"Unless, of course, you think the absence of a certain demographic means they all think alike.
In which case the answer to your question would be: "You are both.""
Certainly not. In that case, I'd most likely call myself a racist.
"It's never about the color of skin, but the underlying message, which resonates with different people for different reasons. Across the spectrum."
Although I see your point, I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Reason being, is that I grew up in NYC where whenever "an injustice" befell someone who was black, Al Sharpton would have hundreds of people marching in protest about "civil rights". When in reality, it had absolutely nothing to do with "civil rights", but specifically "BLACK civil rights". Now you might say there is no such thing, but I will point out that whenever a heinous hate crime would be committed by a black person(s) and the victim was white, you would not hear a peep out of him or the hundreds of "church goers" that marched. How very Christian of them. http://douglasernstblog.com/2012/09/26/sharptons-politics-na...
I see a lot of white arms in that ‘MILLION HOODIES’ MARCH for Trayvon Martin: http://soulexchangelive.blogspot.com/2012/03/million-hoodies...
Same goes for the Kimani Gray march: http://www.demotix.com/photo/1905768/tensions-flare-after-ki...
But again, I fail to see the demographics when the victim is white and the accused are a pack of black thugs. Is one life more important than the other?
No, I don't really want to get hung up on race, but I can't ignore that unfortunately it's still a problem. As a nation, we should have been well beyond that by now, but it's obviously not the case when an outstanding number of blacks vote for a president based solely on the color of their skin. The same can also be said about whites refusing to vote for a black person simply because they're black.
Thanks for your comments.
http://www.mediafire.com/?s4snpbpsts5b3 - Thx sovereignjanice
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: