Your city's multiracial population/mixed unions

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But Asian Americans have a similar share of immigrant to native-born as Asian Canadians, though the intermarriage rate of Asian Americans is higher.

It seems like the immigrant/non-immigrant divide is stronger in Canada vs. the color line, but in the US, it is the opposite (the color line is stronger, African Americans have lower intermarriage rates, even if native born, than groups like Asians and Hispanics that have higher foreign born shares).

A bit higher for Asian Canadians. Notable difference between Filipinos and Koreans in the two countries.

Immigrants, Asian Americans

Indian 69%
Vietnamese 64%
Chinese 63%
Korean 62%
Filipino 52%
Japanese 27%

Immigrants, Asian Canadians

Korean 77%
Filipino 75%
Chinese 70%
Indian 66%
Vietnamese 58%
Japanese 31%

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Share of mixed unions:
NHW / Hispanic 42%

a bit of a dubious distinction, depending on the specific circumstances.

i mean, my wife and i have been mistaken for a mixed white/latino couple before even though i'm all german/irish ancestry and she's all italian/sicilian ancestry, and we both grew up in predominately white upper middle class midwestern suburbs.



it's kinda funny how people are sometimes a little disappointed when we have to correct them that we're just a boring old generic white couple.

meanwhile, our neighbors are an actual mixed white/latino couple. him: generic white american mutt / her: immigrant from peru. but she's far "whiter" than my wife in terms of skin color.

it does make me question the meaning of some of this crap.

[Docere]

Yeah, Hispanics being treated as a "race" in popular discourse is problematic. Latin America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean are multi-racial societies and many people with "Hispanic" heritage are functionally white.

[Docere]

Sticking with the two-question format means that the great majority of young people with mixed Hispanic and white origins will be categorized only as Hispanic — and therefore as “nonwhite,” in census terminology. This classification will often contradict how they perceive and experience their identity, and how they’re treated by the world around them.

White racial resentment has been gaining political power for decades

And it is sociological nonsense. A growing body of data reveals that individuals from mixed families look more like whites than they do like minorities — except for those who are partly black. The exception demonstrates, it should be emphasized, the persistent and severe racism that confronts Americans with visible African heritage.

This blurring of differences from whites is especially true for people from mixed Hispanic and white families. Family mixing weakens attachments to the Hispanic group, research finds. According to a recent Pew study, a growing number of such individuals no longer identify as Hispanic — much as Americans from, say, a mix of Slavic and Italian and Irish backgrounds may now mainly think of themselves as whites.

Distorted census data can result in inaccurate statements of “fact” and misleading projections for the future.

For instance, since 2013, the Census Bureau has declared a majority of babies born in the United States are nonwhite — by counting all infants with any mixed origins as nonwhite. But this is only true under a “one-drop” rule. National Center for Health Statistics data shows that more than 50 percent of U.S. babies have a non-Hispanic white mother.

And classifying those from mixed Hispanic and white families as “nonwhites” results in Census Bureau population projections of a majority-minority society by the mid-2040s. But such projections are grossly misleading because of the binary thinking that undergirds them and the misclassification of individuals who are partly white and partly minority.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...measures-race/

[dave8721]

My kids are 1/4 Hispanic (my wife is half-cuban) and they look way whiter than me. I guess the Italian genes missed them completely. Then again my half-cuban wife looks far whiter than me.

[mrnyc]

hmm, when i was a kid for cleveland it was beachwood, kind of a wealthier suburb, that was seen as an aspirational place for wealthier mixed couples, like black and white. then places like warrensville hts, oakwood, maple hts and a few others. i think halle berry is probably the most known local from that area for this. the poor mixed areas were on the westside, basically anything between tremont/ohio city and west park neighborhoods, and then further west, skipping a few whitey burbs, until you get to very mixed lorain.

the whole thing is silly though these days, when this kind of thing is much, much more common everywhere. and thankfully so.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Docere

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...measures-race/

No offense, but that op-ed is nonsense. Hispanic was added as a demographic option precisely because Hispanics of all skin tones were likely to self-identify as "white" when they were not given alternatives -- even those Hispanics that others would not identify as "white".

The real confusion is that racial classifications are inherently irrational. The entire (Anglo American) racial classification is predicated on the idea of the pure white ancestry, even though the definition of "white" expands just about every generation. The only thing that has been somewhat consistent, but not always*, is that one can only be "white" if they have only ancestry from whatever regions are included now, but if they have ancestry from other regions then they are not white. What a person looks like has never mattered; there is no shortage of people who identify as "black" but look "white".

*One famous exception was Virginia's racial laws that had to insert a clause to reconcile for aristocratic white Virginians who claimed Native American ancestry to still benefit from white exclusion laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial...ntas_exception

[JManc]

The problem with white/ Hispanic is that they are two different categories. One can be both. I'm Italian and and am often mistaken for Hispanic/ Latino. If an Italian grand parent moved to the US from South America, I would be Hispanic. Instead, they went directly from Italy to the US.

And white isn't really accurate since it traditionally does not include Middle Easterners and South Asians and is basically a 'catch all' for Non Hispanic white people of European decent.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

A bit higher for Asian Canadians. Notable difference between Filipinos and Koreans in the two countries.

Immigrants, Asian Americans

Indian 69%
Vietnamese 64%
Chinese 63%
Korean 62%
Filipino 52%
Japanese 27%

Immigrants, Asian Canadians

Korean 77%
Filipino 75%
Chinese 70%
Indian 66%
Vietnamese 58%
Japanese 31%

I'm guessing one source of the major difference in allowing those 2 groups earlier immigration is that the Philipines was under US control after the Spanish-American war, and also the US had more connections to Korea from the Korean war (e.g. war brides, adoptees). Whereas Canada didn't really have non-Chinese or non-Japanese East Asians in any large numbers post 60s and 70s multiculturalism policy.

I am actually surprised that for the US, Indian isn't that much more recent than the other (east) Asian groups, or more recent than Canada's -- you get the impression that so many more Indians in the US are from the post 90s and 2000s IT wave (whereas say, Chinese or even say Vietnamese from the refugee wave are earlier and have had more time to settle and give birth to kids domestically, but the %'s foreign born are all pretty similar in the 60s %).

Also, I thought Canada's was more native-born (Punjabi Sikhs) but then again, maybe Canada's recent high immigration rate is taking more from India (I don't know how the non-Indian South Asians like Sri Lankans now are in terms of % native born). I also thought South Asians would have more families with native born children by now.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by JManc

The problem with white/ Hispanic is that they are two different categories. One can be both. I'm Italian and and am often mistaken for Hispanic/ Latino. If an Italian grand parent moved to the US from South America, I would be Hispanic. Instead, they went directly from Italy to the US.

And white isn't really accurate since it traditionally does not include Middle Easterners and South Asians and is basically a 'catch all' for Non Hispanic white people of European decent.

Would it be preferable if instead of worrying about culture or ethnicity, one just went by direct ancestry -- e.g. If a survey asked as far as you can tell... do you have African, Asian, European, Native American heritage etc. (check all those that apply)? So that a mestizo Mexican or Central American would be "white and Native American" and a Puerto Rican might be of mixed European, African, and Native American (if they knew this info and was willing to check the box)?

So if all the Hispanics then got partitioned into whatever non-Hispanic group or ancestry they thought their "race" matched (e.g. the Italian Argentine gets put in with the Italian American, the Afro-Colombian gets put with Black or African Americans, and Jamaicans of the same ancestry)?

Would it be an improvement?

On the one hand, people don't want to ignore the Spanish-speaking (or at least influenced by a Spanish speaking nation's background) cultural element of it (you could also get this directly from asking languages known/spoken/mother tongue), but on the other hand feel that how people treat others based on racial appearance still is a factor in what the "race" question was meant to get at (i.e. someone will still judge a white person as white if they speak Spanish or a black person as black if they do too).

[Docere]

"Some other race", 2010 census

Guatemalan 43.4%
Salvadoran 42.9%
Honduran 37.7%
Dominican 37.2%
Ecuadorian 34.2%
Mexican 32.8%
Peruvian 30.5%
Bolivian 24.1%
Nicaraguan 23.1%
Puerto Rican 21.9%
Costa Rican 18.3%
Paraguayan 17.3%
Colombian 16.8%
Chilean 14.1%
Venezuelan 13.5%
Uruguayan 8.9%
Argentinean 8.1%
Cuban 5.2%

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-2010-census/

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Docere

For Toronto:

Multiple visible minorities 97,185

The term 'visible minority' is archaic and increasingly doesn't make sense in the Canadian context. It's framed from the point of view of a 'white' person and also assumes that 'white' people represent 50.1% of the population. The 'white' population nationally will likely fall below 50% eventually and framing things from a white person's POV is offensive considering Canada is a multi-cultural state.

In Brampton, south Asians represented 44.1% of the population vs. 26% being of European descent. When south Asians breach 50% will people of European descent be counted as visible minorities? They'll be visible minorities to the majority of the population along with all those other visible minorities (anyone who is visibly not South Asian). You can't call South Asians in Brampton visible minorities when they're the dominant group.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Would it be preferable if instead of worrying about culture or ethnicity, one just went by direct ancestry -- e.g. If a survey asked as far as you can tell... do you have African, Asian, European, Native American heritage etc. (check all those that apply)? So that a mestizo Mexican or Central American would be "white and Native American" and a Puerto Rican might be of mixed European, African, and Native American (if they knew this info and was willing to check the box)?

So if all the Hispanics then got partitioned into whatever non-Hispanic group or ancestry they thought their "race" matched (e.g. the Italian Argentine gets put in with the Italian American, the Afro-Colombian gets put with Black or African Americans, and Jamaicans of the same ancestry)?

Would it be an improvement?

On the one hand, people don't want to ignore the Spanish-speaking (or at least influenced by a Spanish speaking nation's background) cultural element of it (you could also get this directly from asking languages known/spoken/mother tongue), but on the other hand feel that how people treat others based on racial appearance still is a factor in what the "race" question was meant to get at (i.e. someone will still judge a white person as white if they speak Spanish or a black person as black if they do too).

I think we are obsessed with race/ identity and try so hard to shove square pegs into round holes. It's all arbitrary at this point.

[PFloyd]

The 'hispanic' term has been used erroneously from the beginning. It really should be used as a cultural classification and not racial.

People in North America often forget that 'Latin' America is also a 'melting pot' of peoples from all over the world, including the native indigenous population.

There are people with blonde hair, blue eyes with northern European ancestry in every country in Latin America, the same way there are people with African, and Asian ancestry. The proportions of European immigrants were obviously different than what arrived in the US and Canada. The levels of mixing with the natives was also much higher.

Even the 'Latin' term is misleading, as well. It was probably an attempt to differentiate Spanish/Portuguese speaking America, from English speaking America (or Anglo America).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The term 'visible minority' is archaic and increasingly doesn't make sense in the Canadian context. It's framed from the point of view of a 'white' person and also assumes that 'white' people represent 50.1% of the population. The 'white' population nationally will likely fall below 50% eventually and framing things from a white person's POV is offensive considering Canada is a multi-cultural state.

In Brampton, south Asians represented 44.1% of the population vs. 26% being of European descent. When south Asians breach 50% will people of European descent be counted as visible minorities? They'll be visible minorities to the majority of the population along with all those other visible minorities (anyone who is visibly not South Asian). You can't call South Asians in Brampton visible minorities when they're the dominant group.

Well, it's increasingly archaic in the US sense too, but stateside, you still hear "minority" (without the "visible" qualifier) used in that context all the time, such as "minority majority city" or "underrepresented minority". The US has already lots of cities and towns that are majority non-white, yet the definition of minority in "majority minority city" has not shifted.

Originally Posted by JManc

I think we are obsessed with race/ identity and try so hard to shove square pegs into round holes. It's all arbitrary at this point.

Originally Posted by PFloyd

The 'hispanic' term has been used erroneously from the beginning. It really should be used as a cultural classification and not racial.

People in North America often forget that 'Latin' America is also a 'melting pot' of peoples from all over the world, including the native indigenous population.

There are people with blonde hair, blue eyes with northern European ancestry in every country in Latin America, the same way there are people with African, and Asian ancestry. The proportions of European immigrants were obviously different than what arrived in the US and Canada. The levels of mixing with the natives was also much higher.

Even the 'Latin' term is misleading, as well. It was probably an attempt to differentiate Spanish/Portuguese speaking America, from English speaking America (or Anglo America).

What was the original goal of having a Hispanic classification (which would be based on culture over race) to begin with, from a government standpoint?

And how did conflating this cultural category with the racial one come about historically?

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What was the original goal of having a Hispanic classification (which would be based on culture over race) to begin with, from a government standpoint?

And how did conflating this cultural category with the racial one come about historically?

I am pretty sure the misnomer has it's origins in the US, and likely the US government picked it up and normalized, as a way to categorize people who were originally from countries in Spanish/Portuguese speaking America.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Well, it's increasingly archaic in the US sense too, but stateside, you still hear "minority" (without the "visible" qualifier) used in that context all the time, such as "minority majority city" or "underrepresented minority". The US has already lots of cities and towns that are majority non-white, yet the definition of minority in "majority minority city" has not shifted.

In Canada at least we're kinda stuck with the term visible minority as it's used by the government and its statistical agency so lots of numbers and other documents and policies refer to that.

At some point I assume they will change it and I bet they're even working on it right now.

So stay tuned.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

The 'hispanic' term has been used erroneously from the beginning. It really should be used as a cultural classification and not racial.

People in North America often forget that 'Latin' America is also a 'melting pot' of peoples from all over the world, including the native indigenous population.

There are people with blonde hair, blue eyes with northern European ancestry in every country in Latin America, the same way there are people with African, and Asian ancestry. The proportions of European immigrants were obviously different than what arrived in the US and Canada. The levels of mixing with the natives was also much higher.

Even the 'Latin' term is misleading, as well. It was probably an attempt to differentiate Spanish/Portuguese speaking America, from English speaking America (or Anglo America).

I hear a lot about blonde hair blue eyed people in Latin America. Maybe we should give it a rest. Even when people think of Greece, they don’t envision blond hair and blue eyes. Latin America is an overwhelmingly mixed geographical region. Of the minority that would be considered “white”, blond hair etc would be rare. IMO, if one might consider Turkish/Armenian people to be on the borderline of white, Latin America has about 80 million. Of that, probably 5% have blond hair and blue eyes. In the big picture, no one really cares if they exist there, because they are not wholly representative of the region in any way.

As far as the Hispanic category in the census. It’s pointless. Might as well have categories for every language group origin. The problem is with Hispanic people’s tendency to stretch whiteness a little to much, which would skew the results. They need to realize, there’s nothing wrong with being part black or part native, even if you could pass otherwise by the slimmest margins.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by liat91

I hear a lot about blonde hair blue eyed people in Latin America. Maybe we should give it a rest. Even when people think of Greece, they don’t envision blond hair and blue eyes. Latin America is an overwhelmingly mixed geographical region. Of the minority that would be considered “white”, blond hair etc would be rare. IMO, if one might consider Turkish/Armenian people to be on the borderline of white, Latin America has about 80 million. Of that, probably 5% have blond hair and blue eyes. In the big picture, no one really cares if they exist there, because they are not wholly representative of the region in any way.

As far as the Hispanic category in the census. It’s pointless. Might as well have categories for every language group origin. The problem is with Hispanic people’s tendency to stretch whiteness a little to much, which would skew the results. They need to realize, there’s nothing wrong with being part black or part native, even if you could pass otherwise by the slimmest margins.

Which one is Elizabeth Warren?

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by liat91

I hear a lot about blonde hair blue eyed people in Latin America. Maybe we should give it a rest. Even when people think of Greece, they don’t envision blond hair and blue eyes. Latin America is an overwhelmingly mixed geographical region. Of the minority that would be considered “white”, blond hair etc would be rare. IMO, if one might consider Turkish/Armenian people to be on the borderline of white, Latin America has about 80 million. Of that, probably 5% have blond hair and blue eyes. In the big picture, no one really cares if they exist there, because they are not wholly representative of the region in any way.

As far as the Hispanic category in the census. It’s pointless. Might as well have categories for every language group origin. The problem is with Hispanic people’s tendency to stretch whiteness a little to much, which would skew the results. They need to realize, there’s nothing wrong with being part black or part native, even if you could pass otherwise by the slimmest margins.

Well, in general one doesn't have to be 'blond, blue eyed' to be considered white - most North Americans from European descend would not even qualify then. I guess that term is loosely used to describe 'white', as opposed to 'mixed white'.

Regardless of the nuances or inaccuracies of that term, yes, in Latin America there was far more mixing than in North America. I suspect one of the reasons was that in the 1500's, the 'conquistadors' from the Iberian peninsula were men who came alone. While in North America, mass immigration from Europe occured centuries later consisting of men and women, families with children, etc.

In addition, in Latin America there were far more indigenous people than in North America. For instance, the Inca empire in South America was thought to have had at its peak 12 million people. Those were highly sophisticated cultures, that have left a huge architectural and historical legacy. By comparison, the mostly nomadic indigenous tribes in North America did not have the same 'presence' in population and cultural legacy. Mixing with Europeans was more of a sporadic than a common occurrence.

You likely don't know it, but Latin American societies are also very segregated, racially and economically. The part of the population with the highest level of European ancestry are always the wealthy elite. The only exception is probably Argentina, which was after the US and Canada the country in the Americas that received the largest levels of European immigration. So there you would find mostly 'whites' in all levels of society. Take a trip to Buenos Aires - you would think you have landed somewhere in Europe.

So, just because your day-to-day contact in the US is with the poorer immigrants (or their descendants) from Latin America, doesn't mean that is the whole picture. It just shows you that the lack of knowledge and a global view (including international travel) gives you a very limited understanding of reality.