It appears that when viewed through the Loury-McWhorter lens, the whole Emmett Till narrative should be revisited. Clearly the young teen wasn't accosted and then killed because he whistled at a White woman (which later proved false by her own admission), but rather the Mississippian husband went after Till because he was "young and ain't from around here." It makes sense, then, that Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered because they weren't respectful of authority in the middle of the night in Mississippi. Similarly, we should look again at the middle 1960s antics at the Pickrick in Atlanta. Lester Mattox had every right to brandish ax handles because after all, the people who fried the chicken were Black. Now tell us, (1) why was a young Black 17 year old walking from the convenience store reason for alarm? (2) Why would it be necessary to get out of your truck with a firearm, especially when advised not to do so by authorities? (3) Why was it necessary to walk upon Trayvon Martin, to demand that he stop and divulge why he was in the neighborhood and where was he going? (4) The fact is that Trayvon Martin could have been on weekend release from a juvenile detention center (which he was not) yet George Zimmerman had no right to impose himself in Trayvon Martin's space. It is seldom "truth" that Loury and McWhorter are after. It clearly is appeasing and or giving the benefit of the doubt to those whose actions are blatantly bigoted.
You are making something very clear, but it's not what you think. Not only are some of us clear-eyed enough to realize Glenn & John were after the truth re The Trayvon Hoax, but also that they found and exposed it. If you watched the trial, start to finish (as I did, as did the jury that found Zimmerman not guilty) you can't unlearn the facts of the case - unless you wish to protect your own willful ignorance at any cost. And then there are the facts not even presented at trial - their absence actually favored Travon, but still, the defense won without them because of the facts that were presented.
John & Glenn (heard their original 2 videos on this, not yet this current one) didn't even really delve into what Florida's "Sunshine" (transparency) laws revealed about Trayvon, which didn’t match the sweet, innocent victim we kept hearing was all we should associate with him - the other side of him that wasnt laid out at trial. But I will. Trayvon had fallen into badass teen, doing bad things, violent things. He only crossed paths with Zimmerman because his mother, in desperation, sent him to stay with his dad during his latest of several school suspensions. Now if this truth offends, so be it: he was a troubled teenager who did troubling things and they were escalating - his texts show he actively sought out physical fights, bragged about it, was trying to get hold of a gun, etc. I am not saying that was ALL Trayvon was, but whatever else he was on the positive side of the ledger, he was also THAT.
And it was that which put him where he was and caused him to double back and violently confront Zimmerman. So Trayvon jumped him and relentlessly pounded his head into the cement. You could hear Zimmerman’s cries for help recorded and played at the trial as neighbors called 911. But the pounding continued and he logically thought he might die before help arrived. So he shot and killed Trayvon with his legal gun. In self defense.
That’s the truth, tragic though it may be, and here’s something else I find to be true: When you intend to make yourself a danger to others, you end up being a danger to yourself, as well. Trayvon. Others. Far, far too many others.
As a sidenote: It's plausible that Trayvon was angry that the "creepy cracka" (as a witness claimed he called Zimmerman while on his cell with her) was a lurking 'perv', who was interested in him sexually. Feels like somewhere on the spectrum of recent news of Kidd Creole of Grandmaster Flash/Furious 5 fame, who just got put away for manslaughter, for stabbing a homeless man to death who he thought was digging him “that way”. The guy called out a greeting to him, no threat at all, and Glover (aka Kidd Creole) should've, could've, just continued on his way to work instead of choosing to confront the man and violently 'defend' his 'manhood'. How tragically absurd. If he had really been a man, he wouldn't be a killer, locked up in prison, and his victim wouldn't be dead.
I know you’re trying to be clever but your analogies distill to: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till (and you wouldn’t want to try to victim-blame Emmett Till, would you?)
This is no different than what’s been implied if not stated as nauseam since this incident was wildly misrepresented in the media and by many politicians and activists both appalled by what happened - and eager to exploit it: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till. Except not much of what we were told about that tragic encounter turned out to be true.
“George Zimmerman had no right to impose himself in Trayvon Martin’s space”.
What pray tell does that mean? How does that work in practice? Zimmerman better not dare look in Martin’s direction? Better not betray any concern about the spate of burglaries which had taken place at that complex? Better intuit where Martin would ambush him so as to avoid that area? Better leave the entire area rather than risk offending a teenager comfortable with using his fists who might be willing and able to pin him to the ground and bash his head into the concrete? Look, I think we all wish Zimmerman had shown caution and discretion and not even gotten out of his car. No sane or decent person isn’t sick at a teenager dying - however legally justified it was. But that’s part of what you’re ignoring: if it had been Zimmerman and not actually Martin who had insisted on imposing himself on the other’s space - by jumping him and beating his head into the concrete, or, if it it had been Zimmerman who had even so much as persistently stalked and cornered and accused Martin and plausibly made him feel like he might need to defend himself to get away from this man, wouldn’t that have been recognized and weighed appropriately at some point in the trial? Martin initiated the fight and Zimmerman was in real trouble. A person can black out or even die from having to the back of his head pounded into the concrete. One narrative was ascendant and it was clear what verdict the public had been primed to demand and expect. And yet the discernible facts said otherwise.
It appears that when viewed through the Loury-McWhorter lens, the whole Emmett Till narrative should be revisited. Clearly the young teen wasn't accosted and then killed because he whistled at a White woman (which later proved false by her own admission), but rather the Mississippian husband went after Till because he was "young and ain't from around here." It makes sense, then, that Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered because they weren't respectful of authority in the middle of the night in Mississippi. Similarly, we should look again at the middle 1960s antics at the Pickrick in Atlanta. Lester Mattox had every right to brandish ax handles because after all, the people who fried the chicken were Black. Now tell us, (1) why was a young Black 17 year old walking from the convenience store reason for alarm? (2) Why would it be necessary to get out of your truck with a firearm, especially when advised not to do so by authorities? (3) Why was it necessary to walk upon Trayvon Martin, to demand that he stop and divulge why he was in the neighborhood and where was he going? (4) The fact is that Trayvon Martin could have been on weekend release from a juvenile detention center (which he was not) yet George Zimmerman had no right to impose himself in Trayvon Martin's space. It is seldom "truth" that Loury and McWhorter are after. It clearly is appeasing and or giving the benefit of the doubt to those whose actions are blatantly bigoted.
You are making something very clear, but it's not what you think. Not only are some of us clear-eyed enough to realize Glenn & John were after the truth re The Trayvon Hoax, but also that they found and exposed it. If you watched the trial, start to finish (as I did, as did the jury that found Zimmerman not guilty) you can't unlearn the facts of the case - unless you wish to protect your own willful ignorance at any cost. And then there are the facts not even presented at trial - their absence actually favored Travon, but still, the defense won without them because of the facts that were presented.
John & Glenn (heard their original 2 videos on this, not yet this current one) didn't even really delve into what Florida's "Sunshine" (transparency) laws revealed about Trayvon, which didn’t match the sweet, innocent victim we kept hearing was all we should associate with him - the other side of him that wasnt laid out at trial. But I will. Trayvon had fallen into badass teen, doing bad things, violent things. He only crossed paths with Zimmerman because his mother, in desperation, sent him to stay with his dad during his latest of several school suspensions. Now if this truth offends, so be it: he was a troubled teenager who did troubling things and they were escalating - his texts show he actively sought out physical fights, bragged about it, was trying to get hold of a gun, etc. I am not saying that was ALL Trayvon was, but whatever else he was on the positive side of the ledger, he was also THAT.
And it was that which put him where he was and caused him to double back and violently confront Zimmerman. So Trayvon jumped him and relentlessly pounded his head into the cement. You could hear Zimmerman’s cries for help recorded and played at the trial as neighbors called 911. But the pounding continued and he logically thought he might die before help arrived. So he shot and killed Trayvon with his legal gun. In self defense.
That’s the truth, tragic though it may be, and here’s something else I find to be true: When you intend to make yourself a danger to others, you end up being a danger to yourself, as well. Trayvon. Others. Far, far too many others.
As a sidenote: It's plausible that Trayvon was angry that the "creepy cracka" (as a witness claimed he called Zimmerman while on his cell with her) was a lurking 'perv', who was interested in him sexually. Feels like somewhere on the spectrum of recent news of Kidd Creole of Grandmaster Flash/Furious 5 fame, who just got put away for manslaughter, for stabbing a homeless man to death who he thought was digging him “that way”. The guy called out a greeting to him, no threat at all, and Glover (aka Kidd Creole) should've, could've, just continued on his way to work instead of choosing to confront the man and violently 'defend' his 'manhood'. How tragically absurd. If he had really been a man, he wouldn't be a killer, locked up in prison, and his victim wouldn't be dead.
I know you’re trying to be clever but your analogies distill to: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till (and you wouldn’t want to try to victim-blame Emmett Till, would you?)
This is no different than what’s been implied if not stated as nauseam since this incident was wildly misrepresented in the media and by many politicians and activists both appalled by what happened - and eager to exploit it: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till. Except not much of what we were told about that tragic encounter turned out to be true.
“George Zimmerman had no right to impose himself in Trayvon Martin’s space”.
What pray tell does that mean? How does that work in practice? Zimmerman better not dare look in Martin’s direction? Better not betray any concern about the spate of burglaries which had taken place at that complex? Better intuit where Martin would ambush him so as to avoid that area? Better leave the entire area rather than risk offending a teenager comfortable with using his fists who might be willing and able to pin him to the ground and bash his head into the concrete? Look, I think we all wish Zimmerman had shown caution and discretion and not even gotten out of his car. No sane or decent person isn’t sick at a teenager dying - however legally justified it was. But that’s part of what you’re ignoring: if it had been Zimmerman and not actually Martin who had insisted on imposing himself on the other’s space - by jumping him and beating his head into the concrete, or, if it it had been Zimmerman who had even so much as persistently stalked and cornered and accused Martin and plausibly made him feel like he might need to defend himself to get away from this man, wouldn’t that have been recognized and weighed appropriately at some point in the trial? Martin initiated the fight and Zimmerman was in real trouble. A person can black out or even die from having to the back of his head pounded into the concrete. One narrative was ascendant and it was clear what verdict the public had been primed to demand and expect. And yet the discernible facts said otherwise.