Is this message reasonable? Why not?

[Argus]

Redheads in Canada are not singled out and subjected to racism/bigotry/violence. Can't say the same for Blacks, Jews, and Sikhs. This, again, is why it didn't get the same response. However, once it became more than a joke, the RCMP was there. Same as they would have been for Blacks, Jews, or Sikhs. The difference is that redheads will not continue to suffer the racism/bigotry/violence that Blacks, Jews, and Sikhs would continue to be subjected to had the day been about them..

You have any evidence that Blacks, Jews or Sikhs are "suffering" from attacks and violence to a greater extent than redheads?

I mean, you say this as though everyone is to accept it without question, that minorities are "suffering" under the bigotry and physical attacks of a racist society.

I'm questioning it.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm questioning it.

Go ahead and question it if you're that uninformed -- or do a bit of research and find out the answer. It's not my job to educate you on racism/bigotry.

[Guest American Woman]

That's clearly false. The principal didn't find out about it until Monday evening, and the children were not confronted until Tuesday morning.

They weren't confronted by the principal until Tuesday morning, and I never claimed otherwise.

Your article does not state which students were slapped, and says "at least one" student was slapped. Nothing in the article suggests that the Jewish students were the recipient of more aggressive behaviour than others. And as already pointed out, the students were not confronted about their behaviour until Tuesday.

As I already pointed out, they weren't confronted by the principal until Tuesday morning. Some of the parents were upset about it Monday night.

And here's the thing; I've read more than the articles I've linked to. here you go:

It happened Monday at Parkway West Middle School. Some kids called it 'Hit a Jew' Day. At least three children were hit during the incident, all of whom were Jewish. Two were tapped on the shoulder or arm, but one child was slapped in the face.

It was the Jewish child who was slapped in the face, just as I said.

And finally we are on the same page.

We both know that people tolerated "Kick A Ginger Day" because they thought it was a harmless prank, and we both know that nobody would have tolerated"Kick A Jew Day".

Right you are. And one...more...time. It's because redheads have not suffered from the racism that Jews have. Redheads have not been subjected to the bigotry that Jews have. Redheads have not had a history of suffering like Jews have.

That's the last time I will repeat that. If you still don't get it, you never will.

So, how did we become a society where people are smart enough to recognize that the one is absolutely not funny, yet still stupid enough to think that the other is funny?

People are "smart" enough to recognize a history of racism/bigotry, making "Kick a Redhead Day" different from "Kick a [group suffering from a history of racism/bigotry] Day." As I've also pointed out repeatedly, once it became more than a joke, based on a tv series -- not made up out of the blue, the RCMP were involved. The media was involved. There are countless articles about this on the internet. It was treated no differently than "Hit a Jew Day" would have been.

What I'm wondering is: the 13 kids participating in the swarming that led to the kid being taken to hospital... are they thinking "Well, he's not brown and he's not Jewish, so this is just harmless fun"?

I would imagine the 13 students you are referring to would have done the same to "brown" and "Jewish" students had the day been about them. Do you seriously think otherwise? These kids are clearly bullies. No one said the kids who actually hurt the redheads thought it was harmless fun.

Bottom line. "Kick a Ginger Day" was initially perceived by some as the joke it was intended to be, and those people therefore reacted differently than they would have had it been "Kick a Black Day" et al because of the history of racism/bigotry directed at these groups, but once it was clear it was not a joke it was taken seriously by the RCMP and the media same as it would have been had it been any of the other groups you've mentioned.

And now, having repeated myself several times, I am done. You yourself admit that there's no racism directed at redheads in Canada, yet you're faulting people for not reacting the same as they would have reacted to racism. You expect people to have the same reaction to two very different situations, and there's no basis for your expectations/criticism -- because the situations weren't the same.

[kimmy]

They weren't confronted by the principal until Tuesday morning, and I never claimed otherwise.

As I already pointed out, they weren't confronted by the principal until Tuesday morning. Some of the parents were upset about it Monday night.

So they were confronted on Monday by ... mystery adults?

So you didn't specify the principal. Nice attempt at a dodge, but none of your articles says anything to support the claim that students were admonished by any other adults for their behavior on Monday either. The only mention of an adult other than the principal doing anything on Monday was a Jewish parent who called the principal to complain. Unless you've got some more articles up your sleeve, we'll just have to file the claim that the children were admonished for their behavior on Monday under "creative writing".

And here's the thing; I've read more than the articles I've linked to. here you go:

It happened Monday at Parkway West Middle School. Some kids called it 'Hit a Jew' Day. At least three children were hit during the incident, all of whom were Jewish. Two were tapped on the shoulder or arm, but one child was slapped in the face.

It was the Jewish child who was slapped in the face, just as I said.

That addresses only what happened on "Hit A Jew Day", and makes no claim as to what may have happened on the prior "Hit A Tall Person Day". There is, again, nothing to support the claim that the Jewish kids were exposed to a higher level of aggression than on the previous "spirit week" days... and clearly this was a very low level of aggression in any case.

Clearly, and I think this obvious to everyone who reads the articles, the line that was crossed was when the Jewish kids were singled out. That's implicit in the principal's comments, and she suggests that even some of the sixth graders understood that was over the line.

Right you are. And one...more...time. It's because redheads have not suffered from the racism that Jews have. Redheads have not been subjected to the bigotry that Jews have. Redheads have not had a history of suffering like Jews have.

That's the last time I will repeat that. If you still don't get it, you never will.

The historical subtleties probably come as very little comfort to the kid on the receiving end of the swarming.

And I'm just curious as to how we reached a point that people know that swarming a Jewish kid for being Jewish is wrong, yet apparently don't realize that swarming a redheaded kid for having red hair is wrong. And for all your talk about the historical nature of the issue, you haven't addressed that.

The bigger picture is that people shouldn't get beat up. How'd we get to the point where people know they're in deep trouble if they pick on a Jewish kid or a black kid, but don't see a problem with picking on somebody else?

People are "smart" enough to recognize a history of racism/bigotry, making "Kick a Redhead Day" different from "Kick a [group suffering from a history of racism/bigotry] Day." As I've also pointed out repeatedly, once it became more than a joke, based on a tv series -- not made up out of the blue, the RCMP were involved. The media was involved. There are countless articles about this on the internet. It was treated no differently than "Hit a Jew Day" would have been.

That's crap. "Hit A Jew Day" would have been shut down instantaneously, by Facebook and by the RCMP.

This group was against Canadian law. I strongly suspect that the very existence of this group was a direct violation of Facebook's terms of use. I think it's highly debatable as to whether this was treated consistently with the principles of Canadian law or with Facebook's own terms of use. They failed to meet their own standards.

I would imagine the 13 students you are referring to would have done the same to "brown" and "Jewish" students had the day been about them. Do you seriously think otherwise?

We just agreed that people simply would not have tolerated "Kick A Brown Person Day" and "Kick A Jewish Person Day". So the situation you're proposing is completely hypothetical.

People wouldn't have participated in a "Kick A Jew Day" swarming because they would know full well they'd wind up in juvenile court.

People wouldn't have joined the Facebook group in the first place, because they'd be worried about getting a visit from the RCMP.

The Facebook group wouldn't have had time to attract 5000 members, because Facebook would have shut down been shut down the "Kick A Jew" group within minutes.

And nobody would have started the Facebook group at all, because they know they'd wind up getting a visit from the RCMP.

We're contrasting 13 kids curb-stomping a redhead kid in a locker-room because they didn't think they'd get in trouble for it against 13 kids who weren't doing anything because they knew full well that curb-stomping a Jewish kid or a brown kid would have got them in a world of trouble.

We're comparing an incident that happened to one that never would have been allowed to happen.

These kids are clearly bullies. No one said the kids who actually hurt the redheads thought it was harmless fun.

Well duh. Clearly they were bullies. However, I think the circumstances are very interesting.

The first thing that stands out is that 13 is a tremendously large group for bullies. In my experience, bullies are usually individuals or small groups of outcasts. This attack apparently happened in a locker-room at a school... 13 students would be fully half of a typical sex-segregated phys-ed class at any school I've attended. My family moved around a lot and my brother and I attended many different schools and my brother was a magnet for bullies. And yet I can't recall such a large group ever participating in a bullying incident. I don't believe "bullying" is an adequate term to describe that size of a group attacking an individual.

And, why a "ginger kid" on "Kick A Ginger Day"? Clearly the existence of the "joke" in itself played a role in inciting the violence. It's possible that this particular kid was a target for bullies, but to think that he was beaten up with this severity by such a large group on a regular basis simply defies credibility. Clearly there's a mob mentality played a role, and clearly incitement played a role...

Bottom line. "Kick a Ginger Day" was initially perceived by some as the joke it was intended to be, and those people therefore reacted differently than they would have had it been "Kick a Black Day" et al because of the history of racism/bigotry directed at these groups, but once it was clear it was not a joke it was taken seriously by the RCMP and the media same as it would have been had it been any of the other groups you've mentioned.

...and in Canada, incitement of violence is against the law. The law doesn't specify that it's only against the law if the target group has been historically victimized.

And now, having repeated myself several times, I am done. You yourself admit that there's no racism directed at redheads in Canada, yet you're faulting people for not reacting the same as they would have reacted to racism. You expect people to have the same reaction to two very different situations, and there's no basis for your expectations/criticism -- because the situations weren't the same.

I'm faulting people for being too stupid to recognize that announcing "National Kick A Ginger Day" and reminding people to "shine up those steel-toed boots" was not in the least bit funny. When has talking about harming a group of people ever resulted in anything remotely funny?

Hey, they're joking about curb-stomping kids... but at least there's no rayyyyycism.

-k

{First they came for the tall kids, and I did not speak out because I was not tall.

Then they came for the ginger kids, and I did not speak out, because I was not ginger.

Then they came for the Jewish kids, and all hell broke loose, and there was a school assembly and suspensions and mandatory counselling sessions and newspaper headlines and a lady from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League...}

[Pliny]

Gang violence in Chicago kills innocent 16 year old bystander.

This is certainly because people who are members of gangs have their heads on their shoulders. They can think clearly for themselves.

This is the kind of thinking I was referring to - members of gangs have no self respect or sense of identity. The gang is all that is important. In a gang they are somebody. They are tough. People notice them. They can act as they please with no respect for anyone else. It's is the mob mentality, the collective conscience.

Kick a ginger day is a consequence of the same thing but merely of a different magnitude.

Thanks for acknowledging my point and giving it some consideration. Do I have to institute a "kick an MLWer day" to get an audience?

[kimmy]

Thanks for acknowledging my point and giving it some consideration. Do I have to institute a "kick an MLWer day" to get an audience?

Sorry for not responding, and I am giving it some consideration.

And yeah, I do think you're to some extent right. Bullying, the need to build ones' self at the expense of others, maybe even gangs, all to some degree involve lack of self image and the desire to feel important and powerful.

And to me it seems like all the political correctness and hugs and holding hands has not done away with that desire, just channeled it in different directions.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

So they were confronted on Monday by ... mystery adults?

It didn't say. Perhaps parents. But if you think the news is always specific regarding details, you have a lot to learn. I read that the kids started "spirit days" in fun, with no hatred towards Jews. So why would they have suddenly realized that, and only that, was wrong? Until they were confronted by adults, they didn't realize what they had done was wrong. And it wasn't just in regards to Jews, as you keep trying to push.

For some bizarre reason you keep pushing the idea that it's "ok" to hit others. It's not. No one thinks that it is, and once it became apparent "Kick a Ginger Day" was not a joke, it was treated the same by the RCMP and media as any other group you mention would have been treated. When the school authorities found out about what had been going on during "spirit week," they treated it seriously -- and contrary to what you keep trying to push, it wasn't just in respect to Jews.

And I'm just curious as to how we reached a point that people know that swarming a Jewish kid for being Jewish is wrong, yet apparently don't realize that swarming a redheaded kid for having red hair is wrong. And for all your talk about the historical nature of the issue, you haven't addressed that.

You keep repeating this nonsense over and over. Who thought it wasn't wrong to swarm the redheaded kids?? Those doing it? As I pointed out, they would have done the same to any group who was singled out because clearly the are bullies. There have always been bullies, and there likely always will be bullies.

But those who thought "Kick a Ginger Day" was a joke were right in it's intent; and they thought that because of the tv show and the fact that there hasn't been a problem in Canada in regards to redheads. That's why the initial reaction wasn't the same had it been "Kick a Black et al". If you seriously don't get that, and if you seriously think because the initial reaction wasn't the same that people think it's ok to harm redheads et al, even as the RCMP and media got involved, you are the one with the problem.

Clearly, and I think this obvious to everyone who reads the articles, the line that was crossed was when the Jewish kids were singled out.

Clearly you are wrong. And this is the last link I will post on this topic. I am done.

Last week, several sixth-graders at West Middle started their own unofficial “spirit-type" activities in the hallways. These activities occurred without the knowledge of teachers or administrators until Monday evening, October 20. What initially began as harmless fun including hugs and high-fives, somehow sadly turned into slaps or hits directed at Jewish students and tall students. Clearly this is unacceptable behavior that will not be tolerated in the Parkway School District.

But keep pushing your ludicrous notion that people think it's "ok" to slap/hit/kick someone as long as it doesn't involve anyone whose nationality/religion/race isn't subjected to/doesn't have a history of racism/bigotry/violence.

Edited September 30, 2009 by American Woman

[Pliny]

Sorry for not responding, and I am giving it some consideration.

And yeah, I do think you're to some extent right. Bullying, the need to build ones' self at the expense of others, maybe even gangs, all to some degree involve lack of self image and the desire to feel important and powerful.

And to me it seems like all the political correctness and hugs and holding hands has not done away with that desire, just channeled it in different directions.

-k

Thanks. Now I feel important and powerful and can abandon the need to get a gang together and make things happen. Where is Dancer when you need him?

The right and the left are the biggest gangs. No one likes, I don't think, criminal gangs, and the right's solution is hitting back with bigger jail sentences while the left's solution is being nicer and more compassionate - peace and love and all that. The left tries to use reason (operative word "tries" in order to force change) and the other openly uses force but both of them are about ganging up and subduing individuality and forcing a change in identifying with society as it is engineered rather than identifying with street gangs, which would be all very nice, except for the fact individual choice is overruled.

There is something right about "gangs" and it is that a gang can accomplish more than an individual. This is how society runs, it is the "division of labour" which we share to enhance and improve our lives. When society is engineered by government and it's mores and values set in stone through legislation, that is to say the law, and enforced with fines and jail terms options for individuals become increasingly narrow and increasingly from the top down. "WE" the citizenry instead of a voice of the citizen are more the serfs. Democratic governments soon only listen to groups - "special interests". Special interests that have nothing to do about what is for the good of the country or fairness or equality but what is good for them, and if it serves the political class they may listen. The individual is left to complain about not being able to effect any change. They don't vote because no matter what they do or think the more things change the more they stay the same. They are abandoned and apathetic and retreat into the shell of their family and their work while they watch society go to hell in a hand cart.

The entire economic crisis is primarily about falling government revenues. It isn't about the failing economy and unemployment except as it affects government income and expenditures.

Businesses fail all the time, why they all fail at the same time and result in a recession or depression is because of variables in both fiscal and social policy that the government introduces so that those involved in business are left unable to make correct entrepreneurial prediction and/or are swayed to abandon prudence and make decisions based upon what the government does or may or may not do and are not based upon market variables - their true expertise.

I've said enough for now. I gotta go.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Pliny

[kimmy]

Clearly you are wrong. And this is the last link I will post on this topic. I am done.

(odd, I'd heard that you were done yesterday.)

Last week, several sixth-graders at West Middle started their own unofficial “spirit-type" activities in the hallways. These activities occurred without the knowledge of teachers or administrators until Monday evening, October 20. What initially began as harmless fun including hugs and high-fives, somehow sadly turned into slaps or hits directed at Jewish students and tall students. Clearly this is unacceptable behavior that will not be tolerated in the Parkway School District.

Of course he's going to say that. You'll notice that this isn't a news article, this is a public relations statement from the school superintendent. What else is he going to say?.

It didn't say. Perhaps parents. But if you think the news is always specific regarding details, you have a lot to learn. I read that the kids started "spirit days" in fun, with no hatred towards Jews. So why would they have suddenly realized that, and only that, was wrong? Until they were confronted by adults, they didn't realize what they had done was wrong. And it wasn't just in regards to Jews, as you keep trying to push.

The principal said that some of the students started to realize that they had gone too far on Monday. Your conclusion that they must have been confronted by others to come to this realization is not supported by any of the articles you posted. You're the most obsessive person on this message board when it comes to demanding citations and proof, and yet you're asking others to accept something you can't back up with anything other than your own assumptions.

The principal said that some of the students realized they'd crossed the line on Monday, and clearly the implication is that even some of the sixth graders realized that slapping Jewish kids is different from slapping tall kids. And I can't imagine why you're so stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that, when you yourself are arguing that "Hit A Jew Day" is different from "Hit A Tall Kid Day" or "Kick A Ginger Day".

You keep repeating this nonsense over and over. Who thought it wasn't wrong to swarm the redheaded kids?? Those doing it? As I pointed out, they would have done the same to any group who was singled out because clearly the are bullies. There have always been bullies, and there likely always will be bullies.

I've emphasized the key phrase here. "Any group who was singled out." Because all we've really accomplished is make people more careful in choosing who gets singled out.

-k

[kimmy]

Thanks. Now I feel important and powerful and can abandon the need to get a gang together and make things happen. Where is Dancer when you need him?

Dancer is a ginger, and is not here because he is afraid he will get kicked.

I am late for work and will reply later.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

Y'all remember the Wichita Horror? Don't worry...I didn't either, but it seems relevant to this thread.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorio...hers/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

[M.Dancer]

Dancer is a ginger, and is not here because he is afraid he will get kicked.

I am late for work and will reply later.

-k

I must protest....I am not a ginger, more pink with grey and brown....but my wee little laddie is, in spades.

And my thought about him being targeted is nemo me impune lacessit

[Guest American Woman]

(odd, I'd heard that you were done yesterday.)

Really? In light of the fact that you were still responding to me full force, I thought you had missed it. Now that I see you understand that you won't be getting any more responses to your continued responses to me, rather than reading any further, I will bid you a fond adieu .....

[Guest American Woman]

Y'all remember the Wichita Horror? Don't worry...I didn't either, but it seems relevant to this thread.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorio...hers/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

Actually, I don't recall ever hearing about it .....

But then, I wouldn't have heard about "Kick a Ginger Day" or "Kick a Jew Day" either, had it not been for this forum.

Edited September 30, 2009 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, I don't recall ever hearing about it .....

But then, I wouldn't have heard about "Kick a Ginger Day" or "Kick a Jew Day" either, had it not been for this forum.

Critics of the case...and there were apparently many...claimed had it been the other way around...you know...you'd have actually heard about it...as would have I.

[Guest American Woman]

Critics of the case...and there were apparently many...claimed had it been the other way around...you know...you'd have actually heard about it...as would have I.

Some would say that, but not you?

[DogOnPorch]

Some would say that, but not you?

I agree with the judge at least conditionally* about the motive, but it does seem odd that it never got the air time Winona's shoplifting case got which was at the same time.

*These guys must have known they were in a mostly 'white' neighborhood of Wichita (Andover).

[Guest American Woman]

...it does seem odd that it never got the air time Winona's shoplifting case got which was at the same time.

Rarely do events involving 'ordinary people' get the media attention that celebrities do. I would say the public is to blame for that since media coverage goes where the money is (ie: what the people are most interested in). Look at the attention OJ got, and that was the case of a Black who (allegedly) murdered Whites.

But for the record, I'm happy to say that I wasn't aware of Winona's shoplifting, either.

I agree with the judge at least conditionally* about the motive,

*These guys must have known they were in a mostly 'white' neighborhood of Wichita (Andover).

I'll agree "conditionally" too. I'm sure white people are "targeted" by Blacks, but for different reasons than whites target Blacks in 'hate crimes.' (Not that I don't think Blacks ever target Whites out of anger, which amounts to "hate").

I would say since whites on the average have higher incomes than Blacks, it makes sense that Blacks would be more likely to "target" whites to rob. Also, when picking victims randomly, since there are so many more Whites than Blacks, the odds are that it will be a white victim. By the same token, it would be less likely for Whites to target Blacks to rob because of the average income disparity, and it would be less likely for Whites to randomly pick Blacks since there are fewer of them.

But back to the idea of "hate crimes." I don't think every interracial crime is a hate crime, but there's a reason why it's kind of lopsided in how they're perceived. Do you know of any Black equivalent to the KKK? Do you know of any Black group that marches through White neighborhoods spewing hate? That engage in the equivalent of cross burning?

I think history has shown hatred/violence towards minorities, not the other way around.

As a side note, unless there's been a drastic change in recent years that I'm unaware of, blacks getting the death penalty for killing whites is much more likely than whites getting the death penalty for killing blacks.

Edited September 30, 2009 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

But back to the idea of "hate crimes." I don't think every interracial crime is a hate crime, but there's a reason why it's kind of lopsided in how they're perceived. Do you know of any Black equivalent to the KKK? Do you know of any Black group that marches through White neighborhoods spewing hate? That engage in the equivalent of cross burning?

The Black Panthers come to mind with their death to pigs/death to whitey rallies with weapons openly displayed. Do you recall those perhaps? The activites of the Nation of Islam also suggest that I'd not be a welcome face at their meetings. For my benefit...when was the last time the KKK marched through a 'black neighborhood'? Seriously.

Re: Hate crime. Did you actually read what these guys did? If that wasn't a hate crime I'm not sure what is. It wasn't given that status since the sole survivor couldn't recall if her rapist/attackers used 'racial epitaphs' or not...ok...lol.

[kimmy]

Really? In light of the fact that you were still responding to me full force, I thought you had missed it.

I recall you saying you were done... I don't recall me saying I was done.

I will bid you a fond adieu .....

Thanks, but I'm quite satisfied with the 'do I've got.

Critics of the case...and there were apparently many...claimed had it been the other way around...you know...you'd have actually heard about it...as would have I.

D'ya think, DiNozzo? *wap*

The Black Panthers come to mind with their death to pigs/death to whitey rallies with weapons openly displayed. Do you recall those perhaps? The activites of the Nation of Islam also suggest that I'd not be a welcome face at their meetings. For my benefit...when was the last time the KKK marched through a 'black neighborhood'? Seriously.

It's not hard to find black supremacists on the interweb. I also recall reading about a Latino movement which basically intends to claim (reclaim?) California for "La Raza".

They certainly exist in some number.

It makes sense to some degree. If you grew up hearing that some group has done this and this and this to you and your ancestors, and that the reason you can't get ahead in life is that this group has all the power and they don't like you, I suspect there might be an inclination to harbor negative attitudes toward that group as a whole.

Re: Hate crime. Did you actually read what these guys did? If that wasn't a hate crime I'm not sure what is. It wasn't given that status since the sole survivor couldn't recall if her rapist/attackers used 'racial epitaphs' or not...ok...lol.

It's clear that the people who committed that crime hated the victims. What's not clear is that race is the reason they hated the victims. They might have hated them because they were financially secure, or because they were happy, or because they were human.

Not that it even matters. If treating the case as a hate crime could have resulted in a harsher penalty, then go for it. But since capital punishment was already on the table, it seems to matter little. They were going to die. Unless having them die slowly was a possibility, there wasn't much to gain.

-k

[kimmy]

I must protest....I am not a ginger, more pink with grey and brown....but my wee little laddie is, in spades.

And my thought about him being targeted is nemo me impune lacessit

I'm sure nobody would dare kick "Little Morris". But I bet he gets slapped around a lot.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

kimmy: It's clear that the people who committed that crime hated the victims. What's not clear is that race is the reason they hated the victims. They might have hated them because they were financially secure, or because they were happy, or because they were human.

Not that it even matters. If treating the case as a hate crime could have resulted in a harsher penalty, then go for it. But since capital punishment was already on the table, it seems to matter little. They were going to die. Unless having them die slowly was a possibility, there wasn't much to gain.

I agree that it's hard to tell where that hate was directed re: the two brothers. I suppose that's why the whole concept of a 'hate crime' is pretty vague or perhaps too subjective. Either way, the two are still alive as opposed to executed.

AW: Rarely do events involving 'ordinary people' get the media attention that celebrities do. I would say the public is to blame for that since media coverage goes where the money is (ie: what the people are most interested in). Look at the attention OJ got, and that was the case of a Black who (allegedly) murdered Whites.

But for the record, I'm happy to say that I wasn't aware of Winona's shoplifting, either.

Rodney King? This guy was nothing but a two-bit criminal that led the LAPD in a drunken car chase through residential neighborhoods. He got pretty good coverage as did the riot and trials/hearings that followed. I think it just wasn't PC to bring the details of the Kansas murders to the attention of the planet while cases like Mr King's apparently were. But what do I know? I think 'visible minority' laws are wrong while my country thinks they're right. Mr Against the Grain...lol.

You missed Winona's fall from grace? Incredible.

[DogOnPorch]

kimmy: It's not hard to find black supremacists on the interweb. I also recall reading about a Latino movement which basically intends to claim (reclaim?) California for "La Raza".

They certainly exist in some number.

It makes sense to some degree. If you grew up hearing that some group has done this and this and this to you and your ancestors, and that the reason you can't get ahead in life is that this group has all the power and they don't like you, I suspect there might be an inclination to harbor negative attitudes toward that group as a whole.

Well sure....I suppose. But almost everyone in North America has some baggage from the 'old country' that involves somebody's injustice to somebody else. Not everyone is freaking out and going on murder sprees...at least not yet...lol.

[kimmy]

The right and the left are the biggest gangs. No one likes, I don't think, criminal gangs, and the right's solution is hitting back with bigger jail sentences while the left's solution is being nicer and more compassionate - peace and love and all that. The left tries to use reason (operative word "tries" in order to force change) and the other openly uses force but both of them are about ganging up and subduing individuality and forcing a change in identifying with society as it is engineered rather than identifying with street gangs, which would be all very nice, except for the fact individual choice is overruled.

I dunno, Pliny, it seems awfully philosophical. I think we're talking about phenomena that are at the opposite end of the spectrum, our social instincts. The only reason we survived as a species is our instinct to form groups for common purpose. At one time that might have been hunting food or building shelter or protecting the tribe's children. Today it might just be gathering with people who share the same religious views or favorite sports team, but the instinct is still there... people crave groups, they will form them for almost anything.

I recall once hearing someone claim that experiencing social rejection evokes a response in the human brain that is similar to physical pain. Avoiding social rejection is a powerful motivator for people, more powerful than they actually understand.

Standing out from the herd is scary. You may find yourself stranded from the herd and left to die alone... or that might be what the caveman firmware in the back part of your brain is telling you. Resisting the herd is not natural for people. I'm not sure what is the way to teach kids to do it... thankfully I'm not a parent. But lessons like "it's better to be right than be popular" can ring a little hollow when the advantages of being popular are obvious and the advantages of being right are pretty hard to quantify.

-k

[M.Dancer]

I'm sure nobody would dare kick "Little Morris". But I bet he gets slapped around a lot.

-k

Only be me and on his precious behind.