• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Curious Case of Trayvon Martin

Dotcom: Well, I'm sure it was just an isolated incident.
Tracy: Nah, I'm telling you, Dotcom. Old school racism is back.
Toofer: How can racism be back when we elected a black president?
Tracy: Barry Obams is the one who brought it back.
Toofer: So you're saying that racism is back because white people no longer feel sorry for us?
Tracy: Hey, something's going on. You know what I seen last night? A Slovin Shield commercial with a black burglar.
Dotcom: That's not good.
Grizz: Come to think of it, I saw a white judge on Law and Order last night.
 
tumblr_mpxz45caHv1r5s08ho1_500.jpg

Good lord, what a load of crap.
 
Care to expand on that?
 
Interesting, seeing as how so many facts are missing.
 
Interesting, seeing as how so many facts are missing.

But the facts that we do know:

GZ did not believe all people of color were threats
GZ was protecting his life, not his property
GZ did ask questions first
The "mass media" is the reason that GZ was eventually charged
 
But the facts that we do know:

GZ did not believe all people of color were threats
GZ was protecting his life, not his property
GZ did ask questions first
The "mass media" is the reason that GZ was eventually charged

While I get that this is pointing out it was life vs property, it's not a "fact" that his life was in danger. That is an opinion or narrative that is in dispute.
 
Nor can it possibly be fact that it's known what GZ believes, nor do we know exactly how events transpired, and if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't the mass media who charged GZ with a crime, it was police.

Look, I understand that a radical feminist taking a radical stance on this isn't going to jive with popular opinion, but all of these objections to it play precisely into her ideology, which is that these challenging points are completely counterintuitive to the average, privileged, white man.
 
Nor can it possibly be fact that it's known what GZ believes, nor do we know exactly how events transpired, and if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't the mass media who charged GZ with a crime, it was police.

Look, I understand that a radical feminist taking a radical stance on this isn't going to jive with popular opinion, but all of these objections to it play precisely into her ideology, which is that these challenging points are completely counterintuitive to the average, privileged, white man.

So having "average, privileged, white men" object to her stances that are mostly unfounded and/or exaggerated plays into her ideology?
 
Nor can it possibly be fact that it's known what GZ believes, nor do we know exactly how events transpired, and if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't the mass media who charged GZ with a crime, it was police.

.

You are mistaken. The police did not file charges. In fact, I believe the police department elected not to pursue charges because they felt Zimmerman did act in self defense, or at least they did not have enough evidence to convict him.

Only after charges were not initially brought, and after a media shit-storm, were charges brought through a "special prosecutor," bypassing the customary grand jury route.
 
So having "average, privileged, white men" object to her stances that are mostly unfounded and/or exaggerated plays into her ideology?

i won't agree that her stances are mostly unfounded and/or exaggerated, but otherwise, yes
 
You are mistaken. The police did not file charges. In fact, I believe the police department elected not to pursue charges because they felt Zimmerman did act in self defense, or at least they did not have enough evidence to convict him.

Only after charges were not initially brought, and after a media shit-storm, were charges brought through a "special prosecutor," bypassing the customary grand jury route.

point conceded
 
Nor can it possibly be fact that it's known what GZ believes, nor do we know exactly how events transpired, and if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't the mass media who charged GZ with a crime, it was police.

Look, I understand that a radical feminist taking a radical stance on this isn't going to jive with popular opinion, but all of these objections to it play precisely into her ideology, which is that these challenging points are completely counterintuitive to the average, privileged, white man.

GZ protested against the beating of black man: http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/2...ating-of-black-homeless-man-by-white-officer/. IE - GZ did not believe all people of color were threats

There is not dispute that GZ asked TM what he was doing in his neighborhood - he certainly didn't shoot first and ask questions later.

And lets not be pedantic - The prosecutor wouldn't have charged GZ without the media firestorm that erupted after they initially chose not to file charges.

And its so lazy and predictable to argue that disagreement about her "thesis" is based on race or privilege. Her stance isn't controversial because it is "radical," its controversial because it's based on falsities.
 
GZ protested against the beating of black man: http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/2...ating-of-black-homeless-man-by-white-officer/. IE - GZ did not believe all people of color were threats

There is not dispute that GZ asked TM what he was doing in his neighborhood - he certainly didn't shoot first and ask questions later.

And lets not be pedantic - The prosecutor wouldn't have charged GZ without the media firestorm that erupted after they initially chose not to file charges.

And its so lazy and predictable to argue that disagreement about her "thesis" is based on race or privilege. Her stance isn't controversial because it is "radical," its controversial because it's based on falsities.

He can think there was injustice against another black man and still initially profile based on race. Even if he was only doing it because a young black man fit the description of people who had committed break-ins, he was clearly profiling based on race to ask the kid what he was doing in the neighborhood to begin with. I never suggested he just shot Trayvon unprovoked either. I'll certainly concede the media brought about the prosecution of the case. I think bell hooks does mischaracterize the way the media overall portrayed the case. There was plenty of sympathy for Trayvon all along in the media, from the way it was brought to the courtroom through to today.

But the final point, to me, is the most important, and one in which I was showing a viewpoint sympathetic to the one Ph had been arguing. It's easy to rapidly dismiss this line of argument of hers from a position of hegemonic white privilege. You bring up a good point in saying that it's completely possible to dismantle her arguments regardless of your own status, and I completely agree with you there. But her stance is controversial because it is radical and challenges the currently accepted perception of things from many people, and those so quick to dismiss it, yourself not necessarily included District, easily play into her central thesis. You buy the narrative in some way or another because either it's acceptable to be a vigilante neighborhood watchmen carrying a gun and not following police orders and provoking people on the street, or because you genuinely believe in the inversion of victimhood, that Zimmerman was the one fighting for his life, standing his ground lawfully.
 
He can think there was injustice against another black man and still initially profile based on race. Even if he was only doing it because a young black man fit the description of people who had committed break-ins, he was clearly profiling based on race to ask the kid what he was doing in the neighborhood to begin with. I never suggested he just shot Trayvon unprovoked either. I'll certainly concede the media brought about the prosecution of the case. I think bell hooks does mischaracterize the way the media overall portrayed the case. There was plenty of sympathy for Trayvon all along in the media, from the way it was brought to the courtroom through to today.

But the final point, to me, is the most important, and one in which I was showing a viewpoint sympathetic to the one Ph had been arguing. It's easy to rapidly dismiss this line of argument of hers from a position of hegemonic white privilege. You bring up a good point in saying that it's completely possible to dismantle her arguments regardless of your own status, and I completely agree with you there. But her stance is controversial because it is radical and challenges the currently accepted perception of things from many people, and those so quick to dismiss it, yourself not necessarily included District, easily play into her central thesis. You buy the narrative in some way or another because either it's acceptable to be a vigilante neighborhood watchmen carrying a gun and not following police orders and provoking people on the street, or because you genuinely believe in the inversion of victimhood, that Zimmerman was the one fighting for his life, standing his ground lawfully.

While she may have valid points on society's views (even if I believe she exaggerates many of them for effect) - I think she's really reaching with that quote in this case.

But again, when you've built your livelihood on swinging verbal hammers, every situations looks like a nail.
 
While I get that this is pointing out it was life vs property, it's not a "fact" that his life was in danger. That is an opinion or narrative that is in dispute.

A person having their head slammed against a concrete sidewalk is not a fact that his life was in danger? Would you let someone do it to you?
 
More than forty years after the advent of Black Liberation Theology, Trayvon Martin’s predator and murderer walked.

More than twenty years after critical studies of whiteness began to gain traction in the academy Trayvon Martin’s predator and murderer walked.

Free.

Went home.

I feel frozen. Caught tight between the demand for an endless flow of words—speaking things that rage to be said—and the demand to sit in a heavy, deafening silence of grief and outrage. For words have continued to fail us.

There is plenty of worth being said elsewhere about Martin’s murder and George Zimmerman’s exoneration. From analysis blasting “Stand Your Ground Laws” to recognizing these laws mean open season on Black men because “Black” always means “threat,” from asking where Martin’s right to stand his ground went to naming the long line of murderers called innocent by a “justice” system that continues to expose the actual nature of this white supremacist nation for which it stands.

So, I won’t repeat these words. I will simply add this one thought to the collective outrage: white privilege is not enough.

The category of “white privilege” has become, for some time, the dominant way in which we—especially the light-skinned scholars among us—talk about race and anti-racism in liberationist feminist thought. White privilege is real. It matters. It’s an important category. And it’s a critical tool for raising awareness among the light-skinned that racism is not simply about people of color, but about us too.

But I’m tired of talking about white privilege. When wrestling with the reality of pervasive racial violence and injustice in this nation, and the collective impact these have on those of us who are white, the concept of white privilege is simply not enough.

Here’s white privilege: never thinking about, having to think about, and/or realizing anyone else has to think about a trip to a convenience store as putting their young son into mortal danger, simply because of the racialization of his body and his choice of apparel. Yes, this is important.

But the deep-seated evil and the malformation of our national soul that are made so unavoidably clear in Trayvon Martin’s murder, the forty four days it took to arrest his murderer, and Saturday’s denouement when Zimmerman smiled and went home—the nature of that reality goes depths beyond the work awareness of “white privilege” can possibly do for us.

I’m tired of talking about “white privilege” (even though, yes, I will keep talking about it and trying to get my white students to see it). It has begun to feel to me like an easy list we can make of all the goods those of us who are white get, a list some of us are trying to do something to challenge. But a list just can’t do justice to what Martin’s death and Zimmerman’s exoneration are and mean. Our situation is far more grave than this.

I want to talk about the toxins of whiteness, the suffocating thickness of white supremacy, the ways in which the genocidal violence that lies at the very heart-center of this nation’s birth and contemporary identity has us all in its grip. I want to talk about the ways in which these hold us so deeply and frame our vision so completely that Trayvon Martin never stood a chance of being seen, let alone identified with, by white U.S.-Americans as simply “a human being, a young man, a son, a grandson, a citizen, a student, a person who enjoyed watching basketball.”

He could only be seen as black. And black life in the United States of America has always been cheap.

Last year, Anthea Butler argued that deaths like Martin’s will continue as long as U.S.-America continues to see itself as “exceptional.” There was, she wrote, nothing exceptional about Martin’s murder. (I suspect she would say the same about Zimerman’s official “innocence.”) Rather, she wrote, this is a “sad and familiar” tale. It’s a tale that reveals the extent to which violence is “at the core of much of the African American experience.”

And there’s another way in which exceptionalism matters here. Exceptionalism exposes the extent to which U.S.-American identity is completely bound up in the evil, deadly toxicity of white supremacy. Our claim that we were divinely chosen, a city on a hill, a (white) people destined by God to become the nation we are was of a unified piece with the genocide of Native Americans and the enslavement of people of African descent. Exceptionalism continued to play out through the eras of Jim and Jane Crow, lynching, the Sand Creek massacre, dispossession and removal, the Dawes Severalty Act, the murder of Civil Rights activists, the sterilization of Native women, the forced removal of Native children from their homes, the 41-bullet assassination of Amadou Diallo and the free walk his assassins, like Zimmerman, also made back to their homes.

U.S.-American exceptionalism has always been white and supremacist. This is true figuratively and literally. Literally the build up of U.S. power and prominence came and was/is sustained through the subjugation and sometimes slaughter of Native and African American peoples, as well as through the violent exploitation of many other communities of color who have their own unique, yet similar, stories to also tell. And these literal ways in which U.S.-America became exceptional through racial atrocity fed and continue to feed the figurative whiteness and supremacy embraced and endorsed in our national self-perception as “exceptional.”

U.S-American exceptionalism was what the flag wavers were celebrating (knowingly or not) last week at our fourth of July parade in this little mountain town where I sit writing during a sabbatical while Trayvon Martin’s parents grieved.

God bless America?

White privilege can’t begin to account for all of this, describe it, expose it. It cannot help us do the seemingly impossible work of wrangling visions of life, flourishing, solidarity and true justice out of a racial landscape soaked in so much innocent blood.

Challenging white privilege isn’t enough to transform our national soul.

I think it’s time for we who are passionately committed to anti-racist scholarship and activism—and especially for those of us who are white and so committed—to give “white privilege” a rest. We need to find new and different words and categories to dig and expose this evil that has such a grip on our collective soul. And such a search must, of course, be done only and always in the service of sustaining ongoing and generating new practices and actions and protests. For Trayvon Martin was just one of so very, very many. And we have known this for a long time.

In grief and outrage.





From the Feminist Studies in Religion blog.

Wanted to just post a couple contrarian stances to the seeming consensus on here. I appreciate good discussion more than just "derrrr that's dumb" that bacon and scooter posted.
 
Back
Top