Zimmermans First Appearance On Television Today. Looks More Hispanic Than White.

[eots]

what about these chicks ?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Tuff, Great Gatsby. You have demonstrated no lie from me at all. I called you out on the Tavern remark and you had to pull back. The lack of moral fiber is your projection of your inner angst against me. You play e-thug with me, and I will hit you back hard. Every time. I have no trouble with others' opinions, but I will not tolerate rudeness from anyone. I value civility. Be civil, get it in return. Play e-thug, regret it in return. Enough.

Oh big f'ing deal. I said I remembered an insult in the tavern and I never found it. It was obviously most likely another thread. Don't try to twist this on one faulty memory. I told you that in about 5-7 threads that you went out of your way to personally insult me. You denied it and said that I did. I showed you two times in which you did. You have not adequately refuted those claims by showing me how I insulted you first. I posted the freaking post so that you could go and find me proof to support your claims. You have not shown me the insults. You can't. And until then, I've shown that you've willfully lied. And don't come back and give me the tavern crap. Fine, I misrembered (or at least I didn't find it scanning quickly through 100 pages and I'm not going to do that again). Show me your proof tough guy. Don't do your little character assasination thing and think that you don't have to show proof.

Good night, GG, and sleep well. Have the last word.

It's not the last word; it's refuting your charges and lies. You have to run b/c you know I'm right. Your last word stuff is just spin. You'll let me have nothing. You made cowardly lies and now you won't man up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are projecting your lesser man inside, GG, onto me. That's your problem.

Now GGup and confront your innerJake, because you are wrong, and until you admit it, you are going to continue to be very unhappy and a melt down case.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You are projecting your lesser man inside, GG, onto me. That's your problem.

Now GGup and confront your innerJake, because you are wrong, and until you admit it, you are going to continue to be very unhappy and a melt down case.

I'm not wrong. But I'm not going to beat a dead horse. I'm moving on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Move on in health and lessons learned. Have a good day.

 

[Misty]

"Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing:

Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, “Negrito”, Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)"

Therefore Zimmerman is considered white.

Obama is mixed.

Now go play.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing:

Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, “Negrito”, Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)"

Therefore Zimmerman is considered white.

Obama is mixed.

Now go play.

Nevertheless, "Hispanic" is treated as a 'race' when it is politically expedient to do so. Just as the Jews are treated as a 'race'. Also Arabs. And it is always labeled 'racist' if you say anything derogatory about one of these groups. Not so the Germans or Irish or Italians or Greeks. Many Italians and Greeks, for instance, are quite dark skinned. But would you not raise your eyebrows if somebody referred to a person as a "white Italian" or a "white Greek"? Would you not see racial undertones in that?

It is perfectly clear for those with any sense of objectivity that when the media immediately labeled George Zimmerman as a 'white Hispanic', that was race baiting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Ethnographic division into races from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1885-90 is listing:

Caucasian races (Aryans, Hamites, Semites)
Mongolian races (northern Mongolian, Chinese and Indo-Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Tibetan, Malayan, Polynesian, Maori, Micronesian, Eskimo, American Indian),
Negroid races (African, Hottentots, Melanesians/Papua, “Negrito”, Australian Aborigine, Dravidians, Sinhalese)"

Therefore Zimmerman is considered white.

Obama is mixed.

Now go play.

Except that many Hispanics are mixed between white Europeans and western hemisphere aborigines, which is why they have very different coloring.

Furthermore, no one said Zimmerman was "Caucasian". They said he was "white", which is NOT the same thing in this culture, so please spare us your hair-splitting manipulations to try to make it okay to railroad this man in service of political goals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The man is being "railroaded" by no one except some sillies from the far left and the far right.

 

[catzmeow]

Nevertheless, "Hispanic" is treated as a 'race' when it is politically expedient to do so. Just as the Jews are treated as a 'race'. Also Arabs. And it is always labeled 'racist' if you say anything derogatory about one of these groups. Not so the Germans or Irish or Italians or Greeks. Many Italians and Greeks, for instance, are quite dark skinned. But would you not raise your eyebrows if somebody referred to a person as a "white Italian" or a "white Greek"? Would you not see racial undertones in that?

It is perfectly clear for those with any sense of objectivity that when the media immediately labeled George Zimmerman as a 'white Hispanic', that was race baiting.

That's because racist is easier to say than Ethnicityist, so most people take a short cut there and lump them together.

As far as the bolded part, you don't appear objective, so your judgement on the subject is flawed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Man, the USMB Right Wing Nut brigade REALLY wants this to be all about race.

Making it about race is not limited to one side of politics on this one, if we want to be honest

 

[catzmeow]

Man, the USMB Right Wing Nut brigade REALLY wants this to be all about race.

Making it about race is not limited to one side of politics on this one, if we want to be honest

Oh, I think it's a big bucket of fail that both parties have fallen into.

 

[Article 15]

Man, the USMB Right Wing Nut brigade REALLY wants this to be all about race.

Making it about race is not limited to one side of politics on this one, if we want to be honest

I never said it was limited to one side.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Man, the USMB Right Wing Nut brigade REALLY wants this to be all about race.

Making it about race is not limited to one side of politics on this one, if we want to be honest

I never said it was limited to one side.

Just checking

 

[catzmeow]

Making it about race is not limited to one side of politics on this one, if we want to be honest

I never said it was limited to one side.

Just checking

Now that you've checked, can you also check your assumption that everyone that doesn't immediately toe the Hannity party line is a leftist shill?

I's not a leftist, and I find the intimation that I am more than a little insulting.

K tkx bai.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nevertheless, "Hispanic" is treated as a 'race' when it is politically expedient to do so. Just as the Jews are treated as a 'race'. Also Arabs. And it is always labeled 'racist' if you say anything derogatory about one of these groups. Not so the Germans or Irish or Italians or Greeks. Many Italians and Greeks, for instance, are quite dark skinned. But would you not raise your eyebrows if somebody referred to a person as a "white Italian" or a "white Greek"? Would you not see racial undertones in that?

It is perfectly clear for those with any sense of objectivity that when the media immediately labeled George Zimmerman as a 'white Hispanic', that was race baiting.

That's because racist is easier to say than Ethnicityist, so most people take a short cut there and lump them together.

As far as the bolded part, you don't appear objective, so your judgement on the subject is flawed.

Well, there is no way to defend oneself when accused of not being objective, other than to dismiss another person's personally directed judgmentalism as irrelevent to the issue.

As for your 'easier to say' part, that is not at all objective and completely missed the point I was making.

 

[catzmeow]

Well, there is no way to defend oneself when accused of not being objective, other than to dismiss another person's personally directed judgmentalism as irrelevent to the issue.

As for your 'easier to say' part, that is not at all objective and completely missed the point I was making.

There is zero evidence to support your claim, other than your opinions. And, your opinions aren't very good ones (they appear to be utterly unbased in any sort of historical perspective).

To be more clear...your "points" (such as they are) ignore the modern system of race classification which dates to Johann Friederich Blumenbach's treatise, published in 1775. Based upon that system of classification, there are five races:

Caucasian: This group includes people of both semitic and European descent, and is a reference to the Caucasus Mountains, which extend between Russia and Turkey. Blumenbach wrote, in his treatise:

I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (birth place) of mankind.[7]

Most Hispanics and all European/semitic Jews would fall into this category (as would Zimmerman).

Ethiopian/Negroid/Black: This group includes individuals of black African descent.

Mongoloid: Indidividuals of Asian descent

AmerIndian/Native American: Individuals descended from the indigenous tribes of North and South America.

Malay/Pacific Islander: Individuals descended from Pacific Island populations.

Those categories still exist, and data collected in the U.S. Census still divides race into those five categories, plus the addition of the mixed/multi category on the 2010 census.

More current definitions of race refer to lineage:

A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation.
--A.R. Templeton, 1998

Hispanic is a term which dates back to ancient Rome, but wasn't widely used in the U.S. until the mid 1970s when it was included on the U.S. Census. It generally used as a blanket reference term for any individual, OF ANY RACE, who traces their origin or descent to a Spanish-speaking nation, and has a Spanish surname.

Hispanic applies equally to a fair-skinned American of Cuban descent, a black-skinned American of Dominican, and a brown-skinned American of Mexican descent.

Hispanic is not a blanket reference to Mexicans. It is not a race.

Hispanics are, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, in 2000:

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.

Even when the term "Hispanic" was originally coined by the Romans, it referred to the inhabitants of the Spanish peninsula, then known as Hispania, who were considered to be racially similar to the Romans/Italians, but spoke a different language.

It's nice that you think Hispanics are a race. It doesn't really matter what you think, your view on this subject is not shared by any reputable source on the subject.

Further, most Hispanics would be happy to disabuse you of that notion. The different ethnicities included in the category of Hispanic have distinct cultural, historical, and racial differences.

The most accurate way to describe Zimmerman's race, based upon the way in which the census has defined these terms since its inception is white/Caucasian. However, Zimmerman has a parent of Hispanic descent (his mother is Peruvian), and self-identifies as being of Hispanic ethnicity, which is why Hispanic has also been thrown into the mix. However, Zimmerman's Peruvian mother would be accurately racially classified as either caucasian or Amer/indian or some mix of the two, based upon the racial demographics of Peru.

Thus, Zimmerman is, in fact, a white Hispanic.

On the flip side, I'm about 90% white/European, so I'm a white non-Hispanic.

See how that works? Not a big media/government conspiracy after all.

 

[eots]

White or not...Zimmy, you've got some 'splainin to do!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRp350znvxE&feature=related]Ricky Goes Loco! (I Love Lucy - Ricky Needs An Agent) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, there is no way to defend oneself when accused of not being objective, other than to dismiss another person's personally directed judgmentalism as irrelevent to the issue.

As for your 'easier to say' part, that is not at all objective and completely missed the point I was making.

There is zero evidence to support your claim, other than your opinions. And, your opinions aren't very good ones (they appear to be utterly unbased in any sort of historical perspective).

The evidence for my claim is that they did it. As I have previously posted.

Here's some more commentary on that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...hite-hispanic/2012/03/28/gIQAW6fngS_blog.html

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I never said it was limited to one side.

Just checking

Now that you've checked, can you also check your assumption that everyone that doesn't immediately toe the Hannity party line is a leftist shill?

I's not a leftist, and I find the intimation that I am more than a little insulting.

K tkx bai.

I don't watch Hannity all that often and in fact have not watched his show since 2012 began, what are you talking about? Have a link or a video so I at least know where this hannity standard is coming from?