Talk:Eastern Los Angeles

the term white versus the term hispanic or latino
Someone here used to have an entry asking why white did not include latino. You are correct a person can be white and latino, but what happens in the US, is that White, aside from being a racial description, is also used as a cultural description, such that, at the beginning of the 20th century someone from Ireland was not considered "White" nor was an Italian, both of which are technically part of the "White" race, but at the time, were not part of the "White American" culture. This happens today with Hispanics or latinos as well. There has been some improvement on the issue with the census taking lead to denote White non-hispanic, and then asking Hispanics or Latinos to designate their race as well. Neither hispanic or latino are racial descriptions.

--169.232.229.28 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "white" in this article remains confusing, however. The Spanish term "Anglo" might be more appropriate. In the US, there is racism, especially since many poor Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants have Mestizo racial features. By contrast, in places like New Mexico there are many "white" middle and upperclass Hispanics, who resemble Anglos in ways other than complexion. I would say "White" is less a cultural description than a class designation. Irish and Italians are not "technically" part of any "race," as there are no measures of race (even skin pigmentation is debatable) that are not very local or conditionally defined. Maybe others feel that "Anglo" is somehow derogatory, but I suggest substituting it for White, especially as Los Angeles' non-Mexican Hispanic population grows. 24.128.235.189