Conquer Club

Guiscard wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Who here supposes that they're not a mix of at least two or more of the poll options?

And I don't mean... way back... but within the past 1000 years or so since these definitions have had ANY anthropological meaning whatsoever.

Even just one filament of my lineage, that of my ancestors who undoubtedly considered themselves pure Spaniards, includes those categories which Norse calls Caucasian, Black, Arabic, Jewish, and Native North America.

Actually I can't see that I am in any meaningful way whatsoever... I've gone back to about 1400 and before that both branches of the family were pretty much working in the same village in agriculture, as they would have been most likely for hundreds of years. Before that? I'd warrant a guess at Saxon due to the part of the country.

I'd put a fiver on you being a mix Guiscard .. we live in a mongrel nation....
Even with the most scrutinous genealogy you can never allow for 'family secrets'
Women have always rogered the handsome tall dark fella who's traveling through and married the village idiot; telling him the baby was 8 months premature and that they had taken to eating extra turnips for a few months before the birth.
It makes sense for the betterment of the gene pool.

As excellent as a post that was jim, I fear that in guissys case, he is 100% village idiot.

Hmm 6th generation white settler originally from England, Wales and Czechoslovakia on my mothers side. Scottish and Irish on my fathers side.

jiminski wrote:

Guiscard wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:Who here supposes that they're not a mix of at least two or more of the poll options?

And I don't mean... way back... but within the past 1000 years or so since these definitions have had ANY anthropological meaning whatsoever.

Even just one filament of my lineage, that of my ancestors who undoubtedly considered themselves pure Spaniards, includes those categories which Norse calls Caucasian, Black, Arabic, Jewish, and Native North America.

Actually I can't see that I am in any meaningful way whatsoever... I've gone back to about 1400 and before that both branches of the family were pretty much working in the same village in agriculture, as they would have been most likely for hundreds of years. Before that? I'd warrant a guess at Saxon due to the part of the country.

I'd put a fiver on you being a mix Guiscard .. we live in a mongrel nation....
Even with the most scrutinous genealogy you can never allow for 'family secrets'
Women have always rogered the handsome tall dark fella who's traveling through and married the village idiot; telling him the baby was 8 months premature and that they had taken to eating extra turnips for a few months before the birth.
It makes sense for the betterment of the gene pool.

Oh yeh. I'm not saying I'm a 100% pure Saxon, just that I'd be fairly certain that it was fairly negligible. with my direct ancestors, at least in the last 500 years. Its been pretty much on one side just the same family living in a village of about eight families in Buckinghamshire, all marrying between themselves. Other side pretty much the same thing but up North. No dodgy birth certificates, no late marriages... Census info all adds up. I've done a fair bit of investigation into both villages and there's nothing interesting there at all. Just your regular incest really. Would much rather have something interesting there, but still...

Norse wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Norse wrote: Cmon, convert. We could be buddies, and dress up in viking gear and go and pillage small villages. A bit of looting,

We could be buddies anyway, you're not going to hold clan affiliation against me are ya'?
.

Hmmm. If I were not to hold it against you, then I would be seen to be loosening up on my tough xenophobic line, and the repercussions of such an act would be dreadful.

You're either with me, or agin me.

I'll have to settle for alongside you until you raid my village.

But I see what you mean "word getting out that a viking has gone soft" and all that.

jiminski wrote:I'd put a fiver on you being a mix Guiscard .. we live in a mongrel nation....
Even with the most scrutinous genealogy you can never allow for 'family secrets'

Like... even the most controlled forms of reproduction are touched by miscegenation.

Let's take a look at Charlotte, the United Kingdom's mulata Queen.



Her Portuguese ancestors, circa 1400 or so, included *gasp* a negress!

not al white people are caucasian

Where is Hispanic?

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

Oh, BURN, Norse... You forgot one of the largest minorities!

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

thats not a race the correct word is latino. The U.S government made up that word

0ojakeo0 wrote:

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

thats not a race

i do believe it could be charctericized as an ethnicity.

which i believe is the question that norse poses.

got tonkaed wrote:

0ojakeo0 wrote:

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

thats not a race

i do believe it could be charctericized as an ethnicity.

which i believe is the question that norse poses.

The correct word is latino i believe b/c the U.S government made up that word to group people together

caucasians are specifically non-turkic speaking light skinned people inhabiting some parts of europe, middle east, and north africa.

a better difinition of european ethinicity would be germanic, slavic, basque or semites

0ojakeo0 wrote:

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

thats not a race the correct word is latino. The U.S government made up that word

And the US govt dictates the names of ethnicities now? wow.
And I don't think Spaniards are from Latin America (more like the other way around for some countries). But I suck at history, so who knows.

0ojakeo0 wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

0ojakeo0 wrote:

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

thats not a race

i do believe it could be charctericized as an ethnicity.

which i believe is the question that norse poses.

The correct word is latino i believe b/c the U.S government made up that word to group people together

no there is actually a difference. although i dont normally recommend this, wikipedia it. You can probably find the difference between latinos and hispanics with a couple seconds of searching.

wicked wrote:

0ojakeo0 wrote:

wicked wrote:Where is Hispanic?

thats not a race the correct word is latino. The U.S government made up that word

And the US govt dictates the names of ethnicities now? wow.
And I don't think Spaniards are from Latin America (more like the other way around for some countries). But I suck at history, so who knows.

when you said hispanic you meant people from central america and the caribean right? Anyways i dunno im probaly wrong.

jake.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

if you go down to the synonyms and antonyms section, you can see where the trickness arises.

Yes Hispanic is a bit vague. I was personally referring to Spaniards, not Latinos, but just the same, Hispanic would describe them all (I believe).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_%28demonym%29 look at the map defined as latin america. Im saying people from there ar called latino, which is short for latinoamerico.

0ojakeo0 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_%28demonym%29 look at the map defined as latin america. Im saying people from there ar called latino, which is short for latinoamerico.

this is true, but if you actually talk to people from there (and ill admit i didnt, but a video in my spanish class way back in the day did for me) a lot of the people refer to themselves as hispanic....its an identification issue, not everyone can be lumped into one.

got tonkaed wrote:

0ojakeo0 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_%28demonym%29 look at the map defined as latin america. Im saying people from there ar called latino, which is short for latinoamerico.

this is true, but if you actually talk to people from there (and ill admit i didnt, but a video in my spanish class way back in the day did for me) a lot of the people refer to themselves as hispanic....its an identification issue, not everyone can be lumped into one.

Im from a 80% latino town..... I go to a 90% latino school. Most of my friends are latino . I realize they call themselves hispanic but we have a new spanish teacher and he is trying to teach us the difference.

Do people from Brazil consider themselves Hispanics? They technically aren't by definition. Do they consider themselves Latinos? I've always said my background is Hispanic (i.e. from Spain), but people usually assume that to mean from South America.

wicked wrote:Do people from Brazil consider themselves Hispanics? They technically aren't by definition. Do they consider themselves Latinos? I've always said my background is Hispanic (i.e. from Spain), but people usually assume that to mean from South America.

I thought people from brazil spoke portugeese

what to think about this poll??

to clear up a bit; there is a enormous difference between race and ethnicity. race is an outdated concept from the old days when people believed humans were seperatable in different races, simply based on skin colour.
ethnicity is a common group to which people believe to belong, based on ancestry, common cultural treads, common spaces, etcetera.

the question mixes this one up; caucasian is a north-american concept, based upon skincolour more than anything else... so why is that one in it. and me, as a european, or whatsoever; which one to choose for me then?

well

i'm just an complaining social scientist, i guess

Doesn't "Hispanic" usually refer to people who speak Spanish as a native toungue? If that's the case, Brazil doesn't really count, with Portugese being the language there.