Continuing the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman "Tragedy"... Or, Part 2!

I'm tempted to redefine the "tragic" nature of this issue: what caused the existence of two - almost equally - strong camps one for Martin and one for Zimmerman? Is it perception? Prejudice? Ignorance - as in lack of knowledge of American law? I tend to believe it's a combination of all three and more.

In the South, Blacks are perceived differently compared to how we look at them here in the Northeast, particularly in New York. I'm not saying New Yorkers have a better handle on the situation but, rather, generally speaking, New Yorkers tend to be more tolerant, understanding and ever ready to revise or change their preconceived views. Not so in the South where mental images of pre-Civil War grandeur still persist. If we look at historical events, we'll see plenty of anecdotes detailing how New Yorkers were able to cast away slavery to embrace a new view of American life as defined by Lincoln. Not so in the South where, to  this day, they still fly the Confederate flag for no reason at all other than they like to do it. In short, the Civil War continues. Physical segregation may have ended but the devil's horns still exist, they're just retracted like feline talons. In Texas, particularly, Blacks are still shot just for being black. Sometimes their lifeless bodies are dragged behind a pick up truck. In the Northeast, Blacks are also shot just for being black. Remember Amadou Diallo (I must spell check his name)? All his five assailants were white policemen and the legal system absolved them of any wrong doing. Does it mean New Yorkers have changed for the worse? Definitely not. Southerners have migrated to all parts of the Union, including New York, to spread some of their inborn hatred of anything that doesn't look white.

Even the bureaucratic system betrays this "white standard." Just glance on any government form that requires you to fill in your race. There's one for "Hispanic." Aren't people from Spain or those with Spanish blood "white"? They can't be Black. Neither are they Asian or Pacific Islander. One is forced to wonder why there is none for "Slavic" or even "Eskimo." In sum, our society loves to put certain groups of people in easily defined boxes. Thus, anyone with African features (e.g. very dark brown skin, kinky/curly hair, big lips and broad noses) are Black. The Australian Bushmen almost fall into the mold but they have the option to check "Other."

Going back to the main road... in the South, anyone who is not of Western European lineage is automatically not "White" and therefore inferior. Woe to the Americans who are descendants of slaves! They fall into another box that's not in the form. It's just a single letter invisible label: "B". Thus we have labels like "DWB" for Driving While Black; "WWB" for Walking While Black; "ALB" for Acting Like Black, etc. It doesn't matter that they're not really black but actually a dark shade of brown. And compound the above with labels such as "Black as sin" and Black as hell, etc. and we have a recipe for trouble.

Thus in a neighborhood peopled mostly by whites, the presence of a single black person (or Hispanic, Asian, etc.) rings alarm bells. On the other end of the pendulum, are people with white skin and western European features (as well as names) "good"? That's inviting a long debate! Suffice it to say that in any homogeneous and socially settled society the sudden or unexpected appearance of an entity that looks different, acts different, talks different and thinks different is instantly perceived as a threat to the stability of the many. This is Sociology 101! Solution: if you can't drive them out of town without creating a bigger problem, you sort of force them to stay in neighborhoods far, far from you. This is done by denying them housing in your neighborhood by raising the prices to rent or buy a house. Out of sight means lesser danger to the neighborhood.

Every race or ethnic group has gone through this phenomenon. In the old days one would see  by the door of commercial establishments signs such as: "Dogs and Italians Not Allowed;" "Dogs and Germans Not Allowed;" etc. And in the South we still remember "Whites Only" and "For Coloreds" signs. And like the vermin they were perceived, Blacks sat at the rear of the bus and were even obligated to give up their seat to any "white" person. Of course, the ex-slaves (first mentally) always referred to the Whites as "white trash" and some other obnoxious epithet.

As recently as 20 years ago, residents of a village near Bedford Village in Westchester, New York blocked the sale of the abandoned buildings of King's College to an Irish club because they perceived the Irish as a bunch of noisy drunkards!

I have no desire to create the impression that one particular geographical area is more despicable than another. In truth, all areas are peopled with inhabitants whose attitudes run the gamut from the sublime to the criminal. It just so happens that certain groups are more prone to be uncivil. No matter how much water flows under the bridge, conflict will always be the spice of life. The danger is to let prejudice reign supreme over intelligence. Someday I hope to discuss these topics with Bert Tajonera, a good friend from my JWT days in Manila.



(To be continued)