Spirituality Without Religious Commitment: Is it Possible?

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines spirituality as, in part, a sensitivity or attachment to religious values. It defines spiritual, in part, as being concerned with religious values. So, of course, it would make sense that many would feel that to have some sort of spirituality one would need to be associated with a particular religion or religious organization. And while my intent with this particular post isn't to discredit that notion, I personally feel that one can achieve some sort of spirituality without being directly involved with a religion, religious organization or church.

Let me begin by answering the question I get from most people when I talk about my feelings and experiences when it comes to religion. Yes, I do believe in God. I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I attribute a lot of the values that I have to my upbringing in that particular organization. I've only attended one other church besides going to meetings at the Kingdom Hall and that was on just two occasions. I have no quarrels with the overall message within the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, I just came to the conclusion a few years ago that continuing to be a Jehovah's Witness wasn't for me. As time passed and I studied other religions on a small scale, the question I always asked myself was "Can I be a spiritual person and not be part of any particular religion?" I admit, my struggles with trying to stay within the guidelines of the organization I grew up in had a part to play in me deciding that I was better suited outside of it. But, as of late, I have come to realize that one needs some sort of spirituality, some type spiritual connection to live a prosperous life. By prosperous, I don't mean wealthy. As a person, I am always looking for ways to grow, to become a better person, to love others more, to not be overwhelmed by personal struggles. To be prosperous, or to continue to grow, a person would need some sort of guidelines to live by. Whether these be religious values or personal values, I feel that without some sort of path to follow, a person could never reach his or her full potential and would be limited at best in trying to achieve any personal goals. But how can one find some sort of spirituality without wanting to be affiliated with a religion?

Before I give my answer to this question, let me say that this is my own personal opinion. It works for me and my hope is that it will work for others who find themselves in a similar situation as I find myself. I have found that since I already had a religious structure in place, due to the way my parents raised me, I already had some decent groundwork laid out. Studying about other religions, some in depth and some just on the surface, have proven to be useful to me. One point that I gathered from studying some Five Percent teachings is that the main ingredient to attaining spirituality is to "do the Knowledge" or basically, study. Jehovah's Witnesses, along with pretty much every other religion teach this as well, with the Witnesses stressing that it is important to "read God's Word daily". Just like with anything that requires some sort of learning and understanding, you have to study and do research. Growing up, my mother stressed personal study. There were five different meetings, three days a week, that we attended and the publications that we used during those meetings were integral parts of those meetings. Just like in school, we studied the books so that the information we received at the meetings would sink in, become more understandable and be real to us. Even though I am no longer associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, most of their teachings are still integral in my daily life, some a whole lot more than others.

In my studies, I've come to realize that spirituality starts within. People may disagree with the idea that you don't need to be a part of a church or a religion or religious organization to attain a level of spirituality but I believe that it starts with you first. My older sister has often urged that I try to find some sort of spirituality to stabilize my personal life. As I've grown older, there have been occasions where I despised listening to what someone else told me was right or wrong. I think that is part of the reason why I decided that I would not  return to the Witness organization, along with some others reasons. That may also be the reason why I don't particularly do well with relationships. Some may view this as being haughty, and I can see why they would think that way. But after growing up in the religious household that I did and coming to the realization as an adult that I wasn't on board with the whole religion thing, I had dismissed religion altogether. It wasn't until I found myself trying to succeed in life by my own guidelines and rules that I realized I wasn't going to achieve any of the goals that I had set for  myself on my own. I had to get in tune with who I was on the inside, who I was spiritually. Part of that was understanding that there are bigger things pushing those who have achieved any level of success. Some believe the god that they worship is directing their steps. In the movies, like 'Star Wars', the story speaks of 'the Force' guiding all those who were in tune with it. Modern religion characterizes that as the Holy Spirit, or God's active force, which guides those in tune with it. And while other religions may focus on this in other aspects, the one common thread is that there are forces bigger than us humans that can guide us down a good or destructive path. While conventional thinking simplifies this so that all men can understand the concept better, I personally think it goes a little deeper than that.

Some religious teachings speak of God as being the creator and being a spirit entity in the heavens, watching over us. Others teach that God is within each of us. Still others teach that each individual is God or a god or godlike. The Bible says that God created man "in his image". So in truth, all three of these viewpoints can be said to be correct, depending on one's perception or interpretation. And while movies like 'Star Wars' and 'The Matrix' tend to take the idea of God and his active force or Holy Spirit to extremes, I feel like the concept of all human beings being godlike is fairly accurate. If God created man in his image, that would definitely make man as a species godlike in that there could possibly be a way for humans to do extraordinary things if they could tap into the brains unlimited potential. The scriptures also state that "if you have faith the size of a mustard grain...nothing would be impossible for you." I think there is a literal meaning to that. A common saying is "if you put your mind to it, you can do anything". Basically I interpret that, along with the scriptures, as meaning if you are in tune with your spirit then the possibilities are endless. Success is predicated not only in the belief that something can be achieved but also in one's abilities to achieve. While many put their faith in the thought that God will provide, wouldn't it be just as important to have faith in one's own abilities along with the fact that we can do absolutely anything if we are in tune with ourselves, our spirit?

Recently, I've begun to read The Tao of Wu, a book written by Wu Tang producer the RZA. I've read his first book, The Wu Tang Manual and was really impressed with the way RZA uses his own personal spirituality to mold the way he does things. He combines Buddhist principles along with Islamic and Five Percent teachings and some things he's learned from Christianity to govern the path that he walks.  He also acknowledges his training in kung fu as being a big part of his discipline. The Tao of Wu focuses a lot more on his spirituality than The Wu Tang Manual does, but one thing is clear: he attributes everything that he has been successful in to his spiritual connection. He mentions that knowledge was paramount to his development and that the teachings he learned as a child through the Five Percent Nation gave him a basis for the way he lived his life from the moment it was intrduced to him by his cousin, fellow Wu Tang Clansman the GZA. "Doing the Knowledge" meant studying and the initial studies are not based solely on religion. These basic teachings are the 120 Lessons and learning them gives you knowledge of things such as the distance the Earth is from the sun, the circumference of the Earth and it's diameter, the weight of the earth and the speed of light and sound along with countless other lessons that fill you with knowledge that may not be viewed by others as typical understanding . These were things that kids in the inner city public school system weren't necessarily being taught. So if you were a person who dropped out of school or ended up in jail, these teachings would give you the knowledge that you may not have received otherwise. These teachings, known as Mathematics, dispelled the notion that if you were Black and living in the projects then you were destined to be ignorant and uneducated. Without those principles to guide him on his path, he acknowledges that he'd probably still be in the projects of Staten Island, living only to die.

It has been through reading those books, along with the Bible and picking up bits and pieces of other religions, that I realized spirituality starts with an inner journey first. If that inner journey takes you to a religion or place, so be it. But religion  and church isn't the end all be all that many of us were taught it is. If one believes in a god, whether it be Jehovah, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad or has the belief that God is just pure energy that exists within us all, it is the journey to find our own spirituality that is most important. A person may not believe in a god but still may have a strong sense of spirituality. There are many roads that can lead a person to finding out who God is to them, but they all do lead to one.It is my personal belief that when God judges all of his creation, it will not be based on what religion one may be or what organization one will be a part of. It will be based strictly on one's works and deeds, on one's heart condition. Of course, all of that can be shaped by religion. But in the end, it's about the knowledge one attains. Solomon knew that knowledge was more valuable than any material possessions and when God asked him what he wanted, he asked for wisdom and knowledge. Since God recognized that he asked for this and not riches and wealth or anything else of a selfish desire, he bestowed upon him the wisdom and knowledge he asked for and the wealth and riches and honor he didn't ask for. Whether or not you believe in the words in the Bible, this example shows how important knowledge is. Think about it; if you have all the money in the world, and you do not have knowledge, what is the money worth to you?

So, is attaining spirituality without a religious commitment possible? I do think so. Once spirituality has been attained, it may lead you to make a commitment to a religion or organization. At the very least, it may lead you to abide by some religious principles. Either way, spirituality in and of itself will allow you to lay down some guidelines that can and will benefit you in the long run.

The case of Jordan Davis, the "Loud Music Trail" and what this all means for Blacks in America

Let's take a second and go over this again. Michael Dunn fires 10 shots into a vehicle of unarmed teenagers, some of those shots coming as the teens were driving off, trying to escape. One teen, Jordan Davis, gets fatally shot. Micheal Dunn claims that he was threatened by Davis and that he saw a what he thought was the barrel of a shotgun. Police never found a gun or evidence that the teens ever had one in the vehicle. The case goes to trail and Dunn is found guilty on 3 counts of second degree attempted murder in regards to the three other teens that were in the SUV. As for the murder of Jordan Davis, the jury couldn't come to a decision. So once again, the credibility and reputation of a murdered Black teen is tarnished and the parents of Jordan Davis are left wondering why their son's death has become another footnote to the story of race in this country.

Let's be clear on this. Micheal Dunn is a murderer. He's facing up to 60 years in prison on three attempted murder charges but not for the murder of Jordan Davis. Some say that justice has been served, that Dunn is going to jail for what equates to a life sentence. I'm not one of those people. Justice hasn't been served, not for Jordan Davis and his family. Justice hasn't been served for Black people in this country. The lives of our Black youths have once again been shown to have little to no meaning to those who are appointed to serve as jurors and judges. The jury couldn't convict on a murder charge, even though Jordan Davis was murdered. What it basically boiled down to is that some jurors felt that Dunn should be held responsible for his actions and some didn't. How a group of people can agree that he tried to kill the other teens but couldn't agree on the fact that he did succeed in killing one baffles me. This was another no-brainer case where intent was obscured by a self defense claim. Even though the 'Stand Your Ground' law wasn't put into play here, it was implied. Dunn said Davis threatened him. The jury said, essentially, that the other teens were unfortunately stuck in between a dispute between Davis and Dunn and they were collateral damage. Davis was the perpetrator, and Dunn reacted to the threat.

But let's take a look at Dunn and his actions that night. Dunn says he felt like his life was in danger. So his reaction was to 1) reach into his glove box 2) unholster his gun, dropping the holster onto the floor of the car 3) chamber a round 4) fire off 10 shots into the vehicle, some as the vehicle is fleeing the scene and 5) leave the gas station. Next, Dunn goes to his hotel room, walks his dog, orders pizza and has a drink. He doesn't contact the police. In fact, Dunn had to be apprehended at his home in Satellite Beach. These are facts, not speculation. Another fact is that, according to Dunn's fiance, he never mentioned that he had seen a gun to her. I just cannot see how anyone could look at these facts and not see that Dunn intended to hurt everyone inside that vehicle and should have been held accountable for Jordan Davis' death. So Michael Dunn will serve jail time for attempting to kill three young Black men, as he should. But once again, as we saw in the Trayvon Martin trail, the murder of Jordan Davis, as it stands right now, will go on unresolved.

What also needs to be evaluated here is, what if Jordan Davis and his friends were white? What if Michael Dunn, upon hear the 'crap rap music' as he described it, had approached those teens and saw that they were white. Everything changes! I'm sure the so called 'threat' level that Dunn said he felt never comes into play. But even within the reality of what did happen, I find it hard to believe that Dunn ever felt threatened. A person who feels threatened reacts differently than Dunn did. Every living creature on this earth has an instinctively inherent response system that kicks in when they are threatened. Some species react aggressively when cornered, others flee. Humans have a bit of an advantage over animals because we have the ability to reason. Dunn reasoned that, since he had a gun, he was going to turn the tables on those with whom he had a disagreement with. I truly believe, if Dunn felt threatened, if Dunn had actually saw a gun, his first reaction would not have been to reach over in his glove box, grab his gun, chamber a round and fire 10 shots into the SUV that Davis and his friends were in. If there was an actual threat, Dunn most likely would have tried to flee first. But he decided that he was going to kill, according to his actions, and he did. There is nothing that I've seen that could make me think otherwise. But a jury couldn't agree on it so there is no murder conviction and Jordan Davis is painted as an aggressive young Black man who threatened a white man who just asked them to turn their music down.

Speaking of the music that was being played, the media had billed this as the "loud music trail" and I think that diminishes the issues that this trail was centered on. I can't help to think that this was an attempt by the media to try its best and downplay the racial tension that we saw in the George Zimmerman/ Trayvon Martin case. I also can't help but feel like there was pressure put on the media to do this by the powers that be. This case did not get the same national attention that Zimmerman's trail received and feel like that was by design, to quell the amount of public outcry that would have occurred had it received the proper attention. This to me is irresponsible on the part of the media but irresponsibility and the media go hand and hand. It also misleads passing viewers that may not have known much about the trail. Therefore, a person flipping through the channels may see the headline "loud music trail" and keep flipping through, having no idea or no interest in that topic. A great way to keep people misinformed.

It is my opinion that the value of human life itself is not what it was 20 years ago. During the time period from the 1980's through the early 2000's many Black young men, such as myself, felt like reaching 25 years old in this world was an accomplishment. Nowadays, after the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, the fear of not reaching 19 or 20 years old is something that needs to be considered. And these are just the incidents that get reported. I googled "man shoots Black child" and saw a few other instances where young Black children were shot by white men that were very scarcely reported on. In at least two of those cases, the shooters were convicted, but in one of them, the conviction is being appealed on the basis of mental disease. But that is a discussion for another post. It's sad to say that as the value of all human life slowly decreases, the value of the lives of our young Black men have absolutely no chance at ever being deemed worthwhile. I'm not being cynical, I'm just being honest.

Awkward Moments with People who are "Not Racists"

Over the past few days, I've been gritting my teeth in dealing with a person at work who seems to not understand that some jokes aren't funny. I guess this person has become very familiar with me, maybe too familiar. I tend to be a person who can tolerate a certain amount of ignorance, usually because some of these ignorant folks know when to draw the line (usually when they get the sideways glance or the "that's not funny look"). But some people are just too ignorant to know that they are really that stupid.

I know that we live in a time period where many people claim that we, as Americans are "too sensitive". I don't think it's a coincidence that this time period just happens to be during the tenure of our nations first Black president. While jokes at the expense of political figures and individuals in positions of  authority are nothing new (George W. Bush was the butt of plenty during his time in office), the type of jokes about President Obama seem to not only hinge on people's opinion about him, but heavily on his race. Jokes about his policies hang on race as well. My coworker said to me the morning after a recent state of the union address: "Someone said the only thing that was missing from Obama's speech last night was him asking 'Do you want fries with that?'". I didn't quite get the joke so I asked him to explain. He said: "You know, because everyone who voted for Obama works at McDonald's" (that joke being told to a person who voted for Obama and who obviously does not work for McDonald's).On the surface, this is hardly a racist comment; there are plenty of white Americans that work for McDonald's. But in the context of the joke, you can definitely recognize the intent. And this example is very mild compared to some of the other comments and jokes I'm sure many of us have heard.

Some will say "it's just jokes". I disagree. Many people who either tell these jokes or think these type of jokes are funny shroud their intent with that mantra. Others cry freedom of speech or say that we have the right to express our views even if they are offensive. But when you look at the way indifference towards others is viewed today, these arguments don't stand up in most cases. It is socially unacceptable to call gay people "faggots" when just a few years ago, that word was used freely  and accepted by many. Even saying that a certain action is "gay" is looked upon unfavorably. So is the use the word "retarded" when speaking of people with learning disabilities or in regards to an action viewed as dumb or unintelligent. There has been no national debate on the use of these words or the views that are associated with the people that these words were once used to describe. Jokes about these groups of people are deemed taboo by most. Yet jokes regarding our Black president and those who voted for him, namely minorities, spark debates with those who find them offensive and those who believe America has gotten soft, too sensitive.

A common retort amongst those who find themselves in defense of these jokes or statements is that they're "not racists". The problem here is that you don't have to necessarily be racist to be offensive. One need not be racist to have racist views. If one has the viewpoint that they are free to be offensive if they choose to be, then doesn't the same right exist for those who the one may offend? The climate in this country in recent years has grown, in some areas, to be intolerable to insensitive views and practices. But it seems that the topic of race, since it includes to a very large extent the political climate in this country, gets grouped into the right of Americans to disagree with the government. So all the offensive jokes and comments directed towards president Obama and his administration, which in turn includes all Black Americans, are seemingly disguised under the cloak of discontent. So we end up with discussions that aim to "educate" close minded individuals on "race in America". CNN broadcasts a weeks worth of programming dedicated to understanding what it means to be 'Black in America'. We have profiles on famous Black celebrities, leaders and even ordinary Americans to give insight to those who "may not understand" the everyday experiences of Black citizens in this country. You have Black politicians, Barack Obama included, trying to relate to all Americans without alienating one particular group. You have people being described as "too Black" or "not Black enough". Controversy looms when issues arise concerning civil rights and our Black president may or may not want to speak on the issue. Debates arise over what aresocially accepted terms to refer to Black people as. This in 2013, not 1955 when one shouldn't need 'sensitivity training' to know what to say nor how to act around those who are of a different color, gender or sexual orientation. People shouldn't have trouble differentiating between real life actions of people of any race verses what they may see on television or in the movies. Yet general ignorance is often said to be the cause of situations that come up, like with the Paula Deens and Rick Perrys of the world. Black stereotypes are often the said to be the reason why Black people are depicted and reacted to the way we are. Any exceptions to these are classified as 'out of the norm' or exceptions to the rule when the complete opposite is commonplace more times than not. An explanation of this is not even necessary yet here I am writing about it, again.

So, what does a Black person do in that awkward moment when confronted with a joke or a comment by someone who isn't a racist, but brings an offensive joke or comment to them? In my opinion, since such jokes or comments are commonplace, any reaction will do. Adverse or not, if one is ready to say and/ or do whatever it is that they feel in the name of freedom of speech, they should be ready for whatever response they get. That is, since we live in a free country.

The N-word 2013: Is it Really That Serious?

I thought about some controversial way to title this blog, something like "Nigger, Niggaz, Nigga" to display the many different ways it's used this day in age. But I decided against it. I didn't want the seriousness of this topic to be diluted with, what I feel are dumb explanations and interpolations of an offensive word.

Before I continue, let me state that I am guilty of using this word in pretty much everyday conversation. I use it as a term of endearment to close Black male friends of mine, I use it to describe the way society still views Black people in many circumstances and I use it to differentiate some Black people from other Black people. I've even used it in various ways to reference myself. I have no justification for it and I won't make any excuses for my use of it. It's wrong. With that being said, it's wrong for anyone to use the word, just like it's wrong to curse. But many people use it. Some use it to demean dark skinned people, others use it because they are used to it being a part of their vocabulary. This word has been the subject of controversy for decades and I don't see that changing. The word 'nigger' is here to stay.

2013 has been an interesting year for the N-word and for the way society views race in America. Most notably, Paula Deen and the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman trail have put race in the forefront in a way we haven't seen in quite some time. Since Paula Deen's comments ("Yes, of course", when asked if she's ever used the N-word) and her subsequent fall from TV cooking grace, many people have come to the defense of her and others, namely white people, who have used the word publicly and have been vilified for it. People have said that the word 'nigger' doesn't mean the same thing today that it did 50 years ago. People have justified their use of it by saying that Black people call each other nigger all the time. Some people have said white people can't use the word at all. Others have wondered why anyone would want to use it. Still, many people say things like this get blown way out of proportion and even blame it on reverse racism ( a term, by the way, that I personally despise).

So what's the big deal about the dreaded N-word? It sounds mysterious whenever it's printed or said that way (at least I think so!). Well, for one, it's a word that many Black people automatically associate with racism. The word has no positive connotation at all in the English language, or any language for that matter. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary's first definition for the word is "usually offensive: a black person". It's second definition is "usually offensive: a member of any dark skinned race". The third definition? "A member of a socially disadvantaged class of people". That is the definition of the word. Just because people have tried to dilute it by trying to change the way it's viewed in society doesn't make a difference. As a Black person, if another Black person calls me nigger and I don't know that person, it would offend me. As a kid, I remember my mom calling me a nigger after I did something stupid. To this day, the memory of that hurts a little bit because I knew my mom was seriously disappointed in me.

I grew up listening to rappers like Nas and groups like Wu-Tang who used the word in their lyrics, so as a fan, it became part of my speech. But that doesn't change what the words true meaning is. The word was created to break down a person who was considered to be a nigger. Words like 'colored' and 'Negro' were used in an attempt to be more 'polite' to people of color. But anyone who's ever been called colored or Negro by a person who wasn't Black doesn't even view those words as more polite than being called a nigger. So it should be pretty clear why so many people, Black people in particular, take offense when people like Paula Deen so nonchalantly admit to their usage of the word. But because of the acceptance of the word in the Black community as a term of endearment in some cases, the consistency of Black people being opposed to the use of the word often comes into question. When Michael Richards, the actor who played Cosmo Kramer on 'Seinfeld' went on a nigger yelling tirade during a stand up routine in a Los Angeles comedy club in 2006, it was a hot topic and many Black people who loved the Seinfeld TV show stopped watching it. But ask many people today and they will say it's a moot point by now and pretty much a forgotten thing. Then you have people like Tim Allen who defend Paula Deen's use of the word because the Black actors that he's worked with use the word so freely. He also asked that, as a person who is "clearly not racist,...how can nigger be bad coming out of my mouth?"

I look at it this way. Paula Deen lost her show because her sponsors know the buying power of Black people in this country. They did not want to lose any potential dollars due to the casual ignorance of a TV personality who was too dumb to understand the cutthroat nature of Corporate America. She got on TV and pleaded with whoever would listen to believe she wasn't a racist. She wasn't sorry that she used the word, she was sorry it cost her her job. Most of her viewers still support her, because many of them feel just like she does. There are Black people who feel like she was treated unfairly and they are entitled to their opinion. But I feel that any white person who uses the word or wants to use the word should be prepared for whatever consequences come with that.

But some may ask: "Really, what's the big deal?" As I mentioned before, some of music's biggest stars use the word  freely in their lyrics. Quentin Tarentino along with other directors, Black and white, use it in their movies whether it is a historical piece or not. White teens who emulate their favorite rappers may call their friends 'nigger'. People of all races, when singing along to their favorite rap song sing right through the word. So would the fact that numerous media outlets and people use this word so freely soften is historical significance and meaning? Not in 2013, maybe not ever. I personally don't ever want to see the day when it is acceptable for a white person to use the word in any shape, form or fashion. But I would be remissed and hypocritical if I didn't acknowledge the fact that if nigger is ever going to be abolished from everyday language, it's going to have to start with Black people. Rappers are going to have to stop using it in their music. Everyday Black people like me are going to have to stop calling each other nigger. People in general are going to have to be more responsible in their use of the word. It does have a place, in reminding us how hurtful and destructive that word is and was in the past. In short, people are going to have to care about it more, not just when a famous white person says it and it's the hot topic all over the morning and evening news. Yes, the use of nigger in 2013 is really that serious. We just all have to admit it.

Obama on Race in America: What Does He Know?

It's pretty certain that whenever President Barack Obama speaks, he's going to receive some sort of criticism. When he speaks on the economic crisis, some feel he's pandering to the wealthy under the guise of caring about the poor. When he speaks on jobs, many feel he's saying what needs to be said while playing politics with his opponents. And while opinions when it comes to the political aspect of these topics and others like it can be argued either way, sometimes politics doesn't play a part. Or, at least, it shouldn't.

Obama's comments on Trayvon Martin last week was a candid look into a man who wasn't just addressing the nation not as the first Black President of these United States of America. He was speaking as a Black man who grew up during a time when racial tension in this country was at a peak. As the son of a Black man from Nigeria and white woman from the U.S., the challenges Obama faced growing up can be compared to many who grew up during that time. In some cases, as a person of mixed heritage, Obama more than likely faced criticism from not only white Americans but from Blacks as well. So in addressing the topic of race in this country and by saying "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago", he broached the topic from an interesting angle. Not only has he experienced the "door lock" and "purse clutching" scenarios, he grew up with people (his grandparents, both white) who may have at one time or another felt threatened by Black people, particularly Black males. As the nation's first Black President, I'm sure he's encountered episodes of racial discrimination, either directly or indirectly. When dealing with our nations politicians, mostly old white men who may have at one time supported racial discrimination, the specter of racism looms heavily in the background. So, in my opinion, there was no better person to speak directly to the nation on this particular subject than President Obama.

Not surprisingly, his detractors would disagree. Directly after his comments were aired live from the briefing room inside the White House, the news shows were on fire. One guest said that Obama's comments were inappropriate, given the fact that protests over the George Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' verdict were due to take place the very next day. He went as far as to say that his comment were giving those protesters the green light to be violent. Others agreed, saying that Obama was intentionally trying to further divide the country along racial lines. It was even said that Obama made those comments not as the President for all Americans, but as the President for Black people. The criticism seemed to be politically and racially charged, with the racial aspect probably weighing heavily on the political opinions of some of those who felt like Obama had crossed the line.

Presidents have often made comments regarding issues not directly related to the White House or to the day to day running of the country. It's always been a sensitive area because many people feel that the opinions of politicians regarding the day to day lives of Americans are usually out of touch with the reality we all face. While this can be said to be true in some cases, this is a unique situation where President Obama knew the reality in which he was speaking of. In fact, he knew it well. He faces it everyday. But it was more than Obama just making comments in defense of Black America. This was the leader of what is considered to be the greatest nation in the world by many, trying to give some insight into why many Black Americans were saddened and angered over the Trayvon Martin case. This was a Black president trying to explain to a nation of many races the feelings that most Black Americans have regarding race in this country. When the slaves were brought to America, they were viewed as savages, mainly because of the way they were presented on the slave trading blocks. They spoke a language unfamiliar to white Americans of the time. They were stripped of their dignity and their clothing, reduced to an almost animal like demeanor purposely to keep the distinction of the superiority of the white man, similar to what was done to the Native Americans earlier in history. Through the generations, as Black people came up through society, that imagery hasn't really changed much. Sure, we have a Black President, but young Black men are still viewed as "savages". This opinion is evident in the comments that have been made in criticism of the protests that have taken place. Comments such as "Black people kill Black people everyday," and "You have Black men killing Black children in Chicago" show how some white Americans still view Black people, especially males, in that inferior cast. The fear of rioting was pronounced. Even if you just look at the way Zimmerman's defense attorneys aggressively painted Trayvon Martin as this "wannabe gangster" or thug looking for a fight, it shows that there are still many Americans that accept this view of Black men in America as the norm and see Black men like President Obama as an anomaly. Even Black Americans are guilty of a similar perception, surprised that a presidential candidate like, then candidate, Obama even existed. Some Black (and white) comedians used that notion as punchline fodder (Katt Williams said: "You mean to tell me he don't have no baby mama drama, don't owe nobody $5!", etc.). So when Obama took it upon himself to address what can be seen as the incident that may cause another American racial divide, it was more than appropriate. It was necessary.

Obama also questioned the Stand Your Ground law, which was also met with ire. As a lawyer, Obama knows the law and should be able to speak on it freely. But politicians and citizens alike felt it was out of line for a President to question a law of the land, much like Lincoln drew the ire of many during that time when he questioned slavery. But if the President, with and extensive knowledge of law, can't question questionable laws in this country, then who can? In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law, is vague at best. It leaves too much room for interpretation on when it can and cannot be used. So much so that the defense team that represented George Zimmerman didn't use the law as a defense, but they alluded to it in their claim that Zimmerman felt like he had to use deadly force to defend himself against Trayvon Martin. The jurors, at least by the account of juror B29, could not convict Zimmerman based on the law, even though some of them felt that he was guilty of murder. The law, which states in part, "...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.." seems to cover a broad variety of possibilities, without necessarily leaving any burden of responsibility on the person defending themselves. In Zimmerman's case, the fact that Trayvon Martin was killed gave the defense too much liberty to craft the perfect story, based on the law. B29 even went as far as to say, according to the law, the case should have never gone to trail. Many Americans, Black and white have questioned the law and it's application to this case. But by it being questioned by the President, who happens to be Black and who seems to sympathize with those who disagree with the verdict, his questioning was inappropriate to some.

By questioning the law, and all Obama said was that it needs to be looked into (along with, surprisingly, John McCain), the President presented a national opportunity for people to understand how Black people in this country view the judicial system as a whole. Historically, the system hasn't worked too favorably for Black Americans when compared to white Americans. While this case involved two minorities, with Zimmerman being Hispanic, many have tried to deflect the racial aspect away from the case. Obama's comments were intended to draw attention to perceptions and feelings not just of Black America, but of white America, too. While many Black Americans would most certainly agree with his comments, some white Americans would disagree. While I am not going to claim to know exactly why some white Americans disagree, I honestly think it's less about disagreeing and more about wanting to believe that race is no longer a problem in America. Sure, you don't have Black people being hung from trees and there are no longer "white only" designations. You see more interracial couples now more than ever. And, as previously mentioned, we do have a Black President. While these represent some sort of progress, it is far from a sign that racism has been exterminated. While many Americans of many nationalities may or may not approve of the job that Obama is doing as President, those who do not approve have often taken to comments with intense racial overtones. There have been slogans such as "Let's Take America back!" which may mean one thing to a white person but mean something entirely different to a Black person. In fact, many things that can either be said or done can mean one thing to white America and mean something else to someone who is not white or in, some cases, not American. There was a time in this country when the "American Dream" did not apply to non-white Americans. To see a slogan such as "Let's Reclaim the American Dream!" in opposition to the current administration, it's hard for me as a Black American to not feel a way about that.

Looking forward it's safe to say, as unfortunate as it may seem, that we will probably not see another Black President for some time. While there are no current Black candidates that seem poised for a successful run at the White House, the stigma that has been placed on Barack Obama's current administration may leave future Black candidates wondering if they want to go through what Obama has and will go through for the rest of his 2nd term. There has been a lot of political wrangling in Washington during Obama's time in office, with many politicians vowing to say no to everything he proposes and to repeal as many laws as they can. This may translate to some voters that having a Black president is too polarizing and causes more trouble than what it's worth. In any case, having a Black president now, one that can speak to the issues of race, perceptions of Black and white Americans and the need for all Americans to work together to form a better Union, is uniquely important for our time. Whether it works or not is a different story.

Black Unity and White Confusion

In the wake of the 'Not Guilty' verdict of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a lot of raw emotion has been seen from those who feel like the verdict was unjust. We've seen media coverage of peaceful protests around the nation (I had the privilege of participating in one here in Greenville, SC) and violent riots in Los Angeles. We've seen thousands on social media sites show their support of Trayvon Martin and his family by blacking out their profile pics or replacing them with Trayvon Martin himself, themselves in hoodies and other artistic expressions. It's an act of unity that shows the way people can unite when faced with tragedy.

Of course, this act of unity and this tragedy has divided our nation. While the nation pretty much unanimously united over the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT which included the deaths of 20 children, the death of Trayvon Martin sparked a debate not only on the perception of the young Black male in America, but also on the way Black people responded. The questions that have been raised range from "Why are Black people protesting when they don't protest over Black on Black crime?" to "Why are Black people making this a Black and white thing when George Zimmerman is not white?". The question of race has long been a sensitive issue in American history and now, with race relations under the most intense scrutiny we've seen since probably the 70's and 80's, the potential for unrest is very real.

Recent events, for example, the Paula Deen situation, show that there are still some Americans who have not evolved in their perception of Black Americans. While many will often harp on this being a white issue, the Black perception is pretty universal among all other racial groups. Some will say that it doesn't help that we are portrayed on television and through some popular music the way that we are. During a conversation I had with a white person on facebook, the comment was made that this person talked to some Black people from "the 'hood" and asked them why Black people don't protest when a Black person shoots another Black person. He said they responded "that's just 'hood life." He also mentioned that 'Lil Wayne performed talking about violence while wearing a Trayvon Martin T-shirt. He said it was things like this that confused him regarding the reasoning of Black people and what they choose to support or not support. The problem in this instance is that this person is using just two examples in which his perception is based on. Those individuals that said "Oh, that's just 'hood life", to me represent a small, ignorant portion of those living in the "'hood". In areas like Chicago, where shooting deaths of young Black people have been receiving major media coverage, there have been all sorts of rallies and protests to try and stop the gun violence. Growing up in a pretty rough area of South Jamaica Queens, NY, I've personally witnessed organizational efforts to stop Black on Black crime and gun violence. Acceptance of the death of any young Black person due to violence of any sort is not 'hood life. Those who say that are part of the problem. As far as basing your perception of Black people on a millionaire rapper like 'Lil Wayne? Well, I think that says more about the person than it says about anything that 'Lil Wayne does.

Another common response to the verdict and the resulting outcry has been the notion that this case was "spammed", as the above mentioned facebooker said, by the media to push a government agenda. As we all know, gun violence has been a hot topic over the past year. I refer back to the Newtwon shooting here as well, noting that many feel the same way regarding that particular tragedy. Whether you feel that way or not doesn't change the facts of either shooting or it's tragic impact on all those involved. Trayvon's case is no different than Melissa Alexander's case or Jordan Davis' case or Darius Simmons' case. Although the media has not covered these cases with the same vigilance as they did with the Martin case, the outcry over anyone of these situations is an outcry for the others. It's not like the cry for justice has just been for Trayvon Martin. The cry for justice has been for everyone involved in situations like this in the past, during the present and for those cases that are sure to happen in the future. Part of the outrage is that we continually re-visit these events because they are still happening. Another part is because our outrage is continually trivialized by bandwagon accusations and confusion as to why Black people are upset. It's like white America is wondering why Black people haven't gotten used to these things because they've happened so much before and happen so often now. They use the same reasoning when someone like Paula Deen is held accountable for her actions towards Black people. It burns me to hear someone ask why Black people get offended by white usage of the word nigger when Black people use it in regards to each other all the time (maybe that has something to do with that little thing called slavery and the creation and usage of the word to demean those slaves. Black usage of the word today amongst Blacks is a separate issue altogether). It burns me just the same when people ask now why we're so outraged by another death of a young Black person when young Black people kill other young Black people all the time. Some even say that white people don't protest when a Black person commits a crime against a white person. The reason for that is because white people don't have to. It is pretty much assumed by all that a Black person who commits any crime against a white person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some will bring up the case of OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of a double murder charge when he was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Some will say Black people celebrated his acquittal, while we protested the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I think in the case of OJ Simpson, it was the fact that he wasn't railroaded as many thought he would be. The facts in that case were presented and when the evidence lacked to prove that he did it, he was acquitted. Many Black people were elated that he got off, but we all knew OJ would pay the price someday. As he serves time right now for essentially trying to steal back his own property, many in the Black community know why and have accepted that fact. OJ got off on a technicality. Many people on both sides of the racial divide think he did it and won't dispute that his current incarceration is linked to that. But even that convoluted reasoning goes back to one thing, OJ is a Black man believed to have killed 2 white people and seemingly got away with it. To those who were outraged over his acquittal probably feel justice was served, just slower than they would have liked.

Now, I know there are many white Americans that feel the same way many Black Americans do when it comes to the Zimmerman verdict, so I hope I don't come across like I am not recognizing that fact. In fact, that is kind of the point I am aiming to make. Since the crux of this situation is not based on a white man killing a Black teen but on the perception that George Zimmerman, a Hispanic man, had of young Black men, white Americans should know what this is about. But the condescending tone that some of the comments that are being made carry and the trivialization of Trayvon Martin's death that certain questions bring about is disturbing. The fact that Trayvon Martin was someone's child is getting lost in this whole thing. The jury seemed to base their verdict on the fact that they felt that George Zimmerman was not a racist. They have said that they think he would have done the same thing over again regardless of the race of the person. But what they fail to admit is that since he was Hispanic, if it was a white person that he shot and killed, chances are his case could have turned out different. If Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white, it would have most certainly turned out different. Why? Because the evidence clearly showed that Zimmerman was at the very least guilty of unnecessarily shooting an unarmed person. Many reports have said that Trayvon could have ran away from Zimmerman. The recorded call to the dispatcher shows that George Zimmerman purposely pursued Martin when he could have well enough just listened to the dispatcher and stayed in his car. If Trayvon had run, George most likely would've kept up the pursuit. His history of calls to the non-emergency dispatcher shows he would not have reacted the same way if Martin was white because he never did. A white person would have been assumed to be a resident of the community. All of this was overlooked. That's the reason for the outrage of the verdict. That's the reason for the protests. That's the reason why the white confusion confuses Black people. Why wouldn't anyone be outraged over the killing of an unarmed young man, regardless of his race? What if, during the alleged struggle, Trayvon Martin had somehow gained possession of Zimmerman's gun, shot and killed him, then claimed self defense? Wouldn't the phone call that Zimmerman had made to the non-emergency dispatcher have proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Trayvon had a legitimate self-defense claim? If what Zimmerman claimed was true, that Martin punched him then repeatedly slammed his head into the ground, shouldn't the fact that Zimmerman pursued him and approached him and had a gun give Martin just as much a claim to self defense? Shouldn't Zimmerman, at the very least, have been charged with negligent use of a firearm, since he wasn't even supposed to have one on his patrol? That blame can go on the prosecution, but you should see where I am going with this. Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here, in one way, shape form or fashion. It's just that the jury decided that he wasn't a racist, and they decided that he didn't shoot and kill Trayvon because he was black. Seems like he got off on a technicality of interpretation to me.

This case will long resonate with Black people, but it should resonate with white people as well. This was a situation where two minorities were involved but the white perception prevailed. Zimmerman's white attorney's played upon this perception when they characterized Martin as a thug, as a threat, as "suspiciously" walking through his own neighborhood. They played upon the white superiority complex that some white Americans have by questioning why didn't Martin comply to Zimmerman's authority. They even said Martin had time to run if he felt like he was being threatened. The problem is, the jury took everything that Zimmerman said happened as fact and took the actual facts that they could gather from phone records, defense testimony and the like as speculative. Trayvon couldn't defend himself. At least one of the jury members is a registered gun owner. All of the 6 jurors (5 white women and one Hispanic woman) agreed that George acted wrongfully in his pursuit of Martin. Black confusion turned to outrage and the white confusion enrages Black people further. Why are we so upset? Why are we protesting? Why are we not accepting the verdict? The real questions all of us should be asking is why isn't EVERY AMERICAN angry? Why is anyone confused? Why are we struggling with acceptance in America when we have a Black president serving a second term? Why haven't we changed AT ALL as a nation yet? I think a truthful answer to that last question can also all those before it.

NOT GUILTY???!!!! What the George Zimmerman Verdict Really Means

Shocked. That is the only word I can use to describe what I am sure many of us who were awaiting the outcome of the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman case. Personally, I figured that Zimmerman would walk, but I held out the slightest hope that the jury would convict. Not because I hate George Zimmerman, but because it seemed pretty clear cut that he acted in an unlawful manner when he gunned down Trayvon Martin. You can comb through the facts of the case with a blind eye and still come to the conclusion that he shot and killed an unarmed child. Was it murder? The jury said no. The jury could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman had ill will and intent to injure or kill Trayvon. Maybe the jury didn't want to send a man to prison. Maybe the jury bought the endearing appearance that the defense carefully crafted for Zimmerman; the clean shaven face and the extra weight that gave him a much different look than the one he had on the night he fatally shot Martin. Maybe the jury bought the notion that Trayvon was a thug and that Zimmerman was afraid for his life when he drew his gun during the ensuing struggle. Maybe they bought the idea that George Zimmerman was just doing his job as neighborhood watchman when he decided to follow Martin because he looked suspicious wearing a hoodie in the rain and carrying candy and iced tea.

Maybe the jury looked past the fact that Trayvon was someones child. Someone who lived in the neighborhood where he was gunned down. Someone who was less culpable in this case than the one who was holding the gun. Someone who had no idea they were being approached by a neighborhood watchman who had aspirations to be a police officer, but for some reason wasn't one as of yet. Someone who was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Someone who had just as much a right to 'Stand Your Ground' as did the person who claimed to be doing just that. Someone who was engaged in a gunfight with nothing but his fists.

Maybe the jury had already had enough of this case. For 5 weeks they'd been dealing with it, from jury selection to the verdict. For two weeks they heard testimony from both sides. The defense had a pretty good strategy of painting Trayvon as a thug and of discrediting the prosecution's witnesses. The jury endured over 4 hours of closing argument. Maybe the jury just wanted to go home. I have a hard time believing all 6 of those jurors honestly thought George Zimmerman was not guilty. There had to be one person in the room who thought that Zimmerman's testimony didn't add up. Maybe they were the reason why it took 16 hours to come to the conclusion they ended up with unanimously. Maybe the other 5 jurors convinced them to look at things a little differently.

In the end, with all the waiting those involved with this case and all of us who watched from home did, with over a year having gone by, this is what we are left with. A not guilty verdict for a person who was guilty of, in the very least, having no regard for human life. I can't even begin to imagine what Trayvon's family is experiencing now. They had to deal with the loss of their son, wait for almost two months, from February 26th to April 11th, to get an arrest and see charges filed against the man who killed their son, their brother, their nephew, their cousin. They had to wait as the defense charged them with trying to manipulate the media by releasing photos of their son that made him look like an innocent child. The defense countered with pictures that made him look menacing, threatening and much more intimidating than the family photos. They showed him blowing smoke circles, claiming that Trayvon smoked marijuana and was under its influence the night he was killed. Martin's family had to deal with this and more for over a year while they watched Zimmerman receive financial donations to take care of his defense and his personal expenses. They had to watch their son get vilified in death as George Zimmerman walked free on bail, even after deliberately misleading authorities in regard to his finances. Once the trail began, they had to watch an aggressive defense of the man who shot and killed their son, while those who the prosecution called as witnesses were discredited. They watched as the prosecution tried to defend their son, when it wasn't him that was on trial. They watched as Trayvon was portrayed as the aggressor. They watched George Zimmerman refuse to testify and, finally, they watched as the jurors found their son's killer not guilty.

What this verdict means, essentially, is that Trayvon Martin was the one who was guilty. Yes, a not guilty verdict on behalf of George Zimmerman means that Trayvon Martin, somehow, ends up being the guilty one. It means that George Zimmerman had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who was walking to the home in which he was staying during that time. It means that George Zimmerman, although he acted against directions from a police dispatcher to not follow Martin any further, did nothing wrong according to the law.

What's sad is that this outcome was probably predetermined at the outset of the trail. It was long questioned why the State Attorney, Angela Corey, decided to charge Zimmerman with only 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter charges were later considered before the case was handed to the jury, but it was an all or nothing approach from the beginning. Maybe it was because the evidence against Zimmerman was so clear cut. But it is not outlandish to think that George's father Robert Zimmerman, the retired judge, didn't have an influence here. Couple that with the prosecution failing to drive home a number of important facts of the case, mainly of which was that Zimmerman was the head of an unarmed patrol as neighborhood watch leader. It would seem that should have been a major sticking point in an effort to dispute the weight the Stand Your Ground law had in this case. Also, George Zimmerman pursued Martin, defiantly against police dispatch direction, establishing himself as the aggressor. Now, I'm no lawyer, but those two facts seem to stack the deck heavily against Zimmerman. But the jury didn't see it that way.

So now the public gets to weigh in from both sides. While it's obvious support will be split among racial lines, we are starting to get a real sense of the racial climate of this country. While the death of Trayvon Martin will probably not be carried in the same historical context as Emmit Till, the social ramifications may well be. Zimmerman's lawyers defiantly postured in front of the cameras during the press conference after the trail, painting their client as the victorious victim. The lead attorney, Mark O'Mara threw race right into the mix by charging that if Zimmerman had been Black, he would have never been charged. There are many people like O'Mara who feel the same exact way. Others feel like Black on Black crime isn't cared about in the Black community and that we use race as an excuse to create martyrs out of thugs when someone of another race commits a crime against a Black person. They say we defended Michael Vick, who killed dogs. They say we defended OJ Simpson, who murdered a white woman. They say we continue to stand by Barack Obama and he is destroying our country. They say Black people are the real racists. I say, as Melissa Harris-Perry said, that Black people are the only group of people that experiences racism from all other groups, even from within. There is a racial stigma that only Black people face. The pending results often show up as disparity when it comes to the Justice system. But what also occurs is criticism of the public outcry that comes from the Black community. It has been stated many times in regards to this case that George Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. Many people who aren't Black, and some who are, have stated that since this is the case, then it's not an issue of race. The same thing was said when Sean Bell was shot, due to the fact that some of the cops that were involved in that shooting were Black. But the truth of the matter is that it is about race. If young Black Trayvon Martin just happened to be young white Kyle Mickelson, this situation doesn't happen. George Zimmerman never made any calls to the non-emergency dispatch regarding suspicious young white men. You never hear of 4 Black cops shooting an unarmed white man 41 or 50 times. You don't hear about people locking their car doors when a menacing group of white teens dressed in khakis and polo shirts approach their vehicle. But you have cases where young Black men are not allowed to fly on airplanes or where they are ticketed or asked to leave malls because their pants "sag". You have curfews instituted in small towns when young Black kids decide to venture into the downtown areas. And you have Newt Gingrich saying that "500 people died in Chicago last year but no one protested that". So, while the case may not have been about Black vs. white, it was about race. It was about how a race of people, Black people, are depicted and perceived in society and how the law isn't designed to supersede that. In fact, as demonstrated in this case, it is designed to reinforce that stigma. George Zimmerman is a free man today because of that fact.