The Wendy Bell diversion (op-ed)
After 4 Black women were murdered in Wilkinsburg, PA an emergency meeting was held and a councilwoman said, “We have regular homicides. This [shooting] was not normal. It was very, very calculated.”
This set the stage for abnormality.
Local news anchor Wendy Bell, a white woman, posted on social media her “mental sketch” of the killers. Instantly an offended school teacher labeled Bell’s viewpoint -- insensitive white privilege.
Bell said, “They are young black men, likely teens or in their early 20’s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs.”
Bell’s comments will be stereotypical to those that only see her as a white woman, but if she’s acknowledged as a professional it should be understood that her mental sketch was drawn by experience.
But the teacher saw nothing but a “very public figure”.
The teacher complained to the station, didn’t like the response, and then created a social media presence to expose Bell.
This is normal due to America’s racial divide, but the charges hurled against Bell were made by another white woman.
The white teacher stated Bell painted African American men in a degrading way because there were no descriptions given of the perpetrators.
The difference between the two white women is equivalent to the different perspectives provided by two black columnists a week before Bell’s comments.
Tony Norman/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled a column -- Monsters among Us: The Wilkinsburg Massacre. He wrote, “There is a natural assumption that even mass murder is the result of logical calculation … We have to allow for the possibility that the killers selected their victims randomly.”
Ulish Carter/New Pittsburgh Courier wrote, “Yet it’s another incidence of Black on Black murders that should spark national outrage … But won’t … Some one from the 15 people at the cookout knew one or both of them [meaning the killers], because somebody had to have told them about the gathering.”
Bell asserted Carter’s probabilities and the teacher promoted the random possibilities of Norman.
So why can’t they agree to disagree?
Because it’s possible the teacher resented Bell’s “realism” and was disappointed because Bell didn’t subscribe to a non-racial worldview which is a byproduct of “white guilt”.
“White guilt” is guilt by whites for racist treatment of minorities in the past. These individuals are overprotective of minority groups and attempt to fight racial grievances (real or imagined) in their place to prove they’re against racism.
When the teacher complained someone at the station offered to put Bell on the phone. The teacher said, “I didn’t want to talk to Wendy; I did not feel that would be a productive conversation … She has deleted two of my personal comments and blocked me from commenting on her page. I was not nasty … I expressed my dismay and was not aggressive.”
Ending the interview the teacher said about Bell, “I found it … Striking as to her own blindness to her own racism.” Then concluded with a phrase that proved the emptiness of her efforts she said, “I think she has good intentions but there is such systemic and problematic racism.”
In the 21st century racism is unfortunately preceded by adjectives. The most popular is institutional racism, but what is problematic racism?
That adjective makes all other forms non-problematic so the subtle racism she accused Bell of shouldn’t have been a problem.
But everything I wrote about Wendy Bell was a diversion.
The most offensive statement concerning the Wilkinsburg murders was made in the first sentence by the councilwoman. Until that false dichotomy is rejected "white privilege" will always mean to Wilkinsburg residents living in an area where homicides aren’t considered regular by elected officials.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 3/30/15
This set the stage for abnormality.
Local news anchor Wendy Bell, a white woman, posted on social media her “mental sketch” of the killers. Instantly an offended school teacher labeled Bell’s viewpoint -- insensitive white privilege.
Bell said, “They are young black men, likely teens or in their early 20’s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs.”
Bell’s comments will be stereotypical to those that only see her as a white woman, but if she’s acknowledged as a professional it should be understood that her mental sketch was drawn by experience.
But the teacher saw nothing but a “very public figure”.
The teacher complained to the station, didn’t like the response, and then created a social media presence to expose Bell.
This is normal due to America’s racial divide, but the charges hurled against Bell were made by another white woman.
The white teacher stated Bell painted African American men in a degrading way because there were no descriptions given of the perpetrators.
The difference between the two white women is equivalent to the different perspectives provided by two black columnists a week before Bell’s comments.
Tony Norman/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled a column -- Monsters among Us: The Wilkinsburg Massacre. He wrote, “There is a natural assumption that even mass murder is the result of logical calculation … We have to allow for the possibility that the killers selected their victims randomly.”
Ulish Carter/New Pittsburgh Courier wrote, “Yet it’s another incidence of Black on Black murders that should spark national outrage … But won’t … Some one from the 15 people at the cookout knew one or both of them [meaning the killers], because somebody had to have told them about the gathering.”
Bell asserted Carter’s probabilities and the teacher promoted the random possibilities of Norman.
So why can’t they agree to disagree?
Because it’s possible the teacher resented Bell’s “realism” and was disappointed because Bell didn’t subscribe to a non-racial worldview which is a byproduct of “white guilt”.
“White guilt” is guilt by whites for racist treatment of minorities in the past. These individuals are overprotective of minority groups and attempt to fight racial grievances (real or imagined) in their place to prove they’re against racism.
When the teacher complained someone at the station offered to put Bell on the phone. The teacher said, “I didn’t want to talk to Wendy; I did not feel that would be a productive conversation … She has deleted two of my personal comments and blocked me from commenting on her page. I was not nasty … I expressed my dismay and was not aggressive.”
Ending the interview the teacher said about Bell, “I found it … Striking as to her own blindness to her own racism.” Then concluded with a phrase that proved the emptiness of her efforts she said, “I think she has good intentions but there is such systemic and problematic racism.”
In the 21st century racism is unfortunately preceded by adjectives. The most popular is institutional racism, but what is problematic racism?
That adjective makes all other forms non-problematic so the subtle racism she accused Bell of shouldn’t have been a problem.
But everything I wrote about Wendy Bell was a diversion.
The most offensive statement concerning the Wilkinsburg murders was made in the first sentence by the councilwoman. Until that false dichotomy is rejected "white privilege" will always mean to Wilkinsburg residents living in an area where homicides aren’t considered regular by elected officials.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 3/30/15
Comments
Post a Comment