Friday, June 09, 2017

Gaucho glomming Gringos

In addition to asking respondents to racially self-identify from among 16 categories, including "White", "Hispanic", and "Other", the GSS separately asks respondents if they are "Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/Latina".

The following graph shows the percentages of those who racially identified as "White" (rather than as "Hispanic" or "Other") who, when asked whether or not they were "Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino/Latina" responded that they were (in white) and the percentage of the total population that chose to racially identify as "Hispanic" or "Other" (in brown), by year:


Parenthetically, adding those two lines together gets us to the total Hispanic share of the country's entire population.

This admittedly is not what I'd expected to find when running the numbers. I'd expected to see a flight from White, but the survey shows the opposite, with more than twice the proportion of racial whites identifying as ethnically Hispanic today compared to a couple of decades ago.

Pew likely has part of the explanation:
When it comes to describing their identity, most Hispanics prefer their family’s country of origin over pan-ethnic terms. Half (51%) say that most .often they use their family’s country of origin to describe their identity. That includes such terms as "Mexican" or "Cuban" or "Dominican," for example. Just one-quarter (24%) say they use the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" to most often to describe their identity. And 21% say they use the term "American" most often.
It looks like, then, that most Hispanics prefer racially identifying as "White" instead of "Hispanic" or "Other", and this predilection hasn't shifted much in the last couple of decades. The increases we see in both the racially white, ethnically Hispanic and the racially Hispanic, ethnically Hispanic are in part a function of the overall browning of the country [which must stop--they have to go back].

Still, it is surprising to see that the racially white, ethnically Hispanic contingent has grown faster than the racially Hispanic, ethnically Hispanic contingent has.

"Hispanic" as a racial identifier is problematic given that it's not a race per se. "Amerindian" would be better, but in the US there is a perceived racial difference between the Spanish-speaking descendants of Aztecs working on roofs and the English-speaking descendants of the Navajo working in reservation casinos. This perceived difference is, dare I say, largely a social construct.

Brown (left). Red (right).

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1)(15-16), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), YEAR

12 comments:

IHTG said...

Steve Sailer has been talking about this for years, as you probably know.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

Right, though this trend runs opposite of a flight from white (which isn't what I expected).

Feryl said...

Presumably, the minority of "American" ones don't live in California. Not when a lot of whites there don't consider themselves Americans.

Meds once fought to expel muzzies from their lands, while Meds freely mixed with natives and non-Muslim blacks in the New World.

Miscegenation with blacks once repelled major numbers of Northern Europeans and their descendants in the New World Anglo diaspora, while much less angst was caused by Hispanics, Am. Indians, and Asians eloping with whites.

The classic liberal view is that the past was always horribly racist and anti-multiculturalist. Bullshit. Attitudes towards fraternizing with other ethnic groups changes from one time, one place, one generation, to another.

The most disciplined white civilizations/cohorts seem to detest blacks in general, while Muslims of all flavors are singularly alienating towards all white and Asian societies.

Roissy did a nice post recently where he said that Islam is the ideology of personal and global losers. Muslim societies are hopelessly backward, clannish, and resentful of others. Liberals at this stage remain insistent that we get genetically and culturally "smooshed" together, on a global scale, so as to achieve a future in which prejudice is less possible simply because there no longer will be dominant ethnic groups (at least in the West) within whom there's a vigilance to protect homogeneity and tradition. Yet, to the extent that this exists now (primarily in the Romantic speaking New World), it was possible because, wait for it.....Islam was kept out. Catholicism is the religion of choice in the non-Anglo New World. Islam is the most illiberal force in the entire world; it destroys individualism, it constantly pits families, ethnic groups, and religions against each other. Catholic Meds who cross-pollinated many various cultures (European, African, Native, etc.) in the Romantic New World were able to do so because they didn't have to worry about infidels being beheaded.

NW Euros got fat over the last 70 years, and we've lost our balls. We go out of our way to insult the traditional values that made our countries as wonderful as they were and to some extent, still are, while saying the most mendacious nonsense about the existential threat posed by Muslims. Meanwhile, in more Catholic/Orthodox white countries, with a history of dealing with Muslims and Mongols (Russia, Poland, Hungary) and less post WW-2 arrogance, Islam is recognized as the menace that it is. Ireland, curiously, seems to be cucking on Muslims. Me-thinks that Celts historically have been in conflict with Romans and Anglos in the Old World, while keeping Puritans, Indians, and blacks in line in the New World. But none of those groups poses the intellectual and cultural threat that Muslims do. And as far as I know (which isn't *much*), Ireland was never invaded by a non-Caucasian group.

Feryl said...


Northwestern Euros, even the Celts, have the potential to be the biggest idiots on ethnicity, which in times of decadence/prosperity they take advantage of. Since historically, their lands were invaded by *other* whites, rather than by entirely different races, it creates a liberal minded blind spot ("hey, if Celts, Meds, Nords, Anglos, and Slavs could grow to tolerate each other to a decent degree, why can't groups far removed from white norms get the hang of it too"?) I listen to YouTube channel created by three Irish guys born in the early 80's, and they are as PC as some West Coast hippie. Ireland is as PC as any other Western country. The Scots-Irish diaspora of the US is probably the lone geographic bastion of anti-shitlib trends among normal stock NW-Europeans (e.g., Nordic/Celtic/Anglo) these days. Obviously, the alt-Right is an exception to this rule, though we've got A LOT of work left to convince more people that, above all else, Islam will destroy the very things that even liberals want too.

Class is getting more important. Less educated Boomers/X-ers (and, very quietly, a slight majority of white Millennials) who tend to live in unfashionable areas were much more pro-Trump than strivers. Problem is, leadership and management is still absurdly shit-lib. And people have to be concerned about their financial and physical security. Cultural elites will encourage the non-employment and outright harassment of those who openly declare war against modern Western decadence, which is the real enemy. Not Russia, not white nationalists or Hitlers to be.

I've noticed that if you listen to any group discussion of 3-4 X-ers or Millennials, at least one of them is a full-blown shitlib while the others "go along to get along". Openly being even a moderate conservative is beyond the pale; The degree to which traditional conservative viewpoints (or just plain common sense about Islam and black dysfunction) are now punished has, I think, really made it difficult to gauge just how many of us are out there.

Feryl said...

Addendum: any group discussion that wasn't convened under conservative or genuine free-thinking auspices (like Joe Rogan's podcast, which is a relic from the pre-Obama era when even some liberals didn't mind thinking outside the box). I don't think a lot liberals realize how insufferably tight their ideological strait jacket has become.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Tolerance only works as long as everyone chooses to be tolerant. It has no mechanism to deal with those who are intolerant. Doubly so when the zeitgeist doesn't even allow for an intolerant group to be identified as such. My 3 yo son is on the cusp of being able to understand this, yet WEIRDO northwestern Europeans are, on the whole, apparently incapable of doing so.

Cultural elites will encourage the non-employment and outright harassment of those who openly declare war against modern Western decadence, which is the real enemy. Not Russia, not white nationalists or Hitlers to be.

Right. On the other hand, there is only so much social pressure that can be exerted on people who feel they don't have any prospects in the current configuration anyway and are surviving by jumping from one entry-level job to another. With youth unemployment rate numbers in the 20s and 30s in countries like France it becomes less surprising that younger native French supported Le Pen more than older native French did. There's a similar dynamic in play here I think.

a reader said...

I think those results shouldn't be very surprising, because, according to genetics, Hispanics do have some substantial white ancestry:

Mexicans in the north of Mexico seem to be on average at least half white:

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8b/e9/9d/8be99d0e7e365e05e568de366ad73642.jpg


Cubans seem to be mostly white (70-80%):

i63.tinypic.com/2db2o1i.jpg

Audacious Epigone said...

a reader,

It makes sense that for most if a 'true' racial category is chosen, it will be white. What makes it surprising is that most choose it over "Hispanic" or "other", though. I doubt it's because they're thinking, "yeah, I'm Hispanic but Hispanic isn't technically a race so I guess I'll choose white".

James said...

Everybody wants to be White. Compared to the alternative there is no competition. "Latinos," or "Hispanics", or whatever you want to call them, understand there is a difference. Look at South America, Central America, and Mexico. There are usually White men at the helm of government. The upper classes have a higher incidence of White DNA. And that is the way the lower classes want it. They see how White run countries are in comparison to non-White. There are some exceptions, like Venezuela, but look at what a basket case that country is.

Audacious Epigone said...

James,

Indeed. Popular culture is the same way in Mexico. Lots of blonde-haired, fair-skinned actors (and actresses especially).

Bolivia with Morales was another exception, but Amerindians seem pretty inept when it comes to wresting control for themselves.

silly girl said...

My Mexican grandmother's birth certificate and all US census entries for her list her as white. She always identified as white. I lived on the Mexican border as a child and there were only three children in my class with non Hispanic (English/Scots) last names including myself. And only one had no hispanic ancestors. But we all identified as white. I never even heard the term hispanic till five or six years later when I had moved away. There was a Time magazine cover that had something about hispanic people. I was repelled by the suggestion that hispanics were a different group. I was very angry when I would have to choose between hispanic and non-hispanic white on various forms. I am only partly Swiss, but the forms did not make me choose between Swiss and non-Swiss white. As for my Mexican grandma, my mother, and myself, there is no way anyone would pick any of us out as non-white. I do think that Mexicans a hundred years ago were indeed much whiter (Spanish) because the indios had been wiped out by disease and were still susceptible and physically isolated from mestizos and Spanish Mexicans. Also, there were Germans, Swiss and Mormons and Amish who moved to Mexico. South Americans are often white, too, if not 100% many are 90-95% genetically european. So, the whole notion that hispanics generally are non-white is a gross overgeneralization. IMHO

Audacious Epigone said...

Silly girl,

That all makes perfect sense to me.