That's my point. Who we consider "obviously, visibly" mixed is all cultural. I would argue that most black and hispanic people in the USA are visibly of mixed identity if you look at them, but we don't think of them as being "obviously, visibly" of mixed identity. It's all just cultural perception. For instance, lighter or medium-skinned black people are clearly part-white; many have more European blood than African blood, and yet we still consider them black, not mixed. I definitely think the root of this perception is racism, thinking of blackness as being some least common denominator, like if someone has any blackness, they must be considered black. The extreme example would be someone like Colin Powell, who is probably no more than 10-20% of African ancestry, and yet he's considered black. He's an extreme case because he's very light-skinned, but overall I'd say most black people I see in life and on TV are visibly mixed, as in they have lighter skin and different features than people of pure African origin.
Peoples of pure African descent are not all very dark; many are about my color depending on their lifestyle (we tan too). As a child, I had many a blue-black summer. I would not say that someone my shade is obviously mixed. No. And I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't consider light-skinned black people to be obviously mixed. To look at my grandmothers is to know for sure they are part white. They are caramel. But my grandfathers were dark, my parents were dark, my children will likely be dark etc. How many generations removed from white people do we get before it doesn't really count? My grandparents had white great-grand relations. I do not count myself as being part white. My grandmother's grandmother was Cherokee. I do not consider myself to be Indian (despite having some Cherokee features).
Latinos come from one continent and a smattering of islands. I think that that kind of isolation over that kind of time span merits its very own ethnicity. Don't you? Someone says they're Latino, and you know who they come from. A Latino is not white, not African, not Taino or any other Indian, but Latino. Theirs is a very specific mix, and it is associated with a very specific geographical area and history. (Maybe some people consider Philipinos to be Latin, but I think because of geography they get lumped in with Asians.)
People from the same part of the world look vaguely the same. Isn't that kind of how a gene pool works? Americans just look American, don't we? Can't you sometimes just tell looking into someone's face that when they open they're mouth a European accent is going to come out? Or a Caribbean one?
So yes, ethnicity is a social discernment, but you can't tell me most Japanese look Korean. (If you think you can, look closer.) You can't tell me a Vietnamese looks black. Well, you could tell me, but you'd be an unconvincing liar. :biggrin1:
What a person finds attractive are individual features, and certain combinations thereof. Sometimes a whole bunch of really nice features thrown together looks great! Sometimes... train wreck.
Most importantly beauty is subjective. So I say to you, completely non-objectively: People who are of obviously mixed ethnicity (not ancestry- there's a difference) are people who I have found to be quite strikingly attractive, or quite unfortunately unattractive. I have not subjectively found there to be a middle ground. I was recently surprised to hear this long-held opinion echoed back to me. My question was not "Is this true?" but was instead, "Does anyone else share this opinion?"
Hmmm... I do yammer on, huh? Sorry about that.
): but there are 3 regions as South, Central and North...and than USA (and Canada?) created a 'Latin America' south of the border...as all the same..a buch of countries bellow 'them' all the same...it is not only prejudice but misinformation when the concept was made...:wink: I think everybody should be called by their own name..if we dont know we just have to ask.
