“Making Whiteness Visible”: We Are Not Trayvon Martin
If there is one hopeful note amidst all the anguish and recrimination from the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it’s that growing numbers of white people have come to appreciate whiteness for what it is: an unearned set of privileges. And as a result of that dawning awareness, it’s become possible to imagine a day when that structure of privilege is dismantled – by white people.
Recall that immediately after the killing of Trayvon Martin, people of every race took to the Internet to declare “I Am Trayvon Martin.” They wore hoodies. They proclaimed solidarity. That was a well-meaning and earnest attempt to express empathy, but it also obscured the core issue, which is that Martin died not because he was wearing a hoodie but because he was wearing a hoodie while black. Blackness was the fatal variable.
And so now, post-verdict, a more realistic meme has taken root. On Tumblr and Facebook and elsewhere there is a new viral phenomenon: “We Are Not Trayvon Martin” (emphasis mine). Huge numbers of white Americans are posting testimonials and images to declare that it is precisely because they are not black that they have never had to confront the awful choices Martin faced when Zimmerman began to pursue him.
This isn’t about empathy or the posture of equivalency that empathy can tempt us to assume. It’s about 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.
Much has been made about the fact that Zimmerman is white and of Hispanic ethnicity, as if he therefore couldn’t possibly embody white privilege. This is a deep misreading of the dynamics of race and the media in America. As an Asian American, I am endlessly frustrated by how binary and black-and-white – literally and figuratively – the portrayal of race is in our country. Much of the time Asian Americans are an afterthought, or simply presumed foreign. But I assume that had I been the neighborhood watchman that day in Florida, I would have been understood in the media as the non-black actor. Which is to say, for the limited purposes of this trial, I would have been granted “honorary white” status – whether or not I wanted it.
Whiteness is the unspoken, invisible default setting of American life. We frame our conversations about race in terms of how white people see and what they think they see. We imagine that nonwhite Americans want to be more like white Americans. We imagine that to be American is to be white. When racial minorities complain about the slurs of a Paula Deen or a prank like the faked names of the Asiana pilots, they are often told by whites to stop being so sensitive or to take the context of tradition or history or humor into account. That ability, to dismiss and minimize people of color for being oversensitive, is itself one of the privileges that whiteness confers. The broader privilege that whites have by occupying the omniscient vantage point in media and civic life has to be named and then undone.
How will it be undone? Not, in the end, by the work of communities of color alone. Minority groups can and must be vigilant, vocal advocates for fair treatment and representation in public life. But if America is to transcend its long conflation of whiteness with Americanness, it will fall to white people – those wise enough to see they are not Trayvon and humane enough not to become George – to lead us all to that promised land.
By: Eric Liu, Time, July 17, 2013
“Lower Premiums Is A Big Effing Deal”: The House GOP’s Futile Poorly Timed Efforts To Gut Obamacare
Guess whose heath care premiums are poised to drop considerably?
House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) timing could be better. Hoping to capitalize on the bad press surrounding delay in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate provision (even though the move was substantively meaningless), House Republicans are set to move on their latest idea: a vote on delaying the individual mandate, too.
Politically, the move arguably makes some sense. Even though Republicans came up with the idea of the individual mandate, they’ve since turned it into one of the least popular provisions in “Obamacare.” By singling it out for a delay, GOP lawmakers bring attention to a controversial health care policy and put Democrats on the spot for defending it. Their bill won’t become law, of course — Republicans love symbolic, post-policy governing — but they might get a few attack ads out of this.
But substantively, there’s a problem. In fact, there’s more than one.
First, by going after the individual mandate, House Republicans are taking a bold stand in support of leaving 13.7 million Americans without any health care coverage at all.
Second, GOP lawmakers are also simultaneously (and admittedly) positioning themselves in support of a policy that leads to higher premiums and gaps for Americans with pre-existing conditions.
And third, Republican lawmakers are, for purely political reasons, obsessed with gutting federal health care law at the same time as new-but-inconvenient evidence emerges that the law is working extremely well.
Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, state officials are to announce on Wednesday.
State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.
Supporters of the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, credited the drop in rates to the online purchasing exchanges the law created, which they say are spurring competition among insurers that are anticipating an influx of new customers. The law requires that an exchange be started in every state.
If elected officials’ principal goal is to pursue policies that benefit the public, launching a crusade to sabotage the Affordable Care Act really doesn’t make any sense.
Skeptics have noted this morning that New York’s insurance market is uniquely messy, so the results aren’t representative of the impact we’ll see elsewhere. Perhaps. But Matt Yglesias argues persuasively that it’s “a big deal anyway.”
The first reason is that New York is a really big state. Its almost 20 million residents account for over 6 percent of the American population.[…]
But this is also important because there’s a lesson here. At various points, the Affordable Care Act’s critics in Congress have suggested that they might be interested in keeping the popular-sounding aspects of Obamacare — the community rating, the guaranteed issue — but just scrap all that unfortunate mandate talk and tax increases. The New York experience shows why that won’t work. That lesser plan is essentially what New York did some years back, and the consequences were enormous premium hikes as the state’s market was rocked by adverse selection. Affordable Care Act implementation, by adding the nasty elements back in, is fixing a huge problem that other states don’t suffer from but that would exist everywhere if Congress took the approach of just doing the easy parts.
In light of this, House Republicans are eager — desperate, even — to boast about their efforts to gut the law, no matter what it does to the uninsured and people with pre-existing conditions, and even though it does more of what we already know doesn’t work.
Before we move on, let’s also not forget that this isn’t limited to the Empire State. In California, exchanges are taking shape and premiums will be even lower than expected; insurers in Oregon are also lowering premiums; and health care expenditures overall are slowing, just as Obamacare was designed to accomplish.
Congressional Republicans and a few too many pundits want you to believe the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is a disaster. It’s not. They want you to believe gutting the law would make things better. It won’t.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, July 17, 2013
“Unnecessarily Handicapped”: The Zimmerman Trial Shows It’s Time To Reconsider The Six-Member Jury
Small juries, like all small samples, carry big costs. Doesn’t a jury in a serious criminal case have 12 members? Not in Florida.
Florida is one of only two states where a jury as small as six can decide a serious felony case. It is the only state where a murder case goes to a six-member jury. And second-degree murder in Florida is serious indeed, carrying a sentence of 25 years to life. The circumstances of the shooting that killed an unarmed teenager, moreover, are sharply disputed, implicating the use of guns, the limits of self-defense and race relations. As we often do, we have given the jury in this case a challenging task.
Why should we care if the jury has six or 12 members? The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury, but it does not specify jury size. When the Sixth Amendment was written, was the number simply assumed? James Madison thought it was: He thought the number was 12.
For almost 200 years, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently accepted this view, defining “jury” to mean the 12-member jury. For instance, in 1930, the court said that “it is not open to question” whether juries may consist of fewer than 12.
In 1970, however, the court reversed its position in Williams v. Florida and found no constitutional objection to Florida’s six-member jury. The court labeled the general use of 12 throughout history as an “historical accident.” The court’s characterization of the historical record has been widely disputed, but even more egregiously, the court joined its new historical assessment with a strikingly inaccurate behavioral claim.
It proclaimed that the behavior of six- and 12-member juries were “functionally” equivalent, and therefore the six-member jury was unobjectionable. In fact, the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence shows that juries of six do not perform as well as juries of 12.
How do six- and 12-member juries differ? Two differences are particularly relevant in the trial of George Zimmerman. First, numerous studies of all kinds show that cutting jury size in half decreases the likelihood that the jury will reflect a representative sample of the community. The lone non-white juror on the George Zimmerman jury is just one instance of that effect. The all-female jury is another.
The gender make-up of the jury cannot be explained merely by the majority female jury pool or attorney use of challenges. A total of 10 jurors was selected, the jury of six and four alternates. Two of the alternates were male. A larger jury that included the additional four would not have been homogeneous on gender.
Ethnicity and gender are not the only dimensions of difference shortchanged by a smaller jury.
Any background or set of beliefs or life experiences that may affect reactions to the evidence is substantially less likely to be represented on a six-member jury than on a 12-member jury. Simply due to chance, unrepresentativeness is more likely when only six jurors are needed to constitute the jury. That loss is particularly troubling when the jurors are evaluating crucial and disputed evidence, like the identity of the voice in the background on the 911 tape in the Zimmerman case.
Second, jury research finds that larger juries spend more time deliberating and their discussions of testimony are more thorough than smaller juries. More vigorous debate reflects the expanded pool of abilities and perspectives provided by the larger jury. Similarly, the ability of dissenters to resist majority pressure is promoted by the increased likelihood that a dissenter whose position is not simply idiosyncratic will have one or more other jurors who share that view. The dissenters might not carry the day, but their views will be more seriously considered.
There is no evidence that jury size is associated with more pro-prosecution or more pro-defense verdicts. Thus, the key here is not that the six-member jury systematically advantages one side or the other. Rather, the point is that a serious charge demands serious procedural consideration.
Even Florida, like every other state with the death penalty, uses a 12-member jury for capital offenses. Second-degree murder does not carry the death penalty in Florida, but it does call for thorough deliberation from a variety of perspectives. The six-member jury is unnecessarily handicapped.
What should be done? Ample empirical evidence on the jury demonstrates the need to reverse course. Perhaps in the wake of the Zimmerman case, Florida will reconsider its unique position on jury size. Even better: In recent years, the Supreme Court has turned down several opportunities to revisit the question of jury size. Perhaps it should accept the next one.
By: Seidman Diamond, The Miami Herald, July 15, 2013
“Explaining Away The Violence”: Is The Hoodie The New Miniskirt?
Is the hoodie the new miniskirt? Of all the politically – and emotionally – loaded details of the George Zimmerman case, the matter of Trayvon Martin’s hoodie may be the most telling.
Martin, after all, was not just a black teenager walking in a gated community where he did not live. He was wearing a hoodie – which, Zimmerman’s defenders note, is somehow akin to carrying a machete in terms of sheer provocation.
Fox’s Geraldo Rivera apparently thinks so, noting that “if you dress like a thug, people are going to treat you like a thug.” And singer Ted Nugent, who is prone to provocative behavior and comments himself, called Martin a “Skittles hoodie boy,” referring also to Martin’s recent candy purchase.
It sounds bizarre to those of us who have worn hoodies (when you grow up in Buffalo, a hooded sweatshirt is just another necessary element to the three layer rule of keeping warm and dry during the winter, and also the fall and spring). When I was a kid, the style was to wear a blue hooded sweatshirt underneath an open denim jacket (how cool were we?!!).
And before the whole Martin–Zimmerman case, the most prominent hoodie–wearer, at least to football fans, was New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. He’s irritating, to be sure, and has even acquired the nickname “hoodie,” but no one has suggested he’s a symbol of violence or crime because of his clothing.
But women get it, because we have been told from an early age that what we wear could get us assaulted – and that if we are assaulted, people will think it’s our fault because of what we were wearing. If a female is walking down the street in a miniskirt (or whatever someone else might find provocative) and is sexually assaulted, part of the equation is – what was she wearing? And why was she wearing that? What other possible reason could she have for wearing a miniskirt other than that she was inviting rape or sexual assault? The old analogy still holds: would a defense attorney rip apart a male victim of a mugging who had been walking down a dark street wearing a natty suit and expensive watch, practically asking to be robbed?
The underlying premise – that wearing revealing clothing or a hoodie automatically makes one suspect, and therefore complicit in one’s own attack – is troubling. What’s even more offensive is the idea that some Taliban–type control group gets to decide how certain groups of people should dress in order to stay safe. Sometimes a hoodie is just a hoodie.
By: Susan Milligan, U. S. News and World Report, July 17, 2013
“Congress’ Pity Party”: Drama Queens Who Choose Not To Solve The Nation’s Problems
This week’s congressional dysfunctional is brought to you by the letter “P.” Forget Democrats and Republicans: The party of the moment is pity.
Yes, yes, Congress is polarized, Republicans aren’t a governing party anymore, Democrats lack spines, everyone is beholden to corporate interests, and the open source world is changing how politicians interact with their constituents.
None of that has anything to do with the theatrics over the filibuster.
Every so often, Congress, frustrated and angry that the public bears them so much ill-will, decides to remind us that their inability to get stuff done is our fault.
We’re the ones who elected them. We’re the ones who keep voting for them. We’re the ones who demand that they sacrifice principles for expediency. Allegedly. But we don’t really pay attention to Congress, because they don’t do much, and when they do, it’s often comical.
So they get angry. They create a crisis. They give long, florid floor speeches about the crisis. They appear on television and bemoan. And bemoan and bemoan and bemoan what happened to this great institution, (if in the Senate: This saucer, this leavening chamber), this beacon of democratic representation in the world.
Right now, we’re in the pity stage. You know it because the political tabloids are publishing stories about how relationships between parties are at their lowest point since the last time these tabloids wrote the stories. Or that the majority leader and the minority leader can’t take each other’s phone calls.
Pity clears the room. Pity is such a turn-off because it absolves the bearer of any responsibility to solve his or her own problem.
Truth be told, the Senate can solve its problems. Its members just choose not to. But instead of admitting that manufactured crises are the catalyst for getting anything done, we are instead treated to spectacles that Congress can watch on TV and feel important again.
They negotiate publicly and privately, then create a solution.
Often, the solution sets up further crises, which will allow Congress to once again come back and get everyone’s attention, as they go through the performance and sweep in at the last moment and provide another solution, proving once and for all that Congress actually does work. Then they congratulate themselves on a job well done. Take that, American people.
By: Marc Ambinder, The Week, July 16, 2013
Share This Blog
mykeystrokes.com- “The Unrelenting Hostility Of Washington’s Courtier Press”: The Media’s Crusade Of Scandals Against Hillary Clinton July 28, 2016
- “Endorsing This Philistine”: The Christian Right Has Surrendered To Trump July 24, 2016
- “Cop Killers Serve No Cause”: It’s Getting To The Point Where No Lives Matter July 24, 2016
mykeystrokes.com 