Covington Kids Exonerated from Wrong-doing

[_Kevin Graham]

The problem is all the video doesn't really suggest he is trying to block the old man and some of the video shows him trying to control some of his friends. I would suggest none of them are 100% innocent, but no video shows this kid or old man doing anything bad.

Nothing plausibly explains why he chose to stand there and stare him down. I mean, didn't he say he was terrified and engaged in a silent prayer or something? Everyone is going to read into things what they will.

I remember an old girlfriend of mine would always smile when she was really nervous or upset and it drove people nuts because she would get into situations where smiling would make her seem very rude or unsympathetic to a current situation.

I could see this being the case with the kid freezing up for some reason, but to me he seemed to like being the center of attention and he kept going on with his smirk. It was obvious he was being filmed and the longer he stood there the longer he was the center of attention.

[_Kevin Graham]

d be obligated to step aside. Nobody has the right to expect everyone else to simply part like the red sea whenever he or she wishes to walk a straight line. Take me for example: Whenever someone is standing in a spot, if he or she was there first, my default instinct, and action, is to step around that person. Easy peasy.

Do people really believe that if the kid stepped aside the old man would have turned towards him anyway and started a 3 minute stare down?

Probably not.

He didn't do that to anyone else, and the only reason this happened is because Sandmann was the one person in the crowd who didn't move.

True, but I maintain that Sandmann had the right-of-way by virtue of the fact that he was there first. He would've been obligated to move aside only if the guy had said, "Excuse me" or, like I do, "mind if I sneak past?"

Even the woman behind the old man noted that they were acting like a mob by encircling them and mocking his song.

It was a crowd--perhaps a loud one--so it would've been hard to get in for a listen without moving closer.

As for the "mocking" part, I don't know what a "tomahawk chop" looks like, but a google search revealed that it's something people do at sporting events where the team for which one is rooting has a Native American mascot. That doesn't make it right, of course, but as (I believe) DoctorCamNC4Me pointed out, these are 16 year-old kids from a Catholic high school, not polished statesmen with years of diplomatic experience.

No one is questioning whether Sandmann had the right to stand there. Of course he did. This is a question of whether he was being disrespectful. Opinions will obviously vary.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

KG,

You should watch the video I linked.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

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

Is it that you think racism is only overt when it intentionally expresses something like racial contempt? Because that's not true at all and most historical racist symbolism, including some of the most noxious stuff you can imagine, didn't really function like that.

Minstrelsy was often mocking, but it was rarely contemptuous. So on this odd version of what counts as "overt racism" I have no idea why you take offense to the bojangles comparison. That's not "overt racism" either, then. Very little is, apparently.

[_Themis]

Nothing plausibly explains why he chose to stand there and stare him down. I mean, didn't he say he was terrified and engaged in a silent prayer or something? Everyone is going to read into things what they will.

I remember an old girlfriend of mine would always smile when she was really nervous or upset and it drove people nuts because she would get into situations where smiling would make her seem very rude or unsympathetic to a current situation.

I could see this being the case with the kid freezing up for some reason, but to me he seemed to like being the center of attention and he kept going on with his smirk. It was obvious he was being filmed and the longer he stood there the longer he was the center of attention.

Interesting you give more then one plausible explanation. Explanations though that would need mind reading to definitively prove the intentions of the kid and old man. Since neither said anything or acted in any way violently, and this was not an important event of life for me, I will tend to give their versions of what they said they were thinking more weight and leave it there.

[_honorentheos]

That is the thread from last month when this happened (it seems like a couple of months ago, though). And it is pretty clear in watching the context that 1) the BHI are the primary problem on all fronts including the people spouting off racist ____,

Agreed, but the BHI is an entirely different thing really. They're idiots ranting on their own, and I have no idea why so many of those kids decided to surround them as if to encourage them to keep ranting, but to each their own I guess.

They showed up in the area designated for them to meet to wait for their bus. The videos show them being called out by the BHI, being ranted at, milling around, and at some point they give a school cheer. Then the Native Americans start moving into the same immediate space. It's not a reasonable conclusion to say, HEY! These adults are obviously stupid so let's not accept that is the real problem at the center of this. Instead, let's focus on the teenage kids and what kind of judgment they demonstrated because that makes sense.

"We surrounded and they won't do a damn thing. Bold as a lion!"

2) the guy with the drum and the kid in his way in the original video did not end up in that situation because the kid moved to confront him nor is the guy prevented from walking to one side or the other

Right, and that is the big take away from the subsequent footage. Though for folks like EA and me, it doesn't really affect how we look at the kids' behavior. But I was glad to see that the encounter didn't begin with kids going after the Indians.

Actually, EA insists the take away is that the MAGA hat is a symbol on par with a Confederate Flag hat worn with intent, so there is a lot going on here in relation to the whole history of racism in America that justifies all of the rushing to judgement. I find that immensely distasteful. It was a bad call. The media screwed up, people were too quick to judge because of emotions. I think the right thing to do is own it, move on.

"Look at the hats!"

"Why'd you call us Young Clansmen?" "Look at your clothes"

3) the guy turns around when the kid leaves to catch his bus that showed up.

If you're talking about the Indian, he and his little group were entirely surrounded until an adult chaperone from the group instructed the kids to move along. After they dispersed he was free to go in any direction he wanted.

The kids bus showed up and the chapparone told them the bus was there so they needed to go get on it. Philips then turned around where his group was right behind him, and they started drumming while one of the guys started saying something about their having, "damned won".

"Bus is here." "Let's go home!"

"I got 'em!" "We damned won, grandpa!"

Most of the time the kid is just looking at the guy while he chants and there are kids clapping along with him.

Yep. Though that was the same takeaway from the initial video. The kid never spoke, he just stood there and smirked. My biggest takeaway from the context is that the stare down lasted a full 3 minutes.

In other videos where you can see the kid, it's not the case that he stood there smirking for 3 minutes.

"This is not your land."

The tomahawk chops, the only actual racist thing going on in so far as the kids' actions, happened early on and isn't apparent during the so-called confrontation.

Not sure how that matters. You also have a couple dozen kids chanting which could easily be interpreted as mocking the Indian's demonstration. And there were clearly side discussions going on and we only caught a glimpse of a couple of them and heard clearly a few soundbytes. One of them included a kid telling the Indians they're not indigenous to any land, and that being conquered is just part of life. That's like going to a Black Pride demonstration and telling them they have nothing to be proud about.

Again, if you are excusing a group of adults because reasons but are blaming a group of teenagers because of their judgement, you're doing something wrong.

The whole thing is insane. The kids are not being overtly racist. Some of them apparently bought MAGA hats while in DC. They've come to symbolize a lot of things that they, as indivudal people, are not actually guilty of in any sense of the word. The kid at the center of it all is being blamed because he wore a hat some people have loaded with a lot of meaning and symbolisms that equates it with KKK hoods and Swastikas.

I don't know about all that. It seems to be your projection into the matter that hasn't been expressed by me or the media. Social media maybe.

You? I wouldn't say I saw that from you. But seriously, read the other thread and how it ended and revisit that.

I don't know, man. It's a problem that we can't acknowledge the initial reactions to the video were off. Way off. To then come back and not only fail to acknowledge that but double down because of some bigger thing it represents - all with some kids in the middle of it, who wore hats and other super evil stuff - is amazing in what it says about people.

I can acknowledge that context is important and that the full context changes things a bit. I just don't see it changing as much as you seem to think. There were kids in the group who were still being little assholes. The star of the show made the decision, for whatever reason, to engage in a 3 minute staredown with an old man who was demonstrating. If that part had never happened I doubt any of this would have made the news or social media.

Ok. Right.

[_honorentheos]

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

Is it that you think racism is only overt when it intentionally expresses something like racial contempt? Because that's not true at all and most historical racist symbolism, including some of the most noxious stuff you can imagine, didn't really function like that.

If you choose to turn intentional racism and ignorance of why an act or behavior is offensive into one category, then I assert you are shutting down the ability to have public discussions that lead to positive change. A person who acted out of ignorance isn't the same as a person who intentionally mocked someone by choosing to use offensive gestures and language. It just isn't, and it's harmful to turn the discussion into this kind of binary approach. It's offensive when it's done to avoid admitting you made a mistake.

[_EAllusion]

What he said through a PR firm is that he was trying to defuse the situation and him standing there with a smirk on his face was actually him peacefully praying for resolution while remaining as motionless and calm as possible. The PR firm doesn't claim on his behalf that he was politely smiling and listening to the music as Shades has decided to assume. It claims that he was resolutely standing in the face of the Native American's aggression in steadfast prayer.

This is laughable, but it worked for some people. A lot of people, really.

What's fascinating about this video is that the initial viral clip just showed an older Native American beating a ceremonial drum in the face of a bemused and cocky teenager staring him down while his classmates surround them and direct racist mocking towards the Native American. This is a terrible look, and basically everyone immediately distanced themselves from and/or condemned the actions of the teens. It's true that some people started to assume things not in the video, like how the Native American got surrounded in the first place, but it's that essential description that provoked people in the first place. Further context debunked some of those additional assumptions some reporting made, but all the additional video still confirms what people generally were upset about in the first place. To rebut that, all you have is a counter-statement written by a conservative PR firm that is so obviously dishonest that it's an insult to read. Nonetheless a narrative developed that they were exonerated because those additional assumptions were debunked. Because there's a huge audience that apparently doesn't have a problem with racially mocking a Native American, or even delights in it, the initial distancing became transformed into "so what?"

The episode is a fantastic illustration of how the media ecosystem works, though. We keep getting lessons that if you are caught in a political outrage on the from the right, you just need to insist you did nothing wrong, double down in counter-outrage, and eventually you'll get through it.

[_ajax18]

That's not "overt racism" either, then. Very little is, apparently.

It's to the point that there are no sins except racism, no morality to be discussed save it be racial. All things are racial and to be viewed with the history of the US always being brought up over and over again as a cudgel, never to be forgotten. Millenia from now your descendants will still be griping about the segregation that once existed and using it as an excuse for their own reverse racist actions that will continue forever.

[_EAllusion]

If you choose to turn intentional racism and ignorance of why an act or behavior is offensive into one category, then I assert you are shutting down the ability to have public discussions that lead to positive change. A person who acted out of ignorance isn't the same as a person who intentionally mocked someone by choosing to use offensive gestures and language. It just isn't, and it's harmful to turn the discussion into this kind of binary approach. It's offensive when it's done to avoid admitting you made a mistake.

You are arguing a position that makes wearing blackface generally not an act of overt racism. I respectfully disagree. I also don't think acknowledging that it is racist prevents us from talking about other forms of racism. Failing to recognize it as racism gives fertile ground to the only kind of racism you seem worried about, though. Indeed, the Virginia Democrat blackface problem is quite similar to the racial taunting of Nathan Philips to the point that the defenses you are using of the Convington teens are equally applicable to them. It's just "ignorance." Just boys having some fun. They didn't intend to express deep-seated racial hatred by it.

There's a common criticism of our media environment that journalists will refuse to describe anything but a few symbols as actually racist. If you don't literally say the n-word or belong to the KKK, you're basically in the clear. At least you are if you are perceived as center-right. No matter how racist what you say or do is, they'll describe it in phrases like, "what some people take offense to" or "racially charged" or "controversial actions." To me, it sounds like you are deep in that culture. I just don't disagree with it; I think it is deeply harmful as it causes people to blind themselves to what racism is and short circuits people's ability to contextualize it.