Trayvon Lives On

The news has been pouring with stories and different accounts of Trayvon Martin's shooting back in February. The simple story that has been spread around by major news sources such as the New York Times, is that a young African American in Florida-- 17 to be exact-- named Trayvon Martin, was shot by an armed community watch guard who suspected Trayvon of suspicious activity. Trayvon was unarmed at the time, and was carrying only an iced tea and a bag of skittles. Driving While Black is a pretty well known phenomenon, think of this is as Walking While Black. 


President Obama shared his sentiments on the atrocity later: "'I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this'". Obama understands that this is not just about one boy who was killed, this is about our entire attitudes as Americans towards people of different races. Mitt Romeny, the Republican presidential candidate, took a similar stance on the issue "'What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity'". 

Trayvon Martin

Some facts about the shootings that are much less well known are that Zimmerman, the community watch guard who shot Trayvon was a Hispanic American. I am not sure how exactly this affects my views on the shooting, but I definitely think that you could see this as an example of racial tension. Another lesser known fact is that Mr. Zimmerman had called 911 an astounding 46 times in the past eight years, which shows his paranoia and mental instability- no wonder the police did not come rushing to the scene when Zimmerman reported suspicious activity. Few people know why Trayvon was really there. He was there with his father to visit his father's fiance and son-- so he truly was minding his own business. Zimmerman is now in prison and has been charged with second degree murder. Thanks to the media, the police received enough public support to further investigate the case. Now, there is an extremely long Wikipedia page dedicated to the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". 


I personally find this whole case a giant upset for American progress. It has been centuries since we have been importing slaves to America. Segregation in public schools has been outlawed for about 50 years now. America now has its first African American president. Yet, after all of these improvements, I wonder in light of the Trayvon Martin shooting, how much has really changed? Is it possible that America has not in fact progressed, but began to regress?




Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/trayvon_martin/index.html?8qa
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/dear-al-sharpton-leave-trayvon-martin-alone.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

NIMBY

"NIMBY" I told my parents half jokingly. Over dinner, my parents informed me that the synagogue I live directly across the street from is trying to renovate their basement to form an apartment or home for a homeless family, which would house them. Instead of continually teaching the values of taking care of others and being generous, a bunch of churches and now this synagogue also, have decided to help solve the problem. Indeed, it is a noble idea. Its nobleness is the reason it is so difficult to oppose it and voice our opinions against it-- no one wants to be the one denying a homeless family a home.

When you wipe away all of the grandeur of the idea, you can begin to see the flaws. The three main causes of homelessness are crime, drug issues, and mental illness. These three things sadly make it hard to buy or rent a residence and make you an undesirable neighbor. But these reasons are the reasons that I am not in favor of having a homeless family as my neighbor: I question my safety. If you put yourself in my feet  you may agree. Do you really want to live next to someone with schizophrenia?

Beyond my worries about how this may affect me, I wonder how this will affect the homeless family. Family is a very vague term, and the details of what exactly will happen are vague too. But regardless of whether this is a parent with three children, or grandparents with a child and their spouse and their 24 year old son or daughter, how will they feel and manage. If the family cannot afford to maintain a residence, then how will their 10 year old daughter feel in the midst of label heaven (Glencoe is the second most fashionable town after all, see earlier post). As far as how an older family may manage, where will they do something like buy their groceries? At Grand Foods which only offers six dollar organic milk? I doubt it. Everything around here is more expensive, so situating someone with very very little money in an expensive neighborhood seems like a path to disaster.

Also, God forbid something goes wrong, like a theft for example, the defendants will not be suing the family, they do not have any money, they will be going after the synagogue.

Some questions that I have which I hope to be answered when more details are provided are 1) will the family pay taxes or are residents supposed to support them, and 2) will this be a stable housing unit for one family for an extended period of time or for shorter terms.

I am all for affordable housing but I think homelessness is a completely different case . In the end, is the synagogue solving the problem or using the family as a token of their support?



Note: "66% [of homeless people] report either substance use and/or mental health problems". For further reading, this article talks about homelessness.

Glencoe: The 2nd Most Fashionable Town in the U.S.

Apparently I live in the second most fashionable town in the entire United States. My sister texted me today saying that Glencoe was ranked the second most fashionable town in America.  I was aware of the fact that Glencoe, Illinois was one of the wealthiest towns in America, but this still came as a shock considering that while talking to kids and parents in Glencoe most labeled themselves "upper middle class". Maybe they are right and they really are upper middle class, or maybe they are unwilling to label themselves as upper class or even lower class. Recently in my American studies class we have been learning about how people identify themselves based on class, and how skewed people are. In a documentary we were watching, one person said "everyone considers themselves middle class". But why? 

I believe that the term middle class connotes something very American-- working hard and moving up. In my opinion, if you are in the upper middle class it is more likely that you have had to work for your money than if you are in the lower upper class or upper class. Upper class people have probably inherited money and have been given a little bit of a financial cushion making it more likely for them to remain in the upper class. These people are not quite fondly called "old money". Glencoe is a mix of old money and new money. The general consensus would be that it is marginally more "new money". I have a theory on why Glencoeans identify as upper middle class even though research would argue otherwise. Growing up, most of my parents generation was middle class. They got by fine but did not have a surplus of money. So, these people consider themselves middle class because that is what they are used to being. I believe it is hard to change classes, and these people know. Undoubtedly though, they have gained more wealth, which is shown in the amount per household spent on clothing. Still, it was hard for them to believe that they managed to believe that they had moved up but still acknowledged a little. Upper middle class became for them the compromise between being middle class and being upper class, and middle class still connotes that they had to work to get to where they are, it was not handed over. 

If my generation moves back to Glencoe, I expect Glencoe to shift to being a predominantly "old money" town. We would be "old money" because we grew up wealthy with such amenities as dressing nicely, and a college education to name a few. I think then, we may be willing to identify as upper class because having money will no longer be a foreign idea to our generation. 

(Note: the article can be found by clicking on this link)