Skin Before Person

 ***Spoiler Alert***

Most of the time, background is all that matters. In books, everyone reads that people judge by who people are. That is not true. If it was true, the world would be fair. The guilty party would be found guilty in trials by evidence. Not as many people in history would have been tormented  because of at least one drop of African blood in them. There would not be as much prejudice and injustice in the world. In our reality, we only look for a person's background. Beyond that, no one really cares enough to stand up and oppose society. In To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the author reveals that the background is all always first before who the person is.

The author shows that the biggest offense can be someone's skin. In Tom Robinson's case, the jury took Mr. Ewell and his daughter's word over Tom Robinson's even though Atticus proved his innocence. He really made the jury think, because it took hours to decide who was the guilty party. In the end, those hours did not come to anything, because Tom was still found guilty for a crime he did not commit. Back in history, Emmett Till was killed all because he "whistled" at a white woman. Perhaps the woman's husband would be still angry if he found out someone whistled at his wife if that someone was white, but the fact is this boy was black. Since his skin was the biggest offense, this boy's life was ended violently.

Harper Lee reveals that it is always a white man's word over a black man's. The whole town seemed to know Tom Robinson was innocent, but no one really stood up. None of the jury was made up of anyone from Maycomb. In fact, the trial can easily be said it was unfair because the jury was made up of prejudiced people. So often is it that a white man  is believed to be right and the black man to be wrong. If it had not been for his background as a black man, he would have been found innocent.

In conclusion, the books shows that background is always looked at first before who the person is. Even to this day, many people are judged more for background than who they are. Perhaps it is less a matter of what nationality you are, but many people judge based on what they hear about a person rather than who they see in front of them. Someone's background cannot tell you who they are. Perhaps their past shows who they were before, but what about now? Can anyone just say who the person is now based on their past? Everything changes and people change.