Sunday, July 14, 2013

George Zimmerman: "Self Identified Hispanic"

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

One of the odder linguistic contortions of the George Zimmerman trial, is the usage by many in the MSM that George Zimmerman is a "Self Identified Hispanic".

"Self Identified Hispanic"? I know that the media were disappointed when they found out that the "Zimmerman" involved in shooting a black youth, was not as Germanic as his name might imply. A Hispanic shooting a black simply didn't have the same resonance as "white on black" violence. So, Zimmerman was transformed into a "white Hispanic" or a "self identified Hispanic".

I think this bit of linguistic sleight of hand will come in handy for the foreseeable future. Who else comes to mind, of a mixed race background, who "self identifies" as a black, for example? I'm sure the media will be perfectly consistent and begin to refer to Barack Obama as the first* "self identified black" president.

*Actually, I believe Bill Clinton was the first president to identify himself as black, but then, he was known to lie about other things, too!


  1. Obama - a self-identified Negro.

  2. Digressing, but what the heck.

    I've seen a lot of "hand wringing" over the verdict, both on the news shows and around the innertubes today. I keep hearing and reading the word "travesty". I'm not sure how anyone can draw the conclusion that there has been a travesty. If anything, given that the MSM and the usual suspects latched upon a local shooting case and tried to turn it into a racial debate and if their point of view didn't prevail then riots will ensue I'd say a travesty has been averted.
    The jury's duty was simply to decide upon a verdict based upon the evidence and facts provided, not to decide based upon their emotions.
    Last week I was able to watch the last part of the prosecutions arguments and a little bit of the defense arguments. The prosecutions experts and witnesses had more to say supporting the defense than they did to support prosecution, it was OBVIOUS when the prosecution rested that G.Z. would be acquitted if the jury left emotions out of the decision process and ruled only on the evidence presented.
    Justice prevailed and a tiny bit of faith in the system was restored for me. But probably not for long as Liberal loons, not happy with the outcome of their show trial, are now asking another Liberal loon, Eric the gun runner Holder, to step in with more trumped up charges.

    1. I heard Jesse Jackson, professional race baiter, say today that black children do not receive "equal treatment under the law", trying to use language that would imply that there was a civil rights violation here, as if the right of GZ to defend himself, were predicated on the race of his attacker.

      As it is, Jackson is advocating violating GZ's civil rights by subjecting him to a de facto double jeopardy. Is it because he's Hispanic?? Or because he's one quarter black???

    2. As I understand it, they're not asking to retry the original charges, but asking Holder to look into if G.Z. racially profiled him, so I don't see double jeopardy there since it's a different charge, but I'm neither a lawyer or Alex Trebeck. However, I do know the only racial epithet mentioned was Trayvon calling G.Z. "cracker", which leads me to believe Travon was racially profiling the neighborhood watchman doing his job. I could be wrong though, my Liberal friends tell me that it's impossible for black people to be racists, but they never explain how that is so.

    3. I see it as Rodney King Redux: If you cannot convict them on the original charges before a jury of their peers, charge them with Federal crimes.

      As far a "black people not being racists", the explanation given to me had something to do with the people with power are the only ones who can be racists. So, I'm thinking Pres. Obama, Eric Holder, Michael Jordan, Denzel Washington, and Oprah all have more power than I, so I guess I'm just a "cracker".


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.