Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[Circe]

Likewise, hon.

 

[Gypsy]

And I heard "Effing punks"... I even rewound it, surprised because I did NOT hear coons. I heard punks. Very clearly, punks.

The determination seems to be whether he said "coons" or "goons". It is definitely an "oo" sound.

I am not even really sure what a "goon" is, but one website (urban dictionary) says it means "n*gga" in Florida.

I just listened to it again twice. From two different postings (I thought the posting I had might have distorted it). Seriously, I hear punks.

So, my take away is: he said effing UNKNOWN. Because I don't hear goons or coons, and my hearing is fine. Looks like this is another piece of disputed evidence that everyone can interpret however they want to support whatever point they want to make.

Which brings me back to why this guy isn't arrested. The evidence is insufficient and confusing.

 

[Circe]

Who really cares what the mother's motive is? She lost her CHILD, the most horrific thing any parent could ever have to go through . Why is she relevant to the case?

Couldn't agree more with this. My cynical side says it's because it plays into a lot of the negative stereotypes about mothers from the African-American community (aka the offensive "welfare queen" bogey-woman), and in a roundabout way, somehow justifies the not-borne-out belief that a young black man in a white neighborhood must be a threat.

 

[Gypsy]

Who really cares what the mother's motive is? She lost her CHILD, the most horrific thing any parent could ever have to go through . Why is she relevant to the case?

Couldn't agree more with this. My cynical side says it's because it plays into a lot of the negative stereotypes about mothers from the African-American community (aka the offensive "welfare queen" bogey-woman), and in a roundabout way, somehow justifies the not-borne-out belief that a young black man in a white neighborhood must be a threat.

This funny. I agree that it's irrelevant but think it has nothing to do with race, but rather the media's desires to stir up a hornets nest and get better ratings.

We are interpreting things in vastly different ways aren't we? And that's fine and it's based on our own experiences as individuals.

 

[Circe]

Who really cares what the mother's motive is? She lost her CHILD, the most horrific thing any parent could ever have to go through . Why is she relevant to the case?

Couldn't agree more with this. My cynical side says it's because it plays into a lot of the negative stereotypes about mothers from the African-American community (aka the offensive "welfare queen" bogey-woman), and in a roundabout way, somehow justifies the not-borne-out belief that a young black man in a white neighborhood must be a threat.

This funny. I agree that it's irrelevant but think it has nothing to do with race, but rather the media's desires to stir up a hornets nest and get better ratings.

We are interpreting things in vastly different ways aren't we? And that's fine and it's based on our own experiences as individuals.

Heh - indeed. I've actually been wanting to start a thread talking about that, but I can't figure out how we'd even approach the topic since so many of the assumptions are unspoken - just had a variation on it with Bee in another thread where we had to retrench twice before we figured out we were basically on the same page, just coming at it from different directions. I feel like it's one of the reasons this country is so bipartisan now: we literally can't understand one another. I went out to dinner with some conservative friends the other night, and said "I feel like the problem is that women's gender roles have changed, and men's haven't, and that causes a rift." And they said "EXACTLY!" and we blinked at one another before realizing I meant men should catch up and they meant women should revert to traditional gender roles.

Sigh.

But, getting back to the point at hand ... the media needs to have some common denominator, some set of base assumptions, upon which to hang their hornets nest, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. If not that ... what? Bad mothers are a Thing across racial lines, certainly, but the idea of the mercenary mother who benefits from her offspring isn't, is it?

 

[beebrisk]

First off, "our society" does NOT tell us that young men of color are "dangerous and that it's okay if bad things happen to them". To the contrary. That is what our disingenuous and divisive media has drummed into the psyches of a public all too hungry to believe that we live in one big, hateful, racist, cesspool of a country.

LOL beebrisk, the drawbridge at your castle has been up for far too long. I grew up in a ghetto where it was open hunting season on "*iggers." I was trained by my mother to cross the street if I saw a black man coming, god forbid there should be more than one, rather than risk bodily harm. She was never assaulted by a black man; she learned from her mom who was never assaulted either. I was taught that blacks are dirty, uneducated, brood-bearing animals that suck the juice out of the welfare system. This feeling was prevalent during the 50s-70s and it is still prevalent today. I do not think the city where I grew up is the only one where racist ideals linger.

I have a relative who is a cop in a large east coast city who, along with his comrades, boast how they arrange for "dirty *iggers" to have "accidents" in jail to ensure they get the message about toeing the line. And they boast about how, working in cahoots with judges, rightful bail is denied those "animal *iggers" to ensure they stay in jail. There is so much more to tell but I doubt anything will crack the lenses of your rose-colored glasses.

If you believe there is no prejudice today toward blacks, try an experiment -- darken your skin, don a wig, and try to get a cab at night in an upper middle class neighborhood in your area.

Your insult regarding my presumed "sheltered" life and unrealistic worldview has been duly noted.

You also proved my point, thank you. Because YOU just jumped to a conclusion about my upbringing, lifestyle and access to "reality", didn't you??

I understand you have a relative who is a cop......I understand your mother was cautious where perhaps she needn't be. With all due respect, your mother and your relative do not "society" make.

My point was clear that "SOCIETY" isn't inherently racist and it does not tell us that "it's okay if bad things happen to young black men".

I believe we are a nation where racism exists. On ALL sides. I believe we are imperfect when it comes to how we deal with each other. I believe that there are those who profit by flaming the fires of "racism" wherever there's an opportunity, no matter how disingenuous and I believe that's the case with the Martin shooting.

My views are not those of a sheltered person, but of a person who has given a great deal of thought to the subject over the years and lives UNAFRAID and MOAT-less in the largest, most diverse city in the world.

 

[beebrisk]

Who really cares what the mother's motive is? She lost her CHILD, the most horrific thing any parent could ever have to go through . Why is she relevant to the case?

I never said she was. I was making a point about how so many of the so called "concerned" are in it for pure profit and fanning the flames for their own benefit.

 

[Gypsy]

Who really cares what the mother's motive is? She lost her CHILD, the most horrific thing any parent could ever have to go through . Why is she relevant to the case?

Couldn't agree more with this. My cynical side says it's because it plays into a lot of the negative stereotypes about mothers from the African-American community (aka the offensive "welfare queen" bogey-woman), and in a roundabout way, somehow justifies the not-borne-out belief that a young black man in a white neighborhood must be a threat.

This funny. I agree that it's irrelevant but think it has nothing to do with race, but rather the media's desires to stir up a hornets nest and get better ratings.

We are interpreting things in vastly different ways aren't we? And that's fine and it's based on our own experiences as individuals.

Heh - indeed. I've actually been wanting to start a thread talking about that, but I can't figure out how we'd even approach the topic since so many of the assumptions are unspoken - just had a variation on it with Bee in another thread where we had to retrench twice before we figured out we were basically on the same page, just coming at it from different directions. I feel like it's one of the reasons this country is so bipartisan now: we literally can't understand one another. I went out to dinner with some conservative friends the other night, and said "I feel like the problem is that women's gender roles have changed, and men's haven't, and that causes a rift." And they said "EXACTLY!" and we blinked at one another before realizing I meant men should catch up and they meant women should revert to traditional gender roles.

Sigh.

But, getting back to the point at hand ... the media needs to have some common denominator, some set of base assumptions, upon which to hang their hornets nest, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. If not that ... what? Bad mothers are a Thing across racial lines, certainly, but the idea of the mercenary mother who benefits from her offspring isn't, is it?

I don't think I understand the question in bold, so if you can restate it, I'll be happy to give you my thoughts.

As for the dinner with your friends. OMG. Such a riot. I think men are in a lose/lose situation in many ways. If they want a traditional wife so they can feel 'safe' in their role they are a misogynist and if they are fine with a woman wearing pants too then they are wimps or 'beta males'. I think my own DH and I struggle with this sometimes in our relationship. And have come to the conclusion that whatever works for you is fine. And the people should stop labeling and being so judgmental, and so divisive about the issue. Live and let live. What might be the solution for your relationship (reverting to traditional roles) is not the solution for another-- because people are individuals. That's why I have an issue with people trying to enforce their 'solutions' on me. I think we'd all be happier if we respected people's freedom to choose what works for them, instead of telling them their choices are wrong.

But I know that's not going to happen. Ahh, well what can you do?

 

[Karl_K]

You don't mean that the laws to which I referred (the laws that that keep people from violating the civil rights of others) are racist. You mean that, in your opinion, the laws are applied unfairly or in a racially unjust way. At least I assume that you don't mean the laws are racist. How could a law that says no one can violate the civil rights of anyone else be racist?

Deb/AGBF

Hey Deb busy day here and and getting even busier until Monday so this will likely be my last post in this thread.
Good to see you posting even if we are not seeing exactly eye to eye.

The law is not what is written and passed, the law is the case law(court interpretation) and how it is applied by the DA and the courts.
What makes the law racist when it is applied by race not merit.

Case in point:
Friend of mines brother was attacked with a hammer and ran over with a car because he was dating an African-American lady by 5 African-Americans, they also beat the lady up for dating a white guy. He barely survived and has brain damage and will never be "normal". She was not seriously hurt.
More than one of them even told the cops exactly that.
The DA refused hate crime charges and the DOJ declined to get involved.
Reverse the races and they would have been charged with a hate crime and the DOJ would be wetting itself to jump in.
That makes it a racist law.

 

[Circe]

Who really cares what the mother's motive is? She lost her CHILD, the most horrific thing any parent could ever have to go through . Why is she relevant to the case?

Couldn't agree more with this. My cynical side says it's because it plays into a lot of the negative stereotypes about mothers from the African-American community (aka the offensive "welfare queen" bogey-woman), and in a roundabout way, somehow justifies the not-borne-out belief that a young black man in a white neighborhood must be a threat.

This funny. I agree that it's irrelevant but think it has nothing to do with race, but rather the media's desires to stir up a hornets nest and get better ratings.

We are interpreting things in vastly different ways aren't we? And that's fine and it's based on our own experiences as individuals.

Heh - indeed. I've actually been wanting to start a thread talking about that, but I can't figure out how we'd even approach the topic since so many of the assumptions are unspoken - just had a variation on it with Bee in another thread where we had to retrench twice before we figured out we were basically on the same page, just coming at it from different directions. I feel like it's one of the reasons this country is so bipartisan now: we literally can't understand one another. I went out to dinner with some conservative friends the other night, and said "I feel like the problem is that women's gender roles have changed, and men's haven't, and that causes a rift." And they said "EXACTLY!" and we blinked at one another before realizing I meant men should catch up and they meant women should revert to traditional gender roles.

Sigh.

But, getting back to the point at hand ... the media needs to have some common denominator, some set of base assumptions, upon which to hang their hornets nest, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. If not that ... what? Bad mothers are a Thing across racial lines, certainly, but the idea of the mercenary mother who benefits from her offspring isn't, is it?

I don't think I understand the question in bold, so if you can restate it, I'll be happy to give you my thoughts.

As for the dinner with your friends. OMG. Such a riot. I think men are in a lose/lose situation in many ways. If they want a traditional wife so they can feel 'safe' in their role they are a misogynist and if they are fine with a woman wearing pants too then they are wimps or 'beta males'. I think my own DH and I struggle with this sometimes in our relationship. And have come to the conclusion that whatever works for you is fine. And the people should stop labeling and being so judgmental, and so divisive about the issue. Live and let live.

But I know that's not going to happen. Ahh, well what can you do?

What we call stereotypes are really a kind of social shorthand. When you invoke the right ones, you save time, and also, you don't have to spell things out, and run the risk of alienating part of your demographic.

So ... for example. I study fairy tales. A big thing in fairy tales in the wicked stepmother. Check out your old collections: the mother is always the villain. Seriously, even in the fairytales like Donkeyskin where the king wants to marry his daughter? It's because the mother put him up to it.

Freud used the same thing: whatever is wrong with a kid, it's the mother. The whole idea is alive and well and living in modern day America.

The neglectful mother is a trope across ethnic lines: I'd actually say it's more class-based most of the time. The excessively prolific mother is similarly class-based, but there's more of a racial component: I feel like that one gets lobbed at all "undesirable" minority cultures; back in the day it was a commonly held idea about both the Jews and the Irish, and today you see it invoked more for the African American and Hispanic community. But (up until "Toddlers and Tiaras," anyway), the idea of the mother who benefited from her kids financially seems to have been targeted specifically at the African American community, via the image of the "welfare queen" of the 70s and 80s - the mother of an ever-expanding brood who used her limitless government benefits to get a Cadillac.

What I'm postulating is that that not-so-distant stereotype is why the idea of Martin's mother profiteering from her son's posthumous fame is hitting a nerve. It's just familiar enough to resonate and be useful to the press, but the reason that it's useful is that it's already extant in the lizard-brain, and that it ties in to the frustrated stereotypes that Martin evoked but didn't fulfill.

So, basically ... for anybody who's casting around trying to find a way to make this Martin's fault who can't find it in the events surrounding the shooting, this is psychological gold, because it shifts the focus back to blaming his "side."

Whoo, I wrote a novel! Enough with the procrastinating and back to work for Circe.

 

[Gypsy]

It's hilarious you brought up Toddler's and Tiara's cause that's EXACTLY what I think of when I think of exploitative moms. The "welfare mom" is a tertiary stereotype for me-- and I don't associate even THAT with race. Most of the welfare moms I have met and seen are white. Seriously. If there is a stereotype of the welfare mom for me it is a socio-economic one that also hinges on education and 'class'-- I get white trailer "trash" in my mental stereotype image. Or, since it is so hyped up in CA, Hispanic mothers. So for me the invocation of the exploitative mom isn't a racial one at all unless I 'force' it to be. While for you, clearly, the exploitative mom is a stereotype linked to race automatically.

Again, it's about individual experience and how we interpret things. My lens on the issues in this thread are VERY different than most 'liberal' lens', because I have what I feel is subject matter knowledge and experience beyond the average person on how our justice system works. And because, while I agree that there is room for improvement, I generally feel our justice system is a good system that works-- and that the flaws we see in it are the flaws that we bring to it as humans. It's not the justice system that is flawed for me, it is humanity. And I see in our system checks and balances that try to keep the human flaws as minimal in impact as they can. But not always succeeding.

As Karl said, the laws aren't racist. But the application of them that can be. So is the problem there with the system or it's enforcers? And, can you separate the two?

Our system is administered by humans with flaws. But just because all humans are flawed doesn't mean I make the assumption that all humans have the same flaws. Even if all the humans live in Sanford.

Racism is a flavor of human flaw. And just like at Baskin Robbins: there are more than 31 flavors. And there are exciting combinations of flavors to make it even more interesting.

So when I say that I do not see evidence of racism being the explanation for the tragedy in this case, it doesn't mean that I don't think there was a flaw. If you ask me what I think George's problem was, from the limited and incomplete evidence I have, the answer is this: I think the guy was paranoid and have a vigilante complex, and I think that he was predisposed toward violence. But none of those things are illegal federally or otherwise. As for race, he could be a little racist, heck I think most people are a little bit racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA . But I am not willing to assume that even if he is a little racist, that was the impetuous and ultimate reason for this tragedy-- I don't see evidence that this was racially motivated crime. I don't think the guy should have had a gun, if what the paper's report about his assault history is true, and I think the dispatcher should have asked him if he was armed AND told him to stay inside where it was safe until the cops got there.

 

[CaprineSun]

So, basically ... for anybody who's casting around trying to find a way to make this Martin's fault who can't find it in the events surrounding the shooting, this is psychological gold, because it shifts the focus back to blaming his "side."

Yes!
Circe, I whole-heartedly agree with everything you have said in this thread. Your input is valued.

 

[CaprineSun]

Racially-motivated? Maybe not completely.

Racially-influenced? YES.

 

[Gypsy]

So, basically ... for anybody who's casting around trying to find a way to make this Martin's fault who can't find it in the events surrounding the shooting, this is psychological gold, because it shifts the focus back to blaming his "side."

Yes!
Circe, I whole-heartedly agree with everything you have said in this thread. Your input is valued.

Okay I agree that, some people who see this as an issue to take a side on might feel that this is evidence of wrongdoing on Treyvon's side. But I'm not trying to take sides. I am consciously trying NOT to take sides. And all I'm saying to everyone else is: Taking sides at this point is premature. Wait until you have as many the REAL facts as possible, review them and make sure you understand what you are seeing/hearing/thinking actually correlates with those facts, then you can make an enlightened choice as to what side deserves your support, if any.

 

[Gypsy]

Racially-motivated? Maybe not completely.

Racially-influenced? YES.

See my post above. Where is your evidence that when George PULLED THE TRIGGER it was RACE that was influencing that action?

 

[Imdanny]

Zimmerman's friend aka "Oliver" was on the news saying it was "goons" and that, and I am not joking, his teenage daughter told him "goons" is a term of endearment. When asked if it were "coons" what would that mean, he replied there are people in Louisiana who call each other "coons".

BTW, I like the UK' use of a period after a quotation mark better than the way we do it in the US. It seems much more practical to me. That is how it's done there. No?

 

[GlamMosher]

BTW, I like the UK' use of a period after a quotation mark better than the way we do it in the US. It seems much more practical to me. That is how it's done there. No?

Sorry to go off topic, but Danny do you mean "coon". rather than "coon." ? (I am using that word purely as an example)

I had to look up what a "period" was - it is a full stop, correct?

 

[Imdanny]

GlamMosher, yes and yes.

 

[beebrisk]

Racially-motivated? Maybe not completely.

Racially-influenced? YES.

See my post above. Where is your evidence that when George PULLED THE TRIGGER it was RACE that was influencing that action?

There is no evidence known to the public to support either Zimmerman's motive or intent with regards to this case. None. and THAT is one of the few FACTS we know about the entire incident.

For those people who cannot understand that, I only hope you are never impaneled on a jury because God help the poor schmuck who sits in the defendant's seat expecting a fair trial.

 

[Matata]

[quote="beebrisk|1332897304|3157815"
You also proved my point, thank you. Because YOU just jumped to a conclusion about my upbringing, lifestyle and access to "reality", didn't you??[/quote]

Au contraire, my opinion of you is based entirely upon YOUR description of yourself, mostly from the BC thread. You've made it clear that if you don't experience it, it isn't so; if you don't feel it, it can't possibly be; you're strong and impervious and others who don't measure up to your ideal of strength are weak and/or idiots. Your words convey that your world is black and white rather than shades of gray. You take quick umbrage at opinions formed about you based on your words which belies your claim of strength and reveals an Achilles Heel. You are also capable of rational and cogent thought. I think you are incredibly interesting.

 

[Imdanny]

Oops. Never mind.

 

[CaprineSun]

Racially-motivated? Maybe not completely.

Racially-influenced? YES.

See my post above. Where is your evidence that when George PULLED THE TRIGGER it was RACE that was influencing that action?

From the moment he CALLED the 911 dispatcher, heard PROFILING this young boy, then heard CHASING him with a GUN in his hand, then PULLED THE TRIGGER is WHEN.

 

[Gypsy]

Racially-motivated? Maybe not completely.

Racially-influenced? YES.

See my post above. Where is your evidence that when George PULLED THE TRIGGER it was RACE that was influencing that action?

From the moment he CALLED the 911 dispatcher, heard PROFILING this young boy, then heard CHASING him with a GUN in his hand, then PULLED THE TRIGGER is WHEN.

And that is your opinion. Repeating over and over again doesn't make it fact. Or evidence. Or probable cause for arrest.

And before you go there, again, refusing to arrest someone without probable cause or prosecute them without the same doesn't make the cops or the prosecution racist either. It makes them American.

 

[galeteia]

I, for one, am glad that Prosecution is not going to go off half-cocked before they have their case built properly, and end up letting a (potentially) guilty man get away with it because some legal T had not been crossed and an I had not been dotted. If he is guilty, I would prefer he not escape justice due to a technicality in how he was arrested/charged.

This is what I have taken away from all of the legal discussion in this thread.

The justice system cannot function as a lynch mob (which, I would like to point out, was not historically limited to use just against people of colour, so 'stringing someone up' = reference to punishment delivered without investigation of facts or fair trial) as it is supposed to serve as an impartial deliverer of justice. If it is swayed by the howling mob being fed strategically-placed tidbits designed to garner website hits, then it has failed us all.

 

[Dancing Fire]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

 

[Gypsy]

I, for one, am glad that Prosecution is not going to go off half-cocked before they have their case built properly, and end up letting a (potentially) guilty man get away with it because some legal T had not been crossed and an I had not been dotted. If he is guilty, I would prefer he not escape justice due to a technicality in how he was arrested/charged.

This is what I have taken away from all of the legal discussion in this thread.

The justice system cannot function as a lynch mob (which, I would like to point out, was not historically limited to use just against people of colour, so 'stringing someone up' = reference to punishment delivered without investigation of facts or fair trial) as it is supposed to serve as an impartial deliverer of justice. If it is swayed by the howling mob being fed strategically-placed tidbits designed to garner website hits, then it has failed us all.

Thank goodness. More voices of reason!

 

[VRBeauty]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

Sadly DF, I think you may be right. The Asian soldiers whose suicides were linked to hazing - which appeared to be because of their race - barely made the news.

 

[Imdanny]

Nobody has suggested lynching anyone. What a totally absurd and insensitive comment.

Why aren't we talking about the fact that Zimmerman was the aggressor?

Why aren't we talking about the fact that he had no right whatsoever to give chase to, detain, question, or otherwise play cop when encountering a law-abiding citizen?

Why are we still talking about Trayvon Martin as the "suspicious" one?

Why are we talking about Trayvon Martin as the "threatening" one when all we have is the word of the man with the gun in his hand?

He had someone's blood on him. And some wounds. Well, never mind medical records. Never mind photographs, forensic tests, waiting for the autopsy report.

He was decked to the ground backward with one punch after Trayvon Martin randomly walked up to him and confronted him, like any kid trying to flee a grown man with a 9mm at least holstered to him, and on a mission, would have done, while doing nothing more than being a law-abiding citizen, being where he had the right to be, doing what he had the right to do.

Now it has been reported to ABC there is an affidavit from the lead homicide detective saying he did not believe Zimmerman's story and recommending manslaughter charges.

Is he part of the lynch mob too?

 

[Imdanny]

the frustrated stereotypes that Martin evoked but didn't fulfill.

What an excellent post. Thank you, Circe.

 

[PetitiePoire]

I have a few questions that I've been thinking about as I read through the thread and various articles. I'm going to apologize first for my wording, because I am not sure how to get this out the right way (my thoughts are jumbled), so I apologize.

Based on his size, would there have been as much coverage/discussion (wrong word, I'm sorry) had Martin been 18+? I keep hearing "teenager/kid/child" being used, however, from what I understand it was night time. When the killer went after him, is it possible that he wasn't seeing this boy as a child, but more a "suspicious" adult? Again, doesn't give him a right to follow him- I'm just curious if the public is thinking Zimmerman knew he was a child and if it makes the tragedy worse?

Another question: I am personally against personal gun use (especially those that can be concealed!), however, I understand it that the gun was holstered when the police took it from him. Obviously he put it back after use, but is it possible it remained in the holster and was only taken out after/while being attacked (ie when he felt threatened). Of course, this is assuming the story of being attacked is correct. Would this make a difference, regarding motif, had the gun remained in the holster and only came out after being attacked? Or is it of everyone's opinion that he was carrying it in hand while chasing him?

Again, I apologize for my jumbled mess. I hope it made some sense.