The Selective Offense Of "The Least Of These" / "Small People"

The news that the CEO of BP has offended many people who accept being called "Least of These" by his referce to them as "Small People" has me struggling to understand the rules of this term's use.  The term's acceptance based upon the person saying it and his intent is almost as arbitrary as is the use of "The N-Word".

I both cases the bigot who accepts or reject the term in such a selective manner would have a hard time committing the rules of use onto paper so that everyone can read its terms of use.

Please recall that upon the death of Ted Kennedy I posted a series of video and audio clips of Black Establishment operatives referring to Black people as "the Least Of These" in reference to Ted Kennedy's concern about our general "care and feeding" of the Negro.  In this case the use of the term was proof that an individual cares about the group that is in an "inferiorized" position.

You probably do not have the Flash Player (Get Adobe Flash Player Here) installed for your browser or the video files are misplaced on your server!

Please tell me why the use of the term "Small People" and "The Least of These" are not equally offensive?

Worse yet I am still  waiting for someone to detail the plans that these people have in making us the "UN-least of These" or "Normal Sized people" - our height and worth being determined by our character.


Slice And Dice

The second part of the CNN clip details the threats made by US Rep Stupack regarding his intention to "slice and dice" the BP CEO.

Let's roll back the clock and return a few hundred miles inland off of the Gulf of Mexico into the city of Jena Louisiana.   Recall when the local district attorney stood before a joint assembly of all students at Jena High School and said "Do you see this pen?  With one stroke I can ruin your life".   In this case, via the magic of the manipulation of audio waves through the air it was said that he was talking to the BLACK STUDENTS in the audience with his threat.  

The key point to be made is that the threat upon the individual students by an AUTHORITY figure was seen as a miscarriage of JUSTICE.   The fact that he had made up his mind before hand and wielded his power against 'the least of these' made his words offensive and out of character of a man of the law.

Why is it that when such a threat is voiced in advance against an "equal human being" that is operating under the auspices of a "corporation" this threat made by Stupack and others is seen as "good governance", "sticking it to the bad guys", "government reigning in the evil doers"? 

Where is the call for an even keel between both domains - the individual and the "corporate individual"?

When I say that a certain ideology throws up "Welfare Queens" while another ideology uses "Corporations as their Welfare Queens", attacking them for the same gratuitous reasons - do you all see what I am talking about?