Thread: Origin of the word Hispanic

Many activist Hispanic groups like to claim the illegal immigrant issue is not really about illegal immigrants, but a battle against Hispanics. While we all know that is not true, and our battle is against illegal immigrants of all nationalities - Hispanics keep insisting we are targeting them specifically. Is Hispanic really a race? If not, how can they call us racist? Also, do we have reason to fear an overload of illegal immigrants in the United States? I submit to you, history says we do. Please read:

"Where does the term ‘Hispanic' come from?

LULAC, MALDEF, MEChA, and La Raza all claim to be "Hispanic" organizations. In fact, the word "Hispanic" is devoid of meaning and legitimacy. It does not denote a racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. It is an artificial term created to maximize political power for extremist elements within the Spanish-speaking minority. Historically, political opportunism has always dictated the racial identity of "Hispanics."

From 1820 to 1930, Mexican immigrants (whose presence was negligible since they never exceeded, on average, more than 350 annually between 1820 and 1900) and Mexican-Americans were officially classified as "white." In 1930, however, they were officially reclassified as "non-white." This reclassification was due to two events — the unprecedented level of mass Mexican immigration after 1910 and the attempted genocide against European-Americans by an armed alliance of Mexicans, Mexican immigrants, and Mexican-Americans in 1915.

Between 1910 and 1930, approximately 700,000 Mexicans (three percent of the population of Mexico) crossed into the United States, principally Texas, fleeing the chaos of the Mexican Revolution. This dramatic growth in the size of the Mexican population persuaded some that a "Reconquista" of the U.S. South-west from California to Texas could be achieved.

An insurrection was planned for two o'clock in the morning on February 20, 1915. The goal was to seize power in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California and then declare these five States a single independent republic, which could in the future unite with Mexico. The written manifesto of this insurgency, the "Plan de San Diego, Texas," declared that this was to be "a war without quarter" against whites. At that specified day and time, Mexicans throughout the U.S. Southwest were to rise up and murder every white male over sixteen years of age and expel the surviving women, children, and elderly from the newly liberated land. To insure the planned genocide was successful, the leadership of the Mexican insurgency sought an alliance with blacks, American Indians, and Asians proposing that most of the United States be partitioned among themselves. European-Americans were to be confined essentially to the Northeast and Midwest. This overture was rejected by blacks and American Indians. But some Japanese accepted the proposed alliance and joined the self-styled "Liberating Army for Race and Peoples" apparently functioning as ordnance experts.

The insurrection, when it occurred, was limited to Texas. Using bases in northern Mexico, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans waged a guerilla war lasting 16 months — from February 1915 to June 1916 — against the European-American population of Texas.

Among the ringleaders were Luis de la Rosa (Mexican-American and a former deputy sheriff of Cameron County), Aniceto Pizana (Mexican-American from a respected ranching family near Brownsville), Esteban Fierros (Mexican-American from a prominent family in Laredo and a Colonel in the Mexican Army), Agustin Garza (Mexican immigrant), Basilio Ramos, Jr. (Mexican immigrant), Porfirio Santos, Manuel Flores, A.G. Almaraz, L. Perrigo, A.A. Sanez, and E. Cisneros (all Mexican nationals) and Mexican Generals Pablo Gonzales and Juan Antonio Acosta.

While the insurrection was eventually defeated by the Texas Rangers and the U.S. Army, this was not before the guerrillas had murdered 33 European-Americans, wounded 24 others, "ethnically cleansed" thousands of European-American families from south Texas, and destroyed thousands of dollars worth of public and private property.

To prevent this from happening again, the federal and Texas governments decided it was necessary to know how many Mexicans were living in the United States in general and Texas in particular. To learn this, "Mexicans" were counted separately from "whites" for the first time in the 1930 Census. They were listed along with non-white groups — "Negro," "Indian," "Chinese," "Japanese," and "Filipino." Since Mexicans were now no longer counted as "white," they were considered "non-white." Such a legal classification had the potential of subjecting them to the same conditions as blacks in segregationist Texas.

Therefore, during the 1930s, "Hispanics," led by LULAC, opposed identifying Mexicans as "non-white," but did not oppose segregation. They only opposed "illegal" segregation — i.e., applying the "Jim Crow" laws for blacks to Mexicans. Within a few years, LULAC succeeded in having Mexicans once again officially recognized as "white" and eligible for all the benefits accruing to whites under segregation."

Now, don't that just frost your freezer

Within a few years, LULAC succeeded in having Mexicans once again officially recognized as "white" and eligible for all the benefits accruing to whites under segregation."

How did we get to recognizing "Hispanic" as a "race" then? Boy, they sure want to eat their proverbial cake and have it too?

Is it "in style" now to declare themselves as "brown" people?

Hmmm... It was my understanding that the term "Hispanic" did not gain any real currency until Jimmy Carter recommended it as a catch-all for Spanish-speaking Latin Americans back in the '70s. It did not appear on the census until 1980.

Originally Posted by CheyenneWoman

Now, don't that just frost your freezer

Or, as our almost Secretary of Homeland Security, the almost-felon Bernie Kerik would put it, "Well, aint dat the fookin cheeries on da cheesecake".

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Hmmm... It was my understanding that the term "Hispanic" did not gain any real currency until Jimmy Carter recommended it as a catch-all for Spanish-speaking Latin Americans back in the '70s. It did not appear on the census until 1980.

So what were they referred to as on the 1970 census?

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Hmmm... It was my understanding that the term "Hispanic" did not gain any real currency until Jimmy Carter recommended it as a catch-all for Spanish-speaking Latin Americans back in the '70s. It did not appear on the census until 1980.

So what were they referred to as on the 1970 census?

If my memory serves me correctly, it was Latinos or Mexicans. A/k/a "wetbacks" from way back when.

crocketghost wrote:

Hmmm... It was my understanding that the term "Hispanic" did not gain any real currency until Jimmy Carter recommended it as a catch-all for Spanish-speaking Latin Americans back in the '70s. It did not appear on the census until 1980.

The article doesn't mention an exact date the term "Hispanic" came into being. All the article states is:

"In fact, the word "Hispanic" is devoid of meaning and legitimacy. It does not denote a racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. It is an artificial term created to maximize political power for extremist elements within the Spanish-speaking minority."

From my understanding of the article, those people now calling themselves Hispanics were classified as either whites or non-whites up to 1930. So basically, no one is questioning your "understanding".

I think the bigger story here is the attempted uprising.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Hmmm... It was my understanding that the term "Hispanic" did not gain any real currency until Jimmy Carter recommended it as a catch-all for Spanish-speaking Latin Americans back in the '70s. It did not appear on the census until 1980.

So what were they referred to as on the 1970 census?

I believe that they were included as "white" until the "Spanish/Hispanic descent" category was added.

Countfloyd, who's to say he'd have been any less capable than the walking cadaver booosh appointed. As for Jimmy Carter who came up with term Hispanic, he's just the gift that keeps on giving.

Originally Posted by MW

crocketghost wrote:

Hmmm... It was my understanding that the term "Hispanic" did not gain any real currency until Jimmy Carter recommended it as a catch-all for Spanish-speaking Latin Americans back in the '70s. It did not appear on the census until 1980.

The article doesn't mention an exact date the term "Hispanic" came into being. All the article states is:

"In fact, the word "Hispanic" is devoid of meaning and legitimacy. It does not denote a racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural group. It is an artificial term created to maximize political power for extremist elements within the Spanish-speaking minority."

From my understanding of the article, those people now calling themselves Hispanics were classified as either whites or non-whites up to 1930. So basically, no one is questioning your "understanding".

I think the bigger story here is the attempted uprising.

Then you chose your title rather poorly!