By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“However, law is not color-blind. Law, as the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, is about experience. Culturally competent law practice requires that one understand societal realities and experiences and the legal implications they evoke. To do otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking at best.”
– Wendell Griffen, “Lessons from Florida v. George,” wendellgriffen.blogspot.com (August 1, 2013)
The best man at my wedding in 1968 was, and is, a gay man. We were roommates as freshmen and he became my best friend in college. He has had a very successful career and has been in a committed relationship for many years. We don’t see each other often, but we remain good friends to this day. And if you had told me in 1968 that forty-five years later there would be preachers urging that homosexuals be confined behind electrified razor wire, or politicians lobbying for the death penalty for the “crime” of being gay, or pseudo-therapists insisting that sexual orientation is a “lifestyle” choice amenable to counseling, or seemingly rational people arguing against full legal equality for all human beings, I would have dismissed your opinion as absurd fantasy. And I would have been wrong.
But I would likewise have rejected in 1968 any suggestion that almost fifty years thence racism would still permeate American society. After all, most of the landmark victories in civil rights had occurred by that year. The courts had issued decrees ending the legislated segregation that had successfully held a race in bondage for a hundred years following the abolition of slavery. Martin Luther King had cajoled and shamed a nation into adopting laws prohibiting discrimination in education, employment, housing and public accommodations. The right to vote, that most fundamental guarantee of participation in the life of the nation, had finally become real for millions of citizens. Racial intolerance would be forever buried with the bodies of its then living adherents. And I would again have been wrong.
The election of Barack Obama as President in 2008 was heralded by many as the dawning of a new age, the age of post-racial America. In his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, then Sen. Obama had declared, “There is not a Black America and a White America and a Latino America and an Asian America-there’s the United States of America.” Liberals wanted to believe that the election results had validated that speech. The political right argued that the election of a black President meant that racial equality had become a reality and demanded an end to affirmative action and other programs deemed oppressive to whites. The Supreme Court under John Roberts has been happy to oblige conservatives, steadily eroding the foundations of race-based preferences and, most recently, virtually emasculating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Contrary to the hopes of liberals and the beliefs of Justice Roberts, the notion of a post-racial America remains a dream. If anything, the Obama presidency has brought into clear focus the extent to which racism remains a core feature of society. We saw its ugliness in both election campaigns. Throughout his time in office, the President has been castigated as a socialist, a Muslim (or Muslim sympathizer), a despot and an illegitimate pretender. An Associated Press poll taken in October of 2012 found that anti-black attitudes had increased among whites from 51% to 56% between 2008 and 2012. When he arrived in Orlando two days ago to speak to a Disabled American Veterans convention, the President was greeted by a number of protesters, some of them bearing signs reading “Kenyan Go Home.”
But for me the most telling reminder of the sad state of race relations in this country was the recently completed trial in the case of State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. I know. The demands of due process were satisfied. The jury has spoken. As a lawyer, that ought to be sufficient for me. Anyone who has tried cases before a jury has had the experience of winning a losing case and losing a case that ought to have been won. The system has been crafted over hundreds of years to enable decisions based upon relevant evidence of facts and reasoned principles of law. We strive for the approximation of justice, because that is the best that we can do.
Yet the verdict in the Zimmerman trial is disturbing. I cannot bring myself to accept the result as approximate justice. And I am not alone. Recent polling by the Washington Post disclosed an even split of opinion among Americans on the verdict. An overwhelming majority of black Americans disapproved of the jury’s conclusions, and only a slim majority of whites supported it.
The sides lined up long before the trial even began. Blacks widely portrayed the death of Trayvon Martin as an act of cold-blooded murder. Supporters of Mr. Zimmerman in turn described Mr. Martin as a teenager out of control, a thug with a history of violent fantasies and an attitude prone to trouble. The public was certain that the case was about race. And despite the efforts of Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers to eliminate race as an issue, it was in fact the unspoken them of the entire defense. I say this because the legal justification for Mr. Martin’s death was predicated upon a series of assumptions that are fundamentally racist. Consider the following themes:
1. As a resident of the subdivision and a self-styled neighborhood watch captain, Mr. Zimmerman had a right to be present in the neighborhood that was superior to that of Mr. Martin.
2. Because Mr. Martin was an outsider, Mr. Zimmerman had a right to question the legitimacy of the former’s actions.
3. Mr. Martin had a duty to justify himself to Mr. Zimmerman.
None of these assumptions was seriously questioned in the course of the trial. The defense created a foundation which wholly lacked any consideration of reciprocal duties. The jury was told that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to follow Mr. Martin. The jury was told that Mr. Martin had a responsibility to explain himself. Why? Mr. Martin had neither a legal nor moral obligation to account to Mr. Zimmerman for any reason. Yet Mr. Zimmerman was somehow clothed with quasi-official status.
Moreover, Mr. Zimmerman created the conditions which directly led to Mr. Martin’s death. First, he unilaterally determined that Mr. Martin was likely preparing to engage in criminal activity. And the evidence for that conclusion? Mr. Martin was black, was wearing a hoodie and was walking down the street after dark. Second, Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow Mr. Martin after being told by a sheriff’s dispatcher that he should relent until the police arrived. Does anyone seriously believe that a black 17 year-old walking down unfamiliar streets at night while being followed by an unknown person in a vehicle might not have reason to become alarmed? Third, Mr. Zimmerman was armed, a blatant violation of the rules under which bona-fide neighborhood watch volunteers are supposed to operate. Mr. Zimmerman crossed the line from vigilance to vigilantism. The fact that Mr. Martin may have initiated the physical altercation is both understandable and pathetically deficient as a justification for homicide.
The response to the verdict was also predictable. The black community compared the case to Emmett Till, the black teenager viciously murdered in Mississippi in 1955. Many whites shared the views of Ann Coulter, who routinely reminds us that a substantial investment in an elite education does not always produce beneficial results, and who concluded, “Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman.”
The truth is that Mr. Zimmerman was in the best position to prevent the death of Trayvon Martin. But he made a series of faulty assumptions based upon race. As a result he became a predator who, when confronted by his prey, killed him. Racism provided the occasion of Mr. Martin’s death; a dangerous extension of the law of self-defense provided the justification.
We legislate morality, but we cannot legislate moral thinking. The elimination of statutory racism and the election of an African-American President are important milestones, but they are only steps in a long journey. Trayvon Martin was not Emmett Till. His death was not the result of institutionalized and state approved violence. He was instead the victim of the racism of profiling, the racism of generalization and false assumptions. It is racism once removed from the protection of the law. But it is a racism which still kills.
@David:
Great Link! I loved this excerpt:
“In the twenty years that followed, roughly 150,000 American blacks were killed by other blacks, and Jackson elevated none of their deaths to the level of “cause.”
And Mike S wonders why people bring up “Brother Al” when people post this Trayvonite stuff. Maybe it is because like when the author of this thread said:
“The demands of due process were satisfied. The jury has spoken. As a lawyer, that ought to be sufficient for me. ”
Enquiring minds can’t help but question how come that devolved into “checking on suspicious people in your neighborhood, at night, in the rain is inherently racist!” without wondering if that someone has a race-baiting axe to grind. Because that is a pretty tenuous link to make.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Donald Trump, Squeeky, DavidM, Marsalek & Joy. Birds of a feather and no doubt proud of that fact.
Blacks are far and away the greatest committers of crimes against blacks. Blacks are more racists than whites and blacks will tell you that (sorry my stats aren’t at hand). I think the prez is a racist and very divisive to bring up the Zimmerman case publicly, castigating whitey about a conversation about race. I think Zimmerman made poor judgment, but the “innocent, pure” one was a known thug, and referred to whites as “creepy-ass cracker.” Photos of Martin have surfaced since, showing some vile attributes. All the photos of Martin were 2-3 years prior in the initial reports of the incident and were incorrect by MSM, particularly nbc It was a media setup to create a concept that a poor innocent puppy was murdered by a white racist. Yet Zimmerman has a history of volunteering and helping minorities. Never believe the first report of anything you hear in MSM and the spin doctors. Do your own homework before you crucify others based on propaganda.
Vincent,
You appear to believe that an unarmed teenager walking through the neighborhood where he was staying with a can of tea and package of Skittles should be followed and confronted by some armed wannabe cop.
Now, a young boy is dead because Zimmerman didn’t have sense enough to follow the advice of the police dispatcher.
Hold on Tonto !!! Travon Martin is dead because he brutally attacked an armed man. There is no reason to believe that if George Zimmerman had not been armed and able to defend himself that Zimmerman would have been beaten to death by Travon Martin. Fortunately, George Zimmerman was able to defend himself.
Bettykath,
It is you who incorrectly state the facts. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman the race of the person and Zimmerman responded with the equivocal “I don’t know, I think he’s black.”
All of the evidence pointed to Martin as the aggressor. Who said otherwise?
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. Zimmerman kept Martin in view so that, when the police came, they could be directed to Martin. That is not stalking.
Finally, you apparently believe that following a person in a public place justifies an unprovoked fist in the face or a knee in the groin but you do not believe that having one’s head slammed into a concrete sidewalk does not justify commensurate force in return. I suggest you rethink your logic.
Liberals,Progressives and Democrats don’t let little things like facts and evidence stand in the way of expressing their uninformed opinion. When the facts & evidence don’t support their agenda, they simply change the facts to suit themselves.
“Liberals,Progressives and Democrats don’t let little things like facts and evidence stand in the way of expressing their uninformed opinion”
All of them? Every one of them? On every issue? All the time?
Thanks, that statement makes it much easier to figure out what is going on and who is making serous comment.
“And if you had told me in 1968 that forty-five years later there would be preachers urging that homosexuals be confined behind electrified razor wire, or politicians lobbying for the death penalty for the “crime” of being gay, or pseudo-therapists insisting that sexual orientation is a “lifestyle” choice amenable to counseling, or seemingly rational people arguing against full legal equality for all human beings, I would have dismissed your opinion as absurd fantasy. And I would have been wrong.”
To believe that all preachers share the same view would be just as accurate as saying that all homosexuals are active members of their NAMBLA group.
That’s a mighty big broad brush you’re using there.
TY Felix and Squeeky, especially, who most , if not all you squares do not know the reference. I’m not gonna tell you, look it up fools. Al Sharpton has made millions of dollars since the Tawana Brawley fiasco. There would be no Al Sharpton except for Tawana Brawley. Instead of most of you fools, I have made my living as a public defender and a teacher, living and working in the neighborhoods, that Al, and Jesse would never be caught dead in. Nobody seems to reference, the story that Jackson (look it up) told about a decade ago. He was walking on a street late at night, and approaching him were the obvious sounds of young males. He became anxious, until he recognized they were white males. Look it up, Kath. Over and out, Spindell and Kath and all you fools. It’s not racism, its predation.
Richard Faust,
Why is it that every time the issue of racism comes up, there are some like you, who use Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as examples of the Black community or Black people? Do I counter that with using examples of prominent White racists? How about approaching this situation in what may seem to you to be a novel idea. Let’s talk about the issue of racism based on the facts of it, not on some who use that situation for personal gain. Not one person who’s written here supporting the premise of Mike Appleton’s blog has cited either Sharpton or Jackson to make their points. Why do you inject them into the discussion. I agree 100% with Mike Appleton’s point of view, yet at the same time I have always disliked Jackson and Sharpton as people who have been self-serving. The reason, in many instances, that people bring up these names is to broadly stereotype what the movement for equality for people of color is all about. By using those names then they can imply that the reality of the oppression of American people of color is merely a con game. The oppression is not a con game, it is real and it is proven, but many Whites
won’t accept the truth of their own bigotry.
The reason why the names Sharpton & Jackson come up in every discussion about race is because they are black racists. Both men have made very long and profitable careers out of telling white people what’s not fair. Honestly, without Sharpton & Jackson, white people would not know what is or is not fair. Black racism is alive & well. The same cannot be said about white racism. Think not ?? Try naming some current white racists.
RE: Michael J. Marsalek
David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Frosty Wooldridge, to name a few.
Sharpton, Jackson, Buchanan and Wooldridge all need each other because with out them they couldn’t make any money off their supporters.
Oh and before you scream your typical conservative insults at me, know this Im no liberal. Im a libertarian who hates conservatives and liberals with pretty much equal disdain. Liberals who love statism and conservatives despite all their squawking of quotes their precious little story book, their demi-god Ronald Regan and their quoting of the founders they like the left support government thuggery as long as someone on team red does it.
Can’t say that have heard much from or about David Duke recently. And as for Pat Buchanan, although he is a current commentator, I’ve not heard anything that would or could be considered racists remarks. And finally, pardon my ignorance, but I have never heard of Frosty Woolridge. Is he any relation to Frosty The Snowman? If I may leave you with one word of advice – hate is such a strong word. Perhaps you might use it more judiciously.
Richard, that was an interesting reference to Jesse Jackson.
“There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start to think about robbery and then look around and see it’s somebody white and feel relieved. How humiliating.”
— THE REV. JESSE JACKSON, NOV. 27, 1993
A very interesting analysis of Jackson’s own neighborhood watch program similar to George Zimmerman’s is at the following site:
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/jesse_jackson.htm
Betty, you are delusional. This type of thinking is extremely damaging to race relations.
Under the authority of New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams, a grand jury was called to hear evidence. On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its 170-page report concluding Brawley had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized, as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisers. The report further concluded that the “unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones” were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the Grand Jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded more than 6,000 pages of testimony.[17]
In the decision, the grand jury noted many problems with Brawley’s story. Among these were that the rape kit results did not indicate sexual assault. Additionally, despite her claim of having been held captive for days, Brawley was not suffering from hypothermia, was well-nourished, and appeared to have brushed her teeth recently. Despite her clothing being charred, there were no burns on her body. Although a shoe she was wearing was cut through, Brawley had no injuries to her foot. The racial epithets written on her were upside down, which led to suspicion that Brawley had written the words. Testimony from her schoolmates indicated she had attended a local party during the time of her supposed abduction. One witness claimed to have observed Brawley’s climbing into the garbage bag.[18] Brawley never testified.[19]
Possible motives
Much of the grand jury evidence pointed to a possible motive for Brawley’s falsifying the incident: trying to avoid violent punishment from her mother and her stepfather Ralph King. Witnesses testified that Glenda Brawley had previously beaten her daughter for running away and for spending nights with boys. King had a history of violence that included stabbing his first wife 14 times, later shooting and killing her. There was considerable evidence that King could and would violently attack Brawley: when Brawley had been arrested on a shoplifting charge the previous May, King attempted to beat her for the offense while at the police station. Witnesses have also described King as having talked about his stepdaughter in a sexualized manner.[20] On the day of her alleged disappearance, Brawley had skipped school to visit boyfriend Todd Buxton, who was serving a six-month jail sentence. When Buxton’s mother (with whom she had visited Buxton in jail) urged her to get home before she got in trouble, Brawley told her, “I’m already in trouble.” She described how angry Ralph King was over a previous incident of her staying out late.[21]
There was evidence that Brawley’s mother and King participated knowingly in the hoax. Neighbors told the grand jury that in February they overheard Glenda Brawley saying to Mr. King, “You shouldn’t have took the money because after it all comes out, they’re going to find out the truth.” Another neighbor heard Mrs. Brawley say, “They know we’re lying and they’re going to find out and come and get us.”[20]
In April 1989, New York Newsday published claims by a boyfriend of Brawley’s, Daryl Rodriguez, that she had told him the story was fabricated, with help from her mother, in order to avert the wrath of her stepfather.[22] Writing about the case in a 2004 book on perceptions of racial violence, sociologist Jonathan Markovitz concluded “it is reasonable to suggest that Brawley’s fear and the kinds of suffering that she must have gone through must have been truly staggering if they were enough to force her to resort to cutting her hair, covering herself in feces and crawling into a garbage bag.”[5]
Dave, Damn straight. The Tawana case is exactly that, a case of racism that involved the white power structure of the county against one 14 year old Black girl in order to protect the well connected white perpetrators. The grand jury brought in a “no bill” meaning that the county DA, a friend of at least one of the accused offered insufficient evidence for an indictment. Just as a DA can get an indictment against a slice of bread, so can a DA get a “no bill” just by the lack of evidence presented. No one proved that Tawana lied.
bettykath wrote: – “Just as a DA can get an indictment against a slice of bread, so can a DA get a “no bill” just by the lack of evidence presented. No one proved that Tawana lied.”
Well she didn’t take time to testify in court and the courts have consistently ruled against her. You really think the courts are all racially motivated to be unfair to her?
I hardly think your description of a 170 page report as a “no bill” is accurate to the typical reader in this forum.
“On October 6, 1988, the Abrams Grand Jury released its extensive and thorough 170 page report concluding that Tawana Brawley (“Brawley”) had not been abducted, assaulted, raped and sodomized as had been claimed by Brawley and her advisors. The report further concluded that the “unsworn public allegations against Dutchess County Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones” were false and had no basis in fact. To issue the report, the Grand Jury heard from 180 witnesses, saw 250 exhibits and recorded over 6,000 pages of testimony.”
http://www.nycourts.gov/press/old_keep/brawley.htm
Tawana Brawley as an example of racism?!
Surely you jest.
Vincent, You should have your facts correct before you jump in.
” at the time he did not know the race of Martin [he left his vehicle]”
Not true. He knew while curb crawling behind Trayvon that he was Black as he told Sean, the dispatcher early in the NEN call.
“Z… lawfully asked Martin what he was doing (no, Martin was not required to answer, but he also was not required to attack Zimmerman over this perceived slight); ”
There was no evidence presented that Trayvon was the instigator. In fact, there was evidence that it was Z…. who made the first attack. (How dare that n…. question why I’m following him? How dare he not answer me?)
“Martin unlawfully attacked Z…..; Martin was in the process of slamming Zimmerman’s head into the pavement (read deadly force) when Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin.”
We don’t know that Martin first attacked Zimmerman. There was no one but Zimmerman who made the claim of the head into pavement and there was plenty of evidence that Z’s injuries were superficial, not indicative of having come into concrete. Any one who stalks someone for several minutes, first in a car and then on foot deserves a fist in the face or knee in the groin. And I’m not conceding that Martin took either of those actions.
“The legal principle here is that a person is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense when he has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.”
Reasonable is the key word. Z is a softie who is probably afraid of his own shadow.
Mr. Appleton,
Apparently, you must have gotten your evidence from the media. You certainly did not accurately recount the evidence that was presented in court. Plus, your legal analysis is awful. Otherwise, a great post.
Rather than speculate what was going on in the minds of the participants, lawyers view the evidence in the light of legal principles. For someone who implies that he has had a lot of trial experience, you certainly don’t understand that basic premise of trial work. You lose on both counts. You neither accurately recount the evidence nor correctly expound legal principles.
The reason why your 3 assumptions were not challenged at trial is because they did not exist, except in your mind. Your 3 assumptions miss the point totally. In the law, this is called setting up a straw man and knocking him down. Who had the “superior” right to be present in the neighborhood, whether Zimmerman had a right to question Martin, and whether Martin had a duty to respond to Zimmerman’s questions were irrelevant to the issues presented at trial and were recognized as such by the prosecution, the defense team and anyone else who heard the evidence and knows the law.
A lawyer, even one without trial experience, would analyze the case thusly: Zimmerman lawfully exited his vehicle (whether that was a smart move was irrelevant, he had a right to do so without being attacked); at the time he did not know the race of Martin, but that should not matter anyway; Zimmerman lawfully asked Martin what he was doing (no, Martin was not required to answer, but he also was not required to attack Zimmerman over this perceived slight); Martin unlawfully attacked Zimmerman; Martin was in the process of slamming Zimmerman’s head into the pavement (read deadly force) when Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin. The legal principle here is that a person is allowed to use deadly force in self-defense when he has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. If you do not think that having one’s head impacted into concrete gives rise to fear of death or serious bodily injury (you are old enough to remember Bennie “The Kid” Parent), then you will not understand anything else I have said in this comment.
You seemingly think that asking a person a question justifies having your head slammed into concrete. This is not the law in any American jurisdiction. Nor is it the law that being attacked is a “pathetically deficient as a justification for homicide”.
There can be no other logical verdict than that rendered by the jury. The people who think otherwise are, like you, ignorant of the facts and unable to apply the applicable law.
So much bigotry in one thread. And so much ignorance.
Zimmerman is self-described as white (driver’s license, police reports, etc.) He became hispanic-peruvian-black courtesy of his racist brother.
Hispanic is a term that refers to Spanish speaking people.
Undocumented immigrants that cross from Mexico are also from all the countries of Central America, not just Mexico.
There was a thread a few days ago that got me to go through my paper archive. Found what I was looking for, a special edition of Our Time Press out of Brooklyn NY that looked at the Tawana Brawley case. The thread on this blog on Tawana Brawley shows that white privilege is alive and well here. I’m not going to recount the entire case here, but will share a few thoughts.
Tawana was a 14 year old high school student who received As and Bs, was a cheerleader and a member of the track team living in an integrated neighborhood with two working parents.
When she was found, she was half-naked in a black garbage bag, in a fetal position with no underwear. She was covered in feces and “KKK ni__er bitch” was written on her in feces. The ambulance team found her unresponsive to ammonia capsules and no dilation of her pupils. The medical report from the hospital revealed masses of hair ripped from her head, she is,”unresponsive, unconscious, shallow breathing”. Her blood pressure was very low, her system indicated that she hadn’t eaten in quite some time, there was blood in her pubic area indicative of violent rape, there was urine in her mouth. At the hospital, she was washed before the rape kit was used. The rape kit was given to an officer who was a friend of Pagones and he kept it for 3 days before turning it over to the lab. Tawana was sent home from the hospital, still dirty (the washing was not well done), in a sheet! No one, not even the sexual abuse investigator suggested that Tawana get psychological help. That advice came from her advisers. When she was interviewed by police in her home 2 days later, she was described in the police report as “somewhat catatonic”.
The investigation was designed to protect the perpetrators. Tawana described a white cop, sandy hair and mustache, while still in the hospital. She later identified Harry Crist as the cop. She was never asked to describe her other assailants. The FBI agent who interviewed her was a close social friend of Pagones.
The alleged perpetrators were 4 men who were seen curb crawling in the neighborhood by a postal worker. Those men were State Trooper Scott Patterson (father was 2nd in command of State Troopers), part-time police officer Harry Crist, Dutchess County ADA Steven Pagones (father was a judge), Gene Bronson. Crist talked about the “girl they found in the bag of sh_t” the same day, but hours before Tawana was found.
A lot has been made about Crist committing suicide, but that was all pr. He had wounds that couldn’t have been self-inflicted and the gun wasn’t at the scene. Strange how a man can commit suicide by self-inflicted gun shot and get rid of the gun.
I haven’t reviewed all of the articles. It’s really difficult.
A 14 year old girl abused by well-connected white guys. And for some, it’s all her fault.
So Tawana got the kind of justice that a 14 year old Black girl can expect when those who assault her are well-connected white guys. Just like now, 26 years later, Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old Black boy got when killed by a well-connected white guy. Nothing much has changed.
bettykath – what am I missing here? The infamous Tawana Brawley was found by a Grand Jury to be a racial hoax. She faked the whole thing. It is like the Duke lacrosse case. You are using this case as evidence of racism?
@rafflaw:
You are just mad because lefties are not used to getting really, really good satire thrown at them. Because if you are honest with yourself, you know you Trayvonites are acting like a bunch of race baiters! That was a very good song, and I have even done a second edition which is better!
The Trayvon Martin Song
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Comrades we must, remember Trayvon Martin!
As we march on, and on with steady gait!
Join in our song, put on and wear your hoodies proudly,
As we fight on, against the Racist State!!!
Join in our song, put on and wear your hoodies proudly,
As we fight on, against the Racist State!!!
The sidewalk calls, his Profile there in chalk lines!
And there his Blood, which time has turned to Black!
Do not forget, the Injury which left him dying,
Was not from gun, but bigoted attack!
Do not forget, the Injury which left him dying,
Was not from gun, but bigoted attack!
So let us march, the Struggle has not ended!
Let bugles ring, and proudly beat the drum!
We can not stop, or ever rest in peaceful slumber,
Until the Racist State we Overcome!
We can not stop, or ever rest in peaceful slumber,
Until the Racist State we Overcome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWyK_JU-100
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
RE: matters
Pretty much this, just ask people like Pat Buchanan or Frosty Wooldridge if they consider Hispanics to be white. Most likely you’ll get a nasty response.
RE: Maddog
Who the hell cares where his dad was. He was visiting a relative when he was sent to the store to pick something up for the relative.
As for the subject at hand there will always be hate and there will always be race obsessed losers like Pat Buchanan, Al Sharpton, Frosty Wooldridge, Jesse Jackson, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan, La Raza who always attempt to start something.
Squeaky,
That song is a disgrace.
Hispanics are the result of caucasians and indians from hundreds of years ago. Id pretty much consider them to be their own race. I certainly would not call them white or indian.
Where was Trayvon’s father the night that Trayvon went out for skiddles and was roaming around the old fart housing project peering in windows? You failed your son.
Racism is one of the products of NASCAR innit?
@MikeSpindell
Well, I am certainly not one to hold a grudge, and sooo, I have written you a real live valid protest song that you and the other Trayvonites can use during your street demonstrations and stuff! I wrote this in a serious fashion, and resisted all my urges to work Skittles into it. I have tested it and you can march real well to it. I call it:
The Trayvon Martin Song
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Comrades we won’t, forget the fallen Trayvon!
As we march on, and on with steady gait!
Join in our song, put on and wear your hoodies proudly
As we fight on, against the racist state!!!
Join in our song, put on and wear your hoodies proudly
As we fight on, against the racist state!!!
The sidewalk calls, his Profile there in chalk lines!
And there his Blood, which time has turned to Black!
Do not forget, the Injury which left him dying,
Was the result, of bigoted attack!
Do not forget, the Injury which left him dying,
Was the result, of bigoted attack!
So let us march, the Struggle has not ended!
Let bugles ring, and proudly beat the drum!
We can not rest, or ever sleep in peaceful slumbers,
Until the Rac-ist State we Overcome!
We can not rest, or ever sleep in peaceful slumbers,
Until the Rac-ist State we Overcome!
Sooo, you or anybody can use this for FREE, with attribution. Thoughtfully, I wrote the above song to fit the melody of an uncopyrighted marching song that you can use. It once proved very successful, and motivated a whole lot of people!!! And, it seems sooo appropriate for the Trayvonite race-baiting mindset!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWyK_JU-100
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Racism is colorful, as evidenced in references to Zimmerman as a WHITE Hispanic. So do we then properly refer to the President as a WHITE African American? Tunnel vision is alive and well.