Talking to some friends tonight of which one has a mixed race child and has experience poor behaviors by some (Most are awesome so its easy to remember the one's who are less then awesome.). While I'm open to different people of different backgrounds I don't advocate for or against anyone as I believe our country should be neutral on race and religion. It is a matter of freedom and a free society to accept differences and find a way in which we can use those differences for the best advantage of everyone.
The first thing we sort of agreed on is that most people are very good but there are a few knuckleheads out there who seem to cause most of the problems. They also are not held to account very often because they have a sympathetic ear in some crowds and social networks. Knowing the right people also seems to help in circumventing responsibility.
When I think about it from a deeper moral standpoint, I wonder who has the right to create toxic environments? I have two sons and she has a child and both are concerned about the environment. A third conversation participant related an experience (I think last summer) that drew her attention and contributed somewhat to the main point.
According to her, one lady at a store literally pushed with her hand/arm her neighbor's young Black kids of grade school age to move them out of the way so she could get something from an isle (I guess it wasn't a hard push but she still moved them without the parent's permission. Power over dynamics on children when conversation would have been better. Imagine for a moment. Someone was raised in a power over family, angry about life, then pushes that power over dynamic on two random grade school Black kids. Fair? Why should these kids need to deal with the adults "issues" and "uncomfortable feelings"?).
Sometimes people just make up stories to be part of the conversation so I was curious and probed a little to ensure it seems somewhat parsimonious (I can't be rude and must accept on face value. Its a light probe.). I mentioned maybe she did so without bigotry involved or she was just having a bad day and it was bubbling over. She stated yes but she also looked angry and she didn't appear to like seeing these particular kids giggle. She mentioned they were good kids and very polite and this lady had no patience for them.
I thought about that for a second because I have seen some similar type entitled behaviors. In my mind, I can't imagine touching another person's child to get them out of the way unless I know them very well and there has been preestablished trust. I would be afraid to put my hands on another's young child unless it was an emergency and/or part of treatment to create positive interaction (I used to do social work so I sort of understand when it is and is not appropriate.).
Where one might push/move/adjust a child (From the description it was not hard but it was moving them to the side which still is a little out of place.) a kinder soul might instead smile at little kids and ask them if they could grab the item for them. One might say something like, "Thanks buddy, your a helpful young fella." to socially encourage them to repeat positive behaviors (Notice the difference in subtle signals.) Furthermore, I might be annoyed by kids giggling if I'm in a bad mood, heard bad news or something, but I can't imagine touching another's kid. I would just be annoyed and move on because that is what people do when they are annoyed (Be honest, sometimes kids are annoying. 🤷)
I would be rightfully upset if an angry stranger touched a young child to move them out of the way (It would look like bullying into the child's space and then discounting their presence as annoying. It goes deeper than that. Its a discounting of their value all together as secondary to an item.). Which sort of leads me in some ways to the current issue in which I felt I needed to step in to protect their rights and appropriate boundaries. That doesn't sit well with people who feel that they are the center of their small fish bowl and they can easily manipulate their social networks (Like I said they were immune from the beginning. I can't say what the end will be. That is not up to me, nor do I much care anymore. It is about forcing the system to have a moral conscious. If we can get them help and/or derail these behaviors from happening in the future, that is all that is required. What is done, has been done already, so life will move on.....they were already forgiven because I understand what dark place this comes from. They did make a choice to engage in these behaviors so that is an issue. Anger is one thing but coordinated group anger is another.)
back to the story...
While these kids didn't know what was going on, from the sound of it, she noticed the rude behavior and she felt like the lady really didn't care much (She is not a particularly culturally aware person but I suspect one can sort of see when things don't really look proper. I'm assuming that the story is true, which it could also be a fabrication. I don't know. Its not my story.). She felt that the lady did not want these kids to be in her way.
I suspect if you asked the lady she might say, "Kids are annoying" but the impression was specifically these Black kids are even more annoying (The subconscious works with feelings and those are sometimes manifested into our environment in inappropriate and destructive ways. However, feelings that are drawn inaccurately from our environment could be an indication of mental health. Its a logic and paralanguage thing. One could theoretically decipher the logic of paralanguage to determine what those feelings are based in addition to observed behavior to not only include facial expression but also word choice, sentence construction, tempo, pitch, etc.. .).
While the vast majority of people are good natured, loving, open and kind there is a minority who are not and bubble over even when they are trying to avoid getting themselves in trouble. They are entitled and get away with bad things when they want something and/or feel they are better then something (hypothetically). There are even groups in which dehumanizing comments are common and they encourage others to act in ways that create perceptions of superiority (even over kids.). Few are going to stand against social groups that have accepted hate narratives and have blind loyalty to their social networks (i.e. "The Clan").
No one comes forward and says that they acted in inappropriate ways because they hold bias, but you can see it in their tone, how they stare at kids in parking lots use inappropriate terms and other such things that are unfair to children and create a hostile environment for them (i.e. why they are not around much anymore. They will be coming back soon once these issues are resolved.). Even protecting your kids through boundary creation from increasingly inappropriate behavior can even get you in trouble with "the clan" and their close law enforcement friends (Local friendships move throughout institutions. When the goal is to help something beyond the stated propose of that institution it opens another issue. I do understand its impossible but hypothetically.)
So my thoughts on these hypothetical situations are that the hate narrative is likely rarely based in true ignorance. It is goal directed, even when people are not aware of the goal. Manifestations of mental heath distortions can be in one case subconscious and in other cases very conscious (i.e. telling the family we are doing this to you because you are Muslim). At the end of the day, there is something wrong and those on the receiving end are expected to accept poor behaviors just because that is the way it is supposed to be (Social expectations that violate social contracts. So accountability is needed to ensure such social expectations don't supersede general social contracts as embodied in our Constitutions, oaths, and professed values.).
Free passing inappropriate behaviors leads to an encouragement of repeat of such behaviors that can make its way into people's social, economic, family lives and even the environment of children. When we dehumanize others we can go as far as treating children disparately and unfairly with our without conscious awareness. When such behaviors become increasingly accepted it impacts people in profound ways and thus early intervention in hate speech and behaviors is helpful (Even when they are our friends.).
I pulled this article below. Changing the narrative is one thing but when people are posting things on social media and/or demanding their social networks cause another person harm this moves beyond subtlety pushing kids out of the way. There should be certain rules and laws in place that could handle these situations. If not, I think we might need to consider some new ones.
Principle: Acceptance of poor behaviors may lead to other manifestations in overt and subtle ways that can impact the enriching environment for children (Not that this is seen as a priority of any type but it can happen when signaling is incorrect.)
Principle: Others may have experienced similar types of behaviors so accountability may help provide a more correct environmental signal.
Principle: Accountability may be dependent on other things then universal application of law and/or moral sentiments.
Principle: The vast majority of people are excellent, awesome, loving, and encouraging. There are knuckleheads who damage that environment but few challenge them.
Principle: Mental health may impact hate.
I will work on educating and the law can work on universalizing.
Role of education to address the root causes of hate speech and advance inclusion, non-discrimination, and peace
