On my friend and showing he had nothing, I think that his producing the lack of product validates the other person’s accusation. In a country where Black folks were often disallowed their own testimonies unless they were validated by Whites, this still rubs me the wrong way. And though I did not include it in the original post, he did indeed produce his empty pockets much to the accusers chagrin.

In terms of the dress, I brought forth the point of dress because it says something about “presentation”. A Black man in a store after midnight in a White tee, doorag, and jeans is likely to get different treatment than a Black man in a suit after midnight… I would have argued, but in this case he did not. My intention was not to convey the accuser as a redneck (your term, not mine) simply to provide info on both sides. I figured it would have been “conspicuous” to leave out the accusers attire if I left in the accused, which I think is more defensible then the Daily’s “non-arbitrary” presentation of information (which were really Public Safety’s descriptions also).

And no Cub rooting will be tolerated on this site ;)

Ironically, the statement “Playing the race card” has become the newest trump card in the media, instantly pushing the issue of race out of the spotlight and replacing it with an attack on character of the person. So in the day and age where you know you only get one opportunity to substantiate your claims of racism before you are lambasted by the media for “playing the race card”, Randolph ended his turn with “It smells a little bit.” Game over.

I want to believe that the majority of the public, like me, knows that racism is alive and well existing in the insidious form described only by attitudes and opinions and can not be easily linked to cold hard facts. I am also aware of situations where race is made the issue when it shouldn’t have. That said, to win over the open minded, the burden lies with the accuser. Obviously, asking Randolph to PROVE that media criticism of him is linked to racism is ridiculous, but throw something out there to allow us to separate “criticism of a slumping manager” from “criticism of a slumping, black manager”. Unfortunately, that was Randolph’s only opportunity to make it a legit issue it is tagged with “the race card” by the media and dismissed.

And to throw my opinion into the story about your colleague stopped at the convenience store, he should have absolutely showed the person who stopped him that he wasn’t stealing anything. Righteous indignation does nothing except conserve his sense of pride. Whereas maybe, just maybe, had he showed the accuser that he was wrong in assuming your friend had stolen something, the accuser would have felt foolish enough to really consider what made him so sure of the theft in the first place, and a change for the positive might be the outcome. I know I’m always most open to reconsideration while I am pulling my foot out of my mouth.

Also, is it hypocritical, in a story that criticizes judging based on appearance and stereotypes, to paint the picture of the accuser as an ignorant redneck (no other reason to describe what he was wearing)? It seems like superfluous information that only furthers a stereotype. It reminds me of the Michigan Daily “crime beat” pointlessly describing the race of the suspect.

I Look forward to your reply.

Go Cubs!
–Andy