The Case of Trayvon Martin

[SakamotoHD]

I have a severe distaste for discussing most of the issues of today. As a rule I watch the news everyday, but I never talk about it with others. It's simply too depressing. I suppose I reached a boiling point with the case of Trayvon Martin though.

Allow me to set a few disclaimers so that the reason of my agitation can be made clear. I'm not leaning towards one side or the other. I think the situation was bad, and the outcome was another life has been lost, and a loss of one life is a loss to us all. My issue, isn't with the case itself. Even the words spoken, or the evidence admitted. No that's not the issue.

My issue is with how the case was handled.

The biggest, and most infuriating thing I have had, listening to this, was the freaking play-by-play cameras where we portray any criminal trial like it was the Roman Colosseum. Why on earth were there cameras allowed in a court room. For what reason do we put these people on public display like a bad reality TV show, just so we can publicly lynch them. The trial of Casey Anthony, and OJ Simpson, though I was a little young for OJ, would have also had bile in my throat at the thought of this. Like an Emperor from on high, we either have a thumb stuck up, or stuck down, condemning literally anyone, when we have these public lynchings. This isn't about justice, this isn't about racism, this is about people wanting to get their "thrills". The media doesn't seem to really be going into wanting to report news anymore. They just want to put people on display, and let the masses sate their bloodlust on seeing people get announced guilty.

You know at the federal level, that kid who let those bombs off in the boston, they don't allow cameras. Why? Because it's to preserve the dignity of the accused, and the accuser. You may say "But Saka, that kid was evil, he deserves to be put on display, for all of us to despise what he did." It's just not our place to do that. We become nothing less then animals staring at a prime rib steak that's just hanging, waiting. I really dislike how the media handles these cases that get alot of popularity. None of us are satisfied unless someone gets declared guilty.

Again, it's sad what happened, where lives were lost because of reckless actions, and it sucks what has happened to both sides, regardless of whatever outcome was served. But I sit here, and after reading a news report, I see all these comments with people and their self-entitled opinons, their "predictions" and their justifications. "Oh millions of americans believe Zimmerman is guilty! Justice must be served!"

These people just don't even know what Justice is.

I welcome anything anyone might have to say about this. This really was just for me, cause I wanted to rant about this.

[Cyrano Johnson]

The public pressure and outrage is the reason it came to trial at all; the Sanford PD originally tried to sweep it under the rug. And one has to admit that when someone gets fatally shot, a trial is usually in order. So while I get your misgivings about the role of the public arena, its functions are not all negative.

But let's be real. There would have been no need for a public outcry to get the case into a courtroom had the roles been reversed, and Martin had stalked, confronted and shot Zimmerman. There would have been no question of the "self-defense" rationalization saving Martin in a scenario where that happened. Had Martin hunted some poor bastard down and seen fit to blow him away for having the temerity to defend himself, the people who have defended Zimmerman's actions would have pilloried him, and an all-white jury would have buried him deep in a hole for life with the same facility with which it saw fit to acquit Zimmerman.

Anyone who tells me they are in doubt about any of the above points? I do not believe them, point blank. If the Martin case performs any function at all, it should be to lay to rest the "post-racial America" myth.

[Callie Del Noire]

Words fail me on how this could have happened. I am disgusted with the fact that it came down to 'poor Zimmerman' got beat up by the big black kid. Ridiculous. He shot the kid, stalked the boy after being TOLD to back off. He had past actions that showed he was a gun happy jumping at shadows type of guy.

He should have never been allowed to have a gun and what is worse now.. if anything happens to him it's going to be because of the trial.

[Oniya]

When I had cable, I watched the court channel.  A lot.  I know that not all the media handles it as well as Vinnie and the gang, but there's something a lot of people don't realize:

Trials are public. 

On any given day, you can go down to your local courthouse, sit in line (maybe) and watch the US Justice System in action.  Every juror, whether they are dealing with the guy who busted up the local Seven-Eleven, or someone who killed 37 women and stashed their bodies in the walls of his townhouse, is told not to read, listen to, or discuss anything about the trial, but you - The Celebrated Man In The Street - can sit and watch with your own eyes and listen with your own ears .  And yes, as long as you're not talking with a juror, you can discuss what you've seen and heard, and reach your own conclusions.

It used to be that depictions of what went on in a courtroom were limited to journalists' notes and the flying fingers of the sketch artists.  Journalists could put their own spin on what they saw, and yes - sway public opinion.  With the advent of cameras, the public actually have the opportunity to be less swayed, as they can see what's actually being presented and said.

Frankly, I'd be more concerned if trials were not able to be viewed by the public.

[SakamotoHD]

I'm aware you can go to a courthouse to watch some trials if you so choose. What gets me is how no one would seem satisfied if there wasn't a guilty sentence. If someone wasn't condemned. And the media just makes it worse. I'm not opposed to people knowing the facts, and reporting back with the findings. But as I was flipping the channels there were two channels that had "Martin Watch" in the headlines.

If this trial was so bloody important, what happened to the other brutal murders? The daily Chicago shootings. Why aren't these being publicized? It's cause those don't sell. They don't bring in the viewers. They aren't hot topics.

I'm not against talking about a case, and I'm certainly not trying to say there shouldn't be any form of news on trials that are nationally publicized. The attitude behind it, that bloodlust I feel from the people in these comments, on the media, or the protesters. That's what I dislike. And I think the cameras are too much. When they do the drawings for federal cases, I'm alright with that. But these cameras that are just staring at you in the face while you're being put on trial for murder. It goes back to my previous points.

[vtboy]

Frankly, I'd be more concerned if trials were not able to be viewed by the public.

Amen.

I'm aware you can go to a courthouse to watch some trials if you so choose. What gets me is how no one would seem satisfied if there wasn't a guilty sentence. If someone wasn't condemned. And the media just makes it worse. I'm not opposed to people knowing the facts, and reporting back with the findings. But as I was flipping the channels there were two channels that had "Martin Watch" in the headlines.

If this trial was so bloody important, what happened to the other brutal murders? The daily Chicago shootings. Why aren't these being publicized? It's cause those don't sell. They don't bring in the viewers. They aren't hot topics.

Yeah, the media prefers the sensational, as do most readers and viewers. What else is new under the Sun?

Words fail me on how this could have happened. I am disgusted with the fact that it came down to 'poor Zimmerman' got beat up by the big black kid. Ridiculous. He shot the kid, stalked the boy after being TOLD to back off. He had past actions that showed he was a gun happy jumping at shadows type of guy.

He should have never been allowed to have a gun and what is worse now.. if anything happens to him it's going to be because of the trial.

I was outraged by the initial determination of the authorities not to charge Zimmerman. Like you, I believe Zimmerman was likely the aggressor, and shot Martin without justification.

BUT, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution, and that burden requires that it establish every element of the crime charged (including elimination of self-defense) by proof which leaves no reasonable doubt as to guilt. It is a daunting standard, and one which no jury should ever diminish. Though I think the evidence could have supported a guilty verdict, I can't say it was unreasonable for the jury to find doubt. In the end, the system functioned as it should, and I hope those disappointed with the verdict won't assume racism or other improper consideration entered into the jury's calculus. 

[meikle]

This was a pretty frustrating case because it kind of came down to, "Zimmerman was acting in self defense."

But how do we know for sure that he was not the aggressor?

He killed the only other person who could know the answer to the question, "Who initiated the hostilities?"

I don't like that killing witnesses is a way to avoid going to jail, but I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it.  We certainly can't put the guy in jail because it looks bad if there's no evidence either way about who started things (no matter how much I am convinced that the whole thing where he stalked a kid through his neighborhood makes it clear that it was his initiative.)

[RubySlippers]

This is why women should not be on a jury without men, sorry but men think differently and that can bring various perspectives IMHO.

As I see this if Zimmerman stayed in his car as he was told to and do nothing this all would not have happened and how can it be self-defense if your going to the trouble willingly and armed better than the other party?

Could they try to nail him with a Federal charge and add hate crime standards to it, it couldn't be manslaughter or murder but what about some set of lesser charges?

[Vekseid]

This was a pretty frustrating case because it kind of came down to, "Zimmerman was acting in self defense."

But how do we know for sure that he was not the aggressor?

He killed the only other person who could know the answer to the question, "Who initiated the hostilities?"

I don't like that killing witnesses is a way to avoid going to jail, but I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it.  We certainly can't put the guy in jail because it looks bad if there's no evidence either way about who started things (no matter how much I am convinced that the whole thing where he stalked a kid through his neighborhood makes it clear that it was his initiative.)

Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only other witness - Martin's girlfriend - could not keep her story straight.

Expert testimony said Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. This also matched Zimmerman's testimony. He did keep his story straight.

Zimmerman may have been an idiot. That, unfortunately, is not a crime in this country.

[Valthazar]

This whole case has been blown so out of proportion.  14,000 people are murdered per year in the US, and the media decides to obsess over this case because race-issues always get people interested.  Everything from describing Zimmerman as a "white hispanic" to releasing innocent looking pictures of Trayvon make this entire case seem biased along racial lines.

Zimmerman made a bad choice, but he did not violate Florida law.  I applaud the jury for making a decision based on laws, and not emotion.

EDIT:  Oops, 14,000 per year, not day :P

[Oniya]

Yeah, the media prefers the sensational, as do most readers and viewers. What else is new under the Sun?

Also, not all jurisdictions currently allow cameras in the courtroom, and in some, the decision is left up to the individual judges.  Ohio and Florida are two that I recall are have fairly 'open access.' 

[vtboy]

Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only other witness - Martin's girlfriend - could not keep her story straight.

Expert testimony said Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. This also matched Zimmerman's testimony. He did keep his story straight.

Zimmerman may have been an idiot. That, unfortunately, is not a crime in this country.

It's not even a disqualification from responsible public office.

[Cyrano Johnson]

how can it be self-defense if your going to the trouble willingly and armed better than the other party?

This is what really tears it for me. It's pretty hard -- in fact it should not be possible -- to claim "self-defense" when the other party was unarmed and you created the confrontation.

[Trieste]

Criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only other witness - Martin's girlfriend - could not keep her story straight.

Expert testimony said Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. This also matched Zimmerman's testimony. He did keep his story straight.

Zimmerman may have been an idiot. That, unfortunately, is not a crime in this country.

Aren't the jails crowded enough without adding idiocy to the law books? :P

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay THIS is why that damn stupid law needs to go away. Zimmerman goes free while a woman here in Jacksonville faces 20 years for NOT shooting her ex who was violating a protective order. If she had shot him dead, she'd have qualified for the 'Stand your Ground' protections but instead she fire in the air.  So, she gets twenty YEARS for exercising restrain while Zimmerman who didn't obey the 9/11 operators directive incited an incident that resulted in death.

Ridiculous.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

[Valthazar]

Okay THIS is why that damn stupid law needs to go away. Zimmerman goes free while a woman here in Jacksonville faces 20 years for NOT shooting her ex who was violating a protective order. If she had shot him dead, she'd have qualified for the 'Stand your Ground' protections but instead she fire in the air.  So, she gets twenty YEARS for exercising restrain while Zimmerman who didn't obey the 9/11 operators directive incited an incident that resulted in death.

Ridiculous.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/

It is very possible to claim self-defense when the other party is unarmed.  If the unarmed individual commits a violent act (such as punching you), you have a right to use force with the stand-your-ground law.  With regard to this particular law, "confrontation" refers to who initiated physical force, which in this example, would be the unarmed person.

The reason why Marissa Alexander was found guilty, is because she is the one who initiated that particular "confrontation."  Regardless of whether or not her husband was abusive in the past, unless he initiated physical force in that particular instant, she was the one who initiated the "physical confrontation" - which in that particular incident, was unprovoked.

Unfortunately, people in the media have already begun turning Marissa Alexander's guilty verdict as an example of racial bias - without fully understanding the legal basis of the ruling.

This article explains the events in more detail:
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-16/story/marissa-alexanders-husband-says-it-was-her-violent-nature-led-shooting

[Slywyn]

According to the laws of Florida and the way a trial works, Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

Morally? He probably should have left the kid alone.

But as far as the law's concerned he's innocent, and that's all that really matters in a case like this.

[Callie Del Noire]

Still she showed restraint.. and at the TIME she didn't have a record. Whereas Zimmerman did and had shown lack of judgement in his actions that night. We will never really know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. Do I think she should have gotten off? No, there was a need to put out something to show her that more consideration was merited but the man who violated her protective order should have been considered. Honestly, seeing the segments locally (I live in Jax) the husband comes across as a bit.. shifty in the segments and interviews.  I think loss of her firearm license and probation would have been more in tune with the actions, with counseling for BOTH. My outrage is more towards the out of proportion action of the DA.

If I wanted to really froth on the thing it would be something like the Micheal Dunn case, where he put 8 shots into a nearby SUV of kids and fled the scene..THEN tried to claim SYG.

My basic outrage is this.. Stand Your Ground is a flawed law. It needs to go. When it is the foundation for people like Dunn trying to get out of the consequences of his actions and muddying the waters in the Martin and Alexander cases. I think that Marissa Alexander would be better served by probation and counseling than sitting in a cell for the next two decades.

Honestly.. I think there is a definite disconnect in how some DAs judge how to prosecute. There is very little accountability in their actions by and large. The Duke Lacross team case a few years ago is another example. Had it not been shown that the DA, Mike Nifong, had committed multiple instances of violating the rights of the accused.. he would have walked away with basically committing perjury and jury tampering.

My brother, who is a lawyer, was there for the disbarment hearing (I don't recall if he was there to vote or not) and as a former Assistance DA.. he was very firm in his outlook that he believed there needed to be more accountability and control.

That is my issue with these sort of things. Too often politics comes into play (on both sides) and justice takes a backseat to the rules/poltics/agenda.

I wish I could hear how things were going with the Dunn case.. but I haven't seen anything new in a while.  I don't think the instances he and Zimmerman evoked should be protected. Zimmerman might have wound up in a fight for his life, but had he obeyed the 9/11 operator Martin would possibly still be alive and nothing would have come out of this. I doubt the cops who would have responded would have had the confrontation that occurred between the two.

[Cyrano Johnson]

It is very possible to claim self-defense when the other party is unarmed.

Not if it's you who attacks them and creates the situation, you can't.  Which very, very clearly applies to Zimmerman.

But as far as the law's concerned he's innocent, and that's all that really matters in a case like this.

No, it's actually not all that matters, since it's a legal precedent that is effectively legitimizing reckless vigilantism, assault, and then committing murder when your assault turns around on you. The case hasn't generated the level of public interest it has for nothing.

[Valthazar]

Not if it's you who attacks them and creates the situation, you can't.  Which very, very clearly applies to Zimmerman.

Like I said, 'confrontation' refers to physical confrontation.  Why are you so confident that Zimmerman attacked first?  Zimmerman's defense was that Trayvon had attacked him first.  The prosecution failed to demonstrate to the contrary.

Stand your ground is a law that is meant to protect us.  If someone is assaulting you, you want a law that allows you to use deadly force without having to worry about going to jail.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Why are you so confident that Zimmerman attacked first?

Zimmerman got out of his car and initiated the physical confrontation voluntarily. That part of the timeline is clear. At that point whether Martin punched him first or not is not relevant. He deliberately created a situation that he knew perfectly well could end lethally. He did so without justification or excuse, and for basically the sole reason of his regarding black people with automatic suspicion.

Again: if Martin had stalked and confronted him, and then shot him, I can guarantee you that very few of those now defending Zimmerman would be trying to slice and dice the timeline to make excuses for Martin.

If someone is assaulting you, you want a law that allows you to use deadly force without having to worry about going to jail.

A law which provides the perfect cover for would-be vigilantes to deliberately create circumstances in which they'll have the excuse to lethally "defend themselves." It' amazing that people actually crafted and implemented a law like that without having any sense of how it could be abused... but this case demonstrates it perfectly.

[Slywyn]

He's the neighborhood watch captain(or was). By getting out of his car and confronting the person walking in his neighborhood who he didn't know, he was fulfilling the station that he held.

It's equivalent to seeing someone walking onto a military base as a guard and getting out of your patrol vehicle to go see what they're up to. Zimmerman was taking on the role of the guard. Martin was the 'unknown' person.

Or would you just rather we tell all the guards that they can no longer confront people.

Martin punching him first is extremely relevant.

It doesn't matter if martin was black or white or a rainbow spaghetti monster. If he punched first and Zimmerman defended himself, then Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

[Cyrano Johnson]

He's the neighborhood watch captain(or was). By getting out of his car and confronting the person walking in his neighborhood who he didn't know, he was fulfilling the station that he held.

No, he wasn't. He was actually explicitly instructed by law enforcement not to do it (the Sanford PD already knew him as something of a nut). Neighbourhood watches function in collaboration with law enforcement; random "volunteer" vigilantes are not in fact entitled to just walk randomly up to people, whether they're from the neighbourhood or not, and demand their papers.

And it does matter that Martin was black, quite obviously it matters, as that is the reason he was targeted as being supposedly foreign to the neighbourhood. Again: imagine a case where a black self-appointed vigilante had stalked, confronted and murdered Zimmerman for being in the wrong neighbourhood. Would you be defending them as "fulfilling their function as guards"?

[Valthazar]

Zimmerman got out of his car and initiated the physical confrontation voluntarily. That part of the timeline is clear. At that point whether Martin punched him first or not is not relevant. He deliberately created a situation that he knew perfectly well could end lethally. He did so without justification or excuse, and for basically the sole reason of his regarding black people with automatic suspicion.

Again: if Martin had stalked and confronted him, and then shot him, I can guarantee you that very few of those now defending Zimmerman would be trying to slice and dice the timeline to make excuses for Martin.

A law which provides the perfect cover for would-be vigilantes to deliberately create circumstances in which they'll have the excuse to lethally "defend themselves." It' amazing that people actually crafted and implemented a law like that without having any sense of how it could be abused... but this case demonstrates it perfectly.

Like I said earlier, you are defining the term 'confrontation' incorrectly.  Just because Zimmerman went up to Trayvon and had some words with him does not mean he initiated a physical confrontation (as far as the law goes).   So whether Martin punched him first or not is very much relevant - and as the court ruling has revealed, the prosecution was unable to prove Zimmerman wrong in his statement.

Also, would-be vigilantes would need to be first physically assaulted by an individual, to use the Stand-Your-Ground law as a defense.  This law has been around since 2005, and the only reason this case received so much media attention is because it involved a black 'innocent' boy and a 'white' hispanic.

I am not talking about the morality of this, but purely the legal basis as it stands today.  We can all have our ideas of what the moral thing to do would have been.

[Cyrano Johnson]

We can also all have ideas about whether Stand Your Ground is an insane and immoral law that empowers reckless vigilantism and needs to be stricken from the books. Which, obviously, it is.

[Slywyn]

No, he wasn't. He was actually explicitly instructed by law enforcement not to do it (the Sanford PD already knew him as something of a nut). Neighbourhood watches function in collaboration with law enforcement; random "volunteer" vigilantes are not in fact entitled to just walk randomly up to people, whether they're from the neighbourhood or not, and demand their papers.

And it does matter that Martin was black, quite obviously it matters, as that is the reason he was targeted as being supposedly foreign to the neighbourhood. Again: imagine a case where a black self-appointed vigilante had stalked, confronted and murdered Zimmerman for being in the wrong neighbourhood. Would you be defending them as "fulfilling their function as guards"?

He was instructed by the dispatch(Who are not police officers) to not go talk to the guy. He went and talked to him anyway.

Talking to someone is not against the law.

If a black guy(I don't understand why race matters here, but whatever) in my neighborhood who was the watch captain(Doing his job), found some asian kid who was where he wasn't supposed to be(Or thought he was where he wasn't supposed to be) and asked him to leave, and the asian kid attacked him?

Damn right I'd be defending his right to do whatever he has to in order to defend himself. That's what the law is about. If you're attacked you can do what is necessary to survive.

[Valthazar]

All I know is that if someone was legitimately attacking me, and I fight back, and god-forbid the guy somehow dies in the altercation, I want a law that protects me. 

[Slywyn]

All I know is that if someone was legitimately attacking me, and I fight back, and god-forbid the guy somehow dies in the altercation, I want a law that protects me.

Otherwise

"You murdered him!"

"He was trying to stab me!"

"But he died!"

"I would have died if I hadn't defended myself!"

"But he died!"

[Cyrano Johnson]

Talking to someone is not against the law.

Following someone in the dark and attempting to intimidate them most certainly constitutes provocation in most jurisdictions. Once you've provoked violence, claiming "self-defense" gets more complicated and lethally shooting is still murder... except where certain classes of the populace can resort to absurd contrivances like the "Stand Your Ground" law.

I don't understand why race matters here

Uh, no. Don't go telling me you don't understand why race matters. Trayvon was a black guy in a majority white neighbourhood and was targeted by Zimmerman for this reason. It's tiresome to watch people pretend to not see very, very obvious racial dynamics in interactions like this, and I do not believe this kind of faux-naif pretense. I don't believe that you believe it.

Damn right I'd be defending his right to do whatever he has to in order to defend himself.

You're defending his right to dispense arbitrary intimidation, harassment and then murder when the first two don't work out. That is what you are defending. Don't be under any illusions about that.

[Cyrano Johnson]

All I know is that if someone was legitimately attacking me, and I fight back, and god-forbid the guy somehow dies in the altercation, I want a law that protects me.

And I'd want a law that doesn't entitle a guy to shoot me with impunity any time he picks a fistfight with me and then loses. That's insanity.

[Slywyn]

That is his job, he is a guard.

Guards follow people around in the dark all the time. It is not that strange of an occurrence. If he just walked up to him to ask what he's doing, that's not intimidation. At no point did anyone suggest he walked up to Martin, gun waving, going "omg kid get out of my neighborhood I'm gonna shoot your face". That would be intimidation. Going up to someone and going "hey, what are you doing here" is not that.

I don't understand why race matters. I said it. I don't. It doesn't matter to me, it doesn't matter to my family. It seems like a petty, kind of shallow way to try to divide people. I'm friends with people of every race, even *gasp*, white and black people. It's not that big of a deal to me, I was not raised to make it a big deal, so no, I do not understand.

I am defending his right to use force against force if someone attacks him(which is what we can prove happened), because we all know damn well that "No stop it" does nothing to stop the guy bashing your head into a curb.

And I'd want a law that doesn't entitle a guy to shoot me with impunity any time he picks a fistfight with me and then loses. That's insanity.

Let's take this to an extreme for a moment.

Guy walks up to you. Guy starts insulting you and your significant other. You punch the guy. Guess what? You were still wrong. You threw the first punch. You are wrong.

That is what happened. Zimmerman walked up. He talked to Martin. Martin attacked. This is the most credible example of the chain of events that we have. Martin was in the wrong. That's not a hard concept to grasp. Even if someone 'picks a fight', if you throw the first punch you are wrong. The end.

[Ephiral]

If a black guy(I don't understand why race matters here, but whatever) in my neighborhood who was the watch captain(Doing his job), found some asian kid who was where he wasn't supposed to be(Or thought he was where he wasn't supposed to be) and asked him to leave, and the asian kid attacked him?

Key point: Approaching suspects? Not neighbourhood watch's job. Carrying weapons? Not neighbourhood watch's job. In fact, it's specifically advised against by every law-enforcement agency that trains neighbourhood watch volunteers. He can't use that title as a shield when (even assuming his story is 100% pure truth) he was trying to do the job of a police officer.

That is his job, he is a guard.

You seem to be confusing neighbourhood watch (civilian observers) with security guards. He very explicitly is not a guard in any capacity.

Valthazar, since you're arguing strictly from the law... what about 776.041(2)? It seems pretty clear to me that Zimmmerman was provoking Martin, and - in following and confronting him - obviously did not exhaust every reasonable means of escape or make a good-faith effort to stand down.

For the record, I think that the stand your ground law is waaaaay overly broad, as it explicitly condones massive escalation of force on flimsy justification. Particularly shitty and incredibly liable to lead to bad outcomes: Remember all the outrage about how the police briefly questioned Zimmerman and then turned him loose? Yeah, that's baked in.

[Slywyn]

Well where I'm from neighborhood watch is basically security for the neighborhood. If I remember correctly they're even paid.

[Cyrano Johnson]

That is his job, he is a guard.

No. Being a guard, paid or not (and again, Zimmerman was a self-appointed "volunteer"), does not make it okay for you to start fights. That is not the function of a guard. You don't know the function of a guard if that's what you think it is

It seems like a petty, kind of shallow way to try to divide people

I really find objectionable the kind of fake color-blindness that only seems to come up as a way to try to shut people up when they point out that racism is happening. "Race shouldn't matter" is a worthy thing to say; it is a petty way to try to divide people. But when someone only mentions this by way of trying to pretend that whoever points out that racism does exist or is happening is "the real racist" or some version of that sentiment, that is a lie. Were I running a board I would make this kind of perverse rhetorical trickery a bannable offense, I'm not kidding, because I find it very hard to believe that this is an honest error.

But hey, play it any way you need to. This being E, I will simply say that's enough of this thread for me. I said what I needed to say.

[Slywyn]

I'm not trying to 'play' anything. It really does not matter to me, and I don't understand the kind of mindset that makes it matter.

[Valthazar]

I also don't understand why race matters here, because the case has nothing to do with race.  This could be two white guys, two black guys, or two asian guys, and the Zimmerman's defense wouldn't have changed.  The media is the one injecting racial politics into this by using age 12-year old pictures of Trayvon where he looks very clean-cut.

This type of situation could have happened to any of us.  I am sure everyone has gotten into a fight at least once - some drunk idiot at a bar, or a bully at school.  These laws are intended to protect victims so they won't go to jail for defending themselves.

Valthazar, since you're arguing strictly from the law... what about 776.041(2)? It seems pretty clear to me that Zimmmerman was provoking Martin, and - in following and confronting him - obviously did not exhaust every reasonable means of escape or make a good-faith effort to stand down.

I read that clause here:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

So merely going up to Martin and talking due to suspicion, as his defense claims, is not in violation of the law.  How was Zimmerman to know that Martin posed a threat when he was initially going up to him?  He only knew that Martin was a threat after he started physically assaulting him.  Zimmerman may have been suspicious of Martin, but that doesn't mean he felt he was a threat.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't understand the kind of mindset that makes it matter.

There's a difference between not understanding the kind of mindset that could be racist, and trying to deny the existence of racism and that large numbers of people function according to such a mindset. The kind of dishonesty I'm talking about is slipping from the former into the latter. You can tell me race wouldn't have mattered to you in this context; I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with that, not knowing you. But you cannot tell me that you don't know that race matters to anyone or affects anyone. That I do not believe.

I also don't understand why race matters here, because the case has nothing to do with race.

The case would likely not have happened without race. If they had been two white guys, the likelihood of Zimmerman stopping Martin -- much less feeling he could shoot him with impunity -- would have been far lower. This is a racial reality that black people in America live with every day. Blaming "the media" for injecting racial politics into it is a total disconnect from reality.

[Rogue]

I'm going to say it, while race might not matter to you, your family, your friends, anyone you know, and more importantly the law... There are still quite a few people who are extremely racist and will judge a person as a threat due to their race. An unknown black guy in a predominantly white neighborhood can still be seen as a threat by some people. This is not just based on this case.

You're talking to the girl who's father nearly got arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle and kidnapping until he flashed his military ID. Because he is hispanic. And the girl who's father got followed around in almost every store they went to, but as soon as her mother walked up, everything was suddenly hunky dory and he wasn't a threat. Also, to the girl whose family very nearly had to carry around proof they were a US citizen in Arizona even though they were second/third generation Americans.

You say race doesn't matter. And I say you're right. Race doesn't matter. However, some people are still ignorant and blind and this case is further proof of that.

What wrong isn't that he was given a legal trial and found not guilty. I'm okay with that. Not because it's okay, but because there was a chance for him to be found guilty and there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is Guilty. That happens. It happens all the time. What was wrong was that it was nearly shoved under a rug when something was obviously done wrong and it took a very public out cry to get a trial at all.

People keep throwing around, what if this was the opposite case? What if this was Zimmerman being approached by a black kid? No, that's wrong.

What if this was a man. An older man with a history of violence. What if this was a kid with no record out to get a snack? What if this man came out and approached a kid and provoked him? Spooked him or harassed him, since (as far as I understand there wasn't much witness testimony) we're going on the word of the shooter. Yes, the kid shouldn't have reacted. Yeah that's right. But the man. The man shouldn't have shot him. It should never have come to that. And when it did, would they have shrugged it under the rug. A man shooting a kid? I'd hope they wouldn't. But they did. And that's what's so very wrong with this case.

[Valthazar]

The case would likely not have happened without race. If they had been two white guys, the likelihood of Zimmerman stopping Martin -- much less feeling he could shoot him with impunity -- would have been far lower. This is a racial reality that black people in America live with every day. Blaming "the media" for injecting racial politics into it is a total disconnect from reality.

Let us assume a situation where race was not a factor:  Zimmerman would have been suspicious, and walked over to the suspicious looking person.  Regardless of his race, if the suspicious looking person was a "good" person, he would have simply explained himself, and been on his way.  If the suspicious looking person was a "not-so-good" person, as the court-case has ruled, he would attack Zimmerman - which is what happened. 

This is why I'm struggling to understand why race was a factor.  If you are suggesting that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin which caused him to be suspicious, that is reasonable.  But that alone would not have yielded his death.

Also, the fact that Zimmerman turned himself in says a lot.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Good post by Rogue. That last paragraph does bring out an important perspective.

I really do have to go now.

(Cross-posted with Valthazar... ugh. I'll get back later if I can.)

[Slywyn]

What if this was a man. An older man with a history of violence. What if this was a kid with no record out to get a snack? What if this man came out and approached a kid and provoked him? Spooked him or harassed him, since (as far as I understand there wasn't much witness testimony) we're going on the word of the shooter. Yes, the kid shouldn't have reacted. Yeah that's right. But the man. The man shouldn't have shot him. It should never have come to that. And when it did, would they have shrugged it under the rug. A man shooting a kid? I'd hope they wouldn't. But they did. And that's what's so very wrong with this case.

The older man acted in self defense and shot the kid after he attacked him. The police officer who responded to the scene(Who was fired, by the way), made the same conclusion. The trial then upheld that. I don't think anyone tried to sweep it under a rug. The police officer who responded saw what happened and made the same conclusion that the jury did

[Cyrano Johnson]

Actually, I can do this briefly:

Let us assume a situation where race was not a factor:  Zimmerman would have been suspicious

Let us not. That's not what happened. If you read the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call, the racial anxiety is dripping from it, particularly as Zimmerman essentially talks himself up during the call. It is not at all clear and should not be assumed that anything would have transpired if race had not been a factor. So you should not be "struggling to understand why race was a factor."

(And incidentally, the "goodness" or "not-goodness" of Martin is beside the point. Although I find the wingnut campaign to demonize a kid who had a 3.7 GPA and multiple hundreds of volunteer hours under his belt quite stomach-turning and repellent, the truth is that even had he been "not good," you don't get to shoot people for being "not good." Not even if they take a swipe at you after you've provoked a fight with them. If you shot everyone in America who somewhere at some time could be deemed "not good" by somebody else, everybody would be dead. [The Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard would be depopulated at a minimum.])

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't think anyone tried to sweep it under a rug.

Sanford PD most certainly did. That's why a public outcry was necessary to get a trial. That an all-white jury confirmed Sanford PD's initial assessment actually does not make it written in stone that either of those judgments is correct.

[Slywyn]

Sanford PD most certainly did. That's why a public outcry was necessary to get a trial. That an all-white jury confirmed Sanford PD's initial assessment actually does not make it written in stone that either of those judgments is correct.

I didn't think the jury was white.

If I recall at least one wasn't. I thought there were more.

[Valthazar]

Actually, I can do this briefly:

Let us not. That's not what happened. If you read the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call, the racial anxiety is dripping from it, particularly as Zimmerman essentially talks himself up during the call. It is not at all clear and should not be assumed that anything would have transpired if race had not been a factor. So you should not be "struggling to understand why race was a factor."

It's the dispatcher who first asks what his race is.  You are trying to read into the transcript to find racial motivations.  What if Zimmerman was simply referring to those "darn drug-addict dead-beat assholes who do nothin' but cause trouble" (regardless of black or white).  A terrible, morally-wrong thing to think or say, in my opinion, but not racially-motivated.

[Cyrano Johnson]

What if Zimmerman was simply referring to those "darn drug-addict dead-beat assholes who do nothin' but cause trouble" (regardless of black or white).

Since that stereotype really does not come detached from "black or white" (or more specifically, from "black") for nearly two-thirds of the American populace, I find this highly unlikely and I think it's you who are twisting yourself into pretzels to avoid seeing the obvious. (Supposing Zimmerman had shot a white kid, however, his defense probably would have been the same... and I think he'd be in jail right now.) [EDIT: Again, though, unlikely. Zimmerman made a habit of going door to door in his community and warning people to be on the lookout for young, black males who were outsiders. Again, really very little doubt that his targeting of Martin was racially motivated.]

[Rogue]

The older man acted in self defense and shot the kid after he attacked him. The police officer who responded to the scene(Who was fired, by the way), made the same conclusion. The trial then upheld that. I don't think anyone tried to sweep it under a rug. The police officer who responded saw what happened and made the same conclusion that the jury did

Personally, I don't think it should have been up to the police officer to make that call. A kid ended up dead. And the police officer, as far as I'm concerned, just believed the man's story. It's good the police officer was fired (and thank you for bringing that to light for me). But this should have immediately been made a case for a jury and the evidence to decide. Just by doing that little bit, evidence gets lost. The man who was responsible has time to solidify his story and make sure no mistakes occur. Emotionally distraught witnesses (I believe someone mentioned his girlfriend) lose details of what happened. Whether or not it was intentional, there was nearly not a case and that's not okay in my books.

[Cyrano Johnson]

(The Stand Your Ground law, incidentally, does not protect all defendants equally in practice. Guess what's the determining factor for the disparity? Three guesses, first two don't count.)

[Valthazar]

I personally disagree that race was the determining factor, but I realize there are multiple perspectives, and we can discuss this forever if we wanted. 

At the same time, I also do realize that there are still unfortunately prevailing stereotypes.  My only point is that such sensationalist media depictions and articles do nothing but continue dividing people by race, while achieving very little in mutual acceptance.  We are all pretty intelligent people here on E, so I know we can accept people based on the content of their character, but for the average uneducated person (regardless of race), this is a cornerstone for even more prejudice unfortunately.  Zimmerman is sure to receive death-threats very soon, and many of them will be racially-motivated.  Although we like to believe that attempting to bring light to potential racial issues would increase acceptance, they tend to cause racial rifts among uneducated people.

[Rogue]

I agree. Personally find that Zimmerman wouldn't be a character I'd enjoy, racism or no, but alas.

The issue will be people pointing the blame the wrong way because the police have already corrected themselves, and I find them to be the true blame behind this travesty. Other people will look for stricter gun laws, which I for once agree with, though not to the same extent as others and that's a whole other thread.

*nods to Selwyn, Valthazar, and Cryano* A pleasure discussing with you all, but I believe I am done with this topic for now.

[Cyrano Johnson]

My only point is that such sensationalist media depictions and articles do nothing but continue dividing people by race, while achieving very little in mutual acceptance.

And my point is that it's trying to dismiss any mention of racism as "sensationalist" that's divisive. You can't achieve mutual acceptance when you're not willing to put any effort into understanding the underlying realities.

Zimmerman is sure to receive death-threats very soon, and many of them will be racially-motivated.

He may well do, and they'll be motivated by the fact that he killed someone. Of course that motivation depends on seeing the application and purpose of the Stand Your Ground defense as racially skewed... which, in fact, it is. The death threats will still be wrong, of course, but you won't be able to very effectively argue that while denying the rest of the contextual reality that will motivate them.

If you really aspire to mutual acceptance and want someone to complain about who is an obstacle to that, your real enemy is the denialist, in and out of the media: the sort of person who pretends "color blindness" entitles them to try to shut down any discussion of the factual realities of racism, or the kind of person who pulls the "you're the real racists" routine (an old standby of American bigotry). 

(I will leave you with this piece, which sums up the racial dynamics of the case itself and of the response to it -- particularly the right-wing media response -- very effectively:

If Trayvon Martin had been white and George Zimmerman black, this would not have become a national story. If they had reported it at all, the right-wing media would have praised Martin for trying to stand his ground before a dangerous violent thug. It defies credulity to think they would be dismissing the killer's behavior, making despicable excuses such as blaming the kid's clothing, or if— unthinkable in this reversing-the-races scenario—there had been no criminal charges filed against the killer, dismissing the story altogether. The questions here don't even need answers. The questions answer themselves.

Had Trayvon Martin been white and George Zimmerman black, Zimmerman would be headed for death row. Right-wing media would be hailing Martin as a hero. A martyr who had stood his ground against a dangerous predator. They would be saying that it's too bad Martin hadn't somehow fought back against Zimmerman, and that if he had somehow succeeded in fighting a man so much larger than him, it would have been justifiable if he had left Zimmerman dead.

There is no polite way to explain what has happened. There is no polite way to explain the reflexive defensive rationalizations by the right-wing media and their right-wing fans. This was a racist killing with a racist cover-up and the right wing's reaction has been virulently and viciously racist. To understand the depth of the right wing's racist depravity, all it takes is to consider the very different reaction to this horror had the races of the victim and his killer been reversed.

[Valthazar]

I would argue that we are not so much a racially divided society today, but more a wealth/class divided society.  I'm from a family of immigrants (non-white), and one of the things my parents emphasized is that if you want to overcome stereotypes and biases, you need to show people that you are as good, if not better than them at being a citizen - that America isn't about where you start, but in where you reach.   

I agree very much with Bill Cosby's take on why stereotypes and biases exist about the Black population - and how blaming "white" society is not the answer.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/cosby.asp
http://www.examiner.com/article/bill-cosby-speaks-bluntly-about-black-people-and-education

[Cyrano Johnson]

The infamous Pound Cake speech was one of Bill Cosby's lowest moments, not the least because most of the statistics he quoted in it were made up and totally false; it was moreover a key marker of an ugly dynamic of classism within the Black community. (This dynamic has always been there -- but has grown as the Black middle and very, very tiny salient of what could be called a Black upper class has grown.)

In the larger sense, about the most that can be said of American society today is that it is less racially divided than it was historically. There was once a time when white supremacism was an accepted default: it's progress, believe it or not, that only about 80% of Republicans are explicitly racist and some 32% of Democrats are (it's even progress that only 55% of the latter are implicitly racist), but it's nowhere even remotely near the point of race being irrelevant and it's insane to pretend otherwise. The relevance of race and racism is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

[Valthazar]

I know you are very passionate about this issue, and we are going to disagree no matter.  But this is the US, and with the right role models, the opportunities are everywhere for black youth to enter the middle class and limit the cycle of poverty and racism.  For example, teaching them that it is difficult to get a stable job if you are sagging your pants (which applies to white youths as well).

There was a campaign in Brooklyn which put up billboards advocating this, since looking presentable is so critical in rising out of poverty, and into middle-class jobs.  State senator Eric Adams began this campaign saying, "Let us not be the ones who make our communities seem foolish." 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/nyregion/02nyc.html?_r=0

I am not sure why it is controversial to suggest that looking presentable is important for a person's success, and overall image in the public.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I've never been fond of the sagging-pants school of hip-hop fashion myself, truth be told. It comes from prison-yard fashion, a setting where people had to be denied belts lest they be used as weapons; and basing pop culture on prison-yard fashion is part of a hugely expoitative racket of effectively selling gangbanger lifestyles to the poor so they can then be fodder for the prison-industrial complex. It's a cynicism so appalling that no fiction writer could have made it up.

So it's not like every part of Cosby's rant is unsympathetic. However, it's a far cry from that to fictionalizing education stats or brushing aside the question of whether it's okay to shoot somebody for stealing a piece of pound cake. And in general it's a lot easier to bitch about the depravity of the lower classes than it is to analyze the roots of whatever real dysfunctions might be present and work to help fix them. Doing the former is usually the mark of classism. It's all very well to tell people "put on a suit and buy a cell phone." But actually living an environment where a suit gets you targeted and electrical power is a luxury is a whole different kettle of fish.

What's so sad about the Coz is that this is the sort of thing he used to know. I don't hold it against him too badly as a person, because in his case it all seems to stem from embittered grief at his son's death. But I still think he's quite wrong overall.

[Ephiral]

I read that clause here:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

So merely going up to Martin and talking due to suspicion, as his defense claims, is not in violation of the law.  How was Zimmerman to know that Martin posed a threat when he was initially going up to him?  He only knew that Martin was a threat after he started physically assaulting him.  Zimmerman may have been suspicious of Martin, but that doesn't mean he felt he was a threat.

Not against the law, no, but provocation, yes. Failing to exhaust lesser means than lethal force or make a good faith effort to stand down before shooting him, however, should mean (by my understanding of that clause) that you cannot claim self-defense. So... what am I missing here? Zimmerman was the one doing the escalating at every stage except one, even according to his own version of events.

EDIT:

I would argue that we are not so much a racially divided society today, but more a wealth/class divided society.  I'm from a family of immigrants (non-white), and one of the things my parents emphasized is that if you want to overcome stereotypes and biases, you need to show people that you are as good, if not better than them at being a citizen - that America isn't about where you start, but in where you reach.

Minorities are overwhelmingly on the "poor/low" end of the wealth/class division, in a manner that is rather hard to handwave away. So wealth/class division furthers racial division. Even you, in this statement, acknowledge that people of colour are starting from a position of disadvantage, where they will have to work harder than their white neighbours to achieve equal standing.

[Oniya]

It's all very well to tell people "put on a suit and buy a cell phone." But actually living an environment where a suit gets you targeted and electrical power is a luxury is a whole different kettle of fish.

But is it so bad to tell them to put on a belt?  Or even just wear pants with the right-sized waistband?  And yes, I'll direct this across the board at 'young people'.  'Whale tails' are not going to get you taken seriously.  Showing off what kind of boxers you wear (or that you don't wear them at all :o ) is not a mark of pride. 

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't know, Oniya, I have some pretty sweet boxers.

(Seriously though, cf. first paragraph of my last post...)

[Oniya]

I did see your first paragraph - but it seemed to me that you were making a jump from that straight to 'wear a suit and get a cell phone'.  I don't think that it needs to go from 'hip-hop-gangsta' to 'Wall Street exec' in one leap.  In fact I'm pretty sure that's not possible.  However, just a little more care makes it that much easier to be respected.  That much more respect leads to better economic opportunities.  Better economic opportunities means that maybe you can fix the neighborhood so those suits aren't quite so much of a target.

[Valthazar]

And in general it's a lot easier to bitch about the depravity of the lower classes than it is to analyze the roots of whatever real dysfunctions might be present and work to help fix them. Doing the former is usually the mark of classism. It's all very well to tell people "put on a suit and buy a cell phone." But actually living an environment where a suit gets you targeted and electrical power is a luxury is a whole different kettle of fish.

I am interested to know what you feel the real dysfunctions are, and how we would work to fix them.  Clearly there is immense poverty in the black community.  I personally feel that the problem is in a lack of positive role-models, and a culture that reinforces the 'coolness' of living in poverty.  I am interested to know what your take is.

[RubySlippers]

But his life is over he will always have to watch his back and stay in seclusion or risk someone shooting him or worse so maybe that is enough justice there seems to be a symmetry to things he did an evil act and is free but is not really free.

[gaggedLouise]

But is it so bad to tell them to put on a belt?  Or even just wear pants with the right-sized waistband?  And yes, I'll direct this across the board at 'young people'.  'Whale tails' are not going to get you taken seriously.  Showing off what kind of boxers you wear (or that you don't wear them at all :o ) is not a mark of pride.

It's probably hard to rap your way out of the run-down ghetto to the big bucks without incurring the help of sponsors, sugar daddies - or record companies that turn some of your advances into debts along the way. Debts that will be paid back later if you make it. Sponsors and endorsement deals can help, but at the same time, you don't want those to be part of the picture you project to the media. I mean, both black and white fans of people like 50 Cent want their idol to look, sound and smell authentic gangsta, even if he may be both more sophisticated than that and less of a gangster in his daily life. You don't want to hear that he's being sponsored by a beer brand or by Nike.

[Maiz]

It really sucks when conversations about racism turn into "well just rise above other people's racism!"

Wow, I wish it was that easy but you know it really sucks when the people in charge of the school programs, of the law, of like so many things are being racist as fuck against you. But I mean, if only I had more positive role models right? That would totally stop their racism! And obviously black young people don't get jobs because of their fashion. Not because of systemic racism where a white guy who spent time in jail has more of a chance of getting a call back than a black guy with no record.

But I mean, no, thanks for telling me how to stop racism. Clearly white people have a better understanding of racism works in the US and I mean, lets talk more about how sagging pants and gangster culture and how the black community thinks poverty is so cool. This sounds totally based in reality and not some warped idea of what black cultures/communities are.

[Valthazar]

It really sucks when conversations about racism turn into "well just rise above other people's racism!"

Wow, I wish it was that easy but you know it really sucks when the people in charge of the school programs, of the law, of like so many things are being racist as fuck against you. But I mean, if only I had more positive role models right? That would totally stop their racism! And obviously black young people don't get jobs because of their fashion. Not because of systemic racism where a white guy who spent time in jail has more of a chance of getting a call back than a black guy with no record.

But I mean, no, thanks for telling me how to stop racism. Clearly white people have a better understanding of racism works in the US and I mean, lets talk more about how sagging pants and gangster culture and how the black community thinks poverty is so cool. This sounds totally based in reality and not some warped idea of what black cultures/communities are.

xiaomei, I am interested to know what you feel the root causes are.  I do believe that if young black students had positive role models, many more of them would graduate high school, and develop the skills they need to find employment.  The reason I brought up sagging pants, is because that is something that is directly within someone's control and conveys a sense of self-respect - it's the same reason why people look nice and tidy for interviews.  For example, I couldn't envision a retail shop hiring someone with sagging pants working the floor.  I am interested to know why you feel this wouldn't be one of the factors.

[gaggedLouise]

It really sucks when conversations about racism turn into "well just rise above other people's racism!"

(---)

But I mean, no, thanks for telling me how to stop racism. Clearly white people have a better understanding of racism works in the US and I mean, lets talk more about how sagging pants and gangster culture and how the black community thinks poverty is so cool. This sounds totally based in reality and not some warped idea of what black cultures/communities are.

If I'm one of the targets here, well I was clear about how it's both white and black fans of gangsta rappers - or even of guys who have no credible jail or felony record at all, who are just doing an obvious play-act of those kinds of characters - that want their idols to look and talk like real outlaws, offstage too, and to have that kind of personal story.

Besides it's not limited to black music that you might not become rich and independently wealthy just because you've come up with a couple hit singles and gotten a lot of coverage in the papers and on tv. A band such as The Clash didn't really make big money for itself - into the chests of its members - until the final years of their career, though they had awesome publicity, huge impact on the punk rock scene in the UK and beyond and a string of potent hit singles. Up till around 1982 they were still mostly in the red vs their record company and the people who produced their tours. As a commercial undertaking they were half a no-go, but of course that wasn't a major problem for their fans who were DIY anyway.

Many bands have a similar story. The difference to ghetto rappers is just that to them being in a crew, getting into crime or boxing can sometimes be the only ready paths out of poverty.

[Maiz]

xiaomei, I am interested to know what you feel the root causes are.  I do believe that if young black students had positive role models, many more of them would graduate high school, and develop the skills they need to find employment.  The reason I brought up sagging pants, is because that is something that is directly within someone's control and conveys a sense of self-respect - it's the same reason why people look nice and tidy for interviews.  For example, I couldn't envision a retail shop hiring someone with sagging pants working the floor.  I am interested to know why you feel this wouldn't be one of the factors.

The root cause is a society that has created/upheld racism. Just having positive role models doesn't mean anything if the people in charge of whatever are racist. It doesn't stop the fact that white people unjustly receive more scholarships. It doesn't stop the fact that if your high school counselors have already 'given up' on you, then they will push not furthering your education (and note the relationship between being not white and being given up on. It doesn't stop the terrible discipline system in schools and how they affect children of color unevenly. It doesn't stop the school to prison pipeline.

Sure, some kids don't know how to dress for an interview, regardless of race, but to blame a lack of employment entirely on sagging pants, just what. Do you really think people are that stupid?

You can blame a lack of positive role models and sagging pants but then you fail to analyze the larger issue of racism.

[Slywyn]

I believe this is where I step out. Getting kinda hostile.

[Valthazar]

I guess what I'm asking is, what's the solution?  We continue to hear about how racist society is, but how can we get things moving in the right direction for the black community?

[Maiz]

Change the ways school works, get rid of zero tolerance, get restorative justice, stop this culture where if a child of color is a handful in first grade then obviously they wont amount to anything, teach a non-whitewashed version of history, stop police from targeting black and latino people unfairly, reform prisons and drug offenses, reform welfare so it helps more people for longer, raise minimum wage,  don't let racist people get positions of power, media shouldn't continue offensive stereotypes (like the implication that all black people sag their pants and thats why they are unemployed), stop discriminatory bank practices, restore the voting rights act to its fullest, etc etc etc. Try listening to people of color and what they say about racism and you'll find a million different solutions.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Too bad Slywyn was offended, because I thought xiaomei's comment was quite funny and very true.

I am interested to know what your take is.

Honestly, I don't think the remedies are all that mysterious. Most of it comes down to addressing poverty in general through the kinds of "socialist" programs that the right wing tends to hate -- a livable minimum wage, limitations to the offshoring of labor and a protected right to unionize, and accessible good-quality education and health care for all members of society -- in combination with a few specific measures to prevent racist bias from skewing those attempts to address poverty (specific forms of affirmative action, for instance, which of course is a popular right-wing "this is the Real Racism" target precisely because it in fact works; it might also be nice to see some real measures in place to monitor attempts to physically ghettoize minority communities, "redlining" and other such).

We pretty much already know what works, and what needs to be applied. There's no small amount of research available to back it up. The trick is getting the rational solutions implemented in a setting where a certain stripe of politicians opposed to those solutions can use the irrational lever of racism as a means to build support around their own agendas. This basically is a large part of the story of the conservative movement; when the long-suffering black ghettoes finally started to explode in the Sixties, it impelled both the Great Society agenda on the "left" and the rise of the Southern Strategy-based GOP on the right. It was a case of building with one hand and destroying with the other, which is why so much of the black community is still stuck where it is today.

So the real question is: how do you beat back racism far enough for the old right-wing scare strategies to stop working and solutions to become politically possible? As far as I can tell there is no easy answer to that except to keep confronting it, and wearing away at it, until its power is broken. We are approaching that watershed, I think -- the election of Obama was a major early indicator -- but there's a long way to go yet.

(Xiamoei's post above again is excellent.)

[Skynet]

Change the ways school works, get rid of zero tolerance, get restorative justice, stop this culture where if a child of color is a handful in first grade then obviously they wont amount to anything, teach a non-whitewashed version of history, stop police from targeting black and latino people unfairly, reform prisons and drug offenses, reform welfare so it helps more people for longer, raise minimum wage,  don't let racist people get positions of power, media shouldn't continue offensive stereotypes (like the implication that all black people sag their pants and thats why they are unemployed), stop discriminatory bank practices, restore the voting rights act to its fullest, etc etc etc. Try listening to people of color and what they say about racism and you'll find a million different solutions.

I'd like to mention that a lot of privately run for-profit prisons (which are not government-run) are responsible for jailing a lot of innocent people (many of who are people of color).  Several infamous "Cash for kids" programs involved such prison officials bribing judges to sentence teenagers for virtual non-crimes (mouthing off to a teacher on Facebook).

There are other problems with such prisons: they cut costs, resulting in low-quality stuff and poorly-trained staff, and in some cases of evangelical Christian wardens refusing to respect the rights of religious minorities.

This is particularly endemic in Louisiana, where it's an entire industry down there.

Hell, a large portion of the US incarceration rate is due to this.  Along with the "War On Drugs," where citizens with no criminal record can face up to 20 years for smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home.

Sorry if this was a derail, but I thought that it was pertinent.

[Ephiral]

The root cause is a society that has created/upheld racism. Just having positive role models doesn't mean anything if the people in charge of whatever are racist. It doesn't stop the fact that white people unjustly receive more scholarships. It doesn't stop the fact that if your high school counselors have already 'given up' on you, then they will push not furthering your education (and note the relationship between being not white and being given up on. It doesn't stop the terrible discipline system in schools and how they affect children of color unevenly. It doesn't stop the school to prison pipeline.

Related to the education issue: This video was already linked elsewhere on E, but there's an incredibly revealing bit that it basically glosses over near the end: Being part of the underclass had immediate and drastic impact on their school performance. I leave it as an exercise to extrapolate this to the larger issues.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I'd like to mention that a lot of privately run for-profit prisons (which are not government-run) are responsible for putting a lot of innocent people in prison, many of who are people of color.  Several infamous "Cash for kids" programs involved such prison officials bribing judges to sentence innocent people.

(NB: Not America's first for-profit prison system. Convict leasing, essentially a thinly-disguised form of slavery fed by periodic use of the justice system for press-ganging, was practised in the South until the 1950s. Combined with debt peonage, this system effectively re-enslaved most of the Southern blacks who had been freed after the Civil War but had not left the South. Today's system is less brutal but broader-ranging.)

[Ellipsis]

I know I'm a little late to the party, but a couple previous posters had brought up that they didn't think race had anything to do with the trial.

Whether or not race played a large or small part is something I'm not going to get into, but I do believe Zimmerman's actions were partially motivated by race, i.e. profiling. There had been a string of robberies in the area apparently perpetrated by black males. Zimmerman even reached out to one of the women that had her home invaded, helping her change her locks and suggesting she stay with his wife if she had any problems.

So if your neighborhood has been a victim of said crimes and the only reported suspects were of a particular race, there's a logical connection as to why Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon. Now, I am not condoning his actions in the slightest. Personally, I believe he should have been convicted of manslaughter, but I do agree race played a role in what sort of events transpired. If it was a white teenager walking alone at night, Zimmerman may not have given the guy another glance, though I'm just speculating.

[Slywyn]

Too bad Slywyn was offended, because I thought xiaomei's comment was quite funny and very true.

I'm not offended in the slightest. The tone has shifted from an actual discussion to "Let's blame everyone and everything but ourselves" and I refuse to be a part of that.

[Cyrano Johnson]

A little OT, but this Louis CK bit on Leno where he discusses race is great.

[gaggedLouise]

I don't have any major objections to xiaomei's suggestions of remedies either - just wondering how on earth such a program would get voted through, or driven through schools etc, in the U.S. as we know it. First in elections and then in Congress and at state and local level - and in the current economic cold spell?

The election of Obama seemed a pivotal moment but his platform has mostly ground to a halt in congress and under the pressure of the crisis, and it's hard to imagine that a much more radical guy than Obama could actually become president in the near future. And blacks don't near make up a majority of Americans. And I don't think most people here have a lot of high hopes about congress politics in the present age - so how would this actually gain momentum?

I agree with xiaomei that class and economy are a major part of the root causes and they continue from one generation to the next. Of course.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Too bad Slywyn was offended, because I thought xiaomei's comment was quite funny and very true.

These threads are for participation by all members if they choose and when they leave with a comment that hostility is not to their liking that is something that doesn't need to be remarked on in any way other than politely.  Disparaging remarks do no offer the best side of the person making them.

Remember, this is Elliquiy and we do lock threads when you all get unruly.

[Ephiral]

The election of Obama seemed a pivotal moment but his platform has mostly ground to a halt in congress and under the pressure of the crisis, and it's hard to imagine that a much more radical guy than Obama could actually become president in the near future. And blacks don't near make up a majority of Americans. And I don't think most people here have a lot of high hopes about congress politics in the present age - so how would this actually gain momentum?

The same way every social justice movement always works: recruit allies and build up grassroots demands for change until it's impossible to ignore. The colour of your skin says nothing about whether you can fight for equality.

[Maiz]

I'm not offended in the slightest. The tone has shifted from an actual discussion to "Let's blame everyone and everything but ourselves" and I refuse to be a part of that.

No one is saying that anywhere.


gaggedLouise, I think the 2012 election is big because yes Obama was elected, but I think it's more important in showing that white people as a political group are a waning power. Unfortunately those old racist, southern strategy using people will probably do everything they can to disenfranchise young people and people of color. See the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act, or all the sketchy voting laws that were passed last year. (Also while I think classism and racism go hand in hand [as does all oppression] racism is something separate, see all the people who are pulled over because they were driving a nice car while black or Hispanic as Rogue of TimeWimey Stuff mentioned)

[Cyrano Johnson]

These threads are for participation by all members if they choose and when they leave with a comment that hostility is not to their liking that is something that doesn't need to be remarked on in any way other than politely.

Funny, I wasn't aware of disparaging anyone; I said I was sorry Slywyn had left the thread because that's what I meant. But given the defensiveness of the subsequent response, maybe it didn't come across that way.

[gaggedLouise]

I agree that the times when the GOP could count on holding the field by mostly just appealing to the whites and guarding "white interests" (Middle America, white corporate America, Trump America, whatever you'd call it), those times are coming to an end. In the future they are not going to be able to do that kind of Reagan/Rove thing if they want to win the White House or a solid Senate majority. "It's the demography, s****d" - and some of them are recognizing it. Carly Fiorina essentially owned up to this in some comments she made after the 2008 election, after she had broken with the McCain/Schmidt team. But I doubt that will make them revise their actual politics in depth or make for an effort to build bridges to let's say black and hispanic groups who are demanding social justice, a new immigration policy, a major rise in minimum wages and so on. That would be, well, a "new deal" within the republican party and its sponsors.

Plus, the core of the GOP and the tea party people would get very unpredictable and angry at such a move. That's part of what makes the Trayvon Martin case so foreboding.

[JDrew Spider]

If anyone hasn't said it yet, this is going to kill the state Florida because people can get away for killing other people down here. However it isn't over yet since they will be pursuing a federal civil rights case. I wasn't surprised by the verdict because this happens all the time,  Ever since america came to be. It's like Dick Gregory said "Nothing has changed, USA has just put a new suit on." Prayers go out to the family.

[Valthazar]

I'm not offended in the slightest. The tone has shifted from an actual discussion to "Let's blame everyone and everything but ourselves" and I refuse to be a part of that.

This is the impression I also am getting from the direction of this discussion.  I am surprised that many of you are only pointing to outside forces as being responsible for poverty in minority communities.  While many of you are bringing up great points, I also feel that personal responsibility is also part of the solution.

[Cyrano Johnson]

This is the impression I also am getting from the direction of this discussion.

I'm surprised at that, because it's more than a bit of a strawman. Xiaomei stated it pretty candidly and quite well: minority communities can (and do) work plenty at self-criticism and character building (there are whole churches in the black community devoted to it, for instance; in fact pretty much every possible ideology along these lines has been tried at some point), but where the cards are externally stacked against them, there's a limit to the difference all of this can make. If you want to see real large-scale systemic change, changing the systemic pressures on those communities is what you want.

Xiaomei also said that you should try actually listening to people from those communities instead of lecturing to them. That is also correct. And I might suggest that resorting to the kind of strawman Slywyn just employed immediately on contact with any of those perspectives can rather undercut one's credibility as someone genuinely interested in understanding.

[Maiz]

This is the impression I also am getting from the direction of this discussion.  I am surprised that many of you are only pointing to outside forces as being responsible for poverty in minority communities.  While many of you are bringing up great points, I also feel that personal responsibility is also part of the solution.

Discussing systemic oppression doesn't mean we're ignoring personal responsibility. I think your own biases are showing through, if you automatically assume a discussion about racism means that everyone is blaming other people.

I'm surprised at that, because it's more than a bit of a strawman. Xiaomei stated it pretty candidly and quite well: minority communities can (and do) work plenty at self-criticism and character building (there are whole churches in the black community devoted to it, for instance; in fact pretty much every possible ideology along these lines has been tried at some point), but where the cards are externally stacked against them, there's a limit to the difference all of this can make. If you want to see real large-scale systemic change, changing the systemic pressures on those communities is what you want.

Exactly. Every feminist/womanist, every critical race theorist, every advocate, every activist I can think of discusses personal responsibility. But at a certain point personal responsibility can only take you so far. This is what we are arguing, that at a certain point the American Dream becomes unachievable because of someone's race. Banks give you shitty loans with shitty interest rates, people don't sell you houses in certain neighborhoods, you don't get promoted past a certain level, academia becomes hostile to your existence and questions you being there, etc. That is racism.

[Callie Del Noire]

I wish I could remember who said it.. It was a black civil rights leader.. I saw a bit of a sound bite.. something like 20 seconds. He was saying something like 'We have lots of males in our community but few Men and fewer FATHERS." I wish I could recall where I saw/heard it. It's been driving me nuts.

And sadly it's not JUST the black community there is a LOT of it at a certain level of poverty to ALL ethnicity. A lack of family and/or community in the last few decades. When you're so poor.. you're usually too busy to contribute. That is what several guys I knew in service said.. guys who came from those communities and all but killed themselves to bring their family to a better place. A lot of them wouldn't even talk about the father's in their lives.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of these racial issues (from both sides of the fence) come from a lack of willingness to accept responsibilty for your action on one side..and a willingness to refuse to help out those in our community that need it on the other. We could do so much better if we stopped look at the other side of the 'tracks' as the enemy. Neither side could really benefit without the other.

[Valthazar]

Discussing systemic oppression doesn't mean we're ignoring personal responsibility. I think your own biases are showing through, if you automatically assume a discussion about racism means that everyone is blaming other people.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a non-white immigrant.  Like Callie Del Noire said above, I think the real issue in our society is poverty, regardless of ethnicity.  I am not denying that there are racist and socioeconomic factors that keep families in chronically poor situations, generation after generation.  However, I also feel that constantly reinforcing these notions instills a "them vs. us" bias into the minds of minorities.  Have I faced discrimination in my life?  Absolutely.  But I avoid letting a handful of narrow-minded individuals jade me into the belief that society, as an entity, is inherently racist.  I know that the majority of white folk (such as many people on E for example) believe in equality, and will always treat me as an equal. 

As Rocky once said in his speech to his son, "if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody!  That's how winning is done!" 

You may disagree, but the way I see it, all of us are born the way we are, and all of us (regardless of race) face some sort of bias.  Maybe someone is a little heavier, or someone is a little short, or a man has a very high pitched voice.  We are the way we are.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Imagining racism is statistically confined to "a handful of narrow-minded individuals" is factually wrong. More than half of the American populace admits to explicit racism. Having faith in people is fine -- not everyone who has racist impulses is a hardcore bigot and other elements of people's personalities can outweigh this given the right circumstances -- but just grandly dismissing the existence of systemic racism with a wave of your hand will not do.

I too come from non-white immigrant stock. Because of this, I'm familiar with the temptation to try to be "more native than the natives" and to outdo the most pollyannish self-appraisals of a host society. Immigrants can often fall prey to this, especially because it's a fallacy that lets them more easily look down on and differentiate themselves from minorities in the host society who haven't made it as they have, or as they hope to do. It's an understandable tendency. But it is wrong.

(That doesn't mean hope is wrong. If I didn't have hope I wouldn't bother with discussions like this one. It just means that hope absent realism and facts is not helpful. As North Americans, this is the society we live in. Denial won't change that, only acknowledgement and confrontation of the facts will.)

[Maiz]

As I mentioned earlier, I am a non-white immigrant.  Like Callie Del Noire said above, I think the real issue in our society is poverty, regardless of ethnicity.  I am not denying that there are racist and socioeconomic factors that keep families in chronically poor situations, generation after generation.  However, I also feel that constantly reinforcing these notions instills a "them vs. us" bias into the minds of minorities.  Have I faced discrimination in my life?  Absolutely.  But I avoid letting a handful of narrow-minded individuals jade me into the belief that society, as an entity, is inherently racist.  I know that the majority of white folk (such as many people on E for example) believe in equality, and will always treat me as an equal. 

As Rocky once said in his speech to his son, "if you know what you’re worth then go out and get what you’re worth. But ya gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain’t where you wanna be because of him, or her, or anybody!  That's how winning is done!" 

You may disagree, but the way I see it, all of us are born the way we are, and all of us (regardless of race) face some sort of bias.  Maybe someone is a little heavier, or someone is a little short, or a man has a very high pitched voice.  We are the way we are.

1. no one is saying that racism is the only discrimination people can face.

2. Poverty and racism go hand in hand. Racism fuels poverty. Yes, its a big issue for everyone regardless of race. But: it affects people of color more, there are less ways out for people of color, the recent economic downturn affected/s people of color more, it's harder for people of color to get jobs, etc etc etc.

3. "Them vs. us" is straight up a survival mechanism. It's not just a handful of people who are racist. It's a lot of people. It's built into institutions like government and banks and schools. No one is inherently racist, but people sure as fuck are socialized that way without even realizing it. Believing in equality doesn't stop someone from bringing up stupid racist stereotypes and presenting them as truth. Believing in equality doesn't stop someone  from being racist.

4. Don't compare getting shit for being short to decades and centuries and years of racism. Bias is not comparable to oppression.

[Slywyn]

I'm not sure how "I don't appreciate the tone"(demonstrated excellently by the post above this) is a strawman argument. And I don't appreciate being insulted. >=(

[Cyrano Johnson]

I'm not sure how "I don't appreciate the tone"(demonstrated excellently by the post above this) is a strawman argument.

Trying to front-load your critique of "tone" by folding in an opinion that hasn't actually been expressed or even implied by anyone in the discussion is strawmanning, yes. What you think about "tone" is your business, but trying to put words in other people's mouths is bad argument. If my pointing this out "insults" you, your attempts to stuff words in my mouth are no less distasteful to me, so I guess it evens out.

[Oniya]

I'd like to give a staffly reminder that even in PROC (and perhaps especially here), civility is still required. 

[Slywyn]

Look at the post above mine. A whole lot of "Everyone else does such horrible things". Nothing about "Maybe something about this problem comes from within". Sure, it was acknowledged "other people talk about it comes from within" but that doesn't stop the blame being thrown about on any and everyone else in just about every other post.

[Ephiral]

Look at the post above mine. A whole lot of "Everyone else does such horrible things". Nothing about "Maybe something about this problem comes from within". Sure, it was acknowledged "other people talk about it comes from within" but that doesn't stop the blame being thrown about on any and everyone else in just about every other post.

I don't see a single instance of "Everyone else does" anything. I see "Systemic racism exists", without accusing any given person of anything.

[Slywyn]

Not trying to pick anyone out this is just the first quote that I could scroll up and get.

3. "Them vs. us" is straight up a survival mechanism. It's not just a handful of people who are racist. It's a lot of people. It's built into institutions like government and banks and schools. No one is inherently racist, but people sure as fuck are socialized that way without even realizing it. Believing in equality doesn't stop someone from bringing up stupid racist stereotypes and presenting them as truth. Believing in equality doesn't stop someone  from being racist.

"Everyone else does this" in a whole lot more words.

[Ephiral]

Not trying to pick anyone out this is just the first quote that I could scroll up and get.

"Everyone else does this" in a whole lot more words.

The keyword I object to in your assertion is "everyone".

[Slywyn]

Oh.

Well I blame my inability to express myself properly. I have a really hard time getting thoughts to words.

[Maiz]

Look at the post above mine. A whole lot of "Everyone else does such horrible things". Nothing about "Maybe something about this problem comes from within". Sure, it was acknowledged "other people talk about it comes from within" but that doesn't stop the blame being thrown about on any and everyone else in just about every other post.

Again, your own biases are coloring your reading of what I said. Also what about any of I said do you think comes from within? There is only so much you can say about this problem comes from within before crossing the line into ridiculousness. Why are you so against this idea of systemic racism?

Not trying to pick anyone out this is just the first quote that I could scroll up and get.

"Everyone else does this" in a whole lot more words.

I don't see "everyone" or "all people" or anything like that.

[Valthazar]

I don't see a single instance of "Everyone else does" anything. I see "Systemic racism exists", without accusing any given person of anything.

First of all, this is just a friendly conversation, so no hard feelings to anyone - just a sharing of thoughts.

I think what Slywyn and I are getting at, is that bias exists in many forms - it is something we all face, regardless of our race, in many ways.  While ending bias in all its forms is a very noble cause, in reality, it is very unlikely that all bias will be eliminated.  As such, what we can do is minimize systemic racism as much as we can, and focus on the individual.

Individuals (all of us) need to realize that regardless of how strong or weak we are in different attributes, the only productive thing that any of us, as individuals, can do is to be as productive and hard working as we can be, to overcome the biases that pull us down.  We may have to work doubly hard in some traits, but that is part of the human condition. 

[Cyrano Johnson]

Look at the post above mine. A whole lot of "Everyone else does such horrible things". Nothing about "Maybe something about this problem comes from within". Sure, it was acknowledged "other people talk about it comes from within" but that doesn't stop the blame being thrown about on any and everyone else in just about every other post.

This is a little like claiming that talking about the responsibility of thieves for theft amounts to claiming that property owners are never responsible for taking security precautions. If someone says that reducing theft necessarily involves systemic punishment of thieves, and policing and legislation and court systems adequate to the task, it's a non sequitur to then come back and claim: "I'm sick of watching you people talk about how nobody should lock their doors. This discussion is all about let's blame thieves for theft, le'ts just blame everyone else for that BlueRay player you lost, and I don't care for this hostile tone." That would be strawmanning.

I leave to you the exercise of working out the applicability of this example to your remarks. Have a lovely evening.

[Neysha]

Having not paid attention in the slightest to the OJ, Micheal Jackson, Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson or Jodi Arias trial I must admit ivended up seeing a lot more of this trial comparatively. The near constant live access to the trial on the Racial Tension loving networks (except Fox News) helped but people seemed far more chatty about it as well.

The trial helped spark the mild problem of race relations and a vigorous debate on it. But also on self defense and crime when it pertains to juveniles, gun rights, police response, the politicalized hunt for justice and thanks to media glorification became the central focus of all those stirring topics.

But what I loved about this trial most was that it shows how awesome mob pressure is. Without mobs of people passionately demanding justice, Zimmerman wouldve never seen trial. But he also likely wouldve never gotten the silly high standard of being charged for murder instead of manslaughter or a lesser charge. As Alan Dershowitz stated a year ago, bringing murder charges was a dumb thing to do. But politicians wanted to satiate the publics demand for figurative blood and so murder charges it was. (Manslaughter too but its not surprising they didnt go with that considering how the trial was framed)

So as expected by most, Zimmerman walks and outside of Trayvon Martins immediate circle everyone wins. Lawyers always win. Media wins. Race baiters on both sides win. And so does the public at large. I learned a lot about legal stuff I didnt care learning about before and had so many darkly humorous conversations about it with friends and coworkers that I do feel enriched after its all over.

Hopefully the mob somewhat responsible for the acquittal will be respectful and peaceful in the wake of this as they so far have it seems.

[Kythia]

I think part of the problem is there seems - outsider looking in - to be a whole load of codewords for racism in US politics.  I remember in the last presidential election Romney was attacked as being racist for his position on welfare reforms.  I've also heard that mandatory minimum sentences are racist, along with attacks on the HUD.

And honestly, all of those examples have left me going "huh?  What's racist about that?"  Not that Im saying they're not, people who's opinions I trust say it is and I lack the inclination to go further than that.  But it does mean that if you miss the subtext of something like the stand your ground law or any of my above examples then its incredibly easy to, legitimately and in good faith, utterly fail to see what is presumably quite apparent racism.

[meikle]

Martin punching him first is extremely relevant.

The issue is that we don't know that Trayvon attacked first.  We only have the word of the person who put the killing bullet in him to corroborate that.

[gaggedLouise]

The issue is that we don't know that Trayvon attacked first.  We only have the word of the person who put the killing bullet in him to corroborate that.

This, and also the presence of threats, challenges and half-open violence in a situation like this one won't always translate into finding out who was the first to punch with their fists or raise a weapon. It's exactly the same with gang rape, by the way; a woman who is surrounded, approached or followed by men who circle her or pretend to be her buddies while really acting half-intimidating is not likely to openly call out for help, nor - if she actually is willing to stand her ground - is she likely to wait until the first real strike by one of them and then suddenly begin to defend herself like a judo girl.

[Trieste]

I think part of the problem is there seems - outsider looking in - to be a whole load of codewords for racism in US politics.  I remember in the last presidential election Romney was attacked as being racist for his position on welfare reforms.  I've also heard that mandatory minimum sentences are racist, along with attacks on the HUD.

And honestly, all of those examples have left me going "huh?  What's racist about that?"  Not that Im saying they're not, people who's opinions I trust say it is and I lack the inclination to go further than that.  But it does mean that if you miss the subtext of something like the stand your ground law or any of my above examples then its incredibly easy to, legitimately and in good faith, utterly fail to see what is presumably quite apparent racism.

It has to do with the perception of who is affected by them. For instance, if you are under the assumption that the majority of people who are receiving welfare benefits are minorities, it's easy to accuse you of being motivated by racism if you put forth the idea of 'reform' (which is generally seen as GOP codespeak for "gut the fuck out of") because you are proposing things that will disproportionately affect minorities.

Now, every statistic that I have seen has said that a majority of welfare recipients are actually white, and according to the US Bureau of Prisons the majority of US inmate populations are white as well. So implementing minimum sentences and gutting welfare wouldn't in actuality disproportionately affect minorities, specifically black individuals*, but due to the perception that the majority of prisoners and welfare recipients are non-white ...

You probably get the picture.

[meikle]

And honestly, all of those examples have left me going "huh?  What's racist about that?"

To cite a really obvious example, did you know that for a long time, crack cocaine the penalties for using, selling, or carrying crack cocaine was 100 times greater than using, selling, or carrying powder cocaine, despite the fact that crack cocaine is the exact same drug, even according to the Controlled Substances Act?

Did you know that the only major difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine was that crack cocaine was popular among poor black communities, and powder cocaine was popular among wealthy white people? 

This is an excellent example of how our legal system can be and often is racially biased.

[gaggedLouise]

@Trieste:
But how about the percentage of the black and white national population, respectively, that's in jail? Surely the share of blacks landing on death row or being on a long prison term is much larger than the corresponding portion of the white population? Then again, that leaves open just why this is happening.

I get the dog-whistle/password politics thing though, and there are similar phenomena in political talk in Europe.

[Trieste]

@Trieste:
But how about the percentage of the black and white national population, respectively, that's in jail? Surely the share of blacks landing on death row or being on a long prison term is much larger than the corresponding portion of the white population? Then again, that leaves open just why this is happening.

I get the dog-whistle/password politics thing though, and there are similar phenomena in political talk in Europe.

I remember being surprised when I was looking over some census data for something else to find that the US is still something like 65% non-Hispanic white, and only about 20% of the population identified as being black. I would have pegged it as much higher. (And yes, something like 30% of prisoners identify as black - the population spread in prisons doesn't reflect the demographic spread of the population in the US in general.)

As I said, it's a complicated thing.

... political euphemisms are hardly a new thing, though, and I would have called shenanigans on you if you tried to say they were strictly a US thing. ;D

[gaggedLouise]

... political euphemisms are hardly a new thing, though, and I would have called shenanigans on you if you tried to say they were strictly a US thing. ;D

Decidedly not, though hot shenanigans with someone like Trie might be worth goading for.  ;)

[meikle]

Now, every statistic that I have seen has said that a majority of welfare recipients are actually white, and according to the US Bureau of Prisons the majority of US inmate populations are white as well. So implementing minimum sentences and gutting welfare wouldn't in actuality disproportionately affect minorities, specifically black individuals*, but due to the perception that the majority of prisoners and welfare recipients are non-white ...

This doesn't actually mean that the decisions aren't racially motivated, however.  "White people will vote against their best interests if it means hurting their black neighbors more" is basically the heart and soul of the Republicans' Southern Strategy. 

A Republican political strategist and consultant to Reagan and HW Bush put it thusly:  "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'"

It's not going to be easy for them to shake a heritage of casual racism, and it's hard to suggest (not to say that you did, Trieste) that racism isn't part of the Republican platform when the heroes of the party leaned on it so openly.

[Skynet]

To cite a really obvious example, did you know that for a long time, crack cocaine the penalties for using, selling, or carrying crack cocaine was 100 times greater than using, selling, or carrying powder cocaine, despite the fact that crack cocaine is the exact same drug, even according to the Controlled Substances Act?

Did you know that the only major difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine was that crack cocaine was popular among poor black communities, and powder cocaine was popular among wealthy white people? 

This is an excellent example of how our legal system can be and often is racially biased.

You can thank Ronald Reagan's War on Drugs for that.  Also around this time, Republicans were supporting South African apartheid (and a lot of them were the same ones who were segregationists in the 60s).  And Reagan popularized the Welfare Queen myth: the idea that a black woman multi-millionaire cheated the system and lived in a mansion with fancy cars.

On welfare, Rick Santorum in the 2012 campaign said that he "didn't want to improve the lives of black people with welfare by giving them another's money."  Despite saying this in a state where 80-90% of those on welfare were white, and he singled out African-Americans in particular.

It's pretty scary that the further you look into the GOP, the more you realize that a lot of the "strawman caricatures" about them are true.

[Valthazar]

I remember being surprised when I was looking over some census data for something else to find that the US is still something like 65% non-Hispanic white, and only about 20% of the population identified as being black. I would have pegged it as much higher. (And yes, something like 30% of prisoners identify as black - the population spread in prisons doesn't reflect the demographic spread of the population in the US in general.)

Where did you find these numbers?  I looked this up from 2010 census, but maybe you have a more current one, and found that, "African Americans make up 13.6 percent of the U.S. population according to census data, but black men reportedly make up 40.2 percent of all prison inmates."

But I am under the impression that they differentiate between African-American and Hispanic Black, so most likely both percentages are slightly higher - total population and prison population, if simply looking at all blacks.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

[Trieste]

Where did you find these numbers?  I looked this up from 2010 census, but maybe you have a more current one, and found that, "African Americans make up 13.6 percent of the U.S. population according to census data, but black men reportedly make up 40.2 percent of all prison inmates."

But I am under the impression that they differentiate between African-American and Hispanic Black, so most likely both percentages are slightly higher - total population and prison population, if simply looking at all blacks.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

I was taking them separately, and from memory. I was quoting rough numbers to illustrate the point that the demographic spread in prisons does not reflect the demographic spread in the population in general. My numbers and your numbers agree on this point, the only difference seeming to be the extent to which they differ. The inmate percentage came from the US Bureau of Prisons (most recent numbers here, as far as I can tell) and the percentage of blacks in the US came from the 2010 census, yes. (It should be noted that my memory-numbers were off by various percentages, which was expected and which was why I made it clear that they were estimates. ::) )

The census differentiates between white Hispanic and white, as well as between black Hispanic and black. There was actually a whole section under Hispanic that was six or seven lines long, each differentiating ____ Hispanic. It was really interesting.

[Kythia]

So, forgive my ignorance, but what precisely makes one Hispanic?

[Oniya]

Per the Census Bureau:

People who identify with the terms “Hispanic” or “Latino” are those who classify themselves in one of the specific Hispanic or Latino categories listed on the decennial census questionnaire and various Census Bureau survey questionnaires – “Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano” or ”Puerto Rican” or “Cuban” – as well as those who indicate that they are “another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin." Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race

It's kind of circular, though.

[Trieste]

It's kind of a complex question. >.>

[Valthazar]

You're right, it is a complex question and one that isn't very scientific.  I know the census now has different categories called 2+ races, etc, but they still keep the African-American category.

For example, if a black person and a white person have a kid, chances are very strong that the kid will identify more as being black, and this trend is less strong but still prominent among Hispanic/White, and Asian/White couples. 

[Oniya]

A lot also depends on how close the parents are to their respective families.  There's a strong cultural element involved as well as the 'simpler' lineage element.

[Callie Del Noire]

Whereas there is no entry for 'Mixed scotch/irish/welsh/native american' (aka Mutt) for me.

Luckily though.. not a lot of post decision violence going on from the decision.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1688197/lester-chambers-attacked-after-dedicating-song-to-trayvon-martin-family
is the only one I've heard.

[Oniya]

That's a weird song for her to go BSC over...  I hopped over to YouTube to look it up, and it reminded me a little of Cat Stevens' 'Peace Train' the way that Curtis Mayfield sang it.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's a weird song for her to go BSC over...  I hopped over to YouTube to look it up, and it reminded me a little of Cat Stevens' 'Peace Train' the way that Curtis Mayfield sang it.

I don't get why ANYONE at a Lester Chambers event would wig out like that anyway. He's a gentleman.

[Skynet]

Luckily though.. not a lot of post decision violence going on from the decision.

Fox News must be so disappointed right now.

[Valthazar]

Fox News must be so disappointed right now.

What does a statement like this achieve?  Every network is inherently biased in its own way - some of which you may agree with, others which you may not agree with.  I know the majority of people here are more liberal, but when you make remarks like this, you are doing the same thing that you are claiming Fox to be doing.

[Oniya]

Locked at OP's request.  Further discussion can be continued in a new thread.