There’s apparently an easy way for a Latino to “become white”: Simply do something bad — or just politically incorrect.
We certainly learned this with George Zimmerman, who was labeled a “white Hispanic” after shooting Trayvon Martin (in self-defense), even though the media never apply that description to, let’s say, great Hispanic inventors who are clearly Caucasian. Now this phenomenon has manifested itself again. As American Thinker’s Eric Utter reports:
According to the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles City Council President Nury Martinez, a Latina Democrat, recently referred to a councilman’s Black son as a “monkey”— and also said in reference to liberal Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon, “he’s with the Blacks.”
This prompted MSNBC host Tiffany Cross to ask Fordham University law professor Tanya Hernández if making racist comments made a Latino white or just a racist racial minority. Hernández, a self-proclaimed “race law expert” with an interest in Critical Race Theory, replied:
“Well, I actually think that there is another layer to this. Some people within the Latino community do achieve whiteness, one, because they are white appearing, they favor more our European ancestors, and depending on their accent, their educational level, whether they actually have a recognizable Hispanic surname, that all those things that enable a person to, I wouldn’t call it passing, but seemingly — just — and seamlessly being able to pass into whiteness, or white Anglo-whiteness, just as they have whiteness within Latin America and the Caribbean. Um, so, I guess what I want to say is that despite this idea of all Latinos being brown, you know, some browns are browner than others and some whites are whiter than others. There are Latinos who are white, whether they have that personal identity or not, that’s their socially ascribed race from others outside, and they get to move in that privilege as well” .
For purposes of precision, note that “Hispanic” is not a racial designation but an ethnic one, and most Hispanics technically are Caucasian (e.g., Sandy Ocasio Cortez of green, leafy Westchester); it’s not just a matter of, as Hernández put it, how they “identify” or social ascription. But anthropological realities are subordinated to social perceptions in society, and the man on the street — and the effete pseudo-elite — conceptualize “white” as synonymous with “Anglo white” and generally ascribe a racial character to “Hispanic.”
While this is apparently Cross’ view, too, nonetheless, “The common ground here is white supremacy,” she proclaimed early in the above interview. She posits that some Latinos embrace white-supremacy-driven anti-black bigotry because they figure that it will, essentially, make them honorary white people and thus spare them the same kind of racism and discrimination blacks allegedly must endure.
We’ve heard this “honorary white people” bit before, too. In an effort to put a negative spin on how Asian-descent Americans succeed within a universe prioritizing what Black Lives Matter (BLM) dogma deems “white values” (e.g., punctuality, hard work), racialist Glenn Singleton — who provides educational materials to schools — depicts these Asian-descent kids as being “majority students” just as whites are.
This is, mind you, just the pseudo-intellectual version of the “acting white” accusation black youth would hurl at their academically successful peers — and which black educators once lamented.
Of course, though, all this is necessary to justify the anti-white hatred and BLM dogma and to try to effect the strategy of “intersectionality,” the notion that all “minority” groups’ interests intersect because they’re all threatened by “white supremacy” and must unite in “erasing whiteness.” What happens, however, if you accept that the “values” breeding success (e.g., diligence, prudence) are actually virtues and thus aren’t “white” but divine and objective?
What if you accept that racism is not a fault unique to whites — or even, as the racialists put it, trying to cloak their bigotry, “whiteness” (a distinction without a difference in practice)? What if, related to this, you also recognize that racism is a subcategory of wrath, one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and accept that, as the Bible states, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”? Will you then, instead of being a racial hustler, explicitly agitate against the divine and objective?
Will you openly say, “We’re fighting God!”? Is “We have to erase godliness” an effective marketing tool with your “Rainbow Coalition”? It would dissolve faster than an Alka-Seltzer in boiling water.
In reality, these racial hustlers are attacking the objectively good (e.g., virtues and the truth of a shared humanity), which they mislabel as “whiteness.” There’s also a very practical political motive behind this, too.
In a far poorer country with starker class distinctions but a less heterogeneous population, such as 1917 Russia, engaging in class warfare (“Workers of the world, unite!”) can more easily bring political power. In a relatively rich one, however, though this tactic may still be used to some extent, it is not as effective. So if that wealthy nation is very diverse and has starker racial/ethnic distinctions, such as the U.S., power seekers will emphasize the racial grievance card.
To win elections, the Democrats know they must capture their usual 90 percent of the black vote and 65 to 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian-descent one. If this coalition collapses, so does their power. So they play the white-boogeyman card to try to keep their plantation intact because, well, the “We’ll turn your son into a girl”-“transgender” card doesn’t seem to cut it.
