After hearing about the same anti-Muslim group posting the names and addresses of "Muslims" and "Muslim sympathizers" in Irving, including an Irving city councilman, I had an epiphany. I guess it is now the in-thing to do demonize an entire demographic just because of the actions of certain disgusting individuals, and answer for the action of said disgusting individual(s), even if they had no connection with said disgusting individual(s) aside from coming from the same overall demographic.
So...
Allow me demonize every white person in the United States for the actions of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers for the human rights abuses they laid upon blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Latinos, and Native Americans including discrimination, bigotry, enslavement, and lynching. I expect them to answer for the actions of their previous generations, despite the fact they had nothing to do with the atrocities of yesteryear and the main perpetrators are either close to dying, just died, or already have been long dead and decomposed into bones and dust.
Allow me to demonize every inner city black person that I can think of because of the violent, disgusting, criminal acts that some inner city black suspects have committed. After all, I expect every inner city black person -- man, woman, child, old, decrepit, doesn't matter -- to answer for the actions of those that bought into the "thug life", even if none of them had anything to do it.
Allow me to demonize every Latino that decided to cross the border as an "illegal" or "undocumented" immigrant, even though there are millions of Latinos in the United States that were actually born here legally, pay taxes, and are productive members of society. Yes, let me demonize them to the point that I am going to paint them as a scapegoat for all "the jobs they took from Americans", how they "burden the taxpayer with more shit", or how they contradict all the values that come with "being an American".
Allow me to demonize every Asian person for being a total pain in the ass to deal with in customer service, despite the fact that there are many factors such as cultural and language barriers that may play a role in said testy transactions, let alone how my own fucked up attitude could actually exacerbate the problem. After all, the ones that are not combative at all have to answer for the ones that are extremely difficult and raise hell over nothing.
Allow me to demonize every Christian for being a representative of a bigoted religion, despite the fact it is how they interpret the central word(s) of Christianity that shape their belief personal system and their lifestyle, even to the point of being a judgmental and inconsiderate human being. The Christians that are charitable and considerate of others, including their civil rights, should have to answer for the ones that will either openly call for the restriction and violation of the civil rights and human rights of others as well as express an irrational fear of those that they blatantly refuse to reasonably attempt to understand.
Allow me to demonize every Jew for being a representative of the great Jewish banking, financial, nationalist conspiracy, which ranges from the historical Rothschild family purportedly juggling entire international finances with their fortune to being annoyingly rich, gilded, and "special". Never mind the fact that there many individuals that are secular Jews, non-religious Jews, and probably even more Jews that debunk the aforementioned stereotypes, yet have to answer for the "stereotypical" Jews that they may have nothing to do with.
Allow me to demonize every Muslim for being a terrorist, even though the clear fucking majority of Muslims in the world are law-abiding individuals that live a life that is pretty common to nearly every other human being on earth. They too fall in love, go to school, get a job, and be productive members of society. However, the actions of a violent fraction of Muslims that justify their horrific actions with a fucked up interpretation of the Qu'ran and political Islam in general should speak for other 1.5 billion Muslims in the world today (and most aren't even Arab!).
Allow me to demonize every fucking cop in the world, despite the irrational and disgusting actions of a few. Allow me to sit here and blatantly ignore the fact that there are many police officers out there that are committed to upholding the law, making a positive impact in their communities, and focus on quality police work instead of bullying entire neighborhoods filled with a demographic they not only fail to understand, but don't even care to attempt to even gain understanding.
In fact...
Allow me to demonize _______________________ for _______________________, and every single fucking one of them should have to speak for the actions that ________________________.
And so on ________________________.
So now, hopefully, after you see the sheer fucking stupidity of demonizing entire swaths of populations, demographics, and professions for the actions of a corrupted few, maybe, just maybe, we can resolve issues with reasoning, education, and critical thought and not irrational fears and foolish conclusions.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
The foolishness of Islamophobia
Believe it or not, I was raised a Christian, granted, I was not much of a Bible thumper or a churchgoer. However, looking back, it was more of me just following along with family tradition than my own personal enlightenment. I stopped identifying as a Christian at 15. A year later, I stopped identifying as a deist. None of it was due to some lack of faith, but rather, it never made sense to me to spend my life worshiping a deity out of dogma.
Part of that reason was due to me learning that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same god, with Christianity being originally an evolution and ultimately a rejection of Judaism and Islam being an evolution of both Christianity and Judaism as a rejection of both. For the past couple of millennia, Christians, Jews, and Muslims have persecuted each other, waged wars against another, and debated with each other in the name of galvanizing, polarizing tribalism with political and socioeconomic twists at every turn.
Despite my rejection of belief in really anything, I am not an atheist of the variety of Dawkins and Harris where religious adherents need to be saved with reason and logic. That's a quixotic and damning endeavor -- there's quite a few people out there that have made the resolution in their lives that they need to believe in something bigger, more perfect, and more incorruptible than themselves and score points with that figure. Sometimes the push is benevolent, other times, not so much. In other words, you'll probably rarely ever see me bash Christianity, Islam, or Judaism at least the religion itself; it is up to its adherents to interpret the belief systems to the best of their understanding.
Interpretations can be positive. Faith based charities. Faith based community initiatives. I mean hell, just the other day, I read about how churches were helping to address the growing problem of homelessness in suburban Dallas. Other times, especially when religious teachings and interpretation are synthesized with politics, it can be damning -- even to the point of being deadly.
I've been mulling this in recent days as I've watched Islamophobia rear its ugly head after the terrorist atrocities in Paris and the debate surrounding Syrian refugees. Over the past few days, I've seen and heard some of the most ridiculous shit -- a dozen protesters outside of a mosque in Irving; Fox Business commentators apparently comparing Syrian refugees to dogs; incessant fear mongering about refugees; and really disgusting rhetoric from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Obama is now catching hell about his irritated response at an international summit last week about the Islamophobic rhetoric being spewed out over refugees by the Republican Party. Then again, folks are looking for a certain fire from Obama...that's simply not in the former law professor turned politician.
As France, the United States, and Russia embark on an indiscriminate bombing campaign, many are clamoring for an aggressive response against ISIL in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris. The United States has been increasing activity against ISIL, including successfully killing "Jihadi John", which was regarded by analysts and the United States themselves as more of a moral victory rather than anything of real tactical significance. Mainly because ISIL, while a political extremist group, simultaneously functions as a sophisticated criminal organization.
I've resisted being Islamophobic as an atheist. Being an Islamophobe prevents anyone from being able to seriously understand what even leads to terrorism in the first place. Islamic terrorists claim they commit acts of atrocities because their religion permits it, but the reality is that terrorism is an irrational, criminal, and disgusting response to issues that are rooted in politics and socioeconomics -- more so than the religion itself. It's amazing to me that a handful of brutal and damaging acts by only a handful of a given population can seemingly become a microcosm of everything that's wrong about all of a religion's adherents and a personified metonym of the things we fear most.
Terrorism is a grave concern to me. National security is a grave concern to me. But the demonizing of an entire population due a narrow-minded understanding of global affairs is an bigger worry for me. It has become disgusting to me, even as an atheist, to see a wide swath of innocent, law-abiding human beings vilified as a sociopolitical punchline; as if it's their responsibility to answer for the violent and sick individuals that don't even speak for them.
Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers are motivated by political and socioeconomic conditions that have been spurred by years of foreign policy blunders by the West, domestic policy fuck-ups by their own home countries, socioeconomic disadvantages, and political upheavals. These issues have shaped the region not for the past decade, not for thousands of years, but just since World War I.
The way anyone understands the world at large and the reality of their surroundings is always going to be shaped by what they are willing to and able to understand. We'll gleefully scratch the surface of deep rooted issues and reach the most flawed conclusions possible because that what we're able to do. However, we will at times refuse to ask questions that may yield answers that render us uncomfortable and challenge our deepest convictions, no matter how foolish they are -- irrational Islamophobia included.
Part of that reason was due to me learning that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship the same god, with Christianity being originally an evolution and ultimately a rejection of Judaism and Islam being an evolution of both Christianity and Judaism as a rejection of both. For the past couple of millennia, Christians, Jews, and Muslims have persecuted each other, waged wars against another, and debated with each other in the name of galvanizing, polarizing tribalism with political and socioeconomic twists at every turn.
Despite my rejection of belief in really anything, I am not an atheist of the variety of Dawkins and Harris where religious adherents need to be saved with reason and logic. That's a quixotic and damning endeavor -- there's quite a few people out there that have made the resolution in their lives that they need to believe in something bigger, more perfect, and more incorruptible than themselves and score points with that figure. Sometimes the push is benevolent, other times, not so much. In other words, you'll probably rarely ever see me bash Christianity, Islam, or Judaism at least the religion itself; it is up to its adherents to interpret the belief systems to the best of their understanding.
Interpretations can be positive. Faith based charities. Faith based community initiatives. I mean hell, just the other day, I read about how churches were helping to address the growing problem of homelessness in suburban Dallas. Other times, especially when religious teachings and interpretation are synthesized with politics, it can be damning -- even to the point of being deadly.
I've been mulling this in recent days as I've watched Islamophobia rear its ugly head after the terrorist atrocities in Paris and the debate surrounding Syrian refugees. Over the past few days, I've seen and heard some of the most ridiculous shit -- a dozen protesters outside of a mosque in Irving; Fox Business commentators apparently comparing Syrian refugees to dogs; incessant fear mongering about refugees; and really disgusting rhetoric from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Obama is now catching hell about his irritated response at an international summit last week about the Islamophobic rhetoric being spewed out over refugees by the Republican Party. Then again, folks are looking for a certain fire from Obama...that's simply not in the former law professor turned politician.
As France, the United States, and Russia embark on an indiscriminate bombing campaign, many are clamoring for an aggressive response against ISIL in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris. The United States has been increasing activity against ISIL, including successfully killing "Jihadi John", which was regarded by analysts and the United States themselves as more of a moral victory rather than anything of real tactical significance. Mainly because ISIL, while a political extremist group, simultaneously functions as a sophisticated criminal organization.
I've resisted being Islamophobic as an atheist. Being an Islamophobe prevents anyone from being able to seriously understand what even leads to terrorism in the first place. Islamic terrorists claim they commit acts of atrocities because their religion permits it, but the reality is that terrorism is an irrational, criminal, and disgusting response to issues that are rooted in politics and socioeconomics -- more so than the religion itself. It's amazing to me that a handful of brutal and damaging acts by only a handful of a given population can seemingly become a microcosm of everything that's wrong about all of a religion's adherents and a personified metonym of the things we fear most.
Terrorism is a grave concern to me. National security is a grave concern to me. But the demonizing of an entire population due a narrow-minded understanding of global affairs is an bigger worry for me. It has become disgusting to me, even as an atheist, to see a wide swath of innocent, law-abiding human beings vilified as a sociopolitical punchline; as if it's their responsibility to answer for the violent and sick individuals that don't even speak for them.
Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers are motivated by political and socioeconomic conditions that have been spurred by years of foreign policy blunders by the West, domestic policy fuck-ups by their own home countries, socioeconomic disadvantages, and political upheavals. These issues have shaped the region not for the past decade, not for thousands of years, but just since World War I.
The way anyone understands the world at large and the reality of their surroundings is always going to be shaped by what they are willing to and able to understand. We'll gleefully scratch the surface of deep rooted issues and reach the most flawed conclusions possible because that what we're able to do. However, we will at times refuse to ask questions that may yield answers that render us uncomfortable and challenge our deepest convictions, no matter how foolish they are -- irrational Islamophobia included.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Casually Observing Volume 3: Violence, Social Isolation, and Santa Barbara County
After reading through the comments about the
events surrounding the heinous act of violence that took place at Isla Vista,
California, I figured I would write something that would attempt to put this
into proper context, considering we often lose it whenever there’s incidents of
gun violence.
This is not about gun rights. This is not about
gun laws. This is about is about Elliot Rodger, a young man just four years
younger than myself, that decided to resort to violence to achieve his
objective – to wreak havoc and gain vengeance for years of social (and apparently
sexual) isolation. Saying that he had access to guns is too easy to attempt to
rationalize why the tragedy was able to take place and why it was not able to
be prevented. The fact that his family knew of his videos, reported to police,
and police, after an apparent welfare check, really could not find anything
that would even hint at something like this occurring is frustrating and
painful, yet ultimately cannot fully explain what took place. But that’s the
nature of random acts of violence and their aftermath: we try to explain why so
that there could apparently be some sort of action that could take place to
prevent something like this from happening. However, we never really have an
honest discussion about what really leads to people to believe that aggressive
acts of violence is indeed the ultimate (and only) solution to whatever
personal issues that they have.
On the surface, based upon what has been reported,
we know what drove Rodger to do what he did: he believed, for whatever reason,
that he always got the short end of the stick of any interpersonal relationship
he’s ever had and thus, saw it as a metaphorical motivation for a personal
vendetta that he had against society. However, what we don’t necessarily understand
at this point – and quite frankly, we probably never will – is at what point
did Rodger decide that a blaze of violence was his only of getting the revenge
that he was seeking. I mean sure, the psychologist pundits will be quoted
profusely in the upcoming days and weeks ahead as the media takes a look at
these events, as well as other well publicized mass shootings that have taken place in recent years, and they will allude to a criminal psychological profile in which
the majority of the public will have very little critical understanding of, but
it never tells the whole story.
Yet, resorting to violence to settle scores is
indeed part of a social fabric, not just here but in many places around the
world. Why Elliot Rodger murdered six people as a way, in his mind, to prove
whatever point he was trying to make, is the same reason why (maybe not explicitly,
but damn sure implicitly) someone got gunned down over “beef” on the streets of
Chicago, Detroit, or St. Louis. Why Elliot Rodger believed that violence was a
vehicle for self-empowerment after years of lacking it, is the same reason why,
in some form or fashion, political groups and full blown terrorist
organizations kidnap, rape, and kill for the purpose of displaying their power.
And whether it was Isla Vista this year, the Washington naval yard in 2013,
Aurora and Newtown in 2012, Virginia Tech in 2007, Seattle in 2006, the D.C. sniper
shootings during 2003, or the high school shootings of the late 1990s and early
2000s, something snapped in these men that ultimately led them to turn to
violence and claim lives as a way to achieve their vile catharsis.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Casually Observing - Volume 2: The Realities of Capitalism
I've had a series of unfortunate events occur to me the past few months that has made me think about the state of being poor and poverty in general. It's magnified by a similar series of unfortunate events happening to the people I know.
This post is not going to be an appeal for help (I don't ask for help) and this isn't even a criticism of capitalism or an endorsement of it or any other alternative socioeconomic system, but more or less a condensed reflection on socioeconomics in general. However, I'm going to try to condense this into a blog post more so than a lengthy essay that few of you would probably have time to read. (The full blown essay is coming whenever I launch my full personal website in January).
Capitalism is a very, very complex economic system. It's as fair as it is unfair, as rewarding as it is punishing, as galvanizing as it is heart wrenching. The successful capitalist formula is not rooted in the promise of growth and prosperity, but in the fact the system's success is based on the reality that is it not necessarily all inclusive. It's allure is in what is not guaranteed. If you remember the infamous speech given by Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko in 1987's Wall Street, his "Greed is good" sermon is fairly true: the bottom line premise about it is that success can be brought when you are motivated by wants and needs.
Being a finance major, I know enough about economics to know that markets work very well with little government interference: the market is nothing more than just a needs and wants matrix (or, as Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand"). Government policy generally interferes with that matrix -- sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful. However, free market capitalism comes with a caveat -- that part that as my staunch libertarian friend calls the "mathematical outcome" of living with mediocre incomes due to either being consistently unlucky in the labor market, a myriad of preventable or unpreventable personal afflictions, or a nasty combination of both. This "outcome" results into turning to those that will be willing to provide them assistance, whether it would be friends, family, government programs, or what is increasingly becoming under greater scrutiny in major metropolitan areas such as Houston -- high-interest, short term loans.
Keeping that in mind, I want to mention briefly a opinion piece that was written recently by a director from the Texas Civil Rights Project that was posted in the Houston Chronicle. The column, which detailed a week long experiment that participants had to live on $31.50 a week for food -- which is roughly the per person allotment for the current food stamp program. Both James Harrington, the writer of the post, and those that left comments had a point -- $31.50 a week for food is hard, but it can be done if people as one put it, "knew how to shop". However, shopping for food is not an exact science and shopping methods may or may not be able to be replicated across all areas and all 50 states. Additionally some states tax groceries (i.e., Oklahoma), have varied nutritional needs, and so on.
My point? It's easy to say something can be done when you yourself is able to do it. Consequently, it's easy to say something can't be done when you feel that you can't do it. It's this dichotomy that is a component part of the age old debate between interventionist government programs and free market fundamentalism (and I don't mean that derisively).
But that's the reality of capitalism. Despite widely believed (more correctly, accepted) convictions of how successful capitalism has been, it also needs to be noted that successes do have consequences that can be perceived as positive and negative. If capitalism had no perceived negative consequences, then socialism would have never materialized. If capitalism had no perceived negative consequences, then many of the socioeconomic justice movements that have popped up over the past two centuries plus would have never occurred.
But as I said, capitalism's allure comes from the lack of the guarantee. It gives people hope. It gives people excitement. A lot of free market champions get turned on by it. However, as I mentioned before, capitalism's gifts of grace has come with many Trojan horses of despair. I will say this however -- to credit capitalism with "solving" many of the world's perceived problems is fair, yet not completely accurate; the same thing could be said with blaming capitalism for "creating" many of the world's problems is fair, but not completely accurate.
This post is not going to be an appeal for help (I don't ask for help) and this isn't even a criticism of capitalism or an endorsement of it or any other alternative socioeconomic system, but more or less a condensed reflection on socioeconomics in general. However, I'm going to try to condense this into a blog post more so than a lengthy essay that few of you would probably have time to read. (The full blown essay is coming whenever I launch my full personal website in January).
Capitalism is a very, very complex economic system. It's as fair as it is unfair, as rewarding as it is punishing, as galvanizing as it is heart wrenching. The successful capitalist formula is not rooted in the promise of growth and prosperity, but in the fact the system's success is based on the reality that is it not necessarily all inclusive. It's allure is in what is not guaranteed. If you remember the infamous speech given by Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko in 1987's Wall Street, his "Greed is good" sermon is fairly true: the bottom line premise about it is that success can be brought when you are motivated by wants and needs.
Being a finance major, I know enough about economics to know that markets work very well with little government interference: the market is nothing more than just a needs and wants matrix (or, as Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand"). Government policy generally interferes with that matrix -- sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful. However, free market capitalism comes with a caveat -- that part that as my staunch libertarian friend calls the "mathematical outcome" of living with mediocre incomes due to either being consistently unlucky in the labor market, a myriad of preventable or unpreventable personal afflictions, or a nasty combination of both. This "outcome" results into turning to those that will be willing to provide them assistance, whether it would be friends, family, government programs, or what is increasingly becoming under greater scrutiny in major metropolitan areas such as Houston -- high-interest, short term loans.
Keeping that in mind, I want to mention briefly a opinion piece that was written recently by a director from the Texas Civil Rights Project that was posted in the Houston Chronicle. The column, which detailed a week long experiment that participants had to live on $31.50 a week for food -- which is roughly the per person allotment for the current food stamp program. Both James Harrington, the writer of the post, and those that left comments had a point -- $31.50 a week for food is hard, but it can be done if people as one put it, "knew how to shop". However, shopping for food is not an exact science and shopping methods may or may not be able to be replicated across all areas and all 50 states. Additionally some states tax groceries (i.e., Oklahoma), have varied nutritional needs, and so on.
My point? It's easy to say something can be done when you yourself is able to do it. Consequently, it's easy to say something can't be done when you feel that you can't do it. It's this dichotomy that is a component part of the age old debate between interventionist government programs and free market fundamentalism (and I don't mean that derisively).
But that's the reality of capitalism. Despite widely believed (more correctly, accepted) convictions of how successful capitalism has been, it also needs to be noted that successes do have consequences that can be perceived as positive and negative. If capitalism had no perceived negative consequences, then socialism would have never materialized. If capitalism had no perceived negative consequences, then many of the socioeconomic justice movements that have popped up over the past two centuries plus would have never occurred.
But as I said, capitalism's allure comes from the lack of the guarantee. It gives people hope. It gives people excitement. A lot of free market champions get turned on by it. However, as I mentioned before, capitalism's gifts of grace has come with many Trojan horses of despair. I will say this however -- to credit capitalism with "solving" many of the world's perceived problems is fair, yet not completely accurate; the same thing could be said with blaming capitalism for "creating" many of the world's problems is fair, but not completely accurate.
Casually Observing - Volume 1: Viral Videos, Cussing Toddlers, Social Norms and Environments
When I finally move my site, Casually Observing will be glorified blog category where I post short commentaries on the issues of the day. However, I do admit in this post I largely digressed from this planned model; hopefully, you will take the time to read it anyway.
Time for me to play amateur sociologist and social commentator again. You better line up your criticisms of this piece!
You have probably seen by now the infamous video of the cussing black toddler that was shot and later posted on Facebook by a known gang member in Omaha, where it was found by the Omaha Police Department, who later reposted it on their website. Not surprising, the fact that the toddler was cussed at by the three off screen adults and prodded to say vulgar things back as well as the OPD posting the video and saying that the video served as an example of the start of the "thug cycle" was met with widespread outrage.
While the OPD claimed that the point of posting the video was to ignite discussion in the community, which may or may not be completely true, others saw it as police blatantly trying to degrade black parenting. It's universally agreed that the parenting of that child is pretty abhorrent. Ultimately, Omaha's children protective services ultimately removed the toddler and his siblings from the home, as more issues surfaced and it became obvious that the children's welfare came into question.
I could sit here and join the chorus of criticism, but I would probably not offer much beyond what has already been said. But I will make a point about what was actually seen: this was less about a "thug cycle" and more about a child's environment.
Whether it is the wealthier suburbs or the poorer parts of more urbanized areas (I'm no longer going to use the term "inner city" as a metonym for "poor areas" because that is no longer truly accurate if you consider the gentrification of the past two and a half decades), a child's environment shapes their upbringing and ultimately the direction that they go in their life. It's a pattern that repeats itself, considering that the parents' environment while they were growing up shaped their direction in life, including how they raise their children. The video was a prime example of that: whatever environment they grew up in shaped their adulthood, and in their adulthood, they found it appropriate to video themselves cussing at a child and coaxing the child to cuss back, and post it on Facebook as crude, minstrel-like entertainment.
Of course, this could be an instance of spur of the moment bad judgment, but most of the time it is not: this has probably happened many, many times before and they just now decided to catch it on video. As evidenced by the removal of the toddler and the other children in the house (including reports that the toddler was actually injured by shrapnel from gunfire), it was an all around poor environment.
This is well known among child psychologists, criminologists, and sociologists, however, in the general public, analysis and learning at least about cause and effects of the social environment are eschewed in favor of quick judgment, derision, and dismissal. And that's fine -- something like that video should be met with derision; but we don't really learn and appreciate why it's wrong until we actually look at why and what led to that even happening.
Am I trying to sound the alarm? Not exactly; I think it would be criminal of me to make this into a microcosm more than I already have; yet, I will say that environments almost act like a circuit when in conjunction with social norms. Social norms, are of course, are beliefs that govern society, at least in regards to acceptable and unacceptable conduct in that said society. More often than not, suburban areas, wealthier urban areas, and those with comfortable incomes, would often emphasize stability more so than survival (at least, what they consider to be "survival"), because the latter has already been achieved. Impoverished areas, crime-ridden areas, and lower-incomes will value survival more, considering survival is not perceived to be guaranteed. As such, the environments that fuel "stability-first" and "survival-first" personal worldviews will govern social norms, which will then continue to fuel that given environment.
Of course, the obvious question is what the fuck does social norms and social environments have to do with a kid that was cussing on a cellphone video that went viral?
The answer?
As I mentioned earlier, how a child is reared is going to be determined by an interchange of social norms and social environments. If a child is being raised in a climate that the environment and norms is geared towards survival, the outside observer that values stability above all is probably going to see a parenting style that will be looked at as either less than ideal or absolutely despicable. Believe it or not, it would be looked at the same vice versa; and is part of a greater explanation of why sometimes when populations from poorer areas move into more affluent areas, the survivalist-worldview cultivated in a less stable environment will follow them.
For the children's sake that was removed from the home, I hope that it will lead to a more stable home, either by way of the family doing what's necessary to improve the environment of which these kids were raised, or by way of the state placing them somewhere that they can be stable.
But of course, I'll save that part for another post.
Time for me to play amateur sociologist and social commentator again. You better line up your criticisms of this piece!
You have probably seen by now the infamous video of the cussing black toddler that was shot and later posted on Facebook by a known gang member in Omaha, where it was found by the Omaha Police Department, who later reposted it on their website. Not surprising, the fact that the toddler was cussed at by the three off screen adults and prodded to say vulgar things back as well as the OPD posting the video and saying that the video served as an example of the start of the "thug cycle" was met with widespread outrage.
While the OPD claimed that the point of posting the video was to ignite discussion in the community, which may or may not be completely true, others saw it as police blatantly trying to degrade black parenting. It's universally agreed that the parenting of that child is pretty abhorrent. Ultimately, Omaha's children protective services ultimately removed the toddler and his siblings from the home, as more issues surfaced and it became obvious that the children's welfare came into question.
I could sit here and join the chorus of criticism, but I would probably not offer much beyond what has already been said. But I will make a point about what was actually seen: this was less about a "thug cycle" and more about a child's environment.
Whether it is the wealthier suburbs or the poorer parts of more urbanized areas (I'm no longer going to use the term "inner city" as a metonym for "poor areas" because that is no longer truly accurate if you consider the gentrification of the past two and a half decades), a child's environment shapes their upbringing and ultimately the direction that they go in their life. It's a pattern that repeats itself, considering that the parents' environment while they were growing up shaped their direction in life, including how they raise their children. The video was a prime example of that: whatever environment they grew up in shaped their adulthood, and in their adulthood, they found it appropriate to video themselves cussing at a child and coaxing the child to cuss back, and post it on Facebook as crude, minstrel-like entertainment.
Of course, this could be an instance of spur of the moment bad judgment, but most of the time it is not: this has probably happened many, many times before and they just now decided to catch it on video. As evidenced by the removal of the toddler and the other children in the house (including reports that the toddler was actually injured by shrapnel from gunfire), it was an all around poor environment.
This is well known among child psychologists, criminologists, and sociologists, however, in the general public, analysis and learning at least about cause and effects of the social environment are eschewed in favor of quick judgment, derision, and dismissal. And that's fine -- something like that video should be met with derision; but we don't really learn and appreciate why it's wrong until we actually look at why and what led to that even happening.
Am I trying to sound the alarm? Not exactly; I think it would be criminal of me to make this into a microcosm more than I already have; yet, I will say that environments almost act like a circuit when in conjunction with social norms. Social norms, are of course, are beliefs that govern society, at least in regards to acceptable and unacceptable conduct in that said society. More often than not, suburban areas, wealthier urban areas, and those with comfortable incomes, would often emphasize stability more so than survival (at least, what they consider to be "survival"), because the latter has already been achieved. Impoverished areas, crime-ridden areas, and lower-incomes will value survival more, considering survival is not perceived to be guaranteed. As such, the environments that fuel "stability-first" and "survival-first" personal worldviews will govern social norms, which will then continue to fuel that given environment.
Of course, the obvious question is what the fuck does social norms and social environments have to do with a kid that was cussing on a cellphone video that went viral?
The answer?
As I mentioned earlier, how a child is reared is going to be determined by an interchange of social norms and social environments. If a child is being raised in a climate that the environment and norms is geared towards survival, the outside observer that values stability above all is probably going to see a parenting style that will be looked at as either less than ideal or absolutely despicable. Believe it or not, it would be looked at the same vice versa; and is part of a greater explanation of why sometimes when populations from poorer areas move into more affluent areas, the survivalist-worldview cultivated in a less stable environment will follow them.
For the children's sake that was removed from the home, I hope that it will lead to a more stable home, either by way of the family doing what's necessary to improve the environment of which these kids were raised, or by way of the state placing them somewhere that they can be stable.
But of course, I'll save that part for another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)