That is kinda funny :lol: but some Latinos can be just as prejudiced as some white people...and that is a fact....
I get the "a^^holes who always get away..." bit and George was referring to the people burglarizing his neighborhood.Don't you just love those rose colored glasses....Prejudice can be very subtle.... Some people put other people in more than one category....Maybe GW looked at it as "good" black people vs "bad" black people--you know, those assholes who always get away..... Just like some people can "accept" an African American of light complexion, but shy away at darker skin, will be fine with straight or curly hair, but run like hell from an afro...
Do I see U.N.C.L.E. coming down the wrong road? Again? no names of course...
I doubt there are many people would could positively prove they are NOT racist as can George Zimmerman. Black relatives. Took an African-American girl to the prom. Black business partner. Black friends. Raised funds for an African-American church. Started a petition for a black fella who had been assaulted.
Whatja you (not pointing at any particular member) got to prove you aren't a racist? Who is wearing the racist glasses is who looked at what happened and evaluated it based upon the race of both. Lots of people are racists against Latinos. A lot of African-Americans are. A lot of white people are. The racism is against GZ in terms of those who looked at the incident in racial terms. Then try to transpose their own racism to an assertion that GZ is also racist.
WARNING: Only for the open minded:
Throughout all of the discussions surrounding the Trayvon Martin case I found it disturbing how people, who often question our political and legal processes otherwise, shamed anyone who did the same about this case. If you dared to suggest that we consider the injustices in the processes or perhaps the laws supporting the not guilty verdict or Zimmerman's actions, you were labeled a race-baiter or being burdened with white guilt. There seemed to be no effort to understand the opposing point of view; how race could have been seen by many as having been a factor. This judgement and lack of objectivity permeated several other threads that sprang up around this trial and the issue of race and racism in our legal system and our culture. A civil discussion was never really accomplished here. I found this opinion piece and thought it did a much better job of articulating my point then I ever did; explaining why this discussion is important and why we should have it despite the difficulties. Here are some highlights.
Though recognizing that the rule of law was upheld in this case, we can and should be able to question whether justice was in fact served and, more important, what the jury's decision reflects about deeper societal issues implicated in this case. There's much for us to question and debate about stand-your-ground laws, guns, concealed weapons and particularly race.
We must confront race, admit racism still exists and discuss how it plays out in our society -- without being accused of playing the race card or engaging in racial demagoguery...
Facing Reality: Race Matters | Hector Villagra
This is not an invitation to go round and round about this case again. Instead this is an invitation to try again to discuss the larger issues surrounding this case and perhaps to better understand a point of view that you may disagree with.
And YES,....I know there is a typo in the title....don't know how to fix it. Deal with it.
I think a few reasons the thread is still here is because folk are still interested and it is part of that "honest discussion of race" the Libs keep touting they want, although, I question their sincerity. Turns out the Libs don't like the "honest discussion" when opposing views and opinions are posted. What they want is a blast whitey discussion without facing the reality of the true crime situation with blacks.
I think a few reasons the thread is still here is because folk are still interested and it is part of that "honest discussion of race" the Libs keep touting they want, although, I question their sincerity. Turns out the Libs don't like the "honest discussion" when opposing views and opinions are posted. What they want is a blast whitey discussion. Libs don't like facing the reality of the true crime situation with the Nation. 61 blacks shot by other blacks over the 3 weeks of the Zimmerman Trial. Many shot and killed. Where do the whites come into this deal let alone the Hispanics?
There is no money or power in the status quo. The media knows race baiting draws in viewers. Government officials know white on black gun crime supports an anti-gun agenda. It almost seems as if black on black crime is OK as long as it can be used to push an agenda. I mean if you really look at it, nothing is being done to address it, nothing. Then if someone does, it becomes an anti-gun rallying cry.
The dishonesty and misinformation combined with race baiting black so called leadership is nothing but a money/agenda based lie.
Should I take that as a NO?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?