Trayvon Martin, The Media and the Hype

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

They kind of were. They thought everyone was equal and deserved equal rights and things regardless of "race".

Whow, you're referencing yourself as we now? God help us all.


But, this is irrelevant. Sudden extreme changes are not necessarily normal.

No. They were opposed to the institution of slavery. That does not in any way mean that they were in favor of equal rights.

None of us are ever the same.

Pretty sure they were. That was the idea at the time, anyways.

And even so, most the people in them were anti-racism as well. It's not really a coincidence.


It depends on what aspect you are referring to, But even if that's true, it's about the specific changes that occurred. Such as being crazy all the time.

Absolutely incorrect.

Incorrect.

We are not crazy.

Well I'm crazy, but who are you referencing?

So, the fact they were against slavery of people based on their skin color and the fact they were anti-racist was just a coincidence?

Us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

[The Living Force]

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Pretty sure they were. That was the idea at the time, anyways.

And even so, most the people in them were anti-racism as well. It's not really a coincidence.


It depends on what aspect you are referring to, But even if that's true, it's about the specific changes that occurred. Such as being crazy all the time.

Absolutely incorrect.

Incorrect.

We are not crazy.

Well I'm crazy, but who are you referencing?

So, the fact they were against slavery of people based on their skin color and the fact they were anti-racist was just a coincidence?

Us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?

Incorrect. Reread it.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Pretty sure they were. That was the idea at the time, anyways.

And even so, most the people in them were anti-racism as well. It's not really a coincidence.


It depends on what aspect you are referring to, But even if that's true, it's about the specific changes that occurred. Such as being crazy all the time.

Absolutely incorrect.

Incorrect.

We are not crazy.

Well I'm crazy, but who are you referencing?

So, the fact they were against slavery of people based on their skin color and the fact they were anti-racist was just a coincidence?

Us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?

Incorrect. Reread it.

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.


Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

[The Living Force]

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Well I'm crazy, but who are you referencing?

So, the fact they were against slavery of people based on their skin color and the fact they were anti-racist was just a coincidence?

Us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?

Incorrect. Reread it.

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the KONY2012 movement.

And, given the context within which we were discussing, why would black people being opposed to racism have any relevance? We were discussing the white population.

You are not the first person to give the tired argument that socioeconomics is the determiner of oppression as opposed to race, and you will not be the last. It does not make you right.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Well I'm crazy, but who are you referencing?

So, the fact they were against slavery of people based on their skin color and the fact they were anti-racist was just a coincidence?

Us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?

Incorrect. Reread it.

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the KONY2012 movement.

And, given the context within which we were discussing, why would black people being opposed to racism have any relevance? We were discussing the white population.

You are not the first person to give the tired argument that socioeconomics is the determiner of oppression as opposed to race, and you will not be the last. It does not make you right.

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

[The Living Force]

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?

Incorrect. Reread it.

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the KONY2012 movement.

And, given the context within which we were discussing, why would black people being opposed to racism have any relevance? We were discussing the white population.

You are not the first person to give the tired argument that socioeconomics is the determiner of oppression as opposed to race, and you will not be the last. It does not make you right.

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

No, it is not. White man's burden is the idea that white people helped minorities because they were helpless savages who needed white people lest they destroy themselves or be destroyed.

I take it history is not your strong suit, at all.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

So...

If a white person helps anyone who isn't white they are racist?

Incorrect. Reread it.

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the KONY2012 movement.

And, given the context within which we were discussing, why would black people being opposed to racism have any relevance? We were discussing the white population.

You are not the first person to give the tired argument that socioeconomics is the determiner of oppression as opposed to race, and you will not be the last. It does not make you right.

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

No, it is not. White man's burden is the idea that white people helped minorities because they were helpless savages who needed white people lest they destroy themselves or be destroyed.

I take it history is not your strong suit, at all.

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

[The Living Force]

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the KONY2012 movement.

And, given the context within which we were discussing, why would black people being opposed to racism have any relevance? We were discussing the white population.

You are not the first person to give the tired argument that socioeconomics is the determiner of oppression as opposed to race, and you will not be the last. It does not make you right.

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

No, it is not. White man's burden is the idea that white people helped minorities because they were helpless savages who needed white people lest they destroy themselves or be destroyed.

I take it history is not your strong suit, at all.

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

Incorrect. It was a very popular sociocultural trope, hence the prevalence of the noble savage stereotype that flooded the media around that time period.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Yeah, I just don't think that's the psychologically of many people.


Also, there were a lot of woman in the abolitionist movement.

As well as black people who lived in the north.

Although I think Rich person's burden more appropriate.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the KONY2012 movement.

And, given the context within which we were discussing, why would black people being opposed to racism have any relevance? We were discussing the white population.

You are not the first person to give the tired argument that socioeconomics is the determiner of oppression as opposed to race, and you will not be the last. It does not make you right.

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

No, it is not. White man's burden is the idea that white people helped minorities because they were helpless savages who needed white people lest they destroy themselves or be destroyed.

I take it history is not your strong suit, at all.

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

Incorrect. It was a very popular sociocultural trope, hence the prevalence of the noble savage stereotype that flooded the media around that time period.

And who controlled the media?

[The Living Force]

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

No, it is not. White man's burden is the idea that white people helped minorities because they were helpless savages who needed white people lest they destroy themselves or be destroyed.

I take it history is not your strong suit, at all.

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

Incorrect. It was a very popular sociocultural trope, hence the prevalence of the noble savage stereotype that flooded the media around that time period.

And who controlled the media?

The authors at the time. Otherwise, you wouldn't have found George Orwell writing Burmese Days and maintaining his freedom. Though he is a later example, which is to say if he could get away with scathing satire of British imperialism and colonialism, the media was not being controlled. State-run media is more recent than that.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

Right, so, people want to help other people, an they happen to be white, and the other people happen to be black, so it's racism?

Cause that's all you're really going on.


And we're talking about abolition. O_o

But yeah, I think that mentality is better suited for "rich people" who want to help out those darned poor peoplesz.

No, it is not. White man's burden is the idea that white people helped minorities because they were helpless savages who needed white people lest they destroy themselves or be destroyed.

I take it history is not your strong suit, at all.

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

Incorrect. It was a very popular sociocultural trope, hence the prevalence of the noble savage stereotype that flooded the media around that time period.

And who controlled the media?

The authors at the time. Otherwise, you wouldn't have found George Orwell writing Burmese Days and maintaining his freedom. Though he is a later example, which is to say if he could get away with scathing satire of British imperialism and colonialism, the media was not being controlled. State-run media is more recent than that.

Not really, you say anything bad about the queen you were likely to be shot. In that way lots of other things were in control of or encouraged, and many more things were discouraged.

Orwell? That was the end of colonialism and things.

[The Living Force]

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

Incorrect. It was a very popular sociocultural trope, hence the prevalence of the noble savage stereotype that flooded the media around that time period.

And who controlled the media?

The authors at the time. Otherwise, you wouldn't have found George Orwell writing Burmese Days and maintaining his freedom. Though he is a later example, which is to say if he could get away with scathing satire of British imperialism and colonialism, the media was not being controlled. State-run media is more recent than that.

Not really, you say anything bad about the queen you were likely to be shot. In that way lots of other things were in control of or encouraged, and many more things were discouraged.

Orwell? That was the end of colonialism and things.

And yet satire consistently got through.

The British Raj didn't end until 1947.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

The Living Force

Suicidesoldier#1

I'm not sure that's why people do things.

The British tried to use that as an excuse but it was only like the higher upsz for the justification of colonization, and then they were distinctly proven wrong and very few people believe that.

Incorrect. It was a very popular sociocultural trope, hence the prevalence of the noble savage stereotype that flooded the media around that time period.

And who controlled the media?

The authors at the time. Otherwise, you wouldn't have found George Orwell writing Burmese Days and maintaining his freedom. Though he is a later example, which is to say if he could get away with scathing satire of British imperialism and colonialism, the media was not being controlled. State-run media is more recent than that.

Not really, you say anything bad about the queen you were likely to be shot. In that way lots of other things were in control of or encouraged, and many more things were discouraged.

Orwell? That was the end of colonialism and things.

And yet satire consistently got through.

The British Raj didn't end until 1947.

Apartheid didn't end until 94, but that's a different story.

The colonial aspect was basically over.

[adorna bones]

Yeah, I still don't understand how it's logical to presume that someone would intentionally run away from an altercation - and then suddenly change their mind, double back, and approach their confronter.

I'm starting to think that people are just throwing "evidence" together now and trying to pass it off as fact.

[trayvonmartinpetition]

SIGN THIS PETITION

http://trayvonmartinpetition.togetherforjustice.com/

First Name Last Name Email
Address City
State
Outside U.S. Zip Code
Why are you signing? Add a reason (optional) . .
Display my signature publicly
By signing, you accept Change.org's terms of service

Help / Feedback • Press Inquiries
Prosecute the killer of our son, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin

Signatures
2,251,960 out of 2,500,000
Petitioning
Florida Attorney General (+ 3 others)
Created By
Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton
Sanford, FL

Why This Is Important

On February 26, our son Trayvon Martin was shot and killed as he walked to a family member's home from a convenience store where he had just bought some candy. He was only 17 years-old.

Trayvon's killer, George Zimmerman, admitted to police that he shot Trayvon in the chest. Zimmerman, the community's self appointed "neighborhood watch leader," called the police to report a suspicious person when he saw Travyon, a young black man, walking from the store. But Zimmerman still hasn't been charged for murdering our son.

Trayvon was our hero. At the age 9, Trayvon pulled his father from a burning kitchen, saving his life. He loved sports and horseback riding. At only 17 he had a bright future ahead of him with dreams of attending college and becoming an aviation mechanic. Now that’s all gone.

When Zimmerman reported Trayvon to the police, they told him not to confront him. But he did anyway. All we know about what happened next is that our 17 year-old son, who was completely unarmed, was shot and killed.

It's been nearly two weeks and the Sanford Police have refused to arrest George Zimmerman. In their public statements, they even go so far as to stand up for the killer - saying he's "a college grad" who took a class in criminal justice.

Please join us in calling on Angela Corey, Florida's 4th District State's Attorney, to investigate my son's murder and prosecute George Zimmerman for the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin.

http://trayvonmartinpetition.togetherforjustice.com/