Nevermind the facts which have come out in regard to the killing of Martin.  What’s important are four things:

• Martin is black.   Being an African-American is not disputed.
• Martin’s killer is not Black.  Evidently George Zimmerman is a “White Hispanic” even though he is self-identified as a Hispanic-American.  If Trayvon’s father were white, would Trayvon then be a “White-African-American”?
• Sharpton and Jackson get their faces in front of cameras
• There is money to be made.  Trayvon’s mother has applied for a Trademark on his name (probably to begin a scholarship fund for white-hispanics).  Buy your daughter a t-shirt.  Support the Obama 2012 Campaign.  The opportunity to steal stuff while “demonstrating for Trayvon” (clearly proving the public has absolutely no reason to be afraid of large groups of young African-Americans).  ADVERTISING on the radio, TV and websites of the media.

When is the African-American community going to wake to the fact that the people who stoke these fires (Jackson, Sharpton, pastors of African-American churches, et al) benefit financially, and those who are aroused to “action” are their unwitting pawns?  The “rousers” get publicity which leads to things like paid speaking engagements, TV appearances, radio interviews, influence to be used to extort money from corporations, etc.  The “aroused” get arrested, lose respect from the rest of the (non-Black)community and suffer from constant reinforcement of exaggerated whites-against-blacks discrimination claims.  BTW, as long as they continue to believe that the source of their problems is White America, they won’t look to themselves for answers to the question of why life is not what they would like it to be.

If a White couple wanted to portray the President and First Lady at a costume party, would it be racist for them to go made up to look Black?  If your answer is “yes”, how do you justify it?  If they went without make-up and hung signs around their necks identifying themselves as the President and First Lady wouldn’t it be denying the “Blackness” of the First Couple?  In my view, not acknowledging that they are Black (by portraying them as Black) would be racist.  Are costumes portraying Black people now off-limits to people of other races?  Isn’t that the attitude of those who say that any criticism of President Obama comes from a racist perspective?  Objectively think about that for a minute.

Currently there is a huge flap in Dallas over a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader, Whitney Isleib,  who attended a Halloween Party dressed, and made up, as the celebrity lil’ Wayne.  Unless she was trying to ridicule him because he is Black, I don’t see the big deal.  In one of the photos she is seen posing with two Black women.  (At least I think they were Black – maybe they were in “blackface” too.)  The two Black women don’t look uncomfortable in the photo and I would think that if she was exhibiting some sort of racism they wouldn’t have posed with her.  And if they thought her “costume” was racist and they went along with it, wouldn’t they be “traitors to their race?”  One could say that she was promoting lil’ Wayne and his music.  After all, “imitation is the sincerest of flattery.”

I do see it as a big deal that people are trying to make it into something about race and calling for her head.  I do see it as a big deal that the media are trumpeting it as though it were racist.  I do see it as a big deal that there are those in our society who are always ready to throw the race card.  All of those things promote divisiveness between the races.  And isn’t that, in itself, racist?

And, for all you offended White people, read Urban Sports Talk and Entertainment to see the views of some actual Black people on this subject.

In order to be fair, I think I should also give you this site written by a charming and open-minded woman.

In this case, six white people went to jail because they pled guilty to crimes against Megan Williams – a black woman.  Plea agreements on the advice of Public Defenders insured “swift justice”, though Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz (why do people choose these goofy names?) complained that it wasn’t enough.  Shabazz is a part of the New Black Panther Party and Black Lawyers for Justice .  Between Sharpton and Shabazz a virtual firestorm of outrage took place in the gullible African-American community.  Too bad it was a big, fat lie.

“She is recanting her entire story,” attorney Byron Potts told reporters in Columbus, Ohio, about his client, Megan Williams, who moved there after the incident. “She says it did not happen. She fabricated it.”  ”It sounds to me that there are innocent people held in jail for something they did not do,” Potts said. “I have no idea what convinced them to plead guilty.”  He said Williams knows that by recanting her testimony, she could be prosecuted for lying about the incident.  ”She still wants to come forward. She’s been fully advised that she could potentially be charged and end up in the penitentiary herself,” he said.

Megan Williams, the “victim” has recanted the entire story, states that her mother and others (I wonder who they could be?) encouraged her lie and will no doubt soon be holding a news conference where a Legal Defense Fund will be called for.  She’s already raised over $70,000 from the initial fake hullabaloo.  She claims she never saw any of that money. Interestingly, Shabazz acted as attorney for Williams and her mother – I wonder if he saw any of the money? Her mother was acting for her, but the mother is dead now and can’t defend herself.  I think an investigation of the whereabouts of the $70,000 should be started.

Even if Megan Williams has the IQ of a sack of okra she understands that as a result of clearing her conscience she may face charges and prison time herself.  Her current lawyer has stated that he has advised her of that and that she understands.  The race card crown says she is lying now and that begs the question – what could be her motive for lying about lying?  Especially considering the penalties she will no incur herself.

I’m not saying the convicted whites didn’t commit crimes.  The fact is I don’t know and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that they did.  Maybe some or all of them should be in prison.  My point is that if Sharpton, Shabazz and others of their ilk hadn’t screamed racism, marched, rallied and lied to put political pressure on the prosecution and the police there might have been a fair trial.

When will the African-American community wake up and realize that these jerks have no interest in ending racism?  They live to perpetuate racism.  They make a fine living stirring up the gullible African-American community.  They are soul-less, black-hearted fat cats.

How it was then:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgITCG9RVA4&NR=1

How is is now:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAAGIgqXYt8

The Maven has this to say: “Let’s get two things straight here: first, the expression to call a spade a spade is thousands of years old and etymologically has nothing whatsoever to do with any racial sentiment. The second is that in spite of this, some people think it is a racial statement, and therefore it should be treated with some caution.”

So we should be careful that those who hear our use of an expression are not offended regardless of the intent or context in which the expression is used.  This would be “politically correct”.  However, it requires that we first know whether, or not, someone will find it offensive.  Practically speaking, you cannot know whether a stranger will find a word offensive or not.  Consequently, you may not use some words and phrases in public ever for fear of offending someone somewhere.

This, my friends, is the essence of “political correctness”: to remove from the lexicon any word, phrase or expression which describes something in a way that some people do not want it describe

So who are the arbiters of political correctness?  In practice, anyone who claims to represent any minority or political persuasion other than “conservative”. Ironically, the word “conservative” is meant pejoratively by these same people while conservatives think of it as a badge of honor.  Euphemistically speaking, the word “conservative” means “right-winger” which means “nazi” which means “selfish, mean war-monger” in the lexicon of liberals.  In the same way, “liberal” means “left-winger” which means “socialist” which means “communist, mooch, peacenik” in the lexicon of conservatives.

The difference is that conservatives are not allowed to play the “political correctness card.”  That card lies solely in the hands of liberals – sort of an Ace-in-the-hole if you will.

There exists a disturbing trend in this arena.  Those of us who are inclined to express ourselves without deliberately offending readers who we are attempting to persuade of something are restricted when it comes to words.  When we find ways to express ourselves without using words and expressions considered politically incorrect, we are accused of using “code” words which means code for something politically incorrect.

That trend leads me to believe that the problem is not actually the words, but the ideas which are meant to be suppressed.

An example of this issue is the use of the phrase “illegal alien.”

From the website of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists come these excerpts (of excerpts) regarding the use of certain words/terms

• Alien – A word used by the U.S. government to describe a foreign-born person who is not a citizen by naturalization or parentage. In modern times, with science-fiction growing in popularity, “alien” has come to mean a creature from outer space, and is considered pejorative by most immigrants.
• Illegal alien – Avoid. Alternative terms are “undocumented worker,” or “undocumented immigrant.” The pertinent federal agencies use this term for individuals who do not have documents to show they can legally visit, work or live here. Many find the term offensive and dehumanizing because it criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States.
• Illegal immigrant – While many national news outlets use the term “illegal immigrant,” this handbook calls for the discussion and re-evaluation of its use. Instead of using illegal immigrant, alternative labels recommended are “undocumented worker” or “undocumented immigrant.” Illegal immigrant is a term used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here. People who are undocumented according to federal authorities do not have the proper visas to be in the United States legally.
• Illegal – Avoid. Alternative terms are “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker.” This term has been used to describe the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here.
• Immigrant – Similar to reporting about a person’s race, mentioning that a person is a first-generation immigrant could be used to provide readers or viewers with background information, but the relevancy of using the term should be made apparent in the story.
• Undocumented immigrant – Preferred term to “illegal immigrant,” “illegal(s)” and “illegal alien.” This term describes the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here.
• Undocumented worker – Preferred term to “illegal alien,” “illegal immigrant,” or “illegal(s).” This term describes the immigration status of people who do not have the federal documentation to show they are legally entitled to work, visit or live here.

For the sake of clarity, here is the definition of “illegal alien” as far as Dictionary.com is concerned:

illegal alien

–noun

This is an excellent example of political correctness and its intended result.  The NAHJ advises journalists to avoid using the actual word or phrase which accurately and legally defines the immigration status of certain people and replace it with one which obfuscates the legal status in the minds of the readers of NAHJ members.  “undocumented” makes it sound as though it is an untaken step in a process or that the alien lost his documentation.  In other words, the alien just doesn’t possess “documents”.  The lack of documents doesn’t necessarily mean the alien is here illegally any more than the lack of a drivers license means you haven’t actually applied for and received one – you might have lost it or left it at home.

And here is the definition of immigrant:

immigrant

–noun

As anyone who can read English can see, the intention of the NAHJ is to soften the term “illegal alien” to something more palatable to the illegal aliens while obfuscating their true status by eliminating anything to do with illegality.  That’s a bit like re-wording “infestation of rats” to “uninvited hosting of mammals.”  It sounds a bit better to the rats, but unfortunately, it doesn’t change reality for the “hosts.”  Illegal aliens are here illegally.  They might have all sorts of rationalizations for their status, but rationalizations don’t change the status or the law.

Analogy – I love analogies.

Suppose I am 5’8” tall and weigh 800 pounds.  The medical community might classify me as morbidly obese.  Further suppose that I am in a state of denial about my condition and referring to me as morbidly obese causes me stress.  I don’t want to be classified at morbidly obese.  I don’t want to be reminded that I am morbidly obese.  I decide to fly to San Francisco to visit my mother. It might go like this:

Ticket agent: Good afternoon sir.  How may I help you?

Me: I’d like to go to San Francisco on the next flight.

Ticket agent: We have space.  However, you will have to purchase an entire row of seats.

Me: What?

Ticket agent: Our policy is that persons so obese as to be unable to fit into one seat must purchase as many seats as is necessary to accommodate them.  You look like about a row.

Me: Oh no you didn’t!?!

Ticket agent: Sir?

Me: You said “obese.”

Ticket agent: Yes?

Me: “obese” is a politically incorrect, pejorative term.

Ticket agent: I’m very sorry sir.  How would you prefer to be described?

Me: As girth-enhanced.

Ticket agent: Girth-enhanced?

Me: Yes.

Ticket agent: Our policy is that persons so girth-enhanced as to be unable to fit into one seat must purchase as many seats as is necessary to accommodate them.

Me: You called me obese.  I’m thinking about suing you or bringing other girth-enhanced citizens here to demonstrate against your airline.

Ticket agent: Sir I’m just trying to do my job and follow airline policy.

Me: No you’re not.  You’re trying to hurt my feelings by calling me obese.  I can’t believe in this day and age you would use such a term. You are a bigot!

Ticket agent: Again sir, I’m very sorry about using that term.  Can we start over again?

Me: Don’t change the subject.

Ticket agent: Sir I am only trying to get you on the flight to San Francisco as you requested.

Me: Don’t lie to me.  You are trying to hurt my feelings, insult me and humiliate me in front of all these other customers in line.

Ticket agent: Well, its true there are others waiting in line.

Me: See!  You admit that you want to humiliate me in front of these other passengers.

Ticket agent: Sir, may I please get you ticketed?

Me: Yes.  I don’t want to be around people like you any longer than necessary.

Ticket agent: Ok.  Now which row of seats would you like to purchase today?

Me: Row of seats?  Did you just say row of seats?

Ticket agent: Yes sir.  As I explained our policy…

Me: I demand to see the “policy!”

Ticket agent: Yes sir.  See right here it says that ob…

Me: WHAT?!?!?  Were you just going to say the o-word again?  You were.  You were just going to say the o-word again.  I can’t believe this.

Ticket agent: Well sir you asked to see our policy.

Me: Yes I did.  And I don’t see that it says anywhere in it anything about “girth-enhanced”.

Ticket agent: Well, that’s what it means when it says obe…

Me: Oh.  So now you’re going to use code words?

Ticket agent: Sir I’m just trying to get you to San Francisco as you requested.

Me: I didn’t request to be insulted and abused by some skinny bitch.

Ticket agent: Sir what do you want me to do?  Your enhanced-girth condition requires that we use up an entire row of seats to accommodate you.  Those are seats we won’t be able to sell to other passengers.  If we don’t sell the seats the airline will lose money on flights and ultimately go out of business.

Me: Well you should have thought of that before you decided to be prejudiced against the girth-enhanced.

Ticket agent: Sir please.  What can I do to resolve this situation amicably.

Me: That’s better.  You can sell me a seat to San Francisco – not a row.  That is what you would do if you weren’t prejudiced against the girth-enhanced.

Ticket agent: Sir in order to satisfy you and move the line along I am going to make an exception to our policy.  However, I would like you to know that it will require that I reject three other passengers who won’t be able to fly in the other seats in your row.

Me: Well that’s their problem isn’t it?  Those skinny jerks are probably all prejudiced too.  (Raising my fist and shouting “girth power!” as I waddle to the gate only to find myself stuck in the door, causing the flight to be cancelled.)

Actually, it would be much easier, more accurate and descriptively correct to call a spade a spade….

Former (thank God) President Jimmy Carter had this to say yesterday.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man,” Carter said. “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that share the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans.”

“And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

His remarks are a poignant illustration of the fact that any criticism, whatsoever, of any black person is now considered to be racist.

When did it become racist to criticize the policies, proposals and practices of The President of the United States?

Don’t people see how divisive this constant overplaying of the race card is?  Now, it’s laughable.  And as a result people will begin to instantly disregard any accusation of racism whether its true or not.  And in so doing, fail to credit genuine racism.  The loser in this stupid game is not the racist, it is the victim of actual racism.

Last week, ACORN was exposed a number of times giving advice on how to game the system to get a house.  How to evade income tax.  How to claim underage, illegal aliens as dependents – in effect suborning slavery.   Naturally, the response included charges of racism on the part of the videographers, FOX News and anyone else who had a part in exposing the criminal behavior so rife in ACORN.

Just like the child who yells “that’s not fair” whenever he doesn’t get what he wants, black racists cry racism.

More from today’s news.  Fox News:

The White House on Sunday dismissed a claim by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that administration critics like Rep. Joe Wilson, who called President Obama a liar during his health care address to Congress, are motivated by race.

That won’t stop bigots like Maureen Dowd though.

]]> http://racecardism.com/2009/09/this-site-is-racist/feed/ 0