Covington Kids Exonerated from Wrong-doing

[_Jersey Girl]

My read of EA, and apparently others such as Lemmie, is they take issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent.

Or a simple lack of life experience.

[_huckelberry]

What Al Jolson was doing was intended to and functioned as a tribute to the social station of black people in America that he saw parallels with in his own Jewish experience. He was operating within an artform that had wide acceptance at the time to accomplish this. It's not really proper to equate what he was doing to all of minstrel performance. The term "problematic" in is proper context is supposed to refer to things like this where things of artistic value is complicated by dated or errant cultural beliefs that caused harm.

On the flip side, because what Al Jolson was doing had merit, that doesn't make black face Ok. Yes, people delighted in racist stereotyping of black people without intending to express racist contempt towards blacks. Blackface performance wasn't usually meant to be mean-spirited. It was a prejudiced caricature. That's generally how racism works.

EAllusion, I read this couple of times and could not find anything in disagreement with my intended meaning. Perhaps I was too brief.

I was interested in two connection to the subject. First out current expectations and attitude dictate how an image or sequence is read. I cannot help but being repulsed by an image of Al Jolson in black face. In a similar manner I was immediately repulsed and angered by the image of the Maga hat kid smirking at the Indian drummer. A second or third review of the image caused me to wonder if I actually knew what the kid was thinking or doing. I have no interest in proposing he was clean as new snow but instead he may well be much more innocent than my, and others impression.

I am doubtful of innocence for the Virgina governer . I think his lack of explanation of what he meant then and how he has changed is disappointing. I doubt his use was as relatively innocent as Al Jolson's, but it would be nice to hear him explain.

[_Jersey Girl]

When I was a kid I watched Eddie Cantor, Al Jolson, Amos & Andy (and others) on television--all in black face. They were fun. One of my favorite childhood story books was Little Black Sambo I kid you not. I liked the part with the pancakes. See how I remember it? I have professional photos of myself reading it at age 3-ish in a pink pinafore dress.

I never once perceived those as racist. They were fun. They were interesting to me.

Should I be held to contrition on account of what I found entertaining as a child

Jersey girl , your comment made me me refresh my faint memory of Al Jolson. He seems to reflect the problematic ambiguities in the role of black face in American culture. At this time he appears quite distasteful in black face yet he intends no insult in its use. It is however a reminder of a pathological condition in American culture. That condition causes us now to jump to seeing the negative implication before any other possibilities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Tm7bMUhUw

My BFF and I had a set of lyrics to show tunes. We put on shows and did our best to imitate the delivery of both Cantor and Jolson who we had seen in movies out of NYC. Mammy, Camptown Races, Carolina in the Morning, etc. Carolina was my favorite because we used our batons as canes and did a damn fine dance with those.

We also pretend shot cowboys and Indians. I'm talking pretend bloodshed in the back yard.

Hate-driven juveniles that we were. See? We were doomed to a life of hate and crime.

[/sarcasm]

[_Jersey Girl]

We can explain your bad behavior in terms of your cultural milieu, but understanding it doesn’t make it ok. We can forgive you in your limitations, but forgiveness implies recognition of something wrong in the first place.

Honestly.

[_Res Ipsa]

EAllusion and Honor,

It looks to me like most of your disagreement flows from how each of you defines racism. Honor defines it more narrowly, requiring some degree of intent. EAllusion defines it more broadly, not requiring intent. Because Honor defines it more narrowly, he sees it as significant moral failure. Because EAllusion defines it more broadly, it will encompass behavior that is less morally objectionable. But you seem to me to be pretty close on the important questions here: what should have happened? What, if anything, should have happened to the participants in the incident?

I would agree with the talking past one another idea if not for the fact that I spelled out that I prescribe shame and contrition for the incident and he still believes that’s going way too far. It’s described as an elephant gun and treatment equivalent to what one would do with militant white supremacists. Taking this in, I note that things like racist mocking deserve to be shamed to which he replies nothing racist occurred. I think he is oblivious to how idiosyncratic that idea about racism is, but you can ignore the label. That just loops us right back to the underlying issue that he doesn’t see the behavior as all that bad to the point that even relatively mild disapprobation is hysterical overreaction.

When you say "shame," what do you mean specifically?

[_Res Ipsa]

My read of EAllusion, and apparently others such as Lemmie, is they take issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent.

Or a simple lack of life experience.

And if it is a simple lack of life experience, should adults try to supply the missing experience? If so, who? And how?

[_EAllusion]

When you say "shame," what do you mean specifically?

I'm not sure it reduces down further than that. People within their social orbit criticize their behavior and expect sincere apology and commitment to do better or suffer reputational hit?

[_Jersey Girl]

Or a simple lack of life experience.

And if it is a simple lack of life experience, should adults try to supply the missing experience? If so, who? And how?

Yes. Either supply the missing experience, offer education or both. How one would go about that in developmentally appropriate ways would depend on the age of the children involved.

In the case of the Covington Kids, adults could have both counseled and educated. I remember when KG first broke the story here with the brief video one of my posts made the suggestion that adults create an opportunity for the students to spend a full semester being educated by the Native Americans under the guidance of their American History instructor.

If the school can fund a trip to DC, I think they could probably fund a trip (if advisable and permissable) to an Indian reservation in Oklahoma or wherever the Indians who were relocated (driven) from Kentucky were sent.

What a once in a life time curriculum opportunity that might have created! It seems to me that now the incident has become so politically charged and the students are now suing for defamation, that the teachable moment has been lost.

Or who knows, maybe it hasn't. Rather than condemn them wholesale, why not spark their curiosity?

[_EAllusion]

We can explain your bad behavior in terms of your cultural milieu, but understanding it doesn’t make it ok. We can forgive you in your limitations, but forgiveness implies recognition of something wrong in the first place.

Honestly.

Ok, Megyn Kelly.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Res,

I would like to think it isn't about how we define racism so much as if there is a spectrum of behavior that deserves different responses depending on their severity. I'm in no way arguing that a kid doing a tomahawk chop is not exhibiting racially insensitive behaviour. But it seems like the sort of behavior best dealt with through explanation of why it might be seen as offensive to a Native American. It certainly isn't anywhere on the same side of the spectrum as what the BHI demostrated. My read of EAllusion, and apparently others such as Lemmie, is they take issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent.

EA? Lemmie? Do you think that, with respect to racism, there is a "spectrum of behavior that deserves different responses depending on their severity?"

I didn't understand EA the way you did. I didn't understand his objection to be to the possibility of acting out of ignorance, but to the "therefore" that comes after. Lemmie provided some evidence that high schoolers know about the chop and the racist connotations. If she's right, that would take away ignorance as an excuse.

By your way of framing it above, you may also agree that I'm arguing it isn't "racist" to exhibit cultural insensitivity whether out of ignorance or otherwise. I disagree that allowing for a spectrum of racist behaviors deserving a scalable approach is minimizing racism per se. Cultural insensitive certainly arises out of a historical context that ignored the perspective of the people being reduced to offensive stereotypes or mocking symbolism. But you don't fix that by applying the same response as you would to an avowed White Nationalist engaging in violence.

But I haven't seen anyone arguing that we should treat the Tomahawk chopper kids the same way we treat violent White Nationalists. I see you both as seeing racism as a spectrum. If I'm understanding you, the Tomahawk choppers fall outside that spectrum and should be labeled "culturally insensitive." EA's spectrum is broader, and would include the Tomahawk choppers within racism. But then you seem to be equating EA's label of racism with the "badness" that you associate with your label of racism. But that's not what I'm seeing him say. Remember, he started off, after viewing the most inflammatory clip, as saying he hopes the kid won't be mugged by social media.

Honestly, it's bizarre to me that this is such a controversial view.