Hate Crimes at UIUC - Beyond the Chief exhibit vandalized for 5th time on May 20, 2009 - in broad daylight
Damaged Wea sign: Wea sign damaged on May 20, 2009From: http://www.iresist.org/beyond_the_chief.html
On
May 20, 2009, three items from the Beyond the Chief art exhibit,
created by the renowned Cheyenne-Arapaho artist HOCK E AYE VI Edgar
Heap of Birds, were vandalized for the fifth time. The attacks appear
to have taken place in broad daylight sometime between the hours of
8:30 am and 1:30 pm on Wednesday, May 20th. The vandalized art include
signs located in front of the Native American House, the Asian American
Studies building, and adjacent to the Bruce D. Nesbitt African American
Cultural Center. An officer arrived at 2:00 pm to complete a report but
no statements were released by the Campus Police.
The damaged signs include those representing the Wea, Meskwaki, and
Peoria tribes of illinois. These series of attacks now make it plain
that those perpetrating this vandalism are specifically targeting the
Native American community - thus falling into the definition of a "Hate
Crime" as described by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).
"Hate crimes are intended to hurt and intimidate individuals,
because they are perceived to be different with respect to their race,
color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or
disability. The purveyors of hate use physical violence, verbal threats
of violence, vandalism, and in some cases weapons, explosives, and
arson, to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to
subsequent attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and
fearful. These acts of hatred can leave lasting emotional impressions
upon their victims as well as entire communities."
(DOJ Website http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/university92003.htm#21)
Students at the Native House on Wednesday, disturbed by these
latest attacks, openly expressed frustration with the UIUC Chancellor,
Richard Herman for his lack of action in addressing these series of
incidents against the Native American community. "Yes, he sent out a
mass email on this issue, but obviously that's not enough. The attacks
continue and the campus climate remains unsafe for us and anyone who
wants to see the campus move Beyond the Chief". The student making this
statement asked to remain anonymous out of fear for her safety. Another
student, who also preferred not to identify himself, attributed the
attacks directly to the lack of action in ending Chief Illiniwek's
presence on campus. "I refuse to attend any of the basketball or
football games because the band still plays the Chief music during
half-time. Yeah they retired the dance, but the music plays on. They're
a cult and they are dangerous." damaged Meskwaki sign: Damaged Meskwaki sign - May 20, 2009
Although the University of Illinois' Board of Trustees voted to end
the use of the Chief Illiniwek name, image and regalia, they also
handed over all decision-making powers on the remaining issues to the
UIUC Chancellor, Richard Herman. However, Herman refuses to end the use
of the half-time music, known as the "Three-in-One", to which the
mascot would perform his "crazy dance". Thus, since its retirement, the
UIUC marching band continues to play the mascot's music while many in
the crowd perform their homage to "The Chief".
Apparently, the latest pro-Chief ritual embraces a new tradition of
destroying Native American art located on Nevada Street in Urbana.
Pictures of the damaged signs taken on May 20, 2009 are available at: http://www.iresist.org/beyond_the_chief.html
Also, please consider signing the petition to pressure the
Chancellor into taking action on this issue. Language on the petition
is included below. Peoria sign in front of Native American House at UIUC: Peoria sign vandalized on May 20, 2009
For additional information on the exhibit visit the Native American House Web site: http://www.nah.illinois.edu.
Also, please read the article, "The Cost of an Exhibit: The Damage Done
to the Native American House's 'Beyond the Chief' artwork" by Ashley
Tsosie-Mahieu (Dine). This article by Miss Tsosie-Mahieu was written
for the Public I (http://publici.ucimc.org/) after the FIRST act of vandalism upon the art work. The pdf file can be found here:
http://www.iresist.org/pdf-files/Ashley_Tsosie-Mahieu.pdf
PETETION available at:http://www.petitiononline.com/352Henry/petition.html
To: The Board of Trustees- University of Illinois (U of I); President Joseph B. White- U of I; Chancellor Richard Herman - U of I; National Collegiate Athletic Association c/o Bob Williams;
S.T.O.P. Nevada Street Vandalism at The University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Over the past month, public artwork titled "Beyond the Chief" by HOCK E AYE VI EDGAR HEAP OF BIRDS (Cheyenne-Arapaho) located on Nevada St. outside the Native American & Asian American Studies Program, and La Casa Cultural Latina has been repeatedly damaged. The intent of the exhibit is to meaningfully reflect on past and present issues impacting the Native American community. This is the third time in a month that this art exhibit has been vandalized. Not until the third vandalism was a public response or condemnation of the action issued by the University's central administration stating that measures were being taken to find the culprits and insure that this type of action does not continue to happen. This behavior is intolerable and unethical for a University that claims a commitment to diversity and excellence.
Whereas the Native American House & Studies Program was targeted three times by vandalism to public artwork by Edward Heap of Birds titled "Beyond the Chief" by HOCK E AYE VI EDGAR HEAP OF BIRDS (Cheyenne-Arapaho); whereas the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign continues to display pro-Chief paraphernalia-which was banned in 2007; whereas the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has not publicly condemned the vandalism and the racism that is pervasive on this campus we, the undersigned, petition the University of Illinois Central Administration and the Board of Trustees with the following demands:
- The University administration shall issue a clear and unambiguous public statement condemning
the vandalism of the 'Beyond the Chief' exhibit, linking it to racism on campus. - The University will immediately institute a search for a new mascot for UIUC thereby making it
clear that the chief will never return. - The University will take immediate steps to acquire the public art "Beyond the Chief" as a
permanent art exhibit.
This vandalism is the latest in a long line of racially explosive incidents for which the University has had little or no response. In the past three or four years different groups of students have been racially targeted: Mexicans were mocked at a "Tacos and Tequila" party where students dressed up as gardeners, and women in "wife beaters" sported pseudo-pregnant bellies; African Americans were negatively depicted in a "Big Booty Hoes and Ghetto Bros" party, and there was even a threat against the life of a Native American student.
Contributing to the hostile racial climate is the lingering presence of Chief Illiniwek -- a controversial figure. To some the Chief's March 2007 retirement was initially considered to be a major step towards combating racism. However, the Chief was retired without any mention of its negative impact on the campus climate, especially for Native American and other marginalized students. For this reason both anti-Chief and pro-Chief supporters understand the decision to have been financial rather than moral. This incomplete 'retirement' contributes to an environment already tolerant of racist action. It is a disservice to the entire campus and community -- including those who are Pro-Chief and hope for its return, and those students who want to move past the Chief controversy -- that the Chief's presence still remains throughout this institution.
Arguably, this relative inaction of the Upper Administration can lead students at the University to believe that racism is something to be managed indirectly and not condemned, and this moral ambiguity causes many to disengage in any meaningful scholarly or personal reflections.
Therefore, in addition we demand that the University do the following:
- Provide a monthly public report, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, that
specifically documents hate crimes, sexual assaults, stereotyping, or any other acts of violence
committed on the UIUC campus, along with actions taken to remedy the situation. - Establish multiple course, cross-disciplinary graduation requirements and an annual employee
training requirement that specifically engage issues of power and privilege, including racism,
sexism, homophobia, ableism, and class inequalities. - We demand that the university embark upon an aggressive and public plan to recruit and retain
faculty, undergraduate, graduate students, and academic professionals from marginalized
populations.
It will be hard for the campus to move "beyond the chief" until the University address the root of the problem: RACISM.
We the undersigned support these 6 demands:
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Visit http://www.petitiononline.com/352Henry/petition.html to sign your name
- 5704 reads
Pathetic Priorities of Local Law Enforcement
In the weeks just before finals, UI police announced the arrests of some two dozen students and the seizure of a total of about six ounces of marijuana after devoting what were apparently significant resources to a six month long investigation of those arrested. A UI police spokeperson indicated that they thought this was a big deal and that it took some major dope dealers off the street, because those involved were, to paraphrase it, "doing more than selling a dime bag to friends."
Oddly enough, after the first spate of damage the UI's police force claimed that it would devote additional resources to the incidents of vandalization of art outside the Native American House and other ethnic houses. Likewise, after a student was recently beaten and robbed near the Engineering Quad, the UI police also said they would devote more patrols to ensure student safety on in that area.
As a taxpayer and a student, I can't help but believe that the UI police, like other local law enforcement agencies and the state's attroney, devote far too much time to going through the motions of locking up citizens for marijuana and far too little to questions of basic safety on our streets.
Most shocking is that art that has been repeatedly vandalized by individuals obviously devoted to repeated, direct attacks on mmembers of our minority communities have yet to be stopped. These pieces of art sit right next to the sidewalk, in open view, and thus should be easy for the UI police to keep an eye on.
The only thing I can conclude is that there must be another "big" marijuana investigation going on. How else to account for the fact that the UI police are unable to devote enough resources to catch the criminals involved in these attacks? It is simply unacceptable that the UI police are either so incompetent or refuse to take seriously the fact that someone who submits art to violence is likely to do the same thing to people of color. Yet, that is exactly what seems to be taking place. It's time for the war on marijuana to end, because it distorts law enforcement priorities and gives police an excuse to claim that they need more of the limited taxpayer-supported resources available before they will do anything about crimes of hate and violence against our community.
the fact that someone who
the fact that someone who submits art to violence is likely to do the same thing to people of color
What a ridiculous statement. Someone bends a sign and that shows the person is prone to violence against minorities? Ridiculous. I'm putting my money on a stupid college kid that does it to get a rise out of a certain group of people (mainly IMC types).
These series of attacks now make it plain
that those perpetrating this vandalism are specifically targeting the
Native American community - thus falling into the definition of a "Hate
Crime" as described by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).
Another ridiculous statement that shows the poster's lack of knowledge about the law.
Thanks, but I Prefer the Facts and an Argument Made from Them
It is a well-known circumstance of criminal behavior enacted by the strong over the weak that smaller incidents of violence are often leading indicators of the potential for even more aggressive and violent behavior. Abusing animals? Yep, those sorts of behavior indicate that a person may later use violence against children or a partner. Same thing with domestic violence.
Next, let's consider the fact that someone is willing to take significant risks to repeat violent acts of a criminal nature. Any regular Joe or Jane who'd done this once or twice and seen it get in the paper would likely choose to not repeat the act if they managed to avoid arrest. It's not simply impulsive bahvior at work here. It's clearly targetted at a minority, one that has experienced frequent violence against it at the hands of the US government, local authorities, and citizens who feel that the government will not protect their rights, health, or freedom. If it wasn't for the fact that the UI police -- ahem -- have an alternative set of priorities, someone would be looking to hire a lawyer right now. Instead, it's clear that someone is intent on sending a "message" to the Native American community on campus.
I'm not an attorney, but I do know that a series of charges are often laid in our justice system against a suspect in a manner intended to gain a confession to a lesser crime. Given this all too frequent behavior by prosecutors, complaining that such and such a charge is unjustified under the circumstances is simply duplicitious and selective.
As for these incidents being a hate crime, I think it's safe to say that the repeatedly vandalized art is the functional equivalent of the Klan burning a cross in the front yard of someone who is African-American or a supporter of civil rights -- repeatedly. AFAIK, the lack of reaction -- other than some PR statements from the UI police worth little more than the paper they were issued on --by authorities indicates that local law enforcement is unwilling to protect the rights of Native Americans.
I suppose the UI police have their own set of priorities, as I noted above, but it doesn't appear to be ending hate crimes on campus.
I'll stick to the facts and the argument I've made of them. In the meantime, you might want to actually gather some facts, then make an argument that rises above "Nuh-uh!!!"
Yep, those sorts of behavior
Yep, those sorts of behavior indicate that a person may later use violence against children or a partner
Well hell, let's go round up all the eight year olds who kick cats and throw them in the slammer.
Next, let's consider the fact that someone is willing to take significant risks to repeat violent acts of a criminal nature
First of all, this is not a fact. You don't have nearly enough information to claim this as a fact. Secondly, how is bending a street sign a violent act? Stupid, yes. Criminal, yes. Violent, no. I know, I know, here we go with comparing it to cross burning. Absolutely not the same, although I'm sure you will try to make the comparison.
It's not simply impulsive bahvior (sic) at work here. It's clearly targetted (sic) at a minority
Again, this is your opinion and not substantiated by any known facts.
I'm not an attorney, but I do know that a series of charges are often laid in our justice system against a suspect in a manner intended to gain a confession to a lesser crime. Given this all too frequent behavior by prosecutors, complaining that such and such a charge is unjustified under the circumstances is simply duplicitious and selective.
It's clear you are not an attorney based on your odd interpretation of the law. I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to say here. You seem to be confused. As is often the case, a person who is charged with multiple crimes will often plea to one in exchange for others being dismissed. I don't really see any relevant point you are trying to make. Are you trying to argue that if and when someone is charged with damaging the sign(s) that person should be federally charged with a hate crime as a ploy to get them to plead to a lesser offense?
As for these incidents being a hate crime, I think it's safe to say that the repeatedly vandalized art is the functional equivalent of the Klan burning a cross in the front yard of someone who is African-American or a supporter of civil rights -- repeatedly.
No, that's not safe to say. It's frankly not even in the same ballpark and I'm astonished you would really try to make that comparison.
AFAIK, the lack of reaction -- other than some PR statements from the UI police worth little more than the paper they were issued on --by authorities indicates that local law enforcement is unwilling to protect the rights of Native Americans.
Another ridiculous statement. Here's an idea. Set up an around the clock surveillance of the sign. Notify the police when it is getting vandalized. I'll use your own tactics and throw this back on you. Because you haven't caught the person responsible for this yet, it shows your lack of empathy and compassion for Native Americans. You haven't caught the vandal(s) so you don't care about minorities.
but it doesn't appear to be ending hate crimes on campus.
I'm sure the police have a vested interest in allowing "hate crimes" to continue. They probably get some type of federal funding every year if the campus has a sufficient amount of reported "hate crimes."
I'll stick to the facts
The only fact you have reported is that these signs have been vandalized five times to date. The rest is your opinion and hyperbole.
The "Innocent" Explanation
Oh sure, there must be a completely innocent explanation for these acts. Like in, it just so happens that someone doesn't like signs. This occurred to the perpatrator coincidentally 5 times in a row and just coincidentally enough it was in front of the ethnic houses. Nothing at all related to them, you're sure. Nothing at all to do with initimidating anyone, it was just some sort of impulsive behavior or just a kid trying to enact their own art, which all so coincidentally involves signs. Once all that frustsration was played out against the signs that were art. Once this all too innocent frustration played out, then the stop sign up at the intersection of Goodwin was safe.
Hey, do you also have a good deal on a bridge over the Boneyard or in Brooklyn or something?
If it's so easy for you to figure out that the UI police could stake out the signs, what's your explanation for the lack of an arrest? I think that my suggestion that they have other priorities, whatever those might be, suffices? Or are you proposing the police are actually as incompetent and inept as this series of unsolved crimes indicates?
BTW, I am far less interested in the exacting legalese you want readers here to prioritize than in the rather obvious immorality and injustice of allowing racially-motivated vandals to continue to plague our campus. There are plenty of things in our society that are technically legal, but which are disgusting, immoral, and indicative of a depraved attitude toward others. This crime spree against art and the rights of Native American and other minorities to enjoy an education free of people who intend to create a climate of intimidation, as well as those like you who seem to insist it's no big deal.
OK, but still...
If it is, in fact, true that "the fact that someone who submits art to violence is likely to do the same thing to people of color", then wouldn't that mean that Kalle Lasn and the whole "culture jam" movement is pretty much the greatest threat to public safety since, like, Murder, Inc.? They have a whole MOVEMENT based around vandalizing signs, and you don't seem too worried about that.
Every time one of those goofballs vandalizes a sign for, say, McDonald's, should someone be expecting them to actually burn down a McDonald's or something? So far as I know, none of them has. THEY'RE not acting impulsively either. They deliberately and specifically target corporations and things they don't like. But again, does that mean that they're actually going to do violence against one of them?
"I think that my suggestion that they [the police] have other priorities, whatever those might be, suffices?"
Yeah, I do too. Things like assaults, thefts, drunk driving. The kind of things that most people agree are more important than bent sheet metal. Maybe they're not, but I really don't think it's that hard to understand.
History of vandalized art exhibit
Second Wave: April 6, 2009--In this wave of vandalism, three signs were damaged: Meskwaki, Potawatomi, and Sac. These are located outside of Asian American Studies and the Native American House(s).
Third Wave: May 4, 2009--Three more signs are damaged: Myaamia, Odawa, and Piankesaw outside of La Casa and African American Studies. Chancellor Herman sends a mass email regarding these attacks on May 5, 2009
Fourth Wave: May 8, 2009--The vandalism could have occurred any time between the evening of Friday, May 8 and 4:00pm on Saturday, May 9. The vandal wrote on the Potawatomi sign in red marker: "UH OH I VANDALISED (sic) THIS!" (Yes, they spelled "vandalized" with an "s" instead of a "z.")
Fifth Wave: May 20, 2009--Three more signs are damaged: Peoria, Meskwaki, and Wea. These signs are located outside of Bruce Nesbitt, Asian American Studies, and 1206 Native American House.
It isn't about minorities
Nobody cares what buildings these signs are in front of. These acts of vandalism aren't aimed at any minority. They are aimed at the people who made the Chief go away, who, in this case, happen to be a minority. This may come as a shock to your egos, but no one is targeting you or trying to harm you. This vandalism was, at best, done out of frustration over the fact that the chief was removed without the consent of the students or the community.
The Sign
Why is Fighting Illini spelled backward on the signs?
here's a thought:
I know you guys are probably miles out of touch with undergrad students, but here's my example for you. I have a nice shiny Schwinn bicycle with metal fenders, and one day I decided to leave it parked outside the Canopy and catch the bus home instead. When I came back the next day, to my dismay, my poor little bike had the fenders kicked in amost irreversibly around both tires, rendering it unrideable.
Now, there's no reason why anyone should have done this. The bike was in no one's way, and locked up properly and so on. So I'm going to take a wild guess at what happened: Some boys got drunk. Boys in a drunken group turn into rowdy 7 year olds, except bigger. And so one of these boys for whatever inexplicable macho reason decided to kick the hell out of my bike under the influence. I've actually seen this happening to other bikes on the street walking home at night, as well as the idiots kicking the sides of houses or fire hydrants.
There are almost 31,000 undergrads at U of I, and I'll bet you any money that not even a tenth of that population even knew what the art installation was. As an undergrad at Illinois myself, I know for a fact that myself and none of my friends, from art majors to aerospace engineers, had any clue about what the signs were, much less meant. We were genuinely baffled when the massmail from the Chancellor went out about the vandalism. The fact is, I think the signs were just another bike to kick while drunk. It'd be a little more salient to discuss the culture of binge drinking--and especially the lack of motivating cultural and artistic education--that caused the vandalism, as opposed to the rather sensationalist claim that it was a hate crime.
This, of course, doesn't justify what happened, or the fact that undergrad students here are largely okay with letting everything interesting, meaningful, or historic go to shit. But I think that calling it a hate crime right off the bat just perpetuates the apathy towards art and the study of minority cultures that is endemic to the University of Illinois' undergrads to a large extent. Furthermore, the police staking out the house? Ridiculous. And when they catch the vandals (which I presume are all isolated and not the work of some racist mastermind) and burn them at the stake, what point is made then? Come on, guys. This could be a relevant public discussion point, particularly for moving forward from this Chief business, but instead it's grade school bickering.
Hate crimes
Hate crimes like these need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. How many more times does this need to happen? online casino
The Sad State of Illinois and Champaign County
Neil,
I think your question has been answered in UC IMC's follow-up coverage after a suspect was finally arrested. There are updates here at these links:
http://www.ucimc.org/content/help-identify-thief-beyond-chief-artwork
http://www.ucimc.org/content/beyond-chief-thief-mark-nepermann-pleads-"not-guilty"-arraignment
For the UI Police, the answer is that hate crimes must happen six times. That's how long it took them to take this series of incidents seriously enough to do even simple police work like put surveillence at the scene of multiple crimes, then they finally put up cameras. This was after one location was the sceneof multiple crimes that occured on state property and damaged art by a visiting scholar, as well as letting fester a situation where Native American students, staff, and faculty felt they were being threatened -- given past incidents of this nature.
For Julia Reitz, the erstwhile Champaign County State's attorney, the answer is don't do anything that she prefers to treat as a felony. Although the visiting artist-owner previously stated that the signs were worth considerably more, Reitz took the position that the total value of damage and theft for the two signs linked to the suspect was no more than $300. Thus, she charged the suspect with a misdeamenor. I wonder what the state, the University, or the city of Urbana charges to replace a street sign that's been hit by some drunk? I'm sure it would be more than $300,
It is a good thing that the suspect was not involved in using marijuana. The UI Police and Ms. Reitz's office cooperated recently in a 6-month long investigation into some very minor marijuana dealing. How minor? The lengthy investigation, which no doubt consumed hundreds of hours of police work, resulted in the arrest of about two dozen students and a total weight of -- get this -- about 65 _grams_ of pot. I'm a little older than those involved in this miscarriage of justice, but back in the day, that would not have been considered much more than one good party. As is typically the case in nearly every incident that involves drugs in Champaign County, the state's attorney piled on multiple charges in those cases, in the old prosecutorial trick that aims to get a plea to the most minor of several charges by inventing facts to initially overcharge any person unfortunate enough to get caught selling someone a couple of joints.
Unhappily and quite ineffectively as these incidents demonstrate, the local "justice" system has a very skewed set of priorities. Ms. Reitz's behavior and actions, in particular with the anti-Native American vandalism, her actions will only encourage further law-breaking. Given several recent incidents nationally, which seemed to start out as vandalism and then escalated into murder, many in the local Native American community and their supporters have little choice but to take Ms. Reitz's apathy as a very clear message, the kind of message which devalues their existence and contributions.But I'm sure she's already thinking of the next election, one in which she might lose the votes of some "chief" fanatics -- if she had done the right things about what to do about what happened repeatedly to this art.
Furthermore, the University itself seems to have stood aside and given an institutional pass to anyone who might choose or already has chosen to commit criminal acts againstinspired by the legacy of "chief." The present situation that Native Americans face is very problematic for an institution that claims to have "officialy settled" this issue. The outcome of the case against the suspect is unlikely to discourage those who can't legally comport themselves in a manner that meets the University's obligations to finally retire the "chief."
Just don't get caught with a joint while doing anything like that. Then you'd be in real trouble.
Simple Observation
I'm just putting it out there....
I think if someone planned on ruining the signs, I think they could do much worse than just bending the corners.
Hypothetically, if it was a hate crime, the perpetrators could put a much bigger dent in the signs.
Just saying.....
Consider a Pattern of Conduct
Repeated attacks on the cultural expression of a minority seems to me to be a better standard by which to judge whether this was a hate crime than the scope of the damage. Consider if someone had just burned one cross in front of one family's home. No big deal. But I think most would agree that the message sent by a burning cross is a factor of the many times it has been used to intimidate.
Your argument is based on taking the deed out of its historuc context of a a tradition born at the height of KKK acceptance and hegemony on campus and reinforced across decades of racial oppression on a campus that didn't begin to address such issues until nearly half a century later. Even then, it took nearly another 40 years to get around putting the "chief" to rest officially -- and the "unofficial" tradition is still dug up and paraded around campus on a regular basis. Native American students, staff, and faculty still have to deal with insulting and threatening behavior from those who won't let go of a "tradition" of abuse and racial exploitation.
It is interesting that your argument parallels that of the local state's attorney, who took the whole matter out of its context, devalued the art, and argued that the most reprehensible thing about it would be to press charges that might affect the white student's future, rather than those which accurately reflected his crime. That's better titled, like your observation, the simpleton's observation.
"Yes", said the canary to the parrot...
"Consider if someone had just burned one cross in front of one family's home. No big deal. But I think most would agree that the message sent by a burning cross is a factor of the many times it has been used to intimidate."
Right. And you yourself just explained why stealing a sign ISN'T like burning a cross. You say that burning a cross is intimidation. OK. Can you think of another reason why someone might ever burn a cross? No? Me neither.
Now, can you think of any reason besides intimidation why someone might vandalize or steal a sign? I'm not sure I can think of a REASON, necessarily, but people still do it often enough. Drive around town a little bit. I have. I've seen all kinds of signs bent up or missing or spray-painted with graffiti. Can you think of a single stretch of highway in this great land of ours where they DON'T have to replace the "MILE 69" marker at least once a year? Have you ever been out to the country? The real country? If you can drive around there and find a sign that HASN'T been shot up by a shotgun at least once, you're not deep enough into the country yet.
Never chalk up to malice what can be explained by boredom and testosterone.
So, burning crosses is something that's ALWAYS intimidation, whereas vandalizing signs is just something to keep idiots occupied. If crosses got burnt all the time, WITHOUT any malicious intent, then no, I wouldn't necessarily say that any particular cross-burning is an attempt at intimidation or a hate crime.
Anyway. I understand that this happened on a college campus, and that people on college campuses are taught that it's some type of virtue to be as sensitive and weak as possible, and to act like every stupid little thing is Act II of the Holocaust, but honestly, if you are really THAT upset about a sign getting stolen, my advice to you is to find a dark, quiet room and enter it. Then curl up into a fetal position and spend the rest of your life that way. Because, honestly, you're not going to last five minutes in the real world, where ACTUAL bad things happen to people, and not just petty acts of vandalism that you can blow out of all proportion just to get attention.
Harsh? Well, maybe. But think about it. Did that sign getting stolen hurt you? Did it impede your progress towards your goals in any way? No, of course not. So maybe this is one of those things where you should just chalk it up to random stupidity and move on. Contrary to what you've been taught, getting your panties in a twist is not a sign of strength.
Do you ever stop and think about what message you're really sending to people? Do you think it would be helpful to send the message "Native Americans are so terminally feeble that they can be traumatized by something as simple as seeing a sign get vandalized."? I don't, but maybe you do.
You love to complain that the white man has so much power over you, right? Well, did you really think that whining and freaking out about nothing is going to change that dynamic? If so, well... I guess I just never really realized how wrong a person could be up until now.
I mean, it's one thing to complain about bad things that genuinely harm people. It's quite another to bitch about stupid little incidents like this. The fact that you're still bitching about it a YEAR after it happened shows two things: 1) You are far too weak and emotionally fragile to be trusted with power even in the event that you WOULD be able to get it, and 2) Your life must not really be all that bad, if you're still complaining about something as stupid as this after a whole year.
You think Whitey pushes you around now? Keep putting on a show of being completely weak and emotionally defenseless. Then see how he treats you.
Go ahead. Keep bitching about the sign if you want. You're right. It's wrong to vandalize a sign. I'm not arguing with you. It was wrong when that guy gave me the finger as I was driving down the street the other day too. But it didn't really hurt me. If I got all freaked out about it and let it get to me, that just gives him power over me. And if I KEPT bitching about it for a whole year, I'd just be showing everyone in the world what a total clown I am. I'd become a laughingstock, and I'd deserve it.
Like I said, I understand that the environment on college campuses is different. People on college campuses, deep down, understand that they're not REALLY oppressed at all, and don't REALLY have any real problems. So they have to do SOMETHING to get people to pay attention to them. It's just sort of a bad habit to get into. The last thing you want is to keep doing this kind of stuff in an environment where someone might actually take what you're saying seriously. That would really make you look awful.
Anyway. Just consider this some helpful advice.
Your 2 Cents Worth of Hypocrisy
The fact that you're still bitching about it a YEAR after it happened shows two things: 1) You are far too weak and emotionally fragile to be trusted with power even in the event that you WOULD be able to get it...
Umm, it was you who thought it was so important to revive a nearly year-old thread by trolling through here today.
As for anyone being "too weak and fragile to rule," as a white guy myself it sure shows when someone is so full of his own white supremacism that he misses the fact that a more diverse polity might conceive of a community that didn't need the idea of dominance over others to construct the idea of a nation. But that's just me.
Come back when mid-terms at the Objectivist Academy are over with and you want a thoughful discussion with adults.
Post new comment