Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Charlton Heston playing the Mexican policeman in Touch of Evil.
Now of course Mexicans can range from non-white to completely white so maybe that role does not count.
But then again, does it matter?
They're pretending. That is what Acting is- pretending.
If not, then I guess I must scalp my Hamilton tickets.
Right, just make believe.
Hollywood is in such demand of diversity thay many actors proclaimed they had Indian or black blood or a Mayan great-great grandfather.
Whenever "deep America" had a grudge against some actor, he was always accused of being Jewish. I'm thinking right now of Mickey Rooney and Garland.
There was also a anti Irish wave, all actors were accused of being Irish.
Latins, Italians always fared better....mainly among women..
No, it wasn't. I provided the text of the case to you. What are you not understanding/reading?
No. You are the one who does not understand the Hernandez case. I'll brake it down again slowly so that you can understand.
Pete Hernandez, a Mexican cotton picker, committed a murder and was tried and convicted for his crime. He tried to appeal, complaining that he was being discriminated because the jury was all (Anglo)white.
Mexican legal teams used the case to see if they could get 14th amendment minority protections for Mexicans, specifically the equal protection clause which guaranteed access to "a jury of one's peers".
The state of Texas denied this claim stating that Hernandez had no claim to discrimination because Mexicans were white, and an all-white jury was a jury of Hernandez's peers.
Quote:
"Lawyers for the state of Texas argued that Mexican Americans were "whites of Spanish Descent", and that Hernandez therefore had an impartial jury, composed of members of his own race(in other words, whites). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, concluding that Mexican Americans were a nationality, not a race, and that Equal Protection Clause was not designated to ensure equal rights to those of different nationalities. link
The Mexican legal team argued not that Mexicans were a different race, but that they were a separate class that was being socially discriminated in Jackson County.
Quote:
"“We’re white, but we’re a class apart. We’re a distinct class that though white, is being treated as if we’re not white.”
Quote:
"In the first case to be tried by Mexican American attorneys before the U.S. Supreme Court, Garcia argued that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed protection not only on the basis of race but also class. While Mexican Americans may be white, the established pattern of discrimination against them proved they were also “a class apart.”
This has been called the "other white" strategy, in academia.
What the decision did was extend the equal protection clause beyond the racial groups(blacks and whites), so that different nationality groups (Mexicans) could also be protected if it were established that they faced social discrimination.
No statement is ever made by either party denying that Mexicans were white, and the case was not considered a race case.
Quote:
the Supreme Court did not decide Hernandez as a race case. The Court avoided a racial analysis because, strikingly, both parties argued that Mexican Americans were racially white.
After the decision, Pete Hernadez was given a retrial, this time with a jury that included Mexicans and got the same conviction and the same sentence
Quote:
Pete Hernandez received a new trial with a jury that included Mexican Americans, and was again found guilty of murder.
So, after going through all that trouble to get a jury of his peers, he ended up in the same place. The Mexican jurors made no difference. He was not actually being discriminated at all.
And of course, jails were segregated, and Pete Hernandez went to white jail.
Quote:
In this debate, you've been shown:
1) historical records where Mexicans were classified separately from whites (and yet continued to state that "any historical" record proves your argument);
Where?
The Hernandez case shows that Mexicans were white. The fact that Mexicans were white is a central part of all arguments made.
Quote:
2) were given a clear example to rebut your claim that "Cubans" would automatically be considered a class of "ethnic white" (again, my black Cuban relatives wouldn't be considered "white" in the Jim Crow US simply because they happened to be "Cuban")
Yes, Cubans of African descent were considered black, the overwhelming majority of Cubans, however, were racially white, and were never subject to legal exclusion or discrimination.
Quote:
3) were provided with information that showed that 500,000 - 2 million Mexicans and Mexican Americans were deported from the US in part because of their "Mestizo" skin tone;
Immigration and deportation is *not* a race-related issue at all.
Quote:
4) were provided evidence where the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly stated that a petitioner had proved that Mexicans were a separate class, "distinct from whites,";
A separate class, not a separate race. Both parties argued that Mexicans were white.
Quote:
Why do you continue to push discredited narratives that go against the great weight of the evidence?
All evidence shows that Mexicans were white. Pointing out incidents of social discrimination does not change that fact.
Mexicans lived, worked, and went to school in segregated white society. Mexicans identified as white. Mexicans married white.
All of that would have been impossible if they were racial minorities.
Quote:
What gives? I'm legitimately curious.
The OP asked a question. I correctly answered that that was what Mexicans were considered then in ALL records, so there is nothing out of the ordinary about her relative being listed as "white". That's what Mexicans were then.
You can look at the birth certificate of any Mexican Americans born in the U.S before the 1980's - every single one of them was born "white/caucasian".
He was still specifically known in cinema as "the Latin lover" and not as a "white" man. Latin roles were still the roles he got. The same was true of Anthony Quinn, who got "ethnic" roles, not "white" roles.
"Latin" and/or "Spanish" had no non-white connotation back then.
Calling him Latin did not imply that he was a non-white minority.
Hollywood was segregated, and Mexican and/other "Latin" actors were unaffected by it.
Right, just make believe.
Hollywood is in such demand of diversity thay many actors proclaimed they had Indian or black blood or a Mayan great-great grandfather.
Whenever "deep America" had a grudge against some actor, he was always accused of being Jewish. I'm thinking right now of Mickey Rooney and Garland.
There was also a anti Irish wave, all actors were accused of being Irish.
Latins, Italians always fared better....mainly among women..
No. Regardless of the influence of Jews in the motion picture industry, they were still constrained to produce a product the bigoted majority would purchase. Even movies that included blacks were filmed in such a way that the "black segments" could be edited from copies distributed in the South.
But even behind the camera, it took the prowess of Charlton Heston in the 60s to open up Hollywood unions to minorities other than Jews.
Take Charles Bronson, he had a slavic-Jewish sounding name that he changed. I could cite many examples.
Hispanic actors changed their names, Martin Sheen, Echevarria, second role in scarface, because they did not want to be confined to Hispanic/Spanish roles. Jennifer Lopez, Andy Garcia, Cameron Diaz, among many others interpreted many mainstrean characters without changing their names.
No. You are the one who does not understand the Hernandez case. I'll brake it down again slowly so that you can understand.
Pete Hernandez, a Mexican cotton picker, committed a murder and was tried and convicted for his crime. He tried to appeal, complaining that he was being discriminated because the jury was all (Anglo)white.
Mexican legal teams used the case to see if they could get 14th amendment minority protections for Mexicans, specifically the equal protection clause which guaranteed access to "a jury of one's peers".
The state of Texas denied this claim stating that Hernandez had no claim to discrimination because Mexicans were white, and an all-white jury was a jury of Hernandez's peers.
The Mexican legal team argued not that Mexicans were a different race, but that they were a separate class that was being socially discriminated in Jackson County.
This has been called the "other white" strategy, in academia.
What the decision did was extend the equal protection clause beyond the racial groups(blacks and whites), so that different nationality groups (Mexicans) could also be protected if it were established that they faced social discrimination.
No statement is ever made by either party denying that Mexicans were white, and the case was not considered a race case.
After the decision, Pete Hernadez was given a retrial, this time with a jury that included Mexicans and got the same conviction and the same sentence
So, after going through all that trouble to get a jury of his peers, he ended up in the same place. The Mexican jurors made no difference. He was not actually being discriminated at all.
And of course, jails were segregated, and Pete Hernandez went to white jail.
Where?
The Hernandez case shows that Mexicans were white. The fact that Mexicans were white is a central part of all arguments made.
Yes, Cubans of African descent were considered black, the overwhelming majority of Cubans, however, were racially white, and were never subject to legal exclusion or discrimination.
Immigration and deportation is *not* a race-related issue at all.
A separate class, not a separate race. Both parties argued that Mexicans were white.
All evidence shows that Mexicans were white. Pointing out incidents of social discrimination does not change that fact.
Mexicans lived, worked, and went to school in segregated white society. Mexicans identified as white. Mexicans married white.
All of that would have been impossible if they were racial minorities.
The OP asked a question. I correctly answered that that was what Mexicans were considered then in ALL records, so there is nothing out of the ordinary about her relative being listed as "white". That's what Mexicans were then.
You can look at the birth certificate of any Mexican Americans born in the U.S before the 1980's - every single one of them was born "white/caucasian".
Sigh, this is getting old. Everything you quoted from that article deals with the series of Hernandez cases before they reached the United States Supreme Court. While lower courts, including the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, were willing to accept the argument put forward by the State of Texas that there was no discrimination because Hernandez, as Mexican was "white," the United States Supreme Court (as I already showed) clearly rejected this argument.
Seriously?? Why do you continue fighting a losing battle without showing any evidence that would ultimately strongly support your argument? Again, there is no need to look to a book that describes the outcome of the Hernandez cases in lower courts (note, the page you cite to doesn't get into the US Supreme Court's decision until the final paragraph, and then cuts off). I supplied the actual text of the Hernandez case as decided by the United States Supreme Court (not by a lower court). Your strategy is akin to arguing that "separate, but equal" was the legal reality for minorities in this country since courts for quite some time ruled that it was. Such an argument, like your argument in this case, refuses to acknowledge that the final ruling on this matter (from the US Supreme Court) held differently.
Again, I provided you the text of the Supreme Court opinion in Hernandez. Why are you providing rulings/quotes from lower courts' decisions when the Supreme Court reversed all of those rulings?
Also, I don't know why you keep repeating the falsehood that Mexicans were considered white in "ALL" records when I've already shown this to be false based on the Census where Mexicans were classified separately. You have, however, shown that most records did identify Mexicans as whites for much of this country's history. But, again, no one in this thread disputes that. What we argue, and what there is plenty of evidence it support, is that this was not the reality for many, many Mexicans in this country, particularly if you were a Mexican of mixed-race. Again, legal equality under the law didn't mean so in practice for African Americans throughout much of this country's post-Civil War period. This is something that you don't seen to get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
