[piercehawkeye45]

I’ve been giving the trial and associated larger issues a lot of thought in the past few days and my conclusion is that this trial is a reflection of two clashing perspectives whose narratives are routinely marginalized by society and/or the media. Since both narratives have been suppressed and this trial directly addressed both perspectives, the amount of attention and the emotions attached to this trial were extremely high. Also, taking power dynamics into account, it is no surprise that Zimmerman, and his narrative, wins the case.

For an initial note, I am doing my best to explain my view of the two narratives in a more or less unbiased manner. I attempt to be brief and many issues are much more complicated than how I explain them. My personal views, thoughts, and experiences can be saved for a later post.

The first narrative is, stereotypically, a particular sub-group of the white middle-class (male) community. This group is fairly well off, prefers to live in safe (possibly gated) communities, and is increasingly worried about safety and crime. I don’t believe that the majority in this group are racists like people were in the 50’s and 60’s, but they notice that a disproportional amount of crime is committed by young black males. Along with being immersed in a racist social environment (we all have) which naturally exaggerates the young black male threat, there is large cultural clash between this group and the young black community. Due to a lack of understanding of the stereotypical young black culture’s dress, music, and mannerisms, it is difficult for them to recognize the small proportion of young black males that are a threat and therefore are much more cautious and fearful around all young black males. This, in my opinion, explains the racial stereotyping that occurs and the “justification” for laws such as ‘stop and frisk’.

This narrative is marginalized because any attempt to justify racial stereotyping, whether valid or not, is considered racist. Since the term racist is essentially equivalent to ‘Nazi’ in the US and the vast majority of white people will not embrace that label, for many legitimate reasons, the push for laws that racial profile are often done quietly and the reasons are often not publically defended.

The second perspective is that of the young black male. Due to some of the reasons stated above, the majority of young black males suffer racial profiling and discrimination due to the inability to differentiate the problematic young black males from the rest of the population due to mannerisms and dress. Therefore, this group routinely gets mistrusted by the general population, get guns pointed at them by police when stopped, and are largely at risk to being sent to prison (largely due to non-violent drug related crimes). This group feels threated by the police and other institutions that are set up to protect the first group because it is largely designed, purposefully or not, to indirectly target them.

This narrative is marginalized from what seems like a combination of typical minority status, annoyance of complaints from the rest of the population, and mistrust.

The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects both narratives because the first group can sympathize partly or fully with Zimmerman while the second group can sympathize with Martin. There were various burglaries in the area, committed by young black men, so Zimmerman was more vigilant of young black men that may be committing these crimes. Martin had relatives that lived in the area and was minding his own business and felt targeted due to his skin color and dress. The fear and misunderstanding from both parties led to a fight that resulted in the death of Martin. Obviously, people from both groups will naturally defend their narrative and this explains why this case became so important to many groups.

While I will strongly argue that both narratives are marginalized, although not necessarily to an equal degree, it is clear that one narrative has complete power over the other. There is a fairly simple reason why these laws exist and why one group has essentially complete control over the other: power. It is the people in the first narrative that control politics. It is people in the first narrative that design police tactics and the ‘Stand your ground’ laws. I do not believe that, in general, the people in the first group purposely create racists laws but they design these laws around their narrative and in their best self-interests. Since they have a monopoly on the power to design and control these laws, the laws will naturally be a reflection of that.

This is obviously not an ideal situation and is an obvious injustice toward the second group. However, since this is based on power and not morals, pointing out this injustice will not solve the problem because people in the first group will not sacrifice their safety for the sake of another group. Also, the targeting of their narrative by liberals will only cause them to be more set in their views. In order for young black men to defend themselves on an institutional level, they need representation.