Trayvon Martin discussion

[Jaylan]

I don't know if you are just getting in a pissing contest or whether you really believe that slavery in the United States wasn't racist but take a look at this wikipedia link about slave codes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

Several of these laws make very clear the racial boundries of slavery.

Actually I think he knows its true that slavery was primarily about racism, but he just doesnt want to believe it. Some people are in denial about past and present discriminatory practices. They seek to minimize the severity of various forms of discrimination by downplaying their role in history and the current times. But any rational person, and just about any historian will tell you that American slavery was chiefly about racism.

Some people dont like believing that racism, or sexism, or any other -isms actually run deep in past and present society. They dislike this truth, so they try to pin the bad behavior on other factors while ignoring the fact that the main catalyst is these biases. What really bothers them is that these people dislike the bad behavior and stigma that is attached to a group they belong to...even if the stigma and behaviors are attached to people of the past.

Ive had arguments like this before in regards to womens rights and the whole suffrage movement. A guy was arguing that women lacking rights back in the day wasnt primarily about sexism, but about the ole boys club and religious tradition. But I asked him, how can it not be about sexism? Because women were denied the right to do many things because men thought they were inferior and incapable of doing things correctly.

It makes no sense to me when people try to downplay the role discrimination has played in our world. Like I said, it would seem to me that they just truly dislike that the group they belong to would be labeled as something bad based on the past. But it happens...thats history and we cant change it. People need to recognize the stigma is for the past folks...but the present folks will retain that stigma is they downplay or deny the truth about certain situations.

Japanense and Germans royally screwed up in WWII. They were hateful and diabolical...and because present day Japanese and Germans are ashamed of that past, the negative stigma wont attach itself to them. If they downplayed how horrible they were, then thered be plenty of raised eyebrows at them. 65 years after Pearl Harbor, and plenty of Americans love Japanese folks and their culture. However right here in America, race relations stall because some people try to minimize just how bad certain things were. Germans hate the history of their country for the World War II days, but theyd be laughed at if they tried to tell people that the Nazi agenda wasnt primarily about racism, jewish hate, homophobia, and other forms of hate.

The sad part is that I have encountered some people online who do try to say Nazi Germany was not primarily about those things....and how it was about racial unity of whites...lmao. Those who try and downplay the primary role racism had in chattel slavery are doing the same thing that the people I just mentioned did...how in the world can you deny the truth? The truth is that these racial policies were well documented and pushed an agenda...so how is racism not a primary factor in either Nazism or chattel slavery?

There is no assumption, that is explicitly what your linked passage states. Backed up by the biblical references I provided that the south held dear.

Religion was very much a deciding factor in slavery. I have provided considerable evidence and references, obviously you can choose to believe whatever you wish.

Obviously you chose to ignore the evidence provided to you actually. Race was the determining factor in who ended up chattel slaves. Hence the American slavery system was based upon racism. Thats not hard for anyone to understand. You seem to be willfully dismissing and/or misinterpreting valid evidence of this.

Sure slavery was racist, but my argument all along against Jaylan was his assertation that it was PRIMARILY about race. That is completely wrong and mountains of evidence prove otherwise.

The data has all been provided in my posts for those who have the eyes to see. You even provided some of that evidence for me, you just refuse to believe it says what it truly says.

If it wasnt primarily about race, how do you explain race codes? Can you explain that away? Race was the determining factor in who was chattel slaves. Not religion, not anything else. Simply race.

Have you thoroughly read the links I provided you earlier? Have you done any reading on slave codes as FairShake has asked you? Its clear as day that slavery was primarily about race. Slaves codes were based on white supremacy...so given this fact, how was slavery not chiefly about racism?

 

[Jaylan]

Again Jaylan, if it was primarily about racism, why would christian blacks be exempt from the slave codes?

Here is another of the slave codes, thanks fairshake for the link.

Christian blacks were NOT exempt from slave codes. Stop misinterpreting the information. You cannot say it wasnt chiefly about race but more about religion. If this was the case, why not enslave all those native americans that were already in America before slaves were brought over? I mean based on your interpretation of the law, one could enslave any non christian right? So why only go after blacks?

Most slaves were Christian and slave codes did apply to them. So explain that please. Considering the fact that blacks brought to America became slaves and then became christians, you cannot say that Christian blacks were exempt from slave codes. That a gross misinterpretation of history.

P.S. - Since when does slave code for one state prove your entire argument as correct?

You asked for evidence on black slave owners, I provided it.

I asked for evidence that black slave owners existed in the same numbers as white slave owners. Black slave owners were a tiny minority of all slave owners and only had black slaves themselves.

Again, just because some blacks had slaves, does not mean slavery was not chiefly a racist system. This is the same just saying that even though some jews ratted out their own people ot the Nazis does NOT mean Nazism wasnt largely about racism and ethnic discrimination.

I also provided evidence of blacks being the main force behind the "return to africa movement".

Your point? The fact some blacks wanted to leave the USA has nothing to do with this discussion.

I have also provided evidence that religion bore a greater power than racism in regards to slavery. The vast majority of people sold into slavery came from a non-unified continent that happened to be filled with blacks. That is why the majority of slaves were black (lest they were christian blacks, as that was not allowed).

Fairshake already debunked this. Religion didnt override racism. Racism was simply injected into religion.

Many slaves were christians and were still slaves. Explain that. The reason Americans were after black slaves is because of their feeling that blacks were inferior. If it wasnt about racism then they could have easily made native americans most of the slaves.

All of the links and evidence are clear, I don't know what else to say.

I am reminded of a saying, that the first person to tell their side of the story is by far the one most often believed.

All all of my links and Fairshakes links are clear. Either you havent read them or refuse to acknowledge the points made.

So goes it with education. No amount of evidence will produce the necessary amount of critical thinking required for you to stop believing that blacks were slaves because of some conspiracy to enslave only blacks (unless they were christian).

You already have your mind made up. This is not about my critical thinking skills. This is about you denying the racism of the past that made it so blacks were the ones targeted for slavery. Next thing youre gonna tell me is that Jim Crow wasnt mainly about racism.

The religious southern US was willing to buy any slaves, so long as they were not christians. It just so happens that the only one's on the market were from africa. Again, from where else would slaves come from?

Lets see if you can understand this...for the last time...

The reason that the market was flooded with black slaves was because of racism. The reason blacks were bought as slaves is because they were seen as subhuman. American settlers could have enslaved native americans or other whites in mass, but they didnt....and slavery existed for years and years across the world..so it wasnt a new concept. Thoughout history whenever people conquered land, theyd sometimes take slaves out of the original inhabitants.

Why didnt settlers do this to native americans like they did to blacks? They conquered the natives didnt they? So why ship blacks to the new world and waste the resources on making them slaves instead of the millions of natives already here? Because they felt blacks were inferior subhumans deserved and made for bondage. They didnt feel this way about natives, and even gave them their own land.

You still havent disproved my point. If slavery wasnt chiefly about racism, why go after blacks and not others when it was clearly possible? Why make racist policies and come up with bull crap scientific theories to support slavery? Chattel slavery was mainly about racism, thats why. Religion wasnt the big thing here. Religion and science were simply used to justify racism back in the day. People would misinterpret the bible, and come up with phony science to push their racist agendas.

 

[Jaylan]

Put yourself in the shoes of a merchant. The job of merchants was to make money, the slave trade was a grand opportunity for them. All they had to do was purchase the captives of black tribes.

They did not need to do the dirty work of attacking anyone, they only needed to buy them from those who already did the fighting.

I am saying that slavery was more about property than racism. With considerable evidence supported by religion, prominent blacks, black slave owners, and slave codes that excluded christian blacks from slavery (or christians of any ethnicity).

All of my links and cited references give evidence of this.

Again...Why didnt they simply get slaves in America instead of wasting resources going across seas? Its because they felt blacks were inferior and used this to justify going after them over other groups of people. Racism.

You think it would have been hard to enslave the Natives Americans? Hardly. American settlers had no problem wiping them out of the country...so dirty work was no problem.

Slavery was more about property than racism? Oh really. Read this: http://www.history.org/history/teaching/slavelaw.cfm

1705 -- All negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves are considered real estate.

This is basically a racist way of making non-whites property. White servants would still be indentured and not subject to becoming chattel. So based on this information, in what way was slavery more about property than racism?, especially if race is used to deem who is and isnt property.

You keep talking about your links and your "evidence" when its clear youve yet to read the links Ive provided you with.

Most slaves, were in fact not christian. Not sure where you got that bit of info, but I would be interested in seeing it.

My argument is supported by many facts, not just the slave codes that directly mention the role of religion in slavery.

Are you fvking serious? Anyone who knows anything knows that black slaves were converted to Christianity. Why do you think most black people are Christian nowadays?

http://voices.yahoo.com/converting-african-american-slaves-christianity-1433447.html?cat=37

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6997059

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_church#Slavery

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr2.html

Wanna still tell me black christians werent slaves? Wanna still tell me that black christians were not sometimes forced into slavery or indentured servitude (if they werent already slaves)? Because I can find more info on that. It wasnt uncommon that free blacks were kidnapped and sold into slavery.

And FYI, plenty of black church songs are old slave hymns that were sung by slaves to keep spirits high. Or are you going to tell me you know more about my culture now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_(music)

Its a known fact that slave owners tried to make slaves less African. So they converted them, forbid them from speaking their native tongue, and strip them of other aspects of their original culture.

Again, blacks having slaves is another chink in the armor of your argument, and merely augments my position. I realize that you do not like it, but it is still the case.

And again, where would the white slaves come from? Where would merchants purchase those slaves? Who was fighting whites and selling them as slaves? Nobody. There was nothing racist about that, it was about opportunity and a market for merchants to make money with minimal risk.

Blacks having slaves does nothing to my argument. Just because some blacks supported a racist establishment does not mean the establishment wasnt primarily racist. What dont you understand about that. Some people will betray their own simply for self preservation. It doesnt mean the system wasnt about discrimination.

And to answer your question, white chattel could have come from indentured servants. Non white indentured servants got turned into chattel by racist slave codes...so its not like it wasnt possible to make whites slaves. So again, slavery was firmly based upon racism in America.

You originally brought it up as a racism point of whites some pages back. I promise you references showing that the "blacks back to africa" movement was primarly a black goal, as shown by the efforts of Marcus Garvey and the Univerasal Negro Improvement Association. But the white agenda of liberals actually fought tooth and nail on this.

Buy his book "White America". You may learn something.

Learn what? I know some blacks back in the day wanted to leave America. I know some racist people today want non whites to leave America. What does this have to do with our current discussion?

Im not arguing that some blacks wanted to go back to Africa back in the day. Malcolm X even pushed for this at times. But nowadays blacks and other minorities arent trying to leave the US. But there are plenty of racists telling us to leave.

But again, whats this have to do with the current topic? Stay on track.

He debunked nothing, he merely ignored my cited references and chose his own interpretation. Despite my explaining it clearly and even adding another example of the slave codes citiing christianity and it's over-riding of slavery, despite race.

Oh please, youre the one ignoring references. You still havent said anything about the links I provided you. You havent read a damn thing that would blow a hole in your arguments. And anytime you are given something that disproves your assertions, you simply dismiss them.

Again, you misinterpreted the slave code. Also, I have shown you that black christians were in fact slaves. And if youd like, we can move on to how free blacks were kidnapped and sold into slavery...and yes, even the christian ones who were never slaves before.

Religion didnt override anything. Racism was injected into it to use it as a justification for slavery.

Read this: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm

The later repression and discrimination against the freed black slaves received as much biblical and Christian support as the earlier institution of slavery itself. This discrimination and the choice to enslave blacks only was made primarily on the basis of what has become known as the "sin of Ham" or "the curse of Canaan." Occasionally there would also be defenses of the inferiority of blacks by asserting that they bore the "mark of Cain."

We read in Genesis, chapter nine, that Noah's son Ham comes upon him sleeping off a drinking binge and sees his father naked. Instead of covering him, he runs and tells his brothers. Shem and Japheth, the "good" brothers, return and cover their father. In retaliation for Ham's "sinful act" of seeing his father nude, Noah puts a curse on his grandson (Ham's son) Canaan: ?Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers" (Gen 9:25).

Over time, this curse came to be interpreted that Ham was literally "burnt," and that all his descendants had black skin, marking them as slaves with a convenient color-coded label for subservience. When and how this gained widespread acceptance is questionable, but anti-slavery religious and political leaders have worked to refute it for more than a century. Today, biblical scholars note that the ancient Hebrew word "ham" does not have to be translated as "burnt" or "black" - but there is unfortunately little consensus on how the name and passage should be interpreted. Further complicating matters is the position of some Afrocentrists that Ham, although not actually cursed (despite what the Bible says!) was indeed black, as were many other characters in the Bible. Once again, people end up reading the passage as supporting their own racial assumptions.

Do you finally get it? Racists bastardized science and religion in order to justify their prejudice. Science and Religion never overrode anything...as I keep saying racism was injected into these things. So racism came first and influenced religion...racism was the main factor.

Again, from where would the native american slaves come from? You don't hink the merchants would risk fighting for a profit when they had the tribal blacks doing that dirty work for them, do you?

Some slaves converted to christianity, but they were kept on as slaves. It was only the slaves that were captured and using a different religion that would never be free. Of course there definitely could be elements of racism in not freeing those that converted, but most likely it was just to keep them from a fake conversion to get their freedom.

OMG, the native americans would have come from America! THEY WERE ALREADY HERE LONG BEFORE THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE STARTED.

What is cheaper? Shipping boats overseas back and forth for months at a time? Or conquering the native americans already on the continent with eurpoean superior weaponry? American settlers had no problems subduing the native americans when they wanted to...so stop pretending it was some huge task. It would have been easy to force them into slavery. Especially considering how easily europeans committed genocides against native americans.

And also now you are talking about fake religious conversions? Lmao...just admit it...religion wasnt the main thing here...racism was...and black christians were kept as slaves for generations. You wanna tell me generations upon generations of Christians slaves were faking it? And that the slave owners were scared of fakes? Bs...they simply felt blacks were supposed to be slaves and were beneath them. Slave owners didnt care if they were christian or not. Come on now.

 

[Jaylan]

I'm not denying racism at all. I am providing clear evidence that slavery was not primarily about racism. Racism existed prior to, during, and after, slavery. But slavery was still subservient to biblical law, including race, as evidenced by the references.

You are grossly downplaying racism though. And your evidence is not clear at all. I have been forming logical rebuttals which you summarily dismiss because they dont fall in line with what you want to believe.

Just because slavery existed prior to, during, and after slavery, does not mean slavery wasnt built upon racism. Your reasoning is flawed. Racism existed before, during, and after Jim Crow...so you wanna tell me Jim Crow wasnt about racism? Use better logic than you currently are.

Slavery was not subservient to biblical law. Blacks were slaves even when they were Christian, as I have shown you. And I have also shown you how the Bible was grossly misinterpreted in order to justify racism and slavery.

Its all pretty simple. Some folks had racist thoughts, and this warped their interpretation of bible verses and they did everything they could to use the holy book to subjugate black people. These same people did it with science as well...eugenics ring a bell?

Yet again, because merchants were interested in making money, by buying and selling a product. Not capturing slaves.

It was far easier to purchase slaves already captured by african tribes than it was to battle Native Americans in an attempt to capture slaves.

You act as if merchants didnt actively capture slaves. Do you have any true knowledge about the Atlantic slave trade? Merchants very often did capture slaves.

And again, it would have been a lot cheaper to convert white indentured servants into slaves, or capture native americans as slaves, instead of going back and forth to africa.

Why were white indentured servants not considered real estate..ie..property chattel. Why? This happened to all the non whites, especially the blacks. Racism explains this...because it was only about money...and if merchants didnt think whites were better than blacks and not fit to be chattel, then white indentured servants could have easily been made into slaves...and native americans would have been easily conquered on the cheap.

Settlers massacred native americans anyways, but chose not to enslave them...why? Because they felt "subhuman" blacks were deserved of such treatment based on their racist beliefs. Enslaving the native americans would have been easy as hell for american settlers, but they didnt see them deserved of such treatment as they saw blacks.

I really dont know why Im bothering to argue with you. Because every time I swat down one of your points logically, you simply recraft your statements. You recraft them while ignoring any evidence I provide you. Its clear Im wasting my time.

 

[ElChoclo]

There is a practical reason for using imported goods instead of locally produced goods. The local goods can run away, and they are already home. But the imported goods have a long swim. Plus their relatives are a long way away, so there is no risk of retribution by them. Also, it is better for morale if you don't see your cousin running around free, while you are working in a field.

An example of a place which had its own supply of blacks, but for the most part, did not enslave them, was Australia. Instead, they brought in Melanesians as slaves to crop sugar cane. Imported goods preferred instead of the locally produced.

 

[Jaylan]

There is a practical reason for using imported goods instead of locally produced goods. The local goods can run away, and they are already home. But the imported goods have a long swim. Plus their relatives are a long way away, so there is no risk of retribution by them. Also, it is better for morale if you don't see your cousin running around free, while you are working in a field.

An example of a place which had its own supply of blacks, but for the most part, did not enslave them, was Australia. Instead, they brought in Melanesians as slaves to crop sugar cane. Imported goods preferred instead of the locally produced.

Oh give me a break. With the superior weaponry and power the Americans had, no one was running away if they didnt want them to. Look at American history. Recognize how easily the settlers wiped out Native American populations.

Once you acknowledge all of that, what other reason is there not to have enslaved natives or whites indentured servants? Simple, racism against another group of people. Read my post again...slave owners allowed their racism to influence their interpretation of the bible. They saw black people as cursed peoples and thus felt justified in enslaving them and treating them as non citizens.

Dont talk about morale and not seeing your cousin running around free. There were free blacks before and during slavery. So slaves saw free people who looked like them all the time. There were house slaves too. In general who wants to be a slave? Especially if they are treated poorly which was common in chattel slavery. People ran away regardless of who they saw was free or not. Bondage isnt fun. Find a better argument.

Lastly, there were aboriginal slaves in Australia but they werent exactly called that but were treated as such...you know your countries history right? Aboriginals were also employed as cheap labor under crap conditions with barely any wages or none at all (under unfree labour). Lets not even get into the whole issue with sugar plantations.

This whole imported vs exported goods analogy fails. Why? Because when it comes to slavery it costs a lot of resources to ship people back and forth across seas when there already exists an abundant human resource locally. You would have a case for import vs export if there werent many human resources already available in America. However there was plenty of people already here. And honestly, humans are way to complex to be simply compared to traded goods like spices and fruits.

And just because you can try to point to another country that "didnt" enslave the natives, does not do anything to bolster your argument. What about all the other numerous lands where locals were enslaved upon being conquered? Wouldnt that bolster my argument if Australia bolstered yours?

But that only leads me to ask, what does Australia and her history have to do with American history?

 

[ElChoclo]

An argument, which in brief, states that slaves are selected mainly on their degree of pigmentation seems wrong to me. It requires one to accept that American Indians were rejected, even though no shipping expenses were required, because they weren't dark enough. It requires that exceptionally dark Australian aborigines were rejected, in preference to white convict slaves, the latter of which, had to be imported and the former did not have to be. It requires that instead of using local dark Aborigines as slaves, offshore black slaves would be imported to cut cane instead, with additional shipping costs. If only blackness was a factor these groups were equally black.

Zimmerman, from his photos, looks rather brown to me, so it would seem that only in cases where both shooter and shootee are equally dark, that events are not due to racism.

 

[MaddXMan]

Wikipedia is not considered a credible citation by anyone.

In the link to the Wikipedia article on the Atlantic slave trade, this sentence appears without citation: "The vast majority of slaves involved in the Atlantic trade were Africans from the central and western parts of the continent, who were sold by Africans to European slave traders, who transported them across the ocean to the colonies in North and South America."

Since Wikipedia is an open source and can be edited by anyone, I wouldn't doubt that revisionists/true believers in American exceptionalsm would edit articles to fit their worldview.

Like Jaylan said some white people (a majority in fact) just cannot accept that their ancestors have been linked to bad behavior and must continually revise, revise, revise.

There's some kind of disconnect or pathology here - they want to be racist, without BEING perceived as racist. So they come up with convoluted arguments that have people squinting at the screen, scratching their heads, and reaching for the Tylenol.

They can never admit racism - that it existed and does exist, and exists within them.

That's why they are absolutely going to the freaking mat for George Zimmerman like his being persecuted is shaking up their world view.

But if it becomes revealed that Zimmerman is a racist and targeted and killed Trayvon because he was black, these same hard core defenders will say: "Oh well Zimmerman was Hispanic anyway."

It's the right wingers that keep saying "Zomg Zimmerman is Hispanic!"

Anyone interview Z? Does anyone, anyone at all, know how Z identifies himself? When Zimmerman has to check a box identifying ethnicity, anyone know what box he checks?

No. But it's ok for you to say "oh he's a Hispanic American." For all you know he identifies as white.

But God forbid a white person be seen as committing a blantantly racist act and be called out for it. I mean, we should be able to do what we want right? This is OUR country, WE built it, WE'RE the one's running **** around here! A "fvcking coon" gets shot down, so what!

 

[MaddXMan]

I didn't critize them for using wikipedia because I didn't see it or click on their links. Admittedly I didn't read all the posts since I can only jump on the net for minutes at a time.

But it's not anti-white. It's more pro-fairness. It does not hurt whites any to say that racism was one of the PRIMARY (among a host of other lesser) factors in Africans being targeted for slavery. It's not like reparations are going to happen outside of fantasyland so why not admit what everyone knows anyway?

Really this argument is just filling time until new developments arise in the Zimmerman case

 

[MaddXMan]

Oh and say that is historically accurate, that it was easier to ship over slaves from elsewhere then enslave the Indians....

Well consider that the Indians mostly fought back, and made the expansion west be paid in blood - it was not an easy conquest.

Now if all African tribes had been united as one and fought off the slavers, it might not have been so easy. But a few warlike tribes apparently found a good way to humilate their enemies and enjoy material benefits by selling their captured rivals to slavers.

So just maybe there might be some truth there - people who tend to violently resist and fight back get picked on less. It's much harder to break their spirit and make them compliant. I mean, they damn near had to commit genocide to tame the Indians once and for all.

 

[5string]

http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

Interesting.

 

[don't]

I dare say tha the slavers would have been perfectly happy to use whites as chattel, if somehow the slaves were "marked" for easy ID, the way blacks are easily distinguished from whites, if the white slaves were cheaply/easily to be had, and could work as hard without deteriorization in the high heat and humidity of the West Indies and our Southern states. Blacks were so far behind the curve, technologically, that they were easy pickings, that's all. There's a reason why slaves were forbidden either weapons or "book learning". One is as dangerous to the tyrant as the other.

 

[Jaylan]

Wikipedia is not considered a credible citation by anyone.

In the link to the Wikipedia article on the Atlantic slave trade, this sentence appears without citation: "The vast majority of slaves involved in the Atlantic trade were Africans from the central and western parts of the continent, who were sold by Africans to European slave traders, who transported them across the ocean to the colonies in North and South America."

Since Wikipedia is an open source and can be edited by anyone, I wouldn't doubt that revisionists/true believers in American exceptionalsm would edit articles to fit their worldview.

Like Jaylan said some white people (a majority in fact) just cannot accept that their ancestors have been linked to bad behavior and must continually revise, revise, revise.

There's some kind of disconnect or pathology here - they want to be racist, without BEING perceived as racist. So they come up with convoluted arguments that have people squinting at the screen, scratching their heads, and reaching for the Tylenol.

They can never admit racism - that it existed and does exist, and exists within them.

That's why they are absolutely going to the freaking mat for George Zimmerman like his being persecuted is shaking up their world view.

But if it becomes revealed that Zimmerman is a racist and targeted and killed Trayvon because he was black, these same hard core defenders will say: "Oh well Zimmerman was Hispanic anyway."

It's the right wingers that keep saying "Zomg Zimmerman is Hispanic!"

Anyone interview Z? Does anyone, anyone at all, know how Z identifies himself? When Zimmerman has to check a box identifying ethnicity, anyone know what box he checks?

No. But it's ok for you to say "oh he's a Hispanic American." For all you know he identifies as white.

But God forbid a white person be seen as committing a blantantly racist act and be called out for it. I mean, we should be able to do what we want right? This is OUR country, WE built it, WE'RE the one's running **** around here! A "fvcking coon" gets shot down, so what!

I didn't critize them for using wikipedia because I didn't see it or click on their links. Admittedly I didn't read all the posts since I can only jump on the net for minutes at a time.

But it's not anti-white. It's more pro-fairness. It does not hurt whites any to say that racism was one of the PRIMARY (among a host of other lesser) factors in Africans being targeted for slavery. It's not like reparations are going to happen outside of fantasyland so why not admit what everyone knows anyway?

Really this argument is just filling time until new developments arise in the Zimmerman case

Such truth in these posts. They needed to be QFT'd.

 

[Bible_Belt]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/25/20-years-for-standing-her-ground-against

20 Years for Standing Her Ground Against a Violent Husband

Jacob Sullum | April 25, 2012

Families Against Mandatory Minimums highlights a case that suggests Florida's "stand your ground" law has been applied unevenly, failing to protect people in situations very much like those envisioned by its supporters. Marissa Alexander faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years because she fired a gun into the ceiling of her Jacksonville home in 2010 to ward off an attack by an abusive husband against whom she had a protective order. A judge rejected her pretrial motion to dismiss the charges against her under the self-defense statute, saying she could have escaped the house instead of firing the warning shot. Last month a six-person jury convicted her on three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (one for her husband, Rico Gray, and one for each of his two sons, who were also present), thereby triggering the 20-year mandatory minimum.

Unlike George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin, Alexander's case actually involves the right to stand your ground—or, more precisely, the "castle doctrine," which says people have no duty to retreat when attacked in their homes. In 2005, when the Florida legislature eliminated the duty to retreat in public places, it also broadened the castle doctrine, creating a presumption that a person has "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm" if he "knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred." It makes an exception to this presumption if "the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling," but only when "there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person," as there was in this case. Alexander's situation seems to be exactly the sort that was supposed to be covered by these provisions, which makes the dismissal of her pretrial motion, based on the premise that she could and should have retreated, all the more puzzling.

Loop 21, citing Alexander's lawyer, reports that the she "endured strangulation, beatings, and hospitalization, including an incident causing the premature birth of her youngest child....The abuse happened over the span of a few years, before Alexander decided to use deadly force in defense against her attacker." It adds:

Duval County court records show Gray’s history of domestic battery dates back to 1994. A more recent battery incident on Gray’s record resulted in Alexander’s hospitalization. Gray has been arrested and received probation for the abuse.

In a deposition for the case against Alexander, Gray cops to having previously struck his wife and other women he’s been romantically involved with.

"And the third incident [with Alexander] we was staying together and I pushed her back and she fell in the bathtub and hit her head and I—you know, by the time I ran downstairs and got in my car to leave, you know, that's the time I went to jail, the police picked me up down the street," Gray said in his deposition.

Like Zimmerman, Alexander held a carry permit. Unlike him, she did not injure or kill anyone, and the aggression against her is well documented. Yet she was arrested immediately, and she potentially faces a longer prison sentence. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder, which is punishable by a sentence up to life. But given the known facts of the case, he is more likely to be convicted of manslaughter (assuming he is convicted), which has a maximum penalty of 15 years. Notably, the same prosecutor who overcharged Zimmerman, Angela Corey, is the one who threw the book at Alexander.

There are two major issues here: whether Alexander's use of force was justified under Florida's law and whether, assuming it wasn't, a 20-year prison sentence is just punishment given the circumstances. The answer to the first question seems to be yes, and the answer to the second one is certainly no.

While the disparate treatment of Alexander (who is black) and Zimmerman (who is Hispanic) might suggest racial bias, FAMM notes another Florida case involving a white man, Orville Lee Wollard, who received a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for firing a warning shot in his own home "to chase off a young man who had been abusing his teenage daughter." Wollard rejected a plea deal that involved five years of probation because he believed his actions were lawful. A jury disagreed, apparently because he was not allowed to testify about the assailant's history of violence against his daughter. The judge who imposed the sentence called it "clearly excessive" but said, "I am duty-bound to apply the law as it has been enacted by the legislature."

In addition to FAMM, Al Sharpton and the Jacksonville chapter of the NAACP are championing Alexander's case. An interview with her is scheduled to air on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360° tonight.

I discuss the application of Florida's law to Zimmerman in my column today.