The Daily Caller is published by Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson is a man who once informed us, on national television, that he'd assaulted a gay man for subjecting him to the sort of treatment which nearly all of women-kind experiences hourly. This is not the assumption of a violent handle, or the quotation of rap lyrics it is the admitted commission of actual violence. Moreover, it's the kind of violence that's routinely dismissed as pathological in black boys, as well as the kind that had it ever been committed by Trayvon Martin would immediately serve as irrefutable evidence that he deserved to slaughtered in the street.Coates continues:
I would not withhold the life of Trayvon Martin from scrutiny and investigation. When someone claims a vicious assault upon their person--as George Zimmerman has--it is only intelligent to investigate the relevant background of the alleged assailant. It certainly is relevant to ask what, precisely, Martin was suspended for. It surely is important to ask if Martin had a history of violence. Whether or not Martin had a criminal record, most certainly is pertinent.Excuse me, Ta-Nehisi, but I'd like to take that one.
But what, precisely, is the relevance of wearing gold grills? What, specifically, is the pertinence of having once given an obscene gesture? Why, exactly, does it matter that Martin's imagination sometimes ranged into profane thoughts of sex and violence? How does any of this help us understand his killing at the hands of by George Zimmerman?
See, some people think they know what Martin was really like, something MSNBC will never tell you: Trayvon was just another n****r. So this country, real America, is better off with him gone. Now normally, thanks to all us horrible politically correct un-American non-gun-loving liberals, "These assholes always get away." Well here's one who didn't.
Zimmerman's killing of Martin reflects paranoid racist America's Id. So there's a greater storyline here, a patriotic battle, a veritable Zoroastrian conflict between the forces of light and dark, good and evil. Martin represents the dark, thus Zimmerman must be on the side of light. And if you believe that, then your Id does contorted cartwheels of logic to justify Zimmerman's actions. "You see," blurts Id, "Martin was a thug. A criminal. An asshole. A bad egg. He might have even been looking for a house to break into. I mean, we've never found the skittles, have we?!" Id just knows this to be true. Maybe can't prove it, but believes it to the end.
But, I'm sorry to cut you off, Ta-Nehisi. You were saying?
It does not--unless you believe that the fact that Martin once gave a middle finger to a camera somehow proves that he is the sort of person who would saunter up to a man who outweighs by nearly 100 pounds, summon the powers of Thor, deck the man with one-shot, and stove him against concrete. We do not draw such conclusions from most teenagers, or even most people. That those who see nothing wrong with labeling a black man as a "Food Stamp President," would draw them in the case of young black boy cannot be dismissed as coincidental.And Coates again:
I'm sorry that Trayvon Martin's actual appearance obstructs your inalienable right to scandalize children. That you are forced into cartwheels, and rendered ridiculous, all in the laudable quest to justify bias is the true tragedy, one which pales when compared to an actual death. If I have in any way, contributed to your travails, I hope that some day you will be wise enough, or simply human enough, to forgive.To say Zimmerman's actions were reprehensible but perhaps legally covered by the horrible and deeply flawed Stand-Your-Ground law is one thing. But I find it deeply troubling when people want to see everything through a prism that somehow morally justifies the death of Trayvon Martin.