http://i39.tinypic.com/mbspc2.jpg
Posted on 03/30/2012 7:24:35 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
Something just struck me.
The demand that Zimmerman be found guilty and punished, before anything resembling a trial or hearing of the facts has been held, greatly resembles other incidents in history and literature.
To Kill a Mockingbird was published in 1960, with an excellent movie released in 1962. It tells the story of a black man accused of the rape of a white woman. In it the town and jury, despite strong evidence of the innocence of the accused, closes ranks to convict him. For the simple reason that convicting him, in their minds, served the purpose of a higher truth. That "they" need to be kept in their place. The actual guilt or innocence of the accused was irrelevant, as the purpose of the trial was mainly to demonstrate social outrage and reinforce social norms. IOW, it was a ritual.
In the Duke lacrosse case of a few years back, the initial reaction was identical. Guilt or innocence of the accused wasn't really relevant, as the purpose of the controversy was to demonstrate social outrage and reinforce social norms. The ritual was aimed at increasing solidarity between the groups that felt threatened, just as in TKAM. The groups involved were obviously very different, but the social dynamic was identical.
In the Duke case, the ritual fell apart as the case eventually collapsed. But if not for the internet, which greatly limited the power of the media gatekeepers, the players might very well have been convicted anyway.
In the Zimmerman case we see this again. What actually happened that night is for many irrelevant. Mostly on the left, although also for a few on the right.
What is important is that, as in TKAM and at Duke, the case illustrates a "higher truth." What really happened just isn't important.
Good thoughts!
Thank God we have the Internet today. It is the Free Press for a Free People.
i got the analogy, with a question to all of those otu ther in their hoodies: would you rather recall your part in all this as being with the angry mob, or with Atticus Finch standing for the rule of law?
Good cartoon at link: “Hoods are involved...”
Emotional decision makers first make a decision and then search for facts that support their decision and are blind to any facts that are in opposition. Whether on the right or the left, they process the same way if they are emotional decision makers!
Excellent!
Thanks for the ping.
Also has a lot in common with the Dreyfuss case.
The accused became a symbol of what the accusers hated, making his conviction necessary, regardless of the facts, if they were to maintain their worldview.
It’s a lot easier to hate a symbol than a person.
Excellent, Sherman.
Excellent, Sherman.
Today, in this country, truth doesn't matter.
Just to make it clear, I’m not defending Mr. Zimmerman. It is entirely possible he should stand trial for murder and even be found guilty. I can think of several plausible scenarios whereby Martin behaved entirely properly and Mr. Zimmerman is to blame for what happened.
But his guilt or innocence should be determined based on his actions, to the extent we can figure them out. He should not be tried and convicted in advance as a symbol of black solidarity, white oppression, etc.
http://i39.tinypic.com/mbspc2.jpg
Why don’t u submit this to the Wall Street Journal?
I’m serious.
Old Atticus is a huge hero for the liberals. What did Atticus do with the mad dog? Why is this in the book?
One of the best observations I’ve seen on the subject.
LOL! Can I guess? Can I guess?
yep
The usual interpretation of the “mad dog incident” is that the mindless mad dog stands for white racism.
Which if you carry it to its logical conclusion means that you can’t reason with white racists so should just shoot them.
Personally I always thought the incident was put in to illustrate the character of Atticus. He was willing to put himself at risk and take direct physical action when necessary to protect the community. He wasn’t just a bookworm.
Similarly the mean, racist old lady was put in to show that the racist whites were not all evil, that their failings were often counter-balanced by admirable traits. After her death, Atticus called her the bravest person he’d ever known.
In the book, people are complex, with the only totally evil person being Tom Ewell. The local white farmers who made up the lynch mob are not excused, but their basic integrity and honor is shown in various scenes, including the way in which the mob is broken up by Scout.
Most of this complexity got left out of the movie, which made the story much more simplistic.
“...Atticus is a huge hero for the liberals...”
You’re right! Liberals dream of gaining the appreciation of the Colored folks in the gallery but in reality Hillary did not get their appreciation. Instead she had one get uppity and steal the nomination from her.
I am coming to the conclusion that you are more correct in your assertion that it more closely relates to the Dreyfuss case that TKAMB. Both have their own similarities, but Dreyfuss is IMHO closer.
Well written, and spot on in both cases.
Recall that in the Duke Rape Hoax, the Black Panthers were literally “in the face” of one of the victims in the courthouse, directly threatening his life.
I don’t care if the dems loved or hated him...I always wanted Atticus to be MY dad! :-D Great character.
On a less deep level, I think it showed Jem and Scout that Atticus may not play football for the Methodists, but there was a lot more to him that meets the eye! LOVE the look of astonishment on the face of the kids when he shoots the dog in the movie.
In the book Atticus was not portrayed as a bleeding heart. In fact, every action he took could be as fully justified by conservative principles as by liberal ones.
The white racists in the book, while believing themselves to be conservative defenders of tradition, were IMO trying to conserve an un-American and indeed anti-American tradition. Most of them were misguided rather than intrinsically evil, but their actions were most certainly evil.
Atticus could have called for the dog catcher. He could have thrown a blanket over the dog. He could have gone inside. He shot the dog. And why a dog and not say, a wild hog? Or a snake? Atticus could kill, and that point is rarely made with students. Why?
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a huge story for the liberals. It is, of course, fiction......a very useful fiction. What if the dog represented black violence and not white racism?
"What really happened" is truth.
The "higher truth" is nothing more than untruth.
The fundamental evil beneath the decadence that threatens to destroy the United States and Western Civilization is mendacity, contempt for truth.
It's frightening and apalling to watch people jump on the bandwagon, their passion untempered by concern for truth.
And once a consensus is formed, it becomes the "reality". This is the evil that is the Left: mendacious groupthink.
If Atticus Finch had not succeeded, the community would have concluded that Tom Robinson was guilty, and that would have become reality--for everyone. The possibility that he was innocent would have been forgotten, and the truth would have been forever hidden behind the "higher truth" of groupthink.
If the Duke Lacrosse players had not been proven innocent, it would have been the same.
In fact--this is the way of history.
It is also the "higher truth" of the Left: Silence truth and replace it with a more desirable "reality".
The best antidote to the decadence that is the Left is ruthless honesty--the ruthless pursuit of truth--the unwavering demand of truth.
Truth is our greatest ally.
"What really happened" is truth.
The "higher truth" is nothing more than untruth.
The fundamental evil beneath the decadence that threatens to destroy the United States and Western Civilization is mendacity, contempt for truth.
It's frightening and apalling to watch people jump on the bandwagon, their passion untempered by concern for truth.
And once a consensus is formed, it becomes the "reality". This is the evil that is the Left: mendacious groupthink.
If Atticus Finch had not succeeded, the community would have concluded that Tom Robinson was guilty, and that would have become reality--for everyone. The possibility that he was innocent would have been forgotten, and the truth would have been forever hidden behind the "higher truth" of groupthink.
If the Duke Lacrosse players had not been proven innocent, it would have been the same.
In fact--this is the way of history.
It is also the "higher truth" of the Left: Silence truth and replace it with a more desirable "reality".
The best antidote to the decadence that is the Left is ruthless honesty--the ruthless pursuit of truth--the unwavering demand of truth.
Truth is our greatest ally.
In the courtroom and the judge did nothing.
Holding blacks to a lower standard of behavior.
Nicely done, Sherm.
As other posters have pointed out, the reality of the situation, the “truth” is not as important to the Left as what they want it to be, “need” it to be, and what “version” of “truth” is accepted by the general public.
Remember - Crystal was never charged for her felonies. Another double standard.
She went on to assault a boyfriend and kill another boyfriend.
If I had time I’d compile public statements of people like Al Sharpton with respect to this incident, the Duke incident, the Tawana Brawley incident....just their “innocent until proven guilty” statements where their narrative proved to be false.
The reason for this is that it is human nature to immediately agree with something that reconfirms our worldview and reject those things that do not.
This is not limited to liberals/leftists, though since they are so utterly convinced of their own righteousness and moral superiority they are more susceptible.
Stephen Colbert has built a career on “truthiness,” which is essentially the belief that something must be true because it sounds so good. He aims it at conservatives, but IMO liberals/leftists are even more susceptible.
This is, however, a tendency common to all humans. Fair and intelligent people fight against it, though.
"Fair and intelligent people fight against it..."
Excellent.
"Fair and intelligent people fight against it..."
Excellent.
where’s that pic of Obama scratching his nose with his middle finger?
"What really happened" is truth."What is important is that, as in TKAM and at Duke, the case illustrates a 'higher truth.' What really happened just isn't important."
The fundamental evil beneath the decadence that threatens to destroy the United States and Western Civilization is mendacity, contempt for truth. It's frightening and apalling to watch people jump on the bandwagon, their passion untempered by concern for truth.
And once a consensus is formed, it becomes the "reality". This is the evil that is the Left: mendacious groupthink.
If you parse it out, you will realize that a monopoly of journalism would naturally lead to mendacious groupthink in journalism. And a monopoly of journalism is precisely the intent and effect of the Associated Press.The comparison, which I think is apt, of the Zimmerman case to the TKAMB story puts me in mind of another story:That’s a short story that I was required to read in college, IIRC, and which really seemed “off the wall” to me at the time. The “lottery” of the title, tho, was one people were desperate not to “win.” The “winner," in this dystopian tale, was stoned to death by the community. I didn’t see the relevance to anything then, but now I’m not so sure that we don’t have our very own version of it. In the sense that George Zimmerman “won” that lottery when he made news for (so he says) defending himself against Trayvon Martin. And just as that fictional “lottery” wasn’t a one-time deal but occurred regularly, so we have had the Twana Brawley hoax and the Crystal Mangum hoax and the Trayvon Martin (well, we don’t officially know it’s a hoax yet, but the usual suspects who were wrong in those cases are now touting this one) rush to judgement. Plus innumerable hit pieces on politicians who (however cautiously) represent the middle class.
The one thing that distinguishes the fictional TKAMB from the real cases I mention is the fact that TKAMB featured a politically correct victim, whereas in the real world politically correctness is not the solution but part of the problem the victim faces.
True, but even stopped clocks and all that.
The kid may not have been a boy scout, but his apparently not having a criminal record probably put him in the top 10% for his peer group in the straight arrow category.
It is likely we will never know exactly what happened that evening. Either, both or neither of these guys may have been guilty of criminal actions. It seems indisputable the fight and death could have been avoided if either of them had made other decisions.
This is the entirety of Hillary's hold on her "army," which in turn is just an amplification of the general liberal control principle run by RINOs and Leftists.
It makes abject cowards out of former human beings.
Yes, it does seem that either of them could have avoided the contretemps. It also seems that the only reason this is a nationwide story is the race of the deceased and that the survivor was of a different race.The real story to me is the response of the (theoretically) responsible individuals - the POTUS, black Christian pastors, and (most tenuously theoretical of all) “objective” journalism. We have true vigilanteism on parade in the public offer of money for the whereabouts of a (also theoretically) innocent man. Altho I have to say, that is more like KKK activity than vigilanteism . . .
http://i41.tinypic.com/e99j04.jpg
I agree.
And must admit when I first heard the story I tended towards automatically condemning Zimmerman.
The media told a pretty convincing story of bigotry till the (few) facts available started coming out.
Sad. Another beautiful story murdered by a gang of brutal facts.
dat’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.