Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...

Dear Miguel:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...


> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:09:23 -0500, "Patrick C. Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:07:45 -0500, "Patrick C. Ryan"
> >> <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >My own view is, as a hypothesis, to seek to explain phonological changes
> >> >as a result of changing gene frequencies in the population speaking the language.
> >>
> >> That hypothesis is demonstrably false. I falsify it every day.
> >
> ><PCR> Would you mind explaining that in greater detail?
>
> I speak phonologically unmodified native Dutch, despite my genes.

<PCR> Your personal situation has absolutely nothing to do with the question under discussion.


> >> ><PCR> In my opinion, "social change" can best be understood as reflecting changes
> >> >in genetic composition. I have no doubt that when, in certain US states, a certain
> >> >critical mass of Latinos is achieved, power will shift to this group, and changes
> >> >in the English phonology there will ensue, although national communications media
> >> >will slow and somewhat inhibit them.
> >>
> >> Define "Latino".
> >
> ><PCR> In the politically correct USA, Latino is the favored term to designate Mexican
> >Amerindians, who speak Spanish (even as a second language).
> >
> >It is sometimes extended to Amerindians from other countries who speak Spanish.
>
> The US Census bureau defines it as:
>
> "Definition:
>
> Hispanics or Latinos are those people who classified themselves in one of
> the specific Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino categories listed on the Census
> 2000 questionnaire -"Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano," "Puerto Rican", or
> "Cuban" -as well as those who indicate that they are "other
> Spanish/Hispanic/Latino." Persons who indicated that they are "other
> Spanish/Hispanic/Latino" include those whose origins are from Spain, the
> Spanish-speaking countries of Central or South America, the Dominican
> Republic or people identifying themselves generally as Spanish,
> Spanish-American, Hispanic, Hispano, Latino, and so on.

<PCR> As many of you will be able to see, the definition is a typical product of a committee. The terms Hispanic and Latino are conflated for purposes of applying other laws.

<PCR> I gave you the definition that most Americans would give you for the terms as they are used normally. Residents of Spain might be Hispanic but, in common usage, would not be termed Latino.

> Origin can be viewed 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.

<PCR> Are these your words or those of the Census? Obviously, "origin" means nothing for practical purposes if all these categories are equally weighed. We can imagine a person with a Jewish father, African mother, born in Albania, a Spanish citizen, who resides in Holland? What is his/her "origin"?


> People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino may be of
> any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to percentages for
> racial categories. Tallies that show race categories for Hispanics and
> nonHispanics separately are available."

<PCR> People may identify themselves in a particular way for many different reasons. Some "blacks", for example, are lightly colored enough to pass as white, and identify themselves as whites.

The facts are, in the US at this time, the far greater percentage of those who are identifying themselves as Latino are Amerindians, who happen to speak Spanish, not always as their primary language.


> Your attempt to reintroduce "race" into the question (by claiming that
> "Latinos" must be _Amerindian_ Spanish speakers) is wishful thinking [in
> fact only 1.2% of "Latinos" identified themselves as "American Indian or
> Alaska Native" in the 2000 census], and the fact is that "Latino" is
> fundamentally a _linguistic_ category. Of course the presence of a large
> minority of other-language speakers can in principle affect the primary
> language spoken in an area (lexically, phonologically and to a lesser
> extent syntactically and morphologically) [although the effect is likely to
> be more marked the other way around]. But that has nothing to do with
> "changing gene frequencies".

<PCR> I said nothing about "must". And the fact that only 1.2% of Latinos identified themselves as (American) Indian is due primarily to the way in which the categories are set up, and partially due to fact that 'indio' is a term of reproach in Mexico, where many prefer to consider themselves as descendants of the conquistadores, for prestige purposes. For legal purposes, native North American indians are normally termed Amerindians. Millions in aid dollars are triggered by these census categories, so the question for the Census is primarily political not ethnologic.

It never fails to amuse me how some people struggle to avoid the simple facts out of ideological biases. If a large number of other-language speakers invade the territory of language speakers, the OVERALL gene frequencies of the new population (other-language + language) change, even without actual mixed marriages.

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)