Posted July 15, 2013 And was that a jury of his peers ??? Indeed. No black people on it at all. Things being the way they are with juries, it is unfortunately rather easy for a white man (as Zimmerman usually chooses to identify himself) to get away with murdering a black man. http://io9.com/disturbing-chart-shows-rise...gs-of-773490798 Share this post Link to post
Posted July 15, 2013 re-voter ID - Sock i challenge your assupmtion that Voter ID laws are racially motivated. from my states finidings of the 2012 election - http://jacksonfreepress.media.clients.elli...rt_Voter_ID.pdf also, i'll have you note that Mississippi allows many forms of ID to pass for the Voter ID at polls, to include putting into place a program that allows for free trasnportation to and from court houses to get free (to the consumer) ID's. so how exactly is Mississippis law about suppressing minority votes? you judge all voter id laws by Texas, and i challenge you to think beyond what the lame stream media is selling and research it yourself. because Texas is one state and not the template for all voter id laws. so stop labeling them all by Texas's crappy legislation. re-Zimmerman Case. Florida State Law regarding Justifiable Use of Force - http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All Florida state law for "Justifiable Use of Force" states 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: ( The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood watch, he was in an "official" capacity to patrol the neighbor hood. Given the previous break in's that happened in that community and the description of the person breaking into the houses, the requirements of section B of the above law is met. also, regarding #3, because Zimmerman was part of the Neighbor Hood Watch, he qualifies for this section; especially if he believed that Martin was the person responsible for previous break ins (which are Felonies). further more, Martin does not qualify for the exceptions of section 776.013. section 776.08 defines "Home Invasion" as a Forcible Felony, the only thing the prosecution had was provingwhether Zimmerman had the presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. further examination brings the case of The State of Florida vs. Justin Chesnoff as precedent for how Florida defines "Great Bodily Harm". "In analyzing the instructions given in this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing a definition of the term "great bodily harm." The standard jury instructions provide no definition of great bodily harm. Consequently, the State requested a special instruction defining "great bodily harm" in the context of aggravated battery. Specifically, the State asked the court to define "great bodily harm" as provided in Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The judge gave the jury the standard instructions for aggravated battery, which required the jury to find that the defendant intentionally touched or struck the victim against his will and, in committing the battery, caused great bodily harm to the victim. Over the earlier defense objection, the judge instructed the jury on the definition of "great bodily injury." Using the definition taken from Coronado, the judge advised the jury that great bodily harm in the context of aggravated battery means "great [harm] as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm and as such, does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery." so simply put, Zimmerman was within his right for justifiable use and stand your ground and anyone argueing otherwords is doing so form emotion ran than from fact or what the LAW dictates. Court Rooms hold up the LAW, not popular opinion. so next time you lot want to try playing judge and jury, do your homework on what the facts are and what the law is before condeming a person. least the same be done to you one day. also, i find it relaly funny that millions of people are killed daily with gun violence, either gang related or by criminals. yet theres only outcary when its a white hispanic shooting a black kid. indignate hypocrasy much? and btw, i find the derogatroy word "White Hispanic" rather insulting. about as much as i find this entire trial taking precedent on all the "news channels" over real news. if we're so outraged as a nation about black kids being gunned down, then why no outrage abotu the amount of black on black crime in Chicago. isn't there better things to be on the news every night, liek the CIA and NSA scandle what about the revalation happening in Egypt reagurding Morsi and the MB. and anyone who still gets their news from the the tv on the 3 main networks, without fact checking, really needs a reality check a loss of life is always sad, reguardless of what race or gender that life was. but there are more important things that should have been on the news and in the minds of this many people other than a case that shoudl have never went to court in the first place. Share this post Link to post
Posted July 15, 2013 re-voter ID - Sock i challenge your assupmtion that Voter ID laws are racially motivated. from my states finidings of the 2012 election - http://jacksonfreepress.media.clients.elli...rt_Voter_ID.pdf also, i'll have you note that Mississippi allows many forms of ID to pass for the Voter ID at polls, to include putting into place a program that allows for free trasnportation to and from court houses to get free (to the consumer) ID's. so how exactly is Mississippis law about suppressing minority votes? you judge all voter id laws by Texas, and i challenge you to think beyond what the lame stream media is selling and research it yourself. because Texas is one state and not the template for all voter id laws. so stop labeling them all by Texas's crappy legislation. Did you read my links? Even in one of my quotes, Texas isn't the only state listed. I'm not even going to touch your Zimmerman stuff since you decided to play both the "but what about black on black murders" and "shouldn't you be focusing on more important issues" cards. Just no. Share this post Link to post
Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Did you read my links? Even in one of my quotes, Texas isn't the only state listed. I'm not even going to touch your Zimmerman stuff since you decided to play both the "but what about black on black murders" and "shouldn't you be focusing on more important issues" cards. Just no. and yet my point iws, in your posts your using Texas as the template for all Voter ID laws and why all Voter ID laws are bad. your painting all Voter ID laws with the same brush which is not only inacurate, but also questions the intergrity with which you argue your point. and as a Mississippi Voter who fully backs what my legislation is doing in this aim, i take issue with your continued mis-repersentation of my States law. Voter Fraud is a real problem and States need to take steps to ensure the intergrity of our most sacred Democratic Practice; otherwise our Republic ceases to exist. regaurding Zimmerman - and to be frank, you are arguing this from emotion rather than law, and you have nothing to back up your stance and conviction of Zimmerman other than you emotion on it. and youre ignoring the Florida Law that i quoted because you know that you cannot refute it with anything other than emotion. if you consider the Zimmerman case to be more of a Priorety that the government ignoring our 4th and 5th amendment rights under the guise of the autrocity of the Patriot act. or whats happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, given we're still arming & fudning the Muslim Brotherhood in both Egypt and Syria and the lies we were told about them last year during the Arab Spring. then i suggest you consider re-examining your priorities. Warrentless data mining and infinate detentions of american citizens without probable cause trumps a gun violence case. and honstely, exactly how much news would this case have gotten if Zimmerman was black or if Martin was white? none, because thats exactly how much news minority on minority crimes get in the media. the only reason this case got any media attention is because race mongers like Al Sharpton could falsely portray it as White on Black crime to further their agenda and continue to spread the hate in this country; not to mention it added a nice distractor from real news like the Bengahzi and IRS scandle. and frankly put (in general not directed at you Sock) ive had my craw full of people with their false indignation on this case, that remain silent on other cases that are just like it or worse. wake up and stop letting yourselves be used by the likes of Al Shaprton and his other Race Hussling idiots because their agenda isn't to make race relation better in this country; they make too much money off of the hate to want to solve the issues. Edited July 15, 2013 by Red2111 Share this post Link to post
Posted July 15, 2013 if you consider the Zimmerman case to be more of a Priorety that the government ignoring our 4th and 5th amendment rights under the guise of the autrocity of the Patriot act. or whats happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, given we're still arming & fudning the Muslim Brotherhood in both Egypt and Syria and the lies we were told about them last year during the Arab Spring. then i suggest you consider re-examining your priorities. Warrentless data mining and infinate detentions of american citizens without probable cause trumps a gun violence case. I pretty much stated the same thing on my facebook page. Divide and conquer. They are doing a damn fine job of it in this country Share this post Link to post
Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) agreed and it really irks me to no end. because so many people have their heads in the sand and are happy to be useful idiots. over half of the people that followed the Zimmerman case, did so off of MSABC talking points and didn't even bother researching the falsehoods they were being fed. heck even CNN or CBS mis-stated the 9-11 tape to insert race into and assassinate Zimmermans character while the police were still taking statements. it utterly sickens and disgusts me. and if someone is offended by this, frankly i dont care. its the truth and sometimes the truth offends people. Edited July 15, 2013 by Red2111 Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2013 […] was told by the operators to stay where he was and they would send someone to check him out, and decided not to listen and to follow Trayvon. “How come you didn’t … say ‘don’t follow'?” the prosecutor asked him. Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he said. “We always try to give general basic … not commands, just suggestions.” “O'Mara reminded the jury that it's not illegal to follow a person.” I'm not sure whether or not it's more terrifying that he thought stalking, harassing, and murdering a black boy was the right thing to do or not. What he did wouldn’t meet “stalking” in the legal sense. And people always say he disobeyed the order, yet he said “okay”. He wasn’t far from the top of the T section, so Martin had to have willingly confronted him. I'm sorry, who are you talking about here? Trayvon was the only one who exhibited self-defense. How do you know Martin didn’t go up to Zimmerman and punch him while Zimmerman came back to the T intersection? But following someone gives you the right to murder them? They got into a fight, and Martin wouldn’t stop even when the neighbor told them to stop. "If it wasn't your son screaming, if it was in fact, George Zimmerman, you would have to accept the possibility that it was Trayvon Martin who caused his own death, correct?" defense attorney Mark O'Mara asked. "Correct," Fulton said. Did you know that Zimmerman was only in Florida because he was fleeing rape charges in Virginia? Where did you get that? She came out with it after the shooting? And she says the last incident was in Florida. It's not like it's a big secret that the dispatcher asked him. That Zimmerman noticed he was black also isn't the problem. It's that he found a kid suspicious because he was black. “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood […] This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. […] … looking at all the houses.” He tells you why he’s reporting it at the very beginning. And the descriptions of the suspects for burglary in the area were young, black males. But it should be pointed out that it didn’t appear Zimmerman had verified Martin was black at that point. He said, “He looks black”, and later says “Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band. And he’s a black male”. Feb. 2, 2012 -- Zimmerman reports a black “gentleman” walking around the neighborhood who keeps going up to a house and walking around the side, but Zimmerman says he does not want to approach the man Defense attorney O’Mara pointed out on cross-examination that after the Oct. 1 call, police did make contact with the two men Zimmerman called about. He also claimed that the Feb. 2 call led to an arrest of a person who lived in the community. Does the report below look racist? “4/22/2011 19:11:31 1017 OREGON REF BM S43 APPRX 7-9YOA APPRX 04FT/SKINNY BUILD SHORT BLK HAIR LSW BLU TSHIRT/BLU SHORTS/ 4/22/2011 19:11:58 COMPL ADVD S43 IS WALKING ALONE & IS NOT SUPERVISED ON BUSY STREET // COMPL CONCERNED FOR WELL BEING" BM = black male There’s also this. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting “Tape showed Zimmerman's anger over black man's beating” Sock already linked it but here. Sorry for not being clearer! Though, from what I hear, Slate isn't even all that reputable so... “While on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" Monday evening, O'Mara continued to defend his client. "There actually were some other events that happened in the family dynamics that we will get into if we need to," he said, calling into question her credibility. "(S)he makes up allegations about sexual abuse, then also seemingly doesn't have any corroboration to them." It didn’t surface again for whatever reason, and it’s too prejudicial. She also claimed the whole family was racist. Then we could also talk about: Zimmerman's past charges of domestic abuse and using force against a cop: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/27...ce-officer?lite http://racerelations.about.com/b/2012/03/3...of-violence.htm Or his history of calling 911 to report suspicious activity by black males: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...mplete-log.html http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/327...ll-history.html Or that he applied to be a cop (twice) and wasn't admitted both times (wonder why...) 1. Both of them got restraining orders. Not even a misdemeanor. Many people keep claiming he had “felony assault” but he only shoved an undercover alcohol control cop when the undercover cop was questioning a friend of his about underage drinking. 2. Most of his calls don’t say what race they are, and there were several calls about non-blacks. Besides, police end up searching blacks more, but they’re not all bad people. 3. What? Many people get rejected. This means nothing. It’s ironic that you don’t want people to generalize and stereotype blacks, yet you seem to want anything to be admitted into a trial to see what sticks. We could talk about Martin’s history that never was put into evidence. “On Jan. 6, 2012, Martin got into trouble at school again. When asked why, he told a friend, “Caus I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit em.” FRIEND: Nooo… Stop, yuu waint gonn bee satisified till yuh suspended again, huh? MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose” "Boy don't get one planted in ya chest," the friend writes. Wow, that’s eerie. And there's more where that came from. The jury was made up of at least five white women (and only one Hispanic woman) There were news sources that said she was black and Hispanic. I believe she also left Chicago because of gun violence. on the defense of a white passing man (in the murder of a black boy) who is alleged to have denounced his Hispanic heritage Where did you read that? He identifies as Hispanic according to CNN. He looks Hispanic in his mugshot, which is what the media was showing at the beginning. Whether or not this is true, there was a huge injustice done to Trayvon, his family, and the whole black community, who has just been sent the message that their lives mean nothing, that their blackness is inherently threatening, and that being black is an acceptable reason for someone to find them suspicious and murder them. No way. If it was black-on-black or white-on-white, there would have been no trial. His parents also have a million dollar settlement with HOA, and can press for wrongful death against Zimmerman. The DOJ has also been looking into the case to see if they can charge him with a hate crime. I can’t see anything coming out of it, however, because the FBI already looked into Zimmerman’s associates to see if he was racist. it is unfortunately rather easy for a white man (as Zimmerman usually chooses to identify himself) to get away with murdering a black man. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/john-w...rticle-1.474441 Is this murder to you? A black man shoots a 17 year old white male in the face after several white kids went to his house to try to fight his son over rape rumors. John White could have decided to stay in the house and wait for the cops, but he went out to confront the mob instead with a gun. “Prosecutors said that instead of calling the cops, White went out to confront the teens and shot Cicciaro in the face from three inches away.” He got convicted, but it was only two to four years sentencing after being convicted of manslaughter and illegal possession of a firearm. There were a lot of white people that supported John White. The ironic part is what Al Sharpton had to say about the case. "We salute Gov. Paterson's decision and hope that all families involved will move towards healing," the Rev. Al Sharpton said. "There are no winners in this situation." The local NAACP supported him, too. Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) and yet my point iws, in your posts your using Texas as the template for all Voter ID laws and why all Voter ID laws are bad. your painting all Voter ID laws with the same brush which is not only inacurate, but also questions the intergrity with which you argue your point. and as a Mississippi Voter who fully backs what my legislation is doing in this aim, i take issue with your continued mis-repersentation of my States law. Voter Fraud is a real problem and States need to take steps to ensure the intergrity of our most sacred Democratic Practice; otherwise our Republic ceases to exist. And I just clarified that the links I posted also mention other states voter ID laws that disenfranchise POC. http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/06/sup...rights_act.html Voter ID is one ting, upping the requirements for a certain photo ID is another. Redistricting is another. Yes, laws now are more fair - laws that were passed before parts of VRA were struck down. Show me how voter fraud is a real problem because I've already talked about how it isn't and real fraud steps that are being done (gerrymandering, lying and telling people their candidate has already been confirmed, giving voters the wrong dates for voting). regaurding Zimmerman - and to be frank, you are arguing this from emotion rather than law, and you have nothing to back up your stance and conviction of Zimmerman other than you emotion on it. and youre ignoring the Florida Law that i quoted because you know that you cannot refute it with anything other than emotion. Huge gigantic sigh. No. Not at all. I just dislike arguing. Debating, I enjoy, arguing I do not. It gets both parties angry and changes absolutely nothing except perhaps peoples perceptions of each other. As I person, yeah, I like getting involved in discussions on here. As a mod, I do try to be careful to know when to back off because people do need to be comfortable approaching me, even if we happen to disagree on stuff. However, when debates get too heavy, I realize it's hard for people to see that they can still contact me. So I was trying to refrain. First point - Zimmerman was a self-appointed neighborhood watch. It wasn't his job. Stand Your Ground and "justifiable" force: http://25.media.tumblr.com/e34abf2569f3b03...2uluo1_1280.jpg The crime rate in Fl alone has tripled since Stand Your Ground passed States with Stand Your Ground laws have more homicides than states without (which we won't focus on too much since causation/correlation) A majority of the shooters happened to be white middle aged males A June 2012 study by the Tampa Bay Times found that in Florida, defendants citing the Stand Your Ground law were more likely to prevail if the victim was black. Seventy-three percent of people who killed a black person walked away with no penalty, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white victim. People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free. Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury. according to study after study; homicides are up in SYG states, though they're down almost everywhere else. More than 500 people are dead from such shootings. From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/s..._n_3365893.html http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/...ding-on/1233133 http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/j...victim-20130425 "When there’s an all White jury, 81% of the time, the African-American is convicted. And when there’s an all-White jury, 66% of the time, the White defendant gets off." http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-DUK...KE-2011-001.pdf http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/convicti...e-black-person/ Whites who kill blacks in non-Stand Your Ground states are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person. But in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent. http://24.media.tumblr.com/da4afdb2b7ab232...4vpxio1_500.jpg From: TW for some blood in pictures of injuries http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23...an-verdict.html Why should SYG even have applied to Zimmerman? He got out of his house with a gun on his person to follow a kid (even after dispatch told him that wasn't necessary). SYG should have applied to Martin and Martin alone. =\ And if SYG is so great, why hasn't it helped Marissa Alexander, a black woman who fired warning shots at her abusive husband whom she took out a protective order against, was denied SYG, and is facing 20 years in jail even though nobody even got hurt. How about Cece McDonald, a black transwoman who is still in jail for defending herself and her friends against neo-Nazi's who threw a glass bottle at her face. And see, SYG, similar laws, and similar trials aren't just protecting the murderer of Trayvon Martin. There are sooo many unarmed black boys being shot by cops or other vigilantes, most all of whom are acquitted. http://missjia.tumblr.com/post/55508281427...-toparisandback http://kbaptiste.tumblr.com/post/199116172...d-all-black-all http://caseybruce.tumblr.com/post/55454284...ack-and-unarmed All people wanna see is a bunch of people hung up on Trayvon (like, oh no, how dare we be upset at no justice for the murder of a 16 year old boy), but what they're ignoring is the long line of faces behind Trayvon. The long line after Trayvon. The fact that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested until there was public outcry. People aren't upset because this was one time when no justice was served. We're upset because there is never any justice for the black community. And since it came up, oh yeah, let's go ahead and talk about black on black violence. I'm just gonna go ahead and throw quotes about what the black community thinks about this. Over the past two months I’ve seen Black CHILDREN in the streets marching to protest the closing of their public schools, the defunding of programs in their schools, and over the unjust murder of a 17 year old Black child. Babies are out here marching and protesting for basic to live and who the do you think is bringing these babies to the rallies and protests? Oh, but Black people don’t care about and white children are too innocent to be told not to wear Black face or racist Halloween costumes. , the only thing that doesn’t solve the problem of black on black violence is…..talking about black on black violence as if it magically comes out of the ether. it *** doesn’t. White people cry “but you guys kill yourselves too!" This is true. But who taught us how? Like, you think we don’t care about black people shooting black people? When we talk about fixing our schools, we are trying to address the problem of black on black violence. When we talk about access to reproductive health services, we are trying to address the problem of black on black violence. When we talk about social services and alleviating poverty, we are trying to address the problem of black on black violence. When we talk about gentrification forcing us out of our neighborhoods, we are trying to address the problem of black on black violence. When we talk about voter suppression, we are trying to address the problem of black on black violence. Do you not *** see that? All of our issues intersect, but when you knock our ****ing legs out from under us and render us unable to do even the most basic of social and political organizing what the are we supposed to do? Don’t act like we aren’t trying to solve our problems. Y’al ain’t letting us. Let's talk about the fact that white people, us, me, only want to talk about black on black violence to avoid accountability in the fact that we're murdering black people and getting away with it because that's how the system is designed and we refuse to challenge it. if you consider the Zimmerman case to be more of a Priorety that the government ignoring our 4th and 5th amendment rights under the guise of the autrocity of the Patriot act. or whats happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, given we're still arming & fudning the Muslim Brotherhood in both Egypt and Syria and the lies we were told about them last year during the Arab Spring. then i suggest you consider re-examining your priorities. Oh, no, don't even. It is so infuriating when people try to police my feelings and what I talk about. Not that it even matters, but I do talk about these things. I continue to talk about these things. Funnily enough, no, I don't need to be regulated to one issue. Funnily enough, yeah, my mind is capable of of balancing several issues, of being interested in several issues, of caring about several issues, of researching several issues, and of being an activist in several issues. But you know what? No, we aren't talking about any of those things right here and I don't need the issue derailed because you don't care about it like I do. In fact, that's why I need to continue talking about it. But don't dare tell me I need to re-examine my priorities because I'm capable of caring about and being involved in a multitude of issues. I don't actually need to talk about all the issues I care about in every single conversation I hold. Right now I'm talking about Trayvon. I'm talking about racism and murder and SYG and the justice system. I don't need told how to care about what. Thank you very much. ~ For those of you who haven't heard: http://www.politicususa.com/2012/07/18/geo...-apologize.html In which Zimmerman demands an apology for being called a racist because he'd apologize if he did something wrong after conveniently not apologizing for killing Trayvon, only apologizing that Trayvon's parents had to bury him. And yeah, this case had everything to do with SYG: COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied? JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...d&v=LcdSZw2-C18 Edited July 19, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler Share this post Link to post
Posted July 16, 2013 Why should SYG even have applied to Zimmerman? SYG wasn't applied in this case. Zimmerman couldn't retreat when Martin was beating him. It was just a self-defense case. Share this post Link to post
Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) Recently on tumblr I came across a discussion on cosplaying and "blackface". It had to do with that white or non-dark cosplayers shouldn't tan or use stage makeup to darken their skin so that they resemble the character more. One person was adamantly against it (quite rudely, too, when I inquired kindly) and how it continues minstrelsy and "blackface" practices. And I... well, I don't really agree. I feel like cosplayers should be able to go to whatever means to look like their character that they wish to go to. I had a friend who is very white (and blonde) who wanted to cosplay Korra from LoK, but was accused of "white washing" Korra due to the fact that my friend was white during cosplay. She was considering tanning or using make up to make herself look more acceptable, but this was also shot down, so she was unsure of what to do about her cosplay. The person who was very adamantly against this practice said "There are a MILLION light skinned characters out there for white people to cosplay. Why in 's name should white people get to put on blackface and play the dark skinned ones too?" Which I, personally, think is wrong. People of any color should be able to cosplay whatever character they want, regardless of what race that character happens to be. Some people want to be more true to the character's design than others and want to replicate the skin tone, but it's not intended as an insulting gesture. I mean, I've seen PoC use stage make up to make themselves lighter to play white characters, so why should this be treated any different? Maybe it's just my white privilege showing, but I really don't understand. Help? : Edit: Aaaand her response to my friend's attempt to cosplay Korra was basically "Your friend is ignorant because she shouldn't be cosplaying Korra at all, she should have cosplayed one of the lighter characters from the show instead because your friend is basically screwing over all PoC by representing the character as a white person" and I just no, I really don't think this person understands. Cosplay is an appreciation of a specific character, isn't it? Why should someone be restricted to liking a character or wanting to be that character because of race? How is that any more okay than saying a black person can't cosplay a white person or whatnot? I DON'T GET IT ;A; Edited August 20, 2013 by Shiny Hazard Sign Share this post Link to post
Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) Recently on tumblr I came across a discussion on cosplaying and "blackface". It had to do with that white or non-dark cosplayers shouldn't tan or use stage makeup to darken their skin so that they resemble the character more. One person was adamantly against it (quite rudely, too, when I inquired kindly) and how it continues minstrelsy and "blackface" practices. And I... well, I don't really agree. I feel like cosplayers should be able to go to whatever means to look like their character that they wish to go to. I had a friend who is very white (and blonde) who wanted to cosplay Korra from LoK, but was accused of "white washing" Korra due to the fact that my friend was white during cosplay. She was considering tanning or using make up to make herself look more acceptable, but this was also shot down, so she was unsure of what to do about her cosplay. The person who was very adamantly against this practice said "There are a MILLION light skinned characters out there for white people to cosplay. Why in 's name should white people get to put on blackface and play the dark skinned ones too?" Which I, personally, think is wrong. People of any color should be able to cosplay whatever character they want, regardless of what race that character happens to be. Some people want to be more true to the character's design than others and want to replicate the skin tone, but it's not intended as an insulting gesture. I mean, I've seen PoC use stage make up to make themselves lighter to play white characters, so why should this be treated any different? Maybe it's just my white privilege showing, but I really don't understand. Help? : Edit: Aaaand her response to my friend's attempt to cosplay Korra was basically "Your friend is ignorant because she shouldn't be cosplaying Korra at all, she should have cosplayed one of the lighter characters from the show instead because your friend is basically screwing over all PoC by representing the character as a white person" and I just no, I really don't think this person understands. Cosplay is an appreciation of a specific character, isn't it? Why should someone be restricted to liking a character or wanting to be that character because of race? How is that any more okay than saying a black person can't cosplay a white person or whatnot? I DON'T GET IT ;A; I very much fail to understand how your friend is being racist by wanting to cosplay as Korra as that cartoon takes place in a fictional world. Whatever races exists in that show are mythological even if there are similarities between some races in the show and the ones that exist in the real world. Edited August 20, 2013 by Syaoransbear Share this post Link to post
Posted August 20, 2013 (edited) -cosplay snip- (Okay, that last part where you tried to racebend to show that it wasn't okay to do that - that is white privilege showing. You can't really compare telling a white person not to do something vs. telling a black person not to do something because of differences in privilege even though in this case - well, see my answer below.) However, as someone heavily involved in social justice following many anti-racism blogs, your friend should feel perfectly welcome to cosplay Korra as long as she doesn't do black or brownface. As long as she pays homage to the character while staying away from practices like that, there'd probably be a lot of anti-racism bloggers of color who would appreciate the cosplay. Heck, I just saw a cosplay post going around where someone tried to criticize a cosplayer for their "bad" cosplay, including that they thought they should have done yellowface to "be closer to the character" and anti-racism bloggers of color jumped on it defending the cosplay as it was. The person I actually saw it from was actually just re-blogging it to appreciate how great they thought the cosplay worked. So, yeah, I would say your friend should go for it if she wants to cosplay Korra but should definitely stay away from black or brownface. Edited August 20, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler Share this post Link to post
Posted August 20, 2013 I hate the big drama over cosplay, too--because people should be allowed to cosplay whoever they want, regardless of race. That means white people should be able to cosplay non-white characters AND that people of color should be able to cosplay white characters. Just like how female-bodied people can crossplay male-bodied characters and the reverse. I agree that cosplay is an appreciation of a specific character. But, by that racial reasoning... Wouldn't that mean that it's inappropriate for any human to cosplay a non-human or a partially-human character because they're attempting to coslay outside their race? Share this post Link to post
Posted August 20, 2013 I am completely against racism, skin color or where you come from doesn't matter. But one thing I don't understand is why it would be offensive to describe someone as "black" or "white" or whatever as long as it's not a derogatory term. I don't see any difference between that and describing someone as a "redhead" or a "blonde" or having brown eyes or being tall or short. It's a physical trait, and when you're talking about a stranger you need to use physical traits to identify them, and if you're describing someone to someone else you need to use physical traits to give them an idea of what they look like. And the most obvious physical trait is skin color, so it makes sense to use it. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 *rage* God, I go to school with a bunch of entitled white dillweeds. Someone made a post on our college facebook "confessions" page about how white people don't face racism/ reverse racism isn't real. And of course, in the comments, a flood of white people crying, "but white people face racism too!!11" So I've been spending half of my morning trying to explain that racism is the systematic oppression and discrimination of a certain race, and not being victim to someone calling you mean names because you happen to be a white person. They don't get it. UGH I'M SO ANNOYED. And it seems like right now I'm the only one trying to educate them on what racism is. (*cough* if anyone wants to jump in.... https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?stor...d_comment_reply ) Warning: Language in the comments! Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 I consider racism to be discriminating against someone because they are a different race than you are. That there are folks that try to limit racism to only mean white on <insert race> galls me. If you (general) discriminate against someone just because they are a different race, that's racism, no matter if your black/white/whatever. Seriously, what will it take for people to realize that? When whites are slaves with the blacks the slave masters? Shouldn't we nip it in the bud before it gets to that point? The sooner we realize that anyone can be racist, the sooner we can all work on trying to stamp it out. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 No, that's actually racial prejudice. White folks are in a place of power, and thus cannot be oppressed. Racism is a systematic oppression of a marginalized group. Now, white people can suffer from racial prejudice, which is a result of racism against the oppressed group. That is different and should not be equated with actual racism. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 No, that's actually racial prejudice. White folks are in a place of power, and thus cannot be oppressed. Racism is a systematic oppression of a marginalized group. Now, white people can suffer from racial prejudice, which is a result of racism against the oppressed group. That is different and should not be equated with actual racism. I honestly don't see the difference. A white being prejudice against a black and a black being prejudice against a white is the same thing, doesn't matter who is in 'power' or not: it's still racism. As for just being 'racist because they are oppressed', that's just going to continue the cycle of racism. Blacks attacking whites because they are white (a hate crime, though more often than not, it's not labeled as such, which is something else that pisses me off: I hate double standards), gives the whites a reason to continue being racist. Then the cycle starts again.... Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 I honestly don't see the difference. A white being prejudice against a black and a black being prejudice against a white is the same thing, doesn't matter who is in 'power' or not: it's still racism. As for just being 'racist because they are oppressed', that's just going to continue the cycle of racism. Blacks attacking whites because they are white (a hate crime, though more often than not, it's not labeled as such, which is something else that pisses me off: I hate double standards), gives the whites a reason to continue being racist. Then the cycle starts again.... I'm with Slaskia. Racism is racism, no matter who it's directed against. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) No, that's actually racial prejudice. White folks are in a place of power, and thus cannot be oppressed. Racism is a systematic oppression of a marginalized group. Now, white people can suffer from racial prejudice, which is a result of racism against the oppressed group. That is different and should not be equated with actual racism. I don't see why people have to throw a fit over someone calling racial prejudice against white people racism even if it IS slightly inaccurate, though? I mean, in the end someone's still being hurt because of it and that's bad and needs to stop. Nitpicking over terminology isn't going to save anyone from violence. Edited May 14, 2014 by TheCompleteAnimorph Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 They don't get it. UGH I'M SO ANNOYED. And it seems like right now I'm the only one trying to educate them on what racism is. Racism is an individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given race. That’s it. When does it change to allow for whites to be included? In the 1940’s, most people would have agreed that blacks should be separate on buses, and a very tiny portion in the South would have supported school integration. In the 1950’s many Americans wouldn’t have supported mixed marriages (see link below). There's even higher support if you exclude anyone above the age of 50. The attitudes towards blacks have changed drastically. http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-...cks-whites.aspx White folks are in a place of power, and thus cannot be oppressed. And that “power” has been used to help minorities e.g. government hiring less qualified black applicants and the use of race in college admissions. Racism is a systematic oppression of a marginalized group. But their problems don’t all stem from white people. For example, does discrimination explain this below? Or the persistent gap in test scores that go back decades? Or how Asians do better? http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72 “Within each racial/ethnic group, women earned the majority of degrees at all levels in 2009–10. For example, among U.S. residents, Black females earned 68 percent of associate's degrees, 66 percent of bachelor's degrees, 71 percent of master's degrees, and 65 percent of all doctor's degrees awarded to Black students.” Another point is that people who dislike racism often hate stereotypes, but they love to claim that all whites are so privileged, even though whites with lower than average intelligence, personality/mental problems, and in poverty or having an unattractive appearance will not be. Here’s a study of just weight/height discrimination, for example. There's of course other differences between individuals. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/f...ijo200822a.html “Both institutional forms of weight/height discrimination (for example, in employment settings) and interpersonal mistreatment due to weight/height (for example, being called names) were common, and in some cases were even more prevalent than discrimination due to gender and race.” Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) I class as white I think I've never paid attention to the PC BS (its not the word but how its said that makes it an insult) I'm a mutt I have blood from all over the world, me and sister are very proud of this so the race BS has never made sense to us first time I dealt with Racism back when I was a kid (age 8) I was walking down a road when I started having an asthma attack (I'm a serious asthmatic) and the only person around was an aboriginal woman instand of helping or just walking on she started screaming racial slurs at me, I don't remember much of what she said my mind was else where but I do remember white being yelled a lot second time I dealt with Racism my little sister (age 6) had a aboriginal friend (I think she was age 8) they were playing and my sister wanted to play one thing and the girl wanted to play something else, the girl then yelled "White *", I looked up in surprise to see this girl storm down the driveway and shove our little brother flying (he was only just leaning to walk at the time so around age 1 I think) I'm very territorial about what's mine so my reaction was to run this girl down and beat her up, I chased her down the road to her house, she got away I spend the next 3 years of my life being attacked by her family, racial slurs, chased down roads by groups of grow men, having rocks throw at me, the ones near my age tried to get into fights with me we called the cops a lot but they never did anything, hell people all around us called the cops on them they had a pack of feral Chihuahuas that attacked people, a little kid had to be taken to the hospital because of them I was age 10 when this started we could finally move to a new house when I was 13 something want to know how my sister and that girl became friends, I saved that girl's little sister from drowning down at the beach because all the adults just stood there watching as people have already said Racism is Racism (I have to have my best friend explain racial slurs and insults to me because I don't understand a lot of them, how is being called cracker (a biscuit) or gay (I am gay) an insult I love Language so if I'm called something I know the actual meaning of the word and not the made up bad meaning, so the people who are insulting me are normally stared down and made to look like idiots as I try to understand what they are going on about) I should add that yes that second one has made me a bit racist, when I'm out walking if I see a group of aboriginals I keep my eye on them I expect them to be related to Pearl and expect them to attack me (I'm now 23) Edited May 15, 2014 by InugamiZERO Share this post Link to post
Posted May 14, 2014 Racism is racism, no matter who it's directed against. This. This is the best statement I've heard all day Share this post Link to post
Posted May 15, 2014 Racism is racism, no matter who it's directed against. This again. Yes indeed. Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts