Jim Crow is back

My dad saw that I had written about Trayvon Martin and promptly responded by sending four articles related to the case. I found three of them worth sharing.

The first is by Lisa Sharon Harper of Sojourners. She begins by explaining a bit about the Stand Your Ground law that is at the core of the case. The defense did not use it, but the judge included it in the instructions to the jury and the one outspoken juror said it made a difference. Harper explains what the law means:

Before 2005, Florida’s self-defense laws mirrored those of the rest of the country. A person had no duty to retreat if being attacked inside their own home, but outside the home they had the duty to get the heck out of dodge, if possible, before using deadly force.

In 2005, Florida became the first state to expand its self-defense laws to include any spaces outside the home and encouraged people not to retreat, but to “stand their ground.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates broke down the irony of Florida’s “stand your ground” principle:

“I don’t think the import of this is being appreciated,” he said. “Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing, I can legally kill you, provided I ‘believe’ myself to be subject to ‘great bodily harm.’

More that 20 states now have such laws.

Add a few more ingredients into the stew, new concealed carry laws in every state and racial profiling available to citizens. By the latter Harper means that a combination of concealed carry and stand your ground gives regular citizens "immunity from prosecution." That was formerly only available to police.

Back in then 1960s Jim Crow ended with three big advancements. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Food Stamp Act of 1964, which provided economic empowerment.

Three weeks ago the Supremes gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act.

Last week the House GOP gutted the Food Stamps Act. This isn't law yet…

And the Zimmerman verdict showed that there is a big hole in the Civil Rights Act.

Which means old Jim Crow -- the web of laws that reinforced the idea that some people are meant to be slaves, some are meant to be masters, and only whites are fully human -- is back. That's why Zimmerman's acquittal is a big deal. This realization has sent the black community reeling.

The second article from Dad is by Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell as a commentary for the United Methodist News Service and posted in the blog UMConnections. Caldwell is black. His central idea expands on Obama's call for a national discussion. Caldwell says a part of that discussion should take place in our churches. I agree.

I attend a suburban United Methodist Church. The few blacks that have ventured in our doors (other than for the food pantry or maybe Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the basement) tend to not stick around for very long. I can envision the squawk that would arise if our pastor proposed such discussions in our church. I can envision it because I've heard it before when our church has attempted to deal with other touchy issues (like the presence of gay people). Which only proves such a discussion is vitally necessary and long overdue.

Dad specifically mentioned I should read the comments to this article. A good number of them essentially said, "That trial was not about race! How dare you imply it was!" Again proving the necessity of discussions on race.

The third article is by William Saletan in Slate. He writes that too many people are reading their own biases into the case. They are jumping to the conclusion that it is about Stand Your Ground laws, or about racism, or about whatever cause they champion. Saletan watched all seven hours of the closing arguments to see what the case was really about.

His conclusion is that while Zimmerman is not guilty of murder or manslaughter, he is guilty of being a reckless fool. Saletan lists Zimmerman's mistakes: inferring Martin was a burglar, pursuing Martin on foot, and failing to imagine how is actions would look to Martin -- what's the kid supposed to think when someone starts following him? Saletan also lists a mistake on Martin's part -- misreading Zimmerman and reacting badly. From what Saletan says I'm inclined to let Martin off the hook.

Did racism play a part in Zimmerman's actions? Saletan (and perhaps the court video) doesn't say. Perhaps Martin's reaction to Zimmerman was racist? We again don't know for sure.

This case may not be about racism or guns or the Stand Your Ground laws. Even so, if this case prompts meaningful discussions about those topics, that's great. Let's keep talking.