- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 62,972
- Reaction score
- 34,998
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Here they go again. “They” being the outrage-machine, the institutional left. Now that the jury returned the only possible verdict based on the actual evidence in the Zimmerman case, we’re being told we need to have a “national conversation” or an “honest conversation” about race. I would actually welcome an honest discussion about race, but the truth is that’s not the conversation we’re going to have.
You see, an honest discussion about race wouldn’t start with the premise that Trayvon Martin is the Emmett Till of the 21st century. Till was tortured then murdered in cold blood for flirting with a white woman. At the time Trayvon Martin was killed, he was sitting on top of George Zimmerman, pounding Zimmerman’s head into a concrete sidewalk. We’re not having an honest conversation until those things are acknowledged by the people demanding an honest dialogue.
An honest conversation wouldn’t start with completely ignoring the fact that Trayvon Martin was in Sanford, Florida because he had been suspended from school. Right about now is where the hucksters will claim I’m “blaming the victim.” But this is exactly my point. If we’re supposed to be having an open and frank discussion, we also have to look at all the factors that may have led to this tragic incident. No, instead we’re told we’re not allowed to look into why it could be that a 17 year old boy walking home from 7-11 thought confronting an unknown man was an option.
By all accounts, Martin had gotten away. That’s corroborated by Zimmerman’s and Rachel Jeantel’s testimony. Per Zimmerman’s account, Trayvon had run down the path behind the townhomes and was out of sight. Jeantel testified that Trayvon had made it to his father’s backyard – well out of sight from Zimmerman, we now know – when she was on the phone with him that night. If we’re going to have an honest discussion about race, we need to have an honest discussion about why Trayvon Martin chose to go and confront Zimmerman after he had gotten away. I have yet to see one commentator on the subject ask why Martin didn’t call 911. We’re not having an honest discussion about this situation so how can we possibly have an honest dialogue about the broader issue?
I’ve seen many race commentators, even the President, suggesting that Martin was somehow acting out in frustration that he was being followed because he was black. What we do know is that Rachel Jeantel and Martin thought Zimmerman was a “creepy ass cracka.” Why would a normal 17 year old kid go and confront an unknown man he thought was “creepy”? We’re not having that discussion because the race commentators don’t really want to have that discussion.
Unlike President Obama, who tried to say he could have been Trayvon Martin 35 years ago, I actually grew up in a rough part of New York. By the time I was 17, I had seen racism and bigotry from a perspective Obama could never have experienced. I’m a “white Hispanic.” For most of my childhood I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood in Queens called Jamaica. I was the “minority.” In 8th grade my family moved to Woodside which is a “whiter” neighborhood. And guess what? I was the “minority” there too. But it took the bigots a little longer to figure that out because I could pass for an Italian / Mediterranean. I got to see bigots be bigots until the point where they realized I wasn’t one of them. I got to interact with them behind the facade and watched their faces as they realized they’d been exposed. I got to enjoy seeing them try to “make up for it” and be extra nice to me. I’ve seen racism and bigotry from both sides. I was discriminated against by both blacks and whites. Anyway, the point is I took offense at Obama pretending he had some common ground – besides skin color – with Trayvon Martin. I have more common ground with Trayvon than Obama will ever have. And at the age of 17, I would have never confronted a man I didn’t know in a dark alley when I had gotten away and was a few yards from my home. Ever.
But we can’t have that conversation. We’re not allowed to discuss, during this “honest conversation”, the motivations of both people involved in the incident that caused the “honest conversation.” If we were, we’d be discussing the hip-hop culture and its macho bull****. We’d be discussing broken families. We would be discussing street fighting. We would be discussing how a kid gets suspended three times from school. We’d dive into the world Trayvon Martin lived in to see what transpires during 17 years of life that would give someone the idea that jumping a guy you didn’t know was a thing you could do without serious consequences.
But we’re not having that conversation. We’re not being honest.
Instead, we’re getting “Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till.” Instead, we’re getting “You’re a racist if you agree with the jury’s verdict.” Instead, we’re getting “America is a racist country.”
An honest conversation about race? Bring it on.
But that’s not going to happen.
- See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/07/an-honest-conversation-about-race/#sthash.JwruTvFt.dpuf
You see, an honest discussion about race wouldn’t start with the premise that Trayvon Martin is the Emmett Till of the 21st century. Till was tortured then murdered in cold blood for flirting with a white woman. At the time Trayvon Martin was killed, he was sitting on top of George Zimmerman, pounding Zimmerman’s head into a concrete sidewalk. We’re not having an honest conversation until those things are acknowledged by the people demanding an honest dialogue.
An honest conversation wouldn’t start with completely ignoring the fact that Trayvon Martin was in Sanford, Florida because he had been suspended from school. Right about now is where the hucksters will claim I’m “blaming the victim.” But this is exactly my point. If we’re supposed to be having an open and frank discussion, we also have to look at all the factors that may have led to this tragic incident. No, instead we’re told we’re not allowed to look into why it could be that a 17 year old boy walking home from 7-11 thought confronting an unknown man was an option.
By all accounts, Martin had gotten away. That’s corroborated by Zimmerman’s and Rachel Jeantel’s testimony. Per Zimmerman’s account, Trayvon had run down the path behind the townhomes and was out of sight. Jeantel testified that Trayvon had made it to his father’s backyard – well out of sight from Zimmerman, we now know – when she was on the phone with him that night. If we’re going to have an honest discussion about race, we need to have an honest discussion about why Trayvon Martin chose to go and confront Zimmerman after he had gotten away. I have yet to see one commentator on the subject ask why Martin didn’t call 911. We’re not having an honest discussion about this situation so how can we possibly have an honest dialogue about the broader issue?
I’ve seen many race commentators, even the President, suggesting that Martin was somehow acting out in frustration that he was being followed because he was black. What we do know is that Rachel Jeantel and Martin thought Zimmerman was a “creepy ass cracka.” Why would a normal 17 year old kid go and confront an unknown man he thought was “creepy”? We’re not having that discussion because the race commentators don’t really want to have that discussion.
Unlike President Obama, who tried to say he could have been Trayvon Martin 35 years ago, I actually grew up in a rough part of New York. By the time I was 17, I had seen racism and bigotry from a perspective Obama could never have experienced. I’m a “white Hispanic.” For most of my childhood I lived in a predominantly black neighborhood in Queens called Jamaica. I was the “minority.” In 8th grade my family moved to Woodside which is a “whiter” neighborhood. And guess what? I was the “minority” there too. But it took the bigots a little longer to figure that out because I could pass for an Italian / Mediterranean. I got to see bigots be bigots until the point where they realized I wasn’t one of them. I got to interact with them behind the facade and watched their faces as they realized they’d been exposed. I got to enjoy seeing them try to “make up for it” and be extra nice to me. I’ve seen racism and bigotry from both sides. I was discriminated against by both blacks and whites. Anyway, the point is I took offense at Obama pretending he had some common ground – besides skin color – with Trayvon Martin. I have more common ground with Trayvon than Obama will ever have. And at the age of 17, I would have never confronted a man I didn’t know in a dark alley when I had gotten away and was a few yards from my home. Ever.
But we can’t have that conversation. We’re not allowed to discuss, during this “honest conversation”, the motivations of both people involved in the incident that caused the “honest conversation.” If we were, we’d be discussing the hip-hop culture and its macho bull****. We’d be discussing broken families. We would be discussing street fighting. We would be discussing how a kid gets suspended three times from school. We’d dive into the world Trayvon Martin lived in to see what transpires during 17 years of life that would give someone the idea that jumping a guy you didn’t know was a thing you could do without serious consequences.
But we’re not having that conversation. We’re not being honest.
Instead, we’re getting “Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till.” Instead, we’re getting “You’re a racist if you agree with the jury’s verdict.” Instead, we’re getting “America is a racist country.”
An honest conversation about race? Bring it on.
But that’s not going to happen.
- See more at: http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/07/an-honest-conversation-about-race/#sthash.JwruTvFt.dpuf