Blog

Trayvon Martin and the Inevitable Occurrence of Victim-Blaming

May 12th, 2013

It was only a matter of time. Victim blaming was to be expected among racists on internet message boards or with whispers, but until this point few had dared to say on television anything defending George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee had already paved the way, publicly saying that he thought Martin would “do things “differently” if he could relive the night of his murder. Lee’s quote in The Miami Herald seems to imply that Martin should have done something differently–despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence suggesting Martin was the aggressor in his his confrontation with Zimmerman. In any case, Lee’s was only the public trickle in the rush of victim-blaming sure to come. And today, we got another preview of what it will sound like.

Frank Taaffe, a fellow neighborhood watchman of Zimmerman’s, has been claiming for days that his friend would never discriminate against blacks. He’s even brought up a potentially legitimate point that a series of break-ins had been perpetrated by young black males in Zimmerman’s neighborhood–although it falls apart when you consider that Martin was simply walking. If Zimmerman had caught Martin, say, slinking out of a window or carrying an HDTV out of the gated community, Zimmerman’s responsibility as a watchman would have been to call the police and still not follow the potential perpetrator, as is standard. In any case, was it truly inconceivable to Zimmerman that a young black male might have family, a friend, or a home of his own within the community?

Further, Taaffe goes on to say that all Martin had to do was answer Zimmerman’s question when he was approached by the watchman, then “there would be no tragedy today.” But there are a few things wrong with Taafe’s assumption. First of all, if Taaffe was referencing the fact that Zimmerman even asked Martin a question, then he must know how that question was reported: through Martin’s girlfriend’s recounting of what she heard on her call with him just before his death. If Taaffe trusted what was said on the call as fact, then he can’t exactly ignore the rest of what the phone call revealed: Trayvon Martin was terrified. He told his girlfriend that a white man had been following him, and he didn’t know what he wanted. Martin, as Taaffe put it, was a “guest” in Zimmerman’s community, visiting family; he may not have known about he neighborhood watchmen’s patrols, and even if he did, there was no way to know that Zimmerman was necessarily one of them. Just as Zimmerman had assumed that Martin was up to no good, Martin could only assume the worst when he was followed not only followed by a strange man in a car, but hunted down on foot by that man and cornered. Zimmerman wore not police badge or uniform. He didn’t present himself as a watchman. Not only did Martin have no obligation to answer him under normal circumstances, but he shouldn’t have told this man anything about himself under these circumstances. Zimmerman was a stranger, and if Taaffe should have remembered, Zimmerman was the reason Martin ran in the first place.

And let’s not forget what Zimmerman “should” have done in this situation: He should have opted not to get out of the car.  He should have chosen not to corner a stranger whom he suspected to be dangerous. He should have left his gun at home, due to watchman protocol.

And he should have thought twice before pulling the trigger.

Permalink

Stand Your Ground: A Case Study

May 12th, 2013

The “Stand Your Ground” law has been thrown around as the biggest hurdle to justice for Trayvon Martin, if George Zimmerman is arrested and brought to trial. The Florida law, which is similar to laws established in plenty of other states, goes a step beyond the “Castle Doctrine,” which legally warrants people to kill anyone invading their homes. The “Stand Your Ground” law states that if people feel there’s a threat of death or great bodily harm in public, they are legally allowed to kill their attackers out in the open. Under this statute, anyone could use their registered gun to shoot someone he or she feels threatened by at a gas station, a park, a zoo–or seventy yards from the “attacker’s” own home, in the case of Martin. Zimmerman may walk under this law, despite the mounting evidence that strongly indicates that he was the aggressor in the confrontation between him and Martin.

Interestingly enough, a Florida case opened up in September that reversed the racial roles of the Martin case (Zimmerman is half-white). A black man named Trevor Dooley shot and killed white military vet David James in front of his daughter. James was playing on a basketball court with his daughter across the street from Dooley’s house. Dooley yelled at a skateboarder on the court, and when James defended the skateboarder’s right to be on there, a heated altercation occurred between the two. Dooley came out of his house with a concealed gun to confront James, and when Dooley revealed it, James fought Dooley to the ground. Dooley shot and killed James.
But here’s the key difference between how police handled the situation there in Valrico, Florida, versus in Stanford, where Martin was killed: Police arrested Dooley. It took two days, but the cloud of reasonable doubt as to whether James was responsible for his own death was more than enough for police to consider Dooley’s guilt in the matter. Zimmerman, of course, was never arrested, and remains as free as the rest of us. It doesn’t matter whether Dooley was right or wrong; police did their jobs to arrest a man who killed someone, and left it to a jury to decide the rest. Travyon Martin’s family may never see the same measure of justice taken for their son.

Permalink

Geraldo Rivera and Taking the “Hood” Out of “Hoodie”

May 12th, 2013

Geraldo Rivera recently attracted a storm of criticism for saying that if Trayvon Martin hadn’t chosen to wear a hoodie, he would likely have been spared his own death. Rivera’s statement had good intentions behind it; he wanted to emphasize the importance of common sense when it comes to how the hoodie is perceived in our culture, and what kind of reactions they bring out of people. Rivera admitted to feeling uncomfortable around people of color who wear hoodies because of the many times hoodies have been warn by those committing crimes on camera. And while it’s admirable that Rivera was willing to be so forthcoming about his own biases–and possibly those of the average American–his remark still reeks of a myopia that, despite his protests to the contrary, makes him yet another victim-blamer.
Much like when women wearing revealing clothing are accused of “asking” for sexual assault, Rivera has done the disappointingly common: bowed to systemic problems in our culture instead of actively resisting them. Women should be able to wear anything they damn well please without the expectation of rape. Trayvon Martin should have been able to wear a common article of clothing without the expectation of being killed. Hoodies are not necessarily chosen to be “gangsta,” as Rivera put it during his argument. Hoodies are worn sometimes by criminals, but most of the time by people who simply like the style or the functionality of a shirt with a hood. What needs to be challenged, rather than Martin’s fashion choice, is why a hoodie should be an indelible mark of criminality or evil when a person of color is wearing it. It was Martin’s right to wear a hoodie without it being perceived as anything other than what he was: a boy wearing a piece of protective fabric. It was Zimmerman’s responsibility to check his own biases once he saw that hoodie.

In any case, Rivera seemed to forget a couple of crucial details when he was arguing against Martin’s choice of clothing. The more obvious one is that it was lightly raining the night Martin went out for Skittles and iced tea. A hoodie would have been appropriate for anyone to wear regardless, but especially during that kind of weather. Second–and perhaps the most heartbreaking to remember–is that according to Martin’s girlfriend, Martin put on his hood because he knew he was being followed. Zimmerman saw the color of Martin’s skin and made his assessment before Martin’s choice to shield his face from a stalker made him look “gangsta.” And because of that pre-judgment–or prejudice–other clothing wouldn’t have changed the fact that because Martin was black, he was already dead.

Permalink

Greg Gutfield’s KKK Comment: Crass Race-Baiting

May 12th, 2013

On Fox News’s The Five, a comment from a black pro-choice advocate incensed analyst Greg Gutfield to the point of saying Gaines deserved a medal from the KKK. Gutfield’s comment was in response to a video of the black Planned Parenthood official Ludwig Gaines that’s gone viral recently, in which Gaines said pro-life advocates push hard for the birth of babies no matter what, but don’t care about black children once they’re born. Even Five commentator Bob Beckel agreed that conservatives often vote against programs that would help minority children, despite rejecting Gaines’ allegations of racism. However, Gutfield said that because African-American abortions are disproportionately high compared to other groups, Gaines should consider that racists (such as the KKK) would support any stance  allowing black abortions to continue.
But here’s the thing: Try telling a black woman with a family that’s already food insecure, “If you go through with this abortion, the racists win!” Her decision would be based on her immediate and perhaps dire needs, rather than the abstract idea of some prejudiced nut-job twirling his mustache hundreds of miles away. People as depraved as KKK members, by the way, would also celebrate black women dying of health complications in childbirth, or black families being dissolved or destroyed by too many mouths to feed–which are risks that come with the pro-life-or bust approach. The truth is, Gutfield’s statement served only as a race-baiting jab that had no meaningful place in the debate over requiring women to risk their bodies, their families, or their well-being for the sake of children they don’t have room for in their lives.

Further, Gutfield’s argument once again comes from the assumption of personhood from conception onward. When it comes to the black women who do believe they’re committing infanticide with an abortion, it’s doubtful they’ll feel wracked with guilt over a concept as larger-than-life as the slow genocide of black Americans, rather than the loss of their individual, irreplaceable boy or girl.

Permalink

Spike Lee’s Twitter Apology: Aren’t We Forgetting Something?

May 12th, 2013

Spike Lee has since apologized for the mistake, as has the person who originally tweeted the McClains’ address. Lee’s people are reportedly in talks with the McClains’ attorney, who said that Lee will likely meet their requests to settle the matter. During a CNN interview, the McClains seemed to be generally uninterested in humiliating Lee, and more interested in getting their lives back. Hopefully, Lee will do whatever it takes to make sure that he sets his wrong right. But there is a nagging detail of his slip-up that hasn’t been widely addressed, neither by Lee nor mainstream media: Why is it that Spike retweeted any address in the first place, regardless of whether it belonged to the “true” Zimmerman?

Lee had to have known that retweeting Zimmerman’s address would result in death threats to the household–and everyone in it. Why would he knowingly subject the people in Zimmerman’s house to very real danger? Shouldn’t he have considered that any family or friends staying with him would be the victims of vicious mailings, phone calls or worse? Zimmerman, without Lee’s influence, is currently the most hated man in America. What did he expect to gain by adding more fuel to the fire? And if Zimmerman had been physically hurt, or killed, before he was able to stand trial, would Lee have been able to live with it?

Permalink

Zimmerman’s Lawyer: Good News or Bad News?

May 12th, 2013

George Zimmerman’s lawyer making public appearances on television betrays that Zimmerman is taking his situation seriously enough to at least consider that he may be arrested and charged. The attorney’s name is Craig Sonner, and for the moment, it looks like he’s arguing the predictable basics: Trayvon Martin’s killing wasn’t racial, Zimmerman is the real victim here, etc. But strangely enough, Sonner hasn’t exactly hit the ground running. Check out this video in which Anderson Cooper asked him standard questions about the case:
When Cooper asked Sonner what Zimmerman had to say about the night of Trayvon Martin’s death, Sonner  admitted that he hadn’t spoken directly with Zimmerman at all about his version of events. Consider that this interview was conducted on March 23, nearly a full month after Zimmerman had shot Martin. When Cooper asked Sonner why he hadn’t asked Zimmerman about details of the shooting, Sonner didn’t directly answer the question–saying that even if he had hammered out those details, they would be confidential. Further, Cooper asked whether Zimmerman had heard the 911 recordings that had damned Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. Sonner then said that not only had Zimmerman not heard the tapes, but that he, himself, hadn’t heard them either.

Awfully strange, considering Sonner may be Zimmerman’s only hope for getting out of a serious conviction should he be tried. What could possibly have possessed him to even go on CNN to defend Zimmerman if he didn’t have all the facts himself? What was to be gained by acknowledging that he knew less than the public did about crucial facts in the case?

It gets a little stranger; CNN at first reported that Sonner did not intend to use the “Stand Your Ground” law. This is the law that most people assumed would be used to defend Zimmerman before anyone even knew he had representation. However, Sonner said that he didn’t think it applied to Zimmerman at all. Then, a few days later, he said that the law indeed did apply to Zimmerman while on ABC News:

What, exactly, changed between first saying the law wasn't applicable and now? Did someone suggest it? Did he catch wind of how much power it would have in court? Whatever the case, it's again strange that he didn't run with that law in the first place, given that it's his best shot of getting Zimmerman out of trouble.

During his few days of exposure, Sonner has added virtually nothing to the to table in terms of information that we didn't already have, and even seems to be a bit behind everyone else regarding the evidence that's stacked against his client. The most salient detail he's contributed to the conversation is that Zimmerman suffered from a broken nose--which he seems to believe is a strong argument against Trayvon Martin's victim-hood. (The fact that Zimmerman's nose was injured was already public knowledge, and as Tamron Hall of NewsNation pointed out, it's problematic that Zimmerman waited an entire day to check into the hospital before treating a broken nose.) Even if Martin did break Zimmerman's nose, it very well may have been in panicked self-defense against the strange man who followed him in his car, on foot, and may have attacked him first anyway.

All in all, it could be a bizarrely good thing that Zimmerman's lawyer seems to be so slow assessing key facts--may of which may condemn his own client. If this is the kind of preparedness he brings to the table should Zimmerman be charged, Trayvon Martin's parents may see justice served after all.

 

Permalink

Katniss and Cinna in ‘The Hunger Games’: A Black and White Issue

May 12th, 2013

However, and interestingly enough, Lenny Kravitz was hired for a the role of Cinna, Katniss’s stylist. The book is mum about his race, although there is a description of him that reveals he has green eyes–a color sometimes seen among nonwhites, but more often among whites. Ross didn’t let those green eyes become any kind of deterrent from hiring Lenny Kravitz, who, although biracial, could easily play a black man on screen (but wouldn’t be too convincing playing a white one). If audiences would like to imagine so–and most will–Cinna will simply be black when they watch him on screen March 23. And from the looks of it, Kravitz will not wear green contact lenses to match the description of the book. All in all, it boils down to the fact that Ross didn’t mind turning what could have easily been a white character into a black one for the film.

So why the hesitation to let anyone of color audition for the role of Katniss? Why were white women the only contenders for a role that could have been played by white and nonwhite actresses alike? Surely, the character’s olive skin and dark hair could have pointed in either direction. And of course, a blonde mother and sister aren’t at all mutually exclusive with a protagonist of color if Katniss had been imagined as biracial. In any case, the attention paid to those blonde features was as negligible as that paid to Cinna’s green eyes–which, again, amounted to nothing when Ross cast Kravitz.

But the sad truth is that a blonde mother and daughter probably weren’t the only reason Ross insisted Katniss be white. Ross, a white man, likely saw Katniss through the same lens of white centrism that has kept Hollywood largely monochrome for years, and has of course resulted in roles color being given to white actors, as well. Katniss could only be white to Ross because white is the default standard. Anything else–anyone else–was a violation of the character’s race that made him feel most comfortable.

Permalink

What Do Mary J. Blige’s Fried Chicken Commercial and ‘Undercover Brother’ Have in Common?

May 12th, 2013

Burger King has now pulled its commercial starring Mary J. Blige, which features the singer crooning about the restaurant’s Crispy Chicken Snap Wraps. Blige and the ad were heavily criticized for perpetuating stereotypes about black people’s taste for fried chicken. The film’s retraction cut the commercial’s life span down to just one day.While some who’ve seen the video have said that there’s nothing wrong with Mary J. Blige making a buck, it’s hard to watch the ad and ignore a history of nasty stereotypes directed at black folks regarding food and drink consumption. Fried chicken, grape soda, Kool-Aid, and watermelon have long been stereotypical staples when it comes to how blacks are perceived in the United States and abroad. Despite Blige’s song testifying to the deliciousness of Burger King’s fried chicken was likely innocent on her part, and maybe even Burger King’s, it’s strange to think that none of the highly-paid professionals involved in the commercial stopped for a moment to think of why it might sting, or draw incredulous ridicule from, the black community.

In fact, something very much like Mary J. Blige’s ad had already been filmed years ago to poke fun at the at the fried chicken stereotype: the 2002 comedy Undercover Brother. In the movie, Billy Dee Williams plays a politician aspiring to be the first black President. However, The Man–an actual villain in the movie who personifies white oppression–brainwashes the candidate into opening a fried chicken restaurant instead of running for office in order to undercut any respect the black (or white) community may have had for him. The plan, unfortunately, works:

 

Maybe if Mary J. Blige, her team, or Burger King had given her ad just a tad more forethought, they could have avoided a completely un-ironic connection with the Undercover Brother spoof. At the very least, the ad was taken down the day after it was put up. Hopefully, Blige and Burger King have learned their lesson.

Permalink

E-40 Condemns Youth, But Fails to Set an Example

May 12th, 2013

E-40 recently released his Welcome to the Soil single “What Happened to Them Days,” and unfortunately, it’s a preachy mess. Apparently deeply concerned with the state of black youth today, E-40′s message comes through is loud and clear: our kids have terrible attitudes and are completely self-involved. While it’s fantastic that E-40 chose to use his music to address what he considers a pressing social issue, there’s a fair mix of hypocrisy and alienating condescension that makes his single seem more preoccupied with burning generational bridges than than building them.E-40 is 42 years old, but his lyrics come off as those of a cranky grandfather, completely bereft of the patience, compassion, or understanding necessary to assure that his words don’t fall on deaf ears. In fact, it would be extremely questionable to assume that “What Happened to Them Days” is even meant for the children he’s so disappointed in. From the glaring absence of encouragement in his words, the song is most likely a “preaching to the choir” flavor of artistic expression, inviting those who feel the same way to join him in steaming about the bratty kids giving black folks such a bad name.

Interestingly enough, a good chunk of E-40′s lyrics in the song revolve around how caught up in video games and cell phones today’s youth seem to be. The rapper seems to posit that kids’ over-engagement with gadgets is symptomatic of their inherent selfishness; however, it’s strange that a man who raps so proudly about the spoils of his wealth would be so condemning of materialism among youth. Likewise, the narcissism that E-40 decries in youth isn’t exactly a long leap from self-congratulatory nature of mainstream rap culture–and a culture that he’s absolutely contributed to. Switch out video games for cars, iPods for jewels and self-involved attitudes for a song like E-40′s “My S*** Bang,” and it’s easy to see that E-40′s values are probably a little more interchangeable with the younger generation than he would care to admit.

If E-40 had actually been interested in changing youth culture, then maybe a rap with a more motivational tone could have been a step in the right direction. Instead, he has J-Banks sing the lyric “What are we gonna do?” toward the conclusion of the song, as a testament to the hopelessness of the situation. In the meantime, the meat of his contribution to rap has done nothing remarkably positive or inspirational for the kids he seems so concerned about. “What Happened to Them Days” when elder generations set an example for the younger ones?

Permalink

Trayvon Martin’s Weed Revelation: Smoke and Mirrors

May 12th, 2013

Trayvon Martin’s parents were recently forced to admit that their son had been suspended from school for being caught with an empty marijuana baggie. Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, said that on top of his son being killed, now his reputation is being defiled. Fulton and Tracy Martin’s attorney, Ben Crump, said that what got Martin suspended from school has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Zimmerman still followed and eventually killed the boy. And he’s right. Trayvon’s suspension is a terribly weak attempt at character assassination that has zero connection with his death, and hopefully the American people will be smart enough to dismiss it.

The revelation of Trayvon Martin’s suspension from school came from The Orlando Sentinel over the weekend, and the Sanford police admitted in a press release that the article was possibly based on a leak from an unauthorized person within the department. Meaning that the Sanford police, for all their attempts to make a public about-face regarding their strange protection of George Zimmerman, has still got a huge problem within its own ranks. The Sanford Police Department’s troubled racial history is clearly not over, even when under the hard scrutiny of the federal government and the American people.

And again, weed has no bearing on what happened the night Trayvon was killed. He was not, as has been proven via toxicology report, under the influence of any substance. (Marijuana, by the way, has never been scientifically proven to increase violent behavior.) And even if he was high that night, even if he was wearing a sagging pants, even if he was sporting a fitted cap, even if he was rocking gold chains or tattoos, he still wasn’t “asking for it.” Because no one deserves to be judged for how they look. And certainly no one deserves to die because of it.

Permalink