I'm sorry --- I know I'm not always the sharpest barb on the wire, but for the life of me, I can't see anything whatsoever wrong with either of these pictures.  One shows a white family camping.  The other shows a black family cooking out.  There isn't any dramatic variance in the children's appearance from that of either parent.  Sometimes traits of one parent show up more strongly than traits of another parent.  My son looks far more like his mother than like me (do not read that the wrong way), but she is from deepest Poland and her gene pool probably hasn't had much variation in fifty generations, whereas I am a northwestern European mutt from maritime countries.  In other words, her genes are deep, thick, and concentrated, whereas mine are more variegated.  And yes, the black man is making kind of a dorky face, but how is that significant?  The only thing that even remotely "jumps out" at me is that the white son looks vaguely Hispanic, but the father himself has dark hair.  I have cousins who looked like that when they were young boys, and nobody ever questioned whether they were white or not.  Features vary.  Sometimes traits skip generations.  I'd have to come down on the side of "nothing to see here, move on".

But Matthew, I'm sure you had a very good reason for noticing something.  You are a very astute observer, and I respect the work you do on this page very much.  Could you help me out, and show me what I'm missing?

For a look at what happened when they tried to make sure everybody in the family looks exactly alike:



The girl front and center must have inherited some of those "Dark Irish" genes

[...] but for the life of me, I can't see anything whatsoever wrong with either of these pictures.  One shows a white family camping.  [....]  The only thing that even remotely "jumps out" at me is that the white son looks vaguely Hispanic, but the father himself has dark hair.  I have cousins who looked like that when they were young boys, and nobody ever questioned whether they were white or not.

On the other hand, a family member adopted a son decades ago, and within my memory, from young childhood into adulthood, he always had the permanently tanned skin that's strongly suggestive here in Florida of Hispanic descent.  His facial features also looked Hispanic, more plausibly developing toward the Ricardo "Mr. Roarke" Montalbán style, than toward the Carlos "Juan Valdez" Sánchez style.  If my family member received any info about the adopted child's ethnicity during the adoption process, it's never been admitted or disclosed to me; in fact, he refused to discuss the ethnicity that seemed obvious to pretty much every other adult member of my family.  Really now, considering the high modern rate of unmarried motherhood among Hispanics, and the more than 100,000 Puerto Ricans living just in their 4 largest concentrations in Florida as of the 2010 Census, do readers seriously doubt that there might be abundant Hispanic infants available for adoption here?  That being in sharp contrast to the scarce white infants available for adoption, which has driven white couples to seek them overseas (notably in the former Soviet Bloc).

Features vary.  Sometimes traits skip generations.  [....]  Could you help me out, and show me what I'm missing?

I agree that "features vary".  Maybe the girl's face is simply quite dirty, altho' that would seem to be highly unusual for an advertising photo unrelated to soaps or body washes.  But in my predominantly black neighborhood, it's not unusual to see very pale coloration that's combined with oddly dark facial highlights, as also seen on the girl in the ad photo, in an occasional "ugly duckling".  Such a child might be seen in an otherwise ordinary grouping of 1 woman with the rest children, predominately black, "coming to visit grandma".  The woman, sometimes white, to all external appearances, often seems to be a "baby-mama" (i.e., a likely unmarried woman who, relatively early in life, has already borne the children of different fathers).  Perhaps the woman aspires to the government payments granted to a "welfare queen", or perhaps she is simply naturally stupid [×].  Altho' I've never discussed it with any black men of my acquaintance, I infer that among their "buds", impregnating a white woman yields some prestige; either "movin' on up", or social retribution against the "slave-masters".

And as I'm reminded by what I've written above, the long-term charity of adopting the unwanted children of others could be the explanation.  Altho' that doesn't make the group an example of the ideal family sought by Matthew.

-------
Note ×: Upon further review, to reduce my risk of crossing the line of being unacceptably sɛҳuąƖly explicit on CathInfo, thus subverting the G-rating that Matthew wants to maintain, I deleted my digression to my inferences about condom use among blacks.  And yes, I'm aware of the relevant encyclical by Pope Paul VI.

Hispanics just means they come from a Spanish speaking country.

That's nearly what the U.S. Census Bureau advised their employees in 2010, when it pointed out in its teaching materials for its temporary workers that "Hispanic is not a race".

That conceded, I was simply responding to ‘SimpleMan’ in the terms that he used.  And I believe that it's broadly understood, at least in the Southern U.S.A., what physical attributes he and ‘Matthew’ intended to convey by "Hispanic".

As a practical matter of federal law, "Hispanic" seems to mean that altho' a person so described is conceded not to be a member of a distinct "race", he is nonetheless entitled to life-long federal "affirmative action", and excused from any life-long failure to learn English, as a member of a special nonracial "protected class".  I'm confident that it's contrary to what even many liberal United Statesians expected the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act to mandate.  Each was a part of the "Great Society" programs that were finagled into federal law by the Lyndon Johnson Administration (1963--1969).  But even when initial versions of touted federal legislation doesn't mandate something that's objectionable, leftists will see to it that its reäuthorizations expand its reach into objectionable mandates.

It is a [lot?] like saying a person is an American.  An American can be a Southern European olive skinned brown eyed Italian or a Northern Italy fair skinned blue-eyed blonde (and that is just the Americans from Italy).

Ummm, not a complete list for Italy.  You're overlooking at least the fair skinned blue-eyed blondes from Sicily (e.g., a slender beauty among my coworkers in a past job), whose relevant genes are almost certainly from the Norman (i.e., Frenchified Viking, thus genetically Scandinavian) conquest of that Italian island from Muslim occupation.

Now that you've brought up strict definitions, an "American" is strictly anyone from either of the 2 Western-Hemisphere continents called "America".  That's why I sometimes use the awkward but more meticulous label "United Statesian".

It might be least ambiguous to return to using the now-disparaged terms "Teutonic" or "Nordic", "Alpine", or "Mediterranean".  As I believe I understand the latter term, it includes the medium-melanin skin of many ethnicities, e.g., many southern Italians, many Greeks, Lebanese, Biblical "Hebrews", and Arabs.  More categories will be needed for other ethnicities, e.g., Iranians/Persians (who are not Arabs), various genuine Indians from India (the latter two formally being "Caucasian", despite variations having very dark skin), &c.  But anyone who suggests that is likely to be accused of being a "nαzι".

As a practical matter of federal law, "Hispanic" seems to mean that altho' a person thus described is not a member of a distinct "race", he is nonetheless entitled to life-long federal "affirmative action", and excused from life-long failure to learn English, as a member of a special nonracial "protected class.  I'm confident that it's contrary to what even many liberal United Statesian supporters expected the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act to mandate.  Each was a part of the "Great Society" programs that were finagled into federal law by the Lyndon Johnson Administration (1963--1969).  But even when initial versions of touted federal legislation don't mandate something that's objectionable, leftists will see to it that its reäuthorizations expand its reach into objectionable mandates.

… then you have the Orientals, they have a lot of those [in?] South America too AND they all are Hispanics, they all live in a Spanish speaking country and speak Spanish.

Whoa!  That's stretching the definition waaay too much.  When a man immigrates, e.g., from Japan, has an obviously Japanese surname, and somehow wins election to the presidency of whatever South-American country that happened--Chile, Peru, Colombia, or Venezuela--I just can't bring myself to accept a claim that he should be described as "Hispanic".

Whoa!  That's stretching the definition waaay too much.  When a man immigrates, e.g., from Japan, has an obviously Japanese surname, and somehow wins election to the presidency of whatever South-American country that happened--Chile, Peru, Colombia, or Venezuela--I just can't bring myself to accept a claim that he should be described as "Hispanic".

I was using "Hispanic" in the colloquial, commonly understood sense.  It is not supposed to have any racial connotation, but alas, it does --- olive-and-darker skin, black hair, pronounced not-quite-white facial features, and so on.  It's my understanding that lighter-skinned Cubans view themselves as kind of sui generis, something distinct from "Hispanic".  It's interesting to note that Fidel Castro and his nephew, NBC newsman Jose Diaz-Balart, are not related by blood --- Jose is Fidel's wife's nephew --- but they both have eyes that are kind of smallish, deep-set, and somewhat close together, long noses, and sort of oval faces with strong, slightly protruding jawlines and chins.  In other words, they're not blood relation, but you couldn't prove it by me.  They look like they could be father and son.

Alberto Fujimori of Peru (I assume that's who you were describing) being both Japanese and Hispanic, yes, that's kind of a stretch, but according to the nomenclature of our federal government, that's precisely what he would be.  Other instances of "Hispanic but you have to stop and think about it":

* - Nestor Kirchner of Argentina (German/Croatian)
* - Carlos Menem of Argentina (Syrian)
* - actress Alexis Bledel (Danish/German/British)
* - Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay (German)
* - Bernardo O'Higgins (Irish)

...and many, many others.  Actress Jessica Alba would also be considered Hispanic (she's Danish-Chilean), but she is "exotic"-looking enough that "Hispanic" is no stretch.  Ditto for Salma Hayek (Lebanese-Mexican).  FWIW, some Argentinians regard "Argentinian" as something distinct from "Hispanic", similar to white Cubans. 

I did not include Brazilians because, unless I'm missing something, nobody considers then Hispanic.  Models Xuxa (Maria Meneghel), Cintia Dicker, and Gisele Bündchen are German, pure and simple.

You're either naïve in the extreme, or you're being flatly disingenuous if you mean to imply the Jєωs have not made a huge, culturally ubiquitous effort at eliminating "whiteness" by every means at their disposal - flooding white countries with foreigners, spreading dekulakization narratives vilifying whites for their "privilege," and, yes pushing images of mixed race couples on TV, in films, and advertising. Jєωs associate "whiteness" with Christendom, and are not satisfied with even a 100% apostate Europe and America. They want to wipe out the sons and daughters of Christendom completely, as they see us as Edom - their ancient religious and ethnic enemy.

I'm familiar with E. Michael Jones's Slaughter of the Cities.

God bless you if you've lived a life so blessedly sheltered that you haven't noticed, but Jєωs do promote race-mixing, despite your scoffing use of scare quotes and Poche-level scriptural cherry-picking.

Actually, the real Jєωs were against "race mixing"; cf. Tobias 6:11, 7:14.

Actually, the real Jєωs were against "race mixing"; cf. Tobias 6:11, 7:14.

That is neither here nor there, since "real Jєωs" haven't existed for about 20 centuries.
All we've had for centuries are "them that say they are Jєωs and are not, but are the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan." (Apoc. 2:9)