I don't know how you can talk at length about George Floyd's death without mentioning that Officer Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes, long after he lost consciousness and stopped breathing, as many bystanders pointed out. The ME's finding of death by asphyxiation is the cause, but not the manner, of death. The manner was clearly murder, and Chauvin was convicted of that.
You are contradicting expert testimony from government (prosecutorial) witnesses, which I deliberately held back from doing. I did not want to play armchair analyst by picking winners and losers from the facts of the case, which I watched as it unfolded, with legal analyst commentary--if you have not done so, I recommend it. Instead, I noted the jury's finding and the only conclusion that matters for the purposes of my discussion:
*Floyd's killing was racist ONLY because of a malicious white perpetrator, period.*
Every single thing that happened to Floyd lacked any observable racist quality, such as a racial slur, or someone muttering "got that black man." At no point in the trial did the prosecution provide or claim to provide evidence of racism. The jury was not asked to find racism and did not find racism; they found murder through excessive use of force, which is excessive and forceful and murder, not racist.
*My* discussion was not about Floyd. It was about last month's MAGA/media talk around the train murder, with the Chauvin/Floyd case serving only as a baseline standard for a racist killing. Even if we add your claim about precisely when Floyd lost consciousness, it does not change my discussion in any way.
Do you disagree? How so?
By the way, if you have not done your onboarding work yet, it is a short series starting at https://www.twadpocklereport.com/p/welcome-twadpockle as linked in your first Twadpockle email. It may help you navigate the narrative collisions that you will continue to encounter if you keep following the Twadpockle Report.
Let's do this: I'll acknowledge, readily, that not every incident or encounter involving people of differing races is ipso facto racist. I'll add that a (white) friend of mine many years ago (late 60s, amid racial turmoil) said that he looked forward to a day when he could be allowed to dislike a Black person. So we're on the same page there.
And I'll note that I too watched all or most of the Chauvin trial as it occurred, and heard much of the expert testimony. To which I can only answer that so did the jury, and they convicted Chauvin of second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter. But no, not racism.
Racism is hard. I'm white, and can probably never fully appreciate how pervasive and demeaning racism is in our country. But those few Black friends who have been comfortable talking to me about it assured me that it is emphatically so, and these are thoughtful people who I do not suspect of seeing it when it isn't there. In that context, I'm inclined to accept that some events are readily perceived as racist by minorities, when us majorities may not necessarily see them as such. What I do know is that there is a hell of a lot of racism around us, and it's pernicious. I was once accused of racism by a non-white co-worker who perceived condescension in some assistance I offered her. Which it absolutely was not; I simply didn't realize that the particular situation, which was new to me, was familiar to her. I then asked if she understood that her assumption that I was racist, based only upon my white skin, was itself racist. And after a moment's thought, she agreed.
Trump's cohort, the MAGA crowd, are prone to all kinds of sweeping generalizations and tribal thinking (antifa, anyone?), and I don't yet see a path out of that. Trump insists he's not racist, but his hand-picked team of incompetents is systematically weeding out Black and female members. By their fruits shall ye know them.
You use a lot of words, B.G., and it's sometimes difficult to extract your main point. I did not, for example, understand your emphasis on the ME's finding in the George Floyd case, and was struck by your seeming avoidance of the main fact of the murder itself. But I'm ok now, really.
That's what I mean about boning up on narrative collisions. My main point is always the narrative collision, and its revealing burst of discernium. In this post, the Floyd case is baseline and reference beam. If I omit a mass-approval talking point, and you find yourself lurching against its absence, the lurch may have been the point. Or it may not have been relevant. If I do my job well, you'll never know. ;) Thanks for your reply.
Nice job on the song and the analysis.
Thanks! It had been a long time since I recorded anything musical. As raw as it was, I found it very satisfying.
"All the Whos in Whoville..."
Dang, man. I wish I'd thought of that as a reference.
I don't know how you can talk at length about George Floyd's death without mentioning that Officer Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes, long after he lost consciousness and stopped breathing, as many bystanders pointed out. The ME's finding of death by asphyxiation is the cause, but not the manner, of death. The manner was clearly murder, and Chauvin was convicted of that.
You are contradicting expert testimony from government (prosecutorial) witnesses, which I deliberately held back from doing. I did not want to play armchair analyst by picking winners and losers from the facts of the case, which I watched as it unfolded, with legal analyst commentary--if you have not done so, I recommend it. Instead, I noted the jury's finding and the only conclusion that matters for the purposes of my discussion:
*Floyd's killing was racist ONLY because of a malicious white perpetrator, period.*
Every single thing that happened to Floyd lacked any observable racist quality, such as a racial slur, or someone muttering "got that black man." At no point in the trial did the prosecution provide or claim to provide evidence of racism. The jury was not asked to find racism and did not find racism; they found murder through excessive use of force, which is excessive and forceful and murder, not racist.
*My* discussion was not about Floyd. It was about last month's MAGA/media talk around the train murder, with the Chauvin/Floyd case serving only as a baseline standard for a racist killing. Even if we add your claim about precisely when Floyd lost consciousness, it does not change my discussion in any way.
Do you disagree? How so?
By the way, if you have not done your onboarding work yet, it is a short series starting at https://www.twadpocklereport.com/p/welcome-twadpockle as linked in your first Twadpockle email. It may help you navigate the narrative collisions that you will continue to encounter if you keep following the Twadpockle Report.
Thanks for reading (listening) and commenting!
Let's do this: I'll acknowledge, readily, that not every incident or encounter involving people of differing races is ipso facto racist. I'll add that a (white) friend of mine many years ago (late 60s, amid racial turmoil) said that he looked forward to a day when he could be allowed to dislike a Black person. So we're on the same page there.
And I'll note that I too watched all or most of the Chauvin trial as it occurred, and heard much of the expert testimony. To which I can only answer that so did the jury, and they convicted Chauvin of second degree murder, third degree murder, and manslaughter. But no, not racism.
Racism is hard. I'm white, and can probably never fully appreciate how pervasive and demeaning racism is in our country. But those few Black friends who have been comfortable talking to me about it assured me that it is emphatically so, and these are thoughtful people who I do not suspect of seeing it when it isn't there. In that context, I'm inclined to accept that some events are readily perceived as racist by minorities, when us majorities may not necessarily see them as such. What I do know is that there is a hell of a lot of racism around us, and it's pernicious. I was once accused of racism by a non-white co-worker who perceived condescension in some assistance I offered her. Which it absolutely was not; I simply didn't realize that the particular situation, which was new to me, was familiar to her. I then asked if she understood that her assumption that I was racist, based only upon my white skin, was itself racist. And after a moment's thought, she agreed.
Trump's cohort, the MAGA crowd, are prone to all kinds of sweeping generalizations and tribal thinking (antifa, anyone?), and I don't yet see a path out of that. Trump insists he's not racist, but his hand-picked team of incompetents is systematically weeding out Black and female members. By their fruits shall ye know them.
You use a lot of words, B.G., and it's sometimes difficult to extract your main point. I did not, for example, understand your emphasis on the ME's finding in the George Floyd case, and was struck by your seeming avoidance of the main fact of the murder itself. But I'm ok now, really.
Perhaps the simplest way to see my actual point: Chauvin slashes Floyd's throat and mumbles, "got that black boy"; how does this affect the case?
That's what I mean about boning up on narrative collisions. My main point is always the narrative collision, and its revealing burst of discernium. In this post, the Floyd case is baseline and reference beam. If I omit a mass-approval talking point, and you find yourself lurching against its absence, the lurch may have been the point. Or it may not have been relevant. If I do my job well, you'll never know. ;) Thanks for your reply.