What a preposterous statement by many people in the Right Wing of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, to call Barack Obama our first “racist” President, because of his detailed, courageous, principled statement about race yesterday before White House reporters!
What Obama said about young black men growing up in America is absolutely true, and despicable, and Obama made it clear that he had, personally, experienced the same racism, and all that talk show hosts can do is throw the appellation “racist” at the President, rather than admit the history of the country, and the reality of the profiling of blacks in 2013, along with Hispanics and Latinos as well!
And the Right Wing chooses to ignore history, probably affected by fake historian David Barton, who promotes a sanitized view of American history, and has had a dramatic effect on textbook companies, pressuring them to write myths, rather than facts, about American history!
The facts are as follows:
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary Taylor all owned and exploited slaves, and some of them had children with their slaves, what could be called rape situations!
Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren forcibly removed Native Americans, the infamous “Trail of Tears”, while in office; and William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson, and Zachary Taylor all gained their original fame by killing Native Americans, and bragging about it!
Andrew Johnson was probably the most outspoken racist President, and made it clear in working against the Freedmen’s Bureau continuation after the Civil War!
Ulysses S. Grant warred against Native Americans during his Presidency in a massive campaign to take away their lands!
Republican Presidents after Grant ignored violations of civil rights by Southerners, beginning with the fixed election of Rutherford B. Hayes on a promise to end military occupation of the South and let Democrats take care of their own states, and promoting racial segregation, Jim Crow laws!
Woodrow Wilson demonstrated strong racist tendencies and views during his administration, catering to the Southern Democratic heritage of his boyhood!
Many Presidents in their writings displayed racist thoughts, and some did so in speech at times, including Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan (who talked about welfare queens).
Only since Truman has it been fashionable to be FOR civil rights, but even then, Nixon and Ronald Reagan worked against civil rights any opportunity they were given!
So we have at least 18 Presidents who were racists, or displayed racist tendencies, toward African Americans and Native Americans in different forms!
So the concept that Barack Obama is a racist for speaking up on injustices toward people of his heritage is outrageous, ridiculous, and preposterous to the extreme!
Do you hear that?—Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and the rest of their ilk?
I agree! Such a statement is preposterous! They definitely need a good look in the mirror at themselves!
When I clear away, or at least try to clear away, all the rubbish and foolishness that has been circulating around this tragedy, I still cannot understand why this issue was made about race. The prosecution hasn’t made it about race, there are no evidence that Mr. Zimmerman began suspecting of Martin because of his race and his private life suggest that he is not a racist either. As I recall it was the 911 operator who first asked Zimmerman about the race of the “suspect”, and Zimmerman had to get a closer look to reply “he looks black”. So if Zimmerman didn’t have race in his mind when he started in the first place, then why on earth is this issue revolving around race? At first when I read the headlines I thought Zimmerman was white, I mean white as Bill Clinton, then I see his picture and he is not as white but rather olive skinned, and looks more like Jorge than George. But the press kept telling me he was white?! Then, they changed and said he was white Hispanic. OK, but he is not white Hispanic, he is olive skinned Hispanic. I know Hispanics who are white, I mean white as Chris Mathews. So the press confuses a culture, Hispanic culture, with race, which can be white, black,olive skinned, Asian, or mixture of Spanish European with native Indians, thus we have mestizo, which seems to fit George Zimmerman’s race. His mother is Peruvian, Meza is her last name, and she is olive skinned. What I guess I am trying to say is that we in America have a tremendous confusion when we talk about race. Not all white’s are Anglo-Saxon/Germanic descendant. There are Spaniards, Portuguese and Italian who are white. And even in those countries, mainly in the south , like Spain and Italy , the have a mixture of olive skinned people due to the Moors invasions. It’s seem to me there is a terrible confusion and ignorance on this subject matter.
@Robert
Zimmerman created this situation. He followed Martin, with announced aggressive intentions, cursing that he was going to “get away.†He ignored the police dispatcher who told him to desist. If Martin did attack Zimmerman at that point, shouldn’t it have been Martin who was protected by Stand Your Ground? MARTIN was acting in self-defense, not the raving thug who was following him. Zimmerman creates the confrontation, and then gets off on self-defense for shooting the person he targeted, followed and menaced? That is absolutely insane! No matter what the jury believed about the actual fight, Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Without his actions, there’s no confrontation, and Martin could not possibly have posed a threat to him. It’s as simple as that.
The issues of race and the Zimmerman case are right and wrong but I don’t really feel like going into huge detail about why it is one way or the other.
What I would like to say is a life of a 17 year old kid was taken for no reason…..like there ever could be a good reason. 🙁
The things going on in our country and the world concerning race and different cultures IS NOT OK!!!! We all live on this 3rd rock from the sun! Not one of us had anything to do with what color our skin is. What we have is a human on human problem and it’s never going to stop until people change. Hatred, bigotry, racism, greed, selfishness, none of it is advances us as a human race.
I feel strongly that if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
I must commend all three of you–Robert, Princess Leia, and Maggie for your insights, as you all make excellent points! This is the kind of discussion I like to see on here, so thanks to all of you!
Leia: If I look at someone in my neighborhood, someone I have never seen before, just out of curiosity and lets say I even follow him, does that give that person the right to break my nose? I really find it hard to believe that if someone is like, lets say looking at me or even following me, that would give me the right to break his nose and stomp his head against the curb. The normal reaction would be to ask the person if he needed any help, or if he needs to tell me something, not go and punch him breaking his nose and then bang his head against the floor. You seem to justify Martin behavior. Just because someone looks at you or even thinks you are suspicious does not give you the right to attack physically that person. Someone looking at you is not an aggression. At least in my book. And if Martin felt that was the case, why didn’t he call 911, wouldn’t that be a normal reaction if you feel that you are being followed? Call the police and say I need assistance. I wonder why that wasn’t Martin first reaction? Could it be because he was raised in a cop-hating culture? If so, then who is really responsible? What did Martin grow up learning and hearing from lets say the music he heard? But I digress. Now if you somehow suggest that Martin had that right due to past racial injustices then I really do not comprehend. So now that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating his head against the ground, what should Zimmerman have done? Should he have let Martin continue banging his head? Should he had let Martin kill him? Did Zimmerman have an option to retreat to a safe place? What would you do in Zimmerman place?
Hmmm, Robert, you again bring up an interesting approach and perspective, which will cause all of us to think hard about a different way to look at this tragedy, although maybe not accepting it on face value. You are a great contributor, so keep it coming!
@Robert
Ever since Zimmerman was arrested, there were too many inconsistencies in his story and his injuries that made me very highly skeptical of his version of events.
@Leia: I really don’t know about that. What I do know is that Martin’s friend, Jaentel, stated that she believed Martin initiated the attack. What I do know it that the only witness who got a glimpse of the incident, saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. What I do know is that Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries on the back of his head. What I do know is that Martin is dead. And finally what I do know is that unfortunately the only injury Martin had was the gun shot wound. Which indicates to me that Martin was not the one on the receiving end of any fight but was the one doing the hitting. Finally my personal experience, and I believe common sense, tells me, that if I am getting clobbered I would be the screaming for help, but if I am the one doing the clobbering I would not be the one screaming for help. The rest is pure speculation and I cannot condemn anyone on pure speculation.
I believe it was Trayvon screaming for help because of the youthful tenor of the voice and I don’t believe one can yell “help†so persistently while their head is supposedly being pounded against a sidewalk 25 or so times.
This blog sums up my thoughts exactly about the case: http://www.bluethenation.com/2013/07/13/why-george-zimmerman-got-away-with-it/
A great article, Princess Leia! Thanks!
Hello Professor,
Help me remember….on the Nixon tapes, I know he could be heard using a lot of profanity…. and there was the use of the “N” word?
I also want to make note that the level of constructive conversation is so pleasurable.
Thomas Jefferson is quoted, “The success of a Democracy is based on the art of truth.” Let’s keep up the good work.
I think they were talking about the Black Panthers in Oakland, CA. who were walking the streets with loaded weapons to police their own neighborhoods.
This was the results of the regular police who kept doing “Rodney King” type policing of the black citizens.
Of course the problem was as the Nixon Administration saw it (which included Dick Cheney & Rumsfeld) was there were a bunch of black radicals walking the street with loaded weapons.
YES, Engineer, Nixon used the N word a lot on the Watergate tapes!
Leia: Were you also outraged with Roderick Scott when he claimed he killed 17 Christopher Cervini in self-defense? Bear in mind that Cervini was also unarmed but unlike Martin, Cervini did not lay a hand on Scott. Scott was charged with manslaughter and the jury acquitted him. This happened in Rochester New York, no Stand Your Ground Law that means Scott had the duty to retreat. I really don’t recall the rallies in favor of Cervini back then, do you? Were Cervini parents invited to CNN? What did President Obama say about the death of Cervini? What about Eric Holder? http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490556/roderick-scott-claims-self-defense-in-teen-s-shooting/
http://radioviceonline.com/media-roderick-scott-not-guilty-manslaugter-self-defense-shooting-chris-cervini/
I’ve never heard of that case, so I can’t comment about that.
That dern Hanity! He said that Trayvon deserved what he got because he had marijuana in his system. Someone needs to take that hateful man’s show off the air!
Totally agree about that Jane Doe!
I did some research concerning the Roderick Scott case.
A HUGE difference in the Roderick Scott case was the kid was actually COMMITTING A CRIME… Roderick wasn’t just assuming he was a criminal… he was in the act and it was a REAL ACTUAL CRIME…
Trayvon was committing no crime… had never been arrested and had only gotten in trouble at school…
Also, Trayvon was alone and there were two other guys in the Scott case, he was outnumbered…
Sounds pretty different to me.
You have to understand that Sean Hannity, like other conservative talk show hosts, makes his income in dividing people, promoting hate and prejudice, and in judging others by a standard that is hypocritical. Here is a man who dropped out of college, and has never done anything positive in his life.
Considering how many people have used marijuana, including many conservatives, this is typical of Hannity. And I say this with the fact that I have never used marijuana, but do not judge people by that fact. And this is another example of someone who professes religiosity, and like too many, has no compassion ultimately, and what could be worse than that?
Thanks, Jane Doe, for the comparison of the Scott case to the Trayvon Martin case! They are, indeed, quite different!
Thanks for that post about the Roderick Scott case Jane Doe. To second what the Professor said, they are definitely different.
Good morning Jane:
Would you be kind enough to forward me the link with video or audio where Hannity expressly says that Trayvon Martin deserved what he got (that is killed) because he had marijuana in his system? I’m really interested in that information.
Also concerning the Scott case I have a few observations.
1. Does the fact that Cervini with 2 other accomplices were committing a theft means that Scott could take justice into his own hands?
2. Does this mean that if Martin was lets hypothetically say also committing a theft, then Zimmerman had a right to kill him?
3. As far as I know, all the self defense laws do not allow you to use deadly force to defend yours or someone else’s property. In other words the use of deadly force is not a justification for the defense of property. Cervini was committing a theft.
4. Today people are up in arms trying to change the stand your ground law in Florida, which is only one of the thirty one states that have stand your ground statutes. These laws mainly state that you don’t have an obligation to retreat wherever you may legally be when you have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger or that you will suffer serious bodily harm. The states that don’t have these laws, that just go by the common law rule of self defense , shift the burden on the victim putting the victim on the obligation to retreat to safety first, if the victim believes he can reasonably do so. The burden is on the victim to prove he didn’t. The state New York follows this common law rule of self defense. So comparing Scott and Zimmerman we have that:
a. Scott was not even touched by Cervini,
b. Scott could have retreated as a matter of fact he had the legal obligation to retreat,
c. Scott also came out of the safety of his home with the gun in his hand,
d. Scott confronted the 3 kids with his gun pulled out.
e. Cervini who was drunk ran towards Scott unarmed , yet Scott shot him twice, knowing that Cervini was unarmed.
So, Scott did not retreat when he could have. He in the end when he came out to confront the thieves, threatened them with a gun, threatened to use deadly force and eventually killed Cervini, all in the defense of property. This was in New York where they do not have a Stand your Ground Statute. Yet a jury of his peers found him not guilty because they believed the acted in self-defense and that was that. No protest,no rallies, no outcry. Could it be because many, as you seem to also, believe that Cervini deserved it, so it was OK for Scott to kill him? Or maybe the case just doesn’t fit certain political agenda and narrative, thus the national media, pundits and usual race baiters ignored it? Would this case be virtually unknown if Scott had been white, I mean really white not like Zimmerman, and Cervini black?
Zimmerman on the other hand;
a. Did not take out his gun when he got out of the car. And I even grant you that is was a dumb mistake to get out of the car, but remember that the 911 operator made contradictory statements. First “we don’t need you to do that” and second the asked Zimmerman “where is he now can you see him?” So what do you do? Stay put or don’t lose sight of Martin?
b. Zimmerman was attacked by Martin.
c. Zimmerman had no place to retreat even if he wanted to once Martin got on top of him.
d. And finally Zimmerman acted used deadly force, not to defend any property,but because he reasonably believed his life was in danger as Martin was banging his head against the street.
So the fact that Cervini was committing a theft, and that Martin was not, once the confrontation begins for purposes of self defense it is irrelevant. You are of course in your right to believe Cervini “deserved what he got” because he was drunk and committing a crime. But I thought we in America all agreed, progressives included, that no one has the right to take justice into their own hands.
@Robert
Regarding people being angered by the Zimmerman verdict, some words of advice to you: Get over it!
Here is the news about what Hannity said: http://www.newshounds.us/joe_scarborough_slams_hannity_over_trayvon_martin_and_george_zimmerman_07222013
Thanks, Jane Doe! Sean Hannity has been promoting bigotry and race baiting for a long time, and profiting from it, and it is time for sponsors to punish this, by withdrawing, as many have done from Rush Limbaugh!
Imagine, even demagogue Michael Savage is critical of Hannity, as he is stealing the thunder of all of these ‘salesmen”, who would not know the truth if it hit them in the face, as they live and prosper on lies, deceit, hatred, racism, bigotry, and enough stupid people listening and watching and following them!
These characters legitimize the bigotry and racism and hatred of ordinary citizens who think that if Hannity or Limbaugh or other hate mongers say it, it is fine to have those views, but it is NEVER alright to have such despicable views and teach them to our children!
This is the true disease in this nation, the power of propagandists who make money off hate and division! I am glad to see Joe Scarborough denounce Hannity, who needs to suffer for what he has done too often over the years!
@Robert
Leia has done an excellent job of posting the truth about the Zimmerman case. Since you are determined not to believe the truth, I second what she said: You need to get over it!
Jane, thanks but this is not what I asked for. I though you had a video or audio of Hannity saying Martin deserved what he got because he smoked marijuana. This is just Scarborough at MSNBC a left wing propaganda media outlet giving his own opinion on what supposedly Hannity said or thinks. If you could please provide audio or tape where Hannity explicitly says or even implies somehow that Martin deserved what he got I would really appreciate it.
Leia: As for people protesting the verdict with mob-like mentality, I really don’t care. I never really cared about ignorant mobs.
@Roberto aka Guano in disguise:
They’re NOT ignorant mobs! Of course, since you don’t believe the truth, you obviously won’t believe that either.
Lulz! I don’t have any pity for Faux “News” sheeple.
Good one Leia! 🙂
Jane, all I am asking for if you have the audio or video where Hannity says explicitly or even implies that Martin deserved what he got. That is all. If you do not have it then that is fine. I just do not know why you seem to be angry at me.
I agree with Robert that there is no need for anger, and we should all be civil!
It was said on Hannity’s radio show over the weekend: http://www.mediaite.com/online/hannity-blasts-obamas-claim-that-trayvon-couldve-been-me-both-smoked-pot-did-a-little-blow/
Professor
He made me angry because of his “ignorant mob” comment.
I also hope the case goes to the Feds and hope they bring in other evidence that was not admitted: http://chipshirley.blogspot.com/2013/07/can-feds-bring-in-other-911-calls.html
I understand, Jane, but civility is preeminent, is all I am saying! Thanks for understanding!
Excellent article about why people are upset: http://criticalmassprogress.com/2013/07/22/the-zimmerman-mind-set/
Jane: Thank you. I believe this is the comment you were referring to.
“Now the president’s saying Trayvon could’ve been me thirty-five years ago,†Hannity said. “This is a particularly helpful comment. Is that the president admitting that—I guess because, what, he was part of the Choom Gang and he smoked pot and he did a little blow? I’m not sure how to interpret that, because we know that Trayvon had been smoking pot that night. I’m not sure what that means.â€
I don’t see where he is saying the Martin deserved what he got because he smoked pot. I believe the forensic evidence did indeed show that Martin had marijuana in his system. So? It’s just another fact of the case. But just because he is making a comparison between Obama, who admitted he smoked pot and did a little blow, and Martin who also smoked pot, does not mean that Martin got what he deserved. Though I admit he is taking a jab at Obama reminding everyone that Obama was a pot smoker, or pothead as we say today and as Obama said “”I spent the last two years of high school in a daze locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically.” But from there to sustain that he believes Martin got what he deserved because he smoked pot is quite a stretch. But are you saying that we should not know, point out or even comment that Martin had marijuana in his system?
So let me recap. You posted “That dern Hanity! He said that Trayvon deserved what he got because he had marijuana in his system.” So far I have not heard those words come out of Hannity’s mouth. And as a mater of fact not even Scarborough when criticizing Hannity said accused him of that. But I am still open to you providing a video or audio where Hannity expressly says or implies that Martin got what he deserved because he was smoking pot.
Excellent articles Jane!
I can definitely sympathize with your anger with Roberto aka Guano in disguise.
Thanks Leia
@Roberto aka Guano in disguise – Sean Hannity’s attempt to link Trayvon Martin and Barack Obama through their allegedly similar drug history is race baiting. I’m glad Joe called him out on it! 🙂
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/22/joe-scarborough-slams-sean-hannity-racism-gin-ratings.html
@Roberto aka Guano in disguise
You’re lucky the Professor tries to keep it civil around here. On many other blogs, you’d be eaten alive.
Jane Doe, thanks for your link to the article that tries to make it clear what it is like to be a black male in America, something we, who have an open mind, can understand, but still cannot totally experience.
One has to wonder if Sean Hannity, who grew up near where I lived when I was growing up a generation before him, would have accomplished what he has, spewing poison and hatred, if he had been black and a college dropout, who had no purpose and fell into the demagogy he engages in, and the same for Rush Limbaugh, another college dropout.
These men have enriched themselves on division and hate, not doing positive things as other college dropouts have done, including Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg as good examples!
Jane: Now the accusation of race baiting is not what you first accused Hannity of doing. But what I do not understand is the following. If as the article you have posted indicates “Studies have consistently shown that people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, – See more at: http://criticalmassprogress.com/2013/07/22/the-zimmerman-mind-set/#sthash.wffzal02.dpuf” then why pointing out that Obama smoked pot just as Martin did, is somehow race baiting, when the use of illegal drugs has nothing to do with race? At least I never linked race with drugs. Have you? I of course can link drug use to having bad influences or a destroyed family or the environment one grows up, but never to race. So why do you bring up race when someone talks about drugs? Wasn’t it the President who said it could have been him 35 years ago? Wasn’t it the President who introduced race in his comparison?
You just don’t get it Roberto aka Guano in disguise. Because of that, I refuse to continue this conversation with you.
No, I guess I don’t. Have a nice day.
Roberto aka Guano in disguise
I understand what Jane Doe is saying:
First of all, she was paraphrasing what Joe said on his show this morning. Here’s the actual quote: “It seems we keep hearing that Trayvon had it coming because he had pot in his system. I keep hearing this from people like Sean Hannity and others on the right.”
She is pointing out that Hannity’s idiotic weed comment in response to Obama’s speech means that he is implying that all young black men who smoke marijuana are criminals who deserve to be hunted down.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/22/1225596/-Joe-Scarborough-Slams-Sean-Hannity-For-Response-To-Obama-Speech-VIDEO#
With that said, I’ll be exiting this conversation too. Good day to you.
Leia: Like I said, Joe Scarborough as well as Jane and yourself are constructing that implication in your mind. I repeat what I have told Ronald a couple of times, we have a totally different vision of the world we live in. We seem to part from completely different basic assumptions. Thus they are mostly incompatible. As and example I find this comment by Andrew Sullivan , joyfully hoping that the US is no longer a super power in 20 years, because the US is practically an evil empire that wants to dominate the world , besides being and idiotic, completely despicable. Now I almost certain that you, Jane Doe or Ronald do not agree with me and might actually agree with Sullivan. Am I wrong? Maybe, but I doubt it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0aO0QxZ7Ks
Robert, you have judged me wrong, as I would want the US to be a major factor in the world in 20 years, but I DO think we will not be alone, that China will be our super power rival. I always wish the best for the US, but not necessarily to be engaged in wars overseas that undermine our economy and society, so I hope we will not have as much military presence in other nations, but will lead in economic and social terms as a beacon for the world, which we should strive for!
Ronald I am very glad to hear that. It’s just that I find people who applaud and cheer for what Andrew Sullivan hopes for completely incomprehensible. It is beyond my reach to put myself in their mindset. I just cannot put myself in their place and try to imagine how I would come to desire such an outcome.
Remember, Robert, that Andrew Sullivan is British, and probably is a bit jealous that GB is not what it was, and that the US surpassed it by 1945 as the Empire was collapsing! LOL
LOL, true! But how about Mathews? What’s his problem with the word Superpower? Would he rather have China be the sole superpower?
Chris Matthews does not want to see more generations of young Americans die on foreign battlefields in wars that cannot be won. In that, I agree with him, and feel ONLY when there is no alternative, as in World War II, should we engage in foreign wars which make us more enemies for the future generations, people who want revenge for our military interventions!
This leads to perplexity about Iran, as I am unnerved by their government, am supportive of Israel, and yet know that the average Iranian has nothing to hate America for, so it is a quandary what to do about their theocratic, terrorist government. I fear at some point that we will intervene, but I pray that it is carefully thought out and planned to minimize loss of life and property, but that may not be possible!
Yes, Iran is a true problem. They are dead set on eliminating Israel. At least that is what they say repeatedly. I once read I don’t remember which Jewish holocaust writer or politician, who said “If they say they are going to kill you, believe them they are going to kill you, don’t doubt it”.
By the way, Sullivan is applying to became a US citizen..go figure.
What irks me concerning the Right and this case is that they continue to bad mouth a dead kid with little proof that a)the facts they are repeating are all facts or b)that even if some of them are true they had little to no relation to what happened when an armed George Zimmerman shot a Skittles armed Trayvon Martin.
What irks me is that they are making this about Stand Your Ground when it was a simple case of self defense.
What irks me is that they made Zimmerman first White , then White Hispanic, just to make it about race. (With that “logic” we would have to call President Obama the White Black)
What irks me is that the President of the United States having taught constitutional law did not make good use of the situation to explain the importance of the Rule of Law. That the Rule of Law is the only guarantee everyone has including minorities against abuse from a “mob like” majority.
What irks me is that no one points out that the jurors did not let themselves influence by the pressure of the “majority” and decided according to the evidence. That is something we should all be grateful of.
What irks me is that some people with a mob lynching mentality follow Al Sharpton who has lied so many times,Tawana Brawley, Crown Heights, Freddie Fashion Mart and now the Zimmerman trial, just to make money.
What irks me is that Al Sharpton in a display of complete ignorance calls for a Federal law on Stand your ground when constitutionally it is a state matter, yet some people echo him.
What irks me is that 31 states have similar stand your ground laws yet the other ignoramus of Jesse Jackson call for a “boycott” of Florida. Who is he or anyone to make such an absurd and hateful petition? Who died and made him King?
Finally, these are my humble opinions.
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=663667
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?id=664496
Looks like Robert obviously can’t handle the truth.
Robert, I can understand what you are saying, but I also can say that those cartoons are reprehensible to bring up the era of lynchings in the South–displays very poor taste by that publication, which is known for such inappropriate reactions to events.
I will also say that I have always had a “jaundiced eye” toward Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, based on their past behavior patterns and actions. They are NOT the best people to speak up on this or any matter dealing with civil rights, because I feel they harm the whole concept of civil rights with their demagoguery methods. I have to wonder what Martin Luther King, Jr would think about their lives and careers!
Robert,
You can deny it until you’re blue in the face but this is ABSOLUTELY about racism and Stand Your Ground being misused. It’s very clear to the majority of the people in this country. Good day to you.
Ronald : I can certainly understand your reaction towards the lynching cartoon. I on the other hand am not that “politically correct” and as a matter of fact see it another way. As a history professor you surely know that lynching was somewhat common in the so-called “Wild West” era, and it was certainly not something carried out based on race. Vigilantes and mob justice was the plague, and the people submitted to this type of justice were of all races. And that is where I see the parallel, the lack of Rule of Law and vigilante style justice.
As for MLK or even Thurgood Marshall I believe would not approve of Sharpton’s or Jackson’s methods. Why even Marshall was somewhat opposed to MLK method, even though peaceful because Marshall believed that true change and justice came by the rule of law. MLK was a true preacher, lived and humbled and sacrificed life, not like Sharpton. Sharpton and Jackson really hurt the cause of civil rights.
So, Robert, we actually agree on Sharpton and Jackson, who are no King or Marshall for sure! It is nice to agree on something, isn’t it? LOL
It is true that lynching was done to others than African Americans, including Jews and Italians in infamous cases in Atlanta and New Orleans, but the vast number lynched historically were African Americans, and we cannot forget that or push it under the rug!
RustBelt: You don’t know if the majority of the people feel like you do. And I see feel, because what you are saying and stipulating is based on feeling not on objective evidence. And I understand that. All I can say is thank God the Jurors did not base their decision on “feelings.” The media transformed George Zimmerman into a white. The New York Times, as in the Duke lacrosse case, led the way, first identifying Zimmerman as”white”, then as a “white Hispanic,†then as “half-Peruvian,†and then as a man “who identifies himself as Hispanic.†The media rarely if ever mentioned the fact that Zimmerman’s life had been spent in the company of blacks, including 2 black girls that are like his stepsisters and the mentoring of young blacks. Even the FBI which so diligently under Eric Holders pressure tried to find at least a shred of evidence that Zimmerman was and acted because of either racism or racial profiling and came up empty handed. How could they when the 911 call clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman did not know at first the race of Martin, he was asked by the operator and he had to look (remember it was raining and Martin had on a hood) good after which he said “He looks black”. So you can just rely on your feelings that make you feel good and righteous, others, like the jurors, fortunately rely on facts.
Ronald: Of course I am not denying nor forgetting that blacks suffered lynchings. I just think that today many would want to see Zimmerman “lynched”, and that reminds me more of popular vigilante justice of the Wild West, rather than of a racist based KKK lynching.
And, Robert, I wish to point out that on July 14, I wrote on here of the need to leave Zimmerman alone, not threaten him or his family, that any such harassment would be wrong and unacceptable. So I agree with you that he should be able to have his life, even though, regrettably, he will never have a normal life again!
What I’m saying is not based on feelings Robert.
Ronald: It is good to hear that. A sane voice is what is needed. I never doubted that you were a reasonable person, though I find myself rarely agreeing on what you post! LOL!
Robert, I have a feeling that were we to meet in person, we would have a good time debating, and having a few laughs and humor at the same time! LOL I have had plenty of such times with conservative students in my college classes over the years, and we have remained long term friends in many cases!
Well maybe we should someday
I have no idea of your age, location, or occupation or availability! LOL
Robert,
What I am saying is based on the coverage of the trial from the various media and blog links here. Every word from George Zimmerman on that phone call to the police told me that he was meeting the criteria for muder 2. He was the aggressor and nothing in that trial suggested otherwise.
First, Zimmerman did not racially profile Martin. Second, looking at somebody and keeping an eye on that person is not an agression. Third, How could Zimmerman be an agressor when he didnt lay a hand on Martin. Fourth, getting out of your car is not an agression. Fifth. Martin attacked Zimmerman just because Zimmerman was looking at him. Do you realize how nut that is? Sixth, if Martin felt somehow threatened, why didnt he call 911 and say ” hey someone is following me?” Was it because of the environment surrounding Martin that didnt allow him to even think of calling 911?
My family and I don’t tune in to MSNBC’s nighttime line up until primetime, 8-10, unless my family is busy watching something like The Voice, etc.
My final comment on this matter:
Common sense tells me that it’s not self-defense once you instigate the confrontation. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation by ignoring the police, who told him to stay in his car, that there was no need to pursue the kid.
Now, Robert, I agree with Princess Leia and Jane Doe, in that it’s time for you to drop the subject. As my dad would tell you, “you’re running it into the ground”. People here have posted facts but you won’t believe them, so you’re going on and on ad nauseum. It’s time for you to just agree to disagree.
Also, Robert, this particular discussion will soon be knocked off the first page – out of sight, out of mind. From reading the various discussions, I’ve noticed that most people move on after that happens.
Rustbelt: I always have agreed to disagree!
No. You have not. You’re stubborn and argue.
I would suggest that this back and forth end, as it is going nowhere. The subject is exhausted!
Professor,
That’s what I’m trying to get him to do.
Rustbelt and Ronald: It’s not that I am stubborn, it’s just that I have another viewpoint and that’s seems to frustrate you because apparently it seems inconceivable to you that anyone could actually see things differently. As Diana Mutz, a professor of communication and political science at the University of Pennsylvania, has written, “Those with the highest levels of education have the lowest exposure to people with conflicting points of view.†Most Americans’ entire informational and intellectual universe is shaped by the Left — from elementary school through graduate school, and, of course, in the news media. They rarely, if ever, encounter non-left viewpoints. And when they do, as you with me, it seems to generate certain anger and frustration. How dare I not accept what you say “everyone’ agrees with and have the gall to argue (dissent)! The premise that we agree to disagree I thought was always implied from the moment I have on some issues a different point of view. Isn’t that what America is all about? Do not we all agree to disagree peacefully. If we wanted monolithic agreement we might as well live in North Korea. I am not, as I had mentioned before, trying to change anyone’s mind, it is not my intention and experience has taught me that it would be futile. But that doesn’t mean a healthy back and forth is not worthwhile.
Robert, what you are saying is what I said above, that it is time to drop the subject, as it is exhausted, and that everything has been said that can be stated about this topic.
I am not frustrated, in fact, just the opposite, trying to promote civility. I am not angry, and I did not say you are stubborn, so I would appreciate your not claiming I did. I welcome disagreements in an agreeable manner, and I think you would have to admit that has been my purpose! I have welcomed your input to this blog, and have always treated you with respect! Is that not the case?
Oh Ronald, I am sorry, I should have clarified that it was Rustbelt who said I was stubborn and argumentative. I misspoke I was actually referring to Rustbelt not you. You have of course always treated me with respect. Thanks!
Robert,
I’ve been pretty respectful to you too. If I were disrespectful to you, I would have been hollering at you in all caps.
Also, on social issues I lean left but on fiscal issues I’m very moderate or center.
Well, Rustbelt, and everyone who reads this, please do not use caps! And no problem, Robert, just wanted to clarify!