Glen, methinks you posted this to the wrong blog. What, exactly, does this have to do with any “Music City Bloggers?”

It does effect us Nashvillians, as we have to deal with race and race baiting, and denial, every day.

Other crimes do not and cannot convict people. Regardless of what I may have done in the past, the punishment I recieve should fit the crime I am on trial for now.

If Glen gets a ticket for J-Walking, he should be tried for a Hate Crime. We know that Glen is a bigot, but all he did this time was J-Walk. He cannot punish him for being a hate monger just cause he walked across the street.

Let me re-type that:
If Glen gets a ticket for J-Walking, he should NOT be tried for a hate crime. We know that Glen is a bigot, but all he did this time was J-Walk. We cannot punish him for being a hate monger just cause he walked across the street.

My point was this was something that should have been posted on his own blog, not here. Which, a quick check subsequently confirmed, he did. Just re-publishing a post from your own blog isn’t what this site is supposed to be about. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with anything he wrote; that wasn’t my point. Sorry I didn’t make that more clear.

Self-linking is supposed to be against our posting policy. Let’s let the HBIC (Ivy) and the EIC (Kat) decide the best way to handle this in the future.

But anyway, since it’s here…

Is there racial inequality in our justice system? Certainly there is, but that inequality has more to do with economics than anything else.

Glen, I agree…

It is my belief that most crime is a poverty issue. Demographics prove that most crime ridden areas are also low income areas, and many of those areas are where a majority of the citizens are black. That is why you see more African Americans in the corrections system than whites. Why? Because you have mostly rich white males pushing the buttons of our judicial system.

In this case; however…

One nonviolent act of idiocy does not justify a violent response.

Word.

Lesley, I think you make a good point. Perhaps this isn’t something I should have posted here. I wanted to get the largest audience I could though, and many other MCB bloggers have had a tendency to post things that don’t link back to local bloggers, but just reveal their own interests or opinions.

The reason I posted it on my own blog though was because I didn’t think it would make it through the filter here. If it had been deemed to spicy for this site, I would have understood and thats what I thought happened. I actually wrote it early yesterday morning. Now that I see that the writing has been posted, I have erased most of the post at my site and linked back here.

Kevin, for a pure and Holy man like yourself, you sure are mean and judgmental. Hopefully, one day you will find happiness though. God bless you.

I wanted to get the largest audience I could though
Well, yes, I figured that. All of us want to get read and get attention for something we feel passionately about and it’s sort of luck of the draw if it gets picked up by someone else. I hadn’t really noticed any of the others posting opinion pieces without links to other bloggers (only some breaking news items), but if that’s the case, perhaps some clarification of policy needs to happen. It was my understanding that posts should link to other local bloggers (but not to yourself, which, yes, I’ve noticed some people violate). And as I said, I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve written and acutally found your post on this subject and the kid in Georgia (I think–Glenarlow) quite informative, but I think we all have to wait our turn for the attention. A lot of us have points we’d like to share that don’t always get a spotlight here. But, you know, that’s fair.

I fugured Glen was just trying to bait some responses.
.

Well, since it’s been made abundantly clear that he needs to refrain from doing this in the future, does anybody have comments on the topic?

No problem Lesley. I do think this is a discussion that we need to have and so far most have avoided it.

JP, I did want to start a discussion, but this isn’t one of those times that I am laughing in front of the computer while one of you guys blow a gasket. Not saying I haven’t done that before, because obviously I have. But this is a serious matter that I truly think is worthy of an emotionless common sense discussion.

I fugured Glen was just trying to bait some responses.

yeah, I think that was a given. I’ve not followed the “Jena 6″ case so I’ve got no opinion on it, but anytime I read a post that declares that racial injustice in this country today is a “fantasy” (invariably written by a white person) I know there not much to it.

On a related note, did you know that you are 50%(!!!) more likely to get an interview if the name at the top of your resume is “white-sounding” (Bob or Sarah instead of Alfonso or Tameeka). Of course there’s no racial injustice in this country, that’s just a fantasy.

Sorry, meant to link to an article about the stats I noted. here.

Pure and Holy? thanks Glen, but you think more highly of me than I deserve.

I find a certain rich irony in a blog entry title that would lead you to believe that this would be a diatribe on “sensationalism” and journalistic “vultures,” although in the text of the entry, the blogger settles in to plucking at the carcass his own self.

I’ve dealt with Glen privately on this matter, and I’ve attempted to increase the relevance of this post to this site by adding a link to Phil Wilson’s entry of this morning.

I grew up in a small Southern town. As I say probably a bit too often. And mostly what I take from the story of the so-called Jena 6 is this:
Kids are stupid. Adolescents have a well-documented lack of reasoning, from time to time, and an inability to foresee the logical consequences of their actions, from time to time. It’s developmental.

Secondly, I think adults [meaning mostly those 40 and over] are looking at this situation through entirely different lenses than younger people are, and certainly, than the teenagers involved are.

By that I mean: I’m 35 years old. I started school in West Tennessee just a few years after full racial integration of the schools. Yet, it had no practical effect on my education. In other words, to the kids, at the time it was all we had ever known. The stories I heard growing up about the civil rights struggle and integration seemed like long-past fairy tales.

While those of us [black, white or other] who are now old enough to appreciate the fairly recent lessons of the civil rights movement may look upon any of the incidents in Jena as “hate” crimes, mostly they are incidents of kids unknowingly playing with fire.

I think that’s partly behind the media firestorm and behind the original too-harsh charges. But Dean is right on many points, including these: The noose incident early last fall seems to have had nothing at all to do with the fact that six kids beat up another single kid. While I want them to be punished appropriately, I don’t like being in the position of defending kids who are the beaters, instead of the beaten.

[…] Glen Dean has more than a few choice words to share on the Jena Six controversy: The young men who have been labeled the “Jena 6″ are not worthy of being mentioned with the likes of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King jr. They committed a crime and eventually they were charged with battery, as juveniles. Hanging a noose around a tree and a gang beating are not the same thing. One nonviolent act of idiocy does not justify a violent response. The racial demagogues who have descended on Jena, are the worst offenders in all of this. Are they down there speaking to black audiences about black illegitimacy rates, black dropout rates, black crime rates, drug use, and the various other problems that plague the black community and lead to crime and poverty? No they are down there creating animosity toward whites and stirring up an angry mob. Are they advocating a nonviolent response to the bigoted symbol of a rope on a tree? No, they are defending those who appear to have taken part in a violent response. We have come a long way from the teachings of Dr. King. Have we not? Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]

The noose incident early last fall seems to have had nothing at all to do with the fact that six kids beat up another single kid.

I don’t think it’as as clear cut as that. Yes, what the six did was wrong, but it also was a response to the tension created by dragging out three nooses and displaying them publically. Blacks were told, explicitly, by this that their lives were no more secure than they had ever been in the deep South. The implication to them was that they should stay in their place. Those of us who are white (and, frankly, I assume that’s most of those posting here) have no frame of reference for how disturbing that is to an African-American. Yes, there was a distinct difference in time between the two. That dioes not make them unrelated; it just means that it took longer for the rage to overcome the fear and astonishment that the overseers are still out there with their whips and nooses, even in the 21st century.

Phil’s excerpt is excellent.
As for as me posting on this subject here, I didn’t break any rules. I didn’t link to myself. All I did was write a controversial opinion post. When this thing started, I thought you had to write a post that linked to another local blogger. When other bloggers posted and did not do this, I just assumed that that wasn’t the case. I am willing to bet that at least 30 to 40% of all of the posts put on this site are like this one (until Phil’s part was added), meaning they didn’t link to anybody else, but just linked to news stories. So why all of the sudden am I breaking the rules?
Now back to the subject.
To Dolphin, I stand firm. There is some racial discrimination in this country, of course, but there isn’t nearly as much as Sharpton and Jackson wishes for.
Also, while hanging a rope on a tree violates school policy, it should not ever be a violation of law, not in a free country where people are supposed to be able to express themselves, ever how controversial and hateful their expression may be. Six people beating the hell out of one person though is clearly a violation of law.
If justice was to get these young men a lesser, more appropriate charge, then has justice not been served? Are they currently not charged as juveniles, and merely charged with battery? From this point in the process, what is everybody fighting for? Why are the race vultures still in Jena raising hell?
Six young men beat up one young man and continued to beat and kick him after he was unconscious and some of you want to free these people, thus charging them with nothing?
People do not have the right to not be offended and if you take away somebody’s right to express themselves, ever how offensive, you take away all of our rights.

I am willing to bet that at least 30 to 40% of all of the posts put on this site are like this one (until Phil’s part was added), meaning they didn’t link to anybody else, but just linked to news stories.

Guilty as charged. My opinion, and I believe it is that of Kat & Ivy’s as well, is that with breaking news items, it is an acceptable thing to link to a news item rather than another blog post. The key on those items is that it is relevant to our target audience (i.e., Tennessee). Anyhoo…I think Kat has clarified the policy now, so I would encourage everybody to move on (just a suggestion).

I, for one, think it is an excellent post!

Thanks Ginger.

I for one agree with you. In my humble opinion, it is one of the best posts ever written, a credit to the medium of blogging. A post like this should never be relegated to a dead site like Glen’s Blog, but should be posted at a place like this to be read by many. Blah, blah, blah. I am great. Yada, yada, yada.

Glen, I re-read the posting guidelines and I suppose I misinterpreted them. But it still seems to me that this is not the proper forum for such a post. But it’s not my place to say that. The appearance is that you had something you wanted to say and you didn’t figure you’d get enough attention at your blog, so you took the opportunity to post it here. That just seems counter-intuitive to the purpose of this site. But, as I said, it’s not my place to say.

That said, whereas I don’t think that these boys were right to beat the bloody hell out of that kid, I don’t think that the one beaten is without responsibility. I don’t expect to come out unscathed if I go out into the world with a noose and rattle off racial epithets.

Additionally, I think we all need to put ourselves in the place of those who did the beating. I’m guessing there are a fair number of fathers in the world who want to beat the hell out of Joe Francis, though most of what he does is perfectly legal. But any father that gets the chance to beat him unconscious for distributing and profiting from nude images of his drunk daughter probably isn’t going to rot in jail for very long because most of us would feel he’s justified in his actions.

Sure, I don’t think that kid deserved to be beaten that harshly, but I bet it’s sure gonna teach some other little smart-mouthed jerks to keep their traps shut and stop with the racist stuff. I’m guessing that was the point.

Lesley, I agree with some of what you said. If I was in that situation, I would probably punch the kid in the mouth, but I accept the fact that doing so would be a a violent act and wrong and I could be charged with a crime.

Also, I would never get with five other guys and gang up on the other kid. There is never any way I could ever understand six people beating up one and continuing to beat him when he was out cold. That’s not man behavior, that’s thug behavior and it is indefensible.

Jim,
I haven’t seen the report saying the kids beat up the other kid because of the nooses. Here’s what I’ve read:
http://www.thejenatimes.net/home_page_graphics/home.html
[Scroll to the very bottom for a timeline, in which it explicitly says law enforcement has found NO connection between the two.]

If someone my age put up a noose, I agree, they would be little reason for wiggle room: They would know the racial, historical significane of that to the black community.

But I don’t think a teenager of any race has a total understanding of what nooses mean, or what a swastika means, for instance. At least not the teenagers I meet. Sure, it could be a threat. But is it a threat with the force of 400 years of oppression behind it? I guess that’s possible, but I highly doubt it.

I think adults have created the racially charged atmosphere in Jena. Adults in the media and in law enforcement. And people like us.

Another perfect fit into the template of modern sensationalism and the fantasy of racial injustice.

There is some racial discrimination in this country, of course

Wow, I guess this is why I just can’t understand you Glen. “Fantasy is real of course!”

…a credit to the medium of blogging.

*Snork*

Heh!

I don’t think a teenager of any race has a total understanding of what nooses mean, or what a swastika means, for instance.

Curse you, making me think! Good point. I agree that could be the case, but I don’t know if it’s as relevant for blacks as it is whites. Despite decades of progress, racism does still exist. I would expect the history of racist segragation to be a topic of discussion in black homes at more frequently than in white homes. Of course, I may also be extrapolating myself into the “white kids are more clueless” train of thought…

Glen says that it should be free expression to hang a rope from a tree, and yet neglects to say that said rope is in the form of a noose. Should it be within the guides of free expression for one person, especially one who knowingly loathes another, to point a gun at said other? Even if the gun was not loaded, the intentional intimidation of such an act should not be allowed under the heading of “free expression.”

Can we really trust the law enforcement’s claim that the incidents are not related?

So, we’re excusing the behavior of the white kids, who were pissed because black kids sat under a tree, and although they didn’t know why, they were pretty sure the black kids would be pissed off about nooses hung in said tree…?

*boggle*
.

Who is excusing anything JP? What they did was idiotic and stupid, but not a crime.

Kevin, your comparison is stupid.

I don’t know about Louisiana laws, but wouldn’t hanging a noose on a tree in order to provoke fear be “assault by intimidation”?

Even so, it does not make what the 6 did justifiable.

It seems to me that everybody involved committed inexcusable acts.

Eh, I hate to say it but I’m just libertarian enough to believe free speech is free speech, not just speech approved of by conservatives or liberals.

If you don’t like the Rebel flag on my truck, the swastika tattooed on my forehead, my God hates Fags bumper sticker, or my Darwin-fish thingy…tough $hit. At no time, do you ever have the right to punch me in the face. Just as I cannot beat you with a bat for being a dickhead. It is your right (and boy do some of you exercise it).

In Jena, it is however a public tree…if you are going to hang a noose, it should be on your own property.

What a bunch of self-righteous prigs. Go ahead and resign Glen. You violated the posting rules by talking about a story that has been hyped in the local media because of all the NAACP members loading onto buses at the Bicentennial Mall to go to Jena.

What is there like two conservative posters on this site? You’ll have to start advertising your posts after midnight on Comedy Central. Too hot for The Internet! Banned by seven clucking hens.

“…seven clucking hens.”

ahahahahahaha!

But the real question is…do they enjoy roasting marshmallows?

Is “roasting marshmallows” some new cracker code for continuing 435 years of racist oppression?

The first ten posts are “bigot, bigot, you don’t have a right to say this here” and how can we legalese your thoughts away? A truly pathetic display.

Luckily he’s been dealt with in private and I hope he’s learned his lesson.

No, TN Native…lighten up…I was referring to a comment over at NiT where someone said they didn’t wanna read blogs about fat chicks roasting marshmallows.

I believe I stated in previous comments that I think it is a good post, whether I agree with all of his views or not.

Sheesh.

Sorry to get so wound up about it but I am always deadset against censoring people who are trying to have a legitimate conversation. Reading through the comments took me aback at how other people try to abuse what little influence they think they have to shout other people down.

It’s cool, TN Native…it’s all good…

Back to the point — there’s a fabulous article on Slate today that exactly sums up everything I think about the incidents in Jena, LA, last fall. Please read: http://www.slate.com/id/2174600/

From that article:

Such prosecutorial overzealousness is not necessarily racist, but because blacks are disproportionately embroiled in the criminal justice system, it does fall with disproportionate force on them.

If I’d written that, veins would be popping in people’s heads.

I didn’t agree with the vultures part. It’s more biblical than that. Like locusts, the equivalent of Doctors Without Borders descended on Jena: Reverends Without Churches.

TN Native: what? What in the hell are you talking about? This was not about censorship. It was about, in my mind, attention-whoring, which Glen Dean, in not so many words, admitted to. To me, this sounded like a post that should be made at one’s personal blog, not on a community blog site, which is what he did and he was not satisfied with the attention (or, I suppose lack thereof) it was getting, so he chose to re-present it here. I didn’t think that was appropriate, so I called him out. I did. As in, one “clucking hen,” not seven. Read for comprehension and then join a conversation, mmkay?

My reading comprehension is fine. I was talking about you.

That’s the funny thing about “a community”. Some times it talks about things you don’t want it to.

Whether his intent was a dialogue or attention or both is immaterial that your first reaction is to censor it. They must be putting something in the tofu that brings out the authoritarian. Vitamin A!

Are there any other topics you would like stricken from public speech, dear?

Actually, TNN, there’s something I’d like stricken from public speech, but nobody will listen.

It’s posts that start with “Okay”. That pisses me off to no end. Can we at least censor that, please?

And no, I’m not going to read this entire thread OR post, today is my last day off, I just dropped in for some general smartassery.

Okay, so…what you’re saying, Ivy…is that you hate it when people start posts, comments, sentences with “Okay…”?

Okay, so I think I understand.

O*.

TN Native, I don’t think your comprehension is fine at all if you think I was trying to censor anyone. Where are you getting that? My impression was that this post did not follow the “posting guidelines” of this community. I later stated that upon re-reading these guidelines that that was not necessarily the case. And what I said had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. Had his post been about how much he likes rainbows and fluffy bunnies, I would have said the same thing. Though it’s not necessarily against the posting guidelines, I think pure opinion posts that don’t introduce any links to any other local bloggers shouldn’t be on the site. But, as I said before, it’s not my place to say. I’m posting my opinion in the comments.

Really, get over yourself. And maybe brush up on your nutrition facts.

I can’t believe Glen would excuse the white students for putting the nooses in the trees, claiming they couldn’t know what that would mean to the black students.

No, I’m not serious — I’m just doing what wingers do when they’re completely fucked in an argument, like illegal warrantless wiretapping.
.

Additionally, I think we all need to put ourselves in the place of those who did the beating….Sure, I don’t think that kid deserved to be beaten that harshly, but I bet it’s sure gonna teach some other little smart-mouthed jerks to keep their traps shut …

Your opinions, that you’re so proud of, are really something to behold.

Your pedantic allegiance to the site rules is duly noted in the event anyone strays from this place’s strict three month old orthodoxy in the future.

My pet peeve is when people start sentences with, “Actually,…”

TN Native, I think you’ve proven that you have no capability for sympathy or understanding of facetiousness. I am clearly an advocate of non-violent measures for resolving conflict. However, that’s just not the American way, now is it? No, if we don’t like what someone’s doing, we use violence to solve the problem. Those boys were just doing what they were taught–by our society, by the example of our government–about how to resolve a conflict.

People have no clue what censorship means anymore. Wow.

Is TN Native Smantix reincarnate? Nahhh, Smantix was smarter.

Those boys were just doing what they were taught–by our society, by the example of our government–about how to resolve a conflict.

Nooooo, Lesley…please tell me you didn’t just blame our government for the idiotic violence of 6 hoodlums. Please tell me I was hallucinating you bringing anti-Bush rhetoric into this. (Disclaimer: I am not a Bush supporter.)

Everybody involved in this incident are without excuse.

Meanwhile, with that statement, what is your reasoning for all of the violence that happens during peace time?

Wow, Lesley, that’s the most racist thing I’ve ever heard.

Ginger, I blame our society and our government, not George Bush. Our history of resolving conflict with violence precedes Bush and really even precedes the founding of this country (we inherited it). We, along with a few other countries in this world (some allies, some enemies), just seem to be perfecting it.

No where in any of what I wrote in that statement did you read “Bush” or “war?” And what anti-Bush rhetoric are you talking about? And for violence during peace time–when was the last time there was peace in this world? Not in my lifetime.

Ron, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Fair enough, Lesley…My interpretation of what you said was that these guys were just doing what they were taught by our government…and I took that as you referring to our current situation.

I obviously read too much into it.

The whole comment you made about the Jena thugs not knowing any better smacks of racism, because it suggests back-handedly that black people (”they”) are generally too stupid to behave in a civilized manner. If violence is taught to be the answer, why did I spend so much time learning about MLK and Ghandi in school instead of learning about Huey Newton and Bobby Seale? Why do I use words to explain my differences with you rather than finding where you live and kicking your head in?

I think it’s the use of “they” that strikes me most as racist, because it singles out those six black kids, not everyone.

Ron, first off, I never called them thugs. Nor did I say that they didn’t know any better, but that they were just doing what our society suggests is the way to resolve a conflict. I’m not quite sure why so many people in this thread misunderstand what I write, but I am in no way a racist nor do I consider what I’ve said to be racist. There are ways people are taught that’s not just in school. True, many of us learn about peaceful leaders, but that’s not what’s shown in our everyday life. From video games to the evening news, we’re shown that violence is the way to solve a conflict. I know better myself, but there are times when I don’t do what I know is best and have resulted to violence (though not on the same scale) as well. I think most of us have in some shape or form.

I think it’s the use of “they” that strikes me most as racist, because it singles out those six black kids, not everyone.
So sometimes, I’m an anti-Bush left-wing nut, but now I’m Ross Perot?
(The above comment was intended to be funny for those of you who don’t recognize such in writing.)

I agree with Lesley.

George Bush and this war are symptoms, not the problem itself. We are a society that glorifies violence as the dominant means of problem solving. That doesn’t give anyone a free pass to commit violence, but it does offer insight into why our society has such a substantially higher violent crime rate than in other more peaceful parts of the world.

Ron your assertion that it’s racist to use proper English is absurd.

Dolphin: Of course you agree.

Lesley: “True, many of us learn about peaceful leaders, but that’s
not what’s shown in our everyday life. From video games to the evening
news, we’re shown that violence is the way to solve a conflict. I know
better myself, but there are times when I don’t do what I know is best
and have resulted to violence (though not on the same scale) as well.
I think most of us have in some shape or form.”

I’ve never participated in a 6 on 1 curbstomp of someone who was
already unconscious. I know that’s wrong. I know that if I do that,
I could go to jail, so I generally don’t beat people up, no matter how
mad they might make me. Your assertion that ‘I know better myself’ is
what strikes me as racist (or at least elitist), because it implies
that they’re too stupid to know better, which isn’t the case. We’re
all exposed to the same news, the same games, the same popular media,
and there isn’t mass anarchy in our streets.

Don’t make lame excuses for petty thugs (my words, not yours).
Mychael Bell, the only one denied bail, was already on probation for
previous assault and battery, among other crimes. He shouldn’t have
been out on the streets in the first place to stomp that kid, but he
got preferential treatment because he’s an athlete. Now he’s getting
preferential treatment because he’s black and Jesse Jackson wants to
get back on TV. If you want to rail against racism, find legitimate
racism. This is just an idiot trying like hell to avoid paying the
penalty for his actions and a bunch of media whores fighting for
spotlight time.

I know that if I do that,
I could go to jail, so I generally don’t beat people up, no matter how
mad they might make me.

I think this illustrates Lesley’s point perfectly. Our society has driven into us so hard that we can solve our problems with violence that jail is the only thing “generally” keeping Ron from acting out on his violent impulses. Were we taught that there were other much more effective ways of solving our problems, you wouldn’t be avoiding violence to avoid jail, instead you’d be avoiding violence because it hadn’t even occurred to you to commit it in the first place.

dolphin, while I understand the point you are trying to make, I want to point out that violence has been a part of human nature since the beginning of time. Nothing is new under the sun. If anything, the human race has become more civilized.

Dolphin, you must be confused by what ’society’ means and how it
actually functions in reflection to human nature.

I thought it was generally a liberal idea that humans were evolved
from lower forms of life. We might have domesticated ourselves, but
our baser instincts don’t disappear. It’s called the ‘fight or
flight’ response for a reason. When confronted with an aggressor or
an irritant, our ingrained hard-wiring as animals tells us to get rid
of said irritant or aggressor through two means: beating it until it
shuts up or leaving its presence. THIS IS NATURE, NOT NURTURE.

Our society is why I don’t go around fighting people. Obviously you
don’t know the difference between instinct and civilization. Society
is nurture. Society is what tells us that it is wrong to beat up
other people and punishes us when we act out on our animal impulses in
an attempt to keep the weak protected from the strong (or in this case
the weak protected from groups of other weak). We may domesticate a
dog, but it can still attack people. It is through the fear of
punishment and socialization (both words share a common Greek root)
that your dog doesn’t kill you.

I want to point out that violence has been a part of human nature since the beginning of time.
Ginger, I think that really depends on when you think the beginning of time is or the beginning of the human race. I don’t believe this is true and there are societies in existence today that are non-violent and promote a non-violent lifestyle. Ours is not one of them.

…there are societies in existence today that are non-violent and promote a non-violent lifestyle.

Where?

Your assertion that ‘I know better myself’ is what strikes me as racist (or at least elitist), because it implies that they’re too stupid to know better, which isn’t the case. We’re
all exposed to the same news, the same games, the same popular media,
and there isn’t mass anarchy in our streets.

Ron, you’ve misread the tone of my comment. The tone was to say that even though I know better, it doesn’t mean that I haven’t thought to or in fact resorted to violence. It in no way implies that others don’t know better. I’ve not said one thing that is racist. I won’t say that I don’t generally feel elitist, though, but the target of that is generally toward people of my own race.

Additionally, your assertion that we’re all exposed to the same news, etc. is incorrect. Regardless of that, even if we were, how we interpret what we see is different from one person to the next.

That said, I’m curious to know, based on what you’ve written here why you think these six boys did what they did.

…there are societies in existence today that are non-violent and promote a non-violent lifestyle.

Where?

Candyland, Ginger

There is a great book available from Fromm who pretty much annihilates the notion that violence is nature not nurture. Highly recommended.

Ginger, many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism have societies based on non-violence. Ron, you should know that given all that you’ve learned about Ghandhi! In the western world, I can think of at least two examples, the Quakers and Seventh Day Adventists. Note that I said “societies” and not “governments” because it seems as though you have gotten the two confused. Most governments are ruled by people who want power and the desire for power often leads to violences. But peaceful, non-violent societies can exist within countries that are ruled by people with opposing views. Generally speaking, though you don’t see a lot of Indians or Nepalis or Tibetans waging war all over the world.

*I thought it was generally a liberal idea that humans were evolved
from lower forms of life.*

Some of us call it “science,” thought I’d quibble with the term “lower forms.”

thought=though

Dolphin, you must be confused by what ’society’ means and how it
actually functions in reflection to human nature.

Well instead of making snide remarks, enlighten me (that is what discussion is for, no?). I was using the definition which states that a “society” is a large social grouping united by culture and usually geographic location. Nothing in there about being required to teach violence. What is your definition?

I thought it was generally a liberal idea that humans were evolved
from lower forms of life. We might have domesticated ourselves, but
our baser instincts don’t disappear.

You are right and as social animals, humans baser instincts don’t involve killing each other.

Our society is why I don’t go around fighting people.

Yet that is not what you are describing. Per your own description, our LAWS are why you don’t go around fighting people. If you think laws are synonymous with society, perhaps it’s you who are confused by the meaning of the word.

Note that I said “societies” and not “governments” because it seems as though you have gotten the two confused. Most governments are ruled by people who want power and the desire for power often leads to violences. But peaceful, non-violent societies can exist within countries that are ruled by people with opposing views.

ah, gotcha
(i.e., I understand what you’re saying.)

I bolded “within countries” because that stood out to me.

Ron, you’ve misread the tone of my comment.

Probably, this is the Internet. It’s hard to tell tone through text.

“I won’t say that I don’t generally feel elitist, though, but the
target of that is generally toward people of my own race.

This is why you sound racist. Comments like that suggest you don’t
hold black people to the same standards (be they higher or lower) you
hold white people to. Most of the comments I’ve interpreted as racist
haven’t been the virulent sort of racism of the Klan but the more
patronizing kind of racism.

Additionally, your assertion that we’re all exposed to the same news,
etc. is incorrect.

Because white people don’t listen to rap or buy the majority of rap
records? Because ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and whatever else aren’t beamed
into our homes. Because there exists a special news channel that only
black people can see. There are different interpretations to
everything, true, but there are limits at to what interpretations are
acceptable to the whole of normal society. I might see a German
Shepard, but the Son of Sam sees a herald of God telling him to kill
people. Just because that’s his personal interpretation doesn’t make
it right and I doubt most black people would condone 6 people jumping
one guy if everyone was the same race. If this was black on black, or
white on white, nobody would care half as much, but now’s a chance to
make political hay and exploit the issue.

That said, I’m curious to know, based on what you’ve written here why
you think these six boys did what they did.

The why doesn’t matter. The only justification of violence is
self-defense. Assuming he fought back (and apparently he was hit from
behind and didn’t have the chance to fight back), once whitey was
incapacitated it was over. Once five other people jump in, it’s not
defense of person, it’s criminal assault. For all I know, the kid who
was beaten was gay and they decided to gay-bash him. It doesn’t make
a difference in the end. Even Bruce Lee couldn’t drop five people
attacking him at once, and he was a badass.

…many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism have societies based on non-violence. Ron, you should know that given all that you’ve learned about Ghandhi!

Pacifist societies exist only because other societies allow them to
exist. Just ask the Huguenots. Tibet is currently occupied and
controlled by China. Hindus and Muslims get into violent
confrontations all the time.

Generally speaking, though you don’t see a lot of Indians or Nepalis or Tibetans waging war all over the world.

Tell it to the Gurkhas, hippie!

The Tibetans aren’t able to jump uglies with anyone with the Chinese boot on their neck, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the pre-occupation Tibet was some kind of idyllic Pepperland that was invaded by Blue Meanies.

As for the Indians, apparently you’ve never seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

“Pacifist societies exist only because other societies allow them to”

Obviously, these other societies see virtue and other benefits in not destroying things just because they can.

[…] the very popular Roger Abramson and Big Orange Michael, that broke this rule, and figured I would do it too. A few people had a fit. When I started a blog to support my business, I made it the blog that […]