The racist narrative of the Left on this issue keeps running aground on the rocks of facts like this.
The left, including the writers here, are bashing Zimmerman because he is white. Never mind that they are incorrect, they are still racist for doing so.
Your ignorance of this common classification scheme, despite the explanation in front of your face, is your problem, not mine. And obviously you can't address it with anything other than your opinion or you'd have done so already.
"Peruvian" = Native?!
So what if Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and an "Afro-Peruvian" grandfather? Peruvians come in all races just like Americans. The grandfather could've been pure white on his Peruvian side. Unless you can identify a tribe or tribes Zimmerman is descended from, your speculation that he's "Native" is worthless.
And what if this Afro-Peruvian grandfather were half black and half Native? That would make Zimmerman 1/8 Native at most. And that's what you're calling Native?!
I'm doubly surprised that you'd think I'd think a white man with a small amount of black or Native blood is anything but white. If you've foolishly forgotten all my postings on Johnny Depp, Taylor Lautner, et al., read 'em again. A person whose DNA is mostly white is white.
The main exception is when an Indian tribe chooses to enroll people who are mostly white by DNA. Was Zimmerman's great-grandparent, grandfather, or mother an acknowledged member of a Peruvian tribe? If not, you're wasting our time.
Conservatives ignore dead Iraqis
As for Iraq, don't be a dumbass. Saddam Hussein didn't attack the United States and we invaded under false pretenses--to find the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. More to the point, we killed hundreds of thousands of "brown people" while killing a "major terrorist kingpin." My characterization on that point is accurate and well-documented.
Tea Parties Use Verdict to Further Attack Trayvon, Reproduce Racism
But the racism embedded in many Americans is extremely well-documented. And I've documented it many times in this blog. Yet apparently you're too dumb and white to understand what you're reading. Or too conservative and anti-science to understand how research works.
Compare the picture you chose for this post, here, of Zimmerman, to any typical picture of Saddam Hussein.
Zimmerman looks less "white" than Saddam Hussein. Yet you call him white, and call the terrorist brown.
Zimmerman looks less "white"?! Check your eyes, buddy. As with every other point here, you lose on that point too.
"Brown" defined for dummies
Besides, brown is a label for a whole group of people. It refers to an average person in the group, not an outlier. In other words, an exception doesn't disprove the rule.
Try comparing the people I call brown to the people I call white in general and you'll see I'm right. I.e., you'll see you're stupid for wasting my time with this trivial point.
Here's a related news flash for you: Blacks have skin colors ranging from dark gray to light tan. They aren't literally black. Duhhh.
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for a shred of evidence about your claim. "Afro-Peruvian" could be 50% black, 50% white, and 0% Native by blood. Claiming that "Afro-Peruvian" means "1/4 Native ancestry" is an excellent example of the wishful thinking you mentioned. It deserves the scorn I've given it.
In short, better luck next time, friend. Try using facts rather than unsubstantiated opinions and speculation. Then I won't have to kick your conservative butt all over the map again.
For more on Trayvon Martin, see Racist Responses to Zimmerman Verdict and America's Dual Justice System.