THE YEAR OF THE LIBERAL: Hands full of candy replace balled fists!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2016

Part 5—Before and after script:
In the journalistic realm, was 2015 really The Year of the Liberal, as so many observers are suddenly saying?

On balance, we'd say it was. It was a year when we liberals saw our news orgs getting very badly dumbed down. It was also a year in which we liberals repetitively declared ourselves in thrall to our liberal scripts.

No official pronouncement was made, but devotion to script was quite prominent. Example:

In this post last Friday, we started discussing the way Ta-Nehisi Coates has portrayed the death of Trayvon Martin, starting with a discussion from July 2013.

In July 2013, a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of criminal charges in the shooting death of Martin. At his web site at The Atlantic, Coates assessed the verdict.

To the surprise of some of his readers, Coates said he thought the jury "basically got it right:"
COATES (7/14/13): I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eyewitnesses.
Many of Coates' readers seemed surprised by this assessment. In comments, Coates explained his view of the case as a legal matter.

Drawing on personal experience, he said that Zimmerman did have reason to fear "death or great bodily harm" once the fight with Martin got started that night. After quoting Florida law concerning justifiable use of force, he described his own youthful experience:
COATES (7/14/13): As a younger man, I was in a few fights—mostly on the losing end. Some I provoked. Some I didn't. But in almost every one I can make a case for "death or great bodily harm." One I remember specifically, a guy hit me over the head with a steel trash can at the start. But the fight ended with me overtop of him—much like Trayvon was said to be over Zimmerman—wailing away. He had started the fight—but by Florida law I was the aggressor.

Fights are not like boxing matches. If you provoke one and start losing, your life is basically in someone else's hands. You should be afraid. Punches actually do kill people and cause "great bodily harm."
Punches actually do kill people and cause great bodily harm, Coates said. He also seemed to allude to the fact that the case's sole eyewitness testified that Martin had been positioned "over Zimmerman" and had been "wailing away."

A commenter found that analysis unsatisfying. Coates responded to his comment, explaining his point in more detail:
COMMENTER (7/14/13): I don't see how being on the losing end of a fist fight means a person "reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm."

COATES: I am on the ground and you are on top of me wailing away. I am most certainly in "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm."

I say this as someone who has been in that position, and the person putting someone in that position. It is really, really frightening. And you are in danger of "great bodily harm" at the very least. Punches kill people. Skulls hit concrete or tables and cause great damage.

And that assumes that you know you are only being hit with someone's fist. What if it feels like your being hit with brass knuckles? What if you think you see the person reaching for something to finish the job?

Fights are not tame staid events. They are chaotic, random and very, very scary. They are not regulated. There are no TKOs. Fist-fights kill people—and there is no guarantee that a fist-fight will stay at that level.
It should be noted that Coates was discussing this event as a matter of law. As a matter of morality, he seemed to think that Zimmerman had generally been in the wrong in the events which led to Martin's death. As in the first comment posted above, Coates seemed to assume that Zimmerman had provoked the fight that night. (That said, he never argued the case behind that assumption, and he seemed to be unfamiliar with some basic facts of the case.)

On balance, as a matter of morality, Coates seemed to think Zimmerman had been in the wrong that night. But in the comments we've posted, he argued, rather strongly, that Zimmerman actually was in significant peril once the fight began.

He seemed to say that Zimmerman actually was in danger of "great bodily harm at the very least." He also said this:

"Punches kill people. Skulls hit concrete or tables and cause great damage."

"Fist-fights kill people," Coates said. As he reviewed the events of that night, he portrayed a "very, very scary" event in which Zimmerman actually could have been severely injured or killed.

Was Coates right in his legal assessment? We'd be inclined to think he was. At any rate, he portrayed the fight that night as a violent, scary event in which Zimmerman actually was in danger of great bodily harm—in which he certainly had reason to think he was in great danger.

In our view, Coates provided a service that day. Whatever you think of his ultimate judgments, he offered a view of these events which was challenging to many of his readers—which flew in the face of their presuppositions.

You might think he was right in his ultimate judgments; you might think he was wrong. But he was drawing on personal experience to challenge his readers' instincts—one might even say, their biases.

Coates drew a picture that day of a very scary event. For better or worse, you might say the portrait Coates drew that day eventually became the first part of a classic "before and after."

Within a month, he seemed to be stating a different legal view of the case, without explaining the change in perspective. And last year, Coates published a widely-praised, award-winning book, Between the World and Me. By the time he published his book, Coates seemed to be painting a very different picture of what had happened last night.

Below, you see the portrait Coates drew of those events in his award-winning book. Those very scary balled fists were gone, replaced by "hands full of candy."

In this passage, Coates is working off the remarkably strong "Us and Them" motif he develops in his book. For ourselves, we'd be inclined to call this new portrait of those events the "after" in a morality play driven by tribal script—the kind of script the elite white pseudo-liberal world rushes to applaud and shower with awards.

Coates is speaking to his son. He soon gives a new, improved portrait:
COATES (page 104-105): There it is—the right to break the black body as the meaning of their sacred equality. And that right has always given them meaning, has meant that there was always someone down below because a mountain is not a mountain unless there is something below.

You and I, my son, are that "below." That was true in 1776; it is true today. There is no them without you, and without the right to break you they must necessarily fall from the mountain, lose their divinity, and tumble out of the Dream...But because they believe themselves to be white, they would rather countenance a man choked to death on film under their laws. And they would rather subscribe to the myth of Trayvon Martin, slight teenager, hands full of candy and soft drinks, transforming into a murderous juggernaut.
In 2013, Coates portrayed a "very, very scary" fight in which George Zimmerman had reason to fear that he might even be killed.

By 2015, the portrait had radically changed. Martin was now a "slight teenager, hands full of candy and soft drinks"—full stop.

In that new and altered portrait, Coates was disappearing memory of some of the events which occurred that night. Remember—script is often driven by disappeared facts, and by focus on other facts which are completely irrelevant.

In July 2013, Coates was willing to portray Martin as a young man "wailing away," a young man whose balled fists could have caused great harm or death.

By 2015, Martin's hands were full of candy. He was no longer wailing away.

Whatever you think of that evening's events, we'd suggest that you can picture the emergence of this second portrait as a triumph of tribal script. Fists are gone; in their place, we're pleasingly given candy. The person who could have killed Zimmerman is now a "slight teenager."

It isn't clear why that isn't a con—the kind of con which wins awards from elite white institutions. At any rate, you see in those two portraits the possible triumph of liberal narrative, liberal script.

Last year was rich with such triumphs. Do those triumphs serve progressive interests?

More on the topic tomorrow.

Tomorrow: Script runs on disappeared and irrelevant facts

19 comments:

  1. Why isn't this an example of peer pressure? Coates originally disagreed with a majority view held by African Americans, that Martin was an innocent brutally murdered. That seems to be the default position in any event in which an African American is killed. He resisted that view at first but ultimately succumbed to it. Is the narrative the most important aspect of this situation or is it the fact that anyone will be worn down by majority views over time? When someone is a member of a cohesive minority group that defines one's identity and existence, the pressure to conform seems even stronger. Why does Somerby expect people to be able to resist this?

    People express individual views until they hear the part line, then they all switch until they are all singing the same tune. Liberals do it, conservatives do it, people do it. It takes social courage to sing a different song. In most cases, there is no incentive to withstand pressure. You run the risk of having that group think coalesce around a view that you are evil and must be shunned, thrown out of the pack. Early survival depended on social inclusion. Survival today probably does too. What would happen to Coates if he lost his role as representative of African American sensibilities? Would he still be a columnist, would his books sell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point. One might stand to lose income or social standing if he refuses to attempt to imprison or otherwise ruin the life of a man he knows is innocent, against the wishes of a scapegoating mob, including a president.

      Those who choose to offer their assistance in imprisoning innocent men to demonstrate their Social Justice bona fides should be offered our love and understanding.

      Delete
    2. We have a justice system to protect people from mob rule (aka public opinion) and other forms of bias. Like the scientific method, it is one of the humanity's inventions to overcome the limitations of human nature.

      Delete
    3. How I Got Back My Lover (eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com)

      Hello, i am Kathie Sherine from Ohio, USA. I am so happy to get my Ex back through the help of Dr Eboehi the spell caster. My greatest surprise was that 48 hours after the Doctor prepared the spell for me, my husband who has abandoned me for 4 years suddenly called me unexpectedly and am so happy that we have come to become one again through the help of Dr Eboehi and am so happy to be with my husband once again. Dr Eboehi is a very wonderful spell caster, you can contact him if you need his assistant because i know he can also help you. contact him through his email: eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com or immediately reach him by text through his mobile number +1 (785) 815-6319

      Delete
  2. Was 2015 the year in which Bob Somerby takes a snippet of a writer's work out of context and contrasts it with something else to fit Bob's own meme that liberals are fools for not following Bob the Blogger from Baltimore?

    Many think it was, but as this post aeems to indicate, 2016 is no different than 2015. And 2015 was no different than every year Bob the Blogger has blogged to a smaller and smaller band of devotees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous Brings ItJanuary 19, 2016 at 3:09 PM

      If you could show how Coates supposedly is being misrepresented, you'd have something.

      But you have nothing, as always.

      Delete
    2. That you can't see it without explanation is why Bob still has a handful of believers.

      Delete
    3. I'm not the above writer, but I believe Coates is being misrepresented. When Somerby writes:

      > Drawing on personal experience, he said that Zimmerman did have reason to fear "death or great bodily harm"...

      Having read Coates' posting [1] and the referenced comments, I see no evidence of this. I see Coates acknowledging that the prosecutor was unable to prove Zimmerman's story false (because only one witness survived). He says that, if we believe Zimmerman's story, then yes, by his reading of Florida statute, Zimmerman must be acquitted.

      At no point does Coates say *he* believes Zimmerman's story, as Somerby says. In fact, Coates explicitly distances himself from that statement, writing that the beating is what "was said to be." He also refers to the beating as "Zimmerman's rendition of what happened" and "his version." Much of the rest of what Coates writes is hypothetical commentary that regards the statute. As far as I can see, he acknowledges only that "Martin did him some damage."

      Mr. Somerby, I hope you reread Coates' 2013 comments and acknowledge that your analysis needs to be amended or retracted. I find them to be wistful, bitter, and clear-minded, and not at all inconsistent with his 2015 book.

      [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/on-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin-by-george-zimmerman/277773/

      Delete
    4. Even splitting semantic hairs it does seem like Coates changed his view of the case.

      Delete
    5. 11:11: Exactly.

      But of course, Somerby thinks that, so it must be wrong.

      Delete
  3. Do those triumphs serve progressive interests?

    Sadly, I think they do. The false narratives over Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and the Duke Lacrosse team gave liberals something to rally about. E.g., my cousin, a City Councilman in NJ, led a local demonstration of people wearing hoodies to show their support for Martin.

    If we had an honest media, these "triumphs" would hurt liberals. Liberals would be branded as dupes and liars. But, the mainstream media pretty much allows liberals to get away with their fake stories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just like conservatives feed on a series of manufactured outrages.

      Delete
    2. Yes, conservatives do it too, when they can. But, the media treatment is different. The media rightfully castigated the ignorant birthers who claimed Obama was foreign-born. But, they didn't castigate people who hadn't followed the details of the Tryvon Martin shooting, but who claimed that Zimmerman had attacked Martin, that Martin was an angelic youth, etc. In fact, the media perpetrated these myths.

      Similarly, the media itself perpetrated the myth that the Duke Lacrosse team had done something wrong. Now that the accuser has been shown to be mentally unstable and has been found guilty of murder, do the media apologize? Do they castigate those who wrongly blamed the Lacrosse players? No.

      Delete
  4. "In our view, Coates provided a service that day. Whatever you think of his ultimate judgments, he offered a view of these events which was challenging to many of his readers—which flew in the face of their presuppositions."

    For progressives there were no presuppositions, only a willful selection and then defense of a narrative that would enable them to publicly hate a victim of a violent crime because of his skin color. The only exception a progressive would make to identifying the victim as a victim is if that victim had been himself, because those participating in these mob lynchings have little empathy, only an insatiable appetite for persecuting others while indulging self-righteous outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your SJW's get results. Blacks are now more miserable living in America than they have been in years, because they have been informed by low-IQ white progressives how bad their lives are and will always be. Doesn't matter that the case made for this miserable condition is based in lies and designed to make SJW feel good about themselves, as long as the targeted group buys in and continues to allow heroes to shine on MSNBC and Twitter.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of American Adults now think race relations in this country are getting worse, up from 44% a year ago and 30% as recently as January 2014. Only 20% believe race relations are getting better, a new low that compares to 38% five years ago. Twenty-six percent (26%) say race relations are staying about the same. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    Only 18% rate race relations in America today as good or excellent, unchanged from last year at this time but down from 34% two years ago. Thirty-three percent (33%) now consider race relations poor, up from 15% in 2011 and 29% last January.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rising expectations are a prerequisite to social change. They usually occur when things are getting better, not when they are terrible.

      Delete
    2. Rising expectations are a prerequisite to social change.

      Not necessarily. Italians, Irish, Asians, Jews and Mormons were once looked down upon and discriminated against. They just went about their lives. Over time society changed its attitude because they noticed the reality that these people were pretty much living good lives.

      Delete
  6. What a difference a day makes. Just yesterday some here tried to tell us MLK Jr. fighting injustices didn't do shit for whitey.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How I Got Back My Lover (eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com)

    Hello, i am Kathie Sherine from Ohio, USA. I am so happy to get my Ex back through the help of Dr Eboehi the spell caster. My greatest surprise was that 48 hours after the Doctor prepared the spell for me, my husband who has abandoned me for 4 years suddenly called me unexpectedly and am so happy that we have come to become one again through the help of Dr Eboehi and am so happy to be with my husband once again. Dr Eboehi is a very wonderful spell caster, you can contact him if you need his assistant because i know he can also help you. contact him through his email: eboehispellcaster@yahoo.com or immediately reach him by text through his mobile number +1 (785) 815-6319

    ReplyDelete