Derbyshire Junior at National Review

Victor Davis Hanson has a column at National Review about race. Facing Facts about Race is a mess of a column, so I'm not quite sure what facts we are supposed to face.

The occasion for this column is the perennial race issues surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Every time something happens in this case, certain people get bent out of shape because they don't want to be reminded that a guy with a gun shot an unarmed black teen that he wrongly suspected of being a burglar. I'm not sure why some people find that so uncomfortable, unless of course they see themselves in Zimmerman's shoes, wanting to catch a burglar and shoot in "self-defense."** But something about this case drives some white conservative bloggers to post reminders that blacks really are dangerous, this is all a case of race hucksterism, or some such.

Hanson complains about Obama's short speech (which I read) and Holder's longer speech to the NAACP (which I haven't read). I think I grasp the point of Obama's speech, which is to be careful about profiling young black man as thugs, because most aren't--some are just like he was when he was young.

Hanson's column is less clear:

• Maybe he's saying that blacks shouldn't have solidarity because there are a lot of young black male criminals. 
• Maybe he's not saying anything about solidarity, but just thinks Obama needs a reminder about black criminals. 
• Maybe he's trying to tell everyone to beware of young black men, because a lot of them are criminals. 

This last guess is probably closest to what he's attempting to say. However, this leaves us with a big problem in that there are a lot of young black men all over this country, and we really can't wall them off in a huge compound somewhere. Or maybe Hanson thinks we should do that. I can't tell because he's hasn't gone at all beyond his one fact to anything remotely helpful to anyone. So much for facing facts in the plural.

Hanson says to be careful of groups of young black men, but Trayvon Martin was just one black man. So, what advice does Hanson have about how to deal with a single black man walking in your community? Is Hanson implying that you should do as Zimmerman did? I don't think so because we don't particularly want to see that outcome repeated.

So I won't assume Hanson is giving any advice about single black men, but just groups of young black men. I'm not sure what his advice was. There were some anecdotes of his father's experience being robbed and Hanson's own two experiences, but what exactly is his prescription for the reader, and for his sons, to whom he passed on these anecdotes?

Well, that's not clear in the least. Maybe Hanson should reread Derbyshire (the piece that got him fired) because at least Derbyshire had some actions you could actually follow--if you want to live in a mostly white enclave and be frightened whenever you're in the company of any regular black folks on the sidewalks, shopping, or at the beach.

Why has the Zimmerman/Martin case prompted so much bad advice from conservative white columnists? How much longer are they going to keep doing this? Why are some people so deranged about the Zimmerman/Martin case?

Frightening group of young black male dancers

Image: kootation.com

**OK, I did think of one reason why people get upset about the Zimmerman investigation and trial. They are tired of being accused of racism. So anytime someone else is accused of racism, they rush in to defend the maligned person. They don't bother to notice that they aren't being accused, or that some people aren't making the argument that it was racism. It's all blurred together, and they are deep in reactive mode. Please, people, get out of reactive mode. I don't want to have to write about this anymore.


Update 1/14/14. I just wanted to note that I haven't had to write about this subject for nearly six months now. Very good, everyone.

Should Zimmerman have been tried?

After the acquittal of George Zimmerman, many are trumpeting that he should never have been tried in the first place. Well, if acquittal is the reason, then Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson should never have been tried either.

So it's more than the acquittal that prompts this outcry. Many believe that the charges against Zimmerman were trumped up, that it clearly was self-defense, and that Zimmerman was charged and put through this ordeal merely to placate race baiters and their mobs.

"First, I believe all the fury over this case is the product of (a) the media and (b) the racists in the black community." -- blog comment

It's not that there's no evidence for this viewpoint. Definitely the case went forward because of media pressure (also known as reporting) and because of  demonstrations in the black community and the involvement of black political leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. 

However, it's important to view more than just the media involvement, and not forget the particulars about the case. It seems to me that the shooting and killing of an unarmed man should be investigated. Really, any killing should be investigated. So the question is how deeply to investigate. 

The Martin family felt that the investigation had been too cursory. The lead detective agreed, the police chief and local prosecutor did not. Those against bringing charges felt there was not enough evidence for a conviction, which was born out. However, was there enough evidence to bring the case to a grand jury?

From what I saw, yes, there was plenty for evidence. The people who say Zimmerman shouldn't have been tried  have to ignore a lot of evidence, which they do. They tend to focus on the media and what they call racial hucksterism.

It's a losing argument to claim there was no media frenzy or race baiting. Why? Because there was some, so the proponents of this argument have examples to point to. However, it is unfair and impossible to demand that an issue have NO associated media hype or political grandstanding. You really can't defeat the argument that "it's all based on political X." That argument is not disprovable, but it also makes it suspect. 

So instead, I would hammer away at the non-political and non-hyped reasons why it was right to try Zimmerman. Like he shot an unarmed, non-burglar in his neighborhood. Like his story of what happened contains a lot of dubious claims, such as being punched in the nose 25-30 times. Besides, we usually want the deceased and their family to get to see some justice. Gee, I don't think I had to mention race once in this short list.

So I strongly contend that it was right to try Zimmerman. I was surprised to find out that Zimmerman, or at least his lawyer, agreed that he should go to trial. His lawyer, Mark O'Mara, waived his right to a Stand-your-ground hearing, clearing the way to go to trial. 

So, among those who think Zimmerman should go to trial is Zimmerman's own lawyer. I guess that answers the question I started with. Do I get to say QED?

...a head (not) slammed about a dozen times onto the cement sidewalk.

Image: everywhere

Extras.

• I always say and said that there needs to be a full investigation. 
• The major GOP leaders agreed at one point. Google shows that the change occurred approximately March 25 after Gingrich blasted Obama's comments on the case. BC (before change), what Gingrich says.
• Good pictorial review of evidence, also cited above.
• Important evidence turned up by the parents, ignored by the stalled investigation.
• Review of Zimmerman's many calls to police (scroll down for it)
• The chief investigator, Chris Serino, is a fascinating gauge of this case: thinks the investigation should continue, thinks they should file charges, thinks they don't have enough evidence. For you to follow up via your own searches.
• Typical laundry list of complaints--so much the same with most complainers, and not relevant to the evidence of this particular crime.
• Window into the alternative view of Trayvon. So little overlap in the set of facts each side looks at and considers. Surprise! There really is a drug you can make with skittles and a drink. Possible whitewash in the mainstream media? Or fake Facebook pages.
• Google white-on-black crime (one of the complaints).
• Got to see this: true-blue hucksterism.

Short: Trayvon Martin gunshot forensics

According to a forensic expert, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and leaning forward when the shot was fired from 2-4 inches away. This is consistent with Zimmerman's account of Martin being on top of him. I've been waiting for forensic evidence either supporting or refuting this claim, and here it is.

Some people think Martin got what he deserved. My opinion is that Zimmerman following Martin is significant in contributing to Martin's assault on him, so this isn't a simple case of an unprovoked assault.

Image: axiomamnesia.com

Now I know Zimmerman/Martin is a case of racism

How did I finally figure that out? Because it is so adversarial.

Let's suppose Zimmerman was following someone (race unknown) walking through his condo complex. There are harsh words, the guy punches him, jumps on him, Zimmerman reaches for his gun and shoots him. Then, when the police come, the dead guy (we'll call him the victim) has a wallet that identifies him as living at the complex.

I contend that scenario would have played out very differently from the Zimmerman/Martin case. For one thing, there would have been no doubt that Zimmerman shot one of his neighbors, though the guy was a stranger to him.

It would have been clear that Zimmerman had been overzealous in his patrol and his handling of the situation. It also probably wouldn't have been considered for a second-degree murder charge, nor for a "Stand Your Ground" defense.

Because Trayvon Martin didn't have ID, and perhaps because he was black, he was treated by the police as someone who didn't belong at that place, when actually he did.

Zimmerman thought this was 'us vs. them.' Even when it turned out that Martin was 'us' (a legitimate visitor), the case stayed polarized as us vs. them.

The police didn't treat it as an incident between two people from the same neighborhood. Zimmerman didn't seem to treat it that way either. He didn't apologize for starting this whole horrible incident, and he didn't arrange to plead guilty to an appropriate charge, such as involuntary manslaughter. Isn't that what a person does when he accidentally kills a neighbor's kid? I think so, unless the person didn't care about the wrong he did.

Martin is still viewed with suspicion by many people, but there's very little reason for that suspicion. Martin was just a teenage kid walking home from the convenience store. People trying to paint him as violent and disrespectful do so in an attempt to mitigate what Zimmerman did, which was provoke an incident and shoot an unfamiliar neighbor.

Some of Martin's actions may have been based on 'us vs. them' thinking too. He referred to Zimmerman as a creepy-ass cracker in his phone call. But we'll never know if he attacked Zimmerman, or whether he wanted to beat the crap out of a creepy-ass white guy. Anyone who is sure that's what happened is projecting prejudice that they wouldn't have if the victim was a white neighbor of Zimmerman's.

This is horrible. You can be minding your own business, walking in the neighborhood, but if you're a young black male, you're a suspect before you've done anything in the least bit wrong. And if you're not submissive and very careful, you can end up dead. Our prejudices and our suspicions not only shred our sense of humanity, they also kill.

 How suspicious?

Image: frontierdreams.blogspot.com

Clarification 8/22/13. This case continues to weigh on my mind. I'm less certain there was racism on Zimmerman's part, though there is still a lot of evidence for it. I think he lumped Trayvon Martin in with a known burglar, also a black teen, who lived in the complex. That is still profiling, but to some extent, Martin fit the profile as a criminal, not just as a black teen. There are indications that Martin had stolen jewelry in his backpack while he was living in Miami.

Zimmerman may have been able to rationalize away his moral responsibility in Martin's killing by thinking Martin was no different from the other burglars that "always get away with it." He shouldn't be allowed to rationalize that he, Zimmerman, provoked this entire incident by following a young man who was doing nothing wrong, and that Zimmerman shot him, seemingly without remorse.

Suspected of wrong-doing

We Americans are a suspicious bunch, in more than one way. We're suspicious of what other people do and think and get away with. And we're also suspicious that people harbor unfair thoughts about us, either because we're part of a group or just as an individual.

I'm going to focus on the feeling that you are a target of unfair suspicion, such as:

• suspected of being criminal
• suspected of being inferior
• suspected of being racist
• suspected of being elitist
• suspected of being parasitic
• suspected of wanting to impose cultural practices or religious beliefs upon others
• suspected of ripping others off
• suspected of manipulating the system to avoid struggles regular people have to grapple with

I hope we can have empathy with people who feel that they are being treated unfairly. It's a burden to have to fight people's negative expectations of you during long portions of the day, like when you're at work, taking public roads or transportation, in public places, or in commercial places. That's one reason that prejudice is so destructive--it's insidious and wears away your sense of belonging.

So imagine you are suspected, or even publicly accused, of any of the things from the list. A normal reaction could include righteous anger.

• So Trayvon Martin was angry that Zimmerman was following him due to suspicions, either spoken or unspoken.
• So blacks are angry at Derbyshire and those who call themselves 'racial realists' and want to discuss whether blacks are cognitively inferior.
• So Tea partiers are angry about being called racist.
• So the working poor are angry at conservatives who blast those who don't pay income tax. (I don't actually know any worker who is angry about this--they are too busy trying to get by.)

Enough, you get my drift. Let's not throw accusations around. Before you accuse or seriously suspect someone:

1. Collect some solid evidence. 
2. Collect a little more evidence. 
3. Ask in as non-confrontational way as possible.
4. Listen to the answer.

That's a lot of steps, but maybe that's what it takes to defuse our suspicions about each other. I haven't always done it, but I hope I'll remember in the future. Maybe this advice will help me with my own hair-trigger reactions. (Yes, I'm guilty, and I have plenty of company.)

Until then, let's assume the guy walking down the street is fine, the political speaker wants to improve the town, city, state, or country, and the guy drinking a Starbucks latte isn't passing a judgment on you.

Image: www.flickr.com/photos/grahamthomasianmcqueen

"In this dirty minded world you are either somebody’s wife or somebody’s whore—or fast on your way to becoming one or the other. I wanted a job and I wanted to live alone. That made me a sexual suspect." -- The World According to Garp

Extra: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I anticipate this kind of question: "Should bigots be given the benefit of the doubt?" No, but people should be. Don't assume someone's a bigot. Go through the steps (evidence, more evidence, ask, listen).

There is a huge problem of cross-suspicions. I suspect you're a racist. You resent that I suspect you're a racist (not a surprising resentment). You suspect me of being a socialist or a traitor. I resent that you think I'm an unpatriotic American. See, the suspicions are insidious and growing.

The Good, the Bad, and the Redemptive

Today I feel surrounded by death. There was another shooting, this time at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Ohio. On the local news, there was a story about a New Hampshire police chief shot and killed during a drug raid. Four other police officers were also shot.

In the Trayvon Martin case yesterday, Trayvon's mother said that she thought the shooting was an accident, and Zimmerman needs to own up to that and apologize. That huge step in forgiveness and shared humanity was retracted later that day. Does anyone doubt a lawyer was involved in the retraction?

In the meantime, Zimmerman's new lawyer has a sense of the gravity of the case. The new lawyer is not pushing for bail immediately because he understands that Zimmerman needs to spend sometime in jail to assuage the local (or national?) sense that he's not paying any price. The lawyer is also not immediately asking for immunity for his client based on Florida's "Stand your ground" law.

We are better people when we don't grandstand on our rights, as though we (the small we) are the only ones who matter or who know what is correct. We are better people when we humbly acknowledge that we can make mistakes, sometimes horrible ones.

So, today, this story of Corey Booker, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, floored me. I'm already in an emotional state, and I watched this video where he discusses how he and a detective ran into a neighbor's house, engulfed in fire, and Booker ran though the burning kitchen to save a woman sleeping in the back of the apartment. He carried her back through the flames and outside. She is alive, as is he, the detective, and the other residents.

I'm reminded of the fire fighters on 9/11, who entered the burning towers and were marching up the stairs to try to save those in the upper floors. People can be so fine and heroic. I hope I can do something today and something in my life that is as selfless as these people have done. Wish me luck.

People saving a motorcyclist from a fiery accident

 Photo credit: msnbc.msn.com

Practical note: You should have a fire extinguisher and you should know exactly where it is. This knowledge prevented my neighbor's stove fire from getting out of hand. She didn't know where her fire extinguisher was, but we did. Today, my family gets a quiz on where the extinguishers are. The only acceptable score on the quiz is 100%.

Zimmerman/Martin: This cannot end well

"It took a while to hit me, but I have a terrible sense of foreboding about this case. Zimmerman, at some point, will either be found guilty of manslaughter, or he'll be found not guilty, or charges dropped, or not even charged. Any outcome other than the conviction could ignite a huge cache of anger among blacks in this country."

That is white apprehension talking. This person fears the backlash from blacks more than he fears being in Trayvon's place. I know this because I wrote the quote--that's how I started this post, with my gut sense of foreboding.

I wished that wasn't the first thought that came to mind when I considered the future of this case. But then my thoughts shifted direction: what is it like if you have fear of disrespect or violence all the time, or on a regular basis? A fear that's always there, in your awareness or just below it. This is what it's like to be black in our society.

I suffered from mild prejudice when I was young, but little-to-none in the last 25 years. I've had a quarter century of freedom from prejudice, with very little anxiety about whether I'd be unfairly judged before I even had a chance to do or say something.

 Empathy Lessons

Just one time did I suffer some of the tension from prejudice. My family and I went to a restaurant in Mystic, Connecticut. We were seated, but no waitress came to our table, and they all avoided our glances. This went on 10 minutes, then another 5 minutes. Then I realized that they weren't going to serve us, but they weren't going to say so to our faces. The staff did see us leave, sheepishly. The sting wasn't erased at the restaurant across the street, though the service was friendly and efficient. For that 15 minutes, and for quite a while afterward, I knew what kind of anxiety prejudice can create--the nearly constant gnawing question whether you're going to have to deal with that shit today, or will it be a good day. If you start relaxing, the zinging pain when it happens again.

Some people seem to have no empathy for someone who has suffered from the prejudice of others. I wish they had to deal with it, so they would know what it feels like. People like Rush Limbaugh are probably  never on the receiving end, wondering if he'll be snubbed at the restaurant, or stopped while walking or driving. He's only in the dishing-out business, and business is brisk. Why worry about the saps at the receiving end?

Possible Responses

At this point, I want to pivot from a description of the problem to possible solutions. I think we've legislated what we can on racism. It's illegal to discriminate in hiring, promotion, access to public accommodations, education, rentals, and probably other areas I can't remember. I don't want to make it illegal to discriminate in personal actions and personal thoughts because I cherish freedom to say and do what we want so long as we don't violate the freedoms of others. And our freedoms don't include freedom from viewpoints we don't like.

What needs to change isn't our laws, but our personal lives. We need to evolve into a non-biased society as much as possible. This is happening, but at a pace that is set by the individuals in society, not by government. I think this is appropriate for the sphere we are trying to change-- the sphere of personal relationships. Maybe I'm too optimistic about people, but I also don't know a better alternative. But I'm listening if you have suggestions.

More harmony?

Photo credit: massnonprofit.org

Postscript: I started writing this before the Derbyshire explosion. I've read the essay. He has the same smug, self-satisfied manner that William F. Buckley had when he made his pronouncements on how people should behave from his comfortable, insular perch. Like Limbaugh, Buckley and Derbyshire never picture themselves on the receiving end of prejudice or misfortune.

Tribalism as a reflex

I've been following the Trayvon Martin case since it went national. I don't see it as primarily a racial issue, though it definitely has racial tones in it, and I can easily see why blacks are roused to demonstrate. Anyone could be roused, but the case is going to have particular resonance for people who feel targeted for suspicion.

The Beginning

If I remember correctly, the national coverage started on Monday, March 19. By Friday, it was the biggest national story. Demonstrations had been organized. Al Sharpton was down in Florida. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all commented on the case. In general, they each said it was a tragedy that should be investigated thoroughly. For the life of me, I can't see anything wrong or offensive or even partisan in such a sentiment. It seems logical to me--someone dead by gunshot, therefore a need to investigate how and why and to determine if there was a crime.

Getting Nasty

How did we go from that logical sentiment to the conservative media circling the wagons? I can try to trace all the steps: Gingrich criticizing Obama for noting that Trayvon and he were could have been family (read: were the same race without saying 'race' or 'black'); the stupid hoodie comments by Geraldo Rivera. But then the reaction on the outer right seemed to go crazy. (Note: I'm not even going to touch the comments on various blogs because people are always trying to outdo one another in outrageous statements.)

Some conservative blogs, including some within the conservative mainstream, started trying to portray Trayvon as a thug, which is hard to do when he'd never been arrested. In lieu of an arrest record, they used his posed gangsta photos, his suspensions from school, and the braggadocio on his twitter account.

In the meantime, CNN was reporting all the developments regardless of whether they tended to support Zimmerman or the Martin family. They reported the statement from the unnamed neighbor who saw Trayvon over Zimmerman on the grass. They reported about the demonstrations, they displayed the video of Zimmerman in the police station and the picture of Trayvon with the gangsta-style gold tooth ornament. The only information they didn't pass on were the hacked emails (many of which weren't authentic) and the tweets.

It's not clear to me why part of the conservative media went so negative on Trayvon Martin. It was known that he was unarmed, so why is it important to show Trayvon was a thug?

When You Don't Know Why

I don't have a logical answer to this, so I have to reach for an emotional reason. This story got a lot of traction, and it fits many points that Democrats/liberals/progressives make: there is racial profiling that hurts blacks, even resulting in death; police don't fully investigate the deaths of young black males; black males are presumed to be guilty of something; assailants, even when known, can get away scot-free with killing a young black male. A new concern is that Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law will result in even more deaths of young blacks that aren't investigated or prosecuted.

The story works so well for Democratic/liberal/progressive narrative that conservatives are left grasping at anything they can to lessen the impact of the story. Not all conservatives have felt this need. Many are treating this as largely a legal and police procedural matter where the state investigators and the courts will have to determine if Zimmerman was justified or not. These sane conservatives haven't felt the need to defeat the story.

The others, however, tried to shred the story, criticizing the media (of course, a favorite target), black spokesmen, Obama, Hispanic organizations (for not tribally supporting Zimmerman), the special investigator, and most cravenly, the dead boy.

Why is it so important to defeat the story rather than letting it play out? Is all news a zero-sum game, where the points your opponents can make should be blocked whenever possible, no matter how?

For some partisans, this is undoubtedly true. But why can't some, who have more responsibility because of their roles on news sites, let go of the competition and let the Democrats win those points? Instead, in their unwavering, single-minded tribalism, they try to smear whomever they can, and just end looking like the foul sewer floaters that they have become.

Battle lines

 Photo credit: cleftintherock.org

Extras.

• Measured response by HotAir, Morning Joe, Allen West.
• Examples of needless attacks: at Karen Finney, Daily Caller, more Daily Caller, wagist, Nice Deb, National Review, and Christian News.
• Perhaps the first national reporting of the incident and its significance.
• Critique of local coverage.
• Detailed CNN coverage.
• Minute-by-minute timeline, with contradictions and uncertainties.
• Detailed account of Trayvon's family's actions in the first two weeks afterward. 

Disclosure: I lived in New York at the time of the Tawana Brawley case. I haven't forgiven Sharpton, and there is no way I can be fair or neutral about him.

Updates. There are too many to mention. Click on the label "Trayvon Martin" to see more.