Ever since the Trayvon Martin murder made national news, I've made it a point to make sure I keep up with the case as much as possible. My most recent finding has been that the newly appointed judge to the case, Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson, has allowed George Zimmerman's defense team to analyze Trayvon's social media posts and school records to determine if there was a pattern of violence in his behavior. This is mainly due to an eyewitness's testimony that they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, punching him "MMA style" right before he was shot. Also, Trayvon's 10-day suspension from school for having an empty marijuana baggie on him has been called up in an effort to determine the type of person Trayvon was. An interesting sentiment was expressed in the opening portion of the article I read by Patrick Jonnson for MinnPost. There he says:
"In sparking a nationwide call for justice, Trayvon Martin’s parents painted the slain teenager as sweet, aspiring, and well-meaning — notions backed up by a baby-faced photo that led President Obama to suggest, "If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.""
Now, I'll be the first to admit that the first pictures we saw of Trayvon were indeed the baby face type that Mr. Jonnson speaks of. But it is the insinuation that the parents strategically tried to "paint" their son "as sweet, aspiring and well meaning" that bothers me. Now, I don't know Mr. Jonnson's personal views on this case but I do know that it is this line of thinking that has led many observers to believe that Trayvon Martin was not completely innocent in this situation and that George Zimmerman truly acted in self defense. It seems some have gone to great lengths to portray Trayvon as a troubled teen who had issues with authority. This would make it seem totally feasible that George Zimmerman had approached this young man as a authority figure, the leader of the neighborhood watch, and that Trayvon acted as the aggressor, forcing George Zimmerman to use deadly force in self defense. But it is the obvious facts that seem to get lost amongst those who want to take race completely out of the equation. As hard as the defense is digging into Trayvon's history trying to find a pattern of violent behavior, you don't have to dig to hard to reveal a pattern in George Zimmerman's behavior. There are numerous calls recorded of Zimmerman contacting the Sanford police department with concerns of "suspicious looking" Black males in his community. On the night of the murder, George Zimmerman refused to comply with the 911 operator's request for him not to follow Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was ordered to stay in his vehicle until the police arrived. Zimmerman did not. He follow Trayvon, acting as the aggressor in this situation and the result of that encounter is now tragic history.
Not only does George Zimmerman have a documented past of profiling young Black men, there have been noted accounts in which it has been said that Mr. Zimmerman exhibited, at the very least, insensitivity towards minorities. A witness testified, amongst other serious allegations, that Zimmerman and his family were admitted racists and that they didn't like Black people "if they don't act like white people". During a time in human history where everything a person says or does is immediately dissected, it baffles me how some people can look at the details of this case and try to paint George Zimmerman as a valiant neighborhood watch leader who fell upon an aggressive teenager and, in a self proclaimed fight for his life, "stood his ground" and murdered the unarmed child.
As the case has gone on, a lot of interesting twists and turns have occurred. It was first reported that George Zimmerman was not immediately taken into custody by the police after the shooting. Later on, as the self defense claim was made, Zimmerman was said to have sustained head injuries, supposedly by the hands of Trayvon Martin slamming his pursuers head repeatedly into the ground. Early surveillance footage seemed to show an uninjured Zimmerman being escorted into the police station shortly after the shooting. Later on, photos of Zimmerman bleeding from his head were released but those cuts and bruises, did not corroborate with his and at least one other eyewitness's account of Zimmerman's head being slammed into the ground. Another thing that seems to get lost is the action of the Sanford police department. It seemed that the cover up was initiated almost immediately once the officers arrived on the scene. There is just no justification as to why a man who was not a police officer, who had just shot and killed an unarmed teenager, and who clearly disobeyed the repeated urgings of the police dispatcher to not puruse Martin was not immediately taken into custody. Because of the "Stand Your Ground" law? I think not. It probably had more to do with who Zimmerman's father is, a retired judge.
Unfortunately, all we have is the testimony of the man who pulled the trigger and ended the life of a child.Trayvon Martin is not here to tell us what really happened. But let's say, for arguments sake, that somehow the 17 year old Martin did get the upper hand on the 29 year old Zimmerman. Let's say Zimmerman approached Martin in an effort to find out if this Black kid belonged in the neighborhood. Let's say once Martin saw that Zimmerman, who did not identify himself as a neighborhood watchman, had a gun, he became fearful of his life and decided to defend himself, to "stand his ground". Let's say Martin did pummel Zimmerman "MMA style", in an attempt to prevent this unidentified man from using his gun on him. Was Trayvon Martin wrong? Was George Zimmerman a victim of his own stubbornness and stupidity, since he did not listen to the police and not pursue Martin? Didn't Zimmerman get what he deserved?
Let's also ask this question, which everyone knows the answer to. Are we even having this conversation if Trayvon Martin was a white teenager? Think about it. A lot has been made of George Zimmerman not being white, but being part Hispanic. If George Zimmerman acts in the exact same way, but ends up killing a white kid, then the tables are completely turned and the fallout totally different. But also ask yourself this. Take the same circumstances, the same actions, but change the result. Say Martin and Zimmerman ended up struggling and the gun goes off, killing Zimmerman. I seriously doubt that Trayvon Martin would have received as much benefit of the doubt that George Zimmerman has received up to this point. Zimmerman has showed he is not trustworthy in trying to hide his finances in an attempt to secure a more manageable bail amount, has shown he has no regard for the law in that regard and in not listening to the dispatch officer telling him not to pursue Martin. All of this to go with the fact that Trayvon Martin was killed on February 26, 1012 and this case, if it even goes to trail, is not set to do so until June 10, 2013. And remember, that is even if it goes to trial.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Oct.11 2012: Racism and this year's election
With the presidential election coming up very soon, the topic of racism has been a hot point for many on both sides of the ticket. Comments have been made by politicians that, after the news cycle hits, retractions or clarifications are swift. Some call these 'gaffes', clumsy errors or faux pas; not meant to offend, just said without much thought. The most recent 'gaffe' that has stuck with me since I heard about it was the comment Mitt Romney made as he was being secretly taped during a fundraiser where he said that 47% of Americans are going to vote for Obama because they are dependent on government, they believe they are victims and that the government has the responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing. Personally, it was not surprising for me to hear him say this, due to the fact that Romney is very wealthy and a large number of the very wealthy feel pretty much the same way about those who are not as privileged as they are. These 47% of Americans are those who participate in entitlement programs such as welfare, Medicare, may live in government subsidized housing, may live at or below the poverty line even though they are working citizens and may only make minimum wage. A large percentage of those people, by the numbers, are minorities.
Some may say, 'What Romney said was not racist at all, he was stating facts'. I'm sure many of the people who attended that dinner felt that way. And if you take what he said for face value, it isn't a racist comment. But what the underlying tone of that statement represents is the basis for my thoughts here and a blueprint for, what I call, modern day racism. Years ago, during the Civil Rights Era, racism was blatant. Black people were lynched, attacked with dogs, had fire hoses turned on them, were refused service at white establishments and businesses, were not allowed to vote, could not attend the same schools as whites, were relegated to the backs of buses, etc. Racism clearly existed then. Today, by and large, these practices are socially unacceptable, due to the diligence of activists and others who followed and supported and participated in the Civil Rights movement. But the idea of white supremacy was never fully stamped out and it morphed into what we see today. During those dark times in our country's history, starting with slavery, the idea was to keep Black people uneducated so that they would never be socially acceptable to society. To keep them subservient and in a position to where they had to rely on their oppressors, Black people were conditioned to look a there white counterparts as superior, even after slavery was abolished. Not too many Black people during that time could read; those that could and wanted to further their education were not given access to the same schools as whites were. It was very difficult for Black people to achieve the same things that whites were able to achieve, like home ownership or owning their own business. So the socially elite status that some white people were able to enjoy, the opportunities to become very wealthy, was not something that was envisioned for Black people.
Thankfully, this was not an acceptable situation for many. Through the great lengths that Civil Rights heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Stokely Carmichael, Ida B. Wells, Al Sharpton, Ralph Abernathy and countless others went through to ensure that those who came after them would be able to pursue 'the American Dream', many Black people have been able to attain the socially elite status that was once reserved just for whites. But like I mentioned earlier, the idea of white supremacy hasn't been stamped out. The fact that this country actually elected a Black man into the office of President has made it very apparent that the racism many thought had faded into obscurity is still very real and a major issue today.
Some people may feel that bringing up the issue of race is just too easy, especially when Black people use it as a defense of Barack Obama. Many of us, myself included, attribute a lot of what Obama has gone through during his first term in office to the fact that he is Black and that there are still many people in this country that are not comfortable with the idea of a Black person trying to lead them. I often refer to this as 'some white people not wanting to have a Black man tell them what to do'. Obama's Republican counterparts often try to lean on the 'poor leadership' pulpit when explaining why the country is in the shape that it is in. And in many aspects, they are right. But not in the aspect of Obama's leadership. What they fail to realize is that they are in positions of leadership, too, and their failures to work with the President have been magnified by the majority of them having this good 'ol boy mentality. True, President Obama has not made all the right decisions during his 1st term. But when his political colleagues, from day one, make it known to the American public that they will not support any legislation that he tries to put in place, what is that based on? When politicians decide to waste 4 years and do nothing to help get the economy back on track, they lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of a man who has made progress, almost entirely with no bi-partisan support, what do you base that on? It's not based totally on race, but some of it, a large part of it is.
The terrible thing is, the election of this country's first Black president was suppose to signal to American citizens and to the world that the change that Barack Obama spoke of during his election campaign had finally come. It wasn't just about a change in the way politics was done in this country. It was about a change in the way we perceived each other, how we interacted with not just our neighbors here but the world over. Unfortunately, that change was a pipe dream; a dream that I really think Obama believed in. I'm pretty sure almost every person who voted for him felt like that change could actually happen. But no sooner than the day after Obama won, many Black people experienced what I did when they returned to work or when they visited the grocery store or when they did any of the number of things done during their daily routine. There were a lot of unhappy white people that next day. People that normally spoke did not speak. People that usually smiled did not smile. They didn't wave. People who usually asked how your day was going didn't even look your way. What was that based on? It was based on them not believing Obama could win. It was based in a superiority complex that these people always had. It was based on them not wanting things to change. It was based on the supremacy that had been passed down to them through the generations of their families. It was based on race.
Some may say, 'What Romney said was not racist at all, he was stating facts'. I'm sure many of the people who attended that dinner felt that way. And if you take what he said for face value, it isn't a racist comment. But what the underlying tone of that statement represents is the basis for my thoughts here and a blueprint for, what I call, modern day racism. Years ago, during the Civil Rights Era, racism was blatant. Black people were lynched, attacked with dogs, had fire hoses turned on them, were refused service at white establishments and businesses, were not allowed to vote, could not attend the same schools as whites, were relegated to the backs of buses, etc. Racism clearly existed then. Today, by and large, these practices are socially unacceptable, due to the diligence of activists and others who followed and supported and participated in the Civil Rights movement. But the idea of white supremacy was never fully stamped out and it morphed into what we see today. During those dark times in our country's history, starting with slavery, the idea was to keep Black people uneducated so that they would never be socially acceptable to society. To keep them subservient and in a position to where they had to rely on their oppressors, Black people were conditioned to look a there white counterparts as superior, even after slavery was abolished. Not too many Black people during that time could read; those that could and wanted to further their education were not given access to the same schools as whites were. It was very difficult for Black people to achieve the same things that whites were able to achieve, like home ownership or owning their own business. So the socially elite status that some white people were able to enjoy, the opportunities to become very wealthy, was not something that was envisioned for Black people.
Thankfully, this was not an acceptable situation for many. Through the great lengths that Civil Rights heroes like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, Stokely Carmichael, Ida B. Wells, Al Sharpton, Ralph Abernathy and countless others went through to ensure that those who came after them would be able to pursue 'the American Dream', many Black people have been able to attain the socially elite status that was once reserved just for whites. But like I mentioned earlier, the idea of white supremacy hasn't been stamped out. The fact that this country actually elected a Black man into the office of President has made it very apparent that the racism many thought had faded into obscurity is still very real and a major issue today.
Some people may feel that bringing up the issue of race is just too easy, especially when Black people use it as a defense of Barack Obama. Many of us, myself included, attribute a lot of what Obama has gone through during his first term in office to the fact that he is Black and that there are still many people in this country that are not comfortable with the idea of a Black person trying to lead them. I often refer to this as 'some white people not wanting to have a Black man tell them what to do'. Obama's Republican counterparts often try to lean on the 'poor leadership' pulpit when explaining why the country is in the shape that it is in. And in many aspects, they are right. But not in the aspect of Obama's leadership. What they fail to realize is that they are in positions of leadership, too, and their failures to work with the President have been magnified by the majority of them having this good 'ol boy mentality. True, President Obama has not made all the right decisions during his 1st term. But when his political colleagues, from day one, make it known to the American public that they will not support any legislation that he tries to put in place, what is that based on? When politicians decide to waste 4 years and do nothing to help get the economy back on track, they lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of a man who has made progress, almost entirely with no bi-partisan support, what do you base that on? It's not based totally on race, but some of it, a large part of it is.
The terrible thing is, the election of this country's first Black president was suppose to signal to American citizens and to the world that the change that Barack Obama spoke of during his election campaign had finally come. It wasn't just about a change in the way politics was done in this country. It was about a change in the way we perceived each other, how we interacted with not just our neighbors here but the world over. Unfortunately, that change was a pipe dream; a dream that I really think Obama believed in. I'm pretty sure almost every person who voted for him felt like that change could actually happen. But no sooner than the day after Obama won, many Black people experienced what I did when they returned to work or when they visited the grocery store or when they did any of the number of things done during their daily routine. There were a lot of unhappy white people that next day. People that normally spoke did not speak. People that usually smiled did not smile. They didn't wave. People who usually asked how your day was going didn't even look your way. What was that based on? It was based on them not believing Obama could win. It was based in a superiority complex that these people always had. It was based on them not wanting things to change. It was based on the supremacy that had been passed down to them through the generations of their families. It was based on race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)