The Organization for
Iberian Preservation
USA
Copyright © 1995-2001 The
Organization for Iberian Preservation USA. All rights reserved.
TERMINOLOGY
People of "pre-Columbian Hispanic" origin are persons whose origins are comprised of Spanish-European heritage. These people may be referred to as "orthodox Hispanics" and, within a racial context, are collectively known as Caucasians.
The phrase "post-Columbian" defines persons whose origins are marked by the ascendancy of the Spanish colonial empire. Hence, people of "post-Columbian Hispanic" origin are persons whose origins are comprised of an admixture of Spanish-Amerindian, Spanish-black, or Spanish-Filipino heritage. These people may be collectively known as "contemporary Hispanics" among their various ethnic sub-groups.
THE PROBLEM
In pre-Columbian times, Hispanic heritage was predominantly analogous to Spanish-Iberian culture. However, Spanish-Iberian culture has been eroded by the centuries of post-Columbian development in the Northwestern hemisphere. Today, in the United States, Hispanic heritage of pre-Columbian origin has become subsumed by its post-Columbian progeny of the Northwestern hemisphere.
The embodiment of this contemporary problem is evident in the drafting of ethnic surveys in the United States. These surveys have disingenuously attempted to address the complexity of Hispanic culture and heritage by collectively associating all Hispanic sub-groups by nationality, creating an oxymoron for Spanish-Iberian people by relegating them to "white minorities."
The manifest ignorance in American ethnic surveys of Hispanics further distorts the statistical analysis of true racial minorities in America, i.e., those people whose ancestors have been the victims of past invidious discrimination, e.g., Cubans of mostly black ancestry or Mexicans of mostly Amerindian ancestry versus Spaniards of pure European ancestry. We therefore urge Congress to ratify our plan of reformation in order to rectify these distortions in ethnic surveys affecting all Hispanic people.
AN ILLUSTRATION
Consider the following racial and ethnic grouping scheme currently employed by the California state bar—a government organization regulating the admission and practice of lawyers in California:
ETHNIC SURVEY
Which one of the following racial or ethnic groups best describes you? Mark only one. (1) [ ] American Indian or Alaskan Native (Descended from any of the original peoples of North America.) (2) [ ] Filipino (3) [ ] Pacific Islander (Melanesian, Micronesian, Polynesian) (4) [ ] Origins in Indian sub-continent (Pakistan, Indian, Bengel, etc.) (5) [ ] Asian (Includes Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the peoples of Malaysia and Southeast Asia) (6) [ ] Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American & Spanish -- but not Portuguese) (7) [ ] Black (Excludes persons of Hispanic origin) (8) [ ] White (Includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, Russia, North Africa and the Middle East -- and generally corresponds to those persons not classified into one of the 7 specific minority categories)
This survey represents the typical modern-day racial and ethnic grouping device used by government and private organizations in the United States. Unfortunately, the survey scheme is pugnacious and manifests an intolerable degree of ignorance. As an initial note, the survey is potentially oppressive to many persons who would simply prefer to identify themselves as "mixed-race" or to those who would prefer to opt-out of the survey entirely. Most importantly, the survey is filled with patent ambiguities and oxymorons, especially with respect to people of Spanish-European descent.
For example, the grouping of Spanish-Europeans into category six in conjunction with the reference to same in category eight as members of a "specific minority category" is indeed ludicrous. Both Spanish and Portuguese share virtually identical composites of European ancestry. Hence it is indeed an oxymoron to classify Spanish-Europeans as members of a specific minority group while Portuguese-Europeans are excluded. Clearly both are members of the Caucasian race which is an undisputed majority in the Northwestern hemisphere.
Furthermore, this modern so-called "ethnic" survey ignorantly assumes, for example, that Caucasians of German, Italian, and French ancestry residing in, for example, Argentina, Brazil, or Mexico, are necessarily "South American" and therefore deemed to be "Hispanic." Incredibly, this flawed survey would then cast these Caucasians as members of a "specific minority category." This clearly shows the lack of care and attention the survey drafters took in properly defining "Hispanic." Consequently, among the eight so-called "ethnic" categories in the survey illustrated above, only category six entitled "Hispanic" has specifically sought to combine Caucasian and non-Caucasian races. This is plainly illogical since the survey seeks to include Caucasians in category six "Hispanic" while correspondingly exclude them in category eight "white" simply because the survey drafters have ignorantly deemed that Caucasians residing in Spain, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America must be members of a "specific minority category." Thus, American surveys of Hispanics blindly focus upon nationality rather than true ethnic and racial distinctiveness.
Hence, the question must be asked: Why have drafters of "ethnic" surveys in the United States so ignorantly excluded various European people from their proper racial classification? Obviously, the overly broad definition of "Hispanic" is the primary cause. However, the root of the problem resides at a much more historically deeper level. Modern drafters of "ethnic" surveys have all failed to recognize one critical fact: There is a clear difference between pre-Columbian Hispanic heritage and post-Columbian Hispanic heritage which contemporary "ethnic" surveys blatantly ignore.
In essence, this "ethnic" survey is a cogent illustration of how primarily people of Spanish-European origin are unjustly paying the price for their centuries of vast colonial expansion and domination and, albeit, subjugation of the Amerindians of the New World (as well as Africans brought to the New World) while other major European colonists of the Americas, such as the English, Dutch, and Portuguese have all been quite fortunate in escaping the usurpation of their ethnic identities.
Why do "ethnic" surveys in the United States combine Spanish-Europeans along with their Spanish post-colonial mixed-race progeny while English-Europeans are not likewise combined with their English post-colonial mixed-race progeny? The answer is simply that Spanish-Europeans have become the incidental byproduct of a flawed ethnic and racial grouping system in America which manifests a reckless disregard for the pre-colonial and post-colonial dichotomy.
Consider, by analogy, the fact that since "ethnic" surveys in the United States combine Spanish-Europeans into a melting-pot of different races, why not likewise recognize that English-Europeans are members of a melting-pot of different races, characterized as "Anglo." It is clear that the term "Anglo" must logically include all persons of "English culture or origin." Therefore, by analogy to the contemporary meaning of "Hispanic," the modern meaning of "Anglo" must necessarily include all English post-Columbian mixed-race progeny. For example, there are many mixed-race groups comprised of English culture or origin throughout the world. English colonial expansion since the time of post-Columbian exploration has spawned millions of people of English-African, English-North American Indian, English-Asian, and English-subcontinental Indian origin. In short, when a person in the Western hemisphere refers to a member of the "Anglo" ethnic nomenclature, a majority of them will think that Anglo people can only be of Caucasian ancestry despite the many mixed-race people of "English origin or culture" in the Western hemisphere.
Does this mean that we should also expand the "Anglo" ethnic group to encompass the many post-Columbian people of "English origin or culture" throughout the world? Perhaps. However, for ethnic survey purposes, by including Caucasians and non-Caucasians into one overly broad "Anglo" category and thereby failing to sub-classify the ethnic-specific groups within the "Anglo" nomenclature would, by analogy, effectively illustrate the misapplication of important socioeconomic and racial distinctions (e.g., African-American's of "English origin or culture" versus European-American's of "English origin or culture").
THE NEED FOR REFORMATION
The existing inequities demand reformation of the ethnic and racial grouping system. The United States Congress has the authority, pursuant to its Commerce Clause power, to enact uniform laws with respect to the ethnic and racial categorization of the various peoples residing within the United States and its sovereign territories. Such authority may be vested in Congress pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court's broad "affecting commerce" rationale in light of the impact upon which ethnic and racial surveys may bear in the assessment and allocation of goods, services, benefits, and entitlements to the several states and territories. These uniform federal laws would ensure that government and private organizations throughout the United States and its territories comport with the federal mandate under the doctrine of federal preemption, thereby providing consistency, accuracy, and fairness to all ethnic and racial grouping surveys.
The need for reformation is especially significant in light of the current mistreatment of Spanish heritage by private and government organizations in the United States. The failure by American survey drafters to distinguish between pre-Columbian and post-Columbian Hispanic heritage is nothing less than pure callousness when one considers the substantial historical contributions made by Spain and its once vast colonial empire in assisting the United States in achieving independence from England. The Spanish empire provided financial support as well as military armament and troops to assist George Washington in the American Revolution. Spain and its colonies of the New World also supplied the primary and preferred tender among the American colonists, known as the Spanish Milled Dollar, or Pillar Dollar.
PROPOSED REFORMATION OF THE ETHNIC AND RACIAL GROUPING SCHEME AFFECTING HISPANICS OF PRE- AND POST- COLUMBIAN ORIGIN
The escalating threat to emasculate the "Spanish-Iberian persona" has come into being because of the prevalent misconceptions permeating throughout the Northwestern hemisphere of our globe, particularly within the United States of America. In the United States, government and private organizations continue to apply an oxymoronic catch-all solution to ethnic grouping of Spanish-surnamed people. These contemporary issues are discussed along with a proposed solution to the problem.
The Spanish empire once extended into parts of North Africa, parts of the East Indies, West Indies, Cuba, parts of North America, Mexico, all of Central America, the greater part of South America, and the Philippine Islands. The Spanish people are the predominant Europeans accredited with the unprecedented exploration and colonialization of the Western hemisphere. Upon landing on the shore of the West Indies, Christopher Columbus, dubbed the name "Indian" (also known in Spanish as "Indio"), to the aboriginal people of the West Indies because Christopher Columbus had thought he had landed upon that region of the world known as India, rather than the "New World."
Since the discovery of the "Indian" people by Christopher Columbus, the term "Indian" has been greatly expanded to encompass the many aboriginal tribes of North, Central, and South America. These diverse aboriginal tribes shall henceforth be properly referred to as "Amerindian" people. In addition to the Spanish colonial domination over the Amerindian people, many African tribes were subjugated into slavery and brought to the Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and parts of the Caribbean islands during the "slave trade" era beginning in the seventeenth century. In this part of the "New World," many Africans were imported primarily to labor as minors rendering gold and silver for the Spanish Crown.
The Spanish colonial domination of the Western hemisphere has created a vast number of culturally diversified people. Unfortunately, some of these mixed-race people engage in what may be called "ethnic-misbranding." That is, they loosely refer to themselves as being "Spanish" when in fact they are merely a partial product of Spanish colonial domination. This practice of ethnic-misbranding is most pervasive among some Spanish-Amerindian people who purportedly claim to be more closely associated with their Spanish-European origin rather than their Indian ancestry. The practice of ethnic-misbranding is hinged upon the false premise that mere possession of a partial derivative of Spanish lineage is somehow equivalent to pure Spanish-European heritage. That simply is not true. Purity in any ethnic group is defined by total heritage, not partial heritage.
Furthermore, the contemporary meaning of "Hispanic" has been convoluted by Western misapplication. The pre-colonial or orthodox meaning of "Hispanic" refers to European people of Spanish culture and origin. The modern, post-colonial or contemporary definition of "Hispanic," as ignorantly applied in some parts of the Western hemisphere, is actually an ambiguous ethnic scheme which is commonly misconstrued as being a race. This misconstruction has occurred due to the fact that the predominant population of Spanish-speaking people who reside in the Western hemisphere are of Spanish-Amerindian origin.
In fact, the contemporary Western definition of "Hispanic" is actually a very broadly-defined ethnic group which includes whites, blacks, and a unique blend of mixed-race as well as pure Amerindian people all tied together by so-called "Spanish culture or origin." In the United States, for example, the modern Western definition of "Hispanic" contains both the orthodox as well as the contemporary component.
Because the contemporary definition of "Hispanic" is predominantly comprised of Spanish-Amerindian or so-called mestizo people, the modern construction of "Hispanic" is often misconstrued as being a race of people. In reality, this modern Western definition is a fatally ambiguous attempt to group together many different kinds of people. For example, the contemporary Western ethnic grouping of "Hispanic" includes black people of "Spanish culture and origin." This is clearly a contradictory application since the Western definition of "Anglo" fails to apply the same ethnic distinction among blacks of "English culture or origin." In fact, there are millions of Anglo-American blacks in the United States of both African-English culture and origin yet they are excluded from any English post-colonial or contemporary usage of the "Anglo" ethnic group.
This broad nomenclature is not only contradictory, it is also incomplete since such a broad-based definition must necessarily include those people of the Philippine islands. These islands were a Spanish colonial outpost for hundreds of years. There is a unique mixture among many of these islanders of Spanish-Filipino heritage. Thus they possess the requisite "Spanish culture or origin" and hence qualify as "Hispanic" within the meaning of the contemporary Western definition.
As a consequence of the modern misapplication of "Hispanic," Europeans of Spanish descent can no longer be accurately referred to as "Hispanic" without the dominant contemporary Western definition of "Hispanic" treading upon the traditional orthodox usage. As a result of this abuse, the pre-colonial orthodox meaning of "Hispanic" has been usurped by the post-colonial contemporary misapplication.
The Western contemporary meaning as applied in the United States has resulted in an illogical and confusing categorization which is completely oblivious to the relevant ethnic and racial distinctions. The Western contemporary definition of "Hispanic" must be sorted from its orthodox understanding because racial classifications focus on the unique genealogical and physical characteristics of people (the basic groups being: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid), whereas ethnic classifications focus on the particular cultural aspects of a specific group of people.
Consequently, it is senseless to say that the sharing of a "common culture" is a dispositive means in which to characterize a complex variety of peoples. A person of pure Spanish-European ancestry cannot be logically characterized within the contemporary Western definition of "Hispanic." By analogy, for example, a person in the United States would not think to include a black American within the "Anglo" ethnic group. Yet most black Americans share the same "common culture" including various Anglo-Saxon religions and Anglo-Saxon surnames in addition to millions of black Americans possessing Anglo-Saxon lineage as a product of their historical subjugation as slaves.
Ironically, a redefining of the orthodox definition of "Anglo" has never taken place. Rather the orthodox meaning has remained steadfast within contemporary Western society yet a viable argument may be had for a definition of "Anglo" which ought to include all people sharing "English culture or origin." Thus, the Anglo ethnic group should include white people, black people (e.g., people of mixed Anglo-Saxon and African ancestry located throughout the one-time British colonies of Africa and other parts of the world), and Asian people (e.g., people of mixed Anglo-Saxon and Asian ancestry residing in the one-time British colonies of Singapore, Hong Kong, and other parts of the world). The problem seems to be one of perspective. That is, it is not so much about the form in which we define an ethnic group as it is about the basis for defining the particular ethnic group.
In other words, if throughout the United States a vast number of different people in the world may be conveniently dubbed under one contemporary definition of "Hispanic" then the same should hold true for the vast number of people in the world possessing "Anglo" culture or origin. Yet the latter proposition has not held true perhaps because those in government who are in charge of maintaining statistics on various groups of people in the United States are predominantly of traditional Anglo-Saxon origin. Perhaps it is an act on their part to ensure self-preservation and self-identity in America. Is it fair to allow Anglo-Saxons the right to refuse to acknowledge that a vast number of Anglicized African-Americans and Native-American Indians in fact possess English culture as well as origin? Does this mean that the injustice served upon Spanish-Iberians in America should be equally imposed against Anglo-Saxons in America? Perhaps. This proposition merely illustrates that the unique ethnic and racial differences between people of Amerindian, mestizo, mulatto and European background ought to be respected and preserved, especially in the case where, as here, the meaning of "Hispanic" has been subsumed in the United States and thereby removed of its traditional Spanish-European denotation and application.
It is surely an oxymoron to attempt to meld together the orthodox and contemporary meaning of "Hispanic" which includes whites, blacks, Amerindians, and other racial composites into one ethnic categorization and to allow it to be commonly misbranded as a "race" by many ignorant people. A final illustration of the nonsensical application of the contemporary Western hemisphere definition is evident when one considers the distinction drawn between a person of Spanish origin as compared to an individual of Portuguese origin. Both groups share essentially the same ancestral background yet the Portuguese have successfully evaded "ethnic misbranding" in the Western hemisphere simply by virtue of the fact that the Spanish people are the predominant members of the Iberian peninsula to initiate European settlement of the Western hemisphere. But the Portuguese, in fact, were instrumental in the European colonization of the Western hemisphere. For example, the Portuguese are accredited with the colonization of Brazil.
It is therefore incumbent that the Spanish-Iberian persona be preserved in the Western hemisphere. Spanish purity must be kept separate and apart from its contemporary understanding in the Western hemisphere. This can be accomplished by logically reforming the contemporary definition of "Hispanic" to distinguish between the post-Columbian groups possessing derivative "Spanish culture or origin." Henceforth, the following is a proposed revision of the contemporary Western hemisphere definition of "Hispanic" ethnicity:
1. Mestizo-Hispanic (Amerindian and Spanish ancestry);
2. Amerindian-Hispanic (Amerindian only, not of mixed-race, but including Spanish culture);
3. Mulatto-Hispanic (Negro and Spanish ancestry);
4. Filipino-Hispanic (Asian and Spanish ancestry);
5. Other Mixed Hispanic (admixture of two or more of the above four ethnic sub-groups).
Persons of Mestizo-Hispanic ethnic ancestry are individuals of mixed Spanish (Caucasoid) and Indian (Mongoloid) origin, but of course a mestizo can be any person of mixed European and East Indian, Negro, or Malay ancestry. Many persons in this proposed grouping are those who are often referred to as "Latino" (or sometimes called "Latin," i.e., short form usage for persons of Latin American origin).
Persons of Amerindian-Hispanic ethnic ancestry are individuals of pure Amerindian (Mongoloid) origin whom have incorporated, through centuries past, elements of the Spanish colonial culture into their Amerindian lifestyle. This group recognizes that distinction. For example, most of the Mayan Indians of Latin America have incorporated their centuries-old Spanish-Portuguese colonial culture while retaining their aboriginal heritage. The Amerindian-Hispanic ethnic group accurately denotes the many Amerindian tribes that reside throughout the Latin American region of the Americas. Within the United States, this group would typically include those individuals who refer to themselves as being "Chicano," however, many mixed-race persons, especially persons of Mixed-Hispanic ancestry, also identify closely with their Indian ancestry. Nonetheless, these two ethnic-specific groups are distinct. Therefore, a person of Mixed-Hispanic ancestry would not properly fit within the Amerindian-Hispanic ethnic group.
Persons of Mulatto-Hispanic ethnic ancestry are people of mixed Spanish (Caucasoid) and black (Negroid) ancestry. Mulatto people of Spanish culture and lineage and Negro ancestry are most indicative of persons whose origins may be traced to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and parts of the Caribbean islands. But of course, a "mulatto" person can be any person of Caucasian (e.g., English) and Negro ancestry.
Persons of Filipino-Hispanic ethnic ancestry include individuals of Asian (Mongoloid) origin who possess a unique blend of Asian and Spanish culture and lineage. In particular, this grouping addresses the people of the Philippine islands who are of primarily three ethnic groups: Tagalog, Visayan, and Ilocano. Many of these people contain a unique mixture of Spanish (Caucasoid) and Malayan (Mongoloid) ancestry because these islands were once, for a few centuries, a part of the Spanish Crown. Thus, the Filipino-Hispanic group recognizes this particular blend of Spanish-European culture and/or origin and Asian ancestry.
Thus, the mixed-race groups of Filipino-Hispanic, Mestizo-Hispanic, and Negro-Hispanic, and the non-mixed-race group of Amerindian-Hispanic (i.e., the unique Mongoloid grouping of the Amerindians of Latin America possessing Spanish colonial culture) should comprise their respective contemporary Western ethnic-specific definitions within the "Hispanic" ethnic group. It is therefore imperative that the contemporary Western definition of "Hispanic" be expanded into the proposed sub-categories of ethnic-specific groups, thereby preserving the orthodox or pre-Columbian meaning of "Hispanic" for important historical, socioeconomic and affirmative action purposes. Moreover, the implementation of the proposed ethnic-specific groups would thereby permit the traditional Hispanic ethnic group to remain accurately within the group of persons of Spanish-European origin or Spanish-European culture for purposes of contemporary ethnic grouping. Hence, the practical effect to reclassify "Hispanic" people from a broadly defined ethnicity to a narrowly defined ethnicity within the "Hispanic" nomenclature is to eliminate the need for designating persons of Spanish-European origin or culture into an ethnic group separate and apart from the rest of their Caucasian counterpart.
Persons of Other Mixed Hispanic ancestry include those individuals forming a complex ethnic admixture within the Hispanic sub-group nomenclature, such as a composite of Negro-Hispanic and Asian-Hispanic ancestry. Moreover, every ethnic survey should include a category for persons who simply wish to identify themselves as being of "mixed ethnic" ancestry.
For purposes of this discussion, the point to remember is that the contemporary Western definition of "Hispanic" should be replaced with the proposed ethnic-specific definitions and kept separate and apart from the pre-colonial or orthodox definition. The proposed revision to the contemporary Western classification seeks to clarify and remedy the ignorance of the present all-in-one, highly attenuated and loosely-fit ethnic scheme currently applied by the United States in the Northwestern hemisphere. The Spanish-Iberian persona in the Northwestern hemisphere is being threatened with emasculation because of the flagrant disregard for the orthodox-contemporary dichotomy.
In light of the proposed changes, citizens of the United States must encourage their congressmen and congresswomen to make the necessary changes in the racial and ethnic classificatory scheme as provided above. Congress has the authority to enact uniform laws with respect to the grouping of the various peoples within the United States pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers which grant broad constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, including the impact that ethnic and racial surveys may have upon interstate commerce. These uniform laws would ensure that government and private organizations within the states and territories of the United States comport with the federal mandate under the doctrine of federal preemption.
As a final note, it is imperative that ethnic and racial surveys effectuate their intended lawful purpose. Since discrimination based upon race and national origin is clearly proscribed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the only seemingly logical purpose for any ethnic or racial survey is to benefit certain individuals who have historically been deprived of representation in the United States. After all, everybody legally residing in the United States is an "American" and if we did not have private, political, and economic oppression in the United States, there would not be a need for any sort of ethnic or racial categories since everyone would have a fair and equal chance to pursue the "American Dream" for success. In a perfect United States, only one survey would be necessary with regard to ethnicity: Are you an American or not! Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, and the United States is certainly no exception. Consequently, the primary purpose for any ethnic or racial survey must necessarily be to rectify the past oppression among persons who have historically been deprived of fair and equal representation in the United States.
It follows from this reasoning that the present grouping of whites, Amerindians, and blacks, and any mixture thereof, into one ethnic group called "Hispanic" necessarily invites the opportunity for abuse in American society. The present usage of "Hispanic" includes a diverse group of people combined into one ethnic group. In light of the racist propensities, both historically and currently demonstrated by mainstream American society, the chief concern is that white people who qualify under the present survey definition of "Hispanic" may be chosen to represent black or Amerindian people, or a mixture thereof. This is a ludicrous result because white people in American society have never experienced the degree of oppression that blacks and Amerindians have historically suffered in the United States. This result is manifestly inconsistent with the lawful purpose and goal of ethnic and racial surveys in the United States: namely, to provide fair and equal representation to non-whites who have traditionally been the victims of social and economic oppression in American society. It is therefore imperative that congressional action be taken to eliminate the current ambiguities which fail to reflect the important dichotomy between the contemporary (post-Columbian) and orthodox (pre-Columbian) meaning of "Hispanic."
If you have the right to vote in federal elections of the United States, please help by forwarding this message to your congressional representative and share your concerns regarding the abusive effects of the present ethnic grouping of Hispanic people. It is especially important to redefine Hispanic ethnicity before the advent of the 2010 census. The proposed reclassification will better serve in accurately assessing the composition of those Hispanic people who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and deprivations within the American socioeconomic infrastructure.
If your Congressperson has an e-mail account, you can
attach this Web page and e-mail it to him or her and express your desire for
the proposed enactment of uniform nationwide laws for the drafting of ethnic
surveys in America to reform the inequities which currently exist in the
present racial and ethnic grouping of pre-Columbian and post-Columbian Hispanic
people.
|