If you have "no place to go," come here!

If the black Florida teen had shot the white vigilante

lizpolaris's picture

instead of the other way around, I'm fairly certain he'd be in jail right now and prosecutors would find some way to charge him with murder - regardless of his self-defense claim.

Does anyone really doubt this?

Also, the feds are either incompetent or racist as well.

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

... or the killing, for that matter, but thinking of the old frog in the boiling pot metaphor, the whole racism narrative looks to me like which frog broke first, based on whatever character flaws that frog had: For example, racism.

But nobody ever asks who's turning up the put under the frogs, including the Rs or the Ds. We're about to see a ton of self-reinforcing narrative from the both of them. Needless to say, the 2008 experience made me very leery of Ds and "progressive" claims of racism, since there was no good faith behind them at all (even though racism is real and bad, which made their use of it all the worse).

I'd almost go so far as saying that any narrative that doesn't hold the 1% responsible is a distraction, certainly one that scales to the mass media (and I'm perfectly willing to call the 1% a patriarchy because, well, they are....)

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

this seems to be a very straight forward case of a man who wanted to kill black people and a white police chief who does not regard that as a crime. But Susie had a good point on the "stand your ground" law.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

for the Florida prosecutor's inexplicable lack of ability to charge a killer with a crime and get him off the streets, at least for a while.

Finding a way in this story to rachet up the political angle - to talk about blaming the 1% or the Ds or the Rs - is the wrong way to get justice for this kid and his family.

Calling out racism (I'm wondering how much clearer is the definition of a hate crime than walking while black?) is not a distraction. It's why we're here. It's the point. (One of the points, anyway.) It's why we're interested in politics - to help make it a just and free country, to walk around in. Exploiting this story for political points would be backward.

Submitted by lambert on


Everybody wants justice for his stupid, shitty death and for his grieving family.

But justice is the thing you go after only after someone has caused harm. Never before.

I'd rather have fucking safety, equality, and a society that functions for everyone than after-the-fact justice. I think Trayvon's parents would rather have him alive and happy and unknown than some martyr for Kids and People of Color who are killed by racists.

Justice doesn't actually fix what it broken. It just gives some measure of relief for the ones left behind.

Which leads me to the phrase Social Justice.

I'm cutting here because I'm not sure I agree with her solution, but justice for Trayvon Martin isn't the same as social justice. Both are necessary, but only one is sufficient...

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Is to say that justice advocates can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Yes, the 1% is fucking us over, and yes the 1% wants us fighting each other over stuff like race and equality, but that doesn't make them directly responsible for Zimmerman's actions, and to call Zimmerman's actions racist, doesn't mean that you say this shit happens in a void.

Liss has a great post about this, Their Bootstraps Made Them Do It, which ties together the policies and the 1% and how the policies they advocate lead to shit like this, and how it leads people to refuse to see how it's connected.

Submitted by lambert on

Let's just say that all those involved here (not that the poster is doing this) aren't necessarily justice advocates, eh? We're quite familiar with bad faith uses of racism from 2008.

I don't think of this as a distraction. I see it as a subset/superset issue. Every picture has a bigger picture has a bigger picture has a bigger picture...