Conservatives and liberals at their games (CON edition): The character assassination of a dead 17-year old boy

Now I have had more than a few things to say about the hypocrisy of a lot of people, such as Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia and columnist Leonard Pitts denying that there was any implication to Zimmerman’s racial double-consciousness.  But the recent move to discredit Trayvon Martin has been disturbing. Although I suppose I should completely expect this some of thing as liberals and conservatives, or more specifically, Republicans and Democrats, like to play games with facts to score superficial political points regardless of the situation.

So, here’s the disturbing move: The attempt to place the focus on Trayvon Martin.  Now, let put this way, in both versions of the story, it is clear that Zimmerman stalked Martin thinking he was suspicious, that there was some kind of conflict, and that end, Trayvon Martin was dead.  Even at my most charitable reading of the events to Zimmerman, Zimmerman appears to singled out Martin, stalked him, been comforted perhaps violently, and this ended with Martin’s death and Zimmerman’s life ruined. That’s the most charitable reading.  The rest of the circulation about Martin’s character, honestly, is irrelevant. Some of things linking around from news sources into blogs are, well, patently false.  I don’t care for Alternet much and Thinkprogress even less, but they do a good job of documenting things here. 

So it appears that most of things are political games aimed at discrediting a dead kid which won’t benefit Martin either and ignores the structural problems of Florida laws and Florida communities.  I’ll quote the rather even-handed think progress piece:

Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smearthe reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy.

If you have a real point to make, make it. Don’t smear a dead boy.  I would try to shame those of you doing this, but we all know this isn’t about morality, or what happened to Trayvon.  This is about cultural power in a way in which honesty is largely irrelevant.  I won’t say anything more about this case.  It’s a distraction, but a tragic one.   One where people seem to be learning that moral outrage and character smears  is  a way to avoid looking a deep-seated cultural problems.    It doesn’t undo the situation, and it is unlikely to bring justice to anyone.

About these ads

About El Mono Liso

Por una civilización de la pobreza.

Posted on March 28, 2012, in conservatism. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. I’m not sure that it’s “smearing” to present the facts about Martin after the Liberals and their minority tenants went to such great lengths to paint him as a vulnerable individual who was victimized.

    Come on! They juxtaposed a picture of Martin when he was 12 against an old mugshot of Zimmerman.

    This is more a matter of setting the record straight instead of letting others define the rhetoric in the hopes of suborning the law.

  2. Setting the record straight as to character that is not relevant to the case: all of them, so far, have either been outright debunked or they are irrelevant. Be honest, that’s not a matter of “setting the record straight” any more than calling Zimmerman white over and over again is when he is obviously half-Hispanic, and even by the standards of liberal’s own privilege theory, would not have been simply able to benefit from his “whiteness.” You don’t defeat half-truths with half-truths. Particularly given that two of the “facts’ presented about Martin have been falsified already.

  3. Now the well-poisoning against Zimmmerman on the particular picture offered, etc., is very real. I am not denying that. In fact, I have written two posts on it and its pseudo-progressive nature.

  4. Out of pure curiosity, which to facts about Martin do you claim are lies? I’d be interested to know because I want to know what form the counter-spin is taking.

  5. There is no evidence for the claim he was a drug-dealer. (That would count as a lie until evidence is had and when evidence is had I would retract the lie claim. So far, no eyewitnesses have even claimed that.) The assaulting a bus driver charge was not the reason for the ten day suspension as leaked by the school that reason was going into unauthorized areas of the school and was non-violent.

  6. Thanks.

    I hadn’t even heard of an accusation that he was drug-dealer, only that he’d been suspended – at some point – for possessing what was thought to be drug paraphernalia – something I ignored considering the current school “zero tolerance” policies.

    I also had not heard anyone claim that he was suspended for assaulting a bus driver, only that he had supposedly claimed to have done so on twitter.

    I just must not be reading the “right” articles.

  7. Good for you, and good for the limitations on those smears. Anyway, I say focus on absurdities on media’s portrayal and botching of Zimmerman with things like “white hispanic” even though Zimmerman doesn’t have a history of identifying himself as white.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,423 other followers

%d bloggers like this: