Monday, July 1, 2013

Criticizing an Unreliable and Incompetent Witness – i.e. Rachel Jeantel – Is Not Racism

Any article that starts out “If ever I thought myself objective and unbiased, [this topic] is definitely not that moment” probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously, right?

I mean, if the author is flat-out stating right from the get-go that he or she isn’t fit to objectively analyze a situation… Then why should we take his or her opinion all that seriously? Isn’t that something you learn in logic 101?

Logic 101, however, is clearly a class that Global Grind’s Christina Coleman skipped. She’s the author of the article, “Why Black People Understand Rachel Jeantel by Christina Coleman.” (I’m not kidding you: her name really is in the title of the article. No idea why.) And she really does start out the piece with “If ever I thought myself objective and unbiased, the George Zimmerman trial is definitely not that moment.”… and then expects us to solemnly agree with her bigoted analysis of “white people.”

“White people” is the real focus of her article, not Rachel Jeantel. Coleman makes that very clear as she begins, not by analyzing “why black people understand Rachel Jeantel” – the late Trayvon Martin’s friend and trainwreck of a key witness – but by attacking “white people.”

Any attorney, jury member, judge or white person in that courtroom is not going to understand Rachel Jeantel. And I don’t expect them to,” she writes piously, granting a pointless modicum of forgiveness along with the supersized heaping of guilt anybody reading the article knows is coming. “In fact, I certainly… understand why white people wouldn’t like Rachel.

“She’s hard. She’s black And your assumptions about her background and lack of education make you feel like you are better, somehow. That her testimony, no matter how powerful and impactful it may be to this trial, is implausible...

“But maybe the reason white people don’t understand Rachel Jeantel has something more to do with white privilege then, what they would call, Rachel’s capricious nature.”

Maybe, Ms. Coleman. Maybe it does.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that she lied on the stand… about her age! Maybe it has to do with how she used the racially derogatory term, “cracker.” Maybe it’s because, as the Christian Science Monitor explained, “she was hard to understand, mumbled, acted impertinent, annoyed, rude, and came across, as one cable TV news host said, as a ‘train wreck.’”

So maybe we should judge her the same as some piece of white trash taking the stand, using the N-word, getting caught in lies and exhibiting the maturity level of a gnat.

Though that would require we be “objective and unbiased,” which Christina Coleman is apparently incapable of exhibiting in this situation… according to her own key witness.

No comments:

Post a Comment