When I buy a chicken breast, I buy it with the skin on. And I cook it ‘till it’s golden brown. […] I never buy the skinless cuts – you know, the ones that resemble the criminals and violent offenders described in our media. “Skinless” and “colorless”.
It seems that not a day can go by without some miscreant trying to abduct someone, assault someone or kill someone. Today, I read a short article in one of our newspapers entitled “Attempted abduction in east end” The article told of a 14 year old girl and a (perpetrator) who apparently tried to pull her into his car. The article described the man as: “in his 30s to 40s, with a heavy build, very short hair and a possible broken nose.”
If you were stopped on the street and asked to describe Oprah Winfrey by someone who never saw her before […] what sort of a description would you give?
Would you say that she’s a slightly heavy woman, well dressed, with heavy make-up and relatively long dark hair? Or would you do what anyone with half a brain would do and mention that she’s black.
Of course, you’d have to do it in an off-hand manner — sort of like in passing — so as not to appear that you’ve noticed. Something like this: “Well, lets see, she’s kind of big boned. She’s very well dressed and wears a lot of make up. She’s got dark hair. And …..oh, what else?…..Let’s see….oh yeah…..she’s sort of….well…..black. Not that it matters of course”. Then grin sheepishly … and casually saunter away like you never mentioned it.
Wouldn’t it be silly to act that way? And yet, daily, the media bombards us with a litany of woefully inadequate descriptions of skinless, colorless perpetrators. And then we are asked to keep our eyes open and call crime-stoppers if we happen to spot one of these hideous, skinless aberrations.
Being afraid to mention someone’s skin color or ethnicity when describing them belays, at best, a neurotic predisposition toward political correctness. [Or] a cynical manipulative ploy to purposely prevent someone from discovering the truth. Like when our media sources describe wanted perpetrators. With them it’s all about manipulation. A deliberate omission of a crucial fact for the sole purpose of preventing us from encountering certain simple truths.
The [media] see themselves as the guardians of our perfect, “culti-mulcheral”, socialist utopia. They refuse to report a criminal’s color or ethnicity to ensure that certain groups, the ones that would otherwise be the subject of a disproportionate amount of negative coverage, are not identified as such. They seek to protect us from our own thoughts – thoughts that might rise up if we are told the truth. So they withhold the truth in the hopes that their thoughts supplant our own.
[…] The omission of an important truth can be as much a lie as a lie itself. And what have these lies accomplished? Speaking for myself, they have accomplished the exact opposite of what was intended. When I read or hear the description of a perpetrator in the media and the color or ethnicity of the perp is conspicuously omitted, I figure right away that the criminal is [NOT] White. After all, since when did the media care about protecting White people from discrimination and stereotyping?
[…] Our media messiahs have bigger priorities. Like, controlling our minds so we don’t think negative thoughts about any particular group of people.
Thankfully … most of us are cognizant, rational human beings with the capability to observe our world, and [have] the capacity to extract truth from it based on our personal experience. […] >Source