The media frenzy over the death of Trayvon Martin has produced an interesting label - "white Hispanic."
It's been used by the New York Times, Reuters, CNN, and countless other media outlets.
George Zimmerman is descibed as a "white Hispanic."
Initially, he was simply labeled Hispanic. Zimmerman's identity has morphed since then.
Jonah Goldberg discusses the reason for the contorted racial terms being employed by the media in his op-ed, "Playing the race card again."
"White Hispanic." That's how the New York Times, Reuters and other media outlets have opted to describe George Zimmerman, a man who would simply be Hispanic (or Latino in this newspaper) if he hadn't shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. The term, rarely if ever used before this tragedy, is necessary in telling the Martin story in a more comfortable way.
What's the comfortable way? It's the way the blame for Martin's death belongs squarely at the feet of "the system." And "the system" is a white thing, don't you know.
The Leftist agenda requires that Zimmerman's "whiteness" be highlighted.
If George Zimmerman must be identified as a "white Hispanic," then Obama must be called a "white African American."
From this day forward, let Obama be known as the first "white African American" president of the United States.
If we're going to talk race, if that's what defines everyone, let's be honest.
George Zimmerman is a white Hispanic guy, or a Hispanic white guy.
Obama is a white black guy, or black white guy.
Since the media are using "white Hispanic" for Zimmerman, mentioning white first, we'll use "white African American" for Obama.
We must be consistent.
If we aren't consistent, we certainly aren't being post-racial.
"Post-racial."
What an antiquated term!
8 comments:
But there ARE people that are both white and Hispanic. Look at Univision; most of the stars and anchors are white Hispanics. What about in South America for instance? Uruguay? Argentina? The children and grandchildren of immigrants from places like Spain and Italy, or even Germany, and elsewhere. Clearly white/European people (or they'd be called "white-ethnics" here in north America). Yet since they're Spanish speakers born in south America, if they came to this country they'd also have to be called "Hispanics". Would that make them a different "race" from, say, a cousin of theirs whose family had emigrated to north America instead of south America ??
That's why that whole category ("Hispanic") is so confusing in a way. It's not just for visibly "racially-mixed" Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc, although that's how it's most commonly used admittedly.
Zimmerman would be best described, in my view, as biracial (white/European and mixed Hispanic). His appearance however is, admittedly, much more like the latter than the former.
Obama is of course biracial as well, but due to historical circumstances in this country (circumstances which were not really created by black people after all) he is much more likely to self-identify as just black, rather than white. The "one-drop rule", etc. He readily admits to being biracial if asked. He's never hidden it.
I dont know how Florida works but here in Illinois hispanic is its own category (either yes or no). Then race is another category, which only lists black, white, asian, or native american. With this category system practically all latinos that are not mixed with black, asian, or native american automatically default to white. Its unfortunate but the system is what it is.
This is nothing new. Blacks have been called Afro-Americans for years, does that raise the question of whether blacks are African or American ? God forbid! it's just a way of saying that those that are Afro-American are Americans of african decent. Zimmerman is bi-racial so he is identified by the decent of both races. President Obama was a bad choice to compare this incident with, because none of us know( for sure) of what decent, nationality or religion he is ... as a nation we went with what was told to us ...Is he the one that will deceive the nations? Or has he been unjustifiably accused? I think the "full" investigation of that question should have been done BEFORE he ran and became president of America ... this is where the true comparison is because the FULL investigation should have taken place THEN and the case wouldn't have to played out in the media NOW.
Technically, "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race.
Nonetheless, federal agencies twist into knots trying to account for people of "Hispanic" origin, without providing it as a racial category.
Although "Hispanic" is not a race, the term is used by law enforcement when giving the public a description of an individual.
Obviously, it's a messy distinction. The definitions aren't clear.
The point, however, when it comes to the Trayvon Martin case, is clear. Race baiters demand that Zimmerman be designated as white to advance their agenda. It's necessary to diminish his minority identity, be it racial or ethnic.
So much for that "color blind society." MLK, RIP.
When I first heard this case, I was half listening and all I saw was a picture of Zimmerman. I did not hear his last name. Looking at his picture I automatically thought that he was latino, a brown person, maybe mexican. But never did White man go through my head. The media has brainwashed America into thinking this man is white, when he is obviously not.
George Zimmerman's father is white. His mother is Hispanic.
Clearly, there are those interested in making this a racially based matter.
After Obama getting involved, I don't know how Zimmerman will be able to get a fair trial.
I wish Obama would get involved in the New Black Panther Party bounty on Zimmerman. He should weigh in on that.
Did Obama say if he had a son, he'd look like Malik Zulu Shabazz?
I guess we can start calling Romney a White Hispanic Mormon, given your logic, although he has flatly denied any association.
Post a Comment