Posted on 06/30/2013 8:38:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
After Tuesday’s testimony in the George Zimmerman trial by star witness Rachel Jeantel some of my white devil, honky, gringo, pasty skin, mackerel snatchin’, Caucasian buddies got all up in arms about Rachel Jeantel stating that “creepy ass cracker” is not a racial slur.
First of all, Rachel, and I hate to break it to you, sister -- and I use that word “sister” in the strictest biblical sense of the word -- but “creepy ass cracker” does, historically, denote derision towards the pigmentally challenged of this world.
By pointing this out to you, I do not mean to demean or berate you. It’s just a friendly FYI I’m putting out there for you to consider, for future reference, because it does offend some of my tribe’s more genteel members.
That said, it really doesn’t offend me. Matter of fact, I prefer cheeky ass cracker to creepy ass cracker as the former borrows capital from British slang and merges it with an 18th century Floridian colloquialism, making it at least a quasi-compliment for this 21st century, brutish wordsmith; while the latter denotes a middle-aged white dude who comments way too much on a cute teenage girl’s Facebook page. Or a teenage boy’s Facebook page, for that matter. But I digress …
Another thing that got a lot of my WASPY buddies miffed by your testimony last week was the fact that the media isn’t Paula Dean-ing you for your use of an obvious racial epithet. To that I would suggest just forgiving them if they tweeted you something untoward, as some of my buddies are arriving a little late to the party and it’s just now dawning on them that the media is unsympathetic to their genome’s plight.
Thirdly, I’d watch it calling someone or something “retarded.” A lot of folks, especially those with special needs friends and family members, take umbrage to that phraseology. It’s just a suggestion to consider. Seriously.
Another thing to ponder if you happen to get called to the stand again, is to get your stories straight while you’re giving testimony or it could turn out better for the defense than the prosecution.
And finally, I know you didn’t ask for this type of spotlight to bear down on you but, if I were you, I would really, really dial down on the rude answers and the obtuse facial expressions, as it sure didn’t look great on television, and at the end of the day, we all have to get along.
I think her statements in this regard implies that she was telling the truth as she perceived it (she may have garbled the timeline somewhat and had problems identifying the voices, but that is perhaps normal with witnesses).
Shame the defense didn’t follow through on it!
I think it was sufficiently established by the defense. The defense has to know when to stop going over old territory once they have the edge, because the only thing going over old territory would accomplish is give the witness a chance to retract the pro-Z testimony she had previously given.
Who the hell are you, and why are you spamming my freepmail with rude messages about my family?
I think that’s true just about anywhere not populated by metrosexuals. There’s such a thing as “fighting words,” where there are Men.
I'm not so certain. Jeantel called T back after the phone went dead. Why would she do that? The first reason that comes to my mind is that she was concerned for him as a friend and wanted to try to make sure he stayed out of a fight. The other scenario is that M doubled back and hid in the bushes ready to fight Z. I think it is more likely that M spent a few moments near the back of his father's girlfriend's home, but then turned back, either to do some more neighborhood casing, or to hide in the bushes and jump Z when he passed by.
When Trayvon was killed because of her she went dark until Benjamin Crump hunted her down and gave her a script to follow.
At face value Jeantel is a self described reluctant witness. I think one needs to consider that as a starting point for any of her presumed motivations. A lot of high powered adults and lawyers are flying around her, no doubt eager to have her testimony support M. Jeantel resisted by letting the world know that M was a homophobe. It seems a shame that so many on FR are judging Jeantel by her appearance, or by her speech, or her lack of education. In any case, people should be charitable.
And finally, I know you didn’t ask for this type of spotlight to bear down on you but, if I were you, I would really, really dial down on the rude answers and the obtuse facial expressions, as it sure didn’t look great on television, and at the end of the day, we all have to get along.
LOL - now that's funny...
Yeah, we've paid for the tapes - might as well use 'em.
"Holy mackerel, Andy!"
I’m reminded of the time when an Indian group protested a college’s mascot name, and suggested that whites would be equally offended if their mascot were to be “The Fighting Whiteys.”
Soon after, sales of T-shirts with “The Fighting Whiteys” went through the roof, and that ended the debate.
It aptly demonstrated the difference between those with healthy brains and professional victims.
HOWEVER.... it depends on the enunciation.
Was is ‘creepy ass’ cracker
or
Creepy ‘ass cracker’ ?
Those phrases have two different meanings, in the ‘black’ subculture.
Oh help, help, help. After hours of watching Rachel, I'm turning into
Tell me you did not just say.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ3zMu_WRYU
My Worth , Your Words
Alright, let me get this straight…
First, If I am black in the fifties, I am a negro. If I am black in the sixties I am Afro-American. If I am black in the 1970’s and 1980’s, I am black, and if I am black in the present century, I am an African-American. (It doesn't matter that I cannot tell you which country I am from on the continent of Africa, just that I am African-American and, (yes), Africa is a continent. Got it.
Second, In order not to be considered a racist bigot, all white Americans must be “flexible” and allow for the various, bizarre, and ever-changing labels of my race to change at my whim. Oh, and incidentally, I can call myself and others of my race N—g-r but you can be prosecuted for doing it.
There, now I have it straight.
More than 150 years has passed since the abolition of slavery and you have not settled on what you want to be called. Words give you a sense of worth and so you play the race card from a very worn deck. You do this over and over.
Please, just refer to me as a “white, honky cracker”. (Or worse, if you wish.) It doesn't bother me at all. No man can take my dignity away with words.
It figures.
her thinking is certainly retarded... by her upbringing, definitely... perhaps for other reasons, too...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.