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.
What an antiquated term!