The Zimmerman Martin saga and Class War

Stand your ground

“Stand Your Ground” by ID OM (CC)

 

Daniel Greenfield over at Sultan Knish has a fascinating angle on the George Zimmerman vs Trayvon Martin case:

Zimmerman is the latest Bernie Goetz…they both fill a similar niche. They represent the embattled lower half of the middle class.

To understand the Zimmerman case, you have to live in a neighborhood that has just enough property values to keep you paying the mortgage and just enough proximity to dangerous territories to make you feel like you’re living on the frontier.

 But the case isn’t about race…It’s about a struggling middle class in a precarious economy trying to hang on to what it has. And it’s about a culture of dropouts from the economy who celebrate thuggery and then pretend to be the victims. It’s doubtful that anyone in Zimmerman’s neighborhood who weathered multiple break-ins has much sympathy for the Martin family. And that’s one reason that the prosecution hasn’t found any useful witnesses.

 …George Zimmerman wanted to to be a cop…Both men were just going through the motions on the edge of a game of cops-and-robbers that suddenly turned deadly real. And even in a country where the thug tops the entertainment heap, the vulnerable parts of the middle class have more sympathy for aspiring cops than for aspiring thugs.

What are cops and thugs? Cops are the protectors of the middle class and thugs prey on the middle class. Not just any part of the middle class, but the vulnerable parts, the men and women without enough money and mobility to get out when neighborhoods turn bad. And then it all comes down to territory and who can intimidate whom. Either the cops intimidate the thugs or the thugs intimidate the cops.

 But the Zimmerman and Martin story is an American story…about a shaky middle class built on piles of debt trying to protect what’s left of its way of life while across the street, there’s the glamor of not working and scoring money any way you can.

It’s a culture clash of a primal kind. Settlers and nomads. Cops and robbers. Builders and destroyers. And it was never going to end well. The elites want the settlers to make way for the nomads, the cops to acknowledge their role in alienating the robbers and the builders to admit that their construction is really the destruction of the way of life of the destroyers. They don’t understand the struggling lower middle class and they don’t care to. They have a great deal of empathy for the Trayvon Martins swaggering around another neighborhood that decays at their touch, but none for the George Zimmermans, sweating, mopping their brows, worrying how they’re going to hold everything together.

Neighborhood watches don’t have to turn violent, but they exist because of the potential for violence in a society with plenty of law, but little order. The struggling middle class looks to the cops only to realize that the cops have their own job and it isn’t to protect them, it’s to protect each other. And so they become cops. It’s vigilantism of a sort and it’s a symptom of social collapse. But it’s also the attitude that helped make the United States happen.

That’s the real story behind the headlines, the agitprop and the circus of a public trial. It’s the reality that doesn’t get talked about much because it’s much less interesting than the straightforward story being fed into the presses. The one about an innocent young boy killed for no reason at all. It’s a story about what happens when people are backed into a corner and then told to stay there. It’s about a frightened middle class trying to survive. And it’s about territory.

Settlers make homes. Nomads walk in and out of them. Builders thrive on making things and destroyers on trashing them. Zimmerman picked his side of the coin and Martin picked his.  

Ireland’s Wars

There is a very articulate and entertaining young man blogging at Never Felt Better.

I am really enjoying his series on Ireland’s Wars.

He offers a very solid overview of some of the less well know aspects of Ireland’s military history. It is written in a contemporary “voice” that makes the stories and the analysis very accessible, using language and ideas from contemporary conflicts to illustrate points.

Very good blog and highly recommended.

Eristic

“Eristic, from the ancient Greek word Eris meaning wrangle or strife, often refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.

The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage in a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic. Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution.” via Eristic – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

See also “The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831:

The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sarcastic deadpan.[1] In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one’s opponent in a debate. He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated in ample measure on the rules of logic, but have not (especially since the time of Immanuel Kant) engaged with the darker art of the dialectic, of controversy. Whereas the purpose of logic is classically said to be a method of arriving at the truth, dialectic, says Schopenhauer, “…on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest.” via The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument