Rascism?

I was wondering if the this bothers anyone else. You're reading along in an article, and an authority or something is cited, but preceded by their race. There's an example here. "Captured by legendary Chicano photographer George Rodriguez"...

Ok, I have a BUNCH of problems here

1) Chicano photographer. Is that somehow different than a "regular" photographer? Does Cannon make a special line of Chicano cameras? Can I take a "Chicano photography" class to learn to shoot like a "Chicano photographer"? Does he ONLY take pictures of Chicanos?

2) What does this add to the narrative? Is there something in his work that I'll really only understand if I know he's Chicano? Why do I need to know that the photographer is Chicano? I can't find a reason, save the author or the people the author is trying to represent wanting to seem "multiculturally sensitive" or politically correct or some shit. So, that being the case.... What's more insensitive and offensive: "legendary Chicano photographer George Rodriguez" or "legendary photographer George Rodriguez"?

3) What about whitey? You NEVER see "legendary Anglo photographer Ansel Adams". Why not? It seems to me that either we don't warrant special identification, presumably because we've all led lives of privilege since our ancestors stepped off the Mayflower and on to the backs of the natives (BTW try being poor, undereducated, and white sometime... I've been there. It's not fun.) OR it's assumed that if you're competent at your vocation you must be white. If you're NOT white and you manage to become competent, we'd better point that out. Either one of these too options seem inherently wrong and stupid to me.

4) George Rodriguez? Chicano? REALLY? Shocker! Didn't see that coming. Next you're going to tell me Hiro Yamamoto is Asian!


Anyway, I think this kind of crap perpetuates stupid racial bickering and distracts from the real issue, which I happen to believe is socioeconomic class. I still contend that 90% of the "race issue" isn't black vs. white or whatever, it's rich (comparatively speaking... and not) vs. poor.

Also, this (the example) bolsters my opinion that Zach de la Rocha is a massive blowhard douche bag and even more of a demagogue than the people he rails against.