The Disunited States of America — by Polydamas
Nearly forty-nine years ago, on August 28, 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. his masterpiece “I Have a Dream” speech. Two generations ago, the highlight of Rev. King’s speech was his dream that his children “will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Neither Rev. King nor any of the 200,000 civil rights supporters who stood in the sweltering heat could have imagined that, within two generations, the American people would elect an African-American President in Barack Hussein Obama and, at the same time, turn away from his dream.
In America of 2012, race is the prism through which every issue is viewed. Legendary Green Bay Packers football coach Vince Lombardi’s quote “Winning isn’t everything; it is the only thing” would have every bit of validity in 2012 if the word “race” was substituted for the word “winning”. The big questions here are why and how did the United States turn from Dr. King’s vision of a person’s race slowly becoming unimportant to a country in which a person’s race is the only important issue. The answer is ominous, but let us open Pandora’s box slowly and peek inside it.
Rev. King spoke passionately in his speech about his belief in America’s founding ideals. The founders of our country, he said, signed a promissory note to all Americans, white and black, which guaranteed them the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He proclaimed that, as far as her “citizens of color”, America has “defaulted on this promissory note” and gave them a “bad check, a check that has come back marked ‘insufficient funds'”. Most remarkably, however, he did not give up on America and its ideals, stating, “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice.”
Rev. King believed in one American nation. He did not subscribe to white people and black people going their own way, as Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, and the Black Panthers advocated. Rather, his dream was that “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood”. They were to sit together at one table, not at two separate tables. He wanted to “make justice a reality for all of God’s children” and not only for black people. He understood that, in the pursuit of justice, black people “cannot walk alone” and that they must join forces with like-minded white people. He cautioned against “distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom”.
Another integral part of Rev. King’s blueprint for a just America was to eschew violence and crime. “In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds.” He warned against “drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred” and allowing the struggle for justice to “degenerate into physical violence”. “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.”
In the 49 years that ensued since Rev. King’s speech, many in the African-American community have moved on and away from Rev. King’s dream. They do not believe that America’s founding ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are achievable by all Americans. It is because, they contend, that there are, at least, two Americas, one for the white man and the other for people of color, and the twain shall never meet. Finally, unlike Rev. King, while they view crime and violence as lamentable and tragic, they, ultimately, see them as tools for establishing a compelling narrative and achieving social and political change.
The current sad state of race relations in America is exemplified by the infamous Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida that has gripped the nation over the past few months. In a Washington Post/ABC News poll, published on April 10, 2012, the following question was posed “Do you think the Trayvon Martin shooting was justified or unjustified or do you not know enough to say?” In other words, the people polled were asked whether or not they had already formed an opinion. Among white people, 56 percent said that they do not know enough about the case to say, 38 percent said it was unjustified, and 6 percent said it was justified. In contrast, among African-Americans, 80 percent said it was unjustified, 19 percent did not know enough to form an opinion, and 1 percent said it was justified.
What explains the widely-divergent views between the races? Assuming the poll is accurate and representative, it is not reasonable to believe that ordinary, law-abiding African-American people would support someone solely because he happened to be of the same race as they were. Reasonable people in the African-American community realize that there are some people in their midst who engage in criminal activities and in a predatory manner, even against members of their own race. Being of a certain race or religion does not require that one must approve, condone, justify or excuse improper and unreasonable actions taken by members of the same race or religion.
It is the contention of this article that African-Americans overwhelmingly believe that Trayvon Martin was an innocent teenager who was murdered by George Zimmerman because of mendacious actions on the part of the national media and the resulting rhetoric of their leadership. As The Hollywood Reporter details, the national media has misled the nation to believe that George Zimmerman singled out Trayvon Martin solely because he was an African-American. NBC admitted that it had spliced together parts of the 911 emergency call that was placed by Zimmerman. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-miami-george-zimmerman-317207.htm). As it turned out, NBC employees cut and pasted Zimmerman’s 911 emergency call to produce the following two consecutive sentences “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black”. This was done in order to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist who racially profiled Trayvon Martin. In fact, the two sentences were not consecutive. After the first sentence, the 911 operator had specifically asked Zimmerman “Is he white, black or Hispanic?” to which Zimmerman answered “He looks black”.
After it was caught in the act of manipulating public opinion, on April 26, 2012, NBC proceeded to fire Miami NBC6 reporter Jeff Burnside, who was described as “an environmental journalist who has won several regional Emmy awards”. The Hollywood Reporter subsequently reported that, two weeks later, NBC fired another reporter who “was identified as Lilia Luciano, a national correspondent for the Today show, Nightly News with Brian Williams and MSNBC who joined the network 18 months ago from Univision.” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-nbc-news-fires-third-employee-319991.htm). A third unidentified producer was also fired.
It may be reasonably concluded that this outright deception on the part of NBC was intended to make the incident even more newsworthy than it already was, to inflame African-Americans, and to garner increased television viewership. After its chicanery was exposed, NBC quickly engaged in damage control and issued an apology. “During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-edited-911-call-george-zimmerman-nbc-news-307399.htm). However, this was equivalent to ceremonially shutting the stable doors after pretending that the doors had been inadvertently left open when, in fact, the horses had been released from the stable on purpose. Notably, NBC apologized to its viewers only, not to George Zimmerman who was painted as a racist and not to the victims of the violence to which it contributed (more below).
The purposefully slanted reporting by the national media was complemented by fiery rhetoric by African-American elected officials who had leaped to conclusions. Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida) wailed, “I want America to see this sweet young boy who was hunted down like a dog, shot in the street, . . . . This was a standard case of racial profiling.” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) claimed that Trayvon Martin “was executed for ‘WWB’ in a ‘GC.’ Walking While Black in a Gated Community.” Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter charged, “I’ve called this nothing short of an assassination. This individual Zimmerman followed Trayvon for some period of time. Trayvon was not doing anything . . . was not a threat based on all the information and evidence and 911 tapes that have been released.” Even President Barack Obama added “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Others have also weighed in on the issue. Rev. Jesse Jackson proclaimed, “We must turn a moment into a movement”. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-legacy-jesse-jackson). New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad announced a $10,000 bounty for the so-called capture of George Zimmerman, justifying the proposed lynching of Zimmerman as “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-new-black-panthers-protest-20120324_1_sanford-vigilante-justice-black-men). Even the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay jumped into the fray, calling for “an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.” She stated “Justice must be done for the victim. It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this. In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case. It shouldn’t be so”. (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fla-civil-rights-group-welcomes-un-official-s-call-reparations-trayvon-martin-case).
African-American columnist Edward Wyckoff Williams wisely observed in his April 10, 2012 column “Trayvon and Institutionalized Racism” that “Not every case of white-on-black violence involving young black males is equivalent to the Trayvon Martin incident. Some stories could be conflated to the tragic circumstances surrounding Martin in order to gain attention, notoriety or traction toward other ends. And others may offer tragically similar equivalencies. Sifting through the facts is the duty of our law enforcement apparatus, but for a community distrustful of racial bias among police and local justice officials, African-Americans must at times try their cases in the media and court of public opinion.”
The problem, however, with trying cases in the media and in the court of public opinion is that, whenever people do so, they depart from the law and the specific circumstances that give rise to a particular case and embark upon generalizations for political purposes. For example, a court of law and a jury are charged with determining whether the defendant who stands accused of the heinous crime of rape is guilty of the particular crime he was charged with. To do so, it must examine the factual circumstances of the events in question. Yet, if this rape case is tried in the court of public opinion, the specific facts of the case will rapidly give way to a discussion of rape in general and the sex roles of men and women in society. Whether women are objectified by society, have the right to sexual self-determination, the right to not live in fear of walking down the street at night in a miniskirt, or consideration of the harrowing emotional toll on rape victims are weighty public policy issues that should not determine specifically whether a given defendant committed the crime in question.
The point here is strictly whether or not George Zimmerman is guilty. He may be, but, then again, he may not be guilty. This is the job of a court of law, not the court of public opinion, and not the court of public lynching. George Zimmerman may be personally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. He cannot possibly be personally responsible for the entire mistreatment of African-Americans in our society. When trying a case in the media and in the court of public opinion, there is a great risk that an innocent person may be unjustly punished to make an overarching political point. Even if the grand political point is valid, an innocent person should not be singled out to bear the brunt of it. The ends do not justify the means, and, even if the eventual goal is desirable and just, it should not be achieved by employing unjust means. George Zimmerman should not be punished for the racial profiling that African-Americans and other minorities endure all over America. As a society, we place our trust in courts of law, not because they are perfect and eminently just — they are far from perfect or just. It is because the alternative is unthinkable. Courts of law are an evolutionary step above pacifying an angry majority with the ceremonial killing of scapegoats. Using the court of public opinion to determine guilt or innocence, based upon selective sound bites, is a travesty; a defendant’s life and liberty should not be voted on like some American Idol contest.
Many people may ask “even if NBC and the media purposefully distorted the Trayvon Martin tragedy, what is wrong about raising national awareness about the evils of discrimination and racial profiling?” Such national awareness has deadly and violent consequences. In the aftermath of the tragedy, there were incidents nationwide in which African-Americans, feeling marginalized and angry, physically attacked and took out their anger on innocent white people. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/26/suspect-attacked-white-teen-because-am-angry-about-trayvon/), (http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/bond-denied-for-suspects-1429633.html), (http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2012/05/beating-church-and-brambleton), (http://www.examiner.com/article/media-censored-seven-hate-crime-mob-attacks-grand-rapids), (http://www.jdnews.com/news/attack-102517-slavin-son.html), (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/05/trayvon-martin-case-looms-over-beating-78-year-old-ohio-man/), (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120409/ARTICLES/120409617/1182?Title=Man-tells-police-group-yelled-8216-Trayvon-then-beat-him).
African-Americans are, understandably, angry that they are the victims of racial profiling, meaning, the law enforcement practice of treating innocent individuals as suspects and presuming them to be dangerous just because they happen to be of the same race or ethnic background as other individuals who were, are or may be dangerous. However, a similar point can be equally said about the African-Americans who decided to retaliate against innocent and helpless white people who just happen to be of the same race or ethnic background as the white police officers who were doing the initial racial profiling. Whatever happened to Rev. Martin Luther King’s wise admonition to “not be guilty of wrongful deeds”, not drink “from the cup of bitterness and hatred”, not resort to “physical violence”, and maintain the “high plane of dignity and discipline”?
When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008, 45 years after Rev. King’s speech, there was hope by many that his election would be a monumental event in our nation’s history that would help heal race relations in America. The “Baby Boomers” generation was intent upon voting Barack Obama into office because of his pedigree as a trailblazer on race issues and their hope that he would break the White House’s color line. Barack Obama was to do for African-Americans in politics what Jackie Robinson did for them in major league baseball. Being half white and half black, Barack Obama could have been a healer, a bridge between two worlds, an alloy that would have transformed two metals into one, an individual who transcended simplistic labels of race. Unfortunately, he chose to define himself as African-American and to view the world through that prism only.
The Trayvon Martin case reveals a very ominous tear in the fabric of our nation. This fissure threatens to rend this nation apart, to balkanize it like the former Yugoslavia. We have not become a color-blind society in which chracter matters and race does not matter, as Dr. King had fervently wished. Instead, the United States became a nation which cares only about race and seemingly dispenses with character.
When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008, 45 years after Rev. King’s speech, there was hope by many that his election would be a monumental event in our nation’s history that would help heal race relations in America. The “Baby Boomers” generation was intent upon voting Barack Obama into office because of his pedigree as a trailblazer on race issues and their hope that he would break the White House’s color line. Barack Obama was to do for African-Americans in politics what Jackie Robinson did for them in major league baseball. Being half white and half black, Barack Obama could have been a healer, a bridge between two worlds, an alloy that would have transformed two metals into one, an individual who transcended simplistic labels of race. Unfortunately, he chose to define himself as African-American and to view the world through that prism only.
