Letter to the Editor: Is white the law?

What it means to be white no longer has anything to do with race, heritage or identity.

Look at the Zimmerman trial for proof of this. Zimmerman was obviously “not white.” He probably self-identifies as Hispanic, or maybe a multiple of ethnic identities.

Early reports of the “shooting of Trayvon Martin” identified Zimmerman as a white male. The news reports changed over time, but the public’s perception of Zimmerman did not. To the whole world, Zimmerman is still, as Rachel Jeantel said, “a creepy ass cracka.”

Look at the (growing) number of Twitter posts making death threats against Zimmerman. It’s not hard to find posts talking about “killing a cracka baby,” or “gon kill me a white guy” in revenge for the not-guilty ruling.

So why are there out of context threats of violence against white people because of the actions of a non-white person? That’s easy, because now “white” means “having the power and protection of the law.”Threats against white people because of the actions of another are more symbolic in this sense. White people are still at threat, well, anybody with “light complexion” really, but when the rioters lash out against white America they are actually lashing out against the law.

Zimmerman is seen as having “special” protection of the law and as receiving some sort of special exception only afforded to white people.

Zimmerman was repeatedly identified as white in news reports, and various groups of people still believe Zimmerman is a white man. The riotous and malcontent equate white people with the law, and by attacking white people — they are tearing down the lopsided law.

Moral of the story? White people are universally recognized as being the law, and when the masses become upset with a controversial court ruling and a “failure of the law,” then white people will be forced to pay.

Brace yourself. “Revenge for Trayvon” killings are coming.

­— tcbuhls@indiana.edu

Thomas Buhls is a senior majoring in communication and culture.