It is as if in a few days, America was back to the 1960s. Never since the civil rights movement itself has death of an innocent young man led to so much social upheaval, and questioning of the inequalities that exists within the most fundamental part of the nation's legal system. Everything in the legal process was up to a bit of reflective thinking. From the jury's choice, the choice of lawyers, the background of the judges, to the presentation of the video evidences, analysts and amateurs fought to pick apart exactly what went wrong inside and outside that courtroom where the despicable decision was made.
But as far as most people are concerned, they had little patience in doing detailed analysis on the influences that led to acquitting of a half-white, half-Hispanic Mr Zimmerman for shooting an unarmed African-American kid. The perception of those in power - the light-skinned man of authority and means - being against those in the lower ranks - perfectly illustrated by the black kid, from a modest background in a dubious neighborhood - is enough for most to draw conclusions. It is, for the protesters, a legal and moral double standard, orchestrated by the elite and upheld by the state organs that they control.
Yet, America of 2013 is no longer the America of 1960. For God's sake, there is a half-black president at helm of the country, and he has not let this opportunity go is displaying his sympathy for the young kid, the grieving family, and an angry public. Even as he expressed his dismay, though, the one-time Messiah of the nation's idealistic elite college students, did not have anything to say regarding possible counter-actions. They will surely be some public appeals, but the Administration will remain neutral to the affair, and can only be so for its own jurisdictions.
While protesters continue to protest, and the news continue to make rounds on the news, few seems to be concerned about the most flawed logic in this whole affairs: it is the speed at which the public jumped on the "this is racist" bandwagon after the decision was handed down. Even the most unbiased-seeming analysts cannot avoid the topic. Did the fact that the victim is a poor black kid, a demographic group so prone to involvement in violent crime, color the judgment of the jury? When the victim was making a certain motion, would the aggressor judge as a potential assault just because of the kid's skin color?
Had the aggressor and the victim be of same color, the detailed actions taken by the two at the scene of shooting would have been the center of debate. Yet, the skin color issue seemed to have crowded out all rationality in judgment, forcing every person to take a stand on the whole affair based on this factor, and this factor alone. The author is no legal expert, but by all means, the unparalleled focus on race in this case cannot really help resolve exactly what happened at the crime scene or the courtroom. The audience have a line of logic already set in mind, and to argue against it seems to be by all means racial blasphemy.
Unfortunately, such instances for mental conditioning to use some sort of obvious differences between two people as a cause for conflict is simply too common despite advancement in human rights, egalitarianism, and cultural exchanges over the course of past decades. Conflicts over race, religion, national origins frequently flair up, often not because they were the centerpiece of an issue to begin, but became so once all casual observers sought to use the obvious as a scapegoat to point out faults and shove any possibilities for alternative explanations under the carpet.
The tendencies for "skin-deep" views of problems, worst of all, has led to equally "skin-deep" proposal for solutions, often vague and impractical in nature. Those eager to jump to conclusions are also eager to jump to their own interpretation of solutions, without paying attention to the details that are missed. In the process of going about their solutions, they would cause more chaos and confusion, idealistically fighting powerful special interests against which they have no hope to win, and pursuing agendas that will raise eyebrows among all outside their little movements of temporary enthusiasm.
From the mother's tears to the President's dismayed comments, the Zimmerman case has been a perfect illustration of a case boiled down hastily to a single variable by simple-minded public baying for blood. The media's sensationalization, as always, helps push along the radicals to stick their irrational agendas to the most awkward places, not fearing (or even thinking about) the dire consequences. The author sees the need for patience in these conflicts, seemingly obvious in wins and losses, but in actuality, involving complex institutional interactions among different players.
But as far as most people are concerned, they had little patience in doing detailed analysis on the influences that led to acquitting of a half-white, half-Hispanic Mr Zimmerman for shooting an unarmed African-American kid. The perception of those in power - the light-skinned man of authority and means - being against those in the lower ranks - perfectly illustrated by the black kid, from a modest background in a dubious neighborhood - is enough for most to draw conclusions. It is, for the protesters, a legal and moral double standard, orchestrated by the elite and upheld by the state organs that they control.
Yet, America of 2013 is no longer the America of 1960. For God's sake, there is a half-black president at helm of the country, and he has not let this opportunity go is displaying his sympathy for the young kid, the grieving family, and an angry public. Even as he expressed his dismay, though, the one-time Messiah of the nation's idealistic elite college students, did not have anything to say regarding possible counter-actions. They will surely be some public appeals, but the Administration will remain neutral to the affair, and can only be so for its own jurisdictions.
While protesters continue to protest, and the news continue to make rounds on the news, few seems to be concerned about the most flawed logic in this whole affairs: it is the speed at which the public jumped on the "this is racist" bandwagon after the decision was handed down. Even the most unbiased-seeming analysts cannot avoid the topic. Did the fact that the victim is a poor black kid, a demographic group so prone to involvement in violent crime, color the judgment of the jury? When the victim was making a certain motion, would the aggressor judge as a potential assault just because of the kid's skin color?
Had the aggressor and the victim be of same color, the detailed actions taken by the two at the scene of shooting would have been the center of debate. Yet, the skin color issue seemed to have crowded out all rationality in judgment, forcing every person to take a stand on the whole affair based on this factor, and this factor alone. The author is no legal expert, but by all means, the unparalleled focus on race in this case cannot really help resolve exactly what happened at the crime scene or the courtroom. The audience have a line of logic already set in mind, and to argue against it seems to be by all means racial blasphemy.
Unfortunately, such instances for mental conditioning to use some sort of obvious differences between two people as a cause for conflict is simply too common despite advancement in human rights, egalitarianism, and cultural exchanges over the course of past decades. Conflicts over race, religion, national origins frequently flair up, often not because they were the centerpiece of an issue to begin, but became so once all casual observers sought to use the obvious as a scapegoat to point out faults and shove any possibilities for alternative explanations under the carpet.
The tendencies for "skin-deep" views of problems, worst of all, has led to equally "skin-deep" proposal for solutions, often vague and impractical in nature. Those eager to jump to conclusions are also eager to jump to their own interpretation of solutions, without paying attention to the details that are missed. In the process of going about their solutions, they would cause more chaos and confusion, idealistically fighting powerful special interests against which they have no hope to win, and pursuing agendas that will raise eyebrows among all outside their little movements of temporary enthusiasm.
From the mother's tears to the President's dismayed comments, the Zimmerman case has been a perfect illustration of a case boiled down hastily to a single variable by simple-minded public baying for blood. The media's sensationalization, as always, helps push along the radicals to stick their irrational agendas to the most awkward places, not fearing (or even thinking about) the dire consequences. The author sees the need for patience in these conflicts, seemingly obvious in wins and losses, but in actuality, involving complex institutional interactions among different players.
Comments
Post a Comment