Race relations need a dialogue
Published July 21, 2013
Editorial from Jacksonville Daily News, July 18, 2013.
Some people are likely suffering from withdrawal symptoms this week. They’ve been watching the blow-by-blow coverage of George Zimmerman’s trial on the various cable outlets. He was acquitted Saturday of second-degree murder and manslaughter in a Florida criminal trial that held the nation’s attention.
A 24-hour news cycle can leave holes in programming. That’s why trials that grab the nation’s attention have become a staple of television news. It takes them weeks to play out, and they go all day long. Lawyers with a flair for drama are as entertaining as award-winning actresses and actors.
Some news-making trials involve celebrities like former football player and B-movie actor O.J. Simpson. Sometimes the circumstances are unusual and sensational, as with Jodie Arias or Casey Anthony. Whether a defendant is on trial for murder or, if a celebrity, for a trivial misdemeanor, it must catch the public’s attention.
Or it can be about an issue that makes people across the nation talk. Such was the case with the George Zimmerman trial.
Had the accused and the victim both been black or both been white, the case might have attracted little attention. Indeed, this year alone, dozens of young black men like Trayvon Martin have died violent deaths in cities throughout the country. We don’t know their names or faces because their deaths and the trials of the people accused of killing them haven’t become grist for the cable television trial mill.
But that wasn’t the case in Sanford, Fla. The victim was black and the accused considered himself Hispanic but many referred to him as white which gave the trial a racial dimension.
In this case, the jury appears to have followed the law and reached the correct decision. And under different circumstances, the verdict would have generated little controversy. But with the added racial dimension, the conversation will continue well after the verdict has been reached.
Every time something like this happens, there is a call for a “conversation about race.” There is no shortage of conversations about race in America. But generally, people mean they want a conversation about race within the narrow parameters that they establish.
Many blacks want a conversation about race that discusses why racism persists in this country. Whites sometimes suggest a conversation that questions why we can’t get past the issue of race and have a colorblind society.
In truth, it seems few people want a racial dialogue; they want a monologue.
July 21, 2013 at 9:21 am
Curmilus Dancy II (Butch) says:
Every day black folks who are talking about RACE on the level are afraid to talk about RACE publicly because they are afraid. They are afraid of how other folks be they black, brown, white and or whatever will look at them. They are afraid of how their employer will look at them. They are afraid of retaliation that may come via through their children or just maybe other family members.
When I read about white privilege by whites like Tim Wise it is real. Every day white folks can feel comfortable about talking about RACE because of white privilege. We all know that this society has been basically white privilege atleast all of my 50 years so I know those older than I can relate even moreso.
I want to talk about it all the Zimmerman case, the black on black crime and other however I don't want to talk about them all at one time because I do not believe we will accomplish anything trying to compare them all when they are not equal.
As for the Zimmerman case I want to know that from the letter of the law that everything was done correctly during the trial. I want to know that the jurors were there to seek justice for Trayvon and not only for Zimmerman. I have a problem with the trial and I did not follow it as closely as many but just reading about the trial from many different resources.
I am having a problem with it appearing as if the jurors were seeking only justice for Zimmerman based on Zimmerman's report and their assumptions of what they felt Zimmerman had to do. But Trayvon can not tell his side of the story so did the jurors try to figure out what Trayvon was up against.
I am concerned about how the incident with Trayvon and Zimmerman began up until the time of the contact. So that is where I can follow the facts but all I can assume is what happened such as who started the incident.
I just want to know that the jurors followed the letter of the law and when I feel that they did then I will look at the law and say there must be a change made within the law.
Now in my closing, what I do know is factual as it relates to white folks and other folks killing a black man who were not doing anything wrong is nothing new. This has been going on dating back to slavery.
What tickles the heck out of me the most is ignant safe negroes who get on TV and in other media who are ignant to what is real and what is perceived. To think that black men are not profiled is just too ignant. Because of the safe negroes the discussion will continue to be lost because that is who the white folks want to hear. This justifies their thoughts so therefore they feel the discussion about RACE is invalid.
Heck no the discussion should not be about Zimmerman and black on black crime altogether but it should be separate but equal discussion on an individual note.
