Turns out you do not have an unlimited constitutional right to be a dickbag to your fellow classmates just because you are white, and they are Mexican, and you really don't like Mexicans. Who knew? The Supreme Court has denied an appeal from California high school students who argue that school officials violated their right to free speech when they made them turn American flag T-shirts inside out. [...]
It seemed planned and coordinated to incite a reaction, since it was done deliberately on a day that had been designated to celebrate Mexican history. And if the principal felt that their intent was to provoke a confrontation, case law is on his side in requesting they change clothes, regardless of it being flag apparel. Using the flag to be dickish is as disrespectful to the flag as burning it.
The issue in his case wasn't that the shirt had an American flag pattern but that it had been made out of an actual flag, so some saw it as an act of desecration. The whole fetishization honor and reverence for the flag thing (and the abhorrence of so-called flag desecration) was an outgrowth of the Red Scare of the late 1940s and early 1950s. The code of flag etiquette was only about 20 years old at the time and so people who were Hoffman's age could readily recall a time when one's handling of the flag wasn't so fraught with "loyalty" implications.
As I recall the big burst in popularity of American flag-themed clothing and decoration here seemed to have kicked off during the Bicentennial celebration in 1976, then got cranked up to 11 following the 1980 Lake Placid "Miracle on Ice" and was finally elevated to a supreme act of faith following 9/11. It has been with us ever since. Just as it starts to show signs of dying down it gets a new shot of life during electoral season, especially during Presidential election years. The current obsession with flag-waving and flag displays is being driven by the extreme (by US historical standards) polarization in our national politics at present.
I agree completely that it was dickish and disrespectful. However, as long as all they did was wear t-shirts and they didn't engage in any verbal or physical aggression, demanding that they turn them inside out or change them was only giving them the martyrdom that they craved and was exactly the wrong thing to do. Now they get to complain about how things are so bad in the USA that you can't even show your patriotism at school. How in the hell does that help solve the problem?
Sorry, but (again, assuming that these kids did nothing more aggressive than wearing t-shirts with flags on them) the Mexican students who complained should have been told to grow the fuck up and ignore it.
I am neither. I simply don't see how giving these kids exactly the reaction that they wanted has made the situation any better. As I said above, now these kids (who are young adults now, surely, as this was 5 years ago) get to complain about how the PC brigade won't even let American kids "honor" the American flag at an American high school.
It's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked.
Either you're playing devil's advocate or you're entirely missing the point, I'm not sure which...for one thing, the article points out the existing racial divide. The second part is were this any other day I'd agree with you but given that Cinco De Mayo is a wingnut cause celebre to insult Mexicans via imagery the wearing of the shirts is MEANT to provoke with what they say and do not say. Furthermore, the students when confronted even admitted they were wearing the clothing specifically to provoke Mexican students and were taunting them. Like I said either you're deliberately being obtuse or you just are obtuse...that's why I bothered with the hyperbolic comment beforehand.
Either you're playing devil's advocate or you're entirely missing the point, I'm not sure which...for one thing, the article points out the existing racial divide.
I'm neither. I just don't agree with you nor do I agree with the way the school handled the situation. I'm not arguing with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling -- their reasoning is clearly set out. I'm saying that the school shouldn't have handled it the way they did for there to have ever been a case to begin with.
The second part is were this any other day I'd agree with you but given that Cinco De Mayo is a wingnut cause celebre to insult Mexicans via imagery
Is it? Where I live, it's just a day for people to get drunk at Mexican restaurants.
Furthermore, the students when confronted even admitted they were wearing the clothing specifically to provoke Mexican students and were taunting them
Would you care to cite some proof of that assertion? Because there is nothing in the article above that says this and the 9th Circuit Court's ruling specifically says:
We note that the students had no response when asked why they chose to wear flag clothing on the day in question.
Again, it's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked. Reading the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, it's impossible to tell which group of kids were the aggressors in 2009 and I don't really see how it matters. I'm sorry but I just cannot agree that the simple act of wearing a t-shirt with an American flag on it counts under any circumstances as an act of aggression as long as that's all they did. The onus should have been on the Mexican students not to react to the shirts. There is simply no context in which wearing an American flag in an American school can be seen as the same sort of provocation as wearing KKK or Nazi imagery -- history of tension between the two groups at this school be damned. If things are that volatile there, it was pretty fucking irresponsible of the school to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration again after they'd had problems the year before. I know that the school compared the day's activities to St. Patrick's Day or Oktoberfest, but does the school have officially sanctioned activities for those days? Do they have officially sanctioned activities for other ethnic groups?
Honestly, I just don't see the point in making wing-nut martyrs out of these kids. Can you not see that that is exactly what has happened? Can you not see that all this does is give bloviators like Limbaugh and Beck a legitimate case to gripe about? It does sweet FA to alleviate tensions between the two groups. It only exacerbates them.
I didn't call you stupid I merely asked if you are stupid given the almost innocent way you regarded what seemed like an obvious act of provocation. This will be my final comment on this as well, first off your statement of "it's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked" is pure white privilege at work and before your dander rises, I am white too. Given that neither of us is Hispanic I'd say it's wrong to stake out cultural positions about contextual matters and what does and does infuriate Hispanic kids...given the obvious animosity of the shirts, I'd say it's very fair to infer there are racial problems in that community or else it WOULD have been innocuous. Or even better, the white kids would have just left Cinco De Mayo alone and not tried to score their "press one for English" asshole points but I digress...
Any symbol or gesture is provocative only if you allow it to be so while for instance parading around in an SS uniform on the anniversary of the closing of Aushwitz is Anti-Semitic and insensitive in the extreme it should only piss off Jewish people if they allow it to piss them off, right? California has a less than excellent history of racial harmony between Hispanic people and our fellow honkeys from the annexation of California, to the Zootsuit riots up to Pete Wilson and the motherfuckers who protested those buses of children and sent them on home. I'd say it's a fair observation given the oft contentious climate to infer race is a problem here. Within the article it clearly states that one of the kids refused to turn his shirt inside out even if he knew violence could be directed at him AND....Mexican kids couldn't display the Mexican flag on Cinco De Mayo at school....it doesn't take an advanced degree in neuroscience to figure out what was going on here.
As for the last point, I hear you but we can't let society exist based upon what does and does not anger a sack of St. Bernard diarrhea like Rush Limbaugh and the other seahorse dookies on the right. I just think you're not taking into account the cultural considerations in making your point...maybe you just haven't been exposed to the dynamic to truly comprehend it. As for the ad homs, my bad...I tend to be very aggressive in my argument style and can occasionally uncork abuse when logic fails me...your civil libertarian instincts are good but you're applying them in the wrong direction.
This will be my final comment on this as well, first off your statement of "it's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked" is pure white privilege at work and before your dander rises, I am white too.
Yes, but I am female and, as much as I'd like to live in a world where a sexist word is never spoken nor a sexist image ever displayed, I recognize that there are certain things that are just too stupid or insignificant to be upset about.
I'm not saying the Hispanic kids didn't have any right to be upset. I'm not saying the white kids weren't being dicks. What I am saying is that the mere act of wearing a t-shirt, absent any other actions or words, is nothing that justifies physical retaliation.
Remember last year when that scientist for the European Space Agency wore the shirt with the 50s-style girlie pix all over it? As distasteful as the shirt was to me, personally, I still thought the outrage over it was ridiculously overblown. Purvi Patel being sentenced to 20 years in prison for having miscarried a baby she didn't particularly want -- that's an outrage. A guy in a kitschy shirt might be a bit offensive, but it's not an outrage.
I guess that, until someone shows me evidence of worse anti-Mexican activity at Live Oak High School than what we currently know of, I'm going to continue to feel that too much was being made of this. You're perfectly free to believe that's white privilege at work, I have no interest in dissuading you otherwise.
"How does one hate a country, or love one? ... What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue of it, or a profession." -- Therem Harth rem ir Estraven
It seemed planned and coordinated to incite a reaction, since it was done deliberately on a day that had been designated to celebrate Mexican history. And if the principal felt that their intent was to provoke a confrontation, case law is on his side in requesting they change clothes, regardless of it being flag apparel. Using the flag to be dickish is as disrespectful to the flag as burning it.
The issue in his case wasn't that the shirt had an American flag pattern but that it had been made out of an actual flag, so some saw it as an act of desecration. The whole fetishization honor and reverence for the flag thing (and the abhorrence of so-called flag desecration) was an outgrowth of the Red Scare of the late 1940s and early 1950s. The code of flag etiquette was only about 20 years old at the time and so people who were Hoffman's age could readily recall a time when one's handling of the flag wasn't so fraught with "loyalty" implications.
As I recall the big burst in popularity of American flag-themed clothing and decoration here seemed to have kicked off during the Bicentennial celebration in 1976, then got cranked up to 11 following the 1980 Lake Placid "Miracle on Ice" and was finally elevated to a supreme act of faith following 9/11. It has been with us ever since. Just as it starts to show signs of dying down it gets a new shot of life during electoral season, especially during Presidential election years. The current obsession with flag-waving and flag displays is being driven by the extreme (by US historical standards) polarization in our national politics at present.
I agree completely that it was dickish and disrespectful. However, as long as all they did was wear t-shirts and they didn't engage in any verbal or physical aggression, demanding that they turn them inside out or change them was only giving them the martyrdom that they craved and was exactly the wrong thing to do. Now they get to complain about how things are so bad in the USA that you can't even show your patriotism at school. How in the hell does that help solve the problem?
Sorry, but (again, assuming that these kids did nothing more aggressive than wearing t-shirts with flags on them) the Mexican students who complained should have been told to grow the fuck up and ignore it.
I am neither. I simply don't see how giving these kids exactly the reaction that they wanted has made the situation any better. As I said above, now these kids (who are young adults now, surely, as this was 5 years ago) get to complain about how the PC brigade won't even let American kids "honor" the American flag at an American high school.
It's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked.
Either you're playing devil's advocate or you're entirely missing the point, I'm not sure which...for one thing, the article points out the existing racial divide. The second part is were this any other day I'd agree with you but given that Cinco De Mayo is a wingnut cause celebre to insult Mexicans via imagery the wearing of the shirts is MEANT to provoke with what they say and do not say. Furthermore, the students when confronted even admitted they were wearing the clothing specifically to provoke Mexican students and were taunting them. Like I said either you're deliberately being obtuse or you just are obtuse...that's why I bothered with the hyperbolic comment beforehand.
Either you're playing devil's advocate or you're entirely missing the point, I'm not sure which...for one thing, the article points out the existing racial divide.
I'm neither. I just don't agree with you nor do I agree with the way the school handled the situation. I'm not arguing with the 9th Circuit Court's ruling -- their reasoning is clearly set out. I'm saying that the school shouldn't have handled it the way they did for there to have ever been a case to begin with.
The second part is were this any other day I'd agree with you but given that Cinco De Mayo is a wingnut cause celebre to insult Mexicans via imagery
Is it? Where I live, it's just a day for people to get drunk at Mexican restaurants.
Furthermore, the students when confronted even admitted they were wearing the clothing specifically to provoke Mexican students and were taunting them
Would you care to cite some proof of that assertion? Because there is nothing in the article above that says this and the 9th Circuit Court's ruling specifically says:
We note that the students had no response when asked why they chose to wear flag clothing on the day in question.
Again, it's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked. Reading the 9th Circuit Court's ruling, it's impossible to tell which group of kids were the aggressors in 2009 and I don't really see how it matters. I'm sorry but I just cannot agree that the simple act of wearing a t-shirt with an American flag on it counts under any circumstances as an act of aggression as long as that's all they did. The onus should have been on the Mexican students not to react to the shirts. There is simply no context in which wearing an American flag in an American school can be seen as the same sort of provocation as wearing KKK or Nazi imagery -- history of tension between the two groups at this school be damned. If things are that volatile there, it was pretty fucking irresponsible of the school to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration again after they'd had problems the year before. I know that the school compared the day's activities to St. Patrick's Day or Oktoberfest, but does the school have officially sanctioned activities for those days? Do they have officially sanctioned activities for other ethnic groups?
Honestly, I just don't see the point in making wing-nut martyrs out of these kids. Can you not see that that is exactly what has happened? Can you not see that all this does is give bloviators like Limbaugh and Beck a legitimate case to gripe about? It does sweet FA to alleviate tensions between the two groups. It only exacerbates them.
By the way -- you've resorted to ad hom every time you've addressed me. I have not responded in kind. I just want you to think on that for a moment.
Are you two still here?
The lights have been off for hours, everyone has gone home...
I probably should have stopped responding to him the first time he called me "stupid", but what the hell...
You don't get to tell me when to go home, I'm not finished with my :hick: last drink, now get me another one, barkeep...
I didn't call you stupid I merely asked if you are stupid given the almost innocent way you regarded what seemed like an obvious act of provocation. This will be my final comment on this as well, first off your statement of "it's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked" is pure white privilege at work and before your dander rises, I am white too. Given that neither of us is Hispanic I'd say it's wrong to stake out cultural positions about contextual matters and what does and does infuriate Hispanic kids...given the obvious animosity of the shirts, I'd say it's very fair to infer there are racial problems in that community or else it WOULD have been innocuous. Or even better, the white kids would have just left Cinco De Mayo alone and not tried to score their "press one for English" asshole points but I digress...
Any symbol or gesture is provocative only if you allow it to be so while for instance parading around in an SS uniform on the anniversary of the closing of Aushwitz is Anti-Semitic and insensitive in the extreme it should only piss off Jewish people if they allow it to piss them off, right? California has a less than excellent history of racial harmony between Hispanic people and our fellow honkeys from the annexation of California, to the Zootsuit riots up to Pete Wilson and the motherfuckers who protested those buses of children and sent them on home. I'd say it's a fair observation given the oft contentious climate to infer race is a problem here. Within the article it clearly states that one of the kids refused to turn his shirt inside out even if he knew violence could be directed at him AND....Mexican kids couldn't display the Mexican flag on Cinco De Mayo at school....it doesn't take an advanced degree in neuroscience to figure out what was going on here.
As for the last point, I hear you but we can't let society exist based upon what does and does not anger a sack of St. Bernard diarrhea like Rush Limbaugh and the other seahorse dookies on the right. I just think you're not taking into account the cultural considerations in making your point...maybe you just haven't been exposed to the dynamic to truly comprehend it. As for the ad homs, my bad...I tend to be very aggressive in my argument style and can occasionally uncork abuse when logic fails me...your civil libertarian instincts are good but you're applying them in the wrong direction.
Cheers
This will be my final comment on this as well, first off your statement of "it's only provocation if you allow yourself to be provoked" is pure white privilege at work and before your dander rises, I am white too.
Yes, but I am female and, as much as I'd like to live in a world where a sexist word is never spoken nor a sexist image ever displayed, I recognize that there are certain things that are just too stupid or insignificant to be upset about.
I'm not saying the Hispanic kids didn't have any right to be upset. I'm not saying the white kids weren't being dicks. What I am saying is that the mere act of wearing a t-shirt, absent any other actions or words, is nothing that justifies physical retaliation.
Remember last year when that scientist for the European Space Agency wore the shirt with the 50s-style girlie pix all over it? As distasteful as the shirt was to me, personally, I still thought the outrage over it was ridiculously overblown. Purvi Patel being sentenced to 20 years in prison for having miscarried a baby she didn't particularly want -- that's an outrage. A guy in a kitschy shirt might be a bit offensive, but it's not an outrage.
I guess that, until someone shows me evidence of worse anti-Mexican activity at Live Oak High School than what we currently know of, I'm going to continue to feel that too much was being made of this. You're perfectly free to believe that's white privilege at work, I have no interest in dissuading you otherwise.
I say wear your American flag on May 5th while burning your Mexican flag.
They haven't been on Hannity yet? Shocking!
"How does one hate a country, or love one? ... What is love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing. Is it simply self-love? That's a good thing, but one mustn't make a virtue of it, or a profession." -- Therem Harth rem ir Estraven
‘Merica. that's always confused me. why is the M upper case? isn't it the apostrophe that should be capitalized?