Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I DO NOT AGREE that anybody walking down Bourbon street with a Falcons jersey on before a game with the Saints is picking a fight. They might be, but they might not. I would assume they are just supporting their team unless they say something like "Saints suck, I'm going to beat your ass!" to me. Otherwise they are not sending any agressive message, just by supporting the Falcons. I would say the same thing if I wore my Red Sox cap in a New York bar, just after the Red Sox beat the yankees in the ALCS. I'm not picking a fight just by wearing the cap. I know this, because I don't want to fight anybody, I just want to support my team. If somebody misinterprets my intent, that's their problem, not mine.
I didn't mean to ask what your reaction would be, specifically; what would the general reaction be?

And for the Rex Sox hat- do you expect that people would would be just as cool with it, or would you expect that some, if not many, might see that choice as a deliberate affront?

What about someone who walks through Savannah, GA singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic?

The value you place on their reactions to your action doesn't matter, only the existence of it. And taking an action that you know will provoke a negative response and pretending that it's not your fault that the response was provoked is the height of passive-aggression.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
How many people do we have to get together who are offended by homework before we can ban homework?

You got that backwards; the parallel question would be: how many teachers need to assign homework specifically as an insult to their students before we tell those teachers to stop giving out that kind of assignment?
Closer, I think a more correct wording of my question would be how many students have to get together expressing offense at other students completing their homework before the completion of homework needs to be banned.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or we can just stop working with faulty analogies.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I DO NOT AGREE that anybody walking down Bourbon street with a Falcons jersey on before a game with the Saints is picking a fight. They might be, but they might not. I would assume they are just supporting their team unless they say something like "Saints suck, I'm going to beat your ass!" to me. Otherwise they are not sending any agressive message, just by supporting the Falcons. I would say the same thing if I wore my Red Sox cap in a New York bar, just after the Red Sox beat the yankees in the ALCS. I'm not picking a fight just by wearing the cap. I know this, because I don't want to fight anybody, I just want to support my team. If somebody misinterprets my intent, that's their problem, not mine.
I didn't mean to ask what your reaction would be, specifically; what would the general reaction be?

And for the Rex Sox hat- do you expect that people would would be just as cool with it, or would you expect that some, if not many, might see that choice as a deliberate affront?

What about someone who walks through Savannah, GA singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic?

The value you place on their reactions to your action doesn't matter, only the existence of it. And taking an action that you know will provoke a negative response and pretending that it's not your fault that the response was provoked is the height of passive-aggression.

[Smile]

And I believe that we've come to the heart of the disagreement. You believe that I should alter my behavior based upon how my behavior may be perceived or misinterpreted. I believe that if I do not have the intent to cause offense, then taking offense is an overreaction, and that I should not cater to false assumptions.

I don't think you're wrong! I think in fact that your philosophy is actually very polite! I see the merit in that. My philosophy is just different. If somebody takes offense at my Red Sox cap, or takes offense that I wear an American Flag on cinco de mayo, without me meaning to cause offense, and wants to fight me, I think they're in the wrong.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And I believe that we've come to the heart of the disagreement. You believe that I should alter my behavior based upon how my behavior may be perceived or misinterpreted. I believe that if I do not have the intent to cause offense, then taking offense is an overreaction, and that I should not cater to false assumptions.
Actually, I don't think you should necessarily alter your immediate behavior. I just think that playing dumb afterwards and pretending that you didn't know that such a reaction would likely result from it is disingenuous. It's an inherent part of taking responsibility for your actions, regardless of how reasonable you feel the consequences of those actions are.

(This goes especially for explicit civil disobedience. Feel free to break an unjust law to make a point. But then happily go with the officer into your arrest in consequence for breaking that law, don't stand and argue about whether or not the currently defined consequence should follow- instead use that consequence as part of your point.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
::sigh::

Asking questions from a position of ignorance does not mean that you are ignorant. And it's not nastily "playing dumb." College professors do it all the time, especially in law school from what I understand. I find it a very good way to get to the bottom of things.

Of course I know that somebody in a New York bar might pick a fight for me because I wear my Red Sox cap. But to me, that makes him the jerk, not me. And I refuse to cater to threats by jerks.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Or we can just stop working with faulty analogies.

Yep, I agree with this. Or at least make it some kind of car analogy [Big Grin]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What might it "mean" when Mexican students display the Mexican flag, at a U.S. public school, after being asked not to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might mean a lot of things. Heck, it even depends on who asked them not to.

To those who asked, this is the example of Tom being deliberately obtuse and failing to acknowledge nuance where it suits him. Tom knows full well that Cinco De Mayo is a celebration of the Mexican army's victory over a foreign oppressor and that in the context of a racially divided school, this context might make this more than just a celebration of Mexican culture. He knows that according to the story the Latino students were aggressively flag waving and celebrating "their day". He appreciates the nuances of the situation, and why a non-Latino student might find this display "offensive".

I would say that an American student has just as much right to (and just as much justification) to become offended by Mexican students waving around Mexican flags at a US high school as a Mexican student has to become offended by American kids waving around an American flag in retaliation.

I don't give a crap about the offence of Americans kids toward the display of the Mexican flag any more than I give a crap about the offence of Mexican kids toward the display of the American flag.

The logical conclusion of my position is not, as PSRT suggested, to suggest that the school should be expelling anyone for taking offence. I never implied any such thing. Offence is a feeling, and everyone is entitled to their feelings. Rather, the response of the school should have been to make it clear that no sides would be taken in this argument, but that any violence resulting on either side would be punished accordingly.

These kids on both sides need to learn that they are entitled to their offence, but they are not entitled to have anyone cater to that offence. They need to learn to suck it up.

[ May 14, 2010, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These kids on both sides need to learn that they are entitled to their offence, but they are not entitled to have anyone cater to that offence. They need to learn to suck it up.
You. Little brother should just suck it up when big brother blows out the candles on little brothers cake and not take offence. Just like little brother should not take offence any other day of the year when big brother does the same sort of things. It doesn't matter that this was maybe the one day of the year that was supposed to be special for little brother.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr, that does not mean that there is only a single reason for students to display the Mexican flag -you have just glommed onto one that seems obvious to you.

As for "aggressively" - not even Fox characterized the actions of any of the students as such. I'm not sure you can claim that Tom 'knew' this, if no linked story on this thread makes any such claim.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But don't try to deny someone else the right to express themselves while hogging up all of the expression for yourselves.
I think Pyrtolin's addressed this fairly well, but I think it needs saying again: anyone who thinks minority cultures in this country are somehow "hogging up all of the expression" for themselves by having special days on which it is encouraged to celebrate a minority culture has perhaps not figured out why we bother having special days to celebrate minority cultures.

quote:
I believe that if I do not have the intent to cause offense, then taking offense is an overreaction...
Is this true in all cases? If, for example, someone said something like, "Gee, Barack, you're a lot smarter than most niggers," should Barack not be offended?

quote:
I would say that an American student has just as much right to (and just as much justification) to become offended by Mexican students waving around Mexican flags at a US high school as a Mexican student has to become offended by American kids waving around an American flag in retaliation.
I would disagree with you, not least because -- as you point out -- the latter action was motivated by "retaliation." That's an inherently hostile act. Moreover, I think your portrayal of events is inaccurate, and don't wish to lend it legitimacy by discussing hypotheticals that don't actually apply.

[ May 14, 2010, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If somebody takes offense at my Red Sox cap, or takes offense that I wear an American Flag on cinco de mayo, without me meaning to cause offense, and wants to fight me, I think they're in the wrong.
This is a perfectly acceptable ideology (though not one I share), but you're forgetting that in this case it was a SCHOOL. If there is potential for violence regardless of whether the reason for that violence is legitimate, the administration has the right and responsibility to take steps to prevent it. Done and done.
Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL

That actually reminds me of a story I once heard. There was this Private, from some small town in North Dakota. The dude had never seen a black man before, in his entire life. The guy was really not racist at all, it's just that they don't have those problems in his town. But anyways, he meets his first black guy in basic training, and he makes some sort of racial remark, something he heard on television or radio. LOL of course the black dude lays him out with a punch. The poor hick really wasn't trying to offend the guy, the way I remember the story, he was trying to be friendly. He just used the wrong greeting to a dude from south central or Detroit or Chicago.

I suppose you could say the guy was a moron, or maybe he was naive. The other guy was from wherever, Chicago or some other place, so he was reacting the way he had been trained to react to such things. The point is that the white kid was not intentionally being rude or offensive. The other kid was reactionary, but he'd probably been called whatever it was he'd been called before by people who knew exactly what it meant.

The two guys probably wound up being friends for all I know.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
quote:
If somebody takes offense at my Red Sox cap, or takes offense that I wear an American Flag on cinco de mayo, without me meaning to cause offense, and wants to fight me, I think they're in the wrong.
This is a perfectly acceptable ideology (though not one I share), but you're forgetting that in this case it was a SCHOOL. If there is potential for violence regardless of whether the reason for that violence is legitimate, the administration has the right and responsibility to take steps to prevent it. Done and done.
As a teacher, I respect your opinion and judgment on this matter. But where would you draw the line? At what point would you say that a group or individual was at fault by looking for something to fight over?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The two guys probably wound up being friends for all I know.
I would imagine that outcome hinged heavily on whether the private owned up to his mistake and apologized for it or got his dander up and tried to blame the other guy for taking offense at his remark.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But where would you draw the line? At what point would you say that a group or individual was at fault by looking for something to fight over?
This is all part of patterns of behavior. If you have students that are repeatedly on the wrong end of this sort of thing, you know that and that becomes part of the data you use to make this type of decision. We have a parent who calls all the time declaring that various teachers have committed various crimes against her child, and at this point its taken with a grain of salt. Same with a kid who's always offended- your plan of action may become sticking him in a room for a chill out period rather than dealing with the supposed aggressor.

Educators are under such scrutiny for their choices... we make so many decisions on the fly, and no one does it perfectly because it's not an exact science based on anything quantitative. You do what you can with what you know at the time.

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The two guys probably wound up being friends for all I know.
I would imagine that outcome hinged heavily on whether the private owned up to his mistake and apologized for it or got his dander up and tried to blame the other guy for taking offense at his remark.
Heh, I bet the Drill Sergeant blamed BOTH of them. Then probably tied the both of them together with their genitalia for the duration of basic. I can imagine that the black dude might have come to understand that the white dude was just fresh from the farm, and I'm sure the white dude never called anybody else, whatever he used, again.

::shrug:: That's all in my imagination. But the story is real.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
quote:
But where would you draw the line? At what point would you say that a group or individual was at fault by looking for something to fight over?
This is all part of patterns of behavior. If you have students that are repeatedly on the wrong end of this sort of thing, you know that and that becomes part of the data you use to make this type of decision. We have a parent who calls all the time declaring that various teachers have committed various crimes against her child, and at this point its taken with a grain of salt. Same with a kid who's always offended- your plan of action may become sticking him in a room for a chill out period rather than dealing with the supposed aggressor.

Educators are under such scrutiny for their choices... we make so many decisions on the fly, and no one does it perfectly because it's not an exact science based on anything quantitative. You do what you can with what you know at the time.

I can do nothing but support that. Thank you.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You. Little brother should just suck it up when big brother blows out the candles on little brothers cake and not take offence. Just like little brother should not take offence any other day of the year when big brother does the same sort of things. It doesn't matter that this was maybe the one day of the year that was supposed to be special for little brother.
If the American kids were shown to have been *doing* anything other than wearing American flags then you might come close to having a point. Blowing out candles, as trivial as it may seem, is still a physical act of interference and infringement on someone else's property.

The law well recognizes the distinction between physical interference with another's person or property versus mere expression. If the American kids had defaced a Mexican flag or knocked over a cultural display your analogy would carry more weight. But they didn't *do* anything.

quote:
jasonr, that does not mean that there is only a single reason for students to display the Mexican flag -you have just glommed onto one that seems obvious to you.
As Tom and others have glommed onto the reason for the kids displaying the American flag that seems obvious to them. That's the problem with basing policy on subjective "feelings" that people have and motive speculation.

quote:
I would disagree with you, not least because -- as you point out -- the latter action was motivated by "retaliation." That's an inherently hostile act. Moreover, I think your portrayal of events is inaccurate, and don't wish to lend it legitimacy by discussing hypotheticals that don't actually apply.
As I understand it from the article, Latino students were displaying their flags all over the school, en masse, even though they were asked not to. They were displaying the flag in response to a holiday that commemorates a major victory by the Mexican army against a foreigner. They described the day as "their day" i.e. not anyone else's day. The facts speak for themselves. My impression of their motives is hypothetical, just like your impressions of the motives of the white kids. You speculate on their motives, I speculate on the motives of the kids who triggered the whole mess.

Take from this the lesson that basing school policy on pure motive speculation based on some perceived threat of retaliation based on more motive speculation is not rational.

[ May 14, 2010, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
This would be a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that every other day of the year belongs to someone else, and if you don't dance to that person's tune every day of the year, you get hassled or ostracized for it.

In an ideal world what you say would be perfectly true. In the real world that's not how things actually work when people show independence from those who want to enforce their particular mainstream ideal.

See, for me this is the bigger issue. If we only do anything about the hassling and ostracism on one day of the year it's practically begging for problems. First, that one day will be overly sensitive for the little brother. If one thing goes wrong on his birthday, boo hoo. Second, you've allowed the big brother to develop some awfully bad habits. Expecting him to behave himself for one day of the year may seem like a small thing but when it comes to habits it may be an awfully hard thing to break.

If you want to fix the problem it's better to start fixing it on an off-day. If you start making some progress then even if there's some playful ribbing by the big brother on the little brother's birthday it won't be as big a deal. In fact, if I overreact to a big brother singing "you smell like a monkey and you look like one too" or some other birthday teasing I really do run a chance of ruining the day for both the big brother AND the little brother.

If it's the same level of ribbing I'd ignore on another day then it either the ribbing isn't something worth having a hissy fit over on the birthday or I've been wrongfully ignoring things on other days.

If the hispanic kids are getting bullied on a regular basis for showing any cultural pride then that's a bigger problem to me than a group of kids with flag shirts sitting at their table eating lunch with a grin on their face on cinco de mayo.

Either do something about people being jerks on a regular basis or teach kids how to better handle jerks on their own.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
[QUOTE] The facts speak for themselves. My impression of their motives is hypothetical, just like your impressions of the motives of the white kids. You speculate on their motives, I speculate on the motives of the kids who triggered the whole mess.

I agree there is a great deal of speculation. The only damning evidence there is, is that the Vice President singled them out, leading to the possibility that the students in question had a history of provocation, or were doing/saying something not being reported. So far I have heard nothing in any article that states that the students in question said anything else, or did anything else, that could be construed as offensive to ANYONE. No quotes from teachers. No quotes from the admin. No quotes from other students. All we have to go on is the hope that the vice principal was being just and knew what he was doing.

The only other thing to go on is that a group of students came forward to support the actions of the administration, and to condemn the actions of the students on both sides of the conflict.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Or we can just stop working with faulty analogies.

How is it a faulty analogy?

Student group A is offended by the action of student group B to the point where physical violence is feared by the administration. The action of student group B is halted by the administration. By the line of thinking that says the actions of the administration are acceptable because they feared physical violence would result, the contents of the action of group B are irrelevant. Be it wearing an American flag or doing homework, if group A is offended so strongly, the actions of group B must be stopped.

What part am I getting wrong?

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

quote:
anyone who thinks minority cultures in this country are somehow "hogging up all of the expression" for themselves by having special days on which it is encouraged to celebrate a minority culture has perhaps not figured out why we bother having special days to celebrate minority cultures.
"We" do not have special days celebrating minority cultures. The entire concept is racially condescending, and personally offensive (it is so fun to be offended. [Smile] ).

The proposition is tantamount to saying; "We realize you need our recognition to feel good about yourselves."

The energy expended in appearing benevolent through "celebration", so called, would be much better spent in assimilating children holding citizenship into American culture, and expelling those with disruptive Mexican nationalist sympathies. It has no place in a public school.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the American kids were shown to have been *doing* anything other than wearing American flags then you might come close to having a point. Blowing out candles, as trivial as it may seem, is still a physical act of interference and infringement on someone else's property.

The law well recognizes the distinction between physical interference with another's person or property versus mere expression. If the American kids had defaced a Mexican flag or knocked over a cultural display your analogy would carry more weight. But they didn't *do* anything.

They did do something. They made a direct and concerted decision to project a message that they kids celebrating the holiday were less American than they were.

And heck, you even do it in your reply there when you call the kids wearing the flag "American" as if to imply that they others somehow weren't Americans too. That reflects exactly where the core of the offense entered. All of the kids were Americans, I think that it's even been pointed out that all of the kids wearing the US flag were Hispanic as well. It's probably even possible that other kids could have worn something with the US flag on that an not even gotten a blink. But when you count the coordinated student, plus what the other students and administration know about what they would be intending to convey with that statement, it became an intentional act in and of itself.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrtolin,

quote:
And heck, you even do it in your reply there when you call the kids wearing the flag "American" as if to imply that they others somehow weren't Americans too.
If you check the video clips, you will discover that it was the "latinos" interviewed, who referred to the flag wearers as "Americans".
Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
Or we can just stop working with faulty analogies.

How is it a faulty analogy?

Student group A is offended by the action of student group B to the point where physical violence is feared by the administration. The action of student group B is halted by the administration. By the line of thinking that says the actions of the administration are acceptable because they feared physical violence would result, the contents of the action of group B are irrelevant. Be it wearing an American flag or doing homework, if group A is offended so strongly, the actions of group B must be stopped.

What part am I getting wrong?

You're missing the part where group B is acting with deliberate intent to marginalize and provoke offense in group A.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How is it a faulty analogy?
Because homework (whether you support it or oppose it) isn't meant for symbolic but for practical purposes - e.g. teaching kids or grading them or instilling to them a work-ethic or something.

Discussing whether something practical offends or not is different to discussing whether something symbolic offends. So every analogy that compares a flag to homework is a ludicrously flawed analogy.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread has many good comments about the proper limits for free speech in schools.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The energy expended in appearing benevolent through "celebration", so called, would be much better spent in assimilating children holding citizenship into American culture, and expelling those with disruptive Mexican nationalist sympathies. It has no place in a public school.
And "American Culture" is, I take it, something that you belief you have license to dictate to others that don't live up to your standards for it? Apparently having pride in Mexican heritage is, by your definition, not part of American culture. What exactly gives you the authority to make such determinations?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The energy expended in appearing benevolent through "celebration", so called,
I'm bitterly amused that you seem to think benevolence is for appearances only.

quote:
would be much better spent in assimilating children holding citizenship into American culture, and expelling those with disruptive Mexican nationalist sympathies.
What about expelling those with disruptive American nationalist sympathies?

In short is it the "disruptive" part that should be the cause of expulsion, or the "Mexican" part?

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In short is it the "disruptive" part that should be the cause of expulsion, or the "Mexican" part?
Until the students' "Mexican" or "Disruptive" personalities can be safely extracted, separated and distilled into two entities (see Star Trek Next Gen: Skin of Evil and STV: Faces) we're going to have to settle for throwing out the "disruptive" with the "Mexican"
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
See, for me this is the bigger issue. If we only do anything about the hassling and ostracism on one day of the year it's practically begging for problems. First, that one day will be overly sensitive for the little brother. If one thing goes wrong on his birthday, boo hoo. Second, you've allowed the big brother to develop some awfully bad habits. Expecting him to behave himself for one day of the year may seem like a small thing but when it comes to habits it may be an awfully hard thing to break.

quote:
I've been wrongfully ignoring things on other days.


I think you've got it perfectly there. The problem is embedded in the baseline attitudes that big brother privilege (the dominant culture) is inherently superior to the little brother (non-mainstream minority cultures), and thus is given license to marginalize or abuse the little brother however it sees fit. (Noel has just provided us with a beautiful example of just that attitude)

And whenever someone tries to correct the big brother he cries about how unfair it is that he's being oppressed (English is out national language, reverse racism, this is Christian nation, etc...) and no one has the stomach to hold steady long enough to adjust his behavior.(Or says that there isn't really a problem anyway, because they were brought up to believe that big brother gets to have his way, and that's just the right of it)

This is about race rather than culture, but the same principles apply (perhaps even more so because the US has many different regional cultures as it is; there is no single unifying "American Culture"):

http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
In short is it the "disruptive" part that should be the cause of expulsion, or the "Mexican" part?
Until the students' "Mexican" or "Disruptive" personalities can be safely extracted, separated and distilled into two entities (see Star Trek Next Gen: Skin of Evil and STV: Faces) we're going to have to settle for throwing out the "disruptive" with the "Mexican"
Or, perhaps, we can put aside this fantasy of an ideal of "American culture" and stop imagining that the natural cultural shifts as different groups of people intermingle are somehow disrupting it, then call whatever comes out on its own the culture of that region of the US.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris,

quote:
I'm bitterly amused that you seem to think benevolence is for appearances only.
You are apparently missing the irony. There is no benevolence in this dog and pony show. Those arguing for "sensitivity" training are frauds. They neither encourage it in others, nor exemplify it in their own communications.

I am sad that you are amused, but at least you are "bitterly" amused. [Wink]

quote:
In short is it the "disruptive" part that should be the cause of expulsion, or the "Mexican" part?
The "Mexican nationalism" part is disruptive, and therefore the problem. In America we have simple "Americans", not hyphenated nationalities feeding from the trough as it suits loyalities at any given moment.

Pyrtolin,

quote:
Or, perhaps, we can put aside this fantasy of an ideal of "American culture"...
Rather, put aside the image of a "salad bowl". We have always been a "melting pot". Your victims understand the distinction very well.
Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmmmmm.

Nobody has discussed to any length the fact that the boys sent home were all Mexican-American.

So. Other Mexican-American kids were picking on other Mexican-American kids concerning their heritage? Their culture? One would assume that they would both have the same culture, since both groups are Mexican-American.

So, either the two groups are culturally similar, or they are not. [Smile]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Until the students' "Mexican" or "Disruptive" personalities can be safely extracted, separated and distilled into two entities (see Star Trek Next Gen: Skin of Evil and STV: Faces) we're going to have to settle for throwing out the "disruptive" with the "Mexican"
Thank you, you've proven my point. It's someone being Mexican that bugs you, not their being disruptive.

In Greece btw, an argument that happened every year for a decade now was when an ethnic Albanian kid got the privilege of holding up the Greek flag during some school's yearly parade (the top student of the school). Greek nationalism didn't like it that some Albanian kid got the top grades and so raised the Greek flag - that should only be a privilege of Greeks, they argued.

So, honestly, my experience from Greece tells me that arguments about flags, don't tend to be about some minority being "disruptive" or not. It's about the minority seeking any sort of equality.

In the 1960s the supposed problem was with disruptive blacks wanting to use the *same* schools or hospitals or bus seats. In the 2000s the supposed problem is with Latinos using a single day to wave a *different* flag (same as American kids can do every other day of the year).

So, yeah, "disruptive", whatever. Whether wanting the same or wanting different ones, the minority will always cause the ire of members of the majority, just for daring to want.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "Mexican nationalism" part is disruptive
No, the disruptive part is disruptive.

When Albanians in Greece celebrated Albania's victory in soccer over Greece, there was no need for "disruption", the same way there hadn't been any disruption when Greeks in Portugal celebrated Greece's victory over Portugal.

When Greek neonazis attacked and murdered celebrating Albanians in response, *that* was disruptive. Of course afterwards political commentator condemned the murders, but they also condemned the Albanians being "offensive" by waving Albanian flags, instead of being properly invisible.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rather, put aside the image of a "salad bowl". We have always been a "melting pot". Your victims understand the distinction very well.
And a melting pot incorporates everything that it takes in and adds it to the whole. (And in a pot this large, ends up with many pockets of different stuff near whatever corner it was dumped in.

What you're advocating is a whitewash after sifting out undesirable elements.

Melting in means bringing new things to the pot, not being forced to conform to an unreal standard.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those arguing for "sensitivity" training are frauds. They neither encourage it in others, nor exemplify it in their own communications.
For what it's worth, I have a friend who administers sensitivity training who, quite frankly, belies both your claims here.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL

You gotta get the temperature real hot to do all that melting, gonna be some heat! Little bit of friction!

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1