Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
To keep the discussion going and to not be silenced just because people (in general) insist on telling Blacks when to speak and when to shut up.
People of the African diaspora are among the few power minority groups around the world who are expected to be forgiving, apologetic, get over it, and shut up when members of the white majority (and individuals of the African diaspora (like that OP-ED piece to Paula Deen) who decide that they, themselves, are over it) tell them to do so.
They are already accomplishing one thing: People are still talking about it and those who are outraged (not only Black people) are finding a nonviolent, visible voice.
The government and Trayvon Martin's family can decide whether to appeal, civil suit, or whatever else.
Now some people are angry at President Obama as though he is the first President to discuss certain court outcomes and racial dynamics. President Obama is the first Black President to do so which of course means that some white people have selective memory and are outraged.
I do not disagree with the verdict because the prosecution was lacking for a number of reasons, including politics and lack of evidence to prove what the prosecution has the legal obligation to prove. That means Zimmerman is legally not guilty in a criminal case. That does not mean the world has to shut up about Trayvon Martin and the larger dynamics that are prevalent before and after Trayvon Martin.
Some people are still talking about Martin's backpack that was taken by an SRO at school and whether Martin was a burglar. After-the-fact questioning whether Martin was a burglar (who conveniently was out of burglar mode and just chilling that night with Skittles, apparently) is no different than questioning what Zimmerman was. The difference is Zimmerman is alive to tell his own story and claim self-defense, be investigated, and be brought to trial. Lucky, lucky, Zimmerman.
|
I don't have a problem with them having a voice, and there are people who are protesting for good reasons. But I do have a problem when people claim that the only reason Zimmerman was found not guilty is because Zimmerman is white and Trayvon is black. IMO, based on the evidence and what was presented in court, the jury essentially had no choice but to return with a not guilty verdict. That's the law. Our judicial process doesn't rely on feelings and hunches; it relies on facts. And there weren't enough facts presented at trial to convict.
And the only thing the president said that I had an issue with was, "If Trayvon was white, there may have been a different outcome." The reason being - there are two separate racial issues here. The first being whether or not Zimmerman acted based on Trayvon's race, and the second being whether or not the jury acted the way they did for the same reason. I think it's difficult for some people to separate the two. The president's statement could be interpreted two different ways - either Zimmerman might have made a decision based on race, or the jury might have - and because of that, I think he, probably inadvertantly, could have added more fuel to the fire. Just my opinion.