This is my third attempt at a post about the Trayvon Martin tragedy.
Everything I write seems presumptuous. There are already too many voices raised, too many fleeting shards of news and rumor and innuendo flying around the Internet. At the center of all this is something horrible beyond words: the death of a young man—quite possibly for walking while black. No wonder the proper words won’t come.
My instinct, right now, is simply to write down a few thoughts and get out. So let’s keep it simple:
Being black in America is still fraught with risk. People make assumptions about you that have no basis in fact. We can do better. We have to do better.
One can realize this state of affairs, express outrage at it, and still want to wait for more evidence before deciding that the Martin case is an example of this.
It is possible to express outrage about the police response and want to demand justice.
It may be possible to express outrage about the police response, want to demand justice, and still not be sure whether George Zimmerman should be convicted, or of what.
Bottom line: it is possible to hold different, even paradoxical, beliefs in one’s head and heart at the same time. It is even OK to do so.Â
This, by the way, is a useful skill for dialogue. When we hold paradoxical beliefs, we can see the value of each. That makes it easier to see the value of others’ perspectives as well—and want to engage them in dialogue.
Your comments, as always, are welcome here. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with one of the more thoughtful articles I’ve read on this topic: a New York Times opinion piece by journalist and op-ed columnist Charles M. Blow. I hope you get as much from it as I did.
The article you cited from New York Times by Charles Blow is interesting, but much of its relevance was superceded the same day the article was published — On March 16 (the date of the opinion piece), 911 tapes relevant to the Martin case were released and made available to the public — they were played on network newscasts and they are available for uneasy listening on Huffington Post and other cites. Charles Blow’s article recites the information from the police reports only — and he bases his opinion piece on the police account of events. The police account has been superceded by release of new evidence which comes to light (largely due to public pressure) on an almost daily basis. For example, the 911 tapes (released on March 16) make it clear that Zimmerman was the aggressor, clearly pursuing Martin after the dispatcher tells him, “Sir, we don’t need you to do that.” This was not clear in the original (police) account of events. Zimmerman is also clearly heard to say, as he pursues Martin against the dispatcher’s instructions, “these a******s always get away.”
The 911 calls from neighbors (which are heartwrenching and stomach-churning to listen to) also make it clear that a younger voice is crying/pleading for help in the background, and then this voice is abruptly silenced by gun shots.
Point being, the ambiguities that Charles Blow was addressing in his opinion piece were made much less ambiguous with each subsequent release of information to the public. Along these lines, yesterday (April 1st) an voice analysis of the 911 tapes was released which confirms that Zimmerman is not the voice screaming for help on the tapes — which serves to further undermine Zimmerman’s account that he was the one being attacked by Martin, and that he shot in self-defense. After one has listened to the heart-wrenching screams for help, and the anguished pleas of neighbors to the 911 dispatcher who are reporting the incident in real time as it takes place a few yards outside their windows — it is difficult — I would say impossible — to hold contradictory or paradoxical ideas about what went down.
This is a case where new information is coming to light on a daily basis; thus, the reference to Charles Blow’s piece published on March 16 is anachronistic. Charles Blow was basing his reflections on the information available at the time, but that information was superceded within the next news cycle.
Kim, you’ve put your finger on the main challenge of blogging about fast-moving news stories: they change so fast–and what one writes today may be irrelevant tomorrow. Blow’s post (and mine) are examples of that, as you say. The one thing I’d add to your account is that while developments have made my post anachronistic in this case, the larger message still holds: it’s possible for us to hold several ideas in our hearts at one time–and that ability can keep us from rushing to one extreme or another prematurely, before things have had time to develop.