It’s well after midnight on a Saturday night. I’m lying in bed. I should be sleeping. But I can’t. Instead, my thoughts are keeping me awake.
You don’t have to be a die-hard news junkie to have heard of the story currently sweeping the headlines (apologies to Tim Lincecum). The verdict has arrived in the Trayvon Martin case, and as expected, public opinion is harshly divided.
I wasn’t in the courtroom, and I haven’t heard every word that was uttered there. From what I’ve gathered through the news, the prosecution had a less than stellar case with an inconsistent key witness. Perhaps justice was served today in the strictest legal sense; I’m honestly not sure. But I believe, especially in the eyes of the public, there’s much more to the case than whether or not George Zimmerman had a legal right to pull the trigger.
I have many friends who can relate to the verdict much more closely than I ever can. I’ve read your Facebook posts and tweets. I’ve heard your cries. Tonight the black community is in anguish, and for that I am truly sorry.
I’m sorry that I am part of the demographic perceived as the problem. I’m sorry for the racist remarks others have made during and after the trial. I’m sorry for the robust celebrations people have publicly posted, only adding salt to wounds. I’m sorry that this decision leads many to believe that racism is alive and well, that people of color inherently invoke fear. I’m sorry for the fear this brings to others, fear that they could have been Trayvon or fear that they could be in the future.
I understand that I am but one person and that these words may go largely unrecognized, but I’d like to offer a few challenges to those who have happened to lay eyes on my thoughts.
First, if you agree with the decision, please do not brag or gloat about it on social media. Understand that what might seem innocuous to you could deeply injure another. This is a very delicate situation that can inflict deep wounds and should be treated thusly. The verdict has inadvertently produced a fear of being killed because of race alone, and as a white male I can’t relate to this horrible condition. Be careful not add to it with an unwise tweet or status update.
Second, pray for the Martin family. Verdict aside, the grieving process truly begins for them now. They have lost their son, and whether he deserved to die or not, no parent should ever have to bury a child. I cannot imagine the pain that they feel.
Third, let’s be part of the solution. Whether the jury was right or wrong, whether Zimmerman’s actions were justified or not, a young person whose life had yet to be fully lived is dead. Regardless of your political leanings, race, or views on gun control and the “stand your ground” law, this is a tragedy. So let’s all do our part to fight prejudice, violence, and injustice. Music, television, and movies demeaning women and promoting violence must not be tolerated, and might I add that rappers using the “N word” and “making it rain” promote the very cause they mourn tonight. If we believe all people are equal, let’s promote a culture that reflects that.
I hope that one day racism and violence will only be present in our history books, but unfortunately that day is still far away. In the mean time, I sympathize with those who are hurting and long for the day that their cries will no longer be in vain. Until then, I can only pledge to never be a part of the problem, and I urge you, the reader, to do the same.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, Jonathan. This reminds me a lot of the diversity class I took during my counseling program. You’re right, white people will almost never have to worry about the majority of people being afraid of us because of the color of our skin, or being discriminated because of the color of our skin. In fact, most white people are nearly blind to racism, thinking it’s a thing of the past. Every white person needs to experience being a minority at some point in their lives.
This blindness applies to other situations too. We able-bodied people will never have to worry about finding wheelchair access to a building, being taken seriously at a job interview because of a disability, etc.
We heterosexuals don’t have to worry about others being repulsed by us because of our love for each other. Not saying I support homosexuality. Just saying we don’t have to endure what they experience.
We Christians don’t have to worry about people being afraid of our religion as intensely as they are of other religions like Islam and Wicca.
Great thoughts and I hope your blog causes every reader to think twice. As Phil Collins said, “it’s another day for you and me in paradise.”
Jonathan,
Thank you for taking time out to express your feelings and compassion.
Well said. Thank you for sharing.
Wow, a lot of pathetic white guilt up in here. The fact that Zimmerman was Hispanic doesn’t seem to prevent anguished whites from apologizing anyway.
“Hispanic” but who hated Mexicans according to his Myspace page.
Self loathing, and oh, he was mixed, so he identified with his white side more. Race is more than biology, its a construct and identity.
Considering that his ancestry was Peruvian, your claim about him hating Mexicans doesn’t really seem to prove anything, does it.
Maybe if you weren’t so arrogantly trying to force-fit your elitist racist anti-racist views you’d be able to see the obvious.
Or maybe in your world Peru = Mexico.
Race may be more than biology, but it is more biology than it is construction or self-identification.
And EVEN IF it’s solely construction and self-identification, then YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO SAY ZIMMERMAN IS WHITE! Zimmerman says he’s hispanic. He’s the one who identifies more as hispanic than white. Your internal contradictions are so obvious I can’t write it any plainer than that. You say he was ‘self-loathing’ so thus he must be white? Because he’s racist he must be white?
THIS IS WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU, YOUR VIEWPOINT, AND THE UNDERLYING POST BY JONATHAN.
It is this vicious anti-white sentiment grafted onto a situation where it doesn’t belong: between a hispanic man who shot a black man, let’s fall over ourselves to apologize for being white.
Jonathan,
Who are you apologizing to?
Who do you think kills black people in this country? Here’s a hint, it ain’t white people.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577496501048197464.html
Note these pull quotes from the WSJ article: “Bureau of Justice Statistics data show that from 1976 to 2005, white victims were killed by white defendants 86% of the time and black victims were killed by blacks 94% of the time…Overall, more than half the nation’s homicide victims are African-American, though blacks make up only 13% of the population. Of those black murder victims, 85% were men, mostly young men.”
So, 94% of the time, blacks are murdered by other blacks. More interesting, for the pertinence to your article is the fact that 14% of white murder victims are killed by a black murderer…which means, that if anyone has license to be afraid of inter-racial murder, whites should be far more concerned than blacks. But unfortunately, that doesn’t really jive with your Church of White Apology and your sermon on the original sin of whiteness.
Further, even though blacks are 13% of the US population, black murders account for 50% of all murders…and most of the murders within that 50% are committed by black men between the ages of 16 and 31. Black men between these ages account for only 2% of the total population, yet commit over 30% of violent crime.
I suppose, of course, that white people are to blame for this state of affairs. After all, the racist legacy of slavery has hijacked the futures of every black person to walk America, and will continue to hijack those futures ad infinitum.
So preach on, brother. We whites must purify ourselves in the crucible of white guilt and redeem ourselves through a belief in the necessity of continued white paternalism and responsibility for the fate of all blacks in America. Example, rather than encouraging whites and blacks to both chill out – which would at least be even-handed – you cast the responsibility as being solely that of the white to not incite the black to violence. Nowhere did you encourage the scores of blacks on the verge of violent riots across the nation to calm down.
You might protest my characterization, but then again, you’re the one that’s apologizing to faceless readers on the internet, solely for being white. And if you disagree with that, the only thing left for you to claim to be apologizing for, is the sheer ignorance of Trayvon Martin supporters, who have been led and who have allowed themselves to be led (due not to facts, but largely to manipulatively race-baiting using pre-existing quasi-religious racial beliefs) to the verge of violent riot. And why in the world would you feel the need to apologize for that?
Keep deluding yourself, Jack.
Harvey,
The question of the target audience for my post is a fair one. In one sense, I issued my apology to my friends who feel a very real sense of fear because of the outcome of the trial. I’m friends with a lot of people and many of them are black, and I saw quite a few comments to the effect of “that could have been me.” I read an anecdote from a person who almost got in an argument with police once, but backed down (though he hadn’t done anything wrong) because he feared a Rodney King type of outcome. I heard stories from people who feared being followed and “hunted down” (their words, not mine), and read that they no longer felt welcome here. I understand why the trial ended the way it did, but that doesn’t mean their fear isn’t real. It doesn’t mean we should trivialize their feelings. In a greater sense, I also feel that my words apply to the black community as a whole. The words of my friends aren’t isolated or unique. As one friend of mine reposted from someone else’s page, the “brotherhood” of the black community makes the sting of the verdict even worse (the words of the writer: “We’re all cousins… I lost a cousin”).
It’s also important to note that not everything I said was directed toward whites. While the apology part of my post focused on the transgressions of fellow whites, the challenge part was issued to all who read, regardless of color. My first point was issued to anyone who agrees with the decision. That doesn’t specify color. My second point was directed to everyone, to try to feel the pain of the Martin family and remember them during a difficult time. Specifically on the third point, I made a special effort to write to everyone. I used words like “whether or not” and “regardless” to add special emphasis to the universality of this point. Furthermore, I specifically addressed rap culture briefly. Speaking from a statistical standpoint, this statement was directed toward blacks more than anyone else. I think I’ve done a fair job of including everyone, and I believe everyone has a responsibility to be a part of the solution. Sadly, most of the problem I discerned last night was the result of insensitive (or just plain inappropriate) behavior from whites, and that’s why the apology I issued was fashioned as it was.
It’s easy to say that my readers are faceless, and many of them might be people I’ve never met. But I don’t see it that way; I picture my friends who I know are suffering today. The fear they feel is real, and it isn’t fair. While much of it isn’t my fault personally, I still feel their pain and want to do all I can to help make a difference. I can only hope you will choose to do the same.
Why not apologize to Zimmerman that his life is ruined because of this incident? The financial cost of his ordeal? The race-baiting he’s had to suffer through? La Raza questioned his ethnicity and sided with Martin. Media outlets endlessly said he was white. The President implied he was guilty. The federal government might come after him for purely political reasons.
Martin likely started a fight that Zimmerman ended. That’s not to say he deserved it, but that any fight like that is always rolling the dice. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch patrolman who, at worst, was overzealous. His life is ruined, and no one seems to care.
I’d agree with you that we should empathize with Martin’s family for their loss, but that acknowledgment is only part of the bigger issue here.
Harvey-
1. No need to be rude on here.
2. Jonathan was not apologizing for being white. No one needs to apologize for their race.
3. What he was apologizing for was the fact that so many people don’t think about how their actions (in this case a celebration of a court decision that may set a dangerous precedent) affect others.
4. I don’t think anyone has a right to argue when someone claims they have been a victim of racism. You can’t fully understand racism until you have experienced it yourself. I don’t think most white people will ever fully understand what racial discrimination feels like. So don’t act like whites are the victims here. On the contrary, we (and any other majority) are the ones who have the “freedom” to ignore the problem.
Guenther,
Very nicely put. Not sure who Harvey is, but I think the entire point of your expression was missed. Apparently quoting statistics makes it easy to justify racism and pretend it doesn’t exist. And apparently slavery wasn’t a big deal…according to Harvey the effects should be over by now.
A child is dead. Like you said, nobody should be celebrating.
Keep deluding yourself, Harv. And if you want to know why most murders are black on black murders, look up some statistics on poverty. Then we’ll talk about the long term effects of slavery.
This whole argument is offensive, it’s just that as long as its offensive to whites no one cares.
Zimmerman is Hispanic.
Why should white opinions matter at all to people on facebook, especially to the degree that a public apology on behalf of your race is necessary? Should we demand that blacks apologize for the epidemic of black crime? Should blacks apologize to Jews for enslaving them to build the pyramids?
There’s a reason the UN Declaration of Human Rights specifically prohibits blaming the descendents for crimes of their ancestors. And the attitudes expressed here by Jonathan and Lindsey are directly fueling anti-white bias and discrimination over a crime where a Hispanic shot and killed a Black teen.
Barney,
I realize that Zimmerman is Hispanic, but 5 out of the 6 jurors were white. I believe this is where the fear of “white power” is coming from, because whites were primarily responsible for handing down the verdict. Additionally, the responses I’ve seen from whites (I read such comments as “Hallelujah!” on Facebook last night) have been inappropriate and further fueled the problem.
You’re reading a lot into a one-word comment.
Isn’t it reasonable that people were afraid that a wrongfully accused man would be sent to prison? That someone trying to defend his neighborhood, who got attacked by a larger man at night and defended himself, might get sacrificed to the altar of political correctness?
Is it racist to believe in self-defense?
And how is it white power for the jury to be 5/6ths white, when the prosecutors were also white? When the judge was white? It’s only whites who don’t do what you perceive as pro-black actions that deserve notice and scrutiny?
Blacks are 11% of Seminole County, so by having one minority juror they were overrepresented on the jury. Are you saying blacks are entitled to all-black juries?
Lindsay,
(1) you ignored my argument and instead resorted to talking points.
(2) You invoke a social judgment of rudeness when I judge Jonathan, but yet by implication you do not consider yourself rude when you judge other whites.
(3) Your point “3” lacks qualifiers. What you meant to say was: “he was apologizing for … the fact that so many [white] people don’t think about how their actions…affect others.” All of his examples were of white people gleefully celebrating the acquittal of Zimmerman. This also ties into my point 1: that you either ignored or didn’t read my original post.
(4) RE your point “4,” your statement here is at once false as well as illogical. Let’s unpack point “4,” shall we?
First, you DO think that other people have the right to cry foul when white people claim to have been a victim of racism, by virtue of the fact that you do not believe that the MAJORITY of white people have or ever will experience discrimination…and yet simultaneously, you also believe that whites cannot be the victims of racial discrimination. (“So don’t act like whites are the victims here”). Really, you’re a sea of cognitive dissonance and contradiction. On the one hand, you seem to want to acknowledge the theoretical possibility that a white person could be discriminated against; on the other hand, you reject the realistic possibility of that occurrence. In other words, white are only DISCRIMINATORS, and NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Therefore, logically, blacks can be victims of discrimination, but never the perpetrators of discrimination, at least as against whites. To spell it out for you, you’re either a racist yourself or, as James Taranto would conclude, you’re simply a member of the church of white guilt, and you confer moral superiority upon yourself by being a “superior” white, as opposed to an “inferior, racist” white. This may allow you to feel superior to your fellow white. But alas, you are delusional.
Second, and more troubling, you think that any black who claims to be a victim of racism IS IN FACT a victim of racism. (“I don’t think anyone has a right to argue when someone [READ: black person, because whites are not victims, right] claims they have been a victim of racism.”).
Third, the reason you believe that whites cannot challenge or verify a black’s claim of being discriminated against because they have no frame of reference. In other words, in a world of whites and blacks, blacks are the only victims of racism, and at the same time, blacks are also the only ones who can actually IDENTIFY racial discrimination.
Speaking in terms of epistemology, your statements/conclusions are exactly analogous to an article of FAITH, because the statements/conclusions cannot be falsified. See Karl Popper and the philosophy of Falsifiability. What this means is, because of the way you’ve framed the argument, nobody can prove or disprove your statements…just like nobody can prove or disprove that there is only one God and Mohammed is his Prophet.
(5) This is just a side observation…Did I miss something? Isn’t Zimmerman a minority? After all, he’s at least half hispanic, right? I mean, if Obama had shot Trayvon, blacks should be just as pissed off, right?
I’m sure you’re not going to respond to any of my points because the level of self-awareness that would be required would probably cause you to melt. You are a racist and you are also part of white paternalism. So, in other words, you’re racist against blacks because you think they cannot help themselves, and you’re a moral snob because you distinguish yourself from other “inferior” whites by genuflecting before the altar of what Sowell would call the “race hustle[ing]” industry.
You’re a disease.
And I’m the cure.
Harvey,
It’s ironic to me that you accuse Lindsay of ignoring your argument and resorting to talking points when that seems to be exactly what you’ve done. As Justin pointed out, I think you’ve missed my point entirely, and I think you’ve missed Lindsay’s point as well.
The point here isn’t whether or not minorities have the ability to be racist. We could get into differing views of prejudice, racism, and the difference between the two (I read a post last night stating that racism is the combination of prejudice and power, implying that only whites can be racist because they are in positions of power), but that is honestly irrelevant to this discussion.
While a philosophical discussion of such nature might prove to be interesting, my intent is of a practical nature. Lindsay was only saying that it’s impossible to understand racism without experiencing it. While one could argue that everyone has experienced some sort of racism, it’s far from fair to even try to equate it. I’m sure people have made assumptions about my lack of basketball skill, for example, due to my race, but that really isn’t a big deal at all. For me to assume that an experience like this allows me to truly understand the fear of being “hunted down,” though, is naive at best if not downright insane.
I have no way of knowing anything about your life experiences (especially since I’m assuming you’ve chosen to mask your identity), but clearly you have a lot of learning to do when it comes to your perspective on race relations and your understanding of differing perceptions in this case. I wouldn’t go so far as to say you’re diseased, but you’re certainly not the cure.
Yet you fail to see any irony in the fact that you diagnose the inability to properly experience racism, even though you’re white.
If you can’t understand racism without being black, then why are you even making that point? Are you just regurgitating what your black friends have told you?
And to my point, which I think is still ignored by you and Lindsay, this isn’t just a case of racism, it’s inextricably linked to crime. Zimmerman was a news story because of how rare it is to have white on black violent crime. And yet we can’t talk about that. We can talk about a dozen abstract concepts, distant historical events, but we can’t talk about the violent crime epidemic in our midst. We can’t even talk about Trayvon’s crimes.
Yet again, the church of White Guilt has dogmas and orthodoxies that can’t be challenged.
As for masking his identity, why do you assume that? And why does it matter? Why can’t his words and arguments be treated equally without having to attack the speaker, the classic ad hominem attack?
Small point here:
“For me to assume that an experience like this allows me to truly understand the fear of being “hunted down,” though, is naive at best if not downright insane.”
You know, I think you might have one thing right: you probably do come from white privilege: you almost certainly don’t live in an urban area wherein you’re put face to face with angry blacks who are constantly racist, demeaning, threatening, rude, etc., to whites.
However, give me a break: “hunted down” ? Who the hell is hunted down in America for being white or black? You’re simply delusional. What, are blacks hiding in an attic? Is there an underground railroad? Or, are you suggesting that the ancestors of runaway slaves have some inherent archetypal racial memory of their ancestors’ experiences? If the latter, then a) I probably do know what it’s like to be hunted: I’m Irish and the Brits hunted, raped, and enslaved my people for centuries. I’m also Scottish, so again, same deal. Either way, white people are not hunting down black people in America. If you really do believe that, cite me evidence.
Harvey,
I lived for almost three years in a low-income, primarily Hispanic area. It was actually a wonderful experience, and I met some of the kindest people I’ve ever encountered. However, it was also a high crime area. Several gang shootings took place on my street a few blocks away. Less than a year ago, I sat on jury duty for an extremely violent rape case that took place less than a mile from my house on a street I drove by regularly. I had an alarm system in my house and took extra steps to be safe, but I didn’t automatically assume that people were threatening because of their appearance either.
Needless to say, your assumptions about me are far from true. I’ll also add that your assumptions about the fear of others are also grossly false. I read multiple posts on Facebook last night about being hunted down. Zimmerman followed Martin before their altercation, and others have wondered if this could happen to them, and the Martin case would serve as precedent for them to be killed as well. Who knows if this fear is realistic, but surely you can connect the dots and see how someone could draw this conclusion. I’m sure you’ll be quick to point out discrepancies between their understanding and the facts of the case, but it’s easy to see how these conclusions could be drawn. I’m not expecting you to agree with them; I’m only asking you to listen.
If you saw a 6’2 black man walking in your back yard in the evening, would you go out to greet him? If he knocked on your door, would you open it?
If someone was on the neighborhood watch team, would it be reasonable to follow that person?
Because of the wildly disproportionate amount of crime committed by black youths, is the race of the suspect relevant in assessing suspicion?
I’ll take you at your word, Jonathan, that some of your black friends feel hunted. However, there’s a difference between perception and reality. They might inaccurately perceive that they are being hunted – and gee, with all of the anti-white race-baiting, I wonder how that is – but the reality is that they are NOT being hunted down by whites. Respectfully, I didn’t ask for a citation to friends’ absurd fears, but rather actual cases, preferably sometime recent (say, the past 5 years, or hell, say the past 10 years) where a black has been hunted down by a white civilian? You see, this is why statistics matter. Statistically, white people SIMPLY DO NOT VIOLENTLY ATTACK BLACK PEOPLE. PERIOD. When it happens, it is a complete rarity. The reverse, on the other hand (black’s committing violent crimes against whites) is many times higher. Further, there have been entire anthologies of collected news reports which feature blacks – including large mobs of blacks – deliberately targeting whites (simply for being white). But, the feds refuse to collect this data, because they, like many of your co-posters on this blog, refuse to accept the truth: that black people are more violently racist than whites. I could direct you to scores of news articles which are not reported, and deliberately covered up by the mainstream media, which detail extreme black racism and violence against whites, such as 1) a white adolescent boy being beaten nearly to death and set on fire by a mob of four black youths, 2) a mob of dozens of blacks throwing bricks and beating whites in Milwaukee from a little over a year ago, 3) an entire busload of black school children singling out the lone white kid and beating him to a pulp while the other students cheered on the attacks, celebrating the opportunity to attack the poor kid because he was white. I literally could go on for days -and some authors have. If you’re really curious, I’ll dig it up on amazon. But this shit doesn’t hit the national news because people are terrified to point fingers at blacks because they themselves don’t want to be labeled racists. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU READ ABOUT A PACK OF WHITE ASSHOLES BEATING THE HELL OUT OF A BLACK KID, OR SETTING HIM ON FIRE?
I know, I know, I know. It’s not the blacks who are to blame, it’s the legacy of racism, it’s Jim Crow, it’s POVERTY, it’s poverty density, it’s…a thousand excuses, the central theme of which is that whites are ultimately responsible.
So, again, there’s a difference between the wildly erroneous perceptions of a great number of your misled friends who are being egged-on by race hustlers like Al Sharpton, and actual empirical data. That’s what’s so frustrating to people like me. Because, yeah, I can connect the dots, as you say, and see how people can reach this conclusion: I see very well how progressive whites who wish to appear socio-morally superior derive a great deal of personal success and satisfaction through railing against a boogeyman that no longer exists (Jim Crow).
Further, so what? You lived in a hispanic area. Great, I lived on an Indian Reservation. You have a very simplistic, forgive the pun, “black and white” approach to racial profiling. You seem to think that when cops or guards profile people, they’re solely looking at their race. As you point out, in an area that contains a majority of hispanics, certainly not all hispanics are criminals, yet even hispanics can point out other hispanics who are, in fact criminals. AND, it just so happens that hispanics commit violent crime at higher rates than whites, too.
So this brings up an important point: how do cops use their cop instinct on the street? Should cops try and identify crimes before they happen? For example, say a cop were to notice two men, sitting outside a bank with the motor running, while several others stood on a street corner, appearing (all of them) to be confederates. The natural instinct is that, these clowns are casing the joint to see about knocking it off. Is that profiling? No! that’s just common sense.
Similarly, everybody loves to talk about that “gated community” that Zimmerman was guarding. Now, there had been a number of home robberies in that neighborhood, and at least two black men that I have heard of were arrested for robbing those homes. Are you trying to tell me that the combination of seeing 1) a young black male (who, again, statistically, is a demographic responsible for 30% of violent crime, despite accounting for a ridiculously small percentage of the population at large, nationally (2%), and who knows how small in that particular neck of the woods…given that it was a “gated community” and all), who (2) was wearing clothes that criminals wear, and who was (3) acting suspiciously in a neighborhood that (4) Zimmerman had personal knowledge that the kid was not a member of the neighborhood….you’re trying to tell me that this scenario, when taking into the variety of different pieces of evidence that would have, in the aggregate, given a great deal of context to Zimmerman, that this context is irrelevant, and that Zimmerman’s actions can simply be chalked up to mere racial profiling? That’s ridiculous. Furthermore, if every cop were to be forced to abandon his instinct, and use of context clues, crime would skyrocket because no crimes would be solved.
Oh, and let’s not forget information that came to light later on to confirm his suspicions: A) Trayvon had committed burglaries before; B) Trayvon had illegally purchased a handgun (but, sadly, the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, and chose not to disclose that information to the defense, and instead it took a whistleblower from within the government to expose this fact) ; (C) that Trayvon routinely bragged on texts on his cell phone that he had beaten the shit out of people, and that he was a huge pot head. I know, I know, pot doesn’t prove anything. True, but it does paint a picture of a gun-toting gangsta in the making, doesn’t it. This wasn’t little 4th grade Trayvon. This was 17 year-old thug Trayvon who was becoming a fully initiated member in black gangsta culture. Am I being judgmental? I suppose so, with the illegal handgun, illegal pot, multiple burglaries, and him priding himself on his penchant for assault and battery.
We are not being anti-white here. This blog post is simply a call to sensitivity. In my comment I spoke on behalf of the white race because I am white. I think that many whites often have a hard time understanding that racism is a problem today because we aren’t usually victims of it. Therefore we have the privilege to ignore it. What I have said here is not anti-white. It’s just a fact.
But every race (not just white) needs to be sensitive to how their actions might affect other races. Every person needs to examine themselves for biases and prejudices that we may or may not be aware of.
By framing the entire discussion around white guilt, it is being anti-white. If it were just about sensitivity, I would agree. I bet even Harvey would agree. But it’s more than that. It’s much more than that. And your comment that we can’t understand racism because we’re not black (not only are you assuming that we aren’t, by the way), is offensive. It’s an assumption that our opinions are less important.
And as I stated multiple times, whites should demand a seat at this table because we’re so often the victims of black crime. We see the Trayvons stalking through the neighborhoods that richer whites get to move away from. We suffer through the burglaries by Trayvons that go unpunished. We watch as the bureaucracy validates black arrogance and aggression, and refuses to criticize an unhealthy culture and overcriticize white culture. We get repeatedly blamed for actions from a century ago and more.
And you know what, maybe ‘sensitivity’ is, at some point, just making it worse. Maybe whites need to turn off the spigot of black indignation and say enough. Maybe it would help that instead of blaming Zimmerman, the black community was allowed to be introspective and wonder why so many black youths are irrationally violent.
But we can’t get there as long as the Church of White Guilt validates and rationalizes every bad black action. When every white guilt media personality comes out to cry about Trayvon Martin and talk about their many black friends.
I’ve had several black friends on facebook post messages that they can’t understand the verdict, that they can’t understand why whites would support Zimmerman. And you know why that is, because no one will be honest with them about these issues. Because you’ve got jerks like Reno who work overtime to delegitimize these concerns. And so the cycle repeats itself.
Whites shut up because “they can’t possibly understand”
Blacks commit violent crimes
Whites refuse to talk about it
Tragedy happens
No one’s honest about what lead to it, so it’ll keep happening
The exact wrong thing to do is to coat everything with ‘compassion’ and avoid the tough discussions that would potentially actually lead to change.
Barney,
Your latest string of comments (and I apologize that I haven’t been able to keep up) only validates that you have missed my point entirely. Ironically, you repeatedly criticize me for “framing the entire discussion around white guilt,” but I never even used the word “guilt.” Only this obnoxious, demeaning “Church of White Guilt” you have created out of nowhere seeks to aim the discussion there. I have simply recognized blatant misconduct, brought attention to the problem, expressed my sorrow for the way others have perceived this wrongdoing, and offered a challenge to all who read – regardless of race. I haven’t asked anyone to feel guilty. Honestly, I don’t want anyone to feel guilty. I don’t support this notion of “church” you present, and I honestly find it insulting. I also see in it your inability to focus on what has actually been said, instead attacking what you have read elsewhere and only assuming I agree. And since you’ve brought logical fallacies to the table, shall we cue the straw man?
I haven’t called for guilt. I also haven’t called for “justice” for Trayvon. That’s not up to me, it’s up to the courts. I’m not simply regurgitating what others have said on social media – if I wished to do that, I could have simply clicked a share or retweet button. My thoughts are my own. Though they have been influenced by others, if you simply assume I’m making the same argument you’ve read elsewhere on Facebook, it will only lead to further miscommunication.
I fail to see the offense in stating that one person cannot truly understand the feelings of another. This is a simple truth commonly taught in fields such as counseling. A good counselor will never tell a client that he or she understands. That wouldn’t even make sense. How could I tell a rape victim I understand what she is feeling? I’ve never endured anything like it. It is insensitive and haughty to assume that simply hearing someone speak allows access to the complete body of Inez’s thoughts and feelings. My statements are in no way offensive. In fact, believing the opposite is the only means to offense here.
Overall, you’re focusing in too narrowly on the issues at hand here. Yes, the news that spanned headlines yesterday was the verdict of a criminal trial. On a micro level, it’s about a crime. But it’s really about much, much more than that. It’s about the idea that a race of people has once again been put in their proper place. I’m not saying I agree with their sentiment, but I can see how they could feel that way. Make no mistake: in the eyes of African-Americans, yesterday’s perpetrator was not Zimmerman, it was the jury. This is why it involves whites and not Hispanics, and this is why whites must be careful how they react. I’m not anti-white; I’m anti-bigot. And unfortunately, I saw a lot of white bigotry yesterday.
I’m going to start numbering my points to try and get direct answers:
1. You say: “I saw a lot of white bigotry yesterday.” Other than the comment you said that was “hallelujah” – what else was there? This seems to be critical to your claims and yet you haven’t provided anything.
2. I gave a very reasonable interpretation of what that comment might have meant, in a non-racist interpretation, which you’ve also ignored.
3. Are you saying perception matters more to reality to blacks, when it comes to the all-white-minus-one jury?
4. If so, does that mean we should have all-black juries for black crimes?
5. I offered that perhaps being bluntly honest instead of timid and tepid would better benefit blacks. Instead of trying to be respectful, we treat them as adults and say why we think this happened. What’s your reaction to that idea?
6. Even if you don’t use the word “guilt” that’s clearly what you imply. When you issue an apology, it’s based on some assumption of a mistake, a transgression. Or are you offering an insincere apology for mistakes not made?
7. Even if you weren’t intending guilt, you certainly should have known the context in which it would be taken, and the reasonable offense to which it speaks. Just as there are plenty of racial terms and items one should always be conscious of and respectful about in life, your comment was filled with cultural context that you either knew, or should have known.
8. “Church of White Guilt” – I used that phrase to contextualize your confusion about what Harvey was saying – that it’s a matter of faith that racism is all-powerful and all-oppressive, and that your arguments are structured in tautological ways. Note to Reno: tautological means unable to be disproven, unscientific. It’s a pretty quick and easy phrase. That you find it offensive is lamentable, but I struggle to think of a better way to describe the mindset we’re discussing. I’ll try to find a way that’s less perceptively offensive, but don’t expect an all-race apology from me about your offense.
9. “I fail to see the offense in stating that one person cannot truly understand the feelings of another. This is a simple truth commonly taught in fields such as counseling.” – You know, on one hand I would call that the anti-empathy, but on the other I know what you’re trying to say. The problem is, of course, that you’re avoiding the context where this is used as a political weapon, a tool to shut down white thought or reaction to excessive political actions by minorities. Anyone who has been to college has suffered through the moral preening by other whites to castigate their fellow white cousins, and the morality play always ends the same way, self-flagellation with the statement, “but of course I can never truly understand…” – This is ridiculous. You may never have a firsthand experience of being a fish either, or of being a bird, or being Asian, or being anyone other than yourself. If you can’t ‘understand’ properly, then how can you even have a conversation with anyone. Surely you can’t understand where they’re coming from. You can’t understand black suffering, but you can understand white arrogance enough to condemn it for an entire race.
10. You say: “I’m not simply regurgitating what others have said on social media” – when I used that word, I directed it at Lindsay when she said it was impossible for whites to understand racism, and then proceeded to speak about racism from what sounded like firsthand knowledge. Either it’s impossible for whites to understand or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t sit and lecture Harvey and I about racism as whites, if whites cannot properly understand racism.
11. I would be curious to hear a definition of racism from you.
12. You keep saying that we’re missing your point, but I think we’re directly addressing your point and adding important context that you keep ignoring, even in your responses. Harvey and I have brought up repeated issues that go unacknowledged. In that you are trying to foster discussion, which I obviously appreciate, it would be better to directly engage our points rather than talking past them, rather than trying to dismiss them by saying we aren’t talking about your point.
13. Do you believe that there is racism against whites?
14. Do you believe that whites have a present-day obligation to atone for sins from the past, i.e. slavery and Jim Crow? Do whites from non-Southern states have an obligation to apologize for slavery and Jim Crow?
When you “apologize” on behalf of an entire people, you’re being anti-those people. You’re saying those people are wrong.
You know, maybe whites do have a hard time “understanding racism” because they’re so busy dealing with the enormous amount of crime caused by blacks like Trayvon Martin.
Blacks may have the monopoly on experiential racism, but whites have a pretty good grasp on being victims of black crime.
The media, the universities, the judiciary would all love to avoid the crime statistics, but they scream out. The victim stories also often scream out.
Who demands that blacks apologize for the media silence in this case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299734/Georgia-stroller-shooting-Mom-aunt-teen-shot-toddler-stroller-charged-lying-police-detectives-uncover-potential-murder-weapon-pond.html
Who demands that blacks collectively carry the guilt for the crimes they commit?
But yet whites are all expected to atone for Zimmerman, who isn’t even white, and we’re apologizing for impolite comments on behalf of an entire race. And the “history of racism” or whatever Lindsey blames whites for when it comes to black conceptions of injustice, never gets turned around on blacks for their collective crimes.
Why is it that only whites have to apologize?
It’s because you’ve been culturally programmed to hate yourself, and to embrace the victimhood of minorities because it serves the long-term political interests of a hostile elite that govern this country. The obvious hypocrisies are ignored or dismissed by people like you because they don’t fit the programming.
Wake up.
Hey RENO 911:
First off, you contend that statistics don’t matter…then you subsequently bring up poverty as a way to explain away black violence and murder.
First, as I explained to Lindsay, statistics are the way that educated people rise above the rabble of Jesus freaks, right? The folks who can’t prove if there’s a giant spaghetti monster controlling the universe, or a benevolent, loving God. So, why are you afraid of statistics?
Assuming you’re a man of reason and science, and not hocus pocus, let’s look at the stats. If you’re right and I’m wrong, then black violence is correlated with black poverty. Therefore, blacks and whites should commit violent crimes and murders proportionately to their poverty levels…unless you want to start pulling out all manner of other excuses. Btw: I would accept welfare and government intervention as a possible explanation for black crime rates, but I digress.
So, based on the wall street journal study, among others, blacks commit murder at a rate NINE TIMES HIGHER THAN WHITES. That’s right NINE TIMES HIGHER. Yet, according to the US CENSUS in 2010, the black poverty rate is only THREE TIMES HIGHER than whites, and whites are, in absolute terms, more impoverished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Poverty_and_race.2Fethnicity
I know, I know, the lingering legacy of slavery and Jim Crow: the boogeymen that will never leave. And, since it’s not quantifiable, you and Guenther and the Church of White Guilt will continue to preach for all of us white folk to repent and be saved. No thanks, friend, I treat all people with respect, and I have enough respect for black people to hold them just as accountable as I do whites…which, I realize, is a revolutionary act in this country.
But don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s rainin’.
Harvey,
You can’t claim to “treat all people with respect” and make the kind of comment you just made. In addition to your hypocrisy, please refrain from making insulting or belittling comments (about any individual or group, including Christians other commenters here). I will block you from posting here if you continue this behavior.
I don’t think he’s being disrespectful. What comments of his are disrespectful?
Harvey is giving us new evidence to consider. He’s an important part of the discussion you provoked through your post. Harvey is making important points that deserve to be considered.
Harvey, the fact that you can’t argue respectfully and promote healthy dialogue means you are part of the problem rather than the solution. Attacking me in order to make a point only shows that you’re not confident enough in your point to let it stand on its own.
In response to your accusations, I believe any person of any race can be either the discriminator or discriminated against. But I don’t think whites experience discrimination nearly as much as minorities.
And if you believe you are respectful to all people, your blog comments are completely hypocritical.
I’m not just trying to help Harvey out here, but I think quoting the specific things he’s being rude about would be helpful. We’re all worked up, and respect is critical to any discussion, but it would help me to better understand what you take offense to if you referenced the specific comment.
Also, about your comment about experiencing racism, it’s interesting that blacks actually think other blacks are more racist than whites:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2013/more_americans_view_blacks_as_racist_than_whites_hispanics
That doesn’t fit the paradigm that you seem to operate under, so I don’t expect that to internalize. But chew it over and consider what it means.
Most racial studies literature claims that only whites can be racist.
Oh, and Lindsay, keep those talkin’ points comin’ honey. I jes loves me some talkin’ points.
You sound like you have media training. PIVOT POINT PIVOT POINT PIVOT POINT.
Try introspection, instead. Remember, we are the change we seek.
Also, I concur with Barney. Barney, my man, we should hang out at your cabin some time….
Lindsay, I think Harvey is being respectful, he’s just disagreeing with you. You should engage his argument and not try to just appeal to comity.
Harvey,
You’re right, statistics matter! I just didn’t know that differences in poverty and murder rates were supposed to be directly proportional! I guess that proves your point 🙂 If you want to further analyze the problem, I’d probably look at population density of poverty….urban and rural poverty ratios, whre gun violnce occurs, etc. My simple assumption is that the problem might be a smidge more difficult to answer than a quick wikipedia search. And if you want to learn more than statistics will ever tell you, why don’t you experience urban and rural poverty. Then we’ll talk.
I’m actually impressed that you seemed to agree slavery just might have caused some long term problems. And I’m not of the church of white guilt.
Must be nice to know everything.
Somehow I don’t think the Church of White Guilt will condemn Reno’s arrogant and demeaning comments. Perhaps they can prove me wrong.
Barney,
If you can find this “Church of White Guilt,” feel free to bring them into the discussion and I’ll welcome their comments.
Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll be able to locate them, as they’re only as real as Harvey’s Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I notice that Reno’s comments aren’t condemned for their tone or hostility. I think that ought to give Harvey a pass for any problems he made.
As well, I think you mistake his invocation of FSM. He’s saying that its always wise to argue with evidence instead of faith. The Church of White Guilt relies on abstractions and zealous attachments to false concepts instead of dealing with facts.
Much similar to the way in which many demand ‘justice’ for Trayvon by imprisoning an innocent man. When it’s belief over experience, it’s a faith built on a house of sand.
You know, the problem with condescending comments like Reno’s, is that it forces the speaker to prove something to the listener about their own personal experience. I’m going to try and avoid that because its a parlour trick.
You say urban density is the causal factor for crime, and that very well may be the case, but it doesn’t change the outcome, does it?
Jonathan is apologizing for white comments about the Martin case. And my points, as well as those of Harvey’s, repeatedly make the point that:
1) collective guilt is morally wrong, whether white or black
2) the bigger issue is that of crime in general, and the racial element to crime which goes too often ignored and understated
3) Making this into a white-black issue when it’s a Hispanic-Black issue is, in itself, racist.
4) the implied argument is that being a victim of crime is a higher moral wrong than racism. That isn’t to say racism is good, but that violent crime is obviously more important. And that’s what this case comes down to, and those who supposedly ‘celebrate’ the verdict aren’t doing so from hidden racist motives, they’re doing it because they’re tired of crime. Crime that affects and hurts blacks just as much as it does whites.
5) Trying to contextualize racism as a white is always problematic. Lindsay’s attempt, no doubt well-meaning, is still silly. Whites should let blacks thrive on their own, without the neocolonialist mindset, the ‘white man’s burden’ of civilizing blacks. Since you’re so fond, Reno, of condescending reading suggestions, how about you try Critical Race Theory on for size? And as you say, avoid wikipedia.
I’ll talk to you like an adult when you start arguing like one. I think Lindsay and Jonathan have been able to keep a respectful tone, even if Harvey and I might disagree with them.
You? You’re an asshole.
Barney,
I hope you understand I’m not trying incite guilt here. Nowhere have I asked anyone to feel guilty; I’ve only expressed the sadness I feel over the current state of affairs. I grieve for those who are struck with grief and fear. Surely your moral compass, whatever that may be, allows for this type of compassion.
I’m also not denying the problem of violent crime. That’s why I wrote the challenge part of my post. For your insinuations to be correct, I would have only scolded my race for the terrible job they’ve done and ended things there. Instead, I’ve expressed my heartbreak for the pain others have endured because of people like me, and I have challenged people to be a part of the solution. Perhaps you fail to see that these two things might be related. Instead of contrasting racism and violence and determining which is a greater evil, why not work to diminish both of them? Surely you don’t think ranking issues in order of depravity will work toward a solution. It’s hardly applicable to label violent crime “ignored and understated” when about half of my thoughts were dedicated to it.
When you refer to this issue as a “Black-Hispanic” one, you miss my earlier response that it because more than that when 5 white jurors handed down a verdict. I’m not arguing the defendant’s race, but all of the “white power” posts I’ve read refer to the race of the jurors, not the defendant. Those said to be in “power” are the jurors. They’re not the ones who killed Trayvon, but they’re the ones who allowed his killer to walk free. This is why it is very much an issue of relations between blacks and whites.
Honestly, I don’t see how you can possibly argue to “let blacks thrive on their own.” Beyond the incredibly racist sentiment inherent in such an idea, it’s just not good for anyone. My life has been thoroughly enriched by my friends from other races. Some of my best friends are minorities, and I wouldn’t trade those friendships for the world. They have given me the opportunity to grow in my understanding of other cultures, but even without a benefit of this nature, they’re amazing people! I couldn’t imagine a culture where segregation is the norm, and I would never desire it.
CRS is not about segregation, it’s about independent political power that grows organically. It’s the difference between a Marion Barry of the 1970s growing PRIDE up from the streets, and a Marion Barry of the 1990s with the approval of the white Washington Post. If Blacks are going to thrive, it can’t come from outside cultural, social, or political structures, it has to come from within. We can’t export black success onto them, they need to find it on their own. No one’s saying you can’t have black friends. What it’s saying is that our attitudes about working to end racism, about race relations, about all that, should be toned down rather than the volume turned up. Instead of expecting integration, we should accept community growth.
Ask yourself whether it would be better to import a certain quota of blacks into an all-white school, or send enough white kids to an all-black school in order to equalize their racial mixture. Isn’t that question in itself presumptively racist? Isn’t the assumption that skin color, a classroom or community racial aesthetic, is in itself racist? That kind of thinking presumes that all blacks think alike, all blacks vote alike, they all act as the same stereotype. Aren’t you presuming in your comments that all blacks are saddened by the verdict? Couldn’t some be grateful that someone trying to stop crime in their neighborhood was exonerated after being beaten up by a thief?
That’s not to celebrate death, and your point is well taken. No one wanted Martin to die. But Zimmerman was trying to do something good, he was trying to rid the neighborhood of crime. He was stepping up in a way that we should want people to, protecting their area. And your comments seem to equate that relief from pro-Zimmerman people, to adulation at Martin’s death.
And then collectively speaking for the white race implies a certain collective guilt which is enormously problematic.
No one’s saying you shouldn’t mourn the loss of Martin. But proper compassion demands an honest discussion about the many related issues. Proper love of your neighbor involves not lying to them.
And whole-race apologies come across as a lame attempt to assign guilt where it doesn’t exist, and greatly distracts from many important issues that Harvey and I have raised that go unspoken. Now is the time to discuss these things.
If blacks call for the murder of Zimmerman, I don’t expect black friends to issue apologies on behalf of all blacks.
“And whole-race apologies come across as a lame attempt to assign guilt where it doesn’t exist, and greatly distracts from many important issues that Harvey and I have raised that go unspoken. Now is the time to discuss these things.”
Agreed, Barney. However, I would also add that “whole race” apologies are just ridiculously delusional. Who the hell do these people think they are? Who appointed them the central ombudsman for the white race? That’s not just silly, it’s crackpot. It reminds me of that quote from Joyce Carol Oates: “The white race is the cancer of human history.” As Tom Wolfe said (I’m paraphrasing): “the cancer of human history? Who WAS this woman? Who and what? An anthropological epidemiologist? A renowned authority on the history of cultures throughout the world, a synthesizer of the magnitude of a Max Weber, a Joachim Wach, a Sir James Frazer, an Arnold Toynbee? Actually, she was just another scribbler who spent her life signing up for protest meetings and lumbering to the podium, encumbered by her prose style, which had a handicapped parking sticker valid at Partisan Review. Perhaps she was exceptionally hell-bent on illustrating McLuhan’s line about indignation endowing the idiot with dignity, but otherwise she was just a typical American intellectual of the post-World War II period.”
Barney,
You’re right – my comments were not as constructive as they should have been. Probably wouldn’t have sounded so condescending had I written them with a full night’s sleep. My argument is simply that the ideas of racism, poverty, gun violence, slavery, etc are so complicated that SIMPLE statistics have difficulty explaining reasoning and causality. I’m sure people have spent educational careers attempting to do this. But it’s very important not to quote the wrong statistics to justify something. They’re JUST AS DANGEROUS as they can be educational. For example – let’s take three women who are found to have breast cancer at the age of 68. All are dead at the age of 70. Their 3-year survival rate is 0%. Now, let’s use a better mammography set-up, detect their cancers at the age of 66. Their 3-year survival rate is 100%. Amazing treatment, right? Wrong – still lived the exact same amount of time, simply better technology picked up the cancer earlier. I know I didn’t cite murder rates due to race, and I’m not questioning the accuracy of those statements, I’m simply saying sometimes statistics are more complicated than initially presented.
I actually agree with various points of your argument. The upsetting point for me (of this whole situation) is that a black child was followed due to racial profiling. You can say what you want to, but I walked around plenty of neighborhoods in hoodies when I was young and stupid (still stupid, simply older), and nobody ever followed me. I’m not commenting on whether or not it was self defense (because I wasn’t in the courtroom, and even then, I’m not sure what I would have thought), but this racial profiling eventually led to the loss of a very young life. If that were my child, I honestly don’t know what I would do. I do know that it would be pain deeper than I had ever felt before in my life.
I think that’s what Guenther was saying. And if it were my best friend’s son, I’d be outraged. If it were part of my community, you betcha, I’d be furious.
Thank you for making your comments more constructive.
If what you say is true, I don’t think it changes much in the current situation.
No one is arguing the cause of crime. Crime may be caused by a multitude of factors. “Solving” crime is a long-term policy question also worthy of discussion, but not in dispute here.
What we’re talking about is the current crime rates. Those crime rates present a current threat, and a way to identify that current threat.
Those crime statistics underlie every neighborhood in the country. They drive and determine billions, trillions of dollars in real estate alone.
And those crime statistics have uncomfortable truths plainly within them that we refrain from saying because it’s uncomfortable, because it’s perceptively impolite. We won’t say that 5% of the population commits 50% of the murders. Or that 94% of murdered blacks are murdered by other blacks. We won’t say that an amazing number of whites are violently raped each year by blacks, women and men in prison.
These are current statistics. They are political only because we assign a political score to what are objective numbers.
This is the backdrop to the Martin case that goes ignored, willfully ignored. Zimmerman profiled him because Martin looked like the type of criminal that burgles homes, that commits rapes, that kills other people.
And what reaction do whites have to this? They move away, and then from the comfort of their suburban lifestyles, they foist these light liberalism policies that destroy lower-class whites. They coddle these blacks in law, and in culture. These whites douse themselves in white guilt so as to engender respectability among left-wing whites and other minorities. It’s the psychological desire to moral approval from the community, at the expense of truth.
The whole-race apology is disgusting, it’s obscene, and it is a blatant disrespect to the millions of fellow whites who suffer from black violent crime every year. It’s a slap in the face to the people that a George Zimmerman protects through his neighborhood patrols.
No one’s arguing that there shouldn’t be compassion for the loss of life. What Harvey and I are saying is that there are important truths that must accompany that compassion. And, as well, a whole-race apology and many of the other sentiments expressed here by Jonathan, Lindsay and yourself, are wrong, morally wrong, logically wrong, historically wrong, and factually wrong.
Hey Barney: Looks like someone decided to take their ball and go home…..
Excellent post Jonathan. Thank you for an honest, well thought out article.
Rod.