On 3/13/02 11:15:00 AM, Amy Stone wrote:
>I wholeheartedly disagree with
>the following passage in E&Z
>page 301:
>
>Such diversity means that
>there is no "Hispanic"
>population in the sense that
>there is a Black population.
>Hispanics have no common
>history, nor do they compose a
>single, coherent community.
>Rather they are a disparate
>collection of national-origin
>groups with heterogeneous
>experiences of settlement,
>immigration, political
>participation, and economic
>incorporation into the United
>States. Saying that someone
>is "Hispanic" or "Latino"
>reveals little about likely
>attitudes, behaviors, beliefs,
>race, religion, class, or
>legal situation in the United
>States.

>I disagree!! Especially with
>the final statement. Although
>I am not "Hispanic" or
>"Latino", I know a lot of
>people who are. Everyone has
>a history and not everyone has
>the same history. This
>paragraph is to say that all
>whites have a common history
>and all blacks have a common
>history. Each and every
>person has a different history
>than the next person. I also
>think that being of Mexican or
>other latino descent does
>reveal a lot about attitudes,
>behaviors, beliefs etc.

Dear Amy:
I find it interesting that I had a similar response as you did to how E&Z defined Latin culture. I was very surprised upon first reading this bit that E&Z would portray Latin culture like this: Hispanics have no common
history, nor do they compose a single, coherent community.
and: Saying that someone is "Hispanic" or "Latino" reveals little about likely attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, race, religion, class, or legal situation in the United States.

When I read this I thought that E&Z were being sort of presumptive, and inaccurate in the way they described Latin heritage. I new this probably wasn't the case though because E&Z make such a concerted effort to speak about people's and structures in truthful, unbiased, accurate ways, not presumptive and stereotyped ways. I thought about it some then I understood better why they represented the Latin Heritage the way they did and came to the same general conclusions as Meorah did to why they represented the Latin heritage the way they did.

I do think that there may be some outstanding similarities among peoples of Latin heritage and would have liked to have heard E&Z mention or give credit to these, and to even give good credit to many seemingly shared qualities many Latin people seem to evoke like strength and good ability to express themselves, good kick ass sense of style, thoughtful, meaningful, and intelligent, insightful, vibrant, warm, and loving etc. These are some my own stereotypes of Latino's, even if they are positive. I think E&Z could have done more to clarify themselves about what they meant regarding Latin heritage since it wasn't quite as obvious as there description of Black or White heritage.
I was left thinking that there needed to be more said about Latin heritage. Although I understand why E&Z did write about Latin heritage the way they did, I still have questions. I just tried to read this part for how it was written by E&Z and go on to finish reading the chapter but I still think that something seems like it's missing here in this section regarding the way E&Z wrote about Latin heritage. It read like the Latin heritage was kind of rag tag, nondescript bunch of peoples clumped together, somehow it seemed to read somewhat derogatory, the way they wrote about it, in away which could engender or invite defensiveness and criticism, and read as excluding to Latinos. I know this isn't what E&Z meant by far and I don't imagine that E&Z could possibly be prejudiced even subtlely towards Latinos, in fact maybe E or Z is Latino?
But, E&Z did make a good point about the differences in backround among Blacks, Whites, and Latins, to emphasize their point in this section of this chapter.
Well, I don't know if I just used a lot of words to say not much or if I actually got my impressions across but I know I tried. Thanks for posting your response Amy, it really struck a chord in me since I remember having a similar impression as yours when I read this section of this chapter. I'm glad you shared.
Shaunasi
>


>
>I think that we (no matter
>what race) are a disparate
>collection of national-origin
>groups with heterogeneous
>experiences of settlement,
>immigration, political
>participation and economic
>incorporation into the United
>States.
>
>Maybe I am just
>misunderstanding the meaning
>of this paragraph. If I am,
>please feel free to steer me
>in the right direction!