But apparently not:
So let me get this straight, your son should be rewarded for telling the truth, and he really doesn't hate blacks, because he supposedly has a black friend. You would think that maybe, just possibly, one or two of those black friends that you claim he socializes with, would have told him that it might not be a good idea to burn a cross as a sign of love, respect or camaraderie. When most people want to be friendly to new people in the neighbourhood, they stop by with a cake, or a pie even.Call me crazy but burning a cross just doesn't seem to say welcome to the neighbourhood. Perhaps all of the images popularized in the media of men in white sheets burning crosses just looked like some kind of weird celebration of Halloween. Maybe he believed that when they were screaming, "white power" as the crosses burned they were making a statement about how wonderful bleach is at keeping whites, white and not actually pushing a racial agenda.
I favor brownies, myself. That way, they can eat them even if they haven't unpacked the silverware yet.
What. The. Fuck?!
What does it take for someone to admit that a racist act is racist? Something tells me this moron could don a white hood and start quoting "Mein Kampf" and his mom would find some way to dismiss it.
Even people who explicitly advocate racial superiority will claim they aren't racist. Who knows.
Jesse Helms didn't die when Jesse Helms died.
I hope that all of you that make this hateful and reckless comments about Heath burn blissfully in hell. It's so classy of you to take the plunge on him now that he can't fight back... Really brave!
Yeah... Awesome.... Just fucking burn in hell. All of you, motherfuckers!
Frosted or with powdered sugar? Personally I always prefer frosting, but that's mostly because of the sugar binge in a can that's left over when you've finished plastering it on the tray.
Forgive me for saying this but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody born in 1989 didn't know the full significance of burning a cross.
John, you've got to be kidding me. If the kid didn't know then he wasn't paying attention and that's really no excuse.
So there are some dumb whites in the world. How would you rank this relative to your friend being shot three times over a cell phone? Da ya think he would take a cross burning in his front yard as a do over?
The cross burning is not nice, but it should be pointed out that you take the rant quote from a woman who is promoting a wacky overall agenda that will cause more problems for society than a cross burning by a piece of white trash.
Qoutes from the profile of the blogger "Woman Musings" that you quote:
My truth may not be your truth, but I intend to speak it nonetheless. WTF does this mean? There are different truths?
I believe in the human right to food, clothing, shelter, and education. Presumably this means taxing and taking from others. Yet, she claims she is a pacifist. How do you square that, last I heard there are guns backing up taxation.
Sounds to me like a very confused woman, jumping up and down about a cross burning that any decent white 12 year old would object to.
Dumb defenses are a fact of life of dumb criminals, haven't any you ever seen the TV show COPS?
I think we have to seriously consider John's point. Kids growing up now may not have the same historical view that we do, you know, like WW II is still rather fresh but WW I might as well be the civil war. Also, not everyone is paying attention in social studies class, you know.
Evidence in my favor: Prince Harry wearing a nazi uniform to a costume party.
Except that in the context of a costume party it is not nearly as bad as if it were in a vacuum. It still is beyond tone deaf and makes you wonder what in the hell he was thinking, but he wasn't just wearing a swastika out and about on the streets of London some dull Tuesday afternoon. This is indefensible, and, personally, I simply cannot think an adult is so willfully ignorant as to not understand what a burning cross represents. Not the least of which since Jena pushed the issue of threatening white supremacist symbolism into pervasive mainstream coverage not too long ago.
"Not the least of which since Jena pushed the issue of threatening white supremacist symbolism into pervasive mainstream coverage not too long ago."
because 19 year olds read the New York Times and watch CNN all the time.
A good number of them do, yes. Though, personally, I prefer The News Hour on PBS to the dreck that qualifies as news coverage on the 24/7's and The Financial Times for 'print' coverage. To each his own.
How did he happen to come up with the idea of going to someone else's property, erecting a cross, then setting it on fire? Even without the history, just going on to another's property and starting a fire is, to say the least, an act of intimidation. And it's hard to believe that he just thought it all up on his own. He saw it depicted in movies, history books, etc., and those depictions always make it clear what it was about - that's the point of the depiction. And that's what he wanted to emulate.
Yeah, I read the article from the blog link, and I'd put more money on the racism rather than very stupid joke now. He also could be an fire bug seeing as how the same house burned down a week after the burning cross incident.
"Forgive me for saying this but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody born in 1989 didn't know the full significance of burning a cross.
Posted by John | July 6, 2008 10:47 PM"
My little sister was born around then. I would almost be sorry for any racist foolish enough to get caught by her burning a cross because she would fuck them up so badly. Anybody born since 1989 who claims to have black friends who doesn't know how bad it is to burn a cross on someone's lawn is either a Klansman-in-training or legally retarded (or both) - and is definitely lying about having black friends. Even if burning a cross had no symbolic significance, it would still be a dangerous act of arson on someone else's property. After all, the house in question did burn down.
As for Prince Whatshisface wearing an Afrika Korps uniform, he was alive when "Schindler's List" came out. Anyone who wasn't reduced to tears at the sight of the dead little girl in the red coat is inhuman. The idea that going out and dressing like such a person is in any way acceptable just means some royal snot wasn't beaten enough as a child and I say that as someone who doesn't think parents should hit their kids in general. I mean, if someone was walking down the street yelling "Hutu Power!" everyone who knew what that meant would know that person was an ass.
The brown people get the brown snack? How about blondies or lemon squares?
(And since I am quite hungry as I write this, I think once a month Megan should bake brownies and send it to a frequent commenter. It would boost readership during hard economic times)
More seriously, it is difficult for some whites to acknowledge when a family member has acted in racist fashion, whether the activity was in the present or historical.
However, I really don't believe in the concept of "hate crime," as it leads to different results for possibly equally damaging pain, based simply on race and mental intent. It's a nice idea that does not make for justice for everyone.
The brown people get the brown snack? How about blondies or lemon squares?
(And since I am quite hungry as I write this, I think once a month Megan should bake brownies and send it to a frequent commenter. It would boost readership during hard economic times)
It is difficult for some whites to acknowledge when a family member has acted in racist fashion, whether the activity was in the present or historical.
However, I really don't believe in the concept of "hate crime," as it leads to different results for possibly equally damaging pain, based simply on race and mental intent. It's a nice idea that does not make for justice for everyone.
For the sake of argument let's say he doesn't know the racial significance. Okay then why did he even think to do this? Is burning a cross something people would naturally think is a fun prank, but the KKK ruined it? That just doesn't make sense to me. I mean I could almost see how a child could innocently draw a swastika somewhere as it's a geometric shape they could come to by accident, but to burn stuff on a neighbor's lawn without permission seems clearly hostile. Burning a giant Mr. Peanut on a neighbors lawn could seem strange and eerie in some circumstances. Also stupid and reckless.
In addition to that I would have to further buy that he doesn't even know crosses are a religious symbol. Because if he knows they are than he should have thought that burning a cross is religiously hostile in some way.
"Anyone who wasn't reduced to tears at the sight of the dead little girl in the red coat is inhuman." How very American to assume that everyone must have seen a particular film.
"I mean I could almost see how a child could innocently draw a swastika somewhere as it's a geometric shape they could come to by accident"
Thomas R does have a point here......'cause I did that in 4th grade......in a Lutheran school, no less.....my teacher was not amused.
Like everybody else here, I don't know these people. But I do know enough ordinary people that I wouldn't dismiss John's point about ignorance out of hand. I was recently asked by a 17-year-old who learned that I was going to Italy whether I planned to drive there. I once told a teenager that I was from New York, but not New York City; he found that impossible to understand, perhaps because on TV, New York is a city. I know a 14-year-old, literate in English, who can't spell his own surname. Jay Leno's "Jay Walk All-Stars" are intellectuals compared with a lot of people out there. I don't know whether this kid is a racist or not, but "He must have known" is wrong. I'd guess that if you took a poll, maybe 10 percent wouldn't have a clue.
That kids are stupid about geography doesn't mean they're stupid about everything.
I'd say he "must have known" because otherwise I don't see how the idea could've entered his head. Many teenage boys like setting things on fire, but why would they pick a cross if they didn't know about the Klan or whatever? The only thing I can think of is they'd think burning a cross is like burning a flag, but even then it'd still be a "hate crime." (Not that I'm entirely certain how I feel about "hate crimes")
I think what's more possible is he knew, but maybe wasn't racist. He may have wanted to be "shocking" and racist imagery is one of the ways kids know they can shock. Then it went out of hand and burned down the house. Or he really is a racist. Still no matter how dumb kids are I don't think they'd burn a cross without having some idea what that symbolizes.
I think what hoi polloi have trouble understanding, given their limited exposure to sophisticated culture, is that submerging a crucifix in urine is cute and funny because it offends people, but that burning a cross is a hellacious crime because it offends people. Maybe Ms. McArdle and her womanist friends can explain that in terms comprehensible to a high school student with 400 SATs, but I doubt it.
I'm not entirely unsympathetic, but there's a big difference between setting a fire on someone's lawn and being offensive on your own. Especially for libertarians.
If a 19-year-old did the submerging on someone else's property, without said person's consent, I think libertarians would support their right to arrest him or her. Or just beat said person down for trespassing and causing offense. I think some irreligious libertarians would say that if they break into your house and deface any Christian art you have you are free to shoot them.
Even from my very non-libertarian perspective I think what this young man did should be legally worse than the blasphemy. Judging by the story the fire burned this woman's house down. I think Ms McArdle deserves some benefit of the doubt. If the guy had burned a crucifix in his neighbor's lawn, and the neighbor was a blonde Catholic man, I think she'd object to that. Especially if the burning led to a fire that damaged property.
The thing that should go without saying is: "Don't burn anything on anybody's lawn. No matter how funny you think it is, it isn't." Take race out of it completely, and you still have somebody who has confessed to trespass and arson. One would hope a reasonable jury of his peers could look at the body of evidence and determine if he was truly ignorant to the meaning of his actions, or if he meant to intimidate and create fear. Either way, if his actions were premeditated they were a crime. His understanding of the full meaning ought to make the difference between 2 and 10 years in jail.
Maybe he wasn't burning a cross. Maybe he was burning a lower-case T, as a way of telling the home's residents that it's "time to leave."
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/153104
y81, I don't think you've ever seen me defend the Piss Christ--I mean, I'll defend it in legal terms, but I think it's a [expletive deleted] thing to do. As for the link, I don't think I have to agree with everything someone says to link them. And I hope we can all agree that we're against the burning of crosses on peoples' lawns.
I was actually forced to draw a swastika in sixth grade for an assignment. We had to draw the chairs various Greek gods sat in on Mount Olympus and I was assigned Hermes's, which happened to have a back shaped in the sign of a swastika. Did I mention the swastika was on fire? My teacher just told me to downplay the swastika element, which was somehow going to be easy to do with that making up a lot of a flaming chair. That has to be the most bizarre assignment I ever got.
"How very American to assume that everyone must have seen a particular film.
Posted by dearieme | July 7, 2008 6:29 AM"
Oh come on, he's not a farmer in North Korea. He's from the UK, which basically imports American culture en masse. You even have Brits who try to claim that "The Simpsons" is based on both the American and the British middle class experience. The worst American movies easily become hits in Britain, so I'm guessing that a few prominent people saw an excellent American movie about one of Britain's most hated enemies in recent history.
If you see any real significant similarity between the most famous homegrown American terrorism group's chief intimidation symbol and a random somewhat controversial painting, you need a reality check. Add in the fact that the house burned down - a house that three children lived in - and you have really lost your ability to judge reality if you see any similarity just because of a cross.
y81-
I think it says something about you that you're more upset over the burning of a religious symbol than the burning of an object (that happens to be a religious symbol) that historically has been used to threaten blacks with murder.
According to the article, the cross was about six feet tall and draped in a white sheet. Seems to me that this is merely another case why 'hate crime' statutes are unnecessary to achieve the ends -- tresspassing, attempted arson, and possibly assault will more than suffice to nail the kid for setting something like that on fire near a private residence, whether he was hateful or just extremely stupid (and I see nothing in the known facts that eliminates the latter).
Also, for those in the thread who are confusing the timeline, the article says that the house burned down several days later and is being treated as suspicious in relation to the cross burning -- albeit the kid allegedly has an alibi.
I'm certainly not defending cross burning. But I think it is difficult for a high school student in a small town to appreciate what Ms. McArdle's and my Upper West Side neighbors (womanist or not) devoutly believe: that upsetting the local church goers by desecrating a crucifix is worthy of praise, whereas upsetting a local black family by burning a cross is worthy of ten years in jail (per one of the comments above). I think that for those who are young, uneducated, poor and destined to stay poor, offending the pieties of the local establishment seems like fun without regard to what the true sophisticates a thousand miles away think.
I'm not sure why being born in 1989 is an excuse for gross ignorance; being born in, say, 1975 doesn't exactly mean you got to march at Selma.
I can see where a white 19-year-old might be forgiven for using the "N-word," given that its place in 2008 culture is very different than it was in 1958, but since cross-burning hasn't been adopted by famous hip-hop artists as a regular feature of their press conferences, it retains the same meaning it used to have.
Um, you haven't posted in, like, 16 hours. Your public needs you.
"Call me crazy but burning a cross just doesn't seem to say welcome to the neighbourhood. "
Of course, in old-times Scotland, it would just be an invitation to a family reunion, a/k/a the Calling of the Clans. Which is pretty much meaningless in today's context - some symbols are pretty much beyond redemption.
Sorry, my flight from Denver was delayed, and I got in around 7 this morning. Posting to resume shortly.
The law does not make cross-burning a criminal offense because it "offends" anyone, but because it conveys a specific threat: "Unless you, Mr. or Ms. N-word, move out of our neighborhood we will burn your house down and/or kill you." Here's one of the statutes these cases are proscuted under:
42 USC 3631.
The trespass really has nothing to do with it (except that if the cross is burned on the target family's lawn, that makes it easier to prove the motive). It's the threat. ("Hate speech" has nothing to do with it either.)
Anyone who fails to understand the nature and seriousness of the threat is just clueless. Probably wilfully so.
' I really don't believe in the concept of "hate crime,"'
Each of the seven deadly sins should have their own type of crime - hate crime, lust crime, greed crime, sloth crime, Hanging Gardens of Babylon Crime, pride crime and jealousy crime.
Incidentally, burning a small wooden structure on somebody's lawn probably isn't arson unless you end up burning down a house or garage; more like "reckless burning" or "malicious mischief." Consult an attorney before burning anything on your neighbor's lawn.
I think if I were a black family moving into a neighborhood where this sort of thing was possible, I'd invest in the most powerful dry-chemical fire extinguisher I could find. Nothing says "I'm a douchbag" like going to the emergency room with that stuff in your eyes.
I think if you were a black family, the probability is that you would think way more than twice about moving into such a neighborhood at all. That's why the perpetrators do it. It works.
Further with regard to the statute I quoted above: The maximum penalty is a year, unless you hurt someone or "use fire" in the commission of the crime, in which case the max is life. Setting fire to the cross has been held to consitute "using fire." So think twice before striking that match.
(Clicking through to the news item, I see that this is not a federal case. The perp is charged under Arkansas law with "terroristic threats." The idea is presumably the same.)
I think if you were a black family, the probability is that you would think way more than twice about moving into such a neighborhood at all.
You're probably right. Change that to: "If I was a cranky old black guy..."
Anyone who fails to understand the nature and seriousness of the threat is just clueless. Probably wilfully so.
Or, we could go with the old saying "never assume mallice where stupidity will suffice", and then wait for mallice to be proven in due time. An acquaintance of mine, during his high school years in the semi-rural south, once convinced a classmate that the moon really was made of green cheese and that the government was hiding the evidence it had obtained in the moon missions to prevent a commodity market crash in dairy products -- which she then repeated it in dead earnest to the science teacher to correct his clear misunderstanding of astronomy.
If anything, the people rushing to assume a racist motive are the ones who are revealing the most about themselves here. If the kid really was an ignorant idiot and had no clue what the symbol was, or else the fact that was creating one (scarecrows are also commonly mounted on a cruciform shape, it happens to coincide well with the basic geometry of a human torso with outstretched arms), then it may be that he thought it would be a neat trick to build a flaming ghost.
Still unbelievably stupid, given the intimidation it could create of its own, symbol-independent merits, and the obvious risk of property damage. But I do wonder how many of the 'lynch him' voices in this thread have a few skeletons in their own high school closet. Sure, if the kid's intent was malicious, throw the book at him. But first, prove it.
"I'm certainly not defending cross burning. But I think it is difficult for a high school student in a small town to appreciate what Ms. McArdle's and my Upper West Side neighbors (womanist or not) devoutly believe: that upsetting the local church goers by desecrating a crucifix is worthy of praise, whereas upsetting a local black family by burning a cross is worthy of ten years in jail (per one of the comments above)."
Nice non sequitur. You're just masturbating at this point.
"If anything, the people rushing to assume a racist motive are the ones who are revealing the most about themselves here. If the kid really was an ignorant idiot and had no clue what the symbol was, or else the fact that was creating one (scarecrows are also commonly mounted on a cruciform shape, it happens to coincide well with the basic geometry of a human torso with outstretched arms), then it may be that he thought it would be a neat trick to build a flaming ghost."
I think Occam's Razor has to come into play here. A young white guy burns a cross on a biracial family's lawn in the Deep South. What is more likely: A) he was emulating the KKK or B) he was trying to burn a scarecrow/ghost without the scarecrow or ghost? Either he stumbled into the biggest ballpit of stupid coincidences in history or he was intentionally emulating racist motifs in a threatening manner. There's just too many coincidences pointing to the KKK style - threatening minority families new to a neighborhood with a burning cross - to be a coincidence. If this was just something he stumbled along stupidly, we would here in "Odd News of the Day" bits about how white families in Vermont would have some neighborhood dumbass do this on their lawn, but that doesn't exactly seem to happen. Add in the mother's use of the racist's canard - "I have black friends" - and you have yourself a rather prototypical racist. All he's missing is a white hood and a noose. What does it take for you to admit someone was being racist?
Reality Man, you've got to separate intent from effect. Some racial symbols--like a burning cross--are deeply frightening. Some--like fried chicken and watermelons--are merely annoying. Maybe this kid confused one with the other. I'm inclined to doubt it--how stupid can you possibly be?--but it's not impossible. That's doubly true given that all we have is a newspaper article. A couple of years ago lots of people were convinced the Duke lacrosse team were a bunch of rapits.
No doubt the cross was understood as a racist threat. The question is, was it meant that way? Probably yes, in my judgment, but it takes more than that to get past reasonable doubt.
Add in the mother's use of the racist's canard - "I have black friends" - and you have yourself a rather prototypical racist.
That's not fair. It's perfectly sensible to defend yourself from a charge of racism by pointing out that you have friends of the allegedly vilified race. The joke behind the "I have black friends" line is that the cracker saying it is referring to the guy who shines his shoes or works the coatroom at the country club. But if that's not the case--if they really are real friends who happen to be black--then it's perfectly legitimate. It's more powerful, of course, if your real black friends are the ones defending you...
"Reality Man, you've got to separate intent from effect. Some racial symbols--like a burning cross--are deeply frightening. Some--like fried chicken and watermelons--are merely annoying. Maybe this kid confused one with the other. I'm inclined to doubt it--how stupid can you possibly be?--but it's not impossible. That's doubly true given that all we have is a newspaper article. A couple of years ago lots of people were convinced the Duke lacrosse team were a bunch of rapits."
Is this kid functionally retarded? That's the only way I would accept the idea that burning a cross on a biracial family's home isn't meant to be emulating the KKK. Anyway, you are already ceding ground here that it was a racist symbol, just that the boy in question confused them with less violent ones like minstrel show motifs. As such, you have pretty much admitted he was inspired by racism.
To rehash the Duke scandal, a big reason people thought the Duke lacrosse kids were rapists was over those extremely creepy e-mails full of violent sexual imagery that were pretty much rape fantasies sent by a teammate from the house that night. That one teammate at least was pretty much admitting he is a sexist. The question was whether or not the team had actually raped anyone. Racism isn't required for a group of white guys to rape a black woman. In the case at hand, we already know this kid burned a cross.
"That's not fair. It's perfectly sensible to defend yourself from a charge of racism by pointing out that you have friends of the allegedly vilified race. The joke behind the "I have black friends" line is that the cracker saying it is referring to the guy who shines his shoes or works the coatroom at the country club. But if that's not the case--if they really are real friends who happen to be black--then it's perfectly legitimate. It's more powerful, of course, if your real black friends are the ones defending you...
Posted by Rob Lyman | July 7, 2008 3:53 PM"
If someone truly has close black friends that they share things with mutually, then they would know that certain types of behavior are deemed racist and unacceptable. If he truly had close black friends, chances are he would have talked about his prank with at least one of them and they would have told him beforehand he was being a racist idiot. If he does have close black friends and he decided not to tell them about this, he probably didn't do so because he knew it was wrong. Anyone with actual close black friends knows not to burn crosses on people's lawns. After all, part of the logic behind integration is to have us learn more about one another so we can understand one another. Hell, anyone without black friends in the US should know this. As someone who has been used as the example of a minority friend by a racist classmate and teammate who thought we were somehow good friends when we weren't, I take this very seriously. Even if he did have black friends, I can bet you he probably doesn't anymore.
Also, the idea that someone who is 19 in the US doesn't know why cross burning on a minority family's lawn is wrong is just silly. That goes double for someone in the Deep South, one of the main historical bases for the KKK. Growing up in Boston, we all knew about bits of less-than-noble local history like Whitey Bulger and the Irish mob. For us not to know this, we would have had to have spent all day locked up like Carrie in our parents' closets. This kid has to live in the most expansive bubble in history to not come across the history of the KKK while growing up in Arkansas.
Some cross-burnings are no doubt simply manifestations of the deep stupidity of fifteen-year-old boys as a class, with no particular object in mind -- like mailbox-smashing, only with worse consequences.
Others however certainly result from a deep-seated determination on the part of a group to keep their neighborhood all-white. If such a group exists, they are highly likely to pick on the youngest (and stupidest) of the group to carry out the plan -- for the same reason that drug dealers recruit little kids to hold their merchandise.
The fact that somebody actually burned this house down a few days later suggests to me that this incident falls in the second category.
As such, you have pretty much admitted he was inspired by racism.
Sure, but was it the "idiotic prank" variety of racism or the "lynch mob" variety? When it comes to sending someone to jail for years and years, the distinction is not unimportant.
a big reason people thought the Duke lacrosse kids were rapists...
...was that newspapers reported that they were. My point is simply that newspapers screw things up all the time, and interested parties manipulate reporters to support their personal agendas.
I agree the kid's an idiot, and the evidence points to him being a racist idiot. Is he a terroristic idiot? Again: probably, but not certainly.
As someone who has been used as the example of a minority friend by a racist classmate and teammate who thought we were somehow good friends when we weren't, I take this very seriously.
As someone with biracial children who has found white-power newsletters in his driveway, I take this pretty seriously, too. But trial first, punishment afterward.
There was an intramural hoops team at my (suburban, very white) high school in the early 90s briefly named "Lynch Mob." Suffice it to say, the league organizers put the kibosh on that and re-christened the team "Lunch Mob." For the life of me I do not know the motivation behind the name, as the guys on the team, AFAIK, didn't have any racial animus. Another team was named "Electric Fetus" (aka "Electric Furnace") so my reckoning is that some guys were just trying to push buttons.
FWIW, back then I was totally unfamiliar with the racial aspect of lynching. I thought it was just another name for hanging-as-execution, as might be inflicted upon cattle-rustlers. But even I knew about cross burning...
roac wrote: The fact that somebody actually burned this house down a few days later suggests to me that this incident falls in the second category.
Not confirmed. The article simply states that the sheriff and FBI are investigating on the belief that it is arson, but the main thing at this point seems to be the cirumstantial link between the house burning down and the cross incident a few days before. There are a million and a half reasons why a rental house might burn down, not all of them arson. Even if it was arson, there are still such things as "coincidence" and "opportunitism" (what better time to perpetrate an insurance scam on your rental property than the moment that everyone will be looking the wrong direction?), which the investigation will presumably confirm or rule out.
Reality Man wrote: I think Occam's Razor has to come into play here. A young white guy burns a cross on a biracial family's lawn in the Deep South. What is more likely: A) he was emulating the KKK or B) he was trying to burn a scarecrow/ghost without the scarecrow or ghost? Either he stumbled into the biggest ballpit of stupid coincidences in history or he was intentionally emulating racist motifs in a threatening manner. There's just too many coincidences pointing to the KKK style - threatening minority families new to a neighborhood with a burning cross - to be a coincidence. If this was just something he stumbled along stupidly, we would here in "Odd News of the Day" bits about how white families in Vermont would have some neighborhood dumbass do this on their lawn, but that doesn't exactly seem to happen. Add in the mother's use of the racist's canard - "I have black friends" - and you have yourself a rather prototypical racist. All he's missing is a white hood and a noose. What does it take for you to admit someone was being racist?
I think Occam's Razor should be used correctly, and not as a talisman to ward off legitimate criticisms of a long chain of circumstantial leaps and Applied Stereotyping.
The kid may well be guilty as sin, and should be brought to justice accordingly, but the involved local and federal law enforcement agencies are the appropriate parties to make that case. A lone 300-word newspaper article that too conveniently plays to all the pet sterotypes, followed by a domino chain of blogged outrage, is hardly my lamppost of conclusive evidence. The reporter may be telling a reasonably objective, factual story that represents the sides as fairly as possible...or maybe the reporter is playing you like a fiddle, using your justified outrage against prejudice to sell the reporter's private agenda, and newspapers. Won't know which until you test drive a little bit of rational skepticism.
And in the event some 13yo girl ever turns wide-eyed on you in Wal-Mart, screams, and then comes back with her parents and store security, you might appreciate being judged by the same standard. Just sayin'.
"As someone with biracial children who has found white-power newsletters in his driveway, I take this pretty seriously, too. But trial first, punishment afterward.
Posted by Rob Lyman | July 7, 2008 4:31 PM"
The last time I checked, this comments thread was not a court room. After all, being racist is not a crime punishable by law. It is a social taboo. Now, if he is acquitted for doing this and it all turns out to have not actually happened, that's one thing. However, we can only comment on any news story based on what we know in the press. Unless you are willing to go into a state in which there are no real objective facts and just different biased versions of the truth, meaning that we can never hold an opinion on any social occurrence we did not personally see (which is a bit silly), there has to be some metric short of telepathy that we need to be able to use to judge if someone is a racist and motivated by racial malice. Anyway, IIRC it doesn't even seem that the kid in question is denying burning the cross, but only denying being a racist.
You really have erected an impossibly high standard towards judging if an act is racist, which after all is not what any court of law tries to determine. After all, we are living in an age in which video and photography can be digitally altered. While healthy skepticism is necessary, running around as a nihilist who believes absolutely nothing in the media is just a way to not hold an opinion on anything and remove oneself from any type of national conversation.
"And in the event some 13yo girl ever turns wide-eyed on you in Wal-Mart, screams, and then comes back with her parents and store security, you might appreciate being judged by the same standard. Just sayin'.
Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | July 7, 2008 6:32 PM"
I've been racially profiled a few times in my life, so I don't really need a lecture on this. (Ironically, the first time it happened to me, some white classmates of mine who just happened to be in the store (and later ended up being held for psychological evaluation, one of them for planning a shooting spree) took the opportunity to start stuffing magazines and other stolen stuff into their backpacks.) However, since this is not a courtroom and we have no real power to convict this kid, the analogy you're using here doesn't really work.
But really, what would it take for you to say this guy is a racist? A swastika tattooed to his forehead?
"There was an intramural hoops team at my (suburban, very white) high school in the early 90s briefly named "Lynch Mob." Suffice it to say, the league organizers put the kibosh on that and re-christened the team "Lunch Mob." For the life of me I do not know the motivation behind the name, as the guys on the team, AFAIK, didn't have any racial animus."
Ice Cube was doing some work with Da Lench Mob in the early 1990's. Maybe that could have been the inspiration.
y81 wrote: "I'm certainly not defending cross burning. But I think it is difficult for a high school student in a small town to appreciate what Ms. McArdle's and my Upper West Side neighbors (womanist or not) devoutly believe: that upsetting the local church goers by desecrating a crucifix is worthy of praise, whereas upsetting a local black family by burning a cross is worthy of ten years in jail (per one of the comments above). I think that for those who are young, uneducated, poor and destined to stay poor, offending the pieties of the local establishment seems like fun without regard to what the true sophisticates a thousand miles away think."
y81, it's been said before, but what makes you think that liberal sophisticates like me are upset about the burning cross or think it is punishable because it offended or upset a local black family? It is because it intimidated them, threatened them with physical harm (as that symbol is often a "get out of town" warning before the lynchings etc. begin) and did all of this on their own property. How is this at all the same as defending someone's right to create art that offends people? I would defend the right to create art that offends black people, but that's really not what we're talking about here. I'm sorry you can't see that.
However, we can only comment on any news story based on what we know in the press.
Indeed, and my point is simply that a single news story is inadequate information. The media get things wrong a lot. Duke, Haditha, Jenin, etc. I'm not denying the racism (really, read what I've written), I'm simply unwilling to write the kid off as a terrorist.
No, these comments are not a court of law. But a rush to judgment is no more becoming here than there.