I despise racist people. They, to me, deserve zero respect.
Trayvon Martin’s death was a great tragedy, and should not go uninvestigated. However, nobody should judge George Zimmerman until all the facts are known. He seems like a nice person to me, and I do not believe he is racist. He’s Hispanic, after all. It would take an incredibly stupid person to believe he is racist unless they claim to know all the facts.
Please, people. No more hatemongering. Learn all the facts before you judge someone.
Spencer Anderson
Mesa
VofReason posted at 1:40 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
Absolutely. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child. I pray for his parents and family. Sadly, many more black children and young men die of gun shots every year and most of them do not get the same attention. I would love to see the efforts President Obama brought early on when he spoke about the importance of black men sticking around to raise the children they produce. Much of the violence, poverty and desperation is initiated by children without fathers. Maybe that would help to curb lost souls and violence of more young men and children.
Arizona Willie posted at 2:29 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
Yes they jumped all over the guy and pre-judged the shooting.
At first I thought he was probably guilty but as time went on the kid's record slowly began to emerge.
Turns out he wasn't such an angel as his mother tried to paint him.
Suspended 3 times -- record of assault and ( I think ) 5 witnesses support the accused statement that the kid attacked him.
I would like to know if it is 5 white guys or is it a mixed bunch? Are there blacks saying they saw the kid attack?
Yes indeed VofReason, single parent families are indeed a source of many problems.
Somehow it became fashionable to be a " single mother " and a " baby daddy ".
Some black men take pride in how many " baby mammas " they have.
I think black culture took a wrong turn along the line and if black men couldn't be pro athletes they wanted to be like the corner drug dealer and pimps because they had money and were influential.
Not all, of course, but enough that that lifestyle became accepted.
And then the schools started letting the knocked up girls come to class making single pregnancy the norm.
And it has spread to the impressionable young non-blacks.
They need to invent some kind of pill or shot that sterilizes teens til they are about 25 or so. We raise cain about illegals having babies for free here but there are also plenty of homegrown teen girls having babies that they can't pay for too.
Accuracy posted at 4:00 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
On Feb. 26, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman had been tracking 17-year-old Trayvon Martin through a gated community.
The Orlando Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told police he lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV when the black teenager attacked him. He said Martin punched him in the nose and slammed his head into the sidewalk.
At the heart of the matter are some sensitive issues: race, gun rights and self-defense laws. Zimmerman holds that he acted in self-defense, and Florida TV station reported that a secret witness says he saw Zimmerman being attacked by Martin.
UTA NAACP members protest the Trayvon Martin tragedy, as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton continue to rise up against what they are calling social injustice.
While some in the faith community are urging patience and prayer.
Slabside posted at 4:35 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
Good letter Spencer. I hope the two racist EVT posters take heed.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 6:31 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
I don't remember Reginald Denny's mother taking out a "trademark patent" on her son's name when he became a victim of the Los Angeles "Rodney King Cop Verdict" Riots on April 29, 1992. Do you ???
Who was.....Reginald Denny...many of you will ask?
He was the White truck driver who was unfortunate to be driving West on Florence Avenue and came to the stoplight at Normandie Blvd where Black rioters were throwing liguor bottles and pieces of a concrete bus bench at White drivers who were attacked by the rioters.
Reginald Denny was pulled from his semi-truck and knocked to the ground by 4 rioters. He was hit in the face by a piece of concrete from the broken bus bench. As he lay writhing on the ground another rioter threw a piece of concrete block and hit him on the head knocking him unconcious. A brave Black preacher went to his aid and stopped the rioters from stoning Reginald Denny to death.
Reginald Denny went through years and years of rehabilitation to learn how to talk and walk again. Because of the seriousness of his injuries he was permantly disabled.
There were no "Reginald Denny" Church Pray-Ins. There were no Congressman wearing a "hoodie" honoring him in Congress. The President of the United States never mentioned that he would have liked to have had Reginald Denny in his family. There were no Left-Wing Liberal News Channels like CNN or MSNBC in his corner.
Reginald Denny never received any Media support or assistance. Why, because....of one thing and one thing only.......Reginald Denny wasn't a minority.
Reginald Denny's assailants = 3 never went to trial (even though you can go to YouTube and see them)....the 1 rioter did saw the Los Angeles District Attorney drop the attempted murder charges down to a weak felony.
Slabside posted at 6:45 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
Well said Leon.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:15 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
I also agree. I don't know all the details. I don't think the kids race was the issue. I do think he should NOT have confronted, but instead observe.
Remember how Jhessye Shockley's Grandmother called the Police racists? Then more info came out. IMHO, the mother is guilty.
However, did the Grandmother ever apologize for HER COMMENTS?
People push the racist button far too often on just about ever issue....
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:20 pm on Wed, Mar 28, 2012.
Good point Leon. I remember one of the attackers doing a "victory dance"!!!!
Also, I remember watching a news report where Reginald Denny FORGAVE his attackers! I don't think I could do that!
http://norrin2.blogspot.com/2006/10/can-we-forgive-forgivers.html
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:28 am on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
Pancho- You are one of those persons of whom I speak. When ILLEGAL ALIENS is the discussion, you throw the race card each time, but present no valid argument.
Now you make a racist comment yourself? You have earned well the disdain I "feel" towards you, and it has nothing to do with race.....
Rational Human posted at 6:33 am on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
You know Masterrouge, I understand how you feel about Pancho and you can always get his comments deleted if you don't agree with him, but some of what he says cannot be denied. If you look up the FBI crime statistics on violent crime you will find that it is primarily committed against White people, by non-Whites. Download and read the documents from http://www.colorofcrime.com/ and do the research yourself. You may be amazed as to what you find there.
Accuracy posted at 10:53 am on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
In the Florida shooting case.
"I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP," said Robert Zimmerman, the father of George Zimmerman, in an interview with Orlando's FOX 35 News. "Every organization imaginable is trying to get notoriety or profit from this in, in some way."
Police, in Sanford, Florida, have said Florida's Stand Your Ground laws prohibited them from arresting George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.
The New Black Panther Party leader Mikhail Muhammad offered a reward of $10,000 for the capture of George Zimmerman, but now has boosted a bounty of $1 million for George Zimmerman, dead or alive.
CSalafia posted at 12:12 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
1) The "he couldn't be racist, he's Hispanic" is a ridiculous argument.
2) Zimmerman was told by the police not to follow him. He ignored it.
3) Zimmerman also has a number of arrests, including beating a police officer and domestic violence.
4) Zimmerman made over 50 nuisance 911 calls in the last 12 months complaining about potholes, loud parties, and 8 year old black children.
and the kicker.....
The police video has been released and there is no evidence of Zimmerman having the injuries he claimed (broken nose, gash requiring stitches on the back of his head), no blood on his clothes, and no grass stains either. The video directly contradicts Zimmerman's story.
It's looking more and more like Zimmerman lied.
Masterrogue666 posted at 2:33 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
Rational Human: I understand. However, it's HOW he states things that is unacceptable. I did indeed report his first statement, and I'm reporting his second one as well. I'll report ANY comment that I think goes against guidelines. It's something EVERYONE agreed to. However, it's clear that some don't keep their word.
Sweeping generalizations like the ones he makes aren't acceptable.
Rational Human posted at 4:15 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
I read Pancho's second comment and it was not objectionable in my opinion. If sweeping generalizations are a crime then I guess he's guilty of having one. However, when someone like CSalafia states outright lies no one says anything at all. He says Zimmerman also has a number of arrests, including beating a police officer and domestic violence and everyone knows any domestic violence arrest would make him a prohibited person not allowed to own or carry a firearm. Personally I agree with what Pancho had to say. I wont object to his comment because he has a right to lie about anything he wants to here, but you go ahead and be the new censor here. Complain about CSalafia and his obvious lies perhaps.
Accuracy posted at 6:18 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
CSalafia Scenario: “It's looking more and more like Zimmerman lied.”
Meaning, George Zimmerman lied when he told the Sanford Police he lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV when the black teenager, Trayvon Martin, attacked him?
But CSalafia, just because no abrasions or blood could be picked up by a surveillance video (aired by ABC News), is the Sanford Police report also lying?
The police report described Zimmerman as injured. The initial police report said Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and was given medical attention.
The police report also noted, there were grass or grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket. Florida TV station report that a secret witness says he saw Zimmerman being attacked by Martin. And In the surveillance video an officer is seen looking at the back of Zimmerman's head.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:59 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
I disagree. When he stated "You XXXXX people are stupid", that's about as racist as it gets. I've been called racist just because I want ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS (RACE NOTWITHSTANDING) deported. I've never referred to anything but LEGAL STANDING. It's far pass time for racist comments SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED against ANY RACE, minority or majority. It's only fair!
He crossed the line, MORE THAN ONCE. EVT seems to agree. Did you read any of his other comments? ALL were racist. It's just somebody that wants to tick off people. I don't get ticked, I his statements removed.
Rational Human posted at 9:06 pm on Thu, Mar 29, 2012.
I'm about as White as White gets and in my honest opinion White people are a bunch of week kneed idiots with their heads buried so deep in the sand it's a wonder they even tell what time of day it is. Telling the truth for a change is not racist. You have crossed the line my friend. Way beyond the line. Oh so are you going to get my comment removed because I stated my opinion that White people are stupid? Tell me something, does XXXXX in your comment stand for the word White? Is White the new "N" word in your play book? You sound like one of those British liberals that like to put people in jail for saying the "N" word. Have a happy time as the new PC police here dude.
Rich posted at 8:59 am on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
The only things I find objectionable here are:
a) The exercise everyone is getting jumping to conclusions.
b) The President playing the race card, big time, instead of urging the calm and the investigation this needs.
c)The implication that it is illegal to defend yourself if attacked by a minority
d) The death of a 17 year old.
The worst of these are b) Presidents should be in the forefront of bring peace and calm to things such as this, and d) We're got to get along well enough that deadly force isn't an answer.
Rational Human posted at 3:05 pm on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
Neither B nor D will ever happen. Blacks and Whites will never ever be able to reconcile their differences, and the Obamanation wants racial strife as he needs to solidify his base support. What is really funny is how the Obamanation's policies have hurt Blacks more than any other group yet they will support him by close to 100%. No tell me who the racists here are.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:25 pm on Fri, Mar 30, 2012.
Rational Human: If you claim to be white, fine. If you wish to make sweeping generalizations about whites, fine. It kind of hard to be racist against your own race. However, I disagree that "White people are a bunch of week kneed idiots with their heads buried so deep in the sand it's a wonder they even tell what time of day it is".
Technically, what you wrote is STILL a racist comment BECAUSE YOU INCLUDED RACE. Are SOME people like that? Yes! Is it due to the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN? NO! That's why it's still a racist comment. I would agree that EACH RACE has its share of persons that have the cognitive ability of a gnat! It's also true that EACH RACE has it share of brilliant people. Why you don't/can't see the distinction is beyond me. You didn't tell the "truth", you GAVE YOUR OPINION. There's no way you can validate your statement.
If I "crossed the line", then explain to me why EVT deleted BOTH statements? No, YOU have crossed WAY BEYOND THE LINE the second you thought you were correct in trying to chastise me for reporting OBVIOUS RACIAL STATEMENTS.
And no, I'm not British. I'm an American citizen. I also know MY RIGHTS, and that includes the right to report racist statements. If you don't like it, that's your problem.
If you still think I'm wrong, bring it up with EVT. In fact, why don't you ask them if your statement could be considered racist. But before you do that, perhaps you should check the meaning of the word.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist
I'll help you out, it's item # 2 that supports what I've said:
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Rational Human posted at 8:22 am on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Masterrogue666, you obviously do not know what the word racism means or why it is illegal or you wouldn't be calling my opinion racism. You are as bad as Jackson and Sharpton when it comes to throwing the race card. EVT deleted both his comments because they, like you, object to the message. Newspapers do it all the time. I would have thought you would have been a little more tolerant of others opinions, but I see you are also a censor of opinion that you disagree with. Don't you find it interesting that this paper refuses to delete comments that are borderline criminal in comment? Whenever anyone falsely accuses one or more of our elected officials of crimes when that is in fact a crime in itself.
Rational Human posted at 8:25 am on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
OBVIOUS RACIAL STATEMENTS? Lets all act like race doesn't even exist? It isn't that they were racial statements that got them deleted. It is because the paper and you didn't like the opinion. Pure censorship of ideas is all that was.
Rational Human posted at 8:36 am on Sat, Mar 31, 2012.
Racism is the belief that inherently different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. No where has anyone advocated discriminating against any race in any of the comments posted here. Almost everyone has racial prejudices about other races, but that doesn't mean they discriminate against anyone. I neither trust nor like Blacks in general and have a low opinion of them in general, but I treat all people fairly and on an individual bases. That is my opinion that Blacks are more prejudice and discriminate against other races more than any other racial group. That is my belief and opinion. I will never ever try to get anyone's opinion deleted no matter how wrong I think it is. I am a firm believer in the US Constitution and the 1st Amendment to it. Obviously you are not.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:00 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
Folks,
In total agreement with Spencer, I have restrained my remarks on this subject, at least on this particular piece. Where Ms. Brown issued her piece blaming a high crime rate for Trayvon's death, I pointed out that it would appear that vigilanteism is a problem and speculated that the "Stand your grounds" form of self defense, irroneously coupled with an untrained neighborhood watch leader who in violation of all that neighborhood watch stands for, appeared to have stalked then become engaged with Trayvon, when a watch captain is not supposed to be armed with a 9mm and is supposed to have kept his distance, was likely the real reason why Trayvon will not be seeing his 19th birthday.
Now we understand that George Zimmerman has had an altercation with an alcohol control officer when that officer was attempting to arrest one of George's friends who was serving alcohol to a minor. We understand that George was fired from a job as a bouncer for becoming overly agressive with an anebriated female customer, and we understand that George's father and mother are former employees of the Florida Court system. So we begin to see it all coming into focus here.
But I'll withhold reaching a final conclusion, keeping judgement in check until George Zimmerman is judged by a jury.
But in summation, Florida [and likely Arizona] needs to re-think their laws on self defence, on concealed carrying of firearms, on allowing neighborhood watch captains to become overly engaged in law enforcement, on allowing the offspring of apparently politically connected former court employees to get off scott free. Sanford Florida has a huge problem, and crime is definately not it!
Slabside posted at 11:30 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
@ Dale, "Florida [and likely Arizona] needs to re-think their laws on self defence, on concealed carrying of firearms"
Yes Dale, that pesky Constitution bothers you doesn't it? You and Obama would be just fine eliminating everyone's rights altogether.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 12:23 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
I remember a case in NYC many years ago where a beat cop came across a junkie shooting up heroin and attempted to arrest him. The perp pulled a knife on the cop and approached him. The cop drew his service revolver and demanded the junkie drop his weapon. The junkie continued to attack. Junkie was shot dead on the spot. The cop was White and the junkie was Black. Angry demonstrations followed this event with many Blacks stating that the cop should have tried to wrestle the knife from the assailant. This case reminds me of that event in many ways except that the junkie wasn't armed with anything other than Black rage and his fists. Perhaps some will say that the victim should have just taken a beating and hoped that he wasn't severely injured or killed by the lunatic junkie, but the law now reads that he doesn't have to. Perhaps if every person allowed to carry was armed, there might be more respect shown by those who would use physical violence as a way of expressing their anger with an unjust world. If this kid had approached me I would have very clearly told him that I was armed and prepared to use it. If he continued his approach I would have pulled my weapon and pointed it at him. If he touched my person I would have shot him several times in defense. I know people who have been in this situation and never had to go past the informing that they were armed and prepared to defend themselves. The assailants always fled and violence was averted. Guns save more lives than they take.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:45 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
No Slabside,
I have read and understand the entire Constitution and it's bill of rights and additional amendments. You're stuck on Amendment #2! For you guns are the trees which obscure your view of the forest.
Have you read any of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 Chapter 4 on Self-defence laws? Rather than just allowing us to bear arms reasonably and responsibly, knowing that their unwise use can lead us into trouble, these 'stand your grounds' rules permit vigilanteism. Show me where in the constitution vigilanteism is authorized? It ain't in the Second Amendment! Law enforcement is in the executive branch, not in the bill of rights!
Pancho Villa posted at 9:18 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Since all you racist race baiters are so interested in Zimmerman's police record meet The Real Trayvon Martin, Evidence Emerges He Was A Drug Dealer And Gang Banger. Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool,”
According to the report, on Oct. 21 staffers monitoring a security camera at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School spotted Trayvon and two other students writing “W.T.F.,” an acronym for “What the f—,” on a hallway locker, according to schools police. The security employee, who knew Trayvon, confronted the teen and looked through his bag for the graffiti marker.
Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described the screwdriver as a burglary tool.
Trayvon was asked if the jewelry, which was mostly women’s rings and earrings, belonged to his family or a girlfriend.
“Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me,” according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend.
School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.
“Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti,” according to the report prepared by Miami-Dade Schools Police.
That suspension was followed four months later by another one, in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it, the boy’s family’s attorney has confirmed. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a “marijuana pipe.”
This boy was a hood up to no good that night and was killed because he attacked someone who was willing to defend himself. Blacks will defend gang bangers with violent demonstrations that get killed for their crimes, but not if it is another black that is involved. Only if a White or other race defends themselves against the Black man's aggression.
Slabside posted at 3:24 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
So sorry you are such a progressive liberal hoplophobe Dale. It's the law of the land so suck it up and learn to live with it. [beam][beam][beam][beam]
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:54 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Rational Human: Actually, I DO KNOW what racism means. It appears you don't.
Noun:
1.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
2.Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Let's look at #1. Pay attention to the words "ALL MEMBERS" and "SPECIFIC TO THAT RACE". You used the word "WHITE". You used "ARE A BUNCH", basically claiming ALL are.
So, your statement certainly falls under #1. Now, as I said, since you "claim" to be white, it's not BECAUSE OF #2 in that the comment must be directed at ANOTHER RACE".
So, as I stated, technically it was racist (defined by #1) but because you "claim" to be white, then #2 prevents it from becoming racist.
Did you bother to contact EVT about your beliefs? Tell me, if I was "wrong", then why would said comments be removed?
Sometimes, you can be as stubborn as "Dale".
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=eqn&gs_nf=1&cp=11&gs_id=14&xhr=t&q=define+racism&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=define+raci&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=21da4024e5550b9f&biw=1280&bih=891
In_God_We_Trust posted at 9:11 am on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
Masterrogue666, you get the race baiter of the day award.
Reverse discrimination against whites has just begun, according to Attorney General Eric Holder. Now, the exploitation of Trayvon Martin's death has thrown the cycle of racial resentment and favoritism into overdrive.
There has been much poisonous rhetoric following Trayvon Martin's death, and more is sure to come. It is hard to imagine that any other current topic could result in racial madness exceeding that tragedy. Nonetheless, an exceptionally ominous and instructive remark was recently made by Attorney General Eric Holder -- a remark more outlandish than any heard so far in our national conversation about Martin.
Attorney General Holder recently addressed the question of affirmative action, and for how long it would be required. He answered, stunningly, that reverse discrimination has only just begun: "Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices," Holder said. "The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin[.] ... When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?"
We see in these remarks the soil out of which rises the bitter fruit of racial resentment. Holder's attitude is best summed up as the elite victim mentality. The belief is one of perpetual entitlement, fueled by bitterness, and given the stamp of official approval by politicians at the highest levels of national office. The Trayvon Martin upheaval is made possible by this carefully cultivated attitude, which exists within all income levels. Whether it's under the guise of injustice, inequality, underrepresentation, or white supremacy, the effect of the attitude is the same: sheer resentment towards the majority and its institutions.
Not all minorities share this attitude, while many non-minorities do. For instance, Professor William B. Eimicke of Columbia University supports a lawsuit against New York City because the city doesn't have enough black firefighters. Eimicke, who is white, says, "The reality is the [fire] department should look like the city it serves." In other words, the fire department has something wrong with it because there are not enough blacks employed. This is an example of an educated, mainstream leader promoting an arbitrary standard of underrepresentation. Such standards will only fuel more demands for special treatment, and more resentment when the arbitrary standard proves predictably impossible to meet.
Take the example of Eimicke's fellow Columbia faculty. Of the 70 core faculty members in Prof. Eimicke's department, there are 3 blacks. Seventy-five percent of the faculty is white, and 4% is black, whereas New York City is 45% white and 27% black. Presumably, the principle that a fire department "should look like the city it serves" also applies to the faculty of a tony university. If the faculty "should look like the city it serves," then Columbia needs to expedite the removal of white professors. Will Eimicke enlist in the righteous cause of minority representation and quit? Or is that a sacrifice he prefers to delegate to students or middle- and working-class whites? We all know the answer: elite liberal hypocrisy protects many academics and politicians from the application of their own dogmas. Columbia's faculty will never match the ethnic makeup of New York City because professors are typically protected from purported racial favoritism, while firemen are fair game.
As the attorney general's remark shows, the cycle of elite liberal hypocrisy and racial favoritism will never end, so long as liberals control racial discourse.
In the meantime, the results will become increasingly absurd. The attorney general's daughters, and each successive generation, will continue to benefit from affirmative action to the same degree as truly disadvantaged minorities. This incongruity grows more and more evident, as Democratic Senator James Webb pointed out in his famous Wall Street Journal editorial piece. Sen. Webb noted that affirmative action policies have "expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white." Racial preferences extend to business startups, prestigious academic admissions, job promotions, and expensive government contracts. Many of these preferences have no relationship to discrimination, oppression, or even socioeconomic class level; they even benefit recent immigrants whose ancestors never faced discrimination in America. Instead, we are actually creating a government-sanctioned nobility -- a favored class of citizens with officially endorsed, race-based hereditary privileges.
Under the sway of of identity politics and racial grievance, even the most privileged members of our society will hold onto petty gripes. In a 2009 commencement address, the First Lady complained about her childhood experience with the University of Chicago. Recalling that she grew up right near the campus, she stated:
[T]hat university never played a meaningful role in my academic development. The institution made no effort to reach out to me -- a bright and promising student in their midst -- and I had no reason to believe there was a place for me there.
That she felt entitled to be "reached out to" in the first place is astonishing. The egomaniacal sense of entitlement contained in her remarks will strike most people as utterly foreign. Yet this way of conceiving of one's own position in society is commonly shared. Amongst the lower class, this attitude takes the form of demands for "Obama money" and other such hilarity.
Perhaps Michelle Obama should have made an effort at some point to understand why young white students, many of whom were not from Chicago, would have been reticent about venturing out into the South Side of Chicago. The reasons are not hard to discover. Immediately after their report on the First Lady's address, CNN aired a segment on violent crime on the South Side. Chief Ernest Brown of Chicago's Organized Crime Division explained the high rate of youth violence by saying that "their behavior is just inconsistent with civility." With that in mind, many students -- of all races -- may not feel that it is their place to step into another community and attempt to help its youth. In fact, not even Dr. Martin Luther King and his family stayed in urban Chicago for long after starting to work in the city in 1966. Cohen and Taylor write that Coretta Scott King was concerned about violence in the neighborhood, and the Kings spent little time there [1].
Our own attorney general, ostensibly committed to even-handed enforcement of the nation's laws, referred to blacks as "my people." Strangely, it is socially acceptable for only certain groups to proudly claim ethnic group membership. If similar tribal loyalties were publicly boasted by a white ethnic, that would be seen as sinister. Just imagine the reaction if a President Bush had identified -- on the basis of race -- with a victim of minority-on-white crime by saying, "Channon Christian looks like my daughters."
Identifying with an ethnic group as one's own "people" will lead in most cases to in-group favoritism. Cultural pride is one thing, but proclaiming exclusive ethnic group affiliation while occupying a position of public trust is another. This tendency is too often written off as a harmless cultural tic or a healthy form of therapeutic identity formation. The trouble is that there is a worldview lying beneath the "my people" language.
In his remarks, the attorney general has provided the most explicit statement of ethnic favoritism and racial grievance by a high public official in American history. And the racket has just begun: "When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?" asks Holder. The question is rhetorical, and his constituents know the answer.
In this liberal, racialized conception of society, minority groups are supposedly not getting "benefits to which they are entitled." The danger in this attitude is not just that people are asking for free stuff from the government. The danger is that minority group members are made to believe that society is purposefully withholding benefits from them due to their racial group membership. Hence the resentment and latent animosity lurking at the core of the welfare state, and its ever-expanding legion of dependents.
This menacing fact was once openly recognized by sociologists. Decades ago, Edward C. Banfield wrote that urban social problems will increasingly come to be regarded as the fault of "callousness or neglect by the 'white power structure'" [2]. Just as expected, we now have a cult of anti-white resentment named Critical Race Theory being taught in law schools around the nation.
The constant use of physical metaphors like "white power structure" will guarantee that some people view themselves -- usually falsely -- as being intentionally excluded from that structure. Of course, structures comprise people, so real human beings will inevitably become targets of the resentment originally intended for abstract "power structures."
The victim mentality feeds off racial bitterness, which is constantly politicized and enflamed. We see this in the rhetoric of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who said that Trayvon Martin was "hunted down like a dog." The attorney general and president are doing their part to sow the seeds of bitterness, entitlement, and racial favoritism. By acknowledging those seeds, one begins to understand why racial double standards and potential violence are so easily stirred up amidst controversies such as the current one involving Trayvon Martin.
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:06 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
@IGWT: Instead of a long, boring passage, try to explain to me why you'd wrongly accuse me of "race baiting".
You didn't see the first two thing Pancho wrote. OBVIOUSLY it was bad enough for EVT to remove it.
I looked up the word "racism", and wrote down it's definition to help prove what I stated was correct.
I still don't know enough about what happened to pass judgement. However, when ANY person's race is discussed as a reason for their "characteristics", that's a racist comment, pure and simple. Especially if it's a blanket statement!
Dale Whiting posted at 10:23 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
Slabside,
I can easily suck it up and live with it. But Trayvon Martin can't, can he! He's dead.
And it would appear that a vigilante "may have" killed him. Do you know the difference between my concluding that Zimmerman "may have" have killed him and "did" kill him? It all falls under the scope of self-defence. And in light of this and other similar incidents, it would "appear" prudent to re-examine those NRA sponsored gun toting self-defense laws that "may" end up excusing vigilante justice. Or are you in favor of vigilante justice?