Wow
Two of my friends and I just finished watching an A&E documentary on a neo-Nazi skinhead group outside Birmingham, Alabama. The group gave A&E unfettered access to their compound and meetings. The group's leader was a fairly charismatic, avuncular thirtysomething who owned a house (?) in some backcountry Alabama woodlands. Guys in their teens and early 20s composed the rest of the group. The show provoked a few thoughts:
1. Much of the show was comic to us; the independent thought and airtight logic filled the capacious hour. A few parts were less surreal and thus more disturbing. Obviously the group leader wasn't winning these kids to his group with his well-reasoned ethical arguments; I think the draw of the group was its freedom and its ability to fulfill the "Boy Scouts" gap in their lives. They spent their time shooting rifles and shotguns in the woods, drinking beer, saluting the Nazi flag, denouncing the way our country has been overrun by non-whites, and talking smack about what they would like to do to the Jews and blacks in the US.
2. The group held a few demonstrations and marches on the streets of Birmingham. Birmingham police officers were present in large numbers to ensure riots did not break out. Many of the officers were black. What must it be like to be a black cop defending a group of screaming skinhead yoohoos? If I were in that position, I seriously wonder whether I wouldn't have occasional security "lapses."
3. Four kids in the group were arrested for the murder of a black homeless Birmingham man. Now, I don't know whether those kids actually committed the crime, but if they did, I think it's a pretty damn good example of how excessively individualistic American law is. The group leader clearly provides the fuel for the kids' fiery bigotry, yet the law imputes to the kids the ability to evaluate competing ethical arguments and imposes responsibility on them when they act upon those evaluations. Where, praytell, are these kids supposed to learn such evaluative skills? What would be the consequences of our taking a more comprehensive view of the causes of the situation? Would we become more conscious of social interconnectedness if our law permitted the prosecutor to charge the neo-Nazi leader with the murder?
Thoughts?
1. Much of the show was comic to us; the independent thought and airtight logic filled the capacious hour. A few parts were less surreal and thus more disturbing. Obviously the group leader wasn't winning these kids to his group with his well-reasoned ethical arguments; I think the draw of the group was its freedom and its ability to fulfill the "Boy Scouts" gap in their lives. They spent their time shooting rifles and shotguns in the woods, drinking beer, saluting the Nazi flag, denouncing the way our country has been overrun by non-whites, and talking smack about what they would like to do to the Jews and blacks in the US.
2. The group held a few demonstrations and marches on the streets of Birmingham. Birmingham police officers were present in large numbers to ensure riots did not break out. Many of the officers were black. What must it be like to be a black cop defending a group of screaming skinhead yoohoos? If I were in that position, I seriously wonder whether I wouldn't have occasional security "lapses."
3. Four kids in the group were arrested for the murder of a black homeless Birmingham man. Now, I don't know whether those kids actually committed the crime, but if they did, I think it's a pretty damn good example of how excessively individualistic American law is. The group leader clearly provides the fuel for the kids' fiery bigotry, yet the law imputes to the kids the ability to evaluate competing ethical arguments and imposes responsibility on them when they act upon those evaluations. Where, praytell, are these kids supposed to learn such evaluative skills? What would be the consequences of our taking a more comprehensive view of the causes of the situation? Would we become more conscious of social interconnectedness if our law permitted the prosecutor to charge the neo-Nazi leader with the murder?
Thoughts?
posted by Garrett at 10:05 PM
1 Comments:
Their leader is only advocating hate, not murder. Most people hate in non-violent ways.
And for any extreme position (far left, far right, far upways or downsided), there are going to be people willing to kill for it. Should we bomb the vatican when abortion clinics are bombed? Should we prosecute George Bush for every hate crime against gays? Just who gets prosecuted for Jack Ruby's assassination of Oswald?
Post a Comment
<< Home