Covington Kids Exonerated from Wrong-doing

[_honorentheos]

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?"

? That's what I said so I guess I'm dense to the point of this question.

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.

The "therefore" being the response that took place in social media and is being used to say it was justifiable is disproportionate to what happened? Or what? Maybe I am being very dense on this issue but there is more between the lines than I'm able to read I guess. You'll have to enlighten me.

As to what Lemmie said, my issue with mind reading the kids goes back to the other thread. Put another way, the comment reads to me as arguing, "If any of the kids present tomahawked chopped for any length of time, then we must assume they were motivated out of racial animus because of anecdotal evidence regarding something someone knows about what HS kids in a different part of the country are told." My response is, "Uh, shhhhuuuuurrrrrrreeee?????" I admit it is dismissive of Lemmie's point but I don't know what else to say to it. "If this unknown thing we choose to assume to be true IS true, then XYZ" exists in hypotheticals and assumptions. What should one do with that? Start working out probabilities and Bayes the bejeezus out of it?

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.

Phew. I don't know what to say at this point other than what I've said.

My take on EA's comment to date is that he thinks the kid in the middle of the controversy should feel deep shame for what he did. I strongly, STRONGLY, disagree that he did anything actually wrong. He wasn't doing the tomahawk chop, watching the videos available show him in a light that largely placed him in front of Philips in a context where Philips was confronting the kids. And there are overt, blatant, absolutely despicable things being said around him from multiple parties but the vast majority coming from the BHI group. It boggles the mind a bit to single him out knowing what we know now. What it comes down to, and nothing seems to disprove this so far, is people had a reaction to a video clip that was intended to generate a reaction that pushed some buttons really, really hard. He was wearing a hat people associate with Trump, his expression in that clip appears condensending and it was presented as his having moved into Philip's space rather than the other way around.

There's this big, obviously hideous form of protected expression going on in that context, and we choose to focus on some kids who, quite honestly, are pretty well behaved for a group of HS students.

EA is coming after what he percieves as a knee-jerk urge to find a middle point between two positions and attempt to be "fair". It's a complaint of his when it comes to the media broadly, and it's something he complains of in regards to my positions when I'm not aligned with his views. He's said as much in this thread but it isn't the first time. And I think my position on this isn't about being fair, it's about being honest in regards to the evidence.

[_Lemmie]

Welp. I suppose that a rational person might start by admitting that the life experiences of youth in the tristate area do not reflect those of an entire nation of youth.

I don't recall where anyone asserted that "the life experiences of youth in the tristate area" reflected those of the entire nation of youth. Maybe you are thinking of a conversation you are having with some other "rational" person.

[_honorentheos]

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.

Then apparently you should pay better attention.

Probably true, and certainly when I post late at night. So, what did I miss exactly because it seemed to me like you were arguing that the kids who did a tomahawk chop - the select few who did, for a brief interval as far as the video shows - couldn't be doing so out of ignorance, so you were "tak(ing) issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent." I'm at a loss how else I should interpret that.

If you think a group of teenagers spontaneously doing a tomahawk chop as a response to drumming can only be understood as overtly racist rather than perhaps ignorant of why it may be offensive, I doubt I can persuade you to step back and reassess, either. It's not over the top racism. Saying it is leaves zero space for calling out much more intentional, overt expressions of racism. And where does that leave the public discussion space? screwed.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, honor, that "spontaneously doing a tomahawk chop as a response to drumming" can be interpreted as high school students being "perhaps ignorant of why it may be offensive," and that specifically pointing it out instead as overt racism leaves no space for discussions of other types of racism. Why? Only the very worst examples of racism can be discussed?

Usually I find your responses thoughtful and attentive to detail, but not this time.

I guess I failed to see where i made the case only the worst examples could be discussed, and was instead arguing the attempt to justify how it was being condemned publicly was disproportionate. I am pretty sure I never said anything to the effect they couldn't be discussed. So if I failed to respond to this directly, my apologies. I thought my response in describing my perspective should have covered it by noting HOW I thought it should be discussed. That being, not between a bunch of dumb "F"s on the internet condemning them as if they were the worst thing going on in that space.Taking the mood of the room, maybe that's a lonely view but I'm standing by it because it is what the evidence appears to indicate is the case.

[_honorentheos]

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.

In the case of the kid at the center of the viral video? I'm arguing he's the wrong target, period. Not that it's going too far. In regards to the kids in general, among whom a few appear to have done a tomahawk chop for some duration, it is certainly disproportionate to argue the public shaming and media condemnation was accurate because there is so much history we should take into account. Scapegoating the kids is way too medieval. So yeah, that's going too far with the wrong response. You want to go after the problem, go after the BHI group. You want to suggest the kids could benefit from being educated on what makes the tomahawk chop offensive? It's as easy as saying as much. But I don't think that was in your initial response so it's outside of the current solution space available I guess.

[Guest]

Another battle of perspectives.


https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/ ... 23920.html

A Florida 6th-grader called the Pledge of Allegiance ‘racist.’ Then he got arrested.

The sub was fired. But the kid was arrested for behavior after he left the classroom, not for not saying the pledge. (Just clarifying, Mak. I know you didn't say otherwise).

[Guest]

It was almost certainly innocent in the sense that Honor thinks people are innocent of racist expression.

Wow. Just wow, EA. I guess your having committed to hating on a kid because of his hat and facial expression regardless of what the unfolding evidence portrays will excuse anything now. Nice to know.

[_Lemmie]

Put another way, the comment reads to me as arguing, "If any of the kids present tomahawked chopped for any length of time, then we must assume they were motivated out of racial animus because of anecdotal evidence regarding something someone knows about what HS kids in a different part of the country are told." My response is, "Uh, shhhhuuuuurrrrrrreeee?????" I admit it is dismissive of Lemmie's point but I don't know what else to say to it. "If this unknown thing we choose to assume to be true IS true, then XYZ" exists in hypotheticals and assumptions. What should one do with that? Start working out probabilities and Bayes the bejeezus out of it?

Well, for starters you could use my actual words. You writing a nasty little screed on what you THINK I said, and then mocking the living crap out of your OWN moronic statement seems a little self-serving.

(I could also help you with some math terminology and usage--it would improve your insults tremendously. )

[_honorentheos]

Put another way, the comment reads to me as arguing, "If any of the kids present tomahawked chopped for any length of time, then we must assume they were motivated out of racial animus because of anecdotal evidence regarding something someone knows about what HS kids in a different part of the country are told." My response is, "Uh, shhhhuuuuurrrrrrreeee?????" I admit it is dismissive of Lemmie's point but I don't know what else to say to it. "If this unknown thing we choose to assume to be true IS true, then XYZ" exists in hypotheticals and assumptions. What should one do with that? Start working out probabilities and Bayes the bejeezus out of it?

Well, for starters you could use my actual words. You writing a nasty little screed on what you THINK I said, and then mocking the living crap out of your OWN moronic statement seems a little self-serving.

(I could also help you with some math terminology and usage--it would improve your insults tremendously. )

Bayesing the bejeezus out of something is a technical term, I'm pretty sure.

[_honorentheos]

Lemmie,

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.

Then apparently you should pay better attention.

Probably true, and certainly when I post late at night. So, what did I miss exactly because it seemed to me like you were arguing that the kids who did a tomahawk chop - the select few who did, for a brief interval as far as the video shows - couldn't be doing so out of ignorance, so you were "tak(ing) issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent." I'm at a loss how else I should interpret that.

Seriously, clarify this for me. I'm at a complete loss where you think I misrepresented what you were saying.

Same for the rest of that post above.

[_EAllusion]

It was almost certainly innocent in the sense that Honor thinks people are innocent of racist expression.

Wow. Just wow, EAllusion.

Alternatively, you aren't being coherent? You have repeatedly defended a definition of racism that just doesn't include most forms of racist expression, including donning blackface. If you argue that things done without the intent to express racial contempt aren't racist, then Gov. Northam almost certainly was not racist in donning blackface. People generally didn't put on blackface to express hatred of black people. They did it because they thought it was funny. A slightly more modern equivalent would be "acting gay" by adopting a swish persona. People didn't do that to express hatred of homosexuals. They did it because they thought acting out those stereotypes was amusing. We of course understand that acting out those stereotypes is demeaning and creates a fertile ground for prejudicial treatment, but the intent isn't usually to express hatred or supremacist beliefs.

Your basic defense against describing Covington teens as engaging in racist behavior equally applies to yearbook photos of people in blackface.