On my walk this morning, I was wearing a neon pink t-shirt. As often happens, I approached two women with their dogs; we always
exchange pleasantries and I get my dog fix (scratching dog ears). Suddenly one of the women looked at my t-shirt and said, “Isn’t Smith & Wesson a gun company?” I answered yes, and followed with my first stupid comment, “Yes, I own a gun.” She responded, “Oh, you were the last person I would expect to own a gun!” Second stupid response: “I promise not to shoot either of you,” as I walked away.
Okay, okay, I made some foolish comments in a record period of time. First, wearing the shirt publicly wasn’t the best idea, although I often wear it to my workout facility where no one has said anything. Second, after answering that Smith & Wesson was a gun company, I could have smiled and walked away. (Hey, it was 7:00am!) Or I could have said, “Yes, why do you ask?” and been open to a careful but friendly conversation.
More
Haaah-vahd is caught in a virtuous-victims vise, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving center of intersectional grievance mongers. For the past year, Harvard has been slowly bled by allegations and then ugly revelations about their administration’s racial problem with Asians. Now, Harvard is being sued for profiting today from the racist Harvard past, specifically by exploiting the image of a slave. The plaintiff claims she is a descendant of the exploited African-American and suffers harm herself in seeing the continued exploitation of her ancestor by Harvard.
