The decision in the Florida murder trial of George Zimmerman
is being treated as a case of racism, but while the murder itself could well
have been motivated by race, the jury decision hardly needed to have been.
The crippling social disease of American racism is all too
often dumped on individuals or groups or locales thereby leaving the social
order relatively unquestioned and allowing certain Americans to feel free of
the disease and superior to those who seem to more obviously suffer its worst
aspects. Thus we have divisions of the public into “minorities” and Red state –
Blue state and ethnic-religious-sex Balkanized groups. These prevent coming
together as a democratic majority to confront and solve social problems for the
benefit of all and not just a minority of rich people and their professional
class multi-cultural servants who help perpetuate their system.
While Trayvon Martin’s death seems an obvious outcome of
racism in America, the jury decision finding George Zimmerman innocent is no
more obviously racist than the jury decision was in the famous O.J.Simpson case.
The law itself – and it should be remembered that the law’s purpose is the
foundation and maintenance of the system, not its replacement or radical change
– and the ineffective and amateurish performance of the prosecutors may have
played as big a role for Zimmerman as that of the prosecution in the Simpson
murder case in which many believed the decision of innocence was for reasons
of…reverse racism?
Much of the “white” public was convinced of Simpson’s guilt,
partly because he was “black”, while much of the “Black” public was convinced
of his innocence, also partly because he was "black". Did racism play a role in
creating that dichotomy? Does a snake have wings?
While a highly paid defense
team, greatly aided by another group of ineffective and amateurish members of a
prosecution team, convinced a jury of Simpson’s innocence, many still believe
he got off because of race and not evidence. Is there a relationship between
the two cases? Is a bluebird blue?
What some called an affirmative action decision for Simpson could
be seen as exactly the reverse for Trayvon Martin. His representation (?) was
as botched as that of the two murdered “white” people in the Simpson case, but
with a jury of none of his peers, while there was allegedly racial fairness in the
O.J. jury. But just as Affirmative Action has been to the great advantage of a
small minority of beneficiaries while totally neglecting a great majority who
truly need help to overcome socially created obstacles, the legal-judicial
process has hurt far more than it has aided while strengthening a failing
system that punishes more while it rewards less. That point may be lost in the
individual focus on one victim or assailant that misses the social victims who
pay a heavy price of being assailed systemically, and not only by a jealous
ex-husband or wannabe-vigilante.
Trayvon Martin was killed because he was young and black and
thereby considered a menace by a self appointed protector of his community from
such “criminal types”. But Zimmerman was hardly alone in accepting that
characterization and in truth, many American communities with signs claiming
“neighborhood watch” or “we report suspicious activity” would have found middle
class dwellers phoning the police to report a young black man wandering “their”
streets. And one of those callers might well have been an upper middle class
“black” wondering what that person was doing in his or her upscale neighborhood.
The confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin might have been unique
in its terrible outcome, but the suspicions that created it are far too common
in America.
The repeated characterization of Trayvon as a “child” and
not simply a minor only helped to twist material reality almost as much as the other
side’s depiction of him as a thug because he had gold teeth and smoked pot. The
infantilization of this young man might have provoked him into cursing someone
out if it had been done to his face, and in truth hardly any seventeen year old
would like being called a child. But Trayvon certainly was not killed because
he was a child. He died because he was seen as a young black man and thereby as
a potential criminal threat, with no more evidence for that suspicion than the
fact that he was: a young black man.
That crippling social disease is hardly a problem for only
Florida, or one vigilante, or an alleged racist jury, which though it contained
absolutely none of Trayvon’s peers could easily under the circumstances find
the killer innocent of murder and do so without any trace of overt racism.
The crime itself was an aspect of racism in the USA – not
just Florida – but the jury decision was hardly an expression of the
white-is-evil analysis coming from too many who strengthen continued divisions
among Americans and make it more difficult to bring about real and not cosmetic
social change by acting as a people and not just a gang of minorities in
endless combat with one another. That is the law of the marketplace, but it has
nothing to do with a democratic system that not just theoretically but in
practice treats all people equally. Identifying some of us as being more if not
totally responsible for problems that all of us share is a program for continued
and greater social stress that will make solutions less possible. That’s
exactly what our rulers want and what we should work against.
Those ignorant enough to think Florida is uniquely racist
should remember that Oscar Grant was not murdered in Florida, but in the “hip”
Bay Area. Those who think Oakland, Grant’s hometown, is uniquely racist should
remember that Amadou Diallo wound up with nineteen bullets shredding his body,
and he was in “hip” New York City. The idea that one locale or community is
somehow better or worse than another in matters like race relations makes it
easy to continue the disrespect and contempt that too many Americans hold for
their fellow citizens.
The ugliness that led to the killing of Trayvon is a national
problem. It closely concerns our history and divisions of class that make it
possible for some people - of all alleged minorities - to make it, often big-time, while most people
struggle to survive. The strugglers need to identify the roots of their
problems, and simplistically reducing them to skin tone, immigration status,
sexuality or dress code will do nothing but add to the woes we face if we don’t
change an environment that threatens all of us by hyphenating our citizenship and
reducing us to minorities. We are the majority and we need to start acting that
way.
A more direct focus on the political economics at the root
of our society’s problems would be a bigger help in ending racism than any
false concentration on only certain political parties, geographic regions and
demonic individuals as being responsible for all that is wrong with America.
This starts by claiming the author knows two things the jury decided that they didn't: "the murder itself could well have been motivated by race" and quickly degenerates into "while Trayvon Martin’s death seems an obvious outcome of racism in America". There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race. The only racial word was used by Martin.
ReplyDelete"There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by race."
ReplyDeleteFlorida's Stand Your Ground law is a racial hunting license, and it doesn't take too many IQ points to determine who is the primary target. There is no way Zimmerman would have stalked and killed a blue-eyed blonde guy returning from the store after buying potato chips.
If this was a planned "murder" then Zimmerman would have had his gun already pulled out before meeting Martin. It wasn't. The racist comments were said by Martin. Zimmerman was just doing his job, Martin got upset by that and reacted by violence.
ReplyDeleteThis is great!
ReplyDelete