MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND SAID about the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, and about Zimmerman’s subsequent trial and acquittal by a Florida jury.
Of the finer points of law and of the verdict itself, or of the possibility of federal action in the wake of the acquittal, I have no comment. I’m not a lawyer. I’m happy to leave the legal discussion to others.
I couldn’t bear to watch the media-circus coverage of the trial. The glimpses I got of it confirmed my fears that the coverage was functioning as a proxy for the media’s impoverished cultural and racial “debates” that do not, and have not — and will not — shed much if any light on the actual state of race relations in the United States. To quote Shakespeare, It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The more human story, as best I’ve been able to derive it from accounts of the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, contains far more heartbreak and tragedy than can be contained in the narrow confines of legal discourse.
George Zimmerman confronted a young man who had committed no crime, but who seemed suspicious. The confrontation escalated to violence and ultimately to Trayvon Martin’s tragic death.
My own feelings about the situation are informed mostly by having spent the first 14 years of my life in a neighborhood filled with young black men. Trayvon’s face reminds me very much of a friend from the old neighborhood.
I forget what my friend’s father did for a living, but I remember that he was doing well enough that he made an offer to buy a house up in the (white and middle class) El Cerrito hills. Everything was all set to go, but at the last minute several homeowners who lived nearby pooled their resources and bought the house out from under him. It was clear that their reason for doing so had everything to do with the amount of melanin in my friend’s father’s skin. My own father remarked at the time that he had never seen someone so hurt.
I’m able to think back now with an adult’s sense of perspective, and from that perspective I doubt that the people in that neighborhood acted out of anything that could be justly categorized as “hatred.” More likely it was fear, grounded in ignorance, that motivated them.
I use that word, “ignorance,” to mean not that they were people who are typically (and too glibly) dismissed as “rednecks” — no, I mean it in the literal sense that they did not know anything about my friend’s father. They didn’t know him as I remember him: as an active Little League dad, a good mentor for his son, a hard worker and loving husband, and a guy who kept his yard as neat as a pin — in other words, the kind of neighbor most homeowners would be happy to have among them. They had prejudged him — the very definition of prejudice — based only on what he looked like.
I experienced this more directly myself when I and my Richmond friends would go into grocery stores in El Cerrito to blow our allowances on sodas and candy. When I was with my black friends, we were always aware of being watched — more to the point, of being treated as suspects — wherever we went in the store. My friends never talked about it much except in an indirect way, but I saw the resentment, the deep and wounding hurt, that this treatment caused them. I never experienced that kind of treatment when I wandered around those stores by myself.
The essence of what happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed was that George Zimmerman confronted a young man who had every right to be in his neighborhood, and began a confrontation that escalated into something horrific. I believe Zimmerman acted out of the same fearful ignorance that motivated the residents of that long-ago El Cerrito neighborhood, and that the cause of Trayvon’s death was, essentially, that same fearful ignorance.
The way to prevent future occurrences like Trayvon’s death may involve the law in some way, but the heart of the solution must come from banishing fear and ignorance with familiarity and kinship.
George Zimmerman is not a monster; I would bet that if he had met Trayvon previously, he might even have liked him — it’s possible that he may even have seen a little of his own story, of his own self, in the young 17-year-old African American. That he did not is the real tragedy of that terrible night.
“People fail to get along because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don’t know each other; they don’t know each other because they have not communicated with each other.” — Martin Luther King Jr.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
You mentioned multiple times that Zimmerman confronted Martin. There has been no evidence to demonstrate that. The evidence is that Martin jumped Zimmerman and it escalated from there. That is the evidence.
Actually, there IS evidence Zimmerman confronted Martin. Trayvon was talking on the phone with his friend, when…the last words his friend heard him say was ‘Hey, get off of me!’. That is evidence. The only ‘evidence’ suggesting Zimmerman was jumped was Zimmerman’s own statement to police. As Zimmerman is a well-documented liar, and he didn’t testify this in court, himself, i would hardly call this ‘evidence’.
There is no proof it was TM that said Hey, get off me.
That’s right. Besides the known liar, the only other witness was murdered.
Yeah…Zimmerman walked up to the phone mic and said it in Trayvon’s voice. Good point.
Sorry the verdict was not guilty. Cannot deny that.
The verdict was wrong. Weren’t we having this debate elsewhere? Are you following me?
No Simon you are following me.
Bob, I see what you’re doing — the old “turn around everything you say” tactic. But it’s just not working. It didn’t work in the other thread because of your fallacious reasoning and it’s patently absurd now as you are obviously following me — I posted here first, and you followed me from another thread to continue our argument. This stalking behavior is not very becoming. I suggest you grow up.
Simon are you now taking on the job as comment monitor? I will comment when and as I please. If anyone is a stalking person Simon it could be you. You actually stock and follow Benician, jill and your gang. Some might call that being a bully. I call it just trying to get your comments in and try to dominate a run. Go to it. I will always be around to follow, precede or just comment. You can take it or leave it. Got to leave for now just got a call from my agent. See you later.
I don’t know what you’re talking about and neither do you. Today is the first day I have EVER commented on this blog, and right away I have a crazy person hounding me. I guess that’s how the Herald conducts business. Very professional. I would urge you to not reply but I can tell you’re one of those “last word” types, so have at it.
Simon do you hound DDL? Just wondering. Now it is your turn for the last comment. I would also urge you not to comment.
He’s an author in this forum. I think of it as challenging his ideas, which are ripe for a challenge. You, however, followed me from one thread to another, which is kind of creepy.
Simon I have been commenting on the Berald blog since it started. So there is no way I would stalk you are anyone else. You are very new on this blog under the name Simon. Now you may have commented under another name. I have many folks comment before and after I even make a comment and reference my name along with DDL. We seem to be their favorite target or as you may say stalking victims. So I have no idea where you are coming from. By the way it would be very nice if all the no-names got together and wrote a LTTE with your names. No names no LTTE will be printed. Not the case here. Can hide behind a single name. By the way everyone knows who DDL is.
should be Herald
Thanks for contributing another irrelevant point.
the last words his friend heard him say was ‘Hey, get off of me!’. That is evidence
That would have been Rachael Jenteal, the one who also testified that she “heard a wet grass sound”. That was ‘evidence’ also.
Ahhhh…still showing your pro-Zimmerman colors. That Jenteal was less than eloquent doesn’t detract from the voracity of her testimony. And, she had the courage to testify. Zimmerman, on the other hand, did not.
she had the courage to testify. Zimmerman, on the other hand, did not.
Your lack of understanding of our judicial process continues to plummet with each new additional comment.
Apparently you are unaware that witnesses can be required by law to testify (it is called a subpoena) while defendants cannot be (it is called the Fifth Amendment).
As to the ‘lack of eloquence’ of Ms. Jenteal, eloquence has nothing to do with the “sound of wet grass”.
Who’s talking about compulsion? He could have voluntarily testified. Defendants with the truth on their side often do. Tends to make for a stronger case.
I, like most, understood what she meant by the ‘sound of wet grass’ (the sound of BODIES rolling in wet grass). That you don’t, or refuse to admit to, confirms either your ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
It’s interesting that none of the comments respond to Mr. Talbot’s thesis, which is simply: had Mr. Zimmerman KNOWN Mr. Martin, KNOWN who he was and where he was going, there would have been no tragedy. I don’t know how this great piece – which directly addresses why things like this happen – is being turned into another autopsy of the Martin case. Mr. Talbot’s point is right on: until we start to admit that a) we DO make judgments based on what people LOOK like; b) we will never move forward as a society and civilization until we recognize and admit it is a problem and c) his own personal and, sometimes, painful experiences with this very situation make his words very powerful. I am a white middle-class woman who worked for many years on a native American reservation. I have dark hair, which at the time, was long and straight (it was the style then). When I went into shops on the perimeter of the reservation, I would be followed around by a clerk because, since I had long, dark hair, I must be Indian and, therefore, a risk. I felt small, angry and frustrated. Mr. Talbot is exactly right and I am glad I had that experience because I now know what it is like to be judged, wrongly and negatively on how I look. THAT is his point, not whether Zimmerman was justly treated or not. But, I realize it is easier to nit-pick this case than to really look, honestly, at the root causes of it.
Very astute observation. I think Mr. Talbot’s thesis is lost on several contributors above. Unfortunately, it is due to their need to fly the flag of there agenda. In their mind’s their agendas trumps everything else.
Back to Mr. Talbot’s column. I am married to a Hispanic woman. It’s fairly routine that she (as well as my children) are subject to prejudice and condescension from folks (usually Caucasian woman). I am sure that these folk’s prejudice is fuel by some distorted world views. I have to wonder, if these people knew that my wife comes from a well-to-do family, holds a PhD from a distinguished university, and maintains a very good paying job, would this change their tune? I am thinking, probably not.
Unfortunately, you are probably right. Some of the folks who judge her by her looks would, naturally, conclude that she has that PhD because of affirmative action or preferential treatment of some kind! Again, until we acknowledge we have a problem, it will never be solved!