Forums → WEPR → George Zimmermann Found Not Guilty
| 112 | 48753 |
- 112 Replies
ps Do not miss that final CAP link in Cole's piece: The Top 10 Most Startling Facts About People of Color and Criminal Justice in the United States (March 2012).
... Then for a rather less subtle view, making it easy to take all the stabs you want :
Louis Proyect, the Unrepentant Marxist: Thoughts on a post-racial lynching.
[quote=Sonatavarius]Last time I checked it was black on black violence that started and fueled their slavery in the first place. It was white people that freed them. [/quote]
Are you, btw, by any chance quite insane, or merely loving to make a show out of it?
Are you, btw, by any chance quite insane, or merely loving to make a show out of it?
Nope, he's quite right. In Africa, tribes would go to war with each other. The losers would be captured and enslaved. When the Dutch (I think) came, they offered payments (often rum or factory-made weapons) to the tribe leaders in order to get those slaves, which would enable them to win more wars to get more slaves. Although the Atlantic trade has stopped, slavery has existed in Africa for likely thousands of years and is still going on today.
There was slave trade in Africa yes, which the colonials tapped into. They didn't invent it. (Nor of course and conversely was it ever unique to Africa.)
That is about the only bit of truth in there. I wouldn't exactly call it "black on black violence" (um, all blacks? As it may be noted not all "tribes would go to war with each other," itself something of a gross oversimplification.)
As for good ol' honkey then being so kind as to come along and "free" them from it, sheesh. Give me outright racism over this kind of stupidity if not blatant revisionism, any time.
There was slave trade in Africa yes, which the colonials tapped into. They didn't invent it. (Nor of course and conversely was it ever unique to Africa.)
That is about the only bit of truth in there. I wouldn't exactly call it "black on black violence" (um, all blacks? As it may be noted not all "tribes would go to war with each other," itself something of a gross oversimplification.)
As for good ol' honkey then being so kind as to come along and "free" them from it, sheesh. Give me outright racism over this kind of stupidity if not blatant revisionism, any time.
^ I agree. (Not with honkey... just, the rest.)
Those numbers are so far fewer than the numbers of black children put into their graves by their black murderers it's ridiculous!
I'm pretty sure this is a problem because there are a lot of black people in poor urban areas. And poor urban areas happen to have a lot of crime. The problem with that is poverty, instead of (possible) racism.
His testimony that he gave several times prior to not taking the stand at the actual hearing said (if I remember correctly) that he told TM that there was nothing to worry about and that he was neighborhood watch making sure nothing was up"... only to be told "you're going to die tonight."
Am I the only one who thinks that sounds a little ridiculous? Besides us not knowing whether his testimony is true or not -I agree we can't know-, that just sounds like it was made up to me. I can't imagine anyone having such a violent response for no reason.
Zimmerman is hispanic
That doesn't change anything. What, like all minorities stick together or something? I've meet plenty of racist hispanics, plenty of racist blacks. People thought this was racist because he felt the need to get out of his car to investigate the random black kid on the street (and possibly for other reasons). Again, I'm not saying he was racist, just that saying he's hispanic (when he's not even fully hispanic, and probably wouldn't be considered hispanic) doesn't mean he isn't racist.
there was a case cited tonight where a black man gunned down a 17 year old white kid in new york in the past few years when the kid charged him but never touched him. That man was justified in his actions according to the information present (he was acquitted, eeerrrmmmaaageeerrrdd) and you can't tell me that you know that GZ wasn't justified in his.
Really? Can you give a link? I would assume the kid at least had a knife in his hand or something... If not, the situation is just as bad, and it's pretty terrible he got away.
I agree with you that we can't know for sure what happened. If George's story was true or false, or who started the fight first. I also agree that Trayvon could have beat up George. But, I don't feel like him being "hispanic" should be brought up at all. He could be asian, hispanic, white, (possibly even black) and this would still be an issue.
I wouldn't exactly call it "black on black violence"
The death toll from four centuries of the Atlantic slave trade is estimated at 10 million. According to William Rubinstein, "... of these 10 million estimated dead blacks, possibly 6 million were killed by other blacks in African tribal wars and raiding parties aimed at securing slaves for transport to America." [...] According to David Stannard's American Holocaust, 50% of African deaths occurred in Africa as a result of wars between native kingdoms, which produced the majority of slaves.[65]
-wiki
What would you call it?
um, all blacks?
If you mean in the sense that those involved in the fighting were from Africa, yes. If you mean in the sense that everyone in every tribe in Africa fought, no, and I never said they did.
As for good ol' honkey then being so kind as to come along and "free" them from it, sheesh.
I'd argue that being a slave in the US was generally better than being a slave in Africa on just about every level. Food/water quality, death rate, life expectancy, housing, education, freedoms (even the chance of being freed), that it ended here, etc. I'm not saying that the slavery itself was good or justified by this, just that one location was an overall improvement from another by comparison. No different than saying something like Japanese POW camps were generally worse than British ones in WWII based on relevant factors.
I stated he is Hispanic because people are still saying its an example of white on black racism. They do it to the point of creating a new ethnicity just to keep white in the word. White Hispanic is what they call him now. I've seen people return with... "Ok... So that means we have a white black president?" Only to be told "no, he be black." My whole intention was not to say that minorities can't be racist, but to say that hate mongers keep using it to promote white and black conflict where there is none but what they themselves continue to make!
The case of the black man justifiably gunning down the white kid happened in New York and was cited on CNN last night. That's as much as I can give you,
I don't believe we've said that every African tribe raped pillaged plundered and enslaved. We said that there were those who did. That's how black people made it to America... Their bretheren shipped them there. It was not that uncommon for any ancient civilization/culture to have slaves. You either killed the people in your way or you enslaved them in some fashion. The purpose of this was to say that I keep seeing people on the news ****ing white people over having owned slaves hundreds of years ago and that their still is a racial friction maintained in the current day. My main point is that although there is the existence of said phenomena that problem has always paled in comparison with the black on black violence that has been in this world for way longer than the existence of black vs white racism. Black people owned black people in this world when white people did...black people brutalized black people during the same time... Black people destroyed the lives of other black people and their families at the same time as white people....and excluding the slave part (in America and "officially" in every country) black people are responsible for way more of it now than racists are... But everyone ignores that tid bit.
I keep seeing statements about how the progress of black people is hindered by racism in America... I'm taking the stand that says that is not true. They are their own worst enemy as far as not "rogressing" ethnically as a whole. If anything, racism has made sure that they have legislation that works in their favor.. that makes sure that under educated minorities have an unfair advantage over fellow better educated and suited applicants.
I know what xzeno is going to say already...(bc he's said it before) "But it makes things how they should be in an ideal world!!!" That's a load of horse crap. In an ideal world they would've had the credentials worthy of earning it. At medical schools that wouldn't accept me for anything less than a (over the nat avg) 30 on the mcat I've witnessed certain ethnic people's bragging about getting in with 20's and 21's(and even less than that!). That's a huge gap in performance, btw. Making the world look on the surface as if it were ideal is not in any way actually progressing it toward the ideal! The proper term for that is "gilding." It's where you take a heaping steaming pile of horse crap and paint it gold and maybe spritz it with febreeze a little to quit having to cry yourself to sleep at night bc you don't have a giant pile of gold. Creating a false ideal world =\\\\= creating an ideal world. If you truly want the world fixed then you set up tutoring centers and help teach them what they need to know to bring their performance up to par. Lowering the bar does not help a people do anything. It only helps the individual make out like a bandit and screws with statistics so that you think you've done something. Your cake is a lie, Xzeno!
I'll gladly bow to anyone who bests me and deserves the prize over me... Be they had better have to jump the same hurdle as me at the same height. Saying I have to through a 10lb shot put 50 yards while someone else only has to throw a baseball 30 just by virtue of their skin tone or gender is racism/sexism against me. That's not to say that these laws aren't needed at times when a perfectly intelligent black woman wrongfully gets overlooked for a stupid white man of vastly weaker credentials.
You guys were right when you said the ethnicity doesn't matter! Now kindly make the world stop mislabeling him as white!
Two of the black individuals on DrDru (I think that's the guy on CNN) made comments that didn't sit well with me. They both said that they tell their children in the same manner as might go the traditional sex talk the "black and white talk." They said they told them "white people , some but not all, want to kill you, they want to hurt you, they want to see you suffer, they want to hurt you, etc... All simply bc they're white and racist." ...and in the next breath they complain about stereotyping and profiling when of the two opposing views it is statistical that they'd be better off telling the kids to only hang out with white kids. I maintain the position that a black youth surrounded by a coliseum full of white Mississippians is safer than if the same youth were surrounded by a coliseum filled with black people from Illonois. A black man on the O'reily factor cited that it has been recorded and documented that Jesse James (or one of the famous N double the hate C P people) has admitted to being more afraid of random black men apperoaching him on the street than he is white men! ...obviously, if true that makes him racist against black people!
You think it's too absurd that someone could possibly randomly turn around and explode in such a fashion as to assault and try and kill someone without warning? That's cute. People do it all of the time. It's possible GZ legitimately got away with murder and its also possible the kid legitimately wanted to beat him to death. The bit of info that gets me the most is that trayvvon most likely engaged Zimmerman with violence first. He was basically at his house at the first encounter when he ran off down the road away from his house only to engage a fat man who couldn't keep up with him off road to save his life. He should've just run into his house and called the cops himself on Zimmerman in the first place! ...Or called them from his cell phone.. He made his decisions for whatever his reasons were... And they just don't make sense.
People say Zimmerman profiled the kid... And to that I call bull crap. So what if the last few people he called in were black? What if he did that with everyone he didn't know at 1:30 in the morning and it just so happened that those people just happened to be black? The simple facts of what time it was, the history of recent burglaries (I think), and that he didn't know the kid are enough to cause suspicion. If that doesn't cause suspicion, then I don't know what does aside from watching them actually break in. If there were break ins then it doesn't seem like anyone was caught. Losing thieves to the twenty-thirty minute wait time for a cop to get there basically just makes sure the cop gets there to say "yup... You had a break in." There's nothing wrong with getting out of a car and confronting someone verbally. "I live over there and you scared me, so I ran" is all he had to say... He was a minor. the only thing theyd do would be to take him home. Yet for some reason he ended up in the ground and pound position beating George's head into the concrete. Reconcile the fact that TM appears to be the initial violent aggressor with little to know warning for Zimmerman (how else do you knock a man 2.5x your size down and get the best of him when he also has a gun?) in a reasonable manner you will have removed the bulk of my misgivings for this trial
What would you call it?
I was thinking the same thing. But then I figured he meant that since everyone is black, calling it black on black is like... odd. Like if there was a murder in the U.S and we called it, American on American.
I'd argue that being a slave in the US was generally better than being a slave in Africa on just about every level. Food/water quality, death rate, life expectancy, housing, education, freedoms (even the chance of being freed), that it ended here, etc.
I think I was taught that when slavery first started the slave masters often worked their slaves to death. Also the trip over was pretty brutal. Also, I thought they made sure almost all the slaves were uneducated? (But that's not my point anyway)
It was that whites "freed" them after they enslaved them. And they enslaved them because they were racist. I'm sure there was racism in Africa too, but again a lot of black on black violence is motivated by poverty. Poverty is a lot harder to handle than racism. There's always going to be poor people, and the people who care the most are too poor to do anything about it. That's a big part of the reason people don't get so upset over black on black. A lot of it is gang violence, which is due to poverty, and we can't expect to change poverty much (especially not in this economy). But this is off topicâ¦
I stated he is Hispanic because people are still saying its an example of white on black racism. They do it to the point of creating a new ethnicity just to keep white in the word. White Hispanic is what they call him now.
Ah I see. You'd understandably be mad about people always trying to imply that it was racist without proof. But "White Hispanic" is like "African American", or "Dominican American" right? Even though I don't often hear people use both ethnicity's I guess they just do it when they feel both are important.
You guys were right when you said the ethnicity doesn't matter! Now kindly make the world stop mislabeling him as white!
It's not a mislabel. He's half white. And he's american...
You think it's too absurd that someone could possibly randomly turn around and explode in such a fashion as to assault and try and kill someone without warning? ...
Yes? You'd have to have something seriously wrong with you to do that... But the testimony from jeol's link seems more likely. Is that what you were talking about?
He was basically at his house at the first encounter when he ran off down the road away from his house only to engage a fat man who couldn't keep up with him off road to save his life.
Well at least according to what zimmerman said. I personally don't have much faith in it. But I don't really have evidence for any other story either.
Sorry for just jumping in, but I have a fact survey that goes over some misrepresented information.
That was interesting. I think it might be a little biased, but it seems to have a lot of useful information. Some of it was unnecessary though...
In my opinion, Zimmerman had every right to suspise a young black man who was strolling around in the rain looking at all the houses (#41)
How hard was he looking at the houses to be suspicious? I would think if you're trying to get home looking around at the houses is pretty normal.
Like if there was a murder in the U.S and we called it, American on American.
Since the tribes were often culturally different, I'd say it's more similar to a group of Irishmen attacked by a group of Brits being called "white on white violence". They're very similar, but culturally different enough to keep an "Us vs Them" mentality. Obviously, "white on white" or "black on black" violence isn't usually caused by having the same skin color.
It's a mislabel. He's half white just like the president is. I see stories on CNN referencing other crimes saying that they're eerily similar to the TM v GZ case in how a white man gunned down a young black man. He's Hispanic with white heritage. You have to put him in horrible lighting to even mistake him for something other than Hispanic.
The media and its people continue to feed the racism by looking through hate tinted lenses. Every crime or instance ending badly between a relatively white looking person and a black person is going to be presented as racism with white v black highlights. Hate mongering organizations and the individuals that comprise them will blow everything out of proportion. They use w v b only to just describe the involved individuals bc it creates hate where there was none. I'm saying why should we have a double standard like that? Lets acknowledge white v white cases and black v black cases. Just because you state the ethnicity doesn't mean it has to have played a part. It simply a statistical aid. If people saw a representation of the data that did reality justice we might just start to progress forward a bit. What the media does is damaging. It's like what the JAWS movies did. It makes everyone afraid of the GREAT WHITEY to the point of not going into the water anymore when the greater danger statistically is your fellow black peer. 
Here is Great Whitey and what is symbolic of the black man. As a black man, the black man is a much greater threat to you.
Considering that the bulk of Africans in Africa are riddled with std's, genetic disorders, and insect transmitted diseases I'd say its a hard decision to choose which was worse... Slavery or staying where they were. (Not really)
Slaves were treated about the same throughout history. Some maybe had it a little better than others, but that's immaterial. I'm not going to be guilted or shamed over something that happened 400 years ago. They didn't have slaves bc they were racist. They had slaves bc slavery was normal. They just happened to be racist. All sorts of people have owned other sorts of people throughout time. Why are we only stuck up on the last group of people it happened to? Are you telling me that just being black merits that we care more about the slavery that happened to them over AAALLLLL of the other slaves that have ever been? That's just downright racist and hateful
[quote=dair5]I was thinking the same thing. But then I figured he meant that since everyone is black, calling it black on black is like... odd. Like if there was a murder in the U.S and we called it, American on American.[/quote]
You got that right.
I'll be back on this, if I do; hadn't realized one would need to carefully argue the merits of one form of slavery against another, let alone the idea that this had ever been the intention of said trade. (Or that it was Africans shipping those slaves off abroad, er, no, that's not how historically it went down.)
If I do, I'll be touching on the notion that Africa was all "tribal" while I'm at it. Or slavery universal within Africa, etc.
Who is right and who is wrong and verdict or racially motivated and yada yada we can all argue about to death; some historical facts however hopefully we can agree it would be nice to see standing as, well, objective facts. Whomever penned what or cited whom over at Wikipedia notwithstanding.
On this Zimmerman being Hispanic btw, what surprises me as a European is that apparently you see those people as being "of color."
Interesting thing, I guess you should go ask it of Latin peoples in the Mediterranean or South and Central America.
[quote=Sonatavarius]I'm not going to be guilted or shamed over something that happened 400 years ago.[/quote]
Just recently, we in the Netherlands celebrated the 150-year anniversary of the abolition of slavery.*
That's 150 years ago, folks. Think about it. That's only yesterday. Think we got civilized much and have a right to pound ourselves on the chests, in a mere one and a half century? I know people whose great-grandparents were slaves still, I'm sure you can speak to them in the USA, too.
* In fact, in the Dutch colonies or "overseas territories" they were formally set free, but for another decade were legally required to still work for their "owners," now as "free" men. This not to unduly hinder said owners with this sudden switch in their production modes. I guess it gave them time to turn to indentured labor instead, now hauling in the Javanese Balinese Chinese Indians etc.
Person of color was not the phrase I used. They are descended from a different culture and ethnically speaking the half life of the melanin in their skin is different from mine. If you choose to use that phrase as a descriptor, then that's your decision. I choose to acknowledge the difference because there is one. Our culture and heritage are different. If a race of humans developed separate of caucasians of earth on the moon and they just happened to be of light complexion... And they just happened to have an altercation with a black person then it'd still be wrong to call it white v black. It would instead be humoon v black. Over generalizing everyone into white so that everything that's not black on black crime is wrong. It's just a means of furthering the hate. Who is next to be caucasianified? Vietnamese people?
I couldn't care less if slavery only ended fourish generations over there. You're obviously more racist and hate filled than we are. I have all sorts of fresh off the boat friends whose still non English speaking parents came over with absolutely nothing and have still made great lives for themselves. If generation zero from all of these other cultures are still doing great for themselves while they can't even speak English all that well, then slavery 400, 150, or even 50 years ago isn't a very good excuse for anything. Great Whitey isn't the problem so much as the plethora of other factors at play
You must be logged in to post a reply!