“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.”
-Geraldo Rivera
Geraldo Rivera didn’t mean what he said. No one with half a brain could intentionally make such a stupid remark while posing as a news commentator on the national media (except, perhaps, for Rush Limbaugh, who presumably does have that much gray matter and has proven he can and will make just about any asinine comment).
Rivera’s remark may well have been intended to be sympathetic to the young 17-year old whose death has become at least as noteworthy a national issue as whether the Supreme Court will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional. Instead, it revealed a level of insensitivity that raised questions of bigotry in the eyes of some.
I don’t think Rivera is a bigot, but his comment does frame a meaningful question, to wit: is racial bigotry entirely distinct from racial insensitivity?
Of course, we are just talking about words here, so let’s not get too hung up on the relative pejorative aspects of the labels. But the Martin killing has brought race back into the national consciousness like nothing since the election of Barack Obama. Everyone, seemingly, has an opinion on the cause and meaning of the young teen’s death.
But before getting to what those opinions and reactions might indicate about those who have them, let’s recognize an important fact that almost everyone, in their haste to adopt one perspective or another, has conveniently overlooked: No one but the killer knows what actually happened leading up to the shooting.
Yes, there is some evidence of what had transpired up to a minute before it (the conversation between Zimmerman and the 911 dispatcher; the statements of Martin’s girlfriend of their conversation). But as to the actual killing itself, the record is essentially void of details.
So, while what evidence there is may suggest it entirely unlikely, it is conceivable that Trayvon did become the aggressor in an altercation with Zimmerman and may have punched him in the nose, causing Zimmerman to fall to the ground, and that Trayvon then appeared to Zimmerman to be preparing to continue his assault with violent fury, which led Zimmerman to fire his gun at him.
That scenario may describe what actually occurred, and if something like it did occur, then under Florida’s “stand your ground” law (a separate issue that definitely needs to be explored but is not under consideration here), Zimmerman would have been acting in lawful self-defense when he killed the teen.
But here is another fact that cannot be ignored: Had the roles been reversed, to wit: had the young black teen shot and killed the older white male and claimed the “stand your ground” self-defense, he would not have been released on the strength of his own testimony and declared free of guilt.
And it is that hard fact that leads to the question I posed earlier.
In today’s America, some people regard groups of individuals who have immutable characteristics as either inferior or undeserving of equal treatment. In common parlance, these people are called bigots. Their bigotry is evidenced by their attitudes and their actions. They speak ill of the members of the disfavored group and they do things with regard to members of the disfavored group that are intentionally hurtful of members of the group.
If the bigotry is of a group of a different ethnic race, we call those people racists. And there is evidence of racism in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman and evidence of racism in the reaction of the local police force to the killing.
But what of the likes of Geraldo Rivera, whose grossly insulting comment was certainly hurtful of the parents and loved ones of Martin and of the racial group that he was a member of?
Insensitive, we say—spoken insensitively, to be more specific. (We can’t say thoughtlessly, because in this instance Rivera clearly had given the matter considerable thought, to the point of relating it to his own children, he says.)
And, of course, it was insensitive, but of what level of intent was it born?
If a person makes an insensitive comment in negligence, he or she may quickly recognize the insult and appropriately apologize. Such mistakes are usually forgiven because they are deemed innocent of bad intent.
But what of comments (or actions) that are not so easily dismissed as merely negligent? What of comments or acts that flow from a basic ignorance of the other person’s circumstances or of the other group’s history? Are such comments and acts merely negligent or are they evidence of something less easily dismissed? Are they, indeed, akin to manifestations of the innate prejudice that is at the heart of all bigotry?
So, here’s a little test you can take if you are game. I offer it only to point out how easy it is to claim insensitivity in lieu of bigotry.
How did you react to the news of Trayvon Martin’s killing? Was your first reaction to think negatively of the victim or of the killer? And if you thought negatively of the victim, what led you to that reaction?
And when you heard the early details that seemed to suggest that racial bias had motivated the killer, did you find yourself in agreement with those suggestions or did you object to them? Did you, indeed, find yourself making (or looking for) excuses or justifications to legitimize the killer’s action? Were you defensive of the Florida law that he claims as his defense?
Taking it one step further, do you have a sense of what it might be like to live the life of a black person in America today? Do you understand what it must be like to be continuously wary of how you appear in public? Or of how your actions might be perceived by non-blacks in positions of authority?
Are you aware of the reality of being black in America, even now in the age of Obama, or are you, in your ignorance, insensitive to issues of race?
Most of us pass this test with flying colors. And some of us tell ourselves that we do. We may occasionally be insensitive, but that’s not the same as racial prejudice, is it?
chris meade says
Hi Ed,
Well…this is a first comment for me in all these years of reading your postings of “Meals”. I enjoy reading them very much. I passed your test at the end of this posting, but I know there have been times in my life experiences where I see a situation and racial bias or insensitivity creeps in. When that happens I am not happy with myself.
I have a question about the “stand your ground” law in Florida and I haven’t heard this aspect discussed yet in regards to Trayvon Martin:
If a person follows another person, and the person being followed feels threatened because they are being followed, does the person being followed then have the right, under the “stand your ground” law, to defend themselves with whatever means they have?
Keep the “Meals” coming Ed and thanks for your sharing your thoughts and opinions with all of us.
Cheers, Chris
Lance says
Ed –
Chris makes a good point about Florida law: Trayvon is walking home at night. A larger man, wearing a shoulder holster with a pistol, is following him and confronts him. Trayvon would reasonably be in fear of deadly harm. Florida’s law should justify his killing Zimmerman to prevent being killed. The way it’s interpreted by the Sanford Police, whoever survives the encounter would be innocent. Of course, that would require the policy taking the 17-year-old black kids word, eh?
I don’t always take tests well, by the way. — Lance
Adam Hines says
Ed – I liked reading the article, but where I initially thought you were going was that no one really knows what happened except for the killer and I thought you were going to caution others from rushing to judgment. I see that you took the conversation in a different direction, but I’d like to bring it back to the beginning of the article.
You are correct that everyone seems to have an opinion, and people like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Jesse Jackson, Newt Gingirch, and Al Sharpton I think should not rush to judgment until an investigation has been concluded and a report issued. I think people are right to point out that the investigation appearst to have been botched initially, but given the fact that this case has received so much attention, I’m sure a very thorough investigation will be had, so with that in mind, I think we should all let it play out and then make judgments after we (and the authorities) have learned all of the facts we possibly can know.
I think that the media has done a horrendous job – both with posting the mugshot of George Zimmerman and the aged photo of Trayvon, the unbelievable editing of NBC where they spliced two parts together, and the fact that I feel like the coverage has slanted towards Trayvon without giving equal weight to the potential other side of the story. This is journalism at its worst.
Adam
etelfeyan says
I take a different view, Adam. I think the outrage was necessary to get the thorough investigation in motion, as it obviously wasn’t going to happen otherwise. And that outrage never would have happened if the media had not covered the story as it did.
So, while you call it “journalism at its worst,” I can’t get too upset about it. If Zimmerman should be charged with homicide, he more probably will be now than would have been the case before the media did its thing. And if he shouldn’t be charged with homicide, he won’t be, in which case the media coverage will not have created any injustice of consequence.
When I think of journalism at its worst, the NY Times blind acceptance of the Bush doctrine leading to the Iraq war comes to mind. That’s the kind of journalism I worry about, to wit: the kind that accepts the version of events from “the authorities” (in that case, the Bush administration) without ever questioning its veracity.
The hallmark of good journalism should always be extreme skepticism of anything “the authorities” offer as fact, truth or necessity.
-Ed