>I know that. The US Census
>includes two categories: white Hispanic
>and black Hispanic. There are
>numerous Latino/Hispanic groups who fight
>for "Latino interests". This isn't
>about whether you or I
>consider Latino/Hispanic a racial group.
>They are considered a racial
>group, period.

So just because Latinos are considered a racial group, you accept it? There are also groups who fight for the interests of blind people. does that make blind a race?


>It's not me making up the
>definitions. I think the problem
>with much of this discussion
>is people are making up
>their own definitions...

I agree with you here. Koala is right about where the idea of race began, and the truth is that the meaning has changed very little, and the dogma of Darwin and Hitler after him are still implied by the concept of race which most believe in today.

>stating that, for
>example, black is more than
>a race because of the
>nationalist overtones around the category...this
>of course casually overlooks the
>fact that "white" as a
>category has nationalist overtones as
>well.

I agree with you here. To use the word "black" when talking about a cultural pride is misleading because it implies a racial pride. "White" is not misleading because white pride typically IS a racial pride.

>None of these groupings
>are strictly biological, but they
>all have some biological basis
>(general groupings based upon skin
>color, hair texture, and facial
>structure).
>

OK

>Latinos/Hispanics as a group have more
>than just colonial history in
>common, btw, the way it
>is defined, for example, Japanese/Peruvians
>would be seen as having
>a mixed racial heritage whereas
>someone with an African/native/Spaniard heritage
>would be seen as Latino/Hispanic.
>A lot of this has
>to do with distinctions in
>physical characteristics (distinguishing Japanese/Peruvians from
>the majority of Peruvians due
>to distinctions in physical appearance).
>

The significance of this difference is in culture, not biology.

>
>Latino/Hispanic IS a recognized racial group,
>however. By the US Census,
>on birth certificates, by anyone
>doing medical research about racial
>disparities of the impact of
>certain diseases (for example, when
>reviewing the rates of skin
>cancer amongst various racial groups,
>Latinos/Hispanics would be a distinct
>group).
>

Are you to tell me that Sammy Sosa is as likely to get skin cancer as Ricky Martin?

You accept a very loosely defined, biased definition of a word that is much more dangerous than you think it is.