Ta-Nehisi Coates's Blog, page 40

Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice

A photograph that appeared in a chain e-mail about Trayvon Martin. In fact, the man in the photo is a 32-year-old rapper considerably larger than the slain 16-year-old.

In trying to assess the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicting truths emerge for me. The first is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice. In examining the first conclusion, I think it's important to take a very hard look at the qualifications allowed for aggressors by Florida's self-defense statute:

 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm." It is then the state's job to prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury:

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

There has been a lot of complaint that "stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. That contention is contravened by the fact that it is cited in the instructions to the jury. Taken together, it is important to understand that it is not enough for the state to prove that George Zimmerman acted unwisely in following Martin. Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had no responsibility to -- at any point -- retreat. The state must prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life. Moreover, it is not enough for the jury to find Zimmerman's story fishy. Again the jury instructions:

George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome George Zimmerman's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.

George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.

This was the job given to the state of Florida. I have seen nothing within the actual case presented by the prosecution that would allow for a stable and unvacillating belief that George Zimmerman was guilty.

That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

One need only look the criminalization of Martin across the country. Perhaps you have been lucky enough to not receive the above "portrait" of Trayvon Martin and its accompanying text. The portrait is actually of a 32-year old man. Perhaps you were lucky enough to not see the Trayvon Martin imagery used for target practice (by law enforcement, no less.) Perhaps you did not see the iPhone games. Or maybe you missed the theory presently being floated by Zimmerman's family that Martin was a gun-runner and drug-dealer in training, that texts and tweets he sent mark him as a criminal in waiting. Or the theory floated that the mere donning of a hoodie marks you a thug, leaving one wondering why this guy is a criminal and this one is not.

We have spent much of this year outlining the ways in which American policy has placed black people outside of the law. We are now being told that after having pursued such policies for 200 years, after codifying violence in slavery, after a people conceived in mass rape, after permitting the disenfranchisement of black people through violence, after Draft riots, after white-lines, white leagues, and red shirts, after terrorism, after standing aside for the better reduction of Rosewood and the improvement of Tulsa, after the coup d'etat in Wilmington, after Airport Homes and Cicero, after Ossian Sweet, after Arthur Lee McDuffie, after Anthony Baez, Amadou Diallo and Eleanor Bumpers, after Kathryn Johnston and the Danziger Bridge, that there are no ill effects, that we are pure, that we are just, that we are clean. Our sense of self is incredible. We believe ourselves to have inherited all of Jefferson's love of freedom, but none of his affection for white supremacy.

You should not be troubled that George Zimmerman "got away" with the killing of Trayvon Martin, you should be troubled that you live in a country that ensures that Trayvon Martin will happen. Trayvon Martin is happening again in Florida. Right now:

In November, black youth Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old Jacksonville resident, was the only person murdered after Michael Dunn, 46, allegedly shot into the SUV Davis was inside several times after an argument about the volume of music playing.

According to Dunn's girlfriend, Rhonda Rouer, Dunn had three rum and cokes at a wedding reception. She felt secure enough for him to drive and thought that he was in a good mood. On the drive back to the hotel they were residing at, they made a pit stop at the convenience store where the murder occurred. At the Gate Station, Rouer said Dunn told her that he hated "thug music." Rouer then went inside the store to make purchases and heard several gunshots while she was still within the building.

Upon returning and seeing Dunn put his gun back into the glove compartment, Rouer asked why he had shot at the car playing music and Dunn claimed that he feared for his life and that "they threatened to kill me." The couple drove back to their hotel, and claim they did not realize anyone had died until the story appeared on the news the next day.

After killing Jordan Davis, Michael Dunn ordered a pizza.

When you have a society that takes at its founding the hatred and degradation of a people, when that society inscribes that degradation in its most hallowed document, and continues to inscribe hatred in its laws and policies, it is fantastic to believe that its citizens will derive no ill messaging.

It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended. To expect our juries, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final play in the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn't come back from twenty-four down.

To paraphrase a great man: We are what our record says we are. How can we sensibly expect different?

       

Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice

In trying to assess the the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicted truths emerge for me. The first is that is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice. In examining the first conclusion, I think it's important to take a very hard look at the qualifications allowed for aggressors by Florida's self-defense statute:

 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I don't think the import of this is being appreciated. Effectively, I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can can legally kill you, provided I "believe" myself to be subject to "great bodily harm." It is then the state's job to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. In the case of George Zimmerman, even if the state proved that he baited an encounter (and I am not sure they did) they still must prove that he had no reasonable justification to fear for his life. You see very similar language in the actual instructions given to the jury:

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

There has been a lot of complaint that "stand your ground" has nothing to do with this case. That contention is contravened by the fact that it is cited in the instructions to the jury. Taken together, it is important to understand that it is not enough for the state to prove that George Zimmerman acted unwisely in following Martin. Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had no responsibility to--at any point--retreat. The state must prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life. Moreover, it is not enough for the jury to find Zimmerman's story fishy. Again the jury instructions:

George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome George Zimmerman's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime.

George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of George Zimmerman may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find George Zimmerman guilty.

This was the job given to the state of Florida. I have seen nothing within the actual case presented by the prosecution that would allow for a stable and unvacillating belief that George Zimmerman was guilty.

That conclusion should not offer you security or comfort. It should not leave you secure in the wisdom of our laws. On the contrary, it should greatly trouble you. But if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a idea of fairness which can not possibly exist.

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

One need only look the criminalization of Martin across the country. Perhaps you have been lucky enough to not receive the above "portrait" of Trayvon Martin and its accompanying tex. The portrait is actually of a 32-year old man. Perhaps your were lucky enough to not see the Trayvon Martin imagery used for target practice (by law enforcement, no less.) Perhaps you did not see the iPhone games. Or maybe you missed the theory presently being floated by Zimmerman's family that Martin was a gun-runner and drug-dealer in training, that texts and tweets he sent mark him as a criminal in waiting. Or the theory floated that the mere donning of a hoodie marks you a thug, leaving one wondering why this guy is a criminal and this was one is not.

We have spent much of this year outlining the ways in which American policy has placed black people outside of the law. We are now being told that after having pursued such policies for 200 years, after codifying violence in slavery, after a a people conceived in mass rape, after permitting the disenfranchisement of black people through violence, after Draft riots, after white-lines, white leagues, and red shirts, after terrorism, after standing aside for the better reduction of Rosewood and the improvement of Tulsa, after the coup d'etat in Wilmington, after Airport Homes and Cicero, after Ossian Sweet, after Arthur Lee McDuffie, after Anthony Baez, Amadou Diallo and Eleanor Bumpers, after Kathryn Johnston and the Danziger Bridge, that there are no ill effects, that we are pure, that we are just, that we are clean. Our sense of self is incredible. We believe ourselves to have inherited all of Jefferson's love of freedom, but none of his dependence on slavery.

You should not be troubled that George Zimmerman "got away" with the killing of Trayvon Martin, you should be troubled that you live in a country that ensures that Trayvon Martin will happen. Trayvon Martin is happening again in Florida. Right now:

In November, black youth Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old Jacksonville resident, was the only person murdered after Michael Dunn, 46, allegedly shot into the SUV Davis was inside several times after an argument about the volume of music playing.

According to Dunn's girlfriend, Rhonda Rouer, Dunn had three rum and cokes at a wedding reception. She felt secure enough for him to drive and thought that he was a good mood. On the drive back to the hotel they were residing at, they made a pit stop at the convenience store where the murder occurred. At the Gate Station, Rouer said Dunn told her that he hated "thug music." Rouer then went inside the store to make purchases and heard several gunshots while she was still within the building.

Upon returning and seeing Dunn put his gun back into the glove compartment, Rouer asked why he had shot at the car playing music and Dunn claimed that he feared for his life and that "they threatened to kill me." The couple drove back to their hotel, and claim they did not realize anyone had died until the story appeared on the news the next day.

After killing Jordan Davis, Michael Dunn ordered a pizza.

When you have society which takes at its founding the hatred and degradation of a people, when that society inscribes that degradation in its most hallowed document, and continues to inscribe hatred in its laws and policies, it is fantastic to believe that its citizens will derive no ill messaging.

It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working exactly as it should, given all of its programming. To expect our courts, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn't come back from twenty-four down.

To paraphrase a great man--We are what our record says we are. How can we sensibly expect different?

       

Stay Classy Robert Zimmerman

On CNN Don Lemon asks Robert Zimmerman how he plans to "start a dialogue." Zimmerman responds as follows:

I want to know what makes people angry enough to attack someone the way that Trayvon Martin did. I want to know if it is true, and I don't know if it's true, that Trayvon Martin was looking to procure firearms, was growing marijuana plants... I want to know that every minor, high-schooler, that would be reaching out in some way for help, and they may feel it's by procuring firearms or whatever they may be doing, that they have some kind of help. I think that's what George was trying to do when he mentored two black children.

It is good to know that there are heroic mentors of black children out there who will--at all costs--make sure guns only find there way into the responsible hands of our most level-headed citizens. 
Thank you Robert Zimmerman. I feel safer already.        

On the Killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to offer some thoughts on the verdict of innocent for George Zimmerman:

1.) Last year -- after Zimmerman was arrested -- I wrote something hoping that he would be convicted. A commenter wrote in to object, saying that arguing for his arrest was justifiable. Arguing for his conviction was not. I acknowledged the point at the time. The wisdom of it seems even more appropriate today.
2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.
3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out of the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by a 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him "you're going to die tonight" strikes me as very implausible.  It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and that Zimmerman then shot him.  But I didn't see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I'm not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.
4.) I think Andrew Cohen is right -- trials don't work as strict "moral surrogates." Not everything that is immoral is illegal -- nor should it be. I want to live in a society that presumes innocence. I want to live in that society even when I feel that a person should be punished. 
5.) I think you should read everything my friend Jelani Cobb has 6.) I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living. 
An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did -- buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law, and then wait. 
7.) Circling back to the first point, it's worth remembering that what caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all.  This case was really unique because of what happened with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him.         

On The Killing Of Trayvon Martin By George Zimmerman

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming to offer some thoughts on the verdict of innocent for George Zimmerman:

1.) Last year--after Zimmerman was arrested--I wrote something hoping that he would be convicted. A commenter wrote in to object, saying that arguing for his arrest was justifiable. Arguing for his conviction was not. I acknowledged the point at the time. The wisdom of it seems even more appropriate today.
2.) I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses.
3.) The idea that Zimmerman got out of the car to check the street signs, was ambushed by 17-year old kid with no violent history who told him he "you're going to die tonight" strikes me as very implausible.  It strikes me as much more plausible that Martin was being followed by a strange person, that the following resulted in a confrontation, that Martin was getting the best of Zimmerman in the confrontation, and Zimmerman then shot him.  But I didn't see the confrontation. No one else really saw the confrontation. Except George Zimmerman. I'm not even clear that situation I outlined would result in conviction.
4.) I think Andrew Cohen is right--trials don't work as strict "moral surrogates." Everything that is immoral is not illegal--nor should it be. I want to live in a society that presumes innocence. I want to live in that society even when I feel that a person should be punished. 
5.) I think you should read everything my friend Jelani Cobb has 6.) I think the message of this episode is unfortunate. By Florida law, in any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living. 
An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did--buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law and then wait. 
7.) Circling back to the first point, it's worth remembering that caused a national outcry was not the possibility of George Zimmerman being found innocent, but that there would be no trial at all.  This case was really unique because of what happend with the Sanford police. If you doubt this, ask yourself if you know the name "Jordan Davis." Then ask yourself how many protests and national media reports you've seen about him. 
       

French Is a No-Huddle Offense

I spent most of Wednesday evening and Thursday morning studying--catching up on missed work, and preparing myself for a review of work from the day before. My class was working on understanding directions and descriptions. In English, this would consist of saying simple things like "the chairs are under the table" or "the book is on the desk" or "the couch is in front of the plants." I spent quite a bit of time drilling myself on furniture names and drilling myself on directions with the classic flash-card technique. I was doing pretty well at home. I knew the information. I was very proud of myself.

But there's a difference between knowing something and understanding it--a fact I quickly discovered (again) when I was called before class to describe my living room. The words came slower. I kept mangling masculine and feminine, misplacing prepositions, and otherwise making a mockery my chosen second language. My teacher corrected me at every turn and then shook her head when I was done.
I don't know how French is taught in public school these days, but when I was a kid, it was basically the consume and regurgitate method. You learned the conjugation, and then you filled in the blanks. You looked at pictures of various weather, and then you filled in the blanks. You learned language in two dimensions, not as it was actually practiced. Imagine testing someone in math by seeing if they have memorized a bunch of theorems, but never having them solve for anything. I know many people who took French for many years in school and never became fluent. I suspect it is the difference between knowing something and understanding it.
THE ATLANTIC IN PARIS

Dispatches From Ta-Nehisi Coates

Consider the NFL. A pro football player must memorize an entire playbook with many, many plays. And it is not enough for him to simply memorize them. He must be able to recognize them when called, and recognize the roles of others, and recognize his role and then execute. Very often games are lost, not because someone was stronger or faster but because a guard pulled when he shouldn't have, a center botched the snap count, or a safety blew his coverage responsibilities. The player may have memorized all the plays (which is to say he may "know" all the plays) but recognizing and executing in real-time is something different. 
The great wide-receivers are generally fast, but often what sets them apart is the ability to run the exact route called, with exacting precision and exactly where the quarterback needs them to be. This gets complicated. There may be a "read" at the line of scrimmage, which is to say a play might be called in the huddle, but the receiver must recognize the need to change right at the moment. The team might be running a "no-huddle" offense, which means the players must hear the huddle at the line and execute almost immediately. 
Spoken language is a no-huddle offense. Those who conversate must comprehend all the parts of speech and their particular application in context, as surely as the receiver must comprehend his particular route within a play called at the line. It is not enough to simply scribble down all your routes on flash-cards and recognize a post from a down and out. 
My favorite example of this comes from hip-hop and the art of freestyle. A great freestyle MC can take concepts fed him in them moment, interpret them, all while staying on beat. I don't play any instruments and I can't read music, but I have been told that there is a similar act of improvisation happening in jazz and even more in be-bop. Perhaps at some point I will learn to hear it. 
The only way to become good at this is practice, and as with any form, it is very hard to carve out time for reps. I have a good teacher here in Paris. But there are fourteen kids in the class and getting through the material takes much of our time. Written exercises are easier because students can work on their own, or in pairs. Oral reps require someone with expertise listening and correcting. I'll probably sign up for extra oral work next week.        

French Is A No Huddle Offense

I spent most of Wednesday evening and Thursday morning studying--catching up on missed work, and preparing myself for a review of work from the day before. My class was working on understanding directions and descriptions. In English, this would consist of saying simple things like "the chairs are under the table" or "the book is on the desk" or "the couch is in front of the plants." I spent quite a bit of time drilling myself on furniture names and drilling myself on directions with the classic flash-card technique. I was doing pretty well at home. I knew the information. I was very proud of myself.

But there's a difference between knowing something and understanding it--a fact which I quickly discovered (again) when I was called before class to describe my living room. The words came slower. I kept mangling masculine and feminine, misplacing prepositions and otherwise making a mockery my chosen second language. My teacher corrected me at every turn and then shook her head when I was done.
I don't know how French is taught in public school these days, but when I was kid, it was basically the consume and regurgitate method. You learned the conjugation, and then you filled in the blanks. You looked at pictures of various weather, and then you filled in the blanks. You learned language in two dimensions, not as it was actually practiced. Imagine testing someone in math by seeing if they have memorized a bunch of theorems, but never having them solve for anything. I know many people who took French for many years in school and never became fluent. I suspect it is the difference between knowing something and understanding it.
Consider the NFL. An pro football player must memorize an entire playbook with many, many plays. And it is not enough for him to simply memorize them, he must be able to recognize them when called, and recognize the roles of others, and recognize his role and then execute. Very often games are lost, not because someone was stronger or faster, but because a guard pulled when he shouldn't have, because a center botched the snap count, or because a safety blew his coverage responsibilities. The player may have memorized all the plays (which is to say he may "know" all the plays) but recognizing and executing in real-time is something different. 
The great wide-receivers are generally fast, but often what sets them apart is the ability to run the exact route called, with exacting precision and be exactly where the quarterback needs them to be. This gets complicated. There may be a "read" at the line of scrimmage, which is to say a play might be called in the huddle, but the receiver must recognize the need to change right at the moment. The team might be running a "no-huddle" offense which means the players must hear the huddle at the line and execute almost immediately. 
Spoken language is a no-huddle offense.  Those who conversate must comprehend all the parts of speech and their particular application in context, as surely as the receiver must comprehend his particular route within a play called at the line. It is not enough to simply scribble down all your routes on flash-cards and recognize a post from a down and out. 
My favorite example of this comes from hip-hop and the art of freestyle. A great freestyle MC can take concepts fed him in them moment, interpret them, all while staying on beat. I don't play any instruments and I can't read music, but I have been told that there is a similar act of improvisation happening in jazz and even more in be-bop. Perhaps at some point I will learn to hear it. 
The only way to become good at this is practice, and as with any form, it is very hard to carve out time for reps. I have a good teacher here in Paris. But there are fourteen kids in the class and getting through the material takes much of our time. Written exercises are easier because students can work on their own, or in pairs. Oral reps require someone with expertise listening and correcting. I'll probably sign up for extra oral work next week.        

Parisian Twitter on the Radio

I have a great many things to say to you. They are, in no particular order, the following:

1.) There is something very libertarian about this city. Yesterday I watched a dude put his kid, who could not have been older than four, on a motorcycle. I get the feeling that Mike Bloomberg would not do well here.
2.) Really enjoying Le Contrat Social. This, for instance, ties back to our earlier conversations:

Let us add that there is no Government so subject to civil war and internal strife as the Democratic or popular kind, because there is none that tends so strongly and continually to change form, nor that requires more vigilance and courage in order to be maintained in its own. It is above all in this constitution that the Citizen must arm himself with force and constancy, and each day of his life say in his innermost heart what a virtuous Palatine* used to say in the Polish Diet: Malo periculosam libertatem quem quietum servitium. If there were a people of Gods, it would govern itself Democratically. So perfect a Government is not suitable for men.

One thing I see in Rousseau, and that I saw in Tocqueville, was an affectionate skepticism of democracy. It is not a tyrant's skepticism, but a realist's. The basic frame seems to be, "Democracy would be awesome if this works, and it is worth trying, but you should understand all the risks inherent." When did that affectionate skepticism disappear from our popular discussion? When did it "make the world safe for democracy" become an applause line? Is this a post-World War II development? Rousseau and Tocqueville would have laughed at "making the world safe for democracy" right?

3.) If you accept Rousseau's skepticism, then it must be true that some non-democratic governments were "good" for their people. Is that correct?

THE ATLANTIC IN PARIS

Dispatches From Ta-Nehisi Coates

4.) I watched France vs. Croatia last night. OK, I am in for le fut. How do you follow football? I really like watching the dudes move without the ball when they are close to the goal.

4.) Tintin is awesome. I want to take back the completed works.

5.) Also "C'est Pour Rire." Guy I'm staying with left a cabinet of white wine. He hates the stuff. Told us to finish the stuff. On our second bottle watching this joint. Good times.

       

Parisian Twitter On The Radio

A few short shots:

I have a great many things to say to you. They are, in no particular order, the following:
1.) There is something very libertarian about this city. Yesterday I watched a dude put his his kid, who could not have been older than four, on a motorcycle. I get the feeling that Mike Bloomberg would not do well here.
2.) Really enjoying Le Contrat Social. This, for instance, ties back to our earlier conversations:

Let us add that there is no Government so subject to civil war and internal strife as the Democratic or popular kind, because there is none that tends so strongly and continually to change form, nor that requires more vigilance and courage in order to be maintained in its own. It is above all in this constitution that the Citizen must arm himself with force and constancy, and each day of his life say in his innermost heart what a virtuous Palatine* used to say in the Polish Diet: Malo periculosam libertatem quem quietum servitium. If there were a people of Gods, it would govern itself Democratically. So perfect a Government is not suitable for men.

One thing I see in Rousseau, and that I saw in Tocqueville, was an affectionate skepticism of democracy. It is not a tyrant's skepticism, but a realists'. The basic frame seems to be, "Democracy would be awesome if this works, and it is worth trying, but you should understand all the risks inherent." When did that affectionate skepticism disappear from our popular discussion? When did it "make the world safe for democracy" become an applause line? Is this a post-World War II development? Rousseau and Tocqueville would have laughed at "making the world safe for democracy" right?

3.) If you accept Rousseau's skepticism, then it must be true that some non-democratic governments were "good" for their people. Is that correct?

4.) I watched France vs. Croatia last night. OK, I am in for le fut. How do you follow football? I really like watching the dudes move without the ball when they are close to the goal.

4.) Tintin is awesome. I want to take back the completed works.

5.) Also "C'est Pour Rire." Guy I'm staying with left a cabinet of white wine. He hates the stuff. Told us to finish the stuff. On our second bottle watching this joint. Good times.

       

The Most Dangerous Thing in America—a Brother With a Passport

Over at the American Conservative, Rod Dreher has been kind enough to respond to my writings about Paris. He did the same thing last spring, and I've been meaning to say how much I appreciate it. My experiences here are necessarily a neophyte's view, so any context from folks with a little more experience than me is appreciated. Rod, having done this trip before, is one of those people. But we come at this from different places, though perhaps not the different places he might suspect.

THE ATLANTIC IN PARIS

Dispatches From Ta-Nehisi Coates

Before I get into that, I want to clarify something, because it comes up later in Rod's piece. To claim the game is rigged--as I do--is not to relieve people of responsibility to act, nor to strip credit from people who actually achieve something. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl. John Elway won two. I think "luck" has something to do with that. But it does not follow that John Elway didn't work hard or that he didn't actually do anything himself. And it also doesn't follow that John Elway worked harder than Dan Marino. Life is complicated. Being born rich has advantages but it does not then follow that it's impossible to ever achieve anything of your own.

Moreover, I was privileged. You can't really buy the kind of parenting I had. My pops had seven kids. Some of them were born to friends. Some of them were born in the same year. All of them, except me, graduated from college. Some of them are engineers. Some of them are computer programmers. Some of them are lawyers. Some of them are in the family trade. And some of them are writers. All of them are alive and healthy. And if you asked my dad about this (as I did only weeks ago) the first word that would come from his lips is this--lucky.

What you must get is that we were privileged and we were lucky and we worked hard and were black in America. All at the same time. There's no contradiction there. The game is rigged--and it can be won. One doesn't cancel out the other. Jackie Robinson's greatness doesn't make the MLB of his era any less racist.

That aside, there's something else in Rod's post that I find really fascinating. Here is a portion where he discusses how someone very close to him (his sister) reacted to his excursion:

It's not that I was born wealthy, or from people who traveled (except my great-great aunts, who died when I was small). I did not, and my sister, to her dying day, resented me for becoming the sort of person who liked to go to France...

I can't account for Ruthie's views, which she never shared with me (but did share with others), but I believe it comes from her instinctive resentment of anything to do with wealth and privilege. Wanting to go to Paris is something only rich people do, in her worldview. That I wanted this, and repeatedly satisfied that desire, offended her, I learned after her death. It did not matter that I always stayed in modest hotels (sometimes very modest hotels), or traveled on cut-rate fares, sometimes in the dead of winter, to make it affordable. The desire itself was a moral offense, a betrayal of my class.

For many years I have generally doubted the import of the "acting white" thesis, mostly because I never experienced or saw anything like it. I was a pretty weird kid in my Baltimore days. I played D&D, collected comics, and read a lot of obscure books. My family ate strange foods, and clearly had ambitions beyond the hood. I got called a lot of things. White wasn't among them. But I've heard from enough black people who did have this happen to them to understand that it is real, and I suspect it is a sub-specimen of what Rod is talking about here--a kind of tribal border-patrolling.

I felt really, really sad reading this. By the time I graduated from high school I was writing poetry and I was really beginning to blossom as a thinking person. I can't really imagine how I would have taken it if someone had accused me of "getting above my raising." A number of you here have said you had that very experience and I am amazed that many of you moved on despite it.

I think, in some ways, the quasi-black nationalism of my childhood shielded me. You have to remember that Malcolm X read everything in jail--not just black stuff--that Malcolm traveled to London and Paris. There's some portion of the nationalist tradition that holds that the acquisition of knowledge--any kind of knowledge--is self-improvement, and thus improvement of black people. You can hear this in the lyrics of Public Enemy. Or in the old nationalist saw that the best place to hide anything from a black person is in a book. Or in Brother Muzone's quip about a "nigger with a library card." It's actually older than the nationalist and goes back to the slave narratives. The idea is that knowledge was transgressive, something that "they" don't want you to do and thus cool. I could turn half of 125th francophone just by saying, "The white man don't want you parlez-vous Françaising, brother. He got a plan." OK, so maybe not. Plus half of 125th is already francophone. But you get my point.

And to the extent that I am still a quasi-nationalist, this is the portion of the tradition that I cling strongest to: There's nothing "white" about reading Rousseau or Tocqueville or visiting Paris. This isn't getting above your raising. It's burning down the Big House, the caveat being that you can bring some of this back and flip it to relate to the nature of your people. And you always can. Because your people are human.