JGilder vs. IrTradRU ...

[jGilder]

I was faced with a similar personal dilemma regarding my response to a negative behavior pattern that seemed to be associated with a particular ethnic group. I live on Russian Hill in SF and I'm on the edge of China town. I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 years now and I've had some encounters that started to develop a negative stereotype concerning my Asian neighbors. There's a distinct difference in the assumed ascetics for street cleanliness that I'll describe for the purpose of illustrating my point, but not intended as an assault on my Asian neighbors.

There seems to be a tendency to consider trash in the street as acceptable. One day I walked down the street picking up trash that consisted of door-hangers that appeared always to be just tossed away to the sidewalk. I came upon an elderly Asian man who was removing one and tossing it to the ground. I approached him carefully, picked up the door-hanger and offered it to him asking if he might consider recycling it instead. He looked back very puzzled, took the door-hanger and tossed it to the ground as he declared, "It just blow away." and he laughed as though my suggestion was ridiculous. This played out again in various ways with other Asian people in the neighborhood. The police have realized this propensity and have posted signs on telephone polls in Chinese informing them that isn’t illegal to dump trash in the street. Other neighbors have reported to me about chicken bones being thrown out windows into the alleyways between buildings as well.

So it would be easy to developed a prejudice based on these observations, especially since the result of this behavior is so revolting. But further investigation revealed that to them it was perfectly acceptable based on what the parameters of Asian culture and society are. Asian friends told me that the Chinese keep the insides of their dwellings very tidy, and the street is considered the place to discard things. I haven't been to China to investigate this any further, and I'm taking my friend's word, but looking at it from that perspective helped me to avoid the negative stereotype and avoid any racist feelings towards my neighbors. My point here being that a lack of understanding based on cultural differences can and often does lead to racist feelings.

Does anyone know more about Chinese culture and can respond to my friend's explanation?

[Charlene]

.....
Similarly, no matter what the contents of your skull or base instincts, if you treat everyone you meet equally, you're not a racist.

There isn't a person on this earth who can pass the thought-crimes test, on racism or any other moral failing. It's a useless test--it always produces the same answer.

It's sole utility is in provoking guilt trips. Whether you're getting such a trip from the church, from a radical feminist or an anti-racist or the republican right, you should recognise it for what it is: sh*t, which harms the cause and does no good whatsoever. If someone tries this on you, reject them vehemently and tell them why. .......

"Whether he wrote DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER, or whether he refrained from writing it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed -- would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper -- the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."

From George Orwell's 1984.

[Flyingcursor]

.....


There isn't a person on this earth who can pass the thought-crimes test, on racism or any other moral failing. It's a useless test--it always produces the same answer.

It's sole utility is in provoking guilt trips. Whether you're getting such a trip from the church, from a radical feminist or an anti-racist or the republican right, you should recognise it for what it is: sh*t, which harms the cause and does no good whatsoever. If someone tries this on you, reject them vehemently and tell them why. .......

"Whether he wrote DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER, or whether he refrained from writing it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed -- would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper -- the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."

From George Orwell's 1984.

Yet we've been punishing thought for awhile in this country. What about crimes of "intent". A person caught with a pound of marijuana is automatically charged with "intent to distribute" bases solely on the quantity.

And people are prosecuted for statements regardless of actions. People may voice or write how much they detest the president and can come under the scrutiny of the government. There was a kid a while back who wrote an online short story that involved the murder of a woman and he was arrested for it.

And why is racism charged against white people but rarely, if ever, applied to any other race? Sexism only against men? Aren't anti-men jokes as sexist as anti-woman jokes? If disparaging jokes are unacceptable then they should be unacceptable across the board.

As Hank Hill asked, "What kind of country is it where you can only hate a man if he's white?"

And what is "white", "black" or "oriental". We love to lump them together as if they are currently and have always been a single united group.

Which brings me to another point. People love to have someone to hate. One of the greatest forces which brings groups of people together is to have someone outside their group to hate.


Wow that was fun.

[s1m0n]

And people are prosecuted for statements regardless of actions.

A statement *is* an action.

[Flyingcursor]

So if I state I took out the trash that's as good as taking it out? My point was clear enough in context with the quoted messages.

[peeplj]

And people are prosecuted for statements regardless of actions.

A statement *is* an action.

True to a point, but it's not the same action, and I don't think it deserves the same punishment.

If we jailed every person who ever said they'd love to kill somebody, there would be very few people left out of jail; even so, no matter what they may say in anger or hurt, very few people ever actually kill.

There is a vast difference between the thought and the deed, and a vast difference in outcome, as well.

--James

[Walden]

Then it comes round to hate crime legislation. Should it be deemed any more a crime because some drunkard assaults someone presumably for racist reasons than if he did it for some more generalized malice?

[missy]

Walden - I recently was in a "discussion" with someone over this very thing........

I don't understand how it should be "worse" if someone beats me up because they hate a certain aspect of me, then if they "plain" beat me up. I'm still beaten. It's against the law to beat me. I really don't care what their motivation was for beating me, and it really doesn't change the outcome of what happened to me.
I just want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and what color, sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity I am shouldn't make a darn bit of difference to that outcome.
If you feel that crimes should have stiffer sentences, then push for those sentences to be applied to every case, not just ones that have a particular reason behind the crime.

I am in NO way saying that there aren't crimes committed based on race, gender, orientation, whatever. I'm saying that the crime, no matter what the "cause" behind it, should be prosecuted - period.

Missy

[The Weekenders]

I was faced with a similar personal dilemma regarding my response to a negative behavior pattern that seemed to be associated with a particular ethnic group. I live on Russian Hill in SF and I'm on the edge of China town. I've lived in this neighborhood for 15 years now and I've had some encounters that started to develop a negative stereotype concerning my Asian neighbors. There's a distinct difference in the assumed ascetics for street cleanliness that I'll describe for the purpose of illustrating my point, but not intended as an assault on my Asian neighbors.

There seems to be a tendency to consider trash in the street as acceptable. One day I walked down the street picking up trash that consisted of door-hangers that appeared always to be just tossed away to the sidewalk. I came upon an elderly Asian man who was removing one and tossing it to the ground. I approached him carefully, picked up the door-hanger and offered it to him asking if he might consider recycling it instead. He looked back very puzzled, took the door-hanger and tossed it to the ground as he declared, "It just blow away." and he laughed as though my suggestion was ridiculous. This played out again in various ways with other Asian people in the neighborhood. The police have realized this propensity and have posted signs on telephone polls in Chinese informing them that isn’t illegal to dump trash in the street. Other neighbors have reported to me about chicken bones being thrown out windows into the alleyways between buildings as well.

So it would be easy to developed a prejudice based on these observations, especially since the result of this behavior is so revolting. But further investigation revealed that to them it was perfectly acceptable based on what the parameters of Asian culture and society are. Asian friends told me that the Chinese keep the insides of their dwellings very tidy, and the street is considered the place to discard things. I haven't been to China to investigate this any further, and I'm taking my friend's word, but looking at it from that perspective helped me to avoid the negative stereotype and avoid any racist feelings towards my neighbors. My point here being that a lack of understanding based on cultural differences can and often does lead to racist feelings.

Does anyone know more about Chinese culture and can respond to my friend's explanation?

Good for you for tryiing, Gilder. A lot of 'em spit too and its culturally acceptable. I don't get it, frankly, but I have had similar experiences.
Way back in 82, I found that many Italians (in Italy) have sparkling clean homes but litter more freely than I am conditioned to expect from my fellow man.

The hope is that its only the first generation here that does that, and that the children born here adapt the national norms. But in an environment of people going overboard to cater to "diversity," you wonder if this process will take place. People used to come to the US to be Americans, not to continue their cultural lifestyle but just make more money doing so.

As may be extrapolated from your statements. you don't have to hate a race of people to dislike their cultural practices. I just thank God for being born here and thinking differently. I have found people that would belligerently challenge your attitude as "uptight and white" and urge you to relax your standards, but I don't buy it. Littering is actually against the law, and if there is any respect for rule of law left, that is another distinction. Most cities have ordinances against spitting on sidewalks too. We take it for granted that there ever was a need for public instruction via legislation but they came about when there were many recent immigrants who didn't have such personal restrictions.

A school board member in the West Contra Costa Unified School District (Richmond area), who happens to be Chinese-American, used the term "cultural discomfort" when referring to white and other parents who have a problem with the black kids shouting, littering, booming radios and other behaviors. Though it borders on euphemism, her point was that these people considered themselves to have grown out of garden-variety historical racism, but whose basic belief systems of behavior, courtesy and language was being challenged so. She was trying to find a way to constructively deal with this conflict, rather than try and make people feel bad for wanting to reinforce a vision of American behavior that they believed in. And yet this was WITHIN American culture intself....

There is nothing wrong with wanting a clean San Francisco. I repeat, I am glad you are trying. But isn't it maddening to have to play janitor?

[Walden]

I am in NO way saying that there aren't crimes committed based on race, gender, orientation, whatever. I'm saying that the crime, no matter what the "cause" behind it, should be prosecuted - period.

Far as I'm concerned, all violent crime is hate crime.

[jim stone]

I am in NO way saying that there aren't crimes committed based on race, gender, orientation, whatever. I'm saying that the crime, no matter what the "cause" behind it, should be prosecuted - period.

Far as I'm concerned, all violent crime is hate crime.

Well, I take it some violent crimes aren't committed out of
hatred, just as a matter of fact.

Also, if a certain group is being targetted out of
bigotry, there is a rash of these, laws that attach a
special penalty for crimes that target this group
out of bigoty may be useful in protecting them,
in a way that sanctions already in place do not.

We could punish all assaults more, but juries won't
always dependably convict if they see the sanction
as too high--so reserving a specially high sanction
for a special sort of assault may be effective.

There is something to be said for constructing sanctions
that actually deter crime.

This can actually have paradoxical consequences: so
in Louisiana women's groups protested the mandatory
DP for aggravated rape, because juries were refusing
to convict rapists. One of the reasons pick pocketing and petty theft
was no longer punished by hanging in England was that the
law didn't deter, for this reason.

Abortion statutes typically involved something like ten years
at hard labor, not life or the DP, because the defandants
were physicians whom juries weren't so likely to
sentence to death--the state went for the minimum
penalty adequate to deter abortionists that juries would
dependably apply, the goal being to save as many
children's lives as possible, not so much to punish
the wicked.

We may, then, have unequal penalties for more or less
the same crimes, if the mix helps us to lower
the crime rate across the board.

[missy]

I understand what you are saying Jim, but I've come to the sad conclusion that prison and convictions do little to nothing to deter or prevent crime. Sentences serve in preventing crime only in that they take the criminal off the street for a given time.
I do agree that sentences need to be set in such a way that juries and judges will feel confident in carrying them out. Historically, that doesn't seem to be a problem in the county I live in - I think unless there's some type of plea bargain, usually a sentence is the maximum allowed by law (I'd have to do some searching to back that up with linked facts, however).

And I also agree Walden, that violent crime is inherently a hate crime - I think in order to perpetrate a violent crime, some type of hate for the human race in general is probably present.

Missy

[Wombat]

I am in NO way saying that there aren't crimes committed based on race, gender, orientation, whatever. I'm saying that the crime, no matter what the "cause" behind it, should be prosecuted - period.

Far as I'm concerned, all violent crime is hate crime.

I don't know whether I find the reasoning convincing but I don't think it's at all mystifying that crimes that flow from prejudice attract a more severe penalty than the same crime committed for other reasons.

I think you and Missy are looking at it only from a retributivist point of view. Since the crime looks to be the same, so should be the punishment. But even from this perspective one could mount a defense of unequal treatment. People who would regard themselves as doing wrong if they committed a violent crime against a friend or co-ethnic often regard the fact that someone is from a different group as, in and of itself, an excuse which wholly nullifies or at least reduces culpability. Regarding the Other as fair game is surely the single greatest cause of acts of gross inhumanity. The attitude itself is a crime when it is acted upon, so it rightly attracts its own punishment over and above what the violent act itself would attract.

Now look at it from the point of view of deterrence which is a legitimate reason for punishing. If my remarks about the role of prejudice in the thinking of ordinary people are right, and a century of ethnically motivated genocides convinces me they are right, then ethnically based violence needs to be denounced both as violence and as prejudice if the basis is to be undermined. (It is another question whether or not this approach is an effective deterrent, but nobody surveying the recent history of genocide could blame legislaters for trying.)

[Walden]

Reminds me of all the talk of "black on black crime," as if it were somehow worse to commit a crime against someone of one's own race. Well, it reminds me of it in a sort of reverse sense.

[missy]

wombat wrote:
"People who would regard themselves as doing wrong if they committed a violent crime against a friend or co-ethnic often regard the fact that someone is from a different group as, in and of itself, an excuse which wholly nullifies or at least reduces culpability. "

I certainly don't find ANY excuse capable of reducing culpability. I don't care what the motivation was for the act - committing the act is wrong.

Currently in this city, I think we're up to 27 or 28 homicides since Jan 1st. The overwhelming majority of these are African-American killing African-American. The last case that I recall of a white killing an African-American was when a person being arrested died in police custody (and that brings in an entire different problem).
But, you hear very little on behalf of City Council, activists, etc. talking about these statistics. It's almost become a non-news item - "City has another homicide......... Red's won a game last night." I find it horrible - and if it WAS white on black, you'd hear about if for months. But it's almost "business as usual". Certainly these crimes deserve every bit of attention as any other?

Missy