Anyone who followed the Florida v. George Zimmerman court case closely was probably not surprised by the verdict. Even to this legal layman, who saw only snippets of the arguments provided by the media, it seemed that the prosecution’s task of proving beyond reasonable doubt that at the moment of the shooting George Zimmerman was not trying to protect himself seemed improbable. I cannot comment on the competency of the counsel or on the verdict itself. Not having heard all the arguments, I can only trust the abilities of the six women jurors who reached a unanimous conclusion.
Jim White
|
But I can comment on the Trayvon Martin case as a symbol. At times an event takes on significance beyond itself. As important as the trial was for Martin’s family and friends in seeking what they believed was justice for Trayvon, the case grew to encompass an even larger issue. Can a young black man buy a package of Skittles in a neighborhood convenience store and cut through a middle class, predominantly white neighborhood on his way home without being viewed as a suspicious interloper?
No one can seriously maintain that we have not made leaps and bounds toward an integrated society. Interracial couples hardly attract notice anymore. African-American leaders in government, business and religion are no longer exceptions. And younger generations display cultural merging in their choices of music and fashion.
Still, I suspect that it is much easier for whites to feel happy with such progress than blacks. On May 14, I underwent total ankle replacement surgery on my right foot. Six weeks later the surgeon said, “I couldn’t be more pleased with the results!” While the surgeon’s enthusiasm was gratifying, it underscored the distinct difference between the surgeon and the patient. I was still hurting, and, thus, I certainly could have been more pleased! That is not to discount the healing that had occurred, but I couldn’t ignore the pain I was still in. I couldn’t be pleased until the pain was gone.
One of my wife’s black teacher friends told my wife that she instructed her son, “When you are in a store, keep your hands out of your pockets so they won’t think you have stolen something.” It must be a troubling thing to be presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. That’s a stress most white people will never know and one which many black people know all too well.
Profiling is alive and well in our society. I think it is better to admit it and to admit that to some degree we all engage in it. Suppose you are a parent of a 17-year-old daughter. Her date rings the doorbell and you observe a young man with lime-colored hair, tattoos covering visible parts of his body, a stud through his left eyebrow, pants at mid-thigh level and from a belt loop a hanging chain is connected to what you suppose to be a wallet in his rear pocket. We all engage in profiling. I can remember a day when long hair and sandals were enough to arouse suspicion.
But to automatically assume that we know what is inside a person based on what we see outside the person is not right. The trouble is, things get complicated. Often what people wear, their body art, their grooming habits and their general demeanor do give strong clues to their preferences. Occasionally, they may also signal intentions.
A young man from the Middle East is just ahead of you in the airport security line. He mutters to himself phrases from what you suspect is the Quran and he looks nervously about. Profiling, anyone? Then, as you reach the point in line where it rounds the post to double back on itself, he is joined by a young woman carrying a baby. She says to you, very pleasantly, “Please pardon us, but my husband has been preserving our place in line while I went to change our baby. I hope you will overlook his anxiety, he is terrified of flying!” Terrorist? Probably not. I should probably be ashamed of myself for wondering.
We all sense a need to protect ourselves and those we love from threats; and, if we are diligent, we are always on the lookout for threats. To one it is being diligent. To another it is profiling. But we must balance our own anxieties about our security with what is reasonable and right in viewing others.
In many states, a person has a perfectly legal right to carry a firearm in public. But is it a case of profiling if I shield my wife from a pistol-packing stranger we meet on the street? Or is it a case of common sense? Let’s say the stranger becomes offended by my anxiety and verbally assaults me for “profiling” him. “I have every right to carry this gun and I was doing nothing wrong!,” he exclaims loudly. “It’s offensive to me that you think just because I am carrying a gun that I’m going to hurt you!”
Some perceived threats are worth leaving people offended because of the potential risk. But our perceptions must be informed by logic, experience and fairness. Carrying a gun, getting tattoos or behavior patterns are all matters of choice and circumstance. But the color of one’s skin is beyond anyone’s control, and should, therefore, be immaterial.
Until any black person can walk through any white neighborhood without fear of being attacked simply because he is black, and until it is safe for any white person to walk through any black neighborhood without fear of harm, we have work to do. We have clearly come a long way, but our pain tells us we still have a lot of healing to do.
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.