Zimmer-mania Part Deux…Trois? Quatre? Cinq?

It’s funny how people rationalize things sometimes.  Really, it is.  Apparently George Zimmerman got into some kind of a fight with his girlfriend (brave woman she must be), held a gun and pointed it at her, and subsequently got arrested for it.  Since no one on this earth would even know who Zimmerman was outside of his friends, neighbors, and family had he not been a white guy that killed a black guy, it came as no shock to me that the comments on the various articles popping up about the incident generally revolved around one thing:  Zimmerman is unstable, and therefore he should have been found guilty during his trial.

And with that rationale, I would like to point out the difference between people like you, if you are on “Team Trayvon” (yes, it’s as silly and amoral as it sounds), and me.

Because I’m not on anyone’s “team”, and I never was.

For whatever reason, the point that I keep making– about how no one would even know who Trayvon Martin was if his killer were black, or even slightly darker than a guy that’s half-white and half-hispanic– goes amiss.  That logic is just too much, or it simply doesn’t matter to people.  We had a year’s worth of rallies, marches, signs, speeches, and then more rallies before a not guilty verdict, which was then followed up with a few weeks of rallies, marches, signs, speeches, and then more rallies before Al Sharpton decided he couldn’t milk this situation for any more political gain and moved on to inciting hatred elsewhere.  So everything just kind of stopped.  For that entire year-plus, people were operating under two assumptions, based solely on race and race alone: one, George Zimmerman was a racist murderer because he was white and two, Trayvon Martin was the “innocent” one, because he was dead and black.

Then after the calm, and Zimmerman’s disappearing act, he started to pop up here and there– a speeding ticket or two, a disturbance with his estranged wife, and now this.  This is the icing on the cake for those who are dead-set on hating the man for all of eternity.  And this is where that difference I was talking about lies.  How?

Because no one was defending Zimmerman “because he was white”.  They were defending the possibility, based on evidence, that things were much more intricate and difficult to discern than the simplistic and universal opinion of “bad white guy killed sweet little black baby“.  And they surely were.  If at any point the supposed “racism” of George Zimmerman was apparent through his actions, the prosecution could have e-mailed their testimony in and put Zimmerman in jail for life, but no, that is not reality.  Knowing this much, the prosecution didn’t even have the stones to try and mention race at trial.

What evidence showed was that an altercation quickly elevated to a fight, exposing Zimmerman’s legally-possessed weapon, which he then used to shoot and ultimately kill Trayvon Martin.  No one that “defended” Zimmerman was celebrating that Trayvon Martin died.  That is a far stretch from those of the opposite stance, who would probably throw a celebration in the streets and declare the day a national holiday if someone decided to put a bullet in Zimmerman’s head.  Those that defended Zimmerman at trial did so because they recognized the possibility that being black doesn’t make someone incapable of being aggressive– weapon or not.  Being black and seventeen doesn’t make someone unable to fight, effectively, nor does it make a person unequivocally sweet, nice, and a baaaaaaby.  While Zimmerman could have been entirely wrong in doing what he did, the possibility exists that in the scope of the entire situation that no one was right.  That both of them were wrong.  That the situation hit a high that it should have never been at, regardless of who “started it”, and that the ending was a loss, and a low for everyone involved.

But that’s just not a possibility to some.  Trayvon was the epitome of kindness, and peacefulness.  And that’s how it has to be.  Because his mother said so.

Those that possess slightly better perceptive abilities understood that making the entire thing about race was going to come off as incredibly close-minded, especially when nothing could be found to prove racism on Zimmerman’s part outside of what his skin color was.  So a few– very few– started the shift to making the discussion revolve around guns, gun violence, the second amendment, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws, etc…  Which proves my point even further–

If your animosity in the wake of Martin’s death was simply about violence, and unnecessary death, where were you for the other 14,000+ murdered in 2012?  Where was Rev Al?  Were the names of those thousands chanted and turned into Twitter hashtags, too?  In 2009, black murder victims were killed by fellow black people 2,604 times, while whites killed black people just slightly over 200 times.  With a proportion like that, where’s all the rage and support for those times when black men and women have had the breath sapped from their lungs permanently by those of the same pigmentation?  Statistically speaking, shouldn’t your rage over a situation like that be, what, almost fifteen times greater??  Would you hold a rally that lasts fifteen times longer or make signs that are fifteen times larger?

If it justice that you seek, why are you so quick to give up on that quest when a situation like the one experienced between Zimmerman and Martin is the oddity and far from being reality?– the reality that, you guessed it, black murder victims are overwhelmingly terminated by black offenders.

It’s because you’re a hypocrite, and because racism provides you with justification for your excuses.  It drives you in your motivation and it feeds you enough to nourish you.  It puts blinders on your eyes while you pretend that you can see, and it is the megaphone for your mouth, amplifying your voice enough to suppress the voices of those trying to offer an alternative to your one-sided narratives– voices that would probably be sympathetic towards you in your pain, if not empathetic considering how many Americans, of all races, die every year in this country by way of murder or manslaughter.

If Zimmerman’s intentions were ever impure, and if all he ever had was hate in his heart, then those “defending” him would be of the opinion that no matter what, punishment would someday find him– be it in this life or the next (“Gladiator” reference, +1).  But those of us who get labeled as racists because of that defense are simply pointing out that things might be a little more complex than the simple-minded, and painfully stupid ways in which you have framed this entire thing since day one.

You tout the words of MLK when you defend a boy based on the color of his skin and think nothing of it, and then you find no hypocrisy in using those words to condemn a man because his skin color happens to be different.

The divide in this country in racial terms isn’t as bad as it is today because of those who created that divide (Democrats)– it’s because those same people taught you how to love it, how to need it like no other, and to never give up on perpetuating its misguided messages.

You are the alpha and omega of the divide you so often speak of.  Now excuse us while we go about living our lives, and not judging everything we encounter by its color.  You’re welcome to come along.

MY VITRIOLIC DISCOURSE.

Aside from proving that the left’s Race-Card Legionnaires were in fact a very real political force, the 2012 election also exemplified how some of the nation’s biggest race-baiters and apologists enjoy learning new words.  When race gets brought up on the more popular news outlets (which is just once in awhile for most of the channels really, and every five seconds on MSNBC), you can barely blink without hearing some idiot talk about “discourse” and how we need to have more of it with regard to race.  Usually it goes something like “with all of this vitriol from the Tea Party, we are seeing why we need to cultivate national-level discourse on race in America”.

“Vitriol”– that’s another one.  I called someone out on Facebook once about her use of the word “vitriol” and she claimed she was well aware of the word and knew of it/used it long before the rise and triumph of President Obama (If I recall, she used the word after one of the Obama-Romney debates…whatev, doesn’t matter).  The point is that she was completely bullshitting.  No one uses the word “vitriol” regularly.  Why?  Because the word is for assholes.  That’s why.  It doesn’t take a genius to learn and use words that fall outside of our more colloquial, traditional lexicon but come on now…who are you trying to impress?  You can be intelligent without trying even harder to sound intelligent.

But let’s get back on discourse here.

My question is, naturally, when the HELL has “discourse” ever been a welcome addition to the topic of race in America?  If you fall on the side of the argument where race-carders often lie– big government rocks, Obama is the greatest, white privilege is the root of every problem ever experienced by minorities, “opportunity” is quantifiable and thus affirmative action is just dandy, cops are racist, their dogs are racist, minimum wage is racist, the fact that your wallpaper is white is racist– you are typically one in a group of people that so often call for “discourse”.  However you’re never very interested in what someone has to say if any of those words refute you.  Funny.

I looked up “discourse” today, and it basically sums it up as an interchange of ideas in a rational way.  I’ll ignore the “rational” part in my own words here even though I consider much of today’s talk about racism entirely irrational.

It fails to be “discourse” when a bunch of people who all agree with each other anyway sit around agreeing with each other even more.  If discourse was the goal, a man like Dr. Ben Carson wouldn’t be vilified so harshly by people who disagree with him.  He wouldn’t be called an Uncle Tom any time a speech or interview of his makes national news.  When Stacey Dash endorsed Mitt Romney, she wouldn’t have been verbally attacked on Twitter like she was.  The desire is not for national-level discourse on race, rather, it’s for people to continue perpetuating the many ways in which we morph what is in essence mythology into “race problems”; veiled excuses for issues with completely different causes.  That is not me stating that racism is a myth, rather, the ways in which we frame racism and debate its influence is incredibly inaccurate, if not infantile.  What good is discourse on race (and racism) when the average American’s definition of racism is so petty and minute?

Further, what good is discourse when those calling for it truly do not give two damns about what your opinion is?  You consider welfare a program that targets Americans based on race (and their income), an overall detriment to the lower class’ desire to move up on the social ladder and improve their lives?  That’s racist, shut up.  You think that Trayvon Martin could have possibly been an aggressor after being confronted by George Zimmerman, even though he was just a young black boy that wanted Skittles?!  That’s racist, shut up.  You think that Americans– get this– should produce some kind of identification when voting for elected officials!?  Racist, shut up.

Last week when Alan Grayson of Florida sent out an e-mail likening the Tea Party to the KKK, I just happened to be skimming through some channels on TV (still haven’t learned what’s what after 3+ months of having Fios, by the way).  I flipped to MSNBC and though I didn’t catch the beginning of the segment, just about everyone that spoke about this BS– from a sitting Congressman no less– explained that despite it being in poor taste it served the purpose to…ready yourself for it… cultivate discourse on race.  Jesus Christ, it never ends.

Note that I tried to find this particular segment via YouTube, but had no luck– apparently even the trolls that scan media all day long finding clips to cause a stir considered this conversation irrelevant.

The Grayson example is akin to the rape hoaxes we hear about coming out of our colleges every couple of months.  The “victims” all eventually either come clean, or get outed as completely fabricating their stories and what do the school administrations do?  They shut down classes for a day’s long vigil to foster an environment conducive to peace, understanding, and cultivate discourse about rape, abuse, and sexual assault.  Though punishment does get handed out to the perpetrators of such hoaxes once in awhile, quite often they become mini campus-celebrities– seen as leading the charge to raising awareness and bringing about change.  Great job.  Because what we really need is for people who might have actually been raped is the need to consider their credibility before we provide them with help.

So really in essence this is what we see when people claim that something like the Tea Party is racist– evidence, facts…none of that shit matters.  Who cares about truth so long as it brings about discussion about race?  Oh, but by discussion, what’s really meant is “we talk, and you just agree or shut up”.  Those are your options in THE discourse on race.  And then after the discourse is complete, we’re going up through the quad…and to the gymnasium…for a candle light vigil.  Everybody’s doing it!

Stop saying you want “discourse”.  You stopped wanted discourse a long time ago.  MLK called for discourse–what you want is Al Sharpton discourse, which isn’t “discourse” at all and it never has been.

Stop saying “vitriol”.  Congrats, you also learned how to make it an adjective by claiming things are “vitriolic”.

You’re still a prick.

 

 

Al Sharpton: A Miserable Piece of Work

I was in the midst of one of my usual wars with a particular race-baiting, ignorant, and unwittingly-racist-herself “friend” on Facebook a few months back, when I started alluding to “leaders” of the black community that do it a disservice.  In the midst of the conversation, as an “informed” person (as she loved pointing out all day long), she claimed that people like Al Sharpton didn’t speak for her or the black community.  The word she used was “didn’t”, not did.  She attempted to claim that the “informed”–and in this girl’s mind the only two kinds of people that could be considered “informed” were herself and anyone that agreed with her– knew enough not to follow blindly or be led astray by the words of a man like Al Sharpton.  The conversation kind of ended there, but it is time to respond to such a claim– that those possessing similar, race-baiting opinions like my (ex) Facebook friend weren’t ignorant, and they were all smart enough to recognize someone like Al Sharpton as a toxic hindrance of the American minority movement.  My response looks something like this:

BULLSHIT.

He might not be blowing stuff up like the President’s friend Bill Ayers did back in the day, but Al Sharpton is every bit as much of a terrorist as he and his Weather Underground compatriots are.  While Sharpton has spent decades inciting racially-driven violence, one would imagine that at some point he would be held responsible and charged for the pain he has caused– but no that never happens.  Instead, he gets television shows, book deals, speaking deals, and invitations to the White House.  With influence like Sharpton has, and with just about every morsel of that influence being derived from hatred or complete fabrications of truth (or by ignoring the truth), he sure as hell speaks for the minorities of America.  If you’ve ever considered welfare good, affirmative action good, George Zimmerman a racist murderer, Tawana Brawley a rape victim, and the Duke lacrosse team rapists you already validate Sharpton as the voice of you.  You solidify yourself as a sheep, and Al as the shepherd.

You follow, without even realizing it, a man that deserves solitary confinement and not Lifetime Achievement Awards.  Shame on you for being so damn stupid.

Allow me to summarize, just briefly, the ways in which Sharpton has been responsible for violence in this country because of his vile and racist bullshit.

In 1991 a Jewish man got side-swiped by a car when he drove into an intersection as part of a funeral procession.  His car veered onto the sidewalk and killed a young black boy.  For Al, this was apparently the result of racism.  A private ambulance was called for the Jewish guy, and a regular one came shortly after to attend to the boy pinned under the car.  That judgment call, whether it was the right or wrong one, came down to a police officer thinking the Jewish guy would require assistance from Jewish EMTs, which I am assuming would lead to his transport to a Jewish hospital.  Weird, whatever– who knows.  The point here is that after this, Sharpton drummed up enough fury to start the Crown Heights Riots of 1991.  Blacks robbed and looted stores, beat up Jews en masse, and killed a guy by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum via a stabbing.  That incident occurred shortly after Al said this to his Jewish NYC neighbors:

“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

In 1995, a guy that owned some retail property was asked to evict his tenant– a black businessman that operated a record store.  The kicker here is that the eviction request came from leaders of a black church.  But Al Sharpton didn’t care.  He said,

“We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.”

The reaction?  Someone definitely did not feel like standing by– he entered the store, named Freddie’s Fashion Mart, shot up a few customers, torched it, killed himself, while seven employees died of smoke inhalation in the process.  Sharpton would go on to apologize for the “white interloper” remark, but stood by his claim that he held no responsibility for the violence that occurred.  Bullshit, Al.

The Tawana Brawley rape hoax in ’87, the Duke lacrosse hoax a few years back, all of the nonsense Sharpton was involved in and said with regard to the George Zimmerman trial…the list goes on…one could only imagine how often and when his words were used as fuel for black on white crime in the aftermath of these sagas.  You hear or see reports of it once in awhile– about a perpetrator saying “this is for Trayvon” to his victim for example, but publicity of such events is rare because they cast a negative shadow on race mongers like Sharpton.  The media likes to hide this reality, while at the same time employing the criminal himself at their television networks.  (Yeah, that’s to you, MSNBC.)

Al Sharpton has a rap-sheet a mile long for the violence that has sprung up as a result of his race-baiting tirades.  To hide it, he writes books, speaks for organizations and colleges, and presents the image of an active participant in the grassroots political movements of those seeking to bring about awareness for the rights of minorities.  He also does this while bankrolling millions and living a life that is the opposite of those in turmoil that he claims oversight over.  And these are the people that provide him with his power and follow him into the setting sun.  Al might not live the life of someone that is impoverished, or seeking opportunity in a land that is denying him, but he can solidify his connection to his sheep via the abstract and umbrella-like claim that they are all screwed simply by the color of their skin.  That’s all it takes– start a few riots that lead to crackers getting killed with racism as your motivation, claim you have no responsibility for the violence seen but use it as a propellant for the fire that ignites your cause, and then profit.  Rinse and repeat.

Newsflash:  Al Sharpton was RELIEVED when Trayvon got shot– it gave him something to do, and more importantly it gave him something to capitalize on.  It had been quite some time since a story about a white guy shooting a black kid made national headlines, after all.
If there is any justice in the world, Sharpton’s remaining years will be spent in a penitentiary and not behind a podium with a microphone.  The country will be better off for it.