“Dear White People” IS Racist. Here’s why.

We live in time of perpetual outrage. From the perspective of the Conservative Right, the anger is often articulated in Daily Mail headlines with capitalised words to emphasise just how OUTRAGEOUS ‘it’ is (whatever ‘it’ is). For Liberal Lefties, taking to the streets waving placards and chanting, is how their indignation is expressed. It is not surprising then, that the announcement of the new Netflix series “Dear White People” was going to enrage some people.

Based on the film of the same name that came out in 2014, the release of the trailer for the show sparked the type of outrage that causes people to take to twitter and start furiously hash-tagging, and threatening a boycott. On this occasion, it seems it is the Conservative White America that has been especially offended, or “triggered”, to adopt an internet phrase. According to the Daily Mail article reporting that the Youtube video of the trailer attracted one million dislikes in one day, the outrage is justified. Having perused the comments section of this article (my go-to when I want to understand the way in which racist people think), it seems nobody really knows what the show is about, but it must be racist against whites because, “you couldn’t get away with a show called ‘Dear BLACK people’ could you?!?”

I find all of this very amusing. Firstly, because when the film version came out in 2014, I do not recall this amount of anger being expressed. In fact, to me, the film trailer seemed very enticing at the time. It seemed a straightforward plot – a black(ish) looking girl using her radio station slot to directly address the micro-aggressions that many black people encounter when interacting with white people on a daily basis. In fact if I recall correctly, the film was made as a response to a real life incident that occurred at an Ivy League university when white students attended a Halloween party dressed in black face as a costume. As I understand it, this type of thing has been reported numerous times across America. I was intrigued then, that it seemed a mainstream film had been made to address this type of ignorant behaviour, and challenge the stereotypes of black people that are so often propagated by the media. When I eventually watched the film, I discovered I was very wrong. Dear White People was ironically slightly racist… to black people. In what can be best described as an own goal, the casting and writing of the film has many stereotypes that are negative as far as black people are concerned. Here are just a few:

Stereotype 1: Only a light skinned/mixed race woman can play a leading role.

The storyline in Dear White People has a convenient “twist” that allows for casting a mixed race woman as the leading role, as is it later revealed that she is actually not “fully black” as she has a white father, despite being so “militant”.

Stereotype 2: Black people, and especially black people who are concerned about racial injustice, are always angry.

In the film, there is an angry black mob, none of whom have any speaking lines, and only serve the purpose to appear every now and then, looking furious and staring black raging daggers at people.

Stereotype 3: Even in a so-called “black film”, a white character must always be the hero.

The Light-Skinned Leading Lady (I cannot remember any of the characters names, and I cannot be bothered to look them up), has a secret White Boyfriend, who sticks by her even though she treats him like dirt, and is ashamed on him. Both she, and all the other characters in the film seem to have deep flaws. Supporting Dark-Skinned Female character is very unlikeable, as is the Leading Black Male character. The Black Gay character is written as complete wimp. The only character that comes out shining and smelling of roses, is the secret White Boyfriend, who in the end, Light-Skinned Leading Lady chooses over her other love interest,  Brutish Black Man.

dear-white-people-2

If the Netflix mini-series is going to be just like the film, then I agree; it is racist. However, to suggest it is racist towards white people is a bit ridiculous. To address the suggestion that it would not be ok to have a TV show called “Dear Black People”; such a title suggests that the show would be written from a mainly white perspective addressing certain behaviours of black people that make white people feel oppressed. The problem with that is, virtually every show on TV already is written from a white perspective, and given that in the US and UK, black people are a minority, it is difficult to see how white people in these countries could feel so oppressed by their behaviour.

I will not be watching the Netflix series because I thought the film was pretty rubbish, but I have no feelings of fury about it. My suggestion to Spitting Mad Conservative White America, is to stop the internet whinging and threats of boycotts, and do the common sense thing whenever something you do not like is on TV or online: simply, do not watch.

The Death of Michael Brown: Who is to Blame?

When the story first broke, of an unarmed black teenager shot by a white police officer, it was tempting to immediately take to social media to vent outrage. But something told me to hold back and wait until all of the facts came out. Since then, CCTV footage of Brown appearing to rob a convenience store, stealing a packet of Cigarillos has been released, there have been conflicting witness accounts, and now we have the decision from the Grand Jury, having reviewed the evidence that Darren Wilson, the officer responsible for the killing, will not face charges.

 

This decision has set the internet (and in the literal sense, Ferguson) ablaze and having read various blogs, and commentaries, I feel like I can finally piece my thoughts together to throw in my opinion, worth little as it is.

 

There is a clear dividing line when it comes to views about Brown’s death. There are those who believe that Brown was a violent thug, and Wilson was the hero who put a stop to his tyranny, and those who argue that Brown was unarmed, and therefore should not have been shot at and killed. The latter feel that, the only reason he was killed is because he was black, and in America, black lives do not matter. It seems to me that there is some truth in both opinions. But it seems that not many people are willing to accept that. Not those who have immediately started burning down buildings and looting in Ferguson, nor those who sit comfortably behind their computer screens hastily posting insensitive comments suggesting that Brown deserved to die.

 

I should mention a third camp. Those who are sympathetic to the anger that surrounds Brown’s death, but question why there is not the same anger expressed when a black person is killed by another black person. There are problems I have with each of these views.

 

To those saying that Michael Brown was a violent thug who deserved to die, I say this: when one views the CCTV footage, it is hard to argue otherwise. But a person is often more than one thing – he was also a high school graduate for example. Furthermore, it’s important to put things into perspective. His violence, as far as I’m aware, did not involve killing anybody. To say Brown deserved to die because he was violent, sends out a message that any kind of unlawful or undesirable behaviour is punishable by death, administered by the gun of whichever law enforcement officer happens to feel threatened by person who has misbehaved. The last time I checked the death penalty in the America is the most serious of punishments, only meted out to cold blooded murderers. Had Brown had the chance to live, who knows whether he would have changed his ways, and developed the more positive aspects of his character.

 

A key feature of the argument above, is that colour played no part in Brown’s death nor in the police and media response. It’s difficult for me to accept that. Many black men in America speak of how they are perceived by whites as being threatening, in situations where they are innocently going about their business. At the point Brown received the fatal bullets, he was already wounded from the earlier scuffle, and had run away from Wilson. Some witnesses say he was surrendering. But did Wilson nevertheless perceive Brown as a threat because he was black?

 

Was the media colour blind in its reporting? Why was the CCTV footage released, when it later transpired that the robbery was unconnected to the shooting?  The Huffington Post have an interesting article called “When the media treats white suspects and killers better than black victims”( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html), which makes the point better than I can. To put it gently, it is quite naïve to say that colour has nothing to do with Brown’s death and its aftermath.

 

To those that say Brown was unarmed and therefore should not have been killed, I admit I have much less to say. I largely agree with that, but find that there tends to be a blindness to the anger connected with this view. Too much of a blind eye is turned to Brown’s violence and thuggery. It has to be asked, why did Brown not simply hop on to the sidewalk when asked? According to Wilson’s first account (which later conveniently changed), he did not even know about the convenience store robbery, and just wanted Brown to stop walking in the middle of the road. And though some part of Wilson’s account seem incredible, it’s probably true that Brown gave him some attitude. Again, why?

 

Brown good and bad

Turning to the third argument, which I find particularly irksome, why are people not angry when a black person dies at the hand of another black person? This is my answer: that is simply beside the point. Firstly, it does not sit well with me to suggest that people should only get angry when somebody of their colour dies or is killed. Secondly, the real issue here it seems, is anger against the system. Wilson was not just a white man. He was a police officer. An officer charged with the duty of protecting citizens, yet he killed one. Imagine if there was no anger about this situation? We’re talking about holding a powerful institution accountable for the way it treats black citizens. It is just too simplistic to say “oh but black people get killed by blacks all the time”.

 

When a black person kills another black, they usually end up in prison. How many times in such a situation, do you hear of a cover up? Does it ever appear that the system tries to protect the black murderer from facing justice? Not that I have ever seen. But it does sort of look like system is trying to protect Darren Wilson. Even Piers Morgan has written a piece (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849133/PIERS-MORGAN-farce-Ferguson-Darren-Wilson-6ft-4in-210lb-five-year-old-history.html) about the holes in the investigation into Brown’s death, and even though I thought I already knew all there was to know about the case, the new information I learned, I found disturbing.

 

So back to my question; who is to blame? I still do not have a straight answer. I can’t say it’s all Brown’s fault, as appalling as his behaviour was, we are all sinners, but by the grace of God, not all of us get gunned down and left dead in the street for hours. In this fallen world there remain many injustices. Perhaps it is too much to ask that at the very least, Darren Wilson be taken to trial, his actions put under scrutiny, so it can be properly decided whether he is truly free of blame.

Why Do the British Film Critics Hate The Butler?

I went to see The Butler a few weeks ago, a decision made out of my expectation of a good historical film about the presence of a black butler serving in the White House. I hadn’t seen a trailer, read a review, and in fact I didn’t even know exactly who was in it. But I usually get an instinct about a film I know I will enjoy. I did enjoy the film even if “joy” is not the best word to describe my cinematic experience. There were moments where I did laugh, but I also cringed, winced and felt extremely saddened in a dramatised version of real events that occurred in the history of America, involving the fight for African American civil rights. It brought home to me, just what many African Americans have been through; the shocking maltreatment, the police brutality, and the sheer injustice of living in an unequal society. A society that that still lives in the memory of those alive at the time to witness it. By the end of the film I was in tears, and by the sound of sniffles elsewhere in the theatre, I doubt I was the only one. I thought all the characters were played well, and even Oprah, who I was expecting to be a flop, did a fantastic job of playing the wife of Cecil Gaines.

I went home feeling very moved and inspired, and even feeling a sense that more needs to be done in America for a more equal society, given the stories we still so often hear about racial tensions, and discrimination. I wanted to learn more about the true story upon which the film was inspired by, and went online to see what I could find. I came across a review of the Butler on the Guardian online. The reviewer was eager to point out every departure from the true story that the film had made. For instance, there was no record that Eugene Allen (Cecil Gaines real life name) had been a slave, and witnessed his father killed, and his mother go crazy after being raped by her slave master. Allen only had one son, as opposed to two, as the film depicts, and his son was not involved with the Freedom Writers or Black Panthers. The reviewer also used the word “farcical” to describe the film, and pretty much rubbished it.

 

After reading the review, I toyed with the idea of writing a blog post about it. As the reviewer was a white British person, I wanted to point out, that maybe they did not enjoy the film because he just could not relate to it, as it is a race-themed film. Maybe he just wasn’t all that concerned or moved by how black people have been treated in America. Maybe he thinks that we should just stop talking about all that racism and slavery stuff already. Maybe there was no single character he could relate to because he has not experienced anything similar to the struggles that the black characters faced, or just because, the colour of their skin automatically made him feel detached from the film, and made him to immediately view it as a “black film”.

Well I got rather busy with other things and then forgot about writing the post. Then I read this piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/olivia-cole/the-best-man-holiday-race_b_4295853.html

by a blogger who took issue with the New York times lazily labelling The Best Man Holiday as a race themed film, and thought that maybe I would write my piece after all, as race and film seem to be a topic of discussion at the moment. I wanted to try and find the review I had read in order to get the name of the reviewer, and carefully pick apart the review, but I could no longer find it. Instead I found another two negative reviews in the Guardian, one by Mark Kemode (a white male), and the other by Peter Bradshaw (who also happens to be a white male). These men both dissect the film in a very cold and deconstructive manner, without paying much attention to the substance. Bradshaw relegated the film with a comparison to Downtown Abbey. Kermode is slightly more generous by giving the film 3 stars instead of 2 as Bradshaw did, but still manages to denounce the film as a “fanciful retelling of contemporary history”. Both men totally miss the point.

The fact that these British film critics have a difference of opinion about the Butler to me (and all my friends who have watched the film), could be dismissed as just that; a difference of opinion. But I remember reading an interesting article about research that had been carried into film critic’s responses to films that have a black leading character being reviewed more harshly than films with a white leading character. If this is correct there is a potential knock on effect of less people going to see the film because of reading the negative review, and the film receiving fewer takings. Even in a small way then, the difference of opinion can be significant.

I’m not saying that the British are wrong about the differences between the film and real life. Clearly they are right. But the film is only “inspired” by a true story, and not based on it. And it is actually quite clever, the way the film weaves into the plot what was going on at the time with the Freedom Riders, and Black Panthers. Even though various things that happened in the film did not happen in Allen’s own life, they did actually happen. Slaves were raped and killed. Freedom Riders were repeatedly thrown in jail, and the segregated society was an appalling affront to the rights of black citizens. Allen did live through segregation to seeing the first “black” president of the United States. That’s the substance of the film that I refer to.

civil rights dog attackcivil rights hosed down freedom rides burnt bus

Maybe critiquing a film is supposed to be a very academic exercise devoid of any heart. If that is the case then fair enough, but perhaps these British Film critics should consider that for many movie theatre goers, The Butler is a touching and sensitive encounter with the past.

Black Hair (Part 2): It’s None of Your Business!

I do not mean to cause offence by the title of this post; it is aimed at narrow minded people who judge black women not on the content of their character, but on something as superficial as how they choose to style their hair.

 

With this post I fall in danger of contradicting part 1, in which I sought to argue that it does matter how black women style their hair, in the sense that those who choose to wear it naturally, (knowingly or unknowingly) send a message to the world that there is nothing wrong the kinky textured hair of people of African descent. However I do think that it is also true that how a woman chooses to style her hair is her own personal choice, and as such should not be open for criticism and debate by others.

 

Let me explain what I mean. One day I was sitting on a train when I observed a very disturbing and bizarre scene. A black male starting speaking loudly to a young black female sitting across the aisle.

 

“Excuse me, is that your real hair?”

“No” she replied quietly, head down.

“I didn’t think so. You shouldn’t be wearing weave. It looks fake”.

 

I felt embarrassed for the young woman. Her hair was obviously a weave, and by the looks of it not “human hair”. Maybe she was not in a position to afford a better quality weave. Maybe she just wanted to cover her natural/relaxed hair with a weave as a protective style. Whatever her reasons for having a, not so great, weave, what right did that man have to question her? Whatever the state of her hair, in what way did it affect him?

 

Sadly he’s not alone in his condemnation of black women who do not wear their hair natural. If you’ve ever been unfortunate enough to stumble across certain Youtube channels of (black) men, dedicated to spewing venom at black women, you will know exactly what I’m talking about. In fairness, it’s not just black men, and it’s not just men. Women too can be very judgmental about what they perceive to be a bad weave or bad hair day. Remember how much stick Olympic gymnast Gabby Douglass during the

How could simple tied back hair cause such a fuss?

How could simple tied back hair cause such a fuss?

2012 Olympics? She was not criticised for her performance – and rightly so as she won two gold medals – but what was her crime? Not having freshly relaxed hair!

 

I accept that criticism of women’s looks is not limited to one race. The picking apart of women’s bodies in national magazines is indiscriminate. But when it comes to hair, there does not seem to be such a fierce debate around what it means if Caucasian hair is straightened or left curly, or if extensions are added in. If you listen to those venomous self-hating Youtube cowards (cowards because it’s easy to be foul mouthed and derogatory behind your computer screen), then a black women who straightens her hair, or gets a weave, does so because she wishes she were white. Of course it can’t be because she feels like a change, or likes the way it looks, or wants a protective style. Even if she does wish to be white, surely it’s only a small minority of people who would actually conclude that a woman wishes she were a different race because of her hairstyle? Or should I suppose that when Cheryl Cole wears cornrows she is expressing her inner desire to be black?

Not sure if this was before or after her alleged racial assault on a toilet attendant

Not sure if this was before or after her alleged racial assault on a toilet attendant

For the record, black hair is versatile. It’s probably the most versatile hair type that exists. Many different styles can be achieved with it. So when black women choose to explore the different styles, why not just leave them be? It’s not hurting you. And in my experience, most people of other races do not quite understand black hair, and so do not even realise that. For example, box braids involve fake hair! How many times have I taken out braids and then been asked by classmates/colleagues “have you cut your hair?” Before I would roll my eyes, and think “how ignorant”, but now I find it liberating. Knowing that my colleagues are not scrutinizing my latest hairstyle and scanning the back of my head for visible tracks, puts me at ease. If only all black women could feel that way all of the time.

Black Hair (Part 1): It’s Political

Sheryl Underwood was not a name I was familiar with until a few days ago. I did not even know that she was black when I first read about the comments she made on American National TV, basically saying that Afro hair is disgusting, and nobody wants it. I initially thought “that’s an ignorant thing for a white woman to say”. I was not overly shocked. I assumed that being a white woman, Sheryl was not accustomed to Afro hair, and by calling it “nappy”, she was expressing in her own way her perception of how it was very different to her own straight hair (so I wrongly thought).

Then I was surfing YouTube and came across a video that had the footage of Ms Underwood making the remarks on the show “The Talk”. To my absolute horror, I discovered that Sheryl Underwood is a black woman. My jaw literally hit the floor!  How could a black woman make such remarks about her own type of hair?

She has since issued an apology which is good to hear (though I do not accept that she was misconstrued, seeing as she clearly makes a distinction between “curly nappy beads” and “beautiful long silky hair” of white people) but I’m not so concerned about her apologising. I don’t say that because I’m outraged at her, and feel that an apology won’t suffice. Rather, I’m saddened for her. I’m saddened that this 49 year old woman, who would no doubt have memories of an America only just forced to abandon a society of segregation, has through her life’s experiences and understanding of what is acceptable, come to the conclusion that Afro hair is undesirable.

It’s a very sad thing that Sheryl should feel that way, but I can just imagine why. Would America accept the First Lady if she were to leave her Afro hair as it is? How readily available are images in the media of black women with afro hair? I suspect that all her life, Sheryl has been taught that Afro hair is unacceptable, and she has come to believe it. In a shameful way, there is no satisfactory answer to the question she posed “who would want to save Afro hair?” or simply put: “who wants  Afro hair?”

Michell Obama

The fashion houses don’t appear to want it. That’s why you have a supermodel like Naomi Campbell (one of the rare success stories amongst black models) with no hairline left, because she has been forced to wear styles that hide her Afro hair, for decades. A friend of mine who models, was once axed from a job because the stylists on the shoot could not work with her “Afro hair”.

naomi campbell bald

Hollywood and TV producers do not seem to want it. When a black actress does appear in a film, you can just bet she’ll be wearing a wig or a weave. And it’s not always because that is how the actress would wear her hair anyway. I’ve read interviews of some black actresses who would prefer to wear their hair natural, but have to put in a weave in order to get the part.

The printed and televised media don’t want Afro hair either. Even on the front cover of black hair magazines, you’re more likely than not to see the model wearing a European weave or wig. Black newscasters who air on various news stations (with the exception of Al Jazeera), all have their Afro hair tucked away, or chemically processed away, out of sight.

It’s not fair to direct anger at Sheryl alone. We should question the society we live in that seems to dictate that Afro hair should not be seen. I am very encouraged though, that more and more often now, I see black women daring to bare their natural hair. I know that women wear their hair natural for all kinds of reasons, and many are not seeking to make a political statement by doing so. However I can’t help but feel that with every woman that starts to go to work, especially in the corporate field, with natural hairstyles, it takes down another brick in the wall that stands in the face of black women being free to be who they are, without fear of judgment.

Where Are The Black Owned Businesses?

Image

“I remember when there used to be two black owned shops here next door to each other” my mother said from the passenger seat as we were driving through Deptford High Street one afternoon. This sentence preceded a very strange sounding tale of rivalry and revenge. It was prompted by our passing a row of shops, all of which were now owned by Asians.

The tale went something like this: Once upon a time there were two shops selling African groceries, sat side by side on Deptford High Street. One was owned by Mrs A, the other was owned by Mr B. Mrs A’s shop started to do very well. Soon it became obvious that Mrs A’s shop was far more popular than Mr B’s. Then one day Mrs A became very ill. Within a few days she died in hospital. Mr B had been jealous that her shop was doing much better than his and so he had poisoned her! Mrs A’s children were left devastated at their loss, and soon the shop closed. In the meantime, word began to spread that Mr B was responsible for Mrs A’s death. People began to boycott his shop, resulting in its steady decline. Then Mrs A’s son seeking revenge, one day went and dowsed Mr B’s shop with petrol and set it alight. He succeeded in burning to a cinder Mr B’s shop, but he also got badly burned in the process, and scarred for life. Both shops were never to see black owners again. The end.

I had some questions about this story. How did people know Mrs A had been poisoned, and that Mr B was responsible? According to my mother, there was no confirmation, but people “just knew”. After all, these things happened in Nigeria, and so it followed that these things could happen in Britain amongst Nigerians. But whether or not the details of the story are true or not, it is a story that perhaps identifies some of the key reasons why we do not see more black owned businesses. Maybe if black people worked together more, instead of against each other, like the Jews do for example, then the tide would start to turn.

I am always puzzled by the fact that shops selling African and Caribbean food, and African and Caribbean hair and beauty products seem to all be owned by Asians. These shops stock products that African and Caribbean people will always flock to buy. They are cash cows. Has no black person cottoned on to this fact? I doubt that is the case. One theory is that Asians have ring fenced the hair and beauty industry, and force out black owners, either by their economic position of power, or by other means. For example I think of another tale that I have been told, this time about a black hair and beauty store in Peckham, owned by a Nigerian woman. Allegedly, Asian shop owners of the neighbouring shops had their eye on hers. They were constantly in touch with the Local Authority to find ways to have her shop shut down. Eventually they succeeded, and swiftly took over the shop.

With the knowledge that black people are to a large degree frozen out of the market dealing with products specifically tailored to many cultures found within the black race, I can’t put the blame entirely on black people for not owning more businesses. There are probably other factors to take into account as well, such as legacies, and connections that immigrants, or children of immigrants may not have to the same degree as those who come from a long line of descendants settled in the UK. However, I would like to see more black people in enterprise, because I often meet black people with ideas that could work. Those of us who are of the second generation, let’s leave behind the tendency of our parents to distrust one’s neighbour, or for one-upmanship for the purposes of showing off to others within our community. I feel other racial groups are respected more, because of their power, which is fed by their wealth. I believe those of African descent need to undo the damage caused by the “divide and rule” tactics of colonialism, and rise to their full potential of generating wealth and pioneering new ideas.

Innocent Until Proven Black?

Image

In the past 72 hours, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of charges of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter following the killing of Trayvon Martin on 26.02.12. Protests have taken place in various cities across America, and many have expressed outrage the outcome of a case that has received a lot of media attention. Trayvon was a 17 year old unarmed black boy, who was followed and shot my Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighbourhood watch volunteer, who thought that Trayvon was acting suspicious.

One of the reasons the case attracted so much attention is because of what followed. Zimmerman was not arrested and questioned following the killing. His account that Trayvon had attacked him, and that he was acting in self defence, was unquestioningly believed by the police. Then Zimmerman’s 911 call was released. He had called 911 when he spotted Trayvon walking through a gated community in Sanford Florida, wearing a hoodie, as he thought he looked suspicious. Here is an excerpt from an unofficial transcript of the 911 call:

Zimmerman: These assholes. They always get away.

Zimmerman: He’s running.

Zimmerman: ‘F-ing coons’

Dispatcher : Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah

Dispatcher: OK. We don’t need you to do that.

Trayvon’s parents started a petition that eventually garnered 2,278,988 signatures, calling for Zimmerman’s arrest. After President Obama commented on the case the US Justice Department launched an investigation into the case. Only then Zimmerman was arrested and charged, 6 weeks after the killing.

Having some experience of conducting criminal trials, I tried to imagine how present the case if I were Zimmerman’s defence lawyer. Zimmerman did sustain some scratches and bruising to the back of his head and face. I would run with that. In my closing speech I would describe how Zimmerman followed Trayvon, as he was acting suspiciously. Trayvon realising that he was being followed, and his criminal activity about to be interrupted, attacks Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, throwing punches, and slamming his head on the ground saying “you’re going to die tonight”. Zimmerman, fearing for his life, pulls out his gun and shoots Trayvon dead.

I also thought about how I would run the case if I were for the prosecution. Trayvon was on his way to his father’s house, having just bought a packet of skittles and a bottle of iced tea from a shop. He realises he’s being followed by a large man. This man has assumed that because Trayvon is black and wearing his hood up, that he is up to no good. Race is certainly a reason that Zimmerman reaches this conclusion, as he refers to Trayvon as a “f-ing coon”. Trayvon is on the phone to his girlfriend and tells her he is being followed. Zimmerman continues to follow Trayvon even though the 911 dispatcher tells him not to. Zimmerman, thinking that Trayvon is about to commit some crime, apprehends him, and that’s when Trayvon starts throwing punches. Zimmerman pulls out his gun and shoots Trayvon dead.

I did not follow the trial, so I do not know whether each side put their case quite that way. I noted that the prosecutor Angela Corey in her statement following the acquittal, made the following remarks:

This case has never been about race, nor has it ever been about the right to bear arms, not in the sense of prosecuting this as a criminal case. But Trayvon Martin was profiled, there’s no doubt he was profiled to be a criminal. This case was about boundaries and George Zimmerman exceeded those boundaries

I’m sorry what? This case has never been about race? Then why did Obama feel the need to state that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin? Ms Corey contradicts herself in her statement. What does being profiled mean, if it is detached from the word “racial”?

I also do not know what she means by saying it was a case about boundaries. I have no knowledge of US law, but can someone please explain whether a person can plead self defence, if they pursue somebody because they have racially profiled them, and then the person who is wrongly profiled and being followed, acts in self defence?

Zimmerman was instantly believed when he told the police he acted in self-defence. That means that, unless the answer to my question above is yes, the police would have instantly come to the conclusion that between Zimmerman, who was armed, and Trayvon who was unarmed, Trayvon was the aggressor. How could they come to that conclusion so quickly, without first carrying out an investigation?

In the UK, there is an important principal that justice must be done, but also, justice must be seen to be done. There is a possibility that the jury actually came to the correct verdict, and that justice has done. But this case has provoked so much outrage, because of the lack of due process involved, which results from assumptions that have been made, based on race. It should not be the case that if you’re a black man and you get shot, it’s automatically assumed that it’s somehow your fault.

Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of the colour of his skin. The police did not investigate because Trayvon was a black boy. And reading some of the comments being left on various news websites, many members of the public have made many assumptions about Trayvon too. It emerged that Trayvon has been suspended from his school, because he had an empty “baggy” that had contained weed. “Trayvon was not squeaky clean.” “why do they keep showing a picture of him when he was younger. He now looks like this”:

Image

So what does that mean? That he deserved to die, because he smoked weed, and because he took a picture wearing grills over his teeth? If you follow that logic, then Miley Cyrus deserves to die. Check out her profile picture on her twitter account. But you wouldn’t assume that Miley was a thug would you? Why not? Because she’s not black.

For some reason it makes people very uncomfortable when you point out that someone has received different (adverse) treatment because they are black. I even read comments to the effect of, how could Zimmerman be racist – he’s Hispanic! Well a Hispanic friend of mine tells me she would be disowned by her grandma if she ever brought home a black guy, and I believe her. Of course it’s possible to be racist towards black people if you’re Hispanic! And it’s not just different treatment that is a problem. Making negative assumptions when you see the word black, or see black skin colour is so dangerous, and this case proves it.

As for due process in the trial process? I cannot even confidently say whether it was a fair trial or not. All the news reports carefully omit to mention what the racial make up of the jury was. Were they 6 white women? If so where was the representation? This is why it is too simplistic to say, as many have, that the jury have made their decision, therefore justice has been done.

I have posed the title of this post as a question. I want to open up a discussion. I am hoping that, as the matter is being looked into again, justice will truly be done, and be seen to be done.