Pgs. 3-26 in TEC: Latinos in the Race Structure
Usually in both the Spanish-speaking world, as well as the English-speaking world, the color of one’s skin, the texture of their hair, or the contour of their face determines how they are treated in said society. Accents, surnames, residence, class and clothing also often determine the apparent worth of an individual. Perception of worth regarding people who are significantly different than the typical white person in America fluctuates depending upon where the person of a different ethnicity from European. For example, in the Midwest, wherein there is many an Indian, the Latino may be “light” relative the evaluation. However, in the southeast, the same Latino may in fact be considered “dark” compared to an Asian. These dimensions of race, although fundamental to the life of a Latino, nonetheless raise formidable questions regarding the nature of “race” in America. It is very well likely that even the Latino themselves will change the perception of their own race in their lifetime. For example, if they live in a predominantly Anglo neighborhood, it is possible that they will act more Anglo-oriented. However, if they are heavily influenced by an Afro-American crowd, the same person might behave like an African American. It is unfortunate, infinitely so, that we Anglo’s do not understand the frustration that Latinos have in response to their classified “race”. Classification of race for Latinos is entirely contextually dependent, fluctuating, provisional, and even contested at times. Torres (1998) indicates that the lighter skinned Latinos tend to rule over those of darker orientation, even within the same class.
The U.S Census Bureau contends that race and ethnicity are two independent concepts, with no inter-relation. Many Latinos, however, understand the notion of “race” to be referring to the nation of origin, ethnicity, culture, skin color, or even a combination of these things. So then, for Latinos, race is more a question of socialization rather than biology, as per se. In the US, categories of genetically-based criteria have been the dominate conceptions of race. In effect, then, racial categories have been discrete and mutually exclusive, which has led to great error in classification. For Latinos, the issue of race is never a simple one to address. Fortunately, in the 2000 US Census, people were able to indicate descent from more than one race when answering the question. So then, there is a growing trend, seemingly, to view race as the Latinos do already.
The population of Latinos in America is growing at a rate 7X that of the nation as a whole. The 2000 US Census projects that the Latino population will exceed that of African Americans by 2005 (I wonder if in fact it has?). In conjunction, the new trends of inter-racial unions lie in direct opposition to those of the past. Indeed, formerly well-to-do whites married “lower-class” minorities (e.g. Latinos), but now there is more and more an equality of both economic dimensions and education dimensions in reference to an inter-racial union. In 1960, the percentage of inter-racial marriages was 0.4% of all marriages, whereas that rose to 2.2% by 1999. Additionally, the number of births to inter-racial parents rose from 1.2% to 4.4% of all births in 1995.
In 1996, there were more Latinos living in poverty than whites, and even blacks, states CR (I wonder if this according % or to actual numbers?). Latinos generally only make 2/3 of a white person’s salary for the same job. 20% of Latinos aged 16-24 have dropped out of school.
So then, even in the 2005th year of our Lord, racial/ethnic categories are still socially meaningful indicators of racial subordination and privilege. We should therefore throw ashes on our heads and go sit on dung hills.