The general public will consume it and the media will force it down our throats like green cough syrup. Many people realize that racism is still a real problem in America, and there still are many injustices committed to minorities even in today's day and age. Yet in this particular case of an African American female, who allegedly cut in front of people at a Wal-Mart checkout line, accused police officers and patrons of racism and inappropriate remarks which caused her outrage. Maybe? Or maybe now this small town in the southern/mid part of the U.S might get a special visit from the ever-opportunistic Reverend Al Sharpton if the people of Kennett, Missouri can scrape together $65,000 for his appearance fees. If she was in the right, then why was she treated like a criminal; because she became angry, because she is angry, or because she is a black woman living in the southern part of the United States? But, if she was completely in the wrong, in the sense of appropriate public behavior as one human being to another, then what? Why can’t facts and logic dictate who’s at fault without blurring the issue with color? Why does there even need to be a discussion about ulterior motives for someone neglecting the existence of another human being two feet away from them? I believe that may say it all, if that was the case.
Here is a genius quote from a sixteen year old ward of the state that I used to mentor in 2001. He said, “Sometimes an inconsiderate jerk is called an inconsiderate jerk for being an inconsiderate jerk.” If she was inconsiderate and cut in line, then she’s an extremely selfish and entitled person who happens to be black, and her action was wrong, period. Yet race is the focus? If racial slurs were thrown at her then it was handled wrong, period. I guess the eye-for-an-eye biblical fallacy or the Machiavellian egocentric idea that the end justifies the means are still popular American misconceptions. Legally, who wins a stalemate?
On a side note, doesn't a racial comment usually begin by looking over your shoulder or something like that? How angry does a "Christian Caucasian American" living below the Mason-Dixon Line have to be to say those things to another human being? Here's the reality of the situation- if a person thinks it (racially charged comment) and doesn't say anything at that moment it's just as bad as saying it. This person isn't any different from the white hooded angry racist who blames minorities for this country's problems and who usually detinates the “N- word” into the air like a pipe bomb for emphasis. Instead, they’re covert like the CIA or PETA for that matter. This person may feel vindicated by showing restraint of their impulses, or on the other hand, they may just verbalize these racial comments when driving in their car with the windows up. Either way, that's where the problem originates in people, with a thought.
The truth is that these words only hold weight because many people allow these words to affect or control their emotions in either direction-as a victim or as an aggressor. Unfortunately, let’s face it, the unconscious result of anger comes from being hurt, and in this case, anger got the best of many involved. Ask yourself this, if someone intentionally says something hurtful to you, deserving or not, and you become angry, do you want to hurt the person responsible or do you hurt the person responsible? Some may retaliate by force, others by words, yet some just don’t care to engage in negativity because of its irrelevance. Which one are you?
Here's a question- What is the easiest insult to come up with about another person? The obvious easiest insult is what you can see. Is it human nature to want to hurt when you are hurt? Maybe for some, but the fact is it shouldn't matter. Today, the punitive ideology of control especially with race has become more subtle, less obvious. Thankfully, the days of drawing the racial line with German Shepherds and fire hoses are long gone, but since when did Newton’s Law of Reciprocal Action, “for every action there is an opposite action or reaction,” develop an exception to the rule because of the race card?
Like the Tawana Brawley incident in 1988, the impact it had on the racism only widen the rift between everyone's view. Will the race card ever be tossed away and replaced by “you know what, I was wrong. 
I’m sorry.” This crying wolf scenario in the name of racism has been overused to the point that it’s unemotionally numbing and discredited even if there is truth in the matter. It’s disheartening to know that minorities with legitimate complaints may be stereotyped by most, right from the start. And those stereotypes are ramifications to stories like the woman who couldn’t wait in line at Wal-Mart; like the Harvard Professor who broke into his own home and was arrested, or the Columbian Professor who punched a white lady in the face during a heated racial discussion at a local bar. Being a minority isn’t an excuse for acting impulsively. Maybe this insignificant racial tug of war about blame won’t change in my lifetime, or maybe I’m being idealistic, thinking that we can evolve past these petty differences. The discussion needs to be addressed with emotions turned off and the beliefs which initiate them. Here in the United States, we can only begin to achieve this by taking personal responsibility for ourselves, without any internal blame or outside influences. This would undoubtedly eliminate the invisible battle lines and true progress can occur. But if lines of communication fail, so does this experiment called America.
