- Many, or most, -isms are the result of confirmation bias. A white person sees on the news that there’s a young black male convicted of gangbanging. That plants a seed, and in that white person’s mind, all young black males suddenly become gangbangers. A man has an issue with his wife’s driving; thus, women can’t drive. A woman has a gay friend who is effeminate; thus, all gay men are effeminate.
That’s a problem.
The problem cuts both ways, though. When your starting position on the United States and its criminal justice system is that it is inherently racist, then the acquittal of a defendant like Zimmerman simply confirms for you what you already thought to be true. It doesn’t help that the powers that be (whether that be the media, the prosecution, Sharpton/Jackson/Crump, etc.) painted Zimmerman as a racist before the trial ever even began, with NBC going as far as editing the recording of his call to the NEN to make it appear that he “profiled” Martin.
- How in the world are we supposed to even rationally discuss the problem (and there is, in fact, a problem to palaver over) when the majority is not allowed the freedom to join the discussion? As soon as a white person agrees to the discussion and presents an opinion, it’s dismissed with an eyeroll and the position of “easy for you to say with your white privilege.”
Uh…okay? So, where do we go from here, then? Again, the underlying insinuation is based on assumption: that the white person has not, and by definition cannot, know what it’s like to be in the minority’s position. Leaving aside that such thinking is a judgment based on race in and of itself, there’s a genuine curiosity and frustration on “our” side: what are we supposed to do?
- Stipulating, as above, that there is a problem to discuss (and having established which element to focus on: the disproportionate number of blacks in prison, the acquittal of white defendants, etc.) wouldn’t it seem reasonable to focus on cases where there is little to no doubt that race was, in fact, a key element in the crime? I know a lot of people on the board think, feel, or believe that Zimmerman is a racist who profiled Martin and hated black people–notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, such as his history of relationships with blacks, mentoring, and the testimony of Martin’s stepmother that even she didn’t believe Trayvon was profiled for his race–but there’s simply no evidence for his alleged racism. The simple fact that he killed a black person does not, in and of itself, mean anything, anymoreso than the simple fact that a black person kills a hispanic, a white person, or a black person, means anything in and of itself. Human beings kill one another all the time, and while there are cases of it happening based on an -ism (James Byrd, Jr., Matthew Shepherd) the plain truth is that, more often than not, killing is the result of simple meanness.
I tend to be pretty liberal on most issues. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, that gay people should be able to get married and have all the rights afforded to straight couples, that we all–black, white, yellow or purple–have the right to defend ourselves with force or deadly force. And I do my best to recognize the imperfections in our society. But here’s the thing: the #justice crowd is doing themselves a disservice, especially right now. The Zimmerman trial introduced enough evidence to illustrate that there never was a case for racial profiling. Yet, for whatever reason, they’re sticking to their guns and demanding Federal action, still calling GZ a “murderer,” hoping for a civil suit, all the way up to putting a bounty on GZ’s head.
To a man, this whole ordeal has been a matter of crying wolf. It was made into a cause before the facts were evident. And now, to the average observer, it is obvious that there was no cause to begin with. The #justice folks had their emotions manipulated, they were presented with the wrong ‘facts,’ they made up their minds, and nothing will make them believe that the case was a simple matter of self-defense–whether they agree with FL law or not.
So what happens next time? Would it not be fair to say that because of this whole circus, the average citizen will be reluctant to believe the claims of racism, unless/until there’s undeniable proof of it? And further, because of the behavior of people after the verdict, would it not be fair to say that the average observer will believe that it’s not about justice after all, but vengeance? And then there will be the complaints that the real problem isn’t being taken seriously. Well, that may be true, but you have to own up to the fact that that’s partly/mostly your own doing. This whole fiasco has poisoned the well.
You’re welcome to disagree, of course, and I’m sure there’ll be (tl;dr = white privilege) responses. And that only confirms the point. It’s tragic.