• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

AP Still Referring to Zimmerman as 'White'

Good twist and shout but the fact remains there are only 4 races and we all fit in somewhere.

Yes, but from a scientific standpoint, those races are "Caucasian," "Negroid," and "Mongoloid," with possibly a fourth differentiation thrown in to account for Polynesians and Australian aborigines.

They are not "white," "black," "asian," and etca. Those are unscientific ethnic constructs which vary considerably from place to place and culture to culture.

You may use the lighter skin color as white and everyone else to include darker Italians as non white, but for the rest of the free world and all the ships at sea Zimmerman is white, just not as the song says a lighter shade of pale.

According to what, exactly?

Again, would you consider her to be "white?"

latin girl.jpg

You'd be the first person I've ever met to do so.

I'd love to see you do a color palette on black folks who run the gamut from jet black to lighter than Zimmerman and just where do you draw the 'black' line.

"Blackness" is frankly just as much an ethnic construct as "whiteness" in the current day and age. The distinction is primarily cultural, rather than strictly physical.

Again, from virtually any cultural perspective that currently exists in the United States, Zimmerman would not be viewed as being "white."
 
Last edited:
Yes, but from a scientific standpoint, those races are "Caucasian," "Negroid," and "Mongoloid," with possibly a fourth differentiation throw in to account for Polynesians and Australian aborigines.

They are not "white," "black," "asian," and etca. Those are unscientific ethnic constructs which vary considerably from place to place and culture to culture.



According to what, exactly?

Again, would you consider her to be "white?"

View attachment 67150542

You'd be the first person I've ever met to do so.



"Blackness" is frankly just as much an ethnic construct as "whiteness" in the current day and age. The distinction is primarily cultural, rather than strictly physical.

Again, from virtually any cultural perspective that currently exists in the United States, Zimmerman would not be viewed as being "white."

Nice dodge yet again, I asked for your color range for blacks and where you draw the line- like you did with Zimmerman... don't dodge away, step up!

now about your poor attempt to change the game... we know Zimmerman's backround- we know nothing of this woman- to judge her solely by the color of her skin is wrong- do you see that?

YOU are the one who keeps bringing in skin color judgments to base your opinion on, not me.

As far as 'any cultural perspective' I'd suggest that perspective would be north european in origin. Which isn't virtually much these days.
 
Nice dodge yet again, I asked for your color range for blacks and where you draw the line- like you did with Zimmerman... don't dodge away, step up!

Again, there is no specific "color line." "Whiteness," "blackness," and "hispanicness" are not scientifically measurable phenomena. Facial measurements and the like might be, but that would go completely beyond the pale of what either of us are qualified to discuss, and would have more to do with concepts that actually are scientific, rather than ethnic, in basis anyway (i.e. the difference between "white" and "Caucasian" I mentioned before).

Where ethnic notions of race are concerned, people are what society at large judges them to be. It's just that simple.

The simple fact of the matter where Zimmerman is concerned is that basically no one seriously considers him to be "white" besides Liberal media pundits with an agenda to push and black racists who are simply desperate for an excuse to blame any and every problem in our society on "whitey."

to judge her solely by the color of her skin is wrong- do you see that?

I categorized her ethnic and racial background based upon her physical appearance. I didn't "judge" her.

Our entire society does this as a matter of course. I don't see a single thing wrong with it.

Would you not brand me as being a fairly stereotypical "white guy" at a casual glance?

greg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Again, there is no specific "color line." "Whiteness," "blackness," and "hispanicness" are not scientifically measurable phenomena. Facial measurements and the like might be, but that would go completely beyond the pale of what either of us are qualified to discuss, and would have more to do concepts that actually are scientific in basis anyway (i.e. the difference between "white" and "Caucasian" I mentioned before).

Where ethnic notions of race are concerned, people are what society at large judges them to be. It's just that simple.

The simple fact of the matter where Zimmerman is concerned is that basically no one seriously considers him to be "white" besides Liberal media pundits with an agenda to push and black racists who are simply desperate for an excuse to blame any and every problem in our society on "whitey."



I categorized her ethnic and racial background based upon her physical appearance. I didn't "judge" her.

Our entire society does this as a matter of course. I don't see a single thing wrong with it.

Would you not brand me as being a "white guy" at a casual glance?

View attachment 67150546

Ummm white isn't what first comes to mind, but what does isn't anything to do with race/ethnic back round... :)

You finally said what you truly mean by all this 'he ain't white'. You are trying to dodge away from white for Zimmerman because of your political agenda- seeing the 'liberal' media as bashing 'whitey'. (Did you by any chance go to the 'two white teens slaughtered for their free Zimmerman bumper sticker' thread and castigate the white pride radical media for pushing race hate or are you only worried about poor white folks being bashed?)

But everything official outside of the 'liberal' media says hispanics like Zimmerman are white, that you wish to reserve the term for truly pale folks by using only skin color is opinion and like I said above based more on a political view than facts.

Until you get past judging people by their skin color- and yes that is what you do when you try and determine their race/ethnic back round based solely on looks, it ain't always about character- you are buying into a subtle form of discrimination.
 
So what? He might've been mistaken, or he might've simply jotted something down without really thinking about it.
There's no one in this country who might peg GZ as white but Ayala and the dead TM.
 
You finally said what you truly mean by all this 'he ain't white'. You are trying to dodge away from white for Zimmerman because of your political agenda- seeing the 'liberal' media as bashing 'whitey'. (Did you by any chance go to the 'two white teens slaughtered for their free Zimmerman bumper sticker' thread and castigate the white pride radical media for pushing race hate or are you only worried about poor white folks being bashed?)

Basically the only reason he was listed as being "white" in the first place was to stir up racial controversy and outrage. No one would've cared if the reporting on the matter had been honest.

Considering the fact that my own race is basically being attacked in effigy for the actions of someone who arguably isn't even of my race, I feel that I have plenty of right to be offended.

But everything official outside of the 'liberal' media says hispanics like Zimmerman are white, that you wish to reserve the term for truly pale folks by using only skin color is opinion and like I said above based more on a political view than facts.

Meaning what, exactly? What is "official" that tags Zimmerman, or even a majority of Latinos, as being "white?"

I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of whites in this country do not count Latinos as being amongst their number.

Is our opinion irrelevant in all of this for some strange reason?

Until you get past judging people by their skin color- and yes that is what you do when you try and determine their race/ethnic back round based solely on looks, it ain't always about character- you are buying into a subtle form of discrimination.

If you say so. I'd say I'm doing pretty okay on the whole "race relations" front.

greg 3.jpg

greg 4.jpg
 
Last edited:
AP Still Referring to Zimmerman as 'White'



OK, if Zimmerman is white, is Obama white, too?

What do Hispanics think of this?

One of the strangest things about this extradorinarily mixed-up event.
[/INDENT]

When I fill out forms that ask for race there are two white selection White and White (Hispanic)

Am I the only one with this experience?
 
When I fill out forms that ask for race there are two white selection White and White (Hispanic)
Am I the only one with this experience?
No.

People are posting posting definitions of race and ethnicity which they are pulling from their ass and are citing the "real world"/"common sense" as the source. It's hullabaloo which isn't even internally consistent.

Maybe there is a conspiracy from the WH down to BDLR, which ranges from duped forum posters to the vast media conglomerate known as "The Mainstream Media" to incite racial hatred. I can't disprove it. [ I can't disprove quite a number of things though. ] But the hand-wringing based on whether the politically correct term has been used to describe GZ, imho, remains unconvincing. Obviously, for some, the mileage varies. I suspect that those "some" were already inclined to believe the conspiracy angle. I also suspect that the conclusion that the collusion amongst the various named players to some end is also one of the necessary premises to reach that conclusion.

Oddly, the conspiracy also involves actors whose connection to the conspiracy has not yet been invented, like the SPD. I am sure it won't take long to make the connection once someone decides to try.

All imho. ymmv.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but in terms of genetics and even cultural attributes, there is simply a cavernous difference between someone of Irish descent...
Can this cavern be quantified?

Yet, oddly enough, both are considered to be "white."
Can you re-write this in an active voice? Who is doing the considering? Is the person doing the considering you?

Even more strangely, Syrians...and North Africans...Are generally considered to be "non-white."
Can you re-write this in an active voice? Who is doing the considering? Is the person doing the considering you?

Basically the only explanation for why this could be the case is the inherently ethnic nature of "whiteness" as a general concept.
It would be more accurate and explanatory if you posted, "Basically the only explanation [Gathomas88 can come up with] for why this could be....[ and Gathomas88 believes that the limits of Gathomas88's imagination are are identical to the limits of the realm of possibilities and ethnicity means whatever Gathomas88 tells it to mean ]...is..."

All of these people are technically "Caucasian." However, only some of them are "white."
According to...?
 
Basically the only reason he was listed as being "white" in the first place was to stir up racial controversy and outrage. No one would've cared if the reporting on the matter had been honest. Considering the fact that my own race is basically being attacked in effigy for the actions of someone who arguably isn't even of my race, I feel that I have plenty of right to be offended. Meaning what, exactly? What is "official" that tags Zimmerman, or even a majority of Latinos, as being "white?" I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of whites in this country do not count Latinos as being amongst their number. Is our opinion irrelevant in all of this for some strange reason? If you say so. I'd say I'm doing pretty okay on the whole "race relations" front.

View attachment 67150550

View attachment 67150551

Well it is pretty obvious you use your personal hurt feelings to guide your responses. You give no facts just opinion. Again that northern european stock doesn't consider hispanics 'white' doesn't change fact. There are whites and white non-hispanic- that YOU wish to see referring to Zimmerman as white in 'get whitey' terms is on you.

You jumped into this because of your opinion that 'liberal' media- not white folks are distorting your opinion of what tag Zimmerman should have. Please be honest. Again your 'get whitey' line was all too revealing.

I do believe it speaks volumes that you use the color of a person's skin to be the standard for deciding race/ethnic group. I'd say you are not doing so ok on the race relation front if you feel you have plenty of right to feel offended.... but you are young.
 
Can this cavern be quantified?

Can you re-write this in an active voice? Who is doing the considering? Is the person doing the considering you?

Can you re-write this in an active voice? Who is doing the considering? Is the person doing the considering you?

It would be more accurate and explanatory if you posted, "Basically the only explanation [Gathomas88 can come up with] for why this could be....[ and Gathomas88 believes that the limits of Gathomas88's imagination are are identical to the limits of the realm of possibilities and ethnicity means whatever Gathomas88 tells it to mean ]...is..."

According to...?

And what evidence have you provided exactly? wtf.gif

Are perceptions of racial identity something for which only white people are required to provide evidence and justification for some bizarre reason?

You still haven't provided a single good reason why Latinos should be considered to be white. You just keep repeating it as if it were some sort of fact. This is patently absurd, as there are no such thing as "facts" where ethnic definitions of race are concerned; a truth you continue to stubbornly ignore no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.

The definition of "whiteness" I am using here should be patently obvious for anyone with the eyes to see. It is basically a term which applies to anyone who can be said to be, on either an ethnic or genetic basis, a Caucasian European, or of primarily Caucasian European descent.

This is a view that has been backed by numerous other "white" people in this very thread. It is also a definition which rather clearly does not apply to Zimmerman.

I still fail to see why it is that you seem to have so much trouble grasping it.

Well it is pretty obvious you use your personal hurt feelings to guide your responses. You give no facts just opinion. Again that northern european stock doesn't consider hispanics 'white' doesn't change fact.

Again, what "fact?" Ethnic notions of race are not based upon fact. They are based upon group and cultural consensus.

You still haven't explained why you seem to think that, when it comes to "whiteness," apparently everyone else's opinion matters besides actual "white" people.

There are whites and white non-hispanic-

True, but actual "white Hispanics" look like the people pictured below.

marin sheen.jpg

andy garcia.jpg

Marco_Rubio,_Official_Portrait,_112th_Congress.jpg

No offense to anyone, but it should be pretty freaking obvious where Zimmerman is concerned...

zimmerman.jpg

... that "one of these things is not like other."

The man stands out like a bleeding sore thumb.

Ethnically and physically speaking, there isn't a single thing "white" about him other than his last name.

Frankly, if Zimmerman is "white," than so is Obama.

You jumped into this because of your opinion that 'liberal' media- not white folks are distorting your opinion of what tag Zimmerman should have. Please be honest. Again your 'get whitey' line was all too revealing.

He is not what I or most other white people would define as being "white." Again, I don't see how it is in any way objectionable to complain when non-white racists attempt to forcibly hoist him upon us.

I do believe it speaks volumes that you use the color of a person's skin to be the standard for deciding race/ethnic group.

Skin color, physical features, ancestry, ethnic background, etc, etca....

These things are more or less the very definition of "race" are they not?
 
Last edited:
I didn't want to quote all that crap. You are hung up on looks, not facts. Fact is the census uses white, not Caucasian. You use skin color, period, no back round, no lineage, nothing but what do they look like.

Your entry into this thread was because you see the media attacking 'whitey'- a term you used. you seem both bitter the media did that AND that most whites don't see hispanics as white. yet casual perception isn't the issue, hispanics like Zimmerman are white and you can find quite a few European whites- Italians for sure, that look more hispanic than Zimmerman, so as they say, looks can be deceiving.

Til you get past looks you are just continuing bais...
 
I didn't want to quote all that crap. You are hung up on looks, not facts. Fact is the census uses white, not Caucasian. You use skin color, period, no back round, no lineage, nothing but what do they look like.

Your entry into this thread was because you see the media attacking 'whitey'- a term you used. you seem both bitter the media did that AND that most whites don't see hispanics as white. yet casual perception isn't the issue, hispanics like Zimmerman are white and you can find quite a few European whites- Italians for sure, that look more hispanic than Zimmerman, so as they say, looks can be deceiving.

Til you get past looks you are just continuing bais...

First off, the US Census was cooked up by a bunch of bureaucrats for accounting purposes. The racial distinctions it uses are arbitrary, and based mainly upon ease of computation. They also have a tendency to change completely every decade.

As such, census definitions have absolutely no bearing on any serious definition of "race."

Secondly, you would be exceptionally hard pressed to find anyone in Europe who looks anything even remotely like George Zimmerman in terms of facial structure and coloring.

Even in spite of his dark coloring, the Sicilian man pictured below can at least be said to have rather clearly "Caucasian" bone structure.

misuraca.jpg

Zimmerman does not.

zimmerman.jpg

You can repeat the "Hispanics are all white" mantra until you're blue in the face. It won't make it any more true.
 
Last edited:
Laffin, well you did say you are OCD in the waiting on a friend thread.

Look again you are using looks as the determiner. You just don't see how flawed that is, but try using Zimmerman's pre-fatty pic compared to some more swarthy Italians. You are cherry picking to defend a bias outlook- that looks over genetics determine race/ethnic backround.

Far more than 'bureaucrats' uses white, black and Asian as the races- hispanic is not called a race- only you and perhaps a few anti-immigrant folks want to say Hispanic is more than a subset of White.

And you admit the only reason you take umbrage is you is for political reasons- you think the media is attacking 'whitey'- you just can't admit your own preconceptions drive your 'argument'.
 
Laffin, well you did say you are OCD in the waiting on a friend thread.

Everything in this world can be seen to fit into readily definable categories, damnit! :lamo

Look again you are using looks as the determiner. You just don't see how flawed that is, but try using Zimmerman's pre-fatty pic compared to some more swarthy Italians. You are cherry picking to defend a bias outlook- that looks over genetics determine race/ethnic backround.

I'm going to make a last ditch attempt here and then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. Ethnically speaking, Zimmerman simply is not "white." On these grounds, there can be absolutely no argument.

You seem to be arguing that he can, however; be seen to be primarily "Caucasian."

As I pointed out before, "Caucasian" is not the primary racial heritage present in modern Latin American populations. There are very strong Native American and African influences as well.

Keeping that in mind, take a look at the comparison below. A "white" man from Spain is on the right, native South American Indians are on the Left, and Zimmerman is in the middle.

Apocalypse-Now-3-martin-sheen-8198600-844-425.jpg zimmerman.jpg Wao-Hunters-LR.jpg

To which group do you think his features most closely correspond?

While traces of his "mixed white" heritage are pretty readily apparent, there is really little doubt here that his features have far more in common with the Native Americans pictured on the left than they do with the white man on the right. The shape of his eyes, for instance, are an almost absolute spot-on match.

Native Americans are neither "white" nor "Caucasian," so I hope you can see how this would make the decision to blithely label Zimmerman as being "white" rather problematic.

The same thing can be said of millions of Latin Americans. For instance, would you consider the people pictured below to be "white?"

mexico.jpg

I'm pretty sure you'd be 100% genetically, ethnically, and culturally incorrect in doing so.

Don't try to tell me that "appearances and heritage don't matter" either. You cannot go around calling Native Americans "white" anymore than you could call me "black."

Where matters of race are concerned, words have definite meanings.

Far more than 'bureaucrats' uses white, black and Asian as the races- hispanic is not called a race- only you and perhaps a few anti-immigrant folks want to say Hispanic is more than a subset of White.

The system of racial differentiation invented by the bureaucrats you mention doesn't even account for the factors I pointed out above. It is obviously lacking on a rather fundamental level.

And you admit the only reason you take umbrage is you is for political reasons- you think the media is attacking 'whitey'- you just can't admit your own preconceptions drive your 'argument'.

If you rip something completely out of context, make it out to be something it is not, and then try to use it as a political weapon against me, I am going to be inclined to take issue with it, yes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom