Latinos and illegal immigration

HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284
edited November 2011 in R & R (Religion and Race)
'Latino' is a cultural concept, not a 'race'. Excluding Black and White Latinos, most of them are at least partially of Native American descent and pretending for argument sake that I believed in natural property rights, I would argue that all of the Americas is their ancestral homeland and they have every right to travel from any location in the Western hemisphere to any other. 'Illegal' Mexican/Central Americans immigrants who have indigenous ancestry have every right to enter into California or any other American state (or Canada, for that matter) with or without the American (or Canadian) government's permission. I don't really understand why Amerindian descended Latinos prefer to identify with Spain and Spanish culture by calling themselves 'Latinos' and 'Hispanics' rather than as Native Americans or at least people of mixed Native American/Spanish heritage. From the little I know of it, I respect the Mexica movement.

http://www.mexica-movement.org/

Replies

  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    They usually identify with "Hispanidad/Hispanitud" b/c they are usually mixed.The pure natives want to keep a semblance of their culture especially in South America.

    Thats a bullshit movement,why dont they give Latin America back to the indians as well then?Mexicans just be bullshitting,theyre horrible little sin verguenza ass people.
  • The Lonious MonkThe Lonious Monk Man with No Fucks Given Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    'Latino' is a cultural concept, not a 'race'. Excluding Black and White Latinos, most of them are at least partially of Native American descent and pretending for argument sake that I believed in natural property rights, I would argue that all of the Americas is their ancestral homeland and they have every right to travel from any location in the Western hemisphere to any other. 'Illegal' Mexican/Central Americans immigrants who have indigenous ancestry have every right to enter into California or any other American state (or Canada, for that matter) with or without the American (or Canadian) government's permission. I don't really understand why Amerindian descended Latinos prefer to identify with Spain and Spanish culture by calling themselves 'Latinos' and 'Hispanics' rather than as Native Americans or at least people of mixed Native American/Spanish heritage. From the little I know of it, I respect the Mexica movement.

    http://www.mexica-movement.org/

    This makes no sense. It's like saying that a person from France has the right to relocate to Romania without fulfilling any of the beurocratic procedures just because that person is of native European descent. Or saying that a person from Cambodia can just up and move to China to live without going through a formal immigration process because he is of native Asian descent. The fact is that's not how things work in any part of the world, so why should it be how it works in America?

    On top of that, it's not even how it worked back then before the European invasion. The members of the Commanche and other native U.S. tribes call bullshit on the Mexican claims all the time. They say historically they controlled the areas in the Southwest until the Spanish came and pushed them back. So your argument is bunk. You can't say that those of native descent in the Americas should be able to travel as if the Europeans never came when they didn't have such freedom of travel and settling before the Europeans came. The indigenous tribes in the Americas didn't necessarily draw borders like what we see now for countries, but they did settle territory and it wasn't like some other group could just go into their territory and kick it without getting permission. Guess what, that's exactly what modern immigration laws and procedures are about.
  • HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284
    edited November 2011
    This makes no sense. It's like saying that a person from France has the right to relocate to Romania without fulfilling any of the beurocratic procedures just because that person is of native European descent. Or saying that a person from Cambodia can just up and move to China to live without going through a formal immigration process because he is of native Asian descent. The fact is that's not how things work in any part of the world, so why should it be how it works in America?

    On top of that, it's not even how it worked back then before the European invasion. The members of the Commanche and other native U.S. tribes call bullshit on the Mexican claims all the time. They say historically they controlled the areas in the Southwest until the Spanish came and pushed them back. So your argument is bunk. You can't say that those of native descent in the Americas should be able to travel as if the Europeans never came when they didn't have such freedom of travel and settling before the Europeans came. The indigenous tribes in the Americas didn't necessarily draw borders like what we see now for countries, but they did settle territory and it wasn't like some other group could just go into their territory and kick it without getting permission. Guess what, that's exactly what modern immigration laws and procedures are about.

    I understand that there are practical reasons to prevent Cambodians from moving to China without restriction and that Native Americans did not identify as 'Native Americans' prior to colonialism. For the most part, you have a point but I still don't see how illegal Mexican immigrants can be personally blamed when every other American (besides other Native Americans) descends from immigrants or settlers who benefit from the displacement and sometimes genocide of previously existing indigenous people but Mexicans are 'inviting themselves into someone else's home'. A French person in Romania could at least argue that they're ethnically more similar to indigenous Romanians than the descendants of African or Asian conquerors who now (in this hypothetical, alternative universe) claim the land as their own. Europeans have historically identified on the basis of having a pan-European identity when it benefited them, I don't see why Native Americans (people indigenous to the Americas) can't do the same and adopt a pan-Native American identity. I still don't understand why Latinos don't seem to identify with their Native American heritage either.
    Thats a bullshit movement,why dont they give Latin America back to the indians as well then?Mexicans just be bullshitting,theyre horrible little sin verguenza ass people.

    Even if they're culturally Latino, those Mexicans themselves have indigenous ancestry.
  • Young_ChitlinYoung_Chitlin YCN Chief, FCC Member, IC Task Force General ASUville, PhoenixPosts: 11,761 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    'Latino' is a cultural concept, not a 'race'. Excluding Black and White Latinos, most of them are at least partially of Native American descent and pretending for argument sake that I believed in natural property rights, I would argue that all of the Americas is their ancestral homeland and they have every right to travel from any location in the Western hemisphere to any other. 'Illegal' Mexican/Central Americans immigrants who have indigenous ancestry have every right to enter into California or any other American state (or Canada, for that matter) with or without the American (or Canadian) government's permission. I don't really understand why Amerindian descended Latinos prefer to identify with Spain and Spanish culture by calling themselves 'Latinos' and 'Hispanics' rather than as Native Americans or at least people of mixed Native American/Spanish heritage. From the little I know of it, I respect the Mexica movement.

    http://www.mexica-movement.org/

    This is true. Every Latino is a Hispanic, the proper term
  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    This is true. Every Latino is a Hispanic, the proper term

    FALSE.

    Brazilians are not hispanic but they are latino.I dont like none of these terms im just Dominican.If anything call me "latin"..
  • Cabana_Da_DonCabana_Da_Don Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    lol at non latinos talking about who are latinos and who aint.

    Ya niggas white washed as hell.
  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    I understand that there are practical reasons to prevent Cambodians from moving to China without restriction and that Native Americans did not identify as 'Native Americans' prior to colonialism. For the most part, you have a point but I still don't see how illegal Mexican immigrants can be personally blamed when every other American (besides other Native Americans) descends from immigrants or settlers who benefit from the displacement and sometimes genocide of previously existing indigenous people but Mexicans are 'inviting themselves into someone else's home'. A French person in Romania could at least argue that they're ethnically more similar to indigenous Romanians than the descendants of African or Asian conquerors who now (in this hypothetical, alternative universe) claim the land as their own. Europeans have historically identified on the basis of having a pan-European identity when it benefited them, I don't see why Native Americans (people indigenous to the Americas) can't do the same and adopt a pan-Native American identity. I still don't understand why Latinos don't seem to identify with their Native American heritage either.



    Even if they're culturally Latino, those Mexicans themselves have indigenous ancestry.


    Nope,most of them are "mestizo" white and native..so technically speaking they shouldnt be there either.
  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    <
    Is Cuban/Dominican.

    Idgaf either way..I dont like them other "hispanics/latinos".I dont even like those terms those are american terms.In D.R. we dont give a fuck about Mexicans or Colombians,please.

    lol at non latinos talking about who are latinos and who aint.

    Ya niggas white washed as hell.
  • HurumaHuruma Posts: 2,284
    edited November 2011
    Paul Hate. wrote: »
    Nope,most of them are "mestizo" white and native..so technically speaking they shouldnt be there either.

    But you've admitted that most of them have native ancestry..
  • blackdemoblackdemo Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    i dont get the whole latino, hispanic, Brazilians arent hispanic shit..jesus man someone come in and explain how it really is.

    its sad cuz i grew up around latinos too but i kno nothing about the techncalities of race
  • The Lonious MonkThe Lonious Monk Man with No Fucks Given Posts: 14,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    I understand that there are practical reasons to prevent Cambodians from moving to China without restriction and that Native Americans did not identify as 'Native Americans' prior to colonialism. For the most part, you have a point but I still don't see how illegal Mexican immigrants can be personally blamed when every other American (besides other Native Americans) descends from immigrants or settlers who benefit from the displacement and sometimes genocide of previously existing indigenous people but Mexicans are 'inviting themselves into someone else's home'. A French person in Romania could at least argue that they're ethnically more similar to indigenous Romanians than the descendants of African or Asian conquerors who now (in this hypothetical, alternative universe) claim the land as their own. Europeans have historically identified on the basis of having a pan-European identity when it benefited them, I don't see why Native Americans (people indigenous to the Americas) can't do the same and adopt a pan-Native American identity. I still don't understand why Latinos don't seem to identify with their Native American heritage either.

    I hate this kinda argument. America didn't just pop up here. It's been here officially for more than 200 years and in the making for another hundred years or so before that. The same goes for Mexico. Most modern Mexicans are a product of European colonization. They can't proudly claim their European heritage and then ignore the fact that that same European heritage is what is responsible for the delineation between the countries now.

    And those Mexicans that preach that type of movement are pretty hypocritical. From my understanding, they treat Central Americans that try to migrate up to Mexico the same way illegal Mexicans are treated her. Not to mention that the truly Indigenous Mexicans that cling to their historical culture are also treated very similarly to the Native Americans in the U.S. In other words, they are all gung ho about claiming the indigenous culture when it comes to justifying their unlawful entry into the U.S. However, all that goes out of the door when the same thought process might work against them.
  • Cabana_Da_DonCabana_Da_Don Posts: 6,227 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Brazilians aint hispanic because we speak portuguese but we are latino because we speak a language that comes from latin.

    Latin=Language that comes from latin.Like spanish,portugues BUT italians are consider europeans.

    Cubans and Dominicans are hispanic because they were colonized byt the spanish asholes we were colonized by the portugues.
  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    But you've admitted that most of them have native ancestry..

    ^And they are also european and have euro customs and heritage...
  • Jay PeeJay Pee Posts: 761
    edited November 2011
    Its simple sad thing is most "latinos" don't know they aren't a race. Latino is a group term for people in South America and I guess the carribeans....there are indian "latinos" whites blacks, mulattos castzios tri-racials. Just like there is the same mix in America....Sammy Sosa for instant is Latino, but his ancestory is african american obvisouly....or a white latina like sophia vargas......she is latino, but probably has more europeon ancestory.
  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Jay Pee wrote: »
    Its simple sad thing is most "latinos" don't know they aren't a race. Latino is a group term for people in South America and I guess the carribeans....there are indian "latinos" whites blacks, mulattos castzios tri-racials. Just like there is the same mix in America....Sammy Sosa for instant is Latino, but his ancestory is african american obvisouly....or a white latina like sophia vargas......she is latino, but probably has more europeon ancestory.

    How the fuck is he african american if hes from the fucking dominican republic?And his REAL background is West Indian origin with grandparents being from outside the country.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,746 Regulator
    edited November 2011
    Huruma wrote: »
    I understand that there are practical reasons to prevent Cambodians from moving to China without restriction... but I still don't see how illegal Mexican immigrants can be personally blamed when every other American (besides other Native Americans) descends from immigrants or settlers who benefit from the displacement and sometimes genocide of previously existing indigenous people but Mexicans are 'inviting themselves into someone else's home'.
    start with the part where you acknowledge the "practical reasons."
    Huruma wrote: »
    Europeans have historically identified on the basis of having a pan-European identity when it benefited them
    the bolded part should imply why this isn't the best support for your pan-European notion
    Paul Hate. wrote: »
    Brazilians are not hispanic but they are latino-
    Brazilians aint hispanic because we speak portuguese-
    on the other hand, if "Hispanic" comes from "Hispania" ... then this includes Portugal and Portuguese-speaking people as well.
  • Paul Hate.Paul Hate. Posts: 4,538 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 2011
    Brazilians are not considered to be hispanic.Hispanic are spanish speakers...

    Brazilians are latin/latinos...
  • AlkindusAlkindus Posts: 1,677
    edited November 2011
    Well I wouldn't let someone else define what I am in the first place, nore really care.

    from what I understood, the biggest latin langueges are : French, Italian, Spanish and Portugese. I would say that if you yourself 'latin' you identify with Europe cause thats where the shit came from. Obviously 'Latin' has another meaning in the America's though, it seems like callin yourself latin in America means you are non european?

    imo everybody should be able to live where they please, fuck puttin passports above human lifes. America is also the last country on earth that should have closed borders and bitch about immigration.
  • Friend or Foe IIFriend or Foe II Posts: 23
    edited November 2011
    open the gates of all national borders, let all the brown people and 'undesirables' flood the gardens of eden, and use national flags to wipe your dick after watching porn. that is my position on the motherland motherfuckers.
  • janklowjanklow god's lonely man. Posts: 5,746 Regulator
    edited November 2011
    Paul Hate. wrote: »
    Brazilians are not considered to be hispanic.Hispanic are spanish speakers...
    Brazilians are latin/latinos...
    the point is that Hispanic does not necessarily refer to "Spanish speakers"
Sign In or Register to comment.