Ferguson Megathread

[Mavorpen]

The conclusion that was drawn by Zimmerman that Trayvon was possibly up to no good due to the unfortunate crime of being black.

Considering that there's absolutely no evidence to back that up, I'd say that's pretty irrelevant.

If you're entirely ignorant of the context of that situation, then just say so instead of pretending otherwise and that you're somehow still right.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

... And?

<pause>

Look, living in Southeastern Michigan and married to a Greek-American woman from Chicago, I can tell you that you don't have to be a "hillbilly/redneck KKK"-type white to be a thoroughgoing racist. There are LOTS of Hyphenated-American whites who suffer the disease. My wife's grandfather, a Greek immigrant, despised "n-gg-rs", and his is not the only tale of racist expression I have heard coming out of the Greek community. Detroit's famous Hamtramck neighborhood was massively Polish until racial prejudice-driven white flight emptied out almost all of its white population. I grew up with Serbian-Americans who had a very dim view of blacks, and have heard tales of racist sentiment among their Croatian-American counterparts in Chicago. And are we REALLY supposed to believe that Italian-Americans are above racism?

Not every racist in American is named Billy Bob Cracker. There are lots of racist Millers and Jorgensens and O'Malleys and Kowalskis and Banaceks and Malkoviches and Fontinis; that's one reason why I think that the argument that George Zimmerman "couldn't POSSIBLY have been racist" because he was (half) Hispanic more than a little idiotic.

Besides, as I have said here for close to a year now, unless someone is a declared white supremacist/separatist, it's inappropriate (and counterproductive) to call them a racist. Why? Because it rather misses the point: It's not racist PEOPLE who are the problem; it's racist ATTITUDES, racist IDEAS, and racist BEHAVIOR that are hurting us so badly. Once we realize that people who AREN'T racist can harbor ATTITUDES and IDEAS that ARE (eg., people who listen to rap music are "thugs", black men are inherently criminally dangerous who possess preternatural strength (and can therefore only be safely controlled through the use of overwhelming force [eg., a chokehold] or — worse — become so uncontrollably dangerous in a confrontation that shooting them is the only way to stay alive), black women are natural inclined towards promiscuity and are careless/thoughtless when it comes to child-rearing (hence, the "welfare mama" meme [which has, strangely, now utterly displaced the older "Aunt Jemima" meme], blacks would rather steal or take handouts than work, blacks much more likely to be drug addicts than anybody else, people who wear hoodies and/or baggy jeans are worthy of suspicion, etc., etc., etc.), THEN AND ONLY THEN will we actually begin to start making progress towards eliminating racism in America.

IOW, it's not a certain kind of person that's the problem; it's a certain set of attitudes, and even people who swear (and fervently BELIEVE) they're not racists can (and often do) both cling to and perpetuate said attitudes.

As it stands, we can't even have serious, in depth discussions about race in the mainstream. If you bring up white privilege, the response is, " why do you believe all white people go around calling black people the n word and actively discriminate against them?!" If you bring up racial bias in the criminal justice system, the response is "why do you believe all white cops are KKK members looking for an excuse to hunt down and shoot black people!?" It's a less flashy method of parroting "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white!" where if you recognize that any white person can hold racist beliefs, you must therefore believe that all white people are racists who might as well belong to the KKK.

And it reaches the level where it ends up being a childish refusal to accept responsibility for anything involving race. And so you get terms like "white guilt," where they convince themselves that they don't contribute to the problem. Of course they can't. They aren't racist. They don't belong to a white supremacy group. To recognize their own prejudices and biases is to admit to contributing to the problem. To admit to contributing to the problem is to admit to guilt. And to admit to being guilty places them on the same level as slave owners, since they were the ones responsible for the hardships black people face. The Western interpretation of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" right about sums it up.

I think it's tied to the childish oversimplification that people are either purely good or purely bad. Racism, it's generally agreed, falls under 'bad'. The assumption goes, subconsciously, that anybody racist is therefore entirely bad. It's no great leap to claim, in this flawed view, that anyone 'good' can't possibly be racist. "It's inconceivable that I could be involved in racism, I'm a good person who gives to charity!" The idea that being a bad person is a prerequisite for racism.

It's entirely possible to be a good, selfless person who happens to unthinkingly contribute to inequality and prejudice. The only real guilt in that scenario comes from either refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you encourage and/or profit from prejudice or from recognizing that you're part of the problem and refusing to do anything about it.

[Mavorpen]

As it stands, we can't even have serious, in depth discussions about race in the mainstream. If you bring up white privilege, the response is, " why do you believe all white people go around calling black people the n word and actively discriminate against them?!" If you bring up racial bias in the criminal justice system, the response is "why do you believe all white cops are KKK members looking for an excuse to hunt down and shoot black people!?" It's a less flashy method of parroting "anti-racist is a code word for anti-white!" where if you recognize that any white person can hold racist beliefs, you must therefore believe that all white people are racists who might as well belong to the KKK.

And it reaches the level where it ends up being a childish refusal to accept responsibility for anything involving race. And so you get terms like "white guilt," where they convince themselves that they don't contribute to the problem. Of course they can't. They aren't racist. They don't belong to a white supremacy group. To recognize their own prejudices and biases is to admit to contributing to the problem. To admit to contributing to the problem is to admit to guilt. And to admit to being guilty places them on the same level as slave owners, since they were the ones responsible for the hardships black people face. The Western interpretation of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" right about sums it up.

I think it's tied to the childish oversimplification that people are either purely good or purely bad. Racism, it's generally agreed, falls under 'bad'. The assumption goes, subconsciously, that anybody racist is therefore entirely bad. It's no great leap to claim, in this flawed view, that anyone 'good' can't possibly be racist. "It's inconceivable that I could be involved in racism, I'm a good person who gives to charity!" The idea that being a bad person is a prerequisite for racism.

It's entirely possible to be a good, selfless person who happens to unthinkingly contribute to inequality and prejudice. The only real guilt in that scenario comes from either refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you encourage and/or profit from prejudice or from recognizing that you're part of the problem and refusing to do anything about it.

Exactly. I've said this before, but as a black person, I don't necessarily fear the KKK, I fear people who seek to make their phony concept of "colorblindness" the norm. Because, at least with the KKK, the racism is obvious and makes it easier to demonstrate why their beliefs are bad. But with the latter, it's arguably more dangerous because rather than understanding and wanting to solve the racial inequalities, they turn a blind eye to it.

[Alien Space Bats]

So what was the assumption that the killing of Martin was racially motivated based upon again?

You apparently did not fully read the very post you quoted:

Besides, as I have said here for close to a year now, unless someone is a declared white supremacist/separatist, it's inappropriate (and counterproductive) to call them a racist. Why? Because it rather misses the point: It's not racist PEOPLE who are the problem; it's racist ATTITUDES, racist IDEAS, and racist BEHAVIOR that are hurting us so badly. Once we realize that people who AREN'T racist can harbor ATTITUDES and IDEAS that ARE (eg., people who listen to rap music are "thugs", black men are inherently criminally dangerous who possess preternatural strength (and can therefore only be safely controlled through the use of overwhelming force [eg., a chokehold] or — worse — become so uncontrollably dangerous in a confrontation that shooting them is the only way to stay alive), black women are natural inclined towards promiscuity and are careless/thoughtless when it comes to child-rearing (hence, the "welfare mama" meme [which has, strangely, now utterly displaced the older "Aunt Jemima" meme], blacks would rather steal or take handouts than work, blacks much more likely to be drug addicts than anybody else, people who wear hoodies and/or baggy jeans are worthy of suspicion, etc., etc., etc.), THEN AND ONLY THEN will we actually begin to start making progress towards eliminating racism in America.

IOW, it's not a certain kind of person that's the problem; it's a certain set of attitudes, and even people who swear (and fervently BELIEVE) they're not racists can (and often do) both cling to and perpetuate said attitudes.

The racial motivation was simple: Trayvon Martin "fit a (race-based) profile" — black "teen-man" (studies have shown that whites consistently overestimate the age of young black men and youths, by an average of 4.5 years) wearing a criminal/gang clothing (a hoodie, commonly identified by whites as criminal or gang garb when worn by blacks), apparently on drugs (talking on a cell phone through an earbud, reinterpreted by Zimmerman as crazy/drug-addled behavior [i.e., talking to self]), was walking down the street casing neighborhood homes for possible future break-ins (he was dodging under cover of nearby eaves whenever a rain squall came by, as the weather that evening involving intermittent moderate-to-heavy showers), possibly with a gun (can of Arizona Iced Tea and a bag of Skittles) in his pocket; George Zimmerman didn't recognize him as a neighborhood youth (studies have shown that whites are notoriously bad at identifying unfamiliar blacks ["They all look the same!"]), and so believed that he had both a responsibility and the right to challenge the young miscreant and even detain him in the name of fighting crime within his community. To Martin, of course, the entire encounter was colored by a different set of perceptions (i.e., a creepy white guy [probably a pervert/child molester] was stalking him in his car, and then — when he took off between buildings — got out and started running after him on foot; unable to get away, Martin then turned around to face his nemesis, who then [probably] tried to grab him [and may have flashed his gun, suggesting armed abduction]; frightened and desperate, Martin took a swing at him, and the rest is history).

The point is that we don't have to label Zimmerman a "racist" to understand that racist THINKING and IDEAS were shaping his perception of what he was seeing. And we certainly aren't in a position to say that, being half Hispanic and half Jewish, Zimmerman couldn't POSSIBLY have had his perception of what was going on twisted in this way.

THAT'S the part of this that you're missing. Zimmerman saw Martin as a "threat" long before Martin threw a punch at him, and that perception — which was grounded in prejudicial memes — created the situation that led to his death. Officer Wilson saw Michael Brown as a "demon", an uncontrollable beast, who could only be stopped by a hail of bullets. The NYPD officers who killed Eric Garner saw him first as a challenge to their authority requiring an arrest using force, and then as a man "so big" that he had to be subdued by chokehold. The Cleveland Police officers who killed Tamir Rice saw him as an deadly threat and gunned him down WITHIN 3 SECONDS of stopping their cruiser, not as a 12 year-old boy playing with a toy gun (after gunning him down, they called him in as a "20 year-old black male"[!], consistent with studies that have shown that the police not only judge young black youths and men to be older than they are, but also as more likely to be engaged in criminal behavior in whatever they may happen to be doing). The police in Beavercreek, OH, did something similar with John Crawford III, gunned down while shopping at Wal-Mart because someone made a panicked call to 911 operators about a "black man with a rifle" [it was an air rifle which he was planning on buying] after an encounter with Crawford that lasted JUST 12 SECONDS from the time the police first entered the store. Officer Randall Kerrick of the Charlotte, NC police force killed Jonathan Ferrell, a former Florida A&M football player who was knocking on doors seeking help after a car crash; a white woman responded to his efforts by calling 911 and fearfully telling the dispatcher that Ferrell was "trying to break into her home" (Ferrell had subsequently left the property before the police arrived, but they went looking for him, found him, and pumped 12 slugs into him; he was unarmed). I could go on and on and on and on, but by now — unless you're purposefully trying not to see the big picture — the problem ought to be obvious as Hell.

We see (mostly young) black boys and men as INHERENTLY dangerous, whether they ACTUALLY are or not; and then we react to that (mis)perceived danger with lethal force; and THEN we only rarely ever punish those who kill them, because we share the same inherent prejudice, and therefore see their "caution" as "understandable". Each of these three things is a travesty, but all three together are an outrage.

But the worst part is this: When the black community and their allies get upset about this state of affairs, we accuse THEM of racism. THEY'RE the "race hustlers", trying to "excuse everything" by "griping" about racism (which we all know is strictly a thing of the past, right?). Why can't these people "accept responsibility for their actions" (IOW, accept that if other people see them as "scary" and kill them because of it, it's THEIR fault)?

What business do they have screaming at us and messing up our peaceful little lives because of something for which THEY ultimately bear them blame?

Namely, being black?

We don't see the picture, because we don't WANT to see the picture; that's because — if we saw it — it would no longer be THEIR problem.

It would be OURS.

And then we might actually have to question how we think and feel about the world.

[Alien Space Bats]

I think it's tied to the childish oversimplification that people are either purely good or purely bad. Racism, it's generally agreed, falls under 'bad'. The assumption goes, subconsciously, that anybody racist is therefore entirely bad. It's no great leap to claim, in this flawed view, that anyone 'good' can't possibly be racist. "It's inconceivable that I could be involved in racism, I'm a good person who gives to charity!" The idea that being a bad person is a prerequisite for racism.

It's entirely possible to be a good, selfless person who happens to unthinkingly contribute to inequality and prejudice. The only real guilt in that scenario comes from either refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you encourage and/or profit from prejudice or from recognizing that you're part of the problem and refusing to do anything about it.

I don't know if this is a white subcultural psychosis or a human psychosis; it's so pervasive among whites that I'm drawn to the former belief, while reserving the caveat that its pervasiveness may be due to my immersion in white (sub)culture.

I've seen it way outside the boundaries of race: Criticize someone's behavior, and you're likely to reap a whirlwind of anger: "You're saying that I'm a BAD PERSON!!!"

I invariably try to explain myself: "No, I know you, and I think that you're a GOOD person. It's just that, for a variety of reasons that probably seemed good at the time but really weren't you did a BAD THING."

"But that means that you're saying that I'm a BAD PERSON!!!" comes the invariable retort.

"No, you're a GOOD PERSON who did a BAD THING, that's all..." I reply.

But it never seems to work. It's like there's this ironclad belief that only BAD PEOPLE ever do BAD THINGS. We're GOOD PEOPLE, so obviously this BAD THING is not our fault. Blame somebody else, and close the book.

It's related to support for torture and the death penalty: People who do BAD THINGS are BAD PEOPLE, and BAD PEOPLE don't deserve humane treatment of any kind (because they're BAD).

Which leads me to wonder: When did we all become 8 year-olds?

[Gauthier]

The conclusion that was drawn by Zimmerman that Trayvon was possibly up to no good due to the unfortunate crime of being black.

Considering that there's absolutely no evidence to back that up, I'd say that's pretty irrelevant.

Other than blatantly ignoring a police dispatcher telling him to stay put so he could go after that hardcore druggie gangsta 4 life thug Trayvon Martin. *nod nod*

[Jamzmania]

Considering that there's absolutely no evidence to back that up, I'd say that's pretty irrelevant.

Other than blatantly ignoring a police dispatcher telling him to stay put so he could go after that hardcore druggie gangsta 4 life thug Trayvon Martin. *nod nod*

Not following a police dispatcher's orders does not, in any way, provide any proof for "racism."

[Emile Zola]

Other than blatantly ignoring a police dispatcher telling him to stay put so he could go after that hardcore druggie gangsta 4 life thug Trayvon Martin. *nod nod*

Not following a police dispatcher's orders does not, in any way, provide any proof for "racism."

Identifying the person as black and saying "they" always get away with it does.

He followed, confronted and shot Trayvon because he was black. It's legal to do that because poor George was AFRAID.

[Jamzmania]

Not following a police dispatcher's orders does not, in any way, provide any proof for "racism."

Identifying the person as black and saying "they" always get away with it does.

He followed, confronted and shot Trayvon because he was black. It's legal to do that because poor George was AFRAID.

He identified the person as black AFTER being asked by the dispatcher what race he was. "They" could be used in any context. It's a third person plural pronoun with any number of uses.

[Ripoll]

Not Ferguson but this is the general response to the larger scheme of things relating to events like Ferguson that I largely agree with

[Dmitriania]

From what I understand, the police officer has been proven innocent.

[MERIZoC]

From what I understand, the police officer has been proven innocent.

No. The police officer didn't have a trial. Nothing was "proven".

[Mavorpen]

Not Ferguson but this is the general response to the larger scheme of things relating to events like Ferguson that I largely agree with

...And?

[Emile Zola]

Identifying the person as black and saying "they" always get away with it does.

He followed, confronted and shot Trayvon because he was black. It's legal to do that because poor George was AFRAID.

He identified the person as black AFTER being asked by the dispatcher what race he was. "They" could be used in any context. It's a third person plural pronoun with any number of uses.

That's a whole lot of denial you have there. If the kid was white it never would of happened.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

He identified the person as black AFTER being asked by the dispatcher what race he was. "They" could be used in any context. It's a third person plural pronoun with any number of uses.

That's a whole lot of denial you have there. If the kid was white it never would of happened.

Well, we can't say that for certain, so it's better not to say it like that. Qualify statements. The broader you go the more room for error. Say "statistics suggest it never would've happened" or "it probably wouldn't have happened." Only Sith deal in absolutes, remember?

[Dyakovo]

That's a whole lot of denial you have there. If the kid was white it never would of happened.

Well, we can't say that for certain, so it's better not to say it like that. Qualify statements. The broader you go the more room for error. Say "statistics suggest it never would've happened" or "it probably wouldn't have happened." Only Sith deal in absolutes, remember?

Prove he's not a Sith.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Well, we can't say that for certain, so it's better not to say it like that. Qualify statements. The broader you go the more room for error. Say "statistics suggest it never would've happened" or "it probably wouldn't have happened." Only Sith deal in absolutes, remember?

Prove he's not a Sith.

Were you there

[Mavorpen]

Identifying the person as black and saying "they" always get away with it does.

He followed, confronted and shot Trayvon because he was black. It's legal to do that because poor George was AFRAID.

He identified the person as black AFTER being asked by the dispatcher what race he was. "They" could be used in any context. It's a third person plural pronoun with any number of uses.

That's only if you had utterly no knowledge of the background surrounding those events.

Zimmerman was at the head of forming a neighborhood watch group for the Twin Lakes gated community. For a couple of years, residents had been on edge because of a number of burglaries, several of which, were made by black men. And, unfortunately, that creates unfair perceptions of black people, particularly young black males.

With that context in mind, I don't see how anyone would be baffled at the insinuation that racial profiling played a significant part in Zimmerman's choice to pursue Trayvon. He was a black male that Zimmerman had not seen before and who was entering the gated community. He stated that, "these assholes always get away." Given the context surrounding the community, it's undoubtedly a reasonable conclusion that he was referring to black males who made up some of the perpetrators of burglaries that had been going on during that time. He profiled Trayvon. He assumed Trayvon was up to no good for happening to be a young black male wearing a hoodie.

And that's wrong.

[Jamzmania]

He identified the person as black AFTER being asked by the dispatcher what race he was. "They" could be used in any context. It's a third person plural pronoun with any number of uses.

That's only if you had utterly no knowledge of the background surrounding those events.

Zimmerman was at the head of forming a neighborhood watch group for the Twin Lakes gated community. For a couple of years, residents had been on edge because of a number of burglaries, several of which, were made by black men. And, unfortunately, that creates unfair perceptions of black people, particularly young black males.

With that context in mind, I don't see how anyone would be baffled at the insinuation that racial profiling played a significant part in Zimmerman's choice to pursue Trayvon. He was a black male that Zimmerman had not seen before and who was entering the gated community. He stated that, "these assholes always get away." Given the context surrounding the community, it's undoubtedly a reasonably conclusion that he was referring to black males who made up some of the perpetrators of burglaries that had been going on during that time. He profiled Trayvon. He assumed Trayvon was up to no good for happening to be a young black male wearing a hoodie.

And that's wrong.

It is also a reasonable conclusion that he was referring to burglars, which he may very well have suspected Trayvon was.

Also, you seem to be assuming that all of my statements are being made because I have no idea what happened with the Trayvon Martin case. Just because I disagree with your conclusions doesn't mean that I automatically have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Ripoll]

Not Ferguson but this is the general response to the larger scheme of things relating to events like Ferguson that I largely agree with

...And?

The proportions to which this is being blown up is ridiculous

[Mavorpen]

That's only if you had utterly no knowledge of the background surrounding those events.

Zimmerman was at the head of forming a neighborhood watch group for the Twin Lakes gated community. For a couple of years, residents had been on edge because of a number of burglaries, several of which, were made by black men. And, unfortunately, that creates unfair perceptions of black people, particularly young black males.

With that context in mind, I don't see how anyone would be baffled at the insinuation that racial profiling played a significant part in Zimmerman's choice to pursue Trayvon. He was a black male that Zimmerman had not seen before and who was entering the gated community. He stated that, "these assholes always get away." Given the context surrounding the community, it's undoubtedly a reasonably conclusion that he was referring to black males who made up some of the perpetrators of burglaries that had been going on during that time. He profiled Trayvon. He assumed Trayvon was up to no good for happening to be a young black male wearing a hoodie.

And that's wrong.

It is also a reasonable conclusion that he was referring to burglars, which he may very well have suspected Trayvon was.

And why did he suspect that? Come on, you can say it with me: Trayvon happened to be a young black man that he'd never seen before.

[Mavorpen]

...And?

The proportions to which this is being blown up is ridiculous

No, no it isn't.

[Jamzmania]

It is also a reasonable conclusion that he was referring to burglars, which he may very well have suspected Trayvon was.

And why did he suspect that? Come on, you can say it with me: Trayvon happened to be a young black man that he'd never seen before.

He was a young man, wearing a hoodie, and acting suspiciously at night in an area recently plagued by burglars.

[Mavorpen]

And why did he suspect that? Come on, you can say it with me: Trayvon happened to be a young black man that he'd never seen before.

He was a young man, wearing a hoodie, and acting suspiciously at night in an area recently plagued by burglars.

And several of those burglars happened to be black. And being black is not the same thing as "acting suspiciously."

[MERIZoC]

...And?

The proportions to which this is being blown up is ridiculous

They definitely aren't. If anything, there should be more people protesting, more people speaking out against the corrupt system.