking peoples from the rest of the world to identify themselves into a same group.

This, has nothing to do with the racial and silly usage that the U.S. government has given to the term Hispanic.

The fact that they give a wrong usage to the term Hispanic, does not mean that the term itself is wrong, because it has another meaning, another usage, which is used in Spain and the Hispanic American countries, and that's the one that is right.

About what Burgas said, yeah, this article is not "The world according to Onofre". But who says that? Like if I had written the major part of the article! I just added three things: (1) a section to explain why nowadays Hispanic is related Spanish language and the Spanish-speaking peoples, when its "real meaning" (its former meaning) is or was "related to Hispania", (2) A History section, so people can see the origin of the term, and (3) A list of Hispanic peoples (before that, the article only talked about the "Latinos" of the U.S.).

The fact is that this article was all "Hispanic" and "Latino" U.S. stuff, and what I did was to introduce another point of view.

The article talked only about the Hispanics from the silly point of view of the United States, and like all we know, that was wrong.

This article is about the "Hispanic people", so like in all the articles of "ABCDEFGHIJK people", there must be sections explaining the reality of this people. What I did was to add sections in the article for all the groups of "Hispanics" that are spread all over the world. And that's the result. And I don't think that's wrong; I think it's good to explain that all the people that is now listed in the article: Leonese, Castilians, Filipino Criollos / Mestizos, etc, all these people are Hispanics, and not only those from the United States. Now the article explains the reality of all the Hispanics of the world, and since this is an article talking about the "Hispanic people" (if you type "Hispanic people" in the Wikipedia searcher, it redirects here), all the Hispanic peoples from the World have to be here.

I don't understand what do you propose, Burgas. You want to let this article to be monopolized by the "Hispanics" and "Latinos" from the United States? Or what?

Now the article explains all the Hispanics from the world, and this may surprise some people who are used to the U.S. definition of Hispanic. But this is the real one, and I don't say it, it's not my vision of the things, it's the facts. In the article Spanish people all the other peoples that are within the Spanish people are explained, right? Andalusians, Basques, Catalans, Galicians, etc. So in the article Hispanic people (this one), all the people that are within the "Hispanic nation" are explained too.

Seriously, what do you suggest? How would you structurate the article?

You would remove the History section, so anyone coming to this article would not be able to know what is the real origin of the term Hispanic? That would be cool I guess. Then we would have, again, people making posts in this talk page, saying that the term "Hispanic" was invented in the United States, and means "History + Spanish". LoL

Or you would remove the section for the peoples of Spain? then who would be the Hispanics? Then the Hispanics would be only the peoples from outside Spain? Only those from Hispanic America?

All of the peoples that are now in the article have the right to be there. And it is not my point of view. It is just a collection of all the articles that already exist in the Wikipedia talking about peoples that are inside what, both we agree, that are the Hispanic countries.

And remember that this article is not only about the term Hispanic. This article is about the Hispanics, the Hispanic peoples. The Hispanics as an "ethnic group", or whatever you wanna call it. A group that collects lots and lots of different peoples within. And what I did in the sections I added, is just to explain the reality of these peoples.

Make clear suggestions to improve the article. Onofre Bouvila 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Burgas, the Leonese and the Asturians don't have "connections to Spain". They are Spaniards. Don't know about "Hispanics", though. I've only ever heard that term in American films. Although Onofre insists otherwise, one does often get the impression that only the Anglosphere believes in it. FilipeS 11:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This section seriously needs to be rewritten for NPOV. It is taking sides on which definition of "Hispanic" is correct. What's more, it makes claims about the historical use of the word without providing any sources to support them. This needs to be dealt with. FilipeS 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one correct definition for Hispanic, and that definition is the historical one, the one used in Spain and the Hispanic American countries. Apart from this, I think it's good to explain that though Hispanic has historicaly been related to Castilian language, there are other languages in Spain that have participated in this "Hispanity", and that are inside Spain, although they have been displaced from the term Hispanic. That's the point of the section. About the historical use of the word, I think it's more than sourced. There is a whole history section that explains that. The Historical Mistake section just explains an obvious fact, and that fact is that there are Nationalities in Spain that have been excluded from the meaning of the term Hispanic. And that nowadays, even the same castilian-speaking Spaniards are becoming alienated from the term because of the monopolization of the term Hispanic in the U.S. by the so-called "latinos". Onofre Bouvila 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "Hispanic" with "Spanish". FilipeS 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And I think you should look at the dictionary because Hispanic means related to or derived from Spain, Spanish language or the Spaniards.

And what this section was trying to explain, is that although it is derived from Spain, Spanish language and the Spaniards, both Spain and the Spaniards have other stuff that is not Spanish language, such as different languages such as Catalan, Basque, etc. And these peoples have also contributed to the Hispanophone. Therefore, Hispanic should also reflect their reality, because they are also Spanish, they are also Hispanics, but they do not speak Spanish, they do not speak Castilian. That's the first point: Hispanic means Spanish, but the Spanish are not a single unity.

And the second point is that the south american mestizos are misappropiating the term Hispanic, and they are excluding the same Hispanics from Hispania. That's the second point.

And the third point is that in the United States, they consider Hispanic to be a race, and this definition excludes even more the same Hispanics from Hispania.

But what I am telling to you, if you did not even know that Hispanic means Spanish? Onofre Bouvila 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it's in the dictionary, and indeed the word can be used with the meaning of "Spanish". However, how many people actually speak like that in their everyday lives? Isn't the most common use of this word different? FilipeS 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel this is a "point-making article". It goes into excruciating detail of every hispanic people, down to the different provinces in Spain just to hammer in the point that not only Mexicans in the US are hispanic. There is no need to go to such extreme measures. --Burgas00 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is, need to do this, because the Mexicans and the Mexicans living in the United States (Mexican-Americans, how they call themselves, although Mexican Americans are all the Mexicans since Mexico is in America), are as much Hispanics as the peoples from Spain. And an article talking about the Hispanic people, because do not forget that this article is about the Hispanic people, about all the Hispanics, must mention all the peoples that are into this wider group of people.

If Spain was today a federal republic that recognized the different states and nations that exist within, no one would doubt that the Catalans or the Basques were at the same level of the Castilians, Mexicans, or Equatorians in terms of Hispanity. Because they paper in the history of Spain would have been recognized. But the problem is that all the Spaniards tend to be grouped under the labels "Spain" and "Spanish-speaking", or what is more or less the same, "Castile" and "Castilian-speaking", when it's not so.

Catalans, Basques, etc, are different peoples who have contributed to the Hispanophone and to the creation of the Spanish Empire. In Argentina there are N millions of people of basque descent. The same in Mexico, and other places. In Cuba there are lots of people of Catalan descent. If this want to be encyclopedic, all these peoples cannot be grouped under the simple label of "Spanish people". The Hispanophone was created by many different peoples from Spain, and therefore all these peoples are explained in the article.

If this differentiation had been made before, maybe nowadays the Castilian-speaking Spaniards, Catalans, Basques, etc, would not be ashamed to mark "Hispanic" in the U.S. Census' survey. Because indeed they are Hispanics, but the "Latino" bias has monopolized the term. And if this article wants to be encyclopedic, it has to explain its real meaning. Onofre Bouvila 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, you are using this article to make a political point. I am not saying I disagree with your opinions. The problem is that you cannot make an article out of an argument. It is not NPOV. --Burgas00 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a neutral point of view. The article is just explaining the reality of Spain. Otherwise, ignoring this reality, would be lying. What would you add / remove, then ? Onofre Bouvila 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a shot at editing it, and removing some of the information included that seemed non-neutral. Of course, as there were no citations, I left in some of the claims that may not be entirely fact based. Anyway, I hope it is at least clearer to read. --James McBride 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who was not "born in the USA", (and, believe me, there are a few of us) it may be hard to grasp what this page is all about, to begin with. The term "hispanic" is not adequately defined in the first place, nor I believe there would be an appropriate scientific definition for it, such as one genetically based. Instead, as we (the few not "born in the USA") may perceive it, the term seems to be coloquially used to lend some political correction to what seems to be an US american common need to differentiate subjects that were born in Central America, namely in Mexico, probably due to concerns with immigration issues, and by extension, all those who may share some phenotypical features with the people of central American origin, such as those originating from other central and southern american regions. As a consequence of having been mainly colonized by castillian-speaking europeans, those people share a common language, not withstanding the numerous other local languages that also contribute to their cultural characteristics. It is doubtfull that, apart from this inherited common language, they have many other strong references or cultural (or even phenotypic) traits to what is currently the spanish (I mean, from Spain) culture. Or, rather, it may be currently hard to tell which of the cultural backgrounds had a stronger influence on the other. However, the term Hispanic, which is presented by the author as having an origin within the hispanic culture (please present some evidence for this affirmation), seems to be forged US americans for US american use. Moreover, since it lacks any true scientific usefulness, the usage that is made of it risks to serve nothing more than what may be dangerously regraded as racial segregation purposes. May I also suggest that, at least at this point in his education, the author also restrains himself from writing about Iberic history. Thanks.<i==Spanish empire map-History section== User The Oger, a Portuguese, goes around deleting the Spanish Empire map that obviously includes Portugal and its empire because, as anyone knows versed in history, Portugal and its empire were part of the Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640, when the Portuguese broke away with a fight. I am growing tired of lies and manipulation by some users for nationalistic or other issues or just plain ignorance. 65.11.70.234 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the period of their personal union (1581-1640)
Red/Pink - Spanish Empire
Blue/Light Blue - Portuguese Empire

I think this discussion should go to the description page of the Spanish Empire map in Wikimedia Commons. It is pointless to create new maps and modify them from the Englsh Wikipedia. All this stuff is done in commons, the consensus is obtained there, and then everyone from all the wikipedias export the maps from commons, to here. Apart from this, I don't think you have much knowledge about all this stuff. For example, I've read in the "edit summary", comments from Ramírez saying that the Western coast of the USA was never colonized. Hmmmm? And then what about the colonies and missions spread all over Oregon and California??? Anyway discuss this in commons, better. Because otherwise we will have one thousand different maps for the Spanish Empire. Onofre Bouvila 17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Onofre Bouvila! I am sorry to say but the present map, the one you've just added to Spanish Empire is completly POV! The Spanish Empire never included the Portuguese Empire! They were two different empires ruled by the same dinasty - the Habsburgs! And there is already another map showing the extent of both empires at the exact time of the Iberian Union. This map (Image:Spanish Empire.png) is wrong because it implies that the Portuguese Empire was Spanish, and because it mingles an anachronous view of the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese possessions between 1580-1640. I really am not disussing the details regarding the exact borders of the Spanish territories, but a map of this sort, and first of all the firts one to appear in the article, should not emply the communality of Spanish and Portuguese possessions. I'm not reverting you just now, but this needs to be discussed and changed. The Ogre 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this issue, but if you see the historical map that has been used in the wikipedia for these issues (the anachronous one), in its page of wikimedia commons, there is an extense "Summary" section that explains every frontier and every border. I am not saying that is right, but at least, it is justified. If one wants to change the map of the hispanophone, just go there and discuss it there, and give your own sources, and write in the talk page of the map, and write to the original makers of the map to improve it, but do not create new maps, and less from the English wikipedia, because then we have a thousand maps and when a random user wants to pick up a map to illustrate his article, does not know which one to take. So we have lots of maps now, but there is one, that has been always used, and that has an extense summary section that explains all the sources taken to make the map. So let's try to change that one, but don't take the direct way, and to impose your point of view (being right or not), create new maps, because that just increases the confusion around the issue. In addition, if you wanna create new maps, for each map, at least, make a section to explain the sources; creating a new map to illustrate your point of view and not providing verifiable sources in its commons page, is pointless. If you don't wanna lose the time getting the sources, don't create a map please. Anyway, as I said, I would not create any map, but modify the one that we already have, and that has enough sources. Discuss from that basis, trying to modify the existing one. Onofre Bouvila 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can talk all you want to this user called The Oger. He will not listen. Just follow his history. He goes around Wiki deleting the consensus map from Wiki everywhere. 65.10.51.251 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• :Discussion moved to Talk:Spanish Empire#Map again.... The Ogre 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In Spain, Spanish is not the only official language. There are 3 more!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.190.45 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are 4 more official languages in their repective regions, but Spanish is only one single national language of the entire state. The other 4 are Aranese (Catalonia), Basque (Basque Country), Catalan (Catalonia, Valencia, Balearic Islands), and Galician (Galicia). Kman543210 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, the information the caption is giving "Spanish is the sole official language" makes it look as if Spanish was the only official language when there are others that are very official and the native language of millions of citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.190.45 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can kind of see your point, but the fact is that Spanish is the sole official language of the entire country. The Spanish constitution declares this and allows for each region/autonomous community to have co-official languages if they choose, but that doesn't make them official throughout the country. If the U.S. had English as it's official language, having Hawaiian co-official in the state of Hawaii would not make Hawaiian official throughout the country. I think the caption and map coloring are appropriate. Kman543210 (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Issue

Does anyone have issue witht the fact that this section states that "low-class South Americans" and Amerindians are inherently ignorant??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

You could at least mention what's at Hispania#Origin_of_the_name...--Ioshus ^(talk) 04:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Critique of the format

It's awkward to have footnotes redirecting the reader back to the same article. And in the introduction, to boot! FilipeS 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag

An unsourced comment from FOTW is not a reliable source alone. The section needs fleshing out with additional sources or be eliminated.--Cerejota 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are Catalans outside Spain Hispanics?

Are Catalans from Perpigan or Alguero Hispanics??--Burgas00 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is not a "yes" or "no" answer to your question. Like any other ethnicity, "Hispanic" is largely in the eye of the beholder. Find some sources, and cite their opinions. FilipeS 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No. people from Perpignan are Catalan and French, not hispanic. What makes a Spanish Catalan an hispanic is being from Spain, which is a Hispanic nation (the original one). PS: all spanish catalans have also the castillan culture and language oas theirs (considered to be hispanic one), which is not the case of the french Catalans who are also of french culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Racial diversity section

This section was recently deleted by Burgas00, with the argument that 'This section is garbage, I think we all agree.' Well, I don't agree, and I don't recall the topic being discussed here in the talk page. Certainly, one of the major characteristics of the Hispanic ethnicity is that it is racially diverse. This is an important point to make, and it should be mentioned in the article. I do agree that much of what was in the section ("Caucasoid" and "Negroid" fantasies) should go. FilipeS 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying that the existence of a such a section was garbage, rather the content. It was close to delirious and certainly not encyclopedic. A quick paragraph stating that Hispanics are an ethnicity rather than a race and that the Hispanic world is racially diverse, comprising people of all origins is enough. --Burgas00 11:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this article...

The problem with this article practically from its inception is that it was designed to make points, which is always a mistake. All kinds of people have edited this article to prove points about how Catalans are also hispanics, how Americans are stupid and ignorant, how Hispanics are not a race, how Spaniards are racially pure (??), how the term hispanic is the product of an Anglosaxon conspiracy and a Black Legend....

The result is a chaotic mess of discourse on issues which are hardly relevant and sections as wildly random as the "Asturian people", i.e. inhabitants of a tiny province in northern Spain.

I think people should chill out and focus on making sure this article is up to standard and then worry about these issues which bother them.

--Burgas00 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hispanics in the United States - requested move

Hello everyone. There is at present a discussion going on at Hispanics in the United States, due to the request that the page be moved to Hispanic Americans. Would you like to comment please? Thank you. The Ogre 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the Spanish translation of this word right?

Shouldn't it be hispánicos? Or is hispánico interchangeable with hispano in Spanish? FilipeS (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is.--Damifb (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

THE POWER OF THE WORDS

It's interesting how the words can change of meaning.Hispanic was someone from spain. Now is someone form latin america. Its obvious that the spanish people and the white people in latin america wants to change the meaning of this word because in fact today this is very unfair.The governament of usa says that latinos or hispanics can be of any race.But the media shows to the world this word meaning a person with a dark skin sometimes looks like a native american or is only a person with a dark skin but never black and never white.I saw a movie called spanglish.A mexican woman goes to usa with her daughter.In the middle of the movie the mexican girl says something like that : "You are the best white person that i ever know".Something in the steriotype, very normal.But if you see the cast the mexican woman is in fact a spanish person so you think how a spanish white woman can work like a non white mexican?This is very ridiculous and almost funny , A NATIVE WHITE EUROPEAN WOMAN IS A NON WHITE MEXICAN but adam sandler a jewish man ,who looks like the jews native from middle east with a skin more dark than white, is a white american only because he is jewish?Hey americans you consider native people and black people from your country anglo only because he or she is american?No you probably consider them native american and black what they really are.But how a native or mixed (white and indian blood) mexican can be latino?the white mexican is but for him is boring to use this term because today means non white people.This discussion will never end and the media will always change the mean of the words.FontesAugusto (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

The terms Hispanic and Latino tend to be used interchangeably in the United States, due largely to a syntax inconsistency between the English language and the Spanish language. Some define the term "Latino" as a shortened version of the noun '"Latin American". Others define the word "Latin" as the name of the language used by the ancient Romans, while "Latino" is the name given to the people who spoke the language.

This paragraph is largely incomprehensible. In particular:

• It is unclear what "syntax inconsistency" means in this context.
• "Others define the word "Latin" as the name of the language used by the ancient Romans" makes no sense. Everyone defines the word "Latin" in this way for one of its meanings. The claim that "Latino is the name given to the people who spoke the language" also seems highly dubious. What point these last two sentences are trying to make I have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.131.229 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought actually... perhaps these "some" and "others" refer to Spanish speakers, and the definitions apply to the Spanish language? That would make more sense, but still doesn't explain what "syntax inconsistency" is supposed to mean here, or how the last two sentences provide a reason for the interchangeability mentioned in the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.131.229 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A radical proposal

I guess this proposal won't be popular, but there it goes. As this page has no real contents of its own, it should be turned into a disambiguation page like this:

Hispanic can be:

• Hispanics in the United States
• Spanish people
• someone from Spain
• someone speaking the Spanish language
• someone from the Hispanophone world
• someone from Latin America

Anyone ? --Jotamar (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this isnt a bad idea, since there are quite afew articles with the Hispanic theme, people just need to think up a new title for this aricle. 81.154.227.135 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ENGLISH (ONLY) SPEAKING HISPANICS DOESN´T EXIST

As "Hispanic" is a cultural and not a racial term it is obvious that English (only) speaking Hispanics DOESN´T EXIST. Once somebody has as a language English (Christina Aguilera, Cameron Diaz, Jessica Alba) she/he become ANGLO and leaves to be Hispanic (or Latino or how you prefer to call it)

Of course, unless you prefe to consider Hispanics or Latinos as a RACE, a Brown Race, or something like that as a great part of the American media does. If they are a RACE and not a culture, then anybody mixed but with an Spanish last name (note that millions of Latinamericans have Italian, German or French last names like the former Presidents of Argentina and Mexico; Nestor Kirschner and Vicente Fox) becomes a "Hispanic".

How the Amerindians became Spanish or Hispanic

Caesar was a great conqueror, so was Alexander the Great, but the Spanish Conquistadores just thugs and on top of that they murdered and destroyed those Amerindians. The funniest part is that to see Amerindians or Mestizos being a majority in an American country you have to go south of the Border: Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Bolivia, etc. How come? Most of those people living in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America are fully or partly Amerindians? And where are they in North America? There must be some mistake here. Well, I know, they are not Amerindians, because they were killed by the Spanish, so they must be Spanish.

PS. How the Amerindians became Spanish to suit the Black Legend and Anglo Propaganda, a short story.

What I propose is a debate that should end up in a contribution to the article following these lines:

Hispanic means Spanish in the same way as Anglo means English. Why is Hispanic all inclusive of people who come from former Spanish colonies while Anglo refers only to white people? Why do Pakistanis or Jamaicans or US citizens whose first language is English but who ar not white are not Anglos?. Is this not a clear example of the unprecedented racism existing in the US (probably with the exceptions of South Africa and Nazi Germany). Is it not overtly racist these differences in usage in these two cases. Maybe there is a relationship to the Black Legend, much more popular in the US than in Europe? Language is the main builder of the perception of reality. So, why not analyse these obvious issues. Or are these differences in usage just a coincidence? Are they naive? Or they hide something much more important? I think this issue should be discussed to enrich the article. Jan.

As I understand it the term "Anglo" as used in the US means someone of specifically British descent - not simply any white person. So German, Swedish, Italian, etc, Americans are not Anglos. BTW neither Hispanic nor Anglo are "racial" terms per se while African American is. Roger (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is not exactly like that. I think in Texas, for example, it is applied to the white English speaking population. In any case you suggest that it is even narrower. The main point it is that refers only to white people. Non-white British people are not consedidered Anglo. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.45.50 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Speaking Countries and Regions

I see a mistake in the map. In Spain most people can speak Spanish (or Castellano as it is called in Spain), there're 4 other official languages in Spain: Spanish (official) spoken by the 74% of the population, Catalan 17%, Galician 7% and Basque 2%. As I said most Spaniards can speak Castellano, but for many it is not the language they speak every day. It is clear that Spanish is not the "sole official language" of Spain and the map should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the change I made: [1]. I merely added "nationally" to the legend for the red-colored areas.

Also, please make sure to put new comments at the bottom of pages. SamEV (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Taquerias?

Taquerias and tacos are not typical from spain. If you ever visited Spain, you will not find any taquerias there.

That is typical from mexico.

I dont think that can be called an hispanic issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.162.45 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "How the Amerindians became Spanish or Hispanic"

Wow! You incorrectly on a great scale stated the following: "...neither Hispanic nor Anglo are "racial" terms per se while African American is."

Just to correct you, in america, hispanic and anglo are used as racial terms. Where do you come from that you don't recognize this? Again, just fo the record, europeans view non-white south americans as hispanic. Spaniards are not considered hispanic by european standards.

And don't let these stupid americans fool you either! At one point, they considered jews and irish to be non-white, believe it or not. So, this speaks volumes of the ignorance of americans who don't even come close to europeans in culture, arts, language, science, fashion, and above all, intellectual capacity. Even the british don't like americans for their ignorance. I know, because I lived in the UK for 12 years and MANY have told me. And trust me, there's a HUGE difference between the english and the americans... thank god! Davidx5 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to JCRB

After reading your reply to me, it's become extremely difficult for me to refrain from using terms like, "ignorant" and "stupid" in trying to understand your "logic" which is absolutely HORRENDOUS. And trust me, I'm saying this, not only with all due respect, but while trying not to burst out laughing. You stated that phillipinos "feel at home" when they visit Spain. Really? Then, why do they detest european and american influences? Why do the spaniards treat them as they treat outsiders like gypsies, italians, and moroccans? Why did the phillipines want the spaniards out of their country for centuries? You know, I get a huge gut feeling that you yourself are phillipino from your constant and consistent defense of them who have little to do with spaniards racially. I strongly suggest at this point that YOU refrain from making absurd remarks upon this "academic" forum (note the quotes). You really are embarassing yourself and insulting our intellligence - seriously!

Want proof of phillipino being discriminated against by spaniards? Read about it in the Fillipino People article at wiki. Don't discuss absurd statements about spaniards when you yourself have nothing to do with them and don't know what you're talking about. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but do not take for granted where I am from or what my background is; that is not the issue here. Also please lower your tone. The editors in this forum are not your enemies. My statements are not in the least "absurd", they are historical information about the Philippines which you probably did not know. Don't be so aggressive, and please open your mind to objective data and historical facts.

The question is whether you believe Filipinos are hispanic. If you don't, please provide objective references or arguments. You have not questioned a single historical fact which I have given you. Please read the history section of the Philippines if you do not trust me.

You have only pointed out that Filipinos "don't feel at home in Spain" which is a legitimate point of view. However, I disagree. If you talk to Filipinos, they will tell you that the Spanish culture is very similar to their own, so is the Spanish mentality, way of living, customs and habits. Of course Philippine and Spanish culture are not the same, but they have substantial similarities due to 3 centuries of Spanish rule in the Philippines. Of course there are examples where Filipinos fee ill-treated or discriminated in Spain. Such is often the problem with immigrants anywhere in the world. But the truth remains that Filipinos will adapt and integrate much faster in Spain or Mexico or Peru, than in the US or England because of cultural affinities. That is a fact which few Filipinos will challenge. JCRB (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Phillipinos ARE NOT Hispanic - Reply

Your level of education and knowledge upon this subject leaves so much to be desired. Additionally, your wanting to stand out as a phillipino (possibly for inferiority complex reasons) is equally hilarious. You said this: "the Philippines was a Spanish colony for 300 years. It doesn't matter where the Philippines is on the map." Really? So, according to your logic then, India must be an anglo-saxon country even though it's in asia. Riiiiight... makes sense. Look, I hope this is the last time we speak upon the subject. I've already proven beyond a shadow with real references that the phillipines is not a hispanic country. Further stubborness on your part will make you look even more bad, and will force me to take corrective measures in reporting your harassment and lack of acceptance of history to wiki. No matter how much you try to slice or dice history, you can't change it. You really are making yourself look bad. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

David, you still have not managed to lower your aggressive tone or to open your mind to historical facts. For the last time, my nationality is irrelevant, but I am not Filipino. I will tell you what is really hilarious: the fact that you say "your level of education and knowledge upon this subject leaves so much to be desired". Now that is hilarious. What information have you produced? What research have you done to prove your point about the Philippines? All you say is that India could be Anglo-saxon according to my reasoning. Good effort. Well no, India is not an Anglo-saxon country for the reasons I have explained in my post "Hispanic is very different from Anglo" (see 2nd paragraph [2]). I will not waste any more time arguing this point unless you are a bit constructive and provide some references or rational arguments. JCRB (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to JCRB and his rampant harassment

JCRB, you continue to display mulish inflexibility upon the subject despite my efforts in correcting your views with proven references. Your obstinate inability to accept history is seen as potentially problematic and dangerous to wiki and its readers which may result in intentionally incorrect and inappropriate edits. Before closing and to correct you, your background is relevant because you still stubbornly use it relentlessly to unfairly influence info on wiki articles without self-restraint. As a result, Wiki and I will be closely watching you in case you post ridiculous and irrelevant info that have no bearing upon truth or history. You leave me no choice but to report you. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to JCRB 2

If you think I'm taking where you're from for granted, it's because you've taken where I'm from for granted. It still stands that YOU are a phillipino who has taken the liberty of bending the truth to your will on wiki to personally and falsely subject your loony, made-up perception of phillipinos unaware to others. And there are many references about phillipino people not being hispanic. In my last post to you, I gave you a reference. Also, it's common knowledge and common sense that the phillipines are in asia. DUH! So, they're not hispanic. Seriously, how old are you? What level of education did you attain in life? These are questions I hope you can answer TRUTHFULLY so that I and others in wiki can learn more about your alterior motives as to why you make such absurd statements.

Then you state that phillipinos would integrate faster in spain than in the UK. Are you clinically ok?? FYI, English and filipino are the official languages of the Phillipines. So, how are phillipinos hispanic when spanish isn't their official language? Check that out in wiki. Also, there are far more phillipinos in the US than in Spain or the UK, especially after waves upon waves of them arrived in California in the last century. The proof? >> http://pmscontario.tripod.com/id1.html. These references AND MORE will definitely be more than enough for you to understand why phillipinos are not considered hispanic. Want more proof? The US census doesn't recognize them as hispanic. The Spaniards and the rest of Europe don't either. You can check that out also.

And don't tell me to lower my tone. Lower your absurdity first then I'll lower my tone since you're the one who first insulted my intelligence and european background. My tone spews from reacting to preposterous and loony observations that have no underlying basis of support. As a tip, if I were you, I wouldn't come here claiming that I'm a wiki editor; you're FAR from a wiki editor. Your credibility is now corrupt and totally unreliable. I can't believe I'm wasting my time and energy correcting a phillipino about my own history. This is insane! Davidx5 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Philippines is Hispanic

• Davidx5, to begin with, I have never taken for granted where you are from. In fact I do not care because all that matters here is that you provide solid arguments, factual data and sources.

• Second, I will not discuss my background here. All I will say is that I am not Filipino.

• Third, you say "it's common knowledge and common sense that the phillipines are in asia. DUH! So, they're not hispanic". Well, this proves that you are narrow-minded and in no way willing to accept objective information. I will repeat it: the Philippines was a Spanish colony for 300 years. It doesn't matter where the Philippines is on the map. The question is that they were colonized by Spain starting in the year 1565 with the arrival of Miguel Lopez de Legazpi and was part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain or Virreinato de la Nueva España. You didn't know that? Well stop calling my statements "absurd" and start reading a little bit of history. Go to the history section of Philippines.

• Fourth, although Spanish is not an official language in the Philippines, it was official since the beginnig of the colonial period (1565) to the change of Constitution with Cory Aquino in 1973. That is over 400 years of Spanish being official or co-official in the Philippines. Did you know that? Again, stop calling people "absurd" and learn the facts.

• True, Spanish is no longer spoken in the Philippines (only a minority). I already explained that in my initial post. But that does not mean Filipinos are not Hispanic. A culture is not only made up of language. It is also traditions, mentality, religion, cuisine, and music. All of these have significant Spanish influence in the Philippines. Also, if you read my initial post carefully, you would see that native Philippine languages like Tagalog (Cebuano, Ilocano etc) have thousands of Spanish loanwords: the days of the week, the numbers, furniture (mesa, silla etc) kitchen utensils (tenedor, cuchara, cuchillo etc) and the names of hundres of places in the Philippines. So please read my initial post again and open your mind a little bit. The fact that you don't know something does not mean it isn't true.

• Fifth, you should not care what the US Census considers Filipinos. The US would probably like Filipinos to be considered "Pacific islanders" or something exotic, in order to make them forget their Hispanic heritage. The US occupied and ruled the Philippines from 1899 to 1946, and during that time they imposed English as the official language. But during that time a majority of the Philippine population spoke Spanish. Not just educated Filipinos like doctors, lawyers, teachers, or tradesmen, but also many common Filipinos spoke good Spanish. However, the American government took the Spanish language away from schools, universities and the press. They removed Spanish from public acts like courts of law or government proceedings, and replaced it for English. The US also re-wrote Philippine history books to suit their political agenda. They rewrote the history of the Philippines to make Spaniards look like "evil people" and changed the facts about the Spanish language in the country. They ignored that in the late 19th century a majority of Filipinos had a reasonable command of Spanish. They did this to make young Filipinos think that their country is not Hispanic, but simply Asian and indigenous. They wanted to change the Phlippines from its Asian-Hispanic nature to a sort of English-speaking Asian neo-colony. They wanted Filipinos to blindly admire the US, so they could be easily exploited. So never mind what the Census says.

• Finally, it also the Filipinos themselves who are ignorant about their history or identity. Many Filipinos don't think they are Hispanic because their history books are intentionally misleading. Many young Filipinos think that Spanish was never spoken in the Philippines. They don't know that the National Heroes who fought or inspired the Philippine Revolution were ALL fluent Spanish speakers. Jose Rizal, Emilio Aguinaldo and Andres Bonifacio (by the way, look at those Spanish names!) these guys were all native Spanish speakers. The intellectual and writer Jose Rizal wrote almost of his works in Spanish. The famous novel "El Filibusterismo" and poems like "Mi último Adiós" are all in Spanish. Actually, the entire classical literature of the Philippines is in Spanish. But again, many of these facts are hidden from Filipinos. Their history books completly ignore them, or simply lessen their importance. And Filipino children read "El Filibusterismo" or "Mi Último Adiós" in English, a translated version. They will never see the beauty of the original, because they don't understand Spanish.

• To summarize, the Philippines is a Hispanic country because it received an enormous cultural influence from Spain (and Mexico) during the Spanish colonial period for over 3 centuries. Although the Spanish language is only spoken by a minority today, it was the language of government, trade, science, the arts, and the medium of instruction in schools and universities for a long time, specially in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Spanish was also the official language of the independent Philippine Republic of 1899 (which was almost inmediately dismantled by the US). Spanish was also the language of Philippine classical literature, and the language of the Philippine Revolution. Spanish was taught to the wider population starting in 1863 when a free public school system was set up in the islands. However, when the US ruled the Philippines (1899-1946) they took Spanish away, and imposed English. They did this against the will of most Filipinos, who already spoke Spanish, which was the country's common unifying language. So today, Spanish is no longer a majority language. But Hispanic culture is present in everyday Philippine life: in festivities (barrio fiestas), in religion (most Filipinos are Catholic), cuisine (many dishes like "adobo"), and in music (folk dances have much influence from "jotas" and "sevillanas" for example). And above all, Filipinos are Hispanic in the way they think, feel and live. They are open, friendly, relaxed, they have great respect for their elderly and their family is very important. This is common to all Hispanic countries. I hope all of this helps you understand that Filipinos are Hispanic, even if this is new to you and to other editors. JCRB (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How stupid are all those anglo-saxons that doesn´t provide any reliable sources and are yelling their lungs out about things that they don´t even have a minimal idea... it´s really funny to read how they quote CIA factbook or US census for define things like if the philippines are hispanic or not... those guys are so blind believing in their "supremacy" over the other countries that they think that all we must kowtow them in every single thing. YES, Filipinos are hispanic, they have hipsanic culture mixed with their aboriginal austronesian one. It´s a fact, and is ridiculous to try to deny it on a racial basis... these guys are so biased, it´s horrible... but what more do you can expect of a culture that commited genocide with the native americans, and prohibited intermarriage... it´s not surprise that now they try to deny the filipino hispanic heritage in a racial basis... and if spanish is no longer lingua franca, is because the US tries to wip out it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.42.204 (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction to Karljoos

Karljoos, you ignorantly state that the phillipines is a hispanic country? How in the hell is that possible? Phillipino people are not of spaniard descent nor have there been any admixture between spaniards and phillipines over the centuries. Are you ok?

Also, according to europeans (not ignorant americans), hispanic is an admixture of races in south america. Therefore, spaniards are not classified as hispanic.

Then you state that Spanish culture has taken root in south america. This is not wholly true. Although it is true that south americans have accepted parts of Spanish culture, they still retain features of their own culture that are extremely distinct from the Spanish culture. This is compounded further by south america’s distinct racial differences, which, if you were smart, you would indeed know.

Just for the record, I am of spaniard descent. I do not consider myself hispanic in the way that ignorant stupid americans do. All europeans don’t view spaniards as hispanic, as a matter of fact.

Also, since stupid americans consider south americans hispanic, it should be therefore fair to classify afro-americans and native americans in america as anglo-saxons also. This is due to the fact that afro-americans and native americans possess a significant amount of their bloodline to anglo-saxon admixture. As a result, I will add this fact to wikipedia’s anglo-saxon article. AND I WILL BACK THIS UP WITH GOOD SOURCES. So, I better not get idiot americans disputing this. Davidx5 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Davidx5, first it was not Karljoos who posted that message about Hispanic being different from Anglo, but me (I posted it without signing). Second, please refrain from using derogatory terms such as "idiot" or "ignorant". This is a forum for academic discussion and editors must be respectful with each other.

Third, the Philippines may well be considered a Hispanic country because it was a Spanish colony for over 300 years. For your information, Spanish was the language of education, press, trade, politics and official acts until the 1920's (please see Spanish in the Philippines. Like Mexico or Colombia or Argentina, the Philippines received much cultural influence from Spain for over 3 centuries, and many Filipinos intermarried with Spaniards, creating a mestizo class of mixed cultural heritage. Like many Latin American countries, the Philippines had an important Spanish-speaking middle class in the 19th century, which demanded more freedom from Spain, and which eventually fought a revolution to gain independence. In 1863 the Spanish authorities in the Philippines created a free public school system for Filipino children of all races and social backgrounds. These schools taught in the Spanish language. Although the US occupied the country in 1899 and ruled the islands until 1946 (removing the Spanish language from schools and universities) a majority of the Philippine population spoke Spanish until the 1940's approximately. Today, the Philippine people have many traditions which are Hispanic, they are mostly Catholic, the cuisine has much Spanish and Mexican influence (adobo, longanisa, etc) and they have thousands of Spanish words in Philippine languages, like "cuchara", "tenedor", the days of the week (lunes, martes, miercoles), numbers (uno dos tres..). They also have Spanish family names (Gomez, Fernandez, Garcia, Gonzalez..) and many names of towns, regions, and streets are Spanish: San Fernando, La Union, Puerto Princesa, Surigao del Norte, Cagayan de Oro, Cordillera etc. In the island of Mindano, there is a language called Chabacano which is a Spanish creole (mixture of Spanish with native languages) spoken by almost 700,000 people.

To summarize, although most Filipinos do not speak Spanish today, the Philippines is without a doubt a Hispanic country due to culture, traditions, and thousands of Spanish words and expressions. Although most Filipinos speak Tagalog and English (with varying degrees of fluency), their mentality and spirit is clearly Hispanic. When Filipinos go to Mexico city, or Caracas or Bogota or Madrid, they feel at home. It would be fair to define Filipinos as "Asian Hispanics with a blend of foreign and native cultures, who use English as a lingua franca". In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the lingua franca was Spanish. JCRB (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? My commentary was "Thank you for your post. Please, If you’re going to make such strong statements, at least sign them so we know who is making them". I was saying the contrary. Check the history. Someone has been messing with the talk, edditing past comments and not signing their own commentaries. PLEASE SIGN THE COMMENTS --Karljoos (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User, SamEV, Violated Wiki Terms of Service

User, SamEV, violated Wiki's terms of service by deleting my whole discussion with him on this discussion page. As a result, I sent a formal request to wiki about the matter to ban him or place a long term block on him. If any editor is in view of this, we would appreciate it if you can expedite this request as noted and process the ban or block. Thank you. 68.173.95.37 (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Asia-Pacific

I have erased the "citation needed" tag from the sentence in the introduction about the Spanish influence in the Philippines, Guam and the Mariana Islands, and provided a reference that supports it. JCRB (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How come "Morocco" was provided with a separate row in the table of Spanish speakers but the Philippines and Guam doesn't? Spanish influence was much more heavy in these countries than in Morocco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.255.0 (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not true! Morocco's second language is spanish. The phillipines doesn't even consider spanish its official state language.

68.173.91.50 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish was an official language in the Philippines from 1565 to 1973. Then came a government who decided to take the Spanish language away from schools, even as an optional language, and abolish its official status. But that doesn't mean that the Philippines has stopped being Hispanic.

You know, I hate to state this, but you really are operating out of pure ignorance when you suggest that the phillipines is somehow hispanic. First of all, hispanic pertains to latin america where the culture predominates. To be considered hispanic, one must be non-white or of mixed racial heritage living in the western hemisphere and raised speaking spanish as the primary family language. Spaniards don't count because they are european and white. Because of this, phillipinos have not mixed with ANY europeans, including spaniards. Secondly, the spanish language is infused into the culture but it is too heavily fragmented; there are a myriad of dialects spoken throughout the phillipines without a universally accepted "official" language. A dialect of the phillipines and english are the only official languages in the nation. But regardless of lingustic origins, the most important attribute that distinguishes one as hispanic is race. Phillipinos are not mixed with Spaniards, despite 400 years of colonial operation under Spaniard rule. They are asian, they are located in asia, they have not racially mixed with Spaniards, the language dialects are separate and possess small amounts of spanish derivatives, phillipinos don't consider themselves hispanic, europeans don't consider phillipinos hispanic, etc. In short, the phillipines is not a hispanic country; they're asian. Look at my posts and replies above correcting a couple of readers with credible sources proving that the phillipines cannot be hispanic. Hopefully, this is the last time someone makes the ignorant mistake of stating that the phillipines is hispanic.

68.173.91.50 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• "To be considered hispanic, one must be [...] living in the western hemisphere and raised speaking spanish as the primary family language".

Hispanic is not synonymous with Western Hemisphere. Hispanic means having a Spanish-derived cultural heritage, no matter where you live. The majority of Filipinos today are not raised speaking the Spanish language, but between 1863 and the 1960's many were. The entire concept of Philippine nation is based on the Spanish lanaguage. The Philippine Revolution was inspired and fought in Spanish. The Constitution of the "República Filipina" was in Spanish: "la Constitucion de Malolos". And its leaders and intellectuals were all Spanish-speaking: Jose Rizal, Emilio Aguinaldo, Andres Bonifacio, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo del Pilar. By the way, check out those Spanish names! In the early 20th century most education, trade, press and political affairs were conducted in Spanish. Later the US administration introduced English and eliminated Spanish.

• "phillipinos have not mixed with ANY europeans, including spaniards"

Yes they have. Filipinos have mixed with Spaniards and Mexicans during 3 centuries of Spanish colonial rule through the Viceroyalty of New Spain (Mexico City) and thanks to the Manila Galleon. Filipinos of mixed Spanish and indigenous ancestry are called Mestizos. Still, racial characteristics do not define "Hispanic". For example, there are many Bolivians, Peruvians, Ecuatorians and Venezuelans with no racial mix (they are 100% indigenous) and are considered Hispanic.

In reading back your replies to me, I have no doubt that the motive behind your ludicrous and ridiculous statements is to justify your phillipino background as 'hispanic'. This speaks volumes about you as a person who is in deep psychological need of seeking other's approval of you as a phillipino. This lowers your value emensely. I will state the obvious again to reinforce what is commonly held to be true, despite your stubborn attitude upon the subject. Any more resistance from you will result in my contacting Wiki to report you and your obstructions. First of all, hispanic pertains to the western hemishpere. No where else in the world does the term 'hispanic' pertain but to the western hemisphere. I haven't heard of an asian-born hispanic. Have you? Secondly, Spaniards have not mixed with the populace of the phillipines to a large extent during Spain's entire colonial rule of the country. There may have been rare intermarriages between Spaniard sailors and phillipinos, but not to the extent that the racial asian identity of the phillipines has been altered over the centuries to appear more european. If you think this, then you should seriously have your head examined. Your absurd statements seriously don't follow a logical pattern and are in serious question. You may be the same person that quarreled with me before upon this same subject to whom I had provided adequate sources. Why do you continue to fight again and again when I and other contributors on wiki have proven that the phillipines is not hispanic? No insult intended, but I believe you should promptly seek therapy. You exude an identity crisis that only professionals can better handle. Honestly, I have never come across a phillipino so adament about masking his racial identity with a foreign one as to deny vehemiously his phillipino culture. You are the textbook example of someone who is suffering from a deep racial identity crisis. To reiterate, if you continue along this bull-headed path of attempting to re-edit this article or to post ludicrous defenses unabated to justify your asian identity, I will report you to wiki to have you banned. You are now reaching the point of harassment. And believe you me, I have had people banned before and I surely can do it again. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

20th century Philippine Literature in Spanish

As I said earlier, please refrain from making personal attacks or suggestions about people's motivations or cultural background. All my contributions in this talk page have been respectful to other editors, and what's more, objective and based on facts. Also, for the tenth time, I am not Filipino.

Regarding your statements about the Philippines, I would suggest that you open your mind and not believe only what is "commonly held to be true". Many things apparently held to be true are in fact wrong. Some people think that the Philippines is not Hispanic just because its population does not speak Spanish, or because they have not read it or heard it anywhere. Again, just because you have not heard about it does not mean it is false.

Coming back to your statements, indeed, intermarriages between Spaniards and Filipinos were not large-scale (specially because Spanish immigration to the Philippines was not large), but the phenomenon was not "rare" either. The proof is that even today there are Spanish Mestizos in the Philippines. But again, race does not define "Hispanic", culture does. In Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, the majority of the population is native-American and racially indigenous, and still they are considered Hispanic. The indigenous race has hardly been altered in those countries, and still we call them Hispanic.

Apart from the information I have provided above, you should read some Filipino authors like Pedro Paterno, Jose Rizal (national hero) or Claro M. Recto to realize how Hispanic the Philippines is. The country's classical literature is entirely in Spanish. I will not repeat the above arguments, but it is my pleasure to reproduce some verses of Philippine poems in Spanish, which praise the Hispanic essence of their country. If you understand Spanish, enjoy:

• "Tu Alta Misión" by Filipino author Cecilio Apostol (1915):

"España: nos desune del piélago la anchura

también la propia sangre de ti nos diferencia.

Mas tuyo es nuestro idioma, es tuya la cultura

que a remontar nos lleva tu nacional altura

que nutre el santo anhelo de nuestra independencia.

Y si por rasgos étnicos, en gran desemejanza

de tu linaje insigne nuestra nación está,

sabemos que, al principio, para pactar su alianza,

juntaron y bebieron, a la nativa usanza,

sus sangres, en un vaso, Legazpi y el Rajáh.

• A la raza Hispana by Filipino author Flavio Zaragoza Cano (1933):

Amo a mi Patria; mas el sacro rayo

de mi amor puro, no es para ella sola;

pues si como patriota soy malayo,

como poeta, ¡mi alma es española!

Y lo proclamo así, sin cobardía.

Amo a España que me dio cultura

La gratitud es flor del alma mía,

pues mi alma no es ingrata ¡ni es impura!

Mi amor a España Dios ha bendecido,

y no es traición para mi propia tierra,

porque en mi corazón que odia el olvido,

si es noble y santo ¡todo amor se encierra...!

• España by Filipina writer Adelina Monasterio (1918):

Las páginas de la historia De ti, madre, siempre hablaron,

y los poetas lanzaron al mundo un canto de gloria,

estrofas que a tu memoria dedicó el fiero talento

en un sublime momento en que llora el corazón

y viene la inspiración a crear un monumento.

Del esplendor del pasado, del valor de tus guerreros,

celo de tus misioneros o la industria de tu arado

habló el pensamiento alado, habló América, habló Flandes,

hablaron también los Andes y la luz esplendorosa que emana,

crece y rebosa del cerebro de tus Grandes.

¡Todo canta tus grandezas! mas de tus penas divinas,

de tu corona de espinas, sólo puede hablarte, España,

la de los bosques de caña, mi patria, mi Filipinas!

JCRB (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

To JCRB

Your stubborness continues to offend me and several Spaniard friends of mine with your lunacy. As a result, you leave me no choice. I will report you and your idiotic obstructions to wiki. For the last time, the phillipines is not hispanic. I will be following up with this in the article with references. You're tiring and selfish. From now on, any more unfounded edits from you in the article pertaining to the phillipines will result in complete omissions. 68.173.91.50 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I understand why some people from Spain feel confused about how the term "Hispanic" is used in the US, there's no need to be that confrontational. Please try to calm down before posting, even if you feel his views are that absurd. Anyway I agree that even taking the very broad deffinition of "Hispanic" as is being used in the US, to include the former colonies of Spain in South-East Asia into that definition is quite a stretch. And it exemplifies well how useless is the "Hispanic" label as a descriptor of anything: If some Central American or Andean countries, with very heavy Amerindian roots are considered "Hispanic" countries and ethnically related to Spain, then why not some country in South-East Asia?. Pure madness. In strict terms, Spain is racially and culturally related to its European neighbours. And that's it. Fin. From an Anthropological perspective, it doesn't matter that some in the US call people from Mexico or Puerto Rico "Spanish people". You know this comes straight from the either ignorant or racist assumption in the US that "all Spanish-speakers are the same". Just think how "Hispanic" is used in the media ("A Hispanic looking suspect", etc). Countries with Mestizo majorities have other cultural influences and have been independent countries for centuries, to assume that they are ethnically related to Spain in the same sense as Spain is ethnically related to, let's say, Italy, is wrong, or at least very debatable. If there is really such a need in the US to categorize populations, Spanish people should be related to Southern European groups only. A Greek, speaking a different language than Spaniards and having a different religion are more related to them than much of what is considered "Hispanic". In that sense, a Greek is much more "Hispanic" than a Filipino. For the matter, the culture in the Philipines is VASTLY different from the culture of Spain. Philipines is culturally related to their South-East Asian neighbours, not Spain, even if the Spanish empire left a legacy there. Even if Filipinos spoke Spanish, the cultural gap among those two nations would be much bigger than for example between Spain and Mexico. Someone said that a Filipinos in Spain would be considered an "outsider" like a Gypsy, a Moroccan or an Italian(?). Now that confused me. Italians in Spain are not very much considered "outsiders", since they are very similar to us in culture, appearance, and level of development. A British would be considered (and are considered) much more "outsider" than someone from Italy. Being Italian in Spain if anything is a plus, believe me. Sadly, it's true, Gypsies and Muslims do not have the same degree of acceptance among the general population. But that also includes people from our former colonies like Ecuadorians or Philipinos. The average Spanish would only considered as related to him either a Hispanic of full or almost full Spanish descent, like an Argentinian. And that's not (entirely) because of racism, but because Mestizos usually are a mixture of two or more cultural traditions: The culture of the Spanish empire of centuries ago + Amerindian culture. Spanish people are aware that Spain left a legacy around the globe, but only feel really related to other Southern European groups or countries with almost full Southern-European culture like Argentina. Anthropologist relate Spanish people only to other Southern-European groups, and to European groups in general. Regardless of the existence of the "Hispanic" label, that's the real truth, either if you like it or not. And please, don't take this as is Spaniards think that they are somehow better than what is considered Hispanics in the US. If Latin-America and South-East Asia become very advanced and rich countries (as they have the potential) and Southern-Europe sank into extreme poverty (again), the average Spaniards would still consider himself much, much more close to other (non-Hispanic) Southern-European than to a Hispanic Salvadorian or Mexican.--81.184.132.77 (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you for asking our editor friend to lower his tone. Insults and verbal aggressions of this kind are unacceptable here. Second, you have touched upon many different points which I would like to address carefully:

1) What Spaniards "feel" in terms of cultural affinities with other nationalities varies considerably. A Spaniard might feel "closer" to a Portuguese or to an Italian, compared to a person from Germany or the UK. But in most cases he will feel closer to a Mexican, Venezuelan or Argentinian, than to an Italian or Portuguese. Culture is a complex issue. It is made up of many elements or components, and people with different backgrounds might feel closer to one or another nationality.

2) The discussion on "Hispanic" is a question of definition. Hispanic is basically the Spanish-influenced culture and identity of countries formerly ruled by Spain (whether the Spanish language is official or not). In other words, Hispanic means "Spanish-Amerindian" in the case of Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, and "Spanish-African" in the case of Equatorial Guinea, or arguably Western Sahara, and "Spanish-Asian" in the case of the Philippines and Guam. This is a broad definition and of course one can go into much more detail: Hispanic in Mexico is Spanish-Aztec or Spanish-Mayan, in Argentina it is Spanish-American with a heavy Italian influence for example. The point is that Hispanic is a cultural concept, not a racial one or an ethnic one. In the US, "Hispanic" sometimes carries a racial meaning because 90% of "Hispanics" in the US are non-white (Amerinidan, Afroamerican, or mixed). But that is wrong. Hispanic is not a racial term, it is a cultural one. There can be white, afro, amerindian or asian Hispanics. And they are all Hispanic because they share a common cultural legacy, a Spanish-influenced legacy. Their culture today is Spanish-African, or Spanish-Amerindian or Spanish-Asian.

3) I have seen similar reactions to yours when people are told for the first time that "the Philippines is a Hispanic country". In most cases this is because the idea is NEW to them. You are not to blame, as history books usually run past the enormous cultural affinities between Spain (Latin America) and the Philippines, and the essentially Hispanic identity of Filipinos. History books or newspapers just say that it is "a country in Southeast Asia", and an "English-speaking nation" and only mention that it was a "Spanish colony for 3 centuries". But they hardly describe the crucial historical and cultural facts which make the Philippines a Hispanic country, in the same way Mexico or Bolivia are Hispanic:

• The middle classes that articulated the 19th century revolutions against Spain were all Spanish-speaking.
• The independent First Philippine Republic (República Filipina) of 1899 chose Spanish as its official language. Its Constitution (Constitución de Malolos) was in Spanish (and based largely on the Spanish Constitution of 1812) and so was its National Anthem (Himno Filipino).
• Classical philippine literature is in Spanish.
• Spanish was the language of trade, education, the press, religion (together with Latin), and the normal everyday language in the bigger cities like Manila and Cebu. I know it sounds strange, but this is a fact. Up until the 1920's or 1930's Spanish was the language of the educated people in the Philippines. Journalists, lawyers, businessmen, doctors, and teachers mostly used Spanish in their daily lives.
• The names of many Philippine provinces, towns, barrios, pueblos, rivers and mountain ranges are Spanish.
• The majority of Filipinos have Spanish family names (García, González, Perez, Gomez, Fernández, Alonso etc etc)
• Native languages like Tagalog or Cebuano have thousands of Spanish words: specially numbers (uno, dos tres, cuatro), kitchen utensils (cuchara, tenerdor, cuchillo), days of the week (lunes, martes miercoles) clothes (pantalón, camisa, americana, cinturón) and many many others.
• Philippine music and cuisine have both a lot of Spanish (and Mexican) influence.
• And above all, Philippine mentality is very Hispanic. The way of life, customs, and values are all very common to Hispanics in America (and to a lesser extent to Spaniards) even though there are differences (of course).

The point is we should open our minds to facts that aren't commonly known, but nevertheless true. If you read a little bit about the Philippines (history and culture), meet Spanish-speaking Filipinos, and look behind the obvious, superficial facts (commonly known and published in books) you will realize that the Philippines is just like Mexico, a country with a hybrid Spanish-indigenous culture. The difference is that Filipinos don't speak Spanish today. The other difference is that the Philippine also has American (anglo-saxon) influence due to 50 years of American rule. But the essence, the root, the foundations of Philippine culture are largely Hispanic.

And contrary to what many people think, the Philippines does not have huge commonalities with its Southeast Asian neighbours. It has some, but its Western culture (from Spain) makes it stand out in Southeast Asia. There are many texts about the Hispanic essence of the Philippines, but one of the most complete is the following article called "Qué queda de España en Filipinas?" written by Filipino historian Antonio Molina (died in 2000). If you have the time (and you speak Spanish) please read it here: http://us.geocities.com/kaibigankastil/ammolina.html. Believe me you will feel enlightened. This is an extract:

"Hace unos años regresaba yo a Filipinas a bordo de un buque francés. Al día siguiente de zarpar de Marsella, los pasajeros, como es costumbre, comenzaron a trabar mutuo conocimiento. Un profesor japonés se me acercó para presentarse. Nos dimos las manos e intercambiamos tarjetas. Más, cuando este profesor se presentó a otros dos pasajeros japoneses, no se estrecharon las manos, sino que, reverentes, se inclinaron ante sí tres veces. Más tarde, un industrial de Bombay, al presentárseme, también me dio la mano y me entregó su tarjeta. Pero luego, al pretender lo mismo con un funcionario de Nueva Dehli, tampoco se dieron las manos. En cambio, unidas las palmas, las elevaron hasta la altura de la frente y lentamente las bajaron hasta la mitad del pecho, repitiéndolo varias veces.

Cuando después me encontré con don Reynaldo Bautista, del Ministerio de Trabajo de Filipinas, el único pasajero filipino fuera de mí, me invadió un algo de perplejidad. Me pregunté: "¿Cómo saludar a lo filipino, tal que los otros citados lo habían hecho a lo japonés y a lo hindú?". No sabía si tocarmen las narices o tirarme de las orejas. Me conformé con darle la mano. En seguida interiormente volví a preguntarme: "¿Es que los filipinos estamos tan desprovistos de personalidad propia que ni siquiera tenemos un saludo típico?" Recordé, entonces, que se me tenía por historiador. A fuer de tal, por tanto, repasé mentalmente las crónicas de mi país al respecto. En efecto, en ellas se nos dice que los filipinos, antes de la llegada e instalación de los españoles en Filipinas, para saludar, juntaban las palmas de las manos, alzaban seguidamente en sentido diagonal hasta la altura de la frente, doblaban la pierna izquierda al mismo tiempo que lentamente se agachaban hasta ponerse en cuclillas. Excuso decir que si hubiera saludado así al paisano Bautista, se habría tronchado de risa o, lo que no hubiese tenido ninguna gracia, me habría arrojado por la borda creyéndose objeto de una burla.

Todo esto demuestra que en la llamada occidentalización de los países asiáticos, de lo que se trata es de adoptar los modos y usos de Occidente para su empleo ocasional cuando corresponda, demostrando así que se es igual a los europeos y americanos, pero, entre los naturales del país se retiene lo autóctono, que no ha perdido vigencia. Más, no acontece así, con el pueblo filipino. Nosotros hemos adoptado la cultura y la civilización occidentales como de nuestro propio acervo, válidas entre propios y extraños, así en el país o fuera de sus costas. Digámoslo de una vez, la occidentalización del Oriente encuentra su máxima y cabal representación en Filipinas." (Antonio Molina)

JCRB (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that the majority of Spaniards consider themselves much more culturally related to the Portuguese or Italians than to non-Criollo Hispanics (it goes triple if we include in it South-East Asian or African populations). And the reason being, well, because they actually are more related to Southern Europeans instead than the peoples their ancestors invaded and (maybe) mixed with centuries ago. I live in a city in Catalonia with heavy immigration from Latin America and the immigrants from France, Italy or the few White Hispanics (we don't get many Argentinians for some reason) are way more integrated than the majority of our "ethnic Latin-American brothers", to the point that people from our neighbour European countries aren't even really considered "immigrants" by many. Why? because despite the differences, they really are from our "ethnicity", taken in the broad sense (as it should be when comparing peoples from different countries). If you want to know what most Spaniards think about the Hispanic label as the sole ethnic definition for all Spanish-speaking populations (because it is an ethnic definition) read the following threads from a board of Spanish expats: 12 3 4. Their opinion is quite representavie of most of their compatriots. And remember: they are talking about Spanish-speaking Latin-Americans.

Hispanic is indeed an ethnic definition, as it is currently defined by the US goverment and as most people understand it. Are Spaniards, Ecuadorians, Filipinos and Equatoguineans members of the same ethnic group? there are huge cultural differences among those populations. In those three countries I mentioned there is only a thin veneer of Spanish culture (and by the way, I'm quite familiarized with the Filipinas). Should Spain be considered Hellenic, Germanic, or Arab because of the cultural influence of those groups in Spain? Those peoples left a similar influence to Spain like the Spanish empire left in the Filipinas, no less. Spaniards are considered Latin-Europeans because only the Roman empire left a crucial, ethnicity-defining cultural legacy in Spain, and you can see that in this case the "Latin-European" label as an ethnic definition is accurate, since Euro-Latin countries are culturally similar.

The Spanish influence in the Filipinas is just other more influence in the Filipinas, no matter how you put it :) It's true that the high-classes of the past tended to be Spanish/Mestizo-dominated, but they really where in the minority!. Genetic studies reveal that Spanish ancestry is very uncommon among Filipinos (and part of those European genes could have entered also via American troops). Ancestry in many cases reveals cultural influence. According to genetic studies, around 4-8% of Spaniards have some Moorish ancestry. That proportion is indeed what one sould expect from the cultural impact Moors had on Christian Spaniards. If we could distinguish genetically Spaniards and Italians, we could see that in places like Barcelona, Tarragona or Cartagena there is substantial Italian (and Greek) ancestry. A country with an almost equal mixture of Spanish and Amerindian like Mexico is already very different from Spain (to the point that there is debate if it should be considered a Western country), now imagine if only a few percent of that population, like in the Filipinas, descended from Spaniards. But anyway I can see your point: if Central-Americans or Andeans are Hispanic, why Filipinos can't? I will tell you a secret: the Hispanic label (in the US sense) was created by politicians as a PC, easy way to label all Spanish-speakers in the US, not anthropologists (and they were refering to Mestizo/Zambo Mexicans, Central American and Caribbeans, not very much Spaniards or Filipinos). Used in this sense, that all Spanish-speakers belong to the same ethnicity, and that ethnicity is the only one that matters for describing the culture of those very different populations historically considered first Spanish-Americans and later rebranded to Hispanics, stems from the either racist or very lazy view that all spanish-speakers are exactly the same. You saw a Mexican, you saw a Colombian, an Argentinian or a Spaniard. If you agree with that amazingly stupid reductionistic way of ethnic classification you are in sync with the more racist elements of the US. You know well that "Hispanic" doesn't have any real Anthropological value or accurate ethnic meaning used that way, and that's why you push the Filipinas as Hispanics, since if for example people from the Chiapas are Hispanics (and most Americans understand Hispanic as sinonymous of Mestizo or Amerindian Mexican), A Filipino then is also Hispanic (But try call an Indian or African-American British or English and you are exposed to get punched in the face). That label is already quite problematic for us to add definitively non-Western, non-Hispanic countries into the crazy mix. --81.184.132.77 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

African Americans and Indians don't speak British, as it's not a language. Rather than punched in the face you would probably just get some confused looks. Furthermore, English and Anglo don't mean the same thing, nor do Hispanic and Spanish. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't said British was a language, read carefully what I posted. If all Spanish-speakers are Hispanic (the name Romans gave to Iberians and until recently meaning: Spanish/Portuguese/Andorran/Gibraltarian people and specially Spaniard, until it was changed by US politicians) then by the same logic all English-speakers are British: the name Romans gave to the peoples from the islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe and for some curious reason still meaning those same peoples, even though the British also left a significant cultural influence around the globe like the Spanish did. If all Spanish-speakers are Hispanic, then all the members of the Commonwealth are British, and no matter how people try to spin it, it is exactly the same logic in both cases. And I meant that if you insist to a group of British that Pakistanis, Indians or Nigerians are as much as British as they are you can get into some trouble. Socially Anglo means English-speaking White people, and Hispanic and Spanish is used interchangeably all the time, I don't know what your comment is supposed to mean. Hispanic now means people from the former colonies of the Spanish empire more than the original Hispanics, and it seems that in case of doubt Hispanic should now refer to Latin-Americans, not Spaniards (read the last link in my previous post), which is crazy. Anyway I know this a lost battle, so feel free to add Filipinos, Moroccans, West-Africans or whatever as Hispanics in this article. --81.184.132.77 (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

let's call the whole thig off? I came over this page in trying to find any sort of honest and useful criteria upon which to base a definition for the term "hispanic". After reading through the long discussion, the obvious conclusion is that there aren't any, which is already a good point for starting a useful work. I was reading an analysis of the distribution of a set of genetic traits which could be potentially related to differences in response to a pharmaceutical compound in a set of what would be considered "ethnic categories". These included "hispanic", "white hispanic", among other ill-defined groups (such as "black"). The results showed that most of the genetic polymorphisms would be equally distributed among the considered groups. This could be a valid and eventually important conclusion, but only provided that, among other premises, a set of clear defining criteria could be used to diferentiate these groups, which is to say, that the population was adequately classified according to similar phenotypes which would include the "hispanic" phenotype and the "white hispanic" phenotype, among others. As there is not such definition, all similar analyses are meaningless. The problem is that these US american forged terms, which I would euphemistically classify as political, are begining to be widely used outside the USA for similar analyses that are regarded by a lot of people as having a scientifical basis, while it seems quite clear that they haven't any. So it is about time that they are abandoned altogether and given value for what they're worth: discrimination for immigration use. It may be curious that, although I tend to be tall, with fair skin and hair and blue-coloured eyes, I am systematically and automatically addressed in spanish by spanish speaking people every time I go to the USA. So I guess that, even thouh I don't speak any of the four Spanish official languages, I am probably "hispanic" (a feature that I regard with an intimate sense of honour, may I say). So am I a "white hispanic"? I wonder... So "hispanic"? "hispánico"? It's time we let the whole thing off. (L Caldeira) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.171.225 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If they differienciate for medical purposes between White Hispanics and other Europeans (White) then the utter stupidity of the Hispanic term has reached new (and I would even say criminal) heights, since Southern-Europeans are prone to some specific Southern-European and general White European diseases/reactions. There is no particular diseases or particular reactions to drugs that I can think of with Spaniards that aren't shared by also other Europeans, not to say that many White Hispanics have ancestry from many other countries!. My guess is that many people identifying themselves as "White Hispanics" in the US are actually light-skinned or mostly European Mestizos who are exposed to different diseases and have different metabolic reactions than people of full European ancestry. If your full ancestry comes from any of this countries, you should do what the "White" category indicates, unless they have specific Northern/Southern/Eastern European categories.--81.184.132.77 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The "sudacas" paradox

What a funny paradox !

In Spain, Latinos/Hispanic are highly socially discriminated (much more than in the USA , for example) and called "sudacas" (racist/disrespectful term to designate non white people, that is, "mestizos" or "Amerindian"). It is their normal designation except in those contexts were political correctness is required and includes people from the EEUU border to the Patagonia. Sudacas is etymologically considered a contraction of Sud (south) and caca (shit) although some people merely consider it a variation of “Sud” with the suffix “aca” as a derogative adornment. (see sudaca) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontriv (talk • contribs) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But in America the terms Spaniards and Hispanics are interchangeable. Or worse, Spaniards are even confused with Mexicans. This make most Spaniards (like me) laugh sadly (“Oh, you know, Americans are ignorant, etc..”)

I think that all the contributors that claim “that Hispanic, contrary to Anglo, does not carry a racial meaning” are talking from their very personal perspective and not capturing the more common appreciation made by the rest of us.

The question is very simple: English and Spanish languages lack a term to properly designate people from outside Spain that have Spanish as their native language. Being aware of this limitation, the Census Bureau was forced to choose one in 1970 (this is mentioned in the article). And they choose, "Hispanic", which , as the discussion of this article shows, was very unfortunate --Kontriv (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Filipinos Are Hispanic??

Yes, Filipinos are Hispanic. The fact is, Filipinos acknowledged that Spanish Culture has shaped their nation, culture and people. The Philippines has been influenced by Spanish culture more than any overlapping cultures they have inherited even up to this time. Generally acknowledging this Spanish Heritage makes them hispanic, not as an ethnic label defined in the American terms based on race (as contradiction to the ethnic label - Asian, Black, White) but as a term objectively defined in this article. Although in general, Filipinos are not aware of the definiton of the term "Hispanic" per se. By the objective definition described and defined by this article, Filipinos are Hispanic. Arguing the fact that Filipinos does not speak Spanish or have low degree of Spanish ancestry than its latin counterpart is a poor analogy. Also, there are no factual basis that Spaniards (historically and up to the present) rarely intermingle with the "indio" race. This assumption was made due to the fact that most Filipinos with direct Spanish ancestry (up to the fourth degree) belong to the elite rich. And the upper class (not only in the Philippines but any country in the world) rarely intermingle with the lower classes. However, this does not mean that Spanish-descent Filipinos abhor marrying "indios", for what if the "indigeno" also belong to the upper social class? My point is there is no accurate, documented and historical data to prove that Filipinos are purely Austronesian or with no traces of Spanish blood. Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero is a good proof that Spaniard rarely intermarry with the local or Filipinos are unmixed Austronesian. Rizal has Chinese, Japanese and Spanish blood, although Austronesian is his dominant race. (This is a Reply from the discussion below)

No, Filipinos are NOT hispanic. If only about 3-4% of modern Filipinos have ANY degree of Spanish descent, why would they be considered Hispanic? The country was also influenced by the USA, China, Japan, Islam, and India, not to forget its own rich indigenous cultural heritage, and its geographical position - its in Southeast Asia everybody! I'm Chilean, have grown up in the US, and have NEVER heard anyone, even Filipinos themselves refer to each other as "hispanic", please stop making uninformed generalizations. Between Latin America and the Philippines, they are totally different cultures. And Bolivia is a hispanic country by the way, very hispanic, I know, they're my neighbors : )

I know they were colonised...but they dont speak spanish now and only 1% speak it now....so that makes the country a non spanish speaking country, infact no latin language is spoken,,..therefore not Hispanic right???...i think it should be taken out the British filipinos ..in the UK section..

Reply: Using some common knowledge and history I have learned from this particular ethnic group; Filipinos are considered Hispanics due to the fact that their culture has inherited a vast amount of Mexican-Spanish customs and tradtions. This is due to three centuries of Spanish colonial rule. If you take a good examination of their customs and traditions; Hispanic influences in Filipino culture are most visible in literature, folk dance, folk music, food, language, religion and history. These influences continues to be used and practise today by modern day Filipinos. Although the majority of it's inhabitants have not inherited Spanish ancestry or adopted the Spanish language as a major language, there are other Filipinos who have Spanish blood and speaks the language. This people are Filipinos of Spanish and Mexican descent, which are estimated to be at around 2% of the Philippine population. To answer your question?, yes! Filipinos are Hispanics in terms of it's Cultural production and identity, but not by it's ancestral identity this is because 90% of the population are predominantly of full blood Austronesian ancestry. As I said before only 2% of the Philippine population would qualify as Hispanics in terms of ancestry and these are mostly Filipino mestizos of Spanish origin. Thanks! -- Ramírez72 2:00 June 7 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is a small group of "Hispanics" in the Philippines doesn't pass the country as Hispanic. Most Filipnos are Asian ethnically and culturally. They have little to do with Spain or Latin America, but a past of conquest. Cali567 (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand what you say...abut the 2or even just 1% of pure spanish descent in the Philippines...are hispanic origin.....and to be honest its not about race..otherwise the whole of Bolivia wouldnt consider itserlf Latin let alone Hispanic...so not really arace thing...its purly based on the 21st centrury view of what a hispanic is....and even though they have many customs..form another country..doesnt always make them something into what we now consider a Hispanic...even though the true meaning is to be from Spain...

So basically.....i know it was colonised fro 300 years..but does it make them now a hispanic country.....i realy doubt it since how can you repfer to yourself not speaking spanish ...even though there are alof of words in teh philipine language now...it was also colonised by the USA ,does it make them a Anglo country because they speak english...i dont this so either....i think not have spanish a a primary language...is the really issue here.... spain21July 14 2007 (UTC)

• Filipinos are so hispanic that they retain their Spanish names to this day, both family and forenames. The only real exceptions are the Muslim Filipinos who have adopted Islamic names. In addition there is a lot of Spanish that is now part of their native Tagalog language.

Their names were GIVEN for tax purposes and are not ancestral, as in Spain or Latin America. There is a difference between BEING Hispanic and being INFLUENCED by Hispanics - which is the category Filipinos are in. Cali567 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Filipinos are as Hispanic as Bolivians, Guatemalans or Peruvians, most of them Natives: Aymaras, Quechuas, Mayas etc...but all of them with a common past of Spanish colonisation for century, Catholic church, Spanish names and Spanis words in their native languages. In tagalog "cómo está?" is "kumosta?" and numbers are similar. But of course the chavacano dialect of Spanish spoken in Zamboanga by over half a million people is clearly part of the Spanish Heritage of the Phillipines. Even the name Filipinos derives from the King of Spain Felipe II (Philipe II) who send Legaspi to found the city of Manila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.240.101 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Those "links" hardly help Filipinos pass as Hispanics. The fact is most Filipinos speak no Spanish, and their culture is very influenced by China and Taiwan, etc. Cali567 (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply: To: User:Cali567. You seem to have an obessession with Filipinos based on your troubled edit history. Your statements sounds like you have not undergone any research what so ever, and frankly your statements sounds a little too hilarious, very ignorant and is definately based on your own personal point of view or NPOV as i call it. Simply do your research by using a "book", and not your mouth, and you will be amazed of what you said is false; and what i said is true. Try harder and do your research properly. Thank you. -- IQfur1 12:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is US-centric

I think this article is US-centric and needs to be totally rewritten. Hispanic means primarily people of Latin American descent or Spanish-speaking people residing in the U.S. and, thus, this article should only include Spanish people because of their language and shouldn't confuse them ethnically with Hispanic/Latinos and vice versa. 62.43.55.155 20:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree! Hispanics "as a group" exist only in the mind of Americans. It is a gross generalization based on ignorance. If anyone said people from Nigeria, India or the USA are English because they speak English, you would not agree. Yet you (in America) seem to agree that a Spaniard and say, a Mexican are Hispanic Because they speak Spanish! The term Hispanic (as viewed from America) is pure nonsense!! Oh by the way Spain is in Europe, next to Portugal and France.

Keep in mind that it is not just English speaking Americans that are to blame for this stupid "Hispanic" term. "Latin" Americans with little or no Spanish heritage regularly refer to themselves as "Spanish" whether its true or not. I've met many "Latin" Americans ranging from Amerindian Central Americans to mixed Black and pure Black Caribbean types that regularly call themselves "Spanish". Its well known even before the advent of scientifically valid DNA genome studies that the majority of African Americans have a high portion of British and other Northern and Central European blood in their gene pool. Our own President Obama is half White. Yet there are no racial classifications like "Britannic" or "Francic". Moreover, that stupid "One Drop Rule" is often evoked even though most people that use it can't prove their pure genetic bloodline. Even by Adolf Hitler's own admission in his infamous book, Mein Kampf. He admitted that most Germans were not truly pure blonde Nordic Aryans. Its high time that that term be deleted from the English language and people accept their own true back round by not lying --Charles A 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

What? Hispanics are descended from Iberia. In Europe. It doesn't mean people residing in the US everywhere. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanics are descended from Iberia?. Well, some Hispanics are descended from Iberia but globally neither Iberian/Spaniards are Hispanics nor they're Latino.

That's simply a popular ignorant misconception of Americans. According to most English dictionaries Hispanic means a Spanish-speaking person, especially one of Latin American descent, residing in the US such as a Cuban, a Mexican or a Puerto Rican. Most of the article focuses on Spanish people with an odd pedagogic tone and only succeed in deepening prejudices and ignorance about Spanish people. Felve 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think we all agree that much of the content and general structure of the article is wrong. The article, for one, should be much shorter. The article was drafted by now banned user Onofre Bouvila. It was done in a very non-encyclopedic way and was geared to making a rather obscure point which I never managed to completely work out. I seriously think it should be rewritten from scratch, but thats just my opinion. --Burgas00 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all hispanics descend from Iberia. But the people from Iberia, according to celtic Irish mythology and genetic studies are ancestors of the British people who colonised the USA.[3] So, following you line of thought, north Americans are Hispanics as much as South Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.43.190 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

" But the people from Iberia, according to Celtic Irish mythology and genetic studies are ancestors of the British people who colonised the USA.[4]" I go to the link after reading that. The article as read to me as Britian/Celts are descended from Iberian fisherman who went north and colonized Britian. Wfoj2 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Of Interest to me. In the America's Hemisphere, Central and Southern America can be ignorantly thought of as predominantly Hispanic by USA citizens. How many Spaniards/"European Hispanics" have emigrated/ colonized to the Americas over the last 515 years? Verasus what is the Americas' total Hispanic Population? What is the Central/South America total population that can be thought of as predonimant indigenous ("Indian") background. I personally would not think of when meeting a person from Spain as Hispanic. From a race perspective, and features, they are probably caucasian. To me the defination of a hispanic should be a person whose anchestry includes some portion of a emigrant/ colonizer from Spain. That portion can vary very highly. To be Hispanic one does not need to speak or know Spanish. as I read above the Question Section "Is there any explanation as to why the Spanish get their own race, but not the descendants of other European countries, such as Italian, Irish, German, etc?" I am a US Citizen by birth, and surprised by this statement. I would love to hear from a European if they agree with this statement in regard to thoughts on a person from the Iberian Penisula's race. If the were to agree with this statement, that would be a good basis for removal of a lot of content fromthe page, work on a strong revision. Actually a fdifferenet thought- some forms have a block for Nationality or citizenship. Never is there an entry in that block for "Hispanic". Frequently there is a block for race. From an US citizen perspective- choices are Caucasian, Black/negroid, Asian, Hispanic, Indian/(indiginious). From A European/Spanish by nationality perspective how many of those people would claim check Hispanic. RE- Below "The Problem with this article". What would really help as reading this Talk page would be be for people to identify themselves, continent they are from, perhaps their nationality/citizenship, and perhaps their race (especially when many readers would make race assumptions based on majority fo what read for continent/natiunality/citizenship.)

Wfoj2 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are Americans British/English? NO! Then why are Mexicans "hispanic"?

If Mexicans (for example) are Spanish because they were part of the Spanish Empire and they speak Spanish, then aren't Americans British because they were part of the British Empire and they speak English? I see the same logic here. This is a serious question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the same logic is applied at least to white non-Hispanic Americans: they're also referred to as "Anglos", due to the English heritage. SamEV (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

English is also an official language in India and some African countries (not only South Africa). In Kenya, English is an official language: are Kenyans English? They qualify to be English: they were a former colony and they speak English. Yes,if Mexicans, Argentinians and Venezuelans are Hispanic (since they are a former colony of Spain and speak Spanish), then Kenyans and Indians are also Anglos. This whole "Hispanic" thing is really wrong, I think. --Karljoos (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic is very different from Anglo

The whole "Hispanic thing" is not wrong. Hispanic means the people, countries or cultures with a strong Spanish cultural base, due to historic reasons. In most of these cases it includes the Spanish language, but not always. The Philippines is arguably a Hispanic country (Spanish traditions, Catholic religion, cuisine with much Spanish and Mexican influence, thousands of Spanish loanwords in native languages, Spanish family names etc.) but Filipinos no longer speak the Spanish language (except for a Spanish creole spoken by about 600.000 people in certain parts of the country). Therefore, those countries where the Spanish culture (and language) has taken roots due to centuries of assimilation, are called Hispanic.

Now, one of the differences with "Anglo" is that in many former British colonies, the English culture has not been assimilated to the same extent. For example, although English is spoken in Kenya, you would not say it is an Anglo Saxon country because the people do not have an Anglo mentality, follow Anglo traditions or typically English religion (How many Kenyans are Anglicans?). You could say however, that Kenyan culture has Anglo influence, but it is not an "Anglo" country as such.

The other difference is that "Anglo" carries a racial meaning. Anglo usually means "White" English-speaking people and culture. That is why it is not used for Kenya or India or other Asian and African nations. With Hispanic this is very different: one because there has been an important racial mix in Hispanic countries (the Spanish colonial authorities did not ban or persecute intermarriage) resulting in a majority mixed population, and therefore the Spanish culture has really been assimilated. Spanish culture has really taken roots, alongside the native American roots. However, in most African or Asian countries formerly ruled by Britain, there was no intermarriage, and because the white population was a minority, the "Anglo" culture did not really sink in. Of course, in those countries where the white population became a majority (and the native one was wiped out) it did sink in, and today we call them Anglo Saxon countries: the US, Canada and Australia.

That contention of yours does not stand up to the facts. It is well known even before the advent of DNA research that the majority of African Americans are also indeed of mixed blood. And when I state mixed blood, I mean mixed with a lot of Anglo American genes. The same is true for Native Americans like Hopi, Cherokee, Apache, and so forth. Yet, again, those people are not referred to as "Anglics". Anglic does not even show up on my MS Word spell check. My point is the, yes. While its true that there are people of mixed blood in Central and South America, the same is also true of English Speaking North America. The whole notion of racial purity that is portrayed by English speaking societies everywhere is Anglo racial supremist bunk.--Charles A 13:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your post. Please, If you’re going to make such strong statements, at least sign them so we know who is making them. --Karljoos (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)