The world is aghast over Trayvon Martin. The US needs to look at itself - good read

[malaise]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/world-aghast-over-trayvon-martin
<snip>
The jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman say they acted in strict accordance with US law. That in itself speaks volumes

"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us /

To see oursels as others see us! /

It wad frae monie a blunder free us, /

An' foolish notion."

– Robert Burns

The US is always collectively amazed, on those rare occasions when it has cause to glimpse at how it is perceived by its less friendly critics abroad. The most egregious example, of course, was 9/11, when even the brutal enormity of the attack against America was not quite enough to still the hateful tongues of people crass enough to insist that the US had got what was coming to it. The citizens of the US have an absolute right to go about their business without being slaughtered. Of course they do. Which is why the world is aghast that this right does not extend as far as Trayvon Martin.

Not that the UK has room to be too superior. British people went off to win the west, and having won it, imported slaves to make it pay. Later, we invited Afro-Caribbean men and women to come and work in Britain, at the jobs that didn't pay enough to attract the incumbent population. Our own history of racism may not have been formalised in a written constitution. But Britain is just like the US in its reluctance to admit that the casual, widespread racism of the past has far-reaching consequences that give succour to those who wish to be racists still. Our own Trayvon Martin is Stephen Lawrence. The awful depths of the hostility of the police to the idea of prosecuting his racist killers is still being revealed, 20 years on, as we learn how undercover officers gathered intelligence into the Lawrence family as they campaigned for justice for their son. Modern states that are worthy of the name are meant to protect their citizens from violence, protecting all of us equally, under the law. In the wake of 9/11, the US and Britain were the most active nations in the world in the quest to take up arms in the cause of spreading liberal democracy. Why neither nation is quite able to see why the targets of this largesse don't quite trust them, when both of us are still demonstrably unable to spread liberal democracy with impunity even among our own citizens, is quite the little mystery.

This is one of those moments when the US – and its great ally, the UK – would do well to take a long look at itself. Zimmerman's right to kill in "self-defence" does not contrast well with Edward Snowden's fear of retribution. By exposing the fact that the emails of the citizens of the land of the free (and ours here in Britain) could be plucked from the internet at the state's leisure, wasn't Snowden too defending himself, his fellow citizens, and the idea of the US and of liberal democracy? But no reluctance to arrest Snowden is evident.

If the Martin case were "just" about racism, then that would be grotesque and awful enough. But it's even more basic than that. It's about the fragility of freedom, and how imperative it is that one person's freedom, like one community's, and one country's, cannot be pursued at the expense of another's. Zimmerman's freedom to get on with his own life has been won at the cost of another man's annihilation. The disregard of the idea that all US citizens have an equal right to freedom and protection could not be made more painfully obvious than this. A monopoly on violence is a terrifying monopoly to hold. It should quite definitely not be shared so casually with self-appointed men from the neighbourhood watch.

----------------
On the night of the verdict I pointed out that Stephen Lawrence was the British Trayvon

[sally5050]

1. This is an extremely well written critique..

i especially loved this!
Zimmerman's freedom to get on with his own life has been won at the cost of another man's annihilation. The disregard of the idea that all US citizens have an equal right to freedom and protection could not be made more painfully obvious than this. A monopoly on violence is a terrifying monopoly to hold. It should quite definitely not be shared so casually with self-appointed men from the neighbourhood watch.

[malaise]

4. Yes it is a good read

I liked the comparisons with the Steven Lawrence murder in England as well.

[indepat]

2. One would think that a state law, concomitant with the judge's instructions, gives an unambiguous

license to kill in seeming abrogation of others' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A reported 7% to 9% increase in homicide rates in the 22 states having stand your ground laws, as opposed to homicide rates in the other states, seems to confirm that these law are being interpreted as a license to kill and: the judge's instructions to the jury in the Zimmerman case and the jury's verdict seem to confirm this conclusion. Oh the joys and fruits of living in a right-wing soused society.

[WillyT]

3. Many Of Us Here Are Aghast As Well...

& Rec !!!