Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how much does race need to play into it before it becomes a hate crime? Are you saying it takes the premeditation of Roof, like 1st degree murder?
So, if, say, a situation that happened to me in the early 70s--being in the wrong part of a strange city and being happened upon by the wrong group of white thugs--would not count as a hate crime, because they were not at the time going around looking for a black guy but just happened upon my by coinicidence?
race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals
Again, this victim was not intentionally attacked because he was white. However, IMO he was intentionally attacked because he was disabled, which per above is a hate crime. Contrary to what people believe, a "hate crime" is not always about the race of an individual.
Roof intentionally selected black victims - due to that he committed a hate crime based on race.
On your scenario, if you were a disabled black man who got targeted by a group of white thugs who saw you were disabled and decided to victimize you, then you would not have been selected based on race - you like this victim would have been selected based on disability. But if they said "hey - there's a black guy, lets beat him up" then that would be a hate crime because of race.
Per the BJS a person with a disability has a 2.5 greater chance of becoming the victim of a crime and those with a cognitive disability, like this particular victim face the highest risk of victimization, usually assault or rape.
I think that your bold is basically not true. These sorts of things have always occurred.
There was much more violent crime based on statistics in the 70s in particular than today in the country. Many of my older relatives who were in the 20s in the 60s/70s remember beating people up with a gang of friends. My uncles and dad in particular lived near the boarder of an ethnic white neighborhood and both they and the white boys used to jump each other all the time based on if they crossed into a certain part of the neighborhood.
Irrational violence has always occurred in America. It is not a Millenial thing and FWIW, I'm not a Millenial. I personally think that my own generation - Gen X and the previous Boomer generation was much more violent and irrational versus the Millenials and Gen Z today (or whatever the new teenagers of my oldest's generation is called).
People IMO put rose colored glasses on when they view the past or maybe you just didn't grow up in hostile environment and especially not the inner cities of NYC and Chicago of the 1970s in particular when crime was a huge concern. There were way more riots in the 60s and 70s than there are today as well.
You're talking about crime and criminals. Criminals don't perform what is for them rational violence with an expectation of general approval. Even criminals know they are criminals, and don't present their acts willingly to the public. Even the Mafia denied their deeds.
I'm not talking about crime and criminals. I'm talking about people who commit irrational violent acts in the belief that they are socially and morally correct--and in fact even more socially and morally correct than the people who are not committing irrational violence.
Did this kind of thing happen before? Yes--race lynching is the historical example.
You're talking about crime and criminals. Criminals don't perform what is for them rational violence with an expectation of general approval. Even criminals know they are criminals, and don't present their acts willingly to the public. Even the Mafia denied their deeds.
I'm not talking about crime and criminals. I'm talking about people who commit irrational violent acts in the belief that they are socially and morally correct--and in fact even more socially and morally correct than the people who are not committing irrational violence.
Did this kind of thing happen before? Yes--race lynching is the historical example.
Basically, the red is what I'm saying. This sort of thing has always been around. To say that it is more prevalent with Millenials or younger people today, is not the truth. IMO it was much more prevalent in previous generations than it is today.
Basically, the red is what I'm saying. This sort of thing has always been around. To say that it is more prevalent with Millenials or younger people today, is not the truth. IMO it was much more prevalent in previous generations than it is today.
Nope. When were there last riots over a presidential election? There wasn't even the equivalent of cyberbullying when I was in high school, where a couple of mean girls acted and then everyone else piled on.
This kind of thing did not happen. Flash mobs (violent or otherwise) did not happen. Race lynching is the example of that kind of thing.
Nope. When were there last riots over a presidential election? There wasn't even the equivalent of cyberbullying when I was in high school, where a couple of mean girls acted and then everyone else piled on.
This kind of thing did not happen. Flash mobs (violent or otherwise) did not happen. Race lynching is the example of that kind of thing.
Just because the reasons are different doesn't mean that that behavior didn't occur. There were a lot of riots in the 1960s as I'm sure you are aware that were worse than any of the past 5 years.
Cyber-bullying of course would not be an issue since there were no computers and smartphones in everyone's hands. You all had your run of the mill regular old bullying, which was prevalent. As I mentioned earlier my dad and his group of friends beat up people and bullied people all the time. They laugh about it now. He was also beat up and bullied by the Polish white boys about 1/4 mile away from his house. He still knows some of those guys too and they laugh about it together about how they would "get" each other.
People were much more cruel and uncaring in the 1950s and 1960s, if they weren't then there would never have been the resistance to the end of widespread, oppressive racism that there was. Also, you keep mentioning lynching like it is something different. It is probably the worse of them all! Lynching doesn't happen today. Young people don't lynch each other anymore, not even the racist do that because it is the most vile, horrible thing other than maybe rape you can do to someone. And there was no shortage of rape back then either or child molestation or incest. There is really no comparison. I know that many older people feel the "good old days" really were all that. I think my own era of the 1980s/1990s was great too, but I know for a fact that things are better today than they were back then on many fronts and it is odd that you would think that they aren't when people IMO today are much more caring than they used to be - WAY too much caring in some instances to the point of ridiculousness to me.
Yes. Unfortunately I am very aware of many cases where similar things have happened to black disabled individuals at the hands of other black people that did not get any media attention at all. The people were attacked because they were disabled. White people have done this to other whites as well who were disabled.
IMO it is the same as when black people target LGBTQ black individuals and commit acts of hate against them based on perceived sexual orientation or gender identitiy prejudices. Again, white people have done this to white LGBTQ people as well.
But I don't think that this young man would have been victimized in Chicago if he had not been disabled. That is why I don't think he was specifically targeted over race.
But I don't disagree that the perps made an issue of the victim's race, I just don't think he was targeted for a crime just because he was white. I doubt they were going around, like Roof, looking for weak white people to attack. Their friend came over with a disabled white man and from accounts I read, the victim said they were "play fighting" and it got out of hand. This was not some planned racial attack like Roof did.
Whether he was attacked on race or disability it was uncalled for and these teens should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
I have to say, I found out about this assault via Facebook and you know what? I say it's time we go old school. I told my parents that it was time to go back to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. My dad said that this would in the long run not be a good idea because black teens would be the main ones being punished. What's your take?
I want to keep the discussion about the Chicago assault going but I want to introduce a new topic for discussion cushion as well. At the end of 2017, gospel singer Kim Burrell gave a very fiery sermon on homosexuality and later tried to back paddle on what she was trying to convey [once the backlash started]. What's your stance on the sermon? How do you feel about blacks who hold a negative view about LGBT rights? Do you think we need to have more empathy considering our history with discrimination in the USA?
Just because the reasons are different doesn't mean that that behavior didn't occur. There were a lot of riots in the 1960s as I'm sure you are aware that were worse than any of the past 5 years.
There were some serious riots, but they were actually fairly rare and kicked off by much more serious situations.
Quote:
Cyber-bullying of course would not be an issue since there were no computers and smartphones in everyone's hands. You all had your run of the mill regular old bullying, which was prevalent. As I mentioned earlier my dad and his group of friends beat up people and bullied people all the time. They laugh about it now. He was also beat up and bullied by the Polish white boys about 1/4 mile away from his house. He still knows some of those guys too and they laugh about it together about how they would "get" each other.
Seriously, no, it was nowhere near as pervasive as it is now. It's not for nothing that there are so many more kids doing so much more psychologically worse now than then. The real problem with cyberbullying is that it does not remain in cyberspace, but merely insights real-world bullying to an extent we did not experience with anything like the normalcy of that experience today.
You are talking about "bad people in bad schools" in the past--I'm talking about bullying today by "normal" people in every school. My daughter, for instance, attended one of the top schools in the state--a university laboratory school that admitted students only upon application and panel review. In that school, the jocks performed mock homosexual rapes of smaller boys in the hallways. My daughter was severely sexually harassed by both female teachers and boys.
Crap like that did not happen even in that school in the 70s.
One big difference is that in the past, a school had a limited number of "bullies." A tough school might have a group. My school had exactly three.
They did their bullying alone. Nobody followed them. Bullying was a solitary activity.
These days, "normal" kids get swept up into the bullying, and that's what makes it both different and worse.
I have to say, I found out about this assault via Facebook and you know what? I say it's time we go old school. I told my parents that it was time to go back to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. My dad said that this would in the long run not be a good idea because black teens would be the main ones being punished. What's your take?
"Eye for an eye" was formulated to prevent endless blood feuds: Only an eye for an eye...no more. You don't get to wipe out the whole family.
What schools seem to lack today is the most basic level of justice. "Back in my day," if there was a fight at school, the first and most important question was: Who started it? Self-defense was permitted to the victim and only the instigator was punished. Concepts of justice in school were similar to concepts of justice in adult life.
That's not true today. Order in schools is kept by decisively unjust means--not significantly different from how order is kept in prison systems--rather than as a simulation of adult justice systems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kim Burrell
