What if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were white?
Editor's note: Al Vivian is the president and CEO of BASIC Diversity Inc., a 39-year-old consultancy that specializes in reducing cross-cultural biases and holds Race Awareness Workshop. He has worked with clients such as Coca-Cola, Ford, Kroger, McDonald's, the National Security Agency and CNN.
(CNN) -- Since George Zimmerman was acquitted in the death of Trayvon Martin, everyone has had an opinion about the verdict.
I am not about to
second-guess the jury's decision or pass judgment on them. Our judicial
system is operating as it was designed. The jurors reached their
conclusion based on the evidence placed before them and their
interpretation of the law as it was explained.
As human beings, we see
the world through the lens of our own experiences. Both science and
history prove that we all have unconscious biases that impact the
decisions we make.
There are some who say
that the Zimmerman-Martin case had nothing to do with race. There are
others who say that the case was all about race.
One idea that has come
up: "What if we reverse the races so that Martin was white and Zimmerman
was black?" That exercise, while potent, doesn't prove or disprove the
relevance race played in the case.
A more powerful approach
is to totally remove race as a factor by creating a scenario in which
both the perpetrator and the victim are of the same race and then see
whether people change their views. For example: "What if Trayvon Martin
and George Zimmerman were both white? Or both black?"
If Zimmerman and Martin were both white, ask yourself:
• Would it have taken 44 days
and a national protest to merely justify the arrest of a known killer? A
killer who shot an unarmed child, initially stalked that child, was charged
with two previous felonies -- "battery of law enforcement officer" and
"resisting officer with violence" -- was accused of domestic violence
(both charges were reduced, though some would say that's the benefit of
Zimmerman having a father who is a retired judge) and disobeyed the
authorities when told not to follow the person he eventually killed.
• Would authorities have not drug tested the killer but instead drug tested the victim?
• Would hordes of people have donated money to help the killer hire a strong defense team that eventually got him acquitted?
• Would society have given so much credibility to the killer's version of the events?
Many have tried to
deflect the discomfort of this scenario by focusing on black-on-black
crime. While such crime is a very serious issue that must be addressed
by our society and especially the black community, turning to
black-on-black crime is a form of avoidance. The uncomfortable truth is
that very likely, most people would see the case differently if the
killer and victim were both white.
When will we reach a day when we don't have to refer to crimes in racial terms?
In light of how much we
know about ourselves on a scientific level, it is a shame that people
are still so divided by race. In 2003, the mapping of the human genome
code proved that there are no significant genetic differences between
what we call "races." Every human being on the planet is 99.9% genetically identical to every other human being. But as societies, we live in constructs.
For those who fear the
average random black male wearing a hoodie, I can empathize with you.
But statistically, you should be more afraid of the person you see every
day in the mirror. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, suicide is one of the top causes of death for white Americans (PDF). Homicide is not. So, your chance of killing yourself is greater than your chance of being killed by anyone, of any race.
Let's turn back to the
question: "If the victim and the killer were both white, would society
have given so much credibility to the killer's version of events?"
I doubt that a jury so
heavily made up of white mothers would have related to or felt empathy
toward a man who had stalked and killed an unarmed child who could have
very easily been one of their own.
Now my comment...
Al Vivian, you are an absolute moron. I don't even know if it's worth my time here to explain it to you because you sound too stupid to understand. First, let's address your use of the word "child". Martin was about six feet tall. That's not a child and your attempt to skew the situation is shameful. Second, this isn't an issue about black and white, you inconceivable idiot. Martin was black and Zimmerman is Hispanic. Maybe if you take your head out of your ass you might have noticed that whitey's hands are clean in this whole mess. Third, if you want to talk about color, let's talk about red blood and the gray matter that almost spilled out onto a sidewalk. Fourth, are you kidding me? The thought that one should be more afraid of one's self than a black guy in a hoodie suspiciously checking out houses in the rain at night? Look up specious you mental defective. The jury made their decision based on an attacker and someone being attacked. Simple as that. Stop trying to portray Martin as anything but the hoodie wearing, neighborhood scoping thug he was. And for the last time, let's hope, I'll say this: If you're walking down the street and you notice someone else following you, it is absolutely NOT an excuse to attack them. People follow each other when walking, it's how our society travels by foot. You DO NOT get to decide someone who is traveling the same direction as you is about to attack you. You only get to DEFEND yourself if you actually end up being attacked. If you think a "preemptive attack" is a righteous "defense", then please explain where the line is, because the streets will be awash with blood if that ever becomes legal. I don't know who is worse, you or the fool who hired you to write a so-called "news" article.
