# Hispanic



## Emil

In some forms that i've had to fill in, I found that where you have to choose your race, "hispanic" is one of the choices. I know latin american people is called so in USA, but is that a race? "Hispanic" comes from Spain, isn't spanish people caucacian? And what about me? My blood is all german and italian, then what should i choose? Any thoughts?


----------



## VenusEnvy

Look here  for a discussion on race.
Here's a discussion  on Hispanic vs. Latino.
A discussion  about the term Hispanic.



			
				Emil said:
			
		

> And what about me? My blood is all german and italian, then what should i choose? Any thoughts?


Well, here, you're talking about ethnicity, which is different from race....


----------



## Outsider

Emil said:
			
		

> In some forms that i've had to fill in, I found that where you have to choose your race, "hispanic" is one of the choices. I know latin american people is called so in USA, but is that a race?


Following the second link that VenusEnvy posted, I found a link to this page on the U.S. Bureau of the Census' website, according to which "Hispanic" is not a race.


----------



## Emil

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Well, here, you're talking about ethnicity, which is different from race....


 
Yeah, just wanted to point out that this term shouldn't be used as a race. Even as ethnic or geografic it's annoying to be labeled: when you ask some americans where are they from they'd answer CA, LA or whatever and you're supposed to know where is that; but when it comes to tell where are you from they'd say South America, like it's all the same...


----------



## Jonegy

Emil said:
			
		

> In some forms that i've had to fill in, I found that where you have to choose your race, "hispanic" is one of the choices. I know latin american people is called so in USA, but is that a race? "Hispanic" comes from Spain, isn't spanish people caucacian? And what about me? My blood is all german and italian, then what should i choose? Any thoughts?


 
For some years now different forms and questionnaires in the UK have had this creeping curiosity of ethnicity and race, and sometimes exccedingly so. If I can remember correctly, just under "Asian" they wanted to know whether "Indian", "Pakistani" or "African" whcih would be a bit confusing for those from the Caribbean.

If there is a "Does not wish to say" box, I mark that. If not, I write "Please Advise the Relevance".


----------



## psychosol

Emil said:
			
		

> In some forms that i've had to fill in, I found that where you have to choose your race, "hispanic" is one of the choices. I know latin american people is called so in USA, but is that a race? "Hispanic" comes from Spain, isn't spanish people caucacian? And what about me? My blood is all german and italian, then what should i choose? Any thoughts?


 
Well even though i'm new to this forums, i live in houston and when ever i went to get my drivers license, i mark the hispanic choice but when i went to the desk clerk, she looked at me, she cross the hispanic option and mark the white option, until rigth now i dont know why.


----------



## Everness

psychosol said:
			
		

> Well even though i'm new to this forums, i live in houston and when ever i went to get my drivers license, i mark the hispanic choice but when i went to desk clerk, she looked at me, she cross the hispanic option and mark the white option, until rigth now i dont know why.



Maybe she thinks she's doing you a favor. "Hey dude, you are as white as milk. You aren't a brownie. Think clearly. You are one of us."


----------



## SweetMommaSue

Hello Foreros,
 
People are so preoccupied with terms of "race" and "ethnicity" and the like.  My husband will be pleased when I show him the statements of the AAA and AAPA that there is only one race: homo sapiens. He has always said that he answers "human".  I guess it is as big or as small a deal as one makes of it. For me, I absolutely refuse to check any box on the forms, mostly because our antiquated county BOE system lacks a box for "other".My children are of multiple cultural backgrounds. So, I tell the administrators that there is no applicable answer. Usually, in order to allay or distract from any ill feelings, I get into a discussion of some sort, and always manage to leave the premises or hang-up the phone on good terms, but without having ever answered the "evil question". As I am homeschooling them this year, I haven´t had to deal with it. However, next year and the following ones will be another story. <sigh> *I just wish there weren't so many hard feelings surrounding the issue. But after reading the articles by the AAA and AAPA regarding the origins of "race" terminology, it's no wonder.* *I am very glad to see that the goal of the anthropological societies is to eliminate the term of "race" for Census 2010. We have such a long way to go! But let us not lose hope or momentum! Re-educating our politicians and government machines may be a monumental task, but as long as we continue to be vigilant, we shall accomplish it!*

Smiles,
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Sweet Momma Sue 
(forever optimistic)


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi SMS,

I also refuse to answer racial classification questions.  If it's on a phone call, such as a so-called 'in-depth' questionnaire with the Bureau of the Census, I said "human" to every question about race.  The interviewer got provoked with me.  I asked for a scientific definition of each racial category, and then said, "that doesn't fit".  Eventually she gave up and accepted 'human'.  

When she asked if any members of my household were "Spanish-speaking", I said yes, my dog is.  That was a true statement, but it took lots of explaining.  He doesn't speak it very well, but he does respond to lots of Spanish words.  His English comprehension is fair at best.


----------



## Emil

In Spanish it won't be correct to claim that "human" or "homo sapiens" is a race, because raza means both "race" and "breed", and homo sapiens is a species, inside the order of primates and the family(?) of hominids.

And about your dog, i think "spanish-speaking" implies that someone speaks, not only understand; but don't know what's the case of a deaf person.

.


----------



## Go army5

caucacion is a word that means "white" people for example someone might say that boy is "black" (african-american).Sometimes I here people call the mexicans hispanics or latino people because most of them are from Mexico.


----------



## Jonegy

Go army5 said:
			
		

> caucacion is a word that means "white" people for example someone might say that boy is "black" (african-american).Sometimes I here people call the mexicans hispanics or latino people because most of them are from Mexico.


 
Study - stludy - study and eventually -  enlightenment  

Negroid  =  of or related to the original species (until someone can prove different) that originated in Africa.  [Latin : negroid = black]

Caucasoid (caucasian)  =  of or related to the species traced back to the Caucasus region (Central Europe) which includes Europe, Arabia (roughly the 'middle east') and India.

Mongoloid  =  of or related to the species traced back to the area of Mongolia which includes Oriental, Eskimo and Amerindian.

I know that some of this is anthopological theory but until someone comes up with something better - I presume it will remain in the dictionaries.

p.s. Never go to bed at night saying you have not learnt something that day   
p.s.s. The day you stop learning is the day you die


----------



## Outsider

Jonegy said:
			
		

> I know that some of this is anthopological theory but until someone comes up with something better - I presume it will remain in the dictionaries.


_Very_ outdated anthropological theory, Jonegy. See the links in this post.


----------



## Jonegy

Outsider said:
			
		

> _Very_ outdated anthropological theory, Jonegy. See the links in this post.


 
Ola Outsider

I wasn't interested so much about the theory as by the archeology.  A 2 or 3 thousand year old skeleton can be traced to one of the three cases I have given.  However, in the case of the Caucasian ( as far as I understand it) a northern european would be indistinguishable from an arab or indian.

From this I do not intend to infer that any one is better or worse than the other but that the human frame changed presumably to accomodate differing circumstances.

The main reason of my post was to show our young friend that caucasion did not just mean "white european" but also included the middle east and india.

My personal view ??    "Viva as diferencias"


----------



## pajarita

Jonegy said:
			
		

> Ola Outsider
> 
> I wasn't interested so much about the theory as by the archeology. A 2 or 3 thousand year old skeleton can be traced to one of the three cases I have given. However, in the case of the Caucasian ( as far as I understand it) a northern european would be indistinguishable from an arab or indian.


 
Ola Jonegy.  Point taken, though I feel compelled to note that, while the world of just 2 or 3 thousand years ago was not quite the "global community" that we know today, there was nonetheless considerable seasoning of the genetic stew going on even then.  Egyptians, Romans, Kwakwaka'wakw and countless others warred, conquered, and took slaves; traded, married and took concubines.  Populations were hardly more "pure" then than they are today.  Human groups have been interacting for a long, long time.

However, even _living_ populations can be assessed regarding their relatedness to a particular regional population of the ancient past through gene frequencies, chromosomes, blood types.  Depending on the antiquity and unique taphonomic experience of unearthed human remains, it may or may not be possible to extract DNA and anthropologists sometimes rely on the much less precise (because it is far more subjective) practice of cranio-facial reconstruction, whereby muscle-connector points, relative distances to and from landmarks and statistics are used to compare remains to known "control" groups.

As the AAA webpage that Outsider provided states, our similarities far outnumber our differences.
 Pajarita


----------



## Jonegy

pajarita said:
			
		

> our similarities far outnumber our differences.
> Pajarita


 
Just taken a second look at my post and didn't realise how ambiguous "Viva as diferencias" was.  I inteded it in the sense that "opposites attract". (My wife was morena/castanhos, myself Light brown/ blue and the kids are a good mixture of each)

A plate of "stew" beats a plate of boiled potatoes anyday.


----------



## Outsider

Jonegy said:
			
		

> Ola Outsider
> 
> I wasn't interested so much about the theory as by the archeology.  A 2 or 3 thousand year old skeleton can be traced to one of the three cases I have given.  However, in the case of the Caucasian ( as far as I understand it) a northern european would be indistinguishable from an arab or indian.


Hello again, Jonegy.

The impression I get from what I've read about this (I'm not an expert) is that the identification of race through skeleton alone isn't nearly as accurate as we have been led to believe. In general, our media are still way behind science in this issue. Take a look at this page in PBS's documentary website.



			
				Jonegy said:
			
		

> From this I do not intend to infer that any one is better or worse than the other but that the human frame changed presumably to accomodate differing circumstances.
> 
> The main reason of my post was to show our young friend that caucasion did not just mean "white european" but also included the middle east and india.


Being a Southern European, I am sympathetic to that point of view. However, historically, there _have_ been times and places where Middle Easterners, Indians and even Southern Europeans were not considered white, or were regarded as inferior types of white. Deep down, prejudiced people still seem to think that way.



			
				Jonegy said:
			
		

> My personal view ??    "Viva as diferencias"


Here, here.


----------



## pajarita

Jonegy said:
			
		

> A plate of "stew" beats a plate of boiled potatoes anyday.


 
No doubt!


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Hail me the Great Ceasar!
My dear subjects....
I have a little anecdote to tell you to make you understand just a little how these subtle and not so subtle statements of race can affect a person. A subject of mine born in the Central American country of Nicaragua, came to the USA at the age of 8. The story begins when his father took him to school to have him registered so he could attend. When he came upon the forms that he had to fill for his son, he followed what the passport said: name, date of birth... but when he came to ''skin color'' he couldn't find the right boxes to check. So he checked white, because in Nicaragua apparently people use skin color (not ''race'') as an identifying characteristic of a person. In other words, you could be ''black'' in the USA but ''moreno'' or ''trigueño'' in Nicaragua or other countries. And likewise, you would be ''white'' in the USA but ''moreno'' or ''blanco'' depending on the skin tone you had on the day you registered. 

But then comes the point of the story, the father turned his papers in, the woman at the desk who happened to be black (negroid or whatever you want to call her) called him over after checking the papers and said, ''Papi, you no ser blanco, you ser hispanico''. And so, the boy heard this and protested and stated he was white, because his passport said so.

In my travels and by living in other countries, have I never experienced ''racism'' as much as I have in the USA. Whether it be in subtle or obvious terms, racism is alive and kicking. Sadly, people suffer as a result. In my most benevolent will, I would wish for the courts to ban the use of ''race'' and for people to stop labeling themselves as this is further cause for separation.

Your emperor *Augustus-Caesar* has said this.


----------



## asm

Ave Cesar:

Allow me express my humble opinion on the topic. I have experienced more racism in Mexico than the one I have seen in the US. Although I do not negate that racism is an issue in this country, the "indio" in Mexico is denigrated in a way that cannot happen in the US. If "colored" people sometimes cannot open all doors in America, in my beloved Mexico, there are people who are not allowed to be close to the doors, not even to "try".
We do not consider ourselves to be racist because there are no black people in the country. However, indians are oppressed. If you do not trust me, ask Sub Comandante Marcos*i* 

That does not forgives racism elsewere; I must recognize we should not "compete" in this regard.


Su subdito, siempre fiel ASMum



			
				Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> Hail me the Great Ceasar!
> My dear subjects....
> I have a little anecdote to tell you to make you understand just a little how these subtle and not so subtle statements of race can affect a person. A subject of mine born in the Central American country of Nicaragua, came to the USA at the age of 8. The story begins when his father took him to school to have him registered so he could attend. When he came upon the forms that he had to fill for his son, he followed what the passport said: name, date of birth... but when he came to ''skin color'' he couldn't find the right boxes to check. So he checked white, because in Nicaragua apparently people use skin color (not ''race'') as an identifying characteristic of a person. In other words, you could be ''black'' in the USA but ''moreno'' or ''trigueño'' in Nicaragua or other countries. And likewise, you would be ''white'' in the USA but ''moreno'' or ''blanco'' depending on the skin tone you had on the day you registered.
> 
> But then comes the point of the story, the father turned his papers in, the woman at the desk who happened to be black (negroid or whatever you want to call her) called him over after checking the papers and said, ''Papi, you no ser blanco, you ser hispanico''. And so, the boy heard this and protested and stated he was white, because his passport said so.
> 
> In my travels and by living in other countries, have I never experienced ''racism'' as much as I have in the USA. Whether it be in subtle or obvious terms, racism is alive and kicking. Sadly, people suffer as a result. In my most benevolent will, I would wish for the courts to ban the use of ''race'' and for people to stop labeling themselves as this is further cause for separation.
> 
> Your emperor *Augustus-Caesar* has said this.


----------



## Augusto-Cesar

Salve! 

Just to add more fuel to the fire! 
The other day I received the "Hispanic" credit card from VISA! 
It was a credit card offer from CHASE Bank in New York, apparently because I qualified because my last name (which btw is not very typically Spanish) seemed ''Latin'' to their computers. I returned it and demanded to have the "brown eye" credit card for people proud of their "brown eye" heritage... along the way I added the sarcastic comment that if they wanted me to have a "Hispanic" credit card, they should also have the choice of gay, black, white, asian, singles, divorcee, and all the other adjectives you could think of for a credit card. It was just too much! And I did actually get an apology from their marketing department, but a credit card is just a credit card, no matter what color you put on the actual card, you end up in debt just the same.

Your emperor,

*Augustus-Caesar
*


----------



## Jonegy

Augusto-Cesar said:
			
		

> Salve!
> 
> Just to add more fuel to the fire!
> The other day I received the "Hispanic" credit card from VISA!
> It was a credit card offer from CHASE Bank in New York, apparently because I qualified because my last name (which btw is not very typically Spanish) seemed ''Latin'' to their computers. I returned it and demanded to have the "brown eye" credit card for people proud of their "brown eye" heritage... along the way I added the sarcastic comment that if they wanted me to have a "Hispanic" credit card, they should also have the choice of gay, black, white, asian, singles, divorcee, and all the other adjectives you could think of for a credit card. It was just too much! And I did actually get an apology from their marketing department, but a credit card is just a credit card, no matter what color you put on the actual card, you end up in debt just the same.
> 
> Your emperor,
> 
> *Augustus-Caesar*


 
My Caesar  -  It is not often I agree with those that rule  --  but if you were a democracy  --  you'd have my vote


----------



## oscarlami

I absolutely agree with the post by Cuchuflete.
According to Biology race is defined as:

a.	An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. 

b.	A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. 

I do not think that you can find any isolated population of human that only interbreed among themselves, except maybe for some lost tribes in the rainforest.


So, scientifically speaking, sod it! There are not human races. There is only one race, human.

I also find upsetting the use of "Caucasian" and "African-american" as politically correct terms. I find them profoundly racist. 

The fact that “your skin is white” does not imply “you are white”. These bloody racists are trying to judge us for just one genetic characteristics among millions. It’s absolutely outrageous. 

You wouldn’t classify cars attending only to their colour, would you? It doesn’t matter whether it’s a Ferrari or a Lada, the important thing is that it must be white. Or black. Or pink. Sorry, but it doesn’t make any frigging sense.

And if it doesn’t work for simple man-made machines, how can they think it would work for humans? Again, sod them.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Look here for a discussion on race.
> Here's a discussion on Hispanic vs. Latino.
> A discussion about the term Hispanic.
> 
> 
> Well, here, you're talking about ethnicity, which is different from race....


.

  Good afternoon Venus:
I don´t think that a person that is getting into your USA, and speaks Spanish , you can name:Hispanic.
  Please I like to tell me your opinion about this question, not to send me to other threads.Sorry.
  I think people, in that situation, could be blondie, green eyed and speak perfectly English?. In that case, what´s the difference from you?.
  Thanks for reading my kind post.

Cheers.


----------



## Outsider

Hi, *Jesús*. If you look at the first link that VenusEnvy posted, you will see that she herself has asked questions about these shifty concepts. Many people already gave their opinions in those threads.


----------



## JESUS MARIA

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hi, *Jesús*. If you look at the first link that VenusEnvy posted, you will see that she herself has asked questions about these shifty concepts. Many people already gave their opinions in those threads.


.

  I agree with you. I was opening this thread newly,to looking for more opinions about this.
  You tell your opinion frankly, and me too.I think it could be necessary to give more opinions.

 Thanks to you.
Regards.


----------



## Outsider

JESUS MARIA said:
			
		

> I don´t think that a person that is getting into your USA, and speaks Spanish , you can name:Hispanic.
> Please I like to tell me your opinion about this question, not to send me to other threads.Sorry.
> I think people, in that situation, could be blondie, green eyed and speak perfectly English?. In that case, what´s the difference from you?


I will try to put down my thoughts on this. Although it's a foreign issue to me, too, I've read and thought a little about it...

Many posters in this thread have expressed their disdain at the 'racial/ethnic' categories in the U.S. Census, and I sympathize a lot with their point of view. But I guess the other side of the coin is that these statistics allow government officials and scientists to study how the situation of minorities has been evolving in the country. Are immigrants being well integrated into society? How does their financial situation compare to that of native citizens and other minorities? Etc., etc. I think this can be useful information for policymakers and minority/immigrant rights activists.

Having said this, they could get rid of that 'race/ethnicity' category, and just ask the nationality of origin. Then they could group nationalities by language or according to geography, or whatever. On the other hand, that wouldn't work for African-Americans... It's complicated! But I don't think the intentions behind the questions are necessarily bad.


----------



## asm

Katrina helped us realize that minorities  are not a priority for governments.(I consider poverty to be more relevant than race in general, but the relationship between socioeconomic status and race is very strong).

I'd support your idea if it had been helpful in any way, but all statistics, and programs, and ... didn't help at all.



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> I will try to put down my thoughts on this. Although it's a foreign issue to me, too, I've read and thought a little about it...
> 
> Many posters in this thread have expressed their disdain at the 'racial/ethnic' categories in the U.S. Census, and I sympathize a lot with their point of view. But I guess the other side of the coin is that these statistics allow government officials and scientists to study how the situation of minorities has been evolving in the country. Are immigrants being well integrated into society? How does their financial situation compare to that of native citizens and other minorities? Etc., etc. I think this can be useful information for policymakers and minority/immigrant rights activists.
> 
> Having said this, they could get rid of that 'race/ethnicity' category, and just ask the nationality of origin. Then they could group nationalities by language or according to geography, or whatever. On the other hand, that wouldn't work for African-Americans... It's complicated! But I don't think the intentions behind the questions are necessarily bad.


----------



## mandarina_82

hello! i'll give my opinion,based in my experience. I lived in USA for 1 year and i will never come back there. i'm not talking about individuals, i found right and wrong people there,like everywhere.The one i didn't like was the country's mentality. In my opinnion it was narrow-minded (i don't expect to disturb no one)

I'm spanish (from spain) and when i got my driver's licence the guy in the counter checked the white box but when i got 1 ticket, the kind policeman checked the box hispanic.
i consider myself white cause i'm european. lots of people in latin america are white and spanish speakers too. 
there(in us) i heard that the term "hispanic" applies to people who speak spanish, it would be right but in some papers sometimes u have to fill in us it excludes "white", it is other box,in some u can check the box "white/hispanic" those are the least.
i've been in several countries, in some i lived in and i only found this of "labeling people" in USA.

two rethorical questions i pose here: 

why in american english do often people say "spanish" to refer to mexican or other south american countries ? Spanish means from Spain.

and why in english is the term "american" used only to refer to Usa people? Aren't the rest of countries of America, the continent, less americans?


----------



## asm

I've been here for 4 years and I have treated in another way; I recognize that I sometimes have to fill those questionnaires with race/ethnicity, and I still do not know what to put. I am Mexican, but as white as any other “white” in the USA (not blue-eye-blond, etc. but plain white). I do not like the whole thing about classification, and I do not understand their obsession on this matter. However, I am the one who came from abroad and I am the first to try to understand the process. 

Although I am not supporting this issue, I respect their urge to know about their past and to know about their “heritage”. Since “America” is a new civilization of +/- 300 hundred years, it needs to trace its past beyond this time. I recognize it is annoying even for many Americans, but that is not that bad. There are other countries/cultures that differentiate more among their groups. 

 

In regard to your first question, I have never been called “Spanish”. People know I talk and teach Spanish, but they also know that I am Mexican. We consider ourselves to speak Spanish and to belong to “el mundo del espanol”

 

IN regard to your second question, you got me. I think that the USA made a minor technical mistake with their name that became a huge cultural issue. We think the USA has “stolen” our continental name, for some this is not an issue, for others, it is something unforgivable and unforgettable. I belong to the group who think America is the continent and not the country, but I came to realize that they have no option to change it. 

The founding fathers gave birth to a new country with no name and decided to use a “neutral” and a “unifier” name. However, they used a generic one, big mistake! This country has many good things and many bad things, I think the name, and the issue about the continent belongs to the second group. However, it is so insignificant that we shouldn’t worry about it. There are many other worse things and there are many other goods things that equilibrate the balance that the name is now a third grade issue.

 

(I am not sure how many other countries have a generic name, (The United Kingdom, Austria, and South Africa are the only ones that come into my (very short) memory).

 

 



			
				mandarina_82 said:
			
		

> two rethorical questions i pose here:
> 
> why in american english do often people say "spanish" to refer to mexican or other south american countries ? Spanish means from Spain.
> 
> and why in english is the term "american" used only to refer to Usa people? Aren't the rest of countries of America, the continent, less americans?


----------



## mandarina_82

on my mind the case of "united kingdom" isn't the same 
"united kingdom" is more a term wich includes the differentiated nations of england,wales, schottland and north ireland.


----------



## asm

But it is a generic name. I do not think that America vs. USA and UK vs england, wales, etc. are the same thing. I just said that the founding fathers of the USA used a generic name. There are other generic names, but just a few, and they do not bother anyone (If I found my own kingdom, I will name it "The United Kindgom")





			
				mandarina_82 said:
			
		

> on my mind the case of "united kingdom" isn't the same
> "united kingdom" is more a term wich includes the differentiated nations of england,wales, schottland and north ireland.


----------



## foxfirebrand

asm said:
			
		

> I just said that the founding fathers of the USA used a generic name. There are other generic names, but just a few, and they do not bother anyone...


 
Present-day Tunisia was once the home territory of the great Carthaginian empire, in its day the only "superpower" in the known world.  It was the center of a country that included areas now called Greece, Sicily and Spain.  Now Tunisia is a chunk of the former _Empire Maritime_ of France, named in reference to its capital city.

Why is the case of Tunisia relevant to this discussion?  Because when it was a chunk of the _Imperium Romanum_ (after Carthage was destroyed, before _la France_ even existed) it was a province named Africa.

What did any of it matter?


----------



## Outsider

asm said:
			
		

> (I am not sure how many other countries have a generic name, (The United Kingdom, Austria, and South Africa are the only ones that come into my (very short) memory).


The full name of the U.K. is "United Kingdom *of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*." This seems fairly accurate.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Why is the case of Tunisia relevant to this discussion?  Because when it was a chunk of the _Imperium Romanum_ (after Carthage was destroyed, before _la France_ even existed) it was a province named Africa.
> 
> What did any of it matter?


The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa. That _was_ Africa, as far as they knew. Anyway, there's a difference between an independent nation and a province. When people spoke of the Roman Empire they said "Roman Empire", "Romania", or "Rome"; not "Africa", or "Europe", or "Asia"; when they spoke of the Romans, they did not say "Africans", or "Europeans", or "Asians".


----------



## foxfirebrand

Outsider said:
			
		

> The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa. That _was_ Africa, as far as they knew. Anyway, there's a difference between an independent nation and a province. When people spoke of the Roman Empire they said "Roman Empire", "Romania", or "Rome"; not "Africa", or "Europe", or "Asia"; when they spoke of the Romans, they did not say "Africans", or "Europeans", or "Asians".


 
Every part of this is debatable as untrue. I wouldn't know where to begin, in fact, and I'd invite you to fact-check everything, phrase by phrase and in places word by word. 

And none of it addresses my point-- names are a somewhat arbitrary convention. Does this include "official" names? That question is a topic I'd call _ad rem._ Assertions about millions of people 2000 years ago, whose mores and language practices can't even opaquely be guestimated at, is not. It's pure supposition and, if you're interested remotely in feedback, it's also subjective to the point of being quirky. Why do you imagine you know what went on 2000 years ago? People with multiple doctorates all agree on one thing-- our knowledge of how people lived back then is as a grain of sand on the beach.

Elsewhere I see someone wondering why Spanish-speaking people are called Hispanic when they're not from Spain. Well, Americans of the English-speaking variety aren't English either. Am I supposed to add unneccessary conflict to my life by getting my bowels in an uproar over being called an _Anglo_ by people who want to categorize people like me-- from _their_ perspective? That perspective is honestly come by! They can call me Jimmy-Crack-Corn for all I care, it's bad enough that the Brits call us _Yanks._  Another practice I think I can comfortably live with.

My point is that people cultivate unnecessary grievances, for reasons I consider emotionally unhealthy. Governments control people by pitting them against each other, so such strife is abetted, in a covert and passive-aggresive way by societal institutions peopled by jobholders whose paychecks depend on shuffling papers and dithering with concepts. Those Councils of the Learned who spin out the dicta of Political Correctitude are exactly like the Canonical Scholasticists of Medieval times, who squabbled about angels dancing on the head of a pin-- and went to war over what to call the Holy Roman Empire.

There's a country name that has been famously fact-checked, word for word.  The good news is that "neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire" is not the motto of an aggrieved group of politically-exercised protesters, wielding Uzis and calling for heads to roll-- it's a *joke.*

Brasil is called the United States-- if Brasilians started referring to their country as the U.S., and themselves as Americans, I would understand what they meant, leave the dog lie, and worry about things it befits a man with real down-to-earth problems to worry about. This whole quibble is a parlor game it pleases some to inflate into a _cause célèbre._ To do so requires institutionalized misunderstanding, and leads to a culture of grievance and perceived victimization that benefits only the tyranny of Globalist Consumerism by dividing people who should be uniting in their own self-interest as members of the _human race._ To which both Anglos and Hispanics need apply.

I said "befits a man" because I am one, and it applies.  Of course I mean _person._


----------



## pajarita

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Assertions about millions of people 2000 years ago, whose mores and language practices can't even opaquely be guestimated at, is not. . . . Why do you imagine you know what went on 2000 years ago? People with multiple doctorates all agree on one thing-- our knowledge of how people lived back then is as a grain of sand on the beach.


 
I certainly don't mean to detract from your retort, foxfirebrand, nor to indicate leanings of any kind in what I find to be a very interesting debate, but must point out that we actually do know quite a bit about the world of 2000 years ago. Though me may never find so fine a tool with which to grasp the subtle nuances of past cultures, such as the way people _perceived_ the world around them (which I believe was your point), the archaeological record provides considerable insights into both the mundane and the majestic, from Baja to Bali and many places in between.
--Pajarita


----------



## foxfirebrand

pajarita said:
			
		

> I certainly don't mean to detract from your retort, foxfirebrand, nor to indicate leanings of any kind in what I find to be a very interesting debate, but must point out that we actually do know quite a bit about the world of 2000 years ago. Though me may never find so fine a tool with which to grasp the subtle nuances of past cultures, such as the way people _perceived_ the world around them (which I believe was your point), the archaeological record provides considerable insights into both the mundane and the majestic, from Baja to Bali and many places in between.
> --Pajarita


 
Yes, and people are learning more every day.  DNA alone is revolutionizing our knowledge about early historic and prehistoric times.

But how does that help us find out how 999 out of 1000 people in, say Corinth, in, say, 200 BC pronounced words, conjugated (or didn't) their verb tenses and moods, referred to other peoples in other lands, sang their children to sleep at night, joked and argued in the streets and their places of recreation-- in short, anything to do with *language and terminology?*

What about those 999?  The thousandth one might've had some literacy, but only one in ten thousand of that literate thousandth left so much as a scrap of written word behind.  And that's the one grain of sand I was talking about, on the sandy horizons of our ignorance.

Did they know about the Carthaginians who nominally ruled, or exacted tribute out of, their own city?  Did they call them by that name, or did they call them Punic-- or something we've never heard of?

And here we have people holding forth about their social mores, their attitudes, and whatever else-- all of it drawn from the received terminology of modern socio/political suppositions, and recently modern at that.

We don't even know what to make of the scraps of writing that _were_ left behind.  Did "Classical Latin" even exist in a spoken form?  A "Vulgate" is posited, but nothing is written in it.  Did they pronounce the "s" on Roman words ending in _-us?_  If not, did they pronounce the remaining vowel like "u," or like "o?"  We don't even know that much.  And no amount of moving soil with toothbrushes, a grain at a time, is going to bring that information back.  

I sometimes think we know more about other animals than we do about our own ancestors, partly by digging and partly by studying them-- which we arguably do more objectively than we study ourselves.  Of course they haven't changed as much.  But for all we know, neither have we.


----------



## pajarita

I don't know whether your response was intended for me or whether it was more of a general reinforcement of your earlier points, but it seems to me that we agree: despite the archaeological community's commitment to the understanding of cultures past, there are some things we can never know. Unless, of course, Einstein was really on to something with that whole time travel thing. . .




			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I sometimes think we know more about other animals than we do about our own ancestors, partly by digging and partly by studying them-- *which we arguably do more objectively than we study ourselves*.


 
Point very well taken. That problem, I'm afraid, is a symptom of our very humanity. A tad ironic, no?


----------



## Outsider

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa. That was Africa, as far as they knew. Anyway, there's a difference between an independent nation and a province. When people spoke of the Roman Empire they said "Roman Empire", "Romania", or "Rome"; not "Africa", or "Europe", or "Asia"; when they spoke of the Romans, they did not say "Africans", or "Europeans", or "Asians".
> 
> 
> 
> Every part of this is debatable as untrue. I wouldn't know where to begin, in fact, and I'd invite you to fact-check everything, phrase by phrase and in places word by word.
Click to expand...

So, the Romans _were_ known as "Europeans", "Africans" or "Asians" in their time?! You'll excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> And none of it addresses my point-- names are a somewhat arbitrary convention.


It looks like you expect from others a level of tolerance which you are not willing to grant them.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Does this include "official" names? That question is a topic I'd call _ad rem._ Assertions about millions of people 2000 years ago, whose mores and language practices can't even opaquely be guestimated at, is not. It's pure supposition and, if you're interested remotely in feedback, it's also subjective to the point of being quirky. Why do you imagine you know what went on 2000 years ago? People with multiple doctorates all agree on one thing-- our knowledge of how people lived back then is as a grain of sand on the beach.


And that is an argument from ignorance. Show me the evidence.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Elsewhere I see someone wondering why Spanish-speaking people are called Hispanic when they're not from Spain. Well, Americans of the English-speaking variety aren't English either.


...And indeed no one calls them 'English'. Thank you for proving our point.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Brasil is called the United States


No, that's a gross misrepresentation. The full name is 'United States *of Brazil*'. _They_ didn't name themselves after a continent they didn't own.


----------



## foxfirebrand

I'll deal with the tip of the iceberg, but I don't have the stamina to drain the whole swamp.  The first few steps should show a pattern that can be extrapolated.  Here's your quote:



> _The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa. That was Africa, as far as they knew. Anyway, there's a difference between an independent nation and a province. When people spoke of the Roman Empire they said "Roman Empire", "Romania", or "Rome"; not "Africa", or "Europe", or "Asia"; when they spoke of the Romans, they did not say "Africans", or "Europeans", or "Asians"._


 :

The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa.

Uhh... I'll do this off the top of my head, but why don't you look at a map and find Britain, Gaul, Germania, Hibernia, Iberia, Lusitania, Helvetia, Dacia, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Thrace, Graecia, Asia Minor-- must I go on?  The Romans knew about everything Alexander conquered, in to the Indus Valley and beyond.  They traded with merchants who brought back information from the Great Silk Route-- Marco Polo's discovery, or fiction as the case may be, was a _rediscovery._  You may be able to locate the land of the Scythians, the Parthians, the Judeans, the Assyrians and the Persians.  I suppose you believe the Romans, who ruled Egypt from the 1st century BC, knew nothing of the vast Egyptian settlements beyond the second and third cataracts of the Nile, knew nothing of the Horn of Africa (Somalia) and the incense trade, or the Ethiopians whose images we see on wall paintings all the way up to Alexandria.  Roman shipping had ventured out through the Pillars of Hercules-- without which the settling of Portugal and the Atlantic coast of Gaul would've been pretty difficult.  They also circumnavigated the Black sea and traded with peoples who settled its shores and bore tales of other nations far inland.

If I hit Google for a map, I could probably fill in gaps and come up with as many omitted realms as I included.  But I have a good visual memory and have only to imagine that billboard-sized map that's set up in the _Foro Romano,_ depicting the fullest extent of Rome during the Emperor Trajan's rule in the early 2nd century.  That was a bout the time they were building walls to keep the Picts and Gaels from moving south-- and fortifying the Rhine frontier.  Recent excavations have shown they had permanent settlements in an extensive area east of the Rhine-- a fact hitherto unknown to us.

But that's the point I'm making, in all humility-- there's so much that's unknown to us.  Your point about what people were called-- ridiculous.  Rome was a fluid and polyglot kaleidoscope of people, and you could find people of any stripe in any corner of it.  You could wander the densely-crowded capital for days on end and never hear a word of Latin-- or so complained the eclipsed Old Order, in some of the few writings that are preserved.

Asians?  Europeans?  The damn _Greeks_ named the continents, and Roman citizens came from myriad parts of every one of them you referred to.  Who knows what ethnic distinctions they made, in their lives made busy by commerce and acquisition.  Who knows what social principles and other superstitions they derived from their perceptions of people beyond their own nation, tribe, clan-- or family line?  You act like you know, I act like I don't-- but my ignorance is vast, I know that, and my profession of it is not an act.

That was Africa, as far as they knew.

Uhhhhhh.....I'll tell you what, how about you check the list of provinces and other realms I rattled off, known to the Romans, and see if you can identify the ones that stood on the african continent.  Did I mention Tripoli and Cyrenaica?  The Atlas Mountains?  The southern salt trade?   Where do you think those rhinos and elephants and giraffes and ostriches and leopards that worked the Colosseum came from?  Little old Tunisia?

Now, what was the next point you wanted me to address?   I think it was a link to that long, woeful thread I call the "I'll call it PEE-kin if I want" thread, and if I remember correctly you didn't exactly shine.  Why is your post even about that?  Why is so much of it about *me?* 

You're right about one thing-- I don't afford you much tolerance.  I think forum decorum protects you from finding out exactly _why._

Oh wait, that post wasn't about how we should pronounce Beijing, it was about New Orleans.  See what the passage of time does to information?


----------



## Outsider

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa.
> 
> Uhh... I'll do this off the top of my head, but why don't you look at a map and find Britain, Gaul, Germania, Hibernia, Iberia, Lusitania, Helvetia, Dacia, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Thrace, Graecia, Asia Minor-- must I go on?


Yes, since none of that is in Africa.  



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> If I hit Google for a map, I could probably fill in gaps and come up with as many omitted realms as I included.


That's not a bad idea, actually. Here's a map by the famous Greco-Roman geographer Ptolemy (c. AD 150, from here). He was one of the best geographers of Antiquity, in fact more knowledgeable than many who followed. Yet, if you look at the map you will notice that the representation of the African continent is very incomplete and has many inaccuracies. His representation of India is also inaccurate, by the way.



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> But that's the point I'm making, in all humility-- there's so much that's unknown to us.  Your point about what people were called-- ridiculous.


When I'm feeling humble, I try not to call other people's statements 'ridiculous'; but maybe that's just me. 
More to the point, I have never, ever heard of the Romans being called "Europeans", "Africans", or "Asians", and I'm still waiting for you to produce  any evidence that they were. 



			
				foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Asians?  Europeans?  The damn _Greeks_ named the continents, and Roman citizens came from myriad parts of every one of them you referred to.  Who knows what ethnic distinctions they made, in their lives made busy by commerce and acquisition.  Who knows what social principles and other superstitions they derived from their perceptions of people beyond their own nation, tribe, clan-- or family line?  You act like you know, I act like I don't


No. You acted as though you knew I was wrong. But you don't, do you?...


----------



## foxfirebrand

Do you even read your own words?  What part of this don't you comprehend?



> The known world, to most Romans, included only a small strip of North Africa.


 
I can't repeat myself indefinitely for your benefit.  The topic here is the names we have for places, and getting on the same page about what to call them.  Or having some cognizance of what people call their own places, and exercizing humility and respect.

If the Brasilians want to call The United States *of Brasil*  "the U.S." and themselves Americans, I make the point that it serves all concerned to accord them this simple usage-- especially if it becomes engrained by a couple centuries of use.

Then I suppose along will come someone for whom polemic of a personally-oriented sort is the point of it all-- and s/he'll say "well they don't call it that _in English."_  Wow, they win a point!

The real point is, let the Brasilians call their country what they call it-- and if you can find it in your heart, go along.  If it's too much trouble, don't-- but why should we all allow you to make a virtue of it?

If people back in the 60s want to call themselves Hispanic because Mexicans in the U.S.A. are tired of being confused with Puerto Ricans and want an umbrella term, why not start using the term?  If they decide, in the 90s, that they'd rather change it to _Latino,_ well okay, some will catch on, some will be tired of changing everything in their vocabulary ever so often.

In general, calling people Latino instead of Hispanic is not too much to ask, not for me.  I don't impose this evaluation on others, what they call the group isn't going to be an issue to plague my emotions throughout life.

If people in New Orleans pronounce their city a certain way, I see a value in going along.  I learn.  I respect.  _I don't exempt people from the American South from my respect_ simply because political correctitude allows people to disregard "rednecks."  

If Peiping/Pekin/Peking now wants to be called Beijing, Beijing it is.  Not too much to ask, and I see no one in the world disagrees with me here.  Wouldn't want to treat the Chinese like rednecks and call the place PEE-kin like some people pointedly lord "noo or LEENs" over the people there.

See a pattern here?  It's not about _you_ so I wouldn't be surprised if your next bombardment of off-topic rhetoric, both insulting and defensive, *missed*that point.  Yet again.

And finally.  The people of the U.S.A. have been calling themselves Americans for 200 years, and their country America.  It's arguably provincial and "centric," but when the Sioux people use a word for themselves that means *Humans, we reverently humor them.*

This is fine with me, which shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying attention.  And all of this is exemplary of the same topic.  Tolerance.

Respecting other people and tolerating their foibles, even rednecks, even people who think they're all that, even people who usurp the name of a continent, _or the whole species of Siouxdom_, is worth trying to do-- and doing consistently.  Not exempting certain people out of bigotry.

Respect doesn't mean I have to respect disrespectful behavior, such as you exhibit.  Tolerance doesn't mean I have to tolerate neurotic rhetorical screeds that deal incoherently with personal emotional adjustments involving one man and his self-dissatisfaction.

It's not because you're an "outsider," that's a misnomer in my opinion.  It's because of the way you keep *in*truding individual considerations, without seeming to notice the substitution, into a general topic under consideration.

Here it is, in brief:

Calling people what they want to be called is an act of respect, even if they're ancient Greeks and their word for the rest of the world is a pejorative term.  Yes, I think it meant "outsider."


----------



## Outsider

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> The topic here is the names we have for places, and getting on the same page about what to call them.


The topic here was defined on the first page by Emil: 'Is Hispanic a race?' 
It seems to have been answered to Emil's satisfaction. After that, the conversation kind of difted away. At first, there were some interesting exchanges about the notion of 'Hispanic' in general, but now it's getting nasty, personal, and pointless. Goodbye, Firefoxbrand.


----------



## Stoichkov8

MODERATOR INTERVENTION:
The contents of this post have beed deleted due to their offensive nature.
Specifically, deleted contents were not in accordance to these WordReference's rules.

Guideline II: II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone. 

Rule #2. Be helpful, not hurtful.
Rule #3. Be polite


----------



## foxfirebrand

From 1607 until 1783, the Europeans exploiting North Americans were either English/British, French or Spanish, with small localized and temporary exceptions like the Dutch.  They were called English, French and Spanish people.

These people were competing for the same resource, but were more than just rivals.  Separated by language and "united" by a history of chronic warfare and shifting alliances, they pretty much hated each other.  We all inherited this situation, and in my ignorant opinion we have most of us evolved beyond it.

Indigenous tribes were called all sorts of things-- most of them went by names that meant "humans" in their own particular language.  The first people who freed themselves of European influence called themselves Americans to honor and celebrate that accomplishment.  Understandable, in my ignorant opinion.  I also don't fault Gypsies and Mohawk and Sioux people for calling themselves "people," with the implication that other tribes were somehow lesser.  _Nihil humanum mihi alienum est,_  but I don't fault any non-Humanists out there for disagreeing with me, or resenting my open-mindedness (particularly to those arrogant Americans)-- Old-World values die hard, I understand and forgive that.

After the mid 1820s other former colonies on the American continents threw off the Spanish yoke and people in the U.S. began feeling much more like neighbors than enemies-- we explored mutual relations on the level of common cause.  The Monroe Doctrine was about that, and to me it shows we knew quite clearly the difference between Spain and new Spanish-speaking nations in the Western Hemisphere.

Up until the turn of the 20th century, 999 out of 1000 Spanish-speaking people in the U.S. were of Mexican national origin.  Because of a war (with Spain, ironically enough), large numbers of Puerto Ricans moved to take up residence in the "lower 48"-- I won't call them immigrants because of course they were and are American citizens.

Why mention them?  Because Mexicans and PRs increasingly came to resent being confused with each other, or called by each other's names-- and that's why bureaucrats established the "Hispanic" category.  The idea was to find an inclusive term.

Why is "Hispanic" an ethnic term, as distinct from "white?"  Because Spain's policy of exploiting the American continents for the first 300 years or so was to send her surplus male population across the Atlantic, in the form of soldiers and priests, as well as opportunists and adventurers such as miners.  A cultural tradition of sequestering daughters and "protecting" women was strong in Spain until-- well, I'm not sure when it was that women in that country achieved full equality with men, maybe a Spanish national can correct my ignorance on the matter.

The point is, Spanish holdings were owned and run rather autocratically by a mostly-male population, with the result that now 500 years after Columbus the population of its former colonies is composed largely of _mestizos,_ and I hope you non-Mexicans will forgive me for using a term that might not be in use in your particular culture.  I'm ignorant, you see.

The British tended to send boatloads of families, men women and children in extended family groups-- in fact whole villages and groups of neighboring villages would pack up in Cheshire, say, and found similar villages in the same close proximity to each other, say, in Connecticut.  Whole different pattern of demographics, and this difference had huge ramifications when English and Spanish-speaking settlers expanded from the tidewaters of the Atlantic seaboard and started setting up towns and farms in the interior.

That's why, though English and Spanish were the languages that delineated and sometimes alienated our groups, we also end up with "Hispanic" as distinct from (or opposed to) "white."  Tight-knit English-speaking family and village groups tended to produce generations of mostly-germanic/celtic varietal strains.  The Spanish-speaking descendants were racially-mixed from the outset, with fathers from Spain choosing wives of indigenous origin.

It's a complicated topic fraught with contention among groups with ancient grievances, and I can only be glad I know as little about it as I do.  Otherwise the confusion would be overwhelming, and this whole thing might become problematic-- and I have enough problems just making ends meet, in my provincial little back-holler of the northern Rockies, where my Salish and Kootenai brothers have made progress learning to tolerate being called "Flatheads," but are still struggling with trust issues involving the Blackfeet.  It's an ignorance thing, you sophisticated Euros have gotten your ethnic animosities all sorted out, and you probably wouldn't understand.


----------



## sonix

PLease, please, pleaseeeeee

What a lot of crap about race, latino, hispanic...

Maybe if people just study history and geography appropriately in the wonderful USA, they wouldn't have problems in understanding that you CANNOT ask STUPID questions in official census like `are you hispanic?´ .
HISPANIC is a whole world, like ANGLOSAXON. It's like if in Europe we asked `are you anglosaxon? (which maybe we should)´, but we are not as stupid as to ask that, of course. 
Just for your information Spanish people are European white people, and they have always been (thanks to the Spanish there are white people in America, and mix raced (what USA people call Latinos - a mixture of white Spanish and native Indian people).
Maybe the USA census should just ask `which is your nationality?´ and leave the person to indicate his/her race. That would be the intelligent way to do it. But USA tends to be very racist against Latin Americans, and they WANT to know how many there are in their country.
Nowadays, of course, there are mix raced, black, and other races living in every country, including Spain, so obviously there are people born in Spain who are black, asian looking, mix raced, etc.
Please, USA neighbours of the world, stop asking silly questions in your papers, like `are you hispanic? ´. Just ask `country of origin´ and `in what race category do you include yourself? (if you really need to know!!)´.

Europe will always be different. Do not forget that thanks to us, you are there.
To all racist people who ask stupid questions, wherever they are.


----------



## foxfirebrand

sonix said:
			
		

> Just for your information Spanish people are European white people, and they have always been...


 
Uhh...always?  Are we including the eight hundred years or so known to the not-so-enlightened world as the Middle Ages?

I have a Spanish ancestor named Uthman ibn Abu-Masa, whose daughter married one of my Norman forebears named Roussillon.  I guess the rest of Uthman's descendants, the ones who didn't marry into "white" families, are no longer considered "Spanish people?"  Uthman and his tribe were very fruitful, with their multiple wives of every color and creed.  Some of the richer Iberians of Color from the 7th through the 15th centuries had offspring numbering in scores.  Most of whom, in turn, had a significant role in populating that sparse region over the centuries, especialy in Andalusia and Valencia.  I'm proud that their blood runs in my veins, even though we left Spain behind in our quest for greener lands and a better life.

Oh wait, you don't mean to tell me they *all* got kicked out of the country in 1492 with all the rest of the Moors-- and, incidentally, a thriving community of Sephardic Jews?  Even the ones who had evolved-- well, _almost_ white skins?  A crippling blow to the intellectual life of that turmoil-plagued peninsula-- I gasp in wonder that you've recovered from it so completely.

It must be marvelous to live in an enlightened and non-racist country.  I agree with you that people ought to study history and geography.  What a far less stupid world it would be!
.


----------



## cuchuflete

This bears mention:



> Europe will always be different. Do not forget that thanks to us, you are there.



I've seen racism in action in Europe.  It doesn't take strong binoculars to detect it. It's part of the culture, including the languages. I've not found it more or less prevalent than in my own country. For those who don't have time to read history, just pick up a newspaper. 

Europe will be different in that Europeans invented the slave trade?

Europe will be different in that European missionaries travelled the world, bringing disease, religion, and other trappings of so-called civilization to
those they looked down upon as dark savages?
Come now, get real!

Racism is stupid and ugly and vicious and destructive. It's also widespread. No one continent or nation enjoys a monopoly on it.
If you honestly believe that Europoe is free of racism, dream on.


----------



## mandarina_82

Yes Spanish people are European white people.

You are just an american more... who cares about your ancestors? you american, why? because you need to know where you are from. I'm know where I'm from, I'm from Spain, nothing else.You American people are always talking about your ancestors, you need it to feel indentified with whom? You need to say I'm American but my ... was from... you need to clarify you are something else, not just an American more.
Have you ever relized about this?

In Spain the racism does exist, but remeber that it exists more in some countries than others....  did I mention USA?


----------



## Benjy

mmm..
this is becoming tiresome. two perfectly decent threads have now been closed on the same subject because people cannot help but throw mud around. is it really so hard to keep a civil tongue?

for future reference: we are not averse to the discussion of sensitive topics.

what annoys me very much is broad sweeping derogatory epithets applied without the discomfort of thinking about what is being said.


----------

