Aug. 14 Mail: The Danger to Young Black Men and More

‘The Greatest Danger’

Richard Danford and Erick Dittus wrote a thoughtful piece about the effect of racial stereotypes and outright prejudice on minorities [“After Sanford: Moving Forward,” Aug. 7]. This country’s history of such actions is difficult to accept and without doubt such situations continue today, perhaps lessened but still disgraceful.

What always strikes me about the comments of such leaders and so many others is ignoring the greatest danger to young blacks, especially young black males. The greatest danger to these young men is other young black men. The statistics of black-on-black crimes, especially murders of young black men, are more than staggering.

We read about it every day, and the silence from influential leaders of the black community is deafening. We hear about the need for good jobs being created within the black community to address the economic disparity that holds back the black community in Jacksonville. Who is going to invest in an area where gunfire is an every day and night occurrence?

Where are the voices of influence on this issue? Certainly keep working on the issue of blacks being considered “the other.” There is much that needs to be done to reduce racial prejudice and its terrible consequences, but the issue of young black men killing other young black men is something that can only be solved by looking inward.

Dennis Egan



Misunderstanding: There Is No Stalking Precedent

Here we go again. The Backpage Editorial for July 24 was from a writer who, without doubt, wrote in prejudiced style. Why else would the writer say “George Zimmerman set up in his mind a template of what people who commit break-ins look like”? The writer, obviously, does not get it. Let me explain my opinion.

When Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher, he did not relay that “this” person he saw in the neighborhood was of any color. His comment referred to persons, in general, who happened to commit break-ins and had done so in the past. That was Zimmerman’s reference. That’s all. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who wish to continue to make this a black and white issue. It is this writer’s opinion that the previous writer’s opinion holds the value of protecting one’s right to a narrow-minded philosophy. But only by removing those blinders will you be able to be impartial. The previous writer did not sit on the jury panel that acquitted Zimmerman. And thankfully so, because a prejudiced belief would have been a conflict. A detrimental one.

Until you completely understand the “stand your ground” law, you will not have the majority behind you. You come across as a very sour person. And I don’t mean just in regard to Zimmerman. You come across as a mean-spirited individual, beginning with your paragraph “aggressive drivers” through pretty much the end of your article. Put your anger into making this a better world, and you’ll come out on the other side as a caring and thoughtful person — one whom others will enjoy being around. I wish you all the best and do understand some of your frustration. I pray I never have to use this law. But I’m glad it exists, just in case. God bless you.

Petrina Jardine