Doesn't racism require some sort of intent?

[AimeeM]

Locally, a private school high school student was expelled from his private school because of a photo he took and shared. The photo was of his four African American friends, with nooses around their necks.

 

Thing is, he had no clue that it would be considered racist. The boys are his friends appear to not be offended. All of those involved (the boy who took the photo and the boys in the photos) seem very surprised that it was taken as racist, as it was meant to be a joke (and not a race related one). This is as per the latest news on it that I was able to see.

 

Many parents at the school are outraged that the boy was expelled. 

 

A local woman interviewed (a professor at a local university) says that partially to blame are "well meaning parents who teach their children to be color blind."

 

My question to The Hive: in order for something to be considered "racist" should there not be some sort of INTENT to do harm, emotionally or physically, using a person's race against them or as that tool to do harm?

[Runningmom80]

No, intent isn't necessary.  Just because someone doesn't mean to insult you doesn't mean words aren't still mean, insulting, sexist, etc etc etc.  Just because you don't mean something to be racist, doesn't mean it isn't.

[AimeeM]

No, intent isn't necessary.  Just because someone doesn't mean to insult you doesn't mean words aren't still mean, insulting, sexist, etc etc etc.  Just because you don't mean something to be racist, doesn't mean it isn't.

Understood... and I largely agree. I suppose going with that, what happens when the person "targeted" doesn't consider it a racially motivated attack? Who gets to determine what is, or isn't, racist?

 

To clarify, the boys' parents may have been offended, I'm not sure; the news reports made it appear that the boys themselves weren't and were all good friends, but that doesn't mean the parents weren't offended on the boys' behalves.

[Pawz4me]

I don't really know the answer to your question.  But I'm flabbergasted that high school students didn't understand the racist implications of a picture like that.

[AimeeM]

I don't really know the answer to your question.  But I just have to say that I'm flabbergasted that a high school student didn't know the racist implications of a picture like that.

I would have to be privy to the complete context before I form(ed) a real opinion on this. It wasn't clear from the reports whether or not this was a "running" joke between him and the boys, or what.

This is also where the university professor commented that instead of teaching our children to be color blind, we should teach them that we are all different, that's to be embraced, etc; she believes part of the issue, in this case, is that the child was taught to be color blind and (as a result) didn't see the implications as related to history.

[Butter]

And even if they did not realize the racist implications, they really should have realized just how incredibly tacky it was.  I'm assuming all five boys contributed to the picture voluntarily.  Not a single one ever said, "Wait a minute... Maybe we shouldn't..."

 

(edited to make my meaning clearer in the first sentence)

[LucyStoner]

What rock is this young person living under?

 

I'm not sure if expulsion is the best course of action.

 

I agree that "color blindness" isn't a non-racist thing. IMO, until the structural issues that perpetuate racism are resolved, teaching my white, comfortable children to be blind to color is teaching them to be ignorant of reality and their own privilege. No can do.

[AimeeM]

The picture was edited to include the nooses; they didn't pose with nooses on.

 

If all it takes to be racist is for someone, anyone, to take offense to something on basis of their race, then is it true that I was being racist when I had a mild confrontation with an AA gentleman at the gas station some time ago? My racist crime? I said "Thank you, sir" when he opened the door to me, which led to a tirade about young white people calling him "sir," which he took to be racist. I was baffled and relayed to him that we lived in the south, I was raised in the south, and I was taught to call all men I do not know "sir," at which point he definitely relaxed, but initially he was offended and considered it to be racist on some level.

[AimeeM]

And even if they did not realize the racist implications, they really should have realized just how incredibly tacky it was.  I'm assuming all five boys contributed to the picture voluntarily.  Not a single one ever said, "Wait a minute... Maybe we shouldn't..."

 

(edited to make my meaning clearer in the first sentence)

I'm not sure. The latest on-air report differed a bit from the written article I read. I don't know the specifics about who contributed to what.

[Runningmom80]

Understood... and I largely agree. I suppose going with that, what happens when the person "targeted" doesn't consider it a racially motivated attack? Who gets to determine what is, or isn't, racist?

 

To clarify, the boys' parents may have been offended, I'm not sure; the news reports made it appear that the boys themselves weren't and were all good friends, but that doesn't mean the parents weren't offended on the boys' behalves.

 

racism

 

[rey-siz-uh m]

 

noun

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

 

 

(This particular case falls under #2 and #3.)

 

 

And I'm not trying to be sarcastic posting the definition.  I was having a hard time articulating myself.  Also, just because the young men in the picture weren't offended, doesn't make it not offensive.  I also don't understand how they didn't see it as racist.

 

[Carrie12345]

To the general question, no.

To the specific instance... well, I certainly do believe the glossed over history of our country in schools could make students ignorant to the implications.

[redsquirrel]

My mouth literally dropped open when I read the second sentence of the OP.

 

Honestly, I would need to be hearing a lot more from the people involved before I assumed no one knew or understood what they were doing. I am finding it difficult to believe not one of them knew the historical reference to a noose around a black man's neck.  Maybe the white kid didn't know...but the black kids?  I have never personally known an African American who didn't have some family horror story to tell me about someone being lynched or beaten or threatened with a noose etc. Obviously, my sample size isn't large compared to the whole, but still....

[PrincessMommy]

 

racism

 

[rey-siz-uh m]

 

noun

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

 

 

(This particular case falls under #2 and #3.)

 

 

And I'm not trying to be sarcastic posting the definition.  I was having a hard time articulating myself.  Also, just because the young men in the picture weren't offended, doesn't make it not offensive.  I also don't understand how they didn't see it as racist.

 

 

I'm confused... The OP said the boy had not intented to discriminate.. He was just a stupid, clueless teen.  How does what he did fall under #2 & #3? (esp. 3)??  I'm honestly confused.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

No, it doesn't. Indeed, quite a lot of prejudiced behavior is unintentional, and can't be seen on an individual level.

 

Consider a judge who has many cases a year to sentence. This judge tries to be fair and impartial - that's the job, right? However, due to unconscious biases, this judge tends to sentence blacks to fines that are 10% higher than imposed on whites, and to prison terms that are 10% longer - even when the two committed basically the same crime. They don't know they're doing it, they don't mean to do it, but it's definitely still happening.

 

And perversely, this judge is sentencing more blacks than whites to begin with, because jurors tend to give whites more benefit of the doubt and thus are less likely to sentence them than they are blacks - even for the same crimes. (And this is a bit of a vicious cycle, because when told that prisons are disproportionately black, people get this idea in their head that blacks are disproportionately criminal. You have to dig into the data to see what's going on.)

 

When you spend enough time discussing these things, you eventually come across the phrase "intent isn't magic". (There's some well-merited profanity in there, but I think that it's still worth a look.) This is because the things you do have consequences, even if those consequences weren't what you intended. You can do racist things that harm people even if you're not a bigot.

 

Side note: Frequently, when people say "racism" they mean "systematic racism on a societal level" instead of "racial bigotry" (and likewise when they say "sexism" they mean "systematic discrimination based on sex at the societal level" rather than "misogyny" and so on.) If you stumble into another discussion on racism, you should be sure which racism they mean before you join in.

 

[MSNative]

It was a stupid and potentially very hurtful picture. However, high school boys are immature and do stupid things. I think there are two different issues. Was it racist? I can definitely see where people could take it as racist. I am one who would take it as racist if I had seen it. I'm also surprised that the kids didn't get that it would be racist but I will give all five the benefit of the doubt.

Should the kid have been expelled if he and all the kids in the picture did not mean it to be racist? No. Especially since the others involved in the picture thought it was a joke, I think it would have been better for the school to use this as a learning opportunity.

 

Eta- I'm still just stunned that anyone would think a picture of kids with nooses around their necks is funny.

[Runningmom80]

I'm confused... The OP said the boy had not intented to discriminate.. He was just a stupid, clueless teen.  How does what he did fall under #2 & #3? (esp. 3)??  I'm honestly confused.

 

Because the noose is a symbol of it.

 

I'm probably still not articulating myself well.

[Runningmom80]

No, it doesn't. Indeed, quite a lot of prejudiced behavior is unintentional, and can't be seen on an individual level.

 

Consider a judge who has many cases a year to sentence. This judge tries to be fair and impartial - that's the job, right? However, due to unconscious biases, this judge tends to sentence blacks to fines that are 10% higher than imposed on whites, and to prison terms that are 10% longer - even when the two committed basically the same crime. They don't know they're doing it, they don't mean to do it, but it's definitely still happening.

 

And perversely, this judge is sentencing more blacks than whites to begin with, because jurors tend to give whites more benefit of the doubt and thus are less likely to sentence them than they are blacks - even for the same crimes. (And this is a bit of a vicious cycle, because when told that prisons are disproportionately black, people get this idea in their head that blacks are disproportionately criminal. You have to dig into the data to see what's going on.)

 

When you spend enough time discussing these things, you eventually come across the phrase "intent isn't magic". (There's some well-merited profanity in there, but I think that it's still worth a look.) This is because the things you do have consequences, even if those consequences weren't what you intended. You can do racist things that harm people even if you're not a bigot.

 

Side note: Frequently, when people say "racism" they mean "systematic racism on a societal level" instead of "racial bigotry" (and likewise when they say "sexism" they mean "systematic discrimination based on sex at the societal level" rather than "misogyny" and so on.) If you stumble into another discussion on racism, you should be sure which racism they mean before you join in.

 

Yes!

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The picture was edited to include the nooses; they didn't pose with nooses on.

 

If all it takes to be racist is for someone, anyone, to take offense to something on basis of their race, then is it true that I was being racist when I had a mild confrontation with an AA gentleman at the gas station some time ago? My racist crime? I said "Thank you, sir" when he opened the door to me, which led to a tirade about young white people calling him "sir," which he took to be racist. I was baffled and relayed to him that we lived in the south, I was raised in the south, and I was taught to call all men I do not know "sir," at which point he definitely relaxed, but initially he was offended and considered it to be racist on some level.

 

 

This narrative sounds odd.

[Tanaqui]

Once again, I've given a longwinded comment and forgotten to address the question at hand, forgive me.

 

The fact that the white boy who photoshopped in the nooses and then shared the picture thought this was okay IS racist, even if he felt no cruel hatred in his heart. Nobody cares what he felt in his heart, what matters are his actions. He may have ignorantly thought "oh, this doesn't matter anymore, racism is all in the past" or "they're in on the joke! so it's okay!" or "haha, I'm being so ironic!"

 

I will agree that if this was a one-off incident that expelling him may have been uncalled for... but I'm not going to let this slide as "well, kids will be kids, we all did dumb stuff as teens". We didn't all do this.

[Tanaqui]

The picture was edited to include the nooses; they didn't pose with nooses on.

 

If all it takes to be racist is for someone, anyone, to take offense to something on basis of their race, then is it true that I was being racist when I had a mild confrontation with an AA gentleman at the gas station some time ago? My racist crime? I said "Thank you, sir" when he opened the door to me, which led to a tirade about young white people calling him "sir," which he took to be racist. I was baffled and relayed to him that we lived in the south, I was raised in the south, and I was taught to call all men I do not know "sir," at which point he definitely relaxed, but initially he was offended and considered it to be racist on some level.

 

AimeeM, are you suggesting that altering the picture of a black person to include a noose in a country with a very recent history of racially motivated lynchings and then spreading that picture around is NOT a racist act? Or that this is somehow on the same level as saying "thank you, sir" to somebody who was a little twitchy about it, no doubt due to a lifetime of having to filter through snide little racists jokes at his expense?

 

[mamaraby]

Maybe an illustration?

 

Let's say I accidentally run into your car, which was parked in your own driveway whilst minding it's own business, and damaged it. The fact that I didn't mean to do it doesn't change the fact that I damaged it. My appologizing and telling you that I didn't mean to do it isn't going to change the fact that your car needs to be fixed and you're going to want me to fix it. Would it help if I refused to fix your car and instead said something like "I'm sorry your car got in the way of mine" because after all I didn't *mean* to do it. It was an accident. No, of course not!

 

Words work the same way. Intent is not magic.

 

I agree that "color blindness" isn't a non-racist thing. IMO, until the structural issues that perpetuate racism are resolved, teaching my white, comfortable children to be blind to color is teaching them to be ignorant of reality and their own privilege. No can do.

Also, absolutely this.

[LucyStoner]

The picture was edited to include the nooses; they didn't pose with nooses on.

 

If all it takes to be racist is for someone, anyone, to take offense to something on basis of their race, then is it true that I was being racist when I had a mild confrontation with an AA gentleman at the gas station some time ago? My racist crime? I said "Thank you, sir" when he opened the door to me, which led to a tirade about young white people calling him "sir," which he took to be racist. I was baffled and relayed to him that we lived in the south, I was raised in the south, and I was taught to call all men I do not know "sir," at which point he definitely relaxed, but initially he was offended and considered it to be racist on some level.

In situations like that when a stranger just loses it over something innocuous, I try to remember that I don't know what the person is struggling with. No, you were not being racist just because he took it that way but the best you can do is assume he's having a hard day, wish him well and move on with your day. try to empathize, gently explain that is not what you were doing and don't worry about it.

[MSNative]

This narrative sounds odd.

Sadly it's not unique. I have been fussed at several times for using sir and ma'am. Some people take offense and even see use of those terms as derogatory or sassy. As a military brat, I can't imagine not using those terms.

[Tanaqui]

Sadly it's not unique. I have been fussed at several times for using sir and ma'am. Some people take offense and even see use of those terms as derogatory or sassy. As a military brat, I can't imagine not using those terms.

 

It's a regional thing. In some parts of the country, they're de rigeur. In others, there's virtually no way to use them that doesn't sound darn sarcastic. Best thing to do in a situation like that is to simply apologize. You can't always predict where other people have hidden triggers.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sadly it's not unique. I have been fussed at several times for using sir and ma'am. Some people take offense and even see use of those terms as derogatory or sassy. As a military brat, I can't imagine not using those terms.

 

I have never heard it considered racist though.

[Tap]

No, I don't think that racism requires intent.

 

But, in this circumstance, I think the boy exhibited ignorance of social mores, not racism. 

[mommaduck]

For some, there is an ingrained racism. They don't think their actions or thought processes are racist, but they are.

 

Case in point: recently a local person stated online that they would like to thank the man that helped them are a particular place in town. Only they said they would like to thank the *insert race* man that helped them. Uproar ensued and they and others didn't understand that it could be considered racist. Uhm, if the man were white, would you have bothered mentioning his race? And then someone else said that "it's a credit to their race that he helped you". Really? You don't get why this would be offensive and inappropriate to say?

[Farrar]

A local woman interviewed (a professor at a local university) says that partially to blame are "well meaning parents who teach their children to be color blind."

 

This is my theory too. I think a lot of well-meaning middle class white parents came of age in the wake of civil rights and feel that being colorblind is positive. And they purposefully obscure all racial issues from their kids because they would like to believe that we're in a post-racial society. But it doesn't work that way and I think it is creating a generation with a lot of racially tone deaf white kids, which is not good.

 

This is why that chapter of Nurture Shock about race should be required reading for new white parents (and really everyone, but especially white parents).

[Slojo]

Locally, a private school high school student was expelled from his private school because of a photo he took and shared. The photo was of his four African American friends, with nooses around their necks.

 

Thing is, he had no clue that it would be considered racist. The boys are his friends appear to not be offended. All of those involved (the boy who took the photo and the boys in the photos) seem very surprised that it was taken as racist, as it was meant to be a joke (and not a race related one). This is as per the latest news on it that I was able to see.

 

Many parents at the school are outraged that the boy was expelled. 

 

A local woman interviewed (a professor at a local university) says that partially to blame are "well meaning parents who teach their children to be color blind."

 

My question to The Hive: in order for something to be considered "racist" should there not be some sort of INTENT to do harm, emotionally or physically, using a person's race against them or as that tool to do harm?

 

Okay, first of all - if my kids went to this private school, and got all the way to the high school level without having enough understanding of US History to know that a noose around a black man's neck has a racist past, I'd be asking for my tuition money back. That said, I do find it hard to believe that they had no idea about the racist implications of a picture like that. We'd have a very long discussion about what they didn't and did not know about the implications -- "well, what associations did you make with nooses?  And tell me more about that...? Soem people get really triggered when they see nooses around ... what does that tell you?  Hmm,... sounds like you've missed some pretty big cultural and historical cues that are foundational to our nation's past... that's going to be a personal liability...?" It would be a LONNNNNG conversation - one they probably would never like to have again, so as to be motivated to be more educated next time. 

 

I don't really know the answer to your question.  But I'm flabbergasted that high school students didn't understand the racist implications of a picture like that.

 

Agreed.... again, can I have a refund?

 

What rock is this young person living under?

 

I'm not sure if expulsion is the best course of action.

 

I agree that "color blindness" isn't a non-racist thing. IMO, until the structural issues that perpetuate racism are resolved, teaching my white, comfortable children to be blind to color is teaching them to be ignorant of reality and their own privilege. No can do.

 

Yes, - I'm not a fan of expulsion (though generally, clueless, overly privileged rich kids whose parents will get them in somewhere else are at the end of a long line of folks who might receive my sympathies). But, really this "color-blindness" thing is getting to be a bit of a societal liability -- and is, literally, contributing to the actual deaths of some of our citizens (the rash of shootings of unarmed black men just being one example).  We can't afford for white people not to know that there are some fundamentally unfair dynamics going on in our society - with all the shootings of unarmed black men in the news, their teachers are missing an enormous opportunity to teach a bit of history. (Just for the record, we can't afford for men to not know that women still encounter barriers, and for those without disabilities to not know that persons with disabilities have barriers to housing, employment, etc...).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

meeM, on 29 Apr 2015 - 8:04 PM, said:

 

The picture was edited to include the nooses; they didn't pose with nooses on.

 

If all it takes to be racist is for someone, anyone, to take offense to something on basis of their race, then is it true that I was being racist when I had a mild confrontation with an AA gentleman at the gas station some time ago? My racist crime? I said "Thank you, sir" when he opened the door to me, which led to a tirade about young white people calling him "sir," which he took to be racist. I was baffled and relayed to him that we lived in the south, I was raised in the south, and I was taught to call all men I do not know "sir," at which point he definitely relaxed, but initially he was offended and considered it to be racist on some level.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Nope, nooses aren't a small thing to be offended at. Saying "Sir" - yep, I'm with you on that one - stay baffled with my full permission. But nooses are just a clear "stay away from that one" kind of thing, don't you think?  So I am asking you not to make light of the real history of pain by suggesting that "all it takes to be racist is for someone, anyone, to be offended."  As for the black boys not being offended (and maybe their "tuition-paying" parents were) -- well, that's young people. Lots of young people do not get the full weight of history (as they are still learning); don't want to make anything a "big deal" in front of their peers/don't want to stick out -- I remember feeling the same way as one of the few African American students in an all-white school. Didn't mean that thoughtful adults shouldn't have addressed any such dynamics -- that's why they are adults, and sometimes, you thank the adults in your life later for looking after your best interests when you weren't confident or mature enough to look after your own. 

[AimeeM]

AimeeM, are you suggesting that altering the picture of a black person to include a noose in a country with a very recent history of racially motivated lynchings and then spreading that picture around is NOT a racist act? Or that this is somehow on the same level as saying "thank you, sir" to somebody who was a little twitchy about it, no doubt due to a lifetime of having to filter through snide little racists jokes at his expense?

 

No, I'm not. At all. 

 

Perhaps I'm not relaying very well. I am asking if there should be a measure of intent before somebody is punished for an act deemed racist. I haven't reached an opinion on yet, personally, because I feel like I've read different ends of the same story regarding this specific incident. 

[AimeeM]

This narrative sounds odd.

Probably because it wasn't really meant to be a narrative. I briefly summarized something that took place over a solid 10 minutes of conversation. By the end of it, he apologized and admitted he was taking it too personally, I apologized that I had in some way offended him, and now every time we see each other at the same gas station, we chat. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't think it has anything to do with color blindness.  If it was Halloween and the kids were acting out Zombies or something else like that and had nooses?  Maybe because then the fact that the Zombies were black would be coincidental.

 

.  But otherwise?  I have a hard time thinking the boy could be that ignorant of history.  I mean, why choose nooses as something funny?  There is nothing "funny" about it unless you were making fun of lynching.  And that is racist and incredibly insensitive and inappropriate.  

[AimeeM]

Maybe an illustration?

 

Let's say I accidentally run into your car, which was parked in your own driveway whilst minding it's own business, and damaged it. The fact that I didn't mean to do it doesn't change the fact that I damaged it. My appologizing and telling you that I didn't mean to do it isn't going to change the fact that your car needs to be fixed and you're going to want me to fix it. Would it help if I refused to fix your car and instead said something like "I'm sorry your car got in the way of mine" because after all I didn't *mean* to do it. It was an accident. No, of course not!

 

Words work the same way. Intent is not magic.

 

Also, absolutely this.

I agree.

I also agree with the university professor who said that teaching our children to be color-blind sounds great in theory, and is probably the most PC thing to say, but that it reality it is damaging. 

I wonder, if this boy had been more well versed regarding the history of civil rights, slavery, and racism, and taught that differences exist and that differences are good, if he wouldn't have glossed over the implications.

I also wonder if expulsion was the best way to handle this.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Color blind does not mean not teaching history or acknowledging that there have been injustices over the centuries.  Color blind means teaching people to treat all people the same.  I do not think that it is wrong or ignorant or sets people up for problems to teach people to treat all people with respect.  

[mamaraby]

I agree.

I also agree with the university professor who said that teaching our children to be color-blind sounds great in theory, and is probably the most PC thing to say, but that it reality it is damaging.

I wonder, if this boy had been more well versed regarding the history of civil rights, slavery, and racism, and taught that differences exist and that differences are good, if he wouldn't have glossed over the implications.

I also wonder if expulsion was the best way to handle this.

But then that's a separate issue from intent which I'll still argue has nothing to do with the matter at hand. We can talk about the appropriateness of the punishment. I think that's a valid discussion to have.

[AimeeM]

 well, that's young people. Lots of young people do not get the full weight of history (as they are still learning); don't want to make anything a "big deal" in front of their peers/don't want to stick outfeeling the same way as one of the few African American students in an all-white school. Didn't mean that thoughtful adults shouldn't have addressed any such dynamics -- that's why they are adults, and sometimes, you thank the adults in your life later for looking after your best interests when you weren't confident or mature enough to look after your own. 

That's my question, though. Should he have been expelled for being an idiot? Would a better way of addressing it have been actually ADDRESSING it instead of just saying "get out of our school"? If he did sincerely go into this jokingly, and without malice, wouldn't educating him on this instead of kicking him out have been a better way of handling it?

 

I'm not sure that I buy that he didn't know. I'm equally as unsure, though, that the school didn't just take the hasty way out of this.

[Jean in Newcastle]

That's my question, though. Should he have been expelled for being an idiot? Would a better way of addressing it have been actually ADDRESSING it instead of just saying "get out of our school"? If he did sincerely go into this jokingly, and without malice, wouldn't educating him on this instead of kicking him out have been a better way of handling it?

 

I'm not sure that I buy that he didn't know. I'm equally as unsure, though, that the school didn't just take the hasty way out of this.

In today's atmosphere of no tolerance for threats etc. the picture is problematic even without the probable reference to lynching.  A high school boy should know better.  

[Bluegoat]

Locally, a private school high school student was expelled from his private school because of a photo he took and shared. The photo was of his four African American friends, with nooses around their necks.

 

Thing is, he had no clue that it would be considered racist. The boys are his friends appear to not be offended. All of those involved (the boy who took the photo and the boys in the photos) seem very surprised that it was taken as racist, as it was meant to be a joke (and not a race related one). This is as per the latest news on it that I was able to see.

 

Many parents at the school are outraged that the boy was expelled. 

 

A local woman interviewed (a professor at a local university) says that partially to blame are "well meaning parents who teach their children to be color blind."

 

My question to The Hive: in order for something to be considered "racist" should there not be some sort of INTENT to do harm, emotionally or physically, using a person's race against them or as that tool to do harm?

 

I think that something could be racist without intent.  For example, I might have unconcious perceptions about someone and act in a particular way, but if I realized it i would not approve myself.  Or, I could have accepted some sort of untrue racist idea but really think it was true for some reason, but have no intent to be unfair.

 

There are some things which I think can be more confusing to pinpoint, and some things that people sometimes call racism which i think should probably be called something else.

 

But in this instance with the boys, I do not think it was racism and shouldn't have been called that.  It would be appropriate to point out to them that it might look different to other people who didn't know them well, but not expel them.

 

 

[AimeeM]

While I remember to mention it, I will say that I have no clue if this student is American. I know it's generally reasonable to assume as much, but this particular school has a relatively large number of international student, due to the location (our city is home to the US base of several very large international companies, and this school is generally where the expats send their kids). I mention this because it seems to be a running thread that any child with many years of education in America, and who has grown up in America, should have this knowledge. The student is a minor and his name hasn't been released, so I have no clue if he IS American, if he's been educated here for many years, etc.

 

 

[AimeeM]

In today's atmosphere of no tolerance for threats etc. the picture is problematic even without the probable reference to lynching.  A high school boy should know better.  

I would hope so... but I still think educating him on the matter (and definitely some punishment) would have been better in the long run. It's my understanding that even in the court section of juvenile justice, rehabilitation and education about their crime is the goal - not necessarily JUST punishment.

[swimmermom3]

My mouth literally dropped open when I read the second sentence of the OP.

 

Honestly, I would need to be hearing a lot more from the people involved before I assumed no one knew or understood what they were doing. I am finding it difficult to believe not one of them knew the historical reference to a noose around a black man's neck.  Maybe the white kid didn't know...but the black kids?  I have never personally known an African American who didn't have some family horror story to tell me about someone being lynched or beaten or threatened with a noose etc. Obviously, my sample size isn't large compared to the whole, but still....

 

To be honest, and I know this will sound bizarre, but my initial thought was "suicide"  because my point of reference is a daughter who struggles with depression and my dh's best friend from childhood just committed suicide. Teen suicide is a huge issue in this country. However one frames the nooses, the boys were stupid.

[Catwoman]

Aimee, is there any backstory available about why the photo was posted?

 

I only ask because, for the life of me, I can't understand why a teenager would post a photo of ANYONE with a noose around his neck. Even without the racial aspect of it, it seems like an incredibly idiotic thing to do.

 

Was there some attempt at a funny caption for the picture or something? Was it supposed to be some kind of joke?

 

Obviously, the photo was wrong on many levels, but I would be interested in hearing the teenagers' explanations for it.

[Word Nerd]

The news story I just read said the student also drew a swastika on the photo. The image was altered and sent on Snapchat.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know that I think it is odd that a boy that age might not clue in that it would have racial implications. 

 

Its one thing to know something in an abstract sense "black guys with nooses is a symbol of something".  But it is another to  stand back and say "my friend John will be seen as a black guy, a symbol".  Because you know, he's just John to you, his own self, not a symbol of anything.

 

Older people have more experience to help them make that connection, their ability to see symbols I think is often much more developed, and they are able to imagine what it will look like to other people because they have known a lot more other people.

[LucyStoner]

Color blind does not mean not teaching history or acknowledging that there have been injustices over the centuries. Color blind means teaching people to treat all people the same. I do not think that it is wrong or ignorant or sets people up for problems to teach people to treat all people with respect.

Acknowledging differences and ongoing injustices does not mean not treating people equally.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The news story I just read said the student also drew a swastika on the photo. The image was altered and sent on Snapchat.

Well if that is true then there is no way he can protest innocence of any racist connotations.  

[zoobie]

A public school would have to prove more than a private school because the student would have a due process hearing before expulsion. I am having a really hard time imagining the explanation that would make it just a foolish joke. What's funny about hanging four of your friends, regardless of race? Adding the race is another layer of wrong.

[Catwoman]

The news story I just read said the student also drew a swastika on the photo. The image was altered and sent on Snapchat.

Yikes. :eek:

[Murphy101]

The only thing I can think that might sorta maybe kinda explain this is that this boy is hanging out with those guys and they are all making some jokes or parodies that... Well white folks just don't do. Sort of like if AA kids are calling each other the N word, still doesn't mean it's okay for others to do it, even if those kids claim the non-AA kid is also one of their Ns and it's okay. Nope. No, it isn't.

 

Even so.... While I think intent is a factor bc I do think things like that can confuse some people, I have a very difficult time thinking the kid didn't know it was inappropriate.

 

BUT also, I think it was inappropriate no matter what color of the person he was photoshopping a noose around. My kid would be in bookoo trouble for it regardless of the skin color issue or if the other kids/family were offended.

[LucyStoner]

Well if that is true then there is no way he can protest innocence of any racist connotations.

Truer words.

 

Seriously? A swastika?

 

Again, I ask what rock this person is living under? If the swastika thing is true, he darn well knew. My 11 year old knows better than that.

 

Some things are just not laughing matters. Maybe he was going for a satire or dark comedic affect. Stuff like that can fall flat fast. It's like saying that "rape joke" sites (like "it's not rape, its free sex!) aren't meant to be sexist. Um, no. Just no.