saxitoxin wrote:I hate to get involved in a CC race war, but - striving for honesty as I do, regardless of where it takes me - I discover that, in in this case, Scott has a factual point. I remain to be convinced on the theoretical point, but am more open to considering it.
- A Google News Archive search of the five year period from March 23, 2006 to March 23, 2011 finds only 5 instances where the phrase "is a white Hispanic" was used.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=u ... 00&bih=799
- A Google News Archive search of the last month finds the phrase was used 342 times.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=u ... 00&bih=799
Was there a recent change in the AP style guide, is a prefix being used to prevent inflaming a competitive constituency or does a white-on-black frame prevent a more compelling and salable story than just another instance of Hispanic-on-Black violence which has become very common (in California at least)?
In any case, I'm not sure how this tangibly relates to America's White-Black President Obama or his campaign against White-White Romney.
I seem to remember a large number of national news stories regarding the various Hispanic-on-Black and Black-on-Hispanic violent crimes occuring throughout the nation. The president regularly indicates that random black men who were subject to said violence "could be my son." Although, technically, they couldn't, because as you rightly indicate, the president is of mixed race... so a 100% African American man couldn't be the president's son. If he's going to do that, at least he should start indicating that young men of all races could be his sons.
I do wonder whether the African-American constituency is a competitive constituency Saxi. Perhaps you meant to say "inflame the base voter group." If so, this story (and the predictable conservative reaction) is perfect for that.




