Covington Kids Exonerated from Wrong-doing

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion, I read this couple of times and could not find anything in disagreement with my intended meaning.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was adding to it.

I am doubtful of innocence for the Virgina governer . I think his lack of explanation of what he meant then and how he has changed is disappointing. I doubt his use was as relatively innocent as Al Jolson's, but it would be nice to hear him explain.

It was almost certainly innocent in the sense that Honor thinks people are innocent of racist expression. People very rarely wore black face specifically to express hatred of black people. That's not what blackface functioned as and its demeaning nature doesn't derive from an intent to express contempt for black people. He almost certainly just thought it was funny in the same way people think racist jokes are funny. It's reducing people into mocking stereotypes.

His disassembling about it was a PR failure without a vast propaganda apparatus at his back to cushion his fall.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yes. Either supply the missing experience, offer education or both. How one would go about that in developmentally appropriate ways would depend on the age of the children involved.

In the case of the Covington Kids, adults could have both counseled and educated. I remember when KG first broke the story here with the brief video one of my posts made the suggestion that adults create an opportunity for the students to spend a full semester being educated by the Native Americans under the guidance of their American History instructor.

If the school can fund a trip to DC, I think they could probably fund a trip (if advisable and permissable) to an Indian reservation in Oklahoma or wherever the Indians who were relocated (driven) from Kentucky were sent.

What a once in a life time curriculum opportunity that might have created! It seems to me that now the incident has become so politically charged and the students are now suing for defamation, that the teachable moment has been lost.

Or who knows, maybe it hasn't. Rather than condemn them wholesale, why not spark their curiosity?

Thanks. I like your suggestions. At one time, the Native guy proposed meeting with the kids. I suppose the lawsuit put the kibosh on that.

[_Jersey Girl]

We can explain your bad behavior in terms of your cultural milieu, but understanding it doesn’t make it ok. We can forgive you in your limitations, but forgiveness implies recognition of something wrong in the first place.

Honestly.

EA:

Ok, Megyn Kelly.

Hope I arranged the quote bracket correctly there^^.

Let me explain why I dropped off and shut down so quickly. It was your use of the term "bad behavior".

Children develop prosocial behaviors with the guidance of adults and through their peer interactions, some exhibit challenging behaviors that can be chalked up to any number of reasons, some have disabilities that effect their ability to develop prosocial behaviors, some act on what is called childish irresponsibility (they leave the bike in the yard not knowing it can rust in the rain). There are children who simply lack the life experience to act on social nuance in positive ways and are unaware of the deeper symbolic meaning of their actions.

I don't know where you are coming from when you use the term "bad behavior", it is not a concept that I deal in. It is placing value judgement on the behavior of children.

Don't you think that's a prejudicial or biased comment on your part? I'm surprised that you used that term. That's why I shut down on you.

A young girl who blackens her face with coal so she can't be seen at night on Halloween isn't exhibiting "bad behaviors". She's blackening her face so she can be a little more stealthy at night.

I think you are seeing the behaviors of the students involved and to a lesser extent, myself, through a lens that isn't useful.

But don't go by me.

[_Lemmie]

My read of EAllusion, and apparently others such as Lemmie, is they take issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent.

Then apparently you should pay better attention.

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

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

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

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes. Either supply the missing experience, offer education or both. How one would go about that in developmentally appropriate ways would depend on the age of the children involved.

In the case of the Covington Kids, adults could have both counseled and educated. I remember when KG first broke the story here with the brief video one of my posts made the suggestion that adults create an opportunity for the students to spend a full semester being educated by the Native Americans under the guidance of their American History instructor.

If the school can fund a trip to DC, I think they could probably fund a trip (if advisable and permissable) to an Indian reservation in Oklahoma or wherever the Indians who were relocated (driven) from Kentucky were sent.

What a once in a life time curriculum opportunity that might have created! It seems to me that now the incident has become so politically charged and the students are now suing for defamation, that the teachable moment has been lost.

Or who knows, maybe it hasn't. Rather than condemn them wholesale, why not spark their curiosity?

Thanks. I like your suggestions. At one time, the Native guy proposed meeting with the kids. I suppose the lawsuit put the kibosh on that.

Wouldn't it have been the best thing ever? Strike while the iron is hot! Only in this case, I think the iron has been unplugged entirely. It could have been a life changing experience for dozens of students. I could have become an annual curriculum challenge.

What a disappointment.

[_Lemmie]

My read of EA, and apparently others such as Lemmie, is they take issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent.

Or a simple lack of life experience.

What do you even say to such a silly comment?!

Sure, jersey girl. That's exactly what it is.

[_Jersey Girl]

I didn't understand EA the way you did. I didn't understand his objection to be to the possibility of acting out of ignorance, but to the "therefore" that comes after. Lemmie provided some evidence that high schoolers know about the chop and the racist connotations. If she's right, that would take away ignorance as an excuse.

Do we know what the Covington students have been taught? Do we know that the teaching is universally known?

[Guest]

Hi Res,

I would like to think it isn't about how we define racism so much as if there is a spectrum of behavior that deserves different responses depending on their severity. I'm in no way arguing that a kid doing a tomahawk chop is not exhibiting racially insensitive behaviour. But it seems like the sort of behavior best dealt with through explanation of why it might be seen as offensive to a Native American. It certainly isn't anywhere on the same side of the spectrum as what the BHI demostrated. My read of EAllusion, and apparently others such as Lemmie, is they take issue with my leaving open the possibility it could come from ignorance rather than racist intent.

EA? Lemmie? Do you think that, with respect to racism, there is a "spectrum of behavior that deserves different responses depending on their severity?"

of course, and I stated so way back on p 4, before my comments were inaccurately summarized, and then that incorrect summarization was rather hilariously defined as a lack of life experience:

...and that specifically pointing it out instead as overt racism leaves no space for discussions of other types of racism. Why? Only the very worst examples of racism can be discussed?

and

Interesting. My point was only about the act of tomahawk chopping, and how its use is viewed. Arguing that it was spontaneous, reactionary, in the moment, or that the intent, mind by mind, was unknown would be irrelevant. The act is considered discriminatory taunting and ignorance is not a defense. Being provoked, or arguing they could have meant it "supportively" are not defenses either. Again I am commenting only on this minor part of the action, and how it would be viewed as a student behavior. Just because other worse things happened doesn't mean this should continue to be glossed over as acceptable behavior in the moment.

[_Res Ipsa]

I didn't understand EAllusion the way you did. I didn't understand his objection to be to the possibility of acting out of ignorance, but to the "therefore" that comes after. Lemmie provided some evidence that high schoolers know about the chop and the racist connotations. If she's right, that would take away ignorance as an excuse.

Do we know what the Covington students have been taught? Do we know that the teaching is universally known?

Nope. I didn't mean to imply that the evidence is strong -- just that Lemmie was doing something different than EA, and I couldn't address them together.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nope. I didn't mean to imply that the evidence is strong -- just that Lemmie was doing something different than EA, and I couldn't address them together.

Got it.