Well, here's a twist in my Cinco de Mayo sobriety. According to a blogger at The G-List, the widely reported attack on two gay men at a Dallas BBQ in Chelsea wasn't a case of gay bashing, but instead an incident basted in racial overtones, with an extra large side dish of "white gay privilege." The themes weigh heavily in a post that claims to tell the full story of the shocking incident in Chelsea. I'll let everyone judge for himself, but if the witness -- a guy called "YouTube personality Isaam 'Houston' Sharef" -- is correct that (beaten up) Jonathan Snipes did in fact initiate hitting one of the guys at the table that then attacked him -- after having already spilled one of their drinks and not apologizing -- I'd almost be willing to chalk this whole thing up to "I guess you get what you get when you go physically assaulting someone." (The use of a chair when Snipes was retreating speaks to the other man's complete lack of character, but it never would have happened if Snipes hadn't struck someone in the first place.) The blogger also claims to know the perceived "attacker" (bald guy with the chair) is actually a gay man, which deflates the "homophobic attack" theory even further.
Although I'm somewhat bewildered by the "white gay privilege" term -- The G-List describes Snipes' actions as coming off as "a pissed off privileged white gay man who thought that his skin color allowed him to approach brown-colored men [who called him a faggot in public] without repercussion because he felt the self-important right to put them in their places" (huh?) -- I guess I -- HAVING LIVED THROUGH THE HEIGHT OF THE AIDS EPIDEMIC WHEN NO ONE GAVE A FUCK ABOUT WHITE GAY MEN AS THEY DIED BY THE THOUSANDS -- should be happy to be alive at a time when it's actually something that is being considered. (I doubt many white gays in the sticks -- or at any Cracker Barrel -- would agree much, though.) Still, if Isaam Sharef is telling the truth, I can't help but wonder if pinning this sad event and the ensuing coverage on some vast "white gay privilege" theory isn't a bit much. when in fact it may be just that Jonathan Snipes is an asshole. (Sorry, being drunk and/or getting bad news is no excuse for laying your hand -- or foot -- on someone, although if someone were popping gum I may be willing to hear you out ...)
But that's just me.
Another thought: Even if Isaam Houston Sharef is correct, will the general public really care about the "full story" considering the attacker's decision to escalate things so dramatically and pick up that chair and throw it at the guys? Doesn't seem like a person -- white gay privileged or otherwise -- has to manipulate ANYONE to think that is just a step too far.
If Isaam Sharef isn't correct -- and even if the bald "attacker" is gay -- and he really did what the video appears to show he did, isn't the blogosphere right that Mr. (Not Fighting) Clean should be arrested and charged ... for assault with a deadly weapon?
Read for yourself HERE.
P.S. I'm so "WGP" I thought the bald "attacker" was (a white) Hispanic!
UPDATE: Police released surveillance video of the chair-wielder, but despite everyone and their brother knowing who he is, he has yet to be caught. (Plenty of bitches, but very few snitches.) The guy is now being described as "trade." I'd add unnecessarily rough to that.
4 comments:
I think it's bullshit. WGP is the go-to term of some of the biggest assholes I've heard of. When someone likes to use the term privilege, it's a redflag. Like listening to someone say 'homosexual' when 'gay' would be more reader friendly.
This smacks of the old argument: "I saw it all, from sixty feet away, around the corner, my back was turned, and I was playing with my cellphone, and only looked up in time to cheer and record when this guy got beatdown with this chair!"
Ken --
You link to 2 Black Gay men -- Islaam with 2 last names, and Waddie G, a total piece of shit who refused to give the chair wielder's name to the cops. Both live in Jersey, have it in for White Gays, and are, especially, shit-Waddie, egomaniacs.
Anytime I read a Black person citing "skin color", I know I am dealing with someone who overlooks the cultural differences and prejudices, and makes it about color (which is not a choice, while behvior is)
I saw the chair wielder as Black, and I also saw him as a swaggering jerk, in video where he enters the place.
Snipes was an idiot to confront him, particulary because he is a 50% larger man, but that did not merit assault with a deadly weapon
I can't believe you'd think "you get what you came for" regarding the chair. "You get what you came for" would only apply IF the white guy threw the first punch, and would only cover a normal fight. The mystery man stomped on his head, and then out of nowhere cracked a chair over the men. That is not covered by self-defense, legally.
Also, the highly racially inflammatory bullshit comments by the Waddie G, Esquire, are stomach-turning. He states that the white guys have some sense of privilege for daring to think they had a right to talk back to black men without repercussions, and yet he seems to think the black men had a right to talk trash to the white guys with no repercussions. Repercussions should including verbal stuff. Again, if the white guy thew the first punch—and that's not proven, and is only coming out after the first round of information—he's at fault, too, and assaulted the guy. If.
How shady is it that the witness with the video initially talked only about how outrageous the beating was, with the mystery man stomping on his victim's head in a way that could have caused death, then only later did he add more details that seemed to deflate the narrative?
Plus a random witness claiming the N-word was hurled. Sounds a lot like trying to make the guy with the chair seem like he was acting normally. He wasn't, no matter what happened, the head-stomping and chair-cracking were attempted murder. The guys are lucky as hell they didn't die.
@Anonymous 2: Exactly my point. White privilege exists, no question about it. But it's adding the "gay" to it that perplexes me. It's not like the establishment jumped up and said, "Oh, no. Don't let these preppy white boys die of AIDS" while shunning people of color. We've all been treated shitty across the board -- and we're all benefiting from finally having a president who finally drew a line in the sand and said that we're all equal.
I think people are conflating issues of race and socioeconomic status, which obviously do have some connection. But not in the way it's being portrayed here.
@Matt: I said "almost" :-)
Post a Comment