Talk:White Latin Americans

White Hispanic or White Latin American

This article has changed names from White Hispanic to White Latin American...while I feel the latter is used correctly, I feel most people use the term Hispanic when refering to 'the people that come from Latin America'. The phrase Non-Hispanic White is used for White people without ancestors from Spain or Latin America,...I think we should change it back to White Hispanic...it is correct to say they are Latin American, but for most people...it's Hispanic. Why wouldn't they put Non-Latin American White? I think many people have a hard time accepting that there are indeed 'White Hispanics' and by using 'White Latin American', it further alienates the term white from Hispanic...I'd like to hear other opinions. Thank You! --Cali567 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I started a new White Hispanic article. It's only a stub at this point. I still have some misgivings on whether it is necessary, though. SamEV 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we have to have two groups under different names for the same ethnic groupings? Is one for Americans (Hispanic) and one for the rest of the World (Latin Americans)? I agree with the info. on the White Hispanic article, I'm just wondering. Thank You. --Cali567 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they're not the same ethnic group, just as Asian American is not synonymous with Asian, for example. One descends from the other, but that doesn't make them identical. SamEV 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.142.24.192 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Argentinian Jews and Irish-Argentinians or Italian-Argentinians are Hispanic cause they speak Spanish, now Brazilians who are Portuguese, Italian, German, Spaniard, Slav, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Dutch, Scandinavian, Jew or Arab speak Portuguese, a neo-latin romance language.

Italian-Americans and French-Canadians are White, American and Latin.

Well, I can see where you're coming from..but I don't think in reality they are that different. As a person from such a country I am either Hispanic or Latin American. Most of the English readers here are from the U.S. In the U.S. we don't differentiate between these two very much. In a way I think people will get confused. There will never be a complete distinction...it just won't happen. They are apart of the same group. It's no different from being called Hispanic when you may be a Mestizo...then what about this: You may have the culture, but what if you don't speak Spanish? --Cali567 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't make the rules. There is an official distinction made by the U.S. government, which doesn't negate the Hispanicness of people in Latin America. In fact, it's b/c of their Hispanic heritage that the term is used in the U.S. for those of Latin American ancestry. To try to lump a third generation American from New York in the same basket as a rural Colombian just won't go. They're citizens of different countries, have different cultures, different histories, different attitudes, may speak different languages (third gen often don't even speak Spanish), etc. Hence different terms are needed. SamEV 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I mostly meant that we are not different racially...culture is something very different, I'm sure you know. I think it should at least be clarified on each of the pages that they are the same group...just different 'backgrounds'...by the way, I know you don't make the rules. I think this could have been avoided if you just created another page for White Latin Americans, instead of changing White Hispanic into it. I will say both pages sem to be correct anyway. Best of luck --Cali567 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Different backgrounds is enough. I'll try again: there are separate articles for, say, Italian people and for Italian Americans, even though they're the same racially (originally anyway). Their 'backgrounds' merit that separate treatment. SamEV 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic is a person who speaks Spanish or has full/partial Spanish blood. Latin is a person who has full or partial Latin blood or speaks a Romance language, such as (but not limited to) Romanian, Italian, Portuguese, French and Spanish. Count Dracula was Latin!

Check out these articles, please: Hispanic, Latino and Latin peoples. SamEV 09:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Chile

Add Chile to the list considering that there are a high population of English, German and Galician Spanish Chileans.

Considering that Chile officially has no white people but instead has 'white and mestizo' people - due to their being combined as one census category - maybe Chile doesn't belong at all! But what the heck... SamEV 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is odd considering that Chile has a high proportion of German Chileans in the South. Pretty much everyone in Southern Chile has a German, Irish, or English last name. Have you ever seen the movie Machuca? The whole movie is about the white/amerindian split in Chilean society.

Spanish and Italians, too. You answered my next question, which was, is racism so bad in Chile that they have to seek unity by this pretense? I think that just sweeps the racial problems under the rug.

No, haven't seen the movie. I'll try to, then. SamEV 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse. Instead of addressing the differences in race and understanding it, the government seeks to unite Chileans by using a sort of noble lie. Not to say that there arent a significant number of mixed Chileans. There are. But that there is also a HIGHER significant number of white Chileans too.

Let me say that the figures I'm used to seeing were 66% mestizo, 25% white, 5% indian. So, while certainly in the minority by these numbers, that's still 4 million white Chileans. That's about the same as the population of Ireland, last time I checked. (I'll check again ... yep, 4 million it is). And again, honesty is the best policy, so yes, Chile should address race with genuine openness, not with tricks. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What I have learned that whiteness in Latin America is more fluid than it is rigid. It is more about perception than anything . That is probably why countries like Chile and Costa Rica make White and Mestizo as one category on the census. It is about degree of racial whiteness; it is a spectrum. Just like white Americans who have indigenous or black blood are still white, Chileans who have indigenous blood are "White/Mestizo" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.83.73 (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Pictures

It seems a bit odd that you'd change the picture of Fox for Ricky Martin...after all of that talk about chile being so Germanic, you'll switch a part German ex-President (Fox was Fuchs before they changed it) for a Puerto Rican singer whom many in America think of as "brown"....? C.Kent87 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Martin is white. Americans cannot even tell the difference between a southern european and an amerindian. I would NEVER use thier concept of "white" because their view is tainted by the "one drop rule". They assume that white only means blonde haired and blue eyed or any Anglo/Nordic derived equivalent. They dont even recognize the Mediterranean sub-culture as a "white", even though it is. Whats ironic is that many Americans claim to have Native blood but still consider themselves white and then they turn around and claim that certain Southern Europeans are not white along with many Creole Latin Americans like Ricky Martin. What they fail to take note of is that many creoles like Alexis Bledel, Carlos Ponce and Mexican Director Guillermo Del Toro are probably more "white" then they are by thier own flawed standards.

This site should feature white Latin Americans of all stripes from fair, medium to olive skin, from Alexis Bledel to Andy Garcia to Gael Garcia Bernal. We shouldnt have to incorrectly narrow the true definition of white to an American standard. White Hispanic is not an oxy moron.

Good points, you make. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 'White Hispanic' is left open for interpretation, so don't shoot me down for using an 'American' viewpoint...fist of all, I'm a "White Latin American", and I'm sorry if his brown skin causes me to think he's brown...which he is. I don't think Americans are dumb enough to confuse an Amerindian with a Mediterranean, though there may be some (but that's another subject). Whites, I know, aren't limited to Nordic types...and don't label Americans with anything because everywhere you go there are preconceptions...not only in America. I will however agree with the "Whites having Amerindian blood" thing.....I think this is something that we have to work on, because to get a huge lecture about Latino 'whiteness' when asking a simple question...is a little much. A chip on ones shoulder is never good. C.Kent87 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still dont see how you see Ricky Martin as "brown". He is a bit tan, but his features are very European. He is olive skinned.

Hi, I actually changed the picture because even though i thought the Mexican president was a good photo, i thought id change the subject alittle and changed it to the R-Martin one..even though it may not be the best photo of him its good enough and if he is what some americans think of as being brown ,then they just have to compare him with some Spanish bullfighters and so on....i shouldnt need to explain.but there you go. I would use other or more pics of other people that repsresent the subject but its hard to get pics that are free to use too.

Why did it take this long to address the notion of White Hispanics?

It seems that lately there has been a upsurge in addressing the concerns of White Latinos. For years now our darker skinned brothers have been in the limelight taking full charge of the labels given to us by the Americans; Hispanic/Latino. Yet, as of late the White Hispanic has likewise been vocal about the diversity in the Latino culture constantly reminding the Americans that Latino is not a race, but a culture composing of different races. Maybe its because TRUE Hispanic culture is seeping into the United States with the surge in the Hispanic population. I mean in our mother countries, no one considers themselves racially latino. They use the same standards the rest of the world uses: black, white, amerindian, mestizo, mullato, asian. Is it me, or is logic catching up with the Americans and their attempts to group a diverse culture into one label for the sake of cementing a voting bloc? And also how in the world did this concept seem to just escape the attention of the Americans when we constitute for ONE THIRD of the continent! Lets discuss this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.205.3 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

The truth is definitely catching up: Latinos are diverse! No need to tip toe around it in pursuit of unity.

I'd say this diversity was easy to miss for most Americans due to: the fact that most Latin Americans and Latinos are white; the fact that most white Latin Americans and Latinos are of the Mediterranean types, whose whiteness has been challenged by the dominant nordicist outlook in the US; and lastly by Americans' widespread acceptance of the one drop theory, as the poster above said, where in it doesn't matter what a person's actual race is, only whether they have a drop of non-whiteness. But that theory is pretty much dead or dying fast. SamEV 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing that is stranger is that there isnt this unity within our own mother countries like there is in the US. I believe its because in our own countries the Creole population usually has control of the media and politics so they determine the outcome of their demographics and dont have to tip toe around Political Correctness like we do in the United States. So in Latin American countries people are not going around saying that they're racially latino but address themselves as Afro-Latino, Mestizo, and Blanco. Americans in the US have to accept the fact that we're as diverse as they are and that Anglos arent the only whites in the country. I think it makes them a bit uncomfortable knowing that a white person can be into such things as mambo, salsa, and a festive culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.172.10 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Ha! A sense of humor about this stuff, good for you.

Good description about the situation in Latin America, too. At this stage, they're decades behind the US in terms of respect for all people, of all races. Hope it doesn't take half a century to catch up. SamEV 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fox

What? Ricky Martin is white in ALL Latin American countries. I just dont understand what peoples perception of white is these days? Ricky Martin has significant Southern European features. To me being non-white in Latin America is having signigicant Indegenous or African blood to where it does not make you look European. Like Benjamin Bratt or George Lopez. But Ricky Martin is white. Now in the United States is where white is screwed up because to them white means Nordic and only Nordic. Even they have a trouble labeling Italians as white but only do because they've lived here for so long and became Americanized. So I would NEVER trust an Anglo-American's definition of white because they are so racially deranged in keeping their socio-economic status alive.70.248.172.10

Anglo Americans are not "racially deranged" as you put it. Italians are accepted as white in the United States, as are Greeks, Jews, Spaniards, etc... As a U.S. citizen, I can say that there are really TWO (or more) groups of whites in the U.S. The largest group is the so-called "Anglo" Americans, which includes British, Irish, German, and other north-western European groups. There is also the "ethnic whites" who include Jews, Greeks, Slavs, Hispanics, etc... The fundamental difference is that by and large, "Anglos" have been here much longer, and have fewer ties to their "mother countries." Ethnic whites, on the other hand, tend to have more exotic names and traditions, and have more ties to their ancestral countries (still speak the language, celebrate the holidays, etc...) Most Americans have a hard time understanding the concept of white in Latin America, because our familiarily lies primarily with Mexico, which has a large mestizo minority. Also, most Latin Americans in the United States identify themselves as "Latinos" and not as whites, even though they may be. However, regardless of what Americans consider white to be, people of significant European or other Mediterrenean-area descent in Latin America would be white by anyone's standard. DBQer 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA WORLD FACT BOOK

CIA WORLD FACT BOOK as you all can see the CIA world fact book is incorrect in some demographycs for example mexico they dont have a census in ethnic groups so the white population of mexico is unknown.

You know what , i totally agree with you anonimous person, because i have been to several parts of mexico mainly the north like monterrey, and chihuahua and from my own MEX. experience almost every mexican i saw in these places where white with dark hair and dark eyes, similar to the people of southern europe which i have visited too. And about 5.8 to 5.10 feet tall pretty avarage to me , and the CIA world factbook has to be wrong because they dont even go and make genetic studies and census of mexico for racial origins and how can they even give an exact number they are so stupid, and i bet you most of those CIA people have not even been to mexico, i would say the population of mexicans that are white or at least look white is probably half of mexico's population, and as i mentioned before, if most of you think im wrong because you think white people have to have blonde hair and light colour eyes and that is why you think most mexicans are not white, well think again because mexican whites are of the southern european type and therefore they have dark hair and dark eyes but very fair skin, and this is probably at most, i would say half of the people in mexico and that is why i too disagree with the CIA world factbook.

I am curious, the CIA fact book states that the USA is 81.7% white 12.9% black, 4.2% Asian, and 2% others? This adds up to about 100%, what happened to all the Mexicans, and Hispanics? Are they saying that ones a Mexican crosses over the border he or she becomes white? that makes no sense. At what percentage does a mestizo become white, 50%, 75%, or 90%. According to the U.S census if a Mexican marks Mexican on the U.S Census, he or she will be classified as white. This leads to my final question, shouldn’t then most Mexicans be classified white, according to the CIA? Finally, I have been to several parts in Mexico and I have noticed that many, or the majority of Mexicans in central Mexico look whiter than Italians, French and middle eastern, which are classified as white everywhere. A large percentage of the Argentinean population has Amerindian mixture, doesn't that make them Mestizo's? Any ways, we will never know for sure until a large genetic sample is taken. At the end we will only find out that we are all Homo sapiens.

The biggest group of white latin americans are the italians

28 millions in Brazil; 16 millions in Argentina; 2 millions In Uruguay; 2 millions in Venezuela; other 2 million between Colombia, mexico and Chile. Total 50 millions!

How can you proove all these Italian-descendants are Whites? Many of the Italian immigrants have married with non-Whites local Latin Americans.

Most White Latin Americans are those of Spanish or Portuguese ancestry. Opinoso 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely to be white you just need some white blood not 100%, one drop theory and all that, I would agree that the Portuguese are larger and the Spanish larger still as a white Latin American group though what we would need anyway is sources, SqueakBox 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is simple. In Argentina and Uruguay the averange of populaation is white. So, also the italians. In Brazil the italians live in the south (santa catarina, rio grande do sul), and all the population in this part of Brazil is white. In Venezuela probably are mixed, but i am not sure, becouse i know italo-venezuelan, and i have been 2 times, but all the italians were whites. Ps. In Brazil the portuguese are mixed with blacks and indios becouse they arrived centuries before the italians. And the mestizaje was a political way of colonization

• This is a stupid remark. Spaniard, Portuguese, Italians and other Europeans would not have segregated from each other since they all are white. You are again stying to take the "whiteness" away from the Portuguese and Spanish. In fact, Spaniards are a "whiter" race than italialians with a much higher prevelance of blondes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Map_of_skin_hue_equi3.png

I agree. I dont know why most people think that Spaniards are darker than Italians? It is generally known in Europe that Spaniards are the usually the second "lightest" in Southern Europe after the French.

The French got 'lighter' because of the Vikings. This is typically how blondes in southern Europe came to be. You guys are trying to rewrite history in order to fit yourselves into a white catagory. If you are not even in the US, why do you want it so badly?

Ok, HI, as panamenian of italian descent I can tell you for sure that my family from southern italy is pretty white as my grandfather, my aunt and many of my cousins are blond and with blue/green eyes. PS. I have many friends from spain who are as white as the nordics.

Too much attention is given to the so called "ameridian admixture"

It seems like the entire article is about how non-white white Latin Americans are. Someone should redo it because in most countries like South Africa and Australia people could have their race officially changed. In fact American whites have generally 20% black ancestors. This has been proven by DNA tests so its a double standard. So I just think focussing on that through the entire article takes away from the fact that there are actually 100% white Latin Americans, not that those with a small amount of amiredian blood are not white too.

I for one would like to see a link to a source, or any credible literature, which presents the claimed finding; that non-Hispanic White Americans average 20% African admixture (or any other admixture for that matter).

That I am aware of, of all the literature from research findings on the subject, it is around 30% of the total non-Hispanic White American population that has recent African admixture, and that among those within that 30%, the degree of actual admixture is low. Meanwhile, those within the other 70% of the non-Hispanic White American population, that is, the majority of non-Hispanic White Latin Americans, do not have the genetic signitures indicating recent African adxmiture. Al-Andalus 10:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, of course there are those within the White population in Latin America which don't have any Amerindian or recent African admixture, but they are a minority within the White populations of the Latin American countries. Just to copy and paste a table from another referenced article in Wikipedia, it indicates the proportions of those people with admixture and no admxiture within the white population of some Latin American countries.

Evidence for sex biased mating in the White population of some Latin American countries

Country	Amerindian		African
	mtDNA	Y-chromosome	mtDNA	y-chromosome
Brazil	33%	0%	29%	2%
Argentina	45%	9%	ns	ns
Chile	84%	22%	ns	ns
Colombia	90%	1%	8%	5%
Costa Rica	83%	6%	ns	7%

It is said that 50% of Brazilians are "white", or at least consider themselves white according to the latest brazilian census. However, 33% of those have Amerindian and 29% recent African admixture indicated by female mtDNA signitures. Together, 62% of White Brazilians have non-White admixture, either Amerindian or African. An aditional 2% have African admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 62% of White Brazilian are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 28% of White Brzilians don't have Amerindian or recent African admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 14% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

It is said that 85% to 95%, but let's use 90%, of all Argentinians are classified as "white". However, 45% of those have Amerindian admixture from the female (mtDNA) line. An aditional 9% have Amerindian admixture cindicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 45% of White Argentinians are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, 55% of White Argentinians don't have Amerindian admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 49.5% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

According to most souces and findings, 30% of all Chileans are classified as "white". However, 84% of those have Amerindian admixture from the female (mtDNA) line. An aditional 22% have Amerindian admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 84% of White Chilieans are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 16% of White Chileans don't have Amerindian admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 4.8% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

According to most souces, 20% of all Colombians are classified as "white". However, 90% of those have Amerindian and 8% recent African admixture indicated by female mtDNA signitures, together 98% of White Colombians have non-White, either Amerindian or African admixture. An aditional 1% have Amerindian and 5% African admixture indicated by male Y Chromosome signitures, but to avoid a possible double count, lets just focus on the mtDNA. This would indicate that at the VERY LEAST, 98% of White Colombians are not pure, and at the VERY MOST, only 2% of White Colombians don't have Amerindian or recent African admixture, i.e. at the VERY MOST, only 0.4% of the total population is theoretically "pure" White.

These are big leaps from the averages for non-Hispanic White Americans. Al-Andalus 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for Argentina at least, these figure has been disproven. In fact Ameridian testing in general is not very reliable because it assumes that Ameridians are a "race", which we all known "races" do not exist. Secondly, is because in scientist thought these genes or "markers" were "unique" to Ameridians, but in reality all Ameridian "markers" are found in other places around the world, including Europe, especially in some (slightly more or less than half) of Southern and Eastern Europe. So in order to be fair and in order to keep true the Wikipedia's rules, we should remove that part of the article it does indeed focus too much on genetic studies. Etherroyal 14:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reputable source that disproves the figure for Argentine Amerindian ancestry? As far as I know, it hasn't been disproven but published as a serious research. Moreover, the 95% figure of White Argentines is based on self-ascription (that is, they ask you, "what do you consider yourself to be"). Needless to say, figures are not as accurate as a genetic study. I find that particular section on genetic studies far more interesting and conveys far more information that mere estimations made on physical appearance or personal ascription. --the Dúnadan 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you are having this argument proves that there is a double standard. Whiteness in colonized countries, including North Amrica, is based mostly on physical appearance. This whole "White-Latin American" article is focussing way too much on the admixture in White Latin Americans when the White American article does not do that. More can be said about the fact that white Latin Americans hold the most power in Latin America ect. Cultural aspects. Another thing is that, many if not most, white americans have Ameridian admixture and yet they are still considered white. Not even to mention African admixture.

This article reads as if it was written by a white or black north American with the steriotypes that go with that. Another point. Genetic studies gererally reflect the society under wich the tests were done. An American scientist would probably find more admixture in Latin America that is realistic and a Latin American scientist would probably find less. And when these tests are done there is no proof that the subjects are actually white people anyway. Care needs to be taken not to go on the subect's word only but also their close family and cultural background. I think these tests prove nothing.

This article is clearly bias. It simply has to be corrected. I am not saying admixture should not be mentioned but it is rediculous to have an article called. "White Latin Americans" and then 80% of the article is about non-white admixture. It is certainly not done in the White American article.

see White_american#Admixture, Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe and Race_and_genetics#Admixture_in_the_United_States

• What is the point of the links? They just prove how little is said about admixture in the White American article. And in the "sub-saharan DNA in Europe" article it is not said wether the test were done on the white or gypsy or a mixture of both populations.

• • The simple fact is that these countries have racial caste systems unlike the USA, which provide for verifiable non-White ancestry to count as White--on looks alone. The USA considers that hypocrisy, because either one is, or is not a racially mixed individual. 68.110.8.21 04:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cuba number

Why is the upper-estimate given the benefit? Bulldog123 03:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a serious re-edit

Or citations from a reliable source. "one fourth of the self-identified White Australian population acknowledges distant Chinese ancestry" Rubbish - at the 2006 Census only 3.4% of all Australians acknowledged Chinese ancestry. And "white" is an adjective that should not be capitalised Kransky 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fake

"White Latin American" is an oxymoron. 68.110.8.21 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your ignorance is amazing. Manic Hispanic 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know everything about me. 68.110.8.21 21:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:White_Hispanic#There_is_no_reason__to_call_Nadine_Velazquez_a_white_hispanic 68.110.8.21 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Inexplicable

No entiendo a la gente que le da otro significado a la palabras, si son LATINOS son blancos, porque todo el mundo sabe que una persona latina es una persona que tiene descendencia latina, osea, europea, osea blanca, existen los latinos negros? o los latinos asiáticos?, o los latinos mayas?, es absurdo. ademas ponen a shakira como latina esa no es arabe o algo asi y la modelo de brasil no es alemana por etnia?. Este articulo es cualquier cosa.

--Vokoder 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See Afro-Latin American, though I would personally merge that artiucle and this one, SqueakBox 21:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yo soy blanquisimo con ojos re azules, pero no tengo nada de latino, aunque soy argentino porque asi lo dice mi documento nacional de identidad aunque nací en otro país, también soy un latinoamericano blanco?, no entiendo ni siquiera soy católico romano. --Vokoder 04:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable

What is the criteria to be a notable white latin American, I think the section should be removed because there are probably thousands of notable white latin americans.Muntuwandi 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --the Dúnadan 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• It should not be removed. The criteria is that your ancestors be of only European and white Middle Eastern decent. And it must be sourced like in the case of Shakira who is of catholic Lebansese, Catalan and Italian decent.

That is why it should be removed. If the criterion is that your ancestors be of only European descent (and the arbitrary white Middle Eastern descent, which you might need to define), then Mr. Gonzalez (whoever) could also be included. It is the criterion of notability the criterion in question, not the criteria of ethnicity. Why Shakira? Why Fox? Can you truly trace their ancestors to know there is no admixture? It is completely arbitrary. --the Dúnadan 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be kept removed, there are far too many notable white Latin Americans, literally thosands and were we to choose a few from that number our choices would just be a reflection of our own POV's, unaviodably, SqueakBox 22:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This line deliberately tries to make it seem as if latin American whites are less "pure" than say North American whites

"The evolution of Latin America's modern population is embedded in a long and widespread history of intermixing between Europeans, Amerindians and sub-Saharan Africans, and racial categories are more so a social construct there than in other parts of the world. Consequently, many White Latin Americans have a degree of Amerindian and/or sub-Saharan African ancestry."

• WE all know that many if not most white americans have Ameridian ancestors not to mention black blood. For this reason it is not correct to imply that whiteness in Latin America is less "Real" than in North America.

There is no implication. In fact, the phrase doesn't even say anything about North American Whites. No comparison. Nothing. Why would you imply that? --the Dúnadan 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Most White Americans do not have African or Indian ancestors, identifying with the Caucasian race. It would seem to the world at large, that "Latin Americans" at most could be considered honorary whites due to their mixed heritage. There are "Hispanics"/"Latins" who hate Whites and others who think they are White above American Indians. This is a social racism that never existed in North American ("Anglo") culture. 68.110.8.21 23:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me but this line "racial categories are more so a social construct there than in other parts of the world" does imply that. Most White Americans do have Ameridian admixture. You are confused. Not all hispanics are white. Only those who's ancestors are only from Europe or certain Middle-Eastern countries should be used as examples of white Latin Americans. Someone keeps putting picture of metzizos as examples of white latin americans. You are grouping all Latin American people as if they are one homogenous group. There are black Latins, white latins, and mixed race latins. This article does not deal whith mixed latins. Only white latins. It is rediculous to think that a white Latin American is an honourary white because then so are all other white people. And in fact in places like Argentina there is less admixture in the white population than in the US white population. and even in countries with a lil more admixture, there are still 100% pure caucasians. If the term "white Latin American" is an oxymoron then so is the term "white american". It is important that only examples of REAL white latin americans are used and not metzizos.

• • There was this trend in the 1960s, where Hippies led the way for Americans to "feel bad for themselves", with guilt trips being foisted upon the general population by liberal wackjobs. One of the numerous eccentricities, was adoption of an "American Indian" heritage. It's all make-believe, because the fact remains is that it would make the descendents of the conquerors into descendents of the conquered, thus denying the true story of those fallen. It is like as if General George Custer or Presidents William Henry Harrison and Andrew Jackson had great-great grandchildren say they themselves were the Indian victims! In America, it is much different than countries descended from Indians and Conquistadors. When we fought the Indians, we did very much in a "genocidal way", without regard for life or property. We certainly did not create sexual servitude as in the case of the Spaniards and Portuguese. We had no incentive to do so by the Catholic Church, since we were ignoring the Treaty of Tordesillas. We never tried to assimilate Indians and they never wanted to be, so your claims are FALSE. You cannot sneak your fake Whites into our true White populace. Keep them in your fake White societies, in "Latin/Hispanic" America. Control your illegal alien friends. 68.110.8.21 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh..an anonymous comment...How weird...Cali567 08:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says you are right?

I think you are all judging, cataloging, putting things here and there (in this case persons) the way each one of you like. But, hey! Which one of you has an oxford biology degree that can at least make people say "this guy knows what he's talking about"?. I said oxford degree in biology just for making my point, but I mean, if you are a professional and you know about the subject, please edit it and correct it, otherwise, please don't edit it up, or put things just basing yourself in the "cia world factbook" or whatever, someone that knows about this should check this out, and point you guys in the right direction.

Articles like this one, should be done by people that know about what they are talking about. It's just my sincere opinion.

Good luck.

Mauri (200.122.23.31 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

A third of all American whites have between 2 and 20% African admixture!

Firstly. In Latin America someone who is less than 1/8 Ameridian could aaply to be classified as white, however, in the US someone who is as little as 1/4 Ameridian could pass as white anyway based on physical appearance! And let me not even mention the enormous amount of African admixture in white Americans. Whiteness in the US was just as much, if not more based on physical appearance than in Latin America. There is a bigger chance that a white American has black ancestors than a white Mexican! Wake up!

• [1]

Using Wikipedia as your source is the wrong idea, troll. You don't live here, but insist on presenting misconceptions from Sweden as if they were facts. Look, you have it backwards. Some people want to be White, so they pretend to be "pure". "White Latins/Hispanics" in the Americas are usually the chief representatives of those who wish to deny their non-White ancestors, in favour of an exclusively White identity. Americans have never thought this way, except SOME former slaves in the Civil War era--but this is not about Black heritage. Have you never heard of the One-drop rule? Have you never heard of the Indian policy of verifying the genealogy of "Indians" who are actually Whites just trying to be accepted as Indian? Anybody who is 1/16 Indian, is automatically accepted into a tribe. So, how big are Indian reservations in proportion to the country? Obviously, there aren't that many Indians running around here. We did a pretty damn fine job of whooping their asses. Being a foreigner, of course you know nothing about our situation. This debate about "White Latins/Hispanics" is rather about the Spanish/Portuguese colonial policy of breeding with the American Indians, chiefly to disable opposition from them and to assimilate all said peoples of the New World. "Anglo" countries never pursued this strategy. We simply killed or kicked out the "natives" and took their land. "White Mexican" is somebody like Vicente Fox, Agustín I of Mexico or Maximilian I of Mexico, not your average Mexican. 68.110.8.21 22:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well obviously the one-drop rule did not prevent black blood from entering the white American population. This argument is stupid because in all colonized countries including the US, whiteness is down to physical appearance. You can argue all you want but you cannot argue science. The percentage of white Americans of pure European decent is very minimal when you consider that a third has black ancestors and I will find out how many have indian ancestors. You are pulling facts from your thumb. Don't you know how Native South Americans were opressed by the Spanish and Portuguese as well as the other European colonizers? you act as if they had the right to intermarry. The law that allowed people that are less than 1/8 Ameridian to pass as white was only made possible because they would obviously have the European's culture and looked like them to a large extent. If you think that Native's in what is called Latin countries today had any rights then you make a huge mistake. If they had any rights then they would have lost their language etc. And the 1/8 rule in latin America was also a way of monitoring mixing because these people were declared white on an official level whilst in the US there was no way of monitoring these types of thigs and the mixed "whites" simply became part of the white population. The fact is that the US white population has a large amount of non-white blood. You cannot argue that! And btw I know what a white person is. I know that "brown" mexicans are not white duh!

• • I wonder how you think speculation is an incontrovertible matter of fact. It makes me laugh at you writing: "You are pulling facts from your thumb." You know nothing about America. Keep your haughty European opinions where they belong. 68.110.8.21 05:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Any American who wants to take away from the whitness of White Latin Americans, need to look at the history of Americans whites miscognition with african slaves and indigenous women. Genetic studies prove there is a link, especially on the mitochondrial side. Manic Hispanic 18:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • The point I am debating, is the Indian heritage of "Latin" Americans. Nobody disputes the White heritage in the African American descendents of slaves, but you lot try to spin it around and say the Black is in the White. That is obviously backwards, unlike among the Mestizo population where they think they are White first and foremost, without Indian ancestors. The Peninsulares either were absorbed, or went back to Spain. Give me a living example of unmixed creoles. Don't bother saying that recent European immigrants to "Latin" America are the representatives of the "White Latin" American people. They of course, have come from all over Europe and do not try to falsify their heritage to climb the racial ladder. They are not the ones whitewashing their heritage. 68.110.8.21 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • ManicHispanic was not refering to the "white" blood in African Americans but the Black blood in "White" Americans. That is a fact. Why do you try to deny that by acting as if no1 mentioned it and as if it is not a fact. Show me a study on the amount of Ameridian ancestry in "white" Americans before you start implying that "white" Latin Americans are "fake". White Americans are the most fakely whitewashed group in the world. And fyi, there are many pure white Latin American families. You forget that racial mixing was monitored much more in Latin America than in the US. Even today it still exists on a greater scale that in the US. Of course mixing took place in all colonized countries but don't pass judgement untill you proove the pureness of the US ok? Which you cannot prove because white Americans are not pure. Another thing, which would you rather consider white? A white person with black ancestors, or a white person whith ameridian ancestors? And please do enlighten us on the Ameridian admixture in the US. You arguments are based on ignorance "68.110.8.21" whatever ur name is!

• • • • • I was informing you that the concept of Black blood in Whites is contrary to the convention of White blood in Blacks, with respect to Americans at least. It is not a fact you write, but backwards misconception of Americans and our condition. You must be a foreigner to judge so wrongly, on something so easily accepted as the normality of race in the USA. Your opinion is not the one discussed anywhere in America, I can tell you that. Your "studies" are biased in favour of conspiracy theories. White Americans are the least whitewashed of European colonial countries. I rather doubt the colonial Whites of "Latin" America, as well as Indonesia, India and Hong Kong. Places like that are rather more open to mixing than White Commonwealth type of countries such as the US. If there are pure Whites in "Latin" America, of Hispanic descent, they are not descendents of the Conquistadors or initial colonists, but later aristocratic emigrants who still have haciendas. This is a very tiny portion of the "Hispanic" population in such countries, as they are not all wealthy. The recent immigrants are much less mixed and they come from all over Europe, but it is a matter of time before they are absorbed as well. That is because these countries are like California and California does not represent America, but the wave of these types of immigrants. Notice how Americans don't care for them. Well, then it is obviously we are not the same. So, you believe in nonsense. It is a fact that Spanish and Portuguese colonies practiced a state-sponsored breeding of colonists and Indians. The very same people bred themselves light to avoid looking African like their slaves, but nevertheless hiding their multiraciality. Anglo breeding outside of race was different, since plantation owners would make more slaves by impregnating their female African slaves. These children would not be accepted as White. Only the most Hippie and Liberal people think otherwise in America. 68.110.8.21 11:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are so confident about your "facts" and assertions, why don't you simply bring verifiable and reputable sources to back up your claims, and then, if they are truly relevant to the content of this article, they can be included. Otherwise, let me remind you that this is not a forum. --the Dúnadan 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• [2] a source that discusses white American's real racial background.

Give us proof that Americans are not mixed. You can't! It is fine if white Americans call themselves white even though so many are mixed but don't be pompous and have a purist attitude and call other groups who may be more pure than you non-white. Don't have double standards.

HEY YOU ARE FORGETTING THAN MANY (IF NO MOST) OF THE WHITES LATINS/HISPANICS DESCEND FROM LATE EUROPEAN INMIGRATION IN LATIN AMERICA, NOT JUST PORTUGUESE AND SPANISH. When americans think about white latins, they think about south europeans, but no about the waves of poles, russians, nordics, irish and others. BUT THERE IS CERTAIN ZONES WHERE YOU CAN FIND PURE COLONIAL WHITES, This is because not all of latin america was populated for the amerindians, there is large zones where never was amerindian, sometimes, europeans settled in this zones and they remained largely unmixed for centuries.

The Pics

Shakira, Ricky Martin? Martin on TV expressed his African heritage and that of his land of Puerto-Rico, so he is not of the same mindset as the other wannabes. Shakira, you can see the African in her, like so many othe Columbians. This whole article is propaganda and wishful thiniking on the part of these mulattoized peoples of Latin AMerica. Trying to be like us won't win you anything but more embarassment for yourselves. You people trying to convince us or anyone else that you are white is like Wesley Snipes trying to convince us that he is white.

hahaha, how much ignorance you find here. If the article is "propaganda", it would be north american propaganda trying to put non-white latin americans in the article, to make all this controversy, neither Shakira or Ricky Martin would be considered to be white in Argentina, Uruguay, France, Spain, etc... And please the ones who say that Shakira or Martin have white genes or whatever, why don't just stop whit all this and put some blondes brazilians or Argentinian models so you can end with this discusion... 201.231.42.162 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not African ancestors, but Indian ancestors. 68.110.8.21 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing African about Shakira or Ricky Martin. They have never talked about African ancestors in their families or anything like that.

Shakira looks Lebanese, she wouldn't be out of place in Lebanon.

Neither Ricky Martin would be out of place in Spain; Portugal; Italy; he could even pass as a dark-haired Scandinavian or German.

It is funny to see people who have never stepped their feet in Europe and do not have any information about genetics or ethnic groups trying to teach us anything here.

Why are you afraid about the existence of White people in Latin America? Why should it bother you?

Nobody in Latin America wants to be an American. Maybe you should read more magazines or newspapers about how strong Anti-Americanism is in Latin America.

By the way, even a 100% Amerindian or a 100% Black Latin American is, culturally, more European than any North-American.

American culture is based on consumerism, money, food and fat. There's nothing similar in Europe.

Any Latin American feels at home in most European countries, no matter what race they are. Most Americans only feel at home eating a Big Mac in the McDonald's. Opinoso 03:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, communist anti-Americanism. How impressive and original. 68.110.8.21 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do Americans think everything that is not American is bad, Communist and leftist??? why don´t they realize that they also make bad comments about other racial groups and countries but when they do it the never think it´s bad or wrong, but when someone does the same thing to them then the person getting back at them is communist and leftist, according to them. Why can´t they realize that there is white people in latin america, i mean does it put in danger U.S.A national security or what? and in Mexico if you also count people who are predominantly white then you could have as much as 30% to 40% predominantly white Mexicans, im Mexican and im white, and i am sick of Americans always displaying th popular avarage image of a Mexican as an Indigenous looking person, when probably 40% of Mexicans are predominantly white, and when they look at a white Mexican they say "it cant be¡" because they are so closed minded and trust Hollywood more when they want to learn about other countries, than they would trust a Geography class,

Mexico and all of "Latin America" was founded on the policy of miscegenation between White males and Indian females, so nobody justifiably believes your complaint has any validity. You think you are White just because of skin colour; you are Whiter than purer Indians--but that is about it. Americans verify their race by ancestry, not merely skin colour. Grow up and educate yourself. 68.110.8.21 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a forum off topic edits may be subject to deletion Muntuwandi 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There was never a policy of Miscigenation in Latin America. It only happened because there were few White famales to get marrie to many White males.

Not all Whites mixed with the Indians, and not all Indian mixed with the Whites. You should study and learn that there was a enormous European immigration to Latin America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Opinoso 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that 100% are mixed and duh...of course immigrants have moved to "Latin" America. I already stated this elsewhere. E.G. Vicente Fox. Look here for "Latin" American breeding policies. 68.110.8.21 05:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• The person with the ip: 68.110.8.21, why can't you let it go? Firstly as it has been mentioned, Shakira is half lebanese and any "ethnic" (although christian lebanese are white) look she might have comes from that. Her mother looks totally white and is of Italian and Catalan background. Please do not judge on face value. I could just as easily say, Britney spears looks native (and she actually has native blood). Or Sarah Jessica Parker looks black coz she has curly hair. That's rediculous. Why can't you just allow people to be themselves? you wan't white Latin Americans to deny who they are and crawl under this "hispanic metzizo" disguise to make you feel superior to them. That won't happen. White hispanics are just as white as white North Americans. You act as if all white hispanics are decended from the conquistadors that impregnated indians (where do you think the metzizo population comes from?). It was not long before they brought European women to the new world.

You're from South Africa. Who the hell should listen to your ignorance? 68.110.8.21 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about?

jeniffer lopez

is she white?

Ugly picture of Gisele Bündchen

In my opinion, user João Felipe C.S posted a very ugly picture of Gisele. The other pic I posted seems to be more beautiful, as Gisele really is. Opinoso 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thalia is not white, she is a mestizo

Thalia looks white because her many surgeons and because she dye her hair, but if you see her in her old telenovelas she is a typical mexican mestizo

Of course she's not white, this article is only showing the ignorant point of view of north american people. There are million and millions of white people in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, so i don't understand why they put pictures of non-white latin american like shakira(colombian) Ricky Martin (Puerto Rican)... 201.231.42.162 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thalia wouldn't be out of place in France or Spain. If she were American no one of you would be here saying the is mestiza. Get a job you all. Opinoso 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Sarahan African heritage

I have removed the passage dealing with this subject since the ideas expressed therein are not expressed in the source that the author cited, otherwise the passage is simply an unsubstantiated editorial, or the citation is incorrect. This is the passage: "In regards to sub-Saharan African ancestry, while legal formulas of the Spanish colonial system did not allow for people with African ancestors, no matter how distant, to legally regain any automatic "purity of blood" (African ancestry was considered "unredeemable"), "as individuals, they might be able to purchase the status of purity from the crown (and some did), but not to prove it through their bloodlines." [3]" Kemet 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing question to white Americans:

Do you think just predominantely Germanic-Protestant peoples like the Dutch, the Germans, the Norwegians, the Englishmen, the Swedes, the Danes, the Icelanders, the majority of the people of the White Commonwealth and yourselves are the only really “true white” peoples on the Planet Earth?

I’m asking this because it seems like in many places on the web (and sometimes here in Wikpedia) ther is a clear impression that many “standard” white Americans (mainly the suburban middle class) don’t consider Irishmen, Italians and Spaniards “really white enough”.

I am Hispanic but my girlfriend is Anglo-white so I can answer this. Bascially she and her family (they're from Texas) believe that anything south of Northern France is techinically not white. The most they say is that they're ethnic-white or default white like Jews. I remember showing pics of my cousins in Chile who had red hair and green eyes and she simply looked at me and told me that regardless of their hair being light and their skin being white that they were still not white. It is really weird. A lot of Anglo Americans cannot even tell the difference between an Italian and a Mexican. They just think dark is dark and Mediterranean features constitute Mestizo features.