(It’s worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn’t charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin’s cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)
But there’s a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There’s no such thing as “black-on-black” crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.
The Trayvon Martin killing maybe is set on American landscape but I have seen its aftereffects and similar procedural on many places where a dominant class and race kingpins its way to achieving a pseudo-amnesty based on the political and social bifurcation that democratically is also elected and standardized. In Burma, the killing of Muslims by Buddhist extremists were not documented much. In fact, that story lost circulation soon. When those survivors wanted refugee-status even in a small country like Bangladesh, that small country’s elitist government refused for refugee-ship is always bad publicity even if those people were trying to settle in the fringes ob Bangladesh away from major cities. The backlash came (though not discussed or even attached) to Muslims killing Buddhists indigenous in Bangladesh in Ramu and burning and destroying their sacred artifacts and possessions; the same situation that happened to Burma only to Muslims. These events were isolated and not connected for thety showed how both countries failed to handle and even protect their minorities and their citizens from racially augmented destruction. These countries do not accept racial discourses very easily. They practice a sense of homogeneity that even “First World Countries” do. The elite both racially and socially exclude narratives that do not reinforce the social hegemonic spectrum. In Bangladesh, this is both inter-religious and also intra-religious. The military bullies indigenous people in Chittagong Hill Tracts; the indigenous people either Buddhist or of another religion are bullied by mainstream. The garments industry girls who can be of Muslim origin can be raped and mutilated by other richer, upper class Muslims and forgotten about. Also, Burmese people have hardly cared about the Muslim population in Burma getting chased out of their country in such a brutal way. Minorities are developed as a social laboratory of things and elitist narratives protect the socially strong and push others towards weakness. Democracy is flawed as it gives the illusion that the majority is the working class when majority may not view themselves as such and may have corporate and bourgeois factors defining their identity. The majority with voting power and manipulating that power is usually that socially elite group. Democratic discourses do not usually include the minority or even give the minority the chance to speak. Subalternism is actually also present in a majority group, in the work force, in teacher-student politics and even family topography and man and woman and gendered dichotomies or anti-dichotomies or middle sanctioned gendered identities.