Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Racism and the Zimmerman family

Penigma

Racism is when people make negative or derogatory, instead of looking at people as individuals.  It is all about disparaging assumptions.  Sometimes this is directed at an entire race or gender, other times it is directed as a subset of people in a distinct group.
That is true of many of the assumptions and generalities expressed on the right and especially by some of the more rabid talking heads and bloggers. 

And now we see it expressed in the Zimmerman family, a continuation of the obvious racism of George Zimmerman's assumption that all black teens were criminals. His brother shares that bias, that prejudice, that ugly assumption about black teen-aged males, missing the key differences, the differences which are not obvious.
 Robert Zimmerman Jr.: "black teens are killers."

17 comments:

  1. "Racism is when people make negative or derogatory, instead of looking at people as individuals. It is all about disparaging assumptions. Sometimes this is directed at an entire race or gender, other times it is directed as a subset of people in a distinct group."

    Hmm. That sounds like you MikeB. You make equally disparaging assumptions and comments about all 100 million armed citizens in this country because of the actions of criminals and a handful of irresponsible armed citizens.

    Let me guess, it is okay for YOU to make disparaging assumptions and comments because you have "good" (in your mind) intentions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I don't make "equally disparaging assumptions and comments about all 100 million armed citizens in this country."

      I often say that most of them are on my side of the gun control argument. You gun-rights fanatics are a tiny fringe element. You are the ones I make "equally disparaging assumptions and comments about."

      Delete
    2. So you admit that you direct your vitriol at "a subset of people in a district group"?

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your admission that you're prejudiced. We take your comments and ideas in those terms.

      Delete
    4. I'm not prejudiced against gun-rights activists, I'm conscious. I've got my eyes open and I use my head. You guys are wrong and I suspect most of you know it and are so self-centered and egotistical that you don't give a fuck about anything else.

      Delete
    5. Still sounds like the rationalizations of white racist against blacks.

      Delete
  2. Penema said, "Racism is when people make negative or derogatory, instead of looking at people as individuals".

    That's hilarious coming from someone who lumps all gun owners together and not as individuals. Coming from someone who is an avowed collectivist, socialist, part Marxist Fascist, Nazi, and Communist. Coming from someone who is so polluted with prejudices that she makes racism look like a virtue.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  3. So one family member makes a prejudiced comment that isn't even as extreme as things that have come out of your and Dog Gone's keyboards, and that means that your narrative must be true--George Zimmerman must have been a racist and murdered Trayvon because he thought he could get away with it. Never mind that he never murdered or threatened the others they say he called the cops on. I guess he must have given himself the broken nose and lacerations to cover it up, because clearly Trayvon didn't attack him and escalate the situation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He had the gun. He got out of the car and pursued the unarmed black kid. End of story.

      Delete
    2. So? He had a gun on him, not in hand. He pursued a tall person wandering around in a hoodie which would have made it hard to tell the age of the person.

      You haven't covered what happened that led to the shooting. If Trayvon attacked him, as it appears he did, Zimmerman was right to shoot him, regardless of age.

      If Zimmerman started the fight, then shot when it went badly for him, that's another story.

      However, simply being armed and asking someone "What are you doing around here?" does not qualify as starting a fight. Even following them doesn't qualify.



      You constantly bitch about defensive shootings, castle doctrines, stand your ground laws, etc., but the reason we pass laws like this is to draw bright lines to try to protect ourselves from idjits like yourself. You don't care if Zimmerman's story is true, and if he got suckerpunched by Trayvon who then tried to beat him to death. That doesn't matter to you. GZ was an ARMED gun nut, White as alabaster, who dared to get out of his vehicle and ask a black kid where he was going.

      Delete
    3. Not according to the evidence that's come out. Martin doubled back to come at Zimmerman. If Martin had just gone in the house where he was staying, he'd be alive today.

      Delete
    4. But that is not the end of the story, Mike. Things happened after that.

      Delete
    5. In other situations, you gun nuts have insisted that a person walking towards you in what you perceived to be an aggressive manner was a lethal threat and you'd be justified to shoot him. But in blind defense of George Z. you won't even consider that what he did was like that. You won't even consider, in your biased consoladarity, that the kid saw an aggressor approaching and decided his best response was to confront that possible attacker with his own aggression, never expecting to be blown away.

      Why did Trayvon Martin not have the right to stand his ground? Why was he obliged to run away into the house?

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, you're making up a scenario that isn't what the reports indicate. Martin doubled back toward Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't have his gun out. Martin attacked.

      No, someone walking toward me is not posing a threat worthy of a shooting. An "aggressive manner," whatever that means here, is not a justification. Knocking me down and punching me? That would be enough reason.

      Delete
    7. If Zimmermsn attacked Martin, yes he would have the right to defend himself. But all the evidence we have points the other way. If you listen to the whole 911 call, you would see that the pursuit that you all got hung up on stopped. It goes on for a minute or so of him standing around talking to the dispatcher about where he will meet the officers. You only like to hear the parts that justify your condemnation of a permit holder and ignore the rest. Not unlike the way you analyze data.

      Delete
    8. It all depends on the circumstances, Mike. You're simplifying the situation here. If someone is just aproaching with a menacing look, that's not enough. If they look Menacing, are looking in your eyes and holding your gaze, and draw their gun, then maybe you're there.

      Did Trayvon have the right to stand his ground? Sure. Does that mean he had the right to attack without more than simply "this guy is walking toward me and asking what I'm doing here"? No, not without something else tossed in the mix.

      The evidence we have, so far, indicates that Trayvon attacked George with great violence, without sufficient provocation to justify the attack, and that George responded with lethal force once it seemed that his life was in danger. There may be other evidence we're not privy to yet, but I doubt it since the Prosecution has considered it necessary to engage in misconduct in the delivery of discovery, etc.

      Delete