I’m not going to write much. That’s in part because I am just too frustrated and angry to collect my thoughts in any orderly fashion. (And as you may have noticed, that’s not a strength of mine on a good day!) I’ve alternated between wanting to sob this morning and being outraged and indignant, with no outlet for my anger. Thus, this brief post. (Well, I intend it to be brief, but you know what it’s like when someone gets on his/her personal soap box. Shutting up and getting down off the box can be difficult and take too long.)
I only learned about Trayvon Martin‘s death this week. I was so upset I truly could not sleep. I just felt so badly for his family. And if I can’t sleep on a given night, I guess it’s okay with me when it is due to concern for someone else. I immediately signed a petition with almost 1,500,000 others (at the time I signed) asking for justice. It was something small, but something nevertheless that might give some comfort and reassurance to Trayvon’s parents that people care. That means a lot, we’ve learned.
I would have liked to be able to go to NYC for the rally on behalf of Trayvon. And when I saw on television the thousands that were in Sanford, Florida on Thursday night I wanted to be there. And mind you, I am claustrophobic. I NEVER expose myself to crowds willingly. But I actually felt like were I to be right in the middle of that crowd it would be not only bearable, but definitely okay.
Last night I had an experience I don’t ever remember having. I wanted to smash something; specifically our television. While getting ready for bed I had the bedroom television on. I heard some report on which Newt Gingrich was saying he found it was, in a sense, disgraceful that President Obama was trying to turn the death of Trayvon Martin into a racial issue. Well, it so happened that I had personally heard the president’s words. He said he thought about his girls. He went on to say that were he to have a son, that son would look like Trayvon. He then said he thought every parent in America should be able to understand why it is imperative to investigate and figure out how the tragedy happened.
Okay, to me it seems blatantly evident that the president, by theorizing about a son of his, was personalizing the experience of Trayvon’s parents. But Newt claimed that the president was indicating that it was a tragedy only because Trayvon was black. I quote, “Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be okay because it didn’t look like him?”
I find it particularly interesting that Newt made no mention of how he might feel if it had been one of his two daughters who had been killed. And did you notice Newt referred to the white as “it” later on in the sentence? Where is Newt’s attempt to personalize and empathize with Trayvon’s family? And for me, the fact that he doesn’t even use a personal pronoun when speaking about a person is just strange.
Read what President Obama said at the Rose Garden press conference for yourself. And then read Newt’s comments made on the Sean Hannity’s radio show. Don’t take my word for it. I realize another’s response will probably be no where near as strong as mine. But let me repeat, I wanted to smash the television. I assume that means I unconsciously would have been slapping Newt’s face. And you know something? Had my hairbrush been in hand, I feel certain I would have done some smashing. And you know something else? I truly think that were we having to shop for a new television today, it wouldn’t bother me a bit! I know I should say shame on me. I know I should want to be ashamed. But I’m not there yet.
So what else has me all riled up this morning? I found out Geraldo Rivera is asserting that Trayvon’s hoodie was as responsible for his death as George Zimmerman. Geraldo says, “…I bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.” Were that not enough, he also contends he is trying to save lives. “I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly not to let their children go out wearing hoodies.”
Where to begin? How about the less offensive ideas; the ones that could perhaps be attributed to one ignorant, insensitive guy who must be totally impressed with his wisdom and importance? In what world does any parent who currently lives with, or has lived with a teenager, think you are going to be able to tell a 17 year old not to wear what other teenagers are? Especially when that teenager is just going to hang out? And suppose you did have that exceptional (and possibly abnormal) teenager to whom you could dictate your clothing preference, would you really object to a sweatshirt type garment, hood or no? That would be the article of clothing you would ban? Really?
Next in order of offensiveness, how about the term “nutty” for a grown man having nothing better to do than be out in a neighborhood, apparently just to see what is going on, but carrying a gun? “Nutty” seemed to work pretty well in “The Nutty Professor” movie. Not so much here. The term is inappropriately mild and fails to express the seriousness of this grown man’s actions, particularly since it can be proven he had a habit of contacting police on a somewhat regular basis. For me, it seems to minimalize George Zimmerman’s behavior.
Difficult to decide what insensitive aspect of Geraldo’s comments to address next, but I’ll go with the idea that Trayvon, by choosing to wear a hoodie, caused George Zimmerman’s response to be more physically threatening than it might have otherwise been. So, in this country where personal freedom is valued highly, and personal responsibility is encouraged, Geraldo thinks a KID, in America, should give up his personal freedom of clothing choice because it might result in a physical attack? Or because, as Geraldo opines, that article of clothing could be associated with gangsters? AND the personal responsibility for one’s actions towards another is mitigated, NOT by the actions of the other, but by his/her clothing? The total lack of logic (not to mention human feeling) in such an argument almost defies discussion. How could someone so determined to view tragic situations from such a narrow, just plain mean, perspective ever be engaged in a truly meaningful dialogue? I have no idea. And I sincerely doubt it would be possible.
Now let me speak about the offensive notion that Trayvon bears part of the responsibility for his death? A teenager, killed while walking from a store with candy and tea, is responsible for causing a more intense emotional reaction and subsequently a more violent physical attack because he wasn’t responsible enough in his choice of shirt or jacket? That opinion is valid in what we call the greatest country in the world? The country where, according to the news network for which Geraldo is a senior correspondent, religious and economic freedoms (and of course, gun rights) are right now being eroded by the other political side? Well, I can only assume Geraldo and his news network better understand freedom. I guess religious, economic, and gun freedoms are more important than the right of a young person to just be a young person and walk the streets of a neighborhood in our country.
The MOST offensive part of Geraldo’s commentary, in my view? The very, very clear implication that Trayvon’s parents, had they not allowed him to wear a hoodie, might have him with them today. Geraldo’s urging of parents to disallow hoodies is such a hurtful, hateful and arrogant thing to suggest. And Geraldo contends that he is trying to save lives! If that doesn’t make his diatribe all the more offensive, what could? And he has a son! How could he not pause, and think, for just a moment, what it would be like were he to lose his son? Especially at the hands of someone older and for no apparent reason? How would he feel if someone even mildly and obliquely made the suggestion that he made a bad parenting decision that might have bearing on his son’s death?
And then there is Geraldo’s fellow Fox News guy, Sean Hannity. After indicating that maybe it was all a terrible, tragic accident, he sent his prayers to Trayvon’s parents. That was after he said maybe Trayvon was running, thinking he was in danger; that maybe there had been some crimes and that’s why there was a neighborhood watch, so it was all possibly a horrible accident? Did he listen to the 911 call? If so, is he incapable of understanding spoken English language? You know, like when George Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher that they did NOT need him to follow Trayvon? George Zimmerman just accidently followed this kid then? And then, also accidently shot him?
Really, how would a rational, minimally sympathetic parent come to any of the conclusions these three men have? And how would a rational, minimally sympathetic parent ever be able to convince men who view any and all things of life from one and only one perspective, theirs, which is ALWAYS political, and ALWAYS right?
I attempted to find a petition against Fox News and all that they stand for. I could not find one. I wanted to do what I could to stand up against such despicable responses to the loss of a kid’s life. In this case, it IS Fox News that is demonstrating lack of compassion for one 17 year old whose life is gone. It is Fox News that is saying something other than asking how this could happen and how we are all together in our support and compassion for the family. But be assured I have called and/or emailed anyone whom I have seen as rude, mean, insensitive, etc. I don’t care who they are or what “side” with which they are aligned.
And you know why I’ve done that? Because I have said for some time now, and firmly believe, that were cancer a living, breathing entity, it would be very jealous of how rapidly hate spreads. I’d like to think maybe I can live in such a way as to stand up against that hate.
Your president has class. His opponents not so much.
ReplyDeleteSeems like Fox News should maybe be avoided?