“… All Others Considered Dangerous”


After having watched the George Zimmerman trial in which he was charged with second degree murder/manslaughter for the death of Trayvon Martin, I told several friends that despite what I considered damning evidence of Zimmerman’s guilt, he would not be found guilty. I predicted that the jury would bless him with a verdict of not guilty because of the underlying framework of the major institutions in our society: White-skin privilege.

From before the inception of the United States’ Declaration of Independence, western Europeans have dominated and exploited non-whites primarily for commercial gain. This fact can be disputed but not in any way that reflects honest, fair and intellectual scrutiny of history [but past and current]. And to this very day, government studies and studies by various universities have proven that discrimination against African-Americans with respect to housing, education, employment and the judicial system [just to name a few of the major areas] is as vibrant as it is insidious — is as ubiquitous as it is effective. Today’s racism seldom reveals itself in an “in-your-face” kind of bravado but it usually hides behind a mask of decency and so-called, “equal opportunity or justice for all.”

Zimmerman’s attorneys’ arguments of self-defense are believable only if one suspends one’s faculty of reasoning and also if one denies the context of race relations in these United States of White America. Consider this: If seventeen year-old Trayvon Martin had been armed with a handgun while driving a car and decided to disregard the suggestion not to follow George Zimmerman but instead accosted him and then after a struggle, shot and killed Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin would have been immediately charged, tried and convicted of second degree murder. This is not mere speculation. Proof?

Proof: Please note the case of Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville Florida. This “mother of three fired a single shot into her kitchen ceiling two years ago to warn her husband, Rico Gray, against continuing his physical attack on her. . She was convicted of aggravated assault in a matter of minutes — and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. She was prosecuted by the same prosecutor who brought charges against George Zimmerman [as a result of the Governor, under pressure, appointing her as a special prosecutor. [http://mhpshow.msnbc.com/_news/2012/05/11/11658879-marissa-alexander-gets-20-year-sentence?lite]

So when a Black woman invokes the “stand-your-ground” law she is denied justice. Thus, there is no doubt if Trayvon’s and George’s roles were reversed, Trayvon would have suffered a fate similar to Marissa Alexander. But when a White man tracks, accosts and kills a young Black man, he is exonerated. In short, society and the legal system have, in effect, stated, “How dare a young Black man not stop and let himself be detained by a White man who had no badge, no uniform and no authority [until the police arrived]. How dare a young Black man fight back against a stranger whose only credentials were his white skin and a handgun. Don’t you Black people know that when a White man follows you in your own neighborhood, you had best comply and assume the position?”

But in order to assuage any possible feelings or perception of guilt, Zimmerman’s attorneys had to paint Trayvon as the pugnacious one who initiated the fight; as if Zimmerman was to say, “Trayvon made me do it.”  This is similar to the instance when during the first half of the twentieth century, two sheriffs approached the body of a Black man who had been lynched and shot through the heart. One of the sheriffs jokingly and derisively exclaimed, ‘How in the world did this n—– hang and then shoot himself?’ In keeping with this mindset, Zimmerman’s attorneys proceeded to lynch Trayvon [albeit posthumously] and then blame him. This is one of the most successful way to ameliorate White-guilt while preserving White-skin privilege.

Obviously, not all White people are racists; in fact, many are not. And I am always heartened by Whites who reject the racists beliefs about Black people held by many of their race. But enough of them, however, are racist to one degree or another,  so that the institutions and the system will always favor the dominate group and to ensure the perpetuation of White domination of all the major institutions. In short, racism is instrumental in that it serves to preserve the power and privilege of the one race vis a vis the other. And one way to preserve this power is to discount the value of a Black person’s life and place a premium on a White person’s life. Zimmerman’s freedom was worth more than Trayvon’s life.

Another way Whites reveal their notions of Blacks is indicated by responses to articles about murder. When you read an article about a Black person committing murder, there are often comments about Blacks being savages and miscreants by nature. When you read articles about Whites committing murder [even those murders of movie-goers or elementary school children] the readers’ comments almost never mention anything about Whites being savages or miscreants by nature. In other words, the perception of many racist Whites is that when Blacks commit murder, it is because that’s “who they are” but when Whites commit murder, there is silence about race — no comments from readers that mention race. That’s because when a White person commits murder that is just because that particular White person is a murderer. All these notions about Blacks, are sew into the mindset of many Whites and these views facilitate or lead to verdicts as mentioned in the above-two cases.

Finally, I find it revolting that many Whites are enamored with Black athletes or Black singers, Black actors — Blacks who entertain them. But in the absence of their fame, they would not want such a person to live next door to them or to marry their children. This is because, as one poster from the 1800s announced: Wanted: Singers, Dancers, Actors … all others considered dangerous.

PS. There is one take-away regarding the Zimmerman verdict. Now I can carry a handgun, follow somebody [against the advice of law enforcement] who is minding his own business, accost him, create a situation where a physical confrontation is likely, then shoot him because he is winning the fight by giving me two minor scratches on my head! And I will be found “not guilty.”  Oh, I silly me, I forgot: I cannot get away with that — I’m a Black man!

Advertisements
Published in: on July 15, 2013 at 2:00 AM  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , ,

Wolves in Thug’s Clothing


On 18 May of 2012, television pundit, Bill O’Reilly, interviewed Geraldo Rivera about the Trayvon Marin/George Zimmerman case. During the interview, Geraldo stated that Martin was “dressed in that thug wear,” meaning a “hoodie.” He further stated that being dressed in that “thug wear” was just cause for Zimmerman to suspect that Martin was up to no good. Weeks earlier, Geraldo verbally chastised parents for letting their children wear “hoodies” [even though his own son wears them].

If what Geraldo posits is valid then I assert the following: Given that the greediest and vilest of thugs can be found on Wall Street [they precipitated the greatest recession since the Depression and have literally stolen billions of dollars from the middle class], then suits and ties can also rightfully be considered “thug wear.” The Wall Street thugs and other thugs in corporate America [as has been documented by various sources] have fleeced Americans of more money than all the street thugs in the US combined. These thugs have also been the recipients of more government welfare than the 46 million or so Americans who receive monthly welfare payments from the government. These facts are indisputable.

These thugs wear suits and ties, cuff links and cotton dress shirts as well as animal-skin shoes. So, if “hoodies” are “thug wear” then so are the clothes worn by corporate executives who are guilty of fraud. To that end, would Geraldo advise others not to wear the corporate “thug wear?” In fact, why doesn’t the IRS or law enforcement agents profile corporate executives, just like Zimmerman and Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona [the so-called “Toughest Sheriff in America” who is known to profile and arrest suspected illegal aliens], on the suspicion of graft and fraud? After all, if it walks like a thug and is dressed like a thug, then … thug.

As alluring as that fantasy sounds, rich criminals have always been treated with deference and even respect. We fear the street criminal and with good reason, but as a matter of course, those who dress in white collar “thug wear” have been granted tacit permission to deplete retirement accounts of the working class while ravaging the US economy. Could this deference be because their “thug wear” is more expensive than the “thug wear” Trayvon Martin was wearing?

Jesus is credited with using the phrase, “wolves in sheep clothing” meaning by all outward appearances certain beastly people would present themselves as sheep, thus making them more difficult to detect. Well, if I use Geraldo’s insightful observation as the basis for my logic, then thugs today are relatively easier to spot than they were in Jesus’ day – they’re the ones in the suit and tie.

%d bloggers like this: