It takes a while to get to the point here, but that's part of what makes it so fascinating. Take a look:
ADDED: Here's a pithy minute of response to the question:
ADDED: Here's a pithy minute of response to the question:
Showing posts with label Trayvon Martin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trayvon Martin. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Friday, 26 July 2013
"No high school graduation for Trayvon. No college for Trayvon. No grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law, a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable and to pay for his awful crime."
That's terribly sad, but what law? George Zimmerman was acquitted because of the due process law that requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton means to attack that law. There's something sickening about seeing this poor woman wheeled about in her tragedy to mouth words of attack on the Stand Your Ground law that had nothing to do with Zimmerman's acquittal. Subjectively, perhaps Ms. Fulton gets satisfaction, but those who are using her should be identified, shamed, and denounced.
That's terribly sad, but what law? George Zimmerman was acquitted because of the due process law that requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton means to attack that law. There's something sickening about seeing this poor woman wheeled about in her tragedy to mouth words of attack on the Stand Your Ground law that had nothing to do with Zimmerman's acquittal. Subjectively, perhaps Ms. Fulton gets satisfaction, but those who are using her should be identified, shamed, and denounced.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
"Civil rights leader and MSNBC host Al Sharpton organized the 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies and vigils outside federal buildings in at least 101 cities: from New York and Los Angeles to Wichita, Kan., and Atlanta...."
Meanwhile, in Chicago, the reported number is 8,000, with Jesse Jackson as the big speaker, saying: "We must boycott Florida and stop 'stand your ground.'" Boycott Florida?
ADDED: At the Miami rally, Trayvon Martin's father spoke, and the NYT describes the crowd as "dozens of people."
In addition to pushing the Justice Department to investigate civil rights charges against Zimmerman, Sharpton told supporters he wants to see a rollback of stand-your-ground self-defense laws now in place in more than 20 states.Zimmerman shot when he was pinned down and getting his head bashed into concrete. Stand-your-ground has to do with retreating when you can. Even aside from the fact laws can't ensure that bad things never, ever happen again — or else why is there murder? — stand-your-ground made no difference in Zimmerman's situation.
"We are trying to change laws so that this never, ever happens again," the Rev. Sharpton said.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, the reported number is 8,000, with Jesse Jackson as the big speaker, saying: "We must boycott Florida and stop 'stand your ground.'" Boycott Florida?
Rosaline Wilson, 62, said she came to the rally remembering her 14-year old brother who she said was killed by a police officer several decades ago while he was riding home from school. Because of the experience, she said, Wilson was not surprised by the Zimmerman verdict, but thinks there is hope for the future.We need something concrete... Speaking of concrete, does anyone at these rallies mention that Martin bashed Zimmerman's head on the concrete?
"We need solutions; we need something concrete; we need change," she said.
ADDED: At the Miami rally, Trayvon Martin's father spoke, and the NYT describes the crowd as "dozens of people."
Talk about context — and he did — look where we find ourselves. After the verdict in the George Zimmerman case — otherwise known as the Trayvon Martin case — Obama may have wanted not to speak, but our nation casts its weary eyes toward the face that we (once) imagined would emanate rays of racial healing. Come on, Obama, you've got to do it. He got profiled all the way into office, and now we expect him to perform in accordance with our stereotype.
He resisted for a number of days. Who knows what he was thinking? Was he waiting to see if there would be riots? To hear what others might say (so he could enter the conversation late and seem, perhaps without really saying anything, like the voice of reason)?
Then, on Friday, he made his way out to the lectern in the White House briefing room — "no advance warning and little of the orchestration that usually accompanies presidential speeches" — and spoke without a teleprompter, extemporaneously. As the NYT has it:
talked to summoned the NYT — I'm sure that was okay with Obama — and painted this picture:
We don't know what he said Thursday night, but we do have the full video and transcript of what that became on Friday. Listening to the remarks again, I imagine what talking points he had in his head, and my guess is 5 "CONs": CONDOLE, CONTEXT, CONVENE, CONVERSE, CONFIDENCE. Let me show you this in the transcript:
He resisted for a number of days. Who knows what he was thinking? Was he waiting to see if there would be riots? To hear what others might say (so he could enter the conversation late and seem, perhaps without really saying anything, like the voice of reason)?
Then, on Friday, he made his way out to the lectern in the White House briefing room — "no advance warning and little of the orchestration that usually accompanies presidential speeches" — and spoke without a teleprompter, extemporaneously. As the NYT has it:
After days of angry protests and mounting public pressure, President Obama summoned five of his closest advisers to the Oval Office on Thursday evening. It was time, he told them, for him to speak to the nation about the Trayvon Martin verdict, and he had a pretty good idea what he wanted to say.Summoned! So commanding. He talked to 5 advisers. We're not told who, but one of them
For the next 15 minutes, according to a senior aide, Mr. Obama spoke without interruption, laying out his message of why the not-guilty ruling had caused such pain among African-Americans, particularly young black men....So the man is capable of speaking spontaneously for 15 minutes straight, and his 5 companions — obviously 5 believers — refrained from interrupting him. It's not really that amazing to go on for 15 minutes, and we sayw him do that at the lectern on Friday, presumably because he convinced himself — with the support of the 5 — that talking, just like that, would take us to that higher level that was promised by those Hope posters.
We don't know what he said Thursday night, but we do have the full video and transcript of what that became on Friday. Listening to the remarks again, I imagine what talking points he had in his head, and my guess is 5 "CONs": CONDOLE, CONTEXT, CONVENE, CONVERSE, CONFIDENCE. Let me show you this in the transcript:
[CONDOLE] ... First of all... I send my thoughts and prayers... to the family of Trayvon Martin....That's it: the 5 "cons." Don't even have to write it on your hand. Maybe in his head, he pictured one "con" superimposed on the face of each of the 5 believers he practiced with. Michelle was "confidence," all about the children and the hope, and so forth. That's just my sense of how he got through the 15 minutes, and he did it pretty well if you think about everything he had to pull together, all the people he needed to appease and inspire, and the theater of seeming to speak from the heart and the mind.
[CONTEXT] The second thing... a lot of arguments about the legal issues... But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling... in the African American community... a lot of pain... recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.... those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.... black folks do interpret the reasons... in a historical context.... So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.... they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied....
[CONVENE] Now... How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?.. I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed....
[CONVERSE] And then, finally... There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand... That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise...
[CONFIDENCE] And let me just leave you with a final thought... Each successive generation seems to be making progress... we should... have confidence that kids these days... have more sense...
Friday, 19 July 2013
Asks TalkLeft.
I hope not because our laws do not allow such conduct. It is not illegal for a private citizen to follow someone. It is illegal to physically assault another person who has not threatened him with the imminent use of force.
I am very disappointed that the President has chosen to endorse those who have turned a case of assault and self-defense into a referendum on race and civil rights. And that he is using it to support those with an agenda of restricting gun rights.
This halting, awkward performance had to have been carefully thought out, but you're supposed to absorb the anguish and agonizing as he walks back any expectation that the federal government will do anything:
From the NYT write-up:
From the NYT write-up:
“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son... Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”These are memorable but empty statements. Fill them with whatever you want. This isn't a critique of the legal system and how it handled the case. It's a vague claim of authority to empathize.
“I don’t want to exaggerate this, but..."But! Have it both ways. I don't want to exaggerate, but I've just got to say it anyway.
"... those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.”That's utterly banal: People understand things within the context of their own experiences.
“I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations”...Useful to examine the laws... okay.... He's really not saying anything, and yet the New York Times must sum up by giving him credit:
Mr. Obama spoke in deeply personal terms — an extraordinary moment for a president who seemed, at least during first term, often to shy away from the issue of race.What is deep and extraordinary? The case was already racialized, and he resonated with a bit of that without saying too much.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
"There are very few people have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any, shape, form.... I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. I don't like when it gets out there in the media because I don't think the media has clean hands... [T]he main thing I feel bad for, it gives every black and white person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance. That's the thing that bothers me the most..."
Said Charles Barkley.
Said Charles Barkley.
"... and we will see just how many civil lawsuits will be spawned by this fiasco."
This is why you don't want to say Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with George Zimmerman.
This is why you don't want to say Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with George Zimmerman.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
What nonsense! Let me translate: Holder wants relief from the pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, so he's shifting to a topic that has nothing to do with Zimmerman but that low-information people think has to do with Zimmerman. (Zimmerman was pinned down before he decided his life was on the line, and he had no route of escape.)
And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But "investigating" is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We're hoping that if enough time passes, you'll forget about it.
This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It's a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.
And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But "investigating" is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We're hoping that if enough time passes, you'll forget about it.
This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It's a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.
Drudge has the transcript of last night's Piers Morgan interview on CNN:
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?Here's my post from June 27th, with embedded video from Jeantel's testimony. I said (boldface added):
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?... And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."
You assume that there's no way he'd say "cracker" if he didn't see him as white? But he didn't say "cracker." He said "creepy ass cracker." I understand the use of "ass" as an intensifier connected to the adjective "creepy." Creepy-ass cracker, as in very creepy cracker.Call out the gay rights activists. In this interpretation, it was a gay-bashing!
But "ass" could go with "cracker" — "ass-cracker." The conversation continued, according to Jeantel: "So... he told me the man was looking at him, so I had to think it might have been a rapist."
Why rapist? A man raping a man? How common is that as a fear? But it was the first thing Jeantel thought to say after he said creepy-ass cracker/creepy ass-cracker. The term "ass cracker" could easily mean a man who rapes a man, especially one who goes after a teenaged boy....
The word "creepy" makes special sense if you reinterpret the "ass" to go with "cracker." Martin said a man was following him, looking at him. He might have thought Zimmerman was a man out looking for sex and was watching him for that reason. What conversations had Martin had in the past with Jeantel about worries of this kind. She "had to think it might have been a rapist."...
Why didn't Martin take Jeantel's advice and run home? The rapist/ass-cracker theory makes sense of Martin's decision to go after Zimmerman. If he saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator, he might think confrontation was a good idea or even an important step: These creeps in the neighborhood need to know that I'm not their prey. It's not enough to run inside daddy's house. My manhood must be established here and now or I can't walk free around here anymore.
ADDED: Thanks to Irene for nudging me to post this. It was right there in the testimony, and the defense lawyers — who were pretty astute about hearing cues and following up — missed this.
Monday, 15 July 2013
Says TalkLeft.
If the public wants to... believe them, that's their right. If they want to bring civil lawsuits against George Zimmerman or law enforcement or public entities, that's their choice. But when it comes to those lawyers and their public relations team using their bully pulpit to inflame passions and exert undue influence on the actions of law enforcement and public officials, including elected prosecutors, who have a duty not to bring charges without a good faith belief they can prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, all the while having a financial stake in the outcome of related civil litigation, I object.Much more at the link.
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Over at Breitbart, Joel B. Pollak is blaming Obama for "amplif[ying] the racial element of the case" by saying "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" and "fanning the flames of outrage and division--arguably, in an election-year attempt to drive voter turnout." He says:
2. If, without evidence of edginess, the President were to call for calm, it would imply that people don't know how to handle disappointment and emotional pain, that they descend into irrational, harmful activity. That implication is itself racial stereotyping.
3. I can see that Pollak resisted advising Obama to counsel black people not to riot, which would be the most egregious example of the problem I've cited in point #2, above. He says Obama should issue a reminder about the rule of law and the judicial process, but even that would be to say: I think you people might lack the self-control and intelligence to grasp the most basic fundamentals of the society we all live in. That's patronizing, and it relies on a racial stereotype that shouldn't be fed.
4. So I see no problem in Obama's silence. No statement in the face of no rioting is a whole lot of nothing of the very best kind. Have the perception to give credit for The Good Nothing. Some folks like to call Obama "Zero." Sometimes zero is the best number. Think of all the things we might try to count and feel delighted to find zero.
5. Obama's original statement in March 2012 — "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" — should be remembered accurately, not for the way that it was used and is being used now by Joel B. Pollak. Obama didn't choose to go out and talk about the case. He was silent until he was asked about it. And what he said was measured and careful. Here's what I said at the time, which ends with "To my ear, his words have a calming, moderating effect, but we don't all hear him the same way, I've noticed time and again." [ADDED: Pollak's piece links to that post of mine for the proposition that the question was planted, but all I said was "he knew [the question] would be asked or at least anticipated it. (At most: his people planted it.)"]
6. If Obama were to speak, whatever he said would be exploited race hucksters and the Obama-haters alike. I think it's just fine for Obama to deprive these shit-stirrers of raw material.
7. Before hitting the publish button, I double checked a couple news sites to see if the predicted riots had broken out. Anyone who's disappointed at the lack of action should be ashamed.
Following the verdict, with rallies and protests being held across the nation, and the NAACP and Al Sharpton vowing to take matters further, the President might be expected to remind the nation of the importance of the rule of law and respect for the judicial process....
But as of early Sunday morning, with the country on edge, the White House had yet to issue any statement.1. Is the country really "on edge"? Ironically, saying that is fanning the flames of outrage and division. How about waiting to see some sign of this edginess before expecting the President to advise calm?
2. If, without evidence of edginess, the President were to call for calm, it would imply that people don't know how to handle disappointment and emotional pain, that they descend into irrational, harmful activity. That implication is itself racial stereotyping.
3. I can see that Pollak resisted advising Obama to counsel black people not to riot, which would be the most egregious example of the problem I've cited in point #2, above. He says Obama should issue a reminder about the rule of law and the judicial process, but even that would be to say: I think you people might lack the self-control and intelligence to grasp the most basic fundamentals of the society we all live in. That's patronizing, and it relies on a racial stereotype that shouldn't be fed.
4. So I see no problem in Obama's silence. No statement in the face of no rioting is a whole lot of nothing of the very best kind. Have the perception to give credit for The Good Nothing. Some folks like to call Obama "Zero." Sometimes zero is the best number. Think of all the things we might try to count and feel delighted to find zero.
5. Obama's original statement in March 2012 — "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon" — should be remembered accurately, not for the way that it was used and is being used now by Joel B. Pollak. Obama didn't choose to go out and talk about the case. He was silent until he was asked about it. And what he said was measured and careful. Here's what I said at the time, which ends with "To my ear, his words have a calming, moderating effect, but we don't all hear him the same way, I've noticed time and again." [ADDED: Pollak's piece links to that post of mine for the proposition that the question was planted, but all I said was "he knew [the question] would be asked or at least anticipated it. (At most: his people planted it.)"]
6. If Obama were to speak, whatever he said would be exploited race hucksters and the Obama-haters alike. I think it's just fine for Obama to deprive these shit-stirrers of raw material.
7. Before hitting the publish button, I double checked a couple news sites to see if the predicted riots had broken out. Anyone who's disappointed at the lack of action should be ashamed.
Saturday, 13 July 2013
The trending hashtag.
Frankly, I think these are Twitter idiots who don't represent much of anything that real people are actually even thinking of trying to do. It's Saturday night, and the country is swamped with drunks. And a lot of the tweets with that hashtag are using it to say that it's stupid/evil.
Note: No one is rioting. I heard predictions that there would be riots, and I always thought these predictions were unseemly (if not actively racist). After the verdict was announced, CNN had a reporter in the crowd outside the courthouse, seemingly looking for angry black people to interview — and not finding any.
Frankly, I think these are Twitter idiots who don't represent much of anything that real people are actually even thinking of trying to do. It's Saturday night, and the country is swamped with drunks. And a lot of the tweets with that hashtag are using it to say that it's stupid/evil.
Note: No one is rioting. I heard predictions that there would be riots, and I always thought these predictions were unseemly (if not actively racist). After the verdict was announced, CNN had a reporter in the crowd outside the courthouse, seemingly looking for angry black people to interview — and not finding any.
Watching now.
UPDATE: Not guilty.
ADDED: Earlier this evening, I went back over all of my posts on this case, because I wanted to check my work and see that I had been careful and consistent. Here's the first post. And I said a lot of what I wanted to say back on March 31, 2012, in this diavlog with Bob Wright — resisting the political exploitation and excessive emotion around the case:
UPDATE: Not guilty.
ADDED: Earlier this evening, I went back over all of my posts on this case, because I wanted to check my work and see that I had been careful and consistent. Here's the first post. And I said a lot of what I wanted to say back on March 31, 2012, in this diavlog with Bob Wright — resisting the political exploitation and excessive emotion around the case:
"If Zimmerman is not convicted, avoid violence because it only leads to more tragedies. Self-destruction is not the road to reconstruction."
Said Jesse Jackson, shedding some new light on the problem of exulting at a conviction. There's been much speculation — some of it stupid and ugly — about how Zimmerman's antagonists will react if he's acquitted. But think about how they'll react if he's found guilty. That could produce video that will be used to embarrass and attack those who pushed for the prosecution. It will be hard for people like Jackson to deal with the outcome they sought. I suspect that an acquittal will provide them with the better material for future political enterprises.
Said Jesse Jackson, shedding some new light on the problem of exulting at a conviction. There's been much speculation — some of it stupid and ugly — about how Zimmerman's antagonists will react if he's acquitted. But think about how they'll react if he's found guilty. That could produce video that will be used to embarrass and attack those who pushed for the prosecution. It will be hard for people like Jackson to deal with the outcome they sought. I suspect that an acquittal will provide them with the better material for future political enterprises.
Friday, 12 July 2013
"Pretty risky tactic," says TalkLeft.
The closing argument is in progress right now, and even though George Zimmerman's lawyer said that, I can safely predict that when he gets to the end of his 3-hour lecture, he will assert that he has proved that his client is 100% innocent and yet your task as jurors is not to determine whether he's absolutely 100% innocent or even probably innocent or even probably guilty but only whether you have a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
Surely, once you accept what the burden of proof is, the case becomes easy. I watched most of the prosecutor's closing argument yesterday, and he was acting like a defense lawyer punching holes in Zimmerman's version of the story. He created — in my mind — a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
O'Mara can say: I've just obliterated any doubt Mr. de la Rionda might have created in your minds, and that would be enough for me to win now if I had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There isn't even a reasonable doubt that my client acted in self-defense. And yet the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
All the uproar about race is overwhelmed by the more mundane criminal process matter of burden of proof. I hope the general public understands that to acquit Zimmerman is not to say that Trayvon Martin is guilty — or even that he did anything wrong. It could be that each man misperceived the other and felt that his life was threatened. I understand the feeling that since Martin paid with his life for that mistake that Zimmerman should also pay, just to square it up. But that feeling can't rule the criminal process.
I hope the media help people to understand that and to calm the turmoil that this case has caused.
The closing argument is in progress right now, and even though George Zimmerman's lawyer said that, I can safely predict that when he gets to the end of his 3-hour lecture, he will assert that he has proved that his client is 100% innocent and yet your task as jurors is not to determine whether he's absolutely 100% innocent or even probably innocent or even probably guilty but only whether you have a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
Surely, once you accept what the burden of proof is, the case becomes easy. I watched most of the prosecutor's closing argument yesterday, and he was acting like a defense lawyer punching holes in Zimmerman's version of the story. He created — in my mind — a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
O'Mara can say: I've just obliterated any doubt Mr. de la Rionda might have created in your minds, and that would be enough for me to win now if I had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There isn't even a reasonable doubt that my client acted in self-defense. And yet the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
All the uproar about race is overwhelmed by the more mundane criminal process matter of burden of proof. I hope the general public understands that to acquit Zimmerman is not to say that Trayvon Martin is guilty — or even that he did anything wrong. It could be that each man misperceived the other and felt that his life was threatened. I understand the feeling that since Martin paid with his life for that mistake that Zimmerman should also pay, just to square it up. But that feeling can't rule the criminal process.
I hope the media help people to understand that and to calm the turmoil that this case has caused.
Thursday, 11 July 2013
That's a telling way to put it, in a CBS/AP article about the judge's ruling that the jury can consider the lesser included charge of manslaughter. Reader "Jane" emails to say:
I'm going to put that alongside a related topic that I've been noticing of late: The Disappearing Hispanic. Remember that NYT article we were talking about the other day — "Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court"? I didn't bring this up at the time, but I noticed The Disappearing Hispanic phenomenon in this sentence:
(Feel free to argue with that assertion. What is reality when we talk about ethnicity? Saying "Hispanic" is a way to create reality, and it becomes a political reality, but political pressure will also break down and recreate that reality.)
And speaking of factual, we get the specification that Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian. Now, back to Jane's point: There's the is. It actually makes a lot of sense to say Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. There's a level of choice in how to talk about oneself. The media tried to make the choice for him and called him white, or — retrenching — white Hispanic.
But that got problematic. Shouldn't the individual have the freedom to choose how to self-identify? This is like the old box-checking problem. Should a multi-racial person be deprived of the option to identify as one half of what he is? We certainly accept President Obama calling himself black though he's only half black. Isn't that a choice to identify as black rather than bi-racial? And yet we'd be puzzled if he were to identify with the other half and say he's white. If the choice to "identify" is only with the darker half of your biracial identity, I'd call that racist.
So maybe the trend will be toward more specificity, the precision of "Zimmerman, whose mother is Peruvian." That could be a steppingstone toward ending up not caring much about these details. Perhaps we're in a process of letting go of these big (and inaccurate) categories of race and ethnicity. The fact that Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian should be perfectly boring, but we know why it's included. It's a stand-in for race, which we take to be important, just as it was in the AP's cruder: "Martin was black and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic."
This must be in the AP stylebook somewhere, because that sentence, or some variation therof, is found in every single article about the case: Martin "is" black but Zimmerman only "identifies" as Hispanic. Can you recall any other situation in which AP has played with racial identification vs. race as a fact in the news story?This is a great topic about which to maintain vigilance.
I'm going to put that alongside a related topic that I've been noticing of late: The Disappearing Hispanic. Remember that NYT article we were talking about the other day — "Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court"? I didn't bring this up at the time, but I noticed The Disappearing Hispanic phenomenon in this sentence:
Prosecutors counter that Mr. Zimmerman, whose mother is Peruvian, set out to confront Mr. Martin and initiated the fight that ended in Mr. Martin’s death.Instead of the umbrella category "Hispanic," we get the specification of the country of origin, in this instance, Peru. So "Hispanic" dissipates into numerous subgroups that are actually more real and more factual. I've seen a lot of discussion lately about that. (Google "There's no such thing as Hispanic" to get a taste.) And I think this is a trend that will increase along with the size of the Hispanic voting bloc. The subgroups will matter more, and the subgroups are more real.
(Feel free to argue with that assertion. What is reality when we talk about ethnicity? Saying "Hispanic" is a way to create reality, and it becomes a political reality, but political pressure will also break down and recreate that reality.)
And speaking of factual, we get the specification that Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian. Now, back to Jane's point: There's the is. It actually makes a lot of sense to say Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. There's a level of choice in how to talk about oneself. The media tried to make the choice for him and called him white, or — retrenching — white Hispanic.
But that got problematic. Shouldn't the individual have the freedom to choose how to self-identify? This is like the old box-checking problem. Should a multi-racial person be deprived of the option to identify as one half of what he is? We certainly accept President Obama calling himself black though he's only half black. Isn't that a choice to identify as black rather than bi-racial? And yet we'd be puzzled if he were to identify with the other half and say he's white. If the choice to "identify" is only with the darker half of your biracial identity, I'd call that racist.
So maybe the trend will be toward more specificity, the precision of "Zimmerman, whose mother is Peruvian." That could be a steppingstone toward ending up not caring much about these details. Perhaps we're in a process of letting go of these big (and inaccurate) categories of race and ethnicity. The fact that Zimmerman's mother is Peruvian should be perfectly boring, but we know why it's included. It's a stand-in for race, which we take to be important, just as it was in the AP's cruder: "Martin was black and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic."
Monday, 8 July 2013
The NYT frontpages this execrable article by Lizette Alvarez, titled "Zimmerman Case Has Race as a Backdrop, but You Won’t Hear It in Court." She begins with the assumption that the case is supposed to be about race. After all, that's the way it looked in the press when it was first reported.
It's a trial! There are rules of evidence, and there's the whole concept of criminal justice, which involves an accusation, based on specific law, about a specific incident and exactly what this particular defendant did.
It's not about larger narratives and how this might fit into a template that we think explains some larger social scheme. To suggest that it should and that something's wrong with the trial if it does not is to get it exactly backwards.
______________________________
* "[T]he mammy was often illiterate though intelligent in her own sense. Among many of the slaves, there could have been a mammy who possessed the abilities to read and write, often taught to her by the children of the family for whom she worked.... [M]ost of her intelligence was a result of past experiences and conflicts. In particular, a mammy of an aristocratic family could be identified by her air of refinement."
But in the courtroom where George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder, race lingers awkwardly on the sidelines, scarcely mentioned but impossible to ignore.What does that look like — race lingering awkwardly and impossible to ignore?
It's a trial! There are rules of evidence, and there's the whole concept of criminal justice, which involves an accusation, based on specific law, about a specific incident and exactly what this particular defendant did.
It's not about larger narratives and how this might fit into a template that we think explains some larger social scheme. To suggest that it should and that something's wrong with the trial if it does not is to get it exactly backwards.
For African-Americans here and across the country, the killing of Mr. Martin, 17, black and unarmed, was resonant with a back story steeped in layers of American history and the abiding conviction that justice serves only some of the people.Seeing one event steeping in layers of history and within the context of abiding convictions is the very mechanism of prejudice. But the NYT is, apparently, sorry the trial isn't a festival of prejudicial thinking! How to write that up into an article? Call in the sociologist:
“For members of the African-American community, it’s a here-we-go-again moment,” said JeffriAnne Wilder, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Florida. “We want to get away from these things, but this did not happen in a vacuum. It happened against the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before.”It's not awkward to shunt the backdrop of all the other things that have happened before to the sidelines during a trial. Rather, it's precisely what the judge and lawyers and jurors are required to do.
Yet inside a Seminole County courtroom, with the prosecution’s case against Mr. Zimmerman now over, race only occasionally punctuated the proceedings.Yet?! No! Race should not be put where it isn't relevant under the rules of evidence. Punctuation like that would violate the norms of a criminal trial. The backdrop of all the other things that have happened before is reason for Americans — especially black Americans — to care about these norms.
For supporters of the Martin family, Mr. Martin’s death was part of a more complex tale of profiling and injustice.But trials are not to be transformed into a "more complex tale." They are to be kept focused on the specific incident under consideration. And those who care about the more complex tale ought see the connection between their concern and the law's insistence on that focus.
... The charge is second-degree murder, inflicting death with spite, hatred or ill will. But no one in the courtroom is saying outright that race or racial hatred entered into the shooting.They're not saying it outright because witnesses have to testify about what they actually heard and saw on this occasion. It's not as if something is being suppressed and hidden. Talking only about the evidence is the way to shed light and bring clarity to the task of deciding what happened.
In the cocoon of the courthouse, even Mr. Martin’s bullet-scarred hooded sweatshirt, positioned for jurors in a clear plastic frame, appeared less a poignant symbol for the thousands who marched in his name than a lamentable but necessary piece of evidence.For the NYT, the courtroom is a "cocoon," and somehow reality resides in the minds of the throngs who feel the poignancy.
Still, black pastors, sociologists and community leaders said in interviews that they feared that Mr. Martin’s death would be a story of justice denied, an all-too common insult that to them places Trayvon Martin’s name next to those of Rodney King, Amadou Diallo and other black men who were abused, beaten or killed by police officers.This suggests that Zimmerman should be convicted because of the poignant feelings about all these other people.
“[Rachel Jeantel] was mammyfied,” said Ms. Wilder, the sociology professor, expressing disappointment over the reaction. “She has this riveting testimony, then she became, overnight, the teenage mammy: for not being smart and using these racial slurs and not being the best witness. A lot of people in the African-American community came out against her.”I guess I need to look up the race-studies technical term "mammyfied." I don't remember Mammy — in "Gone With The Wind," for example — being dumb.* Interesting that it's the sociology professor promoting the use of stereotypes. We should be rising above the stereotypes and treating people as individuals, and trials are designed to do that. This resistance to the workings of the criminal trial are truly deplorable, and it almost seems intended to exacerbate the terribly sad feelings of grievance that come from the larger historical context. Fair trials should be understood as a remedy for all the other things that have happened before. To present the fair trial as additional wounding is truly execrable.
______________________________
* "[T]he mammy was often illiterate though intelligent in her own sense. Among many of the slaves, there could have been a mammy who possessed the abilities to read and write, often taught to her by the children of the family for whom she worked.... [M]ost of her intelligence was a result of past experiences and conflicts. In particular, a mammy of an aristocratic family could be identified by her air of refinement."
Friday, 5 July 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
