What a sad society we live in with people valuing appearances more than content. Hypocrites who in their own actions and judgments are no less racist than Zimmerman who shot a black boy because he thought his black skin did not belong in his precious white neigbourhood. Now, those racists think Rachel Jeantel’s accent and mannerisms do not belong in their posh court.
Rachel Jeantel was herself in the courtroom when she bravely stood up to testify as a crucial witness in the court. Even though It was not a spotlight she wanted, it was not a scenario she hoped for, it was not even a publicity she embraced, yet she did her duty and stood up in that courtroom to ensure justice or at least the semblance of justice for a friend whose life was cut short by the bullet of someone who felt ‘threatened’ by his skin colour. Rachel Jeantel has every right to be herself in that courtroom. 
And shame to all the self loathing blacks who says she gives a black woman a bad name. Her accent, her weight, her mannerisms, her skin or hair is not what is on trial; it is the murderer of her friend that is on trial. You should be ashamed of yourself for being diverted by such trivial as her weight or accent which btw is none of your business.
Unfortunately some black people don’t get it too. The fact that she does not speak perfect English in a ‘polish’ accent does not make her a bad representation of Black American women. I have not watched her court testimony in full, but nothing, absolutely nothing justifies the terrible image many including some blacks are painting of her just because they think she exemplifies the stereotypical Black “hood rat”.
This 18 year old young woman should not be expected to suddenly transform into another person just because she is taking the witness stand to testify in the murder case of her 17 year old black friend Trayvon Martin, who was murdered by a racist.
Being a “hood rat” does not make her any less credible than the big cats.
I do recognize the ignorance and malice that the attackers of Rachel Jeantel are downing under. As I wrote in my blogpost Accents and the Tragedy of Self-Hate-
However with the uncontrolled audience that YouTube, Facebook and other online social networks attracts, I have recently been faced with so many malicious comments attacking my Yoruba accent. And funny enough or rather very unfortunately, 99.9% of these comments are from my country people who have similar accents! I couldn’t help but wonder why people would hate themselves so much as to believe that their accent is inferior? I have noticed this phenomenon is not peculiar to Nigerians alone.
It really is a tragedy that so many people are still under the chains of mental slavery. The belief that you are not good enough unless you are white, rich and skinny and speak English through your nose is still prevalent amongst many Africans.
Some actually thought such comments about my accent would offend me, but I just wonder why I should be upset because I have an accent that is unique to my place of birth and where I grew up. What is there to be ashamed of? People who make such comments are ignorant and need to emancipate themselves from mental slavery.
Rachel Jeantel has every right to be herself on that witness stand, she is entitled to all her emotions and free to express those emotions the way she has been expressing them in the 18 or so years of her existence so far.
A day in court cannot nullify her life experience or personality and this does not make her less of a person or a symbol of ridicule.
No one has any business setting up a ‘Posh’ standard for her to live up to.
If you are uncomfortable with her “hood rat”, well ask yourself why, but definitely don’t take it out on her because she owes you no explanation or apology.
Again, RACHEL JEANTEL IS NOT THE ONE ON TRIAL.
This has been bothering me a lot -- especially the black people claiming that she must be developmentally disabled! Based on what? Based on her mumbling and speaking in a dialect? It’s sad and infuriating to think that justice for Trayvon Martin may depend on the juror’s ability to overcome their conditioned response to hearing African-American dialects of English.
The evidence suggests that this young lady very much cares about her appearance e.g. “court nails” and that ridiculous hair hat she’s wearing.
I agree. I’m sure there are “hood rats” (as you say) that value honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, this young woman’s inconsistent testimony and self perjury is what damages her credibility.
sure, blame society for her ignorance, for her inability to read, for her LYING in court
Let’s say that she was developmentally delayed for arguments sake. Why should that be an issue? It’s my understanding that a person can be considered a credible witness despite any such issues. The comments I’ve seen on Twitter about her have at times showed that US society still has plenty of classism, racism, and sexism to go around.
@ #2, please fuck the fuck off. Are you really going to focus on a young person’s tweets and hairstyle here as if that lends you any credibility?
How dearly I wish anyone who posted about others’ appearances on the internet, were required to post a picutre of themselves beside their pointless and petty words.
I have no opinion on her accent or dialect, it’s essentially meaningless to me. We all have dialects, some of us just sufficiently privileged to see our dialect as “normal”.
I do, however, take issue with her insistence that “cracker” isn’t racial. There’s no way such bullshittery should be tolerated.
“The evidence suggests that this young lady very much cares about her appearance e.g. “court nails” and that ridiculous hair hat she’s wearing.”
I think that this statement essentially makes everything else you say sound like….blah blah blah blah…blah blah blah….alksidhfoier;kjanh;viducv;jhdf;iqeurf;olkjbv;oi…
“sure, blame society for her ignorance, for her inability to read, for her LYING in court”
Should I blame society on your inability to read the article you are responding to?
@ #5
Did I miss the part in this post that we were discussing my credibility?
We all make judgements about other people in conscious – and largely unconscious – ways to assess credibility, trustworthiness, intelligence, etc.
Do you think that what people say, do, and look like offers no assistance in assessing that person?
Do we have any other mechanism to assess a person other than what they say, do, and/or look like?
Why? Are you looking for a shorthand excuse to dismiss another persons statements based on physical appearance?
Is this not what you are upset with? Judging other people based on appearance and statements (tweets)?
Perhaps you should take some time to think through your statements a little more thoroughly.
“Did I miss the part in this post that we were discussing my credibility?”
Irony.
Why if it isn’t trent_steele coming back with a thorough self-ether. I really have nothing to add, your post is a work of art.
Okay -- let me explain.
Her hair and her nails are not means of accessing her credibility, at all. If she took steps to either appear more credible to a racist/classist audience (which I know people feel the need to do all the time when going to court) or if she presented a more authentic look; neither of those would speak to her credibility.
The main reason that her appearance “speaks to credibility” for many people is due to a large dose of classism, a significant amount of racism, and a dash of sexism just for flavor.
Since you seem not to be able to recognize that, much less parse that from your brain when making conclusions about much more substantive aspects of her court testimony, it makes me not take your conclusions about those things seriously.
I am not making a judgment to your credibility based on your manner of writing or your picture.
That’s the point of the OP -- not that somehow she is a perfect person who super-humanly is able to recall events like some sort of weird robot surrounding the death of her friend and, being 18 years old, is completely comfortable in a courtroom being drilled about whether or not her friend lied to her and deserved to die -- the point of the OP is that the TYPE of criticism she is receiving has roots in extreme prejudice and bigotry, and that criticism distracts from the realities of the situation that ought to be focused on.
For example, I could say, “retarded” was not a good choice of words. I really hate the term. Go us -- I bet we agree that “retarded” is a problematic word.
However, saying, “Look at her hair and nails and her use of the word “retarded” -- not all hood rats like her are that pathetic” -- that would make me a racist asshole.
Got me?
Hope I didn’t mar the canvas with the tl:dr version of explain this to me like I’m five.
*tips hat*
Good day to you sir! Long life and good health.
“For example, I could say, “retarded” was not a good choice of words. I really hate the term. Go us — I bet we agree that “retarded” is a problematic word.”
Not to mention -- there might be a better time or place to have that conversation than the trial of the person who shot and killed her friend. You know, MAYBE it’s just not.
@ #13, 14
I was just discussing this with my Father on the phone last evening. Specifically, the tendency of human beings to denigrate and other people with which we think we have a disagreement. It is far easier to impute malice or stupidity than to attempt to understand just what the other person might be saying.
I don’t think that’s necessarily what you are trying to do (are you?), but it seemed an interesting parallel.
Also, I think it’s probably best if we keep this in mind when we feel our emotions rise in response to something we disagree with.
Myself, I prefer the Hanlon’s Razor formulation:
It’s entirely possible that I’m stupid, and an asshole. These things are not mutually exclusive.
I do appreciate when people offer the tl;dr version, but I thank you for being more explicit in your position.
After considering what you’ve written, I believe I could have been more clear in my comment at #2.
Where I quoted:
…I should have stated that I actually agree with Yeminsi on this. I also believe it’s a pity that we focus on style over substance. My comment was more focused on what appears to be Rachel’s focus on style over substance.
Where I stated:
I should have preceded that with a statement re-emphasizing that what really is problematic for Rachel is not her dress, but her dishonesty.
Clearly, our differing experiences color (oh shit, did I say that?) our perceptions of the preceedings.
“My comment was more focused on what appears to be Rachel’s focus on style over substance.”
And that’s where you are completely missing the hypocrisy of your statements.
Unless she is focusing on what Zimmerman was wearing, I suspect that, she cares more that her friend was shot and killed than appearances of those she is discussing. For all I know, she has been pointing that out -- but that’s not the “evidence” that you provided.
Pointing out her dress, even if she spent hours every single day of her life focused on her appearance in the context of presenting herself, pointing towards her appearance (or her supposed personal focus on her personal appearance) is not making it a non-issue -- it’s just a backhanded way of making it the issue it should not be while stated that it’s NOT actually an issue while simultaneously making it an issue.
A good analogy might be going to a wedding where the WEDDING should be the focus; and saying, “Oh -- it’s not the big of a deal that she is wearing white even though she divorced,” and then being confused as to why what you said was offensive.
I have not listened to her testimony at any length other than the clip provided. She’s is obviously out of her element here, trying to hold her own against a defense attorney whose job it is to pick apart any little discrepancy and make it appear as though she is lying and should not be believed by the jury.
I would be absolutely floored if anyone’s testimony was completely consistent in reference to something as traumatic as what she went through. She must feel an incredible amount of pressure.
Piecing together the truth of the matter should be the focus; not how she presents herself. She should absolutely not be held to some unreasonable standard of “representing” black women or those within her particular community.
Enforcing some sort of conformity to the “acceptable” is stereotype threat to the most extreme and twisted.
She’s gone though enough, don’t you think?
I have made a giant batch of popcorn and have been enjoying a good deal of the trial. Isn’t it great how America turns nearly everything into a sideshow?
Yes, she is clearly out of her element.
Perhaps you might enjoy this insightful commentary:
Rachel Jeantel Testifies in George Zimmerman Trial
What do you think the outcome will be if Zimmerman walks?
#Justice4Trayvon
That’s right, riots. That will surely help heal race relations in the US.
Well, I got through about 30 seconds before realizing that you’re lying and sending me to that particular video to imply something though satire. Why didn’t you just Rick Roll me or something?
Yeah, there may very well be riots if he completely walks; that’s a possibility.
I’m sure they’ll be people around just waiting to say something to the effect of the highest “liked” comment on that vid:
“Black men have been a burden and threat to civilised society for decades. It’s quite sad that blacks refuse to better themselves for the sake of a better society. Keep degenerating yourselves. You’re hurting your own people”
Because that’s how systemic racism works -- best to demonize anyone who dares to demand changing it. Laying the blame on those being mistreated works the best.
But thanks for exemplifying the B.S. stance that defending someone in any way, about anything, is the EXACT SAME THING as holding them blameless, denying them any responsibility and arguing that the person is perfect -- instead of flawed and human not unlike the rest of us.
I’m explaining what should be focused on and realities of how stress can effect people. I’m not making strong conclusions as to her credibility, integrity, or the consistency of her testimony because I haven’t combed over transcripts AND it’s not what the OP is about. You’re the one making strong conclusions concerning that aspect of things.
Saying that you agree with the OP when you essentially did EXACTLY what the OP was criticizing points to a pretty strong lack of introspection.
This conversation reminds me of a different one, where the OP was discussing how people sometimes second-guess the decisions of rape survivors (and in the case of that conversation, someone who eventually died of her injuries) and this ONE person commenting kept saying that he agreed with the OP and that second-guessing a victim’s survival strategy was horrible while simultaneously bringing up SELF DEFENSE repeatedly even after several people explained to him that it was inappropriate.
I mean -- how’s that cognitive dissonance of yours developing?
“That will surely help heal race relations in the US.”
Yeah, I’m sure the racist, sexist, sizeist and classist bullshit being spouted at Ms. Jeantel is really fucking helping as well. It sure is cooling shit down, dotcha think?
Implying that she is developmentally disabled due to her accent couldn’t possibly bring up memories of when women (especially black women and rural white women) were sterilized by the state without their knowledge or consent due to being hastily diagnosed with mental incapacity simply because of their dialect/accent.
Putting salt on wounds like that shouldn’t be the focus -- obviously -- nothing to see there. Let’s talk about her hair s’more. I wonder if she is wearing a lace top wig. That’s relevant, right?
I’m thinking that if Ms. Jeantal ever lied about anything more consequential than the reason she did not go to Trayvon Martin’s funeral, it would have been all over the news. Does trent_steele know something the rest of us don’t?
@SallyStrange I was infuriated when I came upon this story on the Facebook wall of a black atheist man who basically lashed at Rachel Jeantel for, according to him, “Perpetrating the hood rat, in your face stereotype attitude of black big gurls” (whatever that means) The remarks were so unfair, so judgmental and so ignorant of the dynamics at play.
If anything, at least this episode has also shown the self loathe still present within the black community and the pressure mounted on the less privileged to live up to a certain measure of standards in the society before they can be considered ‘Human’ enough to be accorded respect and dignity. Too sad that regardless of what the Universal Human rights declaration says, dignity of person is not something we are all entitled to just by virtue of being human.:(
trent_steele:
Of course she has the right to care about her appearance including her nails and her hairstyle before attending a party, going to class or appearing before a jury, this is not a crime. The fact that she tweeted about her “Court nails” is not an invitation to be judged by her appearance.
Her duty in that witness stand was to give evidence, and that she did to the best of her capabilities. The audience focusing on her court nails, hair style or dialect instead of what she has to say about the last few minutes of her murdered friend’s life, is pathetic and a sad reflection on the society. When the reactions to her testimony about those awful last minutes are mainly about her size, class, dialect and ‘hood ratiness’, then we can say the people definitely have got their priorities wrong. And it is sad that majority can be easily distracted by trivialities in the face of the murder of an innocent boy.
trent_steele:
This young woman also ADMITTED to every discrepancy and inconsistent statement she made and gave her reasons for it, which was mainly panic , something not unexpected of a young girl whose friend had just been murdered and who happened to be the last person her friend spoke to while trying to avoid his murderer. This certainly would be a big burden for anyone, especially a young girl.
Also, don’t forget that she was decent and bold enough to admit to those inconsistencies, she didn’t try to cover them up. And also, remember, she most probably did not even realize then that she was going to be the key witness to this case. So, please don’t hang that over her head. Her reactions were human, she never claimed to be super human, and she certainly did not seek to hold herself out as the epitome of the infallible, perfect human being.
I would certainly be surprised if she was able to recollect everything to the perfect timing from the very first time she was questioned about the murder to the time she appeared before the jury, considering what a traumatic experience that must have been, a perfect recollection would be robotic and almost super human. Her reactions were not scripted crime lines by top Hollywood screen writers; social conditioning and her particular life experiences also shaped her initial responses. Not an excuse for lying but an attempt to put things in context. Most importantly, she was brave enough to admit those discrepancies.
bob
There is nothing in tis post that blamed the society about her “LYING in court”. Are you sure you have the ability to read and understand this post? Your comment cast a serious doubt on that.
@M. A. Melby Thanks, you have clearly articulated the responses i would have given, well said.
No doubt Zimmerman’s lawyer is looking to play on the racial, class and other societal differences and prejudices to divert attention from what really matters; the exact words Rachel Jeantel exchanged with her murdered friend few minutes before he was shot dead. It is indeed a sad society that can be so easily distracted by prejudice in the face of a heavy subject matter like the death of an innocent boy.
It would really be sad if the prosecuting lawyer did not object to the way his witness Rachel Jeantel was treated in court. I have not watched the full video but the reactions to her accent and ‘attitude’ from many, both blacks and whites, makes me feel sad for humanity. I hope the jury members are able to rise above such prejudices and examine the case on its merits and not based on prejudices whipped up by a disgusting lawyer.
@trent_steele/2/anyone else
Many years ago my father taught me something he had been taught in the army.
It is the people who are inexperienced at lying, inexperience at committing crimes, and the innocent who fuck up like Rachel did (in regards to her testimony). They are the people who aren’t practiced at lying, the people who desperately want to help, the people who get confused and misremember things and trip up.
I am an excellent liar, a skill I developed to save myself from the abuse that my father was prone to mete out. I don’t like doing it (it’s stressful), but I am still at very good at it. I know to tell the truth in regards to things that can be verified, not alter anything too much, make sure that my alterations are plausible, and only change things that I’m sure cannot be verified. When I do make changes, I leave them vague enough that I can add in additional information later to correct if something is verifiable when I thought it wasn’t. I am specific on the things that I’m telling the truth on and I stress them. I make as few untruthful changes as possible. I watch for people offering up plausible explanations but am careful about whether or not I integrate them into my story. I plan out as much as possible while being aware that I may need to make changes, but resist making changes unless I absolutely have to, even if if I come up with another, better story because the changes may conflict in a way that I haven’t anticipated on the fly.
I’m really good at lying. I shock people with how good I am at it when they watch me and know what I’m doing.
You want people like Rachel in that courtroom, not people like me. You want people who panic and don’t have enough experience with lying to lie in a way where they won’t get caught. You want people who will realize that they can’t make their lies work and then can be encouraged to tell the truth because of it.
Everyone lies. Everyone. The more you lie, the better you will (likely) get at it. The fact that you haven’t caught someone in a lie before doesn’t necessarily mean they are telling the truth now.
Be careful about dismissing the people who you catch in a lie. The fact that they were bad enough at lying that you caught them isn’t irrelevant.
Pretty much.
It’s sort of like my students taking data. You take measurements the same way over and over again and you expect the same results, right?
So, they said worried, “Well, the numbers are close to the same, but they aren’t the same.”
I said, “If they were all exactly the same, trust me, I would not be happy. I would be very very unhappy.”
The defense lawyer (Don West) had every right to vigorously cross examine Ms. Jeantel but I thought he was coming across as disrespectful, creepy, and sleazy.
I hope that disgusting performance of his comes back to bite him in the ass and actually hurts his client.
Rachel did a great job as a (legally) naive young lady facing a defense intent on demeaning her, and picking apart the substance of every word she uttered. I understood what she said with a problem, the lawyer made it seem that her dialect made her speech more difficult to understand than it was. Would he have been so condescending toward a white girl speaking English with a French accent? I think not.
She did not ask to be the ambassador for the black race. She didn’t even ask to be on TV. What the fuck is wrong with some people?
Comments on Rachel Jeantel’s appearance, demeanor & intelligence have been unfair as she suffers from a fairly bad case of Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis, for which she needs to be treated by an Endocrinologist.
But I had no problem understanding her, she is a self centered liar because she knows Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman when he could had gone home, she possibly encouraged Trayvon Martin to attack. But what she did testify to already gets an acquittal or even the case dismissed because it shows Trayvon Martin had a racial motivation to attack George Zimmerman.
You’re on FREETHOUGHT blogs while calling George Zimmerman a murderer? what a joke.
So shooting a guy for punching you is totally justified, but jumping a guy who following you around isn’t. Also, she must have been in on it for some reason.
I hope all that trouble they went to finding a jury actually produced people with enough sense to listen to the witness instead of looking at her, but from the tone of some of the remarks above it’s possible to have doubts. I think this does raise one interesting point: the papers in Britain talked about the nearly all white jury as though it was a problem waiting to happen. It might be, but it looks as though some black people wouldn’t do much better. I guess we did know that already but it’s still sad.
It’s lucky that the jury members are not allowed to be exposed to the type of discussion that’s apparently making the rounds of the internet. There are even people here with some perfectly disgusting things to say. How does it feel to be manifestly unfit to perform jury service, one of the most basic duties in society?
When an armed assailant pursues and kills an unarmed person, this is murder, regardless of what the unarmed person was doing.
One of the hallmarks of white privilege is that white people get to be individuals who stand or fall on their own, while non-shites are forced to be representatives of their entire race and blamed for the crimes of others who share their ethnicity. Trayvon Martin’s murder is acceptable and even lauded by racists because since one black man committed a crime, all black men are guilty by definition. And because Rachel Jeantel seems to fit some of the racist stereotypes, she must be guilty of all of them which means she is fair game for whatever racist insults people decide to target her with.
“non-shites”
Oh the womdrous age of the cell phone 😀
But yeah, great point. I even catch myself thinking like this from time to time.
(btw there’s the sexism version of that in xkcd )
People, please. In our system of justice, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
While it is true that so far we have a lot of prosecution witnesses actually helping the defense, (today this included the lead police investigator on the case), the trial has a long way to go. The prosecution still has more evidence to put forward, including Trayvon’s mother who will testify it is Trayvon’s voice calling for help on the 911 tape. And we still haven’t heard from the medical examiner. Will her or his evidence back up Zimmerman’s version of the events or not? That could be key.
So we will have to be very patient before deciding what really happened that night.
It is amazing to me that so many people on both sides, including those here on FTB, rush to find arguments just to confirm their biases. We are talking about a dead teenager and a man charged with 2nd degree murder. This is too serious to take lightly.
Very good Taylor. Also its not the topic of this post.
A very good point there, Eristae, and worth remembering.
Inconsistencies don’t mean intent to deceive. They mean being human. Real eyewitnesses are NOT consistent. They may not mention a detail one time and remember it really clearly later, because something about that second time — perhaps the questions asked — brought memories to light. They may truly not remember details accurately; science has shown us that we are simply not that good at remembering things, and doubly so at stressful times. Human memory has a tendency to fill in the details later, sometimes including things we didn’t actually witness.
Rachel Jeantel is in my opinion being an honest witness. No witness’s recollection is likely to be 100% accurate, because humans aren’t, but that’s not due to anything she or any other witness is doing wrong.
I think a lot of peoples’ judgments about honesty and accuracy say more about their personal biases, and the biases of “the system”/society, than anything else.
“Very good, Taylor”
Thank you.
“Also its not the topic of this post.”
Well it is not the topic of the TITLE of the post, but the OP itself says:
“… she is taking the witness stand to testify in the murder case of her 17 year old black friend Trayvon Martin, WHO WAS MURDERED BY A RACIST.” (emphasis added)
………not to mention all the subsequent comments.
@Yemisi Ilesanmi. Another Black Woman excusing ignorance and failing to see the plight of the black community.
Black Men including Trayvons dad (crying) could see how Rachel destroys her sons credibility, the mother to oblivious to recognize that during her testimony looking at tracy with that typical angry black woman look.
Let Me List a few
Shes overweight, think of stereotypes about overweight black women, lazy.etc
She is wearing baby doll(weve) hair, self explanatory
She is easily frustrated and shows a lack of respect for authority
She didn’t even want to defend her boyfriend in the first place, some love.
She is playing into the defenses argument, Trayvon may have been initially profiled by zimmerman, but trayvon lack of respect for authority(NIGHT WATCHMEN), racial hostility towards white people(CREEPY ASS CRACKER) is what turned what could have been a simple exchange of words into a life or death altercation.
Yemesi, you also call zimmerman a racist which he is not, he more or less holds racial bias towards black men which is what led to the incident as most of people in the states including black people(Especially black women) do. Thank urban black culture that the media as well as most black people tend to place on a pedastal(COONERY) for that.
Yemesi; You and every other victim mentality black woman are the reason culturally why trayvon martin is dead. You women are overbearing and do not know your place when dealing with your men; you constantly try to topple our manhood or challenge it. Then when we leave, you tell your kids that there father wasn’t shit or hes dead, or that niggas aint shit. The men that are good are mostly with other races, biracial, or light skin women because you believe they arent Man(Black) enough for your loud big manish asses.
You all later find out raising a child is single and very difficult and life becomes harder, so you began to think the white establishment is holding you back; you then tell your kids that racism is why you have it so hard.
In reality it is your poor judgement because the DICK was Good. This goes for HOODRATS or proffesional Black Women. Now your kids(particularly boys), think niggas aint shit, have no respect for authority(Which is primarily white as we do live and seek to enjoy life in a western perspective) which is what white culture mainly encompasses.
So you braid your hair, become afrocentrics, and try to excel in the very culture you so strongly hate while also telling your kids as well as young people that THE WHITE MAN(Institutional racism, white power structure) WHICH IN SOME CASES BUT NOT ALL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF YOUR,AS WELL AS THERE PROBLEMS. It is Black people as a whole who need to wake up, but it starts with then one mainly in the home. IT STARTS WITH YOU BLACK WOMAN.
The defense is doing there job and rachel is playing right into it, they are showing that trayvon socialized with people who are tempermental, hostile towards authority, and racist towards white or non-black culture.
Her attitude also greatly helped the defense. TRUST ME WHEN I SAY THIS CASE WAS FINISHED WHEN SHE TOOK THE STAND and the father knew it. ONLY RACISM THAT WILL HOLD WEIGHT IN THIS CASE IS RACHEL AND TRAYVONS.
SORRY STRONG AFROCENTRIC BLACK WOMAN………………………………………
@Fred Miles- Go home, you are drunk. Actually, that is being generous, you are an ignoramus. You obviously need to take elementary classes with a special focus on Racism and Sexism. You won’t be allowed to make further comments on my blog because
-- I don’t teach elementary classes
-- You don’t have the requisite basic knowledge to engage in this debate
-- Your racist, sexist and ignorant remarks violate my comment policy.
You might have escaped from a mental institution and forgot to take your medications, but I shall consign you to where you belong, in the spam box. I am allergic to ignorance and you reek too much of it for me to allow you roam freely on my blog. I can’t risk my health to accommodate your ignorance. Consider yourself consigned to the trash can, goodbye. 🙂
Way to fight bigotry with bigotry there.
@dysomniak, darwinian socialist- He might have escaped from a mental institution and forgot to take his medications. It is not bigotry, just a plausible situation that can be deduced from his remarks.
It’s bald ableism. Mental illness does not cause people to be bigots.
@dysomniak, darwinian socialist… And I have not called him a bigot, YOU have.
Mental illness can cause people to behave irrationally, not taking recommended pills can cause irrational behavior, these are not the same thing as bigotry. His remarks were mostly irrational hence the suggestion that HE MIGHT have escaped from a mental institution and probably missed his pills. That was in relation to his irrational remarks, not his bigotry.
I found the news surrounding the trial to be highly racist. There was nothing wrong with this young woman’s hair; EVERYBODY has an accent, because language is constantly evolving. Surely, thousands of years ago, people were slapping young proto-English speakers in the head, saying, “Speak proper proto-Indo-European!”
@Maddie, Very true, no one’s accent should be derided. BTW, glad to hear from you. 🙂
Thank you! 😀 Glad to hear from you, too.