Zompist Bboard Again

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:37 pmSo?

So, whether the Americans control it or not doesn't seem to be what decides whether Americans tolerate people from there or not.

We don't think of Frenchmen as fellow Americans either, but that doesn't mean we hate the French.

At this point, we even hate each other, let alone people from other countries. We hate the French so much we almost renamed French fries.

There were people calling themselves 'Spanish' in 20th century Texas (can't remember where I found that), but 'Spanish' and 'Hispanic' aren't the same thing.

Most people of Latin American origin in America prefer to be known by their country of origin rather than 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' even though it was invented by people of the same origin under Nixon.

MacAnDàil wrote:Most people of Latin American origin in America prefer to be known by their country of origin rather than 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' even though it was invented by people of the same origin under Nixon.

In my expereience (living in NJ, one of the most Latino states in the country), whether one identifies as Hispanic, Latino or with the country of origin varies a lot between individual Americans.

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:46 am

MacAnDàil wrote:Most people of Latin American origin in America prefer to be known by their country of origin rather than 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' even though it was invented by people of the same origin under Nixon.

In my expereience (living in NJ, one of the most Latino states in the country), whether one identifies as Hispanic, Latino or with the country of origin varies a lot between individual Americans.

Sure, it varies according to individual. I had found statitics saying roughly twice as many preferred nationality to latino/hispanic.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 3:22 pm

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:46 am

MacAnDàil wrote:Most people of Latin American origin in America prefer to be known by their country of origin rather than 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' even though it was invented by people of the same origin under Nixon.

In my expereience (living in NJ, one of the most Latino states in the country), whether one identifies as Hispanic, Latino or with the country of origin varies a lot between individual Americans.

Sure, it varies according to individual. I had found statitics saying roughly twice as many preferred nationality to latino/hispanic.

https://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/ ... -identity/

Country of origin: 51%
"Hispanic"/"Latino": 24%
"American": 21%

Due to increasing use of "Latinx", I thought that "Latino"/"Latina" was the preferred form but according to the Pew Hispanic Center, in 2012 it was "Hispanic" (though most had no preference).

No preference: 51%
"Hispanic": 33%
"Latino": 14%

It would be interesting to see if those same percentages hold today. Also, what the breakdown is for each category. I would speculate, for instance, that a lot of people who prefer one of the more generic labels are of mixed origin (e.g. like my friend who is Cuban on one side of his family and Mexican/Nicaraguan on the other).

Linguoboy wrote:I would speculate, for instance, that a lot of people who prefer one of the more generic labels are of mixed origin

Definitely noticed that in my area. It helps that there doesn't seem to be much self-sorting among Hispanics/Latinos where I live, but there often is in big cities. And the majoirty of the people I met were people my age 1st or second generation born in the US or came here when pretty young.

Vijay wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:49 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:44 amStill, part of this is that Americans used to be hyper-conscious not so much (or not just) of race, but of ethnicity. See my page on dialect mangling-- people had strong feelings and stereotypes about ethnicities that are a big yawn today. I'm not sure, but people may have thought of Arnaz more as "Cuban" than as Hispanic.

Which in itself is probably another Tiffany problem. It's all kind of scary in a way, isn't it? At least back then, Americans seem to have been aware on some level that a Cuban, a Mexican, a Honduran, and a Peruvian are not all the same thing and that regularly seeing a Cuban guy on their TV screens was not a big deal. Nowadays, most of us seem to think they're all "Latinos" or "Hispanics" or whatever and oh my God! How DARE someone speak Spanish on some show I happen to be watching!!! (I hope no one has said this when watching one of the Spanish channels, but probably someone has by now...).

On the other hand, back then there was considerable racism and moral panic directed toward "Italians", an ethnicity most people don't bother to even have stereotyped views about (beyond the comedy Italian mobster impression and liking pasta). Before them the Irish and even the Germans were the subject of moral panics (and I assume the Poles, at some point? I'm not so aware of that, though I know there were certainly negative views toward them, or toward "Slavs" in general).

It all depends who looks like a threat at any given time.

[it's probably true that there was more awareness of specific ethnicities back then. But that's not necessarily entirely a good thing. Part of the reason that back then they didn't simply assume that, say, an English person, an Irish person and a French person were all just blandly "white" was that they believed there were essential and ineradicable psychological differences between "the Anglo-Saxon race", "the Celtic race" and "the Gallic race". Yes, blurring ethnic differences is a way to erase individuality and over-generalise... but it's also a way for people to escape negative stereotypes. Now that the French and the English are both just "white", we fail to respect some cultural differences between them... but the Frenchman who doesn't want to be seen as a stereotypical Frenchman finds it easier to blend in with other 'white' people. Likewise, lumping Cubans and Mexicans together may be, on average, bad news for Cubans, in terms of how other Americans see them... but it's also on average good news for Mexicans (or for Cubans who don't want to be associated purely with alcohol, gambling, cigars and dancing). ]

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:13 pm Before them the Irish and even the Germans were the subject of moral panics (and I assume the Poles, at some point? I'm not so aware of that, though I know there were certainly negative views toward them, or toward "Slavs" in general).

Yeah, there was a lot of racism against Eastern Europeans. A tiny remnant of this was that when I was growing up, the butt of stupid-people jokes were still "Polacks".

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 8:14 pm

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2019 5:13 pm Before them the Irish and even the Germans were the subject of moral panics (and I assume the Poles, at some point? I'm not so aware of that, though I know there were certainly negative views toward them, or toward "Slavs" in general).

Yeah, there was a lot of racism against Eastern Europeans. A tiny remnant of this was that when I was growing up, the butt of stupid-people jokes were still "Polacks".

Whereas by my generation that was a mostly-forgotten relic of a bygone era. Conversely association of Italians with the mob and general Italian stereotypes are still present to some degree.

Polish jokes are still semi-present in the US. When I learned the card game of Hearts, acquiring 25 points (the worst possible outcome) was known as a "Polish shot". (If you get all 26 points in the round, you have "shot the moon", recording a score of no points while all three opponents have to eat 26 [points are bad in Hearts]). I get the sense that mild Polish jokes like these are essentially safe outside of the prickliest social situations, because discrimination against Americans of Eastern European descent is rare enough as to not be seen as much of an issue anymore. I dunno, maybe it still is at very élite institutions.

There used to be sterotypes of Scandinavians such as the "Swedish maid," still visible in old movies, but I (a quarter Norwegian with a Norwegian last name) have never encountered them other than in jokes about Minnesotan church potlucks (which don't apply to that side of the family, which settled in the NYC area).

I've definitely heard some Polish jokes (partly from my dad, partly because I like All in the Family) and know someone of (partial) Polish descent who hates them. But there is one that my dad told me (which a Polish lady told him while they were working together) that even this person said was good: One time, a Polish lady went to see the eye doctor. He pointed to the chart and asked her, "Can you read it?" She said, "'Read it'?! I know him!"

EDIT: I also have a book of Norwegian jokes.

The only people I hear making jokes about Polish people being stupid where I live are the Polish themselves.

The main Polish stereotype in the UK is of the Polish builders coming and replacing UK builders, with half the joke being that UK builders are useless and Polish builders really good at what they do.

Yeah, for much of Western Europe, Poland is basically the closest country with a significantly lower standard of living, with all that this implies.

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:33 pm The writer Jo Walton named what she called the Tiffany Problem: in the Middle Ages, there were women named Tiffany. (It comes from Theophania.) But if a fantasy novel or even a historical novel had a Tiffany, it would sound comic.

I would go with naming her Theophania; and once she is adult having all other adults, except in intimate situations, call her Theophania.

But, as a child, maybe she’d have been called Tiffany; and when she is an adult, children might call her Tiffany, as might her friends-from-childhood, such as her brothers and sisters and parents; and her intimates might call her Tiffany as a pet-name, in intimate circumstances.

—————

I once read an Author’s Note by some famous writer of widely-admired and/or prize-winning Western fiction, who listed a longish (or so it appeared to me) list of expressions widely used in the post-bellum U.S.American Western states and territories, that sound to the modern ear entirely too modern to be anything but anachronisms.
I can’t remember the author
And I can remember only one of the locutions: “take a back seat to”.

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_(typography) mark is >2000 yrs old. Much older than typing, and older than the cross symbol that its modern form resembles. The asterisk seems to be at least as old as the dagger.

theres even this passage, which sounds curiously similar to modern usage in dictionaries to show etymologies, but with different symbols:

While the asterisk (asteriscus) was used for corrective additions, the obelus was used for corrective deletions of invalid reconstructions.[12] It was used when non-attested words are reconstructed for the sake of argument only, implying that the author did not believe such a word or word form had ever existed.

though i think theyre talking about something else.

________

Also, further down the page it says that the dagger symbol is the one used to mark extinct species of animals ... and sometimes people's deaths. I had always assumed that it was the cross, but apparently it isnt.

I recently learned that during the Anglo-Saxon period, there was a man named Bubba who was king of Lindsey.

Video on medieval feasts - some of the concepts of hygiene are Tiffany problems
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrroWt3xjVU

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:57 pm I recently learned that during the Anglo-Saxon period, there was a man named Bubba who was king of Lindsey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_of_Mercia

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:57 pm I recently learned that during the Anglo-Saxon period, there was a man named Bubba who was king of Lindsey.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom ... of_Lindsey