I see that “America’s first black President” (to quote Mark Mardell) has decided to weigh on and heaven forbid, gain a little political capital from the killing of the black teenager Trayvon Martin. Naturally this is reported with bated breath although even Mardell admits that  “These remarks are rare and deliberate, and some will find them controversial.” I guess the “some” Mardell refers to might be the parents of all those non-black teenagers murdered and sent to their graves without a word from “America’s first black President”?

Here’s the sort of analysis that the BBC would run a mile from allowing on their channels;

Why should the leader of the free wold dive head first into a racial controversy that has been blown far, far out of proportion by those who seek to use the death of a young black man for their own personal agendas? 

A Hispanic man shoots a black kid where no one knows the exact circumstances in which the shooting occurred and where we are likely never to know what happened. Instead of waiting for the facts, narratives have replaced truth and we have a full blown racial incident when it isn’t even clear that race was a factor. Obama could have said – should have said – “no comment.” Instead, he sought out an opportunity to stoke the fires of race hate:

Obama as a stoker of race hate? Surely not? I can remember being admonished by the BBC for referring to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as race hustlers so I can but imagine the reaction if I included their President of choice in the same category.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.