On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Bob wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:32*pm, wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:47*pm, wrote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...emarks-preside...

"Hispanics" would not have been "more correct." *"Hispanic" as you _seem_ to
define it is a term that has reached its "modern" US definition only in the last
few decades.

So tell me Oh great etymologist, what would be the proper term to use
to describe people who's heritage comes from the Iberian Peninsula
(Hispania) when talking about them to a group here and now.

Human beings?

His failure with this and my criticism of it is not related to any of that. He
specifically said "Mexican" at a function held by a group who self-labels as
"Hispanic," where the primary likely membership is of "Mexican" (the modern,
post-"idea of America" political state) heritage AND in the same sentence, left
out some 15-20% of the contemporaneous population, in which he and his
supporters tout his inclusion.

Read the whole speech. For example:

"I also want to acknowledge and thank all of the outstanding Latino leaders
serving across my administration because I am proud that the number of Latinos
I’ve nominated to Senate-confirmed positions at this point far exceeds any
administration in history. (Applause.) And I’m especially proud that a whole
bunch of them are Latinas. (Applause.) And as I’ve said before, one of my
proudest moments of my presidency was the day Justice Sonia Sotomayor swore an
oath -- (applause) -- and ascended to our nation’s highest court, and sparked
new dreams for countless young girls all across America."

contrasted with:

"There’s no doubt the debate over how to fix all this has been a fractured and
sometimes painful one in this country. And let’s face it, there are some who
seek political advantage in distorting the facts and in dividing our people.
We’ve seen it before. Some take advantage of the economic anxiety that people
are feeling to stoke fear of those who look or think or worship differently --
to inflame passions between 'us' and 'them.'

I have news for those people: It won’t work. There is no 'us' and 'them.' In
this country, there is only 'us.' (Applause.) There is no Latino America or
black America or white America or Asian America. There is only the United
States of America -- all of us. (Applause.) All of us joined together.
Indivisible."

If the latter is true, then why is the former even worth mentioning? If he
truly subscribes to the latter, he didn't nominate/appoint Latinos or Latinas,
he appointed "Americans."

The bottom line is that is was nothing more than hypocritical, ugly and divisive
political pandering in a desperate attempt to win votes, purposefully ignoring
(broad) history. And when put up with his speech at the Black Caucus event,
they are all the moreso. And if he had been a "white" pol at a "white"
organization's gala and said much of this, the same folks that defend him would
have attempted to crucify him. And also shameful is his "alteration" of the D
of I. I don't personally subscribe to the whole "creator" idea myself, but it
says what it says and it should be quoted as written.

As to "Hispanic" in the historical sense, at least for me, that is an
interesting sidebar to this topic, or really, another topic brought up by the
original. "Hispanic" would be an accurate term to describe such people as you
describe. I am of just such an origin and I self-identify as having "Hispanic"
ancestry for the reason you describe. And I have relatives who are "Mexican,"
(as the term applies to the political state citizenship versus ancestral origin)
but are of the same "Hispanic" origin - they carry a Mexican passport and
consider themselves of Hispanic origin. However, "Mexican" and/or "Hispanic"
is/are not the correct word(s) to use to describe those here "long before
America was even an idea." But he wasn't speaking to folks who self-identify
as "Hispanic" because of distant ancestry on the Iberian Peninsula. And again,
what about the 20% of the population left out?

IAC, the vast majority of "Mexicans" do not self-identify as "Hispanic" because
of having ancestors they can trace to pre-Spanish "Hispania," they are either of
"local," "Spanish" or a mixed heritage. This is not to say that they don't have
such "Hispanic" ancestry, but rather, that they cannot identify it as such.
Obviously, those from other geographic regions now in Mexico are excluded. Those
from the general region of the Iberian Peninsula who came to the "new world"
from the Iberian Peninsula at the presumable time of which Obama spoke, "before
America was even an idea," were either _Spanish_ or _Portuguese_ (IOW, Spain and
Portugal were distinct countries by the time of the incursions into the "new
world"), with those going to Mexico being Spanish. The "Spanish" considered
themselves "Spanish," but interestingly, the highest-caste members did consider
themselves "Peninsulares," ala the Iberian Peninsula ("Spain" was relatively new
as an country at the time). However, most primarily intermarried among other
such families - even most of the "criollos"/"Creoles" in the mix were the
children of Peninsulares and had the "clean/pure blood" of their ancestors, with
clean/pure meaning Catholic Iberian - even non-Iberian or non-Catholic royalty
would have been "unclean"/"impure," akin to today's British monarchy and
Catholics (Catholics and those married to Catholics cannot become King/Queen,
regardless of other factors of birth - if Prince William married a Catholic,
he's out and if his kids were also Catholic, they're out).

Obviously, there were children born of "unsanctioned" relationships and a
criollo could have "native" blood and still be a Criollo (but would never be
considered exactly equal to a Criollo of "clean blood" by those of "clean
blood"). Be careful when reading history, as someone being identified as a
"criollo"/"Criollo"/"Creole"/"creole" could have a number of meanings, depending
upon who was doing the writing and for what purpose. For example, the children
of Peninsulares who happened to be born a "Criollo" and described as such could,
and likely would, be a mere statement of fact, whereas someone contextually
described as "of criollo blood" could have an entirely different meaning. And a
Creole could have been described as owning a creole slave, with the slave making
creole baskets - all with three different meanings as to "Creole/creole." And
as a personal note, I don't condone any of it, nor do I suggest a return in any
form to it, I'm just explaining the way it was.

Now, IMO, expecting such distinction - Criollo, Spanish, Portuguese, the Iberian
Peninsula, etc. - is being picky and I would not expect Obama or his writers to
make such contextually-trivial distinctions in such a gala speech, nor would I
expect them to have even an off-hand knowledge of such historic "trivia." But
again, that is not upon which my criticism of his speech is based.

TC,
R

Bob Weinberger