Dia on 17/7/2013 at 15:40
Quote Posted by Goldmoon Dawn
Dia, how on Earth did you end up in a craphole like Racine?! Granted, I grew up there, but that city has seen its better days!
Yeah, but in truth I've lived in worse places (does Zion, IL. ring any bells?), and it's been the first step towards FINALLY being able to buy a home of my own again. At the time I moved here I really had no place else to go, either. Hopefully I'll be out of here by the end of the year. I'm not saying that my immediate neighborhood is all bad, it's just a few of the rotten apples that are spoiling things for the rest of us here. Basically the trouble seems to be stemming from a low-income housing area several blocks away, if you believe what you read in the news, as well as an old house the owner of which turned into a low-income apartment building down at the end of the street. The local police are always visiting our neighbors in that building - and I mean on a weekly basis (the cop investigating the slashing of my and my neighbors' tires said they believe our 'tire slashers' are current residents in that apartment house). Yesterday one of my neighbors, with whom I had (up til now) been developing a very amicable friendship, told me that, "The day is coming when you'll have to face the fact that you can't just wash away the stain of slavery from your soul, Girlfriend. All you white-folk need to face up to that and own that.'. When I told her that my ancestors weren't even living in America at the time and that NONE of them had ever owned slaves, she said, 'Don't matter, Girlfriend. Y'all know what I'm sayin'. So at that point all I could do was mumble something to the effect of 'Ok then; I have to be going. Have a nice day.'. Btw; about the time the enslavement of African people was running rampant, MY ancestors were all busy making cuckoo clocks and beer in Germany. Ffs.
Quote Posted by Nicker
Reefer Madness was not a real documentary, ya know.
NOW you tell me!
Vivian on 17/7/2013 at 15:50
If slavery was prominent from what, the 1600's? Ish? So that's about 400 years, about 16 generations, and about 65,000 direct ancestors for any one person living today. So your ancestors could have been from anywhere during that time. Depends which ancestors you pick. Of course, it does mean you're right, expecting people to apologise for anything their ancestors might have done is bullshit.
Dia on 17/7/2013 at 16:52
My maternal grandfather traced his side of the family's genealogy back to the 1400s, so yeah, I pretty much know where that side of the family was at that time, though I haven't seen that chart in about a decade since it's currently in possession of my youngest aunt who lives in a Munich suburb. My paternal grandmother (not to be outdone) did the same but only made it as far as the late 1600s, and that side of my family was more centered in/around Austria - never saw that chart; it's in the keeping of an ornery uncle and we haven't spoken in years. I'm pretty sure that nary a one of my ancestors - not counting distant cousins, milkmen, etc. - on either side of the family tree ever owned a slave or had anything to do with slavery, though. Regardless, it irks me to no end to see/hear people blamed for the crimes (oft-times alleged) of their ancestors and even held accountable. Ridiculous.
Queue on 17/7/2013 at 17:51
A couple days ago, I caught a snippet of some news channel's interview with a lady who was outraged that a "White Hispanic" wasn't being held accountable for a blatant act of racism.
I didn't realize there was such a thing as a "white" Hispanic.
What troubles me is that too many in the black community immediately jump to the racism conclusion and are driven to an act of outrage (ranging anywhere from inflammatory and idiotic statements - like a white Hispanic - that are counter-racist in themselves, to looting and vandalism, to outright rioting) by misconstruing unfortunate acts over what is truly racist or not.
This was not racism. This was an overzealous, jackboot-law-enforcement-wannabe who was - because of his proclivity in looking for it - saw what he misconstrued as suspicious behavior (for which he may or may not have been right—only two people know for sure, and one is dead) and was attacked. So he shot the attacker. It wasn't, "I'm gonna go out and shoot me a nigger because he's being all niggery." That would be racism. But no. He called 911 to report a suspicious person, and things went bad from there. If you wanted to go out and kill a black person for kicks, you wouldn't call 911.
In the same vein, Martin, too, could have called 911 to report a "creepy ass cracker" following him instead of turning and attacking. So, in my mind, provoked or not, Martin was at fault for attacking with a violent intent. I mean seriously, everyone is screaming about violence this and violent act that, and how violence is never the answer so Zimmerman should be locked away. But isn't attacking someone - and not in self-defense - instead of calling the cops a violent act? It certainly is.
So Zimmerman should never have been brought up on murder charges. Idiot charges, yes. But, and especially since Florida has a SYG allowance, nothing else. This whole thing was nothing more than an unfortunate circus in ugliness brought on by, and thanks, to provocations by the media that riled up a community that still has tendencies to jump to erroneous conclusions and fears over another race's intentions.
Fucking God, we're all human. Quit separating ourselves and each other, and looking for reasons to do so!
Queue on 17/7/2013 at 17:54
Dia,
One side of my family owned slaves. The other side fought to end slavery.
Guess who won.
Vivian on 17/7/2013 at 19:06
Quote Posted by Dia
My maternal grandfather traced his side of the family's genealogy back to the 1400s
Kindof a pet peeve, but no he didn't. Following the family name isn't doing an ancestral history unless he traced two parents raised to the power of however many generations there have been since then. Assuming about 25 years per generation, thats 600 years/25 per generation = 24 generations, two parents per generation, so two raised to the 24 = 16,777,216. That's how roughly many parents there are in your family tree since 1400. So unless he knows who those sixteen million people are he hasn't traced anything.
Pyrian on 17/7/2013 at 19:38
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
For that matter, how would beating the shit out of Zimmerman for following him be justified but following a suspicious looking person while on watch in your neighborhood not be?
First off, any justification based on being part of Neighborhood Watch went out the window after he called the incident in, was explicitly told not to pursue, and decided to do so anyway.
Second, "suspicious looking" really just means black. If they're actually committing a crime, you say that. If they're not committing a crime, "suspicious looking" is nonsense; it doesn't mean anything (except black). Example: Stop-and-frisk allows New York cops to stop and frisk anybody who "looks suspicious", and it turns out that in practice, this means they stop black people almost always, and almost exclusively.
Third, let's have a serious talk about "following people" (who haven't invited you to do so). Thirty years ago here in California, there was nothing illegal about following anybody. If you were being followed, and went to the police, they'd tell you that your follower has just as much right to be there as you do, and they have some donuts to get back to.
Funny thing about that, the people being followed? They kept turning up dead.
Stalking is illegal in many places, and it
should be illegal, because if we allow stalking, then the people being stalked die a lot more. Oh, and shooting someone while committing a crime? It's not so easy to cry self-defense.
SubJeff on 17/7/2013 at 19:52
I'm pretty sure following one guy one time doesn't amount to stalking.
faetal on 17/7/2013 at 22:21
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Do you guys seriously believe that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation, yet somehow ended up on his back with a dude punching the shit out of his head?
No, we don't know what happened and neither do you. The witness statements about that confrontation conflict wildly. We DO know that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car, despite no evidence of Martin doing anything to merit this. We do know that Zimmerman exited his car to pursue Martin after calling the police, having been told he didn't need to. This was after he told the person on the other end of the line "these assholes always get away". So basically, he profiled Martin, treated him as fungible with all criminals and then pursued him on foot with a gun. Them's reported facts.
Quote:
Seriously? And if he had been planning on shooting the guy from the get go, why would he wait until he was getting beaten up? For that matter, how would beating the shit out of Zimmerman for following him be justified but following a suspicious looking person while on watch in your neighborhood not be? Am I just being contrarian because everyone is just nodding and agreeing in unison about something they haven't actually spent 30 seconds thinking about themselves?
You do seem to be happy with the fact that an armed man killed a teenager because the teenager (allegedly) over-reacted to being followed by a creepy guy in a truck. The jury finding him not guilty is one thing and as Dema says, probably due to not having enough evidence to do otherwise, but it's kind of sickening how people on the internet are pretty much going the "serves him right" route, which isn't in any way to do with the verdict. It's like when Jean Charles De Menezes was shot in the UK underground and loads of people started crowing about how he was "in the country illegally anyway" or "shouldn't have run when the police shouted" - like it's ok that these actions resulted in death by gun.
Trayvon Martin was shot during a physical confrontation by a guy who was following him around in his truck - we only have Zimmerman's word that Martin was the one who approached him. Zimmerman was being creepy and behaving like a vigilante - if HE'D been the one killed however, I wouldn't be so self-assured an declaring that he deserved it, nor would I be saying Trayvon Martin acted within reason. This is why I'm not going to agree that it's ok that this over-zealous vigilante was within his rights to murder someone because he decided to profile them and treat them like a criminal without evidence of wrong-doing. The guy is a gung ho idiot who was found not guilty because of a dearth of evidence, not some working class hero.
Still, just another gun death in the US to go with the other 10,000 odd per year. I shouldn't be surprised that people are a little desensitised to it.
faetal on 17/7/2013 at 22:25
Quote Posted by catbarf
Well, I could have worded it better, but you've all missed the point entirely. My point was that when Zimmerman said 'he looks like he's up to no good' and 'like he's on drugs or something', well, he was talking about a teenager who had been found with stolen goods before (which, excuse the less-than-impartial source, (
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/) was ignored by police) and had THC in his system, so
maybe Martin actually was behaving in a suspicious manner and mean ol' Zimmerman didn't just accost a perfectly innocent teen purely because he hates black people. Maybe, given Martin's history, he actually was up to no good and Zimmerman's assessment was wholly accurate. I don't know. You don't know. So why are we outright assuming that this suspicion was unwarranted or racially-motivated?
So are you saying that Zimmerman could see into Martin's past, or that anyone who has any connection with illegal behaviour has a certain gait or set of body language which can be identified by experts such as Zimmerman?
Quote:
That the chemical analysis showed that it wasn't recent use is news to me, but there are a lot of potential factors here that could lead a neighborhood watchman to suspect someone and reducing it to 'obviously it's racism!!!' is just unfair. He didn't even mention race until the dispatcher asked him directly. Someone moving erratically across the front yards of houses, in a gated community where he does not live, in the rain late at night, in dark clothing, in a neighborhood that has had several recent break-ins, seems sufficiently suspicious to me to at least ask the guy what he's doing.
Point is - he was a neighbourhood watchman, not a policeman. He had no remit to start a pursuit or even declare a person in breach of the law unless he saw evidence of wrong-doing. Using tenuous links to past infractions to justify Zimmerman's profiling is specious. Far more likely that he was profiled based on appearance - likely a combo of skin colour and attire.
