Anyway, in what appears to be an attempt to push the envelope with brave, heterodox analysis, Time Magazine published an article asserting that the silver lining in the ostensible cloud of George Zimmerman's acquittal is the increasing number of white people recognizing their privilege. As a graduate of a "highly-selective" undergraduate institution, I am intimately acquainted with the concept of white
Before discussing Zimmerman and the Time article, I think it would be useful to lay out my objections to the concept of white privilege. To that end, here again is a definition:
"In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience. White privilege may be defined as the 'unearned advantages of being White in a racially stratified society', and has been characterized as an expression of institutional power that is largely unacknowledged by most White individuals."
- Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, via Wikipedia, naturally.
I suppose my main problem with this idea lies in the fact that I categorically reject theories that intimate some nebulous fault on individuals based solely on their skin color. I don't know if this needs further elaboration, or if people simply understand this sort of thinking as facially illogical.
A secondary problem is that written into the understanding of this concept is the idea that those who object to it in any way are actually failing to acknowledge it. I must admit that part is fantastic-- I need to figure out how to have people uncritically accept my points of view on the basis that if they do not, they are simply not acknowledging them, and should try again or forever live in ignorance.
A more peripheral objection I have is that the word "advantage" does not belong to the realm of zero sum. When used in the context of head-to-head battle, yes, advantage to one probably means disadvantage to the other; however, this is not the case when applied to the complexity of human society.
A secondary problem is that written into the understanding of this concept is the idea that those who object to it in any way are actually failing to acknowledge it. I must admit that part is fantastic-- I need to figure out how to have people uncritically accept my points of view on the basis that if they do not, they are simply not acknowledging them, and should try again or forever live in ignorance.
A more peripheral objection I have is that the word "advantage" does not belong to the realm of zero sum. When used in the context of head-to-head battle, yes, advantage to one probably means disadvantage to the other; however, this is not the case when applied to the complexity of human society.
This is all not to say that I don't believe racism exists, or that there are not racist groups in the world, or that past acts perpetrated against individuals because of their race aren't gross. I have witnessed racism on a person-to-person basis. On a larger and more severe scale, Black slavery, Jim Crow, Native American persecution, and Japanese internment are all examples of government-sponsored episodes of racism that resulted in incredible suffering right here in America; however, it takes something of a leap of faith - made over the mighty River Irony, I might add - to use the supposed legacy of past tragedies to justify holding individuals of one racial group accountable for events, thoughts and actions they had no part in. This is the line of reasoning that led generations of European (and even some American) Christians to ostracize Jews as "Christ killers."
The counter-argument goes that even though these individuals may not have done anything, they have still benefited in some abstract way by being a member of that race. This is an unprovable contention at best, yet statistics are often used to show that white people control a far larger percentage of wealth and hold a far larger percentage of seats in government than the percentage of population they occupy. The implication is that these gains are somehow ill-gotten and that a just society would rectify this through a regime of protected or preferential status for the supposedly underrepresented group. Again, if one accepts this line of reasoning, one could be led to agree that since Jews only represent 1.7% of the American population, their wealth and influence as a group is too great, which could in turn lead us down all kinds of ugly roads. From a utilitarian perspective, one needn't look any further than the Tamils of Sri Lanka or the Basque "Hidalgos" of Spain to see the long-term prospects of conferring de jure preferred status upon minority groups.
But, back to Zimmerman and that Time article-- the author writes:
No. Everybody before a criminal court gets a presumption of innocence. Further, everyone's fears, or their state of mind, get to trump reality before a criminal court. Nearly all criminal statutes require an attendant state of mind called the mens rea. If a defendant does not commit X act with Y state of mind, he is not guilty of Z crime. This is not new; this is not novel; this is not controversial. Here are the jury instructions for those curious.
Tellingly, the author fails to acknowledge an important court in which Zimmerman received no such presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind-- that of public opinion. I contend the primary reason Zimmerman did not receive these considerations is because he had the "unearned advantages" of having a white-sounding name and appearing white. Countless journalists highlighted that Zimmerman was purportedly white, many irresponsibly suggested that Zimmerman profiled Martin on the basis of race alone, NBC went so far as to doctor audio clips of the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin.
Notwithstanding the revelation that Zimmerman's ethnic background did not precisely match what the press had widely assumed and reported, the New York Times reassured the rabble that he was a white Hispanic. As a result, Zimmerman was able to remain a beneficiary of white privilege, and was still not afforded any presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind. It bears noting that the term "white Hispanic" seldom appeared in the mainstream press prior to discovery of Zimmerman's Peruvian heritage. Recall that there was ample opportunity for such discussion and analysis when the press had a fleeting obsession with the idea of Hispanics determining the outcome of the 2012 election. You know, Hispanics-- that group of people who all have the same exact values and all vote the same exact way.
Notwithstanding Zimmerman's claims of self defense and injuries to back them up - which many in the press vocally doubted - he was still not afforded any presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind.
To be sure, these injuries are not the stigmata one earns through fervent prayer and pious devotion to the
god of racism; these are real injuries that are forensically consistent
with Zimmerman's version of events.
Notwithstanding the lack of any evidence contrary to Zimmerman's statements, he was afforded no presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind. The police chief who declined to bring him up on charges lost his job and there was much elation when Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. This did nothing to slow the claims of white privilege.
Notwithstanding Zimmerman's acquittal before a jury of his peers in a court of law, he is still not afforded any presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind. As of this writing, Jesse Jackson is calling on the United Nations Human Rights Commission to investigate the United States over the acquittal of George Zimmerman; U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department are looking into bringing civil rights charges against Zimmerman; the NAACP is petitioning the Justice Department to bring these same charges on the legally incoherent basis that Martin's civil right to life was violated the night Zimmerman stalked and ended Martin's life. First, life is not a protected civil right, it is a natural right; further, the charge of stalking implies repeat episodes.
Those who cry out for "justice" do so without irony, yet the reality is that a great deal of injustice has and will continue to befall Zimmerman in pursuit of dismantling the hokum of white privilege.
The counter-argument goes that even though these individuals may not have done anything, they have still benefited in some abstract way by being a member of that race. This is an unprovable contention at best, yet statistics are often used to show that white people control a far larger percentage of wealth and hold a far larger percentage of seats in government than the percentage of population they occupy. The implication is that these gains are somehow ill-gotten and that a just society would rectify this through a regime of protected or preferential status for the supposedly underrepresented group. Again, if one accepts this line of reasoning, one could be led to agree that since Jews only represent 1.7% of the American population, their wealth and influence as a group is too great, which could in turn lead us down all kinds of ugly roads. From a utilitarian perspective, one needn't look any further than the Tamils of Sri Lanka or the Basque "Hidalgos" of Spain to see the long-term prospects of conferring de jure preferred status upon minority groups.
But, back to Zimmerman and that Time article-- the author writes:
"It’s about [white people] owning up to the unequal privilege of being non-black and saying, in essence, 'I Am George Zimmerman.' And because I am George Zimmerman, I get to have my fears trump reality. I get get-out-of-jail-free cards. I get a presumption of innocent victimhood, no matter what my own acts or attitudes."
No. Everybody before a criminal court gets a presumption of innocence. Further, everyone's fears, or their state of mind, get to trump reality before a criminal court. Nearly all criminal statutes require an attendant state of mind called the mens rea. If a defendant does not commit X act with Y state of mind, he is not guilty of Z crime. This is not new; this is not novel; this is not controversial. Here are the jury instructions for those curious.
Tellingly, the author fails to acknowledge an important court in which Zimmerman received no such presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind-- that of public opinion. I contend the primary reason Zimmerman did not receive these considerations is because he had the "unearned advantages" of having a white-sounding name and appearing white. Countless journalists highlighted that Zimmerman was purportedly white, many irresponsibly suggested that Zimmerman profiled Martin on the basis of race alone, NBC went so far as to doctor audio clips of the 911 call to make it sound as if Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin.
Notwithstanding the revelation that Zimmerman's ethnic background did not precisely match what the press had widely assumed and reported, the New York Times reassured the rabble that he was a white Hispanic. As a result, Zimmerman was able to remain a beneficiary of white privilege, and was still not afforded any presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind. It bears noting that the term "white Hispanic" seldom appeared in the mainstream press prior to discovery of Zimmerman's Peruvian heritage. Recall that there was ample opportunity for such discussion and analysis when the press had a fleeting obsession with the idea of Hispanics determining the outcome of the 2012 election. You know, Hispanics-- that group of people who all have the same exact values and all vote the same exact way.
Notwithstanding Zimmerman's claims of self defense and injuries to back them up - which many in the press vocally doubted - he was still not afforded any presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind.
Notwithstanding the lack of any evidence contrary to Zimmerman's statements, he was afforded no presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind. The police chief who declined to bring him up on charges lost his job and there was much elation when Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder. This did nothing to slow the claims of white privilege.
Notwithstanding Zimmerman's acquittal before a jury of his peers in a court of law, he is still not afforded any presumption of innocence or consideration for his state of mind. As of this writing, Jesse Jackson is calling on the United Nations Human Rights Commission to investigate the United States over the acquittal of George Zimmerman; U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his Justice Department are looking into bringing civil rights charges against Zimmerman; the NAACP is petitioning the Justice Department to bring these same charges on the legally incoherent basis that Martin's civil right to life was violated the night Zimmerman stalked and ended Martin's life. First, life is not a protected civil right, it is a natural right; further, the charge of stalking implies repeat episodes.
Those who cry out for "justice" do so without irony, yet the reality is that a great deal of injustice has and will continue to befall Zimmerman in pursuit of dismantling the hokum of white privilege.
No comments:
Post a Comment