A lesson from Anne Frank about martyrdom
You know who Anne Frank is. Everyone knows who Anne Frank is. Millions have read her diary in multiple languages and millions have visited her house in Amsterdam.
Is it because she was a saint? No. She was a bored, somewhat conceited teenage girl who kept a diary while being stuck in a small apartment for a few years. So why do so many read her and talk about her?
The answer has less to do with how she lived than how she died. She was murdered because of who she was, no other reason, and billions happen to be aware of her case because of her diary.
How would we feel if modern day Nazis or Nazi sympathizers presented evidence that she wasn’t as nice as we thought? Documented evidence that she was nasty to her sister or her parents? Would that mean every bookstore would pull the diary from their shelves and she would no longer be read in schools?
No, because her sainthood isn’t the point. The fact that this young girl was casually murdered because of who she was is the point. She represents other victims. The point is precisely that she was not an isolated case. It wouldn’t matter how she behaved because her behavior didn’t cause her murder and, more importantly, because her behavior would have had absolutely nothing to do with her murderers’ guilt.
Does any of this sound familiar?
We’ve watched this phenomenon over and over in the United States. We see it every time another Black male gets killed by law enforcement or someone trying to behave as law enforcement. How many times have you heard or read about this? How many times do we have to hear about how the latest dead unarmed Black male was a thug? Trayvon Martin. Eric Garner. Now you can see it being done to George Floyd. You can watch outrage about his martyrdom status – Why does everyone care about this guy? He was no saint.
No, he was no saint. He didn’t have to be a saint to have deserved better than being casually murdered by a police officer who thought he was above the law because his victim was another worthless Black guy.
Why do so many talk about George Floyd?
The answer has less to do with how he lived than how he died. He was murdered because of who he was, no other reason, and millions happen to be aware of his case because of a graphic public video of his murder.
How do we feel as racists and racist enablers accuse George Floyd of being unworthy of this attention? Does this mean we shouldn’t be mourning him because he wasn’t a saint?
No, because his sainthood isn’t the point. The fact that this man was casually murdered because of who he was is the point. He represents other victims. The point is precisely that he was not an isolated case. It doesn’t matter how he behaved because his behavior didn’t cause his murder and, more importantly, because his behavior had absolutely nothing to do with his murderer’s guilt.
George Floyd was treated as worthless because he was a Black man. White guys don’t get killed by cops for passing a phony twenty. He is being mourned personally because we all want to make it extremely clear that treating him as worthless was and is unacceptable. We have given him back his worth as a human being.
For those who harp on his lack of worth, I have to ask:
Why are you defending a racist murderer? Because he wore blue?
That doesn’t excuse murder. That is why this country exploded.
Complaining about George Floyd’s lack of worth, true or not, is an attempt to distract people from the guilt of his murderer and those on scene who cooperated with that murder. That’s what complaining about the lack of worth of a victim always is – an attempt to distract people from a murderer’s guilt or, worse, to justify a murder.
There’s a reason murder is a crime. The police of all people should understand that. So should prosecutors. So, even, should police unions.
And so should you.
06/11/2020 @ 10:53 am
Absolutely right.
It is a sad fact that so many people default to binary perceptions in their social and moral constructs. One must be either this or that. Male or female. Good or evil. Black or white. A person may wade through all sorts of nuance, and then pour it out of a binary form that is not even real. Your example of good and evil as it applies within the life of the martyr, and the value of that martyrdom as a result is a point well taken. Getting lost in an individuals relative goodness obscures the point that the principle is about life, and the issue that weigh upon it. Like a virus would, infection does not depend on the moral weight of an individual. The idea is absurd. Such is the case with injustice.
When considering racial injustice, some may have less concern because they believe the color of their skin, or condition of their racial purity inoculates them from the injustice. Not only is that an unjust way to apply principle, but is it even accurate as it applies to the assessment of race? Race is a social construct, and we all differ in our composite mixtures, except for our whole siblings. The race assigned to how one appears may very significantly from their genetic make-up. So, how do we consider the question of what government deals out to whom, based upon our bi8nary construction?
All of that mumbo-jumbo is to say that even the unexplored premises from which we derive our social judgements rest on shaky ground. We can no more test for purity of character in our civil rights principles as we can determine purity of genetic make-up by assigning to either this category or that. As humans, he tend not to be cleanly divisible that way.
06/11/2020 @ 1:10 pm
If the media made any kind of effort to get it right, the idea that George Floyd is a ‘martyr’ would be much less assailable by racist naysayers and bigoted deniers.
Your analogy is spot on and I thank you for the clarification that it bring s to the conversation.
As you well know I’ve been referring to George Floyd as a martyr from the outset.
If the media were doing their job re accuracy in the use and implementation or terminology, there would be no opportunity for conflation of the concepts of ‘martyr’ and ‘hero’.
George Floyd was murdered because of who he was, which, as you so eloquently assert, makes him a martyr in the essential sense of the term.
I t is his martyrdom, or nature of his death, that is being commemorated, not the nature of his deeds.
When we memorialize someone for his/her deeds we are elevating that person to the status of ‘hero’ because of what he or she has done for the benefit of others, despite great personal risk.
Had the media gotten it right from the beginning, the world would know that George Floyd was another ‘martyr’ of the cause because of a murderous cop, and Darnella Frazier became a ‘hero’ of the because she stood her ground and held her camera steady in the face of consummate evil and great risk to herself and recorded the atrocity, as it was being carried out, in its entirety…..
George Floyd was not a ‘hero’ to begin with. Yet the racist deniers and naysayers are attempting to cast aspersions on his memory and excoriate the remembrances because the media hasn’t told or shown them the difference and/or distinction between ‘martyr’ and ‘hero’.
06/11/2020 @ 1:17 pm
Good distinction
06/11/2020 @ 5:45 pm
A good question might be:
“Why has the media chosen to ignore the bravery and courageousness of Darnella Frazier?”
Lawrence O’Donnell mentioned her briefly on his MSNBC program, .”The Last Word” last night.
Thus far he stands alone in recognizing and acknowledging her heroism.
06/12/2020 @ 11:02 am
As succinct and accurate an assessment as possible.
06/12/2020 @ 11:18 am
Thank you