http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1354909.html
Printable View
There really isn't an audience here for this story. But yes, this story really pisses me off greatly.
I've been following this though. It is outrageous. One of the Big Rules of the neighborhood mobile watch programs is Do Not Engage, and of course, No Weapons is the top of the top. This guy needs to be charged, manslaughter at the very least.
Editing to add further thoughts: He put himself in at risk by stalking the young man, but his life was never threatened by the unarmed teen. Any time you get viewed as a threat for just walking down the sidewalk, something is seriously amiss with the person seeing threat. For the teen to confront him may not have been smart, but what was he to do? In the white world, a white child being stalked can run up on a porch to call for help, but what of the black child in the white world?
The police chief can say he is color blind all he wants, but he too sees a black man walking in a white neighborhood as a threat. He doesn't even know that is wrong.
Seems like the whole community down there saw the threat as well as the neighborhood watchman, hence no charges in the brutal cold blooded murder of an innocent unarmed teen whose only crime was he would only be able to produce black offspring instead of white offspring.
Here's another article on the case:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...tin-1995-2012/
Some key points:
10. According to neighbors, Zimmerman was “fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.” [Miami Herald]
11. Zimmerman “had been the subject of complaints by neighbors in his gated community for aggressive tactics” [Huffington Post]
12. A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.” [ABC News]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101477867
Quote:
Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver [[D-Mo.) released a statement on Monday calling the shooting death of Trayvon Martin a “hate crime” and urging the Department of Justice to investigate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1364734.html
Quote:
"Even though he was a little younger, he was one of us," Neal said Monday afternoon at the Seminole County criminal court building, where more than 100 college students came from across the state to demand justice for Martin, whose killer remains free. "He was a student with dreams like us."
George Zimmerman will more than likely be charged with something eventually and spend some time in jail for this crime. What bothers me more is that there is a police department and a community that is apathetic to this crime. It's not just one person, Zimmerman, who places low value on the life of a human, it's a whole community and even a police department willing to cover for Zimmerman that places a low value on human life. And people swear we're in post racial America. Yea?
It is sickening. I hear that boy crying in my dreams, and every mother probably hears the same thing. A son was just walking down the street. Another son saw a "perp" and the glory of stopping a crime. I am sorry for both of their families, but it is time for us all to wake up and see that everyone we do not know, or is a different color, is not a threat. Fear did this, and for that, we all bear a burden.
I don't think the community is apathetic, just the police.Quote:
What bothers me more is that there is a police department and a community that is apathetic to this crime
Trayvon was on the phone with a girl during the attack:
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin."Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...7#.T2h5iRFmK5I
Very disturbing story. Sounds as if the police went out of their way to protect the obvious psychotic Zimmerman; while they shrug their shoulders at the life of an unarmed child.
The full Zimmerman 911 call. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL72w...ature=youtu.be
*sigh*
Leonard Pitts' column today:
When others choose not to see you
They do not see you. For every African American, it comes as surely as hard times, setback and tears, that moment when you realize somebody is looking right at you and yet not seeing you — as if you had become cellophane, as if you had become air, as if somehow, some way, you were right there and at the same time not.
Ralph Ellison described that phenomenon in a milestone novel that begins as follows: “I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe. Nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids — and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.”
Trayvon Martin was killed on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., fully 60 years after Ellison published “Invisible Man.” The circumstances of the unarmed 17-yearold’s death suggest that even six decades later, invisibility plagues black folks still.
It happened like this. He was visiting his father, watching hoops on television. At halftime, he left his dad’s townhouse in a gated community and walked to a 7-Eleven for snacks. There was a light drizzle, and he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and jeans. On the way back, he drew the attention of George Zimmerman, captain of the neighborhood watch.
Zimmerman, who is white, called police from his SUV and told them he was following a “suspicious” character. The dispatcher promised to send a prowl car and told Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle. He didn’t.
When police arrived, they found him with a bloody nose and Martin face down on the grass not far from his father’s door, a gunshot wound in his chest. Zimmerman said he shot the boy in self-defense. Police did not arrest him.
At this writing, nearly three weeks later, they still have not, citing insufficient evidence. The case has been referred to the state’s attorney, and the NAACP has asked the Justice Department to intervene. All of which raises a number of pressing questions:
How can you get out of your truck against police advice, instigate a fight, get your nose bloodied in said fight, shoot the person you were fighting with, and claim self-defense? If anyone was defending himself, wasn’t it Trayvon Martin? Would police have been so forbearing had Martin confronted and killed an unarmed George Zimmerman?
Of course, the most pressing question is this: What exactly was it that made this boy seem ”suspicious”? The available evidence suggests a sad and simple answer: He existed while black.
The manner of said existence doesn’t matter. It is the existing itself that is problematic. Again: Sometimes, they do not see you. That’s one of the great frustrations of African-American life, those times when you are standing right there, minding your business, tending your house, coming home from the store, and other people are looking right at you, yet do not see you.
They see instead their own superstitions and suppositions, paranoia and guilt, night terrors and vulnerabilities. They see the perpetrator, the suspect, the mug shot, the dark and scary face that lurks at the open windows of their vivid imaginings. They see the unknown, the unassimilable, the other. They see every thing in the world but you. And their blindness costs you.
First and foremost, it costs your sacred individuality. But it may also cost you a job, an education, your freedom. If you are unlucky like Trayvon Martin, it may even cost your life. He lay bloody and ruined in wet grass with nothing in his pockets but $22, a can of lemonade and a bag of Skittles, not a type, not a kind, but just himself, a kid who liked horses and sports, who struggled with chemistry, who went out for snacks and never came home. Visible too late.
http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Oli...&view=ZW50aXR5
From an attorney familiar with that area of Florida: Papantonio: Trayvon Killer Should Be Charged With Premeditated Murder
Hartmann provides some background on the origin of these shoot first laws: Legal to shoot a black teen in FL but illegal to shoot a dog?
This is the America the NRA wants for us. Vigilantes running wild with impunity.
I cannot see how this shooting was justified! The love "Paul Kersey" types that are commenting in the varied web articles can shove it!! That narrative is not applicable here [[a young black man wearing a hoodie is not enough) and the 911 information is revealing that Zimmerman was out of order, and acting well beyond patrol and general security.
A petition from the Color of Change:
Three weeks ago, 17-year old Trayvon Martin was gunned down by self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman. Despite Zimmerman admitting to following, confronting, and killing Trayvon, he has yet to be arrested or charged with any crime.1
Just minutes before Trayvon was killed, Zimmerman had called police stating that Trayvon looked "suspicious." Trayvon was unarmed and walking back to his father's home in Sanford, Florida when Zimmerman accosted him.
At the crime scene, Sanford police botched their questioning of Zimmerman, refused to take the full statements of witnesses, and pressured neighbors to side with the shooter's claim of self-defense.2 As it turns out, Sanford's police department has a history of failing to hold perpetrators accountable for violent acts against Black victims, and the police misconduct in Trayvon's case exemplifies the department's systemic mishandling of such investigations.3 And now, the State Attorney's office has rubber-stamped the Sanford police's non-investigation, claiming that there is not enough evidence to support even a manslaughter conviction.4
Trayvon's family and hundreds of thousands of people around the country are demanding justice.5 Please join us in calling on the Department of Justice to take over the case, arrest Trayvon's killer, and launch an independent investigation into the Sanford police department's unwillingness to protect Trayvon's civil rights. It takes just a moment: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/Trayvon
This tragedy is sickening. I hope the Martin family finds justice. I can't believe there's still people out there who are on the fence of this issue. By the day, we find out more about Zimmerman and his story of "self defense" is sounding more bogus.
Hartmann's The Nature of community
I think Papantonio laid out a fair case for premeditation. It clearly raises above manslaughter, which is:
"The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection." [[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...y+manslaughter)
there is clearly deliberation and clearly malice in the man's actions
Comparing a kid who was murdered to the Duke case is a bit much. Things are back to "normal" in the Duke case. A life is gone forever in Trayvon Martin.
So in essence you are saying that someone that is unbiased who had listened to the 911 tapes and hearing Trayvon screaming for help and and THEN the gunshot and silence along with the witnesses who stated that as well will come to that conclusion? You must nothave heard all 8 of the 911 recordings that recorded the murder when the neighbors who called in were telling police there was someone behind their houses screaming for help...
Those tapes are chilling and they wrench your heart hearing them.
As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman should be up on first degree murder charges since he was told to sit the fuck down and didn't. I really hope the Justice Dept. goes after him and that useless police dept.
There is a lot more to this than the media has been reporting.
A witness has come forward to say it was Zimmerman screaming for help, not Martin.
The 911 tapes show Trayvon calling for help. I think the actual recording of Trayvon's voice is going to weigh more heavily than this "witness". Besides, it doesn't even make sense for Zimmerman to be calling for help when he pursued and confronted the boy after being told not to by police, police were already on the way, he was a good 100 pounds heavier than the boy, and he had a gun. Why would he need help? That's not even logical. It seems people are working overtime to help bolster his self-defense claim. But now they're reporting that Trayvon may have dialed 911 too, and if true, that means he was in fear for his life.
Well, we have the recordings, so I am sure it will be settled who was yelling. It is very hard for me to believe the teen, who was reportedly trying to get away from Zimmerman, and who was a lot smaller, attacked the man. He ran between the houses and it was behind the houses that the incident occurred. So, if Zimmerman had given up the chase and was returning to his car, what was he doing behind the houses? If Trayvon was trying to get away from Zimmerman, why would he attack him once he quit the pursuit?
^^ Unfortunately, only two people know the answers to those questions and one of them can't tell us anything.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-exclusi...0#.T25yxKKDrp8Quote:
March 24, 2012
A friend of George Zimmerman, the man who shot unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., told ABC News today that the voice heard howling on the tape of a 911 call was Zimmerman's, not the teen's.
< Snip >
Zimmerman's friend said that the howls heard on the 911 call, which helped galvanize the nation against Zimmerman, in fact belonged to Zimmerman, not Martin.
A witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman told ABC News the same: the pleas for help were Zimmerman's.
Well, that is why there needs to be investigation to determine the facts. The parents say it was Trayvon's voice. I am quite sure there are ways to analyze the tapes and determine beyond a reasonable doubt who was yelling.
Have the official weights of the two people been released?
I hope people aren't making judgements based on the photos that have been released by TM's family. He doesn't look like he's any older than 12, maybe 13 years old in those photos. He was 17 at the time of his death.
Well, the girlfriend on the phone with Trayvon at the time, reported that he asked the man why he was following him, and Zimmerman replied, what are you doing here - and then the scuffle and the phone drops. If Zimmerman indeed attacked or grabbed him first, its possible that Trayvon fought back and was able to overpower him. But then Zimmerman pulls his gun and shoots him, claiming self defense. But if you attack someone first, and cause them to fight for their lives, how can you then shoot them and claim self-defense, when you started it? That sounds like a helluva way to get rid of people you don't like, just start fights with them and get them to fight back, then off them and say you had to.
we know enough. young man killed unjustly by a guy told NOT to pursue him by the police. stop your BS about al & jesse. Al was asked to come there by the family's minister, and he did so on the day his mother died. to think he did this for publicity is pure stupidity. Didn't see Jesse Jackson in any coverage. was he there, or is that just another racist assumption?
Exactly. This is one case I feel Al should be there so the spotlight doesn't fade away and the Sanford Police can sweep it under the rug. I love how all of a sudden now there is an anonymous witness coming forward -- what do you want to bet it's one of those dopey neighbors in that complex? But of course, all the other witnesses I've seen and read who say Zimmerman was at fault aren't credible.
By the way, why can't they bring in Zimmerman for questioning? Don't the cops have the right to bring anyone in for 24-48 hours without charging them?
A. Al's a media hound.
B. Zimmerman was questioned, so there is no need to detain him. They know how to contact him when they're ready.
C. So far, none of the witnesses against Zimmerman actually saw anything. They heard something, some kind of altercation, but they can't swear who was doing or saying what. I'm not even sure they can be considered 'against' Zimmerman.
Goes to show how hard some will work to avoid facing the undisputed fact that the black teen was being chased by an angry suspicious white man simply because he was black.
Please look up the definition of "undisputed" and "fact".
None of us know for sure what happened in this case. We are all basing our opinions on what has been reported in the media, rumors and our own personal biases.
Zimmerman very well may have shot Martin in cold blood without any valid reason. It's also just as possible that Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman and he shot in self defense. The truth is it's not against the law to follow a "suspicious" person, nor is against the law for a black man to be walking in a gated community. This is a tragedy that took the life of one man and no matter the outcome will probably end up destroying the life of another.
Fact: Zimmerman called 911.
Fact: Trayvon was walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood
Fact: Trayvon was black.|
Facts: Zimmerman is not black. He is Hispanic, which is an ethnic marker, not a race.
Fact: Zimmerman told 911 he was suspicious of the person, citing his hoodie, his waistband and his race. The waistband and hoodie were added onto the race.
Fact: Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Trayvon after admitting he was suspicious of him and was angry that these guys always get away.
Fact: Trayvon, other than being black, had done absolutely nothing to attract suspicion.
All those are not disputed, they are in the 911 tapes.
It is true that there is a conclusion drawn from these facts, that Trayvon was chased and confronted because of Zimmerman's suspicions, based on race.
PS. Zimmerman's race actually is not really relevant to his decision to react toward Trayvon with suspicion based upon Trayvon's race. Minority people do absorb and internalize negative stereotypes they are raised among.
That's called giving a description so the officers know who to look for.Quote:
citing his hoodie, his waistband and his race.
Where did the term 'chased' come from. One was following the other, both were walking. No one was 'chasing' anyone.
Have you ever felt like meat on the street, pursued by someone with the power to overwhelm you because of something like a physical attribute? Whether you are walking or running, you feel like you are being chased. I've been there.
Here is an Op-Ed from Indian Country Today:
The Murder of Trayvon Martin Is About You
http://cdn.indiancountrytodaymediane...artoon-150.jpgBy Gyasi Ross
March 25, 2012
This column originally appeared on Race-Talk.org.
This goes beyond skin color or politics. This is about the joys of life, and the notion that all of us should have unfettered access to those joys as long as we are not harming anyone else.
No, he wasn’t your son.
It wasn’t your son that was murdered simply because he happened to be wearing black skin when he was walking from the store. Maybe you don’t even have a son; furthermore, statistically, chances are that if you do have a son, your son probably doesn’t have black skin. Therefore, it is simply impossible for your son to be in this situation.
But it’s not about whether it was your son.
Perhaps you don’t even like black people. No, no, no, I’m not judging you—don’t get defensive. Nowadays, everybody thinks that they have to like everybody; I know it’s politically correct to say that you like black people, that some of your best are black [[or Mexican or Asian or Native American or Autistic or homosexual). But especially black—black folks seem to be the litmus test for political correctness.
But I don’t even care if you like black people or Mexicans or Asians or Native Americans—nobody says that you have to. Who cares? Everybody has preconceived notions about other groups of people; for example, I freely admit that if we were playing a pick-up basketball, Jeremy Lin wouldn’t be one of my top picks [[and, of course, he would promptly dunk on me in the most egregious fashions known to man).
We all have our own little preferences and prejudices—no big deal. Heck, a lot of black people don’t even like black people; ask Chris Rock. Ask my good friend Jonesey—a Harlem black cat who takes pride in dressing nice and “getting his grown man on,” he hates seeing young black men sagging their pants.
Says it reflects badly on the race. The notion that certain choice members of a racial group can “reflect badly on a race” is not politically correct. But it’s honest and real and often thought [[even if it’s not spoken), like my choice not to choose Jeremy Lin on my basketball team because we don’t often see Asians playing basketball at such an incredibly high level.
Thus, this has nothing to do with whether or not you like black folks. It has nothing to do with political correctness.
It has to do with life. And death. And a mom that is never going to be able to hug her son again. She will never be able to exercise her God-given right to holler at her 17 year old son to wash the dishes or to clean up his room again. She will never be able to see him learn from his mistakes again—to see him go through his first love and want to console his first heartache, but he pridefully won’t let her console him. His mom won’t get to see her son looking at the caller ID on his cell phone every 3 minutes, waiting for the girl that he just broke up with to call him back nor see the confusion in his eyes [[and hear it in his voice) when she doesn’t call him back. She won’t get an opportunity to hold her daughter-in-law’s hand in the delivery room as the daughter-in-law gives birth to her first grandchild. She will not have the opportunity to spoil that grandchild rotten—give her ice cream and apples—and then send her back home to her parents, like any good grandparent does. Like my grandparents did. And yours.
Trayvon’s Martin’s mother won’t be able to do any of that, and that’s what we all should be angry about.
It’s not that a black boy got shot and murdered, or that a shoot-first racist killed him that should burn all of us up. Instead, we should all be angry—violently, pissed-off, scarily angry—that a child, regardless of color, was taken off this earth for no good reason and it literally could be any one of us that are feeling the pain that this mother feels today. He didn’t ask for this. She didn’t ask for this—they were both minding their business, living their lives not harming anyone. This isn’t about black or white or Native or Mexican or whatever. This is about life, and this is about our kids. My son is only 5, with long, bushy hair and looks nothing like Trayvon—still, the thought of someone doing this to him obviously breaks my heart. I’m sure the thought of it happening to your child does the same to you.
That’s what should make us mad and make us take action—there is no one “right” action, just take some action. Go to change.org. Blow up the Seminole County prosecuting attorney’s phone line and demand that he prosecute this as a hate crime/murder. Call the US Department of Justice. Call your senator. Seriously. ALL of them—prosecuting attorneys, senators, mayors are all public officials and WILL respond when they know that there is a movement in place to get them out of office unless they respond. Let them know that we will not stand by while innocent people are the victims of deprivations of civil and human rights—not just with Trayvon, but anytime. We need a Nationwide Neighborhood Watch to prevent us—the poor, the minority, the powerless people of every color—from ever feeling powerless and victimized in our own lands again. This should be the catalyst #NeverAgain #TrayvonMartin #WereAllInThisTogether
Read more: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...#ixzz1q9ioErlz
^^ I only needed to scan a few words to see how inflammatory and misguided that is.
I guess we are seeing who is showing their true selves below the surface veneer
Really. I thought the article was remarkably balanced.
"Remarkably balanced" is definitely not how I would describe the article. It's only four sentences before the author is calling the shooting a murder and a few paragraphs later he describes Mr. Zimmerman as a "Shoot first racist" who targeted Trayvon solely because of his skin color and murdered him "for no good reason".
Not that it should make any difference to a jury but isn't Mr. Zimmerman hispanic, of Peruvian ancestry, rather than white?
edited to add: I quit being lazy and looked it up. Mr. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Peruvian. Gazhekwe, do most Peruvians consider themselves hispanics or Indians?
It depends on their ancestry, like here.
Wonder if Al and Jesse will jump on this one:
Quote:
One suspect was shot shortly after 11 p.m. after he allegedly reached into his waistband while running from police near the intersection of Orange Grove Boulevard and Sunset Avenue. Two officers fired on the man, Riddle said, one who had been pursuing the suspect on foot and the other who had been looking for him while in a patrol car.
As of Sunday afternoon police had not located a weapon in the area of the shooting, but were continuing to search, Riddle said.
http://www.glendalenewspress.com/tn-...,4535117.storyQuote:
Police did not immediately release the name of the African-American man who was shot or the officers involved.
You think these two stories are even REMOTELY the same?
1) the person shot was a suspect in a robbery, not a kid walking home
2) the police were involved
3) the shot person "allegedly" pulled a gun
further, the ACTUAL quote from the article is
"Police did not immediately release the names of the officers involved."the race of the suspect who was shot was not in the article. What is your problem?
Meddle, Al and Jesse won't jump on the case you linked, however they might jump on the case of the woman in Chicago killed by an off duty police officer.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=8591349
Sorry, Oladub, I didn't fully answer your question. Here is the 2012 Peru population breakdown by ethnicity:
Amerindian 45%, mestizo [[mixed Amerindian and white) 37%, white 15%, black, Japanese, Chinese, and other 3%
http://www.indexmundi.com/peru/demog...s_profile.html
From his appearance in the published picture, I would guess he fits with the majority.
I am sorry to say so, but his having a non-white ancestry does not rule out the possibility of his having a tendency to fear black men just because they are black men.
I think, in this debate or whatever I've been reading on this thread, the problem is that your first statement is spot-on and your second statement is simply a bit of the racial Dogma that so many people [[I'm never sure what "the majority" means) get tired of. But, so often in these debates, people talk in terms of your first sentence, then their personal bents drift into your second sentence. Then, those who disagree with your second sentence are accused of disagreeing with your first sentence. In this particular forum, it seems that many don't differentiate between your first and second statements. I see a vast difference.
Gazhekwe, Thanks, I was intrigued by the racial ambiguity in this case. Hispanic is a cultural designation, as you know , and can be white, black, or Amerindian. I had been thinking of Peruvians as Amerindian maybe from watching too many movies or seeing something about Peru's elected President. I have since come across this article regarding this ambiguity.
More Latinos Self-Identifying as Indians
George Zimmerman's parents are Robert and Gladys. I couldn't find out much about Robert who is described as white. Robert Zimmerman, I believe, is also Bob Dylan's birth name. 'Zimmerman' is a German occupational name meaning 'carpenter'. Gladys is described as descending from Puruvians so maybe she is US born. Robert describes George as being "hispanic".
Another part of the racial mix, more political, is that the President is half white like George Zimmerman and also half black like Trayvon Martin but says that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. I've never come across any article saying how this is playing in the US hispanic community.
I trust that a jury confronted with personal testimonies and forensic experts who will decide whose voices are on the tapes will make the best possible decision.
race and ethnicity are both cultural constructs with little "real" meaning
True, that. It all came about during the Age of Exploration, paving the way for exploitation of people encountered by the explorers. Manifest Destiny, the superiority of the White Race, all that are inventions by the white thinkers of the day, continuing on into the present day.
Here is a student article on the subject from Indian Country Today:
The Making of the Great White Race
By Julianne Jennings
March 26, 2012
Historically, when different groups of people came into contact with one another, they offered different explanations for the phenotypic variations they saw. Because skin color was so noticeable, it was the most frequently explained trait and most systems of racial classification came to be based on these explanations. Race would later become both a classifier and ranking of human beings according to inferior and superior types. Although race is a concept developed in the west during the Enlightenment period, it eventually spread to many parts of the non-Western world through international commerce, including the slave trade and, later colonial conquest.
The predominant colonial theory of race was “the great chain of being…” the idea that human races could be lined up from most superior to most inferior. The chain starts from God and progresses downward to angels, demons, stars, moon, kings [[the top of humanity’s social order is the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings), princes, nobles, men, wild animals, domesticated animals, trees, other plants, precious stones, precious metals, minerals, and then an arrangement of non-white people, with blacks at the bottom. There is no mention of Indians as they were considered proto-human and did not descend from the original pair [[Adam and Eve).
Swedish Botanist Carolus Linnaeus, “The Father of Taxonomy,” who in 1735 published Systemae Naturae, which formalized the distinctions among human populations based on race. Within Homo sapiens, Linnaeus proposed five taxa or categories. At first the five categories were based on place of origin. Later these categories were based on skin color. Linnaeus believed each race had certain endemic characteristics. His work is the first to mention Native Americans as choleric, or red, straightforward, eager and combative as opposed to Europeans who were sanguine and pale, muscular, swift, clever and inventive.
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach [[1752-1840), a German anatomist, also classified humans into five categories or races: European/white race, Mongolian/yellow race, America/red race, and Ethiopian/black race, he added Malaysian/brown race. Blumenbach realized that divisions based on skin color were arbitrary and that many traits, including skin color, were not discrete phenomena. Blumenbach pointed out that to attempt to classify all humans using such a system would omit completely all those who did not fit neatly into a specific category.
In 1795 Blumenbach dropped the word “European” and coined the term “Caucasian,” based on a discovery he thought important enough to warrant the change. A single skull excavated from the Caucasus region had measurements that closely matched those of German skulls in his collection. “He concluded on the basis of this single skull that all European people must have originated in the Caucasus, thereby substituting it for the name European. His hypothesis, however, would later be proven wrong. From Blumenbach’s error we derive a racial category for whiteness that is widely misunderstood as ‘scientific’ for its genetic purity.”
Samuel George Morton, provided “scientific evidence” of Indian inferiority. In his 1839 study, the “Crania Americana,” Morton measured 144 Indian skulls from across the continent and compared those measurements to Caucasian skulls. His interpretation of collected statistical data concluded that the brain size of Europeans was far greater than that of Native people and thus reflected a correspondingly greater intellectual capacity. “The structure of the mind appears to be different from that of a white man, nor can the two harmonize in the social relations except on the most limited scale. . . Indians are not only adverse to the restraints of education, but on the most part are incapable of a continued process of rationing on abstract subjects.”
In 1859 Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species crystallized the understanding of the evolutionary process [[particularly the crucial role of natural selection) and for the first time thrust evolutionary theory into the consciousness of the general public. Darwin believed that evolution resulted in individuals and groups better adapted to their environment and equated the entire process of evolution with the process of adaptation.
Skin color, a poly genetic trait that is influenced by three substances: hemoglobin, carotene, and most important, the pigment melanin. These substances are found deep within the epidermis and have the capacity to absorb potentially dangerous ultraviolet [[UV) rays present in sunlight. Together these substances provide protection from overexposure to ultraviolet radiation which can cause genetic mutations in skin cells that can lead to skin cancer.
Other poly genetic traits, such as body build, lips, hair and eyes, are long-term adaptations to specific environmental factors contributing to individual or group survival. Reproductive “fitness,” the ability to survive and reproduce in humans and other species is strongly influenced by natural or environmental factors making natural selection one of the most important mechanisms for biological change.
Since the time hominids migrated out of Africa into Europe and Asia, selective pressures changed man’s physical shape as a means to survive in diverse environments. Eventually, the notion of biological race became the primary source of American social identity based on these differences in appearance. By mid-nineteenth century, the concept of race moved clearly toward a hierarchical view, where skin color, along with the shape of the head, placed Africans, Indians and people of color at the bottom and where northern, light-skinned populations were considered superior. Also, the fact that non-Europeans were not Christian and were “uncivilized” implied an inferiority of character and intellect
The word “race” and many of the ideas now associated with the term were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration. After 1850, biological determinism was the underlying theme to most thinking as well as scientific research in Europe and in the United States. Today these views would be considered racist but were held by some of this country’s most critical thinkers, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
Julianne Jennings, E. Pequot-Nottoway, is a Ph.D. student at Arizona State University.
Read more:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwor...#ixzz1qFP7Mey7
bartock, I have been trying to understand your point, not sure I have it yet. Are you saying there are not stereotypes, or that they are not observed and internalized by people?
Of course not. I have no problems with that whatsoever. There are stereotypes everywhere, and some are internalized by people. I have a problem with the implication that a "minority" who stereotypes with respect to another "minority" is only doing that because the stereotyping minority was conditioned to stereotype by the "majority", or the White Man's Culture, or whatever boogeyman stereotype some of the stuff I'm reading on here is describing it as.
Obviously there are people that, through their upbringing or experiences beyond their control, ARE conditioned to stereotype.
On the other hand, most people are just that. People. I think most of this stuff is based on personal experience, not Big Brother White Man watching you. If I were to bet, would I put money on this terrible situation having at least in part to do with pre-conceived notions of someone who is a. black, and b., young? Yes. If this was an elderly black gentleman walking would this have happened? I don't think so. So there is another stereotype that isn't based on race at play here, imo.
But this gets back to my post about getting the issues confused. I mean, reading your position, it seems that whether this gentleman is a complete racist, a mere stereotyper, or a generally race-neutral person, all three scenarios fall into this "White Culture" category. Therefore, whatever any "minority" does [[again, however that is defined), no matter what happens, the ultimately responsibility falls upon this nebulous "White Culture", and presumably, anyone who that may fall into that culture [[i.e., ANY anglo, caucasian, whatever you want to call it).
Of course, the irony is that this stereotype can then get internalized as well. There are a few around here that are certainly bursting with it.
Pardon the language, but I think the vast majority of people on this Earth want to live, eat, sleep, fuck, love, raise, protect, prosper, grow, and go, in peace, and do it around those who don't impede their shit. Color blind? No. Color-neutral? Yes.
Ok, you missed my point. Internalizing stereotypes happens, we agree. I never said it was because some evil anyone deliberately brainwashed anyone. But it IS a part of the general culture. I went through it myself. It may take a person outside the mainstream to see it happening, but happen it does. How about when the only time schools talk about Indians is Thanksgiving [[not even going to go into the misinformation that is presented from K-grad school)?
If we speak of a minority person as in today's terminology, my point is that this person as well as anyone else, will absorb and internalize stereotypes pertaining to people of his or her own descent. They are in the entire societal framework of education, entertainment, news, you name it. Therefore it is easy enough to see how this minority person could make the same assumptions about people of the same or other minority group[[s) as someone outside those groups. Painful but demonstrably true.
Where did I say it was OK? It is not OK. It needs to be recognized for what it is, a stereotype that does not apply to everyone in that group, and may well apply to individuals in our own group as well as every other group. For my part, it took a community to give me the power to recognize my acquired stereotypes when they pop up out of the morass of my education and socialization. We all live and breathe these things growing up, and must reach a point of recognition somewhere along the line.
I'm glad somebody else sees this besides me:
Quote:
Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”
“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/fo...rayvon-martin/Quote:
But Bryant, who explores the topic of black-on-black crime in his new film “Runaway Slave,” said people like Jackson and Sharpton are being misleading to suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men.”
“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”
Bryant said he wishes civil rights leaders were protesting those problems.
I wish Al & Jesse would just STFU and stop instigating.
Thank you, Bartok, glad we got that ironed out. This whole dialog is so painful.
so, Meddle, the family should be outraged that a person THEY ASKED TO GET INVOLVED got involved? The fact that this [[African American) guy regularly pens anti-civil rights rants for outlets like the uber-right-wing Washington Times goes to his credibility on the issue -- none.
“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”
While I don't disagree with this premise, it is a completely separate issue that needs addressing in its own right. It should not take away from the terrible event in Sanford.
What about this one?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/Quote:
The local Iraqi community expressed shock over the fatal beating of an Iraqi immigrant, as police try to determine whether she was the victim of a hate crime.
Hanif Mohebi, executive director of the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Sunday that Alawadi's children and husband "are just trying to cope, as the discussion turns to planning a funeral. They're still kind of numb."
"The family, and the community, is concerned that there is a possibility that this is a hate crime," Mohebi added. "We've had some stuff in the past — insults mostly — but nothing physical. This is shocking to the community, the state and even the country."
Near the body of the 32-year-old Alawadi, police found what has been described as a threatening note. Police have declined to release the text, but relatives and friends say the handwritten note warned Alawadi to "go back to your own country" and labeled her a terrorist.
It is a completely separate issue that needs addressing in its own right. It should not take away from the terrible event in Sanford.
And sadly he probably sees Black men, women AND children as threats hoodies or not....
I'd like to know where this whole 'hoodie' thing came from anyways. Why is that an issue?
I wear hooded jackets and sweatshirts all the time. No big deal.
One of the stories I saw mentioned that it was a cool, rainy evening. Makes perfect sense for him to have the hood up. So what?
Are people keying in on the term because of something said on one of the phone calls? If so, why? Part of any call to police is to describe the person and their clothing. In this case ' a young black male wearing blue jeans and a gray hooded sweatshirt' or words to that effect. Again, why is this word an issue?
That is a good question. If he was just describing what was worn, hoodie is the common term for that kind of garment, no matter who wears it. Or is it taking off as a symbol because it is an easy to replicate marker. After all, everyone has one.
Congressman Bobby Rush was just kicked off the floor of the House for putting up his hood:
http://front.moveon.org/breaking-rep...von/?rc=fb.fan
Whenever I think of hoodies, I STILL think of this guy:
Attachment 12872
Good ole Teddy.
I don't get the "hoodie" thing either.
I have a shaved head, so I totally understand wearing one to fend off the rain or cold, but to partially conceal one's face indoors or when the conditions don't call for it definitely makes someone look suspicious [[No matter what their age or race may be),
I would never think of walking into a store with my hood up, and if I was approached by a stranger on the street taking off my hood would be the first thing I would do.
Video footage was finally released showing Zimmerman after the murder. He looks very calm, CLEAN, and casual. Sure doesn't look like a man that's been in a fight for his life, looks like he just got off work. Not a bruise or blood in sight. Now what will his defenders say?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475
It is one thing for folks to defend the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Such as disagreeing with labeling this as something with as specific a legal meaning as murder without all of the facts and a day in court.
The frustrating thing is that this guy doesn't even have to go to court because he has not been charged with anything. I'm wouldn't jump to say this guy is guilty of murder, but he should have to prove in court that which he is claiming gives him immunity. The Stand Your Ground Law is terrible; as I understand it, is an immunity from prosecution or civil suit. The standard is the "reasonable belief" of imminent harm by the person claiming it. Should "reasonable belief" be determined by the person whose belief it is? That's utterly ridiculous...
If I were a criminal defense attorney in Florida I'd be soliciting every convicted person for murder, manslaughter, etc., since the time this law was passed and appealing based on the Trayvon Martin immunity defense. Wonder who'd be defending the Stand Your Ground law then.
So you think that the guy should have to prove his innocence? I thought we all were innocent until proven guilty here in the USA?
With all the publicity this case is receiving I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Zimmerman would have been arrested if there was any reasonable chance that he could be successfully prosecuted for the shooting.
How is one supposed to look or act hours after shooting someone?
I don't see how the video proves anything one way or the other. It's of such low quality that I can not even tell that it's him, let alone if he has any visible injuries [[This was reportedly taken after Mr. Zimmerman had received medical attention). It would also help if ABC had not put their logo over his face for more than half of the video.
This doesn't make sense. The man shot and killed this kid, that much is not in any dispute. Of course, nobody should have to prove his/her innocence in this country, but the reason he wasn't charged with anything was this prosecutor's interpretation of the so-called Stand Your Ground Law. This law states in part that a person is IMMUNE to criminal OR civil prosecution if THAT PERSON believes that they were under a REASONABLE BELIEF of harm, and there is no duty to retreat [[as there is in your traditional self-defense cases). The Prosecutor is saying that this gentleman is immune from prosecution because he was under his own reasonable belief of harm. That makes no fucking sense, and has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty because he was unilaterally determined to be IMMUNE under some subjective interpretation of a nebulous law.
My apologies Bartock, I misunderstood your post the first time I read it.
I agree that Mr. Zimmerman should have to show in some way that his life was in danger or that it was reasonable for him to think that it was. That being said, I'm still not so sure that facing murder or manslaughter charges would be required to determine that.
Um, for starters, someone who claims their head was bashed in the ground repeatedly and suffered a huge gash, had their nose broken, and was straddled and beaten within inches of their life - wouldn't appear with a clean tucked in shirt, no bruises or bandages or blood spots, not holding his head back to prevent blood from running from his nose, and no bandages on his "broken" nose either. Even IF he received medical attention, someone with head trauma would either be in a head stabilizer, or have at least some gauze. Someone with a beaten or broken nose would have blood stains SOMEWHERE.
Of course you would say that. That video is clear as day to everybody BUT the Zimmerman supporters. There was no logo "over" his face - did you even watch the video at all or just regurgitating what you read elsewhere? There's multiple copies of the video without the ABC logo, available on youtube.
The video was released by the police station and its blatantly obvious that its GZ, but you go right ahead and keep your blinders on.
Fact is, his ass should be in jail preparing his case to go to trial, where he will have the chance to tell his 5 different versions of the event and let a jury decide his fate. That's all anyone is asking.
It's cool! I agree with your second paragraph in a general sense. However, given the number of "conflicting" [[at best) reports out there, it seems totally unreasonable for such a subjective interpretation of such a subjective law to literally avoid any prosecution whatsoever. The standard or burdon of proof for an arraignment is not the same as it is for a conviction. I think it is a case of bad interpretation of an even worse law, and Detwa's points are well taken.
Let's get one thing straight. I am in not a "supporter" of Mr. Zimmerman. If the evidence shows that he shot Trayvon for any reason other than self defense i believe that he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. However, I don't think that it's right that the man is being crucified based on rumors, selectively leaked evidence and prejudiced opinions.
As for the video we must be watching different versions as the one I see at the link you posted has a giant "ABC News" logo covering the bottom part of the screen and covering the face of Mr. Zimmerman from the 15 second point until just before exits the room.