Gawker Media’s best columnist, Hamilton Nolan, offers an editorial based off what Kathleen Parker said in response to the verdict of the Trayvon Martin murder case (full text here).
Nolan is right to rail against the hypocrisies apparent in profiling and, ultimately, Parker’s justification regarding Zimmerman’s concern over a black boy wearing a hoodie on his street. Unfortunately, Parker is right, regarding this being considered common sense. Obviously, this is an incorrect, fallible argument. But, the better part of human existence, from whose collective dark ages we continue to emerge, have made this hallmark of our primal need to defend territory and space. In essence, Parker’s argument is a sociobiological need to define what Other means, where that Other’s space is, and when and how they have access to Our space, time, or perception.
Respective of the Spenserian nature of Parker’s argument, humans essentially speciate across cultural variables. We are not racially different from each other. Race is a commodity now, especially in the U.S., where things are purchased and sold off what they do to impact one’s identity as a member of X racial subcategory (e.g.: Polo represents a particular set of imbued, traditionally northeastern geographically, white principles and sensibilities). Whereas by breaking the argument from race into a particular sense of spatial protection, Parker avoids the commentary of “you’re a damned racist!” However, this application relies off this principle: Natural Selection is an active and measurable means of fitness in humans. Growing hence, if this is the case, then those that are most successful (off mainly predetermined, ascribed, and purchased cultural variables) are the most Fit members of any given society. Therefore, in Spenser’s time, the factory owner was the most Fit member of society.
These are the implications of Parker’s argument. Now, we know full well that genetically speaking that Natural Selection is not at play when it comes to humanity, rather most people have more capability to pass their genes along with relative ease. There are no excluded members and most frequently people of the lowest socio-economic status have the highest probability of having larger family sizes. This fairly much refutes the points of Natural Selection as a determining factor of humanity; however, there are more, and her argument relates to racial profiling.
Yet, couched in its origins, we find that racial profiling occurs nearly everywhere (Crusaders v. Muslims, East v West, &c). However, the point is not to continue a disgusting means through which to view the world; rather, it’s to use logic and reason to get past it. This is something that a lot of people are unable to do. Remember, insanity in a person is rare, but in governments, groups, nations, and time, it is the rule (Nietzsche). Don’t be swayed by faulty arguments. Zimmerman’s approach to the situation, if founded off racial profiling was wrong.