I read this article about Skittles' rising profits after the killing of Trayvon Martin and got a bit annoyed at what was basically an assumption that this issue has anything to do with race. I understand that all Trayvon was doing was buying Skittles and iced tea, and that is indeed very innocent. However, I fail to see the link between the innocence of simply purchasing candy, and then being shot because one is black. And now there are suggestions to boycott Skittles by members of certain black communities? Why? What would the point of that be? The issue at hand deals with a teenager who may have been unfairly pursued and shot or who may have attacked another man and subsequently shot out of protection. Not what candy he went into the local convenience store to buy. And I understand how powerful a message can be made using Skittles to point out what some know for sure is his innocence, but threatening to cease purchasing of a product because the manufacturer of that product will not donate money to the family of Martin is ridiculous. It is racist to assume that the whole situation has to do with race.
Le Info
- Ravi Barua
- I'm Ravi. My last name is Barua. From that information, you can make a sound judgement that my full name is John Micklos.
The skittles represent the item he had that led to his death. Its like a sword that belongs to a famous general it represents who he was and the skittles represent trayvon martin being killed since zimmerman thought it was a weapon and he thought he was fishy to be in the area.
ReplyDelete