This is Hacker News - why not actually research instead of making broad, unsubstantiated claims?
You assert that Hispanics are short and chubby. And you claim this is because they eat rice and beans. I'm not going to argue whether or not you're bigoted, but I'm happy to inject a few facts into this train wreck of a thread.
"Obesity in Hispanic populations, as in all other ethnic groups in the U.S., is increasing and worsening as a significant health problem. In 2002, the age-adjusted prevalence of obesity among adults age 20 or more in men was 26% for Mexican Americans and 24% for non-Hispanic whites. For women the comparable percentages were 26% and 21%. In children from NHANES III, Mexican American boys had a higher prevalence of obesity that either non-Hispanic whites or non-Hispanic blacks. In girls, the prevalence of obesity in Hispanics was higher than that in non-Hispanic whites, but less than that in non-Hispanic blacks. The highest prevalence rates in all these groups was among Hispanic boys, age 6-11 years old, with 17.4% in the obese classification. "
Although the numbers show that the Hispanic population has a larger percentage of obesity compared to whites, I doubt that this difference is large enough to be noticeable in day to day observation (eg, I would have a hard time drawing a conclusion that Hispanic male adults aged 20 or more are chubbier than their white counterparts based on this data from my day to day interactions).
And the article notes that diets are quite varied, and makes no mention of intake of fast food. So it seems that Hispanics eat food other than just rice and beans.
Since the data doesn't show that Hispanic populations are significantly different from whites in terms of obesity, and their diets vary beyond rice and beans, your original argument is baseless.
A) You said nothing about economic status, which makes all the difference in the world. Poorer people universally have worse health than middle-income or wealthy people.
B) Rice and beans isn't only eaten by Hispanics; maybe you should turn off the Lou Dobbs and pay a little attention.
Poorer people can't afford good food and have to eat mostly starchy staples. That's why their health is generally worse.
And you are quite wrong about low income "universally" meaning poor health. There are poor populations all over the world with good health from good diets. The healthiest sub-population in the US, and possibly the healthiest group in the industrialized world, are working class whites in the upper mid-west, in states like Minnesota. They eat a lot of meat.
I guess this is some survey of the US which concludes the obvious: that income and health generally correlate. The best lesson to extract is probably "Don't eat like poor people." Which was my original point. It still ignores the plain fact that various poor populations with good diets are quite healthy. The exceptions invalidate the simplistic assumption about the general case and point to diet.
