Racial insensitivity

Share with others:

Print Email Read Later

The Post-Gazette's resident conservatives, Jack Kelly and Ruth Ann Dailey, seem to be having a contest for who can write the most racially insensitive column this week. Both, however unwittingly, reused some of the oldest tactics in the race-baiting handbook.

Mr. Kelly ("Murder for Fun: Why Did the Media Fail to Mention the Race of the Suspects in the Chris Lane Killing?" Aug. 25) appealed to old fears of African-American criminals by fear-mongering, arguing that black people are more likely to kill whites than vice versa while conveniently ignoring the fact that whites are still far more likely to kill whites. He also minimizes the role of a white teen charged in the crime, briefly mentioning him midway through the column and describing him only as an accomplice.

Arguably more offensive was Ms. Dailey's condescending column on Monday ("What a White Person Can Say: Let's Try Liberty," Aug. 26). Opening with a jeremiad about how oppressed white people are, she goes on to give a ham-handed critique of racial politics. Apparently fancying herself a conservative missionary, she implies that African-Americans would be better off if they thought and voted like her rather than the so-called "socialists."

I understand the Post-Gazette's desire to appeal to a wide range of political views, but one would think it would draw the line at its columnists appealing to racial animosities.




Create a free PG account.
Already have an account?