Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2021 January 27

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous desk
< January 26 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 28 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


January 27

edit

Spanish-speaking Filipinos: Are they actually considered Hispanic(s)?

edit

Are Spanish-speaking Filipinos actually considered Hispanic(s)? Futurist110 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the article Hispanic - yes. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on whom you ask, though. Some consider only Spanish Filipinos (Filipinos who trace their ancestry to Spain) to be Hispanic. See also this (rambling) essay. According to this article discussing the question who is Hispanic, the US Census Bureau and most American research organizations conducting public-opinion surveys rely on self-identification. For the situation regarding such self-identification among US Filipinos see this article; an extended abstract of the study "When Are Filipinos Hispanic?" mentioned there can be found here.  --Lambiam 10:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and that hopefully illustrates the silliness of this uniquely American racial identification. 93.136.10.249 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing there's no racism in Croatia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise Filipinos would have it really rough in Croatia. 2003:F5:6F18:3300:50:7628:18A6:612B (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC) marco PB[reply]
Excuse me if "Non-Hispanic white" (as a census option no less) doesn't sound ludicrously specific to you. 93.136.4.143 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That category does not appear in the 2020 census form as such, or at least not the one I filled out. It has a question about race, and has another question about being of Hispanic origin - and it says "For this census, Hispanic origins are not races." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there specific questions about Arab, Slavic or Germanic origin? Why not? 93.136.4.143 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Examples listed under "White" are "German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc." It also has a fill-in-the-blank for "Other race". And among various East Asian options, there is "Filipino". As to the "why" of all this, it would have to do with whatever demographics the Census Bureau considers to be important. There is a general explanation for the race questions in 2020 United States census. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those mentioned in every Wikipedia article on an American place, and right in the same paragraph with what are universally agreed to be races, example: The racial makeup of the city was 71.9% White, 11.5% African American, 4.8% Asian, 1.2% American Indian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 6.2% from other races, and 4.3% from two or more races. Hispanics and Latinos of any race were 15.3% of the population. Few other countries in the world, including those with heavy immigration from "Hispanic" countries, class those together under that label. Example - Vancouver#Demographics, Demographics of Metro Vancouver. Canada has a much higher immigration rate than USA, but words "Hispanic" and "Latino" are nowhere to be found. (And if you're gonna say that there is no such thing as race, let me agree and point out that America is also in a small group of countries asking people during census about the color of their skin) 93.136.7.51 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the generations have anything to do with history?

edit

Do the generations have anything to do with history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.48.186 (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question, could you be more specific? --Viennese Waltz 10:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are the generations basically history in a way? As tradition is mentioned but is history the past (the generations). In other words when does the present become the past? Does it take a generation til something or most/all things become historic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.48.186 (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Generations" or "decades" or whatever can be used to indicate periods of time, but one can speak of future generations or decades or whatever as well as past generations or whatever. They are not necessarily historic. (And the present becomes the past immediately.)--Shantavira|feed me 12:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present becomes the past as soon as you experience it. Technically speaking, because it take some time for your brain to process the signals it receives from your senses, by the time you are aware of the present, it has already become part of the past. --Jayron32 13:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a wide sense, history consists of all events that have happened already – or, in other words, that happened in the past. Everything that came before us is then part of history, including the earthquakes that happened before us, the solar eclipses that happened before us, and everything the generations did that came before us. In a more narrow sense, history is the collection of events that have been recorded – written down, or, only much later, recorded as sound or captured in images. So, used in that sense, history starts with the invention of writing, some 5000 years ago, and runs until less than a second before now. Everything that happened before the beginning of history is prehistory.
Perhaps it will help you if you use the Simple-English Wikipedia, for example the History article over there.  --Lambiam 18:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but history is more than just "the past". History is the narrative we tell of the past, and the way we tell that narrative is also important. As with any narrative, things like word choice, narrative flow, matters of emphasis, deciding what to include and not include in the narrative, what events and people we give prominence to and which we don't, are all as important to history as the events themselves. There's even an entire field of study into the process of creating history called historiography that looks at how, and who, and in what way those narratives get to be created. --Jayron32 20:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are theories that people of a particular generation, experiencing certain events together, may tend to share political interests. In the case of the Chinese Communist Party, William Whitson (“The Chinese High Command”) expanded on his PhD dissertation to theorize that party members who joined the revolution during the same period, and particularly served in the same units / locations, tended to align factionally. .DOR (HK) (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some simple explanations for that. Elephas X. Maximus (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2021_January_27&oldid=1004724236"