Trayvon’s Friend Explains Again Why ‘Cracka’ Isn’t Racist

Facebook Twitter Email
Facebook Twitter Email

I obviously missed the boat the first time the Zimmerman prosecutor’s “star witness” explained it: If you replace “er” at the end of a (universally perceived to be racist) word with “a”, that word is no longer racist.

Yep, “cracka” and “cracker” have entirely different meanings (as do “nig*a” and “that other word”).

Rachel “Creepy-Ass Cracka” Jeantel explained the whole thing to (ratings bottom-dweller) Piers Morgan:

Morgan: Let’s talk about “creepy-ass cracker.” People have said that that is a phrase used by black people – cracker – to describe a white person. Is that true?

Jeantel: No (with emphasis). Like I said -

Morgan, interrupting: How do you spell it, first of all?

Jeantel: Cracker. Well, you could -

Morgan, interrupting again: It’s not “er”, right?

Jeantel: No, it’s a [sic] “a” at the end -

Morgan (you guessed it, interrupting again): C-r-a-c-k-a, right?

Jeantel: Yeah! And that’s a person who act [sic] like they’re a police [sic] who, like, uh, a security guard, acting like, that’s what I said to them.

Setting aside Morgan’s heroic effort to shill for Jenteal (and everyone who believes as she does), I’m glad she finally cleared that up for us. But – call all me skeptical – something tells me that if “white people” ran around indiscriminately dropping the “N-word” bomb – with “a” at the end instead of “er,” of course – it wouldn’t go over too well. (Al Sharpton unavailable for comment.)

Oh, and here’s a memo to Piers: In England, you call “windshields” “windscreens.” Guess what? They’re the same thing.

Facebook Twitter Email
Facebook Twitter Email