About That “White Hispanic” Thing

So the Zimmerman trial is over, although the whole sorry affair goes on. Astonishingly, appallingly, the Justice Department has opened a tip line for people who would like to denounce George Zimmerman as a racist. 

Let's stop for a moment and reflect on what we owe to the race-baiters inside and outside the media who fanned and are still fanning the fires of racial animosity around this matter that probably should never have gone to trial in the first place, certainly not as second-degree murder (the detective in charge thought negligent manslaughter a stretch). Why white journalists are so eager to encourage black hostility to whites is a psychological puzzle about which I can only speculate: I suppose it has something to do with the tribalism which causes liberal whites to assume, or at least assert, that most whites are racist and would re-create the segregated society of the pre-1965 South if they only could.

A passionately left-wing acquaintance assured me that this case was "just like Scottsboro" (see here for an account of the Scottsboro case, which began in 1931 with a false accusation of rape). That was one of those moments when one is completely at a loss for words: if there is any comparison to Scottsboro, it's in the volatile mob emotions that have been unleashed, and the associated lack of interest in facts. But this time those dangerous forces favor the black man. No one has ever produced any evidence–and not for lack of effort–that either Zimmerman or the police who accepted his account of the events were operating out of racist motives. It was simply assumed and asserted, treated as self-evident, because they were white, and Martin was black; it was straightforward racial prejudice. 

In Zimmerman's case, it was white with qualifications. There's been a good deal of jeering at the journalists and others who insisted on describing him as "a white Hispanic." The jeering was deserved, because they seemed to be and probably were attempting to preserve their "narrative" in which a white bigot stalked and killed an unarmed "child."

But the journalists, whether they knew it or not, were actually following federally-defined standards for racial classification. There actually is, in at least some official racial categories, such a thing as "white Hispanic." I work in education, and we are required to track and report the ethnicity of students. The categories are specified by a federal standard. Up until a few years ago those were: Asian, American Indian/Alaskan, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White. A few years ago the scheme was revised: American Indian, Asian, Black, Multi-racial, Pacific Islander, and White. Hispanic was separated, becoming a yes/no flag accompanying one of the other codes. So one can indeed, in this scheme, be a white Hispanic, or for that matter an Asian Hispanic.

Perhaps the idea that "Hispanic" is a race became too much even for the race-counting establishment. (Click here for a glimpse into that odd world.) But given the demands of liberal race-consciousness, eliminating it was unthinkable. The whole thing is pretty bizarre. Presumably "Asian" encompasses not only the Far East (is that phrase still allowed?) but also India and Pakistan, which have nothing much in common, either racially or culturally, with China or Japan. Why should Middle Eastern not also be a "race" in this scheme? A great many Mexicans are racially pretty close to American Indians, certainly closer than to the average Argentinian, but official doctrine puts Mexicans in the box with Argentinians. 

To a considerable extent these "racial" categories are, in effect, political categories. The reason for the establishment's extreme concern with them is something of a puzzle to me. I assume that it is well-intentioned for the most part. But its effect is to encourage and preserve divisions that an already-divided society should not be cultivating.

Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian, his father of German descent. It occurs to me that if their ethnicities had been reversed, and the family surname had been Mesa instead of Zimmerman (or better, something like Lopez), this tragic incident, which we can all agree should never have happened, might have remained mostly unknown outside Sanford, Florida. Instead it has become another exercise in sowing the wind, which I'm afraid we'll reap one day.

 

21 responses to “About That “White Hispanic” Thing”

  1. Having been in a hotel for several days before the sentencing, and the day after, I was sentenced to eat my breakfast every morning to the incessant ranting about the case blaring from the TV in the dining room, and a couple of times it also accompanied my dinner. So I am heartily sick of the whole thing.
    You are right about the last name.
    AMDG

  2. You have to wonder what Judge Horton would have made of all this.
    AMDG

  3. I like to think he would have recognized prejudice and mob psychology wherever it occurred.

  4. I’m pretty mystified by the whole affair. The verdict has been all over the news up here too, but I don’t remember hearing anything about the original incident.

  5. The original incident was widely publicized here, although it took a few weeks for the national coverage to build up to a frenzy.

  6. What is interesting about this is that a collection of disparate characters came to be very invested in looking upon George Zimmerman as an object of contempt. It has been both amusing and maddening watching them attempting to process (or ignore) the irreducible factual information about this case.

  7. Yes, except that I’m not sure where “disparate” comes in. Seems like pretty much the usual crowd to me: white liberals and the usual black leaders like Sharpton/Jackson.
    “process (or ignore)”–I think I’ve seen more ignoring than processing. It’s as if evidence simply doesn’t matter.

  8. Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz are counter-examples on the portside. Dershowitz has done a certain amount of criminal defense work and that is Jeralyn Merritt’s specialty.
    There has been a counter-current among others. The American Spectator has been willing to publish slams of Zimmerman’s character (though they publish defenses of him too). The Wall Street Journal has published attacks on Zimmerman. Joe Scarborough, a quondam Republican member of Congress and now MSNBC host is another, but that’s more-or-less what he is paid to do. It is sort of pathetic the crew of people who cannot write about it without a pro-forma denunciation of Zimmerman as reckless or unmanly. If Zimmerman was reckless, anyone who went to the convenience store after dark in my old neighborhood was reckless. As for being unmanly, I would be interested to see how career conservative Daniel J. Flynn would hold up under the threats and vilification the Zimmerman clan has endured (and look me in the eye, Daniel, and tell me in all seriousness that those low volume books you write actually pay the bills in your house).
    Honestly, it was a local crime story and the culpability of the parties would have had to turn on the granular details of what they did do and did not do. The Zimmerman despisers were not interested in even coarse details as a rule, preferring to offer opinions about Zimmerman’s self-concept. The ones who did take an interest in the actual facts tended to be immersed in minutiae about precisely where his truck was parked at different stages of his conversation with the police dispatcher and whether he could or could not see the house number of one of his neighbors. (I think the theory there is that Zimmerman’s after-the-fact confusions indicate he is a liar and thus should be convicted by default).
    The ones who are not detail oriented will tell you that TM was benign and GZ unfairly profiled him and that GZ was reckless in walking around his own neighborhood. I think if I checked the two blogs where advocates of both sides seem to congregate, I suspect I could find several examples of someone offering both theses in succession. One thing I do not think I have seen as yet is an advocate of one view addressing directly an advocate of the other. That leads me to believe that awarding delicts to Zimmerman takes priority over offering any ideas that make any sense.
    The man’s parents are in hiding, along with his senile maternal grandmother. One can only hope they can re-acquire a quiet life.

  9. You obviously have followed it in much greater detail than I have. I have seen Dershowitz quoted here and there, heaping contempt on the prosecution, which I suspect is deserved.
    “awarding delicts to Zimmerman takes priority over offering any ideas that make any sense”
    Well, what I wanted to articulate earlier, but was too distracted (or whatever) to manage, is that for many anti-Zimmerman commenters seem to be thinking something like: no one except Zimmerman knows what happened, and he and the police can be assumed to be lying, and therefore any supposed evidence is more or less irrelevant, and we are entitled to assert what we know, which is that racism drove him to hunt down and kill a black kid. And we know that because it’s obvious.

  10. That’s the crudest form.
    A more sophisticated form acknowledges the autopsy report on Martin, the crime scene photographs, and the coherent and disinterested witness testimony. They simply insist that Zimmerman’s self-defense claim is potentially invalid because he might have started the fight. There are three problems with that: the text of Florida jury instructions indicate that would raise the bar to claiming self-defense, not invalidate it; Zimmerman had injuries from the fight and Martin did not; Zimmerman’s presence at that point in space is explained by the call to the dispatcher and Martin’s presence there is not explained at all. (Martin appears to have walked 85 yards from his temporary residence the point of confrontation or to have hidden out near there). I had a political science professor insist to me over and over that it was equally speculative to posit Zimmerman or Martin had started the fight, even though the evidentiary support for the former option is bupkis and the latter is not.

    3. A still more sophisticated option is to eschew castles-in-the-air about Zimmerman attempting to restrain Martin and instead make normative arguments about what Zimmerman should have been doing. While Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher, Martin unaccountably runs away (and out of sight). Zimmerman gets out of his truck and continues talking to the dispatcher for another two minutes while traversing a walkway which connects portions of two streets. He concludes the call. The fight commences about two minutes later adjacent to that walkway about 30 yards from his truck. Zimmerman’s exact route traversing on foot is not independently verified. He had time to walk about halfway down the block and back or two thirds of the way down depending on whether he was walking the street or the alleyway behind the townhouse rows; or he could have just been loitering around. For this, ethical sophisticates deem him ‘reckless’. There was a kid walking his dog right around there at the same time; they do not answer if you ask if that youngster was being reckless.

    Still, this incident has been instructive concerning topical commentary in this country. For most purveyors, it seems to have a two stage process:
    1. Shoot your mouth off;

    2. Spin, spin, spin later to avoid ever having to make a plain admission that you were dead wrong.

    When you think about it, for many of these people, it seems to be status games all the way down. Maybe we should all just stop paying attention.

  11. Spin and bluster.
    I’m all for not paying attention. Unfortunately there are millions whose view of the world is semi- or un-consciously shaped by them. And we all have to live with the animosity they help to preserve and increase.

  12. Say what you want but the outcome most likely would have been different if a black man had killed a white boy in the exact same circumstances. Since I do not walk around my neighborhood with a gun looking for trouble, it is hard for me to feel sorry for those who do so, and then find that trouble they were looking for.

  13. I’m sorry, but: Q.E.D., to a great extent.
    It’s not obligatory to feel sorry for Zimmerman, only for the courts to do their job properly, which I think they did here. Perhaps if the prosecutors had been more interested in facts they could have gotten a conviction on some much lesser charge, but they chose to go over the top.
    A couple of interesting news stories:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425
    http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

  14. I see that second story does not mention race. Roderick Scott is black, Christopher Cervini was white.

  15. So, the jury says that they did not have racial motives, “But,” says the newswoman, “opinions differ on that.” So, we obviously have no respect for the jury, and assume that they are all prejudiced. That’s okay, I guess. We just don’t believe anything that doesn’t fit our preconceived–no not preconceived, really, determined motives. There’s no possibility that the jury could have deliberated in good faith. Ah, they make me sick.
    Where I am living now, I have no TV (usual for me) and no internet access. It’s pretty much a blessing.
    AMDG

  16. Yep, like I said: treated as self-evident, because they were white, and Martin was black.
    It’s true that juries have sometimes been dishonest for various reasons, but there is no evidence of that here–except, again: they’re white (or at least 5 of them are).

  17. Since I do not walk around my neighborhood with a gun looking for trouble, it is hard for me to feel sorry for those who do so, and then find that trouble they were looking for.
    There is no evidence Zimmerman was ‘looking for trouble’. He called the non-emergency dispatcher to report a suspicious person and then took a short walk around his own neighborhood waiting for the police to arrive.
    I doubt your sorry feelings are worth bupkis. Just to note yet again that Zimmerman’s parents and his senile grandmother are in hiding and his wife still has to face bogus perjury charges courtesy the shyster prosecutors and the trial judge bounced off the case for bias by the local court of appeals.

  18. By the way “Stu”, I lived in Rochester for 28 years and was in and out of town every six weeks or so in 2009 and I’ve never heard of Roderick Scott. That might just be because the local bar is not studded with any white nationalist race hustlers, and neither the local district attorney nor the governor would pay them any mind if there were.

  19. Stu is in fact Stu, and is a friend, so let’s keep it courteous. But yeah–the first of the articles I linked to above indicates a situation rather different from “looking for trouble.” One can reasonably argue that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been carrying a gun while on neighborhood watch duty, shouldn’t have gotten out of the truck, etc., but the evidence indicates that Martin very foolishly decided that the best defense was a fierce offense.
    I didn’t know that about the perjury charges! Good grief…

  20. One can reasonably argue that Zimmerman shouldn’t have been carrying a gun while on neighborhood watch duty, shouldn’t have gotten out of the truck, etc.
    1. He was not on duty. I am not sure they had yet organized any regular patrols since the neighborhood watch had been formed only in August 2011 and had only two active members. Zimmerman was on his way to do an errand and noticed Martin standing on the lawn of another resident. That resident’s home had been burgled some weeks earlier.
    2. Zimmerman’s pistol is supposedly a bottom-of-the-line low power item. Zimmerman has stated he purchased it for protection against a neighbor’s vicious dog (presumably a pit bull or presa).
    3. Martin had run away at the time Zimmerman got out of his truck. Even had Zimmerman run over to the point from where Martin had run, he would not have gotten within 50 or 60 yards of him unless Martin elected to hide nearby. As indicated on the recording, Zimmerman never saw Martin again during his conversation with the dispatcher.

  21. I was not aware that he wasn’t out patrolling that night.
    I have not tried to follow every step of what Zimmerman says happened, but the police and the jury seem to have believed him when he said he didn’t initiate the confrontation. Here is the video of Zimmerman’s walk-through of what happened. I haven’t watched it yet–it’s 20 minutes long.

Leave a comment