White America Must Make a Choice: What Side of History Do You Stand On?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Which side of history do you stand on? Do you stand with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that made every neighborhood watched by the slave patrols. Do you stand with the courts, police and juries that time and time again acquitted anyone accused of lynching a Black person? Do you stand with the White Citizenship Councils who were the most “respected” men of their community, who defended Jim Crow apartheid? Do you stand with the Klu Klux Klan who were the first to make the argument that the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action gave “special rights” to Blacks, an argument that quickly became a rally crying for white Americans around the country.

Or do you stand with the Abolitionists like Frederick Douglas, William Garrison and Harriet Tubman who were routinely told that they were creating racial hostility and disturbing the natural order. Do you stand with Ida B. Wells who launched an international campaign against lynching and used her skills as a journalist to expose the false accusations of rape and theft in story after story of Black men who were lynched. Do you stand with Emmett Till and his family when he, at 14 years of age, was brutally murdered by white men because he “didn’t know his place” and was supposedly flirting with a white girl. Do you stand with Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., the Freedom Riders and the Civil Rights movement as they faced angry white mobs from Chicago to Alabama?

My nephews, 5 and 7 years old, recently asked their Grandmother, at the Lincoln Presidential Library, “Nana, how could Christians have supported slavery?” It’s a heartbreaking question. And many of us who are white would respond with indignation about slavery, as we should. But how often do so many of us look back and wonder “how could people have supported slavery and segregation.” And when we look back, we are usually pretty clear that we’re not just talking about the people who actively supported, but also the people who through their indifference and inaction supported these systems. The argument is frequently made, well that was just considered normal at the time, even though it is appalling to us now. But what isn’t as frequently named is that it was the resistance of Black Americans, people of color and white anti-racists who took on those injustices and won institutional and cultural changes.

However, most white Americans would either say that they would have been on the right side of history working for justice or at the very least, they would not be on the wrong side of history supporting the slave system and segregation. But it is always so much easier to assume you would have been on the right side of history in retrospect. What is much more difficult is being on the right side of history in the here and now. Because in the here and now, we are living in the “what was considered normal,” the normal that in retrospect is so clearly racist.

The Trayvon Martin murder, and the verdict which acquitted George Zimmerman is just the tip of the iceberg, as a recent report found that in 2012 a Black man, woman or child was killed every 28 hours by police, security guards or vigilantes. It not the uniqueness of Trayvon Martin being racial profiled and killed for being Black “in the wrong neighborhood”, it’s that his story is so tragically familiar. Even President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have recently spoken out about how prevalent and dangerous racial profiling is. While there are many white people outraged and demonstrating the verdict, there are many more who say “it’s just so complicated,” “they both made bad decisions that night,” “Martin got what he deserved,” or simply “the jury did a good job.”

It’s time to speak honestly. At all the points in history that we look back on and can’t understand how people supported such racism, in all those eras, white people said “it’s too complicated,” “it’s the way things are,” “that Black person must have done something to deserve it.” Even in the murder of Emmitt Till, many white people said “it may have been extreme, but the boy forgot his place.” Today, the verdict is in, and white people, have to choose what side of history we are on. This is our moment. Our character, values, and legacies are shaped by the choices we make in the times we live, not by the stands we imagine ourselves taking in the past. I believe in our ability to stand, in the millions, in the tradition of the Abolitionists, the Freedom Riders, and the Dream Act students, the immigrant rights movement and the Justice for Trayvon Martin movement today.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jul/31/chris-crass-white-america-must-make-choice-what-si/

Edited August 1, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good read.

[Danno 1,228]

The Past is a great place to live ehh Steve?

I mean here we are 2013, every city has hundreds, thousands of city blocks in which a white person dare not go.

When some poor white guy takes a wrong turn and ends up with his head bashed in, while his cell phone is pilfered.... what do we say?

"He was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

How come on the rare occasion a Black person is shot or harmed in a white area we never say "he" was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

So anyway, yeah I guess if we could all get in a time machine we could go back and decide where our allegiances would rest but since it is now 2013 and

things are quite a bit different I would have to say I, as a white person would so what every other demographic in the country does in regards to who I align myself with and hopefully we will all get along and remain a civil country.

We are a long way from 1965, people live where they want, go to college where they want and date who they want, that tired old stuff get traction with fewer and fewer people. (Black and White)

Edited August 1, 2013 by Danno

[Jacque67 7,328]

Your nephews appear intelligent.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

The Past is a great place to live ehh Steve?

I mean here we are 2013, every city has hundreds, thousands of city blocks in which a white person dare not go.

When some poor white guy takes a wrong turn and ends up with his head bashed in, while his cell phone is pilfered.... what do we say?

"He was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

How come on the rare occasion a Black person is shot or harmed in a white area we never say "he" was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

So anyway, yeah I guess if we could all get in a time machine we could go back and decide where our allegiances would rest but since it is now 2013 and

things are quite a bit different I would have to say I, as a white person would so what every other demographic in the country does in regards to who I align myself with and hopefully we will all get along and remain a civil country.

We are a long way from 1965, people live where they want, go to college where they want and date who they want, that tired old stuff get traction with fewer and fewer people. (Black and White)

Good to know what side Danno is on, I was beginning to wonder.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Good to know what side Danno is on, I was beginning to wonder.

He's so far over there, it's hard to see him from here.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

He's so far over there, it's hard to see him from here.

Maybe Danno and Riley Cooper can hang out, they'd make a good bromance.

[SMR 368]

I've said it before, but since it clearly is beyond some here it bears repeating. The George Zimmerman trial came down to whether it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. That doesn't actually have anything to do with race. It's a simple question of whether or not you believe that innocent until proven guilty is a good basis for a legal system.

There are some good points made in the article, but until the author can divorce himself from the massteria surrounding Trayvon Martin, which is based in either a misunderstanding or disregard for the basis of our legal system, I can't see his perspective as reasonable or objective.

Edited August 1, 2013 by SMR

[Teddy B 17,252]

I've said it before, but since it clearly is beyond some here it bears repeating. The George Zimmerman trial came down to whether it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. That doesn't actually have anything to do with race. It's a simple question of whether or not you believe that innocent until proven guilty is a good basis for a legal system.

There are some good points made in the article, but until the author can divorce himself from the massteria surrounding Trayvon Martin, which is based in either a misunderstanding or disregard for the basis of our legal system, I can't see his perspective as reasonable or objective.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I've said it before, but since it clearly is beyond some here it bears repeating. The George Zimmerman trial came down to whether it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. That doesn't actually have anything to do with race. It's a simple question of whether or not you believe that innocent until proven guilty is a good basis for a legal system.

There are some good points made in the article, but until the author can divorce himself from the massteria surrounding Trayvon Martin, which is based in either a misunderstanding or disregard for the basis of our legal system, I can't see his perspective as reasonable or objective.

You know, I've had time to calm down and reflect on some things. I will try to attack this the right way;

TM was drug and alcohol tested and a background check was run after his death, GZ wasn't. Do you think if GZ was black or even if both GZ and TM was white, would this happen?

If both of them were white, do you think folks would put a website together to raise money for a man who killed an unarmed white teenager?

Mr. Dooley and Mr. James had an altercation in which James(white) was shot by Dooley(black). SYG was used, yet Dooley was arrested within 2 days and charged with Manslaughter. His defense was way better than Zimmerman's.

Do you think an all white plus one hispanic jury would be able to keep their emotions in check when they could see TM as their child if he was white?

This is from an article on CNN I came across.http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/opinion/vivian-zimmerman-verdict/index.html?hpt=op_bn7

The reason race is the forefront is based on the reactions and actions of those directly involved.

And if you don't believe that, take a look at the thread about the mother and the black baby killers.

[Karee 4,191]

If both of them were white, do you think folks would put a website together to raise money for a man who killed an unarmed white teenager?

If both of them were white, do you think we'd even know about this story?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

If both of them were white, do you think we'd even know about this story?

Heck no, GZ would be in a cell and it would be a one day news story. There wouldn't be an outrage or protest, because the system would work.

[Karee 4,191]

Heck no, GZ would be in a cell and it would be a one day news story. There wouldn't be an outrage or protest, because the system would work.

I think the opposite would've happened. I don't think he would've even been charged. But I do agree that there wouldn't be any outrage or protest.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You know, I've had time to calm down and reflect on some things. I will try to attack this the right way;

TM was drug and alcohol tested and a background check was run after his death, GZ wasn't. Do you think if GZ was black or even if both GZ and TM was white, would this happen?

If both of them were white, do you think folks would put a website together to raise money for a man who killed an unarmed white teenager?

Mr. Dooley and Mr. James had an altercation in which James(white) was shot by Dooley(black). SYG was used, yet Dooley was arrested within 2 days and charged with Manslaughter. His defense was way better than Zimmerman's.

Do you think an all white plus one hispanic jury would be able to keep their emotions in check when they could see TM as their child if he was white?

This is from an article on CNN I came across.http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/opinion/vivian-zimmerman-verdict/index.html?hpt=op_bn7

The reason race is the forefront is based on the reactions and actions of those directly involved.

And if you don't believe that, take a look at the thread about the mother and the black baby killers.

I thought you said you were gonna attack it the right way this time.

[SMR 368]

You know, I've had time to calm down and reflect on some things. I will try to attack this the right way;

TM was drug and alcohol tested and a background check was run after his death, GZ wasn't. Do you think if GZ was black or even if both GZ and TM was white, would this happen?

If both of them were white, do you think folks would put a website together to raise money for a man who killed an unarmed white teenager?

Mr. Dooley and Mr. James had an altercation in which James(white) was shot by Dooley(black). SYG was used, yet Dooley was arrested within 2 days and charged with Manslaughter. His defense was way better than Zimmerman's.

Do you think an all white plus one hispanic jury would be able to keep their emotions in check when they could see TM as their child if he was white?

This is from an article on CNN I came across.http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/25/opinion/vivian-zimmerman-verdict/index.html?hpt=op_bn7

The reason race is the forefront is based on the reactions and actions of those directly involved.

And if you don't believe that, take a look at the thread about the mother and the black baby killers.

You're still missing the point. There isn't evidence that GZ didn't act in self defense. The rest doesn't matter.

At best, your argument is that the legal system sometimes persecutes and even convicts people based on racial bias and emotion and therefore we should be upset that it didn't do so in the case of George Zimmerman. That, my friend, is a screwed up chip on your shoulder.