|
Racial equality, America 2013
h/t InstapunditRacism should make people pretty angry. But for that very reason charges of racism should only be leveled carefully. George Zimmerman wasn't motivated by race in confronting Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a Hispanic, was himself one-eighth black. The prosecution in his case produced no statements by Zimmerman showing any racial bias. Alas, most people didn't have time to follow the trial's day-to-day testimony, and obviously didn't know that. They got summaries presented by the mainstream media. NBC selectively edited a 9-1-1 call to make Zimmerman sound racist. President Obama pronounced the killing as racially motivated, first personalizing the case by comparing Trayvon to a hypothetical son of his, then his younger self, and then suggesting Trayvon was followed because of his race. Now, race appears central in the recent murder of Australian Christopher Lane in Oklahoma, but the discussion seems to be about almost everything else, especially gun control. ..many attacks on innocent people [random whites] have taken place in revenge for Trayvon's death. President Obama would probably have more credibility on race issues with America as a whole if he criticized crimes against whites or Hispanics in the same terms as he uses when discussing attacks on blacks. He has kept mum on violence by blacks against whites, even when there is evidence of racial animus, such as in Christopher Lane's death. When Obama's deputy press secretary was asked about Lane's murder on Wednesday, he claimed, "I'm not familiar with it, actually" and said that he couldn't comment on it anyway because he "wouldn't want to get ahead of the legal process here." That's hardly the approach the White House took to the Martin or Gates cases. Would it really hurt the president to speak out against all forms of racism? It's what we were promised. A little balance would help bring Americans together. divide et impera? Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-08-26 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=374650 |