HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yr Guide to the Idiotic R...

Tue Jul 23, 2013, 03:35 AM


Yr Guide to the Idiotic Racist Backlash Against Trayvon Martin (Michelle Malkin sourcing stormfront)

For a minute there, it looked like Trayvon Martin might avoid the kind of horseshit thunderstorm that tends to accompany the shooting deaths of unarmed African-Americans. It seemed like everyone agreed that the police had fucked up. Fox News had only one segment on the killing in the weeks following. Not even white racists wanted to defend Martin's killer, George Zimmerman: when I wrote about the case last week, the worst response I got was from one particularly dedicated nutcase, who set up a Twitter account to harass me for not properly specifying that Zimmerman is Hispanic.

But the horseshit is raining down now, helped along by a desperate Sanford Police Department doing everything it can to make Martin look like he deserved to die, and by the champion point-missers of the internet right wing, who hardly need convincing that a 17-year-old black kid was up to no good.

You can see it in the incompetent and widely-circulated "investigations" into Martin's social media presence and in the sudden rise in concern among your Facebook friends over black-on-white crime. You can see it in the faux-naοve concern trolling of the National Review and Business Insider, or on the Drudge Report, where for the second day in a row notorious race hustler Matt Drudge is pimping headlines about "new details" and "multiple suspensions," accompanied by a photo of Martin, baby-faced, mugging for the camera, sparkling grill in his mouth. And you can see it outside the bodega on your way to the subway, on the front page of today's New York Post, which reads "TRAYVON HOODWINK: Tragedy hijacked by race hustlers..."

Meanwhile, in the Miami Herald, a leaked Miami-Dade Schools Police report reveals that Martin was suspended, once for truancy and tardiness, once for "marijuana residue," and once for graffiti and "possession of a burglary tool" — a screwdriver recovered by a "school police investigator" who saw Martin write "W.T.F." on a door with marker. Inside his backpack was some jewelry, which Martin said belonged to a friend; it was confiscated, and there's no evidence at all it was stolen. The Herald writes that the "suspensions paint [a] complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin." It seems too obvious to even say, but smoking pot, skipping school, owning a screwdriver and writing on walls are not evidence of anything other than being in high school. They are certainly not capital crimes. And yet this anonymous witness and Martin's supensions are being cited as key facts — as more important, than, say, the fact that Zimmerman had a gun, and Martin didn't, or the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin, who was doing nothing wrong — by people who insist they're only interested in "truth."

If the police leaks seem familiar, from the dozens of times America has attempted to exorcise its demons in the course of a single criminal investigation, so should the half-baked investigation undertaken by Wagist.com and widely disseminated by eager skeptics. The blog's conclusion — based on a photo of Martin's friend throwing a sign, a comment from a friend who "need[s] a plant," a reference to "[swinging] on a bus driver" — is that Martin was a drug dealer involved in gang life. (They also write several paragraphs about his tattoos: "Sabrina," his mother's name, on his wrist, and a larger piece on his arm which says, as far as I can tell, "Nana." The one thing you can say in favor of Wagist.com's investigation is that it confined itself to the internet life of the real Trayvon Martin. Michelle Malkin's bizarre Twitter news site Twitchy posted an image macro over the weekend featuring a photo of the wrong Trayvon Martin. (The same image was featured on white supremacy message board Stormfront, where Business Insider picked it up.

There's a prevailing belief — expressed both by semi-literate commenters and featured Tumblr writers — that the media has failed to portray Martin as the dangerous young man he actually was. If people saw photos of Martin with his dental accessories, this theory goes, if they knew he was 6'3", they'd feel differently. If they knew he'd been suspended they'd understand where Zimmerman was coming from.

One problem is that to those of us outside the self-shaking horseshit snow globe, smoking weed and having tattoos aren't evidence of anything. Most of us look at all the charges marshaled against Martin and see a kid. Many of us see our friends, or ourselves. There's a tragic irony to the fact that the only people Trayvon Martin was really able to fool into thinking he was anything but a baby-faced high schooler were the same people who think he deserved to be shot.

But the other problem is the terms of the debate itself. Whether or not Martin was a good kid or a bad kid, an angel or a thug, a normal teenager or a dangerous deviant, he had every right to walk in the streets of his soon-to-be-stepmother's neighborhood without fear of being shot. A criminal record, a manner of dress, a height: none of these make the shooting of an unarmed, law-abiding teenager justified. And yet here we are, forced to defend Martin's honor, as though if he had been a gangster there'd be nothing to say. As though the minute a black man is anything but a choir boy it's okay to shoot him in the street.

We should have known this was coming. Maybe not for most of last week, when for once everyone seemed to be on the same page. But we had to have known it would get here on Friday morning, when Fox News symbolically broke its silence with a Geraldo Rivera segment urging young men of color to stop wearing hoodies — so as not to get shot — the hilariously inept logic of which failed to mask its true intent: to shift the blame for Martin's death back on to Martin.

A few hours later, the president stood in front of journalists in the Rose Garden and, taking a question about Trayvon Martin, said "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." That was it. Rivera had given the horseshit its window, and Obama had given it its direction. What jacked-up rightblogger could stop himself then? Who could resist calling the president's son a thug?


3 replies, 2037 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yr Guide to the Idiotic Racist Backlash Against Trayvon Martin (Michelle Malkin sourcing stormfront) (Original post)
HiPointDem Jul 2013 OP
defacto7 Jul 2013 #1
Igel Jul 2013 #2
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #3

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Jul 23, 2013, 04:11 AM

1. K&R

Thanks HiPointDem. Unfortunate state of mind on this front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Tue Jul 23, 2013, 11:10 AM

2. The right's reactionary.

Sort of a definition kind of thing, that.

For most people the trial itself was fought in the media. Everybody "knows" that the verdict was wrong (or right) depending upon which fine and upstanding innuendo and Twitter feeds they want to believe, how they personally want to view the law.This makes the jury's verdict incomprehensible--and if we don't revise what we think of as the law and as the evidence then we have to come up with another reason for the verdict, one that says "we're right" and that "they're wrong." So they're corrupt. They're racist. Or the system's racist. Not imperfect, not racist sometimes, but corrupt and inherently systemically racist.

Part of the fight was how the two actors were portrayed. If there was any doubt that GZ was guilty, just look at him--GZ was a racist wannabe wife-beating child-molesting failure of a man who left home that day with a loaded gun for the purpose purpose of hunting his favorite two-footed animal.

TM, on the other hand, was a baby, a baby-faced young man, thin and innocuous who, if he did anything that could be perceived as wrong, was either normal or maligned.

White devil versus black saint. And the starker the difference, the more loaded the terms that could be used, the better. If it was necessary to mischaracterize either, well, okay--that's the *real* truth, even if we currently lack the evidence. This makes any response to the verdict, already seen as wrong, even more extreme.

The right's reactionary. You're seeing the reaction. It was under the surface, but the trial evidence, both admitted and denied, help to feed that reaction. "Just the facts" is a nice way to go. Character assassination coupled with hagiography yields character assassination and hagiography. Unless we want to assume, just on principle, that the right's more principled and moral than the left so we should have higher expectations on character and behavior. No? Didn't think so. Since having higher expectations for the left results in the left beating up the left unnecessarily, I go with roughly equal expectations. So the right's reprehensible, but who are we to talk? Casting the first stone, living in glass houses, etc., etc.

BTW, at least where I frequent, most kids go 4 years of high school and never serve a day in suspension. Most of those who do go to in-school suspension really are there because of tardies. They just don't show up for after-school detention and the punishment for *that* is ISS. That rate's been cut way down by handing the students reminders the day before and the day of their ASD and giving them a room number, instead of just telling the day they get their tardy that their ASD is scheduled for two weeks later and assuming they know where to go. Other kids have regular assigned seats in ISS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Igel (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 23, 2013, 01:15 PM

3. did we read the same article?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread