America’s Hateful Inheritance
Published in Nueva Tribuna
(Spain) on 2 April 2012
by Juan Antonio Sacaluga (link to original)
(Spain) on 2 April 2012
by Juan Antonio Sacaluga (link to original)
Translated from
by Camden Luxford.
Edited by Janie Boschma.
In an American society already strained and tense, the only thing missing was a surge in cases of savage racial hate. Two recent hair-raising cases feed worries of imminent social conflict, exacerbate society-wide polarization, demonstrate inadequate media coverage — simultaneously late and opportunistic — and have a confused, perverse political effect. An Iraqi woman was savagely murdered in the outskirts of San Diego. Her killer left a note with the body accusing her of being a terrorist, simply because she was Iraqi. This was a Shiite woman who had cooperated with the North Americans after the Gulf War, in defiance of Saddam Hussein. The murderer's logic, beyond simply criminal, couldn't be more absurd and lacking in compass. The events took place in a kind of Little Iraq, with many residents who have arrived from Iraq or other Middle Eastern states. An on-the-ground report published by the New York Times this week documented various examples of racist tension in that area. The other case has had greater impact, although it took weeks to become publicly known. On Feb. 26, a 17-year-old African American, Trayvon Martin, was killed by the impact of a 9mm bullet in his chest, shot by George Zimmermann, the 28-year-old “captain” of a neighborhood watch. The versions of each side’s legal team are radically different.
The lawyer of the shooter maintains his client was punched in the nose by the African-American. When Martin then moved a hand toward his belt, Zimmerman feared he would take out a gun. He simply acted to defend himself. On the contrary, the victim’s family’s lawyer maintains that Martin, who was unarmed, had gone out to buy a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea when he ran into the watchman and, without any aggressive or illegal behavior, was shot.
Police Under Suspicion
The attitude of the police force has been the object of suspicion. For weeks they have resisted handing over records of the conversation held with the neighborhood watchman in the minutes before the black teenager’s death. The police recommended to Zimmerman that he not intervene.
Nevertheless, on attending the scene, the police did not have Zimmerman examined by a doctor and accepted his version of events. The Sanford police present a rather controversial story, with suspiciously racist behavior that has been recognized even by the municipal authorities. In fact, the chief of police has been replaced because of “lack of confidence.” His successor is black. The matter is under investigation at a federal level; the case has taken on a national dimension.
A Perverse Law
The case is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman free. The watchman acted under protection of the Stand Your Ground Law. It is a concept tied to one of the most deeply rooted principles of North American conservatism — the right to take justice into one's own hands. It is an archaism that derives from the savage colonization of the country.
The controversial law is in effect in some 20 U.S. states. In Florida it was supported by then-governor Jeb Bush, the third member of the Bush political clan. But despite everything, this Bush disassociated himself from the applicability of the law in this case and considered that the law could not provide legal reason for someone to “chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
The Los Angeles Times offers some other recent cases of individual acts of self-defense that resulted in death. In many of them, the aggressor got away with it, uncharged, and in freedom. Some are bloody.
Criminalization of the Victim
Speaking to the daily Christian Science Monitor, Donald Tibbs, a law professor at Drexel University and specialist in cases related to racial crimes or civil rights violations, is inclined to consider the case a “hate crime”; that is, a racist crime showing signs of premeditation. Other activists that have supported the family in the subsequent social mobilization maintain similar arguments, accusing the aggressor of violent racism.
This point is important because racially motivated crimes carry a life sentence. The shocking part of the case is that the abuse allegedly committed by Zimmerman carries less punishment than if a policeman or official had committed it. His role in the neighborhood watch exonerates him of the crime of violating Martin's civil rights.
These legal entanglements frustrate the black population. Thousands of African-Americans have taken to the streets to protest not only the death of their “brother in color,” but also the unjust legal architecture that, despite a wave of advances since the 1970s, still persists in the United States.
When the indignation reached a level impossible to ignore in state communications President Obama, after a timid initial reaction, committed himself with a comment that will almost certainly be twisted and used by his political rivals and even more so by the spokespeople of the most recalcitrant American right. Obama said that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon.”
The presidential comment is more than just a more or less fortunate demonstration of empathy with the victim and those close to him. To gain the support or at least neutrality of certain social and political sectors, Obama had to demonstrate that he had no intention to make special claims for his race if he reached the White House. His enemies were not as polite with him. Don’t forget they demanded proofs of his citizenship and made other vile attacks.
Now, in the context of a sharpened political combat against the most militant right, Obama has opted not to take a step back. While his reform of the health care system is subjected to a worrying revision by the Supreme Court — with arguments that are incomprehensible in Europe — racial conflict could become a new electoral battleground.
Those that believed this problem had been overcome in America have, perhaps, been too optimistic. In a sharp analysis for The Nation, Melissa Harris-Perry, political scientist and expert in questions of racial discrimination, provocatively affirms, “Trayvon Martin was not innocent. He was guilty of being black in presumably restricted public space.” Further, she states: “it is often impossible for a black body to be innocent.” The habitual clothing of thousands of young black people is enough to make them suspicious. One of the most repellent conservative commentators of FOX, the Latino Geraldo Rivera, wasn’t ashamed to say in his program that if Martin had not had the hood of his sweatshirt covering his head, Zimmerman would not have attacked him. Which leads Professor Harris-Perry to comment that the young African-American is considered guilty not for having committed an aggressive or illegal act, but for his physical appearance. This criminalization of a form of presenting oneself in public may justify the shooter’s actions and leave many Americans with an easy conscience, but it further damages democratic coexistence in the United States.
The lawyer of the shooter maintains his client was punched in the nose by the African-American. When Martin then moved a hand toward his belt, Zimmerman feared he would take out a gun. He simply acted to defend himself. On the contrary, the victim’s family’s lawyer maintains that Martin, who was unarmed, had gone out to buy a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea when he ran into the watchman and, without any aggressive or illegal behavior, was shot.
Police Under Suspicion
The attitude of the police force has been the object of suspicion. For weeks they have resisted handing over records of the conversation held with the neighborhood watchman in the minutes before the black teenager’s death. The police recommended to Zimmerman that he not intervene.
Nevertheless, on attending the scene, the police did not have Zimmerman examined by a doctor and accepted his version of events. The Sanford police present a rather controversial story, with suspiciously racist behavior that has been recognized even by the municipal authorities. In fact, the chief of police has been replaced because of “lack of confidence.” His successor is black. The matter is under investigation at a federal level; the case has taken on a national dimension.
A Perverse Law
The case is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman free. The watchman acted under protection of the Stand Your Ground Law. It is a concept tied to one of the most deeply rooted principles of North American conservatism — the right to take justice into one's own hands. It is an archaism that derives from the savage colonization of the country.
The controversial law is in effect in some 20 U.S. states. In Florida it was supported by then-governor Jeb Bush, the third member of the Bush political clan. But despite everything, this Bush disassociated himself from the applicability of the law in this case and considered that the law could not provide legal reason for someone to “chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
The Los Angeles Times offers some other recent cases of individual acts of self-defense that resulted in death. In many of them, the aggressor got away with it, uncharged, and in freedom. Some are bloody.
Criminalization of the Victim
Speaking to the daily Christian Science Monitor, Donald Tibbs, a law professor at Drexel University and specialist in cases related to racial crimes or civil rights violations, is inclined to consider the case a “hate crime”; that is, a racist crime showing signs of premeditation. Other activists that have supported the family in the subsequent social mobilization maintain similar arguments, accusing the aggressor of violent racism.
This point is important because racially motivated crimes carry a life sentence. The shocking part of the case is that the abuse allegedly committed by Zimmerman carries less punishment than if a policeman or official had committed it. His role in the neighborhood watch exonerates him of the crime of violating Martin's civil rights.
These legal entanglements frustrate the black population. Thousands of African-Americans have taken to the streets to protest not only the death of their “brother in color,” but also the unjust legal architecture that, despite a wave of advances since the 1970s, still persists in the United States.
When the indignation reached a level impossible to ignore in state communications President Obama, after a timid initial reaction, committed himself with a comment that will almost certainly be twisted and used by his political rivals and even more so by the spokespeople of the most recalcitrant American right. Obama said that if he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon.”
The presidential comment is more than just a more or less fortunate demonstration of empathy with the victim and those close to him. To gain the support or at least neutrality of certain social and political sectors, Obama had to demonstrate that he had no intention to make special claims for his race if he reached the White House. His enemies were not as polite with him. Don’t forget they demanded proofs of his citizenship and made other vile attacks.
Now, in the context of a sharpened political combat against the most militant right, Obama has opted not to take a step back. While his reform of the health care system is subjected to a worrying revision by the Supreme Court — with arguments that are incomprehensible in Europe — racial conflict could become a new electoral battleground.
Those that believed this problem had been overcome in America have, perhaps, been too optimistic. In a sharp analysis for The Nation, Melissa Harris-Perry, political scientist and expert in questions of racial discrimination, provocatively affirms, “Trayvon Martin was not innocent. He was guilty of being black in presumably restricted public space.” Further, she states: “it is often impossible for a black body to be innocent.” The habitual clothing of thousands of young black people is enough to make them suspicious. One of the most repellent conservative commentators of FOX, the Latino Geraldo Rivera, wasn’t ashamed to say in his program that if Martin had not had the hood of his sweatshirt covering his head, Zimmerman would not have attacked him. Which leads Professor Harris-Perry to comment that the young African-American is considered guilty not for having committed an aggressive or illegal act, but for his physical appearance. This criminalization of a form of presenting oneself in public may justify the shooter’s actions and leave many Americans with an easy conscience, but it further damages democratic coexistence in the United States.