The way we handle bullying in schools has always been archaic. In the rest of our civilization, we are not expected to put up with threats of violence. Threats of violence are considered "assault" and the perpetrators can be arrested and jailed. In school, though, local authorities have long expected victimized students to simply suck it up. Victims should either roll with the punches (i.e. capitulate to violence) or stand up for themselves.
Of course, they'd better not stand up for themselves too much, because then they get arrested. For example, we have this 15 year old Asian kid in Keswick, Ontario. He faced off against a racist bully. The bully punched first. The Asian kid punched last, breaking the bully's nose.
It'd be as well at this point to explain why I'm taking the story at face value. Why do I believe that, as written, the white kid was an aggressive, racist bully? Why do I believe that the Asian kid acted with the absolute minimum force at the last reasonable moment? Because I read the story. Keswick has a racism problem with documented assaults. 400 students came out to protest the Asian kid's suspension. The Asian kid has a 90% scholastic average. All relevant implications lead me to believe that the story is accurate.
I also believe the story because it is absolutely par for the course.
As far as authorities - police as well as school administration - are concerned, bullying is not a problem. The bullies only perform their assaults and batterings out of sight. There is rarely obvious bloodshed or broken bones. The victims are frightened in to silence. If the victims don't fight back, authority can blithely pretend that there is no violence in the school, that any rumours are just boys working things out for themselves, and fill out reports to that effect.
When the victims fight back, the problem is different. It is rarely effective for a smaller boy to wrestle or idly punch at a bully. Small amounts of pain are rarely a deterrent to large, aggressive people. To stop a bully, you have to stop a bully. And at that point, you often have blood, a broken bone or a concussion. Now the administration's "boys will be boys" ignorance falls on its face. They have an obviously damaged kid and another who damaged him.
So punish the kid who did the damage. Ignore all historical facts, torment and accumulated damage in the opposite direction. Wipe your hands and walk away. Done.
So that's what they did. They not only suspended the victim, they also had him arrested for assault. How ignorant is this? Let us take the punch completely out of context. Let us pretend that this Asian kid just whaled on the white kid for no reason. The Asian kid isn't bleeding, right? His nose isn't broken. So it must be his fault.
Kudos the kids at the high school for walking out and protesting on his behalf. I never saw the likes of that when I was growing up. If there's hope for the future, it's those 400 kids right there.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, October 24, 2008
Racism: Teach it When They're Young
It's a lot like religion, I suppose. If you don't teach it to them when they're little, they'll never believe you when they're older.
That's why we tell cutesy bible stories, illustrated in cartoon fashion, and leave out the cruel, bloody bits.
Once upon a time, I saw a Phil Donahue episode. I think I was about 10 years old. Phil had a group of white supremacists on - a family in fact. There was a little boy on the show who seemed to be about my age. Seated in the front row were some truly astonished dark-skinned people.
I remember the boy's mother saying that, yes, they were teaching their son about the difference between the races. The quote is burned in my mind: "He knows that there are three kinds of people. There are men, there are women and there are n-----rs." They didn't bleep it out back then. With well-dressed, articulate black people staring her in the face, she enunciated her world view very clearly.
Then they asked the young boy if he knew what a "n----r" was. He didn't want to answer. His mother excused his shyness and told him to point one out as he definitely knew what one was. When the camera zoomed in on his face though, you could tell he wasn't shy. You could tell that he knew something was wrong. He knew that his parents had taught him something wrong.
Would that every child could be smart and skeptical enough to do the same. Sadly, that's not the case. If you really want to understand all of those "Strong GOP" states on the electoral map, all you have to do is understand the generation to generation passing on of racism.
Watch the first 20 seconds of this video. It's more disturbing, at least to me, as a parent, than all of the catcalls of "socialism", "communism", "muslim" and everything else.
(h/t: jhuth on Democratic Underground)
That's why we tell cutesy bible stories, illustrated in cartoon fashion, and leave out the cruel, bloody bits.
Once upon a time, I saw a Phil Donahue episode. I think I was about 10 years old. Phil had a group of white supremacists on - a family in fact. There was a little boy on the show who seemed to be about my age. Seated in the front row were some truly astonished dark-skinned people.
I remember the boy's mother saying that, yes, they were teaching their son about the difference between the races. The quote is burned in my mind: "He knows that there are three kinds of people. There are men, there are women and there are n-----rs." They didn't bleep it out back then. With well-dressed, articulate black people staring her in the face, she enunciated her world view very clearly.
Then they asked the young boy if he knew what a "n----r" was. He didn't want to answer. His mother excused his shyness and told him to point one out as he definitely knew what one was. When the camera zoomed in on his face though, you could tell he wasn't shy. You could tell that he knew something was wrong. He knew that his parents had taught him something wrong.
Would that every child could be smart and skeptical enough to do the same. Sadly, that's not the case. If you really want to understand all of those "Strong GOP" states on the electoral map, all you have to do is understand the generation to generation passing on of racism.
Watch the first 20 seconds of this video. It's more disturbing, at least to me, as a parent, than all of the catcalls of "socialism", "communism", "muslim" and everything else.
(h/t: jhuth on Democratic Underground)
Monday, October 20, 2008
President Jesus
She just can't vote for a President who will be named President Oo-bama.
Fortunately, he doesn't pronounce it that way, so maybe there's a loophole.
But seriously, can you believe that? I think we should all just be happy that enough Americans are smart enough not to fall for this. Maybe education in the U.S. can improve enough (under an Obama presidency) to reduce the number of people who credulously fall in to this kind of religious/political dogmatic trap.
I've always thought that religion was dangerous this way: it teaches people to accept things without thinking about them.
I wonder if we could propose a resolution to this crisis for her.
Is it true that the President of the United States in chosen by God? I'm sure I've heard enough religious nutbars say so.
If Obama does manage to get elected, are you willing to admit that God must have chosen him? Wouldn't he then have God's approval?
Nah. They'd probably just think God was punishing America with (take your pick) the socialist, fascist, surrendering Liberal, dictator, Muslim, anti-christ because of America's (take your pick) abortions, gayness, Sunday shopping, pornography, clothing made of mixed fibers.
Best of luck, my American friends.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Elitist African-American or just Uppity Negro
My fandom for The Onion has waned in recent years, but sometimes they really hit the nail on the head. Here they bill the "elitist" characterization of Barack Obama as a major step forward for black people.
As satirical as that's supposed to be, it still makes a point. The fact that white people in the United States can look at a (half-)black man and say, "he's too sophisticated for me" really says something about the improvement of race relations in the country.
That is, if that's what they are actually saying.
There's another way to look at this. They may merely have found a new rationalization for disliking black people. There's always something in which to cloak racism. Those people are violent or dirty or ignorant or we can't trust them because they come from a place where they {insert dislikable phenomenon}.
There used to be this thing called the Great Chain of Being. Attempting to rise beyond your station was punished almost as a natural fact of the universe or an act of god.
In this case, I find it far more likely that the actual purpose of the "elitist" insult is to remind the racist population that what we have here is really an uppity negro. (I'm betting they don't say negro when they talk to each other).
That's right. Cloak your ignorance and hatred behind a dissonance between your working class roots and Obama's wealth. Hide it behind a veil of disdain for lattes and Ivy League universities. Pretend that your dislike for the man has nothing to do with him not knowing his place and everything to do with his snobbery.
Lie all you like. We know what you mean.
As satirical as that's supposed to be, it still makes a point. The fact that white people in the United States can look at a (half-)black man and say, "he's too sophisticated for me" really says something about the improvement of race relations in the country.
That is, if that's what they are actually saying.
There's another way to look at this. They may merely have found a new rationalization for disliking black people. There's always something in which to cloak racism. Those people are violent or dirty or ignorant or we can't trust them because they come from a place where they {insert dislikable phenomenon}.
There used to be this thing called the Great Chain of Being. Attempting to rise beyond your station was punished almost as a natural fact of the universe or an act of god.
In this case, I find it far more likely that the actual purpose of the "elitist" insult is to remind the racist population that what we have here is really an uppity negro. (I'm betting they don't say negro when they talk to each other).
That's right. Cloak your ignorance and hatred behind a dissonance between your working class roots and Obama's wealth. Hide it behind a veil of disdain for lattes and Ivy League universities. Pretend that your dislike for the man has nothing to do with him not knowing his place and everything to do with his snobbery.
Lie all you like. We know what you mean.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
If you don't want to be compared to Hitler ...
It's difficult to know, in an Internet debate, when it's okay to pull out the Hitler card. As a general rule, I like to say, "Never, ever, ever". It's usually childish, impetuous and a sign that you have no real arguments to go by.
But then I read that the Italian government has decided to fingerprint gypsies on the grounds that they are responsible for so much of the crime wave in Italy.
I don't think I'm really pulling out the Hitler card if the Italian government is pulling it out themselves. I mean, seriously now, they're going to fingerprint, round up and deport people from a certain ethnic group while blaming that ethnic group for the country's economic problems. Of course, first they're going to ask to see papers. This very ethnic group is even one of the groups that the Nazis went after.
Do these people even read history? How stupid are they?
Will they be rounding up the gypsies for deportation on trains? Will they get to wear any symbol of any kind to indicate which gypsies can stay and which must go? Will there be any fenced-in areas to contain the deportable gypsies while they wait for the trains?
All the while, they'll be ignoring the actual crime problems in their country because the Prime Minister of the country owns almost all of the print media. (Think about it, who does more crime in Italy? Gypsies or the mafia?)
The word I'm searching for is, "Creepy".
But then I read that the Italian government has decided to fingerprint gypsies on the grounds that they are responsible for so much of the crime wave in Italy.
I don't think I'm really pulling out the Hitler card if the Italian government is pulling it out themselves. I mean, seriously now, they're going to fingerprint, round up and deport people from a certain ethnic group while blaming that ethnic group for the country's economic problems. Of course, first they're going to ask to see papers. This very ethnic group is even one of the groups that the Nazis went after.
Do these people even read history? How stupid are they?
Will they be rounding up the gypsies for deportation on trains? Will they get to wear any symbol of any kind to indicate which gypsies can stay and which must go? Will there be any fenced-in areas to contain the deportable gypsies while they wait for the trains?
All the while, they'll be ignoring the actual crime problems in their country because the Prime Minister of the country owns almost all of the print media. (Think about it, who does more crime in Italy? Gypsies or the mafia?)
The word I'm searching for is, "Creepy".
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Frasier Institute on Muslim Integration
I have to thank all those conservative bloggers I read for directing my attention to what must be the craziest Frasier Institute Study I've ever read.
I wonder what countries he means? Saudi Arabia, from which came the most 9/11 hijackers? Or Pakistan, where Al Qaeda Number One is hiding with his kidney dialysis machines? Both are allies in the war on terror, though, so they're probably okay.
Maybe someone should let the Frasier Institute know that Canada has never actually been attacked by any Islamic terrorists. They probably already know that. Otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned our immigration policy as a "threat to North American security."
That sounds suspiciously reminiscent of "North American Energy Security". Canada has energy security, so what are we really talking about?
Really? And what do you plan to do about the people already here who don't like living in a secular society? You know, the ones who cite bible passages to try to illegalize abortion and gay marriage? The ones who think Parliament should open with religious incantations?
Fortunately, I feel pretty safe from them because we have a Charter of Rights in this country that guarantees that I have the right to not-believe their nonsense, not-pray their prayers and not-go to their churches. Consequently I also feel safe from Muslim immigrants. Much ado about nothing.
Men and women are treated equally, huh? I suppose that's a good theory, unless you look at salaries, or promotions, or Parliament, or the Cabinet, or ... And gay marriage? A prerequisite for immigration is approval of gay marriage? That puts a sizable chunk of Canada as ineligible for citizenship.
The only thing that immigrants need to respect is that we have a Charter of Rights which tells us that everyone has the right to their beliefs and that no one may infringe on the rights and beliefs of others.
Personally I see the anti-Muslim bias the way I see the anti-Chinese bias - it's simply fear of new people showing up in our country who speak with new accents and have different religious rituals. Given a generation of watching our television and being immersed in our schools, their children will find them quirky. A generation after that the grandchildren will be culturally indistinguishable from that nation to which we have all contributed.
Much ado nothing and the Frasier Institute is merely pandering to its right wing audience.
"It would be prudent, from a security point of view, for Canada to review its immigration policy in relation to the admission of immigrants from Muslim countries that are known to produce terrorists," the book says.
I wonder what countries he means? Saudi Arabia, from which came the most 9/11 hijackers? Or Pakistan, where Al Qaeda Number One is hiding with his kidney dialysis machines? Both are allies in the war on terror, though, so they're probably okay.
Maybe someone should let the Frasier Institute know that Canada has never actually been attacked by any Islamic terrorists. They probably already know that. Otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned our immigration policy as a "threat to North American security."
That sounds suspiciously reminiscent of "North American Energy Security". Canada has energy security, so what are we really talking about?
"We should be more careful about accepting people who are not going to be happy living in a secular society, with a separation of church and state," Bissett said.
Really? And what do you plan to do about the people already here who don't like living in a secular society? You know, the ones who cite bible passages to try to illegalize abortion and gay marriage? The ones who think Parliament should open with religious incantations?
Fortunately, I feel pretty safe from them because we have a Charter of Rights in this country that guarantees that I have the right to not-believe their nonsense, not-pray their prayers and not-go to their churches. Consequently I also feel safe from Muslim immigrants. Much ado about nothing.
Immigrants need to be happy in a society "where men and women are treated equally, and gay marriage is permitted," he said.
Men and women are treated equally, huh? I suppose that's a good theory, unless you look at salaries, or promotions, or Parliament, or the Cabinet, or ... And gay marriage? A prerequisite for immigration is approval of gay marriage? That puts a sizable chunk of Canada as ineligible for citizenship.
The only thing that immigrants need to respect is that we have a Charter of Rights which tells us that everyone has the right to their beliefs and that no one may infringe on the rights and beliefs of others.
Personally I see the anti-Muslim bias the way I see the anti-Chinese bias - it's simply fear of new people showing up in our country who speak with new accents and have different religious rituals. Given a generation of watching our television and being immersed in our schools, their children will find them quirky. A generation after that the grandchildren will be culturally indistinguishable from that nation to which we have all contributed.
Much ado nothing and the Frasier Institute is merely pandering to its right wing audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)