Geraldo commented about the stupidity of the hoodie and, as usual got his ass handed over to the point of having to apologize. But question not asked was: Is he right or wrong? Answer: Partially right. The issue is not if the Hoodie is fashionable or belongs to a particular racial segment of the population and criticizing it makes you a racist. It is not the garment but the way it is used: If you are planning on obstructing the view of your face, you may end up dealing with some unpleasant consequences. And it is not racism, it is basic human nature, ingrained in our system. Deal with it.
Were visual animals. About 90% of the input we receive from the world comes through our eyes. Are we afraid of the dark itself because we cannot see. Lack of basic information about some place, some event or somebody put us at unease. The most basic information about a person is what it is reflected in his face so, if you cover it, disguise it or make it hard for somebody else to see it, expect the proper amount of weariness and even aggression.
Our interaction with others is heavily dependent on that visual input and the first thing every human will focus is the face. Humans have seven universally recognizable expressions (fear, anger, surprise, contempt, disgust, happiness, and sadness) that are the basis of such initial interactions and we will react accordingly. If we somebody displaying fear, we will automatically try to search for whatever is causing that fear. A happy face makes you want to share in that happiness and so on.
But when there is no input available such as wearing a mask, a bandana or a hoodie covering most of the face, our lizard brain immediately triggers the alarms: Somebody does not want to be read and we will assume bad intentions. If you cover your face, be ready for people to react by Freeze-Fight-Fright-Flight. This is deeply ingrained in our basic response system and can be modified with a lot of difficulty and only to be changed to another basic response: instead of freezing to danger one can change to fleeing or fighting it. If we cannot read your face, you are an unknown quantity and by our own nature and we fear the unknown.
Covering the face is inedible associated with both avoidance of recognition and the attempt to inspire fear. A criminal does not want to be recognized by those who might know him or that might testify against them in the future. Ancient warriors would wear masks with fearful depictions to scare the enemy and hide their own emotions about going into battle. Armed robbers of old and present know the impact of a faceless & threatening individual in controlling their victims. Shall we forget the fear that the faceless Knights of the Ku Klux Klan created on black folks as they appeared in the middle of the night with their own particular brand of hoodies? Even SWAT and other special teams recognize that doing a dynamic entry while wearing balaclavas do wonders in giving them extra moments of paralyzing shock that can be used to end a hostage situation in their favor. Even a male with a heavy beard triggers a bit of suspicion on people. If you do not believe me, try and find out how many U.S. Presidents had a beard. And Abraham Lincoln does not count as he campaigned fully shaved.
Most all cultures if not all, meet strangers the same fashion: open and visible face and hands free of any objects that might be deemed a weapon. When we meet somebody in our western culture, we look straight at their faces and shake hands. We are transmitting a message that says “Here, see my face. I bid you no ill will. I give you my hand without a weapon as proof of my good intentions.” If you do not believe me, remember the times you have been introduced to somebody and promptly uncovered your face if needed and dropped whatever was on your dominant hand to make that initial contact. Back in medieval times, when two knights meet on the road for the first time, they would rise the visors and the right hand would go up, palm facing front in show of truce. A knight who failed to do would be considered an enemy and end up being rapidly challenged.
Although we “know” that this picture is the Miami Heat team being supportive about the killing of Trayvon Martin, what they are sending is absolutely the wrong signals: faces covered or mostly covered & hands hidden. If you were walking down a steer and came to a group of unknown individuals like that, your alarm bells would go off and if you are smart, would take appropriate measure such as changing sides or reversing your course. And don’t BS anybody saying the opposite unless you are Rambo-Wannabe seeking trouble, trying to be Politically Correct and demonstrating you “care” now or plain stupid… but I repeat myself.
How ingrained is our distaste for covered faces? Seek no further than the recent marches and demonstration about the Trayvon Killing. Wearing a hoodie was supposed to be a symbol, but I found interesting how many people were wearing it.
Even wearing hoodies, people chose to display their face clearly. I doubt that this was done on purpose but rather instinctively: They have nothing to hide or pretend. This last photo is even more revealing. Red circles denote those with covered or hard to see faces while wearing a hoodie. Yellow circles the opposite.
The majority of those present chose to have their faces open and on display signifying that they had nothing to hide. On purpose? I am betting by instinct. Those who chose to hide their faces, you may want to ask them if they did it just because it is the cool (yet stupid) thing to do or other factors were in play.
And if you need another reason not to wear the hood like a head sock of ample proportions, just a reminder that peripheral vision comes in handy and if you are stupid enough to block it, then do not bitch when you don’t see it coming.
Hey Miguel, I’m not normally a grammar Nazi on other peoples’ blogs, but there are a LOT of spelling and other mistakes in this article, and they (unfortunately) undercut the point you’re trying to make. I suggest a good editing, especially if you think you’re going have rebuttal.
Jawhol Mein Pony Fuhrerette!
Frigging phone would not stop
James Garfield.
As a bearded white male of sixty something years, I have to agree with your premise…hiding the face generally, and instinctively received as intended to intimidate or avoid identification..regardless of race…
Beards have gone in and out of fashion but if you’re applying for a job, clean-shaven gives you a distinct advantage over a bearded person…it doesn’t guarantee failure, but it doesn’t help your chances either.
The hoodie is being taken as a badge of badness by young blacks in the photos you show…don’t mess with me I’m dangerous…well, if you behave in a threatening way, you might inspire fear in some, but you’ll inspire hostility in others.
Im curious why anyone is assuming Trayvon had his hoodie up when Zimmerman first saw him? Per the 911 tape Zimmerman only indicates what the boy is wearing not HOW its being worn. Per the statement of Martin’s girlfriend who was on the phone with the boy as this tragedy happened, Trayon put up his hood AFTER becoming concerned that he was being followed.
I say this to make the point that as a former East New York, Brooklyn resident, having gone from the projects to an upper middle class subdivision, there were/are various reasons why people – boys & girls – throw the hood up. Many that have nothing to do with criminality. I used to wear hoodies & baggy jeans not just for fashion but a sense of protection. It made made men less inclined to comment & harass about my looks & physical appearance. It was harder to tell if I were a boy or a girl. Sometimes my hair wasn’t done & I needed to run to the store, sometimes I was down, didn’t want to be bothered and the hoodie allowed me to isolate myself a bit – give a quicker wave to the neighbors & keep it moving. And sometimes when I felt threatened or scared, I’d put it up as a sense of security – hoping it gave the signal maybe I was not the one to rob or mess with. I’d put my hands in my bag or pocket too hoping to make the person I was fearing think twice about choosing me to attack.
So perhaps what was inspiring fear & hostility was being trailed by a man in a car at night – who was also in a hoodie from what I understand.
Just a side note, in the Trayvon Martin case, it was 56 degrees and raining which would be another valid reason to wear a hood.
Also, I live with, grew up with, and work with black and/or Latino youth. I’m also married to a black man. For those speculating on why young black men wear hoodies, did you gather this information from conversation and interaction? Did you poll a certain number of people? Is there a documented study you’re referencing? Just curious?
“Trayon put up his hood AFTER becoming concerned that he was being followed.”
Perhaps because someone was using a motor vehicle to . . . hide his face. Do we know what Zimmerman’s vehicle looked like? Could it, itself, have looked intimidating? Black with tinted windows or some other “thugmobile.”
I’m not defending Martin. I’m pointing out that nearly all of these sorts of arguments cut both ways in this case.
Zimmerman is following Martin because he’s holding his hands like he has a gun. Martin is holding his hands like he has a gun because he’s being followed and wants to look like a hard target.
In other words the incident may have occurred because both parties were, with some sort of legitimacy, viewing the other as the suspicious character, for essentially the same reasons. Then somewhere along the line both parties made one or more critical errors of judgment and the whole thing ended up pear shaped.
But then both parties also did the very things we would do, and advise others to do. I’m not much interested in the legal aspects as those are way out of my jurisdiction. Nor am I much interested in the political circus, rather I’m annoyed that I have to actually spend time and effort to do what I can to dampen and counter it so that politics in the future might proceed on due course.
What interests me is that we are presented here with a very important tactical scenario that it would behoove us to study very closely: because we don’t want good guys going around shooting each other by mistake.
Why doesn’t Martin deserve defending. Wasn’t he a crime victim? Wasn’t he unarmed and simply walking back from the store?
Per the original and 2nd police report the armed individual who killed and unarmed teen was driving an SUV. I don’t believe there is much more description of the vehicle besides that. What curious to me is that this person – with a loaded gun – claims the teen was approaching his car while on the phone with 911. What prevented him from lowering the window halfway & calling out “neighborhood watch” (even though he was not part of any registered program). “just checking if everything is ok, you seem disoriented or lost – are you ok?”
As a responsible gun owners it is – IMO – my responsibility to err on the side of caution and avoid placing myself in situations where I would need to use my gun. Having a gun, I dont suddenly walk in areas I would avoid without my gun. I don’t confront the men who approach me differently. I don’t follow “suspicious” characters behind buildings.
You will have to explain to me how you get “Why doesn’t Martin deserve defending” from ” nearly all of these sorts of arguments cut both ways in this case.”
I am not Martin’s attorney. I am not involved. I am an observer. The only dog I have in this fight gone bad is understanding. In the course of argument I have both defended and criticised various parties. In the privacy of my own head I continue to criticise myself.
The last thing I want is my own bad ideas successfully defended. That shit could get me killed. Indeed it is quite likely the only reason I’m alive today is because I called the cops and let the cops handle it. Had I pursued on my own there might now be a multiple murderer on the loose, rather than a man with an outstanding murder warrant in Florida (I’m in NY) in very protective custody.
I have already stated that I believe that if Zimmerman is not guilty he is nonetheless culpable for having got out of his damned vehicle and allegedly allowing himself to be sucker punched.
My interest is in not letting any of this happen to me, or you.
Understood & respected. You & I both agree that there wouldn’t be a shooting to discuss if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the safety of his vehicle, with a loaded gun and followed despite knowing police were on their way and being told that they would prefer he not.
In fact I’m making the somewhat stronger point here that from Martin’s point of view Zimmerman was acting distinctly hinkey and may have been projecting cues that he was armed and at ready.
In an armed society just because someone might have a gun and is projecting “don’t mess with me” while walking through a neighborhood strange to him doesn’t imply he’s up to no good.
He might just be taking the steps that his experience tells him is needed to get home in one piece.
What I do not want is for you and I to cross paths in the barrio some night and one or both of us ending up leaking for no damned reason.
Question, if the goodie is a gangsta or criminal article of clothing, why is the NRA selling concealed weapon hoodies to their members as an article of clothing which can aid in self protection? I would assume that the NRA would not encourage it’s armed members to dress in a manner that would make them look like a suspicious dangerous criminal – or are they deliberately marketing gear for the criminal element? Why have a hood attached to what is essentially a sweatshirt at all if putting the hood up itself is supposedly some universal well known symbol of criminality? Part of the mission statement of the NRA is to defend & foster the 2nd amendmen rights of law abiding citizens and they then market concealed gun hoodies. Am I to conclude that this supports/actually encourages law abiding individuals to choose to wear hoodie while walking in the rain (with the option to raise or lower the hood at will)?
Baiting is a trollish thing to do. Same as with guns, is not the article but what you do with it. I guess you missed the the point in my post?
BTW, you mention the NRA. Can you point out the statement that the NRA made about hoodies in this case?
Im sorry, where is the baiting? It was an honest question. Just to be clear, you say it’s not the article but what you do with it – are you suggesting that there are different ways to use the article which would be the hoodie? A hoodie up is a hoodie up – IMO. The determination of how much it obscures the face is speculative and subjective. A hoodie that is up inherently obscures the face more than one is not, correct? And people pull their faces further back into the hood for any number of reasons that I would assume only the wearer would know. For example, in inclement weather someone may be more likely to have their head deeper in their hood. A person like myself, feeling threatened, would also withdraw deeper into the hood. It’s one thing to speculate on the motivation for how the wearer is wearing the hood, its another to draw a conclusion and act on that speculation. Looking at the photo of the protectors I would conclude that some prefer the hood sitting one way while others prefer it another, some feel less or mor attractive than others, some hairstyles work better with the hoodie one way than others. I do know that what Trayvon Martin was doing was walking from the store where he had purchased iced tea and skittles -with a hooded sweatshirt on. I’m curious how his use of that article of clothing was in some way indicative of hostle behavior or criminal activity? Or is simply wearing the hood up inherently hostile or criminally suspicious. Granted none of us know when the hoodie went up or in what manner it was worn – to what degree could his face be seen or not seen.
As for the NRA, I never suggested they made a comment about this case, though now I’m interested in seeing if they have. Their mission statement can be found on their site. And there are numerous articles about their sale of “concealed carry” hooded sweatshirts. You can find them on sale at the NRA.com store (it’s listed as a new item but some say it’s been sold for years). If you see the sales ad, you’ll see there is no mention of how the wearer should rock the hood so other NRA members can easily discern between the law abiding citizen hoodie wearer and the criminal hoodie wearer. Looking at the item for sale, it actually “fits my lifestyle” as someone who runs and would consider carrying my weapon for protection. But I sometimes like to run with my hoodie up, especially in cool or bad weather. I don’t measure exactly where the hood falls on my head & can’t always control it while running. Based on the logic that hoodies (worn up) are some universal symbol for “I’m a criminal” then I can not logically buy &wear the NRA approve hoodie without labeling myself as “hostile”, “dangerous” or “potential criminal” giving strange men the license to follow me behind bldgs apparently.
Your argument appears to be somewhat invalid.
So you are saying that in case of danger, you much rather not see? Hell, normal human being LOOK for means to either defend themselves or a way out of the danger. “Joe, we must get out of this minefield” “Wait till I put on a blindfold Frank.” [facepalm]
Depend on the act. If somebody tries to approach me with a covered face, I will try and keep distance from him till his intentions are well defined. Dying stupid is not something I care for. But that is just my opinion.
Were you present at the time? If so, please provide a statement to the Seminole County Prosecutor.
Did I say that?
Are they supposed to say how it should be wore? You are running out of arguments, aren’t you?
Carrying a weapon for protection is a good thing. You should do so. But not while running outside your house, if the STG law is repealed (fat chance) you may end up serving prison time if you were to use it for self defense.
No, it makes you a suspicious person if I cannot see your face. We went over this before. Hiding the face is universally (OK, maybe not so on your little world) a sign of possible deception and danger.
You are admitting that you reduce your field of vision while running? I do hope you run on a closed track. Street running can be dangerous with purposedly limited vision.
Just the opposite, if you are being followed by strange men, the NRA hoodie with a pocket to carry a weapon is precisely what you need. And the gun too. I am partial to the Kahr CW9 as it is small enough without compromising handling or accuracy.
In regards to your images, imo, from the perspective of face on, yes one obscures a lot more than the other. From the side view, I’m not sure I could see either face.
I have stated that I’ve worn a hoodie and withdrawn deeper into the hood for the variety of reasons listed in previous posts. Now in your mind that’s not smart – ok. And I understand the logic of what you say & agree with some of it. But I will say that this method worked for me, made me feel safer, gave the impression to some (imo) that I might not be the person to mess with and I managed to survive life in BK pretty much unscathed in part because I used this kind of dress. I.e if I were had to come home late at night from my 2nd job on the subway, I definitely switched to jeans, tims or flat shoes, threw the hoodie up & put the earphones in the ears (no music) and tried to attract attention to myself (nondescript, faceless, cant tell if its a guy or girl). Wearing the hoodie did not prevent me from turning my head as needed to view what I needed (certainly doesn’t stop criminals from being able to see how to rob people & stores either interestingly). It didn’t stop me from scanning the area around as a walked, turning from side to side to look into the driveways & alleys, etc. IfI were in a situation where an potential assailant was close enough to physically touch me then imo the hoodie up issue was the least of my concerns (it’d likely fall back off anyway in any sort of confrontation). I’ve never had a fight where my hoodie stayed on my head & blocked my field of vision. This is just my experience.
Knowing these things, having that experience, now living in a state where I can carry a concealed weapon, I do not immediately presume that every person I see with a hoodie on is inherently dangerous or someone to fear. Especially since most teen boys & girls and young men I see (all races & ethnicities) wear their hoodies up as the weather gets colder/wetter. As a responsible gun owner with a concealed weapon, I exercise more discernment and caution before making judgements that can cost an innocent person their life. But I’ve seen irresponsible gun owners do things that threaten the public safety because they’re hyped up on the power the gun brings. I.e, bldg security person pulling out his weapon & chasing an innocent man down on a crowded public street because he heard what was shouted incorrectly.
With regard to the NRA concealed weapon hoodies, its a contradiction or atleast interest dichotomy that the same hoodie that is being presented as the uniform of the thug/criminal is also sold as a tool of self protection for law abiding citizens. Since its the same article of clothing the conversation now moves to how exactly one wears the hoodie. My point is if the hoodie up & of itself is seen as an attempt to mask (and equated with an actual mask or KKK hoodie..lol) then the 3 inches of movement forward or back that it takes to make that “huge difference” btwn the images presented can happen randomly & easily. As a hoodie wearer, I know the hoodie falls forward & back especially if there is no drawstring.
As for Trayvon Martin. No I wasn’t there. Are people actually disputing that this teen left the home he was visiting and walked to the store where he purchased an iced tea and skittles? Are people disputing the 911 tape where Zimmerman himself said Trayvon was walking & “looking around”. Did I miss the part of the 911 call where Zimmerman described someone in the process of committing a crime? Zimmerman never claimied on those 911 tapes that he witnessed this teen rattling doors, prying into cars, or trying to open house windows. He said that he was following a person who was walking and that the person noticed him and came towards the car, looked like he was on drugs (proven false by the drug tests given to the dead body), seemed like he had something in his hand, and reached for his waist. None of which is anything a person can be arrested for. Was Trayvon not found shot dead wearing a sweatshirt which had a hood. Are these simple facts in dispute?
But I will say that this method worked for me, made me feel safer, gave the impression to some (imo) that I might not be the person to mess with
I never claimed the NRA made a statement about the Trayvon Martin case. I said they sell carry to conceal hoodies. There are no instructions on their marketing material about how a mere movement of the hood 2-3 inches further forward or back can inspire mean the difference between the wearers life or death based on the conclusions of the armed persons watching you.
I have to admit, I have never seen a troll jump the shark before. Where did you get all that? Seriously, allow us a peek on how your mind works.
Why the name calling & hostility, I have been nothin but respectful in presenting my opinions. Surely you are not lookingfor yes men and are open to divergent points of view?
Because it is my blog and I pretty damm well can do what I please in it? Just because they are your “respectfully emitted opinions” do not make them true, right or even close to the neighborhood of rational. You are free to post but not free from criticism or being assigned well-deserved adjectives.
Yes you can call names & be hostile in your blog to someone who has been respectfully giving their opinion – though I really dont see the point. I ran across this site as a gun owner with a license to carry & conceal and in reading the perspectives presented here, I seek a stark contrast on a variety of topics though I presume most all here agree with the general idea of the right to bear arms as well as conceal them. I was just bringing my perspective which I never claimed to be “right” but certainly feel are rational & true to my beliefs and life experience as are yours. If you would prefer that I not bring this perspective here, just say so. I assumed that the ability to post without needing to request approval was an indication that you were okay with differing & varying opinions. If not then okay.
You own a gun, but somehow miss the whole point of self defense. Your Self Defense “strategy” cannot be politically correct or it will kill you, PERIOD.
You wanna bet your life on your opinions, so be it. But do not expect me to remain quiet and allowing somebody to bet his life on your lack of both experience and knowledge. And if you do not like the way I address you, fine. There are other blogs you can read and nobody is forcing you to read this one.
I’ve managed to live quite a while with my self defense strategy in one of the roughest neighborhoods in NYC. Managed not to be raped when supposedly 1 in 4 women are, for example. I’m versed enough in how to handle myself, in self defense, and have actually put those things to the test in my life and come out on top. As for being politically correct, I don’t see it that way. simply respect human life and respecting the weapon I choose to carry and take that right and take the responsibility/right very seriously. It is my duty, to make sure I never hurt an innocent person with my weapon. That is my moral choice, that is my character. It is also my character to speak my opinion and listen to others without insult. Since I never asked anyone to be quiet or not state their opinion, I can’t see where that relates to my points at all. However it is possible to state an opinion without being nasty or name calling. I don’t see why grown adults with home training would act differently.
At the risk of getting my nose bloodied by interceding I’d point out, in the interest of fairness, that you are operating by the rules in effect south of Palm Beach, while Nikki is operating by the rules north of 100th Street.
Having experienced both I can assure you they are not the same.
For instance, if you see someone walking around Miami wearing a black trench coat you might wonder what he’s up to. If I see the same person walking around mid-town I might wonder what union he represents.
Local knowledge is important and was likely an element in this case, Martin being out of his.
This is a bit more than local customs or particularities of a group. This is basic human perceptions and reactions at an instinct level. Even if you are forced to cover your face, your first action will be to uncover your face to establish your good intentions when meeting somebody. Hell, even the simple fact of wearing dark sunglasses indoors is considered impolite!
As for the customs of a group or location, I really don’t wanna go there today. If I pissed somebody off with all this face covering stuff, I know I will have a shit-storm if I go into the use of cultural traits in Self Defense.
Screw it, I’ll give you one. In the late 80s I went to Spain with my Mother to visit some relatives. We literally went from the airport to the country side where they lived and spent most of the time there. We decided to take our last week in country to stay in Santiago de Compostela to visit the Cathedral (Mom is very religious) and just enjoy ourselves. Apparently it was (is?) the custom of every frigging pedestrian to bump into you without care for your status while walking in the narrow sidewalks and streets of old Santiago; you would not get even a passing apology. This is not NY at rush hour overcrowded rivers of people flowing kind of bump, just an “I don’t give a crap” behavior. One particular idiot bumped into my mother so hard, she bounced against a store front window and then fell. The idiot himself did not fare well as he (for unknown reasons) lost equilibrium and landed face first against the bumper of a parked truck. No, don’t ask. I am invoking certain rights against self incrimination.
This bumping stuff was mostly done by the young people and even some not so young. Now, I am respectful of the customs of wherever I go so I decided that whenever I went out with Mom, we would be arm in arm and I would keep her between me and the inside of the sidewalk so people would not bump into her 4’10” frame. Me being 5’11” and not thin had a better chance to fend off bumps without hurting. I do freely admit that whenever I detected that somebody was about to bump me, I lowered my shoulder a bit and gave an extra measure of power to the bump. I did apologize profusely to each bumpee as they tried to pick themselves up. Politness always goes a long way.
Mom did chastise me when she realized I was enjoying myself too much. She is a very sweet lady. 🙂
So, in a culturally different location I identified the potential conflict in behaviors and adapted to it without, shall we say harsh consequences. 😉
Back when I was teaching high school in the city (gasp!), many of my students would put on their hoods in class. It didn’t matter that this was against the rules–I was racist to tell them not to do it. They were using the hoods as a means of blocking me out, education being white. I don’t know what to make of all of this, other than to say that race is genetic and determines only things that shouldn’t really matter, while culture makes a huge difference in one’s life.
If they were breaking the rules in class then they were breaking the rules. I attended all all white wealthy private high school where the students routinely blocked out the teachers as well as did coke in the bathrooms. As you say “culture makes a huge difference in one’s life”. It’s difficult to be an educator period especially in environments where the population has pressures/issues that affect the ability to learn. My best friend’s mom was an educator in the NYC public school system for over 30 years, I know many teachers….across the board, regardless of thei background the struggle to maintain control of their classes – especially junior high and older.
Correcting to say “predominantly white” as there a handful of non white students lik myself in awe at what was occurring around us. I’d never in my life sense such disrespect or drug use. And haven’t since.
The thing with the knights and helmets’ visors is the origin of the western military salute.
That is alleged and I like that allegation 🙂
Actually, the modern western salute is a result of the custom of tipping one’s hat to an officer. It was later changed to a salute because of the hats being soiled by gunpowder soot on gunner’s hands.
” . . .the custom of tipping one’s hat . . .”
As I typically wear a hat and do not typically have gunpowder soot on my hands, this is the custom I still follow as a civilian.
Such are the little niceties that grease the gears of civilization.
Good points and writing.
OK, Apparently I managed to fix the awful way the comments were being displayed? Better this way?
From today’s Chicago Tribune.
The worst shooting occurred around 6 p.m. Thursday when two men in hooded sweatshirts opened fire inside a convenience store in the 1400 block of West 79th Street in the Gresham neighborhood, police said.
Nope, no problems with young black men wearing hoodies.
Tom. are you racist?? 😉
In the 70s it was pantyhose, in the 80s was knit caps with holes in them, in the 90s was plastic or rubber masks. Not the tool but the principle applies: cover your face.
That and the Tuller Drill quick-rush – a man can move pretty damn fast and get up a blindside punch or two.
To see the eyes is to know, friend or foe.
Well said.