Strange Fruit

                               

Here's the link to the entire 1963 Documentary, Take This Hammer!

James Baldwin asks the question, "Who Is The Nigger?" Baldwin was probably the most acutely intelligent observer of American society and race in the pre civil rights era. This documentary, Take This Hammer eloquently dissects American racial attitudes and the evolution of the relationship in a way that could have not been done by any other person. Baldwin besides being one of the most eloquent thinkers of the era was uniquely qulaified to comment on the position of being an "outsider" being the "other". He was not only a black intellectual artist, he was gay, so he was ostracized with in his own sub group. Baldwin had to go outside of America for acceptance, yet he manages to present a vision in this documentary that goes way beyond the time he lived in.
Here’s part I of the documentary. I’m astounded by the clothing. The way people dressed back then – everyone in this clip is well dressed, “properly” dressed. It’s fascinating. Part of what’s fascinating is that there’s a discussion in some circles as to whether clothing and mode of dress impacts discrimination (the hoodie example comes to mind, but it’s not the only one). And while this doesn’t disprove that theory, since this is from 50 years ago, it is interesting to note that the African-Americans in this video looked impeccably dressed – what I’d call “preppy” today – but they were still discriminated against.
Here’s some of the more remarkable dialogue:
Young African-American kid: There ain’t gonna be no negro president of this country.
Baldwin: There will never be a negro president of this country. Why do you say that?
Kid: We can’t get jobs, how we gonna be a president?
Baldwin: Exactly. But, I want you to think about this. There will be a negro president of this country. But it will not be the country that we are sitting in now. 

Of course, this is about acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Florida murder case of Trayvon Martin. I have been involved in many on line discussions parsing the law as it is applied in Florida. The ultimate issue is not how the law was applied in this case or the lame verdict of the jury. The real issue is the Stand Your Ground Laws themselves! If you are interested, here is how I perceived the legal issues in the Florida trial and how the jury acted. I published this analysis on the Man With The MuckRake blog out of Northwestern, Ohio yesterday. It took me a few days to get from point A through to the end...and I have to admit that I haven't quite gotten to the end of it yet:
Have you ever served on a jury? I was selected to serve on 3 jury trials involving murder and attempted murders in NYC. The reason? I always answered the attorneys questions as honestly as possible. I expressed my distrust of the police and lawyers in general…I expressed my pessimism as to the effectivity of the American legals system as honestly as I could, naively thinking that this might disqualify me as a juror. Unfortunately, my penchant for honestly expressing my true feelings only seemed to seal my fate. The option of not guilty and acquital is real, but here is the legal breakdown of what options this jury was presented with in this trial and I will admit that under Florida law and the charges against Zimmrman, the jury’s verdict was ultimately a not guilty decision. Do I agree with it? Do I accept it? Simply, No..let me parse the legality of it for you and tell me what you think( warning, this could get tedious):
To secure a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors had to convince the jury that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved” state of mind — that is, with ill will, hatred or spite. Prosecutors said he demonstrated that when he muttered, “Fuck punks. These assholes. They always get away” during a call to police as he watched Martin walk through his neighborhood.
To win a manslaughter conviction, prosecutors had to convince the jury only that Zimmerman killed without lawful justification.
More on what a lawful justification is below.
The Washington Post notes that the jury was looking at the manslaughter charge, so they dismissed Second Degree murder:
Earlier Saturday, the jury had sent a note to Judge Debra Steinberg Nelson requesting clarification of instructions related to manslaughter, signaling that they were taking a hard look at the lesser of the two charges against the former neighborhood watch volunteer and sending a jolt through the courtroom and the crowd outside. Before starting deliberations, the jury was given a cautionary note by Nelson, who instructed them that “Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide.”
Negligence means there was no intent to kill, but you were so sloppy in your actions that you killed someone. You’re negligent when you leave a loaded gun near a child, and the child uses it and harms someone, but you didn’t intend for the child to harm someone.
“Without lawful justification” sounds like you still have to find that there was intent to kill. But if you find intent, in order to convict it has to be an intent that was not lawful – meaning, it wasn’t justified by self-defense, or you weren’t a cop who’s justified in shooting someone. That’s “justifiable homicide” – you intended to kill someone, but you were justified in doing it.
As for the other term, ”excusable homicide,” here’s what it means in the Florida statutes:
782.03 Excusable homicide.—Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
That’s a long definition. It actually contains 3 independent definitions of excusable homicide – if you can prove any of the three, you’re off the hook.
In order to meet the first definition of excusable homicide you need to meet all of the following four elements:

1. By accident: You drop a vase of water accidentally, it breaks, someone near you slips on the water and breaks their neck; and
2. It also has to be while doing something lawful – meaning, if you accidentally kill someone while committing a crime, it’s not excusable homicide; and
3. You have to be exercising usual caution: You can’t be negligent in doing whatever you did that accidentally led to someone else dying; and
4. You can’t have had any unlawful intent: That one’s interesting. It think it means that if I was intending to kill you, and I accidentally drop the vase, you trip on the water and die – my intent was still unlawful. So even if it was an accident, they might not let me off the hook.

But there’s a second definition that can independently count as “excusable homicide”:

1. By accident; and
2. It was the heat of passion and you were suddenly provoked to a significant degree.

I’m not entirely sure I understand this second defense. I think that may be saying that the other elements in the first definition – that you were doing something lawful, that you were exercising caution, and that you didn’t have an unlawful intent may not be necessary for this second definition of “excusable homicide” if it was the heat of passion and you were suddenly provoked to a significant degree. I wonder if this isn’t the reason the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.
And the third definition of excusable homicide in the law says that you were suddenly in a fight, and no dangerous weapon was used, yet the other guy died – that clearly doesn’t apply to this case, as there was a gun.
The not guilty verdict means the jury of six women found that Zimmerman justifiably used deadly force and reasonably believed that such force was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to himself — Florida’s definition of self-defense.

Here's what is perhaps the most powerful political song ever recorded in America and the original and definitive version by Billie Holliday, Strange Fruit:

The forces of fascism and fear are rampantly panicking in America and desperately trying to stop reality. Like dinosaurs bellowing at their inevitable oblivion, they are trying to use brute force to halt the clock, to turn back time to segregation and McCarthyism. You can't stop reality.

We Ain't Never Turning Back!