Thread: What is a "white Hispanic" that killed the black boy?

This whole thing has taken a life of its own because of the Black Panthers and Sharpton. I doubt that there will be Justice.

RELATED

Baptist Leader Criticizes Trayvon Martin Support

Trayvon Martin (myfox.com)

http://www.alipac.us/f9/baptist-lead...upport-255150/

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f19/new-evidenc...d-head-255583/

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f9/george-zimme...a-jail-255758/

Here We GO!!! RED ALERT AMNESTY FIGHT 2012!!!

Go here to join in!

Red Alert: Illegal Alien Amnesty Fight 2012

Suspect angry over Trayvon Martin death beats up white man

Saturday, April 21, 2012


Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.

Hayes and a 15-year-old Chicago boy walked up behind the 19-year-old man victim and pinned his arms to his side, police said. Hayes, 18, then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, “Empty your pockets, white boy.”

The two allegedly rifled through the victim’s pockets, then threw him to the ground and punched him “numerous times” in the head and back before running away, police said. Hayes and the boy are black; the victim is white.

After being arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the Trayvon Martin case and beat the man up because he was white, Cook County State’s Attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said, citing court records.


Post Continues on Chicago News and Weather | Fox Chicago News
Alton Hayes III | Suspect: I Beat Up White Man Because I Am Mad About Trayvon Martin Case

Suspect angry over Trayvon Martin death beats up white man – Patriot Update



Suspect angry over Trayvon Martin death beats up white man – Patriot Update

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f9/black-ill-te...rayvon-256074/

“Now That’s Justice for Trayvon:” Media Complicity in Mob Violence

Written on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 by David L. Goetsch
59
Trayvon-Martin-murder-controversy-Florida
Print Friendly

In an earlier column at this site titled, “Behaving Badly in the Trayvon Martin Case,” I called the media to account for covering the tragedy in a way sure to stir the embers of racial discord and possibly even incite racial violence. Now it has happened. According to WKRG Television in Mobile, Alabama, Matthew Owens of Delmar Drive in Mobile was beaten on his front porch by a mob of 20 blacks who were angry at Owens for telling their children to shut down a game of street basketball near his house at 8:30pm on a Saturday night.

The mob’s retribution against Owens was apparently the culmination of a situation that had been brewing for a while over kids blocking the street and making noise while playing street basketball. But apparently there was more to the mob beating than just basketball. According to an eye witness to the attack, as the mob dispersed one of the assailants said, “Now that’s justice for Trayvon.” This comment raises an important and disturbing question: If the media had not aided and abetted in transforming the Trayvon Martin case into a racial powder keg, would a group of angry black parents have transformed themselves into a violent mob that came close to killing a man on his own front porch?

Few people are able to cut through the self-righteous rhetoric and hypocrisy that permeates discussions of race in America better than conservative economist Thomas Sowell. In a recent column for Townhall.com titled, Who Is ‘Racist,’ Sowell makes several crucial points that bear on my belief that the media has behaved badly in the Trayvon Martin killing and is still behaving badly in the aftermath of the Matthew Owens beating. Sowell’s points warrant commenting on here because they bear directly on what I believe is media complicity in rapidly souring racial relations in America:

In covering the Trayvon Martin case, the mainstream media has reverted to the bad old days of the Jim Crow South “…where complexion counted more than facts in determining how people are treated.” The only difference between then and now is which complexion receives favored treatment by the media.
The mainstream media has purposefully distorted its coverage of the Trayvon Martin killing by editing its words and graphics to fit its slanted point of view. For example, the mainstream media continues to show the same photographs of Trayvon as a cute 12 – 14 year old little boy, but has yet to show one of the 17 year-old young man who was strong enough to overpower George Zimmerman’s and slam his head repeatedly into the pavement.
The mainstream media continually refers to George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” because one of his parents was white, but they have never referred to President Obama as a “white African” because his mother was white. The only conclusion one can draw from this fact is the mainstream media uses the term “white” only when it suits its nefarious race-baiting purposes to do so.
The word games the mainstream media plays “…grow out of a notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not.” Guilt and innocence should be determined by the facts in a given case, not skin color.
Perhaps the media is suffering from “White Guilt” over the abominable treatment of black Americans during the Jim Crow days of Bull Connor and crowd. Thomas Sowell had this to say on that issue: “Let us talk sense, like adults. Nothing that is done to George Zimmerman—justly or unjustly—will unlynch a single black man who was tortured and killed in the Jim Crow South for a crime he didn’t commit.”

My bottom line concerning the media as well as President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others who, in my view, have behaved badly in the Trayvon Martin tragedy is this: Stirring up racial strife in a country with America’s history is easy—any fool can do that. But it will take courage and leadership to bridge the great racial divide and bring the races together in ways that benefit all Americans as well as our country. It is time for decision makers in the media, President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other people of influence to show some courage and exert some leadership.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/no...n-mob-violence

Originally Posted by Shapka

Hispanic is just means Spanish-speaking, but in America it's rendered meaningless because most of the people described as such don't even speak the language. I had trouble explaining that Hispanic meant "any race" when I worked for the Census Bureau. One person insisted that I put his race down as Puerto Rican-American, which is obviously redundant.

I agree. The term is misused quite a bit. Some people really believe it is a race when it isn't. I laugh at those idiot moms on mommy forums who label their children half Hispanic. In a racial sense nobody on this earth is full Hispanic or half Hispanic.

Interesting.

A Latino or Latina is a person considered part of an ethnic background that is traditionally Spanish-speaking, especially a citizen of, or an immigrant from, a Spanish-speaking country. The term latino is used to refer to males only or a combination of males and females in a group, whereas the term latina is used to refer to females only.

In the United States, the term is in official use in the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race."^[1][2] The term is also used in Spain as a term of self-identification for immigrants from Hispanoamerica.
Latino (demonym) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1970 Census was the first time that a "Hispanic" identifier was used and data collected with the question. The definition of "Hispanic" has been modified in each successive census. The 2000 Census asked if the person was "Spanish/Hispanic/Latino".^[27]

"The terms "Hispanic" or "Latino" refer to persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spanish speaking Central and South America countries, and other Spanish cultures. Origin can be considered as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race."^[28] This definition of Hispanic fully excludes the Portuguese, Brazilians, or anyone from any other country that speaks Portuguese. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".^[29] This definition again excludes people of Portuguese origins, such as Portuguese Americans, but gives room to controversy over Brazilian Americans, as even if they do not have any link to Spanish culture nor Spanish origin, they are "South or Central American" (the same problem would happen with people descending from ancestors in Belize, Guyana and Suriname). This defintion is inaccurate. However, despite this fact, people of Portuguese origin are still included in some government agencies' definitions. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."^[30] This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses. In addition, both the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Conference include representatives of both Spanish and Portuguese descent. Still, other government agencies adopt definitions that exclude not only people from Portugal, but also from Spain, under a different principle, the one that there is a distinct ethnic difference between these European countries and the Iberoamerican countries (genetically mostly a mix of indigenous American, European American and African American). Therefore, some include people from Brazil, but not Spain or Portugal.

More than anything, there seems to exist a widespread weak understanding that Portugal and Spain are two separate Latin European countries (like France or Italy, for example), and that both created separate colonial empires (again, like France and Italy, as an example). Just like any white person with French or Italian ancestors, or a white person coming from a country colonized by France and which speaks French (namely people from Quebec, in Canada), a person who is white and descends from ancestors born in any country that has Portuguese as an official language, is most correctly identifiable simply as white (caucasian) on US Census options.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission encourages any individual who believes that he or she is Hispanic to self-identify as Hispanic.^[31] The United States Department of Labor - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs encourages the same self-identification.^[32] As a result, any individual who traces his or her origins to part of the Spanish Empire may self-identify as Hispanic, because an employer may not override an individual's self-identification.^[33]
Hispanic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin
Census 2000 Brief

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions
2000UNDERSTANDING RACE
AND HISPANIC ORIGIN DATA
FROM CENSUS 2000

The 1990 census questions on race and Hispanic origin were changed
for Census 2000. The federal government considers race and
Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. For Census 2000, the questions on race and Hispanic origin were
asked of every individual living in the United States. The question on Hispanic origin asked respondents if they were Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.2 The question on race asked respondents to report the race or races they considered themselves to be. Both questions
are based on self-identification.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf