In yet another case of blackface racism, a group of white Ohio football fans, including children, taunted their black opponents. The racist fans, including this white boy on the left, yelled racial slurs, painted their faces black, beat on frying pans, and wore Afro wigs when their team played a predominantly black opponent. This is really disturbing to see young children engage in this sort of behavior, which really challenges the whole kids are colorblind argument. The coach of the predominantly black team, Jeffrey Saffold, called the head of the youth football association for the white team to complain. Here is a quote from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
“I think this was a way of supporting the team by showing up in bigoted costumes to mock their minority opponent,” Saffold said.
Saffold said he twice previously complained to Hudson coaches about the use of the N-word.
He said after Sunday’s game, he complained to John Elffers, president of the Hudson Hawks Youth Football Association, who sent him a letter apologizing for the fans’ actions.
Elffers, however, said the first complaint he heard came Monday when Saffold called him and said parents of Shaker players were offended. Elffers said he doubted supporters meant to be offensive.
“Their actions, albeit unwise, foolish and insensitive, were meant to be totally supportive and not intended to insult or offend anyone in any way,” Elffers wrote in his letter to Saffold. “We regret what occurred and apologize for any righteous indignation these actions may have caused to the coaches, players, parents and family members of the Shaker football organization.”
What I found very disturbing is not only the actions of these kids, but also the most insincere pathetic apology I have ever seen. John Elffers tries to argue that these actions were not meant to offend or insult, and I don’t see how else this behavior could be interpreted. Using the n-word and painting your face black is insulting, no matter how you try to frame it. Moreover, in the statement above he is apologizing for the righteous indignation of the black kids and their fans when he needs to be apologizing for the racist behavior of these white children and their parents. (FYI–I am not the one who edited out the white child’s face. The the local TV station did that.)
This case also seems to follow the typical pattern in these blackface cases. The whole “we didn’t mean to offend them argument” is the standard defense in these cases. However, this clearly should not be taken at face value. If any news reporters are reading this, I would recommend asking people who makes these claims two questions 1) What did you intend? 2) How do you expect blacks to respond to this sort of behavior? I’d love to see these white people’s responses to those questions. Reporters, and people in general, need to go a little deeper, and not just accept these sorts of claims. Let’s not be so quick to let the “we didn’t mean to offend” argument slide.
Pingback: Rad Geek People’s Daily: official state media for a secessionist republic of one
Pingback: Shakespeare's Sister
I don’t know if you put the bar over his face, nor do I know the legal issues surrounding what I’m about to say, but in my opinion, kids who engage in such pernicious and obvious racism should be tried as adults in the court of public opinion. They need to learn early and often that they’ll be held directly responsible for their racial attitudes.
In other words, seems to me the kid has forfeited his right to anonymity.
It’s more than possible that if I had read the entire post, rather than my bad habit of getting the sense of it, I would have realized that you didn’t put the bar there.
Sorry about that.
I’m no expert in race relations, but it seems to me that there’s been increased tolerance in recent years for public displays like this. Not merely in arenas that some would stereotype as inherently juvenile– ie competitive sports. But in supposedly “hip, progressive” enclaves like the alternative British weekly that did over a White model in computer “blackface” with the heading “We Are All Africans.” Or the flap about the Democrat blog (I forget which one) that showed a prominent opponent in blackface. This resurgence, if you can call it that, is extremely disturbing. >:
which really challenges the whole kids are colorblind argument
After working with kids from ages 6 to 20 the last 12 years, I firmly believe that kids are colorblind.
Until they’re taught different. And I’ve run into a few that have been, which makes it real interesting when I try to teach them different. In such cases, their parents are usually a real piece of work.
Amen to the post here. “We didn’t mean to offend”–then what the heck did you think would happen?
Had I been the coach, I would have been sorely tempted to ask the referee to assess a “fan interference” penalty on every snap until the offending fans either cleaned their acts up or were removed. Either that, or I’d have demanded a forfeit. Failing that, I might have led my team off the field under protest.
I’m from the other side of the Atlantic, so I’ve no idea what “pee wee football” is. But if I’m ever in the US I’ll avoid it like the plague if this is what goes on.
two points:
1) the blackface Kate Moss publication was not an alternative weekly, but the Independent newspaper – a mainstream national daily newspaper available in shops and on newstands all over the country. It puports to be left of centre and has been heavily critical of the Iraq war – unlike most of the British media. That makes it even sadder that it fell this low. There is a long list of Things That Are Wrong With This Cover, and indeed the campaign that goes with it, which is about buying branded goods which will result in a miniscule donation to charity. And a fat profit to the company.
If you want to see the cover (not necessarily recommended), try this link.
http://www.read4charity.co.uk/red/
Ms xeno’s point is well made: if this sort of thing is all over a mainstream newspaper and there is no outcry, that helps open the way for more blackface racism.
2) despite the offensive racist behaviour of the kid in blackface, I would have kept the bar to prevent them being identified, although I’d happily have identified an adult with full face and name. (Yes, I do realise the bar was not put on by Rachel S in any case).
I agree that the kid should learn how offensive their behaviour was, but I do not think that you can hold a young child responsible for their actions in quite the way you can with an adult. The blackface was clearly at least sanctioned and probably encouraged or suggested by adults. It is the adults involved who should be publically shamed.
The child may have been brought up by racists and not had the opportunity to hear someone explain what racism is, why it is wrong and why their actions are wrong. It is important to think of ways to get that message across to kids like this – despite the extreme nature of this kid’s behaviour, it is not impossible for people to change, and that should be the aim.
The problem with identifying the child by removing the bar is that they may face a high level of retribution and/or violence. While the desire to knock the living daylights out of a little racist might be understandable, I do not think it would be a useful way forward. In general, public shaming of kids is not the way to deal with wrongdoing – legislation that allows this in Britain is leading to young people’s human rights and basic safety being compromised – and I don’t think it’s the way to deal with racism either.
I’m sure that a more age-appropriate way of spelling out anti-racism would in any case make the kid feel deeply ashamed if teh message gets through. But that should be done in a way that allows and encourages the child to change.
Having said all that, I do appreciate Auguste’s feelings on the matter as I am really horrified at this story and my first instinct would probably be to grab the little brat by the scruff of the neck and… But anyway. I have calmed down a bit.
In Britain there would probably be a legal difficulty with identifying the child. But I don’t base my arguments on the legality or otherwise, because if I thought it was right to identify them, I’d go for that regardless of the legal niceties.
Seriously. WTF were they thinking?
But in supposedly “hip, progressive” enclaves like the alternative British weekly that did over a White model in computer “blackface” with the heading “We Are All Africans.”
I’d be interested in the context of this. Were they were trying to make a point that all humans are ultimately of African ancestry (some of us a lot closer than we might think)? Was the presentation some kind of merging or hybrid or was it a caricature?
I tried commenting a moment ago. Did it get eaten by computer gremlins? Or was it stopped by moderators? If so, please drop me an email to explain why, because I really can’t believe you would find the comment problematic.
Editor’s Note: Pee Wee football is American football, for kids, usually between the ages of 9-12. The ages may vary a little from place to place. Pee Wee just refers to their ages.
it’s appeared. Must’ve been the gremlins.
I wrote post #10 before post #8 went up. I’m at a complete loss as to why Kate Moss was on the cover with her skin colored black. Can anyone state what the reason was?
I’d like to re-emphasize the point that red made about the kid shown. God knows what his parents’ attitudes are and whether they had any influence on this. They may be as racist as the day is long. Or they may not, but might have never discussed it with their kid and he picked it up from his peers, etc. This kid could be surrounded by racism; given that a whole group of them were involved, racist feelings may be endemic in the community. I have certainly talked to kids who you would think were being brought up very well until a discussion happened to touch on race, only to be shocked from what you hear coming out of a putatively innocent mouth.
My late father-in-law was very racist. After a few “Archie/Meathead” confrontations, I simply dropped the matter, figuring that a high school/college kid wasn’t going to be able to get him to change. Fast forward about 15 years. My FIL came over to the house when my wife was away and, in front of my 8 and 4 year old kids, used a racist term quite emphatically. I told him he could not use such language in front of the kids and had to either stop or leave. He left. Then he called my wife and complained about the way I had treated him. He and I did not get along – such calls were not unusual. What was unusual was that instead of sympathizing with him and getting on my case, she told him, “Well, that’s the way it is, you can’t talk like that in front of the kids.” And that was that – he would come over, but he stopped the racist nonsense, at least around them.
RonF – yes, I think taking the team off the pitch would have been a good idea. It would have made it clear that the behaviour of the people concerned was entirely unacceptable, and that no one sjould be expected to play sports (or do anything else) under those conditions.
Rachel S – a grateful Limey writes: thanks for the explanation.
I’m at a complete loss as to why Kate Moss was on the cover with her skin colored black. Can anyone state what the reason was?
RonF – I’m at a bit of a loss myself. But my understanding is that “we” – presumed by the newspaper to be white – would realise our kinship to “them” (people in Africa) and so rush to do the best thing possible to prevent AIDS (get an American Express cartd). Yes, it is hard to understand…
To my lasting happiness, I managed to miss this particular edition of the Independent. But I found out about it here
http://www.literaryhoax.com/2006/09/25/you-couldnt-make-it-up/
This is really disturbing to see young children engage in this sort of behavior, which really challenges the whole kids are colorblind argument.
Two thoughts:
First, for the purposes of “the whole kids are colorblind argument,” nine isn’t young. Kids have absorbed a huge amount by the time they turn nine.
Second, I think “kids are colorblind” is the wrong way to put it. It’s not that kids can’t see ethnic differences between people, or even that they aren’t aware of ethnic/racial categories. By the age of four or five, I expect most of them get that stuff. The question is how they understand those differences, and what significance they ascribe to them.
Where our kids played (west coast), this kind of thing would have resulted in a forfeit. I have seen the coach of a basketball team sent off the court because of offensive hollering to his team that could be heard by all spectators. And I have seen parents red-carded at a soccer tournament for offensive cheers.
Brooklynite said, “The question is how they understand those differences, and what significance they ascribe to them.”
Yes, I agree with you on that one.
However, in this particular case, I think it’s fairly clear that these kids had a pretty good grip on racial stereotypes, and they also seemed have an adult understanding of race.
We not talking about the 5 year old who says, “Mommy Santa Claus isn’t black.”
Nevertheless, I agree with the overall point. Children notice skin color and some ethnic markers at a very young age, but they don’t develop an understanding of race until an older age.
Hudson, Ohio is an affluent white place. Bet they vote GOP.
However, in this particular case, I think it’s fairly clear that these kids had a pretty good grip on racial stereotypes, and they also seemed have an adult understanding of race.
Yes, they have a grip on racial stereotypes and may have an understanding of race equivalent to that of some adults.
But do they have an understanding of racism? Or anti-racism? I don’t think they do. But that may not be their fault. White kids who grow up in a very racist environment may not have access to an alternative point of view.
I’m not saying that’s OK. I’m not saying it makes their racism acceptable. But I do think it’s worth bearing in mind when we think about what to do about their behaviour. And I think if kids are behaving like that in the company of adults, it’s the adults who should bear the responsibility.
In my own experience working with children, and from my own childhood memories, I would also contest the “children are colourblind” argument. As Brooklynite said above, kids do notice racial and ethnic differences, but they don’t necessarily interpret them the same way as adults. In my experience, this can, at times, be awkward and embaressing when kids haven’t had a lot of exposure to people who look or act differently from them and their families. My friend used to babysit for a little (white) girl who exclaim (loudly) “Look! It’s Oprah!” everytime she saw a black woman.
And by eight or nine, a lot of kids have picked up on how these differences are interpreted by the adults around them, the media, and so on. When I was eight, one of the girls I went to school with began wearing a hijab. One day at lunch I asked her why she was wearing it. When she explained that she chose to wear a headscarf because of her religious beliefs, I responded by telling her that the practice of wearing a headscarf is oppressive (clearly, not in those words), a message that I got from my mother.
Who holds jurisdiction over this pee wee football group?The Hudson Hawks Youth Football Association? If so, the Association should take action to eliminate this team for the remainder of the season, and to permanently bar this coach from all further connection with the Youth Football Association. Next season, if there’s any more race-baiting, the team is permanently retired.
And if the Association isn’t down with that, then perhaps an effort should be made to go after the sponsors of the Association. Youth football is expensive. Area businesses and local unions often sponsor teams to help defray costs; other businesses take out advertising in football programs, on radio stations during games, and on the sides of fencing on the field. Every single sponsor should be made aware of this incident, and the extent to which the “responsible” adults abrogated their duties. If any labor union is a sponsor, not only that union but also the area AFL-CIO Trades and Labor Council and Building Trades Coalition should be informed. That’ll get a little more action out of the no-action, whitewashing Elffers.
red, thanks for the clarification and link. Very interesting piece over there. 8)
Damn, I’ve had a lot of comments just vanish this week. I commented along these lines much earlier, but I’ll give it one more try…
… kids who engage in such pernicious and obvious racism should be tried as adults in the court of public opinion.
I couldn’t disagree more. There is a reason that children are held to a different standard, both socially and legally, than adults. We, or at least many of us, understand that children do not have the logical thinking abilities of adults. I would be in favor of the adults in these children’s lives being blamed. Do you really think that these kids came up with it on their own? That the adults in their lives told them to stop, not to do it, but were unable to prevent or halt this display?
I’m so glad that racism is no longer a problem in the USA
ms_xeno (4):
You’re reaching. The magazine cover was obviously a (granted, rather clumsy) attempt to promote racial harmony, and the thing with Jane Hamsher was…well…completely mystifying, but it’s probably safe to say that whatever bizarre thoughts were going through her mind at the time, “You know what sucks? Black people!” wasn’t among them. It’s rather silly to cite these as evidence of a supposed increase in the social acceptability of malicious race-baiting.
isabelita (20):
That’s about as constructive as saying “Bet they vote Democrat” whenever a violent crime happens in a poor, urban neighborhood. And probably less accurate.
I’m reaching because you say so, Brandon. Whatever. The link red provides gives some opinions as to why this form of “racial harmony” is more like a trendied up version of Kipling. It’s all about Whites declaring stewardship over Blacks and taking them on as a burden or hobby, not “harmonizing” with them as equals. You could also look around some anti-racist forums such as Debunking White on LJ. That’s where I first read about it. Be warned that they are heavily moderated and you can’t just show up to post without being vetted first.
Pingback: Word Munger » Is blackface always offensive?
I’m so glad that racism is no longer a problem in the USA
My goodness, please tell me that was sarcasam.
This whole incident baffles me. How it’s been downplayed, the pathetic apology, how it even came up. The gang mentality that obviously took place, and the support it MUST have had from the adults who goddamit, should know better!
Now I’ll be the first to admit, that especially as a child (and one with social skill deficiencies) that I have made inappropriate comments and even racial slurs (which I’m not proud of). Not because my parents did (they were very good that way) but because I had heard or read the word somewhere and was trying it out. I ended up having a lot of long lectures about how the words I was using were hurtful words or meant “more” than I thought they did. It’s like the time I started using the word “dildo” as an insult. “You’re such a dildo!” I had NO IDEA what a dildo actually was (and my parents had a tough time overcoming their embarassment to tell me).
So did I learn (the hard way) that this offended and hurt people and made them think I was a rotten person? Yep. However I can respect the “privacy” bar over the young mans face. Should he be taken to task by those who know him personally? Heck yes! I think each one of those kids should have to write a letter to the opposing team with an apology. I think community service might also be an appropriate punishment but see no legal way to bring it about. Should he be verbally shamed or accosted by total strangers who have seen him on the news? Probably not. That’s becoming disproportionate from what happened and the age of the kids.
Red, I’d be interested in what youth sports are like across the pond. What kinds of sports do kids get involved in in the age span of, say, 6 to 14?
The various social aspects of youth sport in the U.S. would take some lengthy posts to cover completely, but suffice it to say that there is a great push for kids of both ages to get involved in at least one organized sport when they are quite young, and to keep them in a sport until they are in High School (which are the last 4 years of schooling before a student either ends their formal schooling or goes on to a trade school or university).
Back when I was a child, it was quite common to see children organize their own games after school. This is much more rare these days; now, kids are put into youth sports leagues that are organized and run by adults, with equipment, instructors and officials paid for by the parents and on regulation sized and professionally maintained fields (or “pitches”, as you say over there) (two peoples separated by a common language indeed!). Not that my kids haven’t taken full advantage of this, mind you; my two kids played 5 sports between them and both played/are playing a sport for their university. But mine play/ed for the love of the game; they were/are not receiving a tuition waiver in return for playing (I refuse to use “scholarship” as a term for this, as it has nothing to do with scholarship).
The plus side is that the skill levels are much better for children of a given age than they were in my youth due to the coaching, instruction and practice time. There are some disturbing trends as well, however, and this incident highlights some of them. For one thing, the point is no longer that the kids play and have a good time and learn how to run things; the main point now is to win the game. The other is the kind of involvement by the parents. In an after-school kid organized and conducted game, the parents are usually not even there. In the present situation, the ideal is for the parents to be there to encourage their kids. But the ideal is sometimes lost. What we now have are parents who are tied up in their kids’ activities to the extent that they want to see their kid win at all cost, and they’ll yell at the game officials, the coaches and players of both teams, argue with their kids’ coaches over playing times and roles, etc., etc.
Part of this can be ascribed (IMNSHO) to the system wherein about 260 of American universities grant tuition waivers to young men and women who can play some games (especially American football and basketball, but other sports as well to a greater or lesser extent) to a very high level, enabling that university’s team to become competitive at the highest level. Given that 4 years of college at some universities can cost $100,000 (or a lot more, but the more exclusive and expensive colleges in the U.S. tend not to be the kind that put a lot of store in having the best athletic teams in the land), many parents will push their kids to become athletes.
And I can run on, but then this becomes a novel, not a post. Anyway, what are youth sports like in the U. K.?
Rachel, I am baffled at the idea that we can ‘safely’ tell that these white kids had a sophisticated, adult understanding of race. There’s nothing to suggest that these kids sat down and, all by themselves, cooked up a scheme to show up in blackface. Somebody supervised them at the game. Somebody got them the makeup, the wigs, and the frying pans. “Somebody” was not another 9-to-12-year-old.
And I think we can make a pretty good stab at who one of those “somebodies” might be, given the backhanded insults in the “apology” letter.s
yes, the parents are clearly at fault. I cant imagine wanting to do that to somebody else’s kid–what is wrong with these people.
As for hip enclaves, this stuff is more acceptable than in the recent past. whatever you think about the kate moss thing (heinous, in my opinion. see reds comment above) there’s no question about what was meant by white hipsters hosting regular “kill whitey” parties in gentrifying, race & class conflicted brooklyn last summer. You could get in free with a bucket of fried chicken and the girls dressed up in afro’s and ‘wifebeaters” with cute ghetto sayings written on them.
Additionally, there is actually a new hip restaurant in Brooklyn called “monkey town” with a jungle theme and waiters who wear “grease monkey” outfits consisting of work coveralls with name tags. UG.
Fortunately the parties recieved a bad reception and quit. The restaurant remains in operation as far as I know.
Really? “Monkeytown” is a pretty common term for the black side of town in lots of places here in the US, and “monkey” has historically often been used as a racial slur for black people. “greasemonkey” while somtimes used affectionately by mechanics themselves, was originally a class-based pejorative.
This is a restaurant catering to the new richer whiter crowd that is moving into a blacker, more working class neighborhood and pushing those folks out. Then laughing about it, in the form of a hip, “ironic” restaurant.
I acutally think the combonation of greasemonkey with the jungle theme is a creative move that takes the level of offensiveness up to an even higher notch than a jungle theme alone could have possibly done.
Why is this is objectionable?
You have the data right, but the causal relationship runs the other way.
Look: If you want to say that it’s becoming more socially acceptable for people to act like condescending asses in the process of falling over themselves to show everyone how enlightened they are, I won’t argue. If you want to say that the cover was offensively stupid and didn’t really achieve its intended goal of promoting racial harmony, I’m with you.
But it was completely devoid of malice and bore only the most superficial similarity to the sort of race-baiting that was on display at the football game. You can’t cite the Kate Moss thing as evidence that malicious racism is becoming more socially acceptable.
I agree that these are different, but the kate moss thing was racist nevertheless. It was maybe “clumsy” or asisnine instead of malicious, but it points to the idea that a no blackface rule is probably a good one, even if your intentions are good.
my post got eaten
for those who don’t know anything about it, look here for the official site and NYT review describing the place. You can also click the “about” link or other tabs for more info:
http://www.monkeytownhq.com/nytimesrev.html
I don’t think “grease monkey” currently is used other than talking about mechanics and the like. DO you?
no, I think it is used for talking about mechanics and the like, as it always was, but that hte edge has worn off after decades of reappropriation. However in this context, the joke of the restaurant is calling black, working class people monkeys. They probably didnt even necessarily think they meant it that way, but when whomever it was that came up wiht this idea came up wiht it and thought “brilliant!” there is a reason it hit a nerve.
i didnt know about pron night though. Another great angle! Brilliant!
Brandon:
I think you’re falling into the trap cited earlier here by Rachel. You are saying that intent is more important than impact. I don’t believe that’s true. It’s ridiculous to argue that the Moss photo and the football incident operate in splendid isolation from one another. Some of the commentators in red’s link were very cogent in their understanding of what a short trip it is from the “stewardship” of spending 5K on Western designer goods so a corporation will send 5o dollars to Africa to an outright declaration that Africans are inferior people who deserve public insults. It happens again and again in imperialist and colonialist relationships. Somebody offers an insulting and/or utterly insufficient, borderline useless “gift.” Their needy recipient refuses, or demands more on better terms, and the insults and denigration of the recipient begin. Often followed by robbery and bloodshed, on top of the robbery and bloodshed that created the neeedy party’s situation in the first place. It’s an old, old story.
I’m just curious–isn’t this incident pretty much the same as all the other insulting, offensive taunts, common to athletic events since forever?
I mean, yes, race and racism are sore spots. But football taunts are usually offensive. I mean–this is the sport with the Norfolk cheer (we don’t drink, nor smoke, Norfolk, Norfolk), which my grandfather grew up with, or “three teeth and 100 legs” (which I grew up with), and so forth.
There are many different threads going around when you use the word “monkey”.
First, you have the creature itself, who, along with apes, are portrayed as an often-mischievous animal that often charms humans. (Think Curious George, the Friends monkey, and sock monkeys.)
Second, you have an insult comparing black people with lower primates. That’s patently offensive.
Third, you have the comparison of human babies with monkeys, which has everything to do with the first one. I’ve caught that meme from a friend of mine who called his young son “BabyMonkey!” and have had to consciously avoid calling babies of other races “monkeys”.
Monkeys are hip, just like pirates. I think the owners of the restaurant are trying to associate it with the first definition, with the grease monkey overall-wearing waiters associating the place with its former life as a garage.
And, FWIW, I’ve never heard the term “monkeytown” — used pejoratively or otherwise for that matter.
You haven’t been in my house, then, where “Attention all monkeys! The monkey train is now boarding! Next stop, Monkeytown!” is the universal code for “get your butt in the car, kiddo”.
(Nor have you had the experience of having a four-year old turn to you with gravely affronted dignity and say “Daddy. This is a car, not a train. And I am a human girl, not a monkey. And we are going to Nona’s house, not Monkey Town.”)
I hope someday to overcome my monkey-themed racist beliefs.
My friend used to babysit for a little (white) girl who exclaim (loudly) “Look! It’s Oprah!” everytime she saw a black woman.
-was i wrong for laughing just a LITTLE bit at this?
and yes kids do notice racial differences. by the time i was nine i had a pretty good handle on them. i also knew enough to kepp my mouth shut if i met people with whom i wasn’t familiar. i think in this and other cases parents encouraged their kids to act in this derogatory manner, and no i don;t think they (the kids) knew exactly what they were getting into.
anyone have an update?
Context matters–I’m obviously not saying ‘monkey’ is always racist. But in this context, described above, I think it is.
I’m just curious–isn’t this incident pretty much the same as all the other insulting, offensive taunts, common to athletic events since forever?
No.
[Flame-baiting comment deleted by Amp.]
mythago said:
Somebody got them the makeup, the wigs, and the frying pans. “Somebody” was not another 9-to-12-year-old.
I’d like to think you were right, but … Halloween, school plays, English class projects, church groups; you could go down into my basement right now and grab a couple of wigs and some black (and white and blue and red) theatrical makeup. A couple of frying pans out of the kitchen and there you are.
Now, that might be a bit much for 9-year olds to organize. But while the underlying attitudes may reflect the home environment, I can see a few 12-year olds coming up with the specific activity of showing up bewigged and in blackface at a football game on their own. After all, during some point in time during a televised college or professional football game or basketball game the cameras almost always focus on people all made up and wearing wigs and holding props.
Not that I’m happy to write that a few kids are able to add racism to that, mind you. But I don’t think it’s too far a stretch.
As far as updates go:
I used to live in this area, so I still have friends there (in fact, the city I went to high school in is inbetween Hudson and Shaker). Anyway, this is 2nd hand knowledge – so take it for what it’s worth, but I believe Shaker, and one other school (not sure which) has taken themselves out of the league, as far as I know, Hudson remain. That to me is the gravest injustice – the school/group that was taunted is the one leaving, not the tauntees. So sad.
We had an issue in the Chicago area last year that involved race and youth sports. There was a team from Chicago that joined up into a league made up of suburban teams. The parents of the suburban kids wanted the Chicago team to hire security when their teams played the Chicago team, or else they wouldn’t let their kids play at that location.
The Chicago team was made up of black kids and lived in a neighborhood that was black. The surburan teams were mostly white kids. While I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there was some racism involved, the position that the suburbanites talked about was that violent crime incidence in the Chicago neighborhood were a lot higher than in the suburban areas, up to and including murders. The Chicago team took the position that there had never been violent crime at the school itself, and that the closest murder had been a mile away.
Sometimes city dwellers and suburbanites have a hard time understanding each other. To a city dweller who is used to finding all of life’s necessities within a block or two from their home and their school within a few blocks, a mile away is another neighborhood and is not something they are involved in. To a suburbanite who routinely drives 2 miles for their morning cup of coffee and paper and whose kids ride a bus 5 miles to go to school, a mile is right next door.
Of course, “community leaders” started jumping in and making accusations that the suburbanites were a bunch of racists and that was the only reason for their actions. This included a white Catholic priest who heads a large Catholic parish in the Chicago neighborhood who gave a very dramatic speech that concluded “How can I tell this young girl she lives in a ‘bad neighborhood'” and dissolved into tears (answer; you don’t need to tell her, she already knows). This dominated the media coverage, and the whole thing devolved into a huge mess.
Just for clarification:
Shaker is a suburb too. It’s not inner city, it’s just as ritzy, and in fact some of the largest and most grandiose homes in the Clevelands area are in Shaker Heights.
We are not talking about urban vs. suburban, we are talking about suburban vs. suburban. Although it is true that Shaker is much more diverse (I won’t say predominantly black because I don’t know that that is true) than many of the other suburbs, it is still just another suburb.
this is absolutely abismal behaviour, they should be slung out of the league straight away and parents punished because then the kids would then be raised properly instead of spreading racial hatred. im shocked that this still happens these kinds of poeple are in their own league of idioticness
I am not sure if the children dressing up in black face and yelling ugly racist slurs are to blame. Their parents are teaching and reinforcing the horrible behavior. Shame on the Hudson parents, they should be ashamed of themselves. Hudson sounds like a normal city on the surface, but something must be very wrong with that place.
In this time, everyone needs to get along to find solutions to world problems. Taunting , killing and discrimination due to race, sex, religion, appearance etc. is immature at best and deadly at worst. Like John McCain said ( I am not quoting verbatim), “I believe there is a place in hell for people like that…” when he was criticized for adopting a baby from Bangladesh by racists. When someone is discriminated due to race, etc. no one wins. It’s a lose-lose situation for all.
although it was very inapropriate im thinkin that these people are such unfortunates,they are so amazingly ignorant,its quite sad and i almost feel sorry for them.. its really hard for me to watch stupid racism but i just tell my self that i cant control these people and iam absolutely powerless over them.. i pray for them
This is appalling. As a youth football coach fo 15 years and fielding teams in 5 different leagues, this type of thing just doesn’t happen. Shame on the coaches, fans and administrators.
I would never tolerate this from my coaches of fans.
Coaching Youth Football