Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Iconography


You know, there's truth to the notion that you can't really judge a parent's mistakes until you've been one. Some non-parents seem to perceive children as little wind-up toys who will do exactly what their parents want if only the parents... do something. But on the other hand, sometimes bad parenting is pretty obvious.
It wasn't so much the white supremacist phrases emblazoned upon her arms and legs that led social workers to remove a seven-year-old Winnipeg girl from her family, or the fact she had attended school two days in a row with a swastika inked upon her skin.

What alarmed social workers most about the little girl were her cold affirmations of racial violence, according to testimony in the first day of a heated custody hearing at Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench on Monday.
The parents are, of course, claiming "free speech" and that the children were taken solely because of their political views. But really:
In testimony Monday, the social worker said that, for 45 minutes, she grilled the girl about her home life and the ink covering her body. “She said the meaning of [the swastika] is that black people don't belong,” the social worker said. “She told me that we have to protect white kids from, quote-unquote, niggers.”
Not that I expect white supremacists to be the brightest of the bright, but these folks don't even know basic racist iconography. Like those poor kids in Jena who had no clue that the noose was a symbol of racial oppression. How would you know?

Maybe there's a market for "remedial racism" flash cards, so these folks can stop embarrassing themselves. "Which racial group is offended by this symbol? [Answer on back of card.]"1 The way things are going, these guys are going to hold a rally and offend the wrong ethnic group. How embarrassing would that be.
__________
1. I suspect that you would need a reminder on the face of the card that the answer's on the back, because otherwise these folks might not figure it out and remain as confused as ever.

4 comments:

  1. Your footnote is CLASSIC!

    Also, let's slip in a card that says "to confuse an asshole, turn over" on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm inclined to think that we don't have to reach the "message" to take the kid away.

    Anybody who would tattoo their seven year old needs to lose custody . . . in the alternative I'm perfectly happy to bring the "criminal stupidity" statute out of retirement . . . perfectly content neutral.

    CWD

    ReplyDelete
  3. I feel very sorry for the poor kid.

    But maybe my child-body-modification ick threshold is too low.

    I was shocked when I saw a baby with pierced ears (wearing earrings). But I am told that piercing a baby's ears is perfectly normal these days.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It may be that "inked" in this context means "drawn", not "tattooed".

    ReplyDelete