The one-sided racialism and non-thought I hear endlessly about Saint Trayvon is literally boggling.
We’re supposed to accept that Zimmerman was a hater of blacks despite all the evidence to the contrary * – meanwhile, Saint Trayvon (and his acolytes) can openly refer to non-blacks as “crackers” – on live TV! – and receive polite attention from the likes of Piers Morgan, et al.
We’re supposed to be “concerned” that Zimmerman would “profile” a young black guy dressed in a hoodie wandering through his neighborhood… even though the odds of any given young black guy dressed in a hoodie (and so on) actually being a criminal are very high given that this demographic is disproportionately involved in criminal activity relative to its numbers. In other words, it is not “racist” (mindless, irrational prejudice) to be more suspicious of a young black male who looks and acts a certain way.
It is rational – and reasonable.
Just as it is rational and reasonable (i.e., to make inferences based on evidence) when one “profiles” two well-scrubbed young white guys in white dress shirts and black slacks riding their bicycles up your driveway. It’s a good bet they’re Mormon missionaries.
There is no malignant intent involved in such (or similar) evaluations. Certainly no harm done (hurt feelings don’t count). No aggression has been committed – and so, no one’s rights have been violated.
Yes, it is unfortunate that decent young black men are caught up in this, but that fact in no way impugns the legitimate fear based on actual facts that people have of young black men – especially when they fit the profile. And Saint Trayvon – not the cute kid in the dated photo endlessly recycled by a viciously dishonest news media, but Saint Trayvon as he actually appeared that night – fit the profile. Thug clothes. Thug gold teeth and tats. But most of all, thug attitude and responses. He physically assaulted Zimmerman – probably because he felt “disrespected” (odious ghetto malaprop). This is what led to the tragedy. Not Zimmerman’s entirely reasonable “profiling” of Saint Trayvon. That entailed no violence – a critical point. Zimmerman was simply checking out a person he had reason to believe might be up to no good.
Saint Trayvon may have found this insulting. I sympathize with that. He certainly had every right to ask Zimmerman whyhe was following him. Even to curse him. Ideally, he should have just walked away. But until Zimmerman laid hands on him – and there is no evidence that happened – Saint Trayvon had no right to do anything more. Because no one has the right to initiate physical violence against another person.
Yet his defenders (for example, the creator of The Wire; see here) believe, apparently, that it is an acceptable thing for a “disrespected” young black to physically lash out – to beat a man who has not attacked him to a bloody pulp – and that it is not acceptable for the object of this abuse to physically defend himself.
This is quite something. All benefit of the doubt is given the attacker – Saint Trayvon. All doubt is cast on his victim, Zimmerman.