Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages!
 


       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Culture
Porthos

Culture of Seattle, Washington

Yet again, I might be moving to a new location. Due to my mother's work, I might be moving to Seattle. I picture Seattle has being very similar in culture and in its general ambiance to San Francisco. I've never been there however.

But if I love San Francisco, do you think I would like Seattle?
Walker

Do you like rain? Well, my view of Seattle is somewhat vague but positive. It's the birthplace of grunge music! Jeans, flannel shirts and loud music.
Benjamin [inactive]

One of my mum's friends, who was actually originally from Zimbabwe/'Rhodesia', but had lived in Birmingham for a long time, moved to Seattle a few years ago with her husband and their about five children. They lived there for a few years, and apparently she loved it, but then she and her husband separated, so she moved to Devon in rural Southwest England (where Shouga lives) with her children, and became a teacher in a somewhat hippyish/'alternative' sort of school. The last we'd heard from her was that she's now married a man who also had about five children himself, and that they've now had about two or three more children together.

I don't know why, but the northwestern coast is probably one of the regions of the US that I have the most positive image of.
Pauline

Benjamin, how is shouga?
Deborah

Seattle does have some similarities to San Francisco, but it's both greener and whiter. I had some Russian friends who, when they came to the US around 1990, were taken aback by the ethnic mix here in SF. But a few years later they visited Seattle, and they'd become so San Francisco-ized that one of their first comments about Seattle was how white it seemed. I think it's less so now, but the demographic breakdown is still different from San Francisco's in that respect.

Here's some census bureau information about SF:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html

And here's some about Seattle:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53/5363000.html


It has mild weather, like SF's, but there's more rain, and I believe the gray doesn't just stay near the coast. (Speaking of the coast, you probably won't be hitting the beach as much as you do now.) Like SF, Seattle is in a beautiful geographic location, but with green forest replacing the brown hills & oaks. The views of Puget Sound are gorgeous.

As far as cultural life goes, I haven't experienced it enough to say much about it.
Uriel

Ha -- just yesterday I was reading on MSNBC that while everyone automatically thinks of rain when they think of Seattle, it actually isn't the US's rainiest city -- in fact, I think they said the Northwest barely even makes the top 25! (And then that honor goes to Olympia, #24.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18827213

Quote:
The 10 rainiest cities in the U.S. by amount of annual rainfall include:

Mobile, Ala.: 67 inches average annual rainfall; 59 average annual rainy days
Pensacola, Fla.: 65 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
New Orleans, La.: 64 inches average annual rainfall; 59 average annual rainy days
West Palm Beach, Fla.: 63 inches average annual rainfall; 58 average annual rainy days
Lafayette, La.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 55 average annual rainy days
Baton Rouge, La.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
Miami, Fla.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 57 average annual rainy days
Port Arthur, Texas: 61 inches average annual rainfall; 51 average annual rainy days
Tallahassee, Fla.: 61 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
Lake Charles, La.: 58 inches average annual rainfall; 50 average annual rainy days

(Several cities in Alaska and Hawaii actually receive more than 100 inches of rain a year, but were not included in the study.)

Southeastern cities are so prevalent on the list because the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico fuel storms that frequently soak the region, particularly between June and November.



Global warming gets a shout out:

Quote:
The study also found that in the past 30 years, the East and Southeast seemed to be getting wetter, while the West got drier. Florida, Louisiana and Alabama were the wettest states, while California, Montana, Nevada and Arizona were the driest (Las Vegas took the top spot for driest city).



London, which everyone always thinks of as a particularly rainy city, actually only gets about 23 inches of rain a year!
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
Ha -- just yesterday I was reading on MSNBC that while everyone automatically thinks of rain when they think of Seattle, it actually isn't the US's rainiest city -- in fact, I think they said the Northwest barely even makes the top 25! (And then that honor goes to Olympia, #24.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18827213

Quote:
The 10 rainiest cities in the U.S. by amount of annual rainfall include:

Mobile, Ala.: 67 inches average annual rainfall; 59 average annual rainy days
Pensacola, Fla.: 65 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
New Orleans, La.: 64 inches average annual rainfall; 59 average annual rainy days
West Palm Beach, Fla.: 63 inches average annual rainfall; 58 average annual rainy days
Lafayette, La.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 55 average annual rainy days
Baton Rouge, La.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
Miami, Fla.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 57 average annual rainy days
Port Arthur, Texas: 61 inches average annual rainfall; 51 average annual rainy days
Tallahassee, Fla.: 61 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
Lake Charles, La.: 58 inches average annual rainfall; 50 average annual rainy days

(Several cities in Alaska and Hawaii actually receive more than 100 inches of rain a year, but were not included in the study.)

Southeastern cities are so prevalent on the list because the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico fuel storms that frequently soak the region, particularly between June and November.



Global warming gets a shout out:

Quote:
The study also found that in the past 30 years, the East and Southeast seemed to be getting wetter, while the West got drier. Florida, Louisiana and Alabama were the wettest states, while California, Montana, Nevada and Arizona were the driest (Las Vegas took the top spot for driest city).



London, which everyone always thinks of as a particularly rainy city, actually only gets about 23 inches of rain a year!


That's because London and Seattle are so frequently overcast and gray. This doesn't necessarily means it rains more there, but people associate gray skies with rain, and so they assume it does, and thus the myth is perpetuated.

Quote:
Seattle does have some similarities to San Francisco, but it's both greener and whiter.


Well, being that I'm from southern California, any place in the northern part of the country feels very "Anglo" to me, because of the lack of Mexicans when compared to the areas I grew up. Like San Francisco, Seattle lacks the same "Latin flavor" that a place like L.A. has. Cold, coastal, modern, liberal, elitist, foggy, Asians, coffee, and gay are all things that come to mind when I think of San Francisco and Seattle.
They share all of these traits.
Deborah

Uriel wrote:
Ha -- just yesterday I was reading on MSNBC that while everyone automatically thinks of rain when they think of Seattle, it actually isn't the US's rainiest city -- in fact, I think they said the Northwest barely even makes the top 25! (And then that honor goes to Olympia, #24.)

I was comparing it to coastal California. San Francisco's average annual precipitation is about 21-22 inches, while Seattle's is 37-38 inches. And I believe that in Seattle you can't avoid the non-rainy, overcast days by just traveling a couple of miles away from the ocean, as you so often can in SF or other coastal Californian cities.

Also, the sense of being a rainy city isn't based just on the amount of precipitation, but also on the duration. In the eastern US, you get lots of those cloudbursts that don't last long, but drop lots of water. In the Pacific Northwest, you get more of those rainfalls that drizzle all day long, or for several days.
Deborah

Porthos wrote:
Well, being that I'm from southern California, any place in the northern part of the country feels very "Anglo" to me, because of the lack of Mexicans when compared to the areas I grew up. Like San Francisco, Seattle lacks the same "Latin flavor" that a place like L.A. has. Cold, coastal, modern, liberal, elitist, foggy, Asians, coffee, and gay are all things that come to mind when I think of San Francisco and Seattle.
They share all of these traits.

The Latino population definitely does decrease the further north you go. But there's are some significant (IMO) differences in the demographics of San Francisco and Seattle. And if you consider the entire SF metropolitan area, with such cities as Oakland (large black population) and San Jose (large Latino population), the differences are greater.

Here are some figures from the US Census Bureau. Note that "White" can include "Hispanic/Latino" and possibly also "Other" (the people being counted choose their own category). The SF statistics specify "White" and "White of Non-Hispanic/Latino origin". There's quite a bit of overlap in Los Angeles, obviously, if you add up the percentages. I didn't include small categories.

LOS ANGELES
White: 46.9
Black: 11.2
Asian: 10.0
Hispanic/Latino: 46.5
Other: 25.7
Two or more: 5.2

SAN FRANCISCO
White: 56.6
White of Non-Hispanic/Latino origin: 44.1
Black: 7.3
Asian: 32.9
Hispanic/Latino:13.7

SAN JOSE
White: 47.5
Black: 3.5
Asian: 26.9
Hispanic/Latino: 30.0
Other: 15.9
Two or more: 5.0

OAKLAND
White: 31.3
Black: 35.7
Asian: 15.2
Hispanic/Latino: 21.9
Other: 11.7
Two or more: 5.0

SEATTLE
White: 70.1
Black: 8.4
Asian: 13.1
Hispanic/Latino: 5.3
Two or more: 4.5
Porthos

See, Seattle and San Fran both seem very "white" from my perspective, considering that where I currently live, the city is 70% Hispanic.
Uriel

Quote:
Also, the sense of being a rainy city isn't based just on the amount of precipitation, but also on the duration. In the eastern US, you get lots of those cloudbursts that don't last long, but drop lots of water. In the Pacific Northwest, you get more of those rainfalls that drizzle all day long, or for several days.


Here, we're used to very quick rains that simply unload and then they're gone. (Sometimes they unload pretty spectacularly, causing all kinds of flooding, and it's unnerving to learn that that may be from far less than an inch of precipitation! Other factors are at work, like ground impermeability and the failure of the city to build ditches.)

But days and days and days of overcast skies on the east coast can make it seem rainier than it really is.
Deborah

Porthos wrote:
See, Seattle and San Fran both seem very "white" from my perspective, considering that where I currently live, the city is 70% Hispanic.

So does LA also seem "white" to you, being only 46% Hispanic?
fab

" See, Seattle and San Fran both seem very "white" from my perspective, considering that where I currently live, the city is 70% Hispanic. "

I continue don't understand this very well. how could you oppose "white" with "hispanic" ? "white" describe a look, "hispanic" describe a cultural background. it seems to me as if a question was "are you tall or blond-haired ?" - it is comparing two different things that doesn't exclude each other.


I understand that this misconception may be due to the fact that a lot of spanish-speaking emigrants in the US were mestizo or mulato, but I suppose that not all of them are. I'm asking myself: if a spanish person would emigrate to US, would he be considered not "white" ?, while a Greek would be ?
Uriel

It's not really meant to be taken literally, fab. "Hispanic" is usually contrasted with "white" or "Anglo", but you have to take all those terms with a grain of salt -- they're just a shorthand for "hispanic" versus "English-speaking non-hispanic of European origin". So, in this context, they are really referring more to cultural background than to race.

I know, it's weird and very misleading to outsiders! But even I will tell people that I am half white and half hispanic without meaning anything about race -- you don't get skin much paler than mine!
Porthos

fab wrote:
" See, Seattle and San Fran both seem very "white" from my perspective, considering that where I currently live, the city is 70% Hispanic. "

I continue don't understand this very well. how could you oppose "white" with "hispanic" ? "white" describe a look, "hispanic" describe a cultural background. it seems to me as if a question was "are you tall or blond-haired ?" - it is comparing two different things that doesn't exclude each other.


I understand that this misconception may be due to the fact that a lot of spanish-speaking emigrants in the US were mestizo or mulato, but I suppose that not all of them are. I'm asking myself: if a spanish person would emigrate to US, would he be considered not "white" ?, while a Greek would be ?


If someone is deemed Hispanic, it's usually a racial term, meant to describe a typical "Latin-American" look. We would say Mexican, but there's no other word that includes all other Hispanic peoples, so we just say Hispanic. The overwhelming majority of "Hispanics" in the U.S. do not look "white" per se, as they are Mestizo or Indian.

I'm one of the few acceptions. I'm Hispanic, but I'm white, although on racial figures, I would be included with a group seperate from "White/Cacausian".
Porthos

Deborah wrote:
Porthos wrote:
See, Seattle and San Fran both seem very "white" from my perspective, considering that where I currently live, the city is 70% Hispanic.

So does LA also seem "white" to you, being only 46% Hispanic?


L.A. has many more Mexicans than the official figures suggest, because a lot of the illegal immigrants are often not included. And no. I grew up predominantly in Hispanic neighborhoods in L.A., and many parts of L.A. feel like an extension of Mexico to me, with signs everywhere in Spanish, and the dominant culture being Chicano.

Malibu and Westwood are obviously very "white", but I didn't see much of them on the east side.
Joanne

Walker wrote:
Do you like rain? Well, my view of Seattle is somewhat vague but positive. It's the birthplace of grunge music! Jeans, flannel shirts and loud music.


...and Grey's Anatomy. Don't get sick in Seattle, Porthos! All the doctors there are too busy making out with each other in linen closets to treat you!
Deborah

Porthos, I suppose SF doesn't seem all that white to me because I live just 2 blocks away from Mission Street.
Uriel

We have tons of hispanics here, obviously, and they run the gamut from dark brown skin and black hair to blond hair and blue eyes, so no, I don't think of it as a racial term. Even the majority who are brunette are still recognizably caucasian, but they still say "white" as a cultural term -- and don't include themselves.
Deborah

Uriel wrote:
We have tons of hispanics here, obviously, and they run the gamut from dark brown skin and black hair to blond hair and blue eyes, so no, I don't think of it as a racial term. Even the majority who are brunette are still recognizably caucasian, but they still say "white" as a cultural term -- and don't include themselves.

I also think of Hispanic as having two meanings: a cultural one, meaning "from a Spanish-speaking country of the western hemisphere", and a "racial" one, referring to a mix of Spanish and indigenous and/or African peoples.
Julian

Re: Culture of Seattle, Washington

Porthos wrote:
Yet again, I might be moving to a new location. Due to my mother's work, I might be moving to Seattle. I picture Seattle has being very similar in culture and in its general ambiance to San Francisco. I've never been there however.

But if I love San Francisco, do you think I would like Seattle?


I've been to Seattle several times and it's beautiful. Like SF it's almost completely surrounded by water so there are alot of marine activities to keep you busy. It also has first class restaurants, great seafood, happening clubs, good art & music scene, etc. Unlike SF, Seattle's got forests and greenery all around it and a huge mountain range (Cascades) off in the distance so it's even more picturesque than SF. Some drawbacks if you're a sun worshipper: the skies are perpetually gray and it gets real cold in the winter. As Deborah pointed out, Seattle may not be the most rainy city in the nation, but it sure does drizzle alot!

Another thing about Seattle, it may have a liberal and cosmopolitan reputation but the outskirts of town is still largely rural and trailer trash-y. Oh yeah, traffic is a bitch -- ranks right behind LA in worst traffic congestion in the nation.
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
We have tons of hispanics here, obviously, and they run the gamut from dark brown skin and black hair to blond hair and blue eyes, so no, I don't think of it as a racial term. Even the majority who are brunette are still recognizably caucasian, but they still say "white" as a cultural term -- and don't include themselves.


Being that you live in New Mexico, you probably get a lot of immigrants from Sonora, Chihuahua, Sinaloa, etc, many of whom are of Spanish descent, thus explaining the higher than national norm of "White-Mexicans".
Uriel

No, most of ours are the darker kind. I tend to think of pale Mexicans as being from much further south, but maybe I'm wrong.
Uriel

I was trying to find an internet version of the t-shirt I =saw today, that sums it all up for Fab. But I can't, so I'll paraphrase: it said "I am Mexican. I am not a Latino. Latinos are the white people of South America. I am not Hispanic. Hispanics are Europeans from Spain. I am not white. White people are the intruders here." And it goes on and on from there in a big, long rant.

Chicano, hispanic, latino -- these are all labels that everyone seems to argue over which ones apply to which people -- I can't keep up and I can't be bothered with them, myself. To me, if you have a Spanish-sounding surname, you're hispanic of some variety, end of story. Others have a big cow over that and try to subdivide it further. Take you pick how you want to do that.
Porthos

Uriel wrote:
No, most of ours are the darker kind. I tend to think of pale Mexicans as being from much further south, but maybe I'm wrong.


Very wrong. The areas of Mexico where Whites constitute a large percentage of the population are in the arid north, such as the states I mentioned. This is mainly due to the fact that the region was not very densely populated by native peoples, and there were thus far few natives to exterminate or assimilate. There was also a lot of available land for grabs, which Spanish colonists greedily stole from the Yaqui Indians of the region, and there were large tracts of government land given away to new arrivals from Europe as late as circa-1900 in the region. My family for instance, is from this region, and many of them only arrived in Mexico from Spain as late as the late 1800s.
Deborah

Uriel wrote:
I was trying to find an internet version of the t-shirt I =saw today, that sums it all up for Fab. But I can't, so I'll paraphrase: it said "I am Mexican. I am not a Latino. Latinos are the white people of South America. I am not Hispanic. Hispanics are Europeans from Spain. I am not white. White people are the intruders here." And it goes on and on from there in a big, long rant.

Sounds like my old boyfriend, who was Mexican. He didn't get specific about pointing about what the other names meant; in fact, he didn't know what they were supposed to mean. But he was emphatic about referring to himself as simply Mexican.
Julian

Uriel wrote:
I was trying to find an internet version of the t-shirt I =saw today, that sums it all up for Fab. But I can't, so I'll paraphrase: it said "I am Mexican. I am not a Latino. Latinos are the white people of South America. I am not Hispanic. Hispanics are Europeans from Spain. I am not white. White people are the intruders here." And it goes on and on from there in a big, long rant.


I've seen people wearing those. It confuses the hell out of PC-minded people who are already confused by the whole Latino-Hispanic controversy.



Quote:
Chicano, hispanic, latino -- these are all labels that everyone seems to argue over which ones apply to which people -- I can't keep up and I can't be bothered with them, myself. To me, if you have a Spanish-sounding surname, you're hispanic of some variety, end of story. Others have a big cow over that and try to subdivide it further. Take you pick how you want to do that.


Yup, and then there's the politically active group that go about touting "La Raza", which I thought was a term that embraced all the mestizaje of the Americas, but then someone told me it only applied to the people of Aztlán, and therefore, excluded the people of Central America and beyond. So if anyone knows definitively what "The Race" refers to, please kindly enlighten me.
fab

I understand the meaning of the sentence on the T-shirt, but I guess it is a bit in opposition to the standard opinion in the US which equates "hispanic" or "latino" with a specific mixed amerindian ancestry.

but how about Spanish people (or Argentineans, uruguayans, etc)... aren't they considered as hispanic ? or are they ?

I saw some Spanish stars like penelope Cruz being labelled as "hispanic" (which for me is of course exact), but then, in the US mind is she seen as a non-white person ? from a different "world" than other Europeans ?
Julian

Heheh. Looks like the moderators are going to have to split this thread.

fab wrote:
I understand the meaning of the sentence on the T-shirt, but I guess it is a bit in opposition to the standard opinion in the US which equates "hispanic" or "latino" with a specific mixed amerindian ancestry.


But is it the standard opinion? By "ancestry" do you mean heritage or race? "Hispanic" simply refers to people of Spanish heritage (culture, lineage, language, etc.), which is why some radical amerindian groups refuse to be defined by this term.

Quote:
but how about Spanish people (or Argentineans, uruguayans, etc)... aren't they considered as hispanic ? or are they ?


Yes, of course they are.

Quote:
I saw some Spanish stars like penelope Cruz being labelled as "hispanic" (which for me is of course exact), but then, in the US mind is she seen as a non-white person ? from a different "world" than other Europeans ?


I will quote the US Census Bureau's definition of hispanic:
Quote:
The federal government considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts.

People who identify with the terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the Census 2000 or ACS questionnaire – "Mexican," "Puerto Rican," or "Cuban." It also includes people who indicate that they are "other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino."

Origin can be considered as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as "Spanish," "Hispanic," or "Latino" may be of any race.


So with that definition in mind, then yes, Penelope Cruz would be considered Hispanic. With that said, yes, you will probably come across some unenlightened Americans who define "hispanic" or "latino" in strictly racial terms. These people would probably place Penelope in the non-white category. I don't know how widespread this belief is, but just know that that isn't a view shared by all Americans.
Deborah

Julian wrote:
So with that definition in mind, then yes, Penelope Cruz would be considered Hispanic. With that said, yes, you will probably come across some unenlightened Americans who define "hispanic" or "latino" in strictly racial terms. These people would probably place Penelope in the non-white category. I don't know how widespread this belief is, but just know that that isn't a view shared by all Americans.

This whole idea of deciding who's white and who isn't is antiquated, anyway. But yes, there are Americans, of the white supremacist sort, who would probably consider Ms. Cruz to be non-white. In a documentary about the white supremacy movement in the US, they interviewed a couple of guys who considered anyone from any further south than northern France to be non-white. They said that was because below southern France, people are too dark-skinned to be white. So what do they they think about southern Europeans who are light-skinned?
Benjamin [inactive]

Deborah wrote:
This whole idea of deciding who's white and who isn't is antiquated, anyway. But yes, there are Americans, of the white supremacist sort, who would probably consider Ms. Cruz to be non-white. In a documentary about the white supremacy movement in the US, they interviewed a couple of guys who considered anyone from any further south than northern France to be non-white.

I'm not surprised; there are some ultra-extreme white-supremacist groups here who consider anyone who isn't almost entirely of 'Germanic' descent to be 'non-white'. So, in their view, it would be fine for a white person from England to have sex with a white person from Sweden, but it would be an 'abomination' (at least in most cases) if they had sex with someone from Italy. (Seriously, I have found internet forums where those sorts of views were being expressed).

Apparently, a few hundred years ago, even people of Irish and German descent were not considered 'white' by people of English descent in North America.
Deborah

Benjamin wrote:
Apparently, a few hundred years ago, even people of Irish and German descent were not considered 'white' by people of English descent in North America.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. I know that they thought of them as "dirty foreigners", though.
Daniel

And people say that Scotland is always overcast and rainy! My hometown of Inverness in the north of Scotland has an average of only 25.2 inches of rainfall a year. I think people (especially tourists) perceive Inverness to be very wet because August is the wettest month whereas in London the wettest month is January.
Porthos

Deborah wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Apparently, a few hundred years ago, even people of Irish and German descent were not considered 'white' by people of English descent in North America.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. I know that they thought of them as "dirty foreigners", though.


I don't think so. Northern Europeans were always considered "white" in America, but southern Europeans, especially ones with swarthy features, were not always considered "white". To this day, some people don't consider Italians and Greeks to be "White" in this country. For me, "White" is synonymous with "European", but for many people, Olive skin=not being "white".
Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos wrote:
Deborah wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Apparently, a few hundred years ago, even people of Irish and German descent were not considered 'white' by people of English descent in North America.

Really? I hadn't heard that before. I know that they thought of them as "dirty foreigners", though.


I don't think so. Northern Europeans were always considered "white" in America, but southern Europeans, especially ones with swarthy features, were not always considered "white".

Hmm, maybe not then — I just remember reading about some rather bizarre racialist comments against German immigrants made by Benjamin Franklin.

Porthos wrote:
To this day, some people don't consider Italians and Greeks to be "White" in this country. For me, "White" is synonymous with "European",

So, in your view, would, say, a black British person be 'European', or not?
Porthos

Quote:
So, in your view, would, say, a black British person be 'European', or not?


Sure, why wouldn't he? It would be no different than a black person living in North America. He would be a European of African descent, just like "African-Americans". Most likely in my eyes, he would be a Brit who happens to be black.

Quote:
Hmm, maybe not then — I just remember reading about some rather bizarre racialist comments against German immigrants made by Benjamin Franklin.


He is reported to have favored immigration laws which put a quota on immigrants from southern Europe, in favor of "white" immigrants (those he considered to be truly "white), from northern Europe, which included France in his opinion.
Benjamin [inactive]

Porthos wrote:
Quote:
So, in your view, would, say, a black British person be 'European', or not?


Sure, why wouldn't he? It would be no different than a black person living in North America. He would be a European of African descent, just like "African-Americans". Most likely in my eyes, he would be a Brit who happens to be black.

I just wondered, because you had said that 'white' was synonymous with 'European' to you, and because you had previously discussed questions such as whether British people look more like Germans or more like Irish people etc.
fab

Quote:
For me, "White" is synonymous with "European"



the benjamin's question would be more this one :

do you consider a black-skinned European to be white ? (since European=white it would be)


Quote:
He would be a European of African descent, just like "African-Americans".


most black french are actually not (directly) from Africa but from caribean islands.
Benjamin [inactive]

fab wrote:
Quote:
He would be a European of African descent, just like "African-Americans".


most black french are actually not (directly) from Africa but from caribean islands.

Yes, the same is true here. And let's be honest, places like Jamaica are essentially far more 'European' than 'African'.

Believe it or not, there actually exists 'black on black' racism here, between those of Caribbean descent, and those more directly from Africa.
Deborah

Benjamin wrote:
Hmm, maybe not then — I just remember reading about some rather bizarre racialist comments against German immigrants made by Benjamin Franklin.

Guess what? You're right!

http://books.google.com/books?id=...DgaqURwg6uKgxhzAY&output=html

So according to Franklin, Swedes are generally "swarthy". Weird!
Porthos

Deborah wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Hmm, maybe not then — I just remember reading about some rather bizarre racialist comments against German immigrants made by Benjamin Franklin.

Guess what? You're right!

http://books.google.com/books?id=...DgaqURwg6uKgxhzAY&output=html

So according to Franklin, Swedes are generally "swarthy". Weird!


Huh, I guess so. Although I must question the authenticity of the quote, as not even someone from his time would call Swedes "swarthy".
Uriel

Historically, Europeans were white, and "European-American" means "white". Just like "African-American" means "black". Yes, there are people of all colors on all continents (and yes, there have always been non-blacks in northern Africa), but this is called generalizing. Don't quibble over particulars!

You'll hear us throw around a lot of literally inaccurate terms -- white, hispanic, anglo, indian. The key is to figure out what we mean when we say them, not apply your own logic! We have to do the same with certain European terms -- whenever I hear British people referring to Asians, I have to remind myself that they're usually talking about Pakistanis and Indians, while I automatically picture Koreans and Japanese! (The whole western half of Asia* is just a suburb of Europe and the Middle East, in my mind....)

*thanks, Julian!

       langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Culture
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum