November 8, 2001

9:28 PM

Terrorism…American Style. Once some of us Americans thought such barbaric acts of human sacrifice were the perfect place to take the kids, wear our Sunday best. For all the talk of a ‘color blind’ society by anti-affirmative action proponents and all the whines those who decry the tyranny of political correctness, there remains this fact: a lot of us not so long ago practiced political terrorism on our fellow citizens. I don’t think the moral high ground we claim is that moral or that high and nor do I think we have repaid the debts we owe to our fellow citizens. These pictures alone are an argument for reparations to my mind--and something we must never forget are part of our history. Which is why my skin crawls when I see epithets like ‘towelheads’ or ‘ragheads’ bandied about these threads…
posted by y2karl (70 comments total)

echelon posted this in May, 2000--to four whole comments? I thought it was worth bringing up again. And, jeez, I wish I'd edited myself and crammed all that rest of that verbiage into this comment...
posted by y2karl at 9:31 PM on November 8, 2001

"We" do not owe a debt to anyone. The people who owe that debt, in the case where there is one, are individuals not an entire race. Many of the people who owe that "debt" (given to them in part retroactively) are long dead. It's enough that the ones who are still alive have to live in today's ridiculous society.
posted by rabbit at 9:43 PM on November 8, 2001

Good thing that terrorist events like those are hardly anyone's idea of a good time these days.

For the record, this black man is interested more in the legal theory around reparations than in collecting damages. I want fair treatment from the society, built as it was on the backs of those unfairly treated and tortured. Like John McWhorter in the American Enterprise and Adolph Reed in the Progressive, I don't care about the money; I'm more interested in justice -- something that did get bandied about in last year's Harper's Magazine article on the legal issues involved in bringing a case.

What's ridiculous about the society, rabbit?
posted by allaboutgeorge at 9:51 PM on November 8, 2001

I think Rabbit meant this society is ridiculous as it still refuses to grant justice to those who have been persecuted in the past. I think Rabbit would probably go further and say that intolerance in today's society is a remnant of the past extremes, and is ridiculous.
posted by chaz at 10:04 PM on November 8, 2001

What's ridiculous about the society, rabbit?

That would be way off topic for me to get into...one need only watch tv for a couple hours and get a feel for the tackiness. Our pop culture is ridiculous and sickening.
posted by rabbit at 10:08 PM on November 8, 2001

chaz- ah no. I think though that in today's society we are so spoiled that the elite chit chat class can pick apart and decipher anything and everything. If injustices were done to people it is an individual matter, not a "we" matter. Individuals and the groups responsible should be held accountable should be held accountable. It's not like there aren't enough Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton's and Louis Farrakahn's to find anything even remotely suspicious going on.
posted by rabbit at 10:12 PM on November 8, 2001

I want fair treatment from the society, built as it was on the backs of those unfairly treated and tortured.

This is true of every single Western country - not only the colonialists. All of Europe profited. The U.S. probably less than us Europeans. It's a testament to the integrity, fairness and sense of shame of Americans that they alone have the courage to face this. It's right that you're so hard on yourselves. But it's us Europeans who should truly be ashamed; since we keep dodging and fudging, when - in the last analysis - we were much more responsible than you were.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:16 PM on November 8, 2001

Woah, Chaz, you guessed completely wrong, huh? Shoulda turned the kookoo nob up a little higher. Wish you'd have been right, though.
posted by Doug at 10:16 PM on November 8, 2001

Sorry if my answer wasn't P.C enough for you Doug. And there is no intolerance in today's society coming from society as a whole, still plenty of racist lunatics running around though. These are individual criminal matters though as American society today generally shows no animosity toward americans today.
posted by rabbit at 10:22 PM on November 8, 2001

I read that Harper's piece, too, allaboutgeorge, and found it well thought out--and when I spoke of reparations, it was as what you said. If there is a collective unconscious--and I think in some sense that there is--then this is where we have a hard time looking at how we got to where we are. But then, that's how the sublimation or self-denial in process goes--we just look away...

Like the way every cop show drama alludes to, or every tv comedian jokes about, prison rape. It's a horror that some prisons and jails actually do something about it--while all the rest of us seemingly act like it's a natural part of the criminal 'justice' system and never raise a protest against it. We laugh at the jokes and then look away.
posted by y2karl at 10:32 PM on November 8, 2001

Well just how much sympathy do you expect people to have for criminals in prison?
posted by rabbit at 10:42 PM on November 8, 2001

Thanks for the clarifier, rabbit. *looks at Rabbit's Web page* Things like C. Thomas Howell piss me off too. ;-)

Unless, of course, you meant something different. What in pop culture irritates you that a television/computer/radio off-button won't fix or save you from, for a bit at least? And the ones who have to live in this society and suffer through exposure to pop culture, what does their suffering have to do with reparations? Is the society fixable, perhaps through remedies of some sort?
posted by allaboutgeorge at 10:54 PM on November 8, 2001

Shouldn't you be off being sickened by some ridiculous cam girls, Mr. Troll?
posted by y2karl at 10:56 PM on November 8, 2001

In 1066, Anglo-Saxon rule of England was destroyed, and a Norman overclass was established over the natives.

As a decendant, I want my reparations, with 935 years of interest.
posted by marknau at 11:03 PM on November 8, 2001

Well, allaboutgeorge, we know who's sitting at the kids table this Thanksgiving...
posted by y2karl at 11:06 PM on November 8, 2001

Hope, a haiku

Evil's horrific
in all manifestations
let us be better.
posted by Bones423 at 11:15 PM on November 8, 2001

marknau, damn saxon dogs always looking for a handout ;)
posted by dancu at 12:04 AM on November 9, 2001

Well just how much sympathy do you expect people to have for criminals in prison?

So, um, rabbit, you've never smoked dope or dropped acid or ecstasy then? And you can pass a drug test right now, right? And people who get sent to jail deserve what they get, no matter what the crime or whether they're innocent or not?

I mean, Iwouldn't want you to come off as some braindead superficial hypocrite or anything...
posted by y2karl at 12:07 AM on November 9, 2001

So here's another black man. (Jiminy Christmas - two of them, it must be a gang!)

The white people of today owe blacks nothing more than simple dignity and common respect as they should for their fellow man, regardless of color. Any concept of reparations is standard issue "great white father" dependency, which just leaves another generation stunted and resentful.

The caucasians of 2001 are no more responsible for slavery than I am for the black co-conspirators who sold their brothers.

And people who get sent to jail deserve what they get, no matter what the crime or whether they're innocent or not?

Being in jail supposes that you have gone through a trial and been given a sentence - fair or not. You don't run a prison system based on the people who "may be" guilty.
posted by owillis at 12:24 AM on November 9, 2001

that is "may be" innocent.
posted by owillis at 12:25 AM on November 9, 2001

owillis, I guess, my idea of reparations wasn't that far off of allaboutgeorge's, which was not about money but accounting, or perhaps merely an account, as in not forgetting. I'm sorry I mentioned the word 'reparations' because it drives people crazy.

But, on the outside this thread commentary I started, are you saying that what are crimes outside of prison are OK inside? If I recall correctly, a white kid in Texas got sent up for car theft and got gang raped inside of an hour when he got to prison by black convicts. He ended up joining a white supremacist gang. And when he got out, well, he led a group of people who dragged James Byrd to death behind a pickup. Should rape and brutalization should be part of the punishment no matter what the crime? Just how does that serve society?
posted by y2karl at 12:50 AM on November 9, 2001

echelon posted this in May, 2000--to four whole comments? I thought it was worth bringing up again.

back in May 2000 there were less than 1000 members here. many interesting threads received just a few comments.

when this topic was posted again in December 2000 it received 35 comments.
posted by gluechunk at 1:08 AM on November 9, 2001

are you saying that what are crimes outside of prison are OK inside?

No, but I'm also not about to rush to stop prison crime when we've got a whole world of law abiding citizens who need protecting. Convicted criminals are at the way end of that list, for me.

As far as the case you cited, I would think the kid was already pre-disposed to crime (being in prison and all) so I wouldn't make a direct line between the rape and the murder.

Best way to avoid getting raped in prison? Don't commit a crime that would lead to prison time.
posted by owillis at 1:20 AM on November 9, 2001

I was thinking of Joseph Berke's The Tyranny Of Malice and trying to make a point about all these racist sentiments about 'towelheads' being expressed under the cloak of patriotic anger--And I'm sorry I brought up reparations--although the tyranny of malice covers the rest, whether on thread or not...
posted by y2karl at 1:25 AM on November 9, 2001

we've got a whole world of law abiding citizens who need protecting. Hmmm... Towelheads, criminals, what's the difference as long as we have some strangers to demonize. .. Gee, I feel safer already.
posted by y2karl at 1:32 AM on November 9, 2001

Who's demonizing all Arabs? (for the record, I've never called anyone a "towelhead" - you seem to be hung up on that word) My (and America's) problem is with a small subgroup of ninnies who happen to be Arabic.

All I'm saying is that people in prison are there for a reason, most of the time bad.

How about we stop real rape first? You know, innocent girls and women? When we stop that then we can pay the prisoners some attention. Priorities.
posted by owillis at 1:59 AM on November 9, 2001

y2karl-

Is it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks?. allaboutgeorge was at least engaging in civil discussion and being respectful in disagreement.

I don't know what the drug comment was for either. The only drug i use is caffeine. How ironic that this thread was about intolerance, and your comments include stereotyping and insulting anyone with a different viewpoint than yours.
posted by rabbit at 2:40 AM on November 9, 2001

"Hell is other people."

-some French guy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:01 AM on November 9, 2001

Many modern societies nowadays recognize their atrocities but only to a certain extent. When I grew up in Florida, lynching was a very, very small side topic, if it was present at all, in US history books, much less in class discussions. The effort linked on this post is, unsurprisingly, a private one; public organizations don't often do a very good job of airing the society's dirty laundry (they readily recognize the shortcomings of other societies). Airing this dirty *is* a debt we owe to ourselves and future generations. Not airing is tantamount to lying about one's past.

Coincidentally, France is seemingly (potentially officially) starting to come to terms with a horrific past involving sanctioned torture during the Algerian War.

Would that all countries, Western and non-Western, routinely and publically faced up to their own historical horrors as well as their achievements.
posted by mmarcos at 5:03 AM on November 9, 2001

I believe it was Sartre who said that hell is other people.
posted by busbyism at 6:12 AM on November 9, 2001

"people are hell"

-english dude quoting french guy
posted by clavdivs at 6:34 AM on November 9, 2001

Braindead and hypocrite were uncalled for... As for superficial, I can't see things from the God's eye view. And inroducing a side topic was dumb.

And gluechunck, my computer is so small and slow, I couldn't didn't see your post.

As for my obsession about epithets like towelheads, there was this thought about how some 'individuals or groups' have a handy way designating other individuals or groups, whether arabs, middle easterners, blacks or 'criminals' as the source of all evil.

As for I don't know what the drug comment was for either, it was a lazy way of pointing out that category 'criminal' is pretty flexible and that our way of dealing with criminals has some social blowback built in--designate enough people as evil and deserving of punishment, no matter what the crime, expose them by the millions (6.5 million adults locked up, on probation or parole) to a few far worse people and brutalize them in the process, making prison culture their default culture, just doesn't seem to be either moral or cost efficient to me.

As for my 'obsession' with racial epithets like towelhead, again it was a lazy way of trying to point out the time honored way we humans look for scapegoats and never look at the malice embedded in our own hearts and acts.
posted by y2karl at 6:44 AM on November 9, 2001

i do believe that it was Jean Paul Satre who said: hell is spending eternity with your friends.
posted by jbelshaw at 6:51 AM on November 9, 2001

Oh for the sake of the little baby jebus's unwanked penis, I knew it was Sartre.

Meta, kids, Meta.

::sigh::
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:56 AM on November 9, 2001

Best way to avoid getting raped in prison? Don't commit a crime that would lead to prison time.

I don't have a problem with this. In fact it's pretty obvious to anyone that the prospect of sharing a cell with Big Ben Dover is an extreme deterrent to getting caught commiting a crime. What I do have a problem with, is that these criminals are not sentenced in a court of law to "10 years in prison, with the possibility of multiple, grevious bodily violations". They are sentenced to 10 years in prison. If you can find me a government document outlining the objectives of the prison system, I'd be very surprise if there's a passage stating "All inmates should be exposed to extreme dangers of sexual assault at all times. Studies have proven this lowers their chance of reoffending."

So what I have a problem with, is pretending to be a civilized and humane country and then sweeping these inconsitencies under the carpet. At least other countries admit to it. If I steal a loaf of bread in Saudi Arabia, there's a passage in the Koran that says I'm going to have to learn to write with my left hand. If I traffick drugs in Thailand, there's a royal decree that says I'm going to be eating rice and cockroaches for the next 40 years. However, if I get caught with a bag of ecstacy in the US, it's only common knowledge I'm going to brutalized, raped and come out dependent on AIDS combinations. That's what is wrong. Be brutal if you want, but own up to it for god's sake.
posted by dlewis at 7:00 AM on November 9, 2001

such events were terrible and, probably, terrorizing to african-americans of the time...but calling them Terrorism in the context of the Current Situation is irresponsible.

btw, i am neither for or against the idea of reparations.
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:17 AM on November 9, 2001

I'm against reperations because they would be pretty impossible to administer. You can't give money to every black. Second, whatever settlement they would get, would be small, unless we want to bankrupt this country for good. Third, whatever settlement they would get, lawyers would take half, making it even smaller. Finally, just because your ancestors had it bad, doesn't mean you should get a monetary windfall for their suffering.

Focusing on the roots of poverty is where the focus ought to be.
posted by Witold at 8:08 AM on November 9, 2001

Focusing on the roots of poverty is where the focus ought to be.

Where does poverty come into this?
posted by dlewis at 8:15 AM on November 9, 2001

Jiminy Christmas - two of them, it must be a gang!

And don't think we're not keeping an eye on you! ;)

Being in jail supposes that you have gone through a trial and been given a sentence - fair or not.

I think perhaps you (and a few others here) might benefit from reacquainting yourselves with the 8th Amendment of the Constitution re: cruel and unusual punishment (please don't use the argument that it no longer qualifies as "unusual"!).

It is torture, plain and simple, physical, psychological and emotional, unauthorized but unrestrained. Most people here came out strongly against the U.S.'s torturing of terrorism suspects; I find it interesting that you feel no similar qualms about your fellow citizens whose crimes, in most cases, are far, far less serious.

It's a sick travesty, and I believe that history, looking back, will judge it as one of the most incredible and reprehensible signs of our barbarism.

How about we stop real rape first? You know, innocent girls and women?

So to your way of thinking it's perfectly acceptable for guards in women's prisons to rape the female inmates at will, since they are no longer, in some sense, "innocent"?

There's no such thing as "general innocence." It's a myth, and, I believe, a particularly destructive one. One can be innocent of a particular charge or crime, or guilty of it. No more.
posted by rushmc at 8:21 AM on November 9, 2001

Do I think prisoners should be raped? Nope, it's wrong. And any prison guard caught raping an inmate should be tried and convicted like any other rapist. But am I about to tell society to drop everything its doing to protect the rights of prisoners? Hell no. They are there for a reason, they know the consequence, they know what can happen inside.

Somehow the rest of us are able to live honest, crime free lives. I much prefer protecting our rights first, then those who have violated the rules of our society.
posted by owillis at 8:42 AM on November 9, 2001

How about we stop real rape first?

Leaving aside the question of what is real and what is not, you're saying we can only tackle abuse within prisons when the outside world is finally perfect? So that means never.

But am I about to tell society to drop everything its doing to protect the rights of prisoners? Hell no

When did it ever work like that? So a society can only do one thing at once?

rushmc is totally right, people don't suddenly become underserving of rights just because they're in prison. It's both unjust and bad for society to have a them and us attitude. It means once you're branded as a criminal you're tainted and you no longer have anything to lose.
posted by Summer at 8:52 AM on November 9, 2001

Speaking of lynchings in Florida, there's a little town called Mulberry. From the History of Mulberry:

Phosphate played an important role in development of all of Polk County but particularly to Mulberry, named for the Mulberry Tree which in the late 18th century had become the center point of the community.

[note: this should be late 19th century, the town was first settled in the 1880s]
posted by ahughey at 8:59 AM on November 9, 2001

OWillis said - "The white people of today owe blacks nothing more than simple dignity and common respect as they should for their fellow man, regardless of color. Any concept of reparations is standard issue "great white father" dependency, which just leaves another generation stunted and resentful."

Which more or less summarizes what I wanted to say.

All that I will add is that if you did not believe in reparations before seeing (admittedly horrific) photos of racism at work, but say they changed your mind on the subject, then I wonder how much thought went into your initial position. Photographs like that are crucial as a matter of public record, but to use them to evoke gut reactions in people is manipulative. A good argument should be able to stand on its own merits, without having to point at something gruesome and say, "if you are against me, you are for that!"
posted by Hildago at 9:43 AM on November 9, 2001

but calling them Terrorism in the context of the Current Situation is irresponsible--But point in fact, that is exactly what lynchings were--terrorist acts. As was, in my opinion, bombing German and Japanese civilians in World War II.
posted by y2karl at 10:10 AM on November 9, 2001

On the issue of prison rape, let's just clarify a few points:

1. It is not cruel and unusual punishment basically because the government is not administering the rape. I know somebody will try to come up with some far fetched counter example but just take it at face value until you read the rest of this post.

2. The act of rape while in prison is a criminal act and IF the person raped came forward AND brought charges, AND assuming there being enough evidence to convict, the rapist would be punished. BUT, most guys who get raped by their cell mate DON'T report it because it's not exactly what most people would like to admit to and there's a good chance a serious beating or death, at the hands of other inmates upholding the "no snitching" honor code, would occur long before the trial. If the "victim" never comes forward and never presses charges, it's mighty hard to control rape in prisons.

On the issue of the original statements made in by y2karl, all I can say is that my family did not come to the US until the very late 1800's (1890's I believe) and were not involved in any part of the slave trade. In fact, my family being from Sicily, it's a pretty safe assumption that they were they were coming to the US to escape the poverty of Italy in general and Sicily, one of the poorest regions of Italy, specifically. Now, why should I feel guilty for anything? Why can I not claim the moral high ground? I can feel sympathy, but my ancestors committed no wrong and it would be a tough argument to say that my ancestors received any benefit from slavery. Now, the argument that I always hear when I say this is that I am paying for the sins of my fellow citizens as a society, rather than for the sins of my relatives. Fine, but in that case, would not that same argument apply to African Americans? Instead of feeling angry, should they not feel guilty for what THEIR country did to their ancestors?

I don't mean for any of that to sound insensitive but I think there's this focus on the fact that people should feel guilty or that we owe something to somebody. I just don't believe that. I think what happened was wrong. I feel that we, as a society, should make sure it never happens again. But guilty? Guilty that happened 150 - 200 years ago by people who had no relation to anyone in my bloodline, or for that matter, at the time who were not even fellow citizens of my ancetors? I'm not sure I can do that. Instead of anger and guilt, I would rather focus on making sure EVERY American is considered equal and treated with dignity. Throwing up all of these divisions only serves to fuel racial hatreds for I am sure that if the US were to make reparations for slavery, it would create more resentment and set back the cause of creating true equality to such a degree that it might be impossible to repair in this lifetime.
posted by billman at 10:17 AM on November 9, 2001

Two words:

Human Rights

the test of whether or not a country respects human rights is not how it treats its most favored citizens (i.a.:sweet innocent girls), but rather its least favored (ia.:prison inmates). Every country in the world respects middle-upper class, law-abiding people.

Human rights means that ALL humans have rights, not just those we happen to like.
The state of the US penal system is one of the reasons it doesn't get very good marks from Amnesty.

All civil comments gladly entertained.
posted by signal at 10:53 AM on November 9, 2001

lynchings were--terrorist acts

it depends of course on the definition of terrorism, which i know is sticky point everywhere, from the U.N to metafilter.

working from a definition of "indiscriminate violence seeking a political end" (where discriminate violence seeking a political end is war)...i don't see lynching as terrorism. (i don't claim to know a lot of the history, but) most lynchings occurred after the hanged man was accused of some (bogus) crime (thus having some twisted logic to them) and were isolated incidents. they were hate crimes rather than a means to an end. one could argue their purpose was to keep other african-americans in the local community "in their place" and a political motivation, but i think that gives too much credit to the intelligence of the perpetrators.

but that's not really why i call your analogy irresponsible. it is irresponsible because this is (with a few exceptions in the 50's i think) a phenomena that is over 90 years in the past and despite the large throngs of people you see gathered in some of the photos does not encompass the mindset of "a lot of us." to say u.s. citizens lose the moral high ground (i'm not arguing we necessariy have it) because of this history is to equate 'average joe' with a hardcore al queda member because some white men committed crimes a century ago. this undermines the seriousness of both the current situation and the (at times) terrible history of our country.
posted by danOstuporStar at 11:00 AM on November 9, 2001

As was, in my opinion, bombing German and Japanese civilians in World War II.

Yeah, that Hitler fellow was just boogying on down with the 5 million Jews who just up and died, right?

Human rights means that ALL humans have rights, not just those we happen to like.
The state of the US penal system is one of the reasons it doesn't get very good marks from Amnesty

The same folks who would have murderers sit around wasting time in cells instead of being executed? Maybe not getting good marks from them is a good thing.

My view of Human Rights would be a world where law abiding people were able to live in peace and security from those who would do harm to us.

Any world where a murderer, rapist, child molestor has the same rights as everyone else is totally off of its kilter.
posted by owillis at 11:03 AM on November 9, 2001

and car thieves, pot smokers and check kiters getting the same treatment is ok? And the bombing of Dresden is excused by the Holocaust?
posted by y2karl at 11:22 AM on November 9, 2001

It is not cruel and unusual punishment basically because the government is not administering the rape.

I think that would be a very difficult position to support. Allowing something to happen that you know will happen and make no effort to stop from happening has almost the same moral culpability as actively doing the thing yourself. Would you excuse the government equally if it didn't torture prisoners to get information out of them, but looked the other way while other inmates did it for them?
posted by rushmc at 11:27 AM on November 9, 2001

and car thieves, pot smokers and check kiters getting the same treatment is ok?

Not to mention those innocent of the crimes they have been convicted of...or those who have NOT been convicted but are being held prior to or during their trial or appeals....
posted by rushmc at 11:29 AM on November 9, 2001

Allowing something to happen that you know will happen and make no effort to stop from happening has almost the same moral culpability as actively doing the thing yourself.

Actually, not sure I agree with you. The prison system does not allow rape as policy. Can you pull out some incidents where guards look the other way? Sure. You can always come up with at least a few counter examples, but on a whole, the US prison system does not subject people to, nor does it condone prisoner rape. BUT it does happen. Problem is, nobody ever reports it. Nobody wants to have a file a complaint that will become public record that says three guys popped him in the bum. So, if nobody is reporting it, there's not a whole lot the prison system can do to go after the offenders.

Now, if you have some master scheme that will keep prisoners from raping each other and make prison a safe place, I'm all ears. But if your argument is that in a perfect world prison rape shouldn't happen, then I can only agree with you and remind you we don't live in that perfect world.
posted by billman at 11:37 AM on November 9, 2001

and car thieves, pot smokers and check kiters getting the same treatment is ok?

Let's be fair, most of the people you mention don't go to maximum security federal prisons. They usually don't get raped and in many cases serve their entire sentence without incident. The people who get sent to the kinds of hell holes where prison rapes are common are usually very bad people. Murderers, rapists, repeat offenders, etc. And, as I've pointed out, prison rape is not something the penal system does to people and unless you have a way of making sure Joe Triple-Murder-Serving-A-Life-Sentence won't rape his cellmate the second you turn your back, then share it with the rest of us.
posted by billman at 11:43 AM on November 9, 2001

and car thieves, pot smokers and check kiters getting the same treatment is ok?

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. I may not agree with some of those laws, but that doesn't mean I'm not subject to the punishment if I commit them.


And the bombing of Dresden is excused by the Holocaust?
I'm not saying that particular instance is excused, but the war overall (including Hiroshima/Nagasaki) was about stopping an evil man that killed 5 million people and wasn't about to stop any time soon.
posted by owillis at 11:45 AM on November 9, 2001

I'm at work and can't linger but run prison rape and San Francisco Jail in Google
posted by y2karl at 11:46 AM on November 9, 2001

y2karl, thanks for the pointer. Did just as you suggested and came across this link to an ABCNews article that says that prison officials are working hard to reduce prison rape.
posted by billman at 11:55 AM on November 9, 2001

but the war overall (including Hiroshima/Nagasaki) was about stopping an evil man that killed 5 million people
Which our government knew about for a few years during this war and did nothing to stop it or save that many Jews from death by allowing immigration. Is it just me here being bothered by these pesky details?
posted by y2karl at 12:05 PM on November 9, 2001

Is it just me here being bothered by these pesky details?

What I find bothering is revisionist history and morally superior statements with no substance. How would you have acted differently? Would you have attacked when France was attacked? How about the bombings in the UK? At what point, if ever, would you have gone to war? Because regardless of your answer, I'm more than confident I can find a way to make your decision look like a poor choice. There were a lot of no win decisions. There always are. That's a part of life.
posted by billman at 12:16 PM on November 9, 2001

does anybody know the way back to the lynchings thread? i seem to have gotten myself lost in the make prison_rape not nagasaki thread.
posted by danOstuporStar at 12:21 PM on November 9, 2001

I take full responsibility for this thread going off the rails by introducing extraneous topics. But before I get back on the rails, I have to say that allowing people caught up in the prison system to be brutalized protects no one and, in fact, endangers us—this I believe. Apart from robbery and muggings, and the few in percentage murders of criminals by criminals over cash flow, the sad truth is that violent crimes happen between people who know each other—husbands kill wives, fathers kill sons, friends kill friends. The violent crimes done to us are usually done by people who we know. Our perceptions of crime are myth driven, derived from politics that, surprise, used crime as a code for race. And what happens? We march off to Frankenstein’s castle to kill a monster we create and recreate over and over. Like I said, we look away, have a blind spot when we claim the moral high ground in blindness and forget our own history of bestial acts. Unless you think some Japanese are right in attempting over and over to rewrite the rape of Nanking—that these were acts committed long ago by individuals. For the record, I do think that lynchings were political acts and terrorism. Also, I stand by the concept that we look away from our acts of malice or those committed in our name.
posted by y2karl at 12:51 PM on November 9, 2001

Because regardless of your answer, I'm more than confident I can find a way to make your decision look like a poor choice. Like I said, over and over, I'm sorry I introduced non-germane topics and then reacted to knee jerk reactions to things I said in passing. And no doubt you can make these statements look like poor decisions. Fire away.
posted by y2karl at 1:03 PM on November 9, 2001

Belay that note of self pity there--you do have a point, billman, on WW II revisionism. I was talking from heat and not sense.
posted by y2karl at 1:09 PM on November 9, 2001

(nice save y2karl, you tied everything together fairly well there.)
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:20 PM on November 9, 2001

but on a whole, the US prison system does not subject people to, nor does it condone prisoner rape.

I disagree. The prison system has control over the, um, prison system. The layout, the facilities, the movement and housing of prisoners, EVERYTHING. The argument here really is that they (and, by extension, the public, which ultimately foots the bill) are not willing to PAY for secure facilities that would greatly reduce or eliminate such incidents.

Back on the cruel and unusual thing: owillis, are you truly 100% comfortable with the notion that some poor guy who burgles someone's house or sells a little pot or embezzles a few hundred dollars from his boss, etc., etc., and is convicted and serving his time to pay for his crime, and contracts AIDS from a prison rape, is merely getting his due? A death sentence for a minor offense? THAT is precisely the kind of thing that Amendment was put in place to prevent.

Now multiply that one guy by (potentially) thousands. Now how do you feel about it?
posted by rushmc at 2:33 PM on November 9, 2001

rushmc, who does time for 1st offenses? Burglary for someone with a clean record would normally be something like probation. A guy who embezzles money from an employer . . . these guys go to Club Med type facilities (if they get any hard time at all) not the gladiator domes called maximum security. And selling a little pot carries a mandatory prison sentence in some states but in most cases, selling "a little" pot would get you a slap on the wrist. Most of the people in jail, are repeat offenders. People who have had their fair share of suspended sentences, probation and other "warnings". Yes, you hear about the isolated cases of some poor dork who had .00001 grams more than the amount considered traffiking and he's doing 10 -15 years but the vast, vast majority of people in prison have at least one prior criminal conviction.

And most importantly, most of the rapes happen in the more hard core prison environments, not the minimum security places more soft offenders end up in.

Is there a reason people keep avoiding this fact and the others that I've posted? You respond to one sentence in my post but completely ignore the fact that I later posted a link to a news story indicating that prison officials are working on reducing inmate rape. You keep trying to imply we throw these people into prison orgy scenes. Eliminating crime in prisons is almost oxymoronic. They get better drugs in prison than I could get if I wanted them. If a guy wants to rape you, no matter how secure the system, he's going to catch you alone someplace. Just because we don't tear down all of the prisons built before this became a problem and build new high-tech prisons doesn't mean people don't care. It just means that given the choice of a better education for children or a convicted criminal getting raped, most people are for spending the money on schools. I'm not pro-inmate rape but there's a finite supply of dollars and there are more important things to spend our money on than making sure criminals don't get buggered.
posted by billman at 3:03 PM on November 9, 2001

rushmc: Don't steal! Don't steal! It's a simple, simple thing. Most of us don't do it, you shouldn't either. You make the bed, you lie in it. Is it sad? Sure - but the guy shouldn't be taking things that are not his. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

People need to be responsible for their actions. Nobody is forcing him to steal - and if they are - they will go to prison. Somehow kids are able to get the basic idea behind this concept, why can't adults?

Prison is not a nice place, nor should it be.
posted by owillis at 3:25 PM on November 9, 2001

And most importantly, most of the rapes happen in the more hard core prison environments, not the minimum security places more soft offenders end up in.

from the Human Rights Watch Report on Prisoner Rape:
A corrections department internal survey of guards in a southern state (provided to Human Rights Watch on the condition that the state not be identified) found that line officers--those charged with the direct supervision of inmates--estimated that roughly one-fifth of all prisoners were being coerced into participation in inmate-on-inmate sex. Interestingly, higher-ranking officials--those at the supervisory level--tended to give lower estimates of the frequency of abuse, while inmates themselves gave much higher estimates: the two groups cited victimization rates of roughly one-eighth and one-third, respectively.

And where are these Club Med type facilities, anyway?
posted by y2karl at 6:09 PM on November 9, 2001

In December 2000, the Prison Journal published a study based on a survey of inmates in seven men's prison facilities in four states. The results showed that 21 percent of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since being incarcerated, and at least 7 percent had been raped in their facility. A 1996 study of the Nebraska prison system produced similar findings, with 22 percent of male inmates reporting that they had been pressured or forced to have sexual contact against their will while incarcerated. Of these, over 50 percent had submitted to forced anal sex at least once. Extrapolating these findings to the national level gives a total of at least 140,000 inmates who have been raped.

And from the ACLU National Prison Project--

We reject prisoner bashing as a short-sighted and counter-productive approach to criminal justice policy. The great majority of offenders will return to their home communities; the public interest is ill-served if they return battered in body and spirit, schooled in crime and angry at their treatment by society. Nor is it acceptable for any offender to be sexually assaulted, or beaten, or subjected to medical neglect as part of a criminal sentence.
posted by y2karl at 6:26 PM on November 9, 2001

A guy who embezzles money from an employer . . . these guys go to Club Med type facilities (if they get any hard time at all)

Our "justice" system has nowhere near the kind of consistency required to make a sweeping statement like that. Sentences are so arbitrary and variable as to be virtually random, in many cases.

For example, I knew a guy who was convicted of insider trading (for passing along tips to a couple of friends) and sentenced to 3 years in prison, of which I believe he served 2. (I didn't inquire as to the nature of his "experiences" there.) In most similar cases, people are fined or "slapped on the wrist." But the prosecutors decided they wanted to "make an example" of him, and that was that. Capricious.

A major factor in how much time you serve (and whether you're convicted at all, whether innocent or guilty) is the quality of your defense. Which means, mostly, how much money you have. So the well-off are found innocent disproportionately and the poor are convicted and buggered. That's just.

The main point is that it is cruel and unusual punishment to force someone into a situation where you know they will suffer beyond the terms of their legal sentence. If you want "bad guys" to be buggered (why, I wonder? will it decrease recidivism?), then pass a law that incorporates that as part of their sentence. Otherwise, it is illegal, as well as immoral. It's fine to say "don't do the crime if you can't do the time," but that's precisely the point: "doing time" is not the same thing as "being sexually assaulted," nor should it imply it. I find your position morally reprehensible.
posted by rushmc at 9:40 PM on November 9, 2001

If I may go back to the original topic, the Without Sanctuary website: This is ordinary evil, merely a typical example of what humans are capable of. The instincts of humans, like those of every other animal to which we are related are towards self-gratification, cooperation with other animals who are sufficiently like oneself, and predation on those animals who are different and thus constitute competition for resources.

Lynchin' the niggers was/is OK in the minds of these folks because, in their minds, niggers ain't people. They're a pest, like jackrabbits but smarter and so more dangerous. The WTC was bombed because, at the root of it, in the minds of third-world Islamists, infidels ain't people. They're a threat to our way of life. Ditto US blanket bombing of Iraqis: towelheads ain't people. They're collateral damage, and if we piss them off enough, they might ... um ...

Those who aren't like us are at best a source of stuff they have that we want, at worst a pest to be eradicated, and normally are a problem to be solved. Who thinks, "well, they're just following their natural instincts and getting on with their lives, as is their right" when they have a termite infestation in their house? No, we exterminate them with poison and without mercy. Termites ain't people. Actually in general termites are less dangerous than people, don't confront us, don't annoy us, don't compete with us much, don't have stuff we want, and don't bring themselves to our attention.

We could, for moral reasons, go through the intellectual exercise of viewing other humans--whether or not they are like ourselves--as people. However, our instincts are against it, and like it or not, those who ain't people belong in the same mental category as termites. Anything done to them, however horrible from their points of view, is acceptable, because their points of view are irrelevant. Actually the more horrible the better, as it will serve as an example to others of their kind.

Another interesting instinct that contributes to this too: given the lack of an obvious other, and sufficient population density, a human culture divides against itself. The instinct for hatred needs a target and will make one if none exists. Hence gender prejudice, prejudice against faggots, geeks, white trash, kikes, greedy bosses, lazy workers and so on.

"But that's so horrible!" I hear you bleat, choking back your tears. "How can you say such things, Ash? You're justifying {insert favorite ism-term for instinctual evil here}."

I don't disagree, and I am not justifying, I am explaining. It is horrible, but it is true. As societies and as individuals, we have control over our actions and we have the right and duty to moderate our instincts. Which we can't and won't do, unless we think about those instincts and their consequences.

If I was a white Texan in 1933, I probably would have been all-fer hangin' the niggers. Even if they ain't guilty of whut they're bein' accused of, they're or their kin are shore as heck guilty of somethin' else. So would you.

If I was an African of {insert name of tribe #1 here} and we had just conquered the dirty bastards of {insert name of tribe #2 here} (who damn well aren't our "brothers", and you deserve a whack with the blunt end of a spear for even suggesting something so obviously stupid, Owillis) and lo and behold, here's our chief talking to a bunch of ghost-men from the hugest boat you've ever seen who offer us ghost-man drink, shiny beads and metal knives in exchange for our prisoners, you bet I'd have gone along with selling them into slavery. Hell, I'd have gone out and hunted down more of them. So would you.

In those circumstances, raised with the belief set you were raised with, you lack the capacityto make other decisions. You wouldn't have had the training and experience required to think in a manner other than the instinctual self/other dichotomy. Again let me stress that evil actions are not excused by these facts, they are explained.

We should not content ourselves with thinking only about the victims of whatever; they normally have done little to deserve what happened to them. We must consider also the motivations of the perpetrators. Without understanding, we have no other option except to follow our instincts and repeat our sins.

Or we can shrug our shoulders and get on with our lives, but that's a weak choice and we know it.

Ash.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:42 PM on November 10, 2001