Black Skin, White Jurors: Fanon, Juror B37, and Not Getting It

From Slate - Zimmerman trial juror B37: Why did prosecutors let her on the Travyon Martin jury?:

Start with the general observations already raised in Gawker: B37 consumes no media beyond the Today show—no radio, no Internet news, and no newspapers used for anything but lining her parrot's cage. Perhaps because she does not consume any media, she was under the false belief that there were “riots” after the Martin shooting. She also described the Martin killing as "an unfortunate incident that happened."

In my previous post on this case I chose to focus on the issue of guns rather than of race, but upon hearing the revelations of the views of "Juror B37," of someone who believes that "everything is a lie," and thus "doesn’t care enough to learn that the riots she believes to have happened did not," I could not help but be reminded of Frantz Fanon's studies of the relationship between White colonizers and the Black colonized.  As Fanon writes in Black Skin, White Masks:

It is of course obvious that the Malagasy can perfectly well tolerate the fact of not being a white man.  A Malagasy is a Malagasy; or, rather, no, not he is a Malagasy but, rather, in an absolute sense he "lives" his Malagasyhood.  If he is a Malagasy, it is because the white man has come, and if at a certain stage he has been led to ask himself whether he is indeed a man, it is because his reality as a man has been challenged.  In other words, I begin to suffer from not being a white man to the degree that the white man imposes discrimination on me, makes me a colonized native, robs me of all worth, all individuality, tells me that I am a parasite on the world, that I must bring myself as quickly as possible into step with the white world, "that I am a brute beast, that my people and I are like a walking dung-heap that disgustingly fertilizes sweet sugar cane and silky cotton, that I have no use in the world."  Then I will quite simply try to make myself white: that is, I will compel the white man to acknowledge that I am human. (Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Markmann (New York: Grove Press, 1967), page 98)

As Fanon is trying to elucidate, following Sartre who is in turn following Hegel, one becomes who one "is" through not merely the eyes of the other, but through simply the existence of the other.  The Malagasy is not "a Malagasy" until a European "white man has come."  Before then, the Malagasy man is simply a man who does not think of himself in terms of "his Malagasyhood."  I become an "is" therefore only when my "reality as a man has been challenged."

This then raises the question of whether the astounding disconnect from reality of Juror B37—much like the astounding ignorance of Zimmerman's lawyer, who claimed that there not only would have been no difference had Travyon Martin been white and Zimmerman black but that Zimmerman then "never would have been charged with a crime"—is not then a form of "white privilege."  In other words, not having had one's reality challenged in the way of the Malagasy by the European, or Travyon Martin by George Zimmerman, or countless minorities by members of majorities, allows one the comfort of being a denier of truths that these others do not merely believe but live everyday.

We could all learn a lot from
South Park's Stan and Token

In many ways this was explored most deftly by the recent South Park episode "With apologies to Jesse Jackson." Stan's dad goes from believing the N-word to be the right answer on Wheel of Fortune to joining a group of fellow white men who had become alienated by publicly using the N-word (insert Paula Deen joke here).  In turn, Stan tries desperately to apologize to Token (whose name is itself a perfect encapsulation of portrayals of race in pop culture) by repeatedly telling Token that he "gets" what's upsetting him but Token keeps rejecting his apologies.  Stan and Token are only able to reconcile upon this closing exchange:

Stan:	Don't you see, Kyle?? I don't get it! [smiles, then walks up to Token] Token, I get it now. I don't get it. I've been trying to say that I understand how you feel, but, I'll never understand. I'll never really get how it feels for a black person to have somebody use the N word. I don't get it.
Token:	Now you get it, Stan. [smiles]
Stan:	[smiles] Yeah. I totally don't get it.
Token:	Thanks, dude.

Imagine how differently the trial might have gone if Juror B37 had similarly been able to realize "I totally don't get it."  What's worse, imagine how differently the Zimmerman-Martin confrontation might have gone if Zimmerman had sooner been able to come to such a realization too...

Zimmerman, The NRA, and Gunning Your Ground

From NRA News: Why Zimmerman Verdict is Important to All Armed Citizens:

A not-guilty verdict will reinforce the principle of armed self-defense, even against a more powerful unarmed attacker, while a guilty verdict — either for second-degree murder or the lesser crime of manslaughter — could have a discouraging effect on the use of firearms in self-defense.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision to partially repeal the Voting Rights Act, the news that Zimmerman was found not guilty for shooting and killing Travyon Martin has already given rise to framing this verdict in racial terms.  However, as you can see above, the NRA actually helps to remind us that this case can and perhaps must first be framed in terms of gun rights and 2nd Amendment debates.

For the NRA, Zimmerman was exercising "the principle of armed self-defense," a principle that Florida turned into law when they passed the infamous "stand your ground" law under which Zimmerman has now been found to be not guilty.  That Zimmerman, and the NRA, believe Martin to have been a "more powerful unarmed attacker" is sufficient, under this law, to justify Zimmerman's actions.

If we were to continue with the racial framing, we'd surely ask whether "more powerful" is code here for "black male."  As plenty of others far more qualified than me are already making this connection, I think it's important to think about whether the "stand your ground" law and our current understanding of the 2nd Amendment both helped to precipitate the death of Martin.

There is an argument to be made, in accordance with what is known as "affordance theory," that the very existence of a weapon makes it more likely for people to use the weapons.  This is sort of like a real-life parallel to Chekhov's rule that if you show a gun in the first act of a play it's going to be used before the play is done.  That almost anyone watching a play—oh who are we kidding, we don't watch plays today—a movie where a gun is shown early on knows that someone's getting shot, should already give some credence to affordance theory here.  Hence the very ability to not only have a gun in the US, but to shoot someone who you feel is a danger to your "ground" in Florida, simply makes it more likely that people will be shot.

We need to remember that just because we can exercise a right (like shouting in public or walking through a crowd swinging your arms and legs) doesn't mean that we must exercise that right.  If you want to believe the 2nd Amendment entitles you to live as if you're a well-regulated militia, go ahead.  But it doesn't force you to live that way.  Rights and laws are weapons too, as Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal have made all too apparent.

See also: Emily Bazelon's Zimmerman's Not Guilty. But Florida Sure Is.