Trayvon Martin’s step-mother and attorneys for his family have both said this case is not about race, but the left-wing media keeps insisting it is.
Martin family attorney Daryl Parks used to compare Trayvon to Emmett Till and said his death was a tragedy for “every black person” in America. Now he says “We don’t believe the focus was really race.” Also last week Martin’s step-mother told Anderson Cooper that she did not believe Trayvon was targeted because of race. It seems the Martin family, however belatedly, has come around to the view that this trial is not one about race.
But left wing media refuses to let go of the race card.
For instance, the Atlantic Wire claimed the trial had become a “show trial.” The piece opens “Rachel Jeantel was on the phone with Trayvon Martin minutes beforeGeorge Zimmerman shot and killed him, and she could make or break amurder case that was supposed to be microcosm for race and violence inthis country.” Got that? It was “supposed to be” a microcosm of race in America. Who decided that, exactly?
The Atlantic Wire story goes on to quote from an article titled “What white people don’t understand about Rachel Jeantel.” Here’s a bit of that:
And if the 5 white jurors (excluding the 1 Latina) are like mostwhite people I know, they are unfortunately not going to like Rachel.They won’t understand her, especially not her defensive nature, and thiswill unfortunately work against her. Even though it shouldn’t.
I can imagine George Zimmerman’s defense is just hoping some of those5 white jurors have some prejudices (as most people do), or hell, areeven racist, because if they are, their tactic to make Rachel out to beless intelligent, rather than less credible than she actually is, mightactually work.
It’s not just George Zimmerman who might be a “creepy ass cracker” it’s the white defense attorney and, maybe, some of the 5 white women on the jury.
Over at The Nation Tuesday we got more of the same in a piece titled “Trayvon Martin and black manhood on trial.” Here’s the core of the argument:
Because it’s clear that, whoever instigated the altercation, Zimmermanfollowed Trayvon that night. He was instructed not to, but he didanyway. That Zimmerman fumbled for an answer when the lead investigator asked whetherhe thought Trayvon was afraid of him is emblematic of the way societyhas trained us to think about black manhood. Of course he didn’t thinkTrayvon could be scared. Young black men never are. They are the danger.Which is also why, for some, Zimmerman’s story, even with thecartoonish language he ascribes to Trayvon, doesn’t sound far-fetched. Ablack man jumping from behind the bushes to sucker-punch someone theydon’t know and attempt to kill them only a short distance from theirhome. It makes perfect sense if you believe that black men arepreternaturally violent.
In other words, the only reason people are likely to believe Zimmerman’s story is because they have a preconception–a prejudiced–against black men. Without this, presumably, it would be clear that Zimmerman’s “cartoonish” account of Martin’s language was far-fetched.
What exactly was cartoonish about the language ascribed to Martin? More to the point, what about the language ascribed to Martin by George Zimmerman is more cartoonish than the language Martin’s girlfriend has ascribed to him? Also it’s worth pointing out that in his video explanation of the incident, Zimmerman did not accuse Martin of hiding in the bushes or of sucker punching him. He did accuse Martin of confronting him verbally and then throwing the first punch. That may in fact be what happened. There certainly is very little evidence that it is not.
For more than a year now the left wing media has insisted on making thiscase about race. First they ascribed racial bias to George Zimmerman and the Sanford policeand now they are doing the same to the jury. The one constant is that anyone who disagrees with their view of what happened is racially suspect.
Meanwhile, the FBI and the Martin family agree thisis not about black manhood or race in America. Of course the left wing media can continue to expound on race to their heart’s content, but they should stop using the Martin trial as exhibit A. So far it does not appear the facts support their predetermined conclusions.