Trayvon Martin: Amazed no one has posted this....

[gazhekwe]

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.

[Meddle]

citing his hoodie, his waistband and his race.

That's called giving a description so the officers know who to look for.

Where did the term 'chased' come from. One was following the other, both were walking. No one was 'chasing' anyone.

[gazhekwe]

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.

[gazhekwe]

Here is an Op-Ed from Indian Country Today:

The Murder of Trayvon Martin Is About You

By 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

[Meddle]

^^ I only needed to scan a few words to see how inflammatory and misguided that is.

[rb336]

I guess we are seeing who is showing their true selves below the surface veneer

[gazhekwe]

Really. I thought the article was remarkably balanced.

[Johnnny5]

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".

[oladub]

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.

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?

[gazhekwe]

It depends on their ancestry, like here.

[Meddle]

Wonder if Al and Jesse will jump on this one:

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.

Police did not immediately release the name of the African-American man who was shot or the officers involved.

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/tn-...,4535117.story

[rb336]

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?

[firstandten]

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

[gazhekwe]

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.

[bartock]

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.

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.

[oladub]

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.

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.

[rb336]

race and ethnicity are both cultural constructs with little "real" meaning

[gazhekwe]

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

[gazhekwe]

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?

[bartock]

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.

[gazhekwe]

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.

[bartock]

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.

So, it is OK for me to think of an ill-tempered drinker when I see a fellow of Irish descent? [[smiley face).

[gazhekwe]

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.

[bartock]

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 was joking.

I think we agree about the whole stereotyping issue.

[Meddle]

I'm glad somebody else sees this besides me:

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.

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.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/fo...rayvon-martin/

I wish Al & Jesse would just STFU and stop instigating.