FOR THE DAILY SOUTHERNER
To the Editor:
Every day black folks who are talking about RACE on the level are afraid to talk about RACE publicly because they are afraid. They are afraid of how other folks, be they black, brown, white or whatever will look at them.
They are afraid of how their employer will look at them. They are afraid of retaliation that may come via through their children or just maybe other family members.
When I read about white privilege by whites like Tim Wise it is real. Every day white folks can feel comfortable about talking about RACE because of white privilege. We all know that this society has been basically white privilege at least all of my 50 years, so I know those older than I can relate even moreso.
I totally agree with the statement, "Had the accused and the victim both been black or both been white, the case might have attracted little attention. Indeed, this year alone, dozens of young black men like Trayvon Martin have died violent deaths in cities throughout the country. We don't know their names or faces because their deaths and the trials of the people accused of killing them haven't become grist for the cable television trial mill." I am so sick of black folks and white folks talking about the number of black on black murders in Chicago. I am concerned about black on black crime be it in Chicago, North Carolina or whereever. However, I am concerned about the high profile murder cases such as the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida.
I want to talk about it all ... the Zimmerman case, the black on black crime and others, however, I don't want to talk about them all at one time because I do not believe we will accomplish anything trying to compare them all when they are not equal.
As for the Zimmerman case I want to know that from the standpoint of the letter of the law, everything was done correctly during the trial. I want to know that the jurors were there to seek justice for Trayvon and not only for Zimmerman. I have a problem with the trial and I did not follow it as closely as many but just reading about the trial from many different resources, I am having a problem with it appearing as if the jurors were seeking only justice for Zimmerman based on his report and their assumptions of what they felt he had to do. But Martin cannot tell his side of the story, so did the jurors try to figure out what Martin was up against?
I am concerned about how the incident began up until the time of contact. So, that is where I can follow the facts, but all I can do is assume what happened, such as who started the incident.
I just want to know jurors followed the letter of the law and when I feel that they did then I will look at the law and say there must be a change made within the law.
Now, what I do know is there is nothing new as it relates to white folks and others killing black men who were not doing anything wrong. This has gone on since slavery.
What tickles the heck out of me the most is ignorant safe negroes who get on TV and in other media who are ignorant to what is real and what is perceived.
To think that black men are not profiled is just too ignorant. Because of the safe negroes, the discussion will continue to be lost because that is who the white folks want to hear. This justifies their thoughts, so therefore, they feel the discussion about RACE is invalid.
Heck no, the discussion should not be about Zimmerman and black on black crime, but it should be separate but equal discussion on an individual note.
The struggle continues,
Curmilus Dancy II