For most of my life, there was a "Hispanic" box, as well as White/Caucasian, Black/African-American, Asian-American, Native American/Pacific Islander (although the -American were largely added in the 80s and 90s).
And, yet, you made this distinction earlier: “The claim that it's happening because of skin tone is your opinion and nothing more. There have been white people picked up also.” This implies, to me at least, that you, on some level, do not see people of Mexican/hispanic descent as “white,” in the same way that you consider yourself “white.”
Recognizing Latinos as white may be a recent development, but it was still true long before being recognized.
No, I have recognized Mexicans as white for a very long time. For purposes of The discussion that started on page 93 of this thread, I was distinguishing using more commonly recognized terms related to skin tone.
What do you mean "true"? There is no "truth" about race. It is purely about what is socially recognized.
Like I said earlier, for the majority of all of our lives there have been three to five scientifically recognized races. That concept may be going away now, but it was true very very long time. During that time, and to varying degrees, lots of brown skinned people were considered to be caucasoid. Arabs. Indians. Latinos.
Caucasoid= Caucasian = white.
One of my friends wrote this book, you should probably read it.
Race is, literally, based on “skin tone.”
That's a common misconception.
Can we agree that racism is based on skin tone?
Sure. Jews are the only sort of weird exception.
Jewish is a race?
There are people who believe that. They've also not been viewed as "white" until fairly recently.
