So, let's bring in another character witness for this group of prep school brats, shall we. This was posted by a girl who (and you can read her own account of what happened in the short thread) did nothing but walk by and have a couple second encounter with them as they shout "MAGA!!" and god knows what else in their feral reaction to two females basically just trying to walk down the sidewalk (click on the tweet, it's a mercifully short thread):
So the point was brought up before, are these kids being singled out because of their MAGA hats?? Yes, they are. I will get to why they are in a second. But first of all, what does Donald Trump have to do with Catholic teachings?? I guess he is disingenuously against abortion. But he is not only for the death penalty, he advocates for the death penalty for people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence (see Central Park Five). Catholic doctrine is equally as equivocal on that issue as it is on abortion. As it is on serial adulterers who cheat on every one of their wives. So the idea that a Catholic School is busing a horde of students to a pro-life rally in MAGA hats is a hypocritical joke to begin with.
But let's talk about MAGA hats. Is it bigotry to single them out for this?? Some clearly thing so. But unlike skin color, a MAGA hat can be taken off. Does no one find it strange that literally NO other US President has ever had a piece of clothing in this manner?? Show me the Obama supporters going out everyday with their Hope and Change hats. Show me the Bush supporters in their Compassionate Conservative hoodies. Those things don't exist. Because the MAGA hate and the phrase itself is like a totem, and everyone who wears it and who sees it knows exactly what it represents. It's a signal that immediately announces "I am at the top of the social hierarchy, and I damn well want you to know it". It's a talisman of white supremacy. It's become that because of Trump and is rallies, and what is said and the behavior that takes place at them.
Once again, context with that tweet. All you see is the girls walking away. What are the chances of them walking by, acting disgusted and saying something regarding the hats and that was the boys reply not letting an insult stand.
A less than 10 second video (which, why was a ten second video recorded in the first place) does not give a full context of what actually transpired.
And sure about the MAGA hats but also remember where these kids are from. Rural America who bought into the idea that Trump was going to bring back jobs. Going to Washington was probably a cultural shock to them, a learning experience on how others view them and interact with them.
Why would anyone ever scream MAGA at anyone for any reason?? Again, it would be like some liberal in 2010 going up to some white farmers at a diner and saying "Hope and Change in your face, motherf***er". There is no reasonable cultural explanation for this term being used the way it is (again, to yell at someone) and literally be a piece of clothing people wear out in public on a daily basis like the jersey of their favorite sports team, other than trying to send a distinct message to everyone who sees you. It's not normal behavior. Before this the most people have done is put a bumper sticker on their car, and some even find that annoying. This trend of a actual physical item of clothing being widely worn tied to a specific politician is not only totally new, but disturbing. So, again, you are COMPLETELY correct that they were initially brought into focus because of the hats and that this wouldn't even be a story if the hats didn't exist. But maybe we should really examine why that is. Because the hat and phrase VERY clearly mean something specific to both the people who wear them and to the people they are DESIGNED to get reactions from.
Why would anyone ever scream MAGA at anyone for any reason??
I don't know. That's why we need more context than a 8 second clip. Watch the video of where it starts. The girl in the lead was clearly saying something to them. Why was that cut out? It doesn't fit the context of what they wanted to say.
This argument has also decidedly never been about the Black Hebrew Israelites, who are and have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Coincidentally, they are (if one cares to know anything about them) basically a street-walking group of (essentially) the same type of people we would call internet trolls. And I have been told on ENDLESS occasions that trolling is never, ever to be taken seriously. They are idiots of the same order you will find posting in the RPG Codex, except they show up and say completely outrageous things at public protests. They are completely nuts. They have been doing this for years. No one is defending them, the only reason they are a part of the conversation at all is because they were one half of what sparked the situation with the Native American elder. In fact, there is video of them heckling the Native American gatherers from earlier in the day. They were the friends of nobody. They are the equivalent of internet shit-posters, and even a small sample of their quotes clearly indicates as such. But, who is defending them?? The only reason they have been brought into the discussion at all is to somehow link Nathan Phillips with them even though there is no connection whatsoever.
I wont go line by line through your whole post, but your argument has some logical inconsistencies.
You cannot reject one claim that has zero evidential basis ("Build the wall") and accept a second claim that has zero evidential basis "Bring Jamal"). If your presuming we cannot know it was the first, we also cannot know it was the second.
As a corollary: "Build the wall" is a common political refrain from Donald Trump supporters, which we can contextually determine these students to be. While I cannot empirically know that they said "Build the wall" rather than "Bring Jamal", it logically follows that they could reasonable have chanted "Build the wall". Especially when you consider the previous encounter of them being harassed by the black Hebrew Israelites present. My understanding is that these two groups were jeering back at each other over Trump. Build the Wall fits nicely there.
As to the second issue I see: You're rejecting the idea that the kids are mocking/jeering the elder, based only on the testimony of those kids (as far as I can see?). When a Historian is trying to determine the most likely course of events in history, we refer to primary sources (people who were there) and secondary sources (people who werent involved, but might have additional information). We weigh how likely each group is to be honest, and we consider additional biases. In this case, Phillips will generally be seen to be a more believable figure because he's older, appears to be respected within his community, and was a vet. The children do not have any such attributes that suggest they would be more believable (In fact - by virtue of having MAGA hats on, and Donald Trump's seemingly indifference in oiffending Native Americans - they're probably seen as less reliable than normal children. I dont know if that's right or wrong, but it's probably the case).
Furthermore, the children have more of a vested interest in lying because it looks like their school is prepared to punish them if they were seen to be offensive (and in general, we as humans tend to lie or dissemble when we're caught being intolerant).
It also sounds like we have a disproportionate weight of people who werent directly involved saying that these kids were being aggressive.
Why would anyone ever scream MAGA at anyone for any reason?? Again, it would be like some liberal in 2010 going up to some white farmers at a diner and saying "Hope and Change in your face, motherf***er". There is no reasonable cultural explanation for this term being used the way it is (again, to yell at someone) and literally be a piece of clothing people wear out in public on a daily basis like the jersey of their favorite sports team, other than trying to send a distinct message to everyone who sees you. It's not normal behavior. Before this the most people have done is put a bumper sticker on their car, and some even find that annoying. This trend of a actual physical item of clothing being widely worn tied to a specific politician is not only totally new, but disturbing. So, again, you are COMPLETELY correct that they were initially brought into focus because of the hats and that this wouldn't even be a story if the hats didn't exist. But maybe we should really examine why that is. Because the hat and phrase VERY clearly mean something specific to both the people who wear them and to the people they are DESIGNED to get reactions from.
I agree that it's reasonable for those hats to be seen as expressing an identity, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the kids wearing them see the same identity as you (and the bulk of the students were not wearing them anyway).
I do though think that the trend of tying an identity to a specific politician is a bad one. Identifying closely with a political party is of course nothing new and (in the UK anyway) such identifications have I think actually weakened over my lifetime. While I wouldn't encourage such strong party loyalties myself, it's a far more stable situation than where you identify so strongly with a particular individual that political and social norms seem meaningless or just obstacles to be overcome.
This argument is also decidedly never been about the Black Hebrew Israelites, who are and have been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Coincidentally, they are (if one cares to know anything about them) basically a street-walking group of (essentially) the same type of people we would call internet trolls. And I have been told on ENDLESS occasions that trolling is never, ever to be taken seriously. They are idiots of the same order you will find posting in the RPG Codex, except they show up and say completely outrageous things at public protests. They are completely nuts. They have been doing this for years. No one is defending them, the only reason they are a part of the conversation at all is because they were one half of what sparked the situation with the Native American elder. In fact, there is video of them heckling the Native American gatherers from earlier in the day. They were the friends of nobody. They are the equivalent of internet shit-posters, and even a small sample of their quotes clearly indicates as such. But, who is defending them?? The only reason they have been brought into the discussion at all is to somehow link Nathan Phillips with them even though there is no connection whatsoever.
NO
They were brought into the conversation because that is what made the kids start their own school chants that people perceived as a mob mentality.
It was to bring context to what Phillips was actually defusing, a situation started by the Hebrew Israelites and not the kids and indigenous groups as first reported.
Better to associate your identity with a policy than a party. Where can I get an "Implement Campaign Finance Reform" hat?
It is interesting that there's little attention being paid to the Black Hebrew Israelites. They seem like the real scumbags in this scenario, even if we assume the worst about the students. Even "Build the wall" and a mocking chant wouldn't be as bad as the Black Hebrew Israelites' loud accusations of white sin or whatever.
Better to associate your identity with a policy than a party. Where can I get an "Implement Campaign Finance Reform" hat?
It is interesting that there's little attention being paid to the Black Hebrew Israelites. They seem like the real scumbags in this scenario, even if we assume the worst about the students. Even "Build the wall" and a mocking chant wouldn't be as bad as the Black Hebrew Israelites' loud accusations of white sin or whatever.
As far as I can tell their entire purpose based on watching Youtube clips for the last 30 minutes is to stand on street corners waiting for white people to walk by to get a reaction out of. It is, in almost every way, the exact type of purposefully "triggering" mentality that so many on the Alt-right are absolutely in love with. They are two sides of the same coin. So it's not at all surprising that a bunch of adolescent teens at an abortion rally with MAGA hats would be the exact sort of target they would seek out. I can't possibly take them seriously after watching what they do. It's just pathetic, annoying performance art. So, YES, the Black Hebrew Israelites are the #1 bad guys here. I still absolutely think the kids were showing blatantly racist disrespect to Mr. Phillips (whether or not that was only the result of the provocations they received at the hands of these street preachers is an open question), and Mr. Phillips was simply making a good faith effort to try to diffuse the situation in the best way he knew how based on his beliefs.
I wont go line by line through your whole post, but your argument has some logical inconsistencies.
You cannot reject one claim that has zero evidential basis ("Build the wall") and accept a second claim that has zero evidential basis "Bring Jamal"). If your presuming we cannot know it was the first, we also cannot know it was the second.
As a corollary: "Build the wall" is a common political refrain from Donald Trump supporters, which we can contextually determine these students to be. While I cannot empirically know that they said "Build the wall" rather than "Bring Jamal", it logically follows that they could reasonable have chanted "Build the wall". Especially when you consider the previous encounter of them being harassed by the black Hebrew Israelites present. My understanding is that these two groups were jeering back at each other over Trump. Build the Wall fits nicely there.
As to the second issue I see: You're rejecting the idea that the kids are mocking/jeering the elder, based only on the testimony of those kids (as far as I can see?). When a Historian is trying to determine the most likely course of events in history, we refer to primary sources (people who were there) and secondary sources (people who werent involved, but might have additional information). We weigh how likely each group is to be honest, and we consider additional biases. In this case, Phillips will generally be seen to be a more believable figure because he's older, appears to be respected within his community, and was a vet. The children do not have any such attributes that suggest they would be more believable (In fact - by virtue of having MAGA hats on, and Donald Trump's seemingly indifference in oiffending Native Americans - they're probably seen as less reliable than normal children. I dont know if that's right or wrong, but it's probably the case).
Furthermore, the children have more of a vested interest in lying because it looks like their school is prepared to punish them if they were seen to be offensive (and in general, we as humans tend to lie or dissemble when we're caught being intolerant).
It also sounds like we have a disproportionate weight of people who werent directly involved saying that these kids were being aggressive.
So the build the wall vs bring jamal chants come from two sources. The first source is saying there is no video evidence of the kids saying that in the presence of the rally. NONE.
The Bring Jamal was from a neutral 3rd party who was there (The lady jjstraka linked). I will take her view of it as she brings it into context with the BHI claiming the kids were racist because there wasn't a single black kid with them.
And secondly, no, I am making that conclusion with what I see in video. I see kids jumping up and down to the beat of a drum, attempting to take selfies/videos of the experience and enjoying themselves. Once again, these kids just finished their school cheers (which for some reason no one has shared, because it doesn't fit the narrative) and have a guy with a drum playing a song walking towards them. If you notice, I have been using the word "perception" a lot in an attempt to explain why people might be saying or reacting the way they were. There can be the perception that they were being disrespectful especially if you take into account the kids' ignorance towards native American culture, but that doesn't mean that was their intent.
Intent is huge and no one gets to dictate what someone else's intent was/is.
I still absolutely think the kids were showing blatantly racist disrespect to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Phillips was simply making a good faith effort to try to diffuse the situation in the best way he knew how based on his beliefs.
I am going to ask how? What should these kids (besides the one who blocked his path) done differently?
I still absolutely think the kids were showing blatantly racist disrespect to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Phillips was simply making a good faith effort to try to diffuse the situation in the best way he knew how based on his beliefs.
I am going to ask how? What should these kids (besides the one who blocked his path) done differently?
You can probably chalk up the ones surrounding him to simple mob mentality. I guess the argument can be made that it was meant to be playing along rather than mocking, though I still don't feel that is the case. But the original kid from the original clip from a few days ago?? You'll never convince me that self-satisfied grin as he stood toe to toe with Phillips was anything other than what it was perceived to be. Are they deserving of a little more slack than was originally reported?? Yeah, I guess I've been convinced of that to some extent. Because they clearly did not START the confrontation with Nathan Phillips. But it ended up happening all the same.
So the build the wall vs bring jamal chants come from two sources. The first source is saying there is no video evidence of the kids saying that in the presence of the rally. NONE.
The Bring Jamal was from a neutral 3rd party who was there (The lady jjstraka linked). I will take her view of it as she brings it into context with the BHI claiming the kids were racist because there wasn't a single black kid with them.
Consider that in one of your previous posts, you spend a considerable amount of time trying to discredit her a source. Paraphrasing "She apologizes for a racist group". "She immediately passes judgement based on what they're wearing". "She's being racist for assuming white privilege"
And now we're supposed to accept that one of her 30 some odd tweets is spot on, and that the kids were definitely not chanting "Build the Wall"?
If one is going to poke holes in someone's account and point to their biases, it's not a credit to anyone's argument to then cite them later on.
Intent is huge and no one gets to dictate what someone else's intent was/is.
Simply said, this is untrue. We do this *all* the time. We do it in the court of law. We do it in court of popular opinion. We do this in history. Intent is huge, and we are allowed to use contextual evidence to make an argument over what we likely believe their intent was. We cannot know that it was 100% true (short of an admission by the one who's intent is in question) - but that doesnt and wont stop anyone from trying to figure it out.
History is RIFE with examples of people trying to determine intent, as it is a fundamental factor in our judgement of a person/event.
So the build the wall vs bring jamal chants come from two sources. The first source is saying there is no video evidence of the kids saying that in the presence of the rally. NONE.
The Bring Jamal was from a neutral 3rd party who was there (The lady jjstraka linked). I will take her view of it as she brings it into context with the BHI claiming the kids were racist because there wasn't a single black kid with them.
Consider that in one of your previous posts, you spend a considerable amount of time trying to discredit her a source. Paraphrasing "She apologizes for a racist group". "She immediately passes judgement based on what they're wearing". "She's being racist for assuming white privilege"
And now we're supposed to accept that one of her 30 some odd tweets is spot on, and that the kids were definitely not chanting "Build the Wall"?
If one is going to poke holes in someone's account and point to their biases, it's not a credit to anyone's argument to then cite them later on.
Intent is huge and no one gets to dictate what someone else's intent was/is.
Simply said, this is untrue. We do this *all* the time. We do it in the court of law. We do it in court of popular opinion. We do this in history. Intent is huge, and we are allowed to use contextual evidence to make an argument over what we likely believe their intent was. We cannot know that it was 100% true (short of an admission by the one who's intent is in question) - but that doesnt and wont stop anyone from trying to figure it out.
History is RIFE with examples of people trying to determine intent, as it is a fundamental factor in our judgement of a person/event.
To be clear, I never posted that woman's thread because of what was said about the remarks of the BHI group. I knew that would be inflammatory and singled out (even though I generally agree she is 100% correct about what and why white people benefit from in this society goes back centuries). The messengers who were saying it were bonkers, thus it was stupid of her to make that argument at that time. I posted her account because she was there and had clearly studied the video backwards and forwards. Whether people want to confirm or dismiss her account based on her editorializing is up to them. That is certainly valid. But her description of the incident step by step is backed up by videos she herself linked to. I didn't and never meant it as a "I 100% concur with what she is saying". In hindsight, I regret posting the whole thing instead of paraphrasing it myself.
The "bring Jamal" vs. "Build the Wall" thing is plausible, but really only speaks to how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten. If they are chanting "build the wall", it is what it is. If they are saying "bring Jamal" then what they are basically doing is telling the Black Hebrew Israelites "hey now, don't call us racists, we got our black friend back here somewhere, get him up to front so we can put him on display", which is, if we are taking her account at face value, exactly how the kids meant to take it, since (and I am going to edit this obviously), one of the BHI says "They gonna call him....y'all got one n****r in the crowd" and one of the boys says "We got two!". Both the question and the response to in this case are EQUALLY problematic. The BHI for asking in the first place, and the boy for assuming his black classmates were his to show off to prove something.
As jjstraka said. I was criticizing her editorial of the situation and not the facts that she presented. jjstraka also said to read the whole string (which I did) and lost it half way as her responses to the kids actions were unacceptable IMO, as I mentioned prior.
In history or in situations where a person can not describe their intent, it is ok to speculate. HOWEVER, we have the kid telling us what his intent was and people dismissing it out of hand, which I will get to with this:
You can probably chalk up the ones surrounding him to simple mob mentality. I guess the argument can be made that it was meant to be playing along rather than mocking, though I still don't feel that is the case. But the original kid from the original clip from a few days ago?? You'll never convince me that self-satisfied grin as he stood toe to toe with Phillips was anything other than what it was perceived to be. Are they deserving of a little more slack than was originally reported?? Yeah, I guess I've been convinced of that to some extent. Because they clearly did not START the confrontation with Nathan Phillips. But it ended up happening all the same.
So you don't take the kids word of Phillips locking eyes with him and walking towards him playing the drum? If the kid was suppose to move, why didn't anyone (and there was a lot of people/adults there recording with cameras) shout to him "Hey kid, move."
Now once again, we all can draw our own conclusions on what we perceive to be happening and going through each other's heads, but we don't know and should take what people tell us what they are thinking or saying at their word unless we have other evidence that actually contradicts that. In this situation we don't. Should the kid have moved? Yes. Should he be getting death threats because he didn't? No.
Where can I get an "Implement Campaign Finance Reform" hat?
From Kirsten Gillibrand's campaign?
I found a neat list of her in-office actions regarding the issue at OnTheIssues.org and it looks good. It looks like OnTheIssues.org is a quick way to figure out what a politician's been up to while in office!
But lets run the "these kids were being racist against indigenous people and being aggressive towards them story even though all the facts about the incident haven't come out."
Fair's fair: the first outlet I saw publishing the longer video and saying "looks like those kids were not being the jerks people think they are" was... CNN. But they're fake news, right?
YEP. This whole thing started with Fake News and everyone buying it:
People are clearly drawing their own conclusions about it. That much is supremely evident. I'm obviously not going to ignore the BHI involvement. Indeed, I have gone so far as to waste an hour of my life researching them tonight. We didn't know about that before. I think it is a mitigating circumstance, but I don't think it fundamentally changes what went on, especially when you take into account the exact same type of mob, Lord of Flies mentality that is on display in the video posted by the girl who confronted students from the same school. But I've frankly got a headache from talking about it at this point, I'm not at all sure what else can be said.
I still absolutely think the kids were showing blatantly racist disrespect to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Phillips was simply making a good faith effort to try to diffuse the situation in the best way he knew how based on his beliefs.
I am going to ask how? What should these kids (besides the one who blocked his path) done differently?
You can probably chalk up the ones surrounding him to simple mob mentality. I guess the argument can be made that it was meant to be playing along rather than mocking, though I still don't feel that is the case. But the original kid from the original clip from a few days ago?? You'll never convince me that self-satisfied grin as he stood toe to toe with Phillips was anything other than what it was perceived to be. Are they deserving of a little more slack than was originally reported?? Yeah, I guess I've been convinced of that to some extent. Because they clearly did not START the confrontation with Nathan Phillips. But it ended up happening all the same.
You're seeing what you want to see. I didn't see any smug look when I first saw the picture without anybody framing it for me. I can see how it can be construed as that but I had no bias when I first saw it before I read what everyone was getting up in arms about. Confirmation bias is really running rampant in the US now and it's really getting scary to me on both sides of the spectrum...
The fucking scariest part to me is that liberals don't have a chance if it comes to a civil war. You don't have the will or the weapons to win this. The more belligerent you get the more you're going to push this country to Fascism. Especially if you continue to antagonize religion. There is nothing more dangerous than attacking religion. Society is changing. It may not be as quickly as you want, but it is! I've got an inside perspective on what you're railing against and you're not going to change these views with force. I think even most of your Democratic Party politicians realize this and that's why they talk tough but never deliver. Just give this some thought before you disregard what I'm saying. I'm not a far-right nut job by any means...
The fucking scariest part to me is that liberals don't have a chance if it comes to a civil war. You don't have the will or the weapons to win this. The more belligerent you get the more you're going to push this country to Fascism. Especially if you continue to antagonize religion. There is nothing more dangerous than attacking religion. Society is changing. It may not be as quickly as you want, but it is! I've got an inside perspective on what you're railing against and you're not going to change these views with force. I think even most of your Democratic Party politicians realize this and that's why they talk tough but never deliver. Just give this some thought before you disregard what I'm saying. I'm not a far-right nut job by any means...
Not for nothing, but I don't need a gun to back down some MAGA chud if a confrontation occurs in real-life, nor do I believe most of them would have the balls to actually do what is plastered on the back of their pick-up trucks if push came to shove. They'll shoot helpless deer once every November and pretend to be men. 99% of them would piss their pants if every confronted with an actual life or death situation.
As for people not changing things by force......how much longer should black people have waited in 1964 to be able to use regular public drinking fountains?? Another 50 years until white southerners came to their senses?? How long should gay couples have waited to be able to get married. When another million of them had their partners die before they could do so so we could placate the sensibilities of religious people who refuse to mind their own business. Change never happens just because. The whole "belligerent liberals will be the real cause of fascism" argument is just the ultimate extension of "they forced me to vote for Trump". Is there anything liberals AREN'T forcing everyone else to do?? Isn't this the exact same argument an abusive husband makes when he is apologizing to his wife who he just gave a black eye to?? "Damn, honey, you know I didn't want to do this, but dinner was cold and my shirt wasn't ironed when I got home".
The fucking scariest part to me is that liberals don't have a chance if it comes to a civil war. You don't have the will or the weapons to win this. The more belligerent you get the more you're going to push this country to Fascism. Especially if you continue to antagonize religion. There is nothing more dangerous than attacking religion. Society is changing. It may not be as quickly as you want, but it is! I've got an inside perspective on what you're railing against and you're not going to change these views with force. I think even most of your Democratic Party politicians realize this and that's why they talk tough but never deliver. Just give this some thought before you disregard what I'm saying. I'm not a far-right nut job by any means...
Not for nothing, but I don't need a gun to back down some MAGA chud if a confrontation occurs in real-life, nor do I believe most of them would have the balls to actually do what is plastered on the back of their pick-up trucks if push came to shove. They'll shoot helpless deer once every November and pretend to be men. 99% of them would piss their pants if every confronted with an actual life or death situation.
As for people not changing things by force......how much longer should black people have waited in 1964 to be able to use regular public drinking fountains?? Another 50 years until white southerners came to their senses?? How long should gay couples have waited to be able to get married. When another million of them had their partners die before they could do so so we could placate the sensibilities of religious people who refuse to mind their own business. Change never happens just because.
Agreed. But trying to change too much all at once will lead to chaos. MLK did not use violence, neither did Ghandi and they were the most effective liberals ever in history. People need to evolve their views not have them forced on them.
Edit: We're one, maybe two generations away from what you (@jjstraka, @semiticgod & @smeagolheart specifically here) want; without violence.
This fairly insignificant event has gotten way too heated even here. I'm legitimately exhausted from talking about, I suspect because it speaks to a visceral divide that can't be bridged and has never been bridged since our ancestors landed here or walked off the boat. I think the idea of America is a nice fairy tale. Then I remember that everything I enjoy from my perch at one point in the past came because slavery built the economic base of the country and genocide is how we acquired the land.
This fairly insignificant event has gotten way too heated even here. I'm legitimately exhausted from talking about, I suspect because it speaks to a visceral divide that can't be bridged and has never been bridged since our ancestors landed here.
It's a spark that brings out people's views. That's not insignificant. The more people talk, the better. Despite being outnumbered, I like this forum. At least you can hear from other people's perspectives here without too much vitriol...
Now the Black Hebrew Israelites are all over my YouTube feed, right along with isometric RPG videos and Dark Souls lore. Gonna take a month of searches before those stop popping up. Note to self, create alternate YouTube account for these situations.
Comments
A less than 10 second video (which, why was a ten second video recorded in the first place) does not give a full context of what actually transpired.
And sure about the MAGA hats but also remember where these kids are from. Rural America who bought into the idea that Trump was going to bring back jobs. Going to Washington was probably a cultural shock to them, a learning experience on how others view them and interact with them.
- a bunch of white teenagers who stand, smile, and dance awkwardly.
- a bunch of grown ass adults who approach them, insult them, and make racial remarks, to kids.
you people honestly disgust me.
You cannot reject one claim that has zero evidential basis ("Build the wall") and accept a second claim that has zero evidential basis "Bring Jamal"). If your presuming we cannot know it was the first, we also cannot know it was the second.
As a corollary: "Build the wall" is a common political refrain from Donald Trump supporters, which we can contextually determine these students to be. While I cannot empirically know that they said "Build the wall" rather than "Bring Jamal", it logically follows that they could reasonable have chanted "Build the wall". Especially when you consider the previous encounter of them being harassed by the black Hebrew Israelites present. My understanding is that these two groups were jeering back at each other over Trump. Build the Wall fits nicely there.
As to the second issue I see: You're rejecting the idea that the kids are mocking/jeering the elder, based only on the testimony of those kids (as far as I can see?). When a Historian is trying to determine the most likely course of events in history, we refer to primary sources (people who were there) and secondary sources (people who werent involved, but might have additional information). We weigh how likely each group is to be honest, and we consider additional biases. In this case, Phillips will generally be seen to be a more believable figure because he's older, appears to be respected within his community, and was a vet. The children do not have any such attributes that suggest they would be more believable (In fact - by virtue of having MAGA hats on, and Donald Trump's seemingly indifference in oiffending Native Americans - they're probably seen as less reliable than normal children. I dont know if that's right or wrong, but it's probably the case).
Furthermore, the children have more of a vested interest in lying because it looks like their school is prepared to punish them if they were seen to be offensive (and in general, we as humans tend to lie or dissemble when we're caught being intolerant).
It also sounds like we have a disproportionate weight of people who werent directly involved saying that these kids were being aggressive.
I do though think that the trend of tying an identity to a specific politician is a bad one. Identifying closely with a political party is of course nothing new and (in the UK anyway) such identifications have I think actually weakened over my lifetime. While I wouldn't encourage such strong party loyalties myself, it's a far more stable situation than where you identify so strongly with a particular individual that political and social norms seem meaningless or just obstacles to be overcome.
They were brought into the conversation because that is what made the kids start their own school chants that people perceived as a mob mentality.
It was to bring context to what Phillips was actually defusing, a situation started by the Hebrew Israelites and not the kids and indigenous groups as first reported.
It is interesting that there's little attention being paid to the Black Hebrew Israelites. They seem like the real scumbags in this scenario, even if we assume the worst about the students. Even "Build the wall" and a mocking chant wouldn't be as bad as the Black Hebrew Israelites' loud accusations of white sin or whatever.
The Bring Jamal was from a neutral 3rd party who was there (The lady jjstraka linked). I will take her view of it as she brings it into context with the BHI claiming the kids were racist because there wasn't a single black kid with them.
And secondly, no, I am making that conclusion with what I see in video. I see kids jumping up and down to the beat of a drum, attempting to take selfies/videos of the experience and enjoying themselves. Once again, these kids just finished their school cheers (which for some reason no one has shared, because it doesn't fit the narrative) and have a guy with a drum playing a song walking towards them. If you notice, I have been using the word "perception" a lot in an attempt to explain why people might be saying or reacting the way they were. There can be the perception that they were being disrespectful especially if you take into account the kids' ignorance towards native American culture, but that doesn't mean that was their intent.
Intent is huge and no one gets to dictate what someone else's intent was/is.
And now we're supposed to accept that one of her 30 some odd tweets is spot on, and that the kids were definitely not chanting "Build the Wall"?
If one is going to poke holes in someone's account and point to their biases, it's not a credit to anyone's argument to then cite them later on.
Simply said, this is untrue. We do this *all* the time. We do it in the court of law. We do it in court of popular opinion. We do this in history. Intent is huge, and we are allowed to use contextual evidence to make an argument over what we likely believe their intent was. We cannot know that it was 100% true (short of an admission by the one who's intent is in question) - but that doesnt and wont stop anyone from trying to figure it out.
History is RIFE with examples of people trying to determine intent, as it is a fundamental factor in our judgement of a person/event.
To be clear, I never posted that woman's thread because of what was said about the remarks of the BHI group. I knew that would be inflammatory and singled out (even though I generally agree she is 100% correct about what and why white people benefit from in this society goes back centuries). The messengers who were saying it were bonkers, thus it was stupid of her to make that argument at that time. I posted her account because she was there and had clearly studied the video backwards and forwards. Whether people want to confirm or dismiss her account based on her editorializing is up to them. That is certainly valid. But her description of the incident step by step is backed up by videos she herself linked to. I didn't and never meant it as a "I 100% concur with what she is saying". In hindsight, I regret posting the whole thing instead of paraphrasing it myself.
The "bring Jamal" vs. "Build the Wall" thing is plausible, but really only speaks to how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten. If they are chanting "build the wall", it is what it is. If they are saying "bring Jamal" then what they are basically doing is telling the Black Hebrew Israelites "hey now, don't call us racists, we got our black friend back here somewhere, get him up to front so we can put him on display", which is, if we are taking her account at face value, exactly how the kids meant to take it, since (and I am going to edit this obviously), one of the BHI says "They gonna call him....y'all got one n****r in the crowd" and one of the boys says "We got two!". Both the question and the response to in this case are EQUALLY problematic. The BHI for asking in the first place, and the boy for assuming his black classmates were his to show off to prove something.
In history or in situations where a person can not describe their intent, it is ok to speculate. HOWEVER, we have the kid telling us what his intent was and people dismissing it out of hand, which I will get to with this: So you don't take the kids word of Phillips locking eyes with him and walking towards him playing the drum? If the kid was suppose to move, why didn't anyone (and there was a lot of people/adults there recording with cameras) shout to him "Hey kid, move."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/native-american-elder-nathan-phillips-teen-nick-sandmann-give-versions-of-encounter/2019/01/21/f349ebf6-2574-43d3-a7b5-0e626ba05a0d_video.html
Now once again, we all can draw our own conclusions on what we perceive to be happening and going through each other's heads, but we don't know and should take what people tell us what they are thinking or saying at their word unless we have other evidence that actually contradicts that. In this situation we don't. Should the kid have moved? Yes. Should he be getting death threats because he didn't? No.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account-native-american-maga-teens/index.html
man I wanted to talk about Canadian things today... oh well maybe tomorrow.
As for people not changing things by force......how much longer should black people have waited in 1964 to be able to use regular public drinking fountains?? Another 50 years until white southerners came to their senses?? How long should gay couples have waited to be able to get married. When another million of them had their partners die before they could do so so we could placate the sensibilities of religious people who refuse to mind their own business. Change never happens just because. The whole "belligerent liberals will be the real cause of fascism" argument is just the ultimate extension of "they forced me to vote for Trump". Is there anything liberals AREN'T forcing everyone else to do?? Isn't this the exact same argument an abusive husband makes when he is apologizing to his wife who he just gave a black eye to?? "Damn, honey, you know I didn't want to do this, but dinner was cold and my shirt wasn't ironed when I got home".
Edit: We're one, maybe two generations away from what you (@jjstraka, @semiticgod & @smeagolheart specifically here) want; without violence.