Justice for Zimmerman

fanaskin_sl said:

Does it make you cringe to hear rush limbaugh to say "Wakandan"?

can we all say "Wakandan"? I only said it in private setting to people I knew wouldn't be offended and probably haven't said that word since I was 19 listening to eminem, tupac and bigge. Would it be socially acceptable for the common vernacular? I particularly would like to know tanoomba's viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Context is everything. "Wakandan" is no different from "American Inventor" or "nagger" or "n*gger" if it's used in a racist or hateful context. I would say that, due to the charged nature of the word, it's generally not considered socially acceptable for the common vernacular. In certain contexts, it's a word that can create a very hostile environment. Of course, free speech says we can say whatever we want, so I'm not speaking from a legal or constitutional standpoint, but there are certain words that common sense and respect for fellow humans say we shouldn't use in certain situations. But then, this is hardly mind-blowing.

I will say that I find the comparisons made between "American Inventor" and "cracker" to be pretty silly, however. They are not two sides of the same coin. When a white guy calls a black guy a American Inventor, he's saying "Fuck you, you're an inferior piece of shit and you'll never be welcome or equal". When a black guy calls a white guy a cracker, he's saying "See? I gave you a name too. Because you're white. Take that!" One is a word charged with oppression given from a position of privilege, the other is an impotent jab seemingly created just to fill a void. Sure, they're both racist and they're both stupid, but these words are not operating on the same level. At all.

Lleauaric_sl said:

The point president Obama made was not about whatever Trayvonn did before that night, but the events of that night.

The fact remains that black males in our society are treated with a higher degree of suspicison than anyone else. Right or wrong, justifiable or not, a young black male is regarded as a threat by some people for the sole fact of the color of his skin. This is reality. It doesn't matter if you are a thug or a student in Harvard, you get treated as a possible criminal at times. Not all the time, not by everybody, but enough where it is a common shared experience by black males in the United States. So was Obama ever followed in a store, or had doors lock when he came by or whatever? Yah.. So in that sense he was in same position Trayvonn was in. Did he make the poor choices tm did? No, but the initial situation was the same

So, what I heard is the president trying to articulate why black people are so upset about this. I think that's an important thing to do.

Click to expand...

Most intelligent post in this entire thread. Most posters here choose to consider those who are upset with the result of the trial as being ignorant or brainwashed or emotional or irrational... "Why don't they just look at the facts?" A better question would be "Why was it so easy to get so many people riled up over this?" Lleauaric points out why this case struck a nerve, and why it's worth discussingeven ifthis particular case had nothing to do with racism. Yeah, everybody got it wrong, their anger about this case is misplaced and a result of shitty irresponsible "journalism", but the general unease about racial profiling is still something worth talking about because it's still a very real issue, even if it's not a key issue in this case.