Wikipedia Entry: Why Aren’t The White Hispanics Classified In The USA Census With Other White Americans?
White Hispanic and Latino Americans
 |
| 1st row: Salma Hayek[1] · Martin Sheen[2] · Alexa Vega[3] · Juan Bandini[4] · Anita Page[5]2nd row: Romualdo Pacheco[6] · Alexis Bledel[7] · Ted Williams[8] · Christy Turlington[9] · Michael Lopez-Alegria[10]
3rd row: Sabrina Bryan[11] · Pitbull[12] · Rita Hayworth[13] · David Farragut[14] · Christina Aguilera[15] 4th row: Bob Martinez[16] · Madeleine Stowe[17] · Jerry Garcia[18] · Raquel Welch[19] · Kenny Florian[20] 5th row: Cameron Diaz[21] · Ricky Martin[22] · Daphne Zuniga[23] · Andy García[7] · Linda Ronstadt[24] |
| Total population |
|---|
| White Hispanic or Latino 30,447,153 Americans ?.??% of the United States population (2009)[25] |
| Regions with significant populations |
| West Coast · Southwest · Northeast · Florida |
| Languages |
| American English · Spanish · Spanglish |
| Religion |
| Predominantly Roman Catholic · Protestant, Jewish, and other minorities |
In the United States, a White Hispanic or White Latino[26] is an American citizen or resident who is officially classified by the United States Census Bureau, Office of Management and Budget and other U.S. government agencies as a White American of Hispanic descent. “White American,” itself an official U.S. racial category legally refers to people “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” residing in the United States.[27]
Hispanicity, which is independent of race, is the only ethnic category, as opposed to racial category, which is officially collated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The distinction made by government agencies for those within the population of any official race category, including “White American,” is between those who report Hispanic backgrounds and all others who do not.[28][29] In the case of White Americans, these two groups are respectively termed “White Hispanic” and “non-Hispanic White,” the former being those who report white race as well as Hispanophone ancestry (Spain and Hispanic Latin America), and the latter consisting of all others who are classified as White American that do not report Hispanic ancestral background.
As of 2008, about 47 million or 15.4% of Americans were ethnically Hispanic or Latino.[30] Of those, about 30 million or 62% were White.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Demographic information
In the 2008 American Community Survey, 46.8 million Americans (15.4% of the total population) listed themselves as ethnically Hispanic or Latino American. Of those, 62.3% (30.4 million) self-identified as racially white. The remaining respondents listed their race as: Some other race 30.2%, multi-racial 3.9%, Black or African American 1.9%, American Indian and Alaska Native 1.0%, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.05%, and Asian 0.4%.[31]
Respondents in the “Some other race” category are reclassified as white by the Census Bureau in its official estimates of race. This means that more than 90% of all Hispanic or Latino Americans end up counted as “white” in some statistics of the US government, equalling 43.1 million in 2008.[32]
Native-born and immigrant Hispanics and Latinos identify as White in nearly identical percentages: 53.9 and 53.7, respectively, per figures from 2007. The combined ratio was 53.8%.[33]
[edit] Sub-groups by national origin
White Hispanics by National Origin, 2000[34] |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hispanic National Origin | White population in group |
As a percentage of group |
|||
 Mexican |
9,870,433 | 47.3 | |||
 Puerto Rican |
1,605,049 | 47.2 | |||
 Cuban |
1,060,854 | 85.0 | |||
 Dominican |
180,856 | 22.7 | |||
| Central American | 735,879 | 40.4 | |||
| South American | 838,270 | 59.6 | |||
| All other Hispanics | 2,534,786 | 44.8 | |||
Some Hispanic or Latino American groups have white majorities or pluralities, unlike their countries of origin. For example, Mexico’s population is 9% (10 million)[35] or 16% (17.9 million)[36] White only (note that a majority of Mexicans are Mestizos, of part European descent), while 47% (9.9 million) of Mexican Americans are White. (See the table.)
[edit] Representation in the media
| White Hispanics by State, 2007 ACS [37] |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Population | % of State | % of Hispanics | ||||
| California | 6,503,487 | 18 | 49 | ||||
| Texas | 5,398,738 | 23 | 63 | ||||
| Florida | 2,867,365 | 16 | 76 | ||||
| New York | 1,161,663 | 7 | 37 | ||||
| Arizona | 1,113,398 | 18 | 59 | ||||
| Illinois | 715,315 | 6 | 37 | ||||
| New Jersey | 660,649 | 8 | 48 | ||||
| Colorado | 601,488 | 12 | 62 | ||||
| New Mexico | 530,612 | 27 | 61 | ||||
| Nevada | 412,985 | 16 | 64 | ||||
| Regional Distribution of White Hispanics, 2000[34] | |||||||
| Region of the U.S | |||||||
| West | 37.7% | ||||||
| South | 40.8% | ||||||
| Midwest | 8.4% | ||||||
| Northeast | 13% | ||||||
Contrary to their purpose, in popular use Hispanic and Latino are often given racial values, usually non-white, as in spite of the racial diversity of Hispanic and Latino Americans, it is common for them to be stereotyped as being exclusively non-white.[38][39][40][41] Judith Ortiz Cofer notes that appellation varies according to geographical location, observing that in Puerto Rico she is considered to be a white person, but in the United States she is considered to be a “brown person.”[42]
On the other hand, since the early days of the movie industry in the U.S., when White Hispanic actors are given roles, they are frequently cast in non-Hispanic white roles.[40] Hispanic and Latino Americans began to appear in the US movie industry in the 1910s, and the leading players among them “were generally light skinned and Caucasian”.[43]
Myrtle Gonzalez was one such American actress in the silent film era; she starred in at least 78 motion pictures from 1913 to 1917.[44] Anita Page was an American actress of Spanish and Salvadoran descent who reached stardom in 1928, during the last years of the silent film.[45] Page was referred to as “a blond, blue-eyed Latin” and “the girl with the most beautiful face in Hollywood”.[46][47]
Most Americans who know of them may not be aware that American movie legend Rita Hayworth, born Margarita Carmen Cansino, was Hispanic via her father, flamenco dancer Eduardo Cansino, Sr., from Seville; that the actress who played “all-American” Gilmore Girl Lorelai Leigh “Rory” Gilmore — Alexis Bledel — is also Hispanic, with a mother from Mexico and father from Argentina;[48][49] that singer Fergie is also Hispanic through his paternal great-grandmother from Mexico; or that actor David Gallagher is also Hispanic via his mother from Cuba.
Some accuse the U.S. Hispanic media and the Latin American media of over-representing White Latin Americans and White Hispanic and Latino Americans, particularly in telenovelas (soap operas).[50]
[edit] Marriage trends
According to a sample of married, Hispanic, male householders, U.S.-born Hispanic Whites often marry a non-Hispanic partner, although 66% still marry a Hispanic White partner. In comparison, 88% of foreign-born Hispanic White males married Hispanic White wives. Among U.S.-born people in all cases, White women of non-Hispanic origin are many times more likely to marry Hispanic men of Some other race than are Hispanic White women, as 19% of native-born Hispanic Some other race householders are married to non-Hispanic White wives, compared to 2% who are married to Hispanic White wives.
- SOR = Some other race.
| Race and Ethnic Distribution of Wives by Husband’s Nativity, Race and Ethnicity 2000[34] |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race and Ethnicity of Husband | |||||||
| Native-born | Foreign-born | ||||||
| Race and Ethnicity of Wife | White Hispanic | SOR Hispanic | White Hispanic | SOR Hispanic | |||
| White Hispanic | 66% | 2% | 88% | 3% | |||
| SOR Hispanic | 2% | 73% | 2% | 90% | |||
| Non-Hispanic White | 28% | 19% | 7% | 4% | |||
Jamaican Observer Article: Mayor Blasts Jamaican Church Leaders For Being Criminals & Hypocrites!!!
Coalition of hypocrites’
Black River mayor blasts church leaders
Garfield Myers
Saturday, October 02, 2010
MIDDLE QUARTERS, St Elizabeth — Claiming that there is “one law for the Meads and another for the Persians” Mayor of Black River Jeremy Palmer has categorised church leaders as “gospel-grinding hypocrites” following their recent criticism of Prime Minister Bruce Golding.
Palmer’s harsh words for the church came in the context of what he said was the formation of a “coalition of hypocrites”.
That “coalition”, he alleged, had approached the Golding government’s handling of the United States request for the extradition of former West Kingston ‘don’ Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke and related matters differently to the way they treated the former People’s National Party (PNP) government’s managing of the so-called Trafigura scandal four years ago.
Palmer, who was speaking at the Brompton Divisional Conference of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in South West St Elizabeth late Sunday, informed his audience that he himself was a “churchman” who on Sunday had defied bad weather to “take communion” and “fellowship with the saints”.
However, he suggested, the church had treated the current Government unfairly.
“What was the church’s concern about Trafigura? Whether or not (a) woman in the bank had breached the confidentiality of the bank (by allegedly revealing information about a $31-million donation from Dutch company Trafigura to the PNP),” said Palmer.
“They weren’t concerned about whether the money came from illegal sources, they weren’t concerned whether it was dirty money or clean money. Or why a foreign company was giving a political party $31 million? What was it that was being sold? Was it the birthright of the country? No they weren’t concerned about that, but they are here talking about credibility. I say they are gospel-grinding hypocrites…,” Palmer said to tumultuous applause from party workers and hardcore supporters gathered at the Middle Quarters Primary School.
“I am angry about it because we have one law for the Meads and another for the Persians. And it can’t work!” Palmer added.
Palmer, a former St Elizabeth member of Parliament and current councillor for the Pedro Plains Division in the JLP-led St Elizabeth Parish Council, did not refer in as many words to the issues surrounding the Coke extradition to the United States and the related attempt to lobby the US government through the law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips — all of which government critics say was badly bungled.
The episode shook the Golding government to its core, and there were persistent calls for the prime minister’s resignation because of what was said to be a damaging loss of credibility. A host of organisations, including the church, have remained critical of the Government.
Palmer claimed that when “you hear all of this coalition of hypocrites talking about the prime minister, they didn’t address issues like that before in that way”.
In an obvious reference to Opposition leader and former prime minister Portia Simpson Miller, Palmer said: “I remember a lady got up a couple days before Trafigura and said she not going to get any big money for election (2007), she is depending on the little people to fund her campaign, well a little people from Holland gave the PNP $31 million…
“Even when she was speaking … the cheque was on its way from Holland into the coffers of the People’s National Party. Nobody has ever challenged her on that and talked about her credibility. Nobody! Nobody ever asked who was the PNP she was talking about when she said ‘ask the PNP’.”
He urged the media to ensure that the political biases of partisan commentators are made known, so that the people are not fooled into thinking “you are impartial, independent commentator when in fact you are an activist in the bosom of the PNP”.
“I believe that the people when they come on radio to comment, they must give their antecedence. When they write in the newspapers, they must say what are their political preferences. When I speak I already declare myself, everybody knows who I am politically, but there are people who are clothed in the garments of impartiality but underneath they are raving PNP wolves.
“From this platform today, I am asking all the media houses in this country when people come to write or speak they must tell the country where they stand,” Palmer said.
NY Times Article: Americans Attitude Towards Homosexuality Changing.
op-Ed Columnist
Gay? Whatever, Dude
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: June 4, 2010
Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup released a stunning, and little noticed, report on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality. Allow me to enlighten:
Earl Wilson/The New York Times
Charles M. Blow
Related
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
1. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who perceive “gay and lesbian relations” as morally acceptable has crossed the 50 percent mark. (You have to love the fact that they still use the word “relations.” So quaint.)
2. Also for the first time, the percentage of men who hold that view is greater than the percentage of women who do.
3. This new alignment is being led by a dramatic change in attitudes among younger men, but older men’s perceptions also have eclipsed older women’s. While women’s views have stayed about the same over the past four years, the percentage of men ages 18 to 49 who perceived these “relations” as morally acceptable rose by 48 percent, and among men over 50, it rose by 26 percent.
I warned you: stunning.
There is no way to know for sure what’s driving such a radical change in men’s views on this issue because Gallup didn’t ask, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t speculate. To help me do so, I called Dr. Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and the author or editor of more than 20 books on men and masculinity, and Professor Ritch Savin-Williams, the chairman of human development at Cornell University and the author of seven books, most of which deal with adolescent development and same-sex attraction.
Here are three theories:
1. The contact hypothesis. As more men openly acknowledge that they are gay, it becomes harder for men who are not gay to discriminate against them. And as that group of openly gay men becomes more varied — including athletes, celebrities and soldiers — many of the old, derisive stereotypes lose their purchase. To that point, a Gallup poll released last May found that people who said they personally knew someone who was gay or lesbian were more likely to be accepting of gay men and lesbians in general and more supportive of their issues.
2. Men may be becoming more egalitarian in general. As Dr. Kimmel put it: “Men have gotten increasingly comfortable with the presence of, and relative equality of, ‘the other,’ and we’re becoming more accustomed to it. And most men are finding that it has not been a disaster.” The expanding sense of acceptance likely began with the feminist and civil rights movements and is now being extended to the gay rights movement. Dr. Kimmel continued, “The dire predictions for diversity have not only not come true, but, in fact, they’ve been proved the other way.”
3. Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality. Think Ted Haggard, the once fervent antigay preacher and former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, and his male prostitute. (This week, Haggard announced that he was starting a new “inclusive” church open to “gay, straight, bi, tall, short,” but no same-sex marriages. Not “God’s ideal.” Sorry.) Or George Rekers, the founding member of the Family Research Council, and his rent boy/luggage handler. Last week, the council claimed that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would lead to an explosion of “homosexual assaults” in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators. In fact, there is a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it. It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool.
These sound plausible, but why aren’t women seeing the same enlightening effects as men? Professor Savin-Williams suggests that there may be a “ceiling effect,” that men are simply catching up to women, and there may be a level at which views top out. Interesting.
All of this is great news, but it doesn’t mean that all measures relating to acceptance of gay men and lesbians have changed to the same degree. People’s comfort with the “gay and lesbian” part of the equation is still greater than their comfort with the “relations” part — the idea versus the act — particularly when it comes to pairings of men.
As Professor Savin-Williams told me, there is still a higher aversive reaction to same-sex sexuality among men than among women.
For instance, in a February New York Times/CBS News poll, half of the respondents were asked if they favored letting “gay men and lesbians” serve in the military (which is still more than 85 percent male), and the other half were asked if they favored letting “homosexuals” serve. Those who got the “homosexual” question favored it at a rate that was 11 percentage points lower than those who got the “gay men and lesbians” question.
Part of the difference may be that “homosexual” is a bigger, more clinical word freighted with a lot of historical baggage. But just as likely is that the inclusion of the root word “sex” still raises an aversive response to the idea of, how shall I say, the architectural issues between two men. It is the point at which support for basic human rights cleaves from endorsement of behavior.
As for the aversion among men, it may be softening a bit. Professor Savin-Williams says that his current research reveals that the fastest-growing group along the sexuality continuum are men who self-identify as “mostly straight” as opposed to labels like “straight,” “gay” or “bisexual.” They acknowledge some level of attraction to other men even as they say that they probably wouldn’t act on it, but … the right guy, the right day, a few beers and who knows. As the professor points out, you would never have heard that in years past.
All together now: stunning.
(I now return you to Day 46 of the oil spill where they finally may be making some progress.)
•
Gayblackcanada 