In article <[email protected]>, gavrillacq <[email protected]> wrote: > I am almost speechless after reading the thread of posts below. > ..... > Enough already with this FICTION!!! > > The reality is, regardless of how many "diversity" or "latino" unity > conferences continue to promote the political fallacy of the latino > "race"....LATINO IS NOT A RACE!!! > > It does NOT exist!!! > > It NEVER has!!! > Have you read carefully my former post? I agree with you. Latino is not a race, in fact the "latinos" disappeared with the fall of the Roman Empire. The question by Virgil was > In article <020220001052129664%[email protected]>, > JJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > (Virgil) wrote: > > > > > What does Ethic background have to do with race ???????????????? > > may be my answer was too short: > > Ethnic background IS race. (look at a dictionary) > > And so is. The problem is that "ethnic background" seems to be used in US to identify groups of people which dont have any common ethnic characters. Ethnia an race are synonims (sp?) so there is not an ethnic group called hispanics as there is not an ethnic group of asians nor africans (are berebers an zulues of the same ethnia?). It seems to me that there is some artificial (and no inocent) meaning given to the word "ethnic" in the US. JJ