On "Hispanic" and "White"

As a guy who's great grandmother is Spanish or "Hispanic", and whose girlfriend is "of Hispanic origin", I'm a bit amused with how little the vast majority in this country seem to understand about the terms "white" and "Hispanic". So, in an effort to break it down and save someone the humiliation of looking completely naive on the intricacies of the subject, I wanted to take a second and lay it all out there -- and hey, it might just bring some of us closer together in the process: 

First and foremost, let's put to rest the notion of entirely independent "white" and "Hispanic" groups. While there are some among us who may possibly be 100% European or 100% native to their respective Latin or Spanish/Hispanic place of origin, this is not always the case. That said, there are "whites" who are "Hispanic" -- myself included, being a mixed pup, or my girlfriend Karla for instance, who is Puerto Rican; we are indicative of this American standard. Karla is of native Puerto Rican lineage as well as European by way of the Spanish conquistadors who came to Puerto Rico all those years ago. Being a native Puerto Rican (someone actually born in Puerto Rico), she was as confused as I have been annoyed by how ridiculous our "system of segregation" is when it comes to how "flexible" some of our terms are. She (and I) couldn't understand why we are such a racist society here in America. As she put it: "In Puerto Rico, we are all just Puerto Rican, so when I came here, and was warned not to call certain people certain things, or not to talk about certain things relating to American history with certain people because of their color, I thought it was ridiculous."

Now, let me elaborate on the topic by asking you, the reader, to think critically (something we're not used to doing here in America). Ask yourself, "Self, what is "white" exactly?" The Spaniards who came to Puerto Rico and Cuba from Europe, and ended up populating the vast majority of the islands in the area, are they not "Spanish" as well as "European", and so, do the members of this island not fall under the categories "of Hispanic decent" and "of European decent"? That's what white means here in the states, no? -- and of European decent? 

Time for a quote! lol: "The U.S. Census Bureau defines the ethnonym Hispanic or Latino to refer to "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American (except for Brazil), or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race"[8] and states that Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity.[9] " 

The way I see it -- and well, anyone who knows what they're talking about -- not many here seem to have a clue what they're talking about. My great grandmother's name is Otelia Theresa Cervantes -- she is "white" and "Spanish" or "Hispanic", possessing both European (Spain) and Cuban native lineages. Karla Torres (my girlfriend), well, she's Puerto Rican, with a lineage to Spain (i.e. Europe) and native Puerto Rican or Taino. I have a Spanish lineage (through Spain, if you're confused, lol) and a Welsh lineage, among others. If you're one of those crying about colonialism, remember, you probably weren't the only one affected -- ask the Welsh how they fared under colonialism, or the Irish for that matter. The Welsh lost their native tongue, and a very small portion still speak it -- the Irish were sold as slaves, if you're shocked by this, you're an example of what's wrong with the American education system. It isn't you, rather, that America has failed you that's the problem. Remember, Im not saying your oppression doesn't matter, I'm simply saying that you weren't the only one -- so if your intention is to use these scenarios to create problems among folks you assume to be of different races or lineages, don't be surprised when someone throws reality in your face; if you simply don't care, then you have a whole other set of issues that need be discussed. 

In closing, I want to say that what we need to be worrying about is getting everyone the proper education, so that we don't become a nation of morons arguing about non issues that we seem to make up as we go along. For the majority of the arguments that include racism of some sort toward Hispanics at that hands of whites, or vice-versa, to be relevant, we'd have to do genetic testing on all of the individuals involved and determine their genetic variant. Chances are, many "Hispanics" carry a "European" variant -- that said, many with "European" variants could be "Hispanic". However you feel about what you are, remember, you are that thing -- to hate one part for a particular reason doesn't make you any less of that thing. 

Peace, Love and Freedom!


About Me: I am a Software Engineer w/ a Masters in Computer Science, a business man -- holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude -- a writer, a blogger, a philosopher, a philanthropist, a veteran, and an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start.. 

Read More

On The Media Machine: When Do We Call It Lying?

I've been watching CNN lately trying to stay as up to date as I can with the goings on of the incidents in Ferguson, MO. I have to say I have been a little but off by the actions of the police, although I can relate to their mission having been a military police officer myself -- you can find my opinions on that here.

I'm also a bit appalled by the amount of bias I'm seeing on the part of the media. CNN in general has been utterly bewildering in it's misrepresentations. At times I'm hearing Don Lemon say one thing, while watching a completely different thing happening on the television in from of me. It's as if I need to mute the television in order to more easily rationalize what's really going on, which is really a shame when were talking about the people who are supposed to be reporting events, not interpreting them to us. 

I eventually got away from the television long enough to eat dinner, and catch up on some current events in an editorial form, where I stumbled upon this article by a progressive "journalist" Sally Kohn, and I must say I couldn't believe my eyes.

The article enraged me so much in fact, I decided to break it down a bit, using very simple terms, and in a way that should prove a bit entertaining, yet unmistakably revealing about what's going on within the bowls of the countries media. As you read -- while picking up your jaw -- think about what this would do to the lay individual who is simply soaking in information, and is none the wiser:

NOTE: Kohn's article snippets are contained within "" and my responses are marked by --

“The protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, want justice for the unarmed black teenager shot and killed there by a police officer. But the protests also reflect broader patterns of racial injustice across the country..” 

– Implying that the shooting was an injustice – although nothing has been proven factually to this point – and then using that insinuation as evidence of "a much larger issue": Biased

“It shouldn't need pointing out, but for the record, white people in America commit more crimes than black people.” 

– Insinuation lacking context, race ratio considerations perhaps?: biased

"whites committed crimes but blacks are criminals." 

– Opinion: Biased

“Despite the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings in America are perpetrated by white males, we don't condemn nor scrutinize white men nor white people as a group for the acts of these individuals. And yet we ascribe the criminal behavior of individual black people to the black community as a whole.” 

– Opinion, and all-inclusive: Racist

“This is on top of the host of negative stereotypes and assumptions we lump on communities of color and black people in particular.” 

– Opinion, and if she does, she’s racist: Racist

“Or consider that Americans who (incorrectly) believe that most welfare recipients are black think "lack of effort on their own part" is to blame. But among respondents who (correctly) think most people on welfare are white believe people are on welfare because of "circumstances beyond their control." 

– Did you read this op-ed from 2003? It’s mainly opinion based with some facts and percentages thrown in to appeal to the argument. Not to mention, it’s from 2003: Biased

“In this context, disproportionate police violence against black communities, especially black men and boys, must be understood not as an issue of rogue cops or isolated incidents but as an extreme manifestation of the sort of implicit racial bias that courses through every aspect of our nation.” 

– A biased opinion based on the 2003 op-ed: Biased with Racist Implications 

“In fact, cops who shoot unarmed black men have something in common with college students -- in video simulated research tests, both cops and college students, of all races, are far more likely to shoot at unarmed black men than unarmed white men.” 

– Interesting that blacks see blacks as criminals. We may assume that this is because of the way they’re presented in the media etc., but then there’s that little tug on the back of my collar that wants me to ask how the public opinion molds the opinions of black men and women who live with other black men and women, unless there feelings are vindicated in some way?: Biased, Borderline  Racist 

“Every twist and turn of our society, our economy, our politics and our interpersonal interactions in America is tainted with racial bias. Sometimes it's subtle. Sometimes it's armed with a gun. But instead of talking about racial bias, and working to unravel this deep problem, we often bury our heads in the sand or — worse — attack those who try to talk about racial injustice as "race baiters." 

– Except, it's only racist because this white woman say so, never mind the opinions of black conservatives and Libertarians, who would say otherwise. I know, different people, different experiences; nonetheless she implies that she knows better than blacks that live in black worlds: Interesting to say the least; racist at most.

“Meanwhile, communities of color who are already undeniably struggling in the face of racial bias have to endure the secondary injustice of having their experience and concerns dismissed, whether it's politicians suggesting that poverty is a "cultural problem" in communities of color or media figures arguing that black men are disproportionately arrested and locked up because "in certain ghetto neighborhoods, it's part of the culture." 

– Opinion, based on a biased mindset and lacking ACTUAL facts, not op-ed’s from 03’: Biased

“We still don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson.” 

– What!? You’ve just written an entire OP-ED based on it!: Biased and misleading

"But the fact is that while white people use drugs more, black folks are more likely to be arrested for and face higher sentences for drug use. Blaming these and other egregious discrepancies on the black community instead of endemic racial bias is adding insult to injury. It also doesn't achieve anything -- except fanning more protests." 

– Larry Elder debunked this years ago: http://t.co/58lP7vbngK

“the Ferguson police have only cast suspicion on the victim and his character.”

-- I figured he cast suspicion on his character when he robbed a store in front of a family and other members in his community, but hey, detail, right?: Biased

“This blame-the-victim response echoes the broader blame-the-black-community mentality that denies persistent racial bias while telling black folks they're to blame for the hurdles and inequities that racial bias causes.”

-- Two paragraphs ago you said, “We still don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson”, now he’s a victim? Interesting: Biased, borderline racist and nonetheless misleading.

“Michael Brown is dead. Unfortunately nothing we do in Ferguson or anywhere else can change that.” 

-- Wow, an honest statement for once.

“But what we can change is the pattern of biased treatment at the hands of police as well as banks and schools and elected officials and throughout our society that actively, albeit often unwittingly, perpetuate racial injustice in America.”

-- Implying that Brown’s situation was based on biased, while stating, “We still don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson” only paragraphs ago.

“If we do that, finally, then we might ensure that no more Michael Browns or Eric Garners or Oscar Grants or Trayvon Martins are killed.”

-- Opinion, implying yet again that Brown (and Trayvon Martins death following his assault of Zimmerman, for that matter) was an injustice, again after stating, “We still don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson”

_________________End of Article_________________

Do you need me to break this down further? 

I can't believe what I've just read, and I'm frankly appalled that CNN would have such an out of touch individual pushing out propaganda like this. Have we decided the officers guilt already?

This is America, and we have a due process that has mad America what it is. Am I the only one who feels that it's simple logic to allow this trial to at least start, before making the kind of outlandish assertions made in this article? 

This is a racist article, Ms. Kohn, and you, ma'am, are a racist.

While I can agree that there are obviously devastating issues prevalent in the black community, and do sympathize deeply with many of the issues the community as a whole faces, to base an entire op-ed on an event that hasn't yet come to fruition -- the conviction of the officer involved in Browns shooting, if that should happen -- that does nothing but make racist assumptions and use all inclusive statement to make a bigger point about the apparent racism inherent in all white people, and to present it so deviously as fact, on a site the likes of CNN, is adherent -- you ma'am are the face of hate, and are the problem.

Let justice take its course, before you start pointing fingers and calling entire races racist. This is America, Ms. Kohn, please, at least act like it.

As we all experience the pain of losing a young man, Mike Brown, I can only say I am going to feel even worse for the black community if this officer is vindicated, and everyone starts asking why we’ve seen weeks of media attention and biased reporting based solely on opinions and hearsay, the likes of which we see here, from Ms. Kohn. 

In the end, I can't see any of this going well for the community in Ferguson. So far they've been pushed to near chaos by race baiters trying to make a buck off of their naivety, projected by a media trying it's best boost ratings, and have been infiltrated by hoodlums making themselves look like fools by making outlandish assumptions, destroying their own town, and bringing unrest to the folks who are truly seeking justice -- all of this based on nothing but hearsay, at this point. 

America, you're putting your chips all in on decency, and I'm afraid to say, the odds are not looking good -- you must wake up, start making new investments, and rethinking your strategy to bring more to see your hearts, before it's too late.

Peace, love and freedom.

About Me: I am a Software Engineer pursuing a Masters in Computer Science, a business man -- holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude -- a writer, a blogger, a philosopher, a philanthropist, a veteran, and an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start.. 

Read More

On Humanizing Police: The Reality of The Individual Officer

Captain #RonJohnson has come out and expressed his approval for the #military style tactics used by the #Ferguson police, saying:

"When the chaos is in full effect, we can't tell if you are peaceful, potentially violent, or a member of the media. We just have to act, and we must protect our lives and the lives of the good people of this community."

To me, this is an amazing statement, and one that is uniquely indicative of the realities of how the humans react under fear and pressure -- we are, after all, human beings.

Being a military police veteran, I can relate entirely to his sentiment, and I must add to it, that we are trained to "shoot first and ask questions later." To the lay individual, this may come off as harsh, or emotionless, but what has to be taken into account is the reality that the types of environments we are trained to work in, don't care about how you feel about what's going on. 

Each of us have families, and we want to go home to see ours, just as much as you want to see #justice for yours. There has been a lot of focus on emotion, and it's implication on the reactions of both the officer who shot #MikeBrown, as well as the vandals who have done their part to tear their community down.

So what does this say about us? It says that we are all humans, and that despite how different we want to pretend we are, the reality is, we are all very similar. We all can love, hate, and let our anger take us over, and none of us are immune to that which makes us human, emotions.

Does this revelation on the part of Captain Ron Johnson speak to the possible realities of the scenario faced by the officer that shot Mike Brown?

What do you think?

Peace, love and freedom.

About Me: I am a Software Engineer w/ a Masters in Computer Science, a business man -- holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude -- a writer, a blogger, a philosopher, a philanthropist, a veteran, and an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start.. 

Read More

Dear Violet Baudelaire: Why White Privilege Doesn't Exist

I read an article that one of my good friends shared with me recently, and it set me on edge a bit. The article was an op-ed by Violet_Baudelaire that more or less amounted to a profanity laced misrepresentation of the American reality, marred with blatant racial slurs and assumptions regarding the notion of "white privilege" -- I felt compelled to dismantle and inspect the argument in a bit more detail in an attempt to shed some light on why it just isn't moral, or realistic really, to make such all encompassing assertions about entire communities of people, based solely on race. I'll admit, the op-ed irked me a bit -- which you'll see show through at points later on in the reading. As an American who is both understanding and proud of our nations history and the triumphs we've overcome as a people, I feel that is is counterintuitive to our goals, as well as a slap in the face of our history, to attempt to segregate folks based on race for any reason -- this sentiment is one reason that I feel most sentient human beings don't adhere to the notion of white privilege. The "white privilege" assertion negates the realities of individual circumstance, and in the end, amounts to a rather vague and somehow universally applicable form of new aged segregation, regardless of ones actual background or experiences. 

I'll say too, that as I poured through the jargon of the op-ed, it scared me a bit to think that such an f-bomb filled, racism ridden article garnered so many likes and shares, despite being nothing more than an abstract nod to the plausibility of an otherwise unpopular and rather obscure opinion -- "privilege based on ones race". Reading some of the comments at the bottom of the article, I began to feel that, compared to Donald Sterling, there were around 500 individuals who read and commented on that article that would make Sterling look more like Mother Theresa, than the racist individual that he has shown himself to be. The most disheartening realization for me though, came as it began to settle in, just how many people are out there among us who are this oblivious to the reality of the individual circumstance. How radically and racially charged must an individual be that they conceptualize these nazi like utopian ideologies as factual and plausible? Let me make it clear, these weren't the kinds of normally misguided yet naively innocent comments that I hear some folks make in support of the "privilege" ideology, rather, these were blatant mentions of the death and bodily bodily harm of other human beings, coupled with the proposed downfall of our current social structure as a whole. 

Needless to say, I had to post a rebuttal in an effort to stem the hemorrhaging of disinformation and the obvious lack of understanding this individual displayed, and also to show that my generation isn't one who can only formulate progressive, racist ideologies into profanity laced pseudo-intellectual Facebook posts, described as op-ed's. So, without further adieu, here is the reality:     

Dear Violet_Baudelaire and everyone else who preach the misconception of "white privilege:" 

Let me start off by saying, the reality is that this whole ideology is so Darwinian in nature that to attempt to study evidence of it's legitimacy/existence becomes less a matter of the dissection of solid factual examples, and more a matter of simply keeping up with the evolution itself – which is exhausting. I also wouldn’t be the only one I’ve heard state that this is in fact that intended purpose, to make the ideology so abstract that it's hard to ascribe any one particular belief or reasoning to it. This opens a world of opportunity for anyone who wishes to use the ideology in a devious way, such as to mute anthers voice based on a proposed privilege which makes them incapable of understanding another's situation, and so, invalid as an opinion regarding said situation -- this is devastating for many reasons when we consider how much emphasis we place on our opinions and freedom to express them, as Americans. I hear and read so many different conceptualizations of the term "privilege" that it's hard to tell what the facts are, and where it's actually applicable. If you do happen to read the article, you will notice the mention of "reverse racism," and I wanted to make it clear, as not to confuse anyone: There is no such thing as “reverse racism,” by it's modern day definition, so the writers assertion to what is in fact, simply, racism, is a moot point, and in my opinion is indicative of the lack of understanding this individual actually possesses regarding matters of fundamental vocabulary. The term, “reverse racism,” is theoretical, and improperly formulated. A colleague of mine wrote a Yale Press published paper on the topic, for a regional call for papers -- I’ll try and see if I can find it somewhere for you and post it at a later date.

I think what we have here is a matter of misinterpretation, the existence of which I do not feel is an outcome entirely undesired by it's proponents. That aside, the long and the short of the issue is that the word itself is misleading, insofar as it motivates one to believe that the outcome of a “privileged” individuals life – should the outcome to whatever point be a positive one – is not the cause of the summation of his/her choices, or the adherence to a particular moral obligation, rather, that the individual has only reached said point because of the privileged nature of his/her upbringing, and that such a scenario of privilege is absolutely amplified significantly by ones color -- white being the best of "privileged" skin tones, and black being the worst.

Now, despite what you want to believe, absolutes are neither common nor very applicable in a situation as ever changing as life. So, when you say this to an individual who is "white", light skinned, tan, or what have you, your automatically implying that he/she is in fact less than the reality of his/her deeds, work and overall ethic coupled with the randomness that is life, and moreso a product not of their own. While some do have luxuries because of the work that their lineage pursued, or other various reasons, such situations are not an absolute in thew majority of cases and so, one cannot argue that such a privilege is universally applicable. I hate to break it to anyone who would say otherwise, but what one would call my “privilege,” I would call the aggregation of all the hard work and right choices my lineage and I have made to this point, which is merely a standard amongst normal individuals where I come from.

Allow me to put this in perspective, and really freak some people out: Let’s say that I wanted to give a term to the hierarchy of poverty – just because I have nothing better to do but push people’s buttons. Let's start the line with the most impoverished, and end it with the wealthiest category. In order to describe this disparity of economic outcome, we want to invent a term -- or better yet, use one with an already universally understood negative connotation -- to describe this obviously important phenomenon; let's use the term “desirables.” When you step back and look at this from a logical, or dare I say “rational” point of view, you should say out loud, “Wait a minute, what? As a minority, this makes me feel like less than a human being! I’m not less than desirable!” -- and I don't think anyone would argue with your angst. As we go on to explain, your "crazy assertion" that the use of this word to describe you and your place in society is "in no way intended to belittle minorities, their achievements/lack thereof, or mock their situation." (As it just so happens the majority of the lower end of the income scale is made up of minorities -- based on census data. I wrote an article about this on my blog as well. Back to the story..) No! rather, the term "desirable" merely alludes to the relationship one's FINANCIAL POSITION has to others on the scale, in order of "desirability." The fact that the majority of minorities would be described as being “less than desirable” according to this made up conceptualization/distortion of reality, is in no way indicative of their desirability as human beings, or as members of society, no -- I hope you're digesting the sarcasm.

How do you think Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, President Obama and the majority of the minority community would react? Sure, there would be sympathizers in said communities, just as there are some folks who are ok with being dehumanized based on race, but it's safe to say, it wouldn't go over very well, would it?. Then, why do we tolerate it? Didn’t slavery do something similar to the black community? -- albeit to a much greater order of magnitude, of course. That said, is dehumanizing not still dehumanizing? Do you not suppose that there would be some unfettering notion among certain communities, that the term “less than desirable” is not indicative of all or even some minorities, and should therefore be replaces with a more endearing term, one that is less, shall we say, deceptive in it's assertion? Perhaps, “Less fortunate” or “Socioeconomically Challenged”?

To that end, do you suppose the word you've chose to describe a tier system of skin tone would lead some to believe -- as it clearly has/does -- that dehumanizing the participant whose situation is “privileged” is for some reason ok? Is wrong only wrong sometimes?

One could also argue that this article gives the example of a one legged man running a race against a two legged person, and states that the two legged person is “privileged,” and that the one legged man is not, but the reality of such a scenario, from a less abstract perspective, is that the two legged man is “normal,” or “handicap free,” and the one legged man is, well, handicapped, but no less a human. So, if proponents of the word “privileged” as it related to a racial hierarchy wish to use a particular set of words to describe individuals they know nothing about, how about we relate the one legged race example in a more realistic way by saying that what you define as “privilege” is merely an example of normalcy, and that the further away from “normalcy” you deviate, the less “normal” you are, as compared to the standard? That seems to me to be more fitting, no? But you see, this would never happen, because it is offensive. The word is obscure in this abstract context, and is offensive to those who merely live up to the standard of civilized society, and that, folks, is wrong.

So, in closing: If the overall message I’m getting from proponents of this "privilege" and the ideology behind it -- as it applies to the specific context of the hierarchy of skin tones and the benefits/disadvantages of them -- is that the reason the word is ok to use is because it really means something a bit more obscure than the standard definition in it's normal context, I move that we make strides to better assimilate the ideology with a more practical term -- normalcy, for instance. Growing up in a two parent home, graduating high school, going to college, finding a good job, marrying, then having children, etc., these are all normal, holistic and morally righteous aspirations. They do not make anyone better, and there are obviously extenuating circumstances to any situation -- remember, noting is absolute -- but those extenuating circumstances should never become the "norm," and the other side punished for the repercussions of a normal reality -- from a societal perspective. We can argue what normal is, sure, but in this present time, one would reasonably assume that it is simply a more beneficial route for one to attend school, find a good job, marry -- and not only traditional marriage should be sought, but gay marriage as well -- have children and so on, and any term used to describe an event that which would duly serve to single out an entire category of people based solely on color, should never be condoned under any circumstance. 

About Me: I am a Computer Scientist, more specifically a Database Administrator, a business man (Holding a Bachelors in Business with a focus in Enterprise Administration from Fordham University, Magna Cum Laude), a writer, a blogger, as well as a philosopher, a philanthropist (as much as one with limited finances can be..) a veteran, and in general, an all around thinker and do'er. My purpose is to point out that there is a reason for everything and an opinion for every reason. I am designed to interpret what I see and dictate what I've interpreted. My hope is that my words will not be seen as harsh, rather as liberating, and at very least, thought provoking. I enjoy everything from technology, to race relations, biology, genetics and economics.. for a start.. 

Read More